From MAILER-DAEMON Fri Jan 3 12:46:57 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 9A88424ADC3 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 12:46:56 -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 h03Fjr9n008596 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 12:46:55 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200301031746.h03Fjr9n008596@listserv.albany.edu> Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 12:46:54 -0500 From: "L-Soft list server at University at Albany (1.8d)" Subject: File: "BEE-L LOG0109C" To: adamf@IBIBLIO.ORG Content-Length: 78086 Lines: 1614 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 22:26:04 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Computer Software Solutions Ltd Subject: Resistant varroa mites in the UK Comments: To: irishbeekeeping@yahoogroups.co.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hello All I am grateful for the responses under the subject 'Resistant mites in the UK'. I have tried below to carry out a summary of the various points made, and I shall be glad of additional comments. When varroa first appears in a country it moves through the country,resulting initially in a patchy varroa presence, largely caused by beekeepers moving infected hives. In the varroa infected area, many feral colonies, and colonies maintained by non-compliant beekeepers, will remain viable for some time. These colonies generate what might be termed, a 'varroa reservoir'. This reservoir can infect beekeepers' colonies, because the beekeepers' colonies rob out these reservoirs or the reservoirs abscond to the beekeepers' colonies. Thus the mite presence in colonies can change dramatically in a short space of time. This phase in the establishment of varroa could be referred to as the 'unstable' phase. And we assume that this varroa phase is entirely populated by mites which have no resistance to Bayvarol/Apistan (acaricide). During this phase, the use of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) treatments would be most unwise since the mites generated by the varroa reservoir can easily overwhelm IPM treatments resulting in major or total losses. Indeed during this phase, losses will probably occur even in colonies treated by the acaricide, since reservoir generated varroa can hit hives when the treatments are not in the hives, and push the mite threshold into the danger zone. The first question that comes to mind is how do we know when the unstable phase has come to an end and has been replaced by the stable phase? What tests can we carry out to determine this? First it must be said that the transition from instability to stability is not IMHO a sudden event, rather it is a process where the level of stability can waiver backwards and forwards for some time. Presumably when we feel that stability is approaching, we can move to IPM and monitor mite drop very carefully. And then we may have to occasionally use the acaricide to establish how many mites are left on the bees by the IPM approach. If we do not like the results here, i.e. if we see too many mites, then we may have to continue for some time longer with the acaricide. This obviously requires work and commitment, not necessarily what some beekeepers have the time or inclination for (not a criticism, just a statement of fact.) When the 'stable' phase has arrived then the threat of re infestation from the varroa reservoir must be diminished, and ultimately must be close to zero. (I would imagine that most of the UK is stable, but it is probably several years distant in Ireland due to the later detected varroa infestation in 1998). At this stage, IPM treatments can be considered. And it is probably at this stage that resistance by the mites to acaricide is gaining ground, since acaricide has been in use for some years. For IPM to be successful, a mite monitoring system is essential. Since the IPM is not as 'sure fire' as the acaricide we must ensure that the mites are not getting the upper hand. Thus mite fall measurement, carried out on a regular basis and interpreted in conjunction with tables of such falls is essential. An apparently healthy hive producing a lot of honey can suddenly collapse in the Spring, because the beekeeper did not know that the mite infestation had exceeded the threshold. It would thus appear that there is a case for embarking on IPM to eliminate the problems caused by resistance. Indeed some would suggest that there is no case for not doing so. Even if resistance to the acaricide remained, it would not matter, since the mite is now resistant to a product which we are not using against it. I would read 'resistance' as the ability of the mites to change biologically or behaviourally, to more readily handle the counter measures which we are hurling against them. I would speculate that if we all used open mesh floors, and the claimed 15% of mites lost through falling were true, that the mites over time could develop a better system for fastening themselves to the bees. Likewise if we used the drone brood entrapment system vigorously, presumably this could cause the mites to re appraise their liking for drone brood and perhaps concentrate on the worker brood to defeat us. Similarly if 4.9 cells are causing varroa to be less successful in reproducing, they would alter some of their biology to counter this. I have no idea as to whether varroa could ever instigate resistance to grease patties or to treatment using powdered sugar. But I suppose that given enough time, and if the mite is 'experiencing major losses' through any treatment, that a response to that treatment by the mite could conceivably be expected. But much of this is speculative, and unlikely to cause present day beekeepers a problem. So if we are using some or all of the above IPM treatments, and thereby attacking the mite on several fronts at the same time, it must mean that like an army so attacked, that any of its responses must be diluted and are therefore less effective individually. Does this explain why the mite has become resistant to Bayvarol/Apistan in the course of 10 years or so, since it could concentrate its response resources in one direction only? On the face of it at least, it would seem to me that by using the IPM approach, we need never get to the Coumaphos level. Indeed if we do not use the IPM approach, and we get to the Coumaphos level, all we have done is generate super mites against which we have no acaricide defence, so that IPM then becomes the only option. And now we have created a highly polluted hive environment which could take a long time to eliminate, not to mention the extra work and the writing off of wax resources, and possibly severely compromising public confidence in hive products. And is it not the case, that IPM gives us the breathing space we so sorely need, to enable the final answer to varroa to be perfected? At present this would seem to be the development of varroa resistant bees, such that this resistance will remain in an open mating environment? Perhaps a tall order, but there is increasing evidence that this possibility is becoming more than just a pious hope. Sincerely Tom Barrett Dublin Ireland ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 01:11:51 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Robert Williamson Subject: Re: Resistant varroa mites in the UK Hello, I was wondering if those in mite resistant areas have tried using thymol crystals to combat the mite? If so what results have you had? ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 16:36:41 +1200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: S W Cranfield Subject: Re: Resistant varroa mites in the UK MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit hi tom YES,YES, YES. a nice appraisal. but the mite does not make a decission to change their biology to combat a our efforts in thier population control. put simply when we use any control we kill most of the mites suseptable to the control, there is always a genetic variation in a population and amongst that variation there will be a small number able to survive that breed more survivors for that control method. so if you cull drone comb your selecting for mites that breed in worker brood,if you use apistan your selecting for apistan resistant mites ect ect ect any resistance to any treatment depends on breeding generations and the number treatments used and the variation between unrelated treatment in use. so the only answer is to find a bee that the varroa doesnt kill when it reproduces and that can pysically cope with the change in the virus and disease flora that hapens when varroa arrives, that too is selection and takes time. kill enough bees and the resistant ones survive and breed more survivours. apistan resistant varroa<>vorroa resistant bees ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 10:35:41 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Robert Brenchley Subject: Re: Resistant varroa mites in the UK MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Robert Williamson writes: >Hello, I was wondering if those in mite resistant areas have tried using >thymol crystals to combat the mite? If so what results have you had? I haven't tried the crystals, but I've used Apiguard for two seasons. Based on mitefall, numbers in my hives remain very low. As the effect on the mites is different, cross-resistance should not be a factor. My only worry is what may happen when resistant mites hit my area; if nearby hives collapse the degree of control may or may not be sufficient. There was an article on Apiguard in the December 1999 edition of ABJ if you have it. Regards, Robert Brenchley, Birmingham, UK. RSBrenchley@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 09:49:27 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Blane White Subject: Re: Resistant varroa mites in the UK Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Everyone, Just one other point that needs to be considered on this issue. SLCranfield@xtra.co.nz wrote in part: " put simply when we use any control we kill most of the mites suseptable to the control, there is always a genetic variation in a population and amongst that variation there will be a small number able to survive that breed more survivors for that control method. so if you cull drone comb your selecting for mites that breed in worker brood,if you use apistan your selecting for apistan resistant mites ect ect ect any resistance to any treatment depends on breeding generations and the number treatments used and the variation between unrelated treatment in use." Well put on the mechanisms involved in resistance development. It is merely a matter of selection. There is another factor involved that largely determines the speed at which such resistance appears. That is the selection pressure or to put it another way the effectiveness of the treatment. The more effective the treatment ( the greater the selection rate ) the faster resistance will be selected for. So it follows that the less effective treatments will select for resistance more slowly. This may be why some treatments have been used for long periods without resistance appearing such as formic acid treatments in Europe. Those treatments that accumulate in wax greatly extend the time of exposure to the treatment which of course results in stronger selection for resistance. This leads to one other area of comment. Sub-lethel levels of treatment materials do not lead to resistance. Think about that. If the material is present at levels that do not actually kill mites there is no selection for resistant mites. The greater the kill rate the faster the selection for resistance since only the resistant members of the population survive to reproduce. Again application of treatments at sub-lethel rates do not result in selection for resistance. Look at it another way: misue of a treatment by leaving it in the hive longer that label will only select for resistance if the treatment strips continue to kill mites for the entire time they are in the hive if they "wear out" or the active material falls below treatment levels there is no selection for resistance. Not condoning in any way disregarding the label but from a resistance standpoint overapplication is a much stronger selection for resistance than underapplication. FWIW blane ****************************************** Blane White MN Dept of Agriculture blane.white@state.mn.us ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 16:28:18 +0100 Reply-To: max.watkins@vita-europe.com Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Max Watkins Subject: Re: Resistant varroa mites in the UK In-Reply-To: <200109132026.f8DKQSJ04612@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The eventual emergence of pyrethroid-resistant varroa mites in the UK was inevitable; which is why we at Vita have been promoting product rotation and IPM systems in beekeeping for many years. How the resistance was caused is really academic but that does not mean legitimate product labels should not be adhered to. These documents after all are derived through years of trials and final approval by the country authorities. Here in the UK two closely-related varroacide treatments are approved [by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate], Apistan and Bayvarol. Where there is resistance to pyrethroids, the efficacy of both products will be compromised. Besides Apistan, Vita is researching into several new treatments for honeybee health. Our thymol gel product Apiguard is undergoing pan-European registration at present (as well as in other continents). It is unusual in already being available to beekeepers in the UK under the label of a "non-medicinal curative substance" but should be a veterinary medicine here as in most of the EU by early 2002). We developed this product with beekeepers, bee institutes and Universities in mainland Europe - trials notably in Italy, France and Germany in pyrethroid-resistant mite areas. Apiguard works very well against varroa mite as well as other pests. Average efficacy is 95%, higher in warmer climes, sometimes lower in colder areas. Even with our specially developed slow-release gel system there is some temperature dependence but we believe that this can be overcome in cooler areas by extending the treatment period slightly and by spreading the gel out. Noone is claiming that by using Apiguard 99% of mites are going to be controlled every time - sometimes maybe but probably not every time. Thymol works in a completely different way to pyrethroids, so unlike with some other substances, such as organophosphates there is little risk of cross-resistance occuring. Apiguard treatment will control pyrethroid-resistant mites. In the UK summer seems to pass us by so quickly. When the sun appears in a blue sky for more than three hours at a time, the use of hose pipes is immediately banned and women and young children start fainting in the street with heat exhaustion. Despite the British weather, Apiguard has been used pretty successfully by many beekeepers even here. It may not be the perfect solution but with some modification to treatment duration and method it should serve as a useful tool, as an alternative to or in rotation with other treatment methods. And it is legal! We are working on other natural control agents for varroa (including a pheromone blend; NB this will unfortunately not be ready for at least another 18 months) as well as natural agents for the control of foulbroods and chalkbrood. Any profit made goes back into R&D for new products for honeybee health. Yes, there are the first signs of pyrethroid-resistant varroa in the UK but if beekeepers start doing something about it now - ie by using a multiple attack and/or product rotation system the resistant mites can be limited and it will prolong the lifespan of all existing and future treatment regimes. This is no time for thunder clouds of despair and doom, there is much to be positive about, providing beekeepers will accept Integrated Pest Management principles and use additional or rather alternative tools. Max Dr Max Watkins Vita (Europe) Limited 21/23 Wote Street Basingstoke, Hants RG21 7NE UK Tel. +44 (0) 1256 473177 Fax +44 (0) 1256 473179 http://www.vita-europe.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 09:05:13 +1200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Comments: RFC822 error: Incorrect or incomplete address field found and ignored. From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Samizdat=AE?= Subject: microbes rule OK Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit regarding 'permanent' image records . . . Springer-Verlag 2001 Short Communication Fungal bioturbation paths in a compact disk Javier Garcia-Guinea1, , Victor Cárdenes1, Angel T. Martínez2 and Maria Jesús Martínez2 (1) Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, CSIC, C/ Jose Gutierrez Abascal 2, 28006 Madrid, Spain (2) Centro de Investigaciones Biológicas, CSIC, C/ Velázquez 144, 28006 Madrid, Spain Abstract We report here on bioturbation traces, with micro-dendrite textures, composed of a mixture of altered aluminum and polycarbonate, which have been developed in a common compact disk (CD), destroying information pits. Fungal hyphae proliferated in these deteriorated zones, and Geotrichum-type fungus was isolated from surface-sterilized CD fragments. The severe biodeterioration described is attributed to the slow growth of this arthroconidial fungus on the CD material in the tropical indoor environment of Belize, Central America (~30°C, ~90% humidity). ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 00:36:10 +1200 Reply-To: bobhog@pin.co.nz Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Pav Organization: BombusMaximus Subject: Re: BEE-L Digest - 10 Sep 2001 to 11 Sep 2001 (#2001-248) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Folk At 12/09/01, Bob wrote: >...My friends in South Africa with Scuts >using a even smaller cell size than 4.9mm (Barry >Seargent on this list) report varroa easily >reproduces in the 4.9mm (and smaller) cell size >on A. mellifera. Maybe Barry S. will comment. Hmm, odd. Odd, odd, odd. Because around the same time, on the biobee list... At 12/09/01 09:44:00, Barry Sergeant wrote: >...I specialise as a scutellata queen breeder, >and treat only my queen breeder and cell >builder colonies... I do NOT treat other colonies... >I am yet to see varroa causing any kind of >trouble in either treated or untreated hives. So >it's a bit of a puzzle. If you LOOK for varroa in >untreated hives, you'll find them, all right. So >they are there - but what are they DOING? And then a couple days later, also on BioBee, At 14/09/01 15:13:00, Barry Sergeant wrote: >... I recently inspected, with this beekeeper, dozens of >his colonies, containing wild (as opposed to pedigreed) >queens. We were specifically looking for any varroa >DAMAGE [my emphasis -Pav], but could not find any. >But the varroa are present in all the hives. The foundation i have seen from South Africa measured 4.8mm, and i understand this is a typical size for wild-drawn Scutellata worker comb too. Barry Sergeant reported that Apis mellifera scutellata seem to manage okay, while the Capensis bees (i ASSUME they are generally on the same foundation?) seemingly were more vulnerable. Perhaps the reports Bob refers too above, were in regard to Capensis? In this ongoing sniping between SMR and 4.9 might it actually be possible that BOTH are factors, and perhaps even that these two factors might interact - better for some combinations than for others? Maybe Barry S. WILL comment? -Pav, wonders why anyone with multiple hives doesn't AT LEAST TRY ONE on 4.9 foundation? ________________________________________________ (\ Pav Bobhog@pin.co.nz {|||8- Ahaura, New Zealand (/ http://homepages.win.co.nz/bobhog/picpointer.html Visit my index of over 150 beekeeping pictures and movies. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 17:27:31 +0100 Reply-To: max.watkins@vita-europe.com Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Max Watkins Subject: Re: BEE-L Digest - 7 Sep 2001 to 10 Sep 2001 (#2001-247) In-Reply-To: <200109132325.f8DNP2J11611@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit << Tracheal mites >> The licance of the only legal treatment for Acarine (tracheal) mites expired in the UK some years ago and has not been renewed. Apiguard is available in the UK, and soon will be more widely registered. Trial results show an acceptable control of tracheal mite [as well as very good varroa control, which is what it's supposed to do]. Max Dr Max Watkins Vita (Europe) Limited 21/23 Wote Street Basingstoke, Hants RG21 7NE UK Tel. +44 (0) 1256 473177 Fax +44 (0) 1256 473179 http://www.vita-europe.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 14:19:46 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: huestis Subject: Re: BEE-L Digest - 10 Sep 2001 to 11 Sep 2001 (#2001-248) Comments: To: bobhog@pin.co.nz MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Pav, It seems clear that Bob may be in error. We know that varroa reproduce in small cell colonies to some extent and can be found within them. However the bees are capable of controlling the situation and crashing doesn't happen. And from what Barry S. has said it appears that is what is occurring. If Barry S. isn't seeing DAMAGE (my emphasis) by now his bees are most likely controlling varroa naturally. As for Bob I wish him well with SMR. I see SMR as trying to swim up a water fall, totally unnatural and impossible to maintain in the long run (I could be wrong). Clay ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 12:40:45 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob & Liz Subject: Re: BEE-L Digest - 10 Sep 2001 to 11 Sep 2001 (#2001-248) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello All, > It seems clear that Bob may be in error. We know that varroa reproduce in > small cell colonies to some extent and can be found within them. However the bees are capable of controlling the situation and crashing doesn't happen. > And from what Barry S. has said it appears that is what is occurring. If > Barry S. isn't seeing DAMAGE (my emphasis) by now his bees are most likely controlling varroa naturally. One needs to understand Barry Sergeants method of keeping bees. Please read the two posts African Bee Briefing 1 & 2 by Barry. Barry treats his hives he raises queens from for varroa as Clay says but his honey production comes from swarms which he traps. Around 600 per season. When a swarm leaves the Scut hive they are bringing a varroa mite load but nothing like the colony they left. These swarms only live around 9 months and then capensis kills the colony. Packages with a small mite load survive the summer fine in the U.S.as a comparison. I have pulled a couple quotes from both bee briefing posts: African Bee Briefing 2 Wed. June 20 ,2001 "The basic methodology described for trapping bees is practiced by partically all beekeepers in this country. By the end of August , I anticipate 600 trapped swarms over four months." >From A Bee briefing 1 June 17-2001 "It's probabbly fair to say that EVERY swarm in the country has varroa but beekeepers don't treat for it, with CAPENSIS LIMITING THE COLONY LIFE TO ABOUT NINE MONTHS. " In my opinion Barry is saying you would possibly treat if the swarms could survive Capensis. Barry does treat his queen rearing hives I believe. As for Bob I wish him well with SMR. I see SMR > as trying to swim up a water fall, totally unnatural and impossible to > maintain in the long run (I could be wrong). Totally unnatural???? What is unnatural about raising queens from bees on which varroa do not reproduce? The first purpose is not to maintain but to introduce the SMR gene into our U.S. stocks. 49ers are the minority in this issue. All the bee researchers see SMR as the right course for research. Dr. Harbo, Dr. Harris, Marla Spivak, Sue Colby, Glenn Apiaries and Weaver Apiaries. I could go on and on. As I said two years ago the 4.9ers need to provide tests with controls to prove their theories. Until then they are simply theories in my opinion. Many beekeepers were *burnt* in the last decade taking other beekeepers advice on varroa controls. Now we want tests with controls like those the USDA provides with SMR. Even then small cell in Arizona might not work as well in the Northern part of the U.S. Sincerely, Bob Harrison Odessa, Missouri ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 11:35:33 +1200 Reply-To: bobhog@pin.co.nz Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Pav Organization: BombusMaximus Subject: SMR / 4.9 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit At 17/09/01 14:19:00, Clay wrote: >I see SMR as trying to swim up a water fall, >totally unnatural and impossible to >maintain in the long run (I could be wrong). Hi Clay For what its worth, i think the "SMR" trait is both natural and inevitable, and would be a lot further along by now without human interferance. I am continually bemused that genetic variation leading to eventual resistance is taken as fact when it comes to the mites overcoming our poisons - yet the same process is unacknowledged for the bees to get used to their problem (mites) without our 'help'. Our continual use of poison to prop up our bees means that any survivor genes out there are swamped by susceptible human-assisted genes, and thereby not positively selected for - the natural concentration and relative inbreeding that would reinforce the trait if only other survivor genes were about, doesn't happen, and we see this as proof that the bees NEED our help. Instead (and this is the funny part of this tragi-comedy), a few good scientists identify those bees with NATURALLY OCCURING survivor traits, and artificially inbreed them to concentrate/attempt to fix the trait - and then the bee-world is very impressed with such an amazing feat, especially when this NATURALLY OCCURING trait is given an official techno-industry tag (SMR). If it comes via SCIENCE (our new religion, after money), then it MUST be the genuine article! However, while we continue to pollute the open-mating pool with poison-propped drones, then it will indeed be an uphill battle to get those Essemar genes to spread wide in the real world - with miticides, we are removing/lessening the selection pressure that would favour mite-resistant bees. Small-cell on the other hand, has NOT been PROVEN by science, therefore it can't be genuine. Of course, science has yet to prove via peer-reviewed research that i actually woke-up this morning, so maybe this email didn't actually get written... -Pav, thinking maybe the Salmon haven't heard that what they're doing is impossible and unnatural... ________________________________________________ (\ Pav Bobhog@pin.co.nz {|||8- Ahaura, New Zealand (/ http://homepages.win.co.nz/bobhog/picpointer.html Visit my index of over 150 beekeeping pictures and movies. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 07:02:42 -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: SMR / 4.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Pav wrote: > Small-cell on the other hand, has NOT been PROVEN by science, therefore it can't be > genuine. It is not that 4.9 is not genuine. It may be which is why there are several on this list testing it. Science looks for reproducibility. Just because it works for you it may not work for another, mainly because of all the uncontrolled variables involved. It might not be what you are testing that produces the results, but some other factor. Another beekeeper may not have that as a beekeeping practice, so fails. And that has happened with several of the supposedly tested varroa controls posted on this list. They were not reproducible by others. Personally, I think small cell size has merit. I have spoken about the "Hive that would not die", a colony on Dadant 900 foundation (I believe it is about 5.0) that has survived under the care of the beekeeper I gave it to while he continually loses most of his other hives. Since the colony has probably requeened itself several times in the past several years, either SMR is being passed on or it is the foundation. When I shifted to the smaller foundation I did have less overall problems with the health of my bees and did not lose a hive over winter. I added plastic foundation with its larger cell size (in a trial of three different types- I was the editor of our State newsletter), and started losing colonies over winter. Because of all the other variables involved- including Apistan resistance- I cannot say it is the foundation, but I have removed all the larger cell size foundation and my bees are doing great. But, all the other beekeepers in my area have given up, so the isolation from varroa from robbing gives another variable. The key in all this is not that science has to prove it for you to try it. We try new things all the time. It is the insistance that it works when there are only one or two data points that raises warning flags. And that is only prudent and has nothing to do with science. We want to believe, but need to verify. Looking forward to hearing how Barry and others do with their trials. Bill Truesdell Bath, ME ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 10:25:51 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: James Morton Organization: Central Science Laboratory Subject: Re: Resistant varroa mites in the UK MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear All, I copied the recent posts on the UK Varroa resistance issue to Medwin Bew, head of the National Bee Unit (who does not currently subscribe to Bee-L) and am forwarding his response below. For those that want more information about the discovery of resistance in the UK and its geographical distribution, the Pyrethroid Resistance pages on our website (http://www.csl.gov.uk/prodserv/cons/bee/) may be of interest. James --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks to everyone for their helpful comments on the development of pyrethroid resistant varroa here in the UK. It is useful getting the views and experience of others overseas who are dealing with the same problem. We didn't claim that varroa resistance is only caused by misuse. As a research lab with many years experience in pesticide research, application and impact, including mite control, we are aware that resistance develops naturally with any product in time. We have also been working closely with European colleagues dealing with resistance, including the European Apistan distributor, for many years. The epicentre of the UK case of resistance found so far is DEFINITELY linked to confirmed and persistent misuse. Misuse accelerates resistance onset considerably. We are trying to get across to people that (a) they should check for resistance routinely, (b) they should follow the treatment label so that we can keep products as long as possible on the market shelf before resistance sets in (i.e., don't misuse them) and (c) they should alternate products they use. We have adopted this approach for years. The problem is that we only have Bayvarol and Apistan as authorised products so far, although others are in the pipeline but could take a while for approval. In the meanwhile we are seeking Special Treatment Authorisation for alternative high efficacy products that we can use to treat the colonies in the immediate area this autumn. This will at least slow down the spread of resistance. We are well aware that it will not stop resistance in its tracks and well aware that there could be other epicentres we are not yet aware of. That's why we put a national screening programme in place a while ago and why we are instructing beekeepers how to check for themselves. We have done this for years in preparation for the inevitable. We do know that there is a possibility that resistance we are dealing with could well cover a wider area. Not everyone in the UK uses pyrethroid. Many use organic acids, essential oils and the like. So spread of resistance to pyrethroid on a wider scale will be a little slower. We are not hiding our heads in the sand, by the way, and never have done. That is why the screening programme was put in place, why we have had an advisory campaign on the subject for years and why our screening targets misuse first AND random checks second. Medwin Bew -- ___________________________________________________________________________ James Morton South-Eastern Regional Bee Inspector Central Science Laboratory National Bee Unit Tel/fax: 020 8571 6450 Mobile: 07719 924 418 E-mail: j.morton@csl.gov.uk CSL website: http://www.csl.gov.uk National Bee Unit website: http://www.csl.gov.uk/prodserv/cons/bee/ ___________________________________________________________________________ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 12:44:37 +0200 Reply-To: Glen van Niekerk Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Glen van Niekerk Subject: Straining honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Everybody ! What would the strainer sizes be in succession when filtering honey - = How coarse to how fine ? Thanx in advance ! ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 15:43:28 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Glen B. Glater" Subject: Hive for the taking I just got a phone call from a pest control entomologist that there is a honeybee colony in a tree at the State Police Barracks in Middleborough, MA. Rather than kill it, they'd like to have someone capture it. Anyone interested should call: Mark Weaver 1-888-743-7378 markw@mdweaver.com Thanks! --glen ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 08:54:54 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: huestis Subject: Re: BEE-L Digest - 10 Sep 2001 to 11 Sep 2001 (#2001-248) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Bob and Pav, Yes Bob I understand Barry's beekeeping methods. Here's a post from BIO BEE: >My main business is queen breeding, but I work closely, of >course, with commercial honey producers. One of these runs >around 5000 scutellata colonies and has yet to treat for varroa. >The main reason is that capensis invasion of scutellata colonies >is by far the biggest problem of commercial beekeepers. >However, I recently inspected, with this beekeeper, dozens of >his colonies, containing wild (as opposed to pedigreed) queens. >We were specifically looking for any varroa damage, but could >not find any. But the varroa are present in all the hives. Varroa >first arrived in this country in 1997, but some experts say it is yet >to really "strike." That is why I am looking into treatment methods >- I want to be preventative and not reactive. If these colonies have had varroa since 1997 they would certainly have crashed by now. Although Capensis is a serious problem one cannot say that ALL these colonies perish to capensis every year. It would be tough to be a commercial beekeeper if this was to occcurs. It is interesting to note that none of these colonies have been treated and NO DAMAGE to the bees has been observed. "SOME EXPERTS" are recommending treatment. Why contaminate ones wax and possibly honey until one is sure their is a problem? If no damaged bees are being seen there MAY NOT be varroa problems. It is reasonable that scutellata control varroa naturally(It is year 5 and spring there). > Totally unnatural???? What is unnatural about raising queens from bees on > which varroa do not reproduce? > The first purpose is not to maintain but to introduce the SMR gene into our > U.S. stocks. I do not mean that the trait is unnatural. I mean the manner in which the trait is maintained. If SMR is not maintained won't it loose its effectiveness? How can such a task be done in the ENTIRE country? This is what I meant by swimming up a waterfall. Would it not be easier to allow the bees to control varroa without any speacial breeding? As for being "burnt" that could happen to either group (SMR or small cell). If one does nothing it is a garantee! I did not mention 4.9 in my previous post as what you have said is a possibility. On the other hand it may be wise. Time will tell. I hope the joke isn't on me (or anyone). From the early indications I'm seeing I'm optimistic at least. 4.9 may be theory, but all theorys need time to prove themselves. regards, Clay- wishing all the best of luck! ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 18:35:01 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Milt Lathan Subject: Grease Patty recipe - ingredient info? A friend and I would appreciate more info on two constituents of the grease patty recipes we saw today. MINERAL SALT - what mineral/s are meant here? Why pink? NATURAL WINTERGREEN - Where do you get it? Is it oil or crystals? Thanks for listening! ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 11:13:36 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob & Liz Subject: patent applied for MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello All, Natural varroa control? http://www.mitezapper.com/release.html Sincerely, Bob Harrison Odessa, Missouri ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 09:00:58 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Computer Software Solutions Ltd Subject: Grease Patties Comments: cc: irishbeekeeping@yahoogroups.co.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hello All I too should be glad to receive the recipe for grease patties, and observations regarding using them. Sincerely Tom Barrett Dublin Ireland ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 09:15:33 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Lloyd Spear Subject: grease patties MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I will share my receipt, but first I have to caution against using grease= patties. In the US we found that our bees will quickly (3-5 years seems to be the = general experience) build resistance to tracheal mites if left untreated.= However, in the process the losses can high. A larger beekeeper can be= ar these losses without difficulty, but a person with fewer than 10 hives= may find it more difficult to do so. If a person has 50 hives and loses= 75% (certainly not unrealistic), they will still have 12-13 hives and ca= n quickly rebuild from splits. These splits will likely come from hives = with resistant bees, so losses the following year's) should be much lower= . However, losing 75% of 3 hives may get a beekeeper to -0- hives! In the US, those selling New World Carnolian queens use breeder stock tha= t is annually tested for tracheal mites. Infection rates during the past= 6 years have run 2%-4%. But, if you are going to use grease patties: Buy a large can of Crisco, or a similar high quality vegetable-based cook= ing shortening. Remove the paper label, and place in an oven set on the = lowest possible temperature. (I turned the knob just until it clicked "o= n".) Periodically check until the shortening is 100% liquid. If you hav= e a candy thermometer, the temperature should be about 200 degrees (F). = The can will be only about 1/2 full of liquid. =20 Pour sugar into the can, stirring, until the sugar/shortening mixture fil= ls the can. Let cool and the mixture will return to a solid state. Make= into patties about 1/4 inch thick. Separate with wax paper and put in a= plastic bag in a freezer. They will keep indefinitely. =20 Normally the bees do not like to take the grease patties. The addition o= f the sugar makes the patties more attractive. They can be put on the hi= ves frozen, with the wax paper. =20 Lloyd Lloyd Spear, Owner of Ross Rounds, Inc. Manufacturer of round comb honey equipment and Sundance pollen traps ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 09:13:51 -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: Grease Patties MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > recipe for grease patties Equal parts granulated sugar and Crisco. Crisco is a solid VEGETABLE oil (I do not know the comparable product in Ireland). Mix thouroughly, form into patties about the size of hamburgers, and place them on the top bar. Some add terramycin to the recipe and call them "Extender Patties", but I avoid grease patties as a vector for TM delivery because the extender patties deliver the TM in less than ideal dosages. Grease patties are recommended for Tracheal mite treatment, they have no effect on Varroa. > observations regarding using them. Some hives will consume (or remove) the patties quickly (perhaps an indication of hygienic behaviour?) and other hives barely touch them. This variability in consumption is why I do not use them to deliver TM. Some hives take their medicine, orther go untreated. Some hives need regular replacement due to consumption, other hives will have patties left over in the spring from patties installed the previous fall. Diana Sammaturo did her doctorate thesis observing the questing (host seeking) behaviour of tracheal mites. The presence of the grease patties impairs the t-mites' ability to recognize an ideal host (a newly emerged bee less than 4 days old) when they find it. Diana originally recommended year-round presence of grease patties in the hive environment, but subsequently changed that recommendation to using the patties in fall/winter when the bees are confined and clustered. Plenty more in the archives at: http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/archives/bee-l.html Aaron Morris - thinking greasy bees! ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 18:34:08 -0400 Reply-To: Barb Miller Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Barb Miller Subject: Re: Grease Patty recipe - ingredient info? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Gentlemen ~ The grease patties with mineral salt and wintergreen are used for both varroa and trachael mites. According to the web site, "The synergy of the active ingredient salt and the inert wintergreen seem to have an effect on both Tracheal and Varroa mites during times when brood is present, and has devastating results on the mites during broodless times in winter." Perhaps you could get in touch with Dr. Amrine for further details. The Url again is: http://rnoel.virtualave.net/2000/index.htm for the complete recipe and details. Please note that it involves more than just patties placed on the brood nest. Wintergreen oil can be found by doing a search on Google. I bought mine from a person selling essential oils for soap making. It can be bought at most health food stores but you will most likely pay dearly for it. The mineral salt can be had from a feed dealer. Sincerely, Barb Miller N. Central PA barbmill@penn.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 16:22:40 +1200 Reply-To: bobhog@pin.co.nz Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Pav Organization: BombusMaximus Subject: SMR / 4.9 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit At 19/09/01, Bill wrote: >It is not that 4.9 is not genuine. It may be >which is why there are several on this list >testing it. Science looks for reproducibility. The root of the 4.9 controversy is exactly that science has NOT been looking. The Lusby's went public out of frustration that no scientists would take seriously the word of mere beekeepers who claimed they were beating varroa. This is why the work is being done by other mere beekeepers (and small under-funded research in 3rd world countries!), who want to know if it is reproducible for them. >When I shifted to the smaller foundation I did have >less overall problems with the health of my bees >and did not lose a hive over winter. Great to have this sort of feed-back Bill - such is all we have to go on for now. >The key in all this is not that science has to >prove it for you to try it. We try new things all >the time. It is the insistance that it works when >there are only one or two data points that raises >warning flags. How many hive-years (data points) were there on SMR when it was first publicly 'launched' ( vs several hundred hives over several years for the unacknowledged contender)? It seems to me that the argument comes down to those who will only believe the high priests of the scientific order, vs those that can't be bothered waiting for science to catch- up, and will try a promising new thing for themselves. And if 4.9 turns out to eventually be acknowledged as a significant factor for mite control? How will that reflect on the current scientific hierachy, that looked the other way for so long? -Pav, frustrated hopeful sceptic. "Any idiot can wage war. It takes a true hero to wage unrelenting peace. Terrorists are forged in the crucible of despair. If we aim to eradicate terrorism, we must eradicate hopelessness." -- Martha Schatzle ________________________________________________ (\ Pav Bobhog@pin.co.nz {|||8- Ahaura, New Zealand (/ http://homepages.win.co.nz/bobhog/picpointer.html Visit my index of over 150 beekeeping pictures and movies. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 09:33:50 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob & Liz Subject: SMR / 4.9 Comments: To: bobhog@pin.co.nz MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello All, > At 19/09/01, Bill wrote: > > >It is not that 4.9 is not genuine. It may be > >which is why there are several on this list > >testing it. Science looks for reproducibility. Pav wrote: > The root of the 4.9 controversy is exactly that science has NOT been looking. The Lusby's went public out of frustration that no scientists would take seriously the word of mere beekeepers who claimed they were beating varroa. Although I believe the small cell theory needs looked at further I do not believe it is fair to say the theory has NOT been looked at or are talked about by researchers. Quote from Dadants own publication "Mites of the Honey Bee" page 200: "The smaller cell size of the AHB , along with the fact these bees have fewer mites within the same setting, has led to the idea that *possibly* a small cell would limit mite reproduction." Bob wrote: The above is the main reason why researchers around the world first looked at small cell. Varroa DOES reproduce in AHB small cells and in amounts to KILL brood nests but the constant swarming and abscounding limit varroa in my opinion. The next sentance after the above from "Mites of the Honey Bee" by Dadant: "Just the opposite seems to be true. Larger cells have fewer mites." The source of the information is from a study done in 1993 by Ramon and Van Laere named " Size of comb cell and Reproduction of Varroa Jacobsoni" quote above study found: "There seems to ba a correlation between the height of the cell and the number of mites witin those cells; the cells with the greater distance between the larva and the RIM having fewer varroa mites." Bob wrote: The above is the reason why many researchers have pointed out flaws to me in private discussion of the small cell theory. Why has not Dee pointed out the above findings in ANY of her comments and articles? Because the statement does not further her position but weakens it. Actual research found the height of the cell produced fewer varroa while the width did not( Ramon & Van Laere 1993). One last quote from the book: "Studies of cell size and modifications of the shape of the cell have been EXAMINED as much as ANY method for the control of varroa mites"(pg 200) Small cell HAS been looked at. Maybe the Lusbys work has not been looked at but small cell certainly has. We do not know why the Lusbys are being successful and maybe researchers should take a look . Again what works for her may not work for others. Time will as Pav says will tell the answer. Until new proof comes forward I for one am tired of the hype. I highly recommend the book as I have said before. Twenty seven authors wrote for the book. The book is available from most U.S. bee supply house. My own beekeeping knowledge level is not on the level of many of those authors. Researchers I have talked to simply do not believe small cell alone (width) is the answer. Sincerely, Bob Harrison Odessa, Missouri Ps. For my friends in the U.K. and Ireland on pages 242 & 243 are maps showing the spread of fluvalinate resistant mites. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 09:55:59 -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: SMR / 4.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Pav wrote: > > At 19/09/01, Bill wrote: > > >It is not that 4.9 is not genuine. It may be > >which is why there are several on this list > >testing it. Science looks for reproducibility. > > The root of the 4.9 controversy is exactly that science has NOT been looking. The > Lusby's went public out of frustration that no scientists would take seriously the word of > mere beekeepers who claimed they were beating varroa. This is why the work is being > done by other mere beekeepers (and small under-funded research in 3rd world > countries!), who want to know if it is reproducible for them. You do not need to wear a lab coat to practice science. Anyone on this list can do so, without a grant. But you do need to follow the protocols so that it can be shown that your results are not influenced by other factors and that others can do the same and get the same results. Which is really not too much to ask for when you may be betting the farm, or in this case, apiary. Many beekeeping advances were by scientists, but most of us would not think of them as such, like Langsdorf, who we look at first as a beekeeper. But he practiced science in his methods. Bill Truesdell Bath, ME ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 11:55:19 +1200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Samizdat=AE?= Subject: fw: varroa book in hard copy; prices Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Dear beekeepers I am happy to announce that the book, Control of Varroa: A guide for New Zealand beekeepers, has now been printed. It will be mailed to all registered beekeepers on Tuesday 25 September at the latest. Additional copies can be purchased from MAF Information (library@maf.govt.nz) for $17 per copy within NZ, $20 for overseas mailing. A limited advance print run was completed last week to provide copies for the initial varroa workshops being held in Hamilton and Auckland. Thank you all for your patience. Paul Bolger Paul Bolger MAF Biosecurity Authority Ph (04) 474 4144 Fax (04) 474 4133 PO Box 2526 Wellington New Zealand ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 18:03:08 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: dan hendricks Subject: Re: Grease Patties MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In addition to Dr. Diana Sammataro's work, Dr. Steve Sheppard at Washington State University demonstrated that the addition of mint oils substantially increased the efficacy of the patties to control tracheal mites. Use them 12 months of the year but keep them out of the cluster's way during the winter. LorAnn Oils, l-800-862-8620, sell mint oils and give beekeepers a discount so identify yourself as one when you order. Addition of a generous amount of honey - I use two Tbs per 1/8# of Crisco - greatly increases the palatibility to the bees and will result in them eating it from the top bars of the top box as well as those between boxes. See also "The Role of Mint Oils in Suppressing Mites" in "PSBA Forum" in Dan __________________________________________________ Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help? Donate cash, emergency relief information http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 19:26:41 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Brad Henry Subject: Bees & Duck Box MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Capturing hives had been discussed many times, but could you bear one more situation and give suggestions.. I have located a hive that is in a woodduck box, about 15 feet up a tree, over water. I would like to transfer this hive into a standard hive body that would end up being only about 200 feet away from it's initial location. I'm thinking about blocking the box openings, taking the box down, smoking, opening, taking the hive apart and fitting what comb I find into empty frames holding them in with rubber bands. Sounds invasive and like I'll have A LOT of upset bees around. Using a wire funnel and trapping the hive into a hive body attached to the duck box might work, but it would take longer, not "get" the queen, and I'm not sure the tree would support the weight. Suggestions please. Brad Henry Little Rock, AR ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 19:59:24 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Anya Subject: Re: Beekeepers Cookbook [3rd try] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm sure there's a section in Hooper's "Guide to Bees and Honey" - certainly for the syrup [2lbs to a pint of water, IIRC - but I usually check before I start!] and for candy, anyway. J. J. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 21:50:58 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "From the Gussow's of Tucson,Arizona - Don't worry it's a dry heat!" Subject: Re: SMR / 4.9 In-Reply-To: <200109201454.f8KEsdJ23347@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bill Truesdell Bath, ME Wrote: "You do not need to wear a lab coat to practice science. Anyone on this list can do so, without a grant. But you do need to follow the protocols so that it can be shown that your results are not influenced by other factors and that others can do the same and get the same results. Which is really not too much to ask for when you may be betting the farm, or in this case, apiary." Do you really expect to get away with that statement Bill. The Lusby's don't expect from people who try 4.9 foundation to do nothing more than allow the cells that there bees make what they want to. That is the intent and purpose of 4.9 foundation to find what that cell size and keep it or regress to a smaller cell size. Fat bees make fat cells. The Lusby's were placed in an all to frequent situation parish or fight back with a new method only after spending a fortune on chemicals that didn't work for them. Those results are showing up in Mass. This year the industry in that state crashed from Varroa and Trachea mites. I know this from my neighbors who had a family truck farm there and lost all of there hive there. I was to teach a young girl to become a beekeeper here as she would be following into that farm when she became of age. Now the whole family has decided not to continue in beekeeping. Since I live in Tucson were the Lusby's live I know of the painful experience that they went through. They have 33 remote sites and are being hounded out of discussion by the Carl Hayden Bee Research Center that is run by the U.S.D.A. The research that is being done there is very little or none at all. Why is that Bill? I commend the Lusby's choice of holding on with what they know and holding on to the convections that they know work with there bees. The current methods that the Lusby's used chemicals and other so called approved methods had a result of a loss of 1300 hive losses. They built up the remainder with what is now about 700+ hives with gathering swarms and splits. Does that work for you now Bill? They have gladly given the information on how to do this for free in several states and at their home yard which is there home as well. Third world nations have sent people to see what it was all about because they wanted to use bees even with the Mite from hell. Others are using it from Illinois to Sweden and I too have one hive on 4.9 foundation but then I only have one hive right now. The pedigree of a bee is not what they are looking for either. That works out just fine as the bees with less hybrid in them adapt better to 4.9 foundation. My swarm was living in a bird house and was cut out of it by the Lusby's for me. I don't have the skills to do that at the time but I could do it now. Why is this occurring because the population of wild bees in Arizona is figured to be at a ratio of 1 swarm to 1.3 acres. This is a state were most of the land is owned by the U.S. government. The Carl Hayden Bee Research Center knows this too. The sites that they have are on government land and not in private lands. They wanted to know what the local beekeepers had for stock so that they could "Factor out" those hive near their sites. The Lusby's rejected their offer after a contractual agreement was broken by that same lab. The Carl Hayden Bee Research Center hasn't done a single thing since then and is affectionately known as the "Rest Home" for Entomologist waiting to retire from Government service of the U.S.D.A. While the Lusby's were honing the theory of 4.9 foundation the worst possible thing happened they had a fire. This occurrence set them back more than a couple of years but now they are running fine and working hard doing what that family has done for six generations in Arizona. They are the second oldest beekeeping family in Arizona and the other is in Yuma. While they do not run their operation the same as the one in Yuma is Migratory beekeeping and the Lusby's are fixed on some 33 sites. This year they have what would only be considered to be a good year. I have only known them for about five months and have found them to be freely giving of information and patient. I owe them my bees and to some extent my site as well. This microclimate in Arizona is different than that in most of the eastern seaboard and mid-west. The honey flow in the upper Sonoran Desert is explosive and then dies for two months and begins again sometime in the middle of September to October or until the frost kills off the honey plants bloom. Rain plays such a large role here that a beekeeper with the experience in what goes on in January rainfall will tell you what to expect in may and June as far as the honey flow. Above average rainfall in January rings bells and is amplified if it continues in February and March. Micro climate is a variable in the use of 4.9 foundation as well as the hybrid bees. Since they both can not be predicted as to just what will happen these factors must be considered when employing such method. The Altitude is another considerable factor as it does place some actions by the bees in there behavior. There are some good traits under 4.9 foundation too. The bees tend to their cells and have an increase in numbers as the queen lays more per frame than other size foundation. There is more to the Lusby's methods than just cell size but that will have to wait for another time as it isn't in this discussion. When I had to move my hive I had trouble and the Lusby's kindly allowed me to place my hive in the closest site that they had. While there, in the middle of the night, I observed the rest of the hives in that apiary. Bees cluster at night in the desert or any other place for that matter on the outside of the hive structures. The hives in question were a good five deeps high and the clusters were enormous. That site two days later produced 17 deeps of surplus honey and that was at the end of the honey flow for the first part of the year at that site. That site has been downsized from more than twenty to what it is today. The reason is purely to keep the insanity of the "Killer Bees" or "African Killer Bees" and the neighborhood convenience store acrossed the street. The Carl Hayden Bee Research Center really helps here as they have given out to the media there option of the majority of the bees in Arizona as being African Bees and there you have your hard working government employees hard at work working against the very industry they are to aide and improve on Research. (Like I said the Carl Hayden Bee Research Center & Rest Home has done nothing in major or minor Research for beekeeping in several years.) While the Lusby's have been working as beekeepers. Who is really doing the work here the Beekeepers or the Queens in the rest home? When a great resource of high research is being abused by what could be a great help to beekeepers inside and all over the world it makes you think that the inmates of the asylum are running it. There is a real chance that they could do real work here too which is unfortunate to all who work with bees every were. The new Secretary of Agriculture should do something about moving out the old and replacing them with more accommodating entomologists who really want to work in Apiculture, Respectfully Submitted Harvey Gussow a.k.a. KA7TYN ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 00:31:34 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Mea McNeil Subject: Re: Bees & Duck Box In-Reply-To: <200109211157.f8LBv3J11002@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed >Using a wire funnel >and trapping the hive into a hive body attached to the duck box might work, >but it would take longer, not "get" the queen, In our experience (twice), the queen has followed. However, a recent posting on this listserve advises using a queenright box. The box does not have to be attached to the structure you want to get the bees out of. MEA McNeil ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 16:21:21 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Barry Sergeant Subject: Re: SMR / 4.9 Hi Harvey Thank you for a wonderful and truly fascinating piece. It was truly lucid as well, but for one question I would like to pose to clarify some of your descriptions. Just what race of bee is it that is inhabiting the apiaries and hives that you so carefully describe? Best regards Barry Sergeant Kyalami South Africa ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 20:24:07 -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: Grease Patty recipe - ingredient info? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Barb Miller wrote: > > Gentlemen ~ > The grease patties with mineral salt and wintergreen are used for both > varroa and trachael mites snip > Perhaps you could get in touch > with Dr. Amrine for further details. The Url again is: > http://rnoel.virtualave.net/2000/index.htm Thank you, Barb. Interesting experiment. Of interest is the patties are used in conjunction with open mesh floors to get Varroa drop without reinfestation. It appears they have a steady state of about 5% infestation after the initial mite drop. And you need to add patties every two weeks, so a bit labor intensive. They also have a caveat at the end, "Note: This treatment is only in the experimental stage and is, by no means, a claim for a cure", which is refreshing where we have so many "certain" varroa cures. I have read other treatments tested by Dr. Amrine and find him credible. He does not hype his findings but is fairly cautious. It would be interesting to see what would happen if Thymol were substituted for Wintergreen. Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine USA ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 20:07:56 -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: SMR / 4.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "From the Gussow's of Tucson,Arizona - Don't worry it's a dry heat!" wrote: > > >Bill Truesdell > >Wrote: > >"You do not need to wear a lab coat to practice science. Anyone on this > >list can do so, without a grant. But you do need to follow the protocols > Do you really expect to get away with that statement Bill. The > Lusby's don't expect from people who try 4.9 foundation to do nothing more > than allow the cells that there bees make what they want to. I appreciate your strong arguments, but the statement stands. There have been many forward thinking people who championed a new idea and were hounded by the establishment. History is full of them. The ones who stuck with it were vindicated and are now honored. However, there were many more that thought they were just as right but were wrong. Cold fusion comes to mind. But most were forgotten because the idea they proposed did not work. If you read what I posted you will see that I agree there is something in using 4.9- actually any cell size 5.0 or below. Barry and others are testing it. Some in my own area are going to try it next year. I have no issue with the Lusbys. I have no idea why the lab is not testing 4.9. My point is you do not need the lab, as Barry and others are showing. If the trials are valid, there is no doubt in my mind that a majority of beekeepers will shift to the smaller foundation. But if Barry and others cannot duplicate it, then that will be the end of it as a major varroa control. Bill Truesdell Bath, ME ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 16:24:20 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dee Lusby Subject: Re: SMR / 4.9 In-Reply-To: <200109211807.f8LI7JJ25580@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii This email is to all on BEE-L especiall Bill Truesdell I myself do not know Harvey very well, him being only in our bee association a few months and having helped him cut out a feral colony in a birdhouse on a referral from the Dadants. I do not know where he is getting the information about us and it is certainly erroneous in what is being stated in his comments. We do not use chemicals, drugs, essential oils or acids and are known for that for several decades now. It has cost us a bundle to take our stand on no dopes or various treatments with retooling cost prohibitive for most all beekeepers. Changing all combs in a commercial operation once is cost prohibitive let alone twice in 15 plus years. I do not recognize what he is saying about the Tucson Bee lab and this too is grossly erroneous and out of perspective for happenings in our immediate area and State as a whole. I myslef should know this history being the current president of the Southern Arizona BEekeepers Association for more than 15 years now and a past president of the Arizona State Beekeepers Association for several also. I also served on the AHB committee for the State of Arizona and represented the State of Arizona in fact finging trips to Texas on AHB information gathering meeting with APHIS and the USDA down there. I am sorry for the misinformation posted by a newbee beekeepers that has only one colony and needs to learn to deal in facts than wild imagination and I will definitely try to find out his rational in his posting at the upcoming SABA annual meeting/picnic next week. I hope no harm has been done to the Tucson lab with his remarks and as for the insults to myself and husband and our way of doing things, which is without treatments, etc. you may rest assure he shall be educated about rambling without knowing about that which he is talking. I have always dealt in fact and to that I have stood. I will not put up with ramblings about either myself nor the Tucson lab nor anyone else for that matter. To this end even Bob H. on this list I would defend or even Allen D. if need be from this sort of recent posting. Sincerely submitted, Dee A. Lusby __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com