From MAILER-DAEMON Sat Jun 17 06:53:32 2000 Received: from listserv.albany.edu (listserv.albany.edu [169.226.1.24]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA29417 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 06:53:30 -0400 (EDT) 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 GAA10482 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 06:53:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006171053.GAA10482@listserv.albany.edu> Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 06:53:13 -0400 From: "L-Soft list server at University at Albany (1.8d)" Subject: File: "BEE-L LOG0005C" To: adamf@METALAB.UNC.EDU Content-Length: 143358 Lines: 3092 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 10:46:01 +0200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: crpost Subject: Re: subterranean bees, AHB MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "David L. Green" wrote: > In a message dated 5/13/00 5:19:42 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > jjr22@DANA.UCC.NAU.EDU writes: > > > I heard from someone else that they too thought the Africanized were much > > less aggressive when the colony is small. Surely, this must have occurred > > to folks as a possible management tool (e.g., in Mexico, Brazil..?). > > It already has. One of the pickle company officials who frequently travels > to southern Mexico to help manage their large winter cucumber plantings, told > me that the bees they use were africanized, and the pollination is done with > nucs. I fail to understand the relevance. Efficient pollination is effected because of many factors within the hive. Size being one of them. Why should ahb nukes do the same pollination job as a strong colony of anything else? Or are we saying that we were wrong all this time and that ahb's do a better job than your locals instead of vice versa? I can see someone needing to do a bit of explaining in that event. Do cukes need LESS pollination? That is not what we are led to believe from the video. Anyway, why would you want smaller colonies of bees? How would their reduced aggression constitute a management tool? Do you need to manage small colonies? 1. Small colonies (hopefully) get big ... and very soon with ahb. 2. The bigger, surely the better as far as honey production etc. is concerned? Or are you really scared of litigation? Greetings from Cape Town Robert Post - thinking defensively! ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 10:46:32 +0200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: crpost Subject: Re: Bees on allotments MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >In Australia there are parks where Apiaries are set out as part of the > >recreational activities there. Apparently bee forage is planted all around. > j h & e mcadam wrote: I discovered the relevant article subsequently: Australasian Beekeeper January 1995! BEE GARDEN OPENS "Bee Gardens have a long tradition. Formerly the domain of the private beekeeper they are now also public and club property. North Shore Beekeeper's Association Bee Garden open. ... adjacent to the local golf course" One quote: "Needless to say a very high fence with fine mesh protects bees and workers from the odd stray ball." Robert Post ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 17:54:47 +1000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Paul Hooper Subject: European Wasp (Yellow Jacket) Defences MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit My small apiary (in Victoria, Australia) is suffering from the unwanted attention of a large number of wasps, known locally as European Wasps but elsewhere also as Yellow Jackets. In my search for solutions to this problem that threatens the viability of the apiary, I have come across a few words and one diagram in a book "Practical Beekeeping" by Chapman-Taylor and Davey about a New Zealand device called the "I.W. Forster wasp baffle". I would very much like to get some more detail on the actual construction of the baffle and on its concept of operation. Could anyone please help me with details of the baffle or point me in the direction of a source of such information. Advice on the effectiveness of the device would also be much appreciated. ________________________________ Paul Hooper Canberra, Australia . ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 10:19:11 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Lipscomb, Al" Subject: Re: subterranean bees, AHB MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain >I fail to understand the relevance. Efficient pollination is effected because of >many factors within the hive. Size being one of them. >Why should ahb nukes do the same pollination job as a strong colony of anything >else? I would think what they are getting at is that by having the same number of bees in smaller colonies the job is done with less defensive behavior. Where one hive would be used maybe four nucs would be substituted. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 11:16:40 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: BeeCrofter@AOL.COM Subject: Re: subterranean bees, AHB MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/15/00 10:43:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LipscombA@HSN.NET writes: > > I would think what they are getting at is that by having the same number of > bees in smaller colonies the job is done with less defensive behavior. Where > one hive would be used maybe four nucs would be substituted. > We all know small colonies are easier to handle. The Mexicans are using what they have without getting beat up by large colonies. Everybody said that AHB would change the way we keep bees and there is an example. One of my buddies from the Islands wears an onion sack over a panama hat when he gets a swarm. He lets em make a crop and harvests everything wax included and lets the bees die. Next year if he gets a swarm he gets another crop. I don't think he owns a hive tool let alone a smoker. I don't think he views it as a hobby or a business just something free you can get some honey and wax from. When I asked him about a mean swarm he smiled and laughed and said well you get stung more. No apistan no check mite no formic no menthol no nothing. He gets to keep bees like our grandfathers did. I kind of envy him. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 11:30:08 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "David L. Green" Subject: Nucs for pollination (was: Re: subterranean bees, AHB) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/15/00 7:43:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time, LipscombA@HSN.NET writes: > >Why should ahb nukes do the same pollination job as a strong colony of > anything > >else? > > I would think what they are getting at is that by having the same number of > bees in smaller colonies the job is done with less defensive behavior. Where > one hive would be used maybe four nucs would be substituted. Yes nucs are not the same, as Al points out; you have to use more of them. And probably four nucs are not even going to be equivalent to one full strength colony, at least with the bees we are used to in the US. But, if the field workers are getting stung, you are not going to get much pollination, either. They will throw gasoline on them and touch them off. The pickers will tolerate a sting now and then, but they will not tolerate really nasty hives. We have vestigages of the old german bee around here; it can be a nasty bee. If I let these go out for pollination, I can guarantee I'll lose some hives. The downside of keeping gentle bees on pollination is that the pickers like to steal frames of honey (or even whole supers). This can lead to starving bees on vine crops where they won't make additional honey. Also they are not too careful about nailing back the covers, so they can get soaked in a thunderstorm. I put a warning on the hives, in English and Spanish, that the hives for pollination only; they are treated with pesticides (true) and that the honey cannot be eaten. I think this helps some. Dave Green http://pollinator.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 15:25:24 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: tomas mozer Subject: Re: malathion spraying Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit from: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000511/ts/environment_malathion_1.html Thursday May 11 10:17 AM ET EPA Finds Malathion a Suspected Carcinogen WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency scientists have determined that malathion, a pesticide widely used to fight mosquitos, may cause cancer, an EPA source said on Thursday. The agency was expected to make an announcement later on Thursday finding malathion a suspected carcinogen. ``The EPA scientists' risk assessment finds that malathion is a suspected carcinogen. The risks are fairly small but acceptable compared to other substances,'' the agency source said, speaking on condition of anonymity. New York City used malathion late last summer to spray neighborhoods and kill mosquitos carrying the deadly West Nile Virus. The disease, which can cause brain-swelling and diseases such as meningitis, was blamed for seven U.S. deaths and 60 infections. Last month, city officials said they would spray insecticides only as a last resort this summer, and omitted malathion from the list of potential chemicals to be used. ``We were told it was safe in emphatic language by state authorities, the federal authorities,'' New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani told reporters on Wednesday. ``Of course we wouldn't have used it if we had been told anything different.'' The EPA source said the announcement would be part of the agency's risk assessment of malathion, and would not have any immediate impact on the sale or distribution of malathion. ``This is not any kind of rulemaking or regulatory action. This is just putting the science together,'' he added. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 17:28:13 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: tomas mozer Subject: Re: 180% increase in bee complaints in S. CA Comments: cc: JMitc1014@AOL.COM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit somewhat (not much) better bee pr from: http://www.phillynews.com:80/daily_news/2000/May/15/local/BEES15.htm Bees swarm South Philly street by Regina Medina Daily News Staff Writer The Queen Bee of Mercy Street celebrated Mother's Day in dramatic style yesterday. Her Highness led a honey bee swarm, described by one witness as "a big cloud," down the South Philadelphia street, leaving many residents bee-wildered and trapped in their rowhouses. "It looked like a big cloud in the middle of the street," said Pete Torriero, 23. "It was weird. Never seen anything like that before. Except on TV." By day's end, some 20,000 to 30,000 bees lay dead on Mercy Street near 11th - the victims of insect spray and hastily thrown water. An additional 10,000 to 12,000 bees were retrieved from a hive in the block's only tree by professional bee remover Tony Buzas, using a vacuum system. Buzas, owner of Anthony M. Buzas Apiculturist, said the South Philly bees will be released at an orchard in Northampton Township, Bucks County. And that transfer is just fine for street residents. In the early evening, some residents were seen sweeping up the remaining dead bees from the narrow street and the sidewalks. Others sat on stoops, discussing the day's bizarre events. The incident began about 10 a.m. when some neighbors noticed the swarm traveling east on Mercy. "My girlfriend [Lisa Costantino] called me up and said 'look out the window,'" said Chris Monzo, who later noticed the bees were attracted to the northern side of Mercy where there was sunlight. "I see this funnel cloud of bees spinning down the street. It stopped for a few minutes and then continued." Unfortunately for Carmela Marino, the bees stopped in front of her house. "It was terrible, I was petrified," said Marino. Florence Frontino, who lives directly across the street from Marino, said, "You would think it was actually snow. It looked like pollen falling off of trees." Marino made what she now refers to as "a boo-boo." She threw water at the bees, while others along the street sprayed them with insect spray. Buzas stressed to neighbors that the bees should be left alone when in a swarm. If not, they become disoriented and disperse. "Once the pesticide had been applied to the bees, they were flying around disjointed," he said. ©2000 Philadelphia Newspapers Inc. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 00:02:24 +0200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: crpost Subject: Re: Nucs for pollination - AHB MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I appreciate the replies. I am not knocking, just trying to get behind the logic. I am on record as stating that pollination service (as we call it here) consists of 60% communication and 40% of bio-technical issues such as horticulture, bee management, entomology and, off course, logistics. "David L. Green" wrote > And probably four nucs are not even going to be equivalent to one full > strength colony, at least with the bees we are used to in the US. Are you letting the grower decide about what he is getting / not getting? Or are you making the decision for him? > But, if the field workers are getting stung, you are not going to get much > pollination As far as I am concerned - and this has been corroborated often - stinging episodes with AHB's, also in Africa, are more often than not triggered by interference in the hives. Are your pickers trying to interfere with the pollination work done by the bees, by stealing honey and/or brood? So,? They get stung ...?! Disturbed bees are not going to do the pollination work they should be doing. Are you letting the grower know this? Are you setting his staff down and explaining this to them? We have learnt to do this and vandalism is down to a minimum. We also make the grower pay for vandalised hives over and above his pollination costs. On the other hand we explain to them that improved pollination means more money for the grower, because of better product, which in turn is more money in their packet at the end of the day and sustainable agriculture follows. Mark Winston has a lovely article on the yuppie pollinator: "More pollination income for everyone" in Bee Culture of April 1994. > They will throw gasoline on them and touch them off. Who pays? And why do this to another man's property? Because of jealousy of the fact that the grower and the beekeeper are progressive and successful? Is it our of hunger? > The pickers will tolerate a sting now and then, but they will not > tolerate really nasty hives. Not for them to say! The grower pays both the pickers and the pollination service provider. Only by good preparation can this problem be solved. Bees out of sight of the fields perhaps? They fly you know. > The downside of keeping gentle bees on pollination is that the pickers like to > steal frames of honey (or even whole supers). Point made! > This can lead to starving bees on vine crops where they won't make additional > honey. And NO pollination happens. SO, with BIG ahb colonies, your grower gets better pollination, because the pickers should not disturb them ... once they have been told the cost to THEMSELVES of improper pollination ... and of funerals. QED. Once again, I am aware of the fact that perhaps not all the factors that play a role here are open to me. I may be out of line in this simplistic evaluation of the question. We make a living out of providing a pollination service that strives for excellence and these issues are dear to us. Robert Post ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 19:21:07 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "David L. Green" Subject: Re: Nucs for pollination - AHB MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/15/00 3:22:05 PM Pacific Daylight Time, crpost@TELKOMSA.NET writes: > "David L. Green" wrote > > > And probably four nucs are not even going to be equivalent to one full > > strength colony, at least with the bees we are used to in the US. > > Are you letting the grower decide about what he is getting / not getting? > Or are you making the decision for him? Bob, please go back and read my original post! I simply reported that I've been told that the pickle cucumber industry in south Mexico is hiring AHB's for their pollination needs and the beekeepers seem to have standardized on what we would call nucs for their pollination management of this bee. This is all based on a hearsay report, and has nothing to do with my own management, except that I was speculating, based on my experiences here in South Carolina with gentle and fierce bees. > > But, if the field workers are getting stung, you are not going to get much > > pollination > > As far as I am concerned - and this has been corroborated often - stinging > episodes with AHB's, also in Africa, are more often than not triggered by > interference in the hives. Are your pickers trying to interfere with the > pollination work done by the bees, by stealing honey and/or brood? > So,? They get stung ...?! Agreed! Whether by a Mexican field worker stealing honey at night, or by skunk predatation, bears, or some kids on minibikes. Not all interference is manageable. > > Disturbed bees are not going to do the pollination work they should be > doing. Are you letting the grower know this? Are you setting his staff down > and explaining this to them? We have learnt to do this and vandalism is > down to a minimum. We also make the grower pay for vandalised hives > over and above his pollination costs. So do we, if the grower is negligent. But these things are not done openly. What are you gonna do? Line up the workers and shoot one at a time, till they 'fess up? > > On the other hand we explain to them that improved pollination means > more money for the grower, because of better product, which in turn > is more money in their packet at the end of the day and sustainable > agriculture follows. Mark Winston has a lovely article on the yuppie > pollinator: "More pollination income for everyone" in Bee Culture > of April 1994. > > > They will throw gasoline on them and touch them off. > > Who pays? And why do this to another man's property? Because > of jealousy of the fact that the grower and the beekeeper are > progressive and successful? Is it our of hunger? > > > The pickers will tolerate a sting now and then, but they will not > > tolerate really nasty hives. > > Not for them to say! The grower pays both the pickers and the > pollination service provider. Only by good preparation can this > problem be solved. Bees out of sight of the fields perhaps? > They fly you know. > > > The downside of keeping gentle bees on pollination is that the pickers > like to > > steal frames of honey (or even whole supers). > > Point made! > > > This can lead to starving bees on vine crops where they won't make > additional > > honey. > > And NO pollination happens. > > SO, with BIG ahb colonies, your grower gets better pollination, > because the pickers should not disturb them ... once they have > been told the cost to THEMSELVES of improper pollination ... > and of funerals. > QED. > > Once again, I am aware of the fact that perhaps not all the factors that > play a role here are open to me. I may be out of line in this simplistic > evaluation of the question. We make a living out of providing a pollination > service that strives for excellence and these issues are dear to us. I agree with you quite a bit of what you say. We take pride in providing a quality service and we work diligently to prevent such problems. My growers will usually come down hard on vandals and thieves if they are aware of it. Sometimes you "know" who did it, but can't prove it.... However, we have learned in years of providing pollination that Murphy's Law still operates, and unanticipated problems will crop up now and then. I have a feeling that it also operates in South Africa, as well. I have learned "fer sure" that using the gentlest bees I can, will lead to fewer problems. Dave Green The Pollination Home Page: http://pollinator.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 23:30:40 -0500 Reply-To: busybeeacres@discoverynet.com Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: bob harrison Subject: Re: varroa resistant bees MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bob Harrison wrote: > I can't rule out the fact > they might be a recent swarm in a old nest varroa killed out nest. I believe they are in fact a swarm of a few weeks ago in a varroa killed nest by the total brood area.A over wintered colony should have had more brood and i believe i would have got a varroa mite out of three rolls. To make > a long story short i am tearing apart her barn wall Monday and extracting > the bees and comb. Took most of the day working by myself. The bees were between 2x4 on 16in. centers. 3 1/2 in. - comb 7-8 combs across and total area of comb 94 in. in length. I was able to put 5 deep frames of worker brood in new frames by inserting two pieces of 3 1/2 together. The queen was young and looked Buckfast. Dark yellow with black tip. Solid pattern with out mt cells. Very little honey but a lot of comb. All medium dark but small section with sealed and unsealed honey. I put the queen and brood in single box deep box,queen excluder and MT deep shell with honey comb. I put two strips in bottom box between frames and sticky board to test for mites. I will check sticky board tomorrow for mites. I don't really expect to find any or many. I rolled three jars before i started and zero mites. I believe they are a swarm from a treated colony. There was melted wax on the bottom of the colony like there had been a meltdown back in history and evidence of wax moth damage. The only strange item is there were a huge number of drones but the queen had only a mininum amount of drone brood. I tore all apart and no varroa. The drones were of two distinct strains. Italians and carniolan. All the black drones had tatered wings and the italian drones looked young with fuzzy backs. The old drones seem to stagger about. I believe TM might be the problem in the old drones but haven't tested yet. I pulled a few bees apart and saw white midguts. Will test for TM & nosema later with microscope. I could be wrong. Have before! But i believe i still have yet to see a feral colony which has survived varroa in Missouri untreated. > > Bob Harrison > Missouri,U.S.A. > busybeeacres@discoverynet.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 21:24:11 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Roy Nettlebeck Subject: Re: Russian Queens MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Yuuki, When breeding bees, you never breed with just one line. You breed one line to another line. This keeps you from inbreeding and coming up with many different problems. If interested, read Honeybee Genetics by Rinderer , it will go as deep as you want to travel.There are breeding schemes that are laid out and probable results of gene lose. I hope this helped a little. Roy Yuuki Metreaud wrote: > Roy Nettlebeck wrote: Breeders are running 3 lines. The white and > > blue lines are having problems , but > >the purple line seems to be working out OK. I will know shortly for > myself. > > Hello Roy, Could you enlighten those of us who do not know the > difference between the different colored lines. Thanks, Yuuki ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 06:43:33 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Thom Bradley Subject: Re: Req for advice MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "john f. mesinger" wrote: > > The questions for me are: what to do > about the existing honey ....... > John F. Mesinger > jfm6f@unix.mail.virginia.edu Make splits with the frames of brood honey. Thom ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 22:10:19 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: T'N'T Apiaries Subject: Queen & HBTM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Can anyone give me an answer based on facts or point me to the definitive answer to the following question. I have tried the logs, but must admit I did not wade through all the HBTM material. Can queens be infected by HBTM? And more specifically: In baby nucs prepared with infected bulk bees, will the emerging queen be jumped by every pregnant HBTM looking to relocate. Dave Tharle Ardmore, AB ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 08:19:50 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: American Honey Producers MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Is there an AHPA website? I've searched several times and not found one. allen -- A Beekeeper's Diary: http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/ Package installation & performance experiments, winter loss, fondant feeding, Pierco vs. Permadent vs. dark comb, unwrapping bees, spring splitting tricks, AFB, varroa, protein patties and more... Over 1250 served ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 14:05:40 PDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: GREGOIRE@ENDOR.COM Subject: Nucs and over wintering MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hello Gang, James is right, claiming a hive as robust sends a confusing message. The hives in question that I called robust had 9 deep frames in the brood chamber and 20 frames of bees in the Illinois after the surplus supers were removed. They hung out of the hive on warm days and barely fit inside on rainy days. I could have easily pulled a nuc from each after the spring/summer flow and not missed them at all. That is exactly what I will do this year. Upon rethinking the over wintering of nucs at James Bachs suggestion, I will do it earlier than September, most likely in July during the dearth before the fall golden rod starts,( with proper feeding during the dearth of course.) The so called normal hive had only 9 frames of bees in the brood chamber and 3 frames of bees in one Illinois super that served as a food chamber. This normal hive over wintered the best of all other hives in the apiary. I did not feed it for fear of starvation as I did the others in the early spring. Please keep in mind that comparing a few hives against each other is far from being a scientific study. But comparison is all I have right now. Oddly enough, the normal hive did not produce anywhere near the amount of honey that the robust hives produced, but it over wintered better than the robust ones did. Who knows! I may find just the opposite to be true this year. Is it a difference in queen traits? Ernie Gregoire "Beekeeper," definition= partially brave, partially excentric Grist Mill Apiary Canaan, New Hampshire, USA ------------------------------------- 05/16/99 14:05:40 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 14:47:54 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "john f. mesinger" Subject: Re: Req for advice In-Reply-To: <200005161358.JAA08959@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Thanks to all for the advisories. I should have mentioned that splits are not an option. I keep three hives with one backup. To requeen I have learned to add one to a NUC of eggs, double hive for a while, kill the lower queen and unite. It works for me because I am retired and not in the bee business for profit [other than knowledge]. I had sucess in Pgh in the early 1960s with Caucasians and sucess with Italians In Albemarle county, VA - until mites came. Starlines and Midnites and Yugos all presented problems. Sue Coby Carniolans have been great but you have to work with them and they are different. I got into trouble when my State Agent suggested queens would not cross a two inch barrier of capped honey so I should drop using queen [honey] excluders. It worked when I had two full sized brood boxes. When I shifted to three Illinois, the bees promptly filled and capped the top box [as well as three supers each last spring]. So I was in a space deficit. There was one frame of capped brood the second week of January, three frames the first week of February, an empty bottom box and a totally full middle box in March. When I removed Apistan strips the first week of April, I had 14 swarm cells per hive with every available space vertically between frames full of black drones. Much of what could have been brood cells were filled with pollen and nectar. The hives were boiling over with bees. Two of three hives have swarmed. I have removed 6 of ten frames of capped honey and replaced with undrawn comb [I make cut comb honey only] and added these to the new Queened NUCs I am building up to take over these two hives when the honey flow is over. {the third hive is into the second super so I have not touched it.} -yet. In the third spring of Carniolans I can say that three hives wintered with as large a cluster of bees as any Italians I have had and they ate less than half of the stores my Starlines did a year ago before I sold them [and those had not started brood until Mid March that year, a warmer than usual one]. John F. Mesinger jfm6f@unix.mail.virginia.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 17:11:54 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Graham Law Subject: Sterile Drones: Why? (Cross post from Irish List) Hi all, I have just returned from an evening at my local bee club where we were attempting to milk semen from drones with a view to some AI work. The drones were all flyers but every one proved to be dry. We were scratching our heads when someone said that they had heard that Bayvarol varroa treatment in the Spring can cause this symptom and indeed these donor hives had been so treated. Has anyone out there had similar experience with Bayvarol/Apistan treatments? If there is anything in this suspicion then Spring treatments should be avoided if not absolutely necessary. Cheers Graham ----- Graham Law Leicestershire UK... Email: Graham@gandboss.demon.co.uk Web http://www.gandboss.demon.co.uk/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 20:13:06 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: CSlade777@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Hornet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I found a fresh but dead queen hornet in one of my hives. This is the first time I have seen one, She was massive and very impressive. The curious thing was that her sting/ovipositor had been removed, leaving a hole into her abdomen. Why? How? Chris Slade ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 08:20:12 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Richard Spiekhout Subject: Re: Req for advice MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit John wrote; "There was one frame of capped brood the second week of January, three frames the first week of February, an empty bottom box and a totally full middle box" I am new and have been trying to study swarm prevention as I have had a very swarmy season. Does not the above senario indicate a need to revers the boxes? Richard Ky. USA Producing more wax than honey ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 06:39:14 PDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Kirk Waskey Subject: The Minnesota Hygiene Queen Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Last night we had our May meeting for the Minnesota Hobby Bee Keepers Association (MHBKA)and a few guys were talking about this article written by two of our well known leaders. I looked it up today and thought I would pass it on in light of all the missives about hygenic queens lately... One more thing, Gary and Marla teach a great 2-3 day short course for Northern Bee keepers every March (Friday is on Bee Biology). It was a very enjoyable weekend, I almost learned more during breaks hanging around and talking / listening to them than I did in the class...and I see them quite often at the monthly MHBKA meetings. If you can make it to Minnesota in March it is well worth the time. THE HYGIENE QUEEN by Marla Spivak & Gary Reuter Hygienic behavior of honey bees is the primary natural defense against American foulbrood (Park et al., 1937; Woodrow and Holst, 1942; Rothenbuhler, 1964) and chalkbrood (Gilliam et al., 1983). Hygienic bees detect, uncap, and remove diseased brood from the combs before the disease becomes infectious. Hygienic behavior also is one defense against Varroa mites (Peng et al., 1987), and although it is not the main mechanism of resistance to the mites (Harbo and Hoopingarner, 1997), it appears to limit their reproduction and population growth to some degree. Our studies have shown that it is possible to select for hygienic behavior without compromising honey production or gentleness (Spivak, 1996; Spivak and Reuter, in press). The trait can be found in approximately 10 percent of the managed colonies found in the United States, in any race or stock of bees. We feel it would benefit the beekeeping industry to have hygienic lines of bees commercially available. In this article, we present a simple way of screening colonies for hygienic behavior. We also discuss some frequently asked questions about the behavior, and how to breed hygienic colonies. Using Liquid Nitrogen For years, we screened colonies for hygienic behavior by cutting out a section of comb (2 x 2.5 inches) containing sealed brood, freezing it for 24 hours, then placing the frozen comb section in the colony to be tested. If the test colony was hygienic, the bees would uncap and remove the freeze-killed brood within 48 hours when tested repeatedly (Taber, 1982; Spivak and Downey, 1998). Cutting comb sections out of frames is relatively messy and damages the combs, so we sought a better way of killing brood without having to handle the combs. Dr. Jerry Bromenshank at the University of Montana was the first to suggest using liquid nitrogen (N2) to freeze a section of sealed brood within the frame. He found that freezing the brood this way was more efficient than cutting, freezing, and replacing comb inserts. Based on his suggestions, we conducted several tests to determine how much liquid N2 was necessary to completely kill the brood, and whether the test yielded the same results as cutting and freezing comb sections. We are now convinced that freezing brood with liquid N2 is the best screening procedure found to date for assaying hygienic behavior. Liquid N2 is relatively inexpensive and easy to obtain; check with your local veterinarian or livestock artificial inseminator. It must be kept in an appropriate tank and securely fastened to the truck during travel to avoid spillage. Common sense and several precautions must be used when handling liquid nitrogen. It has a boiling temperature of -320F (-195.8C) which means that it is extremely cold and will kill skin (causing severe frostbite) on contact. Protective clothing including heavy gloves, boots, a face shield and safety glasses should be worn. The boots should be sufficiently secure so that the liquid N2 can not be spilled into them. You will need to construct (or find) a hollow cylinder into which you will pour the liquid N2 to freeze a circular section of sealed brood. We have been using a 3-inch diameter cylinder, cut from galvanized clothes-dryer vent. The cylinder must be at least 4 inches long because the nitrogen will boil on contact with the brood. The thinner the walls of the cylinder, the easier it is to press into the comb assuring a good seal. Nine to 10 ounces (250-300 ml) of liquid N2 is needed to freeze-kill all the brood (approximately 160 cells) within a 3-inch diameter cylinder. A smaller amount will not kill all of the brood, leading to erroneous results. Use a 10-ounce or larger Styrofoam coffee cup for measuring and pouring. Other materials will shatter on contact with the liquid N2. Select a frame with at least a 3-inch diameter circle of sealed brood containing fewer than 30 unsealed cells within the circle. Lay the frame horizontally across a support (i.e. an empty super). Twist the metal cylinder into the sealed brood until it reaches the midrib. Record the number of unsealed cells inside the cylinder. Pour a couple ounces of the liquid N2 into the cylinder and wait for it to freeze the edges or evaporate. Then pour the remainder of the liquid N2 into the cylinder. Wait to remove the cylinder until it thaws, which may take three to five minutes. If you have additional cylinders, you can start the next test while you are waiting for previous ones to thaw. We put a thumbtack in the top of the frame to mark the frame and the location of the test on the frame. Some hygienic colonies clean and repair the comb so quickly that it is hard to locate the test when you return. Place the frame in the center of the brood nest. Remove the frame containing the frozen brood 48 hours later, and record the number of sealed cells remaining within the circle. When testing a colony that has been requeened, six to eight weeks must elapse after requeening for the bees in the colony to be daughters of the new queen. Frequently Asked Questions Often we are asked if hygienic colonies tend to have clean bottomboards, or if they tend to remove debris (such as wax paper, newspaper or cardboard) from the colony more quickly than other colonies. Mayer (1996) suggested that if colonies eat grease patties quickly, they might be hygienic. Removing debris from the hive is a form of cleanliness, but it is not necessarily a sign that the bees carry the hygienic trait. Although the common usage of the word hygienic denotes cleanliness, hygienic behavior is a specific response by the bees to diseased and parasitized brood. A colony that keeps its hive clean does not imply that it will be resistant to diseases. Colonies must be screened for hygienic behavior using an assay such as the one described above. If a colony removes all of the freeze-killed brood within 48 hours, the colony will probably be resistant to diseases and will tend to remove mite-infested pupae. To determine whether they can actually resist the diseases or mites, the colony would have to be challenged with American foulbrood, chalkbrood or mites. Another question we encounter concerns the difference between hygienic and grooming behaviors. Grooming behavior involves an interaction between adult bees; one bee removes mites or debris from the body of another bee. Alternatively, a bee may groom herself. Grooming and hygienic behaviors are different traits, and selecting for one does not imply selection for the other. It is assumed by some beekeepers that hygienic behavior is associated with a high degree of defensive (stinging) behavior. This assumption stems from the reputation of the Brown line of hygienic bees studied by Rothenbuhler. Rothenbuhler (1964) showed that stinging behavior and hygienic behavior are inherited separately. Our experience has shown that hygienic colonies are as gentle as the stock from which they were bred. Propagating Hygienic Colonies Any race or line of bees can be bred for hygienic behavior. We recommend that bee breeders select for hygienic behavior from among their best breeder colonies; i.e., from those that have proven to be productive, gentle, and that display all the characteristics desired by the breeder. A breeder can get a head start on selecting for hygienic behavior simply by rearing queens from colonies that do not have chalkbrood. When colonies are first screened for hygienic behavior using liquid N2, they may not remove all of the frozen brood within 48 hours. The colonies that remove the most freeze-killed brood within 48 hours should be propagated by rearing queens from them. Subsequent generations will remove the brood more quickly, because hygienic queens from the first generation will produce drones for the second generation. If the hygienic queens are instrumentally inseminated with semen collected from drones from hygienic colonies, or are mated naturally in an isolated area, where all the surrounding drones are from hygienic colonies, it will be easier to fix the trait in your line of bees. Beekeepers should rear queens from unrelated hygienic colonies each year to avoid the negative effects of inbreeding. In time, if many bee breeders select for hygienic behavior, the frequency of the trait should increase in the general population of bees, which will increase the chances that any queen will encounter drones that carry the trait. The effects of American foulbrood, chalkbrood and Varroa mites can be alleviated if queen producers select for hygienic behavior from their own lines of bees. Because a small percentage of the managed colonies today express hygienic behavior, it is important for many bee breeders to select for the behavior to maintain genetic variability within and among bee lines. Our experience has shown there are no apparent negative characteristics that accompany the trait. Years of research experience have shown it would greatly benefit the beekeeping industry if productive, hygienic lines were available commercially. Marla Spivak is Professor and Extension Specialist in Apiculture, University of MN. Gary Reuter is a Research Technician working with Marla. References Gilliam, M., S. Taber III and G. V. Richardson. Hygienic behavior of honey bees in relation to chalkbrood disease. Apidologie 14: 29-39. 1983. Harbo, J.R., Hoopingarner, R.A. Honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in the United States that express resistance to Varroa jacobsoni (Mesostigmata: Varroidae). J. Econ. Ent. 90: 893-898. 1997. Mayer, M. Testing for super hygienic bees. Bee Culture 124: 517-519. 1996. Park, O.W., Pellett, F.C., Paddock, F.B. Disease resistance and American foulbrood. Amer. Bee J. 77: 20-25. 1937. Peng, Y.S., Fang, Y., Xu, S., Ge, L., Nasr, M.E. Response of foster Asian Honey bee (Apis cerana Fabr.) colonies to the brood of European honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) infested with parasitic mite Varroa jacobsoni Oudemanns. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 49: 259-264 1987. Rothenbuhler, W.C. Behaviour genetics of nest cleaning in honey bees. IV. Responses of F1 and backcross generations to disease-killed brood. Am. Zool. 4: 111-123. 1964. Spivak, M. Honey bee hygienic behavior and defense against Varroa jacobsoni. Apidologie 27: 245-260. 1996. Spivak, M., Downey, D. Field Assays for Hygienic Behavior in Honey Bees (Apidae: Hymenoptera). J. Econ. Entomol. 91(1): In press. 1998. Spivak, M., Reuter, G.A. In press. Performance of Hygienic Colonies in a Commercial Apiary. Apidologie. Taber, S. III. 1982. Determining resistance to brood diseases. Am. Bee J. 122: 422-425. 1982. Woodrow, A.W., Holst, E.C. 1942. The mechanism of colony resistance to American foulbrood. J. Econ. Entomol. 35(3): 327-330. ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 09:44:23 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "john f. mesinger" Subject: Re: Req for advice In-Reply-To: <200005171243.IAA10638@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" There is debate on reversal. However, after finding the brood in the middle and "empty below, I did reverse the boxes as I have always done ie. try to give them space to lay eggs upwards. John F. Mesinger jfm6f@unix.mail.virginia.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 11:59:44 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: John Mitchell Subject: GM scare jeapardizes honey sales (UK) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >From another report: "Beekeepers said yesterday government plans to test genetically modified crops at farm-scale level could jeopardise their industry, after laboratory tests showed samples of shop-bought honey had been contaminated by genetically engineered pollen." Press Association Newsfile May 17, 2000, Wednesday GM POLLEN TRACED IN HONEY, SAY CAMPAIGNERS BYLINE: Amanda Brown Friends of the Earth has called for an immediate ban on the outdoor testing of genetically modified oilseed rape and maize after shop-bought honey was found to contain GM pollen. FoE said the honey was bought in an area where GM crops were grown last year. The British beekeeping industry is taking steps to ensure that its honey is free from GM contamination and has advised members to move hives at least six miles from the nearest GM trial site. However, if GM crops get full commercial approval, the location of the GM sites will not have to be made public and beekeepers won't be able to move their hives. The honey bought by Friends of the Earth was sent to Austria for analysis. Two samples - one from a jar of honey and one honeycomb, were found to contain "genetically modified components". Friends of the Earth last year discovered GM oilseed rape pollen in beehives over two and a half miles from the nearest GM trial site. The group also said the discovery of honey containing GM pollen confirmed fears that GM crops threatened the livelihoods of neighbouring farmers and beekeepers. Despite this, GM farmers are under no obligation to consult neighbouring farmers and beekeepers about the trials, and the Bee Farmers Association of the UK - which represents 350 commercial bee farmers throughout the country, has not been consulted about the siting or potential impact of GM sites. FoE said as well as the failure to consult, liability for any GM pollution of honey has not been resolved. Beekeepers are not compensated for the extra work and expense of moving their hives or for the loss of contracts. The UK beekeeping industry produces an estimated £10 million worth of honey annually, but the value of pollination of fruit and other crops is 20 times more valuable. In a statement the Bee Farmers Association said it was concerned about the long term implications of GM crops, not only for honey but also the very important pollination work carried out by bees for the fruit and vegetable industry, currently worth £200 million to the country. If hives were moved a safe distance from any GM crop trial site, then bees would also be unable to pollinate other crops within that vicinity. This could affect the livelihood of many commercial bee farmers and, as yet, there has been no consultation by Government or any offers to compensate them. >From The Times (London) May 17, 2000, Wednesday Beehives alert over 'GM pollution' BYLINE: Valerie Elliott BEEKEEPERS have been told to move their hives six miles from genetically modified crop trial sites after shop-bought honey was found to contain GM pollen. The instructions were issued by the Bee Farmers' Association and the British Beekeepers' Association after honey bought by Friends of the Earth was found to contain "genetically modified components". Beekeepers are determined to save their industry and to maintain consumer confidence in British honey by keeping the product GM-free. They know that bees will travel up to four miles for pollen and so the six mile zone has been set as the safest minimum distance from modified crops. They are seeking talks with ministers and demanding to be consulted about the siting of GM trials. In particular they fear that if GM crops get commercial approval, the Government will not have to make the sites public and bee-keepers will never know if their honey is at risk of contamination. Beekeepers' associations are also calling for compensation for the extra costs and work of having to move their hives away from the trial sites. Liability for the GM pollution of honey is also unresolved. The demand for hives to be kept six miles away from modified crops is also backed by the Honey Association, which represents packers and importers. Supermarkets have made clear to them that they want to ensure products are GM-free and have asked for the six-mile limit. The Department of the Environment said that the GM quantities involved were "minuscule" and the Government's Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment had concluded there was no threat to human or animal health. Friends of the Earth refused to name the beekeepers involved. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 13:17:56 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Susan H. Gilbert" Subject: GM pollen MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >From post of Mr. John Mitchell 5/17/00, quoting a new story: Friends of the Earth has called for an immediate ban on the outdoor testing of genetically modified oilseed rape and maize after shop-bought honey was found to contain GM pollen. As a rank newcomer to beekeeping and the wonderful BeeList (but not to biology, as I have a PhD and keep bees as a hobby), I'm very curious to know exactly what the problem is with finding genetically modified components in pollen. Have such components been demonstrated to cause harm if ingested by anyone, including bees and people? Is fear that it might possibly cause harm driving the perceived problem, or is it something more complicated/substantive? Thanks, Mr. Mitchell, or whoever. Susan Gilbert Indianapolis, IN USA ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 15:09:46 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Any other acid treatments? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have heard little about Oxalic Acid treatment for Varroa. Is it still used in Europe? Has there been any research into what mechanism is involved in Formic and Oxalic Acid killing Varroa and tracheal mites? It seems that somthing similar is involved in all the organic chemicals used in varroa treatment- the acids mentioned as well as all the essential oils. The reason for the quaestion is that if the mechanism is known, then maybe it will open up more treatments. Bill Truesdell Bath, ME ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 15:10:57 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Lipscomb, Al" Subject: Re: GM pollen MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain >As a rank newcomer to beekeeping and the wonderful BeeList (but not to >biology, as I have a PhD and keep bees as a hobby), I'm very curious to >know exactly what the problem is with finding genetically modified >components in pollen. Have such components been demonstrated to cause >harm if ingested by anyone, including bees and people? Is fear that it >might possibly cause harm driving the perceived problem, or is it >something more complicated/substantive? The first reason is there is a great deal of consumer rejection of GM products in Europe. Having GM product in the honey could result in a loss of many potential buyers. The second reason is there could be dangers of bees spreading GM pollen when the hives are moved. Bees are often covered with stray pollen and I would thing it was quite possible for bees to be the source of spread of the DNA to areas not intended. I think that a fear of unknown effects of the GM products is valid. The long-term problems of many chemical agents are just now being identified (i.e. Dioxin) and it would not surprise me to have GM spread like wildfire and then find out years later that there are horrible problems. When dealing with a nations food supply a healthy level of paranoia is a good thing. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 20:35:13 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Richard Brodie Subject: Re: GM pollen MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Susan There is no proven, discernable or even conceivable risk from GM pollen in honey, especially in the minute quantities FoE turned up. The problem arises simply from the probably justifiable perception in Europe of the use ANY GM product as being an insidious attempt by large (usually US) companies to force a very dubious product on a very sceptical public. Put simply, after a long progression of food scares, most European consumers would happily conclude that GM contaminated honey probably glows in the dark! Rick Brodie Scotland ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 21:09:19 +0200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: crpost Subject: Re: Nucs for pollination - AHB MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > This is all based on a hearsay report, and has nothing to do with my own Possible for you to get some more background on this story? As I pointed out, perhaps not all the facts are known. > So do we, if the grower is negligent. But these things are not done > openly. What are you gonna do? Line up the workers and shoot one at a time, > till they 'fess up? Talk to them? Hey, wow, I thought us South Africans were supposed to be ... you know, ... sort of ... eh ... let's say trigger happy! > of it. Sometimes you "know" who did it, but can't prove it.... In the Beekeeping course we convene, I incorporate a formal Quality management lecture. The point that they make in the lecture, is basically that prevention is better than cure. A good lecture beforehand should reduce the interference. I don't propose violent or scare tactics, just some positive adjustment to the simple economics of productive work. > However, we have learned in years of providing pollination that Murphy's > Law still operates, and unanticipated problems will crop up now and then. I > have a feeling that it also operates in South Africa, as well. Murphy travels quite extensively!! > The Pollination Home Page: http://pollinator.com By the way, thank you very much for incorporating my particulars in the Home Page, as well as the information on the course we provide. A most professional site and lots of worthwhile input for growers and service providers. As asked, perhaps we can get a bit more on the story under review, before we start hauling out six-shooters and using them on each other instead of ... NO don't say that! Greetings Robert Post ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 21:08:20 +0200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: crpost Subject: Re: Sterile Drones - the 2000 man? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > The drones were all flyers but every one proved to be dry. We were > scratching > our heads when someone said that they had heard that Bayvarol varroa > treatment in the Spring can cause this symptom and indeed these donor hives > had been so treated. Whoa! What does this stuff do to humans? Anyone know? Robert Post ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 22:21:59 +0200 Reply-To: apimo@post4.tele.dk Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Jorn Johanesson Subject: SV: Any other acid treatments? In-Reply-To: <20000517193430.BZVM5020.fepF.post.tele.dk@SEGATE.SUNET.SE> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jorn Johanesson I have heard little about Oxalic Acid treatment for Varroa. Is it still used in Europe? Have you seen the Varroa report on my web, about oxcalic and formic acid treatment ??? best regards Jorn Johanesson EDBi = multilingual Beekeeping software since 1987 http://apimo.dk (USA) apimo@post4.tele.dk Jorn_Johanesson@apimo.dk ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 17:35:06 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "David L. Green" Subject: Re: GM pollen Comments: cc: suzy@ori.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/17/00 11:34:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time, suzy@ORI.NET writes: > As a rank newcomer to beekeeping and the wonderful BeeList (but not to > biology, as I have a PhD and keep bees as a hobby), I'm very curious to > know exactly what the problem is with finding genetically modified > components in pollen. Have such components been demonstrated to cause > harm if ingested by anyone, including bees and people? Is fear that it > might possibly cause harm driving the perceived problem, or is it > something more complicated/substantive? No one has yet prove that they are safe, nor has it been proved that they are dangerous. I suspect the real driving force is anger that people being used as guinea pigs without their consent... Dave Green The Pollination Home Page: http://pollinator.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 11:46:23 +1200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Nick Wallingford Subject: Microencapsulated Diazinon supplier? Comments: cc: "MGoodwin@HORT.CRI.NZ" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Does anyone on the list know the details for contacting a supplier of microencapsulated Diazinon? If so, could you please reply directly to Dr Mark Goodwin (apicultural scientist in New Zealand): Dr R.M. Goodwin Hort Research EMAIL MGoodwin@HORT.CRI.NZ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 20:21:20 EDT 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: The Minnesota Hygiene Queen MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kirk, I really want to THANK YOU for putting "Hygienic Bees" on the BEE-L. I am a great believer in the theory about Hygienic bees avoiding some disease infections, and I wanted Marla to present it at EAS 2000, but she apparently had a previous commitment. Somehow, we will get the word out; and again I want to Thank You. George Imirie Certified Master Beekeeper ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 07:48:55 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "john f. mesinger" Subject: Re: Sterile Drones - the 2000 man? In-Reply-To: <200005172120.RAA00478@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Organophosphates - don't get it on your skin. Read and follow directions. There is a much smaller [than Apistan] range between what kills mites and what kills bees. What might it do at levels in between ? John F. Mesinger jfm6f@unix.mail.virginia.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 00:34:37 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob Fanning Subject: Pollination Information needed. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Can anyone give me a website, text book or other source of information on Parthenocarpic fruits. I will be speaking to a small group on beekeeping and normally cover the benefits of pollination. I am pretty much in the dark as to why "seedless" fruits produce "meat" when the seed are not developed. Do Parthenocarpic fruits require pollination? I know, in the case of "seedless" watermelons, Parks Seed Co. recommends a pollinator be planted with the "seedless" melons. Any help wpuild be appreciated. Bob Fanning Madison Co. Al k4vb@hiwaay.net ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 09:35:56 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Thom Bradley Subject: Re: Pollination Information needed. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bob Fanning wrote: > I am pretty much in the > dark as to why "seedless" fruits produce "meat" when the seed are not > developed. Do Parthenocarpic fruits require pollination? I know, in the > case of "seedless" watermelons, Parks Seed Co. recommends a pollinator be > planted with the "seedless" melons. > > Any help wpuild be appreciated. > > Bob Fanning > Madison Co. Al > k4vb@hiwaay.net Good question, Bob. For the most part, parthenocarpic fruits do require pollination. In the case of seedless waermelons, the recommendation is for twice as many colonies as you would expect for seeded varieties. Seedless watermelons set seed. However, soon after the seed is set, it is aborted. Without setting seed the Fruit would appear just as any other unpollinated fruit. some extension services are lax in explaining this to the farmers they are encouraging to grow these fruits and they will attempt to grow them without honeybees. Usually with an awful crop. Thom Bradley Chesapeake, VA ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 10:15:40 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: tomas mozer Subject: Re: Sterile Drones: Why? Comments: cc: graham@GANDBOSS.DEMON.CO.UK Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit graham law wrote: Has anyone out there had similar experience with Bayvarol/Apistan treatments? If there is anything in this suspicion then Spring treatments should be avoided if not absolutely necessary. see http://www.nalusda.gov/ttic/tektran/data/000009/21/0000092180.html and http://www.nalusda.gov/ttic/tektran/data/000009/83/0000098333.html ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 18:28:54 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Harry Goudie Subject: Re: GM pollen MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Susan asked:- I'm very curious to > know exactly what the problem is with finding genetically modified > components in pollen One problem with finding GM pollen in honey is that, here in Britain, you will have a big job selling the stuff. If your honey was labelled as containing GM pollen I doubt if you would be able to give it away and I think it may be necessary under law to label it. Today it was announced that, I believe, 600 farms in Britain and Europe had bought GM contaminated oil seed rape and there is a big fuss about this at the moment. It does not look good for sales of rape honey! I think there is a fear of GM products with regard to health and the environment but perhaps more is the loathing of the companies producing these products and an unwillingness to support them in any way. Here in Britain we have lost faith in the scientists working in this field and I am afraid this has spilled over to include all scientists who will have to work hard to regain any public support and trust. Harry ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 15:09:33 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: John Mitchell Subject: Re: GM scare jeapardizes honey sales (Europe) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Anger as GM seeds of discontent spread over Europe By Giles Elgood A rising tide of green anger greeted the disclosure on Thursday that farmers across Europe are unwittingly growing genetically modified crops. Environmentalists demanded that the "bad seed" be torn up as the company that imported it said that oilseed rape contaminated with GM material was growing in Britain, France, Germany and Sweden. The British government had said on Wednesday that farmers were unknowingly growing such crops after buying oilseed rape seeds from Canada that had been cross-pollinated from a genetically modified crop growing in a nearby field. On Thursday, seed company Advanta, which imported the seed from Canada, disclosed that Sweden, Germany and France were also affected. In Stockholm, the Agriculture Department said 14 tonnes of seeds imported into Sweden in 1999 from Canada contained 0.4 percent of genetically modified rapeseed. Advata spokesman David Buckeridge told Reuters the areas sown with GM-conta minated seed were small and that there was no risk to health. Nor had any laws been broken. "In Germany and France in particular we're talking about hundreds of hectares in an area of millions of hectares," Buckeridge told Reuters. ENVIRONMENTAL ANGER Environmentalists were not convinced. "Leaving these crops in the ground is just not an option," Adrian Bebb, a food and biotechnology spokesman for Friends of the Earth (FoE), a leading anti-GM environmental campaign group, said. "Advanta Seeds are tracking down all the farmers and this has to happen very quickly." Organic farmers fear their crops will be contaminted by GM material even it is grown some distance away from their own farms. Used in foods ranging from chocolate to ice cream, the rape may well be sold on to consumers as a GM-free product, despite strict rules on food labelling and uncertainty about possible hazards associated with the technology. The Soil Association, the organic farmers' mouthpiece, demanded government action. "We believe it's the government's responsibility to track down the 600 farms involved and destroy the crop," the group's director Patrick Holden told Reuters. Advanta Seeds UK, part of a 50-50 venture between Anglo-Swedish group AstraZeneca Plc (AZN.L) and Dutch cooperative Cosun that imported the seeds to Europe, said it told the British government about them last month. British farmers sowed about 9,000 hectares (22,240 acres) with the affected stocks last year, and about 4,700 hectares (11,610 acres) in spring 2000. About 500,000 hectares (1.2 million acres) of oilseed rape are grown each year in Britain, where it is illegal to grow GM crops for commercial use. The Food Standards Agency said the seeds appeared to have been affected in Canada by a Monsanto Co (PHA.N) GM rapeseed crop. FoE's Bebb said it was "scandalous" that the government sat on the news for a month. The government said the contamination was an "unfortunate incident" with "no risk to public health or the environment." ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 14:01:08 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Richard Yarnell Organization: Oregon VOS Subject: Re: GM pollen In-Reply-To: <200005172008.QAA27063@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII As I take keyboard in hand to respond to this, I'm admonished by the descriptive title of this list: notably "Informed." With the understanding that this topic is not strictly "beekeeping," but acknowledging that bees and beekeepers may well be affected by GM'd plants; and that, while I read a lot and have thought a lot about the issue of GM'd plants but claim no expertise at all; then perhaps the monitors will let this through. I do think someone has to point out that there's a lot of uninformed lather being raised about a very important topic. As a group we can't afford to be swept up by the hysteria which already is rampant. 1) The statement that there's no conceivable danger from pollen of GM'd plants has no basis. There may be no appreciable danger, but we don't know it yet. [A possible danger is severe allergic reaction to a component one might not expect to find in pollen. GM, as opposed to cloning or strict breeding reginmens which are, in themselves, a form of GM, may incorporate components from sources even outside the plant world. By way of analogy, otherwise benign/helpful vaccines can be deadly to people allergic to eggs if that's the medium on which the vaccine is produced; someone allergic to Salmon _might_ be adversely affected if a gene from that fish shows up in peanut butter or vice versa.] 2) Some GM'd plants apparently do produce chemicals which are toxic to pests. They may also be toxic to other forms of life and probably are toxic to some pollinators, managed ones or not. On it's face, this would be a bad thing. Rumors about Sunflowers come to mind. 3) Some GM'd plants are specifically immune to certain herbicides. What part of the plant and what mechanism renders the plant immune, I haven't the foggiest. I am not reassured that anyone has done the work. But frankly, toxicity isn't my immediate concern (see below). 4) Not all GM'd plants are sterile. In fact, soy beans, rape seeds, corn, and rice, are not sterile: the producer requires an enforceable contract which doesn't permit the use of saved seeds. That ruinous bit of leverage is, for me, prima facia evidence that the seed is viable and that it must retain it's GM'd trait(s). In my view, hyperbole is coming from all sides on the issue of GM'd life forms. Not for a moment would I suggest we stop the research. But I'd surely reorganize it and enforce strict controls over it and the results. a) I would prohibit the release of any GM'd plant stock until independent researchers, free of any funding by any interested party had cleared the plant of any possible adverse effect on other plants, animals, insects (other than target pests), people, and the economy of food production. Keep in mind that I claim no expertise: "Golden Rice" which contains pharmeceutically significant amounts of Beta-carotene not normally present in the grain, is about to be released on the world. The "inventor," the owner, distributor, all of them, have agreed there is overwhelming humanitarian good to be done by giving the grain to populations which are otherwise deficient in this vitamin. It is felt that certain forms of blindness can be cured or controlled if the supplement is provided cheaply. Has anyone asked what effect overdoses of Beta-carotene will have on birds and seed eating mammals which will encounter it in the field? Haven't heard of any research. Before migrating fowl is killed off by a gracious gesture, I think we should know. b) Plants which are GM'd to produce toxins to repel or kill certain pests, in addition to having unintended impact on related (or not) benign species, will be doling out uncontrolled dosages. How long will it be before the target pest(s) develop immunity to the toxins? Can these plants pass the GM'd trait to related species? If so what impact will that have on insects which are reliant on those plants? Once the genie is out of the bottle, there will be no putting back. c) Plants which are GM'd to be resistant to specific herbicides, thereby permitting farmers to apply broad spectrum herbicides even after the economic crop has emerged, should they cross with non-economic plants (weeds in some contexts), may spawn a plague of destruction which cannot be controlled. Before any such seed is released, these questions must be exhaustively researched. Someone has already said that scientists can no longer be trusted. That's a broad statement which rings of truth. In my view, what passes for science under the control of well financed vendors, has confused almost everyone by dispensing with peer review, the scientific method, and by politicizing the research process. Through effective advertising, those same vendors sell the resulting pseudo-science at the expense of others who do real objective science an much smaller budgets. By its very nature, production of GM'd species is dangerous. GM'ing doesn't allow nature time to discard the mistakes. The potential exists to overwhelm established species with engineered ones which are successful in the short run. I don't believe we have the experience yet, possibly the wisdom, and certainly not the knowledge to predict all the consequences which may fall out. Finally, as a group which stands to be adversely affected by chemical and biological manipulation, it behooves us to object reasonably to experimentation outside the lab. We can tell true tales about escaped experiments, can't we? And can't the Aussies speak about rabbits and dingoes? And then the grandaddy of them all: Spielberg can tell us about velociraptors.... We can offer guidance and support to our governments which will have to stand up to some very strong multi-national economic forces. But if we don't come up with realistic adverse scenarios which can be subjected to independent and rigorous scientific testing, money will eventually overwhelm hysteria. As a case in point, there has been some exhaustive testing on the use of radiation to kill pathogens in food. Some countries permit it now, some don't. In those that don't, largely uninformed public hysteria, unwilling to acknowledge the scientific research has succeeded in at least delaying implementation of a valuable public health tool and have co-opted the political process to overrule the science. But quietly, the food industry has begun to use the process on foods which comprise the margins of our diet. Sooner or later they will prevail on a larger scale. Thanks for your indulgence. The issue will affect us even though it does seem to be tangential to beekeeping. On Wed, 17 May 2000, Richard Brodie wrote: > Hi Susan > > There is no proven, discernable or even conceivable risk from GM pollen in > honey, especially in the minute quantities FoE turned up. > The problem arises simply from the probably justifiable perception in Europe > of the use ANY GM product as being an insidious attempt by large (usually > US) companies to force a very dubious product on a very sceptical public. > Put simply, after a long progression of food scares, most European consumers > would happily conclude that GM contaminated honey probably glows in the > dark! > > Rick Brodie > Scotland > --------------- Richard Yarnell, SHAMBLES WORKSHOPS | No gimmick we try, no "scientific" Beavercreek, OR. Makers of fine | fix we attempt, will save our planet Wooden Canoes, The Stack(R) urban | until we reduce the population. Let's composter, fly tying benches | leave our kids a decent place to live. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 18:59:14 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Al Subject: Re: GM pollen In-Reply-To: <200005182207.SAA05988@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > Someone has already said that scientists can no longer be trusted. That's > a broad statement which rings of truth. In my view, what passes for > science under the control of well financed vendors, has confused almost > everyone by dispensing with peer review, the scientific method, and by > politicizing the research process. Through effective advertising, those > same vendors sell the resulting pseudo-science at the expense of others > who do real objective science an much smaller budgets. > I think we need to be careful about the issue of trust. While there are a number of issues in becoming a scientist that reduce the number of dishonest scientists, they still exist. There are also a number of things within the workings of science that reduce dishonest results. The flip side of this is that we are starting to use science as the only tool available to us. Science is a great tool, but it has limitations. We also need to learn to understand what is being said by science. For example if the statement "there are no known problems with GM products" is made we cannot take that as "there are no problems with GM products". If more information were to be given, "There are 10,000 possible problems with GM products and we have eliminated the risks in 5,000 of them", we would have a different outlook. Here is one other thing to consider with GM that I think was left off another post. If a plant has say 50 different genes and we replace one of these genes with a new GM version, and the version produces a plant that pushes out the rest of that plants population due to its survial advantage, then we will eliminate a good deal of the diversity of that species and expose it to any pest that overcomes the GM advantage. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 17:53:33 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Robert J. Bassett" Subject: Need some help Comments: cc: benwagg@concentric.net, bwaggoner@autoprodinc.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Friends, Are there any beekeepers on this list that might be able to assist us in acquiring some bees in the local area just south of Boston? My beekeeping partner (Ben Waggoner) is traveling to the area from Florida to visit his sister this Friday, 5/19/00. He is staying there for about 10 days and asked me to see if we might be able to locate a beekeeper in the area. There are some friends there who might like to get a start in beekeeping. We would certainly appreciate your help, if you are able. Ben will be able to receive your reply to this post at his sister's house at KarenBQ@aol.com Thanks so much for your help. Bob Bassett ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 21:03:09 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: John Mitchell Subject: Distaste for GM low, but growing (US) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Grocers say resistance to engineered food minimal >From AP (May 9th) Europeans and Japanese don't want gene-altered crops. Frito-Lay, McDonald's and Gerber have rejected them, too. But grocers say American consumers don't seem to care one way or the other—at least not yet. However, support for crops that produce genetically engineered food is slipping, even if a majority of consumers still back the technology, according to a poll released at the supermarket industry's annual convention, which opened Sunday. Sixty-three percent of shoppers surveyed in January said they would be very or somewhat likely to buy a new variety of produce that had been genetically engineered to resist insect damage. That's down from 77 percent in a similar poll four years ago. Fifty-four percent said in January they were very or somewhat likely to buy produce that was modified to taste better or stay fresh longer, compared with 58 percent in 1996. The new survey, conducted by Research International USA for the Food Marketing Institute, had a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points. A summary of the poll's finding said "consumers are less inclined to purchase these products" than they were in 1996. Most people don't realize how widely used these so-called biotech ingredients have become, said Thomas Hoban, a North Carolina State University sociologist who tracks consumer attitudes about food. Nearly 4 in 10 questioned in the January poll said they had heard nothing about biotech food. In Europe, "not only has the support for food and agricultural biotechnology gone down but also support for medical biotechnology...The U.S. is maybe overly positive. It will swing down, maybe," Hoban said. Consumers who don't want to eat biotech food are expected to provide a boost to the $6 billion-a-year organic industry. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 22:11:40 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "David L. Green" Subject: Re: Pollination Information needed. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/18/00 6:40:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time, thombrad@VISI.NET writes: > Bob Fanning wrote: >> Do Parthenocarpic fruits require pollination? I know, in > the > > case of "seedless" watermelons, Parks Seed Co. recommends a pollinator be > > planted with the "seedless" melons. Park Seed Co. needs to get their act together (tell 'em, Bob!). The pollinators for seedless melons are bees. They are talking about pollenizers, plants to supply viable pollen. I'm always suspicious of "experts" who don't even know the basic terminology of their field.... > For the most part, parthenocarpic fruits do require pollination. In > the > case of seedless waermelons, the recommendation is for twice as many > colonies as you would expect for seeded varieties. Ummmm, Thom, you are talking about triploid melons, not parthenocarpy, here. And, as you say, you need more bees to do the job. Triploid melons have sterile pollen, and another compatible watermelon variety with viable pollen (the pollenizer) is needed, plus you need a lot more bee visits in the flower.... But parthenocarpic plants do not need any pollination, in fact is often a detriment to get pollination, as with the seedless English cucumbers which are grown in greenhouses or under row covers to avoid pollination. If pollinated, they are apt to be bitter, or at least have a lot of coarse seeds. Some figs are parthenocarpic, as well. Parthenocarpy is a defect in the wild, but man has occasionally found a mutation with the defect, and maintained it for his own purposes. It is a defect because the plant now more or less needs man's aid to reproduce. Some plants can have both normal pollination and/or parthenocarpy, as with some citrus. The more pollination, the more seeds. Actually, I prefer a seedy grapefruit, as I usually find it sweeter.... Dave Green The Pollination Home Page: http://pollinator.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 22:58:47 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: darrells Subject: Re: GM pollen In-Reply-To: <200005171833.OAA21996@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Susan Gilbert said: I'm very curious to know exactly what the problem is with finding genetically modified components in pollen. She also admitted that she knew of no study to say that GMOs were bad or harmful, and I guess as a scientist she would agree that no study has shown that GMOs are not harmful. If a large number of your customers think GMOs in honey are bad, they will not buy your honey unless you can convince them that no GM crops were visited by your bees. Trying to convince these people that GMOs in honey are not bad will only convince them that your honey contains GMOs and they will buy elsewhere. A high percentage of canola in western Canada is genetically modified and thus the honey from these plants will contain GMOs. This same honey has been popular in Germany etc. in the past. Convincing farmers to grow non GM crops until the issue is proven by Susan and her fellow researchers will maintain this valuable customer base. If farmers refuse to return to non GM seed, beekeepers will be forced to move their bees. This will prove the real value of the pollination service provided by our honeybees. Bob Darrell RR#2 Caledon Ontario Canada 80W 44N ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 06:11:08 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Thom Bradley Subject: Re: Pollination Information needed. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "David L. Green" wrote: > > In a message dated 5/18/00 6:40:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > thombrad@VISI.NET writes: > > > For the most part, parthenocarpic fruits do require pollination. > In > > the > > case of seedless waermelons, the recommendation is for twice as many > > colonies as you would expect for seeded varieties. > > Ummmm, Thom, you are talking about triploid melons, not parthenocarpy, > here. > Dave Green > The Pollination Home Page: http://pollinator.com You are absolutely correct, Dave. Triploid is seedless and parthenocarpic is fruited without any fertilization by definition. I'm glad to have other guys around when I post in a rush. Thom ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 15:25:12 -0500 Reply-To: busybeeacres@discoverynet.com Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: bob harrison Subject: Re: varroa resistant bees MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Hello Bob, > > Looking forward to hearing about your experiments with this colony. > > Yuuki Hello Yuuki, I will give you my findings and let you draw your own conclusions. I had rolled three jars of about 200 bees before removing the colony from the wall of the barn. approx 600 bees-1 varroa mite. I said in prior post there were no Varroa in the rolls . I was wrong as i did find one by going thru the three jars contents on white paper. After hiving the colony in modern equipment i installed 2 coumaphos strips and a dewitt varroa test sticky board with screen. 24 hours later i removed and found three dead varroa mites. Approx 20,000 bees-3 mites. I disected about 200 bees from the colony. Killed by freezing. I found Italian workers to have about 9% tracheal mite. I found the Italian drones to have about the same level. I found the old tatered wing carniolan drones to have tracheal mites and nosema in every sample. 50%+ with very high tracheal mite and nosema concentrations. I found nosema in about 15% of the Italian workers-drones. Your guess is as good as mine as to what the answer is here. I will put forth my theory and see if you find it feasible. Three years ago a swarm of Carniolan took up residence. Built the dark comb and survived until last fall. Last fall or spring the queen died and laying workers produced the Carniolan workers OR possibly the queen was a drone layer. Anyway the drones wintered over. Hence the old black drones with the tatered wings. Untreated last three years the carniolans had high infestation of TM and nosema. lack of varroa on black drones and in colony is a puzzler. About four weeks ago a swarm of Italians(buckfast?)swarmed into wall of barn. All to resist were the black drones which wouldn't and the bees probabbly wouldn't evict in the spring. The new swarm queen started laying in the old comb. Because of the high level of TM and nosema the new swarm is starting to show slight signs of both. First thing i noticed when removing the comb was the old black drones stagering around. i could be wrong but i believe the key to solving the puzzle lies with the black drones with the tatered wings. I saw no black drones emerging. Only Italian. The queen i removed from the colony was young. I can't say for sure this years but i believe less than a year old. There was no surplus honey in the colony except for about five combs of white comb with what i believe to be this years locust honey. The most obvious conclusion would be the old queen died and they raised a new queen. I don't believe thats the case here because of the old drones from last year still around in huge numbers. Lack of heavy varroa infestation.The new swarm comming from a spring treated for varroa hive. Three years untreated would certainly have at least a 5+ mite per 100 bees varroa infestation. Evidence of wax moths and evidence of comb melt down from not being strong enough to ventilate hive at some point in last three years. the owner says she is sure that the original swarm came three years ago. I transfered with my bee vacumm about 20,000 bees. About what a month old awarm would be up to and about ten solid 3 1/2 in. worker brood comb into five deep frames held by rubber bands. About what a swarm would be up to but half what a overwintered colony would have now. After hive is established in modern equipment i will put these above excluder to hatch and then harvest wax. Tell what you think might be the senario. Also what further tests i should do on this colony. Tonight is our beekeepers meeting and i am going to ask if we can sell our "removing Bees from Buildings tape"to the public. The tape is 45 minutes long and has everything you need to know about removing bees from buildings,trees,stumps and 55 gallon drums. Several house removals. Bob Harrison U.S.A. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 11:19:16 -0400 Reply-To: "Keith B. Forsyth" Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Keith B. Forsyth" Subject: Re: Need some help MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello: Try Jay Barthelmeus at capebees@capecod.net . Jay is the VP for the Mass. Bkprs. Assoc., and may be able to help or direct you to someone who may. Keith ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 12:44:31 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: tomas mozer Subject: Re: GM pollen Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit FWD: Yahoo! News Story - Modified Seed Planted Accidentally http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20000519/wl/europe_modified_seed_1.html ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 14:59:52 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Lloyd Spear Subject: GM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I am one of those who think much hysteria is evident in all the opposition to GM crops. In discussing seedless watermelons and cucumbers Dave Green said "Parthenocarpy is a defect in the wild, but man has occasionally found a mutation with the defect, and maintained it for his own purposes. It is a defect because the plant now more or less needs man's aid to reproduce." Let's see, it seems to me that somehow a genetic modification occurred, that would have naturally died out, but humans have maintained it. The watermelons have been around for 40 or more years. Where was the anti-GM crowd? Busy eating seedless watermelons? Lloyd Lloyd Spear, Owner, Ross Rounds, Inc. The finest in comb honey production. www.rossrounds.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 12:21:25 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: John Edwards Organization: Hayden Bee Lab, USDA-ARS,Tucson, Arizona Subject: Re: GM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lloyd Spear wrote: > I am one of those who think much hysteria is evident in all the opposition > to GM crops. In discussing seedless watermelons and cucumbers Dave Green > said "Parthenocarpy is a defect in the wild, but man has occasionally found > a mutation with the defect, and maintained it for his own purposes. It is a > defect because the plant now more or less needs man's aid to reproduce." > > Let's see, it seems to me that somehow a genetic modification occurred, that > would have naturally died out, but humans have maintained it. I agree, but I disagree with the direction GM has been going in recent years. As I understand it, with very limited knowledge, companies can now patent a line of plants by incorporating foreign genes into the "normal" genetic structure. The example I heard (on the radio) was incorporation of swine DNA fragments into crop plants, with the express purpose of creating a patentable product, not because the new strain had better qualities. Has anyone else heard of this approach ?? -- John ----------------------------------------------------------- John F. Edwards Biological Lab. Technician "Feral Bee Tracker and AHB Identifier" Carl Hayden Bee Research Center Agricultural Research Service - USDA 2000 E. Allen Road Tucson, Arizona 85719 32.27495 N 110.9402 W http://198.22.133.109/ http://gears.tucson.ars.ag.gov/home/edwards/edwards.html ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 15:33:19 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Lipscomb, Al" Subject: Re: GM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain >Let's see, it seems to me that somehow a genetic modification occurred, that >would have naturally died out, but humans have maintained it. The >watermelons have been around for 40 or more years. Where was the anti-GM >crowd? Busy eating seedless watermelons? While you have a good point in that such things are the result of mutations, the GM issue goes beyond what one would normaly expect to find. It is not the case of a gene mutating and selection regulating the spread, but of the introduction of DNA from other species. For example bacterial DNA being introduced into plants. Too be sure any mutation could result in a situation that could be dangerous, but the fast distribution of GM is the primary concern. If a watermelon were to be found at the edge of field that had some property we wanted it could take generations before it found its way into widespread use. Today there are millions of Americans that have consumed a GM product without knowing it. A seedless watermelon is kind of self regulating. GM appears to be spreding so fast that it may be like Varroa. Once it is found in the wild it will be far to late to do anything about it. It may not be long before a good portion of our food is GM, no matter how we feel about it. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 13:32:46 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Hank Mishima Subject: Re: GM In-Reply-To: Lloyd Spear 's message of Fri, 19 May 2000 14:59:52 -0400 Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit MIME-Version: 1.0 (WebTV) Most corporate scientists have not seriously considered the consequences of possible GM mutations spreading between plant and animal species. For one thing, it is too complex to consider the possible damage. For another, they have interests to make money for their company regardless of the future possible consequences. The main problem I see with this technology is once it a problem is found, it will be very difficult to stop and reverse. The chances for significant changes in ecosystems may occur at a much quicker pace than we have already done over the last 400 years. Another problem is that much of the GM solutions do not really help US Agriculture for the long-term. Farmers become even more reliant on a few giant corporations for everything including what to grow, when and how. Do you want a company like Monsanto with nearly total control of our nation's food supply? GM technology will also not help "feed" the world. Farmers in third world countries save seed, they don't have money to buy it. US farmers produce more food that can be profitably sold. There are many applications of genetic modification that seem beneficial in medicine and science. Corporate profit should not be the driving force behind getting this technology to market. It is hard to fool mother nature and we have made many serious mistakes in the past trying to tinker with ecosystems. I favor a more conservative approach that respects the past research and evidence. One which can pretty much guarantee that it will not be disastrous for the earth. We have gotten this far without very much DNA manipulation. We have time to proceed carefully. Hank Mishima Fairview OR ------------------------------------------------ To contact your elected officials see www.vote-smart.org ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 22:25:06 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "David L. Green" Subject: Re: GM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/19/00 12:04:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time, LloydSpear@EMAIL.MSN.COM writes: > Let's see, it seems to me that somehow a genetic modification occurred, that > would have naturally died out, but humans have maintained it. The > watermelons have been around for 40 or more years. Where was the anti-GM > crowd? Busy eating seedless watermelons? I'm sitting this one out. I won't take sides until there is more evidence. But I will say this. At least the watermelons have undergone genetic change within watermelons. I can't help but think it reckless when they put firefly genes into a mouse and make the mouse's ears glow in the dark..... Dave Green The Pollination Home Page: http://pollinator.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 19:48:33 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Richard Yarnell Organization: Oregon VOS Subject: Re: GM In-Reply-To: <200005191903.PAA01921@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Ah, but seedless watermelons cannot, without our help, survive, let alone take over the habitat. The Hale peach was a sport which an observant orchardist spotted and perpetuated by grafting onto the same stock he'd been using for years. This seems to me a far cry from deliberate insertion of genes to produce chemicals which the plant doesn't usually produce and which may or may not exist in nature; or produce plants which are immune to the heavy artillery we have come to depend on to eradicate "weeds." Either one is capable of great harm if released capable of reproduction. And if capable of crossing with other plants, we could find ourselves in deep do. On Fri, 19 May 2000, Lloyd Spear wrote: > ... In discussing seedless watermelons and cucumbers Dave Green > said "Parthenocarpy is a defect in the wild, but man has occasionally found > a mutation with the defect, and maintained it for his own purposes. It is a > defect because the plant now more or less needs man's aid to reproduce." > Let's see, it seems to me that somehow a genetic modification occurred, that > would have naturally died out, but humans have maintained it. The > watermelons have been around for 40 or more years. --------------- Richard Yarnell, SHAMBLES WORKSHOPS | No gimmick we try, no "scientific" Beavercreek, OR. Makers of fine | fix we attempt, will save our planet Wooden Canoes, The Stack(R) urban | until we reduce the population. Let's composter, fly tying benches | leave our kids a decent place to live. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 22:30:33 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: David & Sarah Grew-Foss Subject: Re: eucalyptus Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Bob Young asks about experience with eucalyptus as it produces so much pollen. Here is my two cents on the subject. From a beekeeping point of view eucalyptus is great. Here in northern california there are great stands of it that bloom from December through July. In fact we have such a short down time it is hard to do two varroa treatments a year, many hobbists such as I am only do one. The honey is light and delicious. The pollen keeps the gals happy all winter to the point that our hives get "packed-out" in January and february causing eary swarming. However, from a botanical, enviornmental point of view they are a scourge. They tend to be very invasive in california, their shallow roots, quick growth, and the oils in their leaves inhibiting other plants from growing. They like the moisture of seeps which can be delicately balanced ecosystems that they ten destroy. They do not hold the soil well and can help erosion of cliffs near the sea. They are also a fire hazard... I would recommend some serious thought before growing them in Texas, perhaps consult a botanist about how they would act in your climate. Sarah Grew Richmond, CA ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 21:43:27 +1200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Robert Mann Subject: Re: GM pollen Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hello listees all Greetings from the Antipodes. I'm an amateur beekeeper of 1 decade's experience; a rtd academic (Biochemistry, then Environmental Studies); and sometime 12-y advisor to successive Ministers of Health on poisons (on the Toxic Substances Board). I think GM is more menacing to bees, and to other organisms, than would be suggested by the post on which I insert comments. >As I take keyboard in hand to respond to this, I'm admonished by the >descriptive title of this list: notably "Informed." With the >understanding that this topic is not strictly "beekeeping," but >acknowledging that bees and beekeepers may well be affected by GM'd >plants; and that, while I read a lot and have thought a lot about the >issue of GM'd plants but claim no expertise at all; then perhaps the >monitors will let this through. I do think someone has to point out >that >there's a lot of uninformed lather being raised about a very important >topic. As a group we can't afford to be swept up by the hysteria which >already is rampant. Fair enough; but in my observation, the more drastic falsehoods come from the pro-GE PR operatives, not from the sometimes overenthusiastic critics. >1) The statement that there's no conceivable danger from pollen of GM'd >plants has no basis. There may be no appreciable danger, but we don't >know it yet. Well put. The question then becomes, who has the onus to prove anything? If the sceptics have to prove actual harm, there isn't much yet; but if the proponents have to prove that the danger is very low, they haven't even tried with relevant tests. > [A possible danger is severe allergic reaction to a >component one might not expect to find in pollen. GM, as opposed to >cloning or strict breeding reginmens which are, in themselves, a form of >GM, may incorporate components from sources even outside the plant >world. >By way of analogy, otherwise benign/helpful vaccines can be deadly to >people allergic to eggs if that's the medium on which the vaccine is >produced; someone allergic to Salmon _might_ be adversely affected if a >gene from that fish shows up in peanut butter or vice versa.] This is reasonable theorising; and there are a few tests which show that such possibilities are not merely theoretical. >2) Some GM'd plants apparently do produce chemicals which are toxic to >pests. They may also be toxic to other forms of life and probably are >toxic to some pollinators, managed ones or not. On it's face, this >would >be a bad thing. Rumors about Sunflowers come to mind. Those rumours haven't reached me. What has reached any scientist seriously interested in this issue is the 1-page paper in Nature by Losey et al. (1999) ' Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae' Nature 399, 214). Monarch-butterfly caterpillars eating leaves dusted with a GM-maize pollen were - nearly 50% - killed, and the survivors stunted, compared with the identical experiment using ordinary maize pollen in which none were harmed. >3) Some GM'd plants are specifically immune to certain herbicides. What >part of the plant and what mechanism renders the plant immune, I haven't >the foggiest. I am not reassured that anyone has done the work. But >frankly, toxicity isn't my immediate concern (see below). 'Resistant' is a better term than 'immune' - it's a matter of degree of susceptibility to the herbicide. The mechanisms of these resistances are known, in outline at least. What is not known is whether there are other unintended effects of these transgenic expts. >4) Not all GM'd plants are sterile. In fact, soy beans, rape seeds, corn, >and rice, are not sterile: the producer requires an enforceable contract >which doesn't permit the use of saved seeds. That ruinous bit of >leverage is, for me, prima facia evidence that the seed is viable and that it >must retain its GM'd trait(s). > >In my view, hyperbole is coming from all sides on the issue of GM'd >life forms. Not for a moment would I suggest we stop the research. But >I'd surely reorganize it and enforce strict controls over it and the >results. I have personally always taken the same attitude since I became concerned about GE soon after its invention. >a) I would prohibit the release of any GM'd plant stock until independent >researchers, free of any funding by any interested party had cleared the >plant of any possible adverse effect on other plants, animals, insects >(other than target pests), people, and the economy of food production. What could be more reasonable? What could be more different from what has actually happened? >Keep in mind that I claim no expertise: "Golden Rice" which contains >pharmeceutically significant amounts of Beta-carotene not normally >present in the grain, is >about to be released on the world. The "inventor," the owner, >distributor, all of them, have agreed there is overwhelming humanitarian >good to be done by giving the grain to populations which are otherwise >deficient in this vitamin. It is felt that certain forms of blindness >can be cured or controlled if the supplement is provided cheaply. Has >anyone asked what effect overdoses of Beta-carotene will have on birds and >seed >eating mammals which will encounter it in the field? Haven't heard of >any research. Before migrating fowl is killed off by a gracious gesture, I >think we should know. This ecologically-aware attitude is incompatible with the time-scale of the commercial deployments. Birth defects have certainly been caused in humans by excessive dosages of vitA. This 'golden rice', a tour de force of GE to date, has not just one gene but all those for a small metabolic pathway inserted. The unforeseen effects have yet to be sought. >b) Plants which are GM'd to produce toxins to repel or kill certain >pests, in addition to having unintended impact on related (or not) benign >species, will be doling out uncontrolled dosages. How long will it be >before the target pest(s) develop immunity to the toxins? This has been a main concern all along regarding crops GEd to produce systemically a modified version of the protein toxin of _Bacillus thuringiensis_ (Bt for short). See www.ucsusa.org. There is no doubt that resistant pests will arise. > Can these >plants pass the GM'd trait to related species? Lateral gene-transfer is also a main concern. > If so what impact will >that have on insects which are reliant on those plants? Once the genie is >out of the bottle, there will be no putting back. Here we come to one of the most serious and intractable threats - irreversibility. Prince Charles has emphasised this point. >c) Plants which are GM'd to be resistant to specific herbicides, thereby >permitting farmers to apply broad spectrum herbicides even after the >economic crop has emerged, should they cross with non-economic plants >(weeds in some contexts), may spawn a plague of destruction which cannot >be controlled. Before any such seed is released, these questions must >be exhaustively researched. In my opinion this is a relatively minor concern. There is no suggestion that a Roundup-resistant weed will thereby be also resistant to other herbicides, so the conventional answer is just to resort to a different herbicide for those weeds (which are already real, not theoretical). >Someone has already said that scientists can no longer be trusted. >That's a broad statement which rings of truth. In my view, what passes for >science under the control of well-financed vendors, has confused almost >everyone by dispensing with peer review, the scientific method, and by >politicizing the research process. Through effective advertising, those >same vendors sell the resulting pseudo-science at the expense of others >who do real objective science an much smaller budgets. Superbly put, and worthy of wide dissemination. As a scientist I grieve at this state of degradation. >By its very nature, production of GM'd species is dangerous. GM'ing >doesn't allow nature time to discard the mistakes. The potential exists >to overwhelm established species with engineered ones which are >successful in the short run. I don't believe we have the experience >yet, possibly the wisdom, and certainly not the knowledge to predict all the >consequences which may fall out. Correct. >Finally, as a group which stands to be adversely affected by chemical >and biological manipulation, it behooves us to object reasonably to >experimentation outside the lab. We can tell true tales about escaped >experiments, can't we? And can't the Aussies speak about rabbits and >dingoes? And then the grandaddy of them all: Spielberg can tell us >about velociraptors.... > >We can offer guidance and support to our governments which will have to >stand up to some very strong multi-national economic forces. But if we >don't come up with realistic adverse scenarios which can be subjected to >independent and rigorous scientific testing, money will eventually >overwhelm hysteria. True enough; but the situation now is that several 'adverse scenarios' have been proposed and studiously ignored. > As a case in point, there has been some exhaustive >testing on the use of radiation to kill pathogens in food. I wish it were so. The testing has not been exhaustive, but there has been enough to put the US Army (the main funder of that research) right off. The leader of the main research group, at UC Davis, has pronounced food irradiation 'infeasible'. > Some >countries permit it now, some don't. In those that don't, largely uninformed >public hysteria, unwilling to acknowledge the scientific research has >succeeded >in at least delaying implementation of a valuable public health tool and >have co-opted the political process to overrule the science. But >quietly, the food industry has begun to use the process on foods which >comprise >the margins of our diet. Sooner or later they will prevail on a larger >scale. The way things are going, I'm afraid you're right. But I can assure you that, contrary to what you've been told, food irradiation is NOT alright. >Thanks for your indulgence. The issue will affect us even though it does >seem to be tangential to beekeeping. It could become not tengential but central, if the threats implied by the Cornell expts come home to bees in the form of toxic pollen fed to our grubs. Varroa mite has just arrived in my country, and we are immersed in appraisal of whether to attempt eradication. Our dear friend _Apis mellifera_ is of extreme ecological and economic importance, but cannot speak for itself, so we had better advocate on its behalf along the lines of the above sketch. R - Robt Mann consultant ecologist P O Box 28878 Remuera, Auckland 1005, New Zealand (9) 524 2949 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 21:15:41 -0700 Reply-To: Bosaiya Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bosaiya Subject: When is it time to order a new queen? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit So I've got one of those dilemmas: When do I break down and order a new queen? A few weeks ago I noticed my second most successful hive was queenless. There were supercedure cells everywhere. The hive had two goodly filled supers of honey on it. Still some brood, but not too young. Some of the queens were getting ready to emerge. I figured I'd let nature take it's course and sealed them back up. Last weekend I checked and sure enough all the queen cells were neatly opened and cleaned out. No swarms, so I figured things went well. I don't know exactly when the queens emerged, but probably within a short time after I first noticed them. So today I went in and there's still no brood. The bees don't seem to be in too much of a funk, but the supers of honey have shrunk in quantity quite a bit. Meanwhile another hive that was similar to this before the queen vanished has filled up another super completely and is working on another (so it has four on it right now). This happened last year too. I jumped the gun a bit and ordered a queen early on. Apparently there was already a new queen that hadn't started to lay yet and introducing the new queen triggered a swarm very quickly. I'd like to avoid that, of course, but I also don't want to wait so long that I totally lose any value from the hive. I've tried looking for a queen in it, but I'm never very good at finding them and so not finding her is still pretty inconclusive. So what's the advice? This brings up another question I've been kicking around: Do you let your bees supercede naturally? I figure workers from my high-production colonies know the health and well being of their queen better than I do. If they decide to raise another, shouldn't I trust them? If it's a good hive, and they really seem to know what they're doing, shouldn't I let them? On questionable hives I try to take a more direct role, but I'm curious what other people do. If you let your bees manage themselves, do you find they do a good job of it? Of course they've done it for a million years, but we have a different agenda and I wonder if the two can be compatible. Regards, Bosaiya .....designs to knock you out..... http://www.knockoutproductions.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 07:27:32 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "David L. Green" Subject: Re: When is it time to order a new queen? Comments: To: bosaiya@knockoutproductions.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/20/00 9:30:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time, bosaiya@KNOCKOUTPRODUCTIONS.COM writes: > I've tried looking for a queen in it, > but I'm never very good at finding them and so not finding her is still > pretty inconclusive. > > So what's the advice? Sounds like you need to work on swarm management. The swarm you lost, was far better than the hive you have left, as is usual. You probably have a virgin queen, and it seems to take forever to get them mated. Introducing a queen, when you already have one they raised, is an exercise in futility; you'll be wasting your money. On the other hand, if a bird or dragonfly ate the queen on her mating flight, you have even worse -- a hive full of old bees, getting increasingly cranky and likely to kill a new queen. The solution: give them a frame with some eggs on it. If they accept that, there is a queen still in process. If they immediately draw cells, they've lost the queen that was in process. At that point, you can let them finish with the queen they raised, or give them a queen of your chosing. If you let them finish raising their own, they will definitely accept her, but you still have the risk of mating. If you give them a queen, also give them a couple frames of sealed brood. Then you will have young bees to attend the new queen, and acceptance will be much better. The bees will also be in better disposition, with the age range of the population more in balance. > This brings up another question I've been kicking around: Do you let your > bees supercede naturally? How could I stop them? They do it all the time... >I figure workers from my high-production colonies > know the health and well being of their queen better than I do. If they > decide to raise another, shouldn't I trust them? If it's a good hive, and > they really seem to know what they're doing, shouldn't I let them? On > questionable hives I try to take a more direct role, but I'm curious what > other people do. If you let your bees manage themselves, do you find they do > a good job of it? In the spring, queenless hives or ones with failing queens usually do pretty good job of replacement. In the dead of winter, there may not be enough drones for mating, even here in SC (depends mostly on the weather). And in summer heat a hive with a failing queen will often just die. I don't know if that is a result of the heat, or of the constant spraying around here. One thing for sure, the wax worms find them in a hurry when the queen is going out in hot weather. The worms can be working on one side of the hive, while the bees are on the other. My approach is to let them do what they want with raising queens, but I watch to make sure they do. If they don't raise a queen, or don't succeed in getting her mated, frames of brood with eggs are the solution. Sometimes when you are looking for brood, the hive that hangs out and is really heavy, may already have cells, so you gain some time. Yesteday I found three drone layers, and one that had swarmed but no eggs yet. All were fixed with a frame with queen cells on it from a hive that was ready to swarm. Some beekeepers will scream bloody murder about this. They say this is propagating swarminess. I will be deaf to their cries, as I've seen so many weak hives in the past 15 years, that the ones that are strong enough to swarm are the ones I want! Dave Green The Pollination Home Page: http://pollinator.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 10:15:19 -0400 Reply-To: Mark Baird Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Mark Baird Subject: Re: When is it time to order a new queen? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Along these lines. I found no brood and no queen in March (upstate NY). I was told that the existing bees would probably leave so I should get a package and a queen. The bees did not leave (they thrived! lots of new honey already), but it appeared that I had laying workers, as I found a lot of larvae in erratically shaped cells. I got my package and queen last weekend, and let her adapt in a separate super. Yesterday I used the newspaper method to and put the two hives together (I am a hobbiest with one hive). I hope they make it! Am I on track? Thank you. Mark Baird ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 15:33:27 +0100 Reply-To: John Burgess Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: John Burgess Subject: Re: Sterile Drones - the 2000 man? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "john f. mesinger" > Organophosphates - don't get it on your skin. Read and follow > directions. There is a much smaller [than Apistan] range between what kills > mites and what kills bees. What might it do at levels in between ? > Neither Bayvarol nor Apistan are organophosphates, unlike Coumaphos. They are both classed as synthetic pyrethoids, and are regarded as significantly less hazardous to people than OP's. John Burgess, Editor Gwenynwyr Cymru/The Welsh Beekeeper ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 15:38:57 +0100 Reply-To: John Burgess Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: John Burgess Subject: Re: GM pollen MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry Goudie" > > One problem with finding GM pollen in honey is that, here in Britain, you > will have a big job selling the stuff. If your honey was labelled as > containing GM pollen I doubt if you would be able to give it away and I > think it may be necessary under law to label it. Under current European law it is only required to label Honey as containing GM if the level exceeds 1%. This level of pollen in honey would only be approached by deliberate addition. Normal honey does not require any such label. John Burgess, Editor Gwenynwyr Cymru/The Welsh Beekeeper ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 11:17:45 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: tomas mozer Subject: Re: malathion spraying Comments: cc: BigBee@spydee.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit posted for information/discussion purposes only...see story at: http://www.sltrib.com:80/05202000/utah/50660.htm especially: "...will use the pesticide malathion. Smith said the plan is to use a crop duster to spray the perimeter around Tooele, but not over the city itself. City residents will be asked to spot-spray their own yards. The crop duster will blanket the rest of the Tooele Valley -- locations such as Erda and Pine Canyon. "We have to advise our beekeepers to relocate their hives and protect bees, but the spraying campaign should do the job," Smith said. "Theoretically, the hatch next year will be extremely light, because we will get this year's crop of grasshoppers before they can lay eggs." Malathion has proved effective and is safe around humans and most animals, Smith said. But he hopes a new pesticide, dubbed Dimilin, eventually is approved for widespread use, he said. It can be targeted at some crops, but has not been cleared for use on alfalfa and cannot yet be used on federal lands or in aerial spraying. Dimilin is a growth inhibitor that targets grasshoppers and crickets and does not affect insects such as honeybees. The pesticide is sprayed when the pests are in the molting stage. It stops the growth of the grasshoppers' outer skin, but their insides keep growing. "They sort of blow up," said Smith, grimacing. "It's kind of a gruesome sight to see." Equally unsavory is what happens to crickets when they eat poisoned bait laid out by farmers and extension agents. "They are cannibals," said farmer Raymond "Bob" Pehrson of Vernon, 35 miles south of Tooele. "A cricket eats a piece of bait and dies, another cricket eats the dead one and the poison spreads to other crickets. Up to five crickets can die that way from a single piece of bait." © Copyright 2000, The Salt Lake Tribune All material found on Utah OnLine is copyrighted The Salt Lake Tribune and associated news services. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 21:14:45 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Harry Goudie Subject: Re: GM pollen Comments: To: John Burgess MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit John Wrote:- > Under current European law it is only required to label Honey as > containing GM if the level exceeds 1%. This level of pollen in honey > would only be approached by deliberate addition. Normal honey does not > require any such label. Only a politician could dream up a loop hole like this! Surely if there is GM pollen in the honey then the honey must be from the same source and therefor must be considered contaminated. Harry ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 18:24:57 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Steve Fairfax Subject: supercedure in package bees? I am a novice beekeeper with 2 hives started from 2 5lb shipments of Italian package bees from York. Each package ate a quart of 1:1 syrup the evening of delivery. Hiving was unremarkable; each hive has taken 1 pint of 1:1 sugar syrup each day since. Week 1 inspection showed queens released, both hives with drawn comb in 6.5- 7 of the 10 frames. This seemed fast, but I did buy 5 lb. (Between postal rates and package prices, the difference between 3 and 5 lb seemed small). I saw honey and pollen in both hives, no brood. I withdrew only 2 frames; frame 3 (next to where I had placed the queen cage) and frame 6. I did not see the queens. Peeked in on day 10 and saw bees drawing comb on frame 9 of first hive. I did not disturb any frames, just added a 2nd deep hive body to both hives. Week 3 inspection (today) shows first hive with a good pattern of capped and open brood in frames 2 and 3. Plenty of burr comb and drone cells, some very little work on upper hive body, in fact not much drawn comb on frames 9-10 of lower body. Uncapped pollen and honey in upper parts of frames, with bees gorging. I only withdrew frames 2 and 3 for inspection, did not see queen. I did no cutting of comb except what was necessary to separate those 2 frames for inspection. The second hive has even more burr comb and drone cells, absolutely no work on upper hive body and 8 frames drawn below. This hive was slightly more irritated but both have seemed quite gentle since delivery. I saw what looked like queen cells in this hive on the two frames I inspected. I saw good brood but no queen. Should I worry about these "queen cells?" As a novice, I can't claim to be certain that they were queen cells, but they certainly resembled the pictures in Dadant's "First Lessons in Bee Keeping." Dadant mentions that supercedure is sometimes a problem in week 3 with package bees. My research before buying indicated that York provides quality, well-bred queens and I would hate to lose one so quickly. Reading the archives has been very educational but I saw nothing quite like this question. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. Steve Fairfax fairfax@mtechnology.net ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 00:02:23 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: awcannon Subject: dca MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable bearing in mind that drones get the chop at the years end, how do the = new years drones know where to find all of those drone congregation = zones? I have my doubts about them. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 21:33:48 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Allen Dick Subject: Queen Shipping Boxes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lately -- rather than posting my writing to BEE-L -- I have been publishing an illustrated daily column of 1000 words or so at http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Diary/. The articles there chronicle the activities in our 3,000 hive honey / pollination operation in Alberta. The most recent articles deal with the problems of storing and installing purchased queens, but a lot of ground has been covered over the past few months. allen