APIS Volume 12, Number 6, June 1994
In this issue
- Interesting Job Opportunity
- African Bee Materials From Arizona
- 4-Essay Contest Needs Entries
- Bees Poisoned by Plants
- Florida's Apiary DirectoryM
- More on Bee Attractants
INTERESTING JOB OPPORTUNITY
Although I generally do not include employment opportunities in this newsletter, a recent one deserves attention. Mr. Randall Johnson, past president, American Beekeeping Federation, has an opening at Honeygold Corporation, 720 Fletcher Dr., Nampa, ID 83686, ph 208/467-5195. The person sought is one who can provide a "high level of technical assistance in the areas of evaluating bee diseases, maintaining adequate parasite control, studying pollination effectiveness and evaluating queen rearing and bee nutrition programs." A degree in entomology, biology or similar science is highly desirable.
This is one of the few times I have seen an employment opportunity like this in the beekeeping industry. If this position is filled, it may represent a paradigm shift. In the past, only those with practical bee experience were sought by the industry and they often started at the lowest possible wage. Now that exotic bee mites, pollination concerns and African honey bees have become issues of importance, it appears that individuals with a broader, higher level of training are becoming more desirable. Whether the industry has the resolve and/or financial resources to support employees of the caliber sought by Mr. Johnson, however, remains to be seen.
AHB MATERIALS AVAILABLE IN ARIZONA
Larry Stanford, program specialist, Arizona Department of Agriculture reports that an African honey bee information program is well underway. A video has been produced entitled What Arizonans Need to Know. Produced in the desert southwest by Dr. Steve Thoenes, the video is available for $6.00 and carries no copyright restrictions. In addition, thirteen (13) fact sheets have been printed for distribution. For further information, contact Mr. Stanford, Arizona Dept. of Agriculture, P.O. Box 234, Phoenix, AZ 85001, ph 602/407/2982.
4-H ESSAY CONTEST NEEDS ENTRIES
What does it take to get 4-Hers to sit down and write an essay? That's the burning question those at the American Beekeeping Federation (ABF) and myself are asking after looking at the results of last year's 4-H essay contest. Only fifteen (15) states submitted winners and Florida was not among them. In addition, the vast majority of these states only had only one to two entries to choose from. There are three top cash prizes each year ($250, $100 and $50), plus the winner in each state is awarded a book on beekeeping. This boils down to one fact: there's a great opportunity to win something by simply entering!
The rules for this year's contest have just been announced. The topic this year is much different than from previous contests. The essayist is asked to write an original story on honey bees suitable for a teacher to read to second-grade students. Suggested titles include: The Busy Little Bee, I Like Honey, A Trip to the Apiary, and My Friend, the Beekeeper. There's plenty of time to get a story together for this year's contest; deadline is April 1, 1995! Full contest rules are available from myself or the ABF Office, ph 912/427-8447.
BEE POISONING BY PLANTS?
Reports of severe bee losses in southern Florida this spring resulted in investigation by Mr. Laurence Cutts and his crew of bee inspectors at the Division of Plant Industry. Varroa did not appear to be the problem and tracheal mite levels were low. Veteran bee inspector Tom Dowda suggested analyzing gut contents. Bees' intestines were found to be loaded with pollen from yellow or Carolina jessamine, Gelsemium sempervirens. Investigation by the Beltsville Bee Laboratory confirmed the pollen identification and revealed no diseases.
Mr. Cutts' analysis of the situation is this: In most years, maple and willow bloom overlap. However, in 1994, there was a gap between these blooming periods and yellow jessamine (pronounced like 'jasmine') was virtually the only thing in bloom. This led to several questions: 1) Is yellow jessamine nectar (pollen) toxic to bees?; 2) will bees work this flower if other bloom is available?; 3) If yellow jessamine is toxic, what percent is necessary to be lethal?
These are not new concerns. A section in Honey Bees Diseases and Pests, Second Edition, 1990, edited by R. Morse and R. Nowogrodzki reveals a great many plants that can be problematic at certain times in specific areas of the world. According to the above volume, yellow jessamine has even been credited with death of persons eating honey derived from it. It remains unknown whether the honey or pollen, or both, are responsible for bee losses.
Another species the book mentions that can do a great deal of harm is summer titi, Cyrilla racemiflora. This species is found in southern swamps and causes "purple brood." Beekeepers in Florida's panhandle are well aware of the problems caused by this plant's abundance. In some years, summer titi is far more prevalent than others. Because it is often localized, the beekeeper can simply move bees out of the area, or feed colonies. The latter dilutes the nectar's potential to do harm.
According to Mr. Cutts, the former strategy is not often possible with yellow jessamine because it blooms so many places. He suggests, therefore, that beekeepers monitor locations for this plant and be prepared to heavily feed sugar syrup and pollen supplements. He also suggests a pollen trap might help, although it remains unknown how much the plant's pollen contributes to the problem.
According to Dr. Elbert Jaycox, retired from the University of Illinois, but who published a newsletter, Bees and Honey, for many years, discussion of poisonous plants brings up important questions: 1) Why are there toxic plants? and 2) If there are many such plants, why aren't there more toxic honeys?
Originally, according to Dr. Jaycox writing in 1981, toxic compounds in plants were considered to be waste products with no special value. We now know this is not true. It is generally agreed that plants are usually producing these chemicals (called secondary plant substances) to protect themselves from insect consumers. According to Dr. Jaycox, evidence for this theory is found in the tremendous diversity of insects and plants found on earth. The constant development of chemical defenses by plants coupled with strategies developed by insects to tolerate these chemicals is a continuing battle between would be "eaters" and those who might be "eaten."
This process of constant, slow change, called "coevolution," is more complex in some systems where the insect not only is able to detoxify the plant's poisonous substances, but also makes use of them to protect itself. The classic entomological example of this is the monarch butterfly caterpillar. This larval insect feeds with impunity on the milkweed plant, which contains cardiac glycosides, toxic to most other species. In the process, the adult butterfly also becomes poisonous. The characteristic orange and black color scheme of the adult is a "warning"; birds eating these butterflies quickly learn the consequences (retching) and avoid further predation. In a further twist, the viceroy butterfly, which is not toxic to predators, has taken on the color scheme of the monarch in an attempt to mimic its poisonous cousin!
The ability of insects to detoxify secondary plant substances also confers on them the competency to do the same with human produced chemicals. This is one reason why pesticide resistance by insects is such a common problem in much of commercial agriculture.
According to Dr. Jaycox, this shifting chemistry in plants is a two-edged sword. Being poisonous is helpful for survival, but not so if insect visitation is required for propagation. Thus, certain parts of plants may be toxic (leaves, stems), but products (pollen, nectar) attracting pollinators may not be. In this changing mix, Dr. Jaycox says, toxic nectar may be produced in some plant groups and not in others. The yellow kowhai tree in New Zealand and various reports about certain linden trees producing toxic nectar are examples. Finally, being poisonous to one kind of organism (insects) does not necessarily mean this is the case for others (humans).
Fortunately, Dr. Jaycox concludes, the potential effects of poisonous plants on bees and humans are reduced in several ways. In many cases, the plants that might cause problems (rhododendron) bloom for short periods and when other more attractive nectar sources are available which dilute the nectar's toxicity. Often, bees only visit toxic plants when there is no other nectar to be had. This appears to have been the case in the recent poisonings in southern Florida. Finally, nectar that is poisonous to humans, but not to bees, is often consumed for brood rearing or used for winter stores and thus not available to be harvested by the beekeeper.
FLORIDA'S APIARY DIRECTORY
As part of its continuing effort to provide quality service to the beekeeping industry, the Division of Plant Industry, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, has published its first Florida Certified Apiary Directory. This nifty volume contains an immense amount of material of interest to Florida beekeepers and others concerned with the apiculture industry.
According to the Directory, it is a snapshot of the industry as of October, 1993. Some 1100 registered beekeepers are listed along with their addresses and telephone numbers. They are broken down into groupings based on colony numbers: hobbyist (1-10), sideliner (11-200), and commercial (over 200). All Florida officials involved in beekeeping regulation and bee inspectors are also listed with their addresses and phone numbers. A brief summary of the apiary inspection law is included along with an overview of special inspection services provided by the Division. Finally, a listing appears of other apiary regulatory officials in the United States and Canada.
The Division of Plant Industry has distributed copies of the Directory to other Florida agencies and educational institutions. One has been sent to every county cooperative extension office. Others interested in obtaining a copy should contact Mr. Laurence Cutts, Chief Bee Inspector, P.O. Box 147100, Gainesville, FL 32614- 7100, ph 904/372-3505. Copies are free to Florida residents, but a small fee will be charged for those outside the state.
MORE ON BEE ATTRACTANTS
Back in February, 1991, I wrote the following: "The idea of increasing pollination potential by applying substances attractive to honey bees has been around awhile. Many substances [e.g. Beeline (R)] are based on using sugar to attract the insects. However, these may also attract pests, as well as pollinating bees. The use of pheromones (specific odors) narrows the field by attracting only certain species. Honey bee pheromone-based attractants are now on the market which appear to have potential to increase bee pollination, however, hard evidence of their cost effectiveness is not yet available in all situations."
A few years ago, Dr. Dewey Caron and the University of Delaware conducted an informal survey on the use of a pheromone-based product called Bee-Scent(R), produced by Scentry, Inc. There is evidence that in Virginia and Georgia, the product has increased apple pollination as well as that on pears, plums, cherries, melons and cucumbers. According to Dr. Caron, Bee-Scent(R) does have a role to play under some circumstances, although at about $25 per acre, another bee colony may be a better alternative. As reported by Dr. Caron, Dr. R.K. Fell in Virginia observed some increase in pollinating activity, recommended caution in using Bee- Scent(R).
Now comes a study from North Carolina State University "Selective Bee Attractants Did Not Improve Cucumber and Watermelon Yield," HortScience: Vol. 29, No. 3, pp 155-158, March 1994 which compares both Beeline(R) and Bee-Scent(R). Unfortunately, the authors found that neither material improved bee visitation nor significantly improved yield or monetary return. Does this mean the materials should not be used under any circumstances? Not necessarily. As I quoted one consultant experienced in this issue in 1991, "...the material is going to work best under borderline conditions; that is, when conditions are not completely favorable to bee activity." Thus, it will continue to be up to the grower and beekeeper together to determine how unfavorable conditions must be before committing themselves to using a bee attractant.
Malcolm T. Sanford
Bldg 970, Box 110620
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611-0620
Phone (904) 392-1801, Ext. 143 FAX: 904-392-0190
INTERNET Address: MTS@GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU
