APIS Volume 7, Number 11, November 1989
In this issue
- On Collecting Swarms
- Stopping Bees With Soapy Water
- American Foulbrood in Argentina
- Menthol Registration--Caveats in Use
SWARM COLLECTING
A few years back, the Africanized Honey Bee Task Force appointed by Florida Agriculture Commissioner Doyle Conner issued information on the bee. It was printed and continues to be available as Hints for the Hive Number 114, available from all 67 Florida county extension offices. The following is quoted from that publication: "As a precaution, the traditional method of hiving of maintaining wild swarms (those from unmanaged apiaries) should be discouraged. Experience has shown that wild swarms probably will be associated with aggressive bees; they should be avoided and aggressively eliminated as a matter of course."
One of the reasons to justify the above actions besides overdefensiveness, which could lead to stinging incidents, was that wild swarms might also be a source of diseases or pests. Now that Varroa has been introduced and spread to most of Florida, the question of the impact of feral or wild swarms on beekeeping outfits takes on more significance. This has become an issue with regulators for a number of reasons. If wild swarms are considered a liability, who or what agency will deal with those that beekeepers were willing to collect in the past? When do the rules about managed colonies become effective for wild swarms?
A Florida Extension office recently received a request to provide a list of beekeepers who might pick up troublesome swarms. Personnel at the office were aware that there exist rules and regulations about Varroa. They also knew that any beekeeper collecting a swarm ran a risk of contaminating the rest of his/her colonies by collecting it. What should the office do?
After some consultation, it was decided that there is no potential legal problem in providing a list of beekeepers to those who inquire about swarms. Once collected, however, the particular beekeeper involved is then responsible for following appropriate regulations. Legally this means that before moving, the swarm should be examined by a bee inspector. If Varroa is found, the bees would have to be treated before being moved. Complicating matters, however, is that it might take a while before the bee inspector would be available. There is also the risk that a beekeeper who might collect the swarm would not know that the potential existed for contamination by Varroa. There is evidence that many apiculturists are as yet unaware of the presence of Varroa. Finally, the beekeeper might not realize that it is illegal to move the swarm until after it is inspected.
The upshot of all this is that new guidelines concerning the process of identifying and notifying beekeepers who pick up wild swarms are in order. To provide the best possible service to clientele, beekeepers willing to pick up wild swarms should be informed by extension offices and other agencies that the rules have changed and in all probability will continue to change. At the very least, they must be notified that collecting swarms might contaminate their outfits with Varroa mites, that in Florida they should contact their local bee inspector, and if mites are found, the bees must be treated before being moved. The best course of action in most cases is to mail a summary of this information to each beekeeper as he/she expresses interest in collecting swarms. In addition, when persons call concerning swarms, they should also be informed that although a name or names are provided, the rules have changed and there may be less inclination on the part of beekeepers to collect bees than in the past.
Obviously, this turn of events means more effort by all parties concerned, including extension offices and others referring wild swarms to beekeepers, the beekeepers themselves and the people who want to be rid of feral swarms and colonies. The only consolation is that these guidelines will help all parties adjust to the realities of collecting wild bees when the African honey bee enters Florida in the near future.
STOPPING BEES AND SOAPY WATER
Dr. Eric Mussen, California Extension Apiculturist, in the latest issue of his newsletter, From the U.C. Apiaries, writes about stopping bees: "There are certain situations when individuals wish that they could do something to immediately eliminate an exposed group of bees. A swarm hanging in an unappreciative home owner's yard or somewhere on a school grounds might be an example. An overturned truck load of bee hives is a more graphic example."
In many of these cases, Dr. Mussen continues, the question arises as to what chemical can be sprayed on those bees to get them under control. The word "control" means totally immobilized and/or dead. The answer in many cases, especially in areas of Africanized bees, is "soap water," a detergent solution formulated with one cup of dishwashing detergent in a gallon of water. The solution can be applied using various sprayers.
Dr. Mussen suggests the reason this works is because the detergent acts as a wetting agent. The result is less surface tension present in the solution being sprayed. Instead of beading and running off, the water sticks to the bee. This makes it difficult to fly because the wings of the insect cannot get up to speed soaked with water. Also, Dr. Mussen suggests the insects' spiracles, or breathing holes designed to ward off or repel water, are entered by the "wetter" detergent-water mixture. The bee can no longer breathe and it suffocates. The reason it works is not so important as the result, Dr. Mussen concludes, emphasizing that the technique is as effective as many others, including flame throwers.
Despite its effectiveness, however, Dr. Mussen holds reservations about the practice of applying wetter water on exposed bees. He is especially concerned about applying detergents to comb that might be used in the future. It may take the bees a good, long time to clean contamination of comb by the detergent solution, if it can be done at all. Nevertheless, Dr. Mussen believes that this technique should not be overlooked by regulators and others who under certain conditions want to get an otherwise difficult bee situation under control.
DRUGS AND DISEASE --AFB IN ARGENTINA
The official focus at the recent Apimondia meeting in Rio de Janeiro was Africanized bees, but the real ruckus raised had to do with a remark about bee disease. During a session, it was unofficially reported that American foulbrood (AFB) had been found in Argentina near the Brazilian border. Although it was emphasized that the report was unofficial, the stir this created was considerable. To date, American foulbrood had not been reported in Brazil and the country's beekeepers were understandably concerned.
It is ironic that beekeepers in the United States are concerned about Varroa and have AFB under control, while in Brazil, AFB is feared and there is no treatment recommended for Varroa. This shows how complex trying to control diseases and pests in the honey bee colony is. Not only must the bee's genetics be taken into consideration, but also the geographical area in which the insects are found.
A major concern in Brazil is that many persons will implement a control program using drugs for AFB control. Most Brazilian beekeepers have heretofore avoided chemical control, even for Varroa, which they say is a tolerable problem in their climate. At the other end of the spectrum is the U.S. beekeeping industry, which is heavily reliant on chemical fixes. AFB is routinely controlled using the antibiotic oxytetracycline, for example, and the country has continued to jump on the pesticide treadmill as recent practices using menthol for tracheal mite and fluvalinate for Varroa control attest.
Another country concerned about chemicals is New Zealand. The nation continues to have a "drug-free" status, according to the February, 1989 issue of Buzzwords---, the newsletter for National Beekeepers' Association members of New Zealand. A recent article entitled "Drugs and Disease" provides some perspective on the debate presently going on in the country.
There continue to be beekeepers in New Zealand talking about using drugs as a quick fix for AFB, the article begins. However, it suggests three major problems that appear with use of drugs. These are residues, resistance and reliance:
- using drugs in beehives will result in drug residues contaminating honey;
- employing a limited range of chemicals against one disease or pest is a sure recipe for developing resistant populations;
- developing a reliance on drugs to the exclusion of cultural control is a longrange prescription for more problems.
The article concludes that the world is moving towards more control of pesticides used in food production, not less.
Another article entitled "Drug Residues" adds fuel to the fire. It says New Zealand's no drug use policy is an advantage for the Island because markets are becoming increasingly sensitive about drug residues in honey. There was a great fuss sometime back about a load of Chinese honey being rejected because it was found to contain miticides. The rumor was that 10,000 tons of the sweet were affected.
The article continues with the observation that even the Australians are not immune and that in fact any country where drugs are used in beehives will end up with residue problems. For example, oxytetracycline residues were recently found in honey from New South Wales, Australia. The honey was traced back to an excellent beekeeper who wasn't one to "chuck a hivetool full of antibiotic into any hive that looked crook." The person was a very careful operator, but a combination of unfortunate circumstances led to drugs getting through. The antibiotic apparently did not break down as it was supposed to. Sulpha residues have been found in Canadian honey as well. Thus, the article concludes, any drug feeding is going to cause some problems and loss of markets, especially in Japan and Europe.
MENTHOL REGISTRATION--CAVEATS IN USE
Both labels call for using 1.8 ounces (50 grams) of menthol per colony during the period when there is no surplus honey flow and daytime temperatures are expected to reach at least 60 degrees F. The material should be enclosed in approximately seven inch square screen mesh bags or similar material. Placing the material on the top bars is preferred provided the daytime temperature does not exceed 80 degrees F. If daytime high is above 80 degrees F., then the packet should be placed on the bottom board.
Ten to twelve weeks after treatment the menthol packets should be removed. The material must not be applied during honey flows, and should be taken out of a colony at least one month before any anticipated flow.
Although the material is a natural product and not thought to be toxic, menthol must be treated with care. It can cause irreversible eye damage and may be fatal if swallowed. Of major importance is that the material be applied within the temperature limits shown on the label. Menthol is a fumigant and must change from a solid crystal state to a gas to become effective. Applying the material below the 60 degree threshold is a waste of time and money. The label also cautions that bees may be repelled from the hive and honey production reduced if colonies are treated during a honey flow (strictly forbidden on both labels). Finally, use of the material in areas where there is no stop in brood production may result in a reduction in honey production. The last statement is particularly relevant to Florida beekeepers.
The labels also include detailed instructions on storage and disposal of the product. The accompanying letter from IR-4, the organization applying for the label, says that several companies have already received labels and more will likely obtain them in the future. Remember to INSIST ON GETTING A LABEL when purchasing the product. It is the only way to be sure you are complying with the law.
Malcolm T. Sanford
Bldg 970, Box 110620
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611-0620
Phone (904) 392-1801, Ext. 143 FAX: 904-392-0190
http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~entweb/apis/apis.htm
INTERNET Address: MTS@GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU
©1989 M.T. Sanford "All Rights Reserved
