From MAILER-DAEMON Sat Feb 28 07:40:46 2009 Return-Path: <> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.8 (2007-02-13) on industrial X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-82.9 required=2.4 tests=ADVANCE_FEE_1,ADVANCE_FEE_2, ALL_NATURAL,AWL,MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR,SPF_HELO_PASS,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=disabled version=3.1.8 X-Original-To: adamf@METALAB.UNC.EDU Delivered-To: adamf@METALAB.UNC.EDU Received: from listserv.albany.edu (unknown [169.226.1.24]) by metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 487C749079 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 2009 07:28:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from listserv.albany.edu (listserv.albany.edu [169.226.1.24]) by listserv.albany.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n1SCLoXV010061 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 LOG0209E" To: adamf@METALAB.UNC.EDU Message-ID: Content-Length: 69239 Lines: 1497 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 10:49:28 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Alan Riach Subject: Oxalic versus Formic Acid MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Because of potential damage to brood and young bees from Oxalic, the best time to use it would be in the autumn (fall) when there is not much brood. This is also fortuitously the time of year when temperatures are a bit variable and thus not too suitable for Formic evaporation. Formic is more suitable for stable temperature periods (when there will also be more brood). The two acids therefore appear to be complementary as treatments. In addition "integrated" treatments with different solutions throughout the year is a healthy method of avoiding varroa resistance. Alan R Edinburgh Scotland ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 09:23:26 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dee Lusby Subject: Stress - "Housel Positioning" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi all The following lecture/talk was just given by me at the 105th anniv convention of the Alabama State Beekeepers on 21 Sep 02. I am posting it here for much discussion and comment, as it relates highly to beekeeper induced stress within beehives and other problems. "Housel Positioning" How I View It's Importance to Beekeeping Just a few weeks before this meeting, in discussion with Michael Housel, of Orlando, Florida, I received information concerning proper positioning of wild feral combs built by honeybees he had been monitoring and observing in his local area hanging on limbs of trees. Intrigued by, and recognizing the value of the information concerning the positioning of the wild feral combs, my husband and I immediately started incorporating the information into our field management program, by resequencing close to 35,000 frames in our colonies, to match their positioning. So just what is this proper positioning of feral combs Michael Housel told me about? It concerns understanding the “Y” formation of the pyramids formed at the base of the wild combs, and in manufactured beeswax foundation at the base of the cell imprints, that beekeepers place into their colonies, to help domesticated honeybees replicate wild feral combs. Foundation used by beekeepers is basic to field managment. It is used to stimulate domesticated honey bees to build both brood and honey combs, using beeswax secreted from glands on the workerbee’s body.It was originally copied from wild combs in the 1800s. The “Y” formation has been there since the beginning in the making of beeswax foundations. It’s in understanding it, and it’s proper positioning and placement that Michael Housel has recognized, and we just resequenced our colonies to duplicate, that I hope others here today listening and learning about it, will want to duplicate also, in their own beekeeping operations. If you copy something exactly to use, which is the purpose of our foundations, and then you don’t use it as originally designed and placed by the bees themselves, how can beekeepers blame bees for building and doing things wrong within a beehive? For then in actually, it’s man’s improper alignments and positioning of manufactured foundations, contrary to original natural design, that could then be causing much of todays bee’s internal problems relative to working and drawing combs. How can scientists do research even, with improper positioning of foundations, not relative to actual positions in the wild? Is science, science, if based upon an artificial world of enlargeness, and improperly positioned combs at the same time, that matches nothing in a real world? How do you know if the research you are doing is good or bad for what it is supposed to relate to, if the combs in the domesticated colonies being reviewed do not match the positioning of wild combs? The “Y” formation A “Y” is formed where lozenge-shaped rhombic plates come together to form a Y impresson at the bottoms of cells on beeswax foundation. The formation of the “Y” is also seen in wild combs at their cell bases. There is a right and left side to each foundation and comb when viewed, whether in a man-made colony, or hanging down from a limb. The right and left sides for facing foundation and drawn combs in a beekeepers hive are determined by the top or bottom positioning of the “Y” formation. This changes by either being right or left of an imaginary center line in domesticated hives. In the wild there is one special center comb hanging down from a limb. In our man-made hives which we call colonies this does not occur, and so an imaginary line must be drawn and used, for positioning right or left of center, and up or down, of the “Y” formation. Beekeepers can easily turn a wild comb and see this. Likewise beekeepers can turn a man-made frame or piece of foundation and see this formation also. When wild combs are cut down, should not they be positioned in alignment like those obtained from the wild colony, to aid the now domesticated bees placed into a man-made hive, to continue to grow and properly expand? If you have not seen or noticed this before, take a sheet of foundation and put it in front of you on a flat spot to look at. Then with the rectangle sheet of foundation with long-ways on top and bottom, and short ways on sides, carefully look at it. There are two ways to rotate a sheet or comb (in frame) when looking at it to observe the “Y” formed at the bottom of the cells. Most beekeepers are taught early on to carefully rotate a sheet or frame with bees, from top to bottom (vertically up and down), with a twist of the fingers and wrist, so as to disturb the bees on the comb as little as possible, to observe the broodnest for conditions relative to disease, mites, egg laying, and larva size, applicable for grafting. When beekeepers rotate a frame this way, no change to the eye takes place, though you rotate to see both inside the top and bottom of the cells. Beekeepers are taught this motion to observe bees for various fouls, and mite feca for evidence of varroa present. Next, with the sheet of foundation in front of you, turn the sheet NOT VERTICALLY, BUT INSTEAD FROM LEFT TO RIGHT HORIZONTALLY! Now, when you look at the cell bottoms with the “Y” formation it should change from top to bottom, every time you turn the sheet over. Explaining “Housel Positioning” In the wild, there is one center frame that is first drawn when honey bees swarm onto a limb. In spring or following normal swarming the first comb built is worker (exception being more towards fall, following the summer solstice and longest day, when bees swarming can sometimes want to build drone/honey comb first to obtain stores for winter and then once a certain amount is drawn and realized, they then start workercombs). Now this comb is built with the “Y” inverted and unside down on both sides of the comb. So I now type “^I^” to show the inverted “Y” on both sides of the comb. There is only one of these combs made. For hives that normally swarm, wanting worker larva for continuation of species, bees need optium cells for workerbrood immediately, especially in areas of short flows. Hence, this specially drawn first comb. This starts the wildnest with a center comb expressly designed for maximum production of worker bees, that are needed immediately for continued rearing of new brood and collection of stores, as the field force dies off. Each comb then, on each side of the center comb follows position, for continued maximum rearing of brood, and then collection of stores of pollen and honey, as comb building progresses and expands the nest. >From here, the “Y” formation stays inverted first, facing center with the “^” down. This continues formation of a slanting ledge the larva rest on, allowing for maximum field bees to be used for gathering stores of nectar needed for comb production, with lesser numbers of nurse bees required. I now type “^” to show the inverted “Y” for side facing center comb (or center of imaginary line in center of man-made colony) with slanted ledge. On the other side of the comb the “Y” formation faces up, and helps to form a slanted roof, to help once the bees manage to build enough comb, to protect larva and stores gathered from sun, rain, etc. I now type “Y” to show the “Y” right side up with roof, for side facing away from the center comb. What beekeepers end up with then, is all foundation or combs in colony with the “^” down formation facing towards center, and all foundation or combs in colony with “Y” up formation, facing towards the sides of the boxes/supers, away from an imaginary center line. I now type ^IY to show this. Now, the combs in the center on frames are the smallest and are worker cells, and only at the periphery of the worker cell broodnest change into drone cells. This can be done two ways. On either side of a good drawn workercomb you can have periphery drone cells, including the bottoms. Once an average of four or so worker combs are drawn on each side of the center worker comb, beekeepers will find the next combs built a combination of drone/honey combs. So what you are looking at in broodboxes/supers then is: YI^,YI^,YI^,YI^,YI^,^IY,^IY,^IY,^IY,^IY What you are looking at in wild combs hanging is: YI^,YI^,YI^,YI^,^I^,^IY,^IY,^IY,^IY This transition to larger starts slow but gets more pronounced the closer to the outside of the broodnest you go across the first workercell combs built from the center main comb or imaginary line. On good flows, beyond this, especially in wild colonies, you can get combs drawn with cells even bigger then drone cells, but rarely seen except in exceptional years. Now, the placement of these bigger combs/dronecombs on the outside periphery, is to protect the worker combs from damage. Animals attacking a feral hanging nest will pull off the outside larger combs for food and many timnes go on after eating their fill. Wind if strong, along with rain will knock or blow/rip down these outside combs. They are weaker combs with less wax cell walls, and thus more easily tear loose. But, they serve to protect the inside combs, by their side alignment and positioning, from both the elements and animals. This then leaves the smaller worker combs safe, which can and often do, contain honey besides pollen, as the active year progresses and brooding cuts back, and are the strongest combs with macimum wax for strength. The positioning of the combs in man’s domestic hives should follow the above for drone/honey cell positioning relative to worker/pollen/honey cell positioning. All good drawn-out worker combs should be placed to center, then frames/combs with peripherys of drone cells (not more then 10% kept), then lastly badly drawn-out transition combs. This way, beekeepers end up with 4 good worker combs in the center of broodboxes, and the three on each side for combinations of combs containing worker/drone, pollen/honey storage, and only the immediate outside frame position, for absolute hodge-pogded transition cull comb, until the beekeeper can work it up and out during routine field work, for taking back to the honeyhouse for extracting and recycling by melting down. Importance of "Housel Positioning to Field Beekeeping Management As I said earlier, intrigued by, and recognizing the value of the “Housel Positioning” relative to wild feral combs, we have resequenced close to 35,000 frames in our colonies and will do more as we continue to work our bees. By resequencing our combs to match wild comb positioning, final internal colony problems relative to our honeybees drawing-out of foundation and how the bees work the combs, appear to be lessening or stopping altogether. Much stress seems to have been eliminated. My husband and I manage our hives using 4.9mm small cell beeswax foundation, with unlimited broodnest management of 2-3 deep boxes, with 1-2 deep supers for honey production, with an overall average colony size of 4-5 deeps. We see no problems in using 4.9mm foundation in conjunction with “Housel Positioning”, as all this does, is copy wild naturally small honeybee comb positioning found hanging from a limb on a tree. This way, we end up with a field management program that is biologically harmonious to wild honeybees, in both comb size and positioning, but under man’s control for production. At the same time, by not having to use various treatments of chemicals, drugs, essential oils, FGMO and acids for parasitic mite control, accompanying secondary diseases and miscellaneous bee pests, we also gain clean products of the hive to sell, and bees harmonious with Nature again that live. Final internal colony problems lessening or stopped by proper “Housel Positioning” following resequencing of combs have been: 1. Queens not laying in inserted drawn combs placed into the broodnest. Many times beekeepers, as a part of field management throughout the active beekeeping year, insert drawn combs into the broodnest for their queens to lay in, as a means of producing more honeybees for production of products they sell. These combs can be dry combs or extracted wet combs. But on subsequent hive checks, that can be days and even weeks later, the beekeeper comes back to find the comb not used, but the combs on either side being utilized and layed in. Loss to buildup of workerbees, necessary for production, is then the loss of brood that could have been generated, for each 21 day brood cycle of workerbees, not layed by the queen. 2. Excessively bulged/drawn-out honey combs with the next frame either burred or hardly drawn. It is not uncommon for beekeepers to find bulged/drawn-out honey combs with newly drawn-out comb 2-3 inches thick in supers with new foundations, while the adjoining new frame of foundation next to it is hardly touched or is burred in pattern. Transporting such honey combs home can be trying as bumps are driven over, that cause the frames to knock and rub together, causing the honey to run out the bottoms of stacks of supers, before reaching the honeyhouse and creating messes that then need to be cleaned up. Through observation, we now know that the foundation/frame positioning in the super was wrong, and that the frame that was either burred or hardly touched, next to the bulged overdrawn-out honeycomb, was backwards in position to other combs in the honey super relative to positioning of wild combs. 3. Bees refuse to move up into next higher box/super of either drawn frames or new foundation. While this does not happen too often on good honey flows, on average to poor honey flows this can be a problem with bees showing reluctance to expand up into the next higher box/super, to either fill empty combs there, or draw-out foundation. This found happening in a few hives can lessen workerbrood raised and honey stores gathered. Once frames are repositioned according to the way the “Y” formation is facing, the bees move up and continue to expand and work. 4. Odd frames of foundation not drawn and/or bees sidewinding. From time to time beekeepers place a new frame of foundation into a broodbox or super of drawn combs only to have their bees ignore it. Or they may have 2-3 frames of either new foundation or drawn empty combs or combination of these, the bees seem to ignore in a broodbox/super. Through observation, we now know the “Y” positioning of the new frame or frames was probably faced wrong, causing the bees to go around the improper sequencing and positioning relative to wild combs. 5. Burred foundation or overlayed foundation. From time to time beekeepers find frames of new foundation that has been overlayed with sections of either bigger or smaller combs drawn out. We have seen bigger drone/honey combs overlayed on frames positioned with the “Y” formation inserted backwards. We have also seen worker/pollen combs overlayed on frames positioned with the “Y” formation inserted backwards. When looking at the overlayed comb,interesting to note, is the fact that the bees in overlaying the pattern, seem to be reworking the facing of the “Y” formation. Many places of overlay face the same way as the foundation is placed, yet in other areas on the overlayed face, the bees it seems, are actually trying to reverse it’s positioning to that of the foundation which was improperly positioned. Each burr overlayed formation tells it’s own little story of the bees working it, trying to adapt the “Y” formation. This leads to much transition comb if these frames are allowed to be continued. Our combs are more evenly smaller now, because our bees are more uniformly maintainted and bred, so we mainly see our bees trying to determine which way to face the “Y” formation now. Various sizes of differing transitional burr combs are not so prevalent with cells sizes strikingly different to the eyes. 6. Transitional combs containing various cell sizes are built. Similar to overlayed combs built upon new sheets of foundation, beekeepers can find transitional combs being built by honeybees containing numberous cell sizes. These cells are normally built by colonies upon foundations with “Y” formations positioned wrong and can range up to .2mm to .3mm bigger on average. 7. Queens are suddenly raised at wrong times of the active year causing swarming problems. Beekeepers in adding empty drawn combs or freshly extracted wet combs into the broodnest sometimes go back and find hives requeening at odd times of the active year. Beekeepers can also add odd frames of new foundation into the broodnest to be drawnout and end up with a few queens being raised along with worker larva. They can also have changed nothing from the previous year in the broodnest, but all of a sudden requeening starts even though they know the queen they have is young and this should not be happening. This can be especially frustrating when a honey flow is coming on or in progress, or they actively follow breeding programs trying to requeen their colonies yearly to avoid this. Why would colonies want to requeen more then once throughout the active beekeeping year? >From what we have seen in our colonies, it is a comb positioning problem with the frames in backwards. With the comb positioned backwards and thus out of alignment with other combs in proper sequence, beekeepers can trigger spontaneous requeening in colonies by failing to note which way the “Y” formation is facing. Beekeepers must take note and remember one way the formation of the “Y” faces is inverted and down “^”, creating a ledge for larva to lay upon that honeybees use for fast build-up following swarming, etc. On the other side of the comb and/or foundation, the “Y” formation faces up and helps to form a slanted roof, to protect larva and stores gathered from sun, rain, etc. But, the slanted roof of the “Y” formation facing up has another purpose in a colony! For it is only on the side where the “Y” formation faces up, and helps to form this slanted roof, that honeybees raise “queen cells” that face downward for requeening. Therefore, beekeepers not positioning foundation and drawn combs properly can spontaneously trigger superceding, and thus swarming in their colonies. With hives under stress already from disease, pests (beetles), and predators (mites), besides often on programs of various treatments for same, improper positioning then takes less effort to trigger problems, one of which can be spontaneous requeening. Whose fault is it then! The bees or the beekeepers, for not following proper “Housel Positioning” for sequencing of managed colony combs, relative to proper positioning of wild combs? One last note, in going back to colonies that were resequenced with proper “Housel Positioning” of frames, the disposition of the bees was noticed to be gentler then before. Sincerely, Dee A. Lusby __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 17:33:59 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Mike Rowbottom Subject: Safety of Organic Acids used to treat varroa. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-601D62EA; boundary="=======4FD074BA=======" --=======4FD074BA======= Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-601D62EA; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Quite a lot of recent traffic has been on the subject of various organic acids (especially formic and oxalic) for the treatment of varroa. Some months ago I prepared some notes about the health and safety aspects of these chemicals for my local association. Some of the information that I collected is presented below for the information of beekeepers contemplating the use of these acids. In brief-be very careful in handling these acids; these are dangerous substances that can easily damage your health: Formic Acid. Formic acid is corrosive to all body tissues. Contact with skin or eyes will give rise to damage immediately and must be prevented. When handling the acid, impervious protective clothing is required, including gloves, and chemical safety goggles are required. The vapour causes severe irritation of the respiratory tract if inhaled. The threshold concentration of the acid vapour for short term exposure is 10 parts per million. This is a low value and so a suitable full face respirator should be used, unless the acid is used in a very well ventilated area. Lactic Acid Lactic acid is a crystalline substance readily soluble in water. Although this is generally regarded as a less hazardous substance it can cause allergic reactions and irritation to skin, eyes or digestive tract. It also has a relatively low flash point and should be treated as an inflammable substance. When handling the acid it would be sensible to use chemical resisting gloves, and chemical safety goggles, and to work in a well ventilated area. Oxalic Acid Oxalic acid is corrosive to tissue, and can also cause kidney damage if swallowed. A fatal dose is estimated by some authorities to be as low as 5 to 15 grams (about one third of an ounce). It can cause severe irritation of the respiratory tract if the fumes are breathed in. The threshold value for concentration in the air for short term exposure is 2 parts per million. Unless the area in which the acid is being used is extremely well ventilated to keep the concentration below this low value a half face respirator with an organic vapour cartridge is required to prevent damage. Even then care is required to keep the acid vapour concentration below 20 parts per million. When handling the acid, impervious protective clothing is required, including gloves, and chemical safety goggles are required. Regards Mike Rowbottom Harrogate North Yorkshire UK --=======4FD074BA======= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-601D62EA Content-Disposition: inline --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.386 / Virus Database: 218 - Release Date: 09/09/2002 --=======4FD074BA=======-- ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 15:54:44 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter Borst Subject: Stress - "Housel Positioning" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Dee Lusby writes: >The following lecture/talk was just given by me ... I am posting it >here for much discussion and comment, as it relates highly to >beekeeper induced stress within beehives and other problems. >Just a few weeks before this meeting, in discussion with Michael >Housel, of Orlando, Florida, I received information concerning >proper positioning of wild feral combs >Why would colonies want to requeen more then once throughout the >active beekeeping year? From what we have seen in our colonies, it >is a comb positioning problem with the frames in backwards. Let me get this straight, you heard about this idea in August, turned all the backwards combs around and a month later you say that "combs in backwards" is the source of most of the problems beekeepers have been having over the years? -- Peter Borst ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 18:36:10 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Howard Kogan Subject: Fall requeening How late is too late to requeen in the fall? I live in the Albany, New York area. Howard ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 07:24:50 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Garrett M Martin Subject: Subject: Re: [BEE-L] Formic Acid and Oxalic Acid MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 8) So why would anyone use Oxalic Acid? > Why not just use Formic? > > Maybe because many beekeepers don't remember > their chemistry. > > > > jim > > No the reason we do not use Formic Acid is because our government sees us as inept and ignorant people unless we take eight years of college and can put a doctorate to our name. As a result I have to set here and wait for my government to authorize the use of Formic Acid application in the way that the rest of the world is using it. After all if I would use liquid Formic Acid I might spill it on myself or the ground or maybe the reason is that no major company could make huge profits at the expense of the Ag community if we used liquid Formic Acid. To conclude give me liquid Formic Acid and I will use it. But until then I must try to find some other way to treat varora. Garrett Martin Thinking I should love my county for keeping me from hurting myself ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 08:04:33 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Aaron Morris Subject: Re: Fall requeening MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Well, the good news is that the weather has been amazing this fall - no frost yet, forecast for 80dF tomorrow, October 1! The bad news is that it's bound to go downhill quickly. There is still time to requeen if A) you get your queen quickly and B) she's accepted first try. If she's rejected, there's still time to try again, but time's running out. A more important question is what are the reasons you want to requeen? At this time of year I'd be more inclined to consider combinine a borderline hive with one that is doing well rather than attempting to requeen. Even if your new queen is accepted first try, there's probably time for only one more brood cycly, two at best (and that's pushing things). Chances are that even if your queen arrives quickly and is accepted first try, she won't be laying until early next week. Those bees will emerge right around HAlloween and by that time the bees will be more or less hunkered down for the winter, perhaps they migh raise one more round of brood, but if so it'll be a small batch. Then again, a successful requeening now will have a young vigirous queen reigning to raise ample brood when they start brooding again in mid January. So yes, there's still time to requeen this fall even though it's late. In the meantime you might keep an eye towards hives that may benefit from being combined, just in case the requeening attempt is not successful. Personally, I keep a few nucs going all season just in case a hive is in need, especially at this time of year. It's far easier to augment a weak hive with a vigirous nuc than it is to bring a hive back with a new queen this late in the season. Aaron Morris - thinking frost on the pumpkins, but not yet! ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 02:54:23 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Mark Walker Subject: Re: FW: Book recommendation Aaron Morris wrote... 1. Queen Rearing and Bee Breeding, 1997 (published February 1998). Written by Harry Laidlaw and Rob Page. "Written for beekeepers who know little about genetics and geneticists who know little about beekeeping." 224 pages, softcover 118 photos and illustrations. 8.5 inch wide x 9.25 in high. Price $25.00. Do you know where you can purchase this title? Thanks, Mark Walker. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 09:48:35 +0300 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Seppo Korpela Subject: Re: Oxalic Acid In-Reply-To: <19a.97d6dc3.2ac66d81@aol.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT > One of these is mentions that Austria is the first country in the EU > (European Union) to approve Oxalic Acid for the treatment of Varroa > Mites. Other countries are expected to follow. In Finland oxalic acid treatments are registered for varroa treatments as of April 2001, see http://www.apis.admin.ch/english/host/pdf/alternativ/York/korpela.pdf In Finland the most common method to use oxalic acid is by trickling treatment, which is a much handier way to treat than by vaporizing and also safe to bees, if done only once in late season when colonies are broodless. We use the treatment as a 2nd phase in integrated treatment, where 1st treatment is done either with formic acid or thymol pads (registered this autumn for varroa control), see: http://www.apis.admin.ch/english/host/pdf/alternativ/York/KasparKonzept.pdf ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 00:07:38 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Scott Jeffreys Subject: Re: Fall requeening MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 
I'm on Central Coast, CA and I have to baby(feed and fuss) everything that I
requeen with laying queens from now on. It is too late for cells now!
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 29 Sep 2002 20:08:25 -0700
Reply-To:     Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
              
Sender:       BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu
From:         Dee Lusby 
Subject:      Re: Stress - "Housel Positioning"
In-Reply-To:  
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Hi all

Peter wrote:
Let me get this straight, you heard about this idea in
August, turned
all the backwards combs around and a month later you say
that "combs
in backwards" is the source of most of the problems
beekeepers have
been having over the years?

Reply:
Nope! first part of July. Also I called a few others in
private also so they could too!

Bees working great! Amazing what a little switching will
do.

Regards,

Dee A. Lusby

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 29 Sep 2002 22:25:44 -0400
Reply-To:     Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
              
Sender:       BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu
From:         waldig 
Subject:      Attempts at supercedure or swarming.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I have been puzzled by a hive's behavior since June.  This hive had been
started from a package in early April, built up nicely, and even produced
two mediums of honey.  But it has been building queen cells since June to
now.  At first, I thought they were in a swarming mood (populous hive, queen
cells at the bottom of the frames in the upper deep), so I make a split by
moving the hive to a new location and putting an empty one in its original
location.  The split was successful but the bees in the original hive
continued the queen cells...  I was even once priviliged to witness a virgin
queen's emergence during a regular inspection.  I began to think it was
supercedure but I still see the original marked queen (she has been a very
prolific layer, BTW).  The only thing I can think of is that the marked
queen's odor is weak but, if this is the case, why hasn't the supercedure
been completed ?  I checked on them yesterday and saw two peanut-shaped
queen cells with larvae in royal jelly.

Any ideas/suggestions ?  Should I requeen by removing the old queen and
letting a new virgin take over ?  I see drones around but it's getting late
in the season here in south-eastern New York.

Waldemar
Long Island, NY

-------------------------------------------
Introducing NetZero Long Distance
Unlimited Long Distance only $29.95/ month!
Sign Up Today! www.netzerolongdistance.com
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 29 Sep 2002 21:43:12 EDT
Reply-To:     Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
              
Sender:       BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu
From:         GImasterBK@AOL.COM
Subject:      Re: Fall requeening
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I strongly believe in FALL requeening, and have been doing it for over 30
years.
I requeen on September 1st using IMIRIE'S ALMOST FOOL PROOF REQUEENING METHOD
and I am close to Washington, DC.

I would NOT requeen now, particularly in Albany, N. Y., as September 30th is
too late.

George Imirie
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 30 Sep 2002 11:16:33 -0300
Reply-To:     Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
              
Sender:       BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu
From:         Eunice Wonnacott 
Subject:      Re: Honey & Tooth Decay?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Todd:


FWIW

I have no memory of a time when honey did not provide a major source of
sweetening on the "family table"  There is nothing tastier than hot fresh
bread, lots of butter,  topped with honey!!  Either honey, or  sometimes
molasses, was always available and encouraged.

As to dental situations, my first teeth all were removed at age three, under
anesthesia (ether!!) due to a gum infection that would not heal.  By the
time I was eighteen I was having some eighteen fillings a year, and before
age fifty, had complete dentures, upper and lower.......... wonderful!!, no
more tooth aches, no dentist drills, etc.  (VBG)

Can this be blamed on the huge lifetime consumption of honey??  Bear in mind
that prenatal diets (my Mother's) in the twenties were not like they are
today. Nor was the daily vitamin   C and D etc. for growing children known
to be required during the critical growth formation of "second" teeth.  For
myself, I would guess, in spite of this history, that honey probably was not
the reason for the dental problems, and that  nutrition and cleaning
practices are much more  influential in the condition of teeth. (dental
caries)

Eunice
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 30 Sep 2002 09:37:59 -0500
Reply-To:     Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
              
Sender:       BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu
From:         Les Roberts 
Subject:      ISBA Journal, free download
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

The ISBA Journal, from the Indiana State Beekeepers Association, is
available for free download from
http://www.hoosierbuzz.com/document/i0210.zip .  The file, zipped for
speedy download, contains a pdf of the 12 page newsmagazine and can be of
interest to beekeepers and others far beyond Indiana.

The cover photo is a fabulous photograph taken by Frank I. Reiter
especially for the ISBA Journal. If you are a photographer and would like
to have your photo published with full credit on the cover, on the subject
of bees and beekeeping, contact editor@HoosierBuzz.com

Membership in the ISBA is free for the first year, and anyone interested
may join by submitting the form in the newsmagazine and marking it
"complimentary."
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 30 Sep 2002 11:59:47 -0300
Reply-To:     Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
              
Sender:       BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu
From:         Eunice Wonnacott 
Subject:      Re: FW: Book recommendation
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Mark:

Try www.amazon.com    under books enter beekeeping and that search will
provide a lot of material,with summaries, easy to access before ordering.
Good luck!!

Eunice
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 30 Sep 2002 10:53:39 -0400
Reply-To:     Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
              
Sender:       BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu
From:         Bill Truesdell 
Subject:      Re: Honey & Tooth Decay?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Some interesting articles-

http://www.jhbmc.jhu.edu/healthcarenews/01022801.html

http://gareth.membrane.com/news/medicalnews/mednews030901.html

Both refer to trials in NZ which said that honey can be used to prevent
tooth decay.

There were other articles but not relating to the NZ trials quite a few
years back saying about the same thing. It all comes back to the
antibiotic qualities of honey as well as hydrogen peroxide production
and the neutralizing (ph buffering) effects of honey. All inhibit
bacterial growth.

Bill Truesdell
Bath, Me
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 30 Sep 2002 01:06:25 -0700
Reply-To:     Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
              
Sender:       BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu
From:         Richard Yarnell 
Organization: Oregon VOS
Subject:      Re: Honey & Tooth Decay?
In-Reply-To:  <131.1488dade.2ac784bf@aol.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Does your dentist know that honey is water soluable?  Dentist here buys
boatloads of the stuff at every six month check up.  His wife cooks with
it and they feed it to their kids.  I'd sure ask him if he knows or is
guessing.


On Sat, 28 Sep 2002, Scott Jeffreys wrote:

> My dentist said that honey is tough on the teeth because it tenaciously
> sticks to your teeth and allows more time for it to decay.

---------------
Richard Yarnell, SHAMBLES WORKSHOPS | No gimmick we try, no "scientific"
Beavercreek, OR. Makers of fine     | fix we attempt, will save our planet
Wooden Canoes, The Stack(R) urban   | until we reduce the population. Let's
composter, Raw Honey                | leave our kids a decent place to live.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 30 Sep 2002 08:46:07 +0100
Reply-To:     Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
              
Sender:       BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu
From:         Tom Barrett 
Subject:      FGMO in a large scale operation
Comments: To: irishbeekeeping@yahoogroups.co.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Hello All

I show below a posting to the FGMO Discussion List by Dr Rodriguez - the
inventor of the FGMO system, in response to a request for information on how
FGMO works in a large scale operation. I trust that it is of interest.

If you wish to contact Dr Rodriguez you can do so at

                    DronebeeR@netscape.net

Sincerely
Tom Barrett

>Hi Mark and fellow beekeepers.
>   I know of people with 500 or more bee hives using FGMO. I do not know of
any difficulties that they may have encountered. It is a matter of
establishing a routine for plaicng the cords and fogging. Most beekeepers
that I have talked to do it like this: First they place the cords by walking
along with two buckets, one for the fresh cords and one for the cords that
they remove. People with large operations use an assistant to smoke the
hives and carry one of the buckets. Secondly, they retrace their steps and
do the fogging. The start of the fogging will depend upon the direction of
the prevailing wind (to stay away from the drift of the fog.)

>I have been doing this operation (with a small number of hives) since the
onset of FGMO trials and have not encountered inconveniences outside of
those that I may have listed previously in my writings.

>    Some Spanish beekeepers are trying a different method of applying the
emulsion from the hive entrance this year. I do not know how they are doing
yet. I will probably know more within the next 2-3 weeks. I'll let the group
know. I'll want to wait until they reveal their findings anyway.

>I would appreciate comments from beekeepers who are using FGMO regardi8ng
their methods, findings, suggestions.

>   Helmut, I still do not "see" how the proposed placement of the cords by
your friend is going  to improve the operation. I guess that I would need to
visualize his system. Let me know how he fares.
>Best regards.
>Dr. Rodriguez
>
>
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 30 Sep 2002 08:21:20 -0400
Reply-To:     Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
              
Sender:       BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu
From:         Bill Truesdell 
Subject:      Re: Stress - "Housel Positioning"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dee Lusby wrote:
  I am posting it here for much discussion and
> comment, as it relates highly to beekeeper induced stress
> within beehives and other problems.
>
> "Housel Positioning"
> How I View It's Importance to Beekeeping

Do the major foundation makers adhere to this? All wired foundation I
purchase has the orientation established.

Bill Truesdell
Bath, Me
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 30 Sep 2002 09:20:36 -0600
Reply-To:     Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
              
Sender:       BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu
From:         Allen Dick 
Subject:      Re: Stress - "Housel Positioning"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> >Just a few weeks before this meeting, in discussion with Michael
> >Housel, of Orlando, Florida, I  received information concerning
> >proper positioning of wild feral combs

> Let me get this straight, you heard about this idea in August, turned
> all the backwards combs around and a month later you say that "combs
> in backwards" is the source of most of the problems beekeepers have
> been having over the years?

As I understand history, moveable combs and foundation have been in
widespread use for about 100 years now.  At the time that foundation was
introduced, quite a few guesses were made about what would work and
compromises were reached.  The convenience and obvious benefits of the new
system led to quick adoption and foundation use became almost universal in
developed countries.

The fact that frames and foundation created an opportunity for
manufacturers to make a profit sped the process, since equipment
manufacturers happened to own and operate the major bee magazines.
Advertising and the profits from sales supported the publications and drove
the adoption of the new products.

Those who have been looking back over history have been wondering if, in
the process of development and promotion of foundation, some important
information was overlooked and if some of the compromises made had more
importance than was thought at the time.

Dee has a way of rooting out some really interesting ideas.  Whether or not
we agree with her or reach the same conclusions, there is much to be
learned in discussing these points.  Perhaps we will be convinced, or maybe
we will just confirm our own current beliefs.  Most of us won't jump in
with both feet.  We'll probably sit back and watch a while.

No matter.  In the process of examining these contentions, we will learn
more about what we are doing and how the decisions made a century ago
affect our own day-to-day beekeeping.  Lets look at all these ideas and see
what we learn.  Michael's discovery may or may not prove to be significant
when examined by beekeepers throughout the worldwide scope of this list,
but IMO, it is something to respect and ponder.

allen
http://www.internode.net/honeybee/diary/
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 30 Sep 2002 12:07:26 -0500
Reply-To:     Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
              
Sender:       BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu
From:         Layne Westover 
Subject:      Re: Stress - "Housel Positioning"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

When I first read this article on comb positioning, I had a very difficult time understanding it.  Part
of the reason may be that the characters did not "translate" correctly in the message I received
so I wasn't sure what the characters and punctuation were supposed to be.

On the second reading (next day) I thought I was beginning to understand what it was saying, but I
still wasn't sure.  I then went the Bee Source web site:
http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/housel.htm

and found the same article, and as it has included illustrations, I was finally able to get a clearer
understanding of exactly what was being said.

I have seen a number of the symptoms described and suggested in this article to have been
caused by improper comb positioning.  At the time, I did not know what might have caused them.  I
used to wonder whether or not the orientation of the combs or foundation in the hive mattered or
not.  In other words, is there an "up" or "down" orientation.  What will happen if I get them in there
"upside-down"?  This also suggests that if I take a comb out to look at it, and accidentally put it
back in backwards (with the ends reversed from how it was before I took it out) that I could be
causing problems.  At least I know that the bees probably have set up the brood and the pollen
and honey stores in such a way as to be most efficient, and by reversing them, I may make it
more difficult for them to most efficiently take care of the brood.

The next question that comes to mind is "Do the manufacturers of foundation and plastic frame/
foundation combinations with pre-embossed patterns make them oriented correctly?"

Another one is, "What happens if the Y's (bases of the cells) are running diagonally?"

I have not yet tried to make observations to verify that what is being explained is accurate, but it is
now something I plan to take into account and check to see if what I am observing is in any way
due to the orientation of the bases of the cells.  I used to wonder if it mattered, but did not know
what the orientation should be, even if it did matter, so I did not pay any attention to it.  I just put
the foundation in the frames an stuck them in the hive.  Now I am interested to see if my own
observations will verify what has been argued.

Some of my hives are regular Langstroth and others are top bar hives where I use a plain
unembossed wax starter strip and let the bees put their own pattern in  it however they want to
orient it.  So far, I personally have not found that the bees in my top bar hives survive any better
than the ones in the Langstroth equipment.  Colonies with younger queens or those establised
from swarms or those with hygienic queens seem to survive longer regardless of what kind of
equipment they are housed in.  I do not do any "migratory" beekeeping, but most of my hives
remain where I originally place them (unless they start causing problems, and then I have to
move them).  It could be that some of them just "escape" Varroa infestation because of isolation
from infested hives.  I also believe that there are a number of other factors besides Varroa that
can cause a hive to go queenless or dwindle.  I think Varroa gets blamed for a lot of things that
have other causes.  It is just the latest and biggest problem, so gets the blame for just about
everything.  I used to monitor it more, but it seems to be less of a problem around here, so I
don't much any more.  Besides that, I'm trying to cut back on the number of hives I have, so
I'm letting them go by natural attrition so I don't have so much work to do.  They're not dying
fast enough, though--too healthy.  I can afford to make mistakes and have losses since I don't
keep bees for a living.  I wouldn't want to ruin a good hobby by having to do it for a living.  One
of my friends in the Extension Service where I used to work once said, "Working for Extension
Entomology sure ruined a good hobby."

Layne Westover, College Station, Texas
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 30 Sep 2002 14:08:02 -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: FW: Book recommendation
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I agree with Aaron in his choice of books on queen rearing. (Queen Rearing
and Bee Breeding by Laidlaw and Page)
Try contacting the publisher:
Dr. Larry Connor, Wicwas Press
175 Alden Ave, Third Floor
New Haven CT 06515
USA
Fax 203 397-5091
email LJConnor@aol.com
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 30 Sep 2002 21:28:43 +0100
Reply-To:     Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
              
Sender:       BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu
From:         Murray McGregor 
Subject:      Re: Stress - "Housel Positioning"
In-Reply-To:  <004a01c26894$ee0be280$70ae73d1@allen>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed

In article <004a01c26894$ee0be280$70ae73d1@allen>, Allen Dick
 writes
>No matter.  In the process of examining these contentions, we will learn
>more about what we are doing and how the decisions made a century ago
>affect our own day-to-day beekeeping.  Lets look at all these ideas and see
>what we learn.  Michael's discovery may or may not prove to be significant
>when examined by beekeepers throughout the worldwide scope of this list,
>but IMO, it is something to respect and ponder.

Quite fortuitously the day before this appeared I had retrieved a feral
from a juniper bush near one of my locations and still had the combs
attached to the branch. (I have been routinely examining these kind of
things ever since Allen started his cell size survey a good while back
now.)

Sorry, but it does not fit this model at all.

In one comb the upper leg of the Y lies at about 320 deg, the right hand
leg at about 80 deg, the lower one at about 200 deg. All measured
(roughly) from ) deg at the vertical upwards position. I see no peculiar
middle comb. On this comb the cell line declines at about 10 deg from
the horizontal from left to right across the comb. All this is mirror
imaged on the other face.

Another has two different orientations on the one comb, joining near the
middle of the comb, with part of the comb having horizontal faces of the
cells upwards and vertices pointing E and W. Only one piece of comb, an
outer one and very small, had cells appearing to lie in perfectly
horizontal lines with the Y pattern as stated. There was no drone in the
combs whatsoever, but this does not surprise me as we cannot get drone
drawn at all late in the season once the need for drones is past. Comb
drawn here in September is invariably perfect worker without a drone
cell. I have watched the drone distribution in ferals over the years and
it is the basis for a variation (originally French I think) of the drone
trapping method of varroa control used in some European countries, where
you use combs 3 or 4 and then 7 or 8 to attract the drone brood by
placing a shallow instead of a deep and allowing the bees to hang wild
comb (almost invariably drone) in the gap created. I normally find 3 or
4 completely worker combs in the centre, with a largely drone one
outside that on either side, then a mix after that. Cell orientation is
largely random and apparently dictated by the first attachment to the
anchor point.

There are problems being attributed to cell orientation which we simply
do not have. We have no problems with excessive requeening, indeed some
go on for up to four years, and do NOT get all the queen cells on one
face of a comb. None of the symptoms Dee mentions are things I have seen
as any kind of problem in our unit.

FWIW, the point of all this examination of feral comb is to see if I am
mistaken in my thinking on cell size theory and always looking for
evidence which may challenge my thoughts on the issue.

In the past week I had taken pieces of feral comb from a colony which
was a swarm emerged from one of my Pierco colonies (thus on 5.2
foundation) plus a feral known to have come from a feral of long
standing in the roof of a stately home ( estimated by owner to be at
least 100 years old, but they all say that!)

Ave from the Pierco originating swarm 5.25
Ave from feral originating colony 5.25

Apart from a very sickly colony with acarine mites this is the smallest
wild comb I have seen in this area, and if bees on 5.2 are not going
down in size I then wonder if we are around the correct size for this
area. ( If there is indeed such a thing other than within fairly wide
natural parameters)
--
Murray McGregor
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 30 Sep 2002 16:13:29 -0400
Reply-To:     Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
              
Sender:       BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu
From:         Peter Borst 
Subject:      Re: Stress - "Housel Positioning"

Dee Lusby writes:
 >Why would colonies want to requeen more then once throughout the
 >active beekeeping year? From what we have seen in our colonies, it
 >is a comb positioning problem with the frames in backwards.

I looked at the foundation and the combs. They're the same on both sides.
But even if they weren't I don't see how this could cause supercedure. And
even if it did, how could you tell after a 2 month test in the end of
summer? Supercedure is a real problem for some beekeepers but to pin it on
such an unlikely cause is fatuous.

pb
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 30 Sep 2002 17:02:39 -0400
Reply-To:     Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
              
Sender:       BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu
From:         Peter Borst 
Subject:      Re: Stress - "Housel Positioning"

Greetings
I have a "feral" colony here at my yard. This was captured last summer as a
swarm and hived on starter strips. The bars were never rotated from the
initial position, no chemicals were ever used, and no requeening was ever
done. Completely natural. Also, 99% dead, due to mite disease. Probably a
hundred bees left. They made absolutely no honey this year. The managed
hives averaged about 200 pounds.

pb
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 30 Sep 2002 19:06:49 -0400
Reply-To:     Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
              
Sender:       BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu
From:         Peter Borst 
Subject:      beekeeper induced stress
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"

Dee Lusby writes:
>The following lecture/talk was just given by me at the 105th anniv
>convention of the Alabama State Beekeepers on 21 Sep 02. I am
>posting it here for much discussion and comment, as it relates
>highly to beekeeper induced stress within beehives and other
>problems.


Ms. Lusby,
I shall take you at your word when you say you want "much discussion
and comment." You have taken the opportunity to criticize the
beekeeping practices of the modern world and offer in its place what
you call biological beekeeping. As all beekeeping requires a thorough
knowledge of biology, the choice of term seems poor. Maybe you should
call it organic beekeeping, since you condemn the use of chemicals.

No one in the bee world is happy about the huge increase in chemicals
on bees. Everyone I have spoken with wishes we could get out from
under the problem. But most people who have skipped treatments for
mites have had disastrous results. Now, people who are selecting for
mite resistance and others living in tropical and subtropical areas
have seen the emergence of bees that do not require as frequent
treatment. In our region, mites come on with a vengeance in late
summer. We have used screen bottoms, essential oils and hygienic
stock. In our area, this methods did not reduce mite infestation !!!

Before the onset of the mites, the major problem facing the
beekeeping industry was sagging honey prices due to competition.
Beekeepers I knew had little problem with the health of their bees,
unless they were heavily into pollination in the desert. This
particular enterprise is extremely hard on bees and causes heavy
losses. But this is a man-created problem: putting too many bees in a
hostile environment for pay.

Beekeepers like myself who ran 400-1000 hives could produce plenty of
honey. Unfortunately, most of it ended up going to government
surplus. I eventually sold out and got out the bee business,  mainly
for financial reasons. Now the price of honey is good again, but it
is a constant struggle to keep bees alive. The problem is NOT stress
caused by beekeeping practices. Our bees at the research lab are
seldom moved (which is hard on bees, but not fatal). They have plenty
of pollen, water, nectar and it rarely gets hot. In other words,
summer here is like paradise.

The problem is a parasitic mite, which we all know. You have claimed
that small cells and nutrition would take care of our problems. Now
you are championing flipping frames around. Are your bees sick and
suffering so that you would go to the trouble of trying this
completely novel and unproven technique to save them? Why are they
suffering? Because of beekeeper caused stress? And if they are not
suffering due to the great results of you biological beekeeping
program, then why would you need *still another* technique on top of
all the others? If they were not suffering before you turned the
combs around, then how can they now be better?

As far as supersedure goes, many beekeepers have noted this problem.
Most people attribute it to  poor quality queens, possibly related to
pesticide use in and out of the hive. Queen supersedure is not well
understood, nor is swarming. Anyone who claims to fully comprehend
these phenomena is bluffing. Another likely cause of supersedure is
excessive fussing with the hives. Bees do not thrive on constant
intervention.

My best yard this year was 24 packages. We installed them, supered
them, and took honey off. Now we have to deal with mites. If those
bees were stressed out, I'll eat my hat. We weighed every hive today
with a spring scale hung from a huge tripod. Some were in 6 stories
again, after having the summer honey pulled off. They were so content
they never stung once the whole time we were there.

I would humbly suggest, as Aaron Morris has said, there ain't no
silver bullet. Beekeeping is hard work and it pains me to see people
advocating implausible schemes and  calling into question what is
just plain common sense: if the bees have parasites, they have to be
gotten rid of or they will perish, at least in the temperate regions.

Oh, by the way, when the silver bullet arrives I will be the first to try it.


--

Peter Borst 
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 1 Oct 2002 11:16:23 +1200
Reply-To:     Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
              
Sender:       BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu
From:         Robt Mann 
Subject:      Re: Stress - "Housel Positioning"
In-Reply-To:  <200209302013.g8UJcOVX002774@listserv.albany.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

>Supercedure is a real problem for some beekeepers but to pin it on
>such an unlikely cause [a 'comb positioning problem'] is fatuous.

        This is a question of scientific method, and also in our context a
question of how science is to interact with other types of thinking.
        This list has tried to grapple with this wide, vague, & genuinely
difficult issue  -  without much success, so if we see the above dismissive
assertion in that context we may make some progress.

        A widespread reaction of the medical trade when Reston reported in
the NYT during Nixon's famous visit to China that acupuncture anaesthesia
works: "you say this phenomenon occurs, but you got no hypothesis for *how*
it might work, so I say the phenomenon cannot occur".  One assoc prof of
physiology, also M.Sc in chemistry, retorted in the staff tea-room to my
showing him that NYT: "I know too much anatomy for that to be possible".
Not only many outside, but embarrassingly many within science commit this
fallacy.
        Numerous phenomena are facts but nobody has shown how they work  -
and in many cases there is little or nothing in the way of hypotheses.  But
failure to discover a mechanism is no excuse to deny the reality of the
phenomenon.
        Let me ram home the logic.  My life was saved more than once,
decades ago, by skilled medicos using gaseous anaesthetics and other
chemicals to operate on me for some hours.  Nobody had more than the
vaguest idea how these chemicals produced their effects on me; but they did
work.  How needles in points on acupuncture 'meridians' may allow a man to
converse with Reston, sipping orange juice, with his chest laid open for a
lung operation was  -  and as far as I know still largely is  -  unknown.
But I believe that it does occur, at least sometimes.  I will not dismiss
it out of bigotry & pseudo-science, as most medicos still do.
        I join those who haven't thought of any mechanism for influence of
foundation-sheet pattern on any important hive process.  I go further and
say I wouldn't put much effort into investigating the idea.
        Alignment wrt the Earth's magnetic field, sun directions, etc,
might vaguely suggest some lines for theorising about how comb alignment
could affect this or that in bee biology.
         But in either case, the facts come first.  To postulate an
unexplained phenomenon is not inherently fatuous.

        What matters in practice is how researchers are to relate to
informal reports like Dee's.
        The proper response to their radical claims is for the interesting
Housel and Lusby to be invited to a bee research confab, if they will
present their ideas in as scientific a way as they can, and will then fully
take part in a moderated discussion of what research could be based on
their findings.  Those who control research should observe, and participate
in, that moderated discussion.  Then it can be decided how to respond to
these far out, but not quite fatuous, claims.

         Get the Dubyuh regime to triple federal bee-lab funding, and to
pay state bee labs, to expand bee research for mine detection and other
military applications.  You may have to create a more specific cover  -
e.g GM bees to sniff out S Hussein, with no risk of being faked out by
doubles because their sweat smells different, and satellite-linked via
Windoze to smart® bomb delivery systems  ;-}  -  and then siphon the money
off for close cooperation with Dee.  I can make little of what she writes,
and I fear it may be too late to educate her in science; anyhow, additional
modes of communication would seem justified.
        But then the typical research director will say the chances of
getting anywhere with this 'Y-pattern on foundation' claim, or even the
slightly plausible 'comb alignment' claims, are negligible, as the
phenomenon is not expected from current theory.  Nail this furphy any time
it surfaces!

        The other beekeeper that I know of in my suburb, a friend, lost her
bees as I did within a year of the varroa discovery.  She phoned recently
to say a feral colony has settled into that hive.   It must have some
varroa brought in if only by drones roaming over the whole Auckland region;
but it is evidently coping, without any volatile additives or halogenated
pesticide.  I told her she may be the Grandmother Smith of the bee world,
and she should notify the govt varroa experts to come & study her hive.
She may have stumbled upon a notable mutant which may be extremely
valuable.
        We are not holding our breath.
         Early in the varroa emergency my best hive was thriving
impressively, and I offered it to the govt varroa experts & their
corporatized buddies, to move to a varroa-free part of NZ and breed up
nukes etc.  They did not respond to a known scientist & long-serving govt
advisor.  What chance is there, then, that the overworked, under-funded USA
bee labs will cooperate with Dee & Michael?  They lack the resources, and
to a large extent the will, to divert from their own under-funded lines of
research onto any implausible amateur ideas.  I trust no-one will
misunderstand my candour; these are interesting & important issues
deserving 'open speech and simple'.
        Lack of hypothesis for how foundation patterns could affect biology
is a reason for low priority on researching the claim, but if any easy
tests can be devised they should be done.  If however the tests would be
quite elaborate and divert much work from promising current research
efforts, if I were a beel lab director I'd have to forego my trip to Ariz.
Pity, as I'd like to take another series of photos of that gigantic
graveyard of B52s, B47s etc at McCord AFB.










R