APIS Volume 9, Number 1, January 1991
In this issue
- Making Beeswax Creams
- On Queen Quality
- Blueberry Pollination in Florida
MAKING BEESWAX-BASED CREAMS
During my travels in other countries, I have seen a profusion of bee products that are being marketed to the public. In Europe in particular, I was impressed by the large variety of cosmetics and creams that have beeswax as a base. The September issue of "Buzzwords," the newsletter of the New Zealand National Beekeepers Association, published an article on making beeswax-based creams. These products are surprisingly simple to produce and require only a few basic ingredients. As the newsletter editor suggests, perhaps as the beekeeper ponders the fate of those beautiful cakes of lemonyellow gold beeswax, some thought might be given to making these creams. I also think that there is more room for manufacturing and marketing them to the health conscious, up-scale U.S. consumer in the 1990s.
Beeswax is a unique product with many interesting physical and biological properties. It does not become rancid, is not irritating or sensitizing to the skin, and it acts as a stiffening or firming agent (base). The information provided by the New Zealand newsletter is for producing basic creams of the water-in-oil emulsion type. An emulsion is the result of fine particles of oil being permanently suspended in water through use of an emulsifier. The most typical emulsifying agent used around the house is soap. The combination of sodium tetraborate (borax) and cerotic acids (provided by beeswax) forms the soap called sodium cerotate, the basis for the following recipe for cold cream:
Cetyl esters wax (synthetic spermaceti) 125 grams
Very light or bleached beeswax 120 grams
Mineral oil 560 grams
Sodium borate (borax) 5 grams
Distilled water 190 milliliters
To make a solution of 1000 gramsA moisturizing cream is made in the following manner:
Yellow beeswax (stiffening agent) 140 grams
Mineral oil (emollient) 450 grams
Distilled water (vehicle) 330 milliliters
Borax 2 tsp.Again, break the beeswax into small pieces and melt in a steam bath until the mixture reaches 70 degrees C. Dissolve the borax in the distilled water warmed to 70 degrees C, and gradually add the warm solution to the melted mixture, stirring rapidly and continuously until congealed. Fill jars after temperature declines to at least 42 degrees C. Although the article doesn't state it, probably most care in making the creams is required in the gradual adding of ingredients. If too much is added at once, the emulsifing process may not occur. The rapid and continuous stirring should also not be neglected.
ON QUEEN QUALITY
Most beekeepers now agree that control of tracheal and Varroa mites, as well as managing the African honey bee, will come from producing genetically superior stock. In the past, bee breeders and beekeepers have not been very interested in queen quality because existent material was considered adequate. Cost, rather than quality, became the yardstick by which queen procurement was measured. It will take some time, but the U.S. industry must now take a fresh look at the queen-producing sector. One way to begin is to look at what other nations are doing.
With the closing of their border to U.S. stock, the Canadians have been actively searching for sources of good queens and there have been a good number of countries banging on their door. Both New Zealand and Australia are already in the running because they each have a well- regulated industry which has been approved by the Canadian agricultural authorities. The June issue of the National Beekeepers Association of New Zealand's newsletter, "Buzzwords," provided some data on the number of queens exported to Canada the last two years:
1988 1989
New Zealand
Packages 13,305 12,148
Queens 25,965 31,780
Australia
Packages 1,200 960
Queens 41,403 32,900Obviously, interest in providing bees by those countries continues to grow. Fortunately, part and parcel of this is close attention to the quality of individual queens produced. The New Zealanders have developed an interesting competition among themselves (October, 1990 Buzzwords) to test queens. This is the first time that I have seen published data concerning judging queen quality and it is helpful to critically look at numbers indicating quality control. The information is not complete, because in this case, genetic makeup was not taken into consideration. However, the physiological quality of queens produced is just as vital as the genetics involved in a breeding program. The former is also the portion most under control by the bee breeder.
Perhaps the most valuable part of the competition, according to the newsletter, was that results were freely disclosed by contestants. In this way, it became more of a cooperative learning experience. The results of last year's contest held in New Zealand are instructive. The figures are average values for two queens. The final rank order was determined by the average reproductive index value, the sum of: ovariole number + (spermatheca volume x 270) + (sperm count x 40). This gives approximately equal weighting among the three criteria.
Entrant 1 2 3
Ovarioles (total) 355 354 332
Spermatheca (volume) 1.39 1.225 1.06
Sperm (millions) 8.58 8.59 6.26
Nosema nil nil negl.
Reproductive Index 1075 1028 868.6These figures were also compared to others as benchmarks:
World Maxima New Z. Maxima Good Averages
Ovarioles (total) 405 376 300
Spermatheca (volume) 1.52 1.48 1.00
Sperm (millions) 11.8 9.86 5.0
Reproductive Index 1286 1170 770Final comments on the competition revealed that all queens entered were well mated and contained between six and seven million sperm per cubic millimeter. In addition, fumagillin was used to keep nosema to very low levels. Again, all contestants disclosed their methods, and all used variations of the queenless starter/queenright finisher system, which were normal in most commercial operations. This was important because it showed that superior queens were not products of special methods developed for this particular competition.
The genetic part of producing quality queens is not being ignored in New Zealand. The August issue of Buzzwords reveals a plan to upgrade stock in that country. This is the outgrowth of pressure to import superior or alternative genetic material, considered an objectionable strategy by many in the industry who would prefer to upgrade the existent stock. A steering committee has been formed and a financial structure is being set up to provide for limited, but transferrable, shareholding among participants. Each shareholder will receive an instrumentally inseminated queen every year.
Initially, the proposed plan calls for 25 full shareholders, with provisions for smaller beekeepers to obtain a "share within a share." The goal is to develop a closed population of current New Zealand stock which will be continually improved, similar to a current program being conducted in Australia. The Western Australia Bee Breeding Programme has been in operation for a decade and advertises a productivity increase of at least 10 percent per year. Instrumentally inseminated breeders in the Australian program cost about 500 to 1000 Australian dollars. A New Zealand share is estimated to cost 650 New Zealand dollars annually.
It seems reasonable that the U.S. beekeeping industry could use some of the concepts presented above to increase both the quantity and quality of available queens. However, these actions will require leadership at the national level and a commitment by the individual beekeeper to support such a program by cooperating and purchasing its products.
BLUEBERRY POLLINATION
Last year was not a good season for blueberry pollination in Florida. Although all the evidence is not in yet, many are saying that a big problem was lack of bee pollination. Growers renting honey bee colonies did not get the fruit set they wished and are asking why. J.H. Cane and J.A. Payne recently published some information through the Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station which gives a good beginning in estimating how real this problem may be and suggesting a solution.
The authors state that rabbiteye blueberries are most effectively pollinated by bees that vibrate the flower to release the pollen. It seems that blueberry flowers are so constructed that pollen is held internally in the anther and can only exit through the small pores at the tip. The pollen pours out when the anthers are vibrated by buzzing bees. Most native bee species "buzz-pollinate" blueberries when foraging for nectar. Unfortunately, both the honey bee and the carpenter bee do not. If that isn't enough, it seems that carpenter bees get blueberry nectar by making a slit in the corolla, further bypassing the flower's sexual parts. These holes then attract honey bees and so both species become even less efficient in pollinating the blooms!
Most native bumblebees are excellent pollinators of rabbiteye blueberries; however, the southeastern blueberry bee, Habropoda laboriosa, is the most effective according to the authors. These resemble small bumblebees. They will not use the robbery holes and buzz-pollinate flowers. They also forage from early morning to sunset and are not drawn to flowers which compete with blueberries for pollinating attention. In spite of its effectiveness, however, Habropoda is not a colonial insect and, therefore, does not produce colonies of numerous individuals needed to pollinate large stands of blueberries. The solitary females dig tunnels in the soil to lay their eggs and there is only one generation per year. Bumblebees are also major pollinators of blueberries, but their numbers are usually very low early in spring during the bloom. The technology does not exist to produce either bumblebees or southeastern blueberry bees in enough abundance to take care of the pollination requirements of large acreages.
All this adds up to a complex of problems that might occur in rabbiteye blueberry pollination. Growers with small acreages have the best opportunity to get their plants pollinated because fewer individual bees are needed and these can come from the wild pollinating population. However, as field size increases, the sheer number of flowers overwhelms the ability of native pollinators. Because there is no way to culture these native populations, pollination becomes a hit or miss affair based on the ebb and flow of natural conditions. In some years, the bees are numerous, in others few can be seen. An additional factor is the presence or absence of carpenter bees which either increase or decrease the number of slit corrolas present each season. Fortunately, the carpenter bee, like the southeastern blueberry bee, is solitary and very large populations are exceptional.
This brings us to the role of honey bees in pollinating blueberries. Although the individual insects are not as efficient as wild native bees, each colony can be induced to put out a huge number of foragers. If there are no competing plants, if the blueberry flowers are attractive by providing enough nectar and if carpenter bee slits are minimized, there will be so many bees out there that pollination must occur in spite of the inefficiencies mentioned above. Thus, the same recommendation is made for other crops which are difficult to get pollinated: "bring in more colonies of honey bees." Unfortunately, the question concerning how many colonies is enough varies each year depending on the number of native bees, both beneficial (bumblebees) and inefficient (carpenter bees), that will be in the field.
These pollination problems represent a classic case where plant and honey bee breeding might help. Plant breeders could begin to select blueberry varieties that are attractive to honey bees or do not require buzz pollination. Bee breeders could explore the possibility of developing a population that would buzz pollinate and prefer blueberries. There is precedent for both these approaches. Recently, it has been found at the ARS Carl B. Hayden Bee Laboratory that there is enough variability in onion and bee populations to select for increased onion pollination. In the past, one of the major achievements in bee breeding was development of a stock of bees that preferred to collect alfalfa pollen.
Like bees and plants, the human population is also genetically controlled. This leads me to Dr. Norman Borlaug, a plant breeder who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his work to reduce world food shortages. He was quoted in the Soil Science Department's "Highlights in Soil Science: "While we pursue the utopian will of the wisp of the risk-free society, we appear quite confident that if we pass a few more laws we will soon achieve a risk-free immortal life. But in this pursuit we fail to realize that one of the greatest biological risks over which we have no control takes place...when we draw the genetic hand of cards that we will hold all our lives. Although we can exploit more of the potential longevity of that genetic hand of cards by living a healthy lifestyle, we still have a biological clock with us, as all life species do, that will determine longevity. It seems we are fast becoming a nation of "healthy" hypochondriacs with a diminished gene frequency for common sense. We try to die young as late as possible."
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
©1991 M.T. Sanford "All Rights Reserved
