BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Tim Arheit <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 15 Feb 2008 00:06:39 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (15 lines)
>Queens are reared in their own, freshly drawn, cells.  Granted there  may be 
>a degree of recycling of wax within the hive, but even so, the new queens  are 
>likely to have cradles much less contaminated than their plebeian  sisters.

I've found it can vary significantly depending on the nectar flow or if you are feeding the cell builder.  In general you probably don't get much wax reuse in queen cells, but at times during the year the queen cells are significantly darker indicating that wax reuse was likely.

We shouldn't forget the other half of puzzle.  Drones are often raised in the old damaged comb that should have been melted down years ago and we don't know how susceptible they may be to most of these chemicals.   We already know that coumaphos, fluvalinate, and Apilife VAR have a significant negative effect on viability and/or quantity of sperm.   ( http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-08162007-092313/ )  Could this have a noticeable impact on the queens reared both during and for several weeks after a spring varroa treatment?   I believe they've also shown that comb with acceptable levels of contamination by coumaphos also causes similar drone problems.

-Tim 

****************************************************
* General Information About BEE-L is available at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm   *
****************************************************

ATOM RSS1 RSS2