From MAILER-DAEMON Sat Feb 28 07:40:31 2009 Return-Path: <> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.8 (2007-02-13) on industrial X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-86.4 required=2.4 tests=ADVANCE_FEE_1,AWL, MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR,SPF_HELO_PASS,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=disabled version=3.1.8 X-Original-To: adamf@METALAB.UNC.EDU Delivered-To: adamf@METALAB.UNC.EDU Received: from listserv.albany.edu (unknown [169.226.1.24]) by metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3632749077 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 n1SCP3sK010167 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 2009 07:28:40 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 07:28:39 -0500 From: "University at Albany LISTSERV Server (14.5)" Subject: File: "BEE-L LOG0212C" To: adamf@METALAB.UNC.EDU Message-ID: Content-Length: 91065 Lines: 2071 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 11:40:17 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dave Cushman Subject: Re: Zone Alarm and AVG virus software MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Carol Not so much beekeeping, but in defence of Allen. I am one who also recommends Zone Alarm and AVG virus software and provide download facilities for them on my website. >From the comparisons I have personally made, I consider them far better that many commercial solutions, I would also include a German antivirus known as 'AntiVir', as a good alternative. I have personally been very disappointed at the performance (or lack of) the big name antivirus products. This is particularly important to a beekeeping discussion group like this where only a few are electronically oriented and unable to conduct the tests for themselves. Best Regards & 73s... Dave Cushman, G8MZY Beekeeping & Bee Breeding Website... http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 07:40:32 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Zone Alarm and AVG virus software MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Carol Palmer wrote: >Very recently the moderator of this list recommended virus protection and a >firewall. Are Zone Alarm and AVG really the best? Is the moderator in a >position to know and authoritatively speak on this subject? > Just about every computer expert will agree that zone alarm (either free version or pro) is the top or next to the top firewall. I use the free version and it is excellent. Anti-virus programs are another matter. I use Norton Anti Virus(combined with Norton System Works for a great package). I use to use MacAfee (many years ago), but it was terrible. Now some reviews have MacAfee over Norton. It is interesting that trials of AV programs will show that few are perfect. But that is against some esoteric viruses. Most will kill the most prevalent bad guys. I would go by ease of use, update frequency, and cost in that order. AVG is fine, so are a bunch of others. So in the AV world, you will get lots of opinion. I have always recommended Norton, because it consistently ranks at the top of all the reviews I have ever read about any AV programs ( and that is over the past seven years). Plus it has the definitive website dealing with viruses. It comes with System Works, so you get an exceptional package. And, if you wait (assuming you already have a AV program installed and updated), it can be bought at steep discounts. Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 05:30:47 +0800 Reply-To: aweinert@tpgi.com.au Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Andrew and Judy Weinert Subject: Heat and AFB is there another way ? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Hello All, Hello All, I have read with interest the option of wax dipping and agree that wax dipping should work. But the fire risk would be great and I don't have enough wax or the gear to wax dip. I cant see Chlorine working too well as the organic matter in the wood would neutralize it almost immediately or the wood will protect the spores. Is there any data on commercial sanitisers such as Quaternery ammonium compounds, Per Acetic acid, etc. Some of these have a longer life than chlorine, and can be more effective against spores. But what is the effect on the bees if it is residual? I know companies like Ecolab, Diversey etc have lists of sanitisers and their effectiveness against specific bacteria, but I am not in contact with them much these days. Any thoughts appreciated. Andrew ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 21:29:47 +0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Kilty Subject: Re: Heat and AFB In-Reply-To: <00a401c2a177$785965a0$68ac58d8@BusyBeeAcres> MIME-Version: 1.0 In message <00a401c2a177$785965a0$68ac58d8@BusyBeeAcres>, Bob Harrison writes >>Reading the information just posted about dipping woodenware in 160 >degree >paraffin for 10-15 minutes as being a treatment for AFB makes >me wonder. > >160 F. will not kill AFB spores. It is 160C? I have found this translation error before when degrees are mentioned in most of the world they are Celsius. Some US writers forget this and presume degrees are Fahrenheit. I have seen a recipe for a beeswax based ointment requiring that the container be sterilised at 40 degrees. This is a two-way translation from 100C to 100F converted back to 40C (near enough). I had a job convincing the person attempting the sterilization that the printed word was incorrect in this instance. -- James Kilty ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 13:23:16 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Todd Subject: Propolis, (was Caucasian bees) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The discussion of Caucasian bees got me thinking - does anyone on the list know, in general, where the bulk of propolis comes from in the Northeast U.S.? I know it's mostly plant resins, but from what major species? Do bees have to manipulate the resins to make it, or does it come straight from the plant? Thanks, Todd. ----- Original Message ----- From: "allen dick" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 10:32 AM Subject: Re: [BEE-L] Caucasian bees > >> I would like to try the caucasian bee, but I have heard that they > >> tend toward excessive propolisation. Would I be sorry (read stupid) > >> if I tried a season with this bee? > > I got about a hundred caucasian packages from a supplier in Claifornia > many years ago. After all these years, and many thousands of hives, I > still remember how calm and pleasant they were. They did propolise a > bit more than some others, but I would very much recommend them for > general hobbyist use. You'll love them if you get good ones. I ca't > remember where I got them, but I think I mentioned the supplier here > somewhere years back. I'll be in the archives. > > Fot that matter, the amount of surplus propolis build-up will depend on > where you keep them. I remember Andy saying that gummed-up hives would > use up all the excess propolis over time after being taken to desert > areas where little or none was to be found. > > allen > http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Diary/ > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 23:15:02 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Chuck Norton Subject: Transfer of Antibiodic Effectiveness from China to Americas and Europe The finding of low levels of chloramphenicol in bulk Chinese honey by the US Customs Service and the US Food and Drug Administration brings about serious questions as to how did this stuff get into Chinese honey and more important why? Is there a serious internal problem in China with American Foulbrood, ABF, and/or other honeybee diseases in China with resistance to Terramycin and other antibiodics that the Chinese have possibly already used to treat their hives? If this condition of resistance does exist and other stronger drugs have become so ineffective that chloramphenicol is necessary to combat ABF and/or other diseases then not only does China have a problem with drug resistance; does the entire worldwide honey industry as well? Honey with AFB spores shipped in bulk to the Americas or Europe with resistance to a myriad of antibiodics, even those now under trial with the FDA and other agencies, can easily be exposed to the environment. Current methods of heating and filtering packed honey can not filter out all the AFB spores; and then there could be the release of raw Chinese honey from a damaged drum that may possibly be picked up by local robbing bees from the grounds of a importer or packer. Simply put an innocent child could feed Chinese honey to the bees on a plate of pancakes and the result could be the introduction of a strain of AFB that has resistance to almost everything! If this senario is valid we need to prepare for and begin combating this problem at its source even at the embarrasment of the Chinese. We already have evidence of Terramycin resistant AFB, we do not need other resistant types. Chuck Norton Reidsville, NC USA ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 08:03:11 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Transfer of Antibiodic Effectiveness from China to Americas and Europe MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Chuck Norton wrote: >If this senario is valid we >need to prepare for and begin combating this problem at its source even at >the embarrasment of the Chinese. We already have evidence of Terramycin >resistant AFB, we do not need other resistant types. > > I am more concerned with human consumption of antibiotics in honey and its impact on the industry. It really does not matter if AFB is resistant or not. I do not want to start up the standard burn or do not burn discussion, but burning works every time, AFB resistance or not. Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 21:10:16 +1100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Rob Rowman Subject: Re: Hot Wax & AFB Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary MIME-Version: 1.0 G'day all A colleague recently wax dipped all his gear to preserve the timber. Saved him a lot of time, money and effort in keeping the paint up. He subsequently picked up AFB in one load. It ended up costing him twice as much to irradiate his hives due to extra weight of waxed boxes. Weight restrictions apply at the irradiation plant. Regards Rob Bowman Windsor NSW ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 11:05:24 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Lloyd Spear Subject: Drawing foundation There was recently some good discussion involving use of drawn frames, and Carol Palmer asked 'what does one do when all that is available is foundation that has not been drawn'? Many years ago I recall frequently wishing that beekeeping commentators would not start 'how-to' discussions as if their audience had been keeping bees for many years, and would instead address how a beginner would best approach the situation. This situation is a prime example of perhaps assuming too much. Clean, light, drawn combs, without disease, are very expensive to produce, and are one of every beekeepers most prized assets. I think they are mostly undervalued. When I was an inspector, there were a few signs that I relied on to tell me the level of expertise and care of the beekeeper. One of those was the condition of the combs in the supers and the brood nest. Invariably, when I found clean, light, well-drawn combs the beekeeper was both knowledgeable and caring. Damaged, dark combs usually (but not always) meant trouble with disease and wax moth and poor honey production. How to produce good combs? There are many ways used by good beekeepers. Most usually settle on one, or possibly two, and become expert at that or those. Some of the methods are: 1.. Use full boxes of foundation (plastic or plain wax) directly above a brood nest during a honey flow. 2.. Same as #1, but put on the box with foundation after the first super of drawn comb is filled. 3.. Have nucs or new swarms draw foundation. 4.. Dedicate certain hives to nothing but drawing foundation and others to production. 5.. Have each hive draw 2-4 frames of foundation by interspersing them in boxes with drawn comb. 6.. Set up two-queen hives and dedicate them to drawing foundation. 7.. Dedicate hives to drawing foundation while being fed. In producing good combs, it is important to have them fully drawn. In my opinion, a partially drawn comb is a comb that must be thrown away, and the energy to produce it was wasted. Only rarely can the bees be persuaded to fill in the cells not originally drawn. Each of the above methods has advantages and disadvantages, and to my way of thinking the method chosen should be the one that will produce near 100% fully drawn combs and very few, if any, combs that are incompletely drawn. Over 30+ years, I have tried all of the above. Each can be successful, and each requires a different level of expertise. For example, #6 can be phenomenally successful, but should only be attempted by beekeepers with several years of experience. Alternative #7 is the easiest for beginners. It is also how I produce several hundred new drawn frames every year, that I use replace the frames I will sell with nucs in the following year, as well as to provide new frames to replace those I throw out. I recommend feeding #55 corn syrup. Many if not most, dealers will sell corn syrup in 60 pound pails. Some will give a discount if a beekeeper purchases enough 60-pound pails to equal a full barrel. I figure that a full pail will be enough to draw 9-10 frames. Carol is in eastern Mass., and I am reasonably certain that Maxant, in Ayers, sells corn syrup. If corn syrup is not available, use 1:1 sugar syrup. Do not attempt to do this with a frame or Boardman feeder. Use a top feeder, and the best on the market is the Styrofoam feeder sold by Betterbee (800-632-3379). If you do not want to buy this (but everyone should) use at least two pail feeders, four quart mason-jar feeders, etc. Keep syrup in the feeders at all times, letting them run out, may (is likely to) lead to combs not fully drawn. If using over-wintered hives, and drawn comb is available, super them normally until just after the start of the major flow (mid-July in this area). If drawn comb is not available, start the following when dandelions bloom and check weekly for swarm cells. If found, destroy them or the hive will swarm and will not draw comb. Just after the start of the major flow, remove any supers and put them on other hives. Replace with a single box of new foundation and a feeder on top. When that is 80%-90% drawn, which should take 1-2 weeks, put on another box above that one, and immediately below the feeder. When the first is 100% drawn, move the 'new' box down so it is immediately above the brood nest. It will take several days less to draw the 2nd box than it did to draw the first. Continue to add boxes, as foundation is fully drawn. I can get 3 full deeps from every hive. Sometimes 4. If you are drawing comb to use in honey production, it is probably best to extract these and keep the 'syrup/honey' for drawing more foundation the next year. If the drawn frames are to be used for brood production, it is best to let the bees keep the drawn frames over the winter, moving them to other hives if necessary. Bees over-winter much better on syrup than on honey! There is lots more detail that could be discussed, but this has been long enough for now. Ask if there are more questions. Lloyd Lloyd Spear, Owner of Ross Rounds, manufacturer of comb honey equipment for beekeepers and Sundance pollen traps. http://www.rossrounds.com Lloyd@rossrounds.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 12:25:44 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Lionel Evans Subject: Re: Hot Wax & AFB MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Do we have any irradiation plants in the US? Lionel North Alabama! ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 14:45:03 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Tim Arheit Subject: Re: Hot Wax & AFB In-Reply-To: <148.55ec47c.2b320998@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 12:25 PM 12/18/02 -0500, you wrote: >Do we have any irradiation plants in the US? I know we have one here in Lima, Ohio as this is where all the mail sent to the White House and Congress was irradiated when they had the anthrax scare. They also process medical waste (sheets, gowns etc.) so that they can be disposed of in normal waste facilities. Apparently it is cheaper than treating it all as hazardous waste. I do not know what they would charge though I have been meaning to find out. One upside of irradiation is that you could cleanse combs without damage. -Tim ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 14:13:53 -0800 Reply-To: lithar@hcis.net Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: AL Subject: Re: Drawing foundation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lloyd Spear wrote: > > There was recently some good discussion involving use of drawn frames, ... > How to produce good combs? > Some of the methods are: ... > 4.. Dedicate certain hives to nothing but drawing foundation and others to > production. ... This is an interesting point and one I experimented with this past summer after discovering one hive doing a better job of production and another hive doing better at building comb. As a matter of fact, the strong production hive drew weird comb patterns and lots of cross comb. The comb building hive drew the most perfect looking cells you could ever hope for but, they weren't interested in filling them. So, I would transfer the near perfect comb to the production hive and give foundation to the comb builders - worked like a charm. I used this technique right up to late fall ending up with both hives well stocked for the winter. AL ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 12:37:57 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dee Lusby Subject: Re: Drawing foundation In-Reply-To: <009d01c2a6af$468b0a00$0e256118@nycap.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi all: Lloyd Spear wrote: 1.. Use full boxes of foundation (plastic or plain wax) directly above a brood nest during a honey flow. 2.. Same as #1, but put on the box with foundation after the first super of drawn comb is filled. Reply: More was posted also, but question: Now explain further for beginners, how this all seperates out with a little more detail, for drawing good uniform brood/pollen combs, vs. drawning honey/drone storage combs and then rotation between the two. Regards, Dee A. Lusby __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 14:38:12 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Ozark Electronics Subject: Re: Overwintering of Apistan Strips MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit What is the recommended application period for CheckMite+ ? I can't find it anywhere on the package. Knox Adler Marthasville, MO On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 12:33:20 +0000 James Kilty writes: >In message <001601c28df2$78d210b0$2ed3ad8e@HAL>, Donald Aitken > writes >>the recommended 42 day application period. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 06:35:10 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "Keith B. Forsyth" Organization: Keith B. Forsyth Subject: Re: Overwintering of Apistan Strips MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is taken from the following site http://www.oda.state.ok.us/main/srvs/agform/checkmite.pdf "Do not treat more than twice a year for varroa mites nor more than four times a year for the small hive beetle. For Varroa Treatment - To control varroa mite, remove honey supers before application of CheckMite+ Strips and do not replace until 14 days after the strips are removed. Use one strip for each five combs of bees in each brood chamber (Langstroth deep frames or equivalent in other sizes). Hang the strips in separate spaces between the combs as near the center of the bee/brood cluster as possible. If two deep brood chambers are used for the brood nest, hang the CheckMite+ Strips in both the top and bottom brood chambers. Treat all infested colonies within the yard. The treatment is most effective when brood rearing is lowest. Effective control may be achieved by treating hives in the spring before the first honey flow and in the fall after the last honey flow. For maximum efficacy leave the strips in the hive for at least 42 days (six weeks). Do not leave the strips in hive for more than 45 days. Do not treat more than twice a year for varroa mites. Honey supers may be replaced 14 days after the strips are removed. For Small Hive Beetle Treatment: To control the small hive beetle, remove honey supers before the application of CheckMite+ Strips and do not replace until 14 days after the strips are removed. Prepare a piece of corrugated cardboard approximately 4x4 inches by removing one side. Remove one CheckMite+ Strip. Cut strip in half crossways and staple the two pieces to the corrugated side of the cardboard. Tape over the smooth side of the cardboard (the side opposite the strips) with duct tape, shipping tape or similar tape to prevent the bees from chewing and removing the cardboard. Or use one sided plastic corrugated sheets. Place cardboard as near the center of the bottom board as possible with the strips down. Make sure the bottom board is clean and the strips lay flat on the bottom board. For maximum efficacy leave the strips in the hive for at least 42 days (six weeks). Do not leave the strips in hive for more than 45 days. Do not treat more than four times per year for the small hive beetle. Honey supers may be replaced 14 days after the strips are removed." ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 06:49:19 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Mike Tooley Subject: Re: Drawing foundation In-Reply-To: <20021218203757.60095.qmail@web12403.mail.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit An old beekeeper told me years ago,that if you had a strong hive and a good flow,foundation was as good as drawn comb.I found this to be true ,but a mistake either way with wax foundation can result in a real mess(combs drawn on warped foundation,or foundation falling out of the frames). By the way,if your wax foundation is just a bit warped at the end of the season,you can salvage it by dipping the whole frame in warm water and patting it flat on a 3/4 inch(embedding) board.(a tip that Roy Thurber wrote in ABJ years ago)I have had to do this on occasion and it works OK. ---Mike ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 10:52:12 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Aaron Morris Subject: Re: Overwintering of Apistan Strips MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" This message was originally submitted by Carolinabeeman@HOTMAIL.COM to the BEE-L list at LISTSERV.ALBANY.EDU. It was edited to remove most of the previously posted material. ----------------- Original message (ID=72542428) (86 lines) ------------------- Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 00:30:24 -0500 From: Chuck Norton Subject: Re: Overwintering of Apistan Strips To: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu, Ozark Electronics On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 14:38:12 -0600, Ozark Electronics wrote: >What is the recommended application period for CheckMite+ ? I am a licensed pesticide dealer in the state of North Carolina and can only tell you what labeling for CheckMite+ applies in my own state of North Carolina, and Virginia and Iowa as I do not have documentation for the state of Missouri. CheckMite+ Bee Hive Pest Control Strip is "For USE ONLY UNDER SECTION 18 AUTHORIZATION". Each state has its own specific labeling requirements as specified by that state, and the labeling has in most cases a one year lifetime. When you purchased your CheckMite+ the company that sold you the CheckMite+ was supposed to enclose within the same package as the product a 4 page Instruction, this is called the "labeled Instruction". I accessed Bayer Corporation's website in the USA and under CheckMite+ found the following: "BAYER Animal Health Division P.O. BOX 390 SHAWNEE MISSION KS 66201-0390 USA Customer Service Tel.: 800-633-3796 Customer Service Fax: 800-344-4219 Website: www.bayer-ah.com The following information is from the most recent U.S.A. product label/insert supplied to us by the Manufacturer/Distributor." "--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----" "CHECKMITE+(tm) Bee Hive Pest Control Strip For Control of Varroa Mites in Honeybee Colonies For Use Only Under Section 18 Authorization For information on the approval status of CheckMite+(tm) Bee Hive Pest Control Strip in your location and for the appropriate label information, please contact Mann Lake, Ltd. at 1-800-233-6663 or 1-800-880-7694 or e-mail beekeepr@mannlakeltd.com" I suggest that you contact Mannlake at any of the above addresses or numbers or by the above e-mail address. By the way for North Carolina, Virginia, and Iowa the period of application is not less than 42 days and not more than 45 days for Varroa mites and the same period applies for treatment of the small hive beetle; however, I strongly urge for you to contact the distributor above or the folks that sold you the CheckMite+ and get that 4 page labeling instruction....it is important and in the USA it is required by Federal law to be in your possession along with the CheckMite+ package at the time of application. Regards, Chuck Norton Reidsville, NC ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 11:45:29 -0500 Reply-To: "jfischer@supercollider.com" Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: Transfer of Antibiodic Effectiveness from China to Americas and Europe MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Chuck Norton said: > how did this stuff get into Chinese honey and more important why? > Is there a serious internal problem in China with American Foulbrood, > ABF, and/or other honeybee diseases in China with resistance to > Terramycin and other antibiodics that the Chinese have possibly already > used to treat their hives? It does not seem reasonable to conclude that chloramphenicol was being used due to resistance. It appears that chloramphenicol was being used in many food processing applications, not just in beekeeping. Therefore, it seems that whoever makes this stuff simply has one heck of a salesman traveling around Asia. Maybe the price was lower than other possible choices. But the contamination did not "suddenly appear" this year. It likely was there all along, for years. Here's why it went undetected for so long - the best that could be done in regard to things like chloramphenicol with the equipment traditionally available was: Gas Chromatograph (GC) 5.0 parts per billion Liquid Chromatograph (HPLC) 1.0 - 2.0 parts per billion Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) 1.0 - 2.0 parts per billion Then, a shiny new toy appeared, allowing detection at even lower levels. Much lower levels. LESS than 1 part per billion. "Liquid Chromatograph/Mass Spectrometer" (LC/MS) can detect things like chloramphenicol at levels down to a "limit of quantitation" (LOQ) of 0.3 ppb, with a "limit of detection" (LOD) of about 0.08 ppb. Those who don't care about "LOD and LOQ" can skip the indented stuff: A "Limit of Detection" of an analytical method is a statistical thing. First, the "critical value" is found where the reading of a "known contaminated" test sample exceeds the reading for a "known clean" sample, using a normal (Gaussian) frequency distribution of zero readings and accounting for probability of error. Once one knows the critical value, the limit of detection (LOD) is defined as where a 50% probability exists of classification of the contaminant as present or not. The limit of quantitation (LOQ) is the minimum quantity which can be determined with both defined probability level (b < 0.01) and acceptable relative uncertainty. The UK and in Europe used this new technique, and found chloramphenicol residues in shrimp and prawns, fish fillets, sausage casings, and honey from China. Chloramphenicol has also been detected in shrimp and prawns from Vietnam and Indonesia, and in shrimp from Myanmar. Residues of another banned drug, nitrofurans, have been detected in shrimp and prawns from Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, India and Bangladesh. Why all the seafood? Seafood processing plants use chemicals to keep bacteria counts down. It appears that they were not paying attention to what they were being sold. The Asian seafood processing plants, when told of the contamination, claimed to not even know what "chloramphenicol" even was, so it could well be that they had no idea what was in the stuff they were buying and using to "keep things clean". Offhand, I believe this. But, is any of this a valid "health risk" to the consumer? Well, a "part per billion" is one part in 1,000,000,000, and "0.3 parts per billion" would be 3 parts in ten billion (10,000,000,000), or one part in 3,333,333,333. It should be pretty clear that these are very tiny amounts, at the absolute edge of man's ability to detect such things. One would have to eat quite a bit of contaminated shrimp and honey (honey-glazed shrimp, anyone?) to even have a valid statistical chance of ingesting a quantity of contamination that might have a tangible effect. But is ANYTHING really "pure" down at the level of "parts per TEN BILLION"? I kinda doubt it. To put these large numbers into perspective: a) There are roughly 6 billion, 262 million (6,262,000,000) people on the planet right now, So the amount of contamination is like saying "2 people of Earth's entire population") b) Our galaxy is estimated to contain roughly 100 billion (100,000,000,000) stars. But we have not counted them all just yet. Not even close. c) Good eyes can see about 3,000 stars on a clear moonless sky far from city lights. Less than you thought, isn't it? But is all the talk about "zero tolerance" a valid consumer-protection and health concern, or is it nothing more than the same old agricultural protectionism, dressed up in the white lab coat of science to make it look more impressive and authoritative? And when the definition of "zero" moves several decimal points to the right, at what point does everyone realize that "zero tolerance" is meaningless when no one can breathe, eat, or live without running into similar levels of "contamination"? And when do the same governments start applying the same level of rigor to air and water pollution that they do to imported food? Will they ever? I'm not holding my breath. I think that anyone who wants to invest in LC/MS gear and learn how to use it could find a basis to ban any/all imported honey from ANYWHERE on the basis of one sort of scary contaminant or another, simply because at the very edge of detection, the statistics start to matter more than the detection ability of the hardware. I suspect that everyone knows by now that under the GATT agreements, such "health concerns" and "biosecurity concerns" are the ONLY effective way to block imports. So the question is "who'll be the next unwitting victim of this technology?" Maybe Europe will start testing honey from the US and Canada next. Maybe they will find the residues from beekeepers washing their hands with anti-bacterial soap before loading the uncapper. jim (who wants a ThermoQuest Surveyor MS Pump and Autosampler, ThermoQuest Finnigan TSQ 7000 with API2, Xcalibur, Version 1.2, Surveyor AS, Version 1.2 SP 1, Surveyor MS pump, Version 1.2, and TSQ MS, Version 1.1 ...for Christmas, 'cause it appears that his pretty little HPLC set-up is destined for the scrap heap.) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 12:50:55 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: CSlade777@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Radiation treatment of AFM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 19/12/02 05:04:36 GMT Standard Time, LISTSERV@LISTSERV.ALBANY.EDU writes: << One upside of irradiation is that you could cleanse combs without damage. >> And how would you tell when the comb is back in the hive whether the AFB scales you are seeing are new or old? Chris ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 09:39:56 +0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Kilty Subject: Re: Blue Orchard Bee In-Reply-To: <3DF206E3.7090204@suscom-maine.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 In message <3DF206E3.7090204@suscom-maine.net>, Bill Truesdell writes >I have a nice mix of honeybees, bumblebees and solitary bees ( as well >as flies) that do a good job of pollinating everything. When Varroa >struck and drove many local beekeepers out of keeping bees, I got many >calls about different "bees" (or "flies"- which often were solitary >bees) that people noticed for the first time, pollinating their flowers >or vegetables. They were so use to seeing honeybees that they totally >missed all the other pollinators. Thank you for a detailed and interesting post on solitary bees. I have been told that strawberry growers here, who use polytunnels, import Dutch bumble bees (not native) at high cost and with a high loss rate. Some beekeepers do provide nuclei, but not all know how to manage them to work the pollen and minimise losses. I have been led to believe it would be worthwhile trying to collect Osmia Rufa, our native red mason bee, which overwinters as an adult and can be introduced at just the right time into a polytunnel. I know nothing about this way of working and have no figures on numbers. I would be grateful if you could point me to sources on these matters so I can begin to encourage staff at the agricultural/horticultural College I do the beekeeping course in to consider working with them. I suspect it would be relatively easy to attract them, overwinter them and organise the breeding so as to redistribute a significant proportion to the wild and keep the genetic diversity by rotation of stock. My main source is the Oxford Bee Company in the UK and I have tracked down some good web sites with information on solitary and bumble bees, but nothing about polytunnels and stocking rates. I do have nesting boxes (tubes in tubes) and intend to distribute them earlier next season. I realise there are large numbers involved in the work you reported, but wondered if the disease problems you mentioned could have arisen because of inbreeding or because of a consistently restricted diet. Thanks again -- James Kilty ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 15:20:52 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Chuck Norton Subject: Re: Heat and AFB is there another way ? Yes, there is another way (to avoid destruction of wax and woodenware); but, it is definitely not a do it yourself type thing. North Carolina and Maryland both offer through their respective state apiary services a treatment for woodenware and drawn comb resulting in the saving of many commercial and hobbyist hives. Treatment is in a special sealed chamber first brought under a vaccum and then pressurized with ethylene oxide,ETO. Samples of scale are cultured pre-treatment and post-treatment to determine the viability of the scale and success of treatment. Chuck Norton Reidsville, NC ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 14:21:47 -0500 Reply-To: "jfischer@supercollider.com" Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Contaminants, parts per million and billion MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit A list member asked me off-list about milligrams versus parts per billion and parts per million, so I guess I should lay this out, since contamination claims are clearly going to become more and more common. The highest number I could find in was from Louisiana's (USA) testing of imported honey from China: "The highest concentration the lab found in the 3 honey samples was 5.46 parts per billion." I should list a few standard conversions for those who think that if God intended us to use the metric system, there would have been 10 Disciples. In my view, if God had wanted us to use the metric system, he would have given us ten fingers. :) A "billion" in science is a "USA-style" billion, 10 to the 9th, so one has 8 zeroes after the decimal point, and then the first digit. So, "5.46 parts per billion" is a fractional value of 0.000000005460 1 gram is 10 to the -3 kilos (There are a thousand grams in a kilo) 1 milligram is 10 to the -6 kilos (There are a million milligrams in a kilo) 1 microgram is 10 to the -9 kilos (There are a billion micrograms in a kilo) 1 milligram is 10 to the -3 grams (There are a thousand milligrams in a gram) 1 microgram is 10 to the -3 milligrams (There are a thousand micrograms in a milligram) As an easy way to remember, "parts per million" is like saying "milligrams per kilo" and "parts per billion" is like saying "micrograms per kilo". (Try to convert this to ounces and pounds, and your calculator may melt.) So, one kilo of honey would contain 5.46 micrograms of the contaminating antibiotic as a worst-case estimate. So, how much honey would I have to eat to get a (completely ineffective) 1 milligram "dose" of the antibiotic if all the honey was equally contaminated at 5.46 ppb? One milligram is 1000 micrograms, so: 1000 / 5.46 = 183.15 kilos of honey would contain 1 milligram that's 403.85 pounds of honey. Just to be silly, if I wanted a 250mg "dose" which is a common dose in pills, I'd need to eat 250 times as much honey, or 45,787 kilos, which would be 100,961 pounds of honey. ...but I have no idea what level of dose over what period of time would be required to increase one's chances of getting aplastic anemia, but I don't think I'd have ANY form of "anemia" if I was eating several hundred pounds of honey a year, would I? And just how does this sort of thing happen? The Chinese Ministry of Agriculture's view is in their critique of the "Draft Report for the Residue control in Live Animals and Animal Products by EC Inspection Mission to China" at http://www.agri.gov.cn/english/e02.htm : In this document it is claimed that an investigation into the contamination of the shrimp and prawns revealed: "The prawn peeling workers had not worn protective gloves in the past, causing itchy symptoms on their hands, so some of the workers used chloromycetin (chloramphenicol) to treat their hands in order to avoid the itching, and as a result, the prawns were polluted." But they don't explain anything about the honey. I guess the bottom line is that antibiotics that should not be used at all outside of human medicine have no business showing up at any level in food, but it is important to see how tiny the amount of a "parts per million" or "parts per billion" contamination really is. But I WASN'T kidding about washing your hands with anti-bacterial soap before loading the uncapper. Not one little bit. Back to plain old Dial and Lava soaps in the honey room. (Lava gets off the propolis better than anything else I have tried.) The best example of a conversion challenge I have ever seen was in a British description of heat loss through an insulating barrier: BThU/hour/sq ft/cm/degree F ... which makes my head hurt. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 11:19:11 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Selkie Lass Subject: Re: Burlap test Comments: cc: mlathan@PACCAR.COM In-Reply-To: <200212091741.gB9HFC3D015816@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Just burn a small piece of it on a bit of tin foil. Snuff out the flames after it has burned a bit. Cellulosic fibers, like Jute, Hemp, Cootn and linen will leave behind only a papery ash and soft charcoal. Rayon burns similarly, but smells like vinegar. Synthetic fibers tend to leave behind a hard black plasticy residue. Wool and silk leave behind a hard cinder like residue that can be easily crushed between the fingers, These usually smell like burning hair. I would be more worried about pesticide residues in the Burlap than synthetic fibers. Pesticide residues can wipe out a whole hive, from what I hear. Syntheic baggig is usually easily identified as such- it has the texture of a blue tarp. I have not encountered blended fiber contents in sacking. Ellen Milt Lathan wrote:Didn't I see a test here for determining whether burlap has plastic in it? A coffee processor just moved into my neighborhood and they just throw them away. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 09:05:48 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: Re: Transfer of Antibiodic Effectiveness from China to Americas and Europe MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Chuck & All, Chuck has asked excellent questions but we need to look at the way beekeeping is run in China (very different from the U.S. & U.K.)and then we can see the how & why of the situation. Chuck wrote: > The finding of low levels of chloramphenicol in bulk Chinese honey by > the US Customs Service and the US Food and Drug Administration brings about serious questions as to how did this stuff get into Chinese honey and more important why? how: All beekeeping in China is owned by the government and all drugs are supplied by the government and beekeepers are told to use the drugs given by the government. Three of my friends took the China beekeeping tour about 10 or so years ago and explained the above as explained to those beekeepers. My opinion: My opinion is that when looking for a cheap cure for a antibiotc treatable disease in China's bee population Chloramphenicol was tried and possibly was effective ( most likely was). Chloramphenicol sits in pharmacies all over the U.S. with very little application by our doctors because of dangerous human side effects and is outlawed for use in food animals. What better way to reduce stocks of Chloramphenicol than finding a livestock application. Possibly Chloramphenicol is cheaper to produce in China than Terramycin? I DOUBT THE ANTIBIOTIC WOULD HAVE BEEN FOUND IF THE AUTHORITIES HAD NOT BEEN LOOKING FOR ANOTHER CONTAMINATION. *How long have the Chinese been using Chloramphenicol to treat the China bees?* > Is there a serious internal problem in China with American Foulbrood, >ABF, and/or other honeybee diseases in China with resistance to >Terramycin and other antibiodics that the Chinese have possibly >already used to treat their hives? There are other better antibiotic choices and the Chinese are aware of those. I believe you are looking too deeply into the situation Chuck *but* one can't rule out your scenario as not being the case. Because of new testing methods any chemical used in the beehive can be found if wanted. The testing is expensive but many packers are pressing for better testing (to mainly protect their operations ). As usual the packers want the foreign honey to come into the U.S. with testing already done by an independent lab. Why not let the foreign shipper/beekeeper pay for the testing? > Current methods of heating and filtering packed honey can not filter >out all the AFB spores; and then there could be the release of raw >Chinese honey from a damaged drum that may possibly be picked up >by local robbing bees from the grounds of a importer or packer AFB brought into the U.S. by the method suggested by Chuck above has been going on since the first foreign honey was imported. Many commercial beekeepers and others buy the foreign honey drums (as most foreign honey is sold with the drums) and some let their bees rob out the amount of foreign honey left in the drum before washing . . Bob ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 18:08:45 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Arne Haugaard Subject: terramycin MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Have I misunderstood something completely with regard to Terramycin, how is it American Bee Journal recomends this as a mean for treating AFB = ? Please se attached links. http://www.ent.uga.edu/bees/Disorders/Terramycin.htm http://www.pfizer.com/ah/livestock/pork/SubCategory.asp-CategoryID=3D1000= 0042.htm Best regards Arnie ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 13:50:16 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Janet Montgomery Subject: Re: Burlap test MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Be careful where you get your burlap! I got some from a friend who said he had some that had weathered behind his barn for a year. It looked OK to me so I used it on two hives for smoker fuel. After a week I started to see some dead bees in front of the hive, so of course, I fired up the smoker to take a look what might be wrong.-- a pesticide kill? Well this finished off the colonies. When I questioned my friend in depth, he said that his son had dumped the burlap with the other poly feed sacks in back of the barn. It seems that the burlap I used was used to ball and burlap nursery plants and undoable was treated with copper naphthlate preservative. I then took some of the left over and placed it on a small fire-alas, I got a nice blue flame which is characteristic of copper. I now stick to natural materials or old denim. Dan Veilleux Vilas, NC ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 15:51:05 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Contaminants, parts per million and billion MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit James Fischer wrote: >A list member asked me off-list about milligrams versus parts >per billion and parts per million, so I guess I should lay this >out, since contamination claims are clearly going to become more >and more common. > Interesting, but any discussion about ppm or ppb has to get back to what happens to it in the wild. The food chain tends to concentrate so you can start with ppb go to ppm and soon come to amounts that are of concern. Anther problem is how the small amounts are treated by the body. Are they in and out or are they tied up and concentrated with each ingestion. There are many such compounds that in the moment are harmless but in the aggregate might not. So even ppb, over time, may be a problem. >I should list a few standard conversions for those who think that if God >intended us to use the metric system, there would have been 10 Disciples. >In my view, if God had wanted us to use the metric system, he would have >given us ten fingers. :) > Eight fingers (and two thumbs) so we should be in octal (base 8 which is a valid and used counting system- mostly used by assembly language programmers - eight bits per byte- as a way to shift from binary to decimal). Bees, of course, are binary ( base 2). Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 16:34:33 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Tim Vaughan Subject: Re: terramycin Arne wrote "Have I misunderstood something completely with regard to Terramycin, how is it American Bee Journal recomends this as a mean for treating AFB ?" No, you haven't misunderstood. That's what most of us have been using for several decades. In many areas, beekeeping would be extreemly difficult without it when using European strains of bees. There have been isolated reports of resistance, but for most of us who use it, it still works fine. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 14:18:41 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: allen dick Subject: Re: Contaminants, parts per million and billion MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > "The highest concentration the lab found in the > 3 honey samples was 5.46 parts per billion." We're discussing chloramphenicol, but consider this: Right now, as I understand this, the concentration of imidacloprid below which no harm to bees is proven is considered to be about 20 ppb and beekeepers want to reduce this to 6 or so. What we have to ask ourselves is this: if -- as many maintain -- 6 ppb of imidacloprid (or 20 ppb) is harmful to known organisms, then is 5.46 ppb of another man-made molecule necessarily a harmless amount? Of course the two substances are not comparable in many (most)? aspects, but AFAIK, neither occurs in nature. allen ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 16:59:04 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Tim Arheit Subject: Re: Radiation treatment of AFM In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 12:50 PM 12/20/02 -0500, you wrote: >And how would you tell when the comb is back in the hive whether the AFB >scales you are seeing are new or old? I doubt you could tell with this treatment or any that leaves the comb intact like the just mentioned ethylene oxide method. -Tim ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 17:34:03 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: allen dick Subject: Re: Radiation treatment of AFM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> And how would you tell when the comb is back in the hive whether the AFB scales you are seeing are new or old? > > I doubt you could tell with this treatment or any that leaves the comb intact like the just mentioned ethylene oxide method. Very good point. There are some management schemes where this presents much less of a problem, such as those where medication is used routinely to forestall outbreaks, but nonetheless, finding scale under such circumstances can present a quandary. Active AFB may, indeed be a threat in the case of a botched treatment -- or a renfection. Since visible scale will no longer be considered a definitive indicator of the presence of active AFB after such treatment, added vigilence -- and some logic -- becomes necessary in the search for and identify active disease in the first year after treatment. After a year, most scale will be removed by bees, if it is properly managed, and located where the bees will work on it in a reasonably strong hive of healthy bees. After that, new sightings of scale will again become more meaningful. Also, scale changes appearance over a period of time in a hive, and, with some practice, old scale should be identifiable. Immediately after the treatment, though, the situation can be confusing if the beekeeper does not know what is in his hives and also has not marked the frames that have been treated by fumigation or radiation before inserting them into random hives, and particularly where the beekeeper considers any bit of scale -- in total absence of any active disease -- a cause for panic or a bonfire, rather than something to ponder. Suffice it to say that after treatment with either ETO or radiation, the criteria for declaring an AFB outbreak will be different. Simply seeing verifyable AFB scale will not be enough. Active disease and/or a high active spore count become the indicators of reinfection. Fortunately -- from reports I've heard, radiation -- done properly -- is as close to 100% effective as possible. I personally -- decades back -- found ETO to be much less reliable, possibly due to my own management at the time. As a footnote: Kim mentioned to me some time back that in the case of particle radiation (as opposed to electron beam radiation (what exactly is the difference, Jim? -- I though all radiation could be treated as either)) -- brood boxes deteriorate after several trips through the device. After several trips, the wood gets soft and the nails fall out. I've asked the guys who use electon beam and they say they don't see any ill effects. As always, we have a problem when discussing these sorts of topics here on BEE-L, in that we are a very diverse group, with idealists tyros, and dilettantes side by side with large scale practical beekeepers, extension people and researchers -- plus others with long-term experience located all around the world. People who see and deal with AFB on a daily basis are conversing with people who have to try hard to imagine what the disease even looks like. As a result, we are wide open for all kinds of misunderstanding due to extremely varied expectations, experience, standards, practices, climates, jurisdictions, and locales. No one answer is going to satisfy everyone. It is interesting to see the different perspectives. I know mine has changed a bit with time, and with exposure to ideas from around the world. allen ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 21:03:42 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: GImasterBK@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Burlap test MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dan, Don't you have plenty of natural pine trees in NC? I have used only brown, fallen pine needles for years as smoker fuel, and I think it the best fuel you can possibly use. Not only is it a real COOL smoke, but pine needles are so easy to light in your smoker. Just pack them TIGHT, like a gallon bucket of loose needles packed into one smoker; and that is smoke enough to do several colonies or last a couple of hours. You might need to work off some of those Christmas calories, so go out into the woods and gather up several big garage bags of dried pine needles. Have a nice holiday. George Imirie Certified EAS Master Beekeeper Ending my 70th year of beekeeping near Washington DC Author of George's PINK PAGES at www.beekeeper.org/george_imirie/index.html Author of Hobbyist Tips in the ABF bi-monthly Newsletter ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 22:06:57 -0500 Reply-To: "jfischer@supercollider.com" Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: Contaminants, parts per million and billion MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bill Truesdell said: > any discussion about ppm or ppb has to get back to what > happens to it in the wild. The food chain tends to concentrate > so you can start with ppb go to ppm and soon come to amounts > that are of concern. Very true, but I was focusing on contaminants in honey. I am at the top of the local food chain, but I can understand that people who live in Maine face additional challenges (large bears, giant lobsters, crazed moose, visiting Quebecois drivers) that may make them feel more like "prey". Of course, ministers should be extra careful, since they are always "easy pray". Allen Dick said: > Right now, as I understand this, the concentration of imidacloprid below > which no harm to bees is proven is considered to be about 20 ppb and > beekeepers want to reduce this to 6 or so. I'm not sure anyone really knows just how little imidacloprid will have negative effects on bees. From what our counterparts in France say, even plants grown from seeds that were treated with imidacloprid killed bees. I don't know how to do the math for this, but it has to be smaller than 20 ppb, I'd bet money that a French beekeeper would take issue with 6 ppb. Regardless of the current state of the science, it would appear that the US Courts will soon rule on the question, which may have a ripple affect on worldwide marketing of the stuff. > What we have to ask ourselves is this: if -- as many maintain -- 6 ppb > of imidacloprid (or 20 ppb) is harmful to known organisms, then is 5.46 > ppb of another man-made molecule necessarily a harmless amount? If one considers how much honey and/or shrimp one might eat, and assumes that all of it were contaminated with chloramphenicol (and nothing else) at the level of 5.46 ppb, what percentage of one's TOTAL diet would this be? For the average person, who does not eat much shrimp or honey, it would be infinitesimal. So for the specific case of chloramphenicol in honey, I'd say the best approach to dealing with the problem would be buckle your seatbelts, check your tire pressure, look both ways before crossing the street, and treat all guns as "loaded" at all times. :) But that does not mean that I think that the honey should have been let in to any importing country. I think it should have been destroyed on the spot. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 21:34:53 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: GImasterBK@AOL.COM Subject: Re: terramycin MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Arne, Unfortunately, too many people are of the opinion that Terramycin KILLS AFB disease, which of course, is TOTALLY FALSE. Terramycin only masks (hides) the disease and prevents the death of the bee as long as the colony receives 2-3 treatments of Terra. every year. However, the bees are still infected with the AFB disease. A great almost identical situation among humans is the use of insulin to control Type 1 diabetes. A diabetic may live to a "ripe old age" and do great things during their life span provided they get their shot of insulin EACH DAY and never miss. However, if they stop taking their insulin, they are soon dead, because the insulin only "controlled" the diabetic symptoms, but does not CURE diabetes. I hope I have helped. George Imirie Certified EAS Master Beekeeper Ending my 70th year of beekeeping near Washington DC ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 22:12:52 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: Re: Burlap test MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I have used only brown, fallen pine needles for years as smoker fuel, >and I think it the best fuel you can possibly use. One drawback with pine needles is the way the smell of pine needle smoke stays in clothing. You smell like you have been in a forest fire. Excellent smoker fuel otherwise. Bob ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 23:47:16 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Judy & Dave Gaida Subject: SCREENED BOTTOM BOARDS MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Beekeeper Friends Today we received in the mail a letter that other beekeepers in our area are talking about. Apparently, a local (I am so sad to say) beekeeper has 'patented' the screened bottom board. This guy was going on and on about the board a couple years ago, and my Dave bought one from him mostly to shut him up. It is still in the bee shed, never been used. Well, this beekeeper tells us in this letter that only the patent holder can profit from the screened bottom board design. At a meeting months ago one of the other beekeepers made a joke that he would just make some and not tell the patent owner. Well that guy got a letter from the patent owner's attorney telling him that he had better not copy the board design, or he would be in deep legal doo-dah. Others, who are closer to this beekeeper, have told of stories of suing all the bee supply companies for a share of their screened bottom board sales. Most of us have really been hoping that this was a joke. Not. Apparently the patent was granted on 10/22/02. Never ceases to amaze me the volume of odd people we meet in this beekeeping business. Judy (Embarrassed to be from Kentucky, USA) (Many Ohio beekeepers will also know this gentleman.) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 21:45:38 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Inger Lamb Subject: Bee article in Proc. Nat'l Acad Science MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit from the Environment News Service: http://ens-news.com/ Industrial Farming Causes Trouble for Bees PRINCETON, New Jersey, December 20, 2002 (ENS) - Intensive, industrial scale farming may be damaging one of the very natural resources that successful crops require: pollinating bees. A study by scientists at Princeton University found that native bee populations plummet as agricultural intensity goes up. In farms studied in and around the Sacramento Valley in California, concentrated farming appeared to reduce bee populations by eliminating natural habitats and poisoning them with pesticides, the researchers reported. U.S. farmers may not have noticed this effect because they achieve much of their harvests with the help of imported bees rented from beekeepers. These rented bees, however, are in decline because of disease and heavy pesticide use. The study, to be published this week in an online edition of the "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences," found that native bees are capable of doing a lot more pollinating than previously believed. But it would take careful land use to take advantage of that capacity, the researchers concluded, because current high density, pesticide dependent agriculture cannot support native bees. "This is a valuable service that we may actually be destroying through our own land management practices," said Princeton ecologist Claire Kremen, who co-wrote the study with Neal Williams, a postdoctoral researcher, and Robbin Thorp of the University of California-Davis. Suppressing the many species of native bees and relying on just a few species of imported ones may be risky, said Kremen. Farmers who use managed bee populations - that is, most commercial farmers - depend on fewer than 11 species out of the 20,000 to 30,000 bee species worldwide. Other researchers have estimated that $5 billion to $14 billion worth of U.S. crops are pollinated by a single species of bee, the European honey bee. "Right now we are really very dependent on that species," said Kremen. "If something happened to that species and we haven't developed other avenues, we could really be in great difficulty." The researchers spent two years examining watermelon farms located at varying distances from oak woodlands and chaparral habitats that are native to the Sacramento Valley. They also looked at land that was farmed with pesticides and without pesticides. They focused on watermelon because it requires a lot of pollen and multiple bee visits to produce marketable fruit. They found that native bee visits dropped off in the farms that were distant from natural habitats and that used pesticides. "We could then multiply the number of visits by the number of [pollen] grains deposited per visit and sum that up for all the species and figure out how much pollen the watermelon plants were receiving," said Kremen. "We found that, where it still flourished, the native bee community could be sufficient to provide the pollination service for the watermelon." One interesting finding, said Kremen, was that the mix of native bees providing the pollination was very different in the two years of the study. In one year, a few strong pollinators accounted for most of it, while in the other, many species contributed. "That says something about the need for long term studies and also argues for the need to maintain diversity," said Kremen. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 09:02:41 +1000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: T & M Weatherhead Subject: Re: Radiation treatment of AFB MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Chris wrote > And how would you tell when the comb is back in the hive whether the AFB > scales you are seeing are new or old? The recommendation here in Australia, where irradiation of AFB infected material is very common, is to burn brood combs and only irradiate empty honey combs. This then overcomes the problem that Chris has alluded to. Combs that have not been extracted cannot be irradiated as the honey "explodes" and when sending honey for irradiation, the container can only be two-thirds filled otherwise it also "explodes". In case someone asks, we use irradiated honey for queen candy. Trevor Weatherhead AUSTRALIA ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 23:58:46 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: Re: SCREENED BOTTOM BOARDS MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Judy & All, > Apparently, a local (I am so sad to say) beekeeper has 'patented' the >screened bottom board. The original Langstroth patent contained both a solid and a screened bottom board (not a full floor screen) so actually your beekeeper is a tad late. > Well, this beekeeper tells us in this letter that only the patent holder can >profit from the screened bottom board design. Make your own! Easy to make and then not a problem or run out and buy up all the bee supply dealers stock and let the patent owner take it up with the bee supply house!. I will ask my lawyer brother next time we talk but people had to wait years for the Dyce method of making creamed honey patent to run out before *making and selling creamed honey by the Dyce method*. Making creamed honey by the Dyce method not for sale was never a problem however. > At a meeting months ago one of the other beekeepers made a joke that >he would just make some and not tell the patent owner. Well that guy >got a letter from the patent owner's attorney telling him that he had better not copy the board design, or he would be in deep legal doo-dah. As long as the other beekeeper is not selling the screened bottom board he is not in patent violation to my knowledge. I could be wrong and should know for sure after talking to my brother (lawyer). Interesting post Judy! Bob Ps. I believe the big winner (money wise) will be the patent owners lawyer. I am sure the letter sent to Judy was not free of charge! ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 00:24:52 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: allen dick Subject: Re: Contaminants, parts per million and billion MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I'm not sure anyone really knows just how little imidacloprid will > have negative effects on bees. That is precisely the point. Now that we can detect what were unimaginably small amounts of substances only a decade ago, we are starting to realise that even a few stray molecules of some things can have very significant efffects. > From what our counterparts in France > say, even plants grown from seeds that were treated with imidacloprid > killed bees. I don't know how to do the math for this, but it has to > be smaller than 20 ppb, I'd bet money that a French beekeeper would > take issue with 6 ppb. Actually, it *was* a French beekeeper who was suggesting 6 ppb a few years back, in the face of strong resistance, but I suspect that even that tiny amount may prove to be huge when the compound is fully understood. The question of concentration in flesh of toxins due to passage up a food chain or concentration in water due to evaporation is meaningful, but perhaps an understanding that places emphasis on concentration, rather than the basic nature of the substance in question may detract us from possible trigger-type, key-like or catalytic action mechanisms that may be less dependant on concentration that on the shape and other characteristics of the molecule. Conceivably there could be substances for which zero tolerance must actually mean zero -- ie. not one molecule! I'm not seriously suggesting that the substances currently under discussion here are, in fact, such compounds, but then again... what do we really know? allen ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 08:20:28 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Bee article in Proc. Nat'l Acad Science MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Inger Lamb wrote: >from the Environment News Service: > >http://ens-news.com/ > >Industrial Farming Causes Trouble for Bees > >PRINCETON, New Jersey, December 20, 2002 (ENS) - Intensive, industrial >scale farming may be damaging one of the very natural resources that >successful crops require: pollinating bees. > > This has been studied before with the same conclusions. I wonder if they ever did a search of the literature. The older findings included suggestions to leave weeds and other "islands" of native vegetation to support local pollinators. Science, unfortunately, continually reinvents the wheel. Publish or Perish. But this could also be more for propaganda purposes than new Science. Nothing new there either. Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 08:32:58 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: SCREENED BOTTOM BOARDS MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Judy & Dave Gaida wrote: >Hello Beekeeper Friends > >Today we received in the mail a letter that other beekeepers in our area are talking about. > >Apparently, a local (I am so sad to say) beekeeper has 'patented' the screened bottom board. This guy was going on and on about the board a couple years ago, and my Dave bought one from him mostly to shut him up. It is still in the bee shed, never been used. Well, this beekeeper tells us in this letter that only the patent holder can profit from the screened bottom board design. > > If the beekeeper is claiming benefits from the SBB, such as Varroa control, they are opening themselves to damages if colonies still die from Varroa, as they will since it has been well established that they are not effective against Varroa. A patent can be a double edged sword, because you also are a target. Would be interesting to read the patent application and what is claimed. Great fun in a Small Claims court. Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 11:32:00 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Janet Montgomery Subject: Re: Burlap test MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Right on, with the pine needles in some areas. I also use large wood shavings that do not contain any walnut with good success. As a small hobbyist, one of my favorite smoker materials is the berry clusters from sumac. Be careful that you only collect these that have upright red /brown berries as there is also a poison sumac with hanging white/gray berries. They light easy and seem to have a increased calming effect over regular smoker fuels. Their downside is they are rather bulky require refueling after several hives. A smoker fuel discussion could go of for ever and it was not my intent , only to warn about burlap Thanks Dan Veilleux Vilas, NC ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 11:57:25 -0500 Reply-To: "jfischer@supercollider.com" Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: Radiation treatment of AFM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Allen Dick said: > in the case of particle radiation (as opposed to electron beam > radiation (what exactly is the difference, Jim? In a word, "mass". > -- I though all radiation could be treated as either)) -- Nope, it makes a BIG difference depending on what one accelerates. As a general rule, more mass means more "damage", which makes sense when you consider the relative effects of 22 caliber rounds, .308 Winchester rounds, 9mm rounds, and 45 caliber rounds on a soda can. Muzzle velocity differences matter little here. Going from least damaging to most, we have all sorts of "particles" that our woodenware encounters: Neutrinos - These things have either "no mass", or such a tiny mass that it would make your head spin. Since they are so lightweight, such particles can (and DO) go right through your head, apparently without damaging a single neuron. Don't worry about this, as there is nothing you can do about it, and they have been whizzing through everything forever. The name always makes me smile ("Neutrinos - the breakfast of physicists") Photons - These things also are said to have "no mass", but many folks guess that they weigh one 0.00000000000000000000039th of what an electron does. Photons are light itself, nothing more. Harmless. They bounce off just about anything, and even the best glass makes them take screeching turns at sharp angles. (One is forced to wonder why Star Trek characters kept firing "photon torpedoes" at the Klingons. Don't ask me.) Photons are supposed to be the fastest particle around - they move at, surprisingly, "the speed of light". Alpha Particles - These things are bigger, but still very tiny (6 x 10 to the -27 kg) and are another unavoidable thing, harmless to life. These things caused all sorts of problems for memory chips back in the late 1970s, until Motorola figured out that the glue-on tops for ceramic memory chips needed overlap the edges of the openings more. Alpha particle "storms" can still turn million-dollar satellites into space junk, and have lobotomized more than one router under our care and feeding in the past decade (at least that is what Cisco said in their post-mortem reports). All of the above are clearly useless to a beekeeper with AFB problems. Electrons - These are the lightest common particle that one can cheaply isolate, and they clearly will do "less damage" than neutrons or protons. E-Beam >>>WILL<<< kill bacteria, like AFB, but it will just as quickly kill bees, eggs, larvae, seeds, whatever. E-beam is NOT harmless. Everything Else - Anything else is MUCH more massive than an electron, and can kill people in short order. The effect on wood is simply a scaled-down version of what would happen if you started shooting bullets at a sheet of plywood. At some point, the wood turns into "swiss cheese", and falls apart under its own weight. > brood boxes deteriorate after several trips through the device. > After several trips, the wood gets soft and the nails fall out. Any microscope should be able to see the difference after several trips through a non-E-Beam beam. The 1,000x lens ought to do. Instant "dry rot" of a sort. > I've asked the guys who use electron beam and they say they > don't see any ill effects. Well, a neutron is about 1837 times as massive as an electron, so it would be more than a thousand times "more damaging" at equal velocity. Since a single trip through a "heavy-particle beam" does not seem to hurt woodenware, E-beam should be good for several lifetimes of even monthly treatments. But I continue to promote a much simpler, cheaper tool for AFB-infected woodenware - a Bic lighter. :) Years ago, I was helping my eldest son with his schoolwork, and the following was said in regard to photons: Me: "OK, you have E=hv .... so what's 'h'"? Max: "Planck's Constant". Me: "Right... and what's 'v'?" Max: "The length of the plank?" ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 12:31:52 -0500 Reply-To: "jfischer@supercollider.com" Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: SCREENED BOTTOM BOARDS MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Everyone should calm down, and READ the patent before getting angry. Not to worry, all this fellow has "patented" is a specific VERSION of a screened bottom board, one that: a) Is also a base for the hive as a whole b) Has "entrances" cut into a solid front surface Its is patent number 6,468,129 Go here, and type in the patent number to see the text. Click on "images" when the text comes up to see the sketches. http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/srchnum.htm This fellow has NO ability to sue anyone who makes or sells ANYTHING that looks like the usual screened bottom board. The fellow also appears to have no right to royalties from anyone, since I have yet to see such a bulky version of a screened bottom board. I'd be surprised if anyone views this as an "improvement", since the usual (3-sided, two-inch tall) type goes right onto a standard bottom board that has been turned "backwards", or a pallet. The patent application clearly identifies this more common type of screened bottom board as "prior art", and therefore, does not make any claims about the defacto-standard version. But, this fellow has EVERY right to patent his SPECIFIC version of a screened bottom board, and should not be viewed as trying to pull a "fast one" on the USPTO or anyone else. And he has EVERY right to expect friendly treatment from his fellow beekeepers. If he is stupid enough to try and extract money from woodenware vendors, he will fail, and will fail at the first step in the process. Likely, his own lawyer would advise him that he had no claim against them. jim (who's biggest source of income is "intellectual property") ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 19:04:37 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "Frank I. Reiter" Subject: Re: SCREENED BOTTOM BOARDS In-Reply-To: <20021221044717.XVIR13938.smtp02.fuse.net@smtp.fuse.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Others, who are closer to this beekeeper, have told of stories of > suing all the bee supply companies for a share of their screened > bottom board sales. Most of us have really been hoping that this > was a joke. Not. Apparently the patent was granted on 10/22/02. I am not a lawyer, but I understand that patents are invalid where there is "Prior art" - in other words, where the design has been used previously. Since many people have used screened bottom boards before 10/22/02, a patent granted on that day for the use of screened bottom boards will not stand up if contested. It may still be possible to patent a particular design for screened bottom boards, if that design is new and innovative. No doubt there is a lawyer or two on the list who can validate or correct what I have said. 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: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 20:54:38 +1000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: T & M Weatherhead Subject: Re: Radiation treatment of AFB MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jim wrote > But I continue to promote a much simpler, cheaper tool for AFB-infected woodenware - > > a Bic lighter. :) I disagree with this especially here for Australia. We can get three supers with combs, a bottom board, a lid and an excluder irradiated for A$30, which includes transport costs to and from the irradiation facility. When you look at the material used to replace the above, it comes to around A$140 and that does not include labour to put it together, copper naphthenate to treat the woodware, and paint for the woodware. You then have to get the foundation drawn as well. The only rider I would put on is if the beekeeping equipment has reached its "use by" date and is not worth salvaging. Then let the redheads dance. Trevor Weatherhead AUSTRALIA ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 17:38:22 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dennis Murrell Subject: Re: SCREENED BOTTOM BOARDS MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Everyone, Obtaining patents for bee equipment has a sad history. Almost no one that has gone that route has made much money. It seems a sure way to ensure the death of the product. Patenting the screened bottom board reminds me of a time when a computer company thought they owned the number "2" expecially if it was blue. They didn't make much money on the issue but probably spent plenty. :>) Dennis