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:
James Fischer <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
Mon, 11 Nov 2002 01:27:39 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (136 lines)
Dee Lusby offered:

> In the beginning, the honeybee colony is in perfect health
> without diseases, pests and parasites, with final stage the
> scavengers (beetles here) coming in for the cleanup on the kill.

This description differs widely from what is being reported by
those who have small hive beetle problems.  SHB are not reported
to overwhelm just the "weak and sick" colonies, they are said to
overwhelm any and all colonies.  I've yet to hear anyone say
that "strong colonies can repell SHB".

SHB are not acting as "scavengers" like wax moths - they are
a unique event, apparently independent of how one manages
one's bees.  (A lack of attention to honey house and equipment
storage housekeeping does seem to be a way of helping SHB,
though.)

> Then through the combination of placement on improper sized
> brood combs for localized gergraphic regions, and improper
> nutritional needs over extended periods of time, the colony
> develops the loss of this healthy condition. (here mongrel
> complex matings come into play also worsening and speeding
> up the collapse).  Stress factors weaken the honeybee's
> natural defense system inherent within the hive.

Regardless of one's view of size of brood combs, and
their relationship to the other factors listed, what does
ANY this have to do with SHB?

> Here besides improper cell size giving way to improper diet
> and improper outbreeding,

More claims about cell size phrased as if they were facts,
but again - what does this have to do with SHB?

> beekeepers also compound the problem

Which problem?  Apparently not SHB.

> with improper sequencing of combs stressing
> colonies further creating severe stress upon division of
> labor which enhances disease and pest and parasite problems
> and the circle is compounded and worsened.

The jury is still out on those claims, but I'm still looking
in vain for some hint as to the relationship to SHB.

> So yes, placement back onto small natural cell size within
> the spectrum of natural sizing mostly 4.7mm to 4.9mm top
> tolerance here for gaining variability on the lower end
> will help to regain balance for a healthy diet, with better
> outmating/breeding and yes, more bees for better division
> of labor and force enough to keep problems under control.

Perhaps the above relates to SHB.  Are you are saying in the above that:

a) A strong healthy colony can keep SHB under control?

b) That no such colonies currently exist in Florida or other
    areas being infested with SHB?

c) That such colonies can only exist on small-cell comb?

If so, let's get some existing small-cell colonies to Florida
ASAP, put them in an SHB-infested yard, and see what happens!

Any takers?

> You must remember that mites and diseases are not the
> problem,

I disagree very strongly with the line above.

Invasive exotic diseases and pests that get across the oceans
ARE the problem.  They were not here before.  They are now.
The bees have not changed much in the past century or so, and
neither have beekeeping practices.  Now a number of very smart
people are working hard to change both.  Why?  Simply to keep
the bees alive long enough that one can make a profit "keeping bees",
or at least actually keep the bees alive.

Traditionally, (from roughly the beginning of recorded time until a few
decades ago) a person of average intelligence and even below-average
work ethic could "succeed" at beekeeping (in other words, keep his or
her hives alive with a high degree of certainty) using nothing more than
a few simple rules of thumb.  Not much more complicated than having
a vegetable garden.

Even when force-fit into ever-more ridiculous "patent beehives",
in the late 1800s and early 1900s, the bees thrived.

Even when "managed" using approaches that are now known
to be not only wrong, but actually counter-productive, the bees
still did just fine, proving that they are highly adaptable creatures.

In a post-invasives environment, I need a decent microscope, a large
supply of thick books, a reasonable grasp of chemistry, and even petri
dishes just to DIAGNOSE the diseases/pests bees are MOST likely to
have due to their "universal" nature.  The unusual stuff I must send off to
a team of highly-skilled specialists with a bigger lab.

I'm not going to blame any of this on "foundation cell size".  I'm gonna
blame it on the well-known fact that for every invasive pest and disease
we have, someone screwed up royally, and BROUGHT IT HERE.

> One last thing. As far as I know beetles like mites have
> been associated with beehives all over for years.

Mites are not "like" beetles at all.

Mites and beetles are in two completely different orders.
Mites are in the order "Acari", and beetles in the order "Coleoptera".

(That's another thing about "modern beekeeping" - one needs to
brush up on one's long-forgotten prep-school Greek and Latin just to
understand what is being said at one's local beekeeping club meetings
these days!)

But we were not talking about other living things that one might just
happen to find in some beehives as an interesting sidenote to some
entomologist, we are talking about things that drive most rational people
to give up keeping bees.  SHB is just the latest invasive species doing
exactly that.

And the way things are looking with SHB, I think I had better renew my
explosives permits for next year.

I'm thinking napalm.

Trim the weeds and roast the SHB larave, all in one easy step.   :)



        jim

ATOM RSS1 RSS2