APIS Volume 5, Number 3, March, 1987
In this issue
- More on North Florida Bee Kill
- National Honey Board Seeks Association Help: Assessment Payment
- 1986 Honey Production Report
NORTH FLORIDA BEE KILL
After studying samples of bees and gathering information from a variety of sources, the circumstances surrounding the north Florida bee kill are still not well understood. At present, nothing has been ruled out. A real possibility exists that there is not one single cause, but a combination of several, possibly including: tracheal mites, amoeba disease, nosema, bacterial and/or viral infection.
Many now believe that last year's widespread drought is really the culprit, responsible for a dearth of pollen in the fall. Subsequent stress would result in a buildup of any one, perhaps all, of the causal agents listed above. Contributing to this are symptoms which include rapid population decline in spite of the presence of honey on a colony and smaller-than-average individual bees. Finally, as environmental conditions improve and pollen and nectar become available the symptoms are reduced and the situation has stabilized.
Reports now indicate that areas as far north as South Carolina and west as Texas were involved, coincidentally the same geographic area affected by the drought. Efforts are underway to extend the deadline which would allow beekeepers to take advantage of the Farmer's Home Administration's (FHA) drought disaster program promulgated to help other agriculturalists. Should this occur, it will be of utmost importance that losses be well documented by beekeepers. This means FHA will ask for detailed records which can be verified.
Although the enigma continues, this has not prevented the news media from publishing on the situation. In fact, the level of interest by newspapers, radio and television in response to a press release about the problem by The Division of Plant Industry, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services has been nothing less than phenomenal. Perhaps most noteworthy was an article in U.S.A. Today. The first sentence reads: "Honey bees are dropping like flies in Florida's Panhandle, stinging the pocketbooks of beleaguered beekeepers."
This example should provide a clear idea of what to expect when either Africanized bees or Varroa mites become the subject of press coverage. It probably will be for the most part sensationalistic, negative and provide little sympathetic information about the bee industry and its problems, the kind of information that sells newspapers and catches the attention of radio listeners a television viewers alike. The question, therefore, arises as to what beekeepers and the industry should be doing to ensure fair press coverage in the future. The only answer appears to be to inform a vast urban public about the value of bees and beekeeping and do it now!
NATIONAL HONEY BOARD SEEKS ASSOCIATIONS: ASSESMENT ISSUES
Recently, the National Honey Board has sent an open letter to all beekeeping associations in the United States seeking to open some kind of dialogue on marketing and promoting honey. The basic idea is that the Board's resources are limited as are those of bee associations. Therefore, duplicating efforts and conflicting activities should be avoided. Communicating with associations will provide an idea of what already is being accomplished at the local level.
Beyond this, the Board asks for suggestions that might be beneficial to both parties. Cooperative efforts such as recipes, cookbooks and brochures are mentioned. The Board may eventually have point-of-purchase materials local groups might use at supermarkets.
If your organization has not been contacted; bring it up at the next meeting to be sure! Then a representative should contact either Dan Hall, the Manager, or Mary Humann, Public Relations Director, The National Honey Board, 9595 Nelson Rd., Box C., Longmont, CO 80501, ph. 303/776-2337.
A LAST REMINDER
As the active season begins, keep in mind that the National Honey Research, Promotion and Consumer Information Order affects each and every beekeeper in the United States, as well as those importing honey from abroad. As I said in the last issue of this newsletter, as of February 1, 1987, the Order requires the first handler (a packer, producer-packer or cooperative) to collect one cent ($.01) for each pound of honey entering commercial channels and send it to the Honey Board along with a special assessment form. THIS IS THE LAW and persons failing to comply could be subject to a penalty of up to $5000.00 per violation. Those producing less than 6,000 lbs per year can claim exemption, but it is NOT AUTOMATIC, and must be applied for to the board also on a special exemption form. Forms are available from The National Honey Board (see address above).
HONEY PRODUCTION REPORT 1986
Statistics for the beekeeping industry have been hard to come by over the last few years. This is too bad because without them it's difficult to educate the press and public about the industry. The latest figures released January 29, 1987 indicate the following:
Honey production for 1986 (for producers with five or more colonies) amounted to 200 million pounds (90.0 thousand metric tons). The number of colonies, 3.21 million, contains duplication by multistate operators. The data collected were not sufficient to allow duplication between states to be removed. Yield per colony was 62.5 pounds and conditions for production ranged from very poor with no surplus honey to excellent. Honey stocks were 27.2 million pounds, 13.6 percent of production.
Price in 1986 averaged 51.3 cents per pound. Higher prices for the amber honeys reflect the larger proportion of retail sales relative to the white honey classes. All government payments and loans are excluded.
Prices by color class 1986 are:
COLOR CLASS PRICE
CENTS PER POUND
Water white, extra white and white 49.5
Extra light amber 53.8
Light amber, amber and dark amber 52.0
All other honey 53.6
All honey 51.3Figures of interest for the top ten states in terms of colony numbers are:
State #colonies Yield/col. Production Avg. Price/lb Value
1,000 pounds 1000 lbs cents 1000 dollars
Calif. 520 52 27,040 55 14,872
Fla. 290 75 21,750 53 11,528
NDak. 290 107 31,030 44 13,653
SDak. 201 113 22,713 47 10,675
Minn. 136 78 10,608 46 4,880
Tex. 117 62 7,254 54 3,917
Ga. 115 41 4,715 52 2,452
Mont. 110 64 7,040 48 3,379
Nebr. 100 76 7,600 46 3,496
N.Y. 92 32 2,944 60 1,766
U.S. 3,205 62.5 200,394 51.3 103,151Keep in mind that duplication is always possible, especially in states with a good deal of migratory activity which includes many of the top ten. The wide range in yields is immediately apparent in these figures as is price. The closer one is to markets (i.e. New York) the better the average price seems to be.
From a long range perspective, colony numbers are down from previous reports of about 4,300,000. Total production is also down from the generally accepted 220,000,000 figure. Florida is down quite a lot from the $32,000,000 average generally quoted in the past. The next report will be published in January, 1988!
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
©1987 M.T. Sanford "All Rights Reserved
