According to Florida Ag in the Classroom information fliers, "If we ignore Florida Agriculture, it may go away." The mission is to educate as many school children and teachers as possible about agriculture. The organization is non-profit, but heavily supported by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (the Division of Plant Industry in Gainesville was instrumental in developing Plan Bee), and has a volunteer board of directors. Beyond Plan Bee, and the resource guide mentioned above, a newsletter and booklet containing science fair ideas are published. Besides printed resources, Florida Ag in the Classroom sponsors a two and one-half day workshop each July in Gainesville for educators. As noted above, teachers can become members for free; other supporters must join by paying dues as follows: individual ($25/yr), organization ($100/yr), corporate ($250 plus $100/yr). It would be a worthy way to spend any beekeeping association's excess funds.
The actual words used in the official definition were approved October 9, 1993 and are subject to review every two years: "Honey is the nectar and sweet deposits from plants as gathered, modified and stored in the honeycomb of honey bees." That's not all of course; several honey categories and other considerations are also discussed in the three-page definition document. These include honey composition, types of honey, designation of honey sources, forms of honey, honey products, grading and methods of analysis.
Composition of honey is perhaps the most problematic topic to deal with in defining the product. Given this fact, the Honey Board has chosen to list an average, range and standard deviation for major constituents. The standard deviation is an estimation of how variable each specific item is. The higher the number, the more difference that can be found among various kinds. The standard deviations themselves show a large range from 70.9 (total protein is extremely variable) to 0.126 (fructose/glucose ratio is more consistent). The following are the actual numbers:
Average Range Standard Deviation
Fructose/Glucose Ratio 1.23 0.76-1.86 0.126
Fructose,% 38.38 30.91-44.26 1.77
Glucose,% 30.31 22.89-40.75 3.04
Minerals (Ash),% 0.169 0.020-1.028 0.15
Moisture, % 17.2 13.4-22.9 1.46
Reducing Sugars, % 76.75 61.39-83.72 2.76
Sucrose, % 1.31 0.25-7.57 0.87 Total
Acidity, meq/kg. 29.12 8.68-59.49 10.33 True
Protein, mg/100g. 168.6 57.7-567 70.90
Although the percentage of fructose and glucose constituents are about the same in honeys, glucose is more variable with a standard deviation of 3.04 as opposed to fructose's 1.77. Fructose is the major sugar component which provides the extreme sweetness in honey. This sugar also reduces possible crystallization in the product; Florida tupelo honey is well known for its high fructose content and tendency not to "sugar." The percentage of sucrose in honey has a larger range than might be expected. Citrus honey from Florida has been rejected in some international markets because of its relatively high sucrose content, which is also thought to promote crystallization. Obviously, some honeys are much more proteinaceous than others. Perhaps this will result in some interesting claims by producers in response to the well-known declaration that honey is nothing more than carbohydrate!
Of all the numbers presented above, those with reference to percentage of water are perhaps most significant to honey judges. The standard for moisture content in honey shows has traditionally been 18.6%. Does the upper bound shown in the official definition (22.9%) mean that judges will have to accommodate honey in shows with what heretofore was considered an unacceptably high moisture content? In any case, this information will require changes in ENY 129 Honey Judging and Standards and ENY 130 Moisture in Honey, available from this office in limited supply. The official definition does incorporate current U.S. standards and grades of extracted and comb honey which are quoted at length in the above fact sheets.
An article by Drs. John Capinera, Chair, and Majorie Hoy, Eminent Scholar, at the Entomology-Nematology Department, University of Florida, in the November 1993 issue of Florida Grower and Rancher, sheds important light on development of resistance by insects and mites to pesticides. It begins, they say, with an all-too-predictable and sad scenario:
"A grower observes that a treatment which formerly was effective for pest control no longer works quite as well. Blaming it on the weather, the applicator, or the product is the natural response. This is followed by increased frequency with higher rates of application which prove temporary relief. But soon this also fails to provide satisfactory pest control. Eventually the problem is diagnosed as pesticide resistance. The grower scrambles to find another pesticide which controls the pests but in doing so experiences crop losses, higher pesticide costs--and increasingly-- lack of alternative pesticides."
Examples of the above scenario, according to the authors, include control of leafminer on celery, diamondback moth on cabbage, sweetpotato whitefly on tomato, green peach aphid on potato, broad mite on peppers and two-spotted spider mite on strawberries. The seriousness of the problem is indicated by the fact that by 1984, some 39 percent of 171 medical and 61 percent of 164 agricultural insects and mites showed resistance to pesticides. Most resistance has been found to the older chlorinated hydrocarbon and organophosphate compounds, but it is also being seen in the newer carbamates and pyrethroids.
The authors suggest that resistance principally comes from species' ability to metabolize and detoxify poisons, but it could also be due to behavior and other factors. They list the major causes for pesticide resistance developing in pests as (1) high reproductive capacity, (2) many generations per year, (3) parthenogenesis, (4) high survivorship, (5) immigration and (6) high initial frequency of the genes responsible for the resistance. Experience indicates that resistance is also promoted by: (1) close chemical relationship between previously used insecticides, (2) high persistence of materials used, (3) broad-scale applications, (4) frequent applications and (5) sole reliance on chemical control. Finally, the authors conclude it is not possible to predict when or whether resistance will occur or why there is resistance to some pesticides and not others.
A closer look at the Varroa situation reveals that many of the conditions above are present which favor it acquiring resistance to fluvalinate. For example, the Varroa mite does produce several generations per year; in fact it can reproduce whenever there is brood. This means most of the time in Florida. It can also be characterized as a mite with a high reproductive capacity; for every mated female in a colony, several daughters may emerge to continue the cycle. If each of these produces a number of daughters, an exponential rate of increase results. Parthenogenesis (reproduction without fertilization of the egg) does not seem to be an important factor in Varroa reproduction. Perhaps of most significance is Varroa's a high rate of migration from infested to treated/noninfested colonies, as shown both within and among in beekeeping operations (see the August and October issues of this newsletter). In general, therefore, it can be said that a majority of biological factors affecting development of resistance are present in Varroa.
Operational considerations which effectively promote resistance to insecticides by Varroa may also be working in concert with the biological factors discussed above. Presently, there is only one chemical labelled for controlling Varroa in a living beehive. This is Apistan (R); it contains the active ingredient fluvalinate, a synthetic pyrethroid. Fluvalinate is a contact poison that kills Varroa. It will also poison bees, but the concentration in Apistan (R) is so low that it does not appear to harm the larger-bodied bees. Unfortunately, the product is being used on a large scale and frequent applications are often necessary, especially in subtropical climates. In addition, it is known that beekeepers at present must rely totally on this one pesticide to economically reduce the Varroa population in colonies. This short-range fix could lead to a long-term disaster, should Varroa become resistant to Apistan (R). There are simply no other materials legally available which effectively reduce the mite population.
Whether alternative chemicals would become available for Varroa control is problematic. The authors of the article in Florida Grower and Rancher say that pesticides are increasingly concentrated in the hands of only a few manufacturers that choose to market only to producers of large crops like corn and cotton. Fewer, in some cases, no, options exist for developing chemicals for many minor uses. This includes beekeeping. Thus, the authors conclude, the risk of development of resistance to pesticides must be minimized in these minor crops. For beekeepers, this means that Apistan (R) should be treated like the rare commodity it really is.
Just how precious is Apistan (R)? In many areas of the world, for almost 30 years, there was no effective control for Varroa. By the time of the product's introduction, over 140 chemicals had been tried, most unsuccessfully, in controlling this devastating parasite. The result was large-scale colony loss where ever the mite was introduced. The U.S. beekeeping community, therefore, should count itself very lucky indeed to have had a legal and effective pesticide become available soon after Varroa was introduced. Illegally using Apistan (R) or using alternative formulations of fluvalinate risks reducing the effectiveness and ultimately, the loss of this product. It should be the fervent hope of every apiculturalist that the product maintains its effectiveness, prolonging as long as possible the addition of "Varroa on honey bees" to the lengthening list of pests which have established resistance to pesticides.
With the AHB find in Cotton City, N.M., the New Mexico Cooperative Extension Service began working closely with the New Mexico Department of Agriculture and other agencies to educate the state's residents on learning to live with AHBs, according to L. Michael English, extension entomologist at New Mexico State University. The educational campaign is being directed at all age groups, starting with school children. Primary education targets also include highway department workers, pest control operators and others likely to come in contact with bees.
I was happy to hear that at least one commercial pollinator has used information I published about pollination in his marketing efforts. "Pollination of Citrus by Honey Bees," and "Beekeeping: Watermelon Pollination," two papers I wrote for commercial grower conventions, are both available from County Extension Offices on CD ROM 7 and 8. In addition, I continue to have a supply of ENY 110 Sample Pollination Agreement, available on request.
The message from participants on both panels was clear. Given quality service, growers are not opposed to paying top dollar for pollination fees. There seems to be no better time than now for every beekeeper to look closely at commercial pollination as an alternative enterprise.
Malcolm T. Sanford