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 2362724AE26 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 12:46:54 -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 h03GhO3f010284 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 12:46:53 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200301031746.h03GhO3f010284@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 LOG0107E" To: adamf@IBIBLIO.ORG Content-Length: 57091 Lines: 1247 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 11:12:53 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Alan Riach Subject: Lime Tree (Linden/Basswood) honey taste MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I've always found Lime honey to taste exactly that - Limey - it always tastes to me like the citrus lime lemonade (soda) we had as kids. Why the Lime(European name) or Basswood(USA name) tree (Tiliaceae) should yield honey tasting slightly of the citrus lime fruit (Rutaceae) I've never had explained to me- perhaps just one of Mother Nature's great coincidences. Maybe one of the botanists on the list can shed some light. Lime honey is here considered one of the finest honeys, almost in the same connoisseur category as Heather. Alan Riach Bathgate -Scotland ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 05:54:05 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: Entrance on the long side MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is known as the "warm way" although it probably makes no difference to temperature. I use it all the time although my boxes (British national) are square so there is no long side. It has the handling advantages Frank mentions. Also there is a tendency for bees to store honey towards the rear of the brood box and have the brood towards the front. In summer this makes it easier to find the queen. In winter the stores are in one block that they can chomp through. There is thus marginally less chance of them sufferrng isolation starvation when they have eaten all the stores on one side of the box and it is too cold for them to move across to the stores on the other side. Chris ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 05:53:59 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: Pheromones affect humans? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I don't know the answer to this but as human pheromones can affect bees (they can detect and react to the smell of your fear, for example) it seems plausible that the reverse can also apply to some extent. One for the students I think. Chris ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 05:53:57 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: Collecting wax MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit June Hughes who was lecturing on wax at Gormanston a couple of days ago described how bees move wax around in a hive. She discovered this by adding sheets of coloured foundation to the brood box. Parts were nibbled away and the colours appeared in the super where the bees needed more wax at the time. Chris ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 13:02:17 -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: Collecting wax In-Reply-To: <200107291351.f6TDpd803720@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Hi Chris - When you say 'in the super', do you mean honey supers or brood chambers? If honey supers, did they contain drawn comb or just foundation? Can you give more detail about this? -Barry > Parts were nibbled away and > the colours appeared in the super where the bees needed more wax at the time. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 21:30:57 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: HStarJE@AOL.COM Subject: shaking vs. brushing bees MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >Hold a frame over the open hive with a frame holder in your left hand >and strike an end bar sharply a couple of times with the heel of >your right hand and most of the bees will fall off.=A0 Or without a frame holder use CC Miller's technique: Hold a frame resting the "ears" on your bent forefingers (hands shaped in a=20 loose fist). Quickly lift it with an abrupt action and let the frame hit you= r=20 poised thumbs. Do this 2-3 times in rapid succession, bouncing frame between= =20 fingers and thumbs. the bees will pop off the frame into the hive. Cesar Flores Colorado USA ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 02:27:58 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: James Ralston Subject: Re: possible menthol-contaminated honey? In-Reply-To: <200107252213.f6PMDr820923@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII In response to the replies to my post... The appearance of the "menthol" honey is light and cloudy, perhaps a tiny bit darker than typical clover honey. It's not granulated at all. The only description of the honey is "pure natural honey". The apiary label made no attempt to describe the source of the honey. The apiary label also lists a telephone number, so I might just call the apiary directly and ask them if they could hypothesize as to the honey's source... -- James Ralston Pittsburgh, PA, USA ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 11:23:45 PDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: QUB Subject: Re: GM Bees Comments: cc: j.a.p.earle@qub.ac.uk MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Hi, I am just back from my hols nad had to wade through a stack of e-mails but this one caught my eye. I have always wondered what would happen if transgenic technology could be applied to honeybees. I have not seen the posts that Allen refered to but here goes...... This is sure to generate some interesting disscussions and I'm off on hols again in 3 days ...... For those who may be unfamiliar with the concepts, basically genes (forgein or self) can be inserted, removed or modified. The fear from the general public is that the insertion of forgein genes along with antibiotic markers used in clonning processes may cause problems later in food chains etc.... I understand these fears, but if genes relating to antibiotic restance were removed or not used at all and the modifications involved adding more of the same bee DNA or removing DNA would that be acceptible ? What would happen if someone discovered a gene that could confer or help with resistance to honeybees against varroa. For example, supose the gene/s controlling hygenic behaviour were found. Over expression by adding more copies of the gene or knocking out any inhibitory control (if it exists) on the hygenic gene could produce a super hygenic bee. we know that karomones are involved in the relationship between larvae and varroa mite. If the attraction between larvae and varroa mite was removed then a resistant bee would emerge. Again, by knocking out specific genes related to larval karamone production by transgenic methods (note - not adding any forgein or antibiotic DNA) then maybe a resistant bee could be produced. Swarming? what would happen if queen substance could be over produced by over expressing genes involved, the urge for swarming would be reduced - bees that dont swarm? good or bad? not too good for feral populations. You have to realize that identifying genes and understanding the complex relationships between genes and their products is by no means an easy task and is very expensive. Once genes are identified and clonned then transgenic honeybees will become a reality, its already been achived in fruit flies! Phil On Mon, 23 Jul 2001 04:25:49 -0600 Allen Dick wrote: > From: Allen Dick > Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 04:25:49 -0600 > Subject: GM Bees > To: BEE-L@LISTSERV.ALBANY.EDU > > I've noticed reference to proposed genetic modifications in honeybees in several > recent posts, but have not read or heard anything else about the topic. Is > something being proposed? If so, by whom, and to what ends? > > allen > > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 10:08:37 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob & Liz Subject: GM Bees MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Phil & All, I personally do not see the need for GM technology applied to honey bees. All the traits you describe allready exist in honey bees and only need to be brought out through selective breeding. I (unlike many beekeepers and researchers) believe the gene pool is to small in the U.S. and now that we have got tracheal mites and varroa importations of queens from other countries should be allowed within reason. Beekeepers which took many of the world beekeeping tours offered over the last decade report bees with qualities which would improve our U.S. stocks. Although all traits can be bred for, using a queen which allready has those traits in your breeding program shortens the process. Sincerely, Bob Harrison Odessa, Missouri Ps. Glad somebody is getting a holiday! High moisture content honey is causing a huge slow down in processing the midwest honey crop. Even sealed honey is testing a moisture content over 19.5 % in many cases. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 21:58:10 +0100 Reply-To: pdillon@club-internet.fr Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter Dillon Organization: La Marne Subject: Re: GM Bees MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Bob, This is going to be a little like trying to open Pandora's box - and saying what will happen before one knows what is in the box and how it will react. You state that all the required traits are already exist in honey bees and only needs to be selected by judicious breeding. How do you support your comment? It is possible that genes are present in the pool - either in the States or elsewhere; and if this is the case then as you state, breeding in the correct direction will eventually allow for a resistant bee type. BUT what if this trait is not present in the bee genome - and this is the crux of the matter, what then? The possibility is that it might exist elsewhere and via manipulation, the trait could be transplanted - technically possible, if not now, then in the future. Or, we wait for the bee to naturally die out due to it being at a disadvantage (ignoring the unnatural treatments that take place at the present). On the other hand the bee population may mutate and produce a population that is resistant. The problem at the moment is that there is a fear of the unknown and inability to correct any mistakes in genetic manipulation - but there exists a big problem with a short fuse attached. Acceptance of the manipulation would be more acceptable If each gene expression was simple and had no "knock on effect" . This appears not to be the case - as many past experiences have shown. With improved knowledge showing that invariably systems are complex and inter linked. Change one item and a lot of other hither unknown factors are changed as well. So, the problem is - take the risk and the route of genetic manipulation with its possible remedy to present day problems, but land ourselves with many more (who can say that this is true or not), or, Wait for natural selection, again with its unknown consequences. Or, continue using crude poisons. Hopefully, the trait is present in the bee population and we should be looking for it - BEFORE adding alien material to the sauce that might result in a soup too hot to eat! But it might not be there! Peter ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 17:09:26 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob & Liz Subject: GM Bees Comments: To: pdillon@CLUB-INTERNET.FR MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Peter & All, > You state that all the required traits are already exist in honey bees > and only needs to be selected by judicious breeding. How do you support > your comment? > It is possible that genes are present in the pool - either in the States > or elsewhere; and if this is the case then as you state, breeding in the > correct direction will eventually allow for a resistant bee type. I can't think of a trait which I need which is not present in the U.S. at the present time. Bees were available as early as 1953 which were resistant to AFb. Treating with chemicals was the choice of most beekeepers so the work of Park, Pellet, Paddock and Rothenbuhler went mostly without the respect it deserved. Rothenbuhler isolated two genes which were responsible for bees resistant to American foul brood. Steve Tabor has bees in his apiary today which when inoculated with AFB will clean the cells and not contract the disease (ABF vol. 141 no.8 pg 556) We know bees bred resistant to tracheal mites are possible and have been around for quite a while (Brother Adam -Buckfast bee) The USDA in Baton Rouge is working on a Suppress Mite Reproduction bee. It is to early now to say for sure they are the solution we are looking for but positive results are showing up I looked at my first queens from Dr. Harbo's yellow line today. Step one in a long journey. It will be two years before I will know for sure if they are truly varroa resistant. Other beekeepers will make claims before they are sure but I will not for at least two years. If SMR bees live past the two year mark without chemical treatment then I will post my opinion on the net. Dr. Harbo *might* have done in six years what Dr. Shiminuki and others guessed might take around twenty years. My point about new queens from outside the U.S. was in reference to bees in Germany you can stroke with bare fingers like pets or bees in Australia which don't propolize everything up. Bees from around the world from lines which rarely swarm even when crowded. Other than the Buckfast semen & Russian bees we have not had any legal importation's in over 70 years. Sincerely, Bob Harrison Odessa, Missouri ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 19:59:07 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: Collecting Wax MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit My understanding from the aside at the lecture is that the bees nibbled wax from the bottom of brood foundation and transferred it to the honey super. I expect you are ahead of me in thinking of the implications arising from this. I suggest you get direct information from the horse's mouth as I am just piggy in the middle (to mix my metaphors). You need to talk to June at norman.june@talk21.com (and she is nothing like a horse!) Chris ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 16:54:38 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: dan hendricks Subject: Contaminants in wax MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi, Listers. Can't an analogy be made between absorption of substances by wax and adsorption of odors and tastes by activated charcoal? The contaminants previously adsorbed by the charcoal are not released to the substances subsequently being cleaned but rather contaminants continue to be adsorbed. So since beeswax has such a strong affinity for PDB, fluvalinate, etc., why should we expect it later to transfer those substances to honey? Wouldn't it be more likely actually to clean the honey, just like charcoal does? I would think people's intuition should not be used to answer this but rather to rely on careful scientific measuring. It would be instructive to know precisely what percentages of contaminants absorbed in the wax would be large enough that the honey would "wash" them out of the wax. Dan __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 23:45:44 -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: Contaminants in wax In-Reply-To: <200107310417.f6V4Hs823857@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit dan hendricks wrote: > So since beeswax has such a > strong affinity for PDB, fluvalinate, etc., why should we expect it > later to transfer those substances to honey? I can sight one reference I know of. American Bee Journal, August, 1999 by JEAN-DANIEL CHARRIERE and ANTON IMDORF "PDCB is a highly volatile and lipophilic (easily soluble in fat and wax) substance. Beeswax can take up this material and a part of it may later migrate into honey. Honey analyses from Germany and Austria show that PDCB residues in honey are not rare. This applies to native as well as imported honeys." Regards, Barry ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 03:42:12 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Barry Sergeant Subject: Bee photography I'm about to invest in a macro lens, in order to be able to photograph bees close up. I've checked out the manufacturers' claims, and listened to the salesmen. But I have a suspicion that I need some comments from experienced hands in the field. I want to be able to fill a printed postcard-sized photo with a worker bee, as a minimum requirement. I have a Pentax system, to be specific, and would like to stick with the brand. We're preparing for spring here, and I thought it may be a good idea to compile a portfolio of pics of all the aspects of scutellata life, for posting on the Internet. Under duress, I may even include a shot or two of capensis! Much thanks, Barry Sergeant Kyalami South Africa ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 10:42:38 +0100 Reply-To: Dave Cushman Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dave Cushman Subject: Re: Minty Honey? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all Some years ago we had some green, minty honey in UK. The cause was a dump of malformed chocolate coated, peppermint creme easter eggs. 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, 31 Jul 2001 07:22:22 -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: Contaminants in wax MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit dan hendricks wrote: > > Hi, Listers. Can't an analogy be made between absorption of > substances by wax and adsorption of odors and tastes by activated > charcoal? ...... Wouldn't it be more > likely actually to clean the honey, just like charcoal does? Activated charcoal usually has the material pass through it to remove the contaminant. The mechanism is, as you note, adsorption which is like moisture forming on your mirror- a surface mechanism. Absorption is what is happening with the contaminates and wax, as Barry noted. The material goes into solution and is homogeneous. You will get a transition zone at the honey/wax interface where the solubility of the contaminant in either will determine what and how much migrates between them. If the contaminant is at all soluble in honey, it will migrate from the wax to the honey and vice versa until it arrives at steady state. If the contaminant is not soluble in honey, the contaminant can still be in the honey but as a mixture and in suspension, brought there by the bees. It is neither absorbed nor adsorbed. So if it does come in contact with the wax, there can be absorption by the wax, the amount depends on the conditions at the interface and how soluble the contaminant is. But only at the interface, so all the rest of the contaminates will stay suspended in the honey/contaminant mixture. There may be some cleaning, but when you look at the total volume of honey compared to what comes in contact with the cell walls, there would be little. Bill Truesdell Bath, ME ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 11:54:26 +1200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Robert Mann Subject: Re: GM Bees In-Reply-To: <200107301341.f6UDfL827277@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Phil Earle wrote: > For those who may be unfamiliar with the concepts, basically genes >(forgein or self) can be inserted, removed or modified. The fear from the >general public is that the insertion of forgein genes along with antibiotic >markers used in clonning processes may cause problems later in food >chains etc.... I understand these fears, but if genes relating to antibiotic >restance were removed or not used at all and the modifications involved >adding more of the same bee DNA or removing DNA would that be >acceptible ? No. The processes used for these gene-tamperings are so radically different from any natural biological process that the gene-insertion processes themselves can cause unforeseen, indeed unforeseeable, deviant metabolism in the target cells. Study the brief account at http://www.i-sis.org/tryptophan.shtml - this is one of the several cases known. >What would happen if someone discovered a gene that could confer or >help with resistance to honeybees against varroa. For example, supose >the gene/s controlling hygenic behaviour were found. Over expression by >adding more copies of the gene or knocking out any inhibitory control (if it >exists) on the hygenic gene could produce a super hygenic bee. The assumptions here are a travesty of biology. Genes are NOT Lego modules that can be plugged into foreign organisms with predictable consequences. For some detail see http://www.psrast.org/ (as I have previously recommended). >If the attraction between larvae and varroa mite was >removed then a resistant bee would emerge. Again, by knocking out >specific genes related to larval karamone production by transgenic >methods (note - not adding any forgein or antibiotic DNA) then maybe a >resistant bee could be produced. This is a typical superficially plausible gene-jockey concept. There are very many things that could go wrong with any attempt to implement it. >Swarming? what would happen if queen substance could be over >produced by over expressing genes involved, the urge for swarming would >be reduced - bees that dont swarm? good or bad? not too good for feral >populations. ditto >You have to realize that identifying genes and understanding the complex >relationships between genes and their products is by no means an easy >task and is very expensive. full agreement here > Once genes are identified and clonned then >transgenic honeybees will become a reality, its already been achived in >fruit flies! The fruit fly _Drosophila_ has been far more studied by geneticists and biochemists than any bee. And what gene-splicing capers have achieved anything useful, even in the fruit fly? R - Robt Mann consultant ecologist P O Box 28878 Remuera, Auckland 1005, New Zealand (9) 524 2949 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 08:10:17 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Michael Housel Subject: Re: Bee photography MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I use a 300 mm telephoto lens with Macro and 800asa film. I can still follow bees and have a focus field that is large enough to get the picture of blossoms and bee. It is not computer ready and you have to develop film and scan into computer. I have a microscope connected to the computer for the internal parts that don't run around. (K wings) Movie cameras give you interesting film as you can get intereactions on still camera. Obversation hives give you the inside movement when glass is used, pelixglas will grain. I have used both glass and plastic on the observation hive. The plastic is on the inside and I slide it out leaving the glass to photo thur. Lighting should be a spot reflection. Flash can give you light refractions that are missed in the focus. Bellows lens give a camera a very short focal length and can only be used if super glue is used. Strobes can be used to get the wings in action to increase the 800 asa film to the 2500 to 5000 speed. Bees in water will give you the turbulence movement of the air with a DC battery light. Photograph art shows with the flowers and a bee can be an excellent education tool. If I can be of help email me direct for other applications. Michael Housel ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 08:34:02 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Aaron Morris Subject: Re: GM Bees MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" pdillon@CLUB-INTERNET.FR wrote: Subject: Re: GM Bees "BUT what if this trait is not present in the bee genome - and this is the crux of the matter, what then?" Most assuredly, the genes are out there. I just purchased a SMR Carniolan Queen from Glenn Apiaries which came with a very informative write up on John Harbo's work. I have not found the exact prose on Glenn's web page http://member.aol.com/queenb95/index.html but I suspect if one digs deep enough they'll find it. Bob's response was sufficient, there have been bees bred to be resistent to AFB and chalkbrood, and with concerted effort bees can be selected for any number of traits. But getting back to SMR and Glenn Apiaries' write up thereof, the reasons why bees exhibit SMR (Suppressive Mite Reproduction) are not known. However, it is assumed to be an additive effect. That is, there is no single gene credited to SMR, rather, it is attributed to an additive effect of a number of genes. Hence the SMR trait can be passed on to subsequent generations of open mated queens, even if some of the genes that contribute to SMR get suppressed int he next generation. The suppression of mite reproduction may not be as dramatic if some of the contributing genes regress, but there will still be better results than there would be starting from breeding stock with no SMR atrtibutes at all. In currently available SMR stock the additive effects have been selected as breeding criteria and continued effort will be needed to keep whatever is the combination from slipping back into a wild gene pool. The genes most assuredly are there and efforts can be successful to cultivate the combination to produce bees that suppress 100% of mite reproduction in worker brood (Vaddor d. still reproduces in SMR drones). Bob says it'll take at least 2 years to convince him that SMR really exists. The first time I heard Harbo hypothesize that the SMR trait is out there was perhaps 1995. John already has his 2 years of data plus a few years more. I'm sold that SMR exists and rue the funds I spent on open bottom boards and drone frames/foundation. As far as tinkering with genes to produce bees to resist varroa, I've got to agree with Bob that it's not necessary to tinker with genes when the desired results can be achieved through selective breeding. I think it a bit scary that people are so anxious to go the GMO route when it remains to be seen what will be the effects of the current experiment released upon us. What the hey, Pandora's box is already open, let's open it a little more..... Aaron Morris - thinking better bees through better breeding! ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 08:44:46 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "David L. Green" Subject: Re: Bee photography MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/31/01 4:53:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time, barry_sergeant@MYIAFRICA.COM writes: << I'm about to invest in a macro lens, in order to be able to photograph bees close up. I've checked out the manufacturers' claims, and listened to the salesmen. But I have a suspicion that I need some comments from experienced hands in the field >> I had a photography business years ago, and used mostly 35 mm. Last year I decided to take some closeups of wild and honey bees and other insects and got out my old equipment. I have never used a fully automatic 35, so perhaps my comments may lose some relevancy, but I think not, as I usually am in manual mode anyway. It was a real exercise in frustration. I have a big box full of prints, most of which I cannot use for anything, as they are not up to my standards. Bees are among the hardest subjects in the world to photograph. The tiniest bit of wind on the flower will move the subject in and out of focus. Bees move quickly, so you have to keep the shutter speed up, yet you want the lens stopped down for depth of field. Many times I've snapped the shutter only to have a picture of a bare flower, as the bee either spooked, or moved on to the next flower. Here's one of my 35 mm shots: http://pollinator.com/gallery/bumblebee3.htm This spring, when I retired from commercial beekeeping, I went digital and really got serious about the bee pics. For the cost of the wasted film, I could have done it much sooner and been money ahead. I have a Nikon Coolpix 990, and hope at some time in the near future to get a second, perhaps an Olympus E-10 or one of the newer and even better ones. I figure I've saved enough on film to pay for it. With digital you can fire away as fast as the camera will let you (sometimes I wish it were faster, but it's still a lot faster than 35) with no worries about wasted film, and no waiting to see the results. The quality is actually superior to anything I ever got with my Pentax Takumar lens. I have taken several thousand bee pictures this year, and will have a couple hundred that meet my standards. Many times I go thru the ones I have taken, and delete half or more within the camera before downloading them. In the computer, I go thru another round of deletion. Up to the point of printing photos there is little cost, only battery power. They are printed on a $100 Epson printer and can be simply gorgeous. Only a pro with a loupe could tell they are not film based prints. If you are not yet convinced to go digital, be prepared to spend a lot on film. But first try extension tubes before you invest in the higher cost of a macro lens for outmoded technology. I paid $30 for my extension tubes and used them mostly with a 105 mm lens that I already had. You could still get a cheaper digital camera for less than a good macro lens, and see if it works for you. The most important thing is to make sure it has pretty good macro capacity already built in. The Sony Mavicas are good starter cameras, and I was fortunate to have one available for practice, but not have to buy it, as I soon saw that I wanted more. Here's a Mavica 91 shot: http://pollinator.com/gallery/March/wasp_nest.htm Here are 2 Nikon 990 shots: http://pollinator.com/gallery/halictid_bees.htm The upper shot is of one of the spookiest bees I've ever gotten. The lower shot is an uncommon bee that I tried to photograph for over a year, also quite spooky. You have to learn to "stalk" them. Well, I'm off to look for flowers, and hope there to find bees.... One of these days I'll get a lot more posted on the net. Dave Green SC USA ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 09:14:49 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Aaron Morris Subject: African Bee Briefing - Reply from Mike Allsop MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" This message was originally submitted by Vredma@PLANT3.AGRIC.ZA to the BEE-L list at LISTSERV.ALBANY.EDU. t was edited to remove HTML formatting. ----------------- Original message (ID=1165129C) (461 lines) ------------------ From: "Mike Allsopp" Organization: ARC PLANT PROTECTION To: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 09:35:17 +0200 Subject: African Bee Briefing - Reply Dear Barry & everyone else I have returned from a couple of days away to a pretty challenging post from Barry Sergeant. I will try to answer the questions posed. Apologies to those not at all interested in these South African issues, and apologies also to the moderators for the use of quotes (otherwise, my response would make no sense) > Last week Mike Allsopp posted the Africa issues on BEE-L > he thought he had best comment, and in some cases >set the record straight. Perhaps he could kindly continue in this >vein in respect of the following. > 1. South Africa faces more bee pests/diseases/problems than > any other country in the world? The exception would be pure >capensis colonies in native capensis territory, a relatively small >area of the country. No, I wouldn't say so. We don't have American Foulbrood; tracheal mites appear innocuous in South Africa; European Foulbrood is innocuous; hive beetles are not an issue. > 2. The country's single biggest current problem is the ever- > increasing wholesale - if not industrial - destruction of scutellata > colonies by capensis laying workers? I agree that the biggest beekeeping problem in South Africa is the Capensis Problem, closely followed by vandalism/theft. In time, however, varroa mites might be the most serious of all. > 3. The said capensis problem is the single biggest problem in > SouthAfrican beekeeping history? I agree. > 4. Capensis worker laying behaviour - however delayed - has >become the dominant characteristic of wild and managed > scutellata colonies? This is certainly true of managed colonies. Sooner or later, capensis laying worker problems seem to occur in commercial apiaries. BUT there are lots of hobbyist beekeepers in the affected areas that have 20-colony-strong apiaries and have never had the Capensis Problem. Why? Because they don't move around, they don't stress their bees, and because there are no other beekeepers nearby. The Capensis Problem is a problem of commercial apiaries, and of commercial beekeepers. As for the wild population, capensis problems have penetrated to some extent, but there is no evidence that these problems persist. For example, capensis laying worker problems have not spread into our neighbouring countries, nor into honeybee populations in nature reserves (and hence removed from the possible proximity of commercial beekeeping activity). Conclusion - much of the wild honeybee population is still "pure" scutellata, unaffected by capensis problems. > 5. It is unlikely that any pure scutellata can be found anywhere > in South Africa today? It is generally believed that all "wild" > scutellata are hybridised to varying degrees with capensis? > Separately, the latter phenomenon comprises the capensis > "timebomb" within all scutellata colonies? Answered above. > 6. South Africa is the only country in the world - where varroa is > found - where varroa is not the main problem? I wouldn't think this is true of most of the South American countries, of most of the Asian countries, and perhaps also, of countries such as the UK and Canada. And give varroa in South Africa time; it is only a recent visitor. It might well give us more problems that we would wish. > 7. South Africa's varroa is the most virulent strain, the so-called > verroa destructor 'Russian' type? Correct. It is Varroa destructor. > 8. The mechanism by which capensis workers clone themselves > has yet to be explained? Not true. The "cloning" mechanism of capensis workers is reasonably well understood, at least at the proximate level. The original conclusions from cytological evidence of Verma & Ruttner have proved to be correct. That is, automictic thelytokous parthenogenesis, the fusion of two central pronuclei in Meiosis II. A considerable amount of work on this subject has been completed in recent years by Moritz, Haberl, Kryger, Greeff and Solignac, and probably others. The ultimate causation of the characteristic, however, remains obscure. > 9. No non-private sector research conducted on solving the so- > called capensis problem has ever yielded any practical solutions > whatsoever? The Capensis Research Programme yielded some valuable insights into how commercial beekeepers might operate better so as to reduce capensis problems (things like reducing the stress on colonies, less migratory beekeeping, keeping smaller colonies). But it is true that no "solutions" to the problem have yet been found. > 10. Mr Allsopp and his colleagues at the PPRI, ARC (Plant > Protection Research Institute, Agricultural Research Council) live > and work in Stellenbosch, South Africa, deep in native capensis > territory. This, along with other factors, would imply that any > further attempts by the PPRI to find a solution to the capensis > problem have been totally abandoned? This one really needs a > unequivocal answer? PPRI has two bee sections, one in Stellenbosch and the other in Pretoria (pretty much in the centre of the capensis problem area). I am the only researcher in Stellenbosch while, until recently the Pretoria unit had three researchers, all working on the Capensis Problem. It is true, however, that the Capensis Research Programme (and funding for it) has now ended, while the problems persist. This situation is to be addressed in a meeting in early August, and hopefully further research into the Capensis problem will be forthcoming. > 11. Further, by implication, all other research bodies in South > have abandoned attempts to solve the capensis problem? > Mr Allsopp has stated, separately, that "PPRI has not been part > of the government for a long time." Does this have any bearing on > the PPRI's constituent donors' expectations of the PPRI's bee > research focus areas? PPRI became a parastatal in 1992, and has to earn a sizeable proportion of its funds from contract research. Just like all other institutions in South Africa, "transformation" issues have a high priority in PPRI at present. For the bee sections, this means the development of rural and small-scale beekeeping, and much of our time at present is taken up in this regard. However, the point has been made that these efforts will be fruitless if all our bees die because of capensis problems and/or varroa, and I am hopeful that we will soon be able to pay more attention to our core business - that is, research into capensis and varroa problems. Like everything else, this is dependent on funding. > 12. In order to secure on-going funding from donors ambivalent to > the value of bees in South Africa, bodies such as the PPRI have > a vested interest in the capensis problem continuing, not in it > being solved? This is a tough one all right. This suggestion is, at best, mischievious and at worst, slanderous. It is well-known that I have often not agreed with the workings on the Capensis Working Group (who controlled the research into the capensis problem) as I often felt they were pre-occupied with the academic elements of the problem, and not with finding solutions. Any suggestion that the Working Group have ever wanted the Capensis Problem to continue is, however, both malicious and completely incorrect. It should be pointed out that the Capensis Working Group, right from the beginning, has been made up from researchers, government officials and commercial beekeepers, the latter comprising almost 50% of the group. > 13. If it is true that all non-private sector attempts to solve the > capensis problem have been abandoned, would bodies such as > PPRI suppress private sector attempts? Would PPRI, for > example, oppose an ApiCrown (i.e., pure private sector) attempt > to import pure scutellata from Kenya? Scutellata for research > purposes to test domestic scuts for capensis and varroa > resistance? Instrumentally inseminated queens accompanied by > an international health certificate issued by ICIPE > (www.icipe.org)? Eggs in comb? Bee semen? Would government > itself suppress such bona fide attempts? I have no doubt that all legimate attempts to find solutions to the Capensis Problem would be welcomed. Decisions on the importation of bees or genetic stock, however, rest with the Department of Agriculture. PPRI is sometimes asked to advice the government in this regard. In terms of the examples that you give, and speaking only for myself, I would require some evidence to suggest that bees from Kenya would be resistant to Capensis Problems before I would be able to support the importation of such stock as a measure to counter capensis. (Obviously!) > 14. As to cell size, Mr Allsopp quoted figures for scuts that are > likely dated; viz., pre-capensis (1990) and pre-varroa (1995)? This > is not to imply that either would initiate a change in cell size. But > just how valid are his supplied figures at 4.85-4.9mm? I live and > work deep in scutellata country and I am not a scientist. I have > examined brood nests of millions of wild scutellata trapped near > Piet Retief in the past four months or so. I stand by my finding > that scutellata are retooling, and downsizing cell size. I stand by > my statement on BEE-L on 12 July 2001, viz.: "we are very > worried that the dual influence of varroa and capensis could lead > to a deep depletion in wild swarms" in traditional scutellata > countryside. That there are still swarms in relative abundance in > 2001 must constitute some proof that scutellata are truly tough. > But even scutellata have a breaking point. Is it time for South > African research entities to make serious inroads into the > damage man has occasioned scutellata in one of its home > countries? If selection pressure from varroa mites is, indeed, causing scutellata colonies to reduce cell size, then this would obviously be of great interest to us. It has not been my experience, but if Barry has such colonies, then I would urge him to make them available to us so that we might be able to test these colonies in a controlled manner. All the best Mike Allsopp Stellenbosch Mike Allsopp tel (27)(21) 887-4690 Honeybee Research Section fax (27)(21) 883-3285 Plant Protection Research Institute pmail plant3/vredma Agricultural Research Council email vredma@plant3.agric.za P/Bag X5017 Stellenbosch 7599 South Africa ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 15:46:27 +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: Contaminants in wax MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello to all. I think that we are looking at the "contamination" thread from the wrong point of view. I have yet to see any information regarding on the impact that "the contaminants" may have on consumers, especially young and older population. This is not to imply that any part of the consuming population is not at risk. As beekeepers and producers of honey bee products we must be very concerned of our responsibility in maintaining wholesomeness of what we offer for sale. In essence, there is much to be concerned here beyond the finer point of how much or how little. Our sights should be aimed at zero contaminants. Best regards. Dr. Rodriguez ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 10:46:16 -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: GM Bees MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bob wrote the definitive response to the whole issue of GM bees. I would add that the costs involves in identifying whatever genes we would like in our bees is prohibitive for the gains realized especially since nature tends to do it free. The recent human gene mapping was just that, a map of human genes. Identification of what they do is a very long term and costly project. Even then, how to modify them to get the desired results is also costly and takes time. Plus add in the Law of Unforeseen Consequences, when it may not be just that gene but a set of genes in unrelated areas that give us what we are really looking for, but we only change the genes in one spot and..... Think 300 pound bee. Bill Truesdell Bath, ME ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 11:55:25 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Tim Sterrett Subject: Working Bees After the Flow MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit A Cautionary Note for New Beekeepers: Periodically, someone writes about working bees without gloves, without long sleeves, without long pants. I work my bees in shorts and a tee-shirt; I do wear a headnet. Yesterday, I went out, opened a hive, and bees poured out and stung me. I got done the first step in what I had set out to do, closed up the colony, and retreated to remove ten stingers. In SE Pennsylvania, our honey flow is long over by mid-summer and bees can seem ill-natured as they protect what they gathered earlier. Today, wiser by a day, I was ready with lids to keep almost everything covered when I transferred frames. The scent of honey (from broken brace comb, for instance) can excite bees into a defensive frenzy, so keeping things covered should help. But the bees burst out as soon as I lifted one end of a hive body and they were after me. What to do? I went in the house and put on a bee suit, gloves, and socks. Do the new beekeepers know that many of us old timers have these things and use them when they serve a purpose? Tim -- Tim Sterrett sterrett@fast.net (southeastern) Pennsylvania, USA ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 12:07:40 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: Bee photography MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Used Tamaron macro on Canon rebel with tremendously good results...even made a postcard with a full size bee. However good you are be prepared to throw away 20 for every really great shot, chill bugs before taking their pictures gives you about 2 minutes before they fly away...my school presentation of 80 shots took years but is fine! Contact me at: Rick Green 8 Hickory Grove Lane Ballston Lake, NY 12019 (518) 384-2539 Gothoney@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 12:08:47 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: Working Bees After the Flow MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/31/01 11:57:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sterrett@FAST.NET writes: > In SE Pennsylvania, our honey flow is long over by mid-summer and bees can > seem ill-natured as they protect what they gathered earlier. Here along the coast of CT and RI we have a dearth between privet and sumac and again between sumac and Japanese knotweed. Sometimes only a few days sometimes longer as other things fill the gap depending on the rainfall and such. During periods of no honeyflow you can't get away with much, you can easily start the bees robbing or get stung up fairly bad. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 12:31:38 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Karen Oland Subject: Re: Bee photography In-Reply-To: <200107311322.f6VDMu804304@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I get reasonably good results with an Olympus. It has true optical zoom -- no digital on this one, if I remember correctly, but they had one with 10x optical, plus 3x digital that should also work fairly well. I selected this model mainly for the speed between shots (pretty fast, not the fastest), and the macro and super-macro modes built it. It focuses the closest of any I've seen on the market. It is generally fast enough to capture the bees without wing noise. You can override this camera and set most functions manually, if the defaults are not to your liking. If using digital and you are going to print, make sure your resolution is at least that of the printer. If you are going to crop or blow up the size, it must be higher. For display on a pc, 72 dpi is fine (at same size as photo), but I generally use about 300 dpi. For something you'll use with a projector on the wall, or cut out a portion and print, use the highest the camera has. Just remember to delete those you don't like in the field (the truly bad are easy to see, even on the small lcd's), then ruthlessly destroy the "almost good" when you get back home. Battery power is the only expense after the camera -- use only high-end rechargeables. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 17:59:30 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: shaking v brushing bees MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Shaking by the Miller method is much easier with the British Standard frames which have inch and a half lugs. It works well and is my favoured method when checking for brood disease. Don't use it when queen cells might be present as the larvae may be come disconnected from their food supply. Chris 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 2362724AE26 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 12:46:54 -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 h03GhO3f010284 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 12:46:53 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200301031746.h03GhO3f010284@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 LOG0107E" To: adamf@IBIBLIO.ORG Content-Length: 57091 Lines: 1247 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 11:12:53 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Alan Riach Subject: Lime Tree (Linden/Basswood) honey taste MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I've always found Lime honey to taste exactly that - Limey - it always tastes to me like the citrus lime lemonade (soda) we had as kids. Why the Lime(European name) or Basswood(USA name) tree (Tiliaceae) should yield honey tasting slightly of the citrus lime fruit (Rutaceae) I've never had explained to me- perhaps just one of Mother Nature's great coincidences. Maybe one of the botanists on the list can shed some light. Lime honey is here considered one of the finest honeys, almost in the same connoisseur category as Heather. Alan Riach Bathgate -Scotland ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 05:54:05 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: Entrance on the long side MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is known as the "warm way" although it probably makes no difference to temperature. I use it all the time although my boxes (British national) are square so there is no long side. It has the handling advantages Frank mentions. Also there is a tendency for bees to store honey towards the rear of the brood box and have the brood towards the front. In summer this makes it easier to find the queen. In winter the stores are in one block that they can chomp through. There is thus marginally less chance of them sufferrng isolation starvation when they have eaten all the stores on one side of the box and it is too cold for them to move across to the stores on the other side. Chris ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 05:53:59 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: Pheromones affect humans? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I don't know the answer to this but as human pheromones can affect bees (they can detect and react to the smell of your fear, for example) it seems plausible that the reverse can also apply to some extent. One for the students I think. Chris ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 05:53:57 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: Collecting wax MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit June Hughes who was lecturing on wax at Gormanston a couple of days ago described how bees move wax around in a hive. She discovered this by adding sheets of coloured foundation to the brood box. Parts were nibbled away and the colours appeared in the super where the bees needed more wax at the time. Chris ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 13:02:17 -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: Collecting wax In-Reply-To: <200107291351.f6TDpd803720@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Hi Chris - When you say 'in the super', do you mean honey supers or brood chambers? If honey supers, did they contain drawn comb or just foundation? Can you give more detail about this? -Barry > Parts were nibbled away and > the colours appeared in the super where the bees needed more wax at the time. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 21:30:57 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: HStarJE@AOL.COM Subject: shaking vs. brushing bees MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >Hold a frame over the open hive with a frame holder in your left hand >and strike an end bar sharply a couple of times with the heel of >your right hand and most of the bees will fall off.=A0 Or without a frame holder use CC Miller's technique: Hold a frame resting the "ears" on your bent forefingers (hands shaped in a=20 loose fist). Quickly lift it with an abrupt action and let the frame hit you= r=20 poised thumbs. Do this 2-3 times in rapid succession, bouncing frame between= =20 fingers and thumbs. the bees will pop off the frame into the hive. Cesar Flores Colorado USA ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 02:27:58 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: James Ralston Subject: Re: possible menthol-contaminated honey? In-Reply-To: <200107252213.f6PMDr820923@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII In response to the replies to my post... The appearance of the "menthol" honey is light and cloudy, perhaps a tiny bit darker than typical clover honey. It's not granulated at all. The only description of the honey is "pure natural honey". The apiary label made no attempt to describe the source of the honey. The apiary label also lists a telephone number, so I might just call the apiary directly and ask them if they could hypothesize as to the honey's source... -- James Ralston Pittsburgh, PA, USA ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 11:23:45 PDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: QUB Subject: Re: GM Bees Comments: cc: j.a.p.earle@qub.ac.uk MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Hi, I am just back from my hols nad had to wade through a stack of e-mails but this one caught my eye. I have always wondered what would happen if transgenic technology could be applied to honeybees. I have not seen the posts that Allen refered to but here goes...... This is sure to generate some interesting disscussions and I'm off on hols again in 3 days ...... For those who may be unfamiliar with the concepts, basically genes (forgein or self) can be inserted, removed or modified. The fear from the general public is that the insertion of forgein genes along with antibiotic markers used in clonning processes may cause problems later in food chains etc.... I understand these fears, but if genes relating to antibiotic restance were removed or not used at all and the modifications involved adding more of the same bee DNA or removing DNA would that be acceptible ? What would happen if someone discovered a gene that could confer or help with resistance to honeybees against varroa. For example, supose the gene/s controlling hygenic behaviour were found. Over expression by adding more copies of the gene or knocking out any inhibitory control (if it exists) on the hygenic gene could produce a super hygenic bee. we know that karomones are involved in the relationship between larvae and varroa mite. If the attraction between larvae and varroa mite was removed then a resistant bee would emerge. Again, by knocking out specific genes related to larval karamone production by transgenic methods (note - not adding any forgein or antibiotic DNA) then maybe a resistant bee could be produced. Swarming? what would happen if queen substance could be over produced by over expressing genes involved, the urge for swarming would be reduced - bees that dont swarm? good or bad? not too good for feral populations. You have to realize that identifying genes and understanding the complex relationships between genes and their products is by no means an easy task and is very expensive. Once genes are identified and clonned then transgenic honeybees will become a reality, its already been achived in fruit flies! Phil On Mon, 23 Jul 2001 04:25:49 -0600 Allen Dick wrote: > From: Allen Dick > Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 04:25:49 -0600 > Subject: GM Bees > To: BEE-L@LISTSERV.ALBANY.EDU > > I've noticed reference to proposed genetic modifications in honeybees in several > recent posts, but have not read or heard anything else about the topic. Is > something being proposed? If so, by whom, and to what ends? > > allen > > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 10:08:37 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob & Liz Subject: GM Bees MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Phil & All, I personally do not see the need for GM technology applied to honey bees. All the traits you describe allready exist in honey bees and only need to be brought out through selective breeding. I (unlike many beekeepers and researchers) believe the gene pool is to small in the U.S. and now that we have got tracheal mites and varroa importations of queens from other countries should be allowed within reason. Beekeepers which took many of the world beekeeping tours offered over the last decade report bees with qualities which would improve our U.S. stocks. Although all traits can be bred for, using a queen which allready has those traits in your breeding program shortens the process. Sincerely, Bob Harrison Odessa, Missouri Ps. Glad somebody is getting a holiday! High moisture content honey is causing a huge slow down in processing the midwest honey crop. Even sealed honey is testing a moisture content over 19.5 % in many cases. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 21:58:10 +0100 Reply-To: pdillon@club-internet.fr Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter Dillon Organization: La Marne Subject: Re: GM Bees MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Bob, This is going to be a little like trying to open Pandora's box - and saying what will happen before one knows what is in the box and how it will react. You state that all the required traits are already exist in honey bees and only needs to be selected by judicious breeding. How do you support your comment? It is possible that genes are present in the pool - either in the States or elsewhere; and if this is the case then as you state, breeding in the correct direction will eventually allow for a resistant bee type. BUT what if this trait is not present in the bee genome - and this is the crux of the matter, what then? The possibility is that it might exist elsewhere and via manipulation, the trait could be transplanted - technically possible, if not now, then in the future. Or, we wait for the bee to naturally die out due to it being at a disadvantage (ignoring the unnatural treatments that take place at the present). On the other hand the bee population may mutate and produce a population that is resistant. The problem at the moment is that there is a fear of the unknown and inability to correct any mistakes in genetic manipulation - but there exists a big problem with a short fuse attached. Acceptance of the manipulation would be more acceptable If each gene expression was simple and had no "knock on effect" . This appears not to be the case - as many past experiences have shown. With improved knowledge showing that invariably systems are complex and inter linked. Change one item and a lot of other hither unknown factors are changed as well. So, the problem is - take the risk and the route of genetic manipulation with its possible remedy to present day problems, but land ourselves with many more (who can say that this is true or not), or, Wait for natural selection, again with its unknown consequences. Or, continue using crude poisons. Hopefully, the trait is present in the bee population and we should be looking for it - BEFORE adding alien material to the sauce that might result in a soup too hot to eat! But it might not be there! Peter ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 17:09:26 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob & Liz Subject: GM Bees Comments: To: pdillon@CLUB-INTERNET.FR MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Peter & All, > You state that all the required traits are already exist in honey bees > and only needs to be selected by judicious breeding. How do you support > your comment? > It is possible that genes are present in the pool - either in the States > or elsewhere; and if this is the case then as you state, breeding in the > correct direction will eventually allow for a resistant bee type. I can't think of a trait which I need which is not present in the U.S. at the present time. Bees were available as early as 1953 which were resistant to AFb. Treating with chemicals was the choice of most beekeepers so the work of Park, Pellet, Paddock and Rothenbuhler went mostly without the respect it deserved. Rothenbuhler isolated two genes which were responsible for bees resistant to American foul brood. Steve Tabor has bees in his apiary today which when inoculated with AFB will clean the cells and not contract the disease (ABF vol. 141 no.8 pg 556) We know bees bred resistant to tracheal mites are possible and have been around for quite a while (Brother Adam -Buckfast bee) The USDA in Baton Rouge is working on a Suppress Mite Reproduction bee. It is to early now to say for sure they are the solution we are looking for but positive results are showing up I looked at my first queens from Dr. Harbo's yellow line today. Step one in a long journey. It will be two years before I will know for sure if they are truly varroa resistant. Other beekeepers will make claims before they are sure but I will not for at least two years. If SMR bees live past the two year mark without chemical treatment then I will post my opinion on the net. Dr. Harbo *might* have done in six years what Dr. Shiminuki and others guessed might take around twenty years. My point about new queens from outside the U.S. was in reference to bees in Germany you can stroke with bare fingers like pets or bees in Australia which don't propolize everything up. Bees from around the world from lines which rarely swarm even when crowded. Other than the Buckfast semen & Russian bees we have not had any legal importation's in over 70 years. Sincerely, Bob Harrison Odessa, Missouri ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 19:59:07 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: Collecting Wax MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit My understanding from the aside at the lecture is that the bees nibbled wax from the bottom of brood foundation and transferred it to the honey super. I expect you are ahead of me in thinking of the implications arising from this. I suggest you get direct information from the horse's mouth as I am just piggy in the middle (to mix my metaphors). You need to talk to June at norman.june@talk21.com (and she is nothing like a horse!) Chris ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 16:54:38 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: dan hendricks Subject: Contaminants in wax MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi, Listers. Can't an analogy be made between absorption of substances by wax and adsorption of odors and tastes by activated charcoal? The contaminants previously adsorbed by the charcoal are not released to the substances subsequently being cleaned but rather contaminants continue to be adsorbed. So since beeswax has such a strong affinity for PDB, fluvalinate, etc., why should we expect it later to transfer those substances to honey? Wouldn't it be more likely actually to clean the honey, just like charcoal does? I would think people's intuition should not be used to answer this but rather to rely on careful scientific measuring. It would be instructive to know precisely what percentages of contaminants absorbed in the wax would be large enough that the honey would "wash" them out of the wax. Dan __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 23:45:44 -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: Contaminants in wax In-Reply-To: <200107310417.f6V4Hs823857@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit dan hendricks wrote: > So since beeswax has such a > strong affinity for PDB, fluvalinate, etc., why should we expect it > later to transfer those substances to honey? I can sight one reference I know of. American Bee Journal, August, 1999 by JEAN-DANIEL CHARRIERE and ANTON IMDORF "PDCB is a highly volatile and lipophilic (easily soluble in fat and wax) substance. Beeswax can take up this material and a part of it may later migrate into honey. Honey analyses from Germany and Austria show that PDCB residues in honey are not rare. This applies to native as well as imported honeys." Regards, Barry ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 03:42:12 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Barry Sergeant Subject: Bee photography I'm about to invest in a macro lens, in order to be able to photograph bees close up. I've checked out the manufacturers' claims, and listened to the salesmen. But I have a suspicion that I need some comments from experienced hands in the field. I want to be able to fill a printed postcard-sized photo with a worker bee, as a minimum requirement. I have a Pentax system, to be specific, and would like to stick with the brand. We're preparing for spring here, and I thought it may be a good idea to compile a portfolio of pics of all the aspects of scutellata life, for posting on the Internet. Under duress, I may even include a shot or two of capensis! Much thanks, Barry Sergeant Kyalami South Africa ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 10:42:38 +0100 Reply-To: Dave Cushman Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dave Cushman Subject: Re: Minty Honey? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all Some years ago we had some green, minty honey in UK. The cause was a dump of malformed chocolate coated, peppermint creme easter eggs. 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, 31 Jul 2001 07:22:22 -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: Contaminants in wax MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit dan hendricks wrote: > > Hi, Listers. Can't an analogy be made between absorption of > substances by wax and adsorption of odors and tastes by activated > charcoal? ...... Wouldn't it be more > likely actually to clean the honey, just like charcoal does? Activated charcoal usually has the material pass through it to remove the contaminant. The mechanism is, as you note, adsorption which is like moisture forming on your mirror- a surface mechanism. Absorption is what is happening with the contaminates and wax, as Barry noted. The material goes into solution and is homogeneous. You will get a transition zone at the honey/wax interface where the solubility of the contaminant in either will determine what and how much migrates between them. If the contaminant is at all soluble in honey, it will migrate from the wax to the honey and vice versa until it arrives at steady state. If the contaminant is not soluble in honey, the contaminant can still be in the honey but as a mixture and in suspension, brought there by the bees. It is neither absorbed nor adsorbed. So if it does come in contact with the wax, there can be absorption by the wax, the amount depends on the conditions at the interface and how soluble the contaminant is. But only at the interface, so all the rest of the contaminates will stay suspended in the honey/contaminant mixture. There may be some cleaning, but when you look at the total volume of honey compared to what comes in contact with the cell walls, there would be little. Bill Truesdell Bath, ME ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 11:54:26 +1200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Robert Mann Subject: Re: GM Bees In-Reply-To: <200107301341.f6UDfL827277@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Phil Earle wrote: > For those who may be unfamiliar with the concepts, basically genes >(forgein or self) can be inserted, removed or modified. The fear from the >general public is that the insertion of forgein genes along with antibiotic >markers used in clonning processes may cause problems later in food >chains etc.... I understand these fears, but if genes relating to antibiotic >restance were removed or not used at all and the modifications involved >adding more of the same bee DNA or removing DNA would that be >acceptible ? No. The processes used for these gene-tamperings are so radically different from any natural biological process that the gene-insertion processes themselves can cause unforeseen, indeed unforeseeable, deviant metabolism in the target cells. Study the brief account at http://www.i-sis.org/tryptophan.shtml - this is one of the several cases known. >What would happen if someone discovered a gene that could confer or >help with resistance to honeybees against varroa. For example, supose >the gene/s controlling hygenic behaviour were found. Over expression by >adding more copies of the gene or knocking out any inhibitory control (if it >exists) on the hygenic gene could produce a super hygenic bee. The assumptions here are a travesty of biology. Genes are NOT Lego modules that can be plugged into foreign organisms with predictable consequences. For some detail see http://www.psrast.org/ (as I have previously recommended). >If the attraction between larvae and varroa mite was >removed then a resistant bee would emerge. Again, by knocking out >specific genes related to larval karamone production by transgenic >methods (note - not adding any forgein or antibiotic DNA) then maybe a >resistant bee could be produced. This is a typical superficially plausible gene-jockey concept. There are very many things that could go wrong with any attempt to implement it. >Swarming? what would happen if queen substance could be over >produced by over expressing genes involved, the urge for swarming would >be reduced - bees that dont swarm? good or bad? not too good for feral >populations. ditto >You have to realize that identifying genes and understanding the complex >relationships between genes and their products is by no means an easy >task and is very expensive. full agreement here > Once genes are identified and clonned then >transgenic honeybees will become a reality, its already been achived in >fruit flies! The fruit fly _Drosophila_ has been far more studied by geneticists and biochemists than any bee. And what gene-splicing capers have achieved anything useful, even in the fruit fly? R - Robt Mann consultant ecologist P O Box 28878 Remuera, Auckland 1005, New Zealand (9) 524 2949 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 08:10:17 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Michael Housel Subject: Re: Bee photography MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I use a 300 mm telephoto lens with Macro and 800asa film. I can still follow bees and have a focus field that is large enough to get the picture of blossoms and bee. It is not computer ready and you have to develop film and scan into computer. I have a microscope connected to the computer for the internal parts that don't run around. (K wings) Movie cameras give you interesting film as you can get intereactions on still camera. Obversation hives give you the inside movement when glass is used, pelixglas will grain. I have used both glass and plastic on the observation hive. The plastic is on the inside and I slide it out leaving the glass to photo thur. Lighting should be a spot reflection. Flash can give you light refractions that are missed in the focus. Bellows lens give a camera a very short focal length and can only be used if super glue is used. Strobes can be used to get the wings in action to increase the 800 asa film to the 2500 to 5000 speed. Bees in water will give you the turbulence movement of the air with a DC battery light. Photograph art shows with the flowers and a bee can be an excellent education tool. If I can be of help email me direct for other applications. Michael Housel ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 08:34:02 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Aaron Morris Subject: Re: GM Bees MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" pdillon@CLUB-INTERNET.FR wrote: Subject: Re: GM Bees "BUT what if this trait is not present in the bee genome - and this is the crux of the matter, what then?" Most assuredly, the genes are out there. I just purchased a SMR Carniolan Queen from Glenn Apiaries which came with a very informative write up on John Harbo's work. I have not found the exact prose on Glenn's web page http://member.aol.com/queenb95/index.html but I suspect if one digs deep enough they'll find it. Bob's response was sufficient, there have been bees bred to be resistent to AFB and chalkbrood, and with concerted effort bees can be selected for any number of traits. But getting back to SMR and Glenn Apiaries' write up thereof, the reasons why bees exhibit SMR (Suppressive Mite Reproduction) are not known. However, it is assumed to be an additive effect. That is, there is no single gene credited to SMR, rather, it is attributed to an additive effect of a number of genes. Hence the SMR trait can be passed on to subsequent generations of open mated queens, even if some of the genes that contribute to SMR get suppressed int he next generation. The suppression of mite reproduction may not be as dramatic if some of the contributing genes regress, but there will still be better results than there would be starting from breeding stock with no SMR atrtibutes at all. In currently available SMR stock the additive effects have been selected as breeding criteria and continued effort will be needed to keep whatever is the combination from slipping back into a wild gene pool. The genes most assuredly are there and efforts can be successful to cultivate the combination to produce bees that suppress 100% of mite reproduction in worker brood (Vaddor d. still reproduces in SMR drones). Bob says it'll take at least 2 years to convince him that SMR really exists. The first time I heard Harbo hypothesize that the SMR trait is out there was perhaps 1995. John already has his 2 years of data plus a few years more. I'm sold that SMR exists and rue the funds I spent on open bottom boards and drone frames/foundation. As far as tinkering with genes to produce bees to resist varroa, I've got to agree with Bob that it's not necessary to tinker with genes when the desired results can be achieved through selective breeding. I think it a bit scary that people are so anxious to go the GMO route when it remains to be seen what will be the effects of the current experiment released upon us. What the hey, Pandora's box is already open, let's open it a little more..... Aaron Morris - thinking better bees through better breeding! ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 08:44:46 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "David L. Green" Subject: Re: Bee photography MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/31/01 4:53:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time, barry_sergeant@MYIAFRICA.COM writes: << I'm about to invest in a macro lens, in order to be able to photograph bees close up. I've checked out the manufacturers' claims, and listened to the salesmen. But I have a suspicion that I need some comments from experienced hands in the field >> I had a photography business years ago, and used mostly 35 mm. Last year I decided to take some closeups of wild and honey bees and other insects and got out my old equipment. I have never used a fully automatic 35, so perhaps my comments may lose some relevancy, but I think not, as I usually am in manual mode anyway. It was a real exercise in frustration. I have a big box full of prints, most of which I cannot use for anything, as they are not up to my standards. Bees are among the hardest subjects in the world to photograph. The tiniest bit of wind on the flower will move the subject in and out of focus. Bees move quickly, so you have to keep the shutter speed up, yet you want the lens stopped down for depth of field. Many times I've snapped the shutter only to have a picture of a bare flower, as the bee either spooked, or moved on to the next flower. Here's one of my 35 mm shots: http://pollinator.com/gallery/bumblebee3.htm This spring, when I retired from commercial beekeeping, I went digital and really got serious about the bee pics. For the cost of the wasted film, I could have done it much sooner and been money ahead. I have a Nikon Coolpix 990, and hope at some time in the near future to get a second, perhaps an Olympus E-10 or one of the newer and even better ones. I figure I've saved enough on film to pay for it. With digital you can fire away as fast as the camera will let you (sometimes I wish it were faster, but it's still a lot faster than 35) with no worries about wasted film, and no waiting to see the results. The quality is actually superior to anything I ever got with my Pentax Takumar lens. I have taken several thousand bee pictures this year, and will have a couple hundred that meet my standards. Many times I go thru the ones I have taken, and delete half or more within the camera before downloading them. In the computer, I go thru another round of deletion. Up to the point of printing photos there is little cost, only battery power. They are printed on a $100 Epson printer and can be simply gorgeous. Only a pro with a loupe could tell they are not film based prints. If you are not yet convinced to go digital, be prepared to spend a lot on film. But first try extension tubes before you invest in the higher cost of a macro lens for outmoded technology. I paid $30 for my extension tubes and used them mostly with a 105 mm lens that I already had. You could still get a cheaper digital camera for less than a good macro lens, and see if it works for you. The most important thing is to make sure it has pretty good macro capacity already built in. The Sony Mavicas are good starter cameras, and I was fortunate to have one available for practice, but not have to buy it, as I soon saw that I wanted more. Here's a Mavica 91 shot: http://pollinator.com/gallery/March/wasp_nest.htm Here are 2 Nikon 990 shots: http://pollinator.com/gallery/halictid_bees.htm The upper shot is of one of the spookiest bees I've ever gotten. The lower shot is an uncommon bee that I tried to photograph for over a year, also quite spooky. You have to learn to "stalk" them. Well, I'm off to look for flowers, and hope there to find bees.... One of these days I'll get a lot more posted on the net. Dave Green SC USA ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 09:14:49 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Aaron Morris Subject: African Bee Briefing - Reply from Mike Allsop MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" This message was originally submitted by Vredma@PLANT3.AGRIC.ZA to the BEE-L list at LISTSERV.ALBANY.EDU. t was edited to remove HTML formatting. ----------------- Original message (ID=1165129C) (461 lines) ------------------ From: "Mike Allsopp" Organization: ARC PLANT PROTECTION To: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 09:35:17 +0200 Subject: African Bee Briefing - Reply Dear Barry & everyone else I have returned from a couple of days away to a pretty challenging post from Barry Sergeant. I will try to answer the questions posed. Apologies to those not at all interested in these South African issues, and apologies also to the moderators for the use of quotes (otherwise, my response would make no sense) > Last week Mike Allsopp posted the Africa issues on BEE-L > he thought he had best comment, and in some cases >set the record straight. Perhaps he could kindly continue in this >vein in respect of the following. > 1. South Africa faces more bee pests/diseases/problems than > any other country in the world? The exception would be pure >capensis colonies in native capensis territory, a relatively small >area of the country. No, I wouldn't say so. We don't have American Foulbrood; tracheal mites appear innocuous in South Africa; European Foulbrood is innocuous; hive beetles are not an issue. > 2. The country's single biggest current problem is the ever- > increasing wholesale - if not industrial - destruction of scutellata > colonies by capensis laying workers? I agree that the biggest beekeeping problem in South Africa is the Capensis Problem, closely followed by vandalism/theft. In time, however, varroa mites might be the most serious of all. > 3. The said capensis problem is the single biggest problem in > SouthAfrican beekeeping history? I agree. > 4. Capensis worker laying behaviour - however delayed - has >become the dominant characteristic of wild and managed > scutellata colonies? This is certainly true of managed colonies. Sooner or later, capensis laying worker problems seem to occur in commercial apiaries. BUT there are lots of hobbyist beekeepers in the affected areas that have 20-colony-strong apiaries and have never had the Capensis Problem. Why? Because they don't move around, they don't stress their bees, and because there are no other beekeepers nearby. The Capensis Problem is a problem of commercial apiaries, and of commercial beekeepers. As for the wild population, capensis problems have penetrated to some extent, but there is no evidence that these problems persist. For example, capensis laying worker problems have not spread into our neighbouring countries, nor into honeybee populations in nature reserves (and hence removed from the possible proximity of commercial beekeeping activity). Conclusion - much of the wild honeybee population is still "pure" scutellata, unaffected by capensis problems. > 5. It is unlikely that any pure scutellata can be found anywhere > in South Africa today? It is generally believed that all "wild" > scutellata are hybridised to varying degrees with capensis? > Separately, the latter phenomenon comprises the capensis > "timebomb" within all scutellata colonies? Answered above. > 6. South Africa is the only country in the world - where varroa is > found - where varroa is not the main problem? I wouldn't think this is true of most of the South American countries, of most of the Asian countries, and perhaps also, of countries such as the UK and Canada. And give varroa in South Africa time; it is only a recent visitor. It might well give us more problems that we would wish. > 7. South Africa's varroa is the most virulent strain, the so-called > verroa destructor 'Russian' type? Correct. It is Varroa destructor. > 8. The mechanism by which capensis workers clone themselves > has yet to be explained? Not true. The "cloning" mechanism of capensis workers is reasonably well understood, at least at the proximate level. The original conclusions from cytological evidence of Verma & Ruttner have proved to be correct. That is, automictic thelytokous parthenogenesis, the fusion of two central pronuclei in Meiosis II. A considerable amount of work on this subject has been completed in recent years by Moritz, Haberl, Kryger, Greeff and Solignac, and probably others. The ultimate causation of the characteristic, however, remains obscure. > 9. No non-private sector research conducted on solving the so- > called capensis problem has ever yielded any practical solutions > whatsoever? The Capensis Research Programme yielded some valuable insights into how commercial beekeepers might operate better so as to reduce capensis problems (things like reducing the stress on colonies, less migratory beekeeping, keeping smaller colonies). But it is true that no "solutions" to the problem have yet been found. > 10. Mr Allsopp and his colleagues at the PPRI, ARC (Plant > Protection Research Institute, Agricultural Research Council) live > and work in Stellenbosch, South Africa, deep in native capensis > territory. This, along with other factors, would imply that any > further attempts by the PPRI to find a solution to the capensis > problem have been totally abandoned? This one really needs a > unequivocal answer? PPRI has two bee sections, one in Stellenbosch and the other in Pretoria (pretty much in the centre of the capensis problem area). I am the only researcher in Stellenbosch while, until recently the Pretoria unit had three researchers, all working on the Capensis Problem. It is true, however, that the Capensis Research Programme (and funding for it) has now ended, while the problems persist. This situation is to be addressed in a meeting in early August, and hopefully further research into the Capensis problem will be forthcoming. > 11. Further, by implication, all other research bodies in South > have abandoned attempts to solve the capensis problem? > Mr Allsopp has stated, separately, that "PPRI has not been part > of the government for a long time." Does this have any bearing on > the PPRI's constituent donors' expectations of the PPRI's bee > research focus areas? PPRI became a parastatal in 1992, and has to earn a sizeable proportion of its funds from contract research. Just like all other institutions in South Africa, "transformation" issues have a high priority in PPRI at present. For the bee sections, this means the development of rural and small-scale beekeeping, and much of our time at present is taken up in this regard. However, the point has been made that these efforts will be fruitless if all our bees die because of capensis problems and/or varroa, and I am hopeful that we will soon be able to pay more attention to our core business - that is, research into capensis and varroa problems. Like everything else, this is dependent on funding. > 12. In order to secure on-going funding from donors ambivalent to > the value of bees in South Africa, bodies such as the PPRI have > a vested interest in the capensis problem continuing, not in it > being solved? This is a tough one all right. This suggestion is, at best, mischievious and at worst, slanderous. It is well-known that I have often not agreed with the workings on the Capensis Working Group (who controlled the research into the capensis problem) as I often felt they were pre-occupied with the academic elements of the problem, and not with finding solutions. Any suggestion that the Working Group have ever wanted the Capensis Problem to continue is, however, both malicious and completely incorrect. It should be pointed out that the Capensis Working Group, right from the beginning, has been made up from researchers, government officials and commercial beekeepers, the latter comprising almost 50% of the group. > 13. If it is true that all non-private sector attempts to solve the > capensis problem have been abandoned, would bodies such as > PPRI suppress private sector attempts? Would PPRI, for > example, oppose an ApiCrown (i.e., pure private sector) attempt > to import pure scutellata from Kenya? Scutellata for research > purposes to test domestic scuts for capensis and varroa > resistance? Instrumentally inseminated queens accompanied by > an international health certificate issued by ICIPE > (www.icipe.org)? Eggs in comb? Bee semen? Would government > itself suppress such bona fide attempts? I have no doubt that all legimate attempts to find solutions to the Capensis Problem would be welcomed. Decisions on the importation of bees or genetic stock, however, rest with the Department of Agriculture. PPRI is sometimes asked to advice the government in this regard. In terms of the examples that you give, and speaking only for myself, I would require some evidence to suggest that bees from Kenya would be resistant to Capensis Problems before I would be able to support the importation of such stock as a measure to counter capensis. (Obviously!) > 14. As to cell size, Mr Allsopp quoted figures for scuts that are > likely dated; viz., pre-capensis (1990) and pre-varroa (1995)? This > is not to imply that either would initiate a change in cell size. But > just how valid are his supplied figures at 4.85-4.9mm? I live and > work deep in scutellata country and I am not a scientist. I have > examined brood nests of millions of wild scutellata trapped near > Piet Retief in the past four months or so. I stand by my finding > that scutellata are retooling, and downsizing cell size. I stand by > my statement on BEE-L on 12 July 2001, viz.: "we are very > worried that the dual influence of varroa and capensis could lead > to a deep depletion in wild swarms" in traditional scutellata > countryside. That there are still swarms in relative abundance in > 2001 must constitute some proof that scutellata are truly tough. > But even scutellata have a breaking point. Is it time for South > African research entities to make serious inroads into the > damage man has occasioned scutellata in one of its home > countries? If selection pressure from varroa mites is, indeed, causing scutellata colonies to reduce cell size, then this would obviously be of great interest to us. It has not been my experience, but if Barry has such colonies, then I would urge him to make them available to us so that we might be able to test these colonies in a controlled manner. All the best Mike Allsopp Stellenbosch Mike Allsopp tel (27)(21) 887-4690 Honeybee Research Section fax (27)(21) 883-3285 Plant Protection Research Institute pmail plant3/vredma Agricultural Research Council email vredma@plant3.agric.za P/Bag X5017 Stellenbosch 7599 South Africa ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 15:46:27 +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: Contaminants in wax MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello to all. I think that we are looking at the "contamination" thread from the wrong point of view. I have yet to see any information regarding on the impact that "the contaminants" may have on consumers, especially young and older population. This is not to imply that any part of the consuming population is not at risk. As beekeepers and producers of honey bee products we must be very concerned of our responsibility in maintaining wholesomeness of what we offer for sale. In essence, there is much to be concerned here beyond the finer point of how much or how little. Our sights should be aimed at zero contaminants. Best regards. Dr. Rodriguez ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 10:46:16 -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: GM Bees MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bob wrote the definitive response to the whole issue of GM bees. I would add that the costs involves in identifying whatever genes we would like in our bees is prohibitive for the gains realized especially since nature tends to do it free. The recent human gene mapping was just that, a map of human genes. Identification of what they do is a very long term and costly project. Even then, how to modify them to get the desired results is also costly and takes time. Plus add in the Law of Unforeseen Consequences, when it may not be just that gene but a set of genes in unrelated areas that give us what we are really looking for, but we only change the genes in one spot and..... Think 300 pound bee. Bill Truesdell Bath, ME ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 11:55:25 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Tim Sterrett Subject: Working Bees After the Flow MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit A Cautionary Note for New Beekeepers: Periodically, someone writes about working bees without gloves, without long sleeves, without long pants. I work my bees in shorts and a tee-shirt; I do wear a headnet. Yesterday, I went out, opened a hive, and bees poured out and stung me. I got done the first step in what I had set out to do, closed up the colony, and retreated to remove ten stingers. In SE Pennsylvania, our honey flow is long over by mid-summer and bees can seem ill-natured as they protect what they gathered earlier. Today, wiser by a day, I was ready with lids to keep almost everything covered when I transferred frames. The scent of honey (from broken brace comb, for instance) can excite bees into a defensive frenzy, so keeping things covered should help. But the bees burst out as soon as I lifted one end of a hive body and they were after me. What to do? I went in the house and put on a bee suit, gloves, and socks. Do the new beekeepers know that many of us old timers have these things and use them when they serve a purpose? Tim -- Tim Sterrett sterrett@fast.net (southeastern) Pennsylvania, USA ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 12:07:40 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: Bee photography MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Used Tamaron macro on Canon rebel with tremendously good results...even made a postcard with a full size bee. However good you are be prepared to throw away 20 for every really great shot, chill bugs before taking their pictures gives you about 2 minutes before they fly away...my school presentation of 80 shots took years but is fine! Contact me at: Rick Green 8 Hickory Grove Lane Ballston Lake, NY 12019 (518) 384-2539 Gothoney@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 12:08:47 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: Working Bees After the Flow MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/31/01 11:57:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sterrett@FAST.NET writes: > In SE Pennsylvania, our honey flow is long over by mid-summer and bees can > seem ill-natured as they protect what they gathered earlier. Here along the coast of CT and RI we have a dearth between privet and sumac and again between sumac and Japanese knotweed. Sometimes only a few days sometimes longer as other things fill the gap depending on the rainfall and such. During periods of no honeyflow you can't get away with much, you can easily start the bees robbing or get stung up fairly bad. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 12:31:38 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Karen Oland Subject: Re: Bee photography In-Reply-To: <200107311322.f6VDMu804304@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I get reasonably good results with an Olympus. It has true optical zoom -- no digital on this one, if I remember correctly, but they had one with 10x optical, plus 3x digital that should also work fairly well. I selected this model mainly for the speed between shots (pretty fast, not the fastest), and the macro and super-macro modes built it. It focuses the closest of any I've seen on the market. It is generally fast enough to capture the bees without wing noise. You can override this camera and set most functions manually, if the defaults are not to your liking. If using digital and you are going to print, make sure your resolution is at least that of the printer. If you are going to crop or blow up the size, it must be higher. For display on a pc, 72 dpi is fine (at same size as photo), but I generally use about 300 dpi. For something you'll use with a projector on the wall, or cut out a portion and print, use the highest the camera has. Just remember to delete those you don't like in the field (the truly bad are easy to see, even on the small lcd's), then ruthlessly destroy the "almost good" when you get back home. Battery power is the only expense after the camera -- use only high-end rechargeables. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 17:59:30 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: shaking v brushing bees MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Shaking by the Miller method is much easier with the British Standard frames which have inch and a half lugs. It works well and is my favoured method when checking for brood disease. Don't use it when queen cells might be present as the larvae may be come disconnected from their food supply. Chris