Date sent: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 02:34:24 -0400
From:
"L-Soft list server at University at Albany (1.8c)" <LISTSERV@CNSIBM.ALBANY.EDU>
Subject: File: "DATABASE OUTPUT"
To: Allen Dick
> SEARCH 'Kashmir' IN BEE-L -
> FROM 1-Jan-90 TO 31-Dec-98
--> Database BEE-L, 42 hits.
> INDEX
Item # Date Time Recs Subject
------ ---- ---- ---- -------
000783 92/09/23 20:23 326 23-09-92 20:15:38
001089 93/03/29 19:54 121 Hawaiian transshipments?
001195 93/04/26 20:22 701 Bee Science Symposium Abstracts
001197 93/04/26 20:24 84 BEE VIRUS SURVEY
001203 93/04/27 09:25 416 BEE SCIENCE SYM ABS - ASCII
001204 93/04/27 09:27 40 BEE VIRUS SURVEY - ASCII
003376 94/11/17 10:20 272 November issue of APIS
003533 94/12/22 09:37 274 December APIS
003822 95/02/25 08:58 151 Your help needed to protect Hawai'i's honey bees
003837 95/02/27 09:44 104 Re: Your help needed to protect Hawai'i's honey be+
007865 96/03/26 17:38 68 bee disease spread, we better think NOW
007869 96/03/27 22:44 72 Kashmir bee virus...
007880 96/03/27 18:42 28 Re: Kashmir bee virus...
007886 96/03/28 01:17 67 Re: Kashmir bee virus...
007890 96/03/28 08:06 75 Re: Kashmir bee virus...
007897 96/03/28 11:28 59 In Response
007904 96/03/29 21:09 58 Re: Kashmir bee virus...
007918 96/03/29 10:31 52 Re: BEE-L Digest - 27 Mar 1996 to 28 Mar 1996
007930 96/03/30 06:48 77 Responding
008010 96/04/03 17:15 62 Re: Virus Alert
008069 96/04/06 22:13 84 N Z Bees
008165 96/04/11 07:12 40 Re: Hawaii's mite-free status
008325 96/04/19 12:32 170 New Zealand Honey Bee Disease Programmes
009022 96/05/27 09:12 70 BEE virus alert
009148 96/06/06 10:57 273 Mites and patties
009207 96/06/08 23:21 116 Re: America's honeybees
009212 96/06/08 08:05 136
009539 96/06/28 08:11 41 Parasitic Mite Syndrome (PMS)
009919 96/07/24 19:20 82 Bleak Future ? Yes
010718 96/09/11 19:49 717 Essential Oils update
011918 96/11/10 16:58 582 Re: Commercial Testing Labs.
013574 97/02/01 14:49 122 Re: Surviving Varroa
013869 97/02/19 13:58 14 Help on a new subject
016099 97/05/31 08:05 66 HONEY BEE ACT 1922 STATUS
016102 97/06/01 10:03 30 Re: HONEY BEE ACT 1922 STATUS
017921 97/08/31 09:01 133 Re: HAWAII honey bee concerns ALOHA
023339 98/06/11 20:15 20 kashmir virus
023350 98/06/13 13:23 35 Re: kashmir virus question
023354 98/06/12 21:45 34 Re: kashmir virus
023358 98/06/06 14:32 27 kashmir virus
023373 98/06/16 12:30 34 Re: kashmir virus
023395 98/06/17 00:08 23 Re: kashmir virus question
> PRINT
>>> Item number 783, dated 92/09/23 20:23:00 -- ALL
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1992 20:23:00 +1200
Reply-To: Discussion of Bee Biology <BEE-L@ALBNYVM1.BITNET>
Sender: Discussion of Bee Biology <BEE-L@ALBNYVM1.BITNET>
From: NICKW@WAIKATO.AC.NZ
Subject: 23-09-92 20:15:38
BUZZWORDS 45, SEPTEMBER 1992
BUZZWORDS is the monthly newsletter of the National Beekeepers Association of
New Zealand. Though some of the topics are of 'local' interest only, I post
copies to the bee list for those who will find items of interest.
-----------------------------------
Nick Wallingford
Internet nickw@waikato.ac.nz
-----------------------------------
FROM THE PRESIDENT
As was arranged at the time of conference our executive officer Ted Roberts
and I travelled to Taumaranui and met with members of the Manawatu Wanganui
Regional Council and local pest destruction officers. This has turned out to
be a very worthwhile exercise. Farmers have a serious problem in the threat to
their exports caused by T.B. Likewise five beekeepers with a total of about
6,000 hives were having their livelihoods threatened. John Bassett, the local
beekeeper spokesman was present at the meeting. It was a case of reaching a
compromise.
The outcome was very satisfactory to all concerned. The pest destruction
officers are to use phosphorous baits until such time as testing of oxalic
acid in jam baits has been completed. This means they are able to carry on
with their planned programme of possum eradication. Beekeepers will be able
to carry on without the need to shift out of the area.
The battle over the import of heat-treated Australian honey is intensifying.
Branches and individuals have reacted well followed by action from your
executive.
I have just received a letter from David Kay advising that the Honey Industry
Trustees have agreed to a grant of $20,000 for the clinical testing of manuka
honey. They have asked of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology,
Auckland University, taht the methodology and personnel involved will ensure
that the results of the trial will be acceptable to the medical profession and
the Health Department. A big thank you to our trustees and we all hope the
end result will be positive.
QUOTES FROM CHAIRMAN FLOYD
Here's a sampling of the wit and wisdom of marketing man Bill Floyd, from the
talks he gave at this year's Hastings conference. We couldn't include them
with the item on the NBA Marketing Programme in last month's Buzzwords due to
space limitations:
'House brands are taking over the New Zealand retail honey market. Overall,
house brands of honey have increased from 25% to 39.6% of the market in the
last three years. In the South Island the figure is 53.5%!'
'We haven't had a lot of market research on honey in New Zealand, but all the
studies which have been done show clearly that price is not the main factor in
why people buy honey.'
'Small industries like honey need to hunt as a pack. Once the prey is on the
ground, then you can fight between yourselves for the tender bits.'
'The Commerce Commission will not let you abuse your dominant position in the
market place. That sounds like something out of the Kamasutra.'
'It is often said that 50% of money spent on advertising is wasted.
Professionals don't come anywhere near that figure, but amateurs waste more
like 70%.'
'Make it and hope' doesn't work.'
'In marketing, if you're not going to go all the way, don't start.'
'The more benefits you add to your core product, the more you differentiate
that product.'
'If we market honey correctly, consumers will soon be seeking it out in
products the way they now do for oat bran.'
'The honey industry needs to market like a commando group, not a large
battalion. Use your competitors' environment and live off the land.'
'The innate goodness of honey is our number one competitive advantage.'
BOOKS, BOOKS, BOOKS
Practical Beekeeping in New Zealand, this country's most well- known
beekeeping book, will once again be available, beginning this September. The
book, written by International Bee Research Association director Andrew
Matheson, has been completely revised and updated. Even the front cover will
be new!
The first edition of Practical Beekeeping in New Zealand was extremely
popular, both with hobbyist beekeepers and the general public, and provided an
informative introduction to the unique features of beekeeping in this country.
The revised edition will make a welcome return for this important industry
resource which has unfortunately been out of print for the last several years.
The new edition, published by GP Publications, will retail at $29.95.
Cliff Van Eaton and Peter Brunt, New Zealand's representatives for the
International Bee Research Association, are having a big sale of books from
their IBRA book shelves. The IBRA is the world's leading source of beekeeping
information, and one of the important things the IBRA does is to provide a
mail order book service for members. Their current catalogue lists over 250
different books and 120 reprints on all aspects of bees and beekeeping.
As a help to New Zealand beekeepers, Cliff and Peter keep a selected number of
titles so that they can fill orders quickly, and they have been given
permission to offer discounts of 20 - 60% on these stocks for a limited time
only. Bargains include the classic Honey: A comprehensive Survey, by Eva
Crane, at $44.20 (25% off); Anatomy and Dissection of the Honey Bee, by Dade,
at $36.80 (25% off); and Honey Bee Pests, Predators and Diseases, edition 1,
by Morse at $26.20 (50% off). Great prices, but stocks are very limited.
For a list of titles and prices contact either Cliff, c/- MAF, Private Bag,
Tauranga, or Peter, c/- Nelson Polytechnic, Private Bag, Nelson. And in case
you're wondering, the sale is definitely non-profit. All proceeds go directly
to the IBRA (after all, they own the books!).
Mention was made at this year's conference of an inexpensive booklet which has
colour pictures and descriptions of exotic and endemic bee diseases. The
booklet is called Honey Bee Diseases and Pests, and is published by the
Canadian Association of Professional Apiculturists (CAPA). The booklet is
very comprehensive, and has good pictures of EFB, Varroa, and the tracheal
mite, as well as most of the more common (and uncommon) bee diseases. As for
pests, New Zealand readers will no doubt enjoy the sections on bears and
skunks (and we thought we had problems!). For a copy of the publication, send
$5.00, together with a stamped, self-addressed A4 size envelope to:
Bee Diseases and Pests Booklet
Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries
Private Bag
TAURANGA
MINISTER PROMISES 1080 REPELLENT
Readers are by now well aware of the long-running battle our industry is
currently having over the inclusion of oxalic acid in 1080 jam possum baits.
Research conducted by Mark Goodwin at Ruakura showed that oxalic acid acted as
a bee repellant in possum baits, but so far the Animal Health Board has not
approved its use in the many possum poisoning programmes being conducted
around the country. Executive member Nick Wallingford has been lobbying
government on behalf of the industry, and he recently receiv ed, through MP
Robert Anderson, a very interesting letter from Denis Marshall, Associate
Minister of Agriculture. According to Marshall, 'Trials will be initiated this
spring and will probably continue into the summer period. By autumn 1993,
answers should be found to the problem of possum bait acceptance and by winter
next year jam products containing the bee repellent should be available for
use.'
The minister protects himself somewhat with all those 'should's', but your
executive will definitely be reminding him of his statement that the bee
repellent should be available for use next winter, when the possum poisoning
programmes are announced in 1993.
FROM THE BRANCHES
The Marlborough branch has already scheduled meetings for their spring
diseaseathon. They are: Briefing Meeting - Monday, September 14, beginning
at 7.30 pm, at MAF Blenheim; Inspection Day - Saturday, September 19. Contact
Murray Bush (03-578-3923) or James Jenkins (03-578-9325) by September 1. Good
support is essential if the branch is to meet the nation-wide percentage
inspection target of 5.8% of local district apiaries.
The Poverty Bay branch also has a diseaseathon scheduled for Saturday,
September 12. The branch plans to use part of the diseaseathon to collect
adult bee samples which it hopes to plate out the next day (Sunday, September
13). The branch hopes it will then be able to more effectively target both
MAF and members' inspections during the rest of the Spring. For information
contact Barry Foster - phone 06-867-4591, evenings.
Hawkes Bay branch has a Branch Apiary Field Day planned for 10 am at
Chesterhope Reserve on September 5. They also have a branch meeting on Monday
September 14, with the prograrmme to be arranged.
KASHMIR APOLOGY
In Buzzwords 39 we reported on an article by Dr. T.P. Liu from Canada on
Kashmir bee virus and a rebuttal in the American Bee Journal by Dr. Denis
Anderson, former research scientist with our DSIR. Dr. Anderson refuted
claims made by Dr. Liu that Kashmir bee virus was a virulent pathogen of honey
bees and that the 'disease' was only found in New Zealand and Australia.
Now it seems the whole thing was a mistake. The winter 1992 edition of
Canadian Beekeeping contains reference to a phone call received by the editor
from Dr. Liu claiming that his original article was taken from published
material and was directed at 'academically informing' beekeepers about the
virus, and in particular three mutant strains. He says that for sometime
Canada has been importing queens from New Zealand and Australia and so the
whole discussion on the pathogenic nature of the virus is 'academi c'. He
also urged that the editor publish Dr. Anderson's article as a 'counter view'
on the nature of Kashmir bee virus.
Well, we suppose this is an apology. However, it's a shame Dr. Liu didn't
also point out to the editor the number of factual errors made in the article
(academic or not) and maybe also make an apology to queen and package
producers in both New Zealand and Australia for creating doubt in the minds of
their Canadian clients. He also doesn't explain how this information 'taken
from published material' ended up in every important beekeeping journal in
North America last year.
HAWAII MISSES OUT
We mentioned in Buzzwords 32 the possibility of the Canadians allowing in
queens from Hawaii this year and the concerns some beekeepers in Canada were
expressing regarding the state's lack of an inspection and registration
programme.
Well, no queens were approved for export during this shipping year (March-
June, 1992) and it looks like it may be difficult for the Hawaiians to meet
even the newly changed protocols negotiated with the Canadian federal
government. The stumbling block to getting approval by the Canadians seems to
be the lack of state funds in Hawaii which would allow them to conduct
required apiary testing. The head of the Canadian federal quarantine service,
Dr. William McElheran, changed the protocol requiring the Hawai ians to test
their hives for mites from 50% of all colonies in supply apiaries to 20%, but
that still doesn't seem to be enough. As the winter edition of Canadian
Beekeeping points out, 'one has to realize that Hawaii has no bees act and
limited manpower and funds to implement regulations for what is a small
industry.'
MARKETING, PRICES, AND SUBSIDIES
From time to time in Buzzwords we make mention of the US federal government's
honey subsidy programme. Readers here in New Zealand no doubt wonder why we
go to the effort. After all, what can policies half way around the world have
to do with our own beekeeping industry?
The answer is quite a bit, as evidenced by the softening of New Zealand honey
prices in the late 80's. That softening related directly to a major downturn
in world honey prices, brought on by the 'eruption' of the U.S. government's
'honey mountain' which dumped the equivalent of one year's U.S. production on
the world market at an artificially low price.
In hindsight, we can at least be grateful that we were on the other side of
the world with an industry which wasn't greatly dependent on exports. In
Canada, where one third of total production was normally sold to the U.S., the
'eruption' caused severe problems. Canadian honey prices dropped out of
sight, with some beekeepers not able to sell their honey at any price. Many
commercial beekeepers went to the wall, and there are now one third less
beekeepers in Canada than there were 5 years ago.
So how did the U.S. situation come about? Back in the 70's, the U.S.
government, with the best of intentions, decided to do something about the
'boom and bust' nature of yearly honey prices. In the U.S., as elsewhere,
beekeepers found it impossible to get a good price for their honey because the
year's total production entered the market all at the same time. U.S. packers
took advantage of this situation and invariably played one beekeeper off
against another, driving the wholesale price of honey down.
The U.S. government put in place a loan programme, under the Commodity Credit
Corporation, to help the beekeepers out. The idea was that the government
would take the honey on loan, paying the beekeeper a set price, and allow the
beekeeper to buy the honey back once demand increased later in the year.
The theory was fine, but unfortunately the pricing mechanism for loans was
based on a 'parity price' set in the 70's, just after the world price of honey
went through the roof. Adjusted yearly for inflation, that price became so
high that U.S. packers eventually found that they could buy overseas honey at
a much lower price. U.S. producers didn't buy back the honey they had loaned
to government and the honey mountain was thus created.
This situation carried on through the early 80's, but it finally became
obvious that something had to give. Beekeepers were actually being paid a
further fee to hold the honey in their sheds, and the government could only
find an outlet, through their 'food to the poor' programmes, for a small
amount of what was building up.
So in the infinite wisdom of the U.S. bureaucracy, it was decided to allow
beekeepers to 'buy back' their honey at a price lower than the one paid for
the original loan. The idea was that this would encourage packers to buy from
the domestic producer (at a lower rate), while the producer still received an
artificially high price. The U.S. government would be able to clear its
backlog of honey, and everybody (at least in the U.S.) would be happy.
To their credit, the U.S. industry decided at the same time to set up a
national honey promotion programme, called the National Honey Board, to
stimulate increased honey consumption in the U.S. The programme is funded by a
levy of just over 4 cents (NZ) on every kg of honey (domestic and imported)
sold in the U.S.
The National Honey Board has been extremely successful. By concentrating on
new market areas for honey such as the food ingredient and food service
industries, the board has been responsible for a 10% increase in U.S. honey
consumption at a time when traditional table spread sales have remained more
or less static.
But as you can imagine, with any mandatory levy, the Honey Board certainly has
it detractors, especially since in the last six months prices paid by packers
have softened somewhat. There have been calls in American beekeeping journals
for a re-structuring of the Board, including the removal of all non-beekeeper
members from its board of directors.
Finally, in the May edition of The Speedy Bee, a major honey packer and past
member of the board, Dwight Stoller, answered these critics. In so doing, he
became one of the few leading U.S. beekeepers to call the loan/buy back
programmes what it really is - a government subsidy. He also let beekeepers
in on the big change which was being obscured by the convoluted way the
programmes are being run.
According to Mr. Stoller, the only aspect of the U.S. honey price which has
taken a major tumble in the last 3 years is the subsidy (difference between
loan and buy back price) itself. In that time the subsidy has been reduced by
81% (from NZ$0.90 to $0.17/kg). Net income to the producer may have decreased
by 9% during the same period, but prices paid by packers actually rose by 29%.
The increase in honey consumption has actually led to an increase of over 42%
in real income. It's just that the National Honey Board has been so
successful that it has allowed the U.S. government to substantially get itself
out of the honey subsidy business.
Mr. Stoller doesn't see anything wrong with this, and in fact in the article
he makes some comments about agricultural subsidies and government
indebtedness that would make even Ruth Richardson proud. He reckons the U.S.,
with its US$3.5 trillion debt, is actually behind such countries as Brazil,
Argentina, and Mexico, in solving its debt crisis, and says it is about time
the U.S. stopped blaming others for its financial problems. Not paying their
way eventually catches up with all industries and governme nts, and according
to Mr. Stoller, beekeepers in the States need to realize that they won't be
guaranteed a government subsidy forever. As he says, 'we've made remarkable
progress toward reaching a point of survival without it.'
Courageous words from Dwight Stoller. We just wonder whether the rest of the
beekeepers (and politicians, for that matter) in the U.S. agree.
>>> Item number 1089, dated 93/03/29 19:54:00 -- ALL
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1993 19:54:00 +1200
Reply-To: Discussion of Bee Biology <BEE-L@ALBNYVM1.BITNET>
Sender: Discussion of Bee Biology <BEE-L@ALBNYVM1.BITNET>
From: NICKW@WAIKATO.AC.NZ
Subject: Hawaiian transshipments?
NZ has shipped package bees and queens to Canada for about 20
years now. The exports are generally trans-shipped (taken from
one plane to another) in Hawaii. The State of Hawaii has now
closed this off entirely, ostensibly due to the risk of bee
diseases from NZ. Dr Liu's work, referred to in the letter from
the State of Hawaii's Dept of Ag, has been challenged in American
bee magazines. I'd be curious to see what sort of response
(scientific, please, not emotive) there is on this issue. Its
that fine line where bee science is being used to create trade
barriers, and its very important that the science be good!
FROM BUZZWORDS, THE MONTHLY NEWSLETTER OF THE NEW ZEALAND
BEEKEEPERS ASSOCIATION, NUMBER 51, APRIL 1993.
BEE EXPORTS JEOPARDISED
This year's shipments of New Zealand queens and package bees to
Canada could be at risk, thanks to actions recently taken by
state and federal governments in the United States. The
lucrative Canadian market, worth over $1.5 million to New Zealand
and Australian producers, is currently in limbo following a
decision by the US Department of Agriculture to agree to a
Hawaiian state government request to end transshipments of live
bees through its borders. The move follows hard on the heals of
a Canadian federal government decision to allow the import of
queen bees produced in Hawaii for the 1993 production year.
The Hawaiians had tried unsuccessfully for several years to
access the Canadian market which was closed to live bee shipments
from the continental United States in 1987 in an effort to keep
out the Varroa mite. The move resulted in losses to US queen
producers estimated at NZ$6.8 million per year (see Buzzwords
30).
The decision by Canadian authorities to allow Hawaii queens into
their country is seen as a victory for elements in the Canadian
industry who believe that the US border should no longer be
closed. Varroa outbreaks have now been identified in several
Canadian provinces and last year the Canadian federal government
announced that it would no longer pay all the costs for varroa
mite control programmes.
Unfortunately for the Canadians, however, if the Hawaiian ban
remains in place, Canadians will be unable to obtain package bees
from any outside source. The Canadian approval is only for
queens from Hawaii, and even if the Hawaiians obtained export
clearance for packages it is unlikely that they could supply more
than a small portion of Canada's package needs. With those sorts
of pressures on the Canadian industry, it's conceivable that the
Canadians could call for a return to package imports from
California, just so they can continue to restock their hives.
The Canadian authorities are requiring several strict export
certification procedures for Hawaiian queens. These include the
testing of 15% of the producer's colonies for varroa and one hive
per apiary for tracheal mite. However, the procedures do not
require area freedoms for American foulbrood, as required for New
Zealand queens. Hawaii currently does not have an American
foulbrood control programme and has no government register of
beekeepers and apiaries.
The Hawaiians, for their part, have used some very tenuous
arguments in an effort to get the USDA to stop transshipments of
our bees through their ports. Mr. Yukio Kitagawa, chairperson of
the Hawaiian State Government Board of Agriculture, claims that
bee shipments from Australia and New Zealand pose the threat of
introducing foreign diseases and pests into Hawaii. As evidence
for this, he quotes the articles written by Dr. Stephen Liu, from
Agriculture Canada, which appeared in a number of bee
publications in North America in the past several years.
According to Mr. Kitagawa, Dr. Liu 'detected two serious honey
bee diseases, not present in Hawaii, in samples of package bees
shipped into Canada from New Zealand and Australia'. The
diseases mentioned are Kashmir bee virus and melanosis.
As Denis Anderson pointed out in his rebuttal in The American Bee
Journal in 1991 (see Buzzwords 39), Dr. Liu's articles 'omitted
important published information about Kashmir bee virus and made
claims that were not supported by scientific evidence.' There is
also much disagreement amongst scientists as to whether melanosis
is even a disease. But the real point is that the Hawaiians
don't even know whether they have these two problems (we're sure
they do) because no one has really ever looked.
Dr. Liu made it clear last year that his comments about Kashmir
and melanosis were directed at 'academically informing'
beekeepers and were not really scientific articles (see Buzzwords
45). Still, that hasn't stopped the Hawaiians from grasping this
very inconsequential straw and holding the whole of Australasia's
Canadian bee exports to ransom. We strongly believe it is about
time someone in the North American bee science establishment took
Dr. Liu to task for his lack of scientific ethics. Dr. Liu needs
to apologise to US and Canadian officials for the errors in his
articles on Kashmir and melanosis and he needs to do it now.
* * * STOP PRESS * * *
Agriculture Canada has just approved several new
transit/transhipment ports for this year's package bee exports to
Canada. These include Singapore, Seoul, London, and Hong Kong.
There is still a problem, however, of available space on
aircraft. We understand that at this point only one air carrier
has agreed to consider shipping packages through Hong Kong.
We have also just been informed that the US authorities will
allow transshipments of live bees through LA for valid sales
contracts made prior to March 19. Contact your local AAO for
details.
-------------------------------------
Nick Wallingford
National Beekeepers Assn of NZ
Internet nickw@waikato.ac.nz
-------------------------------------
>>> Item number 1195, dated 93/04/26 20:22:38 -- ALL
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1993 20:22:38 -0300
Reply-To: Discussion of Bee Biology <BEE-L@ALBNYVM1.BITNET>
Sender: Discussion of Bee Biology <BEE-L@ALBNYVM1.BITNET>
From: Dick Rogers <"PAM::DR"@AC.NSAC.NS.CA>
Subject: Bee Science Symposium Abstracts
WPCƒ
˜ 2
WB dDigital DEClaser 21
00DIDEC210.PRS+x
@+±P,D0#P_¦ #|x¦ñ3¦'
3¦'Standard
3¦'3¦'Standard.+
LDDigipɦ ñ¦Bee Science Sympos
ium
"Current Developments in Bee Research"
ABSTRACTED PROCEEDINGS
Mar
ch 12, 1993
Cornwallis Room, Agricultural Centre, Kentville, Nova Scotia,Canada
Sponsored by the Nova Scotia Beekeeper
s' Association and the
Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture and Marketing
with assistance from the Human Resource Deve
lopment component of
the Canada/Nova Scotia Agri-Food Development Agreement
FORWARD
On Ma
rch 12, 1993 a unique symposium on current scientific research
related to honeyb
ees and their diseases and pests was held in the
Cornwallis Room at the AgriculturalCentre, Kentville, N.S. The
speakers at thi
s symposium are recognized worldauthorities from
the U.K., U.S., Alberta, Ontario and Nova Scotia. The topics
coveredgenetic en
gineering, selective breeding, viral diseases an
d
their transmission,honeybees as vectors of biological control
agents, and pest
s of bumblebees.The following are abstracts of t
he
presentations except in one case a summarytranscript is included.
C O N T E N T S
1. Dr. Brenda V. Ball, Honey Be
e Virus Infections Associated
with Varroa jacobsoni Infestation.
2. Don Stoltz, Virologist, Development of Diagostic Tools f
or
Virus Infection in the Honeybee.
3. John Phillips, Engineering a Gene for Insecticide Resistance
in the Honeyb
ee.
4.
Thomas E. Rinderer, Breeding of Resistance to Varroa
jacobsoni.
5. Dr. Don Nelson, Tracheal Mites Detection and Control
Meth
ods.
6. John C. Sutton, Use of Bees to Deliver Biocontrol Agents for
Controlling F
lower-Infecting Pathogens.
7. Richard
M. Fisher, Bumble Bees: Parasites, Predators,
Disease.
8. Summary List of Speakers, Addresses and Fax Numbers.+¥$
+
1. Honey Bee Virus Infections Associated with Varroa jacobsoni
InfestationBrend
a V. Ball, AFRC Institute of Arable Cr
ops Research,
Rothamsted ExperimentalStation, Harpenden, Herts. AL5 2JQ Fax:
0582 760981.
ABSTRACT
The parasitic mite Varroa jacobsoni causes little apparent damage
in colonies of
itsnatural host Apis cerana, the e
astern hive bee.
The transfer of the mite to theEuropean honey bee, Apis mellif
era
and its spread to every continent except Aus
tralasiahas been
accompanied by reports of devastating colony losses, although t
he
effects ofinfestation seem variable and are s
till poorly
understood. Differences in thereproductive potential of mites on
di
fferent species and races of bees and hostbehavi
oral responses
may account for some of this variability. However, recentresearc
h
has shown that the mite affects the type and p
revalence of honey
bee virusinfections causing mortality. This talk will consid
er the
role of V. jacobsoni as anactivator and v
ector of honey bee viruses
and examine some of the factors affectingdisease outb
reaks in
infested colonies.+¦+
2. Development of Diagostic Tools for Virus Infection in the
HoneybeeDon Stolt
z, Department of Microbiology & Immunology,
Dalh
ousie University, Halifax,Nova scotia B3H 4H7 Fax:
902-494-5125.
ABSTRACT
My laborator
y has been developing approaches to diagnostics which
we think will proveuseful
in the not-too-distant future. For
example, in
preliminary studies we havefound that virus infection
in a single bee pupa can b
e readily detected by Westernblotting.
Our prim
ary focus thus far, however, has been directed towards an
assessmentof polymeras
e chain reaction (PCR)-based technology for
the
detection of black queencell and Kashmir bee viruses. Use of
PCR primers specif
ic for conserved humanenterovirus sequences gave
rise to several products; one of these, a 450 base pairamplicon
from KBV has no
w been cloned and sequenced. Computer analysis
indicate thatthis sequence comes from the viral RNA polymerase gene
and shares s
ignificant homologywith the same gene found in a
variety of known picornaviruses - including humanhepatitis A - and
with many pl
ant virus genomes as well. Future work will be
directedtowards the development of both universal picornavirus
primers and prime
rs specificfor individual bee viruses.+ª
+
3. Engineering a Gene for Insecticide Resistance in the
HoneybeeJoh
n Phillips, University of Guelph, Department of
Molecular Biology and Genetics,Guelph, Ontario, Canada Fax:
519-837-2075.
ABSTRACT
We are
applying current techniques of insect molecular biology to
the design andintrod
uction of useful genes in beneficial insects.
S
uch genes would include thoseencoding resistance to conventional
insecticides.
A potentially useful insecticideresistance gene,
the
`opd' gene, has been identified and cloned from bacteria. Thisgene
specifi
es a unique phosphotriesterase which efficiently
cleaves and
detoxifiesa broad spectrum of organophosphorus insecticides. We
ha
ve redesigned this gene tofunction in insects an
d have
transferred it into the genome of the model insect,Drosophila
melanogaste
r, where it functions to confer significant resi
stance
toorganophosphate toxicity. This demonstrates the feasibility of
conferr
ing usefultraits on strains of insects through t
he design
and introduction of carefully designedgenes. We are now refining
the
structure of the gene to target expression in sp
ecifictissues
and developmental stages in order to enhance the efficacy of
insec
ticideresistance. In addition, we have begun to
develop
techniques for transferring thisand/or other useful genes into the
hone
ybee genome to confer useful and novel traitson
the beneficial
insect species.+S+
4. Breeding for Resistance
to Varroa jacobsoniThomas E. Rinderer,
United St
ates Department of Agriculture, Agricultural
ResearchServices, Honey-Bee Breedin
g Genetics & Physiology
research, Baton Rouge, L
ouisiana Fax: 504-389-0383.
ABSTRACT
A stock of honey bees was bred in Yugoslavia for resistance to the
parasitic
mite,Varroa jacobsoni. This stock was imported by the
USDA to the US and extens
ively testedin field trials in Florida.
These t
ests showed that the stock has some degree ofresistance to
Varroa jacobsoni, a s
trong resistance to a second parasitic
mite,Acar
apis woodi, which is also a relatively new and
economically troubling pest of ho
neybees in the US, and excellent
general beekeep
ing characteristics. Based on theseresults, the
Yugoslavian honey bee stock is
scheduled to be released to industry
nextspring.
This release will be the first honey bee stock
released from the USDA toindust
ry in decades. The general
potential for develo
ping honey bee stocks resistantto parasitic
mites will be examined.
Editor's Note:An excellent article by Rinderer, et al, in t
he
March '93 issue of American BeeJournal, covers this subject in
detail.+
h+
5. Tracheal Mites Detection and
Control MethodsDr. Don Nelson,
Agriculture Canada, Research Station, Beaverlodg
e, Alberta Fax:
403-354-8171
ABSTRACT
Tracheal mites are becoming a common pest of honey bee colonies in
most of Canad
a. Therefore, it i
s important to know when colonies
are infested and at what levels. Atthe same t
ime it is important
to know at what levels trach
eal mites are detrimentalto colonies,
and how to control their buildup.The only
method of detection at
present is the dissection
(and microscopic examination)of the
thorax of individual bees. This method is
time consuming and
costly. TheBeaverlodge Rese
arch Station has developed a
monoclonal antibody specific to thetracheal mite an
d is currently
using and evaluating an ELISA (En
zyme-LinkedImmunosorbent Assay)
method for detection of tracheal mites in bulk b
ee samples.
Withfurther evaluation this method
may become a preferred
alternative to individual beeanalysis.Several approaches
to
reducing or minimizing the effect of tracheal
mites are
beingstudied; a) chemical control, b) management practices and c)
sel
ecting stock forresistance. The emphasis in the
short term has
certainly been to have one or moreregistered chemical controls
a
vailable. Chemicals currently approved for use
in Canadafor the
control of tracheal mites are menthol and formic acid (by sprin
g
of 1993). For the short and mid-term, several
management practices
along with chemical controlsseem promising and for the long
term
selecting bees more resistant to the trach
eal miteholds great
promise. Ultimately, all three methods will be used in
vari
ouscombinations to provide the best results.+
+
6. Use of Bees to Deliver Biocontrol Agents for Controlling
F
lower-Infecting PathogensJohn C. Sutton, Departm
ent of
Environmental Biology, University of Guelph, Guelph,Ontario, Canada
N1G
2W1 Fax: 519-837-0442
Honey bees (Apis melli
fera) were found in recent studies to
efficiently vector inoculumof microbial bi
ocontrol agents to
flowers of strawberry (Peng e
t al. 1992), raspberry(J.C. Sutton
1991, unpublished observations), apple and pe
ar (Thompson et al.
1992). These observations we
re made a century after Waite (1891)
reported for the first timethat honey bees
vectored a pathogen,
Erwinia amylovora, to flowe
rs of pear trees. Foreffective
biocontrol of flower-infecting pathogens, it is
likely that
intensivevectoring of biocontrol age
nts is required. To achieve
adequate vectoring of agentsto flowers of crop plan
ts, inoculum of
the organisms must be suitably f
ormulated toallow effective
acquisition, transport, and deposition by bees.Bees
successfully
vectored spores of various biocontr
ol agents (eg. Gliocladium
roseum,Epicoccum purpurascens, and Alternaria alterna
ta) when
formulated as powders with talc,pulveri
zed corn meal, wheat flour,
soya flour or corn starch (Peng et al. 1992, Israela
nd Boland
1992). The bacterial antagonists Pseu
domonas fluorescens and
Erwiniaherbicola were vectored to apple and pear flowers
when
absorbed to pollen of apple orcattail (Tho
mson et al. 1992). The
bees were contaminated with the formulations inspecial i
noculum
dispensers or pollen inserts inside hive
s. Bees acquired
inoculumon their legs and bodies and especially on the setae.I
n a
biocontrol study of fruit rot of strawberry
caused by Botrytis
cinerea, bees eachacquired 88,000 - 1,800,000 (mean 570,000)
cfu
G. roseum in a talc formulation (5 x108 cfu/
g) and maintained an
inoculum density of 1,600 - 27,000 cfu of the antagoniston
each
flower (Peng et al. 1992). By comparison i
noculum density in plots
sprayedweekly with spore suspensions (107 conidia/mL) o
f G. roseum
ranged from 300 to 15,000cfu/flower.
Propagule density was more
stable and often higher on flowers of the bee-vecto
red treatment
than in spray-treated flowers, but
the treatments were about
equallyeffective in suppressing incidence of the path
ogen on
stamens and petals, and incontrolling fr
uit rot.Efficiency of
inoculum deposition on flowers by bees probably depends on
subtletiesin physical contact between the bee a
nd the flower as
well as the load and distributionof inoculum on the bee. Size
and
morphology of the flowers and of the bees, a
nd theactivity and
posturing of bees while on the flowers undoubtedly affect the
amount ofinoculum deposited and where it is dep
osited on the
flower. In studies at theUniversity of Guelph, bees delivered
abo
ut 10 to 18 times more conidia of G. roseumper f
lower to
strawberry than to raspberry. The formulation and concentration
ofinoc
ulum used was the same in all studies. While st
rawberry
flowers are much largerthan raspberry flowers, and foraging
frequencies
by bees on the two types of lower mayhave diffe
red, the
bees also behaved differently on strawberry than on raspberry
(J.C.Sutt
on, unpublished observations). In strawberry, b
ees tended
to move actively overthe face of the flower, often in a rotational
pa
ttern, and their legs and bodiesfrequently conta
cted the stamens+h)+and other flower parts. In raspberry howe
ver, thebees moved only
slightly and tended to c
ling to the elongate stamens by means of
distalportions of their legs, and achie
ved only minor body contact
with the flower. Wh
iledensity of vectored inoculum on raspberry
was low, the antagonist nonetheless
effectively suppressed Botrytis
fruit rot.Many v
ariables influence the frequency of visits by bees
to flowers and may thusinflue
nce vectoring of biocontrol agents and
the effec
tiveness of biocontrol. Cooltemperature, wind and rain
generally discourage for
aging by bees (Free 1968 a,b),however in
our stu
dies in strawberry, bees vectored high densities of G.
roseum to theflowers unde
r a wide range of weather conditions (Peng
et al
. 1992). Foraging in testplots or in commercial crops can be
affected by the p
roximity and attractiveness tobees of other kinds
of flowers in the area that compete as sources of nectar and
pollen(Levin 1978)
. For example, biocontrol of B. cinerea in
stra
wberry by means of bee-vectored G. roseum soon became
ineffective when the bees
preferentially visited freshlyblooming
rapeseed
in nearby field plots (Peng et al. 1992). Chemical
attractants canbe used in so
me instances to maintain foraging in
the target
crop.The mobility and foraging patterns of bees present
special problems in fiel
d studies. Screens generally are needed to
separ
ate treatments with bees from those without bees,but may
modify microclimate and
exclude important pollinators. Bees
confined i
n screencages may forage and vector differently from
freely-ranging bees. Scree
ning of alltreatments equalizes
microclimatic mo
dification but is impractical when plots or
hostplants are large, and can be cos
tly. Vectoring of biocontrol
agents will requir
especial studies in commercial crops to determine
the numbers, size and distribu
tionof bee colonies needed for
effective vectori
ng of microbial antagonists and forbiocontrol.
In bee-vectoring studies in Utah
, the antagonist Pseudomonas
fluorescenswas dete
cted on only 556% of apple flowers at 61 m from
a hive, and on only 72% of pearf
lowers at 7 m from a hive, with an
average popul
ation of 102 cfu per flower (Thomsonet al. 1992) - A
stain of E. herbicola was d
etected on 92 - 96% of apple flowers ina
2.6 ha
orchard (10-5700 cfu per flower). To encourage bees to
establish foragingpatter
ns in a crop as opposed to other plants in
the a
rea, it is important to introducebee colonies shortly after
the crop begins to f
lower.Various bees potentially could be used
to
vector microbial antagonists to many kindsof plant for
biocontrol of various flo
wer-infecting pathogens. Several kinds
ofdomest
icated bees, including bumble bees (Bombus spp.) and leaf
cutting bees (Megachil
espp., Osmia spp.) as well as honey bees, may
ha
ve potential as vectors. Wild speciesof halictid bees and
andrenid bees also po
ssibly could be used, and contaminated
withbioco
ntrol agents at bait stations. Various berry crops,
orchard fruits, crucifercro
ps, beans, clovers, and cucurbits
possibly could
be protected by bee-vectoredantagonists.
Imaginative research could lead to ef
fective, efficient,
andenvironmentally safe bioc
ontrol of many crop diseases by means
of bee-vectoredantagonists.
Literature cited
FREE, J.B., 1968. The pollination of strawb
erries by honey bees. +h)+J. Hortic. Sci. 43:107-111.
FREE, J.B., 1968. The foraging behaviour of honey bees
(Apis
mellifera) and bumblebees(Bombus spp.) on blackcurrant (Rubus
nigrum), ra
spberry (Rubus idaeus) and strawberry(Fragaria x
ananassa) flowers. J. Appl. Ecol. 5: 157-168.
ISRAEL, M., & BOLAND, G.J., 1992. Influence of formulation on
efficacy of hone
y beesto transmit biological control for management
of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum.
Can. J.Plant Pathol. (Abstr.) (In
press).
LEV
IN, D.A., 1978. Pollination behaviour and the breeding
structure of plantpopula
tions. Pages 133 - 150 in A.J. Richards,
ed., T
he pollination of Flowers byInsects. Academic Press, London.
213 pp.
PENG. G., SUTTON, J.C. & KEVAN, P.G., 1992. Effectivene
ss of honey
bees for applyingthe biocontrol agent Gliocladium roseum to
strawber
ry flowers to suppress Botrytiscinerea. Can. J.
Plant
Pathol. 14: 117-129.
THOMSON, S.V., hansen, D.R., FLINT, K.M. & VANDENBERG, J.D., 1992.
The dissemin
ationof bacteria an
tagonistic to Erwinia amylovora by
honey bees. Plant Dis. 76: 1052-1056.
WAITE, M.B., 1891. Results from recent investigation
s in pear
blight. Am. Assoc. Adv.Sci. Proc. 40:315.+ +
7.
Bumble Bees: Parasites, Predators, DiseaseRichard
M. Fisher,
Department of Biology, Acadia University, Wolfville, Nova
Scotia,Can
ada Fax: 902-542-3466
ABSTRACT
During the 1980
's, advances in bumble bee domestication technology
permitted the cost-effective
use of these bees for greenhouse
tomato pollina
tion. At present, threespecies are used for this
purpose (Europe and New Zealan
d: B. terrestris; eastern
NorthAmerica: B. impat
iens (Cr.); western North America; B.
occidentalls (Grne). Threeprimary concern
s have been associated
with the intensive labora
tory culture of thesespecies: 1)
depopulation of bees in areas where queens are
captured; 2) the
impactof species introductions
into new area; 3) the possible
spread of disease,either amongBombus populations
, or
interspecifically between bumblebees and ot
her bees, notablyApis
mellifera. Data are presented which demonstrate the genus
specificity of a numberof bumble bee pests and
pathogens, including
mites, the microsporidian Nosema bombi,and a number of soci
al
parasites. The possible propagation of disea
ses among
culturedBombus species can be eliminated (or at least minimized)
throu
gh proper managementpractices.+ª
+
8. SPEAKERS
Brenda V. BallAFRC Institue of Arable Crops ResearchRothamsted
Experimental Stat
ionHarpenden, Herts AL5 2JQF
ax: 0582 760981
Don StoltzDepartment of Microbiology & ImmunologyDalhousie
UniversityHalifax, No
va ScotiaB3H 4H7Fax: (902) 494-
5125
John PhillipsUniversity of GuelphDepartment of Molecular Biology
& GeneticsGuelp
h, OntarioN1G 2W1Fax: (519) 837-2075
Thom
as E. RindererUnited States Department of
AgricultureAgricultural Research Servi
ces, Mid South AreaHoney-Bee
Breeding, Genetics
& Physiology Research1157 Ben Hur RoadBaton
Rouge, Louisiana 70820Fax: (504)
389-0383
Don NelsonAgriculture CanadaResearch S
tationBeaverlodge, AlbertaT0H
0C0Fax: (403) 354-8171
John C. SuttonDepartment of Environmental BiologyUniversity of
GuelphGuel
ph, OntarioN1G 2W1Fax: (519) 837-0442
Richard M. FisherDepartment of BiologyAcadia UniversityWolfville,
Nova scotiaB0P
1X0Fax:
(902) 542-3466
>>> Item number 1197, dated 93/04/26 20:24:32 -- ALL
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1993 20:24:32 -0300
Reply-To: Discussion of Bee Biology <BEE-L@ALBNYVM1.BITNET>
Sender: Discussion of Bee Biology <BEE-L@ALBNYVM1.BITNET>
From: Dick Rogers <"PAM::DR"@AC.NSAC.NS.CA>
Subject: BEE VIRUS SURVEY
WPCd
˜ 2
WBßDigital DEClaser 2100
DIDEC210.PRS+x
@+±P,D0#P_#|xBEE VIRUS DIAGNOSTIC SERVICE ¬ SURVEY
Dr. Don Stoltz, Virologist, Department of Microbiology
and
Immunology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, is
currentl
y involved in a project to improve the technolog
y for the
diagnosis of honey bee viruses. It is expected that a diagnostic
serv
ice for some viruses (e.g. Kashmir, black queen
cell) could be
available by the end of 1993.
Conceivably, a general diagnostic service (i.e., for most if not
all bee viruses
)
could be developed, in time, if sufficient
interest/need was identified, and som
e sort of funding arrangement
could be negotiate
d. At this time, we would like responses to the
following questions:
[1]+
+DO YOU REQUIRE BEE VIRUS DIAGNOSIS ON AN ANNUA
L BASIS?
[2]+
+IF ONLY A LIMITED DIAGNOSTIC SERVICE COULD BE PROVIDED, WHICH
VIRUSE
S ARE OF MOST CONCERN TO YOU?
[3]+
+WHERE DO YOU GET YOUR DIAGNOSIS WORK DONE NOW?
[4]+
+HOW MANY SAMPLES AT ANY ONE TIME?
[5]+
+WOULD YOU USE TH
E SERVICE IF AVAILABLE IN NOVA SCOTIA?
[6]+
+WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO PAY A NOMINAL FEE PER SAMPLE FOR THIS
SERVIC
E?
It w
ould be appreciated if replies could be returned to Dick Rogers
as soon as possi
ble.
V: 902¬679¬6029
F: 902¬679¬6062
E¬MAIL: DR_
PI@AC.NSAC.NS.CA
>>> Item number 1203, dated 93/04/27 09:25:26 -- ALL
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1993 09:25:26 -0300
Reply-To: Discussion of Bee Biology <BEE-L@ALBNYVM1.BITNET>
Sender: Discussion of Bee Biology <BEE-L@ALBNYVM1.BITNET>
From: Dick Rogers <"PAM::DR"@AC.NSAC.NS.CA>
Subject: BEE SCIENCE SYM ABS - ASCII
Bee Science Symposium
"Current Developments in Bee Research"
ABSTRACTED PROCEEDINGS
March 12, 1993
Cornwallis Room, Agricultural Centre, Kentville, Nova Scotia,Canada
Sponsored by the Nova Scotia Beekeepers' Association and the
Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture and Marketing
with assistance from the Human Resource Development component of
the Canada/Nova Scotia Agri-Food Development Agreement
FORWARD
On March 12, 1993 a unique symposium on current scientific research
related to honeybees and their diseases and pests was held in the
Cornwallis Room at the AgriculturalCentre, Kentville, N.S. The
speakers at this symposium are recognized worldauthorities from
the U.K., U.S., Alberta, Ontario and Nova Scotia. The topics
coveredgenetic engineering, selective breeding, viral diseases and
their transmission,honeybees as vectors of biological control
agents, and pests of bumblebees.The following are abstracts of the
presentations except in one case a summarytranscript is included.
C O N T E N T S
1. Dr. Brenda V. Ball, Honey Bee Virus Infections Associated
with Varroa jacobsoni Infestation.
2. Don Stoltz, Virologist, Development of Diagostic Tools for
Virus Infection in the Honeybee.
3. John Phillips, Engineering a Gene for Insecticide Resistance
in the Honeybee.
4. Thomas E. Rinderer, Breeding of Resistance to Varroa
jacobsoni.
5. Dr. Don Nelson, Tracheal Mites Detection and Control Methods.
6. John C. Sutton, Use of Bees to Deliver Biocontrol Agents for
Controlling Flower-Infecting Pathogens.
7. Richard M. Fisher, Bumble Bees: Parasites, Predators,
Disease.
8. Summary List of Speakers, Addresses and Fax Numbers.
1. Honey Bee Virus Infections Associated with Varroa jacobsoni
InfestationBrenda V. Ball, AFRC Institute of Arable Crops Research,
Rothamsted ExperimentalStation, Harpenden, Herts. AL5 2JQ Fax:
0582 760981.
ABSTRACT
The parasitic mite Varroa jacobsoni causes little apparent damage
in colonies of itsnatural host Apis cerana, the eastern hive bee.
The transfer of the mite to theEuropean honey bee, Apis mellifera
and its spread to every continent except Australasiahas been
accompanied by reports of devastating colony losses, although the
effects ofinfestation seem variable and are still poorly
understood. Differences in thereproductive potential of mites on
different species and races of bees and hostbehavioral responses
may account for some of this variability. However, recentresearch
has shown that the mite affects the type and prevalence of honey
bee virusinfections causing mortality. This talk will consider the
role of V. jacobsoni as anactivator and vector of honey bee viruses
and examine some of the factors affectingdisease outbreaks in
infested colonies.
2. Development of Diagostic Tools for Virus Infection in the
HoneybeeDon Stoltz, Department of Microbiology & Immunology,
Dalhousie University, Halifax,Nova scotia B3H 4H7 Fax:
902-494-5125.
ABSTRACT
My laboratory has been developing approaches to diagnostics which
we think will proveuseful in the not-too-distant future. For
example, in preliminary studies we havefound that virus infection
in a single bee pupa can be readily detected by Westernblotting.
Our primary focus thus far, however, has been directed towards an
assessmentof polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based technology for
the detection of black queencell and Kashmir bee viruses. Use of
PCR primers specific for conserved humanenterovirus sequences gave
rise to several products; one of these, a 450 base pairamplicon
from KBV has now been cloned and sequenced. Computer analysis
indicate thatthis sequence comes from the viral RNA polymerase gene
and shares significant homologywith the same gene found in a
variety of known picornaviruses - including humanhepatitis A - and
with many plant virus genomes as well. Future work will be
directedtowards the development of both universal picornavirus
primers and primers specificfor individual bee viruses.
3. Engineering a Gene f
or Insecticide Resistance in the
HoneybeeJohn Phillips, University of Guelph, Department of
Molecular Biology and Genetics,Guelph, Ontario, Canada Fax:
519-837-2075.
ABSTRACT
We are applying current techniques of insect molecular biology to
the design andintroduction of useful genes in beneficial insects.
Such genes would include thoseencoding resistance to conventional
insecticides. A potentially useful insecticideresistance gene, the
`opd' gene, has been identified and cloned from bacteria. Thisgene
specifies a unique phosphotriesterase which efficiently cleaves and
detoxifiesa broad spectrum of organophosphorus insecticides. We
have redesigned this gene tofunction in insects and have
transferred it into the genome of the model insect,Drosophila
melanogaster, where it functions to confer significant resistance
toorganophosphate toxicity. This demonstrates the feasibility of
conferring usefultraits on strains of insects through the design
and introduction of carefully designedgenes. We are now refining
the structure of the gene to target expression in specifictissues
and developmental stages in order to enhance the efficacy of
insecticideresistance. In addition, we have begun to develop
techniques for transferring thisand/or other useful genes into the
honeybee genome to confer useful and novel traitson the beneficial
insect species.
4. Breeding for Resistance to Varroa jacobsoniThomas E. Rindere
r,
United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural
ResearchServices, Honey-Bee Breeding Genetics & Physiology
research, Baton Rouge, Louisiana Fax: 504-389-0383.
ABSTRACT
A stock of honey bees was bred in Yugoslavia for resistance to the
parasitic mite,Varroa jacobsoni. This stock was imported by the
USDA to the US and extensively testedin field trials in Florida.
These tests showed that the stock has some degree ofresistance to
Varroa jacobsoni, a strong resistance to a second parasitic
mite,Acarapis woodi, which is also a relatively new and
economically troubling pest of honeybees in the US, and excellent
general beekeeping characteristics. Based on theseresults, the
Yugoslavian honey bee stock is scheduled to be released to industry
nextspring. This release will be the first honey bee stock
released from the USDA toindustry in decades. The general
potential for developing honey bee stocks resistantto parasitic
mites will be examined.
Editor's Note:An excellent article by Rinderer, et al, in the
March '93 issue of American BeeJournal, covers this subject in
detail.
5. Tracheal Mites Detection and Control MethodsDr. Don Nelson,
Agriculture Canada, Research Station, Beaverlodge, Alberta Fax:
403-354-8171
ABSTRACT
Tracheal mites are becoming a common pest of honey bee colonies in
most of Canada. Therefore, it is important to know when colonies
are infested and at what levels. Atthe same time it is important
to know at what levels tracheal mites are detrimentalto colonies,
and how to control their buildup.The only method of detection at
present is the dissection (and microscopic examination)of the
thorax of individual bees. This method is time consuming and
costly. TheBeaverlodge Research Station has developed a
monoclonal antibody specific to thetracheal mite and is currently
using and evaluating an ELISA (Enzyme-LinkedImmunosorbent Assay)
method for detection of tracheal mites in bulk bee samples.
Withfurther evaluation this method may become a preferred
alternative to individual beeanalysis.Several approaches to
reducing or minimizing the effect of tracheal mites are
beingstudied; a) chemical control, b) management practices and c)
selecting stock forresistance. The emphasis in the short term has
certainly been to have one or moreregistered chemical controls
available. Chemicals currently approved for use in Canadafor the
control of tracheal mites are menthol and formic acid (by spring
of 1993). For the short and mid-term, several management practices
along with chemical controlsseem promising and for the long term
selecting bees more resistant to the tracheal miteholds great
promise. Ultimately, all three methods will be used in
variouscombinations to provide the best results.
6. Use of Bees to Deliver Bioc
ontrol Agents for Controlling
Flower-Infecting PathogensJohn C. Sutton, Department of
Environmental Biology, University of Guelph, Guelph,Ontario, Canada
N1G 2W1 Fax: 519-837-0442
Honey bees (Apis mellifera) were found in recent studies to
efficiently vector inoculumof microbial biocontrol agents to
flowers of strawberry (Peng et al. 1992), raspberry(J.C. Sutton
1991, unpublished observations), apple and pear (Thompson et al.
1992). These observations were made a century after Waite (1891)
reported for the first timethat honey bees vectored a pathogen,
Erwinia amylovora, to flowers of pear trees. Foreffective
biocontrol of flower-infecting pathogens, it is likely that
intensivevectoring of biocontrol agents is required. To achieve
adequate vectoring of agentsto flowers of crop plants, inoculum of
the organisms must be suitably formulated toallow effective
acquisition, transport, and deposition by bees.Bees successfully
vectored spores of various biocontrol agents (eg. Gliocladium
roseum,Epicoccum purpurascens, and Alternaria alternata) when
formulated as powders with talc,pulverized corn meal, wheat flour,
soya flour or corn starch (Peng et al. 1992, Israeland Boland
1992). The bacterial antagonists Pseudomonas fluorescens and
Erwiniaherbicola were vectored to apple and pear flowers when
absorbed to pollen of apple orcattail (Thomson et al. 1992). The
bees were contaminated with the formulations inspecial inoculum
dispensers or pollen inserts inside hives. Bees acquired
inoculumon their legs and bodies and especially on the setae.In a
biocontrol study of fruit rot of strawberry caused by Botrytis
cinerea, bees eachacquired 88,000 - 1,800,000 (mean 570,000) cfu
G. roseum in a talc formulation (5 x108 cfu/g) and maintained an
inoculum density of 1,600 - 27,000 cfu of the antagoniston each
flower (Peng et al. 1992). By comparison inoculum density in plots
sprayedweekly with spore suspensions (107 conidia/mL) of G. roseum
ranged from 300 to 15,000cfu/flower. Propagule density was more
stable and often higher on flowers of the bee-vectored treatment
than in spray-treated flowers, but the treatments were about
equallyeffective in suppressing incidence of the pathogen on
stamens and petals, and incontrolling fruit rot.Efficiency of
inoculum deposition on flowers by bees probably depends on
subtletiesin physical contact between the bee and the flower as
well as the load and distributionof inoculum on the bee. Size and
morphology of the flowers and of the bees, and theactivity and
posturing of bees while on the flowers undoubtedly affect the
amount ofinoculum deposited and where it is deposited on the
flower. In studies at theUniversity of Guelph, bees delivered
about 10 to 18 times more conidia of G. roseumper flower to
strawberry than to raspberry. The formulation and concentration
ofinoculum used was the same in all studies. While strawberry
flowers are much largerthan raspberry flowers, and foraging
frequencies by bees on the two types of lower mayhave differed, the
bees also behaved differently on strawberry than on raspberry
(J.C.Sutton, unpublished observations). In strawberry, bees tended
to move actively overthe face of the flower, often in a rotational
pattern, and their legs and bodiesfrequently contacted the stamens
and other flower parts. In raspberry however, thebees moved only
slightly and tended to cling to the elongate stamens by means of
distalportions of their legs, and achieved only minor body contact
with the flower. Whiledensity of vectored inoculum on raspberry
was low, the antagonist nonethelesseffectively suppressed Botrytis
fruit rot.Many variables influence the frequency of visits by bees
to flowers and may thusinfluence vectoring of biocontrol agents and
the effectiveness of biocontrol. Cooltemperature, wind and rain
generally discourage foraging by bees (Free 1968 a,b),however in
our studies in strawberry, bees vectored high densities of G.
roseum to theflowers under a wide range of weather conditions (Peng
et al. 1992). Foraging in testplots or in commercial crops can be
affected by the proximity and attractiveness tobees of other kinds
of flowers in the area that compete as sources of nectar and
pollen(Levin 1978). For example, biocontrol of B. cinerea in
strawberry by means of bee-vectored G. roseum soon became
ineffective when the bees preferentially visited freshlyblooming
rapeseed in nearby field plots (Peng et al. 1992). Chemical
attractants canbe used in some instances to maintain foraging in
the target crop.The mobility and foraging patterns of bees present
special problems in field studies. Screens generally are needed to
separate treatments with bees from those without bees,but may
modify microclimate and exclude important pollinators. Bees
confined in screencages may forage and vector differently from
freely-ranging bees. Screening of alltreatments equalizes
microclimatic modification but is impractical when plots or
hostplants are large, and can be costly. Vectoring of biocontrol
agents will requirespecial studies in commercial crops to determine
the numbers, size and distributionof bee colonies needed for
effective vectoring of microbial antagonists and forbiocontrol.
In bee-vectoring studies in Utah, the antagonist Pseudomonas
fluorescenswas detected on only 556% of apple flowers at 61 m from
a hive, and on only 72% of pearflowers at 7 m from a hive, with an
average population of 102 cfu per flower (Thomsonet al. 1992) - A
stain of E. herbicola was detected on 92 - 96% of apple flowers ina
2.6 ha orchard (10-5700 cfu per flower). To encourage bees to
establish foragingpatterns in a crop as opposed to other plants in
the area, it is important to introducebee colonies shortly after
the crop begins to flower.Various bees potentially could be used
to vector microbial antagonists to many kindsof plant for
biocontrol of various flower-infecting pathogens. Several kinds
ofdomesticated bees, including bumble bees (Bombus spp.) and leaf
cutting bees (Megachilespp., Osmia spp.) as well as honey bees, may
have potential as vectors. Wild speciesof halictid bees and
andrenid bees also possibly could be used, and contaminated
withbiocontrol agents at bait stations. Various berry crops,
orchard fruits, crucifercrops, beans, clovers, and cucurbits
possibly could be protected by bee-vectoredantagonists.
Imaginative research could lead to effective, efficient,
andenvironmentally safe biocontrol of many crop diseases by means
of bee-vectoredantagonists.
Literature cited
FREE, J.B., 1968. The pollination of strawberries by honey bees.
J. Hortic. Sci. 43:107-111.
FREE, J.B., 1968. The foraging behaviour of honey bees (Apis
mellifera) and bumblebees(Bombus spp.) on blackcurrant (Rubus
nigrum), raspberry (Rubus idaeus) and strawberry(Fragaria x
ananassa) flowers. J. Appl. Ecol. 5: 157-168.
ISRAEL, M., & BOLAND, G.J., 1992. Influence of formulation on
efficacy of honey beesto transmit biological control for management
of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum. Can. J.Plant Pathol. (Abstr.) (In
press).
LEVIN, D.A., 1978. Pollination behaviour and the breeding
structure of plantpopulations. Pages 133 - 150 in A.J. Richards,
ed., The pollination of Flowers byInsects. Academic Press, London.
213 pp.
PENG. G., SUTTON, J.C. & KEVAN, P.G., 1992. Effectiveness of honey
bees for applyingthe biocontrol agent Gliocladium roseum to
strawberry flowers to suppress Botrytiscinerea. Can. J. Plant
Pathol. 14: 117-129.
THOMSON, S.V., hansen, D.R., FLINT, K.M. & VANDENBERG, J.D., 1992.
The disseminationof bacteria antagonistic to Erwinia amylovora by
honey bees. Plant Dis. 76: 1052-1056.
WAITE, M.B., 1891. Results from recent investigations in pear
blight. Am. Assoc. Adv.Sci. Proc. 40:315.
7. Bumble Bees: Parasites, Predator
s, DiseaseRichard M. Fisher,
Department of Biology, Acadia University, Wolfville, Nova
Scotia,Canada Fax: 902-542-3466
ABSTRACT
During the 1980's, advances in bumble bee domestication technology
permitted the cost-effective use of these bees for greenhouse
tomato pollination. At present, threespecies are used for this
purpose (Europe and New Zealand: B. terrestris; eastern
NorthAmerica: B. impatiens (Cr.); western North America; B.
occidentalls (Grne). Threeprimary concerns have been associated
with the intensive laboratory culture of thesespecies: 1)
depopulation of bees in areas where queens are captured; 2) the
impactof species introductions into new area; 3) the possible
spread of disease,either amongBombus populations, or
interspecifically between bumblebees and other bees, notablyApis
mellifera. Data are presented which demonstrate the genus
specificity of a numberof bumble bee pests and pathogens, including
mites, the microsporidian Nosema bombi,and a number of social
parasites. The possible propagation of diseases among
culturedBombus species can be eliminated (or at least minimized)
through proper managementpractices.
8. SPEAKERS
Brenda V. BallAFRC Institue of Arable Crops ResearchRothamsted
Experimental StationHarpenden, Herts AL5 2JQFax: 0582 760981
Don StoltzDepartment of Microbiology & ImmunologyDalhousie
UniversityHalifax, Nova ScotiaB3H 4H7Fax: (902) 494-5125
John PhillipsUniversity of GuelphDepartment of Molecular Biology
& GeneticsGuelph, OntarioN1G 2W1Fax: (519) 837-2075
Thomas E. RindererUnited States Department of
AgricultureAgricultural Research Services, Mid South AreaHoney-Bee
Breeding, Genetics & Physiology Research1157 Ben Hur RoadBaton
Rouge, Louisiana 70820Fax: (504) 389-0383
Don NelsonAgriculture CanadaResearch StationBeaverlodge, AlbertaT0H
0C0Fax: (403) 354-8171
John C. SuttonDepartment of Environmental BiologyUniversity of
GuelphGuelph, OntarioN1G 2W1Fax: (519) 837-0442
Richard M. FisherDepartment of BiologyAcadia UniversityWolfville,
Nova scotiaB0P 1X0Fax: (902) 542-3466
>>> Item number 1204, dated 93/04/27 09:27:00 -- ALL
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1993 09:27:00 -0300
Reply-To: Discussion of Bee Biology <BEE-L@ALBNYVM1.BITNET>
Sender: Discussion of Bee Biology <BEE-L@ALBNYVM1.BITNET>
From: Dick Rogers <"PAM::DR"@AC.NSAC.NS.CA>
Subject: BEE VIRUS SURVEY - ASCII
BEE VIRUS DIAGNOSTIC SERVICE - SURVEY
Dr. Don Stoltz, Virologist, Department of Microbiology and
Immunology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, is
currently involved in a project to improve the technology for the
diagnosis of honey bee viruses. It is expected that a diagnostic
service for some viruses (e.g. Kashmir, black queen cell) could be
available by the end of 1993.
Conceivably, a general diagnostic service (i.e., for most if not
all bee viruses) could be developed, in time, if sufficient
interest/need was identified, and some sort of funding arrangement
could be negotiated. At this time, we would like responses to the
following questions:
[1] DO YOU REQUIRE BEE VIRUS DIAGNOSIS ON AN ANNUAL BASIS?
[2] IF ONLY A LIMITED DIAGNOSTIC SERVICE COULD BE PROVIDED, WHICH
VIRUSES ARE OF MOST CONCERN TO YOU?
[3] WHERE DO YOU GET YOUR DIAGNOSIS WORK DONE NOW?
[4] HOW MANY SAMPLES AT ANY ONE TIME?
[5] WOULD YOU USE THE SERVICE IF AVAILABLE IN NOVA SCOTIA?
[6] WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO PAY A NOMINAL FEE PER SAMPLE FOR THIS
SERVICE?
It would be appreciated if replies could be returned to Dick Rogers
as soon as possible.
V: 902-679-6029
F: 902-679-6062
E-MAIL: DR_PI@AC.NSAC.NS.CA
>>> Item number 3376, dated 94/11/17 10:20:02 -- ALL
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 10:20:02 -0500
Reply-To: Discussion of Bee Biology <BEE-L@ALBNYVM1.BITNET>
Sender: Discussion of Bee Biology <BEE-L@ALBNYVM1.BITNET>
From: "Malcolm (Tom) Sanford,
Florida Extension Apiculturist" <MTS@IFASGNV.BITNET>
Subject: November issue of APIS
Distributed to:
USR:[MTS]INTERNET.DIS;35, mts
FILENAME: NOVAPIS.94
Florida Extension Beekeeping Newsletter
Apis--Apicultural Information and Issues (ISSN 0889-3764)
Volume 12, Number 11, November 1994
AHB IN CALIFORNIA
The African honey bee (AHB) has finally been found in
California. The first detection of the migratory front was made 20
miles west of Blythe, in Riverside County. The feral swarm was
detected at the Chuckwalla Valley State Prison on a 3-inch pipe on
October 24. The prison fire department destroyed the swarm and
collected the sample that was later identified by the California
Department of Food and Agriculture laboratory as Africanized and
confirmed on October 28, by the Agricultural Research Service Bee
Laboratory in Beltsville, Maryland.
WHEN BUGS FIGHT BACK
The 1993 winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Explanatory
Journalism is Mike Toner of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. A
compendium of his articles has been published under the title "When
Bugs Fight Back." This publication is available by contacting the
newspaper's automatic marketing service, ph 404/222-88991. It is
must reading for anyone interested in agriculture or public health
at almost any level.
As Mr. Toner says in his introduction, "the bugs are fighting
back and they are getting very good at it." This is strong stuff
and Mr. Toner's articles, published between August and April, 1992
give us pause for reflection: "Like the villains in a late-night
horror show, resistant strains of mankind's oldest enemies are
finding ways to sabotage our most sophisticated technology. And
even the malevolent microbes of 'The Andromeda Strain' or the angry
hordes of 'Killer Bees' aren't as scary as the 'superbugs' that are
now emerging throughout the world."
Tuberculosis, malaria, pneumonia, and practically every other
human infection is now resistant to at least one class of
antibiotics, according to Mr. Toner. With reference to insects and
weeds, the prognosis is no better. At least 17 'super-insects' are
resistant to almost every pesticide. One, the Colorado Potato
beetle, can now be killed only using a tractor-pulled blow torch.
And in the United Kingdom and Australia farmers are encountering
'mega-weeds' which may threaten the world's wheat supply.
Chemicals have been subverted, Mr. Toner says, unwittingly
aided by industries that market them, 'experts' who overuse them,
and ordinary people who see them as a promise, for a time, to
change the course of evolution. As Dr. Robert Metcalf, University
of Illinois concludes: "The problem is not chemicals; it's the
irresponsible way they are used. Our shortsighted and
irresponsible use of antibiotics and pesticides is producing
strains of monster bugs resistant to nearly everything in our
arsenal. The outlook is dismal. And it is getting worse."
Beekeeping, like the rest of agriculture, is increasingly
reliant on chemicals. Does this mean there is potential for
'superbugs' to develop? Several potentially devastating problems
now under chemical control are candidates. For decades, beekeepers
have used and continue to employ the antibiotic, oxytetracycline,
as a "preventative" to control American Foulbrood (AFB). It has
worked amazingly well; how long it will continue to do so is not
known.
Evidence from extended use of antibiotics in humans, however,
is not encouraging. Fortunately, for most persons, antibiotics
still work, but for some infections, according to Dr. Fred Tenover
at the Center for Disease Control, we are close to the end of the
road. As quoted by Mr. Toner, he concludes, "The worst-case
scenario is almost here. We are very, very close to having
bacteria resistant to every significant antibiotic ever developed.
Only this time, there are no new drugs coming down the pike."
Physicians can make mistakes in prescribing antibiotics, and
many are simply inappropriate for certain conditions, including
simple colds and diarrhea, and viral infections. In these cases,
not only don't they work, but this use magnifies the possibility of
developing resistant bacteria. Another major don't on a list
published by the Alliance for the Prudent Use of Antibiotics,
quoted in Mr. Toner's work is: "Don't take an antibiotic to prevent
a disease you think you have been exposed to. It not only alters
the body's normal population of harmless bacteria, but increases
your chance of getting a resistant infection."
This last don't is of course what every beekeeper using
Terramycin (R) for AFB control does. Unfortunately, it has worked
for decades, although there is disturbing evidence from an
Argentinean visitor to this department some time ago that AFB in
that country has shown resistance to Terramycin (R) in certain
areas. I say "unfortunately" because that means that resistance
has not shown up in the U.S. in spite of decades of treatments by
thousands of beekeepers. Although this is good news if one wants
to control the disease, it leads to the belief that this antibiotic
is a proverbial "magic bullet" for AFB control. And if this is so,
there must be other bullets in our gunslinger's belt which are just
as effective for other diseases and pests.
With the introduction of the honey bee tracheal mite (HBTM)
and then Varroa, the search for magical cure alls, like that now
perceived for AFB, have continued. There appears to be innate
resistance against HBTM in certain bee populations; in many areas,
it seems that colonies susceptible to this parasite were quickly
killed off. Nevertheless, menthol continues to be used as a
chemical control in many situations and there is evidence that
vegetable oil patties are also helpful.
Varroa is another story. Before this mite was introduced into
the U.S., well over 140 different chemicals had been used worldwide
to control this parasite. Most didn't work. And only in 1987,
when the U.S. was finally infested, was a technology found to
effectively kill large numbers of mites and not affect the bees at
the same time. This, of course, is the chemical fluvalinate, a
synthetic pyrethroid first delivered on wooden strips, then labeled
as formulated in the product called Apistan (R). The beekeeping
industry could at that time breathe a sigh of relief; a parasite
for which the western honey bee (Apis mellifera) has little
resistance was now under control. But for how long? Already there
is evidence that widespread use (or misuse?) of fluvalinate in
Europe may have created resistant mites.
Although there may be other chemicals on the horizon (e.g.
formic acid), there is no substitute for wise use of one that is
already labeled, legal and effective. Thus, as Mr. Toner suggests:
"Whether you're farming the lower 40 or a small garden plot in the
back yard, there are things you can do to keep the pests at bay--
and to slow the emergence of resistance:"
Use pesticides sparingly. When you apply pesticide, do so only
when there is a problem, not before. (Use the ether roll test,
smoke, uncapping brood and washing adults to detect Varroa mites.)
Rotate chemicals. If possible, alternate at least two different
classes of compounds--organophosphates, pyrethroids, carbamates or
biologicals. [This is not legally possible in the U.S.; in Canada,
Apistan (R) can be rotated with formic acid]. Once resistant mites
are detected, however, this may not be the best approach.
Avoid persistent pesticides. You run the risk of encouraging
resistance even after the problem is gone. [This is potentially the
most pernicious problem of all when using fluvalinate. It
accumulates over time in wax comb, making the beehive itself a
continuous possible source of the chemical, encouraging resistance
to develop in mite populations.]
Set up untreated area. Consider providing an untreated area--a
refuge of sorts--to preserve a stock of susceptible insects to
dilute the effect of resistant genes. [This might be untreated
colonies in nearby yards. However, this philosophy runs counter to
opinion in the regulatory community that all nearby colonies should
be treated to avoid one of the biggest problems posed by Varroa,
reinfestation.]
This last is perhaps one of the most interesting new twists
developed by Mr. Toner. Providing a "safe haven" for pests, he
says, is not a joke. In this way, resistant populations might be
diluted by individuals that are not resistant, providing overall
better kill rates. This would be, he concludes, something that
would have been "anathema" a few years back.
The kill'em all philosophy is a throwback to the time when
eradication was the philosophy of choice. But there has been a
paradigm shift in pest control. As Dr. Metcalf states, concluding
the series "When Bugs Fight Back": "When you try to eradicate an
insect, you are going up against a billion years of evolution.
Pests have survived that long because they are very good at
adapting. We will probably never completely eradicate any pest.
We shouldn't be trying. We should be looking for a way to live
with them better."
MORE ON SMALL BUSINESS FOOD LABELLING
It was too good to be true. I said in the October, 1994 APIS
that nutritional labeling was automatic without notification of
either the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or Florida
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Unfortunately, I
was misinformed on this issue. Any business requesting exemption
must submit the following information to the FDA:
1. Name and address of business.
2. Name of food product for which exemption is claimed.
3. Average number of full-time equivalent employees from May 8,
1993 to May 7, 1994.
4. Approximate total number of units sold in the U.S. between May
8, 1993 and May 7, 1994.
5. Signature of responsible party; also stating that the person
signing will notify the Office of Food Labeling when the
product no longer qualifies for exemption.
Send the above to Office of Food Labeling (HSF-150), Center
for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug
Administration, 200 C St. SW, Washington, DC 20204. Questions
about this should be directed to Jerad McCowin, special assistant
to the director, ph. 202/205-5229.
NOTES FROM A TRIP TO THE BRITISH ISLES
James Bach, Washington state apiarist, recently reported on a
trip to the British Isles. It was published in the last edition of
the Apiary Inspectors of America Newsletter.
Honey Bee Tracheal Mites (HBTM)
1. New Zealand bees are reported to be more susceptible to HBTM
during seasons of poor weather; losses of up to 30 percent are
seen. The stock is perceived to build up too fast in Spring and
has small winter clusters.
2. Local strains are thought to be resistant to HBTM, but losses
of 33 percent are still reported. There is no sampling for mites
and no treatments given. Colonies are allowed to die; crawling bee
symptoms are considered to be due to HBTM.
3. Fifty percent losses in N. Ireland are thought to be from HBTM,
complicated by lack of pollen and a long, cold Spring. Beekeepers
prefer local queens; few are imported. Both commercial and non-
commercial beekeepers let the bees raise their own queens.
Viruses
1. The impact of viruses on bee behavior is not known. Viral
surveys of healthy colonies have not been undertaken. Whether the
quality of honey bee nutrition has any effect on viruses is
unknown.
2. Chronic Paralysis Virus has been known to multiply coincident
with HBTM; both organisms prosper under the same conditions.
Kashmir bee virus is thought to be the most virulent virus in honey
bees.
3. Cell-cleaning bees are nurseries for developing sacbrood virus
(SBV). It multiplies in their head (mandibular gland?) Infected
bees forage earlier and are primarily nectar gatherers. Nurse bees
with SBV quit feeding larvae earlier.
4. Viruses appear to spread when bees remain in the hive for
longer than 24-hour periods. Crowded beehives are also conducive
to viral spread.
Economics
1. One commercial beekeeper was only breaking even; net profit
came from bee-related commodities like tinctures, salves and
specialty honeys.
2. Honey prices are soft because of imported honey from China.
European beekeepers are actively demonstrating at European
Community headquarters to gain support for their interests.
Sincerely,
Malcolm T. Sanford
Bldg 970, Box 110620
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611-0620
Phone (904) 392-1801, Ext. 143
FAX: 904-392-0190
BITNET Address: MTS@IFASGNV; INTERNET Address: MTS@GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU
APIS on the World Wide Web--
http://gnv.ifas.ufl.edu:7999/~entweb/apis/apis.htm
>>> Item number 3533, dated 94/12/22 09:37:47 -- ALL
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 09:37:47 -0500
Reply-To: Discussion of Bee Biology <BEE-L@ALBNYVM1.BITNET>
Sender: Discussion of Bee Biology <BEE-L@ALBNYVM1.BITNET>
From: "Malcolm (Tom) Sanford,
Florida Extension Apiculturist" <MTS@IFASGNV.BITNET>
Subject: December APIS
Distributed to:
USR:[MTS]INTERNET.DIS;43
FILENAME: DECAPIS.94
Florida Extension Beekeeping Newsletter
Apis--Apicultural Information and Issues (ISSN 0889-3764)
Volume 12, Number 12, November 1994
Copyright (c) 1994 M.T. Sanford "All Rights Reserved"
TAKING STOCK
It's that time of year again. Each December, I try to take
the opportunity to reflect on what has happened over the past 12
months as reported in the pages of this newsletter. This is the
143rd consecutive issue of APIS, continuing this publication's
reputation as the longest-running newsletter of its kind currently
distributed in the United States. In January, APIS was recognized
as a pioneer in electronic information delivery in the booklet, 51
Reasons: How We Use the Internet and What it Says About the
Information Superhighway. This publication will be distributed by
the publisher, FARNET, Inc., as part of a major effort to
familiarize elected officials about the educational potential of
the National Information Infrastructure (NII).
In the May APIS I relayed the information that many back
issues are archived at several internet sites around the country.
At that time, I also described other internet resources available
to apiculturists. A fuller description of electronic information
resources, along with availability of other computer programs, was
also published by myself, and colleagues T.R. Fasulo and J.C.
Medley here at the University of Florida. A reprint of the paper,
"Electronic Delivery of Apicultural Information," Bee Science, Vol.
3, No. 1, pp. 10-15, July 1993 is available to anyone upon
request. The latest development concerning electronic delivery of
this newsletter, accessibility via the World Wide Web, was
announced in the October issue. The World Wide Web URL is:
http://gnv.ifas.ufl.edu/~entweb/apis/apis.htm
The African honey bee (AHB) was a hot topic in 1994. The
January APIS described the complexities involved in trying to
manage this insect in Texas. In summary, Bill Vanderput boiled it
down to: "...25 percent more stings, 25 percent more work and 25%
more sweat." The spread of the AHB was also reported in Arizona
(June), California (November), and, more ominously for
Florida, in Puerto Rico (October), proving that this insect can be
introduced by sea, as well as by migrating overland. AHB
Information resources developed in Arizona (June) and Texas,
California and USDA (April) were also described. Finally, the July
issue discussed the reasons that the AHB invasion seemed to have
stalled in Texas. The same issue discussed how scientists were
attempting to make sense of the AHB migration by using DNA to track
honey bee ancestry.
The February issue of APIS focused on apitherapy, describing
some of the activities of the American Apitherapy Society,
particularly its data collection efforts (Multi-Center Apitherapy
Study). The value of apitherapy for several illnesses was
reported, as was a comment from the dean of U.S. apitherapy,
Charles Mraz: "The only way to find out if this kind of therapy
works is to try it."
Other topics during the year included introduction of a new
citrus pest in Florida, the citrus leafminer, and what that
potentially meant to beekeepers (March), the disappearance of
pollinating honey bees (January) thought to be a consequence of
widespread Varroa infestation, use of attractants to increase
pollination potential (June) and employment of non-APIS or pollen
bees (April) in some pollinating situations.
The real possibility of fluvalinate contamination of hive
products in conjunction with Varroa treatment was discussed in
several issues (January, March and April) of this newsletter, along
with potential effects of general environmental pollution on a bee
colony (May). Bee poisoning by plants in Florida was reported in
June and the current status of the U.S. beekeeping industry in
July.
The August issue of APIS was devoted to honey processing,
including how to get a permit, guidelines for honey house
sanitation and the recent rapid rise of adulterating activity. The
new nutritional labeling law as it applies to small firms was
described in October and November, as was Varroa control and
possible chemical resistance by mites due to heavy use by
beekeepers. Discussions of vegetable-oil patty use for American
foulbrood (September) and tracheal mite control (October) rounded
out the year.
4-H Essay Contest
Back in June, I wrote that the annual 4-H Essay Contest
sponsored by the American Beekeeping Federation needed entrants.
Since then, I have had only two (2) inquiries. Florida had no
entries last year; this means there is an excellent chance of
winning by simply entering the contest. Here are the details:
Cash prizes to three top winners:
1st Place $250.00
2nd Place $100.00
3rd Place $ 50.00
Each state winner also receives an appropriate book about
honey bees, beekeeping, or honey.
This year, essayists are asked to write an original story on honey
bees, one that is suitable for a teacher to read to second-grade
students. The story can be about the honey bee family and the
members' life cycles or fancifully casting individuals in the
colony as characters. Any style is suitable as long as it covers:
*The roles each of the bees--queen, drone, worker--play in the
honey bee colony.
*The life cycle of the honey bee colony as a unit.
*The ways in which honey bees benefit humans.
The title of the story should indicate its context. Some
suggestions: The Busy Little Bee; I Like Honey; A Trip to the
Apiary; My Friend, the Beekeeper; Moving Day at the Bee Hive.
RULES:
1. Contest is open to active 4-H Club members only. 4-H'ers
who have previously placed first, second, or third at the national
level are not eligible; other state winners are eligible to re-
enter.
2. Essays must be 750 to 1000 words long, written on the
designated subject only. All factual statements must be referenced
with endnotes; failure to do so will result in disqualification of
the essay. A brief biographical sketch of the essayist, including
date of birth, complete mailing address, and telephone number, must
accompany the essay. (The word limit does not include the
references or the essayist's biographical sketch.)
3. Essays submitted must be typewritten, double-spaced, on
one side of the paper and should follow standard manuscript format.
Handwritten essays will not be judged.
4. Essays will be judged on (a) accuracy, (b) creativity,
(c) conciseness, (d) logical development of the topic, and (e)
scope of research.
5. Essayists in Florida should forward essays directly to
Essay Contest, Dr. M.T. Sanford, Bldg. 970, Box 110620,
Gainesville, FL 32611-0620. The deadline is February 15, 1995.
6. Each state may submit only one entry.
7. Final judging and selection of the national winner will
be made by the ABF's Essay Committee, whose decision is final.
8. The National Winner will be announced by May 1, 1995.
9. All entries become the property of the American
Beekeeping Federation, Inc. and may be published or used as it sees
fit. No essay will be returned.
Parasitic Mite Syndrome
The report by James Bach on his trip to the British Isles in
the November issue of APIS provoked some feedback. Bob Hawkes, a
beekeeper accessing the newsletter on World Wide Web, sent me these
observations:
"Last Saturday I attended the Pennsylvania State Beekeepers
Association meeting. The apiary inspection chiefs from
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, and Virginia reported that they
no longer consider tracheal mites to be a serious problem. But
there is serious concern about Varroa. We have Varroa infestation
throughout much of Pennsylvania now. And this fall many
beekeepers have seen their colonies crash--the "disappearing
disease." Some have been wiped out, and the colonies went from
very strong to dead in a very short time. The experts reported
finding the same [those reported by Mr. Bach] viruses (chronic
paralysis virus and Kashmir virus) in some of these dead colonies.
So they associate these viral infections not with tracheal mites,
but with Varroa mites. Are the viruses carried by one or both? Or
are these viruses always present and their effect associated with
stress from any source? It's a frustrating yet fascinating time!"
Now comes a report in the December 1994 American Bee Journal
(Vol. 134, No. 12, pp. 827-828) on what the authors (H. Shimanuki;
N. Calderone and D. Knox) call parasitic mite syndrome. As the
they state: "...two different parasitic mites in a colony is
especially devastating because Acarapis woodi (the tracheal mite)
parasitizes the adult and the preferred host of Varroa is the
prepupae. We theorize that the parasitic mite syndrome is in some
way connected to one or both of the parasitic mites vectoring the
acute bee paralysis virus (ABPV)..." Dr. Shimanuki has
subsequently reported to me by electronic mail that 28% of the
adult bee samples with Varroa are also found to be infested with
the tracheal mite. The authors provide a list of symptoms that can
occur at any time of year and which may not all be evident at a
given time:
Adult Symptoms:
1. Varroa is present.
2. Adult bee population is reduced.
3. Crawling bees are seen.
4. Queens are superseded.
5. Tracheal mites may be present.
Brood Symptoms:
1. Varroa is present.
2. Brood pattern is spotty.
3. Symptoms resembling the foulbroods or sacbrood may be present.
These may disappear after feeding Terramycin (R), sugar syrup or
inserting Apistan (R) strips.
4. Affected brood can be in any stage and anywhere on the comb.
5. Many symptoms are similar to American foulbrood, but there is no
"ropiness," no typical odor and resultant scales are not brittle
and easy to remove.
6. No predominant bacterial type is found and no known bee pathogen
has been isolated from samples so far.
Although coincident with presence of mites, the use of
"parasitic mite syndrome" to characterize the above conditions is
not without complications. As the authors state: "It is somewhat
confusing that colonies with parasitic mite syndrome benefit from
the feeding of oxytetracycline or sugar syrup, both of which are
not known to be effective against viruses. Nevertheless they
conclude: "The effectiveness of fluvalinate impregnated plastic
strips [Apistan (R)] strongly suggests an association with Varroa
jacobsoni."
Until further notice, the authors report that they will begin
to use the term "parasitic mite syndrome" in routine reporting of
disease diagnosis from their laboratory. Persons submitting brood
disease samples to the laboratory should send a piece of brood comb
and 100 adults from each affected colony. Comb should be at least
2 inches square, wrapped in a paper bag, towel, or newspaper and
mailed in a wooden or cardboard box. The use of plastic bags,
aluminum foil, waxed paper, tin or glass should be avoided.
Address samples to: Honey Bee Diagnosis, USDA, ARS Bee Research
Laboratory, BARC-E, B-476, Beltsville, MD 20705.
The symptoms listed above, especially those associated with
adult bees, except for the presence of either or both mites, ring
familiar to many beekeepers. These conditions have often been
referred to as "disappearing disease," "autumn collapse" or "May
disease." They also remind me of those involved in the unexplained
dieoff in Florida's panhandle in 1986-1988, coincident with the
initial detection of tracheal mites in the area. First reported in
the February, March and April 1987 issues of APIS, and later
reflected on in April and March 1988, this situation culminated in
a feeding study carried out in 1988 and 1989. The results were
reported in Bee Science in 1991 [A Florida Honey-Bee Feeding Study
Using the Beltsville Bee Diet (R), Vol. 1, No. 2, pp 72-76]. I
will mail a reprint to anyone upon request.
Best wishes to all for a happy holiday season!
Sincerely,
Malcolm T. Sanford
Bldg 970, Box 110620
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611-0620
Phone (904) 392-1801, Ext. 143
FAX: 904-392-0190
BITNET Address: MTS@IFASGNV; INTERNET Address: MTS@GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU
APIS on the World Wide Web--
http://gnv.ifas.ufl.edu:7999/~entweb/apis/apis.htm
Copyright (c) M.T. Sanford 1994 "All Rights Reserved"
>>> Item number 3822, dated 95/02/25 08:58:53 -- ALL
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 1995 08:58:53 -1000
Reply-To: Discussion of Bee Biology <BEE-L@ALBNYVM1.BITNET>
Sender: Discussion of Bee Biology <BEE-L@ALBNYVM1.BITNET>
From: Kevin Roddy <kroddy@UHUNIX.UHCC.HAWAII.EDU>
Subject: Your help needed to protect Hawai'i's honey bees
In-Reply-To: <9502240026.AA11656@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu>
25 February 1995
From the volcanic Island of Hawai'i to list members of Bee-L and other
beekeepers around the world, Aloha:
We in Hawai'i need your support in helping us maintain mite free and
disease free honey bees. Please read the letter below that was composed
by one of the Island of Hawai'i's best known beekeepers, Walter Patton,
summarizing our problem and what has happened thus far. This letter
also appeared in the February 1995 Issue of American Bee Journal. We
*sincerely* need your help--comments, questions are most welcome at my
e-mail address, and I will forward to Walter, or you may fax him
directly. (we're working on getting Walter on the Internet)
If you would like to fax Walter, please do. Telephone calls from the US
Mainland to Hawai'i are competitive, and it is not prohibitive, like it
was in the past. Direct-dialed rates average from 30 cents per minute for
the day rate to 15 cents per minute for the night rate, so faxing is more
economical than sending letters for 32 cents per letter.
Quickly, I am sure many of you know the problems that Hawai'i has faced
with unwanted, introduced diseases and species in the past. On a human
scale, Native Hawaiians were decimated by disease to which they had no
resistance. Only one full-blooded Hawaiian has survived for 19 others
that have died. We are fighting what has been introduced intentionally
and unintentionally with limited success. Our bees are free of mites and
other diseases that have decimated colonies in other places. We want to
keep it that way for us as well as you. In the letter below there is a
proposal that Hawai'i be designated as a repository for genetic bee
stock. Because of our distance from the US mainland there is little fear
of Africanization problems, and fortunately, Varroa cannot swim!
As a brief aside, we are also in constant fear of the introduction of the
infamous brown tree snake of Guam, which has *killed all bird life on
Guam* and is the source of constant power failures there, as the snakes
shimmy up power poles, and are electrocuted. There have been sightings
of this snake at airports only on the islands of Kaua'i and O'ahu, and
they were quickly dispatched.
Anyway, please help us any way that you can. I have included fax numbers
to three Federal politicians in Washington. Their hearing from
beekeepers across the United States that oppose this new rule will be
vital to our keeping Hawai'i 's honey bee stores clean from disease,
insuring clean queens to you until we can all eliminate Varroa and other
bee afflictions.
I am a university librarian by profession, and have already conducted an
extensive literature search on New Zealand honey bee diseases (through
the DIALOG database system) and collected well over 50 articles that
discuss honey bee diseases in New Zealand, which I have forwarded to
Agriculture Professors at the Univesity of Hawai'i, Hilo, and to members
of the Big Island Beekeeping Association.
A warmfelt thank you to all!!!
Kevin M. Roddy
kroddy@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
A PROPOSED RULE CHANGE OF THE HONEY BEE ACT OF 1922 TO ALLOW NEW ZEALAND
BEES INTO THE UNITED STATES.
This proposed rule, as published in the Federal Register (7/18/94 page
36773) is deceitful and misleading in the first paragraph summary where
the Animal and Health Inspection Service of the USDA states, "The
proposed actions appears warranted based on our determination that New
Zealand is free of diseases and parasites of honey bees." This is a
lie. As per "Honey Bee Pathology" (Bailey and Ball, 1991) New Zealand
does have half moon syndrome, a mite Meiitiphis alvearius, Kashmir bee
virus, melanosis, chronic paralysis virus, and Malpighamoria mellificae.
This fraudulent statement was made to enlist the support of readers of
the proposed rule and now creates cause for concern regarding the
credibility and intentions of APHIS/USDA. The proposed rule is not for
the benefit of US beekeepers; this is a political issue in the name of
free trade to facilitate the New Zealand beekeepers efforts to supply the
package and queen bee needs of Canada and possibly Korea. Before the
1988 closure of Canadian borders to US bees, Canadians spent $12 million
annually purchasing over 300,000 packages of US bees per year. A USDA
1993 legal opinion of the Honey Bee Act of 1922 prohibits the transiting
of New Zealand bees through Honolulu, O'ahu.
In a telephone conversation with Mark Winston, professor and bee
researcher at Simon Fraser University, Canada, the scientific and
biological soundness of keeping Hawai'i isolated as a protected gene bank
was agreed upon and Mark wondered if the New Zealand bees could be
transited through Los Angeles. Next I called Gordon Waller, queen
breeder and researcher from Tucson, who is packing to move out of Arizona
and away from Africanized honey bee drones that are threatening his queen
bee program. Mr. Waller also supported the idea of keeping Hawaii
isolated as a breeding sanctuary protected against any possible genetic
contamination of Africanized honey bees. At Gordon Waller's suggestion,
I telephoned Dr. Eva Crane in the United Kingdom. Dr. Crane, now
retired, has studied the spread of bee diseases and pests around the
world and said she would question and oppose any legislation to increase
the trafficking of bees around the world. Dr. Crane then put me in touch
with Dr. Brenda Ball in England who took great issue with Dr. Shimanuki's
dismissal of Kashmir Bee Virus as having no economic significance and his
lack of concern about half moon syndrome because he was unable to
discover how the syndrome is spread through the hive. Dr. Ball also
expressed concern about the lack of understanding about the compounding
effects of bee pests and diseases when multiple infestations occur in the
hive simultaneously. Dr. Ball agreed that Hawai'i could play a VITAL
ROLE in the future of honey bees of the world if Hawai'i maintained a
strict isolation and is established as a "Repository" for US bees free of
mites and genetic contamination by AHB.
The proposed rule is not in the best interests of US beekeepers and
should be rescinded by the USDA. Unbiased review and research directed
by a "peer review" group including members of the beekeeping industry
must be conducted to survey and assess the potential environmental impact
that any deviation from the intent of the Honey Bee Act of 1922 would
have on US beekeeping.
Act now, and call or write your US Senators and Congressmen (helpful
numbers are given below) and request that the Honey Bee Act of 1922 be
supported and that New Zealand bees not be allowed into the US.
Additionally, federal legislation is needed to support the efforts of
Hawai'i to act as a repository for the cleanest US honey bee gene bank as
a safeguard against the future spread of known bee diseases and pests and
the unknown effects of temperate New Zealand bee disease and pests on
honey bees in the tropical environment of Hawai'i. Please *bee*
involved. We might make a difference is enough of us speak out now.
this is not a done deal. Handwritten letters are better than no
letters. Write today. if you need me to fax for you, I will be glad to
help.
Walter Patton
27-703 Kaieie Road
Papaikou, Hawai'i 96781
Ph/fAX: 808-964-5401
FAX FEDERAL LEGISLATORS!
US Senator Richard Lugar, likely Chairman US Senate Committee on Agriculture
FAX 202.228.0360
Congressman Pat Roberts, Chairman, Congressional Committee on Agriculture
FAX 202.225.5375
Congressman Tom Ewing Chairman, Risk Management and Specialty Crops
(includes honey and bees) FAX 202.225.8071
>>> Item number 3837, dated 95/02/27 09:44:00 -- ALL
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 09:44:00 -0800
Reply-To: Discussion of Bee Biology <BEE-L@ALBNYVM1.BITNET>
Sender: Discussion of Bee Biology <BEE-L@ALBNYVM1.BITNET>
From: "Paul van Westendorp 576-5600 Fax: 576-5652"
<PVANWESTEN@GALAXY.GOV.BC.CA>
Subject: Re: Your help needed to protect Hawai'i's honey bees
I have read the latest communication about the Hawaiian issue, and
followed with interest the dialoque between Allen Dick and Andy.
Notwithstanding the cynical attitudes and economic opportunism that may
be part of the issue, perhaps it is better to focus on the question of
diseases and pests associated with New Zealand honeybees. Also, it is
necessary to seperate the issue of transshipments of NZ bees through
Hawaii, from the larger issue of the US allowing importation of NZ bees.
1. From a geographical perspective, it makes perfect sense for the
Hawaiian industry to demand a ban on all importations, including
transshipments. When we closely examine the details of transshipments
and assess the risks, many of the fears may be unfounded. Transshipments
only go through Honolulu, O'ahu, where they stay for a few hours before
loaded up for a flight to Vancouver, BC. The shipments must meet airline
standards of bee-tightness, etc. Surely, we are not talking about piles
of bees 'bleeding' from those containers. If these containers are left in
open areas, it is more likely that the bees buzzing around on the outside
are genuine Hawaiian that have been attracted. In terms of shipping
conditions and the short time frame during which these bees stay at the
Honolulu airport, risks are extremely low.
2. As far as I know, the commercial Hawaiian beekeeping industry and the
bee breeders in particular, are concentrated on the big island of Hawaii,
over 100 nautical miles from O'ahu. Unless there is free movement of
bees among the islands (by man), there is no chance of bees reaching
Hawaii on their own. In other words, the risks of the current Hawaiian
commercial bee stock exposed to transshipped New Zealand beestock is
negligible.
3. There is this impressive list of pathogens reported present in New
Zealand, as stated by Bailey & Ball. I have no cause to doubt the
accuracy of these claims but the problem is that this valuable research
was done in New Zealand and not in North America and Hawaii. The listing
of these agents have been used in this discussion as if they are unique
to New Zealand and extraordinarily virulent. This is simply not the
case. Most are of academic interest and have only been reported
incidentally. Part of the reason that they have been reported
incidentally is because these agents are generally latent. It is wrong
to insinuate that any of these agents would upon introduction, cause
havoc to American beekeeping. (However, I acknowledge that in company of
parasitic mites, some viral agents may become virulent in the future.)
In my view, the weakness of Hawaii's arguments rest in the fact that
no comparable scientific research has ever been applied to the Hawaiian
and north American bee populations. There is simply not an accurate
inventory listing of agents associated with american bees. Any or all
(and perhaps more) of those agents listed by Bailey & Ball could already
occur in the feral and managed bee population of Hawaii and North
America.
As long as there is no accurate listing of honeybee pathogens in Hawaii
and North America, I believe it is wrong in portraying New Zealand as a
dangerous source of bee stock because it is not. I am not wishing to
talk on behalf of New Zealand in any way, but I and others have full
confidence in the health status and reliability of NEw Zealand bees.
This position is based on information and experience gathered over 15
years since Canada started importing bees from New Zealand.
Canada assessed New Zealand (and Australia) as a source of bees in the
early 1980's. Ever since the initial assessment, Canada has been
satisfied and impressed with the thorough and sound animal disease and
pest control programs in place in New Zealand and Australia.
In the mid-1980's, when Kashmir Bee Virus (KBV) had been reported, BC
sent bee samples to NZ for analysis (by Anderson, who since then moved to
Australia). Indeed, KBV was identified in samples of BC bees but also
from sources that had never been exposed to NZ bee importations.
Eventhough, no further studies were carried out, it was suspected that
bees in many parts of Canada (and presumably the US) already harbored KBV
and other viral agents. For the lack of funds and expertise in bee
virology, a comprehensive survey of North America was never carried out.
Shimanuki and others have stated that it is likely some or many viruses
are widely distributed in the north American bee population. With the
recent entry of Africanized bees, additional viruses may be introduced
into North America as well.
Because of Hawaii's longstanding importation ban, and its opportunity to
remain free of parasitic mites, I can appreciate the demand for some form
of protection. As I wrote in ABJ's january 1995 edition, the strength of
arguments in support of protection must be based on scientific evidence
together with risk assessment studies. For the lack of information of
Hawaii's inventory of bee pathogens, it is difficult to consider NZ
transshipments as a bonafide health risk to Hawaiian bees at this time.
To resolve the issue, a comprehensive survey may be carried out in
Hawaii. The results can then be compared with the New Zealand list.
Considering the scientific information currently available, I find it
difficult to accept the argument that New Zealand bees pose a health risk
to the North American bee population. But then, I do agree that perhaps
New Zealand may pose an 'economic risk' to some American bee suppliers.
Paul van Westendorp
Provincial Apiarist
British Columbia
>>> Item number 7865, dated 96/03/26 17:38:15 -- ALL
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 17:38:15 -1000
Reply-To: Discussion of Bee Biology <BEE-L@CNSIBM.ALBANY.EDU>
Sender: Discussion of Bee Biology <BEE-L@CNSIBM.ALBANY.EDU>
From: Walter Patton <hihoney@ILHAWAII.NET>
Subject: bee disease spread, we better think NOW
>To: scobey@MAGNUS.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
>From: hihoney@ilhawaii.net (Walter Patton)
>Subject: bee disease spread
>
>Hello Susan Cobey < bee-l readers & bee lovers
> V copper suggested that I write you and ask which honeybee disease
and pest might bee transmitted with seman and pollen? Here in Hawaii the
most isolated place on earth we are concerned about protecting the only U S
honeybee stocks certified to bee free of V & T mites and without Afracanized
genes. Since 1985 Hawaii has prohibited the entery of honeybees and bee
equipment to prevent the introduction and or spread of bee disease.Hawaii
should bee declared a honeybee site sensitive location for the future
security of U S honeybee s. We lost a battle to stop N Z bees from entering
our state on the way to Canada.Thanks to free trading leaders of America and
the Gatt treaty we have to let them sit on the tar mac at Honolulu Int.
Airport and hope that no accidents occur. Accidents do occur and N Z bees
are acknowledged to bee loaded with honeybee viruses. 14 viruses/pests to
bee exact.We recently got reports that some Hawaii bee's sent to Beltsville
were found to bee free of Kashmir, cloudy wing and black queen viruses.
Other bee research people have admitted that mites and viruses are deadly
and unable to control. The USDA has been VERY VERY slow to show concerns for
the bee viruses which only recently have been found in the mainland US. I
think the viruses have come to the North American Continent via N Z bees to
Canada and Canadian bees to the U S ,which if true will bee an example of
the complete failure by USDA to protect U S honeybee stocks from the
"Introduction and or spread of honeybee disease and pest " as per the
original intent of the Honey bee Act of 1922.
> Regarding the HB Act 1922 .The act was gutted of it's original
intent by the last round of the Uraguy Treaty to ratify the Gatt agreement .
This all became effective 1-5-95.The original Act had a strict prohibition
against the import of Bees to the U S. That strict prohibition does not
exist any more. Now the Honeybee issue is left to the discretion of the
Secretary of Agriculture and all of these changes were done without notice
or imput from anyone.Troy Fore did sit on "the sweetners advisory board"
that was supposed to advise on the effects of the changes and HE says the
panel only addressed the issues of Honey as a sweetner and never talked
about the potential impact on honeybees. Yet another example of industry and
government officials without any true bee sensitive feelings.
I believe that this issue is real and will get worse. A German
bee person was brought to our Big Island Beekeepers Association meeting
several years ago by some of the local USDA people and he talked of famines
being a possibility in Europe with their more advanced problems and his
comments made a BIG impression on me . We must give our collective energies
to the honeybee which we are dependent on for our own survival.Man with his
better ideas and bigger ,faster means of transportation have already spread
honeybee problems around the world and we may bee too late and let's hope
for the best.
> Thank you for your time and your comments will bee appreciated
>Sincerly Walter Patton
>
Walter Patton- Beekeeper "BEE HEALTHY EAT YOUR HONEY DAILY"
27-703 A Kaieie Rd. "The Beehive the Fountain of Youth and Health "
Papaikou,HI. 96781 " You are never too old for a little honey "
Ph.fax 808-964-5401 " Honey Eaters Stick Together Longer "
hihoney@ilhawaii.net
http://www.alohamall.com/hamakua/hihoney.htm
http://www.alohamall.com/hamakua/beeware.htm
http://www.alohamall.com/hamakua/lamalani.htm
>>> Item number 7869, dated 96/03/27 22:44:23 -- ALL
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 22:44:23 +0000
Reply-To: nickw@wave.co.nz
Sender: Discussion of Bee Biology <BEE-L@CNSIBM.ALBANY.EDU>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <nickw@wave.co.nz>
From: Nick Wallingford <nickw@WAVE.CO.NZ>
Organization: Nat Beekeepers Assn of NZ
Subject: Kashmir bee virus...
While I have no wish to initiate another "flame session" on BEE-L, as
a New Zealand subscriber to the list I would like to make clear the
following in relation to Mr. Patton's comment that "I think the
viruses have come to the North American Continent via N Z bees to
Canada and Canadian bees to the U S":
- all viruses which have been found in NZ honey bees have also been
found in honey bees in a variety of other places in the world.
- because a particular bee virus is not listed as occurring in any
geographic location does not mean that the virus is in fact absent; it
is just as possible that the area has not been investigated thoroughly
for the presence of the virus by a scientist with the skills and
funding necessary to find the virus, especially when the virus does
not cause observable symptoms (the claim that Kashmir bee virus was
absent from the continental US until a detailed study was carried out
is a good case in point). Absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence.
- Kashmir bee virus was identified in New Zealand by Dr. Denis
Anderson, an Australian bee virologist who worked in New Zealand for
several years as a bee pathologist. Dr. Anderson did his Ph.D on
Kashmir bee virus and is now regarded as the preeminent scientist
capable of finding the virus. I understand that that is why Dr.
Anderson was asked to assist in identification work on that virus for
samples from the continental US. Dr. Anderson has been instrumental
in providing evidence that the virus is more widespread in the world
population of honey bees than was first postulated by Drs. Bailey and
Woods in 1977.
- Dr. Anderson has found that the Canadian isolate of Kashmir bee
virus is a distinct serological strain from the Australian strain,
which in turn, is serologically distinct from the isolates from New
Zealand. The US isolates have also been found to be serologically
distinct from the Australian strain.
- Like the Americas, neither Australia or New Zealand have any native
populations of Apis mellifera. The populations of Apis mellifera
found in New Zealand came from Europe, the US (originally from Europe)
and Australia (originally from the US and Europe). New Zealand also
does not have any other native species of social bee. According to
Dr. Anderson, it is therefore likely that either the virus exists in
other insect species found in a many countries, or that the virus
originated in Apis mellifera in an area in Europe which provided
stocks of Apis mellifera which were taken the countries where it has
now been identified.
For further factual information on the subject of Kashmir bee virus,
its occurrence and likely origins, I would recommend the following:
Anderson, D (1991) Kashmir bee virus - a relatively harmless virus of
honey bee colonies. American Bee Journal 131: 767-770.
Bruce, W, Anderson, D, Calderone, N and Shimanuki, H (1995) A survey
for Kashmir bee virus in honey bee colonies in the United States.
American Bee Journal 135: 352-355.
------------------------------------------
Nick Wallingford
President - National Beekeepers Assn of NZ
home nickw@wave.co.nz
work nw1@boppoly.ac.nz
------------------------------------------
>>> Item number 7880, dated 96/03/27 18:42:49 -- ALL
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 18:42:49 +0000
Reply-To: Discussion of Bee Biology <BEE-L@CNSIBM.ALBANY.EDU>
Sender: Discussion of Bee Biology <BEE-L@CNSIBM.ALBANY.EDU>
From: Gordon Scott <gordon@APIS.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Kashmir bee virus...
In-Reply-To: <199603271042.WAA15533@Axil.wave.co.nz>
Nice to hear from you Nick -- I've missed your postings.
The first person to find Varroa clearly "brought it to the area".
The same with EFB.
The same with AFB.
The same with T-Mites.
The same with Viruses.
So often we blame the messenger for bad news.
Generally, it's the concerned and observant who find and report
the problem. In the case of a virus it also takes special skills
and facilities.
Regards,
--
Gordon Scott gordon@apis.demon.co.uk gordon@multitone.co.uk (work)
The Basingstoke Beekeeper (newsletter) beekeeper@apis.demon.co.uk
<A HREF="http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/apis">Embryo Home Page</A>
Beekeeper; Kendo 3rd Dan; Sometime sailor. Hampshire, England.
>>> Item number 7886, dated 96/03/28 01:17:00 -- ALL
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 01:17:00 GMT
Reply-To: Discussion of Bee Biology <BEE-L@CNSIBM.ALBANY.EDU>
Sender: Discussion of Bee Biology <BEE-L@CNSIBM.ALBANY.EDU>
From: Andy Nachbaur <andy.nachbaur@BEENET.COM>
Organization: WILD BEE'S BBS (209) 826-8107 LOS BANOS, CA
Subject: Re: Kashmir bee virus...
*FYI*
Last Official USDA Word on Kashmir bee virus in the US, (that I
could find), minus any data from Hawaii as it may not have been included
in this round of tests...in 1993. Have no idea if this is the same as
the INDIAN BEE Virus that is claimed to be the cause of horrendous
losses of hive and native bees in large parts of India. But it matters
not because most of these virus have the ability to change and become
very virulent without any help from man or bees'tees. And for sure
except for trying to determine if they are abundant in US bees they have
received little study here, and I fear will not receive a great deal of
attention in the near future because of the cost considerations.
Beekeepers may have to treat virus tainted bees or beekeeping
operations with a history of unexplained loss, the same as we treat AID's
patents. Give them the best care for the symptoms that are treatable. If
the beehive itself is the unit of husbandry then that beehive may need
to have a secondary unit, a nuc, available each season to maintain
itself even with the best diet, chemical treatment, and TLC by the
keeper of the bees. At least those beekeeper's who are doing this now
appear to be maintaining productive hives.
ttul Andy-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
09/19/94 Agricultural Research Service
Page 8 2
Technology Transfer Automated Retrieval System