From MAILER-DAEMON Fri Jan 3 13:24:19 2003 Return-Path: <> Delivered-To: adamf@ibiblio.org Received: from listserv.albany.edu (listserv.albany.edu [169.226.1.24]) by mail.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AEC924ADEE for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 13:24:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from listserv.albany.edu (listserv.albany.edu [169.226.1.24]) by listserv.albany.edu (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h03FjrBf008596 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 13:24:18 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200301031824.h03FjrBf008596@listserv.albany.edu> Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 13:24:18 -0500 From: "L-Soft list server at University at Albany (1.8d)" Subject: File: "BEE-L LOG0105E" To: adamf@IBIBLIO.ORG Content-Length: 84380 Lines: 1818 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 21:45:56 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Barry Birkey Subject: Re: Seeing, "Hearing", Smelling, & Dancing In-Reply-To: <200105261808.f4QI83J25466@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit James Fischer said: >> The question is, what does the bee want to bring attention to. >> Some sort of cryptic compass direction to the source or attention >> to the odor of the source? > > The "compass direction" is not at all "cryptic". Any child of 10 with an > observation hive can watch the dances, transpose the bee dances into > a distance/direction vector, go to the location cited, and count the > visiting bees. People have been verifying this over and over for years. James - Let me first start out by saying I'm not an expert in the study of bee dances. What I have done, though, is read through *all* the articles that are posted on Mr. Wenner's web pages (http://www.beesource.com/pov/wenner/index.htm) and most of the book, ANATOMY OF A CONTROVERSY, by Wenner and Wells, and I find overwhelming evidence that should cause everyone to stop and question the von Frisch theory as most have all too willingly embraced it over the years as fact. While I have not personally done testing of the "compass direction" that the dance is supposedly showing, from reading accounts in Wenner's published work, I would have to say it is nowhere near as straight forward and clear as you put it, "any child of 10" could interpret the dance. From the way you talk, I assume you *have* done such verifying? > Regardless of individual opinions, recent work with "Robo-Bee" by > Thomas Seeley, of Cornell University (and, I am sure, others who's > names I do not know) tends to remove what little doubt might have > remained about the "dance vs odor" question. You got me on this one, I have no knowledge of Mr. Seeley's "Robo-Bee" or what useful data it gives us. > If odor had anything to do with recruitment, then Robo-Bee would be > unable to recruit any bees at all. Since Robo-Bee can recruit bees > to hitherto unknown locations, it follows that "dance" and a sample > of nectar is the minimum information required to recruit other foragers. Not sure I understand this. It would be one thing if the "Robo-Bee" could recruit bees (and it should be able to recruit the majority of a sample group) with *just* a dance but you mention a sample of nectar is used too. > The way that the statements are made seems to be an attempt > to discredit bee dance in general (a consistent theme of Dr. Werner's), > simply because the round dance does not include vectors. It's interesting that you suggest Dr. Wenner takes such an extreme viewpoint on this issue of dance, yet you hold and defend a viewpoint that is even more extreme and narrow (odor has no bearing on bee recruitment through dance), in spite of the volume of research by Wenner, Wells and others that raise a big red flag. Nowhere has Wenner discredited the bee dance in general. Regarding specific interpretations of the dance, yes. > How come a part-timer/side-liner like me has to point this sort of basic stuff > out? Perhaps it's not as basic as you make it out to be. I'm glad you pointed it out anyway. I highly recommend you read Wenner and Wells book to get a fuller understanding of their position, and tests performed. Regards, Barry ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 21:49:07 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Al Lipscomb Subject: Re: Vinegar fogger (fumigation) In-Reply-To: <200105281205.f4SC5xJ08057@listserv.albany.edu>; from jon002@HOTMAIL.COM on Mon, May 28, 2001 at 11:08:47PM +1200 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Mon, May 28, 2001 at 11:08:47PM +1200, Jon :-) wrote: > I recently read an article about controlling mites and bettles etc by way of > a system of fogging vinegar into a hive and this will reduce or eradicate > these bugs from the hive over a period of 21 days. The whole process using a > purchased kit is suppose to take about 5 minutes per hive. > There have been a number of postings about a number of agents that, when fogged into a hive will solve a number of problems. Most have not shown themselves to work as advertised. I would suggest a look into the BEE-L archives and see if anything makes sense to you. -- | There is no doubt we need government in our lives. There is also no doubt that we need salt in our diet. Watch out for too much of either one. AA4YU http://www.beekeeper.org http://www.q7.net ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 21:44:21 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Al Lipscomb Subject: Re: Queen Cells In-Reply-To: <200105280536.f4S5aKJ03025@listserv.albany.edu>; from braathen@GTE.NET on Mon, May 28, 2001 at 01:11:07AM -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > I am concerned about the queen cells. I don't want to loose my bees in a > swarm, and I'm unsure how to tell if the hive is trying to replace a > unproductive queen. Any advice on how I should proceed would be > appreciated. > Well from what you are describing you are looking at supercedure cells and not swarm cells. It is also possible that you are just seeing some cup cells but I doubt it. If the cells had royal jelly in the bottoms the bees are not happy with the current queen and are going to try and replace her. While I saw one answer that said the bees know what they are doing, I am going to be a little less hopeful. The bees do sense that the queen is in some way unacceptable. You could allow them to go ahead and raise a new queen and hope that things come out all right. That is the way I would have done it a few years ago. But today there are a few things you are going to need to find out before you can allow nature to take its course: 1) Are there any other beekeepers near you? What kind of bees are they keeping? If they are not using a hybrid then their drones should provide acceptable genetic material for your new queen. Of course you may want to find out if they have any drones flying this time of year in your area. A failed mating for the new queen will doom your new hive. 2) Do you want to spend almost a month waiting for the new queen to hatch and start laying eggs? Destroying the cells and introducing a new queen may be a better option. The current queen is going to need to be replaced. There is not a lot you can do about that. I would button things up (as was suggested in another post) and let them have a go at a new queen. Keep the feed on them. In about 14 days take a quick look and see if you can see eggs. If not then button them up for another week and try again. If you still cannot find eggs then see if a local beekeeper can help you with a frame of eggs. These can be introduced to see if the bees will try again to raise a queen. If they start queen cells then order a new queen for them. If you find eggs then put things back together and wait a couple of weeks. Check for capped brood and if the brood looks normal (flat cappings, not bullet shaped) then all is well. Decide if you want to requeen in the fall with a marked queen from a breeder. > Other information: > - I have not used smoke on this hive You may want to start giving them a little smoke the next time you inspect. The bees are going to be getting older and may give you a rough time otherwise. -- | There is no doubt we need government in our lives. There is also no doubt that we need salt in our diet. Watch out for too much of either one. AA4YU http://www.beekeeper.org http://www.q7.net ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 21:28:19 -0400 Reply-To: beeman@kingston.net Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: kent stienburg Subject: Re: Queen Cells MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "J.D." wrote: Hi J. D. It's not uncommon for a package on foundation to raise supercedure cells. The bees would get a false sense that the queen is failing because of the lack of eggs. This is because she doesn't have the space yet. You should have taken more time to see how much brood was there. Decide what you want to do before you open the hive. Don't over examine them. It's better to to 1 good inspection then 2 half effort ones. With a package or a new queen I will wait 7-10 days before I check for brood. If I see eggs I put the hive back together right away, I've seen that she has started to lay and I'm happy. If you have been feeding or there is a good flow on, the next inspection 7 days later, I want to see eggs, brood and capped brood. Roughly 4-6 frames. The pattern should be full with very few gaps. It's very difficult for anyone to advise you over the net about this but... Since I'm going to assume the queen is healthy and young. The bees have a false sense of queen failure.. I would take down the queen cells. Start keeping a record also! When you see pollen when you start to notice nectar, drones everything. This will help you later. Good luck. Kent Stienburg Ontario Canada ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 23:47:13 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Juandefuca Subject: Re: Vinegar fogger (fumigation) Comments: To: Jon Marsh Warning !!!!!! One of our members and I ventured into different methods of mite combatting last year .He bought the vinegar machine and I am still testing the results of the method I applied and therefore cannot comment. THE RESULTS OF THIS VINEGAR METHOD WAS absolutely negative and produced losses and red faces. So , stay away from it before you invest 500 bucks . Sorry about that ! JDF ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 23:33:55 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Juandefuca Subject: Re: Sugar Dusting (Step-By-Step!) Comments: To: admin@CABLENET-VA.COM I am so glad to finally come across a post which has a sense of humor and at the same time brings forth sound suggestions. I have searched for a way to establish a method of counting percentages . not applying the usual methods with hard chemicals .One is the Ether roll, the other is the sugar roll . Both methods as far as I am concerned are random and unreliable. The last method which gave a reliable result was the alcohol/ water method. Of course you kill the specimen bees. When the powder sugar method was first suggested as a test procedure , I used it . Results were not in line with the actual varroa drop off with Fluvalinate as well as Coumaphose. Then follows a long story not of interest here.And inconlusive as of now. The intereting thing is this: Shortly AFTER this powder sugar test was published ,I wrote to a contributor of one of the Beejournals of reknown and ask whether powdersugar could be applied as your article suggests. Specifically as it pertains to the possible effect on brood. The answer was disappointing since the person did not understand the question I raised. NOW , the article explains it just right . Thanks !!!! At this time I have found an insignificant amount of normal "drop off" in my colonies. I am using the sreened bottom board which is removable to clear large debris with a solid board ( 1/4 Ply or 5/16 fiber board ) beneath to serve as a mite count as well as ventilation adjustment feature. I am at this time use a different method of mite combat but all that is still inconclusive as I mentioned. I am looking forward to the day when I can eliminate all foreign substances from the colony. Thanks again for your excellent post and get beekeepers on the ball to collect data or anecdotal observations. Anything to get rid of hard chemicals. I heard about sugar without cornstarch but have not found it either. Greetings JDF ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 08:58:07 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Anonymous Ok Subject: Re: Getting rid of an aggressive hive MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Why not change your queen. That would be the cheapest.JIM ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 10:15:34 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Eric Woznysmith Subject: Pollen cleaning Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Folks, I have just started collecting pollen using bottom pollen collector from Dadant and have a couple of questions. How long can I collect pollen from one hive without impacting the hive? Any ideas on how to clean the pollen after I get it out of the hive. Contrary to Dadant's claim, the pollen has lots of hive rubbish in it. How should I store it once it is clean? Any other pollen collection tips, nifty facts etc are welcome. Thanks, Eric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 08:17:05 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Seeing, "Hearing", Smelling, & Dancing MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Barry Birkey wrote: > > Regardless of individual opinions, recent work with "Robo-Bee" by > > Thomas Seeley, of Cornell University (and, I am sure, others who's > > names I do not know) tends to remove what little doubt might have > > remained about the "dance vs odor" question. > > You got me on this one, I have no knowledge of Mr. Seeley's "Robo-Bee" or > what useful data it gives us. There is also a mechanical bee experiment discussed in the Hive and the Honey Bee. The robo-bee is more recent. http://www.fonz.org/zoogoer/zg1995/buzz.htm http://galliform.bhs.mq.edu.au/psy_105/refsig1.html An excellent article on the dance and other bees is http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc99/4_3_99/bob1.htm It seems bees do not have a position on any of this, or, if they do, they have not posted it on the internet. Bill Truesdell Bath, Me ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 08:43:04 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Aaron Morris Subject: Re: Wax Efficiency in Honey Storage MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > why don't we use drone foundation in our supers in order > to give the bees a slightly easier task in drawing out > the larger (more efficient cells) ? A former BEE-L contributor and marketer of the DE Hive recommends using drone foundation in honey supers. I ordered some and was going to give it a go, but sold my DEsign before test results were in. No bad side effects were noted in the sales pitch, and an aditional advantage claimed was that honey would extract easier from the larger cells. Aaron Morris - I think, therefore I bee! ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 10:19:53 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bill Truesdell Subject: tests: successes and failures MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Juandefuca wrote: >THE RESULTS OF THIS VINEGAR METHOD WAS absolutely negative and produced >losses and red faces. So , stay away from it before you invest 500 bucks . >Sorry about that ! >JDF We all run experiments. Unfortunately our failures often go unreported. We really do not like being painted the fool for believing the "snake oil salesman". Years ago I tried menthol cough drops and did not find one case of flu in the hive all winter. Found plenty of tracheal. It was nice to see courage in telling us about the failure of spraying vinegar. Generally we only see the "successes". And the failures go unreported because the experimenter feels they obviously did something wrong, since everyone else is succeeding, when the truth is that they also failed. It would be nice to hear of the successes and failure of experiments over the past year. I have a success, but I only mirror what has been commonplace with other beekeepers in New Hampshire. I over wintered my hive with a screened bottom board and did not close it but left it open to the Maine winter. It came through fine. I lost two of my three hives the previous winter. Did nothing different this year but had the open bottom. I am wondering if there is Varroa drop with Apistan and resistant Varroa. Also wonder if the cold would cause varroa drop. If so, I could have had some control even with resistant varroa. The failure was with two queen hives. They produced honey like mad, but proved a major problem when it came to preparing them for winter. Too many bees which required over wintering in three deeps. It has been found that crowding in the winter provides the perfect conditions for tracheal and viruses. I believe that is what caused my losses in the previous winter with my two queen hives. I was lax in applying crisco patties. Set up the perfect conditions for failure. One died and the second came through the winter, but weak. I managed to kill it off with Oxalic Acid, improperly applied. Embarrassing. Any other experiments that were successful or failures? I am especially interested in Oxalic Acid treatments. when I am back to three hives I intend to test one with Oxalic Acid for varroa control. Bill Truesdell Bath, ME ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 15:57:58 +0100 Reply-To: hircock Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: hircock Subject: relocate and swarm control It shouldn't happen to a beginner! This is my first posting to bee-l. You will see from point 7 that I have a big problem. I am a newbie beekeeper. I have my hive in my parent's garden. I know I should have at least two - just give me time. Here's the story: 1. I re-queened (using a nuke) because my bees were very bad tempered and I did not know the age or origins of the queen I had. 2. The new queen is laying and the brood seems to be developing and honey is being stored. I have two British National brood boxes and two supers above a qx. 3. Queen cells started to be formed soon after uniting the nuke with the de-queened brood box. 4. As a beginner, I destroyed all of the q-cells, some of which contained an egg. 5. My latest inspection revealed many q-cells, mainly along the bottom of the frames in the top box, but also some in the bottom box and a few partway up the face of the combs. Several of them had royal jelly in them. 6. I destroyed all that I could find, knowing that swarm control measures would be needed but . and here comes the really bad news: 7. Two days previously, my father, in whose garden the hive is situated, had been rushed to Accident and Emergency with a near fatal anaphylactic shock reaction to some sort of bite or sting on the back of his head. The probability is that it was one of my bees! He had been stung many times before with very little reaction. On this occasion he was not close to the hive, which had not been touched for at least 3 days. I must remove the hive. 8. This is why I did not instigate artificial swarm measures: I am not sure if they would work in conjunction with moving the hive to a fresh location. Please advise on relocating a hive and performing swarm control at the same time. Does the artificial swarm depend on the hive being in one location for a while? Would anyone talk me thru the procedure of swam control and relocating synchronously? I have books describing artificial swarm etc. but I have never done it. I should be interested in comments on any part of my story, but especially point 8. You will appreciate that the situation is quite urgent. David. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 12:18:34 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Milt Lathan Subject: Let the Bees Do IT?? This is my 1st year back as a hobbyist in 18 years so I think of myself as a 'RE-Beginner'. Whenever I'm out and about - I check for evidence of feral bees which I rarely find. So, I am confused by folks who are still advising that we let our bees raise their own queen which will be mated naturally. With so few bees in the suburbs can a queen be well mated by natural means? Two more questions: 1) Where do the Drones come from? 2) Can/Does a virgin queen mate with her "Brothers"? Thanks. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 13:40:48 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: dan hendricks Subject: Queenless Behavior MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I chanced to hive a swarm with a suction swarm catcher and discovered the next day that it did not contain a queen. OK, I'd just combine it with my regular hive. But there was a timing problem. I was in the process of requeening that hive and didn't want to distract it with some strange bees. So I hived the swarm on ten frames of drawn comb and fed it syrup for about a week. So what did the external hive activity look like in that interim? This is the point of my post. These queenless bees oriented, foraged and stored pollen. In other words, looked just like a queenright colony! I have observed the same before but never in a colony which began (in their current hive, anyway) queenless. I have read many places that one can diagnose queenlessness by the external behavior of the bees but I don't believe it. At least, I can't. Dan __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 00:38:26 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Lucinda Sewell Subject: What am I doing wrong? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all, Last year I tried the 'sugar roll' with a negative result on hives that were showing visible signs of infestation.(Varroa in drone brood easily found, and mites seen in hives or on bees) I just tried again on a feral colony with the same visible signs, this time carefully collecting my bees from the brood area, as recommended by Jeff Pettis (sp?) at the BBKA spring convention this year. No varroa mites falling through the coarse sieve onto the fine. Lots of bees looking very funny. They won't get accepted by the wrong hive either...a side issue I pursued...This test is not working for me and I can't figure out why. Have others had success? I still think it's Russian roulette... Grapefruit leaf smoke is a similar annoyance to me...No mites fall. I haven't tried strips the next day, but will. Whilst forking the dronebrood out of the feral colony (inner cover with a big pile becoming a bird paradise...loads of varroa, lots of multiple adults on pupae) it occurred to me that if 1500 bees hatch on a day, lots of varroa that were not exposed to (say) fluvalinate will be knocked down by the alternative varroacide selected to prove fluvalinate resistance. Am I missing something there too? Apistan seems to have done a good job last Autumn in Berkshire. Regards John Sewell ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 19:06:49 -0400 Reply-To: "jfischer@supercollider.com" Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: James Fischer Subject: Re: Seeing, "Hearing", Smelling, & Dancing MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Barry Birkey said: > What I have done, though, is read through *all* the articles that > are posted on Mr. Wenner's web pages > (http://www.beesource.com/pov/wenner/index.htm) I read them too. > and most of the book, ANATOMY OF A CONTROVERSY, by Wenner and Wells, I have not read that book just yet. > I find overwhelming evidence that should cause everyone to stop and > question the von Frisch theory as most have all too willingly embraced > it over the years as fact. For there to be a "controversy", there must be more than one scientist to disagree. The only person who seems to be promoting "odor" over dance is Dr. Wenner. No one else seems to even rebut him any more. One man does not a "controversy" make. > While I have not personally done testing of the "compass direction" > that the dance is supposedly showing, You really should. It is just as easy as I said. There are even websites that explain it. As a matter of fact, we are trying to develop some simple graphics to allow even very young children who can't read well to do exactly the same thing for an observation hive we have installed at a nearby state park. (A few cheap compasses, a few golfer's "range finders", and the kids have an adventure for an hour or so. Some parents buy some honey at the park gift shop, so we are classifying the whole thing as "advertising expenses".) > From the way you talk, I assume you *have* done such verifying? Yes, clearly a sign of a quite lifestyle. Perhaps too quiet. :) > Not sure I understand this. It would be one thing if the "Robo-Bee" could > recruit bees (and it should be able to recruit the majority of a sample > group) with *just* a dance but you mention a sample of nectar is used too. A sample of "nectar" (which could be nothing more than sugar water) is a required item to recruit foragers. The basic concept is "here, try it - its good stuff". The higher the sugar concentration, the more foragers one can recruit. All this is covered in great detail in the book "The Wisdom of The Hive, by Seeley, as well as countless papers by a wide range of researchers. (BLATANT PLUG - The IBRA will be happy to make a list of all the papers that match any search criteria for a mere $25. I am a happy IBRA customer.) > It's interesting that you suggest Dr. Wenner takes such an > extreme viewpoint on this issue of dance, I made no value judgements as to "extreme". I simply pointed out that in the specific article at hand, the mere description of the test data made it clear that the data showed nothing more than "the round dance does not include distance and direction vectors", which is an well-known fact. The paper never mentioned the difference between "round" and "waggle" dances, so I thought I'd point out the (perhaps NOT SO) obvious to prevent anyone from jumping to unwarranted conclusions. Since the article (http://www.beesource.com/pov/wenner/abjoct1992.htm) offered a "random search/odor plume" explanation for ALL bee foraging, and went on to say: "These interpretations lend credence to the authors' suggestion that honey bees are likely to utilize odors more in finding flower patches than they do the dance language (which may only serve as a stimulus to go out and search)." I find the conclusion completely misleading. The conclusion is made from "testing" the round dance, which is KNOWN to have no distance/direction component. While ABJ is certainly not a juried journal, I am surprised that Nick Dadant and his staff did not ask such questions themselves. "20 seconds flight time" is a little hard to miss, and the implications are obvious to even the casual observer. > Yet you hold and defend a viewpoint that is even more extreme and narrow > (odor has no bearing on bee recruitment through dance), I simply described (as best I could) the results of the Robo-Bee experiments, which are a part of the current "generally accepted viewpoint". What I said was that odor was not one of the MINIMUM requirements to recruitment and accurate deployment of recruits to the area promoted by the dancer. (No, I don't have my own Robo-Bee, nor do I plan to build one...) Of course, I also hold strong and narrow positions on things like the spherical nature of Earth. Dismiss me as "an extremist" if you will. :) > in spite of the volume of research by Wenner, Wells and others that > raise a big red flag. How many researchers and/or beekeepers would agree that any "big red flag" is anywhere in sight? Show of hands, ladies and gentlemen? People with observation hives get TWO votes. People with entomology degrees get THREE votes, but only if they kept an observation hive alive through winter. ============================================== Bill Truesdell added: > It seems bees do not have a position on any of this, or, if they do, > they have not posted it on the internet. I once came upon a bee flinging herself at the keyboard of my laptop which I had left in the honey house overnight. All she had typed was: all your honey are belong to us ...but I got the message. I left more for them to winter over on that fall. jim Farmageddon ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 21:55:48 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Marc Studebaker Subject: Re: Queenless Behavior MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >I have read many places that one can diagnose queenlessness by the >external behavior of the bees but I don't believe it. At least, I >can't. Dan I have read that a colony collecting pollen is queenright also but I have seen pollen collected by queenless hive many times. Marc Studebaker Geneva, IN ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 22:42:19 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob & Liz Subject: tests: successes and failures MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Bill & All, In Missouri we had a beekeeper try the vinegar machine with poor results. Last I heard the used machine was for sale in a beekeeping newsletter. I will add a few comments but must state I have NEVER used the machine. The maker of the machine also produces a wax melter which myself and other beekeepers have used with success. The maker of the machine is not a beekeeper but a inventer. I have never met the inventer but have talked on the phone to him on a couple of occasions. The idea behind the vinagar machine does make sense to me and in *theory* the machine should work to a degree. The Missouri beekeeper which used the machine said the machine knocked down some varroa but the control fell far short of a 98% chemical control so he discontinued the machines use on his 700 hives. In my opinion and buying a melter from the inventer I do not believe he ever intended to *rip people off* but was trying to invent a non chemical cure for varroa. Sadly like *ALL* non chemical controls so far they have fallen short of the control *Apistan*(Fluvalinate) did when first released on the market. I notice the vinegar machine is not advertised in the June issue of ABJ. Perhaps if a beekeeper were to spend the time figuring out exactly why the machine is not providing varroa control maybe the machine could be improved to a point it could be used with success with other IPM methods. The melter the inventer has made is very well made with stainless steel and galvanized metal. They have held up for decades in commercial beekeeping use. I suspect the quality of the vinegar machine is top notch. Many inventions are sitting on shelves because they didn't perform as intended. Sadly to say a few of my own. I am writing this post from the outside looking in and have no way of knowing the actual problems with the machine first hand. The theory did seem reasonable to me. Sincerely, Bob Harrison ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 01:47:48 -0400 Reply-To: "jfischer@supercollider.com" Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: James Fischer Subject: Re: What am I doing wrong? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Linda said: > Last year I tried the 'sugar roll' with a negative result on hives that were > showing visible signs of infestation.(Varroa in drone brood easily found, > and mites seen in hives or on bees) I just tried again on a feral colony > with the same visible signs, this time carefully collecting my bees from the > brood area, as recommended by Jeff Pettis (sp?) at the BBKA spring > convention this year. No varroa mites falling through the coarse sieve onto > the fine. Lots of bees looking very funny. No mites at all? Something must be amiss. Take a look at: http://entomology.unl.edu/beekpg/tidings/btid2000/btdjan00.htm#Article2 Marion Ellis led the group that worked out the "sugar roll", so the web page is "the word" on how to do it. Did they get mites when they demonstrated the technique at BBKA? If so, perhaps someone who is near you can make a "house call" to take a look at your technique.... In the absence of details, the only plausible straw I can grasp at is a guess that you are using damp, lumpy powdered sugar with big ugly fat chunks, and a very low percentage of dust-like particles in the 1 - 5 micron range. It is the tiny little particles that clog up the mite's suction cups and make them fall. No tiny little particles, no mite drop, no matter how much sugar you use, or how long you "roll" or "shake". So my best guess is to suggest that you go down to the market, get a fresh bag of powdered sugar, open it, sift in two or three times, and try again before the sugar has a chance to get moist from humidity. Other than that, I am stumped. > They won't get accepted by the wrong hive either...a side issue I > pursued... If I understand you correctly, you expect the sugar roll to turn the tested bees into "neutral" bees with no pheromones from their own hive. I wouldn't. They would still have their proper hive's scent. They bear no gifts of pollen or nectar. I think you should put them back in their own hive after rolling them. They don't need a fight after the little amusement park ride in the sugar, now do they? Isn't a "bad hair day" enough when one's entire body is covered in tiny hairs, and one has no shower? :) jim Farmageddon (...where we are up late tonight, upgrading 200 routers around the planet so at least some of you can read things like Bee-L even faster....) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 07:53:27 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: tests: successes and failures MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bob & Liz wrote: > The maker of the machine also produces a wax melter which myself and other > beekeepers have used with success. The maker of the machine is not a > beekeeper but a inventer. > I do not believe he ever intended to > *rip people off* but was trying to invent a non chemical cure for varroa. I would venture that most of the Varroa and Tracheal mite controls that ended as failures or had only limited control were the result of well meaning people trying to find a solution to the problem. That is why I asked the question on the results of tests and trials conducted by others. I did not mean to impugn the intentions of inventor of the fogger. My concern, and I have spoken it often on this list, is with the fervor that accompanies some of the mite control ideas that populate the internet. They sound good and intuitively make sense. That coupled with testimonials from some users makes it look like definitive mite control has been found. Then the other part of the problem comes in. >Perhaps if a beekeeper were to spend the time figuring out exactly why the >machine is not providing varroa control maybe the machine could be improved >to a point it could be used with success with other IPM methods. When we run the test and fail, we assume it is our fault and that we should or could have done something differently. That information is held back because few of us like to admit failure. We do not realize that most others who tried it also failed. It is only after someone admits failure that others come forward and a valid discussion takes place. That is what I am looking for. What has been tried and worked and what has not. And then let's talk about it. Bill Truesdell Bath, ME ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 10:43:23 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob & Liz Subject: Re: tests: successes and failures MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Bill & All, Bill wrote: I would venture that most of the Varroa and Tracheal mite controls that > ended as failures or had only limited control were the result of well > meaning people trying to find a solution to the problem. That is why I > asked the question on the results of tests and trials conducted by > others. I did not mean to impugn the intentions of inventor of the > fogger. I know you didn't Bill. I only wanted the Bee-L people to realize behind the adds in ABJ is a small modest frame house in Iowa and a inventer which works out of a modest frame two car garage and makes each piece of equipment by hand himself. I am sure his disappointment in the vinegar machines performance is possibly greater than those which have tried the machine. Bill wrote: > My concern, and I have spoken it often on this list, is with the fervor > that accompanies some of the mite control ideas that populate the > internet. They sound good and intuitively make sense. That coupled with > testimonials from some users makes it look like definitive mite control > has been found. Then the other part of the problem comes in. The main problem in this particular case Bill is the inventer does not keep bees so he has designed the machine from theories put before him by beekeepers and his own research. Bob wrote: > >Perhaps if a beekeeper were to spend the time figuring out exactly why the > >machine is not providing varroa control maybe the machine could be improved > >to a point it could be used with success with other IPM methods. Bill wrote: > When we run the test and fail, we assume it is our fault and that we > should or could have done something differently. That information is > held back because few of us like to admit failure. We do not realize > that most others who tried it also failed. It is only after someone > admits failure that others come forward and a valid discussion takes > place. Inventors are use to failure but if the theory is sound then most inventors believe the invention will work with the *bugs* worked out. I received a email from New Zealand yesterday in response to my post. quote: "Like you in theory it should work,including the idea of using the mineral fogger". The New Zealand Beekeeper is going to contact the inventor and research further.. Another quote from the New Zealand beekeeper: "I hear the negative comments and respect the people that say them. I have also hear positive comments from other that have use them and feel that I really can't go away from the idea totally till I have explored the idea." I believe the NZ beekeeper will not mind me publishing the above comments. According to the NZ beekeeper varroa is causing serious problems. I have and always have had respect for the NZ beekeepers. Those guys don't leave a stone unturned looking for solutions to beekeeping problems. Sincerely, Bob Harrison Odessa, Missouri I wrote the post yesterday four hours after hernia surgery. I am home on *light duty* for three weeks. I will be on pain pills for awhile so please bare with me if I seem not to make sense. All i can do is read or research on the internet while on the pain pills. Not allowed to *drive*. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 16:30:59 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob Harrison Subject: mineral oil for varroa control Hello All, In the June issue (2001) of the American Bee Journal under the section on Argentina(pg 402) under the heading *World Honey Market* there is a reference to Argentina commercial beekeepers using food-grade mineral oil for varroa control. The article says some beekeepers report good results while others are not happy with this treatment. Any Bee-L ers know what type of treatment the article is refering to. Should I have been spraying the mineral oil on my bees this spring instead of as dormate oil on my fruit trees? Sincerely, Bob Harrison Odessa, Missouri ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 17:53:50 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: mineral oil for varroa control MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bob Harrison wrote: > > Hello All, > In the June issue (2001) of the American Bee Journal under the section on > Argentina(pg 402) under the heading *World Honey Market* there is a > reference to Argentina commercial beekeepers using food-grade mineral oil > for varroa control. The article says some beekeepers report good results > while others are not happy with this treatment. Bob, Here is an article by DrR on its use. http://www.beekeeping.com/articles/mineral_oil_2.htm If you search the archives you will find quite a bit on it. The fogger is the latest application method. Sort of like the vinegar fogger but a bit more elaborate since you are spraying food grade mineral oil. There were tests done, other than by Dr. R (its inventor), which were not as successful as his results which were excellent no matter what the method of application. The results in the link are similar to his results using other methods. However, when those methods were tested independently, FGMO did not work. I read one independent test using a fogger and it showed somne varroa control, but not as good as many other methods. The scientist said it needed more work to be effective. I was a true believer when it first came out but there will have to be a lot more proof than I have seen to date to convince me of its effectiveness. This is one of those Varroa control methods that you use at your own risk. It has a life of its own. Bill Truesdell Bath, ME ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 18:24:48 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: Queenless Behavior MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dan, Are you SURE that there is no virgin queen in the swarm? In this crazy weather, sometimes virgins don't mate and lay for a period as long as 3 weeks. You wrote after hiving them "about a week". Why not look for eggs next week? George Imirie ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 18:38:18 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: huestis Subject: Re: mineral oil for varroa control MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Bob, I believe they are using foggers to mist the FGMO into the hives. I think some are happy and others are not due to the frequency of application. I used FGMO for two years without any other treatments and good results were obtained (hives lived). My six controls all died, one held out for quite some time but still perished. FGMO colonies survived 3 lost to starvation. Used treatment on top bars at 2.5cc per colony as starting point and increased amount as colonies grew stronger (no two are alike in the real world). I found that treatment must be applied every 15 days in this form of application if no other treatments are used are varroa population kept under control. The disadvantage is the labor involved and the frequency of application particularly with large numbers of colonies. I discontinued the use of FGMO because of the amount of labor. It is a bit disruptive to hives, too (they survived,but with a little lower production). Treating 50 colonies every 15 days is very time consuming. However using a fogger would allow larger numbers to be treated. Not certain of the frequency of application for fogging. For more info on the fogging method go to Barry Birkey's site and look under the section of FGMO were some up to date info is/ was. > type of treatment the article is referring to. Should I have been spraying > the mineral oil on my bees this spring instead of as dormate oil on my > fruit trees? reply: With the rate of resistance to chemicals it might be something to try /or look into. Especially in areas where large losses are occurring. Many say FGMO doesn't work. I believe most don't apply enough and with strict timing rain or shine for proper control. Clay ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 21:01:07 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Al Lipscomb Subject: Re: Queenless Behavior In-Reply-To: <200105300105.f4U151J27551@listserv.albany.edu>; from danhendan@YAHOO.COM on Tue, May 29, 2001 at 01:40:48PM -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > These queenless bees oriented, foraged and stored pollen. In other > words, looked just like a queenright colony! I have observed the > same before but never in a colony which began (in their current hive, > anyway) queenless. > Drop in a frame with eggs and see how they react. If they pull cells then you know there is no queen. If, as George suggests, there is a virgin queen in the hive you will have young bees available when the new queen starts to lay. -- | There is no doubt we need government in our lives. There is also no doubt that we need salt in our diet. Watch out for too much of either one. AA4YU http://www.beekeeper.org http://www.q7.net ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 21:32:13 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Rodney Farrar Subject: combining two hives MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have two weak hives that I am thinking about combining into one, any suggestions? Both have queens and are laying eggs but not a lot. One in from a swarm the other from a split that didn't go to well. Thanks Rodney in VA ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 03:07:52 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob & Liz Subject: Re: mineral oil for varroa control MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Bill & All, Bill wrote: > Bob, Here is an article by DrR on its use. >> http://www.beekeeping.com/articles/mineral_oil_2.htm > If you search the archives you will find quite a bit on it. The fogger > is the latest application method. Sort of like the vinegar fogger but a > bit more elaborate since you are spraying food grade mineral oil. I should have searched the archives before my post and I would have remembered the FGMO discussion. I didn't enter the FGMO discussion at the time. > There were tests done, other than by Dr. R (its inventor), which were > not as successful as his results which were excellent no matter what the > method of application. The results in the link are similar to his > results using other methods. However, when those methods were tested > independently, FGMO did not work. I read one independent test using a > fogger and it showed somne varroa control, but not as good as many other > methods. The scientist said it needed more work to be effective. Two facts stand out at Dr. R's site. Dr.R had hives which had survived four years with no other treatment than FGMO with the Tobacco testing done. Dr. R's controls all died. One thing about varroa testing the controls always die within two years . Fact two is that Dr.R had been fogging with Tobacco smoke every two weeks since 1998 to do a sticky board test. We have known for years Tobacco knocks down varroa and is a excellent IPM method. Dr. R knows also as uses the method for his tests. It would be interesting to see if colonies would be alive after four years with only the FGMO. I suspect we will be hearing from Dr. R when he reads this post. The scientific reason why the FGMO works is not clear to me from reading from the archives. Are the varroa DEAD or only knocked off the bee? Sincerely, Bob Harrison Odessa, Missouri Ps. Dr. R has discontinued the fogger and is now using the cord soaked in FGMO. In my opinion from only reading I wonder what kind of results might be had with open mesh floors and the FGMO fogger. If I am reading Dr.R's work correctly he did his tests with solid bottom boards. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 04:23:20 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob & Liz Subject: Vinegar fogger was mineral oil fogger MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Bill & All, Bill wrote: > If you search the archives you will find quite a bit on it. The fogger > is the latest application method. Sort of like the vinegar fogger but a > bit more elaborate since you are spraying food grade mineral oil. I only found three posts searching the archives on the vinegar fogger and they were all on the 28th of May 2001. To look at the machine*vinegar fogger* (made by Honey Processors,LTD).you need first to look at vinegar. Vinegar relies on its chief chemical ingredient Acetic Acid to kill microorganisms I believe this is accepted truth from my high school biology. The proponets of Acetic Acid against bacteria claim: All carbohydrates contain the same chemical elements,carbon,hydrogen and oxygen. Acetic acid dissolves bacteria spores by breaking up carbohydrates in them. True or false researchers? The proponets of acetic acid against varroa claim: Acetic acid readily breaks down . the hard covering (Chitin) which is made up of calcium which is the hard shell of the varroa mite. True or false varroa researchers? The proponets of acetic acid for varroa control use the following example: An example of the effects of white vinegar(acetic acid) on calcium is the effect it has on a chicken bone. The bone turns to rubber. I plan to test this example. My attempts at catching one of the wifes chickens in the middle of the night with a hernia has resulted in dismal failure (kidding!). Is this example correct researchers? The points I have listed above are why I made the statement in theory the vinegar fogger should provide a certain amount of varroa control. If researchers will comment and say the two points the proponets of Acetic acid have made are *hogwash* then I will have to amend my position in the *vinegar fogger* discussion. Sincerely, Bob Harrison Odessa, Missouri Ps. Am I the only person in the world up in the middle of the night thinking about the vinegar fogger? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 05:42:54 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Charles Frederic Andros Subject: Encouraging varroa news! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Beekeepers: This is very encouraging, indeed! Charles Frederic Andros Linden Apiaries since 1973 Former NH/VT Apiary Inspector '78-'89 1 McLean Road POB 165 Walpole, NH 03608-0165 603-756-9056 lindena@sover.net Residence: Latitude 43=B0 04' 53" North, Longitude 72=B0 21' 13" West, = Elevation 363 meters=20 Keeper of 43 two-queen colonies for unheated honey, fresh-frozen pollen, = propolis tincture, Bee Complex facial, pollination, nuclei, beeswax, = candles, apitherapy, workshops, and supplies "Learn, experiment, innovate, educate!"=20 Malcolm T. Sanford ApisApicultural Information and Issues Florida Extension Beekeeping Newsletter Volume 19, Number 4, April 2001 =20 Smrd Honey Bees: Breakthrough in Varroa Tolerance =20 Dr. Jeff Harris of the USDA Honey Bee Breeding Lab in Baton Rouge, = Louisiana provided some exciting information at the latest meeting of = the South Alabama Beekeepers' Association in Mobile. It seems that = suppression of mite reproduction is a genetically inherited trait that = results in Varroa-tolerant bees. This characteristic, called SMR, is = just one of several found in Africanized honey bees that have potential = use in selection programs = . = Fortunately, the trait is widespread in the U.S. honey bee population = and so is readily available in the present gene pool. However, in order = to begin a selection program, there must be a technology to measure the = trait. A full description of the work done by Dr. Harris along with Dr. = John Harbo appears in the May 2001 issue of Bee Culture (Vol. 129, No. = 5, pp. 34-39) and on the ARS web site = . =20 According to the authors, all female Varroa in a bee colony do not = attempt to reproduce at the same time. Generally one-third of the mites = can be found on adult bees and the rest in the brood cells. And some = fifteen to twenty five percent of mites that enter brood cells do not in = fact reproduce. These individuals may be mites that die before laying = eggs, live but do not lay eggs, produce only a male and no females, = and/or produce progeny too late to mature before bee emergence. One or = all of these categories may be found in any one honey bee colony. =20 The number of non-reproducing mites in a colony is measured by examining = about 30 singly infested brood cells and recording the reproductive = success of each female found there. Several environmental variables = affect the percentage of non-reproducing (NR%) mites. These include = temperature and humidity (increase NR%), season (higher NR% in summer) = and climate (larger NR% in the tropics). NR mites also often have no = sperm (have not been mated) and in some cases, dead mites are found = "entrapped by the pupal cocoon." Over fifty percent of mites in = colonies selected for NR have been found so entrapped. Of passing = interest is the fact that non-reproducing mites deposit their feces on = the bee pupae rather than beside it.=20 =20 It takes about 6 weeks after requeening a colony with an SMR queen to = see results. This is called by the authors "delayed mite suppression" = or SMRd. Mite suppression also occurs immediately in some populations, = and is called SMRi. To show how SMR queens affect change in a colony, = the authors performed several queen exchanges between control and SMR = colonies, and found that mite populations became more or less = reproductive based on the queen received. They conclude: "=BCwe are = confident that honey bees will become resistant to Varroa mites." More = encouragingly, they say that in the future, "=BCbees will need fewer = chemical treatments to control mites. Eventually they will need none."=20 =20 The Varroa Species Complex: New Strategies to Control Varroa Destructor = =20 An article titled: "The Varroa Species Complex: Identifying Varroa = destructor and New Strategies for Control" in American Bee Journal (Vol. = 141, No. 3, pp. 194-196) by Susan Cobey = at the = Ohio State University discusses in some detail the implications = surrounding renaming Varroa jacobsoni to Varroa destructor = . A = key finding, according to Ms. Cobey, is that the former mite reproduces = only on the original Varroa host, Apis cerana, while Varroa destructor = infests and reproduces on Apis mellifera. Thus, they are reproductively = isolated. =20 It is instructive to look at reproductive variability within the context = of the Varroa species complex. Many questions arise. Is it possible, = for example, that the SMR characteristic only functions with one or a = few haplotypes of the mite? If so, does this mean it is in fact a = haplotype dependent trait?. What happens should other haplotypes be = introduced into this complex equation? There is no answer to these yet, = according to Dr. Harris, but fortunately DNA study appears to confirm = that the haplotypes found in Louisiana are presently susceptible to SMR = honey bees. =20 =20 Ms. Cobey Concludes: "New discoveries are encouraging and lead us = closer to the goal of being able to naturally maintain mites at = insignificant levels. The focus must be on selective breeding. We now = have the knowledge to move forward in this direction (editor's note: = SMR bees described above is one of the most hopeful signs). To select = and maintain mite resistant honey bee stocks is the beekeeper's biggest = challenge, ever. This will require the combined efforts of scientists = and beekeepers. Beekeepers must then take the responsibility to = establish selective breeding programs and apply this knowledge in the = field. As we discover new strategies and achieve this goal, we must = also remember not to become complacent. Selective breeding is an = on-going endeavor and subject to constant change. =20 Are Non-Hygienic Queens Now Pass=E9? =20 I wrote back in September 1998 that Drs. Spivak and Gilliam, who = co-authored an article on the subject in Bee World, have concluded. that = hygienic behavior is eminently inheritable and thus it can be selected = for. Commercially available lines of hygienic stock would help many = beekeepers overcome a multitude of problems, especially those associated = with mites and disease. This would reduce operating costs by minimizing = use of chemicals, with their concomitant possibilities of bee, colony = and product contamination. Finally, standard queen rearing and breeding = techniques can be used to produce many hygienic queens from a few = mothers using any race of honey bees = . =20 =20 At the time I wrote the article referenced above, I asked why this trait = was not more widely used in breeding programs. Mr. Allen Dick in Canada = now says in no uncertain terms: "Non-hygienic queens are now pass=E9." = He stated this in a May 19, 2001 post to the Bee-L discussion list, = concluding that nowadays nobody should have to put up with queens that = lack this essential characteristic and the consequent economic losses = that result from AFB and chalkbrood (Editor's note: The trait also = appears to affect mites and small hive beetle). The hygienic = characteristic, he says, can be easily selected in any strain of bees in = only a few generations. Mr. Dick urges beekeepers to demand hygienic = queens from suppliers and "don't take no for an answer." =20 In an effort to show how one might employ this technology, Mr. Dick has = put up an article with many illustrations describing in great detail = both the basis behind hygienic behavior and how to test for it = . Originally = developed by Steve Taber, the technique has been modified using liquid = nitrogen to effectively kill a patch of brood, an innovation of Dr. = Jerry Bromenshenk at the University of Montana = . It factilitates the = process because brood comb does not have to be physically removed from a = frame and then be reincorporated back into it as the original technique = demanded. It will now be up to beekeepers to take or leave Mr. Dick's = advice. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 23:54:36 +1200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Robert Mann Subject: vinegar fogger Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Bob Harrison wondered: >Am I the only person in the world up in the middle of the night thinking about the vinegar fogger? No, old man - it's approaching midnight here - and I now cop the least plausible biochemistry in a while. Someone is supposed to have said: >Acetic acid readily breaks down the hard covering (Chitin) which is made up of calcium which is the hard shell of the varroa mite. The exoskeleton of many wonderful animals is composed mainly of this hard polymer chitin. It is a polymer of a modified sugar. It has little in common with eggshell. The calcium, if any (I haven't looked it up - my browser is on the blink, how will I manage? :-}) in chitin is at most a small part and hardly dominates its chemical properties including any vulnerability to solvents such as acetic acid. Chitin is notoriously hard to dissolve. Dilute aqueous acetic acid - which is mostly what vinegar is - does not look promising for this purpose, but I stand to be corrected, could be wrong, and mustn't pretend that all that hi-falutin' larnin' counts for much. I'm not sure what can be done about the wild biochemistry that meanders around the beekeeping scene. R ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 08:10:55 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Aaron Morris Subject: Please, minimize quoting! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Guidelines for BEE-L Submissions 1. Do not include excessive quotes of previous submissions. If you must quote previous postings, include only what is necessary to make your point. Submissions that include the entirety of previous posts will be rejected without comment or notice. Full guidelines are available at: http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/BEE-L/guidelines.htm Aaron Morris - thinking: > Guidelines for BEE-L Submissions > > 1. Do not include excessive quotes of previous submissions. > If you must quote previous postings, include only what is > necessary to make your point. Submissions that include the > entirety of previous posts will be rejected without comment > or notice. > > Full guidelines are available at: > http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/BEE-L/guidelines.htm ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 07:01:28 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Dave Hamilton Subject: Re: combining two hives Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I have done this many times .. if you want to just have a single queen you can use a piece of newspaper and simply set one hive on top of the other .. by the time they chew up the newspaper, they have become accustom to each other. If you want to try a 2 queen system, leave a full honey super between the two colonies and provide a rear entrance for the top hive .. I start out with an excluder between the colonies as an extra piece of insurance, but I'm sure others will say its not needed. When two queens dual, one outcome is that both are injured which is not where you want to be this time of year. Dave At 09:32 PM 5/30/01 EDT, you wrote: >I have two weak hives that I am thinking about combining into one, any >suggestions? Both have queens and are laying eggs but not a lot. One in from >a swarm the other from a split that didn't go to well. > >Thanks Rodney in VA > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 08:52:23 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: combining two hives MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/31/01 6:49:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Rodsbug@AOL.COM writes: > I have two weak hives that I am thinking about combining into one Your result will likely be one large weak hive unless you are also going to requeen. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 10:23:19 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: mineral oil for varroa control MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bob & Liz wrote: > for years Tobacco knocks down varroa and is a excellent IPM method. Dr. R > knows also as uses the method for his tests. It would be interesting to see > if colonies would be alive after four years with only the FGMO. I suspect we > will be hearing from Dr. R when he reads this post. I doubt if we will be hearing from DrR. Most of the adherents to FGMO migrated to another list. It is interesting reading some of the posts in that group. They mirror the comments of the original threads. Some successes and some failures. And if the fogger has been discontinued and we are back to saturated ropes, we have almost gone full circle. Bob, your comment on tobacco smoke is similar to the questions raise on the method from the origional discussions. As well as the comment on controls. It is also interesting to note the number of hives that die from "other" causes not associated with Varroa when FGMO is used. The problem with FGMO is it wraps itself in the mantel of science but with tests, as you noted, that leave a lot of questions which are never answered. When FGMO is tested by independent researchers, it always comes up short. In some cases disasterously so. And it seems every time it does, a new application method is developed. Bill Truesdell Bath, ME ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 11:09:46 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bob & Liz Subject: Re: vinegar fogger MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello All, One last pondering. The similarities between Acetic acid and formic acid. We know beyound a shadow of a doubt that formic acid is very effective against varroa AND tracheal mite. The chemical formula for vinegar is CH3-COOH very similar to formic acid which is HCOOH. Do we know the way formic acid kills varroa and tracheal mites? I stopped at this point in the post and reread the complete writings on formic acid from the new book *Mites of the Honey Bee* (Webster & Delaplane 2001)and there is no explanation of exactly what process kills the mites. Could it be formic acid disolves the *Chitin* of the varroa mite? Why is formic acid so effective against both mites when other chemicals work mainly against one or the other? What method does the Formic acid employee to kill the tracheal mite? I looked up a quote to back up my theory on why Dr.R was successful in keeping his hives alive for four years and those only using the FGMO had poor results: pg 190 of *Mites of the Honey Bee* "Tobacco smoke increases mite fall and has been used for both detection and CONTROL" . Fogging every two weeks with the tobacco smoke throughout the year would drop varroa numbers possibly more than the FGMO. Sincerely, Bob Harrison Odessa, Missouri ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 10:33:21 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Cell size MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Just stumbles across this in searching for more info an cell size and AHB. It is from http://entomology.ucdavis.edu/faculty/mussen/7-8-97.html Quote Eric reported that local bees, living in combs with smaller cell sizes, have survived the onslaught of Varroa and have less than 10% infestation rates. Tracheal mites are very low, too. They are hoping to breed from those queens for mite resistance. [Editor's Note: The AHBs in the USDA yard were living in previously drawn EHB combs. Their mite level in uncapped drone brood was about 50%.] Unquote What keyed my interest was the comment on increased varroa in EHB combs. Along with another comment in the article: Quote Dr. Danka suggested that four traits might be of importance in Varroa mite resistance: 1. decreased length of capped stage, 2. grooming and biting mites, 3. hygienic behavior (removing infested brood), and 4. failure of mites to reproduce in host cells. Actually, the fourth trait is the most influential in these studies. Unquote I just wonder if the two are interrelated- cell size and failure of mites to reproduce in host cells. There is a tantalizing inference in the fact that the AHB they were testing had high Varroa count on EHB comb which would seem to discount the first three, since nothing has changed about the bee, only the cell size. I wonder if when SMR is found it correlates to the bees cell building. As size goes down, SMR increases? Probably no correlation, but it is intriguing. Bill Truesdell Bath, ME ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 11:31:12 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Dr. Malcolm (Tom) Sanford" Subject: Fwd: bees studies Comments: cc: jfernan@clix.pt Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed I do not know of this information, but would suggest looking at the bee bibliography: http://alembic.nal.usda.gov:8088/ Some examples I found are: AUTHOR: Yes'kov, Y. K. (Res. Inst. Apic., Rybnoye (Ryazan Region), U.S.S.R.) ARTICLE TITLE: Sound Apparatus Of The Bee Apis mellifera L. JOURNAL TITLE: Biophysics 14(1):166-176, Figs. Refs YEAR OF PUBLICATION: 1969 NOTES: Translation From Russian In: Biofizika 14(1):158-166, 1969. 'In The Work We Investigated The Mechanism Of Emission Of Sounds By Bees Based On The Vibration Of The Thorax Effected By The Indirect Action Of Wing Muscles. These Sounds Are Amplified Through The Vibration Of The Wings. The Presence In The Sound Of Bees Of Maximum Intensity At Frequencies Of 400-500 C/S Is To Be Explained By The Fact That The Longitudinal Muscles Vibrate The Thorax At This Frequency. The Pulsating Sounds Emitted By Dancing Bees Are Produced Chiefly Under The Action Of The Same Muscles. The Wing Plates Perform Two Functions In The Production Of Sounds: A) Emit The Sounds As Any Vibrating Plate; The Fundamental Frequency Of These Sounds Is Determined By The Frequency Of The Sweeps By The Wings; And B) Are Diffusers Amplifying The Vibration Of The Thorax.' KEYWORDS: Thorax Wings Sound Anatomy AUTHOR: Chadwick, L. E. (Harvard's Biological Lab.) ARTICLE TITLE: The Wing Beat Of Insects JOURNAL TITLE: Science 90, No. 2326, P. 7-8 (Supplement) New York YEAR OF PUBLICATION: 1939 NOTES: KEYWORDS: Wing >Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 18:38:59 +0100 >From: Joaquim Fernandes >Subject: bees studies >To: mts@GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) >Importance: Normal > >Dear colleague, > >I am studying some aspects of the bees and I >would like your help as an expert. >Do you know any information or study relating >the frequences audio of the bees buzzing? What is its >range and frequences in Herz? its possible to get some >information about it? > >Its very important to a study that we are conducting >here at our University. > >Thnak you very much > >Best regards > >Joaquim Fernandes >University Fernando Pessoa >Porto >Portugal ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 19:52:04 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: Tim Morris Subject: Re: vinegar fogger MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/31/01 1:08:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time, BusyBeeAcres@DISCOVERYNET.COM writes: << The chemical formula for vinegar is CH3-COOH very similar to formic acid which is HCOOH. Do we know the way formic acid kills varroa and tracheal mites? I stopped at this point in the post and reread the complete writings on formic acid from the new book *Mites of the Honey Bee* (Webster & Delaplane 2001)and there is no explanation of exactly what process kills the mites. >> One very big difference is concentration. Normal household vinegar is about 4-5% by volume-the rest being water. The formic I have seen advertized was higher in concentration. To a certian extent this is why I suspect that methol works well, but cough drops don't :O)--Concentration is important. This is another reason to be careful when using homemade versions of commercial products. Too much can kill more than you wish and not enough can make things resistant. I now wish I had gone into bee work instead of environmental chemistry--would have been interesting to use my chemistry knowledge working on solving bee problems. Tim Morris ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 10:48:21 +1200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology From: "Jon :-)" Subject: Re: Vinegar fogger was mineral oil fogger Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed >>Vinegar relies on its chief chemical ingredient Acetic Acid to kill >>True or false researchers? True >The proponets of acetic acid against varroa claim: >Acetic acid readily breaks down . the hard covering (Chitin) which is made >up of calcium which is the hard shell of the varroa mite. >True or false varroa researchers? Again True >The proponets of acetic acid for varroa control use the following example: >An example of the effects of white vinegar(acetic acid) on calcium is the >effect it has on a chicken bone. The bone turns to rubber. Is this example >correct researchers? Again True. The questionI have though isn't bee made of the same material and what you are doing to Varoa you are also doing to bee. >If >researchers will comment and say the two points the proponets of Acetic >acid >have made are *hogwash* then I will have to amend my position in the >*vinegar fogger* discussion. It is not hogwash so don't amend your thoughts only lets improve them. >Am I the only person in the world up in the middle of the night thinking >about the vinegar fogger? No I am the NZ'er that working on the alternatives. So at night when you are thinking about them I am in daylight working on them. At night when I am thinking about them you in the daylight should be working on them. I went out and turn over some stones looking for some answers and I found som worms. That got me thinking........... Jon _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.