APIS Volume 9, Number 11, November 1991
In this issue
- National Honey Board Report--Referendum Results
- Pesticide Use by Beekeepers in Georgia
NATIONAL HONEY BOARD REPORT--REFERENDUM RESULTS
It is now official. The National Honey Board will continue and the refund provision of the Honey Research Promotion and Consumer Information Act will be eliminated. Almost 91 percent of voters favored continuation of the Board. These represented 89 percent of the volume of honey produced and exported by those voting. Some 72 percent also voted to eliminate the refund provision, which is expected to result in an increase of $300,000 in the Board's budget.
Ms. Sherry Jennings reported the above figures and also told those attending the 71st convention of the Florida State Beekeepers Association in Gainesville to expect a lot more from Board activities in the future. Specifically being promoted is the Board's Honey Bear Service Mark Program. Ms. Jennings showed a video that was designed to introduce the program to the food industry. By all measures the video's results have been uniformly positive.
The Board awards the Honey Bear Service Mark to manufacturers who use a significant amount of honey in their products. Over 130 products have been approved to use the logo and the program is growing in popularity. The mark can now be found on Land O'Frost hams and turkeys, Wheatzels wheat pretzels, Downey's honey butter, ThistleDew Farm's honey mustard and even Eight-in-One Pet Products 14 varieties of Ultra-blend Honeybars. Other services to food manufacturers include a new brochure which details how honey can be used in muffins, breads and cookies. In addition, "key selling point" fact sheets are being developed to help food manufacturers solve problems with honey which is becoming more important in baked goods and ready-to- eat cereals. Finally, the Board continues to support its honey hotline (1-800-356-5941) which answers all manner of questions on the sweet.
Other forms of advertising have been launched. Ms. Jennings showed the group several video spots on national television programs. The Board helped produce a television program as part of the new PBS Series, "Cooking in America," to debut in early 1992, according to the Summer 1991 National Honey Board newsletter. A companion book, "Pierre Franey's Cooking in America," will be published by Random House. The chapter on honey will be the first written and will be the model for subsequent chapters. Full color ads, usually in combination with other products, will also continue to appear in magazines found in food stores. Another production by the National Honey Board is the cooking video "Just Add Honey."
This can be used in conjunction with all kinds of events including state fairs and cooking demonstrations. It is available for $12.00 from the Board. However, I have permission to dub it for free and you can get a copy by sending me a blank VHS video tape.
Beyond the domestic front lies the world honey market. The National Honey Board is working closely with the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) to increase sales in strategic world markets. The 1991 focus, according to the Board's Summer 1991 newsletter, is to promote specialty honeys of exquisite quality such as tupelo, buckwheat and sage that command premium prices on the world market. A small, but important, foothold in this has been established in Finland. Last year sales to Finland increased 150 percent. A creamed honey has been marketed to get the population used to eating the sweet as a spread instead of a hard crystalline form suitable only as a sweetener in beverages. Portion packs and commercial cooking with honey are also being marketed.
Although the bread and butter of the Board's activities are promotional, another payoff is in the active research program that is beginning to develop. Protecting the quality of the crop has always been a priority for those in the honey industry and the adulteration issue continues to be of concern. Thus, the Board will oversee a research project to improve honey testing under the guidance of Dr. Nicholas Low, Department of Applied Microbiology and Food Science at the University of Saskatoon, Canada. Funding will also be supplied by the National Honey Packers and Dealers Association, Sioux Honey Association and other national organizations concerned about honey quality.
New food labelling regulations by the Food and Drug Administration may also require research on honey. Nobody is yet sure what the rules will be, according to Mr. Nick Sargeantson, current President of the National Honey Packers and Dealers Association. He is quoted in the Summer 1991 National Honey Board Newsletter saying that the industry should put nutritional labels on its products after the final rules are published sometime in 1993.
The National Honey Board is also examining ultrafiltration of honey. The process filters, purifies and/or concentrates food products and other organic materials, according to the Board's Summer 1991 newsletter. Ultrafiltration would be advantageous for increased honey use in the dairy, cosmetic and pharmaceutical industries.
Finally, five pharmaceutical and burn treatment specialists reviewed a series of reports presented by the National Honey Board. These presented current research and scientific data on honey in pharmaceutical applications, according to the Board's Summer 1991 newsletter. This was particularly involving the use of honey in burn cases. The National Burn Victim Foundation, in conjunction with the Beijing Institute, has developed an ointment using honey to accelerate wound healing. The Shriner's Burn Institute, the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy, and Science and the National Institute for Burn Medicine have also been encouraged by research on medical applications of honey. All this provides legitimacy to what many have always known about honey's healing properties. However, to bring a product to market with honey as an "active" ingredient would require a great amount of research and might cost $250 million, according to the Board's Executive Director, Mr. Bob Smith. As an adjunct to this, therefore, the Board is also promoting honey as an "inactive" ingredient in pharmaceutical products. These include ointments, creams, throat lozenges or syrups.
The sample listing of activities of the National Honey Board provided above can give only a basic outline of the Board's efforts. Obviously, there would be very little activity on any of these promotional or research fronts if funding for the Board was terminated. The industry had the wisdom, therefore, to continue the program in the referendum and also to terminate the refund procedure.
It is important to understand that the National Honey Board is a beekeeper supported program and not associated with the U.S. Government, Mr. Smith said in the Summer 1991 newsletter. It has not been involved in the recent buy-back price increase and nor is it a part of the USDA's Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service Program (ASCS). Although the one cent per pound is collected by ASCS, it goes to National Honey Board programs and is not to be confused with any other ASCS marketing assessment. The U.S. Government, Mr. Smith concluded, does not have the same commitment to the honey industry as the National Honey Board. Indeed even as the 1990 Farm Bill is being implemented, rumors continue that the price support program is under attack in Congress.
In addition to being beekeeper supported, the Board is also run by representatives of the industry. Mr. Bill Gamber in the Fall 1991 newsletter provided some information on how the Board functions. Most of the work is done at the committee level, he said. The Board has five committees--Executive, Advertising and Consumer Information, Industry Relations, Product Research and Development and International Market Development. Board members nominated by the industry serve on at least two of these committees. Each analyzes information presented and makes recommendations to the Board to get the most work done in the least amount of time.
The best way to get to know who your representative might be, as well as become informed on the Board's activities, is to receive the quarterly newsletter. Contact the National Honey Board, 421 21st Ave. #203, Longmont, CO 80501-1421, ph 303/776-2337 to be put on the
PESTICIDE USE BY BEEKEEPERS IN GEORGIA
The Georgia Bee Letter, written by Dr. Keith Delaplane, Georgia Cooperative Extension Service, has some news of interest to Florida beekeepers. In an update on Miticur (R), Dr. Delaplane reports that Nor-Am Chemical Company considers registration of the product that controls both tracheal and Varroa mites to be imminent. Florida and Georgia are also pursuing emergency registration of the product; this allows short-term use of a nonregistered product for a specified location.
Beginning in 1992, Georgia is deregulating Varroa mites. Inspectors will be checking only if requested by beekeepers who need certification to move into other states. The Georgia Department of Agriculture, however, will require use of Apistan (R) in all caged queens and/or package bees originating in the state.
A Survey of Acaricide Use in Honey Bee Hives in Georgia was also recently published by Dr. Delaplane. It is one of the few studies that deals with the topic of chemical application to control mites inside beehives. Some 378 of the 1,618 questionnaires sent out were returned, a response rate of 23.4%. This represented 51,608 beehives, 46.5% of the number found in Georgia at the end of 1990. The results showed that more hives were treated with menthol than Apistan (R), most receiving two menthol treatments and only one Apistan (R) treatment. Menthol was usually applied using one 50-gram packet, but cough drops and vegetable oil were popular alternatives. In 1990, respondents spent an average of $2.20 on menthol per colony and $2.50 treating with Apistan (R). Menthol was usually put on the top bars, Apistan (R) between the frames. Finally, most menthol was used in the autumn and spring, most Apistan (R) in autumn.
When asked what other products beekeepers would like to see approved for mite treatment, most said they didn't know (47%). Amitraz followed with 26.5%. Alternative non-chemical controls considered important by respondents were breeding from their own resistant bees, using another beekeeper's resistant stock and "letting the fittest survive." The bottom line for beekeepers in Georgia asked if they had to rely solely on non-chemical controls for mite control: A loss of $2,177,194 from tracheal mites and $2,317,102 from Varroa, totalling $4,494,296 statewide.
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
