APIS Volume 8, Number 10, October 1990
In this issue
- American Bee Research Summary
- African Honey Bees Arrive
- Entomology Department Moves
AMERICAN BEE RESEARCH CONFERENCE
The third annual American Bee Research Conference (ABRC) met in Tucson, Arizona in early October. Some 44 papers were presented in an intensive two and one half day session. Mites were perhaps the hottest topic. Canadian researchers (Kerry Clark and colleagues) provided information on screening breeding stock for tracheal mite resistance and using vegetable oil and menthol for their control. Both treatments reduced mite populations from 40% to 99%. Gordon Waller (USDA Tucson bee lab) also reported on work establishing tracheal mite resistance in Arizona honey bees. An interesting account of rapid colony decline due to tracheal mites was provided by Steven Thoenes and S. Buchman (USDA Tucson lab). A colony overcome by tracheal mites located on a very sensitive scale (which can measure loss or gain of just a few bees) showed just how short a time period is necessary and how precipitous the bee population can decline when influenced by this mite. It was surprising that only one paper dealt with Varroa mites. Unfortunately, the author failed to appear to present that particular talk.
A variety of other subjects were also covered at the Conference. Dr. Tibor Szabo of Alberta, Canada presented an analysis of how moving, inspecting and removing honey from colonies affects honey yield. All do so negatively, thus, Dr. Szabo encourages beekeepers to inspect their hives fewer times and to take off honey less frequently. Dr. Stephen Buchman (USDA Tucson lab) explained his analysis of "safe sites" for pollen on bees. Certain places on the insects cannot be groomed and so pollen in those areas has a better chance of being deposited on plants. One of these sites is right between the legs. He also discussed pollen preferences of both wild and managed colonies. Old comb and trash heaps, sometimes called "kitchen middens," an anthropological term, associated with wild swarms have yielded a surprising amount of historical information on the kinds of pollen being used by bees.
Two papers showed how production of pearl millet (A. Mamood; USDA Tucson lab) and strawberries (L. Peterson and colleagues, Oklahoma St. Univ.) were enhanced by honey bee activity. The concept of "enpollination" was discussed for almonds by Thomas Ferrari, Plant Development International. This is the process whereby pollen is mechanically harvested and then placed on a bee as it exits a colony to improve pollination potential. Because this is a proprietary product, much of the process currently being employed is presently secret.
Dr. Justin Schmidt and colleagues (USDA Tucson bee lab) revealed that European bee swarms typically travel 250 to 500 meters from the parent colony with shorter and longer distances being less common. This suggests a trapping grid surrounding colonies for a kilometer in all directions would probably trap 90% of swarms from an apiary. Although the research was done with European bees, these results suggest that mass trapping of swarms of African honey bees might have potential to control feral populations in the future. The authors also showed that European bee swarms prefer older cavities and previously occupied nests.
The best kind of trap used to collect swarms continues to be the round paper pulp one designed at the Tucson laboratory by Dr. J. Schmidt and colleagues. A newer design, which allows frames to be inserted and so is easier for the beekeeper to handle, is not quite as effective, according to latest information. Unfortunately, the round trap can be easily invaded by rodents, birds, even bats. One paper by E. Sugen at the USDA Tucson bee lab showed how to put "burglar bars" of wire mesh over the opening from the inside using a hot glue gun.
Killing wild swarms, nests and managed honey bee colonies was addressed in two papers. B. Sames and colleagues (USDA Weslaco lab) showed that Resmethrin (R), permethrin and soapy water (1:16 ratio detergent/water) were good in certain situations. Safer (R) soaps on the market were recommended because they are already labelled for insect control. To kill swarms from afar, J. Loper and colleagues (USDA Tucson lab), reported on the effectiveness of applying a toxic material (avermectin) to drones and then allowing them to fly back to contaminate the nest. The African bee was a natural focus of this meeting in the Arizona desert, although it has yet to cross the Mexican border. Several papers concentrated on identifying the bees using various chemical techniques. An immunological procedure is well along in development and the presenters (B. Kitto and colleagues, Univ. of Texas) provided optimism that a quick, inexpensive, easyto-use identification method should be available to the market in less than a year. A discussion by Marilyn Houck, University of Arizona, raised some eyebrows. She indicated that morphometrics as currently employed was too biased toward bee size and suggested that a better indicator of African bees would be a technique where size was eliminated from the process.
A most interesting paper concerning African bees was given by Dr. J. Schmidt and colleagues (USDA Tucson lab) on bee venom. Individual African bees, due to generally smaller size, have less venom than European bees. Statistics from around the nation reveal how very small the current public health threat is from honey bees. Even if the human death rate were to rise considerably with arrival of the African bee, there would be many greater risks to be concerned about such as heart disease, automobile accidents and lightning strikes.
However, the risk of receiving many bee stings from African bees is very real, according to Dr. Schmidt, and the results can be different than is presently the experience of either the general public or beekeepers. Allergy followed by anaphylaxis is the way most people might die of honey bee stings in the U.S. With African bees, another event called "toxic envenomation" can occur. This means that the body's system does not break down because of allergy, but because it is challenged by so much venom when a great number of African bees attack. A large quantity of venom will not only cause kidney failure, but also induce allergic reactions in persons who have not experienced them before. Therefore, even "hardened" beekeepers, those who have built up an immunity to reactions over time, are at risk. Attempts to develop an antivenom like that currently available for snake bites have failed to date.
I can only mention the highlights of the ABRC's program in this newsletter. Besides all the papers, the meeting also coincided with the annual meetings of both the American Association of Professional Apiculturists (AAPA) and the Apiary Inspectors of America (AIA). The latter group was in the throes of developing a standard certificate for bee inspection covering American foulbrood, mites and African bees. The abstracts for the Research Conference should be out soon in the American Bee Journal.
AFRICAN BEES ARRIVE
The first confirmed African bee swarm was detected across the Texas border on October 15, 1990 in Hidalgo, near Brownsville. The infamous bee has finally arrived and beekeepers need to begin to come to grips with this reality. Although there is still much disagreement, we are getting a body of information on the African bee which will be useful in the future. In all the falderal about the insect, beekeepers must focus on two facts: (1) the African bee is a honey bee and (2) the beekeeper must adapt to the bee's behavior.
The first statement is not a flip remark. Sometimes this simple fact is lost in heated discussions. I will repeat it. The African bee is a honey bee. That means the insect (yes, it is also an insect, albeit a social one) has all characteristics and behavior of other honey bees. It is the difference or variation in the bee's behavior that continues to be the focus of many discussions and accounts. The most objectionable and noticeable behavior, stinging, appears to be extreme. The bees at different times can be extremely gentle, however, they may also explode in an angry cloud at the slightest provocation. This means a less predictable, and therefore, less manageable bee. From this comes the second point made above. The bees will probably not be the ones adapting to a different management style, the beekeepers will.
I am excerpting a letter which recently appeared in Dr. Eric Mussen's newsletter, From the UC Apiaries." It is an interesting summary of Prof. Adam W. Armour's experience with African honey bees (AHB) in southern Mexico:
"I feel that the American beekeepers are not yet prepared for the arrival of the AHB. The beekeepers here who weren't prepared are the ones who are going out of business. In answer to your questions:
- We have 50 colonies operating for honey and pollen; beekeeping is a sideline for me.
- I plan to have large smokers built locally. We used to manage hives without gloves, veil or other protection. We now use one piece bee suits with zip on veil and elbow gloves. I had to alter the suits to give complete ankle protection as well.
- We keep colonies 100 meters from the nearest house, road or livestock. After being worked, the bee stays aggressive for the rest of the day. Apiaries near roads have been burned, poisoned or otherwise destroyed because of stings received by passersby. People here don't take kindly to having themselves or their animals stung. I can just imagine the lawsuits and problems when the AHB reaches the U.S. As you no doubt know, the AHB is not being genetically diluted or hybridized, as was formerly hoped."
Prof. Armour goes on to discuss other issues such as destruction of colonies by vandals, swarm control (the key to producing any honey with AHB), requeening, migrating (which he doesn't recommend) and robbing (rare for some reason).
It appears from the tone of Prof. Amour's letter, that if the aggressive (defensive) behavior of the bee could be controlled, then the problems produced by the AHB could be much better managed. Dr. Elbert Jaycox, The Bee Specialist, in one of his last newsletters on beekeeping (December, 1989) also made this point in a different way: "While some planners are considering only ways to exclude and control the African honey bees, other should be giving considerable thought to all the ways we can make it easier to live with them while we select for gentle productive strains."
Dr. Jaycox then discusses the case for using bee houses, especially in urban areas. Their use would (1) keep colonies out of sight; (2) make it easier to manipulate bees under all weather conditions; and (3) provide a calming effect on colonies by being in shade. This calming effect was written about as early as 1960, according to Dr. Jaycox, by F.G. Smith in his book, "Beekeeping in the Tropics." Bee houses offer several other advantages, Dr. Jaycox says, such as convenient working height for colonies and the fact that guard bees at the entrance have no access to the beekeeper.
Although bee houses are probably not the answer for large-scale beekeepers, Mr. Andy Nachbaur wrote me some time back that he noted less defensiveness in colonies fitted with modified pollen traps. As Mr. Nachbaur says, "I believe the reason for this is quite simple. Even though the exterior entrance to the hive was normal, the pollen screen that removes the pollen from the bees after they enter the hive was a natural barrier..." The guard bees chose to defend, Mr. Nachbaur says, the interior entrance, excluding exterior activities such as mowing or pulling weeds around colonies. He continues, "I think many beekeepers in different parts of the world have found that aggressive response of bees to intruders and the public can be reduced by bee houses and placement of exterior flight controllers such as trees or fences. I believe the same objective can be reached by modification of the bottom of the bee hive...". "But," he concludes, "the changes needed...would require a modification of beekeeper prejudices on the on dimensions of bottom boards... a bigger hurdle than the cost."
CHANGES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
It's now official. The Entomology-Nematology Faculty at the University of Florida will be moving into a brand new building the first part of November. This transition is exciting, but is also likely to be a difficult time for all. This is clearly evident in the number of boxes crowding my office. Other new things to accommodate to will be changed phone numbers (I am told the number here will be transferred), an up-to- date high technology telephone system being answered from a central location, changed mailing addresses and other as yet unforseen events. I hope everyone will bear with us during this hectic period. Once established in the new building, the Department will be able to serve everyone's needs in a more efficient manner.
A large problem this year is the smaller budget being received by University units. Entomology-Nematology is being hit hard by the five percent roll back in the state budget. The small figure is misleading because only certain areas are eligible to be cut. One of the first to be affected is operating funds; the cut translates into about a 25% reduction in these monies. Publishing information is an important part of these costs, and this newsletter is now being carefully scrutinized by administrators for its usefulness and relevance. Although the costs of the newsletter is relatively low ($1450 per twelve issues), its production represents a hefty proportion of funds used for printing and distributing written materials. I am currently looking into options available to continue the newsletter in its present format, but things are looking a bit grim at the moment.
It is an axiom in most bureacracies that "the squeaky wheel gets the grease." Given this reality, it is important that this newsletter receive support from those currently receiving it. The best way to do this is to write Dr. John Capinera, Chairman, Department of Entomology-Nematology, 3105 McCarty Hall, Gainesville, FL 32611-0143 indicating whether you perceive the newsletter to be valuable to you and other beekeepers in the state, and that you would like it to continue being supported as it has in the past.
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
