From MAILER-DAEMON Sat Feb 28 10:55:02 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,NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP,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 D0B4B482EC for ; Sat, 28 Feb 2009 10:52:18 -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 n1SFkpIN016612 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 2009 10:52:18 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 10:52:17 -0500 From: "University at Albany LISTSERV Server (14.5)" Subject: File: "BEE-L LOG0703E" To: adamf@IBIBLIO.ORG Message-ID: Content-Length: 104654 Lines: 2377 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 02:17:27 -0500 Reply-To: bee-quick@bee-quick.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: House Hearing on CCD MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Jerry Bromenshenk told us: > The House Agriculture Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic > Agriculture has scheduled a hearing [on "Colony Collapse Disorder"] > for March 29, 2007 starting at 10:00am... > the CoE [Coevolution Institute] has also prepared and submitted > a statement... A significant part of the statement is focused on > broadening the hearing record to encompass native pollinator and > ecosystem issues-a desire indicated by Subcommittee staff. But how does CCD impact native pollinators? Not at all, to the best of our knowledge. So why would a Subcommittee of the House Agriculture Committee accept written testimony from CoE and the NAAPC in a hearing on "CCD", when "native pollinators and ecosystem issues" would be the business of the House Committee on Natural Resources? Maybe I'm way out of line here, but could it be that the reason is that they smell both funding and a PR opportunity? Silly me - I thought that the process would be straightforward, with the Subcommittee hearing testimony about the specific problem at hand, and finding it appropriate to increase funding for the USDA Bee Labs for the first time in... gee, I dunno - nearly forever. Recall that those of us who keep bees in the USA have had to remind our various elected representatives on a regular basis that the USDA ARS does "Bee Research", as nearly every USDA budget since what seems like the Hoover administration has threatened to either eliminate the Bee Labs, close one or more facilities and lay off the scientists at those facilities, or, more recently, "consolidate" the Bee Labs (and downsize the staff with the trick of forcing them to choose between moving to Weslaco, Texas or finding another day job). In one recent budget, we were told that they simply "forgot" the Bee Labs. Not surprising, given that the total funding for the Bee Labs has been about $8 million out of a $93 billion dollar budget. About the best we have been able to do is "restore" funding, which means that funding in effective (inflated) dollars has shrunk every year, what with the rising price of everything from paperclips to Petri dishes, not to mention the massive overhead rates that the USDA charges the labs to "maintain" the collection of leaky roofs over the heads of the USDA's best and brightest. Now that the current plight of honey bees and beekeepers has captured the attention of the mainstream media, we can't even get a few hours in front of a congressional subcommittee to focus on a specific goal without having the focus blurred with generic concerns about the ecosystem and other beneficial insects? I'm sure that the CoE and NAAPC are fine groups, run by very nice people of good character who honestly want to help, but the Federal government already has the 369-page National Academy of Sciences report "Status of Pollinators in North America" http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11761#toc which happens to mention honey bees and beekeepers here and there in passing, but mostly focuses on all the other pollinators, even the ones merely suspected of pollinating something or other. Perhaps I am being unfair and far too harsh by pointing at the CoE and NAAPC folks when they are only trying to help. But unless they have had feet on the ground looking at the specific problem at hand, I don't see how the Coevolution Institute will do anything but CONVOLUTE things. Maybe I'm just blowing off steam because I am annoyed at all the other groups with agendas that have little or nothing to do with the issue at hand trying to tie their public relations wagons to this beekeeping-specific problem, including: a) The anti-Pesticide faction http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_4557.cfm b) The anti-Genetically-Modified Foods folks http://www.care2.com/news/member/540414077/322438 c) The anti-Technology Luddites http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2007/03/06/millions_of_bees_die_are_ele ctromagnetic_signals_to_blame.htm There is even one guy claiming that the problem is Solar Flares (I kid you not!) http://www.aarontrade.com/commodityfuturestrading/?p=42 (He sounds like a great guy to invest with, doesn't he?) All and sundry apparently forget that we have seen these exact same and very unique symptoms more than once before, long before the development of systemic pesticides, genetically-modified anything, long-range low-frequency antenna systems, long before varroa hit the USA, and long before "native pollinators" or the environment in general were in any trouble at all. Call me a curmudgeon, but I was kinda hoping that the Bee Labs might be able to get some funding for lab gear made in THIS century (rather than stuff left over from the last century) to do the sort of microbiology work that might help to find an actual answer to the specific problem at hand. A boy can dream, can't he? ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 07:36:44 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Ruary Rudd Subject: Re: Pure Honey and Oxalic Acid Comments: To: pencaemawr@F2S.COM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Under the new EU rules on medicaments the category of 'non medicinal curative substance' has been abolished. Ruary ----- Original Message ----- > > So far in the UK OA has been categorised as a "non-medicinal curative > substance", a sort of recognition that, despite the well established and > safe use of OA, the cost of formal registration as a medicine will never > be met by beekeepers or industry. > > The Irish authorities take a much more stringent view of these matters, > and the UK situation could change. > ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:07:22 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dave Cushman Subject: Re: Chemical honey In-Reply-To: <460AA382.9080004@suscom-maine.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Bill > Some of the "chemicals" are not soluble in water or honey but they do > end up in wax.. There they can last for a long time because they are not > in contact with air or water. They break down quickly if exposed to air, > water and light. It is not as 'cut and dried' as you suggest, it is more a case of variable solubility in wax or water based compounds than a sharp distinction, I do not believe that the words "not soluble in water" can be legitimately used in this context. As we are talking about varroa treatment compounds... Wax with fluvalinate residue gives rise to honey with fluvalinate residue... search for residue, honey, wax and you will find hundreds of documents that show this happens. The degree of solubility of fluvalinate in honey is not as large as for wax, but it still occurs. What makes you think that the chemical then degrades in contact with water ? Regards & Best 73s, Dave Cushman, G8MZY http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman or http://www.dave-cushman.net Short FallBack M/c, Build 6.02/3.1 (stable) ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:21:10 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Ruary Rudd Subject: Re: water content of honey vs wintering problems MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is not surprising, you gave the bees their carbohydrates which they could forage within the hive, so all foragers leaving the hive would be going for pollen to balance their requirements for brood rearing. Ruary Quote I've had hives which responded to sugar syrup in spring by bringing in extra pollen. almost every bee coming in was laden with willow pollen. Unquote ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 07:08:44 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter Borst Subject: NY State Beekeeper goes to Congress MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Buzz in Bee Biz—Not Sweet 13WHAM-TV - Rochester,NY,USA. quote: In his four decades of beekeeping, Jim Doan has never seen anything like it. He'll check on a hive and the bees will be gone. Doan will testify on Capitol Hill at 10 a.m. today during a hearing before a subcommittee of the House of Representatives' Committee on Agriculture. "It's a big problem here for western New York," said Bob King, director of the Agriculture and Life Sciences Institute at Monroe Community College. "The more west you go, the worse it is." http://tinyurl.com/22hwey -- pb ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:14:56 GMT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "waldig@netzero.com" Subject: Re: Treating Packaged Bees for Mites Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Jeff, I don't buy packages (have not had to in a long time) but I would treat with OA upon installing the bees in the hive. It's a perfect time for eliminating mites. I bought a package of Italian bees when I started to keep bees several years ago. By the end of the summer it was crashing with mites. Waldemar ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 07:21:22 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?UTF-8?Q?Peter_Borst?= Subject: Re: Fall treatment for Varroa and Fall Honey Flows Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lloyd Spear wrote: >3. Go for the Goldenrod flow with no August treatment and treat with whatever in October. There are fewer and fewer of these as the result is numerous hive collaspes in September and October and high winter losses. High winter losses may be due to the inability of the hive to produce a full cycle of varroa free bees for the winter cluster.> >We have some areas of NYS where the Goldenrod flow is the only flow with a surplus, but the size of the surplus can be substantial. Some members of Bee-L are in these areas. I would love to hear from them what has and has not been successful. * This is the exactly situation in the Southern Tompkins County. I have seen this over and over again. The hives might do fabulous during the goldenrod flow, but by the time it was over they'd be crawling with mites and already crashing. The boss wouldn't even do samples in August. "Nothing you can do about it anyway," he'd say. Well, I don't have any bees at present, but I think the solution is to treat with formic in August. I know beekeepers that do it. If you wait until October, it is definitely too late. Unfortunately, the Japanese Knotweed comes on in late August so that narrows the windo even more. Probably 3 weeks starting Aug 1 would do it. I also thought of splitting the hives at that point and treating the splits with formic. pb ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 04:30:52 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Grant Gillard Subject: Re: New Hivastan from Central Life Sciences Receives Section 1 8 Approval In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Joel writes: The world of hobby and sideline beekeeping is just as fraught with misues as the commercial aspect with the distinct possiblity of industry impact should contanimated honey reach the food supply and the media. My point is improper use of potentially dangerous chemicals should be attributed to irresponsible beeekepers as a caste, not commercial, sideliners or hobbyist. Everyone needs to be held responsible for using potentially dangerous chemicals improperly." I often wonder, especially as I sit in bee meetings and beekeeper's clubs and listen to the "cures" for any number of hive problems, that the extent of the abuse of chemicals, both hard and soft, both illegal and approved, is a matter of obstinate beligerance of doing whatever it takes to keep bees alive or just downright ignorance of how to read instructions and follow labels. Even those beekeepers who use approved treatments seem to have no clue as to when to add or remove strips, or even why they need to use them. They just do it. And then there are those charming guys who give you a wink about how they're using hog lice spray without any concern for the honey they sell. It's a scary thought. We try to inform and correct the misuse and abuse with those beekeepers in our bee club, but it's a big world out there. If the honey supply ever gets contaminated, I'm sure I'll get broadbrushed with the backlash. CCD, if linked to these abuses, may be the least of our real problems. Grant Jackson, MO --------------------------------- No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 04:34:45 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: C Hooper Subject: UV Sterilization Does Not Change Antibacterial Activity of Honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII UV Sterilization Does Not Change Antibacterial Activity of Honey Evaluation of the Shelf-Life of Canadian Active Honeys Katrina Brudzynski and Jennie Kim Department of Biological Sciences, Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada, L2S 3A1 SEE: http://apitherapy.blogspot.com/2007/03/uv-sterilization-does-not-change.html ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 05:41:31 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Grant Gillard Subject: Re: water content of honey vs wintering problems In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I'm not familiar with these boards that absorb water that would normally soak up the condensation. I've used a regular inner cover with a regular outer cover, and found a fair amount of condensed moisture between the two. But since it was not raining on the bees, I didn't worry about it. More and more I've been converting to a notched inner cover with a 3/8" tall x 1" wide notch cut on the under side (toward the hive) of the inner cover and pretty much eliminated the moisture build up. And my equipment is not all that "tight." I've seen beekeepers that use duct tape over all the gaps between boxes. In MN I used to wrap my hives with roofing paper, but more and more, I'm becoming an advocate of increased winter ventilation. It's the cold I'm worried about. Grant Jackson, MO --------------------------------- Looking for earth-friendly autos? Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 13:49:47 GMT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "waldig@netzero.com" Subject: Re: Chemical Honey Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >>Some of the "chemicals" are not soluble in water or honey but they do end up in wax.. ...they would not last long in nectar or honey. so if the called for times were followed, the residue would be near zero before the supers went on. Zero residue... What do Apistan & Checkmite in honey break down into? Nothing is lost in nature and I'd question of the break-down products are healthy. [Apistan and Checkmite issue out of wax over a long time given the reports of frequent queen supercedures in hives treated with these preparations and the expert recommendations to recycle the nest wax in treated wax every 3 years. Previously treated colonies moved onto fresh wax regain their vitality.] >>You even allow antibiotics, but again, with a time after treatment before supers can be put on. In this area, I think the US time is much too short. I do not use them. ... I think antibiotics could end up in honey. I agree with this. Do you think there is a safe period for TM dissipation? >>It all gets back to the question, is organic honey purer than off the shelf honey? So far the answer is no, which means all the honey producers are following label directions. Since a lot beekeepers are using TM preventitively, the answer is no no. In addition to purity, there is also the viability of enzymes, pollens etc. in honey. Pasturized honey on the supermarket shelf has less viability. Do organic rules allow for honey to be pasturized? The only honey for me is raw honey. You may argue that the difference between the two types of honey are negligible but you can't make the argument that they are the same. The other thing I would like to know more about is HMF. Why do [some?] European countries specify an HMF limit in honey? HMF is harmful to bees but is it harmful to humans? Waldemar ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 10:40:53 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Chemical honey In-Reply-To: <460B73BA.2080608@lineone.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dave Cushman wrote: > > What makes you think that the chemical then degrades in contact with > water ? > http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/fluvalin.htm We have been through this in the past. It is in the archives. I like to know the half life of anything I use, and I did use Apistan way back when. It also discusses its solubility. Fluvalinatee is fairly benign, and is part of a class of chemicals one or two of which are approved for use by organic farmers. Just for the record and those who are new here and think I have a pipeline from Dow chemical pouring stuff into my colonies, I am about as organic a farmer as you can be, except I do not condemn those who are not. I farm for our own household use and give surplus to friends. I do not spray my apples and inform those who pick them (free) that they might encounter some protein. I have trialled seeds for a "natural" seed seller and was accepted to do so because of my "organic" practices. I cannot be an organic beekeeper in the US but it is nice to know that I meet most all the criteria for Finland. I have had many discussions with those in the organic movement who recognize that there are limits to organic practices and some just do not work. I appreciate that realistic assessment of the movement. I get very peeved with those who bandy about terms like "chemical" with little clarification of just what that means. And those who define what organic is, which usually is what they practice and therefor you are not as pure. I have found that the larger the organic operation the more realistic their practices and allowance for methods used on the non-organic side, otherwise they would go broke. I have found that the smaller the operation, especially hobby organic practitioners, the more it becomes faith and the less it is science. Lots of "nuts among the berries" , which is the title of a great book from long ago. It is still around. http://www.amazon.com/New-Nuts-Among-Berries/dp/091595009X Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 10:26:53 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: Re: CCD - real or fake? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Alden & All, > Bob, Do you think Ozone fumigation would work? Sorry for the late reply Alden as busy time of year! I would guess many types of sterilization would work against a protozoan. Amoeba disease ( documented disease of honey bees) has been looked at before concerning *disappearing disease* through the years but little actual research has been done. In my opinion if a problem has been documented in the Malpighian tubules of adult bees by the CCD researchers then the age old question of Amoeba Disease ( which we know very little about and different opinions exist on the subject around the world) has to come into the picture * again*. In other words in the years before mites & chemicals in bee hives when the beekeeping problems were easier to diagnose most roads led researchers to Amoeba Disease for a possible cause of Disappearing disease. The possible contagious nature of the CCD problem would fit a protozoan disease passed from bee to bee. There are many other protozoans which are known to be associated with honey bees. Sincerely, Bob Harrison *************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** -- 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. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 12:25:27 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter Borst Subject: Re: House Hearing on CCD MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture — Public Hearing. RE: Review of colony collapse disorder in honey bee colonies across the United States. Panel I * Associate Administrator Caird E. Rexroad, PhD, Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Washington, D.C. * Dr. Diana Cox-Foster, PhD, Professor, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania * Dr. May R. Berenbaum, Professor and Head, Department of Entomology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois Panel II * Mr. Paul Wenger, First Vice President, California Farm Bureau Federation, Modesto, California * Mr. David Ellingson, Commercial Bee Keeper, Ortonville, MN * Mr. Gene Brandi, Legislative Chairman, California State Beekeepers Association, Los Banos, California * Mr. Jim Doan, Commercial Bee Keeper, Hamlin, New York * Mr. Richard Adee, Legislative Committee Chairman, American Honey Producers Association, Bruce, South Dakota Opening statements can obtained: http://agriculture.house.gov/hearings/statements.html -- pb ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 14:17:35 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Wayne Young Subject: Re: CCD - real or fake? In-Reply-To: <000d01c7721f$111b4160$02bc59d8@BusyBeeAcres> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed At 10:26 AM 3/29/2007 -0600, you wrote: >Hello Alden & All, Hi Bob, Did you happen to notice my reply that I sent back to George?I asked if anyone happened to know from what plant my bees might be getting the dark black pollen from.I have`nt really noticed it before,so I am curious as to where it might be coming from. As I mentioned earlier my bees wintered well.My queen in my strongest hive is three years old,and still very productive. I think a lot of people re queen at least every other year,and others replace every year.Personally I think that I would keep them for two years if I was in this for the money. Bye Wayne Young > ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:19:33 GMT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "waldig@netzero.com" Subject: Re: Golden rod and fall prep. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >>We have some areas of NYS where the Goldenrod flow is the only flow with a surplus... I would love to hear from them what has and has not been successful. I am on Long Island (south-eastern NYS) whose soils are on the sandy side and not known for great goldenrod expanses. Our goldenrod is very dependent on good rain fall, especially in August, lest goldenrod turn brown. I, along with another beekeeper I am friends with, keep the hives in the overwintering locations for the May-June- July flow. Most years this is the primary flow. After extracting the early honey, we move the hives to the goldenrod location around mid August. The hives come back home before the end of October for the 2nd and final extracting. We don't have the very tall, prolific goldenrod varieties that you find in upstate NYS or Vermont that have better suited soils and, if the rains are not good, there is only a goldenrod trickle followed by a more reliable flow from asters. Both make a nice honey [in my opinion]... I only treat with OA in the broodless period (Nov. - Jan.). I raise my own queens from my best colonies. At this point, I have not had the need to use, say, formic acid in early August. I agree with Bob Harrison that bees should be exposed to varroa pressure, and all that comes along with it, for a more meaningful selection of queen stock. The bees are raising a lot of brood throughout the whole season except for a brief slow-down bet. mid-July and mid-August. There is certainly a lot of opportunity for varroa to expand their numbers. With the OA, the varroa numbers in the spring are very small and I don't see any mites in drone cells until late August. I raise my own queens and re-queen typically in September. With young queens and good pollen from the fall flowers, the colonies keep worker numbers strong. By the end of October I will see many mites on the adult bees but the bee numbers are strong. The OA knocks down the mites very effectively - mite carcasses lie in neat rows, under the cluster, on the styrofoam sheets I insulate my screen bottom boards with for the winter. I will stick with this system as it has worked for me well. If things were to become much worse, I'd probably consider adding a formic acid treatment in early August. I saw earlier varroa influence with purchased Italian and NWC queens but at that time I did not use OA. I like to think that the bee genetics I collect locally and propagate is a factor, too. Waldemar Long Island, NY ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:52:39 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Jerry Bromenshenk Subject: CCD Surveys, Preliminary Findings MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit We've been working to provide the information requested by the beekeeping industry and congress. We have already supplied our preliminary findings to the CCD Working Group, the AHPA, the ABF, and the NHB. We are continuing the bee loss survey, having nearly doubled the number of forms completed in the last two weeks. We hope to continue to sample and monitor CCD and other trends in U.S. beekeeping throughout the coming year. Preliminary results have been posted at _www.beealert.info_ (http://www.beealert.info) . As of Monday, we had 411 surveys from beekeepers across the U.S. (with a few from Canada). Of these beekeepers, 171 or 41.2% listed their bee losses as severe. On the other hand, 46.6% of the beekeepers surveyed said that their losses were low to average. Obviously, it is clear that about half the U.S. beekeepers have not sustained damage or seen CCD. Those that have seen CCD were often hit hard. Of the beekeepers reporting severe bee losses, disappearing disease or CCD was the most commonly described symptom. For those with low to average losses, overwintering death was the most often cited cause. 66.3% of the respondents had 100 colonies or less. 12.7% had 100-1,000, 12.2% had more than 1,000, and 8.8% had more than 10,000. Our findings must be considered preliminary, and we've yet to complete multi-variate statistical analyis of the current data set. However, the Tables and Figure are based on the full data set received to date. We've also posted preliminary findings about virus in Florida CCD hives. Bee Alert, with the assistance of David Westervelt from Florida, myself, and Scott Debnam collected samples, while BVS, another small Montana business provided the analytical results. Again, we stress that these are very preliminary results - two viruses have been observed in the samples, but they may turn out to be normal background levels and types of virus. The advantage of this approach is that the method used can detect unknown (un-named virus), quantify the concentration of the virus, and shows that there are no other viruses in these samples. We're currently awaiting identification of the viruses detected and analysis of Australian bee samples, for comparison. Overall, all of this is very preliminary, but at some point one has to start releasing it, even though as scientists we want to dot every i, cross every t. Jerry ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 22:44:05 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Joe Mc Cool Subject: sweaty/wet stores Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Please, at this time of year we will find dead colonies in the field. We remove the frames for fumigation. We have noticed that some of the stores in frames have a perfectly dry appearance, but some seem to be weeping. What causes this and is it significant ? -- Thanks ____________________ Joe Mc Cool Snark, currently LEYC 028 37548074, 07802572441 ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 22:46:17 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Joe Mc Cool Subject: granulated stores Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Please, are granulated stores a disadvantage to colonies ? Will bees manage just as well where the stores are granulated as when the stores are entirely liquid withing the cells ? They may have to bring in water to render down the crysalline stuff ? -- Thanks ____________________ Joe Mc Cool Snark, currently LEYC 028 37548074, 07802572441 ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:34:12 -0500 Reply-To: bee-quick@bee-quick.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: US Agriculture Committee Hearings On CCD - Audio Archives Available MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit If you missed the (USA) House hearings on CCD, not to worry, they can be listened to in full at your leisure, and/or downloaded here: http://bee-quick.com/ccd/ (I grabbed the audio stream of the hearings, chopped it up into manageable chunks, one per witness, and questions in groups, and resampled it into mono to save you some download time.) Text of the prepared statement of each witness can be found here: http://agriculture.house.gov/hearings/statements.html But the Q&A is not yet available in written transcript form, so your only choice at the moment is the audio version. The short summary is: a) No startling revelations were made b) Lots of concerned noises were made by Congresscritters c) No commitments were made by any Congresscritters as to funding ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:53:23 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Chris Slade Subject: Re: Chemical Honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 29/03/2007 14:57:29 GMT Standard Time, waldig@NETZERO.COM writes: The other thing I would like to know more about is HMF. Why do [some?] European countries specify an HMF limit in honey? HMF is harmful to bees but is it harmful to humans? In what way is HMFharmful to bees? I suspect the answer to the first question is protectionism. Chris ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 22:34:29 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Brian Fredericksen Subject: Re: CCD Surveys, Preliminary Findings Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:52:39 EDT, Jerry Bromenshenk wrote: As of Monday, we had 411 surveys from beekeepers across the U.S. (with a few from Canada). Of these beekeepers, 171 or 41.2% listed their bee losses as severe. On the other hand, 46.6% of the beekeepers surveyed said that their losses were low to average. Obviously, it is clear that about half the U.S. beekeepers have not sustained damage or seen CCD. I was curious about what appears to be a discrepancy in your statistics and those reported below by Dr. Diana Cox-Foster, PhD, Professor, Pennsylvania State University in her testimony in Washington today? ""The exact impact of CCD across the United States is difficult to gauge since essential data on the number of bee keepers, number of colonies, and death rates are not measured. A preliminary nationwide survey, initiated last month by the Apiary Inspectors of America, suggests that a 17 % loss of colonies is considered normal, which is astonishing, given that one would be hard pressed to find another agricultural commodity sustaining losses of this magnitude on a regular basis. This same survey also found that approximately one-quarter of responding beekeepers suffered CCD. "" http://agriculture.house.gov/testimony/110/h70329/CoxFoster.pdf I wonder how would a statistician account for a possible bias in your Bee Alert survery respondents sample group in that is someone with no problems less inclined to fill out the survey? If the Apiary Inspectors survery was done by calling randomly from a list of registered beekeepers across the USA the cross sample may be providing a much different picture of what is going on. Either way both numbers seem high from my perspective here in Mn, and from comments here on Bee-L. I'm sure it will become more clear as the summer goes on and state inspectors make their rounds etc. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 07:44:32 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Aaron Morris Subject: Outage over the weekend MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The University will be performing machine room maintenance this afternoon starting at 5PM. Although things may go faster than expected, the entire weekend until Monday morning has been reserved t perform the work that needs to get done. BEE-L may experience outages during this period. Sincerely, Aaron Morris BEE-L Owner/Editor/Moderator/Janitor ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 08:48:23 -0700 Reply-To: allen dick Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: allen dick Organization: Deep Thought Subject: Can Beekeepers Read Instructions and Follow Labels? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> ...or just downright ignorance of how to read instructions and follow >> labels. For those wondering about the ability and willingness of the average beekeeper to read and follow simple instructions, merely examining the postings on BEE-L may be an indicator. I assume, BEE-L posts come from some of the best and the brightest -- and probably more literate -- members of our craft. That notwithstanding -- and in spite of an obvious notice at the bottom of every message to consult and follow the guidelines -- many posts are submitted with the entire text of previous messages, extended tag lines, remains of junk headers and signature lines, and, tellingly, from time to time, several copies of the admonition to consult the guidelines. When I see this, I have ask myself this: if the best and brightest cannot find and follow the first commandment of BEE-L, then what can we expect when beekeepers are expected to understand and comply with tiny technical-sounding text on the back of a pretty label on a wrapping that may have been long discarded? ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 23:09:15 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Jerry Bromenshenk Subject: Re: CCD Surveys, Preliminary Findings - no real difference MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit With respect to the comments from Ames Farms: I agree with many of the comments made about the Bee Alert and AIA surveys. If you read our full report, we admit up front that our Bee Alert Bee Loss survey is primarily aimed at identifying trends and correlations, looking for patterns. It is not, as you pointed out, unbiased -- which we say in the report. We are trying to find out what beekeepers are doing, seeing. What's different between a beekeeper who has the problem versus one that has not. Where have the bees been, where moved -- is something transferring with the bees? What queen lines are being used? What treatments? We're looking for clues, not trying to get an absolute number of lost bees. In an ideal world, someone would be conducting the random survey you mentioned -- and that was one of the Congressional requests covered in today's testimony-- set up a national stats program that considers issues such as bee loss. That said, the AIA report is useful, but limited in other ways -- their method was: each state bee inspector, or person charged with apiary, call 15 beekeepers that he/she considers to be representative of the state's beekeepers. Please choose 5 large, 5 medium/sideline, and 5 hobby beekeepers. That's not a random survey. Problems with this approach, many states no longer have an state inspector. So, we've surveys from states not part of the AIA -- and CCD seems to be patchy - hitting different regions at different times of the year. Also, many of our respondents stipulated that we NOT inform, share data with their state inspector, We've numerous calls from state officials wanting to know who has CCD and where in their state - seems we have reports that they don't. Unfortunately, we can't release this inform without violating confidentiality. On the other hand, most of our respondents gave us their name and phone number, and we've had many informative follow up conversations/interviews. Lesson learned, neither survey approach is likely to be unbiased. Remember also, both AIA and ourselves are doing this mainly on our own nickel - we've no funds to mail out random surveys, etc. - but we'd surely like to be able to do so. We also can't get lists of registered beekeepers from many states without going through a laborious and time consuming access process. Our on-line approach produced some quickly gathered, useful (at least to us), initial information. The press coverage in the bee journals and other media has resulted in a surge of surveys -- we've doubled numbers in last two weeks. Now we're getting the faxed forms, whereas the first group were mainly e-mail or on-line submissions. That said, the current results now seem to fit what we've seen in all of the state's that we've visited in the east, south, and west. Our first 221 surveys were obviously biased toward small operations without a problem. The later surveys are indicating more severe problems and were received from larger operations. Finally, be careful of reading the two reports and comparing percentages. Diana says 17% loss is considered normal by beekeepers -- our survey does not indicate any real difference here. In fact, I'm surprised to find beekeepers who think 50% loss or greater is normal. Our respondents would have considered 17% to be low or average bee loss. Diana also says that the AIA survey found that approximately one-quarter of the responding beekeepers suffered CCD. Our data differs here mainly in the observation that as severity of loss goes up, so does the proportion of beekeepers reporting CCD. The 41.2% of beekeepers reporting severe losses to us did not all attribute all of their losses to CCD - please look at Table 5 - you can read off the CCD numbers for low, average, moderate, and severe loss, and for bee operations ranging from less than 100 to more than 10,000 colonies. And remember, nearly half of our respondents had not had any unusual bee losses. Finally, you say that the numbers from either survey seem high from your perspective in MN. That's surprising considering the number of surveys documenting losses that we've received from MN. I suggest you talk to the MN beekeeper who testified today. And, I'd argue that the real issue is bee losses, which affect the bottom line for beekeepers and growers - it doesn't matter so much what kills them, if losses are widespread and severe. Talk to a beekeeper facing a loss on the scale of $1.2 M for this year alone, and you get a reality check. I certainly did. They may be able to suck it up this year, but most can't do it again next year. Jerry ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:14:14 +0300 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?iso-8859-1?B?QXJpIFNlcHDkbOQ=?= Subject: Re: Chemical Honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Why do > [some?] European countries specify an HMF limit in honey? > > I suspect the answer to the first question is protectionism. > Chris Chris is 100 % right. Europeans want to protect consumers from a spoiled product. No matter if it come from EU or outside it. In Finland HMF of extracted honey averages about 3 mg of HMF / kg. Samples from domestic honey show average of 9 mg / kg in the spring ( samples from stores, some are older than 1 year) .Our limit for good quality product is 15. Uppermost limit for selling 40 (except for *tropical* honeys 80 , US should not worry. With Florida you can label most likely all US honey as tropical as there is no exact ways written how this tropical is limited ) . HMF tells very well how much honeys quality has fallen because of heating or storing in warm place. EU customers think that honey should be in shops near the way it is in the hives. If my honey is heated so much that the HMF jumps to above 40 it is already much darker. When coming around 80 and more a distinct bitter taste of HMF comes up. At the same time enzymes do down rapidly. In my eyes honey with HMF around 100 mg is not honey anymore, just sugar syrup a bit like molasses. Good for industrial use but not for use at home except bakig.. Ari Sepälä Finland ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 00:43:33 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter Dillon Subject: Re: Chemical Honey In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Chris, HMF is used as an indicator of amounts of heat treatment that honey has suffered. What those amounts indicate as heat "units" related to time, I do not know - a packer would be able to supply that info. Levels of HMF also were set to allow for the natural increase to occur as honey sits on retail shelves - Therefore if one was to have the honey inspected and it had sat on a shelf for a fair period of time - it would still have lower levels present that a honey that had either been abused by heat or was "Bakers" Peter ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 09:24:45 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter Edwards Subject: Re: sweaty/wet stores MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Joe asked: > We have noticed that some of the > stores in frames have a perfectly dry appearance, but some seem to be > weeping. > What causes this and is it significant ? Probably due to their having absorbed moisture. I think that you are in Ireland with a very damp climate? Best wishes Peter Edwards beekeepers@stratford-upon-avon.freeserve.co.uk www.stratford-upon-avon.freeserve.co.uk/ ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 09:53:53 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dave Cushman Subject: Re: Chemical honey In-Reply-To: <460BCFF5.9080400@suscom-maine.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Bill >> What makes you think that the chemical then degrades in contact with >> water ? >> > http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/fluvalin.htm Thanks for that link... It is amazingly easy to find, once you know it is there, but I have never come across that information before. Regards & Best 73s, Dave Cushman, G8MZY http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman or http://www.dave-cushman.net Short FallBack M/c, Build 6.02/3.1 (stable) ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:56:49 GMT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "deknow@netzero.com" Subject: Re: Chemical honey Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit ...in reading this (and please correct me if i'm wrong), it does not say that it degrades in contact with water....what it says is that it degrades in _ground water_...which is not water, but wet soil/sand/loam (the document is very specific about this). in water, the document claims that fluvalinate is subject to photodegradation when it is in water...meaning that water does not break it down, but in the presence of water, photons (light or other em frequencies) break it down. it is not specific as to what wavelenghts cause this...it is certainly within the realm of possibility that it is only uv light (that is blocked by a glass jar) that causes this photodegradation. if this does break down in in the jar due to sunlight, one of the resulting substances is 3-phenoxy benzoic acid...not much data as to the saftey of eating this on your toast. the document also cites the "sorption to sediment, suspended particles and plants"...in the case of honey (if it were water), you are eating any suspended particles that fluvalinate has been bonded to. THIS DOCUEMNT SPECIFICALLY SAYS: "Fluvalinate is stable to hydrolysis under normal environmental temperatures and pH"...which means that water does not break down fluvalinate. to be precise: "fluvalinate does not break down in contact with water, it breaks down in water when exposed to some wavelenghs of em, and it binds to sediment and suspended particles" also, honey is not water, and it would be a mistake to assume that fluvalinate would act the same way in a hydroscopic liquid (honey) as it does in water. just because a goldfish thrives in water does not mean it thrives in honey. deknow >> What makes you think that the chemical then degrades in contact with >> water ? >> > http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/fluvalin.htm ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:25:16 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Mario Pittori Subject: Varroa in South Africa Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 I asked about current status of varroa problem in South Africa and received a rather astonishing reply. I requested permission to post the content, which was granted, however, with the proviso that I would not generate an abundance of mails for the person. Therefore, no name indicated. However, I do think the information is worth having. quote e-mail Hi Mario We adopted (largely) a strategy of no treatment in SA; with extensive monitoring of the varroa impact on both wild & managed colonies. To begin with varroa did very well in our bees, and built up to (sometimes) huge numbers. And we saw all the classic varroa symptoms, including colony collapses. But the population did not collapse - maybe 30-40% of the bees dies. But those that did not die slowly recovered, and varroa numbers got less and less. To the extent that we now have bees (both capensis and scutellata) that are essentially completely tolerant of varroa, which is now no more than a minor pest. No-one treats now, and the bees are healthy & happy. My advice would be to let the susceptible bees die, to not use any treatment, and to ride out any losses that occur. Hope that helps unquote -- Mario Pittori empilolo@fastmail.co.uk ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 10:54:27 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?UTF-8?Q?Peter_Borst?= Subject: Congressional Report on CCD Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit A Congressional Research Service Report on CCD can be downloaded at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/index.html ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:02:39 GMT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "waldig@netzero.com" Subject: Re: Chemical honey Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >>In what way is HMFharmful to bees? >From researching on the net, I gather that HMF is a sugar that results from the breakdown of fructose and, although it's harmless to humans, it is toxic to bees. I am not sure of the direct effect on bees but it causes premature death. http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:RkQB-pSF80IJ:www.dave- cushman.net/bee/oxalicstorage.html+hydroxymethylfurfural+hmf+effect+on +bees&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us Since valuable enzymes in honey decrease as the HMF increases, by limiting HMF, there is assurance of minimum enzyme levels in honey for the consumers in the EU. [HMF is easier to measure than enzymes.] HMF rapidly goes up when honey is overheated so the HMF limit also ensures the consumer does not get overcooked honey. For these reasons I think we could use HMF limits - or at least, a better understandiong - here in the US. http://209.85.165.104/search? q=cache:KFywcPQfLmYJ:www.xs4all.nl/~jtemp/hmf.html+hydroxymethylfurfur al+hmf+effect+on+bees&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us This site says that bees remove HMF from sugar solution before depositing it in the comb. This helps to explain why, after the significant initial bee die-off, there is no long term effect. http://209.85.165.104/search? q=cache:MRNZ9DalmgYJ:www.opisik.pulawy.pl/1_2006_e.html+hydroxymethylf urfural+hmf+effect+on+bees&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us Sorry about the wrap-around links. Waldemar Long Island, NY ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:18:15 -0500 Reply-To: bee-quick@bee-quick.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: Organic has its problems too. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Bill Truesdell said: > Turns out the one thing that works the best for a soil supplement, as > found by the EPA, is sewage sludge. When Maine's Organic group tried > to get it approved, it was shot down by the hobby growers. It should be > welcomed as it completes the loop for human activity. Commercial growers > use it. So one would think that they would have the healthier produce. > (The "heavy metal" problem was solved long ago.) This has only marginal relation to beekeeping, but if beekeepers are not stewards of the environment with a specific economic interest in protecting the environment, then who will be? The funny thing about this "sludge" is that is always seem to come from out of state. This made a few of us in Bedford County, VA somewhat suspicious, so we took some samples, and had them analyzed, both in my private lab and by two different commercial labs. What we found was about what we expected, that the sludge had NOT been treated as everyone had been assured it would be, and that things like "heavy metals" were not just easy to detect, but well above the levels that would be prudently applied to a hayfield intended for feeding milk cows and beef cattle. The County filed suit, but the problem here was that the state legislature had been bought and paid for, making regulations that prevented local governments from objecting to anything other than spreading of this sludge near running water. Further, the "out of state" origin of the sludge meant that "interstate commerce" was involved, limiting the state's ability to object to this "commerce". Even a cursory investigation of these companies finds the sort of characters one expects to find in a gangster movie, and it should be obvious that profits can be higher if some (or all) of that expensive processing is skipped for some (or all) of the sludge loaded onto tanker trucks and shipped "somewhere else". They expect that rural folks won't have HPLC-MS gear, and won't suspect that they might be (gasp!) cutting corners. Spreading manure is common in rural areas, but the odor alone is much more powerful when sludge is spread. If downwind, one's eyes water, one gags uncontrollably, and a complete change of clothes and several showers are required to get the smell off you. The stuff smells evil. I understand that the technology exists and the standards are drafted to make sludge an acceptable way to fertilize a field IN THEORY, one that saves the farmer some serious money. The basic problem here is that theory and practice are the same in theory, but not in practice. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 08:27:42 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dee Lusby Subject: Re: Chemical Honey In-Reply-To: <002c01c77268$bb899630$0300000a@ari71aa1cf24c5> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Ari, If my honey is heated so much that the HMF jumps to above 40 it is already much darker. When coming around 80 and more a distinct bitter taste of HMF comes up. At the same time enzymes do down rapidly. Reply: I dunno here for comparing as Florida is quite different then Texas or New Mexico, Southern Calif, or Arizona even, where I live; and here our Acacia or Mesquite/catsclaw and cactus honeys can get this high in levels, and it is thick honey and extra light to white normally and sure tastes good, with many people seeking it out. Sincerely, Dee A. Lusby Small Cell Commercial Beekeeper Moyza, Arizona http://groups.yahoo.com/group/organicbeekeepers/ ____________________________________________________________________________________ No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:43:57 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Chemical honey- now Apistan In-Reply-To: <20070330.045656.22531.1387470@webmail41.nyc.untd.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit *_Environmental Fate_**:** * * *Breakdown in soil and groundwater:* Fluvalinate is of low persistence, with reported soil half-lives of 6 to 8 days [12,25]. In sandy loam, sandy clay and clay soils, fluvalinate degrades under aerobic conditions with half-lives of 4 to 8 days. Under anaerobic conditions in sandy loam, its half-life may be 15 days [38]. Fluvalinate is nearly insoluble in water and it has a strong tendency to bind to soil particles [25]. It is therefore unikely to contaminate groundwater; however, metabolites of fluvalinate may leach [12,38]. Applications of less than 0.1 pound active ingredient per acre will decrease the potential for groundwater contamination [38]. Photodegradation of fluvalinate does not occur on soil [38] * *Breakdown in water:* In water, fluvalinate is subject to photodegradation with a half-life of up to 1 day. Photodegradation yields anilino acid and 3-phenoxy benzoic acid [38]. Fluvalinate is stable to hydrolysis under normal environmental temperatures and pH [38]. In pond waters and in laboratory degradation studies, pyrethroid concentrations decrease rapidly due to sorption to sediment, suspended particles and plants. Microbial and photodegradation also occur [22]. * *Breakdown in vegetation:* No information was found. That is the quote from the link. It will break down in water with light quickly. It will break down in soil with air and without air. In essence, there is not just one route that will cause it to break down, since it does. The only issue is how fast. You can also check the Wellmark International site for the MSDS which says about the same thing. http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:VxxAt6SSjKQJ:www.apistan.com/msds_specimen/apistan_msds.pdf+apistan+%22half+life%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us And for 3-phenoxy benzoic acid : http://www.pesticideinfo.org/Detail_Chemical.jsp?Rec_Id=PC34046 There is water (moisture) in honey and especially in nectar. Stable to hydrolysis means it does not react with water, not that it does not breakdown in water, which it does do with light fairly quickly. Light means light. Perspective here- that we are talking about a strip that has an exceptionally low concentration of fluvalinate and normally used in the fall. If you are going to get contaminated honey it will be from those who purchase animal treatments and use it on bees when there are supers on. I would not rule out contamination cause by misuse of anything and my guess is that is where most contaminated wax comes from. My issue was and is with the condemnation,by some on this list, of all beekeepers who use controls responsibly. The concentrations and half life of Apistan are such that it would be unlikely to ever find it in summer honey when used according to directions and probably even when not. It is just not that persistent. Good house guest. Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 08:14:12 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dee Lusby Subject: Re: Varroa in South Africa In-Reply-To: <1175261116.12363.1182215141@webmail.messagingengine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Mario, This is good information to have knowing the basic cell sizes of South Africa, for it says alot about keeping bees naturally and not freaking out at any little thing seen, so bees can be given chance to deal with it their way without man's crutches. Regards, Dee A. Lusby ____________________________________________________________________________________ We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265 ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:27:37 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Brian Fredericksen Subject: Re: CCD Surveys, Preliminary Findings - no real difference Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit While you know by now I am sceptical that some of the reported losses are actually a new problem one cannot ignore that as you pointed out a loss is a loss and the trends are not good. IMO I don't beleive that the larger operators have worked out a good mite treatment approach in the post strip era and also here in Mn the increased scrutiny of the MN Dept Of Ag for illegal applications. Most stories I hear regarding the commercial use of OA include the use of OA in multiple applications at a time of the season that the bees would have brood. As we all know a mite infested colony will dwindle in fall. Seriously does anyone beleive that a migratory beekeeper can survive with Apistan, Checkmite or use the costly and labor intensive Apiguard? Thanks for taking the time to explain the different data sets in detail. This effiort by you and your colleagues may be the first time any real attempt has been made to try and get a handle on the practices and losses experienced by American beekeepers. Given the independent nature of beekeepers that is no small feat. With the myriad of problems in the industry I'm sure it will be useful in some way and is long overdue. Its hard to create an industry strategy or government policy when you have no data to work with to define the problems. The increased awareness in agriculture and government is important too as we and our bees fly under the radar of the american public. I'm sure we'd all like more scrutiny of Ag chem use and gmo's so my hat goes off to you and others for jump starting that discussion on a national level However don't you think that a major issue is the practices of migratory beekeeping as it has evolved in the last decade? Who will stand up and say while the lab work is important to answer CCD, we need to look closely at the industry chem use and the reliance of the industry on stressful practices. I am wondering how much of the "issues" the industry will accept as their own. It seems like the focus is external, the pesticides, gmo's, something unknown etc. Don't we have enough to go on already that says the industry is on an unsustainable course? We don't need a CCD report to move forward on that front IMO and more could be done now. I never got the impression from the hearing transcripts that anybody wanted to step into that manure pile. Its like the kid who comes home from school and says Johnny beat me up and never tells his mom that he was the one that started it in the first place........... IMO we could have a national USDA program of promoting soft treatments like formic and OA use in commercial and hobby operations. We appear to have a fed harsh mite chemical policy by default. I'm thinking of some EU countries who have embraced philosphically the use of soft treatments and made them legal and supported with government and academic resources. Likewise they have made illegal hive chems that contaminate comb and honey and develop mite resistance with repeated use. This is not rocket science anymore...... Why not make federal money available to allow local universities and government agencies to work closely with commercial beekeepers to establish proper useage of soft treatments like formic and OA and cull contaminated comb. Could incentives be creatred for large operations by offering money to cull old comb? Its hard to solve this problem with all of the "junk" comb out there. If we could get everyone on the same path of mite treatment would that not be a major step in the right direction? Here we are in spring of 07 in a crisis mode and we have a new chemical approved Sec 18 and OA languishes in a black hole. Taking this a step further a fed program similar to the russian breeding stock could be created to move all USA breeding stock towards mite and disease resistance. We have numerous examples of fed grants etc that have been useful in getting certian Ag practices dissemiated into the users hands (ie russian queens) . Seems to me that we have the people and tools to move forward on issues we understand and have answers for NOW. My point is that the "core issues" should not be over shadowed by the attention on CCD, this will only prolong the pain IMO . ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:00:41 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Jerry Bromenshenk Subject: Preliminary Results MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Brian You won't find me arguing against a need for the industry to take a step back and consider what they are doing. Nor will I ever object to comb rotation, trying to get off chemicals, etc. One does need to be careful though. Intuitively, the so called soft chemicals may be better than the hard chemicals in terms of potential for contamination, long-term build up, toxic effects. However, given some recent reports from Eurupe, oxalic may not be the magic bullet -- it may have its own down side with respect to bees and their immune systems. You said: Why not make federal money available to allow local universities and government agencies to work closely with commercial beekeepers to establish proper usage of soft treatments like formic and OA and cull contaminated comb. I'd amend that statement to acknowledge some other changes in the ways things are now done in there research world: Why not make federal money available to allow local universities, SMALL BUSINESSES, and government agencies to work closely with commercial beekeepers to DEVELOP better tools and procedures for more efficient, reliable, and cost effective management of bees. Since the mid-90s, small businesses, often in partnership with universities and federal agencies have increasing taken on the role of producing innovations. Our (Bee Alert, VBS, and Lupine Logic) own work on hive security systems, location specific database systems, the CCD bee loss survey, the total virus analysis, and broad spectrum chemical analysis are all under the auspices of our three small businesses working with universities, state agencies, and the federal bee lab. Another small business is developing the Tucson diet. One examines bees for mites, etc. Also, the testimonies indicate a bias for funding land-grant colleges and universities. Why restrict or send funds to a subset of the scientific expertise in the country? Where is it written that ag schools are the only ones doing anything useful? Again, UM, my home base, is a liberal arts university. The ag school in Bozeman gave up its bee program 30 years ago. We've done bee research for 33 years at a non-land grant institution. I'm not saying money should be given away - but in this day and age, there should be a way for beekeepers to team up with small businesses, universities, and other sources of expertise and technology (e.g., resident in state or federal labs, etc.), submit a proposal, and compete for funding. Just because the team is composed of government and private sector (beekeepers, small research businesses) individuals or groups shouldn't disqualify anyone. You will need some specific guidelines about how funds are dispersed, monitored, intellectual property, etc. That's all doable, we've been doing it for years with agencies like DOE and DoD. Jerry ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:01:43 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Brian Fredericksen Subject: Re: Congressional Report on CCD Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I found this excerpt interesting.... "A number of agricultural crops are almost totally dependent on honey bee pollination (90-100%), including almonds, apples, avocados, blueberries, cranberries, cherries, kiwi fruit, macadamia nuts, asparagus, broccoli, carrots, cauliflower, celery, cucumbers, onions, legume seeds, pumpkins, squash, and sunflowers. " asparagus, broccoli, carrots, cauliflower, celery and onions? really? "Other specialty crops also rely on honey bee pollination, but to a lesser degree. These crops include apricot, citrus (oranges, lemons, limes, grapefruit, tangerines, etc.), peaches, pears, nectarines, plums, grapes, brambleberries, strawberries, olives, melon (cantaloupe, watermelon, and honeydew), peanuts, cotton, soybeans, and sugarbeets." grapes, soybeans and sugar beets? am I missing something here, I'm under the impression that the crops I listed are all wind or non- bee pollinated and would have no impact if bees were not available. or perhaps the seed production of some of these rely on bees? if so do some beekeepers provide bees for seed production? news to me ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:41:31 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter Borst Subject: Re: Congressional Report on CCD MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Brian Fredericksen wrote: >am I missing something here, I'm under the impression that the crops I listed are all wind or non- bee pollinated and would have no impact if bees were not available. or perhaps the seed production of some of these rely on bees? You should check out: Insect Pollination Of Cultivated Crop Plants by S.E. McGregor, USDA http://gears.tucson.ars.ag.gov/book/ * * * * The press and certain people in the industry are greatly exaggerating the importance of bee pollination. A woman on NPR stated that MOST food crops require bees and even meat is affected because of the GRAIN. McGregor is a little more moderate when he states: > Table 1 lists the cultivated crop plants, discussed herein, that are dependent upon or benefited by insect pollination. These plants provide about 15 percent of our diet. * Unfortunately Table 1 was not included in the online version -- pb ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:41:28 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Tim Arheit Subject: Re: Congressional Report on CCD In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 01:01 PM 3/30/2007, you wrote: >asparagus, broccoli, carrots, cauliflower, celery and onions? really? They may not be necessary for the leaves, stems, roots, etc. that we eat, but for the seed that grows next years crop. >grapes, soybeans and sugar beets? I don't know about grapes or beets, but I did read a study done several years ago that showed production increased by 14-30% for soybeans when pollinated by bees. Some varieties benefited more, some less. -Tim ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:45:00 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Jerry Bromenshenk Subject: Re: Congressional Report on CCD MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bees for seed production is a big business. Including issues such as how to get bees to work onions - apparently they can be put off by the odor. Important enough that we've done two years of contract work on improving bee foraging on onions, carrots, and related plants. Currently we are talking with some soybean folks. Don't be too hasty in assuming bees have no role to play in supposedly wind pollinated plants. Suggest you go to McGregor's book (its online at the Tucson Lab site), its dated, but interesting reading. Jerry ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 19:41:31 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Wayne Pitts Subject: Re: Congressional Report on CCD In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Brian asked: "if so do some beekeepers provide bees for seed production? news to me" Yes, some of us do. In addition to garlic, Southern Santa Clara (Gilroy) and northern San Benito (Hollister, of The Wild Bunch fame) counties, 20-50 miles south of San Jose, CA are the home to many seed companies. I am working with a seed breeder where we are putting hives in screened enclosed areas solely for controlled pollination. On the other hand, my next door neighbor has to completely screen his green houses to prevent bees from entering, as they hand pollinate their breeding crop. It takes Todd usually 5 years from concept to having enough seeds to sell. Wayne ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.22/739 - Release Date: 3/29/2007 1:36 PM -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.22/739 - Release Date: 3/29/2007 1:36 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.22/739 - Release Date: 3/29/2007 1:36 PM ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 18:40:54 +1000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: queenbee Subject: CCD MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Looking from afar at the CCD problem, I read with interest some of the = submissions to the US Agricultural Committee hearings. I was interested in Gene Brandi's submission where he says he is = re-stocking his hives. Have there been any reports on how these = re-stocked hives are faring? Trevor Weatherhead AUSTRALIA Have a look at www.apimondia2007.com ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 13:57:22 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Brian Fredericksen Subject: Re: Preliminary Results Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:00:41 EDT, Jerry Bromenshenk wrote: > >Why not make federal money available to allow local universities, SMALL >BUSINESSES, and government agencies to work closely with commercial beekeepers to >DEVELOP better tools and procedures for more efficient, reliable, and cost >effective management of bees. I guess what I was thinking is we have the mite related issues fairly well understood so its not so much a problem solving issue that needs innovation as it is getting the industry to adopt new already known approaches. So what I'm suggesting is we need an industry "best practices" developed like other animal related prodution segments of Ag. It appears to me that you can pick any agricultural animal production system and you find animal husbandry practices which are mandated by the government or developed by that industry to protect their investment, public health and the all important public perception. Dare I say we need a similar ethic for honeybees? What is acceptable to put into a hive chem-wise or RX-wise? What stress is too much from monoculture pollination? Do we need a nationwide comb culling program and banning of materials that contaminate comb? Would a federal law on FB shake & bake be more helpful then unleashing Tylan to the bee world where directions go unheaded and the last antibiotic was over used and is now less useful? Should we give bees the same "compassion" as we do for other food producing animals? Is allowing gassing of bees in the fall good public ag policy? Try explaining that one to the public when they hear of a bee shortage. Bee Alert seems more like a high tech problem solver, not so much a policy think tank, so while I think you're the right people to look at CCD, I suggest we have some good solutions to the mite and general bee health related issues already and now it's time for industry or maybe the government if industry is unable or unwilling, to implement some common sense "best practices" ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 06:22:31 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Mike Stoops Subject: Re: Congressional Report on CCD In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Brian Fredericksen wrote: I found this excerpt interesting.... asparagus, broccoli, carrots, cauliflower, celery and onions? really? I think the above were listed not for the food production they represent but for the seed production of these products. grapes, soybeans and sugar beets? I think there have been several papers written concerning the increase in soybean production with the aid of honey bee pollination. Not that soybeans need honeybee pollination to produce a crop, but that crop production is increased with supplemental pollination efforts. Mike in LA --------------------------------- TV dinner still cooling? Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 20:45:38 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Congressional Report on CCD In-Reply-To: <612734.59314.qm@web53409.mail.re2.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mike Stoops wrote: > > I think there have been several papers written concerning the increase in soybean production with the aid of honey Not that soybeans need honeybee pollination to produce a crop, > Depends on the variety. Some need pollination some do not, which is not unusual among some fruits or vegetables. But just about all benefit from additional pollination. Dave Green has some great info at his website on pollination. http://pollinator.com/ Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 22:18:41 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Brian Fredericksen Subject: Re: Congressional Report on CCD Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit the common wisdom in bean & corn country here is that bees do not visit the newer varieties (mostly but not all are now gmo) and I have to say I've never seen any bees in the soybeans. the older beekeepers say that soybeans were frequently visited in the 1950's into the 1980's. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 20:56:27 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: Re: CCD MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Trevor & All, > Have there been any reports on how these re-stocked hives are faring? In the area of restocking hives many CCD effected beekeepers feel the USDA-ARS & the CCD team have dropped the ball.( personal conversation). The CCD people are simply moving too slow. No definite answer. Reuse of comb has been the question posed to the CCD researchers for over six months now! Diana Cox Foster has said comb needs replaced if CCD is a virus problem but many other researchers are not on board with her because IF a virus problem the problem would be closely related to varroa problems then nothing to research. While all the back and forth between researchers is going on the season has arrived for those beekeepers with CCD losses to decide what route to take. Restock comb from CCD deadouts OR NOT. Some have chosen too play safe and not put bees back on comb. Storing equipment or downsizing at this time seems reasonable to many. Little risk. Others ( like Gene Brandi) have decided to gamble. Some are saying "all in!" (poker term ) and willing to gamble huge sums of money the problem will not surface again. Lightning never strikes twice in the same place right! All of us which have looked carefully at the CCD problem ( I am on a first name basis with every beekeeper which has been talked about) believe dropping packages or nucs into those hives will seem to be the right move in the short term. The true test will come in late summer and fall. Then in my opinion (and of many others) will be when we see the problem raise its ugly head *if* comb is a problem. Without confirmation of the exact source of the CCD problem then restocking IS a gamble. How could it not be? I have had many private talks with those effected with the CCD problem seeking advice. My advice given ( and now to the BEE-L list) is too treat restocking those hives as a gamble. If you can afford another fall of losses then restock all. If you can only afford to restock fifty percent then only restock fifty percent. A fast rebuild might not be the best move. Consider all options. Maybe rebuild over a couple years back to former hive numbers. Several are only able to get money for restocking by taking a second mortgage on farms or by borrowing. Risky business if all those package bees crash in late summer. Many have not bought package bees for decades and have always been able to rebuild from hives left but not this time. Ask fellow beekeepers so far unaffected for help covering pollination contracts too reduce the gamble. Restock only the number of hives needed until a better handle is had on the problem. Most will step in to help and not steal contracts. Was done this year in almonds! Let others help! Those with CCD problems were hoping for better information on the problem by now. Not coming they have realized the final solution will have to be figured out by the commercial beekeepers themselves. I have seen a pulling together of the commercial beekeeper group like I have never seen before. None of us want to be the "last beekeeper standing" so we have been helping each other. Queen producers have increased production and provided earlier delivery dates to those effected. California, Texas and Florida commercial beekeepers ( not effected) have sent bees to their fellow beekeepers ( with die off issues) to cover pollination contracts. In my opinion the size of the problem is a bit overblown but what will this fall bring? Regardless of the size of the problem I believe this years hive loss is a serious problem and welcome all those trying to find the answer. I have had to bite my lip on several internet lists when many have painted all commercial beekeepers with the same brush but we have broad shoulders so bring it on. The truth is very few people actually know very much about the many ways commercial beekeepers keep bees. On a final note: So far the CCD problem has for some unknown reason not been found in the queen and package industry *like it has been found* in the commercial migratory section which has been industry saving. If next year the problem moves into the queen & package industry then many will not be able to restock and the problem will become more serious and INDUSTRY threatening. As I write the post I will have to say the die off is real. True size unknown. Symptoms are unusual and no definite answer for the problem has surfaced. Several hypothesis exist and none have an easy solution . Sincerely, Bob Harrison -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 21:38:21 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Kent Stienburg Subject: candle making MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello Everyone, Anyone on the list have experience making taper beeswax candles by = pouring into a metal mold? I would like to make some 10.5" candles. = Most information seems to deal with rolling sheets. I would like a = little information before I buy a mold. Thanks Kent Stienburg ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ******************************************************