Volume 16, Number 5, May 1998
Copyright ©1998 M.T.
Sanford "All Rights Reserved"
Return to the Home Page
Return to Index Page
Download as Adobe® Acrobat file (8KB)
In this issue:
American Chestnut and the American Honey Bee: Parallels in Pest Management
Seedless Watermelons on the Rise: The Pollination Connection
The "Sticky Board": A New Apicultural Tool
First International Geospatial Conference:
Mosquito Control Conference: Urban Growth and the Future of Mosquito Control
Queen Rearing Classes at The Ohio State University:
Reminder for the May 16 Tampa Beekeeping Seminar:
The history of pest management is longer than many think. An outline is
provided in the November 1997 issue of Chemically Speaking, newsletter of
the Pesticide Information Office, Institute of Food and Agricultural
Sciences, University of Florida <http://fshn.ifas.ufl.edu/11cmsp97.htm#a>.
According to the article, the beginnings can be traced back to 8000 BC. As
early as 200 BC, the Roman, Cato the Censor advocated oil sprays for pest
control and the first rat-proof grainary was built in 13 BC. From 1000 to
1300 AD, Arabians transported cultures of predatory ants to control
foliage-eating ants on date palms. Many ideas were developed during
Medieval times. In Berne, Switzerland, in 1476 cutworms were taken to
court, pronounced guilty, excommunicated by the Archbishop, and then
banished. And in 1485, The high vicar of Valence commanded caterpillars to
appear before him. He gave them a defense council and finally cndemned them
to leave the area.
It was not until 1900 that pesticides arrived on the scene. By 1939, the
insecticidal properties of DDT were recognized. Shortly thereafter, in 1946
insect resistance to this chemical was first reported. By 1993, the article
concludes, more than 504 insect species were known to be resistant to at
least one formulation of pesticide and at least 17 species of insects
developed resistance to major classes of insecticides. There are also many
examples of fungicides, herbicides and rodenticides that no longer work. It
comes as no surprise that Varroa also appears to be developing resistance to
the one formulation that is legal to use for its control
<http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~mts/apishtm/apis98/apapr98.htm#1>.
Advances in pest management often come from studying one organism and using
that information to address the problems of another. Take the American
chestnut for example. This quintessential New World tree was many things to
many people around the turn of the century, according to Judy Treadwell
writing for NCNatural Digest Current Features
<http://ncnatural.com/NCNatural/trees/chestnut.html>.
"The reddish-brown wood was lightweight, soft, easy to split, very resistant
to decay; and it did not warp or shrink. Because of its resistance to decay,
industries sprang up throughout the region to use wood from the American
chestnut for posts, poles, piling, railroad ties, and split-rail fences. Its
straight-grained wood was ideal for building log cabins, furniture, and
caskets. Split-rail fences made from the American chestnut can still be
found along country roads throughout the northeast United States and the
southern Appalachians. The fruit that fell to the ground was an important
cash crop. Families raked up chestnuts by the bushels and took wagon loads
of them to sell in nearby towns. The people even cooked the chestnuts for
their own use. The bark and wood were rich in tannic acid, which provided
tannins for use in the tanning of leather. More than half of the vegetable
tannin used by the American leather industry at the turn of the century came
from the American chestnut. So important was the American chestnut in the
southern Appalachians that some of the major timber operations became
subsidiaries of leather companies which were organized to harvest other
species for lumber on land bought to insure supplies of chestnut tannin
extract. In addition, the American chestnut was a graceful shade tree found
in city squares and on the rural homestead."
However, according to Ms. Treadwell, in about 1904 a blight was introduced
into the United States from Asia. Commonly known as the chestnut blight,
Endothia parasitica was first found in the chestnut trees on the grounds of
the New York Zoological Garden. It is believed that the fungus was
unintentionally introduced into America from Asian chestnut trees that were
imported as nursery stock. In spite of quarantines and other programs,
within 40 years most of the American chestnut trees in the eastern United
States were dead. American chestnut trees killed by the blight comprised 50
percent of the overall value of the eastern hardwood timber stands at that time.
In an attempt to restore the American chestnut, two strategies have been
pursued. The first is breeding. This has been a long-term effort, and the
American Chestnut Foundation has been established to carry on and help fund
this work.<http://chestnut.acf.org/>. As part of this, Chinese chestnut
trees have been enlisted in the fight. Their genetic material is being
incorporated into American stock, and some successes in this arena have been
seen.
Another strategy is associated with a recent discovery of a non virulent
strain of the chestnut blight in Asia that causes disease remission when
inoculated into affected trees. This strain of the blight is essentially a
"blight of the blight" that spreads through trees in the wild. It weakens
the original blight, thus allowing the tree to survive. This has been
called a "hypovirus," according to Dr. W.L. MacDonald and S.C. Haynes in
"The American Chestnut's Struggle to Survive a Biological Invader," Land and
Water, September and October 1997. Many strains have been found associated
with E. parasitica, some reducing the ability of the fungus to cause disease.
The honey bee, in contrast to the American chestnut, is an organism
introduced into this continent. However, recent history of this valuable
insect shows some surprising similarities to the situation seen in what was
once called the queen of American trees. Arrival of the Varroa bee mite has
been responsible for the deaths of not only many managed, but most of the
wild or feral colonies of honey bees
<http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~mts/apishtm/threads/varroa.htm>. Like the
chestnut blight, the Varroa mite arrived from Asia and infested American
honey bees, which had no internal defense mechanism. Like the blight,
quarantines were not effective and the mites rapidly spread across the
continent. Unlike the American chestnut, however, honey bees did have the
defense of modern pesticides and a committed cadre of beekeepers to ensure
application. How long these chemicals will work or be available, however,
is not known, and already resistance appears to be developing
<http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~mts/apishtm/apis98/apapr98.htm#1>.
For honey bees, like chestnuts, the long-term solution to an introduced,
exotic organism like Varroa appears to be breeding. Thus, as in the
chestnut story, Asian honey bee strains are being screened for resistance or
tolerance to the mite. This research is being conducted at the Baton Rouge
Bee Laboratory, where about 100 queens from eastern Russia soon will be
studied extensively. Some American bees in Mexico, however, appear to be
tolerant already
<http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~mts/apishtm/apis97/apmay97.htm#2>. The
Africanized honey bee in Brazil has also been shown to be resistant to the
full effects of Varroa. One of the reasons for these differences may be
different mite reproductive levels, as seen in various parts of the world
<http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~mts/apishtm/apis95/apaug95.htm#T2>. What the
apicultural world needs now is the equivalent of the American Chestnut
hypovirus that, in conjunction with breeding efforts, will help beekeepers
gracefully step off the pesticide treadmill.
Production of seedless watermelons in Florida may be on the rise, according
to Dr. Don Maynard at the Gulf Coast Research and Education Center (REC),
Bradenton, Fla. <http://WWW.IFAS.UFL.EDU/www/agator/htm/GCREC.htm>.
However, he concludes, only time will tell whether this actually happens.
In the March 1998 Citrus and Vegetable Magazine, Dr. Maynard says that
California, Georgia, Texas and Florida made impressive yield increases
between 1985 and 1995 in watermelons, as the industry shifted from open-pollinated to
hybrid varieties. At the same time, there were some advances in producing
seedless varieties, and in 1995 a shift occurred. California's production,
although lower by almost 20 percent than Florida's, was higher in value for
the first time. And there was a significant difference, with California
registering a total value of $91 million to Florida's $63 million. On
closer examination it is difficult to determine the exact cause of this,
according to Dr. Maynard, but there seems to be a consensus that a major
reason was California's switching to seedless varieties.
Seedless watermelons, once a novelty and more recently a specialty crop out
of Mexico, have now become dominant, according to Dr. Maynard. Shippers are
sending a proportion of 75 percent seedless to 25 percent seeded to market,
exactly the reverse of five years ago. In addition, Dr. Maynard says, since
1990 there has been a steady increase in watermelon consumption from 13.3
pounds to 17.0 pounds per person. Thus, Dr. Maynard concludes that
increasing the proportion of seedless watermelons in the production mix in
Florida may result in higher prices per unit and increased consumption
because of enhanced quality of seedless watermelons.
All this adds impetus to a discussion of growing seedless watermelons in the
Novemer 1990 APIS <http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~mts/apishtm/apis90/apnov90.htm#3>. In that article
I urged beekeepers to be proactive in supplying watermelon growers with
information on the advantages of growing these varieties. This was in
conjunction with a possible new role of the beekeeper as a pollination
consultant. As it turns out, honey bees are needed in more numbers for
seedless varieties than for watermelons that have seeds! This requirement
translates into one to five colonies per acre, the goal being an average one
bee per hundred flowers.
In an interview reported on the World Wide Web, William Watson, Executive
Director of the National Watermelon Promotion Board (NWPD), was asked:
What percentage of seeded versus seedless watermelons do you plan to promote
this year?
His answer: "We've found this response changes dramatically from region to
region. Many Northeast retailers responded that the percentage of
seeded/seedless is 60/40. Several retailers commented that 'seedless has
become a big item in select (mostly upscale) areas and outsells seeded.' In
the Southeast, the split is much greater at 80/20 with seeded being much
more dominant. On the West Coast, the averages are closer to 50/50. Some
retailers view seedless as more dominant and believe the percentage of
seeded seedless is even as high as 30/70. Nearly all retailers agree that
the popularity of seedless watermelon is continuing to grow."
<http://www.watermelon.org/mrepor16.html>
According to Kathleen Davis at Texas A & M, "Watermelon growers are within
spittin' distance of switching to a seedless version that's sure to boost U.
S. consumption, even through the fall and winter months."
<http://agnews.tamu.edu/stories/HORT/melon.htm>. The popularity of seedless
watermelons stems from the fact that they are smaller and better fit today's
consumers, according to researchers and others interviewed by Ms. Davis.
Watermelons are now being used as liquid replenishers at sporting events and
in other non traditional venues, like nursing homes, for their food value
and ease of consumption. Other advantages include the fact that consumers
are willing to pay more for smaller melons that fit in the modern
refrigerator. Another reason larger melons are being replaced is that the
size of families has decreased. The bottom line is that growers can earn
twice as much per hundred weight growing seedless melons as they can
varieties with seeds. One of Ms. Davis' interviewees suggests that within a
decade, only seedless watermelons will be grown. This appears to be an
excellent opportunity for the beekeeper/pollination consultant to make
growers aware of this paradigm shift in watermelon production and marketing.
Most technological advances in beekeeping occurred before the 20th century.
One, instrumental insemination, is a child of the early 1900s and took many
years to perfect. Another was a change from feeding sugar to high fructose
corn syrup as that material became more available. Introduction of
parasitic mites in the 1980s signaled several more paradigm shifts in
beekeeping technology. Discovery that vegetable oil appeared to interfere
with transfer of tracheal mites among bees led to greater use of extender
patties <http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~mts/apishtm/apis95/apdec95.htm#T4>.
Introduction of Varroa caused beekeepers to move toward pesticide
applications inside a living beehive
<http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~mts/apishtm/apis87/apdec87.htm#1>. Both mites
appear to have spawned a brand new disease, honey bee parasitic mite
syndrome (BPMS) <http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~mts/apishtm/apis94/apdec94.htm#3>.
Varroa mite detection resulted in a new technology called the "ether roll,"
used extensively in Florida by the bee inspection service. This one-step,
read-immediately test is relatively inexpensive. A video describing it is
published by this office. VT 249 Varroa Mite Detection is available by
sending a blank VHS tape to this newsletter's address asking for a copy to
be mailed back in reply.
Another tool in Varroa detection is the "sticky board." This is placed on
the bottom board of colonies during chemical experiments to determine the
number of Varroa that fall off bees. Usually a bottomboard insert is used,
sprayed with some kind of oily material like PAM®. The insert is then covered with a screen,
which allows the mites to fall through, but keeps the bees from getting into
the mess < http://pw2.netcom.com/~griffes/HIP1.html>. Many circumstances besides chemical treatment can lead to Varroa
falling off bees and brood it seems, including routine manipulations,
grooming and smoking. However, without a sticky board, the mites are free
to get back on the bees. Therefore, it makes good sense that the sticky
board become a permanent fixture in the beehive as a help in reducing the
free movement the external mite, Varroa jacobsoni.
The First International Conference on Geospatial Information in Agriculture
and Forestry will be held at Disney's Coronado Resort in Lake Buena Vista,
Fla. It will focus on trends in the development and use of geospatial
information technology by the agricultural and forestry communities.
Special emphasis will be given to applying advanced geospatial data and
information techniques in order to improve today's decision making while
defining future research requirements and implementation strategies. This
technology will probably be used by beekeepers of the future in several
ways. See the March 1998 APIS
<http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~mts/apishtm/apis98/apmar98.htm#4>.
The three-day technical program (June 1-3, 1998) will offer over 300
presentations in general and poster sessions, with extensive interactive
workshops, demonstrations, and exhibits of products and services.
Registration is available online at
http://www.erim-int.com/CONF/ICGIAF/Aghome.html and is $425 for the whole
conference or $245 daily.
The conference is organized in partnership with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, U.S. Department of Energy's Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies
Company, Disney's EPCOT Strategic Partnerships, Modern Agriculture magazine,
NASA Commercial Remote Sensing Program, and other leaders in the
agriculture, forestry, and geospatial technology communities.
Over the past two years, the Florida mosquito control and environmental
communities have developed a white paper on mosquito control in Florida.
The intent of the document is to provide a "snapshot" of this activity in
1997. Now the goal is to develop recommendations on how mosquito control
chemical use and risk can be reduced in the future. The forum to accomplish
this is a conference titled Urban Growth and its Impact on Future Mosquito
Control Problems and Opportunities. This event will take place May 18-21 at
the International Drive Holiday Inn in Orlando, Fla.
The issues addressed at this meeting appear to coincide with mosquito
control issues discussed at the latest Honey Bee Technical Council meeting
as reported in the March 1998 APIS
<http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~mts/apishtm/apis98/apmar98.htm#3>. This event,
according to publicity for the conference, includes invited speakers, panels
of experts, and opportunities for all participants to express their opinons
about the future of mosquito control in the state. There is probably no
better forum for beekeepers to bring up their concerns. Early registration
for this conference is only $15, if received by April 18, 1998. After that,
the fee is doubled to $30. Send a check, payable to Florida Mosquito
Control Association, to FMCA, P.O. Box 60005, Fort. Myers, FL 33906. A
substantially reduced room rate has also been arranged at $89/night double
or single. Contact the hotel directly for reservations at (407) 351-3500.
Two queen rearing classes will be held at the Ohio State University's
Rothenbuhler Honey Bee Lab. The first will be on the fine art of queen
rearing on May 21 and 22, 1998. This intensive course, one of the best of
its kind, is shepherded by renowned apiculturist Susan Cobey. Ms. Cobey has
taught this subject all over the world and is constantly in demand for her
expertise on the subject. The cost is $100 and the registration cutoff date
is May 1, 1998.
A second course in queen breeding and instrumental insemination will be
taught June 17-19. Again, there is no better place to learn this than at
the facility named after the renowned bee geneticist Dr. Walter
Rothenbuhler. The cost is $300 and registration cutoff is May 15.
Registration fees do not include lodging in the Columbus area. For further
information, contact Susan W. Cobey, 1735 Neil Ave., Columbus, OH 43210,
(614) 292-7928, fax (614)292-5237, e-mail: Cobey.1@OSU.EDU. The courses for
both syllabi and other details are available at
<http://IRIS.biosci.ohio-state.edu:80/honeybee/breeding/class.html>.
A reminder that the Tampa Bay Beekeepers Association will host a beekeeping
seminar on Saturday, May 16, 1998. The location is the Hillsborough County
Agricultural Extension Office, 5339 South County Rd. 579 (corner of Old
Hillsborough Ave. and CR 579), Seffner, FL 33584
<http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/county/Hills.htm?>. Advanced registration
before May 1 is $15
and $5 for additional family members. On the day of the seminar,
registration will be $20. To register, send a check made out to Tampa Bay
Beekeepers Association, 10002 Ida St., Riverview, FL 33569. For further
information call (813) 677-0577.
Sincerely,
Malcolm T. Sanford
Bldg 970, Box 110620
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611-0620
Phone (352) 392-1801, Ext. 143 FAX: 352-392-0190
http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~entweb/apishtm/apis.htm
INTERNET Address: MTS@GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU
©1998 M.T. Sanford "All Rights Reserved"
Return to top of document