From MAILER-DAEMON Sat Feb 28 10:53:03 2009 Return-Path: <> X-Original-To: adamf@IBIBLIO.ORG Delivered-To: adamf@IBIBLIO.ORG Received: from listserv.albany.edu (unknown [169.226.1.24]) by metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10088482FA for ; Sat, 28 Feb 2009 10:52:19 -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 n1SFhrpQ016524 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 2009 10:52:18 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 10:52:16 -0500 From: "University at Albany LISTSERV Server (14.5)" Subject: File: "BEE-L LOG0702C" To: adamf@IBIBLIO.ORG Message-ID: Content-Length: 258355 Lines: 6161 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 20:16:21 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: randy oliver Organization: Randy Oliver Subject: Re: CCD on CBS - tonight, 2/13 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > At some point the writer says: Sucrose is made of Glucose and fructose. Sucrose is a disaccharide that can be split into glucose and fructose. Randy Oliver -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 21:55:41 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: Re: CCD on CBS - tonight, 2/13 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Dick & All, >At some point the writer says: Sucrose is made of Glucose and fructose. Do any of you have trouble with this statement? Not at all but the answer is both simple and complicated. Here is the lab breakdown for HFCS from Weslaco: SUGAR mg/ml .Sucrose 25.2 Glucose 339.6 fructose 466.1 stachyose 8.3 (toxic to bees) rafinase 5.2 (toxic to bees) Bob -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 20:40:08 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: randy oliver Organization: Randy Oliver Subject: Re: stealth small cell--I measured some MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dee wrote: Randy is right in that the plastic appears to be 5.0mm sizing, Thanks, Dee. I have been a General Contractor for 25 years and have finely honed my skills at reading a ruler : ) I do, nowadays, require my reading glasses, though. I'm still curious about the foulbrood difference. I understand that you and Ed had foulbrood problems at 5.0. Could that have possibly been a temporal thing unrelated to the cell size? Have you tried inserting frames of 5.0 back into the middle of a 4.9 colony to see if the 5.0's get foulbrood? Perhaps you've detailed this somewhere. If so, I apologize. I'm still open-minded about small cell--just want to know the facts. Randy -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 22:19:39 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: Re: Bobs HFCS comments(+ Bill truesdale) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello John & All, Thanks for the vote of confidence! John asks: What kind of life span difference are we talking about here-days , weeks..? The HFCS bees started dying at 6 days ( in both the 1974 & 2006 USDA-ARS tests). The HFCS bees continued to die at a greater rate than the sucrose fed bees until the end around day 29. The hypothesis for the greater longevity with the sucrose bees is the toxic sugars stachyose & rafinase in HFCS and/ or the chemical properties of fructose >I am feeding HFCS, so this is really more than academic for me. I have been feeding exclusively HFCS for over a decade. I am certainly not going to run the HFCS I have got on hand down the drain. I have seen enough of Dr. Pamela Gregory's tests to consider switching to a sucrose syrup ( like Dakota Gunness is selling). Sucrose syrup only contains sucrose. In fact when tested by Weslaco the 50% sucrose syrup contained 492.0 mg/ml sucrose and no other sugars. No stachyose or Rafinase See earlier post to my friend Dick M. for the Weslaco breakdown for HFCS. Its late and I have had a busy week so did not put the whole graph in post. I was surprised at the number of California beekeepers at the ABF convention which said . HFCS is poor bee feed so we do not buy HFCS. I also noted that those guys were not having any CCD problems. I am not laying all the blame on HFCS because maybe only a small part of the whole picture but caught my interest enough to drive clear to the Mexican border to learn about the Weslaco research. Also stachyose & rafinase in the most used pollen substitute on the market but that news was part of her second presentation . Bob -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 23:14:45 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter Dillon Subject: Re: HFCS and CCD In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jerry, You mention the possible occurrence of colony losses here in Canada. Question: Are these being verified as accurate reports? National boundaries are "non items" to bees, hence production of maps indicating reporting areas are biased if information from adjacent countries is not being incorporated. Maps are pretty but may help in the drawing of false conclusions. More to the point: Are the relevant people being questioned in Canada and Mexico? Is there any international co-ordination of investigation protocol? If I may suggest that it would be useful to have areas (read countries) that are at present "untouched" by the problem primed to report cases if they occur - this allowing for the development pattern to be traced as it occurs. This has not been possible I presume in US since the problem has only been pickup and studied after the situation became acute. I direct my queries to you since you seem to have taken on the role of spokesperson for the US investigative efforts. I have many other questions to ask but realize that is not the place to do so. Thank you for your time, Regards, Peter -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 22:57:52 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: Re: HFCS and CCD MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Jerry & All, I have not looked at the CCD report simply because I have been very busy (but I will). The first part of the week we went into Kansas and loaded a semi of bees for California in what the weather channel called a blizzard. We drove through whiteout conditions to get to the loading site. We loaded the semi in whiteout conditions. Once done ( around midnight) All the trucks were unable to move due to the deep snow. I was ready to go home ( as well as our crew)but the truck I was in did not have chains. So we bought the semi drivers chains and I installed in deep snow and we headed home. Arrived home around five thirty in the morning. 35 MPH down the back roads until we hit I 70 and then "hammer down". Had a long visit with the driver about the border problems and the different loads he had hauled. He has been hauling bees into California since early fall. He had a brand new Peterbuilt with a new aluminum trailer. Fancy and white in color. He did however feel the weather was too bad for him to try to head west for California until the road was plowed. If he was not going to try to move in the blizzard and wait for the snow plow then why not sell his chains? He could replace easily at the next truck stop. The driver helped us out and I never forget when I have been helped out. Phone has been ringing ever since I got home plus emails. many calls about CCD. The Kansas City Star called to do an interview about CCD. The reporter had already done an interview with Dr. Orly Taylor so the reporter asked me if I agreed with the dozen possible things which could be causing CCD Dr. Taylor suggested and I said I did. He asked if I had bee problems and I had to say I did not. He said he needed to speak with a beekeeper with big problems or his story would not have the CCD ring. I said sorry. He said he had only done one other bee story years ago about a dispute between two neighbors over a bee hive in the back yard. I asked to read the article first to make sure he got things correct but he declined. Maybe the story will be in the KC Star in the morning. I don't take the Star and they do not deliver the Star as far out in the sticks as I live. I guess my friends will read and tell me about the article. Off to bed! Good luck with helping beekeepers with the CCD problem Jerry! You have always been a friend to the beekeeper! Sincerely, Bob Harrison -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 22:17:42 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dee Lusby Subject: Re: stealth small cell--I measured some In-Reply-To: <006601c750bb$5f58a5a0$ad25fea9@jps.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Randy, Haven't inserted frames of 5.0mm back into a 4.9mm colony, but in playing around due to jiving by a Mr Allen Dick, not that he hasn't visited in past, I did take 5.0mm foundation we still had, also whole culled supers he had seen we had waiting for melting from the 5.0 -5.1 era, and larger 5.4mm and put them back on and it gottem again, after restarting with fresh caught big swarms.And yes Allen, before you ask, I did check the combs first and used only the ones from honey supers you saw stacked we were melting thru I considered clean. Yet the 4.9mm ones were not effected. Also in the field think I have said this, our level went down with usage of 4.9mm sizing to what I call natural occurring levels for foul of about 2-3 a year seen now, and then if pulled when seen with 6 cells or more to a frame, no big problem, and I am talking 2-3 colonies for total on average year in and year out for all we keep. Less then 6 cells I don't worry about, never have and never will for the bees take care of it fine. But rationalize the difference being the change in foraging with smaller size in getting more variance in propolis collected more to the smaller herbal plants which to me is more stronger for what the bees need for sterilization of broodnest, besides more variety in pollen/honey etc as all things must be considered. Regards, Dee p.s. good knowing you have a contractors background. Mechanics too? ____________________________________________________________________________________ Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 01:59:43 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Jerry Bromenshenk Subject: Re: HFCS and CCD MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Peter Our survey tool should allow one to do as you suggest - after filling out a couple of pages on bee management, we ask about bee locations. We have an underlying database that uses GPS locations for all reports - but we don't show that map to the public - some beekeepers don't want others to know where their bees are at or if they have a bee health problem. So access to the detailed maps is limited to the investigative group, sometimes only to us -- depending on the wishes of the responding beekeeper. We'd love to get input from Canada and Mexico. Thanks Jerry -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 04:55:44 -0700 Reply-To: allen dick Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: allen dick Organization: Deep Thought Subject: CCD Survey - Canada and Mexico MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > We'd love to get input from Canada and Mexico. Medhat is running a workshop in Edmonton today and tomorrow. I think this topic will be coming up. Large beekeepers from Alberta, B.C., and Saskatchewan will likely be there, so hopefully he will gather some data. allen -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 05:01:03 -0700 Reply-To: allen dick Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: allen dick Organization: Deep Thought Subject: Re: CCD on CBS - tonight, 2/13 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > stachyose 8.3 (toxic to bees) > rafinase 5.2 (toxic to bees) Any idea what brand or brands and what type(s) were examined? Is this work published? -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 05:26:30 -0700 Reply-To: allen dick Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: allen dick Organization: Deep Thought Subject: HFCS vs. Sucrose MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > What kind of life span difference are we talking about here-days , > > weeks..? > The HFCS bees started dying at 6 days ( in both the 1974 & 2006 USDA-ARS > tests). The HFCS bees continued to die at a greater rate than the sucrose > fed bees until the end around day 29. I seem to recall that the Canadian study showed about the same thing. What is interesting is that bees on *both* diets started dying around the same time, in small numbers, and the numbers dying increased each day over time until they all were dead. The bees on HFCS died slightly faster, and, as I recall, the difference in longevity was about 10%, with sucrose being better. The HFCS was of the type being used widely in Western Canada at the time. In practice, this difference may or may not be significant, however, I have always preferred sucrose for wintering, and HFCS for spring feeding. I think that the Joker in then deck is that, while sucrose syrup deliveries are always very nearly identical, HFCS batches have the potential to vary over a range of (acceptable for human food) compositions. A batch analysis should be available and accompany each HFCS load, but who is knowledgeable enough to read much past the assertion that it is first grade? -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 05:39:49 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: C Hooper Subject: German Apitherapy Conference to Focus on Wound Treatment MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII German Apitherapy Conference to Focus on Wound Treatment (February 15, 2007) – The 5th annual German Apitherapy and Apipuncture Congress, Expo and Workshop will take place March 23-27 in Passau, Germany. This year’s conference focuses on the use of honey and other bee products in the treatment of wounds. SEE: http://www.apitherapie.de/ The five-day event features workshops on topics such as “Wounds - Introduction in the Etiology (Causes), Diagnostic, Allopathic Treatment and Prevention,” “Prophilaxy Through Apitherapy and Other Related Healing Methods,” “Wound Healing Methods Through Apitherapy and Apipuncture,” and “Apitherapy and Its Related Methods in the Treatment of Human and Animal Diseases.” There will also be practical demonstrations of the use of bee products in the treatment of wounds. The official languages of the conference are German and English. Conference participants will have the option of registering for a two-day “Practical Intensive Apitherapy and Apipuncture Course and Workshop.” The theme of this year’s intensive course is “Practical Applications of Apitherapy in the Prevention and Treatment of Human and Animal Diseases.” Api-Expo 2007, held in conjunction with the conference, features Apitherapy-related companies from Europe and around the world. Apitherapy is the use of bee hive products such as bee venom, bee-collected pollen, royal jelly, propolis, beeswax, and honey to maintain good health and in the treatment of a variety of medical conditions. Propolis is a resinous substance collected by bees from plants and trees and is used to coat the inside of the bee hive and the honeycomb cells with an antiseptic layer. Royal jelly is a substance produced by young worker bees and fed to queens. March 30, 2007, will mark the 2nd annual celebration of “World Apitherapy Day," an event designed to enhance international understanding of the therapeutic use and health benefits of bee products. SEE: http://www.worldapitherapyday.org/ April 26-29, 2007, the annual Charles Mraz Apitherapy Course and Conference will be held in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. SEE: www.apitherapy.org For more Apitherapy-related news, visit: www.apitherapynews.com - END – CONTACT: Dr. Stefan Stangaciu, E-Mail: DrStangaciu@apitherapie.de or drstangaciu@gmail.com (www.Apitherapie.de) -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 08:26:26 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?UTF-8?Q?Peter_Borst?= Subject: Re: stealth small cell--I measured some Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dee Lusby wrote: >But rationalize the difference being the change in foraging >with smaller size in getting more variance in propolis >collected more to the smaller herbal plants which to me is >more stronger for what the bees need for sterilization of >broodnest, besides more variety in pollen/honey etc as all >things must be considered. You have been saying for years that smaller bees are better; now you are saying *smaller plants* are better, too? Smaller plants have stronger antibiotic properties? What information is this based upon? pb -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 08:29:01 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: Re: HFCS vs. Sucrose MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Allen & All, I think the Canada studies mirror both the Tucson ( Roy Barker) & Weslaco ( Dr. Pamela Gregory) research which is good as further backs up the current research. I returned from Weslaco with a CD-ROM of three of the slide presentations done by Pamela. Most the the Tucson research. I have made one an error in my posting of Pamela's research so want to correct now. After a long search to confirm what I posted and not finding the answer I spoke by email with Pamela. Pamela answered back this morning. I misunderstood about the flying tent bee experiments done in 2006 at Weslaco. Those bees were testing pollen substitutes compared to fresh pollen and dried pollen and not sucrose vs. fructose. I am sorry for my misinterpretation of her work. Questions about her research I can not answer I will contact her for the answer. Other than the one point she has logged on and looked over what I have said and seems satisfied . Sincerely, Bob Harrison Ps. I hope the KC Star reporter will quote me correctly. If not then I imagine he will correct ( on the last page of the FYI section). Those BEE-L members taking the Star please watch for the article so I can see what he has written. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 07:04:06 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: randy oliver Organization: Randy Oliver Subject: Re: stealth small cell--I measured some MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dee wrote: Haven't inserted frames of 5.0mm back into a 4.9mm colony, Thank you Dee. For the benefit of the beekeeping community, could you please try that experiment on 10 colonies this season, and report the results? Insert new Mann Lake frames, so that there is no question as to initial contamination. Dee, it's not important to me whether or not you can explain the mechanics of small cell. I simply want good data of field tests demonstrating the optimal size, and the degree of mite control obtained. It will require someone with colonies already full of small cell to perform the above test. If you are unable to perform it this season, perhaps you could ask one of your collaborators to do so. Thank you, Randy Oliver -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:13:46 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: David Arters Organization: Arters Apiaries Subject: CCD On Coast To Coast AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="Windows-1252"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Last night on, "Coast To Coast Am," George Noory interviewed Eric Mussen about CCD. Last nights program is available on the web site and will be repeated at 10 pm Eastern Time; affiliate information is available there also. http://www.coasttocoastam.com/ David -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:48:18 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Randy_Oliver?= Subject: Powdered sugar dusting Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi All, I guess the cat's out of the bag. I'm seriously investigating powdered sugar dusting, have collected data, sacrificed a colony to obtain an accurate account of efficacy, worked out a mathematical model. Will begin large-scale field trials this month to obtain more data before I draw conclusions. I will publish in ABJ soon. There has been a thread on Beesource that was brought to my attention: http://www.beesource.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=007231#000011 It involved a discussion as to whether sugar dusting was "ecological" or "organic." I'm posting this reply here and at that venue: Hi All, I rarely venture onto Beesource. Too much chaff to sift through. This thread was brought to my attention. Something that you may wish to keep in mind is that while those of you with time on your hands argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, 99% of the bees are managed by beekeepers who don't have time for such ethereal trivia. I commend the organic beekeeping model. However, in reality, it will only make an impact in the same way that organic agriculture has progressed. Not by finger wagging, but by demonstrating that it is economically sound. I'm working on the latter. Please keep up the organic work, but lay off the finger wagging. You only alienate the majority. Instead, act as a model, and when you achieve success in dealing with varroa, helpfully offer it up to the industry in general. I will be happy to share information I've learned, and techniques I've developed for anyone to use as they wish. I'm not going to tell you what you should or shouldn't do. I personally choose to effect change by example. If I can run a profitable bee business without resorting to deleterious chemicals, my success will speak for itself. If I can't, then I'm in no position to criticize others. I'm off to move bees into almonds this morning. I will try to post a preview of the "8-second" powdered sugar dusting method I've developed this evening. Randy Oliver -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:49:21 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: HFCS vs. Sucrose In-Reply-To: <00c501c750fc$888a3c90$4c00a8c0@Pericles> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit allen dick wrote: > > The bees on HFCS died slightly faster, and, as I recall, the > difference in longevity was about 10%, with sucrose being better. > > That correlates with the studies done in England many years ago. The difference between sucrose (white sugar) and HFCS was not substantial but measurable and in the 10-15% range. One problem with such a small difference is that it is not noticed in the spring. Which is why most arguments between beekeepers about winter feed are useless without a lab study. > I think that the Joker in then deck is that, while sucrose syrup > deliveries are always very nearly identical, HFCS batches have the > potential to vary over a range of (acceptable for human food) > compositions. Which I agree with. I would say that the pecking order would be as far as what was delivered to your door:: granulated sugar (then converted to sugar syrup without boiling), not-boiled sugar syrup, HFCS/boiled sugar syrup, and honey. Even sugar additives which were once approved (tartaric acid) in books like The Hive and the Honey Bee are harmful to bees. The other issue is just what the bees are actually overwintering on. The bees do need field honey for the additional minerals it provides. But all honey is not equal, so some will cause more harm than good. But they will not do well on just sucrose or HFCS. Winter feed is a bit more complex than just HFCS or sucrose. Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 11:21:18 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: HFCS and CCD In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jerry Bromenshenk wrote > > By excuses, I mean taking the easy way out = picking your favorite culprit > of the day. Which is why you may be on an impossible task. > > The CCD has brought some regional favorites - causal agents- to light. > Toxic honeydew - or just poor nutrition from honeydew - seems to be real in some > areas at some times -- but where's the proof? So far, its always been -- my > dad told me, another beekeeper told me. (snip) > > Maybe someone ought to sample, find out once and for all - is it real, or is > it a myth? Is something else in the area causing the problem? > > > I did have a honeydew problem which was pointed out to me by Tony Jadczak. I changed my management practices and took off the honeydew at the end of the season and problem solved. But the symptoms of honeydew are more in line with dysentery and weak bees than CCD. Also, there were additional factors, including other fall honey (aster was probably another culprit) that tend to be bad for overwintering bees. So the problem was just like most we run into in beekeeping. It is not just a single issue but many. The problem, which I continually point out on this list, is we have a difficult time controlling the variables. Which gets back to your first observation, that there are may things being blamed. Add CCD to the list and it becomes the newest culprit. Bob's observation of the beekeeper on the CBS show confirms it. It was probable Varroa but now it is CCD. I know in Maine that Varroa gets blamed for every bad beekeeping practice. Failure of colonies can be cause by Tracheal, starvation, any and all of the brood diseases, small colonies, location, hive construction (where the beekeeper knows what the bee really needs), and even Varroa- which will take the blame. I thought that commercial beekeepers were exceptional beekeepers until I went around with Tony and inspected commercial operations on the blueberry barrens. Some are but many are not. So it would not be hard for me to believe that they could also say that CCD was the cause of their ills when it as really just about anything and they just do not see it. I have my guesses and they seem to focus on viral disease, but who knows. I hope you do find out, but your lab is the great outdoors where a thousand different experiments are going on run by the same number of beekeepers, all doing something different. And they all can claim CCD. Bill Truesdell (currently in his Eeyore mode) Bath, Maine -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 11:47:14 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: HFCS and Honey In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Just an observation, but the link of HFCS to obesity is the fructose content of the syrup. Interesting that honey has the same general breakdown as HFCS. So if we go after corn syrup as bad and honey as good, we will be on shaky ground. The corn industry even has a comparison with honey and HFCS as being essentially the same so therefor good for you. I realize it is all in the amounts used across the board in the food industry, but the brush can be broad. Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 09:48:29 -0700 Reply-To: allen dick Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: allen dick Organization: Deep Thought Subject: Re: HFCS vs. Sucrose MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> The bees on HFCS died slightly faster, and, as I recall, the difference >> in longevity was about 10%, with sucrose being better. > One problem with such a small difference is that it is not noticed in the > spring. Which is why most arguments between beekeepers about winter feed > are useless without a lab study. Even with a lab study, only infuences can be deduced. Although we saw, in these simplified studies, a higher mortality throughout, and a difference in dates on which the last bee died, we do not know the ability of the living bees in either case to do useful work or to replace themselves. It is easy for the unsophisticated to rush to conclusions, which may or may not be valid, but the studies themselves only prove what they prove, and that is that the specific caged bees tested lived a little longer on the specific samples of sucrose fed, than on the specific HFCS fed. Any conclusions drawn from that have to be carefully examined and subjected to further evidence. The studies actually do not prove which is a superior winter feed, because there are many other factors to be considered. > Which I agree with. I would say that the pecking order would be as far as > what was delivered to your door:: granulated sugar (then converted to > sugar syrup without boiling), not-boiled sugar syrup, HFCS/boiled sugar > syrup, and honey. As for the sugar delivered in bags, or even sugar syrup pre-mixed, what about fluoride? I quit mixing my own syrup because I heard from Jerry about fluoride, and our local water is high in fluoride. There may be other factors, too. Is fluoride revealed in pre-mixed syrup spec sheets, or ignored? What else is not revealed? > The other issue is just what the bees are actually overwintering on. The > bees do need field honey for the additional minerals it provides. I would not tend to agree on that, due to the wide variability in composition of honies, and also due to the fact that bees get most of their minerals--AFAIK--from pollen. > Winter feed is a bit more complex than just HFCS or sucrose. Yes. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:50:26 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: John & Christy Horton Subject: HFCS vs. Sucrose-Allen D., Bob H. Jerry B., Billl T? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello all, Thanks for the comments-especially the ones by Allen Dick Bob stated> >> The HFCS bees started dying at 6 days ( in both the 1974 & 2006 USDA-ARS >> tests). The HFCS bees continued to die at a greater rate than the sucrose >> fed bees until the end around day 29. My comments/questions: Allen responded in a later quote that (as he recalled)the difference in lifespan was about 10% on average....I take that to mean that if the average lifespan of a bee fed sucrose was 33 days, the average lifespan of a bee fed (their particular mix used ) HFCS would be be roughly 30 days. Allens "10%" figure is certainly PRACTICAL information that I could use in my deciding which/any syrup to use. You know that is not a lot of difference in my mind. It also makes me wonder if honey (as Bill Truesdale reported earlier) might turn out to produce an even lower lifespan. An observation here: I have noticed that there are several topics-really fundamental beekeeping questions- that are danced around year after year, but lacking in definitive answers. The feeding of bees and type of feed used is one of those. I would personally love to hear of a few studies that were "clinchers" that contained statistically verified USABLE data more than a thousand generalizations and speculations. A good example that clarifys what I am saying is the test done recently comparing two types of pollen substitues versus polllen. Oh how refreshingly clean and simple were the results!. I am truly grateful for the info I have recieved here, and I am aware that this forum is for discussuion of about any topics related to bees, but I would love to to see a place where some of the basic questions were addressed AND resolved. Even if the tests were made with the understanding that they were only for a particular type of bee and environmental condition, that would be helpful to lay the groundwork for a truely useful database. Now a question: Allen, you said that you "seemed to recall a study" saying that bees fed sucrose were longer lived. I certainly would appreciate any references you or anybody could point me to concerning the HFCS vs Sucrose vs honey. Also, Bob, if you had a hard number concerning the average lifesspan of bees in the studies you cited-sure would like to see it. As I mentioned, I have about 300 hives, and plan to go to at least 500, and I am raising queens that show mite resistance. By the way,Jerry, of the roughly 1200 hives I know of in the N. alabama region, I think we have been spared the scourge that is currently afflicting beekeepers elsewhere.Treatments are Apistan mostly, followed by Coumaphous and possibly others. I havent treated any of mine for about a year now(nor do i plan to).,about 100 untreated for 2- or 3 years. My winter deadouts seem roughly the same as I have observed from previous winters- from about 3 to 10%.. John Horton (wondering if these are windmills I am charging.....) -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 11:57:55 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: HFCS vs. Sucrose In-Reply-To: <002701c7510d$a49fa8a0$0bbc59d8@BusyBeeAcres> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bob Harrison wrote: > I misunderstood about the flying tent bee experiments done in 2006 at > Those bees were testing pollen substitutes compared to fresh pollen > and dried pollen and not sucrose vs. fructose. > Interesting since there is a definite correlation between stachyose and soy pollen substitutes. Some soy flours are high in it and it is harmful to bees. Others are not. It all depends (like HFCS) on the method of manufacture. Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:00:22 -0700 Reply-To: allen dick Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: allen dick Organization: Deep Thought Subject: Re: HFCS vs. Sucrose MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I have made one an error in my posting of Pamela's research so want to > correct now. After a long search to confirm what I posted and not finding > the answer I spoke by email with Pamela. Pamela answered back this > morning. I misunderstood about the flying tent bee experiments done in > 2006 at Weslaco. Thanks for that clarification, Bob. (I guess I can scratch the email I was composing to Dr. Gregory). We all sometimes hear things that weren't said, or actually were said by mistake. Even the smartest people sometimes use the wrong phrase or word in a talk, often repeatedly until they catch themselves --or don't. (and you can see the audience suddenly looking at one another in amusement or puzzlement). No matter whether the miscommunication was due to the speaker or the listener, you did the right thing here and went back to the horse's mouth, then clarified the facts and intent. I'd personally appreciate it if you would do the same with Dr. Degrandi-Hoffman regarding the phrase you have attributed to her. If you can get her to own it, and even elaborate, I will shake your hand. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:34:37 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dick Marron Subject: CCD and HFCS Comments: cc: Dennis vanEngelsdorp MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Here is a web site about HFCS. I have verified some of the >information as fact but not all. Decide for yourself. Worth a visit. >http://www.westonaprice.org/motherlinda/cornsyrup.html Bob,Randy, Anyone reading, To say that Sucrose contains Glucose and Fructose is like saying a tree contains 2X4s. They are all sugars as Randy noted. (Sucrose to those other sugars is what the bees do) You can make alcohol from sucrose but it would be wrong to say that Sucrose contains alcohol. This makes the next statement suspect. (You warned us Bob) "Sucrose is composed of glucose and fructose. When sugar is given to rats in high amounts, the rats develop multiple health problems, especially when the rats were deficient in certain nutrients, such as copper. The researchers wanted to know whether it was the fructose or the glucose moiety that was causing the problems.." I was a kittle sorry to start doubting because I was struck by another item. "Unlike alpha-amylase, glucoamylase is produced by Aspergillus, a fungus, in a fermentation vat where one would likely see little balls of Aspergillus floating on the top." One of the Aspergillis is responsible for Stone brood. Dennis van Englesdorp is looking at Aspergillis (perhaps another strain/mutation) as a cause of CCD Small world isn't it? Dick Marron -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:53:00 -0700 Reply-To: allen dick Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: allen dick Organization: Deep Thought Subject: Re: stealth small cell--I measured some MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Haven't inserted frames of 5.0mm back into a 4.9mm colony, but in playing > around due to jiving by a Mr Allen Dick, Not sure about that slang, so I looked it up and got this: "Definitions of jive on the Web: Bogus, false, or untrue". Was that your intent? I don't think that I have falsely reported what I saw, or what you have discussed with me. I have disagreed with you on more than one topic, however. > But rationalize the difference being the change in foraging with smaller > size in getting more variance in propolis collected more to the smaller > herbal plants Interesting. There was a talk at the AHPA meeting where the varieties of pollen collected by Australian package bees were compared to the variety collected by local established hives. The difference was astounding! Different strains of bees, apparently collect pollen very differently, and as I understand it, whether from you, or from ARS, you have a different strain from most US beekeepers. Could that also be a factor? -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 13:24:05 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Jerry Bromenshenk Subject: Confusing CCD Issues MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bill Said: "Add CCD to the list and it becomes the newest culprit. Bob's observation of the beekeeper on the CBS show confirms it. It was probable Varroa but now it is CCD." At risk of beating a dead horse, no one from the CCD team inspected the 'probable' varroa hives shown on the CBS show. Also, there is a clip of me pointing to a bee with damaged wings, but that doesn't mean that we commonly saw this symptom. The news crew spent a couple of days shooting video, cut and pasted down to a very short show. As per calling PMS CCD, please don't confuse bits of video shot and chosen by a news producer with the investigations of the CCD working group. We did not call see nor proclaim her hives CCD - a news caster found a beekeeper who lost bees. He or she assumed it was CCD. Now, Bill is correct in that beekeepers may confuse more common losses with the CCD syndrome, especially new beekeepers or those who don't go to meetings, read up on things, etc. We try to screen to be sure that the problem is not simply mites/PMS. Jerry And yes, this is a difficult problem, with many possible interacting factors. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to resolve it. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:28:39 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Confusing CCD Issues In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jerry Bromenshenk wrote: > Bill Said: "Add CCD to the list and it becomes the newest culprit. Bob's > observation of the beekeeper on the CBS show confirms it. It was probable > Varroa but now it is CCD." > > At risk of beating a dead horse, no one from the CCD team inspected the > 'probable' varroa hives shown on the CBS show. I knew that and was pointing out how the issue can be used, as did the CBS crew, to implicate CCD when something else is at work. > > And yes, this is a difficult problem, with many possible interacting > factors. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to resolve it. > Agree. Just pointing out the obvious, including that we may never find out just because of the variables involved and finding the one factor in all those variables. There may be more things at work which further complicates the search. Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:28:50 -0700 Reply-To: allen dick Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: allen dick Organization: Deep Thought Subject: Stachyose & Rafinase MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Interesting since there is a definite correlation between stachyose and > soy pollen substitutes. Some soy flours are high in it and it is harmful > to bees... and > The hypothesis for the greater longevity with the sucrose bees is the > toxic sugars stachyose & rafinase in HFCS... Anybody have a reference on how much it takes, and in what manner they are harmful? -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 08:42:52 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: mark berninghausen Subject: Re: CCD In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Jerry et al, How much of CCD is poor managment and bad luck in judging the weather and potential nectar and pollen flows? How many people are deciding at the last minute to take their bees to CA when they haven't managed them with that in mind from say August? How much CCD is from ineffective mite control? There seems to be much confusion as to what works. At least on my part. Are we chasing a ghost? Will we ever know what is causing this and what to do to avoid it? What about the drastic losses in Poland and Spain, last year? Are they related? Is this a world wide phenomenon? Thanks, Mark --------------------------------- Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know. Ask your question on Yahoo! Answers. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:11:43 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: Re: Confusing CCD Issues MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Jerry & All, I only offer an opinion here to try and be helpful. Not to appear an expert but I will say : What you call CCD I was part of a private look at over 3 years ago involving a beekeeper running over 40,000 hives. I was involved to give an opinion and look over the test results. I spent three days on location. None of what I am about to say was ever made public nor was the USDA-ARS brought in. Simply because it was (and is) a varroa /PMS problem. > Also, there is a clip of me pointing to a bee with damaged wings, but that doesn't mean that we commonly saw this symptom. Bottom line: Our conclusion 3 years ago and backed up by out of country testing ( U.K.)was the losses were caused by failure of varroa controls to maintain over a 90% varroa control. The test results showed 3 virus present. We came to the conclusion that the virus causing the problems was easily transferred through the hive, killed the bees fast and the bees flew out to die. A healthy hive could crash in two weeks. Our focus was on the evidence before us both on bees and on comb. Not some new mystery CCD. 1. Varroa was present 2. virus was present My conclusion was the virus was a form of bee paralysis virus ( test from U.K. confirmed common form by electron microscope) . I also believe that if bees from CCD colonies were subjected to the experiments of Burnside (1945) or Bailey (1963) the same result would be had. The symptoms of bee paralysis virus as published in literature such as afflicted with a trembling motion, wings disjointed, abdomens distended and general ability to fly were not observed. The kill was different as in past varroa issues. However DWV was also present so we did see some DWV symptoms which muddied the waters. However Burnside demonstrated when filtrates of bpv virus were sprayed on healthy bees it caused symptoms & death. I also caution the above research is very dated which we argued over. Myself and another beekeeper (wiser than me) had heated disagreements on the virus issue. His secretary knocked on the door a few times . Doctors will say many times the symptoms to not fit the known symptoms for a disease and when happens all the doctors training is useless. New research from Penn State demonstrates the way virus is passed from hive to hive, flower to flower and bee to bee. Also a queen with virus can pass the virus on through her eggs. Penn State also had quite a bit about about virus contaminated comb. Which I posted on BEE-L earlier. > We try to screen to be sure that the problem is not simply mites/PMS. Varroa poop in the cells of a deadout is a good indicator the hive had a very high varroa load . If this virus (possible yet unidentified ) does not effect the larva but only effects the adult bees then you would not see signs of PMS. Burnsides research was years ahead of his time. Bailey was not convinced (personal conversation with the U.K.) that you could take a bee with bee paralysis virus. Grind the bee up and spray on a healthy bee and see the bee become infected and DIE. So Bailey recreated the earlier experiments of Burnside in 1963 and got the same result. Most virus research is dated. We need new research done to confirm the Penn State research and also to isolate exactly which of the virus is the big problem. The results from the U.K. on bee samples simply confirmed three *NAMED* virus present. I would expect under an electron microscope if a new virus was present it would have been found so: I can only assume one of the three known virus present has had changes in the commonly known symptoms. I know my hypothesis is taking a big leap but at least consider since I have taken the time to type. Sincerely, Bob Harrison "what we don't know is so vast it makes what we do know seem absurd" Bob Harrison -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 06:58:09 +1000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: queenbee Subject: Pollen substitutes and pollen MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This appeared under a different subject:- > A good example that clarifys what I am saying is the test done = recently=20 > comparing two types of pollen substitues versus polllen. Can the reference for this work be given. Thanks. Trevor Weatherhead AUSTRALIA Hoping you have looked at www.apimondia2007.com -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:28:45 -0700 Reply-To: allen dick Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: allen dick Organization: Deep Thought Subject: Re: stealth small cell--I measured some MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Could. But then to smaller bees fit into smaller plants for > pollenation and therefore more variance, like smaller > people fitting into smaller shoes the bigger cannot get on, > so where the shoe or bee fits the bloom the reward is > gotten...Allen! Could that also be a factor? Could. But nobody has given specific instances of where this has been observed, measured, and quantified with honey bees. AFAIK. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:27:15 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: K&W Jarrett Subject: Re: HFCS Bob Harrison comment MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello to all, Some thoughts on this HFCS, What has hurt some hives here in Calif is , H.M.S. (acid) below 30-40 ppm is ok, but some have had loads in the 300 plus ppm. Time & heat is the mained cause, below 90 degrees your ok for a few weeks. One keeper fed it in pollen sub mix (20,000) rounds on bees before he could find the problem.This show up in HFCS 75. Keith Jarrett -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:20:59 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "=?windows-1252?Q?J._Waggle?=" Subject: Re: CCD Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit mark berninghausen wrote: > How many people are deciding at the last minute to take their bees to CA when they haven't managed them with that in mind from say August? Hello Mark! All good questions, and I agree that many things are likely contributing to this problem, which will probably make a diagnosis of the cause near impossible. But I also wonder, in the rush to meet colony quotas for pollination. What might the contribution be from indiscriminately splitting MOST colonies to make numbers regardless of performance? Best Wishes, Joe -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:29:35 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: George Fergusson Subject: Re: HFCS vs. Sucrose In-Reply-To: <00c501c750fc$888a3c90$4c00a8c0@Pericles> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit allen dick wrote: > The bees on HFCS died slightly faster, and, as I recall, the difference > in longevity was about 10%, with sucrose being better They didn't happen to also include honey as a control did they? Under "normal" circumstances, bees aren't going to subsist on either HFCS or sucrose. It would be interesting to see how bees fared on honey compared to the artificial feeds. George- --------------------------- George Fergusson Whitefield Maine -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 08:23:48 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dee Lusby Subject: Re: stealth small cell--I measured some In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Peter, Probably because being herbals they are more medicinal, and also because lacking in diet, due to such upsizing in many bees beekeepers keep, they have gotten sick without them in their diet. Funny how getting a whole spectrum of pollen collected again and of course the propolis to go with them so they can bloom, the bees are more healthy. But there is a whole picture to consider and not sound bits here and there by being smaller and back to natural sizing. 1. more varied propolis for the bees to work with for needs. 2. more varied pollen for the bees to work with for needs. 3. more varied honey for the bees to work with for needs. 4. change in flight aerodynamics for better gathering, and different mating to the better FWIW. 5. change in flight muscles for better thermo regulation for better heat and cold control. 6. Change in size of body parts for control of some problems, aka mites: a. trachael by changing spherical openings with most important being on the thorax b. Varroa by changing the tergits so not so much blood sucking! 7. change in composition of royal jelly fed the larvae to change the JGH trigger 8. Change in how food brought into the hive is stored which changes in house work 9. Change in development time of bees which has correlation to stopping parasitic sucking by varroa in developing larvae/pupae 10. more availability of workers in greater numbers for division of labor for needed tasks for field and inhouse which relates to most all above, besides chewing out varroa, and cleansing of the broodnest periodically so life can go on. But why should I rant and chant back........been thru it before, in the end Peter you learn to do what works and follow the bees and their needs and timing, and hopefully not ones own too much. Dee ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for earth-friendly autos? Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/ -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 08:37:04 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dee Lusby Subject: Re: stealth small cell--I measured some In-Reply-To: <000c01c75113$28483dc0$ad25fea9@jps.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Randy, I still have over 1,000 deeps of setting 5.0mm to 5.1mm sizng drawn comb up in the hills to bring in and melt down the bees refuse to swarm into and use any more, going instead into the cavites in center emptied for baits. The bees go in and make SC in the cavities and ignore the bigger and have done so for years. This you can ask even ole Allen here about, for it because a big joke with Ed and me for showing what,how the bees avoid when given a choice, and to force clean bees back onto a system to me is crazy when all around us beekeepers keeping bees on same have problems...... FWIW to you the few I did following jivving by Allen a few years back now didn't last long, and probalby didn't tell him then because he'd come back saying do more, and we simply stopped when the bees got sick,reshook them down and kept on with the SC we were doing. You want to make a project have fun! It will keep you occupied. My fun is having healthy bees again. Also I went thru that 8 year loop of disaster and somehow don't like to repeat self over and over for it too time consuming and then old Bob here will come in and say I told you so, etc and don't need that anymore. I consider LC to me a closed case and very sad unfortunately for what it has done, for a started experiment that somehow when wrong, never to be ended in some time loop of repeating and repeating. Sorry but that is how somehow I see you in asking this..... Randy, just learn to follow your bees needs...but then some want excitement, but is it worth it? Regards, Dee ____________________________________________________________________________________ No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:55:11 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dick Marron Subject: CCD and HFCS MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jerry, Thanks for your updates. I read hungrily. Dick Marron -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:37:37 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dee Lusby Subject: Re: stealth small cell--I measured some Comments: To: allen dick In-Reply-To: <01ba01c7512a$253d2930$4c00a8c0@Pericles> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Allen: Different strains of bees, apparently collect pollen very differently, and as I understand it, whether from you, or from ARS, you have a different strain from most US beekeepers. Could that also be a factor? Reply: Could. But then to smaller bees fit into smaller plants for pollenation and therefore more variance, like smaller people fitting into smaller shoes the bigger cannot get on, so where the shoe or bee fits the bloom the reward is gotten...Allen! Could that also be a factor? REgards, Dee ____________________________________________________________________________________ Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:41:10 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dee Lusby Subject: Re: stealth small cell--I measured some Comments: To: allen dick In-Reply-To: <01ba01c7512a$253d2930$4c00a8c0@Pericles> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Allen: > Haven't inserted frames of 5.0mm back into a 4.9mm colony, but in playing around due to jiving by a Mr Allen Dick, Not sure about that slang, so I looked it up and got this: "Definitions of jive on the Web: Bogus, false, or untrue". Was that your intent? I don't think that I have falsely reported what I saw, or what you have discussed with me. Reply: Not the way I remember the word used in playing teta teta back and forth, or jocking for position in games or conversation back in forth talking, or way things are done in dancing even. Why should I like after expending so much energy to change mode/steps/way of doing then be asked to go backways in another step jive or jiving to mix things back up? But then we were raised in different areas and different backgrounds, and have gone thru different experiences. LIke playful positioning Allen, laying out what one is doing, or telling others to do in setting up parameters. YOu are jiving me! so to speak. Like can I do this and I come back and say, no, but can you do this other ............ Regards, Dee ____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 16:08:23 -0700 Reply-To: allen dick Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: allen dick Organization: Deep Thought Subject: Acids in HFCS? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > What has hurt some hives here in Calif is , H.M.S. (acid) below 30-40 ppm > is ok, but some have had loads in the 300 plus ppm. Time & heat is the > mained cause, below 90 degrees your ok for a few weeks. HMF? > One keeper fed it in pollen sub mix (20,000) rounds on bees before he > could find the problem.This show up in HFCS 75. Shouldn't have thought such a small dose would have mattered. Anyhow, that mention of acid reminds me that Rob Currie, our Canadian researcher who has done HFCS work, said something in one of his presentations on the topic, about titratable acid. His wife, apparently is a chemist and he got some special perspective from her. It was over my head, but somehow, if I got it right, even in a neutral solution, there can be some acids remaining from the manufacturing in some HFCSs. Maybe someone knows about this? -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:53:49 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: John & Christy Horton Subject: Pollen substitutes and pollen Trevor Weatherhead MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Trevor asked for a reference for the following: > A good example that clarifys what I am saying is the test done recently > comparing two types of pollen substitues versus polllen. You can find the study on page 447 of "the American Bre Journal" May 2006 John Horton -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 19:45:08 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter Dillon Subject: Re: Confusing CCD Issues In-Reply-To: <002101c7513d$8436fe80$1fbc59d8@BusyBeeAcres> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bob Harrison wrote that: "New research from Penn State demonstrates the way virus is passed from hive to hive, flower to flower and bee to bee. Also a queen with virus can pass the virus on through her eggs." Logical advance from this would be to apply the "Principle of Precaution", i.e. Since there are many areas, regions, countries that appear for the moment to be free of CDD, then a moratorium should be put into place to at least limit the trade in Queens. Better this than possibly loosing thousands of colonies and the resulting financial costs. Arguments against please! Peter -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:24:38 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Jim Smith Subject: Re: HFCS vs. Sucrose In-Reply-To: <002701c7510d$a49fa8a0$0bbc59d8@BusyBeeAcres> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit So; Makes you wonder what you drink in your coke and pepsi, doesn't it? Jim Smith State of Jefferson -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 19:09:26 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dee Lusby Subject: Re: stealth small cell--I measured some Comments: To: allen dick In-Reply-To: <02c001c75148$487dfd20$4c00a8c0@Pericles> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Allen Dick writes: Could. But nobody has given specific instances of where this has been observed, measured, and quantified with honey bees. AFAIK. Reply: Sure it has, and by anyone collecting pollen in bulk that has sold pollen in bulk to buyers like CC Pollen, or Robson Honey. The color change is obvious to those in seeing the more varied colors, once change is made to small cell combs by the way. But then observing, and seeing the variance though selling what looks like more varied pollen, I guess needs to be officially watched and measureed you are saying as to what each color is and then to track the plant bloom size/size of plant it is from to officially say it is happening. So you are saying this is really needed then? Okay, then some one with intutitive mind needs to put bees on small cell and trap pollen and officially see it Allen, and also do the same with large cell bees...........though I think it a given for the smaller like I mentioned. So who you gonna get to do it? Regards, Dee ____________________________________________________________________________________ Cheap talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. http://voice.yahoo.com -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 01:33:50 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Jerry Bromenshenk Subject: CCD update MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit All I think we may all be in more agreement than it seems. CCD was a name carefully chosen to not imply anything more than we know. The initial Fall Dwindling Disease terminology had three problems -- our surveys indicate that the problem was not confined to the fall, nor was it a dwindle in terms of taking several weeks of months to play out, and it may or may not be a disease. CCD means Colony (the effects are at the colony level), Collapse (sudden, rapid reduction of population sizes -- a couple of weeks, maybe even a couple of days), and Disorder (since it may or may not be a disease). CCD may be something new -- the nosema seen in Spain, the neonictotinics (imidacloprid) used in France, a new virus, a fungus, the result of throwing everything but the kitchen sink into a hive, etc. OR It may be something old -- a variation of mites and PMS, whatever went through colonies in LA and TX in the 60s, etc. I'm leaning towards the something old, since the symptoms are the same as in the 60s, and the inability to pin down a cause just as problematic. It looks to be contagious, and the total absence of robbing, invasion by hive beetles, wax moth is peculiar. Finally, our surveys are beginning to provide some useful information. So far 105 beekeepers have responded. Of the 53 reporting CCD, 17 fed HF corn syrup, 19 fed sucrose. I'd be hard pressed to argue that HFCS was the cause, or that sucrose provided any protection. 35 of the CCD reports indicated that their hives had good pollen stores, 25 reported good nectar stores, and 36 said that their hives had honey stores. Jerry -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 22:36:39 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dee Lusby Subject: Re: stealth small cell--I measured some In-Reply-To: <000c01c75113$28483dc0$ad25fea9@jps.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Randy, I simply want good data of field tests demonstrating the optimal size, and the degree of mite control obtained. It will require someone with colonies already full of small cell to perform the above test. Reply: Randy, may I ask you a question here concerning optimal size, and degree of mite control obtained. Whether going up or down in size sequences. Going up the hill or down the hill on same road traveled. What is the difference from good to bad, for bad to good,as long as you end up with the Good seperated out, and know the path traveled? Also you say optimal size. Are you aware there is no optimal size, though there is a ground zero middle size that bees can key to in a small, medium, large range, that once obtained, the bees then follow either slightly smaller or bigger depending upon race/strain and latitude/altitude? So why cannot it be determined by simply going smaller until a harmonous state is reached without problems further? As for then showing going bigger then re-creates problems. Why cannot this be determined by simply looking all around you, as problems multiply? Just thinking, Dee- ____________________________________________________________________________________ Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 22:59:59 -0700 Reply-To: allen dick Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: allen dick Organization: Deep Thought Subject: Small Bees Get More and Better Pollen? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Could. But nobody has given specific instances of where this has been > > observed, measured, and quantified with honey bees. AFAIK. > Sure it has, and by anyone collecting pollen in bulk that has sold pollen > in bulk to buyers like CC Pollen, or Robson Honey. Really? THere is an objective, controlled observation that has been published and peer reviewed? Point me to it. > I guess needs to be officially watched and measureed you are saying as to > what each color is and then to track the plant bloom size/size of plant it > is from to officially say it is happening. So you are saying this is > really needed then? Some of us need proof. After all, this is the Skeptical Doubters' Ooops-I-was-Wrong List, not the Anecdotal, I-Believe-in-Anything Fireside Feel-Good Chat list. (Proof is not really that tough, tho', since we often settle for vague references to second-rate, badly performed, seriously flawed, slightly relevant, misinterpreted studies that no one has actually read as proof absolute). > So who you gonna get to do it? Me? Who am *I* going to get to do it? I don't think so. Why would I do that? I'm not the one who claims this is true, or even thinks this is very plausible. Sorry. I guess that what is needed is someone who believes your claims enough to put in the effort to do the work (and be prepared to find the premise is wrong). On the record, it isn't me, because I doubt the claim, and also think that there may be more than cell size involved in your observations. I'd love to be proven wrong, though (Again). Such a study can be done. Frank Eischen did a similar analysis with the Australian packages on the almonds last year in the process of analysing the relative effectiveness of various almond pollination options. His work looks, on the surface at least, to be valid and meaningful. The meaning? We're still wondering. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 07:19:25 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Keith Benson Subject: Re: stealth small cell--I measured some In-Reply-To: <52452.85610.qm@web51612.mail.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dee Lusby wrote: > though I think it a > given for the smaller like I mentioned. > Why is this "a given". Just because it sounds like a nice tidy package, doesn't make it so. This wider variety of pollen thing is yet another of the unsubstantiated claims of the SC folks that quite frankly, they could show is or isn't true in a relatively short period of time without making too much of a time investment. Of course it would throw a monkey wrench in the whole thing to find out there was no change . . . . I have some small cell bees - I see no differences in the pollen collected between them, my LC bees and my TBH. > So who you gonna get to do it? > Traditionally this falls to the people proposing the new information. That would be you. Keith -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 07:28:53 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: randy oliver Organization: Randy Oliver Subject: Re: stealth small cell--I measured some MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dee wrote: >>>So why cannot it be determined by simply going smaller until a harmonous state is reached without problems further? Let me give you an exmple, Dee. Let's say that you were beekeeping as the Dust Bowl began in the 1930's. Let's say that you began regressing in small cell at teh same time. Lo and behold, the bees would eventually start doing better. You could attribute it to small cell, but others might attribute it to the drought ending. Dee, I do not mean to question your work--I think it is wonderful. However, my logical mind requires a few tests to confirm that the reason you are successfully keeping healthy bees can be fully attributed to small cell. A reasonable person could suggest other mechanisms taking place in your operation (as they have on this List). The way to put those questions to rest is to perform tests of your hypothesis (I believe that this thread of logic has been gone over in this List a number of times). Entrenching yourself does not confirm your hypothesis. In the many scientific studies that you've read, I'm sure that you've noticed that if, for example, scientists want to see if genetics control brood diseases, they breed bees to go BOTH WAYS (less susceptible, and more susceptible). That is a true test of the hypothesis. The Mann Lake combs presented themselves as an easy way to test your hypothesis that 5.0 cells CAUSE serious foulbrood problems. My guess is that the experienced beekeeper would be, like myself, incredulous that the hair's breadth difference between 4.9 and 5.0 would result in such extreme differences, especially as the comb aged, and the cells became smaller. >>>>As for then showing going bigger then re-creates problems. Why cannot this be determined by simply looking all around you, as problems multiply? I AM looking around me in my operation. I'm using "standard" waxed plastic foundations. My problems are not multiplying, nor are those in operations of other beekeepers I know who have similar foundation. We're thinking that our problems are decreasing due to better bee husbandry and the phasing out of synthetic lipophilic miticides. We have less varroa problems, but have not eliminated the mite as a problem yet. We would love to see that small cell works--not as a panacea, but simply to reduce mite reproduction. Dee, you are in a unique position to help demonstrate clearly to the industry that small cell decreases mite reproduction, since you already have an operation where mites and brood diseases are not a problem. You could easily test the 4.9 advantage hypothesis in one season by performing the experiment I requested. Simply insert five 5.0 frames into the middle of several of your colonies, and report whether varroa and brood diseases reappear. Your control would be several colonies with the same number of frames of fresh 4.9 foundation inserted. This would be a small price to pay in order to clinch the validity of your hypothesis. Respectfully Yours, Randy Oliver Large cell beekeeper with an open mind ____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:04:21 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Aaron Morris Subject: FW: [BEE-L] CCD update MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit This message was originally submitted by jdphipps@OTENET.GR to the BEE-L list at LISTSERV.ALBANY.EDU. It was edited to remove quotes of previously posted material. CCD in Greece I lost 30 colonies of bees last year - in over a period of 6 - 8 weeks. Ten of the queens were one year old, the other twenty from casts and in nucs. The new queens appeared to be strong and vigorous, and laid well and soon had brood on three combs. Then the colonies began to dwindle and on one visit to an apiary 12 of these nucs were completely empty of bees and there was just a small patch of brood struggling to emerge. There was food present in the nucs and some wax moth had soon moved in - a common occurence here in Greece. I looked at the colonies on two Langstroth deeps, 2 were empty, three had a small population of bees and though the queens were present there was no brood - this was in August. Whilst bees do slow down a bit in mid-summer it is not usual for them to have populations reduced to just three or four combs of bees. Eventually these colonies died too. In an apiary just a km away, I lost two out of seven - and the remaining five are strong this spring. In another apiary 10 km away, no lost colonies, all healthy. All apiaries managed in the same way, no feeding of HFCS, varroa control - treatment each autumn with Apiguard. Checking through all the combs later, in the apiary which was worst hit a cigarette packet size patch of AFB - the first I have come across in 35 years of beekeeping. However, I have enough experience to realise that AFB wasn't the problem - I examine colonies regularly and all brood seemed normal. I promised new beekeepers some nucs last year to get them started and also promised some to a beekeeper who lost 130 colonies in a fire last August. It is quite embarrassing for an experienced beekeeper to tell would-be beekeepers that the promised nucs have all died. Situations like this make one feel really helpless. To test the virus theory I could put some of the frames from deceased colonies (not the AFB one) into the living colonies, but I have lost enough bees already. Now, can someone tell me if Milton sterilising solution can kill viruses so that the good combs which were in the supers could be used again, or is it bonfire time. We do not have radiation facilities in Greece. John Phipps -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:44:23 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dee Lusby Subject: Re: stealth small cell--I measured some In-Reply-To: <45D5A14D.8030501@sc.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Keith: Traditionally this falls to the people proposing the new information. That would be you. Reply: Been through that loop too many times physically showing with others seeing and shaking heads and then agreeing. But then it was said it was only us and now just only me seeing it. How many times does one do hands on showing and explaining for years and years? Sorry, this time I will not repeat the loop again, especially with others now coming up and on. It is time to sit back and let others do the showing and yacking with me watching. D- ____________________________________________________________________________________ It's here! Your new message! Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/ -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:23:52 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: Small cell proof (was small Bees Get MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Allen & All, Allen said: >Some of us need proof. After all, this is the Skeptical Doubters' Ooops-I-was-Wrong List, not the Anecdotal, I-Believe-in-Anything Fireside Feel-Good Chat list. On the internet ALL positions are welcome. Many do not agree with my hypothesis at times but then perhaps they might not have observed the things I have in my beekeeping travels. Dee has came on the list to share what she believes is valid observations about her bees. Does a single person on the list doubt after all these years she does not believe in small cell? Certainly different hypothesis at times (not always) than mine but I welcome her input and am realistic enough to know many new hypothesis will never be either proven or not proven. Very little of published beekeeping research has the high degree of creditability I would like to see. The kind of research I like to see is like the last two I referred to. Not because I posted but clear examples of what I am referring to. Burnside ( 1933 & 1945) repeated & confirmed Bailey ( 1963) or Barker (1973) repeated & confirmed Gergory (2006) Dr. Keith Delaplane said at a presentation at the KHPA meeting (2006) that he has ran bee experiments (with controls) and then a year later ran exactly the same experiment and got different results. The reason he likes to see the results repeatable before placing stock in the results as more than an hypothesis. >(Proof is not really that tough, tho', since we often settle for vague references to second-rate, badly performed, seriously flawed, slightly relevant, misinterpreted studies that no one has actually read as proof absolute). If I have learned one thing from the internet discussion lists it is : Each side will put forth whatever they can dig up to support their side of the issue. The subject will rage on ( many will bore of the issue) . Just when the list thinks the subject has finally went away back it will come with renewed vigor ( like a terminator movie). Many will complain to the computer guru Aaron to restore order! However in the end both sides will have put out their views and the list will form an opinion on the subject. No winners or losers. > So who you gonna get to do it? >I guess that what is needed is someone who believes your claims enough to put in the effort to do the work (and be prepared to find the premise is wrong). I guess the spotlight turns on Bob Harrison. I have completed the assembly of 175 new frame (25 lb.) pure beeswax 4.9mm foundation.( as I said I would on BEE-L last year). I plan to run tests with controls of the above small cell. Both inserted into the brood nest of a large cell hive and also package bees installed side by side on 4.9mm and several larger cell size foundation. If I like what I see at the end of the season I may repeat the experiment in 2008. Results are a few years off. Took me four years of working with Russian bees before forming an opinion. Many beekeepers ARE now using or converting to small cell. Dave Mendez (Florida 4000 hives) Dave said 5.1 mm. this year and 4.9mm next year.( direct communication 2007) If small cell was simply a passing fad I believe small cell would have gone away by now. Instead now Betterbee carries small cell and others are stepping forward reporting good results. I believe the small cell needs a real test. None at the USDA-ARS has stepped forward to take a look so I will. Compared to some of the testing I have done the small cell testing is simple and easy to do. Although Dee and I have not always agreed I have always respected the way she and Ed have stood by their ideals. A couple points the list should consider as I start testing. 1. All beekeeping is local and poor results by me does not mean Dee is not seeing what she is seeing in her bees. 2. My longitude & latitude is different than Dees & Dave Mendez. 4.9mm. is correct for their location (according to Dee's map posted on beesource) and 5.1mm is correct for my location. Sincerely, Bob Harrison -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:41:39 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: Re: Small cell proof (was small Bees Get MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello All, A couple of quotes by Dr. James Gould ( Princeton University) which might apply. "It is a truism of science that for every experiment supporting one side in a controversy, there is an equal and opposite experiment bolstering the other" A famous quote of Dr. Gould: " Honey Bees have been the subject of more research than all other insect species combined, yet they continue to surprise us" bob -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:22:43 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Brian_Fredericksen?= Subject: bees and pesticides Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Perusing the latest APIS newsletter I found a link to a useful new publication titled "How to reduce bee poisoning from pesticides". I grow apples too and found this informative and plan to give a copy to each orchard and certain landowners I do pollination for, or use their land as a bee yard. http://extension.oregonstate.edu/catalog/details.php?search=bees+pesticide&submit.x=0&submit.y=0 At this link you can view the publication for free or buy it for $5.00 I have never seen the detail of this kind of info in one publication before. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:56:09 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?windows-1252?Q?Joel_Klose?= Subject: Re: Confusing CCD Issues Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hello Peter and all, I think the the following arguments can be made against placing a moratorium or limit on queen sales: 1) Researchers do not have enough information to conclusively state limiting queen sales would be an effecive injuction against CCD. 2) Operations suffering from CCD have purchased queens from a wide variety of reputable queen producers without any link indicating queen issue are a primary catalyst to CCD. 3) Past quarantines to prevent the spread of disease and pest have been ineffectual. 4) As hives sufffering but not succumbed to CCD have been moved throughout the country the catalyst has already been cast throughout the beekeeping arena and will either continue to spread or cease despite contributing factors such as virus carrying queens. Another question comes to mind with this as to what discussions state inspections services are in regarding this matter and any thoughts of a likely hood of any quarantines. Inspectors? Best Regards, Joel -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 18:06:38 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?windows-1252?Q?Joel_Klose?= Subject: Re: Confusing CCD Issues Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Greetings Jerry and others: Thanks to those working so hard to investigate this problem. My perspective on this relates both as a beekeeper and someone who has lived and observed in very close proximity to nature for nearly 5 decades. I don't think the phenomenom of gross population collapse within an overpopulated species is unusual in nature and in fact is the norm. It is important just the same to try and find the factors that triggered it at this scale. In beekeeping we see peak years for mites, disease and other problems which in the natural world act as natures manner of population control. We interfere with this by the use of man made controls maintaining the un- natural overpopulation needed to maintain the many facets of monoculture that is modern farming. As we move our bees in and out of wide ranges of territories we speed up the exchange of natural population controls that may exist in one area of flora and fauna and move them quickly to other areas. We maximize the host potential for disease and pest problem merely by our basic management and movement practices. All these cycles are at some point going to reach an apex for which we can't provide effective controls due to organisms attaining resistance and population controls again taking over. This may have been aggravated by a poor season weather and forage wise causing a collapse like we have seen starting late last year. At any rate, nature, except in sudden weather, earth event,or man made disaster, is a slow process by rule and the symptoms of what we are seeing we have been watching for years working towards a climax, which incidentally the worst of which may be yet to come! It is re-assuring to see the attention many qualified people are giving this matter and offer a strong thanks for speed and depth at which this information has been forthcoming. Best Regards, Joel -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:53:19 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: Midwestern Beekeepers meeting MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello All, This Sunday the 18th.( 2:30 PM) at the monthly meeting I will be giving a presentatation on all the new research presented at the Austin American Beekeeping Federation meeting. The complete work of Dr. Gregory ( HFCS/sucrose & the comparison study of Bee Pro/Feed Bee/ dried pollen & fresh pollen). Also the virus research by Diana Cox-Foster of Penn State. What I learned at the ABF meeting about CCD from Jeff Pettis, David Hackenburg & Lance Sundberg. The Kansas City Star article about CCD will run this weekend ( I was told by the reporter a few minutes ago) and includes the address of the meeting so area beekeepers can come and be informed. Members of the Northeast Kansas Beekeepers are calling each other and are invited to attend. We have got plenty of room and the meeting is free! I have got research papers, photos and some power point slides. We are getting more snow now and tonight but roads should be clear on Sunday. The address is: YMCA 10301 E. 350 Highway Raytown, Missouri Sincerely, Bob Harrison -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 18:51:08 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "=?windows-1252?Q?J._Waggle?=" Subject: Re: Powdered sugar dusting Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Randy Oliver wrote: >Please keep up the organic work, but lay off the finger wagging. You only >alienate the majority. Instead, act as a model,,, Hello Randy! First, my model has a name, and that is ‘Ecological Beekeeping’ Or if you wish ‘Biodynamic Beekeeping”. And if talking healthy beekeeping practices alienates people, then so be it. Secondly, If you actually took the time to read what I wrote, I was ONLY advising that sugar powder treatments are NOT permitted under the guidelines of ecological beekeeping, and that it would be better placed one of the ‘’MANY’’ interpretations of organic beekeeping (pick one that fits the style). I said nothing bad about your sugar dusting, only that it should NOT be classified under Ecological Beekeeping. Ecological Beekeeping, also known as Biodynamic Beekeeping is at the pinnacle of organic beekeeping, it is EXTREEM ORGANIC! Treatments are NOT permitted to be used at any level. Michael Weiler the author of ‘Bees and Honey, From Flower to Jar’ helped to develop guidelines for approaches to ecological beekeeping and these approaches include specific rules such as queen rearing by swarm impulse only, no clipping wings, NO treatments, and the keeping of bees in dwellings that shall predominantly consist of natural materials etc,,,. Gunther Hauk, Biodynamic Beekeeper and author of ‘Toward Saving the Honeybee’ describes the honeybee “as a sick patient who has been trying for years to signal to us the deep crises of its diminishing life forces and its increasing inability to resonate with the environment.“. Gunther explains "During the twentieth century, beekeeping methods were perfected that aimed for optimal honey harvest with minimal investment and work. Measures that merely consider our own comfort and calculate our economic situation, while neglecting the honeybees' own instinctual wisdom, have ruined the health of the honeybee. The way we raise queens, prevent swarming, manipulate the brood nest, feed sugar and pollen substitutes, manipulate the drone population, give plastic foundations or denatured wax, all these practices have added up to weaken the bee to the point that it does not have the integral health or the immune system to ward off predators.” And further describes Ecological Beekeeping methods to help correct the problem. So I am not against you sugar dusting, and make no mistake about it, I wag no fingers at anyone. All I am saying, is that these things should not be classified under Ecological Beekeeping or Biodynamic Beekeeping.. I have seen in the past few years a redefining, a bastardization of many organic type terms so that they mean treatments are allowed. Its getting so bad, that I am seeing many organic beekeepers have voluntarily abandoned the use of some of these terms because the words no longer describe their style of clean beekeeping. Instead of redefining, lowering the bar and watering down terms to meet our goals. Why not for a change, keep the bars where they are and put forth a little (as Gunther Hauk said) “investment and work” and strive for the right to use the terms, and actually earn a badge for a change! Best Wishes, Joe Waggle EcologicalBeekeeping.com ‘Bees Gone Wild Apiaries' Feral Bee Project: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FeralBeeProject/ -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 20:27:34 -0700 Reply-To: allen dick Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: allen dick Organization: Deep Thought Subject: Re: Small cell proof (was small Bees Get MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit A good post, Bob. > Does a single person on the list doubt after all these years she does not > believe in small cell? That is maybe the *only* thing we do not doubt, at least not much. After all, this is the Doubters' List, not the Believers' List, but we have had far more evidence of this one thing that we ever dreamed existed. > Very little of published beekeeping research has the high degree of > creditability I would like to see. The kind of research I like to see is > like the last two I referred to. Not because I posted but clear examples > of what I am referring to. > > Burnside ( 1933 & 1945) > repeated & confirmed > Bailey ( 1963) > or > Barker (1973) > repeated & confirmed > Gergory (2006) Repeated and confirmed is the clincher. At risk of being a pain, however, let me point out that abstracts and summaries only give a hint of what really was done and observed, and how. The devil is in the details, and although the headlines scream, "HFCS proven inferior to Sucrose Syrup", those who read on, may learn that HFCS may not be as good in some situations, but in others, it might just be what is 1.) nearby, 2.) what the beekeeper can afford, 3.) get delivered. and 4.) good enough to get the bees through a dearth--and therefore, a life saver for both the bees and beekeeper. > Dr. Keith Delaplane said at a presentation at the KHPA meeting (2006) that > he has ran bee experiments (with controls) and then a year later ran > exactly the same experiment and got different results. The reason he likes > to see the results repeatable before placing stock in the results as more > than an hypothesis. You can say that again. Some things can vary with the circumstances. For example, pollen supplementation experiments are really hard to nail down, since the nurtitional history of a colony as far back as six months can influence the results. > However in the end both sides will have put out their views and the list > will form an opinion on the subject. No winners or losers. Discussion stimulates thought. > Many beekeepers ARE now using or converting to small cell. > Dave Mendez (Florida 4000 hives) > Dave said 5.1 mm. this year and 4.9mm next year.( direct communication > 2007) Florida is an AHB zone, now, I hear. Still waiting to hear confirmation on that "quote" we discussed earlier. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 20:30:04 -0700 Reply-To: allen dick Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: allen dick Organization: Deep Thought Subject: Re: stealth small cell--I measured some MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Been through that loop too many times physically showing with others > seeing and shaking heads and then agreeing. But then it was said it was > only us and now just only me seeing it. How many times does one do hands > on showing and explaining for years and years? By now, one would expect to see this written up in a way that would conform to the scientific method, unless, of course this was never done in a scientific way. If not, then one would wonder why. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 20:35:26 -0700 Reply-To: allen dick Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: allen dick Organization: Deep Thought Subject: Re: Small cell proof (was small Bees Get MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I believe the small cell needs a real test. None at the USDA-ARS has > stepped forward to take a look so I will. Compared to some of the testing > I have done the small cell testing is simple and easy to do. Glad you will do this, but you realise that it will prove nothing much unless you make sure your tests are designed and performed in a manner that will satisfy science. With all your scientific contacts, I am sure you can get a few researchers to discuss your plans for a test and verify that your experiment will prove meaningful. Maybe some scientific luminaries will even offer to co-author a paper when it is done. Otherwise you may convince yourself and few friends, but fail to prove anything the community at large. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 21:48:26 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: John Edwards Subject: CCD - I am really confused In-Reply-To: <3363479.1171666346257.JavaMail.root@m11> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sorry, I came to the party late. Question: How is CCD different from the infamous "Disappearing Disease" of the 1960s? - John -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 11:00:36 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?D._Murrell?=" Subject: Re: stealth small cell--I measured some Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Randy, Dee and Everyone, Such a test would be interesting. If you do it, I would be interested in the results. But I've already done it using clean large cell comb, small cell comb and natural comb. Worker cell size ranged from about 4.6mm to 5.4mm. Natural comb had the full range of sizes. See: http://bwrangler.farvista.net/sunr.htm The results have been reported here. I think, such a test would only benefit a few individuals, if any. Most would need to do it and should 'prove' it for themselves. I think there's one factor that most beekeepers, here, just don't understand. And that's the different focus those who have experienced the successes of small cell have, versus the focus of those who are still struggling with mites and the effects of treatments. The small cell guys are beyond the mites and don't spend any time on them. Their thoughts, focus and hive priorities are elsewhere. And others can get there, like they did, if they want to. It's now, easier than ever. Through time and after all that has been written and shared, the constant cry of gimme, gimme becomes as irrelevant to the small cell beekeeper, as the mites have. Regards Dennis -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 17:23:30 GMT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "deknow@netzero.net" Subject: Re: Powdered sugar dusting Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >>-- "J. Waggle" wrote: >>Gunther Hauk, Biodynamic Beekeeper and author of ‘Toward Saving the >>Honeybee’ joe, last i was aware (when my gf attended his workshop a few years ago), gunther was a proponent of oa vaporization....this does not seem like "extreme organic: no treatments" to me. deknow -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 12:27:14 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?UTF-8?Q?Peter_Borst?= Subject: Re: stealth small cell--I measured some Comments: To: "D. Murrell" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit D. Murrell wrote: >I think there's one factor that most beekeepers, here, just don't >understand. And that's the different focus those who have experienced the >successes of small cell have OK, but another thing that is not clearly understood is that unless you have control hives, and perform only a cell size change, the results cannot be interpreted. In other words, if you change cell size *as well as* a myriad other practices including better bee stock, less frame swapping, smaller apiaries, non-migratory beekeeping, etc. -- you simply *don't know* which of these was the deciding factor. That is why individuals still are looking for hard evidence resulting from controlled experimentation. Some of us are simply allergic to statements like "it's working, that's good enough for me". pb -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 09:40:01 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: randy oliver Organization: Randy Oliver Subject: Re: Powdered sugar dusting MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Joe Waggle wrote: >>>Secondly, If you actually took the time to read what I wrote, I apologize, Joe. Too much bee moving, too little sleep. Woke up feeling short. Randy Oliver -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 10:44:51 -0700 Reply-To: allen dick Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: allen dick Organization: Deep Thought Subject: Re: stealth small cell--I measured some MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > But I've already done it using clean large cell comb, small cell comb and > natural comb. Worker cell size ranged from about 4.6mm to 5.4mm. Natural > comb had the full range of sizes. See: > > http://bwrangler.farvista.net/sunr.htm > > The results have been reported here. I think, such a test would only > benefit a few individuals, if any. Most would need to do it and should > 'prove' it for themselves. As Bob said, for scientific recognition, results need to be replicated, and more than once, and by unrelated parties without an agenda, before they can be assumed to apply, especially universally. Those of us who have worked in lab are acutely aware of how many ways an experiment can give misleading results, often several times in a row, if some apparently insignificant factor is assumed--or neglected. Moreover, in regard your claims, I am not at all convinced of several things. One is that you designed and carried out experiments which adequately isolated and tested specific claims and assumptions, and the second is that, although my memory is far from perfect, it seems to me that, at various times, your websites claimed various things that seem to me to have changed periodically, and now appear to me to have been altered in hindsight, or deleted. I'd have to look up and study the various iterations of your site that I have archived over the years and compare to put my finger on where these discontinuities appear. Maybe you could restore old periodic backups to a folder somewhere on your site so that people could examine your progress? > I think there's one factor that most beekeepers, here, just don't > understand. And that's the different focus those who have experienced the > successes of small cell have, versus the focus of those who are still > struggling with mites and the effects of treatments... We examine all claims and all evidence that is presented, and what we do notice is, and makes us cautious is 1.) attitude, and 2.)reluctance or downright refusal to provide or subject claims to scientific proof. This is university-sponsored list, and although a wide range of hypothetical and speculative discussion is not out of order, the list owes some fealty to truth, and the need for valid proof. Anything lacking proof, and adequate, tested proof, is an hypothesis and is rightly treated by members, or should be treated, as such. In regard cell size, bee strains, management techniques, devices of several sorts, and chemicals of various toxicities, people are trying many permutations and combinations with various degrees of control and rigour, and reporting various levels of success. It seems that there are successes and failures in virtually every group. FWIW, I personally never lost a managed colony to varroa and I treated *very* minimally. My combs were a hodge-podge of whatever I bought second-hand plus newly drawn comb on various commercial foundations on the market. I did, however, lose one test colony on natural comb. One out of one = 100% loss. One thing, Dennis, I'd like you to clarify in a sentence or two, if you would be so kind, is how you consider yourself to be a "small cell" beekeeper, assuming you do, since your bees build natural comb (which I approve of by the way), and the cell sizes vary all over the map of known sizes? Or did I get this wrong? -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 11:57:58 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: Re: stealth small cell--I measured some MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Dennis & All, How many times have you and I visited the small cell topic? I remember all the snake oil concoctions for varroa. Menthol cough drops to control tracheal mites and in my opinion FGMO use has fallen by the wayside. I think even succrocide and powdered sugaring the whole hive has had its limitations so many have tried those and discarded ( at least in the Midwestern beekeepers). However the advocates of small cell have remained. Quiet on BEE-L due to the flak they get would be my guess but on other lists( and on another list Dennis & visit at times) there are many (not just a few) which swear by small cell. I noticed last night my name was all over one list saying how my first attempt at small cell was not succesful. Yes but on such a small scale I would hardly call my results a test. In short the bees made all size comb all over the place. I never had a solid 4.9mm broodnest to test. I was starting out testing the Russian bee ( article BC) and varroa tolerant bees ( article ABJ) at the time so made the dicision to go the other way. Those from the other list reading please post not to hold up my primative first project as proof small cell does not work. This springs test will be a test. Even getting some packages to use. My interest in small cell is mainly for mite control. If small cell works for varroa control then I believe its got to due with the post capping time. The shorter post capping time could give small cell an edge over a longer post capping time. What do you think of my hypothesis of why the varroa control with small cell Dennis? Bob -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 12:21:37 -0700 Reply-To: allen dick Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: allen dick Organization: Deep Thought Subject: Faith vs. Science MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>I think there's one factor that most beekeepers, here, just don't >>understand. And that's the different focus those who have experienced the >>successes of small cell have > > OK, but another thing that is not clearly understood is that unless you > have control hives, and perform only a cell size change, the results > cannot be interpreted. Let me add to that, we live in a world where we encounter people who believe various quite amazing things. Just to name a few: Some 'know' that they will go paradise if (or though) they blow up a large number of innocent people who are not members of their own religion. Some people who are certain that they are going to win the lottery and that it is just a matter of time, Some that a god of their own defining favours them over all other people and justifies anything they may care to do, Others believed (and some still believe) that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, Some believe that asking for clear and well developed proof before risking even conditional belief is not only reasonable, but a good way to stay alive, sane and solvent. and the list goes on... I guess we all have to believe in something, so I'll go with the last one. Does that put me in the minority? -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 14:57:39 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "=?windows-1252?Q?J._Waggle?=" Subject: Re: Powdered sugar dusting Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Thanks Deknow! Sure doesn’t sound like extreme organic to me either! I just started researching Gunther on the internet and have his book ordered, and what I have read so far made no mention of him promoting treatments. This is not very impressive considering he is Co-Founder and Program Director of The Pfeiffer Center for Biodynamics and Environmental Studies in Chestnut Ridge, NY. Seems like nothing more than a lower form of regular organic to me. I’ve been looking more and more overseas to the EU for information on Ecological Beekeeping with many countries way ahead of us with this type of beekeeping. Seems the practice of Extreme Organic beekeeping is much more accepted in the EU with guidelines already in place, while here in the USA the Extreme Organic Beekeeping seems to be met with Extreme Resistance. :) PS. I wish you good luck with you ‘Massachusetts Chemical Free Beekeeping Group’. If there is any way I can help out, just send a PM. Best Wishes, Joe -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 18:07:13 +0200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: John Phipps Subject: New book shows bees in bad light Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v624) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Bees in Literature. I find Leo Tolstoy interesting as regards his comments on bees. In Ressurrection he writes: "We may deal with things without love - we cut down trees, make bricks, hammering iron without love - but we cannot deal with men without it, just as one cannot deal with bees without being carerful. If one deals carelessly with bees one will injured them and will oneself be injured." Interestingly, in his same book, Nekhlyudov who seduced Maslova - who was then deserted and became a prostitute - feels that their earlier, happier and chaste relationship was something she struck out of her recollections "closed up and plastered over so that they should not escape; as bees, in order to protect the results of their labour, sometimes plaster up a nest of wax-worms". Tolstoy was a beekeeper and bees are often alluded to in his works, but I have never come across honeybees dealing with waxmohs in this manner. John Phipps John Phipps Editor: The Beekeepers Quarterly Neochori, Agios Nikolaos, Messinias, Greece 24024 webpage: www.iannisphoto.com -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 18:22:34 -0500 Reply-To: D Adams Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: D Adams Subject: Re: CCD - I am really confused Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It seem's to be the same thing, at least in symptoms.Perhaps it was a more modern sounding name.In the past no one ever researched it far enough to find out what caused it and what would prevent it??? -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 21:38:36 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?UTF-8?Q?Peter_Borst?= Subject: Re: Powdered sugar dusting Comments: To: "J. Waggle" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit J. Waggle wrote: >Sure doesn't sound like extreme organic to me either! >Seems like nothing more than a lower form of regular organic to me. >here in the USA the Extreme Organic Beekeeping seems to be met with Extreme >Resistance. I am afraid that if one takes an extremist position, one is going to be met with resistance. Personally, I avoid extremism of all types. And why this distinction between "higher" and "lower"? Before you rush to condemn somebody for his or her practices, maybe you should "walk a mile in their shoes". As many of us have tried to say so many times, there is no One Right Way, no One Size Fits All. pb -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 21:18:48 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Larry Krengel Subject: Re: Faith vs. Science MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Some 'know' that they will go paradise if (or though) they blow up a large > number of innocent people who are not members of their own religion. > > Others believed (and some still believe) that Iraq had weapons of mass > destruction, > > Some believe that asking for clear and well developed proof before risking > even conditional belief is not only reasonable, but a good way to stay > alive, sane and solvent. > > I guess we all have to believe in something, so I'll go with the last one. > Does that put me in the minority? At the risk of continuing a line of discussion that has little to do with informed discussion about beekeeping, I would suggest that you are not in the minority. That is why we waited decades before taking action on smoking as a cause of lung cancer. Data was only correlational, not experimental. Millions died, but we did not take action until we were sure. Well, we are still not sure, but that is because we were unable to find people to volunteer to be in the experimental group for the smoking experiment. If there is a parallel to beekeeping, yes, sometimes I do things I am not totally sure are useful in dealing with problems both present and expected. I only require that it fit the "do no harm" criteria. Yes, Allen, even scientists, atheists, and beekeepers act on faith. You are not in the minority and I respect what you choose to believe in. Larry Krengel -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 09:57:47 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: John & Christy Horton Subject: Faith vs. Science MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Note to Aaron: Aaron,I am aware that the nature of this post is somewhat unorthodox, but I feel it is applicable in that it is a real life description of my own practical experience as a beekeeper. Hopefully it can be- in the end -a bridgebuilder between different ways of looking at beekeeping. My faith animates me and has a measured impact on the way I conduct my business. I certainly allow others their own point of view if different from mine. Thanks Allen said: > Some believe that asking for clear and well developed proof before risking > even conditional belief is not only reasonable, but a good way to stay > alive, sane and solvent. > > and the list goes on... > > I guess we all have to believe in something, so I'll go with the last one. > Does that put me in the minority? Allen, I agree with the reasonableness of your statements above. I guess this is probably a good a time as any in thanking you for your help in saving probably 50 of my hives in 2005. At that time I was inquring on BEE-L as to how to feed bees. During that period, I had a vision of a barrel with a "gash" in it rolling down a hill. As i sought the interpretation, I felt as if The Lord told me that I was in danger of starving my bees(The color of the barrel was the same light green color as my only barrel of sugar syrup). As it turned out,I dscovered LATER, the gallon bag feeding method I used was resulting in lots of unusable hard sugar. I was exploring "open feeding" and making slow progress- using 5 gallon pails-it never occured to be to use barrels. I inquired on BEE-L about this topic. You graciously responded by sending 3 websites(I saved your response from 2/18/05 in a folder) I gasped as I looked at the barrels with "gashes" that were very similiar to the one I saw in the vision. At about the same time, a south Alabama beekeeper(Ted Kreitchman)also graciously told me told me of a man only 100 miles from me that sold sugar in barrels. I will shorten this by saying that as I applied this method of feeding . I only ended up starving two hives....I am sure because of the stores lacking i would have starved many. many more. Please note that I got my first beehive around 2000. I am being competely frank with you when I tell you that the reason i got into beekeeping was that I was walking across the yard one day and Christ spoke to me and said "Call Stan Mcdonald and get some honeybees" I did and we did.. We have been steadily expanding since that time into a profitable honey and candlemaking business...and now queen rearing. I have no words to describe how much I enjoy what I do, as I told one reporter "It almost feels illegal". I guess what really got my attention was your heading "Faith vs. science" . I recieved a transcript last week of a speech that was given to me by a friend who worked closely with Werhner Von Braun for several years on the Saturn program and beyond. Here in part are Dr Von Brauns words that I feel accurately describe the relationship between science and faith. It is titled "Science and Religion", and was given in 1965. "The scientist works in an atmosphere where doubt is an accepted way of life, and unnecessary authority rejected . Thomas Huxley has said of the scientist: "For him skepticism is the highest of duties, blind faith the unpardonable sin". The rise of science has been accomapnied by a loss of tradition,which has been the mainstay of faith. Clashes between science and religion have, therefore, been frequent. And yet, it is one of the greatest tragedies of our times that science and religion have been cast as antagonists. To resolve the conflict, it has been tempting to adopt a policy of peaceful coexistence, and divide our experience into two parts, granting science contol over one part,and permitting religion its authority over the other. Let science investigate the physical world while religion explains spiritual matters, the arguement goes. When science gets to the end of its rope, let faith take over to account for the unexplainable. This is a fatal step. Two separate worlds for science and religion might work if no scientist were ever a Christian, and no Christian were ever a scientist. But science and religion do not operate in separate realms." Allen, thanks for the inputs you and others have given over the years, they have been the instruments that have spared me untold headaches and mistakes. I could say the same thing about our local beekeping clubs and the members there.It helps make me aware of how little I know about keeping bees, which hopefully helps me to stay humble and teachable. Best to all, John Horton -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 11:47:36 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "=?windows-1252?Q?J._Waggle?=" Subject: Re: Powdered sugar dusting Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Peter Borst wrote: --And why this >distinction between "higher" and "lower"? Before you rush to condemn >somebody for his or her practices, maybe you should "walk a mile in their >shoes". Because there is a distinction, and I made no such condemnation. Which form of organic beekeeping should his practices be classified under? There seem to be many interpretations of what organic actually is. What's your preferred definition of organic? Joe -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 14:27:14 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: John & Christy Horton Subject: Faith vs. Science-minor clarifications MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Correction/clarification. His name is spelled : Wernher Von Braun. Also, when i stated that "we" have been expanding our bee business, I was apeaking of my wife and I-not Stan, who is focusing more now on his church,law practice and family of approx 8 or 10, among other things! Thanks John Horton -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 13:40:55 -0700 Reply-To: allen dick Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: allen dick Organization: Deep Thought Subject: California Bound MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all, I'm flying into San Francisco tonight and planning to drive around the area, then down to San Diego and ultimately the Yuma area. While in the almond growing region of California, I'm hoping to meet up with some beekeepers and maybe even get a little wax on my hands. I've talked to one fellow and am expecting to look him and his buddy up, then hopefully meet some more bee people as I head south. Anyone who would like to meet up and have a coffee or open a few hives together, please reply to my personal email address (not the BEE-L address, please unless you can't figure out any other way). Also, my contact info is also easy to find at honeybeeworld.com. My home phone is forwarded to my cell when I travel allen -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 15:55:35 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Brian Fredericksen Subject: Re: Faith vs. Science Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit a picture tells the story http://www.wellingtongrey.net/miscellanea/archive/2007-01-15%20--%20science%20vs% 20faith.png -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 18:38:15 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Powdered sugar dusting -or sprinkling fairy dust In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit J. Waggle wrote: > > There seem to be many interpretations of what organic actually is. > One of the great truths of Western Man. Probably one of the main reasons why, when this list delves into the organic movement, I feel like Alice in Through the Looking Glass: > `When /I/ use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, > `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.' > > `The question is,' said Alice, `whether you /can/ make words mean so > many different things.' > > `The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - > that's all.' > When we cannot even understand what the terms mean, then they mean nothing. They are artifacts and used at the whim of the speaker. That does not give promise to a dialog but to misunderstanding. Which is why some scientific papers and most legal documents do have definition of terms, so there is a common base. So if you go to the USDA and the law you get definitions of terms, including "organic". The problem with the organic movement, outside of the USDA definitions, is it shifts into Allen's "Faith vs Science" post. You move from the science of the organic movement to the faith of the movement. I worked mostly with the science based movement here in Maine. Good, pragmatic people. But when you move into the faith part of the movement, and unfortunately it is not a long leap, you enter Alice's world. I practice organic farming and have done so for scores of years, but I am not as "pure" as some of faith would have me, so I am therefore not truly "organic". The problem is, the next fringe looks back at those who disparage me and condemn them, until you finally get out to the end and there, in his humble purity, is Humpty Dumpty. Bill Truesdell (Practicing Bioexoentropic beekeeping- beekeeping dedicated to increase the entropy of the Universe) Bath, Maine -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 11:00:09 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dee Lusby Subject: Re: stealth small cell--I measured some In-Reply-To: <01b701c751df$2b05b660$ad25fea9@jps.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Randy: Dee, you are in a unique position to help demonstrate clearly to the industry that small cell decreases mite reproduction, since you already have an operation where mites and brood diseases are not a problem. You could easily test the 4.9 advantage hypothesis in one season by performing the experiment I requested. Simply insert five 5.0 frames into the middle of several of your colonies, and report whether varroa and brood diseases reappear. Your control would be several colonies with the same number of frames of fresh 4.9 foundation inserted. This would be a small price to payin order to clinch the validity of your hypothesis. Reply: You say "since you already have an operation where mites and brood diseases are not a problem." Yet it was shown others that came here and I am talking professionals/researchers that we had a problem re-occurring and reshook down. AFter even only a few months sampling showed it was working FWIW.....recorrecting the problem and if continued would solve what you just wrote. why go thru documentation and that stuff again, for what does it really show, other then accept or reject, and if you cannot accept, then let the bees teach you the hard way by dying! LIfe is tough my man! Also it was physically shown back then the bees live on 5.0mm they just have secondary disease problems in high stress, like aka movement, treatments to up the anty, not pulling diseased combs, excessing heat and excessive drought........Alone might be good and last a beekeeper for year with crutches, figuring year 8 plus another 8 or so with the crutches, but then in the end things come to a head... though comb change out could keep extending that with good supplys of bulk bees FWIW...... I just don't like that way of keeping honeybees though others do! So have it!Really 5.0mm isn't bad for on the cuff steady maintenance. But I don't like that.I want bees that take care of selves... Dee- ____________________________________________________________________________________ No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 12:46:56 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dee Lusby Subject: Re: stealth small cell--I measured some Comments: To: allen dick In-Reply-To: <00ff01c75243$eb32f420$4c00a8c0@Pericles> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Allen Dick: By now, one would expect to see this written up in a way that would conform to the scientific method, unless, of course this was never done in a scientific way. If not, then one would wonder why. Reply: Allen, the way we worked and downsized and took notes and presented "was the same way" it was done the first time and eagerly written up for scientic proof FWIW. Some how peer review changed for wanting out IMPOV. But first time it was written up, and even after second regression starting the varroa counts were taken. But I have a feeling in seeing the results in less then 6 months, following the second regression (that put us into the lions mouth on sizing we were told not to go into), that were then put in ABJ, no one wanted to come for more testing officially to see if control was finally reached, which I found highly interesting, which it was; and following that the chewing out info we gathered was also put into ABJ for what was being seen. Yet, Ed and I changed no ways we were doing things in the field, except for the size of combs, and then later how phasing in, which, with Housel Positioning, was the last major piece of the puzzle we needed for field management, to get our hives to climb back to 4-5 deeps through our drought years even; and that to we presented in Alabama, and have shown many physically, and have written up, and those seeing in the field here and then doing have liked immensely. For in doing and actual seeing, it is different then just reading and forming own opinion, for you see actual results first hand. Funny, nothing has been hidden for what we did and what I will continue doing in following the bees. But I cannot seeing going backwards to something now 7-10 years or more behind us/me for those just now starting, especially when the information is still there for reading in ABJ and at apiservices.com, and beesource.com. Dee ____________________________________________________________________________________ Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 13:03:00 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dee Lusby Subject: Re: stealth small cell--I measured some In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Peter & Allen: OK, but another thing that is not clearly understood is that unless you havecontrol hives, and perform only a cell size change, the results cannot be interpreted. Reply: Interesting, since when we shook down a second time in heated discussion we were told to change only the cell size and prove it! Like sorta stick it back if we could, knowing it wasn't wanted, nor was it felt we'd make it to completion. As for controls, I always considered all those still on LC 5.4mm and other sizes unchanged, the controls, for showing the failures while we proceeded on down the path,FWIW. And again, consider no going back to a time 7-10 years in the past or more, for that to me would prove nothing for the fork is too big now. Dee- ____________________________________________________________________________________ Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 16:12:27 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dee Lusby Subject: Re: Powdered sugar dusting In-Reply-To: <20070217.092428.1712.1178351@webmail42.nyc.untd.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Deknow writes: gunther was a proponent of oa vaporization....this does not seem like "extreme organic: no treatments" to me. Reply: You are right for it is not and never will be, along with some of the breeding guidlines, packaging, and how bees are placed/kept. I could say more but won't, and seems we only went thru this short time back on organic list when we talked about words and proper usage and when allowed. Regards, Dee ____________________________________________________________________________________ Need Mail bonding? Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091 -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 02:25:03 -0800 Reply-To: port128@yahoo.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: John Porter Subject: Re: Small cell proof (was small Bees Get Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-15 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Bob, > I plan to run tests with controls of the above small cell. Both inserted > into the brood nest of a large cell hive and also package bees installed > side by side on 4.9mm and several larger cell size foundation. Given the time and risk of downsizing through 5.1mm to get to 4.9mm, is there a reason you chose not to include a number of test colonies on 4.9mm Supercall? There will be extra work involved because you can't just drop them into the brood nest and have the plastic accepted. It does seem like a valuable thing to try though, because it holds the promise of instant conversion to small cell. Thanks -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 12:40:00 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dee Lusby Subject: Re: New book shows bees in bad light In-Reply-To: <8e2d93c7c01c81cb08adeee997abc328@otenet.gr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit John Phipps: but I have never come across honeybees dealing with waxmohs in this manner. Reply: Why would not honeybees propolizing over wax worm cocoons not be in this manner? Is not this often seen? Sincerely, Dee A. Lusby ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss an email again! Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/ -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 19:32:51 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter Dillon Subject: Re: CCD update In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jerry, Honey bee colonies have been suffering from so called "Disappearing Syndrome" at different periods and comments have been made indicating that it is unknown if they are linked by a common causal agent. If by chance that investigation into this episode is unable to identify the cause, are there any plans to hold/store biological material (i.e. Honey Bees) in a medium that would allow for future investigation and comparison when required. I do not know what would be considered as a prime method of retaining bees in stasis over long periods of time. If (in 2025 to give a date) another outbreak occurs and the culprit fingered, then samples from this period could be retrieved and compared. Regards, Peter -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 21:04:47 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Rob Green Subject: Midwest Beekeeper - Free Download In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed The March 2007 issue of MIDWEST BEEKEEPER is available for free download from www.IndianaBeekeepingSchool.com. The issue is almost entirely devoted to CCD -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 22:16:43 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: Re: Small cell proof (was small Bees Get Comments: To: port128@YAHOO.COM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello John & All,. >Given the time and risk of downsizing through 5.1mm to get to 4.9mm, is there a reason you chose not to include a number of test colonies on 4.9mm Supercall? I don't care for fully drawn plastic. My reason is basically I consider fully drawn problematic long term for a number of reasons. Second I believe (as does Tom Seeley) that taking a brood nest of bees and placing nine sheets of plastic every inch and a half is not the way nature intended and bad enough. Fully drawn is way too much plastic for me. Tom has some interesting experiments he has ran concerning plastic foundation & frames. Beeswax is what the bees like. Tom has shown the bees can heat the cluster better when all comb is wax rather than divided by the plastic in nine places. Not as big an issue in warm areas. With plastic foundation you can cut the beeswax back to the plastic and let the bees draw again which is almost like recycling comb. The purpose of my testing John is to observe some of the things others have said they have observed. The method I have chosen ( in December BEE-L archives) according to Dennis Murrel & also believed will work by Joe Waggle to get the 4.9mm comb drawn I need is outlined. If hives already on 4.9mm. were available close by I could simply run tests. Although I will document the entire process real testing will be done only when I get bees regressed on 4.9mm. However Dee says for my area 5.1mm is the natural size but will not get the results she sees. I thought about trying the Mann Lake comb causing the buzz on another list but think I need to go 4.9 to get the shorter post capping time. I am interested in the varroa control. Period. I will be working with 175 crimp wired 4.9mm foundation frames ( ready right now) to start. I have several ways I plan to test including shook on the 4.9mm foundation. I don't expect these to get draw correctly but need to try. Unlike Dee whatever size the bees draw will be kept and used in production hives. Remelt down? I don't think so! Way too much work. The only way I would cull is if the bees draw drone comb in brood nest center! The shook on 4,9mm foundation testing will start middle of April ( packages) but the getting two frames drawn in the middle of the brood nest of a very strong hive of bees at start of major honey flow will start in middle of May. I assure the list when I am done I WILL know if small cell works to control varroa mites. Bob -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 20:58:43 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dee Lusby Subject: Re: Small cell proof (was small Bees Get Comments: To: port128@yahoo.com In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit John Porter writes: There will be extra work involved because you can't just drop them into the brood nest and have the plastic accepted. It does seem like a valuable thing to try though, because it holds the promise of instant conversion to small cell. Reply: Yes, 4.9mm foundation drawn out wrong is not 4.9mm with uniformity for a test one would think. But since the HSC plastic is fully drawn out with 4.8mm ID in the bottom of the cells and 4.85mm ID halfway up the cells to top with 4.9mm ID at top which is really a 5.0mm sizing then at the top, then with 4.8mm at bottom for a good 4.9mm ID sizing at the bottom for royal jelly to approximate the royal jelly in wax 4.9mm ID cells for JGH trigger changing, then Bob you would have something better to work with and much labor and time changed to lesser for you to do FWIW, say with a better test if minimum of 4 frames in the center of the broodnest core were placed if you could/might do that for single nucs/deeps. Sincerely, Dee A. Lusby ____________________________________________________________________________________ Finding fabulous fares is fun. Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097 -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 08:23:18 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Keith Benson Subject: Re: stealth small cell--I measured some In-Reply-To: <20070217210300.1691.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit ----- Original Message ----- From: Dee Lusby > As for controls, I always considered all those still on LC > 5.4mm and other sizes unchanged, the controls, for showing > the failures while we proceeded on down the path,FWIW. They cannot be controls as they manage their bees differently, prolly have different strains of bees, are in different areas etc. The point of a control is that the control group is identical to the test group, except for the variable in question. The beekeeper is a variable, yep, that is you. I certainly would not suggest that just because my LC hives crash on a given year, and your SC hives do not, that SC is better. I suspect the difference would have more to do with the vast difference in the experience of the beekeepers to have a larger effect. Bottom line - there are a number of people who will try small cell for a number of reasons. But this is the tiny minority. Want to reach more folks - you need data with controls. Don't care to reach the majority, keep on as you are. But then, we have all heard all of this before. No one wanted to collect data in the past and the reason cited was "why collect data, we KNOW it works". Now the reason is "we don’t want to go back 7-10 years." Don't want to collect data? That is entirely your business, you simply cannot expect there to be an end to the speculation, skepticism, and doubters as they will not be in short supply. And before anyone asks, yes I ahve some SC bees, and some LC bees. I really see no difference between the two but my "N" is simply not large enough to pick a fight over it. Keith -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 09:05:28 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Michael Palmer Subject: Re: CCD In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed I see now, that NY state is on the CCD map. Any idea where in the state it was found? Mike -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 08:04:16 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: Re: Small cell proof (was small Bees Get MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello John,Dee & All, For the sake of honest testing I will add some fully drawn SC comb. Dee has always said to get the varroa control you need to drop to the 4.9mm cell size. Not 5.0 or evn 5.1 which is natural for my area. Dave Mendez (Florida commercial beekeeper) is going down in two steps. 5.1mm first and then giving the bees 4.9mm.. I believe Dave plans to simply sell off the new drawn 5.1mm. comb boxes as he down sizes if I understand Dave correctly. Dave has been selling off already most of his 5.3 mm comb. I have suggested before that a writer for the bee magazines should document his progress but too far for me to travel. Does small cell work? Don't know but I am testing. I have been a backer of those not afraid to try new methods but skeptical of the small cell claims. I suspect John & Dee are suggesting the fully drawn to make sure my testing is not done on comb which is not a true 4.9mm cell size. I respect that and will add. After all I am wanting to solve a riddle which has plauged BEE-L for many years. Bob -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 09:52:08 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?windows-1252?Q?Adony_Melathopoulos?= Subject: Bees in America Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I just read Tammy Horn's book "Bee's in America: How the Honey Bee Shaped a Nation". I highly recommend it. It traces the history of beekeeping in the US along with it intersection with ideology, public policy, science and women and minority rights. Among other things I learned: -Samuel Hartlib's book of 1655 "A Reformed Commonwealth of Bees" and its arguement that Britian's economic hardships could be tackled by having England's sweetener needs met by honey rather than cane. - That African American slaves brought with them considerable knowledge of honey hunting from Africa. - How Moses Quimby, a Quaker, became one of the first commercial beekeepers and was the first to propose that AFB could be cured by shaking bees onto new frames... he also invented the bellows smoker. - That Charles Dadant set up his business along socialist principles and was instrumental in making people aware that Langstroth figured out "bee space". - During WWI Brigham Bottling Works marketed a honey-based soft drink "Beehive Beverages". What did others think about the book. Adony -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 08:05:27 -0700 Reply-To: allen dick Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: allen dick Organization: Deep Thought Subject: Re: stealth small cell--I measured some MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Here is the current thread in discussion by the way for the > Mann Lake Product now three pages long and growing: > > http://www.beesource.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=007175;p=1 > > As for measuring plastic different then wax, it does matter > depending how the cell walls are built and how high. There is also the question of wall thickness. Although is agreed that the best way to measure is to take the shortest measure across 10 cells with a metric ruler, then divide by ten, if the walls are thicker than normal, then the cells will also be smaller inside. I looked at a picture posted by someone and it seemed to me that the walls of this plastic comb are thicker than newly drawn wax. Another point in regard the question of cell size is that we have always known (even though the matter has been questioned) that older comb tends to have cocoons build up, resulting in small bees. By many that was considered a Bad Thing. FWIW. allen -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 07:23:22 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Adrian Wenner Subject: Faith vs reason Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v624) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Here is a useful guidepost about faith vs reason: CONFIRMATION BIAS (from Google)   DESCRIPTION When we have made a decision or built a hypothesis, we will actively seek things that will confirm our decision or hypothesis. We will also avoid things that will disconfirm this. The alternative is to face the dissonance of being wrong. We use this approach both for searching our memory and looking for things in the external world. So what? USING IT After having persuaded a person of something, help them feel good by letting them find examples that confirm their good example. DEFENDING After a decision is made, consider whatever evidence you can find, even if it disconfirms the decision—at least you will make a better decision next time. Also beware of people feeding you confirming evidence. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ SOME EXAMPLES (by others): "For what a man more likes to be true, he more readily believes." Francis Bacon (1561-1626) “The mind lingers with pleasure upon the facts that fall happily into the embrace of the theory, and feels a natural coldness toward those that seem [not compatible with the theory]. Instinctively there is a special searching-out of phenomena that support it, for the mind is led by its desires.” … “The working hypothesis differs from the ruling theory in that it is used as a means of determining facts, and has for its chief function the suggestion of lines of inquiry; the inquiry being made, not for the sake of the hypothesis, but for the sake of facts.” Chamberlin — 1895 “… scientists do not seek to impose their needs and wants on Nature, but instead humbly interrogate Nature and take seriously what they find.” Carl Sagan — 1985 “… scientific theories, by their very nature, cannot be negotiated or politically imposed.” Pat Duffy Hutcheon — 1997 “Don't be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people's thinking.” Steve Jobs — 2005 "Having one view prevail is harmful; it becomes a belief system, not science." Kavan Khachaturian —2006 "An advocate knows the answer and looks for evidence to support it: a scientist asks nature how much support there is for competing hypotheses." Ray Hilborn — 2006 Adrian -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:06:07 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Peter_Borst?= Subject: Re: Bees in America Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Adony Melathopoulos wrote: >- How Moses Quimby, a Quaker, became one of the first commercial >beekeepers [That would be Quinby] Quinby's New Beekeeping: The Mysteries of Beekeeping Explained, by L. C. Root, 1879, NYC If L. L. Langstroth is recognized as the father of modern beekeeping, then Moses Quinby (1810-1875) is the father of commercial honey production. The two men were contemporaneous in life and publishing: born the same year, they also published their first books the same year. The work of these two men, whether disseminated in print or in person, would revolutionize beekeeping in America. Quinby, in his early 20's, established a beekeeping business, eventually owning 1,200 hives in New York's Mohawk Valley. As a practical man, he sought to make his business more efficient and created several beekeeping aids: one of the first honey extractors in the country, the first useful knife for preparing comb for honey extraction and the first practical smoker, a hand-operated bellows that blew smoke through a tin fire pot. The latter was a very popular improvement over the previous practice of using a smoldering stick to subdue the bees during hive inspection or comb removal. Quinby's original book, The Mysteries of Beekeeping Explained, came out in 1853. After his death in 1875, his son-in-law, L. C. Root revised the book to bring it up to date and added more illustrations. http://exhibits.mannlib.cornell.edu/beekeeping/atlantic/page3.html The home page is http://exhibits.mannlib.cornell.edu/beekeeping/ -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:43:33 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Jerry Bromenshenk Subject: Re: CCD MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Our public maps are deliberately vague -- many beekeepers require confidentiality before they will answer our questions. We share more detailed information as appropriate - to the CCD Working Group, others working on the problem. However, our databases are set up to respect the beekeeper wishes. One of the more frequent requests is that we NOT share specific information with 'their' state bee inspectors or the general public. I can say that NY has a high percentage (compared to most states) of respondents who say they've seen this disorder. Keep in mind, our surveys are only as good as the input that we get. So far, over 100 beekeepers have filled out our on-line surveys -- not many considering the number of beekeepers in the U.S. We can use more input (_www.beesurvey.com_ (http://www.beesurvey.com) ). Thanks Jerry J.J. Bromenshenk -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 12:25:56 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?windows-1252?Q?Joel_Klose?= Subject: Re: Acids in HFCS? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Dick and memebers, Before I began using HFCS 55 I did some research on the use and effect. I don't know if it relevant to the current problem as I know little about the resulting products. A couple of items of interest were: 1) HFCS is produced by 2 different processes, one being enzyme process and the other being acid process. 2) Beekeepers using HFCS are advised to use only enzyme process. 3) Beekeepers using HFCS (anecdotal) noted a slightly higher mortality rate following the introuduction of HFCS 55. I did not investigate the processes in any depth but I would deduce it involves the catlayst for extracting corn syrup being either an enzyme or acid and it would seem to lead to the conclusion the acid process would have a higer acid content? Has anyone considered or is it likely there has been a mix up in product at either packaging or labeling or perhaps in some type of mixing that could result in such a high acid content? Wouldn't there be clear symptoms of acid impacting the bees on a notable level (increased mortality) very shortly after feeding if this was a contrubuting factor to CCD? Best Regards, Joel -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 14:24:51 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Brian Fredericksen Subject: Re: stealth small cell--I measured some Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 08:05:27 -0700, allen dick wrote: >Another point in regard the question of cell size is that we have always >known (even though the matter has been questioned) that older comb tends to >have cocoons build up, resulting in small bees. By many that was considered >a Bad Thing. FWIW. > >allen > I took over some colonies of a gentleman who kept bees for 65 years. When he passed away in 2004 he had never used a strip in his hives instead an essential oil. His brood combs had many years of buildup and one could see with the naked eye that the italians he kept were smaller then the "average bee" in newer comb. FWIW the colonies were near collapse. I had never seen so many mites in my life or DWV as prevelant etc. We nursed them back over 12 months with some soft treatments. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 15:30:41 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?UTF-8?Q?Peter_Borst?= Subject: Disappearing Disease Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Some History > During the Spring of 2002, numerous Alabama beekeepers experienced an inexplicable bee colony die-off. There was no obvious cause - even after USDA analysis. An old diagnosis was called up - The Disappearing Disease of Honey Bees. > The condition was first described in 1915 and was called Disappearing Disease because the disease was self-limiting and disappeared. Through the years, that name has increasingly been broadened to describe any mysterious instance where adult bees disappear - not the disease. > Other possible names for the ailment are: Spring Dwindling, Fall Dwindling, May Disease, and Autumn Collapse. The Isle of Wight Disease, caused by tracheal mites, has many similarities to Disappearing Disease. The reported symptoms are broad and indistinct appearing to be a collage of characteristics. Characteristics of Disappearing Disease Adult bee loss with no accumulation at the hive entrance. Adult bee loss after a cool damp Spring - though losses have also been reported in the Summer and Autumn. Queens are the last hive individuals to be affected. Pollen and honey stores are strangely normal. A disproportionate brood/adult bee ratio. Spotty outbreaks > In 1985, Dr. Roger Morse wrote, 'It seems unlikely that any one cause produces all the losses attributed to Disappearing Disease.' From: BEE CULTURE'S BEEYARD by: James E. Tew http://www.orsba.org/htdocs/download/Dtew.htm -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 15:52:00 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Faith vs reason In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Adrian Wenner wrote: > > “… scientific theories, by their very nature, cannot be negotiated or > politically imposed.” Pat Duffy Hutcheon — 1997 > > "Having one view prevail is harmful; it becomes a belief system, not > science." Kavan Khachaturian —2006 I wish the first were true in view of the second. Unfortunately theories are just that but politicians can and do take the leap from theory to "proved" science. The idea that one race is superior to another was "proved science" as far back as the late 1800s and believed by most including a President of the US and a German house painter. I would hope this list ascribes to the second quote and is always open to scientific dissent. But there's the rub. If the dissent was backed by science the discussion would be informed. Go back in the archives and read some of the discussions between Adrian and others on dance language. I learned a great deal from them. The problem is, most of the rest of us do not really run actual experiments but operate with no control of variables, no control group, and no idea just what we have proved at the end other than "it works." The leaps we make from that point are astounding. And fun to discuss. Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 12:56:20 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dee Lusby Subject: Re: stealth small cell--I measured some Comments: To: allen dick In-Reply-To: <008801c75437$6a4f60f0$a001a8c0@Pericles> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Allen Dick: if the walls are thicker than normal, then the cells will also be smaller inside. Reply: Not always Allen. Depends. If fully drawnout comb I can see this reasoning. But with foundation like with the Mann Lake foundation, the walls are not high enough for thinking this reasoning put by you here; and going higher then with beeswax, with bees would then make for fully drawnout combs with then the walls getting thinner and also bigger dimentions inside, for how the actual cellsbottom FWIW is used by the bees. Also with the lesser impression in the bottom of the pyrimads this would then make for earier negating of the bottoms to rounding by the bees, with more filling/thickening for going bigger slightly also with the walls (walls still thinner here). Really NO CELL WALLS would be better like the old diamondmatch patterns early on. Regards, Dee ____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 09:55:36 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dee Lusby Subject: Re: stealth small cell--I measured some Comments: To: allen dick In-Reply-To: <008801c75437$6a4f60f0$a001a8c0@Pericles> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Allen Dick: Another point in regard the question of cell size is that we have always known (even though the matter has been questioned) that older comb tends to have cocoons build up, resulting in small bees. By many that was considered a Bad Thing. FWIW. Reply: With LC this is especially true for the bees leave the cocoons in to help get the walls thicker. But it is also noted in old archives before the times of enlargement with LC to extremes, that the bees readily chew and keep thin, the cell walls in old combs, and this was written about much by E.B. Wedmore. REgards, Dee A. Lusby ____________________________________________________________________________________ Finding fabulous fares is fun. Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097 -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 13:11:50 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dee Lusby Subject: Re: stealth small cell--I measured some In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Brian: This sure says a lot. In 65 years couldn't still get the bees back down from LC though trying, and imagine new was phased in periodically here and there. Also added in, the cocoons they needed to thicken the walls,that normally if SC to begin with, probably woulldn't have been there as a haven for harboring not wanted pathogens and other. Again please see E.B. Wedmore on writings early on on this subject. Good way of saying the only way to really go smaller is to just do it with changeout and be done, if one wants clean combs again, whether contaminated by chemicals/treatments or by cocoons building up by bees that in nature are normally kept thin! You saying you applied treatment sure highlighted this.......but still don't think the problem ended here. Sincerely, Dee A. Lusby Small Cell Commercial Beekeeper Moyza, Arizona http://groups.yahoo.com/group/organicbeekeepers/ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know. Ask your question on www.Answers.yahoo.com -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 17:01:50 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter Borst Subject: Disappearing Disease, 2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Dr. Hachiro Shimanuki in his treatise, "Synonymy in Bee Diseases," in Honey Bee Pests, Predators, and Diseases, edited by Dr. Roger Morse, Comstock Publishing Associates, 1978, said this so-called disease was, "...a classic example of a misnomer. In the first place the bees disappear, not the disease, and in my opinion, the term is used as an umbrella for what may well be many maladies." Indeed subsequent extensive research failed to isolate any disease organism in stocks that exhibited the condition. The symptoms are similar to other conditions like "autumn collapse," or "spring dwindling," which appear to be the result of stress related to nutritional imbalance. Subsequent research by Drs. J. Kulincevic and W. Rothenbuhler at The Ohio State University has revealed that expeller-processed soybean flour, long used to feed bees, may have been the culprit in some instances. from: APIS Volume 2, Number 6, June, 1984 Copyright (c)1984 M.T. Sanford "All Rights Reserved" -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 19:09:24 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: John Edwards Subject: Re: CCD update In-Reply-To: <16947562.1171856986339.JavaMail.root@m11> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Stored in glass vials with foil-lined lids, -70 degrees (C or F ?) should hold them, if you know somebody (besides the Tucson Bee Lab) with an ultracold, never-defrosting freezer. Or, store in 70% ethanol/water in glass. Otherwise, fix in Bouin's solution, section and stain with H&E (haematoxylin & eosin), hope for no color fading. -with thanks to H.K. Poole and G. Loper, - John Edwards Peter Dillon wrote: > If by chance that investigation into this episode is unable to > identify the cause, are there any plans to hold/store biological > material (i.e. Honey Bees) in a medium that would allow for future > investigation and comparison when required. > I do not know what would be considered as a prime method of retaining > bees in stasis over long periods of time. > If (in 2025 to give a date) another outbreak occurs and the culprit > fingered, then samples from this period could be retrieved and compared. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 00:19:39 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?D._Murrell?=" Subject: Re: stealth small cell--I measured some Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Guys, >As Bob said, for scientific recognition, results need to be replicated... Those of us who have worked in lab... I've worked in labs and been involved with research and develop as well. And I initially started my untreated yard with this focus. But decided not to invest the time or money, for evidence, adequate for my beekeeping needs, could be generated without the hassle. >Moreover, in regard to your claims, I am not at all convinced of several things. One is that you designed and carried out experiments which adequately isolated and tested specific claims and assumptions.... My little experiments adequately tested them out as I got the evidence I needed. My evidence box holds more than just the scientific method :>) But then I didn't have any responsibility to test them out for anyone else. I only shared my results so others, like yourself, would have a place to start and could do tests suitable for their own needs. And I expected that with the superior training, etc. a much better job than I did could be done. And so that others, not needing a rigorous scientific investigation, could improve their beekeeping. So, what kind of real work has anyone else done? Absolutely nothing that I'm aware. The only work that I know of consists in typing out criticism. And I think that if a few more had spent as much time investigating cell size as they have criticizing it, there might be a better understanding of the cell size issue. >and the second is that, although my memory is far from perfect, it seems to me that, at various times, your websites claimed various things that seem to me to have changed periodically, and now appear to me to have been altered in hindsight, or deleted. I have changed the focus and feel of my website through time. Initially, I used it to release the actual raw data, measurement, etc. And I posted a summary with observations to the lists. My site was very dry, hard to read (I'm not a very good writer) and really boring for most beekeepers. It looked and sounded like a research paper. The correspondence it generated indicated that few if anyone read it. And I spent a fair amount of time haggling over this or that almost irrelevant number with the few who did. While whole concepts/possibilities were obscure to everyone else. So, I changed the site's focus from science to beekeeping. I replaced the data with some summaries. And spent more time on my observations and speculations. Photos were added. And I frequently tried to make it easier to read by editing the grammar. But the 'claims' haven't changed. Check your website archives and see for yourself! And for everyone else so inclined, check the Bee-L archives and compare. >Maybe you could restore old periodic backups to a folder somewhere on your site so that people could examine your progress? Sorry! When the focus of my site changed from science to bees, I changed it's nature as well and discontinued the backups. It's now a living document that lives in the present. I'll note any changes to eliminate any confusion. But after a time, those notes are removed. For an example, see my oxalic evaporator page at: http://bwrangler.farvista.net/goxa.htm It will get cleaned up, one of these days and the old 'crack pipe' will be gone. This has got me into trouble with a few who actually read the site in its scientific stage and wanted to publish some of the raw data, etc. Sorry, it's hit the bit bucket. And I only maintain 5 years worth of field notes, now. So, most of the small cell stuff has hit the bit bucket as well. I started this stuff in 1996. And since my bees have been in equilibrium with the small cell comb in the Lang hives and the natural comb in the top bar hives, they've been healthy and productive without treatments of any kind. My beekeeping has remained basically the same since then. I haven't progressed very far :>) Most of my stuff is 5 to 7 years old. And we've been talking about this stuff on Bee-L since 1999! Progress might not be the right word. But it might help to explain the different focus small cell beekeepers have. Regards Dennis -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 15:25:15 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Powdered sugar dusting -or sprinkling fairy dust In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit J. Waggle wrote: > Bill Truesdell wrote: > > >> --The problem is, the next fringe looks back at those who >> disparage me and condemn them, >> > > Hello Bill, > > You are putting words in my mouth! Your comment that I addressed was "There seem to be many interpretations of what organic actually is." That is the comment I addressed and I considered it a good question. Your quote of my post dealt with what happened to me in Maine from other organic farmers, not beekeepers, and my observations of the organic movement in general. Sorry you took it personally. > So, more evidence suggesting a double standard existing here on Bee-L. > And that you call me on the comment and NOT Borst for his comment, proves > that you are a contributor to the promotion of double standards on Bee-L. The only comment I addressed was as noted- what is organic- so I do not accept there is a double standard on the BeeL, only differing views and, often, misreading of posts. BTW, I have "called" just about everyone on this list for one comment or another, including Peter, and have had what I posted challenged and agreed with. I am an Equal Opportunity "caller" and receiver all the way. Bill Truesdell (a biochemluminescentorganic Farmer- "if they glow they grow") Bath, Maine -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 00:23:07 +0200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: John Phipps Subject: Re: Disappearing Disease, 2 In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v624) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It is important to realise that this is not just an American problem. It exists also in Europe including The Netherlands, the UK, Greece, Cyprus - perhaps Germany and Poland last year. I have pictures from my colonies which show the same symptoms as described by American beekeepers as CCD. Questions. Why do some colonies in the same apiary not succumb? Are the combs from these dead colonies infectious? On 20 Feb 2007, at 00:01, Peter Borst wrote: > Dr. Hachiro Shimanuki in his treatise, "Synonymy in Bee Diseases," in > Honey Bee Pests, Predators, and Diseases, edited by Dr. Roger Morse, > Comstock Publishing Associates, 1978, said this so-called disease was, > > "...a classic example of a misnomer. In the first place the bees > disappear, not the disease, and in my opinion, the term is used as an > umbrella for what may well be many maladies." > > Indeed subsequent extensive research failed to isolate any disease > organism in stocks that exhibited the condition. The symptoms are > similar to other conditions like "autumn collapse," or "spring > dwindling," which appear to be the result of stress related to > nutritional imbalance. > > Subsequent research by Drs. J. Kulincevic and W. Rothenbuhler at The > Ohio State University has revealed that expeller-processed soybean > flour, long used to feed bees, may have been the culprit in some > instances. > > from: > APIS > Volume 2, Number 6, June, 1984 > Copyright (c)1984 M.T. Sanford "All Rights Reserved" > > -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- > > John Phipps Editor: The Beekeepers Quarterly Neochori, Agios Nikolaos, Messinias, Greece 24024 webpage: www.iannisphoto.com -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 00:32:51 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?D._Murrell?=" Subject: Re: stealth small cell--I measured some Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Allen, >One thing, Dennis, I'd like you to clarify in a sentence or two, if you would be so kind, is how you consider yourself to be a "small cell" beekeeper,... I'm sure some small cell beekeepers are wondering the same:>))) I've maintained the original dozen Lang hives that were originally converted to all small cell comb. And I keep a few top bar hives around as well. I've given all the large cell hives and equipment away several years ago. Concerning the natural comb, cell size does vary. But it has a definate relation to location and function. The core area of my natural broodnests are 4.9mm and smaller. Regards Dennis -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 00:56:55 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?D._Murrell?=" Subject: Re: stealth small cell--I measured some Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Bob, >What do you think of my hypothesis of why the varroa control with small cell Dennis? I've never measured the post capping time. Michael Bush has reported shorter times. It could be a factor. The most striking behavior I've seen involves broodnest cleansing. The bees detect and remove mite infected pupa, destroying the mites and disrupting their reproductive cycle in the process. And every kind of bee I tried does the same. No need for a bee specifically bred for this 'hygienic' trait. I'm sure there are a multiple factors involved. I've noticed that the bees get better at removing phoretic mites over time as well. They seem to learn how to handle them. More factors, combinations and permutations. Who could ever test them all? Maybe the bond test is the best test in this case and let time sort out the rest. I'm interested in your results, scientific or not. Regards Dennis Thinking that we'll all be gone and there would be a new crop of gray hairs by the time the scientific method would be exhausted on this one -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 23:53:26 -0800 Reply-To: port128@yahoo.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: John Porter Subject: Re: Small cell proof (was small Bees Get Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-15 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Bob, >> Given the time and risk of downsizing through 5.1mm to get to >> 4.9mm, is there a reason you chose not to include a number of >> test colonies on 4.9m Supercall? > I don't care for fully drawn plastic. My reason is basically I consider > fully drawn problematic long term for a number of reasons. Second I believe > (as does Tom Seeley) that taking a brood nest of bees and placing nine > sheets of plastic every inch and a half is not the way nature intended and > bad enough. Fully drawn is way too much plastic for me. Tom has some > interesting experiments he has ran concerning plastic foundation & frames. Is it possible you could have your cake and eat it too? Supercell will force regression in one step, and after a few generations you can introduce the small cell wax to be drawn out at 4.9mm. This should be faster than going through regression and two cycles of drawn cell and seems feasible in a single season. That would give you wax for wintering over. It certainly complicates matters, you have to be all-Supercell in the brood boxes otherwise the bees will ignore them in favor of wax. On the plus side since your bees follow the flows they are in a comb-rearing mood much of the year so drawing wax after regressing seems feasible. I have no idea how feasible it is to pursue this idea, it is definitely easier to kibitz than implement.... -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 00:41:21 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?D._Murrell?=" Subject: Re: stealth small cell--I measured some Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Peter, Thanks for the reply. Maybe I'm just allergic to the constant cry of gimme gimme, especially from some who have been asking the same since 1999. It's working and good enough for me, is good enough for my bees. And it's almost good enough for me :>) But I like to understand the factors/behaviors involved. I believe a better understanding of the factors involve would make small cell beekeeping easier. Initially, I didn't buy all of the small cell beekeeping concepts. But knew something was working and no other viable alternatives to the pesticide treadmill were available. So, I tried to replicate Dee Lusby's methods and sort the facts/details out for myself. I was skeptical. And even more shocked by the positive results. Once my treatment free beekeeping stabilized, I had time to speculate concerning the hows and whys which got me into trouble with other some of the other small cell beekeepers :>))) I doubt a single factor is involved. But a clean, functioning broodnest is very important. I hope that those who have the need and the ability, do some real experimenting. And then share it with the rest of us. Keep warm. The trees will be blooming soon. Regards Dennis -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 07:44:25 +0200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: John Phipps Subject: Re: Bees in America In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v624) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit A fascinating, well-researched book full of exciting things that I have not seen published before. Particularly interesting on the importance of beeswax during the war and the unusual things it was used for. An excellent history of beekeeping in the USA. John Phipps Editor: The Beekeepers Quarterly Neochori, Agios Nikolaos, Messinias, Greece 24024 webpage: www.iannisphoto.com -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 08:41:28 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Aaron Morris Subject: More on CCD in NYS MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In today's newspaper. I'm not sure how long the article will be available. http://tinyurl.com/29nch9 -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:27:09 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Randy_Oliver?= Subject: Does anyone have this book? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi All, Has anyone on the List got this book in your library? Needham, et al Africanized honey bees and bee mites? If so, could you please let me know--I'm looking for a specific citation in the book. Thanks, Randy Oliver randyoliver@infs.net -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 08:55:23 -0800 Reply-To: allen dick Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: allen dick Organization: Deep Thought Subject: Who Said What? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I got this note direct. Maybe it was meant for the list. > We have been quoting previous posts, but I have noticed on a lot of > occasions that the name of the previous poster is not posted. I have CRS > disease and can't remember who posted what from posts more that a day > previous... FWIW, I often deliberately strip off attributions for several reasons, and only direct questions to specific people or make attributions where they are essential to the understanding of the current post. Here are my reasons: 1.) BEE-L is a round table, free-for-all. Anyone can jump in anywhere with so much as a PMFJI. I don't want to limit the discussion by pointing to specific individuals, except where necessary. Besides the attributions are often seriously erroneous, especially after several rounds of discussion. 2.) I often don't want to put people on the spot. Playing personalities, and getting people defensive is usually not productive.. 3.) While the source of an original statement is something we need to know to assist in initial evaluation it, once we have that information, the comment goes into the general pool of ideas. 4.) Facts and opinions have to be assessed on the basis of their own merits, not just on the basis of the source. Often people who are very wrong about some things are very right about others. 5.) Ideas IMO don't belong to anyone once they are released into the wild. allen -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 20:59:59 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Gavin Ramsay Subject: Re: stealth small cell--I measured some MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Dennis and All > My site was very dry, hard to read (I'm not a very good writer) > and really boring for most beekeepers. It looked and sounded > like a research paper. Not true - you are far too modest! However, the Internet is a strange beast. Don't assume that deleted sites are removed forever or earlier drafts have disappeared. Everything lives on in cyberspace. http://web.archive.org/ then ask it to go back in time for this site: http://wind.prohosting.com/tbhguy and the long-dead site comes magically to life! (Minus its images, it seems.) Gavin. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 21:57:39 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Ruary Rudd Subject: Re: Who Said What? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit However by leaving the sender and the date, reference can be made to what the original poster said in full and in context. Ruary ----- Original Message ----- From: "allen dick" Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 4:55 PM > > FWIW, I often deliberately strip off attributions for several reasons, and > only direct questions to specific people or make attributions where they > are essential to the understanding of the current post. Here are my > reasons: -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 14:44:25 -0800 Reply-To: allen dick Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: allen dick Organization: Deep Thought Subject: Re: Who Said What? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > However by leaving the sender and the date, reference can be made to what > the original poster said in full and in context. That is what a good memory, and failing that, "threaded view" and subject headers are for. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 20:04:52 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?UTF-8?Q?Peter_Borst?= Subject: Re: Who Said What? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit allen dick wrote: >That is what a good memory, and failing that, "threaded view" and subject >headers are for. I don't know about other people but I always read the messages at the web site. There, you can sort them according to date, have the new ones at the top, which I like. Or you can sort by subject, author, etc. You can go back and forth using the little arrows through messages by date or subject, etc. Plus, none of this stuff ends up in my "in box" pb -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 07:00:52 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Who Said What? In-Reply-To: <00c301c75540$ad7ff2e0$8a02a8c0@Pericles> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit My guess is that Allen, like Peter, uses the website to track messages so it is easy to see the progression of a topic. So, for those who use the website, it might make sense to do it his way. But there are many of us who get the list by email. There is no thread to follow other than the subject which usually goes in many different directions. Occasionally you will see a reply to an email before you get the original email. I usually delete email after reading so do have a problem figuring out just who Allen is replying to. Some of us are of the Sesame Street generation (watched it with my kids) and have short attention spans. Plus, I do have a life away from the BeeL. As far as the semantics of "Bill Truesdell wrote" and what was quoted was something I quoted from a reference, I see little problem in someone quoting my quote and having me defend it, even if the defense is "It is only a quote." At least they know who to ask. I look at it more as a courtesy. Many newsgroups have you answer by quoting the entire message because most threads develop rabbit trails. The BeeL does not allow "excessive quotes", so it is nice for us who do not use the website to have the sender's name so you can tell where you are in wonderland. Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 07:22:04 -0800 Reply-To: allen dick Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: allen dick Organization: Deep Thought Subject: Re: Who Said What? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > My guess is that Allen, like Peter, uses the website to track messages so > it is easy to see the progression of a topic. So, for those who use the > website, it might make sense to do it his way. I use both, partly because the brain-dead LISTSERV will not send me copies of my own posts, regardless of what I do. (I might mention here that significantly more people would likely post if they could manage to get subscribed and/or if the web interface would work well enough not to dump their messages into the bit bucket when the are finished writing and hit the submit button). > But there are many of us who get the list by email. There is no thread to > follow other than the subject which usually goes in many different > directions. The web interface is a good way to read the list for the reasons Peter mentioned, but any decent email software will offer a threaded view, or "Group messages by conversation" option. Of course, if members delete messages immediately as they are read, they are defeating this feature in their mail reader. I can't see why I should fill my posts with attributions for those folks. Threading is never flawless, however, since some consistently break the threads, due to not understanding how threading works, and the function of "reply". > Occasionally you will see a reply to an email before you get the original > email. That may be an inadequacy of the LISTSERV, or simply a problem with the recipient's ISP--too small a mailbox, or a failure to check email often enough to prevent a full inbox (resulting in messages held in limbo on the LISTSERV, awaiting re-tries). Hopefully, this is unusual. > I usually delete email after reading so do have a problem figuring out > just who Allen is replying to. Well, I think you just solved your own problem. I think that most of us serious BEE-L mreaders accumulate BEE-L posts in a separate folder, using rules to send them there automatically, then clean out the oldest posts periodically. That way, everything is at hand for reference--instantly. Some of us read and re-read posts and the thread several times before replying. I recommend it. > I see little problem in someone quoting my quote and having me defend it, > even if the defense is "It is only a quote." At least they know who to > ask. If people can't figure out who said what--assuming it matters that much--then maybe we are better off without their comments. A review of the thread before replying if memory is faint is de rigeur IMO, as is carefully reviewing and proofing the reply before hitting, "Send". (FWIW, I have noticed that people sort roughly into two types; those that care more about what was said, and those who care more about who said it. Both get into debates, but the nature of those debates differ considerably. Personally, I *much* prefer to discuss with the former than the latter, so I naturally avoid accommodating them, I guess). When we converse on BEE-L, we are usually in conversation with the entire list. If we use a quote, generally the writer of the quote knows it is his or hers and will reply--or not, particularly if folowing in a specific thread. > I look at it more as a courtesy. There are pros and there are cons to this "courtesy". IMO, there are more cons, and one is that it can turn into discourtesy. > The BeeL does not allow "excessive quotes", so it is nice for us who do > not use the website to have the sender's name so you can tell where you > are in wonderland. Well, we could have a messy list with archives that are impossible to read, and huge nested posts containing mostly redundant material, and attributions of questionable accuracy (and the inevitable complaints about erroneous attributions) or we could ask our members to learn to use their email software and to save messages for a week or two before discarding if they think they may wish to join the thread. Someone asked me what "PMFJI" means. It is short for "Pardon Me For Jumping In". No one should need to ask pardon for jumping in on BEE-L. BEE-L is for open, round table discussion and any topic is open to anyone. I suppose I could also mention, tho' that there are" posting pigs" who feel they have to reply to every post about anything, but maybe I should just shut up now, since that would be me, (amongst a few others). -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:35:31 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?windows-1252?Q?Ted_Hancock?= Subject: Fence Me In Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Fence Me In I listened to a radio documentary the other day that was sifting through the tea leaves left from the demise of the east coast cod fishery. This billion dollar industry went belly up because of overfishing. There were fishermen and scientests who predicted the collapse in cod populations, arguing that the government was using flawed computer models to support harvesting levels. However, powerful industry players dismissed the critics. For them, restraint was unthinkable; besides, people needed fish to eat. Now that the fish are gone, these same industry players blame the government, saying in effect, "The should have saved us from ourselves". I think this fiasco has some lessons for the Canadian beekeeping industry. There is an ongoing discussion in Canada about the risks and benefits of opening the Canada/U.S. border to the free movement of beehives. Some feel that doing so would improve the economic viability of beekeeping operations in both countries, by increasing management and income possibilities. They argue that a modern beekeeping industry needs to move hives across international borders to help pollinate crops so that we can feed the world's growing population. This argument is only valid if such a practise is sustainable. Remember the cod fishermen were trying to feed the world's population too. Some of this debate is driven by northern beekeepers who have difficulty overwintering bees. Other advocates want the challange, prestige and satisfaction of operating a large number of colonies on an international stage. Both seem like legitimate reasons to open the border even if these beekeepers are in the minority. But not if doing so effectively sucks all beekeepers down a black hole of disease and drug dependancy. I'm not suggesting our industry motto should be "Go small or go home", rather I think it should read, "Operate sustainably or go home". Placing limits on how far beehives can be moved helps achieve this goal. Therefore, I feel some barriers to hive movement should be maintained. Proponents of an open border suggest that U.S. beekeepers migrating to Canada in search of new honey crops would be like elephants: large, but friendly and trainable. This sounds like wishful thinking to me. New freedoms usually come with a price. And Canadian beekeepers are just assuming U.S. producers would welcome them down south. Currently the beekeeping industry in Canada is largely self sufficient, with a healthy genetic diversity and steadily increasing hive numbers. Beekeepers needing early queens can purchase them (with some protocols) from the mainland USA, Hawaii, Australia or New Zealand. The price of honey could be better, but most beekeepers are making money. Despite all this we have industry leaders pushing for an open border. It reminds me of the saying, "Much wants more and loses all." Beekeepers need to make sure they're being heard on this issue. We can't depend on government to save us from ourselves. Ted Hancock Dog Creek B.C. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 09:25:51 -0800 Reply-To: allen dick Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: allen dick Organization: Deep Thought Subject: Re: Fence Me In MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="Windows-1252"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I think this fiasco has some lessons for the Canadian beekeeping industry. > There is an ongoing discussion in Canada about the risks and benefits of > opening the Canada/U.S. border to the free movement of beehives. Some feel > that doing so would improve the economic viability of beekeeping > operations in both countries, by increasing management and income > possibilities. They argue that a modern beekeeping industry needs to move > hives across international borders to help pollinate crops so that we can > feed the world's growing population. This argument is only valid if such a > practise is sustainable. Good post, Ted, and very good points, nicely made. Arguments can be made for both sides, and I guess everyone knows which side I am on. That does not mean, tho', that I don't appreciate the other perspective. In fairness, however, I shouldn't have to point out that drawing parallels between wild fish (potential food) and managed bees (main irreplaceable use = pollination inputs) is quite a stretch. (If *anyone* cannot see how this is an apples and oranges comparison, I'll be glad to explain). Parallels can be drawn, and projections made, but in the end I guess what happens depends on the facts of each particular case, (whether or not they can be known in advance), how they are weighted, politics, luck -- and who wins and who loses. In this case, I think the almond growers will have their way, whatever it turns out to be. This situation can be likened to a story where someone is living happily in some idyllic ancestral home and gets news that a freeway is coming thru. In situations with competing interests, where some are settled and happy, and others are wanting in, or room to expand, it tends to come down to whose ox is being gored, how each person feels. Nonetheless, it can be assumed that the strongest interests will prevail, and one can get with the program and make the best of it, or be a martyr. It is that simple. As for the borders in this case, they are strictly artificial and man-made. Natural borders are things like mountains, forests, rivers and seas, not an imaginary line that goes across a pasture with people and cows on both sides that look much the same. In Western Canada, the beekeeping industry was, and still is an extension of the California industry, and to the extent that the two are integrated, the Western Canadian industry prospers and grows, to extent that they are severed, it suffers. Since border closure, with the exception of canola pollination influenced expansion, the industry has stagnated. Before that the growth rate was a steady at something like 10% a year. A careful analysis, which I did some time back (see honeybeeworld.com), shows that it was border closure, not the pests that came around the same time that ended growth in the Western Canadian industry. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 13:33:06 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: George Williams Subject: Re: CCD ? in 2003 Experience MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all, I am a hobby beekeeper that has had a setback that started summer of 2003. I had returned from a short vacation (I think it was about 10 days) to find 12 of my 13 hives totally abandoned. I chalked my loss up to carpenter ant invasions and moved the one remaining hive to another "safer" location. Earlier that Spring, for the first time ever,I had fed a pollen substitute. The hive that survived was a strong "hot" hive that I now think I skipped feeding. The next year I purchased 8 established hives and supered them with equipment from the abandoned hives. Since that time I have had really slow build up each year and queen loss, many didn't return from their maiden flights) that I could not keep count of. I made splits and then had to rejoin them. I usually produce my own queens and I've noticed them to be somewhat smaller these last two years. Build up has been exasperatingly dismal. My inspector wouldn't do a roll test because it would decimate the populations. Ok, I've read most of the posts on CCD and I think somehow I was one of the early ones to have it. The only thing I can point to is the pollen substitute. Which I've unfortunately used again this year prior to reading that some think that could be an incipient cause of the decline. There isn't much I can add to the above but if anyone wants to talk to me about it my Tel is 352-324-2105 George Williams Florida


**************************************
Check out free AOL at http://free.aol.com/thenewaol/index.adp. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, millions of free high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and much more. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:49:07 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Michael Marks Subject: Asian Hornets invade France MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I found this interesting story about a large Asian hornet that preys on honeybees. I've seen a video of these on Youtube, and it is truly frightening. Let's hope this doesn't make it over here. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02/21/killer_hornets/ --------------------------------- Never Miss an Email Stay connected with Yahoo! Mail on your mobile. Get started! -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:26:58 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Jerry Bromenshenk Subject: Re: CCD ? in 2003 Experience MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit George Thanks for your input. It may not be your pollen substitute - but it might be your old equipment. Jerry


**************************************
Check out free AOL at http://free.aol.com/thenewaol/index.adp. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, millions of free high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and much more. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:27:48 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Peter_Borst?= Subject: Re: CCD ? in 2003 Experience Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit George Williams wrote: > My inspector wouldn't do a roll test because it would decimate the populations. I hear this comment once in a while. I normally take about 250 bees for an ether roll. Losing this number won't hurt a hive. This is about one percent of a normal population. I would guess at least four times this many bees would die off in an average day. If a hive can't spare a few hundred bees, it's shot. It is still worthwhile doing an ether roll on it. By the way, "decimate" originally meant to kill one in ten, or ten percent. That meaning has been apparently lost, since now it is used to mean just the opposite! pb -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:36:55 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Asian Hornets invade France In-Reply-To: <748507.68027.qm@web50203.mail.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Many years ago there was an article about these in Science News. I included some info about them in my very first post to the beelist back in March 1997. They are in Japan and honeybees ball them and literally bake them to death. They do have to get the first scouts otherwise they will wreck havoc on a colony. Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 13:05:38 -0800 Reply-To: allen dick Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: allen dick Organization: Deep Thought Subject: Re: stealth small cell--I measured some MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > With LC this is especially true for the bees leave the cocoons in to help > get the walls thicker. But it is also noted in old archives before the > times of enlargement (Which never did take place) .. bees readily chew and keep thin, the cell walls in old combs, and this was written about much by E.B. Wedmore. That has been observed by some, but not others, and was that to which I referred. As for what really happens, a wide range of observations is needed to confirm any general conclusion, although there may be many local, seasonal and other effects. IMO, much of the old beekeeping literature is simply imaginative romantic fiction and has to be checked against present-day experience. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 17:13:45 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Aaron Morris Subject: test MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable test, please ignore -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 14:13:34 -0800 Reply-To: allen dick Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: allen dick Organization: Deep Thought Subject: Re: CCD ? in 2003 Experience MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > The only thing I can point to is the pollen substitute. Which I've > unfortunately used again this year prior to reading that some think that > could be an incipient cause of the decline. Interesting. I'm curious what supplement you used, and that others have also used and associated with collapse? allen -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 17:05:21 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: George Williams Subject: Re: CCD ? in 2003 Experience MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jerry and Peter, Perhaps I should have said that I have been keeping bees 18 years and am 70 years old then your responses might not have been as denigrating as they appear to me. I offer my experience for what its worth to the list. I don't need English lessons or comments about my equipment without your viewing same. George


**************************************
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:58:50 +1000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: queenbee Subject: Re: CCD ? in 2003 Experience MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit George Williams wrote: > My inspector wouldn't do a roll test because it would decimate the > populations. Why not do a sugar shake? This way you get the bees back and if you do the double shake, as per the New Zealand research, then you have a fairly accurate result. Even a single shake may give you the answer you are looking for. Might not be what you want but can help with a management decision. Trevor Weatherhead AUSTRALIA Had a look at www.apimondia2007.com -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 18:47:37 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: George Williams Subject: Re: CCD ? in 2003 Experience Comments: To: allen@HONEYBEEWORLD.COM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dick. I do not think it fair, at least at this time, to name the product unless it proves to be defective. If someone wants to test it I would be willing to provide samples. George w


**************************************
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 19:49:48 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Adony_Melathopoulos?= Subject: Re: Fence Me In Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I am drawn to Ted's argument for a more sustainable system of beekeeping. He argues that if we don't take the collective responsibility to make our practice more sustainble, we will ultimately undermine our businesses. Viewing an issue, such as the movement of bees, from the perspective of not only whether it will be profitable today, but also whether this profit will be enjoyed into the future seems farsighted, not unreasonable. I don't think the position is anachronistic. I was with an organic agriculture specialist last weekend and he showed me how he assesses the embodied energy of particular agricultural practices using very sophisticated models... a comprehensive approach to sustainability is pragmatic and contemporary and not "idyllic ancestral". I also do not think it is very helpful to write a position off merely because "strongest interests will prevail" (ie don't do XYZ, no matter how worthy the goal, because it will likely be subverted). There are great challenges to the business of beekeeping and it seems like a particularily bad time to take a defeatist stance. Adony -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 20:37:20 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Peter_Borst?= Subject: Re: CCD ? in 2003 Experience Comments: To: George Williams Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit George Williams wrote: >Perhaps I should have said that I have been keeping bees 18 years and am 70 >years old then your responses might not have been as denigrating as they >appear to me. I offer my experience for what its worth to the list. I don't >need English lessons or comments about my equipment without your viewing same. Please accept my sincere apology. It was not my intention to criticize you in any way. I was referring to what your "inspector" told you, which I thought was uninformed advice. It was about the quality of the information. pb -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 18:18:31 -0800 Reply-To: allen dick Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: allen dick Organization: Deep Thought Subject: Re: CCD ? in 2003 Experience MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I do not think it fair, at least at this time, to name the product unless > it proves to be defective. Well, you've already suggested that pollen supplement was to blame. Given the way that some people read, this guess has already turned into fact and certainty in many minds, and now includes *all* supplements, since some lean that way anyhow. Better that you name names and we promptly compare notes, test if necessary, and exonerate the product -- as I am sure we will -- than have this doubt over all. > I do not think it fair, at least at this time, to name the product unless > it proves to be defective. At this point, after making that suggestion I don't think it is fair not to. If you are right, people need to know right now. If you are wrong, people need to know right now. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 18:45:45 -0800 Reply-To: allen dick Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: allen dick Organization: Deep Thought Subject: Re: Fence Me In MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > He argues that if we don't take the collective responsibility to make our > practice more sustainble, we will ultimately undermine our businesses. The business would be far more sustainable in the minds of the most successful beekeepers if government, government employees, and other idealists would quit making the business more difficult than it already is. > Viewing an issue, such as the movement of bees, from the perspective of > not only whether it will be profitable today, but also whether this profit > will be enjoyed into the future seems farsighted, not unreasonable. Your statement will not get any argument from anyone. However, nobody can see into next week, let alone the farther future. Anyone who claims to do so is a liar and should be treated with the utmost of caution. > I don't think the position is anachronistic. I was with an organic > agriculture specialist last weekend and he showed me how he assesses the > embodied energy of particular agricultural practices using very > sophisticated models... In my mind this is a very worthwhile idea. Unfortunately, there is a great deal of misinformation around, so basic facts are hard to come by, and the practice relies on many, many assumptions, many of which are unprovable. Nonetheless, the exercise is useful to try to compare paths. Also, many are fooled by the easy proof that a few people can follow a suggested path. What many cannot see is that the "ideal" path is hypothetical, restricted, and workable for only a minority. > a comprehensive approach to sustainability is pragmatic and contemporary > and not "idyllic ancestral". We are all interested in real sustainability, HOWEVER, the most important idea in true sustainbability is implicit in the word "sustain". To reach sustainability there should not be discontinuities and dislocations should be minimized. Unfortunately, "sustainability" as used by many means stripping the legitimacy from others and transferring it to oneself. > I also do not think it is very helpful to write a position off merely > because "strongest interests will prevail" (ie don't do XYZ, no matter how > worthy the goal, because it will likely be subverted). That is not what was intended. People are welcome to be martyrs for lost causes if they think that is how they want to live. What I was saying is that the future is coming, and the smart ones will find out how to ride the wave and use it to their advantage. The border will open, and the best minds will find ways to maximize the advantages trade brings and minimize the collateral damage. From Ted's article, I can see that he has not been to California, and not talked to US beekeepers. > There are great challenges to the business of beekeeping and it seems like > a particularily bad time to take a defeatist stance. Exactly. Suggesting that beekeeping is not sustainable is defeatist IMO. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 21:53:07 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Peter_Borst?= Subject: Re: CCD ? in 2003 Experience Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit George Williams wrote: > 12 of my 13 hives totally abandoned. I chalked my loss up to carpenter ant invasions When I lived in San Diego back in the 1980s I almost lost a yard of 85 to ants. At least a dozen were driven out of the hives by the time I noticed. I sprinkled powdered diazinon around the hives and that held off the ants for a while. The temperatures rose up to about a hundred and the diazinon started to vaporize. Then the hives REALLY started to die off! I had to borrow a truck and move the whole yard to another location. Also, if you live in Florida, you will no doubt get African bees in some of your hives, and these bees are known to abscond when conditions are at all unfavorable. By the way, Jerry's comment about old equipment was not a criticism of your equipment. Many beekeepers and researchers are now recommending getting rid of combs that are more than a few years old. Personally, I think this is extreme, since it hasn't really been shown that old equipment causes disease, per se. On the other hand, it IS something positive we can do and it has the side benefit of making the hives neater and easier to work. Old gummed up equipment is never a bonus, aside from being cheap and easy enough to obtain. Finally, as the information I have posted suggests, something like this disappearing disease has appeared every twenty years or so, over the past few decades. There may be cycles bees go through, there may be new elements in the environment that they eventually become accustomed to in time. This is certainly not to suggest that there isn't a serious problem. It certainly is serious if you lose 80 percent or more of your hives to any cause. I hope some of this information may be helpful. pb -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 21:07:39 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter Dillon Subject: Re: Fence Me In In-Reply-To: <000801c755dd$571732e0$8a02a8c0@Pericles> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Allen assumes that the strongest interests will prevail - from that I take it, that it is foolish and futile to argue against such interests. May I mention the case of "Gaucho" and colony losses in France. Bayer corporation, I suggest aided by interests in the Maize and Sunflower growers corner the ones with the strongest interest compared to the Beekeeper associations - financially and numerically. At the time, even science was against the beekeepers. Through dedication, perseverance and the construction of data from novel scientific studies, the French beekeepers associations were able to convince the relevant authorities that the molecule Imidachlorpride was being used in a manner that was detrimental to honey bee colonies. Other beekeepers in other countries were less successful due to lack of resources (finance, ability to construct a winning strategy). For me, the lesson learnt was not to presume before hand that the battle was lost. That beekeepers need to unite in an International manner - one that is not yet in place. We are continually taken for a ride by many who purchase, utilize and need the products and services of honey bees. To digress somewhat: It is often suggested, then imposed that we must ever improve our standards of production - placing more strain on ever shrinking profit margins. The demand couched in the manner that once this has been achieved our return will be increased. IMHO, this is not the case - it falls. Take the case of the price being offered for top quality honey here in Canada at the present. It being 75 cents (Canadian dollar) per pound. Packers are more powerful, the global market forces are more powerful, other suppliers of sweeteners are more powerful. Why? Because they realize that they need to be organized in the modern market condition. Beekeepers: They still think that "The Pretty Pot" will get the shelf space increase needed to put the product in front of the customer. The odd teddy bear holding an obsolete honey spoon may excite a passing child for a few minutes. Whilst it is dancing down the street, hours of TV publicity is taking place pushing other competing products. Sure, we have many problems that are related to ensuring we can continue to produce honey, but what is the point whilst we watch our market share go down the proverbial drain. It appears that we can't even get labelling of our venerable product constructed in a manner that the final clientele is not left confused. Maybe it is the raging head cold that I have at the moment makes Allen's comment so attractive and one should roll over - But I suggest that he really knows that what he wrote he could not sustain as a way of life for long. Hope that this does not read as a result of Cabin fever gone wild! Regards, Peter Nonetheless, it can be assumed that the strongest interests will prevail, and one can get with the program and make the best of it, or be a martyr. It is that simple. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 20:42:10 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: Dance -language controvery MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Adrian & All, I was going to email Adrian direct but thought I would send via BEE-L as I have seen Adrian Wenner post this week. Adrian I recently came across a copy of a second edition of a very old book. "The Honey Bee" By the Goulds The first edition was in 1945 by James Gould & Carol Gould The second edition was in 1988 by James & Carol Gould I read the first edition years ago but picked up the second to see what was different. Chapter four! The Dance-Language Controversy. Had you seen the book & chapter four Adrian? Summing up the chapter: On page 83 the Gould's give you and Wells kudos for the controversy. On page 82 however the Gould' point out : " Wenner and Wells were misled by their assumption that if bees communicate by odor under one set of circumstances , then they must use odor in all cases." Comments Adrian ( as we have a huge number of posts in the archives about the controversy but none to my knowledge about the Gould's point of view.) I gathered from reading the book the Goulds had done experiments to prove Wenner & Wells hypothesis incorrect? Sincerely, Bob Harrison " Has signed copy of Anatomy of a Controversy by Wenner & Wells" -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 21:45:37 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter Dillon Subject: Bee losses in Spain MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit http://www.elcorreogallego.es/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=9&Itemid=12&idMenu=41&idNoticia=135879 Spanish beekeepers are still having a rough time as regarding colony losses - Wild fires. Nosema c. and pesticides. Spanish beekeepers have noted and complained about colony losses in areas where the two molecules "Imidaclopride and Fipronil" have been used. Other countries have also losses - but as far as I am aware, it was only in France where restraints were placed on the use of these molecules. Regards, Peter -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info ---