From SYSAM@UACSC2.ALBANY.EDUMon May 22 07:16:00 1995 Date: Mon, 22 May 95 08:35:41 EDT From: Aaron Morris To: dicka@cuug.ab.ca ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1991 16:52:04 IST Reply-To: Discussion of Bee Biology Sender: Discussion of Bee Biology From: Avigdor Beiles for Amots Dafni Subject: RE: June Issue of APIS--please acknowledge receipt to MTS@IFASGNV.BITNET In-Reply-To: Message of Wed, 31 Jul 1991 09:33:00 CDT from Received June issue at the 2nd of July. Thanks. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1991 19:40:28 MST Reply-To: Discussion of Bee Biology Sender: Discussion of Bee Biology From: Diann Peart Subject: RE: June Issue of APIS--please acknowledge receipt to MTS@IFASGNV.BITNET In-Reply-To: Message of Wed, 31 Jul 1991 09:33:00 CDT from in reciept. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1991 14:27:53 TUR Reply-To: Discussion of Bee Biology Sender: Discussion of Bee Biology From: YAVUZ DARENDELIOGLU Subject: RE: June Issue of APIS--please acknowledge receipt to MTS@IFASGNV.BITNET In-Reply-To: Message of Wed, 31 Jul 1991 09:33:00 CDT from This is the acknowledgement. thanks. Yavuz Darendelioglu. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1991 09:36:48 EST Reply-To: Discussion of Bee Biology Sender: Discussion of Bee Biology From: Peter Subject: BUMBLEBEE NEWSLETTER The first issue of "BUMBLEBEEQUEST" has been published. If you would like to receive a copy, please send me your name and address. After that, it will be up to you to get placed on the mailing list (there's a form to fill in on the back of the newsletter) The first issue, officially available in June has only just been mailed because of my absence from Guelph for much of July and early August. I had to make several trips away for unexpected and urgent personal reasons. I am sorry for any inconvenience that might have been caused. With best wishes, Peter Kevan ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1991 18:38:00 -0300 Reply-To: Discussion of Bee Biology Sender: Discussion of Bee Biology Comments: @FPSP.FAPESP.BR - @FPSP.HEPNET - @BRFAPESP.BITNET - .BR gateway From: UERCB%BRFAPESP.BITNET@UACSC2.ALBANY.EDU Subject: BUMBLEBEE NEWSLETTER PETER KEVAN. I WOUD LIKE TO RECEIVE THE FIRST ISSUE OF BUMBLEBEEQUEST.MY NAME AN D ADRESS ARE OSMAR MALASPINA. CENTRO DE ESTUDOS DE INSETOS AND ADRESS ARE OSMAR MALASPINA.CENTRO DE ESTUDOS DE INSETOS SOCIAIS. CAIXA POSTA L 199, UNESP, 13500-RIO CLARO, BRASIL. THANK YOU. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1991 13:58:00 -0300 Reply-To: Discussion of Bee Biology Sender: Discussion of Bee Biology Comments: @FPSP.FAPESP.BR - @FPSP.HEPNET - @BRFAPESP.BITNET - .BR gateway From: UERCB%BRFAPESP.BITNET@UACSC2.ALBANY.EDU Subject: bumblebee newsletter peter kevan. Iwould like to receive the first issue of bumblebeequest. My name a n and adress are osmar malaspina. centro de estudos de insetos sociais. caixa post al 199, UNESP, 13500 - RIO CLARO,SP - brasil. thank you. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1991 23:37:00 CDT Reply-To: Discussion of Bee Biology Sender: Discussion of Bee Biology From: MYLES MUSTOE Subject: BUMBLEBEEQUEST Yes! Iwould liketo receive a copy of the Bumblebeequest. Please send to M. Mustoe, Dept.of Geography, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-3147 Thank you! MM ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1991 06:56:00 PST Reply-To: Discussion of Bee Biology Sender: Discussion of Bee Biology From: KIRK VISSCHER Subject: Private vs Public Bitnet communication This is to call to the attention of readers of Bee-L the possibility of and the desirability of sending Private E-mail, rather than posting everything on the public line. When Tom Sanford posts an issue APIS, or Peter Kevan announces the availability of BumbleBeeQuest, it is not necessary, nor is it especially polite, to send your response, which is a private communication of no particular general interest, to Bee-L. Instead, such things should be sent to the personal Bitnet address of the person posting them, which is always included in the header of the transmission. I don't mean to inhibit exchanges of information and views about topics posted to Bee-L: this is the stuff that makes it a vital forum. Rather, I mean the multiple messages of "yes, I'm interested," or "I got it" that just take up everyones time and disk space to skip over. -yer friendly neighborhood crank, Kirk Visscher. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1991 09:54:31 EST Reply-To: Discussion of Bee Biology Sender: Discussion of Bee Biology From: macphil Subject: Re: Private vs Public Bitnet communication In-Reply-To: Message of Thu, 15 Aug 1991 06:56:00 PST from On Thu, 15 Aug 1991 06:56:00 PST KIRK VISSCHER said: >This is to call to the attention of readers of Bee-L the possibility of >and the desirability of sending Private E-mail, rather than posting >everything on the public line. When Tom Sanford posts an issue APIS, or >Peter Kevan announces the availability of BumbleBeeQuest, it is not >necessary, nor is it especially polite, to send your response, which is The problem is that not all mailers have the ability to easily override this. Mine does, but many people respond out of habit or don't pay attention to where it is going. A suggestion to correct this is for anyone posting a note which may generate many "private" replies to put a "Reply-To: " line in the header so that anyone just responding will send it back to the originator. That, as much as anything, will reduce the number of extraneous notes considerably. Fyi--you have to put a real address in above. MacPhil | iqti400@indycms.bitnet | iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1991 15:02:43 MDT Reply-To: Discussion of Bee Biology Sender: Discussion of Bee Biology From: Tom=Moothart%SciTech%Libraries@VINES.COLOSTATE.EDU Subject: re: BUMBLEBEE NEWSLETTER Could you please send me an issue of the Bumblebee Newsletter Tom Moothart Colorado State Univeristy 213 Morgan Library Fort Collins, CO 80523 Thank you. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1991 10:31:15 EST Reply-To: Discussion of Bee Biology Sender: Discussion of Bee Biology From: vertigo flutter Subject: Far Side For those who enjoy both bees and Gary Larson's _The Far Side_--today's comic is captioned "Unwittingly, Raymond wanders into the hive's company picnic." ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1991 15:26:00 EDT Reply-To: Discussion of Bee Biology Sender: Discussion of Bee Biology From: MTS@IFASGNV.BITNET Subject: AUGUST ISSUE OF APIS FILENAME: AUGAPIS.91 Florida Extension Beekeeping Newsletter Apis--Apicultural Information and Issues (ISSN 0889-3764) Volume 9, Number 8, August 1991 Florida Bee Inspection: User Fees At a recent Farm Bureau meeting, the subject of user fees for bee inspection in Florida was raised. This is not in the works yet, according to Mr. Laurence Cutts, Chief Apiary Inspector, but is certainly a possibility in the future given the State's budgetary problems. Bee inspection services have been public whipping boys ever since discovery of tracheal mites in 1984 when colonies were first "depopulated" in a futile effort to control the infestation. Early on, Florida, under pressure from migratory beekeepers, declared itself infested with tracheal mites, effectively killing the package bee and queen business in the state. Since then, regulations concerning tracheal mites have not been implemented uniformly around the United States, causing further dislocations in an industry heavily dependent on interstate movement. Introduction of Varroa in 1987 paralleled the tracheal mite experience in many respects, and the African honey bee, another regulatory nightmare, has finally entered the country. Meanwhile, the old beekeeping problems, particularly American foulbrood, have not disappeared. All this puts regulators in a bind; there appears to be much more to regulate and in many cases, diminishing resources with which to carry out needed inspections. This also frustrates beekeepers who have seen their profits suffer due to increased costs in many cases caused by regulations. For example, an innovative South Carolina beekeeper had to close down operations in Florida because of the disparity between regulations in the two states. The results of inconsistent rules have caused many in the beekeeping industry to re-examine the role of regulators. Some are calling for total deregulation of the industry. Indeed, this has been accomplished in the western states to a great degree. California still has laws on the books, but enforcement no longer exists, according to Dr. Eric Mussen at the University of California, Davis. The western states' agreement on mites and movement, analogous to the eastern states' agreement to which Florida is a signatory, no longer exists. The ripple effect from this is that inspection programs in Oregon and Idaho, dependent on user fees for inspection prior to moving to the California almond orchards, have also fallen by the wayside. Dr. Richard Taylor, long-time writer for Gleanings in Bee Culture, has also entered the fray. He recently asked the question, "Have inspection programs outlived their usefulness?" (July, 1991). He ends his piece by stating, "My own view is, and has for some time been, that mandatory inspection of apiaries is something whose time has long since come, and gone. American foulbrood is a manageable problem that can be left in the hands of beekeepers themselves. This is not going to eliminate American foulbrood, to be sure, but neither is anything else. It is not a proper area for government." Dr. Taylor's comments concerning the historical reason for bee inspection (American foulbrood control), why it is no longer needed and the fact that such bureaucracies tend to have a life of their own are valid. Most professionals in the research and education establishment would agree with much of what he said. I have been opposed to regulations concerning Varroa for some of the same reasons as Dr. Taylor is about American foulbrood. We simply don't know enough about the mite's life cycle to be able to effectively regulate the parasite. This has caused a crisis in confidence within the industry that sees such regulations as nothing more than meddling. And there can be no effective regulatory activity on an industry that does not support such efforts. Fortunately, there is a technology in place that beekeepers can use to reduce Varroa populations [Apistan (R)], analogous to employing Terramycin (R) for American foulbrood control. The same is true for tracheal mites. Thus, I have advocated deregulating both tracheal and Varroa mites in Florida. Common sense and the realities of the world, however, dictate that the state must have an inspection system in place so bees can move out of Florida in cooperation with inspection services in other states. In addition, without formal regulation of pests, chemical companies have much less incentive to develop and evaluate products for control. Although technologies to control AFB, Varroa and tracheal mites are in place, I do not believe this warrants the dismantling of inspection services around the nation. The old saying, "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water," holds. Although in some cases inspection agencies are viewed as abusive and having a life of their own, as stated by Dr. Taylor, this does not mean they cannot adapt their programs to aid the industry being regulated instead of damaging it. Inspection services like most political entities are not necessarily immune to pressure from the group being regulated. And there are many benefits that inspection services perform for the industry that are not often fully appreciated. As an extension worker, I have always thought of bee inspectors as my agents in the field, providing needed information to beekeepers, running the gamut from the one-colony beehaver to a seasoned migratory operator. I don't know how many times I've referred persons to inspectors for a wide range of services beyond simply inspecting colonies for potential problems. These have included collecting pesticide killed bees for analysis, investigating stinging incidents and nuisance colonies, and participating in local beekeeper meetings. Without these helpers in the field, I would not have access to information on beekeeping around the state or statistics about the industry. A recent survey by Gleanings in Bee Culture (see elsewhere in this newsletter) would not have been possible without state inspection services. Research into bee problems also is promoted by inspection services and sometimes they are active participants in the process. The current menthol application technology was championed by the Nebraska inspection service. The Florida inspection service is a strong supporter of current Varroa mite and African bee research at the University of Florida by providing colonies and labor in these efforts. In Florida, too, the program of post treatment inspection of bees is designed to be able to detect resistance of Varroa to chemicals early, and in the process, save the industry long-run grief. As agriculture continues to lose clout in legislatures across the land, the inspection service is a vital bureaucracy left to hammer at the doors of an increasingly urban officialdom about the problems the beekeeping industry faces. Before doing away with inspection services, therefore, some thought needs to be given to alternatives. Many of the traditional inspection services are knowledgeable about and sympathetic to the plight of beekeepers. However, if disbanded there is no assurance that another crop of regulators who are less involved with beekeepers might not arise in the face of future perceived "crises." This is particularly likely to happen in the face of invasion of African bees associated with sensationalized press coverage. A state inspection service can also intervene to prevent and/or blunt potentially harmful regulations being promulgated at the federal level. Finally, it is far easier to get rid of a bureaucracy than to try to re-establish one. It is not a given that some of the same concerns prompting establishment of bee inspection services in the first place, and well supported by the beekeeping industry in the past, will not reappear in the future. The Michigan experience may be instructive with reference to the above scenarios. Inspection in that state was done away with for a time, but the industry demanded it be reinstated. However, when it was reestablished, the inspection bureaucracy was not particularly knowledgeable nor sympathetic with industry concerns. As a result, Michigan beekeepers are again reexamining their bee law. Whether the user fee for regulatory activity will find support within the beekeeping community remains questionable. As Dr. Taylor said, "Still, the state bee inspection programs...have been somewhat curtailed here and there, but this has resulted less from the perception that they are not needed than from a shortage of funds to pay the salaries (and pensions) of the inspectors." Reportedly one of the major reasons the California Department of Agriculture disbanded its inspection service was because beekeepers were not paying their fair share. One of the major trends reported in the newest version of the best selling book Megatrends 2000 was that our society was moving away from governmental help to self help. Perhaps only when beekeepers agree to finance the brunt of bee inspection, will the worth of the services provided become apparent. HOW MANY BEEKEEPERS? As mentioned above, Gleanings in Bee Culture conducted a survey of beekeepers in the United States with the help of the state inspection services. Completed in May, 1991, this is the most up-to-date information on the subject. A grand total of 139,061 beekeepers were reported, significantly lower than the U.S.D.A. official estimate of 211,000. In the southeastern region, Florida showed a total of 9,200 beekeepers, followed by South Carolina (2,500), Georgia (2,400) and Alabama (1,334). Across the country, Florida was only exceeded by North Carolina (12,000), New York (10,000) and Wisconsin (10,000). The vast majority of beekeepers (80%) are found east of the Mississippi River, whereas most of the colonies (69.5%) are found in the west. Hawaii, Alaska and Washington D.C. were not included in the count. GRASSHOPPER SPRAYING I've had several questions concerning spraying for grasshoppers that are damaging citrus groves near Dade City. Mr. Terry Smith, Division of Plant Industry, ph 904/521-1448, informs me that there are few beekeepers in the area and those identified have been notified. Application of malathion is progressing throughout the day from truck mounted mist blowers. If you believe your operation to be at risk, contact Mr. Smith directly. The outbreak so far is confined to the Dade City environs. ALDICARB UPDATE Several years ago, there was concern expressed by Florida beekeepers that application of the pesticide Temik (R), active ingredient aldicarb, was hurting bee colonies in citrus groves. In the June, 1986 issue of APIS, I discussed the problem of systemic insecticides in some detail and reported levels of toxic residues (aldicarb sulfoxide and aldicarb sulfone) found in citrus nectar. However, at that time there were no studies directly addressing the aldicarb-honey bee connection in Florida citrus. A recent paper on the phenomenon was published, H. Nigg, et. al., "Contamination of Sucrose Solution with Aldicarb Sulfoxide inhibits Foraging of Honeybees (Hymenoptera: Apidae), Journal of Economic Entomology, Vol. 84, No. 3, pp. 810-813, June, 1991. It reveals that although bees were not directly killed at concentrations up to 3 parts per million (ppm), foraging was affected. The authors state: "From our data, it appears that any level of aldicarb sulfoxide will reduce consumption of sucrose solution by honeybees." The study was not conducted in the field and so there is not much information on actual effects during nectar flows. Nevertheless, the authors conclude: "If aldicarb sulfoxide unpalatability occurs in the field, strong honeybee hives without honey reserves may behave as if no or little nectar were available during the extensive citrus bloom." If you desire a copy of the paper, please contact me. SEPTEMBER IS NATIONAL HONEY MONTH U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Edward Madigan has joined the National Honey Board to proclaim September as National Honey Month, according to a press release on the subject. All you honey marketers out there should take advantage of increased promotions by the Board and others during the month to celebrate the oldest sweetener known to humans. The National Honey Board has available some clip art which should spice up local advertising efforts. A copy of the newest rendition of the Board's advertising featuring the honey bear service mark can also be requested by calling 303/776-2337. Sincerely, Malcolm T. Sanford 0740 IFAS, Bldg 970 University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611-0740 Phone (904) 392-1801, Ext. 143 FAX: 904-392-0190 BITNET Address: MTS@IFASGNV INTERNET Address: MTS@GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU