I think you got a good point Birdguy,
I'm a small bee keeper with around 5 hives, this year I was using pine needles first time because everybody is bragging about, never knew it's
this toxic. I will switch again to my usual burlap. I always try to use very little...see thread below.

Konrad

Here is a link that might be useful: smoke

I'm sorry, but I don't think smoke has anything to do with it. Beekeepers have been smoking bees for centuries.

Here is a link that might be useful: Other reasons, and don't forget poisons

"Beekeepers have been smoking bees for centuries."
That is exactly my point and poisoning every generation has finally taken it's toll. It is an ancient, primitive method. Maybe we should "bleed" the bees to rid them of evil spirits. People have been smoking tobacco for centuries, too.

Burlap is no better. The biologists I have talked to assumed beekeepers were using dry ice, the carbon dioxide stuns them without the toxins found in smoke. They are totally appalled that beekeepers have been using smoke. Everyone assumed beekeepers knew what they were doing. There is no non poisoning smoke, period.

I'm assuming that you have no scientific data to back up your conjecture since you've offered none.

You seem to be lacking any working knowledge of the use of smoke in beekeeping. This is obvious since you cite the surprise of a biologist who believed that beekeepers "stun" the bees.

The use of smoke is never to "stun" the bees. Properly used, a minimal bit of smoke is wafted across the entrance when opening the hive to "calm" the bees as you noted in quotes. The calming effect is the result of simply masking the alarm pheromones that call the rest of the hive to action.

Though you are unaware, any beekeeper knows that one does not "engulf" the bees with smoke. I just came in from working the bees, putting them to bed for the winter, so to speak. I lit the smoker and one puff across the bottom entrance and I opened the top. Took off the inner cover and was able to check the top hive body without any additional smoke. Took the box off to check the middle box and gave a puff across the top bars. This has the effect of encouraging the bees down into the frames so I could pull frames without hurting the bees. Taking the middle box off to do check the bottom brood box, the bees were a little more agitated and required two puffs across the frames to drive them down.

At no time are bees "engulfed" in smoke as you imagine they are. No bees are "stunned" as your expert biologists believe them to be. In fact, the vast majority of bees do not come in contact with smoke while their hive is being worked. Beekeepers do not "completely fill the hive with this smoke several times a year" as you claim. You claim that smoke from pine needles are toxic to bees. Have you scientific evidence to substantiate this? At what level is this assumed toxicity capable of harming bees? Under what conditions is this achieved?

While beekeepers are far more interested in the causes of colony collapse. Perhaps there is a hint of merit to some of your speculations, but you have offered nothing to indicate anything you have said is more than the merest speculation.

If you are going to scream at beekeepers to "QUIT POISONING THE BEES WITH SMOKE," you will have to offer a tidbit or two of documentation before anyone can take you seriously.

Wayne

Are you serious? No documentation? It has cost the tobacco industry billions of dollars from the amount of documentation on the effects smoke.
Just a whiff? If it affects them that means that it affects them.
No person in their right mind would anesthesize an animal with smoke. Name one other animal that people do that to.
Do you think would that the discontinuation of using smoke would harm them?

No one "anesthetizes" bees to work with them in a hive. You seem limited in your knowledge of beekeeping.

You say "if it affects them that means that it affects them." You have shown us nothing to document that the normal use of smoke in beekeeping "affects" bees beyond masking the alarm pheromones.

The science of the effects of tobacco smoke on human smokers is irrelevant to the discussion without demonstrating a corollary between the conditions. Volume, chemical content, effects of the various chemicals on the respiratory systems of the indicated species, etc, etc.

You have only an interesting hypothesis here. Nothing more.

Wayne

No one "anesthetizes" bees to work with them in a hive. You seem limited in your knowledge of beekeeping.

You say "if it affects them that means that it affects them." You have shown us nothing to document that the normal use of smoke in beekeeping "affects" bees beyond masking the alarm pheromones.

The science of the effects of tobacco smoke on human smokers is irrelevant to the discussion without demonstrating a corollary between the conditions. Volume, chemical content, effects of the various chemicals on the respiratory systems of the indicated species, etc, etc.

You have only an interesting hypothesis here. Nothing more.

Wayne

You obviously have no education in physiology or medicine. To calm or lower the metabolic rate of a living thing by introducing an agent is anesthetizing. And, yes, you are anesthetizing them.
I do have a degree in medicine, by the way.
Once again, do you think the discontinuation of smoking the bees would harm them?
And, once again, can you name any other animal that is "smoked" to calm it down? Wish I'd thought about that when my kids were growing up.
If someone came up with a toxin free method, would you adapt it? Or would you be bullheaded just to avoid changing?

"If someone came up with a toxin free method, would you adapt it? "

You should be asking if, should you demonstrate that there is any actual toxic affect on bees, would I adapt to it. The answer is of course I would. Use of a smoke is an inconvenience to most beekeepers. I await any evidence of toxicity due to the use of smoke. As yet, you haven't presented any.

Instead you post silly ideas such as "of course it calms them, they are poisoned into a semi comatose state." Any beekeeper knows how smoke works in beekeeping and would laugh themselves silly to hear they are working with bees in a "semi comatose state." Bees are every bit as active during hive manipulation after smoke is used as they would be otherwise. I do not have 60,000 formerly angry, stinging insects lying around passively while I work with them. Instead I still have thousands and thousands of bees crawling all over the frames, flying in and out of the hives bringing in pollen and nectar, a queen still wandering from cell to cell laying eggs and, on occasion, some still agitated bees flying around doing some serious head-butting with my veil.

Your claims seem to be based on the idea that smoke affects all living creatures the same, be they humans (or other mammals) or insects, despite the differences in physiology or the amount of smoke that the creature comes in contact with. You may really have a degree in medicine as you claim but I do not see evidence of any scientific basis to your claims. Were I to consult you as a medical professional, I would expect that you would prescribe treatment based on sound medical principles proven with scientific studies and data, not a forum post of undocumented hypothesis and screaming capital letters.

Begin by posting evidence to support your claims that bees are being killed by the normal use of smoke.

Wayne

The truth is that you are scared to death of bees and would do anything to protect yourself from them.. I don't blame you. I'm scared of them, too.
But, can you really argue that carbon monoxide and the rest of the pathogens and carcinogens found in smoke is good for bees? Or, at least, not good for them. Sorry, you have me laughing now.
What, in your mind, causes the bees to "calm" from smoke?
I need to hear your theory on that one. What do you think is the physiological effect?
By the way, this "theory" is being published worldwide as we speak and inspite of all the stagnant people who will be screaming it ain't so, within a couple of years, smoking bees will have come to pass as a primative method once used by beekeepers. That, my friend, is a fact.

"The truth is that you are scared to death of bees and would do anything to protect yourself from them.."

Not surprisingly, you have less knowledge about my fears than you have about the art of beekeeping. Unfortunately, you can't resist stating your musings as fact about either subject. The use of smoke is not for my protection. I'm wearing protective clothing. It is used for convenience and, more often than not, used for the safety of the bees themselves. A puff of smoke will drive the bees down into the frames where they will not be crushed by an upper super being placed upon the on a lower one.

"within a couple of years, smoking bees will have come to pass as a primative method once used by beekeepers. That, my friend, is a fact."

We'll see. It's not a fact, it is only your prognostication based on your unsupported hypothesis

"What, in your mind, causes the bees to "calm" from smoke?"

As I stated, smoke calms them by masking alarm pheromones. Another theory is that they smell smoke and prepare to flee the hive by gorging themselves on honey.

"can you really argue that carbon monoxide and the rest of the pathogens and carcinogens found in smoke is good for bees? "

I haven't argued that pathogens and carcinogens are good for the bees. If I were to argue it, I would present evidence, not conjecture. I await your evidence that there are such chemicals in the smoke that are actually harming bees or killing bees, as you claim.

"What do you think is the physiological effect?"

I am not aware of any physiological effects. You have yet to demonstrate any. You only ask us to accept that there are negative effects based on faith in your claims and your medical degree.

Since you don't seem to be planning to submit any scientific basis for any of your claims but only continue to offer conjecture and divert attention by asking questions of the one who simply asks you to present actual evidence, there is nothing left to discuss. You made the claims. Please support them if this thread is to have any merit.

Wayne

Too funny.
You remind me of a cigarette smoking bitterly defending smoking, "Yes, it might be bad but, it calms me."

Patience, Grasshoppa, the biologists have just torn into this and we will await their reports that will give you all the answers you so desire.

Personally, I built an enclosed electric cart complete with mechanical arms, (well, poles with hooks on the ends) to deal with the bees. I reeeally hate getting stung, too.
An electric wheelchair, 1/4 inch plywood, piece of plexiglass, window screen and an extention cord. Plus, it's fun. :)
You should be excited, you are on the cutting edge of a discovery. Whee!

Oh, by the way, you are aware that turpentine comes from pine resin. Right?

April 30, 2009 -- Scientists have discovered a new class of chemicals emitted from burning pine trees. From a family of compounds known for their ability to alter human DNA, the findings could change the way we look at the impact of forest fires on public health.

Alkaloids are commonly found in nature; plants produce them to help bolster the structure of leaves and pine needles, and they can be key nutrients to the right organisms. Many are prized for their beneficial effects on humans, while a select few, like morphine and caffeine are downright addictive.

But in high enough doses, alkaloids can be potent toxins.

Now Alexander Laskin and a team of researchers from the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Washington have discovered close to 100 different alkaloids in microscopic smoke particles lofting up from laboratory-simulated forest fires.

"When roots, leaves and needles get burned, these chemicals can be released without modification into the atmosphere," Laskin said. "They can be translated as aerosol particles hundreds or thousands of miles. It is possible that there is an impact on humans, animals, and that they get into the groundwater."

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/04/30/forest-fire-toxin.html

In case you haven't noticed, I'm not defending anything. That is your job. I am skeptical of your claims precisely because of your inability to offer any data. I'd like nothing more than an alternative to the bother of using smoke. You aren't offering a credible reason to look for one, much less a suitable alternative.

It is incumbent upon the one making claims (that would be you) to support them. If you really have a medical degree, this concept should not be such a surprise to you.

Obviously you have nothing to offer. Continuing is pointless.

Wayne

Did you not read my last post? There is a whole study of the effects of burning pine needles. You asked, I gave it to you and still....
I know some other people like that but, they are mainly in the hill country of the south.

Is that the sound of banjos? I love banjos.

I did not read your last post. I had begun a post and was delayed in posting it. Hence, I had not seen your follow-up to your previous stream of unhelpful posts. I would apologize for this had you not demonstrated your lack of character by resorting to insults.

I see you quote a researcher who says "It is possible that there is an impact on humans, animals, and that they get into the groundwater." The article further states: "But in high enough doses, alkaloids can be potent toxins." What, exactly is the effects on honey bees? The article doesn't address that. (Likely because there is no data.) From your ill-informed ideas about the use of smoke in beekeeping ("poisoned into a semi comatose state..," "Beekeepers completely fill the hive with this smoke," etc,) it is unlikely that you have any evidence of what constitutes high enough doses as relates to honey bees.

Don't bother responding. Since you have proven yourself to be rude and boorish as well as poorly informed and unqualified, I have little interest in continuing any discussion with you.

Anyone wishing to continue this thread with this person, I would suggest that you continue to ask for evidence for his claims that the minimal use of smoke that actual beekeepers subject their bees to is suddenly causing every malady to which bees are now susceptible. He has not provided any thus far and I have no interest in waiting while he continues to "blow smoke."

Wayne

birdguy, you obviously do not hold a degree in medicine, nor anything related, e.g. physiology, pharmacology, etc. Doctors use EBM to support their actions on treating patients. You show no scientific evidence from trials or anything of that sort.

Especially as a doctor also, you should know that an insect's pk and pd vary drastically compared to a humans. It's like comparing an apple and a cookie, two drastically different items. I don't even understand how you can compare them.

Also, anything in high doses can be toxic. For example, humans use alkaloids like atropine to save lives, but in high doses, it kills.

It's just too funny birdguy that you pretend to be an all-knowing doctor and spewing out random information. And ironic that you talk down about people from the South, when you are most likely as intelligent as a middle-schooler.

Birdguy deserves absolutely no more attention.
His half baked notions carry no weight in the light of smoke being used with bees for thousands of years with no apparent deleterious effect.
He claims to have a medical "education" but draws unfounded parallels between mammals and insects with a 35 day lifespan. His scientific grounding is highly suspect and he deserves no more atention.
We should be concerned for all those human beings who must endure his practicing his half-baked medical "education."

Hmmm... interesting hypotheses. I applaud your inquisitive mind. It is nice to know people,even those that may not be directly involved with keeping bees, are aware of some of the problems we are facing, and further more, realize that what it now our problem will soon become everyone's problem. The honey bee is an amazing insect and so very important and yet often taken for granted.
The problems many beekeepers are having with CCD (Colony Collapse Disorder) especially is alarming, how can we solve a problem without discovering how or why it exists?
Your idea that how we use smoke on our honey bees is thought provoking and a good observation. Certainly just as valid as most ideas I have heard on why CCD is happening. Cell phone? Smoke? Field Chemicals? All are valid ideas that should be looked into.
I would like to point out a few things that have not been commented on however, by the bee keeper you have been debating with.
Smoke calms bees by not only masking the pheromones but also by triggering a bee response to smoke; smoke causes honey bees to fill their stomachs up with honey (perhaps thinking their hive is burning?) And makes it impossible for the bee to sting. After a bees stomach is full in can not flex its abdomen into position to inject its stinger. It saves a lot of bee lives and keeps the keeper a bit safer as well.
I know that doesn't change your point or anything, I just felt it should be more fully explained.

I suppose the largest fault with your theory though, is the fact that a honey bees life is so short that the toxins in the smoke really wouldn't cause that much damage. A honey bee will most likely only inhale smoke one of two time in its entire life (roughly 40 days long) It makes it much harder to compare with a chain smoker that would inhale billions of times the amount and on daily basis.

That being said, I do appreciate your curiosity and commitment, both to beekeepers and the world at large on this issue. Smoke certainly not seem a thing good for honey bees, anyone or anything, and it may turn out this over looked practice of mine and my fellow beekeepers has more of an impact than we realize. I don't personally think it is the answer to all of our problems but maybe it will at least give us insight into some of them. Smoking bees definitely deserves research, both for the good it does and the harm it may cause.
I personally only use smoke when I know a lot of bees will kill themselves stinging me if I don't, but I hate to use it even then...it's just seems it helps them more to be smoked and live than to sting my and kill themselves though.
Certainly,logical alternatives would be nice instead smoking bees. No nicotine patches made small enough to fit them yet, but maybe the gum would work? :)
Cheers!
-Matthias

Hey beeguy86, nice to hear from a rational voice. I have petitioned many biologists and agencies, over the last 2 weeks, to do studies on this. I have to wonder, relative to size, if one of these toxins noted in that report, might be the same as us eating something the size of an Oreo cookie.

Remember, it only takes one "whif" of asbestos to start us on a rapid downhill slide. I had a friend that huffed freon one time. He lacked an enzyme that the rest of us have. All it took, one whif.

After hearing from several beekeepers who now use pine needles and having read that report of pine needles having 30 toxins in them, I have to wonder about that.

I'm sure that the bees' problem may bee from more than one source but, something that would cause a decline in their immune systems might let all of these other problems start to overrun them. And, believe me, one puff of that oily pine needle smoke will leave a residue that can be detected.

I hope I am right for the simple fact that the problem was found. That is really all I care about.
Jeez, I feel like I've been stung a lot on this topic. :(
But, hey, I am so used to it after 50 years of new discoveries. I have found that change comes painfully slowly.

I'll tell you someday about the grief I got when I designed the mountain bike 45 years ago. "No, 10 speed racing bikes are the wave of the future. Go back to your animal studies and stay out of it." lol

Now he's talking to himself.

Yeah...I now can happily go back to my Pine needles.

Thank you Wayne!

This from bee keepers...

Here is a link that might be useful: Beesource

April 30, 2009 -- Scientists have discovered a new class of chemicals emitted from burning pine trees. From a family of compounds known for their ability to alter human DNA, the findings could change the way we look at the impact of forest fires on public health.

Alkaloids are commonly found in nature; plants produce them to help bolster the structure of leaves and pine needles, and they can be key nutrients to the right organisms. Many are prized for their beneficial effects on humans, while a select few, like morphine and caffeine are downright addictive.

But in high enough doses, alkaloids can be potent toxins.

Now Alexander Laskin and a team of researchers from the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Washington have discovered close to 100 different alkaloids in microscopic smoke particles lofting up from laboratory-simulated forest fires.

"When roots, leaves and needles get burned, these chemicals can be released without modification into the atmosphere," Laskin said. "They can be translated as aerosol particles hundreds or thousands of miles. It is possible that there is an impact on humans, animals, and that they get into the groundwater."

Here is a link that might be useful: Report on deadly pine needle smoke