From MAILER-DAEMON Sun Jan 14 07:55:40 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 HAA05211 for ; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 07:55:38 -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 HAA00288 for ; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 07:58:34 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200101141258.HAA00288@listserv.albany.edu> Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 07:58:30 -0500 From: "L-Soft list server at University at Albany (1.8d)" Subject: File: "BEE-L LOG0101A" To: adamf@METALAB.UNC.EDU Content-Length: 152685 Lines: 3329 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 07:30:33 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Beekeeperc@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Exceptional Weather and Rodents MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yes, mice will live rent free in your hive unless you use screening to prevent them from entering. Its nice and warm with all the honey they need to let them start the spring nice and fat. Norm ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 09:41:00 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: FW: Re: You know you are in a beekeeping family........... MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Found this <5M$kLqAmWwT6EwOw@denrosa.demon.co.uk> in sci.agriculture.beekeeping: == BEGIN forwarded message == From: Murray McGregor Newsgroups: sci.agriculture.beekeeping Subject: Re: You know you are in a beekeeping family........... This is something of an old thread now being rehashed under a different guise. Allergy in beekeepers families is commonplace. I also admit to knowing nothing about it until my wife took anaphylactic shock one day whilst hanging out her washing in her bare feet and trod on a bee on a clover head. Three weeks later my older son (8 at the time) was rushed to hospital after an allergy attack when out with me looking round some bee sites one evening. Not so severe as anaphylactic shock but alarming just the same. A year later his twin sister had the same, and soon after the younger son, aged 4, sat on a bee at his nursery and had an attack. So, we had four allergic family members. Time for a bit of research. We found a book by Dr Laurie croft, the name of which invariably escapes me, regarding bee sting allergy and its causes. Now, although there is divergent opinion on exactly what sensitises people to stings, with some favouring dried venom, others bee hairs and other proteins, it is best to play safe and assume that ALL these will cause it ( for practical purposes it doesn't matter, you could not remove them separately anyway). It was recommended that beekeepers do NOT bring their overalls home to wash, rather do so at the bee shed or wherever, anywhere but the home. We did this, installed a washing machine at our premises, and banned all staff from taking bee related work clothes home with them. We now have two more young daughters, and decided to have them given a RAST (don't know what it stands for, but it is an allergy test) test to see what level of risk they are at. It reports your risk level on scale of 0 to 5, zero is no, or very little risk, 5 is risk of death. Oldest daughter tested at a 4, mother at 4 to 5, younger daughters 0 to 1. Therefore all those exposed to the dust (of whatever nature) from the suits coming home are allergic, and those never exposed to it are not allergic. An interesting footnote to this is that the washing machine was installed in a kitchen area at work, and we have a small unit through the door from it where we manufacture mustard as a sideline. A year after we changed the washing arrangements the girl who makes the mustard turned out allergic, having been quite normal a year before when stung in the extracting room. I know that is circumstantial, but seem quite a powerful bit of evidence to me. My oldest daughter (now 24) is undergoing desensitisation treatment now as she works in the business, and one day hopes to take over, so we are all hoping it goes well for her, and we will never forget the lessons of how she became allergic in the first place. Anyone got any more amusing anecdotes, which is why I think the thread was started in the first place? Murray -- Murray McGregor == END forwarded message == ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 14:28:31 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Max Watkins Subject: Miticide resistance - the facts In-Reply-To: <200012272009.PAA08907@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Allen, In a recent communication about the evolution and spread of pyrethroid resistance in Europe the following comment was made: > It is thought that beekeepers in Italy used a liquid agricultural > formulation of Klartan, absorbed on a porous piece of wood or similar > to combat varroa. Because there was no control over the amount (of active ingredient) > applied, this practise inevitably gave rise to resistance, not only to > Klartan, but to the whole class of synthetic pyrethroids including > Bayvarol and Apistan. You replied: >This is often repeated, but is at best an oversimplification, and at worst a lie >that those who sell a penny's worth of chemical for $2 don't mind having >repeated often. That is a glib response, offensive not only to me but to the well-respected bee researchers from Germany, Italy, Switzerland and France as well as the hundreds of beekeepers who carried out the trials which proved this to be the case. Research such as this cannot be dismissed because there was some involvement from a chemical company (Sandoz, as it was). Especially when you don't seem to know or care about the reality of this situation - even 'though I have posted this on the LIST some time ago. I am really surprised at you. The statements which John Burgess mentioned originally are far from rhetoric from a "chemical company". There is solid foundation to these claims. In the early 90's as the then Technical Manager for Sandoz I coordinated an international team of independent, reknown experts on a project lasting 5 years, investigating the emergence of pyrethroid resistance in Europe. It had been openly stated by many people, incuding Sandoz, way before the conception of APISTAN that a pyrethroid-resistant mite strain would inevitably evolve. Klartan/Mavrik was being used for years before APISTAN was developed. Providing there is a lage enough selection pressure and the benefits outweigh the costs, organisms mutate through natural selection. FACT. Any and all treatments to control "pest" populations represent a type of selection pressure. FACT. Because of its many benefits of bee safety, low residue profile, proven low mammalian toxicity profile etc etc Apistan (or illegally Klartan/Mavrik) was and indeed still is the most popular hive treatment for varroa worldwide. Incredible selection pressure. FACT. When the first reports of "Apistan inefficacy" arose in 1992 in Italy, APISTAN had only been in use for one year. In the regions where the "inefficacy was most widely reported APISTAN was not used at all; the agrochemical Klartan, however, had been used for 8 years, on balsa wood, on cloth and anything else to hand. Recipes for using Klartan were common in Europe. In Spain they recommended a 5% soltion in water; in France it was 2% solution. This didn't work in Southern Italy after a while and so the dose was increased to 50% and then in many cases, to 100% neat. Low efficacy after 8 years. FACT. When this inefficacy started to show up in Northern Italy, where APISTAN had been used for just 2 years the cause was not so clear. However, the Italians were able to trace exactly the spread of a resistant strain of varroa along the main routes of migratory beekeeping from the North to the South of Italy. Colonies are taken to the South for the winter and brought back North in Spring, carrying with them the resistant varroa from the South. FACT. It is noone's fault that resistant varroa emerged, it is a natural process of evolution. The uncontrolled dosing did however greatly speed up the process. If there is an increase in the LD50 (the level of a substance that wil kill 50% of a population) by tenfold, ie a resistance factor of 10, generally one can say that a resistant strain has emerged. In the case of varroa from Southern Italy the resistance factor was more than 400. Definately resistant. It was also shown scientifically that this resistance is conferred to other related pyrethroids such as flumethrin and acrinathrin. FACT. The dose/response curves obtained for this resistant strain are distinct. Wherever resistance was monitored throughout Italy and later in France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria and Eastern Europe. the exact same curves are characteristic. This most probably means that the resistance has arisen only once in Europe and spread from one focal point. The slow speed of apparition in neighbouring countries suggests Italy to be the focal point. If the dose/response curves were markedly different for the different populations examined then we could expect there to have been separate evolution. So far all populations examined (coordinated by Vita since 1997) have shown the same pattern and seem then to have the same origin. There will always be a risk of any pest organism developing resistance to the treatment. It is why several different types of treatment should be used. If there is resistance to one treatment, perhaps the second or third [different] treatment will take out the resistant individuals. Even IPM will not stop the phenomenon of mutation and evolution in pest populations but the aim is to keep the resistance to a manageable level, below the economic damage threshold. Vita (Europe) Limited is a small UK company specialising in the development of honeybee disease treatments. We take the concept of IPM very seriously and unlike the chemical giants who have no time for such small markets, we are dedicated to improving the health of honeybee colonies, operating world-wide. Yes, we make and sell APISTAN but we also have other treatments in registration and in development, many of them natural agents, for EFB, AFB, mites, chalkbrood and wax moth. In science and in business I believe there is no room for half-truths. At Vita our policy is to be open so as to avoid confusion. While many people may disagree with what we're doing, Vita is not in the business of making a fast buck. What we do is thoroughly researched and is for the long-term. No short cuts, no "oversimplifications". Whatever is posted to the LIST from Vita, we believe to be correct and true. But, Hey, how can this possibly be true - Vita must be classed as a "chemical company", right? Believe what you will. Max Dr Max Watkins Vita (Europe) Limited Brook House, Alencon Link Basingstoke, Hants RG21 7RD UK Tel. +44 (0) 1256 473177 Fax +44 (0) 1256 473179 http://www.vita.demon.co.uk ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 09:47:00 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Midnitebee Subject: Pink Pages MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Greetings! The December 2000 issue of the Pink Pages are now viewable. http://www.cybertours.com/~midnitebee/contentpages/articles.html Surgery prevented earlier publication.=20 FWIW- I am applying honey to my "stapled" abdomen. Application seems to = work VERY well. Regards, Herb Herb/Norma Bee Holly-B Apiary PO Box 26 Wells,Maine 04090-0026 "an educated consumer is YOUR best customer" The Beekeeper's Home on the Internet http://www.mainebee.com Stony Critters http://www.stonycritters.com =20 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 10:13:17 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Lipscomb, Al" Subject: Re: Miticide resistance - the facts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Providing there is a lage enough selection pressure and the benefits > outweigh the costs, organisms mutate through natural selection. FACT. > Any and all treatments to control "pest" populations > represent a type of > selection pressure. FACT. > Because of its many benefits of bee safety, low residue > profile, proven low > mammalian toxicity profile etc etc Apistan (or illegally > Klartan/Mavrik) > was and indeed still is the most popular hive treatment for varroa > worldwide. Incredible selection pressure. FACT. [cut] > It is noone's fault that resistant varroa emerged, it is a > natural process > of evolution. The uncontrolled dosing did however greatly speed up the > process. I get a little confused on these evolution things. I always thought that "mutation" was a random event. Pressure then caused selection on the population. If the mutation gave a reproductive advantage then those that had the gene may survive and reproduce better than the ones without the gene. If putting pressure on a population always causes it to become resistant I do not understand how we got smallpox under control. You would have thought that resistance would have emerged and a stronger version of the virus taken over. Come to think of it I cannot understand how extinction should happen as often as it does. In most cases it is a long slow process with lots of pressure on the populations. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 10:26:21 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: BeeCrofter@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Miticide resistance - the facts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/2/01 10:19:25 AM Eastern Standard Time, LipscombA@HSN.NET writes: > > If putting pressure on a population always causes it to become resistant I > do not understand how we got smallpox under control. You would have thought > that resistance would have emerged and a stronger version of the virus taken > over. > Had the approach to smallpox been to use antibiotics this would have been likely to happen. Innoculation trained our bodies to recognize and kill the smallpox. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 09:40:05 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Blane White Subject: Re: Miticide resistance - the facts Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Al and Everyone, ****************************************** Blane White MN Dept of Agriculture blane.white@state.mn.us >>> LipscombA@HSN.NET 01/02/01 09:13AM >>> wrote in part: > > Providing there is a lage enough selection pressure and the benefits > outweigh the costs, organisms mutate through natural selection. FACT. > Any and all treatments to control "pest" populations > represent a type of > selection pressure. FACT. > Because of its many benefits of bee safety, low residue > profile, proven low > mammalian toxicity profile etc etc Apistan (or illegally > Klartan/Mavrik) > was and indeed still is the most popular hive treatment for varroa > worldwide. Incredible selection pressure. FACT. [cut] > It is noone's fault that resistant varroa emerged, it is a > natural process > of evolution. The uncontrolled dosing did however greatly speed up the > process. "I get a little confused on these evolution things. I always thought that "mutation" was a random event. Pressure then caused selection on the population. If the mutation gave a reproductive advantage then those that had the gene may survive and reproduce better than the ones without the gene." No wonder you are confused the term "evolution" used in this context is just plain wrong and confusing. The correct term is adaption. Resistance is always present in the population at very low levels and the selection pressure of the treatment brings it to the fore. No mutation needed just selection. The result is a resistant population. Now Max, from what it appears to me here in the USA, anywhere in the world where fluvalinate in any formulation has been used for about 10 years for varroa control resistance has developed. Since we are selecting for the same traits in the population, I would expect the curves to be very similar or the same where ever the selection has occurred - this is the evidence that mutation is not involved just selection of pre-existing resistance. Apistan resistance occurred here in MN and was documented first in one of the beekeeping outfits who had varroa first and was therefore using apistan longest ( and yes I am very confident they were not using other (illegal) treatments. Apistan selected for the resistance at about the same rate as other formulations of fluvalinate in other parts of the world. Don't get me completely wrong there are many very good reasons to use Apistan instead of those other formulations such as contamination of honey and wax etc. but in terms of selection! for resistance I really see not difference. FWIW blane ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 09:50:39 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: Miticide resistance - the facts In-Reply-To: <200101021443.JAA06647@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > That is a glib response, offensive not only to me but to the well-respected > bee researchers from Germany, Italy, Switzerland and France... Max, I want to apologise if I have offended you or any others. That was certainly not my intent, and maybe the writing was a bit glib. I sometimes kid around a bit. I certainly respect the efforts you and many others have put into fighting varroa and in no way discount the work because some of it was done with funding by a chemical company. I respect the profit motive and think it is an important engine of development. > Especially when you > don't seem to know or care about the reality of this situation - even > 'though I have posted this on the LIST some time ago. I am really surprised > at you. Max, I will also confess right now to having a less-than-perfect memory and to being influenced by the many versions of the story I have heard, especially since they are repeated so often. I will have to review the material and perhaps revise my thinking when I have a moment. Once again, I should likely reiterate that this is a discussion list and what is written here -- by anyone -- should be questioned and not mistaken for carefully researched fact. Maybe your contributions are different, but I know the above is true of what I write and would be very concerned if anyone swallowed any of my opinion pieces whole. Having said that, and although I am sure that you are probably as authoritative as any man alive on the topic, that does not mean that your view or your version, or your conclusions, or your methods are the only ones that are credible. As evidence, I can offer that varroa is still causing havoc. We still can see a day coming soon when we may very well have no effective and practical controls available. That to me proves that the job is not done, or was not done well. I'm sorry, but that is just the way it seems to me. I hope you can and will prove me wrong. Once again I apologise and hope you can show us that the problem was handled correctly, is under control, and will stay that way. allen Opinions are not facts... ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 08:15:46 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Aaron Morris Subject: Re: Winter progress MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" This message was originally submitted by jjbmail@SELWAY.UMT.EDU to the BEE-L list at LISTSERV.ALBANY.EDU. It was edited to remove previously posted material. > ------------ Original message (ID=87101B00) (45 lines) -------------- > Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 15:30:03 -0700 > To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology > > From: Jerry J Bromenshenk > Subject: Re: Winter progress > > At 01:38 PM 12/31/00 -0700, you wrote: > >How do varroa mites do when they are subjected to freezing? > > Sorry, no data on varroa and cold tolerance here - good > question. Jerry ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 18:33:39 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Max Watkins Subject: Re: Miticide resistance - the facts, revisited In-Reply-To: <200101021542.KAA08520@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Blane, You are right, of course that in the States, the widespread use of Apistan has probably been the strongest selection pressure, as Klartan/other agro formulations aren't used as frequently in beekeeping as in some other countries (so I believe). This pyrethroid resistance was bound to arise sooner or later, as there was only really one control agent being used with a specific mode of action. It doesn't matter what the formulation was, the resistance to the active ingredient was inevitable in the circumstances. If there had been other types of treatment available, the selection for resistant strains would have been at least slower, giving the industry longer use of what tools it had. It could be that resistance, caused directly by use of Apistan, has appeared in Europe. It's possible. But in most European countries, besides Apistan and Klartan there are commonly other types of treatment used which could have some retarding effect on the emergence of resistant strains. The account that I gave earlier, however, describes what happened in Italy and it looks very much like the resistant populations emanated from one central source. The uncontrolled dosage at that source must have had an accelerating effect on resistance emergence. It may also be true that the dose-response curves for pyrethroid-resistant mites in the USA are similar to those in Europe - I don't know, as I've not seen any of the US data but it would be interesting to compare. Do the US mite population(s?)have the same characteristics as the Western European mites? I agree that similar traits should probably be selected for and the curves indeed should look something like those we have generated here. I just wonder if you'll see the resistance factor of 400+ ? Maybe. I'm not trying to set myself up as an expert and of course, I may be entirely wrong. I do make mistakes - let's see now, I remember I made one back in 1978.... Max Dr Max Watkins Vita (Europe) Limited Brook House, Alencon Link Basingstoke, Hants RG21 7RD UK Tel. +44 (0) 1256 473177 Fax +44 (0) 1256 473179 http://www.vita.demon.co.uk ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 05:35:32 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Robert Brenchley Subject: Re: rodents MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Norm writes: << Yes, mice will live rent free in your hive unless you use screening toprevent them from entering. Its nice and warm with all the honey they needto let them start the spring nice and fat. >> True, but would even the most acrobatic of wood mice really dangle from its front legs with its bum in mid-air, while gnawing heroically to try to get through the mouse excluder? If so, it deserves top marks for gymnastics, but none for brains. Regards, Robert Brenchley RSBrenchley@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 23:59:19 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: peter dillon Subject: Re: Miticide resistance - the facts, revisited MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Max, following this thread with much interest. I am "surrounded" by beekeepers (99% of whom are hobbyists, or in other words beekeepers who do not need to gain a living from apicultural activities). They are very much aware of the problem posed by V.j. - many are now without hives due to its presence! When I arrived here from England (at the time totally free from V.j.), the first organisation I got into contact with was the local group named Groupment Departemental Defense Sanitaire (County Group Defending Bee Health)- and when I asked what was the recognised treatment against V.j. was instantly presented with some"slim slivers of poplar wood that had been soaking in a milky white liquid" These were being sold I presume with the blessing of the local County Vet. Office as the cheque that I HANDED OVER WAS SIGNED TO DDGA. The whole idea of treatment was chaotic - no controlled timing period for the area, no recognised disposal of used strips - often they were left laying around in apiaries. As time proceeded, there was discussion relating to changing the molecule due to resistance showing up - but to my knowledge, this resistance was never tested for in an organised manner, it was all hear say. I had hives that when tested with Amitraze after being treated with Apistan dropping several hundreds of mites, others none at all - confusion reigned, at least in my mind on what was really happening. As far as I am concerned, treatment left in the hands of people who do not either understand what they are doing or the consequences of their actions is the best recipe for long term disaster. There appears to be a pretense that the Vet. services are in control and know what is happening - they are not and don't. The average beekeeper in my area will not supply information and is distrusting of his fellow beekeepers - just incase he/she finds out how much money he/she is making/lossing. We tried to set up a Development group for Beekeeping in the area - failed due to apathy The different beekeeping unions are at each others throats when ever possible. It is only when such disastrous situations as Gaucho and Sunflowers arrive on the scene that sense prevails. On the surface, everybody states that they are using the recognised treatment for V.j., A.F.B.etc, but in reality!!!, leaving those that do follow the rules to suffer. One old beekeeper came to the house and asked what I THOUGHT ABOUT THAT NEW STUFF - Apifoss. I presumed he was talking about COUMAPHOS ( even I am not sure about its spelling). The vet. officer who was visiting put him right by telling him not to use it but instead to use Amitraze soaked onto jute strips. He realised the bloke would never buy the official materials and considered it better for all concerned that a treatment however it arrived was better than none. I gave up and fell into line - treat V.j. like the rest and get good results whilst it lasts. Before I WAS PAYING THE PREMIUM and not going to gain the extension in time as most of the rest were happily making their 5%,10% dips out of what ever was in fashion. SO how are the trials relating to the pheromone that will waylay females on their way to brood cells going? Yours truthfully Peter PS I do have excellent contacts with many serious beekeepers throughout France. I HOPE THAT THE ABOVE EXPLAINS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN AND WHAT REALLY HAPPENS. Believing that the truth always come out one day!! ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 21:26:57 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dennis Crutchfield Subject: Bee Candy In-Reply-To: <200012312222.RAA15728@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello folks, I lost the recipe for hard bee candy,for winter feed, and would like to make some up. I made some once that was white and like brittle. Sure appreciate the help. thanks preacher ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 13:18:33 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Bits and Pieces MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The following is edited for excess quotes: ------ From: Bryan Clements Subject: RE: Evaluating Beekeeping Help > I recently began a project to list the skills and experience levels > we seek when hiring beekeeping help... The old Bay of Plenty Community College in Tauranga NZ did certificates in Beekeeping. I recall that they had Oral and Practical Assessment guides for each year of study that could make a good basis for evaluating and setting pay scales even for long term beekeepers. Perhaps some one from NZ might know if the assessment guides would be available for general use. (Hi Nick, hint, hint,) Bryan Clements ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 13:26:33 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Bits And Pieces MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Edited for excess quotes and relayed FWIW: --- From: "Pascal Fournier" Subject: Re: FW: Re: You know you are in a beekeeping family........... As a laboratory technician, I note in the text from Murray Mc Gregor that he was preparing mustard as a sideline. Mustard seed is one of the very rare vegetable who deliver cosequent amount of Carbon Disulphide. This product affect brain, liver and nerves. The fact is that you can' t find a lot of studies on very low level chronic exposure, the only studies made is about workers in industrial plant who have a lot of contact with the product. I know that anything who affect your liver decrease your allergic resistance. I include the adress of the datasheet of the product http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/c0957.htm http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts82.html http://www.lakes-environmental.com/toxic/CARBON_DISULFIDE.HTML I know that a simple urine test can be made on people. the problem with light chronic intoxication is that usually under a certain amount, no medical studies are made. Happy New Year everybody. P.Fournier ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 20:43:32 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Thinking of San Diego MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It's time to get ready for the convention in San Diego -- coming up soon. I'm going to be in San Diego from the 9th to the 20th, and I know some other BEE-L people will be there too. Let's be sure to get together at least once during that time. Email me direct to make plans. allen allend@internode.net ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 10:00:22 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dave Cushman Subject: Re: rodents MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi All Rats and mice will hang by their front paws to gnaw. I have watched a wild rat do a "hand over hand" traverse sideways along a mortered seam in brickwork using nothing but it's front paws. The horizontal distance travelled was 5 1/2 feet at a height of 6 feet from the ground. The ledge in the morter was about 2 mm. The feat was repeated many times but I only observed it once. As regards brains the question I would pose is "how did the rat know there was any point in performing the manouvre in the first place"? Best regards Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert Brenchley To: > True, but would even the most acrobatic of wood mice really dangle from > its front legs with its bum in mid-air, while gnawing heroically to try to > get through the mouse excluder? If so, it deserves top marks for gymnastics, > but none for brains. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 10:03:38 -0000 Reply-To: Ruary Rudd Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Ruary Rudd Organization: Westgate, waterville Subject: Re: Bee Candy Comments: To: Dennis Crutchfield MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The mnemonic is 1,2,3,4,5, Five parts sugar dissolved in one part water, bring to the boil and stir continuously until temperature is 234 degrees Fahrenheit. Cool rapidly stirring until it just starts to go whit then pour into moulds. Once the material starts to set it hardens very quickly so have your moulds ready. Ruary Rudd ----- Original Message ----- From: Dennis Crutchfield Sent: 03 January 2001 03:26 Subject: Bee Candy > I lost the recipe for hard bee candy,for winter feed, and would like to make > some up. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 15:00:05 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Max Watkins Subject: Re: Miticide resistance, revisited In-Reply-To: <200101030025.TAA22446@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Peter, I sympathise with your position in France. We've found the exact same situation in many countries, including France where quite a bit of our research is done. On the one hand the "Authorities" set stringent rules for registering a treatment - so stringent and expensive that very few firms can get their product through to the user and on the other hand you have what you described perfectly - there is quite widespread disregard of the rules even BY THE AUTHORITIES for this very legislation. We are asked constantly why we don't have the next product(s) out yet. Registration alone (ignoring product development time) can take 3 years. Vita is now just coming to the point where we have registrations of new products pending in many countries. Our APIGUARD thymol gel is about to be widely registered so you can expect to see that in France this year. APIGUARD is used for the control of mites in honeybee colonies and will be 7 years in reaching the market from the initial development stages. Believe it or not, that is fast. Our pheromone blend, PHEROVAR which interupts varroa reproduction is about 18 months out of line. It's a complicated blend and what we thought was the correct constituency last year turned out to be not quite so. A question of isomerism. We used the wrong isomer of three. The blend is known but we have to go through all the dosage, efficacy and bee tox tests again, hence the delay. But it will come and news of it will be posted in the bee press nearer the time. Max Dr Max Watkins Vita (Europe) Limited Brook House, Alencon Link Basingstoke, Hants RG21 7RD UK Tel. +44 (0) 1256 473177 Fax +44 (0) 1256 473179 http://www.vita.demon.co.uk ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 07:57:21 EST 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 Candy Comments: cc: preacherc@cvalley.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/2/01 10:36:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, preacherc@CVALLEY.NET writes: << I lost the recipe for hard bee candy,for winter feed, and would like to make some up. I made some once that was white and like brittle. Sure appreciate the help. >> That's a lot of work. And for what? If you overheat it while mixing, you can carmelize the sugar and make it more or less indigestible for the bees. Let the bees make it. Make up a feeder rim, around 1 1/2 to 2 inches. Fill it with dry granulated sugar, with a couple layers of newspaper to hold it from falling thru. Make sure it is directly above the cluster. The excess moisture evapporated by the bees, will concense and wet the sugar, and it will harden into a block. The bees, tasting the sweet newspaper will open it as needed and consume the sugar. It can be replenished, as needed, but always use a little more newspaper to keep it from falling thru the frames. Sugar on the floor of the hives may not be used, it may even be thrown out. This not only saves your labor, it helps the bees dispose of a waste product that can be dangerous to them in winter - the excess moisture that often condenses or forms frost on the bottom of the cover. Actually they don't dispose of it; they recycle it. You can use the same setup to feed a small amount (one gallon or so) of heavy syrup. In this case make sure the newspaper is at least six layers thick and makes a continuous bowl, ie, put the newpaper in after the rim is placed. The reason for the multiple layers is to prevent them from chewing thru the paper too soon, and spilling the syrup. It has to seep thru. In this case use only heavy syrup; we use straight HFCS straight as it comes from the drum. Thin syrup will soak thru too fast. Excluders are not required, but I place one under the newspaper when feeding this way. The feeders may be still on in spring and the bees will remove the sugar and fill the rims with burr comb. This can mean a solid feeder full of drone brood. By using the excluder, it still mean a feeder rim full of burr comb, but it will be spring honey, instead. This can be removed as one piece with the excluder as the bottom, and put on a nuc that needs feeding. Dave Green Ill equipped for the real world, I became a beekeeper. The Pollination Home Page: http://pollinator.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 08:14:13 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Adrian Wenner Subject: Miticide resistance-Mistakes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Max Watkins wrote: >I'm not trying to set myself up as an expert and of course, I may be >entirely wrong. I do make mistakes - let's see now, I remember I made one >back in 1978.... I am glad to see some humor inserted into this discussion about mite resistance. It reminds me of one of my favorite quotations: "The only mistake I ever made was when I thought I had made a mistake!" 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] ******************************************************************** * * "Aesthetic judgments do not arbitrate scientific discourse.... * Ultimately, theories are judged by how they fare when faced * with cold, hard, experimental facts." * Brian Greene, 1999 * ******************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 09:50:01 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: Thinking of San Diego In-Reply-To: <200101031622.LAA06128@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I guess I should mention that the bus tour to the Imperial Valley and the trip to Tijuana require reservations and the deadlines are right around now. Maybe passed by a day or so, but you still have a chance. If anyone has been putting off reserving for these excellent-sounding events, call (912) 427-4233 right now and speak up. The schedule is at http://www.abfnet.org/convention/schedule.html Have a major credit card ready. If you are trying to figure out where in Sandy Ego the hotel is, try this link which also has maps. http://www.marriotthotels.com/dpp/Map.asp?MarshaCode=SANMV The 'local info' pointer on the ABF site still refers to Texas locations from some time back. (IMO, the web site at http://www.abfnet.org/ has been a real disappointment to those of us who rely on the net over paper media for info and almost caused me to miss deadlines due to lack of essential facts. I suppose if I were still a member, I'd have gotten the mailing package, but...) allen ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 15:13:00 -0700 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: Thinking of San Diego In-Reply-To: <200101031622.LAA06135@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 08:43 PM 1/2/01 -0700, you wrote: >It's time to get ready for the convention in San Diego Allen, I will be there - I have to work for my trip - will present a Pre-Conference set of videos and bits and pieces of things ranging from bees trained to fly through maizes to 3-d movies of temperature regulation in hives - scheduled for Thursday evening -- assuming I don't get fogged in at Missoula or Salt Lake. Then, on Friday late afternoon we talk about our trials at mating queens in a 1 acre by 40 ft tent. Would like to meet some of the Bee-L folks that I know from the list. I will be in San Diego through Tuesday morning. Cheers Jerry > >Email me direct to make plans. > >allen >allend@internode.net > > Jerry J. Bromenshenk jjbmail@selway.umt.edu http://www.umt.edu/biology/bees ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 17:44:57 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dave and Judy Subject: State Bee Associations MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello all of our beefriends! I am trying to complete a list of United States' State Bee Associations (or large local clubs) to show the amount of dues that are charged and also the benefits received in return for those dues. If you are a member, or officer, of a state club, would you email this information to me to avoid clutter on Bee-L? Thanks for your help. Now for a bee story. We had a nuc hive with a really old Buckfast queen (Dave just has a problem killing the old queen when requeening, so we always end up with a couple nucs with older queens. Usually the nucs don't survive long because of their queens.) This particular queen was a Buckfast from 5 years ago. She's been in and out of nucs and hives for 3 years now. We have requeened her original hive twice and her successors have gone into the night. But not this lady. We had a swarm hive that we had caught later in the summer that never had time to build up. Not a really great laying pattern. This swarm was not one of our own. Came from an area about 25 miles southwest of us. Sooo, solution, join the two. With his usual reluctance to kill a queen, Dave just joined the nuc with the weak hive using the newspaper. Let the queens decide who will survive. Two weeks later we did our final school presentation with our observation hive. This ob hive had a brand new, this summer, queen. 2 1/2 weeks after Dave joined the nuc and the weak hive, he went in again to join the observation hive. This time he was determined to find and kill the queen. Both queens were still in the hive. In a 2 box hive, they were in the same box, 1 frame apart, both with their own queen contingent! What a wonderful opportunity to watch what may happen when you have a 2 queen hive that are not mother/daughter, or related in any way. Unfortunately this idea didn't occur to Dave until after he had crushed the queens and was walking back down to the house. Oh well. Thanks again for your help. Judy in Kentucky, USA ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 08:02:07 +1300 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Juderon Subject: AFB - GM crop connection possible In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Has anyone mapped the geographical spread of the resistance? Eg, Did it start in the corn or cotton or rape or soy belts? Ron -----Original Message----- From: Robert Mann [mailto:robt_m@talk.co.nz] Sent: Friday, 5 January 2001 7:40 a.m. To: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu Subject: [NZNBAList] AFB - GM crop connection possible ... Bees in the US are increasingly afflicted with a strain of antibiotic resistant American foulbrood (AFB). Before the advent of antibiotics, this bacterial infection was the most serious bee disease in the world. Tetracycline had been used effectively against AFB for 40 years until 1996. In that year, tetracycline resistance was confirmed in both Argentina and the upper Midwestern states of Wisconsin and Minnesota. Since then, it has spread to at least 17 states in the US, including New York, and to parts of Canada. During the 1990s, millions of acres of Round-up Ready crops were planted in the US, Canada, and Argentina. According to my information, the antibiotic resistant gene used in the creation of Round-up Ready crops was for resistance to tetracycline. After 40 years of effective usage against an infective bacterium found in the guts of honeybees, suddenly two geographically isolated countries develop tetracycline resistance simultaneously. A common thread between the US, Canada and Argentina is the widespread and recent cultivation of GM crops containing tetracycline resistant genes. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 18:17:39 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Ham Morton Subject: Cotton Honey Granulation I had good production this year with cotton honey however it did granulate. Does this always happen with cotton honey? What can I do so that the honey will not granulate so fast? Thanks in advance!! ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 20:04:56 EST 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: Cotton Honey Granulation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/4/01 7:46:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, morton@INTERPATH.COM writes: << I had good production this year with cotton honey however it did granulate. Does this always happen with cotton honey? What can I do so that the honey will not granulate so fast? >> Cotton honey is one of the quickest to granulate. However, steps to prevent granulation ("cooking" and ultrafiltration) can damage this fine honey. Let it granulate. As long as it doesn't sit thru the next season of hot, humid weather, granulation won't hurt it. Then when you are ready to use it, apply gentle heat to reliquify. We have a warm box, which bakeries use tor raising bread. Lot's of beekeepers have homemade ones from old freezers or refrigerators. Plans can be found by searching the list archives. Dave Green The Pollination Home Page: http://pollinator.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 20:44:27 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: GImasterBK@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Cotton Honey Granulation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cotton honey is high in dextrose and low in fructose, and like Goldenrod honey, it crystallizes rather quickly. You have three basic choices: 1) learn to make creamed honey and use the cotton honey to make creamed honey. 2) blend it with a honey that does not crystallize like tupelo, or with some other slow to crystallize honey like black locust, tulip poplar, or orange 3) Always store you honey in a freezer until sale or use time. Of course, NEVER EVER keep it in the refrigerator or basement, and also not too long above 81°F If you are a relatively new beekeeper, I suggest you consult with other beekeepers that produce large quantities of cotton honey and see what they do with it. Ending, you just cannot store cotton honey like most other honeys, because it crystallizes faster than most. Extract it soon after it is made and than store it in a FREEZER. There it will stay liquid with no crystals for several years if always kept around 0-10°F. I hope that I have helped. George Imirie ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 13:23:02 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: AFB - GM crop connection possible In-Reply-To: <200101041918.OAA11802@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Has anyone mapped the geographical spread of the resistance? Eg, Did it > start in the corn or cotton or rape or soy belts? This is a good question. AFAIK, soy and canola in various varieties are grown in varying amounts throughout the areas in question. As for GM varieties, that is harder to say. It is a good question, but there are other questions that must be asked first before it becomes meaningful. We've been discussing resistant AFB for some years on BEE-L, and apparently the most basic and pivotal question in this matter has never been answered. The root question is whether one OTC resistant strain developed in one place and has been spread by international trade in honey and other means, or whether a number of separate strains have evolved in separate and totally isolated places with no vector of disease transmission between them. Answering that one question would save a lot of idle speculation, false rumours and wasted effort. It is a simple question, and a simple one to answer with today's technology. The answer to that one question decides what other questions are relevant, including the present one. For some reason, most people seem to assume that each case is new unique mutation or selection, yet Occam's Razor tells us given the following facts: 1.) successful mutations are fairly rare. 2.) selection for resistant AFB does not seem to happen frequently; we have not seen it over previous decades 3.) diseases often spread from one place to another without people immediately figuring out what happened. ...that we must first disprove the most obvious explanation before moving on to 'create new gods'. I personally like this interpretation: "The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct." Ref: http://staff.vscht.cz/~pokornp/physics/occam.html Common sense would also dictate that given the above knowledge, the first place to look is for vectors of disease transmission. Only after all possibility of transmission is disproved, should we start to seriously consider extraordinary causes. That is not to say that some powerful new factor could not have come into play. It is just not scientific to jump past the first stage in the investigation and assume that the usual causes of new disease outbreaks are not responsible for spreading this new one. BTW, I'm no geneticist or pathologist and I'm having trouble with the words here, but hope you understand what I am saying and don't pick me over if I misuse a word or two that have technical meanings that differ from what we lay people assume. I personally always favour the simplest explanation that fits the known facts, and that is that SAFB started in Argentina, was exported to the US and Canada, and continues to spread. That is not to say that the GMO link is not out of the question, but until the first question is answered all the rest are somewhat premature. I hope we have an answer soon. allen ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 15:38:07 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Blane White Subject: Re: AFB - GM crop connection possible Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Ron, You asked regarding antibiotic resistance in AFB: "Has anyone mapped the geographical spread of the resistance? Eg, Did it start in the corn or cotton or rape or soy belts?" It was first documented here in the midwest USA Wisconsin first than quickly here in Minnesota in the corn/ soybeans production area. Much of the cropland here in the upper midwest is farmed on a corn - soybean rotation at present so yes the resistance was first documented in areas where roundup-ready soybeans were planted. One complication is that this is also a major honey production area but the corn/bean growing don't entirely overlap the major honey producing areas but there is much planting of the GM roundup ready soybeans in areas with many colonies of honey bees here and in fact soybeans are an important honey source in some of these areas at least in some years. The conditions for the possible transfer of such transgenes are readily met over a large area of the upper midwest USA. Does this answer your question? FWIW blane ****************************************** Blane White MN Dept of Agriculture blane.white@state.mn.us ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 09:38:38 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Lloyd Spear Subject: liquifying granulated honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit With regard to a simple means of liquefying granulated honey, Dave Green said "We have a warm box, which bakeries use for raising bread. Lot's of beekeepers have homemade ones from old freezers or refrigerators. Plans can be found by searching the list archives." In last months issue of Bee Culture, there is a short article by Bob Harrison (one of our outstanding list contributors) on how to convert a refrigerator for this purpose. Highly recommended! Lloyd Mailto:Lloyd@rossrounds.com. Lloyd Spear Owner, Ross Rounds, Inc. The finest in comb honey production. Visit our web site at http://www.rossrounds.com. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 09:38:23 -0500 Reply-To: Peter Borst Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Comments: RFC822 error: DATE field duplicated. Last occurrence was retained. From: Peter Borst Subject: resistance to tetracycline Robert Mann writes: According to my information, the antibiotic resistant gene used in the creation of Round-up Ready crops was for resistance to tetracycline. Robert, Ifyou have such information you should give it, and its source. Resistance to antibiotics crops up evertwhere they are used, requiring a continual change in methods. Many examples of antiobiotics losing their effectiveness due to overuse can be given - in humans as well as animals. I have observed beekeepers for over 25 years and I have seen them misuse chemicals time and time again. That AFB should begin to show resistance to tetracycline comes as no surprise to me, nor is mite resistance to Apistan surprising. I don't think anyone is to blame but I suggest the cause of these problems is closer to home. Peter Borst Ithaca NY USA ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 09:40:16 -0500 Reply-To: Peter Borst Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Comments: RFC822 error: DATE field duplicated. Last occurrence was retained. From: Peter Borst Subject: Losing the Battle of the Bugs http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/990510/nycu/antibiotic.htm Losing the Battle of the Bugs excerpt: The latest turn in the battle of the bugs is no surprise. Scientists have known since the dawn of the antibiotic age in the 1940s that the more an antibiotic is used, the quicker it becomes useless. That's because of natural selection: While most bacteria exposed to the drug are killed, the fittest survive and pass survival traits to their offspring. With continued use of the antibiotic, the resistant bugs proliferate. Bacteria have a broad array of tactics to combat antibiotics' toxicity, and they can give the genes that control these feats to nearby, even unrelated, bugs. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 09:40:09 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: BeeCrofter@AOL.COM Subject: Re: liquifying granulated honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/5/01 9:37:03 AM Eastern Standard Time, lloydspear@EMAIL.MSN.COM writes: > > In last months issue of Bee Culture, there is a short article by Bob > Harrison (one of our outstanding list contributors) on how to convert a > refrigerator for this purpose. Highly recommended! > Another source of thermostat control for making you hot box or fridge conversions is an old waterbed heater. The thermostat will control a resistive load up to about 300 watts. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 10:51:41 -0500 Reply-To: Peter John Keating Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter John Keating Subject: Re: rAFB MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Allen said, > The root question is whether one OTC resistant strain developed in one place and > has been spread by international trade in honey and other means, or whether a > number of separate strains have evolved in separate and totally isolated places > with no vector of disease transmission between them. > I personally always favour the simplest explanation that fits the known facts, > and that is that SAFB started in Argentina, was exported to the US and Canada, > and continues to spread. I recently had a visit from a Western Canada beekeeper who was convinced that imported unwashed barrels are a major vector in "rAFB" .He said that most had a fair amount of honey in the barrel and when stored outside posed a real danger to the spread of diseases. Here in Quebec l have seen many barrels purchased from the honey packer (Labonte) which come from the west as well as outside of the country which have residues of honey sufficient to encourage robbing. At the last Canadian Honey Council meeting http://www.honeycouncil.ca/chc-ccm/indexe.html it was thought that barrels may also be a vector for the small hive beetle! For those with HACCP programs you may already have this problem under control? Peter ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 09:11:09 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: rAFB Comments: To: Peter John Keating In-Reply-To: <200101051552.KAA05924@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > The root question is whether one OTC resistant strain developed in one > place and has been spread by international trade in honey and other means, or > whether a number of separate strains have evolved in separate and totally isolated places with no vector of disease transmission between them. > > Here in Quebec l have seen many > barrels purchased from the honey packer (Labonte) which come from the west > as well as outside of the country which have residues of honey sufficient to > encourage robbing. A neighbour reported to us having seen Chinese honey drums in a nearby open dump (near two of our locations). He mentioned it because he thought they must have come from us. We had no knowledge whatsoever up to that point. We are very vulnerable. Even if honey drums are washed, what is to keep a family cook from throwing out unwanted honey into garbage which ends up in open landfills. I maintain that our watchdogs have badly let us down by not screening imported honey for bee pathogens, particularly SAFB. allen ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 09:32:56 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Jay Mowat Subject: Honey Storage Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The recent discussion about cotton honey contained some interesting ideas about the mid to long term storage of honey. I'm actually trying to keep a small amount of honey lquified for some good customers of mine. Does anyone have some rules of thumb? Temperature? Length of storage time? Does it matter what the type of honey is? Jay Mowat Erin, Ontario ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 08:42:02 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: resistance to tetracycline In-Reply-To: <200101051438.JAA03340@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > According to my information, the antibiotic resistant gene > used in the creation of Round-up Ready crops was for resistance to > tetracycline. > > Robert, > If you have such information you should give it, and its source. Absolutely. I, for one, would be most grateful for this critical information. I have been asking for this publicly for some time and the only reply so far was that the antibiotic resistance used was for an antibiotic totally unrelated to OTC. If there is any evidence for your assertion it adds credence to the GM link, even though it is hypothetical at present. If not, such assertions only add to the confusion and misinformation circulating. allen ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 11:58:42 -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: Cotton Honey Granulation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ham Morton wrote: > I had good production this year with cotton honey however it did granulate. > Does this always happen with cotton honey? What can I do so that the honey > will not granulate so fast? Yes. Sell it quickly. Actually, if you want to use this property to your advantage, you might try the approach used by early 1900s beekeepers in the Phoenix/Buckeye area of Arizona. They sold honey in waxed paper blocks, advertising that this proved the purity of their product, since adulterated honey would not crystallize. Of course, at that time, all homemakers knew how to deal with solid honey. ----------------------------------------------------------- John F. Edwards (Cotton Farmer's Son) Carl Hayden Bee Research Center Tucson, Arizona ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 12:04:15 -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: liquifying granulated honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lloyd Spear wrote: > With regard to a simple means of liquefying granulated honey, Dave Green > said "We have a warm box, which bakeries use > for raising bread. Our "Master Beekeeper" here at the lab has a simple solution for 5 gallon tins of solid honey. He puts one in a gas-fired stove oven, with only the pilot light lit. It takes several days, of course. - John Edwards, Tucson BeeLab ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 14:15:58 -0600 Reply-To: busybeeacres@DISCOVERYNET.COM Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob and Elizabeth Harrison Subject: Re: Honey Storage MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Jay & All, Most problems encountered with raw honey crystallizing fast comes from the handling process. Supers which have crystals from the year before. Supers left on in the fall and exposed to temperatures around the 57F.range . Temperature around 57 F. in the holding area and with many large operations drums which are clean but not washed with hot enough water to remove tiny crystals in lower bottom where the bottom fits the side. Many hobby beekeepers bring their supers into the unheated garage and extract the next weekend. With starter crystals honey will crystallize best at 57F. over a eight day period. In a larger operation for you which don't know this fact the EPA will not let you wash drums into the sewer system. Liquid Sugars in Kansas City and EPA have had many bouts over the problem. Now the wash is pumped into a railroad tanker. All large packing plants will exchange or save your drums(they say they won't) but for the reason above WILL NOT wash out the drums. Because the drum has had the lid put back on and honey is hard to contaminate and its illegal to wash in sewer systems many drums are simply refilled with honey again. I wash mine into a long container and let the bees clean up the leftovers and then final rinse with hot water before refilling which the EPA will let you do. Jay Mowat wrote: I'm actually trying to keep a small amount of honey lquified for some good customers of mine. Does anyone have some rules of thumb? If you are doing *raw unheated honey* you need to remove from the bees and extract right( within two days) away and put in a clean container which is crystal free. Then protect in either direction from the 57F. degree temp which honey crystallizes at best. Not over 80F. but as cold as you want. Temperature? If you want to be sure the honey will have a reasonable crystal free shelf life you need to heat to at least 120 to 150F. In a crystal free container after heating to remove crystals and stored in the proper temperature the honey should keep for a few months with only minor crystallization at the bottom of the container if any crystallization at all. Length of storage time? Putting the honey in a freezer keeps my comb honey crystal free for a year but I have never tried any longer. There was a post earlier this month about a freezer not helping. I don't know why the process didn't work for the writer of the post but science has proven it almost stops the crystallization process. Does it matter what the type of honey is? Any honey which crystalizes fast will crystallize fast in storage unless heated as if for sale in the stores to remove the starter crystals. Certain honey is known to crystalize so fast it will even at times crystalize in the supers. I could write a book about the above but will stop here and hope most questions are answered. Sincerely, Bob Harrison ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 12:16:01 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: Cotton Honey Granulation In-Reply-To: <200101051906.OAA12776@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > They sold honey in waxed paper blocks, advertising that this proved > the purity of their product, since adulterated honey would not > crystallize. I do not recommend placing any doubt in the consumers mind about honey purity. That ultimately diminishes the market for your own product and increases competition pressure from others. The best sales approach is to praise the competition, but emphasize the good qualities of your own product. allen ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 17:02:38 -0500 Reply-To: "jfischer@supercollider.com" Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: James Fischer Subject: The (USA) EPA "Label Law" Is DEAD Unless YOU Save It MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Please forward to other beekeepers by all means possible. Time is short, and e-mail and letters to the EPA from as many beekeepers as possible has a good chance of having an impact. The phrase "pesticide kill" needs no explanation to beekeepers. Our sole protection against the mis-use of pesticides has been the EPA "Label Law", a law created as a direct result of excessive hive losses in the 1970s. Now, the EPA is considering removing the "Bee Precautionary Labeling", or making the wording so weak as to render it useless. The EPA has a "public comment period" open until Jan 22, 2001, so I'd like to ask every beekeeper to take the time to both read this (rather long) message, and send an e-mail to the EPA to object to weakening the "label law". The following text is long, but it is an attempt to provide complete information on one place, so that all can be well-informed. (Clearly, well thought-out and well-written "public comments" can be more effective.) Each section is divided by a line of "<><><><>", and the sections are as follows: 1) An overview of the situation, by Tom Theobold, a commercial beekeeper and freelance writer. 2) The e-mail address and requirements for "public comments". 3) The specific questions asked by the EPA in their request for public comments. 4) The complete text of the EPA "draft guidelines" that are proposed. (So that hardcopy can be distributed to those without web-browsers). <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> AN OVERVIEW (BY TOM THEOBOLD) The EPA, Pesticides and Beekeepers. An Editorial and call to Arms. By Tom Theobold In an apparently inadvertent irony of timing, the Environmental Protection Agency announced in the Federal Register its intention to seek public comment on a draft Pesticide Registration (PR) notice entitled "Guidance for Pesticide Registrants on Bee Precautionary Labeling". This announcement came on November 22, the day before Thanksgiving. In the war movies, this moment is typically accompanied by the panic cry "INCOMING"! Pesticides hazardous to honey bees have carried a label restriction since the early 1980s. It reads: "[This product] is HAZARDOUS TO BEES exposed to direct treatment or residues on blooming crops and/or blooming weeds. Do not apply [this product] or allow it to drift to blooming crops and/or blooming weeds if bees are foraging the areas to be treated." The label restriction came about as a consequence of massive bee kills from pesticides in the 1970s. Unfortunately the chemical industry and State Regulators (the agencies typically delegated the authority by EPA for pesticide regulation) found the restriction cumbersome, problematical and inconvenient. While the label restriction was frequently ignored or skirted, it nevertheless gave beekeepers standing before the law when their bees were killed by illegal pesticide use. Even under these conditions of unenthusiastic and even hostile "enforcement", commercial beekeepers in many parts of the country had over 30% of their colonies killed or damaged by pesticides. The current PR Notice would propose sweeping changes to not only the wording but the intent of bee protection language. New pesticides presented for registration which fail to provide residual bee toxicity data automatically will be assumed to have a toxic period of 24 hours. This will encourage applicants to neglect this detail, and beekeepers will spend years enduring bee kills and uncompensated damages as they attempt to establish their case against new pesticides which may have residual toxicity's of 1 to 2 weeks. In other words the toxicity data will be generated at the expense of the beekeeping industry. It dismisses the issue of drift, which is often the major culprit in bee kills, by simply omitting any reference to it. By this logic, polluters in other arenas would be free to release toxic substances into a waterway and be held harmless for any damage done downstream. The only difference between the two cases is that with agricultural pesticides it isn't a waterway but an airstream which is polluted. Perhaps the worst part of this proposal is its caveat to the chemical industry, which says that an applicator is not responsible for following even the feeble language proposed if they participate in a "formal, state-approved bee protection program". The EPA plans to take no role in the formation, approval or monitoring of the state approved program, despite the clear evidence that it has often been State Departments of Agriculture which are the problem in protecting pollinators. In 1997 AAPCO (the American Association of Pesticide Control Officers), a professional organization to which many state regulatory people belong, formally requested that the EPA make bee protection language ADVISORY. This gives you an idea of the philosophy of many of these states and what protections they might provide given a free hand. The EPA proposed to not only put the foxes back in charge of the chicken coop despite the loss of all these chickens, it proposed to let the foxes make the rules and doesn't even intend to ask what the rules are. Beyond the specific labeling language, the EPA is failing to carry out its basic responsibilities under the law (FIFRA). Ultimately Congress is responsible for the implementation of FIFRA. It assigns this responsibility to EPA, which in turn delegates the authority to another agency, typically a State Department Of Agriculture. It is apparent that the EPA is not only prepared to cave in to the convenience of the chemical industry, but they are willing to sacrifice American beekeeping and violate the law in the bargain. They are either incapable or unwilling to hold their delegees (the states) accountable for administering the law properly, nor are they willing to do so themselves. Beekeepers are urged to familiarize themselves with this issue and contact their Congresspeople immediately. This matter will effect all beekeepers, large or small. The indiscriminate and uncontrolled use of pesticides around bees, which is likely to result from the current posture of the EPA, will result in enormous and costly losses for almost all beekeepers. The EPA must be called to account by Congress and required to follow the law. The current proposal provides little or no protection to honey bees or any other pollinators, after years of input from the beekeeping industry. More detailed information on the PR can be obtained at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ The comment period ends Jan 22, 2001. In addition to anything you may have to say to the EPA, you should inform your Congressperson or nothing will change. Note: Tom did not give the exact address of the web page for the document at issue. It is as follows: www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2000/November/Day-22/p29815.htm <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> HOW TO MAKE A "PUBLIC COMMENT" To comment via e-mail: 1) Send your comments to opp-docket@epa.gov 2) Put "OPP-00684" in the subject line, to make it easy for federal clerks to route your comment correctly. 3) They can handle plain text or Wordperfect 6.1 format. (When in doubt, plain text in the body of the e-mail works best. Attachments can be a pain.) 4) Recall that your comments will likely be used to evaluate your credibility, so don't get too wild. To comment via postal mail, use the following address: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20460. ...and the same considerations listed in (2) through (4) above apply. <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> THE EPA QUESTIONS, ASKED IN THE TEXT OF THEIR REQUEST FOR COMMENTS Even though the entire subject of weakening the "label law" is an issue in itself, one may wish to address the questions asked by the EPA. Here they are, quoted from the "draft notice": Commenters are free to raise any issue, but the following questions are of particular interest to the Agency, and comments on them are invited. 1. Should the precautionary labeling language in the new policy allow for an exception from bee precautions for wide-area public health spray programs? In a number of communications to the Agency, officials involved in public health programs have noted that strict interpretation of the current bee precautionary labeling could prevent effective wide-area pest control in an emergency situation. The Agency's proposed new labeling language could also be very restrictive of wide-area spraying, for example, if a state had no bee protection program, or could not operate the program during an emergency. The suggestion has been made that the label language include a clause to the effect that precautions apply ``...except when applications are made to prevent or control a declared public health threat.'' The Agency requests comment on whether such an exception on the label is necessary or appropriate, and if it is appropriate, what authority could invoke the exception. Should an exception be applicable to treatments intended to prevent possible disease outbreaks, or limited to significant emergencies like the aftermath of flooding or a proven outbreak of human or animal disease? 2. Should the new policy described in the PR Notice allow a 24 hour period of toxicity statement on labels in the absence of data as a permanent option, or only temporarily until registrants submit residual toxicity data? 3. From the commenter's perspective as a pesticide user, beekeeper, state regulator, or other interested party, would a specific time period of toxicity to bees on the label be more or less useful than the current policy which includes a label prohibition on applications while bees are visiting the treatment area? 4. Is the label condition that pesticides can be applied if the user participates in a state bee protection program likely to encourage bee-protection efforts? From the commenter's perspective, is such a condition more or less useful in achieving bee protection that the current label prohibition against application when bees are visiting the treatment area? The EPA also has suggestions for how to address these questions, as follows: What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide. 5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. 6. Offer alternative ways to improve the notice or collection activity. 7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice. 8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket control number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation. <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> THE COMPLETE TEXT OF THE NOTICE [Federal Register: November 22, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 226)] [Notices] [Page 70350-70352] >From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr22no00-61] ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [OPP-00684; FRL-6750-9] Pesticides; Draft Guidance for Pesticide Registrants on Bee Precautionary Labeling AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: The Agency seeks public comment on a draft Pesticide Registration (PR) Notice entitled ``Guidance for Pesticide Registrants on Bee Precautionary Labeling.'' This draft notice provides guidance to registrants and others concerning EPA's policy on bee labeling statements for pesticide products which are toxic to bees, such as honey bees, alfalfa leaf-cutting bees, alkali bees, and other native and non-indigenous pollinating insects that are important to crop production. The purpose of the proposed label changes is to help ensure that pesticide products used outdoors can be used without posing unnecessary risks of bee mortality. EPA believes that these revisions will make the labeling clearer and more easily understood by pesticide users and by regulatory officials who enforce label provisions. DATES: Comments, identified by docket control number OPP-00684, must be received on or before January 22, 2001. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as provided in Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number OPP-00684 in the subject line on the first page of your response. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Roelofs (7506C), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 308-2964; fax number: (703) 308-1850; e-mail address: roelofs.jim@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to pesticide registrants, pesticide regulatory officials, beekeepers, pesticide users and to the public in general. Although this action may be of particular interest to those persons who have a specific interest in precautionary labeling to protect bees, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the information in this notice, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. B. How Can I Get Additional Information, Including Copies of this Document and Other Related Documents? 1. Electronically. You may obtain electronic copies of this document and the PR Notice from the Office of Pesticide Programs' Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/. You can also go directly to the listings from the EPA Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/. To access this document, on the Home Page select ``Laws and Regulations'' ``Regulations and Proposed Rules,'' and then look up the entry for this document under the ``Federal Register-- Environmental Documents.'' You can also go directly to the Federal Register listings at http:// www.access.gpo.gov/sup--docs/. 2. Fax on demand. You may request a faxed copy of the draft PR Notice entitled ``Bee Precautionary Labeling Statements,'' by using a faxphone to call (202) 401-0527 and selecting item PR 2000-6133. You may also follow the automated menu. 3. In person. The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket control number OPP-00684. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received during an applicable comment period, and other information related to this action, including any information claimed as confidential business information (CBI). This official record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well [[Page 70351]] as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official record does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period, is available for inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805. C. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments? You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number OPP-00684 in the subject line on the first page of your response. 1. By mail. Submit your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460. 2. In person or by courier. Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. The PIRIB is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805. 3. Electronically. You may submit your comments electronically by E-mail to: ``opp-docket@epa.gov,'' or you can submit a computer disk as described above. Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Electronic submissions will be accepted in Wordperfect 6.1, Suite 8, or ASCII file format. All comments in electronic form must be identified by docket control number OPP-00684. Electronic comments may also be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries. D. How Should I Handle CBI That I Want to Submit to the Agency? Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. You may claim information that you submit to EPA in response to this document as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public version of the official record. Information not marked confidential will be included in the public version of the official record without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide. 5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. 6. Offer alternative ways to improve the notice or collection activity. 7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice. 8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket control number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation. II. Background To help determine whether pesticide products used outdoors pose risks of bee mortality, the Agency generally requires acute toxicity data on bees to be submitted with a registration application. See e.g., 40 CFR 158.590(a). Depending on the results of the acute study, EPA may require additional residual toxicity data. EPA pesticide labeling regulations require that ``...pesticides toxic to pollinating insects must bear appropriate label cautions.'' 40 CFR 156.10(h)(2)(ii)(E). In the 1980s, the Agency published a policy which described a set of standard bee precautionary labeling statements it believed appropriate where results from the bee data indicated toxicity. The most recent version of this policy is found in the 1996 Label Review Manual (USEPA, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Label Review Manual, 2nd Ed. (EPA 737-B-96-001) December, 1996). Under the 1980s policy, where a product displayed extended residual toxicity to bees, the label language EPA believed to be appropriate for precautionary purposes stated: ``This product is highly toxic to bees exposed to direct treatment or residues on blooming crops or weeds. Do not apply this product or allow it to drift to blooming crops or weeds if bees are visiting the treatment area.'' Controversy has continued for many years among beekeepers, growers, commercial applicators and State regulators about the adequacy of these statements. For example, many beekeepers believe that the labeling statements are not adequately protective, while many growers believe that the labeling statements are overly restrictive and prevent them from managing pests adequately during the bloom period. State regulators believe that the labeling statements need to be clarified regarding the obligations of applicators with respect to bees. III. Summary of the Draft PR Notice A. What Guidance Does the PR Notice Provide? The PR Notice states EPA's proposed new policy regarding appropriate standard label language to protect bees. This new language would include a specific statement about the length of time in hours or days that the residues of the pesticide product remain a toxic threat to bees. This new proposed labeling statement is based on a study of residual toxicity to bees for a specific product submitted to the Agency, or, in the absence of such a study, it states a default period of toxicity of 24 hours. The proposed label language provides two conditions under which pesticide application would be allowed without limitation to the label-stated period of toxic hazard to bees. The first of these conditions is if the pesticide application method is such that bees will not be exposed even if they are visiting the crop. An example of such a method would be soil incorporation, which would not produce pesticide residues on the foliage, blooms or nectar producing parts of plants, so that bees would not be exposed. The other condition under which use is allowed during the period of toxicity to bees, is when the user actively participates in and meets all the applicable [[Page 70352]] requirements of a state-approved bee protection program. The Agency believes that label precautions should be supplemented by additional efforts to protect bees, and that state programs are appropriate to this purpose. EPA does not intend to set specific criteria or approve state bee protection programs. The PR Notice recommends that state pesticide regulatory agencies consider a variety of regulatory and non-regulatory measures to include in bee-protection efforts. EPA believes that state agencies are in the best position to understand the localized crop-pesticide combinations and other factors that pose the greatest risks to bees, and can implement appropriate measures to mitigate those risks under varying local and geographic conditions. B. What Questions/Issues Should You Consider? Commenters are free to raise any issue, but the following questions are of particular interest to the Agency, and comments on them are invited. 1. Should the precautionary labeling language in the new policy allow for an exception from bee precautions for wide-area public health spray programs? In a number of communications to the Agency, officials involved in public health programs have noted that strict interpretation of the current bee precautionary labeling could prevent effective wide-area pest control in an emergency situation. The Agency's proposed new labeling language could also be very restrictive of wide-area spraying, for example, if a state had no bee protection program, or could not operate the program during an emergency. The suggestion has been made that the label language include a clause to the effect that precautions apply ``...except when applications are made to prevent or control a declared public health threat.'' The Agency requests comment on whether such an exception on the label is necessary or appropriate, and if it is appropriate, what authority could invoke the exception. Should an exception be applicable to treatments intended to prevent possible disease outbreaks, or limited to significant emergencies like the aftermath of flooding or a proven outbreak of human or animal disease? 2. Should the new policy described in the PR Notice allow a 24 hour period of toxicity statement on labels in the absence of data as a permanent option, or only temporarily until registrants submit residual toxicity data? 3. From the commenter's perspective as a pesticide user, bee keeper, state regulator, or other interested party, would a specific time period of toxicity to bees on the label be more or less useful than the current policy which includes a label prohibition on applications while bees are visiting the treatment area? 4. Is the label condition that pesticides can be applied if the user participates in a state bee protection program likely to encourage bee-protection efforts? From the commenter's perspective, is such a condition more or less useful in achieving bee protection that the current label prohibition against application when bees are visiting the treatment area? C. What is the Scope of this PR Notice? The draft PR Notice discussed in this notice is intended to provide guidance to pesticide registrants, EPA personnel, state regulatory personnel, and to the public. As a guidance document, this policy is not binding on either EPA or any outside parties, and EPA may depart from the guidance where circumstances warrant and without prior notice. Registrants and applicants may propose alternatives to the recommended labeling statements described in the Notice and the Agency will assess them for appropriateness on a case-by-case basis. If a product does not meet the requirements of 40 CFR Part 156, the Agency may find the product to be misbranded. As stated above, the Agency believes that the statements outlined in the Notice should reduce the potential for adverse effects to the environment and are ``appropriate'' within the meaning of 40 CFR 156.10(h)(2)(ii)(E). EPA will make available revised guidance after consideration of public comment. Public comment is not being solicited for the purpose of converting this guidance document into a binding rule. EPA will not be codifying this policy in the Code of Federal Regulations. EPA is soliciting public comment so that it can make fully informed decisions regarding the content of this guidance. The revised guidance will not be an unalterable document. Once a revised guidance document is issued, EPA will continue to treat it as guidance. Accordingly, on a case-by-case basis EPA will decide whether it is appropriate to depart from the guidance or to modify the overall approach in the guidance. List of Subjects Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests. Dated: November 9, 2000. Marcia Mulkey, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs [FR Doc. 00-29815 Filed 11-21-00; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 18:07:15 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Aaron Morris Subject: Re: GM Discussions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Again the topic of GM has come up, and quickly gone afar from beekeeping. To me, the discussion of the pros and cons of genetically modified organisms strays far from "The Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology". What started the discussion on BEE-L was the article from Joe Rowland regarding a possible link between GM crops and AFB causing bacteria that is resistant to oxytetracycline. I know Joe, not well, but am getting to know him better through a mutual involvement with the Empire State Honey Producers Association (Joe is Secretary/Treasurer, I am newsletter editor). By Joe's own admission, any link between GM crops and TM resistant bacteria is PURE SPECULATION. He has no smoking gun. He sees a possible link and as a commercial beekeeper, he feels the possible link bears investigation. Joe presented his concerns at the ESHPA fall meeting last November, resulting in the adoption of the following two resolutions: Resolution: Tetracycline-resistant genes in GM crops Whereas, Tetracycline resistant American Foulbrood (AFB) has been detected recently in the United States, Canada and Argentina; and Whereas, Some genetically modified (GM) crops contain tetracycline resistant genes, and GM crops were cultivated in the US, Canada and Argentina in the period during which tetracycline resistant AFB developed; and Whereas, European research has indicated that horizontal gene transfer from GM canola to bacteria within the intestines of honeybees does occur; therefore be it RESOLVED, that ESHPA requests that the FDA conducts research to determine if horizontal gene transfer has occurred between GM crops and AFB. Resolution: Proteinase inhibitors in GM crops Whereas, The US beekeeping industry is an important contributor to the US agricultural economy; and Whereas, Some European research has indicated that proteinse inhibitors found in some genetically modified (GM) crops may have deleterious effects on the lifespan and learning/olfactory capabilities of adult honeybees; and Whereas, Such effects could cause problems in colony organization and foraging/pollination efficiency; therefore be it RESOLVED, that ESHPA requests that USDA examines more closely the relationship between proteinase inhibitors in GM crops and honeybees. Please note that these resolutions do not say GM HAS CAUSED TM RESISTANCE! Nowhere do they say that. Nowhere has Joe said that. Speculation! I'll say it again, Speculation! I'll shout it this time, "SPECULATION!" Personally I feel it's healthy speculation, resulting in resolutions that call for investigation. Speculation? Investigation! Say it again with me, Speculation? Investigation! One more time, make it our weekend mantra! Speculation? Investigation! Joe speculates there's a link between TM resistance cropping up in different parts of the world and GMOs. Allen speculates the GMO link is hogwash and can more simply be explained as contaminated honey from Argentina carelessly discarded in Montana and Alberta. I speculate that aliens landed their flying saucer in Buenos Aries, it was during carnival so everybody thought the aliens had radical costumes! The aliens picked up some of that cheap Argentine honey (they give it away free down there y'know!) and took off to Montana, where they threw away the half empty jar, no, it was half full, I'm optimistic! So the TM resistance in Montana was caused by GMO induced TM resistance transferred from Argentina, but then the aliens stopped to visit Allen Dick (who is really an alien too), and when they flew off to return to their home planet, their reactor leaked some radioactive anti-matter which caused AFB causing bacteria to mutate and become resistant to oxytet too. So the TM resistance in Alberta is caused by radioactive mutations! This ain't speculation, it's the truth. Hell, it's published here on BEE-L so damn, it must be gospel! Speculation? Investigation! Do some DNA sampling on resistant bacteria in Canada. Do some DNA sampling on resistant bacteria in Montana. Do some DNA sampling on resistant bacteria in Argentina. Compare the results. What will we find out? Until then, use BEE-L for "The Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology". Don't use it to assassinate characters, don't use it to shout down someone with whom you don't agree, don't use it to turn speculation into gospel truth, unless it'll keep those damned aliens back on Mars where they belong! Aaron Morris - thinking BEE-L is being abused! ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 15:39:09 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Sullivan, Michael" Subject: Removing bees from wall MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hi, I keep my bees at a neighbor's house and he recently discovered bees living in the wall. They are coming out of a small hole under a second story window. In order to ensure that I can continue to keep my hives in his yard, I am going to try to get them out using a screen cone and a bait hive. I read many of the posts on BEE-L and I have a few more questions. 1. When is the best time to attempt this? The hives are in California, so the bees will fly all winter. Should I try it now when the population is low or wait until spring when nectar is available? I assume I will have a better chance of getting a queen for the bait hive in spring. 2. How long should I wait to get a queen? Should I have one as soon as the bees start to enter the bait hive or should I let them live in the hive for a while before introducing a queen. Thanks for any answers. Michael Sullivan ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 16:47:47 -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: Cotton Honey Granulation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Allen Dick wrote: > > They sold honey in waxed paper blocks, advertising that this proved > > the purity of their product, since adulterated honey would not > > crystallize. > > I do not recommend placing any doubt in the consumers mind about honey purity. I mention the purity angle in the historical context of a time when food adulteration was quite common. For example, milk producers would not now advertise their milk as being formaldehyde-free, but as I understand it, that method of preservation was used up till the Pure Food and Drug Act in the 1920s, to prolong "freshness" in milk. But on the other hand, maybe this (crystallization marketing) would be a viable way to combat the "honey-blend" products I have seen mentioned. The "organic" honey marketers have never had a problem with pointing out the evils of heating, straining, and mixing (Jack's Raw, Wild, Unfiltered Honey is one we get locally here). BTW, the early honey-sellers who mixed in water or syrups prob. never had the nerve to market it as a "blend". - Asif I have to say, views are my own - John (support yer local beelab) Edwards, Tucson, Arizona ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 18:50:49 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: GImasterBK@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Honey Storage MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Jay, unfortunately there are "no rules of thumb" because of the variability of exactly those things that you mentioned: temperature, storage time, type of honey. Regarding temperature, it is VERY WELL KNOWN that the BEST temperature to encourage crystallization is 57°F, so a cool basement is a horrible place. The seed crystals are microscopic to the human eye, and they can be reduced by heating the honey for as short a period of time as possible to 150°F and straining the honey through a filter type used in a chemistry lab. This is the procedure used by the honey packers to prolong the shelf life of the honey, but there is a penalty to be paid for subjecting the honey to this treatment. Some of the natural honey flavor is destroyed, some of the natural yeasts are destroyed, and the color is darkened. Storage time is also temperature dependent. Honey kept at 0° to 10° has a very long storage time, and honey kept at 80° does not quickly crystallize, but above 80°, you are getting into that area of yeast loss. The TYPE of honey is the dominant factor in honey crystallization. Honey is a combination of several different sugars, but the overwhelming two predominant sugars are glucose and fructose. These two sugars vary in percentage of the total based on what floral source the bees collected nectar from to make the honey.¨ In their natural surroundings, glucose is a solid at room temperatures, whereas fructose is a liquid at room temperatures. Hence, if a honey has a high percentage of glucose and a low percentage of fructose, these honeys are going to crystallize rapidly depending on the variation of percentage difference. In the U. S. some of the prominent honeys that are known to crystallize within a few months are alfalfa, cotton, goldenrod and rape (canola). In contrast, honeys that are high on fructose and hence are slow to crystallize are yellow clover, gallberry, locust, sage, and tupelo. Honey is sooo good, soooo natural, and soooo useful in cooking, it is hard for me to figure why anybody wants to "keep it around" very long. I hope that I have helped. George Imirie starting my 69th year of beekeeping in Maryland ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 21:31:25 -0600 Reply-To: busybeeacres@DISCOVERYNET.COM Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob and Elizabeth Harrison Subject: Re: Removing bees from wall MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Michael & all, Sullivan, Michael wrote: I am going to try to get them out using a screen cone and a bait hive. I read many of the posts on BEE-L and I have a few more questions. 1. When is the best time to attempt this? The hives are in California, so the bees will fly all winter. Should I try it now when the population is low or wait until spring when nectar is available? In my opinion when there is no nectar flow is best and for the duration of trying to remove the bees. 2. How long should I wait to get a queen? Should I have one as soon as the bees start to enter the bait hive or should I let them live in the hive for a while before introducing a queen. I don't know what posts you read or what has been written but seems to me question 2 is not the way I would do the procedure. In a earlier post I posted a address you could order a video which shows me removing a swarm from a tree with a funnel and a hive. I will post my way but keep in mind the procedure can take one to several weeks. 1. block all exits the bees are using from the house but one. 2. put a screen funnel on the entrance (large base of about six inch and small exit about the size a single bee could squeeze thru or about 5/16.) Struggle to get out works best. 3. Have a strong hive with queen within 3 feet of the funnel. This is the part you might not like working on the second floor. Even your best beekeeping buddy might seem reluctant to help. You might get the procedure to work with a single story weak hive but would take longer for the robbing to occur. 4. as the bees leave the building thru the funnel they can't find their way back in and join the hive outside( not allways sometimes they cluster on the funnel). If they cluster on the outside of the funnel move the outside hive closer. 5. The population grows outside and then dwindles in the building swarm(way its supposed to work) 6.when you are sure almost all the bees are out of the building swarm you remove the funnel and let the strong hive rob the building swarm of its honey ( sometimes a flow will start and they will forget robbing). Would I use the above in your case. No! I would remove a board and remove the bees comb and all(one comb at a time) and put in a hive. I did a step by step post on bee removal a few months back. No honey running out the wall this summer in case the bees don't rob out the building swarm. Our video shows many building removal jobs and several from second floors. I only use the funnel and hive when removing swarms from trees. The last was a tree in a cemetery. The funnel system worked but I have had failures. The video tape is a hour long and is the only video of its type I have ever seen. Email me direct to order. Many will post about what they have seen done in a book or a magazine. I have done both of the above and know what I am talking about. People pay to get bees removed from buildings and in most cases they should (probabbly not in your case). Very few people remove bees from buildings. My fellow beekeepers and I do and charge according to the amount of work involved. If you live around a large town or city *bee removal* might be of interest. The Midwestern Beekeepers Assn. contracted a professional to do the video. The video is available directly from him and neither I or Midwestern gets a Penny. I will email any interested beekeepers his business address and you can contact him directly. Hope I have helped. Sincerely, Bob Harrison Odessa,Missouri ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 19:17:51 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: Cotton Honey Granulation In-Reply-To: <200101060017.TAA21030@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > The "organic" honey marketers have never had a problem with pointing > out the evils of heating, straining, and mixing (Jack's Raw, Wild, Unfiltered > Honey is one we get locally here). There is nothing wrong with this advertising as long as it is positive. The problem arises when the seller tries to explain why anyone would want to forgo that processing without trashing everyone else. After all, heat and straining add expense. If it is not beneficial why would anyone do it? The answer: not everyone needs the benefits of commercial packing and distribution if a local beekeeper can keep their honey pail full. There are benefits from heating and filtering honey, and the heated, filtered product has its place, and that is mass distribution. For one thing -- as I described in detail on BEE-L one time -- most packers cannot get the honey out of the drum and into jars without heat. Once in jars, it will not reliably stay liquid unless without application of heat at time of bottling. Without heat used to pasteurize and kill yeasts, fermentation is a concern. Glass grenades on store shelves are not a good thing. FWIW, we always sold unfiltered, unpasteurized honey and had quite a nationwide business at one time. Much more background can be found at http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?S2=bee-l&q=raw&s=&f=allend@internode. net&a=&b=20+april+1998 These are my posts, but as always, dissenting views are 'only a click away' (apologies to The Stones). Sorry about the word wrap. allen ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 13:49:02 +1300 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Robert Mann Subject: Re: resistance to tetracycline Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Mr J Rowland, obviously an important beekeeper of NY, suggested last October that a tetracycline-resistance gene may have been inserted into GM crops in the course of their 'engineering'. The idea thus arose that resistance to tetracycline might have passed from such crops to _Bacillus larvae_, the primary pathogen in AFB. I did not state this, nor did I have any opinion one way or the other. I was unaware until a couple days ago that the Rowland letter had already been on Bee-L; when I learned that it had, I was fully content that it not be re-posted here. I have now been able to enlist the help of an actual expert gene-tamperer - which I am not - to look into this question. Here is the response: >I did not find any scientific literature mentioning tetracycline and field >released Roundup-ready crops. >But I did find one patent and >several references to laboratory experiments that use Tetracycline >resistance as the marker. >Verifying that any commercial GM corn or soybeans >had this gene has not been possible with the brief search I conducted. > >Thus I found nothing to prove that Tetracycline has been used in the major > released GMOs. > >http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html > >United States Patent 5,731,179 >Komari , et al. March 24, 1998 This is the most reliable evidence we are likely to get soon on this question. It is worth remarking that patents are routinely granted for ideas that the patent office believes would not work if tried in practice. (It has to be a blatant breach of scientific law, e.g. perpetual motion machines, to get rejected on grounds of infeasibility.) Most folk are surprised when they learn of this, but the reasons are not hard to see. It is impractical for the Pat Ossif to get involved in actual testing. I therefore believe: A tetracycline-resistance gene has not been used in the 'engineering' of current GM crops, and therefore there is no reason to think that any such crops have contributed to increase of tetracycline resistance in AFB. This topic has been instructive - in some useful and some fruitless, needlessly unpleasant, ways. 1 Existence of a patent does not prove the idea is feasible let alone that it has been implemented. (The 'terminator' patent envisaging sterile seed is perhaps the most important example - I have studied that patent and I don't believe it will ever work commercially, and it certainly has not been put into commercial effect.) 2 It was fair enough for Mr Rowland to raise the question. It is also fair enough to quote him; those who do should not be accused of having thereby made any assertion themselves. I had never heard of the idea that tetracycline-resistance had yet been deployed in any commercial GM crop, and it is mischievous to accuse me of having said so. 3 Beekeepers are not going to be able to avoid discussion of GM. It is going to impinge on us time & time again, whether we like it nor not. The inherent complexity of the subject, and the dominant role of PR agents in generating rumours & falsehoods on the subject, make it especially important to be very careful about who said what on it. R - Robt Mann consultant ecologist P O Box 28878 Remuera, Auckland 1005, New Zealand (9) 524 2949 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 09:00:49 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Richard Spiekhout Subject: Re: liquifying granulated honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm a new bee haver. about 3 years now. I have not yet had any honey to granulate. Source of honey, method or temp of storage, I don't know. I do know that I want some honey that I definitely will granulate in a relatively short time. You see, I have become addicted to honey in my coffee every morning and use 5 to 6 tbsps a day. If I could let some honey granulate in something like an ice cube tray, could I not have honey cubes that would melt in my coffee? Richard looking for an easier way ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 09:12:51 EST 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: Removing bees from wall MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/5/01 7:18:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, michael.sullivan@TRADIANT.COM writes: << I am going to try to get them out using a screen cone and a bait hive. I read many of the posts on BEE-L and I have a few more questions. >> The procedure gets rid of the bees for the owner, and you can then let them rob out the wall cavity, which gets rid of his more serious problem of honey in the wall. But the worker bees you gather are of little value to you, so your pricing should reflect the fact that you are primarily providing a service to him. If you want something of value, you need to get the queen. Any feral bees that are surviving and healthy without varroa treatment, could possible harbor some genetic resistance to varroa (I haven't found any yet, but the potential is there) and that could make the queen quite valuable. The cone method wastes that resource. Better to open the colony and physically remove it. Of course you have to do that safely, and you have to assess that situation yourself. Here's a slide show of transferring wild bees and their brood comb into a hive. The wild comb was simply placed above an excluder and the queen put below: http://pollinator.com/wildhive/index.htm I would not attempt this until you have a nectar flow. It will be more sloppy for you to do, but the bees will handle the transfer stress better. Lacking a flow, I'd be sure to be generous with syrup, but it's definitely second best. Dave Green The Pollination Home Page: http://pollinator.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 09:23:52 -0600 Reply-To: busybeeacres@DISCOVERYNET.COM Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob and Elizabeth Harrison Subject: Re: Removing bees from wall MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit David L. Green wrote: If you want something of value, you need to get the queen. Any feral bees that are surviving and healthy without varroa treatment, could possible harbor some genetic resistance to varroa (I haven't found any yet, but the potential is there) and that could make the queen quite valuable. Actually Dave the above is the reason I took the bees out of the building wall last spring. They had been in the building wall four to five years untreated the owner said. I STILL charged for the removal. She would have paid twice what I asked and was pleased with the removal. I put the bees in a hive and rubber banded the brood comb in place. Everything I did is in the Bee-L archives. They were still alive going into winter but still a very small swarm and had gathered zero honey for winter. All my other survivors have died over the past few years in Missouri winter so I put the swarm on a deep box of sealed honey to winter last September. Not Dee Lusbys method of doing things but like you I feel they show some tolerance to varroa and I felt bad about not treating the swarm with a cure for their problems. I might add to the post I did that the removal of bees from a building involves the use of a bee vac to be done correctly. We ALLWAYS use a bee vac. Start with the bees on the honey comb first and then remove the honey comb and put in a container and cover to preven robbing. When you get down to the brood comb start at the outside of the nest and take a comb at a time and look for the queen then place the brood comb with bees in cool weather in a container or as we usually do in warm/hot weather vacum the bees off the brood comb also. You are saving the bees with the bee vac BUT many bees will die in hot weather if the bees are not removed in a proper amount of time from the bee vac or the vac is not large enough to hold the swarm. When you find the queen cage her. Once you find her the process moves much faster. Those are a rough draft of the process. Sincerely, Bob Harrison Odessa,Missouri ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 14:29:16 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: GImasterBK@AOL.COM Subject: Re: resistance to tetracycline MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Speaking for myself, I am SICK of hearing anything about the GM crop and/or the possible relationship to resistant diseases. These subjects are best handled by the paid professional bee scientists and researchers rather than beekeepers. I prefer the Bee-L to stay with its original purpose: "an informed discussion of beekeeping". I have never found a dictionary that states that "speculation" is a synonym for "informed". Let the REAL beeKEEPERS teach and train the myriad number of beeHAVERS that are "out there" often badly confused. George Imirie ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 08:53:17 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: Removing bees from wall In-Reply-To: <200101061440.JAA12092@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > ...Better to open the colony and physically remove > it. Of course you have to do that safely, and you have to assess that > situation yourself ...The wild comb was simply placed above an > excluder Barry has plans for a special frame for handling the combs you cut out at http://www.beesource.com/plans/swarmframe.htm . I have never used it, but having tried the other methods (string, elastic bands), this looks good. Anyone looking for equipment plans should be sure to visit his site. allen ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 04:40:53 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: dan hendricks Subject: Re: RSemoving bees from wall MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii David Green said it but Allen Dick sounded like he didn't understand David exactly. I have dcne this several times and it works just fine. Start with a box of foundation (my choice) or drawn frames. Top with a queen excluder. Add an empty deep. Remove the natural comb from the wall in pieces as large as you can handle. (Of course, they are soft. A rectangle of 1/2" hardware cloth is a useful tool.) Place these pieces of comb in the top box, using the QE as a supporting rack. When (if?) you find the queen, put her below the QE, preferably in a cage for a couple of days. In three weeks all the brood will have hatched and the wall comb can be placed outside for the bees to complete robbing. By then the colony in the lower box is going great guns. Dan __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online! http://photos.yahoo.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 08:54:05 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Midnitebee Subject: PinK Pages January 2001 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Greetings! The January 2001 Pink Pages are now available for viewing: http://www.cybertours.com/~midnitebee/contentpages/articles.html Herb/Norma Bee Holly-B Apiary PO Box 26 Wells,Maine 04090-0026 "an educated consumer is YOUR best customer" The Beekeeper's Home on the Internet http://www.mainebee.com Stony Critters http://www.stonycritters.com =20 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 09:08:16 -0600 Reply-To: busybeeacres@DISCOVERYNET.COM Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob and Elizabeth Harrison Subject: Re: RSemoving bees from wall MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Dan & All, I agree with Dan and have done similar as Dan says with success and Dan's method is shown in the Midwestern video all but putting the queen below the excluder. dan hendricks wrote: Start with a box of foundation (my choice) or drawn frames. Top with a queen excluder. Add an empty deep. Remove the natural comb from the wall in pieces as large as you can handle. (Of course, they are soft. A rectangle of 1/2" hardware cloth is a useful tool.) Place these pieces of comb in the top box, using the QE as a supporting rack. You can do the above over any strong hive and I do if I can't find the queen or by the worn look of her I determine she is a very old queen. I also do if she is a strain I don't want. If the time of year is fall and I knew a hive wouldn't make it thru the winter then I would do the above without the queen. When (if?) you find the queen, put her below the QE, preferably in a cage for a couple of days. I don't like the idea if nights are cool of putting a queen excluder between a caged queen and bees trying to "maybe" keep sealed brood warm. I would put her above caged for awhile if cool nights as the bees might move away from her to to keep the brood warm above the excluder leave her stranded below the excluder. If warm nights I would try as Dan said. In three weeks all the brood will have hatched and the wall comb can be placed outside for the bees to complete robbing. Usually the comb is ready for the melter IF enough bees were brought from the building. I would not place the comb outside for robbing as the comb could contain foulbrood spores if from a feral colony and you have other hives in the area. What small amount of honey left is not worth the risk. Also if placed to close robbing could start if other hives are present and your little hive would be gone. KEEP THE ENTRANCE REDUCED IF IN THE AREA OF STRONG HIVES. Allways treat these building swarms as if they were infested mites and other diseases no matter what time of year it is. If the hive is in a area all by itself(hard to find in our area) then I suppose putting the comb outside but not close to the hive would work. By then the colony in the lower box is going great guns. Time of year is important to success. I personally I have not done the method by putting the caged queen under the excluder but believe the method would work in warm/hot weather. Sincerely, Bob Harrison __________________________________________________ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 11:57:32 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "- Clark Chase , Zodiac Farms" Subject: Re: resistance to tetracycline MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Congratulations, Gearge! I couldn't agree more strongly. Far too much pedantry. Clark Chase at Zodiac Farms ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 08:13:07 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: RSemoving bees from wall In-Reply-To: <200101071251.HAA26640@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > David Green said it but Allen Dick sounded like he > didn't understand David exactly. Sorry, maybe I should explain. I did understand Dave, but like the idea of saving and using some or all of the original comb. Even if a beekeeper is following Dave's advice, having a frame or two like the one I recommended along could save some beautiful comb should it turn out that the bees are on big flat combs. I actually would seldom use the method under discussion for several reasons, listed below. * Up here in the Great White North the bees may cluster at night. Moreover, we have a short season; after removing bees, there is not always a lot of time for the bees to set up a new brood nest before frost. * Around here, cut-out brood comb must be arranged in a compact configuration so that the bees can cover it and keep it warm. If they are trying to cover brood up top and also start new brood below, they may make a choice and leave one or the other. * Often the natural comb that the bees are on is very nice and flat. Simply trimming it to fit into a frame can salvage it. * Moreover when comb is full of brood, it can be hard to support. Much of it can be wasted if it is not supported in a way that the comb is not distorted and also in a way that ensures the new bees can emerge. * I also prefer to make up a normal hive in preference to having to return a time or two to tinker, so I suppose it is a matter of taste and locale. Having several options at hand can be nice. Placing combs into frames is a technique that has its place. It can be a frustrating job, though and Barry's design seems ideal. As a note of interest, I've visited Dave and gone to yards with him. We correspond from time-to-time and we are constantly amazed at how different beekeeping is in our two regions. And how it is the same. allen http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/diary/ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 13:42:47 -0500 Reply-To: Peter John Keating Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter John Keating Subject: Re: Honey Storage MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Greetings, if you look in that excellent book edited by Eva Crane "Honey" on page 286 it is stated that .... Honey samples stored for 5 weeks at 0oC, and then at 14oC, showed no granulation for 2 years, ...... I do freeze prepacked honey this way and most times it works.There will be times when it will granulate but it is(according to me) the delay in freezing that is the cause. Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jay Mowat" > I'm actually trying to keep a small amount of honey lquified for some good customers of mine. Does anyone have some rules of thumb? Temperature? Length of storage time? Does it matter what the type of honey is? ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 15:05:56 -0500 Reply-To: Peter Borst Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Comments: RFC822 error: DATE field duplicated. Last occurrence was retained. From: Peter Borst Subject: resistance to tetracycline quote from Allen Dick : ...that we must first disprove the most obvious explanation before moving on to 'create new gods'. I personally like this interpretation: "The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct." Yes. "Occam's razor" favors the simplest explanation: beekeepers have created resistant bacteria by dosing colonies with oxytetracyclene for 30 years. I have met beekeepers with thousands of colonies who put antibiotics in sirup and in patties which were left year 'round. Whether an individual beekeeper created a resistant strain of AFB and it spread -- or it is being generated simultaneously by many, is a moot point, once it becomes widespread. What to do about it is much more important. Peter Borst Ithaca NY USA ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 15:17:40 -0500 Reply-To: Peter Borst Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Comments: RFC822 error: DATE field duplicated. Last occurrence was retained. From: Peter Borst Subject: following the label Greetings We have received an eloquent plea for help in retaining strongly worded labels protecting honeybees on pesticides. I agree wholeheartedly with the need for adequate protection for honeybees from pesticide applications nearby. However, I have also tried to raise the topic of beekeepers going "off label". In the two years I have been working with beekeepers in New York State I have encountered a surprising disregard for labeling. Beekeepers routinely leave Apistan strips in the hive over the winter, claiming "better control". This may produce fewer mites in the spring but what few are left are sure to have some degree of ability to resist Apistan. Beekeepers are making their own strips with non-approved chemicals. I even met one beekeeper who still uses phenol (carbolic acid) to remove honey. This has been prohibited in the US for at least 25 years. I wonder if many still use sulfathiazole against AFB and even fumigate supers with bromide compounds (EDB). The point is, if we don't follow the labels, how can we expect decent labeling and compliance on the part of others? Furthermore, if we abuse chemicals and lose them either through resistance or outright bans, who is going to come to our aid? How many beekeepers have the resources to conduct large scale scientific testing of new substances and methods? Will you risk the concomitant heavy losses of bees, honey and equipment? I think there needs to be a concerted effort to persuade beekeepers that it is in their interest as well as the public's -- to stop going off label and to stop using banned chemicals. Peter Borst ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 13:20:11 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: resistance to tetracycline Comments: To: Peter Borst In-Reply-To: <200101072006.PAA01562@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Whether an individual beekeeper created a resistant strain of AFB and > it spread -- or it is being generated simultaneously by many, is a > moot point, once it becomes widespread. What to do about it is much > more important. It might seem that way, but knowing your enemy is always important, if you want to make an appropriate response and choose the correct weapons. In countries where the new variety of AFB is not yet appearing, I think it is of very great importance to know the cause. Mere speculation will not do, since some of the speculation is that one of our best weapons is the cause! If that speculation is wrong, then we will deprive ourselves of a good defence for no good reason. Also, in deciding what to do, knowing if it is a single mutation spreading out from one point or being generated repeatedly at different sites due to some new management technique or environmental factor is absolutely essential. allen ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 13:27:30 -0700 Reply-To: flightdeck1@earthlink.net Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Matthew W." Subject: Re: Removing bees from wall - & beevac plans MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Michael & BEE-L, Let me suggest there ARE feral bees alive in your area. Each summer bees are constantly being dusted by local pesiticide outfits. For my area(~Denver,CO) this past year has been the slowest in recent years with only 20-25 hives but feral bees ARE alive and I'd like to encourage other beekeepers to help save their potential genetic favor, if any. Removing bees can be profitable ($300+ for 2-4 hours work, +wax, +bees, +honey) and doesn't have to be messy or full of stings. On the average removal I get stung on average 4-5 times - some upwards of 30-40 but usually when I make a mistake or am too hurried. If you want to give a try at removing bees, call your local pesticide outfit. Most respectful outfits are happy to send the easy removals your way and do their part in saving helpful insects. Most bees taking residence within a home end up in a soffet since it is an uninsulated area usually with plenty of entrance cracks. Most soffets are easy to dismantle without harm to the house. To encourage other beekeepers to save more feral swarms and hives, Barry Birkey & I went to the trouble of placing plans for my beevac on his website: http://www.beesource.com/plans/beevac/index.htm Michael here are some answers to your questions: 1) Do the removal in spring (absolute!). Less trouble from robbers and the hive rebuilding process will be easiest for the bees. Removing and relocating is stressful on bees. Why make their survival chances harder? 2) If you really want to do your friend a favor REMOVE the entire hive if at all possible. The cone method, IF successful, will only remove the workers and honey leaving behind the queen and later a great attraction for another swarm to find entrance to. Most of the feral hives I remove are old hives killed by pesticide the season before. Let me suggest that your friends' description of bees unattended for five years is no gaurantee that hive has held the same bees for that amount of time. Unless he monitored bee-activity each spring, it is more likely that hive has been replaced by a new swarm at least once. There are lots of details on finding and removing bees and I welcome any e-mail from Michael or other beekeepers with particular bee removals in mind. A little information can make the job a whole lot easier. Matthew Westall // Earthling Bees >8(())))- "Take me to your feeder" \\ Castle Rock, CO, USA "Sullivan, Michael" wrote: > 1. When is the best time to attempt this? The hives are in California, so > 2. How long should I wait to get a queen? Should I have one as soon as the > ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 13:35:16 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: darn@FREENET.EDMONTON.AB.CA Subject: Re: resistance to tetracycline Comments: To: Peter Borst In-Reply-To: <200101072006.PAA01559@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Peter Borst wrote: > Yes. "Occam's razor" favors the simplest explanation: beekeepers have created resistant bacteria by dosing colonies with oxytetracyclene for 30 years. I think it possible that we have been saved from resistance because we have used the OTC in syrup solutions which are fairly ineffective. They would leave a large proportion of non-resistant spores which would outproduce the (presumably) less efficient organisms with the superfluous resistance mechanism. When we got the patties which keep the OTC effective for longer periods, the nonresistant organisms would be wiped out leaving only the resistant ones to reproduce. Best regards, Donald Aitken Edmonton Alberta Canada From MAILER-DAEMON Sun Jan 14 07:46:03 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 HAA05096 for ; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 07:46:02 -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 HAA00193 for ; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 07:48:58 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200101141248.HAA00193@listserv.albany.edu> Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 07:48:58 -0500 From: "L-Soft list server at University at Albany (1.8d)" Subject: File: "BEE-L LOG0101A" To: adamf@METALAB.UNC.EDU Content-Length: 152685 Lines: 3329 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 07:30:33 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Beekeeperc@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Exceptional Weather and Rodents MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yes, mice will live rent free in your hive unless you use screening to prevent them from entering. Its nice and warm with all the honey they need to let them start the spring nice and fat. Norm ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 09:41:00 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: FW: Re: You know you are in a beekeeping family........... MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Found this <5M$kLqAmWwT6EwOw@denrosa.demon.co.uk> in sci.agriculture.beekeeping: == BEGIN forwarded message == From: Murray McGregor Newsgroups: sci.agriculture.beekeeping Subject: Re: You know you are in a beekeeping family........... This is something of an old thread now being rehashed under a different guise. Allergy in beekeepers families is commonplace. I also admit to knowing nothing about it until my wife took anaphylactic shock one day whilst hanging out her washing in her bare feet and trod on a bee on a clover head. Three weeks later my older son (8 at the time) was rushed to hospital after an allergy attack when out with me looking round some bee sites one evening. Not so severe as anaphylactic shock but alarming just the same. A year later his twin sister had the same, and soon after the younger son, aged 4, sat on a bee at his nursery and had an attack. So, we had four allergic family members. Time for a bit of research. We found a book by Dr Laurie croft, the name of which invariably escapes me, regarding bee sting allergy and its causes. Now, although there is divergent opinion on exactly what sensitises people to stings, with some favouring dried venom, others bee hairs and other proteins, it is best to play safe and assume that ALL these will cause it ( for practical purposes it doesn't matter, you could not remove them separately anyway). It was recommended that beekeepers do NOT bring their overalls home to wash, rather do so at the bee shed or wherever, anywhere but the home. We did this, installed a washing machine at our premises, and banned all staff from taking bee related work clothes home with them. We now have two more young daughters, and decided to have them given a RAST (don't know what it stands for, but it is an allergy test) test to see what level of risk they are at. It reports your risk level on scale of 0 to 5, zero is no, or very little risk, 5 is risk of death. Oldest daughter tested at a 4, mother at 4 to 5, younger daughters 0 to 1. Therefore all those exposed to the dust (of whatever nature) from the suits coming home are allergic, and those never exposed to it are not allergic. An interesting footnote to this is that the washing machine was installed in a kitchen area at work, and we have a small unit through the door from it where we manufacture mustard as a sideline. A year after we changed the washing arrangements the girl who makes the mustard turned out allergic, having been quite normal a year before when stung in the extracting room. I know that is circumstantial, but seem quite a powerful bit of evidence to me. My oldest daughter (now 24) is undergoing desensitisation treatment now as she works in the business, and one day hopes to take over, so we are all hoping it goes well for her, and we will never forget the lessons of how she became allergic in the first place. Anyone got any more amusing anecdotes, which is why I think the thread was started in the first place? Murray -- Murray McGregor == END forwarded message == ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 14:28:31 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Max Watkins Subject: Miticide resistance - the facts In-Reply-To: <200012272009.PAA08907@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Allen, In a recent communication about the evolution and spread of pyrethroid resistance in Europe the following comment was made: > It is thought that beekeepers in Italy used a liquid agricultural > formulation of Klartan, absorbed on a porous piece of wood or similar > to combat varroa. Because there was no control over the amount (of active ingredient) > applied, this practise inevitably gave rise to resistance, not only to > Klartan, but to the whole class of synthetic pyrethroids including > Bayvarol and Apistan. You replied: >This is often repeated, but is at best an oversimplification, and at worst a lie >that those who sell a penny's worth of chemical for $2 don't mind having >repeated often. That is a glib response, offensive not only to me but to the well-respected bee researchers from Germany, Italy, Switzerland and France as well as the hundreds of beekeepers who carried out the trials which proved this to be the case. Research such as this cannot be dismissed because there was some involvement from a chemical company (Sandoz, as it was). Especially when you don't seem to know or care about the reality of this situation - even 'though I have posted this on the LIST some time ago. I am really surprised at you. The statements which John Burgess mentioned originally are far from rhetoric from a "chemical company". There is solid foundation to these claims. In the early 90's as the then Technical Manager for Sandoz I coordinated an international team of independent, reknown experts on a project lasting 5 years, investigating the emergence of pyrethroid resistance in Europe. It had been openly stated by many people, incuding Sandoz, way before the conception of APISTAN that a pyrethroid-resistant mite strain would inevitably evolve. Klartan/Mavrik was being used for years before APISTAN was developed. Providing there is a lage enough selection pressure and the benefits outweigh the costs, organisms mutate through natural selection. FACT. Any and all treatments to control "pest" populations represent a type of selection pressure. FACT. Because of its many benefits of bee safety, low residue profile, proven low mammalian toxicity profile etc etc Apistan (or illegally Klartan/Mavrik) was and indeed still is the most popular hive treatment for varroa worldwide. Incredible selection pressure. FACT. When the first reports of "Apistan inefficacy" arose in 1992 in Italy, APISTAN had only been in use for one year. In the regions where the "inefficacy was most widely reported APISTAN was not used at all; the agrochemical Klartan, however, had been used for 8 years, on balsa wood, on cloth and anything else to hand. Recipes for using Klartan were common in Europe. In Spain they recommended a 5% soltion in water; in France it was 2% solution. This didn't work in Southern Italy after a while and so the dose was increased to 50% and then in many cases, to 100% neat. Low efficacy after 8 years. FACT. When this inefficacy started to show up in Northern Italy, where APISTAN had been used for just 2 years the cause was not so clear. However, the Italians were able to trace exactly the spread of a resistant strain of varroa along the main routes of migratory beekeeping from the North to the South of Italy. Colonies are taken to the South for the winter and brought back North in Spring, carrying with them the resistant varroa from the South. FACT. It is noone's fault that resistant varroa emerged, it is a natural process of evolution. The uncontrolled dosing did however greatly speed up the process. If there is an increase in the LD50 (the level of a substance that wil kill 50% of a population) by tenfold, ie a resistance factor of 10, generally one can say that a resistant strain has emerged. In the case of varroa from Southern Italy the resistance factor was more than 400. Definately resistant. It was also shown scientifically that this resistance is conferred to other related pyrethroids such as flumethrin and acrinathrin. FACT. The dose/response curves obtained for this resistant strain are distinct. Wherever resistance was monitored throughout Italy and later in France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria and Eastern Europe. the exact same curves are characteristic. This most probably means that the resistance has arisen only once in Europe and spread from one focal point. The slow speed of apparition in neighbouring countries suggests Italy to be the focal point. If the dose/response curves were markedly different for the different populations examined then we could expect there to have been separate evolution. So far all populations examined (coordinated by Vita since 1997) have shown the same pattern and seem then to have the same origin. There will always be a risk of any pest organism developing resistance to the treatment. It is why several different types of treatment should be used. If there is resistance to one treatment, perhaps the second or third [different] treatment will take out the resistant individuals. Even IPM will not stop the phenomenon of mutation and evolution in pest populations but the aim is to keep the resistance to a manageable level, below the economic damage threshold. Vita (Europe) Limited is a small UK company specialising in the development of honeybee disease treatments. We take the concept of IPM very seriously and unlike the chemical giants who have no time for such small markets, we are dedicated to improving the health of honeybee colonies, operating world-wide. Yes, we make and sell APISTAN but we also have other treatments in registration and in development, many of them natural agents, for EFB, AFB, mites, chalkbrood and wax moth. In science and in business I believe there is no room for half-truths. At Vita our policy is to be open so as to avoid confusion. While many people may disagree with what we're doing, Vita is not in the business of making a fast buck. What we do is thoroughly researched and is for the long-term. No short cuts, no "oversimplifications". Whatever is posted to the LIST from Vita, we believe to be correct and true. But, Hey, how can this possibly be true - Vita must be classed as a "chemical company", right? Believe what you will. Max Dr Max Watkins Vita (Europe) Limited Brook House, Alencon Link Basingstoke, Hants RG21 7RD UK Tel. +44 (0) 1256 473177 Fax +44 (0) 1256 473179 http://www.vita.demon.co.uk ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 09:47:00 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Midnitebee Subject: Pink Pages MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Greetings! The December 2000 issue of the Pink Pages are now viewable. http://www.cybertours.com/~midnitebee/contentpages/articles.html Surgery prevented earlier publication.=20 FWIW- I am applying honey to my "stapled" abdomen. Application seems to = work VERY well. Regards, Herb Herb/Norma Bee Holly-B Apiary PO Box 26 Wells,Maine 04090-0026 "an educated consumer is YOUR best customer" The Beekeeper's Home on the Internet http://www.mainebee.com Stony Critters http://www.stonycritters.com =20 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 10:13:17 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Lipscomb, Al" Subject: Re: Miticide resistance - the facts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Providing there is a lage enough selection pressure and the benefits > outweigh the costs, organisms mutate through natural selection. FACT. > Any and all treatments to control "pest" populations > represent a type of > selection pressure. FACT. > Because of its many benefits of bee safety, low residue > profile, proven low > mammalian toxicity profile etc etc Apistan (or illegally > Klartan/Mavrik) > was and indeed still is the most popular hive treatment for varroa > worldwide. Incredible selection pressure. FACT. [cut] > It is noone's fault that resistant varroa emerged, it is a > natural process > of evolution. The uncontrolled dosing did however greatly speed up the > process. I get a little confused on these evolution things. I always thought that "mutation" was a random event. Pressure then caused selection on the population. If the mutation gave a reproductive advantage then those that had the gene may survive and reproduce better than the ones without the gene. If putting pressure on a population always causes it to become resistant I do not understand how we got smallpox under control. You would have thought that resistance would have emerged and a stronger version of the virus taken over. Come to think of it I cannot understand how extinction should happen as often as it does. In most cases it is a long slow process with lots of pressure on the populations. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 10:26:21 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: BeeCrofter@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Miticide resistance - the facts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/2/01 10:19:25 AM Eastern Standard Time, LipscombA@HSN.NET writes: > > If putting pressure on a population always causes it to become resistant I > do not understand how we got smallpox under control. You would have thought > that resistance would have emerged and a stronger version of the virus taken > over. > Had the approach to smallpox been to use antibiotics this would have been likely to happen. Innoculation trained our bodies to recognize and kill the smallpox. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 09:40:05 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Blane White Subject: Re: Miticide resistance - the facts Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Al and Everyone, ****************************************** Blane White MN Dept of Agriculture blane.white@state.mn.us >>> LipscombA@HSN.NET 01/02/01 09:13AM >>> wrote in part: > > Providing there is a lage enough selection pressure and the benefits > outweigh the costs, organisms mutate through natural selection. FACT. > Any and all treatments to control "pest" populations > represent a type of > selection pressure. FACT. > Because of its many benefits of bee safety, low residue > profile, proven low > mammalian toxicity profile etc etc Apistan (or illegally > Klartan/Mavrik) > was and indeed still is the most popular hive treatment for varroa > worldwide. Incredible selection pressure. FACT. [cut] > It is noone's fault that resistant varroa emerged, it is a > natural process > of evolution. The uncontrolled dosing did however greatly speed up the > process. "I get a little confused on these evolution things. I always thought that "mutation" was a random event. Pressure then caused selection on the population. If the mutation gave a reproductive advantage then those that had the gene may survive and reproduce better than the ones without the gene." No wonder you are confused the term "evolution" used in this context is just plain wrong and confusing. The correct term is adaption. Resistance is always present in the population at very low levels and the selection pressure of the treatment brings it to the fore. No mutation needed just selection. The result is a resistant population. Now Max, from what it appears to me here in the USA, anywhere in the world where fluvalinate in any formulation has been used for about 10 years for varroa control resistance has developed. Since we are selecting for the same traits in the population, I would expect the curves to be very similar or the same where ever the selection has occurred - this is the evidence that mutation is not involved just selection of pre-existing resistance. Apistan resistance occurred here in MN and was documented first in one of the beekeeping outfits who had varroa first and was therefore using apistan longest ( and yes I am very confident they were not using other (illegal) treatments. Apistan selected for the resistance at about the same rate as other formulations of fluvalinate in other parts of the world. Don't get me completely wrong there are many very good reasons to use Apistan instead of those other formulations such as contamination of honey and wax etc. but in terms of selection! for resistance I really see not difference. FWIW blane ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 09:50:39 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: Miticide resistance - the facts In-Reply-To: <200101021443.JAA06647@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > That is a glib response, offensive not only to me but to the well-respected > bee researchers from Germany, Italy, Switzerland and France... Max, I want to apologise if I have offended you or any others. That was certainly not my intent, and maybe the writing was a bit glib. I sometimes kid around a bit. I certainly respect the efforts you and many others have put into fighting varroa and in no way discount the work because some of it was done with funding by a chemical company. I respect the profit motive and think it is an important engine of development. > Especially when you > don't seem to know or care about the reality of this situation - even > 'though I have posted this on the LIST some time ago. I am really surprised > at you. Max, I will also confess right now to having a less-than-perfect memory and to being influenced by the many versions of the story I have heard, especially since they are repeated so often. I will have to review the material and perhaps revise my thinking when I have a moment. Once again, I should likely reiterate that this is a discussion list and what is written here -- by anyone -- should be questioned and not mistaken for carefully researched fact. Maybe your contributions are different, but I know the above is true of what I write and would be very concerned if anyone swallowed any of my opinion pieces whole. Having said that, and although I am sure that you are probably as authoritative as any man alive on the topic, that does not mean that your view or your version, or your conclusions, or your methods are the only ones that are credible. As evidence, I can offer that varroa is still causing havoc. We still can see a day coming soon when we may very well have no effective and practical controls available. That to me proves that the job is not done, or was not done well. I'm sorry, but that is just the way it seems to me. I hope you can and will prove me wrong. Once again I apologise and hope you can show us that the problem was handled correctly, is under control, and will stay that way. allen Opinions are not facts... ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 08:15:46 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Aaron Morris Subject: Re: Winter progress MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" This message was originally submitted by jjbmail@SELWAY.UMT.EDU to the BEE-L list at LISTSERV.ALBANY.EDU. It was edited to remove previously posted material. > ------------ Original message (ID=87101B00) (45 lines) -------------- > Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 15:30:03 -0700 > To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology > > From: Jerry J Bromenshenk > Subject: Re: Winter progress > > At 01:38 PM 12/31/00 -0700, you wrote: > >How do varroa mites do when they are subjected to freezing? > > Sorry, no data on varroa and cold tolerance here - good > question. Jerry ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 18:33:39 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Max Watkins Subject: Re: Miticide resistance - the facts, revisited In-Reply-To: <200101021542.KAA08520@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Blane, You are right, of course that in the States, the widespread use of Apistan has probably been the strongest selection pressure, as Klartan/other agro formulations aren't used as frequently in beekeeping as in some other countries (so I believe). This pyrethroid resistance was bound to arise sooner or later, as there was only really one control agent being used with a specific mode of action. It doesn't matter what the formulation was, the resistance to the active ingredient was inevitable in the circumstances. If there had been other types of treatment available, the selection for resistant strains would have been at least slower, giving the industry longer use of what tools it had. It could be that resistance, caused directly by use of Apistan, has appeared in Europe. It's possible. But in most European countries, besides Apistan and Klartan there are commonly other types of treatment used which could have some retarding effect on the emergence of resistant strains. The account that I gave earlier, however, describes what happened in Italy and it looks very much like the resistant populations emanated from one central source. The uncontrolled dosage at that source must have had an accelerating effect on resistance emergence. It may also be true that the dose-response curves for pyrethroid-resistant mites in the USA are similar to those in Europe - I don't know, as I've not seen any of the US data but it would be interesting to compare. Do the US mite population(s?)have the same characteristics as the Western European mites? I agree that similar traits should probably be selected for and the curves indeed should look something like those we have generated here. I just wonder if you'll see the resistance factor of 400+ ? Maybe. I'm not trying to set myself up as an expert and of course, I may be entirely wrong. I do make mistakes - let's see now, I remember I made one back in 1978.... Max Dr Max Watkins Vita (Europe) Limited Brook House, Alencon Link Basingstoke, Hants RG21 7RD UK Tel. +44 (0) 1256 473177 Fax +44 (0) 1256 473179 http://www.vita.demon.co.uk ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 05:35:32 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Robert Brenchley Subject: Re: rodents MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Norm writes: << Yes, mice will live rent free in your hive unless you use screening toprevent them from entering. Its nice and warm with all the honey they needto let them start the spring nice and fat. >> True, but would even the most acrobatic of wood mice really dangle from its front legs with its bum in mid-air, while gnawing heroically to try to get through the mouse excluder? If so, it deserves top marks for gymnastics, but none for brains. Regards, Robert Brenchley RSBrenchley@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 23:59:19 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: peter dillon Subject: Re: Miticide resistance - the facts, revisited MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Max, following this thread with much interest. I am "surrounded" by beekeepers (99% of whom are hobbyists, or in other words beekeepers who do not need to gain a living from apicultural activities). They are very much aware of the problem posed by V.j. - many are now without hives due to its presence! When I arrived here from England (at the time totally free from V.j.), the first organisation I got into contact with was the local group named Groupment Departemental Defense Sanitaire (County Group Defending Bee Health)- and when I asked what was the recognised treatment against V.j. was instantly presented with some"slim slivers of poplar wood that had been soaking in a milky white liquid" These were being sold I presume with the blessing of the local County Vet. Office as the cheque that I HANDED OVER WAS SIGNED TO DDGA. The whole idea of treatment was chaotic - no controlled timing period for the area, no recognised disposal of used strips - often they were left laying around in apiaries. As time proceeded, there was discussion relating to changing the molecule due to resistance showing up - but to my knowledge, this resistance was never tested for in an organised manner, it was all hear say. I had hives that when tested with Amitraze after being treated with Apistan dropping several hundreds of mites, others none at all - confusion reigned, at least in my mind on what was really happening. As far as I am concerned, treatment left in the hands of people who do not either understand what they are doing or the consequences of their actions is the best recipe for long term disaster. There appears to be a pretense that the Vet. services are in control and know what is happening - they are not and don't. The average beekeeper in my area will not supply information and is distrusting of his fellow beekeepers - just incase he/she finds out how much money he/she is making/lossing. We tried to set up a Development group for Beekeeping in the area - failed due to apathy The different beekeeping unions are at each others throats when ever possible. It is only when such disastrous situations as Gaucho and Sunflowers arrive on the scene that sense prevails. On the surface, everybody states that they are using the recognised treatment for V.j., A.F.B.etc, but in reality!!!, leaving those that do follow the rules to suffer. One old beekeeper came to the house and asked what I THOUGHT ABOUT THAT NEW STUFF - Apifoss. I presumed he was talking about COUMAPHOS ( even I am not sure about its spelling). The vet. officer who was visiting put him right by telling him not to use it but instead to use Amitraze soaked onto jute strips. He realised the bloke would never buy the official materials and considered it better for all concerned that a treatment however it arrived was better than none. I gave up and fell into line - treat V.j. like the rest and get good results whilst it lasts. Before I WAS PAYING THE PREMIUM and not going to gain the extension in time as most of the rest were happily making their 5%,10% dips out of what ever was in fashion. SO how are the trials relating to the pheromone that will waylay females on their way to brood cells going? Yours truthfully Peter PS I do have excellent contacts with many serious beekeepers throughout France. I HOPE THAT THE ABOVE EXPLAINS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN AND WHAT REALLY HAPPENS. Believing that the truth always come out one day!! ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 21:26:57 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dennis Crutchfield Subject: Bee Candy In-Reply-To: <200012312222.RAA15728@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello folks, I lost the recipe for hard bee candy,for winter feed, and would like to make some up. I made some once that was white and like brittle. Sure appreciate the help. thanks preacher ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 13:18:33 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Bits and Pieces MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The following is edited for excess quotes: ------ From: Bryan Clements Subject: RE: Evaluating Beekeeping Help > I recently began a project to list the skills and experience levels > we seek when hiring beekeeping help... The old Bay of Plenty Community College in Tauranga NZ did certificates in Beekeeping. I recall that they had Oral and Practical Assessment guides for each year of study that could make a good basis for evaluating and setting pay scales even for long term beekeepers. Perhaps some one from NZ might know if the assessment guides would be available for general use. (Hi Nick, hint, hint,) Bryan Clements ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 13:26:33 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Bits And Pieces MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Edited for excess quotes and relayed FWIW: --- From: "Pascal Fournier" Subject: Re: FW: Re: You know you are in a beekeeping family........... As a laboratory technician, I note in the text from Murray Mc Gregor that he was preparing mustard as a sideline. Mustard seed is one of the very rare vegetable who deliver cosequent amount of Carbon Disulphide. This product affect brain, liver and nerves. The fact is that you can' t find a lot of studies on very low level chronic exposure, the only studies made is about workers in industrial plant who have a lot of contact with the product. I know that anything who affect your liver decrease your allergic resistance. I include the adress of the datasheet of the product http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/c0957.htm http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts82.html http://www.lakes-environmental.com/toxic/CARBON_DISULFIDE.HTML I know that a simple urine test can be made on people. the problem with light chronic intoxication is that usually under a certain amount, no medical studies are made. Happy New Year everybody. P.Fournier ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 20:43:32 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Thinking of San Diego MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It's time to get ready for the convention in San Diego -- coming up soon. I'm going to be in San Diego from the 9th to the 20th, and I know some other BEE-L people will be there too. Let's be sure to get together at least once during that time. Email me direct to make plans. allen allend@internode.net ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 10:00:22 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dave Cushman Subject: Re: rodents MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi All Rats and mice will hang by their front paws to gnaw. I have watched a wild rat do a "hand over hand" traverse sideways along a mortered seam in brickwork using nothing but it's front paws. The horizontal distance travelled was 5 1/2 feet at a height of 6 feet from the ground. The ledge in the morter was about 2 mm. The feat was repeated many times but I only observed it once. As regards brains the question I would pose is "how did the rat know there was any point in performing the manouvre in the first place"? Best regards Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert Brenchley To: > True, but would even the most acrobatic of wood mice really dangle from > its front legs with its bum in mid-air, while gnawing heroically to try to > get through the mouse excluder? If so, it deserves top marks for gymnastics, > but none for brains. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 10:03:38 -0000 Reply-To: Ruary Rudd Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Ruary Rudd Organization: Westgate, waterville Subject: Re: Bee Candy Comments: To: Dennis Crutchfield MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The mnemonic is 1,2,3,4,5, Five parts sugar dissolved in one part water, bring to the boil and stir continuously until temperature is 234 degrees Fahrenheit. Cool rapidly stirring until it just starts to go whit then pour into moulds. Once the material starts to set it hardens very quickly so have your moulds ready. Ruary Rudd ----- Original Message ----- From: Dennis Crutchfield Sent: 03 January 2001 03:26 Subject: Bee Candy > I lost the recipe for hard bee candy,for winter feed, and would like to make > some up. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 15:00:05 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Max Watkins Subject: Re: Miticide resistance, revisited In-Reply-To: <200101030025.TAA22446@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Peter, I sympathise with your position in France. We've found the exact same situation in many countries, including France where quite a bit of our research is done. On the one hand the "Authorities" set stringent rules for registering a treatment - so stringent and expensive that very few firms can get their product through to the user and on the other hand you have what you described perfectly - there is quite widespread disregard of the rules even BY THE AUTHORITIES for this very legislation. We are asked constantly why we don't have the next product(s) out yet. Registration alone (ignoring product development time) can take 3 years. Vita is now just coming to the point where we have registrations of new products pending in many countries. Our APIGUARD thymol gel is about to be widely registered so you can expect to see that in France this year. APIGUARD is used for the control of mites in honeybee colonies and will be 7 years in reaching the market from the initial development stages. Believe it or not, that is fast. Our pheromone blend, PHEROVAR which interupts varroa reproduction is about 18 months out of line. It's a complicated blend and what we thought was the correct constituency last year turned out to be not quite so. A question of isomerism. We used the wrong isomer of three. The blend is known but we have to go through all the dosage, efficacy and bee tox tests again, hence the delay. But it will come and news of it will be posted in the bee press nearer the time. Max Dr Max Watkins Vita (Europe) Limited Brook House, Alencon Link Basingstoke, Hants RG21 7RD UK Tel. +44 (0) 1256 473177 Fax +44 (0) 1256 473179 http://www.vita.demon.co.uk ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 07:57:21 EST 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 Candy Comments: cc: preacherc@cvalley.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/2/01 10:36:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, preacherc@CVALLEY.NET writes: << I lost the recipe for hard bee candy,for winter feed, and would like to make some up. I made some once that was white and like brittle. Sure appreciate the help. >> That's a lot of work. And for what? If you overheat it while mixing, you can carmelize the sugar and make it more or less indigestible for the bees. Let the bees make it. Make up a feeder rim, around 1 1/2 to 2 inches. Fill it with dry granulated sugar, with a couple layers of newspaper to hold it from falling thru. Make sure it is directly above the cluster. The excess moisture evapporated by the bees, will concense and wet the sugar, and it will harden into a block. The bees, tasting the sweet newspaper will open it as needed and consume the sugar. It can be replenished, as needed, but always use a little more newspaper to keep it from falling thru the frames. Sugar on the floor of the hives may not be used, it may even be thrown out. This not only saves your labor, it helps the bees dispose of a waste product that can be dangerous to them in winter - the excess moisture that often condenses or forms frost on the bottom of the cover. Actually they don't dispose of it; they recycle it. You can use the same setup to feed a small amount (one gallon or so) of heavy syrup. In this case make sure the newspaper is at least six layers thick and makes a continuous bowl, ie, put the newpaper in after the rim is placed. The reason for the multiple layers is to prevent them from chewing thru the paper too soon, and spilling the syrup. It has to seep thru. In this case use only heavy syrup; we use straight HFCS straight as it comes from the drum. Thin syrup will soak thru too fast. Excluders are not required, but I place one under the newspaper when feeding this way. The feeders may be still on in spring and the bees will remove the sugar and fill the rims with burr comb. This can mean a solid feeder full of drone brood. By using the excluder, it still mean a feeder rim full of burr comb, but it will be spring honey, instead. This can be removed as one piece with the excluder as the bottom, and put on a nuc that needs feeding. Dave Green Ill equipped for the real world, I became a beekeeper. The Pollination Home Page: http://pollinator.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 08:14:13 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Adrian Wenner Subject: Miticide resistance-Mistakes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Max Watkins wrote: >I'm not trying to set myself up as an expert and of course, I may be >entirely wrong. I do make mistakes - let's see now, I remember I made one >back in 1978.... I am glad to see some humor inserted into this discussion about mite resistance. It reminds me of one of my favorite quotations: "The only mistake I ever made was when I thought I had made a mistake!" 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] ******************************************************************** * * "Aesthetic judgments do not arbitrate scientific discourse.... * Ultimately, theories are judged by how they fare when faced * with cold, hard, experimental facts." * Brian Greene, 1999 * ******************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 09:50:01 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: Thinking of San Diego In-Reply-To: <200101031622.LAA06128@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I guess I should mention that the bus tour to the Imperial Valley and the trip to Tijuana require reservations and the deadlines are right around now. Maybe passed by a day or so, but you still have a chance. If anyone has been putting off reserving for these excellent-sounding events, call (912) 427-4233 right now and speak up. The schedule is at http://www.abfnet.org/convention/schedule.html Have a major credit card ready. If you are trying to figure out where in Sandy Ego the hotel is, try this link which also has maps. http://www.marriotthotels.com/dpp/Map.asp?MarshaCode=SANMV The 'local info' pointer on the ABF site still refers to Texas locations from some time back. (IMO, the web site at http://www.abfnet.org/ has been a real disappointment to those of us who rely on the net over paper media for info and almost caused me to miss deadlines due to lack of essential facts. I suppose if I were still a member, I'd have gotten the mailing package, but...) allen ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 15:13:00 -0700 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: Thinking of San Diego In-Reply-To: <200101031622.LAA06135@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 08:43 PM 1/2/01 -0700, you wrote: >It's time to get ready for the convention in San Diego Allen, I will be there - I have to work for my trip - will present a Pre-Conference set of videos and bits and pieces of things ranging from bees trained to fly through maizes to 3-d movies of temperature regulation in hives - scheduled for Thursday evening -- assuming I don't get fogged in at Missoula or Salt Lake. Then, on Friday late afternoon we talk about our trials at mating queens in a 1 acre by 40 ft tent. Would like to meet some of the Bee-L folks that I know from the list. I will be in San Diego through Tuesday morning. Cheers Jerry > >Email me direct to make plans. > >allen >allend@internode.net > > Jerry J. Bromenshenk jjbmail@selway.umt.edu http://www.umt.edu/biology/bees ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 17:44:57 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dave and Judy Subject: State Bee Associations MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello all of our beefriends! I am trying to complete a list of United States' State Bee Associations (or large local clubs) to show the amount of dues that are charged and also the benefits received in return for those dues. If you are a member, or officer, of a state club, would you email this information to me to avoid clutter on Bee-L? Thanks for your help. Now for a bee story. We had a nuc hive with a really old Buckfast queen (Dave just has a problem killing the old queen when requeening, so we always end up with a couple nucs with older queens. Usually the nucs don't survive long because of their queens.) This particular queen was a Buckfast from 5 years ago. She's been in and out of nucs and hives for 3 years now. We have requeened her original hive twice and her successors have gone into the night. But not this lady. We had a swarm hive that we had caught later in the summer that never had time to build up. Not a really great laying pattern. This swarm was not one of our own. Came from an area about 25 miles southwest of us. Sooo, solution, join the two. With his usual reluctance to kill a queen, Dave just joined the nuc with the weak hive using the newspaper. Let the queens decide who will survive. Two weeks later we did our final school presentation with our observation hive. This ob hive had a brand new, this summer, queen. 2 1/2 weeks after Dave joined the nuc and the weak hive, he went in again to join the observation hive. This time he was determined to find and kill the queen. Both queens were still in the hive. In a 2 box hive, they were in the same box, 1 frame apart, both with their own queen contingent! What a wonderful opportunity to watch what may happen when you have a 2 queen hive that are not mother/daughter, or related in any way. Unfortunately this idea didn't occur to Dave until after he had crushed the queens and was walking back down to the house. Oh well. Thanks again for your help. Judy in Kentucky, USA ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 08:02:07 +1300 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Juderon Subject: AFB - GM crop connection possible In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Has anyone mapped the geographical spread of the resistance? Eg, Did it start in the corn or cotton or rape or soy belts? Ron -----Original Message----- From: Robert Mann [mailto:robt_m@talk.co.nz] Sent: Friday, 5 January 2001 7:40 a.m. To: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu Subject: [NZNBAList] AFB - GM crop connection possible ... Bees in the US are increasingly afflicted with a strain of antibiotic resistant American foulbrood (AFB). Before the advent of antibiotics, this bacterial infection was the most serious bee disease in the world. Tetracycline had been used effectively against AFB for 40 years until 1996. In that year, tetracycline resistance was confirmed in both Argentina and the upper Midwestern states of Wisconsin and Minnesota. Since then, it has spread to at least 17 states in the US, including New York, and to parts of Canada. During the 1990s, millions of acres of Round-up Ready crops were planted in the US, Canada, and Argentina. According to my information, the antibiotic resistant gene used in the creation of Round-up Ready crops was for resistance to tetracycline. After 40 years of effective usage against an infective bacterium found in the guts of honeybees, suddenly two geographically isolated countries develop tetracycline resistance simultaneously. A common thread between the US, Canada and Argentina is the widespread and recent cultivation of GM crops containing tetracycline resistant genes. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 18:17:39 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Ham Morton Subject: Cotton Honey Granulation I had good production this year with cotton honey however it did granulate. Does this always happen with cotton honey? What can I do so that the honey will not granulate so fast? Thanks in advance!! ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 20:04:56 EST 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: Cotton Honey Granulation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/4/01 7:46:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, morton@INTERPATH.COM writes: << I had good production this year with cotton honey however it did granulate. Does this always happen with cotton honey? What can I do so that the honey will not granulate so fast? >> Cotton honey is one of the quickest to granulate. However, steps to prevent granulation ("cooking" and ultrafiltration) can damage this fine honey. Let it granulate. As long as it doesn't sit thru the next season of hot, humid weather, granulation won't hurt it. Then when you are ready to use it, apply gentle heat to reliquify. We have a warm box, which bakeries use tor raising bread. Lot's of beekeepers have homemade ones from old freezers or refrigerators. Plans can be found by searching the list archives. Dave Green The Pollination Home Page: http://pollinator.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 20:44:27 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: GImasterBK@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Cotton Honey Granulation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cotton honey is high in dextrose and low in fructose, and like Goldenrod honey, it crystallizes rather quickly. You have three basic choices: 1) learn to make creamed honey and use the cotton honey to make creamed honey. 2) blend it with a honey that does not crystallize like tupelo, or with some other slow to crystallize honey like black locust, tulip poplar, or orange 3) Always store you honey in a freezer until sale or use time. Of course, NEVER EVER keep it in the refrigerator or basement, and also not too long above 81°F If you are a relatively new beekeeper, I suggest you consult with other beekeepers that produce large quantities of cotton honey and see what they do with it. Ending, you just cannot store cotton honey like most other honeys, because it crystallizes faster than most. Extract it soon after it is made and than store it in a FREEZER. There it will stay liquid with no crystals for several years if always kept around 0-10°F. I hope that I have helped. George Imirie ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 13:23:02 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: AFB - GM crop connection possible In-Reply-To: <200101041918.OAA11802@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Has anyone mapped the geographical spread of the resistance? Eg, Did it > start in the corn or cotton or rape or soy belts? This is a good question. AFAIK, soy and canola in various varieties are grown in varying amounts throughout the areas in question. As for GM varieties, that is harder to say. It is a good question, but there are other questions that must be asked first before it becomes meaningful. We've been discussing resistant AFB for some years on BEE-L, and apparently the most basic and pivotal question in this matter has never been answered. The root question is whether one OTC resistant strain developed in one place and has been spread by international trade in honey and other means, or whether a number of separate strains have evolved in separate and totally isolated places with no vector of disease transmission between them. Answering that one question would save a lot of idle speculation, false rumours and wasted effort. It is a simple question, and a simple one to answer with today's technology. The answer to that one question decides what other questions are relevant, including the present one. For some reason, most people seem to assume that each case is new unique mutation or selection, yet Occam's Razor tells us given the following facts: 1.) successful mutations are fairly rare. 2.) selection for resistant AFB does not seem to happen frequently; we have not seen it over previous decades 3.) diseases often spread from one place to another without people immediately figuring out what happened. ...that we must first disprove the most obvious explanation before moving on to 'create new gods'. I personally like this interpretation: "The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct." Ref: http://staff.vscht.cz/~pokornp/physics/occam.html Common sense would also dictate that given the above knowledge, the first place to look is for vectors of disease transmission. Only after all possibility of transmission is disproved, should we start to seriously consider extraordinary causes. That is not to say that some powerful new factor could not have come into play. It is just not scientific to jump past the first stage in the investigation and assume that the usual causes of new disease outbreaks are not responsible for spreading this new one. BTW, I'm no geneticist or pathologist and I'm having trouble with the words here, but hope you understand what I am saying and don't pick me over if I misuse a word or two that have technical meanings that differ from what we lay people assume. I personally always favour the simplest explanation that fits the known facts, and that is that SAFB started in Argentina, was exported to the US and Canada, and continues to spread. That is not to say that the GMO link is not out of the question, but until the first question is answered all the rest are somewhat premature. I hope we have an answer soon. allen ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 15:38:07 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Blane White Subject: Re: AFB - GM crop connection possible Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Ron, You asked regarding antibiotic resistance in AFB: "Has anyone mapped the geographical spread of the resistance? Eg, Did it start in the corn or cotton or rape or soy belts?" It was first documented here in the midwest USA Wisconsin first than quickly here in Minnesota in the corn/ soybeans production area. Much of the cropland here in the upper midwest is farmed on a corn - soybean rotation at present so yes the resistance was first documented in areas where roundup-ready soybeans were planted. One complication is that this is also a major honey production area but the corn/bean growing don't entirely overlap the major honey producing areas but there is much planting of the GM roundup ready soybeans in areas with many colonies of honey bees here and in fact soybeans are an important honey source in some of these areas at least in some years. The conditions for the possible transfer of such transgenes are readily met over a large area of the upper midwest USA. Does this answer your question? FWIW blane ****************************************** Blane White MN Dept of Agriculture blane.white@state.mn.us ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 09:38:38 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Lloyd Spear Subject: liquifying granulated honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit With regard to a simple means of liquefying granulated honey, Dave Green said "We have a warm box, which bakeries use for raising bread. Lot's of beekeepers have homemade ones from old freezers or refrigerators. Plans can be found by searching the list archives." In last months issue of Bee Culture, there is a short article by Bob Harrison (one of our outstanding list contributors) on how to convert a refrigerator for this purpose. Highly recommended! Lloyd Mailto:Lloyd@rossrounds.com. Lloyd Spear Owner, Ross Rounds, Inc. The finest in comb honey production. Visit our web site at http://www.rossrounds.com. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 09:38:23 -0500 Reply-To: Peter Borst Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Comments: RFC822 error: DATE field duplicated. Last occurrence was retained. From: Peter Borst Subject: resistance to tetracycline Robert Mann writes: According to my information, the antibiotic resistant gene used in the creation of Round-up Ready crops was for resistance to tetracycline. Robert, Ifyou have such information you should give it, and its source. Resistance to antibiotics crops up evertwhere they are used, requiring a continual change in methods. Many examples of antiobiotics losing their effectiveness due to overuse can be given - in humans as well as animals. I have observed beekeepers for over 25 years and I have seen them misuse chemicals time and time again. That AFB should begin to show resistance to tetracycline comes as no surprise to me, nor is mite resistance to Apistan surprising. I don't think anyone is to blame but I suggest the cause of these problems is closer to home. Peter Borst Ithaca NY USA ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 09:40:16 -0500 Reply-To: Peter Borst Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Comments: RFC822 error: DATE field duplicated. Last occurrence was retained. From: Peter Borst Subject: Losing the Battle of the Bugs http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/990510/nycu/antibiotic.htm Losing the Battle of the Bugs excerpt: The latest turn in the battle of the bugs is no surprise. Scientists have known since the dawn of the antibiotic age in the 1940s that the more an antibiotic is used, the quicker it becomes useless. That's because of natural selection: While most bacteria exposed to the drug are killed, the fittest survive and pass survival traits to their offspring. With continued use of the antibiotic, the resistant bugs proliferate. Bacteria have a broad array of tactics to combat antibiotics' toxicity, and they can give the genes that control these feats to nearby, even unrelated, bugs. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 09:40:09 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: BeeCrofter@AOL.COM Subject: Re: liquifying granulated honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/5/01 9:37:03 AM Eastern Standard Time, lloydspear@EMAIL.MSN.COM writes: > > In last months issue of Bee Culture, there is a short article by Bob > Harrison (one of our outstanding list contributors) on how to convert a > refrigerator for this purpose. Highly recommended! > Another source of thermostat control for making you hot box or fridge conversions is an old waterbed heater. The thermostat will control a resistive load up to about 300 watts. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 10:51:41 -0500 Reply-To: Peter John Keating Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter John Keating Subject: Re: rAFB MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Allen said, > The root question is whether one OTC resistant strain developed in one place and > has been spread by international trade in honey and other means, or whether a > number of separate strains have evolved in separate and totally isolated places > with no vector of disease transmission between them. > I personally always favour the simplest explanation that fits the known facts, > and that is that SAFB started in Argentina, was exported to the US and Canada, > and continues to spread. I recently had a visit from a Western Canada beekeeper who was convinced that imported unwashed barrels are a major vector in "rAFB" .He said that most had a fair amount of honey in the barrel and when stored outside posed a real danger to the spread of diseases. Here in Quebec l have seen many barrels purchased from the honey packer (Labonte) which come from the west as well as outside of the country which have residues of honey sufficient to encourage robbing. At the last Canadian Honey Council meeting http://www.honeycouncil.ca/chc-ccm/indexe.html it was thought that barrels may also be a vector for the small hive beetle! For those with HACCP programs you may already have this problem under control? Peter ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 09:11:09 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: rAFB Comments: To: Peter John Keating In-Reply-To: <200101051552.KAA05924@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > The root question is whether one OTC resistant strain developed in one > place and has been spread by international trade in honey and other means, or > whether a number of separate strains have evolved in separate and totally isolated places with no vector of disease transmission between them. > > Here in Quebec l have seen many > barrels purchased from the honey packer (Labonte) which come from the west > as well as outside of the country which have residues of honey sufficient to > encourage robbing. A neighbour reported to us having seen Chinese honey drums in a nearby open dump (near two of our locations). He mentioned it because he thought they must have come from us. We had no knowledge whatsoever up to that point. We are very vulnerable. Even if honey drums are washed, what is to keep a family cook from throwing out unwanted honey into garbage which ends up in open landfills. I maintain that our watchdogs have badly let us down by not screening imported honey for bee pathogens, particularly SAFB. allen ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 09:32:56 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Jay Mowat Subject: Honey Storage Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The recent discussion about cotton honey contained some interesting ideas about the mid to long term storage of honey. I'm actually trying to keep a small amount of honey lquified for some good customers of mine. Does anyone have some rules of thumb? Temperature? Length of storage time? Does it matter what the type of honey is? Jay Mowat Erin, Ontario ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 08:42:02 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: resistance to tetracycline In-Reply-To: <200101051438.JAA03340@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > According to my information, the antibiotic resistant gene > used in the creation of Round-up Ready crops was for resistance to > tetracycline. > > Robert, > If you have such information you should give it, and its source. Absolutely. I, for one, would be most grateful for this critical information. I have been asking for this publicly for some time and the only reply so far was that the antibiotic resistance used was for an antibiotic totally unrelated to OTC. If there is any evidence for your assertion it adds credence to the GM link, even though it is hypothetical at present. If not, such assertions only add to the confusion and misinformation circulating. allen ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 11:58:42 -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: Cotton Honey Granulation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ham Morton wrote: > I had good production this year with cotton honey however it did granulate. > Does this always happen with cotton honey? What can I do so that the honey > will not granulate so fast? Yes. Sell it quickly. Actually, if you want to use this property to your advantage, you might try the approach used by early 1900s beekeepers in the Phoenix/Buckeye area of Arizona. They sold honey in waxed paper blocks, advertising that this proved the purity of their product, since adulterated honey would not crystallize. Of course, at that time, all homemakers knew how to deal with solid honey. ----------------------------------------------------------- John F. Edwards (Cotton Farmer's Son) Carl Hayden Bee Research Center Tucson, Arizona ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 12:04:15 -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: liquifying granulated honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lloyd Spear wrote: > With regard to a simple means of liquefying granulated honey, Dave Green > said "We have a warm box, which bakeries use > for raising bread. Our "Master Beekeeper" here at the lab has a simple solution for 5 gallon tins of solid honey. He puts one in a gas-fired stove oven, with only the pilot light lit. It takes several days, of course. - John Edwards, Tucson BeeLab ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 14:15:58 -0600 Reply-To: busybeeacres@DISCOVERYNET.COM Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob and Elizabeth Harrison Subject: Re: Honey Storage MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Jay & All, Most problems encountered with raw honey crystallizing fast comes from the handling process. Supers which have crystals from the year before. Supers left on in the fall and exposed to temperatures around the 57F.range . Temperature around 57 F. in the holding area and with many large operations drums which are clean but not washed with hot enough water to remove tiny crystals in lower bottom where the bottom fits the side. Many hobby beekeepers bring their supers into the unheated garage and extract the next weekend. With starter crystals honey will crystallize best at 57F. over a eight day period. In a larger operation for you which don't know this fact the EPA will not let you wash drums into the sewer system. Liquid Sugars in Kansas City and EPA have had many bouts over the problem. Now the wash is pumped into a railroad tanker. All large packing plants will exchange or save your drums(they say they won't) but for the reason above WILL NOT wash out the drums. Because the drum has had the lid put back on and honey is hard to contaminate and its illegal to wash in sewer systems many drums are simply refilled with honey again. I wash mine into a long container and let the bees clean up the leftovers and then final rinse with hot water before refilling which the EPA will let you do. Jay Mowat wrote: I'm actually trying to keep a small amount of honey lquified for some good customers of mine. Does anyone have some rules of thumb? If you are doing *raw unheated honey* you need to remove from the bees and extract right( within two days) away and put in a clean container which is crystal free. Then protect in either direction from the 57F. degree temp which honey crystallizes at best. Not over 80F. but as cold as you want. Temperature? If you want to be sure the honey will have a reasonable crystal free shelf life you need to heat to at least 120 to 150F. In a crystal free container after heating to remove crystals and stored in the proper temperature the honey should keep for a few months with only minor crystallization at the bottom of the container if any crystallization at all. Length of storage time? Putting the honey in a freezer keeps my comb honey crystal free for a year but I have never tried any longer. There was a post earlier this month about a freezer not helping. I don't know why the process didn't work for the writer of the post but science has proven it almost stops the crystallization process. Does it matter what the type of honey is? Any honey which crystalizes fast will crystallize fast in storage unless heated as if for sale in the stores to remove the starter crystals. Certain honey is known to crystalize so fast it will even at times crystalize in the supers. I could write a book about the above but will stop here and hope most questions are answered. Sincerely, Bob Harrison ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 12:16:01 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: Cotton Honey Granulation In-Reply-To: <200101051906.OAA12776@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > They sold honey in waxed paper blocks, advertising that this proved > the purity of their product, since adulterated honey would not > crystallize. I do not recommend placing any doubt in the consumers mind about honey purity. That ultimately diminishes the market for your own product and increases competition pressure from others. The best sales approach is to praise the competition, but emphasize the good qualities of your own product. allen ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 17:02:38 -0500 Reply-To: "jfischer@supercollider.com" Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: James Fischer Subject: The (USA) EPA "Label Law" Is DEAD Unless YOU Save It MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Please forward to other beekeepers by all means possible. Time is short, and e-mail and letters to the EPA from as many beekeepers as possible has a good chance of having an impact. The phrase "pesticide kill" needs no explanation to beekeepers. Our sole protection against the mis-use of pesticides has been the EPA "Label Law", a law created as a direct result of excessive hive losses in the 1970s. Now, the EPA is considering removing the "Bee Precautionary Labeling", or making the wording so weak as to render it useless. The EPA has a "public comment period" open until Jan 22, 2001, so I'd like to ask every beekeeper to take the time to both read this (rather long) message, and send an e-mail to the EPA to object to weakening the "label law". The following text is long, but it is an attempt to provide complete information on one place, so that all can be well-informed. (Clearly, well thought-out and well-written "public comments" can be more effective.) Each section is divided by a line of "<><><><>", and the sections are as follows: 1) An overview of the situation, by Tom Theobold, a commercial beekeeper and freelance writer. 2) The e-mail address and requirements for "public comments". 3) The specific questions asked by the EPA in their request for public comments. 4) The complete text of the EPA "draft guidelines" that are proposed. (So that hardcopy can be distributed to those without web-browsers). <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> AN OVERVIEW (BY TOM THEOBOLD) The EPA, Pesticides and Beekeepers. An Editorial and call to Arms. By Tom Theobold In an apparently inadvertent irony of timing, the Environmental Protection Agency announced in the Federal Register its intention to seek public comment on a draft Pesticide Registration (PR) notice entitled "Guidance for Pesticide Registrants on Bee Precautionary Labeling". This announcement came on November 22, the day before Thanksgiving. In the war movies, this moment is typically accompanied by the panic cry "INCOMING"! Pesticides hazardous to honey bees have carried a label restriction since the early 1980s. It reads: "[This product] is HAZARDOUS TO BEES exposed to direct treatment or residues on blooming crops and/or blooming weeds. Do not apply [this product] or allow it to drift to blooming crops and/or blooming weeds if bees are foraging the areas to be treated." The label restriction came about as a consequence of massive bee kills from pesticides in the 1970s. Unfortunately the chemical industry and State Regulators (the agencies typically delegated the authority by EPA for pesticide regulation) found the restriction cumbersome, problematical and inconvenient. While the label restriction was frequently ignored or skirted, it nevertheless gave beekeepers standing before the law when their bees were killed by illegal pesticide use. Even under these conditions of unenthusiastic and even hostile "enforcement", commercial beekeepers in many parts of the country had over 30% of their colonies killed or damaged by pesticides. The current PR Notice would propose sweeping changes to not only the wording but the intent of bee protection language. New pesticides presented for registration which fail to provide residual bee toxicity data automatically will be assumed to have a toxic period of 24 hours. This will encourage applicants to neglect this detail, and beekeepers will spend years enduring bee kills and uncompensated damages as they attempt to establish their case against new pesticides which may have residual toxicity's of 1 to 2 weeks. In other words the toxicity data will be generated at the expense of the beekeeping industry. It dismisses the issue of drift, which is often the major culprit in bee kills, by simply omitting any reference to it. By this logic, polluters in other arenas would be free to release toxic substances into a waterway and be held harmless for any damage done downstream. The only difference between the two cases is that with agricultural pesticides it isn't a waterway but an airstream which is polluted. Perhaps the worst part of this proposal is its caveat to the chemical industry, which says that an applicator is not responsible for following even the feeble language proposed if they participate in a "formal, state-approved bee protection program". The EPA plans to take no role in the formation, approval or monitoring of the state approved program, despite the clear evidence that it has often been State Departments of Agriculture which are the problem in protecting pollinators. In 1997 AAPCO (the American Association of Pesticide Control Officers), a professional organization to which many state regulatory people belong, formally requested that the EPA make bee protection language ADVISORY. This gives you an idea of the philosophy of many of these states and what protections they might provide given a free hand. The EPA proposed to not only put the foxes back in charge of the chicken coop despite the loss of all these chickens, it proposed to let the foxes make the rules and doesn't even intend to ask what the rules are. Beyond the specific labeling language, the EPA is failing to carry out its basic responsibilities under the law (FIFRA). Ultimately Congress is responsible for the implementation of FIFRA. It assigns this responsibility to EPA, which in turn delegates the authority to another agency, typically a State Department Of Agriculture. It is apparent that the EPA is not only prepared to cave in to the convenience of the chemical industry, but they are willing to sacrifice American beekeeping and violate the law in the bargain. They are either incapable or unwilling to hold their delegees (the states) accountable for administering the law properly, nor are they willing to do so themselves. Beekeepers are urged to familiarize themselves with this issue and contact their Congresspeople immediately. This matter will effect all beekeepers, large or small. The indiscriminate and uncontrolled use of pesticides around bees, which is likely to result from the current posture of the EPA, will result in enormous and costly losses for almost all beekeepers. The EPA must be called to account by Congress and required to follow the law. The current proposal provides little or no protection to honey bees or any other pollinators, after years of input from the beekeeping industry. More detailed information on the PR can be obtained at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ The comment period ends Jan 22, 2001. In addition to anything you may have to say to the EPA, you should inform your Congressperson or nothing will change. Note: Tom did not give the exact address of the web page for the document at issue. It is as follows: www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2000/November/Day-22/p29815.htm <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> HOW TO MAKE A "PUBLIC COMMENT" To comment via e-mail: 1) Send your comments to opp-docket@epa.gov 2) Put "OPP-00684" in the subject line, to make it easy for federal clerks to route your comment correctly. 3) They can handle plain text or Wordperfect 6.1 format. (When in doubt, plain text in the body of the e-mail works best. Attachments can be a pain.) 4) Recall that your comments will likely be used to evaluate your credibility, so don't get too wild. To comment via postal mail, use the following address: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20460. ...and the same considerations listed in (2) through (4) above apply. <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> THE EPA QUESTIONS, ASKED IN THE TEXT OF THEIR REQUEST FOR COMMENTS Even though the entire subject of weakening the "label law" is an issue in itself, one may wish to address the questions asked by the EPA. Here they are, quoted from the "draft notice": Commenters are free to raise any issue, but the following questions are of particular interest to the Agency, and comments on them are invited. 1. Should the precautionary labeling language in the new policy allow for an exception from bee precautions for wide-area public health spray programs? In a number of communications to the Agency, officials involved in public health programs have noted that strict interpretation of the current bee precautionary labeling could prevent effective wide-area pest control in an emergency situation. The Agency's proposed new labeling language could also be very restrictive of wide-area spraying, for example, if a state had no bee protection program, or could not operate the program during an emergency. The suggestion has been made that the label language include a clause to the effect that precautions apply ``...except when applications are made to prevent or control a declared public health threat.'' The Agency requests comment on whether such an exception on the label is necessary or appropriate, and if it is appropriate, what authority could invoke the exception. Should an exception be applicable to treatments intended to prevent possible disease outbreaks, or limited to significant emergencies like the aftermath of flooding or a proven outbreak of human or animal disease? 2. Should the new policy described in the PR Notice allow a 24 hour period of toxicity statement on labels in the absence of data as a permanent option, or only temporarily until registrants submit residual toxicity data? 3. From the commenter's perspective as a pesticide user, beekeeper, state regulator, or other interested party, would a specific time period of toxicity to bees on the label be more or less useful than the current policy which includes a label prohibition on applications while bees are visiting the treatment area? 4. Is the label condition that pesticides can be applied if the user participates in a state bee protection program likely to encourage bee-protection efforts? From the commenter's perspective, is such a condition more or less useful in achieving bee protection that the current label prohibition against application when bees are visiting the treatment area? The EPA also has suggestions for how to address these questions, as follows: What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide. 5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. 6. Offer alternative ways to improve the notice or collection activity. 7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice. 8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket control number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation. <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> THE COMPLETE TEXT OF THE NOTICE [Federal Register: November 22, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 226)] [Notices] [Page 70350-70352] >From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr22no00-61] ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [OPP-00684; FRL-6750-9] Pesticides; Draft Guidance for Pesticide Registrants on Bee Precautionary Labeling AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: The Agency seeks public comment on a draft Pesticide Registration (PR) Notice entitled ``Guidance for Pesticide Registrants on Bee Precautionary Labeling.'' This draft notice provides guidance to registrants and others concerning EPA's policy on bee labeling statements for pesticide products which are toxic to bees, such as honey bees, alfalfa leaf-cutting bees, alkali bees, and other native and non-indigenous pollinating insects that are important to crop production. The purpose of the proposed label changes is to help ensure that pesticide products used outdoors can be used without posing unnecessary risks of bee mortality. EPA believes that these revisions will make the labeling clearer and more easily understood by pesticide users and by regulatory officials who enforce label provisions. DATES: Comments, identified by docket control number OPP-00684, must be received on or before January 22, 2001. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as provided in Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number OPP-00684 in the subject line on the first page of your response. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Roelofs (7506C), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 308-2964; fax number: (703) 308-1850; e-mail address: roelofs.jim@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to pesticide registrants, pesticide regulatory officials, beekeepers, pesticide users and to the public in general. Although this action may be of particular interest to those persons who have a specific interest in precautionary labeling to protect bees, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the information in this notice, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. B. How Can I Get Additional Information, Including Copies of this Document and Other Related Documents? 1. Electronically. You may obtain electronic copies of this document and the PR Notice from the Office of Pesticide Programs' Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/. You can also go directly to the listings from the EPA Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/. To access this document, on the Home Page select ``Laws and Regulations'' ``Regulations and Proposed Rules,'' and then look up the entry for this document under the ``Federal Register-- Environmental Documents.'' You can also go directly to the Federal Register listings at http:// www.access.gpo.gov/sup--docs/. 2. Fax on demand. You may request a faxed copy of the draft PR Notice entitled ``Bee Precautionary Labeling Statements,'' by using a faxphone to call (202) 401-0527 and selecting item PR 2000-6133. You may also follow the automated menu. 3. In person. The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket control number OPP-00684. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received during an applicable comment period, and other information related to this action, including any information claimed as confidential business information (CBI). This official record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well [[Page 70351]] as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official record does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period, is available for inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805. C. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments? You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number OPP-00684 in the subject line on the first page of your response. 1. By mail. Submit your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460. 2. In person or by courier. Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. The PIRIB is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805. 3. Electronically. You may submit your comments electronically by E-mail to: ``opp-docket@epa.gov,'' or you can submit a computer disk as described above. Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Electronic submissions will be accepted in Wordperfect 6.1, Suite 8, or ASCII file format. All comments in electronic form must be identified by docket control number OPP-00684. Electronic comments may also be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries. D. How Should I Handle CBI That I Want to Submit to the Agency? Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. You may claim information that you submit to EPA in response to this document as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public version of the official record. Information not marked confidential will be included in the public version of the official record without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide. 5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. 6. Offer alternative ways to improve the notice or collection activity. 7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice. 8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket control number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation. II. Background To help determine whether pesticide products used outdoors pose risks of bee mortality, the Agency generally requires acute toxicity data on bees to be submitted with a registration application. See e.g., 40 CFR 158.590(a). Depending on the results of the acute study, EPA may require additional residual toxicity data. EPA pesticide labeling regulations require that ``...pesticides toxic to pollinating insects must bear appropriate label cautions.'' 40 CFR 156.10(h)(2)(ii)(E). In the 1980s, the Agency published a policy which described a set of standard bee precautionary labeling statements it believed appropriate where results from the bee data indicated toxicity. The most recent version of this policy is found in the 1996 Label Review Manual (USEPA, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Label Review Manual, 2nd Ed. (EPA 737-B-96-001) December, 1996). Under the 1980s policy, where a product displayed extended residual toxicity to bees, the label language EPA believed to be appropriate for precautionary purposes stated: ``This product is highly toxic to bees exposed to direct treatment or residues on blooming crops or weeds. Do not apply this product or allow it to drift to blooming crops or weeds if bees are visiting the treatment area.'' Controversy has continued for many years among beekeepers, growers, commercial applicators and State regulators about the adequacy of these statements. For example, many beekeepers believe that the labeling statements are not adequately protective, while many growers believe that the labeling statements are overly restrictive and prevent them from managing pests adequately during the bloom period. State regulators believe that the labeling statements need to be clarified regarding the obligations of applicators with respect to bees. III. Summary of the Draft PR Notice A. What Guidance Does the PR Notice Provide? The PR Notice states EPA's proposed new policy regarding appropriate standard label language to protect bees. This new language would include a specific statement about the length of time in hours or days that the residues of the pesticide product remain a toxic threat to bees. This new proposed labeling statement is based on a study of residual toxicity to bees for a specific product submitted to the Agency, or, in the absence of such a study, it states a default period of toxicity of 24 hours. The proposed label language provides two conditions under which pesticide application would be allowed without limitation to the label-stated period of toxic hazard to bees. The first of these conditions is if the pesticide application method is such that bees will not be exposed even if they are visiting the crop. An example of such a method would be soil incorporation, which would not produce pesticide residues on the foliage, blooms or nectar producing parts of plants, so that bees would not be exposed. The other condition under which use is allowed during the period of toxicity to bees, is when the user actively participates in and meets all the applicable [[Page 70352]] requirements of a state-approved bee protection program. The Agency believes that label precautions should be supplemented by additional efforts to protect bees, and that state programs are appropriate to this purpose. EPA does not intend to set specific criteria or approve state bee protection programs. The PR Notice recommends that state pesticide regulatory agencies consider a variety of regulatory and non-regulatory measures to include in bee-protection efforts. EPA believes that state agencies are in the best position to understand the localized crop-pesticide combinations and other factors that pose the greatest risks to bees, and can implement appropriate measures to mitigate those risks under varying local and geographic conditions. B. What Questions/Issues Should You Consider? Commenters are free to raise any issue, but the following questions are of particular interest to the Agency, and comments on them are invited. 1. Should the precautionary labeling language in the new policy allow for an exception from bee precautions for wide-area public health spray programs? In a number of communications to the Agency, officials involved in public health programs have noted that strict interpretation of the current bee precautionary labeling could prevent effective wide-area pest control in an emergency situation. The Agency's proposed new labeling language could also be very restrictive of wide-area spraying, for example, if a state had no bee protection program, or could not operate the program during an emergency. The suggestion has been made that the label language include a clause to the effect that precautions apply ``...except when applications are made to prevent or control a declared public health threat.'' The Agency requests comment on whether such an exception on the label is necessary or appropriate, and if it is appropriate, what authority could invoke the exception. Should an exception be applicable to treatments intended to prevent possible disease outbreaks, or limited to significant emergencies like the aftermath of flooding or a proven outbreak of human or animal disease? 2. Should the new policy described in the PR Notice allow a 24 hour period of toxicity statement on labels in the absence of data as a permanent option, or only temporarily until registrants submit residual toxicity data? 3. From the commenter's perspective as a pesticide user, bee keeper, state regulator, or other interested party, would a specific time period of toxicity to bees on the label be more or less useful than the current policy which includes a label prohibition on applications while bees are visiting the treatment area? 4. Is the label condition that pesticides can be applied if the user participates in a state bee protection program likely to encourage bee-protection efforts? From the commenter's perspective, is such a condition more or less useful in achieving bee protection that the current label prohibition against application when bees are visiting the treatment area? C. What is the Scope of this PR Notice? The draft PR Notice discussed in this notice is intended to provide guidance to pesticide registrants, EPA personnel, state regulatory personnel, and to the public. As a guidance document, this policy is not binding on either EPA or any outside parties, and EPA may depart from the guidance where circumstances warrant and without prior notice. Registrants and applicants may propose alternatives to the recommended labeling statements described in the Notice and the Agency will assess them for appropriateness on a case-by-case basis. If a product does not meet the requirements of 40 CFR Part 156, the Agency may find the product to be misbranded. As stated above, the Agency believes that the statements outlined in the Notice should reduce the potential for adverse effects to the environment and are ``appropriate'' within the meaning of 40 CFR 156.10(h)(2)(ii)(E). EPA will make available revised guidance after consideration of public comment. Public comment is not being solicited for the purpose of converting this guidance document into a binding rule. EPA will not be codifying this policy in the Code of Federal Regulations. EPA is soliciting public comment so that it can make fully informed decisions regarding the content of this guidance. The revised guidance will not be an unalterable document. Once a revised guidance document is issued, EPA will continue to treat it as guidance. Accordingly, on a case-by-case basis EPA will decide whether it is appropriate to depart from the guidance or to modify the overall approach in the guidance. List of Subjects Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests. Dated: November 9, 2000. Marcia Mulkey, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs [FR Doc. 00-29815 Filed 11-21-00; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 18:07:15 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Aaron Morris Subject: Re: GM Discussions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Again the topic of GM has come up, and quickly gone afar from beekeeping. To me, the discussion of the pros and cons of genetically modified organisms strays far from "The Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology". What started the discussion on BEE-L was the article from Joe Rowland regarding a possible link between GM crops and AFB causing bacteria that is resistant to oxytetracycline. I know Joe, not well, but am getting to know him better through a mutual involvement with the Empire State Honey Producers Association (Joe is Secretary/Treasurer, I am newsletter editor). By Joe's own admission, any link between GM crops and TM resistant bacteria is PURE SPECULATION. He has no smoking gun. He sees a possible link and as a commercial beekeeper, he feels the possible link bears investigation. Joe presented his concerns at the ESHPA fall meeting last November, resulting in the adoption of the following two resolutions: Resolution: Tetracycline-resistant genes in GM crops Whereas, Tetracycline resistant American Foulbrood (AFB) has been detected recently in the United States, Canada and Argentina; and Whereas, Some genetically modified (GM) crops contain tetracycline resistant genes, and GM crops were cultivated in the US, Canada and Argentina in the period during which tetracycline resistant AFB developed; and Whereas, European research has indicated that horizontal gene transfer from GM canola to bacteria within the intestines of honeybees does occur; therefore be it RESOLVED, that ESHPA requests that the FDA conducts research to determine if horizontal gene transfer has occurred between GM crops and AFB. Resolution: Proteinase inhibitors in GM crops Whereas, The US beekeeping industry is an important contributor to the US agricultural economy; and Whereas, Some European research has indicated that proteinse inhibitors found in some genetically modified (GM) crops may have deleterious effects on the lifespan and learning/olfactory capabilities of adult honeybees; and Whereas, Such effects could cause problems in colony organization and foraging/pollination efficiency; therefore be it RESOLVED, that ESHPA requests that USDA examines more closely the relationship between proteinase inhibitors in GM crops and honeybees. Please note that these resolutions do not say GM HAS CAUSED TM RESISTANCE! Nowhere do they say that. Nowhere has Joe said that. Speculation! I'll say it again, Speculation! I'll shout it this time, "SPECULATION!" Personally I feel it's healthy speculation, resulting in resolutions that call for investigation. Speculation? Investigation! Say it again with me, Speculation? Investigation! One more time, make it our weekend mantra! Speculation? Investigation! Joe speculates there's a link between TM resistance cropping up in different parts of the world and GMOs. Allen speculates the GMO link is hogwash and can more simply be explained as contaminated honey from Argentina carelessly discarded in Montana and Alberta. I speculate that aliens landed their flying saucer in Buenos Aries, it was during carnival so everybody thought the aliens had radical costumes! The aliens picked up some of that cheap Argentine honey (they give it away free down there y'know!) and took off to Montana, where they threw away the half empty jar, no, it was half full, I'm optimistic! So the TM resistance in Montana was caused by GMO induced TM resistance transferred from Argentina, but then the aliens stopped to visit Allen Dick (who is really an alien too), and when they flew off to return to their home planet, their reactor leaked some radioactive anti-matter which caused AFB causing bacteria to mutate and become resistant to oxytet too. So the TM resistance in Alberta is caused by radioactive mutations! This ain't speculation, it's the truth. Hell, it's published here on BEE-L so damn, it must be gospel! Speculation? Investigation! Do some DNA sampling on resistant bacteria in Canada. Do some DNA sampling on resistant bacteria in Montana. Do some DNA sampling on resistant bacteria in Argentina. Compare the results. What will we find out? Until then, use BEE-L for "The Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology". Don't use it to assassinate characters, don't use it to shout down someone with whom you don't agree, don't use it to turn speculation into gospel truth, unless it'll keep those damned aliens back on Mars where they belong! Aaron Morris - thinking BEE-L is being abused! ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 15:39:09 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Sullivan, Michael" Subject: Removing bees from wall MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hi, I keep my bees at a neighbor's house and he recently discovered bees living in the wall. They are coming out of a small hole under a second story window. In order to ensure that I can continue to keep my hives in his yard, I am going to try to get them out using a screen cone and a bait hive. I read many of the posts on BEE-L and I have a few more questions. 1. When is the best time to attempt this? The hives are in California, so the bees will fly all winter. Should I try it now when the population is low or wait until spring when nectar is available? I assume I will have a better chance of getting a queen for the bait hive in spring. 2. How long should I wait to get a queen? Should I have one as soon as the bees start to enter the bait hive or should I let them live in the hive for a while before introducing a queen. Thanks for any answers. Michael Sullivan ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 16:47:47 -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: Cotton Honey Granulation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Allen Dick wrote: > > They sold honey in waxed paper blocks, advertising that this proved > > the purity of their product, since adulterated honey would not > > crystallize. > > I do not recommend placing any doubt in the consumers mind about honey purity. I mention the purity angle in the historical context of a time when food adulteration was quite common. For example, milk producers would not now advertise their milk as being formaldehyde-free, but as I understand it, that method of preservation was used up till the Pure Food and Drug Act in the 1920s, to prolong "freshness" in milk. But on the other hand, maybe this (crystallization marketing) would be a viable way to combat the "honey-blend" products I have seen mentioned. The "organic" honey marketers have never had a problem with pointing out the evils of heating, straining, and mixing (Jack's Raw, Wild, Unfiltered Honey is one we get locally here). BTW, the early honey-sellers who mixed in water or syrups prob. never had the nerve to market it as a "blend". - Asif I have to say, views are my own - John (support yer local beelab) Edwards, Tucson, Arizona ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 18:50:49 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: GImasterBK@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Honey Storage MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Jay, unfortunately there are "no rules of thumb" because of the variability of exactly those things that you mentioned: temperature, storage time, type of honey. Regarding temperature, it is VERY WELL KNOWN that the BEST temperature to encourage crystallization is 57°F, so a cool basement is a horrible place. The seed crystals are microscopic to the human eye, and they can be reduced by heating the honey for as short a period of time as possible to 150°F and straining the honey through a filter type used in a chemistry lab. This is the procedure used by the honey packers to prolong the shelf life of the honey, but there is a penalty to be paid for subjecting the honey to this treatment. Some of the natural honey flavor is destroyed, some of the natural yeasts are destroyed, and the color is darkened. Storage time is also temperature dependent. Honey kept at 0° to 10° has a very long storage time, and honey kept at 80° does not quickly crystallize, but above 80°, you are getting into that area of yeast loss. The TYPE of honey is the dominant factor in honey crystallization. Honey is a combination of several different sugars, but the overwhelming two predominant sugars are glucose and fructose. These two sugars vary in percentage of the total based on what floral source the bees collected nectar from to make the honey.¨ In their natural surroundings, glucose is a solid at room temperatures, whereas fructose is a liquid at room temperatures. Hence, if a honey has a high percentage of glucose and a low percentage of fructose, these honeys are going to crystallize rapidly depending on the variation of percentage difference. In the U. S. some of the prominent honeys that are known to crystallize within a few months are alfalfa, cotton, goldenrod and rape (canola). In contrast, honeys that are high on fructose and hence are slow to crystallize are yellow clover, gallberry, locust, sage, and tupelo. Honey is sooo good, soooo natural, and soooo useful in cooking, it is hard for me to figure why anybody wants to "keep it around" very long. I hope that I have helped. George Imirie starting my 69th year of beekeeping in Maryland ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 21:31:25 -0600 Reply-To: busybeeacres@DISCOVERYNET.COM Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob and Elizabeth Harrison Subject: Re: Removing bees from wall MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Michael & all, Sullivan, Michael wrote: I am going to try to get them out using a screen cone and a bait hive. I read many of the posts on BEE-L and I have a few more questions. 1. When is the best time to attempt this? The hives are in California, so the bees will fly all winter. Should I try it now when the population is low or wait until spring when nectar is available? In my opinion when there is no nectar flow is best and for the duration of trying to remove the bees. 2. How long should I wait to get a queen? Should I have one as soon as the bees start to enter the bait hive or should I let them live in the hive for a while before introducing a queen. I don't know what posts you read or what has been written but seems to me question 2 is not the way I would do the procedure. In a earlier post I posted a address you could order a video which shows me removing a swarm from a tree with a funnel and a hive. I will post my way but keep in mind the procedure can take one to several weeks. 1. block all exits the bees are using from the house but one. 2. put a screen funnel on the entrance (large base of about six inch and small exit about the size a single bee could squeeze thru or about 5/16.) Struggle to get out works best. 3. Have a strong hive with queen within 3 feet of the funnel. This is the part you might not like working on the second floor. Even your best beekeeping buddy might seem reluctant to help. You might get the procedure to work with a single story weak hive but would take longer for the robbing to occur. 4. as the bees leave the building thru the funnel they can't find their way back in and join the hive outside( not allways sometimes they cluster on the funnel). If they cluster on the outside of the funnel move the outside hive closer. 5. The population grows outside and then dwindles in the building swarm(way its supposed to work) 6.when you are sure almost all the bees are out of the building swarm you remove the funnel and let the strong hive rob the building swarm of its honey ( sometimes a flow will start and they will forget robbing). Would I use the above in your case. No! I would remove a board and remove the bees comb and all(one comb at a time) and put in a hive. I did a step by step post on bee removal a few months back. No honey running out the wall this summer in case the bees don't rob out the building swarm. Our video shows many building removal jobs and several from second floors. I only use the funnel and hive when removing swarms from trees. The last was a tree in a cemetery. The funnel system worked but I have had failures. The video tape is a hour long and is the only video of its type I have ever seen. Email me direct to order. Many will post about what they have seen done in a book or a magazine. I have done both of the above and know what I am talking about. People pay to get bees removed from buildings and in most cases they should (probabbly not in your case). Very few people remove bees from buildings. My fellow beekeepers and I do and charge according to the amount of work involved. If you live around a large town or city *bee removal* might be of interest. The Midwestern Beekeepers Assn. contracted a professional to do the video. The video is available directly from him and neither I or Midwestern gets a Penny. I will email any interested beekeepers his business address and you can contact him directly. Hope I have helped. Sincerely, Bob Harrison Odessa,Missouri ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 19:17:51 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: Cotton Honey Granulation In-Reply-To: <200101060017.TAA21030@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > The "organic" honey marketers have never had a problem with pointing > out the evils of heating, straining, and mixing (Jack's Raw, Wild, Unfiltered > Honey is one we get locally here). There is nothing wrong with this advertising as long as it is positive. The problem arises when the seller tries to explain why anyone would want to forgo that processing without trashing everyone else. After all, heat and straining add expense. If it is not beneficial why would anyone do it? The answer: not everyone needs the benefits of commercial packing and distribution if a local beekeeper can keep their honey pail full. There are benefits from heating and filtering honey, and the heated, filtered product has its place, and that is mass distribution. For one thing -- as I described in detail on BEE-L one time -- most packers cannot get the honey out of the drum and into jars without heat. Once in jars, it will not reliably stay liquid unless without application of heat at time of bottling. Without heat used to pasteurize and kill yeasts, fermentation is a concern. Glass grenades on store shelves are not a good thing. FWIW, we always sold unfiltered, unpasteurized honey and had quite a nationwide business at one time. Much more background can be found at http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?S2=bee-l&q=raw&s=&f=allend@internode. net&a=&b=20+april+1998 These are my posts, but as always, dissenting views are 'only a click away' (apologies to The Stones). Sorry about the word wrap. allen ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 13:49:02 +1300 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Robert Mann Subject: Re: resistance to tetracycline Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Mr J Rowland, obviously an important beekeeper of NY, suggested last October that a tetracycline-resistance gene may have been inserted into GM crops in the course of their 'engineering'. The idea thus arose that resistance to tetracycline might have passed from such crops to _Bacillus larvae_, the primary pathogen in AFB. I did not state this, nor did I have any opinion one way or the other. I was unaware until a couple days ago that the Rowland letter had already been on Bee-L; when I learned that it had, I was fully content that it not be re-posted here. I have now been able to enlist the help of an actual expert gene-tamperer - which I am not - to look into this question. Here is the response: >I did not find any scientific literature mentioning tetracycline and field >released Roundup-ready crops. >But I did find one patent and >several references to laboratory experiments that use Tetracycline >resistance as the marker. >Verifying that any commercial GM corn or soybeans >had this gene has not been possible with the brief search I conducted. > >Thus I found nothing to prove that Tetracycline has been used in the major > released GMOs. > >http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html > >United States Patent 5,731,179 >Komari , et al. March 24, 1998 This is the most reliable evidence we are likely to get soon on this question. It is worth remarking that patents are routinely granted for ideas that the patent office believes would not work if tried in practice. (It has to be a blatant breach of scientific law, e.g. perpetual motion machines, to get rejected on grounds of infeasibility.) Most folk are surprised when they learn of this, but the reasons are not hard to see. It is impractical for the Pat Ossif to get involved in actual testing. I therefore believe: A tetracycline-resistance gene has not been used in the 'engineering' of current GM crops, and therefore there is no reason to think that any such crops have contributed to increase of tetracycline resistance in AFB. This topic has been instructive - in some useful and some fruitless, needlessly unpleasant, ways. 1 Existence of a patent does not prove the idea is feasible let alone that it has been implemented. (The 'terminator' patent envisaging sterile seed is perhaps the most important example - I have studied that patent and I don't believe it will ever work commercially, and it certainly has not been put into commercial effect.) 2 It was fair enough for Mr Rowland to raise the question. It is also fair enough to quote him; those who do should not be accused of having thereby made any assertion themselves. I had never heard of the idea that tetracycline-resistance had yet been deployed in any commercial GM crop, and it is mischievous to accuse me of having said so. 3 Beekeepers are not going to be able to avoid discussion of GM. It is going to impinge on us time & time again, whether we like it nor not. The inherent complexity of the subject, and the dominant role of PR agents in generating rumours & falsehoods on the subject, make it especially important to be very careful about who said what on it. R - Robt Mann consultant ecologist P O Box 28878 Remuera, Auckland 1005, New Zealand (9) 524 2949 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 09:00:49 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Richard Spiekhout Subject: Re: liquifying granulated honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm a new bee haver. about 3 years now. I have not yet had any honey to granulate. Source of honey, method or temp of storage, I don't know. I do know that I want some honey that I definitely will granulate in a relatively short time. You see, I have become addicted to honey in my coffee every morning and use 5 to 6 tbsps a day. If I could let some honey granulate in something like an ice cube tray, could I not have honey cubes that would melt in my coffee? Richard looking for an easier way ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 09:12:51 EST 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: Removing bees from wall MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/5/01 7:18:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, michael.sullivan@TRADIANT.COM writes: << I am going to try to get them out using a screen cone and a bait hive. I read many of the posts on BEE-L and I have a few more questions. >> The procedure gets rid of the bees for the owner, and you can then let them rob out the wall cavity, which gets rid of his more serious problem of honey in the wall. But the worker bees you gather are of little value to you, so your pricing should reflect the fact that you are primarily providing a service to him. If you want something of value, you need to get the queen. Any feral bees that are surviving and healthy without varroa treatment, could possible harbor some genetic resistance to varroa (I haven't found any yet, but the potential is there) and that could make the queen quite valuable. The cone method wastes that resource. Better to open the colony and physically remove it. Of course you have to do that safely, and you have to assess that situation yourself. Here's a slide show of transferring wild bees and their brood comb into a hive. The wild comb was simply placed above an excluder and the queen put below: http://pollinator.com/wildhive/index.htm I would not attempt this until you have a nectar flow. It will be more sloppy for you to do, but the bees will handle the transfer stress better. Lacking a flow, I'd be sure to be generous with syrup, but it's definitely second best. Dave Green The Pollination Home Page: http://pollinator.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 09:23:52 -0600 Reply-To: busybeeacres@DISCOVERYNET.COM Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob and Elizabeth Harrison Subject: Re: Removing bees from wall MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit David L. Green wrote: If you want something of value, you need to get the queen. Any feral bees that are surviving and healthy without varroa treatment, could possible harbor some genetic resistance to varroa (I haven't found any yet, but the potential is there) and that could make the queen quite valuable. Actually Dave the above is the reason I took the bees out of the building wall last spring. They had been in the building wall four to five years untreated the owner said. I STILL charged for the removal. She would have paid twice what I asked and was pleased with the removal. I put the bees in a hive and rubber banded the brood comb in place. Everything I did is in the Bee-L archives. They were still alive going into winter but still a very small swarm and had gathered zero honey for winter. All my other survivors have died over the past few years in Missouri winter so I put the swarm on a deep box of sealed honey to winter last September. Not Dee Lusbys method of doing things but like you I feel they show some tolerance to varroa and I felt bad about not treating the swarm with a cure for their problems. I might add to the post I did that the removal of bees from a building involves the use of a bee vac to be done correctly. We ALLWAYS use a bee vac. Start with the bees on the honey comb first and then remove the honey comb and put in a container and cover to preven robbing. When you get down to the brood comb start at the outside of the nest and take a comb at a time and look for the queen then place the brood comb with bees in cool weather in a container or as we usually do in warm/hot weather vacum the bees off the brood comb also. You are saving the bees with the bee vac BUT many bees will die in hot weather if the bees are not removed in a proper amount of time from the bee vac or the vac is not large enough to hold the swarm. When you find the queen cage her. Once you find her the process moves much faster. Those are a rough draft of the process. Sincerely, Bob Harrison Odessa,Missouri ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 14:29:16 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: GImasterBK@AOL.COM Subject: Re: resistance to tetracycline MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Speaking for myself, I am SICK of hearing anything about the GM crop and/or the possible relationship to resistant diseases. These subjects are best handled by the paid professional bee scientists and researchers rather than beekeepers. I prefer the Bee-L to stay with its original purpose: "an informed discussion of beekeeping". I have never found a dictionary that states that "speculation" is a synonym for "informed". Let the REAL beeKEEPERS teach and train the myriad number of beeHAVERS that are "out there" often badly confused. George Imirie ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 08:53:17 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: Removing bees from wall In-Reply-To: <200101061440.JAA12092@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > ...Better to open the colony and physically remove > it. Of course you have to do that safely, and you have to assess that > situation yourself ...The wild comb was simply placed above an > excluder Barry has plans for a special frame for handling the combs you cut out at http://www.beesource.com/plans/swarmframe.htm . I have never used it, but having tried the other methods (string, elastic bands), this looks good. Anyone looking for equipment plans should be sure to visit his site. allen ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 04:40:53 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: dan hendricks Subject: Re: RSemoving bees from wall MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii David Green said it but Allen Dick sounded like he didn't understand David exactly. I have dcne this several times and it works just fine. Start with a box of foundation (my choice) or drawn frames. Top with a queen excluder. Add an empty deep. Remove the natural comb from the wall in pieces as large as you can handle. (Of course, they are soft. A rectangle of 1/2" hardware cloth is a useful tool.) Place these pieces of comb in the top box, using the QE as a supporting rack. When (if?) you find the queen, put her below the QE, preferably in a cage for a couple of days. In three weeks all the brood will have hatched and the wall comb can be placed outside for the bees to complete robbing. By then the colony in the lower box is going great guns. Dan __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online! http://photos.yahoo.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 08:54:05 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Midnitebee Subject: PinK Pages January 2001 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Greetings! The January 2001 Pink Pages are now available for viewing: http://www.cybertours.com/~midnitebee/contentpages/articles.html Herb/Norma Bee Holly-B Apiary PO Box 26 Wells,Maine 04090-0026 "an educated consumer is YOUR best customer" The Beekeeper's Home on the Internet http://www.mainebee.com Stony Critters http://www.stonycritters.com =20 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 09:08:16 -0600 Reply-To: busybeeacres@DISCOVERYNET.COM Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob and Elizabeth Harrison Subject: Re: RSemoving bees from wall MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Dan & All, I agree with Dan and have done similar as Dan says with success and Dan's method is shown in the Midwestern video all but putting the queen below the excluder. dan hendricks wrote: Start with a box of foundation (my choice) or drawn frames. Top with a queen excluder. Add an empty deep. Remove the natural comb from the wall in pieces as large as you can handle. (Of course, they are soft. A rectangle of 1/2" hardware cloth is a useful tool.) Place these pieces of comb in the top box, using the QE as a supporting rack. You can do the above over any strong hive and I do if I can't find the queen or by the worn look of her I determine she is a very old queen. I also do if she is a strain I don't want. If the time of year is fall and I knew a hive wouldn't make it thru the winter then I would do the above without the queen. When (if?) you find the queen, put her below the QE, preferably in a cage for a couple of days. I don't like the idea if nights are cool of putting a queen excluder between a caged queen and bees trying to "maybe" keep sealed brood warm. I would put her above caged for awhile if cool nights as the bees might move away from her to to keep the brood warm above the excluder leave her stranded below the excluder. If warm nights I would try as Dan said. In three weeks all the brood will have hatched and the wall comb can be placed outside for the bees to complete robbing. Usually the comb is ready for the melter IF enough bees were brought from the building. I would not place the comb outside for robbing as the comb could contain foulbrood spores if from a feral colony and you have other hives in the area. What small amount of honey left is not worth the risk. Also if placed to close robbing could start if other hives are present and your little hive would be gone. KEEP THE ENTRANCE REDUCED IF IN THE AREA OF STRONG HIVES. Allways treat these building swarms as if they were infested mites and other diseases no matter what time of year it is. If the hive is in a area all by itself(hard to find in our area) then I suppose putting the comb outside but not close to the hive would work. By then the colony in the lower box is going great guns. Time of year is important to success. I personally I have not done the method by putting the caged queen under the excluder but believe the method would work in warm/hot weather. Sincerely, Bob Harrison __________________________________________________ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 11:57:32 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "- Clark Chase , Zodiac Farms" Subject: Re: resistance to tetracycline MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Congratulations, Gearge! I couldn't agree more strongly. Far too much pedantry. Clark Chase at Zodiac Farms ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 08:13:07 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: RSemoving bees from wall In-Reply-To: <200101071251.HAA26640@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > David Green said it but Allen Dick sounded like he > didn't understand David exactly. Sorry, maybe I should explain. I did understand Dave, but like the idea of saving and using some or all of the original comb. Even if a beekeeper is following Dave's advice, having a frame or two like the one I recommended along could save some beautiful comb should it turn out that the bees are on big flat combs. I actually would seldom use the method under discussion for several reasons, listed below. * Up here in the Great White North the bees may cluster at night. Moreover, we have a short season; after removing bees, there is not always a lot of time for the bees to set up a new brood nest before frost. * Around here, cut-out brood comb must be arranged in a compact configuration so that the bees can cover it and keep it warm. If they are trying to cover brood up top and also start new brood below, they may make a choice and leave one or the other. * Often the natural comb that the bees are on is very nice and flat. Simply trimming it to fit into a frame can salvage it. * Moreover when comb is full of brood, it can be hard to support. Much of it can be wasted if it is not supported in a way that the comb is not distorted and also in a way that ensures the new bees can emerge. * I also prefer to make up a normal hive in preference to having to return a time or two to tinker, so I suppose it is a matter of taste and locale. Having several options at hand can be nice. Placing combs into frames is a technique that has its place. It can be a frustrating job, though and Barry's design seems ideal. As a note of interest, I've visited Dave and gone to yards with him. We correspond from time-to-time and we are constantly amazed at how different beekeeping is in our two regions. And how it is the same. allen http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/diary/ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 13:42:47 -0500 Reply-To: Peter John Keating Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter John Keating Subject: Re: Honey Storage MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Greetings, if you look in that excellent book edited by Eva Crane "Honey" on page 286 it is stated that .... Honey samples stored for 5 weeks at 0oC, and then at 14oC, showed no granulation for 2 years, ...... I do freeze prepacked honey this way and most times it works.There will be times when it will granulate but it is(according to me) the delay in freezing that is the cause. Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jay Mowat" > I'm actually trying to keep a small amount of honey lquified for some good customers of mine. Does anyone have some rules of thumb? Temperature? Length of storage time? Does it matter what the type of honey is? ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 15:05:56 -0500 Reply-To: Peter Borst Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Comments: RFC822 error: DATE field duplicated. Last occurrence was retained. From: Peter Borst Subject: resistance to tetracycline quote from Allen Dick : ...that we must first disprove the most obvious explanation before moving on to 'create new gods'. I personally like this interpretation: "The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct." Yes. "Occam's razor" favors the simplest explanation: beekeepers have created resistant bacteria by dosing colonies with oxytetracyclene for 30 years. I have met beekeepers with thousands of colonies who put antibiotics in sirup and in patties which were left year 'round. Whether an individual beekeeper created a resistant strain of AFB and it spread -- or it is being generated simultaneously by many, is a moot point, once it becomes widespread. What to do about it is much more important. Peter Borst Ithaca NY USA ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 15:17:40 -0500 Reply-To: Peter Borst Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Comments: RFC822 error: DATE field duplicated. Last occurrence was retained. From: Peter Borst Subject: following the label Greetings We have received an eloquent plea for help in retaining strongly worded labels protecting honeybees on pesticides. I agree wholeheartedly with the need for adequate protection for honeybees from pesticide applications nearby. However, I have also tried to raise the topic of beekeepers going "off label". In the two years I have been working with beekeepers in New York State I have encountered a surprising disregard for labeling. Beekeepers routinely leave Apistan strips in the hive over the winter, claiming "better control". This may produce fewer mites in the spring but what few are left are sure to have some degree of ability to resist Apistan. Beekeepers are making their own strips with non-approved chemicals. I even met one beekeeper who still uses phenol (carbolic acid) to remove honey. This has been prohibited in the US for at least 25 years. I wonder if many still use sulfathiazole against AFB and even fumigate supers with bromide compounds (EDB). The point is, if we don't follow the labels, how can we expect decent labeling and compliance on the part of others? Furthermore, if we abuse chemicals and lose them either through resistance or outright bans, who is going to come to our aid? How many beekeepers have the resources to conduct large scale scientific testing of new substances and methods? Will you risk the concomitant heavy losses of bees, honey and equipment? I think there needs to be a concerted effort to persuade beekeepers that it is in their interest as well as the public's -- to stop going off label and to stop using banned chemicals. Peter Borst ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 13:20:11 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: resistance to tetracycline Comments: To: Peter Borst In-Reply-To: <200101072006.PAA01562@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Whether an individual beekeeper created a resistant strain of AFB and > it spread -- or it is being generated simultaneously by many, is a > moot point, once it becomes widespread. What to do about it is much > more important. It might seem that way, but knowing your enemy is always important, if you want to make an appropriate response and choose the correct weapons. In countries where the new variety of AFB is not yet appearing, I think it is of very great importance to know the cause. Mere speculation will not do, since some of the speculation is that one of our best weapons is the cause! If that speculation is wrong, then we will deprive ourselves of a good defence for no good reason. Also, in deciding what to do, knowing if it is a single mutation spreading out from one point or being generated repeatedly at different sites due to some new management technique or environmental factor is absolutely essential. allen ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 13:27:30 -0700 Reply-To: flightdeck1@earthlink.net Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Matthew W." Subject: Re: Removing bees from wall - & beevac plans MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Michael & BEE-L, Let me suggest there ARE feral bees alive in your area. Each summer bees are constantly being dusted by local pesiticide outfits. For my area(~Denver,CO) this past year has been the slowest in recent years with only 20-25 hives but feral bees ARE alive and I'd like to encourage other beekeepers to help save their potential genetic favor, if any. Removing bees can be profitable ($300+ for 2-4 hours work, +wax, +bees, +honey) and doesn't have to be messy or full of stings. On the average removal I get stung on average 4-5 times - some upwards of 30-40 but usually when I make a mistake or am too hurried. If you want to give a try at removing bees, call your local pesticide outfit. Most respectful outfits are happy to send the easy removals your way and do their part in saving helpful insects. Most bees taking residence within a home end up in a soffet since it is an uninsulated area usually with plenty of entrance cracks. Most soffets are easy to dismantle without harm to the house. To encourage other beekeepers to save more feral swarms and hives, Barry Birkey & I went to the trouble of placing plans for my beevac on his website: http://www.beesource.com/plans/beevac/index.htm Michael here are some answers to your questions: 1) Do the removal in spring (absolute!). Less trouble from robbers and the hive rebuilding process will be easiest for the bees. Removing and relocating is stressful on bees. Why make their survival chances harder? 2) If you really want to do your friend a favor REMOVE the entire hive if at all possible. The cone method, IF successful, will only remove the workers and honey leaving behind the queen and later a great attraction for another swarm to find entrance to. Most of the feral hives I remove are old hives killed by pesticide the season before. Let me suggest that your friends' description of bees unattended for five years is no gaurantee that hive has held the same bees for that amount of time. Unless he monitored bee-activity each spring, it is more likely that hive has been replaced by a new swarm at least once. There are lots of details on finding and removing bees and I welcome any e-mail from Michael or other beekeepers with particular bee removals in mind. A little information can make the job a whole lot easier. Matthew Westall // Earthling Bees >8(())))- "Take me to your feeder" \\ Castle Rock, CO, USA "Sullivan, Michael" wrote: > 1. When is the best time to attempt this? The hives are in California, so > 2. How long should I wait to get a queen? Should I have one as soon as the > ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 13:35:16 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: darn@FREENET.EDMONTON.AB.CA Subject: Re: resistance to tetracycline Comments: To: Peter Borst In-Reply-To: <200101072006.PAA01559@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Peter Borst wrote: > Yes. "Occam's razor" favors the simplest explanation: beekeepers have created resistant bacteria by dosing colonies with oxytetracyclene for 30 years. I think it possible that we have been saved from resistance because we have used the OTC in syrup solutions which are fairly ineffective. They would leave a large proportion of non-resistant spores which would outproduce the (presumably) less efficient organisms with the superfluous resistance mechanism. When we got the patties which keep the OTC effective for longer periods, the nonresistant organisms would be wiped out leaving only the resistant ones to reproduce. Best regards, Donald Aitken Edmonton Alberta Canada 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 HAA05043 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 HAA00169 for ; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 07:43:02 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200101141243.HAA00169@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 LOG0101A" To: adamf@METALAB.UNC.EDU Content-Length: 152685 Lines: 3329 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 07:30:33 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Beekeeperc@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Exceptional Weather and Rodents MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yes, mice will live rent free in your hive unless you use screening to prevent them from entering. Its nice and warm with all the honey they need to let them start the spring nice and fat. Norm ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 09:41:00 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: FW: Re: You know you are in a beekeeping family........... MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Found this <5M$kLqAmWwT6EwOw@denrosa.demon.co.uk> in sci.agriculture.beekeeping: == BEGIN forwarded message == From: Murray McGregor Newsgroups: sci.agriculture.beekeeping Subject: Re: You know you are in a beekeeping family........... This is something of an old thread now being rehashed under a different guise. Allergy in beekeepers families is commonplace. I also admit to knowing nothing about it until my wife took anaphylactic shock one day whilst hanging out her washing in her bare feet and trod on a bee on a clover head. Three weeks later my older son (8 at the time) was rushed to hospital after an allergy attack when out with me looking round some bee sites one evening. Not so severe as anaphylactic shock but alarming just the same. A year later his twin sister had the same, and soon after the younger son, aged 4, sat on a bee at his nursery and had an attack. So, we had four allergic family members. Time for a bit of research. We found a book by Dr Laurie croft, the name of which invariably escapes me, regarding bee sting allergy and its causes. Now, although there is divergent opinion on exactly what sensitises people to stings, with some favouring dried venom, others bee hairs and other proteins, it is best to play safe and assume that ALL these will cause it ( for practical purposes it doesn't matter, you could not remove them separately anyway). It was recommended that beekeepers do NOT bring their overalls home to wash, rather do so at the bee shed or wherever, anywhere but the home. We did this, installed a washing machine at our premises, and banned all staff from taking bee related work clothes home with them. We now have two more young daughters, and decided to have them given a RAST (don't know what it stands for, but it is an allergy test) test to see what level of risk they are at. It reports your risk level on scale of 0 to 5, zero is no, or very little risk, 5 is risk of death. Oldest daughter tested at a 4, mother at 4 to 5, younger daughters 0 to 1. Therefore all those exposed to the dust (of whatever nature) from the suits coming home are allergic, and those never exposed to it are not allergic. An interesting footnote to this is that the washing machine was installed in a kitchen area at work, and we have a small unit through the door from it where we manufacture mustard as a sideline. A year after we changed the washing arrangements the girl who makes the mustard turned out allergic, having been quite normal a year before when stung in the extracting room. I know that is circumstantial, but seem quite a powerful bit of evidence to me. My oldest daughter (now 24) is undergoing desensitisation treatment now as she works in the business, and one day hopes to take over, so we are all hoping it goes well for her, and we will never forget the lessons of how she became allergic in the first place. Anyone got any more amusing anecdotes, which is why I think the thread was started in the first place? Murray -- Murray McGregor == END forwarded message == ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 14:28:31 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Max Watkins Subject: Miticide resistance - the facts In-Reply-To: <200012272009.PAA08907@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Allen, In a recent communication about the evolution and spread of pyrethroid resistance in Europe the following comment was made: > It is thought that beekeepers in Italy used a liquid agricultural > formulation of Klartan, absorbed on a porous piece of wood or similar > to combat varroa. Because there was no control over the amount (of active ingredient) > applied, this practise inevitably gave rise to resistance, not only to > Klartan, but to the whole class of synthetic pyrethroids including > Bayvarol and Apistan. You replied: >This is often repeated, but is at best an oversimplification, and at worst a lie >that those who sell a penny's worth of chemical for $2 don't mind having >repeated often. That is a glib response, offensive not only to me but to the well-respected bee researchers from Germany, Italy, Switzerland and France as well as the hundreds of beekeepers who carried out the trials which proved this to be the case. Research such as this cannot be dismissed because there was some involvement from a chemical company (Sandoz, as it was). Especially when you don't seem to know or care about the reality of this situation - even 'though I have posted this on the LIST some time ago. I am really surprised at you. The statements which John Burgess mentioned originally are far from rhetoric from a "chemical company". There is solid foundation to these claims. In the early 90's as the then Technical Manager for Sandoz I coordinated an international team of independent, reknown experts on a project lasting 5 years, investigating the emergence of pyrethroid resistance in Europe. It had been openly stated by many people, incuding Sandoz, way before the conception of APISTAN that a pyrethroid-resistant mite strain would inevitably evolve. Klartan/Mavrik was being used for years before APISTAN was developed. Providing there is a lage enough selection pressure and the benefits outweigh the costs, organisms mutate through natural selection. FACT. Any and all treatments to control "pest" populations represent a type of selection pressure. FACT. Because of its many benefits of bee safety, low residue profile, proven low mammalian toxicity profile etc etc Apistan (or illegally Klartan/Mavrik) was and indeed still is the most popular hive treatment for varroa worldwide. Incredible selection pressure. FACT. When the first reports of "Apistan inefficacy" arose in 1992 in Italy, APISTAN had only been in use for one year. In the regions where the "inefficacy was most widely reported APISTAN was not used at all; the agrochemical Klartan, however, had been used for 8 years, on balsa wood, on cloth and anything else to hand. Recipes for using Klartan were common in Europe. In Spain they recommended a 5% soltion in water; in France it was 2% solution. This didn't work in Southern Italy after a while and so the dose was increased to 50% and then in many cases, to 100% neat. Low efficacy after 8 years. FACT. When this inefficacy started to show up in Northern Italy, where APISTAN had been used for just 2 years the cause was not so clear. However, the Italians were able to trace exactly the spread of a resistant strain of varroa along the main routes of migratory beekeeping from the North to the South of Italy. Colonies are taken to the South for the winter and brought back North in Spring, carrying with them the resistant varroa from the South. FACT. It is noone's fault that resistant varroa emerged, it is a natural process of evolution. The uncontrolled dosing did however greatly speed up the process. If there is an increase in the LD50 (the level of a substance that wil kill 50% of a population) by tenfold, ie a resistance factor of 10, generally one can say that a resistant strain has emerged. In the case of varroa from Southern Italy the resistance factor was more than 400. Definately resistant. It was also shown scientifically that this resistance is conferred to other related pyrethroids such as flumethrin and acrinathrin. FACT. The dose/response curves obtained for this resistant strain are distinct. Wherever resistance was monitored throughout Italy and later in France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria and Eastern Europe. the exact same curves are characteristic. This most probably means that the resistance has arisen only once in Europe and spread from one focal point. The slow speed of apparition in neighbouring countries suggests Italy to be the focal point. If the dose/response curves were markedly different for the different populations examined then we could expect there to have been separate evolution. So far all populations examined (coordinated by Vita since 1997) have shown the same pattern and seem then to have the same origin. There will always be a risk of any pest organism developing resistance to the treatment. It is why several different types of treatment should be used. If there is resistance to one treatment, perhaps the second or third [different] treatment will take out the resistant individuals. Even IPM will not stop the phenomenon of mutation and evolution in pest populations but the aim is to keep the resistance to a manageable level, below the economic damage threshold. Vita (Europe) Limited is a small UK company specialising in the development of honeybee disease treatments. We take the concept of IPM very seriously and unlike the chemical giants who have no time for such small markets, we are dedicated to improving the health of honeybee colonies, operating world-wide. Yes, we make and sell APISTAN but we also have other treatments in registration and in development, many of them natural agents, for EFB, AFB, mites, chalkbrood and wax moth. In science and in business I believe there is no room for half-truths. At Vita our policy is to be open so as to avoid confusion. While many people may disagree with what we're doing, Vita is not in the business of making a fast buck. What we do is thoroughly researched and is for the long-term. No short cuts, no "oversimplifications". Whatever is posted to the LIST from Vita, we believe to be correct and true. But, Hey, how can this possibly be true - Vita must be classed as a "chemical company", right? Believe what you will. Max Dr Max Watkins Vita (Europe) Limited Brook House, Alencon Link Basingstoke, Hants RG21 7RD UK Tel. +44 (0) 1256 473177 Fax +44 (0) 1256 473179 http://www.vita.demon.co.uk ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 09:47:00 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Midnitebee Subject: Pink Pages MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Greetings! The December 2000 issue of the Pink Pages are now viewable. http://www.cybertours.com/~midnitebee/contentpages/articles.html Surgery prevented earlier publication.=20 FWIW- I am applying honey to my "stapled" abdomen. Application seems to = work VERY well. Regards, Herb Herb/Norma Bee Holly-B Apiary PO Box 26 Wells,Maine 04090-0026 "an educated consumer is YOUR best customer" The Beekeeper's Home on the Internet http://www.mainebee.com Stony Critters http://www.stonycritters.com =20 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 10:13:17 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Lipscomb, Al" Subject: Re: Miticide resistance - the facts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Providing there is a lage enough selection pressure and the benefits > outweigh the costs, organisms mutate through natural selection. FACT. > Any and all treatments to control "pest" populations > represent a type of > selection pressure. FACT. > Because of its many benefits of bee safety, low residue > profile, proven low > mammalian toxicity profile etc etc Apistan (or illegally > Klartan/Mavrik) > was and indeed still is the most popular hive treatment for varroa > worldwide. Incredible selection pressure. FACT. [cut] > It is noone's fault that resistant varroa emerged, it is a > natural process > of evolution. The uncontrolled dosing did however greatly speed up the > process. I get a little confused on these evolution things. I always thought that "mutation" was a random event. Pressure then caused selection on the population. If the mutation gave a reproductive advantage then those that had the gene may survive and reproduce better than the ones without the gene. If putting pressure on a population always causes it to become resistant I do not understand how we got smallpox under control. You would have thought that resistance would have emerged and a stronger version of the virus taken over. Come to think of it I cannot understand how extinction should happen as often as it does. In most cases it is a long slow process with lots of pressure on the populations. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 10:26:21 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: BeeCrofter@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Miticide resistance - the facts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/2/01 10:19:25 AM Eastern Standard Time, LipscombA@HSN.NET writes: > > If putting pressure on a population always causes it to become resistant I > do not understand how we got smallpox under control. You would have thought > that resistance would have emerged and a stronger version of the virus taken > over. > Had the approach to smallpox been to use antibiotics this would have been likely to happen. Innoculation trained our bodies to recognize and kill the smallpox. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 09:40:05 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Blane White Subject: Re: Miticide resistance - the facts Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Al and Everyone, ****************************************** Blane White MN Dept of Agriculture blane.white@state.mn.us >>> LipscombA@HSN.NET 01/02/01 09:13AM >>> wrote in part: > > Providing there is a lage enough selection pressure and the benefits > outweigh the costs, organisms mutate through natural selection. FACT. > Any and all treatments to control "pest" populations > represent a type of > selection pressure. FACT. > Because of its many benefits of bee safety, low residue > profile, proven low > mammalian toxicity profile etc etc Apistan (or illegally > Klartan/Mavrik) > was and indeed still is the most popular hive treatment for varroa > worldwide. Incredible selection pressure. FACT. [cut] > It is noone's fault that resistant varroa emerged, it is a > natural process > of evolution. The uncontrolled dosing did however greatly speed up the > process. "I get a little confused on these evolution things. I always thought that "mutation" was a random event. Pressure then caused selection on the population. If the mutation gave a reproductive advantage then those that had the gene may survive and reproduce better than the ones without the gene." No wonder you are confused the term "evolution" used in this context is just plain wrong and confusing. The correct term is adaption. Resistance is always present in the population at very low levels and the selection pressure of the treatment brings it to the fore. No mutation needed just selection. The result is a resistant population. Now Max, from what it appears to me here in the USA, anywhere in the world where fluvalinate in any formulation has been used for about 10 years for varroa control resistance has developed. Since we are selecting for the same traits in the population, I would expect the curves to be very similar or the same where ever the selection has occurred - this is the evidence that mutation is not involved just selection of pre-existing resistance. Apistan resistance occurred here in MN and was documented first in one of the beekeeping outfits who had varroa first and was therefore using apistan longest ( and yes I am very confident they were not using other (illegal) treatments. Apistan selected for the resistance at about the same rate as other formulations of fluvalinate in other parts of the world. Don't get me completely wrong there are many very good reasons to use Apistan instead of those other formulations such as contamination of honey and wax etc. but in terms of selection! for resistance I really see not difference. FWIW blane ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 09:50:39 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: Miticide resistance - the facts In-Reply-To: <200101021443.JAA06647@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > That is a glib response, offensive not only to me but to the well-respected > bee researchers from Germany, Italy, Switzerland and France... Max, I want to apologise if I have offended you or any others. That was certainly not my intent, and maybe the writing was a bit glib. I sometimes kid around a bit. I certainly respect the efforts you and many others have put into fighting varroa and in no way discount the work because some of it was done with funding by a chemical company. I respect the profit motive and think it is an important engine of development. > Especially when you > don't seem to know or care about the reality of this situation - even > 'though I have posted this on the LIST some time ago. I am really surprised > at you. Max, I will also confess right now to having a less-than-perfect memory and to being influenced by the many versions of the story I have heard, especially since they are repeated so often. I will have to review the material and perhaps revise my thinking when I have a moment. Once again, I should likely reiterate that this is a discussion list and what is written here -- by anyone -- should be questioned and not mistaken for carefully researched fact. Maybe your contributions are different, but I know the above is true of what I write and would be very concerned if anyone swallowed any of my opinion pieces whole. Having said that, and although I am sure that you are probably as authoritative as any man alive on the topic, that does not mean that your view or your version, or your conclusions, or your methods are the only ones that are credible. As evidence, I can offer that varroa is still causing havoc. We still can see a day coming soon when we may very well have no effective and practical controls available. That to me proves that the job is not done, or was not done well. I'm sorry, but that is just the way it seems to me. I hope you can and will prove me wrong. Once again I apologise and hope you can show us that the problem was handled correctly, is under control, and will stay that way. allen Opinions are not facts... ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 08:15:46 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Aaron Morris Subject: Re: Winter progress MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" This message was originally submitted by jjbmail@SELWAY.UMT.EDU to the BEE-L list at LISTSERV.ALBANY.EDU. It was edited to remove previously posted material. > ------------ Original message (ID=87101B00) (45 lines) -------------- > Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 15:30:03 -0700 > To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology > > From: Jerry J Bromenshenk > Subject: Re: Winter progress > > At 01:38 PM 12/31/00 -0700, you wrote: > >How do varroa mites do when they are subjected to freezing? > > Sorry, no data on varroa and cold tolerance here - good > question. Jerry ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 18:33:39 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Max Watkins Subject: Re: Miticide resistance - the facts, revisited In-Reply-To: <200101021542.KAA08520@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Blane, You are right, of course that in the States, the widespread use of Apistan has probably been the strongest selection pressure, as Klartan/other agro formulations aren't used as frequently in beekeeping as in some other countries (so I believe). This pyrethroid resistance was bound to arise sooner or later, as there was only really one control agent being used with a specific mode of action. It doesn't matter what the formulation was, the resistance to the active ingredient was inevitable in the circumstances. If there had been other types of treatment available, the selection for resistant strains would have been at least slower, giving the industry longer use of what tools it had. It could be that resistance, caused directly by use of Apistan, has appeared in Europe. It's possible. But in most European countries, besides Apistan and Klartan there are commonly other types of treatment used which could have some retarding effect on the emergence of resistant strains. The account that I gave earlier, however, describes what happened in Italy and it looks very much like the resistant populations emanated from one central source. The uncontrolled dosage at that source must have had an accelerating effect on resistance emergence. It may also be true that the dose-response curves for pyrethroid-resistant mites in the USA are similar to those in Europe - I don't know, as I've not seen any of the US data but it would be interesting to compare. Do the US mite population(s?)have the same characteristics as the Western European mites? I agree that similar traits should probably be selected for and the curves indeed should look something like those we have generated here. I just wonder if you'll see the resistance factor of 400+ ? Maybe. I'm not trying to set myself up as an expert and of course, I may be entirely wrong. I do make mistakes - let's see now, I remember I made one back in 1978.... Max Dr Max Watkins Vita (Europe) Limited Brook House, Alencon Link Basingstoke, Hants RG21 7RD UK Tel. +44 (0) 1256 473177 Fax +44 (0) 1256 473179 http://www.vita.demon.co.uk ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 05:35:32 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Robert Brenchley Subject: Re: rodents MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Norm writes: << Yes, mice will live rent free in your hive unless you use screening toprevent them from entering. Its nice and warm with all the honey they needto let them start the spring nice and fat. >> True, but would even the most acrobatic of wood mice really dangle from its front legs with its bum in mid-air, while gnawing heroically to try to get through the mouse excluder? If so, it deserves top marks for gymnastics, but none for brains. Regards, Robert Brenchley RSBrenchley@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 23:59:19 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: peter dillon Subject: Re: Miticide resistance - the facts, revisited MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Max, following this thread with much interest. I am "surrounded" by beekeepers (99% of whom are hobbyists, or in other words beekeepers who do not need to gain a living from apicultural activities). They are very much aware of the problem posed by V.j. - many are now without hives due to its presence! When I arrived here from England (at the time totally free from V.j.), the first organisation I got into contact with was the local group named Groupment Departemental Defense Sanitaire (County Group Defending Bee Health)- and when I asked what was the recognised treatment against V.j. was instantly presented with some"slim slivers of poplar wood that had been soaking in a milky white liquid" These were being sold I presume with the blessing of the local County Vet. Office as the cheque that I HANDED OVER WAS SIGNED TO DDGA. The whole idea of treatment was chaotic - no controlled timing period for the area, no recognised disposal of used strips - often they were left laying around in apiaries. As time proceeded, there was discussion relating to changing the molecule due to resistance showing up - but to my knowledge, this resistance was never tested for in an organised manner, it was all hear say. I had hives that when tested with Amitraze after being treated with Apistan dropping several hundreds of mites, others none at all - confusion reigned, at least in my mind on what was really happening. As far as I am concerned, treatment left in the hands of people who do not either understand what they are doing or the consequences of their actions is the best recipe for long term disaster. There appears to be a pretense that the Vet. services are in control and know what is happening - they are not and don't. The average beekeeper in my area will not supply information and is distrusting of his fellow beekeepers - just incase he/she finds out how much money he/she is making/lossing. We tried to set up a Development group for Beekeeping in the area - failed due to apathy The different beekeeping unions are at each others throats when ever possible. It is only when such disastrous situations as Gaucho and Sunflowers arrive on the scene that sense prevails. On the surface, everybody states that they are using the recognised treatment for V.j., A.F.B.etc, but in reality!!!, leaving those that do follow the rules to suffer. One old beekeeper came to the house and asked what I THOUGHT ABOUT THAT NEW STUFF - Apifoss. I presumed he was talking about COUMAPHOS ( even I am not sure about its spelling). The vet. officer who was visiting put him right by telling him not to use it but instead to use Amitraze soaked onto jute strips. He realised the bloke would never buy the official materials and considered it better for all concerned that a treatment however it arrived was better than none. I gave up and fell into line - treat V.j. like the rest and get good results whilst it lasts. Before I WAS PAYING THE PREMIUM and not going to gain the extension in time as most of the rest were happily making their 5%,10% dips out of what ever was in fashion. SO how are the trials relating to the pheromone that will waylay females on their way to brood cells going? Yours truthfully Peter PS I do have excellent contacts with many serious beekeepers throughout France. I HOPE THAT THE ABOVE EXPLAINS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN AND WHAT REALLY HAPPENS. Believing that the truth always come out one day!! ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 21:26:57 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dennis Crutchfield Subject: Bee Candy In-Reply-To: <200012312222.RAA15728@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello folks, I lost the recipe for hard bee candy,for winter feed, and would like to make some up. I made some once that was white and like brittle. Sure appreciate the help. thanks preacher ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 13:18:33 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Bits and Pieces MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The following is edited for excess quotes: ------ From: Bryan Clements Subject: RE: Evaluating Beekeeping Help > I recently began a project to list the skills and experience levels > we seek when hiring beekeeping help... The old Bay of Plenty Community College in Tauranga NZ did certificates in Beekeeping. I recall that they had Oral and Practical Assessment guides for each year of study that could make a good basis for evaluating and setting pay scales even for long term beekeepers. Perhaps some one from NZ might know if the assessment guides would be available for general use. (Hi Nick, hint, hint,) Bryan Clements ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 13:26:33 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Bits And Pieces MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Edited for excess quotes and relayed FWIW: --- From: "Pascal Fournier" Subject: Re: FW: Re: You know you are in a beekeeping family........... As a laboratory technician, I note in the text from Murray Mc Gregor that he was preparing mustard as a sideline. Mustard seed is one of the very rare vegetable who deliver cosequent amount of Carbon Disulphide. This product affect brain, liver and nerves. The fact is that you can' t find a lot of studies on very low level chronic exposure, the only studies made is about workers in industrial plant who have a lot of contact with the product. I know that anything who affect your liver decrease your allergic resistance. I include the adress of the datasheet of the product http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/c0957.htm http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts82.html http://www.lakes-environmental.com/toxic/CARBON_DISULFIDE.HTML I know that a simple urine test can be made on people. the problem with light chronic intoxication is that usually under a certain amount, no medical studies are made. Happy New Year everybody. P.Fournier ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 20:43:32 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Thinking of San Diego MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It's time to get ready for the convention in San Diego -- coming up soon. I'm going to be in San Diego from the 9th to the 20th, and I know some other BEE-L people will be there too. Let's be sure to get together at least once during that time. Email me direct to make plans. allen allend@internode.net ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 10:00:22 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dave Cushman Subject: Re: rodents MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi All Rats and mice will hang by their front paws to gnaw. I have watched a wild rat do a "hand over hand" traverse sideways along a mortered seam in brickwork using nothing but it's front paws. The horizontal distance travelled was 5 1/2 feet at a height of 6 feet from the ground. The ledge in the morter was about 2 mm. The feat was repeated many times but I only observed it once. As regards brains the question I would pose is "how did the rat know there was any point in performing the manouvre in the first place"? Best regards Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert Brenchley To: > True, but would even the most acrobatic of wood mice really dangle from > its front legs with its bum in mid-air, while gnawing heroically to try to > get through the mouse excluder? If so, it deserves top marks for gymnastics, > but none for brains. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 10:03:38 -0000 Reply-To: Ruary Rudd Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Ruary Rudd Organization: Westgate, waterville Subject: Re: Bee Candy Comments: To: Dennis Crutchfield MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The mnemonic is 1,2,3,4,5, Five parts sugar dissolved in one part water, bring to the boil and stir continuously until temperature is 234 degrees Fahrenheit. Cool rapidly stirring until it just starts to go whit then pour into moulds. Once the material starts to set it hardens very quickly so have your moulds ready. Ruary Rudd ----- Original Message ----- From: Dennis Crutchfield Sent: 03 January 2001 03:26 Subject: Bee Candy > I lost the recipe for hard bee candy,for winter feed, and would like to make > some up. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 15:00:05 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Max Watkins Subject: Re: Miticide resistance, revisited In-Reply-To: <200101030025.TAA22446@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Peter, I sympathise with your position in France. We've found the exact same situation in many countries, including France where quite a bit of our research is done. On the one hand the "Authorities" set stringent rules for registering a treatment - so stringent and expensive that very few firms can get their product through to the user and on the other hand you have what you described perfectly - there is quite widespread disregard of the rules even BY THE AUTHORITIES for this very legislation. We are asked constantly why we don't have the next product(s) out yet. Registration alone (ignoring product development time) can take 3 years. Vita is now just coming to the point where we have registrations of new products pending in many countries. Our APIGUARD thymol gel is about to be widely registered so you can expect to see that in France this year. APIGUARD is used for the control of mites in honeybee colonies and will be 7 years in reaching the market from the initial development stages. Believe it or not, that is fast. Our pheromone blend, PHEROVAR which interupts varroa reproduction is about 18 months out of line. It's a complicated blend and what we thought was the correct constituency last year turned out to be not quite so. A question of isomerism. We used the wrong isomer of three. The blend is known but we have to go through all the dosage, efficacy and bee tox tests again, hence the delay. But it will come and news of it will be posted in the bee press nearer the time. Max Dr Max Watkins Vita (Europe) Limited Brook House, Alencon Link Basingstoke, Hants RG21 7RD UK Tel. +44 (0) 1256 473177 Fax +44 (0) 1256 473179 http://www.vita.demon.co.uk ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 07:57:21 EST 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 Candy Comments: cc: preacherc@cvalley.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/2/01 10:36:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, preacherc@CVALLEY.NET writes: << I lost the recipe for hard bee candy,for winter feed, and would like to make some up. I made some once that was white and like brittle. Sure appreciate the help. >> That's a lot of work. And for what? If you overheat it while mixing, you can carmelize the sugar and make it more or less indigestible for the bees. Let the bees make it. Make up a feeder rim, around 1 1/2 to 2 inches. Fill it with dry granulated sugar, with a couple layers of newspaper to hold it from falling thru. Make sure it is directly above the cluster. The excess moisture evapporated by the bees, will concense and wet the sugar, and it will harden into a block. The bees, tasting the sweet newspaper will open it as needed and consume the sugar. It can be replenished, as needed, but always use a little more newspaper to keep it from falling thru the frames. Sugar on the floor of the hives may not be used, it may even be thrown out. This not only saves your labor, it helps the bees dispose of a waste product that can be dangerous to them in winter - the excess moisture that often condenses or forms frost on the bottom of the cover. Actually they don't dispose of it; they recycle it. You can use the same setup to feed a small amount (one gallon or so) of heavy syrup. In this case make sure the newspaper is at least six layers thick and makes a continuous bowl, ie, put the newpaper in after the rim is placed. The reason for the multiple layers is to prevent them from chewing thru the paper too soon, and spilling the syrup. It has to seep thru. In this case use only heavy syrup; we use straight HFCS straight as it comes from the drum. Thin syrup will soak thru too fast. Excluders are not required, but I place one under the newspaper when feeding this way. The feeders may be still on in spring and the bees will remove the sugar and fill the rims with burr comb. This can mean a solid feeder full of drone brood. By using the excluder, it still mean a feeder rim full of burr comb, but it will be spring honey, instead. This can be removed as one piece with the excluder as the bottom, and put on a nuc that needs feeding. Dave Green Ill equipped for the real world, I became a beekeeper. The Pollination Home Page: http://pollinator.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 08:14:13 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Adrian Wenner Subject: Miticide resistance-Mistakes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Max Watkins wrote: >I'm not trying to set myself up as an expert and of course, I may be >entirely wrong. I do make mistakes - let's see now, I remember I made one >back in 1978.... I am glad to see some humor inserted into this discussion about mite resistance. It reminds me of one of my favorite quotations: "The only mistake I ever made was when I thought I had made a mistake!" 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] ******************************************************************** * * "Aesthetic judgments do not arbitrate scientific discourse.... * Ultimately, theories are judged by how they fare when faced * with cold, hard, experimental facts." * Brian Greene, 1999 * ******************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 09:50:01 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: Thinking of San Diego In-Reply-To: <200101031622.LAA06128@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I guess I should mention that the bus tour to the Imperial Valley and the trip to Tijuana require reservations and the deadlines are right around now. Maybe passed by a day or so, but you still have a chance. If anyone has been putting off reserving for these excellent-sounding events, call (912) 427-4233 right now and speak up. The schedule is at http://www.abfnet.org/convention/schedule.html Have a major credit card ready. If you are trying to figure out where in Sandy Ego the hotel is, try this link which also has maps. http://www.marriotthotels.com/dpp/Map.asp?MarshaCode=SANMV The 'local info' pointer on the ABF site still refers to Texas locations from some time back. (IMO, the web site at http://www.abfnet.org/ has been a real disappointment to those of us who rely on the net over paper media for info and almost caused me to miss deadlines due to lack of essential facts. I suppose if I were still a member, I'd have gotten the mailing package, but...) allen ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 15:13:00 -0700 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: Thinking of San Diego In-Reply-To: <200101031622.LAA06135@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 08:43 PM 1/2/01 -0700, you wrote: >It's time to get ready for the convention in San Diego Allen, I will be there - I have to work for my trip - will present a Pre-Conference set of videos and bits and pieces of things ranging from bees trained to fly through maizes to 3-d movies of temperature regulation in hives - scheduled for Thursday evening -- assuming I don't get fogged in at Missoula or Salt Lake. Then, on Friday late afternoon we talk about our trials at mating queens in a 1 acre by 40 ft tent. Would like to meet some of the Bee-L folks that I know from the list. I will be in San Diego through Tuesday morning. Cheers Jerry > >Email me direct to make plans. > >allen >allend@internode.net > > Jerry J. Bromenshenk jjbmail@selway.umt.edu http://www.umt.edu/biology/bees ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 17:44:57 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dave and Judy Subject: State Bee Associations MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello all of our beefriends! I am trying to complete a list of United States' State Bee Associations (or large local clubs) to show the amount of dues that are charged and also the benefits received in return for those dues. If you are a member, or officer, of a state club, would you email this information to me to avoid clutter on Bee-L? Thanks for your help. Now for a bee story. We had a nuc hive with a really old Buckfast queen (Dave just has a problem killing the old queen when requeening, so we always end up with a couple nucs with older queens. Usually the nucs don't survive long because of their queens.) This particular queen was a Buckfast from 5 years ago. She's been in and out of nucs and hives for 3 years now. We have requeened her original hive twice and her successors have gone into the night. But not this lady. We had a swarm hive that we had caught later in the summer that never had time to build up. Not a really great laying pattern. This swarm was not one of our own. Came from an area about 25 miles southwest of us. Sooo, solution, join the two. With his usual reluctance to kill a queen, Dave just joined the nuc with the weak hive using the newspaper. Let the queens decide who will survive. Two weeks later we did our final school presentation with our observation hive. This ob hive had a brand new, this summer, queen. 2 1/2 weeks after Dave joined the nuc and the weak hive, he went in again to join the observation hive. This time he was determined to find and kill the queen. Both queens were still in the hive. In a 2 box hive, they were in the same box, 1 frame apart, both with their own queen contingent! What a wonderful opportunity to watch what may happen when you have a 2 queen hive that are not mother/daughter, or related in any way. Unfortunately this idea didn't occur to Dave until after he had crushed the queens and was walking back down to the house. Oh well. Thanks again for your help. Judy in Kentucky, USA ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 08:02:07 +1300 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Juderon Subject: AFB - GM crop connection possible In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Has anyone mapped the geographical spread of the resistance? Eg, Did it start in the corn or cotton or rape or soy belts? Ron -----Original Message----- From: Robert Mann [mailto:robt_m@talk.co.nz] Sent: Friday, 5 January 2001 7:40 a.m. To: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu Subject: [NZNBAList] AFB - GM crop connection possible ... Bees in the US are increasingly afflicted with a strain of antibiotic resistant American foulbrood (AFB). Before the advent of antibiotics, this bacterial infection was the most serious bee disease in the world. Tetracycline had been used effectively against AFB for 40 years until 1996. In that year, tetracycline resistance was confirmed in both Argentina and the upper Midwestern states of Wisconsin and Minnesota. Since then, it has spread to at least 17 states in the US, including New York, and to parts of Canada. During the 1990s, millions of acres of Round-up Ready crops were planted in the US, Canada, and Argentina. According to my information, the antibiotic resistant gene used in the creation of Round-up Ready crops was for resistance to tetracycline. After 40 years of effective usage against an infective bacterium found in the guts of honeybees, suddenly two geographically isolated countries develop tetracycline resistance simultaneously. A common thread between the US, Canada and Argentina is the widespread and recent cultivation of GM crops containing tetracycline resistant genes. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 18:17:39 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Ham Morton Subject: Cotton Honey Granulation I had good production this year with cotton honey however it did granulate. Does this always happen with cotton honey? What can I do so that the honey will not granulate so fast? Thanks in advance!! ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 20:04:56 EST 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: Cotton Honey Granulation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/4/01 7:46:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, morton@INTERPATH.COM writes: << I had good production this year with cotton honey however it did granulate. Does this always happen with cotton honey? What can I do so that the honey will not granulate so fast? >> Cotton honey is one of the quickest to granulate. However, steps to prevent granulation ("cooking" and ultrafiltration) can damage this fine honey. Let it granulate. As long as it doesn't sit thru the next season of hot, humid weather, granulation won't hurt it. Then when you are ready to use it, apply gentle heat to reliquify. We have a warm box, which bakeries use tor raising bread. Lot's of beekeepers have homemade ones from old freezers or refrigerators. Plans can be found by searching the list archives. Dave Green The Pollination Home Page: http://pollinator.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 20:44:27 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: GImasterBK@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Cotton Honey Granulation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cotton honey is high in dextrose and low in fructose, and like Goldenrod honey, it crystallizes rather quickly. You have three basic choices: 1) learn to make creamed honey and use the cotton honey to make creamed honey. 2) blend it with a honey that does not crystallize like tupelo, or with some other slow to crystallize honey like black locust, tulip poplar, or orange 3) Always store you honey in a freezer until sale or use time. Of course, NEVER EVER keep it in the refrigerator or basement, and also not too long above 81°F If you are a relatively new beekeeper, I suggest you consult with other beekeepers that produce large quantities of cotton honey and see what they do with it. Ending, you just cannot store cotton honey like most other honeys, because it crystallizes faster than most. Extract it soon after it is made and than store it in a FREEZER. There it will stay liquid with no crystals for several years if always kept around 0-10°F. I hope that I have helped. George Imirie ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 13:23:02 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: AFB - GM crop connection possible In-Reply-To: <200101041918.OAA11802@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Has anyone mapped the geographical spread of the resistance? Eg, Did it > start in the corn or cotton or rape or soy belts? This is a good question. AFAIK, soy and canola in various varieties are grown in varying amounts throughout the areas in question. As for GM varieties, that is harder to say. It is a good question, but there are other questions that must be asked first before it becomes meaningful. We've been discussing resistant AFB for some years on BEE-L, and apparently the most basic and pivotal question in this matter has never been answered. The root question is whether one OTC resistant strain developed in one place and has been spread by international trade in honey and other means, or whether a number of separate strains have evolved in separate and totally isolated places with no vector of disease transmission between them. Answering that one question would save a lot of idle speculation, false rumours and wasted effort. It is a simple question, and a simple one to answer with today's technology. The answer to that one question decides what other questions are relevant, including the present one. For some reason, most people seem to assume that each case is new unique mutation or selection, yet Occam's Razor tells us given the following facts: 1.) successful mutations are fairly rare. 2.) selection for resistant AFB does not seem to happen frequently; we have not seen it over previous decades 3.) diseases often spread from one place to another without people immediately figuring out what happened. ...that we must first disprove the most obvious explanation before moving on to 'create new gods'. I personally like this interpretation: "The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct." Ref: http://staff.vscht.cz/~pokornp/physics/occam.html Common sense would also dictate that given the above knowledge, the first place to look is for vectors of disease transmission. Only after all possibility of transmission is disproved, should we start to seriously consider extraordinary causes. That is not to say that some powerful new factor could not have come into play. It is just not scientific to jump past the first stage in the investigation and assume that the usual causes of new disease outbreaks are not responsible for spreading this new one. BTW, I'm no geneticist or pathologist and I'm having trouble with the words here, but hope you understand what I am saying and don't pick me over if I misuse a word or two that have technical meanings that differ from what we lay people assume. I personally always favour the simplest explanation that fits the known facts, and that is that SAFB started in Argentina, was exported to the US and Canada, and continues to spread. That is not to say that the GMO link is not out of the question, but until the first question is answered all the rest are somewhat premature. I hope we have an answer soon. allen ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 15:38:07 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Blane White Subject: Re: AFB - GM crop connection possible Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Ron, You asked regarding antibiotic resistance in AFB: "Has anyone mapped the geographical spread of the resistance? Eg, Did it start in the corn or cotton or rape or soy belts?" It was first documented here in the midwest USA Wisconsin first than quickly here in Minnesota in the corn/ soybeans production area. Much of the cropland here in the upper midwest is farmed on a corn - soybean rotation at present so yes the resistance was first documented in areas where roundup-ready soybeans were planted. One complication is that this is also a major honey production area but the corn/bean growing don't entirely overlap the major honey producing areas but there is much planting of the GM roundup ready soybeans in areas with many colonies of honey bees here and in fact soybeans are an important honey source in some of these areas at least in some years. The conditions for the possible transfer of such transgenes are readily met over a large area of the upper midwest USA. Does this answer your question? FWIW blane ****************************************** Blane White MN Dept of Agriculture blane.white@state.mn.us ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 09:38:38 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Lloyd Spear Subject: liquifying granulated honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit With regard to a simple means of liquefying granulated honey, Dave Green said "We have a warm box, which bakeries use for raising bread. Lot's of beekeepers have homemade ones from old freezers or refrigerators. Plans can be found by searching the list archives." In last months issue of Bee Culture, there is a short article by Bob Harrison (one of our outstanding list contributors) on how to convert a refrigerator for this purpose. Highly recommended! Lloyd Mailto:Lloyd@rossrounds.com. Lloyd Spear Owner, Ross Rounds, Inc. The finest in comb honey production. Visit our web site at http://www.rossrounds.com. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 09:38:23 -0500 Reply-To: Peter Borst Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Comments: RFC822 error: DATE field duplicated. Last occurrence was retained. From: Peter Borst Subject: resistance to tetracycline Robert Mann writes: According to my information, the antibiotic resistant gene used in the creation of Round-up Ready crops was for resistance to tetracycline. Robert, Ifyou have such information you should give it, and its source. Resistance to antibiotics crops up evertwhere they are used, requiring a continual change in methods. Many examples of antiobiotics losing their effectiveness due to overuse can be given - in humans as well as animals. I have observed beekeepers for over 25 years and I have seen them misuse chemicals time and time again. That AFB should begin to show resistance to tetracycline comes as no surprise to me, nor is mite resistance to Apistan surprising. I don't think anyone is to blame but I suggest the cause of these problems is closer to home. Peter Borst Ithaca NY USA ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 09:40:16 -0500 Reply-To: Peter Borst Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Comments: RFC822 error: DATE field duplicated. Last occurrence was retained. From: Peter Borst Subject: Losing the Battle of the Bugs http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/990510/nycu/antibiotic.htm Losing the Battle of the Bugs excerpt: The latest turn in the battle of the bugs is no surprise. Scientists have known since the dawn of the antibiotic age in the 1940s that the more an antibiotic is used, the quicker it becomes useless. That's because of natural selection: While most bacteria exposed to the drug are killed, the fittest survive and pass survival traits to their offspring. With continued use of the antibiotic, the resistant bugs proliferate. Bacteria have a broad array of tactics to combat antibiotics' toxicity, and they can give the genes that control these feats to nearby, even unrelated, bugs. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 09:40:09 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: BeeCrofter@AOL.COM Subject: Re: liquifying granulated honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/5/01 9:37:03 AM Eastern Standard Time, lloydspear@EMAIL.MSN.COM writes: > > In last months issue of Bee Culture, there is a short article by Bob > Harrison (one of our outstanding list contributors) on how to convert a > refrigerator for this purpose. Highly recommended! > Another source of thermostat control for making you hot box or fridge conversions is an old waterbed heater. The thermostat will control a resistive load up to about 300 watts. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 10:51:41 -0500 Reply-To: Peter John Keating Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter John Keating Subject: Re: rAFB MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Allen said, > The root question is whether one OTC resistant strain developed in one place and > has been spread by international trade in honey and other means, or whether a > number of separate strains have evolved in separate and totally isolated places > with no vector of disease transmission between them. > I personally always favour the simplest explanation that fits the known facts, > and that is that SAFB started in Argentina, was exported to the US and Canada, > and continues to spread. I recently had a visit from a Western Canada beekeeper who was convinced that imported unwashed barrels are a major vector in "rAFB" .He said that most had a fair amount of honey in the barrel and when stored outside posed a real danger to the spread of diseases. Here in Quebec l have seen many barrels purchased from the honey packer (Labonte) which come from the west as well as outside of the country which have residues of honey sufficient to encourage robbing. At the last Canadian Honey Council meeting http://www.honeycouncil.ca/chc-ccm/indexe.html it was thought that barrels may also be a vector for the small hive beetle! For those with HACCP programs you may already have this problem under control? Peter ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 09:11:09 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: rAFB Comments: To: Peter John Keating In-Reply-To: <200101051552.KAA05924@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > The root question is whether one OTC resistant strain developed in one > place and has been spread by international trade in honey and other means, or > whether a number of separate strains have evolved in separate and totally isolated places with no vector of disease transmission between them. > > Here in Quebec l have seen many > barrels purchased from the honey packer (Labonte) which come from the west > as well as outside of the country which have residues of honey sufficient to > encourage robbing. A neighbour reported to us having seen Chinese honey drums in a nearby open dump (near two of our locations). He mentioned it because he thought they must have come from us. We had no knowledge whatsoever up to that point. We are very vulnerable. Even if honey drums are washed, what is to keep a family cook from throwing out unwanted honey into garbage which ends up in open landfills. I maintain that our watchdogs have badly let us down by not screening imported honey for bee pathogens, particularly SAFB. allen ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 09:32:56 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Jay Mowat Subject: Honey Storage Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The recent discussion about cotton honey contained some interesting ideas about the mid to long term storage of honey. I'm actually trying to keep a small amount of honey lquified for some good customers of mine. Does anyone have some rules of thumb? Temperature? Length of storage time? Does it matter what the type of honey is? Jay Mowat Erin, Ontario ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 08:42:02 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: resistance to tetracycline In-Reply-To: <200101051438.JAA03340@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > According to my information, the antibiotic resistant gene > used in the creation of Round-up Ready crops was for resistance to > tetracycline. > > Robert, > If you have such information you should give it, and its source. Absolutely. I, for one, would be most grateful for this critical information. I have been asking for this publicly for some time and the only reply so far was that the antibiotic resistance used was for an antibiotic totally unrelated to OTC. If there is any evidence for your assertion it adds credence to the GM link, even though it is hypothetical at present. If not, such assertions only add to the confusion and misinformation circulating. allen ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 11:58:42 -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: Cotton Honey Granulation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ham Morton wrote: > I had good production this year with cotton honey however it did granulate. > Does this always happen with cotton honey? What can I do so that the honey > will not granulate so fast? Yes. Sell it quickly. Actually, if you want to use this property to your advantage, you might try the approach used by early 1900s beekeepers in the Phoenix/Buckeye area of Arizona. They sold honey in waxed paper blocks, advertising that this proved the purity of their product, since adulterated honey would not crystallize. Of course, at that time, all homemakers knew how to deal with solid honey. ----------------------------------------------------------- John F. Edwards (Cotton Farmer's Son) Carl Hayden Bee Research Center Tucson, Arizona ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 12:04:15 -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: liquifying granulated honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lloyd Spear wrote: > With regard to a simple means of liquefying granulated honey, Dave Green > said "We have a warm box, which bakeries use > for raising bread. Our "Master Beekeeper" here at the lab has a simple solution for 5 gallon tins of solid honey. He puts one in a gas-fired stove oven, with only the pilot light lit. It takes several days, of course. - John Edwards, Tucson BeeLab ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 14:15:58 -0600 Reply-To: busybeeacres@DISCOVERYNET.COM Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob and Elizabeth Harrison Subject: Re: Honey Storage MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Jay & All, Most problems encountered with raw honey crystallizing fast comes from the handling process. Supers which have crystals from the year before. Supers left on in the fall and exposed to temperatures around the 57F.range . Temperature around 57 F. in the holding area and with many large operations drums which are clean but not washed with hot enough water to remove tiny crystals in lower bottom where the bottom fits the side. Many hobby beekeepers bring their supers into the unheated garage and extract the next weekend. With starter crystals honey will crystallize best at 57F. over a eight day period. In a larger operation for you which don't know this fact the EPA will not let you wash drums into the sewer system. Liquid Sugars in Kansas City and EPA have had many bouts over the problem. Now the wash is pumped into a railroad tanker. All large packing plants will exchange or save your drums(they say they won't) but for the reason above WILL NOT wash out the drums. Because the drum has had the lid put back on and honey is hard to contaminate and its illegal to wash in sewer systems many drums are simply refilled with honey again. I wash mine into a long container and let the bees clean up the leftovers and then final rinse with hot water before refilling which the EPA will let you do. Jay Mowat wrote: I'm actually trying to keep a small amount of honey lquified for some good customers of mine. Does anyone have some rules of thumb? If you are doing *raw unheated honey* you need to remove from the bees and extract right( within two days) away and put in a clean container which is crystal free. Then protect in either direction from the 57F. degree temp which honey crystallizes at best. Not over 80F. but as cold as you want. Temperature? If you want to be sure the honey will have a reasonable crystal free shelf life you need to heat to at least 120 to 150F. In a crystal free container after heating to remove crystals and stored in the proper temperature the honey should keep for a few months with only minor crystallization at the bottom of the container if any crystallization at all. Length of storage time? Putting the honey in a freezer keeps my comb honey crystal free for a year but I have never tried any longer. There was a post earlier this month about a freezer not helping. I don't know why the process didn't work for the writer of the post but science has proven it almost stops the crystallization process. Does it matter what the type of honey is? Any honey which crystalizes fast will crystallize fast in storage unless heated as if for sale in the stores to remove the starter crystals. Certain honey is known to crystalize so fast it will even at times crystalize in the supers. I could write a book about the above but will stop here and hope most questions are answered. Sincerely, Bob Harrison ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 12:16:01 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: Cotton Honey Granulation In-Reply-To: <200101051906.OAA12776@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > They sold honey in waxed paper blocks, advertising that this proved > the purity of their product, since adulterated honey would not > crystallize. I do not recommend placing any doubt in the consumers mind about honey purity. That ultimately diminishes the market for your own product and increases competition pressure from others. The best sales approach is to praise the competition, but emphasize the good qualities of your own product. allen ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 17:02:38 -0500 Reply-To: "jfischer@supercollider.com" Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: James Fischer Subject: The (USA) EPA "Label Law" Is DEAD Unless YOU Save It MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Please forward to other beekeepers by all means possible. Time is short, and e-mail and letters to the EPA from as many beekeepers as possible has a good chance of having an impact. The phrase "pesticide kill" needs no explanation to beekeepers. Our sole protection against the mis-use of pesticides has been the EPA "Label Law", a law created as a direct result of excessive hive losses in the 1970s. Now, the EPA is considering removing the "Bee Precautionary Labeling", or making the wording so weak as to render it useless. The EPA has a "public comment period" open until Jan 22, 2001, so I'd like to ask every beekeeper to take the time to both read this (rather long) message, and send an e-mail to the EPA to object to weakening the "label law". The following text is long, but it is an attempt to provide complete information on one place, so that all can be well-informed. (Clearly, well thought-out and well-written "public comments" can be more effective.) Each section is divided by a line of "<><><><>", and the sections are as follows: 1) An overview of the situation, by Tom Theobold, a commercial beekeeper and freelance writer. 2) The e-mail address and requirements for "public comments". 3) The specific questions asked by the EPA in their request for public comments. 4) The complete text of the EPA "draft guidelines" that are proposed. (So that hardcopy can be distributed to those without web-browsers). <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> AN OVERVIEW (BY TOM THEOBOLD) The EPA, Pesticides and Beekeepers. An Editorial and call to Arms. By Tom Theobold In an apparently inadvertent irony of timing, the Environmental Protection Agency announced in the Federal Register its intention to seek public comment on a draft Pesticide Registration (PR) notice entitled "Guidance for Pesticide Registrants on Bee Precautionary Labeling". This announcement came on November 22, the day before Thanksgiving. In the war movies, this moment is typically accompanied by the panic cry "INCOMING"! Pesticides hazardous to honey bees have carried a label restriction since the early 1980s. It reads: "[This product] is HAZARDOUS TO BEES exposed to direct treatment or residues on blooming crops and/or blooming weeds. Do not apply [this product] or allow it to drift to blooming crops and/or blooming weeds if bees are foraging the areas to be treated." The label restriction came about as a consequence of massive bee kills from pesticides in the 1970s. Unfortunately the chemical industry and State Regulators (the agencies typically delegated the authority by EPA for pesticide regulation) found the restriction cumbersome, problematical and inconvenient. While the label restriction was frequently ignored or skirted, it nevertheless gave beekeepers standing before the law when their bees were killed by illegal pesticide use. Even under these conditions of unenthusiastic and even hostile "enforcement", commercial beekeepers in many parts of the country had over 30% of their colonies killed or damaged by pesticides. The current PR Notice would propose sweeping changes to not only the wording but the intent of bee protection language. New pesticides presented for registration which fail to provide residual bee toxicity data automatically will be assumed to have a toxic period of 24 hours. This will encourage applicants to neglect this detail, and beekeepers will spend years enduring bee kills and uncompensated damages as they attempt to establish their case against new pesticides which may have residual toxicity's of 1 to 2 weeks. In other words the toxicity data will be generated at the expense of the beekeeping industry. It dismisses the issue of drift, which is often the major culprit in bee kills, by simply omitting any reference to it. By this logic, polluters in other arenas would be free to release toxic substances into a waterway and be held harmless for any damage done downstream. The only difference between the two cases is that with agricultural pesticides it isn't a waterway but an airstream which is polluted. Perhaps the worst part of this proposal is its caveat to the chemical industry, which says that an applicator is not responsible for following even the feeble language proposed if they participate in a "formal, state-approved bee protection program". The EPA plans to take no role in the formation, approval or monitoring of the state approved program, despite the clear evidence that it has often been State Departments of Agriculture which are the problem in protecting pollinators. In 1997 AAPCO (the American Association of Pesticide Control Officers), a professional organization to which many state regulatory people belong, formally requested that the EPA make bee protection language ADVISORY. This gives you an idea of the philosophy of many of these states and what protections they might provide given a free hand. The EPA proposed to not only put the foxes back in charge of the chicken coop despite the loss of all these chickens, it proposed to let the foxes make the rules and doesn't even intend to ask what the rules are. Beyond the specific labeling language, the EPA is failing to carry out its basic responsibilities under the law (FIFRA). Ultimately Congress is responsible for the implementation of FIFRA. It assigns this responsibility to EPA, which in turn delegates the authority to another agency, typically a State Department Of Agriculture. It is apparent that the EPA is not only prepared to cave in to the convenience of the chemical industry, but they are willing to sacrifice American beekeeping and violate the law in the bargain. They are either incapable or unwilling to hold their delegees (the states) accountable for administering the law properly, nor are they willing to do so themselves. Beekeepers are urged to familiarize themselves with this issue and contact their Congresspeople immediately. This matter will effect all beekeepers, large or small. The indiscriminate and uncontrolled use of pesticides around bees, which is likely to result from the current posture of the EPA, will result in enormous and costly losses for almost all beekeepers. The EPA must be called to account by Congress and required to follow the law. The current proposal provides little or no protection to honey bees or any other pollinators, after years of input from the beekeeping industry. More detailed information on the PR can be obtained at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ The comment period ends Jan 22, 2001. In addition to anything you may have to say to the EPA, you should inform your Congressperson or nothing will change. Note: Tom did not give the exact address of the web page for the document at issue. It is as follows: www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2000/November/Day-22/p29815.htm <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> HOW TO MAKE A "PUBLIC COMMENT" To comment via e-mail: 1) Send your comments to opp-docket@epa.gov 2) Put "OPP-00684" in the subject line, to make it easy for federal clerks to route your comment correctly. 3) They can handle plain text or Wordperfect 6.1 format. (When in doubt, plain text in the body of the e-mail works best. Attachments can be a pain.) 4) Recall that your comments will likely be used to evaluate your credibility, so don't get too wild. To comment via postal mail, use the following address: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20460. ...and the same considerations listed in (2) through (4) above apply. <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> THE EPA QUESTIONS, ASKED IN THE TEXT OF THEIR REQUEST FOR COMMENTS Even though the entire subject of weakening the "label law" is an issue in itself, one may wish to address the questions asked by the EPA. Here they are, quoted from the "draft notice": Commenters are free to raise any issue, but the following questions are of particular interest to the Agency, and comments on them are invited. 1. Should the precautionary labeling language in the new policy allow for an exception from bee precautions for wide-area public health spray programs? In a number of communications to the Agency, officials involved in public health programs have noted that strict interpretation of the current bee precautionary labeling could prevent effective wide-area pest control in an emergency situation. The Agency's proposed new labeling language could also be very restrictive of wide-area spraying, for example, if a state had no bee protection program, or could not operate the program during an emergency. The suggestion has been made that the label language include a clause to the effect that precautions apply ``...except when applications are made to prevent or control a declared public health threat.'' The Agency requests comment on whether such an exception on the label is necessary or appropriate, and if it is appropriate, what authority could invoke the exception. Should an exception be applicable to treatments intended to prevent possible disease outbreaks, or limited to significant emergencies like the aftermath of flooding or a proven outbreak of human or animal disease? 2. Should the new policy described in the PR Notice allow a 24 hour period of toxicity statement on labels in the absence of data as a permanent option, or only temporarily until registrants submit residual toxicity data? 3. From the commenter's perspective as a pesticide user, beekeeper, state regulator, or other interested party, would a specific time period of toxicity to bees on the label be more or less useful than the current policy which includes a label prohibition on applications while bees are visiting the treatment area? 4. Is the label condition that pesticides can be applied if the user participates in a state bee protection program likely to encourage bee-protection efforts? From the commenter's perspective, is such a condition more or less useful in achieving bee protection that the current label prohibition against application when bees are visiting the treatment area? The EPA also has suggestions for how to address these questions, as follows: What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide. 5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. 6. Offer alternative ways to improve the notice or collection activity. 7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice. 8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket control number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation. <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> THE COMPLETE TEXT OF THE NOTICE [Federal Register: November 22, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 226)] [Notices] [Page 70350-70352] >From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr22no00-61] ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [OPP-00684; FRL-6750-9] Pesticides; Draft Guidance for Pesticide Registrants on Bee Precautionary Labeling AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: The Agency seeks public comment on a draft Pesticide Registration (PR) Notice entitled ``Guidance for Pesticide Registrants on Bee Precautionary Labeling.'' This draft notice provides guidance to registrants and others concerning EPA's policy on bee labeling statements for pesticide products which are toxic to bees, such as honey bees, alfalfa leaf-cutting bees, alkali bees, and other native and non-indigenous pollinating insects that are important to crop production. The purpose of the proposed label changes is to help ensure that pesticide products used outdoors can be used without posing unnecessary risks of bee mortality. EPA believes that these revisions will make the labeling clearer and more easily understood by pesticide users and by regulatory officials who enforce label provisions. DATES: Comments, identified by docket control number OPP-00684, must be received on or before January 22, 2001. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as provided in Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number OPP-00684 in the subject line on the first page of your response. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Roelofs (7506C), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 308-2964; fax number: (703) 308-1850; e-mail address: roelofs.jim@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to pesticide registrants, pesticide regulatory officials, beekeepers, pesticide users and to the public in general. Although this action may be of particular interest to those persons who have a specific interest in precautionary labeling to protect bees, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the information in this notice, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. B. How Can I Get Additional Information, Including Copies of this Document and Other Related Documents? 1. Electronically. You may obtain electronic copies of this document and the PR Notice from the Office of Pesticide Programs' Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/. You can also go directly to the listings from the EPA Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/. To access this document, on the Home Page select ``Laws and Regulations'' ``Regulations and Proposed Rules,'' and then look up the entry for this document under the ``Federal Register-- Environmental Documents.'' You can also go directly to the Federal Register listings at http:// www.access.gpo.gov/sup--docs/. 2. Fax on demand. You may request a faxed copy of the draft PR Notice entitled ``Bee Precautionary Labeling Statements,'' by using a faxphone to call (202) 401-0527 and selecting item PR 2000-6133. You may also follow the automated menu. 3. In person. The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket control number OPP-00684. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received during an applicable comment period, and other information related to this action, including any information claimed as confidential business information (CBI). This official record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well [[Page 70351]] as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official record does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period, is available for inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805. C. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments? You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number OPP-00684 in the subject line on the first page of your response. 1. By mail. Submit your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460. 2. In person or by courier. Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. The PIRIB is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805. 3. Electronically. You may submit your comments electronically by E-mail to: ``opp-docket@epa.gov,'' or you can submit a computer disk as described above. Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Electronic submissions will be accepted in Wordperfect 6.1, Suite 8, or ASCII file format. All comments in electronic form must be identified by docket control number OPP-00684. Electronic comments may also be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries. D. How Should I Handle CBI That I Want to Submit to the Agency? Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. You may claim information that you submit to EPA in response to this document as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public version of the official record. Information not marked confidential will be included in the public version of the official record without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide. 5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. 6. Offer alternative ways to improve the notice or collection activity. 7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice. 8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket control number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation. II. Background To help determine whether pesticide products used outdoors pose risks of bee mortality, the Agency generally requires acute toxicity data on bees to be submitted with a registration application. See e.g., 40 CFR 158.590(a). Depending on the results of the acute study, EPA may require additional residual toxicity data. EPA pesticide labeling regulations require that ``...pesticides toxic to pollinating insects must bear appropriate label cautions.'' 40 CFR 156.10(h)(2)(ii)(E). In the 1980s, the Agency published a policy which described a set of standard bee precautionary labeling statements it believed appropriate where results from the bee data indicated toxicity. The most recent version of this policy is found in the 1996 Label Review Manual (USEPA, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Label Review Manual, 2nd Ed. (EPA 737-B-96-001) December, 1996). Under the 1980s policy, where a product displayed extended residual toxicity to bees, the label language EPA believed to be appropriate for precautionary purposes stated: ``This product is highly toxic to bees exposed to direct treatment or residues on blooming crops or weeds. Do not apply this product or allow it to drift to blooming crops or weeds if bees are visiting the treatment area.'' Controversy has continued for many years among beekeepers, growers, commercial applicators and State regulators about the adequacy of these statements. For example, many beekeepers believe that the labeling statements are not adequately protective, while many growers believe that the labeling statements are overly restrictive and prevent them from managing pests adequately during the bloom period. State regulators believe that the labeling statements need to be clarified regarding the obligations of applicators with respect to bees. III. Summary of the Draft PR Notice A. What Guidance Does the PR Notice Provide? The PR Notice states EPA's proposed new policy regarding appropriate standard label language to protect bees. This new language would include a specific statement about the length of time in hours or days that the residues of the pesticide product remain a toxic threat to bees. This new proposed labeling statement is based on a study of residual toxicity to bees for a specific product submitted to the Agency, or, in the absence of such a study, it states a default period of toxicity of 24 hours. The proposed label language provides two conditions under which pesticide application would be allowed without limitation to the label-stated period of toxic hazard to bees. The first of these conditions is if the pesticide application method is such that bees will not be exposed even if they are visiting the crop. An example of such a method would be soil incorporation, which would not produce pesticide residues on the foliage, blooms or nectar producing parts of plants, so that bees would not be exposed. The other condition under which use is allowed during the period of toxicity to bees, is when the user actively participates in and meets all the applicable [[Page 70352]] requirements of a state-approved bee protection program. The Agency believes that label precautions should be supplemented by additional efforts to protect bees, and that state programs are appropriate to this purpose. EPA does not intend to set specific criteria or approve state bee protection programs. The PR Notice recommends that state pesticide regulatory agencies consider a variety of regulatory and non-regulatory measures to include in bee-protection efforts. EPA believes that state agencies are in the best position to understand the localized crop-pesticide combinations and other factors that pose the greatest risks to bees, and can implement appropriate measures to mitigate those risks under varying local and geographic conditions. B. What Questions/Issues Should You Consider? Commenters are free to raise any issue, but the following questions are of particular interest to the Agency, and comments on them are invited. 1. Should the precautionary labeling language in the new policy allow for an exception from bee precautions for wide-area public health spray programs? In a number of communications to the Agency, officials involved in public health programs have noted that strict interpretation of the current bee precautionary labeling could prevent effective wide-area pest control in an emergency situation. The Agency's proposed new labeling language could also be very restrictive of wide-area spraying, for example, if a state had no bee protection program, or could not operate the program during an emergency. The suggestion has been made that the label language include a clause to the effect that precautions apply ``...except when applications are made to prevent or control a declared public health threat.'' The Agency requests comment on whether such an exception on the label is necessary or appropriate, and if it is appropriate, what authority could invoke the exception. Should an exception be applicable to treatments intended to prevent possible disease outbreaks, or limited to significant emergencies like the aftermath of flooding or a proven outbreak of human or animal disease? 2. Should the new policy described in the PR Notice allow a 24 hour period of toxicity statement on labels in the absence of data as a permanent option, or only temporarily until registrants submit residual toxicity data? 3. From the commenter's perspective as a pesticide user, bee keeper, state regulator, or other interested party, would a specific time period of toxicity to bees on the label be more or less useful than the current policy which includes a label prohibition on applications while bees are visiting the treatment area? 4. Is the label condition that pesticides can be applied if the user participates in a state bee protection program likely to encourage bee-protection efforts? From the commenter's perspective, is such a condition more or less useful in achieving bee protection that the current label prohibition against application when bees are visiting the treatment area? C. What is the Scope of this PR Notice? The draft PR Notice discussed in this notice is intended to provide guidance to pesticide registrants, EPA personnel, state regulatory personnel, and to the public. As a guidance document, this policy is not binding on either EPA or any outside parties, and EPA may depart from the guidance where circumstances warrant and without prior notice. Registrants and applicants may propose alternatives to the recommended labeling statements described in the Notice and the Agency will assess them for appropriateness on a case-by-case basis. If a product does not meet the requirements of 40 CFR Part 156, the Agency may find the product to be misbranded. As stated above, the Agency believes that the statements outlined in the Notice should reduce the potential for adverse effects to the environment and are ``appropriate'' within the meaning of 40 CFR 156.10(h)(2)(ii)(E). EPA will make available revised guidance after consideration of public comment. Public comment is not being solicited for the purpose of converting this guidance document into a binding rule. EPA will not be codifying this policy in the Code of Federal Regulations. EPA is soliciting public comment so that it can make fully informed decisions regarding the content of this guidance. The revised guidance will not be an unalterable document. Once a revised guidance document is issued, EPA will continue to treat it as guidance. Accordingly, on a case-by-case basis EPA will decide whether it is appropriate to depart from the guidance or to modify the overall approach in the guidance. List of Subjects Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests. Dated: November 9, 2000. Marcia Mulkey, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs [FR Doc. 00-29815 Filed 11-21-00; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 18:07:15 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Aaron Morris Subject: Re: GM Discussions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Again the topic of GM has come up, and quickly gone afar from beekeeping. To me, the discussion of the pros and cons of genetically modified organisms strays far from "The Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology". What started the discussion on BEE-L was the article from Joe Rowland regarding a possible link between GM crops and AFB causing bacteria that is resistant to oxytetracycline. I know Joe, not well, but am getting to know him better through a mutual involvement with the Empire State Honey Producers Association (Joe is Secretary/Treasurer, I am newsletter editor). By Joe's own admission, any link between GM crops and TM resistant bacteria is PURE SPECULATION. He has no smoking gun. He sees a possible link and as a commercial beekeeper, he feels the possible link bears investigation. Joe presented his concerns at the ESHPA fall meeting last November, resulting in the adoption of the following two resolutions: Resolution: Tetracycline-resistant genes in GM crops Whereas, Tetracycline resistant American Foulbrood (AFB) has been detected recently in the United States, Canada and Argentina; and Whereas, Some genetically modified (GM) crops contain tetracycline resistant genes, and GM crops were cultivated in the US, Canada and Argentina in the period during which tetracycline resistant AFB developed; and Whereas, European research has indicated that horizontal gene transfer from GM canola to bacteria within the intestines of honeybees does occur; therefore be it RESOLVED, that ESHPA requests that the FDA conducts research to determine if horizontal gene transfer has occurred between GM crops and AFB. Resolution: Proteinase inhibitors in GM crops Whereas, The US beekeeping industry is an important contributor to the US agricultural economy; and Whereas, Some European research has indicated that proteinse inhibitors found in some genetically modified (GM) crops may have deleterious effects on the lifespan and learning/olfactory capabilities of adult honeybees; and Whereas, Such effects could cause problems in colony organization and foraging/pollination efficiency; therefore be it RESOLVED, that ESHPA requests that USDA examines more closely the relationship between proteinase inhibitors in GM crops and honeybees. Please note that these resolutions do not say GM HAS CAUSED TM RESISTANCE! Nowhere do they say that. Nowhere has Joe said that. Speculation! I'll say it again, Speculation! I'll shout it this time, "SPECULATION!" Personally I feel it's healthy speculation, resulting in resolutions that call for investigation. Speculation? Investigation! Say it again with me, Speculation? Investigation! One more time, make it our weekend mantra! Speculation? Investigation! Joe speculates there's a link between TM resistance cropping up in different parts of the world and GMOs. Allen speculates the GMO link is hogwash and can more simply be explained as contaminated honey from Argentina carelessly discarded in Montana and Alberta. I speculate that aliens landed their flying saucer in Buenos Aries, it was during carnival so everybody thought the aliens had radical costumes! The aliens picked up some of that cheap Argentine honey (they give it away free down there y'know!) and took off to Montana, where they threw away the half empty jar, no, it was half full, I'm optimistic! So the TM resistance in Montana was caused by GMO induced TM resistance transferred from Argentina, but then the aliens stopped to visit Allen Dick (who is really an alien too), and when they flew off to return to their home planet, their reactor leaked some radioactive anti-matter which caused AFB causing bacteria to mutate and become resistant to oxytet too. So the TM resistance in Alberta is caused by radioactive mutations! This ain't speculation, it's the truth. Hell, it's published here on BEE-L so damn, it must be gospel! Speculation? Investigation! Do some DNA sampling on resistant bacteria in Canada. Do some DNA sampling on resistant bacteria in Montana. Do some DNA sampling on resistant bacteria in Argentina. Compare the results. What will we find out? Until then, use BEE-L for "The Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology". Don't use it to assassinate characters, don't use it to shout down someone with whom you don't agree, don't use it to turn speculation into gospel truth, unless it'll keep those damned aliens back on Mars where they belong! Aaron Morris - thinking BEE-L is being abused! ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 15:39:09 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Sullivan, Michael" Subject: Removing bees from wall MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hi, I keep my bees at a neighbor's house and he recently discovered bees living in the wall. They are coming out of a small hole under a second story window. In order to ensure that I can continue to keep my hives in his yard, I am going to try to get them out using a screen cone and a bait hive. I read many of the posts on BEE-L and I have a few more questions. 1. When is the best time to attempt this? The hives are in California, so the bees will fly all winter. Should I try it now when the population is low or wait until spring when nectar is available? I assume I will have a better chance of getting a queen for the bait hive in spring. 2. How long should I wait to get a queen? Should I have one as soon as the bees start to enter the bait hive or should I let them live in the hive for a while before introducing a queen. Thanks for any answers. Michael Sullivan ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 16:47:47 -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: Cotton Honey Granulation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Allen Dick wrote: > > They sold honey in waxed paper blocks, advertising that this proved > > the purity of their product, since adulterated honey would not > > crystallize. > > I do not recommend placing any doubt in the consumers mind about honey purity. I mention the purity angle in the historical context of a time when food adulteration was quite common. For example, milk producers would not now advertise their milk as being formaldehyde-free, but as I understand it, that method of preservation was used up till the Pure Food and Drug Act in the 1920s, to prolong "freshness" in milk. But on the other hand, maybe this (crystallization marketing) would be a viable way to combat the "honey-blend" products I have seen mentioned. The "organic" honey marketers have never had a problem with pointing out the evils of heating, straining, and mixing (Jack's Raw, Wild, Unfiltered Honey is one we get locally here). BTW, the early honey-sellers who mixed in water or syrups prob. never had the nerve to market it as a "blend". - Asif I have to say, views are my own - John (support yer local beelab) Edwards, Tucson, Arizona ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 18:50:49 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: GImasterBK@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Honey Storage MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Jay, unfortunately there are "no rules of thumb" because of the variability of exactly those things that you mentioned: temperature, storage time, type of honey. Regarding temperature, it is VERY WELL KNOWN that the BEST temperature to encourage crystallization is 57°F, so a cool basement is a horrible place. The seed crystals are microscopic to the human eye, and they can be reduced by heating the honey for as short a period of time as possible to 150°F and straining the honey through a filter type used in a chemistry lab. This is the procedure used by the honey packers to prolong the shelf life of the honey, but there is a penalty to be paid for subjecting the honey to this treatment. Some of the natural honey flavor is destroyed, some of the natural yeasts are destroyed, and the color is darkened. Storage time is also temperature dependent. Honey kept at 0° to 10° has a very long storage time, and honey kept at 80° does not quickly crystallize, but above 80°, you are getting into that area of yeast loss. The TYPE of honey is the dominant factor in honey crystallization. Honey is a combination of several different sugars, but the overwhelming two predominant sugars are glucose and fructose. These two sugars vary in percentage of the total based on what floral source the bees collected nectar from to make the honey.¨ In their natural surroundings, glucose is a solid at room temperatures, whereas fructose is a liquid at room temperatures. Hence, if a honey has a high percentage of glucose and a low percentage of fructose, these honeys are going to crystallize rapidly depending on the variation of percentage difference. In the U. S. some of the prominent honeys that are known to crystallize within a few months are alfalfa, cotton, goldenrod and rape (canola). In contrast, honeys that are high on fructose and hence are slow to crystallize are yellow clover, gallberry, locust, sage, and tupelo. Honey is sooo good, soooo natural, and soooo useful in cooking, it is hard for me to figure why anybody wants to "keep it around" very long. I hope that I have helped. George Imirie starting my 69th year of beekeeping in Maryland ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 21:31:25 -0600 Reply-To: busybeeacres@DISCOVERYNET.COM Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob and Elizabeth Harrison Subject: Re: Removing bees from wall MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Michael & all, Sullivan, Michael wrote: I am going to try to get them out using a screen cone and a bait hive. I read many of the posts on BEE-L and I have a few more questions. 1. When is the best time to attempt this? The hives are in California, so the bees will fly all winter. Should I try it now when the population is low or wait until spring when nectar is available? In my opinion when there is no nectar flow is best and for the duration of trying to remove the bees. 2. How long should I wait to get a queen? Should I have one as soon as the bees start to enter the bait hive or should I let them live in the hive for a while before introducing a queen. I don't know what posts you read or what has been written but seems to me question 2 is not the way I would do the procedure. In a earlier post I posted a address you could order a video which shows me removing a swarm from a tree with a funnel and a hive. I will post my way but keep in mind the procedure can take one to several weeks. 1. block all exits the bees are using from the house but one. 2. put a screen funnel on the entrance (large base of about six inch and small exit about the size a single bee could squeeze thru or about 5/16.) Struggle to get out works best. 3. Have a strong hive with queen within 3 feet of the funnel. This is the part you might not like working on the second floor. Even your best beekeeping buddy might seem reluctant to help. You might get the procedure to work with a single story weak hive but would take longer for the robbing to occur. 4. as the bees leave the building thru the funnel they can't find their way back in and join the hive outside( not allways sometimes they cluster on the funnel). If they cluster on the outside of the funnel move the outside hive closer. 5. The population grows outside and then dwindles in the building swarm(way its supposed to work) 6.when you are sure almost all the bees are out of the building swarm you remove the funnel and let the strong hive rob the building swarm of its honey ( sometimes a flow will start and they will forget robbing). Would I use the above in your case. No! I would remove a board and remove the bees comb and all(one comb at a time) and put in a hive. I did a step by step post on bee removal a few months back. No honey running out the wall this summer in case the bees don't rob out the building swarm. Our video shows many building removal jobs and several from second floors. I only use the funnel and hive when removing swarms from trees. The last was a tree in a cemetery. The funnel system worked but I have had failures. The video tape is a hour long and is the only video of its type I have ever seen. Email me direct to order. Many will post about what they have seen done in a book or a magazine. I have done both of the above and know what I am talking about. People pay to get bees removed from buildings and in most cases they should (probabbly not in your case). Very few people remove bees from buildings. My fellow beekeepers and I do and charge according to the amount of work involved. If you live around a large town or city *bee removal* might be of interest. The Midwestern Beekeepers Assn. contracted a professional to do the video. The video is available directly from him and neither I or Midwestern gets a Penny. I will email any interested beekeepers his business address and you can contact him directly. Hope I have helped. Sincerely, Bob Harrison Odessa,Missouri ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 19:17:51 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: Cotton Honey Granulation In-Reply-To: <200101060017.TAA21030@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > The "organic" honey marketers have never had a problem with pointing > out the evils of heating, straining, and mixing (Jack's Raw, Wild, Unfiltered > Honey is one we get locally here). There is nothing wrong with this advertising as long as it is positive. The problem arises when the seller tries to explain why anyone would want to forgo that processing without trashing everyone else. After all, heat and straining add expense. If it is not beneficial why would anyone do it? The answer: not everyone needs the benefits of commercial packing and distribution if a local beekeeper can keep their honey pail full. There are benefits from heating and filtering honey, and the heated, filtered product has its place, and that is mass distribution. For one thing -- as I described in detail on BEE-L one time -- most packers cannot get the honey out of the drum and into jars without heat. Once in jars, it will not reliably stay liquid unless without application of heat at time of bottling. Without heat used to pasteurize and kill yeasts, fermentation is a concern. Glass grenades on store shelves are not a good thing. FWIW, we always sold unfiltered, unpasteurized honey and had quite a nationwide business at one time. Much more background can be found at http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?S2=bee-l&q=raw&s=&f=allend@internode. net&a=&b=20+april+1998 These are my posts, but as always, dissenting views are 'only a click away' (apologies to The Stones). Sorry about the word wrap. allen ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 13:49:02 +1300 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Robert Mann Subject: Re: resistance to tetracycline Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Mr J Rowland, obviously an important beekeeper of NY, suggested last October that a tetracycline-resistance gene may have been inserted into GM crops in the course of their 'engineering'. The idea thus arose that resistance to tetracycline might have passed from such crops to _Bacillus larvae_, the primary pathogen in AFB. I did not state this, nor did I have any opinion one way or the other. I was unaware until a couple days ago that the Rowland letter had already been on Bee-L; when I learned that it had, I was fully content that it not be re-posted here. I have now been able to enlist the help of an actual expert gene-tamperer - which I am not - to look into this question. Here is the response: >I did not find any scientific literature mentioning tetracycline and field >released Roundup-ready crops. >But I did find one patent and >several references to laboratory experiments that use Tetracycline >resistance as the marker. >Verifying that any commercial GM corn or soybeans >had this gene has not been possible with the brief search I conducted. > >Thus I found nothing to prove that Tetracycline has been used in the major > released GMOs. > >http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html > >United States Patent 5,731,179 >Komari , et al. March 24, 1998 This is the most reliable evidence we are likely to get soon on this question. It is worth remarking that patents are routinely granted for ideas that the patent office believes would not work if tried in practice. (It has to be a blatant breach of scientific law, e.g. perpetual motion machines, to get rejected on grounds of infeasibility.) Most folk are surprised when they learn of this, but the reasons are not hard to see. It is impractical for the Pat Ossif to get involved in actual testing. I therefore believe: A tetracycline-resistance gene has not been used in the 'engineering' of current GM crops, and therefore there is no reason to think that any such crops have contributed to increase of tetracycline resistance in AFB. This topic has been instructive - in some useful and some fruitless, needlessly unpleasant, ways. 1 Existence of a patent does not prove the idea is feasible let alone that it has been implemented. (The 'terminator' patent envisaging sterile seed is perhaps the most important example - I have studied that patent and I don't believe it will ever work commercially, and it certainly has not been put into commercial effect.) 2 It was fair enough for Mr Rowland to raise the question. It is also fair enough to quote him; those who do should not be accused of having thereby made any assertion themselves. I had never heard of the idea that tetracycline-resistance had yet been deployed in any commercial GM crop, and it is mischievous to accuse me of having said so. 3 Beekeepers are not going to be able to avoid discussion of GM. It is going to impinge on us time & time again, whether we like it nor not. The inherent complexity of the subject, and the dominant role of PR agents in generating rumours & falsehoods on the subject, make it especially important to be very careful about who said what on it. R - Robt Mann consultant ecologist P O Box 28878 Remuera, Auckland 1005, New Zealand (9) 524 2949 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 09:00:49 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Richard Spiekhout Subject: Re: liquifying granulated honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm a new bee haver. about 3 years now. I have not yet had any honey to granulate. Source of honey, method or temp of storage, I don't know. I do know that I want some honey that I definitely will granulate in a relatively short time. You see, I have become addicted to honey in my coffee every morning and use 5 to 6 tbsps a day. If I could let some honey granulate in something like an ice cube tray, could I not have honey cubes that would melt in my coffee? Richard looking for an easier way ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 09:12:51 EST 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: Removing bees from wall MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/5/01 7:18:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, michael.sullivan@TRADIANT.COM writes: << I am going to try to get them out using a screen cone and a bait hive. I read many of the posts on BEE-L and I have a few more questions. >> The procedure gets rid of the bees for the owner, and you can then let them rob out the wall cavity, which gets rid of his more serious problem of honey in the wall. But the worker bees you gather are of little value to you, so your pricing should reflect the fact that you are primarily providing a service to him. If you want something of value, you need to get the queen. Any feral bees that are surviving and healthy without varroa treatment, could possible harbor some genetic resistance to varroa (I haven't found any yet, but the potential is there) and that could make the queen quite valuable. The cone method wastes that resource. Better to open the colony and physically remove it. Of course you have to do that safely, and you have to assess that situation yourself. Here's a slide show of transferring wild bees and their brood comb into a hive. The wild comb was simply placed above an excluder and the queen put below: http://pollinator.com/wildhive/index.htm I would not attempt this until you have a nectar flow. It will be more sloppy for you to do, but the bees will handle the transfer stress better. Lacking a flow, I'd be sure to be generous with syrup, but it's definitely second best. Dave Green The Pollination Home Page: http://pollinator.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 09:23:52 -0600 Reply-To: busybeeacres@DISCOVERYNET.COM Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob and Elizabeth Harrison Subject: Re: Removing bees from wall MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit David L. Green wrote: If you want something of value, you need to get the queen. Any feral bees that are surviving and healthy without varroa treatment, could possible harbor some genetic resistance to varroa (I haven't found any yet, but the potential is there) and that could make the queen quite valuable. Actually Dave the above is the reason I took the bees out of the building wall last spring. They had been in the building wall four to five years untreated the owner said. I STILL charged for the removal. She would have paid twice what I asked and was pleased with the removal. I put the bees in a hive and rubber banded the brood comb in place. Everything I did is in the Bee-L archives. They were still alive going into winter but still a very small swarm and had gathered zero honey for winter. All my other survivors have died over the past few years in Missouri winter so I put the swarm on a deep box of sealed honey to winter last September. Not Dee Lusbys method of doing things but like you I feel they show some tolerance to varroa and I felt bad about not treating the swarm with a cure for their problems. I might add to the post I did that the removal of bees from a building involves the use of a bee vac to be done correctly. We ALLWAYS use a bee vac. Start with the bees on the honey comb first and then remove the honey comb and put in a container and cover to preven robbing. When you get down to the brood comb start at the outside of the nest and take a comb at a time and look for the queen then place the brood comb with bees in cool weather in a container or as we usually do in warm/hot weather vacum the bees off the brood comb also. You are saving the bees with the bee vac BUT many bees will die in hot weather if the bees are not removed in a proper amount of time from the bee vac or the vac is not large enough to hold the swarm. When you find the queen cage her. Once you find her the process moves much faster. Those are a rough draft of the process. Sincerely, Bob Harrison Odessa,Missouri ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 14:29:16 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: GImasterBK@AOL.COM Subject: Re: resistance to tetracycline MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Speaking for myself, I am SICK of hearing anything about the GM crop and/or the possible relationship to resistant diseases. These subjects are best handled by the paid professional bee scientists and researchers rather than beekeepers. I prefer the Bee-L to stay with its original purpose: "an informed discussion of beekeeping". I have never found a dictionary that states that "speculation" is a synonym for "informed". Let the REAL beeKEEPERS teach and train the myriad number of beeHAVERS that are "out there" often badly confused. George Imirie ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 08:53:17 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: Removing bees from wall In-Reply-To: <200101061440.JAA12092@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > ...Better to open the colony and physically remove > it. Of course you have to do that safely, and you have to assess that > situation yourself ...The wild comb was simply placed above an > excluder Barry has plans for a special frame for handling the combs you cut out at http://www.beesource.com/plans/swarmframe.htm . I have never used it, but having tried the other methods (string, elastic bands), this looks good. Anyone looking for equipment plans should be sure to visit his site. allen ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 04:40:53 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: dan hendricks Subject: Re: RSemoving bees from wall MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii David Green said it but Allen Dick sounded like he didn't understand David exactly. I have dcne this several times and it works just fine. Start with a box of foundation (my choice) or drawn frames. Top with a queen excluder. Add an empty deep. Remove the natural comb from the wall in pieces as large as you can handle. (Of course, they are soft. A rectangle of 1/2" hardware cloth is a useful tool.) Place these pieces of comb in the top box, using the QE as a supporting rack. When (if?) you find the queen, put her below the QE, preferably in a cage for a couple of days. In three weeks all the brood will have hatched and the wall comb can be placed outside for the bees to complete robbing. By then the colony in the lower box is going great guns. Dan __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online! http://photos.yahoo.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 08:54:05 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Midnitebee Subject: PinK Pages January 2001 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Greetings! The January 2001 Pink Pages are now available for viewing: http://www.cybertours.com/~midnitebee/contentpages/articles.html Herb/Norma Bee Holly-B Apiary PO Box 26 Wells,Maine 04090-0026 "an educated consumer is YOUR best customer" The Beekeeper's Home on the Internet http://www.mainebee.com Stony Critters http://www.stonycritters.com =20 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 09:08:16 -0600 Reply-To: busybeeacres@DISCOVERYNET.COM Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob and Elizabeth Harrison Subject: Re: RSemoving bees from wall MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Dan & All, I agree with Dan and have done similar as Dan says with success and Dan's method is shown in the Midwestern video all but putting the queen below the excluder. dan hendricks wrote: Start with a box of foundation (my choice) or drawn frames. Top with a queen excluder. Add an empty deep. Remove the natural comb from the wall in pieces as large as you can handle. (Of course, they are soft. A rectangle of 1/2" hardware cloth is a useful tool.) Place these pieces of comb in the top box, using the QE as a supporting rack. You can do the above over any strong hive and I do if I can't find the queen or by the worn look of her I determine she is a very old queen. I also do if she is a strain I don't want. If the time of year is fall and I knew a hive wouldn't make it thru the winter then I would do the above without the queen. When (if?) you find the queen, put her below the QE, preferably in a cage for a couple of days. I don't like the idea if nights are cool of putting a queen excluder between a caged queen and bees trying to "maybe" keep sealed brood warm. I would put her above caged for awhile if cool nights as the bees might move away from her to to keep the brood warm above the excluder leave her stranded below the excluder. If warm nights I would try as Dan said. In three weeks all the brood will have hatched and the wall comb can be placed outside for the bees to complete robbing. Usually the comb is ready for the melter IF enough bees were brought from the building. I would not place the comb outside for robbing as the comb could contain foulbrood spores if from a feral colony and you have other hives in the area. What small amount of honey left is not worth the risk. Also if placed to close robbing could start if other hives are present and your little hive would be gone. KEEP THE ENTRANCE REDUCED IF IN THE AREA OF STRONG HIVES. Allways treat these building swarms as if they were infested mites and other diseases no matter what time of year it is. If the hive is in a area all by itself(hard to find in our area) then I suppose putting the comb outside but not close to the hive would work. By then the colony in the lower box is going great guns. Time of year is important to success. I personally I have not done the method by putting the caged queen under the excluder but believe the method would work in warm/hot weather. Sincerely, Bob Harrison __________________________________________________ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 11:57:32 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "- Clark Chase , Zodiac Farms" Subject: Re: resistance to tetracycline MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Congratulations, Gearge! I couldn't agree more strongly. Far too much pedantry. Clark Chase at Zodiac Farms ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 08:13:07 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: RSemoving bees from wall In-Reply-To: <200101071251.HAA26640@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > David Green said it but Allen Dick sounded like he > didn't understand David exactly. Sorry, maybe I should explain. I did understand Dave, but like the idea of saving and using some or all of the original comb. Even if a beekeeper is following Dave's advice, having a frame or two like the one I recommended along could save some beautiful comb should it turn out that the bees are on big flat combs. I actually would seldom use the method under discussion for several reasons, listed below. * Up here in the Great White North the bees may cluster at night. Moreover, we have a short season; after removing bees, there is not always a lot of time for the bees to set up a new brood nest before frost. * Around here, cut-out brood comb must be arranged in a compact configuration so that the bees can cover it and keep it warm. If they are trying to cover brood up top and also start new brood below, they may make a choice and leave one or the other. * Often the natural comb that the bees are on is very nice and flat. Simply trimming it to fit into a frame can salvage it. * Moreover when comb is full of brood, it can be hard to support. Much of it can be wasted if it is not supported in a way that the comb is not distorted and also in a way that ensures the new bees can emerge. * I also prefer to make up a normal hive in preference to having to return a time or two to tinker, so I suppose it is a matter of taste and locale. Having several options at hand can be nice. Placing combs into frames is a technique that has its place. It can be a frustrating job, though and Barry's design seems ideal. As a note of interest, I've visited Dave and gone to yards with him. We correspond from time-to-time and we are constantly amazed at how different beekeeping is in our two regions. And how it is the same. allen http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/diary/ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 13:42:47 -0500 Reply-To: Peter John Keating Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Peter John Keating Subject: Re: Honey Storage MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Greetings, if you look in that excellent book edited by Eva Crane "Honey" on page 286 it is stated that .... Honey samples stored for 5 weeks at 0oC, and then at 14oC, showed no granulation for 2 years, ...... I do freeze prepacked honey this way and most times it works.There will be times when it will granulate but it is(according to me) the delay in freezing that is the cause. Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jay Mowat" > I'm actually trying to keep a small amount of honey lquified for some good customers of mine. Does anyone have some rules of thumb? Temperature? Length of storage time? Does it matter what the type of honey is? ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 15:05:56 -0500 Reply-To: Peter Borst Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Comments: RFC822 error: DATE field duplicated. Last occurrence was retained. From: Peter Borst Subject: resistance to tetracycline quote from Allen Dick : ...that we must first disprove the most obvious explanation before moving on to 'create new gods'. I personally like this interpretation: "The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct." Yes. "Occam's razor" favors the simplest explanation: beekeepers have created resistant bacteria by dosing colonies with oxytetracyclene for 30 years. I have met beekeepers with thousands of colonies who put antibiotics in sirup and in patties which were left year 'round. Whether an individual beekeeper created a resistant strain of AFB and it spread -- or it is being generated simultaneously by many, is a moot point, once it becomes widespread. What to do about it is much more important. Peter Borst Ithaca NY USA ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 15:17:40 -0500 Reply-To: Peter Borst Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Comments: RFC822 error: DATE field duplicated. Last occurrence was retained. From: Peter Borst Subject: following the label Greetings We have received an eloquent plea for help in retaining strongly worded labels protecting honeybees on pesticides. I agree wholeheartedly with the need for adequate protection for honeybees from pesticide applications nearby. However, I have also tried to raise the topic of beekeepers going "off label". In the two years I have been working with beekeepers in New York State I have encountered a surprising disregard for labeling. Beekeepers routinely leave Apistan strips in the hive over the winter, claiming "better control". This may produce fewer mites in the spring but what few are left are sure to have some degree of ability to resist Apistan. Beekeepers are making their own strips with non-approved chemicals. I even met one beekeeper who still uses phenol (carbolic acid) to remove honey. This has been prohibited in the US for at least 25 years. I wonder if many still use sulfathiazole against AFB and even fumigate supers with bromide compounds (EDB). The point is, if we don't follow the labels, how can we expect decent labeling and compliance on the part of others? Furthermore, if we abuse chemicals and lose them either through resistance or outright bans, who is going to come to our aid? How many beekeepers have the resources to conduct large scale scientific testing of new substances and methods? Will you risk the concomitant heavy losses of bees, honey and equipment? I think there needs to be a concerted effort to persuade beekeepers that it is in their interest as well as the public's -- to stop going off label and to stop using banned chemicals. Peter Borst ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 13:20:11 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Re: resistance to tetracycline Comments: To: Peter Borst In-Reply-To: <200101072006.PAA01562@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Whether an individual beekeeper created a resistant strain of AFB and > it spread -- or it is being generated simultaneously by many, is a > moot point, once it becomes widespread. What to do about it is much > more important. It might seem that way, but knowing your enemy is always important, if you want to make an appropriate response and choose the correct weapons. In countries where the new variety of AFB is not yet appearing, I think it is of very great importance to know the cause. Mere speculation will not do, since some of the speculation is that one of our best weapons is the cause! If that speculation is wrong, then we will deprive ourselves of a good defence for no good reason. Also, in deciding what to do, knowing if it is a single mutation spreading out from one point or being generated repeatedly at different sites due to some new management technique or environmental factor is absolutely essential. allen ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 13:27:30 -0700 Reply-To: flightdeck1@earthlink.net Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Matthew W." Subject: Re: Removing bees from wall - & beevac plans MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Michael & BEE-L, Let me suggest there ARE feral bees alive in your area. Each summer bees are constantly being dusted by local pesiticide outfits. For my area(~Denver,CO) this past year has been the slowest in recent years with only 20-25 hives but feral bees ARE alive and I'd like to encourage other beekeepers to help save their potential genetic favor, if any. Removing bees can be profitable ($300+ for 2-4 hours work, +wax, +bees, +honey) and doesn't have to be messy or full of stings. On the average removal I get stung on average 4-5 times - some upwards of 30-40 but usually when I make a mistake or am too hurried. If you want to give a try at removing bees, call your local pesticide outfit. Most respectful outfits are happy to send the easy removals your way and do their part in saving helpful insects. Most bees taking residence within a home end up in a soffet since it is an uninsulated area usually with plenty of entrance cracks. Most soffets are easy to dismantle without harm to the house. To encourage other beekeepers to save more feral swarms and hives, Barry Birkey & I went to the trouble of placing plans for my beevac on his website: http://www.beesource.com/plans/beevac/index.htm Michael here are some answers to your questions: 1) Do the removal in spring (absolute!). Less trouble from robbers and the hive rebuilding process will be easiest for the bees. Removing and relocating is stressful on bees. Why make their survival chances harder? 2) If you really want to do your friend a favor REMOVE the entire hive if at all possible. The cone method, IF successful, will only remove the workers and honey leaving behind the queen and later a great attraction for another swarm to find entrance to. Most of the feral hives I remove are old hives killed by pesticide the season before. Let me suggest that your friends' description of bees unattended for five years is no gaurantee that hive has held the same bees for that amount of time. Unless he monitored bee-activity each spring, it is more likely that hive has been replaced by a new swarm at least once. There are lots of details on finding and removing bees and I welcome any e-mail from Michael or other beekeepers with particular bee removals in mind. A little information can make the job a whole lot easier. Matthew Westall // Earthling Bees >8(())))- "Take me to your feeder" \\ Castle Rock, CO, USA "Sullivan, Michael" wrote: > 1. When is the best time to attempt this? The hives are in California, so > 2. How long should I wait to get a queen? Should I have one as soon as the > ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 13:35:16 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: darn@FREENET.EDMONTON.AB.CA Subject: Re: resistance to tetracycline Comments: To: Peter Borst In-Reply-To: <200101072006.PAA01559@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Peter Borst wrote: > Yes. "Occam's razor" favors the simplest explanation: beekeepers have created resistant bacteria by dosing colonies with oxytetracyclene for 30 years. I think it possible that we have been saved from resistance because we have used the OTC in syrup solutions which are fairly ineffective. They would leave a large proportion of non-resistant spores which would outproduce the (presumably) less efficient organisms with the superfluous resistance mechanism. When we got the patties which keep the OTC effective for longer periods, the nonresistant organisms would be wiped out leaving only the resistant ones to reproduce. Best regards, Donald Aitken Edmonton Alberta Canada