Send your feedback by email to editor@bee-craft.com facebook to @BeeCraftMagazine twitter to @BeeCraftMag


LETTER wins a


STAR


personalised hive tool


Butler’s queen


introduction cage Peter W Tomkins As someone who assisted Colin Butler with


the development of his introduction cage, I have a comment about Andrew Gibbs’s article (March).


A great deal of time was spent in determining the optimum size of mesh for the cage. The mesh had to have an aperture that would allow bees to make antennal contact with the queen and feed her but not damage her in anyway. Although the cages sold commercially and advertised as ‘Butler Cages’ have similar external dimensions, the mesh apertures rarely comply with Butler’s criterion.


A trial involving many beekeepers from all over the UK resulted in an acceptance success rate of 98%. However, in later years, as head apiarist at Rothamsted, I had the annoying experience of losing a high percentage of a consignment of purchased queens.


My assistant, Bob Hadley, did some tests and discovered that when using a single thickness of paper under certain conditions and when introduced to strong aggressive colonies, queens could be released in a mater of minutes. It was then that I went over to using queen-cage candy.


One-inch-wide insulating tape is wound round the cage at the open end. The queen alone is placed in the cage and the end is filled to the depth of the tape with very stiff candy. Fondant or tissue paper are not suitable. Since adopting this method some 40 years ago, I have not lost one queen on introduction.


Coincidentally, when introducing virgin queens at Rothamsted, James Simpson would jam a boiled sweet in the open end of the cage hence delaying release even further.


Compensation for foulbrood Martin Smith, BDI President


I read with interest the article by Chris Rawlings (March) and how he very clearly identified the signs of American foulbrood (AFB) and took appropriate action.


I would like to remind readers that members of beekeeping associations that belong to Bee Diseases Insurance Ltd (BDI) are entitled to compensation for the destruction of equipment as a result of a notifiable disease such as AFB. The bee inspector will help you complete the claim form which will be dealt with speedily by our claims manager. BDI is entirely staffed by volunteers who work from home, but we pride ourselves in dealing with claims in a timely and friendly


Bee Craſt April 2020


manner, thereby easing the costs associated with an outbreak of foulbrood.


For outbreaks of European foulbrood (EFB), we are working with the bee inspectors to offer shook swarms of affected apiaries for a two-year trial starting in 2020. We hope this will reduce the rates of re-infection (for details, see www.beediseasesinsurance.co.uk).


BDI was set up 80 years ago to encourage the reporting of notifiable diseases by offering compensation for equipment and honey destroyed as a result of notification. Our insurance cover and the research we fund aim to ensure we have as healthy bee population as is possible.


‘Hive Mind’ (March) called for appropriate names for bees and beekeepers. Harry Siviter (@harrysiviter) tweeted this: “Just learnt that there is a bumblebee species called the confusing bumblebee (or Bombus perplexus). This made me smile.”


Good practice and practicality Greg Nutgens, Porthcawl, Bridgend


Dr Chris Palgrave’s excellent article about American Foulbrood (March) states that one should ‘never feed honey or pollen from one colony to another as it may contain AFB spores’. While there is clearly a risk, it is very small unless AFB has been found in the apiary or nearby, and in practical terms the advice becomes very difficult to manage.


Colonies oſten die out because of failed queens, and one is leſt with combs full of unripe honey and pollen. Should we destroy such combs, or feed them to other colonies?


We are told that we should ensure that frames and supers should be kept with the same hive. This is easy with one or two hives but becomes very difficult as the number of hives increases.


To ensure no cross contamination, we would have to extract one hive at a time, and clean the equipment between hives, which would be unmanageable with a large number of hives. I personally try to deal with each apiary separately, but not each hive.


I think the phrase such as ‘where possible’ is a useful qualification to such advice. Otherwise, beekeeping may become impossibly complicated and onerous, especially for beginners.


Chris Palgrave replies:


Thank you for your constructive feedback. Given space limitations, my main aim was to provide 10 clear bullet points to which we should aspire to minimise the chance of disease. Unfortunately, there wasn’t room for the more nuanced discussion, but I accept that an initial sentence tempering these points may have been useful.


I agree that it is impractical to adhere rigidly to these points at all times. As Greg points out, it is about making sure we


7


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48