Managed Pollinator CAP Project Receives Fourth Year Funding

Transcription

1 Vol. 22 No. 2 September, 2011 Editor: Jennifer Berry, Research Professional III Managed Pollinator CAP Project Receives Fourth Year Funding Since 2008 the University of Georgia has operated the $4.1 million USDA Managed Pollinator CAP program, a 17-member consortium of university and federal bee labs "dedicated to the reversal of honey bee decline." The project is renewable annually based on demonstrated progress toward goals, and we are pleased to report that the fourth and final installment has been approved for The group has made significant gains in understanding the factors affecting honey bee losses across America; the results are sometimes predictable and sometimes not. Briefly, the importance of Varroa is increasingly clear, whereas the negative effects of Nosema ceranae are less obvious. Close proximity of colonies to agricultural lands generally predicts poor bee health, but this relationship is not necessarily associated with pesticide residues (ie., pesticide hazard is not clearly associated with agriculture). And about pesticides? Yes, their residues in hive pollen are a predictor of health problems, but the chief risk is more likely to be old chemistries such as pyrethroids rather than the newer neonicotinoid systemics. You can read more about the Managed Pollinator CAP project at or

2 USDA Designates 150 Counties in Georgia as Primary Natural Disaster Areas By Tanya Brown WASHINGTON, Sept. 8, 2011 The U.S. Department of Agriculture has designated 150 counties in Georgia as primary natural disaster areas due to an ongoing drought and excessive heat that has damaged thousands of acres of crops. Many producers have lost their crops and ultimately their livelihood due to the devastation caused by the drought, said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. President Obama and I want these farmers and ranchers to know that we are here for them and we will support them through the recovery process and help them once again become productive suppliers of food, fiber and fuel that keep America prospering. This designation will provide that support. The drought which began April 15, 2011, and continues caused 30 percent or more loss of forage crops, pasture, grain crops, cotton, peanuts and tobacco. Farmers and ranchers in the remaining nine counties in Georgia also qualify for natural disaster assistance because their counties are contiguous with the 150 counties designated. Farmers and ranchers in the certain counties in Alabama, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee also qualify for natural disaster assistance. All counties designated natural disaster areas September 7, 2011, making all qualified farm operators in the designated areas eligible for low interest emergency (EM) loans from USDA s Farm Service Agency (FSA), provided eligibility requirements are met. Farmers in eligible counties have eight months from the date of the declaration to apply for loans to help cover part of their actual losses. FSA will consider each loan application on its own merits, talking into account the extent of losses, security available and repayment ability. FSA has a variety of programs, in addition to the EM loan program, to help eligible farmers recover from adversity. USDA also has made other programs available to assist farmers and ranchers, including the Supplemental Revenue Assistance Program (SURE), which was approved as part of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008; the Emergency Conservation Program; Federal Crop Insurance; and the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program. Interested farmers may contact their local USDA Service Centers for further information on eligibility requirements and application procedures for these and other programs. Additional information is also available online at Georgia Governor's Mansion Now Home to 40,000 Honeybees By Jim Galloway, Atlanta Journal-Constitution Nathan Deal has installed 40,000 workers in the backyard of the Governor's Mansion. They're foreigners, too. Italian, most likely. 2

3 The governor and his wife, courtesy of his staff, are the proud owners of two bee hives - probably a first in the history of the official residence. First Lady Sandra Deal holding a honey bee "This is a completely non-taxpayer supported venture," emphasized Deal spokesman Brian Robinson. The governor is a novice to apiculture - and has yet to don the official protective garb of gloves, hat and veil. But Sandra Deal had a beekeeper father, and is quite comfortable with the creatures. Robinson said the couple was persuaded to try beekeeping by deputy chief of staff Michael Shaffer. Chris Riley, Deal's chief of staff, has caught the bug, too. House Appropriations Chairman Terry England, a farmer from Auburn, provided some of the equipment. Robinson said the governor will give away the honey to visitors - and, presumably, lawmakers essential to his legislative agenda next year. Georgia Beekeepers Offered New Weapon to Combat Varroa, Their Worst Adversary Official Georgia Department of Agriculture Press Release The unregistered pesticide HopGuard has been approved for use by Georgia honey beekeepers, but only under strict authorization that expires at the end of the year, says Georgia Agriculture Commissioner Gary W. Black. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention has granted Georgia beekeepers limited authority to use the unregistered pesticide HopGuard to control varroa mites. HopGuard, potassium salt of hop beta acids, is marketed by Beta Tec Hop Products, a subsidiary of John I. Hass, Inc., Yakima, Wash. The company offers instructions for the use of the product in this HopGuard YouTube video; The limited authority by the federal agency allows Georgia beekeepers to use the HopGuard 3

4 treatment no more than two times before the special state wavier expires on Dec. 31, The Georgia Department of Agriculture (GDA) is charged with ensuring that all provisions of the exemption are met. Its authorization allows for the maximum total of 252,000 HopGuard strips to be used statewide under this specific exemption that permits the use of an unregistered pesticide. Only one strip of the treated cardboard with the HopGuard chemical can be used for every five frames in a brood chamber. The typical hive consists of a 10-frame brood chamber. The EPA allows for four-week treatments that are limited now to summer and fall of this year only. A spring treatment was previously authorized in EPA s May 27 wavier. EPA permits beekeepers to only treat the brood chamber and specifically disallows the treatment of honey supers located above the brood chamber. HopGuard residue is not expected to be present in edible honey when the pesticide is used according to its strict instructions. This is the first year an exemption has been requested for the use of this product in Georgia. A full registration of the HopGuard product in Georgia is being made at this time, according to the EPA National Honey Bee Pests and Diseases Survey Report Karen Rennich, Jeff Pettis, Dennis Vanengelsdorp, Jerry Hayes, Michael Andre, Rob Snyder, Karen Roccasecca, Nathan Rice, Jay Evans, Dawn Lopez, Vic Levi, Margaret Smith, Nishit Patel And Robyn Rose Executive summary The 2010 Limited National survey, focusing on 13 states, was performed to expand and augment the baseline pest and pathogen data collected from the pilot study conducted in It is the most comprehensive U.S. honey bee pest and disease survey to date. The primary focus of this survey was to verify the absence of the parasitic mite Tropilaelaps and other exotic threats to the U.S. bee population (e.g., Apis cerana). Under current international trade agreements, the U.S. cannot deny import permits from other nations unless the exporting nation has a disease, parasite, or pest of honey bees that is not found in the U.S. Establishing the absence of threats to honey bee populations not thought to be present in the U.S. was the primary objective of this effort. To capitalize on the information gathered from this survey, samples were analyzed for other honey bee diseases and parasites known to be present in the U.S. The survey results are used to gauge the overall health of colonies and to help create a disease level baseline to help interpret ongoing and future epidemiological studies. The National Survey effort was limited to collection of samples from 13 states including Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Washington. A total of 349 samples representing over 2,700 colonies were collected. A further expansion of this survey is planned for 2011/2012 with the number of participating states increasing to 33. The survey samples were analyzed for 11 known honey bee viruses, pests and pathogens including a DNA test for any occurrence of Apis cerana, the Asian honey bee. Molecular primers and a restriction enzyme test diagnostic for mitochondrial DNA of A. cerana were created for this survey and a broad sample representing all states was tested without a single detection. Slow Paralysis Virus (SPV), the only virus included in this year s testing that is not currently found in the U.S., was examined in all samples and no detection was made. No diseases or parasites of bees not already known to exist in the country were discovered. Only one virus, Deformed Wing Virus (DWV), was found in all 13 states. Also common to all states were the parasitic microsporidian Nosema ceranae, and the trypanosome Crithidia. It is not known at this time if Crithidia negatively or positively affect colony health. As in the pilot study of , N. 4

5 ceranae was identified in all samples positive for Nosema spp. while Nosema apis were not found in any state. For the second year, we saw no evidence of Tropilaelaps mites, nor honey bee tracheal mites (Acarapis woodi) in any sample. Honey bee tracheal mites are known to exist in the country and our failure to find them may be the result of our sampling procedure. Honey bee tracheal mites are most abundant in overwintering colonies and all samples were taken from colonies actively rearing brood. Varroa mites continued to be observed in all states with the exception of the Hawaiian Islands of Maui, Kauai and Molokai. This survey was designed to be representative of the managed honey bees across the broad geography of the United States. We chose states as the units to determine the distribution of samples taken as funds were insufficient to allow for a more comprehensive representation based on colony abundance. We targeted key beekeeping states as a primary selection criterion and then secondarily, we chose states to fill in geographic voids to insure a degree of coverage across the U.S. When choosing states, attempts were made to include a distribution of states that represented queen production, honey production and had stationary and migratory practices. We also focused on high risk states that have key ports, long growing seasons and diverse agricultural crops. The results can thus be interpreted as representative of the pests and pathogens present in the U.S. Introduction This 13 state USDA survey of honey bee pests and pathogens began in 2010 and was completed in The survey encompasses all states sampled in the 2009/2010 pilot study plus 10 additional states. Funding was provided by the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and the survey was conducted in collaboration with the USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Pennsylvania State University (PSU) and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS). A total of 349 samples were collected from 50 apiaries in California (17 from migratory beekeepers who were in that state for pollination contracts and 33 from beekeepers originating from there), 24 from Hawaii and 25 from the remaining states (Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Washington). Survey Description Survey kits were distributed to most of the participating states Department of Agriculture offices in the spring of Apiary inspectors and agents conducted an aggregate sampling from previously identified commercial, migratory, and sideliner beekeepers with at least 8 colonies per apiary. In most cases apiaries consisted of at least 10 colonies. A single aggregate sample was collected from 8 randomly selected colonies per apiary per operation (APHIS US Honey Bee Survey Sampling Protocol. In each state, apiaries were chosen on a case by case basis with an attempt to give as close to an equal representation of the entire state as possible. Ideally, a state was sectioned into 4 quadrants with apiaries randomly chosen within a quadrant. When possible, ten queen producers were sampled. Of the remaining sampled apiaries, 1/2 were from migratory operations (move out of state and return prior to sampling) and 1/2 were from stationary operations (only move within the state or do not move at all). Additional apiaries occurring near ports or other areas that could be considered high risk were also considered for sampling (APHIS US Honey Bee Survey Project Plan). Three distinct collection methods were used to sample each apiary. The first sample was a collection of live adult bees composed of ¼ cup of bees (¼ cup = ~ 150 bees) that were knocked 5

6 off of brood frames from each of the 8 sampled colonies. The live bees were deposited in a live bee-shipping box containing a water source and hard sugar candy. This box was shipped the same day to the USDA/ARS in Beltsville, MD where it was immediately frozen at -80C until molecular testing could be performed. The molecular tests were performed with quantitative- PCR techniques outlined by Dr. Jay Evans at the USDA/ARS Bee Research Laboratory to look for genetic markers in widely known and recognized viruses and other pests (2006 and Honey Bee PCR Diagnostics). The molecular tests were designed to detect the presence of the following: 1. Acute Bee Paralysis Virus (ABPV) 2. A. cerana mitotype 3. Deformed Wing Virus (DWV) 4. Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus (IAPV) 5. Kashmir Bee Virus (KBV) 6. Nosema ceranae 7. Nosema apis 8. Slow Paralysis Virus (SPV) 9. Crithidia spp. The second sample of bees, consisting of ¼ cup of bees from each of the 8 sampled colonies, originated from the same brood frames as the live bee sample. These bees were put into a bottle of alcohol for preservation. This alcohol sample was shipped to PSU for microscopic analysis to quantify the following: 1. Nosema spp. spores 2. Tracheal Mite loads 3. Varroa Mite loads Finally, the third sample was taken from anything dislodged from bumping sampled brood frames over a collection pan. This technique was developed by Dr. Jeff Pettis and Dr. Dennis vanengelsdorp and funded by APHIS as a quick and cost effective way to detect for the Tropilaelaps mite. The sample, also preserved in alcohol, included any mites, beetles and other hive debris filtered from bumping the brood frames. This sample was shipped to USDA/ARS Beltsville, MD and analyzed for the presence of the Tropilaelaps mite. All participating beekeepers, as well as State Apiarist/Inspectors, received two reports for each sample taken. The first report, sent within 3 months of collection, details the analysis results for Varroa mite load, Nosema load, detection of Tropilaelaps and tracheal mites. The second report, a molecular report sent within 6 months of sample collection, summarizes the presence or absence of any of the five viruses, identifies the Nosema species, and notes the presence or absence of A. cerana and Trypanosomes. Using the U.S. Postal Service, live bee shipments were made to USDA/ARS and percent survivability was tracked for all live bee shipments. The results of this analysis, previously proven to be robust and a suitable alternative for shipping bees on dry ice by the pilot study, continued to work well and the survivability analysis can be seen by Figure 1 in the Appendix. In some states, a small number of live bee samples were degraded badly enough that no molecular data could be retrieved from the samples. This occurred in the states of FL, HI, PA and TN. Results 6

7 The results of all molecular and microscopic analysis can be found in the Appendix. An average taken over all 349 collected samples yielded a mean Nosema spore load of 454,000 spores per bee, about half the threshold of 1 million spores per bee thought to cause damage from infection with N. apis (Figure 2). Of those samples that tested positive for Nosema (removing all those samples that had no Nosema) the average spore count was 918,000 spores per bee, right at the threshold for potential damage. These samples accounted for 179 out of 349 (51%) of all samples. Of the samples that tested positive for Nosema, 36 samples (20%) exceeded the threshold to cause damage (> 1 million spores per bee). While the economic threshold for Varroa mites is seasonally and regionally specific, the average load of almost 4 mites per 100 bees is of concern, as this rate of infestation is almost certainly an indication of mite populations which, left unchecked, would cause damage (Figure 3). The detection of Varroa in the range of 3-10 mites/100 bees are thought to cause damage. Of the 349 samples received, 323 (93%) had at least 1 Varroa mite detected. About 43% of the samples that tested positive for Varroa (138 out of 323) exceeded the lower threshold for possible damage to a colony from Varroa. Figures 4 and 5 illustrate the dynamic nature of Nosema and Varroa mite populations over the course of the year. Nosema levels typically appeared highest in late fall and spring months and spring 2011 samples showed higher loads than last year. Varroa mite levels were highest in the late summer and fall months. It should be noted; however, that the majority of the states sampled apiaries in those months (summer and fall) where Varroa mites may occur at a higher level. It is unknown whether the sampled apiaries treated for Varroa and/or Nosema. The percentage of colonies (n= 25 unless otherwise noted) testing positive for DWV (Figure 6), IAPV (Figure7), KBV (Figure 8) and ABPV (Figure 9) showed that viral profiles did differ between states. Both Nosema ceranae (Figure 10) and Trypansome sp. (Figure 11) were found in all states. N. ceranae was found in 44% of samples using the PCR technique and Trypanosomes were found in 50% of all samples. Because of the DNA extraction methods employed, our molecular identification methods would only confidently find actively reproducing Nosema (vegetative stage) but not detect dormant (spore stage) Nosema. For this reason it is possible that examined samples had detectable levels of Nosema as determined with one detection method while not having detectable methods using another method. This accounts for the difference in the PCR and microscopic detection of Nosema in these samples. Although N. ceranae and Trypanosomes are also very common, they, like most viruses, display slight seasonality but further data are required to confirm this (Figure 13). The ubiquitous nature of DWV is further demonstrated in Figure 12, as it remains fairly constant over the months while other viruses demonstrate some seasonality. DWV was, in fact, found in 90% of all samples. As 8 colonies were combined for each apiary sample, any direct link between Varroa mite prevalence contributing as a virus vector cannot be distinguished. Finally, this study found no evidence of Tropilaelaps, SPV, or honey bee tracheal mites. Visual analysis of samples collected in alcohol, in addition to a screening process using A. cerana DNA, did not detect a presence of this exotic Apis species. It should also be noted that no detection was made of N. apis from any of the composite molecular samples. This agrees with previous findings (Chen et al, 2008) that N. ceranae has largely replaced N. apis in the European honey bee (Apis mellifera) after migrating from its original host, A. cerana to A. mellifera. 7

8 Conclusions The increased samples from 13 states allow for the expansion of our database of pests and pathogens and place the collected data into a temporal context. Using this increased data base we can draw broader conclusions but there are still insufficient data to formulate comprehensive statements about invasive mites or exotic Apis species. As the survey continues in coming years and by gathering yearly, sequential samples from a growing number of states, we may be able to see trends and patterns that relate to colony health. The survey does provide strong evidence that Tropilaelaps, Slow Paralysis Virus and Apis cerana are not present in the U.S. 8

9 9

10 10

11 11

12 References Evans J.D. (2006). Beepath: An ordered quantitative-pcr array for exploring honey bee immunity and disease, Journal of Invertebrate Pathology, 93 (2), pp Chen Yanping, J.D. Evans, I.B. Smith, and J.S. Pettis (2008). Nosema ceranae is a long-present and wide-spread microsporidian infection of the European honey bee (Apis mellifera) in the United States, Journal of Invertebrate Pathology, 97, pp Pesticides and GMOs, Now the Trespassers From Naturalnews.com Minnesota's Star Tribune has reported that the Minnesota Court of Appeals recently ruled that a large organic farm surrounded by chemical-laden conventional farms can seek damages for lost crops, as well as lost profits, caused by the illegal trespassing of pesticides and herbicides on its property.oluf and Debra Johnson's 1,500-acre organic farm in Stearns County, Minn., has repeatedly been contaminated by nearby conventional and GMO farms since the couple started it in the 1990s. A local pesticide cooperative known as Paynesville Farmers Union (PFU), which is near the farm, has been cited at least four times for violating pesticide laws, and inadvertently causing damage to the Johnson's farm. The first time it was realized that pesticides had drifted onto the Johnson's farm in 1998, PFU apologized, but did not agree to pay for damages. As anyone with an understanding of organic practices knows, even a small bit of contamination can result in having to plow under that season's crops, forget profits, and even lose the ability to grow organic crops in the same field for at least a couple years. The Johnson's let the first incident slide. But after the second, third, and fourth times, they decided that enough was enough. Following the second pesticide drift in 2002, the Johnson's filed a complaint with the Minnesota Agriculture Department, which eventually ruled that PFU had illegally sprayed chemicals on windy days, which led to contamination of the Johnson's organic crops. PFU settled with the Johnson's out of court, and the Johnson's agreed to sell their tainted products as non-organics for a lower price, and pull the fields from production for three years in order to bring them back up to organic standards. But PFU's inconsiderate spraying habits continued, with numerous additional incidents occurring in 2005, 2007, and 2008, according to the Star Tribune. After enduring much hardship, the Johnson's finally ended up suing PFU in 2009 for negligence and trespass, only to receive denial from the district court that received the case. But after appealing, the Johnson's received favor from the Appeals Court, which ruled that particulate matter, including pesticides, herbicides, and even GM particulates, that contaminates nearby fields is, in fact, considered illegal trespass and is subject to the same laws concerning other forms of trespass. In a similar case, a California-based organic farm recently won a $1 million lawsuit filed against a conventional farm whose pesticides spread through fog from several miles away, and contaminated its fields. Jacobs Farm / Del Cobo's entire season's herb crop had to be discarded as a result, and the court that presided over the case acknowledged and agreed that the polluters must be held responsible. 12

13 The stunning victories of both the Johnson's and Jacob's Farm / Del Cobo against their chemicalpolluting neighbors is huge, in that it represents a new set legal precedent for holding conventional, factory farming operations responsible for the damage their systems cause to other farms. Monsanto Buys Beeologics From Monsanto s Web Page Monsanto Company (NYSE: MON) announced it has acquired Beeologics, which researches and develops biological tools to provide targeted control of pests and diseases. Terms of the deal were not disclosed. Beeologics is focused on biological research. Current projects in its pipeline including a product candidate being developed to help protect bee health use a naturallyoccurring process to provide targeted pest and disease control. The expertise Beeologics has developed will enable Monsanto to further explore the use of biologicals broadly in agriculture. Monsanto will use the base technology from Beeologics as a part of its continuing discovery and development pipeline. Biological products will continue to play an increasingly important role in supporting the sustainability of many agricultural systems. Both companies expect that their combined research could provide farmers with novel approaches to the challenges they face. Monsanto, which has proven expertise in managing a technology pipeline, will support the Beeologics team and its Technology Advisory Board in advancing its pipeline. Beeologics' work to promote bee health will continue under Monsanto's ownership. From the Beeologics web page The challenges of bringing new veterinary therapeutic drugs to market are significant and require careful planning around research, development, testing, manufacturing and regulatory processes. Understanding the mechanisms of the interaction between viruses and honey bees has given Beeologics scientists the insight to create a roadmap for developing a rationally designed formulation that will prevent viral infection. Beeologics' product development philosophy is based on a balance between meeting the immediate needs of the beekeeping industry, the time it takes to develop appropriate products and the availability of technology. True to our mission, the Beeologics team committed its efforts to what we strongly believe will make the most significant impact on bee health within the most reasonable time frame. Remembee our first line of defense product, was chosen to be first to market in a line of RNAi based products that are designed to protect bees from infectious diseases and parasites. Remebee is Beeologics' first breakthrough development in preventing Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus (IAPV) infection, reducing the impact of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) caused by bee viruses, and strengthening honey bee colonies for highly effective crop pollination. Beeologics has filed for patent protection (patent pending) for the technology that covers the Remebee line of products to include not only protection from IAPV, but also protection against all other bee viruses and pathogens. 13

14 The next product, RemebeePro, will be released in the near future. The knowledge acquired in the process of developing Remebee will have an immediate accelerating impact on RemebeePro. Breakthrough in scale-up technologies completes the tool-kit that enables Beeologics to make the Remebee line of products available and affordable to the beekeeper community. Management Calendar: September November Even though the change in the weather has brought visions of cozy sweaters, Autumn leaves, and toasty fires, we cannot forget there are still duties to be performed in the beeyard. Right now, today, you need to check the status of your colonies. Not tomorrow, not after breakfast, but today. Colonies can be on the brink of starvation and/or being run over by parasites. I imagine I sound like a broken record, especially this time of year, but starvation is the easiest thing to avoid. However, no matter how many times it may be said, some beekeepers do not pay attention to their bees needs (or knees) and end up with an empty box next spring. During a hive inspection there are several things you need to pay close attention to. Let s start with food supplies. How many frames/supers of honey do they have? Is it capped? How many frames of bees? If you have a fully capped, deep super on a brood chamber with 10 frames of bees, they should be in good shape. However, if you have a shallow super only half full on a brood chamber full of bees, they will be dead by Christmas, if not before. If the latter is the case you need to start feeding a 2:1 sugar syrup solution now. We figured about 5 gallons of 2:1 sugar syrup will equate to a medium, capped super, which is the minimum required for an average colony to survive the winter in our neck of the woods. There must be 50 ways to feed. My preferred method is inverting two, ½ gallon or 5 pound honey jars with perforated lids, per 10 frame colony in need. However, make sure the colony is strong enough to take it sooner than later since the syrup will mold eventually. This equates to one gallon of syrup per feeding. For a 5-frame nuc, use one jar at a time. Another thing to consider this time of year is robbing from nearby colonies. Entrance feeders are not a good idea. If you plan to use hive top feeders, make sure they do not leak and do not spill any syrup on the outside of the colony while filling them. This will attract robbers as well. Goldenrod is starting to bloom here in the Piedmont region of Georgia, which will hopefully supply the pollen needed to carry the bees through till next spring. However, rarely does 14

15 goldenrod produce enough nectar in our area for the colonies to store. This is the last hurrah before the land becomes void of food. While inspecting the colony another item to check on is the presence of a well-mated, productive queen. A failing queen this time of year means sure disaster for the colony during the winter. If the queen is sub-par, you may still be able to order one from a commercial operation. Queens can be difficult to find this late in the season, so if you don t have any luck, pinch the bad queen and combine the colony with another, preferably one that may need a boost in population. No sense letting the colony dwindle down and die overwinter. Finally, check those mite populations. For those of you that have never done this before, go to our website and click on Varroa mites under the honey bee disorder section. There is information on how to insert a sticky screen and check mite populations. If mite loads have exceeded the economic threshold, you need to bring those levels down. Winter bees are being reared this time of year, which are essential for the colonies survival. So what are winter bees? The average lifespan of honey bees varies considerably based on the season when they emerge. These variations have been designated into two groups of bees dubbed summer bees and winter bees. Summer bees live approximately one month, while winter bees can live anywhere from six to eight months. Winter bees emerge during August or September, depending on location, and differ from summer bees by several physiological characteristics. Scientists have determined that the lifespan of honey bees can largely be determined by the amount of protein stored in the fat body, hemolymph, and hypopharyngeal glands. The most notable and scientifically relevant type of protein is the highdensity glycolipoprotein vitellogenin. It is loosely described as a female-specific, hemolymph storage protein, or more specifically, an egg yolk protein precursor. However, since worker bees rarely lay eggs, this protein is stored in fat bodies for future use. The relevance of this specific protein is largely based on its abundance in honey bee hemolymph as well as its high zinc concentration which regulates many functions within the honey bee. Now, getting back to the importance of reducing mite populations. Higher mite populations at the end of summer or early fall coincide with the production of these winter bees. Research has shown that mite infestation during the pupal stage has a negative impact on the bees because they are unable to accumulate the necessary hemolymph proteins, including vitellogenin, to the same extent as in non-infested bees, thus reducing their ability to overwinter. In order for the colony to have a chance of overwintering successfully it is imperative to reduce mite levels before the production of these winter bees. And to step back even further, the bees rearing the winter bees need the proper nutrition and development as well. They must be healthy enough to rear the winter bees, and the bees rearing those bees need to be healthy, and so on. 15

16 If the mite levels are low, then there is no need to treat. However, if they are above the economic threshold of 60 mites per 24 hours, then action must be taken. There are numerous products on the market for Varroa mite control. We recommend two active ingredients for treatment: formic acid or thymol. Formic acid is packaged as Mite Away Quick Strips and thymol as Api Life VAR or Apiguard. The only issue with these products is when to apply. Formic acid, especially, is temperature sensitive and can do significant damage to your bees if applied during hot days. Follow all manufacturers instructions to the tee when using either of these products. One more thing, as winter approaches mice are on the prowl looking for that perfect place to call home. To keep out these unwanted intruders, place entrance reducers or mouse guards at the entrance of the colony. Guards are usually made of metal hence the mice can t chew through them. They also provide some protection against the bitterly cold, winter winds. With the right strategies now your colonies should be robust and ready for the nectar flow of

17 How to Get Georgia Bee Letter GBL can be received electronically by ing your request to Jennifer Berry at Regular Meetings Bartow Beekeepers Association 7:00 pm, second Tuesday Agriculture Services Building, Chattahoochee Valley Beekeepers Association Cherokee Beekeepers Club 7:00 pm bimonthly, second Monday Cartersville Oxbow Meadows Nature Center, Columbus 7:00 pm third Thursday Lincolnton Club House, Lincolnton Coastal Empire Beekeepers Association 6:30 pm second Monday Southbridge Tennis Complex, Savannah Coweta Beekeepers Association 7:00 pm second Monday Asa Powell Sr. Expo Center, Newnan, Georgia East Central Georgia Bee Club 7:00 pm fourth Monday, (bimonthly) Burke Co. Office Park Complex Eastern Piedmont Beekeepers 7:00 pm first Monday UGA Bee Lab, 1221 Hog Mtn Rd, Association Watkinsville Forsyth Beekeepers Club 6:30 pm fourth Thursday Forsyth County Main Library, Cumming Henry County Beekeepers 7:00 pm second Tuesday Public Safety Bldg., Route 155, McDonough Heart of Georgia Beekeepers 7:00 pm third Tuesday Houston Co. Gov t Building, Perry Association Metro Atlanta Beekeepers Association 7:00 pm second Wednesday Atlanta Botanical Garden, Atlanta Mountain Beekeepers Association 7:00 pm first Tuesday Mountain Regional Library, Young Harris Northeast Mountain Beekeepers 7:00 pm second Thursday Northeast Georgia Regional Association Northwest Georgia Beekeepers Association Oglethorpe County Bee Club Southeast Georgia Beekeepers Association Southwest Georgia Beekeepers Association Tara Beekeepers Assn (Clayton Co. area) 7:00 pm second Monday, Jan - June & Sept Troup County Association of Beekeepers 7:00 pm, third Monday Library, Clarksville Walker County Agric. Center, Rock Spring 7:00 pm, third Monday Oglethorpe Farm Bureau Building 7:00 pm fourth Tuesday, Aug- Contact Ben Bruce March :30 pm last Tuesday, even Swords Apiaries, Moultrie months 7:30 pm third Monday Kiwanis Room, Georgia Power Bldg, Forest Park Beekeeping Subscriptions American Bee Journal, Hamilton, Illinois, Bee Culture, 623 W. Liberty Street, Medina Ohio, The Speedy Bee, P.O. Box 998 Jesup, Georgia Resource People for Georgia Beekeeping For a complete listing of resource people and associations please go to 4-H Ag. Bldg. on Hwy 27 at Vulcan Rd. 17