From MAILER-DAEMON Sun Feb 13 07:13:00 2000 Received: from listserv.albany.edu (listserv.albany.edu [169.226.1.24]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA08331 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 07:12:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from listserv.albany.edu (listserv.albany.edu [169.226.1.24]) by listserv.albany.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA02322 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 07:12:58 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200002131212.HAA02322@listserv.albany.edu> Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 07:12:58 -0500 From: "L-Soft list server at University at Albany (1.8d)" Subject: File: "BEE-L LOG9911C" To: adamf@METALAB.UNC.EDU Content-Length: 134787 Lines: 2815 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 13:31:30 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Hugo Thone Organization: Alcatel Telecom Subject: Re: Russian queens MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Paul S LeRoy wrote: > > Would any one who has information on availability of Russian Queens and > approximate prices please post to list or direct to me. Thanks, Paul LeRoy > at pleroy@wctel.net. American Bee Journal, october 1999, p.743 Bernard's Apiaries,P.O.Box 615,Breaux Bridge LA70517, Phone/Fax (318)228-7535 Varroa-resistant Russian Queens The price for the queens will be (je lacht je te barsten) $500 each. WHOOOOAAA-HAAAAAAAA cheers, Hugo (the half a bee) ps. no royalty fees will be accessed WHOOOOAAA-HAAAAAAAA -- Hugo Thone (VJ93) email htho@se.bel.alcatel.be Alcatel Telecom phone (32) 3 240 94 52 F. Wellesplein 1 fax (32) 3 240 99 49 B2018 - Antwerpen ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 07:56:37 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter Borst Subject: Re: Treatment for mites in Missouri In-Reply-To: <199911150503.AAA02254@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Quote: ... a 20 mite fall (with no Apistan) in 48 hours. ...This also sounds to me as if it is a large drop. Unfortunately, no one knows the significance of any counted drop. Response: True, not the exact significance. But to me there are three conditions: 1. No mites (you don't need to treat). 2. Some mites (better treat). 3. A lot of mites (completely out of hand, maybe too late). PB ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 09:54:43 -0500 Reply-To: Garry Libby Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Garry Libby Subject: Re: Russian queens The $500.00 price is for breeder queens to be sold to queen breeders. The price to beekeepers will be less. One of the members of My club has purchased two and will be selling Russian queens, so I will be trying a few this spring. With fingers crossed, Garry Libby Attleboro, MA USA ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 11:30:41 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Ernest Huber Subject: Properties of Honey Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Dear BEE-L, Lisa Siciliano has asked "What do beekeepers wonder about regarding the specific properties of honey?" Although I have made a lot of creamed honey and have read a lot on the subject I have never understood what is really happening at the microscopic crystallite level during the creaming process. The assumption has been that the "seed" crystals grow in size during the 57 degree "curing" stage, but if that were true one wonders why the final product isn't much more coarsely grained than the starting "seed" honey. Maybe it is, and the human tongue isn't sensitive enough to detect the difference. But maybe another possibility is that the seeds don't grow but rather that they somehow REPLICATE themselves. I would think this would be a very useful question for a high school student to investigate if she has access to microscopes and a controlled temperature chamber for making the creamed honey and/or a temperature controlled microscopic stage. It ought to result in some publishable pictures, I would think, for the major bee journals if she is able to take photo micrographs and if she has a clearly defined result. Ernie Huber ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 11:48:26 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Gothoney@AOL.COM Subject: Spring extraction of honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I left some supers on that I didn't have the time to get off. Has anyone had experience extracting from supers left on over the winter? It sounds like a good conservative strategy...leave extra honey on for better winter reserves (it's cold in Albany, NY in the winter)...then extract what they don't need once the dandelions have bloomed. Appreciate hearing from those who have done spring extraction of last year's honey. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 13:17:51 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "BEE'S Inc." Subject: AFB on plastic frames Does anyone have any suggestions on how to clean plastic frames (Pierco) that have been exposed to AFB? Or do they all have to be burned? Thanks, Pat beesinc@gte.net ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 13:25:22 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Bee Books Comments: cc: Diana Sammataro MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Diana Sammataro Subject: please distribute I have a request here from E. & E Ruiner bee books who wants names and addresses of booksellers, second hand book folks etc. from which he can purchase bee books. Contact him directly, as I don't think they are up on email yet. E & E Ruiner Hetzendorfstrasse 79/7 A-1120 Vienna, Austria FAX and phone: 0043/1/80 40 548 ----- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 14:11:50 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Lipscomb, Al" Subject: Re: AFB on plastic frames MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >Does anyone have any suggestions on how to clean plastic frames (Pierco) >that have been exposed to AFB? Or do they all have to be burned? >Thanks, Pat >beesinc@gte.net My first thoughts are is it the law in your state to burn such equipment? If it is not then the thought I have is to place the frames in a freezer and then the wax should become brittle and most of it pop off when the frame is flexed and scraped with a stiff brush. You may be able to use a paint brush to apply a little molten bees wax to encourage the reuse the frame and to help seal in any remaining spores. It has been reported that heating bees wax to melting will damage AFB spores and will prevent reinfection, I have not been able to confirm this. I would also use caution as heat could damage the plastic frames. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:37:07 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Anne Becker Subject: Re: Feral Colonies MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have recently spoken to a woman in Arizona who "cleaned out" her hives, and combined feral swarms with her surviving colonies. Though I don't know much about beekeeping, this seems to make sense to me. She says the bees are quite docile, and disease/mite free. She does not use any chemicals whatsoever,and has been having the highest yields she's ever had in some 15 or so years of beekeeping. She says the cell size is a bit smaller, and this might actually be a contributing factor to the bee's survival. if anyone is interested in getting in touch with her, she is glad to share her experiences, and has helped several beekeepers here in the states(and one or 2 in canada) become chemical and pest-free. contact me at Realbeebox@aol.com. she seems like a good resource. I'm curious if anyone else has tried this method and what their experiences have been. anne ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 20:39:51 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: GImasterBK@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Feral Colonies MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I am NOT an alarmist; but the location of ARIZONA and the statement that THE CELL SIZE IS A BIT SMALLER is a strong indication of Africanized Honey Bees. European bees such as Italians, Carniolans, and Caucasians all make cell sizes of 55.3 / square inch, whereas the Africanized bee makes cell sizes of 64.4 / sq. inch. Africanized bees are in 5 states, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, California, and Nevada These bees should be examined by Arizona authorities before being distributed. George Imirie ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 20:55:27 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: John Mitchell Subject: Re: Treatment for mites in Missouri MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The significance of a counted drop is for integrated pest management practices. One of the underlying principles of IPM is that a certain amount of infestation by a pest is normal. Beyond that threshold, the beekeeper begins treatment. The number of falling mites that would prompt treatment probably isn't one constant number throughout the year — varying perhaps due to the availability of open brood to infest. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 06:38:30 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Spring extraction of honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Gothoney@AOL.COM wrote: > > I left some supers on that I didn't have the time to get off. Has anyone had > experience extracting from supers left on over the winter? Yes. Same situation as you. And my plan was the same, to extract in the spring. Unfortunately, the queen and workers did exactly what the book says- they must have had copies in the hive's library- and moved right up into the supers and started excellent patterns of brood. So I ended up treating the honey super like a brood box and eventually shifted it back to honey later in the season. My plan was excellent, but the bees refused to cooperate. Bill Truesdell Bath, ME ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 07:48:47 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter Borst Subject: Re: Feral Colonies In-Reply-To: <199911160502.AAA05575@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Re: Feral colonies. The term feral colonies is a mis-nomer. In countries where beekeeping is widespread, the only difference between bees in hives and bees in trees is just that: the former live in hives, the latter in trees. Genetically, they are not different. To have a genetically distinct population requires much more isolation than simply being in the woods. You need an isolated island or a controlled breeding program to produce a distinct strain. Most honeybees, whether in hives or trees, are a mix of all the types present (such as Italians, Carniolans, etc.). This is what I call the common stock. If you want this stock, just let your bees raise their own queens. It's just like using seed from hybrid vegetables. In one or two generations, they revert to primitive or indistinct types. This is not the way to get *better* stock, although there are other very good reasons to see that the gene pool is kept diverse. PB Peter Borst plb6@cornell.edu http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/plb6/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 07:36:11 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter Borst Subject: Re: Mite drop count (was Treatment for mites in Missouri) In-Reply-To: <199911160502.AAA05575@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" John wrote: The significance of a counted drop is for integrated pest management practices. One of the underlying principles of IPM is that a certain amount of infestation by a pest is normal. Reply: Trouble is, what is the number? Is it 20 per day? Twenty mites from a strong hive is different from 20 from a nuc, obviously. Depends on the time of year, too. Varroa is essentially a fatal disease, and all the hives seem to have it. Researchers are scrambling to find non-chemical alternatives, but most of these aren't really working yet. I wouldn't play with this one any more than I would play with AFB. Let the researchers play with it. In terms of integrated pest management, I would suggest developing a plan to create enough nucs so that any hive that has excessive mites in the fall can get a nuc with a new queen. You remove the hive's queen and introduce the nuc over newspaper. (This would be in addition to strips.) The population of mites has to be knocked down. I don't think it can be eliminated by any known method. The worst part is that the population skyrockets during the honey flow. If researchers could find a non-toxic treatment that could be applied during the flow, maybe pesticides could be eliminated. PB Peter Borst plb6@cornell.edu http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/plb6/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 20:37:26 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Barry Birkey Subject: Polariscope "J" film Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hello all - Richard Bonney asked if I would pass on to the list the information I found out regarding "J" film. The best I was able to come up with is that Polaroid does not make the "J" film anymore. All the "kids" I talked to from Polaroid weren't around back in the 60's and never heard of the film. They do make polarizing film but not the "J" film. They could give me no references as to the specifications of what the "J" film was. My best assumption is that the commercial grade polarizing film that you can get from Edmond Scientific, http://www.edmundscientific.com/Products/DisplayProduct.cfm?productid=2119 would work fine for this use. I think Richard already gave out their info but here it is again if anyone is interested. Edmund Scientific Company 101 East Gloucester Pike Barrington, NJ/USA 08007-1380 Phone: (800) 728-6999, Fax: (856) 547-3292 www.scientificsonline.com -Barry -- Barry Birkey West Chicago, IL U.S.A. www.birkey.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 01:48:43 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bill Chalmers Subject: Tracheal and Varroa "free zones" left in the world? I am afraid that I'll have to eliminate the countries of Australia and New Zealand and the state of Hawaii from this question. As most of know that these are the last bastions of hope! I keep beeps in Saskatchewan ( a mere 400 Km from Mr. Dyck's bees). I still have the luxury of not having to deal with these nasty pests. The closure of the US/Canadian border, IMO, has helped most Canadian beekeepers lag the American Bee pest situation by at the least, a couple of years! Also, here in Saskatchewan the provincial border closure has helped to keep the Varroa situation at bay for the past several years (fingers crossed)! While attending the ABA (Alberta beekeepers association) convention earlier this month, I was amazed to hear that even in Alberta, there are still non-mite areas. The UK has its' problems, yet I still hear that Northern Scotland is still mite free??? The States??? Now that would be interesting to hear from non-mite beekeepers south of the border. With that said, the Saskatchewan experience has shown that the mites can be contained... so any ideas why? I do not want to leave you with the impression that the mite is not in Saskatchewan. According the provincial apiculturist, the varroa infestation is less than 18% and the tracheal count less than 35%... Better than 100% infested! Thanks! Bill Chalmers Callum Honey Farms PS This is my virgin post. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 07:28:22 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Rupert, Rod" Subject: Re: 'Urban Legends' and other half-truths MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Allen writes: > One such popular idea relates to drying out combs for > storage. I don't know > where the idea came from, but it arises from its own ashes > over and over and > over. Maybe it is one of those 'How the bear lost his tail' > tales. Perhaps because, in this case at least, the 'myth' is stated as fact in a highly recommended text "The Beekeepers Handbook" 1998 edition, page 116. So, if this is a myth and there are no granulation problems with storing wet combs, then my next question is: what is the effect of storing wet combs with PDB? Here in Missouri where it can stay fairly warm until early December, (especially this year!) the worms would do much damage between July and the onset of cold weather. Rod Rupert ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 09:35:44 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: 'Pat Henderson' Subject: Re: Polariscope "J" film MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit For what it is worth, I just built a Polariscope. An old friend, Joe Hansen, had built one about 15 years ago. With the instructions was a phone number. It was from Edmund Scientific. I purchased a sheet of film from them for my scope. The sheet was 8.5" by 19.5". The cost was $20.40 plus shipping and taxes with a total cost of $29.58. It works. Their phone number is 856/573-6250. Pat Henderson ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 05:58:56 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Marica=20Gatt?= Subject: Maltese Beekeeping Site Comments: To: All Bee-L , Bee-L , "Dr.Nicola Bradbear" <100410.2631@compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 16th November, 1999. To whom it may concern I am a beekeeper from the Island of Malta, who is lately building a site on beekeeping in my country. url: http://www.geocities.com/maltabee01/ Knowing that your site is marvellous and visited by many beekeepers, I would kindly like to ask whether it is possible to link my site to yours and show it up on your web page. Whilst thanking you in advance I really wish that you accept my request. Thank you Marica Gatt maltabee01@yahoo.com ===== __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:01:51 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Lloyd Spear Subject: Stocks of bees MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Peter said: "Genetically, they are not different. To have a genetically distinct population requires much more isolation than simply being in the woods. You need an isolated island or a controlled breeding program to produce a distinct strain.' "It's just like using seed from hybrid vegetables. In one or two generations, they revert to primitive or indistinct types. This is not the way to get *better* stock, although there are other very good reasons to see that the gene pool is kept diverse." Peter, are you sure about this? Are we perhaps dealing with semantics in using the term "distinct strain"? I am certainly not either a geneticists or a queen breeder. However, I have been present during several discussions where very competent queen breeders have said that beekeepers are missing the boat by not doing more selection and breeding of their own stock to produce bees most appropriate to their management practices and micro-climate. In this part of the woods there are at least two commercial beekeepers who do not practice re-queening, as such, yet enjoy tremendous average hive production and have relatively gentle bees. To have the kind of average hive production they do, one must have bees that are good at over-wintering, build up fast in the spring, and have a low swarming tendency. I have understood that if one is not into pollination/migratory beekeeping, that one can let supercedure have its role and over many generations the bees in your hives will be those that best fit your management practices and micro-climate. Of course, pollination and migratory beekeeping take an extraordinary toll on queens and make re-queening necessary in order to keep up production. Now, these bees will not be a "distinct strain" in scientific terms, but they will most definitely be different from bees found a hundred (or fewer) miles away. Is this not correct? Lloyd Lloyd Spear, Owner, Ross Rounds, Inc. The finest in comb honey production. www.rossrounds.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 09:48:04 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: William Morong Subject: Re: AFB on plastic frames Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 02:11 PM 11/15/1999 -0500, you wrote: >>Does anyone have any suggestions on how to clean plastic frames (Pierco) >>that have been exposed to AFB? Or do they all have to be burned? >>Thanks, Pat >>beesinc@gte.net > >My first thoughts are is it the law in your state to burn such equipment? If >it is not then the thought I have is to place the frames in a freezer and >then the wax should become brittle and most of it pop off when the frame is >flexed and scraped with a stiff brush. > >You may be able to use a paint brush to apply a little molten bees wax to >encourage the reuse the frame and to help seal in any remaining spores. It >has been reported that heating bees wax to melting will damage AFB spores >and will prevent reinfection, I have not been able to confirm this. I would >also use caution as heat could damage the plastic frames. > According to the material in the Hive and Honey Bee, it takes about 300F degrees to kill AFB spores, which is probably hot enough to melt the plastic. Hot parafin has been used as a sterilizing agent and hive body preservative in South America, but it was hot enough to do the job, and lesser temperatures proved ineffective. Hot lye (sodium hydroxide) solution is effective at a lower temperature. (Many of these persistent spores coat themselves in wax, which the lye probably attacks.) If you can get the comb and foundation out, and all the wax off, you may be able to thoroughly clean the frames in a dishwasher, as ordinary thorough washing of a non-porous material simply sends the spores down the drain, where they are inaccessible to the bees. AFB spores are pretty tough, and measures like moderately high temperatures, bleach, and antiseptics that would decimate most pathogens don't affect them, though they are immobile and subject to mechanical removal. If you salvage something you've got to weigh the possibility that less than 100 spores may infect a colony, and you might consider your labor. I bought some infected colonies last Fall, had the problem last Winter, and burned the whole mess. Bill Morong ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 18:32:39 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: BeeCrofter@AOL.COM Subject: Re: AFB on plastic frames MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Has anyone on the list called Pierco to see what they reccomend regarding foulbrood and their brand of foundation? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 10:25:16 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "D.K. Stream" Subject: MONTANA BEEKEEPERS MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable TO ONE AND ALL: An aspiring firsttime beekeeper from Helena, Montana, I would like to = know if there are any other Montana beekeepers on the BEE-L List who = might be willing to share some information and wisdom with me??? I'd = also like to know if anyone would have a nuc colony (2) or package bees = to sell me next Spring? I'm planning to start with two hives. Thank = you for the assistance. Doug Stream wildwind@imine.net ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 20:57:44 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: John Mitchell Subject: Re: Spring extraction of honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <> Just don't leave the queen excluder on, if you use one. The bees will move up leaving the queen to freeze to death. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 18:45:06 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "W. G. Miller" Subject: Re: AFB on plastic frames MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On cleaning AFB contaminated plastic frames: Your first step is to contact your local apiary inspector and find out what is available in your area. In Maryland, the state deparment of Agriculture runs an ethelyne oxide chamber that does an excellent job for a very nominal fee. W. G. Miller Gaithersburg, MD ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 17:07:27 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: John Edwards Organization: Hayden Bee Lab, USDA-ARS,Tucson, Arizona Subject: Re: Feral Colonies MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Anne Becker wrote: > I have recently spoken to a woman in Arizona who "cleaned out" her hives, and > combined feral swarms with her surviving colonies. Though I don't know much > about beekeeping, this seems to make sense to me. She says the bees are quite > docile, and disease/mite free. "docile" is a relative term, and anyone in 3/4 of Arizona who wants the ease of management we experienced here 10 years ago has to buy their queens from Georgia (USA). The days of working bees in t-shirts are over here. The mite resistance, however, seems attainable through local crosses. ----------------------------------------------------------- John F. Edwards Carl Hayden Bee Research Center Tucson, Arizona Lab webpages: http://198.22.133.109/ http://gears.tucson.ars.ag.gov/home/edwards/index.html ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 17:16:26 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: John Edwards Organization: Hayden Bee Lab, USDA-ARS,Tucson, Arizona Subject: Re: Feral Colonies MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Please listen to George .... he has it mostly right. I think what was suggested, however, was crosses with your own local (and isolated, if you are lucky) feral strains, rather than widespread distribution of southern Arizona bees. But if you think that is the way to go, please alert your lawyer in advance, so that he or she can clear their calendar. - John Edwards, Tucson GImasterBK@AOL.COM wrote: > I am NOT an alarmist; but the location of ARIZONA and the statement that THE > CELL > SIZE IS A BIT SMALLER is a strong indication of Africanized Honey Bees. > > George Imirie ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 17:40:43 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: John Edwards Organization: Hayden Bee Lab, USDA-ARS,Tucson, Arizona Subject: Re: Aggression & Urban Legends MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Peter Borst wrote: > And if that day comes where the majority is using AI stock, > just as the majority of farmers is using commercial seeds, then we > will have to establish apiaries where the common stock is maintained, Alas, we already had that system at the Baton Rouge Bee Lab, but it was decimated by budget cuts and other factors decades ago. Many lines were lost, back into the genetic stew. ----------------------------------------------------------- John F. Edwards Carl Hayden Bee Research Center 2000 E. Allen Road Tucson, Arizona http://198.22.133.109/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 21:58:29 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Robert Barnett Subject: Re: Feral Colonies Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Hello Anne and All: May we be told what is meant by "cleaned out" hives, aand what happened to her colonies that did NOT survive? Put another way, how is it known that the colonies are disease-mite free, when some aspparently "did not survive". The highest yeilds ever suggest to me that there is little competition now for the available nector, possibly due to low population of feral colonies (from mites andor diseases), altho good heaalth and strong colonies in her yards might account for this condition under certain circumstances. Some additional data I hope might clarify the issue here. Thanks! Bob Barnett, Birmingham ---------- > From: Anne Becker > To: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu > Subject: Re: Feral Colonies > Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:37:07 EST > >I have recently spoken to a woman in Arizona who "cleaned out" her hives, and >combined feral swarms with her surviving colonies. >She says the bees are quite docile, and disease/mite free. She does not use any chemicals . >has been having the highest yields she's ever had in some 15 or so years of >beekeeping. >anne ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 19:54:02 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Paul Nicholson Subject: Re: AFB on plastic frames In-Reply-To: <199911151847.NAA19488@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Chlorine bleach will disinfect the plastic. If there is comb on the frames, then you have to be concerned that some spores could be protected from the bleach by the wax. I don't know if an extended soak in bleach will damage the wax or if it will kill spores embedded in the wax. It sure will kill any spores that are exposed though. Paul At 13:17 -0500 11/15/99, BEE'S Inc. wrote: >Does anyone have any suggestions on how to clean plastic frames (Pierco) >that have been exposed to AFB? Or do they all have to be burned? >Thanks, Pat >beesinc@gte.net ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 16:55:59 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: John Edwards Organization: Hayden Bee Lab, USDA-ARS,Tucson, Arizona Subject: Re: Feral Colonies MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Peter Borst wrote: > Re: Feral colonies. > > The term feral colonies is a mis-nomer. In countries where > beekeeping is widespread, the only difference between bees in hives > and bees in trees is just that: the former live in hives, the latter > in trees. > Genetically, they are not different. Suggest you read Howell Daly's paper on feral bees in California. - John Edwards, USDA-ARS, Tucson ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 17:25:12 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Al Subject: Re: Feral Colonies MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > docile, and disease/mite free. She does not use any chemicals whatsoever,and > has been having the highest yields she's ever had in some 15 or so years of > beekeeping. She says the cell size is a bit smaller, and this might actually > be a contributing factor to the bee's survival. > It depends on what this method realy is. When you say chemical free do you mean nothing is introduced into the hives that act as a poison to the mites? When I say nothing I mean both the "man made" as well as the "natural". Many people do not seem to understand that some of the so-called "essential oils" are very toxic, as much so as most of the chemical companies products. One of the first rules of life is that if it will kill one thing it will kill another. The second rule is that nature has been making better poison than man for thousands of years. When someone says "I feed this to my bees and the mites died" they are putting some form of toxin into the bee that makes the bees "blood" toxic. It also is going to get some of that mixed into the incoming nectar which will end up in the honey. When someone puts something into the hive that contacts the mites and they die it is going to get into the wax and maybe a little into the honey. If that substance is Food Grade Mineral Oil (FGMO) then the danger to whoever gets the honey is very small (FGMO is non-toxic but it can result in some problems). The final way to kill mites is to put something into the air that causes the mites some kind of problem. This is how some kinds of smoker fuel cause mite drops and how Formic Acid kills mites. The second question is the smaller cell size. You mention that these bees are not very defensive. George brings up the fact that the AHB uses a smaller cell size, and your friend is in an area where AHB is present. I would agree that the hives should be examined by one of your state inspectors. If they are AHB then the cell size and resistance to Varroa mites is explained. If not then one other thing that should be considered is that in the collected colonies you friend may have found bees that have genetic resistance to the Varroa mites, if so then we would all like to know about that. If they are AHB and not defensive, we would like to find out about that as well. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 22:09:55 -0500 Reply-To: admin@beeworks.com Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: David Eyre Subject: Re: Tracheal and Varroa "free zones" left in the world? In-Reply-To: <199911161354.IAA13515@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT On 16 Nov 99, at 1:48, Bill Chalmers wrote: > With that said, the Saskatchewan experience has shown that the mites can > be contained... so any ideas why? I do not want to leave you with the > impression that the mite is not in Saskatchewan. According the provincial > apiculturist, the varroa infestation is less than 18% and the tracheal > count less than 35%... Better than 100% infested! We all thought the same in Ontario. Without human interference mites seems to travel approx 7-8 miles per year, that's a natural expansion without the beekeepers moving bees around. It took approx 10 years to reach us from the Niagara border with the US. Make no mistake, you'll get it, so take the time to brush up on the ways to establish infestation levels. ***************************************** The Bee Works, 9 Progress Drive, Unit 2, Orillia, Ontario, Canada.L3V 6H1. Phone (705)326 7171 Fax (705)325 3461 David Eyre, e-mail http://www.beeworks.com This months special:- Beekeeping Jacket **************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 12:34:31 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Max Watkins Subject: Re: Mite drop In-Reply-To: <199911121814.NAA06167@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Rod, The mite drop you describe does not sound serious - possibly a light reinfestation or mites that esacaped contact with the Apistan treatment. With limited brood in the hive at this time of year unless you can see hundreds of mites running over the combs I would not spend money on a further acaricide treatment this year. The bees will not be in immediate mortal danger. Next spring, as soon as it's warm enough for brood to start building up, do an ether roll test and then decide on your method, preferably methods of mite control. Max Dr Max Watkins Vita (Europe) Limited Tel 44 (0) 1256 473177 Brook House, Alençon Link, Fax 44 (0) 1256 473179 Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 7RD, UK http://www.vita.demon.co.uk ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 22:09:56 -0500 Reply-To: admin@beeworks.com Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: David Eyre Subject: Re: Feral Colonies In-Reply-To: <199911160422.XAA04569@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT On 15 Nov 99, at 20:39, GImasterBK@AOL.COM wrote: > I am NOT an alarmist; but the location of ARIZONA and the statement that > THE CELL SIZE IS A BIT SMALLER is a strong indication of Africanized Honey > Bees. There was an article in Bee Culture some time ago by Kim Flottum when he visited someone in Arizona doing work on smaller cell sized foundation and no treatment for Varroa. The article reported good results but I cannot remember the outcome. Is it possible these folks are the same ones? Perhaps if Kim is listening he might bring us up to date? ***************************************** The Bee Works, 9 Progress Drive, Unit 2, Orillia, Ontario, Canada.L3V 6H1. Phone (705)326 7171 Fax (705)325 3461 David Eyre, e-mail http://www.beeworks.com This months special:- Beekeeping Jacket **************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 07:24:37 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Aaron Morris Subject: Re: Feral Colonies MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >If they are AHB then the cell size and resistance to Varroa > mites is explained... Before this grows into another urban myth, Africanized Honey Bees have not been proven to be resistent to varroa mites. They may be less inclined to succumb to the parasite, but the speculation is that it's due to the AHB's inclination to swarm and even abscond, thereby breaking the brood rearing cycle. Aaron Morris - thinking urban myths rule! ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 08:28:12 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: AFB on plastic frames MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "W. G. Miller" wrote: In Maryland, the state deparment of Agriculture > runs an ethelyne oxide chamber that does an excellent job for a very nominal > fee. The EPA would not let us open our ETOH chamber in Maine. How did yours get through the EPA. Grandfathered? If some other way, would appreciate knowing so we might get ours open. Bill Truesdell Bath, ME ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 15:24:13 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Max Watkins Subject: FW: Mite drop MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Please disregard my first reply; I misread the original message. If you are getting a natural mite fall of 20/day this could be a serious infestation. You should use a second (different to Apistan) control treatment straight away to check the hive infestation before winter. As the colony should be more or less broodless (?) if you use an organic acid/essential oil treatment the control levels should be pretty good - but follow a well-known method. Medhat Nasr (Ontario) has developed such a method but whether you can/should use it in your State, I don't know. Max Dr Max Watkins Vita (Europe) Limited Tel 44 (0) 1256 473177 Brook House, Alençon Link, Fax 44 (0) 1256 473179 Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 7RD, UK http://www.vita.demon.co.uk -----Original Message----- From: Max Watkins [mailto:max.watkins@vita.demon.co.uk] Sent: 17 November 1999 12:35 To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Subject: RE: Mite drop Rod, The mite drop you describe does not sound serious - possibly a light reinfestation or mites that esacaped contact with the Apistan treatment. With limited brood in the hive at this time of year unless you can see hundreds of mites running over the combs I would not spend money on a further acaricide treatment this year. The bees will not be in immediate mortal danger. Next spring, as soon as it's warm enough for brood to start building up, do an ether roll test and then decide on your method, preferably methods of mite control. Max Dr Max Watkins Vita (Europe) Limited Tel 44 (0) 1256 473177 Brook House, Alençon Link, Fax 44 (0) 1256 473179 Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 7RD, UK http://www.vita.demon.co.uk ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 12:36:24 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Lipscomb, Al" Subject: Re: Feral Colonies MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >>If they are AHB then the cell size and resistance to Varroa >> mites is explained... >Before this grows into another urban myth, Africanized Honey Bees have not >been proven to be resistent to varroa mites. Yes, I worded this very poorly. The smaller cell size and the lack of Varroa in the collected feral bees. In reguards to the AHB swarming often, thereby breaking the brood cycle, I have heard reports that they will abscound and leave behind infested brood but a search of the archives came up with no results. I wonder if I am thinking of Cape Bees? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 10:59:42 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Regina Valluzzi Subject: Larval Silks MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello; A colleague and I are trying to follow up on some early studies of composition/structure relationships in insect silks. These proteins are reported to have similar compositions, but a number of these fibers, notably those obtained from bees and hornets are alpha helical rather than haveing the more typical beta sheet structure. We have obtained some hornet silk. We would like to locate a biologist who can help us obtain silks from honeybees. My colleague was present during the original studies and he informs me that the best way to obtain honeybee silk is to get a larva just before it seals itself up to metamophosize into a bee. These larvae spin a thin casing of silk which is easy to obtain from a larva in the right stage of development. We're a physicist and a materials scientist with an interest in insect silks, the biology and habits of bees are not a "strong suit". Are there any interested parties out there who could perhaps be of assistance? Thank you for your attention; Dr. Regina Valluzzi ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 23:40:49 PST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: T & M Weatherhead Subject: Re: Feral colonies In-Reply-To: <199911161249.HAA11952@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; X-MAPIextension=".TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Peter Borst wrote > The term feral colonies is a mis-nomer. In countries where > beekeeping is widespread, the only difference between bees in hives > and bees in trees is just that: the former live in hives, the latter > in trees. In Australia this is not the case. We have carried out DNA work on feral colonies and they are not related to the lines we currently run as commercial hives. Our ferals are descended from the mellifera mellifera brought to Australia in the early days which swarmed regularly and has adapted quite well as feral colonies in our environment. We find that our commercial strains, if they swarm, will not survive as ferals for any length of time. They have been pampered for too long by us breeders and have to be shifted around or feed to survive. It is basically like lot feeding cattle. We have breed bees that are not inclined to swarm because a hive that swarms is no longer a highly productive unit. We cannot afford to be shifting hives around like tourists. They are not there just for the view. Our hives must work. The DNA work was commissioned to show that feral colonies and commercial colonies are different We have been charged in the past that our colonies are keeping the feral population alive and we should not be allowed to take our hives on any conserved land. We proved our case and that argument no longer holds water. Trevor Weatherhead AUSTRALIA ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 16:07:52 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Pollinator@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Larval Silks MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 99-11-17 15:28:23 EST, rv@MARVIN.TUFTS.EDU (Regina Valluzzi) wrote: << he informs me that the best way to obtain honeybee silk is to get a larva just before it seals itself up to metamophosize into a bee. These larvae spin a thin casing of silk which is easy to obtain from a larva in the right stage of development. We're a physicist and a materials scientist with an interest in insect silks, the biology and habits of bees are not a "strong suit". Are there any interested parties out there who could perhaps be of assistance? >> I would think you could easily get a piece of brood comb from a beekeeper, and would find some in the right stage to get the fresh cocoons. Unfortunately this is a seasonal item, as brood rearing in the northern hemisphere is now at its lowest ebb. If you will contact me in mid to late January, after the queens get started again (I'm in coastal South Carolina), I would be happy to send you a piece of brood comb, with larvae at about the right stage. I suppose the best thing would be to freeze it and ship in an insulated box. In your area you'd probably be able to get this six to eight weeks later in the spring. Dave Green SC USA The Pollination Home Page http://www.pollinator.com The Pollination Scene http://members.aol.com/pollinator/polpage1.html Jan's Sweetness and Light Shop on the Internet (honey & beeswax candles) http://members.aol.com/SweetnessL/sweetlit.htm ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 02:25:13 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: Feral Colonies In-Reply-To: <199911171251.HAA15157@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > There was an article in Bee Culture some time ago by Kim Flottum when > he visited someone in Arizona doing work on smaller cell sized > foundation and no treatment for Varroa. The article reported good > results but I cannot remember the outcome. That's true, and we've recently received some long and involved posts addressed to BEE-L that are not well paragraphed and are hard to read, but seem to deal with this same rumour. Although we refuse very few articles, no moderator has yet chosen to approve these particular opi because of the voluminous content, confusing formatting and perhaps other reasons which I leave it to you to discover. I'm not sure anyone has been able to read from start to finish. I think we all figured that this material should be on a web site with a pointer posted on BEE-L, rather than emailed to 1,007 people who did not really ask for it, so we've been sitting on it, wondering what to do. But we've been very busy and maybe we haven't done it justice. Anyhow, there are getting to be more bee lists and one of the new ones is http://www.onelist.com/community/beekeeping with 76 members and no restrictions. The same posts have been sent there and since they accept anything, the posts are in their archives. You find the archives under 'Latest Messages'. Click 'index' and work back from the present. I'll be interested in what people think (Address comments to allend@internode.net and abuse to /dev/nul/) I hope some give them a reading and report back. I think some members will find these posts interesting. It is obvious a lot of work went into them. If any BEE-L members think that this series of posts should be on BEE-L, we'll consider posting them or finding them a web home, but I hope someone can edit them into a format that is less of a marathon -- and make them a little less of less of a prosetylization :) allen ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 15:35:14 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Bozard, Charles Emmett (Mick)" Subject: un-cappers MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" hello everybody, i am looking for an uncapper for a future 1000 colony operation. please let's discuss the pros and cons of the types out there. i personally have looked at the dakota gunness and the lady that called and sent me info from there was grreat. so far it seems to be the favorite, what do ya'll think ?! always, thanks in advance ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 06:19:36 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Barricklow, Walt" Subject: Mite treatment MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I have been treating my hives with aspitan for the last 25 days. = Another inspection of my hives also found it with beetles too. I am = prepared to treat my hive with Coumaphos impregnated plastic strips, but = the directions say (1) do not combine with aspitian treatment (2) use by = itself or the hive will suffer. Question: because of the effects of the = aspitan that will still be in the hive, how long after I remove the = aspitian strips, should I wait before putting in the coumaphos beetle = traps. This in the first year that Ive had a problem, havent even = treated with aspitan before, in the last 5 years. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 18:26:39 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: GImasterBK@AOL.COM Subject: Re: AFB on plastic frames MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bill: Regarding Maryland's ETO chamber, to get the CORRECT answer to your question, consult with our State Inspector I. Barton Smith at: smithib@mda.state.md.us George ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 07:08:44 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Aaron Morris Subject: Re: Mite treatment MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > Question: because of the effects of the > aspitan that will still be in the hive, how long after I remove the > aspitian strips, should I wait before putting in the coumaphos beetle > traps. This in the first year that Ive had a problem, havent even > treated with aspitan before, in the last 5 years. I debated whether this should be posted to the list due to concerns that all sorts of opinions, which may or may not be correct (and probably the latter)would come out of the woodwork. Of course, the proper place to get the answer is the Checkmite+ (TM) label. I am on record stating "I will watch my bees die before I put coumophos in my hives", hence I have no label to read. I am not sure the answer will be found there. The recommendations from the researchers is to start treat with Apistan for a week, do an ether roll after a week of treatment and if there is a "significantly positive find", pull the Apistan and treat with coumophos. No recommendation of a waiting period. I am learning that the reality of the situation is that many beekeepers have jumped on the coumophos bandwagon as soon as it gets to their town (ie as soon as their state gets a section 18 approval). I'm not revealing any trade secrets here, just check the sales figures of Checkmite+ to verify this. All those strips aren't being sold as air fresheners! But I digress. As stated many times on this list, THE LABEL IS THE LAW! Is the question of fluvalinate resudues interacting with coumophos addressed on the Checkmite+ label? Anyone got a label out there? Aaron Morris - thinking there could be quite a witch's brew being concocted in the beeyard, no? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 08:53:58 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Feral Colonies MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Here is another not well done experiment which is inconclusive concerning cell size and varroa control. I bought small cell foundation and had fine years with little or no varroa. But when I moved boxes around and added a third brood box to all my hives with standard foundation, I still had little or no varroa. So cell size may work, but I have not proved it. There have been studies on cell size and varroa and entirely different conclusions have been arrived at. One said there was no difference and another said it worked, but even it hedged a bit. I believed it would work because of earlier emergence of the workers and drones, but have been told often and loudly that cell size does not make a difference in time of emergence. That should be the only contributing factor in reducing varroa loads in the hive if cell size works. Bill Truesdell Bath, ME ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 08:59:59 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Lipscomb, Al" Subject: Re: Mite treatment MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >I have been treating my hives with aspitan for the last 25 days. = >Another inspection of my hives also found it with beetles too. First thing: get your state inspector to look at things. If these are hive beetles (there are some imposters) then they need to know. Your post does not say where you are located but if hive beetles have not been found in your area before the information should be available so the inspectors can get the word out. The second thing you can consider is there are treatments for the soil that can take out the beetle. You would have to have the permission of the property owner if you have your bees on someone elses land. This would reduce the need for a second toxin inside the hive. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 09:51:37 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter Borst Subject: Better Bees In-Reply-To: <199911180502.AAA19962@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Greetings! I have a question I would like to pose to the group: Despite many claims over the years, I wonder if anyone has ever produced a better bee. It seems as if our best hope in combatting the varroa problem *would* be a resistant bee, but I wonder if it is really possible to get consistent results with the breeding methods used up to now. Any takers? PB Peter Borst plb6@cornell.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 09:50:20 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: William Morong Subject: Bleach and AFB spores Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" In a recent post, Paul wrote concerning bleach "It sure will kill any spores that are exposed though." In checking my library and the archives I find many opinions that bleach will or will not so act, but no references to solid scientific evidence. When I had AFB here, Mr David Knox of the USDA bee laboratory in Beltsville, MD wrote the following in an email to me: "You are correct, bleach will not kill Bacillus larvae spores, however anything you do to physically remove spores from your gloves, bee suit, hive tool, smoker, etc. will be of benefit. Your protective clothes are perfectly safe to use after washing with a good detergent." I would not be surprised if bleach were deadly to the more vulnerable active bacterial form of the pathogen, but does this form ever exist in the sure absence of spores. If Paul or anyone else has sound scientific evidence that bleach is deadly to AFB spores, I would much appreciate further education on this, and the knowledge itself would be delightful. If not, is not AFB too dangerous to become the subject of legends. Bill Morong ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 10:05:14 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: rip41@JUNO.COM Subject: Urban myths & AFB MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Strange no one has made the connection between these two, since "cures" for AFB infected equipment has to be the ''Mother" of all urban legends. "Chlorine bleach", "wax seals", "brisk scrubbing" "steam jennies", "lye baths", the list is endless, about as effective as soapy water, and constantly being reinvented by newbies who either won't (can't) learn from the past or haven't bothered to check it out. ETO, radiation, wax moths and the long term heating of melted wax, on the other hand, only work under certain narrow constraints. Each "may" inactivate, kill or destroy AFB spores under certain conditions, but then they also "may not" outside of those narrow constraints. Then again there is always that other urban beekeeping myth, that TM "cures" AFB. Rip ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 14:54:08 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Lipscomb, Al" Subject: Re: Better Bees MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > Despite many claims over the years, I wonder if anyone has ever >produced a better bee. I am not sure if "produced" is the right word but the selection of good stock by queen breeders has been a big help. There is no doubt that without them the smaller bee keepers would have lost out completely with the tracheal mite. Without speaking to the hybrids, the selection of T-mite resistant bees was a invaluable service for little guys like me. The other traits are of course nice: gentile, good producers, winter well. I keep mainly Italians now, but these are not the same quality I had 15 years ago, they are better. I would guess the keepers of other strains would find the same results. My experience is offset by the new problems but the bees are better. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 14:30:50 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Aaron Morris Subject: Re: Better Bees MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Peter Borst "wonder(s) if anyone has ever produced a better bee." Well, many sing the praises of Brother Adam's Buckfast strain. Does this qualify as a better bee? If not, well there's Bob Stevens ;-) Aaron Morris - I think, therefore I bee! ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 23:14:25 -0600 Reply-To: cspacek@Pop.Flash.net Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: curtis spacek Subject: Re: BEE-L Digest - 13 Nov 1999 to 14 Nov 1999 (#1999-233) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On the subject of feral stock,common stock,or pure stock;Unless AI queens are purchased each year everyone has so called common stock.Queens which are openly mated and then subsequently superceded carry only 1/4 of the genetic traits of the original queen mother. I frequently collect swarms and hives from buildings,some are dinks and get promptly requeened,others are super bees storing 10 medium supers during the spring tallow flow.I raise my own queens by grafting from my best hives,attempting to maintain a degree of genetic diversity in each yard to minimize inbreeding.I have 2 hives which have survived mites for 5 years which will be incorporated into the breeding program next spring.hopefully they will bee good producers. We try to keep swarming to a minimum by splitting populous hives after removing the honey crop,marking the best producers for breeding material.Keeping records of hive populations from month to month,total production for each hive,cleanliness,temperament and reduction of populations after the flow are all factors considered in the selection of hives for breeding stock.occasionall we let dinks die (sometimes they will fool us with small spring populations but really explode when a flow begins) and then fill the hives when we make splits. losses average 10% overall including dinks and hives which are requeened simply due to non productive attributes.As time goes on mite treatment is delayed until later in the year when brood production is diminished and then only treated as needed when mites are found in drone comb. IMHO I believe within 5 years we will have mite resistant bees by accelerating the natural selection process.new hives are held in a nursery yard for 1 year for evaluation before being moved to a regular outyard.If they meet my standards the are put into production,if not they get a grafted queen from a known producer and are then placed in an outyard. my point is queens from an unknown source ie.swarms ,breeders,and feral stock is a crap shoot at best and since grafting is relatively simple and extremely cost effective,and done from known good stock,why would any beekeeper buy queens when they can raise their own and be certain of the quality and survivability in their geographic region? our beekeeping assn.has a set of instructional videos on beekeeping.in the film 10 3lb packages were ordered.of the 10 1 queen arrived dead.2 were queenless within 6 weeks and 2 did not produce a crop the first year.in other words 50% were failures and I can beat those numbers blindfolded with one hand tied behind my back.this was a bit long winded but then again I don't write very often.rebuttals welcomed and encouraged C. Spacek Texas coastal plains cspacek@flash.net ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 00:22:31 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Ted Fischer Subject: Re: un-cappers MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "Bozard, Charles Emmett (Mick)" wrote: > hello everybody, i am looking for an uncapper for a future 1000 colony > operation. please let's discuss the pros and cons of the types out there. i > personally have looked at the dakota gunness and the lady that called and > sent me info from there was grreat. so far it seems to be the favorite, what > do ya'll think ?! always, thanks in advance I have used an old model of the Dakota Gunness uncapper for about 6 years. It works great for my 100 colony operation. It definitely is not for those who delight to see perfect sheets of cappings come off the combs. The beeswax is ground finely and mixed with a lot of honey. A warm clarifying tank is an absolute necessity with this type of uncapping, but the uncapper itself works very fast and does a good job. I think a cappings spinner would be wonderful with this uncapper, but I have not yet been able to pick up a used one. Ted Fischer Dexter, Michigan USA ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 07:46:18 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Richard Bonney Subject: Re: Bleach and AFB spores MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Several years ago I asked Dr. Shimanuki of the Beltsville Lab. about bleach and AFB. The issue was whether dipping brood comb in bleach would kill the spores. Dr. Shimanuki said they had tried it there at the lab some years earlier but the method was not effective. The reason was not that bleach did not kill AFB but that the bleach did not penetrate into the comb to kill any embedded spores. I was left with the impression that bleach did kill the surface spores. This is at odds with David Knox's response. Someone might want to check with Dr. Shimanuki again. Dick Bonney rebonney@javanet.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 09:06:50 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Lipscomb, Al" Subject: Killing spores in wax and honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: http://www.foodsafety.org/sd/sd040.htm "Pasteurization destroys most disease producing organisms and limits fermentation in milk, beer, and other liquids by partial or complete sterilization. The pasteurization process heats milk to 161°F (63°centigrade) for 15 seconds, inactivating or killing organisms that grow rapidly in milk. Pasteurization does not destroy organisms that grow slowly or produce spores. " This statement brings two questions to mind: 1) How hot do you have to get wax to kill AFB spores? If they can survive the temperature needed to melt wax for foundation production then I wonder how often beekeepers have installed spores along with new foundation. 2) Since the reason given to pasteurized honey is to kill botulism, and I understand that botulism is a spore producing bacteria, what is the gain? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 17:35:08 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: John Edwards Organization: Hayden Bee Lab, USDA-ARS,Tucson, Arizona Subject: Re: Better Bees MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Peter Borst wrote: > I wonder if anyone has ever > produced a better bee. It seems as if our best hope in combatting the > varroa problem *would* be a resistant bee, but I wonder if it is really > possible to get consistent results I'm afraid that the "better" label can only be applied in a local sense, just as with cattle, wheat, etc. The alfalfa-pollinating honey bee was a try, but didn't pan out. John Edwards, Tucson ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 11:29:59 PST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: T & M Weatherhead Subject: Re: Killing spores in wax and honey In-Reply-To: <199911191407.JAA29959@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; X-MAPIextension=".TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Re the discussion on what temperatures are needed to kill AFB spores, I will detail results from two trials that I was project leader for. There were two parts to the trials. Firstly lab work and then field work. The work was funded by our Honey Bee Research and Development Committee. There is an important point to take into account when looking at what temperatures are needed. If the conditions are wet e.g. in honey, or water then the time needed is much lower than if it is dry e.g. dry boxes in an oven. At 100 degrees centigrade in the wet condition in ther lab, two experiments showed times of 30 and 35 minutes to kill the spores. Death was determined by having no vegetative growth on J agar plates after 4 days incubation. At 110 degrees, one experiment showed 30 minutes and at 120 degrees, one experiment showed 15 minutes. In the dry condition in the lab, two trials at 110 degrees gave a time of 5 hours to kill the AFB and at 120 degrees it was 3 hours. In a second trial, at 110 degrees it was again 5 hours and at 130 degrees, it was 3 hours to kill the spores. So you can see there was a great varaiation between wet and dry. Also the concentration of the spores affected the time needed. If you look at the literature, you will find trials on the longevity of AFB in honey to range from 15 minutes to 5 hours and most of these were around 100 degrees. In relation to beeswax, at 100 degrees one report is 19 hours, 88-118 degress is 4 hours and at 150 degrees, it was 20 to 60 minutes depending on spore concentration. If you are boiling wax in water to melt it then, from our work I would think that there is not much chance of AFB being alive. Another thought is that the spores are entombed in the wax and are not available to the bees. In Australia, there has never been a reported case of AFB that has been attributed to beeswax as the primary infection source. When we went to a timber drying kiln, we seeded 80 boxes with AFB spores and at the end of the run, which was exposure for 5.5 hours at 110 degrees, we had a 90% kill. 10% still cultured positive. This was a dry heat condition. In the second trial we exposed 104 seeded sites to 130 degrees for 4 hours in a commercial powder coating kiln. This was dry heat. We had a 70% kill with 30% being still cultured positive. So you can see that we did not have success in the commercial or field situation with a 100% kill. The question was raised as to whether the cultured spores were actually viable or whether they had been altered in some way by the heat. We never progressed this aspect. So I would put it to the list that it is possible to kill AFB spores in beeswax with normal refining processes provided the temperatures are held for the correct period. Trevor Weatherhead AUSTRALIA ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 19:01:56 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: William Morong Subject: Temperature to kill AFB spores Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" An article in the American Bee Journal, Oct. 1998 issue, pp 741-742, by M. Del Hoyo, M. Basualdo, and E. Bedascarrasbure, describes tests performed on the efficacy of hot paraffin for killing AFB spores. Some spores survived temperatures as high as 135C (275F), but none survived 160C (320F). If this is true, it is doubtful that melted beeswax, or exposure to 60C degrees, kill AFB spores. Bill Morong ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 10:07:47 +0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Russell Hanley Subject: beekeeping and asian mangroves Comments: To: bee list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable hi, I am a marine biologist, specialising in mangrove ecology who knows = virtually nothing about bees. I am currently working on a project to = rehabilitate the last remaining large stand of mangroves on the island = of Java. Aside from planting trees we are also looking for alternative = income generating schemes for villagers to try and take the pressure off = the mangrove resources. One potential alternative is beekeeping, as I = have found a few references that suggest several mangrove species, = Avicennia alba, Sonneratia caseolaris are suitable sources of honey, and = that production of honey from mangroves is successful in places like the = Sundarbans. Searches of the web and the meagre literature available = here have so far failed to turn up more specific information in respect = of setting up hives in order to take advantage of mangroves. local = people here do not keep bees, and when I have asked why they have said = it is too windy?? I would appreciate any advice or information list = members could provide on the issue of honey production from mangroves. Dr Russell Hanley Mangrove specialist Segara Anakan Conservation and Development Project ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 13:44:16 +1300 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Cliff Van Eaton Subject: Re: Bleach and AFB spores Comments: To: BEE-L MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit David Knox may not have been aware of the research at the time of his conversation with you, but I can assure readers that the ability of bleach (sodium hypochlorite) to kill AFB spores is not an urban legend. For those who are interested, and have access to overseas beekeeping journals, trial work showing that the substance is effective has been reported in the New Zealand Beekeeper magazine (Goodwin, R.M., Haine, H.M. 1998. Sterilising beekeeping equipment infected with American foulbrood disease spores. New Zealand Beekeeper (5)9:13.) The work was carried out by Dr. Mark Goodwin and his team at Ruakura Agricultural Research Centre, Hamilton, New Zealand. Mark is a well-respected apiculture scientist who has carried out extensive research on the causes and spread of AFB. The following is a quote from a book Mark and I have written on AFB control in New Zealand (Goodwin, R.M., Van Eaton, C. 1998. Elimination of American Foulbrood Without the Use of Drugs: A Practical Manual for Beekeepers. National Beekeepers' Assn. of NZ, Napier, NZ. 78 pp.): "Sodium hypochlorite is a commonly used sterilising agent, and is one of the few disinfectants that is effective against AFB spores. Sodium hypochlorite is the active ingredient in household bleach, and is present in such products at about 3% concentration. Research conducted at Ruakura has shown that concentrations of 0.5% sodium hypochlorite in water will kill all AFB spores in 20 minutes. Sodium hypochlorite is potentially useful to treat beekeeping equipment such as plastic or metal feeders and plastic frames. It is important to note, however, that sodium hypochlorite will only kill what it comes into contact with, so any material to be sterilised must be very clean before treatment. Care also needs to be taken with the types of materials being treated. Some plastics, metals, and especially leather, can degrade when put into sodium hypochlorite solutions. It is therefore worthwhile carrying out a small trial run before doing any major sterilisation of equipment. The material is not recommended as a disinfectant for gloves, hive tools or smokers, since the 20 minute contact time is crucial to successful destruction of AFB spores. Sodium hypochlorite solutions must be kept in the dark, since the chemical breaks down in sunlight. The solution should also not be kept for long periods and must be disposed of safely after use. Finally, a note of caution. The effects of bleach on clothing are well-known, so protective clothing should be worn when using the material. Eye protection is recommended. Some individuals also react adversely (dizziness, fainting) to the fumes of sodium hypochlorite, so extreme care is needed when using the material." The important point to note is that sodium hypochlorite is only a surface sterilant, and will not penetrate into wood, wax, propolis, etc. In New Zealand, we sterilise woodware recovered from AFB hives by dipping it in paraffin heated to at least 160degC for at least 10 minutes. Mark has also done research to show this is effective. Cliff Van Eaton -----Original Message----- From: William Morong Date: Friday, 19 November 1999 3:50 Subject: Bleach and AFB spores >In a recent post, Paul wrote concerning bleach "It sure will kill any spores >that are exposed though." In checking my library and the archives I find >many opinions that bleach will or will not so act, but no references to >solid scientific evidence. When I had AFB here, Mr David Knox of the USDA >bee laboratory in Beltsville, MD wrote the following in an email to me: > >"You are correct, bleach will not kill Bacillus larvae spores, however >anything you do to physically remove spores from your gloves, bee suit, >hive tool, smoker, etc. will be of benefit. Your protective clothes are >perfectly safe to use after washing with a good detergent." > >I would not be surprised if bleach were deadly to the more vulnerable active >bacterial form of the pathogen, but does this form ever exist in the sure >absence of spores. If Paul or anyone else has sound scientific evidence >that bleach is deadly to AFB spores, I would much appreciate further >education on this, and the knowledge itself would be delightful. If not, is >not AFB too dangerous to become the subject of legends. > >Bill Morong > ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 10:44:32 PST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: T & M Weatherhead Subject: Re: Better bees In-Reply-To: <199911181941.OAA07804@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; X-MAPIextension=".TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Peter Borst wrote > wonder if anyone has ever produced a better bee. The question is better than what? We often hear the story of how the bees in the old days are better than todays. Why would this be the case? They were not subject to all the maladies that bees face nowadays so I often wonder how they would have fare with these maladies. The floral sources, especially here in Australia, are no where near what they were in the "good old days". What with all the herbicides that are used the weeds are no longer there. In Australia we now have winter tolerant varities of lucerne (alfalfa in the USA and Canada) that produce nowhere near as much honey as the old varieties. In those days, beekeepers put only 40 hives on a site. Now it is up to 100 and often as high as 150. So have we bred a better bee? I suppose we will never know because of all the variables and not being able to directly compare the bees from the "good old days" to todays bees. Trevor Weatherhead AUSTRALIA ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 21:59:08 -0500 Reply-To: info@beeworks.com Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: David Eyre Subject: Re: Mite treatment In-Reply-To: <199911181337.IAA27549@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT On 18 Nov 99, at 7:08, Aaron Morris wrote: > I debated whether this should be posted to the list due to concerns that > all sorts of opinions, which may or may not be correct (and probably the > latter)would come out of the woodwork. Of course, the proper place to get Is this not the purpose of this list? To allow 'all sorts of opinions' to be put forward, surely the very basis of discussion. We have been told often enough that this is 'Informed discussion.....' and therefore a 'discussion group'. If these 'opinions' are filtered out then there is no discussion, only the views of the moderators will be allowed, hardly the basic aims that we've been led to believe in. ***************************************** The Bee Works, 9 Progress Drive, Unit 2, Orillia, Ontario, Canada.L3V 6H1. Phone (705)326 7171 Fax (705)325 3461 David Eyre, e-mail http://www.beeworks.com This months special:- Beekeeping Jacket **************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 00:36:39 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Ted Fischer Subject: Re: Killing spores in wax and honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "Lipscomb, Al" wrote: > 2) Since the reason given to pasteurized honey is to kill botulism, and I > understand that botulism is a spore producing bacteria, what is the gain? This is precisely right - there is no point at all in pasteurizing honey for botulism control. Botulism spores are everywhere (honey, fruit and vegetables, etc.) and are no problem at all to the adult disgestive tract. It is only when they encounter conditions which enable them to germinate and produce their toxin (such as in the newborn baby's digestive tract) that they become dangerous. In my opinion, if there is any point at all to pasteruizing honey, it is to kill yeasts and prevent fermentation in wet honey. How much better to produce good honey in the first place, forget about pasteurizing, and protect the delicate flavor of natural honey. Ted Fischer Dexter, Michigan USA ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 13:47:25 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Harry Goudie Subject: Re: Better Bees MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Peter Borst "wonder(s) if anyone has ever produced a better bee." I think the answer to this is probably "Yes" but whether it is morally justified is more open to debate. Our track record in this field is not good. We have produced broiler chickens which grow so quickly that they can't walk. We have modified the wolf to such an extent that it looks like a small bald rat and we are now in the process of genetically modifying everything without even resorting to the more conventional breeding methods. To produce a better bee we have to interfere with its natural selection process. This is something which we do to virtually all living things except our own species. Why do we exclude ourselves from this process? If we consider it to be wrong for some reason then why do we inflict it on the rest of life? Bees have been around for at least 50 million years ( a long, long time). They have probably evolved to being pretty near perfect. I think we should give them a break. Let them choose their own mates. We have introduced them to the varroa mite which may have sealed their fate. We don't seem to be helping these animals at all! Harry, Scottish Bee Issues:- http://www.luichartwoollens.freeserve.co.uk ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 11:01:43 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: John Mitchell Subject: Re: Better Bees MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/20/99 9:18:02 AM, luichart.woollens@VIRGIN.NET writes: <> There's no such thing as perfect in nature, because in nature, change is constant. Your statement is a contradiction: Bees are perfect, yet their fate (implying doom) may be sealed. As an example of change, there have been huge alterations in the distribution of plant species the world over. According to The Flora of North America, anywhere from a fifth to a third of the species growing north of the Mexico-U.S. border originated elsewhere, as did honey bees. Nature is dynamic, in a constant state of flux. Humans have been agents of change, trying to modify and harness that dynamism for a long time. Our partnership with other species has not always been mutually beneficial. But with honey bees, I think the partnership clearly is, and we are helping these animals to be far more successful than they would be otherwise. The change that is the most obvious to humans right now is the introduction of varroa. We're helping honey bees beat varroa much quicker than they would without us. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 12:55:08 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Tim Townsend Organization: TPLR Honey Farms Subject: Re: AFB on plastic frames MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit BeeCrofter@AOL.COM wrote: > Has anyone on the list called Pierco to see what they reccomend regarding > foulbrood and their brand of foundation? As a representative of Pierco, I have been hesitant to answer this question. When I have been asked this question in the past, my answer is not always well received. Burn it, that was how we had dealt with a bad case of AFB years ago. It not only cleaned up the problem, but with proper use of antibiotics, we have had zero problems with AFB since. Some research has been done using bleach, 5% concentration, with copious rinsing after with clean water. I am not sure of the results, as I haven't needed to try it, and I'm not sure I would. Sometimes the cost of the cure is less than no cure at all. Tim Townsend TPLR HONEY FARMS Stony Plain AB ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 14:20:18 -0900 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Tom Elliott Subject: Re: Killing spores in wax and honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ted Fischer wrote: > This is precisely right - there is no point at all in pasteurizing honey for > botulism control. Botulism spores are everywhere (honey, fruit and > vegetables, etc.) and are no problem at all to the adult disgestive tract. It > is only when they encounter conditions which enable them to germinate and > produce their toxin (such as in the newborn baby's digestive tract) that they > become dangerous. It should be made clear that in the vast majority of newborns, the digestive system is sufficiently developed to prevent the gemination and survival of the botulin spores. It is only the rare infant that is suceptable. As evidence look at all the infants who were raised with a honey sweetened formula (before the powdered stuff became available). Care is advisable, but let's keep them in line with reality. Tom Elliott -- "Test everything. Hold on to the good." (1 Thessalonians 5:21) Tom Elliott Chugiak, Alaska U.S.A. beeman@gci.net ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 21:30:17 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Tim Rich Subject: Re: Killing spores in wax and honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Ted Fischer wrote: > Botulism spores are everywhere (honey, fruit and > vegetables, etc.) . . . Tom Elliott pointed out: It should be made clear that in the vast majority of newborns, the digestive system is sufficiently developed to prevent the gemination and survival of the botulin spores. It is only the rare infant that is suceptable. . . . In such a case what could the infant be fed? But more to the case, I have searched out long and hard and cannot find one case where an infant was the victim of botulism from honey(I believe that this has been stated before on this list). Four of our five children were safely fed honey at young ages, and the fifth, born today, will probably sample some honey - I suspect without problem. Our (United States) medical advice sometimes seems contrary to itself. Like "do not feed your children eggs until they are at least one year old" -- and then they ask you if you infant is allergic to eggs (how do you know if you followed their advice?) when they immunize at 3 months _because the immunization used has egg in it_! Sometimes I think that God gave us a head - and we just need to use it when receiving advice from others. I agree with Tom's closing thought: "Test everything. Hold on to the good." (1 Thessalonians 5:21) Tim Rich ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 23:51:01 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Ted Fischer Subject: Re: Killing spores in wax and honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Tim Rich wrote: > But more to the case, I have searched out long and hard and cannot find one case where an infant was the victim of botulism from honey(I believe that this has been stated before on this list). Actually, the search is easy, and yields several studies both in the US and Europe. I just went online into the National Library of Health Medline data archives and found 30 studies dating from 1976 to the present. To give just one such example: Authors Arnon SS. Midura TF. Damus K. Thompson B. Wood RM. Chin J. Title Honey and other environmental risk factors for infant botulism. Source Journal of Pediatrics. 94(2):331-6, 1979 Feb. Abstract Infant botulism results from the in vivo production of toxin by Clostridium botulinum after it has colonized the infant's gut. Epidemiologic and laboratory investigations of this recently recognized disease were undertaken to identify risk factors and routes by which C. botulinum spores might reach susceptible infants. Clostridium botulinum organisms, but no preformed toxin, were identified in six different honey specimens fed to three California patients with infant botulism, as well as from 10% (9/90) of honey specimens studied. By food exposure history, honey was significantly associated with type B infant botulism (P = 0.005). In California, 29.2% (12/41) of hospitalized patients had been fed honey prior to onset of constipation; worldwide, honey exposure occurred in 34.7% (28/75) of hospitalized cases. Of all food items tested, only honey contained C. botulinum organisms. On household vacuum cleaner dust specimens and five soil specimens (three from case homes, two from control homes) contained Clostridium botulinum. The known ubiquitous distribution of C. botulinum implies that exposure to its spores is universal and that host factors contribute importantly to the pathogenesis of infant botulism. However, honey is now an identified and avoidable source of C. botulinum spores, and it therefore should not be fed to infants. I'm sorry about the wordiness of this long citation, but we as responsible honey producers should never encourage our customers to use honey in an unsafe manner, and feeding it to infants is such a practice, as the above abstract indicates. Ted Fischer Dexter, Michigan USA ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 07:35:47 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Killing spores in wax and honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ted Fischer wrote: > Actually, the search is easy, and yields several studies both in the US and Europe. I just went online into the National Library of Health Medline data archives and found 30 studies dating from 1976 to the present. There is a lot in the archives about this also. The spores are in honey but they are also in about everything else you might want to feed your child that has not been pasturized. At fairs, I tell parents not to feed honey to their child honey if less than 1 year old. But I add that honey is not the problem. Mash up banana, squash. peas or any food and you run the same risk. And it is not a universal risk. Some, and probably most, babies can handle it with little or no problem. But why risk it? Interesting that way back when, most infants were breast fed for two to four years, depending on the availabiblity of other sources of food. So honey and other foods were never an issue. Bill Truesdell Bath, ME ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 10:12:52 +0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Murray McGregor Subject: Re: AFB on plastic frames In-Reply-To: <199911151847.NAA19488@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 In article <199911151847.NAA19488@listserv.albany.edu>, "BEE'S Inc." writes >Does anyone have any suggestions on how to clean plastic frames (Pierco) >that have been exposed to AFB? Or do they all have to be burned? >Thanks, Pat >beesinc@gte.net I would tend to go along with the reply posted by Tim Townsend. A box of new Piercos does not cost a lot. If you valued your time on any of the clean up methods, or even paying for the treatment chambers, you will not be long in reaching a sum nearly as big as the cost of replacement........and without any guarantee of success. Burn them and get new. Not costly and definitely safe. -- Murray McGregor ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 11:15:49 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: BeeCrofter@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Killing spores in wax and honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/19/1999 9:17:47 AM EST, LipscombA@HSN.NET writes: > ) Since the reason given to pasteurized honey is to kill botulism, and I > understand that botulism is a spore producing bacteria, what is the gain? > The reason to pastuerize honey is to retard crystalization because the consumer is not savvy enough to realize he trades flavor for appearance. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 10:18:46 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Timothy C. Eisele" Subject: Re: Killing spores in wax and honey In-Reply-To: <199911191417.JAA00404@listserv.albany.edu> from "Lipscomb, Al" at Nov 19, 99 09:06:50 am MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > This statement brings two questions to mind: > 1) How hot do you have to get wax to kill AFB spores? If they can survive > the temperature needed to melt wax for foundation production then I wonder > how often beekeepers have installed spores along with new foundation. > 2) Since the reason given to pasteurized honey is to kill botulism, and I > understand that botulism is a spore producing bacteria, what is the gain? > When I was taking microbiology, we were taught that the only way to be sure of killing bacterial spores was to autoclave at 121 deg. C for at least fifteen minutes, or dry heat to 160-180 deg. C for between 1.5 and 3 hours. It sounds like both AFB and botulinium spores are pretty typical, so these figures probably hold good (I checked these values in my old lab manual, by the way). It sounds like, for using heat to kill AFB, we have to stick with the old standard method: Burn the combs and frames, carefully scorch or burn the woodenware, bury the ashes. It's the only way to be sure. And as far as pasteurizing the honey: you are right. There is no gain. To kill botulinium spores, you have to use a pressure canner (which is a small autoclave, incidentally). Pasteurization will not do it. Pasteurizing honey only kills the vegetative (actively growing) cells, and as long as the moisture content is low enough, nothing actively grows in honey anyway. There is a process, called "Tyndallization", where you can use multiple heat cycles to convert spores into vegetative cells, then heat enough to kill the vegetative cells. However, it only works if the cells can grow in the material you are trying to sterilize in the first place. Again, since nothing grows in honey, Tyndallization won't do any good either. So, to sum up: 1. You need temperatures above the boiling point of water to kill AFB spores. Burn it all to be sure, don't take chances to try and save a couple of bucks, because it will probably cost more in the long run. 2. Don't bother pasteurizing or otherwise heat-treating honey to kill bacteria, it won't work and will damage the honey. Tim Eisele tceisele@mtu.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 14:55:50 +0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: steven.turner@ZBEE.COM Organization: ZbeeNet computer networking for beekeepers Subject: Cups and Awards for the 1999 National Honey Show Hello All, Just letting everybody know the 1999 National Honey Show Cups & Awards results have been posted on the web site. Perhaps make next years National Honey Show 2000 part of a visit to London. Ever considered showing at the biggest honey show in the world? More entries are needed from Europe. Dates to put in the diary: 16th, 17th, 18th November 2000 Location: Kensington Town Hall LONDON England. http://www.beeman.dircon.co.uk/nhs/ --- STEVEN TURNER Beenet UK Host. http://www.kentbee.com/ Email: st@zbee.com .. Platinum Xpress, Wildcat 5, Mailtraq......What else! ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 09:56:33 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Informed Discussion In-Reply-To: <199911200710.CAA24024@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > I debated whether this should be posted to the list due to concerns that > > all sorts of opinions, which may or may not be correct (and probably the > > latter)would come out of the woodwork. Of course, the proper place to get... > > Is this not the purpose of this list? To allow 'all sorts of > opinions' to be put forward, surely the very basis of discussion. We > have been told often enough that this is 'Informed discussion.....' > and therefore a 'discussion group'. If these 'opinions' are filtered > out then there is no discussion, only the views of the moderators > will be allowed, hardly the basic aims that we've been led to believe > in. David is exactly right -- and the reason we have a number of moderators of differing locations and backgrounds, and also the reason we tend to try to err on the side of generosity. The long and the short of it is that it has been proven over and over we cannot guess in advance what lame or apparently misinformed post will lead to an information breakthough, so we tend to approve everything that we can justify passing on to the list. Apparent heresy often leads quickly to a new orthodoxy, so we cannot merely turn a deaf ear to outrageous sounding ideas. This proven fact was the reason for my pointing out the many huge posts originating from Arizona that we had been sitting on pending an idea of what to do with them. FWIW, those who went to http://www.onelist.com/community/beekeeping and read them, and commented back to me thanked us for not posting the articles to BEE-L, nonetheless I hope that those with enquiring minds and a little time on their hands will read them, and try to glean some useful conclusions from them. They intrigue me and I cannot quite believe there is nothing at all at the bottom of it. Another example of how I can be wrong: a post that I personally felt unworthy which turned out to be valuable was the original post about using bleach to kill spores. It made me wince, because my understanding was that spores were impervious to such a weak agent. I also tend to think that sterilization of combs is a waste of time where I live and I don't find it necessary. Nonetheless, the post =was= approved and led to some very interesting and worthwhile responses, some from the other side of the world where the AFB situation is very different. More on this in a separate post. On BEE-L, we have guidelines, but we try to use them with a lot of latitude and understanding. I hope all members will visit http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/BEE-L/ and learn about the list, its history, its purpose and its rules, all of which are hopefully very clearly spelled out there. I believe I have noticed a huge improvement in the quality of discussion lately, as well as an increase the number and scope of contributors. To me this is a direct and positive outcome of moderation, as is a significant increase in BEE-L membership to record levels (1014). Something we will have to consider is that things will necessarily change as BEE-L grows into a city from the small town it has historically been. I personally hope to see it grow to 25,000 members or more. On a small list, all contributions can be accepted, but as a list grows, the number of posts generally becomes overwhelming to most readers. This is the most obvious limit to list growth. I think almost every wired beekeeper in the world would subscribe to a Bee List that sent out =only one post every month=, and if that post were !absolutely brilliant!. If that same list were to then switch to one absolutely brilliant post +a day+, I am certain that the membership would drop to half or less, and if that same list were to send out half a dozen to a dozen posts of varying quality almost every day, then the number would drop to about 1,000. Which is about where we are at present with BEE-L. The key to large high quality membership readership is high article quality and low volume. If we are to grow, there *must* be some means to limit volume, or all those whose time is most valuable will tend to unsubscribe one after another as the flow exceeds their ability to scan the posts. This has happened in the past and has the effect of lowering membership quality and restricting the readers and contributors to those whose time is least valuable. In any huge group, some members must break off into smaller discussion groups suitable to their level of involvement and understanding if all their needs are to be met, but there must also be a central area where all the ideas surface to be shared among all. I see BEE-L as the central area, and the smaller discussion lists that are cropping up as side areas. (I'll try to list them on the BEE-L web page one of these days). I hope all internet bee people will read BEE-L, but that over time the chatter will be restricted to smaller groups that report back to BEE-L periodically. When it comes to limiting volume, there are a number of measures that can be used. The first and most obvious are to eliminate unnecessary bulk, such as redundant quotes and massive sigs and SPAM. Moderation has saved the list from multiple copies of toner and sex sites advertising (apologies to some of you who need to buy toner :), SPAM and viruses sent in email, as well as some posts misdirected by their authors or written in haste and repented at leisure. It has also blocked some posts consisting entirely of the quote of an entire previous long article followed by 'That's what I think' or some such thing, and also huge signatures outlining the entire life history, precise geographical location and philosophy of the sender accompanied by some brief note or minor comment, as well as a few that said "Gosh, I wanna get some bees. What are they anyhow and why do I want them? Would all of you kindly slow down, back up and serve me until I get up the energy to do something for myself". Beyond that, some degree of selection eventually has to occur if we are to grow and yet maintain quality, and this is the very real problem that David mentions above. The question of selection among posts is a tough one. This present discussion is the result of our having decided to hold back some posts and to bring it to the attention of the list a whole. The posts in question were voluminous and badly formatted and of questionable truth, nonetheless many (most?) of us are here to have our assumptions challenged; thus the dilemma. Maybe we should have a separate list where we send everything that is rejected by BEE-L for those who want it +all+? It could be easily arranged. allen ----- See if your questions have been answered in over a decade of discussions. BEE-L archives & more: http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Bee-l.htm Search sci.agriculture.beekeeping at http://www.deja.com/ or visit http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee to access both on the same page. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 10:39:54 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: AFB Today MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The recent comments from down under (where, incidentally, my son the master beekeeper is currently training and sailing in catamaran races) have caused me to give AFB some thought, as does the recent emergence of the realisation that the oxytet resistant AFB that has cropped up in Canada and the US may be actually IMPORTED and not home grown as previously assumed. I must hasten to point out for those who doubt the value of reading BEE-L that the appearance of oxytet resistant AFB in North America and this obvious possible cause was first (AFAIK) predicted here on this very list quite a long time back by this very scribe, who also pointed out at that time, that Argentinean honey from resistant AFB areas in South America was finding its way unrestricted into both countries -- as well as the fact that honey is known to carry AFB spores and the fact that honey is known to sometimes be discarded into open landfill sites by householders. I wonder what the eventual outcome will be. I have heard that increased doses of oxytet do, in fact, manage the outbreaks in Canada, although burning has also been used. (More info please, anyone). I have also previously reported that IMO, the doses of oxytet that most north American authorities recommend have been only borderline effective and that higher doses have been necessary with the garden variety AFB for the 25 years or so that I have known the disease, some of them as an inspector. I also want to mention that I think that the reason that AFB has otherwise recently become less of a problem to reasonably good beekeepers in North America is thanks to the vampire mites. It is, indeed, an ill wind that blows no good, and we can see easily that the mites have eliminated the worst beekeepers, ones that were likely most responsible for maintaining reservoirs of the disease. Moreover, and maybe more importantly, the advent of mites has caused increased attention to scientific selection in bee breeding. Although hygienic behaviour has not been proven to have a large impact on mite resistance by bees, it is one of the few relatively simple and obvious things we have that we know does some good, so in the past ten years the idea of testing breeders for hygienic behaviour has gone from a fringe idea, promulgated by ST and his fans to a mainstream concept. No self respecting bee breeder nowadays would admit openly to NOT testing for hygienic characteristics, even if some of the methods used are pretty Mickey Mouse. As a result, all the bees out there in the common gene pool are becoming more hygienic. I don't know if Steve was exaggerating when he claimed that he could develop an AFB resistant bee in a few generations -- anytime he wanted to -- by using this test, but I suspect that we have -- as a result of our attempts at dealing with mites -- done so to varying degrees. I also tend to think that although the Aussies and the Kiwis have bees that are pretty AFB resistant because these operators (are supposed to) burn both hive and bees anytime they find any AFB. This removes the most susceptible stock immediately and over time increases resistance. I wouldn't be surprised if many of their breeders are using the hygienic test now too. I have related previously how I installed Aussie bees onto 48 doubles of very contaminated equipment in spring 98 (no apparent scale though) and treated them only once with a grease patty in a one year span. One year later a frame by frame inspection revealed zero AFB. Good bees IMO. That's how it should be. My guess if that if all breeders keep using the hygienic screening properly in time, we will see a vast decrease in AFB to the point where it requires very little attention. There are other factors, such as susceptibility of brood to infection, but early removal by bees of any potential further contamination in the form of infected larvae is a giant step. allen ----- See if your questions have been answered in over a decade of discussions. BEE-L archives & more: http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Bee-l.htm Search sci.agriculture.beekeeping at http://www.deja.com/ or visit http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee to access both on the same page. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 16:12:45 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter Borst Subject: Re: Better Bees In-Reply-To: <199911210500.AAA09054@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Better Bees? I recently asked our group if anyone thought that better bees have been produced. I deliberately did not mention any criteria for the simple reason that criteria would differ for different breeders. Some may want honey producers, some would want pollinators, etc. I think a real improvement would be something most people would recognize and agree upon. Naturally, I have opinions of my own which are based partly on experience of 25 years with bees and partly on extensive reading. I work at Cornell University and have access to the Mann Library, one of the most complete Agricultural Libraries in the world. What I have found in the many discussions on bee improvement is two questionable concepts. First, "Bees left to themselves will improve." Natural selection obviously occurs with bees, but it can only happen in isolation and over many decades (maybe centuries). But what changes occur relate to survivability, not suitability for human use. Humans have altered many plants and animals, so: "it is logical to assume that honeybees can be altered through selection." This is the second non-sequitir. Just because corn and cows have been radically changed by human intervention, that doesn't mean all species can be changed by us. There are two main examples of good and bad bees: the so-called European and the so-called African. I used to think that the difference between these type could be attributed to human influence. European bees became manageable through selection by beekeepers and the African became hostile in order to survive in the jungle. The latter is doubtless true, but the former may not. It may be the manageable nature of the European honeybee that made beekeeping possible, instead of the reverse. But aside from maintaining certain qualities, I am not sure we have altered the bees in a significant way. And it is not for lack of trying, to be sure. The situation is complicated by honeybees promiscuous breeding habits, but may be related more to a lack of sufficient variability. In order to be changed, a species must be plastic. Some species are more fruitful than others in this regard. Of course, this is all changing with gene splicing. Plants and animals can be produced that have qualities that they would never have gotten through *any* breeding program. We have seen potatoes producing insecticides in their skin and vats of bacteria producing human insulin. Do we want a gene-spliced honeybee? Many would say that this would be of natural beekeeping. I am afraid, however, that we may have already experienced that death. The standards for "Organic Honey" already prohibit many practices which beekeepers consider routine, like fumigating combs, using terramycin and miticides. At one time I thought that gene-splicing was just another Pandora's box, like nuclear power. But like it or not, it is already widespread. It is a tool people are using to alter nature, for better or worse. Many people point to the worse and forget the better. Without selective breeding of plants and animals, we would still have corn with two inch gray cobs and meat as tasty as leather. Without modern medicine, most of us would be dead, having died in before the age of five. I think that bees will survive in the wild, on their own. There may be only African bees at some point. I am not concerned about the survival of bees *as much* as the survival of beekeeping. Having African bees in our hives might get rid of the mites, but it would also get rid of the fun. (The opinions in this discussion are my own and are not intended to reflect Cornell University in any way). Peter Borst plb6@cornell.edu http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/plb6/ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 22:58:48 GMT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Computer Software Solutions Ltd Subject: Breeding varroa resistant bees Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hello All I came across information recently to the effect that certain types of bees are more aggressive towards the varroa mites than others. This aggression varies directly with the housekeeping propensity of the bees. Such housekeeping skills can be identified by killing a patch of brood in the cells, using liquid nitrogen or the lower technology approach of killing the brood with a sharp instrument, and then examining the percentage of the dead brood which has been removed by the bees. Then breed from the bees showing the best results in terms of dead brood removal and you have the beginning of a varroa resistant bee. Is there anything in this? Sincerely Tom Barrett 49 South Park, Foxrock Dublin 18 Ireland Tel + 353 1 289 5269 Fax + 353 1 289 9940 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 15:56:22 -0900 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Tom Elliott Subject: Re: Killing spores in wax and honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ted Fischer wrote: >Of all food > items tested, only honey contained C. botulinum organisms. On household vacuum cleaner dust specimens and five soil specimens (three > from case homes, two from control homes) contained Clostridium botulinum. Other studies cited some time back in one of the journals showed botulin spores on or in other foods. I seem to recall that even corn syrup was found to contain spores in one case. If the spores are in dust and soil it is quite reasonable that they could be in other foods that are not adequately cleaned. Household dust could contaminate any food item exposed to the air in a very short time. Unlikely, but possible. No arguement about rational precautions in young infants. But, since honey was possibly implicated in well under 40% of the cases, other possible vectors need to be kept in mind. Tom -- "Test everything. Hold on to the good." (1 Thessalonians 5:21) Tom Elliott Chugiak, Alaska U.S.A. beeman@gci.net