New Beekeeper in 2024!

[rdartington]

The claim is, I believe, that the smoke causes the bees to fill up on food so they have resources available to abscond to a place of safety in the event that a fire approaches their existing home. But as far as I'm aware there's no evidence that such a thing happens in the wild. Wild colonies are as likely to hunker down and hope for the best (and quite possibly die) in the event of a fire. And, if there is a forest fire, how would an animal such as a bee select a place of safety anyhow? It's not as though another hole in a nearby tree would be likely to be safe.

I suspect that to have genuinely developed such a behaviour would have required forest fires to be so common that building a permanent nest of wax wouldn't be a development that evolution would reward.

[Edit: another point, whilst I remember... Laying queens don't fly very well and there's not much point leaving if they can't take the queen with them.]

James

James is correct, according to Tom Seeley (‘p82, The Lives of Bees). After a wild fire consumed 2,500 acres of Cape Point Nature Reserve, three investigators inspected 17 previous nest sites in rock cavities. All 17 colonies were still alive but some had melted propolis at the entrance and some melted combs. They concluded the bees had stoked up with honey and retired as far back as they could, and were then surviving on the honey they had stored while rebuilding the nest - 9as a swarm would do). Seeley wrote that ‘the standard explanation is probably incorrect, as he suspected that it is unlikely a colony threatened by fire can successfully evacuate its nest and fly off thru flames and smoke , especially as its queen is apt to be gravid and so a perilously. clumsy flyer’.
So I stand corrected.
But the commercial view that bees can be smoked without harm to the nest is also wrong - as once the bees has filled with honey after smoking, they cannot continue the normal working of the nest which requires bees of different ages to be spread out to where the tasks appropriate to their ages/gland development require.
Seeley does not suggest how long it takes for bees to empty their honey stomachs and return to their separate tasks - but that could be considerable.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

But the commercial view that bees can be smoked without harm to the nest is also wrong - as once the bees has filled with honey after smoking, they cannot continue the normal working of the nest which requires bees of different ages to be spread out to where the tasks appropriate to their ages/gland development require.

and still, you hang on to an incorrect surmise (a supposition by Tom Seeley, not a statement of fact) based on a fiction that bees gorge themselves with honey whenever they're smoked.
And why is it a 'commercial view' as it seems it's the BBKA and hobbyists that are obsessed with pumping smoke into hives

 

[rampino]

The claim is, I believe, that the smoke causes the bees to fill up on food so they have resources available to abscond to a place of safety in the event that a fire approaches their existing home. But as far as I'm aware there's no evidence that such a thing happens in the wild. Wild colonies are as likely to hunker down and hope for the best (and quite possibly die) in the event of a fire. And, if there is a forest fire, how would an animal such as a bee select a place of safety anyhow? It's not as though another hole in a nearby tree would be likely to be safe.

I suspect that to have genuinely developed such a behaviour would have required forest fires to be so common that building a permanent nest of wax wouldn't be a development that evolution would reward.

[Edit: another point, whilst I remember... Laying queens don't fly very well and there's not much point leaving if they can't take the queen with them.]

James

Hi James, the forest fire explanation was taught to me in a beekeeping class. However the latest research I have seen says that the smoke deadens the response of the bees‘ antennae for around 10 minutes. I prefer the scientific explanation to the old wives tale.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

and a random conclusion from observing a handful of Cape honeybees after a brush fire, not a widespread study at all.

another thing that is particularly interesting in that chapter in Seeley's book, is that he believes, in general, bees were more attracted toward deep cavities in rock formations and under boulders rather than trees (which for a start offered little protection from fires) which were (and still are few and far apart), and quickly identified baskets and clay water utensils as ideal homes, these vessels tended to have a volume of 40 or so litres funnily enough, this phenomenon of bees settling around human habitation (something I observed many a time during my time out in Lesotho) probably triggered human interest in 'farming' bees, therefore bees chose to live in our skeps and woven hives preferring them to hollow trees rather than the belief of some that bees were caught and forced to live in our hives.
So much for the 'tree nest' theory

 

[JamezF]

Hi James, the forest fire explanation was taught to me in a beekeeping class. However the latest research I have seen says that the smoke deadens the response of the bees‘ antennae for around 10 minutes. I prefer the scientific explanation to the old wives tale.

I'm disinclined to believe the "deadens the antenna response" idea because what I've read about the way the antenna work (as far as I recall) is that different parts are receptive to specific molecules. How smoke particles could affect that process isn't clear to me.

My current hypothesis (which clearly could be completely wrong) is that, much like humans, they just find smoke "unpleasant" (quite how that might work is beyond me, I have to admit) and try to move away from it.

James

 

[Antipodes]

I'm disinclined to believe the "deadens the antenna response" idea because what I've read about the way the antenna work (as far as I recall) is that different parts are receptive to specific molecules. How smoke particles could affect that process isn't clear to me.

My current hypothesis (which clearly could be completely wrong) is that, much like humans, they just find smoke "unpleasant" (quite how that might work is beyond me, I have to admit) and try to move away from it.

James

It's a bit more than just an "unpleasant and move away response", as it affects their senses beyond that - from what I've seen anyhow.... seemingly extending to less defensiveness and for longer than might be expected if it were just to "move away". You could be right though.

 

[BeeKeyPlayer]

Ann Chilcott has written this week on honey bees and smoke. She references three sources, one of which is this well-written article. I don't have time till this evening to comment on it but I'd thought I'd share it now. The position on here sometimes seems to be that traditional positions are to be celebrated as myths, but of course we should be able to back up any positions we take.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

The position on here sometimes seems to be that traditional positions are to be celebrated as myths,

and her article seems to endorse that.
so is 'Scottish expert beemaster' just a 'master' beekeeper in a plaid skirt?

 

[juno]

Hi all!

After doing a beekeeping experience earlier this Summer at Albury Vineyard and a few days spent with a beekeeping friend of mine, I have decided to take up the hobby myself in 2024!

I have got my hives (2 Abelo Nationals), all the equipment on order, and located a out apiary (the local fishing club is letting me put my hives next to one of their private fishing lakes).

Really excited to get going!

Hello.

 

[rdartington]

Ann Chilcott has written this week on honey bees and smoke. She references three sources, one of which is this well-written article. I don't have time till this evening to comment on it but I'd thought I'd share it now. The position on here sometimes seems to be that traditional positions are to be celebrated as myths, but of course we should be able to back up any positions we take.

Ann’s own article - and the South `African one - move us forward. Are we mostly now agreed with the following?
1. Honey bees have an evolved response to smoke that makes them fill their honey stomachs, then to await the arrival of a forest fire and then to use the honey in their stomachs to-rebuild any damaged comb;
2. Honey bees have lived in tree cavities in British forests since the last ice age, 18,000years ago - during which forest fires will have been rare (until humans have now initiated climate change) - but have retained the instinctive response to smoke;
3. Beekeepers subject hives to smoke to initiate a secondary response that bees with filled stomachs are less inclined to resist interference by stinging;
4. No information is available on how long bees retain filled stomachs - or, on how much/ how long, smoked bees of different ages with different glands inaction are distracted from their appropriate tasks, ie on feeding brood, or producing wax, or flying out to forage - that period could be quite long, counting flyers leaving the entrance before and after smoking would be easy, has anyone done that?
5. Ann refers to smoke as dangerous for beekeepers as the fine particles can enter lungs - also that smoke can affect the taste of honey - and that many beekeepers prefer to use water spray (spray will clear bees off top bars so no bees can fly off unless and until frames are lifted out, although guards can still fly from hive entrances);

I am a convinced water sprayer. Works for me. Avoids danger of accidents - and of smoker going out just when needed.
Anyone agree?

 

[Erichalfbee]

Are we mostly now agreed with the following?

Some of it.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

very little of it

I am a convinced water sprayer.

Whatever floats your boat there are specialist websites for that

 

[JamezF]

1. Honey bees have an evolved response to smoke that makes them fill their honey stomachs, then to await the arrival of a forest fire and then to use the honey in their stomachs to-rebuild any damaged comb;

I still think this is dubious. I've not had a close read of the two articles linked yet, nor the references they quote, but they both appear to make quite a number of assertions that aren't backed up by research papers or anything similar. In particular the paragraph starting "What is not disputed..." in the ujubee.com post makes quite a number of assertions that may well be open to dispute. For example, just because smoking the area of a sting might mask the alarm pheromone odour for humans (and I'm not certain about that) doesn't mean that it does the same for a honey bee. Perhaps it just leaves a large concentration of smoke particles around the area of the sting that bees can sense and, given the option, choose to avoid.

James

 

[BeeKeyPlayer]

so is 'Scottish expert beemaster' just a 'master' beekeeper in a plaid skirt?

I think I could have predicted this response, almost verbatim

However, I wasn't really looking for what people think of Ann Chilcott of her article, but rather thoughts on the sources she used.

She mentions that the 1995 study on smoke reducing sensitivity of the antennae to honey bee alarm pheromones; this position isn't regarded as credible by Brian Johnson in his new book Honey Bee Biology.

I'm not sure if beekeepers hope that smoke masks alarm pheromone (the substance), or the bees ability to sense it. If the former, we can continue to smoke the entrance with purpose, if the latter, we might as well stop doing that.

So let's focus just on a possible relationship between smoke and bees consuming honey.

Geoff Tribe in his article article writes (among many other things) that

• smoke causes honeybees to imbibe honey
• they retreat to inner recess of the nest
• with their distended abdomens they are less inclined to sting
• absconding (like swarming) cannot be rushed
• not least because a laying queen is a poor flyer, the bees do not try to fly away from the fire
• do the bees imbibe honey to improve their chances of survival if they are alive after the fire?
• if so, stinging (and subsequently dying) would be counterproductive to protecting this honey store

Is this nonsense, and, if so, how do we know?

 

[BeeKeyPlayer]

I am a convinced water sprayer. Works for me. Avoids danger of accidents - and of smoker going out just when needed.
Anyone agree?

I haven't used water spraying much except when I want to create a damp surface in a tub when collecting bees to stock mini nucs. I don't like the idea of soaking them, because fine mist really does do that. I don't think I'm just being anthropomorphic. The bees different biology means that they can survive smoke reasonably well. But they sure don't like being out in the rain.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

well, to be honest, his whole theory hangs on a 'study' (I use the term loosely) of Capensis after a singular bush fire incidence in South Africa which is mentioned in Tom Seeley's book, I've read it and if you look cloely around the edges of reported facts there is still quite a bit of surmise there.
Of your points;

• there's still no distinct correlation here
• An observation which may well be true, but if we hang on the belief that all Apis subspecies are the same (Capensis does differ a lot from the others in their traits) that does put the 'tree nest' mantra into a coked hat
• That can be accepted but we can also accept that the distended belly excuse is also paired with the survival of every worker at all cost rather than the 'greater good' anthropomorphism we usually hang our hat on
• accepted
• I can accept that but - a gravid queen is still capable of flight
• do we know? as, in point one, there has been plenty of assumption but I haven't seen much specific study
• yet I've been stung by swarming bees.

As for it being nonsense, we don't really know one way or t'other as it hasn't really been studied just assumed.

 

[JamezF]

Is this nonsense, and, if so, how do we know?

I think you're in a stronger position looking at it the other way around:

Is it true, and, if so, how do we know?

Anyone can make a random assertion about anything and claim it's not nonsense (when it patently is) because no-one has demonstrated that to be so. No-one has, for instance, shown that the fairies living at the end of my garden don't find new places for swarming bees to live.

James

 

[Antipodes]

It's all a bit confusing, but you'd think there would be more studies into it. The Apiarist did a section on this which I read but I can't find it now. He often has links at the bottom to research papers and the like. I can't find it now. Can anyone else and if so please put a link in for me? Thanks
I think they probably gorge on honey when you open the lid without smoke and they gorge on honey when exposed to smoker soke as well. Like to know more about the antennae stuff.

 

[Erichalfbee]

Am I missing something here? What do all these studies mean if we are not actually seeing this?

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

What do all these studies mean if we are not actually seeing this?

what studies?