From: london@sunSITE.unc.edu (Larry London)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: APIS 12-92, Beekeeping Newsletter
Date: 28 Dec 92 19:53:58 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

:
Date: 28 Dec 92 11:26:00 EST
From: "SANFORD, TOM" <MTS@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>
Subject: December issue of Apis
:


FILENAME:  DECAPIS.92

            Florida Extension Beekeeping Newsletter 
    Apis--Apicultural Information and Issues (ISSN 0889-3764)
               Volume 10, Number 12, December 1992

                          TAKING STOCK

     It's December again.  Every year at this time, I try to
summarize the last eleven issues of this newsletter.  This is the
119th consecutive monthly issue of APIS to come off the press,
continuing the tradition the newsletter has enjoyed for many years
as one of most frequent and long running publications of its kind
in the country.

     Like so much in modern life, change in beekeeping is
accelerating.  This year was marked by a new apiary law, and the
passing of Ralph Wadlow, one of the last of Florida's old timer
beekeeping pioneers.  With the realization that the Varroa bee mite
is here to stay, its more and more apparent that the era of the
let-alone beekeeper (beehaver) has come to an end.  It's time to
stand back, reflect a little, and take a deep breath before the
tide of events determinedly washes us into 1993.

     This year began with a report in APIS on deliberations of the
Honey Bee Technical Council, advisory body to the Florida
Commissioner of Agriculture.  At that time, the Council ratified
the concept of a registration/inspection fee.  This set the stage
for the new Apiary statute which became law in July.  

     Also in January, the Model Honey Bee Certification Plan
drafted in St. Louis, MO, was published in this newsletter.  It has
two basic elements: (1) bee diseases/mites and (2) African bees. 
Beyond certification (disease treatment, mite quarantine, queens,
cells, etc.) issues, the recognition that various kinds of
beekeepers (non-migratory, interstate, queen and package producers)
require different regulations was also addressed.  It is expected
that in the future, some form of this plan will be adopted by most
states.  The Honey Bee Technical Council has requested that the
Division of Plant industry draft a similar document for Florida.  

     The February issue of APIS outlined the Lyme Disease situation
in Florida and provided recipes for supplementing honey bee protein
needs.  Egyptian beekeeping, its history and current status, was
featured in March.  Possible problems discovered in Israel while
relying on fluvalinate for mite control highlighted the April
edition.

     Two extensive articles concerning informing the public about
the African bees were published this year (May and August).  The
latter contained a sample letter which could be sent to fire chiefs
informing them about their possible role, as perceived by the
public, in dealing with wild or feral honey bees.  In May and
November, the consequences of air pollution on citrus (and by
extension, nectar production in those trees) were described.  The
June issue was a potpourri:  it discussed honey freshness,
formation of the Caribbean Apicultural Development Association
(CADA), why honey bees are poor pollinators in some situations, and
the Florida Forest Stewardship Program.

     The July APIS provided feedback from bee inspectors concerning
extender patty technology (also mentioned in the August issue) and
formic acid dangers.  The entire September issue focused on bee
breeding and the one for October concentrated on the antibiotic
properties of honey, New Zealand Manuka Honey in particular.

     Finally, last month (November), this newsletter listed the
rules of the new Florida apiary law and analyzed the changing
patterns in bee inspection this might portend.  In addition, it
reported the disquieting news that a compatibility problem might
exist when using mite control products [Miticur (R) and Apistan
(R)] in concert.  A full 1992 index follows:

January--Florida Honey Bee Technical Council Deliberations; Model
Honey Bee Certification Program and comments on the plan by Dr.
Eric Mussen, University of California.

February--Lyme Disease; Removing Bees from Buildings; Effective
Nutrition.

March--Assignment Egypt; Egyptian management practices discussed
along with analysis of problems seen in that country.

April--Registration Law Passes; Lyme Disease Update; Varroa
Detection; Fluvalinate Pros and Cons.

May--African Bees:  Informing the Public; Appeal for Honey; More on
Soap/Oil for Insect Control; Air Pollution and Citrus Nectar.

June--Fresh Honey; Honey Thank You; Caribbean Apicultural
Development Association; Pollination Paradox; On Forest
Stewardship.

July--On Volunteerism; Inspector Feedback; Research Support Thanks.

August--Beekeepers Institute--Crisis Communications; Firefighters
and Stinging Insects; More on Extender Patties; Tidbits on Varroa.

September--Complexities of Bee Breeding; Export Hotline.

October--Ralph Wadlow Dies; Antibiotic Properties of New Zealand
Manuka Honey.

November--Apiary Inspection Rules: A Paradigm Shift; Are Miticur
(R) and Apistan (R) Compatible?; Beehaver vs Beekeeper; Honey Bee's
Real Value to Society; Air Pollution on the Rise; NAFTA and Honey. 

                ESTABLISHING ORDER--SWARM CONTROL

     We've been hearing a lot about the New World Order lately. 
The term has many meanings, depending on what part of the earth is
discussed:  Somalia, India, Serbia.  Whether countries themselves,
the United Nations or the United States consider taking action when
things get out of control, the goal is always the same, to
establish order.  The perennial questions are what kind is needed
and how is it to be preserved.  After all, even chaos (most
dictionaries define this as "disorder") mathematicians now tell us,
has order.

     How many have looked at the random movement of honey bees in
a colony and seen only chaos?  It is amazing that out of what at
first glance appears to be random movement by thousands of
individual insects, wonderful organizational patterns emerge.  This
confounded the ancients, who no doubt gave the credit to a panoply
of gods.  Researchers, using the tools of modern science, however,
are constantly finding new clues about how order is established in
a honey bee colony.  That the source of much of it is from the
queen is no surprise, but the details are often beyond our
experience.  

     It is now definite that certain chemicals, called pheromones,
regulate many of the activities of social insect societies.  In
"The Essence of Royalty:  Honey Bee Queen Pheromone," (American
Scientist: Vol. 80, No. 4, pp. 374-385, July-August 1992, M.
Winston and K. Slessor state that some 36 pheromones have been
identified in honey bees.  Those of the queen, called primer
pheromones, have long been thought to control the colony.  Studies
suggest they suppress queen cell construction by the colony and
also block ovarial development in worker bees.  There is also
evidence queen pheromones attract workers (and drones) and
stimulate foraging.         

     Early research in this field first identified two chemical
compounds, 9-keto-2-decenoic acid (9ODA) and 9-hydroxy-2-decenoic
acid (9HDA), found in the mandibular glands of queens as possible
candidates for queen pheromone.  These, particularly the latter,
were often referred to as "queen substance."  Although these
compounds were active, the authors state that when synthesized,
they did not fully duplicate the effects of mandibular gland
extract.  

     It remained for the authors to discover that adding three more
chemicals (two of completely different structure) made a pheromonal
complex that was equivalent to mandibular gland extract.  They
emphasize that all the components are necessary for this royal
essence to work; removing any one reduces activity by up to 50
percent.  The component blend will vary with age.  Virgin queens
have practically none of these pheromones, only secreting the full
array after being mated and laying eggs.  Finally, the authors
state that several other glands secrete chemicals that play a role
in queen pheromonal communication.

     Once the components of queen pheromone had been established,
the authors proceeded to test for function.  They found the
pheromone complex suppressed queen rearing, attracted workers to
the cluster and caused them to congregate together, and stimulated
brood rearing and foraging.  The latter might be the best
commercial application of queen pheromones, as worker attractants
in crop pollination.  In a surprising development, the authors were
unable to show that the pheromone supressed worker bee ovarial
development.

     A final part of the pheromonal puzzle concerned how the
chemicals reached all workers in the colony.  The authors were able
to confirm what many have long thought.  That bees in the royal
retinue surrounding the queen transfer the pheromones from her to
themselves and thence to their sisters.  Two types of bees were
identified by the authors:  lickers and antennators.  The former
disperse most of the pheromone; why there are two kinds of workers
in the retinue is a mystery.  The comb wax also picks up some
pheromone which is later transferred to other workers.  The
question of how the bees detect the pheromones remains unresolved. 

     The authors were surprised to find that almost all the queen
pheromone produced ends up internalized both in the queen's and
workers' bodies.  The route can be through either the mouth or the
skin (cuticle).  This internalization may be one reason the queen
produces so much pheromone.  The authors suggest there might be a
push-pull in worker-queen conflict.  In order to escape the queen's
chemical control, workers quickly try to absorb and break down
(catabolize) the regulating chemicals.  At the same time, the queen
attempts to manufacture more pheromones to increase her dominance. 
This is analogous, the authors contend, with many families and
societies that show a blend of cooperation and conflict, with some
objectives in common, but individuals having their own goals as
well.  

     Much of the dynamics in queen-worker conflict happens in
swarming.  Only when insufficient amount of pheromones are present
will workers begin to rear queens.  Given a queen that is
constantly producing these controlling chemicals, the possibility
exists for a reduction in pheromone only as colonies expand their
population.  A time is reached where there simply is not enough
pheromone to go around, particularly if more and more is being
internalized by greater numbers of workers.  The authors were able
to delay swarming by adding pheromones to the nest either
impregnated in stationary blocks or as a spray.  Reducing swarming,
therefore, is thought to be another possible commercial use of
royal essence.

     The application of queen pheromones to control swarming is
described further by Y. Lensky and P. Cassier in "Control of
Swarming by Queen Bee Pheromones," BeeScience, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp.
7-11, March, 1992.  The authors contrast emergency or supersedure
cells being constructed in the nest's center (source of queen
pheromones lost or very reduced) with swarm cells being built on
the edges (queen pheromones not reaching the periphery).  They
determined a two-stage process in the latter process: (1) queen
cups are constructed where a queen can lay an egg and (2) the cup
with its egg is then transformed into a queen cell.

     The authors confirm that as the worker population grows and
nest congestion develops, the tendency to swarm increases.  This is
especially true when the queen's movement is restricted.  They go
one step further, however, by concluding that another pheromone is
acting together with chemicals from the mandibular gland to
suppress queen rearing.  This is an oily substance emitted from the
queen's feet that she leaves on the comb.  The paper describes the
structure of the gland that produces the queen's footprint
substance.  

     Although unable as yet to prevent swarming using pheromone
application, the authors have developed a procedure calculated to
decrease it.  They have minimized the production of new queens and
thus reduced swarming by (1) annual requeening, (2) increasing the
volume of hives by adding supers in excess, 3) raising 7 to 8 brood
frames from the brood nest into the supers above the queen
excluders, (4) preventing overheating by providing additional
openings to help ventilation and (5) providing a constant water
supply in the bee yard.  This technique takes into consideration
most of what is known about the pheromonal order established by
queen honey bees, but one always ready to be undermined by the
workers they control.  

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: MTS@GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU 


%%% overflow headers %%%
Cc: "PATRICIA.A.CROSSETT" <PATRICIA.A.CROSSETT@DARTMOUTH.EDU>,
        "GMH" <GMH@REEF.CIS.UFL.EDU>, "lola" <lola@reef.cis.ufl.edu>,
        "BURGETTM" <BURGETTM@CORDLEY.ORST.EDU>, "TEW.1" <TEW.1@OSU.EDU>,
        "SCOTTC" <SCOTTC@UHUNIX.UHCC.HAWAII.EDU>,
        "sanet-mg" <sanet-mg@oes.orst.edu>,
        "LOMBARDI" <LOMBARDI@ufnet.mail.ufl.edu>,
        "INSSOC" <INSSOC@fibiol.edu.ar>,
        "HSHIMANUKI" <HSHIMANUKI@ASRR.ARSUSDA.GOV>,
        "SMITH" <SMITH@LARVA.FORESTRY.UTORONTO.CA>, "BILLM" <BILLM@SWRI.EDU>,
        "MUNNPA" <MUNNPA@cardiff.ac.uk>, "SIMON" <SIMON@NERVM.NERDC.UFL.EDU>,
        "ECONET" <ECONET@IGC.ORG>, "BI_JJB" <BI_JJB@LEWIS.UMT.EDU>,
        "CYSPENG" <CYSPENG@UCDAVIS.EDU>, "ECMUSSEN" <ECMUSSEN@UCDAVIS.EDU>
%%% end overflow headers %%%
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture