APIS Volume 13, Number 6, June 1995
In this issue
- Varroa Mite Population Dynamics
- Backgrounder for Honey Legislation
- The National Honey Board Readies for the 21st Century
VARROA MITE POPULATION DYNAMICS
As we learn more about Varroa jacobsoni in honey bee hives, the dynamics between mite and bee populations become more complex. Several things are thought to contribute to mite population buildup, including the natural rate of increase in the bee colony based on the amount of brood and the number of mites being introduced from nearby infested colonies. This latter factor is thought to be extremely significant in "reinfestation" of treated colonies (see March 1993 APIS). Another consideration is the switch by Varroa mites in the fall from the decreasing number drone brood, which they seem to prefer, to worker brood (See October 1994APIS).
There are many examples of populations that are "density dependent" in the biological world. These groups cannot expand indefinitely because as their number increases, conditions change to slow, and in some cases stop, further growth. Often this "negative feedback loop" is a response to dwindling food resources. A study published in Journal of Apicultural Research (Vol. 33(3):155-159, 1994) by M. Eguaras, J. Marcangeli and N. Fernandez shows that this is also true for Varroa. As the mite population in a bee colony increases, there is a reduction in the number of Varroa offspring. Even the addition of one mite the authors deem significant.
Theoretically, a honey bee colony treated in the fall, provided it survives the winter, comes into spring with a low Varroa mite population ready to rapidly expand. A honey bee colony in good condition can usually outpace the mite population buildup during the more active season. Nevertheless, it is extremely important to know the population level of Varroa mites in a bee colony in case chemical control becomes necessary.
Ideally, bee colonies should be chemically treated only when there is an "excessive" quantity of mites determined by ether roll or some other test. Unfortunately, what is considered "excessive" is not known. It is subjective, depending on the observer's point of view, and can vary greatly with the testing procedure. The results of the above study now complicate this situation more by suggesting that this all-important number is also influenced by the mite population level itself. The level at which treatment is necessary, therefore, like many other aspects of Varroa control, becomes a moving target (see August 1993 APIS).
The negative feedback loop in the Varroa population makes biological sense. It keeps parasitization to a "reasonable" level and prolongs the survival of the bee colony, lengthening the time the mite population has to feed on its host. Unfortunately, this does little for the beekeeper. Any level of parasitic activity inevitably decreases surplus production in a colony, the apiculturist's bread and butter. And the authors of the above study say that this mechanism alone cannot keep bee colonies alive. This is particularly true in winter, when many highly infested brood cells are present and a non-equilibrium between host and parasite leads to colony death. The study concludes: "Thus, beekeepers must still apply chemical products to maintain low mite populations."
BACKGROUNDER FOR HONEY LEGISLATION
"The U.S. Congress will soon consider new farm legislation to replace the expiring Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990." This is the first sentence in the foreword to Agricultural Economic Report Number 708, Honey: Background for 1995 Farm Legislation, USDA, April 1995, by Frederic L. Hoff. The document contains a wealth of historical information and analysis on the beekeeping industry and is a fine supplement to AER 680, The U.S. Beekeeping Industry, May 1994 (see July 1994APIS). Besides a summary of changes in the honey price support system from the 1960s to 1994, it discusses the structure of the beekeeping industry, effects of the honey program on all levels of U.S. society and current policy issues. This publication is mandatory reading for anyone who might have an interest in how the honey industry fares as part of the 1995 farm bill.
In general, this report shows a historical downward trend in colony numbers, beekeepers and profit margins. Some of the salient points are summarized below:
In 1947, there were 5.9 million hives in the United States. There was a steady decline until 1973. From then until 1986, colony count leveled off at about 4.1 million. A precipitous drop followed, with hives declining 16 percent since 1989 to the present level of 2.9 million. During the same period, the number of beekeepers has also declined, although exact figures are not known.
Honey production mirrored colony numbers to some degree, declining from 272 million pounds in 1952 to 150 million pounds in 1985. The average production in the 1950s and 1960s was 240 million pounds, dropping to 209 million during the 1970s and 1980s. As beekeeping operations have increased in size, production per colony has been higher, averaging 66 pounds per colony since 1986. Outfits of less than five hives were dropped from production figures in the 1986, inflating this average. The value of honey production has increased over the years. It averaged $42.3 million from 1945-1971. Since then, it went to a height of $141.5 million in 1979, then dropped to $121-$125 million from 1991-1993.
In spite of the general rise in overall production, honey prices have remained relatively low, declining from a record high of $0.61 per pound in 1981 to $0.54 in 1993. The report only covers up to 1993 and, therefore, does not reflect current prices, driven even lower by a recent flood of imports. A decline in honey program payments from $100 million in 1988 to $16 million in 1993, along with an increase in operational expenses over 15 percent has also hit beekeepers hard.
Most beekeepers supply pollination free as a byproduct of their honey-producing activities. About a million colonies are estimated to be involved in commercial pollination. Fees range from $9.50 per colony to as high as $35. Using an average figure of $20, the estimated value of purchased pollination services is $40.7 million in 1988. This value is estimated to increase in the future.
The report concludes:
"The fate of the honey price support program will likely be determined by the 1995 farm bill."
It lists several options Congress might consider:
- Extend Provisions of the Existing Honey Program: This would force producers to depend more on honey sales and commercial pollination for most of their income. However, it would also provide some income protection in a sluggish and weak honey market.
- Adopt and Extend Provision of Government Reform and Savings Act: This program would make loans, but eliminate subsidies. Although not providing beekeepers with income because loans are repayable with interest, it could be a source of working capital.
- Protect Program With Import Quotas: Controlling imports using import quotas or tariff-rate quotas would eliminate beekeeper dependence on the honey program for income. This is highly unlikely given the prevalent "free trading" philosophy.
A full copy of the report can be requested by dialing 1-800- 999-6779. The cost is $9 and includes postage for U.S. residents (others add 25 percent to the cost). Visa and MasterCard are accepted. I reiterate what I said last July, "The beekeeping community now has plenty of ammunition to back up its arguments for public support in many arenas. However, the time and expense to produce this document will go for naught, if those in the beekeeping industry do not use the information to its fullest potential."
Deliberations about the 1995 farm bill will likely be determined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) budget, according to the Farm Bureau as reported in The Speedy Bee, May 1995. The historical downward trend in help to beekeepers is also mirrored in the rest of agriculture. Current USDA reorganization is expected to eliminate more than 1,200 field offices, terminate more than 11,000 employees and consolidate 43 agencies into 29.
"With 4 percent of the federal budget set aside for USDA, assumptions have been made that the $63 billion is doled out directly to farmers," the article says. However, in reality less than one percent actually goes to farm-only programs. The majority (59 percent) was for food and nutrition assistance, while two percent was absorbed in international food aid. The Commodity Credit Corporation received 17 percent, while research, Forest Service and Farm Service Agency received 3, 7 and 7 percent respectively. The House and Senate have put all agriculture programs on the table. Both are expected to debate the agriculture budget in May or June, with a reconciliation agreement likely. The bottom line: farmers must contact their representatives with their concerns for both the 1996 agriculture budget and 1995 farm bill or see continued erosion in support at the federal level.
THE NATIONAL HONEY BOARD READIES FOR THE 21st CENTURY
According to the National Honey Board Chairman, Mr. Neil Miller, the Board is now working to be ready for the 21st century. His letter in the latest National Honey Board News discusses efforts "preparing to meet the challenges of promoting honey in a changing environment." As part of this, Mr. Miller says, the board is working on an international honey research database accessible across the Internet and helping other countries promote honey to their own consumers.
The development of the PackTrack computer program is another example of the Board's commitment to tomorrow's (really today's) business climate. The software provides a consistent way to maintain a complete history of all honey purchases and to track sweet processed for sale. It also will manage an accurate, up- to-date list of contacts, including honey producers, importers, vendors and customers. The system can search for data eight different ways and there is an online help facility and a calculator available at "the touch of a key." PackTrack requires a 386 IBM compatible processor, running DOS 3.3 or higher. It, along with a complete user's manual, sells for $8.95.
The honey board newsletter is also packed with other kinds of information, including a detailed article on small business exemptions from nutrition labeling. For more specifics about honey labeling, and for Florida in particular, see the August, October and November 1994 issues of APIS. For more information on National Honey Board programs, see the February ("Honey Board Evaluates Itself") and March ("A Honey of a Bibliography") 1995 issues of APIS.
If you don't get the National Honey Board's newsletter, write or call (800-553-7162). Also be advised that the Office address has recently changed to 390 Lashley, Longmont, CO 80501- 6045.
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
©1995 M.T. Sanford "All Rights Reserved
