From MAILER-DAEMON Sun Jan 14 07:40:05 2001 Received: from listserv.albany.edu (listserv.albany.edu [169.226.1.24]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA05010 for ; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 07:40:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from listserv.albany.edu (listserv.albany.edu [169.226.1.24]) by listserv.albany.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA00138 for ; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 07:42:59 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200101141242.HAA00138@listserv.albany.edu> Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 07:42:59 -0500 From: "L-Soft list server at University at Albany (1.8d)" Subject: File: "BEE-L LOG0008E" To: adamf@METALAB.UNC.EDU Content-Length: 123602 Lines: 2663 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 16:22:06 +1200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Ron Law Subject: Labelling of bee products Comments: To: NBA List , NZ Bkprs MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Australia and New Zealand Foods Standards Authority (ANZFA) have just released their inquiry into the labelling of bee products. In short, faced with overwhelming scientific evidence and risk analyses, they have been forced to to retract their draconian warning labels on bee the bee products. They have accepted the NZ Ministerial Scientific Reviews recommendations and are proposing the following: Royal Jelly: Royal Jelly may cause very serious allergic reactions. Asthma suffers are most at risk. The key changes here are removal of the word "fatalities" and targeting the warning to a sub-group (asthmatics) rather than the general population. Bee pollen: Ingredient listing only. Propolis: Ingredient listing only. In their discussions they include reference to false science used to impugn royal jelly. This is an issue that will be followed up as industry has been able to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that published resaerch included false, falsified and duplicated data. Expert evidence has also been proven wildly false. ANZFA now refer to 'at least one death.' Whilst this is a welcome admission that there were not three deaths as has been claimed, they should in fact be referring to 'at most one disputed death.' This is an excellent example of the use of evidence-based risk assessment to determine risk and to derive evidence based and equitable risk management options. It is also encouragement that the system can be successfully challenged. There are still some outstanding issues such as the removal of fraudulent research from official (Australian) government adverse reaction reports. If anyone wants a copy of the 91 page report please email. Regards Ron Law ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 00:24:36 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Vivian Donahue Subject: Hive stands & ventilation Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Many thanks to all who have replied. Only problem is that all of these great suggestions still require CONSTRUCTION. ;-) I am still looking for something that is ready made, and preferably would look nice...... In the meantime I will continue to use my concrete garden benches. On the subject of ventilation, I was wondering what others thought of using both the slatted rack ventilation board along with the screened bottom board? I put my screened bb on the other day, and decided to leave the slatted racks in place since I have them and figured that they can always use more of that sort of space? Will they interfere with mite drop do you think? Vivian Arlington Va ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 02:17:50 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob Harrison Subject: Varroa solution? Dear Bee-L readers, Many have asked for another of my varroa solutions. So i will give another in my opinion worth looking at. Instead of bringing in Russian queens into the U.S. I would have made a importation of A. cerana from Asia. In Asia they are rewriting the beekeeping books with A.Cerana. Because A. Melifera can't live with varroa without chemical treatment in Asia most commercial operations a going only to A. Cerana kept in Langstroth hives. Commercial operations in China report honey production as great with A.cerana as with A.melifera without the varroa headache. Queen breeders in China have developed a line of A. Cerana which has equaled the honey production of A. Melifera, reduces the amount of varroa in the drone broodless period and the mite load at all times is on a scale most researchers would love to proclaim to the world they have reached with A.melifera. I almost didn't do this post because of one drawback with Apis cerana. Apis cerana would need to be brought in carefully (like with the Russian queens)by experts such as Dr. Shiminuki as they are host to another mite Tropilaelaps clarae. When i presented my A cerana importation idea a few years back i was told researchers COULD safely import A. cerana into the U.S. without the mite Tropilaelaps clarae. I know very little about the mite Tropilaelaps clarae as i have been able to find very little information on the mite because the mite is not in the U.S.. I had the same problem with Varroa information before its arrival in the U.S.. In my opinion A. cerana might be a better solution than A. melifera on 4.9mm foundation do to the fact of no step down process and varroa can't reproduce in worker cells of A cerana. My understanding is in Asia A. cerana hosts both varroa and Tropilaelaps clarae without need for chemical treatments and has for many many years. Bob Harrison ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 09:26:39 +0200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Mike Allsopp Organization: ARC PLANT PROTECTION Subject: Cell size & varroa MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Greetings all Without getting too involved in the debate concerning the merits of smaller cell size in the control of varroa, I think that I should report that the worker foundation used here in South Africa has a diameter of approximately 4.9 mm - and that so far varroa has shown itself to be very capable of reproduction in these worker cells, the short post-capping time of African bees notwithstanding. Probably the best source of information on comb building by honeybees is Randall Hepburn's book "Honeybees & Wax", published in 1986. In this he reports that the cell diameter of "natural" African honeybee comb is 4.9 mm, and that the minimum acceptable diameter is 4.8 mm. Hence, we are using the correct wax foundation for our bees, they will not accept a smaller diameter, and the cell size at present does not prevent varroa reproduction. European bees on the other hand have an average cell diameter of 5.7 mm (according to Hepburn), but are extremely variable. It would probably be possible to reduce this considerably (which would also probably have considerable and negative pleiotropic effects), but surely not as much as 4.9 mm or beyond. best regards Mike Allsopp Stellenbosch, South Africa Mike Allsopp tel (27)(21) 887-4690 Honeybee Research Section fax (27)(21) 883-3285 Plant Protection Research Institute pmail plant3/vredma Agricultural Research Council email vredma@plant3.agric.za P/Bag X5017 Stellenbosch 7599 South Africa ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 04:30:37 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Robert Brenchley Subject: Man created varroa problem Does anyone out there know why the larger cell size was used in the first place? EB Wedmore, in 'A Manual of Beekeeping' (1946, reprinted 1975) maintains that 'If the cell diameter is such as to cramp the bee, the workers produced therein are undersized and particularly in tongue-length and size of honey sac'(p.78)but does not give sources for this. What effect, if any, does cutting down the cell size have on the size of the bee, and does this have any effect on honey-gathering capacity? Regards, Robert Brenchley RSBrenchley@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 18:58:51 +1000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: T & M Weatherhead Subject: Re: Man created Varroa problem MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bob Harrison wrote > As i said in a previous post the large cell (man created)foundation is the > cause of Varroa Jacobsoni to switch host from Apis Cerana to A. Melifera. > In 1985 "Encylopedia of Beekeeping" was printed and is edited by Roger > Morse and Ted Hooper. The book convenced me in 1985 of the source of the > problem. Very little was known about Varroa then and all that was was put in the > book including a map on page 396 of worldwide varroa distribution. I have been following this cell size debate with interest. However, I thought that there should be an update on the information above. As we now know Varroa jacobsoni does not reproduce on Apis mellifera and it is Varroa destructor that is the pathogenic variety. This is from the recent work by Dr. Denis Anderson. Having heard Dr. Anderson talk on several occasions, he says that the reason why this is so is that there are triggers that the different Varroas need to lay eggs. The real Varroa jacobsoni does all the things that Varroa destructor does except that it does not lay the eggs. Varroa jacobsoni enters the cell just before capping, it hids in the food at the bottom of the cell and later emerges and positions itself on the same position on the pupating larvae but does not go to the next phase of laying eggs. It even makes the same mark on the abdomen. So cell size is certainly not the point here as Varroa jacobsoni has the opportunity to reproduce in the large cell that we provide for the bees. I have measured some that we produce here in Australia and the average cell size for those I measured in between 5.4 and 5.7mm. The other interesting factor is that there is a link between the different species of Varroa and different subspecies of Apis cerana. Varroa jacobsoni will not reproduce on the subspecies of cerana that Varroa destructor reproduces on and vice versa. Dr. Anderson is continuing to work on the Varroa destructor problem and has hinted that he has some idea what the triggers are. It is hoped that he can fulfill this research and bring relief to thousands of beekeepers world wide. Trevor Weatherhead AUSTRALIA ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 21:57:06 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dennis Crutchfield Subject: Two queen setup In-Reply-To: <200008290237.WAA06834@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello folks, I was just wondering , on a two queen setup, do you break them down into two hives, before winter sets in or leave them together? thanks Dennis ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 11:15:58 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dave Cushman Subject: Re: Man created Varroa problem MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Robert Over the last century, the thread on increasing cellsize is well documented but not part of most beekeeper's knowledge base. I wish that I had been more aware of it 25 years ago...Varroa or no varroa I would have tried to redress the balance. I have come to this discussion from a different angle...I have seen plenty of evidence that shows that cellsize affects bee size (although most of the experiments were striving for a larger bee)...See Beowulf Cooper's work about 25 years ago ISBN 0-905369-06-8 "The Honeybees of the British Isles" published by BIBBA. My reason to look at cellsize was to find a mechanism to discriminate against italian genes in my local Apis Melliffera Mellifera population. If at the same time I have a management technique that slows down the Varroa breeding process, all well and good (acarine or tracheal mite are not much of a problem in UK anyway). Too many people are arguing about this...Rather than conducting the trails themselves to broaden the data. You will get no help from the establishment or from supply houses...Try asking for 4.9mm foundation and see what assistance you get! I do not claim to have the answers nor these days do I have the resources or physical strength for large scale trials, but for my own satisfaction I will perform a few experiments...I have a feeling that there is much more in this than most people are prepared to accept. The trials are not difficult so how about some more activity? Perhaps Robert Mann is in a position to do some of the trails at his establishment? That would redress the ballance as far "evidence on its efficacy" is concerned. There is another aspect here that may be appropriate to New Zealand and their current "newness" of infestation. As each country has been invaded by varroa they have all adopted their own research projects into "Varroa". As a result the "Learning Curve" has been revisited two dozen times in about as many years. I would urge New Zealand to build on some of this work rather than duplicate it. At least as the latest to be invaded you should be able to learn by the mistakes that have been made by others. APISTAN will work as a "quick fix" while you get your act together. As regards a programme including several other chemical methods including thymol, formic acid. By all means make these trials BUT make your starting point the current "state of the art" even if it does mean accepting data from other sources. The physical control method (cellsize) needs testing in wide open spaces on large numbers of colonies. I would have thought that New Zealand had both requirements in abundance. All that is really needed is the audacity to "go for it". Regardless of my humble opinions, (you will find some more of them on my website), I wish New Zealand success in their venture. Best Regards, Dave Cushman G8MZY Email: dave.cushman@lineone.net Website...Beekeeping and Bee Breeding http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert Mann > discussion on this list is interesting but patchy. > Our officials have been sluggish to respond to the emergency, > The idea of smaller-distance foundation is tantalising. I just > wish I could readily see more evidence on its efficacy. - > Robt Mann > consultant ecologist > P O Box 28878 Remuera, Auckland 1005, New Zealand > (9) 524 2949 > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 11:36:22 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dave Cushman Subject: Re: Cell Size MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Peter Reply to Peter Borst > I am searching for some more information on cell size and its > effect on varroa infestation. Whilst varroa is an obvious issue here, there are other ramifications...Have a look at my recent post to Robert Mann. There seems to be a lot of info on the > one side of the issue and not much on the other (ie., that it won't > work Many of the passionate opinions held on this subject are are often rejected simply due to their passionate nature. I have tried to maintain a logical standpoint on this issue whilst I find some of the elements simple and compelling, they are in definite need of rigorous testing. I do not think you will find both sides of the issue presented methodically without bias. Perhaps someone such as yourself is in a position to collate the data for and against? My humble opinion is that not enough testing is being done using bees rather than human breath. Best Regards, Dave Cushman G8MZY Email: dave.cushman@lineone.net Website...Beekeeping and Bee Breeding http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Monday, August 28, 2000 7:39 PM Subject: Re: Cell Size ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 05:15:00 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Barry Birkey Subject: Re: Man created varroa problem In-Reply-To: <200008290855.EAA14221@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit > Does anyone out there know why the larger cell size was used in the first > place? A Biometrical Study of the Influence of Size of Brood Cell Upon the Size and Variability of the Honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) by Roy A. Grout, 1931 INTRODUCTION http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/grout/intro.htm "Baudoux (7) in Belgium was the first to conceive the idea of using a larger size of cell by increasing the size of the cell base on the artificial foundation given to the bees. Others who have worked along this line are Pincot, according to Gillet-Croix (26), and Lovchinovskaya (39). The work of the first two has not been of a very scientific nature but convincing to the extent that manufacturing houses are selling foundation with enlarged cells and claiming good results for the use of same." REVIEW OF LITERATURE http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/grout/review5.htm "Baudoux (7), of Belgium, was the first to advocate the use of artificial foundation with an enlarged cell base. In 1893, he reports that a Mr. Fromont measured natural combs and found that the greater part had 825 cells per square decimeter in comparison with certain sheets of artificial foundation which had as high as 907 cells per square decimeter. Baudoux, struck by the reduction in the size of bees from an old skep containing combs having 912 cells per square decimeter, conceived the idea of raising bees in enlarged cells. He accomplished this by means of stretching normal foundation to the size he desired and had by 1896 sufficiently proved his point in Belgium, that a manufacturing company began to place upon the market artificial foundation having an enlarged cell base. It was Baudoux's contention that the nurse bees, following a natural instinct, filled the bottom of the larger cell more copiously with larval food, that this resulted in a larger bee, He also intimated that the larger bee would generate more body heat which would result in a greater quantity of brood." ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 06:27:53 -0500 Reply-To: busybeeacres@discoverynet.com Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: bob harrison Subject: Re: Cell size & varroa MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mike Allsopp wrote: > > Greetings all > > Without getting too involved in the debate concerning the merits of > smaller cell size in the control of varroa, I think that I should report > that the worker foundation used here in South Africa has a > diameter of approximately 4.9 mm - and that so far varroa has > shown itself to be very capable of reproduction in these worker > cells, the short post-capping time of African bees notwithstanding. >Hello Mike, It seems from most i have talked to that the varroa problems are still there at 4.9mm but easier to manage. Would you agree or maybe you haven't seen varroa on say 5.4+mm foundation. > Probably the best source of information on comb building by > honeybees is Randall Hepburn's book "Honeybees & Wax", > published in 1986. In this he reports that the cell diameter of > "natural" African honeybee comb is 4.9 mm, and that the minimum > acceptable diameter is 4.8 mm. Hence, we are using the correct > wax foundation for our bees, they will not accept a smaller > diameter, and the cell size at present does not prevent varroa > reproduction. At 4.9mm the amount of female varroa able to reproduce in a cell is very limited and at 4.7mm varroa is said not to be able to reproduce in worker cells. It is my opinion that A. Melifera could be made to reproduce and thrive on 4.7mm but thats only my opinion and yet to be proven or disproven. > > European bees on the other hand have an average cell diameter of > 5.7 mm (according to Hepburn), but are extremely variable. It would > probably be possible to reduce this considerably (which would also > probably have considerable and negative pleiotropic effects), but > surely not as much as 4.9 mm or beyond. 5.7mm would be on the highest end of the scale according to all the feral comb we have measured. One manufacturer of foundation has comb of the 5.2mm size in the U.S.. Kelly co. offers a 5.7mm comb for honey supers and thats the largest we found in the U.S.. I don't want to offend Hepburn but i would disagree to 5.7mm being average cell diameter for European bees. I looked up average cell size in these books. Encyclopedia of Beekeeping- 5mm average worker cells ABC XYZ of Beekeeping- 825-850 cells to the square decimeter New Hive and the honey- bee Apis melifera scutellata 1000 cells decimter other apis melifera- 857 cells per decimeter All much less than 5.7mm. Sincerely, Bob Harrison > > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 07:38:50 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Man created Varroa problem MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Way back, when I was brand new beekeeper in the early 90s, I sent a letter to the editor of Gleanings that said we were breeding for Varroa because of cell size. It got little response. When I finally got on the internet, I searched for research that proved my supposition. There was on study done and it disproved it, but not conclusively. If my memory is correct, it was done in Sweden by a grad student. So there is at least one study and it is in accord with Mike Allsopp's comments on cell size and its lack of effect on varroa. I did try smaller size foundation on my hives about six years ago and had excellent success until last winter. But two years ago I added different plastic foundation to my three hives to trial the differences between them. As editor of our state newsletter, my experiments are a good source of articles, especially on what not to do :) So, did the larger plastic foundation cell size cause my hive loss or was it apistan resistant varroa or were my naturally mated queens now more susceptible to varroa or was it really tracheal or was it bad honey or was it robbing from a new beekeeper's hives in the area or was it.... Any of those things could have caused the loss of two of my colonies. But, if I were an earnest proponent of small cell size, then obviously the introduction of larger plastic foundation cell size is the reason. I would disregard all else. There are too many variables out there to say it works. We have different Varroa. Many of us allow natural requeening so we select for our area as well as mite tolerance. So we have different bees as well as different varroa. We may be in an area that Varroa is absent because all the feral colonies were killed off. The bees may forage on nectar or pollen that naturally controls varroa. Our own beekeeping practices, like smoking the hives or not, and with what kind of fuel can influence varroa numbers. Do we use screened bottom boards. Pollen traps. I think you get the picture. With the number of variables out there, without controlled tests, we are no better than my letter to the editor, a reasoned guess. The guess may be correct, but I originally thought FGMO was too. And in view of Mike Allsopp's comments, we may be looking at the wrong reason that some are enjoying success with small cell size. Bill Truesdell Bath, ME ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 12:21:08 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dave Cushman Subject: Re: Man created varroa problem MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all I reply to Robert Brenchley's post of August 29, 2000 9:30 AM The circumstances that Wedmore referred to was in a population of bees that had already been artificially enlarged so that they would have longer tongues. There was a widely held opinion that such bees could gather more honey. I now believe that smaller bees are more efficient. These are not really smaller they are just the same size as they were 100 years ago. Thus the smaller faster bee is capable of gathering more honey due to shorter flying times and longer working lives. There are overwintering advantages in the more compact brood nest and if there is a better resistance to varroa and acarine mite then all these features seem to point to better and easier beekeeping by re-establishing the bees at the size they were before we altered them. Best Regards, Dave Cushman G8MZY Email: dave.cushman@lineone.net Website...Beekeeping and Bee Breeding http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 06:54:01 -0500 Reply-To: busybeeacres@discoverynet.com Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: bob harrison Subject: Re: Two queen setup MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dennis Crutchfield wrote: > > Hello folks, > I was just wondering , on a two queen setup, do you break them down into two > hives, before winter sets in or leave them together? > thanks > Dennis Hello Dennis, Haven't talked to you in awhile. Most people combine the colony in Missouri after the honey flow has started. About June 10th. I assume you still live in Missouri! eggs layed after then will not help with the main honey flow and when they become workers will eat a huge amount of your honey crop if supers are not pulled after main flow is over. I assume they are still seperate so if you want increase you could seperate and go thru the winter with two colonies. Sincerely, Bob Harrison ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 11:26:54 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Aaron Morris Subject: Pictures of a Drone and Queen MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" A friend of mine from the Catskill Mountains Beekeepers Association seeks a picture of a drone and a picture of a queen to use on T-Shirts they are making up for their association members. I am able to find suitable pictures in cyberspace, but I do not want to infringe on copy rights. If you have a suitable picture that you are willing to DONATE to a small beekeeping association, please send it to me privately, off list. I thank you, and the Catskill Mountains Beekeepers Association thanks you. Aaron Morris ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 15:39:11 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Ted Fischer Subject: Re: Spotted Knapweed Checking several of my wildflower reference books, Spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) is indeed what we know here in Michigan as Star thistle. While the western (yellow) variety of knapweed may well be a pest weed, I agree with Ellen Anglin that our light purple flowered plant is a wonderful nectar source here in Michigan. It is our major honey flow, at least in southeastern Michigan. I have never seen it to invade hay or grain fields here - it always keeps to roadsides and unused lands, and seems easily to be replaced by lawns and gardens when fallow farms go up for sale and turn into urbanized subdivisions. One of the nicest features of star thistle honey is that it granlates very slowly. I had a couple barrels of the 1999 harvest which were still perfectly liquid (but very stiff) at the end of April 2000. Ted Fischer Dexter, Michigan USA ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 17:12:08 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dennis M Murrell Subject: screened bottom board inserts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello, I have used screened bottom board inserts above a migratory bottom board to monitor varroa mite fall. They are constructed like the commercial models available with a removable tray which can be accessed from the front or back of the hive. Upon removing a tray for inspection I have observed an occasional bee or two fly from the tray area. I caught one of these bees and it could have been used as the model in a varroa treatment advertisement. The mites were hitching a ride back home. Some preliminary results on the Russian F1 queens( blue line) versus my own low mite queens selected from commercial bee stock. Initially weekly mite fall from all the hives was less about 1 mite/day. After the Russian bees emerged mite fall decreased to less than .3 mites/day and has remained at that level. Mite fall from my own stock has steadily increased to 5 mites/day. Best Wishes Dennis Murrell Casper, WY ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 20:42:39 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: BeeCrofter@AOL.COM Subject: West Nile Spraying MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The morning paper showed a picture of the spray truck heading out in Westerly RI USA to control adult mosquitos. They were spraying sumethrin from a pickup truck. The street lights and the headlights of cars were clearly lit in the photo. Nice to see someone read the label. They found a dead crow which tested positive for the virus. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 4 Jan 1980 19:02:17 -0600 Reply-To: cspacek@ev1.net Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: curtis spacek Subject: cell size and varroa control MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit there may well be a correlation between cell size and varroa breeding habits.two years ago I quit putting foundation in my brood boxes and the brood boxes which had foundation had brood comb several years old thus reducing cell size.when inspecting hives for mites I would select a section of sealed brood of appr. 4 square inches and removing the caps,pulled larvae from the cells with tweezers to check for mites and rarely found any mites at all.however,drone cells occasionally would contain 3-4 mites in anywhere from 10% to 40% of cells inspected.those interested may try using smaller celled foumdation in brood boxes and standard foundation in supers or flatten cell impressions of brood box foundation and allow the bees to build cells of their own design.I have found in removing old comb if at least 1" of comb is left at the top of the frame the bees will build new comb in the proper orientation to the frames thus cutting foundation expenses for brood chambers. curtis ,texas coast ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 19:40:37 +0200 Reply-To: Gilles RATIA Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Gilles RATIA Organization: Apiservices Subject: Re: Wax press MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Murray McGregor wrote: >>>>>>>> There is a perfectly good wax press commercially made by Limousin Apiculture in France, and exported worldwide. <<<<<<<< You can see their website (and their address) at: http://www.beekeeping.com/limousin-apiculture/index.htm#english Best regards, Gilles RATIA Beekeeping Consultant Webmaster of the "Virtual Beekeeping Gallery" http://www.beekeeping.com President of the Apimondia Standing Commission on Beekeeping Technology and Equipment APISERVICES Beekeeping Development "Le Terrier" F-24420 Coulaures - FRANCE Email: gilles.ratia@apiservices.com Web: http://www.apiservices.com Phone: +33 (0)5 53 05 91 13 Mobile: +33 (0)6 07 68 49 39 Fax: +33 (0)5 53 05 44 57 Do not dial (0) out of France ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 00:48:05 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter Borst Subject: Re: Cell size and varroa In-Reply-To: <200008300400.AAA09909@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Greetings So far I have had little success at getting both sides of the issue of small cells. A certain number of people are *convinced* that small cells control varroa but no one offers any scientific studies that demonstrate it. In order to justify the thousands (or tens of thousands) of dollars that would be required to convert a bee business to smaller cells, there has to be *proof.* If varroa is controlled in southern Arizona -- and they use small cell foundation -- what does this mean? It may mean it works. It may mean they all have Africanized bees, which can ward off mites. It may mean the mites have succumbed to some disease of their own! Who knows? It has to be field tested in a variety of locations and climates. It has to be field tested side by side with regular hives in the same apiary. And even if it does work at first, will it continue to work or will the varroa adapt in 7 or 8 years (as they have done with Apistan) leaving everyone sadder and wiser? We all want to control varroa without chemicals. Already many people avoid honey because the have *heard* that it contains chemicals. (Never mind that so does all the rest of their food). But we all want something that works, especially if it is extremely costly. I don't know why this idea hasn't caught on. I am still trying to find out. I have been criticized for being skeptical, but that is the cardinal rule of scientific study. You've got to have proof, no matter how pretty the theory. Peter Borst plb6@cornell.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 08:03:47 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Alan Riach Subject: Cell size - What it mean ? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit What is the standard being used as a measurement? Inside diametral measure half way down the cell? Cell pitch (cell to cell centreline distance)? Is there a standard correlation between number of cells per square decimetre (10cm x 10cm.) and cell size? As with all scientific studies the metrology is important. Alan Riach Bathgate, Edinburgh ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 06:51:53 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: reno Subject: Swarm Capture MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I captured a small swarm and placed it into a nuc box and placed on a hive stand. The bull ants attacked and the queen and lots of bees were lost. I have about a double hand full of bees left over. They are sitting around in groups. I opened my other hives looking for a frame of brood with a capped queen cell, no luck. I saw some small larvae in uncapped cells on several deep frames but I do not think I have enough bees to cover the entire frame. What can I do, short of ordering another queen, to save these bees ? Thanks, Will Lewis.. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 08:49:08 -0400 Reply-To: beemann@kingston.net Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: kent stienburg Subject: Re: Swarm Capture MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Will, Well, first, you want eggs not larvae for the queen. Second, you will need a healthy supply of royal jelly from a good population of nurse bees. From your post it appears that there are very few bees left in the nuc. So either start one fresh with a queen or unite the survivors with your other colony. Since I'm not sure where you are it's hard to give you an accurate suggestion on whether it's a good idea to start a nuc now. Best of luck. Kent ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 10:22:43 -0700 Reply-To: gregoire@endor.com Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Ernest J. Gregoire" Subject: Re: Swarm Capture MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Just dump them into a strong colony. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 07:29:56 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: Cell size - What it mean ? In-Reply-To: <200008301131.HAA14654@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > What is the standard being used as a measurement? > Inside diametral measure half way down the cell? > Cell pitch (cell to cell centreline distance)? > Is there a standard correlation between number of cells per square > decimetre (10cm x 10cm.) and cell size? > As with all scientific studies the metrology is important. Check out http://www.rossrounds.com/HoneyBee/Misc/CellCount.htm That page is the result of several days of hard work last spring (in collaboration with Barry) trying to find any conclusive justification for Lusby's theories. Barry and I drew different conclusions from the effort. There is a chart on the referenced page that converts all the valid measuring systems from one to another. Without it, trying to understand all the talk on cell size is impossible (IMO) and I always refer to it when the various measurements come up in debate. FWIW, the conclusion I reached with this whole matter as a result of my study is that *maybe* there is a baby in the bathwater, but if there is, the explanation is very probably not the one which is given by Lusbys, although there may be some truth in some of their hypotheses. IMO, natural cell size has not changed over 100 years in the bees that are used in Europe and North America. In some cases, the bee genotype has been changed by importation and migration and selection, and we all know that different bees use different cell size. We also know that different people vary in their reading and reasoning skills. To me that explains the controversy. As for the effects of cell size on both the bees and varroa, it is obvious to me that proper controlled observations or experiments have not been made. We have a collection of anecdotal evidence. That is usually the basis for the beginning of an investigation, not the basis for drawing conclusions. allen --- A Beekeeper's Diary: http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Diary/ Package bees, winter loss, fondant, Pierco vs. Permadent vs. dark comb, unwrapping, splitting, raising queens, AFB, varroa, protein patties, moving bees, pollination experiences, daily mumblings and more... Thousands served... ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 13:42:17 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Stan Sandler Subject: Beesize(was: Man created varroa problem) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Dave Cushman wrote: >The circumstances that Wedmore referred to was in a population of bees that >had already been artificially enlarged so that they would have longer >tongues. There was a widely held opinion that such bees could gather more >honey. In my particular circumstance a bee with a larger tongue would most definitely collect more honey. In Prince Edward Island almost all the clover in hayfields is red clover. At one time alsike clover was also included in hayseed and showed up in good quantity in second year fields, but with present alsike clover prices this has been dropped, and in addition a great deal of clover hay is plowed up after a single year now as it is in rotation with potatoes. I am not sure why size of the bee is a constraint on length of the tongue. Could not selection be made just for a longer tongue? It is pretty frustrating to walk through huge fields of clover in full bloom with the only buzz coming from bumblebees. >I now believe that smaller bees are more efficient. These are not really >smaller they are just the same size as they were 100 years ago. Thus the >smaller faster bee is capable of gathering more honey due to shorter flying >times and longer working lives. Please elaborate on this reasoning Dave. Why is a smaller bee necessarily more efficient? Why should a smaller bee necessarily be faster? Why should it live longer? >There are overwintering advantages in the >more compact brood nest Larger bees have a more favourable surface to volume ratio for resistance to cold. Why should the brood nest of small bees be more compact? Bumblebees are certainly able to fly and work at much lower temperatures than honeybees. The larger size also enables them to buzz pollinate. On the whole, except for the difficulties in producing and maintaining large numbers of them bumblebees are way way ahead of honeybees as pollinators (of some things such as blueberries and pumpkins anyway). > and if there is a better resistance to varroa and >acarine mite then all these features seem to point to better and easier >beekeeping by re-establishing the bees at the size they were before we >altered them. I have difficulty following the argument about size. If the cell size is bigger then I can see where it might make for more space for varroa. But if both the cell size AND the bee size are bigger then where is the extra space? The larva will still fill the cell. And I might note that in a thread on varroa on the bombus list a few years ago it was mentioned that although bumblebees have been seen with varroa mites sometimes, they do not persist in their colonies because they chew them up (bigger size, bigger mandibles). It was claimed that when they were experimentally infected with varroa that the sound of them crunching them up was quite audible. Regards, Stan ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 14:35:30 -0500 Reply-To: busybeeacres@discoverynet.com Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: bob harrison Subject: Re: Beesize(was: Man created varroa problem) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Stan Sandler wrote: > I have difficulty following the argument about size. Hello Stan, Most people do and as long as the interest is there i will try to explain and will quote facts from the only books i can find on the subject. We all learn from questions. I posted "Man created varroa problem"now Beesize so will add another direction. If the cell size is > bigger then I can see where it might make for more space for varroa. But if > both the cell size AND the bee size are bigger then where is the extra > space? The larva will still fill the cell. I think by now most bee-L readers have realized (maybe for the first time)that man did indeed enlarge the cell size of A.melifera over the last 100 years. Longer tounge? Bigger is better? If A melifera and A. cerana are almost identical then Why can varroa not reproduce in A. cerana worker cells? The obvious difference is size 4.7mm A.cerana 5.4mm A.melifera. Quote: from page 22 of "The Varroa Handbook" In the Indian bee,Apis Cerana ,varroa mites are unable to reproduce in worker brood. Researchers have a few theorys on the above. All unproven and only theorys. I say to those researchers with their theorys which they can't prove that cell size does to me seem the most obvious answer. Dr. Erickson(Arizona Bee Lab)wrote in 1997: We have seen a 40% survival rate in varroa mite-infected hives equipped with honeycombs that have the smaller,more natural -sized cells that bees would create on their own. Hives with the larger commercial starter cells DIED out. Through EXPERIMENTS,we've learned that honey bees survive a varroa mite infestation better if they have combs with a diameter 22 percent smaller then we have used in the past. Quote from page 657 of the Aug. 2000 American Bee Journal: Spivak and Boecking(2000)wrote "despite some claims to the contrary,there are no BEEKEEPERS OR RESEARCHERS who have successfully bred a line of bees that is varroa resistant. comment: All beekeepers myself included have seen colonies which seemed to exist with varroa for whatever the reason BUT breeding a line resistant to varroa has not yet been realized! maybe breeding is not the answer or maybe the researchers will develope a line but the above is the sad truth on Aug.30,2000. Also converting all the worlds bees to the resistant line would take more time than converting the foundation to small cell and the varroa time bomb is ticking. Is not converting all bees in all countrys to this new line what they are suggesting or HAVEN"T they thought the whole thing through? Food for thought: The Russian queens are 500 U.S. and come without a money back warrenty. In jest i say a recall would be in order! I do BELIEVE the breeding program is worthwhile and needs extra funding. I have attended several of marla Spivics talks. Bought her book and tape and Don't even claim to be on the level of our bee breeders. I am truly sorry they haven't came up with a varroa resistant bee. The sad truth remains: no resistant strain of bees and varroa resistant to our chemicals. Could small cell size be the answer? Bob Harrison > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 16:29:55 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Lipscomb, Al" Subject: Re: Beesize(was: Man created varroa problem) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain >> If the cell size is >> bigger then I can see where it might make for more space for varroa. But if >> both the cell size AND the bee size are bigger then where is the extra >> space? The larva will still fill the cell. >I think by now most bee-L readers have realized (maybe for the first >time)that man did indeed enlarge the cell size of A.melifera over the >last 100 years. Longer tounge? Bigger is better? I don't want to sound mean spirited or anti-anything here but the claim of survival rate using such and such control method has shown up so many times here that overly-cautious attitutes are not uncommon. I can see the question as a good on. My first thought would be that the pupa leaves a percentage of the cell open and with the larger cell size the open space is greater. The problem is that swarms that leave a nice man-made hive with its "incorrect" foundation sizes should be the perfect control for this theory. Feral colonies should have the edge as they have no foundation to base their cell size on. But that's not what we see. Feral colonies die out fast in infested areas. Top bar hives should also show an attraction to low mite rate. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 10:25:31 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Barry Birkey Subject: Re: Cell size - What it mean ? In-Reply-To: <200008301337.JAA17486@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit >As for the effects of cell size on both > the bees and varroa, it is obvious to me that proper controlled observations > or > experiments have not been made. We have a collection of anecdotal evidence. > > That is usually the basis for the beginning of an investigation, not the basis > for drawing conclusions. > > allen Hi Allen - It appears we both agree on this one point! My next question: who is stepping forward in the scientific community doing the "proper controlled observations and experiments"? People can continue to denounce the significance of the cell size in regards to the effects on the mites and point to the fact that there are "no" studies to prove it but that says little, if no one will take existing information, written and field (as in real live bees in hives that their caretakers have so often asked to be inspected and tested for proof), and give us some hardcore scientific studies!! If this cell size debate is so off the wall, it should be a snap for our researchers to gather enough evidence to say so in proper scientific papers. It looks to me like the Lusby's have done just about everything they can do on their end to be open to all about what is working for them. Now it should be the bee science community to take it to the next level. All I hear is silence. I'll continue to wait. Regards, Barry ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 07:55:18 +1000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: T & M Weatherhead Subject: Re: Beesize MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bob Harrison wrote > If A melifera and A. cerana are almost identical then Why can varroa > not reproduce in A. cerana worker cells? > > The obvious difference is size 4.7mm A.cerana 5.4mm A.melifera. What is meant by "almost identical"? I believe they are poles apart as has been my experience in quarantine work. We were looking for ways to develope to detect cerana and kept comparing cerana to mellifera and kept coming up against a barrier. The classic example was with pheremones. We tried to use mellifera pheremone to attract cerana and it did not work. We ended up having to develope a pheremone just for cerana. It could be the case that it will only work on Apis cereana javana and not on the other subspecies but we do not know at this stage. So don't make the same mistake I made in thinking that mellifera and cerana act similarly. The only common factor, as I see it, is that they both collect nectar and turn it into honey. Oh and they also sting. Varroa does enter the worker cells of cerana and can be found in worker cells. However there is some trigger that is not present that that cues the female varroa to lay eggs. Is it cell size? Is it chemical? Is it pheremone related? However, when Varroa destructor transferred over to Apis mellifera, it received the same signal from both workers and drones but Varroa jacobsoni does not receive the same signals. If it was purely cell size, why then does jacobsoni not reproduce on mellifera in larger cells? When thinking about cell size why should it be that the size will determine if the female varroa will lay eggs or not? In the early stages of pupation, the pupa does not fill out the whole of the cell so there is plenty of room for the female varroa to lay egs. If cell size was the criteria and did not allow the young varroa to develop because there was not enough room then you should be able to see dead underdeveloped varroa in the cell with the pupating bee. Has this ever been seen? For the record, I would be in favour of a scientific experiment to check out the cell size theory but at this point in time I am not convinced by the cell size theory. I believe it is some trigger, as outlined by Dr. Denis Anderson, that determines if the female varroa lays eggs. Beekeepers should read Dr. Anderson's work as it was not until he published that we knew that there was more than one species of varroa. The pathogenic species attacking mellifera was being called Varroa jacobsoni but is now called Varroa destructor. Trevor Weatherhead AUSTRALIA ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 18:04:10 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: CSlade777@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Man created varroa problem MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Murray McGregor is right in pointing out that there has been very little real science done on small cells as a control for varroa. I share his opinion that there are some suspect theories mixed up with the practice but I am reluctant to risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater until all aspects have been thoroughly tested. We have on this list about 1000 people with inquiring minds, a greater or lesser scientific bent/training, bees and varroa. Can we together DO some science rather than just write and argue about it? How many people will spare time from their keyboards and spend time this winter (summer for our antipodean friends) making up small celled foundation to try for a few years to give the theory a proper test that can be scientifically documented and peer reviewed. If small celled foundation is the answer to the varroa question those who take part in the science will have the satisfaction of being part of a small footnote in the history of beekeeping. If it is not the answer you can have the satisfaction of saying "I thought so all along, but as a scientist I gave it a fair trial" Chris Slade ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 15:28:08 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: John Edwards Organization: Hayden Bee Research Center, USDA-ARS,Tucson, Arizona Subject: Re: Cell size - What it mean ? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Allen Dick wrote: > .............. > FWIW, the conclusion I reached with this whole matter as a result of my study is > that *maybe* there is a baby in the bathwater, but if there is, the explanation > is very probably not the one which is given by Lusbys, although there may be > some truth in some of their hypotheses. > > IMO, natural cell size has not changed over 100 years in the bees that are used > in Europe and North America. In some cases, the bee genotype has been changed > by importation and migration and selection, and we all know that different bees > use different cell size. > > We also know that different people vary in their reading and reasoning skills. > To me that explains the controversy. As for the effects of cell size on both > the bees and varroa, it is obvious to me that proper controlled observations or > experiments have not been made. We have a collection of anecdotal evidence. > > That is usually the basis for the beginning of an investigation, not the basis > for drawing conclusions. > > allen > Sir, I am in perfect agreement with you on this subject. - I am not in a position to initiate research projects, and I do not understand why others have not. These opinions are my own, and do not reflect the views or policies of the USDA. - John Edwards Tucson, Arizona ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 15:49:00 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: John Edwards Organization: Hayden Bee Research Center, USDA-ARS,Tucson, Arizona Subject: Re: Man created Varroa problem MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dave Cushman wrote: ................... > Too many people are arguing about this...Rather than conducting the trails > themselves to broaden the data. You will get no help from the establishment > or from supply houses...Try asking for 4.9mm foundation and see what > assistance you get! > > I do not claim to have the answers nor these days do I have the resources or > physical strength for large scale trials, but for my own satisfaction I will > perform a few experiments...I have a feeling that there is much more in this > than most people are prepared to accept. The trials are not difficult so how > about some more activity? > ........................... > > The physical control method (cellsize) needs testing in wide open spaces on > large numbers of colonies. I would have thought that New Zealand had both > requirements in abundance. All that is really needed is the audacity to "go > for it". IMHO only, I really believe the Lusbys and others (who are in possession of rollers to produce small cell foundation) are missing the boat. They have produced a demand - - now who will fill it ?? Why couldn't South African foundation be imported even ?? - John Edwards, Tucson ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 15:34:55 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: Beesize(was: Man created varroa problem) In-Reply-To: <200008302040.QAA00777@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > The problem is that swarms that leave a nice man-made hive with its > "incorrect" foundation sizes should be the perfect control for this theory. > Feral colonies should have the edge as they have no foundation to base their > cell size on. But that's not what we see. Feral colonies die out fast in > infested areas. Top bar hives should also show an attraction to low mite > rate. Right. I agree with you, and all this is obvious to most of us, but Dee has introduced a 'magic' idea that confounds simple, direct approaches to the question, and that is the idea of 'retrogressing'. 'Retrogress' is indeed a word and it refers to returning to a more primitive and inferior state -- according to the several dictionaries I consulted. As I understand it, central to the whole idea of using 4.9 foundation for bees that are more accustomed to using cells in the 5.2 to 5.4 range, is that such bees must be 'retrogressed'. Again, as I understand the concept, the bees are introduced to 4.9 in stages. Since they cannot adapt to it suddenly, they must be given smaller and smaller foundation in succeeding years until they adapt to the smaller size. Needless to say, this sounds bizarre to anyone who has spent much time in university or even high school biology classes. The whole concept runs directly counter to the basic beliefs and understandings of those who have studied biology. This is probably why few scientists will even mention the matter publicly, although I know they discuss it politely and thoughtfully -- but sceptically -- in private. I know. I've been with a group of a half dozen or so bee scientists when the topic came up at dinner. Although the whole idea seems like heresy to scientists, good scientists know that all new truths begin as heresy, so although they are very interested, they are reluctant to comment pro or con. They rather adapt a wait-and-see attitude while trying to grasp how the idea could have merit, and what forces are really at work here. allen --- A Beekeeper's Diary: http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Diary/ Package bees, winter loss, fondant, Pierco vs. Permadent vs. dark comb, unwrapping, splitting, raising queens, AFB, varroa, protein patties, moving bees, pollination experiences, daily mumblings and more... Thousands served... ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 00:51:37 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: James Kilty Subject: Re: Varroa solution? In-Reply-To: <200008290849.EAA14081@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 In message <200008290849.EAA14081@listserv.albany.edu>, Bob Harrison writes >In my opinion A. cerana might be a better solution than A. melifera on 4.9mm >foundation do to the fact of no step down process and varroa can't reproduce >in worker cells of A cerana. My understanding is in Asia A. cerana hosts >both varroa and Tropilaelaps clarae without need for chemical treatments and >has for many many years. The main problem with this would seem to be that without the agreement of every beekeeper in the countries/continents into which a.c. is introduced you will be foisting all the concomitant problems on everyone else. In this case, tropilaeleps clareae has been suggested as a potentially worse problem than varroa destructor. There may be others no-one has thought of. Now to get 2 or more beekeepers to agree on anything is little short of a miracle! We have problems because of mixing *races* of A.m. in one locality and I cannot imagine a whole country agreeing to standardise on one race only. They have tried and failed, even in Germany where A.m.carnica was to be the standard. -- James Kilty ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 13:15:51 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: Cell size & varroa In-Reply-To: <200008290852.EAA14150@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > ...I think that I should report > that the worker foundation used here in South Africa has a > diameter of approximately 4.9 mm I think this might be an import/export opportunity for someone(s). allen --- A Beekeeper's Diary: http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Diary/ Package bees, winter loss, fondant, Pierco vs. Permadent vs. dark comb, unwrapping, splitting, raising queens, AFB, varroa, protein patties, moving bees, pollination experiences, daily mumblings and more... Thousands served... ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 10:18:41 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dave Cushman Subject: IB list, Peter borst, smallcellsize MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi All I general I am against cross posting the same information to different lists as it clogs up a good many inboxes with duplicates. I have had requests to to do just this with this message that I put on the Irish list recently. I apologise to those that may be inconvenienced by the duplication. Irish Beekeeping discussion list - http://IrishBeekeeping.listbot.com Hi Peter A great deal of confusion exists on this subject...I think some list members are even bored by it. I have been looking into it personally for about six months...And I will lay out for you the things that intrigue me. 1, Honey bees have existed pretty much unchanged for 30 million maybe even 50 million years, whatever it is it is a long time. 2, Varroa has existed much of that time, I do not know how long but it will be millions of years rather than any shorter timescale. 3, Whatever damage Varroa was doing to the bees, during this time, it was not catastrophic...Otherwise there would be no bees left after such a long timescale. 4, At some date around 1900 Varroa started to become a "nuisance" to Mellifera strains of bee. The spread is now almost worldwide, and, as it is difficult to detect it could well be in those areas that consider themselves "Varroa Free". 5, This spread of varroa is attributed to physical transfer of some Mellifera colonies, somewhere near Russia (I forget the details but they should be easy to find). 6, I think this scenario is unquestioningly accepted because it is convenient and it fits the data...But I do not see any proof of it nor anybody looking for any alternative, (That book of knowledge is now shut.) 7, Almost all writings up to 1900 that mention wax foundation are talking about a cellsize of 4.9mm. They did not talk about it as such (it was the norm). Cellsize only seems to be mentioned in increasing sizes and that mainly in pursuit of a longer tongue. 8, The cellsize issue has been debated by most generations of beekeepers since then but discussion has only been on increasing cellsize in an attempt to increase the performance of the bee. 9, I consider it a possibility that these ever increasing cellsizes have provided an ideal catalyst for the spread of pests and diseases of many kinds, in a bee that is less adaped to normal life because it is handicapped by bloated size. 10, There is resistance to testing this by running research, from both the foundation manufacturing trade and the research institutes that rely on funding and business from chemical companies. For obvious reasons the manufacturer would have to spend on re-tooling and chemical companies are not going to fund projects that will reduce the amount of product they can sell. 11, There is inertia and hostility from existing researchers and research institutes because a simple fix like this will put some of them out of business. I have information on this that I will not publish. (You should use the grapevine that Dee mentions to find out for yourself.) My plea here is that somebody or some organisation should do some definitive testing...Yes it will take money! BUT look at the possible benefits! The Bees could do with a better quality of life. Beekeepers could do with keeping bees that are gentler and more productive and more easily managed. The environment could do without the chemical run-off and the breakdown products from treating bees. Are these things too much to ask for? Irish Beekeeping discussion list - http://IrishBeekeeping.listbot.com Hi Peter Further to my previous post... Small or smaller cell sizes have not really been a topic widely discussed before now. So there is no battery of referances that can be used on a fore and against basis. Unfortunately most beekeepers actually believe that "Bigger is Better" and would be reluctant to accept a smaller bee even if it was more efficient and gathered more honey. Best Regards, Dave Cushman G8MZY Email: dave.cushman@lineone.net Website...Beekeeping and Bee Breeding http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 20:48:40 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: stimey Subject: pheromones MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Recently I removed a swarm from a barn using a bee-vac. Upon filling the first box,the bees were active but there was nothing unusal.Upon vacuming the second and third box, the bees were busier, fanning heavily and were producing a pheromone that was sort of a sweet floral smell. Also there were drones fling back and forth quite excited. As I didn't see the queen I assume I vacumed here up but I don't know which box as they were quite full. Does anyone know what the scent they were producing was ? Has anyone else had a similar experience ? This is my second swarm using a bee-vac so this was new to me. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 03:39:49 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Guidelines and FAQ MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Welcome to new BEE-L subscribers. For those who are just trying to figure things out and are wondering about an FAQ and rules for posting to this list, please visit http://www.internode.net/Honeybee/BEE-L/ and browse some of the related pages there. In particular, *please read the guidelines*. Checking these pages out will give you a sense of the flavour of BEE-L and its history and how to fit in comfortably. You might also like to browse the archives from there and read the discussions and debates in the past between some pretty good beekeepers, some of whom are no longer with us. Pretty well any subject you can imagine has been covered in the archives to some extent, but, of course, there is always room for more. You can post a new article to the list direct from the archive articles, but I recommend that you set up posting privileges there *before* you write your epistle, since there seems to be a bug in the web interface that shows up when posting if you have not previously done so. BEE-L is a moderated list. One or all the moderators must approve each post to BEE-L before it is sent to members. This is to prevent an number of abuses including SPAM, transmission of viruses or binaries, flaming, trolling, etc. Approval is pretty well automatic for 95% of what we receive and posts are not censored for content no matter how controversial -- or dumb -- as long as the guidelines are observed. Visiting the guidelines is a good idea for some of the old timers here too, because we still get some posts with huge sigs, attachments, or excessive quotes from some who should know better. Usually the moderators simply ignore and delete any posts that do not conform to the guidelines, although there are exceptions when a moderator has a bit of spare time or is an unusually good mood. Beginners in particular may want to try to also subscribe to sci.agriculture.beekeeping (s.a.b), a longstanding USENET group that is lately developing into a very good forum for a wide range of topics from the most basic to the technical. I have put together a page at http://www.internode.net/Honeybee/Bee/sci.htm to assist those who are having problems getting a good newsfeed to get to read s.a.b and to give good simple access to a power search of their archives. Some of my sci.agriculture.beekeeping is out-of-date, though, since I notice lately that Remarq is no longer working. Most of the info is good, however. allen ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 06:46:10 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: BeeCrofter@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Beesize(was: Man created varroa problem) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I am at a loss to understand the bee size/cell size debate. Is the cell size the bees choose to make themselves no good? And is the foundation to force them to make cells smaller than they would if left alone? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 06:51:49 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Aaron Morris Subject: Re: Beesize(was: Man created varroa problem) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" In response to Stan Sandler, Bob Harrison wrote: > ... I will try to explain and will quote facts from the only books i can find on the > subject. Again Bob, please name this source! You keep quoting "facts" from a source that you have not named. I would like to read this source so I can interpret these facts for myself. > Food for thought: The Russian queens are 500 U.S. and come without a > money back warrenty. BREEDER queens are $500 US. This is not an exorbitant price in queen breeder circles. I paid under $10 for the Russian queens I bought from the breeders who paid $500 for their breeder queens. When you present facts in such a skewed manner to support your views it makes it hard to read what you write without skepticism. > The sad truth remains: no resistant strain of bees and varroa > resistant to our chemicals. You quoted the ABJ article: "Spivak and Boecking(2000)wrote "despite some claims to the contrary,there are no BEEKEEPERS OR RESEARCHERS who have successfully bred a line of bees that is varroa resistant." First off, there was no emphasis in my copy of the ABJ article. Again you skew you facts to support your views. Second, there was nothing in the article declaring that attempts to breed Varroa resistance is a hopeless cause. Gladly, breeders are still striving for improvement. > Could small cell size be the answer? Perhaps it could, I don't believe anyone has counted the possibility out. What has repeatedly been said is the claims are not back up by scientific method. Give me a source for the properly sized foundation, give me a way to put my bees on it without the stepping down phase and I'll give it a shot. I'll conduct some experiments on my own in a few hives in a few yards side by side for a few seasons and I'll draw my own conclusions. In the meantime I'll continue to peruse IPM methods of control. Repeatedly stated on this list, chemicals are not the only game in town! Aaron Morris - thinking FGMO deja vu! > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 07:57:51 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: John Mitchell Subject: Re: Hive stands & ventilation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/28/00 11:33:04 PM, vdonahue@EARTHLINK.NET writes: << On the subject of ventilation, I was wondering what others thought of using both the slatted rack ventilation board along with the screened bottom board? ... Will they interfere with mite drop do you think? >> This is precisely the reason I've chosen not to invest in slatted rack ventilation boards. I haven't tested whether they interfere with the function of screen boards, nor am I aware of any tests performed by others, but it seems reasonable to expect that they would. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 07:51:25 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Aaron Morris Subject: Re: Hive stands & ventilation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" For those concerned about slatted racks interfering with mite drop because the the slats perpendicular to the frames, Betterbee at Greenwich, NY sells slatted racks with the slats going the other way (parrallel to the frames). BETTERBEE INC. R.R. #4, Box 4070 Greenwich, N.Y. 12834 Ph: 1-800-632-3379 (order only) Ph: 518-692-9669 (info) (9am-5pm M-S) Fax: 518-692-9669 Aaron Morris - no affiliation, just a customer. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 09:40:42 -0500 Reply-To: busybeeacres@discoverynet.com Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: bob harrison Subject: Re: Beesize(was: Man created varroa problem) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Aaron Morris wrote: > > In response to Stan Sandler, Bob Harrison wrote: > > > ... I will try to explain and will quote facts from the only books i can > find on the > > subject. > Again Bob, please name this source! Hello Aaron, The best book and the book i refer to the most is "The Varroa Handbook-biology and control"by Bernard Mobus and Larry Conner put out in 1988 by the Wicwas Press. Whenever Mr. Conner and i meet which has been twice since the book was written i ask Larry about the next varroa book or a new varroa handbook with new information. Unlike many of the researchers i talk to Larry and I actually went through beehives together at the Northeast Kansas Fun day a few years back which he spoke at and attended. I still use his slides on bee disease at my talks and will until i find a better set and i doubt i will. Larry Conner earned three degrees in entomology,with a specialisation in bees,beekeeping and polination,from Michigan State Michigan University. Bob Harrison has kept bees since he was 13 years old and reads everything he can get his hands on about bees. I thank the larry Conners and Dr. Shiminukis of the world for at least listening to my thoughts and observations. I believe the solution to the varroa problem will take the researchers of the world and all beekeepers right down to the hobby beekeeper with a couple hives working together to solve the problem. > Food for thought: The Russian queens are 500 U.S. and come without a > > money back warrenty. > BREEDER queens are $500 US. This is not an exorbitant price in queen > breeder circles. I paid under $10 for the Russian queens I bought from the > breeders who paid $500 for their breeder queens. I would be very interested in learning of you observations with the Russian queens as other beekeepers have told me their observations. Thinking a "Edsel is still a Edsel after all these years" I can only say i support looking for the strain of bees resistant to varroa but glad to see after over ten years of trying researchers are starting to say bees resistant to varroa MAY not be a trait which can be passed on to offspring. I have followed Brother Adams work through the years with great admiration. I was one of the first to convert to the Buckfast line as i was the second beekeeper in Missouri to get tracheal mites back in the 80's. Please understand I am only going to state my own observations and the buckfast bees i worked with were only half as only semen was shipped to U.S and inseminated in queens. I do in no way want to argue with others about their results with the Buckfast bee only state my personal experiance in my apiaries. I recieved Buckfast bees from the original semen and also from the last importation of semen. Because i check for tracheal mites by microscope on a regular basis i found to keep my hives free of large numbers of trachael mites i had to treat. Maybe the result would be different if i had had the pure strain as brother Adam used OR as i said above the trait isn't allways passed on to offspring. My friends in the south do not really have the TM problem like beekeepers overwintering in northern climates. Most beekeepers do not moniter their colonies for TM in Missouri and only treat. The same way for varroa. Testing is the only way you can really know what is going on in your hives. Many researchers are skeptical of my theory on small cell and i go on record saying i am VERY skeptical of those researchers converting all the worlds bees to a varroa resistant strain before varroa becomes totally chemical resistant. The part i like the best about searching for a strain of resitant varroa bees is that if found we can give up the use of chemicals and the search for a chemical which will kill the mite and not the bee. As Dee has stated i have used chemicals. Apistan till i had resistance and have used the dreaded coumaphous. I felt i was backed into a corner and it was either treat or rebuild from deadouts. A decision i didn't make without careful thought. We are early on in the chemical treatment for varroa in the U.S.. The varroa handbook lists 91 chemicals tried on varroa by 1988. Before mites came i could sit back in these Ozark hills and keep bees like my grandfather did. I quickly realized in the 80's that a uninformed beekeeper was going out of business. 20 years later i believe i was correct in my thinking. Bob Harrison ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 08:12:56 -0700 Reply-To: r@jobhaus.com Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Robert MacKimmie Subject: Seek information on France - Provence and bees in Paris park ... Content-Type: text/plain Mime-Version: 1.0 (NeXT Mail 4.2mach_patches v148.2) Hi all, I have somehow been bumped from the list and haven't been able to get back on. Could anyone help me out with information quickly - I am headed to France and Italy for two weeks starting on Saturday, Sept. 2. I know that Provence has extraordinary honey given the Lavendar growing region, so does anyone have specific suggestions of towns or locations, etc. I also recall that there was a specific park in Paris which had a dozen or so hives. Having bees in San Francisco, I know how wonderful a city base can be and wanted to locate the hives for a visit if possible. I will also be in Tuscany in case there was anything specific to that region. Thanks for your consideration. robert@citybees.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 10:53:17 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Comments: SoVerNet Verification (on pike.sover.net) lindena from arc5a309.bf.sover.net [209.198.117.119] 209.198.117.119 Thu, 31 Aug 2000 10:55:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Charles Frederic Andros Subject: Calendar item MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="x-user-defined" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dear Madam or Sir: For your calendar: Charles Andros, former NH/VT Apiary Inspector, will hold a beekeeping workshop from 1-3:30 PM on Saturday, September 30, at the Paul Harlow Farm on Route 5 in North Westminster, VT, 1/2 mile north of the I-91 Exit 5 ramp. Look for the "BEE" sign on the west side. Topics of discussion will include treatment of nosema and tracheal mites, winter preparations, winter protein and carbohydrate supplements, and making beeswax handcreams. Bring a veil, if you have one, as we shall be opening some colonies. Rain date: October 1. To register by email: lindena@sover.net or call 603-756-9056. Thank you, Charles Andros Linden Apiaries since 1973 Former NH/VT Apiary Inspector '78-’89 1 McLean Road POB 165 Walpole, NH 03608-0165 603-756-9056 lindena@sover.net Residence: Latitude 43° 04’ 53” North, Longitude 72° 21’ 13" West, Elevation 363 meters Keeper of 43 two-queen colonies for unheated honey, fresh-frozen pollen, propolis tincture, beauty products, pollination, nuclei, beeswax, candles, apitherapy, workshops, and supplies “Learn, experiment, innovate, educate!” ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 12:12:21 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: William Morong Subject: Genetic lethality MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; X-MAPIextension=".TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Something new to me happened to a colony here. They went drone-layer, which is not in itself unusual. The unusual part is that they had lots of dead brood, and they smelled foul, like foulbrood, but the (drone) larvae came out of the cells intact. A comb sample was sent to Mr. Knox at the USDA in Beltsville, MD. On the next day Mr. Knox emailed me, writing that no pathogens were present, but that the bees suffered from "genetic lethality" causing them to die at all stages of development, and to smell like EFB. The old literature is full of accounts of EFB being "cured" by requeening. One cannot help but wonder whether EFB or genetic disease was being cured. The USDA-ARS Bee Laboratory sure does a fine job helping us now to discover things that our forebears could but guess at, and their help is very fast. Bill Morong ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 12:08:01 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Comments: SoVerNet Verification (on garnet.sover.net) Prabois from arc1a302.bf.sover.net [209.198.116.112] 209.198.116.112 Thu, 31 Aug 2000 12:06:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Huguet - Sumner Subject: Saving foraging bees? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Bee Group, I started keeping bees about four years ago but still have so many = questions. My most recent question is this: All five of my hives are in = my back yard (about 20 ft. apart) and as I was putting the Apistan in = last weekend, I discovered one of my hives was queenless. I combined it = with a NUC that had a good queen. I left an empty NUC box so the older = bees that were out foraging had a place to come home to. Is there any = way to save these foraging bees without starting another hive? Is there = a way to combine them with one of my other hives so that they would not = fly back to there old hive location? Thanks, Sandy Sumner North Bennington, VT. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 09:36:04 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: Beesize(was: Man created varroa problem) In-Reply-To: <200008311437.KAA21647@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bob Harrison wrote: > > > ... I will try to explain and will quote facts from the only books i can > > > find on the subject. Aaron Morris wrote: > > Again Bob, please name this source! Bob Harrison wrote: > Hello Aaron, > The best book and the book i refer to the most is "The Varroa > Handbook-biology and control"by Bernard Mobus and Larry Conner put out > in 1988 by the Wicwas Press... etc., etc, etc... (personal history, name dropping, no quotes, no bibliography, no page references).. The above named book does not *in any way* support the claim made that until 100 years ago apis mellifera used smaller cells and that the _natural_ cell size made by feral and domestic has been artificially enlarged since then, or the claim that there was another traditional measuring system. These are the claims we all wish to see supported with a bibliography. We have *repeatedly* requested, even demanded that the adherents the cult of smaller cell size catalog the sources they claim exist. If they exist, the task should be simple and we should have our references by now, and not be reading blarney and misdirection. I have been repeatedly directed to read to Dee Lusby's writings and have AFAIK read all the pieces that are available on the net, both when they were originally mailed to the bee lists and after Barry straightened them out to make them readable. *Nowhere* do these articles support the claims she and her adherents make. I have seen several references, that -- if misread -- *might* be considered by some as 'proof', but which if read correctly merely support the fact that any changes that have been made have over the past century been merely temporary and transient, existing only as long as the larger cells are employed by the bees. I don't think there is a shred of evidence that bees raised on 5.7 foundation, for example will not build natural cells in burr comb in the same hive that are not around 5.3mm instead of the artificial larger size being forced on them. To my knowledge, nobody has proven that the natural cell size has been influenced much, if at all, by the efforts to force bees to use artificially large worker foundation. I now believe that no one will, because no one can. If anyone does try and quotes directly from the sources, I believe it will be obvious that they have misread the material they claim supports their beliefs. Put up or... What can I say? allen --- A Beekeeper's Diary: http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Diary/ Package bees, winter loss, fondant, Pierco vs. Permadent vs. dark comb, unwrapping, splitting, raising queens, AFB, varroa, protein patties, moving bees, pollination experiences, daily mumblings and more... Thousands served... ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 12:30:58 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: John Mitchell Subject: Re: IB list, Peter borst, smallcellsize MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I am having some difficulty reconciling these assertions with my understanding of the facts. In the interests of accuracy, somebody please correct me if Im misinformed: In a message dated 8/31/00 6:37:53 AM, dave.cushman@LINEONE.NET writes: << 3, Whatever damage Varroa was doing to the bees, during this time (millions of years), it was not catastrophic...Otherwise there would be no bees left after such a long timescale. 4, At some date around 1900 Varroa started to become a "nuisance" to Mellifera strains of bee. >> Varroa is a parasite of A. cerana that, for most of the world, only recently has jumped species to A. mellifera. The exception is that in some isolated areas of Russia A. mellifera was introduced to varroa about 150 years ago, and has been acquiring resistance in those local populations since. The recent release of Russian queens by the USDA is an attempt to introduce the genetic material of that isolated population. <<11, There is inertia and hostility from existing researchers and research institutes because a simple fix like this will put some of them out of business. I have information on this that I will not publish. (You should use the grapevine...>> I don't buy it. This is conspiracy theory stuff that makes no sense to me. The damage varroa has done is as much a threat to pollination researchers and research institutes with expertise in A. mellifera as it is to beekeepers. The only scientists who could possibly benefit from varroa are those with an interest in pushing alternative pollinators. Though I do think that Bob's idea to introduce A. cerana is an intriguing one, although one that carries great risk. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 17:23:08 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dave Cushman Subject: Re: Beesize(was: Man created varroa problem) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all ----- Original Message ----- From: > Is the cell size the bees choose to make themselves no good? In most beeking practiced in the western world the bees get little choice...They are given foundation with cellbases already impressed on it and because the bees are able to adapt to it they will use it because it is there. > And is the foundation to force them to make cells smaller than they would if > left alone? No the 4.9mm foundation is merely the size that the bees would have been producing for themselves had they not been influenced by artificially enlarged foundation over the last century. Best Regards, Dave Cushman G8MZY Email: dave.cushman@lineone.net Website...Beekeeping and Bee Breeding http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 11:09:09 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: Saving foraging bees? In-Reply-To: <200008311615.MAA25787@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I left an empty NUC box so the older = > bees that were out foraging had a place to come home to. Is there any = > way to save these foraging bees without starting another hive? Is there = > a way to combine them with one of my other hives so that they would not = > fly back to there old hive location? This is a perennial question which has several answers. The first is that it might be a simple as taking the nuc box away and letting the workers drift into nearby (within 15 or twenty feet) hives. This usually works, but sometimes the bees just cluster there. Maybe the nuc is farther away, like in another yard, then try Plan B. Plan B: Consider taking them in at night and keeping them confined in the dark for three days, then dumping them into the hive you want them in. Some will fly around and snoop where the nuc was for a while, but then they should go back to the new home. allen ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 10:25:00 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Susan L. Nielsen" Organization: Oregon VOS Subject: Re: Beesize(was: Man created varroa problem) In-Reply-To: <200008311657.MAA26839@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 31 Aug 2000, Dave Cushman wrote: > In most beeking practiced in the western world the bees get little > choice...They are given foundation with cellbases already impressed on it > and because the bees are able to adapt to it they will use it because it is > there. Maybe I've missed it, because there has been a lot of traffic in this thread, but it seems to me the logical test situation for this theory would be feral hives. The hypothesis here is that smaller cell size inhibits reproduction in Varroa destructor. If foundation cell bases determine cell size, and if feral colonies build hives with no foundation, then cell size in feral hives should be what we are considering to be a more natural, smaller size. So, if cell size in feral hives is smaller, and if smaller cell size inhibits reproduction of V. destructor, then feral hives should not succumb to varroa pressure. Susan -- Susan Nielsen, Shambles Workshops |"...Gently down the Beavercreek, OR, USA |stream..." snielsen@orednet.org | -- Anon. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 10:33:21 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: John Edwards Organization: Hayden Bee Research Center, USDA-ARS,Tucson, Arizona Subject: Re: Beesize(was: Man created varroa problem) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit bob harrison wrote: > ................ i go on > record saying i am VERY skeptical of those researchers converting all > the worlds bees to a varroa resistant strain before varroa becomes > totally chemical resistant. The part i like the best about searching for > a strain of resitant varroa bees is that if found we can give up the use > of chemicals There is not now and probably will never be one strain of bees resistant to varroa. This is a trait or series of traits present in every bee population. The exact mechanism (grooming, aggression, scent, biochemicals) that makes the varroa less likely to succeed in the bee colony is not yet known (at least to me, but what do I know). Thus, there will probably never be a varroa-resistant strain listed in bee catalogs (IMO). Whatever these traits are, they can be selected for in your own locality, and the general methods for doing trait selection have been published by various people for decades, and more specific methods for bees/varroa have also been published recently. All that is required is a population of animals (bees), a pressure (varroa), and the observational skills and time to select for survivors. ----------------------------------------------------------- John F. Edwards Carl Hayden Bee Research Center Agricultural Research Service - USDA Tucson, Arizona 85719 http://gears.tucson.ars.ag.gov/home/edwards/edwards.html ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 12:59:40 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: AL Subject: Re: Beesize(was: Man created varroa problem) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "Susan L. Nielsen" wrote: > > On Thu, 31 Aug 2000, Dave Cushman wrote: > > > In most beeking practiced in the western world the bees get little > > choice...They are given foundation with cellbases already impressed on it > > and because the bees are able to adapt to it they will use it because it is > > there. > > Maybe I've missed it, because there has been a lot of traffic in this > thread, but it seems to me the logical test situation for this theory > would be feral hives. Or someone using TBHs. My TBH did not survive the spring attack of two field mice, so I don't have any comb to measure. But, someone with a TBH in operation could answer the question of "natural" cell size since no man made foundation is involved. AL ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 12:48:17 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob Harrison Subject: "The Three Little Beekeepers" "The Three Little Beekeepers" In the epring of 2000 the three little(above sideline!)beekeepers discussed the treatments for their "bee houses". The first little beekeeper said he had read on the internet many beekeepers were not treating for varroa in the spring so he was going to save money and not treat as he thought he had a good mite kill last fall! The second little beekeeper said he was going to use Apistan again as fluvalinate had never let him down before. The third little beekeeper warned the other two he had fluvalinate resistant bees and used coumaphous. The third little beekeeper called the first little beekeeper and his crop is terrible and mites are bad. The third little beekeeper talked to the second little beekeeper and his honey crop is "pitiful" and he is pulling supers as hives are mite infested. The third little beekeeper reports a better than last year crop even with weather conditions and still has honey supers on bringing in premium wildflower honey as mite loads are very low. Only problem is third little beekeepers bees are robbing first and seconds bees and getting varroa infestation through robbing. sincerely, Third little beekeeper the moral of the story is it makes the third little beekeeper sad to see his beekeeping friends having problems. All of us (myself included) have been the first and second little beekeeper. Every beekeeper needs to be informed of the fast changing world of beekeeping and try to help our fellow beekeepers by sharing our knowledge. The first and second little beekeepers agreed to the above as long as names withheld. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 16:15:50 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dave Cushman Subject: Allen Dick/John Edwards MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all I think we are starting to put the carthorse back in front of the cart. Too many seem to want the anwsers first. > We also know that different people vary in their reading and reasoning skills. > To me that explains the controversy. As for the effects of cell size on both > the bees and varroa, it is obvious to me that proper controlled observations or > experiments have not been made. We have a collection of anecdotal evidence. > > That is usually the basis for the beginning of an investigation, not the basis > for drawing conclusions. > > allen > Sir, I am in perfect agreement with you on this subject. - I am not in a position to initiate research projects, and I do not understand why others have not. These opinions are my own, and do not reflect the views or policies of the USDA. - John Edwards Tucson, Arizona I reply To make conclusions...We need data. To get data...We need research. Why is this research not forthcoming? Do we know who is in a position to instigate research? When I was in business, I would have picked this one up and run with it. Best Regards, Dave Cushman G8MZY Email: dave.cushman@lineone.net Website...Beekeeping and Bee Breeding http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 20:08:10 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dave Cushman Subject: Re: Beesize(was: Man created varroa problem) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Susan Your Original Message ----- From: Susan L. Nielsen > Maybe I've missed it, because there has been a lot of traffic in this > thread, but it seems to me the logical test situation for this theory > would be feral hives. I do wish it were as simple as that but feral colonies, or swarms, produce comb initially with the bees that were bred in the current large size cells. The size of cell produced is 5.4mm 5.3mm or 5.2mm (our local foundation is either 5.45mm or 5.7mm). Please do not set much store by these figures as at the moment my personal data only contains seven examples. I have yet to test what happens when these colonies swarm. I will be conducting tests with starter strips that have no cellbase impressions but that has to wait for next season. by which time I wll have my own supply of 4.9mm foundation and also 6.125mm size (for my precious drones). Reply from, Dave Cushman G8MZY Email: dave.cushman@lineone.net Website...Beekeeping and Bee Breeding http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 07:57:48 +1200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Kevin Gibbs Subject: Re: Saving foraging bees? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I started keeping bees about four years ago but still have so many = > questions. My most recent question is this: All five of my hives are in = > my back yard (about 20 ft. apart) and as I was putting the Apistan in = > last weekend, I discovered one of my hives was queenless. I combined it = > with a NUC that had a good queen. I left an empty NUC box so the older = > bees that were out foraging had a place to come home to. Is there any = > way to save these foraging bees without starting another hive? Is there = > a way to combine them with one of my other hives so that they would not = > fly back to there old hive location? > One evening after flight has died down but not to late, smoke the queenright hive well and remove the lid, smoking asyou go. Place a single sheet of newspaper directly on the frames and put an empty super on this. If you have an excluder it is wise to put this between the newspaper and super in case you cannot return the next day or two. No frames in super. If you have frames in the nuc box then quickly smoke the entrance and under the lid of the nuc and transfer the frames to the super 2 or 3 at a time. Then dump loose bees left behind in too. Close the hive down blocking any large gaps at the top with grass or whatever is at hand and take the nuc box away. You don't need any boxes where the nuc was. If you have a flow on make sure you get back and take the empty box off, the bees will have chewed through the newspaper in a day and be happily united so the next evening is fine to remove it. If you wait a week there may be a little comb built. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 15:46:12 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dennis Crutchfield Subject: Re: Beesize(was: Man created varroa problem) In-Reply-To: <200008311801.OAA28364@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well folks, I have been following this thread on bee foundation size and the mite. Wish I could help:) I have been given a hive that has had no treatment for mites or foul brood from a old beekeeper who has watched all his hives die over the last ten years, but didn't have the health to do anything with them. I opened the one hive up, and guess what I found. Homemade frames, without starter foundation. The bees had put the comb in side ways against the frames so that I could not move it with out destroying the hive. I found no mites in the hive in what drone comb I could dig into. My hives have mites, two blocks away, and another beekeeper has some a block away.Both of us, have lost hives due to the mite. But this one, is still going strong. The comb I found in it was smaller than mine, but I'm no expert. Hoping to draw the queen up into one of my hive bodies, and bring her home for studying. Who knows? This bee keeper is very knowledgeable and knew that these wasn't reoccurring swarms . I am going to raise up some queens from this bunch of Italians and see. preacher ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 00:22:46 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: James Kilty Subject: Re: Beesize(was: Man created varroa problem) In-Reply-To: <200008310435.AAA13256@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 In message <200008310435.AAA13256@listserv.albany.edu>, Allen Dick writes >Needless to say, this sounds bizarre to anyone who has spent much time in >university or even high school biology classes. The whole concept runs >directly >counter to the basic beliefs and understandings of those who have studied >biology. Am I missing something here? If bees are larger because of feeding and cell size, then surely they would get smaller if a smaller foundation was given? There must be some feedback in the system so as you enlarge the size so bees (presuming this to be true of course) would be larger as the grub was larger but not fill the cell as much. So indefinitely increasing the cell size would not indefinitely increase the larval size: apart from the discontinuity to drone eggs, there would be a curvilinear relationship. The effect of this would be increased space in the cell as a proportion of the total space as well as absolutely. Conversely, as you "trained" the bees to work in a smaller cell, the proportional and also absolute value of the space would decrease - quite rapidly actually. Equally, letting bees make cells themselves, they would make them slightly tighter around their own size. Genes plus cell size (and feeding) would appear to be involved in this model, not just genes. If there is some other explanation of the reduction in cell size observed by the Lusby's please let's have it. And no, you will recognise I have not done Biology, but Physics (and Education)! Please explain why it should be bizarre. -- James Kilty BSc(special), PhD, basic certificate in beekeeping, and proud of them all! The struggle to learn is always worth it. And certificates don't measure it well. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 00:24:06 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: James Kilty Subject: Re: Beesize(was: Man created varroa problem) In-Reply-To: <200008311729.NAA27739@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 In message <200008311729.NAA27739@listserv.albany.edu>, Susan L. Nielsen writes >So, if cell size in feral hives is smaller, and if smaller cell size >inhibits reproduction of V. destructor, then feral hives should not >succumb to varroa pressure. Once in equilibrium - i.e. swarm from beekeepers colony produces comb a little smaller than its starting size; generations from this size produce further comb which is slightly smaller and so on to a natural size. Feral swarms start further along this process (which wouldn't take long - perhaps one or two seasons at most). This must have been the case for a high percentage of feral colonies before varroa (not all). So therefore many feral colonies should have survived if it were the *only* factor. Since they didn't, it cannot be the only factor. Enlighten me please. -- James Kilty ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 23:24:36 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: albert cannon Subject: cell size MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sorry i cant beleive that so called downsizing alters genetic structures = just like that. I was taught that you cant breed dogs without tails just = by cutting tails off and then breeding from the dogs. Secondly if it was = the larger brood cells that caused varroa to jump onto apis mellifera. = what ever happened to the already large Drone cells.?? one would assume = that they were there all the time. also does the size of the foundation cell determine the size of the = Queen cells? i would have assumed that the bees would choose the size of = Queen cell to suit their own queens. albert cannon ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 09:34:13 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter Borst Subject: Evolution of varroa Comments: To: IrishBeekeeping@listbot.com In-Reply-To: <00b901c01335$12a0dae0$61238cd4@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Dave Cushman writes: >Whatever the process was...Varroa is "out of the bag" now and we humans do >not have the millions of years to spare for a new balance to be struck. There have been a lot of comments that the whole varroa problem is man created. This is obviously quite true, but one must remember that beekeeping, too, is man created. Up until 150 years ago, honeybees were still essentially wild creatures. Beekeepers gathered them into apiaries, which probably produced some unnatural overcrowding, which encourages disease. But the onset of beekeeping changed everything. The life of bees in hives is not natural and for better or worse, we are responsible for their well being. We set them up for the varroa invasion. Would this have happened without the human activity called beekeeping? I doubt it. Parasites tend to be host specific. But the bee hive proved to be just too good an opportunity for varroa to pass up! Whether evolution is a fact or a theory has become moot with the arrival of genetic engineering. It *is possible* for species to be changed into other species, as proven by the scientists currently at work. I will not comment on whether this is a good thing or not, but simply state that if humans can alter species by altering the genes, then the potential was there to begin with, and nature certainly *could* have used it. I wonder how many would be in favor of genetically altering the honey bee to combat the varroa? Obviously, Apis cerana has some form of defense that it uses against the varroa. Perhaps this could be transferred to Apis mellifera? Personally, the whole thing makes me think of "The Island of Dr. Moreau." But, on the other hand, the most dangerous thing in life is the inability to change when change is needed. pb