From MAILER-DAEMON Fri Jan 3 12:46:54 2003 Return-Path: <> Delivered-To: adamf@ibiblio.org Received: from listserv.albany.edu (listserv.albany.edu [169.226.1.24]) by mail.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D72D724AE11 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 12:46:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from listserv.albany.edu (listserv.albany.edu [169.226.1.24]) by listserv.albany.edu (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h03Fjr9T008596 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 12:46:53 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200301031746.h03Fjr9T008596@listserv.albany.edu> Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 12:46:52 -0500 From: "L-Soft list server at University at Albany (1.8d)" Subject: File: "BEE-L LOG0106E" To: adamf@IBIBLIO.ORG Content-Length: 19936 Lines: 416 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 13:17:57 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Adrian Wenner Subject: Re: Swarm Movement Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Ronald Bogansky wrote (in part): >This is the way I understand how a swarm travels. For my spin on the matter of swarm movement, one can consult an article I published in the January 1992 issue of the AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL (pages 27-31), "Swarm movement, a mystery explained." One can also find it as item # 14 on the following website: http://www.beesource.com/pov/wenner/index.htm Adrian Adrian M. Wenner (805) 963-8508 (home phone) 967 Garcia Road (805) 893-8062 (UCSB FAX) Santa Barbara, CA 93106 [http://www.beesource.com/pov/wenner/index.htm] ******************************************************************** * * "The history of science teaches us that each time we think * that we have it all figured out, nature has a radical surprise * in store for us that requires significant and sometimes drastic * changes in how we think the world works." * * Brian Greene (1999:373) * ******************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 17:08:09 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: GImasterBK@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Swarm Movement MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ron, In all swarming, the queen is among the VERY LAST to leave a parent hive and go to the nearby bush or tree. In fact, often the worker bees have to "push" and force the queen to leave the hive. Essentially, queen bees make NO decisions regarding colony affairs. The decisions are made by her daughters and she is forced to follow those orders. I hope I have helped George Imirie ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 23:14:37 +0100 Reply-To: pdillon@club-internet.fr Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: PETER DILLON Organization: LA MARNE Subject: Pollination problem? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi everybody, A question arose during my recent stay in Nova Scotia, Canada whilst talking to various beekeepers and growers requiring bee hives for pollination contracts - and I would like to hear what others think or have done in a similar position! A colony (hive) that is in good pollinating condition is hired out at a set cost to a grower. The beekeeper delivers the colony to the required area for the duration of the flowering period of the crop. The grower sees that the weather conditions have been good and considers that the colony has done its work in the area in a shorter period of time than usual. Due to geographical and climatic conditions there is another area that has a slightly later flowering period, maybe 50km. away - but of the same crop. Is it acceptable for the grower to expect that because the initial site has been well pollinated that he (she) may then move that hive to the new area - seeing as under normal conditions the hive would be at the disposal of the grower for the first site and consider that it may do the second site's pollination and here is the crux of the question! - and claim that this may be done for the amount agreed for a pollination. In other words -1. should the grower pay for the second pollination. 2. should the grower therefore effectively be able to cut down on the number of hives required by moving hives from an initial site to a second one instead of paying for a hive in the first site and a second one on the second site. This may be complicated by having for example 20 hive delivered to the first site and after 5 days moving 10 of them to a second site, leaving the remainder to "finish" the pollination. Further complication - depending on the hive density in the sites ( adjacent fields may have different owners and therefore hives from different beekeepers - resulting in a lower or higher hive count in the area than the potential carrying capacity) the potential well being for the colony is in play. Should the beekeeper reject this situation, claim partial secondary pollination fee or accept this as fair play and normal. I realise that it is up to the beekeeper to form an agreement with the grower - but when neither side can call upon "standard" practice and have different opinions on what is best, I suggest that it be thrashed out in public rather than something become standard and cause underlying resentment for one side or the other. Hope this makes sense! Peter ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 17:18:57 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: GImasterBK@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Odd Behavior MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Karen, You mentioned using IMIRIE shims, but they got messed up with comb. You further mentioned that you are using foundation. As stated IN BIG BOLD PRINT in all my writings, you cannot use my IMIRIE shims with foundation because the bees will just build burr comb inside the shim. You must use DRAWN COMB when using IMIRIE shims, and then the bees will never build burr comb inside the shim, UNLESS there are not enough supers of drawn comb in place. I hope I have helped. George Imirie in my 69th year of beekeeping in Maryland EAS MASTER BEEKEEPER Author of George's PINK PAGES ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 16:50:43 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: John Edwards Organization: Hayden Bee Research Center, USDA-ARS,Tucson, Arizona Subject: Re: Adrian Wenner-Did the colonies survive? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Adrian Wenner wrote: > On 2 June, Bill Truesdell wrote: > > >Several years ago Adrian wrote of some colonies he discovered that had > >survived in the wild and possibly were varroa resistant. Just wonder > >what happened to them? > > Actually, Paul Cronshaw has been maintaining such colonies for several > years now. Our only problem has been starvation in the remote beeyard he > has. I'm not trying to open yet another can of worms, but we have plenty of varroa-resistant colonies in this area, one of our cooperators is presently running forty (40) beeyards with them, the methods to select for them have been published several times, and yet this seems to be fresh news to many beekeepers. - John Edwards, Tucson ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 22:03:00 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Karen Oland Subject: FYI: Beekeeper Seeks Damages for Loss of Swarm In-Reply-To: <200106281603.f5SG3iP00930@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Beekeeper Seeks Damages for Loss of Swarm Updated: Thu, Jun 28 9:09 AM EDT STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - A Swedish beekeeper has taken his neighbor to court for killing his swarm of bees, demanding that he pay compensation, Sweden's TT news agency reported on Thursday. The swarm left their beehive in the rural village of Vittaryd in southern Sweden and flew into the neighbor's garden. The neighbor, fearful of being stung, doused the unwanted guests with a garden hose. The shock of the cold water killed the bees, TT said, quoting a local radio news report. The incensed beekeeper has accused his neighbor of "arbitrary conduct" and demanded 10,000 crowns ($933) in compensation. http://news.excite.com/news/r/010628/09/odd-bees-dc ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 08:59:55 +0100 Reply-To: Dave Cushman Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dave Cushman Subject: haploid into diploid MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit HI all I have been looking at Thelytoky, worker policing, anarchic behavior and related topics. I am not a biologist, nor a chemist but I understand bioligical and chemical processes if they are explained in engineering terms. Can someone describe for me (in those simple terms)... the sequence whereby an egg that is laid haploid, becomes diploid by a developmental process that may, or may not, be aided by a virus, or a virus-like mechanism? Or perhaps the haploid egg becomes diploid before oviposition but again by a developmental mechanism? I vaguely gather that this is supposed to occur at, or instead of, the first division of the cell. Or am I barking up the wrong tree completely? Regards From:- Dave Cushman, G8MZY Beekeeping and Bee Breeding, http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman IBList Archives, http://website.lineone.net/~d.cushman ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 22:39:03 +0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: James Kilty Subject: Re: Finding Queen Cells the easy way In-Reply-To: <200106271109.f5RB94P15053@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 In message <200106271109.f5RB94P15053@listserv.albany.edu>, darn@FREENET.EDMONTON.AB.CA writes >worker cells >drawn one at a time in free space would also be round. I read somewhere they are round if done by one bee. Crowded bees make their cells the right distance apart (in relation to their body size) centre to centre, so they have to make hexagonal cells in making the shared walls - draw a series of circles that overlap perfectly and you'll get hexagons. Actually, I regularly offer comb to children to ask them what they see and then ask simple questions to get them to enlarge on their answers. When a boy said he saw a 5-sided cell, I did not contradict - as mothers usually do (and this one did) I asked to be shown it - sure enough he had found one of the very few transitional cells that actually had 5 sides - a quite good looking pentagon. -- James Kilty ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 07:00:02 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Aaron Morris Subject: Re: drone trapping MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" This message was originally submitted by robt_m@TALK.CO.NZ to the BEE-L list at LISTSERV.ALBANY.EDU. It was edited to remove private correspondence to the BEE-L moderators. ----------------- Original message (ID=CD662174) (61 lines) ------------------- Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 10:17:37 +1200 To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Robert Mann Subject: Re: drone trapping K wrote >> Unless it is your assertion that upon finding that male bees are >> mostly useless has led male researchers to quickly abandon any research >>into the subject, lest they have to publish such findings, which would >>reflect badly on males the world over? To which Bob H responded: >I liked the ring of this and can't wait to hear R's reply! I had not thought the list should be bothered with the obvious answer to this, because it's not only obvious but also rather unpleasant; but since it has been requested here it is. My 'assertion' was that the male bee has been researched very little. Instead of acknowledging this fact, K slips in the "finding" that they are mostly useless - a textbook example of begging the question. This is not logical argument; I hope readers will ask themselves what, instead, it actually is. What I had pointed out, upon which nobody (especially K with her question-begging) has offered any logical dispute, is that as long as the roles of the drones within the hive remain so very little researched, it cannot be justified to sacrifice any large fraction of them e.g. in some attempt at varroa control. Such a purge might do more harm than good; we just don't know. K's red herring is a good example of where ideology will get you. It has nothing to do with reason. And of course the rest of the answer is that, even if it had been actually shown that the drones are mostly useless, that fact would not have any implication for males of other species - except in the minds of those fomenting antagonism against the largest minority of our species. Yes, all this human ideology is irrelevant to bees - which is exactly why I have been warning that drone-slaughter is of ideological rather than scientific origin. Dave G8MZY's simple logic on drone numbers is infinitely preferable. R ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 10:39:49 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Aaron Morris Subject: Re: Odd Behavior MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" This message was originally submitted by koland@STAFFINGTECH.COM to the BEE-L list at LISTSERV.ALBANY.EDU. It was edited to remove quotes of previously posted material. ----------------- Original message (ID=1542F25C) (65 lines) ------------------- From: "Karen Oland" To: "Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology" Subject: RE: Odd Behavior Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 10:09:14 -0400 George, Thanks for the reply. To clarify, I had tried shims between supers of drawn comb, although I was having to add foundation above. I didn't realize the shims would still be a problem in this case. I'll try them again later, when I have all drawn domb (maybe next year). Do you have any suggestions for ventilation in the meantime? I have the inner covers with ventilation holes towards the supers and exposed. The holes either are not large enough for bees as they do no use them as an entrance (that I have seen). -Karen ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 13:15:57 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Layne Westover Subject: Re: Pollination problem? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Peter Dillon says: "Should the beekeeper reject this situation, claim partial secondary pollination fee or accept this as fair play and normal. I realise that it is up to the beekeeper to form an agreement with the grower - but when neither side can call upon "standard" practice and have different opinions on what is best, I suggest that it be thrashed out in public rather than something become standard and cause underlying resentment for one side or the other." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although I have not rented or leased out any of my beehives for pollination purposes, I have thought about doing do. As a beekeeper, here are some of my feelings on this subject: As you say, it is up to the beekeeper to form an agreement with the grower. I would not want the grower doing anything with my bees without me knowing about it and me agreeing to it beforehand. An exception I can think of is if the grower moved the bees to keep them from getting killed, then I think I wouldn't mind that. If I were going to provide bees for pollination, I think the grower would expect me to deliver them and place them where he/she wanted them to be. The grower would not come to my place with a truck and pick up the hives and then set them out where he/she wanted them. I think that for sure I would be unhappy to find out after the fact that a grower had moved my bees without informing me and used them in a way that was different than what was originally agreed upon. Modifications to the agreement should be discussed and agreed to by both parties before action is taken to move hives to a new location. If your agreement is that during a particular time period the hives are at the disposal of the grower to move them wherever they want them or need them or deem appropriate if they change their mind, then it should be fine. If your agreement is to pollinate a crop in particular fields and the crop has been pollinated, then I think the grower owes the beekeeper an additional fee for pollinating an additional crop in a different area. I would think it all depends upon what is written into the agreement and an assumption that anything that is not written in the agreement (a change to the agreement) is not to be done by either side without consulting, discussing and both participants agreeing to modify the contract. It just seems to me that common courtesy and decency demands that one side not try to take advantage of the other side. The bees are not the grower's property unless he/she buys them, and as such, nothing should be done with them or to them without the consent of the owner/beekeeper. Is the grower getting an additional advantage by moving the bees to an additional location? Then the beekeeper should also benefit from that additional advantage the grower has received. That would only be fair to both sides in my opinion. Otherwise, if the first crop's pollination was completed, then the beekeeper potentially could have moved the bees to a different contract for an additional fee. Layne Westover College Station, Texas