# from swarms to GM



## Blue.eyed.Wolf (Oct 3, 2005)

For those of you just tuning in, this is a carryover from " can swarming be our saviour"


----------



## Blue.eyed.Wolf (Oct 3, 2005)

Buckbee, thanks for your reply. It matches science as I understand it. 

I read an article about a woman that crossed a whimpy wild rice with the domestic rice. She expected to get something inbetween. What se got was a rice with a seed head twice that of the domestic rice. It seems that there was an unexpressed gene sequence burried in domestic rice that lacked a trigger gene, and this whimpy wild rice had the triger gene but not the gene sequence. A triger not found in any of the domestic rice she tested. The point of the article was the need to safe guard our wild strains. 

To say it again, she introduced a gene that activated an unexpressed gene sequence with unforseeable results.

Isnt this the same arguement that is being used against gene spliceing?

In this case it produced more food, but couldnt it just as easily have restarted a toxin that the plant used to protect itself, one that is toxic to humans? This seems just as dangerous as puting a gene from a fish into a tomatoe. 

Again I say, this was sexual reproduction, rice to rice....just like nature intended. 

If we shouldnt even mix wild species into our domestic strains then maybe we should leave the wild swarms alone and stick with our domestic breeding programs.....just kidding, but I knew I could tie frankin-food in with swarming somehow.

I'll admit, I read Discover/Scientific American and the like. I know its watered down, and spun with a techno spin. Thats why I am hitting you organic folks up, some of you are very well read on the science of the opposing view.

I have a personal stake in the gm movement. My niece uses insuline prodced by a bacteria modified to produce human insuline.

I have read about a yellow rice that was modified to make and store beta-caratine in its seed. It was slated to go to India, where it was expected to save millions of children form blindness. Dont know how that turned out, but the idea of a nitrogen fixing corn, or a perenial wheat that seeds in June and provides grazeing the rest of the season like a good thing to me. 

Like I said before, you cant whip this stuff up and toss it out the door to see what it will do. All the concerns that were listed from greenpeace are valid. But that shouoldnt stop us from checking out this option.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

The one part that I'll comment on is the "safeguard our wild strains".

In beekeeping, too many beekeepers are priding themselves for going out and collecting feral stock by cutting down trees, or destroying other natural nesting sites of honeybees. They see dollar signs or want to say they have feral stock, or for some other ego based motive. I am not talking about the extraction of a colony from a building or other needed removal. These are almost always just swarms from another beekeeper, even though many do thier best to convince themselves otherwise. I am talking about trees, and long term used sites, that do not need to be disturbed.

What needs to happen, is the monitoring, studying, and collecting of the stock by non-invasive or non-destructive means.

Feral bee cavities are on average smaller than the standard hive beekeepers keep. This allows the feral colony to swarm more than average. Although this may add to the survivability of the colony, it also allow beekeepers to collect swarms by placing swarm boxes and lets the hive not be destroyed. Perhaps comb/egg extraction could be accomplished in an ideal situation.

The monitoring and studying of the feral colony should be accomplished without destroying the site. Many times the extraction, and then the placement in a standard hive is enough to kill the colony. Instead, collecting swarms, collecting bee samples for bee analysis and other steps can and should be done.

Those doing nothing more than cutting down trees and destroying other long use bee sites are doing the bees, themselves, and the bee industry a disservice. Let the feral alone if you do not know what your doing.

I would say that 95 to 99%% of the swarms collected or extracted are just feral swarms that were cast off from other beekeepers hives. If by chance you do come across a feral hive, and by "feral" I mean more than the definition of "feral", but the more misused meaning of having some long term survivor colony, consider your options and what would be best for the bees. Can't other means of studying, propogating, and helping the bees be accomplished other than someone grabbing a chainsaw?


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> "safeguard our wild strains"...

> ...cutting down trees, or destroying other 
> natural nesting sites of honeybees...

While the actions of a tiny minority of
beekeepers certainly would reduce the number
of potential nesting sites by some number of
trees, is this a significant impact, one we
need to worry about reducing the statistical
odds of any one swarm finding a new home?

No.
Bigger forces are at work, forces that render
the actions of beekeepers to insignificance.

Read this:
http://www.forestinformation.com/media/factsheets.asp

Which includes:

</font>
Canada's forests cover 417.9 million hectares
(a billion acres, or 45 percent of the land base).</font>
Fifty-six percent of those forests (that's
235 million hectares, or 588 million acres) are
managed for timber production.</font>
US forests cover 747 million acres (301
million hectares, or 33 percent of the land base).</font>
Sixty-seven percent of the total area of US
forests (495 million acres, or 198 million
hectares) are commercial forests, used to produce
timber for forest products.</font>
"Managed forests" do not allow trees to stand
long enough to develop rotted-out interiors of
the sort that bees favor. It wouldn't be
profitable to let that timber "go to waste",
would it? More to the point, very few of
these "managed" trees are the sort of hardwoods
that can still stand when rotted out inside.
"Managed forests" tend to be endless monocultures
of pine.

I'd say that the chainsaws are more of a risk
to the number of beekeepers than the number of
potential swarm nests!


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

The numbers you qoute are all the reason for beekeepers to do anything and everything they can to save old world growth nesting sites. I am not talking about commercial tracts of forrest that can not support nesting sites. And am I concerned with a swarms inability to find a site as you mention? No. I never mentioned that. It was more focused on the event that if you did cross paths with a true feral colony, what would you do, and what can be done to lessen the impact instead of just cutting down the tree and taking home your prized "feral" stock. 

Equating the number of acres of forrest that are left in the states or Canada does what? I also know that nesting sites for the eastern bluebird has been drastically reduced thereby cutting the numbers significantly over the years. I don't think commercial tree farms and managed tracts are to blame. Many farms and communities have less nesting sites sich as old growth trees, fence posts, etc. I equate the limited sites to many factors, but it does exist. Limiting the impact or view to just beekeepers is narrow in scope. Yes, beekeeper have a small impact versus the community at large, but does that equate to beekeepers not doing the best they can and perhaps making even small positive impacts. I guess if a group of beekeepers, such as one to include Jim fischer, can not see the impact they can cause, and say its not worth being concerned about...how can we expect any better from anyone else? Or do some just not care as to say the impact of tens of thousands of beekeepers is insignificant?

Regardless, my comments were not based on acres or the ability of swarms to find nesting sites. It had to do with the overall effort and perception of beekeepers who feel the need to collect every feral colony they come across. I say leave the tree and colony. Study, collect, and propogate without cutting the tree down and perhaps destroying another colony that may have some siginificance.

I did not know that a indepth look into the forrest industry was something to be considered based on my original comments. Not sure if a group of insignificant beekeepers can do much about the industry as a whole. But maybe it would be significant to a couple beekeepers standing under a big old tree asking "How do we get them there bees out of the tree?"


----------



## chillardbee (May 26, 2005)

Blue.eyed.Wolf said, "I read an article about a woman that crossed a whimpy wild rice with the domestic rice. She expected to get something inbetween. What se got was a rice with a seed head twice that of the domestic rice. It seems that there was an unexpressed gene sequence burried in domestic rice that lacked a trigger gene, and this whimpy wild rice had the triger gene but not the gene sequence. A triger not found in any of the domestic rice she tested. The point of the article was the need to safe guard our wild strains. To say it again, she introduced a gene that activated an unexpressed gene sequence with unforseeable results."

>

The same thing happened with the cross breed of the European & African bees. Which enhanced an aggressive / defensive gene. Also, it created a bee that produced more honey and had more vigorous brood production. It seems that a lot of genes were enhanced by that hybridization; good and bad. They're even resistant to mites. If this is the result of an accidental cross breeding, how much better would controlled cross breeding of a bee be.

I believe that as time progresses that a bee will appear that will be nearly, too completely, hygenic and resistant to the mite by natural selection. What I mean is, that the hives that are dying now are getting rid of bees that were not tolerant to the mite. While the hives that are surviving are getting increasingly more resistant; like the SMR. 

Ideally, the bee that we would like to have would be resistant or co-habitable with the mites, a large honey producer, non-swarming, gentle, hygenic and able to over-winter well. I don't think there is, as of yet, a bee like that. But I think we will acquire one at some point. Until then, medicate them in which ever way you see fit.


----------



## Blue.eyed.Wolf (Oct 3, 2005)

Nature may be working in another dorection as well,

The parasite that quickly kills its host is ineffecient. Natural selictive pressures may be pushing for a mite that isnt quite as destructive.

I agree with you Bjorn, I dont cut down my apple tree to get the fruit. Same concept.

The gist of my long winded first post was that gene splicing is different only in degrees from natural mating.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

BEW - I see that you have deftly reversed an attempt to turn this thread back to swarming!

I don't claim any high level scientific knowledge, but it seems to me that nature has her own built-in safeguards against genetic disasters. Genes in fish do not, in nature, find their way into tomatoes. Neither do kangaroos cross with alligators to make jumping things with big teeth. Of course, different strains of the same species can cross freely - in rice and in bees - and the resulting cross may or may not have one or more survival advantages, which is all that matters in terms of 'natural selection'. 

We have other criteria than just survival value that we apply to our food crops and domesticated animals, so we deliberately cross for yield, resistance to disease, rapid weight gain, etc. By doing so we are attempting to bend nature to our will, and, insomuch as we make the right selections and continue to provide the appropriate 
environment to sustain them, there is nothing inherently 'wrong' with this. That approach to breeding has enabled us to develop relatively stable civilisations that are no longer dependent on hunting and gathering and makes cities like New York possible. (Come to think of it, was that such a good idea?  

However, once we start down the road of gene splicing, we are into entirely new territory, as we are introducing into the natural environment life forms that have never previously existed and of which, therefore, no other life forms have any 
'experience'. Anything could happen - and have happened and will continue to happen - so long as we act as if we have total control of nature, which have have not and never can have.

We (by which I mean the GM-sceptic movement in the UK) managed to abort many of the open-air GM experiments in Britain and we did so because we were deeply concerned about the potential dangers of letting herbicide-resistant genes loose among agricultural crops and by default into the wild. The fact that Roundup-resistant wheat has spread so quickly across the USA, even in places where it has never been planted, I think demonstrates that we took the right position.

(I put the use of GM for medical applications, such as insulin, in a different category, as they do not involve the spread of novel genes into the environment.) 

If we take the example of what we call oilseed rape (I think it's Canola across the pond) - Brassica napa, to avoid confusion. Some varieties are largely self-pollinating, while other rely more on insect pollination. And we all know how much bees love either kind. Any gene introduced artificially into the OSR genome has the potential to affect the gut of foraging insects, such that unpredictable and unexpected results may occur, including some that may be damaging to the bees' survival. The point is, we just don't know what could happen until proper, exended tests are done, over a decent amount of time. That is why I challenged Norman Carreck of Rothamstead (UK agricultural research station) to produce the results of such tests before giving the green light to open-air GM experiments. He could not produce such results.

We must also remember that GM is being pushed by giant corporations, who care more about taking control of the world's food chain than they do about beekeepers' interests. Personally, I have no desire to entrust the future of our food supply to the likes of Aventis, Monsanto and Bayer.

(Sorry this went on so long.)


----------



## Blue.eyed.Wolf (Oct 3, 2005)

I opened this this thread so we could discuss GM here, and discuss swarming in the thread you started. I thought the title "from swarms to GM" was apropreate. More of my twisted humor I guess. I'm still learning the protocall of the site, so maybe I did it wrong.

I believe I have read that inter-species gene swapping has been going on in nature since the git-go. Unrelated species of weeds turning up round-up ready proves this out. Our genome is littered with little snippits of things picked up through time...not sure which side of the debate this feeds.

You definately wont get an arguement here about NYC, never been there, so I didnt leave anything there, so I dont need to leave my little place sticks here.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

>> I believe I have read that inter-species gene swapping has been going on in nature since the git-go. 

I would like to hear how this works in practice.

>>Unrelated species of weeds turning up round-up ready proves this out.

Not really. OSR crosses eith a number of RELATED species - pretty much any other flowering Brassica (e.g. wild mustard), thus the potential (and recorded occurrence) of out-crossing to the wild.

"Oilseed rape 'volunteer' plants [1], already in flower, have been found at a site used earlier in the year in the Government's GM Farm Scale Evaluations [2]. The biotech company Aventis is legally responsible for ensuring that these GM volunteer weeds do not survive to the flowering stage. If they flower, GM 'volunteers' may contaminate non-GM oil seed rape plants and wild relatives. FOE has written to the Secretary of State, Margaret Beckett, urging her to order the immediate destruction of the weeds and to prosecute Aventis for breaching their consent to release GMOs.

Earlier this week Nature magazine reported that wild maize, contaminated with GMOs, had been discovered in a remote Mexican region. Maize originates from Mexico and all commercial varieties were originally bred from this wild stock. Similarly, the centre of diversity of oilseed rape is Europe. The consequences of GM oilseed rape crossing with wild plants are unknown."

see http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/20011130115941.html


http://www.gmcontaminationregister.org/

Highlights from the register:

* 27 countries have experienced a total of 63 cases of GM contamination of food, feed, seed or wild plants.
* The largest number of contamination incidents have taken place in the USA (11 incidents).
* Contamination from StarLink maize was found in 7 countries: USA, Canada, Egypt, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Japan and South Korea.
* Illegal releases of GM crops into the environment or food chain have taken place in India (cotton), Brazil (cotton and soya), China (rice), Croatia (maize), Europe, Germany (papaya) and Thailand (cotton and papaya).
* Six cases of negative agricultural side-effects have been recorded including deformed cotton bolls and the emergence of herbicide tolerant super-weeds.


----------



## Blue.eyed.Wolf (Oct 3, 2005)

> I would like to hear how this works in practice...

Its been a while since I read this, but here is how it was suposed to work as I remember.

Chromosomes are constantly breaking and being repaired within the cell, not always puting thier genes back in the places they came from. Viruses dump thier genitic material into the cells. Sometimes a DNA snippit is "repaired" into the viruses' sequence. Now the virus carries some of the hosts dna, lets say chicken dna. Now if the virus jumps species, lets say to humans, it carries that chicken snippit with it. 

We already know that viruses can imbed dna into a hosts genome, just ask Monsanto.

Now if little Timmy contracts this chicken virus, and this gene transfer happens in a gonad cell, and that gonad cell produces the sperm cell that fathers his son, his son is born a bird brain, or at least has a snippit of junk dna that originated in a chicken.

> big corporations are pushing the GM industry....

There are also universities working with it, with the good of mankind as thier goal. However dont underestimate the power of Capitialism....After all Mother Nature is the ultimate capitalist!


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

>> Now if little Timmy contracts this chicken virus, and this gene transfer happens in a gonad cell, and that gonad cell produces the sperm cell that fathers his son, his son is born a bird brain, or at least has a snippit of junk dna that originated in a chicken.

OK, that may account for the odd US president, but the difference is that said victim will have little chance (hopefully) of passing on his errant DNA, whereas, back in Kansas, a zillion acres of Roundup-ready wheat are being cultivated...

>> There are also universities working with it, with the good of mankind as thier goal. 

You have a rosy view of universities, my friend.

"The Berkeley campus has been wracked by dissent ever since it signed a lucrative deal in 1998 with the Swiss-based firm Novartis, giving the company privileged access to the university's plant scientists." 
see http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1877


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>My niece uses insuline prodced by a bacteria modified to produce human insuline.

And when that bacteria gets loose into the "wild" and starts living in the intestines of normal people, producing insulin, what will be the effect of that?


----------



## Blue.eyed.Wolf (Oct 3, 2005)

> And when that bacteria gets loose......

I dont know if you can absorb insuline through the intestine, if so there would probable be an oral treatment for diabeties. But that isnt your point, and your point is totally valid. 

In asnwer I would say that the fire in my wood stove is a good thing, if it were to excape the iron I keep it caged with, it would be devastating.

> you have a rosey view...
Yes I do, In my view, our techno driven scocity is moving forward at blinding speed. We are creating problems as we go, we are solving problems as we go. We cant stop. It simply isnt a workable option. 
We have players that would do anything, simply because we can..."lets splice the bioluminence gene form a firefly, and put it in a spruce tree. Glow in the dark Christmas trees! er ..um..holiday trees! We'd make a fortune!"
We have players that turn thier back on anything modern, The amish in this area dont have electricity or cars. For any amish reading this, I think thats great, you are keeping the knoladge of how to work with out techno gadgets going. If our energy bubble bursts, you'll be the teachers to the rest of us that think milk comes form Wal-mart.
And in the Greenpeace/organo movement, you cant deny that there extreemist that scare you with thier views. However as a whole, they help keep that first group I mentioned under control.
Its a toss up. We cant go back. Will we save ourselves before we desrtoy ourselves? I hope so, but it will take ALL of us to do it.
So, do I have a rosy view? ya, but my keyword in life is Ballance. Ballance my cynisim with my optimism, and hopefully I will see thing as they really are.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>deeply concerned about the potential dangers of letting herbicide-resistant genes loose among agricultural crops and by default into the wild.

Whats the concern? I have herbicide reistant wild oats, that formed due to selection pressures in my fields. Are you also concerned about that plant getting into the wild. Herbicide resistant plants are only relevant to farmers, in controling weed populations. I reall doubt the wild mustard with the reistant trait to roundup will outcompete the non reisitant plant inthe wild...

Beside, a simple mist of 2-4-D will easily kill these so called tabloid "super plants"


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

Transposon, virus particles, plasmids, sympatric speciation and parasites have caused the interspecies exchange of genetic material for generations before Gregor Mendel was ever born. Realistically, the mixing of the world's biota (as in the Australian rabbit example), pollution and overeploitation of natural resources are a much bigger threat to ecosystems. Legislation addressing GMO's is akin to dicussing ants in the kitchen when hyenas are drooling at the door. Most of the laws designed to regulate GMO's amount to little more that non-tarif barriers to trade.


----------



## chillardbee (May 26, 2005)

The only benefit that swarming has is the distruption of the brood cycle but whats the benefit if we have to pay for it with our honey crop, and really it's only the swarm itself thats goin to experience the greatest benefit because of all the remaining brood still in the parent colony there will still be healthy population of mites when the new queen starts to lay. And there's still the question of wether you'll be able to catch the swarm, visions of standing in your yard and watching a swarm take off into the wild blue yonder come to mind.

There are other ways of disrupting the brood cycle like requeening and/or making nucs or splits. Also it's when the brood is at it's lowest or gone and even up to the point when from the queen starts laying to when they have brood about to be capped is when the mites are at there most vunerable to treatments weather with formic, OA, ect. 

the feral bee population in our area is constantly restocked by other peoples swarms, and these restocked feral colonies never last long but niether do untreated hives unlike the treated hives from wich these swarms come from. Can you imagine what the state of bees in north america would be in if every beekeeper didn't intervene with meds. I think beekeepers are of two kinds, there are those who are struggling to just keep there hives alive and those that are trying to get there averages of honey production back up to where it was before the mites ever came into the picture and even in my own hives i've had years that, when you look in my hives, you couldn't tell that there were mites in there.

geneticaly modified bees could be both a blessing and a curse or either or. there are bees already out there that are fairly resistant to the mites like smr, but this only means that they will survive better with treatment of antimite products. 

in short, swarming is infeasable for commercial beekeepers who depend upon bees for there lively hood. while the extra effort to disrupt brood and expence to treat for mites is a small price to pay to have colonies that are going too be our bread and butter.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Can you imagine what the state of bees in north america would be in if every beekeeper didn't intervene with meds.

If I may do my best to quote Dr. Marion Ellis in a causual conversation: "If we had never treated we would already be past all these problems with mites and diseases. The resitant bees would have survived and we wouldn't need to treat." I think that's exactly where we would be if every beekeeper didn't invervene with meds.


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

Terramyacin made stronger AFB. Roundup will make stronger weeds and we will have to go to something stronger to beat them back. I don't want to eat corn that emits poisonous pollen and is doused with herbicide.
I worry because you can't get the genii back into the bottle.

Dickm


----------



## Barry Digman (May 21, 2003)

> I worry because you can't get the genii back into the bottle.


We can't, but nature can. Of course, that doesn't bode well for us.


----------



## chillardbee (May 26, 2005)

It may have been possible that through nature if we had left our bees untreated that we would of had natural selection or at least hope there would of been or else there would be no bees period. don't forget that varroa is an unatural parasite to the european honey bee, it's been only the last 15 years here anyway that we had to take measures to control the mites. Now, if i didn't start treating at this time i know i would of lost all if not most of my hives and that would probably still happen today. Tell me, if even 65% of everything we eat is due to the direct pollenation of the honeybee, how would we, at that time let the number of hives in north america get to a devestating low in order to aquire genes that are now starting to become active and nurtured. You would of though that something of a mite resistant bee would of come out of europe already too, but i see there still treating over there too. but i reckon it wasn't worth it to them "beekeepers and growers who need pollenation" to let most of the bees die in order to get those few hive that might survive, that might have a gene to be resistant to the mite. It is sad that we ever treated for mites. we never should of had to.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Just as a note from someone who is an entomologist and every bit as interested in other insects as in honey bees, honey bees are generally lousy pollinators. They perform well on certain domesticated crops, but even on many of those crops, other pollinators are more effective. Those other pollinators are more difficult to manage, meaning that populations might be low when they're most needed, and they lack the capacity to produce honey or produce as much as our honey bees, so they get left out of many discussions. 

Grains are largely wind-pollinated, and even many fruits are pollinated by more efficient pollinators for each species (such as beetles, flies, butterflies and moths, ants, wild bees, wasps, etc.). What I'm really trying to point out to all of you is that honey bees are not responsible for pollinating 65 percent of the food we eat. They help with a large variety of foods, but these foods would persist without honey bees, particularly if the plants that produce the foods are native to North America, where honey bees have been introduced.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>The resitant bees would have survived and we wouldn't need to treat.

The beekeeping industry would sure look different. 

>>Terramyacin made stronger AFB. Roundup will make stronger weeds 

What? RAFB isnt anymore deadly to the bees than the old AFB strain. Affects the hives the same-death. The only difference is that we can control the RAFB with terramyacin. 
Roundup resistant weeds stronger??? No, just tolerant to that chemical treatment. 
Where are you comming frome dickm??? Obviously you dont understant the genii you speak of...


>honey bees are not responsible for pollinating 65 percent of the food we eat. They help with a large variety of foods, but these foods would persist without honey bees, particularly if the plants that produce the foods are native to North America, where honey bees have been introduced.

Native pollinatiors are important, yes. But you are overlooking the point that our native pollinatiors, never had the responsability to pollinate the vast number flowers on the huge number acres found on the land scape right now. Perhaps, the native populations were sufficient before agriculture appeared, but now their significance to pollination is next to nill. Remember also, agriculture may have displaced much of their habitat.
I really believe your dismissal of 65% is wrong. They maynot be the most efficient pollinatiors, but by having the ability to collect a valuable product allows us beekeepers to have our hives scattered amoungst the landscape. Without them there, there would be little to no insect pollination.
Ever grow Buckwheat? Almonds perhaps? There is a direct corrilation B/W #of hives/acre and the increased yeild of crop collected/acre. Factual evidence bees contribute enourmously to the pollination of our produce. It is harder to attribute factual evidence to self pollination crops sutch as canola. They claim up to 30% increase on a well pollinated crop. And this comes from seed growers in Alberta, who need well pollinated plants.

[ December 13, 2005, 11:19 AM: Message edited by: Ian ]


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Ian, I have to correct you on a few things. I've read a lot of you posts and appreciate your insights, but I think you're a bit off on the pollination issue.

1) The number of flowers on the number of acres largely hasn't changed. The species have changed. Find a tract of native prairie and look at the composition. Native prairie contains more plants per acre than cropland, and the number of flowering plants available for insect pollinators is generally higher.

The problem comes with the lack of diversity. As you correctly pointed out, agriculture displaces native pollinators.

2) Honey bees offer a huge service as supplemental pollinators. The fact that crops, even canola, buckwheat and almonds, can be pollinated with no honey bees present means that honey bees are not solely responsible.

Again, in concentrated crops, honey bees offer an easy way to supplement the native pollinators. Has anyone ever tried comparing pollination rates in canola, for example, between fields with honey bee hives and field with comparable numbers of dermestid beetles added? I think you'd be surprised at the results, but no one offers pollination services from dermestid beetles.

3) I don't deny honey bees as a pollinator, or any other bees in general. Ask entomologists, though, (not just beekeepers) and they will tell you the same thing. The behavior of other insects makes them better general pollinators than bees. Many small beetles crawl into flowers and wallow around in them, completely covering themselves with pollen and them smearing it on every surface they contact. 

Bees are good pollinators, but rank lower on the list of importance. As pollinators in general, the groups of insects rank, in order of importance: beetles, butterflies/moths, flies, ants/bees/wasps, other groups of insects.

4) Again, the statement was "65% of everything we eat is due to the direct pollenation of the honeybee." Honey bees may serve as pollinators of plants that provide 65% of all we eat, but most of those plants still have open pollination systems. I wonder about the 65% figure in general, though. Like I pointed out before, grains (wheat, rice, corn, rye, barley, oats) don't require insects for pollination. Meat is largely produced by converting the energy of grasses (grains are the seeds of grasses) into flesh, meaning that the meat you eat really doesn't require much in the way of insect pollination.

Obviously, I keep bees, too, and I recognize the joys and benefits of apiculture. I think beekeeping provides enough other benefit, though, that we don't need to make claims about bees that can't be supported by scientific data.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

"What? RAFB isnt anymore deadly to the bees than the old AFB strain."

This is entirely true. Also, there is a complete lack of evidence showing resistant HUMAN pathenogens or plasmids arising from AFB. In short, the great danger here is not the development of RAFB, but rather antibiotic tainted honey. If, as Bob says, routine testing is on the way, then tainted honey will be less common in coming years. RAFB simply means that antibiotics become less useful. For those who do not rely on antibiotics, this causes no concern. A small side note: if a beekeeper plans on using tylosin, then they should probably consider using it at the same time as terramycin. It is many times harder for bacteria to survive and develop resistance to two antibiotics used simultaneously. I suspect that this will not be done due to cost concerns. There is no substitute for clean equipment, good comb and diligent observation.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>The number of flowers on the number of acres largely hasn't changed.

Gee, I dont know Jon. I look at what the tall grass prairie and wooded landscape looked like here over 100 years ago,and to be frank, it was mostly grass in the praries and heavey scrub bush in the wooded landscapes. I tuck one of my bee yards right beside our 500 acres of virgin bushland, for obvious reasons, and the only honey I collect from it is the early flowering trees, and scrub fruiting trees. No surplus honey, all to brood food. After that my honey is all collected from the neighbouring fields. YOur right, there seemed to be more diversity in its native plants, but the shear volume of nectar secreated compaired to current agriculture doesnt compaire. 
Maybe your landscape in South Dakota is different, but it seems to me North Dakota has much the same simular grass lands as we do.

>>can be pollinated with no honey bees present means that honey bees are not solely responsible.


Yes, but is the pollination adequate. Not experienced with almond pollination (perhaps someone can enlighten us) but I know for a fact, that 1 beehive/acre of buckwheat can increase yeild of the field by 100-150%. 


>>between fields with honey bee hives and field with comparable numbers of dermestid beetles added? 

Maybe we might be argueing on a different level here. I thought you were speaking mearly on the current native pollinator populations. 
There is no economic advantage to adding those beetles over honeybees. And by adding the beetles, then they are not from the current native stock. 


>>Bees are good pollinators, but rank lower on the list of importance. As pollinators in general, the groups of insects rank, in order of importance: beetles, butterflies/moths, flies, ants/bees/wasps, other groups of insects.


I understand your statement, and agree to a point. I am saying their populations are not sufficient to adequately pollinate the flower needed by producers. This is why producers will pay to have bees pollinate thier crop.

Lets look at Alflafa. The leaf cutter. Native, I beleive, and very efficient at pollinating. Why not use honeybees here? It is because bee will ignore alfalfa if there is something better about, where leafcutters limits are 100-200 feet from thier nest. 
Yet sutch an efficient pollinatior isnt used for any other crop, why? Because they dont produce a high value product as a by product of the sevice, and they are very labour intensive.


>>65% of everything we eat is due to the direct pollenation

Ya, mabe I can see what you are saying. With the vast volume of food out there produced. It would be interesting to see the facts leading up to that conclusion, to understand thier thinking and perspective on the stats.

>>that we don't need to make claims about bees that can't be supported by scientific data.

Nor do we need exagerations on the wonders of nature


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

Ian . . .

>I look at what the tall grass prairie and wooded landscape looked like here over 100 years ago

Ian, how old ARE you?







(couldnt resist







)


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

>I look at what the tall grass prairie and wooded landscape looked like here over 100 years ago

100 or even 500 years ago does not constitute a pristine wilderness. Since people first arrived on this continent (over 20,000 yrs ago by most estimates) ecosystems have seen waves of extinction and change. All nature that we see now is just a time-series of changing baselines, altered for the benefit of humans. In the last 150 years or so, we've started to alter things in ways that do not even benefit us anymore.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Ian, 

First I better tell you that I've used a lot of your advice on managing bee colonies in the north to ru my own hives, especially your suggestions about overwintering. For anyone else reading, I recommend Ian's methods for managing hives to anyone. He's running a successful operation in an area with a winter climate that makes beekeeping a challenge.

How exactly do you manage your "virgin bushland?" Most ecologists agree that grasslands historically burned at least once every other year, and tallgrass prairies may have burned as often as twice each year. Unless you've continued this regimen, the prairie certainly does look different. Do you have Kentucky bluegrass, brome, sweet clover, dandelions or other invaders there? If you do, it's certainly not native prairie. Native woodlands burned, too, but those fires were obviously less frequent.

>>between fields with honey bee hives and field with comparable numbers of dermestid beetles added? 

>Maybe we might be argueing on a different level here. I thought you were speaking mearly on the current native pollinator populations. 
There is no economic advantage to adding those beetles over honeybees. And by adding the beetles, then they are not from the current native stock.

OK, so first off, dermestids are native, at least most species found widely around North America. Secondly, if there's an economic advantage to supplemental pollination (say, by honey bees), and some one could figure out how to raise and move large numbers of these beetles, and then demonstrated that rates of pollination (say, in buckwheat) were higher than if you used honey bees, wouldn't that be an economic advantage? Sure, the people handling the beetles wouldn't get a honey crop, but couldn't there still be an economic advantage?

You mention leaf-cutter bees as the only alternative pollinators being used. Off the top of my head, I can think of at least two others: bumble bees, especially for pollinating tomatoes and other greenhouse fruit crops (honey bees don't orient well under glass, and the "buzz pollination" method used by bumble bees is more effective), and blow flies, used to pollinate onion seed crops. While bumble bees produce tiny amounts of honey, blow flies don't produce any, and both are still economical pollinators. I'm sure I could come up with plenty of other examples, too, if you're interested.

I've read the examples of improved yields in buckwheat, canola, sunflowers, blueberries and orchard crops, and I see great merit in setting hives for these crops. As components of the average person's diet, though, -- and remember that the claim was made that 65% of the food we eat is pollinated by honey bees -- buckwheat, canola, sunflowers, blueberries and orchard crops make up a tiny fraction of the daily intake. Then think of the grains: wheat, rice, corn, oats, rye, barley, and the meat (beef, mutton, swine) produced by feeding grasses to livestock. None of those crops needs pollination by bees. Most of the people in South Dakota, and I believe in North Dakota, most of the rest of the U.S., and Canada, like their meat (conversion of energy from grasses to flesh) and potatoes (no bee pollination necessary).

But that's beside the point. Bees are worth keeping anyway. I keep them. They're fascinating creatures, and they are the only insects that produce such massive quantities of honey. I just think we should hesitate before we throw around such bold claims about the importance of honey bees as pollinators. Remember, no species of Apis, or honey bee, is native to the western hemisphere, yet native pollinators successfully pollinated North and South American plants before honey bees were imported.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>100 or even 500 years ago does not constitute a pristine wilderness.

but vastly untouched land

>>How exactly do you manage your "virgin bushland?

Thats exactly it. Its virgin bushland. Untouched, comletely unultered, never has been farmed anyfassion.

>> Do you have Kentucky bluegrass, brome, sweet clover, dandelions or other invaders there?

Yes, on our grassland pastures, which isnt virgin. I will tell you dandilions do better on grazed land. Clover seems to keep to the well drained areas, for it doesnt compete with the grass well at all.

I havnt seen any grassland fires, ever. Our bushland occassionaly burn, mabey once in 20 years or so. **** neighbours

>>dermestids are native, at least most species found widely around 

I take your word for it, that they are native. But as we begun this conversation, I was under the impression you were refering to current native pollinatior populations. Seemed to me you were implying there was enough native pollinatiors in researve to handle the huge responsibility of properly pollinating all the agricultural croplands. By raising them and pollinating with them, no longer are they of the native population.


>>Sure, the people handling the beetles wouldn't get a honey crop, but couldn't there still be an economic advantage?

There would be, if it could be done profitably, and make it worth everyones while.

>>You mention leaf-cutter bees as the only alternative pollinators being used.

Okay now Jon. I am not sure why you are putting words in my mouth. I didnt say that at all. Re-read my post, I didnt even imply that. Leaf cutters are commonly used to pollinate alfalfa. I was using them as an example, and a good one. I was trying to demenstrate that even though, this native pollinator is so efficient, it is just not practical to use its services for anyother major pollination effort. I call them a specialty pollinator, where as honeybees are much more versitile.

>>While bumble bees produce tiny amounts of honey,

Next to nill, not even worth considering when debating their economical worth to pollination.

>>Then think of the grains: wheat, rice, corn, oats, rye, barley, and the meat (beef, mutton, swine) produced by feeding grasses to livestock. None of those crops needs pollination by bees.

This is obvious. Frankly, I am a professional beekeeper. Why do you think I have to be informed that bees dont pollinate wheat. 

You have already somewhat convined me that mabey that 65%# might be high,..


>>Remember, no species of Apis, or honey bee, is native to the western hemisphere, 

I think someone here greatly disagrees with that. But I frankly dont know enough to discuss it


>>hesitate before we throw around such bold claims about the importance of honey bees as pollinators. 


I will never hesitate the extreem improtance honeybees have on our agricultural production. And as I have said before, our native pollinatiors arnt in sufficient numbers to adequately do the job!! Agriculture is everwhere, and the pollination requirements just cant be handled by our native species. Pollination must be incorperated into agriculture to ensure proper fertilization of the flowering plants of our crops. 

>>>>yet native pollinators successfully pollinated North and South American plants before honey bees were imported.

South American didnt have the millions on hudreds of millions of cultivated acres it now does. Where do you think all that honey is comming from?


Thanks for the commplement at your beginning of the post, appreciated. But take all my so called knollege with a good grain of salt. Just my opinion on honeybee biology...
Sorry for getting stern, but I frankly dont agree with what you are continuing to state








Chow

[ December 13, 2005, 05:12 PM: Message edited by: Ian ]


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I need to clarify and correct I few things I said previously. 

First the correction:
>>You mention leaf-cutter bees as the only alternative pollinators being used.

You called me on this one, Ian, and you're right. What I meant to say was "You only mention leaf-cutter bees as alternative pollinators." The placement of that little word "only" changes things drastically, and it makes my original statement wrong. My apologies.

Now for a couple clarifications:

First, I apparently gave the impression that I believe populations of native pollinators are still great enough to adequately handle all of the pollination needs of agriculture. That wasn't my intention, nor is it my belief. I fully recognize that modern agriculture requires higher rates of pollination than simple survival of plant species requires. I never meant to question the value of using honey bees to supplement pollination of crops. Pollination services by beekeepers have been shown scientifically to increase yields of many crops and even improve the quality of some crops. Beekeepers provide a valuable, economic service to producers of fruit crops, almonds, sunflowers, canola, buckwheat, and any other crops that can be pollinated by bees.

Part of the reason that populations of native pollinators is too low to provide adequate pollination, though, lies in modern agricultural practices. Growing monocultures of plants across vast tracts of land severely limits the potential for diversity among insects (pollinators included).

And, to clarify, the honey bee is not native to North America. No species of Apis (the genus that contains the honey bee) is native to North America. I have a master's degree in systematics of insects from the University of Kansas, perhaps the leading institution in the study of relationships among bees, and I am certain of that information. Depending on how you separate species the genus Apis contains, more or less the following species:

Apis mellifera (European honey bee)
Apis cerana (Asian honey bee)
Apis dorsata
Apis florea
Apis koschevnikovi
Apis laboriosa
possibly a few other species.

All are native to Europe, Asia, Africa, and many are still only found in southeast Asia. Only A. mellifera and A. cerana are kept commercially, and only A. mellifera has been introduced into the western hemisphere. For those who don't already know it, A. cerana is the original host of Varroa mites. Somehow they made the jump to A. mellifera.

On the issue of Apis being native only to the eastern hemisphere, I'll take on all comers. I have the top systematists of bees to back me up.
(I should add that one fellow in Kansas believes the world is only 150 years old, and everything was created where it now exists. He claims that Europeans have always been in North America since the creation of the world, and would probably claim the same about European honey bees. If you agree with him and can't be convinced that the world is older than 150 years, I guess I've got nothing.)


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

I would interest me to read the document, in which they claim "65% of all food we eat" is directly influenced by the honeybee. I would like to see how they came up with those conclusions. 


>>All are native to Europe,

I believe you,


>>fellow in Kansas believes the world is only 150 years old

It seems there are more nuts out there than we know of










>>Beekeepers provide a valuable, economic service to producers of fruit crops, almonds, sunflowers, canola, buckwheat, and any other crops that can be pollinated by bees.

Nature just cant keep up to our requirements


----------



## chillardbee (May 26, 2005)

Wait a minute guys. how did (swarms to gm for mite control) go this far off topic. swarming isn't the answer, gm might bee.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

OK, I'll bring it back full circle. I was told a few years ago -- back when people were worried that pollen from Bt corn might kill monarch butterfly caterpillars -- that pollen from Bt corn wouldn't kill honey bees but might be strong enough to kill Varroa. I'm currently studying the changing ecology of insect pests in transgenic crops, so I have access to a lot of Bt corn pollen and have set up an experimental protocol to test the hypothesis.

Personally, I worry some about the bees. Since bee larvae eat pollen, and caterpillars fed Bt pollen died from the insecticidal proteins, I imagine Bt corn pollen would be pretty hard on bees. Anyone know of any information on the topic, or have any thoughts on the idea of Bt corn pollen for the control of Varroa?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Since Certan has been proven safe for bees and it IS Bt, I doubt that the Starlink corn pollen will hurt the bees. But then I don't know about the AMOUNT of the protiens from the Bt in the pollen.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

After posting my question about Bt corn pollen this morning, I talked to Mr. Richard Adee of Adee Honey Farms (he runs about 75,000 hives). He says that Bt pollen has no real effect on Varroa. I guess that's expected; the proteins in Bt corn originally targeted just lepidopterans (moths). Just thought I catch that one before it starts making the rounds as a potential saviour.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

I think I missed something - what is RAFB?

Ian,
>Roundup resistant weeds stronger??? No, just tolerant to that chemical treatment. 

What are you going to kill all your RR weeds with but some other foul, polluting chemical that will get into watercourses and kill fish, persist in the environment and cause more problems for your grandchildren? We have to get off the chemical bandwagon or say goodbye to many more species that have been here longer than us, including bees.


----------



## Blue.eyed.Wolf (Oct 3, 2005)

> we have to get off the chemical bandwagon...

I dont think you'd get an arguement from anyone in here, givin a better option. I'm sure that everyone would prefer natural resistance to chemical intervention. Cheeper/ easier on the enviornment...win/win. I think that our dissagreement isnt on where we should go, but on how we should get there.


----------



## Blue.eyed.Wolf (Oct 3, 2005)

I know this has been an intence conversation, but I am disapointed that no one jumped me on the

"mother nature is the ultimate capitalist" 

comment. I thought for sure I'd get nailed for that one!


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I'll stir the pot again, but I'll leave your "ultimate capitalist" comment alone, BEW.

So far, the discussion on this thread has focused on GM plants and bacteria, with the possibility of spreading genes into other organisms. First question for thought: if genes can transfer from one organism to a completely different organism, through viral incorporations and transmissions or any other method, isn't adding a bacterial gene to corn or a fish gene to tomatoes or whatever just choosing traits that might get moved by natural processes anyway? After all, if genes can be transfered across groups of organisms by viruses, the viruses surely can't be selective in only incorporating genes that were first artificially added to organisms by humans.

Then, secondly, the idea that I've been waiting for someone to bring up. Adding Bt to corn was an effort to reduce spraying corn for pests; the plants make the insecticide, and the producers don't have to broadcast insecticides across as much land. Now the jump to beekeeping: I think everyone agrees that a bee naturally resistant to Varroa would be an ideal solution to the mite problem. What if we could add a gene (GM, or "unnatural resistance") to honey bees that would make them resistant to Varroa? Would anyone use the bees in their operations?

BTW, I'm not claiming I'm for or against these ideas. I just want to see how people react -- I'm playing devil's advocate, in a sense.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

{If I may do my best to quote Dr. Marion Ellis in a causual conversation: "If we had never treated we would already be past all these problems with mites and diseases. The resitant bees would have survived and we wouldn't need to treat." I think that's exactly where we would be if every beekeeper didn't invervene with meds.}

Yes but we are jumping over the biological sequence of why and how these diseases and pest exist and thrive. The course in nature is for the population of any given host to build until it becomes overpopulated. Typically what ever disease or pest, will grow with that host to the point when overpopulation occurs and the disease or pest peaks there and causes a population collapse, starting a new population cycle. We see this in virutally every living population at every level. Humans are the exeption (at least for know) due to our technology. If AFB, Mites, etc had been eliminated through natural selection we would be dealing with new threats due to our induced overpopulation of the species. This whole concept whether induced naturally or artifically is an endless row of domino's. Unfortunately we often don't look far enough down the line to see what domino's may fall in the future before acting.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I think you comments on disease and pests in overpopulated species are good, Joel, but I think you should reconsider humans. Humans have experienced cycles of disease just like other species. Think of bubonic plague, smallpox, some strains of influenza, malaria, and maybe HIV now, for a few. Populations fall after these outbreaks of these diseases. We go through the same cycles as other species.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>> "mother nature is the ultimate capitalist" 










>>what is RAFB?

Resistant American Foulbrood,

>>What are you going to kill all your RR weeds with but some other foul, 

As I said, anyother broadleaf will control a RR broadleaf plant. So, there is no difference in the plant, other than it doesnt die when sprayed by roundup,..


>>polluting chemical that will get into watercourses and kill fish, persist in the environment and cause more problems for your grandchildren? 

Think about than next time you flush your waste down the drain, as our belovid cities are pumping straight into the rivers, lakes, and oceans?


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

<Think about than next time you flush your waste down the drain, as our belovid cities are pumping straight into the rivers, lakes, and oceans?>


Ian,

While I aggre with much of what you say, this is not true, at least for larger cities in the United States where tertiary water treatment is practiced. The primary threat to watersheds in my area (the Chesepeake and Delaware) comes from the water run-off of the surrounding environs, and far upstream. It is always a good idea to modernize water treatment facilities, but this is not as necessary as in large cities as it is in many smaller townships and suburbs. The problem with many farms is that they import grain, export pigs, chicken and cattle, but keep the manure. This results in a net accumulation of nutrients. The issue, as I see it is three-fold:

1) we need to provide "buffer zones" of undeveloped land around the waterways to slow water runoff, and filter its content

2) We need to re-enact and enforce the clean water act (I don't know what the Canadian equivelent is) to prevent industrial pollution.

3) Manure derived nutrients should either be either shipped back to grain producing regions or else incorperated into the soil within 24 hours of spreading. 

Naturally, it also makes sense to locate livestock and farms close to grain production, but this cannot be done without relocating farmers and shipping food long distances (which will cause a loss of quality for liquid milk and produce). The extensive shipping of animals is hazardous and stressful for animals/people and an excellent way to spread disease.

I don't run anything, but if I did, those are some changes that I'd like to make


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

"mother nature is the ultimate capitalist" 

It's been said that ecology is the economics of Nature. Ecology definitely seems to run on a "devil take the hindmost" philosophy. I mean, you just don't see a lot of trout saying "that mosquito looks sick, I'll just let her recuperate".


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>at least for larger cities in the United States where tertiary water treatment is practiced

I am commenting on a situation you are aware of down there, as I am not. But let me assume the treatment facilities are to steralize bacterias from the waters and settle out the sedements. You forget to acknoledge the solubles in the water, which cant be treated out, in any fassion. (unless you are talking one of those fancy greenhouse water perification units like found in Calafornia). It is the solubles which are causing us the concern. 


>>>>The problem with many farms is that they import grain, export pigs, chicken and cattle, but keep the manure. 


Our local conservation district is studding exacly on agricultures influence on the water nutient pollution. Five year studdy, working off of 15 or so years of historical land use data. The early results are showing significat results. Even to the extreem where natural virgin land has released more pollutant in the water in form of solubles and colliforms than conventially farmed land. But not consistantly. Lots to learn yet,

At least we are trying to use the maures produced onthe farms for useful fertilizers. Why isnt there the same focus on the cities waste, where do you think it all goes?
The city of Winnipeg produces more liquid waste than the hog barns in "hog province" Manitoba. Yet the hog barns in our province manage thier manure as a nutirent fert. Winnipeg pumps right into the red river, and burries the solids in a lnad fill,..


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

[I think you should reconsider humans]

Agreed I didn't make that part of the point very well. I'm just making the observation that in modern times we don't get the full impact due to our drugs. Some are saying the Bird Flu may change that perspective.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

<You forget to acknoledge the solubles in the water, which cant be treated out, in any fassion>

Tertiary water treatment is the process of doing just this, so that the water can be rendered fit for human consumption. Secondary treatment produces "gray water" which has been oxgenized and aerated. Some nutrients may remain, many volitalize off as ammonia or are removed in the form of bacteria. Some but not all PO4 is released into rivers etc. Hog barns typically practice primary treatment if anything. This consists of separating the solids from the liquids. What is done with these to fractions depends on the area. In some cases, the solids simply accumulate until a flood washes out the lagoon. Better farms ship the stuff away for composting and treatment as descibed above. Nutrients can be removed from water without have to resort to capitol intensive technologies such as reverse osmosis or methane generators. Straw bales, aeration and composting are adequate for many small farms. These issues have been studied in eastern PA for 20+ years, and yes there is always much to learn, but it is wrong to say that nothing can be done about water quality now. Also I would propose the following regarding cities. Is it environmentally better to have our population concentrated into small areas with excellent infrastructure, or spread out over all creation with billions on septic tanks assciated with billions of isolated houses. To simply say that there are too many people is equivelent to saying that farmers don't really want to sell food. When pundits say that the Earth is polluted and overpopulated, they often mean, "there are too many people except for me" or "I favor public transportation for other people" We have the technology, science and capitol to improve the enviroment NOW. We really want to see another catastrophe like the Cod fishery collapse or the destruction of the Cheseapeake. As for Avian Flu, PA had two nearly state-wide outbreaks in the 90's. We've known about deaths in the S.E. for decades. This is nothing new.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Jon K,
>Since bee larvae eat pollen, and caterpillars fed Bt pollen died from the insecticidal proteins, I imagine Bt corn pollen would be pretty hard on bees. 

Glad you spotted that one. It didn't seem to have occurred to the GM proponents at the BBKA 2002 conference. And as far as I can tell, the science has never been done with full colonies over a number of seasons.

>isn't adding a bacterial gene to corn or a fish gene to tomatoes or whatever just choosing traits that might get moved by natural processes anyway? 

Pray tell by what marvel a gene in a fish might, by natural means, find itself in the genome of a tomato? I am not aware that Monsanto has yet produced a tomato that can swim, or a fish that invades greenhouses; nor do they - as far as I know - share any viral infections, so how could it happen?

And even if it could, it would be small scale and localised, unlike the praries sown with GM crops.

>I think everyone agrees that a bee naturally resistant to Varroa would be an ideal solution to the mite problem. What if we could add a gene (GM, or "unnatural resistance") to honey bees that would make them resistant to Varroa? Would anyone use the bees in their operations?

Me? No way. For a start, Monsanto/whoever would charge an arm and a leg for the queens and they would want a royalty for every egg laid! And God help you if you found some of their drones had found their way into one of your colonies without paying them their cut. Look what happened to Percy Schmeiser, whose fields were contaminated with Monsanto's Round-Up Ready Canola. http://www.percyschmeiser.com/


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>> Better farms ship the stuff away for composting and treatment as descibed above.

Dont know of anyone who ships animal waste off for treatment,

You dont actually beleive livestock farms treat the manure, do you? It is usually handled and applied to the soil as a fert, just as it is. Anything that is settled out of the liquid holding tank is aggitated, so the tank cleans out.


>>the solids simply accumulate until a flood washes out the lagoon.

How many hog farms have you been on? Cant beleive you actually believe this crap!! You are way out to lunch on this,..


>>To simply say that there are too many people is equivelent to saying that farmers don't really want to sell food.

Not saying that, 
I am saying, it is far easier to point and blame something other than ourselves,


>>Tertiary water treatment
>>Secondary treatment produces "gray water"

HOw many cities do you know of that reuses their graywater? 

And this process doesnt rid of the solubles either,


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>yet produced a tomato that can swim, or a fish that invades greenhouses;

YOu know better than that buckbee,.










>>Percy Schmeiser, whose fields were contaminated with Monsanto's Round-Up Ready Canola.

I dont like the grip Agra business has gotten on the farming community. But, they spent the money on research and development, they are entitled to what ever fee they please when selling thier product. They arent doing anything illegal, thanks to our govronment.

But old Percy, isnt all that innocent. If he had the seed blown off a neighbours truck, into his field from the road, to sew his entire field, uniformly, then well what the hell am I doing with a seeder!! 
He forgets to mention, that he was using the seed, and performing the actions, just as if knew he had that seed in his field.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

>I dont like the grip Agra business has gotten on the farming community. But, they spent the money on research and development, they are entitled to what ever fee they please when selling thier product. They arent doing anything illegal, thanks to our govronment.

So you're happy for them to buy up whole University research departments, refuse to publish their research data, dominate the world seed markets and force others out of business, charge farmers in third world countries to buy their seed every year instead of saving their own, contaminate vasts tracts of countryside with largely untested products, pollute organic farms with unwanted genetic material - just so long as they don't do anything 'illegal' according to the USDA, which they largely own?


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

< How many hog farms have you been on? >

Actually, quite a few, in multiple countries. All have been profitable operations producing over 22 pigs per sow. Take a look at how hogs are raised in the Netherlands where land is in short supply and the whole country is a watershed. Its a real eye opener. If by "solubles" you mean phosphate and ammonia or urea, yes they can be removed.

<Dont know of anyone who ships animal waste off for treatment,>

Welcome to the future. Liquid manure holding tanks were rare 50 years ago.


Refer back to my first posting on requirements for incorperating manure into the soil within 24 hours of spreading. The idea here is not to apply fertilizer and then watch it run off, but rather to mix it with the soil.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>If by "solubles" you mean phosphate and ammonia or urea, yes they can be removed.

Yes, but no. they are dissolved.

>>Welcome to the future. Liquid manure holding tanks were rare 50 years ago.

Storage, not treatment!!

>>pply fertilizer and then watch it run off, but rather to mix it with the soil.

No. Studdies show that it is important to allow manure to sit in the sun for a few hours to kill bacterias. 

>> not to apply fertilizer and then watch it run off,

Where are you comming up with these ideas. 

My impression from a fellow friend from Holland, is the regualatory athourities dont let you turn around without getting harrassed. Nothing goes without notice or penalty there. 
You picked the wrong place in the world to prove your point...


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>just so long as they don't do anything 'illegal' according to the USDA, which they largely own?

Money talks in todays economy.

Their technology works very well. That is why they are so donminate in sales. 
They arent doing anything illegal.

Gonvt polocy is changed by the people. We need to lobby our gonvt to start defending our producers. Otherwise in a matter of a few years, all of agriculture will be dominated by agrabusiness.

Down in Brazi, the govnt stopped Monsanto form collecting thier "rightful" technology fees. It allowed thier farmers to retain somewhat more of their own rights and privaleges. NAd you know what, they still send seed down there, for it is a huge market to sell into, even though they dont collect on the TUA.
Mean while our gonvt sits here, and allow agrabusines rape their own producers.

[ December 18, 2005, 10:03 AM: Message edited by: Ian ]


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

>Gonvt polocy is changed by the people. 

but it is largely formed by corporations.

>We need to lobby our gonvt to start defending our producers. Otherwise in a matter of a few years, all of agriculture will be dominated by agrabusiness.

Now there I can agree with you wholeheartedly.


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

Ian,
I respect your background and was surprised at the size of the outfit you have. I'd like to see it some time. When you talk I usually listen. I made a few comments earlier and didn't get back to the thread until now. I think there's something in the exchange that is central to the problematic way things are. I know that you have so much invested in your way of thinking that I'm not going to change your mind about anything. That won't stop me.

I said:
>>Terramyacin made stronger AFB. Roundup will make stronger weeds. 

You said:
>>What? RAFB isnt anymore deadly to the bees than the old AFB strain. Affects the hives the same-death. The only difference is that we can control the RAFB with terramyacin. 
Roundup resistant weeds stronger??? No, just tolerant to that chemical treatment. 
Where are you comming frome dickm??? Obviously you dont understant the genii you speak of...

This is where you irked me.

>>RAFB isnt anymore deadly to the bees than the old AFB strain.<<< 
I suppose that's true. Dead is dead.

>>The only difference is that we can control the RAFB with terramyacin<< 
I assume rAFB means "resistant AFB"? I think you meant control it with Tylosin. We certainly aren't going to control it with Terra.

>>>Paraphrasing now<If Roundup doesn't work we can go to 2-4-D.<<
2-4-D is Agent Orange. Do you use it? I haven't been paying attention but sort of hoped with the notoriety after Viet Nam that it would have been banned.


>>Roundup resistant weeds stronger??? No, just tolerant to that chemical treatment.<<
If one weed can survive the application of a harsh chemical and another could not... wouldn't you agree that the last one standing is stronger?

The same thing applies to AFB. If one bacterium can survive an antibiotic and another cannot...isn't the surviveing bug "stronger?" It may not be more infective but is more capable of existing in an unfriendly environment. That's what I meant by stronger.

>>>Where are you comming frome dickm??? Obviously you dont understant the genii you speak of...<<<

For what it's worth I came off a farm. I think I have a better grasp of these issues than you do simply because I am in the habit of looking at the big picture. In fairness to you, you need to worry about this years harvest. Like other farmers I know, you're sort of a victim.

The culprit is BIGNESS but let's take the "WE'll just move on to the next thing," attitude. Right now 3/5 of all the antibiotics produced are used in agriculture. Most of this is used "just in case" the animals get sick. In the big picture it's just a matter of time until our most potent medicines are useless, for humans, because the big petri dish that is agriculture, incubated tougher,resistant microbes. 

When Terramyacin came out for our AFB, good people predicted that it would only last a number of years. They are amazed that it lasted as long as it did. Tylosin is not going to be labeled for "Just in case use," as far as I know.
Raise your eyes to the horizon. How long do you think it will take to raise some AFB bugs resistant tto Tylosin? 5 years? Ten? 

When the Apistan and Checkmite+ came out sensible people knew they weren't going to work forever. We've gone a little backwards in that the acids, which were here all along, are becoming popular. Has it escaped you that "we'll go to something else," doesn't apply? There doesn't seem to be anything else!

Someone was writing about whaling awhile back and said, "there are some businesses that should go out of business." I hope I'm wrong but I don't see commercial beekeepers learning anything. They still want a fix they can do in seconds. Exclude Bob Harrison and a few others. The factory approach may have to go down the tubes. Again. The stuff they put in their hives would scare a bulldog off a meat wagon.

Us sideliners that are working with the alternative potions and resistant bees will be ahead of the curve.

I'm OK now. Don't make me mad again.










Dickm

Thinking that I'm leaving this planet to my grandchildren while it's awash with chemicals.

[ December 19, 2005, 07:24 AM: Message edited by: dickm ]


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

>>>Paraphrasing now<If Roundup doesn't work we can go to 2-4-D.<<
>>2-4-D is Agent Orange. Do you use it? I haven't been paying attention but sort of hoped with the notoriety after Viet Nam that it would have been banned.

I can't comment on whether 2-4-D is the same compound as Agent Orange; maybe it is, maybe it isn't, I simply don't know and haven't looked it up yet. I do know that 2-4-D is a widely used herbicide, available in almost any hardware store. Harmful? Probably, but so are all the other chemicals we use. I'm not advocating the use of chemicals like 2-4-D, just pointing out that, far from being banned, it's widely available and heavily used in this country.


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

I was half right. It seems the companion compound 2-4-5-T contains Dioxin and that was the major culprit. Do a search and be disgusted by how badly our country can deny things. 2,4-D may be safER but I don't want much of it around my grandchildren.

From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange


Description of agent orange:
Agent Orange is a roughly 1:1 mixture of the two phenoxy herbicides in ester form, 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) and 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T). These herbicides were developed during the 1940s by independant teams in England and the United States for use in controlling broad-leaf plants.

Dickm


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Thanks for looking that up! I learned something about Agent Orange I never knew before.

Personally, I still feel safer around 2,4-D and most any other herbicide than I do around insecticides. Insects and mammals are more closely related than plants and mammals, so we're much more likely to experience some damage from the actions of insecticides (pesticides) including coumphos and fluvalinate. I don't advocate general use of any herbicide or pesticide, though.


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

What is it that suburbanites put on their lawns that kills grubs and therefore discourages moles? Beautiful, green lawns full of crap, just because Dad doesn't think about it. I'd much rather see a kid stomping down a mole tunnel.

Dickm


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

I couldn't agree with you more dickm. It would also be great to see golf played on craggy hillsides, like when the game was created. Besides, there wonderful things that can grow and live in unmanaged yards populated by dandilions and yellow jackets.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Fist off dickm, sorry or insulting you. That slag was not called for.

>> I respect your background and was surprised at the size of the outfit you have. I'd like to see it some time. When you talk I usually listen.

Very proud of what we have here. That kind of snuk out in the conversation here somewhere, doesnt mean anything to the conversation, but practial experience.

>>I assume rAFB means "resistant AFB"? 

I thought rAFB was univerally excepted as resistant AFB. you not the only one that has asked me that.

>>2-4-D is Agent Orange.

Dont know what Agent Orange really is, but herd of it. 2-4-D, that I use is an amine formulated as a solution. Straight from my spray book. Its the same stuff used in most all lawn care dandilion killers. Check your neighbours spray can, and you will probably find 2-4-D listed. (Assuming you dont kill dandilions in your lawn as I dont, for infact we are both beekeepers)

>>For what it's worth I came off a farm. I think I have a better grasp of these issues than you do simply because I am in the habit of looking at the big picture.

Well dickm, who comes off the farm and doesnt know what 2-4-D is? Really, it was the oldest herbicide available, and started the shift to agriculture as we now know it. It is the sinlge most important herbicied on the market. 
Becasue of sutch, it tells me that you come off the farm, without any practical farming know how. Im not slaging you here again, just saying simply to come off the farm doesnt give you the veiw of the bigger picture. 
But your right with one point, we are forced to act shortsighted for the matter of survival. But that doesnt mean are opinions are as sutch.


>>If one weed can survive the application of a harsh chemical and another could not... wouldn't you agree that the last one standing is stronger?

I read this post a day or so back, without time to respond. And got thinking why you would think resistance to a herbicide makes it a stronger plant. And I got thinking of antibiotic resistant bacterias and sutch known as "super bugs". This name take refers the resistant bacterias as super, or stronger. 
I dont agree with the "stronger" lable of antibiotic or chemicaly reisistant organisms. They are reistant to our terms of controling them, but they dont act any differently in expressing their characteristics. So they arnt stonger, just avoid our controlling them. 
But I do see where you are comming from, after thinking about it for a while









>>Us sideliners that are working with the alternative potions and resistant bees will be ahead of the curve.

Dont be nieve. Its not just the sideliners working on the resistant bee. Its the commercial mans lively hood, they are the ones up here that are vesting thier money into this research and development. 

And again the commercial man gets slaged. Well, the commercial beekeepers put the money upfrount here in Canada which allowed the CHC bring Oxalic Acid into use,

>> I'm OK now. Don't make me mad again. [Embarrassed]


Its okay dickm, we all need to let off the steam sometimes. Keep your thoughts comming. I enjoy your opinions, just hope you can sort through my spelling!!

[ December 20, 2005, 06:37 PM: Message edited by: Ian ]


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

Hi Ian,
When I see your spelling I think that I would be about the same if it weren't for the spell checker. There is a way to get it into the browser, you know. I also suspect you may be bi-lingual and I am not.
I wasn't lying, just stretching the truth about coming off a farm. It wasn't lately. More like 55 years ago. I do however have a high school degree in agriculture. I used a new yellow herbicide back then to kil some poison ivy. I thought I'd start a sideline but the stuff was too expensive. I now suspect I used 2,4-D in 1950. 
On the other hand, where the heck were you in the Viet Nam war that you never heard of agent orange? I'm not talking to a kid am I? Anyway, 2,4-D was mixed with 2,4,5,=-T and was used to defoliate large tracts of forest in the Nam, to cut down on places for the enemy to hide. It turns out the 2,4,5-T contained "Dioxin" which is one of the worst pollutants on earth. A nerve poison I think. I think some pesticides may create it when they degrade.[not sure but have read something about it.] The run-off from agent orange has plagued a generation of Vietnamese as well as the people that handled it when it was used. Pilots, etc. Guilt by association made me leary of 2,4-D.

>>>And again the commercial man gets slaged. Well, the commercial beekeepers put the money up frount here in Canada which allowed the CHC bring Oxalic Acid into use.<<

I knew that. In fact there is a move on to use your material to get it legal down here. Sorry for painting with a broad brush. I have been in contact with a few guys who are fogging pesticides [not FGMO]into their hives and using illegal stuff. 

So I don't have to go look it up: What is your strategy for mites? What bees look good to you? What winter losses do you expect?

Dickm


----------



## Blue.eyed.Wolf (Oct 3, 2005)

> I think my spelling would be the same if I wasnt using spell checker...


How can I get spellchecker in here.....I hate spewing "stupid" all over the screen, but dont have a dictionary handy.


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

B>E>W,
I forgot how I did it. You need to have a checker on the computer. I have "Word." then you need to get them together. MIKE, MIKE. He knows.

Dickm


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I don't know if you mean me. It's obvious I don't have a spell checker.







You cna tlel by all teh tpyso.


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

B>E>W,
Download the Google toolbar. It has a spell checker as well as other good stuff.

Dickm


----------



## Romahawk (Jul 11, 2005)

A great free spell checker for anyone who does a lot of internet typing can be found at Free Spell Checker


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>I'm not talking to a kid am I?

What if I told you I was 62. Or mabey 26. Or maybe 55? What does it really matter









>>So I don't have to go look it up: What is your strategy for mites? What bees look good to you? What winter losses do you expect?


For V mites, I have used Apistan up till last spring, where I had found higher losses due to suspected resistance. So, I went and cleaned up my hives with Check-mite this fall. Going to start applicating Oxalic Acid next year. I just have to prep myself on this stuff first.

For t mites I use a soaked cardboard of Menthol. Works very well.

I have been using mostly Carniolian type bees. They sure beat the Italians up here for winter losses. I have been dabbling into our area selected queens, which are of the darker type. Suspect Carniolian with Russian. Boy, I tell you these bees are something else. 
With the high queen prices, I have been debating on wheather to start more later splits, self queened. And this way improving my stock with area selected queens. This is where the real answer lays for our pest probems. We just have to continue to be paitent, and trust we will over take these problems someday, and bring beekeeping back to where I was 50 years ago.

Winter losses, well, I like to see 12%. Last year was 30%. But that was mostly due to 20% starvation, thanks to a very abnormal year.


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

Thanks Ian,
The reason I asked your age was because you were unfamiliar with Agent Orange. The Viet Nam vets are getting older now and a whole younger generation never heard of it. 

You are in Ca. and I'd be happy with 12% down here. Would you give any thought to overwintering a few nucs? Maybe indoors? I like the Carniolans myself. How big would you say a Carni cluster would be right now? I never bother them in winter but am told the size would scare me.

Dickm


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I'll try not to beat a dead horse, here; I just wanted to pass along a figure on pollination by honey bees that I read the other day that I think makes a lot of sense. I've been reading estimates of pollination rates and trying to discover the methods of the people who make those estimates since the debate about pollination on this thread.

The figure that I like, and has the best math behind it, in my opinion:

80% of all "fruit" (no grains or "vegetables" included) consumed by humans in North America is grown in orchards/fields with managed honey bee colonies in the area to provide supplemental pollination.

I think those numbers are more valuable to beekeepers offering pollination services than general comments about pollination rates across all species of plants, too.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Ya those carniolian type bees tend to have a smaller wintering cluster than the Italians, for sure. And it scared me the first few times I wintered them. Now I grin and bear it. 

Fact of the matter, an outdoor wintering colony needs a good mass of bees to beable to maintain a good comfotable winter cluster, and maintain access to lots of food stores. smaller cluster eat less, but also brood less later in winter, leaving a smaller hive coming out of spring. 

Most of my double deep outdoor colonies cluster are the size of a basket ball. Some are even b/w both boxes. Most of my Italians have maintained a cluster larger than that, and fall short for feed late in spring. So I try to avoid the Italians, but boy they are boomers if you can pack enough feed for them, AND there isnt any late winter cold snap surprises!!

Oviously Carniolian are much more conservative and most suited for our winters here. I love them!!
And boy, you know, after the first dandilion flow hits, they catch right up to the Italians and I am able to make equil split if not more according to the winter experienced. Makes me wounder why I even bother with Italians>?

Anyhow, my indoor nucs are a different story. They are managed in one brood chamber, and the wintering cluster is much smaller. Many are like a volley ball, some filling the whole box, but most are a good six inches diameter. Becasue of the limited area to work with, there usually isnt much honey for them to winter on (which is usually a good thing for indoor wintering hives) so I will feed them generally the same amount as I feed my outdoor hives. 2 good pails, or one more. The food displaces the brood as they emerge. 

I know many talk of "over feeding" there hives on this fourm, but my stratagy is to pack as much feed into the hives as I possible can before the fall of winter, to ensure proper nutrition right from Oct. to middle of May. I can access my hives and feed them April, and by May they have lots of access to feed also, but by having a few frames of stored food for them during thier building period, in my own opinion promotes a quicker build. Also adds extra insurance getting the hives to spring due to higher than expected witter feed consumtion to warmer winters. And also allows more time for me to get to my hives during cool wet springs, the years we all dread!!

Anyhow, enough with my rambling. 

What do you think of the Russians


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

Hello again Ian. Thanks. I don't have any Russians but plan for some this year. [06]. I've heard the supercedure bees get mean. The rest of it sounds too good to be true. I'm starting to think the Carnies don't handle the mites well. I'm very interested in what Rob Harrison had to say about the Russians. He likes them. 

Dickm


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

In my limited experience with Russians, they shut down even faster than Carnis if nectar flows slow down. They seem great at overwintering in small clusters, and they do seem to show great Varroa resistance.

The commercial keepers in this area have all told me that the Russians don't build up enough for early pollination, but those guys all ship their bees to California and Florida to pollinate almonds and citrus. According to them, they can't get the big build-ups they need for massive honey crops either with the Russians. 

Please don't think I'm trying to dissuade you or anyone else from trying Russians; I'm just passing on my limited observations and the opinions of some big commercial keepers. To some people, the traits I mentioned in the Russians make them an ideal choice.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Is Rob using pure line Russians or is he crossing them out?


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

Ian,

I don't really know. I THINK he recommended the pure russians and from Dann Purvis. He's written about them in the bee mags.

Dickm


----------

