From MAILER-DAEMON Sat Feb 28 11:12:26 2009 Return-Path: <> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.8 (2007-02-13) on industrial X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-87.0 required=2.4 tests=ADVANCE_FEE_1,AWL, MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR,SPF_HELO_PASS,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=disabled version=3.1.8 X-Original-To: adamf@IBIBLIO.ORG Delivered-To: adamf@IBIBLIO.ORG Received: from listserv.albany.edu (unknown [169.226.1.24]) by metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20774490A3 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 2009 11:03:41 -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 n1SG3YXB017258 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 2009 11:03:40 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 11:03:35 -0500 From: "University at Albany LISTSERV Server (14.5)" Subject: File: "BEE-L LOG0810E" To: adamf@IBIBLIO.ORG Message-ID: Content-Length: 50754 Lines: 1123 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 22:14:46 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Almer's Apiary Subject: Re: Checkerboarding?? In-Reply-To: <49073DFC.3040903@evenlink.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Walt Wright is a member of our local beekeeping association. He did a live demonstration of checkerboarding in our association's apiary back in 2005. It lasted from late winter through honey harvest. His total swarm control package includes much more than checkerboarding, however checkerboarding plays a very major role. The checkerboarding part is quiet simple and not that labor intensive or time consuming. The checkerboarding part of his demonstration involved 2 production supers, one with honey in all frames and one with drawn, empty comb. He mixed the two such that every other frame had honey and the ones between had only drawn, empty combs. He did this in both supers, staggered so that when placed back on the hive each empty frame had a full frame above it. If you were to remove the front of the hive, the full and empty frames would resemble a checkerboard. There seems to be some discrepancy in what I am reading here on BEE-L and what I saw Walt do in our demonstration. He manipulated no brood frames within the brood chamber. He only checkerboarded supers above the cluster. Walt has written a lot of articles (approx 40) on various beekeeping topics. Some of those may have involved manipulating frames of brood but I did not see it happen in our demonstration. Bob Fanning North Alabama USA **************************************************** * General Information About BEE-L is available at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm * **************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 00:18:25 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: ALDEN MARSHALL Subject: Checkerboarding MIME-version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable BlankMike P. questions: >>I would think that any given colony would maintain a=20 certain sized broodnest. Adding empty combs between combs of brood=20 might increase the overall size of the brood nest, but when the brood=20 hatches, the bees would go back to the size broodnest that they are=20 able to manage<< >From my experience the brood nest expands rapidly and your suggestion is = certainly to the point, with all these new bees the natural condition is = to maintain the larger brood nest. A great way to get nucs and a honey = crop as well. Alden Marshall Hudson, NH 03051 **************************************************** * General Information About BEE-L is available at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm * **************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 16:43:46 +1000 Reply-To: Trevor Weatherhead Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Trevor Weatherhead Subject: Re: Checkerboarding?? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Michael Palmer wrote > Personally, I would never break up the bees broodnest by inserting empty > combs between combs of brood. I would think that any given colony would > maintain a certain sized broodnest. Adding empty combs between combs of > brood might increase the overall size of the brood nest, but when the > brood hatches, the bees would go back to the size broodnest that they are > able to manage. Why would adding combs lead to a faster buildup? Here in Australia it is common to add empty frames to the brood nest in spring. I do it and find no problems. I believe it builds up the colony faster. I do not find that the queen goes back to the original broodnest size when adding frames. She continiues to lay out unless the conditions go off then she may not expand but she would not expand naturally under such conditions. This comb manipulation is part of my comb rotation. Taking the outside combs and moving them up above the excluder and putting in newly drawn combs is my way. These ouside combs are often full of honey in the first manipulations but on the subsequent ones they usually have brood in them. The brood can hatch above the excluder and the queen has empty cells in the bottom to lay in. This way it is common to have all 9 frames in the brood box with brood. If that honey is not taken out, then it usually stays there and the queen is thus restricted in the amount of cells she has to lay in. Some may as why the excluder? For me it enables me to take honey without having to sort each comb individually. This saves a lot of time. No, I don't find the excluder acts as a barrier to my brood production. I know some who run double brood boxes but the queen usually goes up the middle of both boxes and if you count the number of frames with brood, it is usually not much more than the 9 I get by comb manipulation. FWIW Trevor Weatherhead AUSTRALIA **************************************************** * General Information About BEE-L is available at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm * **************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 06:04:59 -0300 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Stan Sandler Subject: Re: Rumor Control and Riot Control over "Sub-Lethal" In-Reply-To: <001801c93962$8626ae70$0201000a@j> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jim wrote: So, to summarize, my understanding of the current scientific consensus on > imidacloprid is as follows: > > The imidacloprid acute oral LD50 for bees is 192 ppb. This is way high. Bayer's own researchers have placed it as low as 20 ppb at one time (Kirschner), but now place it somewhat higher, but not that high. I just posted a reference to a paper on chronic toxicity by the author which you referred to (Suchail) which gives specific LD50's for certain lengths of time. I am sure you have a reference for 192, but "concensus"? > At very high levels like 500 ppb, one can start to see "memory and > learning" > effects, but such high doses are also fatal. Bayer's own book on imidacloprid research for 1999 shows a picture of Pham-Delegue's proboscis extension reflex test and a graph showing that "memory and learning" effects start at 4 ppb (or less, that was the lowest concentration tested after control). Pflanzenschutz Nachrichten Bayer 99 She is an expert on "memory and learning" effects. She has a book on the subject, and you can read some of her papers in full on the apidologie web site. > At 50 to 100 ppb, multiple studies have shown various negative impacts on > honey bees. Actually, at that concentration bees are doing what Bayer calls "trembling dances", and foragers will often avoid contaminated forage or stop foraging. > No one has claimed that bees would be exposed to levels anywhere near 20 > ppb > in the field. Most people toss around "typical" numbers like > "5 ppb" as a worst-case number. The above statement is first of all logically non sequitor. ("No one.... most people..") But more to the point, the same authors you just quoted above, (Cynthia Scott Dupree....) found greater than 5 ppb in their testing of nectar and pollen of canola in Ontario. The authors of paper we were recently discussing on risk assessment of systemics chose imidacloprid because it is so well researched and it is so well known that the pollen and nectar of seed treated plants like sunflower and canola and corn (pollen) WILL contain more than 5 ppb. > Long-term exposure does not imply a significantly greater risk than > short-term exposure as neonicotinoids are rapidly metabolized by bees > and do not bio-accumulate. I posted an abstract of a paper by the author who you quoted to make this statement about risk. That is a paper by that author (Suchail) on chronic toxicity. It is obvious that the metabolization of imidacloprid does not change the fact that it is chronicly toxic as demonstrated in the other paper by the same author. The abstract of the paper you referred to does not lead to any conclusion like the one you are claiming about long term exposure. Could you please post quotes from the summary or conclusions of the paper that would back up this claim. Stan **************************************************** * General Information About BEE-L is available at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm * **************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 05:34:06 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Chris Slade Subject: Re: EFB ( was Re: sub-lethal doses) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 29/10/2008 02:40:06 GMT Standard Time, busybeeacres@HUGHES.NET writes: If you wanted advice on virus issues would you turn to the U.S.D.A which back then simply classed everything as PMS or go to the U.K. for virus expert opinion Chris? Be honest? I expect to bump into Norman in a couple of days and, if the opportunity arises, ask him. It strikes me that US beekeeping methods may tend to make CPV more of a problem there than elsewhere. Chris **************************************************** * General Information About BEE-L is available at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm * **************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 07:05:35 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill T Subject: Re: Treating Bees? In-Reply-To: <434803.72223.qm@web57401.mail.re1.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 1:00 PM, R.M. wrote: > I've been blessed to have a mentor that has been working bees for over 50 > years and has a commercial operation of over 2,000 hives. > http://www.gahoney.com/ He has been out to inspect my hives about four > times this year, the most recent visit about a week ago. My suggestion is to listen to him since he is local, experienced and has given you a clean bill of health. One problem with this list is we are all in different locations and have different environmental issues in our areas. All beekeeping is local. What you are doing is what you should be doing, which is rely on a local expert, read as much as you can, and, after some time, try out things that might be suggested, but recognize that the colony might be lost. Also recognize that your hobby is addictive, especially when you start splitting colonies and mathematics crowds out reason. Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine **************************************************** * General Information About BEE-L is available at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm * **************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 08:56:14 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?UTF-8?Q?Peter_L_Borst?= Subject: Re: Treating Bees? Comments: To: randy@RANDYOLIVER.COM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Randy The old Lamarkian epithet doesn't hold as much power due to the dawn of the study of epigenetics (changes in gene expression caused by mechanisms other than changes in the underlying DNA sequence) > Epigenetic features may play a role in short-term adaptation of species by allowing for reversible phenotype variability. The modification of epigenetic features associated with a region of DNA allows organisms, on a multi-generational time scale, to switch between phenotypes that express and repress that particular gene. Whereas the DNA sequence of the region is not mutated, this change is reversible. It has also been speculated that organisms may take advantage of differential mutation rates associated with epigenetic features to control the mutation rates of particular genes. > Epigenetic changes have also been observed to occur in response to environmental exposure— for example, mice given some dietary supplements have epigenetic changes affecting expression of the agouti gene, which affects their fur color, weight, and propensity to develop cancer. Pete **************************************************** * General Information About BEE-L is available at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm * **************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13:32:02 GMT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "deknow@netzero.net" Subject: Re: Treating Bees? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit -- Peter L Borst wrote: >The mechanisms which produce multiple subfamilies in bee colonies have only just been identified, let alone understood. ...are you saying that subfamilies are produced by something other than multiple drone matings? if so, you have my attention...i'd like to hear more. >It could be that everything we do and have done in the field of bee breeding is wrong. well, clearly a lot of what has been done is wrong (see randy quinn's talk from the 2008 organic conference..video on our website)...but all of it? even letting survivor stock splits and supercedures raise their own queens and open mate? my point though, was that separate from the honeybee genepool is the specific makeup of the microbial culture in a hive...and that passing this on from one generation to another may be just as (or even more) important than the honeybee genetics. deknow deknow **************************************************** * General Information About BEE-L is available at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm * **************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 10:23:54 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Jerry Bromenshenk Subject: Re: EFB ( was Re: sub-lethal doses) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit We did not see much evidence of CPV in the U.S. bee samples that we analyze over the past year and a half. Jerry **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211625659x1200715650/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=82&bcd=emailf ooter) **************************************************** * General Information About BEE-L is available at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm * **************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 18:32:18 -0500 Reply-To: bee-quick@bee-quick.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: Rumor Control and Riot Control over "Sub-Lethal" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > This [an LD-50 of 192 ppb] is way high. I'm sorry, but 192 ppb is the consensus number. I'll quote from the FAQ Bayer put out in May 2007: "Over 10 studies of acute contact and acute oral toxicity to honey bees following EPPO test guideline No. 170 have been performed with imidacloprid. The reported oral LD50 values range from 0.0037 to greater than 0.070 µg/bee, with all but one study reporting a value greater than 0.005 µg/bee. The reported contact LD50 values are less variable, and range from 0.042 to 0.104 µg/bee." > I am sure you have a reference for 192, but "consensus"? Yes, I call the general agreement of ten studies a "consensus". > Bayer's own researchers have placed it [LD50] > as low as 20 ppb at one time (Kirschner) This is simply incorrect. Someone may have made a typo in something you read. > I just posted a reference to a paper on chronic > toxicity by... Suchail which gives specific > LD50's for certain lengths of time. Funny thing about Suchail... no one could reproduce his results. I'll quote again from the FAQ: "Suchail et al. (2001) conducted acute and chronic oral toxicity studies with imidacloprid and 6 metabolites in honey bees and reported unexpectedly high chronic toxicity. Significant mortality was seen for each of the 7 chemicals.... There was little difference in chronic toxicity between dose levels or between compounds. ...very surprising given that 4 of the compounds tested were non-toxic to honey bees in the acute test. The temporal pattern of mortalities observed was largely independent of the compound or dose being tested, suggesting an extraneous factor and not the test compounds might have been responsible for the mortality observed in this study. Schmuck (2004) had four independent laboratories repeat Suchail et al’s chronic test with imidacloprid. Three contract labs in Germany and one in the UK again exposed honey bees via the diet for 10 days to spiked sucrose solution containing 0.1, 1 and 10 ppb. In all four labs, no compound-related mortalities were observed at any of these test concentrations." [R. Schmuck, "Effects of a Chronic Dietary Exposure of the Honeybee Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera: Apidae) to Imidacloprid Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 47, 471–478 (2004)] So Suchail's work was clearly flawed, and was not reproduceable. This sort of thing happens sometimes, and it shows up best in citation indexes. Flawed work is rarely cited, while quality work is cited often. But access to citation indexes costs serious money or requires an indutrial grade library card from a university. > at that concentration [50 - 100 pbb] bees are doing what Bayer calls "trembling dances" These biochem guys are rarely enthusiastic beekeepers, so it is not surprising that they might think a tremble dance was unusual. Here's a decent description of what a tremble dance actually is, and why bees do a tremble dance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tremble_dance > I posted an abstract of a paper... (Suchail) One needs to read the ENTIRE PAPER. Then one need to read other papers published afterwards to get the picture. If you can't find them, e-mail me, and I'll send you copies of what I have. To start, here is a pdf of the Suchail paper, and the Schmuck paper that debunked Suchail's very unexpected findings: http://bee-quick.com/reprints/imd/Suchail_2001.pdf http://bee-quick.com/reprints/imd/Schmuck_2004.pdf **************************************************** * General Information About BEE-L is available at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm * **************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 00:31:56 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Brian Ames Subject: Please Send Prince Charles some honey.... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit http://www.mellifera.de/mellifera/mellifera.PoW/mellifera.en.PoW/index.html Beekeeping associations are calling on their members to send jars of honey to Prince Charles in support of his position on GMOs and other excesses of industrial farming In an interview with the newspaper "Daily Telegraph" the Prince of Wales voiced sharp criticism of genetically modified crops and the excesses industrial agriculture. As beekeepers, we are pleased that Prince Charles has spoken up for regional and organic farming and we share his view that genetically modified crops represent an incalculable and unnecessary risk. The harsh criticism of Prince Charles unleashed by the GM-industry is in our view completely unjustified. After a careful review of the statements made by Prince Charles in the interview we can only wholehartedly endorse his positions, which coincide with the experience and observations of beekeepers worldwide. The unchecked runaway intensification of agriculture with pesticides and genetically modified crops poses a serious threat to the very existence of beekeeping. Therefore the beekeeping associations are calling on their members and beekeepers worldwide to demonstrate their support for Prince Charles in this battle for the future of regional farming and beekeeping by the sending of a jar of honey to his office. The honey will be given to charities. This action was discussed in advance with his staff and they are looking forward to receiving honey from around the world in support of the stance Price Charles has taken. If you take part in the campaign you can enter your name in a list and, if you wish, upload a photo of your honey jar. Local beekeeping groups as well as larger beekeeping organisations should promote the campaign and enter their names in the separate list. Environmental organisations should take part too and enter their names and logos. Also honey customers are invited to campaign and list themselfes in the list of participants with the name affix "honey costumer". Whoever wants to join, may send his or her honey by regular mail (no courier service) to the following address: HRH The Prince of Wales FAO Secretary General Correspondence Clarence House St James Palace London SW1A 1BA Your Royal Highness, In support of your publicly expressed views on the subject of genetically modified food and industrial farming, we are pleased to send you a sample of honey from our own hives. We hope very much that you will enjoy this gift and thereby be reminded that many, many people share your view that the only acceptable way forward for agriculture is to become more organic, more sustainable and less dependent on synthetic chemicals. Please accept this gift from the bees with our sincerest good wishes. Yours very truly, It would be best to compose own letters, but the above follows accepted protocols and will do the job. **************************************************** * General Information About BEE-L is available at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm * **************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 07:09:10 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter L Borst Subject: A cure for viruses in insects? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Scientists find bacteria-infected flies immune to virus > A Queensland scientist says a discovery involving flies and bacteria could eventually stop the spread of insect transmitted diseases like Dengue Fever and West-Nile Virus. Doctor Karyn Johnson from the University of Queensland has found flies infected with Wolbachia bacteria are protected from a normally fatal virus. She says if scientists can understand why the insects are protected, they have the potential to control what happens inside the insect and stop the spread of disease. "This is a totally unexpected result because normally you'd sort of think that if an animal is infected with a bacteria they're more likely to be more susceptible to a virus rather than being protected and have an anti-viral effect against the virus," she said. She says they'll now look at whether the same protection occurs in other insect species. "This bacteria is found in an estimated over 20 per-cent of insect species," she said. "So we'll be looking at some other insect species to see if pro! tection also occurs in those species and we'll also be looking to see if we can understand the mechanisms which underlie this anti-viral protection." http://www.abc.net.au **************************************************** * General Information About BEE-L is available at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm * **************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 08:44:23 -0500 Reply-To: bee-quick@bee-quick.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: Rumor Control and Riot Control over "Sub-Lethal" In-Reply-To: <7eb65cc10810310445k4003d25fjc282593355274292@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I said: >> I'm sorry, but 192 ppb is the consensus number... >> >> LD50 values range from 0.0037 to greater than >> 0.070 µg/bee... Juanse Barros asked: > Please James , can you iluminate me? > How do you transform from µg/bee to ppb? I love it when someone says to themselves "Wait a minute, let's do the math..." LD50 is expressed in "micrograms per bee". To get to parts-per-billion you take the LD50 value and: 1) Divide by the amount of sucrose solution ingested by a bee in an LD50 test (in mg) 2) Multiply by 1 million to convert the answer from parts per thousand to parts per billion Some people call the "parts per billion" number the "LC50" - the lethal concentration that kills half the bees in the specified time period. So, if the bees were fed 26 mg in total syrup, and the LD50 is found to be 0.005 µg/bee: LC50 = (LD50 / 26) * 1,000,000 LC50 = (0.005 / 26) * 1,000,000 LC50 = (1.9230 * (1 * 10^-4)) * (1 * 10^6) LC50 = 1.9230 * 10^2 LC50 = 192.30 ppb LC50 ~ 192 ppb Another point that misleads people is the entire concept of a "chronic feeding test" versus an "acute feeding test". Both tests are done, and if the results are about the same, one can prove that the material is metabolized by the bees, which is a good thing. When the "chronic", feeding kills bees at lower doses that the "acute" feeding, then the material bio-accumulates. But these pesticides are designed, not discovered, so everyone knows going into the game if bees can metabolize the stuff or not. The testing of the "10-day chronic" response is done to verify the point to beekeepers, the EPA, and the public. Yes, there will be a "chronic" number, but when it is about the same as the "acute" number, there is no bio-accumulation. One of the big accusations made is that imidacloprid has "sublethal effects" at low levels, but for this to be true, it would mean that the whole issue of "do bees metabolize imidacloprid" would have to be unresolved. People who make this accusation are self-identifying as either unable to read scientific papers, or conspiracy theorists who think that the data was faked. It may sound difficult to impossible to us beekeepers, but the toxicology guys know this stuff cold, and can say such things with a full knowledge of the chemistry of the pesticide and the bee's digestive system. There is also the "No-Adverse-Effect Concentration", which is another parts-per-billion number, and is the highest level tested where no change was observed in bee behavior. This is the sort of level that is being measured by the Dively/Embry/Pettis study, as they are looking for subtle changes in gestalt colony operations, rather than just deaths. **************************************************** * General Information About BEE-L is available at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm * **************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 09:26:52 -0500 Reply-To: bee-quick@bee-quick.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: Please Send Prince Charles some honey.... MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Beekeeping associations are calling on their > members to send jars of honey to Prince Charles > in support of his position on GMOs and other > excesses of industrial farming So, Prince Charles has taken a position AGAINST two of the technologies that can, for the first time since the dawn of history, really feed everyone? Somehow, I don't think that "Beekeepers Who Want More Kids To Starve To Death" is a very well thought-out image. People need to travel more, and find out first hand just how common starvation and malnutrition are. Then they will understand how even a tiny increase in rice yields can save millions. That faint whirring sound you hear is Princess Diana doing summersaults in her grave over this ignorant statement from Charles. **************************************************** * General Information About BEE-L is available at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm * **************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 14:25:07 GMT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "waldig@netzero.net" Subject: Re: Checkerboarding?? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >>There seems to be some discrepancy in what I am reading here on BEE-L andwhat I saw Walt do in our demonstration. He manipulated no brood frames within the brood chamber. He only checkerboarded supers above the cluster. Right. The checkerboarding of the broodnest I described is unrelated to the checkerboarding Walt does. Checkerboarding the broodnest allows a much faster buildp. I took a package on foundation and built it up this way for honey and extra colonies. In one season, using this one package, I ended up with two extra colonies (a total of three) and 2 mediums of honey on the original colony. Results will vary but a much faster build-up will occur in good conditions. There were studies reported out of Serbia on Bee-L that gave specific % increase figures over control colonies. Checkerboarding the honey section and the broodnest both take advantage of the bees' drive for a continuous hive. Waldemar **************************************************** * General Information About BEE-L is available at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm * **************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 10:30:43 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Jerry Bromenshenk Subject: Re: Rumor Control and Riot Control over "Sub-Lethal" Comments: To: bee-quick@bee-quick.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks to Jim for doing the math about ppb - now, two warnings. Parts per billion is not a universally consistent term. What we in the U.S. define as PPB IS NOT what much of the rest of the English speaking world call PPB. Second, when reading ANY European dose response literature, you have to be very careful about a term called mg% sneaking into the reported results. One also sometimes sees this term in Medical literature. That throws another factor of 100 into the equation - and ITS A COMMON mistake made - to not recognize this term for what it is and adjust the reported dose to the true dose - especially when literature is translated from another language into English. Finally, much of the pesticide testing is done by feeding - and you have to consider whether each bee actually consumed the calculated amount. However, some testing uses contact toxicity. In the lab, this consists of putting a small drop (microliter) containing the chemical onto the body of each tested bee. Tricky thing here is that the bees are usually put to sleep to facilitate this - but many labs hit the bees too hard with the anaesthesia OR use too much carrier chemical, inducing a high mortality of controls. The error is then compounded when the investigator fails to adjust for control mortality in the final report. Larry Atkins and I had long conversation about this. If you do it right, your control mortality should be less than 5%. That is NOT the case for many of the trials that I've reviewed. Jerry **************Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot 5 Travel Deals! (http://pr.atwola.com /promoclk/100000075x1212416248x1200771803/aol?redir=http://travel.aol.com/discount-travel?ncid=emlcntustrav00000001) **************************************************** * General Information About BEE-L is available at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm * **************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:12:49 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dick Marron Subject: sub lethal MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Just to bring home the PPB thing. "ppb or parts per billion: a measure of concentration roughly equivalent to a whiskey shot glass (of contaminant) in 1000 railroad tank cars" From: http://www.battleground.in.gov/water/Glossary.htm It isn't very much. Someone with the time might want to look up how many tons of pesticide gets produced in the good old USA. Then there's the matter of sub-lethal effects. Eating too much tuna can affect the brain development in children. (Mercury, you know) This might not show up until adulthood when they show some interest in becoming beekeepers. I worry a little about the effect on the colony when, let's say, a year later the emerging brood has a shorter life expectancy because they have been dining on pesticide-laced pollen. How does one measure that? In fact, where would one find clean pollen to set up a control group? Dick Marron **************************************************** * General Information About BEE-L is available at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm * **************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 21:59:25 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Darrell Subject: Re: Please Send Prince Charles some honey.... In-Reply-To: <000b01c93b64$b8a96f50$0501000a@j> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 31-Oct-08, at 10:26 AM, James Fischer wrote: >> > People need to travel more, and find out first > hand just how common starvation and malnutrition are. > Then they will understand how even a tiny increase > in rice yields can save millions. > Hi Jim and all Having lived in Africa and travelled in all continents except South America has shown me that most people in the world are fed by farmers who save seed for next years crop. Try saving GMO seed and watch the corporate lawyers descend. Just noticed that the reply to box on your post is set to yourself not to Bee-L. Hmmmm!! Bob Darrell thinking that Aaron should dump this post but feel better for sending it Caledon Ontario Canada 44N80W **************************************************** * General Information About BEE-L is available at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm * **************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 03:35:31 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Juanse Barros Subject: Fast times at honey company / NZ Comments: To: honey_australia@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline *A Masterton-based manuka honey company has been named the country's fastest growing business. *http://www.stuff.co.nz/4744125a13.html -- Juanse Barros J. APIZUR S.A. Carrera 695 Gorbea - CHILE +56-45-271693 08-3613310 http://apiaraucania.blogspot.com/ juanseapi@gmail.com **************************************************** * General Information About BEE-L is available at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm * **************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 23:44:59 -0300 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Stan Sandler Subject: Re: Rumor Control and Riot Control over "Sub-Lethal" In-Reply-To: <000e01c93a1e$963f4ad0$8cfea8c0@j> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit You are correct Jim, that 3.7 ng per bee is what Bayer considers the low LD50 firgure for bees (it was determined at their Huntingdon research station) and this corresponds to a LC50 of 140 ppb (when admnistered in a 20 microlitre dose which they adjust to 26 microlitres for the EPPO guideline). My error was in posting from memory without consulting my notes. The 20 ppb figure is the no adverse effect concentration (Wolfgang H. Kirschner, The Effects of Sublethal Doses of Imidacloprid on the foraging behaviour and orientation ability of Honeybees) which Richard Schmuck would accept. The point of the "Risk of Systemic...." paper we were discussing previously is that a 20 microlitre dose is not a realistic exposure when you do the math for what a nectar forager or nurse bee would be exposed do. >> at that concentration [50 - 100 pbb] bees are doing what Bayer calls > "trembling dances" > > These biochem guys are rarely enthusiastic beekeepers, so it is not > surprising that they might think a tremble dance was unusual. > Here's a decent description of what a tremble dance actually is, and why > bees do a tremble dance: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tremble_dance >From that wikipedia reference: "but no light was shed on its function until 1993 when Wolfgang Kirschner discovered that when performed the dance stopped nearby workers from flying to gather more nectar." That is the same Wolfgang Kirschner as the refence above. He is not a biochem guy, he is a bee biologist and studying sublethal effects. > Funny thing about Suchail... no one could reproduce his results. But he is same fellow (group, actually, with Belzunces and Guez) you are relying on for your "slam dunk" of imidacloprid is metabolized therefore no problem... But the Suchail et al paper that you kindly posted discusses the metabolization of imidacloprid at length, precisely as a clue to explaining the unexpected results of their study on chronic toxicity, and also the order of magnitude of differences in LD50 results found for imidacloprid which you posted. >From the abstract of "Sublethal effects of Imidacloprid on Learning and Memory in Honeybees" by the same Suchail et al (plus Maleszka and Gauthier): "The temporal effects of imidacloprid in both 7 day old and 8 day old bees suggest that, 4 hours after treatment the observed effects are due to one or several imidacloprid metabolites rather than to the imidacloprid itself." >From the abstract of "Degradation of Imidacloprid in Apis Mellifera" by Suchail et al (which is I think the paper you are referring to about metabolization since it gives the same figures about time length for transformation/elimination): "Thus it appears that it is very difficult to ascertain an intoxication diagnosis 24 hrs after intoxication with imidacloprid". Not that it is safe, it has just done its damage and is no longer detectable (my thoughts). > One needs to read the ENTIRE PAPER. Then one need to read other papers > published afterwards to get the picture. > > If you can't find them, e-mail me, and I'll send you copies of what I > have. Well, if you could post the paper on metabolization then we could see what the authors concluded that meant regarding the safety of imidacloprid. Also, very much on my wish list would be the paper on "Impairment of olfactory learning performances of Apis Mellifera by long term ingestion of Imidacloprid" by Decourtye, Metayer, Pottiau, Tisseur, Odoux and Pham-Delegue. Thanks Stan **************************************************** * General Information About BEE-L is available at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm * **************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 04:00:22 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Juanse Barros Subject: Honey is Gold Comments: To: honey_australia@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline http://tinyurl.com/6dbbqq Price in the rise ... -- Juanse Barros J. APIZUR S.A. Carrera 695 Gorbea - CHILE +56-45-271693 08-3613310 http://apiaraucania.blogspot.com/ juanseapi@gmail.com **************************************************** * General Information About BEE-L is available at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm * **************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 12:57:16 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: randy oliver Subject: Re: Treating Bees? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Peter: > The old Lamarkian epithet doesn't hold as much power due to the dawn of the > study of epigenetics Absolutely right, Pete, thanks. I'm currently traveling with a powerpoint presentation on thoughts about bee breeding, which I've been updating each time I give it. Epigenetics are clearly a factor to consider, especially with regard to the effect of colony (or queen) exposure to stresses (temperature, nutrition, parasite, chemical) and the duration of subsequent epigenetic effects. A major point is that exposure of a colony to a parasite might prime subsequent generations for resistance to that parasite: Trans-generational immune priming in a social insect Ben M. Sadd , et al Detecting functional homology between invertebrate and vertebrate immunity is of interest in terms of understanding the dynamics and evolution of immune systems. "Trans-generational effects on immunity are well known from vertebrates, but their existence in invertebrates remains controversial. Earlier work on invertebrates has interpreted increased offspring resistance to pathogens as trans-generational immune priming. However, interpretation of these earlier studies involves some caveats and thus evidence for a direct effect of maternal immune experience on offspring immunity is still lacking in invertebrates. Here we show that induced levels of antibacterial activity are higher in the worker offspring of the bumblebee, Bombus terrestris L., when their mother queen received a corresponding immune challenge prior to colony founding. " Environmental stress on other organisms has been demonstrated to alter the morphology or physiology of of subsequent generations (for a number of generations). No one knows whether this is occurring in bees. No one knows if certain pesticides may have an effect upon subsequent generations of bees! To me, this knowledge certainly supports the concept of challenging breeder colonies with parasite stress (survivor-type yards). Randy Oliver **************************************************** * General Information About BEE-L is available at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm * **************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:19:22 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter L Borst Subject: Reducing insecticide use MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit * As one aim of GM crops is to reduce insecticide use, I would suggest that beekeepers should be IN FAVOR of them. In any case, the idea that we are ever going to return to some golden age "before" pesticides in silly. We are already fully into the GM Era. At least those of us who are not in denial. Let's make it work for us. > B. thuringiensis was discovered 1901 in Japan by Ishiwata and 1911 in Germany by Ernst Berliner, who discovered a disease called Schlaffsucht in flour moth caterpillars. he Belgian company Plant Genetic Systems was the first company (in 1985) to develop genetically engineered (tobacco) plants with insect tolerance by expressing cry genes from B. thuringiensis. > Environmental impacts appear to be positive during the first ten years of Bt crop use (1996-2005). One study concluded that insecticide use on cotton and corn during this period fell by 35.6 million kg of insecticide active ingredient which is roughly equal to the amount of pesticide applied to arable crops in the EU in one year. Using the Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ) to measure of the impact of pesticide use on the environment, the adoption of Bt technology over this ten year period resulted in 24.3% and 4.6% reduction respectively in the environmental impact associated with insecticide use on the cotton and corn area using the technology. > Bt crops appear to be safe for the farmers and for consumers. Additionally, the proteins produced by Bt have also been used in sprays in farming techniques for many years with seemingly no ill effects on environment or human health. Thus, Bt toxins are considered environmentally friendly by many farmers and may be a potential alternative to broad spectrum insecticides. The toxicity of each Bt type is limited to one or two insect orders, and is nontoxic to vertebrates and many beneficial arthropods [like bees]. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/ * Furthermore, recombination is far more common in nature than in agriculture and rather than being directed by scientists for beneficial purposes, it is guided by the kill or be killed imperative of the biological world. Natural recombination and reassortment are key evolutionary mechanisms in most RNA viruses. In ubiquitous respiratory viruses, such as influenza viruses or enteroviruses frequent coinfection facilitates recombination so commonly that genome fragments have independent evolutionary histories even on a timescale of years. Both the possibility of recombination and the considerable chance of co-infection in adenoviruses are well known, but the true extent of natural recombination among adenoviruses has remained obscure. "Evidence of frequent recombination among human adenoviruses" Journal of General Virology (2008), 89, 380–388 **************************************************** * General Information About BEE-L is available at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm * ****************************************************