FILENAME:  AUGAPIS.91
 
 
            Florida Extension Beekeeping Newsletter
    Apis--Apicultural Information and Issues (ISSN 0889-3764)
                 Volume 9, Number 8, August 1991
 
                Florida Bee Inspection: User Fees
 
     At a recent Farm Bureau meeting, the subject of user fees for
bee inspection in Florida was raised.  This is not in the works
yet, according to Mr. Laurence Cutts, Chief Apiary Inspector, but
is certainly a possibility in the future given the State's
budgetary problems.
     Bee inspection services have been public whipping boys ever
since discovery of tracheal mites in 1984 when colonies were first
"depopulated" in a futile effort to control the infestation.  Early
on, Florida, under pressure from migratory beekeepers, declared
itself infested with tracheal mites, effectively killing the
package bee and queen business in the state.  Since then,
regulations concerning tracheal mites have not been implemented
uniformly around the United States, causing further dislocations in
an industry heavily dependent on interstate movement.
     Introduction of Varroa in 1987 paralleled the tracheal mite
experience in many respects, and the African honey bee, another
regulatory nightmare, has finally entered the country.  Meanwhile,
the old beekeeping problems, particularly American foulbrood, have
not disappeared.  All this puts regulators in a bind; there appears
to be much more to regulate and in many cases, diminishing
resources with which to carry out needed inspections.  This also
frustrates beekeepers who have seen their profits suffer due to
increased costs in many cases caused by regulations.  For example,
an innovative South Carolina beekeeper had to close down operations
in Florida because of the disparity between regulations in the two
states.
     The results of inconsistent rules have caused many in the
beekeeping industry to re-examine the role of regulators.  Some are
calling for total deregulation of the industry.  Indeed, this has
been accomplished in the western states to a great degree.
California still has laws on the books, but enforcement no longer
exists, according to Dr. Eric Mussen at the University of
California, Davis.  The western states' agreement on mites and
movement, analogous to the eastern states' agreement to which
Florida is a signatory, no longer exists.  The ripple effect from
this is that inspection programs in Oregon and Idaho, dependent on
user fees for inspection prior to moving to the California almond
orchards, have also fallen by the wayside.
     Dr. Richard Taylor, long-time writer for Gleanings in Bee
Culture, has also entered the fray.  He recently asked the
question, "Have inspection programs outlived their usefulness?"
(July, 1991).  He ends his piece by stating, "My own view is, and
has for some time been, that mandatory inspection of apiaries is
something whose time has long since come, and gone.  American
foulbrood is a manageable problem that can be left in the hands of
beekeepers themselves.  This is not going to eliminate American
foulbrood, to be sure, but neither is anything else.  It is not a
proper area for government."
     Dr. Taylor's comments concerning the historical reason for bee
inspection (American foulbrood control), why it is no longer needed
and the fact that such bureaucracies tend to have a life of their
own are valid.  Most professionals in the research and education
establishment would agree with much of what he said.
     I have been opposed to regulations concerning Varroa for some
of the same reasons as Dr. Taylor is about American foulbrood.  We
simply don't know enough about the mite's life cycle to be able to
effectively regulate the parasite.  This has caused a crisis in
confidence within the industry that sees such regulations as
nothing more than meddling.  And there can be no effective
regulatory activity on an industry that does not support such
efforts.  Fortunately, there is a technology in place that
beekeepers can use to reduce Varroa populations [Apistan (R)],
analogous to employing Terramycin (R) for American foulbrood
control.  The same is true for tracheal mites.  Thus, I have
advocated deregulating both tracheal and Varroa mites in Florida.
Common sense and the realities of the world, however, dictate that
the state must have an inspection system in place so bees can move
out of Florida in cooperation with inspection services in other
states.  In addition, without formal regulation of pests, chemical
companies have much less incentive to develop and evaluate products
for control.
     Although technologies to control AFB, Varroa and tracheal
mites are in place, I do not believe this warrants the dismantling
of inspection services around the nation.  The old saying, "Don't
throw the baby out with the bath water," holds.  Although in some
cases inspection agencies are viewed as abusive and having a life
of their own, as stated by Dr. Taylor, this does not mean they
cannot adapt their programs to aid the industry being regulated
instead of damaging it.  Inspection services like most political
entities are not necessarily immune to pressure from the group
being regulated.  And there are many benefits that inspection
services perform for the industry that are not often fully
appreciated.
     As an extension worker, I have always thought of bee
inspectors as my agents in the field, providing needed information
to beekeepers, running the gamut from the one-colony beehaver to a
seasoned migratory operator.  I don't know how many times I've
referred persons to inspectors for a wide range of services beyond
simply inspecting colonies for potential problems.  These have
included collecting pesticide killed bees for analysis,
investigating stinging incidents and nuisance colonies, and
participating in local beekeeper meetings.  Without these helpers
in the field, I would not have access to information on beekeeping
around the state or statistics about the industry.  A recent survey
by Gleanings in Bee Culture (see elsewhere in this newsletter)
would not have been possible without state inspection services.
     Research into bee problems also is promoted by inspection
services and sometimes they are active participants in the process.
The current menthol application technology was championed by the
Nebraska inspection service.  The Florida inspection service is a
strong supporter of current Varroa mite and African bee research at
the University of Florida by providing colonies and labor in these
efforts.  In Florida, too, the program of post treatment inspection
of bees is designed to be able to detect resistance of Varroa to
chemicals early, and in the process, save the industry long-run
grief.  As agriculture continues to lose clout in legislatures
across the land, the inspection service is a vital bureaucracy left
to hammer at the doors of an increasingly urban officialdom about
the problems the beekeeping industry faces.
     Before doing away with inspection services, therefore, some
thought needs to be given to alternatives.  Many of the traditional
inspection services are knowledgeable about and sympathetic to the
plight of beekeepers.  However, if disbanded there is no assurance
that another crop of regulators who are less involved with
beekeepers might not arise in the face of future perceived
"crises."  This is particularly likely to happen in the face of
invasion of African bees associated with sensationalized press
coverage.  A state inspection service can also intervene to prevent
and/or blunt potentially harmful regulations being promulgated at
the federal level.  Finally, it is far easier to get rid of a
bureaucracy than to try to re-establish one.  It is not a given
that some of the same concerns prompting establishment of bee
inspection services in the first place, and well supported by the
beekeeping industry in the past, will not reappear in the future.
The Michigan experience may be instructive with reference to the
above scenarios.  Inspection in that state was done away with for
a time, but the industry demanded it be reinstated.  However, when
it was reestablished, the inspection bureaucracy was not
particularly knowledgeable nor sympathetic with industry concerns.
As a result, Michigan beekeepers are again reexamining their bee
law.
     Whether the user fee for regulatory activity will find support
within the beekeeping community remains questionable.  As Dr.
Taylor said, "Still, the state bee inspection programs...have been
somewhat curtailed here and there, but this has resulted less from
the perception that they are not needed than from a shortage of
funds to pay the salaries (and pensions) of the inspectors."
Reportedly one of the major reasons the California Department of
Agriculture disbanded its inspection service was because beekeepers
were not paying their fair share.  One of the major trends reported
in the newest version of the best selling book Megatrends 2000 was
that our society was moving away from governmental help to self
help.  Perhaps only when beekeepers agree to finance the brunt of
bee inspection, will the worth of the services provided become
apparent.
 
                      HOW MANY BEEKEEPERS?
 
     As mentioned above, Gleanings in Bee Culture conducted a
survey of beekeepers in the United States with the help of the
state inspection services.  Completed in May, 1991, this is the
most up-to-date information on the subject.  A grand total of
139,061 beekeepers were reported, significantly lower than the
U.S.D.A. official estimate of 211,000.
     In the southeastern region, Florida showed a total of 9,200
beekeepers, followed by South Carolina (2,500), Georgia (2,400) and
Alabama (1,334).  Across the country, Florida was only exceeded by
North Carolina (12,000), New York (10,000) and Wisconsin (10,000).
The vast majority of beekeepers (80%) are found east of the
Mississippi River, whereas most of the colonies (69.5%) are found
in the west.  Hawaii, Alaska and Washington D.C. were not included
in the count.
 
                      GRASSHOPPER SPRAYING
 
     I've had several questions concerning spraying for
grasshoppers that are damaging citrus groves near Dade City.  Mr.
Terry Smith, Division of Plant Industry, ph 904/521-1448, informs
me that there are few beekeepers in the area and those identified
have been notified.  Application of malathion is progressing
throughout the day from truck mounted mist blowers.  If you believe
your operation to be at risk, contact Mr. Smith directly.  The
outbreak so far is confined to the Dade City environs.
 
                         ALDICARB UPDATE
 
     Several years ago, there was concern expressed by Florida
beekeepers that application of the pesticide Temik (R), active
ingredient aldicarb, was hurting bee colonies in citrus groves.  In
the June, 1986 issue of APIS, I discussed the problem of systemic
insecticides in some detail and reported levels of toxic residues
(aldicarb sulfoxide and aldicarb sulfone) found in citrus nectar.
However, at that time there were no studies directly addressing the
aldicarb-honey bee connection in Florida citrus.
     A recent paper on the phenomenon was published, H. Nigg, et.
al., "Contamination of Sucrose Solution with Aldicarb Sulfoxide
inhibits Foraging of Honeybees (Hymenoptera:  Apidae), Journal of
Economic Entomology, Vol. 84, No. 3, pp.  810-813, June, 1991.  It
reveals that although bees were not directly killed at
concentrations up to 3 parts per million (ppm), foraging was
affected.  The authors state:  "From our data, it appears that any
level of aldicarb sulfoxide will reduce consumption of sucrose
solution by honeybees."  The study was not conducted in the field
and so there is not much information on actual effects during
nectar flows.  Nevertheless, the authors conclude:  "If aldicarb
sulfoxide unpalatability occurs in the field, strong honeybee hives
without honey reserves may behave as if no or little nectar were
available during the extensive citrus bloom."  If you desire a copy
of the paper, please contact me.
 
                SEPTEMBER IS NATIONAL HONEY MONTH
 
     U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Edward Madigan has joined the
National Honey Board to proclaim September as National Honey Month,
according to a press release on the subject.  All you honey
marketers out there should take advantage of increased promotions
by the Board and others during the month to celebrate the oldest
sweetener known to humans.  The National Honey Board has available
some clip art which should spice up local advertising efforts.  A
copy of the newest rendition of the Board's advertising featuring
the honey bear service mark can also be requested by calling
303/776-2337.
 
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]