APIS Volume 4, Number 9, September 1986
In this issue
- Calculating Moisture Content: Calibrating the Atago®
- Profitability Model Released
- Beekeeping on the Apalachicola: Fluvial Apiculture
- Observations on Wood Preservative Use
CALIBRATING REFRACTOMETERS: CALCULATING MOISTURE LEVEL IN HONEY
At this year's Beekeepers Institute, Larry Cutts brought his refactometer (an Atago® sold by Dadant & Sons, Inc.) and generated several perplexing, interesting and far reaching questions. For example, when calibrating the instrument, should the temperature correction factor be figured into the calibration as it is when reading a honey sample? And what is the role of the "test piece," that comes with the instrument and has a number imprinted on it?. The number (usually 19.2) is different on some pieces. Various persons mentioned seeing numbers as low as 18.8. The printed instructions accompanying the instrument were not clear on these matters.
Dr. Alan Bolten, who's had some experience with refractometers and is coauthor of a paper on measuring sugar concentration in nectar in ecological studies has has subsequently checked with Dadant & Sons, Inc. The firm sent a telex to Atago in Japan asking for clarification.
According to the reply:
- If one calibrates by test piece, this is "not influenced" by temperature.
- Though the percentage (19.2) of the test piece is written in our instruction manual, as there are several kinds of test pieces for our refractometer, kindly calibrate with the percentage marked on the test piece which accompanies each refractometer.
Thanks to Dr. Bolten and Dadant & Sons, Inc. the puzzle has now been solved. What is left to conjecture is whether standardized calibration procedures will in fact be instituted. The question arises that if beekeepers are not informed about this situation, what about personnel measuring moisture for the Commodity Credit Loan program? Are they also calibrating their instruments without the proper information? If variance of only tenths of percentage points in moisture can make a difference between honey that is acceptable or not, thousands of dollars could hang in the balance with each measurement.
ON PROFITABILITY
Florida Cooperative Extension Circular 722, A Study in Profitability for a Mid-Sized Beekeeping operation, has finally been released for distribution. It's specific objectives are to:
- Determine costs and returns associated with beekeeping
- Aid beekeepers in budgeting and planning
- Recommend ways to reduce costs and increase returns
- Suggest how operation size affects costs and returns
This is the culmination of several years' work on my part plus a lot of help from others in developing a financial model of a typical mid-sized beekeeping operation in Florida. It is one of the few attempts to do so that I've seen, and should be considered only a guide toward establishing profitability, not a foolproof cookbook recipe. I hope the study will enable beekeepers to say with a greater degree of assurance how much it costs them to produce a pound of honey.
[Editor's Note 5/12/1997--This is no longer available. The model is used as a basis, however, for a software package written in Microsoft Excel® sold by the American Association of Professional Apiculturists.]
BEEKEEPING ON THE APALACHICOLA
The Apalachicola river enjoys a long tradition in beekeeping. The uniqueness of tupelo nectar has long lured beekeepers from as far away as Ohio to bring their hives by train, barge them downriver, and finally set them atop platforms in the river. The Northwest Florida Water Management District has recently purchased, under the Save our Rivers Program, lands along the river and plans to manage them to preserve the Apalachicola.
Lands Adminstrator, Angela Smith is asking for documented historical evidence of beekeeping along the river. Of particular interest are photos that might be used in exhibits or educational programs. If you can contribute, please contact Ms. Smith, Route 1, Box 3100, Havana, FL 32333, ph 904/487-1770.
[Editor's Note 5/12/1997--For other information on fluvial beekeeping, see the report from the Le Bateau Abeille in France (http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~mts/apishtm/letters/aix4_24.htm).
WOOD PRESERVATIVES
According to University of Wisconsin-Extension publication A3086, Protecting Honey Bees in Wisconsin from Pesticides and Other Toxic Chemicals, the following must be taken into account when considering use of materials on beekeeping equipment.
Group 1. Highly toxic chemicals where severe losses may be expected if materials are used when bees are present at treatment or within a day thereafter include the wood preservatives:
Arsenic containing compounds: creosote
flou-chrome arsenate K-33® (copper chrome arsenate
copper chrome arsenate pentachlorophenol
zinc-copper-chrome arsenate tributlytin oxide
As well as the products: Womanize®, (copper chrome arsenate)
Wood Life® (pentachlorophenol)According to the publication, the Environmental Protection agency has announced intention to cancel registrations on wood preservatives containing arsenic, creosote and pentachlorophenol.
Group 3. Relatively non toxic chemicals which can be used around bees with a minimum of injury include the wood preservatives:
acid copper chromate Cuprinol® (copper naphthenate)
Cunapsol® (copper naphthenate) Wood Guard® (copper 8 quinolate)Recently, Mr. Jerry Latner of Dadant & Sons, Inc., warned beekeepers that EPA was keeping a close watch on his operation and in the near future would extend their vigilance to the individual beekeeper. A word to the wise should be sufficient. To fully protect yourself when using any chemicals, always follow the instructions on the label of the container. In the final analysis, the label is the law.
Sincerely,
Malcolm T. Sanford
Bldg 970, Box 110620
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611-0620
Phone (352) 392-1801, Ext. 143 FAX: (352)-392-0190
http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~mts/apishtm/apis.htm
INTERNET Address: MTS@GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU
©1986 M.T. Sanford "All Rights Reserved
