From MAILER-DAEMON Sat Feb 28 07:41:44 2009 Return-Path: <> X-Original-To: adamf@METALAB.UNC.EDU Delivered-To: adamf@METALAB.UNC.EDU Received: from listserv.albany.edu (unknown [169.226.1.24]) by metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 733464907C 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 n1SCP3sM010167 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 2009 07:28:41 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 07:28:39 -0500 From: "University at Albany LISTSERV Server (14.5)" Subject: File: "BEE-L LOG0210A" To: adamf@METALAB.UNC.EDU Message-ID: Content-Length: 269211 Lines: 6118 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 20:14:24 -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="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I looked at the foundation and the combs. They're the same on both sides. I looked carefully at the foundation I have here and what Dee describes seems quite obvious to me. What you say is true too -- unless you arbitrarily designate one edge as the top, and then they are different.. If you hold a frame of foundation up vertically in front of you -- top bar up -- and examine the bottom of each cell base, you will see that the three surfaces of the bottom meet to form a Y. The Y will either be upright or inverted. If you then and then rotate the frame around a *vertical* axis, so that it is again in front of you with the top bar up, and examine the bottom of each cell base on this opposite side, you will observe that the Y is inverted from the attitude observed on the first side. Although three quadrilaterals form the pyramidal base of each cell, the cells on opposite sides of comb are offset from one another. Thus, there *is* a difference between the cell bottoms on one side of a comb and those on the opposite side when combs are held in their normal vertical position. Does this matter? Up to now, nobody seems to have thought that it does, although I am sure every beekeeper has wondered when moving combs around in hives. Now -- if I understand -- Michael says that the natural nests he has observed have the combs arranged so that it appears that there is an 'in' side and an 'out' side for each comb that is detectable by looking at the cell bases. Is this accidental, and just a result of the bees behaviour, or does it have some deep significance? Can this phenomenon be observed around the world? Will we soon be marking all our top bars with arrows indicating correct orientation with regard to the hive centre? / | \ / \ / \ \ / \ / \ | / allen http://www.internode.net/honeybee/diary/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 01:31:06 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Mark Walker Subject: How to Make Box Joints For Everyones Interest... I've read in many postings, requests on how to make Box joints. Well I contacted BeeSource and they forwarded me this link, for the plans and dado jig setup to make "perfect" bee hive Box Joints. Good Luck! http://www.beesource.com/plans/boxjoint/index1.htm Cheers, Mark Walker. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 22:43:03 -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: <200209302013.g8UJcOVX002774@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi all Peter Borst wrote: 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. reply: Okay. You flipped the combs and foundation vertically up and down. Now look again, flipping the combs and foundation horizontally, right to left or left to right to see the formation of the "Y" change. Regards, Dee A. Lusby __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 23:03:37 -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: <200209302102.g8UJcOYj002774@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi all Peter Borst wrote: I have a "feral" colony here at my yard. This was captured last summer as a swarm and hived on starter strips. reply: Sorry to hear about your loss Peter. Was is a real Wild colony or absconded recent made feral from a domestic hive? What size started strips did you use by the way as this would have bearing somewhat on their comb drawing? Regards, Dee A. Lusby __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 09:11:50 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dave Cushman Subject: Re: Attempts at supercedure or swarming. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Waldema > 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. I would let the bees make that decision... They know much more about their needs than we beekeepers. Many of the colonies that I keep/have kept will be doing their supercedure right now. Best Regards & 73s... Dave Cushman, G8MZY Beekeeping & Bee Breeding Website... http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 09:27:53 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dave Cushman Subject: Re: beekeeper induced stress/supercedure MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Peter & all > 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. Why are US beekeepers so derogatory about supecedure? Why is it a "problem"? It is a natural strategy of bees and occurs much more frequently than most beekeepers realise. I would go so far as to say that without it many bee colonies would perish in harsh climates. So why is the US so anti? Best Regards & 73s... Dave Cushman, G8MZY Beekeeping & Bee Breeding Website... http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 08:11:57 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "Yoon Sik Kim, Ph.D." Subject: Re: beekeeper induced stress FWIW, A minmalist with only forty hives,I seldom "inspect" my bees, knowing that almost all the bee problems can be detected and observed by looking at them closely at the entrance: smell and visiual inspection. Indeed, "You can observe a lot by *wathcing* them." An expereinced beekeeper, I beleive, should be able to tell pretty much what's going on, year-around, inside the hive without having to open the boxes every cotton-pickin' weekend, especailly under smokescreen, which I never use. For I too believe that "the bees will make honey *in spite of* the [freakin'] beekeeper." For medication, I give them a minimal, once-a-year, treatment although I now am moving toward non-treatment. Sure, since my livlihood does not depend on my hobby, I can do this. What's a few dead colonies? You can always make them up in the spring if you are into the numbers game. I know it will be impossible, but in my lifetime, I would like to see NON_TREATMENT worldwide, a true grand experiment in a global scale. (I am not so naive not to realize that money is the bottom line) What about if we all STOP doping them altogether? Why can't we simply let them BEE if we are truly shooting for Natural or Organic or Raw BeeKeeping? These types of super- and hyper- analyses, this hair-splitting measuring, poking, turning, electirifying, excessive doping-- strike me as the typical of Western rationalism at heart: we know all through poking. Almost all aspects of beekeeping intrinsically contains two opposing answers, at least. Consider the efficacy of the Screened Bottom Boards, for instance. Bees ought to be the Masters in beekeeping, not the beekeeper. Humdinger from Shawnee, Oklahoma ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 13:48:10 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bumble Subject: Re: Attempts at supercedure or swarming. In-Reply-To: <003001c26828$af70eff0$95dbd23f@ws04> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit It can take up to 30 days for the new queen to start laying. Sometimes mother and daughter just carry on living side by side for a season. Don't know about your climate but here in the UK as all the drones are now gone I would leave them be. > 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. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 08:37:38 -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 Robt Mann wrote: > 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". This is a straw man. If something happens and there is no scientific explanation then most scientists I know would not react as described. The problem is in determining what is and what is not "fact". I can say that my bees do well because I use pressed tinfoil as foundation. The reason they do well is because of the galvanic action between the foil and honey which sets up temporal harmonics influencing the metabolic thrombosis of tacheon emitters found within the global genome. My fact, that my bees do well, can be accepted or rejected. Someone first needs to observe my bees and report that they are doing well. But that "fact" does not substantiate everything else. With limited funding, most scientists will stick with the known or reasonable to research and will not check out my practices. Which is wonderful, because then am in the perfect position to condemn science because it does not test my findings. I have the best of all possible worlds. No testing, no proof and my word to convince the masses. BTW. I use the leftover tinfoil to make hats. Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 09:06:20 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: beekeeper induced stress MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yoon Sik Kim, Ph.D. wrote: > Almost all aspects of beekeeping intrinsically contains > two opposing answers, at least. Consider the efficacy of the Screened > Bottom Boards, for instance. My observations. SBB will do little in combating Varroa (supported by the literature). In colder climates, they will reduce honey production (my observation). They are great with a bottom to get mite drop. If used in conjunction with treatments they are excellent (but then we are no longer organic), since live mites will drop and not be able to re-infect the colony (Apistan- will drop resistant mites and be somewhat effective). These are not opposing views (they work and do not work). Just qualification of what they do and do not do. (I use a knife to eat. I do not use a knife to eat peas.) Many "opposing views" in beekeeping fit into this category. I do not know of a person who disagrees that we want to be as organic as possible (not an oxymoron. Organic does not mean you do not treat. It just defines the treatment). Most research is moving that direction. But I will still treat since I want to see live colonies in the spring. Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 07:39:39 +0200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Mats Andersson Subject: Re: FW: Book recommendation In-Reply-To: <200209300654.g8U6r0Tb014109@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Mark asked: >Do you know where you can purchase this title? I do. I found it at a place called "Wicwas Press". E-mail address is LJConnor@aol.com. /Mats Andersson, Stockholm Sweden ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 08:35:35 -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 > > 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". > > This is a straw man. If something happens and there is no scientific > explanation then most scientists I know would not react as described. In defence of Rob't, this latter argument, not the former, is a perfect example of the classic Straw Man. Robt said "A widespread reaction of the medical trade". The reply said, "most scientists I know ". There is a huge difference. "Those in the medical trade" are not -- for the most part -- scientists, or even people that the second writer knows. "Those in the medical trade" are largely technicians and trained specialists -- practical, rather than theoretical people, who have some varying amounts of training and experience in scientific methods, but often not a great deal. Changing the subject a bit, while we are thinking about technicians, tradesmen and scientists and laypersons: Not only do many non-scientists assume that if science cannot explain something that it cannot happen, but lay people often read an article in the popular press that cites one study on some topic and assume that the conclusion is true. Things are seldom that easy. Scientists are much harder to convince -- one way or the other, and have to keep an open mind. Scientists worthy of the name are often sceptics, but are also acutely aware of what they do not know. I recall sitting at a supper table with six eminent bee researchers -- active and retired -- a few years back and broaching the topic of cell size and varroa. No one had anything much to say about it. They had heard the idea explained and read at least a few studies that related to the topic, and had extensive experience with bees, but none felt qualified to make a pronouncement on the matter. The strongest word used was 'interesting'. I ventured that I could not see how that it could work and there was some mild agreement that they could not see how it could work either, but there was no scoffing or denial of the concept. My impression was that these people were wondering about the question and had open minds. allen http://www.internode.net/honeybee/diary/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 09:04:45 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Keith Malone Subject: Re: beekeeper induced stress MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Peter & All, > Oh, by the way, when the silver bullet arrives I will be the first to try it. > Many may never realize it is a silver bullet for all the skepticism. . .. c(((([ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 09:50:40 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Keith Malone Subject: Stress - "Housel Positioning" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Bill & All, > The problem is in determining what is and what is not "fact". I can say > that my bees do well because I use pressed tinfoil as foundation. Interesting Bill, can you please tell me how you go about manufacturing your foundation from foil? Is the foil you use truly tinfoil or aluminum foil? Can you provide me with a photo of your foundation? > The > reason they do well is because of the galvanic action between the foil > and honey which sets up temporal harmonics influencing the metabolic > thrombosis of tacheon emitters found within the global genome. > Is this to say the foil gets the bees in tune and on time making the bees ultra-organized? . .. c(((([ Keith Malone ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 09:26:04 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Keith Malone Subject: Re: Stress - "Housel Positioning" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Allen & All, > Will we soon be marking all our top bars with arrows indicating correct > orientation with regard to the hive centre? > Makes perfect sense to me, I have already begun doing it in my apiaries, since I heard about this intelligent observation, back in the beginning of August. It can not hurt to arrange the combs in this manner compared to only arranging them in a half hazard way. . .. c(((([ Keith Malone ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 13:32:28 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: Re: beekeeper induced stress MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Humdinger wrote: > Bees ought to be the Masters in beekeeping, not the beekeeper. Leave alone beekeeping like my grandfather practiced does not work today. Most beekeepers which are looking to the old bee books for answers to today's tough beekeeping problems are out of business except for a few left it seems on the BEE-L list. Watching a hive entrance can tell you many things. Opening the hive can tell you many more things. New beekeepers at first cannot keep from looking in a hive (almost daily). Then as interest falls they settle for glancing at the entrance very once in a while. I have seen this scenario repeated over and over since I started beekeeping as a teenager. Bob ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 13:31:51 -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 Regarding the so-called "Housel Positioning" I wonder how many data points were in the sample(s). In the wild colonies hanging from the branches of trees in Florida, were ALL of them found to be as described in the article, or what percentage of them were that way? Was there variability? Did every one of them have that special "center comb" or only some of them? Does this only apply to colonies hanging from branches in the open and not to colonies in a box or hollow? An interesting thought would be that of manufacturing a foundation that has the pattern of the center comb, and then aligning the other frames in the hive according to the correct orientation using regular foundation. I wonder if the bees would start building their comb on the middle one, or if they would start haphazardly anywhere, or on one side of the hive, as they usually do in my hives when I hive a swarm? Sometimes the first comb to be built is at one end of the hive. These are some of the questions that came to my mind today while I pondered the subject. Any answers? Layne Westover, College Station, Texas ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 15:54:45 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter Borst Subject: Re: beekeeper induced stress/supercedure Dave writes: Why are US beekeepers so derogatory about supecedure? Why is it a "problem"? If you are trying to maintain a certain line of bees in your hive - hygienic for example - the first time they supercede the trait is basically lost. (You can't raise collies if you let the mom out the back door at night.) Further, if you spend a lot of money on queens you want to get more than a couple months out of them. If you are trying to develop a healthy acclimated stock, without selecting lines, natural supercedure would be a good thing. In the pre-mite days I regarded a supercedure queen as an excellent queen if she was laying properly and the bees weren't mean. Now we are trying to raise mite-resistant bees using breeder queens and subsequent selection. pb ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 17:19:54 -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" Sorry to hear about your loss Peter. Was is a real Wild colony or absconded recent made feral from a domestic hive? What size started strips did you use by the way as this would have bearing somewhat on their comb drawing? It was no loss. We wanted to see what happens to a hive when left alone. We knew it would die, just not how long it would take. Untreated hives, in this region, very soon die. One year, maybe two. Around here, there is no difference between a "Wild colony" and a feral one. The strips were very narrow, but if you are saying that the size of the cell at the top row influences every cell built thereafter, that is nonsense. By that logic bees would never raise drones, since they would have to change size. pb ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 21:53:19 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: waldig Subject: Source for some Buckwheat Seed. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I could use one to a few ounces of nectar-bearing - I understand some varieties are not - buckwheat seed. If folks have some to spare or throw it away, and would be kind enough to send it to me, I would gladly cover the postage costs. BTW, roasted buckwheat seed, prepared as you would rice, is a very tasty and nutritious part of any dinner. Particularly, any dishes with beef or rich gravy. Buckwheat is very high in easily digestible protein and has a nutty flavor. It's a truly universal plant ! Thank you for helping out with my request - just let me know and I'll email you my mailing address. Waldemar Long Island, NY ------------------------------------------- Introducing NetZero Long Distance Unlimited Long Distance only $29.95/ month! Sign Up Today! www.netzerolongdistance.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 17:15:49 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Karen Oland Subject: Re: Stress - "Housel Positioning" In-Reply-To: <005a01c26957$ce7d8900$54ae73d1@allen> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Allen, You are giving away the scientists code here. Interesting == more study is needed and there are issues to explore. Just give us some more money and we'll be all set. And it usually means those issues are not boring ones, but where if the research panned out, one would be setting precedents (ie, you end up getting cited by future research, preferably research where you get the funding). The problem with small cell is where would the money for research come from? With the government's push to have industry fund the research in the area, there has to be an economic incentive (usually from a patentable product, such as SMR queens) to get stockholders interested in letting a company fund such projects. In the case of foundation size -- if it works, everyone would have to go, but there is nothing there to patent. Instead, the problem is one of pure research and dollars for such are lacking today (at least in most fields of which I am aware). Karen ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 21:05:52 -0400 Reply-To: "jfischer@supercollider.com" Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: Stress - "Housel Positioning" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Here's a semi-obvious observation from someone who has an open mind, but not so open that just any idea can just wander in one ear and take over the joint: Consider that probability alone can reveal if bees "prefer" Housel positioning: 1) Let's assume that bees "like" "Housel Positioning", and build hives that way if given a choice. By contrast, let's call my traditional approach to putting frames in woodenware" Random", where a frame has an equal chance of being "right" "or "wrong" under "Housel House Rules". 2) The "worst" a set of 10 could be would be "5 wrong", which would result in no frames "correct" (an anti-Housel). 3) With more than 5 "errors", things start getting "better" and returning back to a "perfect Housel". 4) So if all hives have 10 frames, I only have a 2 in 1024 chance of getting a "perfect Housel" by chance alone, but I also have only a 2 in 1024 chance of getting an "anti-Housel", where every frame is wrong. Most hives will have a mix of 1 to 5 "errors". The maximum number of combinations is "2 to the nth", so in 9-frame hives, we only have 512 possible combinations, but we still have 2 possible "perfect" configurations. 8-frame give us 256 combinations, and so on. If bees prefer "perfect Housels", many more than "2 in 2 to the nth" foundation-free hives will be "perfect Housels". If not, the relative position of any one frame in relation to its neighbors will be "no better than a coin flip", and only a small number of the "2 to the nth" wild hives will be "perfect Housels". An excellent population for sampling would be top-bar hives, which I understand are not given embossed foundation. To use a notation that is easier to type, I'd suggest that we use an "A" to represent an upside-down "Y", so we can have: Frame Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- A "perfect YA Housel" YA YA YA YA YA YA YA YA YA YA A "perfect AY Housel" AY AY AY AY AY AY AY AY AY AY "AY", Error In Frame 2 AY YA AY AY AY AY AY AY AY AY "YA", Error In Frame 3 YA YA AY YA YA YA YA YA YA YA An "AY YA" Anti-Housel AY YA AY YA AY YA AY YA AY YA A "YA AY" Anti-Housel YA AY YA AY YA AY YA AY YA AY Ya? Ay! jim ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 21:52:27 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter Borst Subject: Research, again Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Karen writes: >You are giving away the scientists code here. > > Interesting == more study is needed and there are issues to explore. Just > give us some more money and we'll be all set. And it usually means those > issues are not boring ones, but where if the research panned out, one would > be setting precedents (ie, you end up getting cited by future research, > preferably research where you get the funding). I'd like to take a moment to point out that researchers do work on projects of interest to beekeepers because beekeepers want the work done. I have been involved in studies of screened bottom boards for 4 years now, on hundreds of hives. We have never found them to have any benefit (no harm either), but we continue to study them because beekeepers are interested in them. If we find a benefit then I will be sure to report it right here. Such a device is easy to make, not patented, and has side benefits (a built in moving screen). So, there is no payoff for us, really, and it *is* boring (when you get no results one way or the other). Tom Seeley (just down the road from our lab) is doing the exciting stuff: studying honey bee communication and internal hive organization. But isn't even in the entomology department, he's in neurobiology. I'd also like to describe what a properly constructed field trial looks like. As has been pointed out time and again, if you apply a technique or treatment to all hives in an apiary, and "they do great" -- this means nothing! Oh, it means something: you didn't kill 'em all. If you applied a treatment (or skipped treating) and they all died, that *might* start to mean something! Anyway, with the screened bottom boards, we put them on half the hives in each yard. The hives are on stands which hold two hives, so we apply the treatment to every other pair and manage the alternate pair *the regular way*. In this manner, if there is a difference, we should be able to measure it. For example, last year we weighed every hive and every super so we could compare actual honey production on hives with and without screens. (No difference.) Here it is obvious that there must be a large enough trial to wipe out chance differences. If you have 2 hives and try the treatment on one, then again the results mean next to nothing. Last year we did screened bottom tests on four bee yards, each with 16 hives. So, if you are going to try something new, you have to try it in a big way, *but not on every hive*! This kind of research is *very expensive* so researchers have to *decide what has potential* and what will be likely to be adopted. I think small cell foundation, for example, has no potential since it is based on flawed assumptions. I wouldn't care to invest in trials. I think it is unlikely to be widely adopted because it would require replacement of tens of thousands of perfectly good combs. Of course, if it really worked, it would probably be worth it. But no one that I know of has done a properly controlled experiment on small cell foundation. Your average beekeeper hears such and such will work and they either try it on every hive or else in a haphazard way. No records are kept and no valid conclusions can be drawn. This is little more than shooting in the dark. Unfortunately, most of the easy problems have been solved, and the hard ones that are left may require very complicated solutions. Just hanging a pest strip in hives worked for a while. Just requeening with an expensive queen has not produced sure-fire results. I am telling you, some of the best minds in the country are at work on beekeeper's problems. I suppose some may be interested in prestige, but I believe most of them are doing it because they love bees and care about them, and their keepers. Even if someone comes up with a miracle, I doubt that will put them on the front page of any newspaper. Even if it does, they won't be there long. -- Peter Borst ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 14:18:55 -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 Allen Dick wrote: > Robt said "A widespread reaction of the medical trade". > The reply said, "most scientists I know ". There is a huge difference. Sorry, but I disagree, since the rest of his post was in the tenor of what prompted my reply. Plus what is the "medical trade"? No scientists in that group? So substitute this quote... "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!" So I stand by my post. However, if you are going to say that a research director is not a scientist then we are back to square one. The issue is that with limited resources no scientists/researchers/medical trade is going to waste money and time on every holistic or internet fad without more information and study from the propionates. I almost did not bother to reply, since it already seems like Murray nailed this one, but we know that will have no effect on the proponents. Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 09:39:47 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "Yoon Sik Kim, Ph.D." Subject: Re: beekeeper induced stress MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hummm. . . . Did I ever mention we go back to the Grandfather’s day of beekeeping? Please allow me to clarify this *difficult* point of minimalist beekeeping, which heavily relies on the priori that bees themselves know better, left alone. The *experienced* beekeeper with heightened sense of today’s bee problems should refrain from excessive manipulation and poking because most of today’s discoveries and findings, in my view, are *a mere footnote to the only true discovery of beekeeping: bee space.* And 99 % of interesting exchanges here are mere gossips to that footnote; for example, “Truck Stop Swarm Capturing,” a problem caused by and explained by an inept beekeeper whose gross negligence caused the havoc in the first place. Of course, the answer to that problem is to KILL the bees for public safety! Humdinger ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 01:32:03 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Karen Oland Subject: Re: Research, again In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Actually, some published literature found benefit to SBB's. Mostly in conjunction with treatments that knock down mites. Our local scientist in residence claims his studies showed benefit on their own (haven't actually seen published results on this one). The last time I heard this was tonight, when he did a demonstration on tracheal mites (microscope and all -- he grabbed bees from some carnie mongrels and they never found a single mite -- all the susceptible hives in the yard died last week). No doubt, your studies showed otherwise (many I've seen showed no measurable effect from them). But your insistence that there are no studies showing otherwise does get old. The conflicting results just show there are other factors at play -- most likely climate differences. A (single) Canadian study showed SBB's increased mites in spring, which was not shown in any of the studies I've read from the southeastern US (although I don't pretend to have read them "all", I have read a few). This type of difference is "interesting" for most, although not exciting, to be sure. And must of those studies were set up just as you describe (hard to pass peer review for publication if you don't set proper controls), with side-by-side comparisons and multiple sites with the same variables tested in each. Most here do use them for the other benefits you mentioned - ventilation in summer, ease of moving hives in sweltering weather, etc. There are some downsides -- most know to clean a solid bottom board now and then. But with a SBB, you need to remember to clean underneath, if you don't have a stand that keeps debris from piling up. Otherwise wax moths have a great place to play and build their population in the debris. And if you don't use stainless, I would imagine that use of organic acids will cause them to rust out, leading to increased replacement costs. As to small cell -- prior research didn't show very promising results. But, testing of the strain of bees currently being raised on small cell might. The first is not very marketable, the second, maybe, but questionable (who owns it?, etc.). Commercial concerns do tend to play quite heavily in current times. And yes, those using small cell seem to be all true believers, moving all their hives and keeping no controls. As with several other controls that are not mainstream. For those where it works, they have "proven" it to themselves and will try nothing else (not even test an alternative with their bee strain). For those where it didn't work, they are told it was their fault, bad genetics, etc. Not a risk most would take, esp. those that have to make their living with bees (which doesn't include me, but I would hate to see all my bees perish on such a venture). Karen > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Borst > I have been involved in studies of screened bottom boards for 4 > years now, on hundreds of hives. We have never found them to have any > benefit (no harm either), but we continue to study them because > beekeepers are interested in them. If we find a benefit then ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 23:12:58 -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 Layne wrote: I wonder if the bees would start building their comb on the middle one, or if they would start haphazardly anywhere, or on one side of the hive, as they usually do in my hives when I hive a swarm? Sometimes the first comb to be built is at one end of the hive. These are some of the questions that came to my mind today while I pondered the subject. Any answers? Reply: As we work with a swarms and start all we get on 4.9mm foundation, when we started resequencing, we checked all the newbees we had started. The ones having problems were not sequenced properly. Realigning the frames enabled them to then come on and build. All aligned to center, started center. Sincerely, Dee __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 08:19:11 -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 James Fischer wrote: > Here's a semi-obvious observation from someone who has > an open mind, but not so open that just any idea can > just wander in one ear and take over the joint: > To use a notation that is easier to type, I'd suggest that > we use an "A" to represent an upside-down "Y", so we can have: > > Frame Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- > A "perfect YA Housel" YA YA YA YA YA YA YA YA YA YA > A "perfect AY Housel" AY AY AY AY AY AY AY AY AY AY > > "AY", Error In Frame 2 AY YA AY AY AY AY AY AY AY AY > "YA", Error In Frame 3 YA YA AY YA YA YA YA YA YA YA > > An "AY YA" Anti-Housel AY YA AY YA AY YA AY YA AY YA > A "YA AY" Anti-Housel YA AY YA AY YA AY YA AY YA AY Following up on Jim's comments, I suggest that the probability of achieving a "perfect" Housel is nearly impossible. The reason is that the frame, when removed and reinserted, even if the orientation is the same, will not go in the exact same spot because of the spacing at either end of the topbar. If it displaces a few mm in either direction, you can end up with "improperly" oriented frames. Even the vertical spacing can change if the frame does not set down exactly as it had been. As can lateral displacement, but that would only increase spacing between frames. Add the known variables that occur between manufacturers and use a different frame or hive body and you further increase variability and potential displacement. Then there are the bees. We know that their own cell spacing is variable, even on pressed foundation. So they also will contribute to non-Housel positioning. Plus, all this assumes that every sheet of foundation was positioned exactly the same by the beekeeper, and not off by a couple of mm. If it does what it is suppose to do, we need better engineered hive bodies and frames with stricter tolerances and pre positioned foundation. Then leave the brood boxes alone forever and never move a frame. We also need either bees which draw uniform comb or bees with advanced degrees or at least some ability to use a transit. (Mine are only proficient with a level and have never gone further than BS.) Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 03:03:02 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Steven Lassovszky Subject: Feral Bee Removal - success! All, I had been tossing the idea of keeping bees for a while, but for all the wrong reasons had "put it off until later". Recently, while at a friend's place, I noticed some bee activity at the side of the house. "Wow" I thought, real bees! I had never seen feral bees before and I was having a blast just watching them go about their business. The owner said she had them "removed" twice before, but they kept coming back. Gears started turning, and before long I had a plan to remove the bees, and get a little money in return for the equipment required. I spoke to several beekeepers before hand, and they were more than happy to help. They all had a different opinion on how the bees should be removed. Everyone seemed to think the hive trap/QMP was the way to go. I ended up with a couple of large supers, standard tools, suit, a QMP "tag", screen, etc. Plus a home made bee-vac. The usual equipment one would prepare her/himself with to attempt this. After looking the situation over at the house I decided trap/QMP was just going to aggrivate things there, and being 17 feet up on the outside wall, just plain dangerous. I drilled a few holes and poked them with a small brass tube to figure where the bees were. Luckily I could get to the whole mess from an upstairs "porch". Armed with a fair amount of reading (books, BEE-L), a little courage, and a crowbar, I dove in. I started at about 1 PM and the actual removal lasted until about 7-8pm. I was super excited to actually see a drone bee, and the queen bee. She was under the last comb, on the wall. It was no problem finding her. From reading BEE-L I knew she most likely would be backing into the farthest corner. I attempted to get her in a little cage (to be marked) but she started a dash for a crevice, and I vacuumed her up. Better in the vacuum than lost in the woodwork. So, for anyone who is going to attempt this, here are a couple of my observations regarding questions I! could not find an answer to, or conflicting information. This is from my very limited experience... 1. Hive trap / QMP. Unnecessary in this situation. I broke the wall open slowly, and smoked them a little. All it would have taken was once, but in the evening the field bees started coming in "en masse". They were not interested in having the house wrecked and were a little intimidating. Mostly they were flying right at the end of the vacuum, only to be sucked in. A little more smoke in the evening. The hive trap would have eliminated this problem, working from the outside would have made it worse. The bees inside the wall gave me no problems and were just drinking. 2. Angry bees. I was told the bees in the vac would be furious. Also, I was told they would die in a matter of hours without the queen. B.S. I wasn't about to stick my bare arm in there but they were not moving about too much or making a harsh sound. I put a damp sponge on the mesh so they could drink, and some of the honeycomb removed from the wall. That made them happy, and they were fine for almost 48 hours. Make sure to feed them and give them water often. I did have the queen in there, so that may have calmed them. Keep them as cool and dark as possible (a.k.a. garage floor). They started to chew the tube a little, and it was a concern towards the end. I double tubed them. 3 Bee-vac. Invaluable. Be gentle. Mine is made of quickrete tubes. The long tube gives them deceleration time - plus soft foam at the end. The seals are EPP foam (indestructable foam). The center bee trap slides out and a new cartridge can be placed in there in a matter of seconds. I made the vac tube out of pipe insulation, no ridges but very flexible without kinking. Although it has an unbroken seam, I taped it so it would not inadvertantly split. It is powered by a 1HP shopvac. Not much vacuum control needed with this one. A more powerful vac would though. Minus the vac, this one will cost you about $25. 4. Installing the bees. If the queen is in the vac just dump them in the hive. No elaborate "bee run" is needed. 5. The comb from the wall. Cut it out as close to the size of a frame as possible. Keep the brood comb and tie it to empty frames. Tie with cotton string and try to keep the up end of the comb up on the frames. Tie the string to one end of the frame and wrap it in a spiral. The beekeeper here says he usually gets 3 good frames from a wall hive. I got around 6 though. Fill the outer frames with foundation. The bees will remove the string from the hive, or you can cut the tops in a couple of weeks to help them out. They will clean out any damaged brood. 6. Honeycomb. Smash it up and let it drain overnight over a screened bucket. Give them the busted comb in a cake pan, over an excluder, in an empty super above the hive. Include your feeder bottle with a 50-75% honey to water mix. They will clean it and bring it "downstairs". 7. Other stuff. Duct tape, buckets with covers (lots of buckets), cookie trays, stapler, **Large Bread Knife**, and a helper who can at least watch from a safe distance in case you need help or something. You can drink with a straw through your veil! There will be more bees in there than you ever imagined. It will be alot of work, so prepare yourself for an endurance event. So, sorry for the long post and possibly some duplicated information from other posts. These were just the questions I had trouble finding the answers to, so hopefully this can help an aspiring beekeeper, or someone who is going to try and remove bees from a wall. Correct me if you will. The folks from the house have put up a webpage celebrating this event. Please see www.xeni.net/bees to see photos of the removal, bee-vac, the new hive, and the queen! (page 4 of the pictures) Thank you for all your help in this endeavor (even if you did not know you were helping at the time!) Steve ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 22:11:22 +1200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Robt Mann Subject: Re: What, exactly, is an AHB? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Adrian Wenner wrote: > From reports, Africanized honey bee colonies pose little >more danger to us than what we routinely experience with yellow jacket >wasp colonies in this area. I wonder whether one couldn't go further and say From reports, Africanized honey bee colonies pose little or no more danger to us than what we routinely experience with yellow jacket wasp colonies in this area. One reason I ask consideration of this expression is that, from my position on the sidelines, the concept 'AHB' is extraordinarily vague, not connoting any precise genotype or phenotype. From what has been said on Bee-L the term 'AHB' has only vague meaning. My morbid interest in dangerous technologies has taught me that people are sometimes more interested in the hazard i.e. the extent of harm in the unlikely worst scenario, than in the risk i.e the probability of this disaster's occurrence. The media image is that AHB means hevi-doodi quasi-SF killer gangs - hazard 1 or a few people killed per hive, probability 1.0 ... but some remarks from USA beekeepers suggest 'AHB' can also mean far less dangerous strains of bee. Could it be that both the hazard and the risk have decreased considerably since AHB rampaged N of the Rio Grande? I can warn you the major commercial 'risk assessment' corporations - Arthur D Little, Science Applications Inc, etc - multiply hazard times risk and then call that 'risk'. We are talking hevi-doodi language-tampering here. Anyone dealing with legal regulations on bees should think about both hazard and risk. And of course the under-rated benefits of honey-bees must be accurately sketched in such democratic exercises. The few scientists in bee genetics are obviously outstripped by rapid changes in strains of bee. I really meant that about the confab. Better cooperation between researchers, commercial beekeepers, and amateurs, must be organised against mounting threats to bees from pesticides & gene-tampering. R ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 20:55:07 +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: gmfreebees Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" campaign to publicise the potential dangers of genetically engineered crops to honeybees and other pollinating insects http://gmfreebees.forplanetearth.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 23:53:28 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Keith Malone Subject: Re: Research, again MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Peter & All, > Unfortunately, most of the easy problems have been solved, and the > hard ones that are left may require very complicated solutions. On the other side of the coin the hard ones might require a very simplistic solution. . .. c(((([ Keith Malone ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:04:08 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dave Cushman Subject: Re: beekeeper induced stress/supercedure MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Peter & all > if you spend a lot of money on queens you want to get > more than a couple months out of them. If the bees judge that the queen needs superceding... This is a commentary on the bees perception of quality, regardless to how much the queen cost. Expensive does not necessarily mean good. Raised by an 'expert' bee breeder does not necessarily mean good. Containing 'Brand X' genes does not necessarily mean good. A good 'honey getter' does not necessarily mean good. I value the bees own judgment in such situations, they know much more than you or I about bee quality. Best Regards & 73s... Dave Cushman, G8MZY Beekeeping & Bee Breeding Website... http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 03:47:36 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: mike.rossander@CGEY.COM Subject: Re: Stress - "Housel Positioning" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii To build on Jim Fischer's post (and his notation), perhaps I misread the Lusby/Housel article. As I understood it, a "perfect Housel" switches order in the middle and the center is always supposed to be down-facing. Apologies if I am misrepresenting the article. 9 Frame version: Frame Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A "perfect Housel" YA YA YA YA AA AY AY AY AY The 10 Frame version: Frame Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A "perfect Housel" YA YA YA YA YA AY AY AY AY AY As I read the article, there could be up to 10 errors in a ten frame set-up and an "anti-Housel" would start with both centers up-facing but otherwise alternate cleanly. Frame Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 The "anti-Housel" AY AY AY AY AY YA YA YA YA YA 1 in 1024 chance of a 10 frame "perfect Housel" and 1 in 1024 for an "anti-Housel". However, I could make an argument that the"anti-Housel" is actually closer to a "perfect Housel" than a "random" because at least the alternation is consistent. Maximum disruption might follow this pattern. Frame Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 worst? AY YA AY YA AY YA AY YA AY YA (The article would appear to dispute this definition of worst since I think they propose a reason why the Y orientation will always be found to the outside.) If we change Jim's definition of error to counting the incidences of AY YA, we take a conservative position and get back to a maximum of 5 errors. That definition has an added benefit that it gets rid of what might be expected to be trivial errors where the YA AY pattern just happens not to fall in the middle of the hive (frames 5 and 6). Based on that definition, the distribution of potential errors is 0 errors 11 1 errors 165 2 errors 462 3 errors 330 4 errors 55 5 errors 1 If the bees build randomly, "perfect Housels" would be expected to be statistically rare, but near perfects might not be uncommon. I'm not sure what I've really proved here except that statistics is more interesting than the work I was supposed to be doing tonight. Interpretations or suggestions for how to collect the data to prove or disprove the original theory? Mike Rossander ______________________________________________________________________ This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Cap Gemini/Ernst & Young Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 09:36:26 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Barry Birkey Subject: Re: Stress - "Housel Positioning" In-Reply-To: <3D99E70F.1000103@suscom-maine.net> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit > I almost did not bother to reply, since it already seems like Murray > nailed this one, but we know that will have no effect on the proponents. > > Bill Truesdell > Bath, Maine You're absolutely right. It won't, but do you know why? It's the attitude that is stated above by several on this list who's apparent goal with anything new or "outside" their norm of thinking or practice must be squelched and "nailed" in such a way that one is viewed as a lunatic for stating their observations and findings. Granted, it is sometimes/often presented in such a way that the reasons or effects of such information already seem to be known with explanations given, but surely we are mature enough to look beyond that and sift through what is presented for anything that is possibly good and possibly true. So very interesting .... even though this comb position observation is new to everyone on this list, out side of one member from Texas, there have not been any questions asked, or questioning thoughts given that would build on what was presented or further the discussion. Allen Dick has attempted to point this out but the old attitudes prevail. I sure don't agree with everything that was presented in the positioning report and have lots of questions, but observations have been made that no one here has ever noticed which makes us all freshmen when it comes to this topic. I almost did not bother to reply either. Expectations have been met again. Regards, Barry ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 20:45:41 -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 > we use an "A" to represent an upside-down "Y", so we can have: > > Frame Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- > A "perfect YA Housel" YA YA YA YA YA YA YA YA YA YA > A "perfect AY Housel" AY AY AY AY AY AY AY AY AY AY > > "AY", Error In Frame 2 AY YA AY AY AY AY AY AY AY AY > "YA", Error In Frame 3 YA YA AY YA YA YA YA YA YA YA > > An "AY YA" Anti-Housel AY YA AY YA AY YA AY YA AY YA > A "YA AY" Anti-Housel YA AY YA AY YA AY YA AY YA AY I've been studying this, but can't reconcile the above with the original 29/09/2002 BEE-L post which said (condensed, snipped and re-arranged for clarity): -- begin quote -- What you are looking at in wild combs hanging is: YI^,YI^,YI^,YI^,^I^,^IY,^IY,^IY,^IY ...what you are looking at in broodboxes/supers... is: YI^,YI^,YI^,YI^,YI^,^IY,^IY,^IY,^IY,^IY --end quote --- Note the special centre comb in the wild hive. In both cases, according to the original writer (and unless I misunderstand the notation) the combs are shown to *mirror* one another on either side of centre -- in both the wild and in the 'ideal' man-made setup -- not all be arranged in the same direction. Further the original author wrote: >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. and >In the wild, there is one center frame that is first drawn >when honey bees swarm onto a limb.... > 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. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:46:57 -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 Barry Birkey wrote: >> (Actually I wrote this) I almost did not bother to reply, since it already seems like Murray >>nailed this one, but we know that will have no effect on the proponents. > You're absolutely right. It won't, but do you know why? It's the attitude > that is stated above by several on this list who's apparent goal with > anything new or "outside" their norm of thinking or practice must be > squelched and "nailed" in such a way that one is viewed as a lunatic for > stating their observations and findings. I will tiptoe around this so we do not get into any flames, but most of those who question (that is not nailing or squelching) things that come up on this list is because of all the different things that do come up and are at best anecdotal. Not hard to go down the items that popped up and disappeared over the many years I have been on this list, but I will not since when I mentioned one of them a while back, I was threatened (that is squelching) and it is not worth talking about anyway (FGMO! there I said it). I still have the email. Very nasty. There are few holistic, natural, anecdotal or other ideas/techniques that pan out compared to the many that are logical progressions of already proven ideas. But the exception always makes the headlines and becomes the underpinning of most of the arguments against science and research. Forgotten are all the failures that sometimes lead to tragedy. You need look no further than all the cancer "cures" that kill. But even if they do kill, the quacks stay in business because they traffic in hope. So forgive me if my questioning things that are posted here is considered negative. Not meant to be. I am hoping that the supporters will post and uphold their practice. I do try some of them (quite a bit when I was editor of our State newsletter), but they are tried with the understanding that I might end up with a dead colony. I have had to defend my posts on this list and I welcome it. That is how I learn. None of us is the repository of all truth (I might come close) so questioning should be welcome. My problem is not with discourse but with blind adherence. I bought some 4.9 to trial, but I am not quite into Feng Shui for my hive frames. Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:07:50 -0400 Reply-To: "jfischer@supercollider.com" Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: Stress - "Housel Positioning" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bill Truesdell said: > "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!" My business cards happen to say "Research Director", so let me point out that: a) There IS no "current theory" to apply here. No one has a "Grand Unified Theory of Bees". All that exists are little snippets of things that explain isolated points about bee behavior and biology. There are massive areas of universal ignorance about bees. "Housel positioning" could be right, or could be wrong, but it does not appear to be overtly contradicted by any existing consensus of understanding about bees. b) If this turns out to have a positive impact on bees in "managed" environments, the result would be similar to the story of "bee space". Only after the practical value was shown would anyone try to write a rationale to explain WHY it works. c) This is not to say that "copying nature" will pay off every time. What the bees do, and hence, appear to "prefer" in a natural setting is NOT always what is "best for beekeepers". Prime examples would be upper entrances and Imrie Shims, both being items clearly not found in nature, but both being items that most beekeepers agree have positive impact. d) Don't ever expect a "new" idea to arrive neatly packaged with clear and compelling proof of both its validity and pedigree. It takes more than one set of experimental results to convince the majority anyway, so any one offering cannot, in itself, "prove" much to anyone. If we are going to play around with new ideas, no one needs to "nail" one "every time it surfaces". New ideas are like infants - without constant care and feeding, they die. There is no need to be so aggressive. I think the clearest thinking offered to date on this subject has been Peter Borst's, when he said: "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?" So, skepticism, yes. Humor, certainly. But hostile criticism is not required. Also, Keith Malone informs me via e-mail that I screwed up every single one of the "diagrams" in my prior posting. He's right. Regardless, the simplest claim to test remains the claim: "Bees build "Housels" if not forced by foundation to do otherwise." If this claim is true, it should be easy to find lots of "perfect Housels". It seems clear that "perfect Housels" are not going to occur very often by pure chance, given the number of possible "wrong" combinations. jim ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 09:52:51 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Barry Birkey Subject: Re: Stress - "Housel Positioning" In-Reply-To: <3D9AE43F.5040100@suscom-maine.net> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit > Following up on Jim's comments, I suggest that the probability of > achieving a "perfect" Housel is nearly impossible. The reason is that > the frame, when removed and reinserted, even if the orientation is the > same, will not go in the exact same spot because of the spacing at > either end of the topbar. If it displaces a few mm in either direction, > you can end up with "improperly" oriented frames. Even the vertical > spacing can change if the frame does not set down exactly as it had > been. As can lateral displacement, but that would only increase spacing > between frames. I'm amazed this kind of noise gets approved. Totally out of context with what the Housel positioning is about. It's comb orientation, not comb spacing. Now we get a straw man thrown into the discussion only to muddy it up further. You sure "nailed" this one! Regards, Barry ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:16:51 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: beekeeper induced stress MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Humdinger, I wasn't going to answer this post but because you referred to me as inept I feel I should respond > Hummm. . . . > > Did I ever mention we go back to the Grandfather's day of beekeeping? You wrote about *leave alone*method of beekeeping which was what was practiced by my grandfather and most beekeepers 50 years ago. George I. would not have been as kind as I was on the issue. excessive manipulation and poking because most of > today's discoveries and findings, in my view, are *a mere footnote to the only true discovery of beekeeping: bee space.* There have been many new discoveries concerning beekeeping. Most within the last two decades. > And 99 % of interesting exchanges here are mere gossips to that footnote; > for example, "Truck Stop Swarm Capturing," a problem caused by and explained by an inept beekeeper whose gross negligence caused the havoc in the first place. Bees to you are nicely painted hives all in a row nicely kept. Bees to the commercial beekeeper are a semi loaded with over 400 hives of bees. Trying to contain every bee within netting is impossible. The netting does contain 99% of the bees. When trucking between Florida and California for example trucks need fuel. In the dead of night and at the outside fuel lanes is the place to fuel with concern for the general public. When all that is left is a small swarm of bees about the size of a normal swarm the public will have to adjust . Pollination is the biggest value to U.S. beekeeping. Trucks loaded with beehives need to move to keep agriculture going. One million hives are moved into the Almond groves of California each year. You say you work your bees without smoke. Spend a day with a commercial beekeeper and you will lite the smoker. Most help quit on the second day. When the air is full of bees you have to shout to be heard by the person you are talking to. I get a cough which takes hours to go away as do many beekeepers. Can any on the list explain the reason for the caugh caused from being around millions of bees? I was asked to write in Bee Culture about the truck stop swarm because many stories of commercial beekeeping never reach the public. I call myself *sideline* these days. Heavy on the sideline. I do beekeeping almost every day. I hope one day to only keep a hive or two in the back yard and produce comb honey. Of course, the answer to that problem is to KILL the bees > for public safety! I explained in the article in "Bee Culture" that I did not kill the bees so that the public would not think the best course of action when a swarm is encountered is to simply *kill the bees*. In my opinion you see a greater risk to the public than I do . There is a slight risk to the truckers which also use the truck fuel island. Sincerely, Bob Harrison Commercial semi drivers license since the age of twenty one. Over two million miles without an accident. Zen saying "At first mountains were mountains, and then the mountains were not mountains, but some other thing; now the mountains are mountains again." ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:04:46 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dennis Murrell Subject: Re: Feral Bee Removal - success! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Steve, Thanks for the link and the post. You have some great ideas on the Bee Vac. Best Wishes Dennis Living in a land barren of feral bees. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:42:10 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dennis Murrell Subject: Re: Stress - "Housel Positioning" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Greetings, The use of smoke as an essential tool for controlling bees has been known for thousands of years. I think its use must have been discovered by someone with a very keen sense of observation. Some say the bees, a forest dwelling creature, are prepare to flee an oncoming fire. Others suggest it confuses their means of organization. I think it just gets in their eyes :>) . After all beekeepers are rational people and when asked why were doing something must give a rational answer. Science has not been able to explain this and yet who would not use smoke while working the bees? The concept of 'bee space' wasn't discovered in the halls of science by renown researchers. And it's exact dimension is still argued about by some today. But could a beekeeper be found who doesn't benefit from that concept. Wow, it seems like the more I think about it, the more beekeeping seems to be an art rather than a science. Much of my beekeeping involves things that science can't address. Sometimes my intuition serves me better. Anyone else? And yes if asked for a reason I'll probably have one that's no better than anyone else. That is until those with the time, instrumentation and money probably give me a better reason. One of the neatest things about beekeeping is that anyone can observe, experiment, speculate, relate, and find much reward in the process. I think it's more like the Wright brothers taking their experience and building upon it. Rather than todays more necessary approach today of graduating from an engineering school, securing a job and spending years designing a widget for a gizmo on a plate covering the thing that would explode on takeoff with the widget. :>) Best Wishes Dennis Wondering what would have happened had those teenage kids not been teasing the bees in the old bee tree with smoke a thousand years ago. :>) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:22:59 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Barry Birkey Subject: Re: Stress - "Housel Positioning" In-Reply-To: <004501c269bd$ccdd8440$94ae73d1@allen> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit > I've been studying this, but can't reconcile the above with the original > 29/09/2002 BEE-L post which said (condensed, snipped and re-arranged for > clarity): > > -- begin quote -- > > What you are looking at in wild combs hanging is: > > YI^,YI^,YI^,YI^,^I^,^IY,^IY,^IY,^IY > Note the special centre comb in the wild hive. In both cases, according to > the original writer (and unless I misunderstand the notation) the combs are > shown to *mirror* one another on either side of centre Hi Allen - To help with clarification, I made a graphic of this first sequence: http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/housel.htm The "center" wild comb would have a mirrored orientation on both sides. Regards, Barry ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 14:35:03 -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 I wonder how many people have yet taken the time to verify that the "Housel Positioning" exists as it has been described in the article. I have not yet had time to do it. This would also imply that one understands the description. It is obvious to me that many people who have responded on this issue did not understand the original article and description. Another comment: it makes perfect sense to me that bees would be "creatures of habit" just like most of the animal kingdom are, and would have regular ways of doing things governed by instinct, with a certain amount of variation from the norm, but would pretty much always do things the same way if "given their head" on the matter. This line of reasoning makes very good sense to me, so it is engendering a desire in me to find out more on the subject under discussion. I am now going to take the time to make observations because I want to know if what the article describes is what I also observe. Although I have no good reason to doubt what has been reported, I do not always believe everthing I hear or see in print on first exposure. If my experience bears it out, then that's a different matter. It seems that it should not be too difficult to verify these observations. Is there anyone else who has taken the time to do it? I am particularly fascinated by the idea that there is a "center comb" where each side is a mirror image of the other. Who woudda thunk it? I don't remember ever reading about this before, but it makes sense. My two cents' worth. Layne Westover, College Station, Texas ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:55:08 -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! This has to take the cake as the most implausible hypothesis of the new millenium. We are expected to believe that a bee goes down into a cell and "notices" that it does not properly correspond with the cell on the opposite comb. That would presuppose that the bee knew the orientation of the cell on the opposite comb. Suppose she doesn't. She goes down into to cell, lets say to nurse a larva. Checks the orientation, goes to the cell opposite, checks it, memorizes its orientation, goes back to the other, compares the two, and decides if it's right or not. If not, the whole hive breaks down. It's a wonder the poor things can function at all! Get serious. I doubt that our poor bee could ever get back to the same exact cell if she wanted to! They're not marked, you know -- and it's pitch black in there!! But there is no reason to suppose that this bee even cares about the angle of the vertices in the bottom of the cell! There is no evidence that she has the ability to sense such a distinction. If you have a hypothesis you have to spend a little time backing it up! Von Frisch spent years determining which colors bees can see and which they can not. He determined their sensitivity to sugar concentration. An experiment could be designed to test whether a bee could differentiate the orientation of comb. The honey bee is one of the most adaptable creatures on the planet. They will put honey into little plastic rings, if you want! They will work normally behind glass, with bright lights shining on them. None of this seems to stop them from doing what they have done for eons. And we are to believe that if the angles in the bottom of the cell are wrong, it's some sort of catastrophe? pb ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:54:02 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Karen Oland Subject: OT - Fear Factor and Bees In-Reply-To: <120.169ba918.2ac11720@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Not scientific in any way, I saw a preview of the next Fear Factor television program (I think it runs on Mondays in the US, but since I don't watch it, I am not sure). The participants are all(?) going to be covered in bees. Should be interesting to watch, if only to see how they hype it up. At the very least, I would think that no one dies of it (or it would have leaked to the press already). Apologies to those outside the US. The degredation and depravity of our television viewing habits shall have to continue without you. K Oland ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:49:04 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Timothy Eisele Subject: Re: Stress - "Housel Positioning" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Barry Birkey wrote: > To help with clarification, I made a graphic of this first sequence: > http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/housel.htm > > The "center" wild comb would have a mirrored orientation on both sides. > As I understood it, the reason why the "Y" formation alternated between up on one side and down on the other, both in natural comb and in manufactured foundation, was that this was the minimum-wax-use configuration (the raised portion of the embossed pattern on one side, corresponds to the depressed portion of the embossed pattern on the other side). In order to have the same orientation on both sides of the center "wild" comb, it seems to me that the center comb would have a noticeably thicker midrib. My question is, has anyone other than Housel actually seen one of these special center combs? Maybe I missed it in the discussion, but I don't remember anyone saying that they either had an example, or remembered seeing it before. If this special center comb actually exists, then it seems to me that it would be a strong indication that there is *something* to Housel positioning. Can we confirm that the bees actually build the special center comb? -- Tim Eisele tceisele@mtu.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 20:47:53 +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: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed In article , Barry Birkey writes >You're absolutely right. It won't, but do you know why? It's the attitude >that is stated above by several on this list who's apparent goal with >anything new or "outside" their norm of thinking or practice must be >squelched and "nailed" in such a way that one is viewed as a lunatic for >stating their observations and findings. If you mean me here Barry, I have already distanced myself elsewhere from the theory that I 'nailed' this one as I do not consider that to be the case. I have reported a comb pattern from an open swarm on a Juniper bush. It does not meet the description offered. Period. Nothing more to be read into it than that. I have a Ukrainian guy working here this summer and he seems intent on shinning 60 feet up a pine tree this weekend to cut down an open colony which has been there since August. A few of the outer combs blew off in the last gale here and again they do not appear to fit the model but it is difficult to say just how they were attached after their fall from that height. He is interested in this too and says that the work is not particularly original, having been looked at out there in the past. It actually probably is original insofar as it is not likely that anyone outside Ukraine has ever heard of it. Someone else tells me that it was also investigated in the UK in the 1920's. No details though. >So very interesting .... even though this comb position observation is new >to everyone on this list, out side of one member from Texas, there have not >been any questions asked, or questioning thoughts given that would build on >what was presented or further the discussion. Allen Dick has attempted to >point this out but the old attitudes prevail. I sure don't agree with >everything that was presented in the positioning report and have lots of >questions, but observations have been made that no one here has ever noticed >which makes us all freshmen when it comes to this topic. Not disputing that. The thing I have problems with, and have never seen, is the concept of the 'special middle comb'. I need to see one of these with my own eyes to believe it, as, except by consumption of wax in very large amounts relative to the norm, it is geometrically impossible. The imprint you see is actually the base of the side walls of the cells on the other side of the comb and in a situation where the cells are one third staggered relative to each other you are always going to get this reversing pattern. Only by constructing a midrib of exceptional thickness and then the Y being an imprint in the solid material could you possibly get a situation where you have Y's with the same orientation on both sides. If the middle comb observation is wrong (NOTE:- I am not saying it IS wrong at this time) then what price the elaborate scheme built up around it being invariably correct or even of importance? I also have problems with people trying to tell me I have problems that I plainly do not, and offering solutions to these illusory situations. I could go through the headings already used by Dee and offer miscellaneous explanations of my own, but one I see that is plainly odd is No.7. A requeening cell is a supercedure cell to us, and is not actually constructed from the base of a worker cell in the main brood comb. The queen lays in a specially constructed cell on the outer face of the comb, and it is not affected in any way by the orientation of the midrib. Sometimes there are more than one raised and I have for sure seen them on both sides of the same comb. The only way the cell base pattern might be influential is in the case of emergency cells, where I would concede that large numbers of them can be found in concentrations on a comb face. I always assumed this was down to larval age for conversion and nothing more, the correct age ones tending to be found in patches. The most I ever got of these was 88 on one Langstroth deep frame several years ago, but these were distributed, basically in two arcs, on BOTH sides of the comb. Queen had been killed by poor handling at a previous visit. If we decide to allow the guy to go up the tree I will take the digital camera with me and get some shots. Especially if there is a special middle comb to see. Yes I am a skeptic, but I hope a pragmatic one. I am NOT stuck in a rut and do take on new ideas readily. They must be good ones though before I leap in wholesale. This one just does not 'read right' to me, but I will be looking at ferals as often as available to see if I am wrong. Ditto with cell size. I will have measured combs in at least 50 ferals by now looking for anything indicative of the bees looking for smaller cells. Apart from the excessively large 5.75 stuff I do not see much to support the statement that my bees are on unnaturally large cells. If I am wrong I will be first to admit it and start to utilise the new knowledge myself. One thing discovered during my picking out of larvae to see if chewing out was varroa related (apparently not in our bees at least) was that in many cases we found a pupa lying 'on its back' with tongue upwards was in an infested cell, and in the same colonies, a pupa lying 'face down' was in a clear cell. I have no idea at present how significant this is, or even if it is of any importance at all, but in the last few days I have been testing it and find it at least 75% accurate in predicting the presence of varroa in the lower reaches of the cell. Could just be a local phenomenon, could be nothing. -- Murray McGregor ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 16:32:50 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "Frank I. Reiter" Subject: Re: beekeeper induced stress In-Reply-To: <002701c26a2f$3147ee40$72ac58d8@BusyBeeAcres> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bob Harrison wrote: > There have been many new discoveries concerning beekeeping. Most > within the last two decades. I don't disagree with you Bob, but a few examples would have made this a rebuttal instead of more opinion. > Can any on the list explain the reason for the cough > caused from being around millions of bees? I recall reading that keeping bees in buildings can cause an accumulation of dust (from the bees or from their feces, I don't recall which) that posed a significant health risk when inhaled. Perhaps it is related to that? (Or maybe you are breathing too much smoke?) > I was asked to write in Bee Culture about the truck stop swarm > because many stories of commercial beekeeping never reach the public. I read and enjoyed your article. 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, 2 Oct 2002 17:42:41 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Mark Hoguet Subject: Re: Stress - "Housel Positioning" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bees have a very strong sense of place. A hive moved only a few feet from its original position causes them to become confused or disoriented. Couldn't this sense of place also extend to the interior of the hive? Feral comb, regardless of how it is arranged, is never moved. Wouldn't it therefore stand to reason that bees might be happier in a managed hive where the moveable frames are arranged in some sort of fixed pattern? Isn't a beekeeper who opens a hive and rearranges the frames rather like a stranger who enters your house and rearranges the furniture? (I am not suggesting that a hive should not be opened. Just that when one is, it might be less confusing to the bees if the comb was put back in the same position.) Would the effect of a fixed asymmetrical arrangement be any different from a symmetrical one? I don't know. But I would guess that any pattern, if consistently maintained, would help create a sense of stability within the hive. (It's possible that symmetrical ones may be just that more pleasing.) This may not apply to bees at all, but I know from personal experience that human beings with certain neurological illnesses respond very strongly to aural or visual patterns (e.g., the tick of a metronome or a checkerboard pattern on a floor) in their immediate surroundings and use these patterns to help them accomplish everyday tasks. When these patterns are taken away from them or are disrupted in some way, they find it more difficult or even impossible to complete the task at hand. Healthy people use patterns too, but we aren't always aware of them. It would not surprise me one bit if bees relied on the way the comb is arranged in their hive to orient themselves within the hive. Mark ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 17:23:33 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: Re: beekeeper (self) induced stress MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Frank & All, Frank wrote: > I don't disagree with you Bob, but a few examples would have made this a rebuttal instead of more opinion. The discovery of varroa distructor by Denis Anderson knocked bee researchers on their ears. Once pointed out by Anderson the difference is obvious even to the ordinary beekeeper. The discovery of SMR and the research of Dr. Harris and Dr. Harbo is exciting. Once the bugs are worked out I believe they will come up with the answer we seek. The work of Dr. Carrick of the U.K. is opening new doors to the world of honeybee viruses. following in the footsteps of Dr. Bailey , Dr. Carrick may soon prove that A.mellifera can tolerate varroa without help *if* we can control secondary infections. I could go on and on about discoveries but I have been up since before daylight and will keep on extracting till I give out tonight. Very tired. The honey house contains the last supers. The bees have been tested, medicated (if needed) and fed a gallon of syrup. I leave Sunday on a short trip south. I hope to be done extracting but will leave regardless of situation. Bees taken care of is number one priority. Bob ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 18:29:13 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: CSlade777@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Stress Housel Positioning MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 02/10/02 05:03:17 GMT Daylight Time, LISTSERV@LISTSERV.ALBANY.EDU writes: << > Will we soon be marking all our top bars with arrows indicating correct > orientation with regard to the hive centre? > >> The easy way to ensure that it is obvious when frames are misplaced is, when they are all in their correct positions, to draw a large diagonal line across the frames within the box. Chris ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 18:22:49 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: CSlade777@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Beekeeper induced stress MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 02/10/02 05:03:17 GMT Daylight Time, Bill Truesdell writes: << My observations. SBB ............. In colder climates, they will reduce honey production (my observation). >> Of my 4 outstanding hives for honey production this year 2 were on SBB open to the ground and 2 were on solid floors. I also have a greater number of 'also rans' on a mixture of floors. So my observation is that it doesn't make much difference. I suppose it depends what you mean by colder climates. In the southern UK our climate is temperate with an annual rainfall of about 40". I gather that most of North America alternates between scorching and freezing. Chris ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 23:31:52 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Steven Lassovszky Subject: Re: beekeeper induced stress > Can any on the list explain the reason for the cough > caused from being around millions of bees? It may be just from yelling over the roar of the bees for an extended period of time. Every time I'm at a party, or a concert, or even some loud bar or something, I have a sore throat the next day from just trying to talk to the person next to me. If you are doing this often a thing to try would be a PTT "family band" radio with a headset. That way you could communicate with your helpers, even if they are by the truck or out of earshot somewhere. "Hey, while you are by the truck could you grab me the ...". It may make your efforts easier all around. Steve ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 21:43:54 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Kent Stienburg Subject: Honey crop MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi All, I've had a great year here in South Eastern Ontario Canada. I run my = hives with screen bottom boards. I tried 1 hive with a large entrance = above the nest but below the honey supers. The bees seem to like it. = Anyway, I extracted on average 143lbs/hive this year. I'm assuming that = it mostly came from trees. There is nothing around me to my knowledge = that would account for such a tremendous flow i.e. a field of sweet = clover or alfalfa. I have a fair sized forest around me mostly maples = and ash but there is some basswood. The honey is fairly light in taste = and color. All of the supers are off and the Apistan has been in now = for a while. I'll be pulling it soon as well. I run with 2 deeps. I = hope everyone else has had a good season. Time to think of next year = and start to repair the frames :) Kent Stienburg ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 22:45:57 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Barry Birkey Subject: Re: Stress - "Housel Positioning" In-Reply-To: <200210021955.g92J92YL015849@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit From: Peter Borst > She goes down into to cell, lets say to nurse a larva. > Checks the orientation, goes to the cell opposite, checks it, memorizes its > orientation, goes back to the other, compares the two, and decides if it's > right or not. If not, the whole hive breaks down. Where do you get this idea from? We have to assume you did not read the report. I do not agree with all of Dee's 7 ramification theories surrounding the positions of comb, but a very good argument can be made for bees building comb in such an order that suits them best and with a purpose. No mention of total hive break down in the report. "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." > Get serious. I doubt that our poor bee could ever get back to the same exact > cell if she wanted to! They're not marked, you know -- and it's pitch black > in there!! But there is no reason to suppose that this bee even cares about > the angle of the vertices in the bottom of the cell! There is no evidence > that she has the ability to sense such a distinction. > > If you have a hypothesis you have to spend a little time backing it up! Von > Frisch spent years determining which colors bees can see and which they can > not. Well, if it's pitch black in a hive and the bees can't see or find a particular cell, hum .... I guess we can safely throw out Von Frisch's hypothesis about the dance giving some sort of direction to a source due to an angle within the dance as the bees can't see the dancing bee anyway. They can find a flower a couple miles away through an interpretive dance but not a cell within their hive. Interesting. > The honey bee is one of the most adaptable creatures on the planet. They > will put honey into little plastic rings, if you want! They will work > normally behind glass, with bright lights shining on them. None of this > seems to stop them from doing what they have done for eons. And we are to > believe that if the angles in the bottom of the cell are wrong, it's some > sort of catastrophe? There you go using words and ideas that were never suggested. Perhaps if the combs were in such an order that the bees built them, they would bring you in an extra 5 pounds of honey or raise more brood or who knows what. Maybe even nothing. Do you know the ramifications? Prove it. Regards, Barry ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 21:50:52 -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: <200210021955.g92J92YL015849@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi all Peter Borst wrote: We are expected to believe that a bee goes down into a cell and "notices" that it does not properly correspond with the cell on the opposite comb. That would presuppose that the bee knew the orientation of the cell on the opposite comb. Reply: Yes, from what I have seen and watched now, since placing combs to center with "Y" facing down, to correct some minor inhouse comb drawing/usage discrepancies we were having. By positioning the foundation and combs where possible with the "Y" down facing center within our supers I shall watch now with the coming year our bees to see how they react as to past years. So far I am quite pleased. Now since the workers "notice" as you say above, Question: Does this then help support intelligence and independent thinking as pertains to honeybees if they do? Peter Borst further wrote: But there is no reason to suppose that this bee even cares about the angle of the vertices in the bottom of the cell! There is no evidence that she has the ability to sense such a distinction. reply: Then why do the workerbees build the bottoms this way to begin with? Why or how do the workerbees decide to build the three "Rhombic" plates that then form the pyrimad "Y" shaped bottom? Something to think about, especially since much math,architecture, medicine, science even, has come from the study of bees and the construction of combs with this bottom patterning. Peter Borst additionally wrote: The honey bee is one of the most adaptable creatures on the planet. . . And we are to believe that if the angles in the bottom of the cell are wrong, it's some sort of catastrophe? Reply: Yes, if they constantly have to correct our improper positioning of their environment, not that we haven't already made it hard on them, what with bigger is better combs, artificial feeds, inbreeding practices, and various doping treatments that they must constantly breath, touch and injest. Just what have we done right lately to help create for them a harmonious living condition, especially if bees supposedly harmonious with Nature are not sick nor dying from ravages of out-of-balance pests, predators, etc. Regards, Dee A. Lusby __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 22:18:38 -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 Murray wrote: I have reported a comb pattern from an open swarm on a Juniper bush. It does not meet the description offered. Period. Nothing more to be read into it than that. Reply: Right now I am not in disagreement with Michael on his positioning, for in it's applicability to domestic bees we keep(by drawing an imaginary line) I find the concept working so far amazingly well and have found no deviations.I am very proud to use the Housel Positioning concept for internal placement of our frames. I do know and have already stated on biobee that other circumstances then from sturdy limbs is different scenario and therefore different expected outcomes i.e. TBH and hives built in sides of houses, holes in rocks, trees, etc., as the bees probably augment differently from various entrances. I also know that a bush or shrub is not a very structural sound place for bees to normally build a set of combs, requiring much brace and burr comb to stabalize constantly shifting structure that becomes heavier as weight is added, and I feel it would be hard to get the bees to build stable angles, etc because of this constant stablilizing problem, what with winds and all.So because of this I visualize this structure as being differnet in my mind in needs. I also know that to look at combs built and described to me 2 feet in depth and up to 4 foot long, means the combs have been in place awhile. Much changes with comb bottom as combs age. But for what can be seen and to rationalize positioning with the "Y" down towards the inside and the "Y" up towards the sides for protection, I can not disagree with. I cannot picture bees in slaphazzard comb building, but instead following a set pattern and position where at all possible. This following of pattern I have seen in the many cutouts we do and have done, preferring feral survival swarms to rebuild our outfit with, along survivors from our shakedown in the spring of 1997. Using same positioning within our colonies as the feral has solved much that has puzzled me over the years, in the manipulation of our frames and trying to draw new foundation into production combs for brood and honey, etc. As I watch now in coming months and years, I hope to learn more on our road to keeping bees harmonious with Nature thanks to this new positioning method that hurts nothing except in swallowing pride to change (we did)and takes a little time (for us 2 1/2 months, and brings us further down the path to good biological beekeeping without the usage of various treatments of essential oils, FGMO, drugs, chemicals, and fumigating acids. Regards, Dee A. Lusby __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 23:05:05 -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 Layne wrote: An interesting thought would be that of manufacturing a foundation that has the pattern of the center comb, and then aligning the other frames in the hive according to the correct orientation using regular foundation. reply: Interesting you should bring this up, as I have already replied to a couple of beekeepers wanting to know how to build mould for such frames and sent them the information. Namely, making fiberglass plates and then dipping wax sheets similar to 5 sheets per pound comb some commercial beekeepers sometimes special orders their foundation custom made to width in. Then placing the plates in alignment for the "Y" to the same positioning on each side and running through a mangle. Layne then wrote: I wonder if the bees would start building their comb on the middle one, or if they would start haphazardly anywhere, or on one side of the hive, as they usually do in my hives when I hive a swarm? Sometimes the first comb to be built is at one end of the hive. reply: Why not try it and see. My guess is if aligned to center, from what I have seen so far in broodnest startups (fall turn over) they will start to center. You say sometimes the first comb you have seen built is at the end of the hive. Odds are it was the "Y" down side if you look, if newly built comb with "Y" still intack. If not and the bottom of cells rounded, then it's probably the warm side and they went there for heat for startup help. Regards, Dee A. Lusby __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 09:46:27 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dave Cushman Subject: "Housel Positioning" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all First let me illustrate the way I interpret the positioning. AY AY AY AA YA YA YA Thus no like pattern is either side of an inter-comb gap. I commend Michael Housal for noticing and recording the phenomena, but I am certainly unsure of it's relevance to keeping bees in boxes. Many years ago... I read some similar accounts that were written in the 1920s, but I dismissed them, partly because I did not understand them. This lack of understanding was mainly due to my 'certainty' of the rules of geometry. In reading Dee's account of Micheal's work, I instantly recognised that this was what the original 1920's stuff was talking about. I still have a difficulty with the geometry of this special centre comb, but I can be convinced if someone shows me an example. And if some of you 'bookworms' can find the texts that I refer to they will add to this discussion. Best Regards & 73s... Dave Cushman, G8MZY Beekeeping & Bee Breeding Website... http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 10:38:27 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bumble Subject: UK: Urban vs Rural Yields In-Reply-To: <001c01c26a7e$55fd91a0$3458b9d8@a8a3e2> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In the states you regularly seem to have yields of 100lb+ per hive. In the UK that is the yield for a good year. This year in South London I have had a yield of 43lb per hive. I was wondering what others have achieved and whether the urban yield is significantly different from the rural yield this year. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 08:00:18 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Beekeeper induced stress MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit CSlade777@AOL.COM wrote: > Of my 4 outstanding hives for honey production this year 2 were on SBB open > to the ground and 2 were on solid floors. (snip)I gather that most of North America alternates between scorching and > freezing. In two prior years there was not much difference and both summers were "normal" , but this year was cool for most of the summer and the two with open bottoms were well below the closed bottom for production. When the temps increased, the open bottoms also increased and matched the closed in rate of production. We have not had a freeze (usually about Sept 20) and it has been warm, so the bees are still very active. I shifted the completely open bottoms to screened with a bottom below the screen that I can take out or leave in and have the best of both worlds. Plus it allows easy mite counts. Maine's temperatures can vary all over the place in the summer. We get a lot of tourists who vacation here because it is cooler in the summer than places to the south. One problem with talking about screened bottoms is to differentiate between fully open bottoms and those with a bottom below the screen, as Chris noted. Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 08:01:03 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter Borst Subject: Re: beekeeper induced stress/supercedure Dave: If the bees judge that the queen needs superceding... This is a commentary on the bees perception of quality, regardless to how much the queen cost. Of course, but my point is to raise better queens that the bees do not reject in a month or two, or discover the underlying cause (if it is related to pesticide residues. pb ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 09:10:44 -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" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Barry writes: >Do you know the ramifications? Prove it. PB: The burden of proof rests on the people positing the new idea. I am stating that the positioning of the combs is a non-issue, until proven otherwise. No evidence has been provided that bees are capable of determining the orientation of the vertices in the bottom of the cell. No evidence has been supplied that this orientation affects the hive. Barry: >No mention of total hive break down in the report. Dee's statements: >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. PB: She is claiming that "frames in backwards" leads to supersedure. The supersedure of a perfectly good queen in the middle of the season would indicate a break down of the balance of the hive. The hive is putting itself at risk of queenlessness when it supersedes. Many hives are so reluctant to take this step that they fail to do it in a timely fashion. Premature supersedure is a problem throughout the beekeeping industry, Dave's comments notwithstanding. But there are many much more plausible theories as to the cause if this, including inbreeding, "assembly line" queen rearing, poor nutrition, and pesticide contamination, to name a few. One cannot go from A) the natural orientation of combs to C) the effects of disoriented combs without covering the needed step: B) can the bees perceive this disorientation *at all*? No attempt has been made to determine whether they can. Evidently it is assumed that because *we* can see it, they can tell -- very poor logic, indeed. pb ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 21:21:56 +0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter Detchon Subject: Re: Stress - "Housel Positioning" or "Queens Magic Clothes" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have been following this thread with a degree of amusement until now. I must confess some opinions expressed by "experts" that I previously held in high regard have prompted me to stop smiling. Have you all gone raving mad? Have you actually looked at combs and foundation, and if so considered the possibility that you are looking for an optical illusion? There is no middle comb that differs from all the others!! Murray McGregor is absolutely right, his description which I quote here describes the real situation:- "... The thing I have problems with, and have never seen, is the concept of the 'special middle comb'. I need to see one of these with my own eyes to believe it, as, except by consumption of wax in very large amounts relative to the norm, it is geometrically impossible. The imprint you see is actually the base of the side walls of the cells on the other side of the comb and in a situation where the cells are one third staggered relative to each other you are always going to get this reversing pattern. Only by constructing a midrib of exceptional thickness and then the Y being an imprint in the solid material could you possibly get a situation where you have Y's with the same orientation on both sides." The one thing that bees never do, is draw cells (of any size) with convex bases. This is what they would have to do in order to use foundation to create a "Housel" centre frame. Dee claims to have reaaranged 35,000 frames in order to "correct" misspositioning relative to the "Housel" concept. Perhaps she would have been better off spending the time reading a famous childrens story about a monarch and his new clothes and how much these impressed his loyal subjects! Peter Detchon (in Western Australia where the spring honey flow is finishing, the drought has all but eliminated any further prospects for the season, and honey prices are at long last bearing a realistic comparison to the cost of production!) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 09:22:29 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Diane Porter Subject: looking for snowberry honey source Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Can anyone direct me to someone whose bees produce snowberry honey? Thank you, Diane Porter, Ideaform Inc., Fairfield, Iowa ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 10:39:56 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Tim Vaughan Subject: Re: UK: Urban vs Rural Yields In our area of California, the drought is so bad that bees only put away honey in places that have large amounts of irrigated plants. I'm fortunate in that my biggest apiary is on a very large irrigated farm. Occasionally I lose hives to pecticides, but that yard produces lots of honey. My best hive is right in my back yard in town. With most of the feral bees dead, my bees pretty much have all the big trees to themselves, huge magnolias, climbing roses, bottle brush, various old hedges. And everyone here waters every couple days or so, so the plants have lots of nectar. I'm using this hive for comb production, and currently have two suppers of the Hogg square comb sections on it. I checked last week and they are filling the sections up nicely. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 09:20:30 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dee Lusby Subject: Re: "Housel Positioning" In-Reply-To: <00e101c26abd$c96ca920$1e1de150@orac> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi all Dave Cushman wrote: First let me illustrate the way I interpret the positioning. AY AY AY AA YA YA YA Thus no like pattern is either side of an inter-comb gap. Dave, not to be discourtious, but this should be YA YA YA YA AA AY AY AY AY or, FOR WHAT WE USED IN OUR COLONIES: YA YA YA YA YA AY AY AY AY AY The main gain sees to be attention to centering on the part of the bees and knowing where to restart following our fall broodnest change over. Been looking at this more in the field this past week now. This also brings us some thoughts of a few years ago on complaints we were getting locally from beekeepers using Apistan in colder areas of our state. The scenario was the bees following usage were sometimes breaking into smaller dissegmented groups which made it hard for overwintering. question: With Apistan and the active ingredient Fluvalinate being a memory retardant, could it have temproarily rest the bees shortterm memory and with the combs out of alignment for them to augment to, caused them to break and restart in variuos places according to were the "Y"s of the combs came together in helter-skelter patches? Just some food for thought thinking back now. Any comments? Regards, Dee A. Lusby __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 10:48:38 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Barry Birkey Subject: Re: Stress - "Housel Positioning" In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20021003085335.009f5020@postoffice4.mail.cornell.edu> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit From: Peter Borst >> Do you know the ramifications? Prove it. > > PB: > The burden of proof rests on the people positing the new idea. I am stating > that the positioning of the combs is a non-issue, until proven otherwise. Poppycock. You give no stronger argument that would disprove some importance in comb positioning, just opinion. So far, only a couple of people have worked with comb orientation and have voiced their observations. When you do it for yourself and report back, then I'll put weight in your observations. > Barry: >> No mention of total hive break down in the report. > PB: > She is claiming that "frames in backwards" leads to supersedure. The > supersedure of a perfectly good queen in the middle of the season would > indicate a break down of the balance of the hive. Rarely does a hive have a total breakdown (eventual death) from a queen supercedure. Not in my experience anyway. I had hives two years ago supercede several times in the year and all were strong healthy colonies by winter and were in fine shape by spring. > One cannot go from A) the natural orientation of combs to C) the effects of > disoriented combs without covering the needed step: B) can the bees > perceive this disorientation *at all*? No attempt has been made to > determine whether they can. Evidently it is assumed that because *we* can > see it, they can tell -- very poor logic, indeed. I don't support all of Dee's logic. Nevertheless, what is being observed in the feral is different than what is going on in our hives. What effect this has on our bees is still open for discussion and again, nothing will be proven without people looking deeper into this and try to see if there is something to it. I feel of utmost importance that we are shown a sample of this center comb. Let's see this evidence. Surely someone has a piece of one since it is the bases of the observations. I would also like to know what cell size these feral combs had that M. Housel has studied. Regards, Barry ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 13:54:07 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Juandefuca Subject: Re: looking for snowberry honey source Not likely . I heard about a source somewhere in western Wash state . Our colonies are located right along a vast stretch of snowberries , but the nectar collected does not coincide with surplus harvest . It is exclusively stored for the bees. JDF ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 16:16:25 -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" or "Queens Magic Clothes" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Peter Detchon wrote: > I have been following this thread with a degree of amusement until now. I must confess some opinions expressed by "experts" that I > previously held in high regard have prompted me to stop smiling. Have you all gone raving mad? Have you actually looked at combs > and foundation, and if so considered the possibility that you are looking for an optical illusion? There is no middle comb that > differs from all the others!! Murray McGregor is absolutely right My apologies to Murray if I overstated his case, even though I agree with Peter. I have looked at some feral comb and cannot find what Housel found. Instead, it goes all over the place with little regularity and does not even stay on a horizontal line much less a vertical one. Even when I searched for some sort of center, it was not there. But maybe I am not seeing what I should be looking for. I have come to the conclusion that this whole thing is a moving target. My guess is it was discussed elsewhere and those who discussed it did so for a while and understand it. They are the ones who are correcting the assumptions made by those of us not privy to those discussions. So can we have a simple explanation of just what it is and what is gained from it? Currently, it seems that all that there is to Housel positioning is a center rib or transition cell and a mirror on both sides of this rib?cell, and that this is the natural state of all combs. OK so far? We then take these combs and insure the orientation is the same between frames so that the natural state and orientation is preserved? OK so far? I have no idea what the orientation is or how it is maintained and why it is needed. Thought I did. Need more Y's and A's and clarification. Anything more? Bill Truesdell (thinking the wizard is still behind the curtain) Bath, Maine. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 14:59:58 -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" or "Queens Magic Clothes" In-Reply-To: <3D9CA599.6010600@suscom-maine.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi all Bill wrote: Currently, it seems that all that there is to Housel positioning is a center rib or transition cell and a mirror on both sides of this rib?cell, and that this is the natural state of all combs. OK so far? reply: No, given time yes! Bill then wrote: We then take these combs and insure the orientation is the same between frames so that the natural state and orientation is preserved? OK so far? reply: Yes, for the most part it can be used to alleviate stress and minor common problems in domestic colonies concerning orientation. One to a handful of broodcycles? or varying lesser degrees over a period of time. Bill further wrote: I have no idea what the orientation is or how it is maintained and why it is needed. Thought I did. Need more Y's and A's and clarification. Reply: Need dimishes with time and final build-up of colonies into commercial operation for full production strength. Bill ended: Anything more? Reply: No, will continue using, as only time will tell the advantages, disadvantages on a natural system under man's control without various treatments of chemicals, drugs, essential oils, acids, and FGMO for production of CLEAN hive products. Sincerely, Dee A. Lusby __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 18:56:04 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Leif Woodman Subject: Formic acid and wax moths MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Does formic acid have any effect on wax moths? Leif Woodman ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 21:39:13 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Aaron Morris Subject: Re: Stress - "Housel Positioning" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Quickly my 2 cents worth. When I originally read Dee's first post I kind of zoned out mid-way through the article. Too many Is and Ys and I ended up thinking "I Yigh Yigh Yigh, what do they burn in those smokers in Arizona?" Then Jim's Housel/Anti Housel response really left me swinging, wondering if he uses Arizon smoker fuel too. I was amazed in his discussion that he didn't work in a Full Housel and just take the pot (poker, not fuel) and go home. Then I went to Barry's pages for clarification on that special middle frame that has Up-Ys and Up-Ys on on both sides. That's where I got an inkling what everyone was talking about. It's not 2 Ys on the same frame, it's a pair of frames positioned such that the up Ys are facing each other, setting a reference for the center of the comb configuration from which the pattern of up Y and down Y are to sequence out. With that understanding I got to wonder, what would be the effect if the pair of middle frames were not numbers 5 and 6, but pethaps 7 and 8. Would the bees then be more liberal (right of center). If the center frames were 3 and 4 would they be more conservative? Would they fly skewed left or right? And if a beekeeper runs nine frames, are his/her bees doomed to political misidentity? Cursed be that beekeeper for damning their bees!!! It was at that point that I went out to see what I was burning in MY smoker! And then I thought about how the bees build their cells from the raised rib. Regardless if the cell is built from an up-Y side or a down-Y side, the hexagonal cell is built with a (what is it, 5 degree angle) upwards from the plane surface of the foundation. The plane of the cell tops ends up one bee space away from the plane surface of the tops of the sells on the adjacent frame. Regardless if the frames are in a Housel configuration or an anti-Housel config, the resulting combs are alike. I guess the cell openings of a Housel configuration would be exactly opposite, whereas they would be a half cell lower in an anti-Housel configuration IF we were talking PERFECT geometry. But we all know the bees don't follow PERFECT geometry. So I've thought it through about as much as I'm inclined. I've filed it in the cold fusion pile. I'm sure the proponents will continue to espouse the virtues of a Housel configuration, I'm sure the skeptics will contiue to pooh-pooh it. I can't imagine an experiment that will give a definitive answer, nor can I imagine anyone doing such an experiment to the satisfaction of the nay sayers. I wonder how long the discussion will last. Chris says it's been debated since at least the early 20s, so I guess it's good for at least 6 months on BEE-L! Aaron Morris - thinking a Full Housel beats two pair! ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 22:34:29 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Marc Studebaker Subject: Re: Stress - "Housel Positioning" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Quickly my 2 cents worth. > > When I originally read Dee's first post I kind of zoned out mid-way through > the article. Too many Is and Ys and I ended up thinking "I Yigh Yigh Yigh, > what do they burn in those smokers in Arizona?" I've almost finished removing honey supers and have seen things this year I have never before. Some of the supers I removed have the four center combs filled and capped and the two on each side do not have a drop of honey in them, in all the supers from queen excluded to the inner cover. Some have 8 supers on them. This occurs in several colonies. Also some of the supers with foundation in them are drawn, filled and capped on one side of every frame, and they have not been touched on the other side of every frame. I wonder what my bees have been smoking. marc studebaker ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 21:47:43 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: Looking for Phoretic Varroa MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Before using small cell most of the mites would be found on the bottom of > the bee between the first couple of segments on the front of the abdomen. > They could almost completely fit underneath them but were obvious once at > seeing a few.... Thanks for this description. I've been watching this same untreated wild hive daily lately and there are always about fifty bees on the entrance area in the afternoon as they come and go. (I cannot open the box. They've build comb down from the lid and I'm looking for external clues). I've looked at the top and bottom off these various entrance bees quite carefully and see no signs of varroa. I would expect that bump or an exposed edge of varroa would be visible? I've also now been wondering about the 'sugar shake' or 'sugar roll' test and how it can work on mites that are under the segments. I think several here on BEE-L have testified to the efficacy of powdered sugar, but, now I'm wondering: how it can work on hidden mites? allen http://www.internode.net/honeybee/diary/ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 00:18:02 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Mark Walker Subject: Slatted Racks I'm considering the installation of slatted racks on all my hives in the spring, however, I have some questions. 1/... Has anyone noticed a marked effect in either honey production and/or as part of their IPM program? 2/... As I use screened bottom boards on all my hives, does the slatted rack interfere with mite drop; by this I mean, does the rack get in the way of the falling mite and save it from getting trapped below the mesh and thus reducing the total number of mites trapped and effectiveness of teh screened bottom-board? 3/... What is the underlying concept of the slatted rack and how does it work? Your help is appreciated... as always! Cheers, Mark Walker Delta, BC Canada ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 22:02:39 -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: <009901c26b56$f33fcf40$2b5bfea9@family> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi all Marc Studebaker wrote: I wonder what my bees have been smoking. Reply: So did you look closely to see which way the "Y" was facing? When I looked taking honey our frames were in wrong. I quickly learned. I don't like overfilled new delicate frames, nor one sided ones either. We had also just received a lot of rain and wanted the bees repositioned for the fall run to get ready real good to go into winter. Sincerely, Dee A. Lusby __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 23:51:48 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: unfilled honey supers MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Marc & All, > Some of the supers I removed have the four center combs filled and capped and the two on each side do not have a drop of honey in them, in all the supers from queen excluded to the inner cover. Some have 8 supers o n them. This occurs in several colonies. This is called the chimney effect. When to many supers are added before they are needed the bees will simply fill up the middle like you describe and at times fill only one side of foundation like you describe. The Mid West Honey Producers are reporting a 68% of normal crop in the Midwest. Eight supers are a bunch of supers for this year. Especially with some being foundation. Bob ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 22:20:54 -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 Aaron Morris wrote: Then I went to Barry's pages for clarification on that special middle frame that has Up-Ys and Up-Ys on on both sides. That's where I got an inkling what everyone was talking about. It's not 2 Ys on the same frame, it's a pair of frames positioned such that the up Ys are facing each other, setting a reference for the center of the comb configuration from which the pattern of up Y and down Y are to sequence out. Reply: Are you reading Barry Birkey's clarification right? When he asked me if he could clarify and I said yes, (by the way I have NOT looked at his clarification, assuming it was done right)I thought it was to be copied as written with DOWN Ys on both sides. It's not 2 Ys on the same frame, it's a pair of frames positioned such that the DOWN ys are facing each other for imaginary center in our domestic colonies. YA YA YA YA YA AY AY AY AY AY The down Ys for the ledge for larva starting. Sincerely, Dee A. Lusby __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 01:56:46 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Mark Walker Subject: Re: beekeeper induced stress/supercedure On the subject of "superscedure"... I had a hell of time this summer trying to figure out if several of my hives were either in swarm mode or Supersceding. I am aware the superscedure cells usually appear on the face of a frame of comb, as opposed to swarm cells which usually tucked near the bottom of a frame. However, my problem (ie. dilema/confusion) begins when I find both cells in the same hive, same brood box, and/or on the same frame. Do I cut out the swarm cells and the apparent superscedure cells, or leave them and see if the hive swarms? I'm not sure of the procedure. I don't want to interfere with a natural superscedure progression, however, I don't want the hive to swarm either. Are there any other behavioral or physical clues that I can observe and try factor into the determination of whether the hive is in superscedure or swarm mode? Do any of you Bee gods out there have a strategy or approach to handling and/or diagnosing accurately such situations? Much help would be appreciated, as I can't seem to find much discussion or explanation on the topic of superscedure in the many texts that I own. Cheers, Mark Walker Delta, BC Canada ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 07:32:21 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter Edwards Subject: Virus warning Over the last two or three days I have received 6 emails infected with the Bugbear virus. Although they have not come through Bee-L directly, I believe that they are linked to contributors to the list as they all have subject lines linked to beekeeping. Further info here: http://www.europe.f-secure.com/v-descs/tanatos.shtml Peter Edwards beekeepers@stratford-upon-avon.freeserve.co.uk ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 08:06:21 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Barry Birkey Subject: Re: Stress - "Housel Positioning" In-Reply-To: <20021004052054.22882.qmail@web12407.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit > From: Dee Lusby > It's not 2 Ys on the same frame, it's a pair of frames > positioned such that the DOWN ys are facing each other for > imaginary center in our domestic colonies. > > YA YA YA YA YA AY AY AY AY AY I think the confusion comes from there being two different diagrams being presented. One, where it has been said that in feral hives there is one unique comb from the center of the broodnest that has the inverted Y on both sides, and the other, where an attempt is made to duplicate this pattern in our manmade hives. In this case where a unique center comb is not available, it is simply not included and the remaining pattern is used, inverted Y's on combs facing the imaginary center like the above diagram. Regards, Barry ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 08:53:01 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Todd Subject: Varroa Jacobsoni vs. destructor MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Questions for the more learned: 1) Am I correct in assuming that the majority of varroa infestation in = the U.S. is V. Jacobsoni? =20 2) Is V. Destructor here as well? 3) Are there physical/behavioral differences between the two which would = suggest differences in treatment? -----> How do we tell the difference? Thanks, Todd Watching Autumn roll into Vermont. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 07:14:16 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: Re: Slatted Racks MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Mark and All, I am probabbly not the person to respond as I have only got limited experience using slatted racks. I have read most of what has been written about slatted racks and Dr. C.C. Miller, Carl Killion and John Brant swore by the slatted rack. I understand the reasons Dr. Miller states in his book ("Fifty years among the bees") why he found the racks useful but never enough to spend the money to incorperate the racks into my outfit. > 1/... Has anyone noticed a marked effect in either honey production and/or as part of their IPM program? My trials with slatted racks were before varroa so they were never part of an IPm program. Honey production varies from hive to hive so I did not notice a difference in production. I did notice that none of the hives with the slatted rack swarmed. > 2/... As I use screened bottom boards on all my hives, does the slatted rack interfere with mite drop; by this I mean, does the rack get in the way of the falling mite and save it from getting trapped below the mesh and thus reducing the total number of mites trapped and effectiveness of teh screened bottom-board? I can't see where the slatted rack would hinder mite drop to any great extent but a few might catch on slats on the way down.. > 3/... What is the underlying concept of the slatted rack and how does it work? Dr. Miller (inventor) felt the slatted rack allowed cluster space under the brood nest, better ventilation, less comb gnawing and more brood nest. Better wintering is also claimed but mostly by later beekeepers. There are two styles of slatted rack of which I have tried both. The original design which is still available from Betterbee and the new style which was improved by Carl Killion in 1950 which is also avilable from Betterbee. Both Dr. Miller and Carl Killion were large scale producers of comb honey . A couple large migratory beekeepers use two deeps and a shallow super. The shallow super goes below the brood nest for most of the year for cluster space. Those beekeeper friends claim many of the same benifits claimed by the users of the slatted rack. Sincerely, Bob ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 12:31:51 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dave Cushman Subject: Re: "Housel Positioning" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Dee You said > Dave, not to be discourtious, but this should be > > YA YA YA YA AA AY AY AY AY > > or, FOR WHAT WE USED IN OUR COLONIES: > > YA YA YA YA YA AY AY AY AY AY The upper line confuses me a little, but symetry is still present. > The main gain sees to be attention to centering on the part > of the bees and knowing where to restart If this were the case then combs in a feral nest would have brood re-started each season in the first combs deawn... This is not the case... http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman/churchtower.html refers to the bees starting in the central combs, but these were not the first ones that the swarm produced, which were off to the left of centre and not even encompassed in the cluster by the end of winter.. Best Regards & 73s... Dave Cushman, G8MZY Beekeeping & Bee Breeding Website... http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 12:12:54 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dave Cushman Subject: Re: beekeeper induced stress/supercedure MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Peter & all > Of course, but my point is to raise better queens that the bees do not reject > in a month or two, or discover the underlying cause (if it is related to > pesticide residues I was expecting that 'merchantable quality' applied in USA as it does in UK. To my mind a queen that would be superceded quickly, was not of saleable quality in the first place. I have always wondered how US could produce queens at a fraction of the price in UK, but if there is not adequate testing or quality control I can see that this would reduce cost, but is that honest? Best Regards & 73s... Dave Cushman, G8MZY Beekeeping & Bee Breeding Website... http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 12:47:30 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dave Cushman Subject: Re: Stress - "Housel Positioning" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Aaron & all > I'm sure the proponents will continue to espouse the > virtues of a Housel configuration, I'm sure the skeptics will contiue to > pooh-pooh it. I can't imagine an experiment that will give a definitive > answer, nor can I imagine anyone doing such an experiment to the > satisfaction of the nay sayers. I wonder how long the discussion will last. > Chris says it's been debated since at least the early 20s, so I guess it's > good for at least 6 months on BEE-L! I do not know any answers, but I would like to find out... I believe it was me that Murray was refering to about the 1920s literature. It was my memory of said documents/ books that caused me to latch on to this thread. I will put in a little book reading to see if I can find it, but it would take several years to read every book on my beekeeping shelves, However I can narrow it down by date and see what I can come up with. In the interim... Can someone PLEASE find such a centre comb? My typing fingers a sore due to over-use! Best Regards & 73s... Dave Cushman, G8MZY Beekeeping & Bee Breeding Website... http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 09:37:23 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: Re: Varroa Jacobsoni vs. destructor MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Todd and All, 1) Am I correct in assuming that the majority of varroa infestation in the U.S. is V. Jacobsoni? No Varroa destructor 2) Is V. Destructor here as well? All I have ever seen as been V.d.but we were told for years that VD was VJ. 3) Are there physical/behavioral differences between the two which would suggest differences in treatment? Yes -----> How do we tell the difference? VD is oblong and VJ is oval There are many strains even within VD and VJ I am told. We really only now are learning a great deal about varroa . There are several other mites which infest bees which are not (yet) found in the U.S. Bob ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 10:40:34 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Aaron Morris Subject: Re: Slatted Racks MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > ... There are two styles of slatted rack ... original design ... still available from Betterbee > and the new style ... improved by Carl Killion in 1950 ... also avilable from Betterbee. The original slatted rack designed by CC Miller actually sat inside the bottom board, which was of a much deeper dimension to accommodate the slatted rack (it was no coincidence). I have never seen that design available for sale, even at Betterbee. The later design (attributed to Killion) IS available at Betterbee. And an ever newer, improveder(?) design is available at Betterbee with the slats running parrallel to the frames so mite drop may not be impeeded by slats running perpendiculat to the frames. Gotta hand it to Bob Stevens, he's always keeping an eye out for equipment that might improve your beekeeping experience! Aaron Morris - still pondering Housel Positioning! ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 10:06:16 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dennis Murrell Subject: Re: Stress - "Housel Positioning" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Marc and Everyone, Rearrange a hive or two according to Housel and report back with your observations. You are not obligated to prove anything. And why do we use smoke anyway? Dennis I can see clearly now. Thousands of years ago. Bored boy with stick. Bees in tree. Combs rearrange not according to Housel. Many very stressed bees. Mom with water. Dad with fire. Miscalculation. Ah Ha. The smoldering brand! :>) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 09:54:11 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dennis Murrell Subject: Re: Looking for Phoretic Varroa MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Allen, I was one of those who wrote about my experience with powdered sugar. The mites reaction to sugar is interesting to watch. I have seen some leap or jump off the bee as soon as the powdered sugar hits them. Others are more unaffected but after a couple of minutes find the sugar uncomfortable and fall off as they attempt to move. The most resistant are the mites between the tergites. Yet, after 15 minutes almost no mites are left there especially if the bees are smoked and run. I have read that the mites will dislodge themselves when the bees are alarmed. Maybe the smoke and sugar achieve this. Also some mite fall increases through the following morning. I speculate that the mites are exposed to more powdered sugar as the bees continue to clean up empty cells. The powdered sugar does more than just cause the mites to loose their footings. Dusted mites cannot right themselves and soon die. Maybe it desiccates or suffocates them. Some of these mites could also be removed from empty cells the following morning. I monitored mites on a tray beneath a screened bottom board and sometimes a bee or two would get beneath the screen while I was counting mites on the tray. At the next visit these bees would be covered with mites. It was interesting to dust them and watch what happens. Dennis ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 12:17:54 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter Borst Subject: Re: beekeeper induced stress/supercedure Dave writes: if there is not adequate testing or quality control I can see that this would reduce cost, but is that honest? Hi Dave What would you call adequate testing? I have worked in the California queen business, and they send queens off as soon as they begin to lay. If there are eggs, she's shipped. (No, I don't suppose that's adequate, but there you are. . . ) pb ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 12:56:34 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter Borst Subject: Comb Discussion in the 20's Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Greetings I have at my disposal, the entire Gleanings from the 1970's on and the American Bee Journal from 1900 on. I looked into the possibility that the orientation of cells was discussed during the 1920's as several have suggested. I couldn't find anything in the indexes. Sorry. But these journals make great reading! Here are some samples: Q: Is it true that when bees build their combs naturally in box hives they build them exactly north and south? A: No. Bees build combs in various directions when not guided by comb foundation. In fact, in the same hive they often build their combs in several directions. Evidently the bees do not recognize the directions of the compass in comb-building. (Gleanings, De. 1927) * * * Combs Horizontally Between Hive Bodies. -- Last June during the commencement of the honey flow we tried an experiment with eight colonies ... [Horizontally] we laid two frames filled with drawn brood combs which had been wired and were old and strong. When the combs were in place a good bee-space was maintained above and below the combs, the combs were empty but were soon used by the queens. Eggs and brood were soon found in both the upper and lower sides, some honey was also stored ... later queen cell cups were built on the underside and also other parts of the hive. Also, many brace combs were built up under the horizontal combs, the bees having the idea that these combs were liable to sag down and needed some supports, or they needed some step ladders to walk up. (ABJ, June 1917) * * * Even though certain strains of bees have been kept, watched over and in a certain sense domesticated for years, they show no results of training in comb building. Without wax guides, they immediately revert to their instinct of building comb in various fashions, crossing from one empty frame to the other, as though they had never bee given a rule by man. Odd spaces and corner are filled with comb of indescribable shapes. (ABJ, June 1926) pb ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 10:03:57 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Roy Nettlebeck Subject: Re: Research, again MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Peter Borst wrote: > . I am > telling you, some of the best minds in the country are at work on > beekeeper's problems. I suppose some may be interested in prestige, > but I believe most of them are doing it because they love bees and > care about them, and their keepers. > > Peter and All, Beekeepers do observations very well. (At least good ones ) Science is a different matter. I know some researchers and I can tell you, they love bees and are drawn to learning more about them and there behavior. Research is complicated and needs control methods . Some answers bring up more questions. It very seldom is just black and white as we would like to see it, for our little minds. Peter has been working on screen boards . I have all of my hives on screens. He is doing science and I'm doing beekeeping. I could not tell you if the serene boards have kept varroa down in all of my hives. It has other factors that are all working together. Russian queens ( with hygienic behavior ) All Russian queens are not equal. I found two mites in drone brood this year. I have found some ( 50 plus ) on my bottom boards in each hive. No mites on the bees and NO chemicals. This is not science. I requeened 140 % this year. This is not normal. The only thing I'm sure of is hygienic behavior in all of my hives. Now comes winter and another test for my bees. They look great now. We will see if all the queens shut down some in winter. Beekeepers should be thankful for what work is being done that can help us. Nature is very complex. We get little bits here and there and thetas about it for our minds. Use what we have to the fullest . Its the only game in town. Best Regards Roy > > > > > > > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 10:33:59 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: Re: Slatted Racks MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Aaron & all, > The original slatted rack designed by CC Miller actually sat inside the > bottom board, which was of a much deeper dimension to accommodate the > slatted rack (it was no coincidence). I have never seen that design > available for sale, even at Betterbee. The Betterbee number was SR2 "old style" and sold for 8.50 U.S. in I believe the 2000 or 2001 catalog. Possibly Bob S. has a few left. 1-800-632-3379 I donated slated racks of both designs to a recent Midwestern Bee auction but am sure slated racks of both designs could be found sitting on a few beekeepers shelves gathering dust. Bob ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 12:14:53 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter Borst Subject: Viruses Moderators I am getting MANY virus infected files lately and most of them have the names of BEE LIST members on them. Please alert the list that it is their responsibility to keep their computers clean, and not infect everybody else. pb ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 15:17:58 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dennis Murrell Subject: Re: beekeeper induced stress/supercedure MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Everyone, I have ordered queens and received some that have been tested through the previous winter :>) Dennis ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 15:20:32 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: BEE_L_Moderator Subject: Please Read: BEE-L FAQ and Guidelines MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit [PLEASE READ ALL THE WAY THROUGH] Please read this entire article before replying to messages or posting to BEE-L. It provides essential information for all BEE-L subscribers. BEE-L is a moderated discussion list with published standards & guidelines. Discussion covers a wide range of bee-related subjects. Anyone with an interest in bees is welcome to join and submit articles for consideration. While anyone may read BEE-L, those submitting articles, by doing so, agree that acceptance or rejection of posts to be sent to the list is at the sole discretion of the moderators. BEE-L WEB PAGE: Links to our rules, the sign-on messages and access to our FAQ can be found in one easy-to-use page at http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/BEE-L. BEFORE YOU POST OR REPLY TO BEE-L: Please visit http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/BEE-L periodically to review our guidelines and especially before posting to the list. GUIDELINES: BEE-L has rules that everyone who wishes to post messages to the list must observe. Please see http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/BEE-L for details. Failure to meet guidelines will result in rejection of your article, usually without comment. IN PARTICULAR, DO NOT INCLUDE QUOTES OF PREVIOUS ARTICLES OR ANY PREVIOUS HEADERS WHEN REPLYING. CONTRIBUTIONS INCLUDING QUOTES THAT ARE NOT ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO UNDERSTANDING WILL USUALLY BE REJECTED *WITHOUT NOTICE* Articles accepted for BEE-L will normally be limited to those dealing directly with topics directly associated with bees and/or beekeeping. Please do not cut and paste entire copyrighted articles from other sources. Fair use excerpts are okay. Where possible, please just post the URL that points DIRECTLY to the article in question, not to an index page. Indirect or incorrect URLS or cut and pasting will result in rejection of the entire submission or a request for correction.. FAQ: Our FAQ is our archive of posts running back a decade and half. Every post that makes the list (and well over 90% do) goes into these archives and can be easily found by a search at any time now or in the future. We are very pleased at the high quality and wide variety of input from members all over the world. Please see http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/BEE-L to access the archives. In a sense, we are writing a book together. The BEE-L archive search engine is much more powerful and flexible than many on the web. Please take time to read the help page and experiment a bit. You will be well rewarded for your time. Please also, before posting basic questions, do a quick search of the archives (at the same page) to see if there are answers there. If not, or you are not satisfied with the answers, then by all means post your question to the list. REJECTED AND LOST POSTS: If you post an article to BEE-L and your article did not appear on the list within 24 hours, you will also find information there on what might have happened. There are more possibilities than simple rejection by moderators. CANCELLING AND CHANGING YOUR BEE-L SUBSCRIPTION: Easy-to-use forms to easily and quickly change, suspend, or cancel your BEE-L membership are available at http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/BEE-L VIRUSES AND WORMS: BEE-L is moderated and is also text-only. Binaries and attachments are rejected. The moderators also reject any SPAM that is sent to BEE-L. Members therefore should never receive viruses or worms from BEE-L. Nonetheless anyone who sends and receives email on the Internet is vulnerable to receiving malicious programs in email from known and unknown persons. Therefore members are STRONGLY ADVISED to get and use two programs: a firewall and a virus checker. CURRENTLY RECOMMENDED SOFTWARE: Zone Alarm is available as a free download at http://www.zonelabs.com/ for personal use. It is simply the best available, and simple to use. Don't trust the firewall built into Windows XP. It, and many others out there simply won't do the trick. A personal version of AVG anti virus is available as a free download from http://www.grisoft.com/ and it can be set to update automatically or updated manually (for free) over the net whenever you like. Please be sure to update your anti-virus daily so that your computer does not get infected with new worms that come along daily, and thus become a nuisance to the rest of us. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 17:46:35 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter Borst Subject: Re: Comb Discussion in the 20's Correction: I wrote: I have at my disposal, the entire Gleanings from the 1970's on ... Should have been, 1870's PB ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 17:51:19 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Viruses MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Peter Borst wrote: > Moderators > > I am getting MANY virus infected files lately and most of them have the > names of BEE LIST members on them. Please alert the list that it is their > responsibility to keep their computers clean, and not infect everybody else. Most of the viruses circulating now do not come from the "sender" but from someone who has the "sender's" address in their address book or in any messages held on the computer. So they could be coming from someone long removed from the list but who still has messages filed on their computer. Klez is the most likely culprit. There are a load of them circulating right now. Klez and some of the other trojans can infect your computer without opening an attachment IF you have older versions of MSIE (I think the cut off is about version 5.5). If your virus definitions are up to date, even they will be caught. There is one thing none of the viruses can spoof and that is the last "received from" in the extended list of headers where the ISP of the actual sender is located. There may be an email address by the ISP but it is almost always spoofed. If you know how to read headers and can uses whois to locate it, you could notify them and send the complete header and they might (but probably won't) notify the infected user. I have had spotty luck in getting any response from ISPs so I just delete the messages and am done with it. The key here is do not blame the email sender for sending you a virus, because they are most likely innocent. Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 17:57:29 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter Borst Subject: Re: Slatted Racks What is the underlying concept of the slatted rack and how does it work? As I recall, C. C. Miller came up with this idea while trying to figure out how to improve ventilation in his hives. He raised comb honey using one brood box, as I recall. I think a lot of people in those days would raise the hive up on little blocks to increase the air flow into the bottom of the hive, but as you can imagine, the bees would build a lot of comb in that space (what a mess). So, Miller hit upon the idea of a very deep bottom board with this rack in there to prevent the build up of burr comb in the space below the frames. As many people know, I am not a big booster of screened bottoms, but in my opinion, this is one thing they are good for: increasing the ventilation at the bottom of the hive. I would choose one of these over the slatted rack bottom. I think it is more effective and cheaper and easier to build. pb ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 10:26:13 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dave Cushman Subject: Re: Comb Discussion in the 20's MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Peter & all > I looked into the possibility that the orientation of cells was > discussed during the 1920's as several have > suggested. I couldn't find anything in the indexes. Sorry Thanks for looking, but the text I have seen was British and I am fairly certain it was in a hard bound book... I have skimmed a few books myself over the last couple of days and have not found a hint of it (although I have found some racial descriptions from about 1900- 1920 that may have relevance and reasonable accuracy). Best Regards & 73s... Dave Cushman, G8MZY Beekeeping & Bee Breeding Website... http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 10:18:08 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dave Cushman Subject: queen testing MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Peter & all > What would you call adequate testing? I have worked in the California queen > business, and they send queens off as soon as they begin to lay. If there > are eggs, she's shipped. (No, I don't suppose that's adequate I was not so much thinking of the individual queens, but I would expect that every now and a again a queen from the production program would be taken and assessed in a full sized hive for a season or so to establish the overall performance characteristics and ensure that they are still within the original 'specification'. Best Regards & 73s... Dave Cushman, G8MZY Beekeeping & Bee Breeding Website... http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 15:35:33 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: Looking for Phoretic Varroa MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >The mites reaction to sugar is interesting to watch. I have seen some leap or jump off the bee as soon as the powdered sugar hits them. Others are more unaffected but after a couple of minutes find the sugar comfortable and fall off as they attempt to move. The most resistant are the mites between the tergites. Yet, after 15 minutes almost no mites are left there especially if the bees are smoked and run. >From your observation, then would you suggest that a sugar shake bee assay should be done over a fifteen minute period -- with intermittent shaking -- or do you think that three minutes should be sufficient? Would the bees perish after being coated with sugar that long? The original BEE-L article is at http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0008D&L=bee-l&P=R537 allen ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 21:54:32 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Allen Dick Subject: FGMO MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Been wondering. Has anyone who is using FGMO fog done a series of sticky board tests to see if there is any immediate mite drop from an application? Has anyone done before and after dissections for tracheal mites to prove how effective FGMO is for TM? allen http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Diary/ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 00:17:52 -0400 Reply-To: "jfischer@supercollider.com" Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: AP Report - Bees Not As Scary As Hoped MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit He said as he was led away in handcuffs: "It's all for legitimate MEDICAL use. Marijuana smoke is a great varroa treatment. ...and people REALLY like my honey!" jim http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-ny-brf--buzzprotectio1004oct04,0,7382822.story Police find marijuana in barn surrounded by bee hives October 4, 2002, 9:08 AM EDT KIRKVILLE, N.Y. Authorities say a beekeeper used his hives to protect a 15-pound marijuana harvest in his barn. Eric Rasmussen, of Kirkville, was charged with first-degree criminal possession of marijuana, a felony, fourth-degree criminal possession of a weapon, a misdemeanor, and unlawfully growing cannabis, state police said. Troopers received a number of tips about suspicious activity near Rasmussen's residence, 15 miles northeast of Syracuse. When police arrived, they found a locked barn surrounded by several beehives of honeybees. After entering the barn by a small rear window police found a large-scale marijuana operation on the barn's second floor. Authorities seized 56 harvested and drying marijuana plants, marijuana seedlings started for next year's crop, growing lights and other drug paraphernalia. They also found 19 rifles and shotguns, police said. Rasmussen, who listed his occupation as a beekeeper, was sent to Madison County Jail in lieu of $10,000 bail. Copyright ? 2002, The Associated Press ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 19:13:36 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Coleene Davidson Subject: Extractor Comments: To: Norlandbeekeepers@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi All, Just thought I would let the members know that I have found an extractor for sale in the Big Rapids, Michigan area for sale if anyone is interested. It is, I am told by the owner, a 2 frame Stainless Steel extractor that has only been used once. I haven't seen it but if anyone is interested I will go look at it and provide additional information. I also can provide the phone number of the owner, off list if anyone wants to contact him. He has the extractor, a smoker and some wooden ware and wants $100.00 for the whole lot. Coleene ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 11:44:00 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter Borst Subject: beekeeper induced stress, natural beekeeping Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Dee Lusby wrote: >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. I responded: >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 results of your >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? I am still waiting for an answer to this one. Ms. Lusby challenged us to discuss her theory, so I think it is fair to point out its weaknesses. Without going into the many claims, I will focus one one: that misaligned combs contribute to premature supersedure. As I mentioned, many people lament over excessive supersedure (though as Dave pointed out, if the queens are junk -- then supersedure is probably a good thing). The problem is: no data. No one I know has marked queens and tracked the actual rate of supersedure. It's one of those "it seems as if" sort of things. Lots of opinions; few facts. In order to study supersedure, one would have to requeen all hives with marked queens, or at least mark every queen early in the season. Then these queens would have to be monitored during the season. This would establish a baseline supersedure rate. Next, the "anti-supersedure" study would be undertaken, -- say: change the frame orientation. This would be done on half the hives. Half would have to be managed in the regular way. Then, if the rate of supersedure departed from the previous year in the test hives but not in the control hives, you could say you were on to something. One last comment: to refer to natural or unnatural beekeeping is to move into the realm of philosophy. Some would say that any beekeeping is unnatural. Either everything we do is natural, since it is based on nature, -- or we left nature behind years ago, at what point who can say? Bees lived for eons in caves and hollow trees, and mankind spent millions of years camping out, without the benefit of gas or electricity. Human activity now affects almost every corner of the planet. (See Bill McKibben's "The End of Nature".) Real "natural beekeeping" might be knocking wild honey combs down with a stick, no buckets please. -- Peter Borst ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 11:45:45 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Aaron Morris Subject: Re: AP Report - Bees Not As Scary As Hoped MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > KIRKVILLE, N.Y. Authorities say a beekeeper > used his hives to protect a 15-pound marijuana > harvest in his barn. And here I was wondering about what they burn in their somkers in Arizona! ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 13:35:48 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: DONALD M CAMPBELL Subject: Re: FGMO Allen wrote: >Been wondering. >Has anyone who is using FGMO fog done a series of sticky board tests to see >if there is any immediate mite drop from an application? >Has anyone done before and after dissections for tracheal mites to prove >how effective FGMO is for TM? Hi all, I've been using the FGMO fogger all this season on 3 hives. On one hive I placed a sticky board to help look for mites. I didn't see any BUT I also do not see any, on any of the bees, in any of the hives using the fogger. I did an ether roll in mid August on a hive - NO mites. The nearest hives to me are migratory, at an apple farm about 2 miles away here in northern Westchester, NY. I have not seen any mites, at all, in my hive. Luck or the fogger? I have no way of knowing, but I'm using the fogger again next year! I've had a bumper crop of honey and a heck of a lot of bees in 2 of the 3 hives. (the "weak one" was a captured swarm I'm trying to raise on all plastic foundation, but it still gave me almost a full medium super of honey.) I've seen no harm done so far to the bees with the fogger, unless the get to close to the nozzle, then they seem to act scorched or asphyxiated, fall to the ground and mill around. This seems to happen only to a few dozen bees and only if I get to close. I think its a small price to pay for no mites.. I hope this helps. Don ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 10:59:37 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dee Lusby Subject: Re: beekeeper induced stress, natural beekeeping In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi all Peter Borst wrote: >You have claimed that small cells and nutrition would take care of our problems. Now you are championing flipping frames around. Reply: Yes, I am. We are fine tuning our bees more and more naturally and as we learn more watching them, it is a natural progression to follow, that is to want to keep them even better in a harmonious system without the usage of various treatments of chemicals, drugs, essential oils, FGMO and even fumigation acids. Also no artificial feed may I add here! If rearranging the frames to fine tune our bees makes the bees key in more harmonious and interact better then we have bitten the bullet and have jumped in and done it. Problem is so many are afraid to make management changes for the benefit of the bees, they only make them to benefit themselves and profit. and the faster and cheaper the better. IN the long run, (though already we are seeing benefits of much odd stress reduced) watching and learning from the positioning changes I fell we will learn much more about our bees and how to better manage them harmoniously, like yin and yang. Peter further wrote: 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? Reply: Nope! In fact only picked up two supers maybe of comb to remelt back down with any fouls or other combined. So I don't they they are very sick. Also see no mites really,but then don't have a union card to watch for them, though have had some cattle and horses and bears and vandals (human) into them or shooting them for practice. Peter continued: >Why are they suffering? Because of beekeeper caused stress? >And if they are *not suffering* due to the results of your >biological beekeeping program, then why would you need *still another* technique on top of all the others? Reply: I am a beekeeper and into the fine art of beekeeping and just want to do it better for the bees and if it helps us too in the long run, then so much the better, after all, aren't we stewards of bees for Nature and God for all his works? Aren't we supposed to try to do things right and harmoniously? Peter Borst continued: If they were not suffering before you turned the combs around, then how can they now be better? Reply: Because I looked and noted the oddities and changed the positioning and when I when back on monthly inspection it was corrected/better. If Peter yours are suffering before you dope them, don't you look when done to see if they are better or how do you tell you are making progress with your doping methodology? Do your bees get progressively more healthly or sicker? Ours just keep getting better and better as we fine tune them now! Just have this shortage of comb problem, since we shook down all hives, so everyone would know comb changing back to natural was a major step in the process, along with total diet of natural pollen and honey. In case you don't know Peter we try to leave ample pollen and honey stores with our bees like tithing back for all the work they do for us in pollenation for our environment, besides giving us their extra for production. Peter then added: I am still waiting for an answer to this one. Ms. Lusby challenged us to discuss her theory, so I think it is fair to point out its weaknesses. Without going into the many claims, I will focus one one: that misaligned combs contribute to premature supersedure. Reply: Yes indeed it does. Misalignment can cause supercedure. Who wants to lose good queens by misalignment during rearranging of combs backwards into the broodnest in trying to build them up. Commercial field workers need to be trained in this aspect I would think. They need to learn left and right sides of foundation and combs and how to use them for the benefit of the company owner they work for. Peter went on: As I mentioned, many people lament over excessive supersedure (though as Dave pointed out, if the queens are junk -- then supersedure is probably a good thing). The problem is: no data. Reply: Yep, no data. But a good queen should last at least 1 year and probably 2 years. They used to! Why not now? So if they are good queens and they are superceeding maybe the frames are out of alignment, especially if chemicals are not supposedly hurting them and causing them to superceed, if one can believe that various dopes do not hurt our bees in some way. Peter went on: No one I know has marked queens and tracked the actual rate of supersedure. It's one of those "it seems as if" sort of things. Lots of opinions; few facts. Reply: Mark queens and clip them is cruel and unusual punishment for queens isn't it? It certainly isn't natural and harmonious with Nature. Cannot you tell looking at a queen if it is new or old by looking at the queens body and conformity? Shouldn't that alone track the actual rate of supercedure? If supercedure rate is all you are after? Why harm the poor queen, what injustice has she done you to be made to suffer so? Peter continued: In order to study supersedure, one would have to requeen all hives with marked queens, or at least mark every queen early in the season. Then these queens would have to be monitored during the season. This would establish a baseline supersedure rate. Reply: Like I said above, cannot you tell a new queen from an old one by looking? Certainly you are expert enough to know the differences by looking! Shouldn't these differences be taught to beekeepers so queens don't have to be mutilated. Just put in the new queens and note date with body confirmity markings on tergit graf, etc. Next, the "anti-supersedure" study would be undertaken, -- say: change the frame orientation. This would be done on half the hives. Half would have to be managed in the regular way. Then, if the rate of supersedure departed from the previous year in the test hives but not in the control hives, you could say you were on to something. Reply: Well, this part sounds like you are thinking about how to learn about the problem. Good for you Peter! Peter added: One last comment: to refer to natural or unnatural beekeeping is to move into the realm of philosophy. Some would say that any beekeeping is unnatural. Reply: This is true, but then to also move into the realm of philosophy is to move full circle into the realm of Nature and God, and the belief that we are stewards and guardians of all things on Earth, as was in the beginning and ever shall be. Much is to be said for beliefs, for it is from them all our science and technology has come from. It is the common beginning tie that binds bees and religion and all of us together, country to country. Is beekeeping unnatural? Is keeping any stock unnatural? Is fishing then even unnatural? Is any harvest then unnatural? Stewardship, though, I think is allowed and bees certainly fall into that category. Peter wrote: Either everything we do is natural, since it is based on nature, -- or we left nature behind years ago, at what point who can say? Bees lived for eons in caves and hollow trees, and mankind spent millions of years camping out, without the benefit of gas or electricity. Human activity now affects almost every corner of the planet. (See Bill McKibben's "The End of Nature".) Reply: Peter, this is a frame of mind, for even camping out, our forefathers had to eat and hunt and gather and in a way manage their domain. The problem is to do it harmoniously so life and evolution goes on. Somehow with bees today and all the various dopes used to try to keep them alive, something seems to have gone wrong in a bad bad way, and add to this,quick and easy management concepts that are money motivated, it seems we have taken too much and are now are reaping the results of poorly managed animals and plants and bad stewardship in keeping all life harmonious. Sad, just so sad to see! Peter finished: Real "natural beekeeping" might be knocking wild honey combs down with a stick, no buckets please. Reply: If that is what you feel, then you are welcome to it Peter. I myself feel I can do better in learning by watching and doing and our bees certainly seem to be responding as we learn more. Try the small cell and repositioning and real food for the bees and tithing back to them for all their hard work. You may end up liking it! Best regards to you, Dee A. Lusby __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 22:01:26 GMT Reply-To: MacKenzie Calhoun Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: MacKenzie Calhoun Subject: Evicting Entire Apiary Every Year MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hello, List, I just met a beekeeper who evicts the bees from his entire apiary at the end of each season. In September, he puts the queen into a shallow super at the bottom of the hive and isolates her with an excluder. He then evicts all bees in October and takes all the honey. He does not treat for mites at all and and starts afresh every spring. He said that economically, this practice makes the most sense, citing the high cost of Apistan and weighing the extra income from the honey in the brood box against the cost of new package bees. He said that even when he used to treat for mites and did everything in the book for his hives to survive, he still lost 75% of his apiary each of the last three winters. What do fellow listmembers think of this practice? I think it sounds horrible, but could it make sense? Mac Calhoun ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 21:07:22 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: waldig Subject: Re: Research, again MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>I have been involved in studies of screened bottom boards for 4 > years now, on hundreds of hives. We have never found them to have any > benefit (no harm either), but we continue to study them because > beekeepers are interested in them. If we find a benefit then I will > be sure to report it right here. I made my screened bottom boards because I had heard that they prevent fallen mites from re-attaching to bees. Since then I have learned that the verdict on this was still out. My 3 hives are some 12 ft up in the air in my garage attic and, since I'd removed the attic floor boards underneath them, I can look up and see a lot of what is going on in the hives through the screens. The screened bottoms are great for casual inspections in this scenario. The other benefits are improved ventilation on hot summer days and not having to clean the bottom boards as fine hive debris falls through the screens. Waldemar Long Island, NY ------------------------------------------- Introducing NetZero Long Distance Unlimited Long Distance only $29.95/ month! Sign Up Today! www.netzerolongdistance.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 15:32:36 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: dan hendricks Subject: Re: beekeeper induced stress/supercedure MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mark, if you want to prevent swarming - rather cause swarms to self-retrieve - all you have to do is install a queen escluder on top of the bottom board. See http://pub5.bravenet.com/forum/fetch.php?id=10022528&usernum=411580919. Dan --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos, & more faith.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 18:59:33 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: CSlade777@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Supersedure MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 05/10/02 05:03:04 GMT Daylight Time, LISTSERV@LISTSERV.ALBANY.EDU writes: << Do any of you Bee gods out there have a strategy or approach to handling and/or diagnosing accurately such situations? >> "The only test for supersedure is supersedure." Beowulf Cooper, The Honeybees of the British Isles. Chris ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 16:53:55 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dennis Murrell Subject: Re: Looking for Phoretic Varroa MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Allen and Everyone, My exposure to the sugar shake test were limited to the procedures proscribed by it's authors. My own experience with using powdered sugar involved treating whole hives of bees and watching the mite fall on a mite trap. Some sampling was done until I was confident of the effects and observations of individual bees were made. I not sure what the effects of rolling bees around in a jar of sugar for 15 minutes would be. My own observations indicate that extrapolating infestation rates from one small sample, regardless of the technique used to liberate the mite from the bee, is not very accurate especially at moderate to low levels of infestation. That's why I hit the whole hive with powdered sugar. It's much more accurate. Give it a test and let us know what happens. Best Wishes Dennis ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 16:24:28 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dee Lusby Subject: Re: beekeeper induced stress/supercedure In-Reply-To: <200210040556.g945ofTt014059@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi all Mark Walker wrote: Are there any other behavioral or physical clues that I can observe and try factor into the determination of whether the hive is in superscedure or swarm mode? Reply: C.P. Dadant first wrote about the differences in 1917 in his book "First Lessons in Beekeeping". Current copies show pictures of supersedure queen cells and swarming impulse queen cells. Supercedure queen cells are all of the same approxximate age. Supersedure cells tend to be large and lavishly supplied with royal jelly. The book also say as a result of supersedure it occasionally happens that two queens, mother and aughter, inhabit the same hive. For swarming impulse cells, the book says that in this case the cells are are varying ages. They are shown pictured along the bottom of the frame. Sincerely, Dee A. Lusby __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 16:31:18 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dee Lusby Subject: Re: Evicting Entire Apiary Every Year Comments: To: MacKenzie Calhoun In-Reply-To: <20021005.22012600@SGIHOST1.PropulsionPhysics.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi all Mac Calhoun wrote: What do fellow listmembers think of this practice? I think it sounds horrible, but could it make sense? reply: Only until enough bee breeders have problems and cannot supply the necessary bees. Then the roll of the dice changes. Could the Alabama losses by bee breeders this past spring be omens of happenings to come? What changes are necessary to advert this happening again with high losses? Sincerely, Dee A. Lusby __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 19:53:45 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter Borst Subject: Re: beekeeper induced stress, natural beekeeping Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Marking queens does no harm and without this you have basically no idea about the age of the queen. I have seen marked queens 3 years old. Supersedure cannot be tracked without marking queens. I keep a record card stapled on top of every hive on the inner cover. The hole has to be covered or the bees will come up and eat the card. It has places for various pieces of information including: apiary, hive number, current year, queen type, queen source, date of intro, marking color Each time the hive is inspected I write: date, number of queen cells, presence of eggs, larvae, pupae; queen quality, amount of brood, strength of hive, number of supers, temper, disease -- and a few words on what was done, if anything When testing for honey production, hive and supers are weighed before and after. When testing mite controls: ether rolls before and after. Sometimes sticky boards are used. Some manipulations, such as equalizing brood, can't be done while experiments are underway. I realize this is much more than most beekeepers do. This is what is required for *real* evaluation. -- Peter Borst ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 20:08:33 -0400 Reply-To: "jfischer@supercollider.com" Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: Evicting Entire Apiary Every Year MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mac Calhoun said: > I just met a beekeeper who evicts the bees from his entire > apiary at the end of each season. > What do fellow listmembers think of this practice? To each his own, but if he was correct, no one would overwinter their bees. There are a number of people on this list to whom bees are their only source of income, and I have read thoughtful words from all of them on the subject of "proper overwintering". I have heard none of them suggest "eviction", and they clearly are profitable enough to afford a computer and an internet account, so they are not poverty-stricken. They are also big. Very big. Thousands of hives in some cases. I see a connection here, and so should you. I'd love to find a beekeeper near me with a willful lack of industriousness and financial acumen similar to your acquaintance. I'd build some extra woodenware, fill them with some drawn comb, and place my equipment in his "old" hive locations, helping him to "evict" his bees into my woodenware. A few days after "eviction", I'd move the colonies to my turf, feed, insert capped frames held back from the extractor for the purpose, and apply the usual medications as required. In early spring, I'd feed the refugees some more, and slide in some pollen from the freezer to make sure that they get an early start. Then, a few weeks before packages are shipped, I can sell him either colonies or nucs. Lather, rise, repeat, taking care not to laugh too hard at a man who is willing to give away his bees, and buy them back in the spring! Sure, I'd loose a few of the "adopted" colonies, but not 75%. jim ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 21:15:41 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Mark Spagnolo Subject: Evicting Entire apiary MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Although this method seems to go against everything I have ever learned about keeping bees, it is something that I have tried recently. I am still undecided about its merits. One one side of the arguement, the selling price of honey, the cost, effort and limited effectiveness of medication, and amount of honey required to keep bees alive through a Minnesota winter all seem to make "Evicting" a smart decision. On the other side, established hives make more honey and can be split. Packages are still widely available, but the price is higher every year and the quality might not be what it was previously. The investment in equipment is only worth the quality of the bees that use that equipment. Re-populating with packages every year is a gamble, no doubt about it. I have tried both methods (wintering and "evicting"). I prefer wintering, but I think I will end up settling on a combination of both. I would like to winter first year hives made from splits, and "evict" hives that have made it through a second summer. I am interesting in hearing from others. This is something I think about every fall. Mark in Minnesota ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 21:06:22 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Mike Stoops Subject: Re: Dusting With Powdered Sugar In-Reply-To: <200210050401.g953scUv017120@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Just to poke a stick in the beehive, does anybody/everybody know that powdered sugar is a mix of sugar and corn starch? Is the active ingrediant the finely powdered sugar, the corn starch, or the combination? Do we need to concern ourselves about knowing which is the causitive agent? Just wondering. Mike 1/2 way between Montgomery and Mobile in Alabama ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 23:02:44 -0400 Reply-To: "jfischer@supercollider.com" Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Cell Orientation In Natural Comb MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I came across something that may shed some light on the discussion of relative orientation of cells in adjacent frames. Given the statements quoted below, I am forced to wonder if the entire "positioning" discussion is best viewed as the beekeeping version of Jonathan Swift's description of the Big-Endian/Little-Endian wars in Gulliver's Travels. Those who have not read Swift in decades can read here http://www.jaffebros.com/lee/gulliver/dict/b.html#bigend and here http://www.jaffebros.com/lee/gulliver/bk1/chap1-7.html The following is quoted from "ABC & XYZ of Bee Culture", 40th Edition (1990), starting on page 105: "COMB, NATURAL - ...In all species of honey bees, the tops are either peaked or flat; the bees build comb with both orientations. In the same natural nest, while the cells within a comb will be the same, each comb may have a different orientation. [Read the line above twice!] Apparently, the strength of a comb is not affected by the orientation of its cells. Manufactured comb foundation is usually made with the sides horizontal and the peak upward; the older bee literature contain much controversy about which orientation is better. Those who argued for one orientation against the other did not ask the bees their preference. One Englishman who examined natural comb in natural nests found the following: - Combs with vertical tops and bottoms - 131 - Combs with horizontal sides - 123 - Combs with both orientations - 1 - Combs that were intermediate - 13 Huber, the famous Swiss naturalist, noted that the cells attached to the top of the hive were often pentagons and not hexagons. (For further discussion see Morse, R. A. 'Cell orientation and comb strength in honeybee colonies', Gleanings in Bee Culture 111:10, 14, 16, 18-19 1983)..." [I guess that would be the November 1983 issue.] jim (who detests all soft-boiled eggs equally) ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 03:22:17 -0400 Reply-To: "jfischer@supercollider.com" Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: beekeeper induced stress/supercedure MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mark Walker said: > I had a hell of time this summer trying to figure out if several > of my hives were either in swarm mode or Supersceding. > Are there any other behavioral or physical clues that I can > observe and try factor into the determination of whether > the hive is in superscedure or swarm mode? Here is what some old beekeepers told me, which I listened to, humbly thanked them for telling me, and believed for nearly 3 minutes and 42 seconds: 1) The general consensus is that a queen cell drawn from the "middle" of a comb indicates a superscedure, while a queen cell hanging from the bottom of a frame indicates swarming. (From a purely rational view, a queen cell drawn from the middle of a comb would be more likely to indicate that an emergency replacement is being cobbled together from one of the last eggs laid by a recently deceased queen. But there I go again, trying to mix rationality with beekeeping!) 2) Another "general consensus" is that bees preparing to swarm make more queen cells than bees preparing to supercede, so if you have a bunch of queen cells, you are more likely to be looking at a colony preparing to swarm rather than supercede. (But more than what? Compared to what?) 3) Another consensus observes that multiple swarms issue forth from a swarming colony, and infers that swarming requires queen cells at different stages of development. (I can't tell a 2002 Honda from a 2001 Honda, so I'm not going to try and guess how "old" a queen cell is just by looking at it.) So here is what I do: I ignore the number of queen cells. I ignore the position of the queen cells. I ignore the entertaining Norse sagas written in crushed roots and berries on compressed dead trees. I ignore the details about queen cells completely, except to verify that they are sealed, rather than open. I look at what is right in front of me - the colony itself. Focus on tangible, real-time indicators of the queen's presence and productivity/health. Look at each brood chamber frame, and guesstimate how much surface area in the brood nest is filled with: a) Eggs b) Larvae c) Sealed brood If you have "lots" of all three, queen cells indicate a swarming scenario. (So, make a split, rotate brood chambers, prepare a swarm trap, place crystals around the hive, maybe burn some incense and play bagpipes. Shucks, I dunno, nobody seems to have a sure-fire way to stop swarming. It is difficult to "control" a hardwired urge to perpetuate the species. It should be.) If you have few eggs and larvae relative to your other hives, or see a egg/larvae/brood pattern with holes through which you could drive a truck, you have a failing queen, and the cells are a hint that the bees are planning on rewarding her hard work and diligent service to the colony by letting her make a run for it before they tear her limb from limb. :) The queen cells are for a supercedure. If you find NO eggs and your other hives have eggs, then your queen is very likely dead, and you have an "emergency replacement" scenario. (Gotta verify this with care, as white eggs on white wax can be hard to see, even in good light.) As a special case, if you see eggs, but you see multiple eggs per cell in many of the cells, you may want to go over the entire brood chamber very slowly and carefully to see what percentage of the cells have multiple eggs. Queens lay one egg per cell. Laying workers lack the style and panache of a queen, and will often lay more than one egg per cell. Laying workers mean that your queen may have died a while ago, and the hive is in big trouble. I think that there is no foolproof procedure for detecting every supercedure. Only one thing for sure, when it's warm only God can make a swarm. jim (The sound you hear is Joyce Kilmer doing summersaults in her grave.) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 22:21:51 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Aaron Morris Subject: Re: Evicting Entire apiary MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Funny how killing off one's bees can be candy coated with less offensive names. "Evicting!". Recent articles in the trade rags have termed the practice "depopulating". Call it what you will, I find it offensive. It used to be common practice north of the border (US/Canada) until the border closed to keep mites out. Hmmm. Why is that border still closed...? Oh wait! That wasn't the topic, it was eviction. Yes, eviction! That was a recommended practice by Dr. Frugala in U of Minn. Run 2 sets of hives, one set for production, one set for wintering. It's been some time, but my recollection was that the overwintering set was built from a single deep to eventually occupy 3 deeps during the season. The overwintering colony was never subjected to the stresses of producing a honey crop. It was strictly a "build itself up colony" whose sole purpose was to go into the winter strong, vigorous and with plenty of stores. The following spring, the 3 deep hive that successfully made it through the winter was split into a 2-deep unit which was supered up for honey production, and the third deep that was split off became the unit that was the "leave alone, build into 3-deeps for overwintering" hive for that season. The 2-deep colony that was supered for honey was exploited for honey production, with no concern whatsoever for its winter preparations. At the end of the season it would be evicted. Actually it was depopulated sometime during the winter by shaking the bees into the snow. Now this was quite a while ago, I don't recall when Dr. Frugala passed away, but I think (and I may well be wrong on this) that this method pre-dated Varroa infestation. I never paid close attention to the practice because killing off (oh wait, we're being kinder, gentler, we're evicting and depopulating, not killing) a colony of bees is repugnant to me. But I've been wondering the past few seasons if some of the concepts of the method could be adapted to today's times, without having to snuff the bees. I'm a big fan of Gene Killion's comb honey production methods. When you shake bees from a double-deep into a single, the bees EXPLODE into the supers. I've been considering such a shake down on all my production colonies, regardless if I'm running them for comb or extracted honey. So my overwintered hive (I overwinter doubles) would be shaken down to a single for production, and while the single is making a crop, the other deep can receive a new queen and pretty much be left alone, not stressed and built into a double deep during the season. It could be "drone trapped" to address mites, but not subjected to the stress of production. Towards the end of the season, the production single could be united with the non-stressed colony that has built into a double, creating a 3-deep colony that may be better prepared to survive upstate New York's formidable winter. I'm haven't thought throuugh the mite-dynamics of combining the production colony with the "now double" hopefully mite free (realisticly, low load) colony, but I have an intuitive feeling that there will be an advantage there that is not when the entire colony is subjected to production stress. I suspect it will be something like combining a weaker colony with a stronger colony and can imagine that the non-stressed/non-production double will help the production single more than the stressed production single will impare the non-stressed double. It certainly will give the colony a better chance than an eviction notice! Aaron Morris - I think, therefore I bee! ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 16:25:16 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Aaron Morris Subject: Re: Only one of the trades.. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sincere apologies are due to one of the trade rags. I guess to both for calling them "rags", but that's not MY term. I was writing late at night and had not the time (truthfully, not the inclination) to hit my library (especially because my cataloging system is wherever there is spare room in my large Victorian home - 15 rooms for my dog and I) to find which stellar publication (one less stellar than the other (note I'm not saying which shines brighter, and no offense meant to the also-runs swift competitor) to find which trade, eh, industry magazine it was that ran the multi-part article on "depopulating" hives. I meant no offense to either (or ANY) publication and I was careful not to cast aspersions on the author, didn't even give his initials (C.arl W.enner) and only meant to voice my intense aversion to the concept of "evicting - depopulation - slaughtering your bees"). My intent was to inspire discussion on the possibility of adapting Dr. Frugala's methods to today's times and beekeeping environment. Apologies to all but the bee snuffers. In the meantime, any input on the contemplated Frugala revisions? Aaron Morris - thinking the power of the pen if more than one may realize! ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 20:22:19 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Tom Barrett Subject: Visits to FIBKA website Comments: To: irishbeekeeping@yahoogroups.co.uk Comments: cc: BiologicalBeekeeping@yahoogroups.com, Norlandbeekeepers@yahoogroups.com, beekeeping@yahoogroups.com, FGMOBeekeeping@yahoogroups.co.uk, NZBkprs@yahoogroups.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hello All We now have had 8899 visits to the website of the Federation Of Irish Beekeeping Associations since it was set up, and thanks to all who visited our site And we look forward to meeting our beekeeping friends from other countries at Apimondia in Slovenia in 2003, where we expect to have a big contingent from Ireland. Of course we really look forward to meeting beekeepers from all over the world in Dublin at the world renowned RDS showgrounds for Apimondia in 2005. Be sure to put that date in your beekeeping diary. It will be a real cracker!. Sincerely Tom Barrett Dublin Ireland ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 10:00:32 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Matthew Westall Subject: Re: Evicting Entire apiary MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This same subject (culling/killing/maiming/sparking/frying/freezing/total anhailation of the insects that pay your bills) was just visited by the agriculture.sci.beekeeping newsgroup last month. Before someone starts culling their hives to scrape out another 20% into their honey profits I'd like to offer an alternative: Follow the news and articles on splitting hives into sytrafoam nucs. You CAN overwinter a softball sized swarm with 3 deep frames of honey(+1 pollen, 1 brood) into the hardest of winters. There have been articles in print on this subject from ABJ or Bee Culture. A local beekeeper here proved it successful to 15 or 20 split through -20F winter here a few years ago. All the splits survived right through February (and were promptly trampled by a herd of cows in Feb. but that's besides the point). So you take your 'extra' honey and still have something to work with in spring. Alot more work, alot more management but more control over varroa and AFB among other issues. My personal opinion of culling is that you become a burden on the remaining beekeepers by non-contribution in killing off your gene pool. That is -IF- you believe that successful varroa (and other) survivors aren't just in the apiaries of specialty bee breeders - but in our own backyards and apiaries. Short term decisions pay the bills, but long term decisions figure out how LONG you can pay your bills..... If you cull your bee stock what will you do next year when something unexpected happens (changes to the price of bees/#'s of winter kill in surrounding states/weather conditions for starting nucs/etc, etc. etc.)? Does anything in bee management ever happen unexpectedly? Matthew Westall - "E-Bees" - Castle Rock, CO ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 12:42:07 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "Frank I. Reiter" Subject: Re: Evicting Entire apiary In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > It could be "drone trapped" to > address mites, but not subjected to the stress of production. How does one not subject the bees to the stress of production? As far as I know, if they have space they want to fill it and if they don't have space they swarm and go look for some. Could you elaborate? 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: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 16:41:20 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Mark Walker Subject: Re: FGMO I am new to this FGMO concept and Fog type of applicaction. I've deliberately avoided using Apistan and Checkmite so as to keep that form of miteicide in reserve, if I ever feel a dramatic need of their use is required. Hence, I've been using Formic Acid soaked Foam pads with success, but there are still mites present in the hives after treatment (though in significantly smaller numbers). I was wondering if anyone out there has been using FGMO fog treatments in conjunction with Formic or Strip treatments and what there results are, or effects. Would or does this double-barreled approach increase keep the mites population weak throughout the year, thus improving the effectiveness of Formic/strips in the fall and spring? Also, can you please tell me the procedure for the FGMO fogger treatment; how you fog the hive; how long; how often; measure its effects; do's and don'ts, etc....? Many Thanks, Mark Walker, Delta, BC ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 15:13:38 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "adrian m. wenner" Subject: Re: Only one of the trades.. In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Aaron Morris wrote (in small part): >I meant no offense to either (or ANY) >publication and I was careful not to cast aspersions on the author, didn't >even give his initials (C.arl W.enner) and only meant to voice my intense >aversion to the concept of "evicting - depopulation - slaughtering your >bees"). Time to insert a little humor. One of my beekeeping uncles was actually named Carl Wenner --- now dead for a very long time. He kept bees in northern Minnesota, where killing all bees in the fall was the practice at that time. Remember, no one had resources at that time (Great Depression) to overwinter colonies. Besides, he had a brother in California who shipped him packages and queens each spring. We live in a different world now. 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: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 22:27:10 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Aaron Morris Subject: Re: Dusting With Powdered Sugar MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > Is the active ingrediant the finely powdered sugar, the corn starch, > or the combination? It's both and neither. Before the powdered sugar method was discovered at U of Nebraska, the French had been using talcum powder! It's the small fine particles that have the mites dislodge. Aaron Morris - thinking talcum honey! Yum yum! ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 21:11:14 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: JOHN BACHMAN Subject: Re: Slatted Racks Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 05:57 PM 10/4/2002 -0400, you wrote: >What is the underlying concept of the slatted rack and how does it work? > I've never heard of this else where, but I use the slatted rack BOTH at the bottom of the hive (as intended) AND on top as an inner cover. The slatted rack on top I turn up-side-down so the slats are close to the top bars. In hot weather, I also prop the outer covers up a bit. My feeling is that the hive is like a chimney... you need to let air in at the bottom and let the air escape at the top. The little oval whole in an inner cover seems too small - especially in hot weather. I've had no swarming with hives that are set up this way. John ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 09:09:30 +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: <20021003051838.39682.qmail@web12404.mail.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed In article <20021003051838.39682.qmail@web12404.mail.yahoo.com>, Dee Lusby writes >I also know that a bush or shrub is not a very structural >sound place for bees to normally build a set of combs, >requiring much brace and burr comb to stabalize constantly >shifting structure that becomes heavier as weight is added, >and I feel it would be hard to get the bees to build stable >angles, etc because of this constant stablilizing problem, >what with winds and all.So because of this I visualize this >structure as being differnet in my mind in needs. The part of the bush it was attached to was a two inch thick horizontal branch about four feet off the ground, in a bush at least 15 feet high, in deep shelter in a forest. Never known it to be windy there or seen these bushes in motion. Probably happens in the depth of winter as these are evergreen plants, with much birch around them which after they lose their leaves present little obstacle to wind. However, this is a very strong and very old bush and I would be very surprised if motion was a problem in July and August when this swarm was there. > >I also know that to look at combs built and described to me >2 feet in depth and up to 4 foot long, means the combs have >been in place awhile. If they are that big then the special comb this is founded on must be present at a fair size. I notice Barry saying we need to see one of these combs asap to support the theory. There should then be little difficulty in getting a sample , say 6inches square to be sure it is not simply an anomaly, from one of these. >I cannot picture bees in slaphazzard comb building, >but instead following a set pattern and position where at >all possible. This following of pattern I have seen in the >many cutouts we do and have done, preferring feral survival >swarms to rebuild our outfit with, along survivors from our >shakedown in the spring of 1997. Perhaps your bees are neater in their habits than those we get over here. I often see them not even straight, with crooks and bends in them, and some very weird cell structures where a comb gradually turns a corner. I assume they do this for strength, as a feral comb structure consisting of only perfect flat and regular plates is not very strong. Natural bridge comb toughens it up a lot, but never have I seen feral combs of the size you describe without there being a lot of cross comb and junk comb included. This includes one single comb I extracted from a house roof that was over 20 feet long. This one comb was relatively perfect, even though it took a small curve in the middle and a curve back which altered its line by an inch or two. All the other combs in this space were at an assortment of alignments and all over the place. The only thing they had in common was an orientation to the top. Admittedly this is not the model you suggest, where you have a very firm anchor point for the swarm, and then unrestricted development space all round. Plus it must be in the open. Best model of this I have seen was one we took out of the attic of a stately home. Thus no doubt you will say this does not fit the model, but it did have very large combs (some over 4 feet from top to bottom) and a good number of them (at least 30). It probably had about 400lb of honey too. This is a still and secure environment with unrestricted space all around. This was the nearest I have ever seen to a series of flat plate combs, but even here it was far from perfect, and some whole combs were drone. There was noticeable curvature to the combs at the outer edges, due to their being wider there, and to correct this, in the middle there were sometimes some partial combs to allow the flat plates to re-align. The thickest combs in the honey storage areas (high up near the outer edges) were nearly 4 inches thick). It was actually quite a complicated structure. Pity it was about four years ago and all has long since been rendered down. > >Using same positioning within our colonies as the feral has >solved much that has puzzled me over the years, in the >manipulation of our frames and trying to draw new >foundation into production combs for brood and honey, etc. The speed with which it has apparently put your failing (or not prospering) colonies right is quite staggering. Not much more than a single brood cycle. However, if the odds of you having a perfect arrangement are as others have stated (apparently this is mathematically so), and assuming your less than happy colonies were actually a small minority, then could it be some other entirely different factor at play. Many (most?) of your perfectly good colonies must have also been on jumbled combs. The speed of improvement implies to my mind that the improving factor was already, at least partially, at play even before the realignment took place. But then I am not in your environment nor am I working with your bees so these observations may not have any validity. FWIW, we took one look at the feral up the pine tree yesterday and decided that safety was much more important than knowledge in this case and left it where it was, 60 feet up in the canopy of an ancient pine forest. I will be back once more this week to take the bees back south to their lowland wintering grounds, and if some more has blown down by then I will see what they look like, but I aint climbing the tree. I see these things often, and before the year is out I am bound to see a few more. Hopefully more accessible. I am minded to offer a cash reward for the first perfect Housel special centre comb sent to me, so if you have any pieces of feral combs around, minimum 6 inch square, with Y in the same alignment on both sides, let me know. -- Murray McGregor ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 17:45:49 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Keith Malone Subject: Evicting Entire apiary MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Matthhew & All, > My personal opinion of culling is that you become a burden on the remaining > beekeepers by non-contribution in killing off your gene pool. That is -IF- > you believe that successful varroa (and other) survivors aren't just in the > apiaries of specialty bee breeders - but in our own backyards and apiaries. > This is one of the fine points of beekeeping I have been trying to explain to so called beekeepers in Alaska who snuff bees in the fall. I believe we need all the resources we can manage to survive the winters to build from. . .. c(((([ Keith Malone ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 08:06:59 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Evicting Entire apiary MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Matthew Westall wrote: > Follow the news and articles on splitting hives into sytrafoam nucs.You > CAN overwinter a softball sized swarm with 3 deep frames of honey(+1 pollen, > 1 brood) into the hardest of winters. There have been articles in print on > this subject from ABJ or Bee Culture. A local beekeeper here proved it > successful to 15 or 20 split through -20F winter here a few years ago. All > the splits survived right through February What I have read on overwintering nucs in very cold climates normally has them above a full sized, two or three deep colony. Is that the same here? If not, what is the setup, i.e. are they stacked together or independent? Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 06:41:46 -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 > I notice Barry saying we need to see one of these combs asap to support the theory. Actually, I would like to see even a diagram (or a picture) of a cross-section of such a comb. I have trouble imagining how they might be constructed. Standard combs are built with the cells on opposite sides of the comb staggered so that all cells can all have convex cell bottoms. If built directly across from one another, the midrib would have to be very thick -- I think. (Nonetheless that gets me wondering about cells where there are transition cells on one side....) Presenting such a diagram should be very simple. I propose we put off further discussion of comb arrangement until someone who has seen such comb presents a simple cross section diagram so that we can see better what is being proposed. I understand that Michael wrote an article for publication and am looking forward to seeing it. Any idea how the publication is coming along, Dee? allen ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 10:01:14 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Karen Oland Subject: Re: beekeeper induced stress, natural beekeeping In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From:Peter Borst > In order to study supersedure, one would have to requeen all hives > with marked queens, or at least mark every queen early in the season. > Then these queens would have to be monitored during the season. This > would establish a baseline supersedure rate. Next, the > "anti-supersedure" study would be undertaken, -- say: change the > frame orientation. This would be done on half the hives. Half would > have to be managed in the regular way. Then, if the rate of > supersedure departed from the previous year in the test hives but not > in the control hives, you could say you were on to something. Peter, Would you not need two groups that were re-arranged? One into the perfect Housel (since we can presume few of your control hives start that way; unless you re-arranged them, the odds are greatly against it) and the second group into some other configuration that is not the perfect housel, but is re-arranged. Otherwise, your study may only gauge the difference between those rearranged and those not, rather than Housel versus non-Housel. Karen ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 10:18:10 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Simoneau_Andr=E9_=28DRMONTR=29_=28L=27Assomption=29?= Subject: Varroa drama MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit For an exquisite text from a very well cultured man, Doctor Keith Delaplane, please click on the link below and enjoy the short but well described story on how Varroa jacobsoni became Varroa destructor. http://www.ent.uga.edu/bees/Disorders/guest.htm Docteur André Simoneau, d.m.v. CQIASA Laboratoire de pathologie animale 867, boulevard L'Ange-Gardien L'Assomption, Québec CANADA J5W 4M9 Tél. (450)-589-5745 poste 275 Télécopieur: (450)-589-0648 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 10:57:46 -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 Allen Dick wrote: > Presenting such a diagram should be very simple. I propose we put off > further discussion of comb arrangement until someone who has seen such comb > presents a simple cross section diagram so that we can see better what is > being proposed. Amen. I would think that those combs are plentiful. If they are the natural way bees make combs nd they give some benefit to bees, they should be found everywhere. Which is what has been troubling me. If this is the natural state for comb production, it does not depend on anything and will be the way bees create comb wherever any support of any kind is found, in a manmade hive or in a tree or on a branch. But that does not seem to be the case, at least it has not been shown so. It also flies in the face of what I have observed in frame manipulation by experienced and exceptional beekeepers here in Maine in the spring, when frames are moved all over to redistribute stores, yet the bees thrive. I wonder if Housel Positioning might have been a special case and depended on the enclosure where the feral comb was observed. Not the first time someone made a universal application to a local phenomena. Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 11:18:05 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Jerry J Bromenshenk Subject: Rates of supercedure Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi: We have many years of data regarding rates of supercedure in commercial bee operations in the Northwestern states - marked queens, 10-12 colonies per apiary, many apiaries, many years. Queen supercedure happens far more frequently, at least in our part of the world, than most realize or recognize, including the beekeepers. 15-20% of the queens superceding within any year in any apiary, during the pre-mite years, were common. And this was in operations that re-queen yearly or at least every two years. Small research hives, post-mite years, with mite treatment and aggressive inspection - supercedure drops to 5-10% (new queens) - after we've culled for the initial queen rejections, etc. We've found that setting up any experiment with marked queens and getting through a season with all of the marked queens still present at the end of the trials is almost impossible. The number of queens lost may be small, but there's always some supercedure. I can't speak to comb orientation and queen supercedure. Whether that has any effect or not - I've no data. I would suggest that everyone with access to a feral colony examine the combs. Is Dee's observation universal, or is it regional? In other words, has any one else looked for the configuration she describes in unmanaged colonies? I'm a skeptic about universal statements. I've found trials that say that if given a choice, bees orient combs in a manner that reflects geomagnetic fields -- but these same trials found that if the cavity isn't shaped in such a manner as to facilitate this orientation, then bees don't follow the fields. On the other hand, Peter says he found a question/answer report that says no, bee's don't orient with these fields, not ands, ifs or buts. My casual observations over 30+ years - natural comb is built in every orientation imaginable - there doesn't seem to be a set pattern, except that bees usually place a comb across the entrance (perpendicular to the way most bee boxes are built -- but we've had lots of discussion about this on Bee-L with our friends from Canada). I've seen a lot of cross-linked combs, star-shaped configurations, etc. Now, things that I do know from our data that are associated with supercedure: 1) Use of chemicals to drive bees from honey supers 2) Addition of lots of empty supers during a nectar flow 3) Environmental stressors - lack of space, over-heating, agri- and industrial chemicals inside the hive (volatiles in the air inside the hive) and (this is a guess, the others are based on data - mite density). Cheers Jerry Jerry J. Bromenshenk jjbmail@selway.umt.edu http://www.umt.edu/biology/bees ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 13:36:37 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter Borst Subject: Re: Rates of supercedure Jerry writes: Now, things that I do know from our data that are associated with supercedure: 1) Use of chemicals to drive bees from honey supers 2) Addition of lots of empty supers during a nectar flow 3) Environmental stressors - lack of space, over-heating, agri- and industrial chemicals inside the hive (volatiles in the air inside the hive) and (this is a guess, the others are based on data - mite density). Do these increase or decrease supercedure? How much? pb ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 16:10:12 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Karen Oland Subject: Re: Stress - "Housel Positioning" In-Reply-To: <3DA1A0EA.7000307@suscom-maine.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: Bill Truesdell > Which is what has been troubling me. If this is the natural state for > comb production, it does not depend on anything and will be the way bees > create comb wherever any support of any kind is found, in a manmade hive > or in a tree or on a branch. But that does not seem to be the case, at > least it has not been shown so. Would not this be the usual state of all comb built in top bar hives, where only a starter strip of wax (not foundation) is used? It should be a simple matter to open up a few such hives (if anyone on the list has this type) and photograph this magical comb arrangement in the center of the box. Assuming of course that this is the "normal" and "preferred" state of comb for "natural" bees, not forced to live on manmade combs. Karen ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 13:51:10 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Jerry J Bromenshenk Subject: Re: Rates of supercedure In-Reply-To: <200210071736.g97EppcL014412@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 01:36 PM 10/7/02 -0400, you wrote: Peter asked: These things all increase supercedure rates. How much depends on the stressors, time of year, duration of stress, etc. However, when a threshold is reached, the effect may be quick. We've seen significant queen losses (up to 50% supercedure) occurring within 24 hrs of the exposure or presence of the stressor - chem, bio, or environmental. Jerry > >Do these increase or decrease supercedure? How much? > >pb > > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 14:22:15 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: Rates of supercedure MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > We have many years of data regarding rates of supercedure in commercial bee > operations in the Northwestern states - marked queens, 10-12 colonies per > apiary, many apiaries, many years. People often talk about supercedure as if it somehow reduces production, but in my understanding, it should not. In fact, I should think that supercedure might often increase populations if the two queens co-exist for some time, and should in the long term assure continuity of the colony. To me it seems that what *could* reduce production is not the supercedure, but the conditions that bring supercedure about in the first place -- like a failing queen -- not the supercedure itself. Does that fit with your perceptions, or am I missing something? allen ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 02:57:55 +1000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: T & M Weatherhead Subject: Re: Rates of supercedure MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jerry wrote > > We have many years of data regarding rates of supercedure in commercial > bee > > operations in the Northwestern states - marked queens, 10-12 colonies per > > apiary, many apiaries, many years. Dr. Basil Furgala did some work in his part of the world and found that up to 50% of the queens put in a hive were not there after a year. I will have to look up my notes from our trip to the USA and Canada in 1986 when we visited Basil at his University. This work was pre mites. Studies here in Australia have found that up to 30% are not there after that time also. There are many reasions for this and Jerry and Peter have listed a lot of the reasons. Allen wrote > People often talk about supercedure as if it somehow reduces production, > but in my understanding, it should not. In fact, I should think that > supercedure might often increase populations if the two queens co-exist for > some time, and should in the long term assure continuity of the colony. In my experince this is not the case. We have had breeders that supercede and I have caught the daughter queen and left the mother behind. I have found in all cases, about 5 or 6, that the mother does not come back on the lay. I am assuming that she stops laying when the daughter takes over. The daughter would only have been laying for about a week maximum, in reality probably only about 3 or 4 days. I calculate this by knowing when I last grafted from that hive and I would have examined all combs and destroyed any queen cells. Trevor Weatherhead AUSTRALIA ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 14:52:31 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Jerry J Bromenshenk Subject: Re: Rates of supercedure In-Reply-To: <001901c26e3f$3ae86920$57ae73d1@allen> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Allen said: >supercedure might often increase populations...and should in the long term assure continuity of the colony. ... what *could* reduce production is not the supercedure, but the conditions that bring supercedure about.> My take is that Allen's right in the sense that the conditions that bring about supercedure, especially if the stressors is slow acting (e.g., mites, disease, chronic exposure to harmful chemicals or biologicals) may be a primary contributor to loss of production. However, in acute or sudden events, the original queen may be suddenly lost (e.g., chemicals used to drive out bees, agri- or industrial chemicals, sudden expansion of space by adding honey supers). In this case, the colony may: 1) not successfully supercede the queen, 2) goes into a reproductive nose-dive. It takes 14-16 days for the new queen to emerge and no new brood is added during those 2 weeks. Give her a few more days to mate, start laying, etc.; and you have a 3-4 week break in brood laying. Whether that reduces population or not depends on timing. If you are past the major honey flows and approaching winter with a strong population, maybe you'd just as soon slow the brood cycle down - fewer mouths to feed. But, if you've still got some major nectar flows coming, you may be in good shape if you've got a batch of new bees ready to go to work just before the flow hits, but you're in bad shape if all you have are old bees that are just about worn out, working hard to produce new bees that will be "too late". Our models suggest that the time of year of an event such as this may work FOR or AGAINST population size and production. Comments?? Jerry >allen > > Jerry J. Bromenshenk jjbmail@selway.umt.edu http://www.umt.edu/biology/bees ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 18:32:36 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter Borst Subject: Re: Rates of supercedure Comments: To: jjbmail@SELWAY.UMT.EDU Jerry writes: in acute or sudden events, the original queen may be suddenly lost (e.g., chemicals used to drive out bees, agri- or industrial chemicals, sudden expansion of space by adding honey supers). Thanks for the info. I must say I have never heard that adding too many supers could lead to supersedure! You also said not adding supers could do this! Curious! More info! Anyway, as I said, the main objection to supersedure is if you are trying to maintain selected lines. If I am trying to study resistant stock and half the queens are gone in two months, what am I studying? Their daughters, of course, but that wasn't the plan. The daughters might have half as much of the desired trait. pb ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 16:05:34 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Jerry J Bromenshenk Subject: Montana/Wyoming Beekeepers Meeting, Oct 17-19, 02 Billings, MT -- Invitation to Attend Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Folks, the Montana and Wyoming State Beekeeper's Associations will have a joint meeting next week in Billings, Montana. The meeting will be at the Billings Sheraton. $65/night If you wish to attend, there is a request to register by tomorrow, so that the organizers can confirm numbers for luncheons and banquets. This meeting has a slate of speakers -- Bill Wilson on foulbrood, our work, MT Fish, Wildlife, and Parks -- bear control, professional beekeepers, some new vendors, etc. One new product is a new hanging feeder, designed to prevent bee drownings. FYI, Billings is also the home of the manufacturers and distributors of Bee Scent. The Montana/Wyoming meetings will be comprised mainly of large scale, migratory beekeepers. There are some hobby beekeepers in the Billings areas - but I should mention that these state have associations that have a membership comprised of mostly full-time beekeepers. Thus, the agenda will focus on information for professional beekeepers, discussions of honey prices, how to deal with bears, etc. Don't expect a "how to do it" presentation on basic beekeeping. The Montana State President is Mark Jensen, Powers, MT. If you wish to attend, you can call him at 406-463-2227 (home) or 406-2588 (work). He doesn't have e-mail, but you can contact me - and I'll see that it gets to him or one of the other organizers. Meetings start 1 pm Thursday. Presentations Thursday p.m., all day Friday, luncheon for men and for women's auxilliary on Friday; reception and banquet Friday night. Business meetings and Sue Bee Breakfast on Saturday morning. Dress is very casual for meetings, although people usually dress for the banquet dinner (suit and tie for men -- although they won't kick you out for being casual). There will be a fund raising auction following the evening meal. Dick Molenda, Western Bee, is usually the auctioneer - generally a lively time for all. Oh, kids are welcome at the banquet. Cheers Jerry Maybe we'll see some of you in Montana. Also, mark your long-range calendars. We will host the Western Apiculture Meetings, summer, 2004. Cheers Jerry ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 19:47:37 -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 Karen wrote: Would not this be the usual state of all comb built in top bar hives, where only a starter strip of wax (not foundation) is used? It should be a simple matter to open up a few such hives (if anyone on the list has this type) andphotograph this magical comb arrangement in the center of the box. Assuming of course that this is the "normal" and "preferred" state of comb for "natural" bees, not forced to live on manmade combs. Reply: I have done hundreds of cutouts over the years from confined areas, especially bait hives, and right now I sure wish the season was not about over. As it is I have been watching those I have done since this discussion has begun about swarms in confined areas, which I have already stated to not orientate as those hanging freely. Last night I cut out three, but the openings were to one side for light in baskets. The bees built Y ups facing the small light entrance, and Y down facing away from the small entrance. I haven't found any in my bait hives in the field to look through augmentation with full frontal light, but I sure will this coming season. I have put the word out to ranches for hanging hives to call for removal. but the season is late and known cut down. If I had thought it would have been a problem I sure would have had comb in hand. You just cannot snap you fingers at end of season and get combs. TBHs IMPOV with limited front entrances should position combs like the baskets I would think with one light source. Now one basket did have two small holes, but still towards one side or 25% to one side and the combs instead of centering back from one hole, centered and went back from between the two holes. but wnet back with Y up to openings and Y down facing in. I need to find cavity with light all around and see how combs face, and right now I sure am looking. I know I will have a few to do this coming next season hanging outside.Always do. Rest assured I will be back with the facings on the combs. Until then right now I don't know what to say. All I can say is talk away. In the end it will be seen what is there. Sincerely, Dee A. Lusby __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 22:37:08 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: DONALD M CAMPBELL Subject: Re: FGMO Hi Mark and all, I have been using the method of FGMO fogging described by Dr. Rodriguez. Basically, you fog every other week for about 5 seconds per hive. I'll admit I've not been doing the cords he describes at that frequency- I've been refreshing them at only once a month. A much more detailed account on this fogger business can be found at www.beesource.com . In their "digital dialog" section you will find a discussion group about FGMO. An hour spent there should answer your question much better then I can. Bee happy, Don