From MAILER-DAEMON Sat Feb 28 07:41:44 2009 Return-Path: <> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.8 (2007-02-13) on industrial X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-86.4 required=2.4 tests=ADVANCE_FEE_1,AWL, MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR,SPF_HELO_PASS,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=disabled version=3.1.8 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 C29BA49080 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 2009 07:28:41 -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 n1SCLoXb010061 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 2009 07:28:41 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 07:28:39 -0500 From: "University at Albany LISTSERV Server (14.5)" Subject: File: "BEE-L LOG0208D" To: adamf@METALAB.UNC.EDU Message-ID: Content-Length: 187505 Lines: 4094 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 17:15:31 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Murray McGregor Subject: Re: Heather honey In-Reply-To: <015AD2AB387CD5119E830002A55CCF6E167947@notus.lothian.scot.nhs.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed In article <015AD2AB387CD5119E830002A55CCF6E167947@notus.lothian.scot.nhs.uk>, Ross Langlands writes >This seems like a stunning >generalization dependent on site, season and altitude. It is generally sound, but as always there are issues behind it which make it less rigid than it seems. As a general rule you are unlikely to get bees filling new areas of the colony after that date, however, there is what we call 'filling in down' going on at times throughout early Sept, in that the bees bring in enough to fill in behind the brood as it hatches. The flip over to 'filling in down' from 'filling in up' is linked more to the strength of the colony than absolutely to the date, and at the heather the bees are worked out quickly and colony strength plummets (even earlier with old queens). Thus, on ling heather, these dates tend to fit well with the fall in colony strength, and coupled with the shortening day length and decline in available forage it means that for practical purposes, your crop is in by 5th Sept. After this date though, bees will still gather small amounts of nectar, plus larger amounts of pollen from both late heather and tormentil. Getting them home is a more moveable thing, and if the weather is good they can bring in a lot of good pollen before taking them home. Ideally you need them bedded down for winter, in a lowland site, with a good feed on board, by the end of the first week of October. -- Murray McGregor ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 17:15:54 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter Borst Subject: Re: Pollen in honey and allergies Histamines are more (over-the-counter type) or less (prescription only) generalized. They will relieve the symptoms (and all have some side effects) but not prevent the production of allergens which, in turn, produce the symptoms. The only way to reduce the production of allergens ("cure") is through gradual exposure to the underlying ingredients so that the immune system no longer recognizes them as 'foreign'. The above paragraph contains some errors. Allergy medications contain *anti-histamines* which alleviate symptoms. *Allergens* are substances like pollen, mold, spores, etc. that produce allergic reactions, including the formation of histamine in the body, which in turn produce symptoms like running nose, swelling, etc. *Anti-histamines* suppress the reaction to allergens and alleviate (somewhat) the symptoms. Some medications have no noticeable side effects; others produce drowsiness (dipheniramine) or sleeplessness (pseudoephedrine). Some people report spontaneous "cures" as a result of a change in location; others report "outgrowing" their allergy. Others have successfully become desensitized by a series of injections of the suspected allergens. Some report no success by any means and must rely on symptom-relieving products. pb ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 22:37:19 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter Edwards Subject: Re: Heather honey Can't speak for Scotland but I have found this to be true in Wales and Yorkshire. I believe that Brother Adam gave 5th September for Dartmoor. Peter Edwards beekeepers@stratford-upon-avon.freeserve.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ross Langlands" To: Sent: 21 August 2002 16:07 Subject: [BEE-L] Heather honey > Watson in his book "Sixty Years with Bees" states that in his experience the > bees take no further honey off after the 6th of September and that he always > brings his hives back by the 11th September. This seems like a stunning > generalization dependent on site, season and altitude. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 22:46:06 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter Edwards Subject: Re: leaf blower Below are some notes on using a blower that I wrote for a proposed (under construction) 'Tips & Tricks' page on our website. Any comments welcome! Peter Edwards beekeepers@stratford-upon-avon.freeserve.co.uk Using a Bee Blower The most important point is to avoid any breaking any comb, because the bees will be blown against the exposed honey and there they will stick! The honey will also be blown in a very fine spray and this will cover bees and equipment (such as a chute). This will also encourage robbing. To avoid these problems, I try to ensure that all supers are cracked apart on the visit prior to the harvest so that the bees clean up any brace comb and loose honey before my visit to collect the supers; odd bits of brace comb between the supers can be removed with the hive tool and placed on the crown board and bees will come up through the feed hole, remove the honey and leave dry wax. I would strongly advise against removing, or even disturbing, any of the frames prior to blowing for two reasons: firstly, because any damage to the comb - perhaps by breaking brace comb - will lead to the problems outlined above and, secondly, because the very powerful air stream can easily blow frames out of the super when stood on end. I do not use a chute or stand, but work in one of two ways depending on conditions: If the bees are in a good mood, I often simply stand behind the hive, slide the super forward slightly and lift the front so that it is stood on end with the frames vertical and the top bars towards me. I blow out most of the bees and then stand it on its other end with the bottom bars towards me and blow out the rest. The super is then removed and the next one cleared in the same way. However, if we are just at the end of a flow, it can be difficult to keep the bees down working this way, so I then remove the supers and place them on an upturned roof either beside or about 4' in front of the hive, put the crown board back on the hive and then clear the supers. If there is robbing then it may be best to clear one hive at a time, otherwise the supers can be removed from a number of hives before starting blowing. I always try to blow bees up into the air rather than into the ground or straight at the hive - I want them to live a bit longer! It is important to blow from the top of the super first - combs are often thicker at the top and blowing from the bottom first will wedge lumps of bees between the combs. It is much easier to blow bees off sealed honey as they have less footholds. The blower nozzle should be waggled from side to side, rather than simply directing a steady stream of air at the bees - this catches them off their guard and they lose their grip. (I once had a bee in the car which I allowed to crawl on to my finger and then put my hand out of the window to get rid of it; to my surprise, it simply held tight - we were travelling at 70 mph at the time!) Position the blower motor as far as possible from the hives; the bees hate the vibration and are also very sensitive to the high voltage to the sparking plug - they will sting the rubber cap on it and, if there are enough of them, may even stall the engine by forming a bridge between the plug cap and the earth lever used to stop the engine. It is not necessary to remove every last bee, especially if working at an out-apiary. Flying bees will often land back on the supers when you have finished blowing, but this does not matter as they will leave later; however, it is important to dislodge young bees that will not be inclined to fly. I stack supers on the trailer as I work, covering them loosely if there is any robbing and then, when I have finished, drive a couple of hundred yards away and stop for a few minutes; covers are removed and most the bees left in the supers fly back to the apiary. Sometimes it is worth driving a bit further and then stopping again. Peter Edwards 8 November 2001 ---- Original Message ----- From: "preacher" To: Sent: 21 August 2002 03:43 Subject: [BEE-L] leaf blower > Hello all, > I just tried out some advice some of you talked about. > I got a weed blower and used it removing bees. And I believe my bee ecsape > days are over. Worked great, no mad bees, and quicker time made. > thanks > preacher > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 21:07:06 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: al boehm Subject: hearing range MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello all Bee Listers On the subject of hearing range, for a reference the common piano of 88 keys has a range of 27.5 hz (low A ) to 4184 hz(high c). Most healthy adults without hearing trauma from excessive rock and roll can hear down between 12 to 18 hz. My main employment is violin family instrument repair and restoration, my wife is a concert violinist and piano technition. Thank You Al Boehm The Carolinas USA ps. were in the 4th year of a drought and there is very little honey this year. I usually extract on memorial weekend and the 4 of july weekend and labor day weekend. So far this summer my 24 healthy hives have yielded a pittance of 200lbs. This weeks checking shows that I will be reading them for winter early and may get 750 to 1000lb. The grass crunches and the trees are in high stress, loosing leaves, some dying. May have to feed to build up winter stores. Tax write off year for sure. Hope other areas are not so bad off. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 19:19:31 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Roy Nettlebeck Subject: Re: Pollen in honey and allergies MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit LLOYDSPEAR wrote: > > > > >. > >Histamines are more (over-the-counter type) or less (prescription only) >generalized. They will relieve the symptoms (and all have some side >effects) but not prevent the production of allergens which, in turn, produce >the symptoms. The only way to reduce the production of allergens ("cure") >is through gradual exposure to the underlying ingredients so that the immune >system no longer recognizes them as 'foreign'. > > Hello Lloyd and All, I'm not a MD and a little above 101 in Biology. I draw information from my customers. Many are Doctors and Natureipaths. I go on what has been done and if it works. So far , unheated, unfiltered local honey has kept me in business. I have a large number over 300 + have told me that it has helped them and they are off of medication. It stands to reason that what you put into your body will work with your body to protect it from what is outside causing the problem. ( that's if it is Natural ) . This time of year I sell a lot of honey for a small operation. I don't want to be big , just good. I sell a lot to the Eastern Europeans. They know honey and what is good for , from many years of its use.So there is a large market out there for Real Beekeepers to sell there honey. Listen to the people and learn. Not much money will ever be spent to prove out all of the good parts of honey and the human body. They want you at the drug store. Enjoy every day as if it is your last Best Regards Roy > > > > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 23:06:39 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Karen Oland Subject: Re: Beesound, piping bee In-Reply-To: <001201c24854$6d3c0d20$5cac58d8@BusyBeeAcres> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit http://www.sfu.ca/sca/Manuals/ZAAPf/r/range.html The human hearing range is from 20 Hz to about 20,000 Hz. The below was more concerned with distinguishing "loudness" (phons) between 500 and 1500 hz -- see http://www.sfu.ca/sca/Manuals/ZAAPf/e/equal_loud_cont.html. Fewer decibels are required for humans to hear in the 500-1500 Hz range (10db), while more decibels are required at higher and lower frequencies to be perceived as the same loudness. Actually, we hear best at about 2,000 Hz. Thus, a 10 db sound in the 1500 range will be "heard" as much louder than a 10db sound at 250 Hz (and possibly not hear at all by someone with a level of deafness). According to the graph, the same 10db sound that would have been perceived at 500-1500 Hz, is "inaudible" (below human perception) at 250 db (the graph shows about 20 db needed to hear at that frequency). We can here at 250 Hz quite easily (men better than women, in fact). The point of the inaudibility" is the difference between hearing a radio tuned next to you, versus one at the same loudness six blocks down the road (different db at that point). The same web site (and many others, as well) has some pretty good explanations and graphs on the entire audio subject. -----Original Message----- From: Bob Harrison (The loudness level in phons is a subjective sensation--- this is the level we perceive the sound to be at) From about 500hz to roughly 1,500 hz the line is flat on the 10b scale. Does the above not indicate that human hearing of sound begins around 500 hz? Would not 500hz be in line if the Michelson quote was correct saying that between 250hz to 300 hz was inaudible to humans? Even with my limited knowledge (and your saying that the quote I presented by Michelson 1987 should stand) I can not help but to believe that 250 to 300 hz is beyond the hearing range of most people working a bee hive outdoors. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 02:34:53 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dick Allen Subject: Re: Questions: Wax Melter and Separator, Cappings Spinner,dark wax MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In remarks about the solar melter Layne Westover mentions: “The leftover slum gum, pollen and impurities/debris I throw into my compost bucket...” Since solar wax melters are not overly efficient, a fair amount of wax is retained by the slumgum. I remelt the slumgum in hot water. Then I pour that through a fine mesh colander and press as much of the liquid as I can out of it. The wax is darker and admittedly has a slight earthy aroma. While not acceptable for cosmetic uses, it probably would be suitable for the leather crafters Karen mentioned. Regards, Dick ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 07:54:37 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Harry Goudie Subject: Re: Heather honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Much of Scotland is varroa free and moving bees to the heather from varroa infested areas is not a good idea! The flowering time varies from area to area in is dependant on conditions. You are usually told to get the bees on the heather by the 12 th August but, in my area, if you left it this late you would have missed most of the crop. I usually take the honey off during the second week in September. I got no heather honey last year due to heather beetle but it is looking good at the moment. Harry --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 02-Aug-02 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 07:54:56 +0100 Reply-To: Ruary Rudd Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Ruary Rudd Subject: Re: Honey for allergies. Comments: To: James Fischer MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Honey for allergies. > But the "trace amounts" of pollen in honey is going to be from the plants > where the nectar was gathered. It is therefore reasonable to conclude > that honey not filtered within an inch of its life will contain pollen, but > no pollens from "non-nectar" plants like ragweed or corn. But you will also get pollen from air pollenated plants like pine in honey. > "field guide to pollen" for the small number of people > with a high-tech filter or a centrifuge, a decent microscope, and far too > much time on their hands. You don't need a centrifuge, there is a settlement procedure which only requires time. Ruary Rudd ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 08:16:36 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter Borst Subject: Honey Bee Behavioral Genomics Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" James Fischer wrote: > No one will be manipulating DNA to attempt to create a "Super Bee" However, exactly this is *already under way* at Purdue University: Honey Bee Behavioral Genetics and Genomics The Honey Bee Behavioral Genetics and Genomics program is interested in genetic influences on honey bee behavior, and the resistance of bees to parasitic mites. Our lab made detailed maps of the honey bee chromosomes to identify genes that influence honey bee defensive behavior, and other traits. We study the interactions between genes, environment and individuals in a social insect. We also have a breeding program to increase the resistance of bees to Varroa mites. ------------------------------------- Honey Bee Behavioral Genomics The research program focuses primarily on honey bee behavioral genomics. My lab has made the first and most comprehensive genetic maps of the honey bee genome. We have mapped genes that influence behaviors that are important for apiculture. The mapping of genes may help us understand these traits and improve honey bee stocks. Successful cloning of these genes would help to develop the honey bee as an important model organism for behavioral genetics. Behaviors that we have successfully mapped genes for include defensive behavior (see International Activity), foraging resource choice (pollen or nectar) and hygienic behavior (the removal of diseased, mite-infested or dead brood). The applied apicultural research at Purdue has focused on breeding bees that are more resistant to parasitic mites. The major thrust is developing stocks that are more tolerant of Varroa mites, although we have also evaluated stocks for tracheal mite resistance. http://entm29.entm.purdue.edu/directory/entm/53.htm ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 19:23:16 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "C.R. Crowell" Subject: leaf blower MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit My reading of material on this topic suggests it is best to blow up from under the bottoms of the frames, not the other way around. Comments? Curtis Crowell NJ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 19:36:52 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: preacher Subject: Re: leaf blower MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello, My reading of material on this topic suggests it is best to blow up from under the bottoms of the > frames, not the other way around. Comments As far as blowing from the bottom, I did, and then walked around a blew from the other side. I believe as far as blowing out bees, there is less brace comb and loose honey on the top. So it is easier to blow from the bottom. Works great preacher ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 20:30:03 -0400 Reply-To: bees@oldmoose.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Beekeeper Guy Organization: Bees-r-us Subject: Re: Proverbs about bees MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dick Israel, the beekeeping Rabbi from Newton Massachusetts, who unfortunately passed away a couple of years ago, always said: "The bees will swarm during Shavuot" If you don't know what that is and want to: http://www.everythingjewish.com/Shavuot/origins.htm CSlade777@AOL.COM wrote: > Lupin time is swarming time. > > Chris ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 21:16:22 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: HarrisonRW@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Pollen in honey and allergies MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Roy writes: > . So far , > unheated, unfiltered local honey has kept me in business. I have a > large number over 300 + have told me that it has helped them and they > are off of medication. It stands to reason that what you put into your > body will work with your body to protect it from what is outside causing > the problem. ( that's if it is Natural ) . Like Roy I also sell a lot of raw honey to people with allergies. I was wondering since Ragweed does not produce nectar but does produce an incredible quantity of pollen. Could the pollen be gathered (plastic bag over the plant then shake the plants to dislodge the pollen) and added to a quantity of honey and mixed in before bottling was to take place. This honey could then be sold a a value added product (lets say $6.00 lb.) Any thoughts or suggestions are welcome. Regards, Ralph ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 20:44:50 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Mark Coldiron Organization: The Little/Coldiron Farm Subject: Re: leaf blower MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply: I've tried it both ways, and can't really say that blowing from the bottom works better. I will say that it tends to push the frames out if you have the super on its end. If you've never used a blower for this purpose, you'll certainly need to put some screen over the intake of the blower. Otherwise the bees will be sucked in and you'll have a very efficient bee chop-o-matic and spray chopped bees all over the frames! I'm going to try the tilt method next time if there's a good nectar flow going on. Otherwise, I'll use good old-fashioned fume boards. West Texas Mark Curtis Wrote: > My reading of material on this topic suggests it is best to blow up from under the bottoms of the frames, not the other way around. Comments? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 23:25:40 -0400 Reply-To: "jfischer@supercollider.com" Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: Honey Bee Behavioral Genomics MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Peter Borst said: > James Fischer wrote: >> No one will be manipulating DNA to attempt to create a "Super Bee" > However, exactly this is *already under way* at Purdue University No, absolutely no one is manipulating honeybee DNA. First, Danny Weaver's words are taken out of context, and interpreted to mean something that he did not say, and then a very clear Purdue program description is misread. All these people are using DNA to check for genes thought to be associated with honeybee traits. There is >>> NO <<< manipulation of honeybee DNA going on, nor has anyone expressed any plans to do so. jim ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 23:36:29 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: Re: Honey for allergies. Comments: To: Ruary Rudd MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Ruary and All, The situation might be different in Ruary's part of the world (UK and Ireland) but in the Midwest bees store plenty of pollen in cells (with only pollen in the cells ) in the honey supers. We simply remove the cappings and spin the pollen out with the honey. Pressure filtering is the only means of clearing late fall wildflower honey. In other words if its late season wildflower without clover mixed the honey will not be clear due to suspended pollen (much of which is from fall ragweed). > > But the "trace amounts" of pollen in honey is going to be from the plants where the nectar was gathered. This is true but not the reason for the huge amount of suspended pollen in our fall wildflower honey. I am beginning to think this might be only common in our area of the Midwest as Lloyd says he can put comb honey supers right over the brood nest in New York and not get pollen in cells. We have to always put the comb honey super over a filled extracting super or we get hundreds of cells filled with pollen which reduces the value of the comb honey. > It is therefore reasonable to conclude that honey not filtered within an >inch of its life will contain pollen, I agree completely! I have sold honey in drums to many large packers and seen the 5 feet long pressure filters in operation. They pull *all* suspended pollen from the honey. Many do not know that suspended pollen makes honey crystalize faster. > but > > no pollens from "non-nectar" plants like ragweed or corn. Sorry Ruary but in the Midwest we get pollen from both in honey. It is true that bees only gather from one type plant at a time but when all cells are filled in the area around the brood nest ALL POLLEN GOES UP ABOVE. As I said above when we uncap and spin we mix the pollen with the honey. We really have no other choice. The large packers later remove the suspended pollen from their product but MAINLY because the suspended pollen speeds up granulation. When you ship a semi load of bottled honey to a distributer and he ships to a local grocery and their is not a way for granulated honey to be exchanged you need a long shelf life. hence the pressure filtering and pasteurizing process by the large packers. > > But you will also get pollen from air pollenated plants like pine in honey. Bees collect plenty of pollen in our area from pine trees. I have had many discussions with fellow beekeepers over the collection of pollen and nectar in the U.S. from pine(Pinus spp.) over the years. I first saw bees collect pollen from pine trees as a teenager in Florida. Many beekeepers (which still believe that all the truths about beekeeping can be found in bee books) would show me that neither the great John Lovell (Honey plants of North America 1926 ) or the great Frank Pellett (American Honey Plants 1920 ) listed Pine (Pinus spp.) as a source for pollen. Finnally in June of 1971 the USDA in its publication no. 335 listed Pine (Pinus spp.) as a source of both pollen and nectar but only in the western U.S.. Knowing the listing would raise a roar from many beekeepers a foot note was added pointing to the research of G.H. Vansell. Vansell also lists Pine as a source of nectar and pollen in his publication "Nectar and pollen plants of California pg. 55 (1931.) As far as the nectar from Pine I do not know as I figured the bees only collected honeydew but I do know about the collection of pollen from pine. I am sure Ruary is correct for his area of the world and I only point out the difference in my area of the Midwest. Ruary was a regular when I was on the Irish bee list and is very knowledgeable on bees and beekeeping. I quickly learned the Irish and the English have got their own ways of keeping bees and there are many differences in the flora. Sincerely, Bob Harrison ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 08:06:00 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter Borst Subject: Purdue Genomics Roundup Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Purdue Genomics Roundup April 2001 WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. This February scientists made headlines when they published the sequence of the human genome the so-called "code of life." "Agricultural genomics is well behind human genomics," he says "But we can adapt the tools used in the Human Genome Project to find solutions for problems in food much faster than drugs for human problems can be brought to the market." Genomics uses automated laboratory equipment and high-power computers to identify all of the genes in an organism. These genetic road maps can be used to create genetically modified organisms, such as Bt corn. Genetic information also can provide an advantage to traditional crop and animals breeders that was unthinkable 10 years ago. Here are examples of plant and animal genomics projects under way at Purdue University: Purdue researchers have created more than 300,000 genetically altered plants, and scientists at other institutions have created hundreds of thousands of additional genetically altered plants. "For all practical purposes, the genome is saturated; there has been a mutation for every gene," Bressan says. Purdue entomologist Greg Hunt, in collaboration with Ernesto Guzman-Novoa of Mexico's agricultural research service, used gene mapping techniques more commonly used in plant genetics to locate the genes that influence behavior in Africanized bees. "We have developed specific gene markers that predict the probability of queen bees having the African version of stinging genes so it will be easier for breeders to avoid using them," Hunt says. "Now that we have the markers we can selectively breed for gentle bees." -- Peter Borst ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 09:39:51 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Purdue Genomics Roundup MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Peter Borst wrote: > Here are examples of plant and animal genomics projects under way at > Purdue University: > > Purdue researchers have created more than 300,000 genetically altered > plants, and scientists at other institutions have created hundreds of > thousands of additional genetically altered plants. >"We have developed > specific gene markers that predict the probability of queen bees > having the African version of stinging genes so it will be easier for > breeders to avoid using them," Hunt says. "Now that we have the > markers we can selectively breed for gentle bees." Am I missing something here? The program was to map the bees genes. The issue was the creation of a gm bee from that mapping. But all the citing of GMO are for plants and that has been going on for quite some time at most all ag colleges. As far as I can see the recent mapping is for identification of sites that can be linked to characteristics so that bees can be better selected for or not selected for those characteristics. So all that is going on is a very large step above what we all do to some degree or other, which is select bees for what we want. The only difference here is the researchers can see which genes are responsible and can eliminate much of the trial and error we have to work through. They are not talking about genetic modification but genetic selection, a major difference. There can be an issue about GMO, but that is not what is happening to bees, according to this post. If we are concerned about what might happen because someone somewhere might use science for evil, then it is more a matter of ethics. Good luck in solving that question. Any discovery can be used for good or bad. For example, broccoli. Bill Truesdell Bath, Me ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 12:25:49 -0400 Reply-To: "jfischer@supercollider.com" Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: leaf blower MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Curtis Crowell said: > My reading of material on this topic suggests it is best to blow up > from under the bottoms of the frames, not the other way around. Yes, if you feel that you MUST accelerate your bees to Mach 1.3 with a device designed to blow around dead leaves, then you really do want to blow from the bottom of the super. Look closely at a cross-section of honeycomb. Note that the cells have a slight downward slant as they go from the capping inward towards the foundation. This is to keep liquid nectar in the cells. Now look closely at a frame of bees. Note that many bees will go headfirst into a cell for many reasons (cleaning, resting, whatever). Now start your leaf blower. If you were to blow from the top, the sudden hurricane you create will be blowing the bees downward, and make it difficult, if not impossible for those bees in cells to get out of the cells. Enough velocity, and you will break these bees in half. If you blow from the bottom, those bees with their heads "in cells" have more of a chance to survive. They are not certain of survival, since one still has the "flapping" effect of frames banging together, and the random (empty or nearly empty) frame that will become suddenly airborne, sailing across the bee yard, and putting a small dent in your nice new truck. ...and Mark Coldiron said: > If you've never used a blower for this purpose, you'll certainly need to put > some screen over the intake of the blower. Otherwise the bees will be > sucked in and you'll have a very efficient bee chop-o-matic and spray > chopped bees all over the frames! A good point. All "leaf blowers", by definition "suck". But more to the point, they suck. :) I don't like blowers. I would not suggest them for anyone who has a neighbor living near their beeyard. For those who think they like blowers, I'd suggest that they try their blower on a super inside a cleanly-swept barn, and then do a body count. Another body count is possible at the first-stage filter after the extractor, to count those bees that died, but stuck to exposed honey, or in the cells. Another quick way to kill bees with a leaf blower is to use the stand sold by Dadant that has the metal plate at a 45-degree angle below the working surface. Who invented this mass-production genocide machine? First, it encourages one to blow from the top of the super, and the bees that survive this treatment are promptly slammed into the metal plate! I'm a beekeeper, not a bee killer. Too many otherwise productive bees die as a result of unavoidable hive manipulation "collateral damage". I want to keep this number as low as possible, so all the bees can work for me. A dead bee is a highly unproductive bee. jim ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 14:23:08 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: LLOYDSPEAR Subject: Bee blowers I get the feeling that some of those who have been commenting on Bee Blowers have never used one! There certainly is a lot of 'bad' information going around. First, and probably of least importance, the 'chute' sold by Dadant is probably as useful as 'tits on a chicken'. The best piece of equipment to hold a super for blowing is a sawbuck. Next best is anything strong enough to hold the super (at a 90 degree angle if necessary) and at a height so the beekeeper doesn't have to get down low enough to be uncomfortable. The bees will find their way back to the hive...Never having used the Dadant chute (in utility it reminds me of the slanted board sold to help the bees walk up to the bottom board from the ground or hive stand), I can't imagine whether they get hurt from being 'slammed', but I doubt it. Next the Dadant blower is a real machine; designed for all day work in 90 degree weather by commercial beekeepers. Great, but not what is needed for fewer than 500 or so supers. Use a leaf blower, and use the most powerful (at the end of the hose) that you can get. Watch the ratings...the velocities at the end of the blower and at the end of the hose are much different, and the less scrupulous give you only the velocity at the end of the blower. Use it in any yard not near neighbors. I agree with Jim that the noise pollution they cause is incredible. The Dadant blower will blow bees from just about anything, it is that powerful. However, it does not hurt the bees, nor does it even make them angry. It will not even 'blow a bee in half'. Have you ever seen a honey bee hold onto your exposed windshield at 70 miles an hour? For 30 minutes? They can do it, apparently with ease. They have no difficulty holding onto a frame against air driven by a leaf blower, with or without their head stuck in a cell. In fact, the only way you can 'blow' them is to get them by surprise, which is really no problem. Blow from the top or blow from the bottom makes no difference. I usually do both (with my leaf blower) and the commercial guy I worked with did the same. Turning the super over will usually result in catching the last few bees by surprise and having fewer bees in the honey house. Lloyd Lloyd Spear, Owner of Ross Rounds, manufacturer of comb honey equipment for beekeepers and Sundance pollen traps. http://www.rossrounds.com Lloyd@rossrounds.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 21:26:50 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter Borst Subject: Re: Honey Bee Genome Project Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Bill writes: >They are not talking about genetic modification but genetic >selection, a major difference. >There can be an issue about GMO, but that is not what is happening >to bees, according to this post. My response: As James and you have pointed out, nobody is at this point actually producing GM honey bees. But I think that it is worth discussing now why they should or should not. It looks as if it is is right around the corner, to me. Universities are creating multi-discipline programs for Genomic research. Since these various fields deal with the genomes that underlie most of life itself, many of the techniques and discoveries will be shared. For example, this paragraph from the Honey Bee Genome Project: >A honey bee genome sequencing project (HBGP) will benefit human >health and medicine in diverse areas, including venom toxicology, >allergic disease, mental illness, infectious disease, parasitology >and gerontology. In addition,the HBGP will improve human nutrition >by enabling enhanced pollination of food plants and accelerated >delivery of hymenopteran parasitoids for biological control of >pests. The HBGP will also improve honey bee sentinel function, >providing enhanced capabilities for detection and location of >chemical and biological agents of harm. Sequencing the genome of the >honey bee, a beneficial, non-dipteran, insect endowed with a small >brain but cognitive sophistication, with complex social organization >but amenable to molecular, genetic, neural and ecological >manipulation, will provide important tools and unique models to >improve human health. Well, you might say they are promising improvements to every aspect of life! But the point is, genomics is not limited to improving plants, or human health, it is expected to be used in all areas of life sciences for all sorts of problems. And given the information and tools to produce a Genetically Modified Bee, why would they *not* do it? Particularly if the aim is to "gain national and international recognition", as stated in the following: >The Genomics Initiative forms the major portion of a $500 million >New Life Sciences Initiative at Cornell University. This is a broad >based initiative to recruit faculty and provide resources that >foster a multidisciplinary study of biology in the post-genomics era. > >Insect Genomics. > >We invite applications for the position of assistant professor in >Insect Genomics at Cornell University. Areas of interest include >comparative insect genomics, insect population genomics, or genomic >analysis of interactions between insects and plants, parasitoids, >microbes, or predators, although candidates with related interests >are also encouraged to apply. The successful candidate is expected >to develop a well-funded program that will gain national and >international recognition, to participate in undergraduate and >graduate teaching, and to contribute to the development of genomics >and life sciences across campus. The likely departmental home is the >Department of Entomology. And this appeared in the local newspaper: >Initiative shatters boundaries, >Plan buttresses existing research at Cornell > >Imagine a child cured of early-onset blindness with an injection. > >Some of the possibilities, based on current research, spurred along >by the Life Sciences Initiative: > >A blindness injection: Vice Provost Kraig Adler said a therapy >designed to cure dogs of genetic blindness could have human >applications. An injection directly into the retina introduces >healthy genes that, over time, supplant defected ones. "This was >designed by Cornell researchers to improve the lives of dogs," Adler >said. "But they are discovering that the genetic defect in dogs is >the same genetic defect in humans that causes blindness in children." > >He said it would be years before there were human trials. But he >said dogs have been cured of blindness in weeks using the therapy. >"That's not too far off where you'll take a newborn baby to a doctor >who will be able to read out from a blood sample the genetic makeup >of the individual. "They can treat at a much earlier stage and >correct maladies through gene therapy," Adler said. My point is that to these people, there are no boundaries. It's all genes, it's all connected, it's all about making headlines. Maybe it's already too late for the honey industry. We have been degraded in the eyes of much of the buying public. First, the word got out that there can be pesticides in honey, now people are talking about GM pollen in honey. Imagine how many more customers we will lose if people start saying that beekeepers are using GM bees? So, if we are not, we should say we are not and *why* we are not. But remember this: once patented honey bee genes are made available, they will likely turn up everywhere, in everyone's hives. Not only will it then become nearly impossible for people to keep normal, unmodified bees, but you may be accused of pirating the genes you didn't even want, like corn farmers have been accused of unauthorized use of GM corn. Do you think I am speculating too much? Maybe, but not more than everyone else! They say it's "not too far off where you'll take a newborn baby to a doctor who will be able to read out from a blood sample the genetic makeup of the individual." Then, give it a series of vaccines to clean up all the genetic irregularities! And we will have the humble honey bee to thank for being the "guinea pigs" where such tinkering was perfected. -- Peter Borst ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 23:44:09 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Allen Dick ac58d8@BusyBeeAcres> <001801c247f3$1b9d16a0$6eae73d1@allen> <005d01c248bc$820655e0$b823dad0@34un9> <003701c2495c$36f5ea20$3c3387d9@oemcomputer> <000d01c24a32$e6ff33a0$9b94590c@curtiscr> <000701c24a3d$2d4a4de0$4e23dad0@34un9> Subject: Re: Re: [BEE-L] leaf blower Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 21:44:20 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 For 37 archived articles on blowers, etc.: http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?S2=bee-l&q=bee+blower&s=&f=&a=au gust+94&b= allen ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 00:03:18 -0400 Reply-To: "jfischer@supercollider.com" Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: Honey Bee Genome Project MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Peter Borst said: > As James and you have pointed out, nobody is at this point actually > producing GM honey bees. > But I think that it is worth discussing now why they should or should not. > It looks as if it is right around the corner, to me. So, while we are now all (at long last) in agreement that there is no monster under the bed, the discussion should go on, just in case there MIGHT be monsters under the bed at some point in the future? What possible future? Bottom line, NO ONE is going to invest the small mountain of cold hard cash required to make a GM honey bee. There are far too many "better markets" out there for GM products. A "GM Super Bee" would never even pay back the sunk capital investment, let alone the salaries of the team that would have to work for about a decade or so to produce a "practical" GM bee. I don't ever see a lucrative enough market to support this, even if every beekeeper planet-wide pledged to buy nothing else. > Do you think I am speculating too much? No, at this point it has gone far beyond mere speculation, and is well into hallucination. :) > They say it's "not too far off where you'll take a newborn baby to a > doctor who will be able to read out from a blood sample the genetic > makeup of the individual." Then, give it a series of vaccines to clean > up all the genetic irregularities! "They" also promised that we would all have flying cars by now. Where's MY flying car? > And we will have the humble honey bee to thank for being the > "guinea pigs" where such tinkering was perfected. I don't think that the parents of any child born with a serious problem would call this sort of thing "tinkering". They would call it a "miracle". It is very true that honey bees are being and will continue to be used in the lab as "platforms" for the study of all sorts of things, just like "white mice" (which are actually gray in all labs I have seen). But this will not result in any "new and improved" or "Frankenstein" bees, any more than the creation of "Onco-Mouse" resulted in a new and improved or scary and dangerous mice. (Onco-mouse is a special breed of mouse used in the study of cancer.) jim ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 09:17:28 +0100 Reply-To: Ruary Rudd Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Ruary Rudd Subject: Re: Honey for allergies. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Bob and all, I wonder if at this stage we are arguing at cross purposes: my original post was simply to point out that as well as collecting pollen in their pollen baskets, the bees also carry pollen ingested with the nectar. the pollen from the pollen baskets is stored in different cells from the honey cells. the pollen ingested with the nectar is contained in the honey. If there is not enough room in the brood chamber ( one or two boxes as circumstances require) bees will store pollen in the supers immediately above. My experience of pollen pellets spun out in extracting is that the first, coarse, sieving will remove them with the wax flakes and other solids. > > > no pollens from "non-nectar" plants like ragweed or corn. > Sorry Ruary but in the Midwest we get pollen from both in honey. Bob you are misquoting me I did not say that but I did say > > But you will also get pollen from air pollinated plants like pine in honey. > Ruary was a regular when I was on the Irish bee list and is very knowledgeable on bees and beekeeping. Thank you for these comments Ruary Rudd ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 07:49:51 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Honey Bee Genome Project MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Peter Borst wrote: > As James and you have pointed out, nobody is at this point actually > producing GM honey bees. But I think that it is worth discussing now > why they should or should not. It looks as if it is is right around > the corner, to me. The fundamental problem is if research which can lead to both good and bad results should be undertaken. That is an ethical problem and not easily solved. All you have to do is look at the mixed bag we have with "weapons of mass destruction". Be they nuclear, biological or chemical, all came out of basic research. And their impact makes GMO look benign. But also out of that same basic research came a multitude of things that are beneficial for all of mankind. The truth is the good far outweighs the bad. We do pass laws and make treaties to dampen the desires of those who would misuse science. But we have plenty of laws on pesticide use, and look at the number of normally law abiding beekeepers who misused just about every tracheal and varroa control that has been released, and some which have not. Should we not release any pesticides because some will not follow the rules? (Sorry for the double negative.) Peter's concern is just and I share it to an extent. Major ethical problems exist in most science, but you can get dangerously close to harming basic research if the only objection is that someone, somewhere will misuse it. Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 04:56:06 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Selkie Lass Subject: Re: dark wax In-Reply-To: <200208220634.g7M6YraA019495@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I sometimes get pretty dark wavx from my solar wax melter- but it is the very last wax that I get out of the slumgum when I render down old dark combs. I have hypothesised that I could make it even darker by saving and dumping my slumgum into my old slow cooker with a bit of water, pouring the dark wax back in with it, and letting it "stew" for a day, then straining it. The color seems to come from the debris and slumgum- anyone who has had a container of slumbem collect water knows that it quickly stains the water dark. I believe some of the pigments are soluble, or at least will become suspended in wax. Have you tried remelting your "chocolate" wax, and watched to see if any of the color settles out? Try melting it, and then putting it in a styrofoam cup to harden very slowly. Insulate it with towels so that it takes as long as possible to harden. If the color is from suspended particles, they will tend to settle towards the bottom of the cake of wax. There is a local woman who makes candles. She mixes old and new wax, and he candles tend to be a dark, brassy color. It has become a sort of trademark of her candles. So, Lighter is not always better- smart marketers make an asset of what others percieve as a "defect" Ellen In Michigan --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 08:49:49 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: preacher Subject: Honey Butter MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello ladies, My wife is trying to make whipped honey and butter . Any suggestions. We have gone by the intrustions on the amounts. But the oil , out of the spread seperates. Which turns into a curd looking instead of a smooth spread. Any suggestions preacher ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 10:56:41 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: Honey Bee Genome Project MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > ...nobody is at this point actually producing GM honey bees... > > But I think that it is worth discussing now why they should or > > should not. It looks as if it is right around the corner, to me... > > ...Do you think I am speculating too much? > > No, at this point it has gone far beyond mere speculation, > and is well into hallucination. :) GM is a serious topic and if we can keep it civil and somewhere close to our theme -- bees -- we need to discuss it. As we are seeing more and more every day, GM does indeed have very widespread implications, not only for the bees themselves, but for the crops -- and even weeds and wildflowers -- that my be affected by GM technology and collateral effects. Microflora and fauna are also already being affected. Even as we write, someone, somewhere is mutating something familiar into something subtly different without knowing all the possible outcomes, some of which could be far-reaching. Perhaps we should even make an exception to our rules and permit the discussion to veer away from bees a bit as long, as the topic -- GM -- does not take over the list and displace the one interest we all have in common: BEES. At any rate, I personally wish to encourage carefully written articles on the topic of GM, especially those with well researched facts and opinions and complete with references to relevant material of interest, and particularly if they relate to bees and their immediate environment. At the same time, for the sake of the list and its mandate, I would like to actively discourage cut-and-paste posting of material from other (possibly copyright) sources, one liners, personal insults (even those with smilies following them), nit-picking, cheer-leading, questionable attempts at humour, and any other content that contravenes our guidelines. * * * * * * * * * * I don't know how many readers of this list remember tube (valve) radios and mechanical calculators, or the first transistor radios with an amazing eight transistors. (That is 8, not 8,000,000). That was a deluxe model; some radios worked quite well with only six, or even five. My first desktop computer had 8K, (not 8 megs or 8 gigs) and that was only about a quarter century ago. Back then nobody would have believed anyone who said s/he would be able, within a decade or two, to buy -- almost anywhere in the world -- millions of transistors wired together on one chip for a few dollars. When the the laughing was over, the question would have been asked, "What is a chip?". Even a few years ago, nobody could imagine young kids carrying their own phones with them everywhere, and that such phones would be cheap or free, high quality, and work almost anywhere. Things change fast. Technology expands and diffuses rapidly and often uncontrollably. Once someone uncorks the bottle and the genie gets out, who can put it back in? Even in the past few years, GM technology has changed and become more widespread, more accessible -- and cheaper. I assume that this technology, will follow the pattern of many others. Unless controlled, over time, some breakthrough discoveries and widespread use will bring prices down, and before long we'll have kids making up their own lifeforms in the basement using their home computers and some handy dandy peripheral acquired at Radio Shack or the local surplus store. Kids being kids, they'll dream up some real doozies. If our western societies do decide to control and either ban or limit use of the technology, there are still many places on earth where this control cannot not (yet) reach, and many who will defy any efforts to control their work. Consider the number of clandestine drug labs operating quite nonchelantly in major US cities -- in spite of a longstanding and expensive "War on Drugs". This -- GM -- is a big topic, possibly bigger than our list. We'll have to see how it develops, assuming it does, and that some good material is submitted. Hallucination? I think not, and the sooner we all take a look at this technology and its implications (not neccessarily on BEE-L), the better. That's not to say that anything we say or do will change the course of fate. The genie is out of the bottle. allen http://www.internode.net/honeybee/diary/ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 11:55:59 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: Bee blowers MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I get the feeling that some of those who have been commenting on Bee Blowers > have never used one! There certainly is a lot of 'bad' information going > around. I get the same impression. When people pan a product or device that everyone else uses happily and routinely, they probably just haven't figured how to use it properly yet, and I think that this must be the case here. Using a blower (with or without chute) correctly and effectively seems pretty obvious to me, and I learned very quickly, by myself, by experimentation, but I have been amazed recently to discover that some pretty smart people can use a blower every day for weeks without figuring out how to get the best results and minimize bad effects. It's true. I've seen it first-hand and close-up. Bee blowers are a useful tool, but, as with any tool, there are situations where that tool may be indispensable, and other situations where it may not work at all, or where another tool works much better. There is no perfect, universal method of removing bees, or we would all be using it, in every situation, every time. Let it suffice to say that a blower is a very handy item to have, and a beekeeper with only one bee removal method is like a carpenter with a hammer, but no saw or screwdriver. Professional quality blowers normally need not be operated at -- or even near -- maximum air velocity, any more than a car should be driven at top speed at all times. The speed should be adjusted to the minimum that does the job well. Ample *volume* of air, proper set-up, timing and technique are usually far more important than the maximum velocity the blower can produce. Due to the weather lately, and the experience levels of our field crew, we have been using blowers to remove honey. We normally prefer abandonment (see archives). At any rate, a little while back, I put a few pictures on the web at http://www.internode.net/honeybee/diary/2002/Diary082002.htm and http://www.internode.net/honeybee/diary/2002/Diary081002.htm#blow showing a bee blower in action. The pages don't address all the basic details, but do show one in use. I might mention that I have also recently been using some Honey Robber since the weather has improved, but not enough to use abandonment safely. I'd try Jim's new product ( http://www.bee-quick.com/ ) since I understand that it smells a touch nicer than butyric, but unfortunately our co-op promises to reject honey taken with any but a few approved products due to regulations in some importing countries, so I am stuck with butyric until we get approval to try Bee-Quick. FWIW, there has been a some fairly recent discussion about the product on sci.agriculture.beekeeping for those who go there from time to time. allen http://www.internode.net/honeybee/diary/ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 14:50:53 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Sid Pullinger Subject: Solar Extractor MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <> They can be very efficient. It is a matter of design and correct loading. Mine has an alumium lined tray on which is a metal grid giving an inch clearance. on this is placed a square of hessian or coarse cloth. It is no use placing old brood combs flat on the cloth. They must be cut into three or four inch slices lengthwise and placed on edge parallel with the side of the extractor. This allows the wax to drain out with the minimum of trouble. The wax drains into a throwaway plastic container at the bottom of the extractor. Given two days of cloudless sky and moving the extractor every hour or so to keep the direct rays of the sun you are left with clean wax and on the hessian a heap on bone dry cocoons. Incidentally, if you plan on building one, make it big enough to take excluders. Two hours in the extractor and the excluder is perfectly clean and sterilised. No scraping, no fuss. Sid P. Incidentally, if you plan to build one, make it big enough to take excluders ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 13:33:28 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Jerry J Bromenshenk Subject: Bee Blowers Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" We've had to remove all of the bees from large numbers of colonies in order to weigh the bee population. We've done this in commercial operations, with no apparent problems, sometimes going through the hives every two weeks. We try to find the queen and isolate her -- don't need to bang her around anymore than necessary. But, we've seen and have shaken all of the bees into a box with a queen excluder bottom when making up packages. What we learned is that you don't just BLOW. Combine shaking and blowing, much easier on all concerned. Set up a sawbuck, grab a folding suitcase rack from a hotel, anything that you can set the box on so that you can stand and work in a comfortable position. 1. Set the box on the stand. 2. Turn on the blower. 3. Pop up and remove one frame -- set aside, I lean against side of stand. 4. Pop the nest frame loose, slide it into the space from which you removed the frame, lift the frame upward about 3-4 inches. 5. Give it a fast, downward thrust, ending in a upward yank, most of the bees, caught by surprise, will fall off and out the bottom of the box. 6. Now that most of the bees are off the frame, flow the rest off. If needed you can pull the frame out, turn it over, etc. 7. Set it back down in the box as far from the undisturbed frames as possible. 8. Repeat as you go. 9. When done, pick up the initial frame. It will have picked up wandering, lost bees. Shake and blow it, and you're done. In other words, shaking is faster and easier than blowing, the blower simpling get the last bees -- you can do the same with a bee brush, but it takes longer -- and don't use a black, horsehair bee brush -- they will attack it. Light colored synthetic bristles are far superior --bees ignore. However, keep the smoker away. As per the slide, I like it. Without a slide, a get a mess of bees tangled in the vegetation, heading every which way. We set the stand, slide in front of the hive. The shaken/blowen bees slide down, right to the hive entrance, and walk right back into the brood box. As per killing bees, yes, a few; but fewer using the shake plus blow, than just blowing. And, many of the chemicals used to drive bees also harm bees -- we've seen high numbers of queen supercedures following chemical use. Jerry ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 14:13:53 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: Bee Blowers MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Set up a sawbuck, grab a folding suitcase > rack from a hotel, anything that you can set the box on so that you can > stand and work in a comfortable position. We've used three old supers screwed together with four strips of lathe. We left 1" gaps between boxes to get the right height and to let the air out. That way the bees wind up in one neat heap in front of the hive, not all around the apiary. > As per the slide, I like it. We use them sometimes. We have some that flip the box upside down but don't allow the frames to fall out. > And, many of the chemicals used to drive bees also harm bees -- we've seen high numbers of queen supercedures following chemical use. That's interesting. Can you give us more specifics? What chemicals? Used how? How high are the supercedures? Is supercedure necessarily a bad thing? allen ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 16:41:31 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter Borst Subject: Honey Bee Genome Project Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Several people have joined this discussion and have presented the main arguments. One, the genome project is about science and knowledge, has potential for great good and involves little risk. Two, the whole genetic modification industry is misguided and we are headed for great peril. Three, GM may be a problem for some, but not us beekeepers, because we are a small group with little national interest. In any case, our problems are isolated and the money is not there to solve them. Well, if you are still reading, follow this scenario. Suppose I am a bee breeder in the southern US and my industry produces millions of dollars worth of queens and packages annually. My two main threats are infiltration by African bees (and associated problems such as tighter restrictions on transporting bee hives on the interstate highways), and pests such as varroa and the small hive beetle. Suppose honey bee researchers have the ability to turn genes off and on. There is ample evidence of this is possible, especially in the bee. Simply changing the make-up of larval food brings about profound differences in the adult -- based on exactly the same set of genes in the egg. A bee can become an egg laying queen or a wax producing worker, by triggering certain developmental changes. So, given the steady advance of Africanized bees, with their apparent ability to control pests, such as varroa, and given the discovery by researchers of the genetic basis of aggressive behavior, I might conceive of a plan to breed from these bees to get a healthier bee, but without the menace of the so-called killer bees, which are stinging people to death in Arizona. If this were possible, why I would not want it? And could not researchers make a case for national interest, given the magnitude of the pollination industry and the impact on this that a ban on transporting bees would bring about? Not to mention the health cost impact if vicious bees were spread over the entire North American continent. Suppose the changes could be brought about by altering the chemical composition of the larval food. Some observers have seen actual changes in the characteristics of bees where eggs were transferred from one hive to another. That is, the developing bees took on characteristics of the new parent -- changes that could attributed to the feeding or some other unknown factor. So, by changing something in the honey bee's food supply (perhaps by adding certain chemicals), bees could be raised that had certain genes turned off or on. Why would I not want this? Perhaps because the shaky barrier between African and non-African bees would be forever destroyed. Even now, it is increasingly difficult to say what the current hybrids are and what they are not. Molecular markers are now the main criterion for identifying honey bee types. In the bee, as in so many cultivated species, the original types are threatened or no longer exist. And once a species is gone, it is gone forever. What could go wrong? Suppose a non-aggressive African bee was produced by me, mated naturally with the local drones (mostly African), and distributed freely around the US. Soon, these genes would be in everyone's bees. And then the experiment would be much larger, because we would then find out if these GM bees stay the same or mutate further as a result of unforeseen recombinations with local hybrids. Then we could have a problem on our hands much like that of Brazil when the African bees first got out of hand. Of course, we would adapt. Perhaps honey bees would finally be outlawed altogether, or all pollination would have to be done with disposable units that contained some time-release insecticide that would kill the hive after an allotted time. Having been a beekeeper for almost 30 years, I have seen some great changes. None of my children have shown any interest in learning about honey bees, but I would like to think that beekeeping would survive for future generations. I would like to think that people could always get and keep a couple of hives in their yard, and not be afraid that one of their kids or neighbors is going to be covered with hundreds of stings some afternoon, just because they were walking by. -- Peter Borst ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 19:35:44 -0300 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Eunice Wonnacott Subject: Re: Honey Butter MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit As children, we often mixed honey and butter together to use as a spread. Our parents did not encourage "making a mess" with our food! Try using creamed honey and butter, both at the same (room) temperature. They should mix just fine, in almost any combination of amounts. (Do not whip, just stir) Hope this helps. Eunice ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 09:37:54 +1200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Robt Mann Subject: Re: Honey Bee Genome Project In-Reply-To: <3D6772DF.8749460C@suscom-maine.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Bill Truesdell wrote: >look at the mixed bag we have with >"weapons of mass destruction". Be they nuclear, biological or chemical, >all came out of basic research. And their impact makes GMO look benign. I don't know of any authority for this reassurance. Many experts think GMOs can cause mass destruction. >But also out of that same basic research came a multitude of things that >are beneficial for all of mankind. The truth is the good far outweighs >the bad. I cannot agree that this is true of nuclear technology, which has done far more harm than good. Ed 'father of the H-bomb' Teller testified to a USA Senate cttee that to prohibit nuclear bomb tests in the atmosphere would be "against knowledge". James Fischer wrote: >So, while we are now all (at long last) in agreement that there is no monster >under the bed, the discussion should go on, just in case there MIGHT be >monsters under the bed at some point in the future? This mocking tone should not be directed towards those who try to peer over the horizon. Those like me who have taken some interest in gene-splicing since its main techniques were invented in the mid-1970s are not so dismissive of fears. >What possible future? Bottom line, NO ONE is going to invest the small >mountain of cold hard cash required to make a GM honey bee. There are >far too many "better markets" out there for GM products. A "GM Super Bee" >would never even pay back the sunk capital investment, let alone the salaries >of the team that would have to work for about a decade or so to produce a >"practical" GM bee. I don't ever see a lucrative enough market to support >this, >even if every beekeeper planet-wide pledged to buy nothing else. These remarks reveal a lack of understanding of the modus operandi of the gene-jockeys. Billions of dollars have been poured into gene-splicing capers that have yet to produce any 'GM products'. That James can't see any commercial sense in trying GM-bees is no test of whether the gene-jockeys will try them. Science-fiction fantasies abound in this crazy DNA-fad. Lack of technical feasibility & commercial potential is - in this bizarre venture-capital bubble - little or no barrier. > at this point it has gone far beyond mere speculation, >and is well into hallucination. :) No-one could say this of Peter Borst's concerns if familiar with the numerous rorts already pulled by the gene-jockeys. The circumstantial evidence is considerable that GM-bees will be attempted soon - if not already. As I've remarked, Dr Mark Goodwin varroa tycoon of NZ has spoken warmly of such prospects. R ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 06:39:06 +1000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: T & M Weatherhead Subject: Residues from repellents MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Allen Dick wrote under the heading of "bee blowers" > I might mention that I have also recently been using some Honey Robber > since the weather has improved, but not enough to use abandonment safely. > I'd try Jim's new product ( http://www.bee-quick.com/ ) since I understand > that it smells a touch nicer than butyric, but unfortunately our co-op > promises to reject honey taken with any but a few approved products due to > regulations in some importing countries I am surprised that butyric anhydride, Bee Robber, is still "approved" for use. There is research, Canadian at that, out there to show that it leaves a residue in the honey just like other bee repellents. Here in Australia, it must be over 10 years ago that we stopped using repellents. The most popular was phenol (carbolic acid). At the time I remember that I was on our Honey Research Committee and we looked at all repellents including butyric and we rejected any research on these as all were found to leave residues in the honey. The most popular way of clearing bees here in Australia is clearer boards, called escape boards in North America, but some do use bee blowers and the abandonment method is practiced in the yapunyah country. Abandonment is not feasible in most other areas because of robbing. Trevor Weatherhead AUSTRALIA ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 12:03:56 +1200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Nick Wallingford Subject: Re: Honey Bee Genome Project MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Robert Mann has implied that Mark Goodwin, a NZ beekeeping scientist, is a proponent of genetic modification of honeybee stocks: > From: Robt Mann [mailto:robtm@maxnet.co.nz] > Sent: Sunday, 25 August 2002 9:38 a.m. > Subject: Re: [BEE-L] Honey Bee Genome Project [Bill Truesdale's comment] >> at this point it has gone far beyond mere speculation, >> and is well into hallucination. :) [Robert Mann's comments] > No-one could say this of Peter Borst's concerns if familiar with > the numerous rorts already pulled by the gene-jockeys. The circumstantial > evidence is considerable that GM-bees will be attempted soon - if not > already. As I've remarked, Dr Mark Goodwin varroa tycoon of > NZ has spoken warmly of such prospects. Following is the press item upon which Robert Mann has seen fit to make such a conclusion. I would note that (1) it was not written by Mark Goodwin nor (2) the title provided/approved by him... My personal reading of it is that Robert Mann, in his fervour to oppose GM in any form he might encounter it, has overstepped the mark with Mark. While Dr Goodwin *might* hold some such viewpoint (I honestly do not know...), I certainly think it is wrong of Dr Mann to continue to attack him as he does on the basis of this press reporting. My reading of it draws the conclusions that Dr Goodwin might support (1) a controlled breeding programme involving (2) closed population and (3) artificial insemination - but I think Dr Mann's personal fears re: GM are outstripping his ability to read for content and meaning. ============================================= GE May Improve Bee Varroa Resistance 02-Aug-2002 There is a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel for the beekeeping industry in its fight against the varroa bee mite. Scientists are hoping to breed a naturally occurring varroa resistant gene into bees that could help protect bees from the killer mite. HortResearch scientist Dr Mark Goodwin says it's done by artificially inseminating queen bees with the sperm of a single drone, which carries the gene, so they can pass the varroa resistance to their offspring. But the process requires a very steady hand, a large microscope and a very small needle. Dr Goodwin says scientists don't know how or why the varroa resistant gene works but some queens already have it. He says the easiest part of the breeding programme, which gets underway in spring, will be building it up in a captive population. But he says it's more difficult to transfer the gene from there into commercial beehives, although nature gives the scientists a helping hand. "The next step is providing the bees to the industry in the form they can use. This is what we have to set up once we have the stock, there's a closed mating population that will keep those genes in the population. "Those colonies that are a little bit resistant already are going to be selected naturally. But it's not fast enough to help us, so I guess we're just speeding it along. A visiting research scientist with the United States Department of Agriculture, Dr John Harbo, says when varroa first arrived there, scientists regarded the idea of resistance breeding programmes as akin to breeding sheep to resist wolves. But he says the bee mite's growing resistance to chemical controls has hastened the need to find another way to fight it. He says the USDA's research programme could be effective within five to ten years, which is good news for New Zealand scientists. Dr Harbo says New Zealand can build on the methods that America found be successful. "I wasn't totally on ground zero when I started. I'd seen what the Europeans had noticed and what people in South America and North Africa had observed in colonies that seemed to be resistant. So we were in better shape than the Europeans and I think you'll be in better than we are." Dr Harbo says scientists will know the process of spreading genetic resistance has worked when wild bee colonies, wiped out by varroa, begin to return and commercial hives survive without being treated. (c) NewsRoom 2002 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 18:38:00 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: Residues from repellents MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I am surprised that butyric anhydride, Bee Robber, is still "approved" for use. Me too, actually; there seems to be no rhyme or reason to these things. > There is research, Canadian at that, out there to show that it leaves a residue in the honey just like other bee repellents. With today's sensitive instruments and techniques, I suspect they could even find a residue reading from my aftershave a week after I walk by a hive. I guess it is really a question of at what levels, and how harmful the substance is, and whether it is GRAS. > Here in Australia, it must be over 10 years ago that we stopped using repellents. I quit at about the same time, but have had a can around for years, unopened,and thought I'd play with it a bit since we were having real problems with abandonment if I'm not right there at the yard to 'read' the bees. >The most popular was phenol (carbolic acid). That was Good Stuff. I worked well. I never could figure out, though, whether it was quite benign (I think it is used in cough drops) or noxious (Some reports claimed it accumulated and caused nerve damage). I do know that it was not a good thing to have on skin. > The most popular way of clearing bees here in Australia is clearer boards, called escape boards in North America, Tell us more. Do all Aussie such epers have bee-tight supers? Or do some use big bags that pull down over the boxes to protect from robbing? Or do they tape all the cracks and holes? I've used them, but never liked them much except for comb honey. The best ones IMO are the so-called Quebec boards. What type is used in Aus? > but some do use bee blowers and the abandonment method is practiced in the yapunyah country. Abandonment is > not feasible in most other areas because of robbing. Abandonment is our main and only method most years, but the weather has been so odd this year that abandonment was getting too unpredictable for my staff, who have limited understanding of bees (and English). Abandonment works well only during a decent flow, since for abandonment to work, the bees in each hive must all be flying every day -- and thus be well accustomed to finding their hive -- or they will just sit in the boxes until the beekeeper gives up and blows them out or gives up and puts the supers back. Abandonment can also work during light robbing, but is very tricky and not much fun under those conditions. The bee-blowing pages I posted here were about boxes on which we had attempted abandonment, but failed since the bees had been confined by weather and lack of forage in the days leading up to our attempt. allen http://www.internode.net/honeybee/diary/ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 17:38:24 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Keith Malone Subject: Re: Honey Butter MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Preacher & All, > But the > oil , out of the spread seperates. > Did You use imitation butter or real butter? . .. c(((([ Keith Malone Chugiak, Alaska USA kdmalone@ideafamilies.org http://takeoff.to/alaskahoney http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Norlandbeekeepers/ Check out current weather in my area and 5 day forecast; http://www.wx.com/myweather.cfm?ZIP=99654 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 22:55:55 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter Borst Subject: Transgenic bee update Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" "Genomic manipulations are possible; Consortium member Smith has preliminary success making transgenic bees by inseminating a queen with semen mixed with a DNA construct ..." -- Proposal for the Sequencing of a New Target Genome: White Paper for a Honey Bee Genome Project, The Honey Bee Genome Sequencing Consortium "One of the most interesting projects I am working on at OSU has been continuing the transgenic honeybee work that Dr. Holly Ferguson began with Sue Cobey. " -- Kellie Wallace, current student at The Rothenbuhler Honey Bee Research Laboratory, Departmentof Entomology, The Ohio State University "I do have reservations about the current focus on transgenic insects because the lure of this technology is so great that much, more meaningful, work has been displaced. In essence, I regard our present direction regarding transgenics as an enormous, and enormously expensive, gamble." -- Andrew Spielman, a professor of Tropical Public Health at Harvard University One problem that most concerns Marjorie Hoy, an entomologist at the University of Florida, is the inadequate regulation of transgenic insects. Hoy notes that broadly written regulations will be unlikely to provide adequate guidance to the researcher and protect against environmental problems. Presently, there are no regulations that specifically address transgenic insects. Several years ago, Hoy conducted a trial of a genetically modified mite. In the lab, she found that the added gene functioned normally for almost 200 generations. But once the mite was tested in the field, the gene stopped working. -- Peter Borst ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 23:00:49 -0400 Reply-To: "jfischer@supercollider.com" Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: Honey Bee Genome Project MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Robert Mann said: > These remarks reveal a lack of understanding of the modus operandi > of the gene-jockeys. Billions of dollars have been poured into > gene-splicing capers that have yet to produce any 'GM products'. The above glosses over the fact that no one spends serious money or serious time unless the product(s) that will result have potential markets that will result in a return for investors. Please define the cash flows you might generate from a "perfect (GM) bee", even if you assume that every beekeeper on the planet will buy your queens, and no other. The above also confuses money spent on "pure R&D" (answering the question "CAN we do it at all?") with money spent on specific applications (which answers the question "What shall we do with it?"). Pure research can be done on grants. Applied research, for the most part, cannot. This is why GM seeds have been the first "GM products" one has seen. Seeds are a big business. Massive. > That James can't see any commercial sense in trying GM-bees is no > test of whether the gene-jockeys will try them. It is a VERY good test. In fact, it is the only test one needs. "Science" is kept on a short leash by "Money". I have lived at the intersection of Science and Money long enough to know the game from the government joint-venture angle, the trans-national corporation internal R&D angle, and from the NSF-funded "pure research" end. Follow the money, and one finds simple correlations, and perhaps "the truth". Until someone can show how to at least break even on a "GM bee", or otherwise explain how investors or companies make money on a "GM bee", it simply will not happen. "Breaking even" will not happen until genetic manipulation technology becomes orders of magnitude cheaper and more "reliable" than it is today. To address Allen Dick's comments, gene-manipulation technology will NOT follow Moore's Law, and enjoy the rapid cost decreases associated with calculators and computers, since there is much more than just silicon chips in such hardware. In fact, even the best hardware available today will not assure "success" more than a tiny percentage of the time one attempts even the simplest "tweak" to genetic structures. In short, the entire area of inquiry is still a dice roll. You place your bet, and take your chances. > Science-fiction fantasies abound in this crazy DNA-fad. Lack of technical > feasibility & commercial potential is - in this bizarre venture-capital bubble > - little or no barrier. Do you mean the bubble that burst almost a year ago? Do you mean all those Vulture Capital funds that evaporated into puffs of greasy black smoke? "Good riddance!", I say. "Not a moment too soon!", I say. In retrospect, most all will say the same. Why? 'Cause all the stupid money is gone, and with it, the brain-damaged companies, useless products, senseless services, and moronic business plans. Sanity rides again! It is fitting that the people who bought stock in Sysco (a food-services company) mistakenly thinking that they were buying stock in Cisco (an internet router company who's name sounds exactly the same) actually MADE MONEY on their "mistake". In an insane situation, a "stupid" move can turn out to be "genius". While I agree that "technical feasibility" is purely a function of money, "commercial potential" is a harsh mistress. "Good Ideas" are easy. "Viable Commercial Products" are much more difficult. This is not to say that understanding the honeybee genome will not make breeding better bees (using traditional methods) easier, cheaper, and faster. It clearly will. But the "genome knowledge" will result in screening tools, not new engines of creation. jim (who still works the day shift at the idea factory) ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 14:25:22 +1000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: T & M Weatherhead Subject: Re: Residues from repellents MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Do all Aussie such epers have bee-tight supers? Yes in the main. One things that clearer boards do is get your gear into good condition. > Or do some use big bags that pull down over the boxes to protect from robbing? Haven' t seen any. > Or do they tape all the cracks and holes? An essential part of beekeeping equipment in our part of the world is a roll of masking tape in the vehicle. Not sure if North Americans call it masking tape. It is white sticky tape. Occasionally there are gaps but the masking tape works well. > The best ones IMO are the so-called Quebec boards. What type is used in Aus? Our clearer boards have gaps in the four corners with the funnel type exit underneath. These exits are about 4 inches long. The bees tend to move towards the corners hence using the corners and not using the middle as some escape boards in North America do. Trevor Weatherhead AUSTRALIA ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 23:40:07 +1200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Robt Mann Subject: Re: Honey Bee Genome Project Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Jim has given one view of how money, science & technology inter-relate. I suggest alternative pictures. >>Billions of dollars have been poured into >> gene-splicing capers that have yet to produce any 'GM products'. >The above glosses over the fact that no one spends serious money or >serious time unless the product(s) that will result have potential markets >that will result in a return for investors. That is theory, which can't delete the facts I'd just summarised. > Please define the cash flows >you might generate from a "perfect (GM) bee", even if you assume that >every beekeeper on the planet will buy your queens, and no other. Shr, no sweat. When you've read as many of their fantasies as I have, you can develop the knack for dreaming up similar yarns. GeneQueen® resists varroa *and* the virus they carry. Boosted by Dominator technology so the genes for resistance to these pests will be dominant, GeneQueen® do not require artificial insemination but can spread the desirable alleles even in open mating. However, the same suppliers (a small group of bee researchers who recently quit Cornell, Woods Hole and other academic institutions to start up BeeKey®, applying edge-of-reality technology & PR to prevent bee diseases. Next BeeKey® will launch a Third-World model DroneClone® to help the poor. >The above also confuses money spent on "pure R&D" (answering the question >"CAN we do it at all?") with money spent on specific applications (which >answers the question "What shall we do with it?"). Pure research can be >done on grants. Applied research, for the most part, cannot. I am trying to convey the fact that this distinction has broken down. Observing the ease with which glib gene-jockeys procure millions from the venture-drongos lately, one is forced to this conclusion. >This is why GM seeds have been the first "GM products" one has seen. It may not matter much, but let's pause to correct this. The GM product biosynthesized in GM-bacteria, L-tryptophan http://www.connectotel.com/gmfood/trypto.html , went on the market in 1984, whereas the first GM seed was the FlavrSavr® tomato, the 1996 flop. >Seeds are a big business. Massive. > >> That James can't see any commercial sense in trying GM-bees is no >> test of whether the gene-jockeys will try them. > >It is a VERY good test. In fact, it is the only test one needs. "Science" is >kept on a short leash by "Money". This is an important contention, widespread but open to doubt in some cases. Once you've reached some thresholds at large spondulicks and arcanity of technology, you may be able to work it the other way around. For instance, in my country a couple billion dollar was procured by Mobil thru local 'ace technologist' expert C J Maiden (since knighted) to scale up 1400x chemical engineering of a novel kind to polymerise methanol (made from natural gas in the world's biggest methanol factory) to make (1983-96) low-octane E-Z Knok petrol, plus LPG, plus bulk useless heat. This was an example of the technology leading the investors. The Manhattan District was arguably *the* example. I disbelieve that accountants & lawyers on the Monsanto board accosted their staff biochemists with the order "create patentable potato genes to make a truncated Bt insecticidal protein throughout the plant". I think it's usually the technical folk who are the prime movers in these capers. Bizarre, I realise; distasteful to many, upon first glimpsing this crazy scene. Read The Ecologist for more details. >To address Allen Dick's comments, gene-manipulation technology will NOT >follow Moore's Law, and enjoy the rapid cost decreases associated with >calculators and computers, since there is much more than just silicon chips >in such hardware. In fact, even the best hardware available today will not >assure "success" more than a tiny percentage of the time one attempts >even the simplest "tweak" to genetic structures. In short, the entire area >of inquiry is still a dice roll. You place your bet, and take your chances. >"technical feasibility" is purely a function of money this is one of the wrongest statements I've seen > all the stupid money >is gone, and with it, the brain-damaged companies, useless products, >senseless services, and moronic business plans. Sanity rides again! I wish I could share this confidence that the gene-jockeys will soon cease to con the venture-drongos. Can't see it myself. I fear the gene-fad will get worse before it comes under any reasonable science-based control. R ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 07:56:49 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Honey Bee Genome Project MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Allen Dick wrote: > Hallucination? I think not, and the sooner we all take a look at this > technology and its implications (not neccessarily on BEE-L), the better. > That's not to say that anything we say or do will change the course of > fate. > > The genie is out of the bottle. I vote to keep the BeeL to beekeeping. The problem with GMO, if not already noticed in various posts on this list, is that there is a lot of heat and bad science. Plus, it moves quickly from rational posts to religious fervor with feelings overriding fact. And the moderators will not help here since GMO can engender some strong feelings on the part of proponets/opponets. GMO is a complicated issue that has the potential for tremendous good as well as possible impact on the ecosystem that may be irreversible. But most of both have not been shown with any certainty ( different results from tests of the same thing ) or proven, so we will be indulging in speculation and belief, rather than science and fact. The best presentation on GMO I have seen was on PBS Frontline. It was balanced and its conclusion was as I noted. Lots of good but caution because there are unknowns. Our problem will be that we will argue the unknowns. Keep the list to bees. Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 04:59:50 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Selkie Lass Subject: Re: Honey Butter In-Reply-To: <000701c24b75$1de06fe0$cb22dad0@34un9> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Have both at around room temperature. Use real butter. Some of the additives in margarine can do funny things- esp those that are "Low Fat" spreads. Margarine can work. but should be experamented with in small amounts. Beat together well in mixer. dont let the mixture get so warm that it get runny. Should be creamy and light, but firm enough to hold shape on a spoon. If too liquid, place small bowl filled with honey butter inside a larger bowl filled with ice- keep beating untill it cools enough to be a bit fluffy. Cool in refrigerator. Take out an hour or two before serviong to make it "spreadable". Try adding Cinnamon when making this! Yummy! Then use the cinnamon honey butter to make Baked apples! Heaven on earth! Ellen in Michigan preacher wrote:Hello ladies, My wife is trying to make whipped honey and butter . Any suggestions. We have gone by the intrustions on the amounts. But the oil , out of the spread seperates. Which turns into a curd looking instead of a smooth spread. Any suggestions preacher --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 09:32:12 -0400 Reply-To: mpalmer@together.net Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: michael palmer Subject: Re: Bee blowers MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit LLOYDSPEAR wrote: > First, and probably of least importance, the 'chute' sold by Dadant is > probably as useful as 'tits on a chicken'. Thanks for this post on using blowers. Wanted to say something too, but I've been too tired. Huge crop this year. I'm using a blower about every day. I too chucked my Dadant chute years ago. I found that an outer cover, right side up, on the ground, 6" - 12" in front of the hive, works best for me. I stand the super on end upon the cover. The super can be spun around without lifting it each time. This allows you to change the direction you are blowing the bees (top or bottom). If the bees are clinging to the combs, it is very difficult to blow them out. Once you get them running, they blow out easily. The bees come out right in front of the entrance, and don't get lost in the grass. In cold weather (in the 40's), I do it slightly differently. I turn the cover upside down, and place an inner cover on each side, leaning against the hive. The cover fits under the bottom board. I blow the bees into the cover. Since they aren't in the grass, they don't get cold, and are able to climb up into the hive. The inner covers prevent the bees from being blown all over the place. Instead they fall onto the upturned outer cover. Mike > > ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 10:20:43 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter Borst Subject: Re: Transgenic bee update Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Greetings I want to thank the moderators for allowing this discussion to continue. In the age of information it is very difficult to stay on top of a field or even a specialty. In fact, a recent radio story I heard said that the most a *medical doctor* can hope for is *not* to be fully prepared for each patient that comes through the door, but rather, to be able to get the needed information in a timely way. I have been completely surprised at how far along the effort to create transgenic bees has already progressed. I think it is wise to take the position that we mostly *do not know* what is actually going on in these various labs, since much of it is not published widely, if at all. Finally, a comment was made that the Bee-List should be *about bees*. Beekeeping and apiculture is a far-ranging field which encompasses understanding of climate, weather, both wild and agricultural flora, ecology, agricultural practices, legal issues -- the list could go on. But the issue of transgenic bees, while perhaps already far out of our hands, affects us all. Personally, I have tried to avoid advocating a particular ideology, other than an attitude of inquisitiveness. Peter Borst Ithaca, NY USA >A comprehensive, web-based atlas of the bee brain currently in >development also will be helpful in providing a stronger >neurobiological foundation for the study of genes and behavior in >the honey bee. Early efforts to develop transgenic bees (Omholt et >al. 1995; Ronglin et al. 1997; K. Robinson et al. 2000) suggest that >there are no barriers to harnessing this technology. > >-- from: Annotated Expressed Sequence Tags and cDNA Microarrays for >Studies of Brain and Behavior in the Honey Bee, by Charles >W.Whitfield, et al ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 10:32:38 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: LLOYDSPEAR Subject: honey bee genome research Jim Fischer, who is a real honest to god scientist, and a hobbyist beekeeper, said "This is not to say that understanding the honeybee genome will not make breeding better bees (using traditional methods) easier, cheaper, and faster. It clearly will. But the "genome knowledge" will result in screening tools, not new engines of creation." Oh, if only I have the background and knowledge to make such observations! Right on, Jim. Allen Dick has urged us to not make personal attacks, but we all know the two psuedo-scientists on the list who have been urging us to turn into Luddites and oppose such research. The research will happen and will result in benefits to all of us, or our grandchildren. Of course there may be mistakes along the way, and there are likely to be many dead ends. But such is the nature of any research. I think it is folly to either oppose the research or to predict the end of honeybees, or hobbyist beekeepers, or the creation of new super insects over which we have no control or defense. BTW, I do have a considerable amount of experience and knowledge of the Vulture Capitalists of which Jim also wrote, as well as intimate knowledge of the recent 'find a greater fool' or 'momentum investing' markets. Based on such experience and knowledge I'd say that in addition to being a successful scientist, Jim is an acute observer of the financial markets. Lloyd Lloyd Spear, Owner of Ross Rounds, manufacturer of comb honey equipment for beekeepers and Sundance pollen traps. http://www.rossrounds.com Lloyd@rossrounds.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 10:57:39 -0400 Reply-To: "jfischer@supercollider.com" Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: Honey Bee Genome Project MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Robert Mann said: >> The above glosses over the fact that no one spends serious money or >> serious time unless the product(s) that will result have potential markets >> that will result in a return for investors. > That is theory, which can't delete the facts I'd just summarised. It is not "theory". It is a cold hard fact, one that "protects" us from the scenarios of "GM bees" about which fears have been expressed. >> Please define the cash flows you might generate from a "perfect (GM) bee"... > GeneQueen? resists varroa *and* the virus they carry.... My challenge was to focus on MONEY, not write a fictional press release. Let me help: a) Roughly how many hives are on the planet? Double the number, if you wish. Triple it, for all I care. b) Assuming that 100% of these hives are re-queened every two years with a "GM-improved" queen, how many queens is that per year? c) Given that existing conventional queens sell for between $8 to $15 US, what price can you charge for your fantasy "GM-improved" queens? d) What is your "cost of goods sold" when your product is queens? How much of the retail price will be "gross profit"? How much will be net profit? What will be your net (after-tax) return on invested capital? e) How many years of sales will it take for you to "break even" on your initial investment, assuming that you had the massive unprecedented luck to make all the "GM-improvements" on the first try at the project, and avoid unforeseen defects/problems? The exact numbers do not matter much when one compares the low price point for conventional queens and small number of possible sales per year with the price tag of any GM project. Plug in any reasonable estimates you'd like - the numbers just do not work! >> all the stupid money >> is gone, and with it, the brain-damaged companies, useless products, >> senseless services, and moronic business plans. Sanity rides again! > I wish I could share this confidence that the gene-jockeys will > soon cease to con the venture-drongos. Can't see it myself. I fear the > gene-fad will get worse before it comes under any reasonable science-based > control. Like I said, the "venture-dongos" capable of being "conned" are back to their original careers at fast-food customer counters, and the limited partners who backed wild schemes suddenly have much more "limited" assets to invest. Read the papers. Check out the current much lower prices of office space on Sand Hill Road, and note that one can now even get a table for lunch WITHOUT a reservation at the Hotel Bel Air. The "power of the purse" is a much more effective limit than "science-based control". Science is too important to trust "control" to the scientists alone, and as luck would have it, there are very few independently-wealthy billionaires who dabble in science as a hobby. jim ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 09:58:12 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Jerry J Bromenshenk Subject: blowers, genes, and things Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi all: 1. Bee escapes are fine, if you have the luxery of waiting for the bees to leave - doesn't work so well when the truck and crew are waiting to pull supers in a yard of 50-100 colonies. 2. Lots of different ways to use blowers -- and yes, we often drop a cover on the ground to catch bees that we knock off frames. 3. Speaking of covers, best idea I found was a combination cover, bottom board, hive stand used by a commercial guy who didn't use pallets. Kept the hives off the ground, and he never had too many bottom boards and not enough covers, etc. as he made splits, etc. 4. Chemicals used to drive bees end up in wax and causing queens to supercede - mainly when overused -- if a little bit works, lets use a lot to speed up the process. 5. Your call as to whether queen supercedure is good in the middle of the main honey flow. To hear some on this list, the replacement queen must be inherently inferior since she developed and mated on her own. Personally, I don't like the unplanned, several week shutdown of brood rearing. But, I'm not convinced that the bees can't do as good a job as a queen grafter. 6. Understanding/mapping the bee genome has merit. What we do with the information has pros and cons. We've already been down the path of "let's create a better bee" using slower and less informed ways of breeding/hybridizing (and I'm not even including genetic tinkering)and sometimes had apparent success -- with problems often popping up later. Disappearing disease in bees, hybrid corn that was so removed from the original gene pool that it lost resistance to some specific diseases. 7. In the race to embrace or stone genome work, maybe we should ask what traits we'd like to see in bees and why. For example, one breeder, who is involved with this work, dreams of improving a bee's memory. Nice idea, but what's the end result? Will that bee better work a new crop, or will it remember one in decline, and continue to work it? For our training of bees to find things, we don't think that we would want to improve their memory -- its just as likely that they will then begin to remember that we often fail to reward them for finding the target of interest. Nor is it likely to be as easy to switch them over to search for something else. At this point, the advantage of working with bees over dogs, is that unlike dogs, the bees are a bit easier to fool. We may not want a smarter bee. 8. Lot's of uncertainties about genome work. The breakthroughs could be great. No doubt, we will accelerate our ability to modify bees and bee behavior. That also means that we will be able to get into trouble faster. 9. I'm always pro new research and technologies that can help the industry, just be careful about what you wish for. Our own work is beginning to show that we don't know nearly as much about bees and bee behavior as we thought -- so we also need to work on a better understanding of the bee itself before we start manipulating its genetics. Cheers Jerry J. Bromenshenk Research Professor The University of Montana-Missoula jjbmail@selway.umt.edu 406-243-5648 406-243-4184 http://www.umt.edu/biology/bees ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 13:24:56 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: LLOYDSPEAR Subject: Blowers and repellents We have had some good comments with this thread. I wanted to be somewhat more precise in describing my use as I think it may be especially helpful to hobbyists. I produce a lot of comb honey. This year, over 200 supers. I also produce extracted honey, mostly because I need the frames to replace those I take to use to make up nucs for sale, but also because large-scale comb honey production inevitably results in some amount of extracted honey production. My use of repellents and a leaf blower are the same regardless of whether the super is for comb or extracted honey. First, the preceding day I break the supers apart and turn them end-for-end. This results in an enormous time savings in clearing bees as well as a much cleaner honey house. When I want to take the supers I first give them a LOT of smoke. This starts them moving down. Then I put on a repellent board. This year I have been pretty much solely using Fischer's Bee Quick. It works really well in our temperatures of 80-90 degrees. (Last year I tried it in 60-70 degree temperatures, and it did not work nearly as well.) Lack of an offensive odor (to humans) is a big plus. I use three boards. One per hive, of course. By the time the third one is on, the first is ready to come off. I bought a cheap spray bottle in the supermarket and spray the boards instead of squirting them. Works much better, IMHO. The boards will leave 10-20 bees in the super. I take these and stack them near my truck. When I have all the supers off the hives, I blow the remaining bees out of each super and immediately put the super in my truck. Before I direct the blower at the super I first give it a couple of puffs of smoke to start the bees moving. As others have said, surprise is the key as they can hold on through an amazing volume of air at a high velocity. Back at the honey house I average fewer than 3 bees per super...which is what I prefer, as they are an annoyance and distraction. So, the repellent boards take about 2-3 minutes per super, as does the blower. A commercial guy can't take that much time, but they will put up with a few hundred bees in the honey house. After I have been using the honey house for a few days, the bees figure it out and gather around the door to get in when I bring in supers or take wet supers out. A friend showed me a neat trick to solve this problem...he set up a fan expelling honey house air to the outside, through a window screen located on the rear of his honey house. He keeps this on while he is extracting and bottling, and the bees gather around the screen trying to fly upwind and get into the honey house. When he opens the door to take in/out supers the bees are at the other end of the building and he can proceed without a few hundred flying in through the open door. works for me as well! Lloyd Lloyd Spear, Owner of Ross Rounds, manufacturer of comb honey equipment for beekeepers and Sundance pollen traps. http://www.rossrounds.com Lloyd@rossrounds.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 21:17:06 +0300 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: George Tamas Subject: queens MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi All,=20 Like a lot of beekeepers I do mark me queens. In this summer I did mark = the new queens but 3 hives as soon as I did mark this queens they change = this with a new one. This weekend I did find new 3 queens. It's the = second time I requeen my hives. Can anyone tell me why and what can I do = to solve this problem? George ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 20:59:23 +0200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Ron van Mierlo Subject: location considerations MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello everyone, =20 Since the archives did not give me an answer, I hope that you people = can. Next year I will start beekeeping and concerning the hive location = here in southern Sweden I have two questions. For the actual location I = seem to have found a spot at the edge of our property, overlooking my = neighbour's farmland. If my neighbour goes along too then in this = particular situation the hive(s) will be facing south-east and have an = opening or working angle of about 110 degrees. The resting 250 degrees = behind the hive(s) are formed by pine trees mainly. The hive(s) would be = sun exposed from morning to halfway the afternoon, but then a shady = period would set in. - Will the 110 degrees that I mentioned be an acceptable figure, or = would the bees need more freedom to fly to and from? - Does this situation provide the hive(s) with enough sun/warmth, even = through the nippy Swedish autumn-winter-spring period? =20 Ron van Mierlo Sweden ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 18:12:57 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: Bee blowers, abandon method and escape board method MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello All, Using a bee blower , the abandon method and escape boards involve hefting each super two times before loading on the truck or skid . Hmmm. The abandon method and escape boards involve two trips to the bees. Hmmm. Sincerely, Bob Harrison ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 16:02:49 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "adrian m. wenner" Subject: Beesound, piping bee Comments: cc: phwells@earthlink.net In-Reply-To: <000701c2472c$46b20480$2fac58d8@BusyBeeAcres> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Just over a week ago, I responded to some of the message about bee sounds, as follows: > > Try also: > > http://www.beesource.com/pov/wenner/sci1964.htm Bob Harrison replied (in part): >Interesting hypothesis Adrian. Twenty years trying to prove Von Frisch >incorrect. Wow! Actually, it was the other way around. Initially, I was trying to prove that bees actually did have a "language" of sorts, but that the sounds produced were more likely a more important element than the physical maneuver hypothesis von Frisch had come up with. > I had to chuckle at Adrian saying Von Frish kept the recordings of bees >Adrian sent. Used the tapes and did not give Adrian credit for the work. > >Is there no honor among researchers? Few people realize that scientists are human beings first and scientists second, not the other way around. Scientists are under great socio-political pressure to "be first" with an idea, for various reasons. >Quote from pg. 285 of the new "Hive and the Honey Bee" by Adrian Wenner: > >"a train of pulsed sounds is made at the low frequency of 250-300 Hertz with >a pulse duration of about 20 milliseconds and a rep frequency of approx. 30 >per second". > >We all know these sounds are inaudible to the human ear (reason I never >heard the sounds). No, these [dance and "piping"] sounds are not inaudible to the human ear. Rather, they are just really "soft" (low intensity) and not audible without some amplification. During several years of caging queens from "baby nucs," I worked in a remote isolation yard among several hundred nuc colonies and could hear these sounds, due to the lack of background noises so prevalent in our modern society. >Are you saying, Adrian, that because you have got tape recordings of workers >making sounds inaudible to the human ear while doing the waggle dance that >workers are capable of piping? Not exactly. To record sounds of dancing bees, I essentially did so while actually inside their hive. That is, I worked in a small dark room that had an observation hive without glass sides, viewed the bees with a weak head lamp, and could record their sounds by holding a microphone right up to the individual bees. >Have you got a tape recording of a worker piping? Yes, I have such a recording, on a reel-to-reel tape and a lot of tape segments of bee dancing. >Do workers make the same sound as the queen piping in your opinion Adrian? Did I miss a page on workers making the piping sound? Workers actually make several sorts of distinctive sounds, including a piping that sounds somewhat like queen piping (but of shorter duration). The 1964 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN article had sonagrams of three examples of worker piping on page 122, but that figure was apparently not scanned for the web site, as entered above. >I certainly have not got the knowledge on the subject as you do but you have >aroused my curiosity. I certainly do not have the experience to say which >hypothesis is correct. I suspect both to a degree. Thank you for checking out the web site. We have found that most bee language advocates have not studied our work (certainly they don't refer to it in their publications). Thanks to Barry Birkey, beekeepers such as you now have full access. In a few months, my new publication (The Elusive Honey Bee Dance "Language" Hypothesis) should be in print. At that time, I suspect Barry will include it on the web site. Adrian -- Adrian M. Wenner (805) 963-8508 (home office phone) 967 Garcia Road wenner@lifesci.ucsb.edu Santa Barbara, CA 93103 www.beesource.com/pov/wenner/index.htm **************************************************************************** * * "T'is the majority [...that] prevails. Assent, and you are sane * Demur, you're straightway dangerous, and handled with a chain." * * Emily Dickinson, 1862 * **************************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 18:43:03 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Rick Green Subject: Re: location considerations Comments: To: BEE-L@LISTSERV.ALBANY.EDU|Informed Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In recent years companies have been offering ventilation systems atop the hives to help keep the hives cooler during the heat of the summer. I have found another solution in my climate. Locate the hives so they have shade during the hottest hours of the afternoon. These yards consistently yield more honey. Also, I use deeps only and lifting honey filled hives and carrying them to the truck is tiresome. Try also locating the hives near a year-round accessable road. And finally, I have lost hives that were in the way of flash floods that are rare but will cause damage. High and dry is another location factor. Regards, Rick ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 17:31:06 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Tim Vaughan Subject: Re: location considerations Hi Ron The amount of food available is much more important than the "view" of the hive. With your hives getting morning sun this would seem like a good location, as long as there are lots of flowers, and your farmer neighbor sprays his chemicals carefully. I have several locations which are open 360 degrees, but with this horrible drought I may not be able to brag about not feeding my bees anymore :-( Tim Vaughan tvaughan@charter.net ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 23:22:24 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter Dillon Subject: Re: Blowers and repellents MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The only problem that I have come across with blowing bees is during our Sunflower honey harvest. The amount of honey packed into the frames and supers during a normal crop resulted in brace/ intersuper comb being built and then packed with very sticky/ runny honey. Bee space was maintained at proper dimensions etc. This was due to the type of bee being used. Given plenty of space at the right time etc. did not halt the production of this type of comb - they wanted the honey packed down and tight and that meant filling all spaces! So, blowing bees after separation of supers resulted in streams of honey mixing together and getting spread on the floor/ ground - a most undesirable situation. Gave up blowing during this harvest but very successful during the rest of the year. Propped up the supers on their side and blew into the open space behind. Any clinging bees were dealt with several minutes after the next super had been practically cleared. Abandoning of supers - the honey would be back in the original and surrounding hives before we managed lunch, with drones helping! wet, wet weather and a wet week forecast here in central France. Peter ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 22:44:45 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter Dillon Subject: Re: Honey Bee Genome Project MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The genome project and possibility of resulting GM Bees - a fine set of mails have originated from individuals indicating essentially opposite positions. BUT The level of discussion I suggest is prohibitive for the average Bee - L subscriber to join in. This being due to the the need to back up positions with data, experience etc., which demands v. specific knowledge from the start point. Most individuals have a gut feeling for or against this type of investigation - but maybe influenced by sound advice. But what the directions of investigation, and then end use will be are practically impossible to gauge - and where does the average beekeeper start to get to a final personal but valid end point on the subject! Seeing as the bee as an insect is not only interesting to beekeepers, we as a group (beekeepers in general that is) will be carried by this wish for knowledge whether we like it or not. Knowledge will then be out into the arena of potential use. Then, I presume there will be individuals who will appraise the situation and market - with an eye on the positive net result. These people may well include beekeepers, breeders, researchers etc. I suggest that it is at this level alone that we as an industry may have influence - for or against development. At the moment we cannot even start to collect the information required - unless as suggested we have a specialist base from which to come from. This type of individual is apparently in very short supply on Bee-L. (at least overtly ) Argument about the gathering of basic information such as the genome itself is beyond our control. Continue the mails but I suggest the above is kept in mind. Peter ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 17:07:04 +1200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Robt Mann Subject: Re: Honey Bee Genome Project In-Reply-To: <02Aug25.000635nzst.119067@gateway.boppoly.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" One pattern I've noticed in my 3 decades offering public advice on dangerous technologies is that some people use a contentious issue - say, fluoridation (a particularly extreme, nasty example, as it turns out) - as an arena in which to indulge in rude behavior they never would show in other contexts. I suspect there's a correlation between the magnitude of hazard (scope for harm) of the technology and the degree of oafishness shown in public by its proponents. The opponents will also include some individuals who want to let off steam (anger, frustration etc) and subconsciously think "disputatiousness is rife on this topic, so I can let loose". GM fits these patterns. It is all the more menacing because it is more technically complex than even nuclear fission reactors. It would be convenient if people would accept, at least provisionally for working purposes, those correlations. Their immediate practical significance is that we must be exceptionally careful in discussing GM. Some who have invested, directly or thru mutual funds, in big chemical companies (the main GM-experimenters) will want to believe it's OK; let them consider the limitations of wishful thinking against infectious pathogens of plant or bee. Others are motivated by what we call in Australasia 'the tall poppy syndrome', which is evidently not absent from N. Amer. Yet others don't really care about the topic but think that because it's contentious they can cut up ugly. Some people even think it doesn't really matter whether their utterances are sincerely offered as reliable. To resist such temptations, we'll be well advised to check facts v carefully if they are to be used as a basis for some contention re GM. Another guide, particularly important in this here depauperate communication medium, is to refrain from irony, sarcasm, and even humour unless reasonably clear. What Nick Wallingford calls >the press item upon which Robert Mann has seen fit to make such >a conclusion I did not allude to. Dr Goodwin was asked at one of his good talks for beekeepers "when the chemicals don't work well enough, what will be the answer?" Goodwin responded that we may have to try GM-bees. The questioner expressed misgivings. Goodwin then vaguely expressed warm attitudes to the general notion of GM-bees. I naturally checked this with him. He was v vague, claiming he had no opinion on the issue, and tried to make out it didn't much matter what he said as long as it provoked discussion. No scientist undertaking to inform beekeepers should adopt this flippant, insincere attitude. It is the scientist's duty to say what he thinks, not just to toss out squibs that may stimulate discussion. N Wallingford continues: >I think Dr Mann's personal fears re: GM are outstripping his ability to >read for content and meaning. >My personal reading of it is that Robert Mann, in his fervour to oppose GM >in any form he might encounter it ... These attacks are without foundation, and readily shown to be false. Ever since GM was invented (when I was a senior lecturer in biochemistry) I have consistently said not all GM is dangerous or undesirable. Many gene-splicing expts are OK by me (and by almost every scientist I know of), given proper precautions in containment. Nick's accusation of extremism is false & unfair. >I certainly think it is wrong of Dr Mann to continue to attack him >as he does on the basis of this press reporting. I never suggested this or any other press reporting was the basis of my knowledge of Goodwin's attitude to GM. It isn't. The main comptroller of this here list recently wrote to us: > for the sake of the list and its mandate, I would like to >actively discourage ... personal insults and yet, so soon, our List Owner approves the above insults, devoid of basis or justice. Perhaps it may help if I mention a bit more reason for my presuming to speak out as I do upon GM. For my public comments against dangerous technologies, I've been vilified by hi-ranking professorial apologists for nuclear fallout, 2,4,5-T, leaded petrol, etc; been threatened with lawsuits by a certain notorious NZ prime minister; originated what are now the NZ bipartisan policies on nuclear weapons & nuclear reactors; had to rally hundreds of staff against a serious attempt (1977) to end my academic career; nevertheless been appointed by successive ministers of health (on the nomination of labour unions) to the statutory poisons board; and dealt with untold ignorant &/or aggressive reporters. More practice than most have had at avoiding lawsuits by speaking the provable truth, you may agree. This is not trumpet-blowing but merely an attempt - after a couple of y - to make myself better known to listees, so they may assess my jottings more accurately. Among my hero scientists at telling the public are the late great Henry Kendall of MIT, D T Suzuki (UBC), Linus Pauling of course, and Frank von Hippel of Princeton who told me in 1983 that he had entered the public debate about nuclear reactor hazards out of a wish to "raise the level of the debate" - which he has certainly done. I ask Bee-L participants to accept the same goal. Technologies that can devastate an area the size of Pennsylvania ( = area of my island) deserve careful discussion, not insolent raving. Some on Bee-L may not have noticed that Wallingford lives in my country. Please overlook this unseemly spat in front of youse. I'll deal with him when I can get at him. Meanwhile, let's stick to the rules and dicuss properly what is - in GM-crops now, and quite possibly in GM-bees soon - a major issue for beekeeping. R ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 21:48:35 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: GImasterBK@AOL.COM Subject: Re: queens MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit George, Did the colonies SWARM, or did the mark come off the queen, or did you get the mark in the wrong place and cause the death of the queen? George Imirie ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 19:16:00 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: blowers, genes, and things MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > 5. Your call as to whether queen supercedure is good in the middle of the > main honey flow. To hear some on this list, the replacement queen must be > inherently inferior since she developed and mated on her own. Personally, > I don't like the unplanned, several week shutdown of brood rearing. But, > I'm not convinced that the bees can't do as good a job as a queen grafter. This is what I was wondering about. I gather that the original queen goes missing or fails completely, then? Or, why the interruption. I was thinking supercedure can happen while a queen is continuing to lay, thus my question. allen ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 21:28:26 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Allen Dick Subject: How BEE-L Moderation Works MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I thought I'd reply to this to clarify some misconceptions that may be shared by list members, then trust that anything further on this be let die. > The main comptroller of this here list recently wrote to us: > > for the sake of the list and its mandate, I would like to > >actively discourage ... personal insults > > and yet, so soon, our List Owner approves the above > insults, devoid of basis or justice. Inasmuch as the first reference was to a quote from a post of mine, I should explain once again how BEE-L moderation works, and direct everyone to http://www.internode.net/honeybee/BEE-L/ to read further. The fact that this information is on a site I maintain is coincidental. I did not write all the material there or make up the guidelines. I am not the listowner. I am merely one of a number of people scattered around the world (moderators) who all receive every post sent to the BEE-L address, and before the server sends it to all the other list members. It is our task to decide if the article is suitable for the list and to reject the SPAM, viruses and chain letters, etc and to measure each remaining post against the guidelines. If it meets the guidelines, any one -- or all of us independently -- send a command to the server to send it out. Once the server receives a command from any one of us, the article is distributed, no matter whether the others similarly approve it or not, and no matter how much any one of us may disapprove of it. One vote and it is sent out immediately to all subscribers. The moderators all operate blind and no one of us -- even the list owner -- knows who approved any given post except by asking around after the fact. We are volunteers and not bound to be on duty. Thus you can see that we moderators do not know who approved the post in the second instance, and there is no way of knowing whether the List Owner approves or does not approve. He may even be away and not read it until he gets back. There (rare) are instances, in fact, where all the moderators are away, and recently we had several days with no traffic on BEE-L for just that very reason. We don't much keep track of one another. Any one of us may be off-duty for weeks or months on end without any interruption in the service or notice -- even to one another. We may choose to simply disregard all the incoming if we are overloaded with other things and leave it to the others. I'm not even sure, myself, who all the moderators are for certain! The reason for this system is to try to have as fair and timely a moderation process as possible. It is not perfect, but seems to work well most of the time. There are times when a good post may be lost, or a post that is borderline gets approved. We do try to prevent circulation of posts that appear to us to contain deliberate insults, name-calling, or which are based on unprovable assumptions. There were several recent instances that were very close calls, including the one in which the very last line provoked the reply mentioned above. Some one of us moderators saw merit enough in the balance of the material to disregard the transgressions and OK the posts. All I can say for certain is that in both cases, it was not I. I thank Robt for stating his credentials and experience, and also for his efforts to inform us of the threats relating to GM as he sees them and writing the balanced and very reasonable reply to which I am responding. I trust we will all put all this behind us and treat one another with the utmost respect and courtesy, and also extend that courtesy to all those who work with bees -- on the list or not -- whether we happen to currently agree with them or not. Let's talk bees. allen ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 06:57:48 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Aaron Morris Subject: Re: Heather honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" This message was originally submitted by Ross.Langlands@LOTHIAN.SCOT.NHS.UK to the BEE-L list at LISTSERV.ALBANY.EDU. It was edited to remove extraneous quotes. ----------------- Original message (ID=A02949D4) (87 lines) ------------------- From: Ross Langlands Subject: RE: [BEE-L] Heather honey Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 10:33:08 +0100 It's been a wonderful fortnight of dry sunny weather at the heather. The bees are foraging well. However to my disappointment there were no bees in the supers yesterday and no new honey. I'm on a brood and a half and they were loaded with capped and uncapped honey. What next? Do I remove the (metal) queen excluder? Do I move frames of honey up into the supers and if so how many and capped or uncapped or both? Should I just keep a calm sough and be patient? Problems, problems! Ross Langlands ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 07:32:24 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Honey Bee Genome Project MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Peter Dillon wrote: > This being due to the the need to back up positions with data, experience etc., which demands v. specific knowledge from > the start point. > Most individuals have a gut feeling for or against this type of investigation - but maybe influenced by sound advice. And there is the rub. Sound research and advice are hard to come by when you have advocacy science. If you look at some of the most controversial scientific issues of our age, there are studies that are cited that seem to support both sides. Often old, flawed studies are used to support a position. Which is why the issue of GMO will go nowhere, if we are going to discuss it in its totality and not keep it at the bee level. Even there it has generated more heat than light. But, if we are going to talk about it in general, there is an excellent article warning of what can happen with genetically modified corn at http://oregonmag.com/PegsBottom.htm It is in print, so it must be true. Have to add it to my list of citations. Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 10:10:33 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Layne Westover Subject: Re: leaf blower Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In a very high temperature situation (Texas in the middle of the summer) I worry that if I use a bee escape and there are then no bees on the comb to keep it cool that if I leave it on too long, the temperature may become so high that the wax might start melting and honey dripping. This would be an especially bad thing if you are trying to get bees out of a Ross Rounds or comb honey super because then you would have "leaky" combs in your comb honey (at least that is my worry). I therefore read with interest about the use of leaf blowers and bee blowers to more quickly and effectively remove the bees since I would prefer not to use chemicals to do it. I recalled that once or twice in my back yard I used my vacuum cleaner and hooked up the hose to the exhaust to operate it as a blower (necessity is the mother of all inventions--apologies to Saddam) and that worked fine, but some of my bees are in "out apiaries" where there is no access to electricity. So I went to a "Super Saturday" sale (coincidentally it was on Saturday) this weekend and a gas powered blower caught my attention. Having been suckered by the discussion on BEE-L, I asked "the boss" and she gave me her permission, so I am now the proud owner of a leaf/bee blower. I used it the same day to quickly remove bees from a super. Having read all the cautions about protecting the intake so as to not have chopped bees, I was worried at first, but I did not have that problem in this case (maybe because I put a piece of window screen over the intake?). I never did figure out how to control the blowing speed (air velocity), so I just used it at the speed it ran when I got it started. Worked fine. Now to go to the out apiary where I have the comb honey super on the mean hive. A bee brush is about useless in a situation like that. With the help of my new gas powered leaf blower though, it should be a blast! (of air, of course). Layne Westover, College Station, Texas, U.S.A. P.S. My friend "Bubba" told me that although he does not have a leaf blower, he has a cannister of compressed air he said he would try and let me know how it worked. Today he asked me if a putty knife was the best tool to use to remove smashed bees from the side of a bee hive, and did I know of a good place to buy some "extra" frames. :) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 10:17:47 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: leaf blower MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I recalled that once or twice in my back yard I used my vacuum cleaner and hooked up the hose to > the exhaust to operate it as a blower I've done that too, but we must be aware that 1.) the volume of air is quite low, and 2.) that dirt and dust can come out the back end of a vacuum cleaner, no matter how good the filter. > Now to go to the out apiary where I have the comb honey super on the mean hive. A bee brush is about useless in a situation like that. With the help of my new gas powered leaf blower though, it should be a blast! (of air, of course). Don't forget to try smoking down, box thumping and abandonment while-u-wait first. These techniques work well on shallow boxes, such as comb supers, but not on deeps. Abandonment, done right under ideal conditions, can go quickly -- 1/2 hour -- and will additionally permit the evacuating bees to clean the honey out of any open cells as they leave. That prevents the runny drips that can come out of those open cells. Moreover, if the bees clean up the burr comb before you blow (see Llloyd's previous post) , you'll avoid having honey streaks on your comb that a blower can cause. > he has a cannister of compressed air he said he would try and let me know how it worked. A good blower needs lots of volume to move the bees. A thin stream such as provided by a canister of compressed air will work, but not well. allen http://www.internode.net/honeybee/diary/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:34:38 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "Frank I. Reiter" Subject: The problem with Cape bees In-Reply-To: <3D6A11C8.98F93550@suscom-maine.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit A couple months ago I asked about how invasion of a non-capensis colony by capensis bees was harmful to the colony. Today I got around to reading my July 2002 ABJ and found part of the answer that I don't recall reading in the resulting thread. According to Dr. Wyatt A. Mangum, scutellata colonies with capensis pseudo-queens in them will often kill their own queen. The capensis pseudo-queens lay far fewer eggs than a real queen does, and so the colony eventually dies out for lack of bees. Frank. ----- The very act of seeking sets something in motion to meet us; something in the universe, or in the unconscious responds as if to an invitation. - Jean Shinoda Bolen http://WWW.BlessedBee.ca ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 22:14:56 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Joe Trattle Subject: Re: Heather honey In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I've taken my bees to the moors (North Yorkshire) for the first time this year and was advised by a veteran of some 30yrs no queen excluder. I checked them after 2wks and they're fine, all I've got in the supers is honey. Joe Trattle > What next? Do I removethe (metal) queen excluder? > Do I move frames of honey up into the supers and if so how many and capped or uncapped or both? > Should I just keep a calm sough and be patient? Problems, problems! ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 16:40:40 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "adrian m. wenner" Subject: Piping worker bees In-Reply-To: <000701c2472c$46b20480$2fac58d8@BusyBeeAcres> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Barry Birkey has informed me that the figure showing sonagrams of piping worker bees is, indeed, on the web site. He wrote: The link is from this sentence: The other type of loud sound in the hive is heard when the hive is disturbed. and goes to this page: http://www.beesource.com/pov/wenner/croak_bip.htm I checked it out and found that those figures show those sounds quite nicely. Sorry that I was unaware of that possibility. Adrian -- Adrian M. Wenner (805) 963-8508 (home office phone) 967 Garcia Road wenner@lifesci.ucsb.edu Santa Barbara, CA 93103 www.beesource.com/pov/wenner/index.htm **************************************************************************** * * "T'is the majority [...that] prevails. Assent, and you are sane * Demur, you're straightway dangerous, and handled with a chain." * * Emily Dickinson, 1862 * **************************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 21:07:34 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "Frank I. Reiter" Subject: Making splits without purchasing queens In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The beekeeping season is almost over here in Ontario and I am starting to think about next year already, and in particular I have been thinking about how I will make splits next spring in order to replace deadouts and maybe increase a little. This past year I made a split without introducing a new queen. I did it primarily because the parent colony has been a terrific producer, so I wanted to preserve the genetics. Thinking about that split I recall that every frame of brood that I gave it had at least one queen cell built on it after the split was made. So it occurs to me that if I were to take 5 frames of brood and some honey/pollen frames and put them into a one chamber hive for 10 or 12 days I would probably have a queen cell on each of those frames. I could then make a splits by combining one queen cell bearing frame from this first split with fresh brood from strong colonies. It seems to me that by doing this I would significantly reduce the egg laying gap in the splits vs. what I did this past year - each split would have a queen within a few days and if the weather is good she could be laying in a week. Is there anybody here who has done this and can share his or her experience? do any of you more experienced beekeepers have any comments or suggestions? Frank. ----- The very act of seeking sets something in motion to meet us; something in the universe, or in the unconscious responds as if to an invitation. - Jean Shinoda Bolen http://WWW.BlessedBee.ca ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:09:29 -0700 Reply-To: mdshepherd@xerces.org Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Matthew Shepherd Subject: Proposed U.S. Federal Bee Regulation now in Federal Register Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The email below reached me this morning, via another bee-related list. I thought U.S.-based Bee-L readers would be interested in knowing what APHIS is proposing, and have a chance to respond to APHIS. Readers from other countries may also like to check these out, as they may have implications for you if you are involved with shipping bees to/from the U.S., or you may have experience with similar regulations in your own countries, which can be useful for U.S. folks submitting comments. Best wishes to all, Matthew Shepherd The Xerces Society *********** BEGIN FORWARDED MESSAGE *********** > >Wayne.F.Wehling@aphis.usda.gov wrote: > >> The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the United States >> Department of Agriculture wishes to inform you that we have published a >> proposed revision to the Bee Regulations in the Federal Register for your >> review and comment. >> >> The docket was published in the Federal Register today, 19 August 2002. >> The Federal Register notice (Docket No. 98-109-1) is available for public >> comments through November 18, 2002. I have included a pdf copy of the >> notice below along with several other web addresses for sources of >> information on this docket. >> >> Public hearings will be held regarding this proposed rule on the >following >> dates and locations, consult the Federal Register notice for full >details: >> 22 October 2002, Kailua-Kona, HI >> 24 October 2002, Fresno, CA >> 29 October 2002, Beltsville, MD >> >> The proposed regulations would combine the existing honey bee regulations >> (7 CFR 322) and the "pollinator regulations" (7 CFR 319.76) (the >pollinator >> regulations cover the introduction of exotic bee diseases and parasites >> through the importation of bees other than honeybees, certain beekeeping >> byproducts, and used beekeeping equipment). The revision proposes to >allow >> importation of honeybees from Australia and honeybees and honeybee semen >> from New Zealand into the U.S. Under the proposed regulations >> importations from Canada would require an export certificate verifying >that >> the bees were of Canadian origin. These revisions would modernize the >> language of the regulations and make them current with respect to >> international standards for trade in honey bees (OIE). Additionally, the >> Federal Register notice announces that revisions have been made to the >New >> Zealand Honeybee Pest Risk Assessment that was published before varroa >was >> discovered in New Zealand. >> >> (See attached file: 020819 FR Proposed Bee Reg Change.pdf) >> >> USDA Press Release can be found at: >> http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/press/2002/08/beeregs_ppq.html >> >> Comments can be submitted online at: >> http://comments.aphis.usda.gov/ >> >> pdf and txt copies can be downloaded at: >> http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/webrepor.html >> >> Pest Risk Assessments for Honeybees from New Zealand and Australia can be >> found at: >> http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/pra/honeybees/ >> >> Please forward this email to interested persons. >> >> *********** END FORWARDED MESSAGE *********** ______________________________________________________ Matthew Shepherd Pollinator Program Director The Xerces Society 4828 SE Hawthorne Blvd, Portland, OR 97215, USA Tel: 503-232 6639 Fax: 503-233 6794 Email: mdshepherd@xerces.org ______________________________________________________ The Xerces Society is a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting the diversity of life through the conservation of invertebrates, the little things that run the world. For information and membership details, see our website at http://www.xerces.org/ ______________________________________________________ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 19:01:50 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: The problem with Cape bees MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Frank and All, Questions of Dr. Eric H. Erickson and his answers which are published at the Tucson website: http://www.expert-forum.com/carlhayden_25/_frontend/detail.asp?id=378&langua ge=1&cat. http://www.expert-forum.com/carlhayden_25/_frontend/detail.asp?id=379&langua ge=1&cat. date 7/21/2002 question: I attended a talk by Dr. Hoffman in which she spoke and showed slides of PSEUDO QUEENS WITH CAPENSIS LIKE TRAITS in the feral bees of Arizona. I wanted to ask Dr. Hoffman when the talk was over if she was seeing pseudo queens on a large scale or simply in rare ISOLATED cases. reply: Dr. Eric H. Erickson: We do not know how extensive the occurence of PSEUDO QUEENS is, the work is ongoing. However, it is ACCURATE to say that it is NEITHER RARE OR ISOLATED. http://www.expert-forum.com/carlhayden_25/_frontend/detail.asp?id=380&langua ge=1&cat. date: 7/21/2002 question: I have been reading about the cape bee problem in South Africa. Are there similarities between the PSEUDO QUEEN PROBLEM Dr. Hoffman described and SHOWED SLIDES OF and THE CAPE BEE PROBLEM IN SOUTH AFRICA? reply: Dr. Eric H. Hoffman: The current belief is that *THEY ARE THE SAME* More research is needed. http://www.expert-forum.com/carlhayden_25/_frontend/detail.asp?id=388&llangu age=1&cat. date:7/28/2002 question: This is in regard to the pseudo queen problem. HAS THIS TRAIT EVER BEEN OBSERVED IN THE U.S. BEFORE NOW? reply Dr. Eric H. Erickson: TO OUR KNOWLEDGE,THIS PROBLEM HAS NOT PREVIOUSLY BEEN REPORTED IN THE U.S. This question asked by a friend which is familier to the BEE-L list is important because Dr. Erickson did not say that pseudo queens had been observed in the Lusby bees. There is a big difference between normal thelytoky and pseudo queens. At this point we simply do not know the origin of the pseudo queen problem IN THE FERAL BEES in Arizona (now verified by Dr. Erickson) . Sincerely, Bob Harrison Odessa, Missouri Ps. I believe Dr. Erickson's comments back up the posts about the things Blane White and I saw and heard at the ABF convention in Savannah 2002. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 07:42:03 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Alan Riach Subject: Heather honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ross's problem comes mainly from going to the heather on a box and a half. The bees should be put to the heather on a single deep and a small one at that (a Scottish Smith or British National). At this time of year the bees inclination is to close down brood operations and load up the brood area with honey. You could try putting the unsealed 1/2 box above the super (provided there's no brood in it) but I doubt if they'll transfer the honey into the super at this late stage. Next year Ross, one small deep and boiling over with bees and advanced sealed brood. Alan Riach Bathgate,Edinburgh,Scotland ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 12:57:04 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Murray McGregor Subject: Re: Heather honey In-Reply-To: <3D6B1F3B.61F7F24F@which.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed In article <3D6B1F3B.61F7F24F@which.net>, Alan Riach writes >Ross's problem comes mainly from going to the heather on a box and a >half. The bees should be put to the heather on a single deep and a small >one at that (a Scottish Smith or British National). Not seeking to pick a fight here, but this is very old fashioned advice, dating from an era when the only way to handle heather honey was as cut comb, and thus the supers had to be kept virginal (not bred in) and free of pollen plugs. It causes a short lived benefit as the bees work themselves out, but there is not enough hatching brood to replace the old bees and you get a brief burst of work and then a weak colony. Many operators, even fairly big ones, still use this system, but it does institutionalise getting a small crop. Bees get honey, and with that in mind you want as many of them as possible. If you can extract this honey, which most now can, you want to give the bees unlimited laying space, not restricted laying space. And you need to do it early enough to provide the big boost in bee numbers in good time for the peak of the heather flowering. Many traditionalists still say this is wrong and prefer the cramping scenario, but all the crampers up here this year have from zero to two, occasionally three, shallow supers of honey (thus averaging about 40lb). We came back from the heather yesterday and the unrestricted colonies have three full deeps in many cases, averaging about two (thus averaging about 70 or 80lb). Best ones are filling their fourth Langstroth deep and remain strong. We rip all the excluders off around the start of July and let the queens run. If we cramped we would no longer be in business due to lack of harvest. This effect of double the harvest in unrestricted broodnest over cramped ones repeats itself year after year. >At this time of year the bees inclination is to close down brood >operations and load up the brood area with honey. True, but you can just extract it, wherever the bees have put it. 'Filling in down' late in the season adds a remarkable amount to the harvest in unrestricted colonies. As the brood hatches they fill in with honey and this is all then extracted. >Next year Ross, one small deep and boiling over with bees and advanced >sealed brood. I would suggest a side by side trial. Then decide which way suits you best. Murray -- Murray McGregor ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 08:50:07 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: some interesting tv shows on gene mapping/gmo MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Since the restrictions have been lifted... PBS NOVA this evening will have a two hour show on the human gene mapping project. Should give some good background as to what is involved including time and cost. Excellent program. If we are going to keep the list restricted to bees, then forget PBS and watch Smallville on WB, where a girl controls bees and wrecks havoc. Good background on what we have to look forward to with gm bees. Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 08:39:35 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Heather honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Murray McGregor wrote: > Not seeking to pick a fight here, but this is very old fashioned advice, > dating from an era when the only way to handle heather honey was as cut > comb, and thus the supers had to be kept virginal (not bred in) and free > of pollen plugs. It causes a short lived benefit as the bees work > themselves out, but there is not enough hatching brood to replace the > old bees and you get a brief burst of work and then a weak colony. Many > operators, even fairly big ones, still use this system, but it does > institutionalise getting a small crop. There is a great truth here, and reflects a characteristic of human nature, that "We have always done it this way" even if it is the wrong way. I see it here in Maine with many beekeepers happy with small crops of honey because others around them also have small crops, hence the standard is small crops. Someone who does things differently and gets large crops is an anomaly. Add to the beekeepers proverbs... "If all beekeepers are miserable, then we must be doing something right." Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:31:02 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Phil Moore Subject: Re: Heather honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > We rip all the excluders off around the start of July and let the queens > run. If we cramped we would no longer be in business due to lack of > harvest. > Question: Murray, What number of brood chambers do you use prior to July, do you aim for a crop during our main flow in July, do you requeen every year and how many deeps do you overwinter on? I am thinking of going to the (welsh) heather next year and I like the sound of your system. regards Phil Moore Shropshire ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 12:40:39 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Milt Lathan Subject: How does Apistan Work?? I visited my two hives in the mountains yesterday after work and was pleasantly surprised to see that they have found and stored a goodly amount over the last 3 weeks. I had been concerned that they might need feeding to get thru the coming winter months - so I was humming as I went into the brood chambers (2 medium supers) to apply Apistan. One or both hives is throwing off crawling bent-winged young bees. BTW - no one ever mentioned use of Apistan strips in medium supers - my frames don't line-up to allow full-depth insertion so I bent a strip over the frames in one hive. Putting supers back on I saw that an outside frame was still partially/badly drawn on one side, I pulled it and decided to spread the remaining 9 frames. After a 45-minute drive back home I was unloading and decided to taste the honey on that frame (palm sized capped area, lots of uncapped nectar) and it tastes fantastic! This got me thinking - have I already tainted this years best honey? I assume so - so I won't eat it which means I'd never give it to anyone else. Then, it dawned on me - I don't really know how the stuff works - I use it 'cause Everybody says to use it - doh!? Is it Raid for mites? If so, why doesn't it kill honeybees? Does Apistan give off fumes? Does it depend on the bees touching the strip? What about my supers - will the frames be safe to use next year? Milt - thinking Ignorance is Bliss - so long as you don't think about it. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 16:38:04 -0400 Reply-To: "jfischer@supercollider.com" Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: How NOT To Transport Queens :) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Just for laughs... A news story with video about a beekeeper in Florida who made the mistake of leaving a queen in his truck while eating at the West Cocoa Beach IHOP. He "caught a swarm", it appears. Why he needed help from the police to deal with the situation is anyone's guess. http://www.local6.com/orlpn/news/stories/news-163459720020827-070842.html jim ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:48:13 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: dan hendricks Subject: Defensive Behavior MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi, all. All this year my hive of Italians have been active harassers. Every time I got within 6 to 10 feet of the hive, one to six bees have come right out to harass me. They never offered to sting but kept right in my face, sometimes brushing my face with their wings. Often one would follow me 25 feet or so when I walked away. I split the two-deep hive the third week of July when the last surplus flow ended, putting the queen and most of the brood and hive bees about 20 feet away. That left all the foragers and a little brood and a few hive bees at the original location with a new store-bought queen. Immediately all the harassing stopped from both hives. Same bees, same external environment, same number of bees per cubic foot of hive volume but completely different behavior. --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 19:08:23 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: CSlade777@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Heather Honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 27/08/02 05:03:45 GMT Daylight Time, LISTSERV@LISTSERV.ALBANY.EDU writes: << there were no bees in the supers yesterday and no new honey. I'm on a brood and a half and they were loaded with capped and uncapped honey. >> Ross, I may be teaching Granny to suck eggs as I have no direct experience of heather honey in my area. However, from what you say, you may not have prepared for the heather adequately. I see no point in brood and a half, and if there is so much room in the chambers that the bees are storing honey there rather than upstairs then the boxes are not doing their job as brood chambers. It may be too late for this year but maybe next time you should consider that the bees are now preparing for winter. The brood best is declining and they will pack winter stores around it as it shrinks. To counteract this, when you go to the heather rearrange your brood so that the oldest is in the middle and the youngest to the outside. This maintains a larger brood nest for longer as they will be disinclined to split a brood nest with seams of stores when the middle frames emerge. You may take to opportunity to reduce your stocks (to save winter feeding) and insert extra frames of brood in the bees going to the heather. When the brood nest is full of brood the bees will have nowhere but the supers to put the honey. Chris ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 21:25:07 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: KATHY PRESLEY Subject: screened bottom boards and menthol application Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit I am going into my second fall with my 2 hives. One hive died over the winter from trachea mites due to my misapplication of menthol (didn't leave it in long enough to evaporate completely) and the other hive did great. I bought some package bees locally to replace the dead ones, and they have done great. I am highly motivated to keep them all doing great! I live near Atlanta, Georgia in the US. We have hot, humid summers. Right now it is in the mid-80's (Faranheit) but could easily climb back into the 90's before things get more comfortable in October. I have screened bottom boards on my hives. Should I place the menthol packs on top of the brood frames, or on the bottom boards? I am also using grease patties. I am going to ask some locals, including the man that I purchased the bees from, but I want some other opinions too! Thanks in advance Kathy Presley, no relation to Elvis ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 22:12:32 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: How does Apistan Work?? ( or fluvalinate flavored honey) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Milt, Mistakes happen. I will try to answer your questions and not give you a hard time. > Is it Raid for mites? Yes! Apistan is the trade name for fluvalinate. >If so, why doesn't it kill honeybees? The dose is so that only varroa are killed. In illegal applications of fluvalinate honeybees have been killed. > Does Apistan give off fumes? No. > Does it depend on the bees touching the strip? Yes. By contact. Many tried to reuse the strips at first until we made those beekeepers understand that very little (if any) fluvalinate remains after the strips are left in the hive for the proper time > What about my supers - will the frames be safe to use next year? The frames will probabbly be unaffected but the wax could be contaminated. A similar product to fluvalinate is used in Europe and can be used with the supers on. I would replace the wax. Others on the list might replace both wax and frames . I have never had a strip of any kind in while honey supers have been on but bee inspectors have told me of finding strips left in while supers have been on. Please read the label next time and follow instructions. Sincerely, Bob Harrison ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 01:04:59 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dick Allen Subject: Re: queens MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit An interesting quote from Walter T. Kelley’s book: “How to Keep Bees and Sell Honey” 13th ed. page 108: “It has been your author’s experience that painted queens are superceded much quicker than unpainted queens but many beekeepers do paint their queens because they are so much easier to find.” I mark mine. Dick ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 20:05:24 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: GImasterBK@AOL.COM Subject: Re: queens MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It could be that Kelly used fence paint that contained arsenic to prevent rotting. Who Knows? I have been marking queens for over 50 years with Tester's Hobby paint, and my queens are not superseded. I feel strongly that ALL queens should be marked so the beekeeper has an accurate record of what a colony headed by a particular queen, who has an established "pedigree", is doing. George Imirie Certified EAS Master Beekeeper ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 20:36:03 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: George Fielder Subject: Re: Beesound, piping bee/hearing range MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all A bit late but thought that it might help if I gave some examples of the frequencies being discussed. The buzz on old a. c. tube-type a.m. radios many of us grey-hairs remember was the 60 Hertz of the power supply getting through the ageing components in the power filtering components. Now that was quite audible to almost everyone! Nowadays one can get the same frequency from some incandescent lights being picked up by some receivers. Towards the other end of the scale, 15KH, was often heard from vibrating parts of the flyback transformers of tube type TV sets. However as I approached 55 or so, it no longer bothered me. I understand that the high frequencies are the commonest ones to be lost from many people's hearing as one ages. Thus the 250-300 Hz frequencies would be audible if sufficiently louder than the ambient noise. One must ignore the drones and workers of that hyper hive you just banged! Hope some of you remember trying to hear the old sets through the a.m. hum! ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 18:04:37 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Mea McNeil Subject: Wall St Journal Honey Article Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed A nearly half page article comparing five honey gift packages appeared in the Wall Street Journal 8-23-02. The samplers, each containing several varietals, cost from $14 for four 4-ounce bottles to $45 for six 1-ounce vials (sic). The producers, Rock Cheese & Honey, Stonewall Kitchen, Dutch Gold Honey, Huguel, and Silverbow Honey, were evaluated on taste, packaging, and ease of ordering. Rock Cheese & Honey was declared the best (clover, buckwheat, oarnge blossom, wild flower), with the corked, hipped, 4-ounce bottles favored. The article maintains that 300 types of honey are being produced. Hard to imagine that many isolated patches of nectar; is there substantiation for this assertion? MEA McNeil