FILENAME:  OCTAPIS.90
 
 
                    Florida Extension Beekeeping Newsletter
           Apis--Apicultural Information and Issues (ISSN 0889-3764)
                       Volume 8, Number 10, October 1990
 
                       AMERICAN BEE RESEARCH CONFERENCE
 
The third annual American Bee Research Conference (ABRC) met in Tucson,
Arizona in early October.  Some 44 papers were presented in an intensive two
and one half day session.  Mites were perhaps the hottest topic.  Canadian
researchers (Kerry Clark and colleagues) provided information on screening
breeding stock for tracheal mite resistance and using vegetable oil and
menthol for their control.  Both treatments reduced mite populations from 40%
to 99%.  Gordon Waller (USDA Tucson bee lab) also reported on work
establishing tracheal mite resistance in Arizona honey bees.  An interesting
account of rapid colony decline due to tracheal mites was provided by Steven
Thoenes and S. Buchman (USDA Tucson lab).  A colony overcome by tracheal mites
located on a very sensitive scale (which can measure loss or gain of just a
few bees) showed just how short a time period is necessary and how precipitous
the bee population can decline when influenced by this mite.   It was
surprising that only one paper dealt with Varroa mites.  Unfortunately, the
author failed to appear to present that particular talk.
 
A variety of other subjects were also covered at the Conference.  Dr. Tibor
Szabo of Alberta, Canada presented an analysis of how moving, inspecting and
removing honey from colonies affects honey yield.  All do so negatively, thus,
Dr. Szabo encourages beekeepers to inspect their hives fewer times and to take
off honey less frequently.  Dr. Stephen Buchman (USDA Tucson lab) explained
his analysis of "safe sites" for pollen on bees.  Certain places on the
insects cannot be groomed and so pollen in those areas has a better chance of
being deposited on plants.  One of these sites is right between the legs.  He
also discussed pollen preferences of both wild and managed colonies.  Old comb
and trash heaps, sometimes called "kitchen middens," an anthropological term,
associated with  wild swarms have yielded a surprising amount of historical
information on the kinds of pollen being used by bees.
 
Two papers showed how production of pearl millet (A. Mamood; USDA Tucson lab)
and strawberries (L. Peterson and colleagues, Oklahoma St. Univ.) were
enhanced by honey bee activity.  The concept of "enpollination" was discussed
for almonds by Thomas Ferrari, Plant Development International.  This is the
process whereby pollen is mechanically harvested and then placed on a bee as
it exits a colony to improve pollination potential.  Because this is a
proprietary product, much of the process currently being employed is presently
secret.
 
Dr. Justin Schmidt and colleagues (USDA Tucson bee lab) revealed that European
bee swarms typically travel 250 to 500 meters from the parent colony with
shorter and longer distances being less common.  This suggests a trapping grid
surrounding colonies for a kilometer in all directions would probably trap 90%
of swarms from an apiary.   Although the research was done with European
bees, these results suggest that mass trapping of swarms of African honey bees
might have potential to control feral populations in the future.  The authors
also showed that European bee swarms prefer older cavities and previously
occupied nests.
 
The best kind of trap used to collect swarms continues to be the round paper
pulp one designed at the Tucson laboratory by Dr. J. Schmidt and colleagues.
A newer design, which allows frames to be inserted and so is easier for the
beekeeper to handle, is not quite as effective, according to latest
information.  Unfortunately, the round trap can be easily invaded by rodents,
birds, even bats.  One paper by E. Sugen at the USDA Tucson bee lab showed how
to put "burglar bars" of wire mesh over the opening from the inside using a
hot glue gun.
 
Killing wild swarms, nests and managed honey bee colonies was addressed in two
papers.  B. Sames and colleagues (USDA Weslaco lab) showed that Resmethrin
(R), permethrin and soapy water (1:16 ratio detergent/water) were good in
certain situations.  Safer (R) soaps on the market were recommended because
they are already labelled for insect control.  To kill swarms from afar, J.
Loper and colleagues (USDA Tucson lab), reported on the effectiveness of
applying a toxic material (avermectin) to drones and then allowing them to fly
back to contaminate the nest.
 
The African bee was a natural focus of this meeting in the Arizona desert,
although it has yet to cross the Mexican border.  Several papers concentrated
on identifying the bees using various chemical techniques.  An immunological
procedure is well along in development and the presenters (B. Kitto and
colleagues, Univ. of Texas) provided optimism that a quick, inexpensive, easy-
to-use identification method should be available to the market in less than a
year.   A discussion by Marilyn Houck, University of Arizona, raised some
eyebrows.  She indicated that morphometrics as currently employed was too
biased toward bee size and suggested that a better indicator of African bees
would be a technique where size was eliminated from the process.
 
A most interesting paper concerning African bees was given by Dr. J. Schmidt
and colleagues (USDA Tucson lab) on bee venom.  Individual African bees, due
to generally smaller size, have less venom than European bees.  Statistics from
around the nation reveal how very small the current public health threat is
from honey bees.  Even if the human death rate were to rise considerably with
arrival of the African bee, there would be many greater risks to be concerned
about such as heart disease, automobile accidents and lightning strikes.
 
However, the risk of receiving many bee stings from African bees is very real,
according to Dr. Schmidt, and the results can be different than is presently
the experience of either the general public or beekeepers.  Allergy followed
by anaphylaxis is the way most people might die of honey bee stings in the
U.S.  With African bees, another event called "toxic envenomation" can occur.
This means that the body's system does not break down because of allergy, but
because it is challenged by so much venom when a great number of African bees
attack.  A large quantity of venom will not only cause kidney failure, but also
induce allergic reactions in persons who have not experienced them before.
Therefore, even "hardened" beekeepers, those who have built up an immunity to
reactions over time, are at risk.  Attempts to develop an antivenom like that
currently available for snake bites have failed to date.
 
I can only mention the highlights of the ABRC's program in this newsletter.
Besides all the papers, the meeting also coincided with the annual meetings of
both the American Association of Professional Apiculturists (AAPA) and the
Apiary Inspectors of America (AIA).  The latter group was in the throes of
developing a standard certificate for bee inspection covering American
foulbrood, mites and African bees.  The abstracts for the Research Conference
should be out soon in the American Bee Journal.
 
                              AFRICAN BEES ARRIVE
 
The first confirmed African bee swarm was detected across the Texas border on
October 15, 1990 in Hidalgo, near Brownsville.  The infamous bee has finally
arrived and beekeepers need to begin to come to grips with this reality.
Although there is still much disagreement, we are getting a body of
information on the African bee which will be useful in the future.  In all the
falderal about the insect, beekeepers must focus on two facts:  (1)  the
African bee is a honey bee and (2) the beekeeper must adapt to the bee's
behavior.
 
The first statement is not a flip remark.  Sometimes this simple fact is lost
in heated discussions.  I will repeat it.  The African bee is a honey bee.
That means the insect (yes, it is also an insect, albeit a social one) has all
characteristics and behavior of other honey bees.  It is the difference or
variation in the bee's behavior that continues to be the focus of many
discussions and accounts.  The most objectionable and noticeable behavior,
stinging, appears to be extreme.  The bees at different times can be
extremely gentle, however, they may also explode in an angry cloud at the
slightest provocation.  This means a less predictable, and therefore, less
manageable bee.  From this comes the second point made above.  The bees will
probably not be the ones adapting to a different management style, the
beekeepers will.
 
I am excerpting a letter which recently appeared in Dr. Eric Mussen's
newsletter, "From the UC Apiaries."  It is an interesting summary of Prof.
Adam W. Armour's experience with African honey bees (AHB) in southern Mexico:
 
"I feel that the American beekeepers are not yet prepared for the arrival of
the AHB.  The beekeepers here who weren't prepared are the ones who are going
out of business.  In answer to your questions:
 
1.  We have 50 colonies operating for honey and pollen; beekeeping is a
sideline for me.
 
2.  I plan to have large smokers built locally.  We used to manage hives
without gloves, veil or other protection.  We now use one piece bee suits
with zip on veil and elbow gloves.  I had to alter the suits to give complete
ankle protection as well.
 
3.  We keep colonies 100 meters from the nearest house, road or livestock.
After being worked, the bee stays aggressive for the rest of the day.
Apiaries near roads have been burned, poisoned or otherwise destroyed because
of stings received by passersby.  People here don't take kindly to having
themselves or their animals stung.  I can just imagine the lawsuits and
problems when the AHB reaches the U.S.  As you no doubt know, the AHB is not
being genetically diluted or hybridized, as was formerly hoped."
 
Prof. Armour goes on to discuss other issues such as destruction of colonies
by vandals, swarm control (the key to producing any honey with AHB),
requeening, migrating (which he doesn't recommend) and robbing (rare for some
reason).
 
It appears from the tone of Prof. Amour's letter, that if the aggressive
(defensive) behavior of the bee could be controlled, then the problems
produced by the AHB could be much better managed.  Dr. Elbert Jaycox,  The Bee
Specialist, in one of his last newsletters on beekeeping (December, 1989)
also made this point in a different way: "While some planners are considering
only ways to exclude and control the African honey bees, other should be
giving considerable thought to all the ways we can make it easier to live with
them while we select for gentle productive strains."
 
Dr. Jaycox then discusses the case for using bee houses, especially in urban
areas.  Their use would (1) keep colonies out of sight; (2) make it easier to
manipulate bees under all weather conditions; and (3) provide a calming effect
on colonies by being in shade.  This calming effect was written about as early
as 1960, according to Dr. Jaycox, by F.G. Smith in his book, "Beekeeping in
the Tropics."  Bee houses offer several other advantages, Dr. Jaycox says,
such as convenient working height for colonies and the fact that guard bees at
the entrance have no access to the beekeeper.
 
Although bee houses are probably not the answer for large-scale beekeepers,
Mr. Andy Nachbaur wrote me some time back that he noted less defensiveness in
colonies fitted with modified pollen traps.  As Mr. Nachbaur says, "I believe
the reason for this is quite simple.  Even though the exterior entrance to the
hive was normal, the pollen screen that removes the pollen from the bees after
they enter the hive was a natural barrier..."  The guard bees chose to defend,
Mr. Nachbaur says, the interior entrance, excluding exterior activities such
as mowing or pulling weeds around colonies.  He continues, "I think many
beekeepers in different parts of the world have found that aggressive response
of bees to intruders and the public can be reduced by bee houses and placement
of exterior flight controllers such as trees or fences.  I believe the same
objective can be reached by modification of the bottom of the bee hive..."
"But," he concludes, "the changes needed...would require a modification of
beekeeper prejudices on the on dimensions of bottom boards...  a bigger
hurdle than the cost."
 
                     CHANGES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
 
It's now official.  The Entomology-Nematology Faculty at the University of
Florida will be moving into a brand new building the first part of November.
This transition is exciting, but is also likely to be a difficult time for
all.  This is clearly evident in the number of boxes crowding my office.
Other new things to accommodate to will be changed phone numbers (I am told
the number here will be transferred), an up-to-date high technology telephone
system being answered from a central location, changed mailing addresses and
other as yet unforseen events.  I hope everyone will bear with us during this
hectic period.  Once established in the new building, the Department will be
able to serve everyone's needs in a more efficient manner.
 
A large problem this year is the smaller budget being received by University
units.  Entomology-Nematology is being hit hard by the five percent roll back
in the state budget.  The small figure is misleading because only certain
areas are eligible to be cut.  One of the first to be affected is operating
funds; the cut translates into about a 25% reduction in these monies.
Publishing information is an important part of these costs, and this
newsletter is now being carefully scrutinized by administrators for its
usefulness and relevance.   Although the costs of the newsletter is relatively
low ($1450 per twelve issues), its production represents a hefty proportion of
funds used for printing and distributing written materials.  I am currently
looking into options available to continue the newsletter in its present
format, but things are looking a bit grim at the moment.
 
It is an axiom in most bureacracies that "the squeaky wheel gets the grease."
Given this reality, it is important that this newsletter receive support from
those currently receiving it.  The best way to do this is to write Dr. John
Capinera,  Chairman, Department of Entomology-Nematology, 3105 McCarty Hall,
Gainesville, FL 32611-0143 indicating whether you perceive the newsletter to
be valuable to you and other beekeepers in the state, and that you would like
it to continue being supported as it has in the past.
 
 
Sincerely,
 
Malcolm T. Sanford
0312 IFAS
202 Newell Hall
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611-0312
Phone (904) 392-1801
FAX: 904-392-5660
BITNET Address: MTS@IFASGNV
INTERNET Address: [log in to unmask]
 
 
QN