APIS Volume 18, Number 9, September 2000
In this issue
- The African Honey Bee in Ecuador: Can Paradise be Maintained?
- EPA Sets Tolerance Levels for Coumaphos in Honey and Beeswax:
- More on Warning Labels for Bee Products in New Zealand and Australia:
- New Zealand Rejects Eradication of Varroa:
- Florida Bee Meetings:
- The Florida State Beekeepers Association Web Presence:
THE AFRICAN HONEY BEE IN ECUADOR: CAN PARADISE BE MAINTAINED?
I have returned from a trip south of Quito to collect honey from colonies in two places called Pastocalle and Lasso in the shadow of one of Ecuador’s most resplendent snow capped peaks, El Cotopaxi. The temperament of the honey bees we visited was exemplary. Between the three of us, we received no more than four stings for a whole day’s work, which included using bee brushes to remove bees from combs of honey before loading them into the car. It gave me pause. Was this really the African honey bee (Apis mellifera scutellata)? And if so, why all the fuss about this insect’s defensive behavior? The answer to the first question was yes and reliable reports that deaths of both animals and people have indeed been caused by this unpredictable insect in Ecuador confirm its latter reputation. The source of our luck during this time was that a honey flow was in progress, and on this bright, sunny day the conditions for manipulating colonies could not have been better. It added up to one of the maxims of beekeeping. One can do almost anything while manipulating bees when the conditions are right.
My host was Ingeniero Holk Rührig, a civil engineer of German background, now living in Ecuador. Ing. Rührig is the general manager of Asistencia Apícola Alemana (Apicultural Assistance of Germany), Av. La Gasca 1309, Quito, Ecuador, Tél: 593-02-542-510. His hives are scattered over the highlands (sierra) of Ecuador and his knowledge about beekeeping in the area is legend. Besides honey production, he sells a line of beekeeping equipment. Among other things, Ing. Rührig participated in three-day short course held in Quito at the Pontificia Universidad Cátolica del Ecuador (PUCE) in early August, where he shared some of his knowledge along with my academic host here, Dr. Giovanni Onore.
Dr. Onore showed the participants of the short course his pinned collection of honey bees in the PUCE insect museum, which he says reveals in detail the history of the Ecuadorian Africanization process. Dr. Onore was fortunate to arrive in Ecuador at the same time as the African bee in 1980. He is the student of one of Italy’s legendary apiculture professors at the University of Turin, the late Dr. Carlo Vidano <http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~mts/apishtm/apis89/apoct89.htm#1>. He had been doing missionary work in Africa as a Marianist Catholic priest and so had firsthand experience with that tropical honey bee in its native land. Dr. Onore said the behavioral shift from European to African was palpable and left little doubt in his mind that Apis mellifera scutellata had invaded. Where it came from remains a mystery. Perhaps it arrived in packages from Colombia or migrated on its own from the Amazon basin over the lowlands of southern Ecuador. In the late 1980s, Dr. Onore was able to see many changes in the local bee population as Africanization took place. A most interesting occurrence was a large incidence of chalkbrood in the sierra, mostly in African drone brood. Over time, this has disappeared.
The next phenomenon to appear in Ecuador was Varroa in the early 1990s. By this time, almost all honey bees in Ecuador were certifiably African according to Dr. Onore. There is no documentation about where the mite came from, but it quickly spread throughout the country. The effects of Varroa on Ecuador’s honey bee population during that period has not been well document, but few if any chemical treatments were ever used to mitigate the mite’s advance. And this continues today, such that every colony contains some population of Varroa, which in general is well tolerated as is seen in other tropical countries like México <http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~mts/apishtm/apis97/apmay97.htm#2> and Brazil <http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~mts/apishtm/papers/teres.htm>.
Most of the colonies I saw on this sunny August day were healthy and productive. We took a fine grade of white honey (probably eucalyptus) off most of these hives, but they were quite uneven in population, with some having only a handful of bees while others were powerhouses. The apicultural bottom line in Ecuador is that American foulbrood is not present, Varroa mites are not treated, pesticides are not a problem, and bees do not usually have to be fed. If colonies die out, they are soon replaced by naturally occurring swarms. Market conditions are such that honey here fetches a better price than on the world export market. Because there is no treatment using either antibiotics or pesticides, the opportunity exists to produce certified organic honey for both the domestic and export market.
Ecuador is not without its problems. Two of its volcanoes continue to erupt causing some dislocation. Its infrastructure leaves much to be desired, especially roads that are in bad shape due to large traffic loads and rains from the El Niño phenomenon <http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~mts/apishtm/apis99/apnov99.htm#3>. There is a significant fiscal crisis here as well. The country defaulted on its Brady bonds; a number of bankers have fled the country, many with depositor’s funds, and inflation was so out of control that the U.S. dollar is now being adopted as the official currency. Finally, the human population has been sensitized to overdefensive African honey bees such that finding locations is difficult.
In spite of the problems, I still think that if Ecuador isn’t a beekeeping paradise, it comes pretty darn close. The big challenge, however, will be to keep it so. There is considerable risk that conditions in the country could radically change due to importation of bees or bee products exposed to American foulbrood or other diseases and pests <http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~mts/apishtm/apis99/apmay99.htm#2>. It is not known what version of Varroa destructor is here, but a good guess is that it is the Japan/Thailand haplotype, which appears to be much less problematic than its Korean cousin <http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~mts/apishtm/apis_2000/apjul_2000.htm#3>. Any importation of honey bees might possibly result in the introduction of the latter haplotype with possibly devastating consequences.
EPA SETS TOLERANCE LEVELS FOR COUMAPHOS IN HONEY AND BEESWAX
The American Beekeeping Federation released some "exciting and important news for the U.S. honey industry" on August 8, 2000. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has agreed to establish tolerances for coumaphos in honey and beeswax <http://www.abfnet.org/industry_news/EPACoumaphosLevels.html>. According to the press release, the sale of honey that has picked up minute amounts of coumaphos from the use of Bayer's Check-Mite+ strips to combat both Varroa and small hive beetle will now be possible. Also, it will be permissible to sell comb honey from treated hives.
The tolerances are 0.1 ppm for honey (one-tenth part per million; same as 100 parts per billion). Recognizing that coumaphos concentrates in beeswax, EPA is setting that tolerance at 100 ppm. The tolerances were approved on August 2 and notification was scheduled for publication on the Federal Register during the following week. For the tolerances to be effective in a given state, that state's Section 18 permit for the use of Check-Mite+ must be amended by the EPA, a process that will take seven to 10 days.
According to the release, the EPA established the tolerance for coumaphos, an organophosphate, despite its general refusal to add further food uses while assessing all pesticides of this class. In doing so it recognized three factors:
- The need for Check-Mite+ to control fluvalinate-resistant Varroa is nationwide. The small hive beetle is spreading and no alternative chemical treatments are available.
- Honey bees provide a $14.6 billion benefit to U.S. agriculture. This was identified as the overriding factor in granting the tolerances.
- The addition of the tolerances for honey and beeswax adds negligible risk to the consumer. The tolerance for coumaphos in other foods, which are consumed in far greater volumes than honey, include 1 ppm in meat; 0.5 ppm in milk-fat; and 0.1 ppm in eggs.
The need for the tolerance, the release concluded, was brought to the attention of Bayer and EPA by Sioux Honey, which had found coumaphos residues in honey from hives treated with Check-Mite+ strips on the order of 10 to 15 parts per billion.
Although this is indeed good news, beekeepers must continue to be extremely careful in using Check-Mite+ strips. The information about the active ingredient, coumaphos, presented in the January 1999 APIS newsletter <http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~mts/apishtm/apis99/apjan99.htm#1> still holds and is worth repeating:
"Coumaphos is in a class of highly toxic materials known as organophosphates (OPs). It is a cholinesterase inhibitor, which attacks the nervous system. Developments of this insecticide type were associated with German studies on related compounds, the so-called ‘nerve gases’ (sarin, soman and tabun). Suffice it to say OPs are among the most toxic of insecticides <http://www.poison.org/oranoph.htm>. The LD50 of coumaphos for absorption through the skin (dermal), for example, is 860 milligrams per kilogram of body weight in rats <http://ace.orst.edu/cgi-bin/mfs/01/pips/coumapho.htm>. It is, therefore, much less benign than fluvalinate, the active ingredient in Apistan®, a synthetic pyrethroid, with a dermal LD50 in rats of 20,000 milligrams per kilogram of body weight <http://ace.orst.edu/info/extoxnet/pips/fluvalin.htm>).
Organophosphates are the basis of many commonly used insecticides (malathion, Diazinon®, parathion, Dibrom®). As part of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), the EPA has proposed a specific national limit on the total amount of any pesticide class, called a ‘risk cup’ <http://www.msue.msu.edu/ipm/ipmrptv6n1h.htm>. Because so many pesticides are in the organophosphate class and they are used on a variety of crops, adding just a little coumaphos in honey to this cup can overfill it. One way to get around this is to have zero tolerance for coumaphos in honey or wax. Use of the material, therefore, is not expected to affect the risk cup, but puts a significant burden on the beekeeping community."
In spite of the EPA reversal on tolerances affecting the "risk cup" for honey, the FQPA has not gone away <http://www.epa.gov/opppsps1/fqpa/>, and you can bet there will continue to be extreme pressure to ensure coumaphos is used according to its label <http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~mts/apishtm/apis_2000/apfeb_2000.htm#1>. The material should not be used unless there is a verifiable need (fluvalinate resistance has been documented <http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~mts/apishtm/apis98/apapr98.htm#2> and/or small hive beetle constitutes a real threat). This is an important consideration beyond residue concerns to conserve the material as long as possible as a viable control. Widespread resistance to coumaphos has been reported in Italy and it’s probably only a question of time when it will appear in the United States. as well <http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~mts/apishtm/apis99/apfeb99.htm#1>.
Another concern is that the deadline for expiration of the second year Section 18 exemption for Check-Mite+ is drawing to a close <http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~mts/apishtm/apis99/apoct99.htm#1>. If a Section 3 label is not applied for and approved soon, there is the danger that the material’s label could expire without renewal.
MORE ON WARNING LABELS FOR BEE PRODUCTS IN NEW ZEALAND AND AUSTRALIA
Mr. Ron Law, Executive Committee, International Alliance of Dietary/Food Supplement Association, writes that the Australia and New Zealand Foods Standards Authority (ANZFA) has just released an inquiry into the labeling of bee products. Faced with overwhelming scientific evidence and risk analyses, the authority has been forced to retract its draconian warning labels on bee products. They have accepted the NZ Ministerial Scientific Reviews recommendations and are proposing the following:
- Royal Jelly: Royal Jelly may cause very serious allergic reactions. Asthma suffers are most at risk. The key changes here are removing of the word "fatalities" and targeting the warning to a subgroup (asthmatics) rather than the general population.
- Bee pollen: Ingredient listing only.
- Propolis: Ingredient listing only <http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~mts/apishtm/apis_2000/apjul_2000.htm#4>.
The authority references false science used to impugn royal jelly, according to Mr. Law. He says this is an issue that will be followed up as the industry has been able to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that published research included false, falsified and duplicated data. Expert evidence has also been proven wildly false. ANZFA now refers to "at least one death." Whilst this is a welcome admission that there were not three deaths as has been claimed, they should in fact be referring to "at most one disputed death."
This is an excellent example of the use of evidence-based risk assessment to determine risk, Mr. Law concludes. It is also encouragement that the system can be successfully challenged. Copies of the 91-page report are available by e-mailing Mr. Law <juderon@IHUG.CO.NZ>.
NEW ZEALAND REJECTS ERADICATION OF VARROA:
The New Zealand government has ruled out attempting to eradicate the Varroa bee mite. Instead it has opted for a government-assisted management program, according to a press released dated July 12, 2000 <http://www.maf.govt.nz/MAFnet/press/120700bee.htm>. The information presented is that the views of the beekeeping and other primary sector industries and also of the independent technical group were all considered. In the end, the government decided that the chances of successfully eradicating the Varroa mite were minimal, and suggested that a failed eradication attempt would weaken beekeeping and pollination-dependent industries and jeopardize long-term management.
The government has approved initial expenditure of almost NZ$1.3 million for the management plan, which has three stages: 1) Immediate control (over the next 10 weeks). Beekeepers from all infested apiaries and apiaries within a five-kilometer radius of an infested apiary, will be offered free treatment of hives with a registered chemical. 2) Interim control, (a two-year government-supported management program, which is likely to include financial assistance and support). The aim is to keep the South Island free of Varroa for as long as possible and to reduce the effects of the mite in the North Island. 3) Long-term control, beyond two years. An agreed long-term management plan under the Biosecurity Act. Updates on this breaking situation are available on the New Zealand government’s website <http://www.maf.govt.nz/MAFnet/index/Varroa.html>. For the industry’s perspective on this, see the website of the National Beekeepers’ Association of New Zealand <http://www.nba.org.nz/news.html>.
FLORIDA BEE MEETINGS:
The Florida State Beekeepers Association is scheduled to meet November 2 through 4, 2000, at the Florida Leadership Training Center, 5000 Firetower Rd., Haines City, FL. 33844, ph 941-439-7332 <http://www.flaltc.org/directions.html>. Mr. Laurence Cutts indicates that his inspectors will also meeting during the period and there will be training to receive CEUs necessary for pesticide applicators licensing. The traditional barbecue will take place Thursday night, with the business meeting on Saturday morning.
Carol Russell <ourbees@earthlink.net> writes that a newsletter and registration forms will be sent to members by first-class mail soon. For more information, contact Earl and Carol Russell, 1274 Presque Isle Drive, Port Charlotte, FL 33952, ph. 941-743-2302, fax 941-743-9177.
Florida’s Honey Bee Technical Council is scheduled to meet Wednesday, September 27, 2000 at the Doyle Conner Building, 191 S.W. 34th St. in Gainesville, Fla. beginning at 10 a.m. This advisory group is looked to by Agriculture Commissioner Bob Crawford for guidance concerning beekeeping rules and regulations <http://www.leg.state.fl.us/citizen/documents/statutes/1997/ch0586/E161__.HTM#0586.161>. The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Division of Plant Industry (DPI) administers Florida’s bee inspection program <http://doacs.state.fl.us/~pi/plantinsp/bees.html>. The agenda includes discussion of Terramcyin®-resistant foulbrood and small hive beetle. For more information, call 352-372-3505 x 114.
THE FLORIDA STATE BEEKEEPERS ASSOCIATION WEB PRESENCE:
Mr. Bill Overman <bill@flareal.com> writes that the website for the Florida State Beekeepers Association continues to develop. There are more links being established all the time, and the discussion groups are getting more lively and increasing in membership. He proposes that an advertising campaign begin using the journals (American Bee Journal, Bee Culture, The Speedy Bee) to provide some publicity about the site. He suggests the effort could be a leader in the region. He will soon post more information on the site about the state meeting <http://www.flareal.com/fsbaevents.htm>.
Mr. Laurence Cutts, Florida’s Chief Apiarist, has recently written a history of Florida beekeeping, which might be of interest and is now published on the site. It includes a listing of past presidents, honey queens and award winners of the Florida State Beekeepers Association <http://www.flareal.com/fsbahistory.htm>
Many may be aware of Mr. Cutts writings, some of which he has quoted at state beekeeper meetings and other venues. Several are now available on the web site for everyone’s enjoyment <http://www.flareal.com/fsbastoryboard.htm>.
Sincerely,
Malcolm T. Sanford
Bldg 970, Box 110620
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611-0620
Phone (352) 392-1801, Ext. 143 FAX: 352-392-0190
http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~mts/apishtm/apis.htm
INTERNET Address: MTS@GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU
©2000 M.T. Sanford "All Rights Reserved"
