# 21 cells, then 2 cells



## IndianaHoney (Jun 5, 2006)

On June 30th I grafted into my cups and put them in my cell builder. They started 21 queen cells from my graft. I checked on them on day four after my graft and there were still 21 cells. I opened them up today and noticed that there were now 2 cells. The remainder had been aborted. It looked like the bees cut them open and removed the queens inside, as it appeared that the caps had been cut open. I looked for a virgin to see if that could have caused it, but to no avail. There is no virgin, or any queen in this hive because the larva was grafted from 1 day old larva, and the cell builder had no larva when I grafted, just young nurse bees. What would cause them to abort all those queen cells?


----------



## RayMarler (Jun 18, 2008)

That's a bum deal there indiana, sorry to hear that story. 

I've got no conjectures as to the cause, hopefully you find an answer.


----------



## Chef Isaac (Jul 26, 2004)

It happens but I am not sure why. Maybe the bees know something we do not know.


----------



## IndianaHoney (Jun 5, 2006)

Ya, I agree that they know the reason, and it was probably for a good reason. I hope I can find out why and maybe aviod that problem in the future. I even had lots and lots of nurse bees just overflowing. Fed them, gave them pollen. BTW, does pollen spoil?

I was really hoping to requeen some hives with this batch. Think I will instead just give them a cell, and make a cell builder from another hive. Maybe that will solve the problem.


----------



## olympic (Aug 20, 2006)

*21 cells and then 2*

This problem is caused by coumaphos residues in the hive. Levels of below even 100PPM can cause this problem.
Best regards
Oly


----------



## Chef Isaac (Jul 26, 2004)

Indi: Yes, pollen doe spoil.


----------



## golddust-twins (Sep 8, 2007)

*****


----------



## IndianaHoney (Jun 5, 2006)

That is a fluvalinate right? I've only treated these hives with Apiguard, which is Thymol.


----------



## gingerbee (Jul 22, 2006)

This may help-

From 2008 Resolutions of the American Beekeeping Federation, Inc.

CR11. PESTICIDE REGISTRATION PROCESS (2003)

WHEREAS, pesticides applied to crops and range land continue to adversely affect the health and viability of honey bees and other pollinators; and,
WHEREAS, the U.S. EPA requires pesticide registrants to submit data pertaining to adult bee toxicity as part of the pesticide registration process; and,
WHEREAS, honey bee brood damage or death, decreased queen and/or drone viability, diminished learning ability and other problems have all been linked to certain pesticides; now,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the ABF urge EPA to consider brood damage and other sub-lethal effects, as well as toxicity to adult bees as requirements of the pesticide registration process.

Then I found this-

http://www.beesource.com/bee-l/bioarchive/oct2001/msg12.htm

This is also helpful-

http://www.google.com/search?rls=ig&hl=en&q=coumaphos+residues+

Scroll down to- [PDF] Acaricide residues in honey, beeswax and propolis


----------



## golddust-twins (Sep 8, 2007)

gingerbee http://www.alp.admin.ch/.../8ull6Du3...DZz8mMps2gpKfo is coming up the webpage cannot be found.


----------



## golddust-twins (Sep 8, 2007)

Thanks for the edit gingerbee.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

golddust-twins said:


> >This problem is caused by coumaphos residues in the hive. Levels of below even 100PPM can cause this problem.
> 
> 
> Could this be the reason the three nucs I purchased in May have requeened themselves twice?


Absolutely. I have some rather big boys in my area that are commercial operators, use lots of chemicals, and sell off their comb in nucs. Makes you go Hmmmm....

The best one is a guy who sell nucs and I know he has had major problems with AFB in the past. But to hear him tell it, "I have AFB free hives". Now since this guy treats fall and spring, anyone want to guess what may happen when that unsuspecting new beekeeper gets one of those nucs and fails to continue this regiment? Yes, he has not had an inspection come up with AFB for several years, but I would not touch his stuff if it were free.


Maryann Frazier commented that to test a wax sample costs about $210. They do not have a lot of money since they are testing many CCD samples. But she did say that anyone wanting a top of the line analysis of what in their wax, that she could do it for half price ($105). I thought that it would be interesting to pool some donation together and have the wax samples of the big commercial suppliers tested. I wonder what some nuc producers would show if this was done.

Makes you go Hmmmmmmmmm.


----------



## golddust-twins (Sep 8, 2007)

*****


----------



## IndianaHoney (Jun 5, 2006)

I really don't think that is the case here. Like I said, I only use Thymol, and this is fairly new comb. No fluvalinates would have had the chance to build up, because I don't use them.

And just because a hive requeens more than once, does not mean that its a chemical issue, so I don't think it would be wise to assume that the issue. Chances are the queen was just not mated well for some reason. I would buy a new queen for that hive, or give them a young mated queen from another hive in another location and let them raise a new queen.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Not sure about the rest, but my reply was aimed at golddust, and an open question. But the information and possibilities are something for "everyone' to consider and ponder when buying nucs.

Yes, supersedure is not ALWAYS an indication of chemicals, but we now have research that shows that chemicals do indeed cause supersedure, effects queen viability, size, and longevity among other things. And these are chemicals that are for beekeepers, used by beekeepers, and promoted within the industry.

Know the breeder/nuc producer who you purchase bees from. Good advice for everyone.


----------



## golddust-twins (Sep 8, 2007)

Thanks for the advice BjornBee.

Corinne


----------



## Scott J. (Feb 6, 2007)

I have had the exact same problem with the worker bees tearing down cells that were capped. I think it may have something to do with the cell finisher hive not being strong enough with ample bees and pollen available. I do not use any chemical treatments, and collect my own wax and turn it into foundation that I make myself. 

Were the cells a bit smaller than normal? Those are the ones I see getting torn down.

All the best,
Scott


----------



## gingerbee (Jul 22, 2006)

Bjorn, 

I would say possibly, not absolutely, unless you are a scientist with empirical evidence. It seems to me you are running down commercial beekeeps with 'absolutes' also. How do you know if the chemical in harmful levels are these in nucs? Or even if they have or are susceptible to AFB?

I don't use chemicals in my hives but I don't run down others who do or blame them for problems that may not be their fault.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

gingerbee said:


> Bjorn,
> 
> I would say possibly, not absolutely, unless you are a scientist with empirical evidence. It seems to me you are running down commercial beekeeps with 'absolutes' also. How do you know that's why they use these in nucs?



You give a thumbs down before you ask a question, a question that may enlighten, and a question that is a good one to ask.

I HAVE seen much of what I talk about. From first hand experience as a state bee inspector. I have inspected some of these people I mention. I have seen what they place in hives. I have seen the results and inspection reports. 

Talk bad about commercial beekeepers. Me? Um......probably. For years, it was a nice little racket of illegal chemical use, discussions behind closed doors, and a nice little group of close mouth lip types. Mention anything bad and you were loudly shouted down. And although I can not, and will not as a professional myself, pinpoint where and to whom I speak, I have seen all the "stuff" I speak of.

I know of at least two commercial operators, one who has had major AFB, and the other who touts his ability to get 30 years of use out of his comb and also cry the blues about CCD, all the while selling off this crap to any new beekeeper seeking bees by way of nicely packaged nucs.

Anybody willing to open their eyes, and of course anyone not willing too, are smacked in the face by report after report of chemical contamination and problems of CCD by these very same people I mention.

If mentioning of my personal feeling and knowledge, and an open warning to potential beekeepers is heeded by one other, then fine, give me the thumbs down, as it matters little to you. But your questioning things I feel you know nothing about. And my willingness to open up this can of worms from time to time only speaks of the truth of what i have seen first hand.

I'll say again, Know who you are buying from. And also know that some of these nucs from the so-called commercial professionals are some of the worst crap on the market.


----------



## Chef Isaac (Jul 26, 2004)

Bjorn has a good point when he says know who you are buying from. Also, Jim Fisher once wrote a post on questions to ask your person of choice that you want to buy queens from. 

This make a lot of since. However, I would add to Bjorns comments that not everyone will know a lot of the answers to. Many of the people I talked with at on operation, the person answering the phones, did not know what they treated with.


----------



## gingerbee (Jul 22, 2006)

You are assuming Bjorn, why wouldn't it matter to me? I'm not saying not to know who you're buying from. It also matters not to spread rumors and cast folks in a bad light because of what you think. The problem with your post is that you don't mention anyone directly and make assertions, assumptions, extrapolate and claim things that may not be true. It's why I gave you a thumbs down. 

My point was and is how do you know that their hives, whatever commercial beekeepers you are speaking of in such a virulent way, have AFB now, or that anyone buying any equipment from them and not treating it with chemicals would have a return of AFB? Are they also responsible for CCD? If they are selling combs too old for good use or dosing their bees with chemicals they shouldn't be using, that's another matter.

I've never bought a nuc from a commercial beekeeper but I purchased a hive from a well respected commercial beekeeper, equipment that was worn, frames of foundation that were old. Complete with varolla mites and hive beetles. He used chemicals but I have never once blamed him or his use of chemicals on anything I've had go wrong with my hives. Chemicals were once thought to be great- better living through chemistry and all that. And is of the age that believed this and used them liberally. He treated with antibiotics, I choose not to- in fact my beekeeping operation is as organic and chemical-free as I can make it. 

Also, it doesn't seem professional to say something this nasty about someone without disclosing who they are. Regardless, they might wish to respond. As would you. 

I do value your earnestness but question the validity of some of what you intimate. And I do so respectfully.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Baloney!

Why not talk of what is seen in the industry, and happens all the time? To use the excuse that it means something less because I do not feel that naming names is called for, is a little off the mark. I am stating broad advice "Know what your buying, don't believe everything you read, and some places that openly advertise have had serious problems with AFB, CCD, and sell off old comb along the way"

I'm not naming names. You do your own homework. Are you so naive to think this does not happen? Or are you just easily irritated by someone suggesting bad things within the industry?

I have been mentioning illegal and excessive chemical use for years in the industry. I was told as an inspector to "turn the other way! We are not the pesticide police. That's not our job."

Now some of the same people now have CCD, samples of tested comb with unbelievable levels of chemical tainting,....and none of this makes any sense to you or you are willing to just "say it ain't so"...because I refuse to name a few names. Oh well......

Just as nobody for years would acknowledge illegal pesticide beyond a "isolated incident", which we now know is on the "rampant" level of every CCD sample tested as no labeled use of strips could ever achieve the levels being found, I suppose it may be a few years till some like you may question buying tainted wax and nucs from some of these same suppliers.


----------



## gingerbee (Jul 22, 2006)

Your refusal to name names is why I see and saw your post in the light I did and still do. Now you are becomming agressive and argumentative. If you care so much that people don't get wax with chemicals in it, you should disclose who these people are.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

gingerbee said:


> Your refusal to name names is why I see and saw your post in the light I did and still do. Now you are becomming agressive and argumentative. If you care so much that people don't get wax with chemicals in it, you should disclose who these people are.


I do care. I care to help those with the information I have gathered and by passing on sound advice. I do not care to create enemies from within the industry. Sorry you see that somehow in a different light as I do.


----------



## gingerbee (Jul 22, 2006)

Sound advice does not include the assumption that chemicals are the cause of CCD, or that illegal chemicals are in the 'rampant' level of every CCD sample tested. Which illegal chemical is 'rampant'? How are you even defining 'rampant'?

An assumption about AFB still being a problem for these unnamed commerical beekeeps, then intimations about AFB returning if left chemically untreated when bees are sold to others is disingenious. It creates fear and people who read this may accept it as truth.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

gingerbee said:


> Sound advice does not include the assumption that chemicals are the cause of CCD, or that illegal chemicals are in the 'rampant' level of every CCD sample tested. Which illegal chemical is 'rampant'? How are you even defining 'rampant'?
> 
> An assumption about AFB still being a problem for these unnamed commerical beekeeps, then intimations about AFB returning if left chemically untreated when bees are sold to others is disingenious. It creates fear and people who read this may accept it as truth.


Ok, Lets go slow. Where did I make the assumption that chemicals were the cause of CCD? Lets stay on track. Lets answer this one point.

#2....I have seen reports that have suggested that beekeeper chemicals, were tested way beyond anything that could be in any way linked to the casual use by label of these same chemicals.

#3.Rampant is a descriptive word to be used by me at my convenience. Why should I define it in my words to have you just disagree about your definition? From what i have seen, from the reports I have seen, RAMPANT use of illegal off label chemicals have been a problem. And I have observed it first hand.

I don't care whether it creates fear or not. That is for the individual to decide, and not be broadly assumed or cast by you. I am saying that it's good advice to know your breeder and nuc producer. I have stated that I know two that I know of, (out of how many, I don't know) that sell nucs. These same producers have had AFB in the past and only keep it in check with regimented treatments, have openly touted their own position of having 30 year old comb, and are the same who have had CCD problems. And now we are getting reports of chemical tainting on levels that could NOT be achieved by using the strips as directed. That levels would only suggest some off label use was in play.

I stand by my comments. If you want to suggest that others should not consider my advice, thats for them to decide. I am merely stating what I know, what I have seen, and what is "best advice" in my world.


----------



## Chef Isaac (Jul 26, 2004)

Bjorn is just trying to say that it is recommend to be vigulant (sp?) of who you buy from. 

This concept is not new. You want to know where you buy your car from right? Or where you shop for fish and meat, right? Same concept as when you buy queens and nucs.


----------



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

BB, I hate to ask a simple question and step into the crossfire,  but am I remembering correctly in that some of the CCD cases were in colonies that had no chemical treatments at all? I tried to find links to what I _think_ I remember but I forgot where they are.
Sheri


----------



## gingerbee (Jul 22, 2006)

BjornBee said:


> Anybody willing to open their eyes, and of course anyone not willing too, are smacked in the face by report after report of chemical contamination and problems of CCD by these very same people I mention.


That's putting forth the idea that CCD is caused by chemicals. And the assumption follows-



BjornBee said:


> Now some of the same people now have CCD, samples of tested comb with unbelievable levels of chemical tainting,....and none of this makes any sense to you or you are willing to just "say it ain't so"...because I refuse to name a few names. Oh well......


And the assumption that once a beeyard has AFB if that beeyard stops chemical treatment the AFB will return is not science, it is your opinion. 

Beesource has a place for posting problems/accolades for suppliers. Instead of spreading rumors and misinformation, maybe all would be best served by your posting there who these suppliers of heavily chemically tainted nuc comb are. If you are standing by your words, then take a stand. While I appreciate your concern about chemical tainting and unsafe levels of chemicals, don't just talk it up and get things going that may not be true.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Wrong on both accounts.

I'm saying facts. That samples tested for CCD are also testing for high levels of chemicals. I never said one caused the other. But a by-product of having CCD samples tested is the CLEAR evidence that chemicals, on levels that can only be achieved by RAMPANT use of off-label and illegal use.

If you go back and read my original comments about AFB, I said "may" happen. That was in reference to suggesting that if nucs are bought from AFB hives that have been routinely treated to hide and mask the disease, then an unsuspecting beekeeper who does not keep up those treatments "MAY" get the disease. Sound advice for sure. Buying contaminated frames, as with nuc purchases are the number one way of getting AFB.

So NO on both accounts. I never said CCD was caused by chemicals. And no, I never said a beekeeper would get AFB. 

You act as if this discussion about tainted comb, what unsuspecting beekeeper should be aware of, and any dangers involved in such matters, should be slid under the rug or only whispered in the darkest of corners. Why? I see this as a real problem, a real danger, and something others should be concerned with. But you get hung up trying to have me define "rampant", and claim I'm spreading fear.

I know I would think twice about those who are the big boys when it comes to chemical contamination, whether CCD can be spread through nuc sales, buying 30 year old comb, and other issues including AFB. To say all this with not one example ever being known, then it pure speculation. But since it has happened in the past, and some do question such things as high levels of supersedure from queen that came with extremely old comb, perhaps from large migratory outfits, then yes, this discussion is warranted.

I'll say again, from my own experience and knowledge....be aware of who you buy nucs from. Even though I see the advertisements of some of those who have had RAMPANT CCD, and now the evidence points towards extremely high levels of chemical poisoning, I'd pay heed against buying such nucs. I'm NOT calling people out by name. I'm not endorsing one or another. But as Chef said, ask questions. And if the person answering the phone can not answer the question, then the company needs to get someone else to answer the phone, or the caller needs to move on.

Whether its fear mongering or not, this stuff is happening in the industry and letting people know about it is a service. Something to be grateful for. Not something to hide.


----------



## IndianaHoney (Jun 5, 2006)

I do have to agree with Bjorn, tainted comb can be a major problem. Its like sleeping around, do it enough and you're bound to catch something. Buy enough nucs and you're bound to catch something. But I'm not, and I don't thing Bjorn is saying that we shouldn't buy nucs, just know your source.


----------



## Velbert (Mar 19, 2006)

*Tore down Queen cells*

If you checked your cell builder during the time of day that the queen takes a flight you could have missed her,

Had 2 cell builders tare down cells all but 2or 3 come to find out I had a virgin queen got into the cell builder or I missed a rouge EM Cell 

Also seen when a heavy honey flow got started they would tare down most of the Q Cells


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

Now.. Now... Children!


----------



## Flint (Jun 2, 2008)

Wow, it's getting nasty in here.
If BB learned the information he has during his time as a state bee inspector, then I think he has an ethical obligation to NOT divulge names. However, speaking in general terms would be acceptable. Both of which he has done, to his credit. No one is claiming that all commmercial beekeeping operations are bad, just that there might be a couple around that could stand to be a little more scrupulous. Shocking, I know, but not that hard to imagine.


----------



## Chef Isaac (Jul 26, 2004)

The original point of Bjorn was to know who your supplier is.... thats that. easy, simple, practical, and sound advice.


----------



## IndianaHoney (Jun 5, 2006)

I agree, I don't think Bjorn's agenda was to harm another beekeeper's operation with rumors or give anyone a bad reputation. As I said in my analogy (sp?), buying nucs or used equipment is just like sleeping around, eventually you're going to catch something. I don't think Bjorn is saying that we shouldn't buy nucs, just know who you are getting them from. Be aware of the dangers, watch for signs of deseases, and take action before it spreads.

If I buy nucs I place them in a yard by themselves for a while and monitor for brood deases before I will move them to a yard with other hives. Also keep in mind that every single hive without exception, has AFB spores. AFB is a stress desease, keep the hives strong, remove old comb and any outbrakes will be rare. For those who disagree with this statement, check with Purdue University.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Flint said:


> Wow, it's getting nasty in here.


Yes it is. Warning shot fired!


----------



## Tom G. Laury (May 24, 2008)

*Cells torn down*

According to your post, 10 days after grafting cells were destroyed. There was a virgin in there from something, like a larvae older than 48 hrs, or a rogue cell started on a frame or even a virgin entering the entrance. Some q raisers put excluders under hive body to prevent this. If builder was truly queenless they would be intact. Grafting from a larvae 12 hrs older will have the first virgin emerge 12 hrs before the rest.


----------



## gingerbee (Jul 22, 2006)

IndianaHoney said:


> I agree, I don't think Bjorn's agenda was to harm another beekeeper's operation with rumors or give anyone a bad reputation.


If I was going to buy bees and saw that post I would have reservations about buying nucs from commercial beekeepers in Pennsylvania. How are you supposed to 'know' your suppliers? There is a good way to address such issues, to get and give feedback regarding them- the Consumer Report section is for that. Mike does a disservice to anyone selling nucs around him- and gains if they buy nucs from him instead. He sets himself up as the good guy, the one to buy from. Intentional or not, I don't think that's fair.

Mike responded as if I'd not wanted the dangers of excessive chemicals in combs, possible presence of disease discussed, when in fact I asked for disclosure and facts. When I questioned him about it he became defensive and entrenched in his position, acting as if I did not want people aware of this or protected from these practices.


----------



## high rate of speed (Jan 4, 2008)

Well said sheri.By the way where can one get these so called CCD samples tested.lol


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

JohnK and Sheri said:


> BB, I hate to ask a simple question and step into the crossfire,  but am I remembering correctly in that some of the CCD cases were in colonies that had no chemical treatments at all? I tried to find links to what I _think_ I remember but I forgot where they are.
> Sheri



I guess if you define chemical poisoning to only those which are applied by beekeepers, then I think there are a few.

But the report I just saw a couple weeks back from Maryann Frazier went like this.....

There were something like 87 chemicals found thus far in CCD samples, crossing all lines of types, to include fungicides, neonicotinoids, beekeeper chemicals, etc.

It was interesting on a couple of points.

Some of the chemicals that belong to the band wagon crowd, as I like to call them, were found in levels around 30% of samples tested.

The number one and number two chemicals found, by a percentage of found, were apistan and checkmite products. They were found in 100% of samples tested.

The levels found on many samples, although not studied to the point of clarity, clearly were beyond levels anyone could conceive possible by use of strips as directed by the label. Thus suggesting a whole lot of home-brews being poured into those hives.

Both Fluvalinate and coumophose were also found in trapped pollen suggesting levels being carried and transferred by the bees. (They use some liquid to ball up the pollen and it suggests internal levels.)

Commercial wax also was found to have levels of these chemicals.

My guess...at the end of the day, IF chemicals are found to be part of CCD, it will be found that no one chemical is at fault. but by having the bees subjected to many types of chemicals at one time, the concoction becomes much more deadlier. Basically, if two non-lethal chemicals are mixed, they together become super toxic. Thus perhaps then further allowing immune systems weakening, and other factors (viral) to come into play.

This "nobody at fualt" thing will play out that no particular chemical, company or product will be held accountable, since individually the products did not cause CCD. And we can only guess as to perhaps how healthy the bees could be IF beekeepers themselves were not the worst culprits in contaminating their own hives.


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

BjornBee said:


> This "nobody at fualt" thing will play out that no particular chemical, company or product will be held accountable, since individually the products did not cause CCD. And we can only guess as to perhaps how healthy the bees could be IF beekeepers themselves were not the worst culprits in contaminating their own hives.


Well, me is trying to stay out of the cross fire too BUT...

"nobody at fualt" this btw has no reflection on BB.

The olny person at fault with CCD is looking at themself's in the mirror for NOT taking care of there bees.

P.S 300 colt/Saur mag


----------



## gingerbee (Jul 22, 2006)

Barry,

You have deleted posts here also?

Sheri- 

You are right. For clarity

Occurance of CCD in organic hives has been reported, by the National Honey Bee Loss Survey

http://beealert.blackfoot.net/~beealert/UpdatedSurveyResultsJune19_2007.pdf and by the CCD Working Group

http://www.beeculture.com/content/C...DFs/1 Initial Report From Malcolm Sanford.pdf

which says "At least one “organic” beekeeper with new equipment has reported the disorder, leaving in doubt concerns that pesticides employed by beekeepers for mite and beetle control are a cause."

Here is the article on CCD by Maryann Frazier

http://beediary.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/whatpesticidestodowithitjune08abj-1.pdf

In it, and in testimony to Congress she states that "Unprecedented amounts of fluvalinate (up to 204 ppm) at high frequencies have been detected in brood nest wax, and pollen (bee bread). Changes in the formulation of fluvalinate over time resulting in a significant increase in toxicity to honey bees, makes this a serious concern." 

Fluvalinate is found in Aspian strips. Coumaphos is found in Bayer Bee Strips and Checkmite. The use of these strips is limited in Florida to a maximum of 360,000, 300,000 to control Varroa mite and 60,000 to control the small hive beetle. Other states may have different requirements. Coumaphos "has a high affinity for beeswax and the possibility of it being absorbed into this recyclable bee product is high. This has already happened for fluvalinate." http://apis.ifas.ufl.edu/apis99/apjan99.htm Other pesticides include amitraz, neonicotinioids including imidacloprid, clothianiden and thiamethoxam. 

I think Mike is right about old brood comb, if chemicals have been used in the hives repeatedly. It may pose a risk. At least that is my feeling as an organic beekeeper. I have just removed some old brood comb and though I have not used chemicals, these chemicals amy have been used in this comb. I will not be rendering this into usable wax and selling it back to Dadant, etc for reuse as a wax to make new foundation with. 

Could changes in formulation of fluvalinate this account for the following? 

Bjorn writes: "The levels found on many samples, although not studied to the point of clarity, clearly were beyond levels anyone could conceive possible by use of strips as directed by the label. Thus suggesting a whole lot of home-brews being poured into those hives."

Perhaps Mike could share the article that provides the levels found on many samples that are beyond levels of use as directed by the labels and clarify which chemicals are in question in this regard.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

gingerbee said:


> Barry,
> 
> You have deleted posts here also?


Yep. Same as the other thread.


----------



## JPK (May 24, 2008)

Definately one of the better/more informative threads I have read.

As a new beek I would love to hear some of your strategies and suggestions along with time of year to apply in order to better control pests/disease without chemicals (as much as possible)

I have been told that veg shortening/sugar patties and/or menthol will help keep trach mites under control and powedered sugar treatments can help reduce varroa mites, menthol but what alternatives exist for some of the foulbrood varieties and what time of year should they be used?


----------



## Joseph Clemens (Feb 12, 2005)

JPK1NH,
Perhaps my procedures concerning pesticide use in and around my beehives may not be viable for everyone, but it has worked for me since the early 60's.

Other than trying a little Certan® for wax moth control - I've never used any pesticides on my bees or in my beehives. I've never had any colony losses. I've not observed any obvious loss of production due to my lack of pesticide use. I get Cordovan Italian queens from Koehnen's and most of my hives are headed by daughters or granddaughters of those queens (not AHB's).

Word about the use of any potent pesticide in beehives certainly causes me concern. If they go into beehives, how can honey be the pure food it was meant to be? Who would combine their larder/pantry with pesticide storage?


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Joseph Clemens said:


> I get Cordovan Italian queens from Koehnen's and most of my hives are headed by daughters or granddaughters of those queens (not AHB's).


How do you know that those daughters and granddaughters aren't AHB?


----------



## Joseph Clemens (Feb 12, 2005)

beemandan said:


> How do you know that those daughters and granddaughters aren't AHB?


For me, that's the beauty of using Cordovan Italian queens and bees. I know that they are not AHB because they are homozygous for the recessive Cordovan trait (if they are AHB, it would have to have been bred into them intentionally). However, their daughters that show normal coloration are only half-Cordovan and their obviously non-Cordovan father drone could possibly have donated AHB genetics. I do have some hives where these open mated Cordovan queens have workers that are predominantly normal colored. A few of these colonies also develop into uncomfortably defensive hives. Those queens I cull and replace until those colonies acquire the desired temperament.

More often, the possibly AHB trait that I work to eliminate from my hives is called nervous or runny. Potentially related to absconding, hives with this trait often run out of the hive and cluster on the outside, just from the disturbance of being opened, but more readily if smoke is used.


----------

