From MAILER-DAEMON Sat Feb 28 10:59:45 2009 Return-Path: <> X-Original-To: adamf@IBIBLIO.ORG Delivered-To: adamf@IBIBLIO.ORG Received: from listserv.albany.edu (unknown [169.226.1.24]) by metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16DE149093 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 2009 10:52:22 -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 n1SFkpIx016612 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 2009 10:52:21 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 10:52:17 -0500 From: "University at Albany LISTSERV Server (14.5)" Subject: File: "BEE-L LOG0707D" To: adamf@IBIBLIO.ORG Message-ID: Content-Length: 291450 Lines: 6629 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 21:02:07 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Jim Smith Subject: Re: Pesticides In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Peter L. Borst wrote: >There are three technical words used on pesticide labels that are >important to check. >1. Caution: mildly toxic, more than an ounce would be a lethal >dose for a human (less for children). >2. Warning: more toxic, a teaspoon to a tablespoon is a lethal >dose for an adult. >3. Danger: (accompanied by the symbol of the skull and crossbones), highly toxic - a minute amount can kill an adult. Be aware that the above refers to the compound in the container, not what is used in the spray solution...Still important though. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 21:17:17 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dee Lusby Subject: Re: Pesticides Comments: To: bee-quick@bee-quick.com In-Reply-To: <001b01c7cc10$6c8a8970$0701000a@j> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Jim writes: So, let's just admit that the smallest treatable unit in beekeeping is not the individual hive, but the yard of hives, due to the way that pests of bees can "drift" and "reinfest" previously treated hives from untreated hives. Reply: Somehow I equate this between LC and SC hives drifting between each other with mite loads and then not to be kept in same yard also, if LC equates with previously treated hives and the SC from new introduced untreated ones. Would I be wrong for thinking that due to equalizaiton of mite loads, knowing that more cells are available for mites to spread out in SC hives first with one mite to one cell,prior to mites going into 2 to a cell mode,which should then equalize thoroughout full yards in action, this thus would take the mite load off the LC ones by way of drift meaning less mite count and more for SC and thus artificial man induced equalization, that would not be seen if two seperate yards would be set up say outside of drift range, so mites equilize between themselves on same size combs? Dee A. Lusby ____________________________________________________________________________________ Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. http://travel.yahoo.com/ ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 08:31:57 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "=?UTF-8?Q?Peter_L._Borst?=" Subject: Re: Pesticides Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 23:28:50 -0400, James Fischer wrote: >While Peter offers some fine points, I don't know why the >beekeeping version of IPM remains so unlike any other >application of IPM in any other segment of agriculture. I have been certified to apply pesticides in New York state, so I know a little bit about this. The state, bless them, includes IPM in the training. To me, it boils down to one concept: BE open minded and knowledgeable about the control of pests AND the environment. IPM seeks to avoid the extreme close-minded approaches you see at the opposite ends of this issue. On the one hand, you encounter people who are afraid of anything that looks like a "chemical". On the other, you have people that reach for the strongest stuff they can buy at the first sign of trouble, never mind the consequences. To me, IPM is (and should be) a tiered approach that deals with ACTUAL problems and ACTUAL solutions. It minimizes chemical controls to keep our food supply as pure as possible and to avoid resistant pests. It promotes mechanical controls, knowing that these may in fact be more expensive and more labor intensive. I think it applies very easily to beekeeping. You don't treat if you don't have a problem. I have seen dozens of hives that are healthy and trouble free, despite years of being left alone. Conversely, if you have bees in area where there are a lot of other hives, you are basically part of the beekeeping community and you pretty much have to do what THEY do. No one can accuse me of being pro-chemical, since I have an article in this month's ABJ about keeping bees without chemicals. No one can accuse me of being against them either. I love bees and I wouldn't sit back and let them die off, any more than I would keep my kids from going to see a doctor. pb ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 08:47:07 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Pesticides and IPM In-Reply-To: <20070721225054.25835.qmail@web51603.mail.re2.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jim's reasoned post was thought provoking and brought me to the question of are we really practicing IPM in beekeeping? He alluded to it. IPM is a method that is designed for a farmer to both economically and prudently apply pesticides (includes fungicides and the like) to a crop. Generally a statistical threshold is reached before applying the pesticide which allows the right amount at the right time. We really cannot do that in beekeeping because the "crops", which are our colonies , are not uniform but have distinctly different populations and possible infestation. It is not unlike a group of people who are exposed to the flu. You can inoculate them as a preventative (which we presently cannot do with Varroa), but you treat each individually when they come down with the flu. You do not treat the group with antibiotics and fever reducers since all do not have the flu. So if we use a statistical threshold mite count for an apiary, we are practicing "IPM" but are using a shotgun when a rifle is needed which is counter to IPM. Unfortunately it is the best of a bad world, since any other method will be uneconomical for a large operation and courting disaster if not practiced. In truth, what actually is happening in large operations is treatments are scheduled and that schedule is broken only if things get out of hand. Unfortunately, that is true with smaller operations also. "Treat in the fall....". Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 13:46:22 GMT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "deknow@netzero.net" Subject: bees vs people wasRe: [BEE-L] Pesticides Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit -- "Peter L. Borst" wrote: I love bees and I wouldn't sit back and let them die off, any more than I would keep my kids from going to see a doctor. ...this is an important distinction. as a society, we have decided that under most circumstances, virtually no expense is spared to "save" a human being. we value humans as individuals, and the life of the individual is valuable. this is, of course, at the expense of the gene pool. personally, i might have died many times over from the frequent and severe ear infections i had as a kid if it had not been for antibiotics...now, i'm in a position to pass on my functionally deficient eustacian tubes to offspring. the "gene pool" would be stronger and hardier without such artifical propping up of individuals with problems. i'm not arguing against treating disease in humans, but i think it's important to see it for what it is. in the case of bees, they have survived over 100million years by letting the susceptible die off, and the survivors breed. even when a new (or recently imported) pathogen wipes out a noticiable percentage of the bee population, they keep coming back because the strong hives swarm and spread their genetics...while the weak die off. now, i love my bees...but it's a differant kind of love than i feel for my "people" (which for some reason includes my dog). in the short term, there is certainly advantages to "saving" a particular colony (or 1000) in production, pride, and pollination....but for the long term? personally, i'd rather keep bees that don't require treatments from me in order to survive. i don't know how that can happen unless those that can't are culled or left to die off on their own. cruel? i don't think so, this is how nature works. the reasons for treating humans and domestic animals are completely differant (saving the idividual at any cost vs. saving short term production), and should not (imho) be equated. deknow ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 10:35:04 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "Peter L. Borst" Subject: Survival of the bees MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline deknow@netzero.net wrote: > I love bees and I wouldn't sit back and let them >die off, any more than I would keep my kids from going to see a doctor. >in the case of bees, they have survived over 100 million years by letting the susceptible die off, and the survivors breed. Yes, well, I over-simplified for the sake of readers who prefer short but sweet. Bees as a species are not in danger of demise. Of course! it isn't worth the bother to prop up susceptible individuals and it's harmful to the group in the long run. Replacing hives lost with hardier stock is the best approach; we agree on this. But keeping the bees you already have alive is also a priority. How can you be a beekeeper without bees? Hmm. * * * > It is thought that bees originally evolved from hunting wasps which acquired a taste for nectar and decided to become vegetarians. Fossil evidence is sparse but bees probably appeared on the planet about the same time as flowering plants in the Cretaceous period, 146 to 74 million years ago. > Fossils of the true Apis type were first discovered in the Lower Miocene (22 to 25 million years ago) of Western Germany. A bee resembling Apis dorsata but much smaller (about the size of a present day mellifera) was present in the Upper Miocene (about 12 million years ago). ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 15:29:49 GMT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "deknow@netzero.net" Subject: Re: Survival of the bees Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit hi peter, yes, i think we are on the same page here....and your question is a good one: "But keeping the bees you already have alive is also a priority. How can you be a beekeeper without bees? Hmm." flippantly, i would reply with: "But breeding well adapted bees is also a priority. How can you breed adapted bees without culling those that require treatments to survive". to me, this is a "long term vs short term" debate...get a good crop this year, or be working for strong stock for the years to come. i'm certainly not trying to tell anyone what to do....i just don't know how you can do _both_ of the above until you have enough bees that don't need treatments that culling the weak doesn't kill your harvest. also,: "Replacing hives lost with hardier stock is the best approach; we agree on this." ...yes, we do agree on this. that said, i think the rush to buy "new" queens from breeders that have "bear resistant stock" is a mistake. of course all of these genetic traits are important...but the best measure of "hearty stock" in a given apiary location is "do the bees survive and prosper there". again, this requires raising ones own queens from survivors, not buying queens that are advertised (or even demonstrated) as being "hearty stock" in another location. deknow ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 08:31:04 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Mike Rossander Subject: Re: Role of Pollinators in Carbon Sequestering Comments: cc: BeeResearch@AOL.COM In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Jerry asked examples of the role that pollinators play in carbon sequestering. Unfortunately, I think the answer is "little or none". The problem is that when you follow the carbon cycle, a huge amount is affected by pollination but almost none of the carbon is actually sequestered. 1. Carbon makes up about 40% of the sugars in nectar (by weight). Since we pull off millions of tons of honey each year, in theory that's a lot of carbon. But the carbon is re-released as carbon dioxide soon as it is consumed and digested - whether it is consumed by the bees or by us. It's not trapped unless you somehow remove it from the environment. Personally, I'm unwilling to dump my honey. 2. A few weeks ago, someone posted about a study that carbon-uptake of a plant increased shortly after pollination. That's unsurprising since the plant has to spend a lot of energy creating the fruit/seed/etc after pollination - and much of that fruit will be carbon-based. Again however, that carbon is re-released during consumption. The apple core that ends up at the bottom of the landfill is sequestered but a) it's a small amount and b) I doubt your audience will think that increasing our landfills makes for a good ecological strategy. 3. Pollination increases the growth of leafy plants (either in the current plant or in the next season). Again, most of that carbon will be re-released when the plant dies and decomposes. Some small amount will be sequestered as a contribution to the local topsoil but that's a pretty small amount. About the only way that we can contribute to carbon sequestration is if the pollination increases the growth of the woody-components of trees. Cutting down the trees for use as lumber still keeps the carbon sequestered. (Letting it rot or burning it for fuel, however, return it to the environment.) Pollination does not, to my knowledge, increase the plant's wood production. It does, however, lead to the growth of new trees. But lots of other factors also lead to increases in wooded lots. It would be tough to claim credit for pollinators when so many other factors (like farm set-asides) are also claiming credit. I guess you could also claim a benefit if you were pollinating in areas where the plants are unlikely to rot. A peat bog comes to mind as an area where carbon is actually sequestered. There aren't too many places where that's the dominant terrain - and we don't tend to do a lot of farming in those areas. A third scenario would be the plant matter lost to the environment by falling into the ocean if it sinks deeply enough to be truly trapped. Pollen might drift out to sea in significant quantities but I'm guessing that the most pollen subject to that level of drifting will be from wind-pollinated species, not bee-pollinated species. Pollinators can't claim much credit. Pollination is important but I just don't see a credible way that we can jump on the "carbon-trapping" bandwagon. Mike Rossander --------------------------------- Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 08:47:53 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Mike Rossander Subject: Re: CCD symptoms vs Pesticide symptoms (was Pollinator Protection Act...) In-Reply-To: <005101c7c759$c9e93870$0701000a@j> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Last week, Jim and Bob were speculating on the potential matchup between CCD symptoms and pesticide kill symptoms. Bob said that a pesticide kill would draw out more and more foragers until none were left as housebees. One of Jim's rebuttal points was that the CCD-affected hives are reported to be well-stocked with stores. Have the CCD-affected hives been checked to see if the stores are really viable? I have a hypothesis. I'd be interested to know if it's been tested. In my area (and many other areas that I've heard of), there are serious reports of pollen-bound frames. After a season or two, the pollen goes stale and is never used. I'm not sure how the bees know which pollen to use and which to ignore but no matter how much of a dearth there is they never consume the stale pollen. It just clogs up the frames. The problem is often obscured by a thin layer of honey. In fact, the problem is so serious that a fair number of winter starvations resulted even though the colonies went into the winter with two deeps apparently full. As an experiment last year, I extracted 10 deep frames. All were capped and apparently full. Instead of the expected 60-80 pounds of honey, I got less than 19 pounds out. The rest was old pollen. If the stored pollen is no longer useful, I suspect that you could see the described CCD-pattern even though there is something resembling pollen still in the hive. In a separate message, Randy speculated about a connection between CCD and spraying for West Nile virus. In my area, we've had West Nile spraying about twice a year for several years. (They've never told me what they're spraying.) The spraying was conducted between early and late evening - a few bees were still flying. There have been no reported cases of CCD-like symptoms in the immediate area at all, much less timed to match the spraying. Mike Rossander --------------------------------- Got a little couch potato? Check out fun summer activities for kids. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 11:08:52 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: Re: Pesticides MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello All, As a beekeeper which has worked with a number of hives year after year I might add a few comments from the viewpoint of myself and others like me. Realizing most hobby and sideline might feel very different. Those running a small number of hives and either Russian or varroa tolerant bees can disregard. With varroa you need to knock back varroa loads at *least* once a year if a large number of hives are kept in a yard. After almost 20 years with varroa we have learned selective treating using varroa threshold as provided by our experts has not worked.( for reasons Jim said) I am now knocking back varroa loads twice a year with soft treatments. Quit using chemical strips on hives years ago and have replaced all comb which had apistan or checkmite used ( yes I used checkmite for several years with excellent results but at a wax contamination heavy price). Peter said: I have been certified to apply pesticides in New York state, so I know a little bit about this. A member of BEE-L was in pest control for 18 years before becoming a commercial/sideline master beekeeper ( maybe he will comment) and his words about pest control at a bee meeting hit home. He said that if he was called to a home to control the cockroach he would have to use four different chemicals as none would provide control by itself. Pests can become very resistant to chemicals over time. If I was to bet on the survivor between a tough eight legged blood sucker similar to a tick and a easy to kill honeybee I would have to bet on the varroa mite. In the west I have been told from very reliable sources many beekeepers are hitting hives with large chemical doses and several times a year with chemicals to control varroa. *All* chemicals which the varroa mite has shown the ability to become resistant to. Super mites are being created. Will the future for those beekeepers be perhaps using Apistan & checkmite at the same time unless they make a better choice?( are some already?) How about Apistan,checkmite and hivastan at the same time in 10 years? P.B. said: >I love bees and I wouldn't sit back and let them die off, any more than I would keep my kids from going to see a doctor. My current mode of operation is to depopulate hives which are susceptible to pests and headed by queens which are non productive. Others have adopted similar policies. Dequeening and combining happens if time to do so is available at seasons end. I feel I am removing less desirable drones from the gene pool and by acting early I will not return on the next visit to find the hive dead and full of wax moths. bob -- 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: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 09:18:09 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dee Lusby Subject: Re: Pesticides Comments: To: olda.vancata@quicknet.se In-Reply-To: <46A31C70.20291.619041A@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit \vov: agriculture of today is an industrial process. Reply: But when the agriculture of today is an industrial process and becomes the norm then Rome falls, for the necessary survivalist traits for evolution have been eliminated. Then any type of treatments used, along with same with artificial foods, and movement to deny natural selection seal the path and bond on it's direction for all to be lost. Dee A. Lusby ____________________________________________________________________________________ Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. http://travel.yahoo.com/ ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 13:26:18 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Lionel Subject: Re: Will bees be included as part of this? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alastair & all, Do you have pictures of the setup to remove bees? Could you share the pictures, if any, with the list? Lionel Evans Athens, Alabama. USA ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 14:47:58 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dave Thompson Subject: Re: Symptoms Back to ccd Its too bad noone else wishes to 'come out of the closet' I surely can't be the only one on this BBS with ccd? I wasn't going to write again, a conversation with yourself is not very fruitful, but--- After watching the ccd (deadout) boxes for some time I can say with 100% assurence A) I really truely had/have ccd B) It is infectious, NOT caused by poison (likely a virus that I will call X) The effect of ccd boxes on ants is striking Not only is it a 100% test for ccd (no ants within) but leave the box there for 1 month, and watch the ant colony dwindle and dissapear, even tho they avoid the ccd box there must be some contact Ants 100' away do not seem to be effected Perhaps ants are even more susceptable to X?? Maybe someone wants to make big $$$$ with a viral insecticide? Very definatly NOT A GOOD IDEA I'll go out on a limb: the study of ants infected with X will lead to breakthru --- 2 or 3 years from now Of course we need something NOW Vitamin C is somewhat usful, but NOT a cure (depending on rigor 20 to 40 (out of 100)) Another indication that it is a virus As always (for C) LOTS & OFTEN This is a problem with full sized hives Fortunatly they are not heavy !?! I continue to see the symptoms I described earlier Hell what's the use, you won't believe me until it happens to you & it will I'll finish the tale of the RQ hive A day before the last of RQGD brood was due to emerge all the pupae were gone, replaced by pollen. AFAICT all (100%) of RQGD brood died. The Aussie replacement seemed to have no problems, no brood mortality, no sign of infected comb ect This was the point I started dosing with C so ?? (didn't want to waste my $20) I still havn't found a source of acetic acid, I would have spent $100 in a heartbeat dave ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 18:04:02 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Aaron Morris Subject: FW: Calls to Washington Needed MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ----- Original Message -----=20 From: American Beekeeping Federation =20 To: 'Troy Fore' =20 Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2007 3:21 PM Subject: Calls to Washington Needed *** NOTE: Please forward this message to all beekeepers on your address = list. =20 We need calls to Washington on Monday! =20 For reasons that are not totally clear to us yet, we had a set-back in = the House Agriculture Committee on Thursday, July 19. When the committee = was finalizing the Farm Bill, they would not include any additional = funds for research into CCD and other honey bee problems. =20 The action now moves to the House floor, where the Farm Bill will be = debated as early as Wednesday or Thursday. During the floor debate the = money for honey bee research could be put into the Farm Bill. The = Washington lobbyists for ABF and AHPA plan to meet with committee = staffers on Monday to encourage them to do that, but they need support = from beekeepers calling their Congressmen. =20 The key players are Ag Cmte Chairman Collin Peterson of Minnesota and = Dennis Cardoza of California who is the chairman of the subcommittee = over bees and honey. The best outcome would be for them to include the = funding in the Chairman's amendment that will cover errors and = omissions. We also need honey included in the definition of a specialty = crop with regard to the Farm Bill. =20 At the committee meeting, everyone talked about CCD and the need to do = something, but no one wanted to fund it. At this point, any CCD funding = would have to come from funds that would have gone to someone else. Rep. = Kevin McCarthy of California proposed an amendment to take $5 million = from specialty crops and give to CCD research. He had no Democratic = support and agreed to withdraw it. Here's some perspective on that = amendment: specialty crops is getting 1600 million dollars in the Farm = Bill; we want just 5 million of that. =20 Just so you will know - on Thursday, the House Appropriations Committee = approved continued funding the USDA bee labs for a total of $7 million. = This is the same funding level as last year. =20 We need beekeepers to call Congressmen Peterson, Cardoza, and McCarthy = to urge them to include CCD research funding in the Farm Bill - and to = include honey in the list of specialty crops so we will be eligible for = other programs. Other Congressmen need to call them too - after you call = your own Congressman. =20 Here are some numbers you can use: =20 Capitol Switchboard - to reach any Congressional office - 202-225-3121 =20 Congressman Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) Staff: Shelby Hagenauer 202-225-2915 =20 Congressman Dennis Cardoza (D-CA) Anne cannon 202-225-6131 =20 Congressman Jim Costa (D-CA) Jacqulyn Schneider 202-225-3341 - Chrmn. = of Specialty Crops Subcmte. =20 Congressman Randy Neugebauer (R-TX) Cathy Bergren 202-225-4005 - = Ranking Republican subcmte. over bees =20 Chairman Collin Peterson (D-MN) Committee Chief of Staff Rob Larew = 220-225-2171 =20 Subcommittee staff=20 Majority, Keith Jones -202-225-2171 - for Cardoza Minority, Pam Miller-225-0029 - for Neugebauer =20 Troy Fore Executive Director American Beekeeping Federation, Inc. P.O. Box 1337 - Jesup, Georgia 31598-1337 USA Street Address: 115 Morning Glory Circle - ZIP: 31546 Tel. 912-427-4233 - Fax 912-427-8447 Internet: = > Serving the Industry Since 1943 Make your plans for the National Beekeeping Conference, Jan. 9-12, 2008, in Sacramento --- ABF - AHPA - and all other organizations ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 19:46:32 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dave Thompson Subject: Re: Symptoms Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit A response -- great > I'm curious as hell.  Please keep me up to date!  The ant observation is > stunning. >--would really like to find the pathogen. WHO CARES (what the pathogen is) We need a treatment Well, it helps to know what you are fighting Have we cured the common cold or flu? Will we ever? Most pandemics come in waves, the reason unknown It's usually more effective attacking the vector >A virus triggered by stress would certainly be a reasonable hypothesis. The implication is the virus was already there This is probably NOT correct The infection is STILL spreading Anti virals are very expensive So the answer is boring old medicatian trials ie find something (several somethings) that X really dislikes, but likely does not kill it (X) Requires more than one yard infected, and several dozen substances to test, and confirmation by repeat test This is boring, grotty work, suitable for undergrads Noone wants to do grunt work anymore! And noone is paying me for my pierceing intelligence I'm the last guy on the line, only 3 hrs from the northern limit (for bees)(Sudbury?) Since Ontario is coming up with compensation I may kill a hive or two testing (dubious) medications (And I can't hardly spell) dave ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 16:48:34 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dee Lusby Subject: Re: Pesticides Comments: To: olda.vancata@quicknet.se In-Reply-To: <46A3DE7C.31703.90F1EB5@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit \vov: humans are destructive creatures Reply: Then any ideas on how to rectify the situation at least concerning our honeybees, since that means food for the future long-haul?.... since, also don't see how we can keep going the way we are with such split and divide, and move tactics, with out even bigger bigger yearly crashes coming due to it between now and 2010-12 when things peak in my mind. Dee A. Lusby ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433 ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 17:00:08 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dee Lusby Subject: Re: Pesticides Comments: To: olda.vancata@quicknet.se In-Reply-To: <46A3E148.14698.91A0C67@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit \vov: Beekeeprs have no time for natural selection of bees. .......spend all time on making money. reply: sooner or later time will have to be made for natural selection of bees, though this is probably only 1/3 of the equation, AND LESSER to environmental needs, and diet, for overall actuality needs. Dee A. Lusby ____________________________________________________________________________________ Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 17:09:34 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: randy oliver Subject: Re: Symptoms MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >WHO CARES (what the pathogen is) We need a treatment Once we isolate the pathogen, we can infect bees and treat with a palette of medicines to see if any have an effect. Otherwise, we're working in the dark! How many sick colonies do you have, and are others near you getting it? Randy ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 23:35:02 -0400 Reply-To: bee-quick@bee-quick.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: FW: Calls to Washington Needed MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Aaron forwarded a note from Troy Fore that said: > Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California proposed an amendment > to take $5 million from specialty crops and give to CCD > research. He had no Democratic support and agreed to > withdraw it. Here's some perspective on that amendment: > specialty crops is getting 1600 million dollars in the > Farm Bill; we want just 5 million of that. Hold on there... (gosh, I end up saying that a lot here) Here's the deal. The "Specialty Crops" people felt entitled to their "just due". Having someone, anyone, come along and try and divert some of "their money" that they worked so hard to lobby for likely angered them, and they pressured their representatives to not allow the money to be "stolen". They had very "broad support", as they had done their lobbying and letter-writing long ago, and worked to get "broad support". So, the amendment failed. Miserably. Just as we beekeepers were understandably angry at the shenanigans that resulted in CCD being used to justify funding for preservation/conservation of native pollinators rather than short-term funding for CCD work, we should put on the sneakers of the "Specialty Crops" folks, walk a few miles, and realize that they reacted with UNDERSTANDABLE anger at the attempt to divert funding that they thought was a "done deal". So, when you call, or write, or fax, please DON'T insist on support for the specific McCarthy amendment, as it would only be met with more resistance. Simply ask that funding be scraped up from ELSEWHERE. And while we are on the subject, $5 million sounds a bit grandiose for CCD work, when the entire USDA-ARS Bee Lab program costs about $11 million a year. Maybe we need to simply ask for a smaller amount of money for the short-term work to triage and diagnose the problem, rather than the sort of "empire-building" long-term program that might be assumed to be inherent in $5 million. Yes, it is a darn shame that the Specialty Crops folks did not instantly agree that reliable pollination was a need that they shared an interest in preserving, and yeah, $5 million is "loose change" when talking about $1.6 billion (yes, billion with a "b"), but we should NOT make the same sort of presumptuous mistakes as the native pollinator folks made, now should we? Anyway, do we really want to alienate a bunch of pollination clients? I don't think so. It would be better to ask Congress to look for the $5 million (or whatever) under the couch cushions in the Congressional lounge. So, to summarize: 1) Yes, DO ask for immediate funding for CCD work. 2) No, DON'T ask for any specific funds to be diverted from "Specialty Crops". (Learn from experience!) 3) Yes, DO ask for money for THIS year. The darn farm bill money will be a long time in coming, so we need to stress that we can't wait for the farm bill money. We need CURRENT USDA funding (money from the LAST farm bill) diverted to CCD work. 4) And we really don't care where the money comes from, do we? That decision is up to Congress. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 23:55:34 -0400 Reply-To: james.fischer@gmail.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: Pesticides and IPM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bill said: > So if we use a statistical threshold mite count... Ha! What "statistics"? If there was any statistical support for any of the wide range of different "thresholds" being tossed around and repeated in somber tones as if they had meaning, they would be more useful. There isn't, so they aren't. The reason is simple. In the context of a pest/host ratio, counting only pests, no matter how accurately, is MEANINGLESS without a count of hosts. So, "X Divided By Ummm, I Dunno" is not a ratio. It is a guess. It is not just "wrong", it is pure surrealism. It certainly is not science at all. Since it is hard to count bees in a hive with any accuracy due to the fact that they keep moving around so much while you count, the only way to resolve the issue is to talk about the pest population DELTA (the slope of the curve of points from several pest population counts). But don't freak - you don't need to do any calculus at all, you just need a sheet of graph paper or a spreadsheet program. And yeah, doing mite counts is a pain in the posterior, but no one ever said it would be easy or painless to be a beekeeper. The Price Of Honey Is Eternal Vigilance. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 00:46:36 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dave Thompson Subject: Re: Symptoms Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >we can infect bees and treat with a palette >of medicines to see if any have an effect Treat hives surely? Easily done. Remove all mite treatment, feed, break up 3 hives throughout yard with TM, VD, & CCD. Wait a week. If the yard is not infected I would be suprized Or fresh untreated ccd frames, 1 per hive But to quantify it is another matter, each hive and change over time A ramp inspection/count is pretty crude, possably a magnitude wrong But I think anything successful will be unmistakable in comparison dave ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 06:40:47 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "Peter L. Borst" Subject: beekeeping ban MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline 7/21/2007 Bethany beekeeping ban questioned by state officials BETHANY, Okla. (AP) -- State officials are buzzing about a ban on beekeeping in Bethany. The Bethany City Council voted Tuesday to ban beekeeping in the city after hearing complaints about aggressive swarms. But state officials say the local rule violates a state law. The Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry and the Oklahoma State Beekeepers Association say that under the 2005 Apiary Act, Oklahoma cities and towns can regulate or zone beekeeping, but not ban it. "We need bees," said Jack Carson, spokesman for the Agriculture Department. "This law was passed ... to prevent cities from trying to do this." -- pb ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 04:32:25 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: C Hooper Subject: US Approves Manuka Honey Wound Dressings MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII US Approves Manuka Honey Wound Dressings http://apitherapy.blogspot.com/2007/07/us-approves-manuka-honey-wound.html Waikato-based Comvita Ltd says its patented "advanced wound care dressing" has become the first using manuka honey for wounds and burns to receive marketing clearance from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)… ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 08:54:04 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Richard A Cartwright Subject: Re: Climate shift or ? In-Reply-To: <001001c7cb40$fc551b90$90bc0740@valuedb5f86e04> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Coleene wrote: > here-central > lower Michigan-I was wondering if what I am seeing is just here or > elsewhere as well. > > Today is July 20 and I am seeing Goldenrod starting to bloom and > Knapweed is in full bloom. The Milkweed is done,the Asters are > ready to pop and there is a local farmer that is getting ready to > harvest corn! Everything is about 4 weeks early. The following was reported on a NY state bird email list (similar in function to Bee-L), referring to birds on Long Island, NY We're certainly not in the back end of Summer on July 21, but it was hard not to get that impression this evening (7:45) when a mixed flock containing 200-250 Common Grackles and over 1000 Starlings rose up from various trees on my block and flew right over my yard, heading west to wherever they planned to roost. I just uncovered the air conditioner less than a month ago, but based on those birds I may have to prep the furnace soon! ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 09:35:57 -0400 Reply-To: bee-quick@bee-quick.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: CCD symptoms vs Pesticide symptoms (was Pollinator Protection Act...) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mike summarized: > Bob said that a pesticide kill would draw out more and more > foragers until none were left... Here's a much simpler way to look at the situation. If "no foragers are left", what about the WATER foragers? What causes them to fail to return to the hive? How are they picking up an acute fatal dose of the presumed pesticide? Are we going to postulate "fatal WATER" as a result of run-off from the "fatal crops"? Even a tiny split or an observation hive, both having limited foraging forces still send out water forager sorties, so it seems that water foragers are consistently focused on water, no matter what the other demands of the colony might be, and no matter how limited the nectar/pollen situation versus the brood situation might become. If it looks like a pathogen, spreads like a pathogen, and kills like a pathogen, lets not blame a pesticide that has well-known and well-documented symptoms not seen in CCD. Imidacloprid poisoned hives result in bees with "the shakes". The French beekeepers were very clear about this. (Go read the stuff still available over on the Apiservices website.) So far, no one has mentioned seeing even a single bee with "the shakes" in hives affected by CCD, and we've had a lot of eyeballs looking at these hives. Here's another simple question - how could hives overwintered by Dewey Caron at U DE shown clear symptoms of CCD when first examined in the spring of this year? What agribusiness crop was grown within the flight range of these "pampered" bees? I'm no big fan of pesticide companies, I'm just a fan of facts. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 10:25:10 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dick Marron Subject: Re: Symptoms In-Reply-To: <1185130078.3903584789@matrix.start.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dave Thompson wrote: >>>>Its too bad no one else wishes to 'come out of the closet' I surely can't be the only one on this BBS with CCD?<<< I'm responding because I used that very phrase a few months ago. I had 15 colonies in one yard and lost all of them over the winter. The deadouts contained small clusters etc. Could just be winter kill here in CT except I lost 5 in Oct/Nov very quickly. One surviving colony in Mar 07 that had a handful of bees and a queen were tested by 2 labs... and came back negative for T-mites, Varroa and Nosema. I had them tested because some K-wing was evident. The kicker is that these bees are permanently located and outside of a few packages, had no contact with other bees. It's just too ironic that I spent time in Fl working on an ABJ article on CCD and came home to the losses. On a small scale, I think I know how you feel. I actually feel embarrassment, just writing this, right now. I must be a bad beekeeper! There are those on this list and elsewhere just crouched and ready to pounce and explain that to me. Actually I'm my own worst enemy on that score and have gone over my practices carefully. The polling of data on CCD has been a large stumbling block for the researchers. I have wondered at this. I did ask a large 'keeper in Fl if he had any CCD losses. His response? "I wouldn't tell you if I did." He knew I was gathering info for an article. I reasoned that he may have had good reasons for his reticence. 1. Stating your losses is a lot like giving the world a financial statement. 2. Pollination customers could become insecure knowing that disease had been found in his bees. 3. He may have been scrambling to buy/rent enough bees to cover contracts and didn't want folks to know he was wounded. 4. There's a lot of mistrust and resentment among some beekeepers with the government forces. They had no recommendations anyway. 5. By the time a guy is big enough and has been for years, there's arrogance that he can handle his own problems. 6. Asking for, or admitting the need for, help can be a sign of weakness. See 5 above. 7. Looking for a loan to tide one over would seemingly be more difficult if ones banker was reading about your diseased bees. I'm sure there's more. Since I mentioned Dave Hackenberg in my writing I want to specify here that I'm not talking about him. He's to be commended for his courage. I visited the hives of five affected beekeepers and several who were unaffected in early 07. So, while it's lonesome out there Dave, I think that those reporting CCD are perhaps the tip of the iceberg. It takes a lot of confidence to come forward. I think we can assume the secret sufferers are listening though. Anyone want to come forward? Dick Marron ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:15:13 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?windows-1252?Q?Yoon_Sik_Kim?= Subject: Re: beekeeping ban Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Peter: Thanks for your indefatigable watchful eye and thanks for brining the Bethany (Oklahoma) Bee Ban issue to the national forefront. What I saw on the local TV network last night regarding same was not “aggressive swarms,” but a few dozen bees gathering water from someone’s bird-water fountain, one of those self-contained miniature cascade varieties. The owner said the bees had initially started to come to his birdfeeder (hummingbird feeders are common in Oklahoma) for the sugar solution but now they come to fetch water: http://newsok.com/article/3088387 As we all have experienced in bee-removal, people tend to use the term “swarm” broadly, usually in the sense of “a throng” or “a colony.” Not the real “swarm” we all are familiar with. For instance, twenty honey bees will be a “swarm” to these alarmists. Or they will ask you “How many swarms (colonies) do you manage?” A fist-size of stragglers, when you finish your removal job, can be a 10,000-strong new colony: the bees are back! For those peculiar minds interested in lexicography and etymology, here is what the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) says regarding the origin of the word “swarm” : swarm (_____), n. Forms: 1 suearm, swearm, swerm, 4_7 swarme, 6 swerm, 4_ swarm. [OE. swearm, = Fris., MLG. swarm, OHG. suar(a)m (MHG. swarem, swarm, G. schwarm) swarm of bees or insects, ON. svarmr tumult (Norw. dial. svarm):-- -OTeut. *swarmaz. The root is usually identified with that of Skr. svárati sounds, resounds, svará, svára sound, voice, and connected further with sur- in L. susurrus hum, MLG. surren to hum, MHG. surm humming, Lith. surmà pipe, etc. But the etymological meaning may be that of agitated, confused, or deflected movement, in which case swarm and swerve might arise from parallel formations on the same base; cf. the parallelism of swarm v.2 and swarve v.2; Norw. dial. svarma to be giddy, stagger, dream, and svarva to turn, go in a circle, stagger, be agitated (see swarf v.); Icel. svarfla and svarmla _praecipitanter contrectare, huc illuc raptare'; also the meanings of G. schwärmen to swarm, rove, riot, fall into reverie, rave. The existence of a mutated form in OE. (early WS. *swierm) cannot be inferred with certainty from the late instance of swerm (Napier OE. Glosses 156/21), but such a form is found on the Continent in WFris. swerm, MLG., MDu. swerm (Du. zwerm), Da. sværm, Sw. svärm; cf. the vb.] 1. a. A body of bees which at a particular season leave the hive or main stock, gather in a compact mass or cluster, and fly off together in search of a new dwelling-place, under the guidance of a queen (or are transferred at once to a new hive). Here “Under the guidance of (girls) scouts” more likely. Due to this liberal currency of the term, whenever I get a bee-call, I must ask: “Is that swarm a living colony inside a structure or is it a cluster hanging on a limb or sprawled on a wall?” The caller’s response to this question will help me clarify what to prepare and expect. Yoon YSK HONEY FARM Shawnee, OK ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:17:35 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?windows-1252?Q?Eric_Brown?= Subject: Re: Pesticides and IPM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >The reason is simple. In the context of a pest/host >ratio, counting only pests, no matter how accurately, >is MEANINGLESS without a count of hosts. Yes, the number of bees in a hive is a meaningful variable, but it's not the variable to trump all other variables. We're talking about agriculture here: it's complex, and in actual practice we can't help but work with estimates, averages, and reasonable assumptions. Sometimes our estimates will be inadequate, but we're talking about a margin of error, not meaninglessness. It's not as if we have no idea how many bees are in a hive. Worst case, I might fail to notice a substantial difference between two hives, one with twice as many bees as the other, but that's worst case (and probably a generous over-estimate, too), and the *average* variance is going to be much less than 2X, which means to me that we're working with numbers that are more than good enough for use in the field. Two winters ago I took all my 50+ hives and did 48/72 hour mite counts on all of them in early September. Then I let them all go through winter without meidication/intervention. With the exception of one hive that was noticeably smaller than average (i.e. I noticed *beforehand* and made note of it), the ~40% I lost were the 40% with the highest mite counts. After 3 years of testing all my hives, I have yet to experience a single winter loss (from almost 200 hive-winters) that couldn't have been predicted by the rule: >55 mites per 24 hours in early September unless the hive is dramatically smaller than average. Are there special factors (variables) that could interfere with the rule? Sure. Will I have hives that are big enough to withstand >55 mites? I'm sure I will. Could the 55 number be unnecessarily conservative? Perhaps, but more than enough hives (on average a majority) come under that threshold for it to still be very useful. Is every winter going to be the same? Of course not. Is every strain of bee and every strain of mite going to follow the same rules? Of course not. Are there going to be regional differences? Sure. In short, there are lots of variables, but they don't render the information we do have meaningless. I haven't kept close track of the studies, but I'm roughly familiar with several studies that "proved" the value of thresholds. Has there been any formal study to disprove the significance of one-time mite counts? If there has been, I never heard of it. So from my perspective, experience, good sense, and scientific research all strongly indicate that thresholds are a meaningful and useful management tool. Eric ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:44:56 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: Re: Symptoms MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Dick & All, > I actually feel embarrassment, just writing this, right now. I must be a bad beekeeper! That's what those which have not been hit by problems always say about CCD. The old timers like myself know that sooner or later if a problem is happening most likely the whole industry will be effected. However if pesticides are the issue then those in areas not using the problem pesticides will not for the most part be effected. As it stands now in the U.S. the most CCD is being reported in row crop areas. > The polling of data on CCD has been a large stumbling block for the researchers. The problem is not the polling as much as trying to say the problems are ALL related to some unknown cause. At least now they are making a list with four possible causes. What happened last fall is history. Forget last fall and prepare to research early a repeat of last fall. We are approaching the time problems started last year. > I reasoned that he may have had good reasons for his reticence. I will take a shot at the why. 1. Stating your losses is a lot like giving the world a financial statement. Many beekeepers run 1,000 of hives over the number they admit to. In some states each hive is taxed. Only hobby beekeepers are honest about hive numbers. Many never admit to the amount of honey produced ( a penny a pound to the NHB does not seem like a lot of money unless you are talking a million pounds) 2. Pollination customers could become insecure knowing that disease had been found in his bees. We started getting calls after the first CCD report hit the media. 3. He may have been scrambling to buy/rent enough bees to cover contracts and didn't want folks to know he was wounded. EXACTLY! pollination contracts are the bread and butter of beekeeping and your fellow beekeepers will cover your contract if needed. You never want give a grower the idea you can't cover his needs. Our answer to no. 2 was: "no worries mate!" 4. There's a lot of mistrust and resentment among some beekeepers with the government forces. They had no recommendations anyway. A degree of truth in the above. The USDA-ARS has been very helpful but congress has typically not been. 5. By the time a guy is big enough and has been for years, there's arrogance that he can handle his own problems. After many years of handling his own problems most feel most problems are usually handled by solutions he comes up with or from fellow beekeepers. Beekeeping has some very knowledgeable beekeepers but only in rare times does the USDA-ARS ask for their help. 6. Asking for, or admitting the need for, help can be a sign of weakness. See 5 above. Government help has been typically a day late in most cases when a crisis happens. Documentation seems to only occur. 7.loans would seemingly be more difficult if ones banker was reading about your diseased bees. Without a doubt! >Anyone want to come forward? I have not had any losses which fit the CCD standard but did have a higher winter loss than in years. I have looked at deadouts in others hives which fit the CCD pattern and have received reports of CCD losses this year from many states. Mostly areas of pesticide treated seed. bob ****************************************************** * 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: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 10:00:30 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: randy oliver Subject: Re: Pesticides and IPM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="Windows-1252"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Eric said: >So from my perspective, experience, good sense, and scientific research all strongly indicate that thresholds are a meaningful and useful management tool. You're absolutely right, Eric. The concept of thresholds only fails if they are used as a magic number that you wait for until you treat your colonies. They are very useful as predictors if you're on a dangerous trajectory, and I believe I covered them well as such in my article in ABJ. It's not at all hard to adjust them for colony strength by eyeballing. The most important thing is to use a sampling technique that is accurate and appropriate for the season. Randy Oliver ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:13:02 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: Re: CCD symptoms vs Pesticide symptoms (was Pollinator Protection Act...) Comments: To: bee-quick@bee-quick.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Jim & All, > lets not blame a pesticide that has well-known and well-documented symptoms not seen in CCD. Pesticide kills never fit exact symptoms except in the last stages before death. What we seem to be looking at is enough pesticide to cause the bee to not be able to find its way back to the hive. Kind of like maybe a night at the local pub and trying to find your car in a large parking lot. Except when leaving the pub you will in time find your car. These bees seem not able to ever find their way. Research has shown (my own also) that the honeybee will only live a short time away from the hive by herself. Plenty of honey/pollen in a cage a single bee soon dies. Research has shown pesticides can cause this problem leaving bees lost a mile from the hive without a clue which way the hive is. >Imidacloprid poisoned hives result in bees with "the shakes". This is the last stage. What of lighter doses? >The French beekeepers were very clear about this. Not the ones I have been in contact with. Two French researchers are willing to come to the U.S. and explain their research as to why imadicloprid caused the problems in France and why the problem stopped when the product was banned. So far my ABF officer connection as not reported back about their possible visit to speak with U.S. beekeepers. A close friends son has been in France for a year working with a commercial operation and he has been reporting from meetings what the French commercial beekeepers have seen since the Imadicloprid ban. Email me a contact number Jim and I will let his father talk to you when he comes for a visit before long. The father does business with French beekeepers. >Here's another simple question - how could hives overwintered by Dewey Caron at U DE shown clear symptoms of CCD when first examined in the spring of this year? What agribusiness crop was grown within the flight range of these "pampered" bees? Clear symptoms? At Dewey's *first* examination of the year he found 7-8 frames of all stages of bees ,a queen and a few young bees? OR Was saying his bees all crashed from CCD easier than "wax moth killed my bees!" >I'm no big fan of pesticide companies, I'm just a fan of facts. Just because many opinions are published on websites on the internet does not make them facts! The big fact one should consider concerning pesticides is almost all research published has been funded by chemical companies. Same with research to get new drugs approved drug companies. bob -- 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: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:20:31 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?windows-1252?Q?Eric_Brown?= Subject: Re: bees vs people wasRe: [BEE-L] Pesticides Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 13:46:22 GMT, deknow@netzero.net wrote: >personally, i'd rather keep bees that don't require treatments from me in order to survive. i don't know how that can happen unless those that can't are culled or left to die off on their own. You're missing a very important way of "how that can happen." Identify the hives that are going to die/survive beforehand. In other words, don't wait until the bad genetics "die off on their own." Requeen them before they die off. If you want them to die for the good of the race, why do you want them producing drones in the interim? If you think the advantages of local stock outweigh the advantages of the big, commercial queen breeders, then requeen from your own 'mite-resistant' stock. Having requeened (or planning to requeen) the hive, what's the harm to the race of intervening to knock the mites back to a manageable level? For that matter, the process of requeening itself might suffice to knock the mites back to a manageable level, depending on how you requeen. In short, if you can figure out where things are headed ahead of time, there's no biological advantage to letting hives die. Just breed from the hives that survive without treatment. And accelerate the selection process instead of raising drones from poor stock and killing off hives that could be used to advance your breeding goals (and keep you profitably in business.) I would agree that letting susceptible stock die might be better in the long-term than keeping everything in the breeding pool, but there are several reasons why those aren't really the choices we're faced with. Eric ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:04:11 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?windows-1252?Q?Eric_Brown?= Subject: Re: bees vs people wasRe: [BEE-L] Pesticides Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >even when a new (or recently imported) pathogen wipes out a noticiable percentage of the bee population, they keep coming back because the strong hives swarm and spread their genetics...while the weak die off. In the case of varroa mites the reverse may be true, at least in one sense. In other words, the "strong" may die, and the "weak" may survive. Everything else being equal, that's true in terms of honey production. You could compare varroa to a STD among other animals. Generally speaking, it's the strong and vigorous that reproduce the most, which puts them at greatest risk of contracting the STD. Similarly, the hives that raise the most drones are going to be the strongest, and all those drones - - and all that brood, in general -- are going to mean the greatest varroa pressure. Of course, the bees that survive varroa are going to tend to be the ones with the greatest ability to survive varroa. In that sense, we can call that ability "strength," but I would like to think that we could take a different path to the same end, i.e. not to use traits like swarminess and low brood production as our primary selection criteria. The hands off approach, while it may sound noble, isn't all wonderful, especially if it's selectively applied. For instance, I can imagine a "purist" insisting on letting his big honey (and varroa) producing hives die from varroa while propping up his poor honey (and varroa) producing hives with frames of honey from the good producers. This, to me, is absurd, especially when there are so many 'organic' (by any definition) means of dealing with varroa. If we're going to manage our hives at all, even to the extent of just robbing honey from them, we're affecting the varroa situation. If we're going to requeen anyway, make splits, move hives, manipulate the brood chamber for swarm prevention, etc., it's absurd to insist that we do these things with willful ignorance toward the effect on varroa. Adopting a system of unplanned and haphazard varroa management while letting hives die is just poor management, nothing more. Eric ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:28:30 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: CCD symptoms vs Pesticide symptoms (was Pollinator Protection Act...) In-Reply-To: <003d01c7cd4c$bb1d0bc0$13bc59d8@BusyBeeAcres> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bob Harrison wrote: > The big fact one should consider concerning pesticides > is almost all research published has been funded by chemical companies. > > Same with research to get new drugs approved drug companies. > > Sort of goes with the territory since they are the ones who are trying to get approval from the gov and who else will do it? There are instances where the science did not disclose unforeseen effects, but with the number and different kinds of drugs and pesticides out there, they are few and far between. In our litigious society, they are fairly careful about the safety of their products. If you want to point fingers, we need to look at the end users and what they are doing with the product. Like beekeepers who apply Amitraz, an illegal substance, to colonies. Or multiple OA applications, much less one, also illegal. Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 18:18:57 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Jim Maus Subject: Re: [Bulk] [BEE-L] US Approves Manuka Honey Wound Dressings In-Reply-To: <20070723043225.84d281a5f2f7df0ef38485a84124037d.47763b4ef2.wbe@email.secureserver.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi All, I am gathering talking to /some /beekeepers here in Wisconsin. That there are hives (some of mine included) that seem to be normal in the brood chamber area...but don't store honey and build like hives normally do. I have some hives like that (nucs from FLA) the overwintered mostly are going full bore. That being said I have some of the same nucs from FLA in 1 yard only that are filling everything I give them....go figure. Jim Maus West Bend WI ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:20:17 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dee Lusby Subject: Re: bees vs people wasRe: [BEE-L] Pesticides In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Eric: In the case of varroa mites the reverse may be true, at least in one sense. In other words, the "strong" may die, and the "weak" may survive. Reply: Boy oh boy, I'd paste more written, but this stands out as completely off the wall to me for not being in tune with what is going on in the real world. Both can actually do fine in correct circumstances. Also see no problem with normal manipulation of hives also or honey getting as far as varroa is concerned. Dee A. Lusby ____________________________________________________________________________________Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/ ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:26:37 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dee Lusby Subject: Re: bees vs people wasRe: [BEE-L] Pesticides In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Eric: Must say you logic for breeding from the strong survivors is much better here then other post. Making one's own queens from survivors to use for requeening the lower 1/3 in production is fine with me and quite logical for doing, and in fact has been done by many commercial beekeepers for decades, for local needs. So why have so many switched then to importing factory like production queens of lessor quality/fit for their given areas? Dee A. Lusby ____________________________________________________________________________________ Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool. http://autos.yahoo.com/carfinder/ ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 17:30:48 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Mike Stoops Subject: Re: Queen Rearing wasRe: [BEE-L] bees vs people In-Reply-To: <506219.43374.qm@web51606.mail.re2.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dee Lusby wrote:So why have so many switched then to importing factory like production queens of lessor quality/fit for their given areas? Dee A. Lusby Commercial people don't have time to raise their own queens and have found queen sources whose queens fit their honey/pollination needs? Mike in LA --------------------------------- Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 20:52:15 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "=?UTF-8?Q?Peter_L._Borst?=" Subject: Re: bees vs people wasRe: [BEE-L] Pesticides Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dee Lusby wrote: >So why have so many switched then to importing factory like >production queens of lessor quality/fit for their given > This is an unnecessary slam on queen producers. I have worked in the queen industry and the methods have changed very little over the past one hundred years. Beekeepers have more hives and bigger trucks, but queen rearing is still stock selection, grafting, and mating nucs. It can be done well and it can be done poorly. If you buy the cheapest you won't get the best. But good queens can be gotten for a price. Many beekeepers find queen rearing to be too time consuming at time of the year when they are already busy. I have always tried to obtain stock from people I respect, and I don't think much of any of the local stock I have seen. You won't get very far by breeding from your best hives and then getting the queens mated off with the neighborhood drone gang. I bought an expensive Carniolan breeder from (name omitted) and raised beautiful looking queens from her. But the bees that came from them were nasty; I sure wouldn't have used any of THEM as breeders! I ended up replacing all the queens with store-bought ones. (True story) pb ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 19:11:20 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Mike Stoops Subject: Re: Queens raised by commercial beeks In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit "Peter L. Borst" wrote: I bought an expensive Carniolan breeder from (name omitted) and raised beautiful looking queens from her. But the bees that came from them were nasty; I sure wouldn't have used any of THEM as breeders! I ended up replacing all the queens with store-bought ones. (True story) A commercial queen raiser that I knew not only selected his breeder queens from his best stock, but he controlled, as best he could, the drone population around his queen yard. Every spring he would go around to all the beekeepers within about fifteen miles of his breeder yard and requeen, for free, all the hives with his own queens which he wanted as drone sources. The beekeepers got the best queens every year for free and he was able to control, for the most part, the drone sources which would affect his commercial queen breeding efforts. He selected not only his breeder queen by his own criteria, he also selected the drone source queens by his own criteria, ensuring that there would be very little inbreeding and that all the traits he was selecting for were carried by both his virgin queens and by the drone sources in the area. Not a litte effort, time, and money were spent in ensuring that he provided the best queens that he possibly could for his customers. Unfortunately, as time goes by we get older, and he retired. His operation went by the wayside because the new owner was unable to provide the level of excellence that he had maintained. As far as I know the operation went out of business in the second year. A real shame because he did provide an excellent line of queens. Mike in LA --------------------------------- Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 22:28:44 -0400 Reply-To: james.fischer@gmail.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: Pesticides and IPM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >55 mites per 24 hours in early September... And for your particular location, with your particular type of bee, and your particular mix of management practices, I'm sure that you can rely on continuing to take heavy losses if you ignore that sort of mite drop rate in September. But what does someone 200 miles South of you do? And when do they do it? And what about someone 200 miles North? What do they do, and when do they do it? What would the >>>general case<<< be, I wonder? What general-purpose tool might be used in a consistent manner by all beekeepers, regardless of the location of their hives, and the seasonal weather progression where their hives are? And what of migratory beekeepers? What might they do? Well, they could take advantage of the experience of EVERY OTHER segment of agriculture, and their IPM programs, which are based on doing more than one measurement of one variable. > I'm roughly familiar with several studies that > "proved" the value of thresholds. That's the great thing about thresholds! There are so many different ones to choose from! :) Seriously, do a simple Google search for "varroa" and "threshold", and just look at all the different numbers being batted about as if they were authoritative. And that's the wonderful thing about "studies" they can go through all the rigorus steps of proving a conclusion, yet ignore that the data is inherently local in nature. Of course one can, after the fact, see with 20/20 hindsight and say "hives with varroa counts higher than x died", and conclude that hives with lower varroa counts that survived did not need treatment. But even this hindsight is not 20/20, as mere survival is not enough in beekeeping. Worse yet, the data is specific to location, weather, and a host of other factors that tend to vary from operation to operations. So, the "knowledge" yields little or nothing in the way of a metric that applies anywhere else, or to anyone else's bees. We end up with a different threshold for every USDA zone, or perhaps even zip code. So, I'll insist again - thresholds are bunk. An unscientific approach with no more value than a guess, at odds with the basic precepts of IPM as practiced in every other aspect of agriculture. We have no one to blame but ourselves. Beekeepers whined and complained that they "just wanted a number". We can't really blame the extension community for coming up with thresholds in response to those repeated demands. Don't teach me basic concepts, don't help me to understand the relationship between pest and host, don't teach me to MANAGE the problem at all. Just give me a number. No wonder varroa still takes hives and frustrates beekeepers more than 20 years after it first showed up in the western hemisphere! ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 19:35:12 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dee Lusby Subject: Re: Queen Rearing wasRe: [BEE-L] bees vs people In-Reply-To: <715330.5117.qm@web53412.mail.re2.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Mike writes: Commercial people don't have time to raise their own queens and have found queen sources whose queens fit their honey/pollination needs? Reply: If I equate this with man planted crops, with much plant hybridization and thus for oldtime LC bees FWIW, which then makes for quickie nucs splitting and queening, along with artificial feed, and treatments for movement from pollenation job to pollenation job continuously, with no localization of the bees to anyone given area, I can see where industry has gotten into deep problems should a roadblock appear, for where do you really put the bees that match anything in a natural environment, for they can never be self-sustaining born this way! So getting back then, to thoughts prior, if factory farming and factory queens are for artificialized hybrid crops by man's doing and not Nature, then why isn't real queen breeding taught to sideliners and hobbyists so they know the difference and can make a choice as to what they do, or is it? Then they can by choice either buy the artificial breed factory farmed queens, or get with other beekeepers doing breeding to fit localized areas/regions and native/natural plants in their given areas. Why isn't this distinction talked about more for needs??? or is it? Anyone really know? Could this be part of today's problem with our honeybees? Dee A. Lusby ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433 ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:05:46 +0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter Detchon Subject: Re: Pesticides and IPM Comments: To: james.fischer@gmail.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jim, I'm trying to follow this debate from the perspective of one who doesn't ha= ve to deal with varroa mites ('cos we don't have 'em yet in Western Austral= ia), but I sure want to stay in business when the evil day arrives!=20 Randy and Eric, it seems to me, have given a pretty straightforward, warts = and all, description of the way in which mite fall counts can be used to tr= igger a particular management strategy, which is appropriate for them and t= heir bees, in their locations at that point in their seasonal cycle. As I u= nderstand it, the aim is to reduce total mite burdens to non critical level= s that will ensure colony survival and productivity for the following parts= of their seasonal cycle. The management strategies, or in Randy's military= terms, weapons selected from the armoury, are again based on their relevan= t experiences. So what's wrong with that? Isn't that what we all do, all th= e time, in making management decisions for our livestocks' welfare and prod= uctivity? I hope I haven't missed anything here. In reading your post, it appears to me that you are railing against the con= cept of a "one size fits all" mite drop threshold, because anybody relying = on such a figure which materialises out of the "research" ether with no reg= ard to their bees location and their own management practices and objective= s, is doomed to a future of catastrophic hive losses. Very true from what I= have read, and I am sure both Eric and Randy would agree with you on that.= The problem I have is that neither have advocated that approach. =20 >From experience Eric has arrived at "a rule"; for him a mite drop count of = >55 per 24 hours in early September requires action, and this is also based= on an eyeballing of relative population strength. He also states; "Are there special factors (variables) that could interfere with the rule? = =20 Sure. Will I have hives that are big enough to withstand >55 mites? I'm= =20 sure I will. Could the 55 number be unnecessarily conservative? Perhaps,= =20 but more than enough hives (on average a majority) come under that=20 threshold for it to still be very useful. Is every winter going to be the= =20 same? Of course not. Is every strain of bee and every strain of mite=20 going to follow the same rules? Of course not. Are there going to be=20 regional differences? Sure. In short, there are lots of variables, but=20 they don't render the information we do have meaningless."....... "So from my perspective, experience, good sense, and scientific research=20 all strongly indicate that thresholds are a meaningful and useful=20 management tool." Randy followed with; "The concept of thresholds only fails if they=20 are used as a magic number that you wait for until you treat your colonies. They are very useful as predictors if you're on a dangerous trajectory, and= =20 I believe I covered them well as such in my article in ABJ. It's not at all hard to adjust them for colony strength by eyeballing. The most important thing is to use a sampling technique that is accurate an= d=20 appropriate for the season." Your response was;=20 "So, I'll insist again - thresholds are bunk. An unscientific approach with no more value than=20 a guess, at odds with the basic precepts of IPM as practiced in every other aspect of agriculture." So please Jim, for the varroa-illiterate, including me, what would we actua= lly do instead? You said; "And what of migratory beekeepers? What might they do? Well, they could take advantage of the experience of EVERY OTHER segment of agriculture, and their IPM programs, which are based on doing more than one measurement of one variable." OK, which variables? How many measurements? Regards PeterDetchon ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 21:13:30 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Keith Malone Subject: Re: Climate shift or ? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Richard, > I just uncovered the air conditioner less than a month > ago, but based on those birds I may have to prep the furnace soon! > If it turns out you need your furnace early then it will be warm this fall here where I am in Alaska. It seems to work out that way dependent strongly on the Jet Stream. No climate shift, just normally abnormal normal weather like has been happening since time began. Honey bees have been putting up with the roller coaster of the weather a very long time. Have a nice Summer, Keith Malone Chugiak, Alaska, USA ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 08:39:56 +0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Gavin Ramsay Subject: Re: Queen Rearing wasRe: [BEE-L] bees vs people MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ascii Hi Dee > So getting back then, to thoughts prior, if factory > farming and factory queens are for artificialized > hybrid crops by man's doing and not Nature, then why > isn't real queen breeding taught to sideliners and > hobbyists so they know the difference ... How do you define 'real queen breeding' and 'factory queens'? Over on this side of the Atlantic there are very few queens bought by sideliners and hobbyists, and not that many by commercial operators either. Quite a few hobby beekeepers make no selection at all and just rely on local queens and drones, whereas many select colonies to breed from and some control drones in some way too. Amongst hobby or small-scale beekeepers, a variety of queen raising methods are used - from colony splits to multiple nucs from swarming colonies to queen cell distribution to grafting a few hundred larvae into cell raising colonies. All of these are done by hobby beekeepers and sideliners, continuing a craft that goes back to the invention of moveable frames and, in the case of selection of stocks, to the beginnings of apiculture itself. Surely in the US you have the same spread of approaches, even if the availability of packages and commercial queens makes 'off-the-shelf' beekeeping more common. So what makes one approach 'real' or natural (moveable frames are certainly not natural) and another 'factory'? all the best Gavin ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 08:57:07 +0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Gavin Ramsay Subject: Re: Climate shift or ? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ascii Keith in Alaska wrote: > If it turns out you need your furnace early then it will be warm this > fall here where I am in Alaska. It seems to work out that way dependent > strongly on the Jet Stream. No climate shift, just normally abnormal > normal weather like has been happening since time began. The UK is having its worst beekeeping summer in a long time with frequent rain and, in some parts, flooding that is at an all-time record. My bees haven't brought in a surplus since early May and the weaker ones have needed feeding (and yes, my queens are local stock!). Queen raising is poor across many parts of the country due to poor flying weather. On the BBC last night the wet summer was blamed on a combination of the jet stream moving south, as it does here after an El Nino in the Pacific ends, blocking our usual anticyclones to the south, plus a slightly warmer climate causing heavier downpours, and also an element of bad luck. all the best Gavin ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:14:23 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?windows-1252?Q?Eric_Brown?= Subject: Re: bees vs people wasRe: [BEE-L] Pesticides Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >completely off the wall to me for not being in tune with >what is going on in the real world. The correlation between big, heavy producing hives (with lots of bees, lots of brood, and lots of drone brood) and varroa problems is exceedingly "real world." What have you seen? In yards where varroa has been a significant problem, after the main brood rearing season when varroa numbers are near their peak, which hives have the most varroa? Is it not the hives that have been brooding up the heaviest over the previous few months? ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 07:27:08 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dee Lusby Subject: Re: Climate shift or ? In-Reply-To: <200934.49688.qm@web86203.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Gavin: Though you may laugh, all the more reason to regress bees down in size to smaller with SC, for the bees then seem to acquire trait over months of flying earlier and later, and anticipating weather better, like rains, hot, and cold for earlier flying and later for getting the food in much better. Will stop with simply that said. Dee A. Lusby ____________________________________________________________________________________ Get the free Yahoo! toolbar and rest assured with the added security of spyware protection. http://new.toolbar.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/norton/index.php ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:47:56 -0400 Reply-To: bee-quick@bee-quick.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: Pesticides and IPM In-Reply-To: <00c701c7cdb0$514716a0$0200a8c0@homestead1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > mite fall counts can be used to trigger a particular management strategy, > which is appropriate for them and their bees, in their locations at that > point in their seasonal cycle. My objection is simply that they are advocating checking far too late, reducing their "management" to the level of triaging the doomed from the survivors rather than actually treating colonies that could be "saved". (Monty Python and The Holy Grail: "Bring Out Your Dead!") If you dismiss the above as "too radical a view", I can offer the less confrontational statement "We want hives that THRIVE, rather than barely SURVIVE". (Catchy, eh?) I don't question that they think their approaches are acceptable. But let's ask them - do they use the SAME threshold numbers? Betcha they don't. Let's hear how long they leave their sticky boards in, and what they count, and how they count. Betcha they don't follow the same protocol in getting their drop counts, either a) 3 days and divide by 3, or one day and count the total?" b) Count all mites, or ignore white (immature) mites? c) Count during rain, when bees are confined, or count on foraging days? d) Use the Great Lakes "checkerboard" card, or a plain card? I could go on, but all the factors listed above clearly impact the numbers, so if one is going to toss a number around, one needs to at least define some context for the number in terms of how it is MEASURED. So what's some OTHER guy to do? Run his own little experiment to determine what "threshold" seems to be reasonable for him in his location, with his bees? Naw, he's gonna accept whatever number he finds first, as bet his bees, his crop, and perhaps his farm on a contextless scalar from someone with very different conditions from his own. I challenge you - do a Google search for "varroa threshold" and just see how many different numbers are floating around out there, each and every one presented as "authoritative". Which one do you use? Now, let's take a typical population graph for both bees and varroa, like this one: http://www.oie.int/eng/normes/mmanual/2.9.05-2.JPG (Bee population is the solid line, mite population is the dotted line) So, given that even queen producers are unable to control varroa sufficiently to prevent the shipment of queens infected with multiple viruses, what can we say about the "best practices" of beekeeping as a whole? We can at least say that a good number of people have no idea WHERE THEIR HIVES ARE ON THAT GRAPH. Clearly some sort of graph like this would be of value even if one only counted mites, and ignored bee population levels. Look at the ramp-up of mite population. When do YOUR varroa populations start to "go exponential"? Well, that's when you start to get multiple varroa per brood cell, which is when the virus situation goes completely nuts. You want to knock back the varroa population BEFORE then, if you want a hive that will thrive, rather than merely survive. And what happens in a year with conditions more conducive to varroa reproduction? So much of beekeeping is tied to weather, and varies from season to season. Hives can "crash" from varroa infestation before either one of them will even get around to looking at mite drop counts. So, let's review: 1) A single measurement is a point. It raises more questions than it resolves, as it lacks any context. 2) Two points can be connected by a line. What's the SLOPE of the line? Now that we have a slope, we can talk about a rate of change! 3) Three points can reveal a "curve" of sorts. Now we can talk about the rate of change in the slope, look at the area under the curve, do integrals, and know lots lots more about the trend we are tracking. 4) Measurement is inherently "sloppy", so any one point is not to be trusted. But even with "sloppy" numbers, one can see a trend. So, we can conclude from the above that 3 counts would be a much better idea than one, and the marginal cost of doing 3 counts is pure semi-skilled labor - something that can be done by someone who needs only approach hives in the evening, need not open hives, and can be completely unskilled in "beekeeping". Sounds to me like a great part-time job for a high-school student who might otherwise be looking for lawns to cut. > As I understand it, the aim is to reduce total mite burdens to non > critical levels that will ensure colony survival and productivity > for the following parts of their seasonal cycle. This simply is not possible when their approach is to wait until "September" (fall up here above the equator). Mite levels are sure to reach and exceed "critical levels" in some cases before 2nd or 3rd pull of supers. Waiting for Fall to do one's first mite count means that one has let varroa have its way with your colonies all season, and one is merely triaging "doomed", "treatable", and "very lucky" hives. Any program that does not include taking hives (or entire yards) out of production to treat them for excessive infestation is merely a method of counting one's losses before winter begins. > The management strategies... are again based on their relevant > experiences. So what's wrong with that? Well, let's take the statements made and apply them to a context that will make the level of fuzzy thinking more obvious: Let's try the cliche of the "Cowboy and Indian" movie, with the wagon train moving across territory that can only be described as "hostile". They have bought into a policy of only worrying about Indians if they see 55 or more approaching. But they don't even LOOK for Indians until they are nearly done their journey, and ignore the different sizes of wagon trains they lead, some small enough to be wiped out by a mere dozen attackers. Does this sound like a fool-proof way to get the settlers to their destinations with their scalps intact? > Isn't that what we all do, all the time, in making management decisions > for our livestocks' welfare and productivity? I hope I haven't missed > anything here. What has been missed is the simple concept of making management decisions based upon an understanding of: - The life-cycle of the pest. - The reality of less-than-perfect results from treatment. - The ability of varroa infestation levels to get out of hand early. - The inherent variability of one season from another > it appears to me that you are railing against the concept of a "one size > fits all" mite drop threshold, because anybody relying on such a figure > which materialises out of the "research" ether with no regard to their > bees location and their own management practices and objectives, is doomed > to a future of catastrophic hive losses. What you describe as "catastrophic losses" are being called "normal" over here on this side of the planet. That's the problem. People are accepting losses like 20% as "normal". Using "thresholds" is a big part of what results in these "catastrophic losses". The losses from varroa alone are bad enough that there is an actual argument bouncing around that "CCD does not exist", and "the losses are due to poor varroa management". > I am sure both Eric and Randy would agree with you on that. No, they want to call their approaches not just "sufficient", but "successful". The "one-size-fits-all" approach is exactly what they openly promote to others. > From experience Eric has arrived at "a rule"; for him a mite drop count > of >55 per 24 hours in early September requires action, and this is also > based on an eyeballing of relative population strength. > He [Eric] also states; >> "Are there special factors (variables) that could interfere with the rule? >> Sure. Will I have hives that are big enough to withstand >55 mites? I'm >> sure I will. Could the 55 number be unnecessarily conservative? Perhaps, >> but more than enough hives (on average a majority) come under that >> threshold for it to still be very useful. Is every winter going to be the >> same? Of course not. Is every strain of bee and every strain of mite >> going to follow the same rules? Of course not. Are there going to be >> regional differences? Sure. In short, there are lots of variables, but >> they don't render the information we do have meaningless."....... Yeah, when you ask some questions, suddenly the excuses appear, and the backpedaling is so hard, the chain comes off their bicycle. So with all those exceptions, what does the number "55" mean? I submit that it has no meaning at all. It is a scalar trying to do the job of a vector or a curve. But there are many, many more variables that a "threshold" approach ignores: 1) No treatment is going to give you a 100% kill, so different hives are going to start in early spring with different varroa levels. Without some sort of check in Spring, these higher varroa populations are going to get completely out of hand well before they get around to doing their first (and ONLY) mite drop count in Fall. 2) Some hives tend to have more drone comb than others, and their varroa populations ramp up more quickly as a result. These hives become the source of higher infestation for all colonies in the same yard, due to the "drift" factor, which is a much bigger component in varroa management than many beekeepers will admit. 3) Some queens just don't stop laying as soon as others, so one does not get the kill rate one expects, and that hive has a much higher varroa level after treatment. Someone who only has one data point on their graph will never see this. I could go on, you get the idea. >> "The concept of thresholds only fails if they are used as a magic number >> that you wait for until you treat your colonies." But that's EXACTLY WHAT IS BEING ADVOCATED!!! >> They are very useful as predictors if you're on a dangerous trajectory, No, a "trajectory" would imply that one has done more than one mite count, and has some idea of a TREND. To predict a TREND, one needs at least a LINE! A single point, in isolation, only allows one to compare this colony with that one at THIS point in time, which is a useless bit of trivia. >> It's not at all hard to adjust them for colony strength by eyeballing. >> The most important thing is to use a sampling technique that is accurate and >> appropriate for the season." Ah, yet more backpedaling. So one needs many different thresholds, do they? One for "weak", one for "average", and one for "robust" hives? Funny, Eric said "greater than 55", without qualification. Looks like Randy and Eric have very different evaluation methods for their "thresholds". > So please Jim, for the varroa-illiterate, including me, what would we actually do instead? 1) You admit that varroa do not infest hives, but entire yards. 2) You use sentinel colonies, and you test at regular intervals, especially in early spring, when it is easy to get a good kill due to small brood areas and confined bee populations. (Nip the problem in the bud! What's so radical about that?) 3) You use queen cages to assure that you are treating during a "broodless period". You pick your dearth, and you manage your BEE POPULATION as a way to manage the varroa population. 4) You take advantage of winter and early spring as a time when you can check EVERY colony, perhaps not with an accurate count, but at least with a quick glance at a sticky board to see if you have any colonies that are "varroa factories", and will be sources of reinfestation for the other colonies in the yard. 5) You test weak colonies when you see weak colonies. Sure, it may be nothing but a lousy queen, but wouldn't you rather know? The impact on the yard is what you care about. There's a whole lot of good techniques out there, and I did not come up with ANY of these approaches myself. The extension community tried to convince beekeepers to do real IPM for YEARS. (Search for "IPM" in the archives of Bee-L, and you will see how prudent IPM was met with blank stares and whining by the beekeeping community. The extension community learned the hard way that they were wasting their time trying to teach IPM to beekeepers, so what we ended up with is the current "Special Olympics" approach to IPM. > OK, which variables? How many measurements? Well, no one has mentioned even tracking weather data. Clearly weather has an impact on every other IPM program ever developed, so I don't need to "justify" this do I? But I don't want to push too hard here - it is enough to insist that one can't see a "trend" with a single point on a graph, and that waiting until "Fall" to test is way, way too late. This is very reasonable, and is basic to the entire concept of "IPM". Recall that the word "data" is a collective noun. To have "data", you have to have more than one value. So, treatment decisions are being made WITHOUT DATA!!!! Gack! What's so hard to grock about that? ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 07:55:08 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Grant Gillard Subject: Re: Queen Rearing wasRe: [BEE-L] bees vs people In-Reply-To: <69193.1061.qm@web51607.mail.re2.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I've been raising my own queens the past couple of seasons. I have one of those little boxes (Nicot, Jentner) and it takes a little "education" to get those to work. I like the idea of raising my locally adapted queens from selected stock that responds to my management skill and/or incompetence. But what I find is a troubling inability to keep all these details straight while at the same time holding down a "real" job, trying to schedule the weather to suit my free time, and carrying out all the details of a comb honey production, catching swarms, selling honey at farmer's markets, etc. Beekeeping, and all of its particular enterprises, is a lot like that fella on the Ed Sullivan show who used to spin plates. To the audience's fascination, he would add more plates, and just as the first one would wobble, he'd rush over there, give it a spin, then rush to the next one and give it another spin. The ideal was to keep all these plates spinning. That's how I feel about beekeeping. Lots of plates. It is easier to simply call up a reputable queen breeder/producer and order queens, even if they have what some would call a "factory." I see the same thing with hog producers and cattlemen. Instead of trying to juggle and spin all the plates, we have become specialized and focused. In some cases, some farmers have abdicated their marketing efforts to a broker so they can focus on the production, and even still, they tend to limit the focus on certain aspects of production. Some days I feel like I'm spread too thin. Too many plates. But then it is still my choice, and I choose to be diverse in my beekeeping practices. Grant Jackson, MO --------------------------------- Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 08:13:24 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dee Lusby Subject: Re: bees vs people wasRe: [BEE-L] Pesticides In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Eric: To see strong hives heavy with varroa is to be on LC then and that is not natural anyways. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Got a little couch potato? Check out fun summer activities for kids. http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:19:30 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Deja vu all over again In-Reply-To: <469F9FE8.7060100@suscom-maine.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I really need help and will be seeing specialists soon. My problem is that I keep reading the same thing over and over on this list. Since I know it is a list for informed discussion, it must be that I suffer from deja vu. After all, no sane group of people would continually go over the exact same material again and again and again. If they did, I know the mental health people would come and confine them to small cells. Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 08:58:53 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: randy oliver Subject: Re: Pesticides and IPM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> I am sure both Eric and Randy would agree with you on that. > Jim claimed:> No, they want to call their approaches not just "sufficient", but > "successful". The "one-size-fits-all" approach is exactly what > they openly promote to others. I don't speak for Eric, and I sure as heck don't need Jim speaking for me. I can't imagine that anyone who actually took the time to read my articles could feel that I promote any sort of "one size fits all strategy"! In the first place, mite growth never "goes exponential," it is exponential as soon as bees begin broodrearing. I've been adamant about not waiting until mite populations build to high levels to treat! Take a moment and actually read my articles, Jim! I promote a strategy of never allowing mite levels to get above a 2% infestation rate! I'm not sure if drone trapping and powdered sugar dusting will be commercially viable. I'm testing it on a fair scale--I bought 500 pounds of powdered sugar this week that I will dust in the next two weeks. However, feedback on the methods this year from small beeks has been incredible! Sugar dusting over a screened bottom gives them immediate feedback on their mite infestation every time they dust. If counts are up, they dust again in a week; if counts are low, they can wait a month. Very empowering, and keeps them very much in touch with the level of mite infestation. Respondents are bringing high mite counts down, and maintaining low mite counts. We've had a dry spring/summer, so mite reproduction has been low in Calif, but I get feedback from all over the country. All positive! There are some unanswered questions: 1. How long should I wait after dusting to take my mite count? 2. How does the number of mites correlate to mite infestation level? 3. What is the actual total percent mite kill due to one good dusting? I am starting a series of experiments this week to answer those questions. Have hired a mite counter/technician. I'm not saying that sugar dusting/drone trapping is for all, either. In my series I've frankly discussed the problems and benefits of virtually every known treatment (two articles are in press right now, covering formic acid and thymol). Oxalic acid dribble is extremely effective and safe as a winter treatment. In my area, it is best applied a few days after Christmas. Resets the mite pop back close to zero, so the exponential growth begins from a lower setting. Simple spring management techniques or treatments then can be used to retard the slope of the growth, as Jim says. Sugar dusting can completely arrest it. Mite management in Florida will, of course, be totally different than management in Alberta. However, by having a firm grasp of mite population dynamics, and the choice of means to retard mite population growth, any diligent beekeeper can deal with the mite. The biggest unresolved problem is other beekeepers, for two reasons. First, their drones can dilute good mite-tolerant lines of bees. Second, their collapsing colonies can result in overwhelming "immigration" of mites into your operation when they are robbed out by your bees. Only regular monitoring of mite levels will give you a heads up of when this is happening. I hope this is of some help to all. Randy Oliver ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 07:36:49 -1000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Howard McGinnis Subject: Problem bees In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I got called by a manangement company regarding large numbers of bees on some properties. I don't think I've ever seen so many bees on one lot without actually having a hive on it and the tenant says that what I was seeing wasn't too bad. The bees are coming for food and water and they are coming from at least two directions, from a shipyard (where I might be able to find and relocate the hive(s)) and across a waterway from scrub land (Navy property and lot's of it - I may be able to get on the property). The tenant had approached me last year about her problem and I suggested placing alternative sources of water away from the house. Apparently they tried with little success. I suggested relocating some of the plants to the banks of the waterway and providing a source of water there, giving the girls what they want away from the house. I'm contemplating trapping foragers (not a nice thought) so that knowledge of the area may dim and possibly reduce the numbers that visit (and it's a lot - not hundreds, but probably thousands - and that was at 8:30 in the morning). Any suggestions to modify the behaviour? Thanks, Howard ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:02:33 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Paul Cherubini Subject: Re: Climate shift or ? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Coleene wrote: > here-central lower Michigan-I was wondering if what I am seeing > is just here or elsewhere as well. > Today is July 20 and I am seeing Goldenrod starting to bloom and > Knapweed is in full bloom. The Milkweed is done,the Asters are > ready to pop and there is a local farmer that is getting ready to > harvest corn! Everything is about 4 weeks early. This past spring and early summer in Michigan has been warmer than normal, but nothing real unusual or worrisome. Example: Here's a graph of the April-June mean temperatures in Michigan for the period 1950-2007 http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/4af/micha.jpg and the period 1895-2007: http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/4af/michb.jpg Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif. * data obtained from http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/cag3.html ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 19:08:58 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter Edwards Subject: Re: Deja vu all over again MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well said Bill! I am disappointed that I am beginning to find this list rather tedious. 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: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:09:54 -0400 Reply-To: bee-quick@bee-quick.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: Pesticides and IPM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > In the first place, mite growth never "goes exponential," > it is exponential as soon as bees begin broodrearing. OK, semantics again - the last refuge of a man with his back to the wall. :) Look at the graph I cited: http://www.oie.int/eng/normes/mmanual/2.9.05-2.JPG (Bee population is the solid line, mite population is the dotted line) What I called "going exponential" shows up in June on that graph. The line is no longer straight, but instead curved, showing that one clearly has more than linear growth. (Yes, the entire curve can be called "exponential", but not until one plots the points that start to curve upwards.) > I'm not sure if drone trapping and powdered sugar > dusting will be commercially viable. OK, let's talk about your treatment choices, aa you clearly are promoting them as "effective" to other beekeepers in ABJ, and doing so without any statistical rigor... no, without any statistics or controls at all! Well, drone trapping seems a bit of a stretch, given the ticking time bomb that is a frame full of drone brood. Somehow I'd guess that this approach is only practical for the smaller-scale operations. :) But sugar dusting as you do it (pouring sugar on the top bars, and brushing it down between the frames) may or may not provide a level of control equal to the application methodology developed back in 2000 by the "inventor" of the approach. I can see how the bees highest on the frames would be showered with sugar, but I don't see how one would get enough of the small (5 to 15 micron) particles required to clog the tarsal pads of varroa on bees that are not near the tops of the frames, and dislodge them. This is why "poofing" the sugar was the suggested technique, as it maximizes the number of fine particles, and assures more complete coverage. (You can find my old Bee-L "Step-By-Step" post covering the approach with powdered sugar that was supported by actual studies if you care to, or you can look at the ABJ's from 2000.) While the brushing approach certainly does reduce the time and labor required, and may be a significant improvement in technique, I don't think that one can claim that this approach has similar efficacy to the application methods that have been proven by controlled studies to have a significant impact on varroa populations. Technique matters. For example, using 9mm ammo in a blow-dart gun will have nowhere near the impact of using 9mm ammo in a pistol. :) > feedback on the methods this year from small beeks has > been incredible! Were you around back when everyone was all excited about food-grade mineral oil? Sadly, excitement and enthusiasm does not imply that the technique has any value in doing the job. Sucracide is another recent example. The history of late 20th-Century beekeeping is littered with the wreckage of things that seemed like a good idea at the time. > Sugar dusting over a screened bottom gives them immediate > feedback on their mite infestation every time they dust. Well, one can spray pure water on bees and see what appears to be an impressive "result" in terms of mite fall. The question has to be about the results of passive ("natural") mite fall a week after the treatment, and the impact (if any) on the slope of the curve of the varroa population growth. > If counts are up, they dust again in a week; if counts are > low, they can wait a month. So, the "count" is a count of what fell as a direct result of the powdered sugar treatment? Wow, that would be such a random number, one could never determine the actual impact of the treatment. > Very empowering, Emotionally satisfying, perhaps. All that is lacking is a "weapon" similar to the foggers. (Big noise, lots of "smoke", very emotionally satisfying.) But I would not call it "empowering" unless what resulted was lower natural mite drops at some point after the treatment. To be "empowering", first it has to be effective. > and keeps them very much in touch with the level of mite > infestation. I'm pretty certain you can't make any conclusions from the mere number of mites dislodged by the treatment itself. Ask someone who has published a few mite studies, I think you will find that mite fall counts from treatment have been shown to be misleading, no matter what treatment is chosen. > Respondents are bringing high mite counts down, and > maintaining low mite counts. See above, I'm not sure you can make that statement based upon the way you are collecting your numbers. What was the term you slung in my general direction a few weeks or months ago? Oh, that's right- "Vain-Glorious". I lot of people thought "Sucracide" worked great too... until the numbers came in from someone who knew how to count mites and do their math. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:13:58 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?windows-1252?Q?Eric_Brown?= Subject: Re: bees vs people wasRe: [BEE-L] Pesticides Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >To see strong hives heavy with varroa is to be on LC then >and that is not natural anyways. Who's talking about the "real world" now? ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:14:12 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Aaron Morris Subject: Re: Deja vu all over again In-Reply-To: <200707241807.l6OHDgJ6013260@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > I am disappointed that I am beginning to find this list > rather tedious. Alas, I suspect this is a result of no moderation. Since I turned moderation off, the volume has skyrocketed and the quality has plumented. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:37:16 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?windows-1252?Q?Eric_Brown?= Subject: Re: Pesticides and IPM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:47:56 -0400, James Fischer wrote: >Eric >said "greater than 55", without qualification. The only time I ever threw out a number (55), I made all sorts of qualifications, many of which should have been obvious and unnecessary, but I made them anyway. In any case, your assertion above is blatantly false. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:25:08 -0700 Reply-To: k.kellison@earthlink.net Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Kathy Kellison MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Hi All, apologies if this has been asked and answered... does anyone have any evidence whether feral colonies of EHB suffered from CCD? Thanks, Kathy Kathy Kellison k.kellison@earthlink.net Why Wait? Move to EarthLink. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 19:03:22 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Lloyd Spear Subject: Moderators MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Aaron said "Since I turned moderation off, the volume has skyrocketed and the quality has plumented." Yep, and you ain't seen anything yet! Why not turn 'moderation' back on, but (1) list moderators' names and (2) get a new list of moderators. Some of those on this list would be excellent, IMHO (and I'm not including myself). Not the 'old guard'! I bet you get some 'volunteers' if you asked them personally. I won't list names as I don't want to volunteer for them. IMHO, the 'rules' are fine. My gripe has always been how the rules have been applied or enforced...which is always the basic problem. But no moderation is just asking for the list to die! -- Lloyd Spear Owner Ross Rounds, Inc. Manufacture of equipment for round comb honey sections, Sundance Pollen Traps, and producer of Sundance custom labels. Contact your dealer or www.RossRounds.com ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 19:28:18 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Mike_R?= Subject: Re: Pesticides and IPM (a slight digression) Comments: To: bee-quick@BEE-QUICK.COM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit This is a most interesting discussion guys! I might be a little out of my league here, so please excuse me if I'm just plain off-base. I'm taking a look at the graph cited. I'm wondering what collection and/or assessment method was used to count the Varroa population for that study? Please excuse me as I am a little confused about the whole matter. I wonder if the 'ether roll' was used, or perhaps the entire colony was killed and rolled or whatever? James mentioned: >"Well, one can spray pure water on bees and see what appears >to be an impressive "result" in terms of mite fall. The >question has to be about the results of passive ("natural") >mite fall a week after the treatment, and the impact (if any) >on the slope of the curve of the varroa population growth." I would suggest that a person probably doesn't want to "spray...water on the bees" but if a person should want to take this approach it could work! [probably not though]. Whatever approach is used, it shouldn't significantly impact the colony itself (my opinion). I think that whatever approach one might take to controlling Varroa population a few steps MUST be taken: 1) Count the mite population (somehow) - however you do it, do it consistently so that you have a basis for your observations. No method of assessment/observation is foolproof, but SOME method is better than NO method, no?. 2) Identify a method of killing Varroa that works for you (semantically, practically and economically, etc). Mite population growth does seem to reach a point where "exponential growth" occurs - I think the trick is to reduce and/or control population counts to prevent that critical threshold from being reached. And here is the fly in the ointment: WHAT is that critical threshold for your bees/setting/methods? I can only discover my bees 'threshold' (if you will) by assessing the condition of my colonies. [see #1] ...or waiting for the dead-out (ain't gonna do that!). >"The question has to be about the results of passive ("natural") > mite fall a week after the treatment, and the impact (if any) >on the slope of the curve of the varroa >population growth." My choice of 'treatment' involves dusting w. powdered sugar. I'm sticking with this choice until a more suitable technique is discovered (suitable for me that is). I repeat this technique at regular intervals. It's sort-of like checking the oil in my engine... Is there enough oil? Is there any oil? Do I need to put more oil in? Do I need to rebuild the engine??? >"I'm pretty certain you can't make any conclusions from the >mere number of mites dislodged by the treatment itself." You might have a point there, but is it not safe to assume that if a mite isn't around to lay eggs then that mite can't reproduce -> vis-à-vis a direct reduction in Varroa population? When a mite ends up on my sticky board and not on a larval bee, then I know that this is an indication of direct mite population reduction. I know for a fact that Varroa has a phoretic stage between parasitism and reproduction. Mite on stickyboard = mite that can't reproduce further! Also keep in mind that mites have a very limited amount of reproductive capacity - they must 'wash-rinse-repeat' in order to have a shot at reproducing exponentially. I recall a figure that states a mite can only produce a finite amount of offspring per parasitism/emergence/phoretic/re-parasitism cycle (2 or 3 maybe?). This is a KEY point that is easily overlooked. Anyhow here's a little thought experiment: Imagine I have a 'normal' colony of bees. Somehow I can make an EXACT copy of that very colony (I have a magic ray-gun, don't worry about the details for now). So now I take these two IDENTICAL colonies and I use powdered sugar dusting to asses or count the number of Varroa destructor mites in each colony. What assurance do I have that both *Identical* colonies will provide the same mite counts? In other words, what is the degree of variance between these two counts? Is it possible that the 'powdered-sugar' technique could have enough variance between applications/scenarios to cause me to believe that my mite counts are dropping when in fact the only thing changing is the dusting itself (or how many mites got hit this time around)? In my mind the answer is "NO". I imagine that even if I have as much as a 30% error between various counts, by using the stated approach I would know that something was wrong, eventually (trending anyone?). I think that the dreaded 'exponential population curve' that always looms on the horizon seems to take care of any possibility that count error could mask insufficient results. I'm curious to know what others think. My head hurts, - Mike Sacramento, Ca ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 19:58:12 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: George Williams Subject: Re: Moderators MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ladies and gentlemen There are several contributors to this list that have there own never ending agendas; small cell is only one of them! I have a delete key which is nearly worn off the lettering. All you have to do is use it too! Be selective there are a lot of jewels to be discovered on the list almost daily. I enjoy the list too much to want the previous censorship to be reinstated. I'm in hopes that many will agree with me. George Williams an aged small hobby beekeeper ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 22:09:15 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?windows-1252?Q?Eric_Brown?= Subject: Re: Pesticides and IPM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >So what's some OTHER guy to do? Run his own little experiment to >determine what "threshold" seems to be reasonable for him in >his location, with his bees? Naw, he's gonna accept whatever >number he finds first, as bet his bees, his crop, and perhaps >his farm on a contextless scalar from someone with very different >conditions from his own. Yes, if the "other guy" is prudent he will test his own thresholds, using his own methods, strain of bees, in his own location, etc., and if he's rash he may accept whatever number he finds first and bet the whole farm on it. The value of the various published thresholds is in defining a range. Seeing a range of published thresholds helps a beekeeper to find a starting point. If a beekeeper wants to minimize the risk of the published thresholds translating poorly to his circumstances, then he can begin with a lower number on the range. If there are no signs of varroa trouble at the lower threshold numbers, he may decide that it's prudent to try a higher threshold. >Hives can "crash" from varroa infestation >before either one of them will even get around to looking at mite >drop counts. Sure they can, but they're more likely to die following the conventional treatment time (August in this part of the country), which makes a mite count at that time of year (or shortly before) most useful. Moreover, most beekeepers aren't going to consider treating until the conventional treatment time anyway. We can give them a means of answering a question they're not interested in (should I treat in June/July?), but it makes a lot more sense to begin by offering an answer to a question that might interest them (most beekeepers): I'm going to treat at such and such time of year unless you can convince me that it's not necessary -- is it necessary? Your emphasis, Jim, on the rate of varroa increase seems misplaced to me, though. If I told you, for instance, that over the last two months the rate of growth in my varroa drop count was doubling every month, what might you advise me to do in the field? On the other hand, if you told me you took a one-time count in late July on your bees in North Carolina and your natural drop was 12/day, I could make a pretty good guess as to what your rate of increase was. Based on that, I would generally advise you not to treat in August, because a normal rate of increase wouldn't put you over the over-wintering economic threshold. I certainly wouldn't discourage you from taking another count in September to make sure your hive didn't experience an unusually high rate of varroa increase in late summer. And I wouldn't discourage you from taking counts in April or May either. But the pre-winter peak is properly the most critical question, and the reason I say that is because I believe the mite load that a hive can take through the summer without serious adverse consequences is much higher than the mite load that a hive can take through the winter without serious adverse consequences. The high natural turnover in the bee population helps minimize a lot of the adverse consequences in the summer. Of course, mite loads are typically increasing in the summer, so a tolerable mite load in May doesn't necessarily mean a tolerable mite load in August, whereas a tolerable mite load in September pretty well does mean a tolerable mite load all the way through March. But I certainly wouldn't compromise my July honey crop because a hive was dropping 60 mites/day in late June, whereas 60 mites/day in September would, for me, justify immediate action. Similarly, I would expect 30 mites/day in early August to grow to 60/day in September, such that I would take action in August. There are also more things that can happen (like swarms) that will seriously skew the data in spring and early summer. Things are more stable in my bee yards by late summer, which makes it easier to foresee the consequences of a given mite load and therefore to put the data to better use. Moreover, there are years (like 2006) where basically none of my hives ever reached threshold. With no other indications of varroa problems, I'd be fairly comfortable with just one count in early August to reassure me. If numbers are really low in May/June, as they typically are, I have a hard time seeing the point in taking extensive counts. >They have bought into a policy of >only worrying about Indians if they see 55 or more approaching. >But they don't even LOOK for Indians until they are nearly >done their journey, and ignore the different sizes of wagon >trains they lead, some small enough to be wiped out by a mere >dozen attackers. > >Does this sound like a fool-proof way to get the settlers >to their destinations with their scalps intact? I have several problems with your analogy. First, the "fool-proof" standard is an absurd standard. I want to make money with my beekeeping. Trying to save every last hive isn't the way to make money. There's a point at which the cost of indentifying and 'saving' a small percentage of problem hives isn't worth the gain. Secondly, if I'm still in Chicago, the likelihood of an Indian attack is slim enough that I can pretty well not even look for Indians. If my hives are in danger of crashing in the middle of spring management, it's not going to catch me off guard. And when I get to South Dakota, if I'm leading a wagon train that couldn't even fend of 12 Indians, I probably ought to find another wagon train to join up with anyway, regardless of Indians. >1) You admit that varroa do not infest hives, but entire yards. I know you have your theories for saying this, but do you have any data? Even informal data? I can say I've seen hives dropping 300 mites/day next to hives dropping 2 mites/day. Eric ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 20:06:08 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: randy oliver Subject: Re: Pesticides and IPM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jim said: > OK, semantics again - the last refuge of a man with his back to the wall. :) Hardly semantics, a very important point. Every section of that graph has exactly the same curve--just depends upon the scale you use on the Y axis. Mite treatment can be effective at any point, and gets more bang for the buck earlier. But I can see I waste my time. My back's hardly to the wall--in fact it's sore from lifting all the honey that my chemical-free colonies are making. I'm too busy splitting those healthy colonies, and signing almond contracts for colonies that will fetch a premium price in February. I won't be complaining about winter losses, and don't need to contaminate my combs with any synthetic miticides. Jim, you're absolutely right! People should read my carefully researched articles, and detailed testing results for amusement only. For those who choose to ignore this advice, I'll have articles on the subject of vitellogenin, how it explains protein dynamics in the colony, and how this information can be used to make cost-effective feeding choices, appearing in the two bee magazines beginning in August. Again, use any of this information at your own risk! : ) Randy Oliver ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 00:54:35 -0400 Reply-To: bee-quick@bee-quick.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: Pesticides and IPM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Randy said: > Every section of that graph has exactly the same curve- > -just depends upon the scale you use on the Y axis. I'm not sure where Randy thinks the scale on the Y axis changes in he graph cited several posts ago, but I assure everyone that looking at a few graphs of "natural mite drop" (or better yet, make some yourself) will confirm that the general curve depicted is very consistent, and a single (linear) scale can be used. While one MIGHT say that it would be possible to see that the growth is "exponential" from the start, the inherent sloppy nature of the measurements tend to hide this. Even ether rolls tend to show "linear" increases in varroa counts in early stages, and I've yet to hear anyone claim to have a sampling technique better than ether rolls. So, the data shows, in early stages, what appears to be "straight-line linear growth", and only "goes exponential" after a while. Not surprisingly, this correlates to mite population growth very well. > Mite treatment can be effective at any point, and gets > more bang for the buck earlier. This statement flies in the face of the ENTIRE BASIC CONCEPT OF IPM itself, where the goal is to only treat when and where it is necessary to do so, making conscious decisions based upon objective metrics and criteria. Randy seems to have thought that a discussion of IPM data collection would not be complete without discussing his approach of using mite fall as a result of treatment with powdered sugar as if it were a reliable number. While there are such protocols for the short-term use of Apistan strips (and even CheckMite strips) in prompting mite fall, the gold standard remains the "natural mite fall" from a colony not subjected to any outside influence or overt attempt to dislodge mites. So it is impossible to say if the numbers generated by treatment with powdered sugar are consistent, or of any value at all. Now, in the case of the powdered sugar treatment itself, the specific methodology that has been proven in controlled studies to actually be an effective control for varroa was described in this paper: http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/maa/selai/vk/fakhimzadeh/detectio.p df Other approaches to application methods, such as Randy's practice of dumping the sugar on the top bars, and using a bee brush to spread it around, so that it falls between the top bars, may or may not be as effective. On the other hand, they may be more effective - we just don't know, do we? An understanding of the mechanism by which powdered sugar works can be gained by reading the paper (or the ABJ article from 2000 that presented much of the same information) reveals that one wants lots of little tiny particles only a few microns in diameter. The use of great massive globs of sugar may have no effect at all, or may be a hindrance, we just don't know. But this thread was about IPM, and I merely dared to, yet again, do nothing more than state the blindingly obvious about data collection as applied to a single-variable measurement (such as varroa population) in the context of making a treatment decision. I'm not sure why there is any argument on this, as the term "threshold" inherently means a pest/prey threshold by definition, and without an accurate count of both pests and prey, one cannot claim to have a "threshold". I'm not sure how we got off "IPM" and onto Randy's weekly powdered sugar dusting techniques, but the astute observer will recall that we have seen a number of attempts to come up with a better control for varroa, and the success rate has been less than spectacular for those attempts not supported by rigorous statistical proof that compares the treatment to some known treatment approach (for example, one of the miticides). Regardless, the difference between a single data point as a result of a single measurement, and multiple data points as a result of multiple measurements should need no further explanation, as there are no IPM seminars that will advise anyone to make any decision based upon a single context-free number as a result of a single measurement of a single variable. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 06:53:42 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dick Marron Subject: Pesticides and IPM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit At the risk of getting singed I thought I'd jump into the discussion before it dies a well deserved death. Being a psychologist and used to working with murky stuff I can countenance opposites at the time. Jim is technically right but to me, intuitively wrong. Here's why. A set of data points need not be taken over time to be relevant. Having a yard with 12 colonies allows me to check them all. It stands to reason that they didn't all start at the same place in the spring. Some will be more hygienic and others may drift more carrying mites around. Add in your favorite variables. Some will be over any threshold. The mite counts give me 12 data points that, while taken at the same time, allow for a graph. The curve thus generated gives a picture of the progression of mite growth, since each point actually depicts varroa in a different stage of taking over. Then I can squint my eyes really hard, compress the mean, the median and the mode and intuit a number I can live with. Or not. Don't tell me it doesn't mean anything and don't trouble me with logic. It helps if I put my fingers in my ears so I can't hear Jim winding up to bowl again. Will my number mean anything to my Fl yard of 12 hives. I'll certainly consider it if I find a time of year that correlates. Einstein is reputed to have said, "I have the answer. What remains is to find out how I got it." I have tried to make logical something I know but have never tried to m express in a linear fashion. Dick Marron (Happily noting that my untreated hives have no mites. Zero. Nada. Nil. Zed.. Curve that.) ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 07:44:14 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "Peter L. Borst" Subject: Sex and the Honey Bee MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline * Virgin female reproduction (parthenogenesis) has been studied extensively, notably by Dr. Warwick Kerr. * It is worth noting that the race primarily known for this trait is also considered a disastrous pest, reinforcing the idea that asexual reproduction is harmful in the long run. > One known case of somatic parthenogenesis in the honey bee (Kerr unpublished) suggests automictic parthenogenesis. This type of somatic parthenogenesis requires meiotic chromosome reduction, as opposed to apomictic parthenogenesis in which meiosis is completely absent. Kerr obtained results denoting meiotic chromosome reduction; these were the appearance of two homozygous recessives among eight impaternate worker bees from heterozygous unmated queens. > Occasionally worker honeybees develop ovaries and lay unfertilized eggs. Usually these are haploid, as you would expect, and develop into males. However, workers of the subspecies Apis mellifera capensis (the Cape honeybee) can lay unfertilized diploid eggs that develop into females (who continue the practice). The eggs are produced by meiosis, but then the polar body nucleus fuses with the egg nucleus restoring diploidy. (The phenomenon is called automictic thelytoky.) (1) * * * Why choose asexual reproduction? Perhaps the better question is: Why not? After all, asexual reproduction would seem a more efficient way to reproduce and avoids all sorts of problems. Perhaps sexual reproduction has kept in style because it provides a mechanism to weed out harmful mutations that arise in the population (through the recombination process of meiosis). Evidence (from Paland and Lynch in the 17 February 2006 issue of Science): Some strains of the water flea Daphnia pulex (a tiny crustacean) reproduce sexually, others asexually. The asexual strains accumulate *deleterious mutations* in their mitochondrial genes four times as fast as the sexual strains. But there are many examples of populations that thrive without sex, at least while they live in a stable environment. Perhaps it is the ability to adapt to a changing environment that has caused sex to remain the method of choice for most living things. Evidence (from Goddard et al. in the 31 March 2005 issue of Nature): Budding yeast missing two genes essential for meiosis adapt less rapidly to growth under harsh conditions than an otherwise identical strain that can undergo genetic recombination. Under good conditions, both strains grow equally well. An asexual population tends to be genetically static. Mutant alleles appear but remain forever associated with the particular alleles present in the rest of that genome. Even a beneficial mutation will be doomed to extinction if trapped along with genes that *reduce the fitness* of that population. But with the genetic recombination provided by sex, new alleles can be shuffled into different combinations with all the other alleles available to the genome of that species. A beneficial mutation that first appears alongside harmful alleles can, with recombination, soon find itself in more fit genomes that will enable it to spread through a sexual population. Evidence (from Rice and Chippindale in the 19 October 2001 issue of Science): Using experimental Drosophila populations, they found that a *beneficial mutation* introduced into chromosomes that can recombine did -- over time -- increase in frequency more rapidly than the same mutation introduced into chromosomes that could not recombine. So sex provides a mechanism for testing new combinations of alleles for their possible usefulness to the phenotype: * deleterious alleles weeded out by natural selection; * useful ones retained by natural selection. (2) SOURCES: (1) "Automictic Parthenogenesis In The Honey Bee" Kenneth W. Tucker Department of Entomology and Parasitology University of California, Davis (2) "Asexual Reproduction" Dr. John W. Kimball Phillips Academy Andover, Massachusetts ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 08:00:52 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "=?UTF-8?Q?Peter_L._Borst?=" Subject: Re: Sex and the Honey Bee Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit More on Bee Sex: Why do queen honeybees mate with dozens of males? Does their extreme promiscuity, perhaps, serve a purpose? Colonies of promiscuous queens tend to be far more successful in such chores and in surviving their first winter than colonies produced by monogamous queens, report Cornell researchers Tom Seeley and Heather Mattila in Science magazine. An answer to this age-old mystery is proposed in the July 20 issue of Science magazine by Cornell scientists: Promiscuous queens, they suggest, produce genetically diverse colonies that are far more productive and hardy than genetically uniform colonies produced by monogamous queens. "An intriguing trait of honeybee species worldwide is that each honeybee queen mates with an extraordinarily high number of males," said Heather R. Mattila, a Cornell postdoctoral fellow in neurobiology and behavior and co-author of the article with Thomas D. Seeley, Cornell professor of neurobiology and behavior. In every honeybee species, say the researchers, queens mate with multiple males. The European honeybee -- the common species in North America -- mates with from six to 20 mates on average, for example, while the giant honeybee in Asia has a reported record of 102 mates. To study the reasons for honeybees' promiscuity, the Cornell biologists inseminated 12 queens with sperm from 15 drones (a different set for each) and nine additional queens with sperm from a single drone (but a different one in each case). They then prompted the hives to swarm in early June to form new colonies. "After only two weeks of building new nests, the genetically diverse colonies constructed 30 percent more comb, stored 39 percent more food and maintained foraging levels that were 27 to 78 percent higher than genetically uniform colonies," said Mattila. By the end of the summer, the genetically diverse colonies had five times more bees, eight times more reproductive males and heavier average body weights, mostly because of larger amounts of stored food. By winter's end, 25 percent of the genetically diverse colonies survived to their one-year anniversary (only about 20 percent of new honeybee colonies make it that long in upstate New York). But all of the genetically uniform hives starved to death. "These differences are noteworthy considering colonies had similarly sized worker populations when they were first formed," said Mattila. "Undoubtedly, our results reveal enormous benefits of genetic diversity for the productivity of honeybee colonies." For example, the researchers found that bees in the genetically diverse colonies used sophisticated mechanisms for communication, including waggle dancing, more often than bees in genetically uniform colonies to discover food sources and direct nest mates to food. Because there was more information available among nest mates about food discoveries, the diverse colonies gained far more weight than did genetically uniform colonies. -- http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July07/beesPromiscuity.sl.html ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 08:59:29 -0400 Reply-To: david.meldrum@verizon.net Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "David.Meldrum" Subject: Basswood (Linden) bloom MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit I am a little confused about Basswood (American Linden) trees and their blooming. I have several trees around me that as far as I can tell are all the same of kind of Linden tree. When they bloom, the bees love them. However some have a wonderful bloom, while others don't seem to bloom at all. Are their more than one variety and I am not making the distinction between them? If so, how can I distinguish them? Or do they not bloom every year, or have male and female trees? Any education would be appreciated. - Dave Meldrum Andover, Ma ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 08:59:58 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?windows-1252?Q?Yoon_Sik_Kim?= Subject: CCD in Ferals? Comments: To: Kathy Kellison Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit No, Kathy, according to my limited observations. As some of the list members might recall where I stand regarding feral swarms and feral bees, I have been, and still am, passionate about rescuing feral swarms and colonies in and around OKC and Shawnee areas; in fact, I have taken down a dozen colonies of feral bees this year. Thanks to this year’s record-breaking precipitation, I am getting more bee-calls lately. Here is one such example of someone having a huge feral colony living above the living room ceiling, right above the fireplace, which I took down from within—-inside the house—-a method I prefer since the bees are much calmer in the dark and since I use smoke minimally not to scare the queen away: http://www.news-star.com/stories/051907/new_47935.shtml But none has shown any sign of distress, much less any verifiable CCD. Our feral bee situation is perhaps unique in that we finally have AHB migration since 2004 (DNA verification by Oklahoma State University’s Extension Office) although we have not had any massive stinging incidents as of yet. (I am waiting to verify how AHB’s gene pool will get diluted through crossing with EHB’s since, they say, the aggressive trait is dominant, not recessive) This advent of AHB’s amongst mostly Italian feral stocks will give us an interesting spin in all aspects of beekeeping, such as aggressiveness, management thereof, honey production, and most important, mite-resistant. Of the colonies I have taken down this year, I may have encountered one AHB colony and one AHB swarm—given their super ferociousness. But then I have also experienced such nasty trait among EHB, especially among the first cross between Carniolan and Italian (I think Peter was talking about this). By the way, all the Carniolan colonies will, given time, transform themselves into Italians around here. Although I love Carnies, they will drown in this Italian sea. My untested thoughts on CCD, which I have not yet encountered, stems from the simple fact that it is an issue of overcrowding or congestion. Keeping this in mind—-that high population density is no good even among humans—-I have my bees scattered around, never congesting one yard with more than thirty hives (currently under twenty), for I feel that when one congests a small area with hundreds of colonies—-with their varying degrees of disease-susceptibility and mutated gene pool among the colonies— -one can anticipate something like the bird-flu in bees. Of course, I can do this since I am not a commercial beekeeper, who must migrate all over the country or worse, who must dump behind the dinks in someone’s backyard, for they have no commercial value. Yoon YSK HONEY FARM Shawnee, OK ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:17:15 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "=?UTF-8?Q?Peter_L._Borst?=" Subject: Re: Basswood (Linden) bloom Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 08:59:29 -0400, David.Meldrum wrote: >I am a little confused about Basswood (American Linden) trees and their >blooming. I have several trees around me that as far as I can tell are >all the same of kind of Linden tree. European Linden is planted extensively in towns and has a much smaller leaf. It blooms here in late June and is very reliable. The American one has huge leaves and I don't think it can be depended upon at all. For example, in Upstate NY it produced very heavily last summer and this summer I didn't see it even bloom. Old timers seem to agree that it won't put out two years in a row, seems to need a rest. pb ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 06:30:47 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dee Lusby Subject: Re: Sex and the Honey Bee In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Peter: Sperm from 15 drones vs sperm from 1 drone is key here for survival, as what is written. You telling me they couldn't have taken drones from same source/parentage to get more then one and still show uniformity they talking about to have 15 vs 15? Somehow this doens't match nature for comparing really! with natural transitions in and out, but good try. But just my take on what you wrote. Dee A. Lusby ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469 ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:28:50 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: randy oliver Subject: Re: Pesticides and IPM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > so what happens is that readings that at first appear to > represent "slow linear growth" start to increase at an > accelerated rate, and "go exponential". You answered your own question! "At first appear" is your phrase. Appearance of linear growth is solely the result of scale. Why try to defend something that encourages > complacency? Why not encourage data collection and thinking? You really ought to try actually reading my series of articles, Jim! That is exactly what I recommend, and do myself. > When, exactly do you start being "thoughtful"? :) Actually, I wake up thoughtful, but by this time of morning feel exhausted by your silly trolling. I ran a series of experiments yesterday collecting DATA on a preservative for sugar syrup. I'm currently collecting DATA on a long-term small cell experiment--weighing test and control groups, taking mite counts, and strength counts. I have an employee outside as we speak prepping 200 sticky boards to collect more DATA on the efficacy of sugar dusting, and the time curve for mite knockdown post treatment. I am apparently the only person who has taken time to sacrifice colonies and count every mite and bee in order to determine sugar dusting efficacy, and to develop a mathematical model to explain the observed DATA. I'm a DATA kind of guy--just received data by special request from Chile, New Zealand, Florida. How about spending less time trolling, Jim, and more time looking at the DATA? > but you aren't really making any treatment decisions, are you? Yes, I am, actually! You are just treating everything in sight with powdered sugar, and knocking down as many mites as you can. Hardly--I've only started dusting this week, since my montitoring all spring indicated that treatments up til now would largely be a waste of time and money. Kind of like wasting time trying to explain things to you. : ) > >> Mite treatment can be effective at any point, and gets more >> bang for the buck earlier. (Should I go back further in the litany of things that > had what appeared to be impressive knock-down rates, but failed > to be effective when tested under controlled conditions?) Exactly why I carefully analyzed DATA of two year's of results from several people who had sugar dusted before even entertaining that it might actually work! Then tested myself to confirm. Helped set up several trials this year with cooperators. I have let everyone know that this is experimental, and that I'm fine tuning it. > Here's the basic problem with your approach to powdered sugar. Jim, you don't even know what my approach is! I'm no one-trick pony. I've been keeping my bees healthy without any powdered sugar! Sugar dusting is just another option that I've been researching amoung a plethora of methods and treatments. Jim, again, try actually reading my articles. The next two months I will have articles coming out on formic acid, thymol, and the essential oils. I'm slowly posting all to www.randyoliver.com as I find time. Clearly, the time I'm spending responding to your silly questions and challenges would have been better spent uploading photos to my website! > a) The powdered sugar to even the majority of bees with your > brushing over the top-bars approach. Read the dang article--look at the dang photographs! > b) Enough of the correct particle sizes to dislodge a majority of the > phoretic mites. Actually, as I published, I have sacrificed three colonies 1 hr post dusting, and found that the dusting dislodged approx 33% of the phoretic mites in the first hour. Jim, if you can't afford the $5 to log onto my website, I publicly offer you a free subscription--just ask. Then you won't be wasting the List's time by asking silly questions that have already been answered in print! > Don't let your ego write checks that your ability can't cash. Go trolling for someone else Jim, I'm not going to bite! > I know you work hard, but your research in regard to the sugar dusting is > lacking a few things, like controls, like valid and consistent > measurements. That's what we're collecting right now. > As I have made clear, thresholds are nonsense. If I put a sticky under a colony for a week, and zero mites drop, I wouldn't treat that colony. If I do the same, and 1000 mites drop, I would. The reason I would, is that the count exceeded the "threshold" with which I was comfortable. You can certainly argue about what that number would be, but to argue that thresholds are nonsense, is nonsense. > So don't get your hackles up at me. Jim, you live for trying to get people's hackles up. It's not likely that I'm the first on the List to notice this. I'm not trying to sell anything to anyone. IF YOU WOULD ACTUALLY READ MY ARTICLES you would see that I repeatedly suggest that people look at the science and then make their own management decisions. I've got work to do... Randy Oliver ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:43:30 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: randy oliver Subject: Re: Pesticides and IPM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi All, I can't believe I'm doing this! : ) > I'm not sure where Randy thinks the scale on the Y axis changes in he > graph cited several posts ago You totally missed my point, Jim. If others did, let me know. , and I've yet to hear anyone claim to have a sampling technique better than ether rolls. Ether roll is notoriously unreliable. Read my article on the subject. > This statement flies in the face of the ENTIRE BASIC > CONCEPT OF IPM itself, where the goal is to only > treat when and where it is necessary to do so, Jim, did you take the caffeine out of your coffee or something? Who says that you need to use chemicals at an early stage of population growth? Use of biotechnical methods is extremely effective then. Get a grip, Jim. > Randy seems to have thought that a discussion of IPM > data collection would not be complete without discussing > his approach of using mite fall as a result of treatment > with powdered sugar as if it were a reliable number. Funny you should mention. The second trial that we are going to undertake is to compare dusting induced mite fall to actual percent mite infestation of each colony measured by the gold standard alcohol wash. Right now I have no idea how well it correlates. But I will, based upon HARD WON DATA. > While there are such protocols for the short-term use > of Apistan strips (and even CheckMite strips) in > prompting mite fall, the gold standard remains the > "natural mite fall" from a colony not subjected to > any outside influence or overt attempt to dislodge > mites. Natural mite fall counts can be rife with error--read my article on the subject. > So it is impossible to say if the numbers > generated by treatment with powdered sugar are > consistent, or of any value at all. Wow, I can agree with you on this. Which is why I'm going to collect the data described above. However, preliminary results indicate that dusting-induced mite drop is a pretty reliable indicator of the phoretic mite population. > Other approaches to application methods, such as Randy's > practice of dumping the sugar on the top bars, and using > a bee brush to spread it around, so that it falls between > the top bars, may or may not be as effective. On the > other hand, they may be more effective - we just don't > know, do we? We're sure going to find out, aren't we? : ) Preliminary results, based upon mite counts are very promising. > I'm not sure how we got off "IPM" and onto Randy's weekly powdered sugar > dusting techniques, Weekly dusting would only be indicated at high mite levels. Randy Oliver ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:31:46 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Pesticides and IPM In-Reply-To: <000001c7ce77$e6a54790$0201000a@j> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Interesting discussion. I am with Jim in that IPM does not generally use treatments before treating. You tend to defeat the purpose. Farmers will count the number of pests per unit area and treat when whatever criteria is met. They do not go out and spray and count the dead critters on the ground.That is just not cost effective. IPM is designed to control costs and the amount and timing of pesticide application, so the farmer gets the max from his pest control dollar. What Randy is doing is not wrong at all, but it is not IPM. Many different Varroa and Tracheal treatments followed this route, FGMO probably is classic. It was touted as the end all for varroa treatments, but when you looked closely behind the curtain, there was always something else- even Apistan! Apistan was applied to get mite counts and then FGMO was touted to work because of low mite counts. The mites were killed by Apistan, not FGMO. Many techniques for controlling Varroa include intermediate treatments of something before you get to WMDs. FGMO is actually a good intermediate treatment for colonies during nectar flow since it will not contaminate the honey. Sugar dusting is the same. What is happening is you are treating for Varroa but only for control. Mite count is an adjunct. In essence you are applying a control, not a mite dropper. You will not get the 97% efficacy of treatments like OA when applied to a broodless colony, but you will set back the mites until you can nuke them. But it is not IPM. It is a Varroa control method. IPM would be natural mite fall with measurements (which Jim has discussed) followed by some action. The action might be FGMO or sugar dusting if loads were high in late summer during nectar flows, then OA in the fall. The summer treatment is to buy time, if needed. Otherwise, you just count and treat when whatever threshold is reached. I realize that some may count this as semantics, but it is best that we label what we do correctly. Which seems to be Jim's argument. Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 15:04:50 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Aaron Morris Subject: Re: Moderators In-Reply-To: <200707242303.l6OMv0Wg027461@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lloyd wrote: > Why not turn 'moderation' back on, I have turned moderation due to excessive posts, excessive quotes and excessive "flap-doodle" (I like that term). > but (1) list moderators' names A problem with that is the moderators then get flogged by subscribers who demand reasons for unapproved posts, who then plead their case for 6 or 8 or 10 emails. Listing moderators' names sets the moderators up for abuse. You should see my mailbox! > (2) get a new list of moderators. Actually, I have been flying mostly solo since late winter. Team moderation leads to "discomfort" amongst the moderators. This is nothing new, it's gone on since moderation began. > IMHO, the 'rules' are fine. My gripe has always been how the > rules have been applied or enforced... Or, damned if you do, damned if you don't. > But no moderation is just asking for the list to die! Death, where is thy sting? 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: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:32:40 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Brian Fredericksen Subject: Re: Basswood (Linden) bloom Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Here in Mn I find the Native Basswoods very dependable and have now had large (80# plus) crops 2 years in a row. We tend to get 1/3 or better of our crop each year from Basswood. The landscape varieties of which there are 3 or 4 varieites bloom earlier and seem less dependable in frequency and poundage. The native varieites also produce a honey which has a light green tinge to the color while the landscape stuff is water white. Around here the landscape basswood is usually done blooming when the native starts. As we hear often all beekeeping is local. I have heard many times about the not every year concept of poroducing nectar. My take on that is in the forest there are 1000's of basswood trees and I can only assume that they are not all on the same nectar producing schedule. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:45:34 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Brian Fredericksen Subject: Re: CCD in Ferals? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Ask 10 beekeepers about CCD and you will get 10 different answers. >From my perspective in the upper midwest CCD is not a problem. After reading everything I could get my hands on concerning CCD and talking to other beeks amd academics I concluded that the number of likely affected beekeepers is small but they tend to have large numbers of hives. If this was a randomly occuring disorder then we would have more random reports. Instead we have mostly feedlot operations affected. What does that tell you? CCD may go down as the Y2K bee story of 2007, grossly overblown by the media and kept alive by the industry in hopes of getting badly needed additional support from USDA etc. So your question to me is inconsequential as you're talking apples and oranges = feedlot bees vs feral. Would anyone be surprised to hear poultry in confinement buildings have some wierd disease? ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:08:13 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: Re: Sex and the Honey Bee MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Peter & All, >"After only two weeks of building new nests, the genetically diverse colonies constructed 30 percent more comb, stored 39 percent more food and maintained foraging levels that were 27 to 78 percent higher than genetically uniform colonies," said Mattila. Many of us feel the queens we have been getting from queen producers have not been allowed to get the required number of matings. The number of drone laying queens is on the increase and as shown above in late season of the first season many lag behind and I personally think the reason *might* be the above. At the start of the season all are building at the same rate and then a percent drops behind. Usually at around 2 weeks after the new queens brood start emerging. At this check I write "Dink" ( or cull) in the hives records. The use of five frame nucs for mating, letting the queen lay longer before caging and larger numbers or drone colonies in mating areas might improve the situation in my opinion. Even then when the weather is not perfect in the queen producing areas we get poorly mated queens which either show up as drone layers or what I call "dinks' at seasons end. 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: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 21:19:35 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "=?UTF-8?Q?Peter_L._Borst?=" Subject: Re: Sex and the Honey Bee Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dee Lusby wrote: >Sperm from 15 drones vs sperm from 1 drone is key here for survival, as what is written. No, the important point is not the number of drones but the fact that *they are not closely related*. This produces what they are calling "intracolonial genetic diversity"; that is, workers within the same colony that are not as closely related as they would be if they all had the same father -OR- multiple fathers that were closely related (brothers). > The observation that intracolonial genetic diversity improved productivity in colonies is consistent with predictions made by models of division of labor that rely on genotypic differences in response thresholds among workers. Higher collective productivity of genetically diverse colonies may be rooted in a broader or more sensitive response from worker populations to changing conditions. > Nevertheless, the extent to which genetically uniform colonies lagged behind genetically diverse colonies in the early stages of colony development was surprising, considering that colonies initially lacked comb and food reserves, and presumably, stimuli reflecting these needs could not have been greater. > A key advantage of intracolonial genetic diversity was revealed during infrequent periods when food resources were plentiful. Genetically diverse colonies gained weight at rates that far exceeded those of genetically uniform colonies, whose sluggish foraging rates suggest that intracolonial genetic diversity enhances the discovery and exploitation of food resources by work forces, especially during periods when resources become suddenly and abundantly available. Genetic Diversity in Honey Bee Colonies Enhances Productivity and Fitness by Heather R. Mattila, et al. Science; 20 JULY 2007 ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 21:42:56 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "=?UTF-8?Q?Peter_L._Borst?=" Subject: Re: Sex and the Honey Bee Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Bob Harrison wrote: >Many of us feel the queens we have been getting from queen producers have >not been allowed to get the required number of matings. Yes, but this is not the point of the article. It is not about multiple mating, per se, but multiple mating to *unrelated* drones. Then, the workers are less closely related than they would be if their fathers were all closely related (brothers). Quote: The observation that intracolonial genetic diversity improved productivity in colonies is consistent with predictions made by models of division of labor that rely on genotypic differences in response thresholds among workers. Higher collective productivity of genetically diverse colonies may be rooted in a broader or more sensitive response from worker populations to changing conditions. Genetic Diversity in Honey Bee Colonies Enhances Productivity and Fitness Heather R. Mattila, et al. www.sciencemag.org this information is current as of July 19, 2007 ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 21:51:42 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "=?windows-1252?Q?J._Waggle?=" Subject: Re: CCD in Ferals? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Kathy Kellison wrote: >does anyone have any evidence whether feral colonies >of EHB suffered from CCD? Hello Kathy, The consensus is that the CCD decline is occurring in commercial beekeeping operations not organic or wild colonies, as mentioned in July- Aug issue of Science & Sprit, and from several other sources over the past several months. === http://www.science-spirit.org/newdirections.php?article_id=717 “…The reports of decline come mostly from commercial beekeepers, not organic or wild colonies, and experts suspect the mechanism killing the bees is not natural, thus implicating pesticide overuse….” === I myself do not buy into the CCD phenomenon. Die offs have been occurring for many years, and IMO ccd is simply a ‘compounding stress’ problem that includes a toppling stress, usually weather related. You place too many stress burdens on a colony and they will topple sooner or later. These stresses can vary a great deal from area to area but one of the similarities is they all have a toppling stress, usually weather related. IMO, nature does this every so often to weed out the unfit that have been propped up for so long. IMO, the weakening of the immune system by compounding stresses is potentially allowing viruses, bacteria, disease and parasites to reach harmful levels. Perhaps, efforts being spent identifying ‘symptoms’ as the cause to blame while the culprit of underlying stresses escape blame. Incidentally, my bees are all from feral sources and no treatments are used on them, and no “CCD” symptoms. Joe Waggle ~ Derry, PA ‘Bees Gone Wild Apiaries' FeralBeeProject.com http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/HoneybeeArticles ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 22:12:20 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "=?windows-1252?Q?J._Waggle?=" Subject: Re: CCD in Ferals? Comments: To: Yoon Sik Kim Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Yoon Sik Kim wrote: … I have been, and still am, passionate about >rescuing feral swarms and colonies in and around OKC and Shawnee areas; Hello Yoon! Good for you! Have you established an assessment routine for your ferals? I have an average of 40% to 50% weeding out of ferals during the growth stage. Generally remote farmland and woodland ferals tend to do the best in assessments. This season I only had about 10% weeding out of poor stock. Seems the terrible weather last season eliminated much of the poor genetics for me. Assuming this would be the case, I was eager to get all the swarms and removals I could this season, as they would likely be the cream of the crop. … But then I >have also experienced such nasty trait among EHB, especially among the >first cross between Carniolan and Italian. I get a very occasional Carnilolan type feral that can get extremely hot You can smell the alarm pheromone 5 feet away, and they trigger in mass with the passing of a shadow. I have taken to requeening on sight any feral that does not look like the dominant type feral most seen in my area, as the dominate type routinely assesses better than others. Joe Waggle ~ Derry, PA ‘Bees Gone Wild Apiaries' FeralBeeProject.com http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/HoneybeeArticles ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 21:17:51 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: C Hooper Subject: Study: 'Honey is Effective Against a Broad Range of Microorganisms' MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII WOUNDS Journal to Publish Study on Effective Antimicrobial Application of Manuka Honey-Based Product Business Wire, 7/25/2007 http://apitherapy.blogspot.com/2007/07/study-honey-is-effective-against-broad.html PRINCETON, N.J., Jul 25, 2007 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Derma Sciences (DSCI) , a manufacturer and marketer of advanced wound care products, today announced that the September 2007 issue of the journal WOUNDS: A Compendium of Clinical Research and Practice (WOUNDS) will feature an article on the use of a manuka honey-based product as a topical antimicrobial for chronic and acute wounds and burns… The abstract for the WOUNDS article by George NM and Cutting KF to be published in September is as follows: "The clinical use of honey has received increasing interest in recent years, in particular as a topical antibacterial dressing. Results so far are extremely encouraging, demonstrating that honey is effective against a broad range of microorganisms including multiresistant strains… ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 10:32:56 +0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Gavin Ramsay Subject: Re: Sex and the Honey Bee MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ascii Hi All Perhaps I could clarify Peter's response to Dee with another quote from the paper. > Each genetically diverse colony > (n = 12) had a queen that was instrumentally > inseminated with sperm from a unique set of > fifteen drones and each genetically uniform > colony (n = 9) had a queen inseminated with a > similar volume of sperm from a single drone. > Drones were selected at random from a pool of > over 1000 individuals collected from 11 dronesource > colonies. So it is not a question of the number (or at least the volume) of sperm, just the diversity of that sperm. The effect is impressive, and comes on top of a report I was reading this morning of German work that shows the effect of hybrid vigour (alternatively inbreeding depression) on colony performance. all the best Gavin ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 07:13:23 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "=?UTF-8?Q?Peter_L._Borst?=" Subject: Re: CCD in Ferals? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:45:34 -0400, Brian Fredericksen wrote: >If this was a randomly occuring disorder then we would have more random reports. Instead we have mostly feedlot operations affected. What does that tell you? Do you read the American Bee Journal? I posted this about one month ago: In this month's ABJ: Generally, the total loss experienced by commercial beekeepers (managing more than 500 hives) was the lowest at 31.2% when compared to hobbyist (managing 1 to 50 colonies; 38.0%) and sideline (managing 51 to 500 colonies; 35.4%) beekeepers. However, the average loss reported by each group was approximately the same. From: An Estimate of Managed Colony Losses in the Winter of 2006 – 2007: A Report Commissioned by the Apiary Inspectors of America by DENNIS VAN ENGELSDORP, ROBYN UNDERWOOD, DEWEY CARON, and JERRY HAYES, JR. American Bee Journal July 2007 ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 11:44:58 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "=?windows-1252?Q?J._Waggle?=" Subject: Re: CCD in Ferals? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The problem I have with the survey is that it relied on the opinions from beekeeper diagnosis of the cause of death and NOT expert analysis. There is existing no ’test’ that will diagnose CCD, it is diagnosed by the symptoms which are not always the same in each case and therefore could be caused by totally different set of factors, so a diagnosis of CCD is based largely on opinion and assumptions from the beekeeper. An Estimate of Managed Colony. Losses in the Winter of 2006 – 2007 http://www.ento.psu.edu/MAAREC/CCDPpt/CCDJuly07ABJArticle-1.pdf By specifying the definition of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), meaning that “50% of their dead colonies were found without bees and/or with very few dead bees in the hive or apiary.” You potentially have a large number of hobbyist with under 5 colonies loosing 50% of more hives (an insignificant 1 to 3 colonies) to mismanagement or absconding from some other stress factor being automatically determined to be CCD related. Is a 2 or 4 colony hobby operation loosing 50% the same as a 1000 colony operation run by an expert loosing 50%?,,, I think not! Perhaps a higher incidence of misdiagnoses in smaller operations can be expected due to the “50% of their dead colonies were found without bees” as an automatic determination of CCD, and the propensity for the majority of hobbyist to be that of inexperienced beekeepers more prone to failures in management. The survey asked beekeepers, inexperienced and expert alike: “6) to what the beekeeper attributed the losses” My experience from reading ‘NEED HELP’ letters from new bees is that the inexperienced looking for a single cause to blame are often quick to diagnose losses by guess work, while highly experienced beekeepers will make the determination by proper investigation, and likely ruling out the so called CCD as the cause, while inexperienced looking for answers to a perplexing loss might br quick to assuming it to be CCD. REPORT: “Most hobbyist beekeepers believed that starvation was the leading cause of death in their colonies, while commercial beekeepers overwhelming believed invertebrate pests (Varroa mites, honey bee tracheal mites, and/or small hive beetles) were the leading cause of colony mortality.” OK, This is a contridiction of symptoms! what is CCD then. Starvation? OR parasites? OR if symptoms are different between commercial and hobby operations, WHY are they lumped together as the same diagnosis of CCD if they are so different? Best Wishes, Joe Waggle ~ Derry, PA ‘Bees Gone Wild Apiaries' FeralBeeProject.com http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/HoneybeeArticles ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 11:45:56 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?windows-1252?Q?Yoon_Sik_Kim?= Subject: Re: CCD in Ferals? Comments: To: "Peter L. Borst" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Jo, like you, I too let nature take care of the culling business. For example, despite the record-breaking wetness this year, we had a severe drought only last year; from April till November, we did not receive much rain, from one extreme to another. In fact, last year, even the common sumacs did not care to bloom, being ticked off. Worse, this past April brought on down the late artic blast (you all recall?) that zapped and fried all the early blooms in Oklahoma: no peaches, no cherries, and no apples this year. Worse, the recent wetness drowned most of blackberries; they just melted away. Granted that we often get that kind of last freeze in Oklahoma, this one was different in that the freeze stayed with us for a month, which, in turn, delayed, if not “retarded,” swarming season this year. I still find primary swarms this late in July (no, they are worth more than a fly in my book). This prolonged chill, combined with last year’s severe drought, threw a one-two punch on my bees, knocking them senseless, taking a large toll on their number, a process that effectively culled the dinks so much so that I am debating if I should increase their number by buying queens from outside, something I have not done for years now. Most of my swarms and take-downs come from man-made structures and trees surrounding them; the largest one I caught this year, for instance, was from none other than Will Rogers World Airport in OKC; I caught a seven- framer (packing both sides solid) from one of the loading docks there, and when I explained that there was a colony within one hundred yards of the location of the swarm, the airport manager told me that the new airport building contained many such potential voids, walls that are not fully insulated but left unpacked, thus creating a potential FOD (Foreign Object Damage). I did volunteer to search for the nest, but he has not yet called for my service. Unless for improving the so-called “intra-colonial genetic diversity” (I love this mouthful jargon), I do not buy queens from outside, and when I do, I want Carniolans. Invariably, to increase the number and thwart swarming, I do walk-away splits as early in the spring as possible, thinking this way I can maintain the local gene pool, adapted to the local specifics, of my area—having already cut my losses in the fall. As many of you have already noted, by the time the nectar flow starts, the splits send out more sorties than do the parent colonies although one must be mindful and ever-watchful about the ubiquitous nemesis in beekeeping— queenlessness. Yoon YSK HONEY FARM Shawnee, OK ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 09:36:02 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: randy oliver Subject: Re: Pesticides and IPM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi All, Anyone still folowing this thread can only imagine my delight at checking my email this morning, and not finding that I've been blasted by Jim again! That said, I want to express my respect for Jim, and for his incredible intelligence, not to mention how dang fast he can type. He may be combative, but he's often right. (If you read my posts carefully, you may detect that sometimes I feel that he may also be slightly off base). Anyway, Jim's points are well taken! As with any purported mite management technique, we want to see hard supportive data. This has been the main bone of contention with Dee's claim that small cell will control mites. I don't know if anyone doubts that Dee is keeping healthy bees, but they just want to see a controlled test of the method. Until then, Dee's claim is merely anecdotal--for all we know, it could be the odor of her hand lotion on the frames that is controlling the mites. That's why I'm running a controlled trial of small cell this year. I've published an article about using drone trapping and sugar dusting for mite management, and posted it to my website with photos and updates. There is plenty of published hard data to support the drone trapping. Not so for sugar dusting. Jim has every right to ask for hard numbers. Since I have a chance to catch my breath before Jim's next salvo, let me tell you what I'm planning to do to correct that lack of data. Be aware that I don't spend my days sitting at coffee, looking for cyberbattles. I'm in the beeyard trying to make a living. During the spring, there aren't enough hours in the day, and researching and writing my articles steals more than a week from every month. Add to that the fact that every time I take a colony out of production for an experiment, or let mite buildup run wild in a control colony, that's a colony that I lose $150 minimum in almonds. Even a simple experiment to collect good data can cost me thousands of dollars in lost revenue and labor. Due to being overwhelmed by bee work this spring, I didn't get most of my drone trap frames in. I wasn't really concerned, because I actually wanted to let mite levels rise enough to put dusting to the test later in the season. We had a dry spring, and mite counts have been low for everyone in the county (we get huge year-to-year variation in mite buildup here). I'm just finishing this week at getting screened bottoms under every colony in the operation. We've got the dusting technique down--my two sons and I can blow through a yard of 36 in less than 15 minutes. I just bought 500 lbs of powdered sugar, and hired a technician. Got 200 stickies washed yesterday. Getting ready to roll! Here are the experiments I hope to do: 1. Plot the post-dusting mite drop curve for 24 hrs: Take a dozen colonies, dust, and remove stickies at 5 min, 15, 30, and every hour thereafter for 24 hrs. Plot mite drop. Use this to determine optimal wait period to get indicative sample. 2. Correlate the above sample to infestation level: open a number of colonies, take a 300-bee broodnest sample with minimal disturbance, then dust and take sticky count at time indicated from Exp. 1. Compare alcohol-wash infestation level to sticky count and determine r squared correlation coefficient. I want to see if a say, sticky count for 10 minutes post dusting accurately indicates the actual infestation rate. 3. I want ot compare the drop of menthol-infused p. sugar to plain sugar. But first need to run a test to see how it affects open brood. 4. I've got a few yards of fairly uniform colonies. I want to plot the effect of weekly dusting vs. undusted controls on either natural mite drop or alcohol wash. I'm thinking of cracking every colony every week and vacuuming a 300-bee sample from between the brood boxes. Then dust the test colonies. Compare mite infestation levels between test and control. I'm open to helpful suggestions! Feedback from hobbyists employing the methods has been incredible, from all over the country! Weekly dusting clearly decimates mites. Those doing monthly dusting and drone removal are very happy with mite drops so far. But these reports are "anecdotal." The hard thing is to get good data collection from hobbyists, and the fact that mite buildup is so variable seasonably. Locally, this was a poor year for the test, since mite levels were naturally low (hard to believe that I actually had to encourage mite buildup in my own operation!). Back to my operation. In early August I'm going to do what every damn queen breeder should do--test every single colony for mite level. We can now do quickly with screened bottoms and a dusting. I want to do a triage. High mite levels, mark and treat as needed. Low mite levels, let ride. Extremely low mite levels, check to see if they are strong and productive, and mark them as potential breeders. I also have some supplemental feeding experiments, and syrup preservation experiments running. How's that for transparency? I really feel that my time is better spent at collecting meaningful data than responding to posts of questionable motive. If anyone would like to join by running tests in your yards, I'll help by sharing a protocol, so we can compare data. This isn't about egos, this is about trying to find sustainable methods for managing varroa, so that we can be productive beekeepers. Randy Oliver ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 11:12:57 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: randy oliver Subject: URGENT Action Alert MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, Word from Washington and Sacramento is that your phone calls and emails = are having an effect! Thanks to Dr. Eric Mussen for his testimony in = Sacramento yesterday, which had immediate effect for beekeeper access to = public lands. There was no dissent from the native pollinator = representative. We have an immediate chance to help right now. Rep. Hastings is = introducing a bill for $75 million for bee research today. It = apparently helps to have as many names attached as possible. > URGENT FARM BILL ACTION REQUEST: DEADLINE TODAY ASAP, no = later than 3:00 Eastern!! > 1. SIGN ON Attached GROUP STATEMENT [Organizations, = Individuals] in > Support of farm bill pollinator protection amendment #75, to be = offered by > Rep. Alcee Hastings (FL). > 2. Contact your Representative directly in support of the = amendment. > If you don't have a direct staff contact, can call Capitol Operator, > 202-225-3121 & ask for your representative. Ask for Ag LA, at minimum leave > short message in support of amendment #75. > > TO COSIGN Group Statement, respond to this e-mail or contact me at > tom@vanarsdall.com.=20 > > The Farm Bill is going to the floor TODAY, with debate starting = shortly. > The Hastings amendment is one of 31 of more than 100 filed that will = be > considered. It will be the fifth amendment considered, probably = sometime > after 1 PM. > > ***** > Letter Text Attached & Follows: > > RE: Support for Farm Bill amendment #75 offered by Rep. = Hastings (FL) > Pollinator Protection Research & Conservation > > Dear Representative: > > The undersigned urge you to vote for amendment #75, a Pollinator Protection > research and conservation provision which will be offered by Rep. = Alcee > Hastings of Florida during floor consideration of the 2007 farm bill. > > This amendment (1) authorizes research funding to address Colony = Collapse > Disorder in honey bees and other factors confronting managed and = native > pollinators; and (2) places a greater emphasis in existing USDA conservation > programs on habitat and other pollinator-beneficial best management > practices to protect and enhance native and managed pollinators. > > As recognized in the Committee Report on page 226, "In addition to wildlife > benefits, crop pollination represents a major agricultural input, especially > for specialty crop producers." Enhancing pollinator research and > conservation through the 2007 farm bill to benefit honey bees and = other > managed pollinators and native pollinators will help ensure both = essential > crop pollination services and healthy wildlife ecosystems. > > Please support the pollinator protection amendment. > > Sincerely, > > Organizations: > Coevolution Institute > Sustainable Agriculture Coalition > > Individuals: > > ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND: > *** Hastings amendment incorporates core provisions of (1) Senator = Boxer's > research bill (S. 1694) [which broadened provisions in Hastings' = original > bill, HR 1709 to include habitat and native pollinator concerns]; and = (2) > Rep. Blumenauer's habitat conservation bill (HR 2913). > *** Text posted at http://www.pollinator.org/farm_bill.htm.=20 > *** CoE has worked closely with Hastings and Blumenauer staff and = strongly > supports the amendment.=20 > *** Chairman Peterson as floor managers of the bill reportedly will = accept > the amendment. > *** Amendment #75 was deemed by House Rules Committee to be in order = for > consideration on the floor [over 100 farm bill amendments were filed]. > *** Key wildlife, conservation and environmental groups in the farm = bill > conservation coalition have agreed to support amendment #75. > *** The Committee Report can be accessed at > = http://agriculture.house.gov/inside/Legislation/110/FB/Hrpt110-256.pdf. = > > Bill as reported by the Committee includes pollinator-beneficial provisions > and language: > -Legislative language, p. 56: Section 2105, producers are eligible to > receive EQIP incentive payments for pollinator habitat. > -Report language, p. 226: "The Committee included pollinator = [habitat] to > the list of practices eligible for incentive payments under EQIP. In > addition to wildlife benefits, crop pollination represents a major > agricultural input, especially for specialty crop producers. The Committee > encourages USDA to clarify that habitat and other conservation = measures > benefiting honey bees and other managed pollinators and native = pollinators > are eligible for cost-share and incentive payments in other = conservation > programs as appropriate, and to encourage such practices." > -Legislative language, p. 170 (& p. 339), in Title X, specialty crops title: > Section 1001, USDA to report annually to Congress on response to CCD = and > impact on honey bees. > > The Manager's Amendment reportedly includes an addition to Section = 7411 in > the research title that would make research involving pollination = services > for specialty crops eligible to compete for grants in the specialty = crops > research program [$215 million over 5 years, mandatory funding]. CoE worked > with beekeeping interests in support of this provision. > > Future of farm bill reauthorization remains in doubt due to a number = of > issues, including partisan maneuvering. Nevertheless, it is important = for > pollinator stakeholders to engage in the process and work at each step = in > support of pollinator-beneficial enhancements. > > For more info: www.pollinator.org=20 > =20 > R. Thomas (Tom) Van Arsdall, Public Affairs Representative for = Coevolution > Institute/NAPPC > Van Arsdall & Associates > 13605 McLane Place > Fredericksburg, VA 22407-2344 > (540) 785-0949 > tom@vanarsdall.com=20 > ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:55:04 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "=?windows-1252?Q?J._Waggle?=" Subject: Raw Honey for Cancer & Severe Arthritis Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hello! There has been a great increase in the last several months of requests from persons with cancer wanting to purchase raw honey for consumption. They tell me that the doctor advised them they can eliminate certain medications if they can obtain raw honey which is said to have same medicinal compounds found in some of the pharmaceutical medications required for their treatment. Some are wanting to reduce the amount of medications they are taking, and others are saying they are seeking raw honey because the compounds contained in raw honey are the same as in a required medication and is easier on thier system (as they tell me Physicians are telling them this information). I also am seeing an increase in persons asking for raw honey for severe arthritis. Has there been a recent study released to prompt such a flood of requests? What is the compound or compounds they are after, and for what reason? I would imagine the benefits of honey for substitution of medication must have been proven in the medical feild and of greater benefit to the patients wellbeing for physicians to recommend honey over the products from the powerful drug companies. Best Wishes, Joe Waggle ~ Derry, PA ‘Bees Gone Wild Apiaries' FeralBeeProject.com http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/HoneybeeArticles ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:32:17 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "=?windows-1252?Q?J._Waggle?=" Subject: Re: Role of Pollinators in Carbon Sequestering Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Mike Rossander wrote: >2. A few weeks ago, someone posted about a study that carbon-uptake of a plant increased shortly after pollination. That's unsurprising since the plant has to spend a lot of energy creating the fruit/seed/etc after pollination - and much of that fruit will be carbon-based. Again however, that carbon is re-released during consumption. Reply: This may be true, but fruits are for the dispersal of seeds, and much of the carbon actually used in the production of the seed itself. Whereas the fruit is consumed, there is also a potential dispersal of seed, and subsequent new growth. The carbon uptake from tree seed germination and growing to saplings can potentially lock up carbon for several hundred years, as exampled by the massive estimated 200 plus year old pollinator pollinated oak trees out back the house. >3. Pollination increases the growth of leafy plants (either in the current plant or in the next season). Again, most of that carbon will be re-released when the plant dies and decomposes. Reply: Sure! But that is like saying; ‘There is no use in conserving oil as all the oil will be used up someday anyways’. Most benefits from sequestering carbon come from locking up carbon for short durations at a time. it’s a continuance of a cycle and it will be released again, to be taken up again by plants with the increased carbon uptake caused by embryo growth as a result of pollination. >About the only way that we can contribute to carbon sequestration is if the pollination increases the growth of the woody-components of trees. Reply: >From my understanding a clear cut forest with young sapling growth consumes much more carbon than old growth forest. This new regeneration benefiting greatly from the pollinators of the planet. Might be best to think of it in terms of ‘proper tire inflation’. Yes, one tire properly inflated does little impact make. But billions of properly inflated tires as in billions "BILLIONS" of pollinators a BIG difference makes! Best Wishes, Joe Waggle ~ Derry, PA ‘Bees Gone Wild Apiaries' FeralBeeProject.com http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/HoneybeeArticles ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 19:55:42 GMT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "waldig@netzero.com" Subject: Bees left alone die quickly. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >>Research has shown (my own also) that the honeybee will only live a short time away from the hive by herself. Plenty of honey/pollen in a cage a single bee soon dies. Have they determined why this is so? Just as anyone, I have seen this many times and have wondered what has been missing. Is there an 'exchange of energy' between social creatures that is required for well-being? Waldemar ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:17:02 -0700 Reply-To: k.kellison@earthlink.net Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Kathy Kellison Subject: data collection on feral colonies of EHB MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Hello Joe, Thanks for the reference and information. Are you working on a project to collect data on feral populations of honey bees in the U.S.? Thanks, Kathy Kathy Kellison k.kellison@earthlink.net Why Wait? Move to EarthLink. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 22:03:38 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "=?windows-1252?Q?J._Waggle?=" Subject: Re: CCD in Ferals? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Yoon Sik Kim wrote: I still find primary swarms this late in July (no, they are worth >more than a fly in my book). Before 2003 I often found late swarms to be infested with varroa. But now, I am finding primary feral swarms up until mid July. And what is encouraging to me is that the feral swarms lately are quite large and appearing extremely healthy and relatively varroa free. In seasons past from about 2003 and earlier, even the prime swarms were a bit small and seeming to look a tad sickly and some varroa. This for example is a prime swarm from a bee tree section in my assessment yard, swarms looking good the past few years: http://tinyurl.com/25d7bw I will tend to place July swarms temporary in bee logs to winter them, and remove them in the spring. Late swarms winter much better and unassisted in this configuration. Swarm entering: http://tinyurl.com/2877ht 4 days later: http://tinyurl.com/27dpup … I am debating if I should increase their >number by buying queens from outside, something I have not done for years >now. After assessing ferals against commercial stock for sometime, I made the decision in 2003 to eliminate all lines from known commercial sources, and lines that do not match the looks of the feral that does best in my area. Generally. Feral queens doing best in my area have golden abdomens and darker towards the tip and no stripes. Here is a good candidate I caught entering my ‘foot locker trap’. Just ‘close the lock and go!’ ;) http://tinyurl.com/2784op >Unless for improving the so-called “intra-colonial genetic diversity” (I >love this mouthful jargon), I do not buy queens from outside, and when I >do, I want Carniolans. Have you determined the type of feral that does best in your area? Is it the Carniolan types?,,, or is this decision because they are your ‘favorite commercial type bee’ ? Invariably, to increase the number and thwart >swarming, I do walk-away splits as early in the spring as possible, >thinking this way I can maintain the local gene pool, adapted to the local >specifics, of my area— A very good policy for northern beeks also! I maintain locally adapted stock by trapping woodland and remote ferals and assessing all swarms thru the growth stage before intergrating them. Bee trees are brought to my assessment yard and allowed to hive off year after year. Being dependant on the local ferals for mating, this has aided tremendously in the resurgence of the feral population in my area and also being reflected in my outyards with much better mating. Best Wishes, Joe Waggle ~ Derry, PA ‘Bees Gone Wild Apiaries' FeralBeeProject.com http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/HoneybeeArticles ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 22:44:56 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "=?windows-1252?Q?J._Waggle?=" Subject: Re: data collection on feral colonies of EHB Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Kathy Kellison wrote: > Are you working on a project to collect data on feral populations of > honey bees in the U.S.? Hello Kathy, I’m not involved in any such project. The feralbeeproject.com is my project, which is for the promotion of feral stock in beekeeping, and for the preservation and protection of feral honeybee nests. With a main goal to encourage the public to not remove feral nests if they are determined to pose little harm to health or safety. Another project I am currently working on is a survey of the feral population in my woodland area. This after noticing the last few seasons, extreme competitiveness coming from woodland ferals and old bee trees being reoccupied surrounding my home. Competitiveness is back, colonies are continually tested and if scouts find them weak they will be overrun with robbers. This could be simply the ‘return of competitiveness‘. I’m assuming that maybe time has fogged my memory of just how aggressively competitive bees actually are. This since varroa had the effect of nearly eliminating competition between colonies in my area since about 1993 or so. Also would be interesting to locate the source of hairless, jet black, no indication of striping feral scouts that have been visiting my yards testing my nucs for the past 2 seasons. But the main goal of the project is to locate and get GPS on the feral colonies in my woodland area. Joe Waggle ~ Derry, PA ‘Bees Gone Wild Apiaries' FeralBeeProject.com http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/HoneybeeArticles ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 23:18:48 -0400 Reply-To: bee-quick@bee-quick.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: CCD in Ferals? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Joe speculated: > The consensus is that the CCD decline is occurring > in commercial beekeeping operations not organic Not a consensus at all. Known to be false. While all such talk is considered "confidential", there have been reports of CCD from (self-proclaimed) "organic" beekeepers. This has been floating around for a while, but no one seems willing to step forward and admit something in public that would certainly defuse some unneeded hype, and would imply no shame on the beekeeper who made the admission. As Peter Borst pointed out, "commercial" operations appear to have the lowest incidence of CCD. Yes, one can question the surveys, but one cannot question both official surveys when one wishes to accept as legitimate the claims made about "organic" and "wild" colonies, as they were made without benefit of a single shred of actual data. (See below) > or wild colonies, This claim was and still is unsupported by ANY data at all. Note that "An Absence of Evidence Isn't Evidence of Absence", and realize that if an escaped swarm, or a speculative long-established colony collapsed from CCD, this would be much like the tree that fell in the woods with no one to hear it fall. > as mentioned in July-Aug issue of Science & Sprit, and > from several other sources over the past several months. Yes, the misinformed claims of a SINGLE PERSON named Sharon Labchuk have been repeated over and over, just as the bogus claims that "cellphones were killing the bees" was also repeated over and over. Sharon is a self-proclaimed "environmentalist", and a twice-defeated candidate for election to various local offices on Prince Edward Island, Canada, where she has run on the "Green Party" slate. She also keeps bees, and on PEI, one must recall that there was quite a furor over Imidacloprid and bees a few years back, one that seemed to echo the problems experienced in France on Sunflowers, except without the Sunflowers, without the symptoms, and without the advantage of data showing cause and effect. (In fact, the studies showed no similar situation at all, which led to claims that the well-respected researchers who did the work were either incompetent, paid off by chemical companies, or both. They were lucky to escape the island alive.) So, perhaps you can see that Sharon might have been just a teensy bit inclined to blame "pesticides" for just about anything, even a problem not seen in PEI, or Canada as a whole. (Yet, that is. Keep your fingers crossed...) Sharon came to her conclusions based solely on the LACK of any reports of CCD being made on a single Yahoo discussion group. ( http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/Organicbeekeepers/ ) Note that yahoo seems to classify "organic bees" as "pets", while all the other yahoo groups dealing with bees are in the "agriculture" or "biology" sections. I'm not sure what this implies, I just think it is amusing. While she said that this group had "over 1000 members", this is more accurately described as the total number of people who had ever joined, not the number of current, active members who might participate in or read the discussions. > "The reports of decline come mostly from commercial beekeepers This statement is simply untrue. Both the Bee-Alert survey and the Apiary Inspectors of America survey had more reports from smaller beekeepers than "commercial" beekeepers. Not surprising, given than of roughly 100,000 total US beekeepers, only a few hundred could be called "commercial", "migratory", or anything similar. It is true that the FIRST reports came from commercial beekeepers, not surprisingly, as they had colonies down in Florida, and were thus able to inspect their colonies before anyone else. As spring moved North, more people reported finding the same symptoms in their spring inspections. > not organic or wild colonies, The claim as to "organic hives" has been debunked above, but for "wild" colonies, no one has done any sort of field work to see if there has been any impact, so the best one can say is "no one knows". Again, "An Absence of Evidence Isn't Evidence of Absence". > and experts suspect the mechanism killing the bees is not natural, > thus implicating pesticide overuse..." Well, there are a few folks that still suspect that pesticides might have a role, but the general consensus seems to be forming around the "pathogen" angle. Not only "a pathogen", but apparently, a pathogen from elsewhere. No, not another planet, just another continent. Stay tuned, which big-name journal will publish a paper with a long list of authors is apparently up in the air. Remember how I tried to get everyone to give a hoot about the WTO-imposed changes to the USA bee import regulations back in 2002-2005? Well, now maybe you'll pay more attention. I still hope that the scenarios I mapped out will not come to pass. But now that we have had poisoned dog food, and even poisoned toothpaste in one fiscal quarter, it seems clear that we really do need port-of-entry inspections for EVERYTHING we import, not just bees. The biggest problem with the "pesticide theory of CCD" is that hives nowhere near agricultural pesticide use have suffered the same fate as hives near heavy pesticide use. My favorite "poster child" example here would be Dr. Dewey Caron's hives at U Delaware. It would be hard to find a yard of hives that had better care, more inspections, and better record-keeping, and it would also be hard to find better record-keeping about the specific pesticides used nearby. It is "all research all the time" at U-DE, so if anyone wants to suspect pesticides, all the records are the place to start your search. (Funny how no one thought of Dewey's hives as being an easy-to-study, well documented case, isn't it?) Sharon's baseless speculation, made because it matched her long-standing agenda of her brand of "environmentalism" was repeated so often by so many reporters and web sites looking to fill column inches with minimal labor, the bogus claims have even made it into a "Wiki" which self-proclaims itself to be an authoritative information source about "CDD". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_Collapse_Disorder You'd think they would have learned by now, but no matter how many would-be "journalists" get burned by using a Wiki to fact-check, more writers are tempted to use these Wikis every day, mostly due to deadline pressures and a lack of ability or will to work the phones and find people with first-hand information. You can e-mail your guffaws and corrections to Doug Yanega at dyanega@UCR.EDU (He said he "edits" that Wiki, and gets his information from "published reports".) I think we need to Watch these Wikis and do a little Wiki Facty-Checky now and again. I propose that we set up the home office for this effort in Weeki Wachee, FL. That way, the Wikis can be watched from Weeki Wachee. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 23:00:08 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Scot McPherson Organization: McPherson Family Farms Subject: Re: Moderators In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >I have a delete key.... We all do. Quite frankly I only read about 1 out of maybe 30 posts here. Only read what catches my eye since so much of it is about stuff I don't care about. I don't see what the problem with this is. This is supposed to be a resource for everyone, that does NOT mean everyone must read every post. All of us have a pet topic, don't trash a poster or topic because you don't want to hear/read about it. Just use that delete key, or whatever other method, like "mark as read" so you aren't forced to read the post. Scot McPherson McPherson Family Farms Davenport, IA ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 23:41:29 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: ALDEN MARSHALL Subject: CCD Statistics. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1; reply-type=original Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Peter, Do you not question the diagnosis that initiated these statistics? Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Gavin Ramsay Subject: Re: Role of Pollinators in Carbon Sequestering MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ascii Hi Joe > The carbon uptake from tree seed germination and > growing to saplings can potentially lock up carbon for > several hundred years, as exampled by the massive > estimated 200 plus year old pollinator pollinated oak > trees out back the house. Unfortunately the little acorns from which those oak trees grew, like the seeds of most temperate trees, were pollinated by a gust of wind. all the best Gavin ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 07:37:57 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "=?windows-1252?Q?J._Waggle?=" Subject: Re: Role of Pollinators in Carbon Sequestering Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Gavin Ramsay wrote: >Unfortunately the little acorns from which those oak trees grew, like the seeds of most temperate trees, were pollinated by a gust of wind. YES! Still supporting my original statement about the importance of pollination in carbon sequestering in young plant growth, as the wind is a pollinator also! Also in the study 'Pollen Selection by Feral Honey Bee', oak pollen was found to be collected as part of the bees diet, so there is likly contribution from bees also. Best Wishes, Joe ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 11:45:30 GMT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "waldig@netzero.com" Subject: Wax recycling - what's done? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit For the folks who use apistan and checkmite: what do you do with the wax when you cycle out older frames from the broodnest? Do you melt it down and turn it into candles? I've wondered if it's safe for candles. Similarly, would it be safe at all to use the wax from insecticide- exterminated feral colonies for wax candles? Waldemar ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 05:15:13 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: C Hooper Subject: Bee Pollen May Promote Early Development of Digestive System MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII Bee Pollen May Promote Early Development of Digestive System Trophic Effect of Bee Pollen on Small Intestine in Broiler Chickens Journal of Medicinal Food, 2007, 10(2): 276-280 http://apitherapy.blogspot.com/2007/07/bee-pollen-may-promote-early.html In this study, the effects of bee pollen on the development of digestive organs were evaluated in broiler chickens… These findings suggest that bee pollen could promote the early development of the digestive system and therefore is a potentially beneficial food supplement for certain conditions, such as short bowel syndrome. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 08:23:19 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "=?UTF-8?Q?Peter_L._Borst?=" Subject: Re: CCD Statistics. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit ALDEN MARSHALL wrote: >Do you not question the diagnosis that initiated these statistics? Alden, I question everything. I may the world's most skeptical person. I was very much on the side of SSDD (same shit, different day). I have seen so many hives collapse over the years I thought, so what else is new? However, when I read a paper authored by Dennis Van Engelsdorp, Robyn Underwood, Dewey Caron, and Jerry Hayes, I stand up and pay attention. I am not fool enough to suppose they couldn't be wrong, but these people did a lot of work and I respect their conclusions. I have kept an open mind through this whole thing and to this day I believe we don't know what we have here. I tell people that if you were to look at a map of this, you simply would not see any correlations. That in itself is highly unusual. One would expect to see clusters or trends, etc. If this problem was clustered around areas of heavy agriculture or near urban areas, or just in areas with extreme temperatures, then you would have something. So far as I know, there is nothing like that to hang a theory on. pb ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 08:40:04 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Raw Honey for Cancer & Severe Arthritis In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit J. Waggle wrote: > I would imagine the benefits of honey for substitution of medication must > have been proven in the medical feild and of greater benefit to the > patients wellbeing for physicians to recommend honey over the products > from the powerful drug companies. > > The primary beneficiaries will be undertakers. We are back to Bill's Law of the Survivor. All testimonials for cancer cures come from the survivors. You never hear from the dead ones. Beekeepers, the recipients of both stings and honey, are not immune from cancer. There are many on this list who have been down that path, and some are no longer with us. Any Doctor recommending honey to cure cancer walks with a distinct waddle. Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 12:41:59 GMT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "waldig@netzero.com" Subject: Re: Symptoms Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dave, Thanks for coming forward with the information on your ccd. >>Vitamin C is somewhat usful, but NOT a cure (depending on rigor 20 to 40 (out of 100)) Interesting. Vitamin C is anti-viral. How do you administer it and in what doses? Does C negatively impact the bees themselves? Waldemar ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 09:46:33 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Symptoms In-Reply-To: <20070727.054159.8022.1@webmail07.dca.untd.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit waldig@netzero.com wrote: > Interesting. Vitamin C is anti-viral. Long ago debunked. There was another more recent study that confirmed it does nothing in the anti-viral world with humans. However, it will prevent scurvy in bees. Bill Truesdell (who still takes Vt C, even though it does nothing. Take that back. I have never had scurvy.) Bath, Maine ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 11:11:06 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dick Marron Subject: Re: Symptoms In-Reply-To: <46A9F739.6040907@suscom-maine.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bill wrote: >>>>However, it will prevent scurvy in bees. Bill Truesdell (who still takes Vt C, even though it does nothing. Take that back. I have never had scurvy.)<<<< I'm guessing you never had CCD either. :-) I expected Mr. Thompson would get a few jibes when he mentioned Vitamin c. Let's not forget that nutrition is a big suspect in CCD. Denis Andersen found nutrition to create a CCD like illness 8 years ago in AU. It may not be a Vit C deficiency here but it's not that far off the wall. Dick Marron ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 11:47:12 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dave Thompson Subject: Re: Symptoms Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >Interesting. Vitamin C is anti-viral. Yes WEAKLY anti-viral. Thats why I said LOTS (C has little effect on bacteria or other parasites so...) >How do you administer it Dissolved in feed, drench to keep (as much as possable) in brood area >in what doses? <1gm to 3-4gm (dependant on strength), ideally /day In reality, weekly >Does C negatively impact the bees themselves? No? I get the sense that they (dimly) realize that this is 'better' Like Langstroth I like to 'bribe' the bees at nearly every opportunity. They are so bribeable, it makes them happy, why not As behavoir mod it is futile due to thier short life. They learn quickly, then die All the nay-sayers had steam coming out of my ears. Later I thought 'when they have to eat crow will they do it with "grace"? and laughed' And BTW is someone else looking for symptoms? Where Joe? I would like to be less 'lonely' Recently a few bees in a few hives (3) showed trembling symptoms (normal looking otherwise) Think waggle dance, whole body, not so extreme (as waggle). This is not a widespread symptom Then I looked at the # of the ccd box on top (of 2) and said 'Aha, I thought that was the most infected' Amusingly one of the boxes had a frames worth of empty space, the queen thought (mistakenly) that it was OK and went up and laid it full Silver lining, this gives opportunity to test new treatment I have NO confidence in SO2 Also I get the sense that formic IS a treatment for ccd, aside from its miticide action I had that feeling a few months ago, but its a weak treatment, I'll rate it at 15 As I said to Randy re ants Maybe ant scout gets quickly confused, can't find way back and gets sick enough to get lost = lack of scouts??? It would be a cheap experiment, ccd box over terrerium (& control) earwigs are NOT effected by X There are several other cheap experiments but I have no budget. If I knew that I was going to end up "lead researcher" I would have documented better, who knew LOOK IN ARCHIVES dave ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:03:04 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Symptoms In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dave Thompson wrote: > All the nay-sayers had steam coming out of my ears. > Later I thought 'when they have to eat crow will > they do it with "grace"? and laughed' Be happy to, Dave. The problem with many anecdotal tests is just that, a lack of control of the variables involved. The vitamin c added to the feed may be creating an acid feed and has nothing to do with anti-viral qualities but the ph of the feed. Or it may be that CCD is related to adequate feed.. So to pin the tail on one donkey tends to get people to rush out and try anything new, when they may have acidic water already and the C would put it over the top and be harmful. Or not. But to assume it is because C is anti-viral is a bit of a stretch for me.It could be anything. Bill Truesdell (who will invite Grace over for crow anytime.) Bath, Maine ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:18:34 -0400 Reply-To: james.fischer@gmail.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: Bees left alone die quickly. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > the honeybee will only live a short time > away from the hive by herself I'm sure that competent people have done the obvious things, like provide water or thin enough nectar, so it clearly is not a lack of basic physical needs "killing" the bee. I've captured bees in bee-lining boxes and kept them there for hours at a time without any dying on me, and all I provide is a sugar-water soaked sponge. I assume the period you are speaking of is longer than a single morning or afternoon. I'm sure many of us may have found bees in early morning warming up their flight muscles on the blossom where they spent the night, so the time limit would also seem to be longer than "overnight". Perhaps the problem here is that you need at least TWO bees in a box to get them to maintain the "will to live". They are called "social insects", perhaps there is a "psychological need" at work here. After all, a famous man once said: "Two bees, or not two bees, that is the question..." Sorry. It is a compulsion. (Send you dollars now, so that I can be taught to lead a more productive, perhaps even happy life.) ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:02:22 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Raw Honey for Cancer & Severe Arthritis In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mike Rippe wrote: > I'm wondering if > maybe there aren't some benefits to having honey in a diet that would > include digestive benefits > That was my first impression, since any true Doctor would not be suggesting someone drop their meds for honey. But honey just does not fit that very well either. I think I would stay away from anything except sucrose, which is hard to find in our current diet, where fructose is all around us and not that great. Plus, the subject is for both cancer and arthritis which implies more cure than palliative. I have not gone through chemo, since surgery removed the cancer and it seems to still be away, but those I talked to say it is unpleasant but not nearly as bad as it once was. They do use drugs to help you through it, but if honey is "the same as " those drugs, then a can of coke will do as well. I have gone down the path of alternative medicines for a variety of things to see if honey actually does work. The only area I have seen, and I used it, was as a topical dressing for wounds. That is outside the body, not inside. There have been articles about its use for a diabetic, but that is a no-no. It cures ulcers... well maybe not. Helps digestion...well maybe not. Honey does nothing for arthritis, but bee stings do, as I can testify, and it is backed up by good research. It is a good energy food but no protein, which what a cancer patient needs. If there is a study out there that shows it is great for chemo patients, I have not seen it (and I did search for it at reputable med sites). It sounds a lot like the people who buy my raw honey to treat their allergies. They hear from others that it works. I eat it too, and it does nothing for my allergies. But the brain is a marvelous thing and can make us feel better when we really are not. I do not have much truck with those who try and lead cancer patients away form conventional medicine. I have friends who I convinced to stay the course, it is not pleasant, but they did so, and are still able to converse with me without the aid of Bruce Willis. Grace is always ready to cook up the crow, just I like to see something from a reputable source, not Dr. Joe Quakenbush at icureall.com (it is availble if you want a quick buck). Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:17:14 -0400 Reply-To: bee-quick@bee-quick.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: Pesticides and IPM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > can only imagine my delight at checking my > email this morning, and not finding that > I've been blasted by Jim again! First, I have no reply to claims of "trolling". Unfortunately, "IPM" was lost in all the shrill "objections". Can anyone claim that "threshold" are NOT a mere guess? Keeping records, looking for trends, what's so scary? You either have a pest/prey ratio, or you don't. One measurement of pests alone is a meaningless number. Use of "thresholds" mean that one is treating "at random". Nuff said. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 08:11:50 +1000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: queenbee Subject: Re: Symptoms MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dick wrote > Denis Andersen found nutrition to create a CCD like illness 8 years ago in > AU. Incorrect. The symptoms of what we beekeepers in Australia commonly call "The Muck" are not like CCD at all. We can stop "The Muck" occurring. I haven't heard of anyone that has stopped CCD yet. Next thing we know there will be some newspaper report to say that we now have CCD in Australia. Let us keep Bee-L informed and correct comment. Trevor Weatherhead Australia (Who knows what 'The Muck" like) ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 21:08:25 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dick Marron Subject: Symptoms MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dick wrote > Denis Andersen found nutrition to create a CCD like illness 8 years ago in > AU. Queenbee wrote: Incorrect. The symptoms of what we beekeepers in Australia commonly call "The Muck" are not like CCD at all Dick Replies. Thank you for the correction. The symptoms are quite dissimilar. It mimics EFB. For those interested: Denis Anderson 1997, Australia (AU) http://www.rirdc.gov.au/reports/HBE/04-152.pdf I got to it by looking up disappearing disease. I still find your "Muck" fascinating. I guess what I remembered was that it is possibly caused by a pathogen that appeared in times or places of poor forage and disappeared with a change in the weather...and it wasn't transferable. This is an old citation. Has more been learned? How do you prevent it? We may still find our problems are drought/nutrition related. Dick Marron Thinking he should read more closely. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 20:25:33 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: Re: CCD in Ferals? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Invariably, to increase the number and thwart >swarming, I do walk-away splits as early in the spring as possible, >thinking this way I can maintain the local gene pool, walk-away splits. Unless you are in the area of other beekeepers which run different genetics than you do I can tell you what you will end up with after a few years. To sum what has been said up it seems the answer to all our problems lies in feral swarms (which may have even came from our own hives originally). Certainly (regardless of what the feral swarm catchers say) they come from unknown genetics. Toss out the instrumental insemination device , Glenn apiaries II breeder queens and ALL commercial queen stock and do walk-away splits from unknown genetics. Am I misunderstanding you guys or got things about right? At times I tend to find fault with a queen producers queens but certainly they have always done better than the ferals I catch and the hives of walk-away splits I have seen. I am sure there are exceptions to the rule but for the most part swarms are old queens of unknown origin. Walk-away splits tend to be swarmy & aggressive before long. Many queens made with too old larva. bob -- 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: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 22:27:15 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "=?windows-1252?Q?J._Waggle?=" Subject: Re: CCD in Ferals? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit James Fischer wrote: >no one seems willing to step forward and admit something >in public that would certainly defuse some unneeded hype, Interesting, Now organic beekeepers are in a mass conspiracy. >>> or wild colonies, this would be >much like the tree that fell in the woods with no one to >hear it fall. Well, I am hearing it fall! I work closely with a local pest control company that covers most of SW PA. I GET ALL the Calls. But I choose to only accept calls in a 1 sometimes 3 county area which is plenty enough swarm chasing for me. Feral swarm calls are only down only about 10 percent, 20 percent at the very tops. I see NO 50% collapse in the ferals, so they are apparently doing fine. My home is in the woodlands were trees are known to fall and feral bees are known to swarm, ferals caught in traps actually increased over the last two seasons. >Yes, the misinformed claims of a SINGLE PERSON named Sharon >Labchuk I don’t understand why you assume the habit of attempting to discredit persons instead of targeting what you disagree with in their writings. It’s that what one should do in a orderly and gentlemanly disagreement? Or is your argument so weak that you need to resort to this? Frankly, It is difficult to get thru your letter due to my distaste for such tactics, It is a BIG disappointment when I read such stuff on these lists. But in scanning over your letter, I see a large percentage of you time was spent attacking the person and not the content, this is also apparent by your need to mention her by name at least 5 times that I happened to noticed. and a >twice-defeated candidate for election to various local >offices on Prince Edward Island, Canada, where she has >run on the "Green Party" slate. Humm, has really noting to do with the topic of discussion, part of your discrediting campaign I take it? >So, perhaps you can see that Sharon might have been >just a teensy bit inclined to blame "pesticides" The CCD group has NOT eliminated pesticides from the list of suspects as Dennis vanEngelsdorp writes in a report: “Pesticides are often suspected as the cause for honey bee mortality because many that are used on bee-pollinated crops are toxic to honey bees. Tests commonly focus on finding doses of pesticides that are lethal to honey bees. However, the sublethal effects can also lead to problems at the colony level.” Best Wishes, Joe Waggle ~ Derry, PA ‘Bees Gone Wild Apiaries' FeralBeeProject.com http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/HoneybeeArticles ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 23:01:47 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "=?windows-1252?Q?J._Waggle?=" Subject: Re: data collection on feral colonies of EHB Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Kathy Kellison wrote: > Are you working on a project to collect data on feral populations of honey bees in the U.S.? Come to think of it, I did have a survey I wanted to do that was abandoned because I doubt I would be able to get the participation needed. I have a better survey 'lost somewhere', but here is one of the rough drafts I found that I was working on: http://www.stellarsurvey.com/response/s.aspx?u=8640 This is just part one of the survey. Part one, I would assume might reveal that ferals are recovering the fastest in human populated areas, because there would be more eyes to spot them there. The valuable information would come from Part two, which surveys colony performance from colony initiation on thru 18 weeks of growth stage. Part two would likely reveal where the best performing ferals are to be found. And where they are performing best, would likely be where good varroa resistance is also. Best Wishes, Joe Waggle ~ Derry, PA ‘Bees Gone Wild Apiaries' FeralBeeProject.com http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/HoneybeeArticles ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 20:49:43 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: randy oliver Subject: Re: CCD in Ferals? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="Windows-1252"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit bob said: >Walk-away splits > tend to be swarmy & aggressive before long. Many queens made with too old > larva. I'm with Bob on this one. Ferals may be a great place to look for promising genetics, but then you need to raise properly selected, fed, and mated daughters. Then check the performance of the daughters before you can really call the mother a "breeder." Randy Oliver ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 08:39:21 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: CCD in Ferals? swarm identification In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It is interesting that the feral population is thriving based on the observation that the number of swarms has not gone down. Could someone let me know what the identifying trait is between swarms from managed colonies and those from feral sources? Bill Truesdell (who notes that noids always come in pairs) Bath, Maine ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 10:47:02 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: randy oliver Subject: Time to thank congresspersons who helped MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable By a 231-191 vote, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the 2007 = farm > bill (HR 2419) on Friday afternoon. See highlights below. There was an extensive list of signatories to the group letter, = including many beekeeping and conservation groups, and individuals. These people could use a thank you email from beekeepers: -Rep Alcee Hastings = http://www.alceehastings.house.gov/index.php?option=3Dcom_content&task=3D= view&id=3D104&Itemid=3D > -Rep Earl Blumenaur > -Ag Cmte Chmn Colin Peterson > -Ranking member Bob Goodlatte > -Horticulture & Organic Ag Subc Chair Dennis Cardoza > -Subc ranking member Randy Neugebauer > -YOUR Representative Some highlights: a.. a new section for ``Pollinator Protection'' that authorizes = research funding > to reduce North American pollinator decline and understand Colony = Collapse > Disorder b.. also includes "specialty crop pollination" as eligible for > competitive specialty crops research, which is funded at $215 = million > [mandatory] over the 5-year life of the farm bill. c.. producers are eligible to receive EQIP > incentive payments for pollinator habitat. =20 d.. "The Committee included pollinator [habitat] to the list of = practices eligible > for incentive payments under EQIP.=20 e.. USDA is to report annually to Congress on response to CCD and = impact > on honey bees. f.. a significant increase in mandatory conservation spending, = meaning more > resources will be provided to programs that can benefit pollinators, > pollinator habitat and the agricultural and wildlife ecosystems that depend g..=20 ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ******************************************************