From MAILER-DAEMON Sat Feb 28 07:38:42 2009 Return-Path: <> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.8 (2007-02-13) on industrial X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-89.2 required=2.4 tests=ADVANCE_FEE_1,AWL, SPF_HELO_PASS,URI_SCHEME_MIXED_CASE,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 8F45B49069 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 2009 07:28:40 -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 n1SCLoXN010061 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 2009 07:28:40 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 07:28:39 -0500 From: "University at Albany LISTSERV Server (14.5)" Subject: File: "BEE-L LOG0209A" To: adamf@METALAB.UNC.EDU Message-ID: Content-Length: 174082 Lines: 3960 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 08:16:26 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Aaron Morris Subject: Re: BEE-L's Greatest Hits MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Allen Dick wrote: > I'd like to hear what BEE-L members consider to be the most > valuable or interesting thing that they have learned through > BEE-L. Wow, this is a tough one. Going back 15 years! The countless lessons from Andy Nachbar, the pure research in the very early days... I wonder is Andy and Ed hang out together. Another thing that hits me about this exercise is how I've grown in my beekeeping arts since BEE-L first started. Anyway, I've been trying to put my finger on any one thing, just to cast a vote. It occured to me last night after the fourth or fifth hour of extracting that "Baggie Feeders!" deserves at least an honorable mention. Aaron Morris - thinking it's in the bag! PS: Actually when I feed 'em, I use hive top feeders almost exclusively these days.... ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 09:48:24 -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" Bill 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. Reply I made a clear strong effort to discuss this topic. I presented several sides, and members presented others. Some accusations were made and the the thing died. Is this the best we can do? This is a very serious subject which affects beekeepers. The researchers have latched on to the honey be genome for various reasons, unrelated to our concerns. Some beekeepres and beekeeping organizations have thrown their support to the effort to use honey bees in various experiments. The potential side effects and unwanted ramifications are not being discussed openly. Anyone who attempts to risks being called a chicken little or a Luddite. Did we not learn from Kerr's experiments? How researchers working in supposed isolation can affect all of us? * I simply don't accept the argument that technological issues are too complex for the average Joe to understand and get involved. * One, we must try to understand what researchers are doing - AND they must attempt to explain it. Two, we have to be included in decisions that will affect us and our children - EVEN if we don't totally understand these issues. Three, there must be respect for the groups that *do not want* a high tech future, that want something of Nature to be protected and retained. These are basic democratic principles. I don't oppose progress, but I do oppose a technocratic world where decisions are made in secret based on the quest for power and wealth - for the good of the elite. In a democracy, many life styles should be able to co-exist. The way we are headed, you're either part of the techno-future, or move out of the way. -- Peter Borst Ithaca, NY http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/plb6 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 16:19:23 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "adrian m. wenner" Subject: BEE-L's Greatest Hits In-Reply-To: <002501c2505a$4e557fa0$57ae73d1@allen> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Allen Dick wrote (30 August): >I realise that I would have to list at least 20 things if I were to mention >them all, but my all-time favourite is the idea of stopping a robbing >frenzy by taking off all the hive lids in the yard (assuming the robbing is >not originating elsewhere). Someone else responded: > I looked in the archives and found a post by somebody who said he had >been taught this but had never tried it. Has anybody here tried it? What > happened? Allen Dick replied: "It works for me." I believe I was the person who first suggested the technique, as taught by my revered beekeeper uncle, Clarence Wenner. We employed that technique routinely while working a bee yard under less than ideal conditions. It seems to me that one could enhance that technique by removing all covers in the yard and then quickly spray a little sugar solution on the top bars and entrances of all hives. Pure sucrose solution has no odor, so bees would concentrate more on a simulated nectar flow than on robbing. Maybe someone would want to try out that addition to the cover-removal technique. 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, 1 Sep 2002 19:09:57 -0400 Reply-To: mpalmer@together.net Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: michael palmer Subject: Re: New York State honey yields MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Rick Green wrote: > I had the best honey yields ever. I live in Saratoga county of New York State. Please share your stats, Rick My bees are in NW Clinton county. Possibly the best year I've seen. Took 4300 from a yard of 26 yesterday. Most of the colonies are heavy below. Still have 11 yards in NY to strip. Probably get 130 - 150 pound average over the 650 colonies there. Mike ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 09:46:39 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: LLOYDSPEAR Subject: honey bee genome project It has been said: "I don't oppose progress, but I do oppose a technocratic world where decisions are made in secret based on the quest for power and wealth - for the good of the elite." and: "The potential side effects and unwanted ramifications are not being discussed openly. Anyone who attempts to risks being called a chicken little or a Luddite." These kind of statements are unfortunately typical of those who only wish discussion on their terms. Decisions made in secret for power and wealth for the good of the elite? How about the quest for knowledge? I happen to think THAT is the basic reason for the honey bee genome project and object to those who would deny such a quest because the knowledge may (in their opinion) be used inappropriately. As far as being a chicken little or a Luddite...By definition, Luddite's are opposed to change. They ALWAYS deny that and instead use words such as "technocratic world where decisions are make in secret-for the good of the elite", and in fact those were almost exactly the words used by the original Luddite's in England during the early 1800's. So I'd say, if you can't take the heat keep out of the kitchen. Perhaps there is another reason for the lack of continued discussion and that is boredom? Listening to the same thing over and over is pretty tedious. 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: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 09:24:00 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: LLOYDSPEAR Subject: New York State Beekeeping New York State is often thought of as being highly industrialized or commercialized, perhaps because of New York City. In fact, NYS is mostly farm land and is third in the nation in milk production, and second in apples and maple syrup. Much of upstate NY today has better bee pasture than it did 50 years ago...due to the abandonment of small farms. It has been the best honey production year in memory, as attested to by several, including myself. In this regard someone said "My bees are in NW Clinton county. Possibly the best year I've seen. Took 4300 from a yard of 26 yesterday. Most of the colonies are heavy below. Still have 11 yards in NY to strip. Probably get 130 - 150 pound average over the 650 colonies there." The average weights per hive reported are not that unusual for NYS, since the demise of feral bees due to varroa. However, the average colonies per yard astound me. 11 yards and 650 colonies works out to 59 colonies per yard. Wow! Myself and a couple of others went from 20 to 30 with the demise of varroa, and I have heard of 40-50 in the western part of the state (where sweet clover and goldenrod can each produce major crops). Anyone else running over 40 colonies per yard? 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: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 07:23:38 -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: > > Bill > 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. > Reply > The potential side effects and unwanted ramifications are not being > discussed openly. Anyone who attempts to risks being called a chicken > little or a Luddite. Did we not learn from Kerr's experiments? How > researchers working in supposed isolation can affect all of us? But is this the proper forum for a general discussion on GMO? I have no problem with any discussion concerning bees, where this group can exert some influence, but when we venture into something so broad we diminish our voice. There are a multitude of organizations and groups that are very involved with this issue and where the discussion is very open. GMO is in the news (US corn rejected for famine relief in Africa) so it is not covered up or beneath the radar. I am only suggesting that those other avenues are better for a general discussion, and not this list. Keep it to bees. Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 09:14:09 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Carol Palmer Subject: Re: leaf blower MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Layne Westover" To: Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 11:10 AM Subject: Re: [BEE-L] leaf blower > > 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... and that worked fine,... Well, I tried that too, and I started blowing bees out from between the first two frames but the problem was they ganged up along the edges of the super and charged right back in the minute I moved the nozzle to the next frames. I went back and forth for at least ten minutes, blowing the same bees back and forth, back and forth. Top to bottom or bottom to top seemed to make no difference. I would clear two frames, they would crawl right into the next two. I finally gave up and took each frame out and blew each one individually free of bees. And to top it all off, I got propolis all over the vacuum cleaner. I wanted to "blow them away" all right--to Kingdom Come! ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 09:54:56 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Allen Dick Subject: Pseudo Queens and Hive Invasions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I got to thinking and realized that we missed out on discussing a very relevant topic because we got derailed by speculation about capensis genes, Lusbys' bees, and a lot of other hypothetical stuff. Blane made some very interesting comments and I am sure all of us who saw Gloria Degrandi-Hoffman speak went away with more questions than answers. I know I did. I propose we discuss the facts, with zero tolerance on speculation, name dropping, accusation and innuendo. As they say, lets stick to the facts, the facts, and nothing but the facts. In my mind some of the questions are 1. Where exactly are these phenomena being observed.? I heard mention of Texas and Arizona, but when I was in AZ, speaking with a number of the locals, no one said they were seeing this, except the lab. 2. Is this a seasonal thing? Are special conditions necessary? Are only certain EHB susceptible? If it is on the loose in AZ, why was there no evidence of this visible in Lusbys' bees. They are near the lab. They accept a large number of swarms donated from neighbouring golf courses as I understood it. I saw NO bad brood patterns in their outfit. Zero. I have never seen such consistently nice brood. 3. The term 'Africanized' is being used. What degrees of Africanization are being seen and how homogeneous is the 'Africanization'? There are more questions, but I am out of time. Blane made a good start. For a refresher, visit http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?S2=bee-l&q=pseudo+queen&0=S&s=&f =&a=December+2001&b= Does anyone on the list have any further hard info on this? allen http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Diary/ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 15:24:55 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Logan VanLeigh Subject: Re: cnn news (Contamination) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Can't be!! We were assured by our diligent public servants in DC that GATT has plenty of protections in it to make certain no US consumers would be in any danger. Logan Bob Harrison wrote: > http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/08/28/contaminated.honey/index.html > > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 13:14:36 +1200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu Comments: RFC822 error: Incorrect or incomplete address field found and ignored. From: Robt Mann Subject: fw from main NZ bee researcher Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit This is to my mind a good example of info scientists can give beekeepers. R ======== Here is most of what we know about AFB and foundation Mark Goodwin TITLE: Investigations on the sterilization of beewax for foundation production. AUTHOR(S): Kostecki-R; Jelinski-M SOURCE (BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION): Bulletin-of-the-Veterinary-Institute-in-Pulawy. 1977, 21: 1-2, 6-9; B. LANGUAGE OF TEXT: English ABSTRACT: Carbon tetrachloride was used to wash Bacillus larvae spores from combs taken from colonies with AFB; it was possible to grow the spores in artificial media. In tests in which suspensions of B. larvae spores were added to the food of larvae 3-5 days old, 26% of larvae were killed when given 2 X 10^7 spores in 1 ml of feed. Wax samples, wax strips and foundation taken from several Polish state wax-processing units were examined for the presence of spores; in 426 tests, single endospores were found in 4 samples (all wax). Wax used for producing foundation is heated to 95-100 deg C for about 1 h, which probably kills most strains of B. larvae, if present; it is suggested that wax from infected apiaries should either be extracted with carbon tetrachloride or sterilized in an autoclave at 121 deg C for 30 min. P. Walker PUBLICATION TYPE: Journal-article ACCESSION NUMBER: 780207345 TITLE: The sensitiveness of the foulbrood bacterium Bacillus larvae to heat treatment. AUTHOR(S): Hansen-H; Rasmussen-B; Ritter-W (ed.) SOURCE (BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION): Proceedings of the International Symposium on Recent Research on Bee Pathology, September 5-7, 1990, Ghent, Belgium. 1991, 146-148; Bd. PUBLISHER INFORMATION: Rijksstation voor Nematologie en Entomologie on behalf of Apimondia; Merelbeke; Belgium LANGUAGE OF TEXT: English ABSTRACT: A Yugoslav sunflower honey with 2.2 X 10^5 B. larvae spores/g and a Danish rape honey with 7.5 X 10^6 B. larvae spores/g were heated to 100°C. At this temperature samples were taken at different times between 10 and 40 min. The samples were inoculated into J-agar dishes which were incubated at 35°. Growth of B. larvae was proved in the Yugoslav honey after heating for 15 min, but not after 20 min. In the Danish honey growth was proved after 27.5 min but not after 30 min. Wax from combs taken from 6 colonies with clinical symptoms of AFB was heated to 90°. At this temperature samples were taken after 10, 15, 20, 30 and 32 min. In all samples, growth of B. larvae was found when the wax was inoculated into J-agar dishes. Six batches of wax treated in a wax processing factory were examined. The wax came from colonies with 1.8 X 10^4 - 4.6 X 10^6 B. larvae spores/g honey. The wax was melted with steam at about 119°. After melting, the wax was kept in a container for 15-30 min at about 80°. In one of the batches a very light B. larvae infection was proved. In the remaining batches, B. larvae could not be found. Samples of comb foundation from 10 batches of unknown origin and from 2 batches originating from colonies with AFB were also examined. The wax had been treated in a wax processing factory. B. larvae was not found in any of the batches. It is concluded that the procedure in the wax processing factory is generally sufficient to prevent the spread of B. larvae. When material from hives treated with a gas flame was inoculated into J-agar dishes growth of B. larvae colonies occurred. PUBLICATION TYPE: Miscellaneous ACCESSION NUMBER: 920232175 TITLE: Resistance of Bacillus larvae in beeswax. AUTHOR(S): Machova-M SOURCE (BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION): Apidologie. 1993, 24: 1, 25-31; Bj. LANGUAGE OF TEXT: English LANGUAGE OF SUMMARIES: French, German ABSTRACT: The heat resistance of Bacillus larvae spores introduced artificially into beeswax was studied by exposing the wax to a temperature of 150°C and testing the viability of the spores at intervals. The number of viable spores in the wax decreased with time; initial concentrations in 2 samples of wax of 3X10^5 and 3X10^8 viable spores/g wax decreased to 0 after 20 and 60 min, respectively (although such heating would cause physical and chemical changes in beeswax). Spores maintained their viability when incubated in nutritive broth with 0.5% sulphuric acid for 37.5 h, the time required for the isolation of the spores from the wax. PUBLICATION TYPE: Journal-article ACCESSION NUMBER: 940200098 TITLE: Experiences with the beeswax disinfection by overheating. AUTHOR(S): Machova-M; Skrla-M; Bacilek-J; Vesely-V; Peroutka-M SOURCE (BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION): Apiacta. 1992, 27: 3, 65-71; Bj. LANGUAGE OF TEXT: English ABSTRACT: Heat treatment of wax containing spores of Bacillus larvae may not kill all the spores unless the exposure temperature is sufficiently high. To determine the effect of high temperatures on the wax itself, small (1 g) samples were gradually heated to 150°C and then cooled. The resulting wax was darker, and its chemical composition had changed somewhat. However, it was accepted by honey bee colonies. Changes in composition were also found after exposure to 110° or 120°; samples exposed to 150° for a short time were less affected than those exposed to 120° for a longer period. The changes in colour and composition could not be reversed by heating with water and phosphoric acid. In a test on an industrial scale, 400 kg wax, contaminated with 2.1 X 10^8 spores/g, were heated to 118° over 3 h 15 min, kept at the temperature for about 10 min, then allowed to cool. No chemical changes occurred, and all spores were killed. PUBLICATION TYPE: Journal-article ACCESSION NUMBER: 930233842 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 21:44:12 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "Paul Cronshaw, D.C." Subject: CA honey crop is suffering In-Reply-To: <3D729E45.2EDA10BD@together.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >Unfortunately California is not the land of milk and honey this year. A recent article entitled "Drought reduces honey flow to trickle", tells about CA beekeepers looking for greener pastures and moonlighting in other jobs to keep their bee business going. The article states that experts predict a 50% drop from last year's crop. One beekeeper estimates that he will gather 40,000 pounds of honey this year compared to 60,000 last year from 900 hives. He is taking a part time job to supplement his income. Estimates of 120 pounds of honey were common during El Niño years, but this year we will be happy to see 40 pounds per hive. One thing that is a result of this trend is that wholesale prices of honey have gone from .70 cents to $1 a pound, with some retailers marking up honey 10 percent since June. So CA beekeepers are feeding sugar and moving hives to distant states like Montana in hopes of breaking even this year. Paul Cronshaw DC Beekeeper Santa Barbara >Rick Green wrote: > >> I had the best honey yields ever. I live in Saratoga county of New >>York State. Please share your stats, Rick > >My bees are in NW Clinton county. Possibly the best year I've seen. >Took 4300 from a yard of 26 yesterday. Most of the colonies are >heavy below. Still have 11 yards in NY to strip. Probably get 130 - >150 pound average over the 650 colonies there. > > Mike ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 11:59:34 -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: > I made a clear strong effort to discuss this topic. I presented > several sides, and members presented others. Some accusations > were made and the thing died. Is this the best we can do? Everyone wore themselves out refuting the claims that "GM bees" were being developed. As for the other aspects: a) Yes, GM plants are scary. b) Yes, bees are a significant vector for cross-pollination of GM crops with both non-GM crops and native species. c) Yes, the "safety zones" established by regulators are too small to prevent bees from continuing to be vectors for the spread of GM traits, and associated collateral damage. d) And yes, the spin doctors that work for the multinationals certainly will try to make bees the "villains" of any scenario where something bad happens as a result of (a) through (c). But if you want to organize resistance to GM foods or GM in general, there are many existing groups that share your concerns. The good news is that there is a growing "marketplace backlash" against GM foods, and many farmers are returning to non-GM crops to insure that they can sell their crops for top dollar. I would LIKE to see a GM-modified cross between a bee and a firefly. This development would allow me to continue working hives well past sunset. :) Just kidding! jim ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 13:42:57 -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: I am only suggesting that those other avenues are better for a general discussion, and not this list. Keep it to bees. The honey bee genome project *is about bees*. If transgenic bees are produced and they are released, they will affect *you*. Jame writes: Everyone wore themselves out refuting the claims that "GM bees" were being developed. James, would you care to comment on this: Candidate bee enhancers, chimeric bee/fly enhancers, and other modified enhancers will then be tested in transgenic constructs introduced into Drosophila . Comparing transcriptional regulation in Drosophila and honey bee promises to reveal both conserved and diverged functional elements, with insights of broad general interest. Genomic manipulations are possible; Consortium member Smith has preliminary success making transgenic bees by inseminating a queen with semen mixed with a DNA construct *, the Menzel lab has manipulated gene expression in a specific region of the brain via antisense, and the Smith lab has preliminary results with RNAi. * Robinson KO, Ferguson HJ, Cobey S, Vaessin H, Smith BH (2000) Sperm-mediated transformation of the honey bee, Apis mellifera . Insect Mol Biol 9:625-34 Lloyd writes: So I'd say, if you can't take the heat keep out of the kitchen. Perhaps there is another reason for the lack of continued discussion and that is boredom? Lloyd, of all people I should not be accused of not being able to take the heat. If the worst I am accused of is being a Luddite and a bore, I guess I can live with that. Anyway, I got the message. This stuff bores you. Don't read any messages with the subject "Re: Honey bee genome project" -- Peter Borst ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 13:54:47 -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="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit While transgenic bees are not yet on the market, there are people working on the techniques involved: >Insects which account for over five sixths of all animals on Earth, >have so far proved to be resistant to the overtures of the genetic >engineer. Scientists are still looking for stable gene constructs >for transformation, and it was only recently that some success has >been achieved regarding screenable markers. > >The honeybee stands exemplary for the difficulties to genetically >engineer arthropods. The problems stem from the complex social >behaviour and biology of bees. Larvae are reliant on worker-bees, >and the latter are very discerning and will destroy larvae if they >appear atypical in any way. This leads to problems in rearing >transgenic larvae, because workers might detect compounds used to >protect larvae from desiccation during microinjection and destroy >them. A second problem is that the eggs are extremely delicate and >do not survive well after microinjection. Thus, transgenic bees are >far from becoming reality (Marshall, 1998). > >Research in agriculture is focused on two different approaches. One >is to create "better" beneficial species, the other uses several >methods to fight pests. According to scientists, improvements could >be obtained through genetic engineering, and insecticide resistance >is only one aimed phenotype. Other desirable qualities to be >engineered into insects include pathogen resistance, general >environmental hardiness, increased fecundity and improved >host-seeking ability (O’Brochta & Atkinson, 1998). > >Another method for pest control considered by scientists is to >genetically engineer pathogens of pests. Insects that carry >engineered microbes are called paratransgenic, as the insect genome >itself is untouched (O’Brochta & Atkinson, 1998). To reduce chances >for pest insects to overwinter, gut-colonising microorganisms have >been genetically altered. The modified bacteria received an ice >nucleation gene which decreases the cold tolerance of many insects. Excerpts from Genetic Engineering Newsletter - Special Issue 4: Transgenic arthropodes July 2000 -- Peter Borst ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 12:46:39 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: cnn news (Contamination) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Logan and All, Logan wrote: > Can't be!! We were assured by our diligent public servants in DC that > GATT has plenty of protections in it to make certain no US consumers > would be in any danger. > > http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/08/28/contaminated.honey/index.html The customs service and the FDA were on top of this problem so to my knowledge no contaminated honey is on U.S. store shelves. I am not fond of Gatt myself but also realize that *protectionism* is never the long term solution. In this case the consumer is not in danger. We had plenty of early warning. If it had been business as usual at the FDA then honey would be being pulled from store shelves. Most packers are honest people. We have got a few which are crooks (should I name names?). Those packers have never been stung by a bee or had their eyes blood red from sweat running dowwn into eyes pulling honey supers. They are only interested in *middle man *profits. quote from the CNN article: "the investigation has INCLUDED search warrants EXECUTED on BUSINESSES and RESIDENCES in Los Angeles, California; Newark, New Jersey and Tampa, Florida, as well as in Australia, Malaysia and Thailand. In my opinion these people had been assured the honey was not contaminated (but it was) and and the Chinese honey was being relabeled in the countries listed for shipment to those packers in the U.S. to look as if the honey had originated in those countries. For the good of the honey industry I hope the above packers do jail time. Many packers are desperate to get honey as most of the U.S. is getting a pitiful honey crop. A word of warning to those desperate to try what the above packers did. "Big Brother" is watching! The drought has hit Missouri hard the last three months but most of us have got a average to above average crop . I am about one third through getting my crop off and extracted and my partner is about half way through his. Not much is blooming and the bees are robbing, stinging and not wanting to leave supers. Most of us are going to keep our honey crop surplus until we are sure the drought will not continue through the next year. In the 1986 drought year we fed bees spring , summer and fall. 1985 was above average crop and very similar to this year. Sincerely, Bob ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 14:57:21 -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" A geneticist advises caution and discussion: >In my laboratory, transformed honeybees with insecticide resistance >are the target of current research. The main role of apiculture in >Japan is pollination. Many strains of honeybee are used as >pollinators in horticulture, such as strawberry production in >greenhouses. Therefore one of the most important characteristics >required in bee breeding is constructing honey-bees strains suitable >for pollination in green-houses. > >Concern should be directed toward risks associated with the release >of transgenic insects into the field. The fundamental question is >whether the genetic alteration of insects will modify ecologically >or environmentally relevant properties of organisms. To address this >issue, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of US >Department of Agriculture has summarized the information that should >be considered in the following points: > >1) how the recipient organism was transformed through recombinant >DNA technology, including characteristics of the donor vectors and >recipients organisms, and a description of the methods employed, > >2) the characteristics of the modified organism, including the >stability of the new genotype and probability of gene transfer to >other organisms with resultant consequences, > >3) potential impact of the transgenic insect on native populations, >communities, and ecosystems, > >4) methods for evaluating the safety of the transgenic organisms in >field trials before unrestricted release. As mentioned earlier, >genetic transformations have been successful in only a handful of >insects so far. Therefore, no transgenic insects have yet been >released into the field. However, with the future advancement of >research in this field, the issues related to risk management will >become of greater concern. > >Conclusion >The transformation procedures for insects have just been developed >and we are ready to put those procedures into practical use. Now we, >as molecular insect biologists, have to reconsider the pros and cons >of using trans-formed insects. Further, it is equally important to >discuss those issues with general public as within scientific >communities. Excerpts from: "The Current Status of Transgenic Research Insects" Kiyoshi Kimura, PhD National Institute of Animal Industry, Japan -- Peter Borst ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 00:41:54 +0100 Reply-To: pdillon@club-internet.fr Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: P Dillon Organization: Home Subject: Honey contamination MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Relating to press releases on contaminated honey - maybe this article that was brought to my attention might interest individuals. Peter. *China attacks Europe over honey ban* A leading Chinese agriculture official says that Europe's ban on honey is causing widespread hardship in rural China. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 16:20:50 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dee Lusby Subject: Re: cnn news (Contamination) In-Reply-To: <3D726987.2050305@earthlink.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi to all on BEE-L Logan wrote: Can't be!! We were assured by our diligent public servants in DC that GATT has plenty of protections in it to make certain no US consumers would be in any danger. Reply: Yes, and this just following the pulled honey from Thailand in Louisiana, now mandating testing form honey from China and Thailand both. So now what happens with USA exports? To Far East, to Mid-East, ?? They find USA honey, or UK honey, or Canadian honey and . . . tete for tete! The game is now loading, and beekeepers want to know why we want to be full biological! Dee A. Lusby __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 01:30:06 +0100 Reply-To: pdillon@club-internet.fr Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: P Dillon Organization: Home Subject: Re: Honey bee genome project MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The discussion on HBGP has leant slightly to the side of arguments for/ against the investigation into the genetic make up of our favourite insect. I have indicated my point of view. Taking a different aspect - How is it envisaged that genetic modifications that may result from such work, and then released as an end commercial product to be controlled by the "creators". Would the beekeeping industry tolerate the imposition of copyrighted insects - with the overhead of possible legal action when unintentional or uncontrolled spreading of a created genotype occurs. Could this lead to the investigation for the production of a lethal gene to stop un-official breeding programs? I suggest that individuals in positions of responsibility within the apicultural fraternity try and sort out a threshold of values and indicate the industry's wishes to the researching community. This would at least bring into light our wishes of what is possibly wanted/ required - and also the contrary. We would also be more aware of what those wishing to create GMO's are using as their wish list. Peter ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 11:09:19 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dee Lusby Subject: Re: fw from main NZ bee researcher In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi to all on BEE-L It was very good that Robert Mann posted reserch material with reference to Mark Goodwin and site given was excellent to read through. However, I have a question: What is meant by kills most strains of B. larvae? Here strains being plural and noted as such and not singular. What are different strains of B. larvae? Also, since cross posted from biobee with comments added by Peter and now Robert adding information from Mark Goodwin, I would like to now, with permission post this reply on biobee from Pav in NZ and ask the question: If knowingly is everything and I think beekeepers need to know, and it is not being looked for, then what have you got really? A need to not knowingly know? and why? Especially if the para-foul is the resistant one! You get a spider bite on your arm and then your arm starts to rot the flesh, the bite is small from the spider bite, but the after effects of something else can kill or damage you! If other strains of ??? have to be there as presumptive evidence that something exists, then shouln't all information be given as to what it is? Here is the post Pav did and why I now ask the above and I want to say now I highly respect Robert Mann and what contacts I have had with him both in public discussion and private. Subj: Re: [BioBee] Para - Foul brood Date: 8/26/02 9:15:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time From: pav@badassbees.com (Pav) Reply-to: BiologicalBeekeeping@yahoogroups.com To: BiologicalBeekeeping@yahoogroups.com (BioBee) Hi Folk A few days ago when we were discussing parafoul brood and getting all confused i sent a post to the NZ beekeepers list: >...Do we have B. alvei or any of the others in NZ, [A. eurydice, B. alvei and B. laterosporus] >and if not, what exactly is causing PMS here (not viruses)?... Soon after, i got a reply from Paul Bolger of our Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, which i've been sitting on in anticipation of further replies and ongoing discussion. Dreaming! So without further ado, this was it: >From: "Paul Bolger" >To: >Subject: biobee discussion >...Bacillus alvei was caught up in the general re-classification that saw >AFB renamed a couple of years ago. Now boasts the title Paenibacillus >alvei. > >Almost always found in association with M pluton (EFB). Definitely >present in Australia, but not identified in WA [Western Oz]. > >Not recognised as being in NZ, but we haven't really looked for it. >... >Paul Bolger >MAF Biosecurity Authority >Ph (04) 474 4144 >Fax (04) 474 4133 >PO Box 2526 >Wellington >New Zealand FWIW -Pav Respectfully submitted, Dee A. Lusby __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 23:02:24 -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 called me out, thusly: > James, would you care to comment on this: > "Candidate bee enhancers, chimeric bee/fly enhancers, and other > modified enhancers will then be tested in transgenic constructs > introduced into Drosophila..." If my opinion matters, it sounds like a decent test plan. Drosophila (fruit flies) are easy to work with, and something that won't work with the well-known and oft-modified fruit fly certainly won't work with far more complex creatures. (Disclaimer - I'm not a geneticist, but I do play one on television.) In a similar vein to the test plan above, if I were to attach wings to my arms, and flap them hard enough, I will thus be able to test if I can fly from my barn roof. :) (Disclaimer - I, like all humans, have the aerodynamic advantages of a brick.) But no one needs my view of Peter's quotation of a third party's guess about what they might do if someone gave them a near-infinite amount of money and time. (Disclaimer - I have neither infinite time, money, or patience.) I can simply quote Peter's quotation of yet another third person who is done speculating, and has moved on to commiserating after the fourth or fifth whiskey: > "The honeybee stands exemplary for the difficulties to genetically > engineer arthropods. The problems stem from the complex social > behaviour and biology of bees. Larvae are reliant on worker-bees, > and the latter are very discerning and will destroy larvae if they > appear atypical in any way. This leads to problems in rearing > transgenic larvae, because workers might detect compounds used to > protect larvae from desiccation during microinjection and destroy > them. A second problem is that the eggs are extremely delicate and > do not survive well after microinjection. Thus, transgenic bees are far > from becoming reality." (Marshall, 1998). Wow grammar fans, I'm running out of tenses up here. I'm up to "third person plural"! I'll go back to "first person rural" now, thank you. jim ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 21:18:18 -0400 Reply-To: mpalmer@together.net Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: michael palmer Subject: Re: New York State Beekeeping MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit LLOYDSPEAR wrote: > > > However, the average colonies per > yard astound me. 11 yards and 650 colonies works out to 59 colonies per > yard. Wow! Myself and a couple of others went from 20 to 30 with the > demise of varroa, and I have heard of 40-50 in the western part of the state > (where sweet clover and goldenrod can each produce major crops). Anyone > else running over 40 colonies per yard? > LLoyd, I wasn't clear on my post. I have 650 colonies in NY. I have them in 22 yards, with 11 yards left to strip the honey off. I used to keep 40 in a yard when I pollinated Chazy Orchards. 40 colonies was a load (10 pallets) for the trucks. When I gave up apple pollination three years ago, I reduced the size of my yards to 30. I work alone often, and yards of 30 are easier for me. Buster Smith in Antwerp (Jefferson County) has always run big yards. I've bought his honey for almost 20 years, and he makes some wicked big crops. He has a yard on the St. Lawrence with 60 colonies. Told me he took 300 supers from it this year. In a good year like this, I don't think it matters how many colonies there are in a yard. They all make honey. Mike ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 19:03:02 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter Borst Subject: Keep The Discussion Alive Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Marjorie Hoy, an entomologist at the University of Florida, says over all a lot more work has to be done to fully prepare for transgenic animals. "We're still finding out so many new things and that's why we don't exactly know what will really happen," she says. "I think we're still going to be surprised." For now, she says, the important thing to do is to keep the discussion alive, involve many points of view, and not forget the gravity of the matter. "It's a big responsibility," she says. In a related article, Egbert Schroten, Professor at Utrecht University, The Netherlands says: >Biotechnology means an enormous increase of our possibilities and >thus of our responsibility. Science and technology do not take place >in a void but in the context of society, and they have an enormous >impact on society. Biotechnology may contribute to human well-being >and welfare, but it is acceptable only when the aims are ethically >justified and when it is carried out under ethical conditions. > >Therefore, society has a right to look at what is going on in >science and technology and to ask critical questions. Eventually >this may foster the openness and quality in research, transparence >of public policy, and public debate. > >In its Opinion on transgenic animals, "The Group of Advisers on the >Ethical Implications of Bio-technology" pleads for the creation of >platforms in order to systematically bridge the information gap, to >stimulate the dialogue between science, industry and the public, and >to create an opportunity for public participation in decision making. -- Peter Borst ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 01:59:48 -0400 Reply-To: "jfischer@supercollider.com" Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: fw from main NZ bee researcher MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dee Lusby asked: > What is meant by kills most strains of B. larvae? > Here strains being plural and noted as such and not > singular. What are different strains of B. larvae? In plain English, bacteria like B. larvae have very rapid reproduction rates when given even a half decent medium in which to grow. Anything that does not kill 100% of the spores and "live" bacteria (and nothing short of gamma beam or electron beam irradiation will kill them all) will certainly result in a "surviving strain" developing. The "survivor strain" survives due to some small difference between it and the strain(s) that were killed. If your gamma ray generator is on the fritz, ethylene oxide gas will also kill 100% of them, but what self-respecting modern beekeeper would neglect regular maintenance on his gamma ray gear? :) The old saying of Marines "that which does not kill me makes me stronger", applies well to bacteria. (Any conclusion one draws from this about the position of Marines on the evolutionary ladder is merely a dead give-away that you were [or should have been] a Naval officer.) So, "strains" are differentiated and described as "strains" merely because they react differently to the same tests (attempts to kill them). They are clearly the same type of bacteria (B. larvae), and not something else, but the ugly little suckers are too small to see anything more than gross physical anatomy. (And they are very gross!) As I recall, they run from 2 to 5 microns long by about 0.5 micron wide. The spores average about 0.5 micron by 1 micron. So, if I found AFB in one of my hives, and you found AFB in one of yours, and we each sent samples in to the Beltsville or Tucson Bee Labs, I would bet some serious money that they would be different "strains". I'm not sure anyone knows how many strains of AFB are out there, but I have read studies that examined 20, 40, or more strains at one time, all collected from single countries without any trouble. It is interesting to note that one needs about 100 spores of B. larvae to get a culture growing in a petri dish, but a single scale (the remains of dead honeybee larva) contains roughly 2.5 billion spores. It follows that before AFB kills a single bee larva, the population in this single larva grows from some number in the hundreds to several billion. Since AFB kills bee larva while they are still larva, this population growth happens over a period of mere days. The rapid population growth from a small subset of spores ingested by the single bee could result in a different B. larvae "strain" developing simply from the random draw of spores fed to the first bee "victim". The regular and unthinking use of antibiotics as a "preventative" by beekeepers who were not properly instructed has certainly resulted in an unknown, but clearly large number of "resistant strains" of AFB. The term "resistant" implies a lack of sensitivity to drugs, based upon the much smaller size of "inhibition zones" on nutrient plates. In other words, one cultures the spores on a growth media, and once it has gotten a good start, one applies a fixed amount of an antibiotic at the center of the petri dish, and then simply measures the size of the "killed area" (the "inhibition zone"). To make matters more complex, the mere fact that different doses of the same drugs have different "inhibition zones" when tested implies that even different doses of the same hard to mix, and impossible to consistently administer drugs can create different "survivor strains" of the targeted bacterium. Bottom line, every time anyone uses any form of antibiotic on bacteria, they are very likely, if not certain, to be creating yet another "strain" of the targeted bacterium in the process. This is happening all the time, and to be honest, we are running out of antibiotics that will have any effect at all on the nasty mug-you-and-take-your-wallet strains of stuff that are running around in hospitals, infecting and killing people who came into the emergency room with simple cuts that needed stitches. It is like a bad science-fiction novel. We can't kill them, and everything we try simply changes them into something that is even harder to kill. Michael Crichton's "The Andromeda Strain" is an example of a bad science-fiction novel with exactly this plot. The movie stank too. jim ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 10:09:40 -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 In-Reply-To: <01C252D4.CDC88490.jfischer@supercollider.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" James and all I am sorry that this topic is so dull that you didn't actually read what I posted. In 1998, they were saying: "Thus, transgenic bees are far from becoming reality." But in 2002 they are saying: "Smith has preliminary success making transgenic bees by inseminating a queen with semen mixed with a DNA construct". This may be just the technique they need to insert new material into a honey bee egg. James's central argument is that there is not enough money to do the types of things that many of these researchers wish to do (Dr. Kiyoshi Kimura said in 1996 "my final goal is to make a transgenic honey bees"). One of the basic purposes of getting the honey bee accepted as one of the few species to be entirely mapped is *precisely* to draw big money. The initial mapping will cost somewhere around $7 million dollars. The impact here has many aspects. One, money draws money. If people are sinking a lot of money into mapping the bee genome, other researchers will use this as justification to ask for money for their projects. Two, the honey bee may supplant the drosophila as the insect of choice for the study of genes. Why? Precisely because of honey bee's complex social system and high level of intelligent interaction (fruit flies have none of this). Furthermore, the Honey Bee Genome Project promises to attract researchers who have no particular interest in bees, because of the money and the potential for ground-breaking discoveries. Now, some would say: great, our insect is finally going to get some respect. Others might think we were better off when we were considered to be a little known minority going around with weird hats and smoke pots. Despite what has been said, I am not trying to advance a point of view, other than we need to talk about this. I wish we could really discuss this, instead of just sending out smart little messages making fun of each other. I regard this as a serious topic and have put quite a bit of effort into digging out the facts. Perhaps someday I will be saying to my children "Well, I tried to get people to talk about that back in 2002, but they laughed and said don't worry about it". I quote Nils Uddenberg, Associate Professor, Institute for Futures Studies, Sweden: >Finally, transgenic birds and transgenic insects are new fields of >research. Personally, I feel a bit uneasy that these technologies >will be developed without the general public being informed. ... May >I finish by stressing that researchers and gene technologists must >take time not only to inform general people but also to listen to >the reactions from the public. It is a question of communication, >not instruction or information. It is very important that such a >dialogue is established. Gene technology is too powerful a tool to >be developed without the general public having opportunities to >observe what is going on. See: Kiyoshi Kimura, "Searching For The Best Condition For Micro-Injection Of Honeybee Embryos", The Second International Workshop on Transgenesis of Invertebrate Organisms, 1997. See also his "The Current Status of Transgenic Research in Insects", 1997. -- Peter Borst ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 10:57:28 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dee Lusby Subject: Re: fw from main NZ bee researcher Comments: To: "jfischer@supercollider.com" In-Reply-To: <01C252ED.95E56200.jfischer@supercollider.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi to Jim and all on BEE-L Jim, you wrote: Bottom line, every time anyone uses any form of antibiotic on bacteria, they are very likely, if not certain, to be creating yet another "strain" of the targeted bacterium in the process. Reply: I am sure glad you wrote your reply the way you did! I liked everything you said. This reminds me though, aren't we currently in US Federal Register comment period for allowing imports of queens and bees from Australia and New Zealand? How now would this have bearing upon a new strain of EFB and or AFB coming into the USA that could cause problems to our beekeeping community here or even for that matter, Canada, adding to our woes of PMS already ongoing? Also, while I think of it Jim and others here on the list. Where is Kasmir Bee Virus from and would that be a sleeper for the future what with bees so suceptible to secondaries anymore from problems they already have? Regards, Dee A. Lusby __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 22:25:00 +0200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Ron van Mierlo Subject: Borescope use, less disturbance for bees? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Having used the borescope (or boroscope if you like...) in all kinds of = other things, I wondered if any beekeepers have thought of applying one to investigate a colony without = having to open the hive? If the scope is handled with care (which you would be inclined to do = anyway because of it's astronomical=20 price.....), the bees would not get disturbed from anything else but = perhaps the light source in the scope=20 tip and the thin probing scope itself. It would not be impossible either to drill some holes and add grommet = like rubbers at strategic points in=20 the hive, for future entries of the scope. These rubbers would then need = to be of a type (medical?) that=20 re-seals again after withdrawal of the scope. I suppose that many = interesting things could be seen this=20 way from up close, while hardly changing anything built by the bees in = the hive and not hurting one single=20 bee in the process. With the digital cameras around today, even pictures could be taken = through the scope if so wished. One thing that I still ponder on though:=20 -Will the scope in the hive be seen as a great intruder or threat? Anyway, I might give this all a try with the scope from work, next year = when I get my own bee colony. =20 Ron van Mierlo ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 18:50:34 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "h.morton@worldnet.att.net" Subject: Jenter Queen Rearing System I'm a beekeeper living in central North Carolina. I have around 30 hives that I use primarily for pollination services for strawberries, cucumbers and pumpkins. I want to start growing my own quesns and have purchased the Jenter Queen Rearing system. I looking for someone that uses the Jenter System or someone that is familiar with the system. I need information on the keys to success and the typical beginner pit falls. Thanks in advance for your information. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 22:00:51 -0400 Reply-To: "jfischer@supercollider.com" Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: fw from main NZ bee researcher MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dee Lusby said: > This reminds me though, aren't we currently in US Federal > Register comment period for allowing imports of queens and > bees from Australia and New Zealand? Yes, but let's not blame Australia or New Zealand for asking the US to open its "markets" to them. Blame the US for having less concern and less stringent requirements for imported animals than they have for immigrant humans. > How now would this have bearing upon a new strain of EFB > and or AFB coming into the USA that could cause problems to > our beekeeping community here or even for that matter, > Canada, adding to our woes of PMS already ongoing? If there is anything that is "just as bad, if not worse" than the ability of bacteriological strains to mutate, it would be viral strains. The same general rules of the game apply to both, with the same frustrating results for anyone trying to control the spread of disease. I think that it is certain that the strains of bacteria and viruses in NZ and Australia are different from ours. Are they somehow "worse"? I don't think anyone knows, but it appears that the burden of proof has somehow shifted from the exporting country to the citizens of the importing country, even though every bee pest and disease we have came from "somewhere else", and most of them were "no big problem" where they came from. I have nothing against New Zealand, Australia, or their queens, but if you want my opinion, I think that anyone who can read can see that the USDA was pressured to "make this happen". Their approach is easy to detect from their web pages, like this one: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/pra/honeybees/nzealandbee.html The responses to the questions (see Appendix II) shows that when they lack facts, they will speculate in a manner that would prompt Pollyanna to ask them to give her rose-tinted spectacles back. > Also, while I think of it Jim and others here on the list. > Where is Kasmir Bee Virus from and would that be a sleeper > for the future what with bees so suceptible to secondaries > anymore from problems they already have? Funny you should ask that... someone asked the USDA about exactly that issue. Below is the tap-dancing around the question that was done in response: [My snide remarks are indented further than the quotes and in brackets like this.] "Comment: The pest risk assessment needs to consider that the introduction of New Zealand viral strains (such as Kashmir bee virus (KBV), which is related but not identical to the strain of KBV found in the United States) may have more severe impact on honey bees in the United States than on honey bees in New Zealand. This is especially true if these viral strains can be vectored by the varroa mite." "Response: Appendix I of this revised pest risk assessment discusses Kashmir Bee Virus (KBV); however, we do not address different strains of KBV because that virus is not considered to be a significant disease of honey bees by OIE. [The USDA is deferring to the "OIE", a UN group called "the Office International Epizootics" http://www.oie.int I'm sure that the USDA has more ability to both identify and deal with bee diseases than a group of UN bureaucrats. I don't pay the obscene amount of taxes I pay to have a US agency treat the UN as an unquestioned scientific authority! I would at least feel better if the name was "the Office For The PREVENTION of International Epizootics", but it seems that one must have a serious international epizootic to catch the attention of that bunch. Perhaps KBV will become one, and then they will line up with everyone else to say, in the immortal words of Britney Spears, "Ooops, I did it again".] "As such, we cannot propose to impose special requirements on New Zealand queens and package bees imported into the United States based on KBV." [Translation - We don't know, we won't go find out, and we use our lack of knowledge as a reason to not worry about it.] "We agree with OIE that KBV is not a significant disease of honey bees when it is the only disease or pest present." [Funny, I can't find even a MENTION of KBV anywhere in the OIE website, which purports to contain full text of all their documents of importance, so one cannot verify what the OIE thinks about KBV, if they have given it any thought at all.] [Also funny... why do they add the phrase "when it is the only disease or pest present" as a qualifier to what would otherwise be a simple and clear response? Is it because KBV >>IS<< a significant disease and just happens to be found only in combination with other identifiable "diseases or pests"? Any experts on KBV care to comment?] "As the commenter notes, KBV is found in the United States. There is no evidence that the strain present in New Zealand is different from that found in the United States." [Translation - We have not looked at it, so we are going to assume that there is no difference. We are going to ignore the entire history of virus research, and assume that KBV will be the first virus ever to not have both "nasty" and "mostly harmless" strains, and lots of strains in between.] "In addition, as discussed earlier, we expect that honey bees from New Zealand have been imported into the United States via Canada for many years." [Translation - But we can't list even a single US beekeeper who has purchased such queens.] [Canada? In February? Oh yeah, anyone would have wanted early packages and queens to be offloaded from an airplane in Canada in below-zero weather and then trans-shipped to the USA. TWO customs checks to clear? Sounds like a winning approach! :) ] "We have not identified any negative consequences in U.S. honey bees as a result of these importations." [Translation - We will pile speculation about a lack of reported problems on top of guesses that someone might have imported queens through Canada until we get a high enough stack to make it look like we did our due diligence.] The entire document smells of sloppy workmanship. This can only mean that the USDA is under pressure from somewhere, and queens/packages are a low-value pawn of a trade consession in the global real-politik agenda of a group who should be the first ones up against the wall come the revolution. Bottom line, shipping from Hawaii will always be cheaper and faster than shipping from NZ or Australia, so I don't see much market share being captured by NZ or Australia. Why do they care so much about the US queen and package market? Why does the US feel obligated to bend over backward to let them market their bees? When before has trading in live animals been steamrolled over the concerns of the very people who are the potential customer base? Maybe the secret deal is that Australia promised to not send the US any more Steve Irwin "Crocodile Hunter" programs if the US lets them offer their queens to US beekeepers. :) jim ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 23:15:25 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter Borst Subject: Bees from New Zealand Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Greetings I read the report on importing bees from NZ and was quite satisfied with their discussion of the concerns. They are saying that if there were potential drawbacks to importing bees from New Zealand, they would have played themselves out long before now, in Canada and in the USA as well, since there was no real barrier preventing the problems from spilling over into the US. >Since 1985, Canada has imported honey bees from New Zealand. Because >there are currently no restrictions on the importation into the >United States of honey bees from Canada, we expect that honey bees >from New Zealand have been imported into the continental United >States via Canada since that time. We believe that ... bees on the >continental United States have been exposed to all of New Zealand's >bee pests and diseases. Further: >New Zealand first requested access to U.S. bee markets in 1978. We >spent many years researching and preparing documentation related to >New Zealand's request. In 1999, Dr. Wayne Wehling, APHIS, sought >input from U.S. beekeepers at the annual meetings of the American >Honey Producers Association, American Beekeeping Federation, U.S. >Beekeepers, and the Apiary Inspectors of America. ... In addition, >we anticipate that many U.S. beekeepers will view the proposed >importation of honey bees and honey bee germ plasm from New Zealand >as a benefit. see: Risk Assessment: Importation of Adult Queens, Package Bees and Germplasm of Honey Bees, Apis mellifera L., From New Zealand http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/pra/honeybees/nzealandbee.html -- Peter Borst ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 22:55:55 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: Re: Pseudo Queens and Hive Invasions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Allen and All, > 1. Where exactly are these phenomena being observed.? I heard mention of Texas and Arizona, but when I was in AZ, speaking with a number of the locals, no one said they were seeing this, except the lab. I heard at the ABF convention in Austin, Texas about AHb hive invasions from Paul Jackson (Texas state bee inspector) but there was no talk of bees with *capensis like* traits so I gave little thought to the situation. In my opinion there is a big difference in hive invasions (as described by Paul Jackson) and pseudo queens (as described by Dr. Hoffman) Both Dr. Hoffman and Dr. Erickson say they are seeing the pseudo queen problem in feral colonies in and around Tucson. Both have not reported psuedo queen activity in commercial operations . 2. Is this a seasonal thing? Are special conditions necessary? Are only > certain EHB susceptible? These questions could be best answered by the Tucson bee lab. In my opinion if these bees are showing capensis like traits with strong pheromones then all EHb could be susceptible as is the case in SA (except of course other hives of bees with the capensis like traits). >If it is on the loose in AZ, why was there no evidence of this visible in Lusbys' bees. I do not know why. Reason says that the problem is not on a scale for the Lusby's bees to be effected yet. Both Dr. Hoffman and Dr. Erickson were careful to say the bees with the *capensis like* behavior have only been seen in FERAL colonies. There are several other scenarios but all speculation on my part. > 3. The term 'Africanized' is being used. What degrees of Africanization are being seen and how homogeneous is the 'Africanization'? The homogeneous nature of the africanization is suspect in my opinion because of the two methods used to determine africanization. Both wing venation and dna have been used to determine africanization in Arizona. As I have said before Ruttner (1975) could not tell scuttelata from capensis by wing venation. However Ruttner could tell EHb from both scut and cape by wing venation. Dna should be the only method used in Arizona now with the current problem until we get to the root of the problem. Now I would like an answer to questions I have asked several times. 1. Dee Lusby has stated *on BEE-L* that the slides we saw at the ABF convention (psuedo queen behavior) were slides which Dr. Hoffman took at her place in the early 90's. Is this still her position or was she mistaken? Are those slides of recent feral colonies or old slides of the Lusby's bees? 2. The slides of bees with capensis like traits shocked both Blane and myself. but not Dee Lusby. Why not as Dr. Erickson has stated on the Tucson bee lab expert forum that bees with capensis like traits have NEVER been observed in the U.S. before. Why is not Dee as concerned as the rest of us that bees with capensis like traits could be the ruin of all her and Ed's hard work? Interesting facts: Dr. Erickson said at the Tucson bee lab web site that in his EXPERT opinion that the cape bee problem and what he was observing in Arizona are the same. Dr. Shiminuki (retired head of the bee labs) was afraid the introduction of a bee with capensis like traits could end the commercial beekeeping industry in the US as we know it. Were Dr. Shiminuki's concerns unfounded? It is my understanding that both Dr. Hoffman, Dr. Erickson and the Tucson bee lab is concerned. Dr. Erickson says the research is *on going* and *additional research is needed*. Bob Ps. "thinking out loud" I have talked with several researchers which have studied the cape bee. They are *all* of the opinion that if I am correct in my hypothesis then the cat is already out of the bag and the problem is unstoppable. The USDA may be of the same opinion and will simply document the spread. The only points which the researchers have different opinions on is the range of the spread. About half say the total U.S.could be effected (migratory beekeepers) and the other half say only an area similar to the range of AHb now. Take your pick of scenarios (if my hypothesis is correct). If bees with capensis like behavior do not exist in Arizona ( as questioned by both Allen and Dee) then why is the USDA going to the expense of bringing in Mike A, (of the BEE-L list) from South Africa to study the problem? Another waste of money or money well spent? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 21:20:51 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: BEE-L's Greatest Hits MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This thread is not getting much help. C'mon people! How about this one: BeeGo loses its effectiveness after the container is opened, if damp air is in contact with it. Water neutralizes the efectiveness of n-butyric anhydride as a bee repellant. I first heard it here on BEE-L, I believe. allen http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Diary/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 03:42:46 +0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: david flathman Subject: Re: Jenter Queen Rearing System Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed i too just purchased the jenter system and am curious as to the best methods to using it. please let me know what you find. _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 16:53:11 +1200 Reply-To: peter@airborne.co.nz Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter Bray Organization: Airborne Honey Ltd. Subject: Re: Bees from New Zealand In-Reply-To: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT > Greetings > I read the report on importing bees from NZ and was quite satisfied > with their discussion of the concerns. They are saying that if there > were potential drawbacks to importing bees from New Zealand, they > would have played themselves out long before now, in Canada and in > the USA as well, since there was no real barrier preventing the > problems from spilling over into the US. > > >Since 1985, Canada has imported honey bees from New Zealand. Because > >there are currently no restrictions on the importation into the > >United States of honey bees from Canada, we expect that honey bees > >from New Zealand have been imported into the continental United > >States via Canada since that time. NZ has been supplying bees to Canada since the late 1960s/early 1970s. i.e. for over 30 years. Regards, Peter Bray _________________________________________________________ Airborne Honey Ltd., Pennington St, PO Box 28, Leeston, New Zealand Fax 64-3-324-3236, Phone 64-3-324-3569 http://www.airborne.co.nz peter@airborne.co.nz ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 16:57:11 +1200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Robt Mann Subject: Re: Borescope use, less disturbance for bees? In-Reply-To: <018201c25388$224685e0$6e2965d5@rons> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Ron van Mierlo wrote: >Having used the borescope (or boroscope if you like...) in all kinds of >other things, I wondered if any > >beekeepers have thought of applying one to investigate a colony without >having to open the hive? ... >many interesting things could be seen >With the digital cameras around today, even pictures could be taken >through the scope if so wished. I proposed several years ago that this type of flexible video probe should have lashed onto it a sniffer capillary for GC-MS of volatiles. One class of question examined this way could be functions of drones. Movements interacting with workers (& queen?) could be correlated with chemicals in the hive air. R ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 11:35:18 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "Frank I. Reiter" Subject: Re: BEE-L's Greatest Hits In-Reply-To: <001a01c253c2$134bf0e0$93ae73d1@allen> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > This thread is not getting much help. C'mon people! It may be that there are many people in the same boat that I am in. I am a beekeeping novice with just two years under my belt. BEE-L has been one of my main information sources, and I have learned so much about such a wide variety of things that I could not possibly pick one or two that stand out from the rest. To those who make BEE-L happen: Thank you! 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: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 17:39:35 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Murray McGregor Subject: Re: fw from main NZ bee researcher In-Reply-To: <01C252ED.95E56200.jfischer@supercollider.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed In article <01C252ED.95E56200.jfischer@supercollider.com>, James Fischer writes >Anything that does >not kill 100% of the spores and "live" bacteria (and nothing short of gamma >beam or electron beam irradiation will kill them all) will certainly >result in a >"surviving strain" developing. The "survivor strain" survives due to >some small >difference between it and the strain(s) that were killed. I have no wish to get involved in this thread which is getting way off beam so far as I can see. However, the above merits some comment as I feel it is inaccurate and intended to lead the reader into a possibly false conclusion. Most survivors from treatment regimes are in fact nothing to do with the scenario you depict. It is usually down to the organism just getting lucky. As an example, most varroa mites surviving a routine Apistan application (given that you are not in a situation where resistance is already developed) are not resistant. They just happened not to meet the treatment sufficiently strongly to be killed, or perhaps not even meet it at all. Your scenario relies on the assumption that resistance is the only variable at play and this is simply incorrect. Most cases are down to inefficiency and inconsistency of the delivery system of the treatment. Genetic difference is certainly a possibility, but not as you indicate, a certainty. Resistance is certainly selected for, but to say that exposure to treatment gives rise to new strains automatically is a leap too far. The resistance must already have some genetic basis to be selected for, or arise by mutation at some time after first exposure. I very much doubt that resistance mutations are caused by the treatment (which I appreciate you did not actually say), but that conditions conducive to the new mutation prospering are created. -- Murray McGregor ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 13:17:25 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Mark Hubbard Subject: timing of fall medications MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I am planning on medicating this fall for nosema (fumidil) foulbrood (terramyacin) mites (apistan) Is there any order in which I should apply these treatments? Can I apply any of these at the same time? Should I wait some specified time in between any treatments? Thanks, Mark hubbard@cofo.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 14:08:32 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Selkie Lass Subject: Re: BEE-L's Greatest Hits In-Reply-To: <001a01c253c2$134bf0e0$93ae73d1@allen> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii My favorite is: If the bees are robbing, or otherwise becoming feisty, turn on the sprinkler. They think it's raining and return to the hive. (Or get wet, and are grounded- same effect.) For a small or back yard apiary, it really works! Ellen in Michigan --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 17:23:24 -0400 Reply-To: "jfischer@supercollider.com" Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: fw from main NZ bee researcher MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Murray McGregor said: > Your scenario relies on the assumption that resistance is the only > variable at play and this is simply incorrect. Most cases are down to > inefficiency and inconsistency of the delivery system of the treatment. > Genetic difference is certainly a possibility, but not as you indicate, > a certainty. > Resistance is certainly selected for, but to say that exposure to > treatment gives rise to new strains automatically is a leap too far. A very good point. I should not have used the word "certainly" and/or should have added a qualification, such as "over time", "over multiple treatment periods", or "on average over a large number of colonies". jim ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 00:32:07 +0200 Reply-To: Jorn_Johanesson@apimo.dk Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Jorn Johanesson Subject: SV: [BEE-L] Jenter Queen Rearing System In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Emne: Re: [BEE-L] Jenter Queen Rearing System > > > i too just purchased the jenter system and am curious as to the > best methods > to using it. please let me know what you find. What You need to be very aware of is the time scheduling, but this goes for all queen breeding systems. So you definitely need a time table for queen breeding. I am just now including a timetable in my software so that each breeding queen can have her own. for a timetable adopted to Jenter you can try http://www.angus.co.uk/bibba/ or get it from me: Http://apimo.dk/programs/bibaware1.zip Best regards Jorn Johanesson Multilingual software for beekeeping since 1997 hive note- queen breeding and handheld computer beekeeping software Updated 04-08-2002 Added grouping and colouring of hives + a lot more. all you need and a little more. being a little beekeeper or a big queen breeder free of charge up to 10 hives. Language added : Dutch, Pourtuguise, French, Russian with more. home page = HTTP://apimo.dk e-mail Jorn_Johanesson@apimo.dk ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 18:11:04 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dennis Murrell Subject: small cell colony update MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Everyone, Whew! And I though the last monthly update came fast! Anyway, this last mite count ended on 8/18/02. Was about the same as the month before with the highest natural mite fall per hive at 3 mites per week. The lowest natural mite fall was 0 mites and the average mite fall was 1 mite per hive per week over a 3 week period. By this time last year I was observing quite a lot of bald headed brood which are signs of mite cleansing going on. I haven't seen any so far. Best Wishes Dennis ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 12:12:33 +1200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Robt Mann Subject: evolution Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Several comments on evolution of mite- or chemical-resistant bees or pathogens have touched on the roles of mutation v. selection. Neo-Darwinian theory resulted from merging 4 types of theory: mutation, selecting-out of the less fit, genetics, and population dynamics. It is touted by aggressive atheists e.g R Dawkins, S Weinberg, L Wolpert, who claim it is a thorough explanation of how species evolved. NeoDarwinism is at last going thru some sceptical examination - and is faring badly as in my opinion it deserves to because it can't explain much. Too few realise that natural selection is envisaged only as decreasing the reproduction, and therefore after some generations the abundance, of mutants that are somehow less fit for their environment. No creativity is hinted at in this 'rogueing' role. Natural selection is actually claimed only to *narrow* the variance. All the creativity in evolution is thus, in this theory, left to mutation. This process is normally stated to be random - not at all to any plan but merely changing nucleic acids - DNA or RNA - randomly (owing to damage by radiation or chemical mutagens, etc). If you can believe that such randomness can lead to coordinated ecosystems, or even a coordinated single cell, I suggest you read N Broom 'How Blind is The Watchmaker' (IVP 2001). The reason I summarise this controversy is that many posts on Bee-L have assumed neoDarwinism is well established and a sufficient basis for predicting how bees or their pathogens will evolve in this or that changed environment. More & more scientists are coming to the view that this is another example of the emperor's new clothes. I would be glad to send direct to any who ask RTF papers going into details and giving refs. R ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 20:53:19 -0400 Reply-To: "jfischer@supercollider.com" Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: timing of fall medications MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mark asked: > I am planning on medicating this fall for > nosema (fumidil) > foulbrood (terramyacin) > mites (apistan) Someone has to ask the obvious question - have you tested and found that you actually have any/all of these problems, or are you perhaps treating for pests/diseases without justification? A handy document to use in identifying diseases and pests is this one, freely available in pdf form or available by mail for those without a color printer. A very nice set of clear color photos. http://pubs.cas.psu.edu/FreePubs/uf013.html The Bee-L archives http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?S1=bee-l&D=0 can also be a big help in finding diagnostic techniques, but you likely have to search for one problem at a time. jim ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 21:58:57 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: GImasterBK@AOL.COM Subject: Re: timing of fall medications MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is IMPOSSIBLE to answer unless you tell WHERE your bees are located, as almost all medications are temperature dependent. Further, why are you treating with Terramycin? If your bees are exposed to AFB, how are you going to identify that fact if your bees have been treated with Terramycin? Terra. HIDES the symptoms of AFB, and that is the "evil" of using it. I have NEVER used a single dose of Terramycin in 70 years and usually had 100+ colonies. My bees are close to Washington, DC. I treat all my colonies with Fumidil-B every fall, beginning near the end of October and through the entire November in order that the fumidil is stored in the winter food supplies ALL WINTER. I don't like feeding in September, because not much of the treated fumidil sugar syrup will be stored for the winter. The very BEST time to use Apistan is during that period when the queen bee has dramatically reduced her laying of brood or stopped completely. Here, in central Maryland, queens have reduced there laying by October 1st, and completely stopped laying by November 15th. Hence, I install Apistan on October 1st, and DEFINITELY remove it by December 1st to avoid any chance of causing mite resistance to Apistan. I hope I have helped. George Imirie Certified EAS Master Beekeeper 2002 was my 70th year of beekeeping in Maryland and Virginia Author of George's Monthly PINK PAGES Author of American Beekeepers Federation HOBBYIST HELP article Past President of Maryland State Beekeepers Assn. Just an OLD, RETIRED, SCIENTIST. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 15:08:24 +1200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Robt Mann Subject: Re: timing of fall medications Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Geo Imirie wrote: > I install Apistan on October 1st, and DEFINITELY remove it by December >1st to avoid any chance of causing mite resistance to Apistan. In the temperate or perhaps sub-tropical climate of Auckland, New Zealand, I tried the corresponding timing (S hemisphere - autumn, corresp to USA 'fall' as recomm by Geo). The v vigorous colony into which I put the first Apistan® I'd ever seen was my pride & joy - a lovely combination of hard-working and mild-mannered, bred by a decade of Pauper's Splits, achieving net storage over what we are pleased to call winter and readily clocking up 60lb honey in 10d off a big pohutukawa 80m away. I had offered this colony to the govt bee experts to take to a varroa-free island of our country for possible use later for breeding; they never replied. This colony entirely died out well within the period Geo suggests. This mini-catastrophe cannot be interpreted with any accuracy; indeed these simple facts don't prove anything against Apistan®, but I don't mind admitting that this horrible event produced in me an irrational dislike of Apistan®. One inference might be to reinforce Geo's excellent point that the effects of medicaments are generally T-dependent. Our autumn may well be warmer than his. R ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 08:05:31 +0200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Mats Andersson Subject: Re: BEE-L's Greatest Hits In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Allen pleaded: >> This thread is not getting much help. C'mon people! And Frank responded: >"...I have learned so much about such a wide variety of things that I could not possibly pick one or two that stand out >from the rest." I tried hard to pick one greatest hit too, and Franks response was right on target. This list gave me so much knowledge, i stopped calling the experienced beekeepers around here for advice. They started calling me instead. One favourite, though, that i haven't had a chance to try yet: the Hopkins queen rearing method. /Mats Andersson, Stockholm Sweden ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 07:39:09 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter Edwards Subject: Re: small cell colony update Is this correct? If so, what is the explanation for bald brood before we had varroa? Peter Edwards beekeepers@stratford-upon-avon.freeserve.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dennis Murrell" To: Sent: 05 September 2002 01:11 Subject: [BEE-L] small cell colony update > By this time last year I was observing quite a lot of bald headed brood > which are signs of mite cleansing going on. I haven't seen any so far. > > Best Wishes > Dennis > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 11:11:17 +0200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Erwin Hoebrechts Subject: Re: Jenter Queen Rearing System In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear David and all, I am using a similar system than JENTER since 1 year now. The system I use is of French origin and is called NICOH-system. There is not much difference between the 2: besides differences in cup size, the biggest one is the fact that for a JENTER system you need to let the bees build comb on the plastic foundation. This is not the case with NICOH system. In general I am very happy with the system and I prefer it above f.i. grafting. I came into contact with this system through a beekeeper who was using both NICOH and JENTER systems. He was/is a commercial queenraiser. I try to summarize the most important "tricks" he learned me: 1. Building comb on JENTER foundation plate: Brush some liquid wax on the foundation with a paint brush prior to bringing it in a hive with a lot of young bees. My tutor used a nuc with young bees in spring time. I am located in Belgium - Europe. Ideal time to do this is beginning of may. You may feed the bees with 1:1 sugar sirop. 1 to 2 days later the comb will be fully drawn out. In case of excessive feeding, sugar sirop may be stored already in the comb and this you have to wash out with water. 2. Preparation. 1 week before queen rearing, you have to feed the colony from which you want to rear. I use honey/water 1:1. I feed contineously with a honey jar upside down on the hive. In the lid of the jar there are 2 holes drilled of 2 mm diameter. This will give contineously stimulation to the hive and the queen will be stimulated to lay eggs. 3. Day 0. Day 0 is the day that you hang the JENTER in the hive. Hang it somewhere in the middle of the brood nest, with the queen locked in the JENTER system. I always do this in the afthernoon. Continue stimulating with honey/water as described in 2. 3. Day 1. At the evening of day 1, take out the jenter frame and check if there are eggs in all cups. If Ok, take out the queen excluder part of the frame and continue feeding. I did not yet experience the observation that the queen did not lay eggs in the majority of the cups. If this should be the case, consider the following: A. I rear queens from an F0 breaderqueen. In order to expand her lifetime, I keep her on a restricted broodnest. Resticting the broodnest makes the queen more eager to lay in the jenter cups. B. Seasonal influences. During May/june the queen is more eager to lay then in July. In July, I could only manage to have 60 eggs or so on 110 cups. C. Theoretically, the queen is caged in for more than 24 hrs (27 or so).This is OK, you may expect that the queen will not lay eggs for the first 6 hrs or so, meaning that all eggs are laid within less than 24 hrs interval. 4. Day 4. During the evening of Day 4 you have larvae of 1 day old, and you can stop stimulation. If you are going to do several rounds of queenbreeding from the same hive, one may continue stimulation during the whole queenbreeding timeframe. As I said, I am very much in favor of using this kind of non-grafting techniques, but there is also 1 important disadvantage: The cups out of a JENTER system were in the F0 hive for 4 days, meaning they completely have the smell of that hive. If you bring these cups into a hive with limited or no genetic simularities, It may happen that the cups are not accepted by the foster hive. This is not the case when you graft. I hope this helps, Erwin ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 07:54:30 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter Borst Subject: Constructing Honey Bees Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" "In my laboratory, transformed honeybees with insecticide resistance are the target of current research. The main role of apiculture in Japan is pollination. Many strains of honeybee are used as pollinators in horticulture, such as strawberry production in greenhouses. Therefore one of the most important characteristics required in bee breeding is constructing honey-bees strains suitable for pollination in green-houses." (from "The Current Status of Transgenic Research Insects" by Kiyoshi Kimura, PhD) I think we are at a unique point in the history of beekeeping where we can discuss the potential ramifications of an emerging technology before it becomes a reality. We were not able to engage in a discussion over the wisdom of importing African bees to Brazil in the 1950s. Of course, the consensus may have emerged to go forward, since no one could have foreseen the consequences that Africanization would have for the American continents. But, now is the time to discuss the issue of genetically altered honey bees, before they become a reality. Points raised again and again by those who see little sense in discussing these matters are 1) the subject is too technical, 2) the techniques, at least in bees, are not feasible, and 3) it is a moral issue and therefore too contentious. German Chancellor Gerald Schroder created the National Ethics Council in early May 2001. "Only a public that is informed and able to discuss options openly will be able to make and support decisions on future-related issues such as the use of biotechnology and genetic engineering. These decisions cannot be left up to a few specialists or otherwise interested parties," Schroder said. As early as 2000, databases were set up to provide genome-mapping information about pigs, cattle, chickens, and sheep. These maps have been used to produce commercially available transgenic animals. The list now includes many more creatures including honey bees. Honey bee genome maps will initially be used by researchers studying genomics, but may be utilized to produce transgenic bees for sale. According to Peter Atkinson, Department of Entomology, University of California, Riverside: "The past 5 years have witnessed significant advances in our ability to introduce genes into the genomes of insects of medical and agricultural importance." The technical aspects of how this is to be done may be beyond the understanding of most of us, but the implications for our industry can be seen by looking at other industries. To their experiences we must add, however, the knowledge that bees are not isolated and maladies as well as new genetic material can and do move very rapidly. It took only a few years for varroa to become widespread in each country it encountered. The progress of African bees has slowed somewhat due to climate and other factors, but was very rapid in the tropics. As a guideline for discussion, I have consulted the book "Agricultural Bioethics" (Iowa State University Press, 1990). Writing in it, Chuck Hassebrook outlines these primary questions that we should be asking of any research or new technology. 1) What are the forces causing the research to be undertaken? 2) How does the technology affect the balance between the use of labor and management relative to capital? 3) Will the technology be more conducive to owner operated businesses or to industrially structured ones where the functions of ownership, management and labor are divided among different people? 4) Will the technology create barriers to entry due to capital, or other requirements that cannot be met by most potential beginning [beekeepers]? 5) How will the technology affect competitive position among different types and sizes of producers? Now, to use an example of a new technology, suppose Dr. Kiyoshi Kimura succeeds in producing a transgenic bee, one that is highly resistant to pesticides. Perhaps such a bee would be promoted to enable beekeepers to use new and stronger chemicals against mites and other pests. How would this affect our industry? The impact could be similar to that of Roundup Ready corn, or the bovine growth hormone. Naturally, the makers of such products say they are working to make better products for farmers, but in reality they are concerned primarily with making money. Most of these companies are paying much more attention to the value of their stocks than to the well-being of farmers. Obviously, any management technique that requires the repeated purchase of genetic material is going to be more costly in the short run, than one that does not. When farmers began to be offered genetically altered corn, they were required to sign contracts agreeing not to save seed. How would beekeepers react to committing to purchase queens on an annual basis and forego raising their own queens? A serious concern would be the consequence of large scale adoption of a particular type of disease or pesticide resistant bee on the non-users of such a product. Widespread presence of such bees could in fact engender more virulent mites or other diseases, forcing producers to either adopt the methods of their neighbors, or get out of business. This is basically what happened in the case of the African bees in the Americas. Families that used to have a few hives in the yard were simply forced to give up beekeeping. Beekeepers were compelled to adopt the new bee, and the new methods, to survive. The high cost of modern beekeeping has always been a barrier to beekeepers in developing countries. Many workers have failed to fully realize this fact when they have attempted to export beekeeping technology to poor countries as a means of increasing family income, for example. And I am talking only about the cost of the hives themselves. To obtain hives or even lumber to make them, is beyond the reach of much of the world's population. In "The Case Against bGH", Gary Comstock writes: "It is too little appreciated that Amish farmers refused to adopt no-till farming techniques [in part] because it would mean fewer Amish sons would be need to be employed in farming". This is simply one example of the many that could be offered of the adverse impact that has been felt by small, family-owned farms and businesses. Closer to home, we have seen the change from beekeeping being relatively easy to start up and learn, to what it is now: an extremely challenging and somewhat discouraging occupation. Many of us get a sinking feeling when we see mites taking over hives in August, only months after treatment. And beekeepers like myself who normally work bare-handed have to put on heavy chemical resistant gloves to protect ourselves not from stings but from the chemicals we have to use to keep the bees alive. Add to this the possibility that we will have to buy expensive patented queens, and constantly monitor for supersedure, lest they either revert to ineffective parent stock, or turn into some weird mutation. "Some warn that genetically modified plants and animals could move into the wild and breed disruptive traits into local species, similar to the way African "killer bees" escaped a Brazilian research facility in 1957 and spread their aggressive traits. Others fear an opposite scenario: that instead of thriving, the modified plant or animal could interbreed with its natural cousins in ways that would destroy the species entirely." (from "Gene-Modified Plants and Animals Could Wipe Out Other Species, Experts Fear Oversight is Full of Holes." by Aaron Zitner, Los Angeles Times) We must confront the difficult issue of values. Frequently scientists attempt to dodge the question of the value of what they are doing by saying that science is value-free or amoral. It is not true, of course, since their choices reflect their values. However, it is thoroughly clear that even if scientists refuse to address the social consequences of their actions, society has a right to hold them accountable for their actions and/or negligence. Leaving aside the moral questions of tampering with the genetic code of creatures and the issue of patents on living beings, there still remains this question of the economic consequences of ever increasing technological and capital requirements. It is often noted that computers have made people's jobs easier, but it is less often noted that computers have eliminated many people's jobs or forced them to give up their skilled occupation and instead sit in front of a computer all day. Beyond the effect on human beings, there are possible profound effects on biodiversity. Already, many of the original honey bee races have been destroyed by conventional breeding and wild or feral colonies have ceased to exist in many areas. Further, developing a "super-bee" could spell the end of other species of wild bees, such as Bombus. -- Peter Borst ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 07:18:10 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Garrett M Martin Subject: Re: Jenter Queen Rearing System MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit H Morton wrote I just purchased a Jenter System and would like some tips. This Spring I was exactly where you are. I posted much the same question. The answers I received were filled with much wisdom. They pretty much told me to graft by hand if possible. After one season this is my point of view. While the graftless type systems sound great they are not all they are crack up to be. Supposedly you stimulate with feed put the queen in and whala in 24 hour eggs eggs eggs. In the real world for me the queen refused to lay for about 3 days then she only laid about 80% of the cups that were inserted. After you get the queen to lay then you are to let the colony feed the larvae until all are hatched and growing. In the real world because the queen was slow to lay the eggs were of varying ages and when you transfer an older larvae the queen rearing colony will not accept it on the other hand they will not accept an egg either. So I found myself making up to four or five manipulations just to get ten cells set successfully. I do not have time for all that. In my opinion if your eyes are good enough to see young larvae then graft. If you use a Chinese grafting tool this can be done quite easily. Plus you make one manipulation, you get to pick the age of your larvae and you are on your way. If you are patient and a beginner like myself you can graft 20 cells in about 1/2 hour and most of the time I received 80% acceptance but I did have as low as 50%. With the graftless system the best I got was 40%. So that is my opinion. Good Luck Garrett Martin ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 14:44:18 +0200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Arne Haugaard Subject: Re: Constructing Honey Bees MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I do not think the Idea about geneticly "altering" bees to be insecticide/pesticide resistant is for the better - What gene pool is selected for this experiment ? Are these genetically altered bees thought only for greenhouses ? What about cross mating in "nature" when they get out of the greenhouses ? What will it do to vax and honey if you can just spray them with XXXesticides eg. ? Killer bee stories in the 70/80´s comes to mind ! When one thinks of the surpises Queen breeders experince when using the "natural" way for improving bees - what surprises will come of the Genetic way ? I think many bee keepers need to stop for a minute and think quality not quantity ! Arne ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:06:03 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Mike Stoops Subject: Re: Bees from NZ and intro of mites In-Reply-To: <200209050400.g84MEBHL021635@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >NZ has been supplying bees to Canada since the late 1960s/early 1970s. >i.e. for over 30 years. I had to withdraw from beekeeping at the beginning of 1970 because of a location change. I'm now interested in returning to the fold. QUESTION: Mites appeared while I was out of beekeeping (1970-2000). Did the intoduction of mites into the U.S. come via Canada from importation from overseas? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 08:07:12 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Mark Hubbard Subject: Re: timing of fall medications MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > Someone has to ask the obvious question - have you tested and > found that you actually have any/all of these problems, or are you > perhaps treating for pests/diseases without justification? I haven't noticed any of these problems but my beekeeping mentor told me to treat for these every fall (and my reading led me to believe this wasn't a bad idea -preventative measures?). Perhaps this is wrong (?) Help me. (Thanks for the link to diagnostic info!) > This is IMPOSSIBLE to answer unless you tell WHERE your bees > are located, as > almost all medications are temperature dependent. Sorry I didn't provide this info. I am in SW Missouri and yesterday's temps: high of 92 and low of 65. The forecast looks like much of the same > Further, why are you treating with Terramycin? If your bees > are exposed to > AFB, how are you going to identify that fact if your bees > have been treated > with Terramycin? Terra. HIDES the symptoms of AFB, and that > is the "evil" of using it. > I have NEVER used a single dose of Terramycin in 70 years and > usually had > 100+ colonies. You have 70 years of experience more than I do. Tell me more about the "evil" of Terramycin. What does one do when AFB shows up? Again, I'm just going with the advice given me a couple of years ago. Thanks for all your help! Mark ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:24:31 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "Frank I. Reiter" Subject: Queen rearing for hobbyists (Was re Jenter...) In-Reply-To: <20020905.072540.1956.0.willetslakeapiaries@juno.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This conversation comes at a good time for me. I wonder whether we might expand the scope a little bit: I like to pick something in particular to learn about each year in my beekeeping. This next year I want to try my hand at queen rearing, which at this point I know practically nothing about. I have one book (not yet read) and another has been ordered, but I would love to hear from the collective wisdom of BEE-L about methods that are well suited to a hobbyist with no experience hoping to produce just a small number of queens. It need not be the system I should use forever, just one that could be a successful starting point. What do you all recommend? 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: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:10:01 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter Borst Subject: Re: Jenter Queen Rearing System In-Reply-To: <20020905.072540.1956.0.willetslakeapiaries@juno.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" >In my opinion if your eyes are good enough to see young larvae then graft. I agree wholeheartedly with this. If you cannot see that well, try strong reading glasses, $8 to $12 US, and a bright lamp. I used to graft in my pickup truck with a searchlight fastened to the sun visor and plugged into the cigarette lighter. Nowadays, indoors, I use a miner's headlamp and reading glasses. Also, the steel wire tools they sell can be modified slightly by filing down the tip so it fits more easily under a tiny larva. I am not sure whether priming the cups makes a difference but it is so easy to do. Mix a little royal jelly with lukewarm distilled water and put a dab in there. -- Peter Borst ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:47:24 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter Borst Subject: Re: timing of fall medications In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Many of us used TM as a preventative for years. The US government bee researchers are recommending against it because it may have contributed to the development of strains of AFB that resist the effect of TM. Some states requiring burning infected hives, hence, many beekeepers sought to avoid this high cost by preventing AFB. Some states permit treating AFB hives and some studies show that it can be cured with TM. There is an effort on the part of the US government to provide beekeepers with an alternative to TM. However, I was told it would not be recommended as a preventative but as a treatment for sick hives, which is prohibited in some states. Personally, I would recommend giving up TM on bees and destroy AFB infected hives. They should be few and far between. Mites, on the other hand, will likely be in all hives. Still, I would sample the bees using the ether roll and if there are seriously infested hives, I would treat the whole yard because mites can drift from hive to hive, probably on the bees themselves. -- Peter Borst ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 07:22:44 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Mike Tooley Subject: Re: timing of fall medications In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Robt Mann wrote: This colony entirely died out well within the period Geo suggests. > This mini-catastrophe cannot be interpreted with any accuracy; indeed these > simple facts don't prove anything against Apistan®, but I don't mind > admitting that this horrible event produced in me an irrational dislike of > Apistan®. Robert,it was our experience that the very best producing hives were the first to crash in the fall(usually right after making a big crop) from varroa vectored viruses just by virtue of the fact that more brood equals more varroa,at least in non resistant stock.We had to face the unpleasant fact that our best bees were in fact our worst bees.Trying to get fall honey when there is a large buildup of varroa going on will guarantee a crashed hive by September in this area of California.This is creating lots of problems,the only long range solution being breeding bees with resistance to VIRUSES (sacbrood,DWV,and whatever else is in the stew known as PMS) And I never heard of nor saw any ill effects on bees or brood from Apistan.It just wont work any more in lots of areas. ---Mike ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 08:01:39 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Mike Tooley Subject: Re: Jenter Queen Rearing System In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I bought a cheap Harbor Freight illuminated magnifier to try grafting with this year.Didnt work out as it made it too difficult to judge the right size of larvae.But it works good for checking varroa on sticky boards. My favorite light source is a little 2 AAA cell Pelican flashlight.Used with reading glasses(didnt used to need them)I can see perfectly into the cell and the Chinese tool scoops em right up,royal jelly and all.I like the JZ BZ plastic cell cups,but still make a lot of my own from homemade dipping sticks.See,queen raising neednt be expensive.Just bail right in,you will have failures,but success too. ---Mike ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 11:21:32 -0400 Reply-To: "jfischer@supercollider.com" Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: timing of fall medications MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> have you tested and found that you actually have any/all >> of these problems, or are you perhaps treating for >> pests/diseases without justification? Mark said: > I haven't noticed any of these problems but my beekeeping > mentor told me to treat for these every fall (and my reading > led me to believe this wasn't a bad idea -preventative measures?). > Perhaps this is wrong (?) Help me. The biggest problem we have with most beekeeping "treatments" is that the target disease or pest becomes resistant to the treatment. Varroa have quickly become resistant to multiple types of treatments. Therefore, one wants to use drugs and pesticides in one's hive only when necessary, which requires learning how to detect various problems. This is the essence of "Integrated Pest Management", a worthwhile effort that has worked wonders everywhere else in agriculture, and is slowly finding its way into beekeeping. For each of your suspected problems, there is a specific diagnosis process that is not difficult for a beekeeper to perform. One of the best online references I have found is this: http://maarec.cas.psu.edu/pest&disease/pppdIndex.html It tells you how to test for just about every problem you can imagine, and has nice color photos to aid your diagnosis. Nosema - http://maarec.cas.psu.edu/pest&disease/slide39.htm Foulbrood - http://maarec.cas.psu.edu/pest&disease/slide10.htm (Keep reading and clicking "Next" until you get to "European Foulbrood", which is a different disease.) Mites - http://maarec.cas.psu.edu/pest&disease/sl10.html (Keep clicking "Next" here also.) As for the "timing" issue, the major points are: a) Getting the supers off the hive before treating for anything b) Doing so when it is still warm enough for the chemicals and medications to have some effect. In short, if the bees are clustering, they are neither eating medicated syrup, nor are they coming into contact with the Apistan strips. If you find an actual need to do so, there is no problem with (for example) putting Apistan strips in the brood chamber and feeding one medication or the other in syrup at the same time, but I do NOT mix two or more medications into the same bucket of syrup, simply because no one has ever told me that this is OK, and I recall Honey's line from "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" - "Never mix, never worry". (Comments, anyone?) If the web pages above are not enough, another good reference is the USDA ARS Agriculture Handbook 690 "Diagnosis of Honey Bee Diseases". Be sure to pick up the "revised in 2000" version. At EAS 2002, I saw a very nice Canadian government publication that included very good color photos, similar to the MAAREC website mentioned above. Does anyone have any ordering information on this? (I should have bought a copy...) jim ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 13:15:34 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "Keith B. Forsyth" Organization: Keith B. Forsyth Subject: Re: timing of fall medications (Publications) Comments: To: jfischer@supercollider.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Jim and all: I believe the publication you are looking for is: Honey Bee Diseases & Pests published by the Canadian Association of Professional Apiculturists (CAPA), which is a group similar to AAPA. The publication is $4 Canadian (plus s/h) and available from: Pat Westlake, Business Administrator Ontario Beekeepers' Association Bayfield, ON N0M 1G0 519-565-2622 phone 519-565-5452 fax www.ontariobee.com info@ontriobee.com Keith ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 21:06:24 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: GImasterBK@AOL.COM Subject: Re: timing of fall medications MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Mark. I will be close to you in January at the winter meeting of the American Beekeeping Federation in Kansas City, where I give a 3 hour talk to Hobbyists about how to succeed as a beekeeper rather than have bees die, swarm, become sick, or a public nuisance, and of course, how to make MORE honey. They have had me do this all over the U. S. for the past 10-15 years. You are going to discover something that most people don't know; i. e. that the great majority of "the good, old boy beekeepers" are LOUSY beekeepers and really don't know much about bees, bee disease, or bee behavior at all. They are really beeHAVERS rather than beeKEEPERS, and have to buy new bees for themselves every couple of years. Beekeeping is BOTH an art and a science. Most of the large commercial beekeepers are great artists of beekeeping, but have almost zero scientific knowledge about them. All of the above was OK until 18 years ago, 1984, when the tracheal mite arrived in the U.S. This was followed by the varroa mite in 87, the Africanized Honey Bee (killer bee) entered Texas in 90 (and today the American Adult public is scared to death about bees), the Parasitic Mite Syndrome, PMS, was announced in 93, the small hive beetle in 98, resistant American Foul Brood in 2001. This simply means that one can NO LONGER keep bees like Daddy kept bees! Many of the things we thought true in 1983, we now know are obsolete, and one HAS to use the procedures that the bee scientists and bee researchers have PROVEN since 1984 One thing, in spite of millions of dollars of research, that has NOT changed (I wish it had). THERE IS NO (nothing, zero, doesn't exist) treatment or any chemical, medicine or anything that will CURE AMERICAN FOULBROOD DISEASE without killing the bees. Make SURE that you understand this! AFB is a disease of the larval state of the brood, is very contagious, and the pathogen causing the disease can stay alive and well in the wood of the hive for up to 80 years. You have heard of diabetics requiring a daily shot of insulin to stay alive, my wife is a diabetic. If the insulin is forgotten, the patient dies. Terramycin is identical with AFB. As long as a hive is treated 2-3 times every year with Terramycin, the bees will live and make honey, BUT everything in your beekeeping equipment, particularly the HONEY, the wax, and all the wood of a hive is just filled with AFB pathogens which will contaminate any new hive or new bees brought on the property. By the way, almost ALL the honey sold in stores is loaded with AFB pathogens. It is harmless to humans but deadly for new bees. Almost all commercial beekeepers HAVE to use Terramycin because they just don't have the time to inspect their colonies, and they don't destroy them because than would reduce their honey crop. Many hobbyists simply follow what some codger has told him what to do, but the better skilled hobbyists do NOT use Terramycin. What happens to a hive of bees that has AFB in almost ALL states? The entire thing, everything, bees, honey, wax, hive bodies, supers, queen excluder, etc. is BURNED by the state bee inspector. Only Maryland and North Carolina have an ethylene oxide fumigation chamber where the wood ware can be fumigated and kill the AFB pathogens. In 70 years, I have discovered a colony with AFB about 6-7 times, and quickly destroyed it before it infected any of my other 100+ colonies. This year, I found 2 colonies with AFB in my home apiary of 24 colonies, and destroyed them the same day. You don't have to be a scientist to know the symptoms of AFB, so JUST LEARN THEM AND LEARN THEM WELL, and always watch for any signs of AFB. 99% of bee inspectors are NOT scientists or doctors, but have been taught the symptoms of bee diseases. You test to see if you have a fever by sticking a thermometer in your mouth. The doctor tests your blood pressure for hypertension, or your urine for kidney stones. You check the oil in your car with a dipstick, and tire pressure with a tire gauge. DON'T TREAT YOUR BEES WITHOUT TESTING. This just might make them resistant to the medicine. Test with a "sticky board" for mites, not that damn ether roll test, but TEST before using medicine. I KNOW there are mites in every county in the U. S., and hence I am going to HAVE to treat my bees for mites. But HOW often, and WHEN? Hence, I do a 24 hour sticky board test on every colony on April 1st and again on July 1st, but I install Apistan in my colonies on October 1st withOUT making any test. I have never had to make an Apistan treatment after either the April or July tests because the mite count was not abnormally high. BUT I TEST EVERY APRIL AND JULY to make sure. You can find many of my PINK PAGES listed on the Internet, and Brushy Mountain Bee Supply has them on their website. However, you might try www.beekeeper.org/george_imirie/index.html Spent $30 and buy what many say is the finest beginners bee book ever written: the 3rd Edition, April 1998, of THE BEEKEEPERS HANDBOOK by Dr. Diana S ammataro. Later, have some one give you a Christmas present of the 1300+ page beekeepers bible - the 1992 EXTENSIVELY REVISED edition of the HIVE AND THE HONEY BEE, for just $36. It was written by the TOP 34 bee scientists of the U. S. should be without it. Well, got to go to the 3 day Damascus Fair tomorrow where I put on demonstrations with live bees and my sons sell honey, and I have to dash back and forth to the hospital to visit my sick wife, but she said "george, do it'. I hope I have helped. George Imirie ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 21:32:46 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter Borst Subject: Re: timing of fall medications In-Reply-To: <55.2cea7531.2aa95990@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" George writes: Test with a "sticky board" for mites, not that damn ether roll test Please explain this. I have found the ether roll test to be a very reliable indicator of mites, whereas the number of mites on a sticky board seems to depend somewhat on how close the cluster is to the board. -- Peter Borst ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 21:04:15 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Edward D Heinlein Subject: Re: Jenter Queen Rearing System MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Greetings all, I experienced almost exactly the same results as Garrett Martin this year, when I started using one of the graftless systems. I thought I was doing something terribly wrong. Totally frustrated, I consulted with a number of queen rearers in the US and Canada. With their advice (which was basically to just graft the larvae) I'll be using the inexpensive Chinese grafting tool and plastic cups next year. I have also tried using the metal wire/spoon arrangement, the modified toothpick arrangement, and an expensive automatic grafting tool, however, I found that unlike the other devices, the CGT scoops up copious amounts of the RJ with the larvae, and deposits it perfectly in the plastic cup. It appeared to me that the lack of RJ in the cell, dramatically effected the acceptance of the larvae by the cell starting colony. As suggested elsewhere, you could also prime the cell with RJ too. Just my 2 cents worth, Ed Heinlein Helena, MT ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 08:11:05 +0200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Mats Andersson Subject: Re: Jenter Queen Rearing System In-Reply-To: <20020905.210415.-205521.1.relief.chiropractic@juno.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hello all beekeepers out there. Can someone tell me what a "chinese grafting tool" looks like? I use the Jenter system myself, but one of my develpment projects for next summer is to learn how to graft queens cells "for real". I have this plastic grafting needle that i bought a few years back and i tried it this summer, but it seemed to be to clumsy to get the job properly done. I heard of someone who grafts very successfully with a fine watercolor pen. Any experiences with that? Another question for those of you who raise your own queens: do you put cell protectors on the queen cells just after they've been capped? I have been doing this, and i suspect it's the root of my very low success rate. I get plenty of cells, but most of them contain dead and not fully developed queens. Could it be that the nursing bees are unable to keep a cell inside a protector warm enough? /Mats Andersson, Stockholm Sweden ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 03:17:43 -0400 Reply-To: "jfischer@supercollider.com" Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: Bees from NZ and intro of mites MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mike asked: > Did the intoduction of mites into the U.S. come via Canada > from importation from overseas? No. In fact, Canada seems to be of the opinion that the reverse was the case, hence their ban on all bee imports from the USA in 1987, a ban that continues to the present. Canada says that they did not find varroa until 1989. Varroa was found in the USA in 1987. Here's an animated map showing the global spread of varroa. (hand-repair any wrap-around in the URL!) http://www.maf.govt.nz/biosecurity/pests-diseases/animals/varroa/maps/2000varroa-global-animap.htm It really does not matter how varroa got into North America They certainly did not swim here, and could not have crawled or flown on the backs of swarming bees across the continent as quickly as they spread once they got here. It also does not really matter if New Zealand and Australia are allowed to offer queens and packages to US beekeepers. They are simply examples of a trend, and it is the trend that is troubling, not the specific countries currently at issue. What matters is that experience has taught us nothing. Recent experience for the USA includes tracheal mites (1984), varroa mites (1987), and small hive beetles (1998). What we should have learned by now, and what should be considered with care before overturning a law prohibiting imports of bees and queens that has stood since 1922, includes the following: 1) No one can know what pest or disease will be "serious". Anyone who claims to know is a fool. The Small Hive Beetle was not considered a serious pest in Africa, nor did (USA's) APHIS define it as "serious". Once it got to the USA, it proved to be very serious. Serious as in a plague of biblical proportions. Therefore, reliance on a list of "known serious" pests and diseases is fuzzy thinking to the point of being willful incompetence. Sadly, exactly such a "list" is the primary basis for the pending decision on NZ and AUS package and bee imports, and if left unchallenged, will be the basis for all future decisions. 2) Even when we know a pest is serious, USA beekeepers and government regulators lack the strength of character to impose inter-state quarantines, and lack the budgets to aggressively enforce limits on the inter-state bee movements that clearly spread these pests. It is clear that quarantines at least slow down the spread of pests, moreso when the quarantines can be imposed at barrier that cannot be "bypassed" at whim by unscrupulous beekeepers. Examples would be the Canadian border and the New Zealand "line", both which have proven to be effective. Another good example would be the oceans on either side of North America, which were effective enough barriers to even keep world wars away from all but the Aleutian Islands of Alaska. 3) Different strains of the "same" disease or pest can be resistant to approved treatments, and can thus be much more serious as a result. Which would YOU rather have? Varroa that you can control with Apistan, or varroa that is resistant to both Apistan and Checkmite? Sadly, no one is considering "strains" of diseases or pests, thereby ignoring basic biology. So much for "science-based analyses" as defined in the GATT and NAFTA. 4) In time, pests and diseases can spread through even the tightest control systems. Just ask New Zealand about varroa. Allowing imports simply speeds the spread of diseases and pests, by increasing the number of entries of host animals. Prohibiting imports may not stop diseases and pests, but it sure does slow them down and gives us the chance to stop 'em cold where we find them. Re-play the animated map of the spread of varroa, and imagine how much sooner varroa might have appeared in the USA if GATT-type trade agreements had been implemented in the 1950s. 5) One cannot find a pest or disease that one is not looking for, and most beekeepers don't notice diseases or pests until they start killing hives. Further, when one exports bee products, one has an inherent conflict of interest in regard to admiting that one "has" certain pests or diseases. This applies not only to beekeepers, but countries as a whole. I don't know how anyone got the impression that GATT and NAFTA shifts "the burden of proof" from the firms seeking to profit from exports to the citizens of the "target market", but I sure feel like a "target market". The problem is that the "target" has apparently been painted on all our backs. The USDA is faced with an clearly impossible task, and needs our help: a) They are asked to "prove" that a tangible risk exists, and if they cannot, they are being pressured to approve the imports. b) They are apparently limited to considering only "known" risks, even when very recent history (small hive beetle) proves that the unknown is much more risky than what is known. c) Once they rubber-stamp their approval on imports, they are dependent upon the exporting county's controls, since one cannot inspect packages or queens at the point of entry without facilities that simply do not exist. In the current case at hand, New Zealand and Australia have shown the world that they could not keep known devastating pests out of their countries. How can we be expected to believe that they can keep pests in? d) The USDA is apparently forced by what we can only conclude to be extreme political pressure to indulge in fantasies about bees being imported from New Zealand and/or Australia to Canada, and then to the USA as their sole basis for ignoring valid questions that would otherwise be a valid scientific basis for not approving imports. In essence, they are saying "See? Nothing bad has happened". Tongues are bitten to avoid saying "Nothing bad has happened YET". There is a public hearing on all this in Beltsville MD on Oct 29th, 2002. Anyone want to join me to teach a little basic risk management and biology? The more, the merrier, since such events often limit each speaker to a very brief statement. I'll pick up the bar tab afterwards at our "victory" celebration, win, lose, or draw. (Send e-mail off-list.) It could be an interesting venue, since it will be the first time that beekeeping has appeared at the intersection of "Free Trade", "Science", and "Politics". If nothing else, it will be a good test of Mob-ocracy versus the minions of the combined forces of GATT (including The Trilateral Commission, Mall-Wart, The Bilderberger Group, Alternative 3, The World Zionist Conspiracy, VilAnon, Majestic-12, World Freemasonry, SMERSH, The Second Soviet, Switzerland, The Arctic Nazis, The Hellfire Club, Price-Waterhouse-Coopers, Sanrio, Archer-Daniels-Midland, The U.S. Military-Industrial Complex, and Amway). They don't stand a chance, and they'll never know what hit them... jim ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 01:01:55 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Ivan McGill Subject: Re: Jenter Queen Rearing System Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >I bought a cheap Harbor Freight illuminated magnifier to try grafting with >this year.Didnt work out as it made it too difficult to judge the right >size of larvae.But it works good for checking varroa on sticky boards. > My favorite light source is a little 2 AAA cell Pelican flashlight.Used >with reading glasses(didnt used to need them)I can see perfectly into the >cell and the Chinese tool scoops em right up,royal jelly and all.I like the >JZ BZ plastic cell cups,but still make a lot of my own from homemade >dipping sticks.See,queen raising neednt be expensive.Just bail right in,you >will have failures,but success too. >---Mike Hi: I have never used the Jenter system. I use a double 0 paint brush for grafting, which I have used ever since I raised queens off and on for the last 20 year. I do it when I make time. My light source is a used reading lamp that swivels. I drilled a hole in a 2x4 on a board on an old super to put the reading lamp in. I bought a 12V lamp the same size as a regular bulb. Then added wire to the plug long enough to reach my truck battery, then added clamps. That is in the back of my pickup which is a Chev S15, 11 years old so it is notjacked up like the new trucks. With a canopy with the the door up. Then I put some black plastic around the door so it hangs down to block out the light. The side windows are also covered with black plastic. Then you can go under the black plastic because it only hangs down to just above the ground. I have a frame which I lay the frame against so I can graft. It may not be perfect but it works for me. It may take a little time to set the system up but once done, less than 5 minutes to get started. Ivan ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 09:58:38 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Tim Vaughan Subject: Re: Jenter Queen Rearing System Mats, you will find a picture of the Chinese grafting tool here http://www.mannlakeltd.com/catalog/index.html It is labeled HD-390 It's the easiest thing I've ever used. Regards Tim Vaughan ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 10:51:21 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Karen Oland Subject: Re: Constructing Honey Bees In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Peter Borst > >Now, to use an example of a new technology, suppose Dr. Kiyoshi >Kimura succeeds in producing a transgenic bee, one that is highly >resistant to pesticides. Perhaps such a bee would be promoted to >enable beekeepers to use new and stronger chemicals against mites and >other pests. How would this affect our industry? > >The impact could be similar to that of Roundup Ready corn, or the >bovine growth hormone. Naturally, the makers of such products say >they are working to make better products for farmers, but in reality >they are concerned primarily with making money. Am I the only one to see where the great money making potential of this lies? Not in selling us more chemicals for the bee hive (a paltry market) or even in greenhouse pollination (after all, the small market of queens for such use would never pay back the investment). But in the sales of the pesticides themselves. Pesticides that could be applied while the target crop was in bloom, being pollinated. No longer would the grower be forced to avoid spraying or spray at night in order to assure pollinators were not killed. Taking that reasoning further, all growers could be released from such laws (poorly enforced even now) and simply spray when desired. The burden to have bees that could survive such assaults would be on the beekeeper and the entire thing used as a positive PR - Monsanto helps eliminate wild Africanized bees by providing third world farmers with new bee able to withstand selective spraying that wipes out the feral population. Further development could allow stronger built-in pesticides on bee pollinated crops that don't harm the special "GM-ready" bees or bees that can withstand the results of systemic pesticides such as Gaucho, already under scrutiny for harming bees. The money is in the chemicals ... whether open field crops or in greenhouses, with the royalties from bee sales just needed to break even on research (if even that). Add gm-included pesticides into the crops (or only sell that wonderful roundup-ready seed with a system coating to "improve germination") and you then greatly increase sales of your gm-bees. Even better if it turns out that your resistance is through a gene such as SMR, where the benefit fades as the genetic line is diluted, thus insuring repeat sales. With special queen markings, it would be a simple matter to add in prosecution of beekeepers with their patented genes and unmarked (therefore, no royalty paid) queens. The simple fact that your bees survive in such a world would be proof that you were deriving benefit from their genes, so even that defense would be gone (at least with roundup-ready corn, you have to spray it yourself to "benefit" from the gene). Karen Oland ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 08:17:54 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Mike Tooley Subject: Re: Jenter Queen Rearing System In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mats Andersson wrote: I have this plastic grafting > needle that i bought a few years back and i tried it this summer, but it > seemed to be to clumsy to get the job properly done. I always hated any grafting tool that didnt pick up the bed of jelly with the larvae.And never liked priming cups,therefore the so called automatic tool was my favorite until the Chinese tool came out .It does a better job at a fraction of the cost of the old automatic tools. As for cell protectors,I only use them for cells put in full size colonies.If you are very careful to graft only the tiniest larvae so you dont have a virgin come out early,I wouldnt think you would need to do that.I know some large scale queen raisers who take the cells out early from the cell builders and put them into incubators,but for the rest of us just being careful works pretty well. The main things with grafting are to be able to see the larvae well(you have to have a good light source that wont dry out the larvae),they should be well fed(floating in a pool of jelly)get the really young ones,dont flip it over while transfering,and above all dont let them dry out.Also,spit out your Copenhagen before you start, if you lick the needle to clean off oversize grubs(I am not kidding.I know of one queen raiser who had a bad take becuse of that) .If you graft slow, you can set each cell bar under a damp towel. ------Mike ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 09:52:45 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dee Lusby Subject: Re: Bees from NZ and intro of mites Comments: To: "jfischer@supercollider.com" In-Reply-To: <01C25553.F76B8320.jfischer@supercollider.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi to all on BEE-L Jim has written some intereting comments that I have been following. As some of you know, I wear two hats. On one side I am a biological beekeeper trying to manage bees in a harmonious state with Nature with out the usage of various treatments. On the otherside I am president of the Southern Arizona Beekeepers Association in our state, our states largest active industry assoc, and therefore I have many other beekeeper interests to look out for. Jim wrote some interesting comments: It also does not really matter if New Zealand and Australia are allowed to offer queens and packages to US beekeepers. They are simply examples of a trend, and it is the trend that is troubling, not the specific countries currently at issue. Reply: This I think is more troubling to some from a competition standpoint, rather then risk standpoint.I myself see little problem from competition. Jim further wrote: What we should have learned by now, and what should be considered with care before overturning a law prohibiting imports of bees and queens that has stood since 1922, includes the following: Reply: First of all, it is my personal belief that the law in 1922 was implimented to cover tracks and pass blame, more than to prohibit imports of bees and queens, or the USDA would not have so vigorously brought in bees all those years for research from outside of our own country from all over the world. Jim also wrote: 1) No one can know what pest or disease will be "serious". Anyone who claims to know is a fool. . .Therefore,reliance on a list of "known serious" pests and diseases is fuzzy thinking to the point of being willful incompetence. Sadly, exactly such a "list" is the primary basis for the pending decision on NZ and AUS package and bee imports, and if left unchallenged, will be the basis for all future decisions. Reply: Bees on a harmonious system of field management are NO THREAT. Bees already unbalanced and not in a harmonious state are though in danger, for they are prone to pick up maladies due to the very way they are kept and managed. Such is the state of US beekeeping today. No list can protect USA bees from maladies if they are kept in stress induced situations just by the type of field management they receive daily. Jim also wrote: 2) Even when we know a pest is serious, USA beekeepers and government regulators lack the strength of character to impose inter-state quarantines, and lack the budgets to aggressively enforce limits on the inter-state bee movements that clearly spread these pests. reply: I do not think inter-state quarantines is/are the solution for it masks the actual field managment practices giving rise to this situation that beekeepers are doing and creating themselves! Jim added: It is clear that quarantines at least slow down the spread of pests, moreso when the quarantines can be imposed at barrier that cannot be "bypassed" at whim by unscrupulous beekeepers. Examples would be the Canadian border and the New Zealand "line", both which have proven to be effective. . . reply: No barrier has ever stopped a problem, but instead only made it worse in the long run. Jim further wrote: 3) Different strains of the "same" disease or pest can be resistant to approved treatments, and can thus be much more serious as a result. Which would YOU rather have? Varroa that you can control with Apistan, or varroa that is resistant to both Apistan and Checkmite? reply: For the long-haul, no dependency on various dopes that play out and make a bigger mess to clean up. Beekeepers cannot afford this.Besides various treatments are not necessary on bees kept properly to begin with harmonious with Nature. Jim also wrote: Sadly, no one is considering "strains" of diseases or pests, thereby ignoring basic biology. So much for "science-based analyses" as defined in the GATT and NAFTA. reply: While much is to be done here, and yes basic biology relative to honeybees is being ignored, all these various strains of diseases and pests really are not serious, if bees are kept on a harmonious system of beekeeping relative to Nature. I think the problem here, is no one is trying to keep bees biologically, and it isn't really taught. What is taught instead are quick fixes and gimmickry that don't work in a real world. Jim wrote: 4) In time, pests and diseases can spread through even the tightest control systems. Just ask New Zealand about varroa. reply: Yes, but I think other factors ralative to man were at play here and not necessarily on the part of beekeepers. Jim wrote: when one exports bee products, one has an inherent conflict of interest in regard to admiting that one "has" certain pests or diseases. This applies not only to beekeepers, but countries as a whole. a) They are asked to "prove" that a tangible risk exists, and if they cannot, they are being pressured to approve the imports. b) They are apparently limited to considering only "known" risks,even when very recent history (small hive beetle) proves that the unknown is much more risky than what is known. c) Once they rubber-stamp their approval on imports, they are dependent upon the exporting county's controls, since one cannot inspect packages or queens at the point of entry without facilities that simply do not exist. In the current case at hand, New Zealand and Australia have shown the world that they could not keep known devastating pests out of their countries. How can we be expected to believe that they can keep pests in? Reply: I think actually, in looking hard, they may be better at it then the USA! though I don't agree with their recent trends of doping for shortterm fixes. They were in a position to go for the long haul and somehow failed, but I could be wrong as they have held in the North and in the South time is more lenient. I must say Jim you have made me look hard here on BEE-L, from my first look at reading on resistant strains of AFB and EFB to the above. It seems they fight to get bees here, we fight to get ours back into Canada and between states we fight to move bees interstate, all based on problems of that can arise from diseases and pests that if the bees were kept naturally would be no problem.Hence man-made invented problems. Question: Are we creating the problems for work and something to do for job security? How big really are these problems if left to settle out? They either live or die. If they die (the problems along with the bees) then what is left simply picks up the pieces and goes on. Drastic maybe, but in the end I think it is coming to that! I really see no problems personally with imports of honeybees, but for others here in S. Arizona I can see questions as to whether or not competition is perceived. Right now, Many see it as another source for bees. Is this good? Depends! As for disease and pests. Again the problems relate to how one seems to keep bees. If naturally, I see no problems, if artifially, many can be thought of. But is this fair to the bees themselves? Without man would there be problems, I think not. Sincerely, Dee __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 19:01:31 +0200 Reply-To: jtemp@xs4all.nl Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Jan Tempelman Subject: Re: Jenter Queen Rearing System MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Erwin Hoebrechts wrote: > I am using a similar system than JENTER since 1 year now. The system I > use is of French origin and is called NICOH-system. the different between NICOT and JENTER is not the size but the price JENTER IS HIGHER regards, jan -- Met vriendelijke groet, Jan Jan Tempelman Annie Romein-Verschoorpad 2-4 NL 4103 VE Culemborg tel.:0345-524433 mobile: 06 10719917 -- http://www.xs4all.nl/~jtemp/index3.html mailto:jtemp@xs4all.nl -- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 18:44:02 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dennis Murrell Subject: Re: Jenter Queen Rearing System MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Peter and Everyone, Like Peter I think grafting is so much easier than the non-grafting methods. With a Chinese grafting tool the larva don't have to really be seen to be lifted. To select a larva, I get a good look at them with my hiking headlamp and a cheap plastic magnifying visor as I need my regular glasses. With the tool in your right hand just slide it down against the bottom-right cell wall until it bottoms out. Give it a very slight twist between the fingers and remove it with the larva and the majority of royal jelly scooped up. Now if you are JZ BZ plastic cell cups the task is even easier. If you are grafting just a few cells they can be placed directly on a comb and a grafting frame with cell bars is not needed. I like to coat my plastic cell cups with a very thin layer of bees wax. Just put the larva in the bottom of the cell and gently extract and retreat the tip, kind of keeping the larva in the same location and removing the tool rather than pushing her off the tip with the extractor. Some of the tips are rather stiff and blunt which doesn't matter too much if your grafting out of old, black comb. If you prefer a different feel or are grafting out of newer comb, the tip can be thinned and reshaped by sanding with 400 grit sandpaper. Grafting is soooo easy. If a trifocaled, asigmated fellow like me can do it anybody can. If you get a Chinese tool, some kind of magnification and some plastic cell cups you can teach yourself to graft the larva faster than I can type this post. Best Wishes Dennis ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 18:03:20 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dennis Murrell Subject: small cell colony update MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Peter and Everyone, Peter wrote: >Is this correct? If so, what is the explanation for bald brood before we had varroa? I have read of the appearance of bald headed brood before varroa but have not seen it personally before switching to small cell. All of my small cell colonies exhibited this behavior across different races and close inspection of both the bald headed brood, the capped brood and debris on a trays beneath screened bottom boards indicated the phenomena was associated with the bees removing mite infected pupa. If I have read correctly this phenomena had been associated with wax moth infestation. So it could be a type of cleansing or purging activity the bees use for various types of infestations or problems. Some posts from New Zealand indicate that bald headed brood can occur without any obvious mite infestation. Dennis ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 23:08:22 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dee Lusby Subject: Re: small cell colony update In-Reply-To: <001f01c254a7$091a8600$31b8193e@oemcomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi all Peter Edwards wrote: Is this correct? If so, what is the explanation for bald brood before we had varroa? Reply: Interesting you noting this!A problem is not a problem until recognized and made one. Mites falling from fruit trees on hives under? Who knows for sure. Bees not doing their job? Hungry bees? Isolated previous imports from who knows where? Yep, what are all the varying scenarios for balding brood? Balding brood ever studied in depth for all possible causes and is there more then one cause? Sincerely, Dee A. Lusby __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 11:08:32 +0200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Ron van Mierlo Subject: Re: Borescope use, less disturbance for bees? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Robt Mann wrote:..... > ............ One class of question examined this way could be functions of > drones. Movements interacting with workers (& queen?) could be correlated with > chemicals in the hive air. > > R Response: For a bee inspection sniffer to be incorporated in a flexible boroscope, I think it may get well beyond the budget and possibilities open to us amateur bee lovers or researchers, if that is what you meant, Robt. But the whole idea of seeing and sniffing/measuring simultaneously must be attractive and give us a world of new information about all that's going on in the beehive. Who knows there's beeman on the list that works for a firm involved in boroscope manufacture, or perhaps a professional researcher who could shed a light on this, from (hive) examinations done in this way? Meanwhile, we might have to resort to two separate probes. For me it's important to first get some practical experience with bees and get them going. Then if nothing seems against it, I hope to start observing them in their home environment, using the boroscope. Ron van Mierlo ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 09:19:36 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter Borst Subject: Re: Constructing Honey Bees In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Karen writes: >Am I the only one to see where the great money making potential of this lies? Karen, Well, no, not the only one. Large scale pollinators have always been more intimately associated with agri-business than the small time honey producers, for example. One could easily imagine how pesticide resistant bees would ease this love-hate relationship, where bees are moved on and off heavily sprayed fields of alfalfa, cotton, etc. A hive that could tolerate being sprayed could be rented out more times throughout the year. My main concern is in the unwanted consequences for small timers and the environment, both which are of lesser importance to investors than the sales potential of a "pesticide-ready" bee. Another potential avenue for modification is the so-called "killer gene." Drones could be developed that would mate with queens from feral swarms and prevent those queens from laying, in order to rid an area of undesirable strains. I can supply more info on request. See: "Terminator Insects - The Killing of Females" GM pink bollworms are a prelude to developing female-killing traits to control bollworm pests. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho and Prof. Joe Cummins explain the genetics and hazards of female killing systems. ... Recently, other conditional lethal systems have been considered for kill off females. Such systems could be introduced into any insect pest species with the help of genetic engineering. As a result, the GM insects could be released directly without pre-sterilisation. ------------------ The piggyBac transposon used to genetically modify pink bollworm was originally discovered by its ability to infect insect cells and baculovirus and to move between the two. The environment assessment of the pink bollworm release did not discuss the likelihood that baculovirus bearing piggyBac or related transposons could rescue the inactivated piggyBac in the pink bollworm cell by complementation and genetic recombination. ... Baculoviruses are known to be efficient vectors for transferring genes into animal and human cells. There is also evidence that piggyBac transposon vectors carrying transgenes are unstable, and undergo secondary mobilization to transfer horizontally, potentially to all species including human beings. ------------------ Since the first transgenic mouse in the world was produced in the early 1980s, the application of genetransfer techniques has furnished us with many new insights into various areas of biological science. Currently, gene transfer appears to be a promising technique in biotechnology, especially in medical and agricultural sciences, improving for example disease resistance, the quality of animal products, and genetic breeding. Until now, more than one thousand transgenic fish, including red carp, mirror carp, crucian carp, silver crucian, white crucian, and rainbow trout, have been produced [in China]. Compared to a control group, the growth rate of transgenic fish increased by 10-50%. These transgenic fish have produced more than 100,000 individuals of F1-F5 generation. The heredity of the transgene was relatively stable (>80%), and the growth rate increased by 21%. Feed was saved by 10%. Overall, the technique of gene transfer is gradually benefiting the fish breeding programme in China. ------------------ Under what circumstances is the use of transgenic organisms safe and effective? As biotechnology develops, some scientists hope for new ways to control invasive species for which there are few other options. But controversy is common in areas where issues related to invasive species and genetically modified organisms overlap. Recent debates involve: 1) the potential use of genetically modified (GM) Atlantic salmon in aquaculture where escapes of tens of thousands of fish per year are documented and when the genetic impacts of escaped farmed fish on rare wild populations are unclear; 2) the first proposed field trials of a GM insect--caged populations of the pink bollworm (Pectinophora gossypiella)--itself a non-native pest of cotton; and 3) the emergence, in Canada, of naturally occurring herbicide-resistant canola plants descended from GM parents. -- Peter Borst