APIS Volume 10, Number 11, November 1992
In this issue
- Apiary Inspection--A Paradigm Shift
- Compatibility of Apistan and Miticur
- Beehaver versus Beekeeper
- Pollination Value of Honey Bees
- Air Pollution and Bees
- NAFTA and Honey
APIARY INSPECTION--A PARADIGM SHIFT
This month marks a new era in Florida beekeeping regulations. A law requiring beekeeper registration was passed in July. On November 3, the rules pertaining to this law went into effect. They include:
- Beginning November 3, Florida beekeepers will be expected to pay an annual registration fee based on the number of colonies kept. The minimum is $5.00 for up to 5 colonies, $10.00 for up to 40, $20.00 for up to 200, rising in steps ($35.00 up to 500; $50.00 up to 2,000; $75.00 up to 5,000) to a maximum of $100.00 for operations exceeding 5,000 hives. Colonies becoming registered must be inspected and a number will be assigned which should be written indelibly (branded is best) on all brood boxes.
- Two months (60 days) before the anniversary of each individual's registration date, a computer generated letter will be sent requesting renewal. The beekeeper then has 60 days to ensure that the bees are inspected and the registration fee has been paid. Bees can be inspected at any time of the year, but this must be done prior to reregistration each year.
- If not reregistered by the time of the anniversary, a $10.00 late charge over and above the registration fee will be assessed. At this time, the beekeeper is given 30 days to become reregistered. After that, he/she will be turned over to the legal department for collection and the colonies are subject to be tagged as abandoned. Tagged colonies will not be able to be moved until registered and, if they are impounded, an impoundment fee is charged. If after 90 days, the colonies have not been inspected and registered, they will be declared a nuisance and can be disposed of by the bee inspection division as it sees fit.
The inspection procedure includes: (1) a visual inspection for signs of American foulbrood; (2) an ether roll to determine Varroa infestation; and (3) a determination if samples will be needed to test for unwanted races of bees (African bees). A minimum of 10 colonies per bee yard or 5 percent of total colonies will be examined. Those wishing to have bees certified for tracheal mites or other pests will be charged an extra inspection fee.
A key point in this set of rules is that the notices of reregistration will be sent automatically. They will not be processed through either the local bee inspector or the State Apiarist's office in Gainesville. The beekeeper, therefore, will be totally responsible for sending in the registration fee and making arrangements for the bees to be inspected. In many cases, this procedure shifts the responsibility of ensuring that bees are inspected from the bee inspector to the beekeeper. In theory, this means that local inspectors will have more free time to actually do bee inspection.
The registration of all beekeepers in Florida is expected to be advantageous in a number of ways. It will provide detailed information on the scope of the beekeeping industry in the state and show the Department of Agriculture that beekeepers are willing to pay some of the escalating costs of inspection. The total funding expected to be generated by the registration process is estimated to fund only 20% of the total bee inspection budget. In addition, registration should help prevent theft of colonies and provide a more comprehensive inspection service than was possible in the past.
Finally, it appears that mandatory registration will also signal a paradigm shift in bee inspection. A paradigm is a predominant pattern or model for an activity. The traditional role of bee inspections has been to inspect bees and regulate movement. Most likely the goals of many inspection services will change from strictly inspection/regulation toward a more service-oriented activity that emphasizes research and information delivery. As I wrote in the August 1991 issue of APIS, inspection services have been very important to the beekeeping industry in a number of ways. Like most political entities, they are not immune from pressure by the group being regulated, especially when it is also helping to foot the bill.
There are signs of this kind of paradigm shift in several states; a change in focus makes eminent sense now that inspection services have to cope not only with American foulbrood, but also tracheal and Varroa mites and soon, the African honey bee. The Michigan Department of Agriculture has reinstated its bee inspection service at the behest of beekeepers and is proposing to use registration fees to help fund bee research at Michigan State University and develop and distribute information through the Cooperative Extension Service. The Nebraska Inspection Service has begun to publish a beekeeping newsletter. In Florida, the Department of Agriculture is actively working with the Cooperative Extension Service to develop a packet of information which will be part of the registration process.
Another paradigm shift is also possible. The California Department of Agriculture has simply abandoned apiary inspection, leaving the industry to regulate itself. Several other states also have very limited inspection programs. Which model prevails, that allied more with Michigan or California, will depend on the support and wishes of the beekeeping industry in each state.
Those beekeepers who have been registered in Florida in the past should soon receive a mailout describing the new apiary law and its requirements. If you don't get one, then your bees probably have not been registered and need to be. Contact your local bee inspector or Mr. Laurence Cutts, Division of Plant Industry, 1911 SW 34th St., P.O. Box 147100, Gainesville, FL 326147100, ph 904/372-3505, ext. 128 to arrange for inspection.
ARE MITICUR (R) AND APISTAN (R) COMPATIBLE?
There was a collective sigh of relief from the beekeeping industry when it was recently announced that Miticur (R) has received a Section 3 (General Use) label. This is now in effect in Florida. The product is currently available and expected to be in stock in most supply houses by the end of the year. It is the long-awaited alterative material for Varroa control and kills tracheal mites in the bargain. That's the good news. The bad news, however, is that there is evidence that using Miticur (R) with the active ingredient called amitraz, may be somehow incompatible with Apistan (R) which has the active ingredient named fluvalinate. A few beekeepers in Florida with advance access to Miticur (R) have seen strange behavior in colonies treated with both materials.
It is known that amitraz and fluvalinate work on the nervous system. Is it possible combining the two may be detrimental? No one knows for sure; there seems to have been no research that focuses on using both materials together. There is the possibility a form of synergy is at work; that although separately these materials control mites and do little damage to bees, together they may devastate a bee colony.
Miticur (R) and Apistan (R), of course, were never designed to be used together. But the fact that fluvalinate is stable and accumulates in comb (see April 1992 APIS) could mean that some of the material will be around for long periods after treatment to interact with the constituents in Miticur (R). This brings another set of questions to bear concerning length of time one must wait between applications of the two products and/or the concentrations of chemicals in both products required for interactions to occur.
BEEHAVER VS. BEEKEEPER
The beehaver vs. beekeeper controversy is finally being settled by an unexpected change of events, invasion by the Varroa bee mite. In the past, the beehaver, a person who had bees but did not really manage the insects, could exist with relative ease. This appears to be no longer the case. Because any colony infested with Varroa must be considered in extreme danger of collapse, beekeeper intervention becomes essential to its survival. The beekeeper must monitor and control mite populations continuously or there is great danger the parasite will kill its host.
This brings to mind the comments by the Brazilian extension apiculturist, Dr. Helmut Wiese, a few years back. He said that beekeepers should welcome both Varroa and the African bee to the United States. The marginal beekeepers (beehavers), those causing most of the problems, according to Dr. Wiese, would inevitably be eliminated, leaving a stronger, more vibrant beekeeping industry.
THE HONEY BEE'S REAL VALUE TO SOCIETY
"Estimating the Economic Value of Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) as Agricultural Pollinators in the United States," written by E.E. and L.S. Southwick, Journal of Economic Entomology, Vol. 85, No. 3: pp 621-633, 1992 is the latest attempt to establish the real value of honey bee pollination for society. According to the authors, although beekeepers know the honey bee has value as a pollinating insect, the actual numbers are often obscured by many factors. They also state that about 400 agricultural crops on a worldwide basis and 130 in the U.S. are pollinated by both honey bees (Apis) and other bees. Perhaps the best estimated value of bee pollination is $18 billion by Dr. Marshall Levin, retired director of the Tucson, Arizona Agricultural Research Laboratory. However, the authors conclude, this work did not include an estimate of contributions by honey bees only. More recent studies have estimated that $10 billion is the correct figure for honey bees. In the past, honey bees have also been credited with pollination done by other bee species.
The authors of the above study suggest that it is especially important to know the value of honey bee pollination now. That's because populations are likely to be significantly affected by:
- Mites that have recently been introduced and are spreading rapidly.
- Diseases such as American foulbrood, chalkbrood and nosema that continue to take their toll.
- Northward migration of Africanized bees directly affecting honey bees managed for agricultural pollination.
- Increased use of insecticide, responsible for honey bee colony losses.
With this in mind, the authors have estimated demand functions for a long list of crops. They follow this with an appraisal of the societal value of honey bees for each. Leading the list are: almond; apple; cranberry; grape; grapefruit; lemon; orange; asparagus; broccoli; cantaloupe; honeydew melon; watermelon; and alfalfa, cotton and soybean seed. The summary is that the annual benefit of the honey bee to U.S. agricultural consumers is on the order of $1.6-$8.3 billion, depending on whether honey bees have replaced (low value) or not replaced (high value) alternative pollinators. The authors further conclude that more study be applied to: (1) finding ways to reduce potential losses to the honey bee industry; and (2) improving management of alternate native pollinators.
AIR POLLUTION ON THE RISE
In the May issue of APIS, I mentioned that citrus growers in Manatee and Hillsborough counties were concerned about damage caused by air pollution. The November issue of Citrus and Vegetable Magazine describes this problem in some detail. According to the article, "It appears that the threat of reduced production and crop loss due to airborne pollutants will be a formidable enemy growers will have to battle throughout the 90s and even into the 21st century..."
Most evidence for such a conclusion comes from California, where smog consists of pollutants in sufficient quantity to harm the growth of citrus and other produce. Emissions testing and control notwithstanding, there are so many people moving into and driving automobiles in the state that the battle is all uphill.
The article says that the only difference between Florida and California is that Florida isn't surrounded by mountains which trap the pollution. Variable winds could blow pollution out into the Gulf one day and bring it back the next. And air pollution doesn't draw boundaries; it easily reaches out to rural areas from urban sources. The article groups air pollutants into three categories:
- Primary pollutants include nitrous oxide, hydrogen fluoride and sulphur dioxide;
- secondary pollutants, those formed by reactions with sunlight and other atmospheric phenomena, such as ozone, nitric and sulfuric acid; and finally,
- toxic metals like lead, copper and mercury.
The major concern in Florida, according to the article, is ozone. Although not harmful to human health, California studies have shown that exposure from a moderate amount of ozone can reduce citrus yields by as much as 19 percent. Another pollutant of concern is fluoride, a product of smokestacks, which not only reduces yield, but may show up on fruit and damage the trees themselves. If both ozone and fluoride are involved, California studies show a decline in yield in excess of 60 percent. The article concludes that unlike advances in frost, drought and insect damage protection, there are no preventative measures that can be taken against the dangers of airborne pollution.
To my knowledge, there has been no research on effects of nectar secretion in Florida citrus because of air pollution. However, over the years many beekeepers have seen declines in production to which they cannot attribute any cause or pattern. This may be analogous to the situation for citrus groves themselves. According to Steve Futch, multi-county extension agent, as quoted in the above article, a number of groves in the last several years received damage from an unknown cause. These incidences appear to be increasing. However, there is no proof that they are linked in any way, nor are affected groves contiguous. The most common symptom seems to be burned leaves, but again, not all are leaves are involved.
Advice to beekeepers? Avoid heavily travelled corridors such as interstate highways and congested urban areas which may show large air pollutant build up. Also, locations near power plants or incinerators are probably more at risk. Perhaps most important is to be constantly aware that air pollution is a potential problem and to keep your eyes open for signs of damage to leaves or trees that indicate any erosion in a grove's health.
NAFTA AND HONEY
There's been a lot of press recently concerning the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and its effects on Florida. Dr. Leo Polopolus in Florida Food and Resource Economics No. 108, "North American Free Trade Agreement, Caribbean Basin Initiative, and Florida Agriculture," September-October, 1992 concludes: "...it is certain that Florida agriculture will experience adverse economic situations for tomatoes, and other vegetables, citrus, strawberries, peanuts, and sugar, among other commodities."
According to Dr. Polopolus, trade liberalization sends chills up and down Florida's agricultural spine because of the uneven playing field on such matters as environmental regulations, wage rates and worker benefits. The bottom line, he concludes, is that without some semblance of equality on the full set of trade, labor and environmental issues, lowering just tariff rates to zero on both sides of international borders will merely provide easier access of foreign horticultural and sugar products into U.S. markets, reducing the production, employment, and income flows from Florida agriculture.
Although a good amount of ink is spent on sugar in Dr. Polopolus' article, there is no mention of honey. Conversation with several individuals indicates that as soon as NAFTA goes into effect, the barriers on honey will be removed. That means that the 20 percent advalorem tax Mexico charged and the one cent per pound tariff imposed by the U.S. on imported honey will be history. There appear to be no exemptions and no phase in regulations for this particular commodity.
Only time will tell whether the NAFTA environment will provide a level playing field conducive to selling honey to Mexico. Certainly, the country, a net exporter in the past, will continue to be a competitor because labor is inexpensive. However, the Varroa mite has now been found in the country and the African honey bee is well entrenched. What these will do to Mexico's honey producing potential in the long run can only be speculation, but it certainly will not be a return to business as usual. Chemical treatment for mites is expensive and large-scale efficient beekeeping far less feasible with African than European honey bees.
Although U.S. producers and packers may not be able to compete with Mexicans in the bulk market, retailing high quality, specialty items in large, metropolitan areas (Mexico City, Guadalajara) could be another story. Thus, at first glance it appears the NAFTA agreement, in contrast to its effects on other commodities, has the potential of doing little harm to and some good for Florida beekeepers. It certainly will be worth a much closer look when the agreement goes into effect as early as January, 1993.
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
©1992 M.T. Sanford "All Rights Reserved
