|
From: Jerry J Bromenshenk [jjbmail@SELWAY.UMT.EDU]
Sent: May 19, 2001 3:05 PM
To:
BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu
Subject: Don't buy any queens...
Allen Dick posted a nice synopsis of the fast-freeze liquid nitrogen
method
used to assay honey bee colonies for hygienic behavior.
We developed this procedure under funding from the U.S. EPA and posted
it
to our web pages several years ago.
Marla Spivak later wrote an article in Bee Culture describing our
procedure
and how it compared to the one described by Steve Taber.
Steve and others cut out bits of comb, freeze them overnight in a
freezer,
and then return them to the hive. We found this to be too time consuming
and the act of cutting the comb often induced vigorous house cleaning
activities. We were never able to get consistent results with this
method.
With the liquid nitrogen procedure and a sharpened tube (we used metal
flashing rather than a soup can), you get a consistent amount of damage
to
the comb; the liquid nitrogen thoroughly kills the brood, and you don't
have to try to re-insert a piece of cut-out comb.
Pat Heitkam, a queen producer in California, was the first to try our
method in a commercial application mode. I told him about the method at
breakfast at an ABF meeting in Portland. He had been working with Marla
on
breeding for this trait. Marla thought he would have trouble getting the
nitrogen, but Pat was able to borrow a Dewar from a local veterinarian,
who
used it in his artificial insemination of livestock. Pat quickly became
convinced that it was a fast and practical method, and he was able to get
a
Dewar and find a local supplier was happy to sell him the nitrogen (the
same one supply the nitrogen to the vet). (In the U.S., you can usually
buy or rent Dewars - check with the companies that sell gases for medical
or industrial purposes).
You don't need to freeze a very large area - in fact the test is a bit
more
sensitive if you freeze small areas of brood. But you must thoroughly
freeze the brood. Medhat was using a double treatment with liquid
nitrogen
to be sure that the brood was frozen. We usually just checked the
opposite
side of the comb. If the brood is frozen solid on the underside of the
comb, in addition to the area where you poured the nitrogen, you can be
sure the brood has been killed. But don't use so much nitrogen that it
pours over the sides of the tube and kills most of the surrounding brood
-
you want a nice, clean delineation as illustrated by Allen and on our
pages.
And one more caution, if you don't think liquid nitrogen is cold, drop
a
rubber ball into it (on a string). Pull it out and toss it onto a
concrete
sidewalk. It will shatter.
One word of caution - as stated on Allen's site, liquid nitrogen can
cause
serious burns. Protective clothing includes gloves, BUT NOT JUST ANY OLD
GLOVES. Cloth gloves may be worse than no gloves at all, because the
liquid will pass right through the fabric and the gloves will hold it
against your skin. Be sure that the gloves are made of a material that
will not pass liquids through.
Jerry
Jerry J. Bromenshenk, Ph.D.
Director, DOE/EPSCoR & Montana Organization for Research in Energy
The University of Montana-Missoula
Missoula, MT 59812-1002
E-Mail: jjbmail@selway.umt.edu
Tel: 406-243-5648
Fax: 406-243-4184
http://www.umt.edu/biology/more
http://www.umt.edu/biology/bees
And from a private communication discussing this liquid nitrogen
technique which he and his group developed over a two year period
as an alternate to the previous methods which involving cutting chunks
of comb or pin pricks. (His LN technique was subsequently
adopted
and popularized by Marla Spivak.):
..I am glad people are using the procedure that we developed...
...The queen breeders have simplified it - all or nothing. Actually, the
original test scores the percentage of cells 1) opened, and 2) emptied.
There are two recessive genes working here (if we believe the
geneticists).
One for uncapping, the other for removal. Real colonies vary along a
graded response from 0-100%. However, Pat Heitkham, as a practical
breeder, had to find a quicker metric, so he went with all or none...
Jerry
Jerry J. Bromenshenk, Ph.D.
Director, DOE/EPSCoR & Montana Organization for Research in Energy
The University of Montana-Missoula
Missoula, MT 59812-1002
From: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sent: June 16, 2001 3:08 AM
To:
BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu
Subject: Re: Don't buy and queens...
> ...Bob commented about the issue of open
> mated production queens resulting in a lower level of hygenic
> behavior or SMR trait. In both cases researchers have done tests and
> have shown that the selected X nonselected cross shows intermediate
> levels of the selected trait i.e. not as good as the selected parent
> but considerably better than nonselected stock. Both were shown by
> this testing to have much better disease ( hygenic ) or mite ( SMR )
> resistance than the nonselected stock they were crossed with. Bottom
> line: even if you don't control the mating you will get some
> improvement in the first year.
That is encouraging.
I would also like to add that the belief that perfection may not be
achieved
immediately -- or ever -- is no reason not to start in that direction.
For that matter, no one knows exactly what degree of hygienic
behaviour (HB) is
desirable, and if it can be overdone. Maybe, in the extreme, it has a
downside.
Maybe a consistent 50% is all we need. Maybe even 20% across the board
(or even
just eliminating those that score near zero) can make a huge difference
-- or
mean the difference between never seeing any AFB and having a bonfire.
People are assuming that scoring 100% on the HB test is desirable --
and
necessary. It is not. I think we must remember that the HB tests are
extremely
rigourous artificial benchmarks, and no one knows what level of HB test
performance is necessary to get some significant improvement in AFB
resistance
in real life.
Apparently it does not take much HB to knock out all signs of
chalkbrood. It is
not hard to visualize how *even a little resistance to AFB*, and the
resulting
early cleanup of diseased pupae, could prevent spore formation in hives
that
have only an occasional diseased cell. This could ultimately protect the
hive -- and perhaps subsequently the whole operation or neighbourhood --
from
avalanching into AFB breakdown. HB is a finger in the dyke.
As it stands now, some bees in circulation are very susceptible to
AFB. Once
the hives they occupy break down with a few cells, then the rest of the
hive
gets contaminated and there is a serious risk to surrounding bees, even
those
that do have a higher breakdown threshold. This is due to the high levels
of
AFB spores that have been incubated in the susceptible hives and which
get
distributed in the normal course of bee and human activity. Eliminating
extremely susceptible bees from the general population by flooding
neighbourhoods with increased levels of HB will make it much harder for
AFB to
get a foothold.
AFB starts with one or two hives in a yard breaking down, then that
disease is
spread through the other hives by the beekeeper and the bees. If that
initial
breakdown never happens, then we will never know how we have been saved
from
disaster.
Black and white thinking and an emphasis on 'perfection or nothing'
can keep us
from many worthwhile projects. In this case perfection is not necessary
and
perhaps not even desirable. A little improvement in resistance could save
a lot
of money, and constant pressure towards the goal of increased HB
(together with
determining an ideal level of the trait) will pay huge dividends over
time.
allen
http://www.honeybeeworld.com//diary/
PS: I wonder what those using the current hygienic stocks are
experiencing in
terms of AFB breakdowns and subsequent cleanup. I also wonder what the
perspective on HB is from those countries which do not permit use of
drugs to
prevent AFB, and if they are using the HB test to improve their stocks.
As I
indicated in a previous post, some Australian bees I have here
demonstrate truly
amazing levels of chalkbrood, so I am wondering if HB awareness is
strictly a
North American phenomenon.
From: Steve Moye <steve_moye@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 18:08:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Don't buy and queens...
To: bee-l@listserv.albany.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
If you need liquid nitrogen to freeze brood for
hygienic behavior determination, you can transport it
in a coffee Thermos. Sources of nitrogen include
industrial gas suppliers, beef and diary farmers who
perform artificial insemination and store bull semen in
nitrogen, dermatologists, and some family practice or
internal medicine physicians who use it to freeze skin
lesions, and researchers who use it for a variety of
purposes.
You can also transport liquid nitrogen for short
periods in a styrofoam coffee cup. If the cup were to
break you could put yourself in danger as the cold
nitrogen will frostbite your skin.
From: BOGANSKY,RONALD J.
[BOGANSRJ@APCI.COM]
Sent: May 21, 2001 12:37 PM
To:
BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu
Subject: Liquid Nitrogen Safety
Hello All,
I have been following the thread on hygienic behavior. If we follow
Allen's
advice (and Steve Taber's before him) a number of folks will be using, or
attempting to use liquid nitrogen (LIN). I think the information on
Allen's
website is excellent. I just want to talk a little about the safe
handling
of the product.
There are two major hazards associated with LIN. First, the obvious,
cold
temperature. LIN can freeze flesh on contact. The best protection comes
from LOOSE FITTING leather gloves thick enough to offer cold protection.
Leather welding gloves are excellent for this. There are also some
leather/polyester combination gloves sold for handling cryogenic
products.
It is important that the glove is loose fitting. In the event that you
spill (and you will) or come in direct contact with the LIN it is
important
to quickly remove the glove. You can shake off a loose fitting glove with
one hand. If the glove is tight, the time spent trying to remove it can
allow a burn to occur. (Cryogenic "burns" are painful). Do not use
plastic
or rubber gloves as they offer little thermal protection. When pouring
the
LIN it will spatter and splash, similar to a drop of water on a very hot
pan. For this reason I highly recommend using safety glasses.
The other hazard is the liquid to gas expansion ratio. One volume of
LIN
will expand to 697 equivalent volumes of gas. This is a major concern
when
working in a confined space where the oxygen can be displaced by the
nitrogen resulting in an asphyxiation hazard. If you are working outside,
or in areas of good ventilation this hazard is greatly reduced. However,
this expanding gas will build pressure rapidly if confined. There was a
suggestion that LIN can be transported in a coffee thermos. Although they
are not sold for that purpose I suppose they work, although I would not
use
a plastic one. At cold temperatures the plastic will become brittle and
break. Most importantly, DO NOT SEAL THE THERMOS with its cap. A piece of
loose fitting Styrofoam with a small vent hole can be safely used as a
lid.
This will allow the expanding gas to escape without building pressure
while
keeping the liquid from spilling out. Periodically check to ensure it is
loose and has not become a frozen plug.
For additional safety information on liquid nitrogen you can visit the
below
website.
http://www3.airproducts.com/productstewardship/product-safety/safetygrams/sfgrm7.pdf
For a liquid nitrogen material safety data sheet (in Microsoft Word
format) visit:
http://www3.airproducts.com/productstewardship/product-safety/msds/lookup.asp?letter=N
To get a faxed copy of the MSDS:
http://www3.airproducts.com/productstewardship/product-safety/msds/
I hope this information is helpful.
Ron Bogansky
Kutztown, (eastern) PA, USA
Although I hate disclaimers:
The above information and opinions are my own and are not associated with
nor do they reflect that of my employer.
Introduction | About
| How to | Safety | Comments
| Contact allen dick } |