From MAILER-DAEMON Sat Feb 28 11:01:57 2009 Return-Path: <> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.8 (2007-02-13) on industrial X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-82.2 required=2.4 tests=ADVANCE_FEE_1,ADVANCE_FEE_2, ADVANCE_FEE_3,AWL,MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR,MILLION_USD,SPF_HELO_PASS, USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=disabled version=3.1.8 X-Original-To: adamf@IBIBLIO.ORG Delivered-To: adamf@IBIBLIO.ORG Received: from listserv.albany.edu (unknown [169.226.1.24]) by metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70CC2490A5 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 2009 10:52:23 -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 n1SFhrqI016524 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 2009 10:52:23 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 10:52:18 -0500 From: "University at Albany LISTSERV Server (14.5)" Subject: File: "BEE-L LOG0710E" To: adamf@IBIBLIO.ORG Message-ID: Content-Length: 130116 Lines: 2940 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 20:35:58 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: randy oliver Subject: Re: CCD "...Australian honeybees may not be the source..." MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="Windows-1252"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >In other words how do you jump from a “degree of risk” to an “inevitability”? Percent risk x some number of years eventually equals near 100% certainty. >Also, I would like to know what is of more risk to you as a pollinator of almonds, Assuming that viruses mutate randomly, the bigger the pool, the more chance of a virulent mutation. Continents tend to isolate the dispersal of said mutations, unless we help them to cross oceans. It's bad enough in almonds being exposed to every germ in the US. Worse to be exposed to every germ in the world. Randy Oliver ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 00:29:07 -0500 Reply-To: bee-quick@bee-quick.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: CCD "...Australian honeybees may not be the source..." MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I just was told there recently was an newspaper > article in the last three days of a bee die off in Florida. Using the google news search, and typing in "bee +florida", I got this in several Cox newspapers: ================================================================= Cox News Service - Thu, Oct. 25, 2007 WASHINGTON: Unexplained honeybee deaths have started showing up in Florida, where the mysterious Colony Collapse Disorder was first discovered a year ago, the Agriculture Department's top bee scientist said Thursday. Jeffrey Pettis, research leader of the department's Bee Research Laboratory in Beltsville, Md., said it is too early to say if another round of bee die-offs has started. The insect plague devastated thousands of commercial beehives in several states last year, posing a threat to crops that depend on bees for pollination. When it occurs, worker bees fail to return to hives, leaving juvenile bees and some adults to die. Colony Collapse Disorder was first reported by a Florida beekeeper in November of last year. It quickly started showing up in other states. Pettis was a member of a team who last month reported that a recently discovered bee virus had been linked to hives in which CCD had occurred. ===================================================================== So, the report confirms nothing, and only adds more speculation. But given the multiple reports Jerry B. confirms have been arriving, I don't think that there is any basis for ongoing denial phrased as rhetorical questions like: > Where is the 'diagnosis' in the equation? A number of these reports have come from people known to be skilled enough to identify the basic symptoms. The actual "diagnosis" will come when their samples are tested. > So far, I have seen just about every succumbed colony in the USA > being blamed on CCD. CCD has become the 'convenient diagnosis' > for every colony death ranging from queenlessness to mismanagement > to what ever. Few beekeepers want to even ADMIT to having been hit by CCD in public, so your contempt for the skills of your fellow beekeepers seems to be at odds with the facts. Beekeepers would rather their names are not used in connection with CCD, so it is not as "convenient" an excuse for other problems as you might think. Randy Oliver said: > "It should be noted that inspection based on sampling always > involves a degree of error. The acceptance of some degree of > risk that the pests are present is inherent in the use of > sampling procedures for inspection." Yes, but without any sort of inspections on either end, our "degree of error" is 100%. What approach other than sampling can one use with packages? Sampling can be done at high levels, perhaps even sampling a few bees from every package, if you want to increase the screening level. If you have any ideas that might increase confidence, let's hear them! Steve Noble asked: > In the quest for freedom from risk, at what point does the > level of certainty required become a de facto ban on imports? The "question" is really an argument. Right now, we have ZERO data and thereby, ZERO certainty. Without sample data, the result was finger-pointing, angry denials, and calls by US Senators to ban further bee imports, WTO rules notwithstanding. Not good. In the face of these accusations, veiled and not-so-veiled, Australia's initial response was 100% data-free, and thereby 100% fact free. The US had only a few samples, not really even enough to get published in a scientific journal, but somehow, they got a paper published. They are now scrambling to get some more data to support the conclusions that they are claiming they never made in the first place. (The above may sound like a joke, but it is a honest and accurate description of exactly what is happening. That's why I love "bee science", sentences like the above just write themselves!) Wouldn't it have been nice if Australia had some samples sitting in some liquid nitrogen from their mere dozen or so shipments to the US over the past three years? Imagine how quickly this issue would have been settled if sampling had been done, and some bees from each sample would have been "archived" on each end of the shipments. So I think it is fair to say that we need at least SOME data, as right now we have nothing. I think we'd have a long way to go before there would be any danger of creating a "defacto ban" on imports, or the dreaded "non-tariff barrier to trade". As I have consistently pointed to the UK/EU sampling protocol as a model for the US, Australia really has no right or reason to object to US implementation of the same protocol. If they haven't complained about sampling, testing, and record-keeping in the UK and Europe, they certainly can't complain about it being done here. If we were to go beyond the UK/EU long-standing protocol, then (and only then) there might be basis for concern. The characterization of the mere suggestion that someone, somewhere in the process merely START sampling and testing some bees as a "quest for freedom from risk" seems disingenuous in the extreme. If this view is representative of the exporters and the biosecurity staff, then I am forced to admit that a ban is all that will protect the US. It would not be so much a ban on bees as a ban on the product of arrogance. :) > If what Peter Detchon said about the rigor of inspections > being done on the Aussie side is true, What he said was not "true" at all. It may have sounded nice, but the program as described sampled an insignificant number of hives, a number so low, any conclusions drawn from the testing would not even be publishable in any refereed journal, due to glaring "statistical insignificance". > and then on top of that you add very rigorous inspections on > the American side would you not be well into the red as far > as profitability goes for imported Australian bees? As for the costs on the Australian end, without numbers, we can't say. But then you go on to assume that the cost of sampling, testing, and record-keeping on the US end would somehow impact someone's bottom line, either the buyer or seller of Aussie bees. Here in the USA, "user fees" are not the norm for APHIS inspections of imports, so I don't think there's any reason for concern in this area unless/until we (1) Have a sampling protocol and (2) hear that there will be a user fee for the "service". But how do these sorts of costs affect the profitability of bees exported to the UK and EU countries? Australia has not complained, so I can only conclude that they don't have a problem with the UK/EU port-of-entry inspection protocol for 100% of imported queens. (They don't allow Aussie packages at all.) But your most basic assumption is that shipping live bees from the other side of the planet should somehow be "profitable". Says who? I guess it is, given the skimping that has been done on the minor detail of "biosecurity", but the basic concept of air-freighting live animals is a highly speculative venture well past "visionary" and into "surreal" territory. Most non-beekeepers who hear about bees from Australia and New Zealand are amazed that anyone would attempt it. The effort might have made a profit from the initial captive customer base of Canadians, forced to either pay the prices asked, or risk fines and prison time for getting their bees from where they wanted to get them, where they had always gotten them before, but even that opportunity only lasted for so long. > who has more at stake in making sure no bad stuff gets through, > the people whose livelihood depends on selling bees to U.S. > beekeepers or overworked and under funded U.S. federal inspectors Neither group is doing ANYTHING of tangible value yet, so I'm going to pressure both sides, as two sets of tests allows each to keep their own data, and be held responsible for the process, and liable for the results. > like the ones who were watching toys from China? The actual problem was that no one was watching the toys from China at all. Anyway, far more toys were recalled for design defects in 2007 than for lead paint, so the toy problem is not a good model for "import screening", as no level of screening would have detected design defects. > Let's assume that the mother of all pathogens threatening > bee kind is not more likely to come from without the U.S. > than from within. You'll have to find someone who would do more than laugh at that assumption. It is generally known where the nasty beasties are, and there are books, papers in journals, and news articles about the slow spread of these exotic invasive from their native ranges to nearby places. Two recent examples for beekeeping have been the Small Hive Beetle and the Apis cerana invasions of Australia. The only "good news" is that the ships most likely to have carried these problems to Australia's shores were not shipshape enough to make a trans-Pacific or trans-Atlantic crossing to the US! > It's clear to me from this discussion that no one knows > what the risk is, or how to assess it. Actually, back in 2002 the US did "risk assessments", so the WTO thinks that they know exactly how to assess risk. We now find that the WTO's approach to "risk" is exactly as I described it in 2001/2002 - one that admits that the spread of invasive exotic diseases and pests is an inevitable result of World Trade under the WTO rules, and shrugs as if this was excused by the profits made by those who export and import. So, the US appears to be tip-toeing around the issue, as this summer prompted a number of people to speak out of turn and far above their pay grades, resulting in the impression that the US was about to adopt the EU's favorite tool "the precautionary principle". > Australian package producers would just go out of business. > I think. Well, the Canadian closure of their border to US packages and queens is what CREATED the Australian (and Kiwi) bee export business, so maybe the business is simply no longer viable now that the Canadians have choices about where to get their bees. Perhaps the bottom line on the whole trans-oceanic bee export game is that the business model was only viable if the customer base was truly "captive", forced to buy imported bees by law, and also forced to ignore any problems, as they had no other viable source of the quantities of packages required. If nothing else, the exercise forced the Alberta beekeepers to learn how to overwinter their hives, which was likely the best thing that ever happened to their profitability. 4th Game: Final Score, Red Sox 4, Rockies 3 Which means that the Red Sox have apparently won the World Series AGAIN. I'll have to wait until tomorrow morning to celebrate, because it is more likely that this is all a dream than the Sox would win the Series twice in three lifetimes. ...but if it is a dream, why am I typing? ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 12:02:35 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: Re: CCD 2007 (was Don't Tell) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello All, >I think Jerry B. has made it clear that CCD continues to be a real and significant problem for an expanding list of operations from tiny to huge, spread hither and yon about the lower 48 states of the US, Jerry said he had heard from two repeats from last year. So far I can't find a single beekeeper claiming to have colonies dying from a CCD type problem. I have been looking (calling around and spent a week on the road covering around 1600 miles) . Article in December ABJ. I doubt Jerry & Jim have been looking as I have been. Waiting for the phone to ring is not looking. Either write an article with names and pictures or I will have to consider this years CCD problems simply smoke with no fire! Sorry but I do not believe this years CCD victims are not willing to take a call from Bob Harrison concerning their die off. Free of charge (as I due charge for diagnosis at times)! I will keep their names and information private but I need for the beekeepers to be honest about their problem. Send me a name or two? Dead hives these days are all considered CCD and never beekeeper error. I have seen virus problems in the bee yards of beekeepers for the last two decades. Very rare before varroa but common after. Field diagnosis is possible (despite what my friend Jim has said) but all our researchers do is grab a few bees and head to the lab. I have observed the symptoms of all the known virus found in the U.S.. I am especially familiar with paralysis virus early and late symptoms. Virus problems can be mistaken for a chemical kill but not so hard to tell apart is you know what to look for. Problems with CCD research: What they call healthy hives had nosema and virus from the reports. Healthy? Maybe healthier than! But certainly NOT healthy! Why does the CCD researchers play down the fact KBV/ nosema was found in all samples? KBV is a proven killer of honey bees. The USDA-ARS said for years there was no KBV in the U.S. (until Denis Anderson came over and found KBV every place he looked). The latest information I have read says three strains of IAPV have been found and it seems entered from at least three different ways. Also the U.S. is not exactly like the Israel strain. If you read the research of Bailey, Ball and Carrick ( and others) which I have you quickly see virus is interesting but without the varroa issue of minor concern to beekeepers as the only method to prevent problems (CCD ?) is to keep varroa loads low. With today's varroa issue (with only soft methods available such as miteaway two, apilife var and apiguard) then virus issues will move towards the front line but prevention is the answer as there is not another solution. The REASON Bailey never got the attention he felt he deserved from commercial beekeepers. On page 1110 of Hive and the Honey Bee (92 ed.) I quote : " Acute Bee Paralysis",according to Bailey, is a "laboratory phenomenon" The point Bailey is trying to make in my opinion is that certain virus which kill bees in the lab do not kill bees in the field and many times are present in most hives. Which points to the simple fact that IAPV may not even harm bees. It may be one of those viruses such as Black queen virus and bee virus B which are ONLY present when Nosema is present (and nosema was present in all CCD samples) I have done many posts on BEE-L explaining the issue and what would happen when varroa loads drop to a level virus becomes an issue. Search archives with my name and virus. NOTHING has changed. My position is the same as the late nineties. >Note that I do not agree that we have sufficient evidence at this point to even support a claim that anyone has found IAPV itself anywhere except Israel. Also that IAPV is nothing more than a mutant form of KBV which is widespread in the U.S. >Please also note that while the apparent intent of the authors of the paper clearly was, as Bob noted, to "point the finger" at Australia, the paper does stop short of making the specific and overt accusation itself. I disagree and if the wording had been. one reference to Australia as a possible source which needs further research then I might agree. CNN said the new virus was brought in by Australian Bees. The new virus WAS the cause of CCD. By the end of the day CNN was not running the story. Remember the poor security guard which the news media ruined over the Atlanta bombings? I said a long time ago that the overt symptoms of CCD meant that this "just has to be a virus". Virus problems always raise their head when varroa control is an issue (such as the two documented apiary inspector reports on Dave Hackenbergs bees). After a year os CCD research we are back tp the start with the same advice for beekeepers we had last year. The only new information is in my December article. Control varroa and you can reuse equipment! . Jim said: >In other words, my problem with the paper is that it proves nothing, and settles no relevant issue one way or the other, and thereby loses any right to "make claims" or "draw conclusions". I agree! >Is Penn State "defending" something somewhere? November ABJ (pg. 930-931) Penn State is speaking about me on pg. 930 " Although the original Science Express research seemed to implicate imported Australian package bees as a possible cause, SINCE then others have disputed the THEORY as being unsubstantiated". For example they have cited prior importation's to Canada as not causing the same problem and that no outbreaks of CCD have been reported in Australia" Or I might add the many other places which have got varroa and have received Australian bees. I am also in the November ABJ on page 953 in my "Bugg Baffler" ( many have asked about)center top photo next to Marla Spivak. Used to protect campers from Mosquitoes for those on the list wondering what the netting looks like. If you do not mind a few stings then try a "bugg baffler" . I have used for years! 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: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 06:57:59 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "Peter L. Borst" Subject: Re: Unlimited Brood Nest MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline * Old Comb Was Treasured * Bob writes: > The old wives tale that queens prefer dark comb does not hold water for the most part. Bees can clean and polish a cell of new comb faster than old dark comb. Research has shown 45 minutes for a dark cell and about half as long for new comb. Hmm. What research? Which old wives? University of Kentucky College of Agriculture: > Bees usually accept old, dark comb more readily than they accept new comb or foundation. Andy Nachbaur: > Most beekeepers find that darker combs are preferred by queens and this maybe because of the heat a old black comb can attract and hold compared to a nice white extracting comb. Wedmore, in his classic 'Manual of Beekeeping' says: > He had brood combs that were 27 years old and which served perfectly well. He specifically measured the cell size with a micrometer - to see if successive pupal silk linings caused a thickening of the cell walls; but found no difference from new drawn combs. He also claimed that old dark comb was far better for overwintering because the thicker mid rib provided better insulation. Bill Ainsworth: > In the old days, old comb was treasured as a good basis for a swarm or giving more room to a stock, leaving the bees to collect and store honey in the supers, rather than use the honey or nectar to build comb. Times change, with all the virus that we have about, we need to be a lot more concerned to keep the bees on clean comb. -- Pete ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 07:35:52 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Michael Palmer Subject: Re: CCD tonight on 60 minutes In-Reply-To: <001201c819be$2dcf4c60$22bc59d8@BusyBeeAcres> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Bob says: > This year there is no big dieoff (except in >the mind of Jim Fischer) this year. Jim Fischer email box full of CCD >reports? On Saturday, I talked with a western NY beekeeper, who testified before Congress last spring. He told me of beekeepers in the Dakotas that are losing many colonies. He mentioned one operation that lost a whole trailer load of nucs with CCD symptoms. Mike ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 06:50:50 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: Re: CCD tonight on 60 minutes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Mike & All, > He mentioned one operation that lost a whole trailer load of nucs with CCD symptoms. I just spent a week in the Dakotas looking for CCD and talking to commercial beekeepers. Talked to two which had attended their last bee meeting. None reported any problems and said they had not heard of any. However that *does not mean* there are not a *few* beekeepers having problems. Mike send me a name if you can so I can contact. I had a very large beekeeper in California tell me that he had heard of bees on four frames arriving in California from North Dakota but not dead. Said he had heard of a beekeeper in the central valley with deadouts but not CCD symptoms (and the beekeeper always has deadouts!). What have you heard in California Randy? Thousands of hives crashing from CCD? ALL beekeepers are checking and asking. Every bee meeting asks its members! Jeff pettis did the piece for 60 minutes within the last 2-3 weeks I was told. I am sure Jeff would have loved to say the problem was starting again but he did not! Because it isn't! Dave Hackenberg is in contact with as many commercial beekeepers as I am . I believe he would have said on 60 minutes IF the problem was being seen this fall. He said the opposite but worried about next year! I guess I will have to get my "hacker" to hack into Jim Fischer's email & voice mail.( kidding Jim but send me a name!). Bob "Thinking where there is smoke there is not always fire" -- 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, 29 Oct 2007 10:20:41 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: CCD and media In-Reply-To: <001801c81a2a$568d2b60$08bc59d8@BusyBeeAcres> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I think we are back in the multiplier effect that we encountered when CCD first started. You have a report (one, two or three with CCD symptoms) and they are reported and re-reported again and again until the couple of actual reports is amplified into the "80% of all East Coast bees". So now it seems the Dakotas are collapsing along with Florida but most of us know of no one who has a problem in either area. At least back when it first started there were some known by name, but now it is just "heard of ". CCD is hype driven and I blame that on those in the Easter US scientific community that wanted to publish at any price as well as justify their expenditure of public funds, as well as some beekeepers who were only looking for the same public funds to bail them out. The old adage of "follow the money" unfortunately is linked hand in hand with CCD. Have you noticed that one fact has never been published, which is the real number of CCD colony deaths US wide and what percentage that is of all colonies? There are plenty of hyperventilated numbers, but nothing of substance. 2% may even be high. In todays media world it is easy to put one person with a problem in front of a camera and allow the assumption to exist that the problem is universal and you are about to become a victim. One of the points in the hype to watch the Nature program Sunday night on PBS was that bees would be totally gone by 2035. I recorded it so will see what they have to say. Not holding out hope for objectivity. Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 13:07:45 GMT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "waldig@netzero.net" Subject: Re: unlimited brood nest Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >>The old frames are much less prone to blow out in the extractor, too. Of course, I understand that with the widespread use of miticides, many people want to segregate the brood combs from the honey supers. I have no opinion either way about consuming honey from the broodnest. [I've read about the honey from the broodnest being darker.] But I don't like extracting deep frames from the broodnest for pratictical reasons (I don't use miticides that can end up in the wax or honey). My broodnests are in 3 deeps with ten frames each. When these frames are filled with capped honey, they represent *thin* combs that are awkward and tougher to uncap with a cold knife. I use mediums with 8 frames for my supers. Now these make nice extra fat combs with very deep cells. Uncapping these is a pleasure. Also the cells are drawn out very deep - too deep for the queen's abdomen to reach down to the bottom to plant an egg. There is very little incentive for the bees to empty these and shave them down to the laying depth. And I put the supers on as soon as the colonies have established the honey dome in the 3rd deep of the broodnest. I don't get brood in my supers. I practice undersupering to encourage a quicker removal of nectar from the broodnest - key to preventing overcrowding swarming. This gives the queen more room in the broodnest and less motivation to look for empty cells in the supers. In this set-up there is no need for a queen excluder which would reduce the rate of nectar movement from the broodnest up into the supers which, in turn, would reduce nectar gathering in the field and encourage swarming. I only use excluders now to prevent queens from killing each other when I put colonies on top of each other [to save on bottom boards, covers etc.] during my queen rearing season. Most of the time they are in storage. Waldemar ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 09:44:32 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: Re: CCD "...Australian honeybees may not be the source..." MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Colony Collapse Disorder was first reported by a Florida beekeeper in November of last year. It quickly started showing up in other states. My phone started ringing last year about crashing hives from July on. Most in Sept. & Oct. The die off was real but the documented cases of CCD as determined by bees missing and 7-9 frames of brood left was rare from those I spoke with. From my conversations with those which claimed CCD only Dave Hackenberg and Lance S. spoke of those symptoms. However mostly of hives without bees. I do think the USDA should have focused on those hives as those symptoms were never seen before by *those* guys. As I have said many times before. For decades when you find a hive with adult bees gone and full frames of brood ( I have seen myself for decades) you think pesticide kill and the bees did not return due to not being able to find their way back or died in the field. >From the unsolved case files: I posted months ago about a case in Florida I looked into where the missing bees were found floating in a swamp about 200-300 feet from the yard. Never seen before so my phone rang. I told the beekeeper to look for the dead bees and when he called back I was surprised as I really did not think he would find the missing bees.I do not know what happened but sure the bees thought they were at the place their hive should be. >From the solved files: Years ago a migratory Nebraska beekeeper took three semi loads of bees to Carthage, Texas to winter. Came back to Texas a couple weeks later to find brood in all stages but missing adult bees. He was advised to follow the bee line of the bees. Which he did. What he found was a commercial beekeeper close by had huge pans of poison honey set out and the pans were full of dead bees. After the fight the beekeepers actually became friends! Seems the Texas beekeeper was trying to extract honey in his honey house and the out of state bees were causing problems. No CCD here and case closed! On a later trip I made to Texas the Nebraska beekeeper took me over to meet his Texas new friend! I was told before the meeting not to bring the bee kill subject up! 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, 29 Oct 2007 13:09:50 -0500 Reply-To: bee-quick@bee-quick.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: CCD tonight on 60 minutes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > This year there is no big dieoff (except in the mind > of Jim Fischer) this year. Jim Fischer email box full > of CCD reports? > I guess I will have to get my "hacker" to hack into > Jim Fischer's email & voice mail.( kidding Jim but > send me a name!). Bob Harrison is apparently desperate for "a list", but certainly must realize that it is not my place to list names. If beekeepers want to "go public", they will. But without specific permission, I don't think anyone should presume to announce someone else's problems to the world. It may be that they would rather not have their problems known, so that they can quietly arrange for subcontracts to allow them to meet their pollination commitments. As for the "60 Minutes" and "Nature" programs, I watched both, and was not at all impressed with either. Both strayed from the simple facts, and indulged in "scary scenarios" just in time for Halloween. "Nature" often produces fine programs about science and the R&D process. That wasn't one of them. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 13:40:59 -0400 Reply-To: lloyd@rossrounds.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Lloyd Spear Subject: CCD MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Bill T. just said "There are plenty of hyperventilated numbers, but nothing of substance. 2% may even be high." On Sunday night, on the PBS special, Dave Hackenberg said that CCD killed "1/3 of the US bees from 2006/2007". Dave also said: 1. One of my typical hives travels 5,500 miles (by truck) from March-October. 2. In June 2007 "I put 2,600 hives on blueberries in Maine at $90 each". In case any of you are having trouble with the math, that is $234,000, and Maine is only one of Dave's many stops. -- 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: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 10:46:41 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: randy oliver Subject: Nosema ceranae MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > What have you heard in California Randy? Thousands of hives crashing from > CCD? Hi All, I've been following your discussion, but have been too busy researching to join in. I just sent off the first of three articles on Nosema ceranae. They will begin in the Dec ABJ. I am in no way saying that ceranae is the CAUSE of CCD, but the etiology of many of the collapse that have been documented, and the symptoms of N ceranae infection are strikingly similar. This is a worldwide phenomenon taking place in the last several years. The results of ceranae infection have been blamed on many other suspects, but while we were sleeping, ceranae has displaced N apis throughout much of the world in the past 10 years. Forget most of what you know about nosema infection--ceranae is a very different critter. Any discussion of colony collapses, poor buildup, or dwindling in any country is moot unless you have a record of nosema spore counts prior. To answer Bob's question, yes, beekeepers are having problems. Those that tested early for nosema (in June) are having fewer problems. I don't want to discuss this any more until my articles come out. Please don't deluge me with emails!!!! The first article will describe the etiology and seasonality of the disease, its mode of reinfection, and its interactions with nutrition and viruses. The next article will describe treatment methods--chemical, alternatives, management, and comb disinfection. The third article will illustrate how a beekeeper can take spore counts himself, and will compare various sampling methods, and their advantages and shortcomings. I've got loads of photos to illustrate. Folks, this one caught me by surprise, too! I will post all to my new website after publication in ABJ. The new website is scientificbeekeeping.com, and requires no registration. I am looking for sponsors, so that I can continue my goal to get good scientific information out to beekeepers. Randy Oliver ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 14:16:25 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: CCD horse race MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello All, Because of all the different hypothesis on the cause of CCD a horse race was decided on and the beekeeping world will accept the hypothesis of the winner as the cause of CCD. By the time the horses rounded the first turn the Christians horse "Bee Rapture" had dropped out of the race. By the second turn the folks from Roswell, New Mexico's horse" taken up by aliens" had fallen back. As we round the third turn the horse" N. ceranae " rode by Randy Oliver takes the lead. Passing the horse "pathogen" rode by Jim Fischer. As we head for the finish the horse "SSDD" rode by Dann Purvis, the horse "imadicloprid" rode by Dave Hackenberg and the horse "KBV" rode by Denis Anderson remain contenders as we head for the home stretch! 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, 29 Oct 2007 17:17:22 -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 "...Australian honeybees may not be the source..." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Bob Harrison wrote: >The die off was real but the documented cases of CCD as determined by bees >missing and 7-9 frames of brood left was rare from those I spoke with. Hello Bob, With the diagnosis you mention, it would rule out colonies having less frames of brood and in singles and nucs, or wintering colonies. It might also rule out Russians and other stock that are known the cut back or shut down brood rearing. It might even rule out colonies with poor queen performance, which I might think would be the most susceptible. A diagnosis of CCD might also disproportionately show a higher number of collapsed Italian colonies being ‘diagnosed’ with CCD. While a collapsed Russian colony in queen shutdown, OR less performing queen ruled not CCD. So the symptoms used to "diagnose CCD", do NOT IMO make a diagnosis! They only makd a ‘suggestion’ that it is perhaps CCD. Which is far from a diagnosis. Best Wishes, Joe ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:41:18 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: randy oliver Subject: Re: CCD horse race MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > As we head for the finish the horse .... Likely the same old nag, but ridden by several jockies, some new. : ) Randy ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 01:43:50 -0500 Reply-To: bee-quick@bee-quick.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: Nosema ceranae MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I am in no way saying that ceranae is the CAUSE of CCD, > but the etiology of many of the collapse that have been > documented, and the symptoms of N ceranae infection are > strikingly similar. I went quite a bit further, months ago, which ended up being published in October's Bee Culture. I explained that, based upon published data about CCD, Nosema seems to be a very significant factor in CCD. But not one kind or the other. Both. At the same time. If you look at the data provided in the paper on CCD published in "Science", and the data provided in the supplementary materials (free review copies here): http://bee-quick.com/reprints/dapaper.pdf http://bee-quick.com/reprints/dedetails.pdf You will see something interesting, perhaps just as compelling as the "virus correlates to CCD" theory advanced by the authors. What you see is that colonies that had BOTH Apis nosema AND Apis ceranae were doomed, while colonies that only had one or the other tended to survive. This is discussed in more detail in the October issue: http://bee-quick.com/reprints/reads.pdf I still do not have raw data or any sample metadata at all that might explain what was defined as a "CCD Colony" versus what was defined as a "Healthy Colony", so I cannot further support or refute my alternative interpretation for the data published. On the other hand, the silence has been deafening from the research team, so I guess they don't have any rebuttal. I was merely illustrating the flaccid nature of the claims made in the "Science" paper based upon mere single element analysis, where only individual factors were compared with each other, and a (claimed) virus was deemed a "marker" for CCD. Multivariate analysis would have taken, what? A few extra minutes, given that the dataset was already being run through the top-notch SAS Institute statistical software? But it seems clear that Nosema ceranae is somehow much less virulent here in the USA than it seems to be in Europe. Dunno why. Randy said: > illustrate how a beekeeper can take spore counts himself, > and will compare various sampling methods, and their > advantages and shortcomings. I've got loads of photos > to illustrate. Oh wow, I want to be a fly on the wall when you try to get Eric Mussen to buy into your "calibration" approach, given a random civilian-grade (or student-grade) microscope with no hemacytometer! (On second thought, I will likely hear him from here if I just open a window.) And you can't really write about Nosema without listening with care to the guy who nearly created his own college "major" in the subject area of Nosema, now can you? But there's an easy analysis methodology for Nosema, at least for this year in the USA: 1) Do you have bees? 2) If yes, you are almost certain to have Nosema of one sort or the other at "treatment-suggested levels". 3) Think I'm exaggerating? Send some samples to USDA-Beltsville, and you will soon find out that I am not exaggerating in the least. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 01:06:17 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "carimona@GMAIL.COM" Subject: Re: CCD and media Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 10:20:41 -0400, Bill Truesdell wrote: >I think we are back in the multiplier effect that we encountered when >CCD first started. You have a report (one, two or three with CCD >symptoms) and they are reported and re-reported again and again until >the couple of actual reports is amplified into the "80% of all East >Coast bees". Perhaps CCD is history repeating itself........ A popular book in many college finance classes is titled "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" . The book is not about the stock market but about how people accept ideas as fact. Rumors and fear drive the stock market some times. I see a potential for this same kind of human behaviour in the CCD phenomenon. History may remember CCD as not the Great Honeybee Loss of 2006-2007 but as a sideshow to Global Warming and the public looking for reinforcing symptoms of environmental catastrophe. Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds By Charles Mackay excerpt from: Preface to the 1852 Edition In reading the history of nations, we find that, like individuals, they have their whims and their peculiarities; their seasons of excitement and recklessness, when they care not what they do. We find that whole communities suddenly fix their minds upon one object, and go mad in its pursuit; that millions of people become simultaneously impressed with one delusion, and run after it, till their attention is caught by some new folly more captivating than the first. We see one nation suddenly seized, from its highest to its lowest members, with a fierce desire of military glory; another as suddenly becoming crazed upon a religious scruple, and neither of them recovering its senses until it has shed rivers of blood and sowed a harvest of groans and tears, to be reaped by its posterity. At an early age in the annals of Europe its population lost their wits about the Sepulchre of Jesus, and crowded in frenzied multitudes to the Holy Land: another age went mad for fear of the Devil, and offered up hundreds of thousands of victims to the delusion of witchcraft. At another time, the many became crazed on the subject of the Philosopher's Stone, and committed follies till then unheard of in the pursuit. It was once thought a venial offence in very many countries of Europe to destroy an enemy by slow poison. Persons who would have revolted at the idea of stabbing a man to the heart, drugged his pottage without scruple. Ladies of gentle birth and manners caught the contagion of murder, until poisoning, under their auspices, became quite fashionable. Some delusions, though notorious to all the world, have subsisted for ages, flourishing as widely among civilized and polished nations as among the early barbarians with whom they originated, -- that of duelling, for instance, and the belief in omens and divination of the future, which seem to defy the progress of knowledge to eradicate entirely from the popular mind. Money, again, has often been a cause of the delusion of multitudes. Sober nations have all at once become desperate gamblers, and risked almost their existence upon the turn of a piece of paper. To trace the history of the most prominent of these delusions is the object of the present pages. Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one. In the present state of civilization, society has often shown itself very prone to run a career of folly from the last-mentioned cases. This infatuation has seized upon whole nations in a most extraordinary manner. France, with her Mississippi madness, set the first great example, and was very soon imitated by England with her South Sea Bubble. At an earlier period, Holland made herself still more ridiculous in the eyes of the world, by the frenzy which came over her people for the love of Tulips. Melancholy as all these delusions were in their ultimate results, their history is most amusing. A more ludicrous and yet painful spectacle, than that which Holland presented in the years 1635 and 1636, or France in 1719 and 1720, can hardly be imagined. Taking them in the order of their importance, we shall commence our history with John Law and the famous Mississippi scheme of the years above mentioned. see link for more http://robotics.caltech.edu/~mason/Delusions/epdatmoc.html ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 05:46:22 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: Candy boards (was CCD horse race) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Likely the same old nag, but ridden by several jockies, some new. Nosema and KBV were found in 100% of the CCD samples. Dealing with KBV might be considered new but still falls for the most part under PMS. Although N.Ceranae is a new strain (if you can call being in the U.S. 10 years and widespread new) it still falls under the category of SSDD as would KBV in my opinion. I look forward to your articles Randy. Your articles give practical solutions to our problems! I considered years ago doing the kind of articles you have been doing but the number of hours involved held me back. Its a struggle to even stay a week behind on beekeeping. The one thing about beekeeping which always stays the same is the fact beekeeping never stays the same. An example is I thought my bees were ready for winter two weeks ago but checked a couple days ago and with the warm weather the hives are light. So fed yesterday and will feed bees all day today. Two weeks of warm weather with bees flying every day and winter stores can disappear in a hurry. In my area hives need a certain amount of stored feed for winter. Going into winter light can cause huge winter losses (not now but in February) *if* you have not got ways to get feed to those bees then (such as candy boards or feeders over the brood nest). Last spring in February we had ice on the ground for a month in places and could not get into feed. If the winters start returning to the winters of old I may have to make some candy boards up Do others on the list in the north still use candy boards? If so what are your thoughts and the way you make candy and the boards? 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: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:26:20 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Candy boards (was CCD horse race) In-Reply-To: <000901c81aea$80121fc0$0cbc59d8@BusyBeeAcres> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bob Harrison wrote: > Do others on the list in the north still use candy boards? If so what are > your thoughts and the way you make candy and the boards? > > Only in the spring for emergency feed, and I gave up on boards but just put a slab of candy over the cluster. From memory, candy is syrup (pint of water to 5 lb sugar- really only moistens it) raised to 242F and poured on cookie sheets to cool. Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:27:50 -0400 Reply-To: lloyd@rossrounds.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Lloyd Spear Subject: Candy Boards MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Roger Hoopingarner, formerly of Michigan State, was one of the great teachers of beekeeping. His advice on candy boards is as follows: * "CANDY BOARDS FOR WINTER FEED * During cold days of winter when the bees cannot move any great distance for honey, candy boards placed over the upper combs have saved bees from starvation. Bees normally move upward during the winter as the heat from the cluster allows this movement more readily than laterally. If the bees reach the top of the hive before spring weather allows them to move or expand sideways they can starve with honey on the outside frames. The use of candy boards will allow bees to survive this period when the temperature is too cold for lateral movement. Thus these boards are in some sense a temporary measure, or to some beekeepers as an "insurance" because they may have taken away too much honey, or have the colony organized with the honey poorly placed. The boards can be placed on the colonies in just a few seconds and thus save a colony that would otherwise die. The making of these candy boards is relatively easy, and once the actual board is made the yearly operation of adding the sugar candy is routine. The board itself is made with the same outside dimensions as the hive. The board looks like an inner cover without the hole, and usually has somewhat higher sides to hold more sugar. We use 1/4 inch tempered or hardened particle board with 3/4" side boards. The formula for the candy is as follows: 15 lbs. sugar 3 lbs. white corn syrup 4 cups water 1/2 tsp. cream of tartar Dissolve the sugar in water and stir while heating the mixture to 240oF. Let the syrup cool to about 180o, then beat until thickened and pour into the board to harden. Once the candy is hard they can be put onto the colonies, candy side down, over the top frames. Some beekeepers pour the candy into waxpaper lined molds instead of making regular boards, and then put these molded blocks on top of the frames while the inner cover is placed over them. The blocks must therefore be no thicker than the depth of the inner cover rim. If the bees do not use the candy, the boards can be saved, or the sugar melted and used for spring feeding as syrup." I know a beekeeper who uses candy boards on each of his 500 hives. He puts them on about March 1 and credits them with producing lots of brood that he uses for spring splits. He says that bees will consume the candy boards quicker than they will consume honey in frames. (We all know that the candy is better for them than honey, because the candy does not contain ash.) Does anyone know the reasoning for using both corn syrup and sugar? Lloyd -- 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, 30 Oct 2007 14:02:43 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "carimona@GMAIL.COM" Subject: where do I send the invoice? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I went to a small regional beekeeper potluck over the weekend. met a beek i knew that had moved onto a property 1 mile near a remote bee yard I have. I saw the eqipment by the house all summer. during the course of the evening he mentioned he now had hive beetles. he's a sideliner with about 40 colonies with what appeared to be average experience with bees. he is busy with his job in the fall so instead of feeding and wrapping, he lets a mirgratory beek take his palletized hives to TX for winter and in spring receives nucs in exchange with new queens. he seemed surprised when i told him he now had beetles forever. he said something about the larva looking dead with the colder weather. the deadouts and supers with beetles were moved to his honey house in fall. he has no bees on his property. i'm pulling my colonies form that yard 1 mile from his honey house in the next few weeks. in general i keep my 17 yards in remote areas away from other beeks and never intermingle bees or equipment between yards. my core business is selling varietal honey. it takes much extra time to extract then mass extraction with semi automated equipment. beetles will have a great and costly impact on my business. its not if but when.... something to me is wrong with this picture. why should i have to be on the run from this nonsense? who can I send the invoice to when my costs go through the roof to deal with a problem i did not create? similarly if a beek is moving CCD infected hives (what ever that means) across country and infects someone else and they can prove it ...is there a liability involved with the beek who moved the hives if he knew he had CCD? to me this an issue of self responsibility. in other areas of agriculture I doubt this kind of disregard for other producers would go on without a liability risk. i'm interested to hear other opinions. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 19:24:02 GMT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "deknow@netzero.net" Subject: Re: where do I send the invoice? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit well....i don't see this as much differant from a non-beekeeping neighbor wanting damages for being stung...or charging you for "rent" on their swimming pool if your bees are keeping them from enjoying it. i think this goes along with the territory of being a beekeeper. the best "solution" (imho) is for you to help this beekeeper with the shb problem....as it is your problem too. be thankful is shb, and not afb. deknow ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 20:15:07 GMT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "waldig@netzero.com" Subject: Re: where do I send the invoice? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >>similarly if a beek is moving CCD infected hives (what ever that means) across country and infects someone else and they can prove it ...is there a liability involved with the beek who moved the hives if he knew he had CCD? Since no one (?) knows what causes CCD and its modes of transmission - there is also that possibility that hives collapse from what the bees found in the fields/orchards - are also unknown, one currently has an impossible case to prove. I do agree with you that it's not *nice* of anyone to go around the country and spread pests/disease etc. Similar to trying to prove that one of my bees stung you... Waldemar ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:00:11 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Mike Carrington Subject: Re: where do I send the invoice MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable You bring up a couple of good tangential points. =20 There have been some rather inflammatory (imho) comments and = publications about the lack of complete certification of Australian = hives and the problems their bees may bring with them when we import = them. But, I've ordered packages of bees from Texas and California and = have received no certification of 'cleanliness' from either of those = places. Is *any* certification required for shipping within the US? Is = it as stringent as is being requested from other countries? So, why are = we demanding such stringent certifications on imports from other = countries? Further, we have no qualms about moving our bees all over the country = where they can be exposed to other beek's bees and the problems those = bees have. Then we bring our own infected bees back to our area to = infect, yet, other bees, thus spreading the problems, effectively, = nationally. =20 Rather than point fingers at other countries, I would be more inclined = to think that we're our worst enemy in the spread of disease and mites. Mike ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 19:53:02 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "carimona@GMAIL.COM" Subject: Re: where do I send the invoice? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 19:24:02 GMT, deknow@netzero.net wrote: . the best "solution" (imho) is for you to help this beekeeper with the shb problem....as it is your problem too. > >be thankful is shb, and not afb. > how am i going to help the poor guy? that seems like a silly idea. you got beetles you learn to live with them. i know of no eradication solution. he screwed himself. my message to him is that moving hives to TX is part of the problem. either he can be part of the solution or part of the problem... its not going be my problem as i'm pulling out. i'd be stupid to wait around for the inevitable. who would if they are beetle free? i realize they are mainly a nusiance but i'm a business man i need to make a living, i'm not looking to complicate my business. i have no intentions of hassling the guy. i called him today and offered the yard to him as its a vine crop farm and the farmer will want bees after I remove mine. my point is simply almost every bee related disease and pest since 1980 has come from movement of bees and hives. no other ag related industry in the nation allows this kind of uncontrolled movement. geez even the movement of nursery trees and shrubs has much tighter oversight then this circus. this is not rocket science.....we're talking common sense here. why should stationary beeks especially those who are self contained and produce their own queens and never need to buy bees be subject to this lunacy? IMO the stationary beeks who run a sustainable operation should be protected cause the day may come where they ARE the FUTURE. why is the system setup for failure? its not my problem in the midwest if some guy planted too many almond trees. bees should come first! not a handful of people who move bees for a living. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 17:02:22 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Mike Stoops Subject: Re: CCD tonight on 60 minutes (Sunday) In-Reply-To: <000901c8199d$6bee5340$20bc59d8@BusyBeeAcres> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Bob Harrison wrote: I doubt will be anything new to us but thought I would post. bob Wasn't anything new to us beeks, but very interesting to see what is being presented to the general public. We see the program, we get an idea of what kinds of questions are going to be asked of us by the public and gives us an opportunity to prepare for them. While not perfect in its presentation, I thought it came pretty close to the facts as they stand. Sometimes the position presented by the program was blurred by conflicting answers to a common question, but..... Isn't that what knowledgeable people expect from the media now? Short segment on "60 Minutes" and an hour program on public TV. When has that ever happened before in beekeeping? Mike in LA __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 16:43:36 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: joe carson Subject: Re: Candy Boards In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I use 400 lbs of sugar with 6 gallons of water. I replace the inner cover and outer cover with the sugar board and make the sides taller (or deeper). I flip the new telescoping lid (sugar board) over and run screws into it and then wrap wire around the screws making a lite weave pattern. This screw - wire configuration holds the hardened sugar in the lid as the winter progresses. After filling the sugar boards and letting them harden, I flip them right side up and install on the hive. They remain on all winter and into the spring for obvious reasons. I am experimenting with a bit of Peppermint oil in the sugar boards and others with Honey-B-Healthy in the mix. Will see in the spring how this test turns out. Note: do not boil or burn the sugar mixture. I use a 55 gallon barrel with heat under the bottom. I stir with mixer paddle hooked up in my large electric drill. Spigot near bottom of barrel fills the boards very easily. Talked to one man that used a cement mixer for heating and stirring but have never tried that method. =20 Dr. Joe Carson Alaska Heavenly Honey Alaska > Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:27:50 -0400 > From: beegood@GMAIL.COM > Subject: [BEE-L] Candy Boards > To: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu >=20 > Roger Hoopingarner, formerly of Michigan State, was one of the great > teachers of beekeeping. His advice on candy boards is as follows: >=20 > * >=20 > "CANDY BOARDS FOR WINTER FEED > * >=20 > During cold days of winter when the bees cannot move any great distance f= or > honey, candy boards placed over the upper combs have saved bees from > starvation. Bees normally move upward during the winter as the heat from = the > cluster allows this movement more readily than laterally. If the bees rea= ch > the top of the hive before spring weather allows them to move or expand > sideways they can starve with honey on the outside frames. The use of can= dy > boards will allow bees to survive this period when the temperature is too > cold for lateral movement. Thus these boards are in some sense a temporar= y > measure, or to some beekeepers as an "insurance" because they may have ta= ken > away too much honey, or have the colony organized with the honey poorly > placed. The boards can be placed on the colonies in just a few seconds an= d > thus save a colony that would otherwise die. The making of these candy > boards is relatively easy, and once the actual board is made the yearly > operation of adding the sugar candy is routine. The board itself is made > with the same outside dimensions as the hive. The board looks like an inn= er > cover without the hole, and usually has somewhat higher sides to hold mor= e > sugar. We use 1/4 inch tempered or hardened particle board with 3/4" side > boards. >=20 > The formula for the candy is as follows: >=20 > 15 lbs. sugar >=20 > 3 lbs. white corn syrup >=20 > 4 cups water >=20 > 1/2 tsp. cream of tartar >=20 > Dissolve the sugar in water and stir while heating the mixture to 240oF. = Let > the syrup cool to about 180o, then beat until thickened and pour into the > board to harden. Once the candy is hard they can be put onto the colonies= , > candy side down, over the top frames. Some beekeepers pour the candy into > waxpaper lined molds instead of making regular boards, and then put these > molded blocks on top of the frames while the inner cover is placed over > them. The blocks must therefore be no thicker than the depth of the inner > cover rim. If the bees do not use the candy, the boards can be saved, or = the > sugar melted and used for spring feeding as syrup." >=20 > I know a beekeeper who uses candy boards on each of his 500 hives. He pu= ts > them on about March 1 and credits them with producing lots of brood that = he > uses for spring splits. He says that bees will consume the candy boards > quicker than they will consume honey in frames. (We all know that the ca= ndy > is better for them than honey, because the candy does not contain ash.) >=20 > Does anyone know the reasoning for using both corn syrup and sugar? >=20 > Lloyd >=20 >=20 > --=20 > 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 >=20 > ****************************************************** > * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * > * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * > ****************************************************** _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live Hotmail and Microsoft Office Outlook =96 together at last. =A0= Get it now. http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/HA102225181033.aspx?pid=3DCL10062= 6971033= ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 20:09:26 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: Re: Candy Boards Comments: To: lloyd@rossrounds.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >3 lbs. white corn syrup >Does anyone know the reasoning for using both corn syrup and sugar? Are they talking fructose or something else? Never heard fructose referred to as "white" before. I plan on making my candy in a 50 gallon stainless three phase steam cooker like they use for salsa or making applesauce. In Nebraska the beekeepers use those but the ones I have seen have been converted to propane. A propane burner under the stainless steel bottom from a water heater or a fish cooker. If you find a three phase 50 gallon steam cooker which does not work you can get cheap ( many times for hauling away) and they can be set up for propane easy. The price for a new three phase cooker is in the $10,000 range I was told. May or may not be correct but what I was told by another beekeeper. They can be wired for regular 220 but one of the burners will not work and they use a higher amount of electricity. I got mine reasonable as the guy which paid big bucks at a restaurant sale sold to me cheap after he priced running three phase into his building. In fact he said he ran his add in the "thrifty nickel" sale flyer for several months and all the possible buyers backed off when they heard it was three phase. Does not hurt the machine to run on regular 220. Mine is electric and 50 gallons of product come to a boil fast. I have been told faster by far than propane. Does the list have a recipe for 50 gallons. If not I will keep trying to contact a couple beekeepers north of me which use candy boards. I made spacers for Miteaway two and thought I could add a piece of masonite and use those . They were cut from old bee boxes on a table saw and are about 3/4 inch. I added staples to add strength. If those on the list are thinking of cutting bee boxes down for spacers ( mite away two , thymol etc.) I suggest an old blade on your table saw and a face shield (mine came from Harbor freight) as nails do fly out. I cut mine in the building as I do not want nails in my drive. Nails fly at times but once the table saw is set it does not take long to make spacers. Try to set the depth so you cut between nails. 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: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 22:21:05 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?UTF-8?Q?Peter_Borst?= Subject: Re: Nosema ceranae Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit James Fischer wrote: >But there's an easy analysis methodology for Nosema, >at least for this year in the USA: > >1) Do you have bees? > >2) If yes, you are almost certain to have Nosema of one > sort or the other at "treatment-suggested levels". > >3) Think I'm exaggerating? Send some samples to > USDA-Beltsville, and you will soon find out that > I am not exaggerating in the least. This summer the NY State Inspectors have taken many adult bee samples. I can't tell you what the numbers look like, but Paul Cappy may discuss this at the Empire State Meeting in Syracuse. I can tell you that some beekeepers tested zero for nosema and zero for tracheal mite, so not everybody has it. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 20:47:07 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "carimona@GMAIL.COM" Subject: Re: where do I send the invoice Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:00:11 -0700, Mike Carrington wrote: >You bring up a couple of good tangential points. > >Rather than point fingers at other countries, I would be more inclined to think that we're our worst enemy in the spread of disease and mites. > thank you I agree immensely. all this huff and puff about research on CCD. hello how about looking at the core issues? these TV programs and movies about CCD and migratory beeks make me ill. they portray the beek as a victim. victim of what? a greedy system where everyone is fending for themselves? why not use all of the research money to develop a National comprehensive plan for migratory and stationary beekeeping that looks at all users not ignores the majority of beeks. sheez the ranks of the sideliners and little guys are growing as the big boys consolidate and decrease in numbers. i'm only suggesting similar policies wich are in place for other agricultural sectors. we need to preserve bees and beekeeping for the future. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:10:39 -0500 Reply-To: bee-quick@bee-quick.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: Candy Boards MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lloyd asked: > Does anyone know the reasoning for using both corn syrup and sugar? Sure. Two reasons. The first reason is to prevent the sugar from crystallizing into "grainy" crystals. Consider fudge, in which crystals do form. You don't want that to happen to your bee candy. You want an "amorphous" mixture, more like taffy or caramel. You want solidification without crunchy crystals. The (Kayro) "white" corn syrup is, of course, a mix of fructose and glucose, which "get in the way" of sucrose crystal formation, and allow the mixture to solidify without forming grainy crystals. Of course HFCS has a lot more fructose than the Kayro, hence the name "high fructose corn syrup". The Kayro could be called "low-fructose corn syrup", I guess. Both are made by converting some of (or most of, for HFCS) the glucose in cornstarch to fructose. The cream of tartar is also helping to prevent crystallization into big ugly crystals. It will break down (some people call this "inverting") some of the sucrose into fructose and glucose, and those molecules will, like the corn syrup, prevent large sucrose crystals from forming. Its an acid, nothing more. It is consumed in the breakdown process, so with proper heat and time, it leaves no residue. The second reason (perhaps the more important one for this application, given that one is also adding cream of tartar) is that corn syrup is hygroscopic, so the final mixture will not dry out and get hard as a rock. The corn syrup will tend to draw in moisture from the surrounding air, and stabilize as a "softer" mixture. So, you are making really a very lousy kind of "taffy" here, and you can adjust your formula depending upon how your first small experimental batch turns out. Grainy crystals? Try just a tiny bit more cream of tartar, like maybe 1/8th a teaspoon. (The stuff never "goes bad", so don't worry about the fact that you bought it back when Nixon was president.) Too hard a final product? Don't make your bees work so hard for a meal, add some more corn syrup. Now marshmallows are the softest thing around, and they use the same exact tricks, but they also use gelatin to make the ultimate "soft candy", and we don't want anything in the final mix for bee feed except sugars. And why do I know all this stuff? No, I wasn't paying attention in chemistry class, either. It is just that am likely the only guy here who owns 4 different wisks, and has a detailed rationale for the advantages of each. :) ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 20:22:36 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Mike Rossander Subject: Re: where do I send the invoice? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit "carimona@GMAIL.COM" wrote: "no other ag related industry in the nation allows this kind of uncontrolled movement" To the contrary, they almost all allow that kind of movement. You'd have better luck building a list of restrictions than building the list of unrestricted activities. And while there are some serious unintended consequences to that freedom, on the whole I'm not sure that it's a bad policy position for our society to take. Mike Rossander __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:02:36 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: randy oliver Subject: Re: Candy Boards MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > If those on the list are thinking of cutting bee boxes down for spacers ( > mite away two , thymol etc.) Hi Bob, I did this, too. I'm glad to say that I still have ten fingers left! I'm a dedicated skinflint, but by the time I was done prying off cleats and nailheads, and then restapling the rim corners, I decided that the labor and danger wasn't worth any perceived savings. I'll make my next batch from fresh lumber. Randy ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 05:49:07 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: Re: Candy Boards MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Joe & All, Because you mix 50 gallons at a time Joe I think you have got the answers I am looking for. I suppose I should have contacted you directly but believe a few on the list might find your information useful besides myself. >I use 400 lbs. of sugar with 6 gallons of water. I assume you put the water in first to prevent burning the sugar? I have never heard of not bringing to a boil before. Could this be why your candy does not stay stuck to the board? With fudge it is important to get the right constancy or will be too soft. At what temperature do you pour? I have mixed quite a bit of granulated sugar and water in drums over the years. 6 gallons of water in 400 lbs. is not very much. > This screw - wire configuration holds the hardened sugar in the lid as the winter progresses. I have never seen the screws used before. Have you had trouble with the candy coming loose from the candy board without the screws? I have never used candy boards before but have seen many and was shown a homemade machine in Nebraska which did four 55 gallon drums of sugar at a time and stacks of thousands of candy boards. I did not see the machine working and was only explained the process. Last spring was one of the few times I felt the need for candy boards in my area but the old timers swore by candy boards. Thanks for the reply Joe! 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: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:52:36 -0500 Reply-To: james.fischer@gmail.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: CCD and media MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I think we are back in the multiplier effect that we > encountered when CCD first started. Interesting how your argument is presented as if it were already proven fact, when there are a significant number of CCD deadouts, and more operations seeing either a reappearance of symptoms, or reporting "new cases" of CCD. I sure that most of them did not get the memo that requried them to report exact counts directly to you. No, people are not calling press conferences to announce that they have had significant losses from CCD. Gee, I wonder why. Maybe it is because they would rather not have their ability to meet their pollination contracts come into question. Maybe it is because they are used to keeping things close to the chest. Maybe they'd rather not have a loan or two called by the bank, given that they have just lost a significant fraction of their revenue-generating hives. Maybe they are afraid that no one will ever buy or trade as much as a single pallet of hives with them ever again if they admit to having CCD in their operation. I really don't give a darn if the actual number is 2% or 30%. If any other type of livestock or food crop was dropping dead at even a 1% rate for reasons unknown to the owner, and undiagnosable by both vets and Ag Extension reps, the National Guard would have been mobilized by now. So, rather than bemoaning "hype", why not bemoan the lackluster response even WITH the hype you allege exists? Isn't there a distinct lack of a sense of urgency, regardless of the fact/hype ratio? > Perhaps CCD is history repeating itself........ > A popular book in many college finance classes is > titled "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the > Madness of Crowds" In just exactly how much distain can one hold the skills, ability, intelligence, and veracity of one's fellow beekeepers? Delusion? Madness? Crowd? I think the use of these words means that we have hit a new low. No one is going to provide "proof" on a silver platter to any random beekeeper who wants to deny that there's a problem. Why? Perhaps it is because they are too busy working on the problem to bother with "selling" you on the advantages of working on the problem, so that they can at least identify what it is and exactly how serious it is. > I blame that on those in the Easter[n] scientific > community that wanted to publish at any price You don't understand scientists at all, do you? Every single person involved dreads answering the phone for fear that "the press" might be calling, to misquote or misinterpret their words yet again. Except for Lipkin, none of them have ever had anything even close to the "15 minutes of fame" they experienced, and the universal conclusion is that "fame" and "facts" rarely co-exist. No big surprise, really, but one has to try to live through it to grock that you never wanted any of what it really turns out to be. These guys are likely sorry they ever got involved in this at all, and to top it all off, accusations like the one above are the gratitude they get from the beekeeping community they stuck their necks out to try and help? > as well as justify their expenditure of public funds, Uh huh, suuuure. Like they really were hoping that yet another freakin' bee disease would come along and force them to drop the work that really interests them, which is nearly 100% certain to NOT be bee diseases and pests or the prevention, cure and irradiation thereof. Bee diseases are TEDIOUS and NON-REWARDING work to these folks. Do you realize that except for some very minor funding from sources like the NHB, everything done to date has been done with money MISAPPROPRIATED from other projects? Didya ever stop to think that scientists have bosses, and budgets, and internal auditors breathing down their necks, just like everyone else has? Did I mention that any money from the Farm Bill is a long way off, and that the $4 million USDA has re-allocated (from other funded projects) will be awarded to those who submit a "winning" proposal for new work, and will have to be spent on that new work? These guys could be left holding the bag on a "firing offense" for simply doing the right thing, and responding before they got solid funding through the proper channels. And now you want to imply that their working on CCD at all is merely a cynical mechanism to JUSTIFY some sort of self-indulgent expenses? Well, that would be criminal fraud if it were even partly true, so you better come up with either some very compelling evidence right now, or a very sincere apology very quickly. The actual situation is that these folks decided to bet their jobs on reacting "now" rather than "later", and they did it because what they saw in their initial look-see convinced them that it was a clear and present danger - a problem of a serious nature. Talk about irony - betcha more than one of them put expenses on their personal credit cards, still have no idea if they will ever be reimbursed, and now they read that they stand accused of some sort of fraudulent misuse of funds! As if they had any funds at all for any of the work done to date! > as well as some beekeepers who were only > looking for the same public funds to bail them out. Is no one safe from these indictments? Is absolutely everyone either too stupid to diagnose a failing colony, too self-interested to act ethically, or so greedy as to sabotage their livelihood in the hope of getting government largess that has not even been mentioned as a possibility? No, I have a simpler answer, one that fits the data plot much, much better. Just as with every new exotic invasive pathogen or pest to make it across the oceans to the US, the initial warnings are ignored by many beekeepers, as they don't see a problem themselves in their own hives. That's not very surprising, because beekeepers have a track record of ignoring even very pointed warnings and advice until the problem at issue starts to kill THEIR hives or destroy THEIR combs. It happened with tracheal mites, it happened with varroa, it happened with miticide-resistant varroa, it happened with the spread of AHB, and it happened with the small hive beetle. There's some history repeating itself for ya. Not to worry, help is on the way. C-130 transports carrying parachute teams of technicians from the International Directorate of English Aphorism Standards (IDEAS) have been scrambled out of Pensacola NAS, and are enroute to each of your locations. They will carefully explain the very old one about "Pride Cometh Before A Fall" from Proverbs 16. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 01:16:34 -0500 Reply-To: james.fischer@gmail.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: where do I send the invoice MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > There have been some rather inflammatory (imho) > comments and publications about the lack of > complete certification of Australian hives... > But, I've ordered packages of bees from Texas and > California and have received no certification of > 'cleanliness' from either of those places. > Is *any* certification required for shipping within > the US? Yes. The certifications are made to your state Apiarist (or Ag Department) as a result of specific inspections and tests done by the State Apiarist staff in the source state within a narrow timeframe window prior to shipping bees. If you request a copy of the documents, the supplier will send them along to you. > Is it as stringent as is being requested from other countries? Much more stringent. See this article from 2005 for the details on how WTO rules not only lowered the bar far below any interstate requirements, but also had several unexpected consequences: http://bee-quick.com/reprints/regs.pdf > So, why are we demanding such stringent certifications on > imports from other countries? We are unable to even ask for better "certification" under the WTO rules, so the only move we have on the board is to do our own inspections and sampling/testing at port-of entry. (Of course the exporters could get a clue, and start testing and providing more useful "certification" on their own, but implying that anyone might do this would be accusing them of (gasp!) marketing. But read the article, and ask a queen producer about the confusing maze of different picky state requirements for the shipment of bees into that state from any other state. Then compare and contrast to the very short list of claims made on an export document, and the distinct lack of anything that might look like a lab report. Perhaps you will gain the facts to change your characterization of the simple suggestion that some sort of inspections and sampling would be better than the none we have now. Maybe it won't seem so "inflammatory" to you. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 05:11:26 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Mike Stoops Subject: Re: Tracheal mite presence In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Peter Borst wrote:This summer the NY State Inspectors have taken many adult bee samples. I can't tell you what the numbers look like, but Paul Cappy may discuss this at the Empire State Meeting in Syracuse. I can tell you that some beekeepers tested zero for nosema and zero for tracheal mite, so not everybody has it. When my bee yard was tested for tracheal mites two summers ago (a university run test), my entire yard tested 0 for the presence of tracheal mites. Had all the other junk, but no tracheal mites. And, I had done no treating for mites of any kind, or for SHB. I have no explanation for why mites were not present. Mike - in southwest Alabama __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 05:28:53 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: C Hooper Subject: Honey Can Protect Wounds from 'Superbugs' MRSA and VRE MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII Honey Can Protect Wounds from 'Superbugs' MRSA and VRE Medical World Buzzing Over Sweet Solution for Bugs Scoop Independent News (New Zealand), 10/29/2007 http://apitherapy.blogspot.com/2007/10/honey-can-protect-wounds-from-superbugs.html A local home-grown US FDA approved product can protect wounds from superbugs such as MRSA and VRE. Recent studies indicate that Manuka honey may succeed where advanced drugs have failed… ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 09:00:15 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Rip Bechmann Subject: Candy boards MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >>>Does anyone know the reasoning for using both corn syrup and sugar? Lloyd<<< I thought all "beekeeping experts" knew that fructose doesn't granulate. = Use all "sugar", i.e. sucrose, and it forms "rock candy" and if you use = all "corn syrup", regardless of the ratio of the the syrup, you get = runny "goop". Use "high fructose" corn syrup and you get very runny = "goop". ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 09:39:03 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Candy Boards In-Reply-To: <000001c81b73$ff61af00$0201000a@j> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > The cream of tartar is also helping to prevent crystallization > into big ugly crystals. Cream of Tartar is implicated in increased bee mortality. Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 09:40:34 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Tim Arheit Subject: Re: Tracheal mite presence In-Reply-To: <398515.63256.qm@web53412.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 08:11 AM 10/31/2007, you wrote: > I can tell you that some beekeepers tested zero for nosema and zero for tracheal mite, so not everybody has it. Losses in Ohio last winter were unusually high (50%+) and I did see a lot more dysentery than I've ever seen in my hives. So I really expected to find some nosema. I was a bit surprised by the results I got back from Beltsview, no nosema or tracheal mites. Maybe all the hives that did have them were dead? -Tim ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 09:53:34 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dick Marron Subject: CCD and Media MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jim Wrote: >>>> The actual situation is that these folks decided to bet their jobs on reacting "now" rather than "later", and they did it because what they saw in their initial look-see convinced them that it was a clear and present danger - a problem of a serious nature.<<<<< As the first dude to write about CCD in ABJ I rise to support everything Jim said on this thread. I was there (in FL) in a cold windy January taking samples. My fellow grunts were mostly other beekeepers, who may or may not have had problems but were kicking in. These guys knew the symptoms all right. The winds of ruin were on their necks. I have pix of the empty hives. They stood them on end like tombstones. It was a sad sight indeed. We covered 5 pollinators in FL on that trip, while other teams were in CA. Dave H has been the most visible but there were others taking the hit. One I remember had about 1400 colonies and had lost half of them. He may be out of business by now. Would you want to accuse him of looking for a place at the public teat? How wealthy do you think he would get when that number of hives is about minimal to make a living? BTW, nothing much has changed since that first piece and the bottom line is still "we don't know." That says nothing about all the stuff that was eliminated." Dick Marron ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:27:52 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Candy boards In-Reply-To: <002501c81bc6$5e3008e0$8f2f5c18@rip> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Rip Bechmann wrote: > Use all "sugar", i.e. sucrose, and it forms "rock candy" Rock candy is made by putting a string into a concentrated sugar solution. The stage for feeding to bees is at the upper end of the soft ball stage. That is the first part of the basic recipe for making fondant, another bee food. I have not noticed large crystals in the soft ball candy. Truth is, the heat and moisture coming in contact with it does a good job of liquefying it at the surface no matter what you have in the hive. Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:09:00 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: CCD and media In-Reply-To: <000001c81b82$3e1633c0$0201000a@j> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well, I watched the PBS special on CCD, which was really about honeybees disappearing world wide. So, according to them, by 2035 we will have no more honeybees if the current trend continues. I have no idea what they based that on. What was most interesting was how "CCD" has become the catch-all for anything that is happening where bees have problems. CCD was cited in Germany, Italy, Croatia, France, Spain, and England. But when looked at a bit closer, other factors were the cause. The English government was castigated because it said that GB did not have CCD but some London beekeeper said they did and were doing nothing about it. Which fits my original post, that all it takes in one talking head to make a consensus. The program said there is CCD, hence the one beekeeper is correct and the government and its scientists are not. Also interesting that France after the ban was said to still suffer from CCD like problems. I though the contrary. The most reasoned statement (statements are reasoned when you agree with them) that I heard was we are probably looking at a variety of things that cause honeybee problems. Many of the suspects we have discussed on this List were brought up and shot down, mostly because, like IAPV, bees can have it and not suffer from CCD. But maybe a combination of things cause CCD like problems. If so, we are no longer looking at a pathogen but at bee behavior in a stressed condition. If so, good luck pinning down CCD. That actually makes sense because CCD symptoms are not new. We have had disappearing disease and fall dwindle long before mites and our current problems. Their impact on the beekeeping community then was great, just like today, but without the amplifying media. As far as scientists jumping the gun to get their papers out first, I agreed with Jim then and still do, that the studies were poorly conducted, poorly presented and should have been put on hold since they were not in consonance with other CCD observations. I also stand by the problem of some beekeepers looking for a bailout when CCD may not be involved. As far as numbers, and that the beekeeping world does not owe me a number, I am listening to the beekeeping world and have yet to hear anything that quantifies the actual problem. So is it 1/3 per Hackenburg, which lead to about 60% total kill last year in the US, 2%, 80%, 5%, or what? All those numbers have been brought up by those in a much higher beekeeping pay grade than I. Fortunately, we have not seen CCD in Maine, so it is difficult to get any perspective. So, Jim, since you seem to be in the know about CCD and its extent to date- not for me but for the rest of us, is there a number, what is it, and what is it based on? Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:04:03 -0500 Reply-To: bee-quick@bee-quick.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: Candy Boards MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Wow, Lloyd's offhand question is taking us into a twisty maze of considerations here. >> The cream of tartar is also helping to prevent >> crystallization into big ugly crystals. > Cream of Tartar is implicated in increased bee mortality. It has been? By who? Well, if the recipe is not followed, I guess it would be possible for some or even most of the cream of tartar to not react with the sucrose, but if you have the right temperature and enough mixing, I can't see how any would remain unreacted in the final mix. Has anyone blaming cream of tatar for bee mortality done an actual analysis of the bee candy or fondant finding an impurity? If so, why haven't the recipes changed to reflect their findings? (Wish I still had my HPLC/MS.) Is it a matter of "use less", or "even traces are deadly"? Has anyone written anything that looks authoritative on this? One could use less sugar and more corn sryup, and thereby eliminate the need for the cream of tartar, I guess, but you'd have to do a MUCH better job of mixing to get the same end product. One could also use lemon juice or vinegar rather than cream of tartar, but I don't see how even the entire 1/2 teaspoon of cream of tartar (potassium hydrogen tartrate) in 15 lbs of sugar would be a significant contaminant of the final product, even if none of it reacted at all, which would be impossible. In candy-making, 2 teaspoons of (fresh-squeezed!) lemon juice or 2 teaspoons of vinegar equals 1 teaspoon of cream of tartar in terms of the acidic breakdown of sucrose, but each might create their own unique problem, if cream of tartar causes a problem. Fair warning, "Lemon juice" is complicated. Fresh-squeezed lemon juice has a very acidic pH, like 2 or 2.5, while the bottled stuff has a lower pH, 4.0 - 4.5, as it contains the preservative sodium benzoate. So, if you must use the bottled stuff, you'll not have the same amount of acid per teaspoon, and may need to double the amount you use. (Candy is hyper-technical tricky.) Next week, on "Man Does Live By Honey Alone", we'll cover baking bread on your overheating extractor motor. :) ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:06:44 -0500 Reply-To: bee-quick@bee-quick.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: CCD and media MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Well, I watched the PBS special on CCD, which was really about > honeybees disappearing world wide. So, according to them, by > 2035 we will have no more honeybees if the current trend > continues. I have no idea what they based that on. So, exactly what part of "media" was unclear to you? :) I also have no idea. It was the worst "Nature" program I've seen in a long time. Most "Nature" programs are of sufficient quality and accuracy to be assigned as "homework" in high-school and college level "survey" courses in the sciences. Not this one. > What was most interesting was how "CCD" has become the catch-all > for anything that is happening where bees have problems. Yes, we get the message. Filmmakers are often even worse than "the press". Worse yet, I went to see a preview of "Bee Movie" last night, and the sole depiction of beekeepers was as evil henchmen actually snickering about how they steal honey from bees. Smoke from a smoker is depicted as having the same impact on bees as a combination of tear gas and chloroform. It was entertainment, and I laughed and enjoyed the story. But it even had bee hives that looked like wasp nests. No expense was spared to animate popular misconceptions. Brace yourself, because there are more ragtag bands of documentary filmmakers wandering the terrain, each with yet another highly entertaining "take" on the problem. There's rumors of one team that ran into that Gunther Hawk person with his "biodynamic beekeeping" song and dance schitck on a stick. Of course they drank the Rudolf Steiner Kool-Aide, and of course they are convinced that CCD is "nature's revenge", or some such new-age, Patchouli oil-infused mumbo-jumbo. > As far as scientists jumping the gun to get their papers out first, > I agreed with Jim then and still do, that the studies were poorly > conducted, poorly presented So far, I agree with you that I agree with you. > and should have been put on hold since they were not in consonance > with other CCD observations. I'm not at all in agreement with the specific accusation leveled above. It seems unfair to impose the additional burden of explaining what seem to be spurious claims made by others who are far away. I simply expected a craftsman like job to be done in confirming the preliminary results reported by Bee Alert and the Army at the April '07 Working Group meeting, given that the authors of the paper hogged all the samples collected on behalf of the working group as a whole. It also annoyed me that credit was not given where credit was due to the group that should be credited with finding the specific new virus that seems to be connected to CCD. Yes, the paper was stunningly sloppy work, so poor that tests on samples saved from prior years are only now being run to see if they can find any IAPV in them. (Note that finding IAPV would prove the "Australian connection" wrong, while not finding any IAPV could be rebuffed with the claim that insufficient samples were saved to reveal the presence of IAPV.) This puts them in the unique position of scrambling to get some more data to support the conclusions that they suddenly now claim they never made in the first place. :) But don't accuse anyone of having any but the best of intentions. It is one thing to dispute findings, and quite another to impugn motives. > I also stand by the problem of some beekeepers looking for a > bailout when CCD may not be involved. OK, so how's that work, exactly? One deliberately engages in poor management practices, suffers very high losses, and goes to the edge of not being able to break even, all in HOPES that there MIGHT be a "bailout" at some point in the future? This is reasoning so convoluted, one needs a map, a compass, and a team of Sherpa porters to attempt to follow it. > So, Jim, since you seem to be in the know about CCD and its extent > to date- not for me but for the rest of us, is there a number, what > is it, and what is it based on? I don't have a count for you, but like Dick Marron, I can say that I have seen the problem with my own eyes in multiple operations. You may recall that I am slightly more skeptical than most, so I have also taken the time to read, talk with people, ask pointed questions, and think about what is known versus what is not. So please don't keep expecting updates on the salinity of the water when the problem is that beekeepers are drowning. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:39:09 -0400 Reply-To: lloyd@rossrounds.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Lloyd Spear Subject: where do I send the invoice? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline "my point is simply almost every bee related disease and pest since 1980 has come from movement of bees and hives. no other ag related industry in the nation allows this kind of uncontrolled movement. geez even the movement of nursery trees and shrubs has much tighter oversight then this circus." Well, I enormously dislike the certainty of the spread of any bee pest/disease for one area of the country to another via the pollinators. In fact, I consider that the pollinators are effectively putting a tax on the rest of us by forcing us to incur expenses and suffer losses well before we would otherwise have to do so. Nonetheless, if the choices are to suffer the 'early' arrival of the pests/diseases or have some government 'regulate', I'll take the early arrival anytime. We need less government in our lives, not more. When is the last time some government authority truly did you a favor? Lloyd -- 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: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:19:51 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: John & Christy Horton Subject: Late season feeding question MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I am tempted to rob down real real low-right , but i am concerned about building the winter stores up quickly enough to get them through til spring. if I do this. I like to open feed my bees from barrels, but am concerned that temps (anticipated highs in the mid 60's for awhile) might not provide adequate conditions for proper evaporation of the syrup. I should be feeding mostly sucrose. Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks John Horton in North Alabama US. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:13:14 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "Peter L. Borst" Subject: Organic Beekeeping, Revisited MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Greetings We have discussed in the past the fact that there are no standards fro Organic Beekeeping in the USA. In Europe, however, there are standards and it might be of interest to look at them. * They recommend preference for regional honey bee varieties, of which there aren't any in the USA * I think the elimination of plastic in the bee hive is a good thing (except for comb honey) * Mandatory inspections to ensure compliance sounds like the only credible approach * I don't get the part about not clipping the queen's wing. They do recommend requeening colonies to "rejuvenate" them * They allow quite a wide range of chemicals to control pests, including: formic and oxalic acid, menthol, thymol, eucalyptol, camphor, etc. * "All applications must be documented properly". I wonder how many US beekeepers document treatments ... * * * > Guidelines for organic vegetable production were first implemented during the 80's by private associations. Rising consumer's demand and confusing rules on what is "organic" did finally result in a legal framework to protect the end user from being deceived, and give the producer, processor and exporter a binding framework. In Europe since 1999 apiculture is part of this legislation, and worldwide other countries did or will follow. As an example the EC-regulation 2092/91 is presented. Its focus is not just on product quality but also on sustaining bee's vitality and health as well as beekeeper's impact on the environment. General standards - Apiculture is officially acknowledged to be of general significant impact (pollination, bee products, human health, biodiversity, employment); - Organic quality is based on careful production, treatment, processing, storage and positive environmental conditions; - All colonies of an apiary must be organic to designate a product as organic; - Conversion time is at least 1 year; - Conventional wax has to be removed completely; - Documentation of all operations and notices is obligatory ( migration, propagation, harvest, feeding, treatment, etc.); - In case of parallel production strict separation measures have to be applied. Origin of bees - Regional species and local subspecies have preference; - Buying colonies is allowed from organic breeders only, except in case of building up stocks or recovery after heavy losses (Conversion time 1 year); - Annual buying of 10% of swarms and queens (no conversion time) is possible. Apiary location - Sufficient distance from non-agricultural pollution sources (industry centres, waste grounds/incinerators, heavy traffic junctions etc.); - Sufficient natural provision with nectar and pollen; - Placement during collection period; Preferably in organic agriculture, fallow land, forests, extensively cultivated land, land under environment protection program; - Crops from conventional cultivation with considerable input of agrochemicals may be used but cannot be purchased as organic. Feeding - Combs containing brood should not be harvested; - When harvesting leave sufficient honey supplies; - Artificial feeding only in case of emergency; - Feeding with organic honey or organic sugar; - Feeding only after final harvest up to two weeks before new nectar flow. Animal health / Identification / Documentation - Use of robust species and strains; - Regular queen renewal and colony rejuvenation; - Application of synthetic medicaments is prohibited; Exceptions are possible on application, treated colonies must undergo wax renewal and conversion time; - Varroa-treatment is allowed with lactic, formic and oxalic acid, menthol, thymol, eucalyptol, camphor, homoeopathy, and biotechnical methods as artificial swarm or ban comb; - Prophylactic synthetic treatment is prohibited (e.g. antibiotics against foulbrood); - All applications must be documented properly. Husbandry practice - Cutting the queen's wing is prohibited; - Cutting off drone cells is allowed to reduce varroa during springtime only; - No synthetic repellents; - Foundation sheet from organic wax only; - Hives from natural material only. Small components from plastics are allowed; - Painting or coating only with wax, propolis or plant oils is allowed; - For disinfection use only mechanical measures, heat or caustic soda. Inspection requirements for organic apiculture production Every operator who produces or collects organic products has to submit his undertaking to the inspection system (as do processors and importers/exporters of organic products). For producers of bee products the following minimum inspection requirements apply: For the first inspection the operator must draw up a full description of the unit and his activities, including all conventional parts related to the organic one. The description includes maps of hives and collection areas / fields together with a list indicating the last application of products not permitted by the regulation, storages, processing sites and packaging facilities. Also the measures to be taken to ensure compliance with the regulation must be described. If any change occurs regarding the description or of the practical measures, the inspection body needs to be informed in due time. Manuals must be kept for each colony which shows all actions and applications of products including those not permitted by the regulation. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 22:03:11 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dick Allen Subject: Re: Candy Boards Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Bill's mention of increased bee mortality from cream of tartar has been pointed out by at least three fairly well-known names in the beekeeping community. Diana Sammataro writes in ?The Beekeeper?s Handbook?: ?...some beekeepers add cream of tartar (or tartaric acid) to the solution of sugar and warm water. Tartaric acid breaks down the sugars, but there is some concern that it may be detrimental to bees, thus lately, its addition has not been recommended.? Richard Bonney has a post or two in the Bee-L archives recommending against using cream or tartar: ?Tartaric acid has been recommended for use in syrup persistently for many years. However, studies by Bailey in England as far back as 1966 showed that such use can reduce the life of honeybees if natural nectar is not coming in when the treated syrup is fed.? Leslie Bailey wrote back in 1981 in ?Honey Bee Pathology?: ?Sucrose partially hydrolyzed by boiling with cream of tartar or vinegar, recommended by many beekeeping manuals as the basis of a solid candy for feeding the bees, is also toxic for bees when compared with plain sucrose.? Regards, Dick Allen ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ******************************************************