FILENAME:  JANAPIS.93
 
            Florida Extension Beekeeping Newsletter
    Apis--Apicultural Information and Issues (ISSN 0889-3764)
                Volume 11, Number 1, January 1993
 
               MITICUR (R) RECEIVES SECTION THREE
 
The product known as Miticur (R) has finally received a section
three or general use label.  The material is a plastic strip that
contains the active ingredient called amitraz.  It is labelled to
control both Varroa and tracheal mites in bee hives.  This material
is much needed as an alternative for Varroa mite control using
fluvalinate [Apistan (R)] and/or controlling tracheal mites using
menthol.
 
Unfortunately, there have been reports of adverse reactions with
the product in Florida and the merchant, a company called Hoechst
Roussel, has sent a letter (dated January 15) to those who have
purchased Miticur (R) requesting them to temporarily stop treating
bees with strips packaged in bags of 300.  Instead, these strips
should be held until further notice or returned to the point of
purchase and traded for those packaged in lots of 30.  In an effort
to keep communication with beekeepers on this and other issues, the
company has established a toll-free number (1-800-723-6516).
 
On January 20, the Florida Department of Agriculture sent a letter
to purchasers of Miticur (R) in which it said:
 
"Beekeepers who properly document treatment with 1, 2 or 3 Miticur
(R) strips will undergo routine post-treatment survey.  If less
than the recommended 3 strips are used and the post-treatment check
shows good control (less than 2 mites per ether roll), the colonies
will be certified.  If treatment is not effective, further
treatment will be required.  Because of problems associated with
documentation of treatment, the department will not accept one
strip as valid treatment.  The department cannot guarantee that
other states will accept less than the recommended dosage."
Further questions using Miticur (R) in Florida can be directed to
Mr. Laurence Cutts, Bureau of Plant and Apiary Inspection, ph
904/372-2505, ext 114 or your local bee inspector.
 
                     ALTERNATIVE TREATMENTS
 
Dr. Eric Mussen in From the UC Apiaries, University of California,
Davis says so-called "alternative" (unregistered and illegal)
treatments make little sense to beekeepers.  It all boils down to
formulation of the product, he says, something companies must spend
huge amounts of money developing, testing and registering.
 
All the components of a pesticide preparation taken as a whole is
called the formulation, Dr. Mussen says.  Each consists of some
amount of pesticide (active ingredient), a carrier and other
chemicals (inert ingredients).  Both Apistan (R) and Miticur (R)
are formulated as 10% pesticide and 90% plastic.  Fluvalinate, the
active ingredient in Apistan (R), is insoluble in water (not easily
absorbed by honey), as is amitraz, the pesticide in Miticur (R).
Both are soluble in organic solvents, meaning they are easily
absorbed by beeswax.
 
Other formulations of both fluvalinate and amitraz [for example,
Mavrik (R), Taktic (R), etc.] have emulsifiers according to Dr.
Mussen.  These make both pesticides soluble in water, something
necessary for other agricultural applications, but also cause them
to be absorbed into honey much more easily.  Different formulations
may also have "stickers," "spreaders," and various chemicals to
help them function effectively on vegetation.  None of these
specialty chemicals has any tolerance level in honey (both amitraz
and fluvalinate do).  In addition, these added chemicals may
increase the amount of pesticide absorbed by honey, so that
established tolerance levels are exceeded.
 
Dr. Mussen says it's fair to ask whether reducing the cost of
formulations to beekeepers would increase sales, producing about
the same amount of income over a protracted time period.  This
would allow the companies to recover developmental and registration
costs.  He also concludes it's fair to ask beekeepers to stick to
registered uses.  Using common sense should prevent anybody from
using alternative treatments given the known drawbacks.   They have
been known to kill bees, cause respiratory irritation in
applicators and, perhaps worst of all, fail to control target
pests.
 
               THE SEARCH FOR MITE RESISTANT STOCK
 
I talked to a beekeeper the other day who was treating his colonies
with new Miticur (R) strips.  I asked him why he was doing so given
that the colonies had been treated with Apistan (R) for Varroa mite
control last fall.  The answer--to control tracheal mites.  But, I
asked, was there any indication that tracheal mites were
problematic?  No, but he was treating anyway.
 
This mindset is troubling.  It no longer is standard practice for
farmers to routinely spray agricultural fields, something that
beekeepers have fought against for many years in the often-in-vain
attempt to protect their bees from being poisoned.  Instead, many
farmers are applying pesticides only when there is a problem and in
some cases, only after a specific level of crop damage or pest
population has been reached.  Regulators and educators have been
trying to discourage the practice of "spray and pray," in growers
for many years and this effort appears to be working.  It hasn't
been easy; the real reason many don't routinely spray now is simply
because it costs too much.  This should be the case with beekeepers
as well.   When the costs are calculated, it is extremely expensive
to chemically treat bee colonies for mites.  This practice should
always be considered a last, not a first, resort.
 
We now have two mites that are consuming beekeepers' time and
money.  One is Varroa jacobsoni, an external parasite, considered
to be one of the most damaging pests to honey bees worldwide.
Honey bees have little resistance to parasitization by Varroa; it
attacks both brood and adults, verifiably affects colonies and can
kill them in a few short months.  Varroa must be considered
dangerous to colonies when found even in low levels.  It is prudent
to be conservative and treat colonies for this parasite in Florida
when there is evidence the bees are infested.  Two legal treatments
are now available, Apistan (R) and Miticur (R).
 
Varroa can be determined by visual diagnosis in a number of ways:
scanning adult bees, uncapping brood and using chemicals (ether
roll, tobacco smoke, acaricides) to dislodge mites from adult bees.
For more information on detecting this mite, see VT 249 "Varroa
Mite Detection," 1989, IFAS Television.  To receive a copy send a
blank 1/2" VHS video tape to me at the address below.
 
Acarapis woodi, the honey bee tracheal mite also causes damage to
colonies, but how much and in what way remains controversial.  It
is difficult to detect and control methods using the one registered
chemical, menthol, have met with varying success.  With the
labelling of Miticur (R), there is now the possibility to treat
both Varroa and tracheal mites at the same time.  Again, however,
it is prudent to determine that mites are first present.  Because
it is difficult to detect these small, internal mites, there will
be more temptation to treat for them "just in case."  This is the
classic symptom of any agriculturalist who has stepped onto what
many have called "the pesticide treadmill."  And once one boards
the chemical-treatment train, it becomes exceedingly difficult to
get off.
 
The dangers of pesticide dependency are legion.  They include:
product contamination, environmental pollution and a chemically-
resistant pest population.  And in a perverse way, chemical control
also contributes to a long-range problem while admittedly providing
a short-range solution.  That's because treatment keeps susceptible
bee colonies alive, and in the process, prevents detection of stock
that has innate resistance to the pest.  The message remains clear:
Don't Chemically Treat Unless There is a Reason!
 
Does the concept of resistant stock hold up under scrutiny?  Take
a look at chestnuts as reported in the December, 1992 issue of
Citrus and Vegetable Magazine.  Prior to 1904, the American
chestnut was the most important food and timber tree in Eastern
U.S. hardwood forests.  But a bark fungus, accidentally introduced
from the Asia (shades of Varroa also introduced from there), killed
some 3.5 billion trees from Maine to Georgia west to the
Mississippi River.  This largest botanical disaster in history took
only 40 years.
 
According to the article, a James Carpenter discovered a large
living American Chestnut in a grove of dying trees in the early
1950s.  Budwood from this tree was grafted into rootstock, and in
1962, seedlings were crossed back to both American and Chinese
parents.  The second generation was moved to Alachua, FL where a
grove of some 60 trees can be found that are now over 40 feet tall
and 16 inches in diameter.  These Dunstan Chestnuts are healthy,
vigorous and bear every year.  There has not been a single reported
infection from the fungus on this variety for more than 30 years.
 
Fortunately for the beekeeping industry, resistant honey bee stock
found in Yugoslavia is now being released to selected queen
breeders in the U.S.  This is stock ARS-Y-C-1, somewhat resistant
to Varroa and considered economically so to tracheal mites.  At the
present time, a U.S. Department of Agriculture/beekeeping industry
stock release panel has been formed.  It is seeking Breeder-
Propagators with a good deal of experience who will ensure that
ARS-Y-C-1 is successfully reared and distributed to beekeepers.
For detailed information on becoming a Breeder-Propagator, contact
Dr. Thomas E. Rinderer, Research Leader, Baton Rouge Bee
Laboratory, 1157 Ben Hur Rd., Baton Rouge, LA 70820, ph 504/766-
6064.  The deadline for selection is March 31, 1993.
 
                         CAN BEES HEAR?
 
An intriguing article in the local paper (Gainesville Sun, December
31, 1992) recently described experiments by Dr. William Towne at
Kutzdown University in Pennsylvania.  He has proven that bees can
hear.  Although the scientific proof may be Dr. Towne's, beekeepers
always figured bees could hear based on the practice of "tanging,"
making a loud clanging noise which was thought to make swarms stop
and cluster.  This notion has now been discredited by most
authorities, but the tradition no doubt continues .
 
According to Dr. Towne, bees were considered deaf because they were
only tested with loud sounds which produced high pressures.  Yes,
people could hear them, but honey bees don't hear like humans.
Whereas we have a pressure sensitive membrane (ear drum) which is
stretched over a closed cavity, the honey bee relies on particle
movement.  Thus, they hear things only in the near field, very
close to the source.
 
Dr. Towne and a colleague in Germany (Wolfgang Kirchner) trained
bees to come to a two-sided sugar-water feeder based on tones
emitted from a speaker.  When the frequencies were the same (250
cycles per second) as the bee's famed waggle dance, about B below
middle C on the piano, the insects consistently responded.
According to Dr. Towne, bees clearly can tell the lowest sounds
from the highest; they also distinguish mid-range tones from higher
and lower ones.
 
The next step is to search for the honey bee's ear.  In this quest,
Dr. Towne has taken to applying drops of glue to various honey bee
structures.  The glue does not hurt the bees.  This attempt to
"deafen" bees has met with variable results, and for Dr. Towne, the
question has become more and more intriguing.  He concludes:  "I
guess I'll have to train a few more bees to find out for sure..."
 
                         ON BEE BASHING
 
Bee bashing by politicians and others is on the rise.  The source
of all the commotion is the honey loan program, which most writers
refer to as a "subsidy."  First there was a prime-time television
program on the issue, then an article in the Wall Street Journal.
Next syndicated columnist George Will got into the act and later a
colleague pinned an editorial cartoon on my door showing a
fictitious bureau of U.S. Government Investments listing the
savings and loan scandal, war on drugs, house post office as being
sold to Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer.  In the background, a man on the
telephone is saying:  "The beekeepers need another $100 million?
Is that all?"
 
Where all this is going is difficult to say.  However, in the July-
August, 1992 issue of Honey Producer Magazine, Representative C.
Stenholm of Texas thanked his colleagues for not passing the Silvio
Conte memorial amendment (Mr. Conte, who recently died, was one of
the Congress' most virulent antagonists to the honey loan program).
This would have eliminated, Mr. Stenholm indicated, the honey loan
program over which many have droned on late into the night and
which cost to the U.S. government has been reduced from $100
million to $6 million.  This seemed to spite the Clinton campaign's
idea that bees would go on making honey if the subsidy was
eliminated or Mr. Will's silliness about almonds deprived of honey
bee pollination:  "Soon airline passengers will not get those
little packages of nuts.  Gosh."
 
 
Sincerely,
 
 
 
Malcolm T. Sanford
Box 0620, Bldg 970
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611-0620
Phone (904) 392-1801, Ext. 143
FAX: 904-392-0190
BITNET Address: MTS@IFASGNV
INTERNET Address: [log in to unmask]