BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
Discussion of Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 28 Jan 91 09:32:00 EST
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (269 lines)
FILENAME:  JANAPIS.91
 
 
                    Florida Extension Beekeeping Newsletter
           Apis--Apicultural Information and Issues (ISSN 0889-3764)
                      Volume 9, Number 1, January 1991
 
                          MAKING BEESWAX-BASED CREAMS
 
        During my travels in other countries, I have seen a profusion of bee
products that are being marketed to the public.  In Europe in particular, I
was impressed by the large variety of cosmetics and creams that have beeswax
as a base.  The September issue of "Buzzwords," the newsletter of the New
Zealand National Beekeepers Association, published an article on making
beeswax-based creams.  These products are surprisingly simple to produce and
require only a few basic ingredients.  As the newsletter editor suggests,
perhaps as the beekeeper ponders the fate of those beautiful cakes of lemon-
yellow gold beeswax, some thought might be given to making these creams.  I
also think that there is more room for manufacturing and marketing them to the
health conscious, up-scale U.S. consumer in the 1990s.
 
        Beeswax is a unique product with many interesting physical and
biological properties.  It does not become rancid, is not irritating or
sensitizing to the skin, and it acts as a stiffening or firming agent (base).
The information provided by the New Zealand newsletter is for producing basic
creams of the water-in-oil emulsion type.  An emulsion is the result of fine
particles of oil being permanently suspended in water through use of an
emulsifier.  The most typical emulsifying agent used around the house is soap.
The combination of sodium tetraborate (borax) and cerotic acids (provided by
beeswax) forms the soap called sodium cerotate, the basis for the following
recipe for cold cream:
 
Cetyl esters wax (synthetic spermaceti)         125 grams
Very light or bleached beeswax                  120 grams
Mineral oil                                     560 grams
Sodium borate (borax)                             5 grams
Distilled water                                 190 milliliters
 
To make a solution of                          1000 grams
 
        Break the cetyl esters wax and beeswax into small pieces and melt them
in a steam bath.  Add the mineral oil and continue heating until the
temperature of the mixture reaches 70 degrees C (158 degrees F).  Dissolve
the sodium borate in the distilled water, warmed to 70 degrees C, and
gradually add the warm solution to the melted mixture, stirring rapidly and
continuously until it congeals.  This cream is useful as an emollient or as a
cleansing cream.  The cream should be stored in air-tight containers.
 
        A moisturizing cream is made in the following manner:
 
Yellow beeswax (stiffening agent)               140 grams
Mineral oil (emollient)                         450 grams
Distilled water (vehicle)                       330 milliliters
Borax                                           2 tsp.
 
        Again, break the beeswax into small pieces and melt in a steam bath
until the mixture reaches 70 degrees C.  Dissolve the borax in the distilled
water warmed to 70 degrees C, and gradually add the warm solution to the
melted mixture, stirring rapidly and continuously until congealed.  Fill jars
after temperature declines to at least 42 degrees C.  Although the article
doesn't state it, probably most care in making the creams is required in the
gradual adding of ingredients.  If too much is added at once, the emulsifing
process may not occur.  The rapid and continuous stirring should also not be
neglected.
 
                               ON QUEEN QUALITY
 
        Most beekeepers now agree that control of tracheal and Varroa mites,
as well as managing the African honey bee, will come from producing
genetically superior stock.  In the past, bee breeders and beekeepers have not
been very interested in queen quality because existent material was considered
adequate.  Cost, rather than quality, became the yardstick by which queen
procurement was measured.  It will take some time, but the U.S. industry must
now take a fresh look at the queen-producing sector.  One way to begin is to
look at what other nations are doing.
 
        With the closing of their border to U.S. stock, the Canadians have
been actively searching for sources of good queens and there have been a good
number of countries banging on their door.  Both New Zealand and Australia are
already in the running because they each have a well-regulated industry which
has been approved by the Canadian agricultural authorities.  The June issue of
the National Beekeepers Association of New Zealand's newsletter, "Buzzwords,"
provided some data on the number of queens exported to Canada the last two
years:
 
                         1988            1989
 
New Zealand
   Packages             13,305          12,148
   Queens               25,965          31,780
 
Australia
   Packages              1,200             960
   Queens               41,403           32,900
 
        Obviously, interest in providing bees by those countries continues to
grow.  Fortunately, part and parcel of this is close attention to the quality
of individual queens produced.  The New Zealanders have developed an
interesting competition among themselves (October, 1990 Buzzwords) to test
queens.  This is the first time that I have seen published data concerning
judging queen quality and it is helpful to critically look at numbers
indicating quality control.  The information is not complete, because in this
case, genetic makeup was not taken into consideration.  However, the
physiological quality of queens produced is just as vital as the genetics
involved in a breeding program.  The former is also the portion most under
control by the bee breeder.
 
        Perhaps the most valuable part of the competition, according to the
newsletter, was that results were freely disclosed by contestants.  In this
way, it became more of a cooperative learning experience.  The results of last
year's contest held in New Zealand are instructive.  The figures are average
values for two queens.   The final rank order was determined by the average
reproductive index value, the sum of:  ovariole number + (spermatheca volume x
270) + (sperm count x 40).  This gives approximately equal weighting among the
three criteria.
 
Entrant                     1                 2                 3
 
Ovarioles (total)           355               354               332
Spermatheca (volume)       1.39              1.225             1.06
Sperm (millions)           8.58              8.59              6.26
Nosema                     nil                nil              negl.
 
Reproductive Index         1075              1028              868.6
 
These figures were also compared to others as benchmarks:
 
                       World Maxima      New Z. Maxima       Good Averages
 
Ovarioles (total)           405                376               300
Spermatheca (volume)       1.52               1.48              1.00
Sperm (millions)           11.8               9.86               5.0
 
Reproductive Index         1286               1170               770
 
Final comments on the competition revealed that all queens entered were well
mated and contained between six and seven million sperm per cubic millimeter.
In addition, fumagillin was used to keep nosema to very low levels.  Again,
all contestants disclosed their methods, and all used variations of the
queenless starter\queenright finisher system, which were normal in most
commercial operations.  This was important because it showed that superior
queens were not products of special methods developed for this particular
competition.
 
        The genetic part of producing quality queens is not being ignored in
New Zealand.  The August issue of Buzzwords reveals a plan to upgrade stock
in that country.  This is the outgrowth of pressure to import superior or
alternative genetic material, considered an objectionable strategy by many in
the industry who would prefer to upgrade the existent stock.  A steering
committee has been formed and a financial structure is being set up to provide
for limited, but transferrable, shareholding among participants.  Each
shareholder will receive an instrumentally inseminated queen every year.
 
        Initially, the proposed plan calls for 25 full shareholders, with
provisions for smaller beekeepers to obtain a "share within a share."  The
goal is to develop a closed population of current New Zealand stock which will
be continually improved, similar to a current program being conducted in
Australia.   The Western Australia Bee Breeding Programme has been in operation
for a decade and advertises a productivity increase of at least 10 percent per
year.  Instrumentally inseminated breeders in the Australian program cost
about 500 to 1000 Australian dollars.  A New Zealand share is estimated to
cost 650 New Zealand dollars annually.
 
        It seems reasonable that the U.S. beekeeping industry could use some
of the concepts presented above to increase both the quantity and quality of
available queens.  However, these actions will require leadership at the
national level and a commitment by the individual beekeeper to support such a
program by cooperating and purchasing its products.
 
                             BLUEBERRY POLLINATION
 
        Last year was not a good season for blueberry pollination in Florida.
Although all the evidence is not in yet, many are saying that a big problem
was lack of bee pollination.  Growers renting honey bee colonies did not get
the fruit set they wished and are asking why.   J.H. Cane and J.A. Payne
recently published some information through the Alabama Agricultural
Experiment Station which gives a good beginning in estimating how real this
problem may be and suggesting a solution.
 
        The authors state that rabbiteye blueberries are most effectively
pollinated by bees that vibrate the flower to release the pollen.  It seems
that blueberry flowers are so constructed that pollen is held internally in
the anther and can only exit through the small pores at the tip.  The pollen
pours out when the anthers are vibrated by buzzing bees.  Most native bee
species "buzz-pollinate" blueberries when foraging for nectar.  Unfortunately,
both the honey bee and the carpenter bee do not.  If that isn't enough, it
seems that carpenter bees get blueberry nectar by making a slit in the
corolla, further bypassing the flower's sexual parts.  These holes then
attract honey bees and so both species become even less efficient in
pollinating the blooms!
 
         Most native bumblebees are excellent pollinators of rabbiteye
blueberries; however, the southeastern blueberry bee, Habropoda laboriosa, is
the most effective according to the authors.  These resemble small bumblebees.
They will not use the robbery holes and buzz-pollinate flowers.  They also
forage from early morning to sunset and are not drawn to flowers which
compete with blueberries for pollinating attention.  In spite of its
effectiveness, however, Habropoda is not a colonial insect and, therefore,
does not produce colonies of numerous individuals needed to pollinate large
stands of blueberries.  The solitary females dig tunnels in the soil to lay
their eggs and there is only one generation per year.  Bumblebees are also
major pollinators of blueberries, but their numbers are usually very low early
in spring during the bloom.  The technology does not exist to produce either
bumblebees or southeastern blueberry bees in enough abundance to take care of
the pollination requirements of large acreages.
 
        All this adds up to a complex of problems that might occur in
rabbiteye blueberry pollination.  Growers with small acreages have the best
opportunity to get their plants pollinated because fewer individual bees are
needed and these can come from the wild pollinating population.  However, as
field size increases, the sheer number of flowers overwhelms the ability of
native pollinators.  Because there is no way to culture these native
populations, pollination becomes a hit or miss affair based on the ebb and
flow of natural conditions.  In some years, the bees are numerous, in others
few can be seen.  An additional factor is the presence or absence of carpenter
bees which either increase or decrease the number of slit corrolas present
each season.  Fortunately, the carpenter bee, like the southeastern blueberry
bee, is solitary and very large populations are exceptional.
 
        This brings us to the role of honey bees in pollinating blueberries.
Although the individual insects are not as efficient as wild native bees, each
colony can be induced to put out a huge number of foragers.  If there are no
competing plants, if the blueberry flowers are attractive by providing enough
nectar and if carpenter bee slits are minimized, there will be so many bees
out there that pollination must occur in spite of the inefficiencies mentioned
above.  Thus, the same recommendation is made for other crops which are
difficult to get pollinated: "bring in more colonies of honey bees."
Unfortunately, the question concerning how many colonies is enough varies each
year depending on the number of native bees, both beneficial (bumblebees) and
inefficient (carpenter bees), that will be in the field.
 
        These pollination problems represent a classic case where plant and
honey bee breeding might help. Plant breeders could begin to select blueberry
varieties that are attractive to honey bees or do not require buzz
pollination.  Bee breeders could explore the possibility of developing a
population that would buzz pollinate and prefer blueberries.  There is
precedent for both these approaches.  Recently, it has been found at the ARS
Carl B. Hayden Bee Laboratory that there is enough variability in onion and
bee populations to select for increased onion pollination.  In the past, one
of the major achievements in bee breeding was development of a stock of bees
that preferred to collect alfalfa pollen.
 
         Like bees and plants, the human population is also genetically
controlled.  This leads me to Dr. Norman Borlaug, a plant breeder who was
awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his work to reduce world food shortages.  He
was quoted in the Soil Science Department's "Highlights in Soil Science:
"While we pursue the utopian will of the wisp of the risk-free society, we
appear quite confident that if we pass a few more laws we will soon achieve a
risk-free immortal life.  But in this pursuit we fail to realize that one of
the greatest biological risks over which we have no control takes place...when
we draw the genetic hand of cards that we will hold all our lives.  Although
we can exploit more of the potential longevity of that genetic hand of cards
by living a healthy lifestyle, we still have a biological clock with us, as
all life species do, that will determine longevity.  It seems we are fast
becoming a nation of "healthy" hypochondriacs with a diminished gene frequency
for common sense.  We try to die young as late as possible."
 
 
Sincerely,
 
Malcolm T. Sanford
0740 IFAS, Bldg 970
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611-0740
Phone (904) 392-1801, Ext. 143
FAX: 904-392-0190
BITNET Address: MTS@IFASGNV
INTERNET Address: [log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2