APIS Volume 18, Number 12, December 2000
In this issue
- Taking Stock in 2000:
- Referendum on Honey Board Changes Fails:
- 4-H Essay Contest for the Year 2001:
- Book on Pollination:
- Honey Bee Educational Resources in Arizona:
- Antibiotics Banned: First Chickens, Then What?
TAKING STOCK IN 2000:
It’s time to stop and reflect on this year’s events as recorded in the pages of APIS. This is the 215th number published, ending the newsletter’s eighteenth year chronicling issues in the apicultural industry. The electronic version of the newsletter, with 2,114 subscribers worldwide, is now clearly dominant over its print relative and continues to be the only monthly publication of its kind to my knowledge. Publication includes not only the hard copy [back issues since 1997 are also available in Adobe Acrobat’s® portable document format (.pdf)] and beta electronic versions, but also a World Wide Web site, which integrates back issues into a single database of beekeeping information. Traffic on this site continues to grow, and statistics for the last three years are linked off the main page <http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~mts/apishtm/stats/stats97.htm>. For those not familiar with the APIS Web site, I refer you to an in-depth review in the December 1998 edition of "Beekeeping in the Digital Age" in Bee Culture (Vol. 126, No. 12, pp. 20-21) <http://bee.airoot.com/beeculture/digital/1998/column4.htm>.
The year started with the shock that antibiotic-resistant American foulbrood is for real in Florida <http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~mts/apishtm/apis_2000/apjan_2000.htm#1>. The February issue discussed controlling foulbrood in New Zealand without antibiotics and described a book available on how that is accomplished <http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~mts/apishtm/apis_2000/apfeb_2000.htm#6>. Other issues of importance in the year 2000 included discussions of chemicals and their employment in beekeeping operations. Fluvalinate is not proving to be as benign as once thought for honey bee colonies <http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~mts/apishtm/apis_2000/apjan_2000.htm#2>, Apicure® became available as a treatment for both mites <http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~mts/apishtm/apis_2000/apfeb_2000.htm#5>, CheckMite+® strips were relabeled for use in Florida under Section 8 <http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~mts/apishtm/apis_2000/apfeb_2000.htm#1> and tolerances were set for its active ingredient, coumaphos <http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~mts/apishtm/apis_2000/apsep_2000.htm#2>. The jury remained out on essential oils in mite control <http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~mts/apishtm/apis_2000/apnov_2000.htm#7>, and at least one high school study found no pesticides in honey <http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~mts/apishtm/apis_2000/apjul_2000.htm#2>.
Another surprise for 2000 reported in these pages was the discovery of Varroa in New Zealand and the subsequent decision not to attempt eradication <http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~mts/apishtm/apis_2000/apsep_2000.htm#4>. Research was described last year revealing that different Varroa mite types are found worldwide, which may cause reevaluation of earlier study on this mite <http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~mts/apishtm/apis99/apsep99.htm#2> and is a probable reason for differing reports on the damage these parasites cause their honey bee hosts. African bees were described to be prone to thelytokous parthenogenesis, suggesting that they are related to their cousin, Apis mellifera capensis <http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~mts/apishtm/apis_2000/apjun_2000.htm#2>. Africanized bees were detected in Virginia <http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~mts/apishtm/apis_2000/apaug_2000.htm#3> and described as responsible for increased productivity in South American beekeeping <http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~mts/apishtm/apis_2000/apsep_2000.htm#1>.
Other issues in 2000 included failure of the referendum on the honey promotion and marketing order described elsewhere in this issue, the importance of employing value-added products for beekeepers <http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~mts/apishtm/apis_2000/apjan_2000.htm#5>, and how working smarter, not harder should be considered by beekeepers as they confront the challenges of the new century <http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~mts/apishtm/apis_2000/apoct_2000.htm#1>. Finally, a special project focusing on getting school children interested in beekeeping was launched <http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~mts/apishtm/apis_2000/communicating_the_joy_of_keeping.htm>. For other articles published during the year, see the 2000 index on the Web site <http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~mts/apishtm/apis_2000/index_2000.htm>.
REFERENDUM ON HONEY BOARD CHANGES FAILS:
The results are finally in. It seems clear that all segments of the U.S. beekeeping industry were against the proposed changes to the Honey Research, Promotion, and Information Order <http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~mts/apishtm/apis_2000/apaug_2000.htm#4>. An extensive analysis of the voting was published in the November 2000 issue of Bee Culture magazine <http://bee.airoot.com/beeculture/buzz/index.html>. The Speedy Bee newspaper has published a questionnaire asking persons to comment on why they voted no in an effort to understand the industry’s current thinking on the issue. Those not receiving the publication who wish to express their opinion are asked to contact the editor, Mr. Troy Fore (E-mail: troyfore@jesup.net). These results mean that only voluntary quality assurance will be implemented, no percentage of funds will be earmarked for bee research, and there will be no change in assessments. Other voting analyses can also be seen at the National Honey Board’s Web site <http://www.nhb.org/>. According to the Bee, changes that will occur based on recommendations from the industry that were not part of the referendum include eliminating the public member of the Board, removing the possibility that one of two importer seats could be filled by an exporter, and doing away with the requirement for persons who produce less than 6,000 pounds to apply for assessment exemption.
Failure of this referendum means that another on the Order itself will probably be scheduled soon. According to Bee Culture, "The future of The National Honey Board, and commodity boards in general is uncertain. A new administration will certainly offer a different slant, and perhaps an entire new farm program. But even now, some producers are moving to have yet another referendum as soon as possible to make changes to the Board that would remove packers and importers from the Board, promote only U.S. honey, reduce the size of the Board’s staff and other changes. According to sources at AMS this vote, if enough producer names are gathered in time, could occur as early as January or early February."
4-H ESSAY CONTEST FOR THE YEAR 2001:
Last year, Shannon Adamiak of Ocala, Florida, placed fourth in the American Beekeeping Federation’s (ABF) 4-H Essay Contest. This year’s competition has been announced with a new sponsor, the Foundation for the Preservation of Honey Bees, Inc. There are few entries for this contest each year in Florida, so any entry has a better-than-average chance of being declared a winner at the state level. National awards are as follows: 1st Place - $250, 2nd Place - $100, and 3rd Place - $50. Each state winner receives an appropriate book about honey bees. The winning essays will be published on the ABF Web site as they have been in the past <http://www.ABFnet.org>.
This year’s topic is: "Encouraging Youth to Become Beekeepers." According to the publicity materials on the contest, "The beekeeping industry is concerned about the decline in the number of beekeepers as well as the advancing average age of active beekeepers. What could be done encourage someone to become a beekeeper, whether hobbyist or commercial?"
Good leads for your research include school and public libraries, local beekeepers, county extension agents, local or state beekeepers associations, and/or the beekeeping professor at your state’s agricultural college. Those reading this newsletter will have an advantage. I ran a challenge in the year 2000 on this very subject, which should provide excellent research information to essayists <http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~mts/apishtm/Apis_2000/communicating_the_joy_of_keeping.htm>.
Perhaps the best strategy is to include your own perspective (what is there about bees and beekeeping that might appeal to you?), talk to your friends who keep bees for a hobby, or search out adults in your community who are or have been beekeepers. Personal interviews should be documented. Contrast the level of interest in beekeeping between the past and today, and, perhaps, mention some famous beekeepers, real and fictional.
The scope of the research is an essential judging criterion, accounting for 40 percent of the score. The number of sources consulted, and their authority and variety are all evaluated. Sources that are not cited in the endnotes should be listed in a "Resources" or "Bibliography" list. Note that "honey bee" is properly spelled as two words, even though many authoritative references might spell it as one.
Full contest rules are available at several places on the Internet <http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~mts/apishtm/4-h-essay.htm>. Be careful as some sites have not been updated to reflect the year 2001 contest, and several changes have been made besides the main topic. Florida entries must be officially submitted by a 4-H faculty member to Essay Contest, c/o Dr. M.T. Sanford, extension specialist in apiculture, Box 110620, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-0620. The deadline for receipt is Tuesday, February 13, 2001.
BOOK ON POLLINATION:
A new book entitled Crop Pollination by Bees, authored by K.S. Delaplane and D.F. Mayer, is now available from CABI publishing. According to publicity accompanying the announcement, the volume is an accessible, practical and authoritative research-based guide to using bees for crop pollination. It emphasizes conserving feral bee populations, but also includes information on culturing and managing honey bees. An important chapter is a detailed description of the care and rearing of bumble bees. This book is in keeping with the philosophy that pollination management and consulting will be increasingly important in the future of agriculture <http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~mts/apishtm/apis98/apnov98.htm#1>. The authors seek to have their volume complement the pollination bible, S.E. McGregor’s Insect Pollination of Cultivated Crop Plants, Agriculture Handbook 496, published in 1976 <http://bee.airoot.com/beeculture/book/index.html>.
Crop Pollination by Bees is hardback with 352 pages and costs $100. It is available from CABI’s New York office, 10 E. 40 St., New York, NY 10016, ph 212-481-7018, fax 212-686-7993, E-mail: cabi-nao@cabi.org. It can also be purchased at through Amazon.com on the World Wide Web <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0851994482/qid%3D975686344/107-5458432-0498946>.
BEE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES IN ARIZONA:
The University of Arizona has published a number of resources concerning honey bees, now that the African bee has taken up residence in the southern part of the state. These include Safely Removing Wild Honey Bee Colonies (30-minute VHS video, $30), Africanized Honey Bees in Arizona Training Manual (slides with script, $55) and Homeowner’s Guide to Safe Honey Bee Swarm Control (26-minute VHS video, $25). To order, contact the University’s Publication Distribution Center, College of Agriculture, 4042 N. Campbell Ave., Tucson, AZ 85719, ph 1-877-763-5315 or access their World Wide Web site <http://ag.arizona.edu/pubs/quarterly.html>.
ANTIBIOTICS BANNED: FIRST CHICKENS, THEN WHAT?
It had to happen sooner or later. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration will withdraw approval of two antibiotics for the first time in its history. According to an FDA statement, consumption of poultry that contains resistant Campylobacter is the main cause of fluoroquinolone-resistant Campylobacter infection in humans <http://www.cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,244648-412,00.shtml>.
Many organizations have called for banning antibiotics in agriculture, but perhaps most influential is the Alliance for the Prudent Use of Antibiotics (APUA), a nonprofit, international organization solely dedicated to preserving the power of antibiotics. Founded in 1981, APUA conducts educational, research and international networking activities to promote more appropriate use of antibiotics around the world. "Our international chapters tailor research and interventions to local customs and practices" <http://www.healthsci.tufts.edu/apua/home.html>.
According to the organization
"The FDA should eliminate the non-therapeutic use of antimicrobial drugs in food-producing animals. Chronic subtherapeutic antibiotic usage, such as in growth promotion, poses a major ecological problem that impacts public health. Domestic food-producing animals outnumber humans in the United States by more than five to one, and the majority of these animals are routinely given subtherapeutic doses of antibiotics to promote growth. Repeated low-level exposure to antibiotics (i.e., subtherapeutic doses) disrupts the normal bacterial flora of the animals and promotes the growth of antibiotic resistant bacteria. Chronic use (a week or more) of antibiotics, at either sub-therapeutic or therapeutic levels, leads to multi-drug resistance in both humans and animals. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria selected in animals can reach humans, where they are propagated by the use of the same antibiotic in humans."
Indications are that companies making antibiotics will fight the FDA on this and future decisions concerning labeling antibiotics. Again most influential may be the Animal Health Institute (AHI). The organization’s facts about antibiotic use include <http://www.ahi.org/Features/Antibiotics%20and%20Animals%20Fast%20Facts.htm>:
- Antibiotics for animals enter the market only after they are deemed safe and effective by the Food and Drug Administration. After approval, monitoring and surveillance of the drugs’ effectiveness continues.
- The National Research Council concluded that "the use of drugs in the food-animal production industry is not without some problems and concerns, but does not appear to constitute an immediate public health concern."
- Of all antibiotics used in the United States, just 6.1 percent are used for growth promotion. The average amount of antibiotics used in medicated feed is less than two ounces per ton of feed.
- Most scientists agree that the increase of bacterial resistance to antibiotics in humans is largely the result of over-reliance on antibiotics in human medicine. According to the CDC, humans consume 235 million doses of antibiotics annually. It is estimated that 20 to 50 percent of that use is unnecessary.
Producers too are concerned. According to a Minnesota Public Radio story, "Marlin Pankratz says antibiotics are one of the aids he’s used to raise a healthier animal (hog) and stay economically competitive. He says he’s just as concerned about resistant bacteria as anyone, since it could cause health problems for him as easily as someone in a city. But he believes change is coming, he won’t be surprised if some antibiotics currently used for livestock production are banned in the future. ‘The antibiotics are a toolkit in all the things that we do on a farm, they’re one of the tools that we use,’ Pankratz says. ‘(If) you take that tool away from us, we’re going to have to figure out a different strategy, a different way to do that. But it will definitely cost considerably more money and the death loss of animals will no doubt go up. We’re concerned also the quality of the meat might suffer <http://news.mpr.org/features/200009/25_newsroom_antibiotics-m/steil.shtml>.’"
A study was published in the summer edition of Iowa Ag Review (Vol. 6, No. 3), based on researchers visiting Sweden and Denmark and extrapolating experiences in those countries to what banning antibiotics might mean for U.S. pork producers. They conclude: "It would increase costs per head by $6.05 initially, and by $5.24 at the end of the 10-year period considered. However, with the higher prices, net profit would decline by $0.79 per head by the end of the period. The effect of the change in retail price on cost per U.S. family (of four) would be approximately $11 per year in additional costs, or $748 million per year in total. This estimate considers only the change in pork, with no change in other meats <http://www.card.iastate.edu/iowa_ag_review/summer_00/over_the_counter.html>."
This leads us to honey bees. Dr. Bill Wilson, who retired after a 39-year career in honey bee research with the USDA, wrote an article entitled "45 Years of Foulbrood" (Bee Culture, Vol. 128, No. 10, October 2000, pp. 24-28), which provides a good overview of the use of antibiotics in controlling foulbrood diseases. He describes the history of the use of sulfa (did not control EFB), followed by oxytetracycline (Terramycin®) and the potential of other antibiotics (e.g., erythromycin, streptomycin), which have never been labeled. Dr. Wilson developed what is now called the "antibiotic extender patty" in the 1970s. The effects of use of antibiotics in the industry have been outstanding, according to Dr.Wilson, but resistance has shown up, prompting reexamining the use of the one legal material Terramycin® <http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~mts/apishtm/apis98/apnov98.htm#2>. He says that the best use of Terramycin® is prevention, but is concerned that present conditions might spark a widespread epidemic. This could happen, he says, if beekeepers fail to control Terramycin®-resistant AFB and scientists fail to develop an effective substitute for the material. He concludes: "For beekeepers who haven’t faced a bad outbreak of AFB, it’s hard to visualize the seriousness of the situation <http://bee.airoot.com/beeculture/00oct/00oct3.html>."
Given the present regulatory climate concerning antibiotic use, the chances of developing alternative legal treatments for foulbrood are dicey at best. Fortunately, there are alternatives. In many areas of the world antibiotics play no role in controlling AFB <http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~mts/apishtm/apis_2000/apfeb_2000.htm#6>. Dr. Wilson also discusses using hygenic honey bees as part of a more integrated approach <http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~mts/apishtm/apis98/apsep98.htm#1>. Dr. Marla Spivak at the University of Minnesota asks beekeepers to consider investing in new foundation and hygienic queens rather than antibiotics. There may be greater payoffs in end, she says, resulting in healthier bees, and this can provide a good way to exit the chemical treadmill. Thus, she concludes, " ... the last thing we need are more antibiotics for bees," American Bee Journal (Vol. 140, No. 11, November 2000, pp. 867-8).
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"
