From MAILER-DAEMON Sat Feb 28 10:53:12 2009 Return-Path: <> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.8 (2007-02-13) on industrial X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-87.2 required=2.4 tests=ADVANCE_FEE_1,AWL, MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR,SPF_HELO_PASS,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=disabled version=3.1.8 X-Original-To: adamf@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 393C248374 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 n1SFhrpS016524 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 LOG0702D" To: adamf@IBIBLIO.ORG Message-ID: Content-Length: 192947 Lines: 4451 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 01:53:38 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?windows-1252?Q?Adony_Melathopoulos?= Subject: Re: Fence Me In Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I said: "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". This is not an apology for the border being closed. I just don't find it unreasonable to ask the question "is a practice sustainable or not". I can see plenty of ways in which the movement of bees (particularly in the realm of genetic material) could be an important part of a sustainable system. I am somewhat perplexed that these arguemnts were not put forward. A case could be made, for example, that moving bees from California to Alberta was pretty sustainable because this system made a lot of honey with a smaller material investment and with fewer inputs, not to mention that more families were able to make their living from beekeeping back then than now. It's unfortunate that the argument goes straight to giving up and saying, "sustainability is essentially a slight- of-hand that is used to undermine the legitemacy of beekeeping associations". The science of sustainability is not in the state of decay and institutional constipation that the previous post suggests. Some of the conclusions, when you do the work and make the calculations, have been counter-intuitive. The organic specialist I saw last week wanted to know if it took less non-renewable energy to grow lettuce out of season in the midwest (under plastic hoop houses) or to truck it in from the south. You might think that the rigid position of someone in organic agriculture might be "local is ALWAYS better energy-wise". Not so. His sincere and methodical study of the problem showed that shipping lettuce by truck takes less energy than his best attempts to grow them in hoop houses. Grow it in a heated greenhouses, he continues, and you might as well be eating gasoline. Clearly there are many non-energy benefits to eating locally-produced lettuce out of season in the mid-west, but energy, he concludes, is not one of them. It is a shame that we can't have a similarily informed discussion on the sustainability of beekeeping practices. Allen says: "Suggesting that beekeeping is not sustainable is defeatist IMO". I have made the case that eating honey is a more sustainable proposition for Canadians than eating refined sugar from Cuba and Australia. Asking for a critical discussion on the sustainability of our current practices is not meant to be defeatist its simply a way to engage, rather than sidestep, the issue that Ted began the thread with. Adony -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 00:05:03 -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 > > IMO, much of the old beekeeping literature is simply imaginative > > romantic fiction and has to be checked against present-day experience > For put comb sizes back to what were there pre-1900 into the early 1930s I presume you are talking about comb built on foundation? In North America? In domestic colonies? By specific strains of bees? And on specific sizes of foundation? if so, I am left trying to guess which one(s), and the relevance. > and much research/papers written today on larger sizes, might be said the > same thing of with again upgraded even more present-day doings. Present-day experience, in my mind, includes worldwide searches and examination and comparison of wild and domestic bees by hard-headed, highly trained and well-experienced researchers, who are supervised by rigourous scientists who have no particular ax to grind, and lots to gain by finding something novel. I am less inclined to include in this the writings of untrained and unsupervised amateur beekeepers, past or present, myself included, and no matter whether they are good friends and pretty smart, or not. It was top scientists working as teams who put a man on the Moon and brought him back, not a few Sunday mechanics writing articles for popular niche magazines or small circulation books. > On top of this I in a way also think seeing the difference in various > sizes used, you are also comparing apples to oranges. My comments are not meant to simply apply in relation to questions of cell sizes, although I understand that this one topic more important to you than any other. What I said applies IMO across the board, to all aspects of bee lore and presumed science, incuding -- if Adrian is correct, the sacred bee dance. To address your one concern, there seem to be some poorly-understood and poorly-explained effects from raising bees on foundation -- of any size -- and I appreciate that you have been instrumental in pointing that out, and that this is your one particular interest. I must also add, however I have problems accepting the theories and the history you submit, and the format of the supposed documentation. Nonetheless, you are, in my mind, correct in that the context and the underlying assumptions must be understood in interpreting *any* observations, past or present. My comments were directed towards the type of work or literature where the writer starts off with the conclusion, then massages or generates "facts" to fit. That flaw is most obvious in writings from before our time, but, as you pointed out, not limited to the past. There is a lot of junk passing for science out there. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 21:08:07 -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: <008601c755fc$0aec0cf0$8a02a8c0@Pericles> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Allen Dick: IMO, much of the old beekeeping literature is simply imaginative romantic fiction and has to be checked against present-day experience. Reply: This to me leaves open the door as being a double edged thought you are writing that can work both ways. For put comb sizes back to what were there pre-1900 into the early 1930s and much research/papers written today on larger sizes, might be said the same thing of with again upgraded even more present-day doings. On top of this I in a way also think seeing the difference in various sizes used, you are also comparing apples to oranges. 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, 22 Feb 2007 06:21:57 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: George Fergusson Subject: Re: CCD ? in 2003 Experience In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit George, any chance your hives became africanized? You mention one "survivor" was a strong "hot" hive. I don't know where in Florida you are or whether africanized honey bees had arrived in your area by the time in question, but absconding is a trait of africanized bees. One might even assume africanized bees arrived in Florida before they were generally acknowledged to be a problem there. Did you have marked queens and did you keep track of them? George- ---------------------- George Fergusson Whitefield Maine -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 08:06:14 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Fence Me In In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The problem with all arguments that deal with "protection" is where you put the fence. I ran into this argument when I was active in the organic movement. Then it was to commit to only eat Maine grown produce to protect our local farms. There is nothing inherently wrong with this until you start thinking of just what you do eat and Maine is not the best place to grow oranges. I did not want to live the rest of my life on a diet of potatoes and rutabagas. To see the folly of fences, look at the US. One of the reasons it is successful is that there are no border guards between states. Produce can be grown in one area and shipped to another with no added penalty, so the most efficient producer can supply a large market. When you consider that back in the good old days of less efficient farms and distribution, the cost of food for an average family was about half of what they made. Now it is about one third for poor families and much less for those better off (between $500 to $1,500 per month depending on the amount of Cape Cod Jalapeño-Cheddar Potato chips purchased). Open borders do affect local industry because companies move. But that has been happening since the founding of our country. Protectionism has been shown to hurt the economy long term. Allen's comment on government as the problem is correct. Takes the issue of "sustainability". It implies that we need to do things to either keep from running out or maintain the company. The Free Market does that by its nature. Why sustain horse drawn carriages (sustainable) when oil can be used (not-sustainable) more efficiently and tremendously elevate everyones standard of living. The issue then becomes, "But we will run out". The Market steps in there also, since new technologies supplant the missing material. That is taking place in the energy field now. When oil hits a certain price, alternate energy producers become cost competitive. Companies invest in them and costs come down further, like solar panels. A famous bet was made about just this many years ago. The bet was that we were running out of raw materials and the future cost would be much higher. The bet was lost because costs for raw materials are actually much less now. Had government stepped in, the cost would have been greater. Remember when government stepped in to freeze gas prices? Long lines at the pump and little gas. I have a jaundiced eye about all these buzz words like sustainability because they generally are looking to government to impose controls on us that do not work and make the problem worse. Allen noted this on the effect of closed borders on Alberta beekeepers. Here in Maine, the Canada-US border closed to commercial blueberry pollinators not because of Varroa (even though that was the supposed reason) but protectionism for local Canadian pollinators. Our Varroa had no problem crossing illegally into Canada and are there now, but the border is still closed. Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 08:37:19 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 Peter, your apology is accepted. In response to what you wrote .In a message dated 2/21/2007 11:43:02 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, peterlborst@GMAIL.COM : " 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." Every hive in Florida or yard is not yet infested by AHB's. Mine are not and were not, as yet there are none reported in Central Florida( which a large area of Florida) i.e. to my personal knowledge. 4 years ago my bees did abscond. "By the way, Jerry's comment about old equipment was not a criticism of your equipment." Perhaps, Jerry could speak for himself! Old gummed up equipment is never a bonus, aside from being cheap and easy enough to obtain. My frames are Perico plastic and were not cheap or easy to obtain. . I hope some of this information may be helpful. I too, have hopes that my past (a 4 year ago) experience could have been helpful to others. pb Incidentally, in one of the responses I received the quality of my inspector was and experience questioned. Our Florida inspectors are well respected and trained. Under-manned as they are do an excellent service. And as Dee always signs, respectfully submitted


**************************************
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 07:39:33 -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: Fence Me In MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Therefore, I feel some barriers to hive movement should be maintained. Hi Ted, The movement of bees across continents allows for business opportunities for migratory beekeepers, of which I am one. I personally would also make money selling bees to Canadians each spring. That said, your argument about restricting movement holds water. I live in California, and we deal with beehives of every condition being brought into the State for almond pollination. We get every disease the first year it appears anywhere in the country. The Peace River Valley would get the same. There are definitely two sides to this coin! Randy Oliver -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:58:53 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?windows-1252?Q?Ted_Hancock?= Subject: Re: Fence Me In Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The lesson I was trying to draw from the collapse of the cod fishery was that leading industry players insisted they were right and theirs was the only opinion that mattered. As it turned out they were wrong on both points. I think this is a clear situation where the market system failed. If government had stepped in and regulated things properly, there would still be a cod fishery today. Letting the industry implode because certain individuals were philosophically opposed to government intervention doesn't seem very bright to me. Fortunately we are dealing with insects not fish. Insects are a lot tougher than fish and I doubt we can kill them off despite our best efforts. I think Adony has raised some very important points on determining sustainablity. I would like to see more research in this area. Leaving that aside for the moment, I will risk Alan's wrath by playing Nostrodamos yet again. I think it is fair to say that migratory beekeeping increases stress on bees and exposes them to increased invasion by pests and diseases. To combat this, the beekeeper has to use more drugs more often. Sooner or later this is going to result in contaminated honey. If we ever lose the healthy reputation our product has in the public mind we will have nothing but pollination to live on. Therefore I think it is prudent to discuss how this might be avoided. I thought Peter Dillion made some good observations about our industry. I hate this border debate because for years now it has diverted all energy and attention away from equally important issues. It may be that Canadian beekeepers decide the benefits of an open border outweigh the risks. But I think it is the beekeepers who should decide, not the almond producers in....where is California, anyway? BTW Alan, there are no ancestral homes in Dog Creek. Ancestral dogs, but no houses. Ted -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:48:41 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Adrian Wenner Subject: New York Times editorial In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v624) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit This morning's New York Times had an editorial about the most recent plight of beekeepers. Here is the text: +++++ February 22, 2007 Editorial Notebook Keeping Bees Among Us By VERLYN KLINKENBORG Mention honeybees, and most people think two things: stinging and industriousness. A beekeeper thinks: jubilation, harmony, the civilization of insects. Nothing in nature is more vibrant — literally — than a strong hive on the increase in late spring and early summer. And few things are more depressing than opening the lid on a hive and pulling apart the supers, the boxes where bees raise young and store honey, and finding that the colony inside has died. It is far more than the death of individual bees. It is the death of prosperity itself. My dad kept bees when I was young, and now I keep them. There were problems in my dad’s day: ants, skunks, wax moths and a couple of deadly but well-known bee diseases, like foulbrood and nosema. But my dad’s day — the late 1950s and early ’60s — looks, in retrospect, like a golden age. No one had heard of tracheal mites or varroa mites — two tiny pests that have decimated hives in the past 15 years and made beekeeping much more complicated than it used to be. Now there are alarming reports of a new bee problem, called colony collapse disorder. “Disorder” is something of a code word. It means that no one really knows what is causing the sudden death of hives. There were heavy losses last fall, mainly among migratory beekeepers, who move their colonies from crop to crop as fields and orchards come into blossom. The threat of this new disorder isn’t merely the loss of bees. It’s also the loss of crops — a long list of them, including most tree fruits — that depend on pollination by honeybees. Scientists are already hard at work searching for the cause of this disorder, which may be fungal. It may even be that transporting hives from crop to crop stresses bees more than we think. But I know from my own experience with bees — as someone who keeps only a couple of hives, never moves them and leaves most of the honey for the colony itself — that we must do everything we can to keep these creatures among us, as much for their sake as for our own. ++++++++++++ Adrian M. Wenner (805) 963-8508 (home office phone) 967 Garcia Road wenner@lifesci.ucsb.edu Santa Barbara, CA 93103 www.beesource.com/pov/wenner/index.htm "Having one view prevail is harmful; it becomes a belief system, not science." Zaven Khachaturian — 2006 -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 13:43:56 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Lloyd Spear Subject: New York Times Editorial MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline During the brief time I was a NYS bee inspector I had the privilege of inspecting Verlyn Klinkenborg's hives. His writing style might lead one to think he is considerably older than he his, I think he is in his late 50's. But he is a grand writer, appears frequently on the editorial page of the NY Times, and is a delight to talk to. If only we (as beekeepers) could hire him to somehow represent "us" as a spokesman in a drive to get much much more research money. I suspect one of the many problems to such an approach is that there is no "us". 90% of the hives in the US are owned by less than 5% of the beekeepers. All of our 'national' organizations are dominated by those 5%, as perhaps they should be. Those 95% of us who celebrate the joys of beekeeping do not have a bright outlook for at least the next several years. I hope we can be good beekeepers and assist our bees through these trials. -- Lloyd Spear Owner Ross Rounds, Inc. Manufacture of equipment for round comb honey sections, Sundance Pollen Traps, and producer of Sundance custom labels. Contact your dealer or www.RossRounds.com -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 16:27:23 -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: CCD ? in 2003 Experience Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit George Williams wrote: >Incidentally, in one of the responses I received the quality of my inspector was and experience questioned. Our Florida inspectors are well respected and trained. Under-manned as they are do an excellent service. George, I am sorry but you misunderstood what I said. I will repeat it, though: > 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. You see, I NEVER said anything about the inspector, but I suggested that his advice was wrong. I don't think taking a couple hundred bees from a hive will hurt it. I can give up a pint of blood, that's almost ten percent. A few hundred bees might be 1 or 2 percent, depending on the strength of the hive. I make a concerted effort to NOT criticize beekeepers, but to focus on the information. I think everyone is better off with better information. Especially if we put it to work. pb -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 21:55:00 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Jerry Bromenshenk Subject: CCD MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I've been at meetings on CCD and ARS planning in Florida. Sorry about a short message in response to George's loss and some subsequent confusion. Please let me clarify. The latest hypothesis being circulated among beekeepers is that CCD is because of a failure of one or more of the pollen substitutes - based on the observation that bees won't take/consume the material. One of the first symptoms that we noticed was that once the disorder seems to start to play out - the bees won't take ANY feed - syrup, pollen sub, etc. Its like you or I when we have stomach flu - the bees don't want, won't take any food. We've seen CCD in hives with 30-40 pounds of honey, pollen stores, etc. What I meant by my statement that it may not be the pollen sub, but it may be your old equipment is this -- in several CCD cases that we've examined, when beekeepers combined or stacked good bees on CCD boxes/frames -- all of the bees collapsed. In a few cases, or if the boxes have been open to the air for several weeks, the bees appeared to be ok. So by old equipment, I didn't mean to imply poor equipment, I meant combs from CCD hives. Jerry


**************************************
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 21:26:27 -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 is a clear situation where the market system failed. If > government had stepped in and regulated things properly, there would still > be a cod fishery today. Interesting. Which government would you imagine to have been the potential savior? Ships from the other side of the world were as responsible as any in the debacle. Maybe a world government? Be careful for what you wish for. > Leaving that aside for the moment, I will risk Alan's wrath by playing > Nostrodamos yet again. It is not my wrath that people should wish to avoid. > I think it is fair to say that migratory beekeeping increases stress on > bees and exposes them to increased invasion by pests and diseases. To > combat this, the beekeeper has to use more drugs more often. Sooner or > later this is going to result in contaminated honey. This is not late-breaking news. It has happened, and is happening, and will happen. > If we ever lose the healthy reputation our product has in the public mind > we will have nothing but pollination to live on. Therefore I think it is > prudent to discuss how this might be avoided. Too late. It has already happened in the real world. The day beekeepers started relying on packers, a road to ruin was chosen, and that road has been followed until we are near the bitter end. There is really no way a packer can maintain the integrity of honey, given what has to be done to make it into a "food product", and a packer has little incentive to do so either. The race to the bottom is nearly done, and any commercial honey I taste these days reminds me more of syrup than the honey I produce and which I once sold direct to consumers. > I thought Peter Dillion made some good observations about our industry. Peter has been around and seen things from many perspectives. He always has interesting views. > I hate this border debate because for years now it has diverted all energy > and attention away from equally important issues. And turned many formerly profitable Candian beekeepers into subsistance farmers, thanks to pressure and lobbying by people who rely on other things than honey and pollination for a livelihood. > It may be that Canadian beekeepers decide the benefits of an open border > outweigh the risks. But I think it is the beekeepers who should decide I thought that was what you were complaining about in your first article. You said, > 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. The advocates of this are not government, scientists or posers, they are beekeepers, and the largest and best beekeepers. Once the CAPA people and the beaureaucrats and the posers get out of the way, and the real beekeepers are allowed to decide the issue on its real merits--the financial health of beekeepers and their industry, not just the hypothetical health of bees--the decision is easy. > ... not the almond producers in....where is California, anyway? I'd hate to think that anyone who has to ask that question is involved in any kind of important decision making. > BTW Alan, there are no ancestral homes in Dog Creek. Ancestral dogs, but > no houses. Actually, it is "Allen", that was a *simile*, and where is Dog Creek anyway? Don't answer. I know. (Beautiful area). I also know where the almond growers--and California--can be found. allen Writing tonight from Bakersfield, CA -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 08:10:26 -0500 Reply-To: bee-quick@bee-quick.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: CCD ? in 2003 Experience MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > 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. This specific issue likely has no bearing on the CCD problem, but it has been shown that empty brood combs certainly can have detectable levels of EFB bacteria, AFB spores, and (I recall hearing) a number of the different bee viruses. While it may be true that no one has bothered to run a study to verify beyond all doubt under controlled conditions that the transfer of empty brood comb alone (rather than a comb with brood) can transfer diseases, I think we can take this as "obvious", at least for the easy one - EFB. It was a long hard slog to get doctors to wash their hands between sessions with patients. I hope that beekeepers can realize that hygienic beekeepers are just as important as hygienic bees from that bit of history. The beekeepers that make a habit of having their supers irradiated are voting with their wallets on this issue, a very strong endorsement from a group that tends to carry around Vice-Grips so that they can pinch pennies harder. There is also the all-too common tale of woe involving buying used equipment, and the resulting loss of colonies housed in that equipment, an object lesson that is "common knowledge". The steady stream of dismayed beekeepers reporting problems with old equipment tends to provide a fairly compelling set of evidence that the old equipment was the proximate cause of the diseases they saw emerge from initially healthy bees. The "problem" isn't the wax itself as much as the nooks and crannies where gunk can collect, so one should not speak just about the comb. The frames and boxes also need to be "sterilized", and in the US, the toy that every state association wants for Christmas is a trailer-mounted autoclave. Now that molecular biology is being applied to bee research, we are able to detect even viruses anywhere we'd care to look, so maybe the CCD-related work will prove or refute the matter in regard to comb itself. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 08:38:27 -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: CCD ? in 2003 Experience Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit James Fischer wrote: >This specific issue likely has no bearing on the CCD problem, but >it has been shown that empty brood combs certainly can have detectable >levels of EFB bacteria, AFB spores, and (I recall hearing) a number >of the different bee viruses. I wonder if we ran similar tests on the bees themselves, we would find the same organisms. If they already carry these organisms then to put them on old combs would make no difference, one would suppose. It is widely known that a strong colony can resist disease below a certain threshold. Beekeepers have been noticing for decades that *bees* prefer old combs. If you have old and new combs in a super, the queen will occupy the old ones sooner, and they will put honey in the dark ones first. I have a nice stash of old combs myself. They can be used to attract swarms, etc. However, in light of what Jerry and others are saying, I have been thinking very seriously of putting everything on a bonfire. It would be penny wise and pound foolish to hang on to a bunch of old combs if they are actually the source of our problems. pb -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 08:40:42 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?windows-1252?Q?Adony_Melathopoulos?= Subject: Experimental infection with Nosema ceranae Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit This paper just came out today. The only thing not mentioned in the abstract is: "Median survival times of N. apis infected and non-infected bees ranged from 18 to 54 days". This is in sharp contrast to the results with N. ceranae in this study. Adony Experimental infection of Apis mellifera honeybees with Nosema ceranae (Microsporidia) Mariano Higes, Pilar García-Palencia, Raquel Martín-Hernández and Aránzazu Meana Journal of Invertebrate Pathology Vol. 94, Issue 3 , March 2007, Pages 211- 217. Abstract In this report, an experimental infection of Apis mellifera by Nosema ceranae, a newly reported microsporidian in this host is described. Nosema free honeybees were inoculated with 125,000 N. ceranae spores, isolated from heavily infected bees. The parasite species was identified by amplification and sequencing the SSUrRNA gene of the administered spores. Three replicate cages of 20 honeybees each were prepared, along with one control cage (n = 20) supplied with sugar syrup only. The infection rate was 100% at the dosage administered. The presence of Nosema inside ventricular cells was confirmed in the samples using ultrathin sectioning and transmission electron microscopy. By day 3 p.i. (post-infection) a few cells (4.4% ± 1.2) were observed to be parasitized, whereas by 6 days p.i. more than half of the counted cells (66.4% ± 6) showed different parasite stages, this value increasing on day 7 p.i. (81.5% ± 14.8). Only one control bee died on day 7 p.i. In the infected groups, mortality was not observed until day 6 p.i. (66.7% ± 5.6). Total mortality on day 7 p.i. was 94.1% in the three infected replicates and by day 8 p.i. no infected bee was alive. After the infection, the parasites invaded both the tip of folds and the basal cells of the epithelium and the autoinfective capacity of the spores seemed to spread the infection rapidly between epithelial cells. On day 3 p.i., mature spores could be seen inside host cell tissue implying that the developmental cycle had been completed. The large number of parasitized cells, even the regenerative ones, the presence of autoinfective spores and the high mortality rate demonstrate that N. ceranae is highly pathogenic to Apis mellifera. Possible relation with bee depopulation syndrome is discussed by authors. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 09:46:42 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: CCD ? in 2003 Experience Comments: To: m@gwi.net In-Reply-To: <000001c7574b$fc907dc0$5941edcf@j> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit James Fischer wrote: > The "problem" isn't the wax itself as much as the nooks and crannies > where gunk can collect, so one should not speak just about the comb. > The frames and boxes also need to be "sterilized", When we hear of those rotating foundation, I wonder how many also add new frames and boxes. My boxes get re-painted and go back in service when needed. The frames get re-used unless in bad shape. But with the frames and boxes you also have propolis and its action, so how might it fit in? Nice research project. Scheduled change of foundation is not new and is in just about every bee book out there, but not practiced by most of us who carry around vice grips. I know I had some of my best success when I 'trialed' different foundation in my colonies (except plastic). I attributed it to the foundation (5.0) but the real success may just have been that it was new and all the problems went out with the old. Yes, I am now rotating foundation and some frames and boxes. Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 07:44:49 -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: Experimental infection with Nosema ceranae MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks for posting the abstract, Adony! Jerry, N. ceranae is obviously a suspect. Have I missed it, or are we still waiting for tests on CCD colonies to confirm or deny its presence? Second question: does anyone know if N. ceranae can be controlled by Fumigillin? Randy Oliver -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:53:40 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Mike Rowbottom Subject: Comb Replacement MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT James Fisher wrote: "This specific issue likely has no bearing on the CCD problem, but it has been shown that empty brood combs certainly can have detectable levels of EFB bacteria, AFB spores, and (I recall hearing) a number of the different bee viruses." I suggest that Chalkbrood could also be included in the diseases harboured by old comb. Bailey and Ball (Honeybee Pathology, 1991) report that the fungal spores can remain infective in brood comb for "many years" Regards Mike Rowbottom HARROGATE North Yorks UK -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 07:42:15 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: mark berninghausen Subject: Re: New York Times Editorial In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Well said Lloyd. At one time these numbers were sorta reversed, weren't they? But I would take exception to the last line. If the 5% refered to don't "celebrate the joys of beekeeping" what do they do? And aren't you sorta in both camps? Not to be personal. Lloyd Spear wrote: 90% of the hives in the US are owned by less than 5% of the beekeepers. All of our 'national' organizations are dominated by those 5%, as perhaps they should be. Those 95% of us who celebrate the joys of beekeeping do not have a bright outlook for at least the next several years. --------------------------------- 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: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 13:05:12 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Medhat Nasr Subject: Re: Experimental infection with Nosema ceranae In-Reply-To: <004101c75761$8d869480$ad25fea9@jps.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Randy Oliver: Second question: does anyone know if N. ceranae can be controlled by Fumigillin? Randy: Yes Fumagillin controls N. ceranae. The problem is that Fumagillin is an antibiotic and beekeepers are not allowed to use antibiotics in Europe. Medhat -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 12:46:30 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Adrian Wenner Subject: Dance-language controvery Comments: cc: phwells@earthlink.net, Kim Flottum , lensky yaacov , Barry Birkey , "Pentek, Laszlo ((DISB))" , Joe Graham , "Malcolm T. Sanford" In-Reply-To: <001e01c7562b$0eeacd80$2abc59d8@BusyBeeAcres> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v624) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dear BEE-L subscribers, After my short input about confirmation bias on the 19th, Bob Harrison raised some points related to that concept. Let me clarify. Confirmation bias is one of the most important problems in scientific research, but all too many scientists and others fall into that seductive trap. As eminent philosopher Karl Popper wrote, “Confirming evidence does not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory.” He also pointed out that confirming evidence is very easy to obtain. (Bob: you can find Popper’s comments on p. 22 of our 1990 ANATOMY OF A CONTROVERSY book.) Consider now that beekeepers have endured (?) quite a few claims about techniques that might control/eliminate varroa mites. We have had promotions of mineral oil, powdered sugar, small cells, screen bottom boards, etc., all mostly based upon confirmation-type experiments. A problem then surfaces: anyone who puts a lot of stock in one of those treatments and loses a great many colonies will likely remain silent about the loss. By contrast, should one’s colonies survive, the natural tendency is to alert others to the success (even if the technique itself might not have been responsible). That’s human nature. But anyone who really WANTS a particular outcome should not be the person to do the experiment. (That is why we have blind, double blind, and strong inference experimental designs, techniques usually avoided by those locked into dogma.) Likewise, anyone committed to dogma should not be the person to write a review about a controversy; yet, that is done all the time. For example, Emily Smith and Gard Otis epitomized that flaw in their “review” of the dance language controversy, as published in the March and April 2006 issues of the AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. They rounded up all the confirmation evidence and positive commentary they could find. In doing so, they omitted a great deal of evidence that backs up the 1930s von Frisch odor-search hypothesis and counters the dance language hypothesis. Pat Wells and I addressed the Smith and Otis omission in our letter published in the subsequent July issue of ABJ (p. 561). For an expanded version, see http://www.beesource.com/pov/wenner/abjmar_aprreply.htm (“Resolving a controversy or shoring up a belief system?”) Bob also included a sentence from James and Carol Gould’s book: " 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." Gould rose to stardom by reverting to single controlled, confirmation-type experiments, consistently misrepresenting our conclusions (as above), and omitting evidence contrary to his belief system. Bob also wrote, “I gathered from reading the book the Goulds had done experiments to prove Wenner & Wells hypothesis incorrect?” No, Gould misrepresented the odor-search hypothesis and instead gathered confirmation type evidence for the existing dogma, evidence welcomed by those who wished to believe. Then he claimed that he had proven us wrong. However, journals did not permit us to respond to his claims. For example, see: http://www.beesource.com/pov/wenner/EXC.htm (Bob: on p. 274 of our book). The genome sequencing of the honey bee DNA, completed in 2006, provided an opportunity to resolve the controversy. Recruitment communication, if an “instinctual signaling system” as claimed, would require the presence of genes not shared with other insects. No genes for “bee language” surfaced. Researchers instead found a total of 170 odor receptor genes (most not shared with other insects), indicating “a remarkable range of odorant capabilities.” The language hypothesis had thus failed another test and the odor-search hypothesis gained more support; see: http://www.beesource.com/pov/wenner/jib2002.htm Can we now expect an O.J. type defense tactic (DNA isn’t necessary for the instinctive dance language, after all)? Adrian Adrian M. Wenner (805) 963-8508 (home office phone) 967 Garcia Road wenner@lifesci.ucsb.edu Santa Barbara, CA 93103 www.beesource.com/pov/wenner/index.htm "Having one view prevail is harmful; it becomes a belief system, not science." Zaven Khachaturian — 2006 -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 16:59:30 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?windows-1252?Q?Ted_Hancock?= Subject: Re: Fence Me In Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 21:26:27 -0800, allen dick wrote: >The advocates of this are not government, scientists or posers, they are >beekeepers, and the largest and best beekeepers. Once the CAPA people and >the beaureaucrats and the posers get out of the way, and the real beekeepers >are allowed to decide the issue on its real merits--the financial health of >beekeepers and their industry, not just the hypothetical health of bees-- the >decision is easy. Dear Allen, I would find your arguements more convincing if you didn't question the legitimacy of my right to voice an opinion. In my experience this tactic is often used by those who feel they can't defend a position on it's merits. I am sorry I spelled your name wrongly. I note I also spelled Dillon wrongly. Sorry, Peter. Ted -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:07:20 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Lloyd Spear Subject: Re: New York Times Editorial In-Reply-To: <866829.50397.qm@web32103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline I don't think I am in both camps. I could not and do not support a family on what I make from beekeeping. My 35 years in the Corporate world results in my being able to more or less work full time at beekeeping and not make any money! (I do make money from Ross Rounds, but I don't have to have 200 hives to do that. Tom Ross had three hives!) As far as I can see, once one has enough hives (and related equipment) to support a family, it is hard or even impossible to slow down enough to just 'enjoy' beekeeping. Certainly we never were joyful about keeping a dairy herd along with all the related hay and cord. We did it because we had to, and some didn't know anything else. Lloyd On 2/23/07, mark berninghausen wrote: > > Well said Lloyd. At one time these numbers were sorta reversed, weren't > they? > > But I would take exception to the last line. If the 5% refered to don't > "celebrate the joys of beekeeping" what do they do? And aren't you sorta in > both camps? Not to be personal. > > Lloyd Spear wrote: > 90% of the > hives in the US are owned by less than 5% of the beekeepers. All of our > 'national' organizations are dominated by those 5%, as perhaps they should > be. Those 95% of us who celebrate the joys of beekeeping do not have a > bright outlook for at least the next several years. > > > > > --------------------------------- > 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 --- > -- Lloyd Spear Owner Ross Rounds, Inc. Manufacture of equipment for round comb honey sections, Sundance Pollen Traps, and producer of Sundance custom labels. Contact your dealer or www.RossRounds.com -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 23:51:25 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Gavin Ramsay Subject: Re: Dance-language controvery MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Adrian and All > The genome sequencing of the honey bee DNA, completed > in 2006, provided an opportunity to resolve the controversy. and ... > No genes for “bee language” surfaced. The language > hypothesis had thus failed another test and the odor-search > hypothesis gained more support. It seems to me that you have just erected a false premise that leads to a false conclusion. Does bee dance language require a set of genes which researchers can identify as such? No, there was no such opportunity to 'resolve the controversy', not that this was needed any more after the review by Smith and Otis! Odour is important to honeybees, that is certain. That bees should have more odour-receptor genes than some other insects is no surprise. They need a diverse set of such receptors and they also need the means to process the signals from these receptor. Genes for the former can be identified, but not for the latter. The lack of knowledge on the genetic control of the apparatus which allows tracking by odour does *not* mean that bees cannot track by odour. It just means that our understanding is imperfect. Similarly, to interpret the dance languauge a bee need eyes and also organs to detect vibrations, both of which they possessed anyway for other purposes. In addition to that, it needs a means of processing the information gained from these organs. The genes which code for the machinery to permit this processing to happen, as with odour, are not understood. So, it is no surprise that genes involved in the dance language are hard to find. What kinds of genes do you suggest that the researchers seek? Even in humans, genes involved in the speech and thought processes that distinguish us from chimpanzees are hard to find. All that science has come up with yet is a transcription factor FOXP2, a DNA element that influences the switching of pre-existing genes. http://www.broad.mit.edu/news/links/chimp-backgrounder.html You criticise others for wanting a particular outcome from their research, yet you are so keen to persuade others of your point of view that you erect spurious arguments such as this which really don't stand up to inspection. On Smith and Otis: > They rounded up all the confirmation evidence and > positive commentary they could find. Not true! The papers they review were recent and mostly well-designed experimental studies which were without bias and were capable of delivering outcomes which would either concur with or contradict the odour-only view. > Can we now expect an O.J. type defense tactic > (DNA isn’t necessary for the instinctive dance > language, after all)? If that was intended to stifle opposition, it didn't work! best wishes to all Gavin. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 21:03:02 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter Dillon Subject: Re: Experimental infection with Nosema ceranae In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Adony, Hoping that you may be able to respond to the following: Which is the case; Did N. ceranae pass to Apis mellifera from Apis cerana or, from Apis cerana to Apis mellifera? Realising that the nomination of N. ceranae was determined on its discovery in A. cerana in 1996. Regards, Peter -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 00:00:14 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?windows-1252?Q?Adony_Melathopoulos?= Subject: Re: Experimental infection with Nosema ceranae Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 21:03:02 -0600, Peter Dillon wrote: >Did N. ceranae pass to Apis mellifera from Apis cerana or, from Apis >cerana to Apis mellifera? Good question. I wonder the same thing myself. The short answer is that no one I have talked to knows for sure, but there is considerable speculation. The long answer is below and is entirely derived from my reading of the following review on this subject: Natural infections of Nosema ceranae in European honey bees. I Fries, R Martín,A Meana, P García-Palencia,M Higes. Journal of Apicultural Research 45(3): 230–233 (2006) Nosema spores have been observed in A. mellifera and A. cerana (the small SE Asian honey bee) for a while now. Up until recently no one knew very much about how many species of Nosema infected honey bees. This is because it is difficult to differentiate Nosema species microscopically. As the review states: "Many species of microsporidia cannot be distinguished using light microscopy and only with difficulty using electron microscopy (Larsson, 1986; Rice, 2001) and it cannot be excluded that some earlier observations of microsporidia infections in A. cerana, and possibly also in A. mellifera, may in fact have been observations of N. ceranae". In 2005 it was reported that N. ceranae was found in A. mellifera in Taiwan. The report explains: "The apiary where the infection was detected had harboured both A. mellifera and A. cerana". The review continues: "Almost at the same time and following progressively increased incidences of problems with nosema disease in Spain diagnosis of honey bee diseases, confirmed for the first time in Europe N. ceranae in field samples of European honey bees(Higes et al., 2006)". The authors conclude: "Using stored samples of microsporidian-infected in honey bees, it may be possible to trace the infection back in history, but we are unlikely to unravel all relevant details. The two parasite species may in fact have existed as parallel infections for a considerable amount of time. The increased detection of Nosema spores in honey bees in recent years with absence of typical signs associated with N. apis and the recent report of N. ceranae from Europe, suggests that there may be a link between these phenomena. However, research is needed before it can be established if N. ceranae has different effects on European honey bees compared to N. apis". This is all that is known in print. I expect the picture will become clearer soon, as several labs are actively working on this problem. Adony -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 21:21:36 -0800 Reply-To: allen dick Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: allen dick Organization: Deep Thought Subject: Re: Dance-language controvery MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="Windows-1252"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit You said: > It seems to me that you have just erected a false premise that leads to a > false conclusion. Clipped from your response, however, was Adrian's suggestion that "Recruitment communication, if an “instinctual signalling system” as claimed, would require the presence of genes not shared with other insects". Your query was, "Does bee dance language require a set of genes which researchers can identify as such?" To me these are not the same thing. Will the real Straw Man please stand up? -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 22:03:02 -0800 Reply-To: allen dick Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: allen dick Organization: Deep Thought Subject: Re: Dance-language controvery MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="Windows-1252"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On thinking this over, it seems to me that any amount of experimental evidence in favour of a theory cannot prove it absolutely, BUT that *one* single experiment, appropriately chosen, duly performed and controlled, supervised and replicated over and over can and will absoutely disprove a theory. Let me therefore ask this: In the minds of those who *believe* in the dance language hypothesis (as opposed to those who merely regard it as one of a number of interesting and possibly useful ideas), what single experiment would it take to prove absolutely that the dance language hypothesis is untenable, or at least open to serious question? If we don't get at least one answer to this, I'm going to have to conclude either 1.) that nobody here believes strongly in the dance language hypothesis, or 2.) that nobody who does can imagine anything that would change his/her mind about it. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 11:55:56 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Gavin Ramsay Subject: Re: Dance-language controvery MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Allen > To me these are not the same thing. > > Will the real Straw Man please stand up? I was trying to say that genes that have a role in dance language are impossible to identify - at least at present. The same also applies to any genes that might have a role in the acting out of the dance, which I think we're all agreed actually exists! So of course it is daft to say that because researchers have been unable to identify gene(s) for the interpretation of the dance, then this proves the lack of a dance language. Gavin. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 11:57:06 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Gavin Ramsay Subject: Re: Dance-language controvery MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Allen Those of you that were around a year ago might like to look away now. We've flogged this topic rather too much in the past, but you asked a direct question and perhaps the answer will help clarify matters. > If we don't get at least one answer to this, I'm > going to have to conclude either 1.) that nobody > here believes strongly in the dance language > hypothesis, or 2.) that nobody who does can imagine > anything that would change his/her mind about it. I used to be in mild agreement with Adrian. The debates on here and another forum made me look into it and read the literature that was being challenged, and I now believe that it is absolutely certain that bees use the information in their dance to locate the approximate position of forage. My mind was changed, and I know that I am not alone here in that. That certainty comes because the experiments you ask for have already been done. Not repeatedly, but they have been done well by experienced and careful researchers. So, what study might convince me that the dance language is untenable? Simply show a forager a dance then watch to see what happens. If it flies according to non-dance cues, the 'language' is in question. If the experiment is done repeatedly with the same answer it is in deep trouble. If it flies according to the information in the dance, then that suggests that the information in the dance is being used. In the recent studies - patterned tunnels to fool bees on distance, and radar tracking of naive new recruits after they've watched a dance - are very clear. To take the radar studies again: 1. Take an observation colony to a new site and number the foragers individually. 2. Monitor bees going in and out. 3. Permit scouts to find a dish of feed. 4. Identify workers watching the new dance for the first time, catch them, add a transponder and release. 5. Track them. And, just to add that elegant touch: 6. Convey a proportion in opaque tubes some distance away, then release. Track them. The three outcomes could be: a. bees fly according to some different cue in directions that disagree with the dance. b. bees don't like the procedure and sulk, or panic, or do something strange. c. bees fly for the distance and direction in the dance (even if, in the case of displaced bees, they are being fooled). 'a' would put the dance language into serious doubt 'b' would put the experimental design into doubt 'c' is only consistent with the dance language information being available to and used by the bee. Odour contamination of feeders is not an issue here. Apart from the care the researchers took, the displaced bees were fooled by the dance, and by the dance alone, into their flight pattern. Does that answer your questions Allen? If I can find the radar tracking paper, I'll send it to you privately. all the best Gavin. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 10:06:49 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter Borst Subject: Re: Dance-language controvery MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline * Any physical theory is always provisional and may not account for single measurement outcomes in a deterministic way * According to Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time, "a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations." He goes on to state, "any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single repeatable observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory." An example of how theories are models can be seen from theories on the planetary system. The Greeks formulated theories that were recorded by the astronomer Ptolemy. In Ptolemy's planetary model, the earth was at the center, the planets and the sun made circular orbits around the earth, and the stars were on a sphere outside of the orbits of the planet and the earth. Retrograde motion of the planets was explained by smaller circular orbits of individual planets. This could be illustrated as a model, and could even be built into a literal model. Mathematical calculations could be made that predicted, to a great degree of accuracy, where the planets would be. His model of the planetary system survived for over 1500 years until the time of Copernicus. So one can see that a theory is a model of reality, one that explains certain scientific facts; yet the theory may not be a true picture of reality. Another, more accurate, theory can later replace the previous model. (1) Sahotra Sarkar was asked: "Can evolution be proved or only supported by circumstantial evidence?" He replied by pointing out that a scientific theory is always based on circumstantial evidence, but there are aspects of evolution that are observable facts. Thus, some aspects are proved and other aspects are not provable. In general, we can reconstruct evolutionary history in the same way we reconstruct any other type of history; we can never be 100% certain but we can have a high degree of confidence in our findings. (2) The Big Bang theory is just a theory. Couldn't it be wrong? Yes, it could be wrong. In science, no theory is ever absolutely proved true. Some theories, however, are stronger and better supported than others. This depends on many factors, including how well the theory explains observed facts, whether the theory has made successful predictions later borne out by observation, how long the theory has been around, and whether there are alternate theories that do almost as well. The Big Bang theory is one of the most strongly supported theories in all of science. It explains the observed facts; it has made successful predictions; it has stood the test of time; and there is no alternate theory that the professional scientific community deems valid. (3) During the last century, quantum theory has proved to be a successful theory, which describes the physical reality of the mesoscopic and microscopic world. Up to now, no method is known which contradicts the predictions made by quantum theory. This is remarkable, since measurement accuracy has increased, and the size of the systems under consideration has decreased at a fast pace. Quantum mechanics was developed with the aim to describe atoms and to explain the observed spectral lines in a measurement apparatus. During the development of quantum mechanics the fact that quantum theory allows for an accurate description of reality is obvious from many physical experiments, and has probably never been seriously disputed. Quantum theory and quantum mechanics do not account for single measurement outcomes in a deterministic way. (4) ----- 1. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory 2. www.atheist-community.org/library/articles/read.php?id=718 3. map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_help/h_faq.html 4. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox -- pb picasaweb.google.com/peterlborst -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 08:08:22 -0800 Reply-To: allen dick Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: allen dick Organization: Deep Thought Subject: Re: Dance-language controvery MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>In the minds of those who *believe* ...what single experiment would it >>take to prove absolutely that the dance language hypothesis is untenable, >>or at least open to serious question? >This is not a fair challenge, when dealing with something as a language. If the experiment is of the type you use an example, would agree. On the other hand, that is not what I asked. What I asked, and what was apparently not understood, was different. Please read it again and see if you can think of any one experiment that would, if not completely destroy the dance language theory, draw the widely observed bee behaviour in question-- the so-called dance--under reconsideration and possible redefinition. > obviously. In a situation such as this, where a scientific theory is being > debated, the key is consensus building. you can persuade any ONE person of > nearly anything BUT "you cannot fool all of the people all of the time" > (Abraham Lincoln, speech, 1856). Nice quote, but Lincoln was obviously wrong. Look around you. BTW, I will not be drawn into long and pointless debates about things I did not say. If anyone cares to answer the question I asked, (and I might point out, was not mine in the first place) I will be grateful. Otherwise I will consider my point proven. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 11:57:39 -0500 Reply-To: bee-quick@bee-quick.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: Dance-language controvery MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > what single experiment would it take to prove absolutely > that the dance language hypothesis is untenable, or at > least open to serious question? While even the subject of the thread is misleading, (and misspelled to boot!) in that a "controversy" requires someone to actually take the objections to the general consensus seriously, sure, I'll play along, regardless... The good news is that William Towne of Kutztown University, Kutztown, PA has recently done the experiment requested, published his results in reputable journals, and has been repeating/continuing the experiment to gather more data for several years. 1) Find two sites with "similar" terrain, but with the "major feature" (a treeline, for example) in "mirror image" in terms of compass heading. For example, "Site A" with a treeline running on the Southern side of the field, and "Site B" with a treeline on the Northern side of the field. 2) Establish some observation hives at Site A, and keep them there long enough so that the foraging force currently foraging had hatched at that site, and made their initial orientation flights at that site. All hive entrances should face the treeline. 3) Set up a feeder (scented or unscented, I don't care which) to the East of the test colonies, also along the treeline. 4) Keep the feeder full, so that it becomes a reliable source of "nectar" for the hive(s). Monitor and record the dances to verify that the bees are reporting the direction and distance vectors for the feeder. (Or, or the odor-search proponents, "Verify that the dance vectors are in line with what has been claimed to be a set of distance and direction vectors.") 5) Mark all the foragers at this point, color dots will do, as all one wants to do is identify the adults who oriented at Site A, to tell them from bees that will orient at Site B. 6) Now, relocate the hives in dark of night to Site B, and once again, set up the feeder to the EAST of the hives, thus "reversing" the relative placement of the feeder in relation to the treeline. The hive entrances should once again face the treeline, so they are now facing the opposite compass direction, but still facing the major terrain feature (the treeline). Still confused? Draw a diagram. 7) Now start watching the dances of the marked foragers, and pay attention to the amount cloud cover. When the sun is out, nothing seems amiss, and the dance vectors reported are "accurate". 8) But when cloud cover makes UV sky-pattern based navigation impossible, the bees are forced to rely on terrain to navigate, and you will notice that the dances of the marked foragers will be referencing a feeder that does not exist, one that is South of the hive(s), the exact opposite direction of the feeder. 9) As the cloud cover breaks, and blue sky reappears, note that the dance direction vectors given by the marked foragers will adjust from "180 degrees wrong" back to "on target". What happened here? The point made by William Towne is that bees don't really re-learn their surroundings if they are moved after their initial orientation flights. This does not matter if they can rely on the usual UV-pattern based navigation, but becomes clear when they can't use UV, and are forced to rely on terrain features. They will get things backwards when presented with similar terrain that is a "mirror image" of the site where they oriented. You can "fool the bees" and "make them lie" to their hivemates. But my point (one that Dr. Towne may not wish to push due to the tedious nature of being dragged into the dance vs odor chowder and marching society) is that the experiment would fail to show any difference in results if "odor" had any impact on the situation. If dance direction vector information were meaningless or irrelevant, dance direction vectors would not change from "completely wrong" to "accurate" as a result of the availability of UV navigation data to the foragers, nor would other foragers be "fooled" by such dances. It is very compelling when one can "fool the bees" or "make them lie", as the bees themselves are giving the incorrect information to other bees, who then act upon the "lies", and waste their effort, evidence of what the bees themselves think, and this makes one's results less open to arguments that one has misinterpreted data. But read the actual papers. Don't make me the point man for an argument that may never end. The papers say what they say, and have lots of pretty diagrams and charts: http://faculty.kutztown.edu/towne/Towne%20&%20Kirchner%201998.PDF http://faculty.kutztown.edu/towne/Towne%20&%20Kirchner%201998.PDF Please note that my participation in the game does not imply that I feel that there is any "controversy" in this area that requires any additional evidence to resolve. The situation, in my view, is similar to the "controversies" about the impact of human activities on global warming, and the impact of smoking on the smoker's health. Any "controversy" is only kept "alive" through use of life-support systems. (One might also observe that the need for life-support implies that the controversy itself is "brain-dead", but I'm just not that mean.) Also note that I don't see much impact from the problem exposed by Dr. Towne on practical beekeeping, in that an overcast day may screw up navigation, dances, and foraging, but an overcast day also reduces the nectar available, meaning that not much that might turn into a harvestable crop is "at risk" as a result of moving one's hives, and then having some cloudy days. > If we don't get at least one answer to this, I'm going to have to > conclude either > 1.) that nobody here believes strongly in the dance language > hypothesis, The line above forced those of us using the Troll plug-in to set the threshold on our troll detection systems to much higher levels than we had been able to use in prior months. > or 2.) that nobody who does can imagine anything that would > change his/her mind about it. The line above still evinces a basic misunderstanding of the difference between "Science", and "Belief". In Science, there is ALWAYS the chance that some new finding can refute prior understandings that resulted in a general consensus. In Belief, new findings are either ignored, or twisted beyond recognition until they appear to support (or at least not undermine) the belief. Personally, I see a situation where specific minor points are seized upon as a basis for critique of specific experiments. While these critiques may be perfectly valid as far as they go, they do NOT imply that even a major defect in one or more experiments are a valid basis for supporting "odor", as the critiques never offer any tangible support for "odor", but merely attempt to undermine "dance", and then offer "odor" as if it were the only possible alternative explanation. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 13:19:15 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: gkendall Subject: Re: Dance-language controvery In-Reply-To: <017301c757d9$73e18df0$3700000a@Pericles> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > In the minds of those who *believe* in the dance language hypothesis (as > opposed to those who merely regard it as one of a number of interesting and > possibly useful ideas), what single experiment would it take to prove > absolutely that the dance language hypothesis is untenable, or at least open > to serious question? If the believers were doing science, then the experiments described in chapter 10 of the Wenner and Wells book would suffice. However, by and large what I've read is advocacy, not science. The Smith and Otis articles in ABJ is a prime example. If they were doing science, then their attitude would include "where ever the data takes us". When they subtitle their article "A controversy resolved" they project their attitude, which permeates the text, that is "this is final". That ain't science. When I saw the Smith and Otis article noted on the front of ABJ, I looked forward to reading it. I found it very disappointing. Just a rehash, nothing new, nothing interesting. It showed either a failure to read Wenner and Wells or a failure to understand it. Plus an abysmal lack of understanding of the subject matter of "Scientific Reasoning 101". Greg Kendall gkendall@sonic.net Pilot, beekeeper, packet hacker, gentleman rancher. El rancho del gato muerto 38 24 28 N 122 58 29 W -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 15:20:32 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: George Fergusson Subject: Re: Dance-language controvery In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Peter Borst wrote: > the astronomer Ptolemy. In Ptolemy's planetary model, the earth was at > the center, the planets and the sun made circular orbits around the > earth Interestingly enough, even today if you look at an astronomical ephemeris you'll find orbital elements for the Sun and planets, but not for the Earth. This just serves to show that even incorrect models can have their uses. George- ----------------------- George Fergusson Whitefield Maine -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 19:44:01 -0800 Reply-To: allen dick Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: allen dick Organization: Deep Thought Subject: Re: Dance-language controvery MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks for taking the time to explain this interesting study. It sheds even more light on how bees perceive the world. > a "controversy" requires someone to actually take the objections to the > general consensus seriously... Then, there is a controversy, or do I need to prove that there are several such people, and with good credentials. FWIW, I am not one. I have no dog in this fight. I have *no* opinion one way or the other, and it never made any difference to me how the bees found things--as long as they did--and I never really cared if they could 'talk' to one another or not. Personally, I have been entertained by the arguments on both sides, and what I really find interesting how passionate the topic makes some otherwise rational people, especially when someone calmly questions their beliefs, and offers proofs -- valid or not, I will not judge -- that counter what they apparently *need* to believe. > The good news is that William Towne of Kutztown University, Kutztown, PA > has recently done the experiment requested... I read you summary, and found that it left a number of questions unanswered in my mind. Although it does reveal some interesting things, I'm not sure the details you provided prove what you say they do. Maybe there is more that was left out that does so. I may never know, though, since I really don't care that much one way or the other. I'm more interested in the nature of the debate than the underlying details, so unless you care to further educate us... Although I don't think I have time enough to read all the literature and form a real, informed opinion -- it would take months or years -- I do know two people who have lived and breathed these matters, and tend to respect what I have learned from conversation with them. One is Adrian, and the other is Jerry B. Adrian is always happy to discuss experiments that seem to indicate that although the "dance" apparently contains information, and beekeepers can read that information, other honey bees do not seem to get the whole message, if they get anything at all. He thinks that for a group to considered to have the ability to use language requires that some or all the members of the group demonstrate BOTH the ability to transmit information AND the ability to receive and process the same information. He thinks that he has proven that the bees may be giving obvious signals about what they are doing, signals that we can read, but seemingly, in his experiments the fellow bees don't get much more out of the shaking around and prancing up and down the comb than that there is something happening. That is my impression of some of what he has told me, so Adrian, correct me if I am wrong. Jerry will love me for this I am sure, but in all our discussions, I can't recall his ever saying that he is using the dance cues from bees (although I am sure he is observing what we all see). What I do recall is his interest and use of their sense of smell and perception of movement, and how he is working with the former. Jerry and Adrian both report that the bees can respond to very subtle cues that researchers miss, and that very often people trying to prove one thing or another fail to consider how sensitive the bees sense of time, space, and smell are. This often results in the bees confusing people because they do the unexpected for reasons that are obvious to bees, but not to people. > If dance direction vector information were meaningless or irrelevant, > dance direction vectors would not change from "completely wrong" to > "accurate" as a result of the availability of UV navigation data to the > foragers, nor would other foragers be "fooled" by such dances... It is > very compelling when one can "fool the bees" or "make them lie", as the > bees themselves are giving the incorrect information to other bees, who > then act upon the "lies", and waste their effort, evidence of what the > bees themselves think, and this makes one's results less open to arguments > that one has misinterpreted data. Maybe there was mention of recruitment and successful or unsuccessful forays in the original that are missing here in the summary? True. I have been told, however that the results of any recruitment are very scattered, and while they may be interpreted to contain a vector when averaged, the scatter is very wide, so wide sometimes as to be almost imperceptible. Tell me if I am wrong about that. > Please note that my participation in the game does not imply that I feel > that there is any "controversy" in this area that requires any additional > evidence to resolve. I am even less involved. I am mostly interested in the devotion people show to the idea of dance language. > The situation, in my view, is similar to the "controversies" about the > impact of human activities on global warming, and the impact of smoking on > the smoker's health. Apples and oranges, IMO. How about softwood lumber? > Also note that I don't see much impact from the problem exposed by Dr. > Towne on practical beekeeping, in that an overcast day may screw up > navigation, dances... It is, however, very interesting. >> If we don't get at least one answer to this, I'm going to have to >> conclude either > >> 1.) that nobody here believes strongly in the dance language hypothesis, > > The line above forced those of us using the Troll plug-in to set > the threshold on our troll detection systems to much higher levels > than we had been able to use in prior months. > >> or 2.) that nobody who does can imagine anything that would >> change his/her mind about it. Seems like a reasonable question to ask among friends, and not an intentional troll. Maybe you could check the definition of "troll" next time, before you misuse the term. There is a very specific definition. I won't belabour this. Back to the two questions, frankly, I was hoping for the former, and that the members of the list are educated and secure enough in their own understanding to enjoy seeing a hypothesis tested. I also wondered, for those, if any, who worship the dancing bee, what it would take to make them doubt. I was disappointed to find that several people got quite hot to have what is really a hypothesis tested, replying quickly, without weighing the matter and realising that, hopefully, we are all interested in fact and truth. > The line above still evinces a basic misunderstanding of the difference > between "Science", and "Belief". I don't think so. Au contraire. See above, and re-read the previous post if still in doubt. > Personally, I see a situation where specific minor points are > seized upon as a basis for critique of specific experiments. > While these critiques may be perfectly valid as far as they > go, they do NOT imply that even a major defect in one or more > experiments are a valid basis for supporting "odor", as the > critiques never offer any tangible support for "odor", but > merely attempt to undermine "dance", and then offer "odor" > as if it were the only possible alternative explanation. I am not sure that is the intent. There may be some hair-splitting on the definition of language, but basically, heat aside, this is an interesting topic. Those who care to participate should, and those who get hot when their beliefs are questioned might benefit from asking themselves why. Is this hypothesis so fragile that it cannot bear some questioning? -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 21:20:27 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: Re: Dance-language controvery MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Peter & All, >According to Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time, "a theory -------- The Hawking quotes are from page 9 & 10 of the book. Many of my books have certain pages marked with slips of paper. The above book reads like a college text until those pages and then the reader feels as if Hawking is speaking directly to you. Giving you a brief glimpse into the mind of a genius. I think only fitting to pick up the part where Peter stopped an continue as relevant in my opinion as in the next sentence Hawking quotes Karl Popper ( as did Adrian). Hawking quote from page 10 of above book: "As the philosopher of science Karl Popper has emphasized , a good theory is characterized by the fact that it makes a number of predictions that could in principle be disproved or falsified by observation. Each time new experiments are observed to agree with the predictions the theory survives, and our confidence in it is increased; but if ever a new observation is found to disagree ,we have to abandon or MODIFY the theory" Also " At least that is what is supposed to happen ,but you can always question the competence of the person who carried out the observation" Sincerely, Bob Harrison 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: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 22:34:28 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: Re: Dance-language controvery MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello All, I think now might be the time to speak directly to the research and the 1950 Van Frisch publication "Bees" . 119 pages of large print book. One of the smallest books ever published on bees. The book is based on three lectures by Von Frisch The first "The Color Sense of Bees" has stood the test of time. The second "The chemical senses of Bees" is very primitive and outdated. Many of today's researchers have always objected to Von Frisch never using the word hypothesis and presenting many of his hypothesis as simply fact. On page 38 Von Frisch ( in my opinion) displays the opinion he is not sure about bee chemical sense and using a comparison between a human & insect sense of smell. A comparison between say a bee and a butterfly would have been appropriate but not (in my opinion) between a human & insect. Von Frisch quote: " The sense organs on the antennae can detect ,as far as we know,about as many different qualities of odor as the human nose" "as far as we know" is about as far as Von Frisch goes in casting doubt on his conclusions. However Von Frisch gives exact data on his experiments. Presenting data is one thing but conclusions about what the data means is a horse of a different color. The third chapter ( lecture) " The Language of Bees" presents the experiments and data. I believe the experiments included in pages 53 -109 have been the most done experiments on bees. They are easily done be even the average beekeeper. However researchers like Tom Seeley " The Wisdom of the Hive" have taken those old Von Frisch experiments to new levels as shown in the Seeley book. Seeley quotes Von Frisch through out the book but uses the word *hypothesis* in the correct places. Seeley quotes Lindauer the most in his book. Last year I had a chance to talk directly in person with Tom Seeley at a joint meeting of Missouri & Kansas beekeepers. Tom carefully dodged my questions (typical researcher) and used the word hypothesis at times. Answers came quickly giving me the idea he had already been questioned on his Dance-Language controversy position many times. I came away not exactly sure what his position was. I found his book fascinating reading and got my copy signed. 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: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 10:02:44 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter Borst Subject: Research into the Bee's Dance Language MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Bob Harrison wrote: "you can always question the competence of the person who carried out the observation" Good point. I have met Thomas Seeley, Ben Oldroyd, Madeleine Beekman, Donald Griffin, etc. The work of these people and the quality of their thinking seems *to me* to be unimpeachable. * * * Recent research has uncovered an impressive degree of flexibility and variability of the honey bee dance language, making it a prime candidate to explore the possibility of awareness and consciousness in invertebrates. By and large Griffin's writings on this subject have met with harsh criticism primarily because his critics continue to define consciousness in a way that excludes the possibility that we can find out if it exists in animals and then claim that Griffin has not produced any definitive evidence, the 'smoking gun', for his belief in animal consciousness. Undaunted, Griffin carried on till the very end and herein lies an important lesson both for us as individuals and for us as a scientific community. If some of us are inspired to persist in studying what we believe is important in the face of widespread scepticism, Donald Griffin's efforts would not have gone in vain. The lesson for the scientific community is more complex and perhaps controversial. The lesson I would draw is that the scientific community should find ways of identifying the best minds and give them the licence to pursue their ideas unfettered by excessive peer pressure, up until the time their ideas begin to fail. This is the only way we will know the limits of any idea. The scientific community has much to gain from competent radicals such as Donald Griffin. Raghavendra Gadagkar Centre for Ecological Sciences Bangalore -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 10:57:19 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Gavin Ramsay Subject: Re: Dance-language controvery MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Allen Please, please, please ... ... would you mind reading one short, clear paper? It should take about 10 min at the most, and if you are a fast reader 5 min should be enough. No jargon, clear diagrams. http://www.neurobiologie.fu-berlin.de/menzel/Pub_AGmenzel/Riley,Greggers,Smith,Reynolds,Menzel_Nature_2005.pdf Your opinion matters to me! all the best Gavin. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 03:31:30 -0500 Reply-To: james.fischer@gmail.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: Dance-language controvery MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> a "controversy" requires someone to actually take the objections to the >> general consensus seriously... > Then, there is a controversy, or do I need to prove that there are > several such people, and with good credentials. Let me clarify: "...taken seriously by those who share the consensus". (There was a time when the objections were taken seriously, but after a longish period without much progress on undermining the consensus, even the journals started to reject the ongoing objections to the consensus, as they offered nothing new or compelling.) > Personally, I have been entertained by the arguments on both sides, > and what I really find interesting how passionate the topic makes > some otherwise rational people Passion and rationality are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I am very passionate about rationality. > I read you summary, and found that it left a number of questions > unanswered in my mind... so unless you care to further educate us... I said "But read the actual papers. Don't make me the point man for an argument that may never end." So, read the papers. > Although I don't think I have time enough to read all the > literature and form a real, informed opinion... You pose a "challenge", you phoo-phoo a legitimate "entry" in your little contest, but you can't be bothered to read two papers that are both brief and written with a surprising lack of jargon? > I can't recall his [Jerry B] ever saying that he is using the dance > cues from bees 'Cause he doesn't - he tracks the flight of bees on the terrain with a fancy laser reflection system. > Jerry and Adrian both report that the bees can respond to very subtle > cues that researchers miss, I think it is more accurate to say that there is much that has been claimed that has not been "missed" as much as it has not been reproducible. A lack of reproducibility does not imply that "other researchers" are stupid, unobservant, or unskilled. Look up "N Rays" for another example of something "subtle" that other researchers were unable to reproduce. > fail to consider how sensitive the bees sense of time, space, and > smell are. Here's an idea, read a specific paper or three, and talk about specific work. Your generalized critique is useless without a few specific examples of the "failures" you claim. > Maybe there was mention of recruitment and successful or unsuccessful > forays in the original that are missing here in the summary? Maybe reading the cited papers would help? > I am even less involved. I am mostly interested in the devotion > people show to the idea of dance language. Its more than an "idea", it is the generally-accepted current scientific consensus. (And again, the use of the term "devotion" reveals a bias in your view, one that may be too "subtle" for you to see yourself.) > How about softwood lumber? What, still smarting about losing that one on both the "personal debate" level and the "international trade" level? Gosh, you might as well complain about the Carolina Hurricanes snatching the Stanley Cup away from the Edmonton Oilers in game 7. That game's over, too. (As an aside, it appears that Canada is about to get their knuckles rapped again over compliance with the sanctions imposed upon them: http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2334383320070223 ) > Maybe you could check the definition of "troll" next time... I did, and you really should provide them with a better photo! :) > I was hoping... that the members of the list are educated and secure > enough in their own understanding to enjoy seeing a hypothesis tested. People are testing this stuff all the time. Adrian has called several times for research funds to be spent in more productive ways, as he does not think the money is well-spent when the results keep refuting his positions over and over. > I also wondered, for those, if any, who worship the dancing bee, > what it would take to make them doubt. Again, I am forced to point out that the line above continues to evince a basic misunderstanding of the difference between "Science", and "Belief". It also attempts to "spin" or "frame" the current generally-accepted consensus as some sort of issue of "faith". Terms like "worship" are a dead give-away that despite professing disinterest, there is an bias in your view. >> The line above still evinces a basic misunderstanding of the >> difference between "Science", and "Belief". > I don't think so. Au contraire. See above, and re-read the > previous post if still in doubt. Heck, you won't bother to read the papers cited, I certainly won't bother to re-read your prior post. I said what I said, and you can either offer specific reasons why I might be wrong, or you can't. Apparently you can't. I continue to see a clear bias in the way you address the issue, as revealed in your choices of words. > Those who care to participate should, and those who get hot > when their beliefs are questioned might benefit from asking > themselves why. Is this hypothesis so fragile that it cannot > bear some questioning? So let me get this straight - You openly admit that you can't be bothered to even do your homework on the issue, claim to have "no dog in the fight", issue an open challenge to all and sundry, refuse to even READ cited peer-reviewed articles that meet the specific criteria of your challenge, and then presume to set yourself up as the ultimate arbitrator of something or other, including the psychological make-up of those who have done their homework, and therefore might have the sort of informed view that you admit you lack? We don't need another "Karl Popper" or "Thomas Kuhn", as both have been so thoroughly discredited, even quoting them discredits the person doing so. You don't want to end up like that. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 09:22:36 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: Re: Research into the Bee's Dance Language MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello All, Bob Harrison wrote: "you can always question the competence of the person who carried out the observation" I need to clarify the above is a quote from Hawking from page 10 of the book "A Brief History of Time" and not mine. Hawking observed (in my opinion) what I have observed that those which do not agree with results can always "question the competence of the person who carried out the observation" and do many times in order to improve their position in the discussion. I added only to show the above happens quite a bit and not to point a finger at those involved in current research. In Seeley's book he chips away at some parts of Von Frisch's research. In one chapter he says two common dances may indeed only be one. Again the data presented by Von Frisch ,Seeley and others is beyond dispute. It is what it is. The conclusions are (as always) open to debate. Sincerely, Bob Harrison 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, 25 Feb 2007 08:26:49 -0800 Reply-To: allen dick Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: allen dick Organization: Deep Thought Subject: Re: Dance-language controvery MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > ... would you mind reading one short, clear paper? It > should take about 10 min at the most, and if you are a fast > reader 5 min should be enough. No jargon, clear diagrams Thanks. That is a good one. I appreciate the link. FWIW, I'm a slow, slow reader. I like to pause and think when I read. I'm a slow, slow writer, too. I like to pause and think when I write. > Your opinion matters to me! Thanks again. I'm flattered, but, truly, my opinion is not worth much. I really have not done any deep research into the objections to the hypothesis, so tend to go along with the crowd, only pausing to explain that I have no real clue, and am trusting others. Some mistake that for strong objection to the prevailing wisdom, when it is only a disclaimer related to my own ignorance. We've all been around this one before, and last time, or was it the time before, I wrote this: http://tinyurl.com/2h73bx If I have to have an opinion, I suppose that is it. allen -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 11:53:28 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dick Marron Subject: Dance language MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I've always assumed that it was a soft spot in the human brain to look for single causes. I come from psychology where multiple causation is a given. (There are about a dozen theories of psychology and they all apply at different times.) Can't we just say that the dance sweeps up the bees and gets them out the door in a general direction.then odor (and other cues) take over? That's the extent of my interest but I read on anyway. I wouldn't want to miss lines like the one below. >>Maybe you could check the definition of "troll" next time... >I did, and you really should provide them with a better photo! :) Dick Marron -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 09:58:47 -0800 Reply-To: allen dick Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: allen dick Organization: Deep Thought Subject: Re: Dance-language controvery MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Passion and rationality are not mutually exclusive. > In fact, I am very passionate about rationality. And so you should be >> How about softwood lumber? > > What, still smarting about losing that one on both the "personal > debate" level and the "international trade" level? Well, my only exchange with you about that was over there was a dispute or not. I said there seemed to be one. You insisted there wasn't, but the headlines for several years after still proclaimed there was/is. What is your position now? As for whether I care one way or another who wins or loses, it has nothing to do with me. I'm not nationalistic, and I own no lumber interests. >> Maybe you could check the definition of "troll" next time... > > I did, and you really should provide them with a better photo! :) I've never knowingly met you, so I couldn't take your picture. I've heard descriptions, however, and had to provide a sketch based on them. Sorry. > So let me get this straight - You openly admit that you can't be > bothered to even do your homework on the issue.. Not my homework, unless you can assign me homework, which I doubt. > claim to have "no dog in the fight", issue an open challenge to all and > sundry Well, all I asked was what it would take to disprove a specific hypothesis or bring some or any of it into doubt, since it seems that some defend it with more passion than any hypothesis should IMO deserve. Was that a challenge? Maybe to some. > refuse to even READ cited peer-reviewed articles that meet the specific > criteria of your challenge, How would you know? Actually I have read quite a few. Enough to know that I know nothing on the topic and wonder about many of those that think they do. > and then presume to set yourself up as the ultimate arbitrator of > something or other, including the psychological make-up of those who have > done their homework, and therefore might have the sort of informed view > that you admit you lack? Really? Statements like that are why I have trouble relying on objectivity in anything you write. > We don't need another "Karl Popper" or "Thomas Kuhn", as both > have been so thoroughly discredited, even quoting them discredits > the person doing so. You don't want to end up like that. Read my last statement and apply it to the preceding paragraph. You might want to heed that same advice. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 10:02:21 -0800 Reply-To: allen dick Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: allen dick Organization: Deep Thought Subject: Re: Dance language MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Can't we just say that the dance sweeps up the bees and gets them out the > door in a general direction.then odor (and other cues) take over? That's > the extent of my interest but I read on anyway. That's about the extent of my conviction. > I wouldn'twant to miss lines like the one below. >>> Maybe you could check the definition of "troll" next time. . >> I did, and you really should provide them with a better photo! :) Agreed. He can be amazingly funny for a guy with no sense of humour. I wonder if he knows? -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 18:12:13 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Gavin Ramsay Subject: Re: Dance-language controvery MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks Allen > but, truly, my opinion is not worth much. Yes it is. It is not just that you have been a successful commercial bee farmer and a mainstay of this group, but also that for a topic such as this *everyone* can have a worthwhile opinion. The science is accessible enough. > I have no real clue, and am trusting others. Sometimes we need to question those we trust, as their view many have narrowed too much. It might be based on the best evidence available at a certain time, and that best evidence will probably change over the years. You wondered about what drives the passion of those that entered the debate. I'm entirely with Jim, and am now considering the possibility of having on my gravestone (if Jim doesn't mind): 'He was passionate about rationality'! It isn't the dance per se that gives me my passion (though it is one mean feat for a small insect), rather that it grieves me when people misrepresent science. Its that 'science' versus 'belief' thing again. > If I have to have an opinion, I suppose that is it. I quite like your McDonalds analogy. If it is downwind (or far away) you'd be wise not to rely only on smell. Yes, you can motor around, looking for likely spots. Best to ask someone though, and no doubt at some point in the explanation, they'll point. If you end up downwind, you'll smell it too. I'm sure that bees do more by scent than we do, but otherwise all of these ploys will be used by them too. The pointing part of the story (like the scent part) has been adequately demonstrated by now, even if some of the detail still has to be teased out. all the best Gavin PS In answer to Dick M, the scientific consensus seems to be that the dance is one way to communicate about general directions, and that odour and sight play a part in the final localisation too. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 16:52:17 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Gavin Ramsay Subject: Re: Dance-language controvery Comments: To: allen dick MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi All Peter quoted Stephen Hawkin on theory: '... it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations.' You can make the following prediction if honeybees use the information in the dance. If you take naive recruits that have just watched a dance, and release them in an environment where odour cues are impossible due to the wind direction, they will still fly according to the vector and distance encoded in the dance. An elaboration of this is as follows. Displace such bees before release and they will not fly to the coordinates originally indicated, but still fly according to the vector and distance indicated in the dance. Allen: to me, this experiment serves to prove **or to disprove** the use of the dance language. It bees continually fail to follow the dance cues offered, how can the dance language be sustained? This approach was taken by researchers using radar, and the resulting letter in Nature convinced me which side of this debate is right. The archives have a lot more debate and here's one message I'd recommend: http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0603&L=BEE-L&P=R1517&I=-3 This is the location of the crucial paper: http://www.neurobiologie.fu-berlin.de/menzel/Pub_AGmenzel/Riley,Greggers,Smith,Reynolds,Menzel_Nature_2005.pdf If you haven't read it, give it a go. It is short, easy to follow and describes high quality science. best wishes to all Gavin. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 20:42:25 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Gavin Ramsay Subject: repetatatativeness MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In case you all think that I've gone senile and am constantly repeating myself, that is only partly true. Thank goodness that this is a moderated list - it could get quite wild if not (and thanks to the guardians, however imperfect you may be). However sometimes you think that your messages have bombed for some reason and so you re-word them and try again, only to find that someone liked them after all and everything appears eventually. The link to the archives is worth a click though :-) Gavin -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 22:43:29 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter Edwards Subject: Re: Dance-language controvery MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="utf-8"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Questions. If the dance language hypothesis in wrong: Why DO bees dance and why does it appear to correlate with the direction and distance of forage? Why DO bees dance on the surface of a swarm and why does it appear to correlate with the direction and distance of the new nest site? Why do large numbers of bees find forage in the direction predicted by the dances when a strong wind is blowing any odour from the forage away from the hive? Why do large numbers of bees find the new nest in the direction predicted by the dances when a strong wind is blowing any odour trails away? Best wishes Peter Edwards beekeepers@stratford-upon-avon.freeserve.co.uk www.stratford-upon-avon.freeserve.co.uk/ -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 19:14:35 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Jerry Bromenshenk Subject: ccd causes, concerns MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The CCD Working Group and Representatives from the U.S. Beekeeping industry and associations met last week in Stuart Florida. We spent a full day talking about this, then continued informal discussions and meetings throughout much of the week. All of us have ben getting an avalanche of e-mails, phone calls, and letters from just about everyone and everywhere. The good news is the overall concern expressed. The bad news is that we are inundated by all of the incoming suggestions and by the press. Please don't expect us to answer every e-mail, etc. -- we need to get some work done. Between our own discussions and all of the input, just about every possible cause has been proposed and considered. One of our objectives last week was to set some priorities for what needs to be done and the order in which we will proceed, and where we can find funding to continue to look at this. FYI, between Penn State, USDA ARS, the PA, FL, and CA state representatives, and ourselves (Bee Alert), we have samples of bees, comb, pollen, nectar, honey from many states and beekeeping operations. Some have been preserved in alcohol, others frozen. The groups working on bee diseases have both preserved and frozen (- 80) samples. We have been focusing on getting very large samples of bees, whole combs, which are frozen immediately for chemical analysis. We are also pulling vapor samples from within affected hives. So, even if we don't look at something on the first pass, we've got archived samples that we can look at later. And yes, we see mites and things that we aren't supposed to be seeing. For example, there's something falling into our sample bags that look like hive beetles -- in California :). Virtually anything known or suspected to affect bees is being examined. Other considerations, especially those sent to us by e-mail, range from possible to outlandish. For example, I doubt that this is a conspiracy by the chemical companies. Nor do I think that it is it a plot by the Russians, although the blog site is amusing. And, CCD is not likely to be asian flu jumping to bees - although the person submitting the idea was truly concerned. I have to give credit for creativity to the gentleman who doesn't keep bees, but who says he knows what the problem is and how to solve it. He wants me to negotiate his fee before he shares his solution with us. Great business plan - pay me before I give you the answer. Who knows, one of those unusual causes might actually have merit, so keep sending them. But, we'll start with the more plausible causes - I still think we may find that we are just seeing an old problem being expressed in an unusually widespread and severe manner. At this time, ideas are great, but hard data is better. We continue to need input to our surveys - we've gotten some hints, but the return rate is so small as to be almost unusable. Rather than send guesses about causes, please spend some time and fill out the survey -- we need to hear from both those who have the problem and those who have not. Surveys are available for download or on-line submission at _www.beesurvey.com_ (http://www.beesurvey.com) . Thanks. Jerry J.J. Bromenshenk Bee Alert Technology, Inc. Missoula, MT 59802


**************************************
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: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 18:14:38 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: Re: ccd causes, concerns MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Jerry & All, Thanks for the update! >I still think we may find that we are just seeing an old problem being expressed in an unusually widespread and severe manner. As most of us are now working bees could you give us an idea of what you refer to above. We realize you are still in the research stage but with at least an idea of what you think might be worth looking into will let us check our bees for the problem. Letting us know even what the top five things you are considering as possible cause would be a start. Even giving us an idea of what you figure we can eliminate as cause with what you know now would help such as *maybe* tracheal mites Nosema c.or American foulbrood. We really need the information even if not the final answer and even if what you suggest changes with new information. I think the industry can help if pointed in the right direction. Thanks in advance! 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: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 20:00:53 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Jerry Bromenshenk Subject: CCD Causes, Concerns MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit At the meeting last week, we discussed concerns about honey - as articulated by at least one person on Bee-L. So far, we've heard questions about this from a relatively few people. Its something that needs to be addressed, but it is not something that the group thought likely to prove to be a problem. I am going out on a limb here, and I will provide my own opinion on this issue. Remember, its my opinion and I may be wrong - but I don't worry about consuming honey. I'm still eating honey. I say this after 30 some years of looking at chemicals and other things in bees, wax, and honey. We've seen everything for toxic metals like lead and cadmium to industrial chemicals like solvents and even some chem warfare agents. Disease: If the CCD is a disease pathogen, it should be host-specific to bees and pose no threat to mammals or people. Cases of a pathogen that is host specific to an insect affecting higher animals are so rare as to be almost non-existent. And it goes both ways. Just as we aren't made ill by foul brood bacteria; bees aren't susceptible to human anthrax. That said, there is at least one soil fungi that kills grasshoppers and when concentrated (by researchers trying to create a new microbial pesticide) it produced a chemical at levels toxic to rats. But, that scenario would normally not occur in nature. Chemicals: If the CCD is chemical induced, then we're looking at a chemical produced by a disease (e.g., fungi and aflotoxins), a chemical used on crops (e.g., pesticides), a chemical from other environmental sources (e.g., pollution), or a chemical being used in beehives by beekeepers. Or chemicals from any or all of these sources. But remember, the dose to a bee inside a hive is far different from the dose to humans consuming honey, simply because we are huge in size compared to bees. The difference in dose needed to harm a human compared to that kills bees usually differs by many orders of magnitude. And if we are talking about sublethal doses to bees, the affective chemical concentration drops even more. And, at this time of year, the colonies are pulled down to one or two stories - basically brood boxes -- any honey in those boxes isn't being harvested. Also, except in the very worst CCD cases, we usually find a queen and young bees left in the box -- so they are still alive, even if most of the old bees have left. In the worst cases, a few bees and the queen are found dead in the box -- but I suspect this is because the population was so decimated that they just can't thermo-regulate, cover brood, etc. Whether the old, vanished, bees die of chemical poisoning or of illness/exposure to the elements is unknown, but I'd lean towards the latter explanation. Our own work shows that bees respond behaviorally to many chemicals at levels far below those toxic to humans, and toxic to the bees themselves. Personally, I think if a chemical(s) are involved, it/they are acting as a repellant, driving bees, beetles, and moths out of the boxes. It seems to dissipate in a few weeks, and then bees are able to re-establish on the combs. If any remaining nectar or honey was toxic to bees, it should continue to be toxic - but it doesn't appear to be a continuing concern to the bees themselves. None of this means that if a chemical is involved in the outflux of bees from the brood boxes, that the chemical is necessarily ending up in honey or that it is toxic to either bees or people. So, I'm still eating honey. Now remember, honey can harbor non-bee related organisms like botulism in small amounts, which is why we don't recommend honey consumption by infants or young children - their immune systems are not fully developed/functional. So, a bit of common sense prevails. Finally, even in the worst chemical contamination of honey - and we've seen some over the last three decades, the amount of honey consumed by a person is still a small part of their total diet, and most honey is blended, consolidated from many hives, beeyards, and beekeepers. All of that means that any toxic material is diluted so much as to be almost non-existent. And packers like Sioux Bee routinely analyze honey and will reject contaminated product. That said, hobby beekeepers with one or two hives should be smart about where they keep their hives. We've seen honey and pollen from backyards near smelters with high levels of toxic metals, especially in the pollen. If you have hives in such a location and your brood keeps dying, don't eat the pollen. Hope this helps -- and I emphasize, its my own opinion, not that of anyone else. Jerry


**************************************
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: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 20:33:38 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Jerry Bromenshenk Subject: Re: ccd causes, concerns MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bob I wish we had a list of the top five candidates, but we don't. We've a bit more information about what its not, but even that is based on inadequate information, mostly from surveys -- because we mainly catch this thing after the colonies have crashed and the bees are gone, because beekeepers won't tell us that they have a problem - so we can't get samples, and because people spend more time and energy making guesses about causes CCD and listing all of the reasons about why they have the answer, than they do on filling out surveys, volunteering to take samples, and other activities that might help us sort this out. My apologies for being blunt, but it takes little effort to hold forth on a favorite theory, much more to do something about the problem. If everyone on this list would skip one day of on-line time on Bee-L and use that time to fill out a survey (_www.beesurvey.com_ (http://www.beesurvey.com) ), I could at least get enough input to more reasonably rule out some of the possible causes -- but I'm not basing recommendations on a hand full of inputs. So far, I have an insignificant number of returns to make any meaningful declarations. But the early returns certainly contain some hints that may or may not prove out. But if I tell you too much before getting any more returns, I will bias the outcome as people fill out survey to either prove me right or wrong. I'm focusing on surveys because they could provide immediate insights. In theory, the only time constraint is how long it takes people to download, fill out, and mail back or fill out on-line - which shouldn't take more than an hour or so, even for large beekeepers. I'd like to see an avalanche of surveys by this coming Wednesday - but I have no control over that. All of the bee equipment suppliers and national associations have promised to help distribute surveys - but it can happen now, if the list were to respond, and if every member of this list would contact beekeepers who don't belong to the list. In fact, the computer literate members of this list could down load forms for those who don't use computers. The disease (virus, nosema, amoeba, fungi, etc.), chemical (disease produced, pesticide, beekeeper introduced, industrial), and other lab-based tools and procedures that we are using are on a bit of a witch hunt, which mean we have some specific ideas that so far haven't been revealing any smoking guns, and lots and lots of other candidates, some known, some suspected, and some unknown to look at. Remember, we were only in CA a week ago, and comparing east coast with west coast samples is critical. The initial wave of CCD in the east revealed lots of things, like the fungi that Dennis suspects, but we need time to see if its in the colonies on the west coast -- at least those that did were not transported from the east. So, it will take time, and it will cost money for the disease and chemical work. The survey work could be done in less than a week, if beekeepers were to respond. That in my mind is the fastest way to narrow the field of possibilities - at least as far as management practices that may either mitigate or may induce expression of the CCD. Jerry


**************************************
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: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 20:47:18 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: John & Christy Horton Subject: Glucose MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello, Does anybody know of the effects of feeding pure glucose to bees would be? Thanks for the input earlier about HFCS.... I was comforted in knowing that Bob Harrison had used HFCS for awhile now without disastrous effects..that was a factor, that with my own observations helped me to rest easier. I have access to a limited supply of powdered glucose now for a decent price. Any knowledge of this? ((i dont plan on administering it intravenously) John Horton -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 22:10:53 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Gavin Ramsay Subject: Re: CCD Causes, Concerns MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Jerry and All It seems exceptionally quiet on here today - does that mean that everyone is filling out their CCD returns?! Just two things to throw into this debate: 1. As far as I can tell, we are not having anything like this in the UK, though we must share some factors - such as imidacloprid use (which I have to say was the culprit I first thought about). Is there anywhere in the world with something similar at the moment? Any UK beekeepers care to correct me? 2. I know that you are well aware of the French experience in the mid-1990s when pesticides were getting the lion's share of the blame. If you don't know, Yves Le Conte will be talking at the ESA meeting, which looks like it is in four weeks time meeting in Manitoba. His abstract (link below) finishes 'This presentation will discuss the history and the different sides of the conflict including new data on multifactorial effects.' Could be useful for those of you puzzling over CCD. http://esa.ent.iastate.edu/confreg/?gridaction=viewonepresentation&year=2007&presnum=155 If the States now has something similar to the French problems, the bad news is that the problem persisted over several years, saw hive numbers drop by a third, and mean honey yields fall by over 50%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imidacloprid_effects_on_bee_population bye for now Gavin. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info --- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 17:44:40 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Jerry Bromenshenk Subject: Re: CCD Causes, Concerns MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Gavin Thanks for the comments about CCD and the U.K. I'd much like to hear from beekeepers in countries other than the U.S. As per the neonicotinics like Imidacloprid, PSU is looking at them. I was involved in litigation in the U.S., looking at studies of these chemicals, beekeeper samples, etc. These new generation pesticides are in the U.S. and their use is increasing. More worrisome, they've gone from seed and soil applications to direct spraying on crops like cotton. However, CCD doesn't seem to play out in quite the same as the French experience, and with 24 reporting states, its a bit of a stretch to attribute all of this losses to these new chemicals -- and if they are the cause, we should have seen it some years ago. We certainly did see bee losses for at least 24 U.S. and Canadian beekeepers over the last few years, but it didn't play out the same. I had no problem representing beekeeper with bees on cotton and claim for damages from these chemicals, when the chemical was in their bees, wax, etc. But, we don't have that specific fit with respect to CCD, unless PSU suddenly finds some new evidence. They have hints of this in some samples, just as most samples have viruses, fungi, etc. My opinion, just as its impossible to find bees without a trace of PCBs anywhere in the U.S., many pesticides used in the U.S. (new and old) show up in all bee samples -- but presence doesn't equal bee poisoning. Could these chemicals be involved? Yes. Do we have sufficient evidence to conclude this? No. But it is being looked at. Jerry


**************************************
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: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 23:40:48 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Gavin Ramsay Subject: Re: CCD Causes, Concerns MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Jerry > its a bit of a stretch to attribute all of this losses to these > new chemicals -- I agree with you. After reading some of the French literature, then discovering that our main crop source of nectar in the UK, oilseed rape (=canola), was now largely grown from imidacloprid-dressed seed, I feared that we would see the same problems in the UK. It doesn't seem to have happened. Just to be clear - 'cos I don't think that I was earlier - it appears that Yves Le Conte does not believe that imidacloprid stands out as the main factor in the French problem. Rather, the cause was more complex and involved several factors acting togther. You've already hinted that it may be the same for you. Good luck with your effort. Gavin. Subscribers are encouraged to search the asrchives ofter at: http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?S1=bee-l ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 07:45:29 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Mike Rowbottom Subject: Re: CCD Causes, Concerns In-Reply-To: <004701c759f2$fc1f0ec0$04000005@mshome.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT On 26 Feb 2007 at 22:10, Gavin Ramsay wrote: > 1. As far as I can tell, we are not having anything like > this in the UK, though we must share some factors - such as > imidacloprid use (which I have to say was the culprit I > first thought about). Is there anywhere in the world with > something similar at the moment? Any UK beekeepers care to > correct me? >Gavin Hi We lost about half our colonies in the 2004-05 Winter (out of about 35 colonies) with some of the CCD symptoms. The colonies were just empty of bees, although stores of honey and pollen were present. Some of the colonies concerned had been strong at the start of the Winter. There was no abandoned brood that I recall. The deaths were all in the winter period in the two months after Christmas. There was some robbing of the empty colonies, but it was too cold for much bee activity. I subsequently sterilised the combs and the boxes with acetic acid and reused them-I got rid of all the black and ancient comb- and have not, fingers crossed, had further problems with CCD subsequently. At the time I assumed that the colonies had succumbed because of a reduced life of the bees associated with virus infections- although that did not explain the total absence of bees.. The second half of the preceding Summer had been very poor with a lot of cold and wet days; the bees were not in particularly top class condition going into the Winter. Hope this may be of interest Mike Rowbottom HARROGATE North Yorks UK Search the archives ofter at: http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?S1=bee-l ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 07:47:39 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Adrian Wenner Subject: New York Times article on CCD In-Reply-To: <9D95C2906FCCE04F836ECA17C4CE092109A653E0@UAEXCH.univ.albany.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v624) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit This morning's NEW YORK TIMES has an article on disappearing bees in the business section: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/27/business/27bees.html? _r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin It also has an audio slide show on that subject: http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/business/20070225_BEES_FEATURE/ index.html?th&emc=th Adrian Adrian M. Wenner (805) 963-8508 (home office phone) 967 Garcia Road wenner@lifesci.ucsb.edu Santa Barbara, CA 93103 www.beesource.com/pov/wenner/index.htm "Having one view prevail is harmful; it becomes a belief system, not science." Zaven Khachaturian — 2006 Search the archives often at http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?S1=bee-l ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:05:57 -0500 Reply-To: bee-quick@bee-quick.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: New York Times article on CCD MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Front page, no less. OK, below the fold, but still front page. http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/hr.asp?fpVname=NY_NYT&ref_pge=lst Search the archives often at http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?S1=bee-l ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:22:15 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?windows-1252?Q?Chuck_Norton?= Subject: BEESURVEY.COM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To the List & beyond, If you are reading this post most likely you have a computer with Internet access and are reading this post as a subscriber to BEE-L. There are a lot of other honeybee related Internet discussion groups out there and Jerry Bromenshenk has requested that readers from many different lists help the Colony Collapse Disorder effort by going to http://www.beesurvey.com and completing the Survey. But there are a lot of beekeepers who have computers at home and for various reasons do not go on-line. Some beekeepers that do go on-line do not know about or belong to or participate in an Internet beekeeping related discussion group or information distribution service. Surveys have been done in the past by some of the beekeeping magazines with findings that the majority of beekeepers, commercial, sideliner and hobbyist alike, do not have computers at home or they have to go to a library or other location to get online. As a consequence the open survey that Jerry Bromenshenk is conducting is somewhat limited to “computerized”participants. Although the American Bee Journal in it’s March 2007 issue gives mailing directions for those folks who wish to participate and obtain a survey there are other beekeeping magazines that did not have this information and frankly there are a many-many more beekeepers that do not subscribe to any beekeeping periodical or have computers. So I ask of you to please help Jerry’s CCD Group’s efforts by taking the contact information below to your state and local beekeeping meetings, classes, neighbors, etc. and get the word out. Get other beekeepers involved! Jerry needs a broad statistical database and the only way to get this is for as many beekeepers possible to respond to the Survey. Here is the contact information as of February second pending any amendment by Bee Alert Technology, Inc.: Bee Alert Technology, Inc. Attention: Larry Tarver 1620 Rodger St Suite #1 Missoula, MT 59802 Your help in obtaining responses to this survey will help yourself and our industry. Cheers, Chuck Search the archives often at http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?S1=bee-l ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:54:42 -0000 Reply-To: max.watkins@vita-europe.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Max Watkins Organization: Vita (Europe) Ltd Subject: CCD international In-Reply-To: <45E3E199.16892.2A2E2DD8@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit As has already been said, this "phenomenon" (if indeed it is one and not an arbitrary variety of adverse reactions) cannot be labelled as yet with any one cause. There is not enough data available at the moment to crystalise out responsible factors. Whilst bee losses, especially winter losses are nothing new to beekeeping, the apparent increase in high levels of loss in North America and in Europe especially over the past few years indicates a common growing situation affecting our bees internationally. If, and I do say if, this is true, the factors affecting colony collapse disorder may differ from country to country; it's not possible to incontrovertibly link colony death in say, Poland with Spain and the USA. The only common factor known so far is that many bee colonies have died. Thorough examination and analysis of affected colonies is needed. As more information becomes available in the form of feedback from beekeepers in all regions, then it may be more likely that the people assimilating the data, for whom I have great regard, will be able to determine the most probable causes. It's not easy getting information, asking people to fill in forms detailing what they did, when they did it and why. What were the conditions like at the time? - not everyone remembers or keeps a log book. Some don't want to give out information they regard as "personal". But unless relevant information can be reliably gathered - and a lot of it - we are going to have conjecture and everyone's pet theories for years to come and bees may continue to die off. Organised groups investigating these bee deaths are taking shape in Europe and in North America and they deserve the help and broad support of beekeepers everywhere in finding a solution to this problem. Max Dr Max Watkins Director Vita (Europe) Limited 21/23 Wote Street Basingstoke Hampshire RG21 7NE UK Tel.: +44 (0)1256 473 177 Fax: +44 (0)1256 473 179 Mobile: +44 (0) 7767 815 370 e-mail: max.watkins@vita-europe.com web: http://www.vita-europe.com Skype: maxwatkins Search the archives often at http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?S1=bee-l ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 19:09:06 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Chris Slade Subject: Re: Dance-language controvery MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 25/02/2007 18:30:38 GMT Standard Time, gavin@ERROL100.FREESERVE.CO.UK writes: the scientific consensus seems to be that the dance is one way to communicate about general directions, and that odour and sight play a part in the final localisation too. I attended recently a lecture given by Prof Jamie Ellis of the Uni of Fla on the Small Hive Beetle and was impressed at the clubbed antennae which contrast in shape with those of the honeybee. As an antisocial insect that relies presumably on scent alone to locate targets it will need more extravagent antennae. Some moths that locate mates by scent at phenomenal distances have similarly extravagent antennae. It would seem reasonable to expect that if bees relied almost wholly on scent to find what they are looking for their antennae would be bigger then they are. Chris Search the archives often at http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?S1=bee-l ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 20:02:12 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Erin Martin Subject: Langstroth writings online? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi all-- Can someone recommend a website with a lot of Langstroth's writings? Either his private journals or published work is fine. Thanks! Erin ____________________________________________________________________________________ Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html Search the archives often at http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?S1=bee-l ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 20:08:11 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Adrian Wenner Subject: Faith vs reason, part 2 Comments: cc: sam.cook@bbsrc.ac.uk, phwells@earthlink.net, Kim Flottum , PayneT@missouri.edu, "Laszlo Pentek (DISB)" , Joe Graham , tpaine@ucrac1.ucr.ed, Ruth Rosin In-Reply-To: <45DA0DF0.9010507@suscom-maine.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v624) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dear BEE-L subscribers, On 19 February I provided a note about “confirmation bias” and the problems it provides in scientific research (reason vs belief). On the 21st, Bob Harrison picked up on that point and requested input about statements he had read in a book about honey bee communication. On the 23rd I responded to his query, with examples about various treatments attempted against varroa mites (usually a wish to believe, again). Beekeepers may embrace a treatment that seemed to work for someone else but remain silent when their own colonies crash with that treatment. Then I gave some examples of how confirmation bias has confounded events in the bee language controversy. As expected, my response to Bob’s query in terms of confirmation bias elicited a spirited exchange of opinion about the reality of bee language — in some cases, striking examples of confirmation bias — for which I thank. Those comments sort of proved the point I made on 19 February. Belief in bee language is really an emotional issue. The controversy revolves not about evidence but about one’s attitude toward evidence and how the evidence was gathered. If those who believe in bee language were firm in their belief system, they would merely shrug off counter arguments. Innumerable times I have been drawn into a debate about bee language and eventually learned to ask a simple question, “Do you think it conceivable that honey bees DO NOT have a language?” How rapidly and what answer emerges lets me know whether that person is open to reasonable debate or locked into a belief system. During the past several decades we have been treated to one “proof” of bee language after another. One can only ask why sequential proofs are necessary if bee language is already “fact”. (One does not prove a hypothesis true; it always remains a hypothesis.) In the exchanges of this past week a few points deserve clarification. Accusations were tossed back and forth about whether BEE-L contributors had read the original research papers on the subject, but no one came up with what rules should apply while reading those papers — such as: 1) Did the researchers WANT to obtain “positive” results? 2) Were the experiments a true test of the hypothesis — or could the results be interpreted ambiguously? 3) Did the researchers include results from earlier experiments that did not conform to their expectations? 4) Did the reader of such publications WANT “positive” results — that is, did they somehow have immunity from confirmation bias? (As with Chamberlin’s comment: “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.”) 5) Did the reader carefully analyze the publications to determine whether the researchers had sought only confirmation, or used blind design, employed adequate controls, and conducted double controlled experiments? 6) Did the researchers provide all the data they had gathered, or had they published selected results from bees that performed as expected/wanted? In that light, a couple of the respondents singled out the radar tracking experiments as “final proof” of bee flight paths. We can rightly ask, “Were the above rules adhered to in those experiments?” That’s easy to address. Would they have spent about half a million dollars to conduct an experiment that could negate their belief system? As iconoclast in these matters, I direct BEE-L to my analysis of those supposed “conclusive” radar tracking experiments: beesource.com/pov/wenner/radar.htm Will bee language advocates open that URL and study the case I made? I would hope so, because it illustrates how well the von Frisch odor-search hypothesis of the 1930s can explain honey bee search behavior — as included in: beesource.com/pov/wenner/bw1993.htm ("The language of bees"). Finally, one respondent resorted to demanding answers to a set of WHY questions. Sorry, but those are teleological, not scientific questions. We covered that topic in Excursus TEL in our 1990 book, ANATOMY OF A CONTROVERSY. Quite frankly we may never know why some behavior or another exists, as clearly pointed out by Dick Allen in one of his responses. As Bill Trusdale commented, “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.” And now, what about the significance of the results (that no one mentioned) of the honey bee genome analysis (170 odor receptor sites but none for bee language — despite it being touted as an "instinctual signaling system")? But now I have to get ready to sell at the Farmers Market on Saturday (avocados and cherimoya fruit). Best wishes to you all. Adrian Adrian M. Wenner (805) 963-8508 (home office phone) 967 Garcia Road wenner@lifesci.ucsb.edu Santa Barbara, CA 93103 www.beesource.com/pov/wenner/index.htm "Having one view prevail is harmful; it becomes a belief system, not science." Zaven Khachaturian — 2006 Search the archives often at http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?S1=bee-l ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 05:06:52 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Aaron Morris Subject: Re: Langstroth writings online? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable a website with a lot of Langstroth's writings is = http://bees.library.cornell.edu/ =20 The Hive and the Honeybee online beekeeping library contains a plethore = of other beekeeping texts too. =20 A downloadable bookmark = showing the website = address for The Hive and the Honeybee collection is available for = desktop printing. To make a gift toward The Hive and the Honeybee or to = find out more about supporting this growing collection, please contact = Eveline Ferretti, Albert R. Mann Library (tel.: (607) 254-4993; email: = ef15@cornell.edu ).=20 Aaron Morris - thinking support The Hive and the Honeybee! Search the archives often at http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?S1=3Dbee-l ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 05:37:49 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Precision Tooling Subject: Re: Langstroth writings online? In-Reply-To: <9D95C2906FCCE04F836ECA17C4CE092108BE1444@UAEXCH.univ.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Here another link that I use. http://bees.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=bees;idno=5017167 Search the archives often at http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?S1=bee-l ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 07:32:50 -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: Faith vs reason, part 2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Can an Insect Speak? The Case of the Honeybee Dance Language by Eileen Crist excerpts In the mid-1960s behavioral scientists Adrian Wenner, Patrick Wells, and their associates attacked what they recast as the 'dance language hypothesis'. They contested that honeybees navigate on the basis of information encoded in the dances they attend, claiming instead that it was scientists who deciphered the dance and used the information to find the locations. For Wenner, the fact that the dance contains information did not mean the attending bees use that information. Rather, he maintained that 'successful recruited bees had acted as if they had used the distance and direction information we scientists had chosen to measure'. In their 1990 work, Wenner and Wells posed a pointed question: In brief, the question at issue here is: 'Can one really believe that the small honey bee visiting a flower has language capability?' The same social situation that permitted the rise of 'New Age' thinking in the public at large had apparently spilled over into the biological community. The implied response is that one cannot really believe such a far-fetched proposition as an insect with language. The authors do not consider that their own adamant rejection of a 'small' honeybee with language capability has deepseated historical origins, cultural roots, and ideological overtones. In a conservation biology context, Stephen Kellert and E. O. Wilson have argued that dismissive and/or derogatory ideas about invertebrates reveal more about the human attitudes and perceptions than about the organisms themselves. Negative perceptions do a profound disservice to the vital ecological roles of invertebrates. FROM: Can an Insect Speak? The Case of the Honeybee Dance Language by Eileen Crist Search the archives often at http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?S1=bee-l ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 07:54:07 -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: Faith vs reason, part 2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I have discussed the debate between the dance language and olfactory view proponents from a particular perspective: I argue that the controversy centered on divisive disagreements about background assumptions. If ‘one *really does not believe* that a small honeybee has language capability’, then apparently no evidence may ever suffice to prove its existence. This seems a reasonable explanation for why a minority of skeptical scientists has renounced evidence that the preponderance of the honeybee research community have found amply persuasive. The employment of the dance as a symbolic code has foregrounded questions about cognition and awareness, and enabled the use of mental concepts (like remembering, interpreting, or understanding) in the scientific literature to describe what the honeybees are doing. The implication of mind has both made the dance language problematic within behavioral science, and contributed to strengthening the case that mental capacities may be more generously distributed than we are inclined, or inculcated, to believe. from Can an Insect Speak? The Case of the Honeybee Dance Language By Eileen Crist Search the archives often at http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?S1=bee-l ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 09:32:54 -0500 Reply-To: bee-quick@bee-quick.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Faith vs reason, part 2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Belief in bee language is really an emotional issue. Not so much for those who think that there is sufficient evidence to support bee language. It appears to only be "emotional" for those who propose that the mass of evidence gathered to date is insufficient. > If those who believe in bee language were firm in their > belief system, they would merely shrug off counter arguments. This is an apt description of the reaction of the scientific community as a whole to the counter-arguments offered to date. I would tend to use the term "yawn" rather than "shrug", but it is likely that some people both yawn and shrug. Those of us who do not participate in peer review (such as beekeepers) are different, in that we find such discussions entertaining and educational, and don't have any concerns about "reputations". But let's ignore the meta-discussion of how someone might be biased in one way or another, and focus on more tangible issues. Let's even ignore the bees for a moment, and ask an easier question about "odor" itself. If bees don't use "dance information" at all, and only use "odor", as Adrian insists, how do we explain the behavior of bees in regard to odorless plants and odorless nectar? In the paper "Why Are Some Floral Nectars Scented?" (Robert A. Raguso of USC in "Ecology", 85(6), 2004, pp. 1486-1494), which can be found in full in this compendium: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~irwinlab/papers/Irwin_et_al_2004_SF_Intro.pdf Robert states: "Here I confirm the presence of scent in the nectar of four out of seven angiosperm species sampled with solid-phase micro-extraction and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry." So if only 4 out of 7 nectars sampled had an odor detectable with SPME GC/MS, a very high-tech approach to detecting chemicals at very low levels, how do the other 3 plants get pollinated, and how did they survive in the highly-competitive Darwinian scheme of things? Clearly, the evidence of flower visual displays, including the unique displays visible only under UV light provides evidence that bees and other pollinators use their eyes. Sure, odor can help, but it is clearly not the only cue. In some cases, it does not even appear to be a minor part of the process, such as in the case where the nectar is odorless, thus making any odor-based scenario for forager recruitment more than a little implausible. (And please, let's not drag out "location odor" until someone can explain how one specific "location" might smell different from another, and how one versus another could be found, given a hive as a starting point.) So, what percentage of plants that provide nectar have an odor at all? No one seems to know at present, but even a small number of such plants present significant hurdles to any proposed foraging and recruitment scheme where odor might be claimed to be mission-critical to the process. I have "faith" that everyone will see the "reasoning" here. I have faith IN reasoning. :) Search the archives often at http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?S1=bee-l ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 10:15:15 -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: Faith vs reason, part 2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dr. Wenner writes: >Finally, one respondent resorted to demanding answers to a set of WHY questions. Sorry, but those are teleological, not scientific questions. Comment: The question "Why?" does not always imply teleology. "Why?" is the beginning of all scientific inquiry. The merest child wants to know, if the earth is spinning like a merry go round, why don't we get dizzy? For centuries, people have asked: why do bees dance? The honey bee colony is one of the most sophisticated and complex insect systems known, rivaled only by ants and termites. The colony is a marvel of efficiency. Were it not, bees would not be able to survive through six month winters, or droughts -- situations that would kill off other species. So it is logical to suppose that the bees would only allocate a large expenditure of energy on "dancing" if it provided some sort of "pay-off". Conversely, it seems ridiculous to suppose that a system that encodes time and direction would have evolved without any useful function to the colony. Of course, it could have. Nature has many such strange features that have no apparent function. Or does it? When studied closely enough, almost all these features can be found to have some sort of usefulness for the organism, usually related to self-preservation. Obviously, if a colony did have a way of communicating information to other members, it would very useful. The questions that interest many of us are "How could all this be going on inside a brain the size of a grain of salt?" and "How do honey bees visualize the world?" Computer scientists are developing ever tinier microprocessors so some of these questions may soon be answerable, as well. > Teleology is based on the proposition that the universe has design and purpose. Teleology represents a basic argument for the existence of God, in that the order and efficiency of the natural world seem not to be accidental. Teleologists oppose mechanistic interpretations of the universe that rely solely on organic development or natural causation. -- © Microsoft Encarta < pb Help with data collection regarding Colony Collapse Disorder at www.beesurvey.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 10:06:58 -0500 Reply-To: david.meldrum@verizon.net Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "David.Meldrum" Subject: Re: Langstroth writings online? In-Reply-To: <344053.86813.qm@web54312.mail.yahoo.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Not on line, but the definitive Langstroth biography is the book "America's Master of Bee Culture" by Florence Naile ISBN 0-8014-1053-3. It is hard to find, but if you search around on line used book stores you can often turn up a copy for sale. > Erin Martin wrote: >Can someone recommend a website with a lot of >Langstroth's writings? Either his private journals or >published work is fine. Help with data collection regarding Colony Collapse Disorder at www.beesurvey.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 14:32:13 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: Re: New York Times article on CCD MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello All, David Hackenburg has been named the *poster boy* for CCD. Dave was the first to step forward and now 24 four states are reporting the problem. I applaud Dave for reporting a problem he had never seen before. Then the story was. "Me too" by others. I am still going through bees but have not seen the CCD problem ( as described by Dave & Jerry) but have got many hives yet to go through. I was the "poster boy" for the Australian package bees. I said the world would not come to an end (as predicted by many) and would end up being a good thing. I was given a hard time at first but now all of U.S. beekeeping has came to see the value of the import ( at least the larger beekeepers). My point is that when the beekeepers which did the first import were in California a certain Montana beekeeper gave those beekeepers a hard time. Said he would not be caught dead with Australian packages. On the last page of the New York times article hear what the same beekeeper had to share with the reporter today. "L.S. a beekeeper from Montana ,said he spent $150,000 in the last two weeks buying packages of bees from Australia!" Sincerely, Bob Harrison -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ************************************************************************************* * BEE-L is hosted at the State University on New York at Albany. * * Help with data collection regarding Colony Collapse Disorder at www.beesurvey.com * ************************************************************************************* ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:54:40 -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, part 2,234,675 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >> Teleology is based on the proposition that the universe has design and >> > purpose. Teleology represents a basic argument for the existence of God, in > that the order and efficiency of the natural world seem not to be > accidental. Teleologists oppose mechanistic interpretations of the universe > that rely solely on organic development or natural causation. -- © Microsoft > Encarta < > > Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source tel·e·ol·o·gy /ËŒtÉ›liˈɒlÉ™dÊ’i, ËŒtili-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tel-ee-*ol*-/uh/-jee, tee-lee-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun Philosophy. 1. the doctrine that final causes exist. 2. the study of the evidences of design or purpose in nature. 3. such design or purpose. 4. the belief that purpose and design are a part of or are apparent in nature. 5. (in vitalist philosophy) the doctrine that phenomena are guided not only by mechanical forces but that they also move toward certain goals of self-realization. What is interesting is the massive construction projects by both groups in building even bigger straw men so they can knock them down. There is a lot of one way or the highway with the other side pictured as a narrow construct while they are broad and universal. Both definitions show that. The Encarta definition is narrow in its interpretation of the Teleologists, while the Dictionary.com definition allows them more room. Also interesting is that Crist's comments read that way to me: that Adrian's research was the result of his mindset and they then read his mind and made that their argument. To me, that is more character defamation than a valid scientific argument. It is a narrow construct but a large straw man. If you really look at Crist's statements, they can easily be turned around and used to support the dance language arguments. There is design in the dance language; a higher power made it a part of the great design; and it is not just "mechanical forces". If you believed that, would it throw into doubt the dance language hypothesis? They err in the same way they say Adrian does, by making it into an either or proposition: either the bee has intelligence or it does not and neither do any other animals. Like the dictionary,com definition, it can be both. A bee can be dumb as a log but still have a brain and higher attributes. I know that fits some higher animals, like posters on the BeeL. For me, the only issue is does the dance impart information? I believe it does, based on the fact that it is used by swarms to locate a new home. Why dance if nectar or odor are the only issues? It is not an either-or issue since bees can detect odor and can see the flowers, as Jim pointed out, as well as use the dance. For me, that is a great design, since all the faculties of the bee are put to use. I do have an issue with calling movements of a bee "language". If I point to an object, I am not using language but am imparting information. So does a signpost. What causes the bee to impart information? I have no idea, but I would never rule out brain hard wiring, the same sort of thing we have for instinctual responses to stimuli. It is actually a very simple dance. There is the sun, there is the angle to the sun and this is how far. I can do the same by pointing and holding my hands apart. Come to think of it, if I did that quickly alternating both, I would probably be a candidate for Dancing with the Stars, or at least be doing a passable 70's disco dance. Bill Truesdell (The John Travolta of Maine... no, strike that) Bath, Maine ************************************************************************************* * BEE-L is hosted at the State University on New York at Albany. * * Help with data collection regarding Colony Collapse Disorder at www.beesurvey.com * ************************************************************************************* ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 14:33:15 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Adrian Wenner Subject: CCD: Earthfiles.com In-Reply-To: <000701c75b77$a954eee0$1abc59d8@BusyBeeAcres> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v624) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit A friend sent me the following address for a very complete coverage of CCD on: Earthfiles.com SCROLL DOWN TO: February 23, 2007 - Part 1:  Earth Life Threats - Alarming Disappearance of Honey Bees.   Click for report. Adrian Adrian M. Wenner (805) 963-8508 (home office phone) 967 Garcia Road wenner@lifesci.ucsb.edu Santa Barbara, CA 93103 www.beesource.com/pov/wenner/index.htm "Having one view prevail is harmful; it becomes a belief system, not science." Zaven Khachaturian — 2006 ************************************************************************************* * BEE-L is hosted at the State University on New York at Albany. * * Help with data collection regarding Colony Collapse Disorder at www.beesurvey.com * ************************************************************************************* ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 18:09:41 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Chris Slade Subject: Re: CCD Causes, Concerns MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 26/02/2007 22:23:33 GMT Standard Time, gavin@ERROL100.FREESERVE.CO.UK writes: Is there anywhere in the world with something similar at the moment? Any UK beekeepers care to correct me? I have seen it on rare occasions when I have allowed varroa to get the upper hand. Chris ************************************************************************************* * BEE-L is hosted at the State University on New York at Albany. * * Help with data collection regarding Colony Collapse Disorder at www.beesurvey.com * ************************************************************************************* ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 23:49:40 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Gavin Ramsay Subject: Re: Faith vs reason, part 2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Adrian > And now, what about the significance of the results > (that no one mentioned) of the honey bee genome > analysis (170 odor receptor sites but none for bee > language — despite it being touted as an > "instinctual signaling system")? I discussed this in two messages! You don't just bin mine, do you?! Essentially, classes of genes already known from Drosophila and other organisms are easily spotted, completely new types are not, and genes in any organism for behaviour are very hard to find. Here is the main paper on the honeybee genome: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7114/full/nature05260.html in which the authors admit that there are likely to be thousands of genes not even recognised as genes, never mind the genes recognised but with no known function as yet. Quoting from the paper: 'However, achieving a comprehensive understanding of social life in molecular terms will require extensive analyses of the honeybee as well as other social and non-social species. A genome might be a blueprint for some aspects of biology, but most mysteries of sociality appear to be encoded subtly in the genome, at least based on our study of honeybee and Drosophila, as well as recent analyses of human and chimpanzee.' Keep reading and you will see that the honeybee genome researchers have no qualms about accepting the existence of a dance language. Why shouldn't they, its existence is widely accepted amongst scientists! 'They communicate new food discoveries with 'dance language', originally deciphered by von Frisch, the only non-primate symbolic language. Recent studies revealed that honeybees can learn abstract concepts such as 'same' and 'different'.' I'll end with a quote from the message you wrote on 23 Feb: 'Likewise, anyone committed to dogma should not be the person to write a review about a controversy; yet, that is done all the time. For example, Emily Smith and Gard Otis ...... rounded up all the confirmation evidence and positive commentary they could find.' Hmmnn. best wishes Gavin. ************************************************************************************* * BEE-L is hosted at the State University of New York at Albany. * * Help with data collection regarding Colony Collapse Disorder at www.beesurvey.com * ************************************************************************************* ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:12:56 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Adrian Wenner Subject: CCD Causes, Concerns In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v624) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In the February issue of Bee Culture, Malcolm Sanford has an excellent article ("A New Nosema" — "The symptoms are similar to other conditions described as 'Autumn collapse,' 'Spring dwindling,' 'disappearing trick" (Australia), 'mal de mayo' in some Spanish-speaking countries, and 'May disease' in France."). Adrian (Not a list topic, but as I write this, a full grown monarch butterfly caterpillar crawled off my shirt sleeve onto my hand. Where did that come from?) ************************************************************************************* * BEE-L is hosted at the State University of New York at Albany. * * Help with data collection regarding Colony Collapse Disorder at www.beesurvey.com * ************************************************************************************* ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:47:34 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Adrian Wenner Subject: Faith vs Reason =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?=97?= Swarm movement Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v624) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed On Feb 28, 2007, at 1:54 PM, Bill Truesdell wrote (in small part): > For me, the only issue is does the dance impart information? I believe > it does, based on the fact that it is used by swarms to locate a new > home. No, I don't believe the dance language hypothesis is necessary to explain swarm movement. See: beesource.com/pov/wenner/abjjan1992.htm After all, when a swarm moves through the air, almost all bees are flying pretty much in circles, being led as a whole by bees that have flown repeatedly to the target site. Nasanov odor would suffice for an explanation. When the swarm alights, that odor pervades the area ! Adrian ************************************************************************************* * BEE-L is hosted at the State University of New York at Albany. * * Help with data collection regarding Colony Collapse Disorder at www.beesurvey.com * ************************************************************************************* ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 19:09:49 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?windows-1252?Q?Ted_Hancock?= Subject: Re: Langstroth writings online? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 10:06:58 -0500, David.Meldrum wrote: >Not on line, but the definitive Langstroth biography is the book >"America's Master of Bee Culture" by Florence Naile ISBN 0-8014-1053-3. >It is hard to find, but if you search around on line used book stores >you can often turn up a copy for sale. > I recently came across a copy of this book and have found it interesting reading. Most refrences to Langstroth I have read say only that "As a child he had shown a rather unusual interest in insects...". And I've always wonder, "what does that mean, he liked to torture flies?" So I was a bit surprised to read on page 36 of Florence's book that "When he was six years old, so his mother afterwards told him, his teachers reported that although he was doing well in other respects she had to punish him for spending time in catching flies and shutting them in paper cages." But the book goes on to tell how, as a boy, Langstroth wore the knees out of his pants studing ants and cicadas. According to this book Langstroth first noticed cicadas when he was seven. A brood of cicadas hatched in Philadelphi in that year, 1817. Langstroth writes about taking his daughter and some of her classmates back to Philadelphia in his 40th year to observe another brood of cicadas hatching. He says about that night, "...but from my boyish recollections I could have described them almost as vividly and accurately as I could after these last observations." It seems that Langstroth never lost the wonder and fascination he had for insects as a child. I guess that is what others were trying to say by refering to his "unusual interest". Maybe someone can now write a book about how many researchers and REAL (tm) beekeepers out there secretly dream of being the next Lorenzo Lorraine. This syndrom (LLL syndrom) has led to many inovations over the years but has also resulted in a surplus of articles on hive ventilation etc. Will the next Lorenzo Lorraine please stand up? (Ok, you can sit down again, at least you got some exercise). L.L. Hancock ************************************************************************************* * BEE-L is hosted at the State University of New York at Albany. * * Help with data collection regarding Colony Collapse Disorder at www.beesurvey.com * ************************************************************************************* ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:06:51 -0900 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Tom Elliott Subject: Teleology In-Reply-To: <45E5FA20.2000103@suscom-maine.net> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Bill Truesdell wrote a bunch of stuff relating to teleology. I have only one thing to add. No fair applying reason to the confrontation. Tom Elliott Chugiak, AK ************************************************************************************* * BEE-L is hosted at the State University of New York at Albany. * * Help with data collection regarding Colony Collapse Disorder at www.beesurvey.com * *************************************************************************************