Article 28149 of sci.agriculture.beekeeping: Path: news2.isis.unc.edu!unc-cs!news-relay.ncren.net!newsgate.duke.edu!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed2.news.rcn.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail From: Barry Birkey Newsgroups: sci.agriculture.beekeeping Subject: Re: National Organic Standard Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 12:46:05 -0600 Lines: 43 Message-ID: References: <92i81e$88c$1@saltmine.radix.net> <92mvc8$bk8$1@saltmine.radix.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVbRCKSi/gH2cxNLvU38Ot1RYogle+b79b3jtUKoza+NiyoIlGDynYEx X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 2000 18:47:05 GMT User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.0 (1513) Xref: news2.isis.unc.edu sci.agriculture.beekeeping:28149 in article Xns901B68420allendinternodenet@198.161.156.10, Allen Dick at allend@internode.net wrote on 12/31/00 10:30 AM: > As far as the half of the problem that is under our control, there are > currently many experiments underway to determine whether honey bees can > actually be maintained with consistent and universal success without use of > chemicals in today's Europe and North America. My feeling is that it should not matter whether or not there is "universal success" in keeping bees without the use of chemicals. What does matter is that those who do maintain chemical and drug free hives should not be short changed just because not everyone else can or is willing to incur the cost of getting there. We should take the purest/cleanest honey that is produced and use it as the benchmark that all others are graded against. Perhaps there shouldn't be a single standard if there are varying degrees. Let the consumer choose just like there are different grades of meat. > The other half is a bit tougher when we consider the range of a honey bee > hive's foraging and the unknown nature of the contents of even familiar > terrain. (Ask Jerry Bromenshenk about this or search for 'mines' or > jjbmail@selway.umt.edu as author at the above site). Avoiding exposure to > chemicals -- and being able to prove it is almost impossible when we consider > the ubiquitous application of insecticides and ubiquitous presence of wastes. > Beekeepers in very remote areas have had analyses done for existing organic > certification and not been successful. The fact that systemics are becoming > widespread (see http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Imidacloprid/ ) adds even > another kink into the problem. A distinction needs to be made that a bee bringing in contaminated pollen does not necessarily mean it is contaminating the honey. Analyses can always be done to anyone's honey to verify this then there isn't a question to it's purity. I'm sure there are beekeepers who have not been able to produce chemical free honey due to their surroundings but again, that should not be a penalty against those who can. There has been plenty of outcry from the industry when adulteration was found in honey as it potentially had a negative affect or connotation for the beekeeper who wasn't engaging in this practice. It should not be a surprise then, that beekeepers who are doing what it takes to produce a premium honey that testing has confirmed are equally unkind to the idea that their honey must be grouped in with the less pure supply. All honey is not the same. -Barry Article 28150 of sci.agriculture.beekeeping: Path: news2.isis.unc.edu!unc-cs!news-relay.ncren.net!newsgate.duke.edu!newsfeed.mathworks.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeder.randori.com!news.randori.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3A4F9F60.33C08646@theglobe.com> From: Ripon X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: sci.agriculture.beekeeping Subject: Scotch Broom Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 5 Organization: Randori News Inc. -- http://www.randori.com -- Fast! Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 13:04:32 -0800 Xref: news2.isis.unc.edu sci.agriculture.beekeeping:28150 Do bees forage Scotch Broom (Cytisus scoparius)? Thank you and Happy New Year all! Ripon Article 28151 of sci.agriculture.beekeeping: Path: news2.isis.unc.edu!unc-cs!news-relay.ncren.net!newsgate.duke.edu!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newshub2.home.com!news.home.com!news1.rdc1.fl.home.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Scot Mc Pherson" Newsgroups: sci.agriculture.beekeeping References: <9285pb$dg$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3A4E21FB.7D69EB85@together.net> <3zq36.138159$65.1099832@news1.rdc1.fl.home.com> <3A4E8787.9A4AB96C@together.net> <%VG36.139853$65.1102264@news1.rdc1.fl.home.com> <92nndi$bhp$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Subject: Re: You know you are in a beekeeping family........... Lines: 29 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 21:35:07 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.13.215.128 X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net X-Trace: news1.rdc1.fl.home.com 978298507 24.13.215.128 (Sun, 31 Dec 2000 13:35:07 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 13:35:07 PST Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster Xref: news2.isis.unc.edu sci.agriculture.beekeeping:28151 Haha...Actually I am a quite a bit younger than you may think... Scot Mc Pherson loggermike wrote in message news:92nndi$bhp$1@nnrp1.deja.com... > > > > > > >Ha!another hippy from the 60s(reformed or otherwise).I guess there > are still a few of us around(who would never admit it)Im 47 years old > and still like to listen to Pink Floyd at full volume blasting from my > truck stereo while working bees. > Anyhow this thread was started in a lighthearted manner because it > seems we have so many real problems bearing down on us that sometimes > we just get too serious and negative.But the allergy thing was just too > important to ignore and I learned from it.And we really enjoyed and > could relate to the others. > > > > > > -- > loggermike > > > Sent via Deja.com > http://www.deja.com/ Article 28152 of sci.agriculture.beekeeping: Path: news2.isis.unc.edu!unc-cs!news-relay.ncren.net!newsgate.duke.edu!newsfeed.mathworks.com!howland.erols.net!newshub2.home.com!news.home.com!news1.rdc1.fl.home.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Scot Mc Pherson" Newsgroups: sci.agriculture.beekeeping References: <92npvv$dit$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Subject: Re: Evaluating Beekeeping Help Lines: 31 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 21:38:17 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.13.215.128 X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net X-Trace: news1.rdc1.fl.home.com 978298697 24.13.215.128 (Sun, 31 Dec 2000 13:38:17 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 13:38:17 PST Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster Xref: news2.isis.unc.edu sci.agriculture.beekeeping:28152 Yep...Some people have it (whatever IT is) for a lot of things. For me a devoted focus is one of the principle traits I admire regardless of scored intelligence. Brightness is just like the light of a flashlight, sometimes a tiny little bulb can produce a tremendous amount of light if focused properly. Scot Mc Pherson loggermike wrote in message news:92npvv$dit$1@nnrp1.deja.com... > In article , > allend@internode.net (Allen Dick) wrote: > > I recently began a project to list the skills and experience levels > we seek > > > I dont know if I can reprint a quote from the May 1993 > National Geographic but here goes:Jim Robertson,a CA. beekeeper said"A > guy came up to me once and said,'I got a boy. He's not too bright,and > he don't get along with people-but you ought to hire him.He'd make a > real good beekeeper'. > > > > -- > loggermike > > > Sent via Deja.com > http://www.deja.com/ Article 28153 of sci.agriculture.beekeeping: Path: news2.isis.unc.edu!unc-cs!news-relay.ncren.net!newsgate.duke.edu!newsfeed.mathworks.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!216.167.138.182!not-for-mail From: Charlie Kroeger Newsgroups: sci.agriculture.beekeeping Subject: Re: apis mellifera mellifera Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 15:55:23 -0600 Lines: 17 Message-ID: References: <92gi20$83j$1@newsfeed.logical.net> <20001230085040.05862.00000559@ng-cu1.aol.com> <92lbjn$5l2$1@newsfeed.logical.net> <970t4toa9gnf1madq9jpv8ioaq7iqob9ts@4ax.com> Reply-To: ckrogrr@frankensteinface.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.167.138.182 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 978299724 8147675 216.167.138.182 (16 [35320]) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 Xref: news2.isis.unc.edu sci.agriculture.beekeeping:28153 >And aren't the domestic honey bees we are familiar with now of mostly >European descent? Yes, brought to the new world by Europeans. >(I have a thing for old bee books). Yes, me too. I like reading the old editions. I read them with the same morbid determination as reading 'Shoah.' What those old beekeepers put bees through was a wonder. Still you have to consider Jim Jarmusch's assessment of 19th century Europeans, (read also Americans) i.e. 'Stupid fucking white men.' My favorite 'old' bee book is 'The Life of the Bee' by Maurice Maeterlinck. (a European) copyright 1901. My edition is a 'Mentor Book' copyright 1954, .35 cents. C.K. Article 28154 of sci.agriculture.beekeeping: Path: news2.isis.unc.edu!unc-cs!news-relay.ncren.net!newsgate.duke.edu!newsfeed.mathworks.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newshub2.home.com!news.home.com!news1.rdc1.fl.home.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Scot Mc Pherson" Newsgroups: sci.agriculture.beekeeping References: <92gi20$83j$1@newsfeed.logical.net> <20001230085040.05862.00000559@ng-cu1.aol.com> <92lbjn$5l2$1@newsfeed.logical.net> <970t4toa9gnf1madq9jpv8ioaq7iqob9ts@4ax.com> Subject: Re: apis mellifera mellifera Lines: 56 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 02:26:46 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.13.215.128 X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net X-Trace: news1.rdc1.fl.home.com 978316006 24.13.215.128 (Sun, 31 Dec 2000 18:26:46 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 18:26:46 PST Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster Xref: news2.isis.unc.edu sci.agriculture.beekeeping:28154 My two favourite books are a 1908 edition of ABCs and XYZs of Beekeeping written by AI Root himself, and a 1917 Edition of First Lessons in Beekeeping by CP Dadant. It is interesting to note that these books refer to the american black bee as inferior to the european strains strictly based on the size of the bee. The reason it is interesting is due to the fact that European strains are natively the same size as the american but have been bred larger by a slow but steadily forced enlargement of brood comb cells. The european strain have an average native cell size of 4.85 mm and the americans having 4.82 mm. It can also be noted that american bees are/were better suited to beekeeping in a America due to their nativity, and being already innoculated and resistant to the native diseases present which are giving the euro apis a very hard time. I have also read that the american black bee was extinct, but I cannot believe this for I have seen them myself. There is also another variety of apis which I have seen which intrigues me greatly. It is a lantern green apis bee which looks exactly..and I say exactly like the american black or euro apis save for its diminutive size and lantern green color...Very Very interesting...One day this spring and summer I plan on tracking both of these varieties and seeing if I can induce them to hive in my hives. It certainly would be interesting to see if I could breed new/native strains. Whether commercially worth it or not is not withstanding, it would be an education worth my hive's weight in gold. Scot Mc Pherson Charlie Kroeger wrote in message news:ls9v4tka6agem1d4ppfhdiqq4dj5ed0b09@4ax.com... > >And aren't the domestic honey bees we are familiar with now of mostly > >European descent? > > Yes, brought to the new world by Europeans. > > >(I have a thing for old bee books). > > Yes, me too. I like reading the old editions. I read them with the same > morbid determination as reading 'Shoah.' What those old beekeepers put bees > through was a wonder. Still you have to consider Jim Jarmusch's assessment of > 19th century Europeans, (read also Americans) i.e. 'Stupid fucking white men.' > > My favorite 'old' bee book is 'The Life of the Bee' by Maurice Maeterlinck. (a > European) copyright 1901. My edition is a 'Mentor Book' copyright 1954, .35 > cents. > > C.K. Article 28155 of sci.agriculture.beekeeping: Path: news2.isis.unc.edu!unc-cs!news-relay.ncren.net!newsgate.duke.edu!newsfeed.mathworks.com!ptdnetP!newsgate.ptd.net!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!colt.net!easynet-quince!easynet.net!monolith.news.easynet.net!not-for-mail From: gordon@ozcomputers.net Newsgroups: sci.agriculture.beekeeping Subject: Spambot Fodder, Dont Read 5778 Lines: 3 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 03:09:18 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.40.196.50 X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynet.net X-Trace: monolith.news.easynet.net 978318558 195.40.196.50 (Mon, 01 Jan 2001 03:09:18 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 03:09:18 GMT Organization: [posted via Easynet] Xref: news2.isis.unc.edu sci.agriculture.beekeeping:28155 gordon@ozcomputers.net dktgszwkstrzezowinlidbjdxy Article 28191 of sci.agriculture.beekeeping: Path: news2.isis.unc.edu!news-relay.ncren.net!gatech!usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu!nntp.msen.com!newsxfer.eecs.umich.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed2.news.rcn.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail From: Barry Birkey Newsgroups: sci.agriculture.beekeeping Subject: Re: apis mellifera mellifera Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 21:39:16 -0600 Lines: 19 Message-ID: References: <92gi20$83j$1@newsfeed.logical.net> <20001230085040.05862.00000559@ng-cu1.aol.com> <92lbjn$5l2$1@newsfeed.logical.net> <970t4toa9gnf1madq9jpv8ioaq7iqob9ts@4ax.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVacGDumDhjr6PzwzAXzXeMpSYTdcB4m+e/HG5aaUYjjgqZe7tWH7gux X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 4 Jan 2001 03:40:16 GMT User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.0 (1513) Xref: news2.isis.unc.edu sci.agriculture.beekeeping:28191 in article Xns901E966E6allendinternodenet@198.161.156.10, Allen Dick at allend@internode.net wrote on 1/3/01 4:42 PM: > I'm *always* looking for new ideas and testing them carefully. So are all > the old beekeepers I meet. Allen, Interesting thread going here. I see you are back doing what you do best...criticizing. Or am I reading you wrong and really you are just " joking a bit." Perhaps you would show us exactly the tests you did and show us the results. I'd be very interested to see how they compare with mine. You have done tests on small cell size haven't you? How did your bees fare? -Barry Article 28192 of sci.agriculture.beekeeping: Path: news2.isis.unc.edu!news-relay.ncren.net!gatech!csulb.edu!enews.sgi.com!news.idt.net!feed2.news.rcn.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail From: Barry Birkey Newsgroups: sci.agriculture.beekeeping Subject: Re: National Organic Standard Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 23:24:35 -0600 Lines: 118 Message-ID: References: <92i81e$88c$1@saltmine.radix.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVbXDPOMrchZ2ErumNj7Rp6Ek7ebklAFL0GdkdyNn/1AZd0bbKgUCeNn X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 4 Jan 2001 05:25:35 GMT User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.0 (1513) Xref: news2.isis.unc.edu sci.agriculture.beekeeping:28192 in article Xns901D7280allendinternodenet@198.80.55.10, Allen Dick at allend@internode.net wrote on 1/2/01 2:11 AM: >> Call it what you want, but it doesn't change the reality that there are >> beekeepers managing their bees without the use of chemicals. > > Of course there are. How many, how truthfully, and for how long is a most > interesting question. The meaning is also disputable. What's the interesting part about how many and for how long? The truthful part is a red herring. Only God knows that part in any of us. Also, please explain "The meaning is also disputable." > You can follow an organic regime to the letter and still produce a > contaminated product. That is a major point that concerns me. I believe > there are better and more efficient mechanisms to achieve the desired goal. Okay, please explain these more efficient mechanisms. >> I'm afraid a lot of people don't share >> your optimism, as there are times, chemicals that have been approved, >> years later, we find out that they _are_ contaminating. What we do know >> for sure though, chemicals and drugs that aren't in the hive can't >> possibly get into the honey. > > Well, I think you are right about that. It comes down to outlook. Nothing > is ever stringent enough for the pesimists; the optimists don't worry at > all. I personally think that the truth and the best outlook lies somewhere > in between and belongs to the pragmatists. Probably very true. > I should not have to point out that just because many people have doubts > about something does not mean the doubts are justified or that what they > worry about is even important. True. This should help us then when reading and interpreting some of the current raves on the cell issue on this newsgroup. >> & FGMO > > Is in another class again. Yes it is. Yet another method for control that was equally bashed by some as not being "scientific" and "untested" and yet, Dr. Rodriguez didn't bother to get sidetracked and is still doing well, with many universities now doing studies on FGMO. Sorry, got sidetracked myself! >> and another for those using no drugs or >> chemicals. > > This should not be determined by ostensible practice, but by actual > examination and measurement of the finished product. That is the only > honest way to prove the claims. That is not say that a 'best practices' > approach is not necessary in any food handing, but that is already in > place. Many are ignorant of it, and some of those think their products are > 'organic'. I'd agree that there is room for misrepresentation as there is with anything. When I think with my small, simple brain, "best practices" would be no chemical and drug use in a hive compared to using "approved" chemicals and drugs. This part sure seems very simple and basic to me. >> The grading is merely a standard or guideline but obviously >> the teeth of the matter would be the results of a lab test for ones >> honey of which ought to be done by anyone serious about organic honey >> anyway. > > We are obviously agreed on this -- the proof is in the pudding. What I > ask, though, is if the same result can be achieved by non-'organic' > methods, what is the point of having organic methods? Hurrah, we can agree on something! :>) -- I don't necessarily agree with your assumption that the same result can be achieved. Your key word here is "if" >> Nothing vague about not using chemicals in ones hives. > > What does it matter if the chemicals are not in the honey? Nothing, but there is a difference between no chemicals and "acceptable levels" in honey. >>> I believe the >>> orginal articles in this discussion mentioned that the 'organic' >>> designation is a MARKETING distinction, not a real quality >>> distinction, and IMO, this is largely the case. >> >> Not so bad. If the distinction can be made due to real differences in >> quality, > > This is the whole matter. Can it be proven? That is all I ask. If not, > then it is a false distinction and thus deceitful in the market. Sure, we have labs for this. > Then, if some small difference is noticed, I must ask is it important? If > not, then see above. The one to ask if it is important is the consumer. They are the ones who will decide which one to buy. >> You see it "unfair" for there to be classes within the >> industry. If only all things could be equal but such is not life. >> I guess for me to believe yours is far superior you would have to >> convince me that there is something about your management practices that >> would indicate this and then you would have to be willing to back it up >> with lab testing. > > What can I say? My honey is routinely and exhaustively tested in a very > sensitive lab and I am confident that there are no detectable residues from > the products we use. I don't know if you are saying no detectable residues above the "acceptable" levels or absolutely no detection? -Barry Article 28193 of sci.agriculture.beekeeping: From: Charlie Kroeger Newsgroups: sci.agriculture.beekeeping Subject: Re: apis mellifera mellifera Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 23:48:22 -0600 Lines: 16 Message-ID: References: <92lbjn$5l2$1@newsfeed.logical.net> <970t4toa9gnf1madq9jpv8ioaq7iqob9ts@4ax.com> <930hd8$g00$1@newsfeed.logical.net> Reply-To: ckrogrr@frankensteinface.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.167.143.197 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 978587299 9007182 216.167.143.197 (16 [35320]) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 Path: news2.isis.unc.edu!unc-cs!news-relay.ncren.net!gatech!GT-News!cc.gatech.edu!finch!andromeda.5sc.net!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!news.tele.dk!130.133.1.3!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!216.167.143.197!not-for-mail Xref: news2.isis.unc.edu sci.agriculture.beekeeping:28193 huestis suggest: >I say lets wait two years and see if the small cell thing is still >around I talked to Ed Lusby at the Honey Producers annual meeting in Corpus Christi, Texas in 1996 and he said they were using the smaller cells then. In fact at that meeting Dee Lusby distributed some reprints of their previously published papers regarding why they thought this was a good way to go. (vanquishing varroa without chemicals) They are still using and now 'making' the smaller foundation so they must be satisfied with the results. I would say the verdict is in, and smaller cells are an important contribution to (as the phrase goes) one's Integrated Pest Management program. C.K. Article 28194 of sci.agriculture.beekeeping: Path: news2.isis.unc.edu!news-relay.ncren.net!gatech!pitt.edu!newsflash.concordia.ca!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!feeder.qis.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!216.167.143.197!not-for-mail From: Charlie Kroeger Newsgroups: sci.agriculture.beekeeping Subject: Re: National Organic Standard Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 23:59:34 -0600 Lines: 59 Message-ID: <5v385ts9krgnrjcd98b8qb2n38jg4orq4a@4ax.com> References: <92i81e$88c$1@saltmine.radix.net> <92mvc8$bk8$1@saltmine.radix.net> Reply-To: ckrogrr@frankensteinface.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.167.143.197 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 978587972 9196008 216.167.143.197 (16 [35320]) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 Xref: news2.isis.unc.edu sci.agriculture.beekeeping:28194 >Many >consumers stated that the provisions proposed for bee forage, which required >only that a predominant portion of the bees' forage be organic, The only way a 'bee' can forage 'organically' is if the 'environment' she is foraging in is 'clean' and 'unpolluted.' This requires a national and Global desire to achieve, which isn't there among the 'forces' that might make it happen. Name a place in this country (USA) now where bees can be guaranteed to forage 'organically?' If you have bees around any 'agri business' concerns, you'll be lucky to even keep your bees alive, much less worry about what they bring into the hive. If you keep bees in a town or city, it's just as bad, with the 'general public's access to off-the-shelf pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides, and their preponderance for damaging products like 'chemlawn', or the now recognized malady of 'suburban sensibilities,' then what chance for a bottle of 'organic honey?' >The [National Organic >Standards Board] has agreed to review and recommned an apiculture practice >standard for organic honey production and hive care, including the origin of >organic bees." We already know how to keep bees 'organically' of course one's production will suffer in the present state of imported parasites and the environment extensively polluted by 'approved' agri business chemicals. This whole discussion is stupid anyway (as Allen Dick said in too many words) because if the bees were kept free of chemicals in their hive they would still produce honey with 'possible' contaminants if those contaminants are present in the environment bees use for forage. If the amount of agriculture chemicals found in random supplies of water across the U.S. are any indicator, they're in the soil too, and possibly systemic to many plants that attract bees. Allen Dick said: >I do not live >in the US and mostly only rely on the USDA when in the US of A. To make my >position clear, though, I believe that the USDA and EPA are doing what they >can to try to balance a lot of opposing forces. Since you are a Canadian you have the advantage of living in a 'left-centrist' somewhat caring democracy, and subsequently have the 'luxury' of seeing things like that. However, Americans, on the other hand, live in a fairly far right less caring democracy with the power in the hands of 'special interest' and that usually always means 'corporations' that have an agenda for making money at all cost. This is our fate, as Americans, for 'embracing the capitalist system so extensively and in such an 'unregulated' way that it has become the undisputed power guiding our Republic. The safeguards and standards the USDA or the EPA were instituted to perform are now in question. (I'll give you examples if you like, but that's not the reason for this post) Recent events (not discussed here) have suggested that it is not only the highest courts in our system that can adjust it's decisions to achieve political goals and so it should not be surprising when tax supported institutions installed to maintain standards and consumer protection, can be made to follow the same political position. I'm not 'shocked' about this, just sad it has happened. C.K. Article 28195 of sci.agriculture.beekeeping: Path: news2.isis.unc.edu!news-relay.ncren.net!gatech!csulb.edu!newshub.sdsu.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!216.167.143.197!not-for-mail From: Charlie Kroeger Newsgroups: sci.agriculture.beekeeping Subject: Re: National Organic Standard Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 00:03:27 -0600 Lines: 58 Message-ID: References: <92i81e$88c$1@saltmine.radix.net> <92mvc8$bk8$1@saltmine.radix.net> <92pu64$7p2ch$1@ID-58605.news.dfncis.de> Reply-To: ckrogrr@frankensteinface.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.167.143.197 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 978588204 9196008 216.167.143.197 (16 [35320]) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 Xref: news2.isis.unc.edu sci.agriculture.beekeeping:28195 >Call it what you want, but it doesn't change the reality that there are >beekeepers managing their bees without the use of chemicals. I'm one of those. I simply refuse to do it. This doesn't mean I don't have losses from newly introduced parasites and the other usual loss making organisms like AFB or Moths. It also means I won't use chemicals with the excuse that my business depends on it because it doesn't. I'm not a 'commercial' beekeeper, and don't think in the present agri business climate, anyone else should be either. Learn another way to get by. There are two distinct maladies of 'affluent societies' that everyone can agree: Cancer and Heart disease. It is generally accepted in these societies as to what 'causes' heart disease, i.e. eating a high fat low nutrient diet, with no exercise, but when it comes to cancer, because of the 'commercial' implications, no one is suggesting that maybe the environment is polluted extensively and we must just accept this as being necessary to living in an 'advanced' country. The point is, if you believe it's wrong to introduce possible carcinogenic substances into your hives and subsequently your honey, just to earn a 'living' then you're being wrong, and no better than the worst of agri business MBA's and Scientist, driven by greed, and not, as they would have you think, their altruistic feelings of feeding a hungry world. Beekeepers have to ignore the 'experts' especially when it comes to the "in your hives and off your mind" agri business solutions to 'saving your business.' Beekeepers must remain 'independent' even if that means driving a truck or teaching school, or like me, being a potter. By sticking to this simple philosophy and the 'mysterious' order of things, natural defenses, unexpected discoveries and beneficial permutations will occur. (they always do) (you need to have faith here, I'm not talking about the big guy in the sky, or that eternal life business, but the faith of the great power of nature to help out when you're on 'her' side. If it doesn't take place in your lifetime, so what; the important thing is to promote your good habits to the next generation, with the firm belief that somewhere down the line, these practices will pay off; in short, try to be bigger than yourself) I think it's good to hunt for and promote different types of bees one finds locally, no matter what size cell they use, but are selected instead for their tendency to survive, and there will always be 'some.' At least this has been my experience. I think as in plants and animals, lots of 'unstandardized' diversity is the best solution for our small and remote planet. C.K. A beekeeper that refuses (religious like) to use agri-business chemicals in his bee hives. Charlie Kroeger (your name invited to be next on the list) Article 28196 of sci.agriculture.beekeeping: Path: news2.isis.unc.edu!news-relay.ncren.net!gatech!usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu!plonk.apk.net!news.apk.net!newsfeed2.skycache.com!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!feed2.news.rcn.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail From: Barry Birkey Newsgroups: sci.agriculture.beekeeping Subject: Bee Culture - Jan. 2001 Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 00:26:51 -0600 Lines: 16 Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVYQkdLgA9EtQrp3P/0t05zHPU7sd5g6H0RMJpCJ27yScR88SxJkt3Gw X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 4 Jan 2001 06:27:52 GMT User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.0 (1513) Xref: news2.isis.unc.edu sci.agriculture.beekeeping:28196 NEWS FROM CANADA CALGARY - Alberta provincial apiarist Doug Colter said an increasing incidence of American foul brood is beginning to be found in the Canadian province. Analysis of samples from hives sent in by 28 Alberta beekeepers found evidence of AFB in eight that it's becoming resistant to the current antibiotic treatment. "I'm afraid this fall when I start inspecting colonies it will be just the tip of the iceberg," he said. The eight samples came from beekeepers with a combined 26,000 hives - 15 percent of Alberta's total. Article 28197 of sci.agriculture.beekeeping: Path: news2.isis.unc.edu!unc-cs!news-relay.ncren.net!hearst.acc.Virginia.EDU!hammer.uoregon.edu!newsflash.concordia.ca!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!feed2.news.rcn.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail From: Barry Birkey Newsgroups: sci.agriculture.beekeeping Subject: Re: National Organic Standard Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 01:14:37 -0600 Lines: 20 Message-ID: References: <92i81e$88c$1@saltmine.radix.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVZiW56diRIZT/IrPfjcd671ArIe2nmL9BrlyB1URdZfj74gaJSnXKQc X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 4 Jan 2001 07:15:37 GMT User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.0 (1513) Xref: news2.isis.unc.edu sci.agriculture.beekeeping:28197 in article Xns901D7280allendinternodenet@198.80.55.10, Allen Dick at allend@internode.net wrote on 1/2/01 2:11 AM: > What can I say? My honey is routinely and exhaustively tested in a very > sensitive lab and I am confident that there are no detectable residues from > the products we use. We have exported repeatedly to countries that will > reject a shipment on any pretext, no matter how contrived. Alberta clover > honey is known worldwide to be among the world's very best honies and > commands a premium price. Allen - One other thing. What filtering process do you use on your honey? I know a lot of commercial beekeepers filter their honey through micro filters that take everything out of the honey. Most people interested in organic honey want all that stuff that filters take out (pollen, wax, etc.). Perhaps part of the reason your honey passes testing is due to your filtering. -Barry Article 28199 of sci.agriculture.beekeeping: Path: news2.isis.unc.edu!unc-cs!news-relay.ncren.net!gatech!newsfeed.mathworks.com!feeder.qis.net!sn-xit-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail From: "Teri Bachus" Newsgroups: sci.agriculture.beekeeping Subject: Re: Bee Culture - Jan. 2001 Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 08:54:07 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: References: X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 21 Xref: news2.isis.unc.edu sci.agriculture.beekeeping:28199 believe usda has also researched linoleic acid as an alternative foulbrood treatment and found similar results...found at http://news.com.au:80/common/story_page/0,4057,1567572%255E1245,00.html Two West Australian researchers have discovered that pollen found in red gum trees, also known as the marri, is high in a fatty acid known as linoleic acid, which helps lower cholesterol. The acid, discovered by Agriculture WA researchers Rob Manning and Maeve Harvey, has been found to be a natural biocide against American Foulbrood and European Foulbrood, two diseases found in honey bees. Article 28200 of sci.agriculture.beekeeping: Path: news2.isis.unc.edu!unc-cs!news-relay.ncren.net!uni00nw.unity.ncsu.edu!gatech!newsfeed.mathworks.com!portc01.blue.aol.com!audrey04.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Lines: 12 X-Admin: news@aol.com From: lklarson1@aol.com (LKLarson1) Newsgroups: sci.agriculture.beekeeping Date: 04 Jan 2001 11:06:44 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Help. I've got queen cells. Message-ID: <20010104060644.04403.00001002@ng-ft1.aol.com> Xref: news2.isis.unc.edu sci.agriculture.beekeeping:28200 I've got several queen cells (very little other larva and no drones, of course) in my observation hive. I still have a queen, too. Anybody know what's going on here? When these virgin queens hatch, if they old queen doesn't get them, how on earth can they get mated this time of year? Will they wait? I just noticed these queen cells, all nicely sealed up, so I only have a few days and something is going to happen, I suspect......My how these little ones are always full of surprises. Buzzylee ksinIIf the queens hatchaveIMy observa Article 28201 of sci.agriculture.beekeeping: Path: news2.isis.unc.edu!unc-cs!news-relay.ncren.net!uni00nw.unity.ncsu.edu!gatech!newsfeed.mathworks.com!portc01.blue.aol.com!audrey04.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Lines: 14 X-Admin: news@aol.com From: lklarson1@aol.com (LKLarson1) Newsgroups: sci.agriculture.beekeeping Date: 04 Jan 2001 11:27:07 GMT References: Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: apis mellifera mellifera Message-ID: <20010104062707.04403.00001003@ng-ft1.aol.com> Xref: news2.isis.unc.edu sci.agriculture.beekeeping:28201 "The Life of the Bee" is one of my favorites, too. Although I've read many times that all honeybees were European and brought here, I recently read in a couple different books that we have some 3000 more more native species of honeybees here. Possibly they are "cousins" and not part of the immediate Apis Mellifera family, I don't know. do you know? I guess that gives me something to research in these bleak grey days of Winter in these parts (Oregon)..... Yet, I do find it hard to believe, given the millions of insect species and how success they are in our world that there were not (again, as so many books in beekeeping claim) ANY honey bees in North America before the Europeans brought them. Buzzylee Article 28202 of sci.agriculture.beekeeping: Path: news2.isis.unc.edu!unc-cs!news-relay.ncren.net!newsgate.duke.edu!newsfeed.mathworks.com!feeder.qis.net!sn-xit-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail From: "Teri Bachus" Newsgroups: sci.agriculture.beekeeping Subject: Re: apis mellifera mellifera Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 09:31:15 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: References: <92gi20$83j$1@newsfeed.logical.net> X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 9 Xref: news2.isis.unc.edu sci.agriculture.beekeeping:28202 re: small combcell controversy, believe that the lusby's are possibly using an indigenous (non-native) apis mellifera mellifera/apis mellifera scutellata hybrid stock for which <5.0mm cell size would be appropriate and contribute to apparent varroa tolerance...also the environmental conditions of arizona could have an effect, as well as their other management strategies...lots of uncontrolled variables to choose from that may/may not be applicable to other beekeeping situations... Article 28203 of sci.agriculture.beekeeping: Path: news2.isis.unc.edu!unc-cs!news-relay.ncren.net!newsgate.duke.edu!newsfeed.mathworks.com!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!news.demon.co.uk!demon!denrosa.demon.co.uk!murray From: Murray McGregor Newsgroups: sci.agriculture.beekeeping Subject: Re: apis mellifera mellifera Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 15:29:08 +0000 Organization: Denrosa Ltd Message-ID: References: <92gi20$83j$1@newsfeed.logical.net> <20001230085040.05862.00000559@ng-cu1.aol.com> <92lbjn$5l2$1@newsfeed.logical.net> <970t4toa9gnf1madq9jpv8ioaq7iqob9ts@4ax.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: denrosa.demon.co.uk X-NNTP-Posting-Host: denrosa.demon.co.uk:194.222.100.90 X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 978623161 nnrp-09:18568 NO-IDENT denrosa.demon.co.uk:194.222.100.90 X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Newsreader: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.00 U Lines: 92 Xref: news2.isis.unc.edu sci.agriculture.beekeeping:28203 >On the other hand, none of us old timers can afford to ignore a new idea. >I'm *always* looking for new ideas and testing them carefully. So are all >the old beekeepers I meet. Like you, I am not too proud to steal anyones good idea.....if I can see the logic of it......and have done a suitably trial for a suitable length of time. Hence I spent about $100K on new things last spring. New type hives, new combs, new extracting system. This is not the conservative prickly attitude that is being portrayed in those (see another reply to your post) who question the validity of the cell size issue here, and I similarly cannot see it being a fair portrayal of yourself either, after some time corresponding together, both on and off lists. The hypersensitivity bit I touched on before has cropped up again in Barry's reply. It drips with acid, yet I cannot understand why. This 'apparent breakthrough' SHOULD be scrutinised, and very closely indeed, because there is some odd portrayal of success going on here. If I went down the route suggested I would not get past year two before the bankruptcy sale was held. No-one surely can claim that any program, which several years into it, still has 50% of the hives unoccupied, and has bees which 'are reluctant to draw comb', and annually struggles to get back up to this level, can be a flagship success. Yet that is what we are expected to accept, and WITHOUT QUESTION. Annual shakedown would cost us nearly 70% of our colonies in the following winter. We KNOW. We have done it and paid the penalty when experimenting with shaken swarms as a control method. Do it two years in a row and we are coming back to a tiny (and bust) enterprise, operating on a cell size we only ever have found in the sickliest most malnourished of colonies, a cell size quickly abandoned as soon as the bees get the chance. I see he is also giving mineral oil another plug, a thing which happened to get a lot of attention a while back. Now, I've asked it before, but what ever did happen to Elroy, whose faith in mineral oil alone was going to have him at 2000 hives by the year 2000. I heard off list from someone who said he had lost all or most of his bees, but with what authority they were speaking I do not know. > > >I found some of these new notions quite a while back, before they attracted >a cult following, and looked them over closely. I was very unconvinced, >but also very surprised that some of the people with whom I examined them >got sucked in -- and now dislike me -- solely, I think, for being so >unbearably doubtful and irreverent. . If they cannot handle this situation without getting personal that is their problem. These people take questions as criticism, and if they are so sure of their ground they should actually welcome them and give full and frank answers, rather than paranoid retorts. After all, 'we dont know yet' is a frank and fair answer if that is the case, but one they seem unable to admit to. I just do not like the way this debate has gone, and told myself not to get involved, but it really is too much when they cannot accept pertinent questions without taking it as destructive. I have no questions left to ask of these people at present. I have tried, and just got sharply (and smugly) questioned back in return, without getting anything other than a pat answer and referred to an incestuous group of documents. A friend of mine even found himself being privately flamed when asking valid questions about genetic claims, and left the group in question overnight. I know this spills over into an exchange currently going on in another thread regarding organic standards, but I feel that the market advantage being sought is strictly by being as treacherous as possible to their fellow beekeepers who do not follow their edicts. Basically, they are quite happy to sow the seeds of 'most honey contains poisons' in the publics mind irrespective of whether it is true, in order to make their own sales secure. They might not actually say it in so many words, but nonetheless that is what they are quite callously prepared to do. Far from creating a premium brand they will actually condemn most other types to being perceived as of secondary quality, when there is little evidence to suggest that good beekeepers and packers are selling a product even remotely toxic. Organic and Natural are two of the most misused words here. The case which always comes to mind is that of our local environmental health department, whose most contaminated sample of food ever found was organically grown strawberries. Confusing these terms with food safety is something of a mischief, as 'organic' is a lifestyle statement really, rather than a purity mark, and 'natural' is pretty well a meaningless marketing tool open to lots of potential abuse. No doubt more will follow, as somehow I think this thread could run and run. -- Murray McGregor Article 28204 of sci.agriculture.beekeeping: Path: news2.isis.unc.edu!unc-cs!news-relay.ncren.net!gatech!newsfeed.mathworks.com!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!news.demon.co.uk!demon!denrosa.demon.co.uk!murray From: Murray McGregor Newsgroups: sci.agriculture.beekeeping Subject: Re: apis mellifera mellifera Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 16:01:25 +0000 Organization: Denrosa Ltd Message-ID: References: <92gi20$83j$1@newsfeed.logical.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: denrosa.demon.co.uk X-NNTP-Posting-Host: denrosa.demon.co.uk:194.222.100.90 X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 978624118 nnrp-02:780 NO-IDENT denrosa.demon.co.uk:194.222.100.90 X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Newsreader: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.00 U Lines: 34 Xref: news2.isis.unc.edu sci.agriculture.beekeeping:28204 In article , Teri Bachus writes >re: small combcell controversy, believe that the lusby's are possibly using >an indigenous (non-native) apis mellifera mellifera/apis mellifera >scutellata hybrid stock for which <5.0mm cell size would be appropriate and >contribute to apparent varroa tolerance...also the environmental conditions >of arizona could have an effect, as well as their other management >strategies...lots of uncontrolled variables to choose from that may/may not >be applicable to other beekeeping situations... > > Dee Lusby has claimed repeatedy to be in possession of DNA results which prove her bees are not africanised as they are exactly the same as before the arrival of the africanised bees. on the other hand When questioned about her assertion that the bees had genetically changed through selection to small cell size, she has several times claimed to be in possession of DNA analyses which show that they HAVE changed since they started their regime. Guess that answers nothing. If her bees were africanised, and we can only accept her statements that they are most definitely not, then perhaps that would go a long way to explaining the quoted figures, without any need for the cell size issue to raise its head. This issue just raises more questions at every turn, and very few answers. It apparently works for them, at least to their required level of satisfaction, and I guess that is all we really know. -- Murray McGregor Article 28205 of sci.agriculture.beekeeping: Path: news2.isis.unc.edu!news-relay.ncren.net!newsgate.duke.edu!newsfeed.mathworks.com!news.tele.dk!Tele.Dk.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Jorn Johanesson" Newsgroups: sci.agriculture.beekeeping Subject: Re: Bee Culture - Jan. 2001 Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 23:06:04 +0100 Organization: Posted Courtesy of Tele Danmark or one of its European Subsidiaries Lines: 36 Message-ID: <932rom$ff8$1@news.inet.tele.dk> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: ip15.mrgnxr1.ras.tele.dk X-Trace: news.inet.tele.dk 978645590 15848 195.249.242.15 X-Complaints-To: the appropriate department of the poster's provider X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Xref: news2.isis.unc.edu sci.agriculture.beekeeping:28205 "Barry Birkey" skrev i en meddelelse news:B67973CB.8EDD%barry@birkey.com... > NEWS FROM CANADA > > CALGARY - Alberta provincial apiarist Doug Colter said an increasing > incidence of American foul brood is beginning to be found in the Canadian > province. I think that that after I have followed what is going on around in the world, whenever people are trying to interfere with nature and using drugs, at some point they will get to a boarder. In Denmark we are trying not to use drugs in beekeeping under any circumstances, but are handling diseases the beekeeping technical way. you can try to visit my homepage and read the section about AFB. -- Kind regards Jorn Johanesson Multilingual software for beekeeping since 1997 hive note- queen breeding and handheld computer beekeeping software full revised and bug tested 10-12-2000 Now chatroom for beekeeping installed. home page = HTTP://apimo.dk e-mail Jorn_Johanesson@apimo.dk Article 28206 of sci.agriculture.beekeeping: Path: news2.isis.unc.edu!news-relay.ncren.net!newsgate.duke.edu!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed2.news.rcn.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail From: Barry Birkey Newsgroups: sci.agriculture.beekeeping Subject: Re: apis mellifera mellifera Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 17:28:39 -0600 Lines: 21 Message-ID: References: <92gi20$83j$1@newsfeed.logical.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVY2J/5QwOBIvmQ/QmMXZ4toHczirwqgALO1bvRoa+/3IYorZy3eFnY4 X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 4 Jan 2001 23:29:41 GMT User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.0 (1513) Xref: news2.isis.unc.edu sci.agriculture.beekeeping:28206 in article t592fbde3ftr7f@corp.supernews.com, Teri Bachus at bachmoz@aug.com wrote on 1/4/01 8:31 AM: > re: small combcell controversy, believe that the lusby's are possibly using > an indigenous (non-native) apis mellifera mellifera/apis mellifera > scutellata hybrid stock for which <5.0mm cell size would be appropriate and > contribute to apparent varroa tolerance...also the environmental conditions > of arizona could have an effect, as well as their other management > strategies...lots of uncontrolled variables to choose from that may/may not > be applicable to other beekeeping situations... Hi Teri - Several things are possibly different but when various people are currently using 4.9 cell size from different ends of the U.S. and different ends of Europe with success, that theory kinda goes out the door. Regards, Barry Article 28207 of sci.agriculture.beekeeping: Path: news2.isis.unc.edu!unc-cs!news-relay.ncren.net!newsgate.duke.edu!newsfeed.mathworks.com!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!news.demon.co.uk!demon!kilty.demon.co.uk!honeymountain From: James Kilty Newsgroups: sci.agriculture.beekeeping Subject: Re: apis mellifera mellifera Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 00:23:22 +0000 Message-ID: References: <92gi20$83j$1@newsfeed.logical.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: kilty.demon.co.uk X-NNTP-Posting-Host: kilty.demon.co.uk:193.237.253.225 X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 978655116 nnrp-14:18079 NO-IDENT kilty.demon.co.uk:193.237.253.225 X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Newsreader: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 S Lines: 183 Xref: news2.isis.unc.edu sci.agriculture.beekeeping:28207 In article <92gi20$83j$1@newsfeed.logical.net>, huestis writes >Hi all, > >Looking for info on A.M.M. Most literature that I have come across seems >very biased. Could someone (especially those who have them) list their >characteristics. I promised this posting early last year! I am glad to be jogged into writing this though I should be doing my tax return! There is much research and development going on in Europe into A.m.m. You have been referred to BIBBA and the Galtee group and German sites. DNA work has been started and is very promising. Bee Improvement, the journal of BIBBA has many excellent articles and the many publications of BIBBA since the 60's are a fine start to a library on A.m.m. with Beo Cooper's Honeybees of the British Isles (1986) also available from BIBBA. For those unfamiliar with the different races we are talking about one race (possibly with 3 subdivisions in France) which colonised the whole of Europe *north* of the mountain ranges which separate it from southern Europe - from the Pyrenees to the Caucasus. After the last Ice Age, the small pocket of bees left surviving during the long Ice Age in S.W. France expanded following the growth of trees. There are many identified pockets of almost pure A.m.m. which we tend to call "near native" since cross mating with many imported races started in the mid 1800's and intensified after the 1914-18 war. Nevertheless the climate is a harsh selector and many of us are convinced that the imports have a harder time especially where it is wet and cool in spring (and wet and relatively cool every other time too!). Being one who selects for the native characters along with a group of local friends also BIBBA members they are as follows. Cool weather flying (some local bees have been seen flying at 8C shade temperature from a sunny wall - wild colony). Mine regularly fly from 9C. Beo Cooper reported bees flying at 7.2C to collect pollen from turnip. The same goes for drones - black bees are the first to fly and often the only bees flying if there are mixed races or hybrids present to compare with. Beo estimated that in favourable areas dark bees have the advantage over yellow bees for half the time rising to 95% of the time in areas like where I keep bees. So the selection in mating is high. This may be reversed in hot summers (like once upon a time we did have!). Beo suggested that Workers flying in bright sun should be able to collect pollen at 5.5C in still air and drones from 7C. I have never attempted to measure this but identify colonies which start flying soonest as ones to breed from. He also saw queens flying at 9C. Tends not to fly over snow but will fly in light rain. I haven't been able to test this as we rarely have snow here. Dark - black or brown and shades between. They can have yellow underneath. Hairy - long abdominal overhairs. I have not measured these. Non-prolific but long-lived. The two together with low temperature flying means that in our "marginal" climate it out performs other bees most years. I have not yet marked workers to test how long, but 10 weeks as adult is mentioned by Beo from studies of workers marked in May. Hence the smaller British hives. Most years colonies will not fill a 11 frame hive of 8 1/2" x 14" frames. I have some that push this a bit but the idea of 2 Langstroth hives for one colony is far-fetched! I have some colonies on the "Unified" frame of 14" x 14" and they go up to 9 frames absolute maximum with a lovely oval brood shape (vertical axis - better for heat conservation). It means also that queens can last longer - 3 years would be common and 4-5 years would be reasonable for bees kept in one smaller brood chamber. They also seem to be more "compressible" i.e. less liable to a "compression" swarm if they are confined to a smaller hive. Storage of pollen is very high - this gives it a strong cushion when they cannot get out. They will still collect large quantities of pollen even when queenless! In spring and summer they may have 2-3 weeks pollen stored. Also pollen is stored anywhere - under the brood and even in amongst the brood. I have several colonies where the pollen is all round the brood. They also lay up stocks of pollen in late summer. I haven't investigated this myself, but Beo reckoned that most of the late pollen was eaten by early October even if the bees stopped rearing brood in late August. Here we think the bees winter on fat stores in their bodies and use little honey in the winter. This is a selecting character again. If they can do this they can survive if cut off from their stores in cold weather. There is a characteristic wing type which members measure diligently and which differentiates it from Italian and Carnican bees (and others). Beo suggested it allows large pollen and nectar loads which are helpful with poorer nectar. he also suggested they fly more slowly, rest more frequently, but have greater staying power than Italians in the wind. (Is this the kind of bias you have met?) Beo *suggested* a genetically larger bee size - 700 foundation producing bees with 5-10% greater wing breadth and length with corresponding increase in size. Italians and Carnicans don't increase much if put on 700. I have always taken this to be true having seen my dark bees as larger than many others. Please note I am not getting into the cell size discussion here though I will be assessing this next year along with some other BIBBA members. They are thrifty and adjust brood rearing to income or stores. They will not go flat out regardless of the position and starve if they run out. They have been observed to stop even with 9kg stores (20lb). I have not paid particular attention to this but last summer I had to feed one colony only - 2 weeks of May were good then the last 2 weeks in July and the first 2 in August - the rest were poor - wet and unusually cool - prolonged! Recently we have had long mild winters and cool springs - the result larger than usual colonies in May. Honey cappings convex. There appears to be a small air layer over the honey. This seems also to be a selection character as the cells are protected from weeping in wet autumns. I have not tested for air myself. Cool air clustering helps them make wax on old nights. Brood pattern compact - spherical or taller than broad (in hilly and northern latitudes). Winter honey storage in the brood chamber near the entrance. Lots of my colonies stock up from late July as the brood nest is contracting and the whole thing fills up. It is usually easy to have the recommended 40lb honey in the brood chamber without feeding, though I know lots of beekeepers who take as much as they can and feed sugar syrup to get maximum profit. Few of my colonies need feeding, though I sometimes leave a super on if there's less than 20lb. 30lb I leave them to the ivy to fill up - hopefully. The compacting of stores near the entrance seems to help them stay in contact with stores and defend the nest better as well as get it all properly ripened. Broodnest temperature varies. It can go down as low as 18C. I have never measured this at all. It may be associated with a greater susceptibility to chalk brood. This year we had a lot, but the colonies recovered in May very well (all except one of mine which presumably found difficulty covering the brood, which never provided sufficient bees to replace the dying ones, so could never keep the brood temperature up). Low tendency to drift. Marked drones tend to stay in the same hive over months (Beo). This tendency helps apiary vicinity mating keep an apiary within strain. The spread of disease is reduced. Drones expelled earlier and in times of nectar dearth. This can happen several times in a season. So there may be several batches of drones reared in a season. Drone assemblies and apiary vicinity mating - in addition to major drone assemblies there are local assemblies which form in changeable weather or warm humid periods of thundery or showery weather - often within 200m of the apiary (Beo). However, where the weather is less settled or more rainy there may not be enough time for these to form so queens and drones mate close to the hives in bursts of sunshine for example. Queens may mate with drones that follow them out of the hive! This has been seen - but not by me. One queen was seen mating on the side of a hive! Compatible temperament! Over generations, whilst a proportion of colonies may be bad tempered and the queen is culled to keep good temper as a major characteristic of the apiary strain, on the whole, they tend to keep the temper good. Supersedure is common - Beo reckoned at least 10%, many native strains being 25% - some approach 100%. I have not counted over the years but I am selecting the breeder queens to have survived at least 2 years and superseded if possible. Even better are queens whose daughters let her live - I had 1 definitely confirmed this year. This year there were some late supersedures (September) one of which was too late because of foul weather for a very long time Overall the climate selects for characters assisting survival, even where we beekeepers try to assist our colonies. Beo used the term "ecological" isolation to contrast with the more easily understood "geographical" isolation breeders often use and those wanting within strain mating to be more guaranteed. Several of the factors mentioned above fall into this category and explain why black bees seem to select themselves if you don't import new queens on an annual basis. I would dearly love to have figures of productivity comparing races and hybrids over the years as unless you are a migratory beekeeper I see no reason to import non-native bees to the UK. > Also info on them from the turn of the century 1800's to >1950. State source please, thanks. I don't have any but if there's no response from others, I will have a look at some of the old texts we have in our library. -- James Kilty Article 28208 of sci.agriculture.beekeeping: Path: news2.isis.unc.edu!unc-cs!news-relay.ncren.net!gatech!newsfeed.mathworks.com!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!news.demon.co.uk!demon!kilty.demon.co.uk!honeymountain From: James Kilty Newsgroups: sci.agriculture.beekeeping Subject: Re: You know you are in a beekeeping family........... Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 21:47:09 +0000 Message-ID: References: <9285pb$dg$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3A4E21FB.7D69EB85@together.net> <3zq36.138159$65.1099832@news1.rdc1.fl.home.com> <3A4E8787.9A4AB96C@together.net> <%VG36.139853$65.1102264@news1.rdc1.fl.home.com> <92nndi$bhp$1@nnrp1.deja.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: kilty.demon.co.uk X-NNTP-Posting-Host: kilty.demon.co.uk:193.237.253.225 X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 978655108 nnrp-14:18079 NO-IDENT kilty.demon.co.uk:193.237.253.225 X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Newsreader: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 S Lines: 13 Xref: news2.isis.unc.edu sci.agriculture.beekeeping:28208 In article <92nndi$bhp$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, loggermike writes > >> > >> >Ha!another hippy from the 60s(reformed or otherwise).I guess there >are still a few of us around(who would never admit it)Im 47 years old >and still like to listen to Pink Floyd at full volume blasting from my >truck stereo while working bees. Dark Side of the Moon came 2nd to Sergeant Pepper in a nation-wide (UK) survey of the most influential music. There must be a lot of hippies out there. My favourite. -- James Kilty Article 28209 of sci.agriculture.beekeeping: Path: news2.isis.unc.edu!unc-cs!news-relay.ncren.net!gatech!newsfeed.mathworks.com!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!news.demon.co.uk!demon!kilty.demon.co.uk!honeymountain From: James Kilty Newsgroups: sci.agriculture.beekeeping Subject: Re: How do I clean my wax? Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 22:19:35 +0000 Message-ID: <0qD4S3B3bPV6EwsW@kilty.demon.co.uk> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: kilty.demon.co.uk X-NNTP-Posting-Host: kilty.demon.co.uk:193.237.253.225 X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 978655110 nnrp-14:18079 NO-IDENT kilty.demon.co.uk:193.237.253.225 X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Newsreader: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 S Lines: 24 Xref: news2.isis.unc.edu sci.agriculture.beekeeping:28209 In article , Nancy W writes >Can anyone share the best way to clean beeswax? We're making lip balm and >have a ton of dirty wax. Any advice would be appreciated. It's a lot of wax so a steam extractor which can push the wax through a filter would be fine. A friend uses the Thomas 82 litre extractor with a hessian sack as the filter. It works extremely well indeed. The wax comes out clean and quite fast especially if it starts in blocks. For finer work use a finer filter! Last price I had was 3637.13 FF EXW before VAT (exempt outside EU). Your ton of wax is worth a lot more than this as is your finished product so it would be well worth it to buy one. It is marketed in the UK by Steele and Brodie contact Mike Osborne mailto: steele&brodie@sol.co.uk Elsewhere direct from Thomas. Contact Lionel BOURON SNT THOMAS BP 2 - 45450 Fay aux Loges - FRANCE Tél 33 2 38 46 88 00 Fax 33 2 38 59 28 28 Email: thomapi@wanadoo.fr Site INTERNET: www.apiculture.com/thomas -- James Kilty Article 28210 of sci.agriculture.beekeeping: Path: news2.isis.unc.edu!news-relay.ncren.net!gatech!EU.net!blackbush.xlink.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!216.167.138.228!not-for-mail From: Charlie Kroeger Newsgroups: sci.agriculture.beekeeping Subject: Re: Racoons Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 00:18:21 -0600 Lines: 22 Message-ID: References: <3a4c05c6.1322285@news.btx.dtag.de> Reply-To: ckrogrr@frankensteinface.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.167.138.228 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 978675503 9162859 216.167.138.228 (16 [35320]) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 Xref: news2.isis.unc.edu sci.agriculture.beekeeping:28210 George ask: >have any one experience with this nice animals called " racoon"? >How can I protect my hives from them? Hi George..Racoons are like a little bear, and sometimes not so little (40 lbs. - 18kg) they also have prehensile hands and this makes for trouble too. I use a cast portland cement top (35 lb - 16kg) to hold things steady in storms but they also prevent tampering from animals like raccoons. I also use a special reduced entrance near the handhold of 3/8 X3 in. (10mm X 76mm) the bottom is closed completely with 4X4X4 in. (10cm.) 'legs' to rest on the ground. Raccoons and skunks, snakes, rats, and mice, can't get in. The hive is also fairly defensible from robbing bees and intruding moths. I leave this entrance on year round. You could go one better and create a frame that covered the above entrance and cover that with a 3/8 in. mesh wire. You can't be too careful. The weight of the top and the wire grill over the small entrance will prevent attacks from almost any creature, excepting a bear, I should think. C.K. Article 28211 of sci.agriculture.beekeeping: Path: news2.isis.unc.edu!unc-cs!news-relay.ncren.net!gatech!newsfeed.mathworks.com!europa.netcrusader.net!64.152.100.70!cyclone-sjo1.usenetserver.com!news-out.usenetserver.com!newsfeed.telusplanet.net!news1.telusplanet.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Newsgroups: sci.agriculture.beekeeping Subject: Re: National Organic Standard From: allend@internode.net (Allen Dick) References: <92i81e$88c$1@saltmine.radix.net> Message-ID: User-Agent: Xnews/03.11.14 Lines: 38 Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 07:09:05 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.161.229.182 X-Trace: news1.telusplanet.net 978678545 198.161.229.182 (Fri, 05 Jan 2001 00:09:05 MST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 00:09:05 MST Xref: news2.isis.unc.edu sci.agriculture.beekeeping:28211 >One other thing. What filtering process do you use on your honey? None whatsoever. I'd actually have thought you knew that. I have explained all this at length and in detail on BEE-L. I am talking of raw bulk honey. That is all I produce. >I know >a lot of commercial beekeepers filter their honey through micro filters >that take everything out of the honey. Then you again know something no one else seems to know. I know a lot of commercial beekeepers personally and have been in their plants. I know of no commercial beekeepers in North America who micro filter honey. I do know of lots of *packers* -- maybe most -- who use diatomacious earth to filter honey for retail packs, but I don't believe that is 'micro- filtering'. I seem to recall micro filtering involves such fine filtering that colour and flavour are removed and this process is used to produce industrial honey, or have I got this wrong? Maybe that is ultra filtering? Anyhow, I do not filter honey. >Most people interested in organic >honey want all that stuff that filters take out (pollen, wax, etc.). You seem to assume that I do not know this. That niche was my market from 1972 until recently when I sold the business. >Perhaps part of the reason your honey passes testing is due to your >filtering. I can see that it is hard to accept facts that go against your favourite theories. Sounds like you need a holiday. I sure do. allen Article 28212 of sci.agriculture.beekeeping: Path: news2.isis.unc.edu!news-relay.ncren.net!newsgate.duke.edu!newsfeed.mathworks.com!news-hog.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail From: "Teri Bachus" Newsgroups: sci.agriculture.beekeeping Subject: Re: Bee Culture - Jan. 2001 Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 08:24:51 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: References: X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 25 Xref: news2.isis.unc.edu sci.agriculture.beekeeping:28212 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/wales/newsid_1100000/1100088.stm Honeybees hold antibiotic secret "...The discovery of an antibiotic that exists naturally in beehives could be used to protect honeybee populations under threat from disease.... Brian Dancer and Stuart Prince, of Cardiff University's School of Biosciences, have identified an antibiotic complex from harmless bacteria that could prove to be a useful tool for beekeepers.... Dr Dancer said: "We envisage that the spores of this 'natural' antibiotic will be fed to bees, providing them with a protective microflora that could act either prophylactically or as a treatment in disease outbreaks.... The researchers say the complex kills the harmful bacteria that cause both types of foulbrood disease. Dr Dancer's work is being transferred from the laboratory to practical use with funding for further microbiology research at Cardiff...." Article 28213 of sci.agriculture.beekeeping: Path: news2.isis.unc.edu!unc-cs!news-relay.ncren.net!newsgate.duke.edu!newsfeed.mathworks.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail From: paul_bilodeau@my-deja.com Newsgroups: sci.agriculture.beekeeping Subject: Re: BEE-L Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 13:35:07 GMT Organization: Deja.com Lines: 15 Message-ID: <934iib$efc$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.161.31.165 X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Jan 05 13:35:07 2001 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows 98; DigExt) X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x52.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 208.161.31.165 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDpaul_bilodeau Xref: news2.isis.unc.edu sci.agriculture.beekeeping:28213 In article , "Andrew Kidd" wrote: > Can someone tell me how to subscribe to BEE-L please? > > Try this... Go to www.bee-l.com and look for the catagory called: "Discussion Groups via Email or Browser". In this catagory, click ob "Bee-L" which will take you to another page which gives you all the options. Good Luck, Paul Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Article 28214 of sci.agriculture.beekeeping: Path: news2.isis.unc.edu!unc-cs!news-relay.ncren.net!newsgate.duke.edu!newsfeed.mathworks.com!newsfeed.logical.net!not-for-mail From: "huestis" Newsgroups: sci.agriculture.beekeeping Subject: Re: apis mellifera mellifera Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 09:01:40 -0800 Organization: Logical Net Lines: 197 Message-ID: <934kp3$duf$1@newsfeed.logical.net> References: <92gi20$83j$1@newsfeed.logical.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.23.8.189 X-Trace: newsfeed.logical.net 978703971 14287 209.23.8.189 (5 Jan 2001 14:12:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@logical.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 5 Jan 2001 14:12:51 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Xref: news2.isis.unc.edu sci.agriculture.beekeeping:28214 James, Thanks for the info. That's what I was looking for. I what to compare the present A.m.m. to the same bee of the 1800's to see what has changed. I don't keep A.m.m.( have carnica) so I needed someone who keeps them to list their characteristics. The bias I was talking about in my original post was that many books on this side of the pond state that A.m.m. is very aggressive and should be avoided(for beginners). Why? I have no idea. Clay James Kilty wrote in message news:jkwdh7B6PRV6EwPO@kilty.demon.co.uk... > In article <92gi20$83j$1@newsfeed.logical.net>, huestis > writes > >Hi all, > > > >Looking for info on A.M.M. Most literature that I have come across seems > >very biased. Could someone (especially those who have them) list their > >characteristics. > I promised this posting early last year! I am glad to be jogged into > writing this though I should be doing my tax return! > > There is much research and development going on in Europe into A.m.m. > You have been referred to BIBBA and the Galtee group and German sites. > DNA work has been started and is very promising. Bee Improvement, the > journal of BIBBA has many excellent articles and the many publications > of BIBBA since the 60's are a fine start to a library on A.m.m. with Beo > Cooper's Honeybees of the British Isles (1986) also available from > BIBBA. For those unfamiliar with the different races we are talking > about one race (possibly with 3 subdivisions in France) which colonised > the whole of Europe *north* of the mountain ranges which separate it > from southern Europe - from the Pyrenees to the Caucasus. After the last > Ice Age, the small pocket of bees left surviving during the long Ice Age > in S.W. France expanded following the growth of trees. > > There are many identified pockets of almost pure A.m.m. which we tend to > call "near native" since cross mating with many imported races started > in the mid 1800's and intensified after the 1914-18 war. Nevertheless > the climate is a harsh selector and many of us are convinced that the > imports have a harder time especially where it is wet and cool in spring > (and wet and relatively cool every other time too!). > > Being one who selects for the native characters along with a group of > local friends also BIBBA members they are as follows. > > Cool weather flying (some local bees have been seen flying at 8C shade > temperature from a sunny wall - wild colony). Mine regularly fly from > 9C. Beo Cooper reported bees flying at 7.2C to collect pollen from > turnip. The same goes for drones - black bees are the first to fly and > often the only bees flying if there are mixed races or hybrids present > to compare with. Beo estimated that in favourable areas dark bees have > the advantage over yellow bees for half the time rising to 95% of the > time in areas like where I keep bees. So the selection in mating is > high. This may be reversed in hot summers (like once upon a time we did > have!). Beo suggested that Workers flying in bright sun should be able > to collect pollen at 5.5C in still air and drones from 7C. I have never > attempted to measure this but identify colonies which start flying > soonest as ones to breed from. He also saw queens flying at 9C. > > Tends not to fly over snow but will fly in light rain. I haven't been > able to test this as we rarely have snow here. > > Dark - black or brown and shades between. They can have yellow > underneath. > > Hairy - long abdominal overhairs. I have not measured these. > > Non-prolific but long-lived. The two together with low temperature > flying means that in our "marginal" climate it out performs other bees > most years. I have not yet marked workers to test how long, but 10 weeks > as adult is mentioned by Beo from studies of workers marked in May. > Hence the smaller British hives. Most years colonies will not fill a 11 > frame hive of 8 1/2" x 14" frames. I have some that push this a bit but > the idea of 2 Langstroth hives for one colony is far-fetched! I have > some colonies on the "Unified" frame of 14" x 14" and they go up to 9 > frames absolute maximum with a lovely oval brood shape (vertical axis - > better for heat conservation). It means also that queens can last longer > - 3 years would be common and 4-5 years would be reasonable for bees > kept in one smaller brood chamber. They also seem to be more > "compressible" i.e. less liable to a "compression" swarm if they are > confined to a smaller hive. > > Storage of pollen is very high - this gives it a strong cushion when > they cannot get out. They will still collect large quantities of pollen > even when queenless! In spring and summer they may have 2-3 weeks pollen > stored. Also pollen is stored anywhere - under the brood and even in > amongst the brood. I have several colonies where the pollen is all round > the brood. They also lay up stocks of pollen in late summer. I haven't > investigated this myself, but Beo reckoned that most of the late pollen > was eaten by early October even if the bees stopped rearing brood in > late August. Here we think the bees winter on fat stores in their bodies > and use little honey in the winter. This is a selecting character again. > If they can do this they can survive if cut off from their stores in > cold weather. > > There is a characteristic wing type which members measure diligently and > which differentiates it from Italian and Carnican bees (and others). Beo > suggested it allows large pollen and nectar loads which are helpful with > poorer nectar. he also suggested they fly more slowly, rest more > frequently, but have greater staying power than Italians in the wind. > (Is this the kind of bias you have met?) > > Beo *suggested* a genetically larger bee size - 700 foundation producing > bees with 5-10% greater wing breadth and length with corresponding > increase in size. Italians and Carnicans don't increase much if put on > 700. I have always taken this to be true having seen my dark bees as > larger than many others. Please note I am not getting into the cell size > discussion here though I will be assessing this next year along with > some other BIBBA members. > > They are thrifty and adjust brood rearing to income or stores. They will > not go flat out regardless of the position and starve if they run out. > They have been observed to stop even with 9kg stores (20lb). I have not > paid particular attention to this but last summer I had to feed one > colony only - 2 weeks of May were good then the last 2 weeks in July and > the first 2 in August - the rest were poor - wet and unusually cool - > prolonged! Recently we have had long mild winters and cool springs - the > result larger than usual colonies in May. > > Honey cappings convex. There appears to be a small air layer over the > honey. This seems also to be a selection character as the cells are > protected from weeping in wet autumns. I have not tested for air myself. > > Cool air clustering helps them make wax on old nights. > > Brood pattern compact - spherical or taller than broad (in hilly and > northern latitudes). > > Winter honey storage in the brood chamber near the entrance. Lots of my > colonies stock up from late July as the brood nest is contracting and > the whole thing fills up. It is usually easy to have the recommended > 40lb honey in the brood chamber without feeding, though I know lots of > beekeepers who take as much as they can and feed sugar syrup to get > maximum profit. Few of my colonies need feeding, though I sometimes > leave a super on if there's less than 20lb. 30lb I leave them to the ivy > to fill up - hopefully. The compacting of stores near the entrance seems > to help them stay in contact with stores and defend the nest better as > well as get it all properly ripened. > > Broodnest temperature varies. It can go down as low as 18C. I have never > measured this at all. It may be associated with a greater susceptibility > to chalk brood. This year we had a lot, but the colonies recovered in > May very well (all except one of mine which presumably found difficulty > covering the brood, which never provided sufficient bees to replace the > dying ones, so could never keep the brood temperature up). > > Low tendency to drift. Marked drones tend to stay in the same hive over > months (Beo). This tendency helps apiary vicinity mating keep an apiary > within strain. The spread of disease is reduced. > > Drones expelled earlier and in times of nectar dearth. This can happen > several times in a season. So there may be several batches of drones > reared in a season. > > Drone assemblies and apiary vicinity mating - in addition to major drone > assemblies there are local assemblies which form in changeable weather > or warm humid periods of thundery or showery weather - often within 200m > of the apiary (Beo). However, where the weather is less settled or more > rainy there may not be enough time for these to form so queens and > drones mate close to the hives in bursts of sunshine for example. Queens > may mate with drones that follow them out of the hive! This has been > seen - but not by me. One queen was seen mating on the side of a hive! > > Compatible temperament! Over generations, whilst a proportion of > colonies may be bad tempered and the queen is culled to keep good temper > as a major characteristic of the apiary strain, on the whole, they tend > to keep the temper good. > > Supersedure is common - Beo reckoned at least 10%, many native strains > being 25% - some approach 100%. I have not counted over the years but I > am selecting the breeder queens to have survived at least 2 years and > superseded if possible. Even better are queens whose daughters let her > live - I had 1 definitely confirmed this year. This year there were some > late supersedures (September) one of which was too late because of foul > weather for a very long time > > Overall the climate selects for characters assisting survival, even > where we beekeepers try to assist our colonies. Beo used the term > "ecological" isolation to contrast with the more easily understood > "geographical" isolation breeders often use and those wanting within > strain mating to be more guaranteed. Several of the factors mentioned > above fall into this category and explain why black bees seem to select > themselves if you don't import new queens on an annual basis. > > I would dearly love to have figures of productivity comparing races and > hybrids over the years as unless you are a migratory beekeeper I see no > reason to import non-native bees to the UK. > > Also info on them from the turn of the century 1800's to > >1950. State source please, thanks. > I don't have any but if there's no response from others, I will have a > look at some of the old texts we have in our library. > > > -- > James Kilty Article 28215 of sci.agriculture.beekeeping: Path: news2.isis.unc.edu!news-relay.ncren.net!gatech!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xit-01!sn-post-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail From: "Teri Bachus" Newsgroups: sci.agriculture.beekeeping Subject: Re: apis mellifera mellifera Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 08:58:54 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: References: <92gi20$83j$1@newsfeed.logical.net> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 26 Xref: news2.isis.unc.edu sci.agriculture.beekeeping:28215 Barry Birkey wrote: >Several things are possibly different but when various people are currently >using 4.9 cell size from different ends of the U.S. and different ends of >Europe with success, that theory kinda goes out the door. hmmm...maybe african(ized) genetics have spread further than most may think, or are willing to admit...see http://beesource.com/news/article/azrepublic.htm "Killer Bees Live Calmly in U.S.": ...In 1985, Richard Nunamaker, a research entomologist stationed at the USDA Agricultural Research Service Labroatory in Laramie, Wyo., developed a method for identifying Africanized bees based on gene analysis. "At that time, we found low levels of Africanization in the United States, especially the southern United States," Nunamaker said.... see also http://www.ensam.inra.fr/URLB/apis/evolution/evolution.html "The origin of West European subspecies of honeybees (Apis mellifera) : new insights from mitochondrial DNA and microsatellite data." : ...variability observed in Spanish and Portuguese samples compared to that found in Africa is explained by a higher mutation rate and multiple and recent introductions. Selection appears as the best explanation to the morphological and allozymic clines and to the diffusion and maintenance of African haplotypes in Spain and Portugal... Article 28216 of sci.agriculture.beekeeping: Path: news2.isis.unc.edu!news-relay.ncren.net!hearst.acc.Virginia.EDU!hammer.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!news.tele.dk!195.224.25.10!sn-uk-xit-01!sn-uk-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Andrew Kidd" Newsgroups: sci.agriculture.beekeeping Subject: BEE-L Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 09:43:56 -0000 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: Reply-To: "Andrew Kidd" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 3 Xref: news2.isis.unc.edu sci.agriculture.beekeeping:28216 Can someone tell me how to subscribe to BEE-L please? Article 28217 of sci.agriculture.beekeeping: Path: news2.isis.unc.edu!news-relay.ncren.net!uni00nw.unity.ncsu.edu!gatech!209.133.60.2.MISMATCH!localhost!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!colt.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!news.demon.co.uk!demon!denrosa.demon.co.uk!murray From: Murray McGregor Newsgroups: sci.agriculture.beekeeping Subject: Re: apis mellifera mellifera Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 07:45:17 +0000 Organization: Denrosa Ltd Message-ID: References: <92gi20$83j$1@newsfeed.logical.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: denrosa.demon.co.uk X-NNTP-Posting-Host: denrosa.demon.co.uk:194.222.100.90 X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 978684259 nnrp-09:10855 NO-IDENT denrosa.demon.co.uk:194.222.100.90 X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Newsreader: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.00 U Lines: 16 Xref: news2.isis.unc.edu sci.agriculture.beekeeping:28217 >Several things are possibly different but when various people are currently >using 4.9 cell size from different ends of the U.S. and different ends of >Europe with success, that theory kinda goes out the door. Really? I would be interested to know where this is happening, and in terms that I can count as success, ie not merely managing to exist. My interpretation of what I have read is that most of those trying it are just starting to use it and the jury is still very much out. Any colony (wild swarms) I have seen on small cells (the smallest I ever found was 5.05 ) were a sickly malnourished lot which quit the small cell combs and used them as honey storage as soon as things picked up and a good flow came on, reverting to 5.3 as soon as they could. -- Murray McGregor Article 28218 of sci.agriculture.beekeeping: Path: news2.isis.unc.edu!news-relay.ncren.net!hearst.acc.Virginia.EDU!hammer.uoregon.edu!nntp.kreonet.re.kr!feeder.kornet.net!howland.erols.net!feed2.news.rcn.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail From: Barry Birkey Newsgroups: sci.agriculture.beekeeping Subject: Re: apis mellifera mellifera Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 08:31:01 -0600 Lines: 36 Message-ID: References: <20010104062707.04403.00001003@ng-ft1.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVbpCW/w9u22NG/3pGMV74Kd8gQ93Y90UHTwbLsORzJEu9WNWSo7pGWs X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 5 Jan 2001 14:32:01 GMT User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.0 (1513) Xref: news2.isis.unc.edu sci.agriculture.beekeeping:28218 in article 20010104062707.04403.00001003@ng-ft1.aol.com, LKLarson1 at lklarson1@aol.com wrote on 1/4/01 5:27 AM: > "The Life of the Bee" is one of my favorites, too. Although I've read many > times that all honeybees were European and brought here, I recently read in a > couple different books that we have some 3000 more more native species of > honeybees here. Possibly they are "cousins" and not part of the immediate > Apis > Mellifera family, I don't know. do you know? I guess that gives me > something > to research in these bleak grey days of Winter in these parts (Oregon)..... > Yet, I do find it hard to believe, given the millions of insect species and > how > success they are in our world that there were not (again, as so many books in > beekeeping claim) ANY honey bees in North America before the Europeans brought > them. > > Buzzylee Mendel talked of American bees in his papers. I too, find it to be an extremely exotic idea that there were no honeybees in America prior to the arrival of the European bee. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10180b.htm "It is, however, known that he devoted himself to various lines of investigation, bestowing much labour on the heredity of bees. He collected queen bees of all attainable races, European, Egyptian, and American, and made many crosses between the various races. Unfortunately, the notes which he is known to have made on this subject have completely disappeared, and it is not impossible that he may have destroyed them himself in some of the dark hours which he was called upon to endure during the last years of his life. " -Barry Article 28219 of sci.agriculture.beekeeping: Path: news2.isis.unc.edu!news-relay.ncren.net!newsgate.duke.edu!newsfeed.mathworks.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail From: loggermike Newsgroups: sci.agriculture.beekeeping Subject: Re: You know you are in a beekeeping family........... Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 16:49:17 GMT Organization: Deja.com Lines: 21 Message-ID: <934tu9$p3n$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <9285pb$dg$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3A4E21FB.7D69EB85@together.net> <3zq36.138159$65.1099832@news1.rdc1.fl.home.com> <3A4E8787.9A4AB96C@together.net> <%VG36.139853$65.1102264@news1.rdc1.fl.home.com> <92nndi$bhp$1@nnrp1.deja.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.16.67.176 X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Jan 05 16:49:17 2001 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.01; Windows 95; ezn-ie5-r77-32) X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x57.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 207.16.67.176 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDloggermike Xref: news2.isis.unc.edu sci.agriculture.beekeeping:28219 > Dark Side of the Moon came 2nd to Sergeant Pepper in a nation-wide (UK) > survey of the most influential music. There must be a lot of hippies out > there. My favourite. > -- > James Kilty > Dark Side Of The Moon was an absolute classic,still widely played on USA radio.One of my pet theories was that beekeeping(and logging)attracted a 'different breed of cat'mostly very independent people who really didnt fit in the corporate world.No brownnoses in this group! -- loggermike Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Article 28220 of sci.agriculture.beekeeping: Path: news2.isis.unc.edu!unc-cs!news-relay.ncren.net!newsgate.duke.edu!newsfeed.mathworks.com!wn3feed!worldnet.att.net!135.173.83.71!wnfilter1!worldnet-localpost!bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "George Styer" Newsgroups: sci.agriculture.beekeeping References: <92i81e$88c$1@saltmine.radix.net> <3A525434.5CFCB752@suscom-maine.net> Subject: Re: National Organic Standard Lines: 21 Organization: Productive Solutions X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 18:08:47 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.72.51.65 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 978718127 12.72.51.65 (Fri, 05 Jan 2001 18:08:47 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 18:08:47 GMT Xref: news2.isis.unc.edu sci.agriculture.beekeeping:28220 I am glad to see this brought up in the debate. Indeed, if my memory of the proposed USDA standard serves, you MUST treat the animal (and remove it from production). If your livestock is suffering because of your failure to treat them, you risk losing your certification. -- Geo Sacramento, in California's great Central Valley "Honey is sweet but the bee stings" gstyLer@att.net To respond via email, get the "L" out of there "Bill Truesdell" wrote in message news:3A525434.5CFCB752@suscom-maine.net... >You can treat farm animals with a > variety of medicines and anti-biotics to preserve the life of the animal, > because horses, cows and fowl are expensive and they will still be > considered organically grown. Article 28221 of sci.agriculture.beekeeping: Path: news2.isis.unc.edu!unc-cs!news-relay.ncren.net!gatech!newsfeed.mathworks.com!portc01.blue.aol.com!news.stealth.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail From: 2smart2late@my-deja.com Newsgroups: sci.agriculture.beekeeping Subject: Re: You know you are in a beekeeping family........... Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 18:49:34 GMT Organization: Deja.com Lines: 32 Message-ID: <9354vr$vpp$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <9285pb$dg$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3A4E21FB.7D69EB85@together.net> <3zq36.138159$65.1099832@news1.rdc1.fl.home.com> <3A4E8787.9A4AB96C@together.net> <%VG36.139853$65.1102264@news1.rdc1.fl.home.com> <92nndi$bhp$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <934tu9$p3n$1@nnrp1.deja.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.169.101.113 X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Jan 05 18:49:34 2001 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows 98; DigExt) X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x65.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 63.169.101.113 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUID2smart2late Xref: news2.isis.unc.edu sci.agriculture.beekeeping:28221 In article <934tu9$p3n$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, loggermike wrote: > > > > Dark Side of the Moon came 2nd to Sergeant Pepper in a nation-wide > (UK) > > survey of the most influential music. There must be a lot of hippies > out > > there. My favourite. > > -- > > James Kilty > > > Dark Side Of The Moon was an absolute classic,still widely > played on USA radio.One of my pet theories was that beekeeping(and > logging)attracted a 'different breed of cat'mostly very independent > people who really didnt fit in the corporate world.No brownnoses in > this group! > -- > loggermike > > Sent via Deja.com > http://www.deja.com/ > when Dad says "I'm going to check the girls" and wades through 30" of snow to see how the hives are doing............. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Article 28222 of sci.agriculture.beekeeping: Path: news2.isis.unc.edu!news-relay.ncren.net!newsgate.duke.edu!newsfeed.mathworks.com!europa.netcrusader.net!64.152.100.70!cyclone-sjo1.usenetserver.com!news-out.usenetserver.com!cyclone-pass-sjo.usenetserver.com!e420r-sjo3.usenetserver.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From: hamilton@pbssite.com (Dave Hamilton) Newsgroups: sci.agriculture.beekeeping Subject: Re: BEE-L Message-ID: <3a562cf8.1898556187@west.usenetserver.com> References: <934iib$efc$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 Lines: 20 X-Complaints-To: abuse@usenetserver.com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly. X-Complaints-To: abuse@webusenet.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 15:20:45 EST Organization: WebUseNet Corp http://www.usenetserver.com - Home of the fastest NNTP servers on the Net. Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 20:22:47 GMT Xref: news2.isis.unc.edu sci.agriculture.beekeeping:28222 http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Default.htm has a direct link On Fri, 05 Jan 2001 13:35:07 GMT, paul_bilodeau@my-deja.com wrote: >In article , > "Andrew Kidd" wrote: >> Can someone tell me how to subscribe to BEE-L please? >> >> Try this... >Go to www.bee-l.com and look for the catagory called: "Discussion >Groups via Email or Browser". In this catagory, click ob "Bee-L" which >will take you to another page which gives you all the options. > >Good Luck, >Paul > > >Sent via Deja.com >http://www.deja.com/ Article 28223 of sci.agriculture.beekeeping: Path: news2.isis.unc.edu!unc-cs!news-relay.ncren.net!newsgate.duke.edu!newsfeed.mathworks.com!howland.erols.net!netnews.com!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.home.com!news.home.com!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!drn From: James Fischer Newsgroups: sci.agriculture.beekeeping Subject: The (USA) EPA "Label Law" Is DEAD Unless YOU Save It Date: 5 Jan 2001 13:16:34 -0800 Organization: Newsguy News Service [http://newsguy.com] Lines: 629 Message-ID: <935dji0r0d@drn.newsguy.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-726.newsdawg.com Xref: news2.isis.unc.edu sci.agriculture.beekeeping:28223 Please forward to other beekeepers by all means possible. Time is short, and e-mail and letters to the EPA from as many beekeepers as possible has a good chance of having an impact. The phrase "pesticide kill" needs no explanation to beekeepers. Our sole protection against the mis-use of pesticides has been the EPA "Label Law", a law created as a direct result of excessive hive losses in the 1970s. Now, the EPA is considering removing the "Bee Precautionary Labeling", or making the wording so weak as to render it useless. The EPA has a "public comment period" open until Jan 22, 2001, so I'd like to ask every beekeeper to take the time to both read this (rather long) message, and send an e-mail to the EPA to object to their attempt to weaken the "label law". The following text is long, but it is an attempt to provide complete information on one place, so that all can be well-informed. (Clearly, well thought-out and well-written "public comments" can be more effective.) Each section is divided by a line of "<><><><>", and the sections are as follows: 1) An good overview of the situation, by Tom Theobold, a commercial beekeeper and freelance writer. 2) The e-mail address and requirements for "public comments". 3) The specific questions asked by the EPA in their request for public comments. 4) The complete text of the EPA "draft guidelines" that are proposed. (So that hardcopy can be distributed to those without web-browsers). <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> AN OVERVIEW (BY TOM THEOBOLD) The EPA, Pesticides and Beekeepers. An Editorial and call to Arms. By Tom Theobold In an apparently inadvertent irony of timing, the Environmental Protection Agency announced in the Federal Register its intention to seek public comment on a draft Pesticide Registration (PR) notice entitled "Guidance for Pesticide Registrants on Bee Precautionary Labeling". This announcement came on November 22, the day before Thanksgiving. In the war movies, this moment is typically accompanied by the panic cry "INCOMING"! Pesticides hazardous to honey bees have carried a label restriction since the early 1980s. It reads: "[This product] is HAZARDOUS TO BEES exposed to direct treatment or residues on blooming crops and/or blooming weeds. Do not apply [this product] or allow it to drift to blooming crops and/or blooming weeds if bees are foraging the areas to be treated." The label restriction came about as a consequence of massive bee kills from pesticides in the 1970s. Unfortunately the chemical industry and State Regulators (the agencies typically delegated the authority by EPA for pesticide regulation) found the restriction cumbersome, problematical and inconvenient. While the label restriction was frequently ignored or skirted, it nevertheless gave beekeepers standing before the law when their bees were killed by illegal pesticide use. Even under these conditions of unenthusiastic and even hostile "enforcement", commercial beekeepers in many parts of the country had over 30% of their colonies killed or damaged by pesticides. The current PR Notice would propose sweeping changes to not only the wording but the intent of bee protection language. New pesticides presented for registration which fail to provide residual bee toxicity data automatically will be assumed to have a toxic period of 24 hours. This will encourage applicants to neglect this detail, and beekeepers will spend years enduring bee kills and uncompensated damages as they attempt to establish their case against new pesticides which may have residual toxicity's of 1 to 2 weeks. In other words the toxicity data will be generated at the expense of the beekeeping industry. It dismisses the issue of drift, which is often the major culprit in bee kills, by simply omitting any reference to it. By this logic, polluters in other arenas would be free to release toxic substances into a waterway and be held harmless for any damage done downstream. The only difference between the two cases is that with agricultural pesticides it isn't a waterway but an airstream which is polluted. Perhaps the worst part of this proposal is its caveat to the chemical industry, which says that an applicator is not responsible for following even the feeble language proposed if they participate in a "formal, state-approved bee protection program". The EPA plans to take no role in the formation, approval or monitoring of the state approved program, despite the clear evidence that it has often been State Departments of Agriculture which are the problem in protecting pollinators. In 1997 AAPCO (the American Association of Pesticide Control Officers), a professional organization to which many state regulatory people belong, formally requested that the EPA make bee protection language ADVISORY. This gives you an idea of the philosophy of many of these states and what protections they might provide given a free hand. The EPA proposed to not only put the foxes back in charge of the chicken coop despite the loss of all these chickens, it proposed to let the foxes make the rules and doesn't even intend to ask what the rules are. Beyond the specific labeling language, the EPA is failing to carry out its basic responsibilities under the law (FIFRA). Ultimately Congress is responsible for the implementation of FIFRA. It assigns this responsibility to EPA, which in turn delegates the authority to another agency, typically a State Department Of Agriculture. It is apparent that the EPA is not only prepared to cave in to the convenience of the chemical industry, but they are willing to sacrifice American beekeeping and violate the law in the bargain. They are either incapable or unwilling to hold their delegees (the states) accountable for administering the law properly, nor are they willing to do so themselves. Beekeepers are urged to familiarize themselves with this issue and contact their Congresspeople immediately. This matter will effect all beekeepers, large or small. The indiscriminate and uncontrolled use of pesticides around bees, which is likely to result from the current posture of the EPA, will result in enormous and costly losses for almost all beekeepers. The EPA must be called to account by Congress and required to follow the law. The current proposal provides little or no protection to honey bees or any other pollinators, after years of input from the beekeeping industry. More detailed information on the PR can be obtained at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ The comment period ends Jan 22, 2001. In addition to anything you may have to say to the EPA, you should inform your Congressperson or nothing will change. Note: Tom did not give the exact address of the web page for the document at issue. It is as follows: www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2000/November/Day-22/p29815.htm <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> HOW TO MAKE A "PUBLIC COMMENT" To comment via e-mail: 1) Send your comments to opp-docket@epa.gov 2) Put "OPP-00684" in the subject line, to make it easy for federal clerks to route your comment correctly. 3) They can handle plain text or Wordperfect 6.1 format. (When in doubt, plain text in the body of the e-mail works best. Attachments can be a pain.) 4) Recall that your comments will likely be used to evaluate your credibility, so don't get too wild. To comment via postal mail, use the following address: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20460. ...and the same considerations listed in (2) through (4) above apply. The EPA also has suggestions on how to make public comment, as follows: What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide. 5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. 6. Offer alternative ways to improve the notice or collection activity. 7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice. 8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket control number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation. <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> THE EPA QUESTIONS, ASKED IN THE TEXT OF THEIR REQUEST FOR COMMENTS Even though the entire subject of weakening the "label law" is an issue in itself, one may wish to address the questions asked by the EPA. Here they are, quoted from the "draft notice": Commenters are free to raise any issue, but the following questions are of particular interest to the Agency, and comments on them are invited. 1. Should the precautionary labeling language in the new policy allow for an exception from bee precautions for wide-area public health spray programs? In a number of communications to the Agency, officials involved in public health programs have noted that strict interpretation of the current bee precautionary labeling could prevent effective wide-area pest control in an emergency situation. The Agency's proposed new labeling language could also be very restrictive of wide-area spraying, for example, if a state had no bee protection program, or could not operate the program during an emergency. The suggestion has been made that the label language include a clause to the effect that precautions apply ``...except when applications are made to prevent or control a declared public health threat.'' The Agency requests comment on whether such an exception on the label is necessary or appropriate, and if it is appropriate, what authority could invoke the exception. Should an exception be applicable to treatments intended to prevent possible disease outbreaks, or limited to significant emergencies like the aftermath of flooding or a proven outbreak of human or animal disease? 2. Should the new policy described in the PR Notice allow a 24 hour period of toxicity statement on labels in the absence of data as a permanent option, or only temporarily until registrants submit residual toxicity data? 3. From the commenter's perspective as a pesticide user, beekeeper, state regulator, or other interested party, would a specific time period of toxicity to bees on the label be more or less useful than the current policy which includes a label prohibition on applications while bees are visiting the treatment area? 4. Is the label condition that pesticides can be applied if the user participates in a state bee protection program likely to encourage bee-protection efforts? From the commenter's perspective, is such a condition more or less useful in achieving bee protection that the current label prohibition against application when bees are visiting the treatment area? <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> THE COMPLETE TEXT OF THE NOTICE [Federal Register: November 22, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 226)] [Notices] [Page 70350-70352] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr22no00-61] ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [OPP-00684; FRL-6750-9] Pesticides; Draft Guidance for Pesticide Registrants on Bee Precautionary Labeling AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: The Agency seeks public comment on a draft Pesticide Registration (PR) Notice entitled ``Guidance for Pesticide Registrants on Bee Precautionary Labeling.'' This draft notice provides guidance to registrants and others concerning EPA's policy on bee labeling statements for pesticide products which are toxic to bees, such as honey bees, alfalfa leaf-cutting bees, alkali bees, and other native and non-indigenous pollinating insects that are important to crop production. The purpose of the proposed label changes is to help ensure that pesticide products used outdoors can be used without posing unnecessary risks of bee mortality. EPA believes that these revisions will make the labeling clearer and more easily understood by pesticide users and by regulatory officials who enforce label provisions. DATES: Comments, identified by docket control number OPP-00684, must be received on or before January 22, 2001. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as provided in Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number OPP-00684 in the subject line on the first page of your response. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Roelofs (7506C), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 308-2964; fax number: (703) 308-1850; e-mail address: roelofs.jim@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to pesticide registrants, pesticide regulatory officials, beekeepers, pesticide users and to the public in general. Although this action may be of particular interest to those persons who have a specific interest in precautionary labeling to protect bees, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the information in this notice, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. B. How Can I Get Additional Information, Including Copies of this Document and Other Related Documents? 1. Electronically. You may obtain electronic copies of this document and the PR Notice from the Office of Pesticide Programs' Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/. You can also go directly to the listings from the EPA Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/. To access this document, on the Home Page select ``Laws and Regulations'' ``Regulations and Proposed Rules,'' and then look up the entry for this document under the ``Federal Register-- Environmental Documents.'' You can also go directly to the Federal Register listings at http:// www.access.gpo.gov/sup--docs/. 2. Fax on demand. You may request a faxed copy of the draft PR Notice entitled ``Bee Precautionary Labeling Statements,'' by using a faxphone to call (202) 401-0527 and selecting item PR 2000-6133. You may also follow the automated menu. 3. In person. The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket control number OPP-00684. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received during an applicable comment period, and other information related to this action, including any information claimed as confidential business information (CBI). This official record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well [[Page 70351]] as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official record does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period, is available for inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805. C. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments? You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number OPP-00684 in the subject line on the first page of your response. 1. By mail. Submit your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460. 2. In person or by courier. Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. The PIRIB is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805. 3. Electronically. You may submit your comments electronically by E-mail to: ``opp-docket@epa.gov,'' or you can submit a computer disk as described above. Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Electronic submissions will be accepted in Wordperfect 6.1, Suite 8, or ASCII file format. All comments in electronic form must be identified by docket control number OPP-00684. Electronic comments may also be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries. D. How Should I Handle CBI That I Want to Submit to the Agency? Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. You may claim information that you submit to EPA in response to this document as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public version of the official record. Information not marked confidential will be included in the public version of the official record without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide. 5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. 6. Offer alternative ways to improve the notice or collection activity. 7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice. 8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket control number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation. II. Background To help determine whether pesticide products used outdoors pose risks of bee mortality, the Agency generally requires acute toxicity data on bees to be submitted with a registration application. See e.g., 40 CFR 158.590(a). Depending on the results of the acute study, EPA may require additional residual toxicity data. EPA pesticide labeling regulations require that ``...pesticides toxic to pollinating insects must bear appropriate label cautions.'' 40 CFR 156.10(h)(2)(ii)(E). In the 1980s, the Agency published a policy which described a set of standard bee precautionary labeling statements it believed appropriate where results from the bee data indicated toxicity. The most recent version of this policy is found in the 1996 Label Review Manual (USEPA, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Label Review Manual, 2nd Ed. (EPA 737-B-96-001) December, 1996). Under the 1980s policy, where a product displayed extended residual toxicity to bees, the label language EPA believed to be appropriate for precautionary purposes stated: ``This product is highly toxic to bees exposed to direct treatment or residues on blooming crops or weeds. Do not apply this product or allow it to drift to blooming crops or weeds if bees are visiting the treatment area.'' Controversy has continued for many years among beekeepers, growers, commercial applicators and State regulators about the adequacy of these statements. For example, many beekeepers believe that the labeling statements are not adequately protective, while many growers believe that the labeling statements are overly restrictive and prevent them from managing pests adequately during the bloom period. State regulators believe that the labeling statements need to be clarified regarding the obligations of applicators with respect to bees. III. Summary of the Draft PR Notice A. What Guidance Does the PR Notice Provide? The PR Notice states EPA's proposed new policy regarding appropriate standard label language to protect bees. This new language would include a specific statement about the length of time in hours or days that the residues of the pesticide product remain a toxic threat to bees. This new proposed labeling statement is based on a study of residual toxicity to bees for a specific product submitted to the Agency, or, in the absence of such a study, it states a default period of toxicity of 24 hours. The proposed label language provides two conditions under which pesticide application would be allowed without limitation to the label-stated period of toxic hazard to bees. The first of these conditions is if the pesticide application method is such that bees will not be exposed even if they are visiting the crop. An example of such a method would be soil incorporation, which would not produce pesticide residues on the foliage, blooms or nectar producing parts of plants, so that bees would not be exposed. The other condition under which use is allowed during the period of toxicity to bees, is when the user actively participates in and meets all the applicable [[Page 70352]] requirements of a state-approved bee protection program. The Agency believes that label precautions should be supplemented by additional efforts to protect bees, and that state programs are appropriate to this purpose. EPA does not intend to set specific criteria or approve state bee protection programs. The PR Notice recommends that state pesticide regulatory agencies consider a variety of regulatory and non-regulatory measures to include in bee-protection efforts. EPA believes that state agencies are in the best position to understand the localized crop-pesticide combinations and other factors that pose the greatest risks to bees, and can implement appropriate measures to mitigate those risks under varying local and geographic conditions. B. What Questions/Issues Should You Consider? Commenters are free to raise any issue, but the following questions are of particular interest to the Agency, and comments on them are invited. 1. Should the precautionary labeling language in the new policy allow for an exception from bee precautions for wide-area public health spray programs? In a number of communications to the Agency, officials involved in public health programs have noted that strict interpretation of the current bee precautionary labeling could prevent effective wide-area pest control in an emergency situation. The Agency's proposed new labeling language could also be very restrictive of wide-area spraying, for example, if a state had no bee protection program, or could not operate the program during an emergency. The suggestion has been made that the label language include a clause to the effect that precautions apply ``...except when applications are made to prevent or control a declared public health threat.'' The Agency requests comment on whether such an exception on the label is necessary or appropriate, and if it is appropriate, what authority could invoke the exception. Should an exception be applicable to treatments intended to prevent possible disease outbreaks, or limited to significant emergencies like the aftermath of flooding or a proven outbreak of human or animal disease? 2. Should the new policy described in the PR Notice allow a 24 hour period of toxicity statement on labels in the absence of data as a permanent option, or only temporarily until registrants submit residual toxicity data? 3. From the commenter's perspective as a pesticide user, bee keeper, state regulator, or other interested party, would a specific time period of toxicity to bees on the label be more or less useful than the current policy which includes a label prohibition on applications while bees are visiting the treatment area? 4. Is the label condition that pesticides can be applied if the user participates in a state bee protection program likely to encourage bee-protection efforts? From the commenter's perspective, is such a condition more or less useful in achieving bee protection that the current label prohibition against application when bees are visiting the treatment area? C. What is the Scope of this PR Notice? The draft PR Notice discussed in this notice is intended to provide guidance to pesticide registrants, EPA personnel, state regulatory personnel, and to the public. As a guidance document, this policy is not binding on either EPA or any outside parties, and EPA may depart from the guidance where circumstances warrant and without prior notice. Registrants and applicants may propose alternatives to the recommended labeling statements described in the Notice and the Agency will assess them for appropriateness on a case-by-case basis. If a product does not meet the requirements of 40 CFR Part 156, the Agency may find the product to be misbranded. As stated above, the Agency believes that the statements outlined in the Notice should reduce the potential for adverse effects to the environment and are ``appropriate'' within the meaning of 40 CFR 156.10(h)(2)(ii)(E). EPA will make available revised guidance after consideration of public comment. Public comment is not being solicited for the purpose of converting this guidance document into a binding rule. EPA will not be codifying this policy in the Code of Federal Regulations. EPA is soliciting public comment so that it can make fully informed decisions regarding the content of this guidance. The revised guidance will not be an unalterable document. Once a revised guidance document is issued, EPA will continue to treat it as guidance. Accordingly, on a case-by-case basis EPA will decide whether it is appropriate to depart from the guidance or to modify the overall approach in the guidance. List of Subjects Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests. Dated: November 9, 2000. Marcia Mulkey, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs [FR Doc. 00-29815 Filed 11-21-00; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S Article 28224 of sci.agriculture.beekeeping: Path: news2.isis.unc.edu!news-relay.ncren.net!gatech!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsxfer.interpacket.net!cyclone-sjo1.usenetserver.com!news-out.usenetserver.com!newsfeed.telusplanet.net!news1.telusplanet.net.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Kevin"