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
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Sender:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 29 Mar 2020 08:14:51 -0700
Reply-To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
MIME-Version:
1.0
Message-ID:
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
From:
randy oliver <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (48 lines)
>
> >In terms of the Saudi study being cited, the results seem almost to
> perfect. The uniform decline in every age-related metric seems suspect.
> Knowing more about the methodology and the chemical analysis of each
> comb-year would help.


I have similar questions about many studies (in general), especially those
from certain countries.  The results are simply too clean, or the
experimental details are foggy.

My take is that "age" (as defined by the calendar) has little to do with
it.  A few weeks ago I spotted a comb in our operation that had a
foundation that I ceased using some 25 years ago.  Somehow that comb had
never gotten rotated out during our annual sale of nucs, in which we sell
off roughly a fifth of our combs each year.

What is more biologically relevant than chronological age are a number of
other possible factors:
*Size reduction in the cells due to the buildup of cocoons.
*Possible contamination with persistent pathogens, such as spore-forming
bacteria or microsporidians, or persistent viruses or fungi.  In our
operation, the only one that we worry about is AFB.
*Possible contamination with persistent pesticides (notably chlorpyrifos).
This is more likely to occur where there are regular agricultural or
landscape pesticide applications taking place.
*Possible contamination with persistent miticides (fluvalinate, coumaphos,
2,4-DMPF).  There is no need for beekeepers to use such persistent
miticides.
*Possible contamination with other environmental toxins (hydrocarbons,
heavy metals, other xenochemicals).  This has been clearly found by Jerry
Bromenshenk.

Bottom line: Take a look at a brood comb when it is covered with capped,
ready-to-emerge pupae.  If the pattern is solid, and the workers emerge
looking OK, the comb is likely all right.  And yes, I realize that there
may be long-term sublethal issues subsequently affecting the adults, but if
the colony population is growing "normally" than I wouldn't worry.
-- 
Randy Oliver
Grass Valley, CA
www.ScientificBeekeeping.com

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

ATOM RSS1 RSS2