# Used equipment - How much to scorch?



## ZEEBEE (Aug 22, 2003)

Hi there,

When I got some used equipment I called the state bee inspector and he came over with a portable gas chamber for my woodenware. I cost me around 90 dollars for a full chamber load. 

Maybe there is a state facility close by where you can bring your woodenware?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I've never bothered, but what I've usually seen done is not charred, just a toasty brown with occasonal black spots.

The method listed in ABC XYZ is jus to stack them up with some newspaper and gas and lighting it with a torch and throwing a lid on to smother it.


----------



## Curry (Sep 22, 2003)

In my opinion, scorching hive bodies is a useless, outdated superstition. Yes, if the hive had an outbreak of AFB, there would be some spores left on the hive surface. But there are AFB spores in ALL hives... and you'll only get an outbreak if you get a large amount of spores in the frame cells with brood. It's the FRAMES that matter... not the hive bodies. Get rid of old black comb, and you won't get any outbreaks. You have to consider how smelly it would be for the bees after their home is scorched... bees are sensitive to smells...


----------



## Axtmann (Dec 29, 2002)

We have no medication like you guys in the US have (antibiotics) and whenever I get used hive parts I use a torch. As soon as propolis starts boiling you know its hot enough. The wood gets sometimes a little bit brown but thats no problem. The whole procedure gives the hive a good nice smell and I never had problems when I put bees in.

I totally agree with Curry; very important is getting rid of the old combs. My oldest combs maybe fife years old but not older. Hold it against the sun with your hand behind, if you cant see the shadow of your hand its time for the smelter.


----------



## xC0000005 (Nov 17, 2004)

I went ahead and scorched, somewhere between "lightly brown" and "atomic destruction". I'll rinse them down and then paint them if they don't smell like the inside of an ashtray.

So, any opinion on re-using/sterilizing frames? If these aren't bubbling cesspools of disease, I'll stick plastic foundation in these.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Scrape them and scorch them, same as the boxes. I would use them.


----------



## Jerry C (Feb 7, 2004)

>The method listed in ABC XYZ is jus to stack them up with some newspaper and gas and lighting it with a torch and throwing a lid on to smother it.


Be very careful if you stack them up and set the inside on fire. If they are not in the best shape, and can leak air, you will not be able to smother the fire with the lid. I burned up 4 deeps and the lid too. Now I scorch them with a weed burner we bought for the garden,


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

I scrape and burn the inside of boxes. I think there is some truth to how much chance (slim) your taking with spores clinging to the side of boxes, but I torch anyways.

I did recently boil off some frames with lye. Used a 55 gallon drum sitting on a couple of blocks. Built a fire underneath, and did about 300 frames in an afternoon. Between loading and unloading about 30 at a time, I did other bee stuff. So not alot of wasted time. I will say that I stuck some pretty nasty stuff in the lye. And boy did it come out looking great. I wish I hadn't thrown all those frames away over the years.

Not sure if it was the lye, or running around in the cold, but I did have a sore throat the next day. I have done it two more times and was a bit more cautious. No problems.


----------



## Guest (Dec 4, 2004)

> But there are AFB spores in ALL hives.

Says who? Not anyone who inspects bees
for a living, that's for sure.

The myth of AFB somehow being "everywhere"
may be nothing more than a rationalization
by people who have had AFB "get bad" in their
hives, but I cannot nail down where/when the
myth started. Dennis Van Engelsdorp (of
Penn State) has data going back decades on
hive inspections in PA, and the amazing thing
is that AFB tends to break out in the same
exact sites over and over again, but has
no record of spreading to nearby apiaries
owned by other beekeepers.

A discussion of why certain specific 
beekeepers get AFB again and again while 
their neighboring beekeepers don't can 
become an emotional issue, so I'll keep my
views to myself, but the use of 
"preventative" treatments has become rare, 
so there are lots and lots of hives that, 
if infected with AFB, will certainly
show symptoms. In Dennis' data, a good
program of inspections and advice to beekeepers on how to handle each case brings
AFB levels down to a fairly consistent 1%
of all hives.

So, where's the massive and widespread
AFB problem that would certainly be the
case if AFB spores were in EVERY hive,
and/or was EVERYwhere? Why do inspectors
in PA find only about 1% of hives with
detectable AFB (including even "minor"
cases that can be dealt with by scrapping
a single frame)? Why has this been true
for several decades?

As I often say about many things- 
"Connect the dots."


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

jfischer,
I'll connect some dots as you say. But I honestly feel I'm being set-up for some reason.








As for AFB, some points to connect later.

1. AFB does not occur naturally. It is not something just growing in nature in other enviroments other than a beehive.

2.AFB must be concentrated in a cell (30+ spores) for an outbreak to happen. This happens by enough cells being in the hive already and with this number allowed to grow in some way when conditions are right. Dead/chilled brood not being cleaned out by a weakened hive would be a good example. (Or possible the accumilation of spores over time, and trapped in old comb.) The other is through robbing of a dead-out hive and this concentrated spores being fed to a new hive.

3. 50% of all beekeepers in Pennsylvania are not registered. Many of the same beekeepers who are statistically found with repeated cases of AFB, are those operations that are well known and are already in the system. Many other beekeepers are not registered or "hide" problem hives from the inspectors. It is sad but true.

4. Bees are very good at "checking out" anything associated with the smell of bees. I can have boxes sit in my driveway all year long and not get noticed. They have already been seen. But if I put another old box, bees will check this new box in a very fast time. Assuming a hive has thousands of field bees spread over 2 or 3 miles of area, then what could they poosible be checking out that could transmit AFB spores? An old gum tree, another infected hive, or perhaps some old equipment from another beekeeper who just piles them up along the barn. And bees will collect and scrape old wax, propolis, and material off old boxes and frames. Even if no honey is present.

5)Flowers can hold AFB spores deposited by one bee and can be passed when another bee visits.

6)Deniis VanEngledorf, is one source of data for honey testing. Years ago, honey samples were sent in and sent for AFB spore detection. No honey was found without AFB spores. This is not to say that the hive has AFB present. (Its about the same comparing mold spores. Mold spores are everywhere, but can you have a hive with no mold? Sure. But if the conditions are correct, you do not need to add mold spores, they are already there to grow.)

7)50% of AFB outbreaks can be traced to previous cases. 30% from used equipment. The rest from other catagories. In Pennsylvania, beekeepers are given an option of treatment or burning. Although the inspection program has ultimate authority for the best of the industry, including manditory burning, it seldom takes this final approach. It is only probably that AFB cases are common with repeat offenders. This may or not be the best path, but it is what happens. 
8)Most beekeepers probably do not know how close thier bee yards are to another site with confirmed AFB problems. I was shocked to find three this year within eyesite of some of my yards.

9) Many "old-timers", those with previous AFB cases, commercial operations, and those selling bees/queens/nucs, almost all use terramyacin on a preventative basis. You have to be AFB free for two years in Pennsylvania for selling of bees/nucs/queens. With that said, all treat. And many backyard beekeepers do also. It is hardly "rare" as you say.

10) As to "why" a nieghboring beekeeper never gets AFB when he is next to another who has constant outbreaks, there are many factors. He may treat preventative. His bees never robbed out a dead-out hive. The other beekeeper with AFB may catch it in time so as not to spread it. Then he himself through contamination of equipment, repeats upon himself. And if he treat one year, and then stops, it will repeat also. Many variables could come into play.

11) The inspection program, due to its nature, is not eliminating AFB. The fact that "treatment" is an option only points to this. But Pennsylvania's inspectors (which happen to be the best







) are good at early detection, thus stopping or nearly stopping the spread. Anyone to be found with AFB hives are on a hotlist for priority inspections the following year.

12)Enough AFB spores could be held on the tip of a pin to infect all the hives in Pennsylvania. Thats why having even 1 cell with "scale" is dangerous.

Asking "why if all hives have the spore, do they not all have AFB" is answered by knowing that it is the concentration of spores that must set off an AFB breakout. The spores are just about everywhere. But its the feeding of food to larvae with concentrated amounts of spores that is needed. 30 spores seems to be the point. Below that, even if spores are present, no breakout is achieved. You can have a hive with spores, and no breakout ever happening. When testing comes back when samples are sent, its either AFB could be grown due to a concentraion allowing it, or no growth was achieved. It does not however certify no spores were present.

In Pennsylvanis, the bee program is centered on education and inspections. The "bee police" concept is a last resort. Manditory or hard line approaches have negative impact with beekeepers hiding problems. And Pennsylvania is glad to have this program when other states have lost funding. Sometimes other states have have lost programs due to hardcore approach and losing the support of the beekeeping industry.

Now the twist. Can there be a hive, that has never been exposed to AFB spores? Either due to geographic remoteness, new equipment with treated bees installed, or other situations which could allow it. Sure. Its not to say you will be "spore" free for a long time, just perhaps AFB outbreak free. Many beekeepers never have an outbreak. Keeping strong hives, not buying used equipment, can help. Most operators of commercial yards do not worry much about AFB. Its hard to have working yeards, with many hives in multiple places and never see the AFB breakout. Its something to be manmaged, not feared. Anyone wanting to be more than a backyard hobbiest will see AFB at some time, or at least have a better chance.

What a way to blow a Saturday night. I must be getting old.









[This message has been edited by BjornBee (edited December 04, 2004).]


----------



## Curry (Sep 22, 2003)

> But there are AFB spores in ALL hives.
Says who? Not anyone who inspects bees
for a living, that's for sure.

Actually, this information came from Ed Levi, Arkansas State Apiary Inspector.

BjornBee did an excellent job of explaining it, but I had understood the number of spores required to be fed to a young bee was higher than 30... more like in the hundreds. But that is just from memory, and I'm not sure the exact number of spores has even been determined yet anyway. Regardless, once that magic number is hit, that's when the numbers explode and you get an outbreak. That's why many europeans eliminate the root cause of AFB outbreaks... old comb which builds up spore numbers (instead of what americans do, use antibiotics to delay the outbreak). The ones with repeated outbreaks are probably the same ones that don't cull old comb.


----------



## Axtmann (Dec 29, 2002)

BjornBee there must be some misunderstanding in the amount of AFB spores in brut cells.

If ONE larva dies in a cell in case of AFB this ONE cell is contaminated with up to several billion spores.
http://www.hdlgn-hessen.de/wirueberuns/bienen/arbeitsblaetter/datenpflege/arbeitsblaetter/318%20-%20Amerikanische%20Faulbrut.pdf


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

Can you guys please give some specific references about the number of spores that causes an outbreak? 

If you can't, I will be able to cite a couple of books for you that say it is actually less than 30. BUT, I'm reasonably certain those numbers came from the lab and not the field. It is one thing when bacteria are being cultured from spores in a petrie dish to determine if a single bee will be infected and quite another to pick a low number and say it will cause an outbreak of AFB.


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

Jim,
You've said a few things I question.

>>>but the use of "preventative" treatments has become rare,<<<
This may be wishful thinking on your part. At ABF in Ga last year a commercial keeper told me that he didn't know of a commercial man that didn't use Terra in prevention.

>>>>Why do inspectors
in PA find only about 1% of hives with
detectable AFB<<<

Because no amount of visual inspection can find spores, and that's what a normal inspection consists of. 

I think Bjorn is right! You're just trying to start trouble









dickm


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Axtmann,
Were both right.







The number I'm using is the number that it takes to get the AFB to grow, and therefore have an outbreak in a cell to start with. After the AFB has cultured, and has gone to scale, then there is actually billions of spores. Thats the point mentioning the "scale" portion of my last post and the reference to how many could fit on the head of a pin.

I do not myself have readily available in hard print the data to the number of spores it takes. I do not know if this number is the threshhold where it is likely to grow, always will grow, or some percentage to grow. My number comes from discussions and memory. I was told that below 30 spores no growth could happen. As to the number where absolute growth would occur, I'm not sure. Could be 31, 50, or hundreds. I think the point is still the same regardless.


----------



## Guest (Dec 5, 2004)

While I understand the conventional wisdom
as repeated by Bjorn above, the actual
data Dennis found refutes some of this
"wisdom".

1) The lack of spread clearly shows that
it is very rare for bees to spread AFB
through drifting, robbing etc.

2) The lack of spread also makes clear
that "preventative treatment" is not
a factor in controlling the spread of
AFB - even if Bjorn persists in making
assumptions about a group of people he
has not asked in regards to use of TM
on all hives, it should be obvious that
over the decades, there was a 100% chance
of seeing the disease spread to an
untreated colony in a nearby apiary, 
since it was certain that a significant
percentage of hives inspected were both
within robbing range of an infected hive,
and untreated.

3) As to what commercial operations do, I'll
tell you - if the operation has a habit
of "equalizing" hives, then they likely
DO still use TM with wild abandon. If
they have realized the folly of stealing
from the healthy in a vain attempt to
keep the weak alive for another few
weeks, and don't "equalize", they are
most likely also enlightened enough to
realize the folly of treating diseases
that aren't there with antibiotics.
The money spent on TM is better spent
requeening weak colonies. The money
spent on equalizing is better spent on
requeening weak colonies.

4) While it certainly may be possible to
infect a colony with spores in honey,
it would appear that this is a rare
event. Hard to get the 30-35 spores
to a one-day-old larva when they are
spread throughout so much honey, no
matter if was robbed or fed.

I could go on, but I think you get the
point. Beekeepers spread AFB, and it
requires something that can move roughly
a million spores to the colony - something
like exchanging brood frames. 

While additional controls are certainly
prudent, and I'm not going to stop our
returning of supers to the same hive for
re-filling or cleaning out, there are
many practices that may appear to be
"working", but are really working no
better than banging pots to "keep the
tigers away".

As for scorching, the best method is to
scorch from both sides, and keep scorching
until the scorching meets in the middle.









An old joke. Many old jokes have basic 
truths behind them.


----------



## xC0000005 (Nov 17, 2004)

>working", but are really working no
>better than banging pots to "keep the
>tigers away".

This phrase brought to mind one of the strangest practices I've seen in regards to bees, done in the same spirit sa your statement - banging pots and pans to make a swarm move to another (hopefully easier to catch) location.


------------------
"Tell me again why you want to put a box with thousands of angry, stinging insects in our backyard?" - my wife.


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

> Hard to get the 30-35 spores to a one-day-old larva when they are spread throughout so much honey, no matter if was robbed or fed.

It doesnt seem hard to me. If there are millions or billions or whatever large number of spores in contaminated honey, it seems it would be quite easy.

>I do not myself have readily available in hard print the data to the number of spores it takes. ..... My number comes from discussions and memory. I was told that below 30 spores no growth could happen.

Werent some chastising remarks made just a day or so ago about posting generalized possibly inaccurate information when the information is read by 1800 plus members ?







 discussions and memory (in my opinion) is probably not the most accurate source of information. 

Millions of spores are required to infect a larva older than 2 days, but larvae up to 24 h become infected with about 10 spores or fewer.

Infected larvae can be detected by adult bees very soon after infection. In some tests 10-40% were removed by nurse bees before their cells were sealed over, according to the number of spores (1-105) with which they were infected. In other tests about 50% were removed later, but **before they were 11 days old, i.e., before most of them contained spores.** 

Some, perhaps many, infected colonies survive with little evidence of disease. However, when the disease kills a few hundred larvae in a colony the infection then usually spreads quickly and the colony dies.

Honey Bee Pathology Leslie Bailey


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

Occasionally, after wading through one of Jims long-winded orations, a little gem is uncovered.










>As for scorching, the best method is to scorch from both sides, and keep scorching until the scorching meets in the middle.


Dr. Steve Pernal......bee research facilities in Beaverlodge, Alberta, Canada......looked at possible ways to decontaminate woodenware from hives containing dead larvae, scale, and contaminated food stores. 
1. Scorching and Virkon S ® were about 84% effective.
2. Powered water was 81% effective. 
3. Scrubbing was 77% effective. 
4. Steam and lye were nearly 100% effective, as is irradiation.

Notice that scorching is less than 100% effective in ridding woodenware of spores. 

From Jerry C:
>Be very careful if you stack them up and set the inside on fire. If they are not in the best shape, and can leak air, you will not be able to smother the fire with the lid. I burned up 4 deeps and the lid too.

I'll bet it got rid of the spores....

[This message has been edited by Dick Allen (edited December 05, 2004).]


----------



## Guest (Dec 5, 2004)

> Occasionally, after wading through one 
> of Jims long-winded orations, a little 
> gem is uncovered.

As usual, Dick offers us sound and
original thinking.
Unfortunately, none of the sound thinking is
original and none of the original thinking is
sound.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Jfischer,
All the points you made in the posts with the numbers, one through four, I could not agree more. Unfortunately, all the points you made are additional points concerning AFB. None of the points directly or indirectly conflict with anything anybody else said. I'm not sure other than making the point that it is beekeepers themselves that spread AFB, and on a small scale the bees do. It is as if your on one road, and perhaps there are some other roads being traveled.

As to the point about saying I am "assuming" or my comments are based on assumptions, I am a little lost. You said or asked, if one beekeeper repeatedly has AFB, than why does not a beekeeper next door never seem to get it. This is where you are unfaily attacking or at least as I like to say "sandbagging", but I'll play along. First, you did not mention or pinpoint, a SPECIFIC beekeeper or WHICH apiary you are commenting about. Without you doing this yourself, then my comments are based on options or hypothetical ideas as to many different answers as to why this could or couldn't happen. If you somehow catorgorize my comments and call them assumptions, because I have not asked or systemically tracked down every group of beekeepers and every situation to find the "TRUTH", and anything less you get to call my comments assumtions, thats crap. I thought as much when I read the original comments and they were full of some conversation pieces you must of had with Dennis. I guess I was correct in feeling a set-up, as poorly as it was.

All your saying is thats its not easy for bees to spread the desease themselves. That beekeepers are the main culprits. Although both are not absolute 100% in either direction, I could not agree with you more.

(As a side note, I'll mention that one of Dennis' first directives when AFB is located, is the limiting of the entrance to suppress robbing, and thereby stopping any possibility for spreading the AFB. Let me know where I can sent a copy for your inspection.)

You are wrong in saying that preventative treatment of terramyacin is rare. And if your saying that piece of information came from Dennis V. than say so and I'll discuss that with him directly. And I will tell him the same thing, That comment is wrong.

Unfortunately your looking for some argument or some way to use a conversation with Dennis V. to dispute some comment I have made. I have numbered my previous post. If you want, list by number what data or talking point you do not agree with. You have made several references to data or research that you are referenced directly to Dennis V., and I would be more interested in the specifics of that conversation.

Ok DICK.....If you read the comments about references and data, I said I do not reference all that I comment on. That would be time consuming and I just don't do it. Yes the comments on the specific number of spores are based on conversations, but multiple sources may I say. The comment I was questioning was "data" (3-5 days) that I have never heard of before. And apparently nobody else did either. So yes, when someone makes a breakthrough in research, and new data comes to light, that data or evidence started somewhere. And I'll always ask. Lets not play tit for tat.


----------



## Guest (Dec 5, 2004)

> I'm not sure other than making the point that > it is beekeepers themselves that spread AFB, 
> and on a small scale the bees do. 

I'll try to be as clear as possible.
Except for a purely theoretical, yet to be
proven miniscule percentage of cases:

a) Beekeepers spread AFB.
b) Bees don't.


----------



## ikeepbees (Mar 8, 2003)

a) Beekeepers spread AFB.
b) Bees don't.

I gather, then, that it would be ok to allow an AFB dead out to be robbed clean...since only in theory would the robbers spread AFB.

------------------
Rob Koss


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Is this all the data points you keep referencing from Dennis V. - That bees do not spread AFB. I am still waiting for hopefully more of a reply than that.

And what points does that information conflict with as to my original post. You made such a thing about it. I asked as to what points, (numbered for your convenience), that this grand revelation is in conflict with.

I will speak to Dennis tomorrow, and will be looking for him to say "that no AFB has ever been spread by bees, via robbing, visiting idle infected equipment or any other avenue". This may be interesting. I hope as a researcher with Penn state, the ag department, and ongoing other programs, that this information must already or soon to be published somewhere.

It also makes you wonder why there are inspection programs. If you just passed a law saying nobody could sell used equipment, than from what your saying is no AFB would ever spread. And yes, that could be done regardless of the "its my right" crowd. You can't sell baby stuff, ie. matresses, bedding etc, as an example in this state.

Jfischer, I am hoping you have more of a response than that little tidbit. I hope you had more up your sleeve. Do not disappoint me.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Jfischer, one more request. You never did actually say what exact comments you were attributing to Dennis V. Could you paraphrase some of the exact comments and data points you were so eager to mention earlier. Just want to get the conversation correct. Thank you.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

jfischer, its going to be a long winter








I was hoping this would be a lively discussion and a learning experience all the while. But at this rate?
Nobody out there want to dispute anything thats been said?









When you want,(Jfischer) I will be more than happy to explain Dennis V's talk on the inspection program, and what the data points are in relationship to our discussion. I am very firmiliar with it and have heard it many times. I also know some of the information is slanted by what the "industry" wants people to hear. I'm not sure if you just misunderstood the points or purposely went down this road.

In the meantime, can anyone take a stab on why someone would say "AFB is not spread by bees"?


----------



## Axtmann (Dec 29, 2002)

a) Beekeepers spread AFB.
b) Bees don't.

In my opinion, if a beekeeper gives a statement like this, thats someone who never studied a book or has a real interest in keeping bees.

A beekeeper should take care of his bees, hold the equipment clean as possible and do all the best to prevent bees from spreading AFB. If there is an outbreak, make sure bees cant rob any honey and infect other colonies too.


----------



## Guest (Dec 6, 2004)

> When you want,(Jfischer) I will be more 
> than happy to explain Dennis V's talk...

I'm sorry if you feel that I did not 
understand what he said, but I took the
trouble to ask him some specific questions
in private after his talk, and I have a 
habit of taking very accurate notes on my
PDA, so I think I know what he said.

I'll wait for his data and see what the
actual data itself says. Data always
says exactly what is says, so it is 
harder to debate, even for beekeepers.

As for Dennis "telling people what they want
to hear", I would never accuse anyone of
that, nor would I accuse someone of slanting
an interpretation to make someone happy.


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

> As usual, Dick offers us sound and original thinking. Unfortunately, none of the sound thinking is original and none of the original thinking is sound.

As usual youve shown me up again. 
Occasionally, after wading through one of Jims long-winded orations: That was sound but not original. I confess, I read it on Bee-L.

a little gem is uncovered.: That was original, but youre right it wasnt sound.

Ill never get it right.







Im so discouraged.....



[This message has been edited by Dick Allen (edited December 05, 2004).]


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

jfischer,
Since you have failed to mention even after being requested, one data point or direct comment as to what you have in regards to "data" collected, let me go a little deeper....

keep in mind, that the talk "probably' was in regards to the beekeeping program, and was based on a few items...(I will of course confirm this as absolute as soon as jfischer says a little more as to what his data is to be more accurate, and who exactly said it) 

1)When AFB is found, a survey sheet is collected. On this sheet the source is sought as follows.
previuos afb
purchased equipment
purchased nuc
purchased hives
robbing
other

the source is asked of the beekeeper. All previous cases of AFB are inspected first. As already mentioned treatment and burning are choices, so many cases are repeat cases.

2)As already noted, 50% are from previous cases, and 30% are from used equipment purchases. Please keep in mind that the rest are split up into catagories that are hard to prove one way or the other. Not many beekeepers say "robbing" as to where AFB came from. It is nearly impossible to prove that AFB came from two miles down the road. But we do GPS this data for desease spread models.

3)In data collecting almost no cases of AFB are directly proven as from robbing. Please see the last comment.

4)The inspection program goes after known sources, repeat cases, and commercial operations very aggressively. Almost all cases of afb are caught within the "cells". The only case this year that I saw on a larger than "cell" case was the one submitted for EAS. (This one case had a normal working hive and honey was actually just taken off the hive, as it was productive up to the end.) This was a case that was beyond "frame" and was hive throughout. Most all afb are caught at this very early (cell) stage.

5)AFB does not kill a hive fast. It sometimes takes years.

6)All the cases this year, at least for me, were hives that had no problem defending the hive. If it were not for detailed inspections of a frame by frame nature, you would never of seen afb. The classic case pictured in most books are found well before that developement and so robbing of dead out AFB hives are nearly non-existant. Thats not to say it wouldn't be more of a problem, but due to the inspection program it is minimal at this point. 

7)AFB is reported in about 1% of hives. With this mind, and with the fact that follow-up is aggressively sought for previous cases, than actual new or unknown cases of afb are minimal. 

8)Very few beekeepers have never bought used equipment. And if asked where afb was caught, blaming used equipment is very easy to suggest.

In dennis's talk, he goes over many of these points(and many others) in graphs and pictures. It is not uncommon for him to make statements based on data collected, such as "we just don't see afb spreading from robbing or from the bees themselves", or "If it weren't for the beekeeper, we would see no spread of afb from data collected". He is a researcher focused on data, He is a "bean counter"(no negative meant) that speaks of what is in front of him. And many comments, if taken out of context, can be misinterpreted.

On the "data" part, of your last comment.... You sound like a good politician. Data, can be read interpreted, and made into statisctics to be read anyway you want them to read. It is not always as clear as you try to make it sound. But nice try on the double talk. 

jfischer, I doubt very seriously and ask again, did he(Dennis) say directly "that no afb has ever been spread by bees", or "that it has never been proven to be spread by bees".

As to another cheap shot about my comment that some things are not mentioned or slanted for the beekeepeing industries benefit, with regards to Dennis. If you look at your PDA, and those master notes you take, I did not say he was "telling people what they want to hear". This may be a source for mistakes. Your reading, hearing, transcribing, and over-all note taking ability. This is not what I said. Go back and read it first and then try to understand it.

I'll explain it more clearly if you need it to be.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Jfischer, one last item. (not that your answering anything else I'm asking about.)

You make it sound as if there is "data" coming out sometime soon, or at least you will be recieving some based on some discussion. I thought I knew all the ongoing research from Pa, but I must say I could be missing something. With that in mind, could you reference or at least outline the perameters of the research you are mentioning? I know of no ongoing study that focuses on afb transmittal methods. Thank you.


----------



## Guest (Dec 6, 2004)

Our local beeclub had an inspection meeting in early October. The purpose of the meeting was for the local state inspector to demonstrate to the members the proper way to inspect a hive for disease, adequate winter stores, brood quantities, etc. One of our members voluteered that the inspection be done at his home apiary since he had the toom to accomodate everyone and he thought that some of hives appeared to be somewhat week for the time of year.

His home apiary consisted of five hives, four of which had been there for at least a year and the fifth he had moved there about 2-1/2 weeks before the meeting.

As soon as the inspector approached the hives he commented that there was definitely a problem with his hives due to the lack of bees going in and out. Upon opening the first hive it was seen that there was very few bees in the supers with little or no honey stored. The tops of the frames in the hive body had almost no bees on top of them and when the frames were pulled out everyone was able to see what a severe case of AFB looked like. According to the inspector the hive was a classic case of what to look for when looking for AFB, spotty brood, lack of young bees on the frames and holes in the cell caps. The inspector delcared this hive beyond saving and had all of the members use toothpicks to dig into the cells to see for themselves what the results of AFB were like on the developing brood.

The inspection of the following three hives were all identical, all of them were so overcome with AFB that none of them could be saved with the use of Terra. The beekeeper was instructed to destroy all of the comb in all of the four hives and to scorch the interior of the hive bodies if he hoped to reuse them.

The fifth and final hive, the one that the beekeeper had moved to the site 2-1/2 weeks earlier did in fact have signs of AFB in it but fortunately there were only a few cells with holes in the caps and the inspector believed that the hive could be saved with an immediate application of Terra.

The point here being that the hive that had been moved into the apiary a couple of weeks earlier now had signs of AFB developing in it and the most likely cause was from drifting of the bees from the other four hives next to it. The beekeeper had not gotten into any of the hives since he had moved the last hive into the apiary and therefore he couldn't have transmitted the AFB from one of the contaminated hives into the previously healthy hive by transferring contaminated combs or using a contaminated hive tool.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Some follow-up information.

Stats based on points given earlier are as follows. These are the actual numbers as my numbers earlier were from memory. The bases for how the numbers were stated remain the same.

49% - Past history of AFB
10.15% - Used equipment
6.85% - Robbing
3.3% - Nuc purchases
4.0% - purchased colonies
25 % - Source unknown

These are from data collected over a two year period. As recieved for the Pennsylvanis state program.

Dennis has decline to come on line to discuss this in detail. He is very busy. He did read the entire thread concerning this matter. 

Two direct statements from him are:
1)Bees transmit AFB through robbing.
2)Preventative use of terramyacin can hardly be defined as "rare". It is common.

My stat referencing unregistered beekeepers are based on my view. (previously used stat of 50%) And perhaps state numbers/opinion show a lower percentage. (Thats something my and dennis will work on at another time.)








Dennis did not want to get into a long discussion, and has answered or responded to an e-mail directly back to jfischer. I hope he recieved all the information he was seeking.

[This message has been edited by BjornBee (edited December 07, 2004).]


----------



## Guest (Dec 7, 2004)

> Two direct statements from him are:
> 1)Bees transmit AFB through robbing.
> 2)Preventative use of terramyacin can 
> hardly be defined as "rare". It is common.

...and we will have to wait until he is done
doing his statistical work to support those
statements. As I said, none of us can
presume to say what conclusions Dennis will
be able draw, so we must wait.

I looked at his graphs, and I saw different
patterns than Bjorn. 

Just to make sure that the horse is well and
truly dead:

a) If robbing was an easy way to spread
AFB, one would have seen some cases
spread, and spread further between
nearby beekeepers. Entire counties
would be "wiped out". This has never
happened.

b) If TM use was more common, sales would
not have dropped off at a rate much
faster than the rate of decrease in 
beekeepers known to bee supply firms.

There are other sets of data that can
shed light on Dennis' data. To me,
Dennis' data simply shed more light on
the other sets I have looked at.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Jfischer,
You are truly amazing.
He is not currently compiling statistics to disprove that AFB is somehow as you put it, to say "bees do not transmit AFB". And to come to the conclusion you have made concerning about the level of terramyacin use, in regards to catagorizing it as "rare", is also something that he is not "researching" at this time. Reading his graphs as you put it, and not seeing what it is intended to say or reveal is not correct. The graphs were made based on data collected to focus on pinpointed data, and to reveal light on specific issues. You using them for other means, or to draw other conclusions, other than what they are intended is not scientific.

I was hoping since you took the time to e-mail him with specific questions, (and hoped for answers tailored to those questions), that upon recieving his reply, it would of been a little more clear for you.

I will ask him to reply directly to this forum. I know he is against it though. This seems the only way for straight answers to be found, without twisting, adding to, or manipulating them. 

Again you suggest he will be coming out with data that says bees do not transmit or spread AFB. This is not correct in any stretch of the imagination. In light of years of study and research, he is not trying to disprove that AFB is not being transmitted by bees. I find it amazing that not only are you suggesting that, but that you yourself should know better.
He is also not compiling stats to show that terramyacin use is rare. 

I will not openly list his (Dennis V.) phone number, as he would not appreciate many calls concerning something of this nature, but I ask that perhaps one moderator contact me directly. I will pass along a direct number so perhaps a discussion taking place with a third party, could end this unbelievable discussion.

Jfischer, 
I feel you have dug a deep trench and are looking for a way out. Good luck


----------



## ikeepbees (Mar 8, 2003)

"So, where's the massive and widespread
AFB problem that would certainly be the
case if AFB spores were in EVERY hive,
and/or was EVERYwhere?"

...If I understand this correctly, the meaning here is that if spores were in every hive, every or almost every hive would show symptoms of AFB.

"4) While it certainly may be possible to
infect a colony with spores in honey,
it would appear that this is a rare
event. Hard to get the 30-35 spores
to a one-day-old larva when they are
spread throughout so much honey, no
matter if was robbed or fed."

...I misunderstood. Robbers could bring honey into the hive infected with AFB spores, but not in sufficient quantity to cause a problem. So there could be spores present in every hive without every or almost every hive exhibiting AFB symptoms. 

"is very rare for bees to spread AFB
through drifting, robbing etc."

...But this rarely happens.

"a) Beekeepers spread AFB.
b) Bees don't."

...Now I'm confused. Is it rare for robbers to bring back honey contaminated with AFB, or does it never happen?

"a) If robbing was an easy way to spread
AFB, one would have seen some cases
spread, and spread further between
nearby beekeepers. Entire counties
would be "wiped out". This has never
happened."

...Ok, they do, it's just not easy.

"b) If TM use was more common, sales would
not have dropped off at a rate much
faster than the rate of decrease in 
beekeepers known to bee supply firms."

...Unless more beekeepers are getting the same product at their local co-op for a better price and no shipping costs. 

------------------
Rob Koss

Edited to correct a spelling error.

[This message has been edited by ikeepbees (edited December 07, 2004).]


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

ikeepbees,
Thats the problem. Contridictary comments, play on words, and genaral confusion. I think you have a handle on the problem







but imagine the casual reader. If just reading certain comments, could you imagine some new beekeeper making tragic choices based on some of the comments? Can you see some beekeeper in some bee club meeting saying "I read it on beesource that bees do not transmit afb".

I think some are just laying back and smiling about this whole thread. Those are the ones who know that picking any book, ABC-XYZ as example, it would clearly have references concerning the transfer of afb via robbing, honey transfer and the like.

I know someone mentioned about being a fanatic recently. And maybe I am too serious about this whole thing of trying to be correct. Afterall its not my site, not my reputation, and not bees that are at risk by some comments that are totally ridiculous. Maybe I had hoped for too much.


----------



## guatebee (Nov 15, 2004)

Bjornbee: could you please explain how to make the proper lye mixture to desinfect woodenware? Is it hot lye or cold bath ? I suppose this treatment gets rid of all kinds of mischievious organisms besides AFB spores (moth eggs, mites, etc)

Does paint come off when soaking bee boxes in lye solution ? How do you dispose of the lolution after treatment ?

Thanks.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

guatebee,
I bought the "red-devil" brand that was recommended. I started with cold water, and added the lye before building the fire. It warns against adding to hot water. I filled the 55 gallon drum with about 40 gallons water and used 3 lbs of the lye. I guess that was enough lye to kill the spores.(?) Please note that boiling water itself will not kill the spore unless its boiled in the range of about 3 hours. The lye is what does the work.

On the second day, I skimmed the hard solid cooled matter (soap) off the top and added another two pounds. I figured each frame is diluting the solution as they are removed, since adding water at some point is needed to keep the level up in the drum.

I did not do boxes. But from what I has seen observing another do it, it is very effective in taking off paint. But I do not know what type paint had been used.

I have not yet emptied the drum. I plan on using it another couple times, and just adding some more lye to keep the strength up. It does say its septic safe, as it is used by plumbers. I may try to empty some right before a good rain to help dilute it into the ground. Not sure beyond that.

I put everything including full blown wax moth destroyed comb into the drum. I was amazed at how clean everything was afterwards. I did also try to have the water at boiling point for the process.


----------



## guatebee (Nov 15, 2004)

A very comrehensive explanation. Thanks Bjornbee. Next step is doing it.


----------



## Axtmann (Dec 29, 2002)

We are using soda caustic solution to clean the equipment from AFB spores.
It must be similar to lye??


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

>... soda caustic solution......similar to lye??

The same. Sodium hydroxide. Its sometimes caused caustic soda in the U.S., too.


----------



## Guest (Dec 9, 2004)

> I feel you have dug a deep trench and 
> are looking for a way out. Good luck

> Afterall its not my site, not my 
> reputation, and not bees that are at risk 
> by some comments that are totally
> ridiculous.

You are not going to goad me into more
argument, nor will I change my view based
mere parroting of what is believed to be
true.

As I said before, I'll wait for Dennis'
data, and see what the actual data
itself says. Data always says exactly what
it says, so it is hard to debate, even for
beekeepers.









> Maybe I had hoped for too much.

It appears that I also had hopes that were
too high - I had hoped it would be possible
to have an adult conversation on the
internet, silly me.

The stark contrast between the number of incidents of AFB and the amazing lack of
large numbers of cases that spread to nearby
apiaries(in the form of detectable AFB) is
very interesting. I think it is worth
exploring. Sorry if this makes anyone
uncomfortable, but it is a "major issue"
to any beekeeper.

We will have to wait for Dennis to publish
his data (perhaps the largest data set ever
assembled on such issues) before we can
contniue this. Any interpretation that
challenges blindly-followed dogma in any way
is apparently going to be met with blind
fury, perhaps even IF the data supports
my gestalt feel for the charts I've seen.


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

Bjornbee, I'm curious as to how well your frames held up structurally to the lye treatment. I've never used it, but have been told by others that they had to more or less reassemble the frames after treating them. Did you notice that, too?


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Dick Allen, The frames did need a reinforcing. I had planned on nailing everything anyways. I try to nail, glue and whatever it takes so I do not have to worry about it once it goes in a hive. The lye does soften the joints and eats the glue.

jfischer, I'll make a note of your comments. I keep good notes also. I'll revisit them from time to time, and will bring them to light in the future. Hope you do not mind. I'm sure you will let me know when you do not want reminded in the future.


----------

