APIS Volume 5, Number 12, December, 1987
In this issue
- Antibiotic and Pesticide Use Inside the Beehive
- Honey Contamination: Risky Business
- Articles on Beginning Beekeeping
- Paper Pulp as Smoker Fuel
- 1987 in Review
PESTICIDE USE INSIDE BEE COLONIES?
Some years ago the above statement would have raised more than a few eyebrows. Many questions by beekeepers each year concern using pesticides to rid colonies of invasions by ants, wasps, wax moths and on rare occasions, beetles. No answers, however, ever indicated pesticides were to be used near colonies, much less inside them. The closest to this was wax moth control which involved fumigating empty supers with pesticides. To most beekeepers, pesticides were an anathema, responsible for killing untold numbers of colonies in agricultural and urban areas, and agriculturalists and mosquito controllers were considered a collective enemy for using them.
The worm has turned. With detection of the tracheal mite and now Varroa jacobsoni (the Asian honey bee mite), the hue and cry for pesticide use within the hive by beekeepers has reached a crescendo. This irony has not been lost on some of my colleagues, who've been plagued with beekeeper complaints about pesticide use over the years. Not that pesticides don't have a place in control of mites, but the all-too-prevalent view that they are somehow a "magic bullet" which will mean the end of the pest and a return to business as usual is a bit disconcerting.
This philosophy may come from the experience with Terramycin ®, which is now routinely used as a preventative treatment for American foul brood (AFB). As successful as this has been, it has not entirely eliminated the disease. Most bee inspection services are in place today specifically because American foul brood is still a threat. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of colonies nationwide are burned each year to eliminate American foul brood resevoirs. Many beekeepers emphatically state that if they see a colony with AFB, they immediately destroy it themselves, even in states like Florida where an indemnity is paid if a bee inspector burns a colony for AFB.
It's important to realize that the management system to control AFB did not come about overnight. It is the result of a good deal of learning on the part of beekeepers, scientists and others since the 1920s, when thousands of infested colonies were routinely burned in an effort to control infestation.
And as effective as it appears to be at present, use of Terramycin® is not without possible future complications which run the gamut from contaminated honey to an antibiotic-resistant bacterium strain. Fortunately, the causative organism, Bacillus larvae, has not shown resistance to Terramycin®. Routine treatment for American foul brood also means that the line between bees which have some innate resistance to the disease and those that are susceptible becomes fuzzy. Nevertheless, colonies continue to be routinely treated despite proof that resistance to the disease by several mechanisms does exist within some bee populations. Thus, should Bacillus larvae eventually become immune to Terramycin, bee populations which are resistant to AFB might be difficult to find.
In Varroa control, resistance by mites to chemicals improperly used and/or applied has already been established, particularly phenothiazine in Japan and amitraz in Israel. This means that pesticides must be used far more judiciously within the colony than is currently done with Terrmycin or resistant mite strains will quickly develop. Resistance genetics oriented towards crop pests and pesticide use (perfectly parallel to using pesticides to control Varroa) was explored in some detail in the April 1985 issue of Agrichemical Age, written by A.D. LaFarge:
"Resistance to pesticides was quickly recognized as an evolutionary process, a weeding out and alteration of the pest population by a death-dealing agent. On its face, it is a deceptively simple process: One or more individuals in a given population survive a pesticide treatment, to multiply and pass on to their offspring the genetic material that gave them that initial resistance to the pesticide. But resistance is in fact an extremely complex process, and it is only in the last decades that studies, particularly of the population genetics of insects, have clarified many crucial details of how it works... The message is clear: Resistance will be around forever, but agriculturalists are determined to shape the conditions of that stay."
The same will be be true with Varroa control. Pesticide-resistant mites will be inevitable, but the goal of beekeepers should be to stave it off as long as possible. Unfortunately, as many agriculturalists have done in the past, pesticides are now being viewed by the beekeeping community as the single answer to their needs. It will necessarily be only one part of a "new" management system to control mites. Using it to the exclusion of other techniques will mean faster development of pesticide resistance in the mite population and subsequent loss of an important control tool.
Other parts of this "new" management system will necessarily consist of destroying heavily infested colonies, quarantining colonies, removing and destroying brood, placing bees in packages and fumigating them before re- releasing them into the nest, and selecting queens and breeding bees which are resistant to mites. Genetic mechanisms have already been identified, such as elaborate cleaning behavior or shorter development cycles, which might be exploited to prevent build up of large mite populations.
Experience in other areas of the world suggests a Varroa infestation will kill a colony in a period of years. Estimates range from one to two years in the subtropics to as long as seven in temperate areas. In a previous issue of APIS, I said: "Bees in climates with harsh winters appear to be more at risk than populations in other climatic zones..." It has been called to my attention that this is not correct, given that damage appears to be greater in subtropical areas where brood is present year around.
The more brood available for the mites to use in their own reproduction, the faster their population will build and the sooner the colony will die. In temperate latitudes, broodless times can be used to treat and and fewer treatments may be necessary. Where brood is present year around and mites are protected by being sealed in cells, two treatments some specified time apart may be necessary to reduce populations to acceptable levels.
The last two words are extremely important, "acceptable levels." What is an acceptable level and under what circumstance? Unfortunately, this information will only come with experience. And the learning curve will be long and frustrating, because recommendations can only be based on several years of experience in one geographic area with a specific genetic mix of bees. In the meantime, pesticide use within colonies will be a powerful technique to fall back on to prevent catastrophic losses as the beekeeper learns the "new" management techniques necessary to control mite populations. The best advice, therefore, is not "use it or lose it," rather, it's the other way around. The less a pesticide is used, the more time and opportunity there will be to control mites successfully during times of crisis.
HONEY CONTAMINATION: RISKY BUSINESS
Although pesticide use may be impermanent or at best changing as more and more chemicals are used for mite control, honey contamination could result in permanent damage to the honey industry. Labels for pesticide use inside the beehive will not be for "food use." This means all honey to be extracted must be removed from a colony before treating for mites.
It is a certainty that more and more honey will be screened for chemical contamination in the future. Should pesticides be detected in honey, the resulting adverse publicity could severely damage the industry. Witness the use of aldicarb on watermelons and the pesticide scandal some years ago concerning cranberries. If there must be a tradeoff between mite control and contamination of honey, the bias must be for protecting the name and reputation of honey in the decision-making process.
ARTICLES ON BEGINNING BEEKEEPING
The above title is found in Dr. Eric Mussen's "From the UC Apiaries," California Cooperative Extension Service Newsletter to Beekeepers, September-October, 1987. It's not too often that bees get some favorable press, according to Dr. Mussen, but two articles recently have attested to the enduring interest of these insects among journalists. Modern Maturity printed what was billed a minicourse in beekeeping (April-May, pp 64-69) written by freelancer J.I. Merritt, a well-written overview of bees and their communication system. Smithsonian followed with an article aptly titled: "The Hobby that Challenges You to Think Like a Bee," (July, pp 62-70, 72,74).
As Dr. Mussen concludes: "This interest in bees, perhaps developing because Africanized bees are getting closer, is something we should support and exploit. The more good things people read about bees, the better. If you are approached by the press for information on bees, tell them the truth about all the good things you know about bees. Sure, the press makes mistakes, but usually they do a real good job of conveying your message."
PAPER PULP AS SMOKER FUEL
In the southern woodlands, there is no lack of cured pine needles which are wonderful smoker fuel. An idea from the June, 1987 issue of the Newsletter on Beekeeping [Editor's note: No longer published], written by Dr. Elbert Jaycox might be worth a try during times when the ubiquitous needles are not available.
Shred or tear newspapers into a bucket of water and leave for 10 days, stirring the mixture until it is a soft mush. Fill a piece of pipe just a little less in diameter than your smoker with the mush, squeeze the water out with a rolling pin, or capped pipe plunger, push the compacted pulp out of the pipe and let it dry.
This has several advantages including producing non-irritant smoke with little tar, and staying well lit. It's primary disadvantage is getting the material burning. A gas flame, length of lighted newspaper or a blowtorch are suggested.
1987 IN REVIEW
How time flies. The first issue of APIS was published in February, 1983. This edition marks the fifty-ninth consecutive number, one issue shy of five years of publication. In retrospect, this makes APIS one of the most enduring newsletters dedicated to apiculture that I'm aware of. A major reason is the large, enthusiastic audience out there. Without your ideas and suggestions, the newsletter would not nearly be so exciting or refreshing as many have said it is.
Here's a rundown of 1987, a year marked by introduction of Varroa jacobsoni, by far one of the most significant events ever to impact U.S. beekeeping:
- January -- Considerations When Moving to Citrus: Canker and Aldicarb.
- February -- Unexplained Bee Kill, Caution on Sulfa Residues, National Pesticide Telecommunications Network, National Honey Board Regulations, Extracted Honey Standards.
- March -- Bee Kill Enigma, National Honey Board Needs Help, 1986 Honey Report.
- April -- Pollen: The Other Side of the Nutritional Coin
- May -- Africanized Honey Bees in Panama City, Inadequate Vegetable Pollination.
- June -- Sulpha Testing in Honey, National Honey Board Activity, New Zealand Beekeeping, Bee Pollination and Productivity.
- July -- Bee Stings (full issue devoted to bee stings).
- August -- Florida Honey Bee Committees.
- September -- National Honey Board News, Honey Quality and Labelling, Providing Information to the Consumer on the Label.
- October -- Varroa in Florida, Life Cycle of Varroa, Quarantine and Control, Sampling Procedures, Sanitation, Damage and Symptoms.
- November -- Varroa Research in Florida.
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
