From MAILER-DAEMON Sun Jan 14 07:40:09 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 HAA05037 for ; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 07:40:06 -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 HAA00163 for ; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 07:43:02 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200101141243.HAA00163@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 LOG0009B" To: adamf@METALAB.UNC.EDU Content-Length: 214854 Lines: 4387 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 00:10:22 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob Harrison Subject: American Bee Journal collector help Hello All, If there are any collectors of old ABJ which might have the November 1931 issue I need for you to look on page 498 under the heading "larger size bees" and tell me the name of the author. I don't expect the article to be very in depth but would be interesting to know the content. The only other collector i know hasn't got the copy either. I am missing five months of 1931 and the other collector has no copys in 1931. Thanks! Because of all the debate on cell size recently i will post the article and the Dadant editor C.P.Dadants comments. Bees not Necessarily Effected BY Cell Size by Milton G. Miller California Jan. 1932 In the November 1931 issue,on page 498,under the heading"Larger size Bees" there appears a editorial in which the idea is given of making larger cells to produce larger bees. There seems to me to be no good reason to believe that larger bees will be better bees. The honey bee is a very highly developed form of life,and unless some new condition arises that will make a larger bee more efficient,its size is right just as it is. (we give this statement on the value of larger cells without offering a decision either way. Let the matter be tested further by experiments. Sooner or later we will get to a definite,positive opinion,one way or the other.-C.P. Dadant editor Jan. 1932) I submit the above as positive proof the beekeeping world was getting ready to enlarge cell size in 1931. C.P.Dadant was saying what Barry Birkey is saying that we need the matter tested by further experiments! To resolve questions like 1 how large can we enlarge cells and queens lay worker brood? 2.What possible parasite problems might we cause? 3.Is a larger bee possible and will the tounge increase in length? 4.and the list went on! I value the Jan. 1932 issue also because on page 32 is a article titled : Missouri State Beekeepers Association formed. We are in our 68th year. For interested Missouri beekeepers the article states the president then was A.W.Cale and the assn. was formed through the efforts of Dr. K.C. Sullivan and Mr. Diemer of Liberty,MO. Sincerely, Bob Harrison ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 07:06:38 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: John Mitchell Subject: Managing Africanized bees MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This was posted to the Florida beekeeper list. I think it's interesting to see how Africanized bees are manipulated when necessary. More information on keeping Africanized bees will be needed as they become established in certain areas of the country. Rumors that these bees are always completely unmanagable or always wildly violent are not accurate, it seems. Dr. Tom Sanford is winding down his trip to Equador and will back home soon. This is just one of his many excursions: I have returned from a trip south of Quito to collect honey from colonies in two places called Pasto Calle and Lasso in the shadow of one of Ecuador's most resplendent snow capped peaks, El Cotopaxi. The temperament of the honey bees we visited was exemplary. Between the three of us, we received no more than four stings for a whole day's work, which included using bee brushes to remove bees from combs of honey before loading them into the car. It gave me pause. Was this really the African honey bee (Apis mellifera scutellata)? And if so, why all the fuss about this insect's defensive behavior? The answer to the first question was yes and reliable reports that deaths of both animals and people have indeed been caused by this unpredictable insect in Ecuador confirm its latter reputation. The source of our luck during this time was that a honey flow was in progress, and on this bright, sunny day the conditions for manipulating colonies could not have been better. It added up to one of the maxims of beekeeping. One can do almost anything while manipulating bees when the conditions are right. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 11:14:08 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Mike Rowbottom Subject: Re: FW: No of varroa mites in hive (Varroa Calculator) In-Reply-To: <200009071819.OAA29106@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 In message <200009071819.OAA29106@listserv.albany.edu>, Joe Hemmens writes > >The research undertaken by Dr. Martin is interesting and no >doubt adds to the knowledge base. As a paid-up member of >the cynics-club I suspect that the Varroa Calculator was a >way of justifying the cost of the research (paid for by beekeepers in >the UK). > >I also believe that the Varroa Calculator has no practical >use for the beekeeper whatsoever. >Either of these two factors alone would suggest that the >Varroa Calculator is well nigh useless. >Joe Hemmens These are strong condemnations of one of the very few pieces of research work carried out recently by MAFF in the UK intended to be of practical use to small scale beekeepers. In view of the strength of the views expressed it would be valuable to the beekeeping community for all the relevant data to be in the public domain, and for the accuracy of the technique to be discussed on the basis of these data. The data that are published on the Internet on the DARG trial are headed "Apilife VAR trial Results-Autumn 1996", obtained from http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/2352/ I just checked and they are still there. Are there any other results available to add to these? I know that there was an article in the Devon Beekeepers Magazine after the trial. Did it contain any additional information. These results of the DARG trial refer to 36 colonies using no less than 6 different designs/arrangements of hive; it seems a bit hard on Dr Martin to criticise him for using " no more than 30-40 colonies". The publised DARG data do not define the treatment period other than as "during the Autumn of 1996". If it is assumed assume that the natural mortality drop counts were made in Late August/September, as "autumn" would imply in the UK, then the Varroa calculator states that during this time "...multiplication factors for daily mite fall are unreliable. A rough estimate is given below to be used only for guidance". A factor 0f 100 times the daily might drop is then quoted for September and October. If this factor is used on the DARG results, then, with the exception of two results both with measured mite drop rates of less than 1 per day, the ratios of the total measured mite population (taken to be the sum of all the drops measured during the trial) to the prediction of the Varroa calculator are in the range 0.4 to 8.2; this might well be regarded as "a rough estimate" For colonies in the DARG trial with natural drop rates of 3 or more per day ( and this includes 23 of the 36 trial colonies) the ratios of measured total to estimated lie in the range 0.4 to 3.3. Approximately half the ratio results in this case lie in the range 0.5 to 2; this looks like quite a reasonable guide. In any case, one of the benefits of the natural drop count and the use of the varroa calculator is the ability to estimate the build up of varroa mites in a colony through the summer season so that treatment can be given if a dangerous build up occurs, as can sometimes happen quickly if local, untreated, colonies start to collapse and their bees fly to other local colonies. The DARG results do not appear to be relevant to the accuracy of the Varroa Calculator during the summer period. "the Varroa Calculator has no practical use for the beekeeper whatsoever" and "the Varroa Calculator is well nigh useless"- Of such strong statements are myths and legends made!! The varroa calculator is less than perfect, but this warning is made clear on the device. If we are going to condemn it, let us at least do so on the basis of all the data, and with a full analysis of them. Regards -- Mike Rowbottom HARROGATE North Yorkshire HG1 2PY ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 08:29:25 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Karen DeHond Subject: Honey color MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is my second year of beekeeping and it has gone very well. We removed honey Aug. 1st and it is almost clear, extremely sweet and some find a slight minty taste. It's beautiful, does anyone have an idea what the main component might be? Previous years the honey has been a light caramel color. Thank you Karen in upstate NY ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 08:06:33 -0500 Reply-To: boby@lakecountry.net Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob Young Subject: AHB in Texas MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Last night we had the state bee inspector give a talk at our local bee club. He showed us how they identify ahb at the lab and fielded many questions; in fact we did not take the usual break and he was kind enough to answer beyond the time to adjourn. Many, many facets of ahb were discussed. What stands out in my mind is what was not said. The approach by the state is yearly inspections of commercial operations and constant requeening of said apiaries. Supposedly this will keep them ahb free even though (as stated by the inspector when asked) all feral colonies from central Texas southward are ahb. From what I have read of ahb, keeping ehb pure in ahb areas is not possible. The inspector stated constant inspection was necessary in order to limit liability of beekeepers. If ahb is in your area you must certify your bees are ehb yearly (about $200, per apiary, paid to the state; the furtherence of state beauracracy is another matter) Here is the crux of it: For the first time on its march northward, the ahb has met LITIGATION! This was not a problem in Mexico southward, and IMHO this is what will drive beekeepers from the hobby/business, not fear of working ahb. Bob Young Lindale,TX ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 07:31:49 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: American Bee Journal collector help In-Reply-To: <200009081136.HAA23143@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I submit the above as positive proof the beekeeping world was getting ready > to enlarge cell size in 1931... This is not the question for which we have demanded proof. We all know that in the last century, manufacturers have made foundation with unnaturally large cells for various reasons and continue to do so today. A range of sizes are made for various purposes. Some was made and promoted as brood comb, some is made as strictly for honey storage comb, and some is made as drone comb foundation. Manufacturers make any size they think they can sell. As you know Dadant recently saw a demand for 4.9 and will make it. This makes sense, seeing as more and more AHB will be found in commercial colonies in the Americas and maybe they want to export to Africa too. They also are getting demand from people who want to try running European bees on AHB-size comb, the latest beekeeping fad. For some reason there are people who want to force bees to do things they would not do naturally; making them develop in cells that are too large or too small seems to be a popular perversion. In the 20th century, beekeepers imaginations were fired by the idea of slightly enlarging comb to allow individual bees raised in them to be larger. Some experiments seemed to prove this possible, although I still doubt their rigour. Any increases in size reported were not very significant IMO, being in the order of a few percent. Anyhow, there is no reasoning with a fad. Recently, the trend reversed, as all trends do eventually, and now the fad is to try to use artificially small foundation. As we all know and can see by reading the pages referenced in previous posts, foundation is commercially available in sizes ranging from 4.9 to 5.7 mm in the parts of the world that this list covers, and I daresay that there are other sizes commercially available in parts of the world that are not English speaking or well connected to the internet. If you must prove something, please prove what we have asked you to prove, not something that we already know. We have asked you to prove that bees have been increased in size significantly during the 20th century by use of artificially large foundation and that they will return to a size around 5.0 mm within a few generations if left to their own devices. Our evidence denies this, and indicates that the natural cell size is in the 5.2 to 5.3 mm range for most domestic bees in America and Europe. 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: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 08:35:04 -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: Honey color Comments: To: "kdehond@NETACC.NET" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > We removed honey Aug. 1st and it is almost clear, extremely sweet and some find a > slight minty taste. I was about to say classic clover, but clover has more of a cinamon flavor than minty. Perhaps this is a difference in our palates. With the moist conditions in upstate NY this year the clover flow was excellent. Last tear with the drought conditions the clover dried up before the bees could get any. Aaron Morris - thinking what a difference a year makes! ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 11:05:40 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Lloyd Spear Subject: Bee calls MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bob Harrison said "I had a guy the other day stop by my office. He said he had a swarm of bumble bees in his field where he wanted to run fence and wanted me to come right away. What do you say to these people?" Because I am in our Yellow Pages under "Beekeeping Supplies", this time of year I get 2-3 phone calls a day similar to what Bob is describing. I know the other listing gets a similar number as do those beekeepers who are well known. I tell them: 1. If they can, wait until a hard frost when the bees/wasps will be killed. (About October 15 here, but this may not be a practical alternative in parts of Kansas.) 2. Call names listed under Pest Control. Around here some companies will respond, but the cost runs $70-$120 for a minimum amount of effort. 3. Buy a can of spray and do the job yourself. I always give some detailed instruction with this alternative, such as: only spray after dark and with a flashlight; get the spray into the hole; etc. I am advised that since I don't have an application license it is technically illegal for me to be doing #3. However, my thinking is that if we can't help out our neighbors then why are we here? Lloyd Lloyd Spear, Owner, Ross Rounds, Inc. The finest in comb honey production. www.rossrounds.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 11:05:37 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Lloyd Spear Subject: Use of Coumaphos MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Tom Sanford said "The material should not be used unless there is a verifiable need fluvalinate resistance has been documented... and/or small hive beetle constitutes a real threat)." I could not agree more. The drug's dangers as well as the need to keep it as a viable alternative should be limiting use. However, no where on the label is there any suggestion that use should be limited to situations limited as described above. In a personal conversation with the EPA I was told that they "would be glad to consider" wording such as that suggested by Tom, but such a suggestion needed to come from either the states' or from beekeeper groups. My contact remarked "we would not expect to get such a request from Bayer or Mann Lake". (Presumably, such a label change would somewhat reduce sales.) I can understand that neither the AHP or the ABF would lobby for such wording, but have to say that I am surprised that neither EAS (which may represent more beekeepers than any other organization in the US) nor any state organization has made such a suggestion. Lloyd Lloyd Spear, Owner, Ross Rounds, Inc. The finest in comb honey production. www.rossrounds.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 11:05:42 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Lloyd Spear Subject: Fume pads MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bob Harrison said "We use "Bee go" in Missouri but my northern friends say "honey robber" will work better than "bee go" in colder temps. I have never used "honey robber" so can't say if they are correct. Maybe other bee-L readers can help?" I use honey robber and find it works fine above 70 degrees F. I am advised it is the same as Bee Go, except with something added to get rid of the terrible smell. Unfortunately, the label is almost useless in figuring out how to use the stuff and I have found that many beekeepers say "it won't work", when they really don't know how to use it. The key is to get "a lot" of chemical on the pad, but keep the pad a little distance away from the bees. I clip the bottle nozzle to allow just a fine stream when squeezed. My "pad" is an inner cover with an old towel stapled to it. I also have four one-inch long by 3/4" wide pieces of wood nailed to the toweling side. For some reason, if the bees get too large a dose of the stuff, they don't move! This leads to beekeepers thinking that the stuff doesn't work. The purpose of the 3/4" thick pieces of wood is to keep the pad slightly above the super. This prevents a "large dose", and the bees move away quickly. If you have not had luck, try the above. Lloyd Lloyd Spear, Owner, Ross Rounds, Inc. The finest in comb honey production. www.rossrounds.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 16:35:18 +0100 Reply-To: joe@golberdon.prestel.co.uk Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Joe Hemmens Subject: Re: FW: No of varroa mites in hive (Varroa Calculator) In-Reply-To: <200009081139.HAA23251@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Hi Mike, you wrote: > In message <200009071819.OAA29106@listserv.albany.edu>, Joe Hemmens > writes > >The research undertaken by Dr. > Martin is interesting and no >doubt adds to the knowledge base. As a > paid-up member of >the cynics-club I suspect that the Varroa > Calculator was a >way of justifying the cost of the research (paid for > by beekeepers in >the UK). > >I also believe that the Varroa > Calculator has no practical >use for the beekeeper whatsoever. > > >Either of these two factors alone would suggest that the > >Varroa Calculator is well nigh useless. > >Joe Hemmens > > > These are strong condemnations of one of the very few pieces of > research work carried out recently by MAFF in the UK intended to be > of practical use to small scale beekeepers. In view of the strength > of the views expressed it would be valuable to the beekeeping > community for all the relevant data to be in the public domain, and > for the accuracy of the technique to be discussed on the basis of > these data. > > The data that are published on the Internet on the DARG trial are > headed "Apilife VAR trial Results-Autumn 1996", obtained from > > http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/2352/ > > I just checked and they are still there. Are there any other results > available to add to these? I know that there was an article in the > Devon Beekeepers Magazine after the trial. Did it contain any > additional information. No, I don't think so. > These results of the DARG trial refer to 36 colonies using no less > than 6 different designs/arrangements of hive; it seems a bit hard on > Dr Martin to criticise him for using " no more than 30-40 colonies". I wasn't suggesting that the DARG trial was 'better' than that carried out by Dr. Martin, merely that the sample seems small. Also, I assume that the trial colonies would have been in close geographical proximity to each other. Given that conditions in the UK vary so widely - Spring is perhaps 5 weeks advanced - in horticultural terms - in South Cornwall compared to the North of England, I find it hard to trust a calculation which shows quite different relationships between natural mite mortality and infestation level - according to the month in which the measurement is taken. In fact the DARG trial was carried out over two years but the results for the first year were unpublished because the trial was at variance with the instructions for the application of Apilife Var (they were written in Italian). Nonetheless, for the purposes of this discussion there are results for 78 colonies. > For colonies in the DARG trial with natural drop rates of 3 or more > per day ( and this includes 23 of the 36 trial colonies) the ratios of > measured total to estimated lie in the range 0.4 to 3.3. > Approximately half the ratio results in this case lie in the range 0.5 > to 2; this looks like quite a reasonable guide. > > In any case, one of the benefits of the natural drop count and the use > of the varroa calculator is the ability to estimate the build up of > varroa mites in a colony through the summer season so that treatment > can be given if a dangerous build up occurs, as can sometimes happen > quickly if local, untreated, colonies start to collapse and their bees > fly to other local colonies. Yes, I understand that that is what it is supposed to do, I question whether it does this with sufficient accuracy to have any use. > The DARG results do not appear to be > relevant to the accuracy of the Varroa Calculator during the summer > period. You could be right but we do at least have good figures for natural mortality and I think fairly useful figures for 'total infestation' levels some months later. > "the Varroa Calculator has no practical > use for the beekeeper whatsoever" and "the Varroa Calculator is well > nigh useless"- Of such strong statements are myths and legends made!! In this case I rather doubt it! When I have mentioned my concerns to other beekeepers they have either tended to agree with me or regarded me as a heretic for criticising the work. At least you have asked to see the figures... > The varroa calculator is less than perfect, but this warning is made > clear on the device. If we are going to condemn it, let us at least > do so on the basis of all the data, and with a full analysis of them. Sure, since you ask, I will post the figures on a web page. You may have to wait a while though. Joe ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 11:27:04 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dave Hamilton Subject: Re: Fume pads MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain I found that using a piece of cardboard works better than a cloth .. since the Bee-Go needs to evaporate .. I cut a piece from a box, stable it to a 1" frame and spray paint the top black. An additional benefit is that you can punch the cardboard out of the frame .. toss it in the fire and not store the stink all winter. FWIW Dave - ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 10:43:13 -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: Fume pads In-Reply-To: <200009081533.LAA01913@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > The key is to get "a lot" of chemical on > the pad, but keep the pad a little distance away from the bees... For > some reason, if the bees get too large a dose of the stuff, they don't move! I agree about the distance, but am not in accord about the amount. I think a tablespoon or so every so often is lots, if it is spread evenly over the cloth. It is very important to NOT get any on the wood where drips might get transferred onto the super and important NOT to dispense the material over the hive. Do it on the ground or your truck bed. Buyers are now checking for this stuff in honey and loads are being rejected some places for levels that are too high. The real trick is to use smoke to start the bees down. Once they start moving, the butyric anhydride will chase them a long way under the right conditions. Having said all that, I will also say I won't allow the stuff anywhere near my place. The smell lingers for months, and once you are used to it, you lose the ability to detect it on yourself and everything you own and don't notice how you smell when you go places. Don't let it into your house. It smells like dog feces, and even the scented stuff smells like cherry-flavoured dog sh*t. Butyric anhydride also bothers my bronchia and I cannot stand being downwind from it. carbolic never bothered me. Gosh I miss that stuff. This from a guy who thinks formic is no big deal. Go figure. 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: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 13:58:26 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Jean-Francois Lariviere Subject: Re: Honey color Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit << We removed honey Aug. 1st and it is almost clear, extremely sweet and some find a slight minty taste. It's beautiful, does anyone have an idea what the main component might be? >> We had hives in Manhattan and one year the Linden/Locust trees blossomed. Our hives produced a very clear, fruity tasting honey. Prior to that we purchased some honey in Minnesota and I tasted a subtle, minty flavor. The beekeeper thought it was due to nearby Basswood trees. Jean-Francois Lariviere www.BeeHealthyFarms.com NYC NY 10025 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 14:50:11 -0500 Reply-To: busybeeacres@discoverynet.com Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: bob harrison Subject: Re: Honey color MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Karen DeHond wrote: > > This is my second year of beekeeping and it has gone very well. We removed > honey Aug. 1st and it is almost clear, extremely sweet and some find a > slight minty taste. It's beautiful, does anyone have an idea what the main > component might be? Previous years the honey has been a light caramel > color. Hi Karen, >From your vivid description i imagine New Yorkers will give their ideas as to the possible source. I only write to say all honey has a certain amount of pollen in it. I saw a book once which showed what most common pollens look like under a microscope. A USDA rep told me they could put a honey smear under a microscope and tell exactly the source of most U.S. honeys as each pollen grain is different as is each snowflake. Sincerely, Bob Harrison Odessa,MO. > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 15:41:04 -0500 Reply-To: busybeeacres@discoverynet.com Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: bob harrison Subject: Re: Fume pads MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Allen Dick wrote: > The real trick is to use smoke to start the bees down. Once they start moving, > the butyric anhydride will chase them a long way under the right conditions. > Hello all, As a user of fume boards i agree with everything said. I would add a few comments. When we arrive at the bee yard to pull supers we jump out a survey the situation. IF we are pulling many supers with unsealed honey we do not use smoke. Smoke causes the bees to gorge themselves with honey from unsealed cells and much harder to drive down. With or without smoke we ALLWAYS put our fume boards on crossways to let the bees exit the super from above if they want. If you place the fume boards on directly you get many times confused bees. Granted if done correctly the smoke will mello and drive the bees down but they also bury heads in open cells. When bees are comming out the front your boards are working as intended. The browns from Kansas(around 8,000 colonies)use a fume board with a 4 inch piece of pVC on the top. They turn the elbo in the direction of the wind and say the process is really speeded up.The showed a tape of their super pulling at last falls Kansas Honey Producers meeting. Looked easy to build. My judge as to if to much Bee-go has been used is if the honey house smells of bee-go over 24 hours later. I can allways smell the bee-go the first day but not the second. We bring in unsealed honey also at times. We run a commercial grade Amana dehumidifier. I check the sealed honey and unsealed honey randomly for moisture content and when all are correct we extract. About three days has been right in Missouri this year but the second load I had to wait about seven days to get the moisture correct. Less than 18.5% we consider correct although i have drummed 19.5% for my own use and dropped the moisture by 1% through the bottling process. Sincerely, Bob Harrison > 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: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 18:10:07 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: David Verville Subject: Re: Fume pads MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I've been doing the same for years! Did you know that a large pizza box, the kind they deliver is a perfect fit? It fits over the outside of the 1" frame. You have to cut the box and a few of the folds need to be stapled down, Other than that, it works great, I don't even paint it. Dave Verville Fremont NH 50 Hives and only 800 pounds this year. Very wet and cool ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Hamilton" To: Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 12:27 PM Subject: Re: Fume pads > I found that using a piece of cardboard works better than a cloth .. since > the Bee-Go needs to evaporate .. I cut a piece from a box, stable it to a > 1" frame and spray paint the top black. > > An additional benefit is that you can punch the cardboard out of the frame > .. toss it in the fire and not store the stink all winter. > > FWIW > > Dave > > - ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 18:22:44 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: William Morong Subject: Getting bees off box edges MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; X-MAPIextension=".TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Most of this year it has been possible to work the bees without smoke, but as the bees have gotten more numerous, smoke at the end of the work to try to clear the box edges has become necessary to avoid crushing bees. The smoke sort of worked, but was marginally satisfactory and stinks. I had tried spraying sugar syrup last year without success. Today I tried syrup again, but carefully sprayed it on the top bars of the outside frames and the combs thereof ONLY, getting NO syrup on the box edges. The bees abandoned the box edges for the syrup. They were occupied and seemed very content. Now it's practical to herd the bees with breath and fingers for most manipulations, and the syrup provides a good way to clear the box edges. Bill Morong ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 18:59:31 -0500 Reply-To: busybeeacres@discoverynet.com Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: bob harrison Subject: Re: American Bee Journal collector help MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Allen Dick wrote: > > > > For some reason there are people who want to force bees to do things they would > > not do naturally; making them develop in cells that are too large or too small > > seems to be a popular perversion. > > Hello All, > > My reason for wanting the small cell size is because Dee Lusbys 500 > colonies are living and moving her operation into the black after ten > years. I f the breeding she has done was the reason for her success as suggested Then why when she shook those same bees down another mm > they truely became varroa tolerant? She really didn't have the > evidence to support her theory until she put those bees on the 4.9mm > foundation. > > > > If you must prove something, please prove what we have asked you to prove, not > > something that we already know. > I am a old master at beekeeping discussion. I have been trying to find common ground. In other words points you will accept as truths about the issue. Then i can try to explain why i believe in the parts you don't believe. I have never had the trouble finding common ground in any discussion as on bee-l on cell size. I told you i am going to run experiments and invest my time and money as Dee did. Maybe i and other bee-l readers will be disappointed but then if we get the results Dee did then i will be happy. I should have a idea of my success rate by next fall. > > We have asked you to prove that bees have been increased in size significantly > > during the 20th century by use of artificially large foundation and that they > > will return to a size around 5.0 mm within a few generations if left to their > > own devices. > After 68+ years of larger cell size i am not sure the bees would reduce > without the "hand of Man". After all they didn't get larger on their own > did they? I think yourself and every bee-l reader knows the size of our bees have been increased by larger than normal foundation given to them. Read on. > The data is out there to prove bee size has increased significantly and > many bee publications state 5.0mm is the true natural size and not 5.2 > to 5.3mm range. > Significantly in bee size is small in mathmatics. I am not sure exact measurements of all bee parts were taken prior to 1931. Many beekeeping books state the African bee as being 10% smaller than European. I speculate our bee size has been increased by 10%. I am only speculating as to the amount of increase. Could be as slight as 5 to 7%. > Our evidence denies this, and indicates that the natural cell size > > is in the 5.2 to 5.3 mm range for most domestic bees in America and Europe. Please state your source so i can read for myself. EACH BOOK STATES A DIFFERENT SIZE SO I CAN AND HAVE FOUND AS MANY BOOKS TO BACK MY THEORY AS THE OTHER SIDE HAS FOUND TO BACK THE 5.2 to 5.3mm range. Everything i have read above 5.0mm has only stated 5.0mm to 5.2mm. Quote page 105 New xyz-abc of beekeeping Interestingly,Charles Darwin devoted 12 pages in his "The Origin of the Species" to the subject of honey comb and its origins. Honeycomb built by bees is not as perfect as one might imagine. It was once proposed to use honey comb as a natural unit for making measurements;however,not only do individual cells vary but the number of cells per unit of distance vary as well as the sizes of bees of different races also vary. Charles Darwin was slightly misled when he wrote that from the point of view of natural selection,"the comb of the hive-bee,as far as we can see ,is absolutely perfect in economising labor and wax. The truth is that while space to contain brood is utilized to the upmost ,mathematicians agree that there might be more economy of wax. All the old books I own dating from the 1930 era state 5.0mm > as the true natural size. Outdated as Aaron says BUT maybe more accurate > for the time period than our most recent publications. ABC-XYZ of Bee Culture copyright 1935 The Hive and the Honeybee copyright 1946 > > I am sure many older beekeepers will be able to support what i am about to say. > Observations from a beekeepers stand point. My own observations. > I have got stacks of outdated small spacing queen > excluders. Yes they were made before most of the cell size enlargement. If you keep > bees of the size Walter Kelley sells these excluders will not work. Even > the Kelley worker bees will not pass through. I sold a stack of these to a > beekeeper buying bees from Kelley and had to refund his money. Through > the years i have created a large stack of excluders (all different > origins)with one common fault. They were made when bees were smaller. If other > bee-l beekeepers have had the same problem please email bee-L to > help me out! > I first started noticing the larger bees in the 70's whenever i raised > queens from different breeders. i bought many queens from Howard Weaver > of Navasota,Texas. I loved the Weaver bees and the queens would sit on a > U.S.quarter and all feet would touch the edge. We all marveled at the > size of those bees. My problem was i had to replace all my excluders as > the workers were so big they were getting stuck in the excluders. I was > taking excluders off plugged with dead worker bees. I bought some Walter > Kelley excluders and the problem was solved. I know there are other > beekeepers which remember those great big Howard Weaver bees. Email > bee-L if you saw the same things in > those years. A.I.Root made a small tool for checking the correct spacing on a queen excluder years ago. A antique now. I have tried to find one of those to see what A.I.Root considered the correct spacing. If any bee-l people happen to have one of those please measure and send email to me direct or this post. > At the portland ABF convention Mann Lake was running a special on their > new design metal bound queen excluder. I asked many questions about the > size opening and Mann Lake assured me they had addressed the small > spacing problem as many beekeepers had said they had the same problem as i did. > I placed a order and have never had a problem with spacing HOWEVER i > wonder if i will have to knock the dust off those old small spacing > excluders when i downsize to the 4.9mm. > I personally plan to downsize even further to 4.8 and maybe even 4.7mm > with A.cerana foundation available on the world market. The only thing > stopping me would be the discovery of why varroa doesn't reproduce in > the 4.7mm cell size. Some unknown trigger missing OR simply a cell size > varroa considers to small to reproduce in. Even the research i have read > out of China says varroa will go into and scope out 4.7mm cell size > cells but WILL NOT lay even a single egg. I have a lot of documentation > on this researched FACT. >> Sincerely, > Bob Harrison > > > > > --- > > 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: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 01:58:03 +0200 Reply-To: Ahlert Schmidt Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Ahlert Schmidt Subject: Re: American Bee Journal collector help In-Reply-To: <8pb60r.3vv6mnl.1@schmidt-22766.user.cis.dfn.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Allen, I like to comment to your notion that other factors and not cell size might be the reason for "enhanced varroa resistance" for the AHB. For that possibility I will summerize just a few date I have collected from the internet from various sources Developing time from egg laying to hatching of the imago: European Bee: Worker: 21 days; Drone: 24 days; queen: 16 days. Africanized honey bee: Worker: 18.5 days; Drone: 24 days; queen: 15 days. Note that the AHB workers hatch 2 1/2 days earlier. If these data are correct (I did not measure them myself) than the developmental time for varroa on larvae will be shorter in the AHB compared to the EHB due to a quiker development of the AHB bee. Thus the shorter time span will lead to smaller numbers of varroa developing. This might well be the case for the known "resistance" of the AHB to varroa. If this is the case, than we should search vor EHB having a shorter developmental time form the egg to the imago. Now the question: Should these ideas be connected with the smaller cell size? If we assume that in slightly smaller cells the imago - ie the bee - is somewhat smaller, than it would need a bit less of feed and thus possibly develop in a somewhat shorter timespan - lets say not 21 days but for instance only 20 days. This would lead to a shorter developmental timespan for varros and thus could well be a selective aspect for "varroa tolerance". Conclusion: If there is some truth to such ideas one should measure the developmental time from egg to imago on combs with small cell size compared to combs with normal cell size and see if we do get statistically significant differences. If so, we might in deed see a correlation to cell size and "varroa tolerance". I like to stress that this is at the moment hypothetical. However one could meassure the time span from egg to imago on combs with different cell size and see if there is a statistically siginificant difference within short time and the outcome would be of interest. Hopefully someone will do it quickly. If this is the case, than we should search for EHB having a shorter developmental time form the egg to the imago. This would suggest further that different strategies for breeding "varroa tolerant bees" might be useful and might be possible. I hope these ideas are helpfull for the ongoing discussion. Best regards, Ahlert Schmidt mailto:Ahlert.Schmidt@t-online.de ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 04:57:42 GMT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Mark Otts Subject: Re: American Bee Journal collector help Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed >>Allen Dick wrote: >>>We have asked you to prove that bees have been increased in size >>>significantly >>>during the 20th century by use of artificially large foundation and that >>>they >>>will return to a size around 5.0 mm within a few generations if left to >>>their >>>own devices. Hello Mr. Harrison - I've been following this topic with much interest and see it has been difficult to get the discussion beyond the same "opinion" Mr. Dick has. He keeps asking for proof. I have been reading through the articles on the Beesource.com web site regarding cell size and have had no problem seeing in these articles where the size of the honey bee has been enlarged. I've listed some below. I also saw a link to a Swedish site that looks like it has more info on cell measuring but since it is in Swedish, I'm not sure what it is saying. Can anyone on this list translate this article into English for some of us? http://www.biodlarna.se/aktuellt/artiklar/sep2000.html Mark Otts Mississippi ------------ A STUDY OF NATURAL HONEY-COMB. Bee Culture - 1910 BY DR. C. C. MILLER. "It is a common thing to say, "Worker-cells measure 5 to the inch" (that makes the cell size right around 5 mm) "That shows it would be feasible to have foundation with larger cells, thus working toward a larger bee, if a larger bee would get more honey. Of that I have some doubt." ----------- 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 "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." ------------- The Bee World January, 1933 - Pages 37-41 ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTIONS. THE INFLUENCE OF CELL SIZE. By Prof. U. BAUDOUX, Rucher-ecole experimental de Tervueren-lez- Bruxelles. Belgium. "I published an article in Progres Apicole (June 1893) advocating the use of larger cells, as a result of experiments duly described. I had experimented up to the limit of 750 cells per sq. dm. These sizes of cells were obtained by stretching foundation. Mr. Auguste Mees subsequently made them by stretching the sheets as they came off the cylinders, in 1893 to 1895." "Encouraged by my experiences, I wished to do still better - to go to the bounds of possibility." "I therefore again proceeded by stretching foundation. Now, however, I was working with cells already enlarged;" "In this way, I was able to obtain sheets having only 741, 730 and even 675 cells per sq. dm." "As can be seen, the bees reared in cells of one size are not all of the same dimensions. For example, the 850 lot. Some of these pass through 3.8 mm., most of them through 3.9 mm., the largest through 4.0 mm. But, if the size of gauge through which the "850s" can pass is placed at the entrance of the "700s," not one bee of this size could pass through." "Consider the size of the drones reared in worker cells (5 mm.)" "I hope that, fortified by all these little details, you will be able to prove to these people, by plain facts, what can be done by strong bees, reared in cells of 700 to the sq. dm." ------------ The Bee World January, 1934 - Pages 2-5 THE INFLUENCE OF CELL SIZE. (With Illustrations and Table of Data by M. Baudoux, Tervueren, Belgium). http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/table.htm ----------- The Bee World November, 1935 - Page 124 "A correspondent of Le Rucher Belge (August - September) remarks on the frequent variation in size of cells in commercial foundation (especially now that larger sizes are sold)." ---------- The Bee World December, 1935 - Page 138 "and the bees themselves appear to confirm this criticism, since they tend to retrogress in the size of cells they build when let alone." ---------- Influence of Size of Brood Cell Upon the Size of the Worker Bee* By Roy A. Grout,** Illinois "He arrived at the conclusion that artificial foundation having 700 cells per square decimeter gave a bee which was superior in all its measurements to those reared in combs constructed from the smaller sizes of artificial foundation." --------- XX Jubilee Apimondia Congress August, 1965 - Pages 675-677 THE EFFICIENCY OF THE USE OF ENLARGED CELLS HONEY-COMBS IN THE CONDITIONS OF ROMANIA C. ANTONESCU ROMANIA "Under the influence of the above mentioned reports, I set myself the purpose to experiment on the efficiency of large cell honey-combs. This was possible beginning with the year 1941 when I was able to build honey-combs with cells of 5.65 mm and 5.85 mm diameter, that is, 726 and respectively 678 cells per dm2." ------------ _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 04:20:21 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Stan Sandler Subject: Re: EFB sterilization Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi Adony, both Peters, and All: >>If melissococcus pluton is not spore forming, then how long does the scale remain infective? >Correct, it does not form spores. Why it is not killed by 8kGy of gamma irradition is also a mystery. Being in spring pollination, I can see why you are concerned, as the disease is typically only a problem where management necessitiates moving colonies from pollen rich spring yards, into stressful, pollen poor pollination yards. Perhaps pollen patties prior to and going into pollination may help the colony keep pace with the disease? I am afraid I have not much experience with EFB in the Peace. Good luck. I *do* feed pollen (substitute with 5-10% trapped) before the hives go into blueberry pollination. Lots of it. I regularly have a few hives that show EFB. Usually under 1%. About the same level as sacbrood. No AFB for the last 22 years. This year was a poor honey season for all the hives, and maybe that stress contributed to the problem. But drifting bees must also spread it. I keep my hives in lines of five and I am seeing stands which don't have it, and other stands with most hives infected. >From Peter Bray's post: >However one of the key symptoms of HMD is multiple eggs in the same cell (or >even around the entrance to the cell) and eggs at odd angles. Next time you >see "EFB", look for multiple eggs (even only 2) per cell. If you find that, >chances are you actually have HMD. I looked at brood in about 80 hives today. Did not see multiple eggs except in one near dead pitiful specimen. But I did see LOTS of EFB. The speed with which it has spread is frightening. Some hives with good strength, lots of honey and pollen and good brood patterns are showing initial symptoms. I can see what Andy Nachbaur meant in one post on EFB I found in the archives of this list when he said that EFB could take down a commercial operation faster than AFB. By the way Peter, many of my queens ARE from New Zealand! About three hundred are this years queens and several hundred more are from last year or their daughters. > I >personally think it's possible the only "true" EFB out there is the stuff >that has to be treated with antibiotics to cure. I am dusting everything now, and I believe that will cure it. However my most important question has still not been answered: If the bacteria is NOT spore forming, then how long does it remain infective once the larva dries up. The reference that Adony mentioned about sterilizing honey, is somewhat of a different case. Honey has moisture, and if a bacteria is adapted to living in honey it might persist quite awhile even without forming spores. But the larva do dry up. How long is that material still infective and how can it be treated? This would seem to me to be a pretty basic question that someone must have looked at. Thankyou for all the replies so far. Stan ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 07:17:59 -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: Honey color MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Karen DeHond wrote: > and it is almost clear, extremely sweet and some find a > slight minty taste. It is a great honey. A few years back, my bees made some. All I spoke to and who sampled it agree it is basswood-linden honey. It is a bright, clear honey with a pronounced mint taste. I get it from time to time and value it. I think it is an exceptional honey. Bill Truesdell ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 07:58:07 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "David L. Green" Subject: Re: Honey color MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/9/00 7:27:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time, mister-t@CLINIC.NET writes: > It is a great honey. A few years back, my bees made some. All I spoke to > and who sampled it agree it is basswood-linden honey. It is a bright, clear > honey with a pronounced mint taste. I get it from time to time and value > it. I think it is an exceptional honey. In upstate NY, pure basswood (American linden) honey is nearly water white, and so minty that it is nearly sharp tasting. I've had comb honey which is near inedible, because the "mintyness" is so strong. The taste of heated basswood honey is even more disagreeable. When basswood is blended with clover or other mild honey, it has an agreeable minty taste. In my early beekeeping days, there was a lot of peppermint growing wild and I thought the flavor was from it. However, I later was in areas that did not have peppermint, but did have basswood, and the flavor remained. Basswood flow is in early July. Some years it is a major flow; some years it is sparse. It is prone to biennial bearing. Dave Green The Pollination Home Page: http://pollinator.com (now searchable) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 08:42:55 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Jamie Banuski Subject: crowding outside of hive Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed To All: I am an amateur, first year beekeeper in upstate NY and would like know if anyone can provide some insight to the following: We have only three hives, two of which appear to be fairly strong, and a third that is fiercely strong, so much that there are huge clumps or piles of bees on the front face of the bottom hive body, all just hanging on to one another. Lately the quantities of bees have been so great that they are not only covering the face of the hive body, but also bunching up around the corners of the hive body where hive bodies 1 and 2 meet. I suspect they are considering a swarm (please don't say it isn't so; it's their first year here). ANY input would be greatly appreciated. Currently there are the 2 hive bodies, 1 shallow, and 2 deep supers that consitute the hive at this time. I'm thinking that they have plenty of space, but space may not be the issue?? Any reflections are appreciated... A little sidebar - I really appreciate this listserver. I have been reading everyone's throughput during the past week (I'm a newcomer), and it is really helping me decide on a possible career change, especially knowing the demand for pollinators. I grew up on a large scale fruit and vegetable farm in the Syracuse area where we needed many hives for the pollination of cucurbits, and not until recently, strawberries. I have begun to realize how vital beekeeping truly is to food and fiber production. I admire all of you, and I thank you immensely for your contributions. Regards, Jamie R. Banuski 205 Arnold Road Burlington Flats, NY 13315 607-965-8562 _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 09:40:04 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Amee Abel Subject: Re: crowding outside of hive MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jamie Banuski wrote: >that there are huge clumps or piles > of bees on the front face of the bottom hive body, all just hanging on to > one another.... >I suspect they are considering a swarm (please don't say it isn't so; it's >their first year here). I can only speak to my own experience: earlier this week one of my hives (2) that were suffering from the neglect of my being away for two or three weeks, had clusters of bees hanging around the front door. On Wednesday, around 11 am, a swarm took off and landed on a nearby tree. (They always seem to fly late morning on sunny days.) We shook them down into a medium hive body that had one empty drawn frame of comb and 8 new foundation frames, then moved 'em onto their own stand near the two original hives. Our plan is to let 'em draw out some comb, and wait for the hive they left to bring out their new queen. Then, we plan to execute the swarm queen and add the swarm workers and their medium hive body onto the hive they originally left. My thinking is that while there's still plenty of wildflowers for them to work, there probably is not enough time for them to develop into a colony strong enough to survive the New Hampshire winter. Since my equipment is limited, I think I'll do better having 2 strong hives than 3 weaker ones. Are your bees planning to swarm? Possibly. Watch 'em mid day. Can you stop 'em? Possibly. Check through your hives for queen cells and eradicate 'em. This may work. Make sure the queen has enough room for brood. Sometimes, she'll get trapped on the lower frames by too broad a band of honey. Then, feeling crowded, she'll leave. Perhaps you can add an empty hive body (with frames, of course, just nothing in the frames besides comb or foundation) directly above the hive body that holds the queen. -- Amee Abel Abel's Apiaries "Happy Hive Making Wholesome Honey" ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 16:06:15 +0200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: crpost Subject: Re: africanized bees MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Bob Young wrote: IMHO this will drive more people from beekeeping than varroa. Why? Robert Post ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 16:07:52 +0200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: crpost Subject: Re: EFB sterilization MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Adony Melathopoulos wrote: >Being in spring pollination, I can see why you are concerned, as the disease is typically only a >problem where management necessitates moving colonies from pollen rich spring yards, into >stressful, pollen poor pollination yards. Since approximately 1996, we have suffered severe outbreaks of very virulent EFB during pollination of pears and apples in spring. International enquiries proved that very little is known about this disease. Based on the articles on "fat patties" in the bee press, we decided to give these a try. They are effective against TM, as Diana Sammatoro proved conclusively, but also apparently reduce EFB. They work! These patties are now part of our standard pre pollination preparation routine. The mix is simple: one part pure vegetable fat (warmed to liquid for mixing) three parts sugar, and one part (discarded) jam (this binds the patty as it is high in pectin). This patty is firm and does not need any backing. It does not dribble down the combs (possibly harming the queen), but simply sits on top of the brood frames. These patties are also an extremely useful identifier of HYG colonies. The slower the colony take the patty, the less HYG and the more likely that they will die out before the season is out. Robert Post ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 10:25:14 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Varroa and 4.9 cell size MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It was posted that cell size leads to early emergence- lost the post so that is why the new subject. My apologies. As I said in a previous post, I once thought cell size would lead to early emergence and that is why the AHB is more tolerant of Varroa than EHB. But I read that was not the case. It was grooming not early emergence. Which makes sense. The over fishing of cod has lead to pressure on the cod to survive. Scientist have found that they are sexually maturing at an earlier age and much smaller than before. So if cod, a fairly high up species on the ladder, can accommodate and become sexual mature early, then Varroa should find it little trouble to do the same. And if cell size does something to Varroa, again, it should be able to accommodate to that fairly quickly. So maybe in about five years we will be arguing over 1.7 vrs 2.1 cell size and what to do about mosquitos harassing our bees. Bill Truesdell Bath, ME where the mosquitos are already big enough ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 09:35:28 -0500 Reply-To: boby@lakecountry.net Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob Young Subject: Re: africanized bees MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Robert, See my later post, but I'll sum it up here:LIABILITY, and good old American LITIGATION. When the kid down the road gets stung by a bee (or wasp) you will have to PROVE your bees are not ahb. In an area where all of the feral bees are ahb and you have a number of hives IMHO it will be almost impossible to keep some of them from being ahb even with constant requeening. If someone will sue because it was too hot at the football game (Dallas Cowboys, Texas Stadium, 98') and suffered a heat stroke, they will sue over this at the drop of a hat. Bob Young Lindale,TX ---------- > From: crpost > To: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu > Subject: Re: africanized bees > Date: Saturday, September 09, 2000 9:06 AM > > Bob Young wrote: > > IMHO this will drive more people from beekeeping than varroa. > > Why? > > Robert Post ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 14:38:38 GMT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: jeanne lee Subject: question about pollination service Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Greetings !!! I am also a new beekeeper and wondered how much beekeepers typically get paid for positioning a nuc temporarily on someone's lands for pollination purposes. Is there a standard amount? How much per nuc? Having fun in beekeeping ......... Jeanne Lee from Streamwood, Il. _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 10:37:43 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob Harrison Subject: Downsizing to Dadant 4.9mm foundation Hello all, All beekeepers interested in downsizing to the new 4.9mm foundation Dadant is going to run let me show you a simple way. On page 726 of the September 2000 American Bee Journal is a picture of two combs. The caption says "These old black combs need to be culled from your hives". I suspect their are millions on these combs sitting waiting to be melted down. Quote from article:During Dr. Jaycox's examinations of bees, he found that after a time cells in those old ,black combs became smaller and bees emerging from them were actually 17 percent smaller. It is amazing how much residue is stored in those cells from various sources. comment: Dr. Jaycoxs work makes be believe stronger that my goals of puttin a.melifera on a 4.7mm-4.8mm is indeed possible! Quote fro "The Hive and the Honeybee" copy 1946 page 219 It would require the thickening of the cell walls only 0.004 to 0.005 inch in order to reduce the normal cells of the Italian bees to the size built by the smaller German or black bees. Michailov(variability of bees and their combs 1927) has shown that after 16 or 18 generations the diameter of the cells is reduced 5.89 per cent and that this reduction caused a SIGNIFICANT reduction in the size of the bees. Comment: Look at the combs on page 726 . These can be used to downsize with. dig thru your operation and use those small diameter combs to downsize. They are allready drawn and perfect. You can cull them later if you wish. Ask around those combs may be free for the asking or vary inexpensive. Watch carefully for signs of American foulbrood when using any old combs. The commercial beekeeper might be happy to supply you to try on a small scale and you could give the comb back later after your hives are on new 4.9mm foundation from Dadant! Unlikely but possible. The hardest part and most time consuming task would be the amount of time spent trying to explain why you would want "old black comb" to the commercial beekeeper. Sincerely, Bob Harrison ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 18:51:01 +0200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: crpost Subject: Re: EFB sterilization Comments: To: peter@airborne.co.nz MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Peter Bray wrote: > What Dennis found is that HMD is a nutritional problem of the virgin queens, > probably at the time of feeding after emergence and prior to mating. This > poor nutrition produces queens that have problems laying fertilized eggs and > may in fact show up drone laying. Interesting if one considers my posting on fat patties and the previous ones on EFB showing up in pollen poor pollination conditions. Perhaps we could narrow this down to say that a lipid of sorts (or at least a fat soluble substance/vitamin) is missing from the diet. What is interesting, though, is why feeding fat will rectify the problem virtually immediately? Anyone doing work on bee nutrition these days? Robert Post ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 18:53:43 +0200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: crpost Subject: Re: Honey color Comments: To: busybeeacres@discoverynet.com MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit bob harrison wrote:. A USDA rep told me they could put a honey smear under a microscope and tell exactly the source of most U.S. honeys as each pollen grain is different as is each snowflake. Pollen analysis is, at best, an incomplete method for analysing nectar sources. Nectar production bears no relation to pollen availability. Nectar may also be sourced from extra floral nectaries and from insects (honey-dew). Even fruit may be sucked for sweetness and converted to honey. There are plants that produce copious amounts of nectar and hardly any pollen, while certain pollen sources have hardly any nectar available. Bees working both types at once, for example, could provide a skewed opinion on the source of the honey, should pollen analysis be used as definitive test. Robert Post . ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 18:52:17 +0200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: crpost Subject: Re: EFB sterilization MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Stan Sandler wrote: > I am dusting everything now, and I believe that will cure it. EFB is a stress related problem. It is widespread throughout the world. In a recent disease survey in South Africa it was confirmed that EFB is widespread, not a major disease problem and appears not to spread significantly within an apiary (Capensis Research Programme Final Report 8/5/2000(CRP)). The belief is that every colony actually contains EFB, but only shows symptoms when under stress. I would also like to refer you to Australasian Beekeeper (AB) (PMB 19, Maitland, NSW) pamphlet on EFB: "Hives can become initially infected by the introduction of infected combs/food, drift or bees watering from infected supplies ... Once present, M. pluton constantly remains in the hive. Hives which are stressed, having not wintered well due to ... are prone to outbreaks ..". It is important to note that secondary bacteria are responsible for the decay and other symptoms associated with EFB. M. pluton is apparently also extremely difficult to isolate in vitrio (CRP). "There is an increasing trend away from the use of antibiotics and a greater awareness that with care European foul brood can usually be successfully held at tolerable levels with management. In fact more beekeepers are turning to management primarily because it keeps their hives free of undesirable antibiotic residues and since they have fewer suscesptible hives, management has become a least cost alternative. (AB)." As a matter of fact Oxytetracyclene (OTC) is banned in many countries, as it masks the EFB and related pathogens, while the original stress inducing problem persists. Robert Post ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 18:54:14 +0200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: crpost Subject: Re: Pollination Beekeeper Listings MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit "David L. Green" wrote: I would be highly appreciative of some feedback on the pollination list. David, No, no hits for me yet, but that is not surprising, as I am well known within our sphere of the industry anyway. I am extremely grateful for my name on your list, though, and feel that it is vital to have a central facility such as yours where searchers might end up. Even if only for a school project! Even if every country/county had one contact name on your base from where further contacts could be made, the network would be worth the effort. No proposals for improvement at this stage. Many thanks again. Robert Post ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 13:46:43 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: Honey color MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Anybody have a notion as to the type of honey the shrub Clethra alnifolia produces. It blooms in the Northeast between privet and the Japanese knotweed. Some folks call it sweet pepper bush. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 18:53:25 +0200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: crpost Subject: Re: Honey color MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit > Prior to that we purchased some honey in Minnesota and I tasted a subtle, minty flavor. The beekeeper thought it was due to nearby Basswood trees. This prompts me to comment on a letter to the editor I sourced in an ABJ (1985, Vol 125, No 11) regarding a beekeeper (b/w photo included) that mentioned his bees working red mint candy. What sent me looking for this letter was that, in preparing our bees this year for the pollination season, we discovered strongly mint flavoured, bright red honey in hives in two apiaries about 50 km apart! Candy? Hardly! A bottle of cough mixture thrown out? Bees working 50 km radii? Hardly! Delving a bit deeper we discovered the potential source of this honey: Eucalyptus elata (= E. andreana) also called River peppermint gum! This has not been confirmed with pollen analysis yet. So one learns! Robert Post ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 18:07:27 -0700 Reply-To: beekeeper82@yahoo.com Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Carm Subject: Re: Honey color MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi Karen, >From what I have been told, the honey you have sounds like basswood honey! Basswood blooms once in seven years. Here in Ontario, there have been basswoods blooming, but as other things bloomed as well, nothing of the honey that came off the trees could be marketed as such. There was too much clover mixed in. If it is basswood, it is more worth your while to sell it rather than eat it!! It is worth quite a bit as one only gets it every few years if that. Enjoy it. Carm > We removed > honey Aug. 1st and it is almost clear, extremely > sweet and some find a > slight minty taste. It's beautiful, does anyone > have an idea what the main > component might be? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 22:22:36 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Barry Birkey Subject: Bees Regression, was(Re: American Bee Journal collector help) In-Reply-To: <200009091121.HAA12838@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit >> Allen Dick wrote: We have asked you to prove that bees have been increased in size significantly during the 20th century by use of artificially large foundation and that they will return to a size around 5.0 mm within a few generations if left to their own devices. > Beesource.com web site regarding cell size and have had no problem seeing in > these articles where the size of the honey bee has been enlarged. I've Hi Mark - Pertaining to the part about the bee returning to a smaller size if left to their own devices...... (which, of course, they never got big on their own), a friend sent some excerpts from a book, written in Dutch, that dealt with this issue. -Barry Het werk van Baudoux(+1934) staat vermeld in : "Handboek van de imker door Edm.Leysen (1961)" blz.13 tot 19, en in "Het maandblad van de Vlaamse Bijentelers" nr 11( 20 ste jaargang) ------- The work of Baudouw is mentioned in : "Handboek van de imker door Edm.Leysen (1961)" page.13 till 19, and in "Het maandblad van de Vlaamse Bijentelers" nr 11( 20 ste volume) De eigenschappen waren NIET erfelijk zodat een zwerm uit een volk met 700 cellengrootte in vrijheid terug overging naar cellen van 734 cellen/cm* om nadien trapsgewijs terug te keren naar cellen van 835 tot 870 cellen /dm*. ------- The quality were NOT heritable/hereditary so that a swarm from a beehive with cells of 700 in freedom goes back to 734 cells and after that goes back to 835 to 870 cells Er zou een boekje bestaan (hebben) "De grote Cel" geschreven door Steven De Meyer over de opzoekingen van Baudoux. ------ There is a book titel "the big cell" written by Steven De Meyer Concerning the discoverys by Baudoux. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 05:45:41 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "john f. mesinger" Subject: Re: crowding outside of hive In-Reply-To: <200009091310.JAA13935@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" There are a number of reasons for crowding - hive full of bees and/or honey being one of them. If you have put in a medicine such as formic acid or menthol they might also go outside for a while. Weather might be another reason - both inside and outside the hive. Woirthwhile to check for verroa mites at this time of the year if you have not done so. Good idea to get a mentor in your area to help or a state inspector for your area. John F. Mesinger jfm6f@unix.mail.virginia.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 06:40:55 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Michael Housel Subject: Re: crowding outside of hive MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Beetles in the hive will drive the bees out of the hive. Check brood area for larvae and under lid for beetles. Michael Housel surveying drone. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 12:30:30 GMT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: jeanne lee Subject: Re: crowding outside of hive Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed I am a new beekeeping person..... so please forgive the question ...but... if the bees are hanging outside the hive and it happens to be due to medication for tracheal mites and or varroa mites how is the medication able to impact those mites ????????? Doesn't this greatly limit bee exposure to the medicine and therefore negate the impact that the treatment actually has??? Jeanne from Streamwood, Il. _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 08:44:28 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "David L. Green" Subject: Re: question about pollination service MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/9/00 10:59:03 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jeannesarahlee@HOTMAIL.COM writes: << Greetings !!! I am also a new beekeeper and wondered how much beekeepers typically get paid for positioning a nuc temporarily on someone's lands for pollination purposes. Is there a standard amount? How much per nuc? Having fun in beekeeping ......... Jeanne Lee from Streamwood, Il >> Pollination is not generally done with nucs, though there are specialized situations where they have been used, such as in greenhouse settings. Cucumber reps tell me that a lot of the pickle crop in southern Mexico is done with africanized bees in nucs. By deliberately keeping the colonies small, they reduce the temper of the bees. But they also encourage a lot of swarming. Usually the guys who provide the nucs also provide more bait nuc boxes to catch swarms. There have been times when nucs were used, because nothing else was available. And there are dishonest beekeepers who provide nucs that are misrepresented as full strength hives. On a couple occasions where no full strength hives were available I have rented nucs at reduced prices, but the growers are fully informed as to what they are getting. I sometimes stick a few extra nucs into a pollination at no charge, again with the grower being informed as to what they are. Then I use them for later requeening for colonies that aren't up to par from a poor queen. There have been some experiments with using "disposable" nucs in apple pollination. This does not seem to have become a widespread practice though; my impression is that it was not cost effective. Most crop pollination is done with full strength hives, and in many areas, there are minimum standards for these. If you cut a full strength hive in half to make two nucs, you will not get as much pollination from these two nucs as you would have from the full strength hive. There are exceptions to this, of course, but it is a general principle. One exception would be if the full strength hive is preparing to swarm; bees do not work well during swarm preparations. Once key to pollination service is to keep a hive on the upswing, which is the opposite of management for honey production. For honey production you want maximum field workers, and a queen that is shutting down, in other words it has already done its buildup and is actually now on the downswing. Emerging brood is being replaced by nectar, not more brood. But pollination is best accomplished when you have a lot of open brood. Pollen provides the necessary protein for brood rearing. This induces the field bees to gather pollen deliberately, as opposed to gathering pollen as an accidental by product of nectar gathering. A bee that is gathering pollen deliberately is about ten times as effective for pollination purposes as a bee whose intent is to gather pollen. So we must keep open brood and a high rate of egg laying as long as possible into the pollination period. Whenever the queen starts shutting down, you are reducing the pollination effectiveness. Pollination service is best accomplished by beekeepers who take pollination seriously. A pollination contract is not a way-station between honey crops. Nor is a chance to get "free" honey, or find locations for bees. Management for pollination is quite different from management for honey production. If you convince a grower than you can do good pollination with nucs, you may be doing him a disservice, unless there are special reasons why nucs would be more appropriate. You are on your own as to pricing..... For full strength colony pollination, the prices range from around $25 to $75 US. You can find a monthly pollination index by region in Bee Culture magazine. It tends to be cheaper where there is a lot of competition, such as winter veggies in Florida, where some beekeepers are looking for sites for wintering, as much as they are looking for income. In areas where demand is high and bees are not in sufficient supply, the price is higher. In the Northeast, and in California almonds, the price will almost certainly have upward movement next spring, unless winter losses are dramatically reduced. Some of the low end prices also represent new beekeepers trying to get into a market by undercutting established ones (though there are not as many new beekeepers as there used to be), beekeepers who don't bargain well, because they desperately need cash inflow, or big beekeepers who need a place to "drop" a tractor trailer load for a few weeks. Growers tend to get what they pay for, though there are exceptions. A good resource for anyone considering pollination is The Pollination Home Page, http://pollinator.com Spend some serious time there, then come back with your questions. Dave Green ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 09:41:05 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: William Morong Subject: Re: crowding on outside of hive MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; X-MAPIextension=".TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Many good possibilities for bees hanging out have been mentioned, but one ought not to neglect the possibility of inadequate ventilation. This summer I have bound propolis traps in wood for use as inner covers, and the bees do not propolize them, save at the periphery. My outer covers are made of plastic drums which allow free air flow to these rather open inner covers. All this is in addition to the 2" high entrances created by deep bottom boards with slatted racks, which reduced, but did not eliminate bees hanging out last year. Very few bees now hang out, usually just a moustache over the entrance which seems to be a live-bee venturi to facilitate the work of the fanners. Also the bees seem very calm. Bees seem to hang out more if the hive is stuffy. The desirability of so much ventilation for bees seems counterintuitive. After all what could be stuffier than the natural home of bees, a tree cavity with a little hole. Perhaps someone more learned can explain this conundrum. Bill Morong Bill Morong ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 03:46:26 -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: Bees Regression, was(Re: American Bee Journal collector help) In-Reply-To: <200009100705.DAA28897@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >> Allen Dick wrote: > > We have asked you to prove that bees have been increased in size > significantly during the 20th century by use of artificially large > foundation and that they will return to a size around 5.0 mm within a few > generations if left to their own devices. > > Beesource.com web site regarding cell size and have had no problem seeing in > > these articles where the size of the honey bee has been enlarged. I've Hi Barry et al. You know, I have been looking all over for the rest of the second quote above and cannot find it. Anyhow, I appreciate your contributing the statement below. The numbers are entirely consistent with what I have been trying to say all along and the quote below says it better than I have been able thus far: > The quality were NOT heritable/hereditary so that a swarm from a beehive > with cells of 700 in freedom goes back to 734 cells and after that goes back > to 835 to 870 cells Using the chart at http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Misc/CellCount.htm, these numbers translate to about 5.75 mm, 7.4 mm, and 5.25 to 5.15 mm respectively. The last numbers are what I consider to be the natural size and are consistent with what A.I. Root reports for natural comb size back in 1891 when foundation was just catching on. He says in the 1891 second edition of The ABC & XYZ...: "The bees build two distinct regular sizes -- drone and worker cells. The worker comb measures very nearly five cells to the inch on an average. Some specimens average a little larger, and some a little smaller; but when the comb is at all irregular, it is quite apt to be a little larger... Contradicting himself slightly and showing (IMO) some bias, he goes on to say: "The best specimens of true worker comb generally contain 5 cells *within* the space of an inch" (my emphasis) therefore this measure has been adopted for the comb foundation. If there are five cells to the inch, a square inch would give, on an average, about 25 cells, and the 25 on the opposite side would make 50 young bees that would be hatched from every square inch of solid brood. As foundation is so much more regular than the natural comb, we get a great many more bees in a given surface of comb, and here, at least, we can fairly claim to have improved on nature". (His footnotes indicate that the true numbers are 29,29, and 58 and that he has rounded off). Using the table at http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Misc/images/Understanding_Cell_Size.gif on page http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Misc/CellCount.htm, we can see that having 5 cells per inch would require 5.1 mm cells. Interestingly, Root has stated that, from the natural worker comb he has examined, "The worker comb measures very *nearly* five cells to the inch on an average". (My emphasis) and then says that the 'best' samples measure "five cells *within* the space of an inch" (My emphasis). In the first case it is clear to me that given one inch of measure, one can get nearly five cells into it. In other words, five cells are a hair over an inch. In the second case, he says that five cells barely fit into an inch in the samples of natural comb he considers 'best'. He also claims: "As foundation is so much more regular than the natural comb, we get a great many more bees in a given surface of comb, and here, at least, we can fairly claim to have improved on nature". This is a strong admission that his 5.1 mm foundation packs in cells more densely than the average in natural comb. He is proud of the fact and boasts about it. The table shows the next size up to be 5.2 mm at 4-7/8 cells per inch. That just happens to be the size Root was making by 1913, according to the material on http://www.Beesource.com/ attributed to D. Lusby. We thus see that at the time of writing in 1891, he was biased towards a slight crowding of the cells to the 5.1 size, but by 1913, he had settled on 5.2 mm as being the proper size for foundation. (These sizes are specially marked on the above mentioned conversion chart -- FWIW). 5.2 mm to 5.3 just happens to be the very size that I personally arrived at as being natural for the bees I have seen over the past twenty-five years, and which comes up again and again as a median size reported from North America and Europe on the page where I recorded the results of my little informal survey. I'm not sure what your conclusions were, but I should imagine they are not much different. Maybe you could point us to your results? FWIW, I also share Root's desire to have more bees per square inch, mostly due to the question of heat conservation in cool weather. I draw the line, though at wanting to reduce the size beyond what is natural for my bees, so I consider 5.1 to be a *bit* tight, especially when we allow for increase in wall thickness with use and distortion that may occur over time. I prefer to err on the generous side. Since I got interested and researched this topic last March and April, I have become aware that much of my comb uses a larger size foundation, and that does concern me somewhat. I am, however, pleased that I purchased 10,000 Pierco frames a while back and that they have 5.25 mm cells, which is close to optimal compared to the other foundations on the market. I'm not going to comment much here about the question of cocoon build-up that was so well documented in a recent post, other than to say that 'it depends'. I've seen where it happens and also I've seen where the bees tear the cocoons out. Maybe they let them build in overly large cells, and tear them out if things get crowded. Maybe different bees (hygienic?) do more comb reconstruction? ... Back to your quote: I'm quite curious as to how long it takes to get from the 5.75 to the 5.2 range in the article you quote. It does not specify timeframe. This is something I am a bit unclear about, since I am not sure what determines the size of comb bees make, whether it is the (possibly assorted) sizes of the individuals building it, or perhaps the variety of bee, or even memory of what they came from. I mention this last idea because there is some evidence that the bees remember the magnetic orientation of their parent hive when they swarm. I also wonder, because, around here anyhow, bees that swarm off larger foundation sizes seem to make swarm nests at 5.2 to 5.3 mm. I should also mention that in my hives there are typically a range of foundation brands and ages of comb; so the bees are maybe confused? Back to the quote again: I gather that immediately after removal from the monster foundation combs, in the quote they go to 7.4, and then in a generation or so, to 5.2 and then stay there, according to this source? Or do they build a variety all at once. In my experience there is more variety in cell size in natural comb than the averages would indicate. I have not yet reported here the beautiful natural observation hive I found recently, but I will now: A photo is at http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/diary/images/VolObs.jpg and will stay there. However, the background and description is currently in the Thursday September 7th, 2000 notes at http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/diary/. That URL will change when I archive the current diary pages, but the date can serve as a marker for any latecomers reading this. I mention this here because in the photo one can see a quite variety of cell sizes and shapes in just one hive. If anyone wants the original large image that prints nicely at 8-1/2 x 11", just write me with 'Send Picture' in the subject line. 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: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 09:34:15 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "David L. Green" Subject: Re: Honey color MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/9/00 1:27:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, crpost@TELKOMSA.NET writes: > bob harrison wrote:. > > A USDA rep told me they could put a honey smear under a microscope and tell > exactly the source of most U.S. honeys as each pollen grain is different as > is > each snowflake. Bob Post is right. The presence of pollen in a honey is only a documentation that the bees worked that particular species, but the pollen/nectar ratio is quite different for each plant, and a good knowledge of this would be necessary for any attempt to quantify the relationship. In my area wild mustard yields tremendous quantities of pollen throughout the winter and spring, but very little nectar, so all my early honeys would probably show a high percentage of mustard pollen, yet the honey is not really made from mustard. I could give many other examples. Of course there is also the case of the "sourwood" honey being full of "star thistle" pollen.... Dave Green SC USA The Pollination Home Page: http://pollinator.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 10:51:50 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob Harrison Subject: Re: Bees Regression,was(Re:American Bee Journal collector help) Hello All, I have read this post several times and say to Allen. Job well done! Mark Winston couldn't have done better! The post states the thinking of Root over 100 years ago and shows the date of the first Root enlargement. I was aware of both but glad the information will be added to the archives. The post states your beliefs and why you believe. Bravo! Your post was so well written i even have trouble picking on choice of words. I will try to sneak in one little point. I believe when talking about "five cells to the inch " which is the most common phrase used in the time period that most likely the 5mm figure would be the closer cell size they were talking about. Strickly my opinion and unprovable. Allen does a good job in his post pointing out Roots careful choice of words such as quote:"The worker comb measures very *nearly* five cells to the inch on *average*. In my opinion Mr. Root was looking at the question of cell size very deeply as i hope we all are in the cell size discussion. I accept the post in its entirety without problem. Sincerely, Bob Harrison ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 12:13:21 -0500 Reply-To: busybeeacres@discoverynet.com Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: bob harrison Subject: Re: Bees Regression,was(Re:American Bee Journal collector help) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello all, To add to the post of Allen Dick i have looked up in four of A.I Roots ABC-XYZ comments on cell size for the archives and those readers interested but not being able to reach out and pull the book from a shelf. Oldest i looked in first. ABC-XYZ by A.I.Root and E.R. Root copywrite 1935 quote pg 417: If the worker -cells were exactly five to the inch there would be exactly 28-35-15 cells to the square inch on one side of a comb. But there is not this exactness,as will be shown by careful,although the eye may detect no variation.Count the number of cells in a given length in a horizontal row of cells and then make the same count in one of the diagonal rows,and it will be found that they are not precisely the same. That shows that the cells are not exact hexagons. Measure the cells in a number of combs built by different colonies,or even by the same colony,and it would be found that they are by no means all of them five to the inch. Comment: I believe the Younger and older Roots were beginning to notice transition cells which i am going to do a post on. These were not added to Roots publishings till the 40th edition which was done by Roger Morse. The 1935 copy is the first to question the "five cells per inch". I believe you need to be sure there are no transition cells involved when measuring comb. Especially feral comb! The 1940 edition ABC_XYZ by the same authors shows a change in their opinion of cell size. Same authors but four years later. quote page 190: By far the larger portion of the cells in a hive will be found to measure slightly less than five to the inch,or,more exactly,4.83 cells to the inch. The above from 1935 edition is the next paragraph. the 32nd edition from 1962 is exactly as the 1940 edition with the exception A.I. was listed as author. The 40th edition-1990- edited by Roger Morse and Kim Flottum do not state a cell size for worker comb i could find. Different from the Roots. The section on natural comb i find very interesting and informative to people looking at cells. The material is quite different than the other Root editions. Quite a bit of information on transition cells. Most researchers now class natural comb as being of FOUR types. Worker,drone,queen and TRANSITIONAL cells. In "The Encyclopedia of Beekeeping" approx copy 1985 by Roger Morse which predates the 40th abc-xyz Roger states the worker cell size at 5.0mm. Kim Flottum i believe reads bee-l and maybe he will respond as to his and Rogers thoughts at the time on cell size. I had the good fortune of sitting with Kim Flottum on a flight and was able to question him on beekeeping. Extensive beekeeping knowledge! Can you help us out Kim? Had Roger had a change of view on cell size or simple thought enough had allready been said? Kind of like many bee-l readers i suppose! Sincerely, Bob Harrison ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 00:46:22 -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: Bees Regression, was(Re: American Bee Journal collector help) In-Reply-To: <200009101346.JAA01324@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit >>>> Allen Dick wrote: >> >> We have asked you to prove that bees have been increased in size >> significantly during the 20th century by use of artificially large >> foundation Allen - Okay, it appears that we agree on this one now, since Mark Otts went and posted excerpts from some of the articles that are on the web site showing a definite and purposefully increase in cell size. You made no negative comment about it nor challenged it so I hope this is a point we might agree on. > You know, I have been looking all over for the rest of the second quote above >> The quality were NOT heritable/hereditary so that a swarm from a beehive >> with cells of 700 in freedom goes back to 734 cells and after that goes back >> to 835 to 870 cells > > Using the chart at http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Misc/CellCount.htm, these > numbers translate to about 5.75 mm, 7.4 mm, and 5.25 to 5.15 mm respectively. > The last numbers are what I consider to be the natural size The quote above, from the book in Dutch, makes it clear that the bee can not go from large to small in one giant step (regression). I don't think we can assume that this quote is complete. It may even go on to say yet another higher number of cells, I don't know. It doesn't really matter for this point. Only that there is a step down in size by the bee when given the freedom to do so. It also tells us that the bee, if left to its own, will regress itself down to a size that is "natural." Nature goes for small. In nature, no one gives the bees new wax after a few years so combs become used and cells get smaller from many rounds of brood rearing, and smaller drones fly faster and catch the virgins first. So you get selection for smallness. I assume we also agree on this point? It appears we can then narrow down our differences to just "what I consider to be the natural size." I think here is where we differ with the "interpretation" of the literature. > worker comb measures very nearly five cells to the inch on an average. Some > specimens average a little larger, and some a little smaller; One should note that Root is making reference to "average" in all three examples. The larger and smaller cells are not looked at as being unusual, but still average. Five cells to the inch gives the measurement of a single cell, 5.1 mm. Is an average smaller size 5.0 - 4.9? Is an average larger size 5.2 - 5.3? One would have to speculate here as it's not stated in this reference. I also note here that in 1898, a correction from Thos. Wm. Cowan was given to Mr. Root about his use of "average." I quote: "Dear Mr. Root:- On page 144 you refer to the "number of cells or worker comb to the linear inch.'' Will you kindly look at my "The Honey-bee; its Natural History, Anatomy, and Physiology"? On page 180 you will see that I say, "The average size of a worker-cell between the parallel sides is 1/5 of an inch, or 0.2 (a printer's error makes it 0.02; but it is two-tenths of an inch). Then I go on, "We say 'average,' because considerable variation exists in different parts of the same comb, as both Reaumur and Huber found." I then go on to summarize the large number of measurements I took; and if you will read the details you will see what a variation there is. You say, "It has been said over and over again in bee-books and bee-journals, that there are five cells of worker comb to the inch, so that we have come to believe it;'' also that Cook is the only authority you have run across who says worker-cells are a little more than 1/5 inch; but in my book you will find that, out of 36 measurements that were taken, I found the greatest aggregate diameters of any one series of ten cells to amount to 2.11 inches, which you see makes them considerably larger than 1/5 inch. On the other hand, the least came to 1.86, which makes them smaller." Again, we are still talking average. And within the average size is a range that the bee will use. 2.11 inches to 1.86 inches. That's 5.36 mm to 4.72 mm. 4.9 is in this natural (average) range, is it not? What the Lusby's have done by using the 4.9 cell size is to help the bees to use one of their smaller natural sizes to be able to deal with the mite on their own without the use of any chemicals. All the numbers are out there for all to read and I don't think I'm off base in my reading of these articles. I know you think the same about your interpretation. We should realize, though, that what you and I are talking about is just theory. A matter of opinion and interpretation. What can't be overlooked is reality. The Lusby's are *in* reality, but have offered their theory as to how it works. We now have the tool (4.9 foundation) to test this theory. One can stay in theory and debate indefinitely, or, pick up some 4.9 foundation and see what reality is. People will believe reality over theory. > Back to the quote again: I gather that immediately after removal from the > monster foundation combs, in the quote they go to 7.4, and then in a > generation or so, to 5.2 and then stay there, according to this source? The portion of the quote is all I have. Don't know what follows. Perhaps one of our European friends could find this book and let us know. Regards, Barry ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 09:03:56 +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: EFB sterilization In-Reply-To: <200009091124.HAA12898@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 In message <200009091124.HAA12898@listserv.albany.edu>, Stan Sandler writes > This would seem to me >to be a pretty basic question that someone must have looked at. I wish to add a question about the greater wax moth. Is there a known mechanism for the *adults* to take EFB from one colony to another? I have not had a satisfactory answer to this one having read on dee lusby's site a paper which refers to the larvae having the bacteria in their faeces. I can only presume this is likely even though they aren't supposed to defecate: in/on their eggs - body surface? -- James Kilty ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 22:28:51 +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: FW: No of varroa mites in hive (Varroa Calculator) Comments: To: joe@golberdon.prestel.co.uk In-Reply-To: <200009071819.OAA29112@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 In message <200009071819.OAA29112@listserv.albany.edu>, Joe Hemmens writes >> This gives an estimated total number of mites in the hive from the >> actual number dropped in a 24 hour period. >> >> The table is based on the MAFF calulator distribtued to UK beekeepers. >Natural mortality can vary by a factor of 3 from one week to >another. The Varroa calculator is calibrated in months. In >other words a colony might show a drop of say 2 per day >averaged over 7 days yet the next week might show a drop of >6 per day the very next week (within the same month). > >Either of these two factors alone would suggest that the >Varroa Calculator is well nigh useless. > >Because of the data collected by DARG members (over 250,000 >mites were counted) it is possible to apply the Varroa >Calculator retrospectively. The results confirm my previous >points. Both these postings refer to the mite fall method which is stated as a rough approximation and should be used as a guideline only for Mar/Apr Sept/Oct (add 6 months for Antipodes). It was also developed for the bee rhythm of the UK. The full use of the calculator requires you to estimate varroa on adults, in worker cells and in drone cells from samples of each. The samples are extrapolated to the whole colony. I have to admit not using the thing as it is too complicated for me. Nor have I checked it - I could compare the daily mite fall at its peak before treating and then estimate the mite population after treatment. Perhaps others would post their data - does the factor of 30 appear to be right for May to August? or 100 for September? -- James Kilty ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 20:39:01 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Karen DeHond Subject: Basswood Honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I want to thank everyone for 'diagnosing' my honey. It fits all the elements of Basswood. Now I'm told that it might be worth my while to sell it. We run a Community Supported Farm and could definitely use a bit more revenue. Our average farm stand customer is not educated to the merits of one kind of honey over another. My question: Is there a market for this honey that we could tap into. I only have about 160 lbs. of it, perhaps a little more. Thank you everyone. Karen, Upstate, NY (Near Rochester) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 09:17:55 +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: EFB sterilization In-Reply-To: <200009091807.OAA18009@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 In message <200009091807.OAA18009@listserv.albany.edu>, crpost writes >EFB is a stress related problem. It is widespread throughout the world. In a >recent disease survey in South Africa it was confirmed that EFB is widespread, >not a major disease problem and appears not to spread significantly within an >apiary (Capensis Research Programme Final Report 8/5/2000(CRP)). The belief is >that every colony actually contains EFB, but only shows symptoms when under >stress. Thank you for your contribution. I have written a short article for my newsletter and will send it to the BBKA for consideration for theirs. The question was about whether the greater wax moth can be a vector for EFB. My concern arises from it having come into our area and being very hard to get rid of over 3 years now. We have noticed much more wax moth presumably because of the death of wild colonies and gwm dealing with the unused wax. Your letter takes me back to Len Heath's position that it is endemic (actually I am agreeably disposed to other disease models wherein so-called pathogens such as bacteria can arise from within the affected organism because it is in an unhealthy state - stress being one cause of poor health). to get to the point, may I use your posting in my next edition of An Hes? May I quote it extensively in my submission to BBKA. If you agree, I will email you the proposed paper. Thank you. -- James Kilty editor An Hes An Hes is the monthly Newsletter of West Cornwall Beekeepers Association ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 09:25:22 +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: Bee calls In-Reply-To: <200009081523.LAA01270@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 In message <200009081523.LAA01270@listserv.albany.edu>, Lloyd Spear writes > However, my thinking is that if >we can't help out our neighbors then why are we here? Hello Lloyd. I much prefer to persuade people to leave them alone and let them get on with life especially for the short time left in the season. In this case carry on with the fence and work around them. If they absolutely cannot wait (I had someone want to demolish a wall the other day and builders were coming in two days) then the colony can be moved - either a few feet away or as far as you want - but obviously with care. I have never done it but call a friend who does it regularly. And yes I agree with the social conscience values you espouse in matters connected with any species of bee. -- James Kilty ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 10:35:58 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Lloyd Spear Subject: Selling honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit With regard to selling some premium basswood honey, Karen said "Our average farm stand customer is not educated to the merits of one kind of honey over another." Karen, Basswood normally sells at a good premium. In a normal year wholesale buyers would fall over themselves to buy it in 5 gallon buckets (60 pounds). However, this year there was probably a record yield so I doubt that wholesale prices will be much higher than for wildflower. Regardless, you really should try to sell retail at your stand. Try a label that says "Basswood" and (if it is true), Raw and Unfiltered. I think you would be surprised at the sophistication of your customers. If you can, put jars of it in a location where they will be back lighted by natural daylight. It shows wonderfully. Finally, the contrast with some nearby jars of "wildflower" will be especially striking. I bet you could sell 160 pounds between now and Columbus Day! Lloyd Lloyd Spear, Owner, Ross Rounds, Inc. The finest in comb honey production. www.rossrounds.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 09:31:23 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Blane White Subject: Re: Bee calls Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Lloyd, You wrote: "3. Buy a can of spray and do the job yourself. I always give some detailed instruction with this alternative, such as: only spray after dark and with a flashlight; get the spray into the hole; etc. I am advised that since I don't have an application license it is technically illegal for me to be doing #3. However, my thinking is that if we can't help out our neighbors then why are we here?" I also get many hornet calls and also advise the citizens on their options very similar to what you do with two additions as follows: 1. Just this year I found someone around here who collects hornets to sell for venom extraction. They offer to remove hornet nests free for people in the area. I have refered many people with problem hornet nests to them - nice to have someone to refer them to that will help them with the problem. 2. If they are too far from the folks in 1 above I tell them how to use detergent solution to kill the nests if that is an option - it works well on nests in the ground but of course is not to be used on those in a building because of the fairly large volume of water required. Usually adivse to try a bucket of detergent water to flood the nest. A 1% - 2% solution is fatal to insects but must contact the insects to work and may have lower environmental effects that pesticides ( wasp and hornet killers are usually formulated for quick knockdown and very low toxicity to humans) or if they are reluctant to use pesticides it gives them an alternative. FWIW blane ****************************************** Blane White MN Dept of Agriculture blane.white@state.mn.us ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 11:23:28 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "David L. Green" Subject: Re: Selling honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/11/00 10:35:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time, lloydspear@EMAIL.MSN.COM writes: > Regardless, you really should try to sell retail at your stand. Try a label > that says "Basswood" and (if it is true), Raw and Unfiltered. I think you > would be surprised at the sophistication of your customers. If you can, put > jars of it in a location where they will be back lighted by natural > daylight. It shows wonderfully. Finally, the contrast with some nearby > jars of "wildflower" will be especially striking. Though I agree with Lloyd, some things need consideration here. When a hobbyist beekeeper begins to sell honey they step over an important line. They become subject to a number of regulations and at least one regulatory agency. There are some rules that seem downright trivial, but they are there. For example you cannot label your honey "Pure Basswood Honey," but you can label it "Pure Honey, Basswood. That is a subtile difference, but it is written into law. Another is that there are prescribed size of type and manner of expression of content weights. The most important regulation is that your state simply isn't going to allow you to pack honey at your kitchen counter and sell it to the public. You have to have an approved, state inspected facility to pack it. Oftentimes the easiest way to do this is to work with another beekeeper, who already has approved facilities. You can run a search at the FDA web site to get some basic information, but remember that most regulations are implemented and enforced at the state level. You need to also check with your state. Some have the inspection agencies under the health agency, some are in the department of agriculture. Best bet is to go to your state website and look up the information, or ask your county extension agent. I remember the first time I put out honey in a local produce stand here in SC. I was visited by the state health inspector within about 2 weeks, and he wanted to see my facilities (like right NOW!). I guess I had a vague idea that such regulations existed, but I thought they were pretty laid back about honey, because it doesn't have the hazards that some producets (like meat) have. BTW, the name "Basswood" falls like a lump of lead. Why not the more poetic, but just as accurate name, "American Linden?" Dave Green SC USA "Haaalp, I've been stung by a "bee!" http://pollinator.com/stung.htm ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 11:48:34 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "David L. Green" Subject: Re: Bee calls MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/11/00 10:39:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Blane.White@STATE.MN.US writes: << 2. If they are too far from the folks in 1 above I tell them how to use detergent solution to kill the nests if that is an option - it works well on nests in the ground but of course is not to be used on those in a building because of the fairly large volume of water required. Usually adivse to try a bucket of detergent water to flood the nest. A 1% - 2% solution is fatal to insects but must contact the insects to work and may have lower environmental effects that pesticides ( wasp and hornet killers are usually formulated for quick knockdown and very low toxicity to humans) or if they are reluctant to use pesticides it gives them an alternative. >> I appreciate that, Blane. I have been telling folks about this for several years, as opposed to the more common suggestion of gasoline. I even know of one case where an extension agent was recommending gasoline. Even with pesticides we should have some concerns. I am not against pesticides, but we use them far more than we should and in many situations where they are not necessary. The application of a dilute pesticide on plant tissue, where air, sunlight and dew can break it down, is a whole lot different from adding a concentrated pesticide directly to the soil, where the tendency is to move downward into water supplies. Some of the termite pesticides have been banned for this very reason. So I generally challenge those who say to fill the yellow jacket hole with Sevin, etc. Dave Green SC USA "Haaalp, I've been stung by a "bee!" http://pollinator.com/stung.htm ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 09:35:02 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dave Pehling Subject: Re: Bee calls In-Reply-To: <200009111437.KAA27277@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, Blane White wrote: > 2. If they are too far from the folks in 1 above I tell them how to use detergent solution to kill the nests if that is an option - it wo ====================== Has anyone actually used the detergent solution on _Vespula sp_.? I had a friend with a dead brood box that was taken over by yellowjackets so we did not want to use standard pesticides and, since it was in his garden, we could not wait for it to die out in the winter. I remembered reading about the detergent-water trick in one of the bee-journals and figured it would work on all hymenoptera. Well, I took my 3 gal. tank sprayer and mixed the detergent per instructions, suited up & absolutely DRENCHED the nest in the brood-box....3 times, in fact (9 gallons of solution). I was finally reduced to using the spray to knock down the wasps and then stomping on them, as they would calmly clean themselves and take to the air again unless promptly squished. I finally had to give up. The nest was still active the following week so we had to resort to an aerosol wasp spray and discard the equipment. cheers, Dave Pehling ============================================ | W.S.U. COOPERATIVE EXTENSION-SNOHOMISH CO. | | 600 128TH ST. S.E. | | EVERETT, WA. 98208 U.S.A. | | PHONE - (425)338-2400 | | FAX - (425)338-3994 | | EMAIL pehling@wsu.edu | ============================================ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 12:49:24 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "David L. Green" Subject: EPA Review of Genetic Crops MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The registration for some Bt crops has been extended for another year, but the next registration period will be based on a review. If you would like to read the information so far, or to add your comments to the review, go to this site: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/ I have some uneasiness about these, knowing how many times pesticides have come back to bite us, in my lifetime, and this has even more potential impact than adding toxins to the environment, but I also have to admit that Bt cotton has saved a lot of honeybees in the past three years. Because I have mixed feelings about it, I haven't decided whether to make official comment.... Dave Green SC USA The Pollination Home Page: http://pollinator.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 10:14:33 -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: Bees Regression, was(Re: American Bee Journal collector help) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Barry Birkey wrote: > >>>> Allen Dick wrote: > The portion of the quote is all I have. Don't know what follows. Perhaps one > of our European friends could find this book and let us know. > Regards, > Barry This has all gotten murky for me - if someone can be more specific about the quote, I' pretty sure I can find it in our (your) large reference library here. - John Edwards, Tucson Bee Lab ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 12:43:30 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Blane White Subject: Re: Selling honey Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Dave and Everyone, Dave wrote in part regarding sales of honey: " The most important regulation is that your state simply isn't going to allow you to pack honey at your kitchen counter and sell it to the public. You have to have an approved, state inspected facility to pack it. Oftentimes the easiest way to do this is to work with another beekeeper, who already has approved facilities." This really varies from state to state. Here in MN beekeepers can bottle liquid honey in their homes and sell it at a farmers market or even a store shelf as long as it is correctly labeled. In MN but not many other states honey grade is required on the label in addition to the other usual information. For state specific information contact your state apiary inspector or state aparist as they will be aware of the specific regulations in your state. MN does require an approved food processing facility for "processed" food products including creamed honey but not for liquid or comb honey which are considered "raw agricultural products". Regulation at the state level means different states will do it differently. Hope this helps. blane ****************************************** Blane White MN Dept of Agriculture blane.white@state.mn.us ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 12:50:14 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Blane White Subject: Re: Bee calls Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Dave, Yes I have used detergent solution to kill yellowjacket nests. Around here the german yellowjacket is most common but we also have several other native species and detergent solution works on all of them. I have sprayed them at the entrance and it does kill them but they crawl around for a while but best results are from pouring a large quanty of solution down the entrance hole to flood ( completely saturate ) the nest. It sounds like either you didn't use enough detergent and/or sprayed the outside of the nest and didn't get the inside saturated as it is a contact material the insects have to get enough on them to kill. It also works well for killing honey bees and is recommended to be used on AHB swarms in some situations as it does not cause the "flare up" reaction some insecticides do. FWIW blane ****************************************** Blane White MN Dept of Agriculture blane.white@state.mn.us ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 18:02:59 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: John Mitchell Subject: The muckraking bee MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In the interest of keeping beekeepers up to date on positive (and humorous) public images of bees, there is a new columnist in the San Francisco Examiner calling himself Bernie the cockroach. Bernie has a wise sidekick, Buzz the Bee, and these two characters muckrake and opine and do all the other things that columnists do. He recently outed CBS for piping in fake birdsong during a golf tournament. Thought some of the naturalists among you might be amused. Birdwatching at CBS The creative broadcasting network is at it again. CBS has been sweetening its golf coverage with fake bird sounds. The TV network was busted by keen-eared birders who knew instantly that the silky song of the western canyon wren could not possibly be heard at the Buick Open in Michigan. As one bird enthusiast groused, "Why not dub in harp music and rainbows for certain crucial holes?" Buzz the bee butted into my reading. "Bernie," he grumbled, "The network isn't lying so much as acting out of habit. Look at some of the other phony birds at CBS." The rest of the column is Buzz the bee reciting some less-than- stellar moments in CBS news history. Check it out at: http://examiner.com/000908/0908bernie.html ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 18:06:15 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Mark G Spagnolo Subject: Basswood honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I have been busy cleaning the extracting equipment and installing = apistan strips so I haven't been able to check my e-mail lately. I am = just now reading the messages about basswood honey. I keep several yards in the basswood stands around here (northern MN), = just for the honey. These trees seem to like sandy, well-drained soil = and grow in large clumps of four to seven. The blooming period can be = anywhere from four to fifteen days. The earliest bloom I can remember = was last year when it started on July 4th. This year the bloom began on = July 22 and only went 7 days. Although each and every tree may not bloom = every year, in these areas there are enough trees that there is always a = bloom. While in bloom the trees are filled with bees and insects of all kinds. = The roar sounds like a swarm. During the bloom a strong hive will fill = a medium super in just a few days. =20 Unfortunately, this is the last big bloom in these areas. At the end of = bloom the bees have to be moved immediately to another more productive = area. Usually I find a clover location. Before moving the hives I pull the honey. Not only to make the hives = lighter, but because basswood honey is fabulous! Almost water white, = this honey has a minty taste that is very unusual. =20 I can sell basswood honey at the local Farmers Market for a very good = price ($3.00 per pound) and basswood comb honey for $5.00. =20 We consider basswood to be a very important nectar source for our = operation. I would advise you to develop this source and enjoy the = unique honey. Mark in Minnesota ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 18:37:44 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob Harrison Subject: International Conference on Africanized Honey bee and bee mites Hello All, After reading the 30 abstracts from the 2nd. International Conference on Africanized Honey Bees and Bee mites I thought i might throw out a few statements for discussion. Taken from American Bee Journal September 2000. Abstract 21 interests me because our major flow is Clover and the mites do seem to increase at huge levels even when treated in the spring while on clover. I would be interested in getting all bee-l responses on the below abstracts. These were taken word for word from text but i did add the word " "hive"on abstract 23 for clarity as these are taken out of text. I do not mean disrespect for any of the people which wrote these abstracts only I would like to get comments on the abstracts from bee-l. I purposely left names out. If possible read the entire abstract from ABJ before responding. Thanks! Bob Harrison abstract 12-quote: A queen can lay 6,000 eggs a day in a heavy honey flow. abstract 20-quote Obviously ,the varroa females receive a activation signal by the host immediately after invasion of the brood cell. abstract 21-quote Studies on the effect of five types of food on varroa reproduction revealed that colonies in marjoram(majorana hortensis)cultivation had the lowest reproductive rate while those in clover (trifolium alexandrinium)cultivation had the highest reproductive rate. abstract 23-quote mite populations in juniper(j. occidentalis)"hive" boxes were consistently lower by 30%. abstract 25-quote European bee brood was twice as attractive to varroa as africanized brood. abstract 26-quote Bees in africanized feral swarms in Costa Rica appear to be quite resistant to the mites, and usually, if the colonies are properly managed,the mites do not kill commercial Africanized hives. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 10:38:56 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Angels on the Head of a Pin In-Reply-To: <200009110850.EAA18985@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >> We have asked you to prove that bees have been increased in size > >> significantly during the 20th century by use of artificially large > >> foundation > Okay, it appears that we agree on this one now, since Mark Otts went and > posted excerpts from some of the articles that are on the web site showing a > definite and purposefully increase in cell size. You made no negative > comment about it nor challenged it so I hope this is a point we might agree > on. Actually I did start to write a reply to Mark, but it got too detailed and I have not yet finished. I do have a life and this topic -- as bob has aptly guessed -- fills me and many others with great ennui. BTW, Mark's article was very good. It was well written, factual, had a good tone, was nicely formatted with good white space between thoughts to give my poor moderator's eye a much needed rest when skimming through. It was an oasis of relief in a desert of densely written, badly formatted, rambling, personal and badly reasoned posts on this particular topic and I sure hope he -- and others like him -- write much more often to this list. (Of course your work has those same positive characteristics, too and is appreciated). Maybe I'll deal more with the actual content of his post later. One thing I have noticed is that the proponents of this particular theory have boundless and an endless supply of words and energy and keep me busy trying to address all the little fallacies and unsupported assumptions that they are capable of generating. It is 3:55 AM and I am sitting here writing a rebuttal to a topic that I find extremely slippery and somewhat boring and wondering if I am a masochist. I think not. I admit to have benefited from this discussion, even if I balk at going along with you all under 5.2 mm because talking about this has drawn my attention to how wasteful in brood chamber volume some of the 'brood' comb foundation on the market is. I prefer to run singles, and with large cells, the standard brood chamber which was designed to hold all the brood a good queen can make, will not and still have room for a bit of feed. With Pierco, at 5.25 mm and less bar area, it will. What I did and do agree on in this debate is that there seems to be some evidence that some individual bees become *very slightly* larger when raised in cells larger than their sisters would naturally make. I seem to recall that Grout gave <2% and others gave up to 5% larger measurements in *some* *linear* dimensions. I am not totally convinced that that particular evidence is all that good, or that the increase is all that significant, but it seems to be reasonable that using a larger cell could allow the individual bee to be as large as it might naturally tend to be -- but no larger, whereas sufficiently smaller cells could reduce the size of all bees, much as binding the feet of Chinese noblewomen kept their feet from fully developing. We are talking about two defend things here: * raising bees in cells that do not constrict them and * raising bees in cells that do constrict them. Where the crossover occurs is in debate. Think of the problems one has choosing shoes. There are shoes that are too big and don't work well, shoes that fit perfectly, and shoes that pinch and distort developing feet. I should think that is a good analogy for brood cells. In the first case above, the bees will not keep getting bigger each generation, they are merely allowed to express their full genetic capability, subject only to other environmental factors. In the second, we are limiting development to a specific size -- as far as I can see, at least. What the cut-off point is under scrutiny here and it may not be the same for all the bees we keep. > >> The quality were NOT heritable/hereditary so that a swarm from a beehive > >> with cells of 700 in freedom goes back to 734 cells and after that > >> goes back to 835 to 870 cells That such changes are NOT heritary is the critical point that caused me indicate agreement was the statement. This is key. The whole retrogression thing has had connotations of permanent genetic change in bees being caused by experience, which is a red flag for many of us. The second point that I agreed with is that the bees naturally go to an 835 to 870 cell size. To me that is the obvious normal size I see around me when I look, so concurring is not at all difficult. But you are going to need strong horses or good arguments to drag me farther than that. Another critical thing here is that I don't think there was a claim made in the quote about a significant change of size in the bees involved. The quote was about adaptation to construction of different sizes of *cells*. Is it possible that the bees on average remain about the same size when inhabiting cells in the range of 5.2 to 5.7? What is truly interesting is the process of adaptation from 5.7 to 5.2 (I.e. from a too large size to just right). The assumption has thus far been made that the adaptation needing time (if true) is due to the size of the bees extant in the colony. Ain't necessarily so. Maybe it is a learning curve? Below 5.2, or some other number, I think that we must be looking at constriction of the developing bee and/or a reduction in size of the bee. I am reasonably sure that by the time we get down to 4.9 mm we are experiencing this for most familiar genotypes other than AHB. Maybe not. I think it is one of the several genuinely interesting questions in this investigation that has proceeded now for over a century without final resolution. I suspect that the correct questions have not been addressed until now. > > Using the chart at > > http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Misc/CellCount.htm, these > > numbers translate to about 5.75 mm, 7.4 mm, and 5.25 to 5.15 mm > > respectively. The last numbers are what I consider to be the natural size > The quote above, from the book in Dutch, makes it clear that the bee can not > go from large to small in one giant step (regression). I am with you -- albeit with reservations -- so far. Inasmuch as I don't think that the bees are much, if any, increased or reduced in size when raised in cells in this size range, I doubt they have a big step to take. However it is intriguing -- and not entirely illogical -- to hear that when having been on larger comb, they take some time to revert to making normal comb. That bears further study. Of course it does not prove the bees in question are larger, it could prove the bees seem to remember the cell size they were on previously for some time -- if it proves anything. FWIW, I have no experience (that I know of) with 5.7 mm foundation, so the extreme cases do not affect me. I was curious about the timeframe of the adjustment and asked for more info in a form I can read, but have not had it laid in front of me. > I don't think we can assume that this quote is complete. It may even go > on to say yet another higher number of cells, I don't know. It doesn't > really matter for this point. Only that there is a step down in size by > the bee when given the freedom to do so. It also tells us that the bee, > if left to its own, will regress itself down to a size that is "natural." You write, "...may even go on to say yet another higher number of cells". I am sure that if the text did say what you seem to want it to say -- rather than what it actually does say -- the writer would have quoted it here. He did not. This type of leap drives me crazy. Logic flies out the window if we allow this, and we go to fantasy. This has been a feature of the whole Lusby thing. We have some apparently solid facts, then a plethora of speculation -- some of which is presented as fact rather than what it is -- pure and wishful fantasy. There is no justification for reading things into plain honest text that is set before us. That merely muddies the water in this debate and keeps many knowledgeable people (who are thus obviously much wiser than me) out of it, and as far away from it as they can get. > Nature goes for small. In > nature, no one gives the bees new wax after a few years so combs become used > and cells get smaller from many rounds of brood rearing, and smaller drones > fly faster and catch the virgins first. So you get selection for smallness. > I assume we also agree on this point? Not even a little bit. Frankly, at this point, I don't think we are in Kansas any more. I'm going to need lots of proof here. > It appears we can then narrow down our differences to just "what I consider > to be the natural size." Maybe. The phrase, "the natural size" worries me. there are too many assumptions for me hidden it. For one thing if I only had a choice of 'too large' or 'too small' when buying clothes, guess which one I would take. >I think here is where we differ with the "interpretation" of the literature. "interpretation" is the word. I just read the literature I come across, and think it means exactly what it says, but I notice others "interpret" the readings selectively and apparently with some prejudice. Language can be imprecise and sometimes the meaning of a particular passage is indeterminate. In such cases no conclusion can be reached. Guessing is just that: guessing, and any conclusions that come from such expeditions into supposition are highly suspect. > > worker comb measures very nearly five cells to the inch on an average. Some > > specimens average a little larger, and some a little smaller; > > One should note that Root is making reference to "average" in all three > examples. The larger and smaller cells are not looked at as being unusual, > but still average. Five cells to the inch gives the measurement of a single > cell, 5.1 mm. Is an average smaller size 5.0 - 4.9? Is an average larger > size 5.2 - 5.3? One would have to speculate here as it's not stated in this > reference. I would not speculate, but stick to what is written and stop right there. Beyond that point lies chaos and confusion. The word 'average' is a notoriously imprecise word and refers to several different ideas. The only thing they have in common is that in all cases, there *may* be larger and smaller specimens, but we know nothing about the range or nature of the variation without more data. Moreover, the samples may not even be from only one population. If they are not, then the idea of averaging is entirely and dangerously meaningless. To try to guess takes us into fantasy again. We must find solid evidence and examine real data. We do not *know* what he was actually looking at; we are trying to figure that out. We *think* that perhaps we know, but to guess, and then use that guess to prove our point is circular. That is what worries me about this debate: I think many of the small cell enthusiasts are drinking their own bath water. What we do know and what was omitted from the my quote this time was the important fact that Root believed his 5.1 mm foundation to be denser that the natural comb he had inspected and that later on he went to 5.2 mm comb, which is slightly less dense and is IMO, close to the size most of my bees want. FWIW, If *I* had to guess here, I would make a conservative guess that maybe he had found the 5.1 comb to be a bit too small, especially after repeated use, and had to go larger a smidgeon to the proper natural size that bees specify whenever I ask them. But I won't speculate. I simply do not know. > I also note here that in 1898, a correction from Thos. Wm. Cowan was given > to Mr. Root about his use of "average." I quote: > > ..."Then I go on, "We say 'average,' because considerable variation > exists in different parts of the same comb, as both Reaumur and Huber > found." I then go on to summarize the large number of measurements I took; > and if you will read the details you will see what a variation there is. You > say, "It has been said over and over again in bee-books and bee-journals, > that there are five cells of worker comb to the inch, so that we have come > to believe it;'' also that Cook is the only authority you have run across > who says worker-cells are a little more than 1/5 inch; but in my book you > will find that, out of 36 measurements that were taken, I found the greatest > aggregate diameters of any one series of ten cells to amount to 2.11 inches, > which you see makes them considerably larger than 1/5 inch. On the other > hand, the least came to 1.86, which makes them smaller." > Again, we are still talking average. And within the average size is a range > that the bee will use. 2.11 inches to 1.86 inches. I am not sure what you mean by 'the bee'. Obviously we can safely assume some bees, but it is not safe to assume all bees, or even most bees. I do not know in what region of the world the samples were taken, what type of bee or bees is involved, and whether each sample is the comb found in the whole brood area -- or part -- of one hive or of many. He says very definitely, " I found the greatest aggregate diameters of any one series of ten cells to amount to 2.11 inches" and adds, for clarity and emphasis, "which you see makes them considerably larger than 1/5 inch". "Greatest aggregate" means that the largest group of samples fell close that measure. He neglects to mention the extreme largest measurements, since he is apparently concerned with Root's choice of a small measurement as Root's 'average' size. What he was apparently trying to prove to Root was -- IMO -- that Root was choosing too small an average size. He then adds, to be completely candid, "On the other hand, the least came to 1.86, which makes them smaller". Apparently he did at least one sample of the 36 that were that size. But this was the extreme on the small side. He does not mention the extreme on the large end. He was concerned with selecting the size which had the largest number of samples nearby and thus preferred typical over 'average'. We are not aware of the circumstances surrounding the aberrant small -- or large -- comb in his samples. There is a danger that several distinct populations of bees were being sampled and perhaps are being sampled even today. IF this is true, the whole concept of averaging, or even the idea of imposing a common size of foundation on them all may be flawed. Moreover, when dealing with two separate populations and deciding to force a common cell size, which is less harmful: taking the larger mean or the smaller mean? By imposing the smaller measure, would we be selecting for one population that can tolerate the limitations of the comb over the other which cannot -- and completely misinterpreting what is going on? > That's 5.36 mm to 4.72 > mm. 4.9 is in this natural (average) range, is it not? What the Lusby's have > done by using the 4.9 cell size is to help the bees to use one of their > smaller natural sizes to be able to deal with the mite on their own without > the use of any chemicals. All the numbers are out there for all to read and > I don't think I'm off base in my reading of these articles. I know you think > the same about your interpretation. We should realize, though, that what you > and I are talking about is just theory. A matter of opinion and > interpretation. What can't be overlooked is reality. The Lusby's are *in* > reality, but have offered their theory as to how it works. We have always agreed that Lusbys may be successful. We have never agreed on why. > We now have the tool (4.9 foundation) to test this theory. One can stay in > theory and debate indefinitely, or, pick up some 4.9 foundation and see what > reality is. People will believe reality over theory. Precisely. I looked to see how your experiment came out, I gather it failed? The one thing is that success is not going to prove the theory. Success can prove the *process*, but proving the theory will require better observation and analysis than has taken place thus far. Better questions must be asked (see above) and answered before the theory can have any respectability. > > Back to the quote again: I gather that immediately after removal from the > > monster foundation combs, in the quote they go to 7.4, and then in a > > generation or so, to 5.2 and then stay there, according to this source? > > The portion of the quote is all I have. Don't know what follows. Perhaps one > of our European friends could find this book and let us know. I hope so. I am very interested in this and it has all kinds of implications if the bees remember a comb size and it is not hardwired in. I have always found the term retrogression repugnant and full of all kinds of inappropriate connotations. Maybe "Training" bees to use smaller cells is a better term. Mind blowing, isn't it? 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: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 19:43:37 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dave Pehling Subject: Was Bee calls- detergent/yellowjackets In-Reply-To: <200009111758.NAA07782@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hi Blain & all, I'm sure I got good coverage of the yellowjacket nest as I took the top off the brood box and broke up the paper nest with the sprayer wand while pumping in the 9 gal. of soap solution. Maybe I need a bigger sprayer ;-) I used a cheap dish detergent...wonder if certain kinds are better. I understand that nearly any soap solution will work on AHB. BTW, I think the offending species was _V. vulgaris_. cheers, Dave Pehling ============================================ | W.S.U. COOPERATIVE EXTENSION-SNOHOMISH CO. | | 600 128TH ST. S.E. | | EVERETT, WA. 98208 U.S.A. | | PHONE - (425)338-2400 | | FAX - (425)338-3994 | | EMAIL pehling@wsu.edu | ============================================ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 08:52:27 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: William Morong Subject: Removing paper wasps MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; X-MAPIextension=".TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It is exceedingly simple to remove paper wasps. In the cool of the evening or very early in the morning, take a stout paper bag and surround the nest from below. Drop the nest into the bag and quickly twist the bag shut. Apply a large twister, as used to close plastic bags, to the twisted neck. Carefully and slowly squeeze out the air. With all the air out grind the bag under your feet. The nest and wasps will be crushed. I often eliminate small nests by donning gloves and crushing them in my hands while the wasps are cool and logey. Wasps are not very quick when they are cool. I try not to eliminate bald-faced hornets, which also build paper nests, for though they may occasionally trouble bees, they consume huge quantities of flies. If one observes the insects that make paper nests on weathered wood, one may hear them chewing off the raw material for their nests. Bill Morong ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 09:24:55 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Lloyd Spear Subject: Processing honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Blane White said "Here in MN beekeepers can bottle liquid honey in their homes and sell it at a farmers market or even a store shelf as long as it is correctly labeled." Yep, essentially the same in New York. In fact, a retired inspector for the Dept. of Ag. once told me (approximately) "we don't see how honey (or maple syrup) is much different than asparagus or lettuce.' 'All of these need minimal processing and we don't have the resources to check out the small guys." Lloyd Lloyd Spear, Owner, Ross Rounds, Inc. The finest in comb honey production. www.rossrounds.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 21:48:24 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Michael W Stoops Subject: Re: Detergent Insecticide Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit >From: Blane White > Yes I have used detergent solution to kill yellowjacket nests. It also works well for killing honey bees > > blane > Has anybody tried using a detergent solution to kill fire ant hills? Had never thought of trying that. They are bad, bad, bad in this area. Mike Stoops 1/2 way between Mobile and Montgomery, Alabama, USA ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 16:57:14 +0200 Reply-To: jtemp@xs4all.nl Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Jan Tempelman Organization: Home sweet home Subject: with a little help from my friends MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit bee-l-ers i got a question from my Chile beekeeper friends They ask: the adres from a France chemical company who sell THYMOL for US$16,-/Kg. The THYMOL can be from normal quality, NO Laboratorium quality can some from the list help??? i found Dutch company's for US$ 45,-/Kg. mailto:jtemp@xs4all.nl greeting jan -- Jan Tempelman Kerkstraat 53 NL 7471 AG Goor xx.31.(0)547.275788 mobile: 06 10719917 http://www.xs4all.nl/~jtemp/index3.html mailto:jtemp@xs4all.nl -- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 11:05:42 -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 arc5a271.bf.sover.net [209.198.117.81] 209.198.117.81 Tue, 12 Sep 2000 11:03:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Huguet - Sumner Subject: pollishing cells MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To Anyone, I can't find in my books anything about workers polishing cells. I = have heard the term and I think it has something to do with preparing = the cells for a new queen or making the cells ready for a queen to lay = in them. Can a beekeeper tell the difference between a polished and an = unpolished cell? =20 Thanks, Sandy Sumner ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 10:19:46 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Blane White Subject: Re: Angels on the Head of a Pin Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Everyone, First a quote from the 1945 ABC & XYZ page 127 a section entitled "Queens and Bees Prefer Normal Size of Cells" "A.I. Root, in the early seventies, and later M. T. Pritchard and H. H. Root tried out various sized cells in honey comb. Clearly it was shown that when the worker cells were too small, five to the linear inch, bees and the queen , when given a choice, preferred the larger sized cells, 4.83 to the linear inch. Conversely, when the cells are too large, there are difficultied that counter-balance the good." This appears to be the Roots conclusion to the cell size debate that was ongoing at that time. It is interesting that they actually gave the bees the choice of different sizes and settled on the size most prefered by the bees. They are talking about a cell size of 5.2 mm or to comb with 825 to 850 cells per square decimeter as the prefered size for most bees. Now I try to show how a different conclusion can be reached based on the information given in this cell size debate. This is somewhat speculative but is given to show that the observations can have more than one explanation. First here are the observations this is based on: 1. The Lusbys have been selecting for bees that tolerate varroa by raising queens from survivor colonies for about 8 years. 2. Part way through this 8 year period the feral honey bees in southern AZ US became africanized as the AHB continued its range expansion from Mexico. 3. The Lusbys have used and still use swarms from feral colonies in their operation. 4. Erickson et all have shown that it is possible to select a honey bee that is increasingly tolerant to varroa by breeding from colonies with the lowest varroa infestation levels - August ABJ. 5. In their selection program, the Lusbys first moved to foundation with cell size around 5.1 to 5.0 mm and then to 4.9 mm foundation as that is what they felt their bees prefered. Now my interpretation of these observations: First, the Lusbys are keen observers of their bees and have let the bees tell them what they ( the bees ) prefer. After 8 years of selecting colonies that have survived in the face of varroa they do indeed have bees that are tolerant of varroa. In view of Erickson's published research on their results on selection for varroa tolerance for 4 years it just seems only reasonable that the Lusby's longer selection would result in greater varroa tolerance in their bees. When the Lusbys first started their selection the local feral population was European and prefered cells in the 5.2 to 5.0 mm size range. The bees therefore showed a preference for foundation that was smaller than the common 5.4 mm size being sold. This was the observation that led them to move to this normal size for their bees. A few years later, however, the local feral population and their own bees became Africanized and showed a preference for the still smaller 4.9 mm foundation. So in conclusion it appears to me that the bees became smaller and therefore prefered 4.9 mm cells not that the cell size itself caused all the observed effects. The varroa and disease resistance or tolerance the Lusbys have in their bees is the result of their strong selection for these desirable traits in their bees for the last 8 years. They have shown that the selection process described by Erickson will indeed work if given enough time by capable and observant beekeepers. That in a nutshell is my view on the Lusbys situation. Some will not agree which is fine but I really don't think everything can be laid to rest on cell size alone. In fact, based on the cell size theory, those of us further north than southern AZ USA should be using larger cell size for our bees. FWIW blane ****************************************** Blane White MN Dept of Agriculture blane.white@state.mn.us ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 11:00:16 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob Harrison Subject: re Angels on the head of a pin Hello All, Allen Dick wrote: Success can prove the *process*,but proving the theory will require better observation and analysis than has taken place thus far. I would have to say after doing as much research over the years on cell size as most of the people involved in the small cell discussion that i would have to agree with the above statement. I believe Dee has proven the *process* and hope to add my name to the list. My bees are on the 5.2mm cell size as are 10,000 frames of Allen Dicks. I would encourage all beekeepers when replacing comb to use the 5.2mm cell size. Then a one step down could be had. Maybe not a perfect step down as from 5.0mm to 4.9mm was for Dee Lusby. Many of the posts by Barry and Allen give web sites showing you the measure process. 5.3mm and up foundation is still available around the world. If you are even thinking of a step down please heed my advice. In my own experiance varroa infests my hives at the same level on the 5.2mm as the 5.3mm and up. I see no difference on untreated colonies on comb of 5.2mm and up. We left 130 hives with zero treatment of any kind this spring except for nosema. They had a good mite control last fall . In the spring i checked for tracheal mites by microscope and found about a 5% infestation. I found a heavy amount of nosema so we treated with fumidil B. We didn't see where treating with fumidil B would effect our mite testing. These are not my bees but a close friends. The hives did produce honey but about half a crop. We are starting to test hives now and seeing huge infestations of varroa in ALL colonies. To early to tell if any are varroa tolerant but from the numbers we are getting in the rolls i would say they are not grooming many off. We are fighting to save the majority of colonies. We are using apicure to test its effectiveness. The above is the way larger beekeepers test. I have got a 100 hives coumaphous treated next to his and another beekeeper has a hundred with apistan strips next to ours. The point i am trying to make is these kinds of tests are being done by beekeepers around the world. We are willing to share information but believe our results are as valid as the U.S.D.A.'s. My interest in small cell size is not to prove a theory to the world. My interest is as is Dees to find a way to return beekeeping back to the days when you could sit a hive of bees in your back yard and not do all the testing,treating with chemicals,be confident they will requeen when they swarm and look in and see white comb being drawn again. I assure you low honey prices is not the only reason why many beekeepers have left the craft. If success can prove the *process*(Allen Dick BEE-L 9-11- 2000) then i expect the movement to small size to be gradual as was the movement to large cell. The movement to large cell was done without proving the theory except for a few researchers which disected and measured and concluded the bees had enlarged in five areas and the tounge was indeed longer. Estimates on size increase varied from 3% to 17%. If those reducing like Dee did are succesful then others will change over. The old watchers and the doers senario. In my opinion and based on the results of our tests in Missouri i personally believe our course will be to try small cell instead of breeding from survivors. In 1994 at the ABF convention in Orlando< Florida I talked to a beekeeper from Wisconsin which had got varroa in fall of 1997. A third generation beekeeper. Grandpa said to let the hives alone and breed from the suvivors. They dropped from 2000 colonies to less then 200 when the decided "Bad idea". Their experiment was more than i could afford. The real test of small cell size is in commercial yards such as Dees. I see no need to repeat Dees experiments(although not U.S.D.A. documented). Myself i will step down enough colonies to prove her theory to myself and am willing to share the rusults(although not U.S.D.A.documented)but what you choose to do is your business. I am ready to close the debate on small cell until i have further information but sure the debate will fire up again. The above are my beliefs and why i believe them. We still need orders for the 4.9mm foundation to get the process sterted at Dadant. Dadant@dadant.com Mr. Jerry Hayes. I apologise for my spelling and grammer in posts. I only have a high school education and was looking out the window through most of high school thinking about my bees. Sincerely, Bob Harrison Busy Bee Acres inc. 13046 hwy U. Odessa,Missouri 64076 busybeeacres@discoverynet.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 12:42:10 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: michael Bassett Subject: Re: Apicure in On Thu, 7 Sep 2000 21:30:39 -0400, Bob Harrison wrote: The coumaphous worked great for me but i think we should >alternate and also support BetterBee and Dr. Shiminuki for getting us >another tool in the battle with varroa. >Sincerely, >Bob Harrison >Odessa,Missouri I was going to reply to your three little beekeepers post as I have a fourth beekeepers story. I have always used apistan in fall and never applied anything in the spring. in fall of 1999 applied apistan and noticed in feb/march inspections that I had noticable varroa in one apiary. applied apicure in the spring as soon as avaialabe and following the directions for time etc. I noticed one hive in june that was having a problem and took corrective measures. in July all hive appeared to be ok accept varroa was more noticable than normal. by the end of july the apiary that had the hich varroa in feb was effectively non exhistent, no honey, six of eight hives have what appears to be pms, I'm sending a sample for analysis. I realise the label says it should be more effective in the fall but i'm somewhat scepticle about it's effectivness at this point. I still had some left and put it on selected hives and will evaluate after I pull it off with a mite drop test. Mike Bassett Massachusetts ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 12:55:22 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "David L. Green" Subject: Re: Detergent Insecticide MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/12/00 10:53:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, mws@FRONTIERNET.NET writes: > Has anybody tried using a detergent solution to kill fire ant hills? Had > never thought of trying that. They are bad, bad, bad in this area. Yes, I've been doing this for a long time. I think it's hopeless to think you will get rid of them, but I keep my work areas clear of them with detergent. I take a shovel or stick and scoop a depression in the center of the hill. Then I squirt some dish detergent straight into it, followed by a bucket of hot water with a cup or so more detergent. I pour it slowly, to make sure it enters as many cavities as possible. I think the only reason it does not kill all ants is that it doesn't reach every underground chamber. But it seriously weakens the nest and makes the soil environment quite inhospitable for awhile. Generally the second treatment a week later will either finish them off or force them to move. To me, this seems more friendly to the environment, and it is definitely cheaper than a pesticide. (Sorry, Paul C.) There is another detergent remedy running the rounds right now, which I haven't tried yet. That is to put out pans of water with a couple drops of lemon scented dish detergent in them. Folks are saying that they find hundreds of dead mosquitoes in them. Whether they are attracted by the odor, or simply using available water for egg laying is unknown. Also, it remains to be seen whether such traps can make an appreciable dent in the overall mosquito population. I was recently reminded that dragonflies are mosquito preditors, and I was enjoying watching them snatch mosquitoes from the air, also dancing on the puddles, which they were keeping free of larvae. Last week one night they sprayed for mosquitoes in this neighborhood, and the dragonflies took a far worse hit than the mosquitoes. We had about fifty of them in the back yard at any one time, and I've only seen a couple since. Mosquitoes are still around (in plentitude). So now, I suppose we are on the treadmill of more spraying for the rest of the season. Dave Green SC USA The Pollination Home Page: http://pollinator.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 22:41:07 -0500 Reply-To: Fr-Athanasios Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Fr-Athanasios Subject: Beeswax Comments: cc: "St. Markella" , "Fr. Christodoulos" Greetings to everyone, Our New York Cathedral is looking for a considerable amount of crude beeswax, a few thousands lb. preferably from the New York State area and surrounding sates; please direct all responses to: Fr. Christodoulos E-mail Address: Smyrna1922@aol.com or St. Markella Cathedral E-mail Address: stmarkella@aol.com Thank you very much, Fr. Athanasios ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 11:30:59 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Adrian Wenner Subject: Worker bee & cell size Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" "We have to understand first how many elements can be brought to bear on a controversy; once this is understood, the other problems will be easier to solve." Bruno Latour 1987 *************** I have followed the cell size / bee size discussion with great interest but have not had time to provide a comment before now. (This is fresh fig selling season for me at the local Farmers' Market, an activity that takes almost all free time.) The somewhat general discussion we had at first eventually evolved mostly into a very narrow debate on cell size ("Angels on the Head of a Pin" --- in Allen Dick's words --- not original with him, of course). Another analogy: Debating the size of leaves on a tree when we have to consider the forest as a whole. At the onset I should mention that I have talked with the Lusbys and have seen the results of their cell size experiment; their gains are real. However, let us step back for a moment and view the forest. The outline below (without comment) should place much of the problem in perspective. THOUGHTS ON VARROA What we know - What we can do I. The Animals A. The bees (various races, change after varroa arrival?) B. The mites (Varroa destructor: Japanese & Korean strains) 1. Development of resistance to toxins 2. Rapid generation time II. One Approach: Change the Bee A. Selective breeding 1. Resistance 2. Tolerance B. Let Nature take its course - Accommodation III. Other Approaches: Kill or Hamper the Mite A. Toxins 1. Apistan 2. Cuomophos 3. Formic acid B. Benign (?) chemicals 1. Mineral oil 2. Essential oils C. Physical manipulation 1. Drone brood removal 2. Open bottoms on hives 3. Smaller cell size IV. Other Factors A. Length of season B. Intensity / duration of nectar flow(s) C. Beekeeping practices (e.g., dividing, feeding) ********* MY COMMENTS Peter Borst already provided a good summary and assessment of current information about cell size and varro; I will not unnecessarily repeat that information. Bob Harrison wrote: "Researchers look for complex answers first. Beekeepers look for simple answers first." I would rather say that a good researcher recognizes and tries to deal with complexity without becoming too committed to an initial hunch. A good auto mechanic does the same. We call this the Multiple Inference Approach. One can find a description of that approach in item #22 on http://www.beesource.com/pov/wenner/index.htm). Unfortunately, most research seems conducted in a linear approach --- alter one factor and hope a "simple answer" emerges. These past few years on BEE-L we have seen several such examples. I believe one of Allen Dick's main objections to some of the input on the network has been that altering only one factor and achieving success does not establish that that particular factor was responsible; something else might have changed at the same time, unbeknownst to the researcher (here I include beekeepers who do research). Now let me comment on a few specific points of the above table, as referred to by the assigned numbers (not in the same order). In so doing, I will try not to repeat too many comments by others. III. Kill or Hamper the Mite Any toxin is only a short term "solution," since the mites have such a rapid generation time; some mites always survive treatment and become a stronger strain. Worse yet, one then has no selection for bees resistant to or tolerant of mites but instead keeps alive a weak strain of bees. If mineral oil had worked as originally claimed, we can be sure that hundreds of beekeepers would be using that technique by now. Experimentation with essential oils seems also to follow the linear approach; time may tell whether it has promise. In our work on Santa Cruz Island, we learned that colonies had no ill effects from a varroa introduction until a full two years after inoculation. Even then, many colonies survived an additional two years (a few still survive, seven years later). That means one would have to run any experiment for more than four years to determine whether a given treatment worked. Mike Allsop outlined a protocol for such experimentation. I. The Animals We have now had varroa mites in the U.S. for about 15 years. Whereas bees in managed colonies have likely changed little (due to the use of toxins to control mites), feral bees in areas remote from managed colonies may have changed a lot --- since we now find thriving feral colonies in such areas (as covered in my September 1999 AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL letter). (Some of the feral colonies we have extracted from buildings and trees have now thrived for four years without treatment of any kind.) Whereas those feral bees may have become resistant or tolerant, the mites also may have changed significantly in all that time. We have both Japanese and Korean strains in California; the more virulent strain may have become largely phased out by natural selection. Bill Truesdell used the word "accommodation"; that word serves well, until we can determine whether the bee or the mite has changed (or both). II. Change the Bee Selective breeding for resistance or tolerance (e.g., "hygienic") is indeed possible but requires an enormous amount of effort and expense. That approach also relies on the validity of perhaps several assumptions. Furthermore, since queens mate in mid-air (often with drones from feral colonies), beekeepers cannot readily maintain a resistant or tolerant strain of bees if one is found. John Edwards wrote: "All that is required is a population of animals (bees), a pressure (varroa), and the observational skills and time to select for survivors." I believe that is what has happened to the feral colonies in our extensive backcountry. Nature has taken its course; those bees and mites have apparently reached some sort of accommodation. IV. Other Factors Allen Dick has raised this issue quite well. Any experiment conducted by use of a linear approach that achieves apparent success may well be a consequence of some other factor(s) that changed at the same time. Adrian Adrian M. Wenner (805) 963-8508 (home phone) 967 Garcia Road (805) 893-8062 (UCSB FAX) Santa Barbara, CA 93106 [http://www.beesource.com/pov/wenner/index.htm] ******************************************************************** * * "The hardest thing to understand is why we can understand * anything at all." * Albert Einstein * ******************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 12:09:20 -0500 Reply-To: busybeeacres@discoverynet.com Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: bob harrison Subject: Re: pollishing cells MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Huguet - Sumner wrote: > > To Anyone, > I can't find in my books anything about workers polishing cells. I = > have heard the term and I think it has something to do with preparing = > the cells for a new queen or making the cells ready for a queen to lay = > in them. > Can a beekeeper tell the difference between a polished and an = > unpolished cell? > =20 > Thanks, Sandy Sumner Hi Sandy, The only research i have have read is U.S.D.A. research which say your tax dollars were used to research this very subject. The research was done only on worker cells to my knowledge. 45 minutes the U.S.D.A. says is the average time a worker bee spends pollishing a cell for the next egg. I have allways felt this was excellent research and money well spent. When the research was properly applied my beekeeping has improved. Hope i have helped! Sincerely, Bob Harrison ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 00:34:13 +0100 Reply-To: joe@golberdon.prestel.co.uk Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Joe Hemmens Subject: Honey Color - Basswood - Linden - Maybe Lime In-Reply-To: <200009091125.HAA12935@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Bill Truesdell wrote - > It is a great honey. A few years back, my bees made some. All I spoke > to and who sampled it agree it is basswood-linden honey. It is a > bright, clear honey with a pronounced mint taste. I get it from time > to time and value it. I think it is an exceptional honey. Bill > Truesdell I think this is what we call Lime in the UK. FWIW I quote Wedmore 'A Manual Of Beekeeping'. ------ Lime. Basswood, Linden, Bee Tree. Tilia Americana, euchlosa (late), platyphylos (early), cordata, vulgaris. Tree Honey of pronounced flavour somewhat minty, light amber or somewhat greenish, density apt to be low. Pollen greenish yellow. Of universal importance. The flow generally lasts two or three weeks and is somewhat uncertain. There are early and late species. In Europe T. Cordata is the most reliable. Flow in June in N. Dakota and July in Minnesota and Great Britain. Varieties tormentosa and petiolaris should be avoided (?). ----- When I was a child I used to walk to school along a road that had been planted with Lime and Horse Chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum). Both were of great interest to honeybees. Although I was only interested in the product of the Horse Chestnut at that time to play a slightly esoteric game called 'conkers' I remember well how the pavement (sidewalk) under the Lime trees became stained. I'm not sure if this was due to nectar or honeydew but it was certainly very pronounced and certainly made the soles of my shoes sticky. More recently (but not at present) I have kept bees very close to Lime trees and have greatly enjoyed the quality that (I think) the Lime contributed to the flavour of the honey. About then - when I had the time - I entered a sample in the Bristol Fair. It won first prize - and I believe that the judges actually tasted the entries! Having tasted a good few honeys since then, I still reckon it was the best for flavoured honey my bees ever produced. Unfortunately I don't have any left. Joe ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 22:20:22 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Stan Sandler Subject: Re: Selling honey Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi Blane and All: You wrote: >... MN does require an approved food processing facility for "processed" food products including creamed honey but not for liquid or comb honey which are considered "raw agricultural products". ... I find that curious and humourous. Here in Prince Edward Island our honey will usually granulate naturally into a quite "creamy" product. If one want to guarantee a small crystal then adding a small amount of starter so that the granulation proceeds rapidly is all that is necessary. By contrast, in order to produce liquid honey here with a reasonable shelf life as a liquid it is necessary to heat the honey to at least 60 degrees C. In fact, Townsend recommends 66 degrees, and that probably IS safer. Now to my mind heating the honey is far more *processing* than adding a bit of last years honey. I know you didn't make the rules, you are just relaying them, and so thanks for the chuckle. Of course maybe in Minnesota you have honey that naturally stays liquid, in which case the laughs on me. Stan ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 00:44:15 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Constill@AOL.COM Subject: bees in the grass MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Fellow Beekeepers, After keeping bees for almost 20 years we have had a strange phenomenon this summer. We have bees crawling in the grass in the area of our bee yard. There are two sources of water nearby and flowering plants and herbs all around the area. The bees are just crawling all around in the grass, goodness knows how many we stepped on without realizing they were there. They seemed to have had a pretty good year, 107 pounds of honey from 3 hives, 2 of them started as nukes this spring. We know that they do not read the same books that we do, but we wondered what caused this strange behavior. Any ideas? Conni and Clifford Still, Bayport,Long Island,NY ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 07:28:43 -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: Worker bee & cell size MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Recent posts by Adrian and others have put this discussion into fairly clear terms. In fact, this has been one of the best reasoned and cool-headed discussions over a sensitive subject that I have seen on the Bee-L in recent years. I wish FGMO had had the same give and take. I credit Bob H and Barry B, among others, for their reasoned approach. But, I have to take issue with Barry's comment that the natural size is smaller. Size depends on many factors, including local conditions. In cool climates, selection would favor larger since a larger body allows for less heat loss and better accommodation to the cold. You would hit a balance with bees between size and flight. There obviously is an upper limit for bee size unless bees change radically. EHB may be larger naturally, since a larger bee has a better chance to over-winter successfully than a smaller bee. And a larger bee would take longer to emerge. But AHB has not had to accommodate to colder winters and other conditions faced by EHB, so they are optimum for their conditions, which seems to be a smaller bee which also would lead to earlier emergence. Many factors could lead to a smaller size, including varroa, predation, etc.. If a species has lots of food, few enemies, good health, etc., it moves toward larger, not smaller. I recently looked at an old Cape style home that had been built in the mid 1800s. It has been on the market for a long time because the upstairs ceilings are 6 feet high, which was fine for most everyone during that time, but way too low now. I was responsible for the maintenance of the USS Constitution. Try walking below decks without bumping your head. Check NFL players or your kids. We are moving toward larger, not smaller based on our conditions. So EHB will not naturally move toward a smaller size unless there are external pressures to do so. Varroa might be one of those pressures, but it could be off-set by cold survival and definitely by the beekeeper. If EHB develops another way to control Varroa, such as grooming, then there would be much less pressure for a smaller bee and smaller cell size, if that is a Varroa control mechanism. Bill Truesdell Bath, ME ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 06:44:01 -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: bees in the grass MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > We have bees crawling in the grass in the area of our bee yard. Check immediately for tracheal mites and treat if required. Sincerely, Aaron Morris ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 09:26:50 -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: bees in the grass MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Also look for malformed wings which can indicate Varroa mite. > We have bees crawling in the grass in the area of our bee yard. Check immediately for tracheal mites and treat if required. Sincerely, Aaron Morris ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Sep 0100 14:23:25 GMT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Mike Tooley Subject: bees in the grass Could be varroa ,t.mites,viruses.etc.This past July was really bad for crawlers at three of our National Forest yards.You would think T.mites but this has been going on for 20 years only in that part- icular area.There will be hundreds of bees running out in front of the hives.Many will pile up dead in front like they were sprayed but there is no spraying (wilderness)Since it happens every year at the same time in the same place(tho some years hardly noticeable} I assume its an enviormental problem.And in fact there is a small amont of grassy death camas growing in that area that blooms about that time.The brood is not affected. So anyway your problem could have any of several causes(assuming it is a problem not just healthy bees gathering dew off the grass in the morning)but Aaron is right check for Tmites. loggermike --------------------------------------------- This message was sent using InterStar WebMail ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:34:14 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob Harrison Subject: Martha Stewart -beekeeper Taken from Jan.1999 Martha Stewart "Living" Beekeeping Dear Martha, Do you get stung often by the bees you keep? And what happens to your bees in the winter? Deb Smith,via email Beekeeping is an educational and rewarding hobby. I've kept bees at my home in Westport,Connecticut,for many years ,and occasionally a wayward bee does find its way into my clothing and sting me. Martha Stewart ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:08:55 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Blane White Subject: Re: Selling honey Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Stan, You hit the nail on the head. Our honey is mainly produced from clover and basswood both of which are slower to granulate. I do understand where you are coming from and in general don't disagree but here we have an exception in our food law that specifically allows the sale of what are considered to be " raw agricultural products " by producers of those products. This only applies to "raw" not to products "processed in any way. Our food inspection people consider liquid extracted honey to be a " raw agricultural product" as they consider extracting and filtering to be part of the harvesting and therefore not "processing". As soon as you do anything to the liquid harvested honey you are "processing" it and the exception does not apply. We can both get a chuckle out of it and beekeepers can sell their honey. blane ****************************************** Blane White MN Dept of Agriculture blane.white@state.mn.us ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 12:32:50 -0500 Reply-To: busybeeacres@discoverynet.com Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: bob harrison Subject: Re: Selling honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello all, I would add a very important point to the selling honey debate. The quick shot of air shot in every mt bottle by a commercial honey packing machine is there for a important reason. When you are packing honey without such a device ALLWAYS look in the bottom of each bottle before filling. Many a beekeeper has had a red face over not looking in the bottom of each jar. When i was a teenager i worked at a American Oil gas station to help pay for my beekeeping addiction. One day i bought a bottle of pop(brand withheld),opened it, and took a drink. A twisted old tooth brush was in the bottle. The owner of the station said "We(he quickly became my partner) are rich i and i am calling ----right now! He called the pop company and the first words they said were because the cap was off the bottle he had no monitary claim. The pop company asked numbers off the cap to find the bottleing plant and call and raise----. Point is a sealed bottle with a bug in it could be a problem. We turned away a shipment sent for sale at a fair event held by our beekeeping assn. as we found 9 out of the bears with small bugs in them. Busy Bee Acres inc. makes the claim of doing more selling events than any other operation in the state of Missouri. At least three outside markets a week for 7 months of the year and inside in the winter. I personally attend about less than ten events. I will be at the "Blue Springs Fall Fun Fest" in Blue Springs, Missouri on the Sept 15-16-17 of this week with my observation hive. I will also be at "The National Small Farm Today Magazine trade show" in Columbia,Missouri on November 3-4. Thanks to those beekeepers which stopped by the state fair booth to visit with me. Stop by and visit but i stay busy telling kids about honeybees. We need those future beekeepers! On the scale we are on we carry product liability and general liability through the American Beekeeping Federation group plan. I have shopped around and seems the best priced for the coverage. I still take bottleing honey very serious as though i didn't carry insurance. I know the hobby beekeeper can't justify ABF insurance but if any sideline people are considering product liability i recommend the ABF group plan made up of beekeepers such as yourself. You can only join the plan on October 1st of each year so you have about two weeks to sign up if interested. Sincerely, Bob Harrison ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 14:17:14 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Mark Coldiron Subject: Honey Production with Arsenic Contaminated Water Hello, I have a small farm in west Texas with about 40 acres of heavy mesquite, other trees, and brush not currently in cultivation. I want to put some hives on it, but the water supply has very high Arsenic levels. It's ok for livestock, but not human consumption. Does anyone have information on how the Arsenic will affect the honey - possibly concentrate it? If not, does anyone know how I can find out? Thanks Mark Coldiron ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 14:21:30 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Jerry J Bromenshenk Subject: Re: Honey Production with Arsenic Contaminated Water In-Reply-To: <200009131818.OAA00208@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 02:17 PM 9/13/00 -0400, you wrote: Arsenic from this source may transfer to honey. Depends on the time or year, what your bees are doing, etc.; but definitely a risk. What I know for sure is that arsenic is an accumulative poison and can and probably will kill your bees over a period of time. Bees poisoned by arsenic get a form of dysentery and will spot the upper frame bars inside the hive, and the cover and front of the hive. As the poisoning progresses you will find bees out front on the ground, often with the queen. Jerry >Hello, > >I have a small farm in west Texas with about 40 acres of heavy mesquite, >other trees, and brush not currently in cultivation. I want to put some >hives on it, but the water supply has very high Arsenic levels. It's ok >for livestock, but not human consumption. Does anyone have information on >how the Arsenic will affect the honey - possibly concentrate it? If not, >does anyone know how I can find out? > >Thanks >Mark Coldiron > > Jerry J. Bromenshenk, Ph.D. Director, DOE/EPSCoR & Montana Organization for Research in Energy The University of Montana-Missoula Missoula, MT 59812-1002 E-Mail: jjbmail@selway.umt.edu Tel: 406-243-5648 Fax: 406-243-4184 http://www.umt.edu/biology/more http://www.umt.edu/biology/bees ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 20:58:51 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Eugene Makovec Subject: Re: bees in the grass MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I had one year where I experienced this in September when I went to remove honey. The hive was very populous but I noticed hundreds of bees either dead or crawling about in the grass. I picked up a drone and four varroa crawled off onto my fingertips. I treated them with Apistan that day, and they survived. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 07:03:45 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: reno Subject: Selling Honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Here in Florida it seems, they consider bottling honey processing food and we must get a permit etc..($$$) and pass inspection. However the Mom and Pop's who grind sugar cane and make cane syrup, can fruits, jellies and vegetables to sell at road side stands, do not have a worry. I would call this 'processing' as opposed to straining honey that has been 'processed' by the bees. Put a ' Honey For Sale' sign up and you are begging for an inspector to stop by and tell you to take it down. We can sell bulk with no problem. Do you think the packers had something to do with the regulation???? Will Lewis.