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 0176B24AE17 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 h03GhO3d010284 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 12:46:53 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200301031746.h03GhO3d010284@listserv.albany.edu> Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 12:46:53 -0500 From: "L-Soft list server at University at Albany (1.8d)" Subject: File: "BEE-L LOG0107B" To: adamf@IBIBLIO.ORG Content-Length: 240069 Lines: 5077 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 22:21:55 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Ted Fischer Subject: Re: Bee-Go not working One other thought on the Bee-Go problem. You mention that there was a lot of burr comb present. Occasionally in such a situation I also find Bee-Go not very effective, and I have always considered that the burr comb forms a barrier to the fumes. Since it cannot go through the comb, bees below are not exposed to the fumes, and thus don't move. Ted Fischer Dexter, Michigan USA ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 10:58:15 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Luke Stuart Subject: egg movement MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I noticed a strange thing in one of my hives the other day....... I'm using the demaree method to get the hive to produce some queen cells .... and so moved a frame of eggs and pollen into the top of the hive = (only one however) I marked this frame with some coloured spacers. The super = had mostly draw out wax and some honey but nothing else. The super is on the fourth level above the nest with a sound queen excluder and two full = supers of honey. About 3 days later I examined this frame that I had brought to the top = of the hive and there were no cells. I looked at the adacent frame and = found a good large queen cup made in the new wax. I put the hive tool into it to brake it down and it had a larvae inside with a great load of royal = jelly. !!!!! I wondered if the workers may have laid in it though this would = surely not have been made into a queen cell? The queen was still below, the = frame was definitley not the one with eggs in the only explanation I can think = of is the bees moved the egg over !!!!!!!!? Has anyone come across this = before. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 19:48:02 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: CSlade777@AOL.COM Subject: Re: DRONE TRAPPING MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have seen drone foundation that bees have engineered to worker size. I tend to agree with Dave that we should let the bees guide us as to what is best for them so we can assist, not work against them. On the subject of drones, does anybody know whick part of the body of the developing drone is attacked by the varroa mites as a feeding station? I am prompted to ask this because today I noticed a number of drones in a colony each with a bald spot in the same place on the thorax. Chris ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 18:51:05 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Coleene E. Davidson" Subject: Re: poor honey flow MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello George, You always are so helpful and greatly appreciated. I have one more question regarding swarms. One of the swarms I collected had been on a fence post within 15 yards of the hive it issued from for at least 24 hours. It was about 36 hours later that I was able to move it to another yard about 2 miles away. The numbers dwindled from the time of issue to the move. Can I assume the bees drifted back to the hive the swarm came from. The remaining population is quite small. My intention is to combine those bees left with the small swarm in the barn that has the laying queen. Any coments? Coleene ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 20:26:23 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Lucinda Sewell Subject: 7 Mesh and candles MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all, I was in a hobby and crafts shop here in UK and found a plastic mesh sold as 'plastic canvas' for tapestry and cross-stitch. It is made by Darice in U.S.A. and a 10.5 x 13.5 inch sheet cost 0.35GBP. It is the best priced mesh I have yet found, and seems like it will last. My first project is a few baskets for my bee vacuum. We set our children to making rolled candles (from sheets dipped as per foundation making on http://www.beesource.com) with the passing children. 1 GBP a candle, (average 4oz) plenty of interest and everyone bought honey. (You just roll the unembossed sheet tightly around a waxed wick...my 7year old teaches it) Lots more to learn, marketing with observation hive means a dry throat and picked brain is assured, but my best witty reply was that 2000 years of recorded research means we can have MANY conflicting POVs, instead of a few! The 'make your own candle' was quite a winner, our system needs a bit of work to speed up the throughput, but there were some very smiley proud children. Ahhhhh, sweet pyromania....:-) John Sewell ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 09:31:20 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: BEE-L Digest - 5 Jul 2001 to 6 Jul 2001 (#2001-183) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Allen, The ONLY time to use an Imirie Shim is between SUPERS DURING A NECTAR FLOW! George ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 23:41:33 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: clipped queen and swarming MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sharon, It is easy to see that you do not have a good understanding of honey bee biology or bee behavior. I will, in a FEW words, explain a vital part of it, and hopefully this will be a beginning of your understanding of these most important things. Unlike a KING or QUEEN, PRESIDENT, DICTATOR, PRIME MINISTER, or BOSS, honey bees have NO bee that is their leader, director, or boss. The queen bee makes NO decisions about anything, including swarming, how many eggs to lay, whether they are to be drones or workers, or how much she eats. All colony decisions are made by the worker bees as a group which has NO leader. This is difficult for we humans to understand, but it is "nature's way" with honey bees. How do we know this? Some years ago, bee scientists and bee researchers removed many frames of capped brood from hives, kept them in an incubator at a temperature of about 93-94°, and observed the actions of each bee as they emerged from their cell and what they did during the first few weeks of their lives. These bees were raised in the TOTAL absence of any older worker bees. It was found that these "incubated" bees did EVERY thing that a normal bee does and on the same time schedule as if it were a normal bee. This PROVED that bees did not have a boss, a leader to show them "what" to do, "when" to do it, or "how" to do it, and that their minds are "programed" by GOD (nature) from the moment of their creation; and this has not changed since days in the Garden of Eden, nor can man teach anything to a honey bee. Worker bees make ALL colony decisions and control the actions of the queen by HOW MUCH they FEED her and WHEN they FEED her. It is the workers that suffer the congestion of the brood chamber or the absence of storage space for nectar, so THEY make preparations to swarm. They build queen cells, make the queen lay eggs in them, minimize the feeding of the queen so she can lose weight so she can fly which also practically stops the queen from laying eggs, and finalize the action by literally PUSHING the queen out of the hive and forcing her to join the swarm that is settling on a closeby tree limb or bush. If the wings of a queen have been clipped, that has NO EFFECT WHAT-SO-EVER on the swarming impulse of the worker bees. When the workers find that their mother can't fly, they don't lose the impulse to swarm, but just wait until they can get a queen who can fly. Hence, they kill the old queen (their mother) and wait until a virgin queen emerges, and "push her out of the door" to swarm with them. If that virgin queen was the only queen cell in the colony, the swarming act leaves the parent colony queenLESS. Since you do not want to increase your colony population, you have to use management techniques that aid in preventing swarming. However, you must realize that swarming is the natural way of REPRODUCTION of honey bees and of SPREADING them over a wider geographic area than occupied by their parents. Trying to stop honey bee swarming is not unlike trying to stop all human sex acts. Some swarm management techniques are: Never allow a queen to live more than 24 months, 12 months is even better, because the younger the queen, the more queen pheromone she can daily produce that inhibits the natural urge of worker bees to swarm, ALWAYS provide additional BROOD space and additional SUPER space BEFORE THE BEES HAVE NEED FOR IT, REVERSE your brood chambers several times in late winter and early spring so that the empty laying space is ALWAYS above the queen, split a colony into two parts in mid spring and recombine them into a single colony in mid summer (after swarming season), and lastly, don't use bees that have a high propensity for swarming like Carniolans (which I have and prefer). Sharon, I am sure that you had hoped for a one word answer or maybe a one sentence answer about preventing swarming. "There just ain't any short answers". Contrary to some peoples thoughts, successful beekeeping requires both WORK and THINKING by a beeKEEPER. Those that don't WORK or THINK usually are just beeHAVERS, and just can't KEEP bees. Before I sign off, if you are in earnest to be a beeKEEPER and not just HAVE bees, you MUST be willing to LEARN honey bee management, bee behavior, and bee biology. No longer can you learn by attending the local meetings of bee associations with their tall-tale stories, "how Daddy kept bees", parties and door prizes. I suggest you spend $30 and buy THE BEEKEEPER'S HANDBOOK by Dr. Diana Sammataro, 3rd Edition printed in April 1998, which I (plus any others) consider the finest bee book ever written for beginners and novices; and than read and STUDY the 105 page Chapter 8 by Dr. Norman Gary about bee behavior in the Extensively Revised 1992 Edition of The Hive and the Honey Bee. So MUCH has changed since mites were first found in the U. S. in 1984 (just 17 years ago) because of the about of scientific bee research that has resulted in trying to find treatment for the mites as well as PMS, small hive beetles, resistant Foul Brood, public fear of bees caused by the 1990 entrance of the Africanized bee into America, that books written before about 1992 basically are obsolete because they do not cover these new problems that have all started since the entrance of mites in 1984. You can't use a book about repairing your 1984 Chevrolet to fix a problem on your new 2001 Chevrolet which has new things that did not exist in 1984 like a computerized ignition, catalytic converter exhaust, and running on lead free gasoline. You have to KEEP UP WITH THE TIMES. I hope I have helped, and I apologize for the length of this note. George Imirie EAS Certified Master Beekeeper 69th year of beekeeping in Maryland Author of George's Pink Pages ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 23:14:37 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: dan hendricks Subject: Clipped queens and swarming MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sharon, if you install a queen excluder under the bottom hive body the swarms will self-retrieve. Replace the queen, if necessary, with a premated queen and check the hive every 10 days for queen cells. "PSBA Forum". Dan __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 23:24:13 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: poor honey flow MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Coleene, Although most will not admit it, "assuming" anything about bees is WRONG more than 50% of the time. This is because humans are naturally anthropomorphic and hence "assume" is if bees thought like humans. Further, humans tend to remain anthropomorphic because they are "too damn lazy to study and learn more about BEE BEHAVIOR". I strongly suggest that they STUDY Chapter 8, by Dr. Norman Gary in the 1992 EXTENSIVELY REVISED Edition of the Hive and Honey Bee. That swarm MIGHT have a laying queen (which I doubt), might have a virgin queen, or might have been queenless (which I doubt). Whichever it might be, "assuming" is dangerous. Suppose there is a virgin queen, and you put this small group of bees back in the parent hive, and maybe this younger virgin queen kills the old colony queen, or the new queen that has taken over the parent hive. WHAT have you got then? A mess! If this small group is really small, e.g., less than a pound, 3,500 bees, why keep it? They only have less than a month to live anyhow, and brood laid by a new queen with them could never increase in population size to get through the winter. You are NOT God, so don't try to be charitable. I am reminded that you said in a previous posting that "swarming" is NEW to you. Swarming is extremely important, and a very vital part of the life of a bee. Just because you don't want your bees to swarm (neither do I), you should intently study and learn all about swarming so that you can update yourself from beeHAVER to beeKEEPER; and thereby have excess bees to SELL or give away rather than you having to purchase new bees to replace those lost. Another point that you should know about BEE BEHAVIOR and swarms. As soon as a swarm of bees collects near the parent colony from which it issued, finds a queen with the cluster, their minds are RE-programed right then, and they forget their old home, and you can hive them and put that hive ANYWHERE you want (even next-door to the parent colony) and they will stay where you put them. You do not have to put them in another apiary 2 miles away. MOVING a hive of bees is definitely not the same as placing a swarm in a new site in the same apiary! The act of swarming causes a RE-programing of the bees mind, whereas moving a colony of bees does NOT and their minds only remember the location that they were moved FROM. Heck of a difference. I hope that I have helped. George Imirie ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 07:19:01 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Richard Drutchas Subject: Poor Honey Flow MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Looks like a bumper crop in Vermont. I did find that some of the Russian = stock didnt put honey up into the supers but rather plugged up the brood = nest . Did anybody else find this trait in thier Russians? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 09:04:48 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: clipped queen and swarming MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit GImasterBK@AOL.COM wrote: > Unlike a KING or QUEEN, PRESIDENT, DICTATOR, PRIME MINISTER, or BOSS, honey > bees > have NO bee that is their leader, director, or boss. The queen bee makes NO > decisions about anything, including swarming, how many eggs to lay, whether > they are to be drones or workers, or how much she eats. All colony decisions > are made > by the worker bees as a group which has NO leader. This is difficult for we > humans to understand, but it is "nature's way" with honey bees. To add to what George said, there was an interesting computer simulation done several years ago which had the workers randomly placing honey and pollen into cells on a frame as well as the queen laying randomly. The simulation included pulling pollen and honey to feed brood and bees and the normal brood cycle. When the simulation finally reached a stable state, the frame had the classic brood/pollen/honey pattern of what we would call a good laying queen. Bill Truesdell Bath, ME ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 06:56:11 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: BEE-L Digest - 5 Jul 2001 to 6 Jul 2001 (#2001-183) In-Reply-To: <200107090216.f692GW818067@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > The ONLY time to use an Imirie Shim is between SUPERS DURING A NECTAR FLOW! And no one ever combines colonies during a flow? allen ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 09:38:26 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Rick and Kathy Subject: Re: clipped queen and swarming MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bill Truesdell wrote: > ... there was an interesting computer simulation > done several years ago which had the workers randomly placing honey and > pollen into cells on a frame as well as the queen laying randomly. The > simulation included pulling pollen and honey to feed brood and bees and > the normal brood cycle. When the simulation finally reached a stable > state, the frame had the classic brood/pollen/honey pattern of what we > would call a good laying queen. That program was written by Dr. Scott Camazine (Penn. State) while he was still at Cornell, and was based on observation of actual honeybee behavior in an observation hive. I think we still have a copy - though I don't know whether we still have a machine it'll run on... Always thought it'd make a good screen saver... Kathy ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 08:44:54 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob & Liz Subject: clipped queen and swarming MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello George & All, George & I usually agree as George as posted about my posts. However in this post I need to make a few comments. I also recommend Chapter eight of "H & H bee" but at times have problems with *ALL* of Norman Gary assumptions. I also think Norman Gary did not do beekeepers a favor in his State Farm commercials for obvious reasons I won't go into. I am not the only beekeeper with the above opinion! >The queen bee makes NO decisions about anything, including swarming,< whether they are to be drones or workers It is common knowledge and observations I have made myself that the queen measures each cell with fore leggs and determines if to lay a fertilized egg or not. I have seen queens lay unfertilized eggs in worker cells forcing workers to convert perfectly good worker comb to drone comb. I have seen queens at various times of the year REFUSE to lay in drone comb. Making it hard to raise fall queens. How can we say workers are totally controlling the above situation? I saw a very unusual thing happen last year and saved the comb for a long time to show other beekeepers. A hive drew the whole side of a new plastic foundation with drone comb. The queen did not lay in said comb. I pulled the comb and agreed with the queen extra drones were not needed in said hive! I later requeened the hive as the above is not a trait I want in my bees. Drone comb belongs around the edges of the oval in my opinion and not in the center in my opinion. >, or how much she eats. I would love for somebody to prove the above statement. Will a worker NOT feed a queen wanting food? Will ALL workers in the hive withhold food to the queen prior to swarming? I wish I knew the answer to the two theories. Also I HAVE seen laying queens fly with my own eyes and can prove the fact by using a method I learned from Dr.C.C. Miller. >, and that their minds are "programed" by GOD (nature) from the moment >of >their creation; and this has not changed since days in the Garden of can man teach anything to a honey bee. Many researchers believe and have expressed the opinion that in the beginning all bees were SOLITARY. As a raiser of solitary bees I notice solitary bees like to build their nest right next to other solitary bees. Did bees change from solitary to social as those researchers claim? If so what happened to the programing? I don't know the answer but have read the researchers opinions. >They build queen cells, make the queen lay eggs in them, Again there is just as much to suggest that the bees simply take a cell with the correct (and at times incorrect age larvae) and make a queen cell. I have a hard time with *making* a queen lay in a cell. >minimize the feeding of the queen so she can lose weight so she can fly which also practically stops the queen from laying eggs, The above is one theory. Many other beekeepers believe she stops eating on her own and quits laying eggs on her own. Many beekeepers are divided on the subject and sadly the above is unprovable. Workers quit feeding or Queen quits feeding on her own? Maybe *Dr.Dolittle* could ask a queen for us? and lastly, don't use bees that have a > high propensity for swarming like Carniolans (which I have and prefer). I am switching to Carniolans myself. Not by choice. Hopefully the method of beekeeping i practice will limit swarming with carnolians as it does with my*Marla Spivak* Italians. Myself and my beekeeping *partner* have taken delivery of two lines of II SMR queens. They are released and are laying. We hope to graft from the SMR queens in a week. I am not looking forward to looking for dark queens again. I raised quite a few midnights years ago until I got tired of those supercedure queens! > No longer can you learn by attending the local meetings of bee associations > with their tall-tale stories, "how Daddy kept bees", parties and door prizes. The above is a real *cheap shot* at all the wonderful and excellent beekeeping assn. in the U.S.. I would advise Sharon to join and attend the assn. closest to her. She will in my opinion be a better beekeeper for it. As I have said in many a post "There are many ways to successfully keep bees. Georges work for George and thats great. Mine are different and work for me. At beekeepers meetings excellent information can be gleaned. I belong to the Midwestern Beekeepers assn.and was their president for three years and have held many other jobs. Our newsletter has won awards from Bee Culture two times for being in the top three of newsletters in the U.S.. Our oldest member was over ninety years old when he passed away a couple years ago. Willard Madole wrote for ABJ and kept all his hives as two queen for the last 30+ years of his life. I personally miss being able to ask Willard questions myself. > You have to KEEP UP WITH THE TIMES. I agree completely! Subscribe to either Bee Culture or the American Bee journal AND join your local bee assn! > I hope I have helped, and I apologize for the length of this note. I have got quite a bit of respect for George Imirie. Please do not take offense George at me presenting different views. This is a discussion of beekeeping issues and we are not always going to totally agree. George and I might never get our books written but at least our opinions will be prsented for all to read forever on Bee-l. Sincerely, Bob Harrison Odessa, Missouri ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 08:51:51 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Douglas Gibbs Subject: bees in wall MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit A local farmer asked me to help him remove the bees between the inner and outer walls of his barn. He said the bees have been there for at least two years, with a big and little swarm this year. He has not done anything previously but this year the boys stacking hay are worried about being stung. I told him that the bees would probably not care about the boys stacking hay in the barn since they were not working close enough to that part of the barn. Also with the honey flow on, the bees would be too busy to bother about people unless they were aggravated. There are two groups of bees. One going in and out a knot hole. I am planning on attaching a bracket to the wall on which I will put a deep hive with drawn comb. I will drill a hole in the back of the box and then force the bees to go through the hive to get out. I am hoping the queen will then move into the hive. I plan on giving her at least six weeks or a month before I take more drastic action. The second group of bees does not have a clear entrance, they are going in and out in many different places along the wall. Mostly where the wood has warped out and allowed them to get in. Since there is no hope of trying the same trick with this group of bees, I am guessing that my only solution is to remove the inner wall. This will destroy the integrity of what they have built between the inner and outer wall. I am hoping they will then swarm as soon as their home is no longer any good. Hopefully I can then catch the swarm. I was wondering if anyone has any comments or helpful hints. Douglas Gibbs, Bandon Oregon ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 18:16:32 +0200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: dr pedro p rodriguez Subject: Re: Clipped queens and swarming MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello to all. I have used this system for years and it has worked well for me. It may not meet everyone's approval, but it has kept me from losing bee populations. A word of caution. One has to make sure that if the original queen is killed, that a replacement queen is installed. New born queens under this arrangement will miss the right time to mate, hence they will be sterile. Best regards. Dr, Rodriguez ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 11:58:29 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Musashi Subject: Re: bees in wall Douglas Gibbs writes: "I will drill a hole in the back of the box and then force the bees to go through the hive to get out. I am hoping the queen will then move into the hive..... The second group of bees....remove the inner wall. This will destroy the integrity of what they have built.....I am hoping they will then swarm...." Here is my opinion on the plan: Both these plans are probably doomed to failure from the start. The queen will almost certainly not come out into the hive under the circumstances described because there will be no incentive to do so. Her brood nest will still be inside the wall. The only way it might possibly work (and still might not) is to put a one-way exit cone over the knot hole so no bees can re-enter the wall. It might the be possible at some point that the queen might also come out, but still unlikely. A better choice would be to have a nucleus colony with its own queen in the box, and have the one-way exit so the bees exiting the wall have to join the bees in the nucleus colony. In the second case, the bees may possibly swarm or abscond if you disturb the nest enough, but then you'd be just as likely to lose them. It would be a safer bet (if you want to use them to start a colony) to cut out the brood comb and place it into frames, held in place by string or rubber bands to allow the bees to attach it to the frames, put as many bees from the colony into the box with the brood comb as possible, then set the box as close as possible to where the original colony was so the remainder of the bees can join. Bees are pretty stubborn sometimes about keeping things the way they are unless you take pretty drastic measures that they can't undo. There are probably other options too, but these are the things I would try if it were my project. On the other hand, you would learn a lot just by trying what you think will work and see how it turns out. Experience is a great teacher. Best wishes for success. Layne Westover College Station, Texas ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 12:30:56 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Maurice Cobo Subject: Re: bees in wall Comments: cc: dfgibbs@HARBORSIDE.COM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" -------------------------------- Douglas Wrote: **** The second group of bees does not have a clear entrance, they are going in and out in many different places along the wall. Mostly where the wood has warped out and allowed them to get in. Since there is no hope of trying the same trick with this group of bees, I am guessing that my only solution is to remove the inner wall. This will destroy the integrity of what they have built between the inner and outer wall. I am hoping they will then swarm as soon as their home is no longer any good. Hopefully I can then catch the swarm. I was wondering if anyone has any comments or helpful hints. Douglas Gibbs, Bandon Oregon **** -------------------------------- Douglas: I think that you can do with the second group of bees the same thing as you are going to do with the first, I think that what you can do is to purchase a tube of caucking and seal all the holes and slots between boards and choose one to leave open that is the easiest for you to install the hive body so they can go through it. Before you install the hive body, make the chosen hole larger so that it can handle a larger volume of bees and making up for all the other holes that you will close up. Just a thought. Good luck with that project. Maurice ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 17:07:27 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Mike Rowbottom Subject: Variability in Bee sting venom MIME-Version: 1.0 Hi My wife has gradually developed an immunity to bee stings, and has no local reaction to stings. She was recently stung on her arm by a bee from a colony headed by an imported queen from New Zealand. This sting gave a local reaction as if she was not immune to it. Is it possible that different sub-species of bees have slightly different venom make-up, and that it is possible to be immune to some bee stings, but not to others? Regards to all -- Mike Rowbottom HARROGATE North Yorkshire UK ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 07:26:11 +0200 Reply-To: gilles.ratia@apiservices.com Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Gilles RATIA Subject: Bees and.... airplanes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all, I received this message: >>>>>>>> need your expert help.... I work for an airline at LAX (Los Angeles, CA)....we and some other airline tenants at the airport, are having a large problem with new runaway bee colonies. This problem started last year where we only had a couple of incidents, where the bees land either on the tarmac or in one of our aircraft of pieces of ground support equip. We call the fire dept and the USDA.....for which their advise is to call an exterminator. This year alone at my work we had 4 incidents, and I heard United and American airlines have also had several incidents. I feel bad for the bees that they have to be exterminated for doing what is natural to them. Since the airport is too noisy and the bees are not agresive, I don't believe they are the africanized type....more likely the European. Is there any beekeeper expert that has a heart and does not want to see these excellent creatures destroyed, willing to remove the swarms/colonies alive, away from our premises and all other airline premises. It is evident that something is happening around the LAX airport area, for all the suden to have swarms of runawy bee colonies....... pls write to ars-uld@pacbell.net (aero recovery systems-unit load device).... regards Juan M Parodi 13812 Catalina Ave Gardena, CA 90247 USA <<<<<<<< Can anybody help him? Thanks, Gilles RATIA Beekeeping Consultant Webmaster of the "Virtual Beekeeping Gallery" http://www.beekeeping.com President of the Apimondia Standing Commission on Beekeeping Technology and Equipment APISERVICES Beekeeping Development "Le Terrier" F-24420 Coulaures - FRANCE ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 21:54:04 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: dgaroutte Subject: Re: bees in wall MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit My brother and I had the opportunity to remove several hives that had been in the walls of an old gun club. There were 8-10 different hives. They were all healthy but one. One was really mean and we thought it might be queenless. I rigged up a shop vacum and fed it into a box for the bees. (there are directions for it on the net somewhere) Anyway it worked really slick and we ended up with several good hives, lots of honey and wax. We tried removing them without the bee vac but it was really destructive to the bees. They were going to spray the bees if we didn't take them as they wanted to reside and paint the building. It took several days even with the bee vac. It was an adventure!!! Good luck. ----- Original Message ----- From: Douglas Gibbs To: Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 8:51 AM Subject: bees in wall > A local farmer asked me to help him remove the bees between the inner and outer walls of his barn. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 06:55:31 -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: Variability in Bee sting venom MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Mike Rowbottom asked, "Is it possible that different sub-species of bees have slightly different venom make-up, and that it is possible to be immune to some bee stings, but not to others?" The short answer is yes. But I suspect the reaction your wife had was a normal reaction. You wrote she had built up an immunity to bee stings. Such an immunity (tolerance would be a better word) doesn't last forever, it requires regular doses of venom to be maintained. Assuming you wife went through a desensitizing regimen, if there was a good length of time between her last treatment (or sting) and the sting that caused the reaction, it just may have been due to timing. Even beekeepers who receive regular stings throughout the season can experience more pronounced reactions to the first sting of spring than they will to just another sting in the summer. Aaron Morris - thinking a sting a day keeps the allergist away! ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 12:48:20 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bumble Subject: Help inherited hives. Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Picked up an abandoned hive yesterday consisting of roof crown-board shallow of drawn comb with uncapped honey in bottom cells queen excluder shallow with brood and food on tan comb . queen excluder deep of dark/black comb heavy with stores floor The bees seem to be foraging well and the planting in their new home is plentiful and diverse. I'm reluctant to disturb them now that it's past midsummer, they seem to getting on so well, and they have managed to survive in this condition for a couple of years. But at the same time I would like to get them onto manageable equipment instead of the propolised old stuff, and feel that if there is anything I can do to help them through the winter it should be done. Should I just take out the lower queen excluder to give them more brood space before winter and move them onto new manageable foundation next year? Should I place the shallow brood filled frames onto the top of a deep full of foundation and place the dark stores on top with a queen excluder inbetween? Or is there a better solution? There is plenty of forage in the vicinity and the flow is good on the sunny days. South UK. a floor , a deep filled with dark comb plenty of stores but no signs of brood. A queen excluder a ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 07:24:10 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dave Hamilton Subject: Re: Variability in Bee sting venom Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Maybe it had been awhile since she was last stung? I noticed the first couple stings of the year bring back the "itching" reaction after I had gone about 6 month's without a sting. Just a guess Dave ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 09:05:32 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "W. Allen Dick" Subject: Re: Varroa control On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:29:02 -0400, Lloyd Spear wrote: > Other beekeepers have attached the screen to the bottom of the hive, > eliminated the bottom board, and reported good success (private > communication). Obviously, in this case an upper entrance has been > provided for the bees. In one case this was as simple as setting the > top of two hive bodies used for the brood nest back about one inch > (13mm). This beekeeper leaves the setup this way (no bottom board, > an eight mesh screen stapled to the bottom of the hive, and the top > hive body set back from the bottom by an inch) all winter. That was in 1999. I'm wondering, with all the people trying screens, if more results are now available. I'm wondering: * 8 mesh is recommended, but 6 mesh harware cloth is cheap and strong and widely available. Is it satisfactory? Or does the mesh need to be finer? * Is a bottom entrance necessary? Some of us have auger holes in the brood boxes. Would they suffice for entrances? * Does debris build up on the screens? Is there wax or dead bees after winter? Or do the bees seem able to make everything fall out the bottom? * Has anyone noticed any adverse effect on spring build-up? allen http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Diary/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 09:33:11 -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: Varroa control MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" * 8 mesh is recommended, but 6 mesh harware cloth is cheap and strong and widely available. Is it satisfactory? Or does the mesh need to be finer? Speculation is that 8 mesh may be unnecessary and is only used because that's what's used in other equipment (like escape boards and double screens). Again, speculation is that 6 mesh would be an improvement, as it's more readily available and will allow more debris to fall through. This speculation is in need of field testing. * Is a bottom entrance necessary? Some of us have auger holes in the brood boxes. Would they suffice for entrances? Bottom entrances are man-made devices. Auger holes should suffice. Cracks in walls work for feral bees, as do holes in logs and hollow trees. Bottom boards are not used by some commercial operations who simply put their boxes directly on pallets. Seems to me the main benefit in a bottom board is for the beekeeper. * Does debris build up on the screens? Is there wax or dead bees after winter? Yes, although I can't comment based on personal experience other than I once bought some used equipment that utilized home made screened bottom boards with window screen (don't know the mesh number). There was a lot of crud in those bottom boards, including a well preserved mouse skull. Goth bees? * Has anyone noticed any adverse effect on spring build-up? The guy who I bought the equipment from (who had used screen bottoms for year (decades) before the came in vogue claims not adverse effect on spring build-up. Also claims not noticable benefit in varroa control. Last research I saw claimed the varroa population builds slower, but still gets above the "economic threshold" by fall. Aaron Morris - not thinking of investing a lot in screened bottom boards. allen http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Diary/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 14:59:24 +0100 Reply-To: Dave Cushman Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dave Cushman Subject: Re: Varroa control MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Allen OMF or screened bottom boards have been used by some in the UK for many years. I was by no means the first to use them locally and I have now had them in continuous use for 22 years. 6 mesh may be cheaper but we would have trouble with wasps and possibly robber bees that were on the small side. Whilst I have experiance of upper and alternative entrances, they are rarely used in UK. In particular when we use OMFs we use solid, insulated roofs with no ventilation at all, other than the mesh at the bottom and a 100 mm-120 mm entrance about 9 mm tall. Debris on screens... No wax is built apart from the odd vertical stool, but even that is rare. I have had some propolising of mesh but my findings are different to most... I put this down to the space above the mesh up to the bottom bars of the brood frames (which is 9 mm in my case). Dead bees dry up on the mesh and are easily disposed of, even in the depths of winter, if you have and entrance at the mesh level. I have no experiance of brood chambers totally covered by mesh on the bottom surface. Spring build up is initially delayed but when it does happen, it occurs at a faster rate so that colonies on OMF overtake those on solid floors. The bees recognise the space below the mesh as "outside", it is quite common to see a worker "post" a piece of debris through an aperture. Using OMFs makes the colonies more vulnerable if they are inadvertantly placed in a frost pocket, not from the pont of view of temperature, but damp and possible excess CO2 in the still air in the depression. Regards From:- Dave Cushman, G8MZY Beekeeping and Bee Breeding, http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman IBList Archives, http://website.lineone.net/~d.cushman ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 10:28:20 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Blane White Subject: Re: Varroa control Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Everyone, Allen Dick asks regarding mesh bottoms: "* 8 mesh is recommended, but 6 mesh harware cloth is cheap and strong and widely available. Is it satisfactory? Or does the mesh need to be finer? * Is a bottom entrance necessary? Some of us have auger holes in the brood boxes. Would they suffice for entrances? * Does debris build up on the screens? Is there wax or dead bees after winter? Or do the bees seem able to make everything fall out the bottom? * Has anyone noticed any adverse effect on spring build-up?" There are two requirements for mesh size as far as I know. They are small enough that bees can't get through and large enough that varroa fall through. Any mesh that will fulfill these requirements will work fine. Note that window screen is too small for varroa to drop through so will provide ventilation but not varroa control. Here in the US window screen is usually about 16 mesh to the inch. Bottom entrances: I like them as it is easier to work colonies that continue to orient and fly to the bottom entrance as you work the hive. As far as I can determine the bees don't care as long as they have an entrance to use. With the mesh bottoms I use a smaller entrance that is short enough that mice can't get into the hive so there is no need of a mouse guard. Overwinter here in Minnesota USA dead bees do pile up on the mesh just like on a bottom board but no mold etc like you get on solid bottomboards. I still need to clean the bottom in the spring just like with solid bottoms. I have noticed spring buildup problems. Colonies with mesh bottoms raise more brood a little later in the spring at least compared to those on solid bottoms and will raise brood right down to the bottombars of the lower broodchamber. ( I am using two deep broodchambers ) They will also raise queen cells ( swarm cells ) on the bottombars right above the mesh. This is different than solid bottoms where they prefer to raise swarm cells between the boxes rather than on the bottom of the lower chamber. Yes you have to check down there for swarm cells or they will leave before you know what is going on. These are my observations from using 8 mesh hardware cloth bottoms since mid 1999 on only a few colonies. The bees seem to do well with them and build up fine. I do go light on upper entrances but do use them overwinter. FWIW blane ****************************************** Blane White MN Dept of Agriculture blane.white@state.mn.us ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 12:38:10 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Matthew Olmstead Subject: Queen less hive MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I have a queenless hive,it has been this way for sometime. I have = put in frams of eggs and brood from other hives. Thay still did not = raise a queen. I bought a queen and installed her the normal way, = allowing the workers to release her. That was on 6/29 and still no eggs. = There is a laying worker. =20 I'm not sure what I should do. Should the hive be combined with = another hive? Should try more frames of eggs and brood?? Help. Thanks, Matt ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 12:27:07 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Joseph A. Clark" Subject: Elevating a Colony Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Hello All, I would like to replace the solid bottom board on my colony with the new IPM bottom board that Brushy Mountain demonstrated at the Virginia State Convention in June. I have my colony sitting on concrete (cinder?) blocks, with the bottom board directly on top of the front block, and a piece of 3/4" stock under the bottom board on the rear block for rain and condensate runoff. I would like to raise the hive a little bit off the ground further than the concrete blocks afford, and without stacking more blocks on top of the existing ones. Would it be practical to build a 4 legged pressure treated wood stand similar to a table without a top, and built to the proper dimensions such that the edges of the bottom board rest on the horizontal sides of the table? This would raise the colony about 2 feet off the ground, giving plenty of ventilation for the hot August I'm expecting. On a side note, at our meeting last night of the Tidewater Beekeepers Association, one of our members gave a talk on commercial beekeepers in Florida, and one gentleman's way of dealing with the SHB. He used a trough type chicken feeder, with the roller removed, and put it at the front of the bottom board, so that when the SHB larvae crawled out of the entrance, and dropped off the front of the board, they fell into the trough, into which he had put plain water. He said that of all the liquides he had tried, water had worked the best. The bees don't have a problem, because they can walk up the sides of the feeder, but the larvae drown because they can't swim. According to the report from our member, this beekeeper has a relatively minor problem with the SHB. I'm not saying this will work for everyone, and I have to say I have not seen it in operation, I'm only repeating what I remember him saying from last night's meeting, but it certainly sounds like a better system than coumophos and the hazards that implies with handling, disposal, eventual resistance. I don't think the SHB can evolve to the point where it developes underwater breathing capability any time soon. Thanks! Joseph A. Clark President, Tidewater Beekeepers Association Portsmouth, VA 23701-1325 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 22:10:23 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Mike Rowbottom Subject: 3 feet or 3 miles, but what time between 3 feet moves? MIME-Version: 1.0 Hi We have 4 colonies on a field of borage that is in full bloom, and the bees appear to be working it well. Because of a mistake in the dark when we moved the bees they are placed across a track that the farmer will need to use. We have agreed to move them to the side of the track, but this is a move of around 20 feet for the farthest hive. I can move them about 3 feet at a time, but how long do I have to wait between the 3 feet moves? Any advice gratefully received -- Mike Rowbottom HARROGATE North Yorkshire UK ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 17:07:25 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Tim Smith Subject: Re: Screened bottoms MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm experimenting with the screened bottoms this year for the first time. I built pallets that hold four hives each and the only bottom is 1/4 inch hardware cloth. I reduced the entrance to avoid robbing with the hives so close together. I'm in central GA and it is very hot and humid here today and the hives that don't have screened bottoms have large numbers of bees loafing around the entrances late in the evening. The hives on pallets don't have any loafing outside. I'm not sure how this will work in the winter but right now I like it and it seems the bees do also. One drawback I did see today was that I was losing a little pollen from the bees walking across the hardware cloth. A fellow beekeeper that told me about screened pallets, said to place a small ramp inside the entrance(3/4 x 3/4 piece of wood cut on a 45 degree angle) so when the bees enter they run up the ramp to the bottom of the frames, thus reducing the running across the hardware cloth floor. I have some pictures of the hives if anyone is interested in seeing. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 16:56:28 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Coleene E. Davidson" Subject: Re: Varroa control MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello all, I had screens on the 4 hives I took into winter-1 starved out, a cold snap in the spring kept them from moving to the honey remaining in the hive, the other was very small and went queenless. We had such a late spring, I was unaware of this until it was too late. The hives were not open, but rather the screen was between the bottom board and the bottom brood chamber. The bottom board is reversed front to back and the insert forms the new lower entrance. didn't feed this spring as it . If I am not mistaken, bees cannot get though 8 mesh but may be able to on 6 mesh. As far as I know that is the only reason. Debris does build up on the screens. I cleaned the screens and the bottom board as I do each spring. The mesh is not open sufficiently to allow all debris to fall through. As for spring, the two hives that survived, both built up very fast in spite of the weather. I split one of them and that one is now up to strength and should be plenty strong to make the winter. It is doing so well that I pulled a frame of brood to entice a swarm to stay in an adjacent hive. I can't say with certainty that cause and effect is the mesh floors, but I believe they helped. In addition, we have had some very hot weather and there are virtually bearding on the hives. Coleene ----- Original Message ----- From: W. Allen Dick To: Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 9:05 AM Subject: Re: Varroa control > > I'm wondering: > > * 8 mesh is recommended, but 6 mesh harware cloth is cheap and strong > and widely available. Is it satisfactory? Or does the mesh need > to be finer? > > * Is a bottom entrance necessary? Some of us have auger holes in the > brood boxes. Would they suffice for entrances? > > * Does debris build up on the screens? Is there wax or dead bees > after winter? Or do the bees seem able to make everything fall > out the bottom? > > * Has anyone noticed any adverse effect on spring build-up? > > allen > http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Diary/ > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 15:21:15 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: BeeCrofter@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Queen less hive MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Take the hive and carry it a few hundred feet from your other hives. Shake all of the bees out of it. Give the boxes to other hives to clean up. Any bees that can fly and drift will do so. Those that can't will perish. Laying workers won't accept a queen. And most won't bother to raise one from a frame of eggs. What you aim to do is keep your boxes on strong hives to beat the wax moths. Good Luck ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 20:49:26 +0200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: dr pedro p rodriguez Subject: Re: Queen less hive MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit For Matt. Experienced beekepers will tell you that re-queening hives once there are laying workers is one of the most difficult if not impossible tasks to perform in beekeeping. I have tried untold times, and usually, the queen is balled and lost. At present, the only remedy that I employ is to take the entire hive a distance frrom its locattion and shake off the bees on the ground and process the frames for wax. Good luck. Dr. Rodriguez ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 18:23:25 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Joseph A. Clark" Subject: Re: Screened bottoms In-Reply-To: <200107102207.f6AM7r817975@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 05:07 PM 7/10/01 -0400, you wrote: >. One drawback I did see >today was that I was losing a little pollen from the bees walking across the >hardware cloth. We discussed that last night at the Tidewater Beekeepers Association meeting. Someone brought up the point that they were using 1/4 inch hardware cloth. Our past president had also used the 1/4 inch, and he said that he noticed that the bees would try to enter the hive through the hardware cloth, and would lose some of their pollen. He said the ants under the hive were very happy, though. I'm planning on getting screened bottom boards, but I'll be using 1/8 inch HC instead of the 1/4. Joe ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 22:37:34 -0600 Reply-To: Dennis Murrell Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dennis Murrell Subject: Re: Varroa Blaster Comments: cc: Ernest Huber MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ernest Huber responding by private email asked the following: > Hi Dennis, > Thanks for your BEE-L post about the Varroa Blaster. I wonder if you > could say a few more details about the blaster? Like- > 1) Is Confectioners sugar used, or is it granulated? > 2) Why is it necessary to have BOTH a cap AND the nylon? Is the cap > just > for keeping the nylon in place? If so, then maybe it should work to > secure the nylon in place without a cap? Why have TWO layers of > nylon? > 3) About what size holes and how many are in the cap? > 4) About how much sugar per hive body is used?- or how many "squirts" > per pair of frames? > 5) Do you remove two frames and space the others out like the other > author? > If you think my questions would be of general interest maybe you > should post the answers in BEE-L. The techniques you guys are talking about > sound like they might become really important IPM procedures. > Ernie Huber > Hello Ernest, Thanks for the questions. I am using confectioners sugar and the cap is drilled with about half a dozen 3/32" holes which reflects the smallest drill bit I have. I used the holes because squeezing the plastic bottles displaced only a small volume of air, especially when the bottle is half full of confectioners sugar. The small holes allow for a greater velocity and pressure with the small volume. Initial testing of the cap without the nylon resulting in plugged holes with as I simply filled the plastic bottle with the confectioners sugar right out of the bag rather than the sifting and sealed storage of the sugar as used by others. I wanted to keep this bottle behind the seat of my truck and use it as needed without a lot of fuss. A single layer of nylon was used to keep the coarser lumps of sugar from plugging the holes. A quick rap of the bottom of the bottle on a firm surface allowed the blaster to work unrestricted again. It also appeared that the nylon produced a much finer dust. Two layers of nylon worked even better, easily producing a dust that resembles smoke. I remove two frames and then use that space to separate each pair of frames. Each side of a frame gets about 2 or 3 blasts and the operation is repeated for adjacent frames. The blasts are directed across the frames and onto the bees rather than perpendicular to the frames and into the cells, although I am not sure it makes any difference. I have used about 1/2 pound of sugar per 5 hives. Best Wishes Dennis Murrell ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 07:30:42 -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: Varroa control and screen size MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" This message was originally submitted by betterbee@BETTERBEE.COM to the BEE-L list at LISTSERV.ALBANY.EDU. It was edited to remove HTML formatting. ----------------- Original message (ID=4B788B28) (47 lines) ------------------- Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 10:29:32 -0500 From: Robert Stevens Organization: Betterbee Incorporated To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Subject: Re: Varroa control and screen size As usual, I think Allen is thinking "outside the box" and may be onto something concerning the size of mesh used for Varroa screens. We made all our screens out of 8 mesh, because that was what was used by the original prototype from the Beltsville research station. I think most everyone else has used 8 mesh also, because we have sold a couple of hundred rolls of the stuff. However, Derrick, the beekeeper who works with me, cut holes in his 4 way pallets and used 5 mesh because the week he was doing it, we were out of 8 mesh. He seems to get a much better drop of dead bees and hive residue through the screen. This leads me to believe that the commonly available 4 mesh might be even better than the 6 mesh - if mice are not able to get through it??? As for Spring buildup, as long as air can move under the screen, I believe the effect will be positive - ie. more Spring build up. You don't want dead moisture-laden air underneath the screens. If you notice, all three of the Scandinavian Styrofoam hives (the one Swedish and the two Finnish) that have built-in Varroa screens in their bottom boards have scalloped edges so that whether you put them on a stand, a pallet, or the ground - air can move underneath them in the Spring. Bob Stevens, Betterbee Inc. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 08:37:05 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Varroa control and screen size MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: Robert Stevens > This leads me to believe that the commonly available 4 > mesh might be even better than the 6 mesh - if mice are not able to get > through it??? If bees can get through it so can yellow jackets. If your hive is weak and they are around, they will take the hive over fairly quickly. Last year, with a soild bottom board I had to button up a hive to a small entrance because of a hoard of yellow jackets invading the hive. If the hive had a large screen on the bottom it would have been all over for that hive. This spring there was almost no debris on the screened bottom compared to what I usually find on closed bottoms. I really did not need to clean it. I noticed no difference in spring buildup. The bees over wintered here in Maine with no problems with a completely open bottom and unwrapped hives. I agree that there is little use for a normal entrance and a drilled hole would be enough. Based on what I have seen, the bees would prefer it. Bill Truesdell Bath, ME ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 08:56:44 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bill Truesdell Subject: 4.9 foundation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Since we are in a how did it go with screened bottom boards, has anyone tried the small cell size foundation and what are your findings? I used smaller cell size foundation that Dadant sold some years back. I had excellent results from it with few mite problems. I could not attribute my success to it because I also used Apistan. But during the time I used it I lost no hives over the winter to either mite. Mt tracheal counts were near zero every spring. I did have varroa but they were few. One hive was weak going into the winter and I was cutting down on the number of hives so I did not treat it with anything. It made it through fine. A friend had lost all his hives every winter for three years running and was about to give up beekeeping. I gave him the "hive that would not die". That was three winters ago. It is still going strong and was on the smaller foundation. Obviously there have been new queens so it is not the bees. He is a better beekeeper, and still loses hives, but not this one. I, however, continuing my testing for the State Newsletter, tried plastic foundation in my three hives to see which type was best. So I lost the small cell size foundation. I have lost hives every year since. I realize that it may not bee cell size, since we now have resistant varroa, but so does my neighbor with my old hive. I intend to shift to a smaller cell size for all my hives. If my experience is because of the smaller cell size and not other factors, then maybe 4.9 is not essential in colder climates but slightly larger will also work. Bill Truesdell Bath, ME ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 07:13:00 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob & Liz Subject: Re: 4.9 foundation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Bill & All, I worked 16 hours yesterday and have got plenty to do today but feel compelled to comment on my friend Bill's post. > I used smaller cell size foundation that Dadant sold some years back. I > had excellent results from it with few mite problems. I could not > attribute my success to it because I also used Apistan. Why in the world would you use Apistan if you are running a test of small cell size? Using chemicals on hives with small cell size is what I am hearing from those trying the foundation. Now I am hearing they are using coumaphos also. Most say small cell works great. "Course I am still treating with Apistan or Coumaphos!" In my opinion we are learning absolutely zero from those tests. My friend Barry Birkey said he would post his *honest* results from last winter on Bee-L if you remember. We have not heard a word yet. Please give your conclusions from last winter Barry. But during the time I used it I lost no hives over the winter to either mite. Mt > tracheal counts were near zero every spring. What has small cell to do with tracheal mites? Were you using any treatments for tracheal mites? I know you said at one time you tried Buckfast bees. Is this hive from a Buckfast queen or mating? > One hive was weak going into the winter and I was cutting down on the > number of hives so I did not treat it with anything. It made it through > fine. Leave alone won't work in beekeeping today. My tests with leave alone and todays mites. Some will survive the first winter but none has survived the second. > A friend had lost all his hives every winter for three years running and > was about to give up beekeeping. I gave him the "hive that would not > die". That was three winters ago. It is still going strong and was on > the smaller foundation. Obviously there have been new queens so it is **> not the bees. >** According to Dee Lusby small cell only accounts for a third of her success. I would suggest those bees are hygienic and possibly SMR. > I realize that it may not bee cell size, since we now have resistant > varroa, but so does my neighbor with my old hive. I believe the above should read "resistant to varroa bees" instead of "resistant varroa". > I intend to shift to a smaller cell size for all my hives. If my > experience is because of the smaller cell size and not other factors, > then maybe 4.9 is not essential in colder climates but slightly larger > will also work. Dee Lusby stated to me in direct email her results with small cell improved greatly when they reduced from 5.0mm to 4.9mm. Does not seem like a big difference but what she told me. Reducing down involves transition comb which is every size in between large and 4.9mm. If reducing down was as easy as giving a sheet of foundation 4.9mm and coming back and *presto* the whole sheet is 4.9mm then many larger beekeepers might jump on the band wagon. Many times the bees will simply ignore the 4.9mm size on new foundation and draw whatever size suits them. Sincerely, Bob Harrison Odessa, Missouri ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 12:41:38 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: 4.9 foundation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bob & Liz wrote: > Why in the world would you use Apistan if you are running a test of small > cell size? It was not a test of small cell size, that is why I included the caveat that I used Apistan. I agree with you completely that too often we hear of a technique that works, only to find that other factors were involved. A friend had some extra foundation so I got it from him. I had been losing one hive every winter. After shifting to small cell size, I did not lose any. There was no way that I would not have treated with Apistan. I only have three hives. Science only goes so far when you have three hives. > What has small cell to do with tracheal mites? Were you using any > treatments for tracheal mites? I know you said at one time you tried > Buckfast bees. Is this hive from a Buckfast queen or mating? Have never had Buckfast. I have no idea if Tracheal is affected by the small cell size. It was an observation. My bees are Carneolens which I installed some six years plus years ago. I have not bought a queen since. All are open mated. I did have tracheal problems with the carneolens before I installed small cell foundation. None after- with the same crisco patty treatment. > Leave alone won't work in beekeeping today. My tests with leave alone and > todays mites. Some will survive the first winter but none has survived the > second. > According to Dee Lusby small cell only accounts for a third of her success. > I would suggest those bees are hygienic and possibly SMR. Could be SMR or hygienic but, as I said, the bees are still going strong and have had one or two new open mated queens since then. He lives about ten miles away. Mine took a dive after I shifted to larger cell size. And we do not leave them alone but do treat. > I believe the above should read "resistant to varroa bees" instead of > "resistant varroa". No, Apistan resistant varroa. Which, as I said, could also be the cause of poor performance, vice small cell size. > Dee Lusby stated to me in direct email her results with small cell improved > greatly when they reduced from 5.0mm to 4.9mm. I know, and that is why I said it may be the colder climate that allows a "larger" small cell size- if cell size is the factor. The only constant is the hive I gave to my friend, which still has small cells, is still fine and continually outperforms rest of his colonies. Mine are back to their pre-small cell size performance. As I said, there was no science in my use of small cell size. My post was to elicit comments from those who have tried small cell size, not to confirm it works. But I am moving more in that direction. My bees were certainly better off when I had it. It may not be the solution, but, like open mesh floors, could be one more tool against varroa. Always enjoy your posts, Bob. Hope I cleared things up. Bill Truesdell Bath, ME ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 11:26:12 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: 4.9 foundation In-Reply-To: <200107111259.f6BCxp808335@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I intend to shift to a smaller cell size for all my hives. If my > experience is because of the smaller cell size and not other factors, > then maybe 4.9 is not essential in colder climates but slightly larger > will also work. The bees we use in North America and Europe -- and which we call European honey bees -- are consistently seen to build worker comb with cells ranging (in what appears to be a narrow bell curve distribution) around a centre value of about 5.15 mm when they are able to build comb without using foundation for a guide. I am not clear on the *exact* mean value -- if, indeed, there is one. There may be several. What determines the size that any given group of bees will build is AFAIK unknown. Moreover, the cells in natural worker cells tend to vary in size somewhat due to curvatures in the comb and other factors. The idea of flat combs with identical cells is a human notion, and is for our convenience. Some time back, I asked people to send me email about what they see and measure. Observations from around the world came in and can be found at http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Misc/CellCountResults.htm, with some commercial foundation measurement observations as well. Cell size as a fashion statement: At one time there were popular and seemingly powerful arguments for increasing worker foundation cell sizes from the middle of that natural 5.15 mm +/- 0.15 mm median size range -- even to an extreme of 5.7 mm. One argument was that cocoons build up and reduce size so the cells should start a little large. Another was that increasing cell size slightly increased the average size of bees. That was in an era of 'bigger is better'. No one really considered the other implications such as spreading the brood out in a larger area or increasing the volume of the cells. At the extreme, worker foundation cells got to 5.7 mm in one commercial foundation that was well accepted by beekeepers and apparently tolerated by the bees. These arguments for increasing cell size were widely and uncritically accepted at that time, (as are, IMO, the current arguments to reduce the size to -- and even beyond -- the lowest end of this range). Increased cell size got to be like a religion, with beekeepers replacing comb annually to avoid the dreaded reduction in size due to cocoon build-up. We now see the folly in that whole approach and the flaws in the reasoning, but the pendulum has swung to the opposite extreme. The same fervour and lack of critical analysis is creating a wave of popular fondness for the new fashion of forcing bees to use worker cells that are now too small. Why can we not just give the bees what they seem to want? It is pretty clear what size range they like if they have a choice. allen ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 15:11:53 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Barry Birkey Subject: Re: 4.9 foundation In-Reply-To: <200107111425.f6BEPq811931@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Hello Bob - Since you specifically made mention of my promise to share the results of using 4.9 foundation in my hives with *honest* results, I shall reply here. > Most say small cell works great. "Course I am still > treating with Apistan or Coumaphos!" In my opinion we are learning > absolutely zero from those tests. Yes, if people using 4.9 foundation think it works great, yet are still using vices, their going through a lot of work for nothing. Old habits die hard. I'd be interested in knowing just where all these people are that are saying it works great. Everyone I know, including myself, have yet to pass the three year mark which is the normal turn around time for the bees to build back up after being regressed down. I'm in my second year and know of another who is in his third year now and building up fast. So I'm very skeptical of those you are referring to that say it works great because I'm still in the "not so great" period of converting. In fact, it hasn't even been one year that the foundation has been available on the market. > My friend Barry Birkey said he would post his *honest* results from last > winter on Bee-L if you remember. We have not heard a word yet. Please give > your conclusions from last winter Barry. I have not posted that information here, as this topic in the past has spurred more argument than discussion, but have chosen to post it in several places on the beesource.com web site. I figure those that are interested in the topic can follow it there and this would spare all others the constant use of the delete button. Here are a couple of links to those pages that should bring you up to date. http://www.beesource.com/eob/4dot9/index.htm http://beesource.com/ubb/Forum13/HTML/000008.html http://www.beesource.com/bee-l/bioarchive/feb2001/msg152.htm http://www.beesource.com/bee-l/bioarchive/apr2001/msg76.htm http://www.beesource.com/bee-l/bioarchive/apr2001/msg77.htm http://www.beesource.com/bee-l/bioarchive/may2001/msg65.htm http://www.bee-l.com/bioarchive/jul2001/msg49.htm >> One hive was weak going into the winter and I was cutting down on the >> number of hives so I did not treat it with anything. It made it through >> fine. > > Leave alone won't work in beekeeping today. My tests with leave alone and > todays mites. Some will survive the first winter but none has survived the > second. You're comparing two different animals here, is my understanding. Bill is referring to a hive that was on smaller cell size, your comment is based on bees on large cell size. > Reducing down involves transition comb > which is every size in between large and 4.9mm. If reducing down was as > easy as giving a sheet of foundation 4.9mm and coming back and *presto* the > whole sheet is 4.9mm then many larger beekeepers might jump on the band > wagon. Many times the bees will simply ignore the 4.9mm size on new > foundation and draw whatever size suits them. Supports my statement in the second paragraph. Never heard anyone I've talked to that is doing this say it's easy. Here is a photo of transition comb that came from one of the first hives I regressed last year. http://www.beesource.com/eob/4dot9/49.2ndreg5.htm This was drawn by bees that were on there 2nd shakedown. A lot of the cells are near 4.9mm. This comb got culled out in time though. The size that will suit bees when they are first put on any size foundation will be near the same size cell they came from. It's not realistic to think you can change the size of any animal or insect, quickly, without problems. The idea here is to work the bees hard to get them back to a size that was normal for them many years ago. Yes, it's usually very hard work with a good deal of downs before the ups. Most will see it as too much work and not find interest in it. Last year was the year I signed off the chemical program and will have to figure out a way to keep going without them. I will be open with all who ask as I have nothing to hide or hidden agenda. Not afraid of failure or setback along the way either. Regards, Barry ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 18:38:23 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Coleene E. Davidson" Subject: Re: Varroa control and screen size MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I agree that there is little use for a normal entrance and a drilled > hole would be enough. Based on what I have seen, the bees would prefer > it. > > Bill Truesdell > Bath, ME I agree with the entrance issue as well. I have some supers with holes. Most days bees are falling off the front of the hive at the hole, falling onto the hive entrance, taking flight and going back to the hole rather than entering from the landing board. Go Figure!!!!! Coleene Davidson Marion, MI ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 18:34:23 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Matthew Olmstead Subject: Laying workers MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Can laying workers fly? Thanks, Matt =20 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 15:22:20 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob & Liz Subject: Re: 4.9 foundation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello All, I thank Barry for his honest update on his project. All I was looking for was a update. The small cell discussion seemed to have a life of its own and now Bill has given it a new life! I truthfully walk a middle road in the small cell debate. Small cell has seemed rational enough and the auguments for by Barry and others have been convincing. The amount of work involved plus expense of changing comb has made me to look to other ways of non chemical varroa control but still like to keep a eye on the reports coming from the small cell camp. I applaud Dee & Ed Lusby, Barry Birkey, John Sewel (IBL) and others for trying to resolve the small cell question. I believe if you are trying to only use IPM methods then you have to consider using small cell. Sincerely, Bob Harrison Odessa, Missouri Ps. Before we trash the small cell encampment what things are each of us doing to prepare for the days when varroa is totally uneffected by our chemicals (should the day happen)? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 18:27:41 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: James Fischer Subject: Re: Varroa control and screen size MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bill Truesdell said: > From: Robert Stevens > > This leads me to believe that the commonly available 4 > > mesh might be even better than the 6 mesh - if mice are not able to get > > through it??? > If bees can get through it so can yellow jackets. If your hive is weak > and they are around, they will take the hive over fairly quickly. I could not find a local supply of 8-mesh (1/8th-inch) hardware cloth, so I bought a roll of the 1/4-inch mesh, and simply use two layers, one offset from the other. While this is not a "perfect" 8-mesh, it is close enough to keep out wasps. ...and yes, one wants to be able to clean the screens, which is why I built my own screened bottom boards - I wanted to have a slide-in/slide-out screen for cleaning. The "screen frame" is nothing more than aluminum window screen frame material with the inner edge of the U-shaped spline channel bend inward. I used super-glue to attach the 1/4-inch mesh to the frame. The base has a pair of grooves to accept the framed screen, covered by the same slide-down cover that covers the sticky board. Yeah, I know the bees will try to propolize the joint between the groove and the screen, but I paint the grooves and the frames with beeswax to keep the problem to a minimum, and I remove the screens at least once a month, give 'em a shake, and swap in newly-beeswaxed frames for those that cannot be cleaned with a shake. jim farmageddon ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 14:26:18 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob & Liz Subject: Re: Imidacloprid MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Big Al, So far no reports of hives lost due to Imiacloprid use in the U.S. I have heard. What about Canada Al? Any problems yet? Bob ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 21:36:22 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Kevin Kress Subject: A Little Lighter, And Not Scientific At All MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This evening I inspected a colony of bees and was not at all prepared for what I found. This colony was developed from an early, thin spring split and new marked Cordovan queen from California. They took off wonderfully in a full deep with drawn comb from a winter dead out. An end bar to end bar pattern quickly developed and shortly a second deep was added. "Wow, I could get a frame or so of honey if this keeps up!" I thought proudly. Ha....., this evening's discovery dislodged that idea. There was not an egg in the house and only scant drone brood. "What kind of junk were these breeders selling anyway?" I wondered. Then a frame was found with several queen cells in the supercedure location. "So that was it!" This queen ran out of gas and the workers threw her out, I surmised. Then I spotted her... in an eternal sleep, neatly squashed on the top of the inner cover, marked thorax and all. Good grief, a victim of one of my previous visits. There is a lesson here. Kevin Kress, Cincinnati, Ohio. List lurker and apparent queen crusher ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 19:08:19 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Al Lipscomb Subject: Show on honey Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii For those who can access cable TV the Food Network has a program called "Good Eats" this week that features Honey and is one of the best I have seen on the subject. -- | There is no doubt we need government in our lives. There is also no doubt that we need salt in our diet. Watch out for too much of either one. AA4YU http://www.beekeeper.org http://www.q7.net ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 20:17:26 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: darrells Subject: Small Hive Beetle In-Reply-To: <200107101816.f6AIGT811978@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Joseph A. Clark mentioned a possible solution for control of small hive beetle. We don't have SHB in Ontario yet but they are on the New York side of the St Lawrence River, so that they will probably arrive soon. Do Bee-L members have advice to share on the construction of honey houses in SHB areas. I understand that honey house infestations can be a problem ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 17:46:50 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: 4.9 foundation In-Reply-To: <200107112044.f6BKib828468@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Everyone I know, including myself, have yet to pass > the three year mark which is the normal turn around time for the bees to > build back up after being regressed down. Is this the same thing as 'retrogressed'? > I'm in my second year and know of > another who is in his third year now and building up fast. So I'm very > sceptical of those you are referring to that say it works great because I'm > still in the "not so great" period of converting. In fact, it hasn't even > been one year that the foundation has been available on the market. I appreciate your objective approach to this and your reporting your progress or lack thereof bravely and honestly and publicly. That is precisely what is necessary to examine and prove -- or disprove -- the effect. No amount of rhetoric -- pro or con -- will change the facts. Time will tell if this is a real phenomenon and correctly understood, or something else. Time will also tell if there are offsetting factors which detract from any advantages that may be proven. > I have not posted that information here, as this topic in the past has > spurred more argument than discussion, but have chosen to post it in several > places on the beesource.com web site. Although there has been some argument here o the list, it has been mostly quite civil and good-humoured and there has been a good exchange of viewpoints. Ideas have come up which have been of use to everyone. Just because some think the whole 4.9 idea is snake oil does not mean that it is snake oil. The proof is still not in. I, for one, would love to be proven wrong. Not proselytized wrong, or insinuated wrong, but proven wrong when I question the premises of any new idea being promoted. Colliding ideas can lead to better understanding and progress for all. Although some would perhaps like to turn a discussion of ideas into a heated personal conflict, I think that personal conflicts are a distraction from a topic at hand. Should it not be possible for a list member to attack an idea without being perceived as attacking those who hold it, or even the originator of the idea? Even if push comes to shove, the central idea should not be lost. I want to make it clear that although we disagree fundamentally on the interpretation of what has been presented as 'history', and I am sceptical about the process, we are in agreement that the idea needs to be tested in the north and I very much appreciate your work in trying to organise some factual information on the topic and to make it available to the public. I try to take time to drop by your excellent site to get up-to-date, and the links you posted will be useful. I have to say though that I am *still* looking for a clear historical trail to justify the theory that I read from time-to-time is proven by historical reading. I realise that there are a few articles on your site on the topic, but I have never found even one that convinced me of any wholesale errors in historical cell measurement, or justified the belief that European honey bees ever used a smaller cell than Root chose to use for his original foundation. I did, however read that bees in Europe were forced at one time onto a small cell foundation that cause them to do miserably. Have I missed somehow the proof that EHB used 4.9 before foundation. What page is it on? How many times must I ask this question? Please give me the URL. If anyone can prove this to me the rest would be easier to swallow. Why make me beg? Give me the proof. Please. Anyone. > Supports my statement in the second paragraph. Never heard anyone I've > talked to that is doing this say it's easy. Here is a photo of transition > comb that came from one of the first hives I regressed last year. > http://www.beesource.com/eob/4dot9/49.2ndreg5.htm > This was drawn by bees that were on there 2nd shakedown. A lot of the cells > are near 4.9mm. This comb got culled out in time though. Not a nice looking comb. I understand that it is postulated to be transitional, but it is ugly. > The size that will suit bees when they are first put on any size foundation > will be near the same size cell they came from. It's not realistic to think > you can change the size of any animal or insect, quickly, without problems. > The idea here is to work the bees hard to get them back to a size that was > normal for them many years ago. Where is this size documented? I really would like to examine the proof that European bees used any size outside the current range. I am begging. The above also makes me wonder: What happens if someone takes 'retrogressed' or is it 'regressed' bees and shakes them onto a plain wax starter, lets the colony develop, then does the same thing again and again? Do they stay 'regressed' or 'retrogressed' or go back to the 5.2 size that most of us observe in natural colonies. > Yes, it's usually very hard work with a good > deal of downs before the ups. Most will see it as too much work and not find > interest in it. Last year was the year I signed off the chemical program and > will have to figure out a way to keep going without them. I will be open > with all who ask as I have nothing to hide or hidden agenda. Not afraid of > failure or setback along the way either. We all wish you luck. allen http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/ --- We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom that is in it - and stop there; lest we be like the cat that sits down on a hot stove-lid. She will never sit down on a hot stove-lid again, and that is well; but also she will never sit down on a cold one anymore. -- Mark Twain ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 23:57:45 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: James Fischer Subject: Re: Varroa control MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Allen Dick asked: > * Is a bottom entrance necessary? Some of us have auger holes in the > brood boxes. Would they suffice for entrances? I dunno about this one. I have not even thought of eliminating the bottom entrance. In fact, my bottom (screen) boards have their openings on the long side of the (US-style) hive, which makes for a larger than normal lower entrance. I took this approach simply to allow one to stand behind the hive while working with the frames "full on" rather than sideways. (Yes, it means that we must make our own entrance reducers, but that's easy.) Clearly, one needs a strong hive to defend a larger entrance, but it has not increased robbing in my experience. > * Does debris build up on the screens? Yes, and cleaning is an issue that has been ignored by every commercial vendor of every screen board I have seen for sale. (A deplorable example of fuzzy thinking, in my view. Do the folks that "make the sawdust fly" even keep bees? Sometimes I wonder...) See my prior post of today, "Re: Varroa control and screen size" for a verbal description of a screened bottom board that allows removal of the screen for cleaning. If I can build them, anyone can. > Is there wax or dead bees after winter? In the past two years, I have seen dead bees pile up, and wax scraps pile up, but again, a removable screen allows one to: a) Pull out screen b) Know that objects larger than screen slot are knocked off screen onto tray placed in the sticky board slot (which is below the screen, of course, and would be the old bottom board in the case of the most common varroa screen sold, which sits on a backward-turned bottom board). c) Clean screen or replace with a pre-cleaned screen d) Get on with more important issues > Or do the bees seem able to make everything fall > out the bottom? No, I have not seen this. Anything larger than the mesh size appears to be carried out the front entrance (which may be the only advantage to a front (bottom) entrance, in that it makes this work easy for the bees. > * Has anyone noticed any adverse effect on spring build-up? In spring, I convert to a "half screen", where the screen board is covered by 1/4-inch luan plywood at the front half of the hive, and open screen at the rear half. The intent here is to allow the queen to start laying more and longer at the front of the hive, hoped to be warmer due to the heat of the sun on the front of the hive. The reduction in airflow at the front is hoped to keep the front few frames warmer that much longer every day. Ventilation at the top of the hive is also "at the rear", due to a modified inner cover with no center hole, and vents at the corners, with the front vents covered in spring I have no comparison of "with" and "without" to offer, but I was surprised to find a gentleman demonstrating dual-queen hive manipulations at the summer Virginia state beekeepers meeting who had worked up a very similar set-up to mine. (Hive turned 90 degrees, and no screen in the front in springtime) He has done this longer than I, and spoke firmly and with certainty that this was a positive improvement. I am not so certain, so I would defer to him (I'll look up his name, if anyone wishes to contact him). jim farmageddon ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 08:16:57 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Barry Sergeant Subject: Re: 4.9 foundation This may be of only passing interest, but here in South Africa, I typically put trap hives out with a strip of foundation of only about 25mm wide, cemented with hot wax into the groove under the top bar of brood (deep) frames. This allows bees to cluster properly for warmth in winter, is certainly economical, and minimises heat damage when a box remains unoccupied for some time. Anyhow, the point is, given Allen's comment of giving the bees "what they want," that very soon after drawing the foundation, the bees revert to "natural size" cells. That is, the cell size that they want - they're drawming comb in open air. When all the frames are drawn, even those with "solid" brood cells inevitably have some honey/pollen stored near the top of the combs. This would mean that most brood is in fact raised in cells built the size that the bees want. I have no idea as to whether this helps the wild scutellata swarms so trapped to resist varroa, hive beetle, etc., etc. But on recent detailed inspection of great numbers of wild swarms captured in the past few months, starting with those minimised strips of foundation, the presence of disease/pests was minimal. Certainly, none of the colonies needed treatment for anything. And there was zero evidence (repeat: zero) of AM capensis laying behaviour, but that is another story. Barry Sergeant Kyalami South Africa ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 09:46:31 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: 4.9 foundation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Allen Dick wrote: > Although there has been some argument here o the list, it has been mostly quite > civil and good-humoured and there has been a good exchange of viewpoints. Ideas > have come up which have been of use to everyone. Just because some think the > whole 4.9 idea is snake oil does not mean that it is snake oil. The proof is > still not in. I, for one, would love to be proven wrong. > Although some would perhaps like to turn a discussion of ideas into a heated > personal conflict, I think that personal conflicts are a distraction from a > topic at hand. Should it not be possible for a list member to attack an idea > without being perceived as attacking those who hold it, or even the originator > of the idea? Even if push comes to shove, the central idea should not be lost. Excellently stated. Unfortunately there are some topics that elicit more a a religious fervor than scientific or even a commonsensical response. And we all do not like to be shown to be wrong in our ideas, however arrived at. It is just that some do take it to be personal and gather up their marbles and leave. Most of us that have been around on this list for any length of time have been agreed with and disagreed with. Some are pillars of the Beekeeping community, like George Imire. I like it that they stay with it and take their hits and rationally respond. But many have left or have become lurkers, which is fine but does not contribute to informed discussion. Having your ideas challenged never hurt anyone. I know I am still intact. My ego may need a few bandaids. > The above also makes me wonder: What happens if someone takes 'retrogressed' or > is it 'regressed' bees and shakes them onto a plain wax starter, lets the colony > develop, then does the same thing again and again? Do they stay 'regressed' or > 'retrogressed' or go back to the 5.2 size that most of us observe in natural > colonies. I appreciate the question since I was thinking along those lines for my own hives. I am not too happy with going to 4.9 especially since my bees accepted the Dadant- which was around 5 or a bit larger, with no problems. The "natural" cell sizes for different races of bees was posted here a while back and shows a range of sizes for the same bees. http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0009C&L=bee-l&P=R1230&m=32971 If you provide a strip of commercial foundation as a starter, will the cells built by the bees below the foundation be the same size as the starter or will they be "natural". Bill Truesdell Bath, ME ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 16:21:56 +0200 Reply-To: olda.vancata@quicknet.se Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Olda Vancata Subject: Re: 4.9 foundation In-Reply-To: <200107121349.f6CDn1826339@listserv.albany.edu> > Just because some think the whole 4.9 idea is snake oil does not > mean that it is snake oil. The proof is still not in. Take a look at: http://www.algonet.se/~beeman/ (>Research>Varroa>Cellsize) you can find there: "A study made by Mia Davidsson in 1992 at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences as an examination paper." \vov ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 10:16:11 -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: 4.9 foundation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hi Barrry, et. al. > Reducing down involves transition comb > which is every size in between large and 4.9mm. This is one thing I've never understood about reduced cell size. I'm not dense, I understand the problem of putting 10 pounds of potatos in a 5 pound sack, but the transitioning thing still eludes me. In years past (way past to most), a common swarm control method was shook swarming. It is still a very effective controlled swarming technique (and can produce excellent comb honey to boot), but it's not commonly praticed anymore. The best description of the technique I've ever read is in Richard Taylor's _Comb_Honey_. Anyway, shook swarming simply involved shaking all the bees out of an impending swarm hive onto equipment placed on the original site, that is fitted with foundation only. Couldn't one simply fit the new equipment with 4.9 foundation, accomplish the step down and skip the transition phase? Or would the bees draw the foundation similar to the comb pictured at the url you gave? Better yet, shook swarm onto equipment fitted only with starter strips of foundation. Then the bees could build cells of their own choosing. Would the giant bees build giant combs? Is it that the transitional phase is required, somethhing like binding feet to get them to fit into tiny shoes? Must we bind our bees to get them to fit into tiny cells? As I've been writing this, others have offered similar thoughts. The whole thought process brings me back to a question I asked the last time this issue was discussed, to which I never received an answer. My question is, if indeed a smaller cell size makes for varroa tolerance what is it about a smaller cell size that impacts the varroa populations? Is it because there simply isn't enough room for the mites to be successful? Is it something else (varroa moves to the suburbs where there's wide open spaces)? What is it? And frankly, I don't really care what it is that makes it work, I just want to know it works. Emperically. I must confess I am not asking the same questions about Harbo's SMR bees. I've followed his research from the days when he discovered bee populations in which V. mites do not reproduce (was that 8 years ago?), and got more excited when he discovered that the trait was heritable across generations (3 or 4 years ago?), and accepted his findings presented at ABF in San Diego in January. I hope he has found a possible solution (or at least positive results) in the Varroa battle. I think the jury is still out on SMR bees. The next step is in progress, will distribution efforts to get the genes out there in the "wild gene pool". Whether SMR is the answer is still a year or two away. As is small cell size. I acknowledge and appreciate the efforts of those who are investigating. Thanks Barry for your update. Aaron Morris - thinking SMR on 4.9 should kick Varroa ass! ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 09:22:57 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob & Liz Subject: Re: 4.9 foundation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Allen & All, I see no reason for rehashing the same old discussion but will present my views and maybe a few *lurkers* will come forward to add their opinions. > > Everyone I know, including myself, have yet to pass > > the three year mark which is the normal turn around time for the bees to > > build back up after being regressed down. Testing is indeed in the early stages in the U.S.. If you go to South Africa you will see beekeepers using 4.9mm on European colonies without problems. The main reason is 4.9mm is widely sold. Perhaps the bees are African hybreds BUT queens from other parts of the globe are brought in and started on the 4.9mm cell size. Before Dadant offered the 4.9mm cell size I was offered the 4.9mm sent to me by several SA beekeepers. > Although there has been some argument here o the list, it has been mostly quite civil and good-humoured and there has been a good exchange of viewpoints. I found from the last discussion both sides were very set in their ways. Few switched sides and finnally the debate ended. One of the longest discussions I have seen on Bee-L AND in the archives. I realise that there are a few articles on your site on the topic, but > I have never found even one that convinced me of any wholesale errors in > historical cell measurement, or justified the belief that European honey bees > ever used a smaller cell than Root chose to use for his original foundation. In the last discussion I quoted from books a hundred years old to present. *Five cells to the inch* for worker and *four cells to the inch for drone* is the quote. A crude measurment at best. In the last discussion I believe we finnally came to agree the measurement *could* be as low as 5.0mm (possibly 4.9mm) and as high as 5.1mm (possibly 5.2mm). Allen saying 5.1mm and Barry saying 4.9mm and me saying "could be either". Grout showed us in late 1930's a move was made to enlarge cell size *mainly* for the longer tounge size which was shown could be increased by 17% max. (Jaycox). I will go out on a limb and say you could go 17% the other way which would in my opinion make the 4.9mm cell size within the reach of mellifera. >I did, however read that bees in Europe were forced at one time onto a >small cell foundation that cause them to do miserably. I go back to what I allways say "because it is in print don't allways make it so". I believe now with the reports from SA that bees can and do exist quite nicely on 4.9mm foundation. The issue is IF the 4.9mm cell size is the missing link in varroa control. > Have I missed somehow the proof that EHB used 4.9 before foundation. Safe ground Allen! You know the small cell camp can not prove 4.9mm was the original size. I believe the *five cells to the inch* to BE a average number. Some could have been smaller and some larger. Root and others tried to give a simple answer when a very exact measurement would have solved the mystery. Also a explanation of the way they measured. > Not a nice looking comb. I understand that it is postulated to be transitional, but it is ugly. All transition comb is UGLY. I remove transition comb all the time when getting foundation drawn. Much easier with plastic though. > > The size that will suit bees when they are first put on any size foundation > > will be near the same size cell they came from. It's not realistic to think > > you can change the size of any animal or insect, quickly, without problems. I agree on the above point. > > The idea here is to work the bees hard to get them back to a size that was normal for them many years ago. Wish you had left the above out Barry. Like throwing salt in a wound! Normal can not be proved unless a Bee-L person can produce a measurement from a 100 year old text with a measurement more exact then *five cells to the inch*. What happens if someone takes 'retrogressed' or > is it 'regressed' bees and shakes them onto a plain wax starter, lets the colony develop, then does the same thing again and again? Do they stay 'regressed' or 'retrogressed' or go back to the 5.2 size that most of us observe in natural colonies. Dee Lusby says they WILL. Beekeepers from South Africa say they will. I don't know if they will or not. > > Yes, it's usually very hard work with a good > > deal of downs before the ups. Most will see it as too much work and not find > interest in it. I am running several weeks behind now and should be out building cell builder colonies instead of hammering on the computer. However we are getting a much needed rain so getting a break. Installing all new combs in WAX and remelting two or so times to get to 4.9mm is simply not cost effective nor something I have got the time to do. I might regret not moving in the small cell direction if proof comes in a couple years of the value of small cell size. I like Allen wait to see the results of Barry's trials. I must remind the list Dee Lusby says she allready has proven the issue and is close to a thousand 4.9mm hives and growing. Over ten years of hard work with little returns getting to the place her and ED are now. I am only saying what she has told me through direct emails. She does say however small cell size is in her opinion onl;y a third of the reason for her success. I have been invited to the Lusbys to see for myself and Dee has sent me scanned pictures of her hives. Last year was the year I signed off the chemical program and > > will have to figure out a way to keep going without them. I will be open > > with all who ask as I have nothing to hide or hidden agenda. Not afraid of > > failure or setback along the way either. We may all have to get off the chemical program if the program quits working. Many world renouned scientists have told me directly that varroa may prove resistant to all known varroa control chemicals in the future. There has not been ONE NEW CHEMICAL FOUND FOR VARROA CONTROL SINCE VARROA RAISED ITS UGLY HEAD. Over a hundred drugs are shown to be effective in varroa control. Coumaphos is the last 98% control chemical varroa has developed resistance to. Not one chemical in the world has controlled varroa 100%. Here in lies the problem. Remove formic acid and coumaphos and commercial beekeepers have got big problems unless non chemical controls are discovered. Sincerely, Bob Harrison Odessa, Missouri ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 11:30:14 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: huestis Subject: Re: 4.9 foundation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all, > site, that is fitted with foundation only. Couldn't one simply fit the > new equipment with 4.9 foundation, accomplish the step down and > skip the transition phase? No. This is how we regress colonies using shook swarm. Bees only can go down .2mm at a clip. If you start at 5.4 mm it will usually take three of these shake downs plus some culling. I have found using strips will give much drone comb and excessive transition comb. My best results have been from full foundation. ? Is it that the transitional phase is required, somethhing like binding feet to get them to fit into tiny shoes? reply: As stated above . Bees can only key there body size down so fast around .2mm. This takes time and you need at least two brood cycles before you can shake the bees down again to allow there size to adjust. Some colonies you can just progressively add foundation between brood combs and size them down. Others you can't and must be shaken. I will regress 20- 30 colonies next season to give a better picture(in addition to the 6 from this year). As Barry stated it take three years of work(maybe four). As for results there are none to give yet as the foundation has only been available a short while. Don't flame us going in this direction we need time to do the ground work before we can report. Clay ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 10:15:22 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: Varroa control and screen size In-Reply-To: <200107112248.f6BMmv802984@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Yeah, I know the bees will try to propolize the joint between the groove and > the screen, but I paint the grooves and the frames with beeswax to keep the > problem to a minimum... Have you considered Vaseline? It has been fairly well recommended in this list and others to prevent propolization between supers and on frame rests. allen http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/ --- There's so much comedy on television. Does that cause comedy in the streets? -- Dick Cavett, mocking the TV-violence debate> ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 10:46:23 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Aaron Morris Subject: PEI Vacation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I will be vacationing on PEI during the week of 8/12-8/18. Any beekeepers to visit? Please respond directly, my vacation plans are probably not of interest to the rest of the list. Aaron Morris - thinking island vacations! Erie man! ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 11:57:46 -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: 4.9 foundation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Clay wrote: "Don't flame us going in this direction we need time to do the ground work before we can report." I was very careful to have no flames, no matches, not even friction in my post. I applaud the work, I hope there's a solution or at least indicatiobs of positive results. I'd like plausible explanations, but can live without them if none exist. There is no explanation of why smoke quiets bees. Sure, there's speculation of "a fire in the woods", gorged bees, masked pheremones and all that, but noone really knows why smoke quiets bees, it simply does. I use my smoker unquestioningly. Aaron Morris - thinking smoke 'em if you've got 'em! ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 11:45:50 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Barry Birkey Subject: Re: 4.9 foundation In-Reply-To: <200107121424.f6CEOJ827390@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Hello Aaron - You ask a very good question, and one that I think is critical to the whole idea of regressing bees back down in size. > Couldn't one simply fit the > new equipment with 4.9 foundation, accomplish the step down and > skip the transition phase? Or would the bees draw the foundation > similar to the comb pictured at the url you gave? > > Better yet, shook swarm onto equipment fitted only with starter > strips of foundation. Then the bees could build cells of their own > choosing. Would the giant bees build giant combs? Is it that the > transitional phase is required, somethhing like binding feet to get > them to fit into tiny shoes? Must we bind our bees to get them to > fit into tiny cells? When I went through this process last year, the swarms were first hived on frames with 4.9 starter strips only. (http://www.beesource.com/eob/4dot9/h2comb2.htm) When they got themselves going, I measured the cell size (remember, these swarms came off of Duragilt which is 5.4) and the overall brood cell size measured 5.2. I also started seeing a lot of varroa in the drone brood (http://www.beesource.com/eob/4dot9/h2varroa.htm) so I decided to shake them down again, break the varroa cycle, and see if they would start pulling out the 4.9 size. This time I used full sheets of 4.9 foundation. They managed to make some comb that was pretty true and consistent, size wise. Other combs looked like this: (http://www.beesource.com/eob/4dot9/49.2ndreg5.htm) while some looked like this (http://www.beesource.com/eob/4dot9/49.2ndreg4.htm) What I extrapolated from this process was that bees can not, or don't, change in cell size beyond a certain range per generation. That range would appear to be around .2 - .25 mm.. The fact that they were 'forced' to build on full sheets of foundation the second time didn't stop them from messing it up and still build larger sizes. Of course there are other influences that play into this process. I see the term "what they want" or "natural size" used by many, as Barry Sergeant pointed out, with the interpretation being these are combs built by bees having no foundation to dictate what the size should be, so are a size the bees see as the right size. I have a hard time logically working this out in my mind to accept this as a correct interpretation of what we see happening. In some regions, maybe so, but for now I'm thinking only of North America. Since at least 90 percent of all honeybees are in managed colonies, and another percent (8?) of those that are feral came from managed colonies, and the average cell size of foundation used in managed hives is 5.4mm, and we know that bees can only regress in size .2mm per generation (this, when we even give them a strip to key off of that is smaller in most cases), how can we conclude then that what we are seeing is "natural size?" What is natural about it? I still see them as being part of a whole system that is *not* natural. After all, these "natural/feral" bees will still be mating/influenced by the enlarged bees we keep, that also swarm and become the feral bees. We keep feeding the feral population with big bees. Now in time, this would slowly change back to what is natural if varroa wasn't killing them off. I think the only examples of "natural size" comb we see that has any importance to this issue would be ones with smaller cells as it would show that the bees can, and aim for, a smaller size than what we give them now. All other natural sizes that are similar to what we use really says nothing in my opinion. Does this make any sense? I'd like your comments. I see Clay has now posted the same findings as far as how much a bee will regress in each shake down. > My question is, if indeed a smaller cell size makes for varroa tolerance > what is it about a smaller cell size that impacts the varroa populations? I think we all want to know the answer to this question. We can speculate, but until lab work is done by researchers, we'll have to come up with our own ideas. > And frankly, I don't really care what it is that makes it work, I just want > to know it works. And I want to know that it not only works for the Lusby's, but also for me and everyone else. This is why I have taken it upon myself to follow their steps with my bees in my region, so I can answer this question. > As is small cell size. I acknowledge and appreciate the efforts of those > who are investigating. Thanks Barry for your update. I'm happy to share it all. Again, I have nothing to hide. If, after 3 or 4 years I end up with no bees, I will say so. I have enough reason to believe that this will not be the case, but won't know till I'm there. It's also encouraging that there are others, like Clay, who are going through it. This will give even more weight to whatever the outcome is. My reply to Bob Harrison: >>> The idea here is to work the bees hard to get them back to a size that > was normal for them many years ago. > > Wish you had left the above out Barry. Like throwing salt in a wound! > Normal can not be proved unless a Bee-L person can produce a measurement > from a 100 year old text with a measurement more exact then *five cells to > the inch*. You are right, Bob, I should have worded it to read, The idea here is to work the bees hard to get them back to a size that was *more* normal for them many years ago. Thanks for pointing this out. Regards, Barry ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 13:07:00 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Anthony Vernier Subject: Re: 4.9 foundation Mime-Version: 1.0 (Generated by EnRoute for Newton) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" So, let me get this straight, regressing is defined as reducing cell size which has an effect on reducing worker body size? (at 0.2 mm increments) which when combined over a generation or three will reduce varroa mite population? This sounds like an interesting biological control. But wouldn't the mite react in time? What does the reduced cell volume equate to honey or comb yield? I'm confused? Tony Vernier Lurking microbiologist (bees seem really big) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 12:16:41 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob & Liz Subject: Re: 4.9 foundation Comments: To: olda.vancata@quicknet.se MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello All, > > Just because some think the whole 4.9 idea is snake oil does not > > mean that it is snake oil. The proof is still not in. > > Take a look at: > > http://www.algonet.se/~beeman/ > > (>Research>Varroa>Cellsize) This outdated report actually proves little in view of what we know NOW about SMR. The study only included three hives. I do find it MOST interesting that the hive with the 900 foundation had the best SMR (blue color on graph). The 900 foundation is as close as we can tell about 5.0mm to 5.1mm.. Those sizes according to Dee Lusby are to large for varroa control. When she dropped to the 4.9mm size she then saw varroa not being able to reproduce in worker cells like they do on larger cell foundation. Drone cells are ALWAYS at risk even with small cell. Dee never allows over 10% drone comb. Dadant when they first produced the small cell last year I believe they used the old 900 molds (could be wrong). My original idea when I approached Dadant in 1985 was to use the old *900* molds. My idea was later proved wrong. The size needed to be 1 -2 mm smaller to work. I am NOT a bee expert or always right. My theory wouldn't have worked as intended. Dee started in the same area but finally went smaller to find what she considers the correct size for varroa control (along with breeding and her strain of bees). Dee said the foundation was actually 5.0-5.1mm so Dadant retooled and now the 4.9mm foundation from Dadant is correct. I am putting the above down from memory and very fast. Barry correct me if I have left a part out or have something incorrect. Sincerely, Bob Harrison Odessa, Missouri ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 13:39:55 -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: 4.9 foundation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hi Barry, I was going to refrain from comment, less it be construed as criticism. What follows is not criticism, just observations of what I have to accept as "a given" to allow your investigation to continue. It's the same as I accept as "a given" that when correctly used smoke calms bees. (Notice how I have haggled the smoke statement since my last post?) > What I extrapolated from this process was that bees can not, or don't, > change in cell size beyond a certain range per generation. That range would > appear to be around .2 - .25 mm.. Hmmm. I haven't done the work, and you were careful not to present it as hard fact, merely extrapolation, so I'll accept there is something about .2-.25 mm. per generation that is simply "so", and will move on. > I see the term "what they want" or "natural size" (... and ...) have a > hard time logically working this out in my mind to accept this as a correct > interpretation of what we see happening. Well, this gets a bit esoteric, but what is "natural" in the first place? I think the point of view that "man-made" leaves the realm of what is "natural" is flawed. For better or worse, man is a part of nature and if man has caused it to be that bees of the 21st century are larger than bees of the 19th century, it is natural for bees to be larger today than they were over 100 years ago. Whether it's natural or not is a red herring. Having said that, the current test hypothesis becomes one of will smaller bees reared in smaller cells have an advantage (or not) over varroa. What the bees want is also irrelevant. Today's bees may want larger cells and "naturally" build them. Bees resulting from pressures to reduce their size may want smaller comb and "naturally" build them. The pressure to produce smaller bees that will be comfortable in smaller comb may result in bees with an advantage over varroa. THAT is the test hypothesis! All this debate/bickering over big bees/small bees/natural comb/unnatural comb is noise, and it's easy to lose sight of what is actually being hypothesized, which is that smaller bees that are comfortable in smaller comb have an advantage over varroa that larger bees in larger comb (common in today's natural or unnatural environmet) do not! I hope this diffuses the debate and puts it more in terms of scientific hypothesis testing. >> My question is, if indeed a smaller cell size makes for varroa tolerance >> what is it about a smaller cell size that impacts the varroa populations? > I think we all want to know the answer to this question. We can speculate, > but until lab work is done by researchers, we'll have to come up with our > own ideas. Better yet, let the speculation rest and continue with the scientific investigation. I'm glad you and others are doing so! > And I want to know that it not only works for the Lusby's, but also for me > and everyone else. This is why I have taken it upon myself to follow their > steps with my bees in my region, so I can answer this question. Similar to what's being done with SMR bees and the effort to distribute the genes to a broad range of a "natural environment". Replecation is a key component of "proof" or at least acceptance. >> Thanks Barry for your update. > I'm happy to share it all. Again, thanks. It's a tough hypothesis to test and prove (or not). I'm glad that you and others are willing to make the effort. It's more than I would do. Aaron Morris - thinking it's naturally unnatural! ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 13:37:00 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Kyle Lewis Subject: Re: 4.9 foundation Let me give my brief experience with 4.9 foundation. I am a beeginner and bought my first colony (one) this spring. A three pound package of bees arrived in late April. I installed it in a medium box, with starter strips of 4.9 foundation in the frame top bars. The starter strips work best if they are only 10 mm wide. The bees drew this out into nice comb, with cells measuring 5.1 to 5.2 mm from wall to parallel wall. There was some drone size comb drawn also, but only on part of a couple frames. In a few weeks I put on a second box with similar starter strips, which they started to draw. In mid May, with the lower box all drawn, I pulled one of the brood combs and put in in the upper box. I repaced it with a full sheet of 4.9 foundation. The bees drew it beautifully. I thought the original package bees might refuse it, but apparently younger, smaller (5.2) bees accepted it. Since then I have been adding two frames of 4.9 foundation every 1-2 weeks. I place them between established drawn brood frames. The 4.9 foundation is drawn out very nicely, except that I have a warp in the bottom of the comb. I think I need to wire the frames to keep the foundation straight. (Is that right?) I split the colony in June, adding a new queen to the split. The two small colonies will continue to make brood size cells rather than larger honey storage cells. Or so I assumed. I will combine the colonies for the winter, unless they really gain strength and stores. I will remove the 5.2 comb from the hive next spring at the latest, so all brood is raised on 4.9 comb next year. 5.2 comb could be placed above a queen separator, to allow the brood to emerge, then harvest the comb. My conclusions: 1. Bees will naturally take to 5.1 to 5.2 mm comb. There is no need to use 5.4 or bigger. If you want easier extraction, use drone comb in supers. 2. Once the colony is established on 5.1-5.2 comb, 4.9 foundation may be introduced. Bees raised on 5.4 or larger need to be "retired" from comb drawing, by waiting 45 days after introducing the package. 3. I have not yet counted Varroa. I will open some drone cells (if I can find any.) :) 4. Next spring I will put in a plain foundation or starter strip in the brood chamber and see what cell size the bees draw. I would invite fellow readers to communicate with their foundation supplier: 1. Urge your supplier to publish the cell size of their foundation in their catalog. 2. Urge your supplier to supply 5.15 cell size foundation. It may not be exactly what bees would make naturally, but it is a lot closer than 5.4! And it can be used to replace any brood foundation. Kyle Lewis Wyoming Newbee ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 11:56:22 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: 4.9 foundation In-Reply-To: <200107121347.f6CDlU826274@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Anyhow, the point is, given Allen's comment of giving the bees "what > they want," that very soon after drawing the foundation, the bees revert > to "natural size" cells. That is, the cell size that they want - they're > drawing comb in open air... I wonder if you measure these combs? ...and if so, what range of sizes do you get using the measuring methods detailed at http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Misc/CellCount.htm I realise that you are likely using different bees from what most of us in North America are using, but lately we have been learning lots of interesting things and comparing observations from different places is always interesting. allen http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Diary/ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 14:56:40 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "BOGANSKY,RONALD J." Subject: Bottom Entrance MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hello, There is a gentlemen in my area that is a "full time bee remover". He and his employees cover a five state area and have spent a lot of time studying bees in the wild. He has removed some massive colonies over the years, and in spite of the demise of feral colonies still keeps quite busy. He sees bees living the way they think is best, rather than what we think is best for them. His observations have lead to a number of conclusions with respect to "what the bees like". The first thing he tells you is throw away your bottom boards. The bottom entrance is there for the beekeeper not the bees. They prefer a smaller opening near the top of the brood nest rather than the bottom. All his commercial hives (he produces some honey and does pollination) have plywood bottoms with no openings, except for a small one near the top. His favorite story he relates is when he became friendly with Charles Mraz. He met Charlie at a point in his career when he thought he knew a lot about bees. Charlie told him "you've read all books and know what the experts have to say, now why don't you go and learn from the best teachers, the bees themselves." He has a lot of ideas based on his observations of thousands of feral colonies. Some conflict with conventional wisdom, but they usually make sense. Ron Bogansky Kutztown, (eastern) PA, USA + ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 19:43:51 +0100 Reply-To: Gavin Ramsay Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Gavin Ramsay Subject: Re: 4.9 foundation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lovely to see everyone chipping in on 4.9mm ..... Aaron asked: > My question is, if indeed a smaller cell size makes for varroa tolerance > what is it about a smaller cell size that impacts the varroa populations? > Is it because there simply isn't enough room for the mites to be successful? > Is it something else (varroa moves to the suburbs where there's wide open spaces)? What is it? Oh, I do like speculating! How's this for starters: i) as Aaron suggested, not enough room. The mites can't move around so freely in the cell so the male can't locate and mate with the females. Sterile females result. ii) maybe the cramped space makes it harder for mites to get to feeding sites. iii) maybe they can't get out of the way and get trapped more readily behind the cocoon. iv) small cell size somehow awakens hygienic behaviour of some kind, perhaps more efficient uncapping of infested cells. Didn't you observe something like this Barry? v) doesn't small cell size slightly accelerate the duration of the larval/pupal stages? If so, those last hours prior to emergence might make a difference in nos of mature, mated female mites emerging. vi) changes in temperature of the brood nest, pheromone levels, and other sorts of arthropod lifestyle indicators that we may never understand. vii) all of these working together? viii) none of the above! But, having speculated that real, tangible mechanisms for the possible effect on Varroa of 4.9 are possible, I have to agree the mechanism doesn't really matter. It does though help give people some assurance that it might be worth spending time trying it out. Good luck to all who are experimenting with it. Gavin. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 15:21:41 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Barry Sergeant Subject: Re: 4.9 foundation Hi Allen Before giving worker cell sizes for AM scutellata in this country, a quick note on hybridisation. Over the past decade or so, scutellata have hybridised with AM capensis, following man-made migrations of capensis deep into scutellata territory. A pure capensis bee is somewhat larger than a pure scutellata. Today, the net result is a wide variance in worker cell sizes produced by "natural" or "wild" scutellata. These range from about 4.3mm to 4.7mm per cell (according to the methodology on the website you referred to). It would be foolhardy to give a mean value, due to the variance in hybridisation. But it is another reason to furnish trap hives with minimal (25mm) strip foundation. This means the bees can sort the cell size out according to their degree of hybridisation. As to varroa, our observations to date are that the natural swarms exhibiting highest resistance are those with "advanced" hygienic (grooming) behaviour. As you know, the commencement of capensis worker laying behaviour in a scutellata hive leads to a near-term collapse in colony hygiene. Thus we are very worried that the dual influence of varroa and capensis could lead to a deep depletion in wild swarms. Barry Sergeant Kyalami South Africa ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 17:47:11 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Barry Birkey Subject: Re: 4.9 foundation In-Reply-To: <200107122026.f6CKQv810573@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Hello Gavin - > iv) small cell size somehow awakens hygienic behaviour of some kind, perhaps > more efficient uncapping of infested cells. Didn't you observe something > like this Barry? Yes I did. The only claim I'll make is that, for the first time ever in all my years of beekeeping, I saw brood at the purple eye stage, in cells that were uncapped, chewed down midway. Dee claims this is fairly common with bees on this system, as they go about the job of 'weeding out' varroa. When I went looking through some of their hives south of Tucson, I saw this same condition in their hives. Here is a picture I took. http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/trip/10.htm Regards, Barry ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 19:58:53 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: CSlade777@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Varroa control and screen size MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit If dead bees can go through 5 mesh so can live bees and wasps etc. Chris ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 18:24:16 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob & Liz Subject: Re: Bottom Entrance MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Ron & All, His observations have lead to a number of conclusions with > respect to "what the bees like". The first thing he tells you is throw away > your bottom boards. The bottom entrance is there for the beekeeper not >the bees. They prefer a smaller opening near the top of the brood nest and does pollination) have plywood bottoms with no openings, except for a >small one near the top. I believe the above statement "he produces some honey" sums up the above. When the honey flow is on you need all the entrance you can get. 40 to 60,000 bees trying to get thru a 1 in. hole doesn't make sense to me. Second in hot weather (like Missouri) bees use the full width to circulate air to remove moisture and ventilate the hive. Although I also have seen hives in buildings with only a small entrance most I have seen have got two small entrances. In my opinion plywood bottoms with no entrance would be a problem to keep free of hive debre on all but the strongest hives. Sincerely, Bob Harrison Odessa, Missouri Ps. I think the next hive I find in a building I will enlarge the entrance and improve on nature. Then the bees can propolis the entrance down in winter and open up in summer. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 19:14:58 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Tim Smith Subject: Honey proccessing house MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ok, here is one for the group. I'm in the planning stages of building a = honey house to extract, bottle, and store unused supers. Does anyone = have any good ideas for the size, layout, or any other "smart" = ideas/suggestions. I probably will have approximately 50 hives.=20 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 20:08:18 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob & Liz Subject: Re: Honey proccessing house MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Tim & All, > Ok, here is one for the group. I'm in the planning stages of building a = > honey house to extract, bottle, and store unused supers. Does anyone = > have any good ideas for the size, layout, or any other "smart" = > ideas/suggestions. I probably will have approximately 50 hives.=20 Most of the better bee books show layouts. Make the Hh as large as you think you might ever need. In other words allow for expansion. To small is common mistake. Make the doors as wide as possible. Check with your local health department before starting construction. I have seen a large honey house having the concrete removed with jack hammers because it didn't meet code. I didn't personally see but read the story in ABJ by Leon Metz I believe. In Missouri the health code is different for raw honey from the farm than honey processed and bottled for sale in the stores. If you ever think you might sell in stores plan accordingly. In most states if you tell the health department you plan to recycle jars you will be in for a big surprise. Commercial dishwasher with a temperature of at least 170 F. in Missouri. Same as restaurants use. Bars however can give a three stage rinse and mix another drink for you. Most bars don't even own a dishwasher. Hmmm. Always seemed funny to me as a person lips usually don't touch a honey jar. Pooh bear is one notable exception! Double dipping is a concern of our Missouri health department. The beekeeper selling the honey has to dip and hand the sample to the customer according to our state health department. Sincerely, Bob Harrison Odessa, Missouri Ps. Get the basics up to health department codes and you can add the little things later. Get the big concerns wrong and they will shut you down till things are up to their specs. Many small beekeepers extract and bottle in violation of health codes . Like using their kitchen and selling honey. Not really a problem unless one of your customers or competitors calls the health department. Health codes in all 50 states are not the same so I only know about Missouri. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 23:25:52 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dave and Judy Subject: Essay MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks to all my beekeeper friends for the wonderful comments on Patricia's essay. I have asked for and received both Patricia's and her mother's permission for any of you to reproduce her essay. Please include her name with the essay. Patricia Marienthal, Grant County High School, Dry Ridge, Kentucky She loves the idea of you sending her a copy of the newsletter or magazine in which you publish the essay. Our P.O. Box address is: Judy Gaida P.O. Box 566 Crittenden, KY 41030 If there is a charge for your newsletter or mag, or postage, just include a bill with the copy and I will send the $. Thanks again. Judy in Kentucky, USA ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 22:37:36 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: A Little Lighter, And Not Scientific At All MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kevin, I strongly commend you for telling about a mistake that you made. ALL of us have done the same "dumb" thing, but few of us are willing to admit it. I repeat. THANK YOU, Kevin. I hope this will encourage others to do the same rather than forever placing the blame on someone else, or on something that really didn't exist like a "cold" winter. George Imirie ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 21:42:27 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Rick Green Subject: Re: RICK'S Honey proccessing house Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit DESIGN IT TO BE ABLE TO BACK INTO THE HONEY HOUSE WITH A VEHICLE TO MINIMIZE LIFTING. DON'T MAKE THINGS PERMANENT FOR A FEW YEARS BECAUSE YOU WILL EVOLVE YOUR PROCESS FOR THE FIRST FEW YEARS ANYWAY AS YOU FINE TUNE THE SYSTEM. i PREFER A GRAVEL FLOOR BECAUSE IT IS NOT SLIPPERY. CREATE A MOUSE PROOF ROOM FOR SECURE STORAGE OF CLEAN STUFF. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 00:34:46 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: James Fischer Subject: Re: Varroa control and screen size (beeswax vs Vaseline) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Allen Dick said: > Have you considered Vaseline? It has been fairly well recommended in this list > and others to prevent propolization between supers and on frame rests. I'll stick with beeswax, thanks. I'll even go so far to suggest that beeswax is far superior to any other substance for the purpose. a) Vaseline would be yet another messy, sticky thing to try to keep off my hands, the interior of my Volvo "bee-mobile", tools, clothes, dogs, doorknobs, cellphone, Palm Pilot, computer keyboard, wife... b) I have no idea what the bees might do with vaseline (Does anyone really know?) c) Vaseline is petroleum-based. I'd rather not introduce a petrochemical into a hive if I can avoid it. d) Beeswax works just fine. Propolis seems to have a hard time sticking to it. I have lots of it. I can paint it on thick. When it dries, it is a sturdy coating. e) Beeswax was even "Mil-Spec". WWI infantrymen used it to keep their cartridges and powder dry. Back then, beeswax was a "strategic resource". f) Why am I so stubborn about this point? Its "none of your beeswax"! :) I had to work that one in somehow. :) jim farmageddon ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 09:39:06 +0200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: dr pedro p rodriguez Subject: Re: Varroa control and screen size MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello to all. I am in need of a copy of Pettis and Shimanuki's article: A hive modificationto to reduce varroa populations, ABJ 139(6):471-473. I have written to Dadant for a copy but have I not received an answer hence I doubt that they will provide a copy as requested. Could someone please e-mail me a copy? Your kindness will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely. Dr. Rodriguez ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 17:19:10 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Barry Birkey Subject: Re: 4.9 foundation In-Reply-To: <200107121738.f6CHci804807@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Hi Bob - > Dee started in the same area but finally went smaller to find what she > considers the correct size for varroa control (along with breeding and her > strain of bees). Dee said the foundation was actually 5.0-5.1mm so Dadant > retooled and now the 4.9mm foundation from Dadant is correct. I am putting > the above down from memory and very fast. Barry correct me if I have left a > part out or have something incorrect. Basically correct. The decision to make 4.9 the correct size had more to do with results than with some book saying this was the magic size. Their original understanding of the old literature was that 5.0-5.1 would be a middle (average) size for the bees, so they retooled their entire outfit to this size. While this size kept their hive numbers from decline, they were not able to get much of a honey crop due to the secondary diseases inflicting the bees. They retooled again to the 4.9 size and this time found that these problems cleared up and production of honey went up too. (This is an understatement from what I'm hearing is happening this year) So yes, the size they consider to be correct for varroa CONTROL is 4.9, which they and others feel is still well within the RANGE of documented sizes mentioned in early writings. Breeding is also very important. We must remember that bees have also been selected by man over the years to fit enlarged combs. As Dee says, the bees must also be given a chance to adjust by their own selection for what, in their genetics, fits the smaller cell size the best. This will happen over a number of generations. I'm sure this is not a popular thing to promote or say with the breeder crowd. I can understand the ramifications. Strain of bees I don't think is an issue in their method. Whatever strain comes to the forefront of any particular area, after working the bees down, are the ones to work with. The hybrids will quickly fade out. Regards, Barry ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 09:05:35 +0100 Reply-To: Dave Cushman Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dave Cushman Subject: Re: 4.9 foundation, a few comments MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi All I have been interested and confused by some of the cellsize debate, much has already been said that can be accessed in archives and websites. It took me a few mental "gymnastics" to reach my current understanding. I do not want others to take what I say for granted, nor do I want my opinions dismissed "out of hand". I consider that the effort that I put in to reach that understanding was worth it and I urge others to apply the effort required. The stumbling block that most seem to falter on is the need for regression (retrogression UK/USA english). I give you an analogy based on human body size and shirtsize. When I was 20 years old I was a "normal" sized adult wearing a size 16" shirt. As time went by I became larger and required a 16 1/2", I became larger still and required a 17" and then a 17 1/2". It is now "normal" for me to require the 17 1/2" collar size and I just do not fit into anything smaller. To get back to any of the smaller sizes I would need to deliberately reduce my bodysize and as I did so there would come a time when I could just squeeze into the next lower size. I say just "squeeze into" as the shirt would bulge and be uncomfortable and would look awful. As I progressed in weight/bodysize reduction I would fit the new size "perfectly" and the shirt would look good. If I were to continue reduction until I could attempt the next size down the same process of bad fit followed by improving fit and then good fit would occur again. I did not reach my conclusions by this method, but I think it has parallels with regression. Everyone seems to start with the premise that "todays" bees are "natural" sized. If you start from the notion that 4.9 mm was the norm before the larger cells became available, then todays bees are decidedly bloated. I may desire a 16" collar size, but sure as hell I have to have a 17 1/2" unless I do something drastic. This analagy may seem lighthearted, I hope it is amusing, but I think it may help. As to what happens in bees on a 4.9 mm cellsize, we will find that out when a few more of us take the plunge and regress some bees on to it. Regards From:- Dave Cushman, G8MZY Beekeeping and Bee Breeding, http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman IBList Archives, http://website.lineone.net/~d.cushman ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 12:02:53 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Lucinda Sewell Subject: Honeycomb size ;-) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Is there a record depth for nectar storage combs? What is the smallest no. of frames anyone has got to in a super? I will post what little experience I've had with 'small cell' when the swelling goes down... Who said "Bees aren't likely to sting in extracting room"??? :-) Suspect it's a beekeeper I admire too :-) John Sewell ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 07:41:36 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob & Liz Subject: Re: 4.9 foundation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Barry, Hopefully the discussion will wake a few beekeepers up! I will give a quick update on what I am working on and you can forward to Dee & Ed if you want. On July fourth I took delivery of SMR queens from Glenn Apiaries of the two lines *Red* & *Yellow* developed by Dr. Harbo from the bee lab at Baton Rouge. They have been introduced into nucs and we are grafting today at noon the first of the breeder queens larvae. The first batch of queens will be allowed to mate with a five year survivor hive which I removed from a building last spring. The first four year period is only by statements from the owner of the building. They are currently the lowest mite load of any hive I have got by both sticky board & ether roll. We are having to use those bees because we won't have fertile drones from either of our SMR lines for another month. The next batch which I am requeening with will be mated in our remote yard . Red line for grafting and Yellow line for drones to keep down further inbreeding. Harbo says open breeding has produced excellent results in varroa control but I believe the SMR line will simply do better if kept pure. The two SMR lines are dark and look carniolans as do my survivor queen. Good luck with your projects! Bob ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 09:08:44 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Barry Sergeant Subject: Re: 4.9 foundation, a few comments Hi Dave & all A question or two, if I may. I would assume, without knowing for sure, that varroa mites are sized the same in South Africa as elsewhere in the world. Then accept that today our "natural" wild scutellata swarms construct cells between 4.3 and 4.7mm - of own choice. Surely that would seriously inhibit varroa propogation? I would say that any wild swarm here, if properly examined, would exhibit varroa. If varroa can complete its breeding in these smaller cells, they would, ipso facto, make it in 4.9mm cells? Or are the varroa here only using drone brood? Barry Sergeant Kyalami South Africa ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 07:32:29 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: 4.9 foundation In-Reply-To: <200107121422.f6CEMd827327@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (Sorry this is a little late getting into the stream. I hit reply and accidentally sent it direct to Olda. I guess that is a reminder to check headers before sending email. BEE-L gets sent personal email sometimes and I guess, just as often an intended reply to the whole list gets sent to only one person. Just because a post never appears on the list does not mean that the moderators rejected it. Maybe it was sent to someone else. If your BEE-L post does not show up in a reasonable time, check to see where you sent it. Anyhow, here is my post): --- > Take a look at: http://www.algonet.se/~beeman/ > (>Research>Varroa>Cellsize) > you can find there: "A study made by Mia Davidsson in 1992 at the > Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences as an examination > paper." Thanks. I had a bit of trouble, but finally got to http://www.algonet.se/~beeman/research/cell.htm Referring to the conversion chart at http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Misc/CellCount.htm it appears that the study used cells from about 6mm down to a little above 5mm. The study did not, apparently, quite get down to the 4.9 size being discussed. Nonetheless, some might expect that there would be some trend visible over the range studied and that the effect sought might begin to appear around 5mm. The only other explanation, assuming the study is accurate, would be that the anti-varroa effect cuts in suddenly at 4.9, but is not at all in evidence at sizes only slightly larger. I am sceptical, but this would not be entirely improbable. I would say this study does not conclusively prove that small cell size effects might not have been observed if the study had included samples that went as small as 962 or even 1000 cells per square decimeter. Another problem too is that there are many other factors that are not examined. The strain of bee, the climate, the strain of varroa, the time of year, and many more things that are hard to control make this subject difficult to pin down. allen http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/ --- I was reading the dictionary. I thought it was a poem about everything. -- Steven Wright ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 07:22:19 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: 4.9 foundation In-Reply-To: <200107122030.f6CKUE810685@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Today, the net result is a wide variance in worker cell sizes produced > by "natural" or "wild" scutellata. These range from about 4.3mm to > 4.7mm per cell (according to the methodology on the website you > referred to). It would be foolhardy to give a mean value, due to the > variance in hybridisation... Now that is interesting! It's nice to have a 'man on the ground' in SA. What this says to me -- and I'd like to hear comments from others -- is that the foundation sold in South Africa (4.9) is oversize by quite a lot compared to what the bees there normally would build, just as the current standard foundation in Europe and North America is oversize. (By how much , if much, has been the subject of much dispute here). If the Cape bee is larger, it almost appears that the African foundation is built to favour Cape bees over scutellata, and I wonder if this is part of the problem with Cape bees getting control of managed hives. I also wonder what size pure Cape bees build when in the wild. Anyhow, this report tends to dispute the widely held idea that the natural cell size for scutellata is 4.9. Hmmm. allen http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 16:31:47 +0200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: dr pedro p rodriguez Subject: Re: Laying workers MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yes, but generally, once they start laying, they do not fly out. They stay in the hive. In my own experience, when I have taken them out and shaken them on the ground, away from the hive, they usually stay clustered where they fall. I have observed that their numbers dwindle, thus I tend to believe that some do return to the bee yard. What fate they encounter is unceretain, anyone's guess. Best regards. Dr. Rodriguez ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 12:51:39 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Robert Brenchley Subject: Re: 4.9 foundation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Allen writes: > The size that will suit bees when they are first put on any size foundation >> will be near the same size cell they came from. It's not realistic to think >> you can change the size of any animal or insect, quickly, without problems. >> The idea here is to work the bees hard to get them back to a size that was >> normal for them many years ago. > >Where is this size documented? I really would like to examine the proof that >European bees used any size outside the current range. I am begging. I'd like to see more evidence myself, preferably relating to the UK. The above also makes me wonder: What happens if someone takes 'retrogressed' or is it 'regressed' bees and shakes them onto a plain wax starter, lets the colony develop, then does the same thing again and again? Do they stay 'regressed' or 'retrogressed' or go back to the 5.2 size that most of us observe in natural colonies. This is what I wonder. So far, I've given starter strips Thorne's small cell foundation (this is Dadant's messed up first attempt - about 5.0mm) to two colonies. One had a mixture of this with drawn comb at about 5.4mm, and continued to draw the same size, perhaps predictably. The other was a swarm from that hive, hived on 5mm strips alone; it has pulled about 5.25mm comb. I'm not going to force them to go any further this year, but next year I intend to shake them down onto strips again, and the test will be what size they draw then. Regards, Robert Brenchley RSBrenchley@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 13:18:00 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Barry Sergeant Subject: Re: 4.9 foundation Hi Allen & all A question or two, if I may. I would assume, without knowing for sure, that varroa mites are sized the same in South Africa as elsewhere in the world. Then accept that today our "natural" wild scutellata swarms construct cells between 4.3 and 4.7mm - of own choice. Surely that would seriously inhibit varroa propogation? I would say that any wild swarm here, if properly examined, would exhibit varroa. If varroa can complete its breeding in these smaller cells, they would, ipso facto, make it in 4.9mm cells? Or are the varroa here only using drone brood? Separately, what about "old" dark brood cells that have been contracted by cucoons? What "size" are these? Just in passing, as mentioned earlier, I recently examined in great detail a significant number of trapped "wild" scutellata swarms. The following observations can be made in respect of cell size and varroa: 1. The 25mm foundation strips can be viewed as "transition cells" as the bees slim the cell size down when drawing in open air. 2. Evidence of varroa was minimal. 3. Varroa - when present - can often be seen on the backs of these bees. 4. Other pests/diseases are minimal. It is, of course, mid-winter and dry. An occasional hive beetle and braula is seen. No brood diseases were present. These "wild" bees have, of course, not been treated for anything whatsoever. Barry Sergeant Kyalami South Africa ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 11:49:05 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: 4.9 foundation In-Reply-To: <200107131738.f6DHc1814055@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Surely that would seriously inhibit varroa propagation? My impression is that the absolute size of the cells is not the cause of inhibition (if any), of varroa since any honeycomb cells are *much* larger than a varroa mite. My understanding is that it is forcing bees into cells that are a little tight that does the job, since there is less room for the varroa to work, although I may be wrong and we do have some experts on the theory here on BEE-L, and maybe they will elaborate on the mechanism postulated. > Separately, what about "old" dark brood cells that have been > contracted by cocoons? What "size" are these? I seem to recall that the idea of significant reduction in cell size due to cocoon build-up has been debunked. Apparently the bees do remove the cocoons from cells and the wall thickness does not increase significantly _from this cause_. Having said that, though I am aware of old dark brood combs that are tough enough to withstand being stepped on. I notice that the coping is heavier, but does anyone have a study about actual wall thickness measurements and dissection? allen http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/ --- Writing about music is like dancing about architecture. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 19:59:47 +0100 Reply-To: Dave Cushman Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dave Cushman Subject: Re: 4.9 foundation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Allen & all Not wishing to put myself forward as an "expert" on 4.9 mm cells, but a bystander that is more interested than most... > My understanding is that it is forcing bees into cells that are > a little tight that does the job, since there is less room for the varroa to > work, My understanding is a little different here, my current thinking is that a "european" bee raised in 4.9 is a fitter and more healthy individual than one raised in any larger size. It is this robust health that allows such bees to combat varroa. I say current thinking as I have yet to see a large number of results from wide ranging and different climatic conditions that would substantiate this. > Apparently the bees do remove the cocoons > from cells and the wall thickness does not increase significantly I have not seen any evidence of individual cocoons being removed but I have seen some good examples of the sidewalls (including the cocoons) being chewed right down and then the walls rebuilt on the stubs http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman/smalboldcomb.html shows a good example. > I notice that the coping is > heavier, but does anyone have a study about actual wall thickness measurements > and dissection? There is a partial page on my website, that I really must put some effort into completing... http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman/chriscomb.html shows the shape of a plaster plug from a comb that was generated by Chris Slade's bees. This plug shows quite a remarkable neck reduction (which is typical of all plugs so far measured). When this dissection work is complete it will throw up some averaged wall thickness measurements at thre different depths within the cell. Regards From:- Dave Cushman, G8MZY Beekeeping and Bee Breeding, http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman IBList Archives, http://website.lineone.net/~d.cushman ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 20:07:20 +0100 Reply-To: Dave Cushman Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dave Cushman Subject: Re: 4.9 foundation, a few comments MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all Barry Sergeant says... > today our "natural" wild scutellata swarms construct cells between 4.3 > and 4.7mm - of own choice I would ask do the bees survive, or succumb to whatever strain of varroa is local to scutellata? Regards From:- Dave Cushman, G8MZY Beekeeping and Bee Breeding, http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman IBList Archives, http://website.lineone.net/~d.cushman ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 16:45:01 -0300 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Sharon Labchuk Subject: Pollinator Declines Could Increase Food Prices Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit See the entire article at: http://www.panna.org/panna/resources/panups.html Sharon =========================================== P A N U P S Pesticide Action Network Updates Service =========================================== Pollinator Declines Could Increase Food Prices July 13, 2001 A global shortage of bees and other insects that pollinate plants is destroying crops around the world and could lead to far higher prices for fruits and vegetables, according to researchers at the University of Guelph, Canada. "The consumers are ultimately going to pay," said Dr. Peter Kevan, an environmental biology professor at the university. "Instead of buying an apple for 30¢, you'll end up paying $1.50 for it." Pollinator populations have been hit hard by increased pesticide use in recent years, and much of their natural habitat, such as dead trees and old fence posts, have been destroyed to make room for more farmland, Dr. Kevan added. In their report, published recently in the online journal Conservation Ecology, Dr. Kevan and Dr. Truman Phillips say that pollination systems in many agricultural areas today are threatened by an inadequate number or complete lack of sustainably-managed pollinators, either indigenous or imported. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 21:37:40 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob & Liz Subject: Re: 4.9 foundation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Barry & All, > > Today, the net result is a wide variance in worker cell sizes produced > > by "natural" or "wild" scutellata. These range from about 4.3mm to > > 4.7mm per cell (according to the methodology on the website you > > referred to). It would be foolhardy to give a mean value, due to the > > variance in hybridisation... In Texas the AHB worker cell size seems to run almost always 4.9mm (plus or minus 1mm) according to Paul Jackson the state bee inspector. Beekeeping books list cerana drone cell size at 4.7mm and worker cells at 4.3mm. According to "The Varroa Handbook" varroa has never been able to reproduce in cerana worker brood. Thats' really the key to why cerana and varroa coexist. If you are seeing varroa reproduce in Scut worker cells of 4.3 mm then cell size is NOT the answer with cerana and the reason varroa doesn't reproduce in cerana worker cells is another reason besides simply cell size. > If the Cape bee is larger, it almost appears that the African foundation is > built to favour Cape bees over scutellata, and I wonder if this is part of the > problem with Cape bees getting control of managed hives. I also wonder what size pure Cape bees build when in the wild. What I wonder is why capensis worker bees emerge in 19 days instead of the normal 21. Do any Bee-L researchers know why? > Anyhow, this report tends to dispute the widely held idea that the natural cell size for scutellata is 4.9. I believe 4.9mm is the cell size we see with AHB in our area of the world. Are you scuts smaller than the U.S. AHB? It is possible the pure scuts use a smaller cell size in SA. I would have thought one of our researchers would have noted a 2 to 6 mm difference but I don't believe scuts have been researched a great deal. Very little has been said about the large hive beetle Hoplostomus fuliginneus (Cetontinae). Whats the story on those *bad boys* Barry? Sincerely, Bob Harrison Odessa, Missouri ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 01:25:51 +0100 Reply-To: pdillon@club-internet.fr Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter Dillon Organization: La Marne Subject: Re: 4.9 foundation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I seem to recall that the idea of significant reduction in cell size due to cocoon build-up has been debunked. Apparently the bees do remove the cocoons from cells and the wall thickness does not increase significantly from this cause. Having said that, though I am aware of old dark brood combs that are tough enough to withstand being stepped on. I notice that the coping is heavier, but does anyone have a study about actual wall thickness measurements and dissection? Allen, If my memory serves me correct, E.Wedmore in "A Manual of Beekeeping" states figures regarding the changes in thickness of cell walls over a period of time. Can't be more precise than that as my copy is with a beekeeper in England! He also mentions that any bees produced in cells of larger size than the "normal" are larger but individually weigh less than their "normal" counterparts. Hopefully somebody having the above text can check if this ref. is correct!! Also, in Beekeeping study notes (modules 5,6,7 and 8) - J.D.and B.D. Yates quote "According to Dadant, the thickness of the wall of newly built comb is approx. 0.0025in. thick and in naturally drawn comb without the use of foundation, the base is 0.0035in. thick; Hooper gives 0.006in. for the cell wall thickness and Winston 0.073mm (0.003in.)." page 72. Peter ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 23:55:09 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Lucinda Sewell Subject: Re: 4.9 foundation Comments: cc: deelusbybeekeeper , Erik Osterlund , bobhog@pin.co.nz MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all, I would not go as far as Barry Birkey in saying the large size and smaller bees are different animals, but wonder how accurate the results at http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Misc/CellCountResults.htm can be? I stopped measuring cells very soon after starting. I couldn't even post my 'results'. In my opinion the measurements are dependent on the size of the bee that made them (and hence its cell size), human differences in measuring (right down to error of parallax) and our unconscious selection. On wild comb I've found 10 brood cells in a row to vary wildly in size... Brood cells. There is too much variation all round. Regular precision like honeycomb? Hmmmm... maybe on man made foundation plates. What clinched it for me as NEEDING FURTHER RESEARCH was seeing a colony draw starter 5.7 strips placed in the fringe of the broodnest down to roughly 5.1 in no generation. This year I have drawn 4.9 combs with varying success in the fringes of broodnests. Those ugly combs get laid in and workerbees emerge. They look smaller to me. I am of the opinion you can't draw smaller comb without smaller bees. The history is lost, even that of 30 years ago. We'll never know what size bees Wedmore had, let alone Plato. At least New Zealand have the chutzpah to "suck it and see" and will trial the 4.9 with pros doing the measuring and counting. Funny that, UK and USA must have 100 times the resources...yet the Kiwis pick up the rolling ball... My best 4.9 colony (I've watched that queen rejecting larger cells and laying in smaller) just got Snelgroved, similar to the shook swarm yet gentler, and drew out a box of very good 4.9. Dee has told me her bees will go smaller still on starters, and Erik Osterlund in Europe has hybrids containing some Monticola on 4.8 comb. There lies what to me is the crux of the matter...this magic size is the natural size of the dread AHB. Dee Lusby is in Arizona, worse still in Tucson. A centre of the greatest bee news sensation. The Lusbys use every feral swarm they can to draw comb, although they requeen. Can they possibly have kept their line pure? Dee says (forcibly) YES. Several clever people have told me developmental time is the key...and the African bees develop faster. Dee has been breeding for faster queen development too...1/3 cellsize, 1/3 diet...and 1/3 bee (breeding). My sci fi gut says all bees carry the genetics to be any bee, so can we 'breed' the African speed without the 'killer' defense system? I dunno, but results in Berkshire say yes...you can draw the comb smaller. Fairly easily too. My ferals aren't very African 'tho I wonder how much African is in my local bees ancestry. Another problem is the technique of downsizing will seriously control varroa too. Each shook swarm leaves behind mites, and I'm sure you could extend the life of colonies. Not harvest much maybe, but... There are still as many questions as answers...and they shouldn't be being 'researched' by beginners like me. We leap to misbegotten conclusions like the truth is inextricably entangled with AHB at the whiff of an odd AHB question on one bee list coinciding with the announcement of 4.9 stock going to be for sale on another. Luckily I have no axe to grind but my own wish to keep bees naturally and with minimum input. Dee Lusby's method seems to make sense (although her passion is often overwhelming, and her logic frequently beyond me). This post is cc'ed to Dee Lusby. I find it really strange that 23 posts in 2 days mention Dee Lusby and her 'theory' (is it still a theory if it works for her?) yet none are authored by her or addressed to her. I have no idea of any history that may be behind this...I have read this list for about a year only, and kept bees for only slightly longer, but it seems really weird that so few actually try and see. I'm not saying convert 2000 colonies as a 'beleiver' (I'm the original doubting Thomas) but get the 'trained professionals' down to Arizona to see...do a mite test, measure the nest temperature, put down a commercial migratory pallet in the desert and compare...or is repeating forage distance experiments with sonar and pcs instead of numbered discs and column graphs REALLY more worthy? John Sewell, the author of this message does not claim copyright. Indeed, tomorrow he may not even agree with the content. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 06:33:17 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Marc Studebaker Subject: Re: BEE-L Digest - 5 Jul 2001 to 6 Jul 2001 (#2001-183) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> The ONLY time to use an Imirie Shim is between SUPERS DURING A NECTAR FLOW! > >And no one ever combines colonies during a flow? I beleive an upper entrance can be important during a honey flow. For upper entrances I use auger holes in my honey supers. I use shims for other various management purposes all during the year, but have never used them between honey supers during a flow. This is my question for the list. Are shims used this way a violation of bee space and wouldn't this space be filled with burr comb during a flow? Marc Studebaker Geneva, IN. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 11:49:41 +0100 Reply-To: Dave Cushman Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dave Cushman Subject: Re: 4.9 foundation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all According to many papers I have read on detection of AHB (mainly American in origin) and in particular ABJ Dec 1991 p782 & p783. The majority of colonies considered to be AHB produced 4.9 mm cells and 2.05% of such colonies produced 5.0 mm cells and that if 4.9 mm cells and 5.0 mm cells were considered as "Africanised" the number of false positives would be low. I take this to mean that there is a demarcation between AHB & EHB at about 5.0 mm and there may be a slight overlap. Most of this work was done 1987-89 Barry Sergeant informs us... > today our "natural" wild scutellata swarms construct cells between 4.3 > and 4.7mm - of own choice. >From the above we can infer that either, AHB and scutellata are not the same thing, or if we accept that scutellata is AHB then something else must have caused the shift in cellsize in the Americas. As we only see bees larger than 5.1 cellsize in the "developed world" where foundation has been used for a century or so, is it not possible that the whole population of bees, that the morphometric studies were conducted on, were larger because all managed bees on foundation exibit an enlargement? There are some that do not accept that foundation sizes have increased over the last century. Fine I have no "time machine" to go back and collect the evidence but... If this enlargement has not occured why then have queen excluder grid spacings increased from 4.2 mm up to 4.9 mm over that period? and why has the bee space dimension gradually increased from 6 mm to 9 mm? (part of the answer to the last question lies in timber seasoning but there has been an increase in bee space allowance over the last 150 years.) The largest bee that occurs in the "wild" appears to be the high altitude variant of "Montecola" with a cellsize of 5.0 - 5.1 mm. I do not think it unreasonable to suggest that a low altitude upper limit of 5.00 mm for the developed world, would have existed prior to 1850 as this would fit the relationship with Barry's present day scuts. None of the above amounts to "proof" but they all seem to point in the same direction. I am quite prepared to be wrong, but at the moment I chose to adopt the stance that foundation enlargement has occurred. I do not know what the results will be when I have regressed my bees to a cellsize that that I consider would have been "natural" 120 years ago. The question so often raised... what happens to swarms and combs that are raised from plain wax starters? I answer this with another question, If the bees are already enlarged why would they not continue to build enlarged comb? I however if they are "kickstarted" by small celled starter strips then only after a few generations they will return to a smaller size, albeit with a few "ugly" transitions, even though the enlargement took place over thousands of generations in small incremental steps. We are using the term "regression" which has overtones of the bees being forced to do something unnatural. I consider that the regression is merely returning things to the "status quo" of 120 years ago. Regards From:- Dave Cushman, G8MZY Beekeeping and Bee Breeding, http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman IBList Archives, http://website.lineone.net/~d.cushman ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 12:27:55 +0200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: dr pedro p rodriguez Subject: Re: 4.9 foundation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi folks. Thanks to all who reponded to my request for Pettis and Shimanuki's ABJ report on screened bottom boards. Thanks to the generosity of Bee-L'ers. we now have our report which will be very useful to us. Thank all again, and have a happy week end. Best regards. Dr. Rodriguez ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 01:32:18 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: 4.9 foundation In-Reply-To: <200107140514.f6E5EQ806776@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > ...wonder how accurate the results... > can be? I stopped measuring cells very soon after starting.... In my opinion > the measurements are dependent on the size of the bee that made them (and > hence its cell size), human differences in measuring (right down to error > of parallax) and our unconscious selection. On wild comb I've found 10 brood > cells in a row to vary wildly in size... Brood cells. There is too much > variation all round. Regular precision like honeycomb? Hmmmm... maybe on man > made foundation plates. Very insightful comments and questions, IMO. Your comments point out upon statistical aspects of the problem and pitfalls with assumptions and biases that are inherent in human observation and reasoning. Unfortunately, these are the tools we are forced to use as we stumble and grope towards a better understanding. However, knowing the weaknesses of our methods, and examining these tools is always worthwhile. It helps us to circumvent and extrapolate beyond their limitations. The method we use to measure cells -- natural and foundation drawn -- is designed to average the size over a number of cells. This also results in reducing the parallax and bias errors by a factor of ten, due to the ten cell count. We know cells on any comb vary. In some conditions the variation is greater than in others. Interestingly, Dave has taken upon himself to examine and measure individual cells. I'm staying tuned. The results are bound to be fascinating. Any system that forces bees to build unnaturally constant-sized cells on a flat surface is necessarily artificial. Throughout the countless eons, bees apparently have made their own combs according to their own designs. When examining combs from a feral colony, sometimes the free-built combs we see are regular -- almost as regular as those made on foundation -- but always there is some variation and we usually find cells of 'transitional' sizes. Apparently worker brood is raised in cells that range in size when bees are left to their own devices. Foundation is a man-made idea and a man-made product. Because it is 'unnatural', I think we need to examine the assumptions behind any idea that imposes any one particular dimension or set of dimensions on comb building throughout any one colony, and even more, on all the colonies of honey bees in a region -- which necessarily includes bees of diverse genetics. This examination very much should include even the manufacture and use of the everyday commercial or home-made foundation virtually all of us use. I noticed in reading the literature (while trying to understand this whole cell size controversy) that Root recognised this one-size-fits-all problem fairly early on. I personally attribute his initial slight increase in cell size after a few years experience to thinking that the cells of his first foundation were slightly constricting to a significant percentage of the bees he saw at the time, and to a belief that it was better to err on a little too big than a little too small. This was reasonable, but an assumption all the same -- and an assumption that is being strongly questioned now. > There are still as many questions as answers...and they shouldn't be being > 'researched' by beginners like me. Many large advances in human knowledge have been led by, or stimulated by, amateurs. In many of these things, the professional researchers are followers, not leaders, due to the nature of the system. > We leap to misbegotten conclusions... That's a risk, but we all learn from mistakes and misunderstandings -- if we allow ourselves to do so. We also become more discerning from experience. My impression is that this whole debate on BEE-L and sci.agriculture.beekeeping over the last months has been extremely useful. I believe that it has helped bring the issues and points of agreement -- and dispute -- on the topic to a focus in front of many diverse groups of participants and observers which might otherwise not have been exposed to the concepts. It has also brought new information to bear on the question. > Dee Lusby's method seems to make > sense (although her passion is often overwhelming, and her logic frequently > beyond me). Amen. While her method seems indisputable in that it obviously works for her, the theory gives me problems, attempts to replicate her success are still AFAIK far from complete. It has worked once work in practice, but can it work in theory? > This post is cc'ed to Dee Lusby. I find it really strange that 23 posts in 2 > days mention Dee Lusby and her 'theory' (is it still a theory if it works > for her?) yet none are authored by her or addressed to her. I have no idea > of any history that may be behind this...I have read this list for about a > year only, and kept bees for only slightly longer, but it seems really weird > that so few actually try and see. Perhaps some history -- all of which is documented in my personal archives and some on BEE-L -- is in order here. Over a year back, Dee emailed a series of large articles to BEE-L and other lists. The articles had *big* problems meeting BEE-L guidelines. Seemingly, AFAIK all the moderators agreed and deleted them without comment. I kept them, though. In short, the articles were massive, had serious formatting problems, and more, but were quite provocative. I personally was reluctant to see the articles die and after a few days I brought the matter up with the others. Subsequently we moderators contacted Dee and made some requests regarding format which she found unacceptable. I then suggested that someone edit (with permission) and reformat them and make them available on a web page, then post pointers to the site on BEE-L. Using pointers to a site, rather than posting to the list, is our standard procedure for large articles, binaries, and other massive content unsuitable to be emailed to list members, some of whom may be on slow, expensive, connections. Occasionally we provide a site if required. We discussed putting De's work on the web ourselves -- with permission -- due to the fact that Dee seemed have a nugget in there somewhere and we thought the ideas deserved to be exposed to the public -- and she did not seem to be prepared to do the job herself. The only two moderators who maintained web sites at that time were Barry and me. I was very busy, and, besides, Dee and I did not hit it off too well. I was delighted to see Barry pick up the ball. He did, and continues to do, a great job. You can see the edited articles at http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/index.htm Barry and I each read the material, and set out to examine the issue together. At that time, over a year ago, I even set up a separate mailing list to discuss just this issue. Initially, just bob, Dee, and Barry were subscribed, however, Dee never participated, so obviously it was not of much use -- and I am the only current subscriber. You can still see it, read the archives, and subscribe, at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/4dot9 At that time, I also set up a few pages to reflect my (limited) research into the matter. One of the first things I did was set up the conversion chart at http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Misc/CellCount.htm, since reading the articles without a Rosetta Stone was hugely confusing to me. I also asked for real world feedback which is at http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Misc/CellCountResults.htm That page is still accepting observations, so send them to me, allend@internode.net , direct if you have any. With that chart, I read what I could find and felt I was able to understand what I read. I soon found I could not agree with the conclusions many others reached. I concluded that the natural size is and always has been centred around 5.15 mm for the bees most of us use. I have often requested help in proving conclusions to the contrary, and have so far received some abuse and some pity, but no convincing documentation. My impression is that the 4.9 camp regards me as a backslider and Thomas, not worth saving from my ignorance. No matter. > I'm not saying convert 2000 colonies as a > 'beleiver' (I'm the original doubting Thomas) but get the 'trained > professionals' down to Arizona to see...do a mite test, measure the nest > temperature, put down a commercial migratory pallet in the desert and > compare... The truth is out there. allen http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 08:12:40 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Barry Sergeant Subject: Re: 4.9 foundation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi All This is on scutellata cell size, et al. In the 1983 edition of “Beekeeping in South Africa,” Anderson, Buys & Johannsmeier stated that adansonii (now scutellata) built worker cells of 4.84mm; capensis were given as 4.86mm. I have given the current natural scut worker cell size as ranging massively from 4.3mm to 4.7mm. And perhaps some speculation as to the reasons for this natural downsize retooling is appropriate. In the past two months, I have trapped hundreds of “wild” scuts in a commercial forest. I chose an area sterilised from other beekeepers to minimise capensis problems. Bee trapping in South Africa is our version of the package bee industry in other countries - but that you don’t pay (directly) for the bees! One has to assume, or even agree, that a swarm has to be quite healthy to occupy a trap box, draw comb, etc. I recently examined all the swarms in detail and discovered no capensis worker laying activity, but certainly saw dark bees. The capensis laying workers are sitting latent in these healthy colonies. But I think the point to be made is that these wild scuts propagate many, many generations in a single year. The wild scuts that succumb to varroa (or capensis, or whatever) simply cannot swarm. The implication must be that the captured swarms - which all carry varroa - are coping with the mite. The conclusion may be that downsized wild scuts are varroa resistant. The colonies I examined were healthy in every other respect - great expanses of beautiful new white wax, solid nice coloured brood, zero brood diseases, piles of stored pollen and honey stores you can hardly cope with if your primary activity is queen breeding. If you refer to the diseases and pests the scut has dealt with historically, perhaps it has already made heavy inroads into coping with varroa. Just to mention a few - EB, chalkbrood, nosema, sacbrood, stone brood, dysentery, amoeba, septicaemia, bee tachinid, conopid fly, banded bee pirate, yellow bee pirate, braula, dead head’s moth, bee scorpion, various hive beetles, various wax moths, ants, termites, not to even mention mammals. Is it any wonder wild scuts are so bad tempered? As to Bob’s question on the large hive beetle, cetoniidae, these are rarely in evidence. And quite often, when you do find them, the bees have sealed them into a propolis mummy. The small hive beetle - aethina tumida - is far more common, but limited to one or two individuals per wild swarm. In general terms, one of the attributes of the scut is its advanced hygiene - which is totally separate from the cell size issue. For example, small hive beetles will be relentlessly hounded around a nest; their eggs and larvae are persistently destroyed. Take the example of where hive hygiene breaks down following capensis worker activity. In summer, especially, a big hive with lots of honey stores that has fallen to capensis a few weeks before turns into a seething cauldron of beetle and moth larvae. The affected combs are powerfully disgusting and stink to high heaven; your stomach turns and you better have not had a night out. The scut’s hygiene history, along with the evident shrinking natural cell size, may pose some answers as to how this race of bee is adapting to varroa. As to development time, I have no figures on the current scut worker. But queen grafts (of pedigreed larvae) emerge almost exactly 10 days later. With 12 hour old larvae, this suggests a queen development cycle of less than 14 days. In 1983, said authors stated 18-20 days for a scut worker and 19-20 for capensis, vs. 20-21 for “European.” As to John Sewell’s fascination with the possibility of a docile African bee, this has been done! Just from fresh memory, I recently introduced a “left over” pedigreed virgin to a wild colony here at my home base, experimenting with those little plastic cells you dip in hot wax and drill out a 2.5mm hole (on Dave Cushman’s kind advice). I checked the bees out a few hours later. The queen had been eaten out of the cell and accepted and the colony was totally docile. So there you have it: this virgin’s scent was sufficient to calm an established colony of wild bees. Imagine how calm they will be when the queen has mated and starts laying! And the final stage, when all the bees in the hive are her progeny. I was thinking of posting some photographs on the Internet, but bee pictures just never seem to work. You’ll just have to visit. Barry Sergeant Kyalami South Africa ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 11:55:50 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Barry Birkey Subject: Re: 4.9 foundation In-Reply-To: <200107121440.f6CEee828106@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Hello Bob - >> Have I missed somehow the proof that EHB used 4.9 before foundation. > > Safe ground Allen! You know the small cell camp can not prove 4.9mm was the > original size. I believe the *five cells to the inch* to BE a average > number. Some could have been smaller and some larger. Root and others tried > to give a simple answer when a very exact measurement would have solved the > mystery. Also a explanation of the way they measured. If we are going to accept Root's early observation, that *five cells to the inch* was an average, as being correct (we assume he wasn't lying here), then we must also accept with equal correctness what Cowan wrote in reply to Root: "You say, "It has been said over and over again in bee-books and bee-journals, that there are five cells of worker comb to the inch, so that we have come to believe it;'' also that Cook is the only authority you have run across who says worker-cells are a little more than 1/5 inch; but in my book you will find that, out of 36 measurements that were taken, I found the greatest aggregate diameters of any one series of ten cells to amount to 2.11 inches, which you see makes them considerably larger than 1/5 inch. On the other hand, the least came to 1.86, which makes them smaller." (http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/bcapr1898.htm) We see Cowan finding cells as large as 2.11" (5.3mm) and as small as 1.86" (4.7mm). All of these falling in the category of 'average.' I have always seen 4.9 as a size that is well within the normal sizes found in bees of that time. That is good enough for me. Now the more important issue is getting on with finding out why bees of this size are able to coexist with varroa and do it all over the country. Regards, Barry ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 11:04:51 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: 4.9 foundation In-Reply-To: <200107141632.f6EGWn824197@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > There are some that do not accept that foundation sizes have increased over > the last century... I have never met anyone who contested that foundation sizes have increased over the last century. We all know that the increase in size is well documented, and we also know now that there are extremes in the region of 5.7 mm in common use in Europe today. What we do not know is what this means and what the effects are -- for certain. Thanks to Dee, we have become very aware that the popular standard foundations currently sold throughout North America all employ a slightly larger cell than the median size that free bees in our regions are observed to build. Some foundations use a cell closer to that mean than others. For example Permadent cells are slightly larger than Pierco's. One original reason for making cells slightly large was that quality control on wax foundation making can be inconsistent and consequently the cells can vary in size over one sheet or batch and measure differently in one direction than another. Foundation makers had a number of reasons to think that larger was better than smaller and consequently, since some error was inevitable, decided to err in the direction of larger. A second and separate reason for increasing cell size was the popularity of the notion that bees could be made bigger by increasing cell size and that this size increase would be beneficial. We all accept that foundation cell base sizes have been increased since the inception of wax foundation, but what is not as widely accepted -- and not at all well proven -- is the notion that bees one hundred years ago and more were smaller and naturally built smaller cells than their direct descendants today. For that matter, even if it were true that some bees in common use in some particular areas had smaller cells, there is no evidence that the genetics of bees today in the same regions are at all the same and that such information has any bearing on how to best accommodate our present bee stock. In fact, it is very certain that the bees we use now are considerably different genetically from those in widespread use 100 years back and more. Add to that the fact that accidental and deliberate introductions of bee stock have occurred virtually everywhere, and the whole question becomes hopelessly murky. Comparing the bees of the century before last to the current stocks is a case of comparing apples and oranges. > but... If this enlargement has not occurred why then have queen > excluder grid spacings increased from 4.2 mm up to 4.9 mm over that period? > and why has the bee space dimension gradually increased from 6 mm to 9 mm? Great questions. I hope to hear some answers. allen http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/ --- Don't worry about temptation -- as you grow older, it starts avoiding you. -- Old Farmer's Almanac ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 13:16:11 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: 4.9 foundation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dave Cushman wrote: > >From the above we can infer that either, AHB and scutellata are not the same > thing, or if we accept that scutellata is AHB then something else must have > caused the shift in cellsize in the Americas. > As we only see bees larger than 5.1 cellsize in the "developed world" where > foundation has been used for a century or so, is it not possible that the > whole population of bees, that the morphometric studies were conducted on, > were larger because all managed bees on foundation exibit an enlargement? > The largest bee that occurs in the "wild" appears to be the high altitude > variant of "Montecola" with a cellsize of 5.0 - 5.1 mm. I do not think it > unreasonable to suggest that a low altitude upper limit of 5.00 mm for the > developed world, would have existed prior to 1850 as this would fit the > relationship with Barry's present day scuts. Dave, Might the difference in cell size (and bee) be due to the climate each inhabits? Survival would seem to dictate a smaller bee in hotter climates and a larger one in cold or temperate climates, as seems to be the case from your comments. What we look on as a small increase, .1 or .2mm, would add the cube of that increase to the mass of the bee and increase its potential to survive cold climate overwintering better than a smaller bee. You hit a happy medium between increasing the mass and retaining excellent flying and foraging ability, so 5.0 or 5.1 may be the best fit for a cold weather/high altitude bee and 4.9 and smaller for a bee in hotter climates. Bill Truesdell Bath, ME ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 12:33:50 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: 4.9 foundation In-Reply-To: <200107141705.f6EH5t824820@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > We see Cowan finding cells as large as 2.11" (5.3mm) and as small as 1.86" > (4.7mm). All of these falling in the category of 'average.' I think that is closer to 5.4 mm than 5.3, making the mean to be over 5, but I get your point. > I have always seen 4.9 as a size that is well within the normal sizes found in bees of > that time. That is good enough for me. Just because it is within the normal range does not mean that downsizing will not have deleterious effects on that portion of the population that normally uses the upper end of the range. Procrustes, as I recall had a solution that seems to me somewhat analogous. Visit www.mythweb.com/teachers/why/basics/procrustes.html > Now the more important issue is getting on with finding out why bees of this size > are able to coexist with varroa This true. > and do it all over the country. AFAIK, this remains to be proven, as does the question of what, if any, undesirable effects may accompany this management. I am glad to see that the investigations continue and hope that the results a provide at least one more piece of the puzzle of reducing our dependence on chemical solutions to our bee pest and disease problems. allen ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 12:23:57 -0600 Reply-To: Dennis Murrell Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dennis Murrell Subject: Varroa blaster update and other observations MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello, I have taken my most varroa infest hive, a cordovan italian, and treated = it with powdered sugar every 4 days for a total of 4 treatments. This = hive was severly infested with varroa. Wing damaged bees were evident = crawling outside the hive and the bees were removing infested larva.=20 Mite fall was monitored immediately after treatment and daily between = treatments using a tray to catch fall mites beneath an 8 mesh screened = bottom board. After three treatments mite fall had decreased to less than one mite per = day. The fourth treatment dropped only one mite and subsequent daily = mite fall has been zero! Are the 4 treatments at 4 days critical? Probably not, as varroa feed = and quest for 2 to 6 days or more before entering another cell for = mating. The length of treatment is probably more critical as varroa with = the youngest sealed brood would not emerge it the time was shorter. If you want to treat for varroa and don't want chemicals in your hive or = hive products then this method method might work for you. It is labor intensive, requires several frequent hive visits and = probably won't work for a commercial beekeeper unless he could build an = effective "super sonic turbo varroa blaster" out of that bee blower = setting in the corner or devise a varroa "sugar tunnel of terror" for = the hive entrance :>) Mites are really great acrobats. When flipped on their back they snap = vertically into the air, roll 180 degrees and land on their feet. Powder = sugared mites loose their snap. If they land on their back and cannot = grab onto something with their feet they spend the rest of their life = waving good bye. Best Wishes Dennis Murrell (noting: dead bees are really dull to watch and draw no 4.9 mm comb)=20 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 13:10:55 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: dan hendricks Subject: Bees in Wall MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Re: Swarm suction device using a shop vac: See , "PSBA Forum". Dan __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 15:05:25 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Barry Birkey Subject: Re: 4.9 foundation In-Reply-To: <200107141836.f6EIaU826314@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Allen - >> We see Cowan finding cells as large as 2.11" (5.3mm) and as small as 1.86" >> (4.7mm). All of these falling in the category of 'average.' > > I think that is closer to 5.4 mm than 5.3, making the mean to be over 5, but I > get your point. I stand corrected, 5.4 IS closer as the exact is 53.59mm. > Just because it is within the normal range does not mean that downsizing will > not have deleterious effects on that portion of the population that normally > uses the upper end of the range. Procrustes, as I recall had a solution that > seems to me somewhat analogous. Visit > www.mythweb.com/teachers/why/basics/procrustes.html The big difference here is that no one is suggesting 'chopping off the legs' of the bee if it doesn't fit the cell. If a bee doesn't like the fit, it won't build the cell. How is using 4.9 size foundation any different than you or anyone else using their size? Any beekeeper who uses foundation is discriminating then. If you are using 5.2mm foundation in your hives, aren't you as equally concerned about the deleterious effects this may be having on those bees that fall out of your selected size? If so, why haven't you stopped using the single cell size foundation and gone to letting the bees draw their own comb, that would include all the sizes? While I understand the point you are trying to make, the fact that bees have been handling foundation for over 100 years should have some bearing on this. When bees want to build drone cells, they will do it regardless of the worker cell size. I just don't see this as a big issue. >> and do it all over the country. > > AFAIK, this remains to be proven, as does the question of what, if any, > undesirable effects may accompany this management. Poor wording on my part. I meant to say "and to be able to do it..." It does need to be proven, it is in the process of having some things proven, and so far the biggest undesirable effect is that it requires a lot of work. Regards, Barry ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 18:29:19 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: grumpy7 Subject: Red-eyed drones MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Saw a couple of large red-eyed drones today in an Italian hive. They seemed larger than normal drones, and besides the red eyes they had some reddishness on their thoraces. Random mutations, or a sign of trouble? Walter Weller ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 23:50:20 +0100 Reply-To: pdillon@club-internet.fr Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter Dillon Organization: La Marne Subject: Re: 4.9 foundation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Excellent material relating to cell size - thanks to all who have shared their experiences and thoughts! But then I ask myself - why all the comment? If it is related to V.j. control, if so and then presuming that it is possible to regress the corporal size of the A.m.m. over a few generations - why stop at cell size 4.7mm? Why not continue below, gradually reducing the cell size, 4.6, 4.5mm and observe the effects on V.j. reproduction. It may come across a brick wall as far as the A.m.m. is concerned - maybe my thoughts are "ridiculous" to those with far more experience in the relevant field - but it seems to me it is necessary to hold on to the original reason for discussion. There is no need to change cell size without a valid reason - and the pressing reason to me is the battle against V.j. AND, who is going to grasp the nettle and follow this through so that the results are validated with the proper scientific protocols with repetition? It is fine that private individuals take up the challenge - but resources are limited (time and cash) and the organisation required is staggering. It again seems to me that it is a reflection of the status of the industry today (and maybe previous) that we appear to be left adrift to sort out very pressing questions without the support afforded to other branches of the agricultural sector. This mail reflects the position today - questions without the proper resources to answer them even though it is recognised that beekeepers are a vital link in the agricultural industry!! Peter ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 13:32:36 +1200 Reply-To: paul@ww.co.nz Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Paul D Brown Subject: No Floor, cluster depths & screen floors MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi All, You can learn a lot about your bees by monitoring the comings and goings at the entrance - numbers, pollen carriers, the dead and sick ones, BUT IF you have NO FLOOR and a sub 'floor' flap that opens at the rear, you can lie there (on the wet grass) and see the cluster size, the bottom frame bee coverage as well as the entrance comings and goings, almost as good as an observation hive! AND there is a 'regular little caring-sharing community' of spiders and webs, snails on the sides, with a surprisingly 'clear' ground beneath. Well that's the way it LOOKS. I expected to see at least a few dead bees on the ground under my floorless hives, but that is not so. The bees must carried out the dead and dying BEFORE they 'fall', perhaps a trait inherited from their 'wild hollow tree' forbearers. I seldom see a bee on the actual 'clear' ground under the floorless hives. SO The floorless hives have passed the shortest day here in the Southern Hemisphere, Auckland, New Zealand with no apparent problems. DETAILS The West and North hives are floorless'. (no screen, nothing) The sub-floor volume is enclosed on all sides by a 6mm tanalised plywood surround (or stand) 250mm above the bare ground. The rear wall of this stand is hinged to open DOWNWARDs. The bees enter in the 'normal' manner through a 'winter entrance reducer'. A 10mm X 120mm opening. In summer, the entrance reducer will be removed and the rear flap (180mm X 280mm) left swung open for ALL to come and go and increase the ventilation. I have a 'white card' which can be laid on the ground via the rear opening flap, to catch all 'fall' material over, say, a 24 hour period, for mite counts and general 'health' monitoring. I have measured the distance the 'bee cluster' extends below the bottom frame bar at dusk. (by opening the rear flap and inserting a scale on a stick) Date 8April 15 Apr 22Apr 29Apr 12May 22May 29May 19June 14 July North hive 40mm 55mm 68 40* 37 20 15 18 22 West hive 30mm 55mm 50 55 45 30 35 38 38 Temperature/C 11 8 11 Cheers Paul b. ..... you will only find out if it WORKS for you, by TRYING IT.........(can I claim this quote?)