From MAILER-DAEMON Sat Feb 28 07:36:10 2009 Return-Path: <> X-Original-To: adamf@METALAB.UNC.EDU Delivered-To: adamf@METALAB.UNC.EDU Received: from listserv.albany.edu (unknown [169.226.1.24]) by metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EDB1488F6 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 2009 07:28:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from listserv.albany.edu (listserv.albany.edu [169.226.1.24]) by listserv.albany.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n1SCP3rw010167 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 2009 07:28:38 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 07:28:38 -0500 From: "University at Albany LISTSERV Server (14.5)" Subject: File: "BEE-L LOG0203A" To: adamf@METALAB.UNC.EDU Message-ID: Content-Length: 320916 Lines: 7100 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 22:39:05 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: dan hendricks Subject: Frame deterioration MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Jerry, I have seen lots of top bar ends in which dry rot has occurred. This because, I presume, water gets in between hive bodies and wets the adjacent wood. For this reason, I varnish those ends when I assemble new frames. One might ask why all supply houses sell repair parts for these ends if the condition isn't rather common. Dan __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion! http://greetings.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 23:31:12 -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: Up-sizing? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >It was mentioned on the list that varroa seemed less troublesome in old combs and this might be due to the reduced size of the cells in the old comb. Last spring Dewey Carron spoke a few times at Simon Fraser. In one of his talks Dr. Caron mentioned that there is a better chance for survival of brood in older combs than there is in new comb. He did say that it wasn’t much of a difference but that it could be shown statistically. Could this be partly attributed to the cleaning activites of the bees? And, could the reasons for a slightly better survival of brood in older combs also have a role in slightly deterring varroa....or no? Regards, Dick ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 22:50:24 -0500 Reply-To: "jfischer@supercollider.com" Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: James Fischer Subject: Re: Kreg Tools and Boxes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Allen Dick said: > By this do you mean the rabbet joint? No, not even close. See the diagram below. Copying from Brushy Mountain's 1999 catalog, below is a ASCII-art top view of what they call a "Rabbeted Hive Body Joint" (not to scale, but close). Don't blame me for the terminology. As I said, terminology varies. Massively, it seems. | | | | | | | +-----+ | | +------------ | | | | +---+ +---+ | | | | | | +-----------+ | +----------+ | | +---------------------- The nice thing about it is that friction alone holds the super together while you nail, screw, glue, whatever. As I said, the drawback is that even slightly non-planar stock will make this design very difficult to assemble at all. jim ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 07:26:45 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter Borst Subject: BIG BEES (was: Foundation mills) In-Reply-To: <200203010500.g214oElq013562@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" I wrote: >One appears to be made of copper or bronze, is in very good >condition; quite beautiful to look at, in fact. Perhaps this is the >oldest one? It prints out ten cells in two inches (50.8 mm or 5.08 >per cell). Query: >Does the access include usage? Reply: Are you suggesting I make foundation? Funny! I did that for six years, when I was in my twenties. I made a thousand pounds a day (on a good day), working at Knorr's factory in San Diego. Henry Knorr's father was one of the first people to make foundation in California (if not THE first). That was one of the dullest jobs I ever had, stamping out sheet after sheet. I used to turn up the radio full blast so I could hear it over the screaming of the rollers and the wack, wack, wack of the cutter. I also sold bee supplies and met hundreds of beekeepers. That's where I learned two things. One, every beekeepers thought there was ONE RIGHT WAY -- his way (even some beginners think they know better than anyone else). The other thing was: there is no one right way! You have to develop a system that works for you. I ended up quite the opposite from most of these guys: I always wanted to try something new, something different, something better. As far as making foundation is concerned, I wouldn't. I can buy it cheaper than my time is worth, in any size want. I use plastic and forget about eyelets, wire, blowout, the whole bit. Anyway, why would I make foundation with little cells? That's your project, not mine. Furthermore, after studying the literature and noticing the *general* correlation between latitude and the size of the honey bee, I think a large bee is better suited to our area where winter can last six months and go down below zero Fahrenheit. Probably the best bee for harsh winters is Apis mellifera mellifera. Ruttner says: >Among the largest and definitely the broadest of all known sub-species. ... > >The measurable external characters (the phenotype) of the Dark >European honeybee has been definitely established by comparing >recent samples from NW Europe with specimens from British museums >collected in or before the 19th century and archeological finds from >the excavation of a Viking settlement in York (10th century) . > >The phenotype of the Dark honeybee has not substantially changed , >neither in the last millenium in Europe nor by transplantation to >the southern hemisphere (Tasmania and New Zealand) during the last >150 years. -- from "The Dark European Honey Bee" by Friedrich >Ruttner, 1990 -- Peter Borst ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 07:47:18 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter Borst Subject: Re: Up-sizing? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit quote: In one of his talks Dr. Caron mentioned that there is a better chance for survival of brood in older combs than there is in new comb. He did say that it wasn’t much of a difference but that it could be shown statistically. I think you could also find people saying that it is preferrable to get rid of old combs because they may retain disease factors such as spores or viruses. I wrote last week of buying 15 colonies this spring from a beekeeper who had not treated the bees this year. The brood combs were all black and old. By late summer they had many mites and by fall the strong ones had only a few handfulls of bees left. pb ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 08:06:23 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Observations from Maine MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I saw a report on our local TV station about a beekeeper who was complaining about the warm weather we are having and how his bees were brooding up and needed more sugar syrup. So the advice to all watching is to feed sugar syrup or lose your bees. I have seen the same advice elsewhere on other internet lists and occasionally it makes sense, where the weather is warm, spring pollen and nectar are imminent, and the bees can fly without freezing to death. But not in Northern climates in February/March. Could only shake my head. The recipe is one for disaster here in Maine. We continually have long periods of cold even into April, where the bees have no opportunity to move and many lose hives to starvation with hives loaded with stores. Especially in early April. In essence, feeding syrup stimulates the queens egg laying and the bees will fly out to search for more. Then you have a death spiral where you need to feed more but that just adds more brood, more bees fly to their death and you have to feed more which.... I checked my mongrel carneolans on open mesh floor and they are still heavy but are closer to the top than normal, so they will get their candy a bit early. I keep them cold and well ventilated all winter so they brood up late. And only feed them candy in the late winter/early spring. Usually they do not need it, but I count it as insurance. So they will get it a few weeks early for me but about right for several other beekeepers who feed candy about the end of Feb and early March. We are getting reports of some fairly heavy losses from some beekeepers, in the 50% range, it appears from starvation. Based on the TV report, if feeding syrup is a common practice, then I can understand the losses. And I will bet Varroa gets blamed. It was 50F in the AM two days ago. It is 15F this morning and will continue cold for the next couple of weeks. Just frustrated so pardon the rant. Bill Truesdell Bath, Me ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 09:02:41 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Michael Housel Subject: Maple Honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have a question on the maple sugar flow. When I was young in the mountains of Penna. We gathered maple suryup and put it into a huge kettle. Kept the fire under it for days to boil off untill it was thick. Will the bees go to the taps in the trees? Could it be feed to them to make maple honey? I'd like to hear for and against. I think it would bee a better product. The sugarcane when cut the bees work the cuts to make a honeydew but the maple would be a quality product. Michael Housel Orlandobee ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 09:14:23 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Thomas Cornick Subject: Re: Observations from Maine MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit My observations from Connecticut What I have found is that along the east coast of the USA spring tends to move northward about 15 miles per day. So if you hear a report of plants blooming 300 miles to the south of you you can expect the same plants to bloom in 3 weeks in your location. Slabs of candy went on the top frames of my hives covered with an empty feed sack and a super. In protected spots despite the wierd weather I see a few dandylions in bloom and crocus. Syrup 1:1 will go on the hives now until a flow starts. Look into using those feed sacks that are like white platic tarp material you can get them free and they make good packing for around feeders and such when you place them on the top bars. Save American crops, Boycott foriegn honey ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 10:24:20 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: al picketts Subject: suspected Imidacloprid bee deaths MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Although I have seen no documented scientific proof that Imidacloprid is = causing high bee mortality I would welcome discussion from those = beekeepers who suspect they are having a problem with Imidacloprid = poisoning. I suspect I have lost more than 1000 colonies since 1999 due = to this insecticide.=20 Those concerned with legal reprisals from Bayer can e-mail me directly. Al Picketts Kensington, PEI, Ca. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 09:18:57 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Thomas Cornick Subject: Re: Glue and Nails MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I find the brads pull out easy enough and the top bar can come loose of the side bars. This is not fun in the beeyard so I now add a nail through the sidebar into the top bar on each side for a total of 10 nails. Save American crops, Boycott foriegn honey ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 09:59:12 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Patrick Larsen Subject: Re: Maple Honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" There are a couple reasons this won't work. First, In order for the maple sap to flow, the night time temperatures need to be below freezing and the day time temperatures above freezing. This generally occurs in mid-march here in Vermont. Based on my experience, the bees are still clustered during the sap flow. They may make a brief appearance to purge themselves but they generally make a hasty retreat back to the hive. There are no other sources of pollen or nectar at this time either, so they really don't have a reason to be foraging. Once the maples bud, which is the time the bees will start to forage, the sap flow is over. Second, maple sap averages about 2% sugar content. Honeybees will generally not gather nectar that is less than 15% sugar content, and usually it is much higher. Regards, Patrick _____________________ Patrick L. Larsen Project Geoscientist Stone Environmental, Inc. Montpelier, VT USA www.stone-env.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Housel [mailto:Orlandobee@AOL.COM] > Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 9:03 AM > To: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu > Subject: Maple Honey snip > Will the bees go to the taps in the trees? Could it > be feed to them > to make maple honey? I'd like to hear for and against. I > think it would bee > a better product. snip > Michael Housel Orlandobee > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 20:50:36 +0200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Ainars Millers Subject: list members MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-4" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all! Recently I posted a request to give an information about honey trade marks or informative labels of national or regional associations of beekeepers(not brands of private companies). I hoped to receive an information in which countries are such brands, how they are controlled(quality and origin), distributed and advertised. I received no answer, but no answer also could be an answer. It could mean that in countries presented on this list is not common for associations of beekeepers to pack and distribute local honey in local market under own brand. The question for moderators -which countries are presented on the list at the moment? It can help a little bit, although I understand that there is no list "lurker-free":) Thank you very much in advance, Ainars, Latvia P.S. Congratulations to all beekeepers in our latitudes-March and the season of the beekeeping has started! :) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 09:36:27 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Layne Westover Subject: Re: Maple Honey Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >>> plarsen@STONE-ENV.COM 03/01/02 08:59AM >>> Patrick says: There are a couple reasons this won't work. First, ......snip......... Once the maples bud, which is the time the bees will start to forage, the sap flow is over. Second, maple sap averages about 2% sugar content. Honeybees will generally not gather nectar that is less than 15% sugar content, and usually it is much higher. ..........snip........ in response to Michael Housel's questions: > Will the bees go to the taps in the trees? Could it > be feed to them > to make maple honey? I'd like to hear for and against. I > think it would bee > a better product. .......snip....... Here I will add my opinions, based on things I've read (but I can't remember where). My guess is that there will be natural chemicals in the tree sap that will be hard on the bees, either causing diarrhea or consitpation, as one would probably find in most 'nectars' that do not come from flowers (things such as tree fruit, honeydew, etc.) Although I understand why bees would not go directly to the trees and flow of sap (because it is too cold when the sap is flowing), I don't see why one could not take the sap or a somewhat more concentrated sap and feed it in feeders directly to the bees. My guess is that it has probably already been tried with negative results, and that is why it isn't done. If someone wanted to learn why all over again, they could sure try the direct feeding and see what happens. Another reason it might not be done is that the maple syrup is worth much more as maple syrup than it would be as honey. I wouldn't buy maple syrup to feed to my bees. I'd put it on pancakes and eat it myself. Layne Westover, College Station, Texas ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 10:43:20 -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: Maple Honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Michael Housel wrote: > I have a question on the maple sugar flow. > When I was young in the mountains of Penna. We gathered maple suryup > Will the bees go to the taps in the trees? Could it be feed to them > to make maple honey? I'd like to hear for and against. I think it would bee > a better product. If they are flying they will go to the taps, but remember the sap flows well before temperatures are warm enough for the bees to fly. And if you gather the sap and feed it to the bees it will be after spring buildup, since they use that time for brood rearing and not surplus, so the feeding will have to be either during the main honey flow or soon after. You would have to remove the supers and then hope they will take it exclusively and not mix it with other competing nectar sources. Plus, you will have to keep the maple sap in cold storage until then and hope it does not start fermenting or spoil. The key reason for not doing it is fairly simple. You are not going to get much for maple flavored honey after all that trouble. We have sold it at the Maine State Beekeepers booth and it goes more slowly than does blueberry or raspberry honey. My guess is that people are looking for natural bee products and honey-maple is not one of them while floral sources are fine. And if I want maple honey I just mix it with my maple syrup. Finally, the clincher - boil the syrup down and you will get three to ten times or more what you would get for an equivalent amount of honey. Unlikely anyone would want to feed that to their bees, just to sell a cheaper product. Bill Truesdell Bath, Me ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 09:07:08 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Robert Butcher Subject: Re: Glue and Nails MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I am using wooden frames.I have had hives that glued up everything and when i tried pulling a frame out the bottom board came right off. I have bought my side boards.I make the top and bottom boards. I put four nails in each joint.Two from top and two from sides. I have also went to putting seven wires in a deep frame. I have dropped a five wire frame and a seven wire frame out of the same box and the seven had very little damage done.The five had to be reworked. They both were full of honey. I have had hives that glued up everything and when i tried pulling a frame out the bottom board came right off. Just bee cents. Have a Blessed Day Bob Butcher Tucson Az. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 11:15:26 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Aaron Morris Subject: Re: Maple Honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Roberta Glatz wrote a tongue-in-cheek article on bees and maple honey in the 1983 issue of Bee Culture (was it Gleanings back then?) I republished the article in the November issue of my local association's newsletter. Allen has posted a copy on his web pages at: http://www.internode.net/honeybee/Misc/Maple.htm Warning, the article is a large graphics file and depending on your ISP, make take a while to load. I got quite a chuckle out of the article and thought it would make a good April Fool's posting. Enjoy! Aaron ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 11:17:33 -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: Up-sizing? In-Reply-To: <200203010904.g218bHtQ020452@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit There was a presentation of this study at our state meeting last year. Old comb had higher survival, but brand new comb (less than a season old) had such a much higher laying rate, that it far outstripped the old comb in the total number of bees raised. The presenter said no work had been done on the "why" (no doubt, that was planned for a future grant). K. Oland -----Original Message----- From: Dick Allen Last spring Dewey Carron spoke a few times at Simon Fraser. In one of his talks Dr. Caron mentioned that there is a better chance for survival of brood in older combs than there is in new comb. He did say that it wasn’t much of a difference but that it could be shown statistically. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 09:22:04 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Jerry J Bromenshenk Subject: Re: Frame deterioration In-Reply-To: <200203010900.g218mfoc020560@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 10:39 PM 2/28/02 -0800, you wrote: I don't see dry rot where I've been, unless equipment is stored outside without bees. Lots of frame ends get broken, but in the commercial operations that we work with, its simply a matter of prying on the end without first breaking the frames free. Have same problem with students and hive tools. My question, why do the supply houses cut away the wood at the ends of the top bars? One of our commercial folks made all of his own equipment. He just deepened the frame rest of the box, used top bars with full depth (~ 3/4 ") ends. NEVER BROKE ANY OF THOSE OFF. Of course, he couldn't mix and match his equipment with that from the supply houses. >Jerry, I have seen lots of top bar ends in which dry rot has >occurred. This because, I presume, water gets in between hive bodies >and wets the adjacent wood. For this reason, I varnish those ends >when I assemble new frames. One might ask why all supply houses sell >repair parts for these ends if the condition isn't rather common. >Dan > > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion! >http://greetings.yahoo.com > > Jerry J. Bromenshenk jjbmail@selway.umt.edu http://www.umt.edu/biology/bees ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 12:38:01 -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: Observations from Maine MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Bill: >In essence, feeding syrup stimulates the queens egg laying and the bees will fly out to search for more. Is this flying a search for more “nectar” or could it be that bees are engorged on syrup and are making cleansing flights? Either way, of course, they die. Also has it actually been shown that feeding thin syrup vs. thick syrup truly makes a difference in “tricking” the queen into laying? I know this is the conventional wisdom that is passed down from beekeeper to beekeeper. Regards, Dick ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 12:23:40 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: huestis Subject: Re: BIG BEES (was: Foundation mills) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, I think a > large bee is better suited to our area where winter can last six > months and go down below zero Fahrenheit. In my copy of A Manual Of Beekeeping by E.B. Wedmore he states: pg.5 By the use of foundation having cells somewhat larger than usual (why are they larger?), it is possible to produce bees of a size larger than normal, and vice versa, but the larger bees are of lighter build than normal and show no advantage. pg. 78 Too large an increase in cell diameter involves increased size of brood chamber and some loss of economy in wintering, the cluster being less compact. Undoubtedly the beekeeper needs to study foundation in relation to the size of his bees. Although larger cells produce larger bees, there is no evidence that they are better bees. They are of lighter build. Based on the above statements smaller bees may winter better than larger. In the very front of the book there are good pictures of bees from 1834. Showing magnified and natural sizing of A.m.m. I just took 8-10 bees from a 4.95-5.0 comb to compare via eyeball method. The body sizing is the same. Bees off 5.25 combs are about a head larger. Clay ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 13:20:27 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter Borst Subject: Re: BIG BEES (was: Foundation mills) Huestis, With all due respect, I wonder if you read the whole message, including this part: >The phenotype of the Dark honeybee has not substantially changed, >neither in the last millenium in Europe nor by transplantation to >the southern hemisphere (Tasmania and New Zealand) during the last >150 years. -- from "The Dark European Honey Bee" by Friedrich >Ruttner, 1990 Ruttner is saying that *he measured* bees found preserved from a thousand years ago, bees preserved from 150 years ago, and from today, and they are not different in size. If there was a substantial downsizing in the past 100 years *don't you think he would have mentioned it?* Why would ne not mention it? And please, I never said that bees were made bigger by foundation. I was pointing to the fact the Apis mellifera mellifera, having evolved in cold climates, has always been a fairly big bee, compared to African and Asian types. (Note: Not all temperate bees are bigger, not all non European bees are smaller. There are exceptions.) pb ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 09:18:36 -0900 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Keith Malone Subject: Re: BIG BEES MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Peter & All, > Probably the best bee for harsh winters is Apis mellifera mellifera. > Ruttner says: > I have never tried A.m.m. and I am finding it very difficult locating some to bring into Alaska. I want to try them for the very reason that Ruttner says. Do you use A.m.m.? Keith Malone Chugiak, Alaska USA starrier@yahoo.com http://takeoff.to/alaskahoney Check out current weather in my area and 5 day forecast; http://www.wx.com/myweather.cfm?ZIP=99654 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 13:13:25 -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: Maple Honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Beekeepers: Here is a partial quote from the 36th ed. of ABC and XYZ of Bee Culture p. 475: “The maples bloom so early in the season that their value for pollen and honey is greatly underestimated. In early spring the colonies are so weak that a surplus from this source is seldom obtained, and the maples are regarded as important only for brood rearing. There are about 100 species in the genus Acer which are confined chiefly to the northern hemisphere.....” Maples are also listed in Table 1. beginning on page 446 of the Hive and the Honey Bee under Nectar and Pollen Plants. Each spring I travel to upstate NY to make maple syrup. (Leaving again tonight) There are a few hives on my father’s property and when we are evaporating sap, bees will be flying through the steam and hovering over the evaporator. Although I have never seen them at the taps, they will land on wet towels we use for filtering the sap before it goes into the evaporator. Generally they will begin flying as the ambient air temperature approaches 40 F. Regards, Dick ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 15:18:24 -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: Observations from Maine MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dick Allen wrote: > Hi Bill: > Also has it actually been shown that feeding thin syrup vs. thick syrup > truly makes a difference in “tricking” the queen into laying? I know this > is the conventional wisdom that is passed down from beekeeper to beekeeper. Dick, It does make them fly out to see what is available which has been observed here in Maine. I personally cannot attest to the brood rearing since I do not raise my bees that way, so there I am going by what I have been taught. However the beekeeper on TV seems to have experienced just that. Bill Truesdell Bath, Me ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 17:52:16 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dee Lusby Subject: Re: BIG BEES (was: Foundation mills) In-Reply-To: <200203011843.g21IQVm6009972@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi to all on Bee-L Peter wrote: >The phenotype of the Dark honeybee has not substantially changed,neither in the last millenium in Europe nor by transplantation to the southern hemisphere (Tasmania and New Zealand) during the last 150 years. -- from "The Dark European Honey Bee" by Friedrich >Ruttner, 1990 Reply: This is very good information to know Peter about the dark bee of Europe. Is this also true with other dark bee races of Europe and Elsewhere (Africa) i.e. Punic, Monticola, Cape Bee even? How does this relate to yellow race/strain types also, i.e. Italian, cyprian, Egyptian, and Scuts? Regards, Dee A. Lusby __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - sign up for Fantasy Baseball http://sports.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 18:00:06 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Jeffrey A. Holbrook" Subject: Re: Maple Honey In-Reply-To: <200203011422.g21EEslq001893@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit All interested, Until we sold the farm in north-central PA a few years ago, I kept bees and made Maple Syrup. My bee yard was close to my sugar bush. Even so, I rarely had bees visiting the tap holes. I only found a few dead in the buckets. With today's emphasis on tubing, there is a lot less opportunity for the bees to access the sap. Maybe it is because the trees are in the woods that the bees do not enter their as much as they would if the trees were in the open. Also, snow depth may have been an issue. When we tapped we typically did so in rather deep snow. We often resorted to snowshoes. The snow depth around the supers may have kept the number of bees out foraging down. It is likely that this snow depth is not an issue in other places or even anywhere this year. Then experiences of others may differ but this is what I've observed. I do agree though, the concept of Maple Honey sounds really unique and delightful. It will be interesting to see what others have to say about this. CYA! Jeff Holbrook Corning, NY ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 16:43:34 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Van Roekel, Bill" Subject: Re: Maple Honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain A few years ago, we had an ice storm with high winds in late March, or April. Standing outside in the night, it sounded like distant gunfire, and a lot of it. It was the sound of branches and limbs breaking off of the trees. It was memorable for a lot of reasons. We had a bee meeting a few days before, and this subject of maple honey was brought up because we had one member who made maple syrup. He was pretty certain that bees would not take maple sap because of its low sugar content. A couple of days after the ice storm, the bees were out, and they were sucking up sap like there was no tomorrow. Several of the beekeepers at the next meeting brought it up, including the maple syrup producer. It was too early in the season to obtain any honey, though, I have wondered what it would have been like. Roekel ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 17:02:53 -0500 Reply-To: mpalmer@together.net Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: michael palmer Subject: Re: Maple Honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Michael Housel wrote: > I have a question on the maple sugar flow. > Will the bees go to the taps in the trees? Could it be feed to them > to make maple honey? I used to hang 5000 taps - before I figured out that I could make more product with bees for the same investment. Anyway, The only time I saw honey bees around the tapholes was late in the season. Some sap usually leaks out around the tap. As it does, the water evaporates, leaving a sweet spot around the tap. Don't imagine that they ever got much. Feeding the bees maple syrup won't work. Because it is caramelized, it will give honeybees dysentary. But, there may be a way.... The large sugaring operations here are using reverse osmosis machines now-a-days. This removes up to 75% of the water from the sap before it is boiled, by forcing the sap through a membrane. The pores in the membrane allow the water molecules (smaller) to pass through, but not the sugar molecules. So, if you started with 100 lbs of 2%sap...or 98 lbs of water and 2 lbs of sugar....reduce it by 75%...leaves 24.5 lbs of water and 2 lbs of sugar...or an 8% solition...if I did my math correctly. If you fed a colony 8% syrup, instead of 15% nectar, would they make honey out of it? Something to think about while watching all those little bubbles in your evaporator. Mike ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 23:50:06 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: Kreg Tools and Boxes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Copying from Brushy Mountain's 1999 catalog, > below is a ASCII-art top view of what they > call a "Rabbeted Hive Body Joint" | | | | | | | +-----+ | | +------------ | | | | +---+ +---+ | | | | | | +-----------+ | +----------+ | | +---------------------- Hmmm. Looks better when I switch to fixed font in my email reader. That's an interesting joint, and I guess it can legitimately be called a rabbeted joint, although the rabbet is not the kind of rabbet we normally visualize. My first reaction is that the joint is more complex than necessary, but on reflection, I think that, if it is glued and nailed properly, it could be as much as four times stronger than the normal rabbet/butt corner we use, as well as having the advantage you mention of being easier to align without a jig during assembly. One thing that this design will prevent (again only if assembled with glue and nailed both ways) is the tendancy of some boxes for the ends to warp out, making the box too long. I might mention that Lusbys have a nice solution for this problem on old boxes. It's a sheet metal corner that nails on and can be seen at http://photos.yahoo.com/allendick -- where some Lusby pictures are on display. > As I said, the drawback is that even slightly non-planar stock will make this design very difficult to assemble at all. True, and the lumber must be very flat when the joint is being machined. This is probably not a joint for the average home carpenter, but one to consider for above-average woodworkers who can measure accurately, keep tools sharp, and who understand wood. Thanks for that Jim, and BTW, I apologise for being a bit snappy last time. Good thing you have a good sense of humour. allen http://www.internode.net/honeybee/diary/ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 00:56:57 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Richard Yarnell Organization: Oregon VOS Subject: Re: Kreg Tools and Boxes Comments: To: James Fischer In-Reply-To: <200203011012.g21A7wli028069@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I really can't see any advantage to this joint. It's complex but probably not much stronger than a single rabbet and may in fact be weaker. Because the projection I've marked "X" is cut with the grain running across it, it's very weak and doesn't add much, if any, strength to the joint. Any additional glued surface runs around that weak point (|). It puts a premium on getting a really tight fit so that the surface (y), which can't be clamped, is a sound bond. If you do without what amounts to a t&g, the corner can be "clamped" with nails or screws, ensuring that all the wet surfaces are in close contact. IMO, simple, in this case, is better. On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, James Fischer wrote: > Copying from Brushy Mountain's 1999 catalog, > below is a ASCII-art top view of what they > call a "Rabbeted Hive Body Joint" (not to > scale, but close). Don't blame me for the > terminology. As I said, terminology varies. > Massively, it seems. > > > | | > | | > | | > | +-----+ > | |Y Y +------------ > | | Y | > | +---+ +---+ > | | | | > | ^ X | | > +-----------+ | > +----------+ > | > | > +---------------------- > > > The nice thing about it is that friction alone > holds the super together while you nail, screw, > glue, whatever. As I said, the drawback is that > even slightly non-planar stock will make this > design very difficult to assemble at all. --------------- Richard Yarnell, SHAMBLES WORKSHOPS | No gimmick we try, no "scientific" Beavercreek, OR. Makers of fine | fix we attempt, will save our planet Wooden Canoes, The Stack(R) urban | until we reduce the population. Let's composter, Raw Honey | leave our kids a decent place to live. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 12:20:24 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Mark Subject: Re: Kreg Tools and Boxes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit All, This might help. To view Richards ascii image as he typed it, choose "fixed text size". In Outlook Express, go to View, Text Size, Fixed. Mark ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 14:09:46 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter Borst Subject: The size of bees Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Ruttner compared isolated Italians from Kangaroo Island, Australia and Black Bees from Tasmania, with exactly known importation date (1825 and 1835 respectively) with data on ligustica and mellifera from Europe. No significant difference was found and mellifera from Tasmania turned out to be less hybridized than their parents in Britain. from "Biogeography and Taxonomy of Honeybees," 1988. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 09:26:42 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: Kreg Tools and Boxes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I really can't see any advantage to this joint. It's complex but probably > not much stronger than a single rabbet and may in fact be weaker. That was my first reaction, but on further consideration, I decide that it could well be stronger, especially where wood grain is not totally straight or parallel, and also considering how the normal rabbetted joint typically fails, if it does. I thought that a larger glue surface and the grip further up the joint might add more moment. My comments are speculative, though, and entirely based on the assumption of good contact and use of a strong permanent, waterproof glue that totally fills all voids. > Because the projection I've marked "X" is cut with the grain running > across it, it's very weak and doesn't add much, if any, strength to the > joint. Any additional glued surface runs around that weak point (|). > It puts a premium on getting a really tight fit so that the surface (y), > which can't be clamped, is a sound bond. Very true, but it does take some stress off the lower piece, just below your 'x'. > If you do without what amounts > to a t&g, the corner can be "clamped" with nails or screws, ensuring that > all the wet surfaces are in close contact. That is what we prefer, but I would have to see the two corners in destructive tests to be sure what happens in real life. > IMO, simple, in this case, is better. That is my preference, but I still suspect that this corner could offer some (very slight)advantages and am thus giving it the benefit of the doubt. I should add, though that I will likely never make one myself. (and I used to manufacture boxes, and have built and been involved in building, using and selling several finger corner gang dado machines, as well as making quite a few rabbetted boxes). Has anyone had any real-life experience over time with the two joints side-by-side? allen ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 14:02:52 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter Borst Subject: The size of bees Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Dee wrote: >This is very good information to know Peter about the dark bee of >Europe. Is this also true with other dark bee races of Europe and >Elsewhere (Africa) i.e. Punic, Monticola, Cape Bee even? How does >this relate to yellow race/strain types also, i.e. Italian, cyprian, >Egyptian, and Scuts? Anyone interested in the various types of honey bees owes it to himself or herself to read Friedrich Ruttner's book "Biogeography and Taxonomy of Honeybees," 1988. In the intro he says: >Honeybees are as small as flies or as large as hornets ... they >survive for 7 months of winter and even longer periods of drought >and heat. This book attempts to achieve a synopsis of all available >morphometric, behavioral, and ecological data of the known >geographic variants of Apis mellifera. For more than 25 years >samples were systematically collected and analyzed ... Finally, data >from more than 1200 samples ... were available for statistical >analysis. ... Size of the brood cells is another parameter of worker >and drone size. Table 4.2 race origin cell diameter (mm) worker drone litorea Tanzania 4.62 6.15 yemenitica Oman 4.75 6.2 scutellata Tanzania 4.7 monitcola Tanzania 4.8 "Africanized" S. America 5.0 ligustica central Italy 5.27 mellifera NW Italy 5.37 carnica NE Italy 5.51 6.91 * Note the correlation between worker size and drone size. -- Peter Borst ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 13:33:02 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Melting Frames: Salvaging Wax and Honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Having had several very interesting discussions with a lot of good input from many sources -- and some surprising answers -- I am going to ask another question to which I think I know some answers, but to which I may not know all I need to know: What is the best way to melt broken frames -- other than a solar melter? Is it in a steam cabinet, a hot room, or by immersion in near-boiling water? Or is it by some other method? Should a person cut the combs out to melt them or just work with the whole frame? What are the tricks of the business? 1.) In the first case, let's assume that the object is to save as much of the wax in as clean a form as possible, but that any honey is going to be lost. 2.) In the second, let's assume there is a lot of good honey in the broken frames. How can we best get the honey and wax separated and salvaged with the least damage? (This is where I suspect the solar melter is the number one choice) I realise that we have discussed some aspects of all this before, so am hoping that we will get some new ideas and reveal some of the more subtle points that make the difference between just doing the job and doing it well. For those who want to brush up on old discussions, http://www.internode.net/honeybee/BEE-L/ is a good place to start. allen http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Diary/ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 14:00:36 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Donald Aitken Subject: Re: Kreg Tools and Boxes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Allen: I tried the locking joint on some bee boxes some years ago. I used only nails rather than glue, and found that if you stressed the joint enough to move it, it failed by splitting along the cross grain. If you use this joint, you should make the small groove only about 1/8" wide. This gives the cross grain part more area and it stands up better. The regular finger joint box is far sturdier, but it is time consuming to make unless you have the machinery for it. After all is said and done, I like the biscuit joints best. Best regards Donald Aitken ----- Original Message ----- From: "Allen Dick" > Has anyone had any real-life experience over time with the two joints > side-by-side? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 16:13:03 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Murray McGregor Subject: Re: Melting Frames: Salvaging Wax and Honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/2/02 8:36:18 PM GMT Standard Time, allend@INTERNODE.NET writes: > .) In the second, let's assume there is a lot of good honey in the broken > frames. How can we best get the honey and wax separated and salvaged with > the least damage? Thomas in France, and I believe several other makers have similar devices, do a thing called a 'fondoir'. It is a jacketed tank with multiple outlets, and radiant elements in the closeable lid. This allows you to set the body of the contents to be heated to a certain level, which should be a good melt heat to allow the honey and partly melted wax to seperate, and the extra heat from the top allows all the wax to effectively melt at a higher heat, yet at the same time insulating the honey below from the extremes of temperature above. I have been thinking of buying one of these things to finish off our wax at the end of the extracting day rather than doing the dry cappings and old combs in the winter. There is little or no honey left in the compressed cappings which come off the wax press (another French device which is brilliant) and you hasve a load of stuff like dog biscuits. A fondoir can be partly filled with water, the wax debris and pressings tipped into the top, heat set to whatever level you want and let it settle out. You end up with a slum/water slurry in the bottom and wax floating on top. Each layer can be run off seperately. Murray ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 16:36:25 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Murray McGregor Subject: Re: Glue and Nails MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/1/02 2:30:23 PM GMT Standard Time, DroneBee@AOL.COM writes: > I find the brads pull out easy enough and the top bar can come loose of the > side bars. This is not fun in the beeyard so I now add a nail through the > sidebar into the top bar on each side for a total of 10 nails. We use 32mm brads, fired two into each joint, using a Paslode gas powered finish nailer (with reference to the tag line below, please note that a foreigner is using an American made machine!). It has adjustable drive depth, and they do not pull out. We have frames specially made to our needs (if not using full Piercos, which do not exist in British sizes) with grooved top and bottom bars. On the grooved bottoms you put one brad on each side of the groove through the thicker bits. Splitting is occasional, and unless severe, which almost never happens, it is of little cosequence to anything except the beekeepers critical eye. > > Save American crops, Boycott foriegn honey Sorry, I perhaps should not respond to this, but I actually sell American honey to premium customers over here in the UK. Some Americans like to buy my honey too. Perhaps you think I should take your honey but be hampered in carrying out reprocal trade? Murray ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 09:57:46 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Thomas Cornick Subject: Re: Kreg Tools and Boxes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit There are any number of lock Mitre router bits available in the woodworking gadget catalogs made for stock of specific thickness. Generally they are used in cabinet drawer construction. The advantage to a simple rabbet joint is it can be cut with nothing more than a saw. If you dovetail your nails it is not likely to pull apart. If you want to get fancy you can use stainless steel ring shank siding nails. Of the 70 rabbet joint supers I made none are peeling open at the corners. I purchase deep hive bodies because wide stock is too close in price to be worth the effort. If you size all the exposed grain in the corners prior to assembly with thinned pva glue (titebond,elmers) things become far more durable. For medium supers I stockpile short pieces of lumber 7" wide until I have enough to spend a Saturday morning dressing stock and making supers. Save American crops, Boycott foreign honey ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 22:05:25 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Rich Bruno Subject: Packaged vs Nucs I have heard differing opinions regarding how well colonies will do their first year when starting a new hive with packaged bees vs a nuclei. I have been told by one experienced beekeeper that packaged bees will do better than hives started from nuclei. Does anyone know of any actual research reports that I could refer to that discuss this subject? thanks ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 21:26:45 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter Borst Subject: Re: The size of bees Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Re: previous post on size of bees. If the table is misaligned in your email program, write me and I can send a "jpg" version of it to you. pb ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 20:37:29 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter John Keating Subject: Re: Melting Frames: Salvaging Wax and Honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Greetings, can l presume that we are talking about broken frames coming in during the harvest? I have a Fager cappings press, and any broken combs with honey are placed on the conveyor, after being cut out from the frame. Although the Fager is not the most efficient means of separating wax and honey, it does it without heat, does not incorporate air into the honey (as do most spinners) and works in a continuous and not in a batch fashion: meaning that at the end of the day the Fager has also finished it's work. They have long been unavailable and secondhand machines hard to find, but there are being made again. For more info go to http://www.herbee.com/page6.htm Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Allen Dick" > What is the best way to melt broken frames -- other than a solar melter? Is > it in a steam cabinet, a hot room, or by immersion in near-boiling water? > 2.) In the second, let's assume there is a lot of good honey in the broken > frames. How can we best get the honey and wax separated and salvaged with > the least damage? (This is where I suspect the solar melter is the number > one choice) ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 09:12:10 +0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter Dillon Subject: Re: Melting Frames: Salvaging Wax and Honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Murray mentioned the wax/ honey "fondoir" from Thomas here in France. I have been using this piece of apparatus over several years as a central part of my extracting process. Effectively, it works in the following manner: A chain decapping machine sits over the end, frames introduced and uncapped. The shredded cappings and included honey fall into the container - holding 100 Kg honey/wax mix (the container has a sloping floor to allow material to move to the opposite end) As the material moves, it is gently heated, allowing separation of the honey and wax. The heat is supplied via. the electrically heated oil bath( food grade oil). Once the wax rises to the surface, this is melted by 3 radiant heaters fixed in the insulated lid - thermostatically controlled. The wax flows out through a spout at the appropriate level - allowing continuous melting. The warmed honey passes under a buffer plate and cleaned of wax, flows into a container exterior to the melter, from which it is pumped to a final storage container. The rate of extraction determines the supply of heat required. Having had my honeys analysed by all types of buyer, there has never been a problem of overheated honey as indicated by HMF or enzyme levels. It is quite an expensive piece of equipment - but extremely reliable and cost effective. No mess, clean wax and honey, all finished at the end of the day. Somebody in the States/Canada or elsewhere should make them!!! Esp. with small hive beetle around, as there is no damp cappings being held in storage. Honey frames are removed from the decapping machine in the traditional manner for extraction. Peter ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 03:11:42 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: Melting Frames: Salvaging Wax and Honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > .) In the second, let's assume there is a lot of good honey in the broken > > frames. How can we best get the honey and wax separated and salvaged with > > the least damage? > > Thomas in France, and I believe several other makers have similar devices, do > a thing called a 'fondoir'. It is a jacketed tank with multiple outlets, and > radiant elements in the closeable lid. Thanks, I appreciate the ideas coming in. and hope my comments here won't discourage additional suggestions, but I think I have tried the type of unit described and found it has serious drawbacks for what I have in mind. I offer my experience so that anyone who has mastered the unit and has insights that have escaped me can set me straight. Maybe the units you describe are different, but if they are the same as a Kelley Melter -- a coffin shaped thing with a hinged lid and radiant heaters in it -- I've had several of these in various sizes over the years and sold all of them. Although they do make good wax, and will not damage honey much when doing fresh cappings -- if properly operated and as long as all the cappings going in are white -- they require constant attention, are a fire hazard (especially if accidentally misadjusted) and smoke a lot if there are any cocoons or debris in the wax, which would definitely be the case when melting dark combs. Moreover, in my experience at least, they require a long warm-up period each morning and constant fiddling during the day. There used to be one in almost every sizeable Alberta honey house, but I know of no one using one daily during extracting and of very few using them to render after the season. I am sure that with today's technology, such melters could be made to work much better and even be safe to use, but as long as there are cocoons and/or bees and other debris in the wax, I suspect they will always smoke and smell. I hate to sound so negative, but in my experience and for my type of operation, I have found that -- with the lid removed -- that they make an excellent extractor sump, but would be a nightmare for melting the 5,000+ old dark frames I want to render. Maybe someone else has had better experience with them? allen ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 20:35:46 +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: The size of bees MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Peter wrote > Ruttner compared isolated Italians from Kangaroo Island, Australia > and Black Bees from Tasmania, with exactly known importation date > (1825 and 1835 respectively) with data on ligustica and mellifera > from Europe. Just a correction to the date for the A.m. ligustica at Kangaroo Island. The first introduction was around 1881 with some others a couple of years later with legislation stopping imports about 1885. Trevor Weatherhead AUSTRALIA ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 10:44:38 +0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Murray McGregor Subject: Re: Natural comb cell size In-Reply-To: <200202221655.g1MFCAxC029711@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed In article <200202221655.g1MFCAxC029711@listserv.albany.edu>, Dee Lusby writes >But in actuality the density of the inside of the bee's >muscle structure, etc does change. Too many assumptions being used by most in this. There seems to be little proof that bees of a single given type fly faster or slower just according to their size. All sorts of variables are at play and not many seem to have hit on the power/weight ratio. I don't have the answers nor would I pretend to, and it may seem supercilious and unnecessary to say this, but if smaller is truly better and faster, then why, after 50 million years or so of selection, are bees not now the size of gnats and fly at mach 2? The only time I have seen a seriously backed up correlation between smaller bees and faster flight was in a discussion a long time ago which involved Garth Cambray (whatever happened to him?) and others. In that, and subsequent discussions with yet other people involved in monticola breeding, it was stated that the mode of energy conversion in African bees, particularly scutellata, is such that they can fly faster and earlier, and hence outcompete European bees in areas climatically suited to them. (Dont ask me to explain it, as it had me well baffled to begin with at the time.) Unfortunately this did not take place solely on Bee-L so archive searches would prove incomplete. Perhaps thoracic density is also involved here and may be an indicator of a genetic type (or supersisters within a colony) rather than strictly being a size related criterion. Murray -- Murray McGregor ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 09:27:27 +0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter Dillon Subject: Save American crops.... MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Referring to the add on found at the end of several mails posted on Bee-L If it is to be presumed that this is a list promoting co-operation and discussion on an international level - are not these messages mis-placed? >From my travels and international contacts - it is eminently obvious that we all have problems in selling and producing at what may be considered a correct return for effort. I could state the case for protecting French, British or European etc. produce. Good honey is good honey - wherever it comes from! Usually foreign in origin. Peter ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 09:32:39 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Kent Stienburg Subject: Re: Packaged vs Nucs MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have been told by one experienced beekeeper that packaged bees will do better than hives started from nuclei. Hi All, Well, that depends on how you prepare the hive. Are you using primarily all foundation or drawn? There are a lot of variables here but to really simplify it. The nuc will have a head start due to the fact that the queen will be already laying some brood. You can speed up the package by hiving them on drawn comb and feeding syrup and at the end of the season they will have the same hive population as a nuc. I've always managed to get a crop of honey off a hive started as a nuc. While I have also done the same with a package, good seasonal conditions and my own intervention are needed but I have not achieved the same weight of honey. Remember everything depends on length of season, honey flow, luck and skill :) I'm in Ontario so my season starts about April till September with spuratic flows and dearth's through out. Good luck. Kent Stienburg ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 08:18:37 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob & Liz Subject: sealing cracks in honey house floor. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello All, I have got a crack which I have had trouble fixing. I have thought about using a two part epoxy like plumbers use but very expensive due to the amount needed. Ideas? Thanks in advance. Sincerely, Bob Harrison ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 08:11:47 -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: suspected Imidacloprid bee deaths MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello Al and All, Al wrote; Although I have seen no documented scientific proof that Imidacloprid is = causing high bee mortality I would welcome discussion from those = beekeepers who suspect they are having a problem with Imidacloprid = poisoning.=20 I am going to assume since Al's post has been posted without response = that Imidacloprid poisoning is not being seen on a large scale in the = U.S. Myself and several others have not seen any signs yet. We always lose a = percentage of hives to unknown pesticide poisoning but the percent has = been small for years. I do remember the years of widespread pesticide = kills several decades ago. =20 Kills from Arial spraying of misquitos has been the largest kills I = have heard of in the last decade but I can only speak for myself and = areas of beekeepers I network with.=20 In your hives Al are the bees making it back to the hives to die and = found in front or are the bees simply disappearing? Are you only finding kills in areas within several miles of fields = using Imidacloprid? If so which Bayer product do you suspect? Again I do not believe we have got a Imidacloprid problem in our area of = the midwest yet. I have had no experience with Imidacloprid as is the = case with my beekeeping friends. I am only trying to get a handle on = why you suspect Imidacloprid and the signs which you are seeing so we = can be on the lookout also. We only seek generalities which will not = affect your case with Bayer.=20 Moving away from pesticdes has always been my approach. May not be = possible in your case Al.=20 Most lawsuits are not won concerning pesticdes and are expensive to = persue do to the deep pockets of the other side. I cite the recent = lawsuits lost by Florida commercial beekeepers for losses incured from = ariel spraying. As an example.=20 Florida beekeepers NEVER thought they would lose the case so invested = huge sums of money in the case. The proof was overwhelming in favor of = the beekeepers in my opinion. Perhaps the old indemmenty program should be resurected. I believe the = last indemnity program was in effect in the late 70's but stand to be = corrected if wrong. Although only enough money was provided for a = package of bees and lost pollination fees and honey crops were not takin = into account the USDA was not as hard to convince as a court of law. Sincerely, Bob Harrison ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 08:43:50 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Murray McGregor Subject: Re: Melting Frames: Salvaging Wax and Honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/3/02 10:17:42 AM GMT Standard Time, allend@INTERNODE.NET writes: > Maybe the units you describe are different, but if they are the same as a > Kelley Melter -- a coffin shaped thing with a hinged lid and radiant heaters > in it -- I've had several of these in various sizes over the years and sold > all of them. > They are indeed broadly similar to the device you mention, and even the Thomas manager who visited us last autumn to see how his new extractor was working described them as obsolescent, but still sell readily. In their range they consider them to have been largely replaced by a machine called a 'Spinomel' which does not aeriate the honey. Not everyone wants a spinner though, no matter how gentle and effective. The link below contains a simple picture of the wax press we use to seperate everything without heat, and it even crushes down old combs etc, squeezing almost everything out. Wire, metal, little bits of wood, everything is crushed together and comes out just like dog biscuits. The machine even works on crystallised old honey in combs, but this stuff may need you to put the output at the wax end through again. It leaves a lot of tiny brash in the honey which you can then melt and skim. http://www.apiservices.com/limousin-apiculture/index.htm I'll see if I can take some photos of it in operation next season and post them up for folk to see. Another relatively expensive option at around USD 8/9 K. The more wax and chunks there is in the input mix the better, if mainly honey the machine can cavitate, and thus if the input is pulped honey and cappings there can from time to time be a slight problem. If there is you just through a heap of the wax from the output end back in at the start to give it something solid to work on. Unfortunately with regard to your original question it does not render wax and you still have all this stuff to deal with although with the honey now salvaged. Murray ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 06:49:20 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Shakey Jake Subject: Re: Glue and Nails In-Reply-To: <200202280408.g1S434lm018076@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I use Titebond II on all joints and a Sears electric brad nailer with 2 - 1" brads on top and bottom bars with no splits. I also put a brad in the ears of the top side bars to the top bar. Jake Anyone have experience with brad guns on grooved > bottom bars? > > Mark ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 09:45:15 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Rodney Farrar Subject: Re: Packaged vs Nucs MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have only been keeping bees for two years and have only used packages. Our club gets them from Wilbanks in GA. They are picked up on one day and we have them the next (only one-two days in the package). We get them at the end of March and them have done very well for me, but I am only a beginner. Rodney in VA ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 07:48:35 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Robert Butcher Subject: Re: Melting Frames: Salvaging Wax and Honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Allen, 1.) In the first case, let's assume that the object is to save as much of the wax in as clean a form as possible, but that any honey is going to be lost. reply:you cut out all the good comb honey and You can cook it down in a double boiler low flame to start with. Bring the temp up slowly and you won't burn the honey. The wax will rise and the honey will fall. Have a Blessed Day Bob Butcher Tucson Az. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 07:28:45 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dee Lusby Subject: Re: Natural comb cell size In-Reply-To: <200203031115.g23BF3lk006869@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi to all on BEE-L Murry McGregor wrote:Perhaps thoracic density is also involved here and may be an indicator of a genetic type (or supersisters within a colony) rather than strictly being a size related criterion. Reply: Actually it is a size realted criterion. The density of the thorax is directly linked to the size of the cell, which has bearing upon the performance of the honeybee concerning both trachael mite infestation, and muscle movement necessary for thermoregulation during cold winters and hot summer, and yes,flight. Also the bees born in 4.9mm cells or smaller have the wings longer in proportion to the body then their big sisters on 5.2 or larger foundation. ON the smaller the tip of the abdomen is shorter then the wing length and on the larger the wings are shorter then the tip of the abdomen. For drones of both this has marked effect on mating capacity to see who gets ther first. Also to see the difference all you have to do is look. Density also shows up in other ways. Regards, Dee A. Lusby __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - sign up for Fantasy Baseball http://sports.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 08:15:18 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: Natural comb cell size MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > There seems to be little proof that bees of a single given type fly faster or slower just according to their size. Nor is there proof given here that they fly at the same speed or carry the same payload. In fact, it seems quite obvious that there must be a difference, but we don't know what it is. > if smaller is truly better and faster, then why, after 50 million years or so of selection, are bees not now the size of gnats and fly at mach 2? There are limits to any design and as size increases or decreases, these limiting factors affect the competitiveness of the critter. A good example is the obvious fact that there is a limit on how large an insect can be and still walk on water, using surface tension. Moreover, an insect must function in an environment, and match the needs of the flowers etc. as well as function in the presence of predators, etc. Air density and other properties vary with altitude and humidity, and over time. Airplanes that are designed for high altitude flight are not optimised for low altitudes and vice versa. Increases in speed have their own drawbacks, and there is likely a most efficient speed range for a bee. Air temperature, heat loss to radiation, convection and transpiration, solar radiation and humidity all have effects that are exagerated as size diminishes. The properties of the air and the bees' environment determine what scale is optimal for the honey bee. All these interacting factors determine the optimal size range for honey bees, and it is a range, as we have seen here. I realise that I have not answered the question, but think I have bracketed it quite nicely. > Perhaps thoracic density is also involved here and may be an indicator of a genetic type (or supersisters within a colony) rather than strictly being a size related criterion. A study Dee showed me seemed to show that bees of the same queen raised in larger cells were less dense than their sisters raised in smaller cells. allen http://www.internode.net/honeybee/diary/ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 08:05:57 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Mike Tooley Subject: Re: Glue and Nails In-Reply-To: <200203031443.g23EYTmO008981@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit We put thousands of frames together over the years with a Spotnail stapler and glue.Sadly we had to retire it because the staples got really expensive,then un-available.Does anyone know where to get 18 gauge,3/16 x1 1/8 staples that might fit in this gun? -Mike ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 10:03:16 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Mark Subject: Re: sealing cracks in honey house floor. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bob wrote: > I have got a crack which I have had trouble fixing. > > I have thought about using a two part epoxy like plumbers use but very expensive due to the amount needed. Ideas? Reply: A lot depends on the width, depth, and length. Another variable is how much work you are willing to put into it. Cracks that are a half inch wide or less are pretty hard to control. You just end up patching them over and over. Believe it or not, the bigger ones are easier to fix. If it's more than a half inch wide let us know. Very small cracks, 1/4 inch or so, can be fixed with flexible patching materials found in home centers, but they will almost always reappear. Some sort of stress made the crack occur. As long as that stress is there, they will come back. Temperature changes are great for making cracks. For small cracks, flexible materials are better. Melted tar, as in road work, works great and lasts a long time. Another material that work well for small, 1/4 inch or less, is Butyl-Flex Rubber Sealant - found in caulk tubes. It's flexible and comes in gray. But no matter what you use, cleaning the dirt out of the crack will make all the difference. Hope this helps. Mark in west Texas ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 11:40:45 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter Borst Subject: Re: sealing cracks in honey house floor. For large patch jobs in wood, try epoxy auto body filler, like "Bondo". I used it on a burn hole (origin unknown) on the plywood floor on my screened porch. No sign of it shrinking or coming loose. Also works on bee boxes, damaged wood trim, etc. pb ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 10:01:08 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Thomas Cornick Subject: Re: sealing cracks in honey house floor. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Look for expanding cement product, here the stuff is brand named "Rockite" You mix it with water and trowel or pour it in place and it sets up rapidly. This is the stuff a millwright would use to set a bolt or a pin in a factory floor. Save American crops, Boycott foriegn honey ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 18:45:54 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Tim Arheit Subject: Re: Melting Frames: Salvaging Wax and Honey In-Reply-To: <200203022036.g22KYmlg021777@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 01:33 PM 3/2/02 -0700, you wrote: >1.) In the first case, let's assume that the object is to save as much of >the wax in as clean a form as possible, but that any honey is going to be >lost. We (my wife and I) just returned from the Tri-County beekeepers convension. My wife attended the session on wax where the speaker demonstrated a fairly complex (ie. requires special equipment) method of cleaning wax. And it was stated that he (the speaker) was able to get cleaner looking wax than with any other method. My wife's opinion was that our method of cleaning the wax gave just as good a result using simple equipment. I can't say because I didn't see the presentation. Our method is to simply dump the wax cappings and broken comb into boiling water. Stir the mixture as it melts. Once it melts we take it off the heat source and let it sit until the wax sets up in one big chunk floating on top. It's still pretty dirty at this point and there generally is a good amount of lighter debris stuck to the bottom that can be scraped off. The honey of course stays dissolved in the water. (Generally you should have several times the amount of water as wax and honey). Then we melt the wax in a double boiler (one stock pot inside another one). Once melted we pour the hot wax though a strainer cloth (the same type you strain the honey with) and into molds, bread pans, etc. You'll have a fair amount of slum-gum and other debris, and obviously you don't get 100% of the wax out, but we do get most of it, and the end product looks good. >2.) In the second, let's assume there is a lot of good honey in the broken >frames. How can we best get the honey and wax separated and salvaged with >the least damage? (This is where I suspect the solar melter is the number >one choice) I would just break them up (squeeze them) and leave them to drain as I do with cappings. I'm assuming of course that the frame is damaged beyond even temporary repair and that the foundation is essentially unsalvageable. -Tim ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 16:48:25 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Donald Aitken Subject: Melting frames: Salvaging wax and honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Allen: I don't think you will get saleable honey from rendered old combs. It is very dark and has poor flavour. You may be able to use a variant of my method for separating wax from cappings. The cappings are put in a barrel with an equal weight of warm water. I have a 1/3 hp electric motor with a 5/8" shaft extension and a 6" diameter propeller made from twisted 16 gauge stainless steel. I run this for about twenty minutes and then pump the honey/water mix out through a bag filter which retains the cappings. I feed the honey water back to the bees and they evaporate it back to honey.The wax is rendered separate from the honey. This yields bright yellow wax and quite clear honey/water. You would have to find some way to demolish your combs so that the water could get at the honey. (I use a scratcher to uncap, so my cappings are small grains to start with). You could warm them up in steam chest to about 110 deg F, bang the frame on a board over the barrel and then mince them up with the propeller mixer. The barrel would take about 150 lb of comb at a time so a steam chest that would do three supers at a time would be adequate. This stuff would be better fed back in the spring as it would make fairly poor honey.It is necessary that it be fed immediately after processing or it ferments. ( You might use it for making ethanol...) This method would realistically do 100 lb an hour.If you have 50,000 pounds you are looking at a couple of months. Feeding back that much honey would be a problem. The ethanol idea sounds better. Best regards Donald Aitken ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 17:03:16 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Robert Brenchley Subject: Re: Natural comb cell size MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dee writes: <> Have you measured them for comparison? Ruttner, Milner & Dews reported in 'The Dark European Honey Bee' that the size of the forewing in A.m.m. found in archaeological digs dating from about 800 and 1000 years ago were similar to those of modern bees, presumably raised on large foundation. Does the wing size change as the bees are downsized. Regards, Robert Brenchley RSBrenchley@aol.com Birmingham UK ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 17:47:04 -0800 Reply-To: beekeeper82@yahoo.com Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Carm Subject: Re: Glue and Nails In-Reply-To: <200203011610.g21EfOp4002520@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi Robert, Got a question for you concerning how many wires you use. Isn't your foundation wired going vertically, and then you put 2-4 wires in horizontally? That is how we have things here in Ontario, and I thought all over the states did it that way too? Please explain. Regards, Carm __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - sign up for Fantasy Baseball http://sports.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 13:02:22 +1300 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Robt Mann Subject: Re: Natural Comb Cell size, Reaumur In-Reply-To: <200202261414.g1QDfSo4014232@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >If you study Reaumur's statement, you will realize several things can be >learned. One is a high level of precision. - yes; indeed, I fear, spurious precision. The figure "0.217 inch" implies uncertainty of only a few thou. What instruments existed in 1740 to measure such a distance within a few thou? Is the distance being measured *defined* that precisely? Spurious precision can arise in convering fractions to decimals. One sixth of an inch, for instance .... It is disappointing how few - even scientists - understand the difference between precision and accuracy. The precision of a (reported, or putative) measurement is reflected by the number of significant figures stated. The last-mentioned place is implied to be the only uncertain figure. Thus, kids can produce strings of 8 "significant" figures from calculators or computers when a moment's thought would show in many cases that they're all meaningless beyond the 2nd or 3rd, and indeed could never have been measured to an uncertainty of only a few parts in 100,000,000 as implied by asserting numbers like 8.7621153 if measured on an instrument incapable of discriminating 8.76 from 8.74 units. Accuracy is different - it reflects reality, i.e. the actual number of significant figures measured, and their variance. These are not 'scientific dictionary' defns but are intended to introduce the concepts to those unfamiliar with the difference between accuracy and precision. R ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 20:51:33 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Lee Gollihugh Subject: Re: Up-sizing? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Dennis: You got it. While everyone else is trying to figure the WHY and HOWS you are doing the only thing that matters. Trying for your self. You see, NO body (sic) knows until they try it. Hang ing there, it worked for me. Lee (Deming NM) For $20 I can participate in an experiment that could allow me to focus on the bees rather than on disease. It's not rocket science. But I know that this time next year I will be more informed about small cell than I am now. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 17:45:37 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Robert Brenchley Subject: Re: BIG BEES (was: Foundation mills) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <The phenotype of the Dark honeybee has not substantially changed, >neither in the last millenium in Europe nor by transplantation to >the southern hemisphere (Tasmania and New Zealand) during the last >150 years. -- from "The Dark European Honey Bee" by Friedrich >Ruttner, 1990 Ruttner is saying that *he measured* bees found preserved from a thousand years ago, bees preserved from 150 years ago, and from today, and they are not different in size. If there was a substantial downsizing in the past 100 years *don't you think he would have mentioned it?* Why would ne not mention it? And please, I never said that bees were made bigger by foundation. I was pointing to the fact the Apis mellifera mellifera, having evolved in cold climates, has always been a fairly big bee, compared to African and Asian types. (Note: Not all temperate bees are bigger, not all non European bees are smaller. There are exceptions.) pb>> Ruttner didn't measure complete bees from 1000 years ago; only fragments were found. Complete specimens exist from the mid-18th Century. Unfortunately, Ruttner doesn't give complete measurements, and concentrates on wing morphology. The one thing which can be said with certainty with regard to size is that the wing size has remained unchanged for a thousand years. In order to settle this one finally, someone would probably need to re-examine the historical specimens, and take new measurements. First, however, we'd need to agree on which were the essential measurements to take, and settle on ones which would remain unchanged in a long-dried specimen, and which could be taken without damaging the precious remains. Regards, Robert Brenchley RSBrenchley@aol.com Birmingham UK ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 17:56:26 -0800 Reply-To: beekeeper82@yahoo.com Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Carm Subject: Re: Kreg Tools and Boxes In-Reply-To: <200203021937.g22Jaulc020890@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi Allen, In reference to what you wrote below... >and I used to > manufacture boxes, and have built and been involved > in building, using and > selling several finger corner gang dado machines, as > well as making quite a > few rabbetted boxes). > What exactly is a finger corner gang dado machine? Where can I get one? Please supply more info... Thanks... Carm __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - sign up for Fantasy Baseball http://sports.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 20:12:07 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dee Lusby Subject: Re: Melting Frames: Salvaging Wax and Honey In-Reply-To: <200203040000.g23Nmtm6018402@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi to all on Bee-L I am finding this discussion of salvaging wax and honey very good. However, I do have a question I hope someone can help me with. I now what pretty wax is to look at. I also know that many beekeepers consider the lighter the color the wax when processed, the cleaner it is. But is this so, and is this true? Is pretty yellow and whiter wax really clean or just pretty. Could it be that residue wax is really cleaner, though darker looking at times? How would one rate clean as chemical or residue clean vs clean by nice looks? and How should the difference be rated for marketing? How does one salvage clean wax then that is pretty and residue clean also? Is anyone doing this? How is apistan and coumaphous gotten out, or anything else for that matter? What are some of you doing for this problem or aren't you? Just curious. Regards, Dee A. Lusby __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - sign up for Fantasy Baseball http://sports.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 17:08:33 +1300 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Robt Mann Subject: Re: rust on queen excluders In-Reply-To: <200202251436.g1PEKwma006354@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >The widow asked me what could be done to renew the excluders. ... >Rust on queen excluders tears bees wings. I don't doubt that. One approach to rust was developed in NZ by a commission from the (now abolished!) Ministry of Works to Altex Devoe, a USA-HQ paint mfr. It is called RIPO - Rust Inhibitive Penetrating Oil. It creeps with excellent capillarity to the end of any contiguous rust layer. The more volatile oils then evaporate overnight, losing about 7/10 of the original mass of oils, leaving the rust embalmed ina dark brown waxy layer. RIPO is standard among the people who drive 1906 Cadillacs hundreds of miles. Its main use is in steel car bodies. But it might be worth a try on a rusted queen-excluder. By the smell, linseed oil is a main component of RIPO. Rusty ships have been painted with linseed oil. Anyhow filling the rust layer with oil would seem better than removing the rust, a process which I guess might increase the gaps so much that a queen could get thru. R - Robt Mann consultant ecologist P O Box 28878 Remuera, Auckland 1005, New Zealand (9) 524 2949 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 20:53:50 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dee Lusby Subject: Re: Natural comb cell size In-Reply-To: <200203040005.g23Nmtma018402@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi all on Bee-l Robert Brenchley wrote: Have you measured them for comparison? Ruttner, Milner & Dews reported in'The Dark European Honey Bee' that the size of the forewing in A.m.m. found in archaeological digs dating from about 800 and 1000 years ago were similar to those of modern bees, presumably raised on large foundation. Does the wing size change as the bees are downsized. Reply: Well, it certainly changed as they were upsized on artificial foundation Robert. Please see page 76, May 1928 "Bee World" Archiv fur Bienenkunde, which says: "From larger cells, the bees have larger fore-wings and wider terga' but the number of the hamuli in not affected." Also roy Grout did a thesis on "The Influence of Size of Brood Cell Upon the Size of the Worker Bee" that was published in Research Bulletin 218, June 1937 as " The INfluence of Size of Brood Cell Upon the Size and variability fo the Honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) in Ames Iowa, in which he stated that "our data substantiate those of Michailov which show that an increase in teh size of brood cells is accompanied by a corresponding increase in the weight, length of right forewing, width of right forewing, sum of widths of third and fourth tergits and length of proboscis. A Shorter version of this publication was also published in ABJ pages 178-180 April 1936 and Table 1 there and accompanying grafts give percentages for increase over three cell sizes of increasing size he used in his experiments on this subject matter. So you can see how much the length and width do change with cell size. To not see the changes I would tend to think that Ruttner maybe was using feral colonies not on enlarged combs maybe. What do you feel? Regards, Dee A. Lusby __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - sign up for Fantasy Baseball http://sports.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 17:55:57 +1300 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Kevin Gibbs Subject: Re: Melting Frames: Salvaging Wax and Honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > 1.) In the first case, let's assume that the object is to save as much of > the wax in as clean a form as possible, but that any honey is going to be > lost. > If you have access to a steam make a steam chest from three 44 gal (200 litre) drums laying on their side. I will describe one I have seen. The wax is left in good condition but of course any honey is lost. Cut the tops and two of the bottoms from three 44 gal (200 litre) drums. Weld them together end to end to form a long pipe with one end blocked. Whack a crowbar through the end left on near the top to let a bit of steam go. Make a hinged door for the other end out of one of the tops removed. A gap is left at the bottom of the door to let melted wax drain into a mould. Weld some legs on so the hinged end is lower than the blocked end to allow the melted wax to run. Make a rack the length of the three drums to slip inside the three drums that will hold the frames. Any design will do for the rack. It just makes it easier to load / unload. Grating (old excluders) to catch most of the old pollen and cocoons on the bottom of the rack helps cleaning and draining. Make a hole in the door end to put a steam pipe in. Just a hole big enough to slide the pipe in a little does the trick. Load it with old brood frames etc. stuff the steam hose in and turn it on. In 10-15 minutes when the wax stops running turn the steam off. BEWARE OF STEAM BURNS AND TOUCHING THE SIDE OF THE DRUMS. The frames are best scraped as soon as they are cool enough to work with if they are to be reused. As you may realise this type of steam chest will not be suitable for a lot of locations as bees are attracted to it. But it can handle a lot of frames easily and the quality of the wax is very good as it is drained immediately. If outside better used when the bees are not flying. I have seen a bank of three of these steam chests that are used in rotation for large jobs, one cooling, one loading, one steaming. I have even used one removable topped drum on end, sat on concrete building blocks with a crowbar hole in the bottom for a wax drain and a crowbar hole through the lid for the steam hose. Put one excluder inside a few inches from the bottom and thrown in as many frames as would fit. A little condensation runs out the bottom with the wax so allow for this by having a larger mould or several moulds on hand to swap mid job. Kevin Gibbs kgibbs@ihug.co.nz New Zealand ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 01:46:28 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: al picketts Subject: Re: suspected Imidacloprid bee deaths MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks for responding to the group, Bob. Others have responded privately and I expect many more will. The symptoms we have seen here on PEI started 2 years after potato farmers started using Admire (about 1998). It is not normally sprayed but applied in-furrow at planting. At first glance one would think this would be a good thing since no drift occurrs and no fish kills after a heavy rain (those always make TV headlines). What we suspect is happening is the chemical or a metabolite of it is staying in the soil and coming back in the nectar or pollen of the red clover 2 years later and killing the bees. The symptoms we see are: 1. dead hives in the spring with a few dead bees on the floor but mostly the hive is empty. Sometimes there are a very few workers alive with a queen. 2. dead empty hives in August on clover, some with 4 or more combs of brood, some with a few (5 or 10) workers and a queen...hives that were strong July 1 coming off blueberries. 3. weak hives with brood diseases that don't respond to Terra.- AFB, EFB, Chaulk. 4. poor honey production in hives that seem to be strong. 5. nucs that just can't seem to get going...some stay at 2 combs of brood and some die out completely. I have not found bees dead at the hive entrance as you would expect from some insecticides. Mostly they are just gone. Some beekeepers have suggested I may have a mite problem but I test for Varroa twice per year and have sampled for tracheal once per year for the last 12 years. No mites have ever been found in my bees. I would like to hear from beekeepers in potato growing areas, in particular the Maritimes, Ontario and Manitoba. If Imida. is not the problem (and I really hope it isn't) then there is something else causing these symptoms. If Imida. is the problem then I cringe to think what the damage could be to our industry world wide. As I understand it Imida. is to be used on pretty much all the canola going in the ground this spring and on corn as well. Sorry for the long post. Al ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 02:42:19 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Murray McGregor Subject: Re: Natural Comb Cell size, Reaumur MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/4/02 3:24:51 AM GMT Standard Time, robtm@MAXNET.CO.NZ writes: > > Spurious precision can arise in convering fractions to decimals. > One sixth of an inch, for instance .... > Hello Robert, I am glad you brought this up. I have noticed throughout this debate that there is some unrealistic interpretation of old figure going on from all sides. Folf have been taking fairly blunt figures, observed at a time when it was not regarded as as crucial as it is seen in this debate, converting them as if they were definitive measurements, and making interpretations based on accuracies which are an illusion. Interpretation to suit an argument is also rife, using certain reporters observations which suit and discounting others which dont, without good reason to discriminate. This is a thorny question, made so for a variety of reasons, which is arousing a surfeit of heat and nowhere near enough light. I do not pretend to know the figures from years ago and would argue that probably no-one does definitively. As soon as I see ancient texts being used, with unrealistically high precisions quoted, as a 'proof' of pro or con small cell theory, it smacks of bias. These texts are a curiosity in todays situation and, taken together, can tell us if we are within the parameters of years ago. Interpreting them to one end of the potential scale may turn out to be correct but seem arbitrary and unproven. Quotes such as '5 cells in just over one inch' were just fine at the time of observation for the percieved needs of the time, but we cannot say with any degree of accuracy except within a fairly wide range, what it actually means. Murray ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 11:36:56 +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: Melting Frames: Salvaging Wax and Honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: Peter Dillon > The shredded cappings and included honey fall into the container - > holding 100 Kg honey/wax mix (the container has a sloping floor to allow > material to move to the opposite end) > As the material moves, it is gently heated, allowing separation of the > honey and wax. The heat is supplied via. the electrically heated oil > bath( food grade oil). A similar system has been developed here by beekeepers themselves when there was no well working machine to buy at reasonable cost. It's the same container as you describe with double bottoms with electric heater in water. We don't use oils as we don't need above 100 C. During extracting the heat is set to make honey run off but not melt vax. At end of day temp is raised and vax is melted and run out the same way. It's simple and reasonably cheap to make. Drawback with those systems are they will heat up the extracting room making it into a sauna. This will work up to around 1000 kg per day, only for the smaller operator. And most important is to avoid dark combs in the honey supers. Pollen and coocons will insulate and prevent melting. > > From: Allen Dick > > I hate to sound so negative, but in my experience and for my type of > operation, I have found that -- with the lid removed -- that they make an > excellent extractor sump, but would be a nightmare for melting the 5,000+ > old dark frames I want to render. I have only seen one system that looked efficient for that. It was a special built machine, a large radial extractor where the frames were spun over a boiling water bath. Steam is probably the best way to get it done. But there is no easy way of cleaning old dark frames. And not much vax is returned. Wires are often damaged and need to be replaced or stretched. I have found the labour cost can be too high, and that it's actually cheaper to burn some of them and buy new. -- Regards P-O Gustafsson, Sweden beeman@algonet.se http://www.algonet.se/~beeman/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 08:16:28 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Aaron Morris Subject: Re: Save American crops, Boycott foriegn honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" At first I was amused, even with the spelling error. However, more than one member has taken offense and Peter Dillon wrote: > If it is to be presumed that this is a list promoting co-operation and > discussion on an international level - are not these messages > mis-placed? Indeed, BEE-L is an international list, and as such the slogan can be (has been) interpreted as confrontational. A more diplomatic phrasing would be, "Domestic honey promotes domestic pollination!" Aaron Morris - thinking diplomatically ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 06:38:47 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Tim Vaughan Subject: Smoker Fuel Something that I just tried and it works better that burlap and is CHEAP. You've seen that net-like brown stuff cities and landscapers put on top of bare sloaps? It's called Jute. A roll just under 1000 square feet will only cost in the range of 30-40 dollars in the US, and as it's thick and dense, I imagine it will take years for someone like me with about 100 hives to use up. I believe it's make with coconut fiber. Regards to the list Tim Vaughan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 07:50:09 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: BeeFarmer Subject: Re: Melting Frames: Salvaging Wax and Honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Tim, he used peroxide to help with the whiting and cleaning process from what I could see fram way back in the back of the room. BeeFarmer Getting Kids involved in 4H Beekeeping http://www.homestead.com/BeeKeepers/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 08:47:03 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter Borst Subject: Re: Natural Comb Cell size, Reaumur In-Reply-To: <200203040500.g244rAHd001019@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 3/4/02 12:00 AM, you wrote: > The figure "0.217 inch" implies uncertainty of only a few thou. >What instruments existed in 1740 to measure such a distance within a few >thou? Is the distance being measured *defined* that precisely? > Spurious precision can arise in convering fractions to decimals. >One sixth of an inch, for instance .... Well, looking at Reaumur's figures, I deduced that he must have done what we do, measure ten cells and divide by ten. He got 2 and 2 twelfths inches for ten, which I would represent as 2.17". If this is divided by ten, I would get .217". I don't see how else you would wish to represent this. Measuring my own natural comb, I got 2 and one eighth inches per ten, or 2.125" which I would represent as .213" per cell. How else can you show that these two figures are different (which they are)? Would you round Reaumurs's to .22 and mine to .21? Or call them both .2"? I submit that this *was* done, that the figure was often rounded to .2" and that may account for the difference in the statements made by writers from the 1800s. One *can* obtain very accurate measurements by using more than one cell. This not only increases the accuracy but renders the final result as a *mean* rather than a particular measurement. Of course, Reaumur was wrong when he said the number was invariable. That is why some writers (Crane) do not refer to the mean but rather, the range. But rather than pick apart the work of others, why don't you *add* something to the discussion? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 07:07:35 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Dogs, bees in gene-mapping contest MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit See http://www.msnbc.com/news/717167.asp allen http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Diary/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 07:13:25 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Allergies that are Hard to Explain MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Visit AllAllergy.Net at http://allallergy.net/ Visit Allergy Advisor at http://allergyadvisor.com/ allen http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Diary/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 08:10:53 -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: Melting Frames: Salvaging Wax and Honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello Dee and All, Dee wrote: How is apistan and coumaphous gotten out, or anything else for that = matter?=20 Testing is being done on wax used by the cosmetics industry for the = above chemicals. Minute traces of fluvalinate have been found and such = wax is used only for candles.=20 As a sideline candle maker I can asure you lead wicking and parafin wax = burning are more dangerous to you health than PPB of fluvalinate in = your candles. I used to make dip and carve candles in ten different = colors until fellow candlemakers started to get cancer from breathing = parafin fumes.=20 The Florida apiary inspectors report not finding coumaphos in wax as of = the last time I inquired. . Many do not believe enough coumaphos will be = found in wax to register but maybe not. Minute traces of coumaphos has = been found in honey but the Florida bee inspectors suspected misuse by = the beekeeper such as leaving the strips on during the honey flow.!=20 My candle making friends believe beeswax with PPB of either of the above = could be used in candles without a problem. Sincerely, Bob Harrison ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 08:23:33 -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: Natural comb cell size MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello All, Dee wrote: Well, it certainly changed as they were upsized on artificial foundation = Robert. I agree with Dee on the above .=20 One example: I have seen queen excluders form 50 years ago which today's bees can not = go through. The spacing was changed and is wider on today's U.S. queen = excluders.=20 Sincerely, Bob Harrison ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 10:07:35 -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: Natural Comb Cell size, Reaumur MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Murray McGregor wrote: > As soon as I see ancient texts being used, with unrealistically high > precisions quoted, as a 'proof' of pro or con small cell theory, it smacks of > bias. > > These texts are a curiosity in todays situation and, taken together, can tell > us if we are within the parameters of years ago. Interpreting them to one end > of the potential scale may turn out to be correct but seem arbitrary and > unproven. I would not discount scientific data just because it is old. And measuring to three decimal places is not a recent discovery in the scientific community. Nor are significant numbers. But the wheel does seem to be recent, since we invent it monthly on this list :) Bill Truesdell Bath, Me ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 07:09:03 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Mike Tooley Subject: Re: Melting frames: Salvaging wax and honey(off topic) In-Reply-To: <200203040004.g23Ng9lu018347@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Donald Aitken wrote:It is > necessary that it be fed immediately after processing or it ferments. You probably already know that you can keep even thin honey-water from fermenting by adding a spoonful of wintergreen oil or regular bleach per gallon.Probably better for spring feeding in cold climates,though I never noticed any harmful effects to the bees.In several years of feeding wintergreen syrup to splits,I never saw any chalkbrood,although other factors could account for that,it is possible the wintergreen oil exerts a fungicidal effect.May even have an effect on tracheal mites,who knows.But it DID NOT keep varroa under control.OR,you might say, wintergreen syrup (along with a little Apistan)controlled varroa ...LOL. -Mike ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 09:19:22 -0800 Reply-To: lithar@hcis.net Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: AL Subject: Re: Smoker Fuel MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Tim Vaughan wrote: > > Something that I just tried and it works better that burlap and is CHEAP. > You've seen that net-like brown stuff cities and landscapers put on top of > bare sloaps? Burlap may, in some instances, be treated to repel rodents. Jute may, in some instances, be treated to inhibit rot. You might want to inquire whether the material designed for landscaping has been treated in some way. The smoke from the chemical could pose a hazard to the bees or you. AL ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 10:19:12 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter Borst Subject: Dogs, bees in gene-mapping contest Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit After you read the article Allen mentioned, you might want to check this one out: "Unraveling the DNA Myth: The Spurious Foundation of Genetic Engineering" by Barry Commoner >Tested between 1990 and 2001 in one of the largest and most highly publicized scientific undertakings of our time – the $3 billion Human Genome Project – the central dogma collapsed ... http://www.qc.edu/CBNS/HarpersSynopsis.html ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 08:30:27 -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: Natural Comb Cell size, Reaumur MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Murray and All, Murray wrote: Quotes such as '5 cells in just over one inch' were just fine at the time of observation for the percieved needs of the time, but we cannot say with any degree of accuracy except within a fairly wide range, what it actually means. I agree with Murray and also point out some books say slightly less than five cells to the inch. Many say simply "five cells to the inch". Sincerely, Bob Harrison ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 08:56:24 -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: suspected Imidacloprid bee deaths MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello Al and All, Al wrote: What we suspect is happening is the chemical or a metabolite of it is = staying in the soil and coming back in the nectar or pollen of the red = clover 2 years later and killing the bees. Many of the things you describe ARE *calling cards * of both tracheal = mites and varroa. Farmers plant *red clover* for green manure mainly because of the = availability of cheap seeds.=20 Either move five miles from farmers using Admire or get the farmers to = switch to seeding a cover crop which the bees do not work.=20 I see no other solution.=20 I realize you make part of your honey crop from the clover but you are = in a no win situation if you continue to sit bees within five miles of = those fields.. Possibly you could get as close as two miles but why take = the chance. =20 In Missouri if you sit bees within two miles of a commercial Apple = orchard all year you will end up=20 with dead bees. Law suits have been filed against the orchards but none = have been won. =20 I see two obvious types of pesticide kills although there are others: 1. the bees do not return to the hive and dwindling takes place. 2. The bees return to the hive die and are tossed out the entrance by = the bees. Hope I have helped Al and I wish you the best in solving a very serious = problem with your bees. Sincerely, Bob Harrison =20 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 10:33:59 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Blane White Subject: Re: Natural comb cell size Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Everyone, Murray wrote in part: "Too many assumptions being used by most in this. There seems to be little proof that bees of a single given type fly faster or slower just according to their size. The only time I have seen a seriously backed up correlation between smaller bees and faster flight was in a discussion a long time ago which involved Garth Cambray (whatever happened to him?) and others. In that, and subsequent discussions with yet other people involved in monticola breeding, it was stated that the mode of energy conversion in African bees, particularly scutellata, is such that they can fly faster and earlier, and hence outcompete European bees in areas climatically suited to them. (Dont ask me to explain it, as it had me well baffled to begin with at the time.) Unfortunately this did not take place solely on Bee-L so archive searches would prove incomplete." You might be on to something important here. Researchers like Chip Taylor = and others have shown that the respiratory enzyme systems of african and = european bees differ with the african types being faster. Now these are = systems of enzymes that work together to produce energy from food in the = insect ( and us and other animals as well ) and there are several enzymes = that work together in a system to do this important job. This is why the = researchers tell us the african bees are able to fly faster. In fact they = do everything faster as their metobolic rate is faster than the european = bees. This is an advantage in a continually warm climate but not in a = temperate climate where forage in not available for long periods of time. = =20 If the bees in southern AZ USA now fly faster than they did 10 years ago I = strongly suspect it is due to african bees taking over that area. This is = expactly what several researchers have in fact reported to have happened. This matter of enzyme systems that have to work together for an organism = to function properly is probably why Dr Taylor has observed a lack of = hybridization between african and european bees over time. That is this = probably explains why one type of bees seems to take over an area and = displace another type with little mixing being found. =20 Interesting discussion. FWIW blane ****************************************** Blane White MN Dept of Agriculture blane.white@state.mn.us ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 12:33:22 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter Borst Subject: Queen excluder size Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Has the size of the gap in queen excluders been changed over the years? If naything, it is a little smaller than Root was recommending in 1890. ABC XYZ, 1983 says at least.1565" and a maximum of .1620" ABC XYZ, 1959 says wire excluder should have a .163" gap, though he recommends .162" for wire. ABCX XYZ, 1890 refers to the first zinc excluders made in England using .18" -- but this was found to be slightly too large. Then, 5/32" or .16 was tried and accepted. Root says he finds this a little tight and fixes the correct size at .165". I obtained several drill bits and attempted to measure the gap. The ones I measured include an eight frame wire one in excellent condition, a new wire one, and a new zinc one. The new wire appeared to be about 20 gauge or .161" The old eight frame was tight at .166", probably its about .161 to .163 The new zinc would not quite accept a 19 gauge , so it could be about .163 to .165 Anyone else care to make some measurements? PB ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 13:15:49 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter Borst Subject: Re: Queen excluder size I found a box of Dadant wire excluders with wood frames, barely used. The gap appears to be at or barely over 20 gauge (.161" or .162"). pb ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 08:40:06 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob Hack Subject: Re: Smoker Fuel In-Reply-To: <200203041330.g24Cu5Jp008026@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Tim Vaughan wrote: >net-like brown stuff cities and landscapers put on top of bare sloaps? It's called Jute. =============== Is there a chance that this material is treated with chemicals that pose a danger to you or your bees when it is burning? ...........bob --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.330 / Virus Database: 184 - Release Date: 2/28/2002 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 13:34:08 -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: Queen excluder size MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello Peter and All, Most of my excluders are fairly recent manufacture and from Dadant, = Kelley and Mann Lake and I have no problem with bees passing through = regardless of the foundation used.=20 I first became aware of the problem of excluder spacing on old excluders = was after we bought out a Mennonite beekeeper which had equipment which = was old and had not been in service for over fifteen years. Myself and two other beekeepers purchased the equipment. I tossed my share of the queen excluders in the shed. One of the = beekeepers put his in service right away. He called me later in the week = to come look at his bees. =20 I found workers dead and dying bees stuck in the slots of the shiny = excluders. He pulled the excluders (about a hundred) and put on newer excluders = and the problem was solved. The bees were from the Walter Kelley company. Kelley was producing = foundation in the 5.3mm range then so maybe the bees were a bit larger = than the norm. The bees were on 5.3mm wired Kelley foundation. The only logical conclusion we could come to was that these old = excluders had a narrower spacing. We did not measure either the old = excluders or the new excluders BUT the newer excluders solved the = beekeepers problem. . Maybe I will measure when I get caught up around = here. I have no idea of the maker of those old excluders . Sincerely, Bob Harrison=20 Ps. Most of the old excluders had last been in service in the late 70's = but some had not ever been in service. Again I have not a clue to the = manufacturer or the year of manufacture=20 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 12:37:09 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: Queen excluder size MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I found a box of Dadant wire excluders with wood frames, barely used. The > gap appears to be at or barely over 20 gauge (.161" or .162"). Some time back I decided to measure an assortment of excluders we have around here. The results are at http://www.internode.net/honeybee/Misc/excluders.htm allen http://www.internode.net/honeybee/diary/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 14:46:35 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Aaron Morris Subject: Re: Queen excluder size MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > Some time back ... I believe Dave Cushman also has a good deal on this tpoic on his web page. Aaron Morris - thinking everything old is new again! ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 14:57:02 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Aaron Morris Subject: EAS 2002 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I am very involved in preparations for the EAS 2002 Conference to be held August 5-9 at Cornell University in Ithaca, NY. First let me say, everyone should plan to attend. Of course I'm biased because I'm so involved, but the program promises to be great (details will be forthcoming) and I plan to see many old friends there and hope to meet new ones. It would be nice to see a huge BEE-L contingent there too. Second, as Short Course Coordinator, I may be able to arrange sessions that are of particular interest to BEE-L subscribers if I know about them quickly. Arrangements are well under way, but are not yet cast in stone. Any suggestions will be considered. The theme of EAS 2002 is "Beeing Social". The tracks offered in the Short Course (All day Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday morning) will be "Right Sizing Your Operation" for newer beekeepers and "Upsizing Your Operation" for more experienced beekeepers. Input is solicited, participation is STRONGLY encouraged! Aaron Morris - thinking Go New York! ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 11:58:37 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Richard Yarnell Organization: Oregon VOS Subject: Re: Smoker Fuel In-Reply-To: <200203041330.g24CXOKd007727@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Isn't burlap woven from _either_ jute or hemp? Depending on its intended use, either of those fibers are treated with penetrating oils, insecticides, or fungicides. On Mon, 4 Mar 2002, Tim Vaughan wrote: > Something that I just tried and it works better that burlap and is CHEAP. > You've seen that net-like brown stuff cities and landscapers put on top of > bare sloaps? It's called Jute. --------------- Richard Yarnell, SHAMBLES WORKSHOPS | No gimmick we try, no "scientific" Beavercreek, OR. Makers of fine | fix we attempt, will save our planet Wooden Canoes, The Stack(R) urban | until we reduce the population. Let's composter, Raw Honey | leave our kids a decent place to live. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 13:08:19 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Donald Aitken Subject: Re: Melting frames: Salvaging wax and honey(off topic) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Mike: I did know that bleach would keep syrup from fermenting, but I was afraid to feed it to my bees. Have you fed sugar syrup with bleach? Were there any bad effects? Best regards Donald Aitken ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Tooley" ... You probably already know that you can keep even thin honey-water from fermenting by adding a spoonful of wintergreen oil or regular bleach per gallon... ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 16:40:25 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Tim Vaughan Subject: Re: Smoker Fuel >Burlap may, in some instances, be treated to repel rodents. Jute may, in >some instances, be treated to inhibit rot. You might want to inquire >whether the material designed for landscaping has been treated in some >way. The smoke from the chemical could pose a hazard to the bees or you. > >AL Al, I'll check into it. The stuff we use is designed to breakdown after the plants are established, but as I use it in my contracting business frequently, I should be able to get an answer right away. Thanks to you and the others who pointed this out. Regards Tim Vaughan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 14:14:38 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Jerry J Bromenshenk Subject: Re: suspected Imidacloprid bee deaths In-Reply-To: <200203031442.g23EYTmA008981@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 08:11 AM 3/3/02 -0600, you wrote: Allegations of Imidacloprid poisoning on a wide scale are being made in the U.S., with a class action suit against Bayer in the offing. Because of pending lawsuit, you aren't hearing much from the beekeepers that have been impacted. We've talked to them and the lawyers, so this is not hearsay. Jerry Jerry J. Bromenshenk jjbmail@selway.umt.edu http://www.umt.edu/biology/bees ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 21:52:03 +0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter Dillon Subject: Re: suspected Imidacloprid bee deaths MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Having lost many a colony here in France on my main crop (Sunflowers), I have taken to leaving my hives in the Sweet Chestnut forests. Previous to seed treated sunflower, the hives were brought down to the sunflower fields from the forests. There a good easy crop was practically assured. Visiting remnant colonies in treated fields that only a few days previous were full of healthy bees was not good for the blood pressure! Ensuring that the hives are away from Sunflower and Maize has cut my crop total, but at least when they are brought home they are good and heavy, full of bees and survive winter and expand in spring. According to the Agro-Chemical companies - there is hardly ever a problem with their products. Just use properly! SO, why the continual decline in bird life, natural pollinators, wild flowers, soil structure - basically the biological fabric holding agriculture together? Fine, remove hives to a safe distance, save the bees. But, this treating of symptoms and accepting of to be the norm is a very sad reflection of our willingness to be dominated. Maybe, we as an industry should be stating the fact that chemicals in our honey is the way of the modern world - and the customer should accept it! But what happens? We are told to clean up or loss the market. Since this is the case, We, as an industry should insist and fight for this to be reciprocated - and not shrink away, moving our hives into the hills. During the last few years, I have learnt alot about manipulation of fact, methods of presentation, selective quotation, scientific independence, points being out of order and stark facts being ignored. It's called the world of Business - and we are being walked over! With a call to get organised - the response is that we can't even co-ordinate treatment periods when it's possible! Me thinks that there is need of a big cabinet reshuffle in the "guiding lights" of Apiculture. No apologies for the rant! Peter ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 20:59:18 +0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter Dillon Subject: Re: Melting Frames: Salvaging Wax and Honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit P-O Gustafsson commenting on the Thomas Fondoir mentioned that whilst having a similar piece of apparatus, the double skinned heating container did not use oil as a temperature of more than 100°C was not needed. >From my experience, an oil temperature of 85°C is sufficient to cause separation of wax and honey - with the mix reaching around 45°C. Also, using oil, there is no problem with water vapour drifting around the honey house. Oil also reduces problems of liquid expansion. Alan, comments relating to debris from comb: It must be realised that this "fondoir" is designed for honey/wax separation during comb honey extraction. The amount of debris is minimal, and that which does occur is easily removed with a fine sieve like spoon. I agree, melting down old wax from frames would not be sensible. Since the apparatus was never designed for such use, any resulting claim against fire/damage would not be covered by building insurance. Sure, spinners remove honey from wax in a clean way, but one is left with the wax to deal with. Also, on the Canola crop, when the honey is starting to crystallize, as it often does under certain flow conditions, this is removed from the wax efficiently. As for start up time - one removes most of the honey at the end of the extracting period, then the oil is left to run at a temperature of 40°C. Heat loss is minimal due to the insulation. Agreed, it is not perfect, but what is? Would be interesting to see how it would run with slabs of uncapped material rather than the hash that results from the chain flail uncapper! Peter ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 12:54:16 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dee Lusby Subject: Re: Natural comb cell size In-Reply-To: <200203041643.g24G9nIl015188@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi to all on Bee-l It was written: If the bees in southern AZ USA now fly faster than they did 10 years ago I strongly suspect it is due to african bees taking over that area. This is expactly what several researchers have in fact reported to have happened. This matter of enzyme systems that have to work together for an organism to function properly is probably why Dr Taylor has observed a lack of hybridization between african and european bees over time. That is this probably explains why one type of bees seems to take over an area and displace another type with little mixing being found. Interesting discussion. Reply: Substitute in the words feral or Native bees here for what is talked about and also small cell for bees being on for a natural clean sustainable system with us and the Southern Arizona Beekeepers Assoc that also went smaller with us and then you would make sense above for what actually is happening. We're going clean in our area in spite of big daddy and escaping the treatment treadmill with as many as want to join. I say lead, follow or get out of the way. Regards, Dee A. Lusby __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - sign up for Fantasy Baseball http://sports.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 08:29:46 +1300 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Robt Mann Subject: Re: Natural Comb Cell size, Reaumur In-Reply-To: <200203041419.g24Cu5Lj008026@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Peter Borst wrote: >Well, looking at Reaumur's figures, I deduced that he must have done what >we do, measure ten cells and divide by ten. He got 2 and 2 twelfths >inches for ten, which I would represent as 2.17". If this is divided by >ten, I would get .217". Until I'm given some indication of its variance, I have no opinion on whether the 7 is significant. >Measuring my own natural comb, I got 2 and one eighth inches per ten, or >2.125" which I would represent as .213" per cell. How else can you show >that these two figures are different (which they are)? Sorry, but what this list has been shown does not establish they're really different. >I submit that this *was* done, that the figure was often rounded to .2" >and that may account for the difference in the statements made by writers >from the 1800s. sounds reasonable to me; some of those old fellas had a better grasp of significant figs than the modern kompuwankers. >Of course, Reaumur was wrong when he said the number was invariable. That >is why some writers (Crane) do not refer to the mean but rather, the range. I'm gratified to find myself in agreement with top expert Crane. > But rather than pick apart the work of others, why don't you *add* >something to the discussion? You can rely on me to do so, if ever I get involved in such measurements of cells. Meanwhile, I am trying to prevent disputes over differences which may be more apparent than real. This is not 'picking apart' but assisting clear discussion. (Several have indicated to me off-list that they appreciate this.) R ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 08:43:10 +1300 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Robt Mann Subject: Re: Dogs, bees in gene-mapping contest In-Reply-To: <200203041536.g24Cu5S5008026@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >"Unraveling the DNA Myth: The Spurious Foundation of Genetic Engineering" >by Barry Commoner >http://www.qc.edu/CBNS/HarpersSynopsis.html >Tested between 1990 and 2001 in one of the largest and most highly >publicized scientific undertakings of our time - the $3 billion Human >Genome Project - the central dogma collapsed ... I heartily endorse this recommendation. As a biochemist concerned about gene-tampering since it was invented in the mid-1970s, I cannot fault this article. It is a masterpiece of popularised but still accurate science. R ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 17:03:56 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Robert Brenchley Subject: Re: Natural comb cell size MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <> You may be right; he's not specific. From that it looks as though someone needs to measure bee wings again, and compare them with the archaeological , and the historical specimens. I can't do it at the moment, unfortunately, due to lack of equipment. Maybe some time in the future, as this is something I'd very much like to see done. Regards, Robert Brenchley RSBrenchley@aol.com Birmingham UK ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 20:04:35 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Tim Vaughan Subject: Re: Smoker Fuel On Mon, 4 Mar 2002 11:58:37 -0800, Richard Yarnell wrote: >Isn't burlap woven from _either_ jute or hemp? Depending on its intended >use, either of those fibers are treated with penetrating oils, >insecticides, or fungicides. > > Richard, you are correct, jute is indeed made with hemp. I checked with the importers today, and no, the landscape jute is not treated in any way. They charge extra to do it upon request, but as I said, the stuff we landscapers usually use is meant to biodegrade after the plants cover the area. The representitive must have been laughing to himself, however, since we told him we wanted to make sure it was safe for smoking :-) Tim Vaughan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 21:40:31 -0500 Reply-To: dublgully@fuse.net Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Judy and Dave Subject: Re: SmokING Fuel MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi bee friends. This thread reminded us of our experiences this past year. Does anyone know if bees work marijuana blossoms? Apparently, some entrepreneur decided to grow a good patch of marijuana on the neighbors pasture field. This pasture is directly across from our beehives. When the neighbor found the patch, he came over here to use our phone. This neighbor does not live on this farm, just keeps some cattle there. The neighbor and owner is the sheriff of the next county. The neighbor allowed us to go with him up the hill to look at the plants so we could identify them if anyone plants some on our land. He had to call the state police, who called the national guard to come and destroy it. They figured the crop was valued at about half a million (I made a joke about why are we mowing this down? and the national guard guys did not think I was funny.) The patch was about 10 feet by 100 feet with plants every 3 feet or so. The plants had already gone to seed and the national guard guys said we would probably have a lot of wild plants this spring. Could this be why everyone who tasted our honey always came back to buy more? Judy in Kentucky, USA ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 20:58:57 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Mike Tooley Subject: Re: Melting frames: Salvaging wax and honey(off topic) In-Reply-To: <200203042014.g24CXOBr007727@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit . Have you fed sugar syrup with bleach? Were there any bad > effects? Yep,in the spring ,when bees were flying regularly.No,didnt see any problems.But like you,I have always had some reservations,even though I know it was used by some as a nosema treatment(used as a syrup drench)Sorry ,I dont have any details as to its effectiveness in that regard. We haul barrels of water to some dry beeyards and have always used bleach in the water to keep down bacteria growth.We only use bleach in thin honey syrup that is going to be fed to splits or weak hives but cant be fed before it would sour.You might mix up a gallon as an experiment and see what would be the smallest amount that would stop fermentation.Might take less than a spoonfull. -Mike (Disclaimer -This isnt advice-dont blame me if all your bees die) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 21:17:38 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Mike Tooley Subject: Re: SmokING Fuel In-Reply-To: <200203050340.g253TkHr010371@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Since bees will gather the resin from flower buds to repair the cracks in their hive you are in grave danger of having bees in unlawful possession of hashhish.You should consider having the National Guard return with flamethrowers to eradicate this publc menace!!Good luck -Mike ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 23:01:36 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: A Question for the Statisticians MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit An IPM question: --- The Scenario We have about 2,400 hives in winter. They are in about 66 yards. That gives us around 35 hives per yard average. We went out and opened all the hives in 10 yards -- chosen at random -- and took out 5 bees each and put them into sample bottles with 70% isopropyl alcohol, using one such bottle per yard. 4.5% of the hives examined were dead. No samples were taken from them. We then had a trained person shake each bottle and look for varroa in the alcohol, which was poured through a screen, examined, and then returned to the bottle. No varroa were found. A suitable amount of water was added to dilute the alcohol to 50% and 24 (+/-) hours later, 20 bees from each sample were pulled apart and the trachea examined for mites and eggs. None were found. The abdomens of each group of 20 test bees were then macerated and the slurry examined for nosema spores. The tests were all negative. (The following is mentioned only to show that the lab can be considered capable of finding mites: At the same time, in the same lab, three samples were processed for another beekeeper. One revealed one varroa mite. Two revealed some tracheal and eggs, and none showed nosema). The Questions: Considering only the 2,400 hive operation described, and neglecting the friend's problem(s)... * Can you state the results numerically and also calculate the degree of confidence? * Were sufficient bees examined to give reasonable certainty? * What are potential sources of bias or error? Do you suspect and errors in sampling? * How much should we trust the results? What, if anything, can we conclude from the tests performed here? * Is any treatment indicated? If so for what disease or pest? * What further action, if any, is indicated? * The balance of the original samples are being preserved. At what point may they be discarded? * Compare the cost of an IPM approach like this to routine blanket treatment without sampling. Have fun. allen http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Diary/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 03:29:27 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Robert Brenchley Subject: Re: Melting frames: Salvaging wax and honey(off topic) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit What sort of bleach? Peroxide I could understand, but chlorine bleach?? Regards, Robert Brenchley RSBrenchley@aol.com Birmingham UK ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 09:51:00 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dave Cushman Subject: Re: Queen excluder size MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Aaron & all Yes indeed, there is some stuff at:- http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman/excludertypes.html I corrected some spelling mistakes on it before posting this... I am doing an alphabetic clean up of web pages and have just reached the end of the "e"s. In the past I have come accross some Langstroth sized wire excluders that were too narrow to let any worker pass, but they were made in the 1940s in South Africa and we could be looking at racial difference rather than size difference in this case. Best Regards & 73s... Dave Cushman, G8MZY Beekeeping & Bee Breeding Website... http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 06:02:13 -0600 Reply-To: charlie harper Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: charlie harper Subject: Re: A Question for the Statisticians In-Reply-To: <200203050929.g259TVHT018032@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, 4 Mar 2002 23:01:36 -0700, Allen Dick wrote: >The Questions: > >Considering only the 2,400 hive operation described, and neglecting the >friend's problem(s)... > >* Can you state the results numerically and also calculate the degree of >confidence? >* Were sufficient bees examined to give reasonable certainty? Not enough bees were sampled in each hive to give a true picture of infestation need 100 bees to get a better picture of what is going on. >* What are potential sources of bias or error? Do you suspect and errors in >sampling? YES >* How much should we trust the results? Not Much >* What further action, if any, is indicated? More bees in sample. >allen >http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Diary/ Charles Harper Harper's Honey Farm Carencro LA ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 07:35:54 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: BeeFarmer Subject: Re: Smoker Fuel MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have noticed on EBAY that there is usually a person selling burlap for smokers in the beekeeping area. I see it for about $1.50 per pound. BeeFarmer Getting Kids involved in 4H Beekeeping http://www.homestead.com/BeeKeepers/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 07:42:36 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Aaron Morris Subject: Re: A Question for the Statisticians MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > An IPM question: With a degree in Mathematics/Computer Science I can confidently say that I have forgotten more stat theory than most people ever learn! The thing I most remember about stat theory are there are 4 kinds of lies: white lies, damned lies, maps and statistics! So, your example: 2400 hives divided by 66 yards divided by 10 yards at random to make up your sampling set, less the 4.5% dead hives gives 3.4727272727272727 (sorry Robt) hives from which you took 5 random bees (which given a spring population in an average Alberta hive must be about 5.555E-4 of the total (give or take)), meaning your sample set is for all intense and purposes, phi (the empty set). > * Can you state the results numerically Hoboken, New Jersey. > and also calculate the degree of confidence? E=0 with a standard deviation of 1.4 > * Were sufficient bees examined to give reasonable certainty? No. Actually, depending on where from within the hive you took the bees (center of cluster? periphery of brood? landing board?) the answer is still No. > * What are potential sources of bias or error? Where did you take the 5 sample bees per hive? How randow was the yard selection? Were the locations flat and exposed? Were they in low frost pockets? Totally random? Who took the samples? Were the samples taken by the same beekeeper or different hands? The answer is still "No" and Hoboken. > Do you suspect and errors in sampling? I assume that's "any", in which case, "Yes" and Newark. > * How much should we trust the results? No at all. > What, if anything, can we conclude from the tests performed here? NADA! > * Is any treatment indicated? If so for what disease or pest? No and alzheimers. > * What further action, if any, is indicated? Take sufficient samples from sufficient hives to have a more realistic sample set. Drive to Hoboken and start over. > * The balance of the original samples are being preserved. > At what point may they be discarded? As soon as you finish reading this (assuming you've gotten this far). > * Compare the cost of an IPM approach like this to routine > blanket treatment without sampling. Well, labor and transportation to get the samples and lab costs is still probably significantly less expensive that blanket treatments. Just be ready (and I'm sure you will) to resample and act accordingly if any conclusions you draw from this experiment (if you DO draw any conclusions from this experiment) prove to be incorrect. > Have fun. Sure did. Aaron Morris - thinking Hackensack (it's just a stone throw from Hoboken)! ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 07:57:24 -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: Melting frames: Salvaging wax and honey(off topic) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Robert Brenchley wrote: > > What sort of bleach? Peroxide I could understand, but chlorine bleach?? In rural areas of the US, chlorine bleach is routinely used to disinfect well water used for human consumption. If the concentrations are low, there should be no problem. To put it in perspective, if you use city water, you have chlorine as a normal ingredient, and you use it to feed your bees. Bill Truesdell Bath, Me ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 09:15:26 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter Borst Subject: Size of Honey Bees Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Ruttner writes: >The variation between the populations of A. mellifera with the smallest and the largest bees were found to range between 25-31% of the smaller value ... Size of brood cells can be taken as species and subspecies characteristic and is even used as a simple discriminant for greatly differing races (e.g., between strains of European and African origin). Several races of A. mellifera can be completely separated by a few characters of size alone. It seems as if, had there been an artificial enlarging of bees by human interaction, he would have mentioned it here. He states that European bees are up to 31% larger than some African races, but regards this as a natural -- not artificial -- difference. Furthermore, if there were such a phenomenon as abnormally enlarged populations within a paritcular race, this would render the above statements invalid. Do people really believe that such a thing as a *significant human modification* of honey bees by man would have escaped the notice of Dr. Ruttner and all other researchers engaged in the study of honey bee races? How could this possibly be? pb ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 10:32:36 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Stan Sandler Subject: Re: Bees can't plan? (male intelligence) In-Reply-To: <200202231831.g1NH97qa015808@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Adrian Wenner wrote: > In 1946 (SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN), von Frisch echoed that sentiment: > >The brain of a bee is the size of a grass seed and is not made for >thinking. The actions of bees are mainly governed by instinct. ..." This quote intrigued me. I did not contribute to the discussion, because consciousness is a rather esoteric concept for me (I think therefore I am?????). However, "learning ability" in the bee (which IMHO has some relation to "intelligence" at least in relation to how we test intelligence) has long fascinated me, and I wondered how von Frisch could be so dismissive of this, especially in light of the fact that he had conducted so many experiments which involved bee learning/conditioning. Did he not marvel that a brain the size of a grass seed could "learn" a maze in only six times longer than a rat? (this was NOT one of his experiments.) So, I went back and reread the chapter called the "The Bee's Mental Capacity" in von Frisch's book "The Dancing Bees". In my view he uses a rather restrictive view of intelligence: "We speak of an intelligent action when someone responds in an appropriate way to a situation that is completely new to him, making use, in the process, of some earlier experience. The prerequisites for such an action are: first, a good memory for events of the past, secondly a grasp of the situation in hand, and finally the ability of mentally associating them" He gives the bees good marks for memory and the ability to form mental associations but faults them because: "Even in our training experiments the bees failed to respond whenever the task set them differed slightly from those they had been accustomed to perform in the course of their flower visits which must have been carried out throughout a period of hundred of thousands of years". I am not certain how instinct and running a maze are connected. It seems to me that one could argue that foraging is like "navigating a maze", but one could also argue that it is a novel experience for a bee, and that the problems which are offered to persons taking an "intelligence test" are not that dissimilar. In rereading the book, I did come on what I believe is a surprising and related error that von Frisch made. In the chapter on drones, (chapter six) he says in the first paragraph: "The brain of the drone is smaller than that of both worker and queen -- we are not left in any doubt as to the intellectual inferiority of the male in this case." The following is a comparison of apis mellifera from Comprehensive Insect Physiology , Biochemistry and Pharmacology, Vol 5, by Kerkut and Gilbert, Pergamon Press, 1985 page 307: worker drone total brain volume 1.321 mm cubed 7.839 mm cubed neuropil volume 1.07 mm3 (81%) 7.286 mm3 (93%) mushroom bodies 0.131 mm3 (12%) 0.098 mm3 (1.34%) central body 0.004 mm3 (0.37%) 0.0033 mm3 (0.045%) protocerebral bridge 0.0001 mm3 (0.01%) 0.0005 mm3 (0.006%) optic lobes 0.5634 mm3 (52.65%) 6.663 mm3 (91.45%) antennal lobes 0.03 mm3 (2.8%) 0.067 mm3 (0.91%) total # neurons 851,000 1,209,000 neuropil volume as % of brain volume; all others as % of neuropil volume To those figures I would add these from Hive and Honeybee: "It has been estimated that there are 5 or 6 thousand plate organs on the antennal flagella in the worker, 2 or 3 thousand in the queen and perhaps 30 thousand in the drone." So, to go back to von Frisch's dismissal of the intellectual capacity of the drone, it seems as if in terms of brain volume and neuropil volume the drone is vastly better endowed than the worker (by a factor of six or seven); and in terms of total no of neurons it has 50% more. I think we also could infer that its eyesight is likely much better (larger eyes, huge difference in optic lobes) and so is the sense of smell (five times more plate organs, twice as large antennal lobe). The central body and the mushroom body are smaller and the percentages are vastly smaller. Are these the places where all the instincts for those marvellous tasks which only the WORKER bees perform lie? But von Frisch says these are not intelligent tasks..... So, it is possible that with a much larger brain and neural and sensory capacity and a head empty of many instincts (except for a keen s*x drive) that the indolent, roaming drones are the real epicures and philosophers of the hive ; ) I did not notice many contributions from sourthern hemisphere beekeepers and female beekeepers to the thread on bee consciousness. They were probably too busy working. And von Frisch may have been unable to transcend his protestant work ethic in his comments on drones. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 08:21:00 -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: A Question for the Statisticians MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello All, Although the sample was indeed small in my opinion if a serious nosema, = varroa or tracheal mite problem had been going on it would have turned = up. I know Allen treats for varroa and tracheal mites so would not expect = those to turn up in such a low sample .but surprised not one varroa = turned up.=20 If treatment for nosema had not been done in several years I would = expect some nosema to be found even in such a low sample. I once found nosema in 200 of 200 bees sampled in spring in a beekeepers = bees. Choose a hive at random Allen and take 100 bees and have tested as you = did the 5 bees . Maybe even 200 from a random hive.=20 You will then be better able to evaluate your 5 bees per hive testing = by figuring a percentage of accuracy of 5 bees to 100. 5 bees to 200. Pick a few random hives and roll and sticky board to help evaluate = your testing. .=20 Sincerely, Bob Harrison Ps. Florida bee inspectors reported counting around 8,000 small hive = beetles in one hive with heavy infestation at the meeting in Savannah. = Reports of as many as 200 tracheal mites in one bee trachea have been = reported. I have personally seen several varroa on one bee with a = heavy infestation. in spring.. In my opinion all bees in hives in Canada this time of year would give a = fairly accurate sample as all are in cluster for most of the time = except for possibly a few hours . ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 06:41:35 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Mike Tooley Subject: Re: Melting frames: Salvaging wax and honey(off topic) In-Reply-To: <200203051211.g25C5lHb019337@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > What sort of bleach? Peroxide I could understand, but chlorine bleach?? Yes,plain old chlorine bleach,found in any grocery store.But not the kind with perfume,fabric softeners,or any other additive.Also used as a water purifier for water stored in case of emergency.I believe it breaks down in time,or at least the chlorine smell goes away.Any comments from our chemistry experts on chlorine breakdown in water? -Mike ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 09:33:29 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Aaron Morris Subject: Re: A Question for the Statisticians MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > An IPM question: > > Hoboken Travel Guide Omitted > Does that mean there is no one around who takes this fundamental IPM > question seriously enough to try to discuss it? OK, perhaps(?) I was too flippant. Actually, assessment is the first step in IPM. You don't treat for something you don't have and in fact you may not treat for something you DO have, if whatever you have is below that elusive "economic threshold". So yes, the measuring you did was a good and proper first step. Cutting through the sarcasm (apologies to the Natives in New Jersey) of my previous response, the point I was making was that your sampling was flawed. Five bees from a single hive (regardless of how many hives a sample of 5 are taken) is statistically negligible. You simply cannot draw a valid conclusion from such an insignificant sample. Increase your sample size. The design of your sampling as far as 10 random yards out of 66 offers a fair chance of statistical validity. That you opened each hive in each sample yard gives 100% assuredness that you sampled each hive in that yard (stated purposefully redundantly). However, the MAJOR flaw in your design is sampling only 5 bees from each hive. A far better design would have been to sample 300 bees from two hives in each of the 10 random yards. The population you are using to draw conclusions is the bees sampled, not the hives in the yards or the yards themselves. So your intent is good (sampling to see if you should treat), but your design is flawed (sample set too small to draw valid conclusions). An even better design would be to apply the 100% assuredness factor (in your experiment it was 100% of the hives in each random yard) to the yard locations (take samples from 100% of your yards). Then choose a good sample set from each yard (3 or 4 hives per yard) and a good sample set from each hive (300 bees). Then you could make statistically valid conclusions. And yes, I realize that I've just SIGNIFICANTLY increased the cost of your experiment. I've added costs to travel to 6+ times as many locations and I've increased VERY SIGNIFICANTLY the number of bees that must be washed, dissected and macerated. I've significantly reduced the difference between experiment costs and prophylactic treating for maladies you may not have. But I have by far increased the likelihood that the conclusions you may draw from your analysis will have a solid ground in statistical sampling. Aaron Morris - acknowledging that in spite of Hoboken, New Jersey is still the Garden State! ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 14:57:22 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dave Cushman Subject: Re: A Question for the Statisticians MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all I am sorry to say Allen's work was fruitless. However it has woken me up to consider what would be a sensible way to tackle this.... My training leads me to think statistics my help, but the variables we have to deal with here are many and in themselves wildly variable. I reckon You start with a colony that you know has varroa and then take samples from this at 25, 50, 100, 200, 400 with a rigidly defined method of selecting individual bees (ie. equal numbers from each frame or some other repeatable pattern) finally kill the colony and recover all the mites from it, and then analyse your samples and decide on future sample size as a result of this work. Armed with that sort of empirical data... you can look at the statistics on subsequent samplings that you know will then have valid results. Best Regards & 73s... Dave Cushman, G8MZY Beekeeping & Bee Breeding Website... http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 08:34:52 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Jerry J Bromenshenk Subject: EPA and Pesticide Drift - DRAFT Document for Public Comment Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi: I received this today from Norman Birchfield, Ph.D., EPA "I would like to inform interested parties of the availability of a draft Pesticide Registation Notice (PRN) available for comment on EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs website. The PRN describes proposed labeling and policy related to pesticide spray drift. I would like to encourage the submission of comments on the PRN. The comment period closes March 31st." It makes no mention of bees per se, although the notice that I received was sent to a variety of beekeepers and others who work with bees. Here's your chance to comment on an important issue to beekeeping. The PRN and information on how to comment are available at: http://www.epa.gov/opppmsd1/PR_Notices/prdraft-spraydrift801.htm Thank you NB ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Norman Birchfield, Ph.D. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 16:11:15 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dave Cushman Subject: chlorine MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all Chlorine cannot 'break down' it is an element. Best Regards & 73s... Dave Cushman, G8MZY Beekeeping & Bee Breeding Website... http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 11:05:22 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Jeremy T Barnes Organization: N. C. Cooperative Extension Subject: Re: Smoker Fuel MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Beekeepers, in the southeast, looking for cheap or free burlap should try tobacco farmers. Tobacco used to be put in sheets that are made of burlap. These tobacco sheets are about 10' by 10'. The market has changed over to putting the tobacco in bales so many farmers have hundreds of old tobacco sheets sitting around just taking up space. All you have to do is cut the large sheet into small pieces that you can stuff into your smoker. This is agrivating because the burlap is tough stuff. Easy to start and smokes good but does not smell that great. Not sure if these sheets have been treated with anything or not? -- Jeremy T Barnes Email : jtbarnes@franklin.ces.ncsu.edu Phone : (919) 496-3344 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 08:26:23 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dee Lusby Subject: Re: Size of Honey Bees In-Reply-To: <200203051440.g25DEPMR020500@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi to all on Bee-l Peter Borst wrote: It seems as if, had there been an artificial enlarging of bees by human interaction, he would have mentioned it here. He states that European bees are up to 31% larger than some African races, but regards this as a natural -- not artificial -- difference. Furthermore, if there were such a phenomenon as abnormally enlarged populations within a paritcular race, this would render the above statements invalid. Do people really believe that such a thing as a *significant human modification* of honey bees by man would have escaped the notice of Dr. Ruttner and all other researchers engaged in the study of honey bee races? How could this possibly be? Reply: Peter, Ruttener is not wrong, but you need to make an adjustment as to how you are looking at what he is saying in your thoughts. Dark (brown/black) col-weather bees exist naturally below 30 degrees latitude where higher altitudes permit. i.e. monticola. Yellow hot-weather bees exist naturally above 30 degrees latitude where warm thermal areas permit, i.e. Italian in Italy or other yellow races/strains around the mediterranean. Small caste races/strains of hot-weather bees exist at the Equator and large caste races/strains of cold-weather bees exist as they approach the poles. As all races/strains of bees advance towards temperature transition-zones at near 30 degrees latitude, hot-weather bees hybridize more and also are larger, while col-weather bees hybridize less and also are smaller. (Note: the yellow is at the furthest to the poles for range for largeness naturally, and the brown/black is at the furthest from the poles for range for smallness naturally. Deviations here within these zones of tropical and temperate then become due to altitude as pertains to sizing.) Now Ruttner is comparing African with much zoning in the tropical area associated with the Equator and its zoning parameters for smallness. He is also comparing European with all zoning in the temperate area associated with larger size parameters. Take the bees as described in old books then by cell size in linear measurements by race/strain and lay them out and you get latitude zones in bands around the world, that then also fall out by racial colors naturally.(Remember here the altitude/thermal deviations). For more information please see: http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/apiacta1995.htm titled: Field Breeding Basics for Honeybees Using Colony Thermodynamics Within the Transition Zones. Remember when you see the undelined fig/tables to hit with your pointing arrow and bring up the pictures here also. For map please see: http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/therm_map.htm Regards, Dee A. Lusby __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! http://mail.yahoo.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 09:27:08 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: A Question for the Statisticians MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Although the sample was indeed small in my opinion if a serious nosema, = > varroa or tracheal mite problem had been going on it would have turned = > up. I offered this question -- to which I know the answer and on which I have already consulted several practicing experts -- to the "Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology" to see if -- with all the talk of IPM -- anyone really knows how to do it. So far, Bob is the only person who is anywhere near being close, and I think he hit a correct answer to the simplest part of the question, although there is a second part -- and other factors to consider. Aaron makes some good comments, but I don't think he has really applied his mind to the problem, yet in anything more than a superficial way. He does not appear to have deduced what the actual purpose of the test was, and what results would trigger further action -- or what those actions would be. When he considers cost of sampling, cost of treating, risk of loss, possibility of treatment working at various stages of infestation, likely distribution of each pest or disease, value of individual hives, thresholds for losses, etc. I am sure he will reach different conclusions. What decisions have to be made when designing a test to determine how to set it up? 100% sampling would provide 100% certainty, but also cause 100% loss. Opening hives in winter is a stress that is proven to increase losses. Labour and fuel cost money. What significance does 'zero' (and multiple zeros without exception) have compared to other possible numbers? Obviously there are trade-offs here and I am not surprised a long-time commercial beekeeper has come closest (so far) to understanding the initial step in IPM and reaching a legitimate conclusion from the results. BUT, what is the level of confidence? What next? No guessing. It can be calculated. allen http://www.internode.net/honeybee/diary/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 11:55:13 -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: Bees can't plan? (male intelligence) In-Reply-To: <200203051442.g25ET7I7022465@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Learning involves taking past experience (or knowledge) and applying it to a new situation. Instinct does not require "learning", although practice (experience) can improve results and "learning" can improve the results further (in some circumstances). As an example, for man to fly, not only is learning required (how to operate the controls of whatever craft is chosen), but a certain base of experience (not to mention an aircraft) is required to start. For a bird to fly requires a simple, perhaps panicked, muscle response to falling out of the nest. Of course, one hopes that the practice of each results in better flights after a period of time. Bees do many things on instinct, some become better through practice. But, memorizing the correct route through a maze is more of a measure of patterning, rather than of intelligence (the experience of a single maze does not really help in the next one, unless pattern clues are used). The bee's general behavior of foraging ensures that eventually the solution to the maze is found ... with some visual or other sensory clue, the bee is capable of memorizing the "solution" -- much as the location of good foraging grounds and how to get there and back are "learned". Most measures of non-humans are along the lines of this type of "learned behavior", as are many tests for very young human subjects (also known as students). The problem is determining the difference between learning (education) and intelligence: think of intelligence as the capability to learn something. We can test if you have learned "it", assigning a _minimum_ level of intelligence to the subject. It is harder to test the capability itself, so we generally don't try, instead coming up with "standardized" tests that "anyone" should be able to pass. Of course, that's where the cultural bias problems kick in -- not just because of non-exposure of certain groups to the information being tested (easily overcome by standardized curriculums -- you think that middle class kids have much more in common with the culture of the greek classics or really speak the language of shakespeare, than other income groups?), but because of the peer-enforced intentional lack of learning in certain cultures and age groups. Too bad that our ability to learn quickly/easily decreases as we age, forever limiting those that do not apply themselves or that do not receive sufficient challenges when young. As to the brains of drones, the increased sensors from antenna and especially from the eyes, would require a much larger volume of processing power, just to stay at the same "speed" as the other bees' brains (for examples of this, look at how the increased resolution of your new digital camera eats up memory on those high res pictures and how much slower your computer is when applying filters to higher res images -- then multiply immensely when talking about image processing in real time). The processing power required for locating a small, bee sized object against either the sky or the ground, at a distance, then calculating the best trajectory to get there before the competition would be much greater than that required for flying up in the sky and avoiding the (much) larger bird objects there. If this excess brain power were being used for much of anything else, one would expect the drones to have figured out how to quit getting tossed out of the hive in the fall, by now. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 11:36:18 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dave Hamilton Subject: Re: A Question for the Statisticians In-Reply-To: <200203051646.g25FWkNJ024578@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed >Allen wrote > >No guessing. It can be calculated. I have been sitting thinking about this and I'm not sure you are right. I don't think this can be calculated. To calculate sample size you need to know first how the population is distributed, ie is it a normal / poisson / exponential distribution? We would need to know our estimated and desired test error rates and the confidence level we which to attain then plug these into n = (z^2 * p * q) / e^2 Where: z = confidence limit factor (eg 1.96) p = estimate of error rate (approximately 0.35) q = 1 - p e = desired error rate (eg +/- 5%) However you really want 3 tests, varroa, nosema and tracheal mite. Its doubtful that mites (spores) per bee is equally distributed in the yard, we know one hive may have nosema and the others not. We don't know what testing method you wish so we can't estimate the error rates. You have yards of hives instead of a single hive We don't have total population in the hive We don't know in any one of the 3 test the economic threshold, ie how many mites ( spores) / bee is feasible to treat, what is a significant infection level vs a nominal one. Just thinking Dave ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 12:45:23 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Aaron Morris Subject: Re: A Question for the Statisticians MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > This message was originally submitted by > damusm@INSPECTION.GC.CA to the BEE-L > list at LISTSERV.ALBANY.EDU. It was edited to > remove excessive quotes of previously posted material. > ----------------- Original message (ID=DF25310B) (134 lines) ------------------ > Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 12:37:34 -0500 > From: "Martin Damus" > To: > Subject: Re: A Question for the Statisticians > > I may be way off base and I stand to be corrected, but: > > Let's assume all pests are randomly distributed across all > individuals, across > all yards, across all hives. > > Then, 35 hives from ten yards were sampled for five bees = > 1750 bees tested. > > Applying the Poisson probability formula, you get the > following probabilities: > > True infection rate Prob. of finding zero infected bees > in your sample > ---------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------- > 1 in 50000 99.9% > 1 in 10000 84.5% > 1 in 5000 70.0% > 1 in 1000 17.4% > 1 in 750 10.0% > 1 in 584 5.0% > 1 in 500 3.0% > 1 in 100 0.00% > > the simplified formula is: > > Probability of finding none infected = 1 / (2.71828 x > rateofinfection x numbersampled). Note that this is > independent of the total bee population size. > > As a statistician (if I were one), I would only be happy if > the chance of > finding no infected bees were less than 5%, which by rearranging the > formula and calculating for infection rate you would get, with your > sample size, if the infection rate were one in every 584 bees. > > So, to me you can be confident that your rate of infection is > less than > one bee in every 584. > > But, and this is probably a big but, infection rates are not > always constant > across hives, across yards, or across bees and any deviations > from those > assumptions means that more samples need to be taken. How many more? > I dunno. You have taken 1750 already, which is actually a > heckuvalot. > > What others have mentioned is that it is better to take more > samples from > fewer hives (300 samples from 2 hives in your ten random > yards, suggested one). I am not sure why this should be, > although in the case just mentioned that would also increase > your sampling effort and expense to 6000 bees, > which would increase your confidence in the results simply by > the increase in sample size. > > Hope this helps, > > Martin Damus ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 12:58:19 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter Borst Subject: Re: A Question for the Statisticians Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >I offered this question -- to which I know the answer and on which I have already consulted several practicing experts -- to the "Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology" to see if -- with all the talk of IPM -- anyone really knows how to do it. In order to do IPM correctly, one has to have an economic threshold in mind. To my knowledge, no one has established an economic threshold for varroa mites that would apply to all regions. And I doubt that anyone would ever recommend doing the sampling in the winter. One could sample in early spring and still obtain sufficient data to make a decision on whether to treat or not. I would sample every apiary. Low levels may mean the entire apiary can be left untreated; high levels would indicate a need to treat the whole apiary. I don't see how a sample of 5 bees would ever yield meaningful data. I have always used 250 and often the number of mites is in the 5 to 10 range (per 250 bees), which might never even show up in a sample of 5 bees. Was that part of the question a joke? Any attempt to denigrate the principles of IPM is misguided in my opinion. Thresholds need to be determined, either officially or by individual beekeepers. Sampling is not a difficult job to do, and 250 bees per hive will not be missed. If the mite counts are very low, 5 or less, one could conceivably skip a spring or fall treatment, or employ a non-pesticide approach like drone removal, to keep the population from increasing. If the count is high, like 25 or more ( 1 bee in 10 has a mite) -- treatment should not be skipped. IPM never includes sacrificing the livestock when a safe, effective treatment is available. There is no one right way to do IPM. The approach implies using least toxic controls first and only resorting to heavy chemicals when faced with *potential* economic losses. This is a decision that has to be made case by case. There is an "incorrect" way to control pests and that is to spray first and ask questions later. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 12:41:27 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Aaron Morris Subject: Re: A Question for the Statisticians MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > Aaron makes some good comments, but I don't think he has > really applied his mind to the problem, yet in anything more > than a superficial way. Fair 'nuff. The thing that most impressed me about Bob's response was the comment about clustered bees in Alberta at this time of year. Due to the closeness of the bees and the fact that they've been clustered for many months now, one can assume that if any bee has a problem then ALL bees in that cluster will have that problem. The assumption/assertion that if present, any malady would be pretty well homogenized through the entire cluster is reasonable beekeeping, it's not sound statistics which assume samples are distinct and independent. The thing that throws the statistical analysis off is the concept that bees are not the organism, the colony is the organism. An analogy could be assuming a body is cancer free based on a normal white blood cell count. A safe bet, but by no means assured. You asked a statistician's view, I gave one. Looking at it statistically, one looks at the ratio of sample set to overall population. What's the population of a late-winter cluster in Alberta (race issues aside)? 15,000 bees? What's 5 out of 15,000 represent? A pretty flimsy sample set to be using in statistical science. Now, are those 5 bees distinct, independent samples (an important concept in stats)? Bob's observation about bees in a cluster makes a point that individual bees are NOT distinct and independent. In fact, the point of bees in a cluster is the sort of thing that sound statistics strives for, that the sample set is truly representative of the total population. Normally this is achieved through sound sampling (large sample sets). It can be stated, and I would not argue that 5 bees in a cluster is more representative of the true population of 15,000 bees than would be say 5 individuals in a city of 15,000 people. So, is no Varroa in the total yard sample significant? "Bees in a cluster" says yes, distinct and independent sampling says no. From a numbers point of view, no varroa is the least supportable conclusion you can draw. Numbers of tracheal mites would be higher, hence chance of detection would also be higher. Same conclusion: "Bees in a cluster" says no problem, statistical science (which treats sampling as independent and distinct) says you need a bigger sample size. Nosema (as Bob pointed out) is even less of a concern. Nosema would be the most homogenized in the population and most readily detected > what is the level of confidence? A statistician would still say 0. A commercial beekeeper would (does) stand confidently that level of concern is low. Someone very busy will drop out of the discussion. > What next? Don't treat, but keep your samples in case something DOES crop up in one of your yards, and if so, you can look more closely to see if you have missed something in you statistical quick glance. > No guessing. It can be calculated. Please share. /Aa ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 13:43:29 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Tim Arheit Subject: Re: A Question for the Statisticians In-Reply-To: <200203051453.g25ET7J5022465@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 09:33 AM 3/5/02 -0500, you wrote: >And yes, I realize that I've just SIGNIFICANTLY increased the cost of your >experiment. I've added costs to travel to 6+ times as many locations and >I've increased VERY SIGNIFICANTLY the number of bees that must be washed, >dissected and macerated. I've significantly reduced the difference between >experiment costs and prophylactic treating for maladies you may not have. >But I have by far increased the likelihood that the conclusions you may draw >from your analysis will have a solid ground in statistical sampling. There are ways however to control the testing cost and increase their significance. Consider doing some of tests yourself and reduce the cost of the lab. You generally need more samples. Finding one mite on a sample of 5 bees tells you little more than you have mites, but at what level, and is that level high enough to merit treating. Finding no mites tells you almost the same thing. - Use powdered sugar bee rolls to test for varroa. It won't harm the bees and will give you significant enough results to determine if treating in necessary. - Mite drop tests, with or without an apistan or checkmite strip. Again this won't harm the bees and will give you significant results. This can be done without a strip even in cold weather. Chose your sample subjects where the disease is most likely to be found. - Check drone brood for varroa. - Dissect the bees yourself to determine nosema. Choose bees that are milling around on the top board and remove their digestive tract. I would expect that 10 or so should be enough in a given hive and are very quick to do. This wont' tell you if the spores are present, but tells you when the disease is present and needs treating. Be observant. I know this is much more difficult in big operations, but look for spotting, bees crawling a few feet in front of the hive, examine the dead bees removed from the hive for defects, has the hive in question had unusually high winter losses, etc. Tracheal mites are the hardest to test for as they require dissection and I've no idea what number of samples or what level of infestation needs treatment. Consider what you really intend on treating for. ie. what can pose a significant problem. When asked at the recent conference at Wooster, only a small handful raised their hands out of a room of around 200 beekeepers when asked who treats for nosema. Losses from a particular disease may be cheaper than treating wholesale. -Tim ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 12:35:13 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Tim Arheit Subject: Re: chlorine In-Reply-To: <200203051611.g25FljIR024802@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 04:11 PM 3/5/02 -0800, you wrote: >Chlorine cannot 'break down' it is an element. It will however outgas from the liquid (I'm not sure this is the technically correct term, but you should get the idea.) For example the chlorine in most municipal systems can kill fish in your fish tank so it is generally treated first. One way is to add a neutralizer from the pet store, the other is to simply let the water sit out for several days to a week. I've seen bees use treated pool water when other sources dry up to no ill effect, and I'm sure others have as well. I have no idea what percentage of chlorine typically is used in a pool. I assume it would be a relatively safe level for the bees, but I don't know how it relates to the concentration in store bought bleach. -Tim ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 12:14:39 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Jerry J Bromenshenk Subject: Re: A Question for the Statisticians In-Reply-To: <200203051837.g25FWkXn024578@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" A few years ago, Penn State put out a brochure concerning tracheal mites and sampling statistics. The question posed was, if I cut a bee and find or don't find mites, then cut another, etc. HOW MANY BEES DO I HAVE TO CUT before I DECIDE THAT I DON'T HAVE TO CUT ANY MORE. In other words, if you cut five bees and they all have mites, do you need to dissect any more bees to determine whether you have a mite problem? Or, if you cut 5 bees and none have mites, can you stop? They did a lot of work on this. However, the bottom line was that the Penn state study simply verified basic statistics - the results came out just as one would predict. Somewhere, I have some Tables from a very old stat book. It let's you look up sample size and the power of the test in order to answer this same question. I'd have to go digging, but I can tell you that as a general rule, the power of the test improves through a sample of 25 (bees, light bulbs, etc.). Then you hit the old issue of diminishing returns. The amount of improvement in the power or reliability of the test begins to fall off rapidly between 25 and 30, and sample sizes over 30 don't add much for the time invested. Now, this generalization assumes lots of things about normal distributions, representative samples, and other issues - so it won't hold for all estimates -- but its not a bad rule of thumb. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 11:17:15 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Richard Yarnell Organization: Oregon VOS Subject: NYT - Article on US Tariffs on Argentine honey In-Reply-To: <200203051211.g25C5lHb019337@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Someone more knowledgeable than I am should respond to the article critical of tariffs on Argentine honey which is in this date's Times. I don't think they realized the dire straits the domestic industry is in nor did the author connect honey with managed polination services. See www.nyt.com (you may have to register but it's free and they honor your privacy choices.) --------------- Richard Yarnell, SHAMBLES WORKSHOPS | No gimmick we try, no "scientific" Beavercreek, OR. Makers of fine | fix we attempt, will save our planet Wooden Canoes, The Stack(R) urban | until we reduce the population. Let's composter, Raw Honey | leave our kids a decent place to live. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 21:01:45 +0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter Dillon Subject: Re: A Question for the Statisticians MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Allen also wrote: "Have fun" Also, Allen is well known for pointing out when there are "Red Herrings" in the area. I suggest that somebody with Allen's experience and reading is well aware of the required sample size. Therefore question: How many Statisticians are required to make an Alberta beekeeper smile? Regards Peter ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 09:10:44 +1300 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Robt Mann Subject: Re: chlorine In-Reply-To: <200203051611.g25FWkK3024578@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Chlorine cannot 'break down' it is an element. Surely Dave Cushman, G8MZY can't be challenging me for the title of 'chemical heavy pedant' on this list? :-} What Dave said is true, but only in a pedantic sense. Elemental chlorine Cl2 when dissolved in typical water supplies does react chemically, breaking down some of those chlorine molecules and transferring some of the chlorine atoms to create e.g. chlorinated phenols which are reasonably suspected of causing cancer. R ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 13:18:49 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Donald Aitken Subject: Re: A Question for the Statisticians MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Allen: I am surprised at the quick "not significant" answers from a number of people who did not present any mathematical analysis of the results. They are in fact significant: We have a sample of 1750 bees selected at random from a much larger population of bees. This is certainly not a small sample size. To decide the significance of the result (no varroa), reason as follows. 1) Suppose that the general population has an infestation rate of 1 infested bee per hundred. The probability of a bee selected at random being mite free is 99/100. The probability of two being both mite free is 99/100x99/100=.98 The probability of 1750 of them all being mite free is (.99)x(.99)....x(.99) = .99^1750 = 2.3x10^ -8) = .0000023% This means that the result is very improbable if there is an infestation rate as high as 1 mite per 100 bees. If we suppose an infestation rate of 1 mite per 1000 bees, the probability of getting a null result is .999 ^ 1750 = .174 = 17.4% This means that the obtained result has a reasonable chance of happening with an infestation rate as low as 1 mite per 1000 bees. As to the probability of error, there are, of course, many possibilities. The complete absence of any disease is worrisome. One might like to do another test, doing the work in house. As to the advisability of treatment, you should do just the same as you did last year! Best regards Donald Aitken ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 09:22:47 +1300 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Robt Mann Subject: Re: A Question for the Statisticians Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Jerry suggested >as a general rule, the >power of the test improves through a sample of 25 (bees, light bulbs, >etc.). Then you hit the old issue of diminishing returns. The amount of >improvement in the power or reliability of the test begins to fall off >rapidly between 25 and 30, and sample sizes over 30 don't add much for the >time invested. As a scientist who ruthlessly evaded statistics in his education, I nevertheless make bold to suggest a handy rule of thumb: the power or reliability of the test improves with, roughly, the square root of the sample number. e.g. in order to achieve a ten-fold decrease in your uncertainty you have to take 100-fold larger sample. R ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 15:44:15 -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: A Question for the Statisticians MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Tim Arheit wrote: > - Use powdered sugar bee rolls to test for varroa. It won't harm the bees > and will > give you significant enough results to determine if treating in necessary. > > - Mite drop tests, with or without an apistan or checkmite strip. Again > this won't > harm the bees and will give you significant results. This can be done without > a strip even in cold weather. Some trials were run in Maine using powdered sugar in August and October. The August tests seemed to give good results but the tests in October were negative with the sugar roll but when checkmite was used there were drops of up to 1,500 in one hive, >800 in two, >300 in two and > 100 in seven. There were mites in every hive but the rolls did not pick them up. So sugar rolls late in the season may not be accurate. Bill Truesdell Bath, Me ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 16:27:53 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Karen Oland Subject: The real reason beekeepers like their bees? In-Reply-To: <200203051837.g25FWkXn024578@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >From today's New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/05/science/05OBSE.html "Male Asian elephants... The researchers discovered that during musth, a time each year when elephants increase their sexual activity and aggressiveness, immature male elephants secrete sweet-smelling chemicals from glands in their temples. These chemicals have a honeylike smell, which is not surprising given that they are similar to those found in honey. As males mature, however, the sweet-smelling compounds are gradually replaced by others, with the result that an older adult male during musth is a pretty foul-smelling creature. ..researchers ... say that the sweet smell of the immature animals acts as a signal to older males that they are not a threat." So -- that euphoric something in the air of the apiary is the same as the smell that a bull elephant receives when all the other male elephants are too young to compete? K. Oland ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 16:39:14 -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: A Question for the Statisticians In-Reply-To: <200203052048.g25H7uVh027853@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----Original Message----- >From: Bill Truesdell > >Some trials were run in Maine using powdered sugar... >There were mites in every hive but the rolls did not pick them up. I am sure this is one of the reasons that the researchers at the TN state bee meeting recommended a natural mite fall count only - they said that ether roll and sugar roll both could give false negatives, even with significant infestation. Natural mite drop, however, seemed to correspond directly to the actual infestation of the hive. Actual numbers they recommended to use for treatment are, I am sure, in the archives from around last fall. K. Oland ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 22:47:24 +0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter Dillon Subject: Wax, AFB and Lauric Acid MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit A request for information! Has any body references relating to Lauric Acid's ability to neutralise the AFB spore's ability to "germinate" This has been referred to on a Apicultural list based in Belgium. Apparently studies were carried out in the 1990's. No references cited. Also, during the manufacture of bees wax foundation, the same acid is cited as being present in wax and a reason why AFB contamination does not carry over in foundation. Has any body evidence of AFB infection in bee colonies resulting from use of new but contaminated foundation? With sub clinical spore quantities of Paenibacilus larvae present in beeswax, is there a need to "sterilise" during foundation manufacture? Thanks for any help Peter ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 17:03:13 -0500 Reply-To: lhhubbell@johnstown.net Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Leland Hubbell Organization: Tekoa Subject: Re: rust on queen excluders MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>The widow asked me what could be done to renew the excluders. >> Since many beekeepers also retain equipment as long as they can maintain and keep it going, this site may be of interest to some on this list. http://www.oldwwmachines.com/FAQ/Restoration.asp Now go to this page: http://www.oldwwmachines.com/FAQ/Default.asp scroll to the very bottom and you will find: "Cleaning badly rusted metal does not have to be hard work. Since red rust (ferrous oxide) formation is an electrochemical process (oxidation), all we need to do is reverse this process. During oxidation, . . . " You can read the rest of it there. Leland Hubbell ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 16:12:23 -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: Bees can't plan? (male intelligence) On Tue, 5 Mar 2002 11:55:13 -0500, Karen Oland wrote: If >this excess brain power were being used for much of anything else, one would >expect the drones to have figured out how to quit getting tossed out of the >hive in the fall, by now. And if my brain was as big as my one and only partners I would have figured out..... how to stop getting tossed out of my hammock. I agree it is hard to argue that there is much intelligence in drones when they will even try to mate with a nice smelling clothes pin. However I think a good example of worker intelligence is how they learn to work alfalfa. Young bees get knocked on the head by the spring loaded stamen but learn to avoid this by going into the blossom from the side. Any discussion of beekeeping intelligence reminds me of the article in the November issue of Discover magazine in which the author, Barbara Shipman, theorizes that bees can sense quarks. ( search 'quantum bees' for the bee-l discussion on this) Just thinking about quantum mechanics makes my brain feel like a seed of grass but I recently heard a radio program on this topic. (Ideas on CBC) It suggested that the theory of quantum mechanics (which is the best theory physicists have to explain how our universe works) predicts that sub-atomic particles must exist in all their various forms at the same time. This would mean that instead of living in a universe we actually live in a multiverse. The analogy they used to explain this was a row of houses (where each house represents a universe that cannot see the house on either side of it) with a common basement. In the basement subatomic particles exist in all their various forms at once, but for some reason when we look into the basement we can only see one of these configurations at any given moment. Statistically, this would mean that there are actually an infinite number of say, Allen Dicks in the multiverse which could explain how he seems to do so much. My question to bee-l is how would you devise an experiment to prove or disprove that bees can somehow sense subatomic particles? BTW, I don't have the answer. I am around 52N,122W. After an easy winter, spring won't come. Eight days ago it was -27C, then started to get above freezing during the day until today it is back down to -12C with a couple of inches of snow. Only sign of spring is the return of bald eagles (now that calving has started they are after the afterbirth) and starlings. Hive survival appears to be above 98% so far but I have yet to opened any hives for a closer look.Ted ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 17:55:14 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Murray McGregor Subject: Re: Smoker Fuel MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/5/02 12:39:35 PM GMT Standard Time, OhioBeeFarmer@HOTMAIL.COM writes: > I have noticed on EBAY that there is usually a person selling burlap for > smokers in the beekeeping area. I see it for about $1.50 per pound. > Good grief! I must get busy on E-bay. I am using a stack of jute obtained four or five years ago now from one of the factories in Dundee. I get the old bale wrappers and sacks and thread cut off failed bobbins. They are glad to get someone to take it. A dozen jars of honey got us two fills of our van, right to the roof, I reckon about three to four tonnes of it. We still have about four pallets of it. At the E-bay price that is worth a fortune. The works had about 50 tonnes of this stuff at the time and our dozen jars got us as much as we could take away, the lot if we wanted as it would save them disposing of it. This particular works is now closed, with all its machinery and production transferred to Bangladesh, but there are still a few factories where this stuff can be had. Not many competitors for collecting the stuff ex-works in Scotland on this list though so I am lucky. Murray ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 14:59:00 -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: A Question for the Statisticians MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I undertook a similar study, with the aim of proving a negative (statistically). The sampling unit, as in Allen Dick's case, was an individual hive. The number of mite-infested hives follows a binomial distribution with the following parameters (in the present case): n = 350 hives sampled (assuming 35 hives sampled in each of 10 yards); x = number of infested hives in the sample; and p = probability of a hive being infested. To find the 99% upper confidence limit on the prevalence of mite infestation, given negative sampling results (i.e., no mites found), a simple formula can be used: 1-(alpha**(1/n)). Substituting the values: 1-(0.01**0.0029) = 0.0133. Therefore, if the 350 hives represented a random sample of the total number of hives managed, there would be a 99% probability that the unknown prevalence of infestation would not exceed 1.33%. However, the present example does not constitute a random sample. The sample should include hives from each of the 66 yards, and the larger the sample size, again assuming no mites found, the lower the theoretical prevalence of infestation will be, lending more credence to the conclusion that the population is mite-free. 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: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 17:02:51 -0500 Reply-To: lhhubbell@johnstown.net Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Leland Hubbell Organization: Tekoa Subject: Smoker fuel MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit My fuel of choice for years has been grass, dried, of course. . . . (the common lawn fencerow type!) Usually available, just grab a handful. A little green makes dense smoke, if the fire is hot enough, but not needed. I use the larger capacity sized smoker. A handful of hay from the barn also works. Leland Hubbell ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 21:30:56 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Jeffrey A. Holbrook" Subject: Re: A Question for the Statisticians In-Reply-To: <200203051453.g25ET7J5022465@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Aaron, Surely you gest. I agree five is a small sample size but small samples are not necessarily invalid. Small sample sizes are precisely what statistics are meant to analyse. In fact, large sample sizes (I have data at work that is data collected every second for 2 or more weeks) demand several caveats. In fact, some typical control charts and other measures i.e. CpK can not be validly done. One must remember that Demming and others did their stuff in the 1920's and 1930's....when data was collected and plotted manually! Their methods by default used small sample sizes because nobody had the time to hand calculate anything more. In fact, several tables in my stat books provided by AT&T as adapted from Shewhart only go to sample size of 20. That is why the polling agencys can use slightly over 1000 adult americans to get valid poll results. 1000 is only 0.0004% of the approx. 250 million americans. Five bees out of a hive of 60,000 is 0.0083%. This is a much larger sample than we get in our political polls, etc. Smaller sample sizes do have a higher margin of error but what really drives the sample size in the consistancy of varience (square of the standard deviation) of the data. If you can say for sure that if a bee is infected or anything else that you want to measure can be detected 100% of the time then you can reduce sample size. Also, the level of confidence or power that you want to have in your conclusion will drive sample size. If you want to be 99% sure, then your sample size will be larger than if you only want to be 95% 90% or even 80% given the same variance. If you ignore sample size you may increase your risk of making a Type I or a Type II error. A Type I error occurs when you say the null hypothesis is rejected or not true, when in fact it is true. A Type II error occurs when you say the null hypothesis is not rejected when it is false. This type of error is more common in small sample size data as you do not have the data to determine if in fact there is a statistically significant difference. I am just offering my two cents here. I have not looked at the questions specific to these last postings Cordially, Jeff Holbrook Corning, NY ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 19:44:25 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Adrian Wenner Subject: A Question for the Statisticians Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Jerry Bromenshenk wrote: >I'd have to go digging, but I can tell you that as a general rule, the >power of the test improves through a sample of 25 (bees, light bulbs, >etc.). Then you hit the old issue of diminishing returns. The amount of >improvement in the power or reliability of the test begins to fall off >rapidly between 25 and 30, and sample sizes over 30 don't add much for the >time invested. Now, this generalization assumes lots of things about >normal distributions, representative samples, and other issues - so it >won't hold for all estimates -- but its not a bad rule of thumb. Jerry's memory serves him well. Norman Bailey covered that point in Chapter 5 of his book, STATISTICAL METHODS IN BIOLOGY; he wrote (p. 34): "[Statistical test] results are all right provided [sample size] is sufficiently large, say greater than 30." ********* We often have a hard time, intuitively, accepting such notions. However, intuition doesn't always provide the best perspective. For instance, here is an exercise you can conduct and amaze your friends: If more than people are in a room, you can announce (claim you are psychic, or whatever) that two of them have their birthdays on the same day of the year. Start by asking all who have birthdays in January and see if any match up, etc. I did that exercise to relieve the boredom at a couple's club party some years ago (about three dozen people present). It turned out that two pairs had their birthday on the same day of the year; one of that pair even had their birthday on the day of the party! The party livened up after that! 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] ***************************************************** * * "We not only believe what we see: * to some extent we see what we believe." * * Richard Gregory (1970) * ***************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 20:21:57 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Robert Butcher Subject: Re: Melting frames: Salvaging wax and honey(off topic) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Now remember that if you take and place a container of water out of the tap on the counter for 24 hours , there will be a gas exchange. Have you ever had fish to take care of? When you get done with storing your emergency water you need to boil it. Then you can drink it. Have a Blessed Day Bob Butcher Tucson Az. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 01:03:26 -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: Bees can't plan? (male intelligence) In-Reply-To: <200203052217.g25FWkpj024578@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >From: Ted Hancock > >... Just thinking about quantum mechanics makes > my brain feel like a seed of grass Ted, Physics is supposed to give you a head-ache. Otherwise, there would never be any math majors . >...Statistically, this would mean that there are > actually an infinite number of say, Allen Dicks A scary thought. Unless some of the alternates could be persuaded to come over and help with our bees? > My question to bee-l is how would you devise an > experiment to prove or disprove that bees can somehow > sense subatomic particles? Would not any such experiment to measure the bees sensing quark particles itself affect the outcome of the experiment itself. Since the direct access of bees to quantum world would vilate the "sacred principle in quantum mechanics, that the process of measurement changes the very phenomenon that you are measuring." (University of Rochester Alumni Newsletter, Spring '98) K ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 00:36:12 -0800 Reply-To: bee@anthien.com Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: adony melathopoulos Subject: A Question for the Statisticians Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Allen, Great questions. Here are some rough thoughts in return. > Can you state the results numerically and also calculate the degree of confidence? You can state the results numerically. You have a 0% infestation of varroa and tracheal mites on adult bees within your operation. The confidence you can place in this estimate, however, is more difficult. To know with what confidence you can make your prediction you must establish three things experimentally: 1) The confidence that a 5 bee sample, taken from each colony, predicts the true infestation within the yard (e.g. compare your 5 bee sample to a 42d Apistan sticky board drop count). 2) The confidence that restricting sampling to 1/6th of your apiaries predicts the true infestation throughout your operation (e.g. sample all the colonies and determine what loss in confidence would result from sampling only 1/6th of the yards). 3) The confidence, in your area, that if you treat or do not treat, you will experience economic loss (either in wasted treatments or in lost honey production or colony loss). By gathering this data you can use standard statistical analyses to get an estimate of confidence. What is more, with such data you can often model the consequences of taking more or less samples, either within colonies or between yards, and figure out which gives the best prediction for a given effort. > Were sufficient bees examined to give reasonable certainty? I seem to remember Rob Currie and Paul Gatien's work with varroa suggested that a sample of 300 bees from 5 colonies within a yard was able to predict a threshold for withholding treatment without incurring reduced honey or colony survival under Manitoba conditions. I have never seen anyone test the sampling scheme you are proposing... it may have merit but would require extensive validation before it could be trusted (ie experiments which would establish the consequence of treating or not treating a yard based on the results of your proposed sampling scheme). > What are potential sources of bias or error? Do you suspect and errors in sampling? If you really truly randomly select a sample, there is no bias, however there can be error. Error is the random 'noise' the clouds the 'signal' of a prediction. What do I mean by noise? I mean unpredictable ups and downs between your sample result and the true infestation level. Bias, by contrast, is not unpredictable, it is a consistently wrong estimate (e.g. always overestimating infestation by 2%). With such as small sample there are many sources of unpredictable ERROR; you will never get bees from a colony that TOTALLY mirror the infestation of the whole colony (this error decreases as you sample more bees... until you sample ALL the bees in a colony, but then, alas, the colony is dead); you will never select the apiaries that exactly mirror the infestation of over apiaries.... nonetheless, as long as the error is relatively small, then your prediction will carry some weight. As for BIAS, you are not collecting bees randomly from a colony. At this time of the year you are getting them off the lid. These bees may be CONSISTENTLY more or less infested than the bees in the rest of the colony and may CONSISTENTLY over or underestimate infestation... no problem as long as you know the magnitude of the consistency and take it into account when making your estimates. > How much should we trust the results? There is something to be said about getting so many consecutive zeros, but to be honest I would not want to go out on too much of a limb without data to validate your sampling method. > Compare the cost of an IPM approach like this to routine blanket treatment without sampling. This is the kicker. Obviously, if your sampling method was true, and you had hardly any mites, then you could save $10,000 on unnecessary acaricide treatments and help delay the onset of resistance by potentially giving your mites a break from selection for a generation. Did it take a 40 person hours to do the sampling? Lets say it cost you $500. In the best case you come out on top $9,500. If the sampling was downright unpredictive, and you experience a 50% reduction in production and loose 20% of your colonies before you figure out what is happening... that would mean the new Winnabego is that much further an element of your dream life ;) No but seriously, I just finished the Canadian Beekeeper Pest Management survey and less than 8% of respondents answered they 'monitor for varroa and treat when necessary'. Everyone else is treating on a calender. Monitoring has clearly been slow in being adopted as a management tool by beekeepers and it is good to be asking, 'why is this so'? Adony __________________________________________________ D O T E A S Y - "Join the web hosting revolution!" http://www.doteasy.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 13:37:47 +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: chlorine MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >Chlorine cannot 'break down' it is an element. > Yes,plain old chlorine bleach,found in any grocery store Gentlemen, I think you are talking about different things here. What is known as household bleach in the US is sodium hypo chlorite and not the chlorine used in town water systems etc. According to the label, sodium hypo chlorite is broken down to table salt, water, and oxygen. Chlorine is a totally different matter and should be used very carefully. -- Regards P-O Gustafsson, Sweden beeman@algonet.se http://www.algonet.se/~beeman/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 08:13:16 -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: Wax, AFB and Lauric Acid MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Peter Dillon wrote: > > A request for information! > > Has any body references relating to Lauric Acid's ability to neutralise > the AFB spore's ability to "germinate" its Linoleic acid http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0112A&L=bee-l&P=R4432 Bill Truesdell Bath, Me ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 06:35:15 -0800 Reply-To: bee@anthien.com Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: adony melathopoulos Subject: A Question for the Statistician part II Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi Allen, The other thing I forgot to write previously was that the number of bees sampled per colony, number of colonies sampled per apiary and number of apiaries sampled per operation depends on how mite levels vary within colonies, apiaries and operations respectively. To illustrate this point consider an example; you want to predict what the infestation level within an apiary, but only have time to sample a single colony. If mite levels do not vary AT ALL among colonies within an apiary, a sample from a single colony would predict the infestation within the yard quite well. Obviously, infestation does vary from colony to colony within a yard. The number of colonies you need to sample to provide a confident prediction, clearly will increase if sample more colonies. The extent to which confidence increases with increased sampling thus depends on the colony to colony variation... and you need to experimentally determine the variation. Incidentially, in the Canadian Pest Management survey, which will probably be published in the next issue of the Canadian Honey Council's excellent magazine Hivelights (http://www.honeycouncil.ca/chc-ccm/hivelite.html), 38% of beekeepers felt that varroa levels vary "CONSIDERABLY" among colonies within an apiary and 42% agreed their was "SOME" variation. Only 18% felt that "all colonies in an apiary tend to have the same mite levels". Regards, Adony __________________________________________________ D O T E A S Y - "Join the web hosting revolution!" http://www.doteasy.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 07:52:25 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: A Question for the Statisticians MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello All I thought I'd wait a while before pointing out a few things that might help put things into context and reflect my own understanding of the problem. We now have some pretty good response -- I'm hoping for lots more -- so I feel okay about butting in here with some clarifications. I'd like to thank those who took the time to really consider the question. We've had some really good comments, and some that reflect various degrees of misunderstanding, possibly because I assumed that everyone knows who I am, what I am doing, and what I have done, and in other cases, because some simply did not understand the question. My apologies if I did not spell things out as well as I might have. (All our procedures are well documented at http://www.internode.net/honeybee/diary/, but I don't know who would want to read all that stuff). --- First, and perhaps most importantly, this test was not done in isolation or in an information vacuum. I was testing bees that I have been managing, testing and treating in a professional, thorough, well documented, and well understood manner. We have been constantly testingand treating where indicated in the past, and I had little reason to expect trouble. Second, I had specific limited goals in mind: * I was pretty sure that my varroa levels should be low, but was aware that resistant mites can appear at any time and am keeping an eye out. Even a superficial sampling should spot a serious breakout with some reasonable certainty. * I wanted to check for any gross failures in our treatments. Our tracheal treatments were by the 'blue shop towel method', which by all accounts is a very good method, but we had only put on one treat- ment this spring and I wondered if there were any serious problems. *We seldom have nosema problems, but the test was an easy add-on and if there are any gross problems this can give an early warning. * I wanted to get an early fix on winter loss. By this time, the poorest colonies are dead (some were nearly dead when wrapped). This count gives me an idea of whether I need to plan heavy remedial action in spring or can count on reasonable survival. Other relevant points: * We have been practicing IPM since before IPM became a buzzword. * Our past experience has shown that there are a range of mite levels within colonies in the same yard, and that if there is a problem only a few colonies will be really bad. Others may be almost unaffected. Thus the sampling of every colony. We also wanted to count the dead, and therefore had to glance in every hive. * We have also observed that what happens in one yard is usually not very different from what is happening in several others. Thus our decision to sample about 1/6th of the yards. * Our wrapping method allows us to take a few bees from each hive with almost no disturbance. We do not use hard covers, but rather a quilt (pillow) that can be gfently peeled back to reveal the edge of the cluster. * The gathering of samples took less than two days and 200 miles of driving (one person). * Only 20 bees from each yard sample (totalling typically 175 bees) were actually pulled apart for examination. The varroa shake was done using all 175 bees, however. * The balance of each sample is preserved in 70% alcohol in case of further need and will be spot checked by another independant lab. * My partner and I own the lab that did the lab work. * We do not expect such tests to protect us from losing some individual hives. We are prepared to take calculated risks and consider some minor losses inevitable. At some point the cost of identifying and treating such losses exceeds the savings and moreover, testing and treatment do some damage in themselves. * We are not testing to know if we have varroa or tracheal. We have them. What we need to know is whether they are getting out of control in the operation at large or in any particular area. * We found zero levels. If we had found even one mite, we could have zoomed in for a closer look by doing lab work on more of the bees and returning to the yards nearby -- or all the yards. Again, I thank those who gave opinions and facts from various perspectives and particularly thank those who made an attempt to apply mathematics to the problem, but let's not quit here. I think there is a ways to go yet on this before we have explored the question fully. If there are some factors I have neglected to give that are important, just ask. allen http://www.internode.net/honeybee/diary/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 10:52:58 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Tim Arheit Subject: Re: A Question for the Statisticians In-Reply-To: <200203061124.g26BMKHZ028811@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 09:30 PM 3/5/02 -0500, you wrote: > 1000 is only 0.0004% of the approx. 250 million >americans. Five bees out of a hive of 60,000 is 0.0083%. This is a >much larger sample than we get in our political polls, etc. Smaller >sample sizes do have a higher margin of error but what really drives the >sample size in the consistancy of varience (square of the standard >deviation) of the data. It is important to note that proper selection of these small samples is extremely important. I can hardly poll 1000 individual randomly from a given county and extrapolate to the entire country. I don't recall the original message indicating the method of selecting the 5 random individuals from a given colony. Were they randomly selected from the entire cluster (ie. some from the edge, middle, etc.) or were they simply the first 5 bees to the entrance when you knock on the hive? It makes a difference. There is also such a thing as polling to small a sample. Calling up 5 random people in the town I work in (population around 30,000) isn't likely to give me a good idea of income levels, local politics etc. You need more than a simple random sample, you need an evenly distributed sample. Normally we take random samples with populations of people because choosing a evenly distributed sample of people is difficult, but random selection of a large enough sample with give us an approximation of an even distribution. -Tim ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 11:25:47 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter Borst Subject: Monitoring Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Adony >No but seriously, I just finished the Canadian Beekeeper Pest Management survey and less than 8% of respondents answered they 'monitor for varroa and treat when necessary'. Everyone else is treating on a calender. Monitoring has clearly been slow in being adopted as a management tool by beekeepers and it is good to be asking, 'why is this so'? Like I said, you cannot have an IPM approach if you don't have a handle on what levels are acceptable, and to my knowledge, no one has given figures for these levels that can be universally applied and for good reason. It is not clearly understood what causes rapid buildup of mites in some areas and not others. In order to establish harmful levels, one would have to sample the bees on a *regular* basis (using 250 bees per sample) and forego treatment on a certain number of colonies to see what mite counts translate into fatality. If 5 (2%) in the spring permits a hive to go all summer, make a crop, and not die in September before one can treat, then 2% is an acceptable number. If 50 (20%) turns into full blown varroa infestation by August, one cannot skip treatment of some type on this hive. This is not a job for statisticians, its a trial and error process. If less than 8% are doing samples of their own hives it could indicate they are hoping someone else will do this work for them, and I submit that each beekeeper should determine levels and build up rates for their own area. Skipping treatment will give you a sense of when and if you need to treat. This is IPM. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 10:25:59 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Mrs. J.A. Gussow & Mr. H.E. Gussow - Tucson, Arizona" Subject: Re: Melting frames: Salvaging wax and honey(off topic) In-Reply-To: <200203061128.g26BMKHt028809@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Wednesday, March 06, 2002 10:22:07 AM Arizona Time Hello to all on the list: The Chorine is the question I have so I did go to "Ask Jeeves" and after a short search I did find this amount of information dealing with this chemical element. http://www.webelements.com/ This web site is in England or Great Britain it has all that you would need to look up elements on the Periodic Table. Chlorine is an Element on the Periodic table of Elements, symbol CL, has an atomic weight of 35.453 , Atomic Number of 17 and is a gas in its natural state. Chlorine is a disinfectant as a posin to living things and that includes microbes. Handling it in a gaseous state is dangerous and extreme caution is advised. The real reason for the use in tap water is to keep it clean while it's in the water mains not so much for the people who use it. The delivery of clean water is up to the water company in your area and they must comply with what is expected of them. However in some cases the chemistry fails when confronted to certain water contaminations of portable water. In the case of the water supply in Milwaukee circa 1990's. The water company in that case was doing good to remove the contaminates until they got ecolie bacteria in the public water system. Chlorine is a greenish yellow gas which combines directly with nearly all elements. Chlorine is a respiratory irritant. The gas irritates the mucous membranes and the liquid burns the skin. As little as 3.5 p.p.m. can be detected as an odor, and 1000 p.p.m. is likely to be fatal after a few deep breaths. It was used as a war gas in 1915. It is not found in a free state in nature, but is found commonly as NaCl (solid or seawater). * production of safe drinking waters the world over. Even the smallest water supplies are now usually chlorinated * extensively used in the production of paper products, dye stuffs, textiles, petroleum products, medicines, antiseptics, insecticides, foodstuffs, solvents, paints, plastics, and many other consumer products * most chlorine is used in the manufacture of chlorinated cleaning compounds, pulp bleaching, disinfectants, and textile processing * manufacture of chlorates, chloroform, carbon tetrachloride * used for the extraction of bromine * PVC pipe used to provide safe drinking water The bleach is of course not what it appears to be. Note that it doesn't appear in a natural state but that of a compound. NaCl is salt and from that it returns when exposed to evaporation of water. The bonds of the salt NaCl) are ionic and are some of the strongest in nature and that is why you don't get poised by it. In Household bleach it would be in the form of Chlorates. It is considered to be a "base" as the above says "non-metal" but it does have some redeeming uses for man in the area of an antiseptic. (MPOV) This scares me to death and perhaps my bees if they could think and read this. It is used as an insecticide as well so beware as I don't think that I would use it under and circumstances. I don't use chemicals and/or antibiotics or essential oils in my hive at any time. Use the fermented honey to make mead if you think it would be useful than feed it to your bees and don't harvest any honey unless it's capped. Respectfully submitted Harvey Tucson, Arizona ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 12:16:41 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter Borst Subject: Re: Natural Comb Cell size, Reaumur Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" PB >Well, looking at Reaumur's figures, I deduced that he must have done what we do, measure ten cells and divide by ten. He got 2 and 2 twelfths inches for ten, which I would represent as 2.17". If this is divided by ten, I would get .217". Measuring my own natural comb, I got 2 and one eighth inches per ten, or 2.125" which I would represent as .213" per cell. How else can you show that these two figures are different (which they are)? Robert Mann: Sorry, but what this list has been shown does not establish they're really different. PB: I agree that cells can vary as much as this on a given comb, but when a large number of cells are measured, the average appears to be quite constant. So much so, that Marla Spivak used such figures to identify the African bees ingression into Cost Rica. She distinguished this bees by a difference in cell size of .3mm, or 12 thousandths of an inch. Of course, using ten cells at a time, the difference is much easier to detect because it becomes one eighth of an inch. So, a difference of 5 or 10 thousandths may be quite significant, enough to differentiate the different sub-species. If I was finding comb that was consistently 1/8" per ten cells smaller, I would suspect African bees. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 11:40:14 -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: A Question for the Statisticians MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello Tim and All, Tim wrote: I don't recall the original message indicating the method of selecting the 5 random individuals from a given colony. Were they randomly selected from the entire cluster (ie. some from the edge, middle, etc.) or were they simply the first 5 bees to the entrance when you knock on the hive? It makes a difference. Allen does not use hard tops in winter so the samples were taken from = the top of the cluster by pulling back the pillow.. Under summer conditions Tim would be correct but at the time Allen took = the samples most if not all of the bees were older bees and very = little brood rearing is going on. The bees are in Cluster most of the = time and varroa is existing on feeding on the older bees In my opinion = the sample bees would be a fair indicator of the entire cluster. .=20 Nosema and tracheal mites typically pass through the whole hive in the = winter cluster in heavy nosema and heavy tracheal mite situations.. Although many bees carry only a traceable amount of nosema while others = carry the full infection Nosema can be detected in most bees from a = heavily infected hives with a microscope. When a hive becomes heavily infested with tracheal mites most bees will = show a few mites if you look close enough.=20 When I dissect a bee trachea and it is black from mite damage I need to = look no further.=20 A white trachea does not necessarily mean zero mites either only that = the infestation is not severe or in its early stages. These are the = tracheas which take time to examine. Sincerely, Bob Harrison Ps. I am only a beekeeper and not a researcher but the above methods = work for me and reflect my experience dealing with mites and nosema. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 21:44:24 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter Edwards Subject: Re: A Question for the Statisticians The Encyclopedia of Beekeeping (Morse & Hooper 1885) suggest a sample of 30 bees for disease diagnosis (in those days it was only acarine, nosema and amoeba that we had to worry about - apart from the foulbroods), giving the reason for the sample size as the following table of probabilities: Percentage of infected Number of bees to be examined to give the indicated bees in colony percentage chance of finding at least one diseased bee 80% 90% 99% 90 1 2 2 80 1 2 3 70 2 3 4 60 2 4 5 50 3 5 7 40 3 6 9 30 5 8 13 20 7 13 21 15 10 18 28 10 15 28 44 5 31 58 89 1 161 298 457 (Hope this table formats OK!) So by taking a sample of 30 bees, we have (approximately) a 95% chance of finding a diseased bee if 10% of the colony is diseased or an 80% chance if only 5% is diseased. Using the table, you can decide on the sample size necessary to give you the level of confidence that you require. Peter Edwards ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 22:28:58 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Carmenie Stemmler Subject: Maxant extractor and Cowan uncapper Hi there, Can anyone from the states tell me what the maxant 50 frame stainless steel extracters are worth new today, and what you think a good used one would be worth? I think it is maybe almost 20 years old, but still in good shape. Also, what is the general opinion on cowan uncappers... Any big reason why I shouldn't purchase a used one? Anyone know what they are worth? By the way, I am in Ontario, so when you are quoting price please indicate whether in Canadian or American dollars. Thanks Regards, Carm ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 21:35:14 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: =?iso-8859-1?B?aGVyduk=?= Subject: Fw: hive color MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > > Just a very beginer question : > > I read on the Queensland industry department web site > (http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/bees/4894.html) that white is the coolest color > in summer and the warmest in winter. I understand it is the coolest but how > can it be the warmest ? > > Hervé > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 02:30:42 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: A Question for the Statisticians MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I direct this question particularly to those who used numbers in their responses thus far, and to Bob, but also to anyone who has a handle on the concepts underlying sampling. Having considered all the answers received so far, I have concluded that our testing so far was * sufficiently large for varroa, * sufficiently large for nosema (at this early date, at least), * but marginally adequate for tracheal at the 2% level at the level of testing we have done so far on the samples collected (20 actually tested out of 175 collected) If, indeed, my conclusion above is true, (Is it?) then -- when/if we take the sample jars back out -- how many more bees from each yard sample do we have to pull apart and inspect to determine with 95% certainty that less than 2% of the entire population of bees are infected with at least a bit of tracheal? For those who find this interesting and want to read through again, the articles with the basic information I provided previously at the beginning of this thread can be found in the archives at http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0203a&L=BEE-L&P=R3924 Thanks for all the help so far folks! allen http://www.internode.net/honeybee/diary/ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 07:03:54 -0500 Reply-To: mpalmer@together.net Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: michael palmer Subject: Re: Maxant extractor and Cowan uncapper MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Carmenie Stemmler wrote: > Hi there, > > Can anyone from the states tell me what the maxant 50 frame stainless steel > extracters are worth new today, and what you think a good used one would be > worth? I think it is maybe almost 20 years old, but still in good shape. Half the price of a new one, or less. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 08:32:25 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Robert Brenchley Subject: Re: hive color MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > I read on the Queensland industry department web site > (http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/bees/4894.html) that white is the coolest color > in summer and the warmest in winter. I understand it is the coolest but how > can it be the warmest ? > > Hervé > I remember this vaguely from physics lessons at school. A black body both absorbs and radiates heat with the maximum efficiency; white will both tend to reflect it, thus staying cool in the summer, and radiate it poorly, thus retaining heat longer in winter. Whether this makes much difference to a beehive I can't say, as I live in a decidedly temperate climate where neither problem is likely to arise. Regards, Robert Brenchley RSBrenchley@aol.com Birmingham UK ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 07:42:41 -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: hive color MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Herve and All, Herve wrote: > I read on the Queensland industry department web site > (http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/bees/4894.html) that white is the coolest color > in summer and the warmest in winter. I understand it is the coolest but how can it be the warmest ? All colors are equal on a cloudy day. The sun shinning on the hive would create winter warmth for the dark hive. > >White is not the warmest color for winter. Black would be. Most beekeepers which do not use white use light colors. I have seen dark colors used in areas where the summer is fairly mild but the winters cold. Sincerely, Bob Harrison ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 07:59:53 -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: A Question for the Statisticians MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello Allen and All, * sufficiently large for varroa, For the purposes you are using the tests as defined in your previous = post you would most likely catch a severe varroa infestation. I finished several years of dealing with fluvalinate resistant varroa a = few years back and your method would simply not detect either = fluvalinate or coumaphos resistant mites . You can not find those by = random checking. I would not toss my sticky boards yet. Sincerely, Bob Harrison Ps. *Food for thought* How many times sitting at home at the desk or in the easy chair have we = thought we knew what was going on inside our hives only to find the = opposite when the hives are inspected. Every bee inspector I ever met will tell you regular inspections is key = to successful beekeeping. "regular inspections and TESTING are key to successful beekeeping now" = Bob Harrison 2002 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 09:11:12 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter Borst Subject: Re: A Question for the Statisticians Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Allen writes: Having considered all the answers received so far, I have concluded that our testing so far was * sufficiently large for varroa Peter Edwards sent in a very nice table showing sample size and certainty. According to his table, with a sample size of 5 bees one could be 90% certain *only* if the infestation rate was 50% or higher. I don't know how you could conclude that a sample of 5 bees from the outside of the cluster in winter was sufficient to *know* anything. I still haven;t heard an explanation of why you would open the hives in the middle of winter, or what you were expecting to find out. Am I missing something? PB ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 09:20:39 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Aaron Morris Subject: FW: Maxant extractor and Cowan uncapper MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >...and what you think a good used one would be > worth? I think it is maybe almost 20 years old, but still > in good shape. Of course, both and buyer and seller want to get the best price each can. Seller wants to sell high, buyer wants to buy low. Given that there is little volume in honey extracting equipment and factoring in inflation, extraction equipment tends to hold it's value. I bought a Maxant 10/20 extractor, used it for 4 years and sold it for what I paid for it. I got 4 years free use on an extractor, the buyer got a great deal compared to the current price of a new model. Wear and tear on the extractor was minimal. Call the dealer and price the models new. Offering half or less (as Mike suggested) is fishing for a REAL bargain. Were I the seller I'd refuse half or less of current selling price. Aaron Morris - thinking buy low, sell high! ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 10:16:48 -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: Monitoring In-Reply-To: <200203061641.g26FiSKJ004660@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit When to treat for IPM is also dependent on the area. In east TN, we can treat in July, as there is a general dearth (unless moving to the mountains for sourwood), so we can tolerate a higher spring level. On the other hand, if you treat for spring, you have to start in Jan in order to get the medications off in time for the early spring flow (which can start in March). One reason that the Ag Extension schedules for crop farmers have been so popular is that it requires less thinking on the part of the one doing the application -- just spray when the calendar tells you to. It requires more education (and risk tolerance) to actually assess your pest levels and only treat when "needed". And the whole time youare figuring out those perfect balance levels, you are losing more of your crop than others (although perhaps making more money overall -- something so many seem to have trouble distinguishing). -----Original Message----- From: Peter Borst If 50 (20%) turns into full blown varroa infestation by August, one cannot skip treatment of some type on this hive. This is not a job for statisticians, its a trial and error process. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 10:13:58 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Martin Damus Subject: Re: A Question for the Statisticians - sampling Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >From Allen: * but marginally adequate for tracheal at the 2% level at the level of testing we have done so far on the samples collected (20 actually tested out of 175 collected) >From me: Did I read the first posting wrong? I thought you had collected five samples from all hives in ten yards, with an average of 35 hives per yard = 1750 samples, not 175. Have I misunderstood? If so, then by the poisson method you can only be confident with 95% certainty that your infection rate is one in 58 or fewer, which is not really all that good. In a hive of 30000 bees you can have up to 520 varroa mites and nosema spores, on average. If you tested only 20 for tracheal mites, then at the 95% level of confidence chances are that about one in every seven bees has tracheal mites, or at least that is the highest infection rate that you could have missed. I am not yet a practising beekeeper, so I don't know if an infection rate of 1.76% (Nosema and varroa) is high enough to treat - though to me it suggests more intensive sampling is warranted - but I imagine that a rate of 14% (tracheal mites) is. Martin Damus ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 15:43:40 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter Edwards Subject: Re: A Question for the Statisticians ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Borst" > Peter Edwards sent in a very nice table showing sample size and certainty. According to his table, Not my table - I was quoting from Morse & Hooper! Peter Edwards ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 09:16:57 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: A Question for the Statisticians MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>> Having considered all the answers received so far, I have concluded that our testing so far was * sufficiently large for varroa <<< >> Peter Edwards sent in a very nice table showing sample size and certainty. According to his table, with a sample size of 5 bees one could be 90% certain *only* if the infestation rate was 50% or higher. I don't know how you could conclude that a sample of 5 bees from the outside of the cluster in winter was sufficient to *know* anything.<< I can see you and I are looking at things from very different perspectives and this is quite fascinating. I am a commercial beekeeper. Losing one hive sixty miles away, especially if it is already over the hill, is of academic interest to me only. I think I covered some of this previously, but it probably bears repeating: I am looking at the big picture and thinking of entire yards, rather than individual hives. In addition to the isolated results of this one test, I have access to historical information, including recent treatments visual assessments, and recent drop tests. As a result, my required level of certainty from this one test is considrably lower than if I had just parachuted into strange terrain and had to start from scratch -- or try for 100% certainty and 100% survival. I also have information about the probable distribution of the pests in the hives, in the yards, and in the operation and this affects how I analyse the data, and how I understand the results of tests. Perhaps it is time to reveal my own beliefs here: I regard this problem as a multi-step problem, and not one where we can go direct to a definitive, 100% correct answer. We would love to have a simple litmus test, but that is not in the cards. I think this problem is somewhat recursive and that any solution is very likely indeterminate, since there are factors and parameters we cannot hope to predict or measure with the precison with which we can solve some easy parts of the problem. The math is easy, the assumptions are not. We also need to consider empirical data, but much of that appears condradictory. The best we can hope for is to discuss and estimate ranges and thresholds, and acceptable risk figures. IMO, this type of decision making is often much more art than science. We have to feed info to our neural networks and trust the results -- IMO. What I love about Bob's response (as did one detail-minded researcher who wrote me privately after writing what he described as a 'tome') was that Bob was not confused by the details or the analysis process. He just scanned the data given and his built-in 'Expert System' and Fuzzy Logic circuits said "Probably OK". He didn't give me a technical response, He just gave a verdict and a few succinct reasons -- and caveats. Maybe I like Bob's answer, too, because he agrees with me. Is Bob right? Am I right? That is fun to analyze and very instructive, since that is how we refine what we do and learn -- and teach. That is one of the reasons that I thought it would be fun to put the question to the list. So we can all learn by banging heads. If I emphasized the statistical aspect of the problem, maybe that was a bit of an unintentional red herring (as was pointed out by one astute bystander). I apologise, but I am fascinated by how much math we can apply to this problem that is usually solved intuitively. I like math. Math works the same every time. For everyone, everywhere. I doubt if simple math can give us a definitive answer, but math can definitely solve parts of the problem leaving less to intuition, and I have found the statistical contributions very edifying. I'm hoping for more. > I still haven;t heard an explanation of why you would open the hives in the middle of winter, or what you were expecting to find out... Am I missing something? I think I covered that in my (last?) post, but sometimes the LISTSERV delivers the articles unevenly over time. I know I have two accounts where I receive articles and there is often a long span between when an article ap pears in one and when it appears in the other. allen http://www.internode.net/honeybee/diary/ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 15:52:32 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter Edwards Subject: Re: hive color ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob & Liz" > All colors are equal on a cloudy day. The sun shinning on the hive would create winter warmth for the dark hive. > > > >White is not the warmest color for winter. > > Black would be. I thought that black will both absorb AND radiate heat better than white - so whilst it may be help to warm the hive on a sunny winter day, it will also cause it to lose more heat when the sun is not shining. White will have the opposite effect, reflecting the sun but also reducing heat loss from the hive when the sun is not shining. Not sure which is best, but given that bees tend to live in holes in trees where they are well insulated from the outside world, perhaps white is the better option for its insulating properties. Having said that, my bees seem to do well in unpainted hives (I dip them in hot wax, as I believe that they do in New Zealand). Peter Edwards ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 12:52:05 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter Borst Subject: Re: A Question for the Statisticians Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Allen writes: >I can see you and I are looking at things from very different perspectives and this is quite fascinating. I am a commercial beekeeper. Losing one hive sixty miles away, especially if it is already over the hill, is of academic interest to me only....I am looking at the big picture and thinking of entire yards, rather than individual hives. OK. Say you are trying to determine levels of varroa in several apiaries as economically as possible. You took 175 bees per apiary, that is 175 per let's say 400,000 bees. Very low levels of infestation simply would not show up at this sampling rate. Plus, I think taking samples at the edge of the cluster is a mistake. But how would I design the experiment? I would go to five hives per apiary and take normal samples (250) right out of the middle of the cluster. This would take no more time than what you did, and give more information. pb ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 12:54:14 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter Borst Subject: Re: A Question for the Statisticians Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Peter Edwards writes: Not my table - I was quoting from Morse & Hooper! PB Sorry if that was unclear. From the 3rd Edition of Honey Bee Pests, Predators, & Diseases by Morse & Flottum, (1997) we get the following recommended sample sizes (per colony): nosema 10 worker bees trachael mites 50 dying adults 100 varroa mites 200-400 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 13:33:32 -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: Fw: hive color MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit hervé wrote: > > I read on the Queensland industry department web site > > (http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/bees/4894.html) that white is the coolest color > > in summer and the warmest in winter. I understand it is the coolest but > how > > can it be the warmest ? Because NZ is south of the equator and everything is opposite there. Just kidding. My guess is the reflectivity of white and absorption of heat by dark in the warm summer days and black body radiation at night by the darker colors in the winter. You have a greater differential in temps between the interior of the hive and its surroundings at night in the winter than you do in the summer, so blackbody radiation will have a greater effect in the winter than in the summer. I would think it really depends on the hive material and its heat transfer properties more than the color. But if you are only looking at color, which is what I think they are doing, then what they say is true. Bill Truesdell Bath, Me ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 07:53:30 +1300 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Watson, Owen" Subject: A new thought on extractor design? In-Reply-To: <200203071208.g27BwGHv003249@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" I was thinking about the design of the extractor, and wondering whether it could be made more minimal. My idea is that there is no separate rotor and container; they are one and the same. The frames would be mounted on the inside of a tapered container, and the container spun on a horizontal axis. The honey would fly out to the container sides, and because the container sides were tapered, it would flow towards the "top" of the container. There would be a collar round the container "top" that would be stationary (ie not attached to the container) that would collect and guide the honey out. Surely someone has thought of this, or isn't it such a good idea? -- --Owen Watson --at home in Wellington, New Zealand --Don't reply to erewhon@rsnz.govt.nz -- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 14:01:01 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Martin Damus Subject: Re: A Question for the Statisticians Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit There seems to be a difference of opinion on whether it is better to take a few samples from many hives or many from a few. The goal needs to be kept in mind. Do you want an indication of the average level of infestation across your whole operation? Take a few from several hives (as Allen has done). Do you want to know the specific rate of infection in a few hives? Take several samples from those few. It does not matter whether you have 100,000 bees in your apiary or ten billion. If the infection rate can be assumed to be relatively even across all your hives (as, I think Allen presumes his might be) then taking more from one hive does not give you more information than taking a few from many hives. If he finds one infected bee in one of his samples of five, he cannot say that that hive has a higher rate of infection than the others with any confidence at all. If he samples 250 from a few hives and finds one infected bee in one hive then he can say that that hive has a higher rate of infection. But I don't think that that is his goal. Peter wrote "You took 175 bees per apiary, that is 175 per let's say 400,000 bees. Very low levels of infestation simply would not show up at this sampling rate." Note, please, that that there are 400,000 bees is totally irrelevant. Taking 175 samples from 30,000 bees is no better or worse than taking 175 from 400,000 or from a billion and a half if the infection rate is the same. Statistical confidence is related to the number of samples taken, not the number of individuals in the population. Martin Damus Martin Damus ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 22:13:31 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter Edwards Subject: Re: A Question for the Statisticians Have we lost the plot a bit? My understanding is that the damage to colonies is not caused by directly by varroa, but by the fact that they act as vectors for viruses. Of these, the most significant are Deformed Wing Virus (DWV) and Acute Paralysis Virus (APV). So a large infestation of varroa may not be a problem if DFW and APV are absent, whereas a small infestation can cause severe problems where these viruses are present. Should we, therefore, be monitoring the presence of the viruses (how do we do that?) rather than getting obsessed about the actual number of varroa present? Peter Edwards ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 16:10:56 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob & Liz Subject: Tri-State meeting MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello All, Last minute reminder of the Tri- State beekeepers Meeting hosted by = Dadant & Sons. March 8-9, 2002.=20 Iowa, Illinois and Missouri State beekeeping associations will be in = attendance PLUS many members of the Midwestern Beekeepers Association =20 but=20 ALL BEEKEEPERS WELCOME!. Response was so great Dadant reserved a larger building.=20 Although pre reservation was best I have been told last minute = beekeepers will be NOT be turned away from the meetings. Plenty of = room. Around 250 beekeepers are registered for Friday and around 400 for = Saturday I have been told.=20 The buffet dinner at the "Hawkeye restaurant " Friday night with Marion = Ellis is full .I have been told but please check with Dadant if = interested.=20 1-800-637-7468 I will be at the meeting both days. If you are on Bee-L please introduce = yourself.=20 Dadants are doing an open house from 1-4 on Friday and 7-9 am on = Saturday with plant tours Sincerely, Bob Harrison Vice president Midwestern Beekeepers Association ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 20:58:27 +0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: James Kilty Subject: list members (and honey co-operatives) In-Reply-To: <200203011514.g21EEsqe001892@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 In message <200203011514.g21EEsqe001892@listserv.albany.edu>, Ainars Millers writes >I received no answer, but no answer also could >be an answer. It could mean that in countries presented on this list is not >common for associations of beekeepers to pack and distribute local honey in >local market under own brand. Quite a few UK Beekeepers Associations have a label which members can use. I have not heard of any standards being set which occasionally causes problems. I put it to our own association that we had a label and a colleague proposed defining a set of standards which members would agree to abide by if they used the label. It is still in committee. We also tend to market our own honey in our own way. Each beekeeper has their own outlets, some shops take several beekeepers' honey. One shop, having followed the ban on Chinese honey, wants all I have left, the cheapest honey having sold out. There is a UK Co-operative, sponsored by Gales, our major honey producer and packer but so far as I know, no-one here is involved, perhaps because prices are based on a mixed honey, around 60% OSR, whereas most of our honey in the very far south-west of the UK is wildflower honey. -- James Kilty ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 20:51:29 +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: Chris's Comb In-Reply-To: <200202282227.g1SMR8la007948@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 In message <200202282227.g1SMR8la007948@listserv.albany.edu>, Donald Franson writes >Donald: Bees do not remove their cocoons they just varnish over them to get >them ready for the queen to lay her next egg. I had a swarm move from the hive I had put them into a hive full of old comb 10 yards further round awaiting action. They reamed out all the comb so it looked like new! Not their own comb of course. -- James Kilty ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 16:29:14 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter Borst Subject: Re: A Question for the Statisticians Thanks Martin You were able to explain the situation clearly enough that I finally got it. Sorry if I appeared ignorant, I was going on experience -- which doesn't include any work in statistics. PB ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 15:14:43 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: A Question for the Statisticians MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Further to all this, I came cross some old data to show why I am not as worried about tracheal or sampling more bees as some think I should be. Here are results from Fall 1997, a year in which I sampled but never treated: Yard Positive Negative Total Tested Infestation level Railway 3 47 50 High Jahns 2 48 50 Medium Meglis 10 40 50 Medium & Low Falks 6 44 50 Medium Kievers 1 49 50 Low Dixons 4 46 50 Low There are 6 more yards, but the above are actually some of the worst, and 4 of the next 6 were zeros. The other two were a ten and a one. I'm too lazy to type them in. The point is that I was unable to see any visible differences between yards, or losses that I could attribute to the higher tracheal levels in some yards. We have varroa now, and did not then. I understand the effects are somewhat additive, so am lowering my threshold of concern a bit. Nonetheless, the current results are so much better than these that I am not too worried. allen http://www.internode.net/honeybee/diary/ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 19:03:45 -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: A Question for the Statisticians MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello Peter and All, Peter wrote: My understanding is that the damage to colonies is not caused by = directly by varroa, but by the fact that they act as vectors for = viruses. Of these, the most significant are Deformed Wing Virus (DWV) = and Acute Paralysis Virus (APV). So a large infestation of varroa may = not be a problem if DFW and APV are absent, whereas a small infestation = can cause severe problems where these viruses are present. Bailey has done a huge amount of research on the above and named many = viruses. Dr. Norman Carrick of the U.K. is following in Baileys = footsteps. Quite a bit of information about viruses is in the archives = of the Irish Beekeeping list.=20 If I understand Norman correctly she has hives living with varroa as = long as she can control the viruses which is no easy task. I find both = the work of Bailey and Dr. Carrick most interesting but still a few = years away from being the answer for varroa control in my opinion but I = might be wrong. Peter wrote: Should we, therefore, be monitoring the presence of the viruses (how do = we do that?) rather than getting obsessed about the actual number of = varroa present? Diagnosis of viral infections in honey bees is beyound the expertise of = most beekeepers BUT not all. Counting the actual number of varroa is much easier for most beekeepers = to deal with. Excellent questions and comments Peter! Sincerely, Bob Harrison Ps. Dr. Carrick sent me the graphs etc. that she was to give in South = Africa to look at last spring. I was very impressed with her work. = Maybe one of these days the answer for varroa might be in virus control = but Bailey was interested in virus research as a cure for tracheal mites = and only recently has the approach been applied to varroa.( last decade = I believe) )=20