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:
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 29 Dec 2010 15:59:57 GMT
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (28 lines)
Phil Starks at Tufts (with others, including Seely) found chalkbrood infections caused the bees to raise the hive temperature (presumably to control the infection):
http://ase.tufts.edu/biology/labs/starks/PDF/Starks%20et%20al.%202000.pdf

As an aside on this topic...someone (Randy?) was recently talking about using ground up bees as an innoculant....Starks et al. uncovered some alarming assumptions in this regard:
http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/entomology/apiculture/PDF%20files/Johnson_et.al.2005.pdf
"The pathogenic fungus Ascosphaera apis is the causative agent of the brood disease chalkbrood in honey bee (Apis mellifera) larvae. Infected, hardened larvae – in a powdered form – have been used to inoculate experimental honey bee colonies. While attempting to grow a pure isolate of A. apis from chalkbrood infected larvae, we discovered (via Gram staining and sequencing of the 5.8S rDNA region) that the inoculum also harbours many species of bacteria and additional species of fungi. Some of these fungi have been identified previously as antagonists of A. apis. It is not surprising that bacteria and fungi grow on dead bees; however, our data indicate that previous experiments intended to study the effects of A. apis in honey bees have rather studied the response of honey bees to a cocktail of fungal and bacterial agents. Accordingly, our results indicate that previous research on the A. apis-honey bee disease system was not specific to A. apis and raise the possibility that the observed honey bee response may have been muted, magnified, or both."

I'm pretty sure that I've seen some data to suggest they raise the temp. for nosema as well, but I can't put my fingers on it at the moment.

This document:
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:HUOI5MqJcOEJ:www.wvu.edu/~agexten/varroa/2010/PaperPads-Oct09.pdf+formic+acid+varroa+florida&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgItn_NclcLAITjfyV0h0MCSQUk55VJ1AxSDHPpq2_A0PJWIQrGU5S2pDY8AI4ck-vkc0MmzEoWbYeikzJcmgDOgY5tsAWLUeVCJSG5jrYikCqRHcuf6a--VYrMyQvSvcgK1Mr6&sig=AHIEtbQAhv801QWSk2TtOJPgzqIY5eu6nA
....seems to show that with the formic acid treatment used here that the hive temp was raised to 97.

A few questions:
1.  how are the stores in the warmer hive compared with the others?  (colonies that need stores are often observed to be more active than those set for winter stores).

2.  was the warmer hive fed sugar syrup without fumidil...or was it not fed?

deknow

             ***********************************************
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

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm

ATOM RSS1 RSS2