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 9CE6724AE17 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 12:46:57 -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 h03GhO47010284 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 12:46:56 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200301031746.h03GhO47010284@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 LOG0111D" To: adamf@IBIBLIO.ORG Content-Length: 96720 Lines: 2056 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 10:21:25 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter Borst Subject: Varroa in queen cells Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Aaron writes: >Now it's been passed on that some have asserted it might be as >simple as a matter of chance based on length of time a cell is >uncapped; the longer the barn door is open the more likely it is >that the horse will leave (or in this case enter). Interesting >assertion and certainly a more simple explanation (Occam's Razor!). > >Based on the assertions and observations posted in the past few days >I must back off my assertion that Varroa will not be found in queen >cells. Right. I have no more info to give on this topic (sorry) but I think it is worthwhile to question whether the varroa mite uses cues to differentiate between cells. I am not saying that they couldn't but that they might not. It might just be probability like we have said. Another *possibility* could be that drone cells receive much less attention than other cells, queen cells being attended to the most. I would suppose that if a cell was visited often, the bees *could* remove any mites in there. By the way, I have seen Tom Seeley's lab and he uses slow motion video tapes to study bee behavior. I think we could learn a lot if a mite infested hive was video taped and we actually observed the interaction between bees and mites. Then we would know if bees remove mites from cells, or each other, and we might see them biting them. It is interesting to consider that mites seem to build up very fast in large hives during summer -- perhaps the housekeeping activities are neglected during this time since so much attention must be diverted to other tasks. We all know that bees are more diligent in protecting the nest at certain times than others. On the odor trials, again -- just because certain odors attract or repel, it does not necessarily follow that mites "use" these odors as cues, or are even aware of them in the environment of a beehive (which is obviously a highly odorific place!). Be that as it may, I certainly hope along with the rest that some kind of an odor based trap or repellent could be devised, regardless of its scientific basis. On another note, one must be very careful when invoking evolution as a mechanism. I often hear that such and such a species "evolved" to a certain point -- "mites evolved to reproduce in drone cells". Evolution, adaptation and resistance are very complicated processes and difficult to prove. One must give equal attention to such things as *chance* and *opportunism*. -- pb http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/plb6/ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 10:15:18 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter Borst Subject: Honey bee castes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Greetings! It appears that the word "caste" is being used in discussions incorrectly. Caste does not seem to refer to perceived differences in worker bees at all, but to the difference between the queen and the workers. " Workers assume different roles in the nest as they age, a pattern known as temporal polyethism." see below: quotes: A major product of the general scientific research into the ecology of Apis Mellifera is a greater understanding of the honey bee's "social structure" and population dynamics. In examining the population of the colony, scientists have uncovered the existence of a highly ordered caste system. The queen reigns at the top of the caste, with the male drones and female workers below. ... The workers are the second caste in the colony and perform many crucial tasks within the hive. ... The male drones are the third caste in the colony. http://gears.tucson.ars.ag.gov/beepop/intro.html * * * * * Honey bees live in a caste system and are so highly specialized that no individual bee, including the queen, is capable of living alone or establishing a new colony alone. Adult honey bees consist of 3 castes - queens, drones and workers. The queen is the only fully developed female in the hive. http://beelab.cas.psu.edu/P-gals/Gal3/Hymenop/hy09.html * * * * * Queen and worker honeybees (Apis mellifera L.) are both female, but differ in form and function. In a honey bee colony there is one queen, whose role is reproduction, and several thousand workers, whose tasks are non-reproductive (cleaning, gathering food, cooling or warming the nest, etc.). Both castes produce a characteristic blend of functionalized 8- and 10-carbon fatty acids in their mandibular glands. http://www.sfu.ca/chemistry/faculty/Plettner/Bio.html * * * * * III. The caste system of the honey bee relegates individuals (drones, queens, workers) into programmed roles from which there is no escape. IV. The basis for caste determination in workers and queens has been the subject of many studies. There is a worker to queen continuum because intercastes can be created artificially and they are also seen in nature, though rarely. Some theories on caste determination follow: A. Haydak hypothesized the quality of food the larva received had a good deal to do with determining whether a queen or worker developed. He also suggested hormones were somehow involved. B. Weaver believed that the jelly fed to larvae might have a "determining substance" incorporated into it. C. Shuell and Dixon suggested that nutrient balance was important and shifts in this could determine caste development. D. Dietz showed that moisture content was increased in jelly fed to queen larvae, allowing them to consume more than worker-determined larvae. E. Lensky found that sugar ratio of fructose to glucose was important in caste determination, and that juvenile hormone (J.H.) played an important role in the process. http://bugweb.entnem.ufl.edu/eny4571/classificat.htm * * * * * In social Hymenoptera, the determination of sex is intertwined with the determination of social role. For sociality to be effective, the balance of workers and reproductives (reproductively able individuals) must be modulated. Females develop into one of several castes, each of which perform specific tasks. Different taxa have different numbers of castes, and different degrees of caste specification. In some groups caste determination is both reversible and barely distinguishable on a morphological level, while in other taxa caste differentiation is irreversible and marked by extreme morphological differences. The mechanisms of caste determination may vary widely. Apis mellifera, the honey bee, has the best studied system of caste differentiation. Differences in caste specific behavior have been understood for many years (Michener, 1974), but recent molecular studies have shed new light on the mechanisms by which it occurs. In honey bees, the primary determination is between worker bees and gyne (future queens). Gynes are given a special diet that activates queen specific development. Workers assume different roles in the nest as they age, a pattern known as temporal polyethism. http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/users/99/mahowald/caste.html ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 10:56:58 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dave Cushman Subject: Re: Castes of honeybees in a hive and swarming MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi All > > b) The queen cannot segregate her sperm "by drone", so we > > can assume the "drone component" of each worker to be a > > random selection, or something close to random. I lifted the following from one of my posts to another list. The original questioner was David Eyre. > Did you know that > a queen mixes all the semen she gets on her mating flight? "Mixing" yes, but this mixing is not homogeneous... the sperm of each subset is separated into lumps or packets and the lumps are held in some sort of cluster structure a bit like a bag of marbles or maybe a thixotropic matrix. The number of drones mated to and the size of these "marbles" varies with race of bee... I myself, am looking for the details of this for one of my "projects" and would be grateful for any referances. The number of drone matings is to produce subsets within fertilised eggs, not purely for volume of semen. I suspect that in AMM strains, the high number of matings is partly to improve diversity due to the risk of similar genes from "apiary vicinity mating" (with the high number it does not matter if some of the gene sets are duplicated). I would be interested to find out if each drone is represented equally with regard to numbers of sperm or whether duplicates or triplicates are reduced to produce equal representation of subsets. Best regards & 73s... Dave Cushman G8MZY Beekeeping & Bee Breeding Website http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.298 / Virus Database: 161 - Release Date: 11/13/01 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 02:06:10 +0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: James Kilty Subject: Re: Purring In-Reply-To: <200111191500.fAJF09322947@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 In message <200111191500.fAJF09322947@listserv.albany.edu>, Bill Truesdell writes >Has anyone heard of a bees purring, like a cat? I have noticed sounds that are almost like someone is speaking - when the hive is open. A friend used the description "chortle" about some sounds. I suppose you could liken it to a purr with its pitch changing. But this is close by and the hive is open. -- James Kilty ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 01:42:28 +0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: James Kilty Subject: Re: queen cells in November In-Reply-To: <200111191338.fAJDcR320565@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 In message <200111191338.fAJDcR320565@listserv.albany.edu>, Lloyd Spear writes >And, if genetics was a= >t work, I have not allowed them any chance to produce a new queen. A.m.m. will often supersede in autumn. In our mild climate (here) that can work well. Last year several late supersedures turned drone layers since the weather was very wet. In a variable autumn, there can be sufficient mating windows of opportunity. Also colonies can keep drones late, either for supersedure in the autumn or even in the spring. Overall it is a trait I value *here*. -- James Kilty ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 20:31:26 +0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: James Kilty Subject: Re: Varroa in queen cells In-Reply-To: <200111211450.fALEom310919@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 In message <200111211450.fALEom310919@listserv.albany.edu>, Aaron Morris writes >Now it's been passed on that some have >asserted it might be as simple as a matter of chance based on length of time >a cell is uncapped; the longer the barn door is open the more likely it is >that the horse will leave (or in this case enter). And on the Irish List (Norman Carreck) suggested that the number of visits made to feed the grubs would explain results where workers in smaller cells had less varroa than those in larger cells in the same colony. I was "taught" (in the early days) that the pH of drone brood just before capping is different to that of workers (high pollen content). (Is this so - anyone?) This would presumably change the smell. Smell would be a simple way of differentiating and explain how each (bees and varroa) could accommodate the other as they evolved. Bees which attracted varroa into worker cells would tend die out (numbers) and varroa which let themselves be led into worker cells would tend to die out. So cerana is OK. (Is this speculation OK for this list???) If it were just time open/feeds there would still be a calculable proportion going into worker cells. >Based on the assertions and observations posted in the past few days I must >back off my assertion that Varroa will not be found in queen cells. Dick Allen's post about 2 new queens that had started to lay and then were lost hints that such queens may well be vulnerable. This implies a lowered success rate in rearing queens. Has anyone noticed this? > I've >never seen it myself, but then again I've never seen France. Wonderful country. -- James Kilty ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 10:21:14 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dave Cushman Subject: Re: Honey bee castes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Peter There is common useage of the word "subcaste" on many US oriented discussion groups (to describe familiies of drones and half sisters in workers)... I usually use the word "subset" which makes sense in UK English. The thread originator merely missed the "sub" off... I do not think any misunderstanding resulted. Language is a fairly flexible comodity and meaning can usually survive the odd "mangling". Best regards & 73s... Dave Cushman G8MZY Beekeeping & Bee Breeding Website http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.298 / Virus Database: 161 - Release Date: 11/13/01 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 09:34:23 +0100 Reply-To: man@mbox301.swipnet.se Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Mats Andersson Subject: Varroa preference to drone cells MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello. I have read your discussion on why varroa mites prefer drone cells. Could it be that it is slightly colder in the outer part of the brood area, where the drone cells are usually found, and that this is why the mites end up there. They're more sensitive to high temperatures than the bees are. /Mats Andersson, Stockholm Sweden ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 01:58:20 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Scot Mc Pherson Subject: Re: Castes of honeybees in a hive and swarming MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/22/01 5:09:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, dave.cushman@LINEONE.NET writes: << Best regards & 73s... Dave Cushman G8MZY Beekeeping & Bee Breeding Website http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman >> G8MZY de N2UPA Howdy, I realize this is a bit off topic, but I would be interested in a quick informal reply/poll of how many beekeepers are HAMs. As well how many are computer geeks (i.e. linux, FreeBSD, Win2000 etc). Just interesting because I don't think I ever expected to meet another HAM on the BEE-L. 73, Scot Mc Pherson N2UPA ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 20:30:37 EST 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: BEE-L Digest - 21 Nov 2001 to 22 Nov 2001 (#2001-318) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 23/11/01 05:03:18 GMT Standard Time, LISTSERV@LISTSERV.ALBANY.EDU writes: << Honey bee castes >> I was taught that there are 2 genders and that the female gender has 2 castes. Chris ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 07:46:32 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter Subject: Honey bee castes In-Reply-To: <200111240501.fAO515317205@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" >There is common useage of the word "subcaste" on many US oriented discussion >groups (to describe familiies of drones and half sisters in workers)... I >usually use the word "subset" which makes sense in UK English. Read the excerpts and the articles they refer to, paying close attention to the statement: " Workers assume different roles in the nest as they age, a pattern known as temporal polyethism." Not only is it incorrect to call the division among workers "castes" but to ascribe the divisions to genetics also seems wrong, since it is widely known that workers change tasks as needed. PB -- pb http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/plb6/ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 16:28:19 +0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Joel F. Magsaysay" Subject: workers piping In-Reply-To: <200111191916.fAJJGK304001@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Bee Listers, Has anyone heard / heard of, workers piping? I was inspecting a colony with an old queen, who happened to be above the excluder. Took out the frame with her on it. Pulled out each and every frame below the excluder, just to make sure. One frame I pulled out emitted a piping sound very similar to queen piping. Put my ear to the frame crawling with bees and isolated a spot about 3 inches square from which a piping sound was being made. Inpected it for a good ten minutes. No queen. Do workers pipe? ILOG MARIA HONEYBEE FARMS PHILIPPINES ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 01:31:09 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dick Allen Subject: Some anonymous remarks Beekeepers: This was an email I received from a German scientist and beekeeper who had asked for information on the polariscope mentioned in a previous post. I thought the group might be interested in reading it. Regards, Dick Following up the bee list now for several years I am sometimes surprised that there is no distiction between facts and the own imagination (=it should be that way because I can not think in different terms). This than is taken as a religion. It makes no sense for a scientist to respond to such "non-proven pseudo-facts". This ist best shown by the recent discussion of overwinterung on different honey-sugar types. There are numerous scientific papers on it at least in my country; and the discussion out there is as if such information is non-existent. So the "informed discussion group" in reality is a discussion of mostly "non-informed bee keepers" and worse of those who do not know that they are "non-informed". ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 17:54:08 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob & Liz Subject: Re: Some anonymous remarks MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable -----Original Message----- From: Bob & Liz [SMTP:BusyBeeAcres@DiscoveryNet.Com] Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2001 5:37 PM To: 'Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology' Subject: RE: Some anonymous remarks -----Original Message----- From: Dick Allen [SMTP:dickallen@GCI.NET] Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2001 12:31 AM To: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu Subject: Some anonymous remarks Hello All, Anonymous wrote; It makes no sense for a scientist to respond to such "non-proven = pseudo-facts". This is best shown by the recent discussion of = overwinterung on different honey-sugar types. There are numerous = scientific papers on it at least in my country; and the discussion out = there is as if such information is non-existent. So the "informed = discussion group" in reality is a discussion of mostly "non-informed bee = keepers" and worse of those who do not know that they are = "non-informed". On the subject of overwintering there has been more written than any = beekeeping subject ever written. As a collector of old = beekeeping books and mags I know the above is true. The truth (from = a old beekeeper) is a strong hive with young bees , young queen and = plenty of honey/syrup and pollen, disease and mite free is going = to see spring regardless of all the things argued about in the = discussion our scientist is talking about. I did not enter the = discussion of over wintering as it was the same old items discussed.=20 I consider BEE-L to be the number one list for beekeeping in the = world. There certainly are many informed beekeepers on BEE-L. and a = few scientists. Because we are in essence writing a book = together many of us will not let what we know as totally inaccurate = information stand on Bee-L. . I saw no information presented in the = overwintering posts which I had not seen presented through the years. I = would invite our anonymous scientists to help out and point out = wrong information posted. Even though I started keeping bees as a = teenager I still have got many things to learn in beekeeping. We also = have got many new beekeepers on the list and they need to learn = from us. Regardless of what those selling beekeeping supplies will tell = you beekeeping is not an easy craft to learn. There are many ways to = keep bees successfully and it is almost impossible to get beekeepers to = agree on any one method. Sincerely, Bob Harrison Odessa, Missouri ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 19:21:56 +1000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: T & M Weatherhead Subject: Re: workers piping MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Has anyone heard / heard of, workers piping? Yes I have heard it and actually seen the worker doing the piping. I had long thought that workers can pipe because I had the same experience where I had a queen on a frame and then pull the next frame out and heard the piping from a bee on that frame. One time I had the queen on one frame that I had removed and then heard the piping from the next frame I was taking out. I saw a worker on the frame laying itself prostrate on the frame making the piping sound. It then stood up and, after a few seconds, prostrated itself and again made the piping sound. I wonder if the piping sound that we call queen calling is actually workers. We have had 100's of cages in the house with queens and escorts in them for export and I have heard this piping but I have not seen a queen piping. Was it actually the workers? All I know is that I have seen a worker piping and have not seen a queen piping. It doesn't mean that queens do not pipe but it shows that workers definitely do. Trevor Weatherhead AUSTRALIA ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 22:53:53 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: waldig Subject: Re: Some anonymous remarks In-Reply-To: <200111250015.fAP0Fq313013@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>There are many ways to keep bees successfully and it is almost impossible to get beekeepers to agree on any one method. To extend on this thought: it's not all that rare that scientists disagree about 'facts.' :)) I think everyone has something new to learn every once in a while. Waldemar ---------------------------------------------------- Sign Up for NetZero Platinum Today Only $9.95 per month! http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum&refcd=PT97 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 21:21:17 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: GImasterBK@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Some anonymous remarks MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit While I like much of what Bob says, I do not agree this time, but agree with what the German writer has said. Too many people who are interested in beekeeping believe that good beekeeping is easy to learn and not much to learn, and that one can learn from "on the job" training with little need to do much reading about the findings of the bee scientists and bee researchers of today. It was not a beekeeper who found some of more important things of today, but a bee scientist who found and developed SMR bees, Hygienic bees, Terramycin to replace sulfanilamide in 1951, Fumadil-B for nosema which was discovered by bee researchers, Menthol, Apistan, CheckMite while some beekeepers are still losing bees by the use of their "home-brewed" remedies like food grade mineral oil or wintergreen oil. Beekeeping needs the bee scientists to produce the things that a good beekeeper can properly use in the ART of beekeeping, and attempting to be a well informed beekeeper by listening to the anthropomorphic answers by many so -called beeKEEPERS is a folly. Good beekeeping today results from a well informed apiarist who has learned the skills of the art of good beekeeping, but the primary source of those components and management techniques to beeKEEPING come from the bee scientists and bee researchers, rather than the beekeeper. Bob said he is "still learning". I like that! It is a shame that too many people think that beekeeping is simple, not requiring much endeavor, very little hard work, do it in YOUR OWN leisure time, and requires no help from science. 2002 starts by 70th year of beekeeping in Maryland, and believe me- I AM STILL LEARNING - and it is so rewarding when year after year, you don't have any colony losses, exceed your state honey production figures by a bundle, and are sought after to teach or write. But I follow every word written by people like Shimanuki, Harbo, Spivak, Nasr, Caron, Delaplane, Tew, Winston, Laidlaw, Page, & Gary just to name a few of the scientists Now if you really want to go back into bygone days, I guess one of the greatest bee researchers this country ever had (and I still value what he says although we are both pretty old) is Steve Tabor who converted me from 15 years with Italian bees to Carniolans back in 1948 to take advantage of Maryland's very early nectar flow from April 15th to May 31st and we are done for the year. Steve also started the work with Rothenbuhler on Hygienic bees way back in the 1950's, but had to stop because no one was interested in paying him for that research then. I end this long note with a fond tribute to Bob, in that, although not a scientist, Bob is well informed and well read and obviously a fine beekeeper that all should would do well to follow. Bob, I am giving a 4 hour talk and workshop in January at the ABF Savannah meeting about "Improving Your Beekeeping Management Techniques", in spite of being disabled by 5 strokes. I was told they didn't want my infirm body and bad voice, but just my brains. If I find myself getting tarred and feathered, I will yell for your help. George Imirie Certified EAS Master Beekeeper Author of George's PINK PAGES ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 20:27:27 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: James Fischer Subject: Re: Some anonymous remarks MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Allen Dick related a private communication thusly: > It makes no sense for a scientist to respond to such "non-proven > pseudo-facts". This ist best shown by the recent discussion of > overwinterung on different honey-sugar types. There are numerous > scientific papers on it at least in my country; and the discussion > out there is as if such information is non-existent. I don't want to appear to criticize any of those who participated in the "winter feeding" thread, or the person who communicated with Allen, but the papers mentioned were almost certainly unknown to those who took the time to offer the benefit of their experience. While I did not participate in that discussion, I certainly admit to having no idea which papers he mentioned. No one can. He did not cite the papers. What a shame that the anonymous party did not simply cite the papers as possible sources of information, and thereby insure that he could contribute without getting into a time-consuming discussion of what he viewed as "pseudo-facts". What a tragedy that he knew of the papers, took the time to read the postings, but did not have the time to mention the papers. Strange that he does have enough time to berate those who DID take the time to offer their honest opinions. > So the "informed discussion group" in reality is a discussion of > mostly "non-informed bee keepers" and worse of those who do > not know that they are "non-informed". A dismissive comment like that one needs an answer, so I'll attempt to clarify the situation for all who might be concerned at such comments: a) Not everyone has the budget to subscribe to every obscure entomology journal on the planet. I own my R&D firm, and our journals budget is completely out of control, even though we only focus on a very narrow range of physics, cryptography, and supercomputing subject areas. Even a subscription to a citation search database is expensive. Blame the profit motive. These things have only gotten more expensive in recent years. Beekeepers cannot afford them, and many universities have stopped offering library access to non-students due to concerns over the costs of things like citation database search fees. b) I think that there is a clear difference between stating one's opinion, based upon one's own experience, and a claim of fact, or the citation of a study or paper. One must assume in a forum such as this that all contributions are "opinion", no matter how strongly worded, unless a specific citation is made, or a specific claim is made that something is "generally accepted as fact". Rather than dismissing the opinions offered as "pseudo-facts", a scientist worthy of the title might view the opinions as "isolated field reports". Anecdotal? Certainly. Apocryphal? Perhaps. The difference? Interview or survey the reporters, and correlate the data offered. (Looks to me like a fertile area for a Ph.D. thesis on how to expand experiments with "limited field trials" conducted by hobbyist beekeepers...) c) I doubt if anyone was mis-representing "opinion" as "fact", a nuance that may have been lost in translation. (I conclude from the anonymous commentator's use of "ist" and "overwinterung" that German is his/her first language, and English is only a secondary language.) d) Many published papers in this field are based upon samples smaller than 100 hives, and time periods shorter than even a single year. Therefore, which is more "informed" - the conclusion of a Master's Thesis, or the opinion of a sideline beekeeper who has kept 100 hives for 15 years? I think that BOTH must be judged on the merits, and that NEITHER deserves an automatic label of "informed". The mere fact that published papers exist does not make the conclusions of papers correct, or of practical value to any specific beekeeper. Yes, we are all "less informed" by not having access to every paper ever published, but the bees and the seasons will not wait while we take a decade to read them all. Most questions are asked by people who want an answer NOW, and a good answer now is always better than an excellent answer in 2 months. e) Bill Truesdell said some very true a while ago: "All beekeeping, like all politics, is local." There is much that changes due to location, simply due to climate's impact on bees, and hence, required practices. To make matters more complex, bees are amazingly tolerant of wide ranges of conditions, and even "abuse" due to less-than-appropriate practices. It follows that a beekeeper or scientist can be misled by good conditions, and collect significant "data" that leads him to infer that his success was due to something he did, rather than simply due to a "good year" overcoming the neutral, or even possibly negative impact of his practices. Even the best double-blind study with excellent statistical rigor has little value if the results cannot be extrapolated to other climate conditions. (But, in the specific case of "winter feeding", one must admit that the needs are nearly universal everywhere except the tropics, where "winter" is little more than an extended "nectar dearth".) f) I don't know who named the mailing list with the pretentious title "Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues...", but the participants in the list should not be blamed for not living up to the (unreasonable?) expectations of those who named the list. Yes, the internet was wonderful back in the 1970s and 1980s when it was just a small circle of scientists, grad students, and computer freaks. The percentage of "junk" was very low. Welcome to the 21st Century - the internet now admits everyone who can afford a computer, and the signal-to-noise ratio degrades as a natural result of including "the public". Enjoy it, or at least learn to live with it, but petulant insults about people who have only the best of motives are both poor form, and useless. Resistance is futile! We will all be assimilated into the electronic fully-meshed consciousness. Please hold still while we install this coax plug at the base of your skull for your personal internet feed... :) g) There are several archives kept of the postings to this list. As such, it is a valid repository for the full-text and graphics of any/all papers in the relevant subject area. At some point the printed journals become insolvent or irrelevant, simply due to their cost, sluggishness, and the unreasonable restrictions they impose upon authors. At that point, this list becomes a possible forum for peer review and publication. Please recall that the entire concept of "the world wide web" was created at CERN for the sole purpose of publishing pre-print physics papers to one's peers. Most of the papers I read are sent to me as pre-prints. Connect the dots. (The solution is left to the student as a trivial exercise.) h) A scientist in the employ of an educational institution has many burdens, one of them the risk of being judged harshly by his masters for the unforeseen consequences of participating in internet discussions. It is no wonder that the anonymous party was hesitant to participate in the discussion. He wants to build a reputation, not put it at risk, and currently, there is little tangible "gain" in "publishing" on the internet for anyone beholden to any "master". The "risks" far outweigh any possible "reward". Forgive the anonymous nature of the remarks. Fear may be appropriate for this scientist. i) Come to think of it, as long as "organized bee science" churns out new "solutions" like coumaphos, when the rest of agriculture realized how bad organophosphates were years ago, I'm not sure that bee scientists have earned the right to turn up their noses at a "disorganized rabble" of beekeepers who freely speak their minds to anyone who wishes to read, and freely offer the benefit of their experiences. Beekeepers are both the beneficiaries of the work of bee scientists, and on a practical hands-on level, a valid part of the peer-review process. Surprise! The so-called "non-informed beekeepers" are your peers, and like it or not, will critique everyone's work, sooner or later. They will not bother to write letters to the editor of some obscure journal. Their comments will be right here, out in the open, fair game for any disagreement. They certainly will not try to hide behind a shield of anonymity. (Lucky for me that supercomputers and most physics lab toys are very expensive - my work is critiqued only by a small circle of people!) Yes, one needs to take what one reads on the internet with a grain of salt (perhaps an entire bag!), but the good news is that the internet is proving every day that many presumed "authoritative" sources of information should also not be accepted at face value. So, yes. Critical thinking skills ARE required on the internet. But they are also required to slog through an entomology journal. And yes, there is much that is misinformed or just plain wrong on the internet. Ditto for entomology journals. The number of web pages available on the internet continues to increase exponentially, but the relative amount of truth in the universe continues to remain fairly constant. Have faith that the truth will appear, sooner or later. Be certain that separating truth from fiction will always be difficult. jim farmageddon (where our slogan is: "Science is the art of infallibility, perpetrated upon non-scientists.") ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 19:23:16 EST 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: Some anonymous remarks MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ask anonymous what crop he has brought to market. You can get many approaches to beekeeping that you take with a grain of salt discussed here , some even work. It was the scientists who brought us the africanized honey bee. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 21:43:13 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Steve Ash Subject: evolution of bee sting To clarify an earlier post: What came first the social bee or the sting? i.e. Did stinged solitary bees evolve into social bees? or Did stingless social bees evolve into stinged bees? ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 19:41:47 -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: Some anonymous remarks In-Reply-To: <200111252044.fAPKir305693@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Tom wrote: "It was the scientists who brought us the Africanized honey bee." And when they came to Arizona the "scientists" hyped it to the "Television Media" and "Hollywood" so that every year the general public is now afraid of contact with bees at all. There are some who really believe that they will be murdered in there beds at night. Yes we have a lot to be thankful for the "Scientists" who do more harm than good. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 02:17:14 +0000 Reply-To: bacchus@rising-planet.org Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Steve A Subject: Bee Sting Evolution Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed I'm looking for information on the evolution of honey bee's and their stings. Primarily when did this evolve? Did stinged solitary bees become social? Or did stingless social bees evolve stings? Are there many solitary stinging bees? Are there many stingless social bees? Which evolved from which (according to the fossil record)? I'm interested in using the data in research into group vs individual selection in the units of selection aspect of Darwinian theory. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 00:47:18 +0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: James Kilty Subject: Re: Some anonymous remarks In-Reply-To: <200111242022.fAOKMI307507@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 In message <200111242022.fAOKMI307507@listserv.albany.edu>, Dick Allen writes >there is no distiction between facts and the own > imagination (=it should be that way because I can not think in > different terms). non-fact opinion or speculation is indeed fantasy (or imagination). > This than is taken as a religion. It makes no > sense for a scientist to respond to such "non-proven pseudo-facts". The sense is to offer the best information so that we can truly be better informed. It is a problem for the ordinary beekeeper who tries to be informed if the relevant information is scattered round the world in journals difficult to access without huge subscription costs and in many languages. I hope better informed scientist-beekeepers would be prepared to share at least a summary of the key findings and a suggestion of a list of references (web sites?) for those willing and able to follow up. Obviously we would be relying on the generosity of anyone making such a contribution and in many subjects there are a few well-informed beekeepers who do make such a contribution. I am thankful for that. Many of us can pass on the best information to *many others* via our own networks. > This ist best shown by the recent discussion of overwinterung on > different honey-sugar types. There are numerous scientific papers on > it at least in my country; and the discussion out there is as if such > information is non-existent. see above. > So the "informed discussion group" in > reality is a discussion of mostly "non-informed bee keepers" and > worse of those who do not know that they are "non-informed". So, help us out please - otherwise such a comment is unhelpful (I know it *was* private). Are we not worth it? -- James Kilty ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 17:40:59 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dick Allen Subject: Re: Some anonymous remarks Beekeepers: The remarks posted were NOT from Allen Dick. They were from Dick Allen. We are two separate people. Allen, I believe, lives in Alberta. I live in Alaska. Allen and I have never met one another. I offered the comments as food for thought. I was not aware that many seem to have extremely sensitive feelings about the list and I sincerely apologize if I have offended anyone by the post. The post was made by ME and not the person who sent me the email remarks. I did not have his permission to post it and I hope he, too, is not offended by me posting it anonymously. I do agree with his assessment that much of the posting on Bee-L is simply opinion that is indeed often presented as fact. His thoughts do mirror some of those that I often have in reading the posts. That was why I made the post. Once again, if I have offended anyone, please accept my apologies. Regards, Dick ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 21:19:00 +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: Re: Varroa in queen cells In-Reply-To: <200111222206.fAMM6m316540@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Peter Borst wrote: >I have seen Tom Seeley's lab and he uses slow motion >video tapes to study bee behavior. I think we could learn a lot if a >mite infested hive was video taped and we actually observed the >interaction between bees and mites. ... > I certainly hope along with the rest that some kind of an odor based >trap or repellent could be devised, regardless of its scientific >basis. If science were still planned in the public interest, rather than being left to "market forces", much video observation would already have been done, *with* a controllable 'sniffer' tube near the TV camera probe to sample the air near any interestingly-behaving bee, piped to a gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer rig to analyse odours. This would also be a good way to study the roles of drones within the hive (thoughtlessly assumed by many to be nil). But no tycoon has thought this would bring profit, so it remains undone. R ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 17:53:13 +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: "Scientists" who do more harm than good Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" the Gussow's of Tucson wrote: > Yes we have a lot to be thankful >for the "Scientists" who do more harm than good. In it context this looks to be a sarcastic remark. If what is meant (otherwise what is the intention of the quote marks?) is that pseudo-scientists do more harm than good, I agree. If however what is meant is the Norman Mailer line that actual scientists have done more harm than good, then reasons are needed. The onus is on those who state this slogan to support it with some facts & reasoning. Just within the beekeeping realm, George Imirie has already given a good answer; but the slogan may be intended to reflect unfavourably on science in general. If so, I feel some justification would appear to be required. Seeing it from within is my fate; from that viewpoint I believe science has done more good than harm. In preparing their response, the Gussows should try to discriminate between science and technology. R ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 01:08:45 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: James Fischer Subject: Re: Some anonymous remarks MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit James Kilty said: > I hope better informed scientist-beekeepers would be prepared > to share at least a summary of the key findings The problem would be that a working bee scientist would find himself (or herself) restricted by the "terms and conditions" of most printed journals from even posting the text of their OWN work on the internet. As most people would find their citations from a citation search engine, the "terms and conditions" of that service would prevent them from releasing the results of a search to non-subscribers. It comes down to who "owns" the copyright, and what can be copyrighted. If you want to "be published", you must sign away copyright rights to the journal. If one were to post in a public forum before the printed publication, he/she would never have another paper accepted again without doing some serious groveling. It is a tough place to be. The very people who's work is of interest to us have a choice between posting their work here, or publishing in as a "cited journal publication". When they "publish" in a journal, they have less right to their own writings than a journalist would have. But they MUST "publish" to further their careers and please their masters. (Except for a small number of us who were crazy enough to "go private" - or is that "pirate"?) There is a quiet war going on between many scientists and the journals over this issue. It is an important battle, and each should make up his/her own mind on the issues. You can read the debate in the Journal "Nature" here: www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/ My view is that "science journals" are an endangered species, and their ever-more draconian restrictions will only insure a more speedy demise. Good riddance. It has made me laugh that, for the last decade, I am forced to read paper journals about even ELECTRONIC PUBLISHING. Think about it - new research in electronic publishing is painted in toxic chemicals on compressed dead trees, and sent, months after it was written, by fossil-fuel burning vehicles to my desk. You gotta laugh. If you don't, you'll cry. jim ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 00:36:51 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Ted Hancock Subject: Re: Some anonymous remarks I was just reading a book of quotes and a couple of them seemed to apply to this discussion on who should be saying what. They are: The silence of a wise man is more wrong to mankind than the slanderer's speech. - William Wycherley and, A good gulp of hot whisky at bedtime-- it's not very scientific, but it helps. - Sir Alexander Fleming And now, my whisky is calling me. Ted ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 22:37:00 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob & Liz Subject: Re: Some anonymous remarks MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable -----Original Message----- From: GImasterBK@AOL.COM [SMTP:GImasterBK@AOL.COM] Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2001 8:21 PM To: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu Subject: Re: Some anonymous remarks Hello George and All, George wrote: Steve also started the work with Rothenbuhler on Hygienic bees way = back in the 1950's, but had to stop because no one was interested in = paying him for that research then. Steve and I had a long talk in Illinois three weeks ago. Steve = still talks bees with Rothenbuhler. I had a great time listening to = Steve Tabor talk privately to me about the great researchers of his = day. I had only one burning question to ask of Steve and after a = long silence he enlightened me. I had waited over thirty years to = learn what happened in Baton Rouge in the early sixties. George wrote: I end this long note with a fond tribute to Bob, in that, although not a = scientist, Bob is well informed and well read and obviously a fine = beekeeper that all should would do well to follow. Thanks for the kind words George! We are both avid students of = beekeeping. Many mysteries surround beekeeping. Such as why a medical = doctor in the old west would quit medicine for a life among = the bees (Dr. C.C. Miller). Why beekeepers like A.I.Root and many = others were very religious. Bob, I am giving a 4 hour talk and workshop in January at the ABF = Savannah meeting about "Improving Your Beekeeping Management = Techniques", in spite of being disabled by 5 strokes. I was told they = didn't want my infirm body and bad voice, but just my brains. If I = find myself getting tarred and feathered, I will yell for your help. Please do! I plan on going to Savannah . I have been in your = talks before and we have met. Many (including Lloyd Spears) did not = remember meeting me. I have found I learn quite a bit by listening = rather than talking. I will introduce myself to you again in Savannah . = To take a line from Allen Dick all BEE-L people going to Savannah = should meet so we can put a face with the person we communicate = with on beekeeping topics on Bee-L.. I also admire your beekeeping skills George but what I admire most is = your guts to stay involved after all the troubles life has dealt = you. My mentor in beekeeping was older than you when I rode my bicycle = over to his house after school to learn beekeeping. Only years = after his death did I realize how lucky I was to have had the = benefit of talking to a beekeeper with 70+ years of = beekeeping knowledge. I returned to visit the old beekeeper through = the years and then one day a letter came from my Mother with a = newspaper clipping about his passing. Sincerely, Bob Harrison Odessa, Missouri 40+ years among the bees ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 08:52:05 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Some anonymous remarks MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit BeeCrofter@AOL.COM wrote: > > Ask anonymous what crop he has brought to market. James Fischer wrote: > Beekeepers are both the beneficiaries of the work of bee scientists, > and on a practical hands-on level, a valid part of the peer-review > process. Surprise! The so-called "non-informed beekeepers" are > your peers, and like it or not, will critique everyone's work, sooner or > later. They will not bother to write letters to the editor of some obscure > journal. Their comments will be right here, out in the open, fair game > for any disagreement. They certainly will not try to hide behind a shield > of anonymity. Two different posts have talked about experts/scientists who lurk and do not participate on the BeeL. It brought to mind an experience I had quite some time back when I was picked to attend a ten week mini MBA course at a major University. My fellow attendees were all middle managers on their way up the corporate ladder. All were experienced in the ways of business. And the course was not graded. It was an interesting experience. The class would tear into some professors and reject their teaching but dialog with others and have a good give and take. The common attribute of the latter was the Professors all left teaching for a time and participated in business. They were grounded in fact. Many that did not have experience were defensive and dismissive and generally worthless. And we let them know. The rest who did not have business experience were willing to listen and engage in give and take. They were willing to teach and learn. I think I understand what there are some experts/scientists that lurk and do not participate. They cannot stand up to any challenge of what they have accepted as fact and what experienced beekeepers might challenge. It is much easier to think you have the answers than to place them before a group of your peers and support them, especially if the group has experience. I appreciate the scientists and experts that frequent this list. It is enjoyable to read the give and take of those supporting and challenging "facts" and theories. I learn because the discussions are informed. And it is even more interesting when the experienced beekeepers join the discussion. There are some things, as George has said, that scientists discover. There are also things that they just validate. The whole area of essential oils was started by non-scientists but validated by science which showed what works and what does not. OMF and 4.9 are techniques that are in study. I am a bit bothered that the anonymous scientist could not post links or names of studies that counter anything posted here. I would welcome it. There is a great deal in the literature concerning bees and beekeeping that never gets to the actual beekeepers. Several researchers, like Steppo, have kindly furnished links to either prove or counter arguments on this list. They are the scientists and researchers I value. They understand the reason for the research is the practical world of beekeeping, and what better place to inform than this list. Bill Truesdell Bath, ME ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 09:32:46 -0800 Reply-To: mdshepherd@xerces.org Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Matthew Shepherd Subject: Bee Sting Evolution Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Steve, I will attempt to answer some of your questions, though I am sure there are= others on this list who can provide more information, particularly on the= dates of some of the evolutionary stages. Which evolved from which (according to the fossil record)? If you look at the evolutionary tree usually printed in books ("Bees of the= World" by Christopher O'Toole and Anthony Raw is one of the best= introductions to bees), the family Apidae is one of the last to appear.= This family contains the major social bees, honey bees, bumble bees,= orchid bees and the stingless bees. This shows that social bees evolved= from solitary bees. The oldest fossil record of bees that I have read= about was of a Trigona stingless bee, found in 90-million-year-old New= Jersey amber, though this reflects my reading rather than the fossil= record! Did stinged solitary bees become social? Or did stingless social bees= evolve stings? >From the information available, solitary bees became social and they always= had stingers, until stingless bees lost theirs. All female bees have the= potential to sting. Male bees do not sting. The stinger is an adapted= ovipositor. These days bees lay eggs with out it. This may be because bees= evolved from wasps, many of whom are parasitic and require an ovipositor= to reach into the nest or to the larva. Bees by contrast, make a nest with= brood cells into which they directly place an egg. Even the parasitic bees= lay eggs by entering the host's nest. No need for a penetrating= ovipositor. (Note: in the light of recent discussions on opinion versus= fact, I have to say that I don't know this for sure. It is an idea based= on reading I have done!) Honey bees are the only ones that have a barbed stinger and thus are the= only ones who die after stinging. Other bees have a smooth stinger and= could sting repeatedly if they wanted. Many bees have a stinger that is= too weak to penetrate human skin, and if they do their sting is less= painful than a honey bee's. And most bees are solitary nesting and= unlikely to defend the nest, choosing to flee and start another nest than= die defending their existing one. They can sting, though you have to be= quite rough with them to make them do it. Often they'll only sting when= trapped in clothing or you tread on one. Are there many solitary stinging bees? Are there many stingless social= bees? There are about 20,000 species of bees in the world, of whom the vast= majority are solitary. In America north of Mexico, there are over 4,000= species, of whom the non-native honey bee and the native bumble bees= (about fifty species) are the only truly social species. Stingless bees= can be found around the world in the tropics. Trigona are wide spread,= Melipona are found in Central America, and Dactylurina and Meliponula are= African genera. Stingless bees do have a stinger but it is greatly reduced and effectively= useless. This is not say that they cannot defend their nests. Their main= enemy are ants trying to raid their food stores, against which they have= various defenses, including strong walls and sticky traps in tunnel-like= entrances. If a nest is attacked by a larger creature, like a person, they= will swarm and bite the intruder. Some species will also secrete= irritating fluids into the bites, leading to the name "fire bees." I hope this is useful. Best wishes, Matthew _____________________________________________________________ Matthew Shepherd Director, Pollinator Program and Publications The Xerces Society 4828 SE Hawthorne Blvd, Portland, OR 97215 Tel: 503-232 6639 Fax: 503-233 6794 Email: mdshepherd@xerces.org _____________________________________________________________ The Xerces Society is an international nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting biological diversity through the conservation of invertebrates. For information and membership details, see our website: http://www.xerces.org/ _____________________________________________________________ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 12:50:06 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: James Fischer Subject: Re: evolution of bee sting MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Steve Ash asked: > What came first the social bee or the sting? > i.e. Did stinged solitary bees evolve into social bees? > or > Did stingless social bees evolve into stinged bees? I'm not sure that a dated set of preserved fossilized bees has been found to document the exact developments, as insects are not well preserved, except in amber and similar materials. I have read that the general consensus is that solitary, stingless bees evolved into social, stinging bees. I forget where. Sorry. Funny that you should mention it, the sting of the bee is often trotted out as a creationist "argument" against evolution, mostly because Darwin admitted to certain uncertainties in the case of the bee sting. You can read what Darwin wrote here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/darwin/origin/oos6_6.htm Another general-interest text that might be of interest would be "The Blind Watchmaker", by Richard Dawkins. As I recall, he also addressed the bee stinger at some length. I'm sure that there is lots of pontification about the social implications of "altruism" inherent in the bee stinger, and lots of speculation about the development of a defense mechanism that entails a "suicide mission", but this is NOT altruism, because "altruism" implies "choice", and bees don't really have any "choice" in the matter. They do what they do as a classic example of stimulus-response. Bees have no idea that stinging a soft object will cause their stinger to "grab", and cause their own death. Drones also have no idea that mating will result in their death, any more than a wind-up toy has any idea that it is heading for a wall. The entire concept of altruism is an interesting one, once one gets past adolescent treatments, like Ann Ryand's "The Fountainhead". Even humans react in unusual ways to life-and-death decisions. Here's an interesting study that addressed humans, rather than bees: http://www.princeton.edu/pr/news/01/q3/0914-brain.htm In a nutshell, they were giving people two scenarios: a) A runaway trolley is about to kill five people. Is it appropriate for you to throw a switch and derail the train, which it will kill the one occupant of the trolley, and save the five? b) Same train. Same 5 people about to die, but the only way to save the five people is for you to push a stranger next to you in front of the train, killing the stranger, but saving the five. (I guess the runaway is empty this time). Both cases are identical (one stranger dies, five live, for a net gain of 4 lives), but most people will accept (a), but not (b) as "appropriate". I guess most people are willing to "kill to save lives" when it is remote and impersonal, but not so willing when it is up close and involves looking one's victim in the eye. Of course, one could reason that the occupant of train (a) is going to die either way, and the choice is really 6 dead vs. 5 dead, but the shrinks who run these tests never answer this question. One is left to "reason" with very limited data. ...but if nothing else, this may explain why people tend to spread out as much as possible along the platform at commuter train stations! jim ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 08:24:00 -1000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Thomas Culliney Subject: Re: Bee Sting Evolution MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve A" To: Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 4:17 PM Subject: Bee Sting Evolution > I'm looking for information on the evolution of honey bee's and their > stings. > > Primarily when did this evolve? The first honey bees appeared around 35 million years ago. > > Did stinged solitary bees become social? Or did stingless social bees evolve > stings? All bees have stings, although in some groups, such as the Meliponini, the sting is vestigial. Social bees evolved from solitary ancestors. > > Are there many solitary stinging bees? There are an estimated 20,000 species of bees, most of which are solitary. > > Are there many stingless social bees? There are hundreds of species of "stingless" bees in some 21 genera (Apinae: Meliponini) > > Which evolved from which (according to the fossil record)? The sting of bees and other stinging Hymenoptera evolved from the ovipositor (egg tube) of parasitic ancestors. See the following: Starr, C.K. 1985. Enabling mechanisms in the origin of sociality in the Hymenoptera--the sting's the thing. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 78(6): 836-840. Kukuk, P.F. et al. 1989. Importance of the sting in the evolution of sociality in the Hymenoptera. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 82(1): 1-5. > > > I'm interested in using the data in research into group vs individual > selection in the units of selection aspect of Darwinian theory. Tom Culliney, Hawaii Dept. of Agriculture, Division of Plant Industry, 1428 South King St., Honolulu, HI 96814 U.S.A. E-mail: culliney@elele.peacesat.hawaii.edu Telephone: 808-973-9528 Fax: 808-973-9533 "To a rough approximation and setting aside vertebrate chauvinism, it can be said that essentially all organisms are insects."--R.M. May (1988) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 19:52:25 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dave Cushman Subject: Re: Honey bee castes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Peter I do not know where the "division of labour" crept into this, I can only repeat what I said > >There is common useage of the word "subcaste" on many US oriented discussion > >groups (to describe familiies of drones and half sisters in workers)... I > >usually use the word "subset" which makes sense in UK English. The word subcaste is used by some contributors when describing genetic differences between groups of workers fathered by particular individual drones from multiple matings. I have no liking for the word or its useage, but it does not cause me to be mislead. Best regards & 73s... Dave Cushman G8MZY Beekeeping & Bee Breeding Website http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.298 / Virus Database: 161 - Release Date: 11/13/01 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 11:12:02 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Karen Oland Subject: Re: Varroa in queen cells In-Reply-To: <200111222207.fAMM79316550@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Evolution is adaptation over time. Not complicated to "prove" on a small scale; chemical resistance is but one in a long list of adaptations by mites, continuing their progress on the evolutionary scale. Chance is but one mechanism in evolution - it is not at all in opposition to it. When you only study the final result, then chance seems to be unlikely as a factor. When studying the entire process, chance is seen as one of the most powerful mechanisms of evolution. -----Original Message----- From: Peter Borst On another note, one must be very careful when invoking evolution as a mechanism. I often hear that such and such a species "evolved" to a certain point -- "mites evolved to reproduce in drone cells". Evolution, adaptation and resistance are very complicated processes and difficult to prove. One must give equal attention to such things as *chance* and *opportunism*. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 14:27:44 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Adrian Wenner Subject: Evolution of bee sting Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Steve Ash inquired: >To clarify an earlier post: >What came first the social bee or the sting? >i.e. Did stinged solitary bees evolve into social bees? or >Did stingless social bees evolve into stinged bees? Most of the female Hymenoptera (including our honey bees) have a sting, a modified ovipositor. Accordingly, the ancestors of stingless bees also had such a structure. That also explains why drones can't sting. Pages 150-156 of 1992 edition of THE HIVE AND THE HONEYBEE (Dadant & Sons, Joe Graham editor) covers the topic quite well. Adrian Adrian M. Wenner (805) 963-8508 (home phone) 967 Garcia Road (805) 893-8062 (UCSB FAX) Santa Barbara, CA 93106 [http://www.beesource.com/pov/wenner/index.htm] ******************************************************************** * * "However broad-minded one may be, he is always to some extent * the slave of his education and of his past." * * Emile Duclaux (1896; 1920 translation) * ******************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 14:27:37 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Adrian Wenner Subject: Re: workers piping Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From ILOG MARIA HONEYBEE FARMS we received an inquiry (responded to already by Trevor Weatherhead): >Has anyone heard / heard of, workers piping? I was inspecting a colony >with an old queen, who happened to be above the excluder. Took out the >frame with her on it. Pulled out each and every frame below the >excluder, just to make sure. One frame I pulled out emitted a piping >sound very similar to queen piping. ... Do workers pipe? Yes, I have heard them piping but with a sound somewhat different from that of a queen. We can also be certain that queen bees do pipe --- an isolated queen in a queen cage will do so under the right circumstances. One can see sonograms of various bee sounds in Item #4 on the following website: http://www.beesource.com/pov/wenner/index.htm I must admit, though, that I no longer agree with some of the conclusions in that article. Item #22 on that website summarizes my change of mind. Adrian Adrian M. Wenner (805) 963-8508 (home phone) 967 Garcia Road (805) 893-8062 (UCSB FAX) Santa Barbara, CA 93106 [http://www.beesource.com/pov/wenner/index.htm] ******************************************************************** * * "However broad-minded one may be, he is always to some extent * the slave of his education and of his past." * * Emile Duclaux (1896; 1920 translation) * ******************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 17:10:29 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob Allen Subject: Creamed honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I am a first time B-List user. I would like to know if anyone could give me a practical way to make starter for creamed honey. I understand that you should not continually use creamed honey from your last batch as the crystals get larger. I would also like to make a "honey spread" or "honey butter." One spread with peaches and one spread with pecan bits to start. Does anyone have any proportions or recipes that they can share? I am a sideline beekeeper in San Antonio. I sell liquid and comb honey to area bakeries, gift shops, produce stands etc. In an effort to increase sales I hope to sell creamed honey which I have already made one time with Huajillo honey (a type of South Texas brush). I was unable to find exactly what I was looking for in the archives. Thanks BA ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 20:39:31 -0600 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 Sting Evolution Comments: To: "mdshepherd@xerces.org" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hello Matthew and All, I was doing a post in answer to the bee sting question but my post looked like Matthews so maybe we were looking at the same reference book. I am puzzled by the below statement and am probably going to ask a dumb question but ask I will. Matthew wrote: Honey bees are the only ones that have a barbed stinger and thus are the= only ones who die after stinging. Other bees have a smooth stinger and= could sting repeatedly if they wanted. All beekeepers know the above is true. My reference books say bees evolved from wasps. The question I ponder is why a worker bee stinger is barbed and the queen is not. The queen has a smooth stinger and could sting over and over though I have handled thousands of queens without an offer to sting. Does the diet of Royal Jelly change the sting from barbed to smooth? Would a slight increase in royal jelly create a worker with a smooth stinger? Is the worker honey bee stinger barbed because the worker ovipositor is not fully developed? Is the queen ovipositor smooth because with the correct diet her ovipositor is fully developed? I guess I will survive not knowing the answers to the above questions but maybe others on the list might comment. Sincerely, Bob Harrison ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 22:28:52 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: GImasterBK@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Creamed honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hello Bob Allen, Dr. Dyce of Cornell University developed the method in 1931 used to make creamed honey; and Mr. Darl Stoller of Stoller Honey in Latty, Ohio is perhaps the largest producer of creamed honey in the U. S. and makes it with the addition of many different flavors like cinnamon, strawberries, coconut, etc. Also, "everything" can be found in the 1992 Extensively Revised Edition of The Hive and Honey Bee, and creamed honey is on page 699-703. I make a lot of creamed honey each year and sell a lot for $6.00/pound; but you HAVE to explain to about 98% of all buyers just what creamed honey is; and no matter what you say, they don't believe that it is 100% honey. However, once you convince them they keep coming back for more. I only make natural creamed honey and cinnamon creamed honey. Adding fruit is much more complex. The most important management tricks both involve heat. You must heat the about 120° to get rid of all crystals before you add your 10% seed honey, stir thoroughly BUT SLOWLY so not to introduce any air into the honey, pour into creamed honey jars, and keep it as close to 57° as possible. If the 57° temperature varies too much, you will get coarse crystals like sand. You can buy a printed copy of the Dyce method from Brushy Mountain Bee Farm, Catalog #420, cost $1.00. Telephone # 1-800-beeswax I hope I have helped. George Imirie Certified EAS Master Beekeeper Author of George's PINK PAGES ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 01:46:12 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Michael Housel Subject: Re: workers piping MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The demonstration lectures with a couple Dozen Pipers piping will be at the Orlando Science Centers Pet day Dec 1 and 2. A mix of Russian, Italians, and Native feral black queen bees to sing up an Opera-tion that is truly enjoyed by the most Seasoned of spirits. I find no difference in the sounds of the queens but am always ready to listen to the ear of others. Volume and clarity does vary. The chorus of Buzzing workers make a Joyous sound only fitting to Happy beekeeping. Michael Housel Orlando ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 11:53:58 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: P-O Gustafsson Subject: Re: Creamed honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The most important part of making creamed (fine crystallized) honey is getting the starter right. With the right starter you need as little as 0,5% to produce a perfect result. Most literature, including The Hive and the Honey Bee, still talks about heating honey, fine straining, grinding, etc. None of this is needed. Heating and filtering only destroys the taste and have no purpose when the honey is going to be crystallized. The small amount of crystals you find in extracted honey doesn't matter. Most honeys can be crystallized, don't have to be within any moisture range or be any special type of honey. The starter is made from liquid honey that is kept at 10° C (50° F) all the time. A small amount of crystallized honey can be added to get the process going faster, but is not needed. This liquid honey is stirred for a few minutes twice a day (morning and evening) until it becomes white and creamy. When the honey is no longer getting harder it's ready for use. This will take 3 - 7 days depending of water - glucose ratio. Now to the most important part. The 10° starter should not be heated up before mixed with the honey to be crystallized. When temp is raised the small crystals move to form larger units and thus producing a coarser end product. If this 10° starter is poured into 25° liquid honey, the starter will be immediately heated up before it can be mixed properly with the honey. To avoid this, the liquid honey should be slowly mixed into the starter instead. Use a container twice the size of the starter you make. Add small amounts of the liquid honey during vigorous stirring until you have diluted the starter to double its volume. Then it's safe to pour it into the rest of the liquid honey and mix it all carefully. I have used as little as 0,5% starter with perfect result, but 3% is recommended for safety margin. This will produce a honey so smooth you will need microscope with polarized light to detect any crystals in it. The final result will depend on the ratio between glucose and water. More water-less glucose = a softer honey Less water-more glucose =harder honey (and faster crystallization) Before packing in jars, let the honey sit in the container after mixing in the starter for a day. This will make the honey softer when some crystallization is done before filling the jars. How long to wait before filling jars depend on honey type and how hard you want the final product. If filling direct after mixing in the starter, the honey can get rock hard in the jars. Don't know if I made myself clear.... This is also available on my homepage. Go to -- Regards P-O Gustafsson, Sweden beeman@algonet.se http://www.algonet.se/~beeman/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 01:45:36 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dick Allen Subject: Re: Varroa in queen cells MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Beekeepers: In a prior post on this subject I mentioned looking at the figure on p. 140 of the Webster/Deleplane book Mites of the Honey Bee and had convinced myself that it would not be possible for mites to reproduce within a queen cell. Today, I looked at it again and now realize it was previously being looked at incorrectly. The books I have (Webster/Deleplane: Mites of the Honey Bee and Morse/Flottum: Honey Bee Pests Predators & Diseases) say mites generally enter cells approximately 20 hours and 40 hours for worker and drone larvae, respectively. At this time the larva has completely covered the cell bottom and mites immerse themselves in the liquid larval food beneath the grub. Roughly 30 hours or 1 1/4 days after cell capping, the first male egg is laid and will develop into an adult within about 5.5 to 6 days. The queen larva, I think, has covered the cell bottom by the sixth or seventh day. On the eighth day the queen cell is capped. If a mite enters the queen cell and begins laying 30 hours after capping 9 1/4 days will have passed. Adding the 6 day period for the male to reach maturity puts the time interval time at 15 days. Given that the queen will normally emerge in 16 days, it looks to me as though there is adequate time for the male varroa mite to develop. Female eggs are laid at about 25 to 30 hour intervals after the first male egg. Adding the 30 hour interval to the 9 1/4 days above gives 10 ½ days. Females develop from egg to adult in about 6 to 7 days. Adding the higher number of 7 days to the 10 ½ days will put us at 17 ½ days, or about a day and a half past the time a queen would normally emerge. But here is the key word–normally. Queens do sometimes, if I am not mistaken, emerge later than the published figure of 16 days. Now, let’s go back to the female and slightly compress numbers. Say, the first female egg was laid 25 hours after the male egg. This would place the time interval of queen development at 10 1/3 days. Using the slightly smaller development of 6 days from female egg to adult will place both mite sexes at maturity when the queen leaves her cell. Suppose, the male varroa egg was laid a little less than 30 hours after cell capping, and the female followed at a little less than 25 hours. Suppose now the queen emerged a bit past 16 days. Isn’t it possible then, at least theoretically, for mites to actually reproduce within the queen cell? I would invite those who have the Mites of the Honey Bee book to take a look at the figure given on page 140. Look at the worker drawings. Move the mite development up one tier since the queen cell will be capped at 8 days. Count down 17 days (for a late emerging queen) and you will see that both sexes will reach maturity. One final note: In a previous post a group member mentioned not being aware of any documented cases of mites entering queen cells. I ran across this in the slide script for the set of slides on Honey Bee Parasites, Pests, and Predators put out by the MAAREC consortium. “Varroa mites have a definite preference for drone brood; however worker brood also is attacked. Queen brood is used only in cases of heavy infestation.” Before anyone sniffs and says that hardly qualifies as documented evidence, I will agree. However, the individuals involved in producing the slides were Scott Camazine, Dewey Caron, Maryann Frazier, and Diana Sammataro–all well known names within the beekeeping community. I’m certainly willing to take a leap of faith in regards to their statement. Regards, Dick ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 08:29:30 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Varroa in queen cells MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dick Allen wrote: > One final note: In a previous post a group member mentioned not being aware > of any documented cases of mites entering queen cells. I ran across this in > the slide script for the set of slides on Honey Bee Parasites, Pests, and > Predators put out by the MAAREC consortium. “Varroa mites have a definite > preference for drone brood; however worker brood also is attacked. Queen > brood is used only in cases of heavy infestation.” The explanation of not finding mites in queen cells can be as simple as probability. If you have a reduced mite load, the probability of the mites finding the queen cell is low, especially if you factor in preferences for drone cells. Plus, there is also a probability that the bees would remove an "infected" queen before she emerges. There is also the distinct probability that queen cells which had mites would go unobserved. Not many of us tear apart queen cells looking for mites. Plus there is the fact that queen cells are only available at certain times in the year, not necessarily when high mite loads are expected. All those probabilities coupled together make the actual probability of seeing mites in queen cells very low. Hence, you can arrive at the conclusion that mites do not frequent queen cells, and be incorrect. It is just that the probability of observing them is so low that most cells would have no mites. However, increase the mite load (heavy infestation) and you increase the probability that you will find mites in queen cells, as observed above. Add that it is a scientific study where they are looking and you further increase the probability that you will find mites in queen cells. An aside- while I was writing this we had a power failure. I am very happy I have a UPS ( Uninterrupted power supply ) and was able to save this message and shut my computer down gracefully. Nice to have. Lost a hard drive in a power failure so bought the UPS. Bill Truesdell Bath, ME ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 15:49:37 -0200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Silvio_Jos=E9_Reis_da_Silva?= Subject: Re: Varroa in queen cells MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello all. Recently I had several of my queen cells infested with Varroa. Some queens were born even with three mites. Some were born with atrophic wings. I believe that happened due to a hard infestation and the nonexistence of worker brood in the beehive that was previously orphaned for creation of queens. Hugs to all Silvio Brazil