APIS Volume 8, Number 6, June 1990
In this issue
- Stock Introduction Issues
- The Numbers Game-Focusing on Colony Numbers
- The Other Half of Beekeeping-Managing Nectar Resources
STOCK INTRODUCTION INTO FLORIDA
The potential importation of Carniolan (Apis mellifera carnica) bees into Florida to look at Varroa resistance is also mentioned by Mr. Cutts. At the present time, Dr. Tom Rinderer, USDA-ARS Baton Rouge Bee Lab, has applied for a permit to bring in progeny of bees that have shown resistance in Yugoslavia. The parental stock was brought to a Louisiana barrier island and kept in isolation for eight months. Once daughters are reared and introduced, the original parental stock will be destroyed, providing at least one generation of bees as a safety buffer in case pests or diseases might be present. The Florida Arthropod and Arthropod Pathogen Introduction Committee of the Florida Division of Plant Industry has granted permission to introduce the offspring which will be tested in cooperation with Horace Bell Honey Co. in Deland, Florida. However, USDA-APHIS must first act to allow the bees entry from the barrier island to the U.S. mainland. This stock was finally released in 1994 and so far has seen mixed results.
The hue and cry for importing everything from African bees to the Asian honey bee (Apis cerana) can be heard everywhere. The latter insect has a number of fans. It appears to be a good pollinator; is resistant to Varroa; and will not cross with the African honey bee. Beekeepers use it in many countries in Asia with success. Dr. Siriwat Wongsiri, University of Bangkok, Thailand, however, has recently published an article concerning problems with "Apis Cerana" in the developing countries of Southeast Asia (Honey Bee Science, Vol. 10:4 pp. 160-164. According to an English summary (the original text is in Japanese), use of Apis mellifera is on the rise and there are half as many colonies of cerana as mellifera now being used. Beekeeping with cerana is less because of the inability to control swarming and absconding resulting in lower honey yields. Significant problems using cerana also continue to be European foulbrood susceptibility and lack of basic knowledge about keeping the bee.
Perhaps the best of all worlds would be a mellifera- cerana mix of bees. This controversial possibility was reported by Dr. Eric Mussen in his latest From the UC Apiaries. The same Dr. Wongsiri mentioned above has apparently reported that mellifera colonies will accept frames of emerging cerana brood. The cerana bees then groom their mellifera sisters in the colony, removing and biting the Varroa mites. What the beekeeper winds up with is a sub-population of honey producing mellifera cared for by a sub-population of cerana!
Many also favor bringing in African bees from Brazil or Africa. One reason is that both Brazil and Africa report fewer disease problems; however, as the article on the numbers game in this newsletter reports, there are disease problems in Brazil. Nevertheless, those promoting importation use the rationale that because the U.S. now has Varroa, and tracheal mites, nothing new could possibly hurt the U.S. beekeeping industry. For a fuller discussion of stock introduction, see the April 1989 APIS.
This concept is debatable. An interesting situation has arisen in Argentina, presumably due to importation of a large quantity of queens from the U.S. American foulbrood, previously unknown in that country, is now epidemic. In addition, for some reason it doesn't appear to respond to treatment from Terramycin (R) at the same dosages used in this country. Levels of up to 1200 mg active material must be used as opposed to the 200 mg recommended in the U.S. This has proven disastrous for beekeeping in certain regions of the country. The reason the queens were brought to Argentina was simple economics--they cost less to import because the value of the U.S. dollar was low. Although regulations exist in the country to prevent introduction, this shipment was somehow cleared through customs.
This Argentinian case and others (many previously believed that introduction of tracheal mites into the U.S. was not a serious threat to bee colonies) reveal why there has and will continue to be controversy over importation. Although most persons agree that stock introduction is needed in some cases, there is a great deal of concern about the methods involved. Unfortunately, no guidelines exist. Offspring of the British bees were allowed into Florida because they originated on U.S. soil and so were treated just like any others. In the case of the Yugoslavian bees, a state committee approved the permit, but there continues to be no standard importation criteria that can be followed for subsequent introductions.
THE NUMBERS GAME
On several occasions, I have discussed "the numbers game." This is an overriding concern for a large number of colonies a beekeeper manages. The results of this can be twofold: trying to manage more colonies than time permits or an area can support and/or spending valuable time coaxing along weak colonies at the expense of more pressing demands of the operation.
Hints that reliance on the numbers game is not profitable are seen in the June issue of American Bee Journal." Mr. Frank Steinoble, a successful beekeeper in South Africa, has made as much as $425,000 per year on bee pollination and honey production according to Ms. Sandra Crow. Proper management and close supervision are key factors in Mr. Steinoble's success. As Ms. Crow says, "He warns there are various ceilings to one's business; that there is a point when one has reached the ultimate profit for a stated number of hives."
Mr. Hubertus Von Posern of Austria, writing in the same journal part two of a series on the Brazilian Apimondia Congress, also alludes to the numbers game. Brazilian beekeepers claim to have few disease problems with their bees. But Mr. Von Posern doubts high disease resistance in the African bee. Rather, he witnessed beekeepers killing off weak colonies with few qualms. These losses are easily replaced by swarms. As he concludes: "Imagine if we could afford this beekeeper's practice of destroying anything weak! How much healthier our apiaries would be! We learned at the Convention that bee diseases do exist in Brazil after all."
News from Bill Clarke, retired apiculturist from Penn State University who visited Egypt as part of the "Farmer- to-Farmer" development project, is revealing: "It is true that Varroa is creating difficulties for the Egyptian beekeeper but we feel that the major problem continues to be the decrease per colony in honey production that has occurred over the last twenty years. We feel that a major contributor is the huge increase in the number of colonies. There is a limit to the amount of nectar that any given area can produce."
An example given by Mr. Clarke:
- In 1979 - 200 colonies produced 20 kilograms each totalling 4000 kgs.
- In 1989 - 1000 colonies producted 4 kilograms each totalling 4000 kgs.
NOTE THAT THE SAME AMOUNT OF HONEY WAS HARVESTED IN BOTH YEARS! As Mr. Clarke concludes, "Time and equipment are being wasted in building large numbers of colonies. One strong colony can outproduce four or five weak ones." A footnote to this is that this author has learned one reason Egyptians keep more colonies than is prudent is that they receive a sugar subsidy from the government for each colony. This sugar is often not given to the bees, but sold or used in other enterprises. Small wonder they want their numbers up.
THE OTHER HALF OF BEEKEEPING-- MANAGING NECTAR RESOURCES
Dr. Roger Hoopingarner, in his newsletter B-Plus, from Michigan State University, is concerned about the other half of beekeeping. This refers to the need to be more aware of nectar resources and the changes that are affecting them. Dr. Hoopingarner says that much of this is not within the beekeeper's influence. However, the situation can be helped by encouraging plantings along roadsides or seeding small patches of high yielding nectar plants.
Graham Kleinschmidt of Queensland Agricultural College in Australia also counsels more active management of plant resources. These include attempting to gain access to governmental areas not currently available to apiarists and encouraging flora on public lands. These plants could be selected for characteristics that will not interfere with activities, but will provide ease of maintenance and be sources of nectar and pollen. As Mr. Kleinschmidt concluded in remarks made to the Second Australian and International Bee Congress, "A viable beekeeping industry requires land management that promotes polleniferous flora. If the present decline in available pollen resources continues, the effects of poor protein nutrition will make honey production uneconomic. If this eventuates the major national cost will be to agricultural production which will be adversely affected by the inability of the beekeeping industry to service entomophilus crops."
Reports show that many of the powers that control public lands in Florida have not received the above message. Thus, a great deal of public land is not available to beekeepers, and in some areas, like state preserves, honey bees are seen as introduced species, precipitating movement to remove colonies already present. The argument that bees are foreign to the natural environment does not hold much water. Many plants in preserves are introduced as well. Keeping managed colonies out of public lands is not expected to appreciably decrease the bee population. Indeed, when African bees arrive, the lack of managed colonies on public lands may well be perceived as a health hazard. The more defensive insect will have less competition and, as in tropical Latin America, will immediately fill up the empty ecological niche left by those attempting to preserve a "natural" state of affairs.
Like so many things in Florida, paying attention to the other half of beekeeping means only one thing. A concerted lobbying effort by beekeeping associations on local and state authorities to open up and keep available public lands for beekeeping. Only one major nectar source, citrus, is cultivated in Florida. The rest are wild plants. They require cultivation by the whole state. In return, those agriculturalists requiring pollination will continue to get bees at a reasonable rate. In the end, the citizens of Florida will be able to continue to have access to wild land and lower cost food in the future.
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
©1990 M.T. Sanford "All Rights Reserved
