# How high bees fly



## Kurt Bower

I am looking for information on how high bees fly.
Is there a limit on their ability to access nectar from trees that are extremely tall?
I would like a height limit as well as a source to corroborate the information.
Thanks in advance,
Kurt


----------



## MountainCamp

I can give some personal infomation. I live at about 1100 feet in elevation. The mountains and ridge in front of me ranges from 3,000 - 4,000 feet. 

The bloom dates vary by about 4 - 6 weeks from over that 3,000 foot difference. I watch them fly toward the ridge during the blooms. I have seen honey bees working the blooms at all elevations.

There are a number of people on this site that have worked bees at higher elevations.

The limiting factor in how high a bee could fly would be the air density and lift they can developed.

I don't see anu problem as far as tree hieght.


----------



## Michael Bush

If you mean elevation, I had a hive at 7,200 feet.







If you mean heigth off of the ground, I've seen the cruise straight down the road to the alfalfa field at about four feet off the ground. I'v also seen then head straight up to tree height (50 or 60 feet) and then take off if there were trees between them and their goal.

As for documeantation, I don't know off the top of my head.


----------



## AstroBee

Hi Kurt,

I've wondered about this too, so last year I took out my binoculars to see if I could see any bees working high up in the tulip poplar trees in my yard. I did! My guess was about they were working in the 50-60 foot range, but I live at or very near sea-level. No references, just personal observation.

Hope this helps.


----------



## Fusion_power

Most bees fly within 30 feet of ground level or tree level. This is especially true of areas with strong prevailing winds. The wind is moderated by windbreak effects.

I have seen a report but can't find it right now of bees flying at heights up to 500 feet. This is not normal.

Brother Adam reported getting heather honey from an apiary located such that bees had to fly uphill about 1200 feet to gather a load then back downhill to the hive.

Fusion


----------



## naturebee

Kurt, Honeybees can fly much higher than they do, but know one knows the upper limit. If you look at the altitude at which bees occur, they get into the Himalayas. So that would suggest that bees can fly thousands of feet above sea level. A limiting factor might be temperature. With thoracic temperature of about 125 F while flying, they may not be able to sustain flight in low temps at high altitudes. One thing interesting, is that bees cannot communicate height, so how honeybees know to go to the top of the 90 foot tulip tree as opposed to the base is something of a mystery.


----------



## Kurt Bower

Yes, I am only interested in height from ground level not elevation.
My understanding is that bees can not access nectar from very tall Tulip Poplar trees and I would like to scientifically verify.
Thanks for everyones help thus far.


----------



## Jim Fischer

> My understanding is that bees can not access 
> nectar from very tall Tulip Poplar trees and I 
> would like to scientifically verify.

Tulip Poplar is the first serious nectar source
here in VA, just like in NC, and I can tell you
for certain that the bees are happy to visit
the topmost blossoms in even the giant trees.

All you need to see it with your own eyes is
a pair of binoculars (or a kid's telescope)
and the patience to watch for a while.

On a windy day, bees will tend to stay low,
simply because they'd rather not get blown
into the next county. Perhaps those sort
of conditions are what prompted the statements
you heard. 

But there is no tree that a bee cannot fly over
on a fairly calm day. Bees quickly gain altitude
to clear the nearest treeline, and can be tracked
from the hive to verify that they do this in a
very predictable manner, rather like planes
taking off from a large airport.


----------



## mobees

My bee buddy Tom had a nuc, he would take it with him on business trips (driving of course). He would leave nighttime and check into the highest room possible. He said he stayed on the 42 floor of a hotel and put the nuc on the balcony. The bees would fly up to the nuc bringing in pollen. Tom said he would watch them and they would follow the treeline in then travel upward when the were close. Very few would come in at the same height.


----------



## Kurt Bower

Please refer to the following website. http://www.killerplants.com/renfields-garden/20020605.asp


----------



## naturebee

Yes, I have been aware of this article for some time now. I believe Dee is refering to the weather factor as related to bee size here. Here in PA during the time of the Tulip Popular bloom, the weather can be chilly and breezy. In elevations where tulip is abundant and at the tops of the trees, the conditions for flight are generally not good. From what I have observed in my small cell bees is that they certainly are powerful flyers, better able to sustain flight windier conditions. I have seen on average small cell bees foraging more than large during cooler and wetter conditions. Large and small bees can easily reach the tulip bloom, but the stronger flight abilities of the smaller bees allow them to out compete the large because they can forage more in less than desirable weather conditions.


----------



## MountainCamp

I keep bees; I have never measured cell size, or bee size. I have bees of different sizes, colors, and races: Italian, NWC, Russian, and Feral mutes. Some bees fly at colder temps than others, on windier days they fly closer to the ground level / tree tops than on calm days, but they ALL FLY.

How high a bee can fly has nothing to do with the ground under them. It has to do with air density (elevation & air temperature), air temperature, wind strength, and the lift that the wings can develop based on that air density. Larger wings create greater lift than smaller wings at the same rate of movement. 

I live in a mountainous / hilly area, there is no flat ground. I live on top of a ridge / knoll that is windy, very windy year round. Elevations within 2 miles radius of my home yard vary from about 400 feet to 4,000 feet. 

If bees could not fly to the height of a tall tree, I would be out of keeping bees.

The article given as the source does not state anything about the other floral sources that are blooming at the same time as these old Tulip Popular or even if there are other Tulip Popular that are smaller that are blooming as well. 

A very simple explanation could be that there are enough blossoms at lower heights for the bees to work and they do not need to expend the extra energy to hit the highest blossoms.


----------



## naturebee

[No message]


----------



## Ian

>>They act kinda like a separate breed once regressed. Better health, no dopes needed to keep them alive, flying at cooler temps and better wintering and foraging just to name a few. 


The regressed bee sounds like a superiour bee to all others. I have heard of its mite tolerances, but nothing like this. I kind of wounder if there is really any difference though b/w regressed and your typical current sized bee, not related to bee type, but I mean just the regressed bee. I kind of doubt it.
Just to note, I notice my bees preforming and acting in different way throughout the year. For instance, my Carnilian type bees, winter bees tend to be smaller sized than my summer foraging bees. Just my observation. Perhaps it is a wintering statagy of that type of bee? Who knows. My Italians dont act that way.


----------



## Dave W

MountainCamp:

>I live in a mountainous / hilly area, there is no flat ground. I live on top of a ridge . . . Elevations within 2 miles radius of my home yard vary from about 400 feet to 4,000 feet.

How can some be soooo lucky?


----------



## naturebee

[No message]


----------



## Ian

>>My wintering record before I regressed averaged 50%

Wow, that is high. How many winters have you been keeping bees to average 50%? I have been keeping the "standard" bee at a wintering loss of averaging 15%. My highest year was 22% and my best was last year at 9%. Hope this year reflects the same as last.

Are your regressed bee Carniolian or Italian, or what?

>>no wrapping, medications or treatments of any kind

I respect your princaples. Maybe someday the superiour bee will emerge from outfits as yours. I just cant take that chance with my bees. I have too much riding on next years crop to risk a heavey loss, which could be prevented. I farm for a living.

>>bees become healthier, this results in better foraging, wintering, mite resistance etc.

What are your honey yeild comparisons?


----------



## Lew Best

naturebee I sent you a private message.

Lew


----------



## Ian

I personaly have no experience with regressed bees, so I dont have an educated opinion here. But somehow these extrodinary claims seem a little far fetched to me.


----------



## Michael Bush

I think it's back to Jim's observation that they don't work the top in the wind. The small cell bees seem less affected by the wind and seem to fly in windier weather, so I would assume they would also be less disinclined to fly higher on a tree in windy weather. But I've seen both small cell and large cell bees fly over the trees to get where they were going when it suited them.


----------



## naturebee

[No message]


----------



## Ian

Naturebee, my intention is not to insult you or your principles, Im just trying to hold you to your statements. It is easy to comment mearly on selected quotes, but bear with me, 

>>Northern breeders often claim their bees fly cooler temps, produce more, gentiler etc. What's wrong with that? 

Nothing is wrong with that, but they are concluding this from specific chosen genetics. I get the impression you are claiming this from mear regression. In that case, You can take any bee from anywhere, regreess it and have a much supperiour bee, just by regressing it. I simply dont by that claim.

>>I could claim your 9% survival is extrodinary and a little far fetched, yes? 

Far fetched? In my opinion no. I am running wintering losses at average in my area. Normally beekeepers in the area are running losses of 15%, not uncommont to hear the odd 30%, but also guys running less than 5%. Never have I heard of anyone run a average of 50%. 
I winter outdoors, many winter indoors. Wintering in Manitoba is a very harsh climate to bring bees through strong enough to split. Ihave been doing it successfully for eight years now, and never needed packages to make up my wintering losses, yet,..

>>Trying to use organic methods on large cell from 1991 to 2000 my losses varied, several years I lost 100% but average was 50%.
>>I keep bees in a rather poor area for nutritional foraging, so IMO this has a large effect on survivability compounding problems

I dont know how to comment on this. YOu ran nine years with an average 50% losses? I am not familliar with your area as for agricultural practices. Is honey a big business in your area? What are your area averages for wintering and honey yeilds? Knowing area averages allows for better opinions and discussion in relation to outfit performance. 

>>Ferals are doing the best, so I must go where the success is. 

Are they a dark or coloured bees? 


>>the ability to easier recognize good performers and breed from these small cell standouts I believe contributes to my success.

I dont discredit claimes made of regresed bees ability to tolerate voraoa, I believe in the studdies and beekeepers who are producing them. But I simply dont believe the bees become healthier, better foragers and/or have better wintering abilities, aside from mite stresses, due primarily to regression. These traits come from genetic selections within out current stock. It is not so easy to atribute these claims to regression. I wqish it were so easy. As I remember, and assume you do, many, many, many feral colonies perished due to both mites. Those bees would have been small celled bees, right? 
In my opinion, is small cell the answer for V mite control? Possibly, but I dont think I am going to hurry to change my operation over to it yet.


----------



## John Russell

Hi Ian.

I'll throw my meager weight to our organic friend here. Small cell has done a pile of wonder for me this year, and as of today, I haven't lost one. I started a neat system for regressing thats painless and cheap. Takes a few seasons but the cost saved to free oneself from Apidontworkstan and the piece of mind that comes with naturally healthy bees makes it worth it.

Email me if you want any details. If memory served me right we live in the same province.

[email protected]

J.Russell


----------



## db_land

Mountaincamp: naturebee says "A little about Tulip Popular,,, You have 20 days of tulip bloom". Is that true for NY across the wide range of elevations in your area? I would guess that trees spread over a 400-4000 foot foraging range would bloom at different times to give you an effective tulip popular nectar availability of 30 to 60 days? In the NC piedmont we get about 30 days of Tulip Poplar bloom (under normal conditions).


----------



## Barry

I would also like to make sure we don't get loose with wording here. It was stated in the article:

"Dee Lusby (pers. comm.) explains, "...the aerodynamics change for flight...Bigger bees cannot fly so high as the wind currents even a few meters higher than the normal 15-20 feet make flying unstable for them."

In 1785, George Washington planted two tulip trees at Mount Vernon. These 217-year-old trees stand about 100 feet tall; the lowest branches are higher than bees can fly. The trees did not produce seeds for many years. To ensure seed from these trees, every year since 1989, arborists with the National Arboretum pollinate the flowers with cotton-tipped swabs from a lift bucket."

Now Joe, Dee is talking about bee size here. To make a statement like this that another person uses as support in an article should be supported with something. Where is the evidence backing this up? I wholly agree with MountainCamp that there are other obvious reasons why these trees were not producing blossoms. One can carry an idea to the extreme and convince oneself that it is true. Simply no bees in the area works for me as a reason for no blooms. Better nectar source somewhere else also works.

> Talk to any beek that has visited Dee Lusby. In fact, my friend
> Dick Allen from Alberta Canada visits often.
> http://beesource.com/pov/dick/bcjun02.htm 
> All are welcome to come see my bees, although I am not
> advanced to the state Dee has with her bees.

Actually it's Allen Dick. He visits often? How often?

Regards,
Barry


----------



## Dick Allen

Hi Joe:
While I, Dick Allen, am your friend, I am not from Alberta; I am in Alaska. Your other friend Allen Dick is in Alberta though.


----------



## MountainCamp

There aren't many Tulip Popular in the area of my home yard. There are a few that I know of in the lower elevation and down in the valley along the River where one of my other yards is.
Most of the hard woods around here are sugar and red maples, red and white oaks, birch, popular, locust and beech. From the front of my house, basically everything that you can see at my elevation and up is the Catskill State Park  Forest Preserve. It is deemed forever wild, no development, logging, no motorized vehicles  nothing so what grows - grows and that is that. On the back side of my house is mostly privately owned and logged for timber, some agriculture mostly hay, some orchards, but mostly wooded and rural.
The blooms that we do have do extended for 5  6 weeks over the range in elevation that the bees at my home yard work. It is interesting to watch the blooms / leaves progress as it moves up in elevation.


----------



## MountainCamp

"Dee Lusby (pers. comm.) explains, "...the aerodynamics change for flight...Bigger bees cannot fly so high as the wind currents even a few meters higher than the normal 15-20 feet make flying unstable for them."

I have to take issue with this statement. As I have said I have bees of various sizes and back grounds. But, I can tell you if any of them could not fly higher than 15  20 feet regardless of a slight wind or the normal winds that I have, or higher than the tree line around my field at 60 to 80 feet, they would have starved.

If aerodynamics is based solely on the size of the bee and its ability to handle wind, can someone please explain how drones or queens can take mating flights? Hell, they mate in mid air for that matter. They are both larger and less aerodynamic than a worker. 

I have read articles on the size of bees that have made claims as to the pros and cons of both larger bees and smaller bees. The excerpt below is a paper from this site discussing stress and bees, that states the normal cell size of a honey bee to be in the 5.1  5.2 mm range. Bees from cells smaller than this can develop development defects. 

COMB CELL SIZE.
Unbeknownst to most beekeepers, the issue of the relative size of the cells of honeycomb (and foundation) has been the subject of controversy since the late 1800s and perhaps earlier (Erickson et al., 1990) when, in Europe, the diameter of the raised imprint of the cell on manufactured foundation was 5.0 mm. However, Baudoux, beginning in the late 1800s, conducted a series of experiments which demonstrated that this smaller than natural size induced developmental abnormalities in bees and reduced colony productivity.

In further experiments, be demonstrated that larger bees with longer tongues could be produced in abnormally large (6.0 mm, diameter) cells. Finally, be purported to show that this increased size would result in greater colony productivity and that the size of bees in subsequent generations would be inherited. Baudoux's latter two views have since been debunked. More recent studies (Grout, 1937) failed to provide scientific evidence for increased honey production by colonies with bees produced in larger cells.

What has emerged from all of this is the concept that bigger is better - but is it? The current industry standard for cell size on manufactured foundation is 5.4 mm or larger. But the diameter of cells instinctively built by honey bees is slightly less than 5.2 mm (see Erickson et. al., 1990). The difference in cell size means that more bees can be produced per unit area in a brood nest of small cells. This translates into more rapid spring buildup and probably less metabolic energy expended in the production of each bee. It might also result in a shortened time for larval/pupal development.

Here, the issue of stress must again be raised. Do enlarged cells stress bees just as Baudoux demonstrated for abnormally small cells (see Erickson et al., 1990)? Could nutritional, wintering, disease and mite problems be reduced by returning to natural cell size at least in brood nest combs?

My bees work just fine as they are thank you: all differet sizies, colors and backgrounds.


----------



## Jim Fischer

>> "Dee Lusby (pers. comm.) explains, "...the 
>> aerodynamics change for flight...Bigger bees 
>> cannot fly so high as the wind currents even 
>> a few meters higher than the normal 15-20 feet 
>> make flying unstable for them."

> I have to take issue with this statement.

So do I, and I have designed actual aerospace
hardware, so I are a Rocket Scientist of sorts.

The difference in mass between a "small cell
bee" and a "large cell bee" would be swamped
out by mere payload issues (a full load of
nectar versus an empty honey crop).

Dee says lots of stuff. It is all interesting,
but much of it is not in synch with details that
are firmly known to be true. For example, she
persists in believing that bees were present
in North America before the arrival of the
European settlers.

Lucky for us the Dee does not work for Pratt
and Whitney, Lockheed-Martin, or Boeing.


----------



## naturebee

[No message]


----------



## naturebee

[No message]


----------



## AstroBee

naturebee,

I live in an area heavily populated with tulip poplar and I have closely monitored the bloom dates and duration (as do most beekeepers living in its range). 30 days is absolutely possible, in fact I've recorded it lasting up to 35 days in my area.


----------



## MountainCamp

naturebee, you may want to go back and re-read db_land's post, he said he lives in the Piedmont. According to the NC Beekeepers site the average Tulip bloom is 29 days, that is almost 30 by the way. Just a little about Tulip Bloom.

I live in the Mountains.


----------



## naturebee

[No message]


----------



## naturebee

[No message]


----------



## MountainCamp

naturebee, 
I guess that you have missed some of my other post, so I will put it forward again here. 
I do not and have not used any of the commerical mite treatment, or commerical treatments for anything for over 7 years.

I have used for the last 4 years used some wintergreen and spearmint oils in my spring and fall feeds.

I tried some hives with SBB this year, (10). I left them open all winter.

This past December I tried the OA trickle method, to see how it was done and what effect it had.

I do wrap my hives, I do this for wind protection and solar gain in the late winter, early spring.
I found that the vast majorty of my winter loses in the past were late February / March / April before I wrapped and last year when I did not. Brood production had resumed and the clusters where anchored and did / could not move with cold temps. Cold here in late April can mean snow / ice / freezig rain, low 20's or so. Then again it can be in the 40's or 50's. 

I think that one of the problems that there seems to be with beekeeping / beekeepers is that one operation / methods does not fit all beekeepers or all regions. A bee or method that works well in one location may not work well in another. 

All of my hives sit in full sun - year round. I would think that would not well work well in most of Texas, but it works here in Upstate NY. A hot summer day here is in the 80's - 90's are rare.


----------



## Ian

>>Ill choose Ians letter. I like him more than the rest of you guys anyways.
Wow, someone actually like me here,
>>,,,, Just kidding!!! 
Oh well,

Here I go agian responding to just certain quotes, so bear with me again.


>>Dont get that impression! Well, you can take any colony and regress them and get a healthier colony

That is the impression you are stating! How can I not get that impression?! Regression will not make that colony healthier. I can understand if you are meaning healthier as in better condition with the presence of varroa, but I think, and keep getting the impression that you are talking much further than varroa.
You do stand behind this statement dont you?
(>>They act kinda like a separate breed once regressed. Better health, no dopes needed to keep them alive, flying at cooler temps and better wintering and foraging just to name a few.)


>>If you try no treatments on large cell in a poor location as I have, you will average 50% 

Again, you are now talking about varroa tolerances. That is not what you have been claiming in previous posts.

Thanks for the area informational averages and such.

>>added stress during the time of the varroa crunch. This likely a major stress factor contributing to wintering failures of the past. 

Right. Just as it is likely the major factor affecting the rest of the hives in the country. But your claim to regression was not of this at first. You werent even talking varroa before. As I understood your posts you were talking as if the "larger celled bees" caused you high wintering losses due to its bad traits. And as memory states, you fixed all the bad traits by regressing your bees. That is the statement that I am confronting you with,..

>>I can only say what I see, Im not on a crusade.

I respect everyones observations, it is the key to everyones modified manipulations.

>>The uncapping hygienic trait observed by many who have regressed comes forward in small cell bees which was not present when the bees were large.

Is it? Or is it still due to selective breeding?
Anyone else with extensive small cell knoledge back this up. Not trying to discredit you here Joe, but I am not familiar enough with small cell bees to believe it to be true.

What does "IMO" mean. Please define it for me. I am as good with computers and it lingo as I can spell,

The rest of your post is interesting but too specific and detailed. For the small celled ferals to stay truely pure, they would have to be issolated. I dont think, just by mear nature, it would be possible to keep two comingling bee traits truely seperated just by the influence of the drone size.
Maybe I dont truely understant the concept, but from observation in my hives, My drones arent all of one specific cell size, as my workers are.
It is an interesting concept, but I dont buy it.

As I said before, and I will say it again, I simply dont believe the bees become healthier, better foragers and/or have better wintering abilities, aside from mite stresses, due primarily to regression.


----------



## db_land

naturebee: Although the average Tulip Poplar in PA (or the NC mountains) blooms for 20 days, not all of the trees within a bee foraging area bloom at the same time. The bloom is probably spread over at least 4 or even 5 weeks. There are many environmental factors that influence this - including temperature, elevation, water supply,..... Also, the shorter bloom period for PA likely means that blooming is more intense (i.e. same number of blooms per tree as a NC Piedmont Tulip Poplar in a shorter timeframe). So the amount of nectar available from any given tree is probably about the same - the beek must have bees ready to collect it.


----------



## naturebee

[No message]


----------



## naturebee

[No message]


----------



## Dick Allen

My experience with small cell is VERY limited. A few years back some people were jumping on the small cell bandwagon making all kinds of claims for the littler bees. Some of those claims were, at the time, coming from people who had not yet even tried them. Frankly, I remained skeptical. Three years ago, I was provided with a couple of packages of Caucasians that had supposedly been 'regressed'. I put them on small foundation. One hive never did much of anything except to try and supercede the queen. The other hive built up nicely and overwintered ok. But then my 'standard' bees overwintered pretty well that year, too due to a milder than usual winter. The poorer small cell hive did not make it through the winter. 

Next summer mites began showing up in the 'standard' bees. In the small cell hive I didn't see many. A few on some uncapped drone brood, but nothing serious. The small cell bees did come down with what appeared to be EFB, though. They did not survive the following winter which was a more typical Anchorage winter. FWIW.


----------



## MountainCamp

>>Mountaincamp, OK, I stand corrected! But, the non commercial treatments you mention are ingredients that can be found in commercial mite treatments in this and other countries. I admit to being duped, the loophole was crafty enough to fool me to thinking you were organic. 

-Naturebee, you may want to go back again and check your facts again, I have never claimed anywhere that I am organic. I do not use checkmite or apistan, and have not for over 7 years, as I have stated a number of times. 
I have also plainly and clearly stated what treatments I have used, and when they were used. So again go back and check your facts. 
I know of no commercially produced mite treats that use only wintergreen and spearmint oils. Which is all I have used for the last 4 years, except as noted for an OA trickle treatment that I tried this past December. 
I also know of no commercially produced OA solution for drip application. But, it is also my understanding (I will have to go back and find the source) that since OA occurs naturally in honey and many plants, that it is one of the few mite treatments that is permitted under the organic regulations, depending maybe on where you are. If anyone else can remember the source, please let me know. Thank you,

>>I am a strong proponent for truth in advertising. Speaking for myself now, I wouldnt feel comfortable basing claims on crafty word sculpturing, even if technically sort of true.

Well, here is where the meat hits the pan. If we really want to get technical, how have you made your organic claim? 
Have you been state certified as organic?
Are you isolated in your bee yards from all outside sources of contaminates? 
Are there any other bee yards within 2  3 miles of your yards? 
Is there any pesticide use within 2  3 miles of your yards? 
Are there any commercial fertilizers applied to any crops within 2 -3 miles of your yards? 
Are there any genetically engineered crops grown within 2  3 miles of your yards? 

Your claim of Using humane and holistic beekeeping methods, have the people at PETA, who claim beekeeping in general is inhumane, cleared your operation?

Now lets get back to the article on stress and bees from the USDA papers. The claim that from the research that was done, the natural size of a cell is in the 5.1  5.2 range and cells smaller than that can cause defects. Any comments?

Last but definitely not least, before you make statements that call my integrity or intentions into question, you better have your facts and information correct and in-line.


----------



## MountainCamp

<I did not say that the would stay truly pure. I said .but drones tended to mate assortatively.. .This IMO helps to keep the true ferals breeding to a large degree separate from the domestics..>

I GUESS DRONES ARE NOT LIKE THE REST OF THE ANIMAL / INSECT KINGDOMS. 

BUT MY UNDERSTANDING OF MATING BETWEEN DRONES AND QUEENS IS THAT IT IS DRIVEN BY PHEROMONES. THE PHEROMONES ARE WHAT ATTRACTS THE DRONES TO THE QUEEN, THE STRONGEST MOST AGGRESSIVE DRONES ARE THE ONES THAT MATE, AND THAT MULTIPLE DRONES WILL MATE THE SAME QUEEN.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE DRONES FLY UP TO ABOUT 3 KILOMETERS AND QUEENS ALITTLE LESS THAN THAT FROM THE HIVE. 
MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE MATING ACT IT WOULD BE HARDER FOR A SMALLER DRONE TO MATE A LARGER QUEEN, BUT A LARGER DRONE WOULD HAVE NOT TROUBLE MATING A SMALLER QUEEN.
I HAVE TO TAKE BACK THE FIRST STATEMENT, ABOUT DRONES, AS PER PAGE 352 OF THE HIVE AND THE HONEY BEE: DRONES EVEN MATED WITH DEAD QUEENS IF THE TIP OF THE ABDOMEN WERE REMOVED, LEAVING A CAVITY, OR IF A WOOD QUEEN MODEL WITH A SUITABLE OPENING WAS PRESENTED TO FLYING DRONES.
OH WELL.


----------



## Michael Bush

The rationale for why AHB is taking over is the smaller drones are faster and catch the larger queens more easily than the larger EHB drones.


----------



## Ian

I am afraid I am getting in a pattern in talking in circles here,...
Joe, my response to your latest post lay in my all my recent posts,..

I dont like ideas that elaberate on themselves,..

so long for now


----------



## naturebee

[No message]


----------



## Ian

Joe your link doesnt work


----------



## naturebee

[No message]


----------



## naturebee

[No message]


----------



## Barry

>> Anyone else with extensive small cell knoledge back this up.
>> Not trying to discredit you here Joe, but I am not familiar enough
>> with small cell bees to believe it to be true.

Hi Ian -

I can vouch for this as Joe has said. I never saw this uncapping until I had bees on SC.

- Barry


----------



## Michael Bush

Before regressing I saw an occasional uncapping and wondered what it was about. When I asked other beekeepers several though it was cannibalism during a pollen dearth, but there was no pollen dearth. But after regressing I see a lot more of it and it seems more purposeful and less random.


----------



## naturebee

[No message]


----------



## Barry

Joe -

One has to be a member of these groups to view files, at least Norlandbeekeepers. I'm not going to go through the membership gauntlet just to view a file. If you want us to read a citation, email it to me and I'll post it on beesource for all to read.

Regards,
Barry


----------



## MountainCamp

NATUREBEE 
	YOU STILL HAVE NOT ADDRESSED ANY OF MY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE PAPER I SITED ON STRESS AND THE HONEY BEE, AND THE STATEMENT THAT THE NATURAL SIZE OF THE CELL IS 5.1  5.2 RANGE.
	YOU HAVE NOT ADDRESSED ANY OF THE QUESTIONS CONCERNING TRUTH IN ADVERTISING AS YOU PUT IT.
	ACTUALLY YOU HAVE NOT ADDRESSED MOST OF MY QUESTIONS

YOUR STATEMENT: What I am seeing is better nutritional foraging and improved overall health in regressed bees. I can only say what I see, Im not on a crusade.
HOW HAVE YOU MADE THIS CLAIM? HOW HAVE YOU OBSERVED BETTER NUTRITIONAL FORAGING WITH SMALLER BEES? WHAT STUDY HAVE YOU PERFORMED AND WITH WHAT CONTROL GROUP?

YOUR STATEMENT:
No selective breeding. The uncapping trait in small cell bees was observed by many that have regressed. Barry may agree here as I recall reading some of his posts describing the phenomenon occurring in his small bees. Heres a photo of the hygienic behavior occurring in bees that are partially regressed. 

http://www.geocities.com/naturebee/Honeybee_pics.html? 

I LOOKED AT THESE PICTURES OF THE SAME BROOD AREA AND THEY BRING A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS, BASED ON MY UNTRAINED OBSERVATIONS.
#A) I SEE AT LEAST 12 UNCAPPED CELLS WITH WHAT APPEAR TO BE PARTIALLY DEVELOP WORKER BROOD, THAT HAVE YET TO BE REMOVED. THERE MAY BE MANY MORE. MANY OF THE UNCAPPED CELLS APPEAR TO HAVE SOMETHING PARTIALLY IN THEM.
#B) I SEE ABOUT 10 PERCENT OF THE CELLS AS OPEN UNCAPPED WITHIN THE BROOD AREA OF THIS FRAME, 

#1) WHY WERE THESE WORKER CELLS UNCAPPED?
#2) WHY HAVE THESE DEAD BROOD NOT BEEN REMOVED YET? 
#3) WHY IS 10% WITHIN THE AREA OF THIS BROOD COMB, EITHER NOT USED OR HAD DEAD / DEFECTIVE BROOD THAT WAS REMOVED? 

IF THIS FRAME IS INDICATIVE OF THE COLONIES HEALTH AND TRAITS, THAT WOULD MEAN IN A COLONY WITH A QUEEN LAYING 1,000 EGGS / DAY, THAT SOMEWHERE AROUND 2,100 WORKER CELLS ARE EITHER NOT USED OR HAVE DEFECTIVE / DISEASED BROOD PER BROOD CYCLE. 

NOW, LETS THROW ONE OUT THERE, AS CLAIMED AND OBSERVED, THE UNCAPPING TRAITS ARE BROUGHT OUT IN REGRESSED SMALL CELL BEES.
NOW, LETS TAKE THE PAPER ON STRESS AND THE HONEY BEE, THAT CLAIMED THAT WHEN THE CELL SIZE WAS REDUCED BELOW THE NATURAL SIZE OF 5.1  5.2 MM FOR WORKER BROOD, IT PROMOTED DEFECTS IN THE BROOD.

SO, MAYBE THE INCREASED UNCAPPING TRAIT OBSERVED AND THE 10% OPEN CELLS / UNCAPPED BROOD IS FROM INCREASED DEFECTS FROM THE CELL SIZE BEING TOO SMALL.


----------



## TwT

( interesting story from allen dick)is this what you were looking for? 

Word is, in a nutshell, that SMR bees are actually hygienic bees, but with an important difference. 

SMR bees perform right up there with the HYG strains in standard HYG tests, however, hygienic abilities observed in bees selected for SMR extend beyond simply detecting and removing dead brood. In addition to doing equally well as HYG in detecting and removing dead brood, SMR bees are able to detect, uncap, and remove foundress varroa mites that are laying eggs and reproducing in cells. 

This uncapping and removal liberates the foundress, interrupts her reproductive work, and prematurely exposes the undeveloped offspring, resulting in the death of the daughters. The foundress may then enter another cell, but, if she tries to reproduce there, the cycle repeats. Thus SMR greatly reduces mite reproduction, and mites die of old age or accidents without replacing themselves. 

The wrinkle is that these bees seem to be much less inclined to uncap and remove foundress mites in sealed brood that are -- for whatever reason -- not laying eggs, and in any hive with varroa, there will be a considerable percentage of mites that non-reproductive, but which are just sitting out the dance in sealed in cells with the pupae. 

These non-reproductive mites enter the cell, stay the duration of the capping period, then emerge with the bee. 

This subtle fact -- that SMR bees quickly and efficiently remove reproducing mites in brood, but ignore non-reproductive mites in sealed brood --initially escaped researchers, and obscured the strong similarity between SMR and HYG. 

Researchers finding and observing the varroa in the sealed brood of such colonies concluded (understandably) that the bees were causing mite non-reproduction, rather than realising that the bees had already located, uncapped and pulled out most of the reproducing foundresses, leaving only the non-reproducing mites. After all, they would pull a frame of brood, brush off the bees, then go to the lab and look at the brood and mites in cells under magnification. Sure there were a few empty cells, but there always are. 

They observed that a high percentage of foundress mites discovered in sealed brood were non-reproducing, and that there were fewer mites -- as a percentage of total mite load --in brood than expected. They bred for this characteristic, and actually wound up with an hygienic bee, but one with special abilities -- the ability to sniff out and eject reproducing varroa mites in sealed brood. 

Current work -- if I understand correctly -- seems to indicate that SMR and existing HYG cross well, and that the SMR characteristic can be transmitted relatively easily to current HYG stock, so we may see some interesting things in the near future. A name change for SMR may be in the offing as well. 

FWIW, preliminary DNA work _seems_ to indicate that just two genes are associated with SMR, but when asked if they are the same genes that are associated with HYG, the answer from those working hard on this problem, seems to be that no one knows yet, and that there is likely more to the whole picture it than just two genes. 

I might mention that Dee has been saying for a long time that Lusbys' bees remove varroa foundresses, and that this is a major mechanism in the Lusby success. I think -- correct me if I am wrong -- that she also believes that using small cells (4.9) encourages that trait. I have heard others, here and there, some with small cell and some with ordinary cells, observing varroa removal, too. 

This new(?) information is especially interesting for those of us who think we can breed bees by looking at natural drop boards and rejecting hives with big drops. It is not that simple. We could be rejecting the best varroa fighters, using that criterion, if they are, at that moment, combating an infestation originating outside the hive. Observations over a longer period are necessary to get an understanding. (Again, credit to Dee for that).


----------



## Michael Bush

> YOU STILL HAVE NOT ADDRESSED ANY OF MY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE PAPER I SITED ON STRESS AND THE HONEY BEE, AND THE STATEMENT THAT THE NATURAL SIZE OF THE CELL IS 5.1  5.2 RANGE.

I had this discussion many times. Once with Dr. Marion Ellis. Usually it goes something like me talking about natural cell size being in the 4.6mm to 4.9mm range and them (in this case Dr. Ellis) saying, no we've done experiments and we know it's in the 5.1mm to 5.2mm range. I say, yes if you take "normal" enlarged bees and put them in a position to make their own worker brood cells they will be 5.1mm for the most part. But if you take those bees raised on that and let them build what they want what will they build? All I get are blank looks. None of the researchers seems to want to do the second try to see what they will build. I have done it many times now. I assure you it is NOT in the 5.1mm to 5.2mm range. It may range from 4.6mm to 5.1mm but most of the 5.1mm is full of honey, not brood.

>YOUR STATEMENT:
No selective breeding. The uncapping trait in small cell bees was observed by many that have regressed. Barry may agree here as I recall reading some of his posts describing the phenomenon occurring in his small bees. Heres a photo of the hygienic behavior occurring in bees that are partially regressed. 

That is what I have observed. I regressed a mixture of breeds and they all were doing more chewing out of varroa after regressing.

>#A) I SEE AT LEAST 12 UNCAPPED CELLS WITH WHAT APPEAR TO BE PARTIALY DEVELOP WORKER BROOD, THAT HAVE YET TO BE REMOVED. THERE MAY BE MANY MORE. MANY OF THE UNCAPPED CELLS APPEAR TO HAVE SOMETHING PARTIALLY IN THEM.

It sometimes takes a while for them to pull all of the larvae out of the cell after uncapping.

>#1) WHY WERE THESE WORKER CELLS UNCAPPED?

The assumption is that the uncapped cells have varroa in them.

>#2) WHY HAVE THESE DEAD BROOD NOT BEEN REMOVED YET? 

It sometimes takes them a while to get all the parts out.

>#3) WHY IS 10% WITHIN THE AREA OF THIS BROOD COMB, EITHER NOT USED OR HAD DEAD / DEFECTIVE BROOD THAT WAS REMOVED? 

Probably a lot of varroa got in from some outside source. I seldom see anywhere near that much. I think the picture was to illustrate the activity, not to show the typical amount.

>IF THIS FRAME IS INDICATIVE OF THE COLONIES HEALTH AND TRAITS, THAT WOULD MEAN IN A COLONY WITH A QUEEN LAYING 1,000 EGGS / DAY, THAT SOMEWHERE AROUND 2,100 WORKER CELLS ARE EITHER NOT USED OR HAVE DEFECTIVE / DIESEASED BROOD PER BROOD CYCLE. 

How many do you think have a mite in them in a typical hive? This is typical of hives with hygenic traits and lots of mites. It is not typical of a hygenic hive that has the mites back under control again.

>NOW, LETS THROW ONE OUT THERE, AS CLAIMED AND OBSERVED, THE UNCAPPING TRAITS ARE BROUGHT OUT IN REGRESSED SMALL CELL BEES.
NOW, LETS TAKE THE PAPER ON STRESS AND THE HONEY BEE, THAT CLAIMED THAT WHEN THE CELL SIZE WAS REDUCED BELOW THE NATURAL SIZE OF 5.1  5.2 MM FOR WORKER BROOD, IT PROMOTED DEFECTS IN THE BROOD.

I have not observed defects in the brood. Perhaps that is their interpretation of the chewing out? Yet, the scientists are now breeding for this chewing out trait. How were they determining that the brood was defective?

>SO, MAYBE THE INCREASED UNCAPPING TRAIT OBSERVED AND THE 10% OPEN CELLS / UNCAPPED BROOD IS FROM INCREASED DEFECTS FROM THE CELL SIZE BEING TOO SMALL. 

About half of my brood comb is on foundationless frames or blank starter strips (with no embossing at all). I have not forced them to be on smaller cells. I have let them. I have not noticed anything defective about the pupae being chewed out other than finding mites in pupae, but, of course, the bees would be more attuned to defects than me. Once the mites are under control the number of pupae being chewed out drops considerably. It also seems to peak with the mite population, in the fall.

>I think -- correct me if I am wrong -- that she (Dee) also believes that using small cells (4.9) encourages that trait.

That seems to be universally observed by small cell beekeepers.

>I have heard others, here and there, some with small cell and some with ordinary cells, observing varroa removal, too. 

I saw a few before regressing. They seemed odd becaue the pupae they were dragging around looked perfectly normal and healthy white with purple eyes. Why chew it out? But the "purple eye stage" chew out is what the scientists are now breeding for and the small cell beekeepers are already seeing.


----------



## Ian

Joes quote
>>They act kinda like a separate breed once regressed. Better health, no dopes needed to keep them alive, flying at cooler temps and better wintering and foraging just to name a few.)

Hey Michael 

Now that you are posting in this topic, do you mind me outright asking you if you would vouch on this comment? As I recall, you are also a small cell beekeeper.
I believe the small cell claims on varroa tolerances, there seems to be enough evidence out there to back that theory up. But how about Joes claim on regression enhanceing all the good traits you want in a good honeybee?


----------



## naturebee

[No message]


----------



## Fusion_power

On two specific items I must disagree with you. This is flying at cooler temps and better foraging.

Flying at cool temps is very strongly influenced by genetics. The old black bees that I grew up with would occasionally fly at temps as low as 35 degrees and I have seen them swarm at a temp of 55 degrees. In other words, the flying at low temps is more likely a result of genetics than of small cell.

Re better foraging, any colony will forage to some extent regardless of whether they are small or large cell. The percentage of bees in a colony that actively forage is again under very strong genetic control. I've seen colonies that were downright lazy and others that almost emptied out every morning when the foragers left.

What you are attributing to small cell bees are traits and behaviors that precisely match many of my memories of beekeeping pre-varroa and pre-tracheal mite. I would conditionally accept that bees on small cell are healthier than bees on large cell combs. But that enhanced health just gets them back to about where they were in pre-mite days. I have 5 colonies on small cell but have not had them enough years yet to definitively state their pros and cons.

I'm curious, have you had a problem with AFB yet? Do your bees get chalkbrood?

Fusion


----------



## Michael Bush

>Joes quote
>>They act kinda like a separate breed once regressed. Better health, no dopes needed to keep them alive, flying at cooler temps and better wintering and foraging just to name a few.)

>Now that you are posting in this topic, do you mind me outright asking you if you would vouch on this comment? As I recall, you are also a small cell beekeeper.

Yes, that's accurate. They seem to fly at lower temps. I can't say how far they forage. I would assume a smaller bee can get into a smaller flower and a bigger flower where a larger bee can only get in the larger flowers. But I can't say I've observed it. Other small cell beeks pay more attention to the pollen, especially if they are trapping it and have notices more vaiety of pollen colors coming in.

>I believe the small cell claims on varroa tolerances, there seems to be enough evidence out there to back that theory up. But how about Joes claim on regression enhanceing all the good traits you want in a good honeybee?

Maybe they are just heathier, happier, wiry, high metabolism bees, instead of sickly fat oversized bees. Then again, maybe just being more aerodynamic makes you're life easier if you're a bee.

>What you are attributing to small cell bees are traits and behaviors that precisely match many of my memories of beekeeping pre-varroa and pre-tracheal mite. I would conditionally accept that bees on small cell are healthier than bees on large cell combs. But that enhanced health just gets them back to about where they were in pre-mite days. I have 5 colonies on small cell but have not had them enough years yet to definitively state their pros and cons.

I can't argue that either. But getting back to where they were before the mites was my goal.

>I'm curious, have you had a problem with AFB yet?

I never have.

>Do your bees get chalkbrood?

I saw a little one very wet spring until I added more ventilation and the weather dried up.


----------



## naturebee

[No message]


----------



## Michael Bush

http://incolor.inetnebr.com/bush/images/PrimaryCombOnBlankStarterStrip.JPG

Here is a picture of self drawn comb on a blank starter strip (no embossing) with regressed Carniolan bees and a commercial Carniolan queen. You can see they were using this for brood. The frame spacing was 1 1/4". The cells measure 4.6mm

Whatever the books say, I see small cell naturally all the time. I use foundationless frames, blank starter strips and even empty frames inserted between two drawn comb. I have two top bar hives which are all self drawn comb and were both started from large cell packages. I assure you 5.1mm is pretty much the upper limit of natural worker comb and more the exception than the rule.


----------



## naturebee

[No message]


----------



## Fusion_power

Note to self. Sometimes the problem with bees is the beekeeper.

No criticism of others intended, just noting one of the truisms of being a beekeeper.

Fusion


----------



## MountainCamp

>>Mountaincamp, OK, I stand corrected! But, the non commercial treatments you mention are ingredients that can be found in commercial mite treatments in this and other countries. I admit to being duped, the loophole was crafty enough to fool me to thinking you were organic. 

-Naturebee, you may want to go back again and check your facts again, I have never claimed anywhere that I am organic. I do not use checkmite or apistan, and have not for over 7 years, as I have stated a number of times. 
I have also plainly and clearly stated what treatments I have used, and when they were used. So again go back and check your facts. 
I know of no commercially produced mite treats that use only wintergreen and spearmint oils. Which is all I have used for the last 4 years, except as noted for an OA trickle treatment that I tried this past December. 
I also know of no commercially produced OA solution for drip application. But, it is also my understanding (I will have to go back and find the source) that since OA occurs naturally in honey and many plants, that it is one of the few mite treatments that is permitted under the organic regulations, depending maybe on where you are. If anyone else can remember the source, please let me know. Thank you,

>>I am a strong proponent for truth in advertising. Speaking for myself now, I wouldnt feel comfortable basing claims on crafty word sculpturing, even if technically sort of true.

Well, here is where the meat hits the pan. If we really want to get technical, how have you made your organic claim? 
Have you been state certified as organic?
Are you isolated in your bee yards from all outside sources of contaminates? 
Are there any other bee yards within 2  3 miles of your yards? 
Is there any pesticide use within 2  3 miles of your yards? 
Are there any commercial fertilizers applied to any crops within 2 -3 miles of your yards? 
Are there any genetically engineered crops grown within 2  3 miles of your yards?


----------



## naturebee

[No message]


----------



## Ian

>>It seems once regressed, the bees become healthier, this results in better foraging, wintering, mite resistance etc. I don't know why, but it works.

>>IAN! I said enhancing the traits "that they have", be it suppressed by chemical use or large cell. 

>>Maybe they are just heathier, happier, wiry, high metabolism bees, instead of sickly fat oversized bees. Then again, maybe just being more aerodynamic makes you're life easier if you're a bee.

>>>>I generally agree, overall health is a factor also. Also a well nourished colony will fly at cooler temps. 


YOu guys are making the assumtions that the "current" sized bees are sickly. Why? 

Bear with me, I am repeating my opinion here, 

My arguement is not over varroa tolerances, and varroa making the "current" sized bees sick, becasue that is obvious. Varroa has decimated the bee stock around the world. I have never argued agains that. I am argueing the fact that varroa aside, the bees regressed or not, are in no better or different in health than the other. 

By simply regressing your current bee stock, you are not going to improve or inhance the bee stocks traits. Thats called selective breeding. 
I cant see the logic that gives you guys the implication that regression makes them healther. By bringing in more pollen doesnt make them a better nurished hive. The bees can only be nurished with the quality of pollen avaliable. Perhaps in areas like yours Joe, where pollen might be hard to hunt down, more pollen inflow is better for the hive, but in areas like mine, pllen flow is not a problem. My "current" sized bees are feeding my hives to their appropriate nutritional needs throughout the year. I can say that with absolute confedence, for my bees have to be in tip top shape to make it through the winters we experience up here.

So I dont get it,.. 

You guys arnt selling me on the idea of regression. I dont need to regress to control my mite poulation, I use other successfull alternative methods, one that has been approved for organic treatmetns in fact. It would be very costly for a producer like myself to totally switch my broodnest over in a matter of four or five years. I run 310 double chamber hives. That is 6200 brood frame to change over. I

I would bet, that side by side, regressed hive vs a "standard" hive, would not have any differences in outcome of total production, wintering, ect. 

Now if you simply stated regressed bees tolerated mites better. I would be okay with that


----------



## naturebee

[No message]


----------



## naturebee

[No message]


----------



## Sundance

Sooooooooo, how high do bees fly?


----------



## naturebee

[No message]


----------



## Keith Malone

Hi All,

Here is a link to the information on Size-related Mating Preferences in Honey Bee Drones. For those who find it hard to jump through hoops.

http://balder.prohosting.com/~starrier/SizeRelatedMatingPreferences.html


----------



## Keith Malone

>>Sooooooooo, how high do bees fly?

Haven't honey bees flown up to above the Earth's atmosphere into space? That's pretty high.


----------



## Dick Allen

Good one Keith!! They also drew out comb in outer space weightlessness.


----------



## Ian

>>LOL!! Then why a Russian, Grey Caucasian or Italian in the same yard pack different amounts of pollen in the broodnest? Largely genetics and health related.


Obviously they all have different pollen requirements. It is genetic, but health related?  Because one type of bee packs more pollen in thier nest doenst make them any healthier than the other. 

>>Is the quantity of pollen available different for each in the same yard?????? 

I dont get what you are trying to gett at. Different hives, different requirements. 

You are pulling at straws here,..


----------



## Ian

>>Theres 5 reasons that your estimate is wrong, hope thats enough for ya.

Your 5 reasons tell me no more than past documentation of cell sizes wasfrom 4.72 to 5.36 mm.
Yes, that has been covered many time here. So it relates to colonies being healthier how? 

>>Improved health =s traits that are there being more prominent. Thats why breeding is not done with unhealthy colonies, they dont show the traits as much, healthy colonies show traits. See 5 reasons stated above.


Again we are caught in a loop. It will be neverending, Just reading your responses make my head spinn. In developing theories, you need proof to back up your statements. 

>>>>No, Im arguing overall health, not mite control.

THere is proof of varroa tolerances by regressing, but no proof of healthier hives compared to our current sized beestock.

Anyhow, good luck next year. Let the honey flow continuously :')


----------



## Ian

Hey Keith,

Last time I talked to you we were argueing over the need to wrap and pack hives, solar gain, blah blah blah. Never did catch how your hives wintered last winter. How did they fair? How was your summer flows this past year?

My operation wintered 9%. Extreemly well, best I have wintered ever. Went into the spring split great, made lots of increase, but we had a prolonged spring snow, and continued cool weather right to fall. It was the most difficult spring summer and fall season I have ever experienced. Took the hives into winter even par, and stronge. But my summer honey flow suffered. I cant complain, with an average flow I guess(150lbs/hive), but the potential was there for double that. And I spent twice the time gathering and extracting than usual. Anyhow looking forward to next season.
So long


----------



## Keith Malone

Hi Ian & All, 

Joe Wrote;
>>Improved health =s traits that are there being more prominent. Thats why breeding is not done with unhealthy colonies, they dont show the traits as much, healthy colonies show traits. See 5 reasons stated above.

Ian responded;
Again we are caught in a loop. It will be never-ending, Just reading your responses make my head spinn. In developing theories, you need proof to back up your statements.

I say;
The only proof he needs is in his own success, it would appear to me that you need the proof. You choose not to believe Joe's proof and researchers that you would believe will not do a legitimate study that every one can clearly give complete credence to. The only study that will satisfy both camps would need to be performed more wholly instead of by piecemeal as most all studies up till now has been carried out.

Joe stated;
>>>>No, Im arguing overall health, not mite control.

Ian resounded;
THere is proof of varroa tolerances by regressing, but no proof of healthier hives compared to our current sized beestock.

I say;
Healthier by the fact that no crutches, aids, or treatments of foreign substances in unbalance subjected to the colony or super organism were needed or given to have a positive result. Could your bees survive without you I ask all, How high would your bees fly on their own?

A few beekeepers are keeping bees on the honey bees terms and not on the terms of the keeper, which do you as beekeepers think the bees would prefer?


----------



## Keith Malone

Hi Ian & All,

Ian asked of me;
Last time I talked to you we were argueing over the need to wrap and pack hives, solar gain, blah blah blah. Never did catch how your hives wintered last winter. How did they fair? How was your summer flows this past year?

I say;
They faired as I expected them to fair in an unfair situation. I made progress in locating the genetics I am letting the bees show me they have and those that are needed to improve wintering in my local of keeping bees. One colony in particular came through winter really good which became a queen mother for several queens that were mated. My mission will take me several years to accomplish so you need not expect immediate or quick results. Our summer flow was good until a drought continued for far to long and dried any nectar that may have benefited the bees going into winter.

Ian Stated;
But my summer honey flow suffered. I cant complain, with an average flow I guess(150lbs/hive), but the potential was there for double that.

I say and ask;
Did you subtract the amount of sugar fed in weight from your harvest weight to give a more realistic view of the bees surplus amount. This figure I would be more interested in.

It is good you feel you did well last year.

May your bees fly high as well as far and wide, and so forth into the next County, Province, or Borough by swarm or by what ever means the bees can.


----------



## naturebee

[No message]


----------



## db_land

Joe et al
To support your assertion that "small cell bees are more healthy than large bees" you need to state some FACTS - not some random quotes taken out of context from various studies and experiments having nothing to do with SC bee health. You may convince yourself and those that "want it to be so" with wishful thinking, circular arguments and irrelevant quotes, but more objective beeks prefer proof. 

Since the genetics of SC and LC bees are identical, it's more likely that SC bees have a healthier lifestyle? If so, are there any studies or direct anecdotal evidence that supports this? 

I plan on trying some SC this year so I hope you are correct.


----------



## TwT

I think small cell has its advantages but, I think you have to have the mite tolerant traits in the bee's for the bees to survive, I have never understood people calling small cell's (natural cell's) because i cant find where it say's (IN STUDIES) what size a natural cell size was, but i still think you have to have the right bee's for anything to work, like i said before my father has a hot hive that he has not medicated or even took the hive apart in 7 years now , all he does is go out and pull a couples frames of honey out of the super, thats it, and thats one of the strongest hives i have seen and there not on small cell, this coming spring im going to suit up and go do an inspection on that hive (when i go back to La.) and pull some drone brood and also a powder sugar test just to see what the mite count would be.


----------



## Michael Bush

I have never understood people calling small cell's (natural cell's) because i cant find where it say's (IN STUDIES) what size a natural cell size was

More than half of my combs are natural cells because there was no foundation and it's what the bees draw. All my top bar hives are all natural comb. Half my frames are foundationless or starter strips. Since that is usually in the range of 4.6mm to 5.0mm I think I can say that size is natural. Since I never see a worker in a 5.4mm cell, I think I can safely say that's not natural. I certainly think I have a right to call comb drawn without coersion of embossing, natural cell size.

All of the "official" studies have failed to regress. They put the bees on a system where they draw natural comb and it's 5.1mm to 5.2mm and they say that's natural. But they never take the bees from that regression and let them draw natural comb. It's not hard to reproduce, it just takes a little longer to do it twice. And really you shouldl do it four or five times to make sure where it stabilizes, but none of the scientists seem to want to even go to the second step.

Try it yourself. It's not difficult. Either a TBH, some blank starter strips or make some comb guides for your frames, or if you really want to take it the easy way, just put them in a box and see what they do.

I would not have been convinced to do small cell if I was not convinced it was natural cell size.

>i still think you have to have the right bee's for anything to work

I've noticed significant improvement in mite reproduction using a variety of bees on natural cells. But I am also trying to breed feral survivors because I think we need all the help we can get. Besides the feral survivors seem much more acclimatized to my environment. They cut back and build up at the right times. They over winter in a small cluster on less stores. So I think it CAN help. But I think no matter how good the genetics, it's unfair to put the bees at the disadvantage of large cell comb.


----------



## naturebee

[No message]


----------



## TwT

>More than half of my combs are natural cells because there was no foundation and it's what the bees draw. All my top bar hives are all natural comb. Half my frames are foundationless or starter strips. Since that is usually in the range of 4.6mm to 5.0mm I think I can say that size is natural. Since I never see a worker in a 5.4mm cell, I think I can safely say that's not natural. I certainly think I have a right to call comb drawn without coersion of embossing, natural cell size.


MB, if I take bee's from a normal foundation hive and put them in a TBH what size will they cell draw out? would this be a natural sized cell, now i know if you take regressed bee's and put them in one they will draw out smaller cells right? so i guest my main question would be what is the natural size a bee and cell? what was the size of cells before man had the bee's. that's what i would call natural, if man can make bee's smaller or larger, what is the bee's natural size and what size cell would they make, has anyone ever found a fosilized comb, i know they found a 1,000,000 year old or so bee, but what size was it? thanks I just have been wondering about this for about a year now but havent seen anything scientific yet, have read alot about regression doing better

>Try it yourself. It's not difficult. Either a TBH, some blank starter strips or make some comb guides for your frames, or if you really want to take it the easy way, just put them in a box and see what they do.

is this how you regressed the first step, so the bee's will regress by there self this way, will they continue to regress this way?


----------



## MountainCamp

<Lets explore your statement for a moment. How do you purpose to determine the natural levels of OA in your honey so that you will be sure that treatment does not exceed the naturally occurring levels?>

No plans to, I am #1- Not claiming to be organic and #2) I dont do any kind of treatments when honey supers are on. I also do not do any type of treatments for 60 days before supers go on.

<But dont understand the reasoning behind that they are not found in commercial products, that is it what? Safer? That you are skirting government regulations and illegally using non epa approved methods, this makes it ok then, or safer?> 

Well, all you people using Honey  B  Healthy, you have now been advised that using essential oils is not approved for hive use.

<Do your customers know that there may be traces of non approved pesticides in their honey?>

Since, I dont do any kind of treatments when honey supers are on. I also do not do any type of treatments for 60 days before supers go on. So, no there are no essential oils in my extracted honey. But, thanks for worrying about my customers.


----------



## naturebee

[No message]


----------



## Michael Bush

>MB, if I take bee's from a normal foundation hive and put them in a TBH what size will they cell draw out?

Probably about 5.1mm.

> would this be a natural sized cell

For a 5.4mm bee, apparently, but for a natural sized bee, no.

>now i know if you take regressed bee's and put them in one they will draw out smaller cells right?

Yes.

> so i guest my main question would be what is the natural size a bee and cell?

They vary but from what I've measured they run between 4.6mm and 5.0mm. Most in the very center are more in the 4.6 with larger as you move out from the center of the brood nest, usually. Most probably run closer to 4.8mm to 4.9mm out further from the center.

>what was the size of cells before man had the bee's. that's what i would call natural, if man can make bee's smaller or larger, what is the bee's natural size and what size cell would they make

There have been measurements taken for centuries. One complicated part is the method of measurment seems to change from time to time. One was a paralellagram. Other methods have been linear and others have been how man in a given size square. The paralellagram is useful because the cells can come out pretty even. A paralellagram don't have to take into account a lot of partial cells. The linear method is the simplest to do. There are x number of cells to y length. The 4.9mm designation is derived by measuring linearly but counting 10 cells and dividing by 10 to get the width of the cell.

Joe has been quoting a lot of old books. Most from before the enlargment if tranlated to the current method of measuring, comt to come to about 4.9mm to 5.0mm.

>has anyone ever found a fosilized comb

It seems to me I once heard of one, but I can't say for sure.

> i know they found a 1,000,000 year old or so bee, but what size was it?

I don't know that either.

>is this how you regressed the first step

My first try was with 4.9mm starter strips. They drew 5.1mm cells. Unfortunately it was late summer and the mites were already bad, so I tried to save them with Apistan and they all died anyway because they were Apistan resistant.

My next measurments were from a large cell package that moved into a feeder. The center comb was about 5.1mm. The next comb over (on each side of that primary comb) was between 5.0mm and 4.9mm. The next pair of combs over was about 4.8mm and the next pair over had some cells down in the 4.6mm range up to about 4.8mm. Also the comb spacing on this was as small as 1 1/8" in places and 1 1/4" for most of the combs with brood in them.

http://incolor.inetnebr.com/bush/images/BroodNestInFeeder.JPG

A lot of them I regressed by puttin them on wax dipped PermaComb which came to the equivelant of 4.95mm.

Here's some of the PermaComb:
http://incolor.inetnebr.com/bush/images/BlackQueen4.jpg

I also started a top bar hive and several hives with blank starter strips at the same time.

This is a 4.6mm comb on a blank starter strip:
http://incolor.inetnebr.com/bush/images/PrimaryCombOnBlankStarterStrip.JPG

Here are some top bar combs:
http://incolor.inetnebr.com/bush/images/KTBHComb.JPG
http://incolor.inetnebr.com/bush/images/TTBHComb.JPG

The next year I started two more top bar hives and started doing foundationless frames.

Here is a foundationless frame drawn out:
http://incolor.inetnebr.com/bush/images/FoundationlessDrawn.JPG

I haven't done just one thing, but a lot of experiments at the same time.

> so the bee's will regress by there self this way, will they continue to regress this way? 

Yes, they will. In order to regress they just need for the bees raised on the smaller cells that were drawn to draw cells and raise bees on those. If you just leave the 5.1mm cells in there they won't regress any further.

It does seem like some bees (not necessarily divided by race) will build smaller cells quickly and some are not so fast.

The one package I said moved into the feeder seemed to back up Dee's idea that some of the cell size is not just the size of the bee controling what they build but their memory. Because on that one the center comb was medium sized (5.1mm) but the very next comb, which I'm sure was not drawn by the next generation, was already smaller. This does not always happen this way, so I wouldn't count on it. Sometimes they just build a lot of 5.1mm until the next generation of brood starts building smaller comb.

Also they don't build smaller cells for honey storage and, of course, the sometimes like to build a whole comb of drone brood.

Basically, the bees will regress if you let them.


----------



## MountainCamp

-In PA, you do not need to have certification to be able to call your honey organic if less than $5,000 in organic sales.

Naturebee: I am a little confused. You listed your occupation as beekeeper, but youre using a $5,000 or less in sales exemption to use the organic label. How is that possible?

-You need an organic management plan. This plan describes how you manage your bees. You need to describe what you do to ensure that the bees feed on organic nectar and pollen, what you do when you need to feed your bees (the sugar must be organic), how you treat diseases and pests (what do you do about AFB, varroa mites, nosema, etc.), where do the bees obtain their water.

Who approves the plan and verifies the facts and claims made? 

>>Are you isolated in your bee yards from all outside sources of contaminates? 
Are there any other bee yards within 2  3 miles of your yards?
<Nope>
>>Is there any pesticide use within 2  3 miles of your yards? 
<Nope>
>>Are there any commercial fertilizers applied to any crops within 2 -3 miles of your yards? 
<Nope>
>>Are there any genetically engineered crops grown within 2  3 miles of your yards? 
<Nope>

Now your answers here have me confused as well. 
If there are no bee yards / colonies within your yards range, where and how did your hives get mites? Where are the drones coming from for your open mating? 

I must assume that your bees are not kept at your house. You have to share your secret on how you were able to find, control and protect over 28 sq miles of PA range from all farming, livestock, pesticide, fertilizers, GE crops, swimming pools, home owners and all other possible contamination sources. 

What are your bees foraging on? I know Tulip Popular, but that only gets us through early spring.

I on the other hand arent so lucky, even thou the Northern Catskill Forest Pressure is my front yard. I have a camp ground and several resorts, as well as homes with pools, a golf course, fruit trees, raspberry, blue berry, strawberry, and other misc crops within my home yards 28 sq miles of forage.


----------



## MountainCamp

=What the heck does 60 days have to do with it? Where did you pull that number from? The OA fantasy label? 

No actually as the organic beekeeper, I would have thought that you would have known. As per organic quide lines a hive must be managed for 60 days in an organic manner to be claimed as organic.

I just happen to use the oils when I first feed in the late winter and then not again till fall feeding. So it is more like 75 days actually.


----------



## TwT

thanks MB, I understand a good bit better now how it works, but tell me one thing more if you would, how for down can you regress bee's?


----------



## naturebee

[No message]


----------



## naturebee

[No message]


----------



## MountainCamp

-I dont state organic beekeeper as my profession, I am also a musician. Although I make a little money at both they are not my main profession.

Actually, Your member info states your occupation as beekeeper and you claim to be organic. So one could be lead to believe that you are an organic beekeeper by occupation.

Member Status: Field Bee 
Registered: December 25, 2004December 25, 2004 

Posts: 41 
Location: Derry, PA. USA 
Occupation: Beekeeper 
Interests: beekeeping 


>>>>Who approves the plan and verifies the facts and claims made?

The PA requirement is as stated above. If you wish you approval of the plan, come and do it yourself. 

You still have not answered the question asked. Does the state approve the organic plan or is it self reliant on the beekeepers honesty?


----------



## Michael Bush

>thanks MB, I understand a good bit better now how it works, but tell me one thing more if you would, how for down can you regress bee's? 

I'm not the one regressing them, they are. But so far 4.6mm seems to be as small as I've seen any significant amount of brood comb. That was with Carniolans on 1 1/4" spacing, standard is 1 3/8". But 1 1/4" is the same as Huber was using in his leaf hive and what the bees seem to make for brood comb spacing when I let them do their own thing. I have done TBHs with no comb guides except one in the center of a five frame nuc and let them space it how they want (they actually space it how they want anyway and will cheat on the guides) and 1 1/4" seems to be the norm for brood comb, although I've seen some 1 1/8".

Dee is happy with 4.9mm because she wants to be natural enough to handle the diseases and mites but still have everything the same (honey and brood) and be able to extract thick desert honey.

There's nothing UNnatural about 4.9mm. They often build brood comb that size. But it often varies some too.

According to Dee the sizes will get more uniform as the bees get stabalized. I haven't seen that yet on mine.


----------



## MountainCamp

Hey, NatureBee youre not going to believe this but, essential oils and oxalic acid are both allowed or will be under the following:

Keatings draft - Proposed amendments to the GUIDELINES FOR THE PRODUCTION, PROCESSING, LABELLING AND MARKETING OF ORGANICALLY PRODUCED FOODS

NOSB Apiculture Task Force Report Draft Organic Apiculture Standards. Compiled by James A. Riddle

But, what is not allowed under the Organic Rules is to knowingly have pests, parasites, or disease in the hive and not take action. If you need any OA or oils, let me know.

Oh, one more thing, the radius around your hives is 4 miles for organic, so it is not 28 sq miles, its a little over 50 sq miles. Sorry,


----------



## naturebee

[No message]


----------



## Keith Malone

Hi All,

Some guy camped on a mountain wrote; 
>Keatings draft - Proposed amendments to the GUIDELINES FOR THE PRODUCTION, PROCESSING, LABELLING AND MARKETING OF ORGANICALLY PRODUCED FOODS

NOSB Apiculture Task Force Report Draft Organic Apiculture Standards. Compiled by James A. Riddle
>

I say;
Any rule that allows chemical treatments in a hive of honey bees is by default bogus and only a watered down organic standard, those who respect organic production will not give in to this as Organic. Those that do accept this rule as organic will be fooling themselves and the customers they sell to. Shame, Shame!!!

The camper on the mountain went on to state;
> But, what is not allowed under the Organic Rules is to knowingly have pests, parasites, or disease in the hive and not take action. If you need any OA or oils, let me know.
>

I say further;
Joe is taking action by keeping his bees on a clean, natural, and highly bee friendly, functional system that does not need the treatments that this bogus, watered down organic standard allows. If any official from the organic standard police board were to come to inspect Joe's I would venture to say that they would not find detectable amounts of these pests, parasites, or disease in his hives, if they did I am sure there would be something he would do about it that does not put foreign substances in the hives that hold the bees he keeps.

Joe is doing the right thing for the bees he keeps why are some of you on this list trying to make him out as some bad beekeeper that is doing nothing to control parasites in the hives he keeps. Joe is doing his part of getting off the chemical treadmill and doing a great job of teaching others who care to listen how he is doing it and backing his methods up with references and facts. The present opposition to Joe's rebuttals give no facts that Large Cells are Normal or Natural only that Larger cells are what are being used and that they always have been used. Why don't some one give a real reference for Large Cells being Natural size or that bigger bees bring in more honey? By doing what he is doing he is doing much more for the bees he keeps than those that think they are doing bees a favor by dumping poisons in their hives. Again I say shame, shame !!

Joe has pointed out many facts and references and answered many questions and has been accused of not answering questions but I see very little reciprocation on the parts of those opposing him on this subject and see that the two major opponents also do not answer questions posed to them by me. What goes around comes around so when will you answer my questions submitted in earlier posts I & M ?!!!


----------



## Ian

>>What goes around comes around so when will you answer my questions submitted in earlier posts I & M ?!!!


Sorry Keith, just got back from my local beekeeping convention. I have only skimmed some of the detail in this post, so cant comment until I have time to read futher. Just letting you know I going to be around later this week.
Boy, I think we are getting hard feeling towards one another. I guess we left on a bad note last time we chatted, Keith


----------



## naturebee

[No message]


----------



## db_land

Hey Joe,
"IAN & DB, You make up this new RULE? It is a well established, accepted and common practice when submitting articles or writing a thesis to provide references which I ALWAYS strive to do!"

What new rule are you talking about? I have no doubt that you strive to find anything ever said by anyone that you think supports your claims. The problem is that so far every "reference" you quoted is out of context and appears to be irrelevant to your claims. Where did you find these illiterate quotes? Maybe if I read the whole document I can make sense of what the authors are trying to say. 

Why are you introducing Africanized bees into the discussion? AHB have different genetics and may well be healthier and out compete domestic bees. Are you saying that your SC bees are like the Africanized bees? Do you have AHB genetics in your SC bees? Given their isolated, southwestern high desert location, I wouldn't be too surprised to learn that the Lusby's have a few AHB genes in their stock.

Joe, most of my hives (24 of the 26 that survived the winter) are from feral bee colony removals or swarm captures. There's a reasonable chance that I already have some SC bees on natural comb. I'm enough convinced that SC bees are resistant to the varroa mites - so I'll start regressing all of the hives.

Hey Keith, why do you think bees never evolved to occur naturally in Alaska? Do you suppose the cold weather has anything to do with it? How many hundreds of thousands of honey bees have you sacrificed because of your irrational refusal to listen to more experienced beekeepers? Shame, Shame, Shame .....


----------



## MountainCamp

Keith, If I am the "M" in "I & M", I have gone back to see what question you asked of me that I have not answered. I can't find it, so please ask it again.
But, to maybe save you the time and trouble. I really don't have an opinion one way or the other on small cell vs medium cell vs large cell. I have not had the time or the need to research it. My questions on small cell, are devils advocate.
As far as organic goes, again I really don't care. I am not claiming that I am organic nor do I see myself doing so anytime soon. What the rules and regulations for organic beekeeping are, is for the organic community to resolve amongst themselves. I would be just as happy to be left out of that fight.
This thread / post was started concerned with how high a bee can fly and if it can make it to the top of a really tall tree. Plain and simple.
It became a thread about certain facts and assertions that have been made. It has become about playing loose with facts and assertions.
If the information that is posted is done so honestly, correctly, and stated to the best of ones ability, then you could not ask for more. However, if one is loose with their facts, while calling other's posts and facts into question, then one should expect that the same may follow suit.


----------



## MountainCamp

NatureBee, please could you answer the question asked:
As per the guidelines for keeping bees organically and claiming an organic product. 

Does the state approve the organic plan?

Is the plan / program self reliant on the beekeepers honesty and integrity?

Have you done the mapping requirement for the 4 mile radius / 50 sq miles of forage area around your hives?

Since bees seek out the sources of nectar that provide the most return for their efforts. How do you ensure that your bees only forage on organically grown plants?

What are your bees foraging on in your plan over the season?

I asked and you answered:
>>Are you isolated in your bee yards from all outside sources of contaminates? 
Are there any other bee yards within 2  3 miles of your yards? Nope
>>Is there any pesticide use within 2  3 miles of your yards? Nope
>>Are there any commercial fertilizers applied to any crops within 2 -3 miles of your yards? Nope
>>Are there any genetically engineered crops grown within 2  3 miles of your yards? Nope

Derry, Pa. is a good size town east / northeast of Latrobe. If we use the train tracks as a dividing line of town, more of the houses are east of the tracks, but it is fairly well divided. Outside of town, except for the set of wooded ridges to the east of town, it is pretty much farmland / agriculture. To the east of these ridges is farmland again. 

I do not see 50 sq miles anywhere around Derry that is purely ORGANIC FORAGE.

You stated:
>>Mountaincamp, OK, I stand corrected! But, the non commercial treatments you mention are ingredients that can be found in commercial mite treatments in this and other countries. I admit to being duped, the loophole was crafty enough to fool me to thinking you were organic. I am a strong proponent for truth in advertising. Speaking for myself now, I wouldnt feel comfortable basing claims on crafty word sculpturing, even if technically sort of true.

How do you correlate your above statement, about truth in advertising with the facts of life?


----------



## Michael Bush

>Are you saying that your SC bees are like the Africanized bees?

In hardiness, yes. In temperament, no.

>Do you have AHB genetics in your SC bees?

No.

IMO small cell bees are vigorous for the same reasons and in the same ways as AHB. AHB are normally on small cell when in a hive and certainly the feral ones tend to be. The smaller drones of the AHB out fly the larger drones of the domestic hives (Large Cell drones) not because they are AHB but because they are more aerodynamic and more athletic. As long as we keep putting our domestic drones at a disadvantage by making them larger the AHB will continue to out fly our drones and their genes will prosper.

From my experience I would say the mites can't reproduces as well in the small cells of an AHB colony, not because they are AHB but because of the cell size. AHB have been documented to have shorter pre and post capping times. So do EHB on small cells.

I do not believe the hardiness of AHB is due to genetics. I have observed the same kind of hardiness in any bees on small cell and particularly feral bees put in hives on small cell. Fortunately I have not noticed the bad temper.

The only difference I can see between an AHB and EHB on small cell is the temperament. All other noted differences between the two are directly related to cell size.


----------



## Keith Malone

Hi land & All,

Land asked;
> Hey Keith, why do you think bees never evolved to occur naturally in Alaska? >
>

I don't know, I wonder why they supposedly never evolved to occur naturally in North America or in South America either, that's strange isn't it? Especially since at one time the Earths land masses were at one time connected. If the honest truth would be published it would be known that there is native American apis honey bees at present living in the Americas. But that is another topic that I know your not ready to talk about because there's things I know that you don't know yet. If the researchers would release the information you would know about it, but even they are not ready to make the change in their paradigm.

Just like the Pacific coastal evergreen conifer forest once reached as far as the Aleutian Chain in Southwestern Alaska before the last Ice Age, but has only till recently regained its natural range to reach just half of Kodiak Island, Maybe the honey bee's genetics has not yet redeveloped for this region either. The forest is slowly gaining ground westerly along the western Alaskan coast. I will give the bees a little help in developing the genetics it will take to make it possible for them to survive A location not much different than Vermont, Maine, Iowa, North Dakota , and the like. It is only a four week difference in seasons. 

Land went on;
> Do you suppose the cold weather has anything to do with it?
>

No, it is most times warmer here where I am than some places further south. It may have something to do with the length of winter but very little. I think it has more to do with the type genetics we up here are subject to use but with the Russian genetics I see more promising results in bringing out the genetics I think that is necessary to see real progress. It will just take time just like all good things take.

And then Land jabbed at my ribs;
> How many hundreds of thousands of honey bees have you sacrificed because of your irrational refusal to listen to more experienced beekeepers?
>

There has not yet been one, unless you know someone I do not know, that has said it can not be done. In fact I have had many experienced beekeepers encourage me and wish me well in my work and task, unlike you who chooses to be rude to me and call me irrational unjustly for your own sick humor. Please, lets be adult. Not only do you hide behind an internet handle but you jest in ignorance.

The fact is I have not sacrificed as many bees as those who think they are experienced beekeepers that kill their bees in the fall up here and in other places. I would bet you have even killed bees thinking you were helping them. I guess I should give it all up because of you.








be 









Shame, Shame, Shame, Shame, Shame, Shame, .....


----------



## Ian

Okay, starting form the top. Please hold patience in this post, and take from it what you will,

>>Last time I talked...argueing over the need to wrap and pack hives,...blah blah blah....How did they fair?

>>One colony in particular came through winter really good...My mission will take me several years to accomplish...you need not expect immediate or quick results.

Im not encouraging a disscussion here on wrapping hives, so I'll keep it short. I wasnt going to comment on this,but one of Joes last posts encouraged me to write on this.

Seems to me that when I challenged you (Keith) last year over your opinion of packing hives you were of more the opinion that beekeepers who wrap are wasting their time and money and acctually hurting the bees in the proccess. You carried on to imply that, most beekeepers are just followers, and even whent as far to imply beekeeper ignorace in their winter management techneques.

YOu were going to let me know of your wintering success, and prove prove to me that wrapping was not needed in colder climates, but to me it seems you focus has changed a little here. What happened to the idea that beekeeper who wrap are wasting their time and money and acctually hurting the bees in the proccess? 

Wrapping is just an aid in keeping bees in our extreem climate. Breeding has been extencsive in my area to do just what you are doing.

Oh ya, and Joe,

>>From your perspective, the southern beekeepers in Canada, benefit greatly from such mild winters and long summers. It must be amusing at times to have the southern beekeeper comparing winter success and preaching to you about wintering bees.
>>there can be no comparing of such milder more southerly environments to yours.

I can only suspect you were directing this at me,...

I had made the mistake of compairing my region to Keiths, for the Interiour Alaskian winters greatly influence our Manitoba winters. Besides Alaska, and the NWT, Manitoba and Saskackewan is the next harshest provences in Canada to winter bees, for most of the weather comes straight from Alaska and beyond.
Keith pointed out to me early in the past conversation, that he indeed did not winter in the harshest climates of Alaska, and told me he beekeeps in the so called "bannana belt" of Alaska, not the interiour. So really, he only winters in a harsh environment when he feels fit to use it in his arguement, as he does winter in Alaska. 

I could only expect a comment like that form you Joe. Where did that reall fit in to our disscussion before now? Are you trying to discredit me? 


Comment for interest sake, 
>>Did you subtract the amount of sugar fed in weight from your harvest weight to give a more realistic view of the bees surplus amount. This figure I would be more interested in.


No, it is not how we measure honey yeild around here.
Last year I fed an average of 1 full pail (2.5gal/pail) to all my hives in the spring during the prolonged snow cold rain spell. I even put on another protien patty to help them with the abnormal conditions. 
Later that year I fed as normal, 1.5 pails per hive average to bulk them up for winter. Didnt use any fumigillin this year.
So you can count five or so gallons of surip per hive spring and fall. But must take in acoount the production of 4 frames of foundation average per hive brood chamber. 


>>Keith, -Healthier by the fact that no crutches, aids, or treatments of foreign substances in unbalance subjected to the colony

YOu are assuming my treatment make my bees unhealthy. You are right when residues get out of control, especiall with Coumophose and sometimes fluvalinate under extreem chemical pressures. Otherwise when reidues are well below thresholds, as they tend to be around here, the bees are unifected. This has to do with beekeeper management, it does not have anything to do with heath differences b/t regressed and non regressed bees. If you think this is what the arguement is about, then you better re-read the previous posts. Joe has even highlighted that statement.

>>It is good you feel you did well last year.

Thank you, but it feels funny to hear that I did well after all the work that was involved in building the bees and getting the honey off last season. I put the same work into last year as if I were operating an operation three times the size on a normal year. It is what seperates the beekeepers from the havvers, I guess.


>>Joe-I always couple the term nutritional pollen. I have documentation that nutritional pollen foraging promotes maximum health.
I challange you to find a single quote supporting your claim! 

Ya, I am still missing the evedence. You keep giving me all these quotes, and they corrilate to our disscussion how? 
Are you forgetting what I am after you about. Stop modifying your statement, I am getting tierd of putting the point back on the table.
Your claims are not due to mear regressing your bee stock. These claims are comming from stock selection, genetic selection. I am missing where you are getting all these quotes from, but even after reading them, I still cant draw the conclusion of getting a heathier bee due to regression. Where does it say current sized bees are sick, or malnurished? Where is the evedence of current bees not nurishing thier bees properly? And how are these conclusions drawn for each situation? What about the deffinition of healthy? Healthier than what? Healthier than varroa damaged bees?, healthier than chemical stressed bees? 
Joe, we are talking only on the basis of the bee, without the chemical and pest pressures. Right? That is what I thought I got through to you. If this disscussion was of varroa tolerances and the implications of chemical on the bees to fight the varroa, then the disscussion would be well over.

>>IAN & DB, You make up this new RULE? It is a well established, accepted and common practice when submitting articles or writing a thesis to provide references which I ALWAYS strive to do

I dindt make up any new rule. YOu are exagerating results from regressing your bees. You have not statistical evidence to back up your theories. Everything thus far hasnt proven your own theories. 

>>So please remember to do so yourself so I can more easily research and discredit what you say

discredit what? That my colonies are healthy? That my colonies provide sufficient pollen throughout the year to build and maintain a stronge hive? What are you asking for? 

I am not the one making the outragious claims...

Your quote form Lusby is debateable, and antidocal. Would you please provide statistical information proving regressing the hives made them healthier? Kind of an impossible request, for how do you measure a "healthier" colony? Perhaps honey yeild differeces, blah,m blah, blah. But becasue we are not debating the tolerance of varroa, treatments must be allowed. So show me the proof.
Not quite sure where the AHB fits into the whole thing,

And if that is making up new rules, then be it. You must be able to totally make and prove you case when developing theories. All I am seeing is exagerations of previous theories with far reaches and bits and peices of quotes to make a case for your claims, Joe. 

Keith, you are not a regressed beekeeper. Right? Would you consider your survivour as an unhealthy colony?


----------



## naturebee

[No message]


----------



## naturebee

[No message]


----------



## Keith Malone

Ian wrote;
> What happened to the idea that beekeeper who wrap are wasting their time and money and acctually hurting the bees in the proccess? 
>

I say;
Nothing, I am not breeding a bee that needs wrapped nor one that needs fed sugar syrup.

Ian went on state;
> Wrapping is just an aid in keeping bees in our extreem climate. Breeding has been extencsive in my area to do just what you are doing.
>
</font>
Yes a little wrap in extremely cold temperatures might be needed as it does in your temperatures, my temperatures here where I am are more moderate than yours being a little more maritime but only slightly cooler and winters maybe a little longer.</font>
Breeding bees that's a good idea.</font>
Ian states also;
> So really, he only winters in a harsh environment when he feels fit to use it in his arguement, as he does winter in Alaska. 
>

Harsh in a sense that Below freezing for long periods -20F and below even that for long periods and winters longer than most points south. I think most would agree that this is harsh even though most times the mean temperatures are from 10F to 30F only from time to time going above freezing.

Ian assumed after I wrote;
>>Keith, -Healthier by the fact that no crutches, aids, or treatments of foreign substances in unbalance subjected to the colony

> YOu are assuming my treatment make my bees unhealthy.
>

No, but that without the treatments your bees may die. I judge that a colony is healthier if still alive after a long period of time with no treatments. If a colony can not survive without treatments then to me it would not be healthy compared to the untreated one that is still alive.

Ian stated;
> Otherwise when reidues are well below thresholds, as they tend to be around here, the bees are unifected.
>

How were the combs deemed or proven below threshold in residue contamination?

Ian Assumed again;
> Keith, you are not a regressed beekeeper. Right? Would you consider your survivour as an unhealthy colony?
>

</font>
wrong, I am on small cells, but finding it hard to stabilize with no feral bees in nature here but I think progress may be happening with that. Wishful thinking maybe</font>
No, especially considering No treatments for over two seasons/two winters as of last season, and the fact that they went through a normal Alaska winter with no hive body insulation, only 1/2 inch foam urethane on inner cover that remains on year round on all hives.</font>
 Thanks Ian for being polite,


----------



## naturebee

[No message]


----------



## Dick Allen

Know what's really amusing about all this? You guys try to word your posts as though you are Mensa material and then misspell half your words!!  

You guys have too much time on your hands......

(but I suppose it's better than watching television, though)


----------



## Walt McBride

Hey, does any one know how high bees fly?


----------



## Kurt Bower

Well guys you really took my question to a whole new level. You didnt answer my question or at least you didnt answer my question in the way I had anticipated.
I really just wondered if anyone has done research or observed bees flying and what the highest point they were ever seen!
With all the books written over the years this would seem to have been an area of study.
I requested proof for the simple reason that just because you found it on the internet does not make it so!
I have asked questions in the past and got wrong answers from the people on this forum board. I try to go to where the experience is. Just because a hobbiest says it doesnt work for them isnt good enough, especially when a commercial beekeeper does it all the time.With over 2000 members I thought this would have been a "Slam Dunk."
I am wanting to know "how high bees fly" because I have an upcoming beginner course I am teaching and do not want to give misinformation.


----------



## naturebee

[No message]


----------



## Knoefler

QUEENS AND DRONES ARE KNOWN TO FLY 50'


----------



## Ian

>>I dont have time to answer the other million questions. I have restricted you and DB to 3 questions per day. 
>>I will select only 3 to answer. 

Dick is right. There is alot of wasted time here. 
I'm getting tired of this. You keep answering the same three questions, and stray off they point the same way every time. 

If you dont understand what I am holding you to Joe, you better look back at our previouse conversation.

>>Thanks Ian for being polite, 

And to you Keith, till we talk again,.. and I am sure we will

Sorry for the bad spelling and grammer Dick, and to think my mother is an english teacher. Im a busy man, and dont have alot of spare time, so I usually type what I have to say in the fourm within 20min to half and hour or so. Likely the reason why my posts are not of the best quality,.

See you in the next discussion
Chow


----------



## MountainCamp

NatureBee:
I have gone back, just through this discussion from the beginning. You have been all over the place with your claims and facts.

You state that your bees forage better, but don't produce much because of your wooded location.

You stated that during the 90s on large cell that you got a medium super of honey per hive, while until last year, there was no surplus from your small celled bees except for (2) hives out of (20).

You state that your bees have to fly 1 1/2 miles to the east to find better forage. But that is where the population and agriculture is. 

You stated that you have moved hives to the low lands to better forage. But that is where the population and agriculture is. 

You have claimed and stated that you are organic and that you have met the PA requirements. 

You have claimed that there is no pesticide or fertilizer use within the forage range of your hives. The organic radius for contaminates is 4 miles / 50 sq miles.

I asked how you found 50 sq miles of organic forage, you said hives are in farm land, most farms a shut down now. Which means what there are still farms operating, but they are organic?

I asked how you keep your bees on organic forage, you said hive placement. In the woods or on farmland?

I asked what are your bees foraging on in your plan over the season, you said variety of flrorals. Really, I would not have guessed.

I have asked specific questions, looking for specific answers, you have ducked every question concerning your organic claim. 

Joe, I disagree that you have made your point. As a matter of fact, I believe that you have hurt the discussion by your inaccurate and mis-leading answers to direct questions. 

Maybe it is my side work, but when someone gives me half answers and ducks the questions / diverts the answers, there is a reason. The problem then is all of your claims and statements come into question.


----------



## Michael Bush

Some thoughts from Blaise Pascal 

We are usually convinced more easily by reasons we have found ourselves than by those which have occurred to others.

Few men speak humbly of humility, chastely of chastity, skeptically of skepticism.

Contradiction is not a sign of falsity, nor the lack of contradiction a sign of truth.

All err the more dangerously because each follows a truth. Their mistake lies not in following a falsehood but in not following another truth.

Perfect clarity would profit the intellect but damage the will.

Those who are accustomed to judge by feeling do not understand the process of reasoning, because they want to comprehend at a glance and are not used to seeking for first principles. Those, on the other hand, who are accustomed to reason from first principles do not understand matters of feeling at all, because they look for first principles and are unable to comprehend at a glance.

To deny, to believe, and to doubt well are to a man as the race is to a horse.

Words differently arranged have a different meaning and meanings differently arranged have a different effect.

We arrive at truth, not by reason only, but also by the heart.

It is not certain that everything is uncertain.

Reason's last step is the recognition that there are an infinite number of things which are beyond it.

There are two types of mind ... the mathematical, and what might be called the intuitive. The former arrives at its views slowly, but they are firm and rigid; the latter is endowed with greater flexibility and applies itself simultaneously to the diverse lovable parts of that which it loves.


----------



## db_land

Joe - the references in your last post say nothing at all about SC bee health, but thanks for providing the links for these refs! Do you have links for any paper or site that talks about SC bees being healthier than LC bees?

Is the area of PA where you are in the Quaker area? If so, could it bee that you are getting the beenefit of genetics from the olde german black bee that Quakers keep.


----------



## naturebee

[No message]


----------



## naturebee

[No message]


----------



## naturebee

[No message]


----------



## MountainCamp

I can only go by the information that you have provided. All of the statements I gave you made. If you did not put them into context, how is one to know the true meaning of your statement and your point.

Yet once again, you choose not to answer all of the questions asked and only address a portion of the one point.

So now, please enlighten me with the facts that I have been asking for.


----------



## TwT

Walt McBride 

-------------------------------------
>>Hey, does any one know how high bees fly?

well the answer to that could be where your standing when you mearsure a bees flight, bees fly in the mountains, if there hive is at the bottom of a steep cliff and the sourwood trees are on top of the mountain that would bee high, could be a 1000 feet, but i have seen bee's working goldenrod and leave a pasture and fly over a line of oak tree's to get back to the hive. so if i had to say how high a bee will fly, guest it depends on what the bee wants to do, but i have read in books that some people say the bee on average fly about 10 feet high.


----------



## naturebee

[No message]


----------



## Dick Allen

Well Joe you mentioned me as your friend in a post awhile back. As your friend I must be brutally honest with you.  You are evading many of the questions being asked.....


----------



## MountainCamp

Mountaincamp, I made and effort to answer your million questions. Problem is there are many unanswered questions pertaining to your operation as it pertains to consumer safety and your beekeeping methods that need to be answered.
Now its your turn, why dont you enlighten all of us with some facts about you.

Actually, Joe, you have ducked almost every question. The only questions that you answer are the ones that you can be vague about or deflect into something else.
Almost every question you are asking below has been answered or stated in this thread alone, if you took the time to check.

How many hives do you have? 
21

How much oxalic acid do you use in each colony?
30  50 ml / colony of 35g OA/litre of 1:1 sugar syrup.

Now I will save you the trouble with the math. That works out to be 35mg/ml applied. Hence, a treatment is 1,750 mg of OA maximum in a fall hive with 100lbs of honey, that adds less than 8 mg / kg of OA to the honey, if it was all absorbed by the honey.

Here is a little more info for you:
OA content of honey varies naturally between 8  300mg / kg.
OA content of various vegetables varies between 300  17,000 mg/kg.

How many times do y
ou treat per year? 
As previously stated I have only treated with OA once. You really need to comprehend what you are reading Joe.

How do you figure the required dosage needed per colony?
As per Oxalic acid treatment by trickling against Varroa destructor: recommendations for use in Central Europe and under temperature climate conditions
By Jean  Daniel Charrierre & Anton Imdorf

Do all your treatments have epa approval for use on honeybees?
All of my treatments fall under the guidelines of the Organic directives.

Are your customers aware of this use?
Anyone who has ever asked.

What other chemicals do you use on your bees?
Once, again you really need to comprehend or go back and re-read. But, I will list them all here again: Spearmint, Wintergreen essential oils, and one treatment of OA

Do you use TM?
As previously stated not in over 7 years.

How long before supering do you treat with TM?
This year it will be 8 years.

Have you ever had foulbrood?
No.

Do you have varroa?
Yes, in some hives I have seen a few mites.

How long before supering do you treat for varroa?
Joe, this is getting old, I have been very specific in my posts on what I do. But, here it is again, about 75 days. But at least 60 days, I though you would have remember as you made a joke of where I got the 60 days.

Have you ever had Tracheal mite?
Not to my knowledge, But then I have not had any bees tested.

What do you do to prevent contaminating your product?
I practice Best Practices for handling of food products after pulling supers. This peratins to how I handle and store my super of honey. How I store bulk honey, and bottled honey. As stated numerous times, I do not put any treatment in the hive within about 75 days of placing supers. I do not feed anything while supers are placed.

What do you do with honey from the dead outs?
Honey from dead outs, if they are from cold starving / winter kill, and there is no visible signs of fermentation, or other problems with the hive / honey, is used to get new hives started in the spring.

I can only go by the information that you have provided. You are debating as if you are the untouchable that should not be questioned. In the intrest of fair play, answer these questions

Once again Joe you could have gone back and answered most of your questions from this thread alone. I have been very up front and honest with what I do and don't do. But, as you have stated truth in advertising. So I have no problem answering any question asked of me. 

As you have said in the interest of fair play, answer the questions I have previously asked they you have not answered.
Now, I will ask you one of your questions, do your customers know that you are claiming to be organic, but you dont meet the requirements as put forth to sell an organic product?

Now if I wanted to be an A**, I would use a term like "SLAM DUNK" here, but since I dont, I wouldnt.


----------



## Keith Malone

Hi Walt & All,

Walt Asked;
>>Hey, does any one know how high bees fly?
>

In New York city some beekeepers keep bees on top of sky scrapers or very tall buildings, I would say that they could fly very high, many, many feet. Why wouldn't they fly as high as need be, such as up and down valleys, cannons, and cliffs.


----------



## naturebee

[No message]


----------



## naturebee

[No message]


----------



## Kurt Bower

Keith:







Thanks for the insight as I had forgotten about people keeping bees on the tops of buildings.
I would then naturally conclude that the article found at http://www.killerplants.com/renfields-garden/20020605.asp ,is quite misleading and most probably false. 
After doing some searching and finding articles about bees kept on top of office buildings and hotels in NY city it would seem logical to conclude that bees could fly up to the branches of even the largest tulip poplar if they so desired.
Thats all the information I needed. Lets close this thread and move on.


----------



## naturebee

[No message]


----------



## Ian

>>Now I did it, I guess I'll have Mountaincamp, Ian and Kurt beating me up.

>>we seemed to have gotten off on a bit of a disagreement and out of hand discussion does not lessen the fact that I have high respect for Ian and Mountaincamps beekeeping knowledge, its the nature of a list to occasionally explode in controversy


And we did there Joe, but I never hold a grudge, not my nature. I enjoy a good spar, sometimes I talk tough, but just a pussy cat.
Just trying to hold you to a statement made, trivial really, just speaking my opinion. Your claim was harmless, but I felt it was antidoctal.

I'll say it here, as I have said it before, there is no one way to keep bees, and every method and inovative idea makes our indurtry stronger.

I tend to post with respect to the other, but I have to say frankly here Joe, I felt no respect from your side. So I guess I sent it right back.

Anyhow,
Till the next time Joe, and I am sure there will be another,..


----------



## Keith Malone

Hi Kurt & All,

Kurt wrote;
> Thats all the information I needed. Lets close this thread and move on. 
>

I say;
 First off, when Pandora's Box is opened it can not be closed. Besides when this subject opened it also opened a learning process that much can be learned from. 

 As a plant lover, I need more information. If bees can fly even to the lowest and the highest branches of these Tulip Poplars then why can't these Poplars, In 1785 George Washington planted, produce seeds? Is it soil fertility, some type of air or soil pollution, old age, a cross pollination inability, just why can't these particular trees reproduce by making seeds? Are all the Tulip Poplars in this situation or do all these type trees not produce seeds above a set number of feet?


----------



## naturebee

[No message]


----------



## Antero

Above the two Paris opera houses,73 metres (240 ft)high, hundreds of thousands of bees yearly produce hundreds of kilos of honey. What's more, the capital's bees make five times more honey than their rural cousins. Buzzing busily aloft Paris' bastions of operatic art and ballet, hundreds of thousands of bees may seem unlikely tenants for the city's two main opera houses but the venues apparently suit their honey-making down to the ground. 

--------------
Terry


----------



## Kurt Bower

Naturebee:
Why dont you point me to which one of the 40 posts you made on the the topic of "how high bees fly" and I will try to reread it to better understand what I ignored.
A fairly simple question was asked and some of you who apparently choose to monopolize the message board, highjacked the topic and ran with it. I wouldnt blame anyone for not reading this post because of the mountains of information that have no place in it.
Some of you obviously have too much time on your hands. Perhaps you might donate your time to a good cause. There are plenty of organizations that would like to tap into your vast knowledge.
I have no beef with anyone here and if you would like to pursue this further, take it offline and contact me in private.
I believe this list was intended to help beekeepers not frustrate them.

Kurt


----------



## naturebee

[No message]


----------



## Beemaninsa

How high bees fly? Was it last year I saw an article titled "Bees in Space" where bees were sent up on the space shuttle?


----------



## Ian

>>some of you who apparently choose to monopolize the message board, highjacked the topic and ran with it. 

>>Some of you obviously have too much time on your hands. Perhaps you might donate your time to a good cause.

I'm sorry for interupting you conversation and wasting your time. I'm sure you got what you needed from your question.,,? If you would stand back and look what you are participating in here, THIS IS A FOURM, what do you expect to happen? Its called conversation and discussion. Nobody forsed you to read our posts,..


----------



## Dick Allen

>I'm sure you got what you needed from your question.,,?
Well, no. The original question was hardly ever talked about.

>Its called conversation and discussion.
I'd call it cyberchatter and arguing!









>Nobody forsed you to read our posts
Very true. As long as this gone on, it could very well be called 'the thread from hell'. I'd have given up on it a long time ago, if it wasn't so entertaining. Notice I said entertaining and not enlightening.


----------



## Ian

Ya, thanks for that Dick,


----------



## Dick Allen

Ya, thanks for that Dick,
....well, I do what I can....


----------



## naturebee

[No message]


----------



## Jim Fischer

I like to get questions from "less experienced"
beekeepers, as they force me to think clearly
about my own practices, and both justify them
with a specific rationale, and explain them
simply. 

If you can't explain something to a novice, you
may find that your own understanding is incomplete.


----------



## Keith Malone

Hi Jim & All,

> If you can't explain something to a novice, you
may find that your own understanding is incomplete
>

I usually find that their understanding is incomplete and an education is in order on their part before any further understanding can take place. Like what went on with this thread.


----------



## Stanghellini

Here's a question about small cell, from someone not knowledgeable about the details. Forgive my unfamiliarity with this website - if this has already been addressed in another thread please point me in the right direction.

Feral honey bees thrived without human intervention for over 300 years in the US, and so had over 300 years, extending across 300 or more generations without man-made foundation influences, to instinctly build whatever cell size they "deemed suitable" (anthropomorphic, I know). Surely these feral colonies had the "natural" cell size (albeit, it is really a range of diameters).

Why, then, are the woods not filled with these natural cell bees? Everyone agrees that mites caused the virtual collapse of the feral populations - but how can this be, if small cell renders them inherently mite-proof? 

To place the blame entirely on tracheal mites is not plausible - if it were, areas around TM-resistant breeding yards would be dense with feral colonies - and they are not. So, varroa must have also done major damage to these natural cell-sized feral bee populations. 

Any rational explanations are welcomed. 

Thanks!


----------



## Barry

<<I am saying they are as you have stated they are healthier and out compete like AHB! They are no more genetically different than a Caucasian is to an Italian or Russian!!! >>

Joe, Just want to get this thought straight in my mind. Have you introduced any of the Lusby's bees into your apiary, either from packages or queens?

- Barry


----------



## naturebee

[No message]


----------



## Michael Bush

>Why, then, are the woods not filled with these natural cell bees?

I cant say I have a definitive answer, but first I have to say that I find a lot of them, so I have to believe they DID survive. The population of feral bees did decrease when the Varroa and the Tracheal mites and the vectored viruses appeared though.

The first question is what size cell size were those feral bees. By definition feral means they used to be domestic. A lot of domestic hives swarm every year and go feral. They are not small cell size, but an intermediate. Since the bees will only build about 5.1mm on the first regression and 4.9mm is the size we need to deal with all the problems, a lot of feral hives were not that small. So I would expect the 5.1mm hives to crash and that would probably make up at least half of the feral population if not more.

The next question is one I think is often the cause of collapses in bees that were doing fine and suddenly they have thousands of mites and a total collapse. Even with a stable mite reproduction within a hive, this does not preclude bringing in thousands of hitchhikers from thousands of crashing domestic hives. These hitchhiking Varroa are not a stable population but a constant inflow at a rate far above the normal reproductive rate. Having a stable system that would be fairly stable if all the bees around you were also stable is one thing. That constant influx can be devastating. The natural sized bees try to chew out all the brood that is infested with Varroa, but what if its all infested? What about the vectored viruses from all those mites that they had never been exposed to before?

The fact is a lot of them DID survive in spite of all of that. From a genetics point of view I think they are our best hope.


----------



## Jim Fischer

Joe said:

> my bees are all ferals and survivors

and Michael said:

> I have to say that I find a lot of them...

Its too bad that adequate documentation in the
form of photos of comb with a ruler scaled in
millimeters have not been taken by those who
come across feral colonies.

Joe said:

> A mature colony IMO is one that is at least 4 
> years old, and very large nest that was able to 
> reach full size.

Michael said:

> A lot of domestic hives swarm every year and go feral.

I don't think that the term "survivor" can be
applied to a colony until it has survived several
seasons in one's apiary. I have found some
pretty-impressive looking comb structures in walls
of buildings and gotten all excited, only to later
find that the colony had been repopulated on a
regular basis by swarms from nearby apiaries.


----------



## Barry

<<Its too bad that adequate documentation in the
form of photos of comb with a ruler scaled in
millimeters have not been taken by those who
come across feral colonies.>>

It is too bad. I have had people contact me about finding comb in a bee tree or cavity and sections of the comb were sent to me. I still have them. I took pictures of them with a scale to show cell size and posted them on this site. Very uniform cells, all 4.9mm.

- Barry


----------



## Michael Bush

>Michael said:

>> A lot of domestic hives swarm every year and go feral.

>I don't think that the term "survivor" can be
applied to a colony until it has survived several
seasons in one's apiary. I have found some
pretty-impressive looking comb structures in walls
of buildings and gotten all excited, only to later
find that the colony had been repopulated on a
regular basis by swarms from nearby apiaries. 

Exactly my point. A lot of what we tend to call feral bees are, and always have been, recent escapees. These are not fully regressed bees and often do not survive. Bees that are swarms of swarms of swarms are usually fully regressed and if they have survived for a long time I would call them survivors. But you bring up another important point. Sometimes new swarms keep moving into abandoned (or dead) hives. You need to distinguish between the two.

>Its too bad that adequate documentation in the
form of photos of comb with a ruler scaled in
millimeters have not been taken by those who
come across feral colonies.

I have measured a lot of them. I will try to keep more pieces of self drawn comb as I go along, but there is the problem of trying to take pictures while in the middle of a transfer which is already taking all your focus and I usually tie all the brood comb into the frames so it's not immediately available. I also tend to just leave the tied brood comb there, myself, since it's usually already small. I will try to get some pictures of comb with a ruler across them. I need a nice, lightweight, readable (large numbers) 10 cm ruler with mm on it. Any ideas where one might find a good one?

Back on the subject of where did all the feral bees go and why did they die. It's interesting that I and others have been asking the opposite question. If, as has been preached by the "powers that be", bees can't survive the mites without treatments then why are there still any feral bees left and how are they still surviving?


----------



## Stanghellini

<<<If, as has been preached by the "powers that be", bees can't survive the mites without treatments then why are there still any feral bees left and how are they still surviving>>>

The same question can also be posed as: How long are these feral bees living? Just because someone sees bees in a tree every year does not mean that they are the same colony. 

Annual swarms from managed colonies do not a feral population make.

I'm not against small cell at all, and am not calling into question those who swear by it. I just have questions about the vigor of management technique.

I haven't done feral colony surveys since 1997, but at that time, in my location, all our pre-mite records of bee trees showed a 100% loss of bees.


----------



## Michael Bush

>The same question can also be posed as: How long are these feral bees living?

I have some that I captured and have been in my hives for two years now with no treatments and they are still doing well. The ones I have used Oxalic on had only about 100 mites total per hive after a year of no treatments.

>Just because someone sees bees in a tree every year does not mean that they are the same colony. 

True. But the ferals tend to be smaller. The survivors I'm seeing are darker.

>Annual swarms from managed colonies do not a feral population make.

Exactly.

>I just have questions about the vigor of management technique.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the vigor of the management technique"? I've done a mixture of things but the end results are all about the same. I've done all self drawn comb (TBH and foundationless frames). I've done wax coated PermaComb (which comes to about 4.95mm equvilant cell size). I've done some blank starter strips and some small cell starter strips. I've done a few full sheets of 4.9mm wax. And I've done 4.9mm plastic. The 4.9mm plastic is the only thing that didn't work well. It actually does ok once they are regressed but does not work at all until.

The resulting cell sizes are all about the same. The resulting Varroa tolerance is all about the same. I was not willing to do small cell until I was convinced that it is natural cell size. Natural cell size that I've monitored varies a bit, but most worker brood is in the 4.9mm range. Some quite a bit smaller.


----------



## naturebee

--Its too bad that adequate documentation in the
form of photos of comb with a ruler scaled in
millimeters have not been taken by those who
come across feral colonies.

Hi Barry, Mike & Jim

Heres a small cell feral:
http://wind.prohosting.com/tbhguy/bee/joesw.htm
Joe said:

This one was documented by interview with the homeowner that it has been in existence in the wall from 1991 till 2003 when I removed the colony. 

--I have found some
pretty-impressive looking comb structures in walls
of buildings and gotten all excited, only to later
find that the colony had been repopulated on a
regular basis by swarms from nearby apiaries. 

Obvious question: How did you determine that?
Was there a guest registry?


----------



## Jim Fischer

>> I have found some pretty-impressive looking comb 
>> structures in walls of buildings and gotten all 
>> excited, only to later find that the colony had 
>> been repopulated on a regular basis by swarms 
>> from nearby apiaries.

> Obvious question: How did you determine that?

Easy... distance to nearby apiary, combined
with very similar-looking bees to the ones
kept in that apiary, combine with a short
talk with the beekeeper, who readily admitted
to having hives swarm nearly every spring.

Also, lots of fossilized wax-moth poop lying
at the bottom of the stud wall gave away the
truth - that the hive had been unoccupied for
lengthy periods, allowing extensive wax moth
damage, and resulting "layer of poop" on the
sill plate.

Gotta check the horizontal stud below the
colony if ya wanna see the "bottom board".

Have Saws-All, will travel!


----------



## naturebee

[No message]


----------



## naturebee

--I don't think that the term "survivor" can be
applied to a colony until it has survived several
seasons in one's apiary

I would say 4 or more years I award 'survivor status' to the colony. I only have 2 survivors split from my 'sole survivor'. Actually, my ferals out perform them, so I've been increasing with the ferals genetics and the couple survivors fell between the cracks being neglected in favor of the better.


----------



## naturebee

--The same question can also be posed as: How long are these feral bees living? Just because someone sees bees in a tree every year does not mean that they are the same colony.

Agree, but if a colony has adequate room to expand, it is possible to estimate colony expansion as it relates to the age of a comb and arrive at a pretty good estimate of the age of a colony. Interviews with the homeowner can occasionally provide important and accurate clues such as descriptions of winter cleansing flights, bee activity and other significant dates like when the colony was first noticed, and when it swarmed or how often. I was extremely impressed with this homeowners knowledge of honeybees from watching the bees come and go from the wall in her house for over 10 years. http://wind.prohosting.com/tbhguy/bee/joesw.htm
She actually remembered many swarming dates, and described cleansing flight activity and the evidence left behind from such activity. She also remembered some of the years the colony swarmed early, and a some when the swarming was late. She remembered the year her nephew stuck a golf ball in the hole and the bees rerouted to a new entrance. 

--Annual swarms from managed colonies do not a feral population make.

Agree!!!! I dont consider them as ferals until I see what size they draw, or if from a mature colony of at least 4 years of age.

--I haven't done feral colony surveys since 1997, but at that time, in my location, all our pre-mite records of bee trees showed a 100% loss of bees. 

Ive often thought that there are likely at least twice as many colonies in bee trees and other voids that we are aware of.


----------



## Dick Allen

>The evidence shows that the forested areas are dense with ferals!

The URL you posted did not work. But, Dr. Seeley spoke last spring at the SABA conference at the U. of Albany about finding ferals in the Arnott forest and he did not say they are 'flourishing', or that forested areas are 'dense with ferals'. He said only that he is seeing some and he was 'cautiously optimistic' about it.

--I haven't done feral colony surveys since 1997, but at that time, in my location, all our pre-mite records of bee trees showed a 100% loss of bees. 

Now this is an example of what is wrong with these 'discussions'. Someone with credentials brings up some real research and it's countered by someone else's opinion!  

"Ive often thought that there are likely at least twice as many colonies in bee trees and other voids that we are aware of."


----------



## Stanghellini

Hi Dick - been awhile since we had contact. As you can see by my ID tag, I'm now in New Jersey working for Rutgers. Left NC about 1.5 years ago. Still editor of the SABA newsletter?

Is it possible to buy some Alaskan Fireweed Honey from you? I'd like to make a batch of Fireweed Mead (with maybe some herbs or spices for effect). Just the name sounds cool. I pay top dollar!


----------



## naturebee

Go here and it's the first file on the list

http://www.nbb.cornell.edu/neurobio/department/faculty/seeley/PDFs/


----------



## db_land

Hey Mike,
Welcome to beesource! I think everyone on the forum will benefit from your clear, logical thinking and beekeeping knowledge.


----------



## Jim Fischer

> Someone with credentials brings up some real 
> research and it's countered by someone else's 
> opinion!

Which is why so few credentialed people bother
participating in online discussion groups at all.


----------



## naturebee

&


----------



## Dick Allen

Seeley writes about finding 8 wild colonies, and he speculates on their existence. This is what he actually wrote in the article:

One possibility is that these forest-dwelling colonies live in such isolation that they have not been exposed to Varroa. The fact that few of my beelines pointed out of the forest.....indicates that there few, if any, managed hives located just outside the boundaries of the Arnot Forest, so perhaps the colonies in this forest are not much exposed to Varroa. Another possibility is that these wild colonies have been exposed to Varroa and, as usual, will soon be dead. A third possibility, and by far the most interesting to me, is that these colonies have been exposed to Varroa and have evolved, through natural selection, resistance to this parasite......My hopes are pegged on number three.....

From another thread: 
>In short, my rebuttal to this gentleman is not meant to prod him or to spur a debate. Who has time for such things? 

Apparently many do....

>I simply would like to state that people should be more cautious passing judgement on studies when they haven't read the reports themselves. 

Of the many discussions about small cell on the former Yahoo biobee site, I vaguely recall one about a study that was critical of small cell. As you can imagine, most of the posts (as I remember) were critical of the study. I didn't read the study, so didn't take part in the discussions. 

(note to Mike: I'm happy to read you pay top dollar, because I happen to charge top dollar!)


----------



## Stanghellini

db_land : I hope you meant me, when you said "Hello, Mike" - because I am now saying "Hello" back! Thanks for the welcoming.


(note to Dick Allen: I'm looking for 8-12 lbs of fireweed honey. Name your price and yep - I'm sure postage from Alaska will be quite high. Contact me directly at: [email protected] when you have time).


----------



## TwT

Well I have read all these statments(rounds- ding-ding) and I can understand small cell works but when yall talk feral survivors, I still believe that genetics has something to do with it, all the ferals died off around my place, i never seen a honeybee for about 12 or 13 years and there hasn't been a beekeeper around for aslong as i can remember (small town), we see where old hives were but the wax mouth have done destroyed the comb, I have 1 question to the small cell guys, can you regress and strain of honey bee and be atlest 90% sure it will survive with out medication? say take 50 hive's with strait italian bee's and regress them, how many will survive?


----------



## SantaCruzBee

One thing to keep in mind about beekeepers inducing bees over the last 100 years to build larger cells and, for that matter, regressing them now to smaller cells does not change their genetics at all. That would be a Lamarckian concept of genetics that was shown to be nonsense 50 years ago. Regressing bees to small cell may help bees survive Varroa, but they are still the same honeybees genetically. Now surviving infestation with Varroa is another matter as that is survival of the fittest.


----------



## naturebee

[No message]


----------



## Michael Bush

>I have 1 question to the small cell guys, can you regress and strain of honey bee and be atlest 90% sure it will survive with out medication? say take 50 hive's with strait italian bee's and regress them, how many will survive? 

Some of that depends on how much you stress them in the process and if you take care of the mites in the meantime. But Barry, Dennis and I have regressed a lot of typical bee strains and seen excellent results. If you regress, don't treat and monitor, what do you hvae to lose? If the mites go up you can decide what you want to do next. But I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

From my experience once they are regressed you're back to the kind of survival rates you had before the mites came.


----------



## naturebee

Dick, I place the article by Seeley here as a rebut to the statement:

--I haven't done feral colony surveys since 1997, but at that time, in my location, all our pre-mite records of bee trees showed a 100% loss of bees. 

Im not attempting to credit genetics or small cell here in Seeley's article, I am merely providing information that shows doubt that there was %100 loss of ferals. 

Seeley also stated:

Even though my new census did not survey the whole forest, I did find eight wild colonies of honey bees. Each had taken up residence in a sturdy, live tree: one eastern hemlock, one white pine, one quaking aspen, and one red oak. To have found so many trees occupied my bees surprised me, for it shows that there are as many, if not more, wild colonies living in the Arnot Forest in 2002 as there were in 1978

I would love to discuss theories and ideas I have about small cell and ferals, but we need to take the discussion over to Barrys Biological Beekeeping list. Im fearing for my life that an internet stalker is after me for messing up the how high bees fly thread. If Barry would decide on a title for the thread, Ill meet anyone who cares to participate at the safer location.


----------



## BWrangler

Hi Guys,

I'm thinking that if a researcher or any research can't stand up to an opinion, then they are not as robust as the opinion :>)

And if anyone is sending hate mail to another beekeeper for his research or opinion, they need to get a life! Or maybe at least a job!!! :>)

Regards
Dennis
Holding onto my opinions until something better comes along


----------



## Jim Fischer

> I'm thinking that if a researcher or any research 
> can't stand up to an opinion, then they are not 
> as robust as the opinion :>)

Have a little sympathy for the white lab-coat set.
If they "defend" their work, they are viewed as
"defensive" or "argumentative". If they don't,
they are dismissed as "out of touch with the
beekeepers they serve", or "too stuck-up to
answer questions from beekeepers".

A no-win situation.

Me, I don't have a boss, so I can say what I 
please, exactly as I please, but most people 
have a boss, and the boss does not want anyone 
to "reflect poorly on the reputation of the 
University/Lab/whatever".

This is why the single most common phrase one
will hear from most researchers in response to
being told something that a beekeeper thinks is
of great importance is "that's interesting, I'll
think about that."

Translation - "I'd rather let you continue to
delude yourself than take the risk of educating
you, as you might react badly, and spoil my
whole week. Too bad, 'cause I could suggest a
reading list that would help you figure that
out."


----------



## naturebee

--I'm thinking that if a researcher or any research can't stand up to an opinion, then they are not as robust as the opinion :>)

Dennis, I much admire your ability to see things objectionably, from outside the box so to speak. As your comments suggest that even those credentialed people as described in an earlier post, must be able to back up the claim with supporting evidence.

Excuse me Dennis, I have to remind another scientist again that he may be a human being.









Dear Jim, Ever hear of the Lett's Filchers Rule?  
Also for Dick as he made a statment about credentials also:









Filchers Rule states that, "a human being can lie or make a mistake. No amount of expertise in any field is a guarantee against human fallibility, and expertise does not preclude the motivation to lie or make a mistake; therefore a person's credentials, knowledge and experience cannot, in themselves be taken as sufficient evidence to establish the truth of a claim. Moreover, a person's sincerity lends nothing to the credibility of his or her testimony. Even if people are telling what they sincerely believe to be the truth, it is always possible (and as all trial lawyers know, frequently happens) that they are mistaken." In short, credentials do not mater. In good science, as any scientest shoud know its the research that proves the research, not the credentials!    

--Dennis writes:
Holding onto my opinions until something better comes along 

Thats another ability I admire!









For Dick.









Todays entertainment brought to you by:


----------



## Dick Allen

Joe, your posts remind me of a Sidney Harris cartoon of a few years back. In the cartoon, a graduate student, let's call him 'Atwood', is standing in front of the professor. The professor is smiling broadly and holding the student's thesis. He says: "Well, Atwood I'd say your doctorate is a sure thing. This is the biggest bucket of sesquipedalian tergiversation these old eyes have seen in a long time."


----------



## naturebee

--This is the biggest bucket of sesquipedalian tergiversation these old eyes have seen in a long time.

Now Dick, Is this the road you want to take? This is a common tactic and a perfect example of an attempt to destroy the conversation down the road of disintegrating discussion, just because you and Jim were caught in the act of ducking and evading questioning, and hiding behind your impenetrable shield of credentials not wanting to stand up for what you say. My post reminding you and Jim that credentials make NOT a God out of persons that 'position themselves' above others. Come down to earth with the rest of us, but watch dont step in any sesquipedalian tergiversation that you credentialed folks from above have been dumping down on us.  

Please explain to everybody here why you credentialed people should be omitted from opinions and defending your statements, while others that make comment must be required to endure the onslaught of opinions and stand up to scrutiny?


----------



## Michael Bush

>Its too bad that adequate documentation in the
form of photos of comb with a ruler scaled in
millimeters have not been taken by those who
come across feral colonies.

Well, Jim, it's not a feral colony. But here's a picture:

http://incolor.inetnebr.com/bush/images/47mmComb.JPG

I went out today after work and this is the first brood comb I found in my Top Bar Hive. The bees are clustered and I didn't want to disturb them. To measure, start at the 10mm mark and count over 10 cells. Looks like 4.7cm for ten cells to me. That's 4.7mm cell size. When the bees are flying I'll try to actually look through the hive for some smaller ones.

I put a package of large cell Carniolans in this hive in the Spring 2004. There was no comb just top bars. I have swapped no comb out.


----------



## Barry

I found the images of those combs I have from a bee tree:

http://www.bee-l.com/biobeefiles/lee/index.htm

Smaller cell size than I thought.

Joe, correction: Eric is from Sweden, not Switzerland.

I will now move this thread to the appropriate forum.

- Barry


----------



## Jason Groppel

My Father tells me that when he was a kid, they used to take a feather or piece of grass/straw and poke it into the end of a bumble bee and aim it straight up and it would just keep going in the direction in which it was aimed until it was out of sight. Anybody tried this?
JG


----------



## Jason Groppel

I wonder how high a bumblebee will fly...
JG


----------



## Jim Fischer

The most recent post to this thread prompted
me to read the prior posts from Feb which I
had not read.

Naturebee said to Dick Allen back in Feb:

> ...just because you and Jim were caught in the 
> act of ducking and evading questioning,

I can't speak for Dick, but I am honestly confused
by naturebee's assertion. I re-read the entire
thread, and I can't find a single question that'
either Dick or I "ducked" or "evaded".

Please re-ask the question, if you'd like, but
at least give someone a chance to answer before
making accusations.

> ...and hiding behind your impenetrable shield 
> of credentials not wanting to stand up for what
> you say.

Ummm, and exactly what specific "credentials" have
either Dick or I tossed on the table? Think hard
now...

That's right, NONE. Neither one of us has even
mentioned what specific qualifications we hold,
what degrees we have earned, or even how long we 
have been keeping bees. Why? Exactly because we 
want to AVOID being seen as "appealing to 
authority", moreso when we just might be the
closest thing to "authorities" among those
participating in the discussion when it comes to
certain subjects.

The point about "credentials" is that there are
people who publish formal studies about such
things, people who care deeply about advancing
the state of knowledge. Of course this does not
imply that they are infallible (for example,
Tom Seeley has apparently not even bothered to 
do the obvious, and check with the various bee 
supply companies to find out if any catalogs have 
been mailed to the areas that adjoin his "Aront 
Forest" study area, a step that I think might 
explain much of what he has found...) but the 
process of peer review, publication in a journal, 
and reaction to the papers published is about the 
best system of checks-and-balances we have.

So, at least RTFP (Read the Freakin' Papers!)
and get a clue as to what is known, what is
highly likely, and what is unknown before
contradicting the findings of those papers
with a claim that you THINK you MIGHT have
seen what COULD be a feral colony, one that
you HOPE might have somehow survived for some
period of time, proving it to be somehow
MAGICALLY resistant to diseases, pests, whatever.

...and I know exactly how high a bumblebee can 
fly - 30,000 ft.

http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/dsh/artifacts/RM-bumblebe.htm


----------



## Joel

For me it's all pretty clear. I come here because as much as I might think I know there are allot of guys with more/different education or experiance that I can gain from. It is obvious to me who is at what level and from what background and who is talking the BS. I've been to Dyce several times. Joe C is a smart guy and can tell me all about thymol. I'd bet I can load and move 100 hives 800 miles in half the time he could. The guys in the lab coats will teach me things I will never have time to investigate but really need to know. The guys who have tried other methods than me will help me avoid pitfalls. If I can pass along a little of what I've learned then it seem like the perfect world. And about how high bumble bees can fly, It's my Opinion they walk everywhere because science says they can't fly! (I know that because my dad worked on the space shuttle program and he said so, he's one of those white lab coat type, brilliant but not a lick of common sense! still love him anyway)


----------



## Robert Brenchley

They actually proved that bumblebees can fly after all, way back in, I think, the 1980's. It was all to do with the way air flows around a bumblebee sized wing, which is rather different to the way it behaves at aircraft scale. It shows the limitations of human knowledge though!


----------



## SantaCruzBee

One can learn things from people of all walks of life and formal and informal educational backgrounds. Unfortunately, however, the current climate in the USA, encouraged by our lackluster president, is very anti-intellectual and highly suspicious of university based or trained authorities.


----------



## Jim Fischer

> They actually proved that bumblebees can fly
> after all...

The story you cite is such an urban legend!! 
The story tends to vary, the "big fat expert"
tends to vary in both location and credentials,
but the actual fact is that no one with even a
high school physics course behind them would ever
make the statement that "bumblebees can't fly". 

If you misuse the lift equations that apply to a
fixed-wing aircraft, and apply them to a
bumblebee, which clearly "flaps" its wings, yes,
it is true that a bumblebee NOT moving its wings
has all the aerodynamic abilities of a rock.

I quote from an article by Ken Zetie published in
the IOP's Physics World magazine (Oct 1996 vol9
(10)) titled "The strange case of the bumble-bee that flew.":

'J McMasters states that the story was prevalent
in the German technical universities in the
1930's, starting with students of the
aerodynamicist, Ludwig Prandtl at Gottingen.
The story goes that a noted Swiss aerodynamicist,
whom McMasters does not name, was talking to a
biologist at dinner. The biologist asked about the
flight of bumble bees and the Swiss gentleman did
a "back-of-the-napkin" calculation, assuming a
single rigid smooth wing an so on. Of course he
found that there was insufficient lift and went
off to find out the correct answer for 4 flapping
wings. In the meantime, the biologist put the
word around that bees could not fly, presumably to
show that nature was greater than engineering,
and the press picked up the story. The obvious
truth, then as now, wasn't newsworthy, so a
correction was never publicized...'

People keep these myths alive to support the
contention that "science is often wrong" or
some such lame argument. The punch line is
that they do so on the internet, rather than
what they should do if they have no faith in
science, which would be to scratch their
observations on the walls of caves by torchlight.

As an aside, of course tiny fragments of science
are often found to be "wrong" in some why or
another, but this happens because accuracy gets
better over time, and new toys make better
measurements possible. 

> the current climate in the USA, encouraged by
> our lackluster president, is very
> anti-intellectual and highly suspicious of
> university based or trained authorities.

Its worse than that, verified facts themselves
are treated as mere "opinions", which means
that anything is open to endless argument when
one of the parties has not bothered (or does
not want to) to do his homework.

Of course, the constant chatter of "news"
programming has fed this trend, as they have
to fill every minute, 24 x 7, so it is cheap
and easy to find someone who refuses to acknowledge
the general scientific consensus on some "issue
of the day", for example, global warming, and
pit the "denier" against some junior-league
member of the scientific community who wants
his 15 minutes of fame, and thereby gives the
denier credibility by indulging him in "debate"
over points that simply are no longer open to
debate.

It is rare, but you can sometimes see the true
heavyweights of some fields getting into the
fray, such as Steven Gould granting an interview
on the whole "creationism" problem (something
I have no intention of discussing here, for
reasons that should by now be obvious.)


----------



## Joel

My point exactly. Looks at principle of winged flight (of course he knows bumble bees fly) and makes the argument they can't. (of course the shuttle doesn't fly either it glides). People should be very clear when reading anything on the internet that there is a huge difference between anecdotal information and scientific fact. Both have value just one may or may not be accurate. Has anyone seen the satellite pictures of Noahs Ark in the turkish Mts? I think it's at about the same elevation as bumble bees can fly! How's that for science?


----------



## Robert Brenchley

Yes, I've seen the pics. That one's as old as the hills in the most literal sense; it's so obviously a rock outcrop!


----------



## Dick Allen

>exactly what specific "credentials" have either Dick or I tossed on the table?

I honestly dont have any credentials. Wait a minute, I do! A few years ago on a spring trip to New York, I stopped into Simon Fraser University in BC for their beekeeping short course. I have a framed diploma certifying that Im a beekeeper!


>Tom Seeley has apparently not even bothered to 
do the obvious, and check with the various bee 
supply companies to find out if any catalogs have 
been mailed to the areas that adjoin his "Aront 
Forest" study area, a step that I think might 
explain much of what he has found...)

How do you know that? At one of his presentations, he made a point to say that he did, indeed, look for beekeepers outside the Arnot Forest and to his knowldedge there werent any. At another of his talks this spring he did say there was one new beekeeper in the area. It seems to me he is checking.....

>at least RTFP (Read the Freakin' Papers!)

Ive generally seen a more graphic adjective used.....

>> They actually proved that bumblebees can fly after all...
>The story you cite is such an urban legend!! 

Jim, you apparently read the post much too quickly. Robert said it was proved bumblebees CAN fly. There was a PBS show on a few years back that debunked the urban myth that bumblebees cannot fly.


----------



## Jim Fischer

>> Tom Seeley has apparently not even bothered to
>> do the obvious

> How do you know that? 

I asked a few of the catalog the bee supply
houses. They reported having not been contacted,
but quite willing to supply the information to
Tom if he asked.


----------



## Dick Allen

So, did the catalog supply houses give any indication to you that there were beekeepers just outside the Arnot Forest?


----------



## Stanghellini

<<I place the article by Seeley here as a rebut to the statement:

>I haven't done feral colony surveys since 1997, but at that time, in my location, all our pre-mite records of bee trees showed a 100% loss of bees.<

I am merely providing information that shows doubt that there was %100 loss of ferals.>>

I have nothing but respect for Seeley and his work. I'm also pretty sure he didn't intend his case study in Arnot Forest to be used as evidence that feral bees are alive and well throughout the nation, nor as some proof that some/most/any areas did not suffer a total feral wipe out. Between 1979 (pre-time records) and 1997 (post-mite survey), in my location, we had lost all the ferals. Maybe they've rebounded by now - I can't say because I moved. 

If life is a rollercoaster, some of you are holding on way too tight. Relax, read and understand what someone wrote before you reply. And just be all-together mellow.


----------



## Dick Allen

At the talks I attended, he specifically stated it was much too early to draw any conclusions and that he was only 'cautiously optimistic'. He also wrote about those bees in a previous issue of 'Bee Culture'. He also mentioned checking for beekeepers around the outlying areas of the forest and, to his knowledge, there weren't any. It's an unfortunate fact of life that people are going to pick and choose what they want out of those presentations to prove or disprove their points of view.

>And just be all-together mellow. 

Maybe we all need to eat more catsup. According to the Catsup Advisory Board on 'The Prairie Home Companion' catsup has natural mellowing agents.


----------



## naturebee

* Jim writes--Tom Seeley has apparently not even bothered to
do the obvious......
I asked a few of the catalog the bee supply
houses. They reported having not been contacted,
but quite willing to supply the information to
Tom if he asked. *

LOL,,,That's some shabby fact checking you recomend! 
OK, if there are no bee catalogs in the area,, that means no beehives? Or no mailboxes? Maybe they make their own equipment? Maybe they get the mail at home and have beehives in the outyards? LOL,  

Folks, that's a pathetic example of how to check your facts. Im flabbergasted that nobody here called you on this hilarious suggestion. Even my friend Dick didn't say anything, and that man knows a bucket of sesquipedalian tergiversation when he smells one!  

Certainly, Seeley has all the information he need on this from checking the new york apiary inspection program, Local inspector, or local bee clubs etc. Also, I imagine the bee lab at the University is well aware of all the neighboring beekeepers as the Bee Lab at Penn State sure is. 

I suggest that a phone call to the local airports to see if an aerial survey for bee hives may have been done, or maybe check with the CIA satellite network command or NORAD before discounting Seeleys fact checking. LOL


----------



## Dick Allen

>Even my friend Dick didn't say anything, and that man knows a bucket of sesquipedalian tergiversation when he smells one!

You can't actually smell sesuipedalian tergiversation. There used to be a bumper sticker proclaiming: Eschew Obfuscation. It's along the same lines. Having grown up on a farm, I do know what bovine feces smells like. Generally though, pure unadulaterated bullsh*t is odorless and yet at the same time can sometimes be quite obnoxious. For reasons known only to college freshmen pschycology students some people seem to take pride in the amount of annoyance they cause.

(BTW Joe, it was recognized for what it was.)


----------



## Jim Fischer

Interesting speculation...

> Certainly, Seeley has all the information he need 
> on this from checking the new york apiary 
> inspection program, Local inspector, or local bee 
> clubs etc. Also, I imagine the bee lab at the 
> University is well aware of all the neighboring 
> beekeepers as the Bee Lab at Penn State sure is.

1) Check a map. The forest in question is not
adjacent to campus. 

2) It is not uncommon for a beekeeper to not
belong to clubs, and NY has no mandatory
apiary registration to my knowledge
(of course, even "mandatory" programs have
low compliance rates).

The common factor for all beekeepers is that
they would have a hard time without buying
at least a few things now and again, so looking
at customer lists and catalog mailing lists is
perhaps the most accurate count of active
beekeepers possible.

This is why these mailing lists are of such
value to the beekeeping supply houses. They
contain names and addresses that simply cannot
be found elsewhere. They may be the only
accurate way to locate "all hives" in a
certain area short of a house-to-house
search.

...and what are we trying to clarify here?
See Mike's post above. I second the motion.


----------



## naturebee

* Jim writes ...and what are we trying to clarify here? *

That you are trying to discredit with assumptions!

BTY, I wouldn't be so sure Dick was talking about me.
But, there you go again making more assumptions.  

* 1) Check a map. The forest in question is not adjacent to campus. * 

Yes, but any claims made beyond that based on a map are assumptions!

* 2) It is not uncommon for a beekeeper to not
belong to clubs, and NY has no mandatory
apiary registration to my knowledge
(of course, even "mandatory" programs have
low compliance rates).* 

Ok then, are beekeeping supply house mailing lists are mandatory then!! That they go to beekeepers that hives near the arnot forest. THAT IS ASSUMPTIONS! Give me a break!  

* The common factor for all beekeepers is that
they would have a hard time without buying
at least a few things now and again, so looking
at customer lists and catalog mailing lists is
perhaps the most accurate count of active
beekeepers possible .* 

That doesnt prove that the apiaries are located near the Arnot Forrest! ,,,, again you are making assumptions!

* This is why these mailing lists are of such
value to the beekeeping supply houses. They
contain names and addresses that simply cannot
be found elsewhere. They may be the only
accurate way to locate "all hives" in a
certain area short of a house-to-house
search.* 

Again assumptions.
Give me one case where anyone has used a mailing list to scientifically proove anything? Just one! 

If you are gonna demand scientific methody of others, then your standards must be held to the same. And in science, assumptions dont cut it.


----------



## Dick Allen

>BTY, I wouldn't be so sure Dick was talking about me.

nope  

Here's a repeat of an earlier question that went unanswered:

So, did the catalog supply houses give any indication to you that there were beekeepers just outside the Arnot Forest?


----------



## naturebee

* You can't actually smell sesuipedalian tergiversation. There used to be a bumper sticker proclaiming: Eschew Obfuscation. It's along the same lines. Having grown up on a farm, I do know what bovine feces smells like. Generally though, pure unadulaterated bullsh*t is odorless and yet at the same time can sometimes be quite obnoxious. *

Thanks Dick! Very informative!


----------



## Lesli St. Clair

> He also mentioned checking for beekeepers around the outlying areas of the forest and, to his knowledge, there weren't any.


He gave a talk on his observation at my club last month, and specifically said that there were beekeepers outside Arnot Forest.


----------



## Lesli St. Clair

Now, of course, I'm beginning to doubt my own recollection.


----------



## Terri

The common factor for all beekeepers is that
they would have a hard time without buying
at least a few things now and again, so looking
at customer lists and catalog mailing lists is
perhaps the most accurate count of active
beekeepers possible.

This is why these mailing lists are of such
value to the beekeeping supply houses. They
contain names and addresses that simply cannot
be found elsewhere. They may be the only
accurate way to locate "all hives" in a
certain area short of a house-to-house
search.
....................................

That will show a LOT of the beekeepers, I suppose. 

There is a supply house within driving distance to me, and when I am in the area I sometimes stop in. I am NOT on their mailing list: I just pick up a cataloge when I am there. They have never sent me one.

This also gives me the chance to ask the owners questions. They want their customers to be successful and to keep coming back for more stuff, and their advice is pretty good.

I will be going back Mid-May to pick up 2 packages of bees, and I am making up a mental shopping list of things to get while I am there. More foundation, I am sure, and I never DID build those outer covers. If I don't have them built by the time I get the bees I will need to buy new instead.

At any rate, it is possible to keep bees without being on a catalogue list.


----------



## naturebee

Good info Lesli, this proves that many here did not read the document before going off on a discrediting witch hunt. I knew that the information was in the document and was easy to see, but wanted to see how many here really read manuscripts before judging them. Seeley does clearly state that "there are few, if any, managed hives located just outside the boundaries of the Arnot Forest...". So he does admit to the possibility of error may exist as any good scientist would. And the map clearly shows bee lines in the direction outside the forest. But this in no way proves anything beyond assumptions about the origins of these ferals.


----------



## Lesli St. Clair

He has also set up bait hives to catch some. He'll transport them to the Cornell yards to test whether they are genetically resistant, or whether the cause is, for instance, frequent swarming (that is, interrupted brood cycle) or something else.


----------



## Ian

Say Naturebee,

What happened to all your posts to this topic. 

They seem to have all been edited and dissapeared,..?? Well, it seems only the posts related to our conversation,..?


----------

