Subject: NOVEMBER ISSUE OF APIS--HAPPY HOLIDAYS

From: "SANFORD, TOM" <[email-masked]>
Date: 7 Dec 92 15:33:00 EST

FILENAME: NOVAPIS.92

            Florida Extension Beekeeping Newsletter 
    Apis--Apicultural Information and Issues (ISSN 0889-3764)
                 Volume 10, Number 11, November 1992

              Apiary Inspection--A Paradigm Shift 

     This month marks a new era in Florida beekeeping regulations. 
A law requiring beekeeper registration was passed in July.  On
November 3, the rules pertaining to this law went into effect. 
They  include:

1.  Beginning November 3, Florida beekeepers will be expected to
pay an annual registration fee based on the number of colonies
kept.  The minimum is $5.00 for up to 5 colonies, $10.00 for up to
40, $20.00 for up to 200, rising in steps ($35.00 up to 500; $50.00
up to 2,000; $75.00 up to 5,000) to a maximum of $100.00 for
operations exceeding 5,000 hives.  Colonies becoming registered
must be inspected and a number will be assigned which should be
written indelibly (branded is best) on all brood boxes.  

2.  Two months (60 days) before the anniversary of each
individual's registration date, a computer generated letter will be
sent requesting renewal.  The beekeeper then has 60 days to ensure
that the bees are inspected and the registration fee has been paid. 
Bees can be inspected at any time of the year, but this must be
done prior to reregistration each year.

3.  If not reregistered by the time of the anniversary, a $10.00 
late charge over and above the registration fee will be assessed. 
At this time, the beekeeper is given 30 days to become
reregistered. After that, he/she will be turned over to the legal
department for collection and the colonies are subject to be tagged
as abandoned.  Tagged colonies will not be able to be moved until
registered and, if they are impounded, an impoundment fee is
charged.  If after 90 days, the colonies have not been inspected
and registered, they will be declared a nuisance and can be
disposed of by the bee inspection division as it sees fit.

     The inspection procedure includes: (1) a visual inspection for
signs of American foulbrood; (2) an ether roll to determine Varroa
infestation; and (3) a determination if samples will be needed to
test for unwanted races of bees (African bees).  A minimum of 10
colonies per bee yard or 5 percent of total colonies will be
examined.  Those wishing to have bees certified for tracheal mites
or other pests will be charged an extra inspection fee.

     A key point in this set of rules is that the notices of
reregistration will be sent automatically.  They will not be
processed through either the local bee inspector or the State
Apiarist's office in Gainesville.  The beekeeper, therefore, will
be totally responsible for sending in the registration fee and
making arrangements for the bees to be inspected.   In many cases,
this procedure shifts the responsibility of ensuring that bees are
inspected from the bee inspector to the beekeeper.  In theory, this
means that local inspectors will have more free time to actually do
bee inspection.

     The registration of all beekeepers in Florida is expected to
be advantageous in a number of ways.  It will provide detailed
information on the scope of the beekeeping industry in the state
and show the Department of Agriculture that beekeepers are willing
to pay some of the escalating costs of inspection.  The total
funding expected to be generated by the registration process is
estimated to fund only 20% of the total bee inspection budget.  In
addition, registration should help prevent theft of colonies and
provide a more comprehensive inspection service than was possible
in the past.

     Finally, it appears that mandatory registration will also
signal a paradigm shift in bee inspection.  A paradigm is a
predominant pattern or model for an activity.  The traditional role
of bee inspectiors has been to inspect bees and regulate movement. 
Most likely the goals of many inspection services will change from
strictly inspection/regulation toward a more service-oriented
activity that emphasizes research and information delivery.  As I
wrote in the August, 1991 issue of APIS, inspection services have
been very important to the beekeeping industry in a number of ways.
Like most political entities, they are not immune from pressure by
the group being regulated, especially when it is also helping to
foot the bill. 

     There are signs of this kind of paradigm shift in several
states; a change in focus makes eminent sense now that inspection
services have to cope not only with American foulbrood, but also
tracheal and Varroa mites and soon, the African honey bee.  The
Michigan Department of Agriculture has reinstated its bee
inspection service at the behest of beekeepers and is proposing to
use registration fees to help fund bee research at Michigan State
University and develop and distribute information through the
Cooperative Extension Service.  The Nebraska Inspection Service has
begun to publish a beekeeping newsletter.  In Florida, the
Department of Agriculture is actively working with the Cooperative
Extension Service to develop a packet of information which will be
part of the registration process.

     Another paradigm shift is also possible.  The California
Department of Agriculture has simply abandoned apiary inspection,
leaving the industry to regulate itself.  Several other states also
have very limited inspection programs.  Which model prevails, that
allied more with Michigan or California, will depend on the support
and wishes of the beekeeping industry in each state.   

     Those beekeepers who have been registered in Florida in the
past should soon receive a mailout describing the new apiary law
and its requirements.  If you don't get one, then your bees
probably have not been registered and need to be.  Contact your
local bee inspector or Mr. Laurence Cutts, Division of Plant
Industry, 1911 SW 34th St., P.O. Box 147100, Gainesville, FL 32614-
7100, ph 904/372-3505, ext. 128 to arrange for inspection.
      
           ARE MITICUR (R) AND APISTAN (R) COMPATIBLE?

     There was a collective sigh of relief from the beekeeping
industry when it was recently announced that Miticur (R) has
received a Section 3 (General Use) label.  This is now in effect in
Florida.  The product is currently available and expected to be in
stock in most supply houses by the end of the year.  It is the
long-awaited alterative material for Varroa control and kills
tracheal mites in the bargain.  That's the good news.

     The bad news, however, is that there is evidence that using
Miticur (R) with the active ingredient called amitraz, may be
somehow incompatible with Apistan (R) which has the active
ingredient named fluvalinate.  A few beekeepers in Florida with
advance access to Miticur (R) have seen strange behavior in
colonies treated with both materials.

     It is known that amitraz and fluvalinate work on the nervous
system.  Is it possible combining the two may be detrimental?  No
one knows for sure; there seems to have been no research that
focuses on using both materials together.  There is the possibility
a form of synergy is at work; that although separately these
materials control mites and do little damage to bees, together they
may devastate a bee colony. 

     Miticur (R) and Apistan (R), of course, were never designed to
be used together.  But the fact that fluvalinate is stable and
accumulates in comb  (See "Fluvalinate Pros and Cons," APIS, April,
1992) could mean that some of the material will be around for long
periods after treatment to interact with the constituents in
Miticur (R).  This brings another set of questions to bear
concerning length of time one must wait between applications of the
two products and/or the concentrations of chemicals in both
products required for interactions to occur. 

                     BEEHAVER VS. BEEKEEPER

     The beehaver vs. beekeeper controversy is finally being
settled by an unexpected change of events, invasion by the Varroa
bee mite.  In the past, the beehaver, a person who had bees but did
not really manage the insects, could exist with relative ease. 
This appears to be no longer the case.  Because any colony infested
with Varroa must be considered in extreme danger of collapse,
beekeeper intervention becomes essential to its survival.  The
beekeeper must monitor and control mite populations continuously or
there is great danger the parasite will kill its host.

     This brings to mind the comments by the Brazilian extension
apiculturist, Dr. Helmut Wiese, a few years back.  He said that
beekeepers should welcome both Varroa and the African bee to the
United States.  The marginal beekeepers (beehavers), those causing
most of the problems, according to Dr. Wiese, would inevitably be
eliminated, leaving a stronger, more vibrant beekeeping industry.
  
              THE HONEY BEE'S REAL VALUE TO SOCIETY

      "Estimating the Economic Value of Honey Bees (Hymenoptera:
Apidae) as Agricultural Pollinators in the United States," written
by E.E. and L.S. Southwick, Journal of Economic Entomology, Vol.
85, No. 3: pp 621-633, 1992 is the latest attempt to establish the
real value of honey bee pollination for society.  According to the
authors, although beekeepers know the honey bee has value as a
pollinating insect, the actual numbers are often obscured by many
factors.  They also state that about 400 agricultural crops on a
worldwide basis and 130 in the U.S. are pollinated by both honey
bees (Apis) and other bees.  Perhaps the best estimated value of
bee pollination is $18 billion by Dr. Marshall Levin, retired
director of the Tucson, Arizona Agricultural Research Laboratory. 
However, the authors conclude, this work did not include an
estimate of contributions by honey bees only.  More recent studies
have estimated that $10 billion is the correct figure for honey
bees.  In the past, honey bees have also been credited with
pollination done by other bee species.  

     The authors of the above study suggest that it is especially
important to know the value of honey bee pollination now.  That's
because populations are likely to be significantly affected by:

1.  Mites that have recently been introduced and are spreading
rapidly.

2.  Diseases such as American foulbrood, chalkbrood and nosema that
continue to take their toll.

3.  Northward migration of Africanized bees directly affecting
honey bees managed for agricultural pollination.

4.  Increased use of insecticide, responsible for honey bee colony
losses.

     With this in mind, the authors have estimated demand functions
for a long list of crops.  They follow this with an appraisal of
the societal value of honey bees for each.  Leading the list are: 
almond; apple; cranberry; grape; grapefruit; lemon; orange;
asparagus; broccoli; cantaloupe; honeydew melon; watermelon; and
alfalfa, cotton and soybean seed.  The summary is that the annual
benefit of the honey bee to U.S. agricultural consumers is on the
order of $1.6-$8.3 billion, depending on whether honey bees have
replaced (low value) or not replaced (high value) alternative
pollinators.  The authors further conclude that more study be
applied to: (1) finding ways to reduce potential losses to the
honey bee industry; and (2) improving management of alternate
native pollinators.

                    AIR POLLUTION ON THE RISE

     In the May issue of APIS, I mentioned that citrus growers in
Manatee and Hillsborough counties were concerned about damage
caused by air pollution.  The November issue of Citrus and
Vegetable Magazine describes this problem in some detail. 
According to the article, "It appears that the threat of reduced
production and crop loss due to airborne pollutants will be a
formidable enemy growers will have to battle throughout the 90s and
even into the 21st century..."

     Most evidence for such a conclusion comes from California,
where smog consists of pollutants in sufficient quantity to harm
the growth of citrus and other produce.  Emissions testing and
control notwithstanding, there are so many people moving into and
driving automobiles in the state that the battle is all uphill.

     The article says that the only difference between Florida and
California is that Florida isn't surrounded by mountains which trap
the pollution.  Variable winds could blow pollution out into the
Gulf one day and bring it back the next.  And air pollution doesn't
draw boundaries; it easily reaches out to rural areas from urban
sources.  The article groups air pollutants into three categories: 
(1) Primary pollutants include nitrous oxide, hydrogen fluoride and
sulphur dioxide; (2) secondary pollutants, those formed by
reactions with sunlight and other atmospheric phenomena, such as
ozone, nitric and sulfuric acid; and finally, (3) toxic metals like
lead, copper and mercury.

     The major concern in Florida, according to the article, is
ozone.  Although not harmful to human health, California studies
have shown that exposure from a moderate amount of ozone can reduce
citrus yields by as much as 19 percent.  Another pollutant of
concern is fluoride, a product of smokestacks, which not only
reduces yield, but may show up on fruit and damage the trees
themselves.  If both ozone and fluoride are involved, California
studies show a decline in yield in excess of 60 percent.  The
article concludes that unlike advances in frost, drought and insect
damage protection, there are no preventative measures that can be
taken against the dangers of airborne pollution.

     To my knowledge, there has been no research on effects of
nectar secretion in Florida citrus because of air pollution. 
However, over the years many beekeepers have seen declines in
production to which they cannot attribute any cause or pattern. 
This may be analogous to the situation for citrus groves
themselves.  According to Steve Futch, multi-county extension
agent, as quoted in the above article, a number of groves in the
last several years received damage from an unknown cause.  These
incidences appear to be increasing.  However, there is no proof
that they are linked in any way, nor are affected groves
contiguous.  The most common symptom seems to be burned leaves, but
again, not all are leaves are involved.

     Advice to beekeepers?  Avoid heavily travelled corridors such
as interstate highways and congested urban areas which may show
large air pollutant build up.  Also, locations near power plants or
incinerators are probably more at risk.  Perhaps most important is
to be constantly aware that air pollution is a potential problem
and to keep your eyes open for signs of damage to leaves or trees
that indicate any erosion in a grove's health.  

                         NAFTA AND HONEY

     There's been a lot of press recently concerning the North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and its effects on Florida. 
Dr. Leo Polopolus in Florida Food and Resource Economics No. 108,
"North American Free Trade Agreement, Caribbean Basin Initiative,
and Florida Agriculture," September-October, 1992 concludes: 
"...it is certain that Florida agriculture will experience adverse
economic situations for tomatoes, and other vegetables, citrus,
strawberries, peanuts, and sugar, among other commodities."

     According to Dr. Polopolus, trade liberalization sends chills
up and down Florida's agricultural spine because of the uneven
playing field on such matters as environmental regulations, wage
rates and worker benefits.  The bottom line, he concludes, is that
without some semblance of equality on the full set of trade, labor
and environmental issues, lowering just tariff rates to zero on
both sides of international borders will merely provide easier
access of foreign horticultural and sugar products into U.S.
markets, reducing the production, employment, and income flows from
Florida agriculture.

     Although a good amount of ink is spent on sugar in Dr.
Polopolus' article, there is no mention of honey.  Conversation
with several individuals indicates that as soon as NAFTA goes into
effect, the barriers on honey will be removed.  That means that the
20 percent advalorem tax Mexico charged and the one cent per pound
tariff imposed by the U.S. on imported honey will be history. 
There appear to be no exemptions and no phase in regulations for
this particular commodity.

     Only time will tell whether the NAFTA environment will provide
a level playing field conducive to selling honey to Mexico. 
Certainly, the country, a net exporter in the past, will continue
to be a competitor because labor is inexpensive.  However, the
Varroa mite has now been found in the country and the African honey
bee is well entrenched.  What these will do to Mexico's honey
producing potential in the long run can only be speculation, but it
certainly will not be a return to business as usual.  Chemical
treatment for mites is expensive and large-scale efficient
beekeeping far less feasible with African than European honey bees. 

     Although U.S. producers and packers may not be able to compete
with Mexicans in the bulk market, retailing high quality, specialty
items in large, metropolitan areas (Mexico City, Guadalajara) could
be another story.  Thus, at first glance it appears the NAFTA
agreement, in contrast to its effects on other commodities, has the
potential of doing little harm to and some good for Florida
beekeepers.  It certainly will be worth a much closer look when the
agreement goes into effect as early as January, 1993. 

Sincerely,     

Malcolm T. Sanford 
0740 IFAS, Bldg 970
University of Florida 
Gainesville, FL 32611-0740 
Phone (904) 392-1801, Ext. 143 
FAX: 904-392-0190 
BITNET Address: MTS@IFASGNV 
INTERNET Address: [email-masked] 

%%% overflow headers %%%
Cc: "PATRICIA.A.CROSSETT" <[email-masked]>,
        "GMH" <[email-masked]>, "lola" <[email-masked]>,
        "BURGETTM" <[email-masked]>, "TEW.1" <[email-masked]>,
        "SCOTTC" <[email-masked]>,
        "sanet-mg" <[email-masked]>,
        "LOMBARDI" <[email-masked]>,
        "INSSOC" <[email-masked]>,
        "HSHIMANUKI" <[email-masked]>,
        "SMITH" <[email-masked]>, "BILLM" <[email-masked]>,
        "MUNNPA" <[email-masked]>, "SIMON" <[email-masked]>,
        "ECONET" <[email-masked]>, "BI_JJB" <[email-masked]>,
        "CYSPENG" <[email-masked]>, "ECMUSSEN" <[email-masked]>
%%% end overflow headers %%%