Beekeepers are receiving SARE grants

NESARE farmer grants: Erin MacGregor-Forbes video

Here is a video of  Maine State Beekeepers Association President Erin MacGregor-Forbes discussing her Beekeeper SARE grant project.  She presents  the results of  overwintering package bees re-queened with Northern raised Vermont bees vs. package bees using a package queen vs. northern raised nuc colonies.

Here is an article which describes the Beekeeper SARE grant Ryan Higgs received  (Blue Ridge Apiaries, Hudson, NC) to evaluate Minnesota Hygienic, New World Carniolan and Russian honeybee stocks. The study is designed to help Southeastern beekeepers make better informed honeybee stock decisions.

 

Posted in Honeybee Researchers | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Better Bee Genetics with Local Honey Bee Queens

Guest Post - Len Klinker:  Past President, Central Jersey Beekeepers Association

Len and Cheri Klinker

Before I give a few thoughts on long-term solutions for honeybee problems in NJ, I’d like to introduce myself.  I am Len Klinker and have been a backyard beekeeper since 1997.  I don’t have any degrees in Entomology, formal training, or professional experience with Honeybees. However, I have read a considerable amount and I think that I have been quite successful with beekeeping over the years.

My hives usually average about 100 pounds of honey and since 1997 I have only lost a few hives in the winter.  Most of those were lost when I tried Russian bees with no traditional mite treatments.  Most years I don’t lose any hives. I am a very hands-on Beekeeper and currently I use mite trapping in drone comb.  I use Api-guard as a late summer treatment. I personally let most of my hives re-queen themselves and buy a queen if I want to inject new genetics or I have an emergency situation.  I usually do this in the summer when I know that locally produced queens are available and well mated.

At the present time and for the foreseeable future, I think we have two major problems to deal with in New Jersey. The first is Varroa mites that have been plaguing us since the middle 80′s.  Along with the Varroa mite comes a host of diseases and viruses. The second problem is the advent of African genetics and the increasing probability these genetics will find their way to New Jersey.  This is likely to occur because Africanized honeybees are now in Georgia where many of us have traditionally purchased bees and queens.

In New Jersey, the majority of bees and queens are purchased in early Spring.  This is a problem for a beekeeper who needs to restart a hive since local bees and local queens are not available until early May in New Jersey.  So, where does a NJ beekeeper get bees?  Georgia is often the source.  Africanized bees have now moved into Georgia and I think that we might start to see problems with open-mated queens from Georgia sooner rather than later.

I think we can all agree that we need to limit the amount of Africanized genetics we import as much as possible.  I know that I and many of my fellow beekeepers would not keep bees here if they were to turn ‘nasty’ because we have neighbors close by and the potential liability would become too great.  Besides, who wants to keep nasty bees?

What can be done to remedy that situation?  Over-wintered nucleus hives is the only solution I have heard about.  I know Ed and Mary Kosenski  have been overwintering nucleus hives and have basically worked out the kinks. The general idea is to do hive splits in July.  Along with this, you introduce a queen with desirable genetics.  I would suggest a queen that has been selected for mite and disease resistance.  Some research has also suggested that queens selected and bred locally for performance and overwintering are advantageous.  Build this hive up for the rest of the summer and you have a strong new queen that overwinters well, that will resist swarming the following spring, and will likely produce a good honey crop. The nucleus hive can then be used next spring to replace a dead-out or be combined with a weak or queenless colony.

If you use a mite and disease resistant queen, you will help with the long-term goal of building-up good genetics in New Jersey. Most of the genetics we need are recessive. That means that they have to come both from the queen and the drones to be effective.  So, for us to be successful on this front, a majority of beekeepers need to get on board. Otherwise, your homegrown queen will mate with the boy next door with no genetic resistance and resistance will not be observed in the resulting population.

And what about the issue concerning mites and diseases?  There are at least several lines of bees that are being selected for mite and disease resistance.  Three that come to mind are the Russian, Minnesota Hygienic, and the New World Carniolan lines.  Personally, I have always liked the New World Carniolan bees.  As far as I know, Ed and Mary are the only folks that produce New World Carniolan queens on the East coast of the US.   What about queens from Georgia?  I believe they are mass-produced from a few breeder queens and I don’t remember the producers ever suggesting that they are selecting for mite and disease resistance.  My opinion is they are selected for production and are not particularly good at overwintering in NJ. That is not a good path for long-term honeybee viability in NJ. One thing is clear to me. As long as we continue bringing in non-resistant queens that dilute the gene pool, we will not make any headway with our major problems.  A majority of beekeepers need to get on board to make a dent in this problem and move towards a long-term solution.

In summary, I think we need to inject good genetics into our New Jersey gene pool and stop diluting that same gene pool with non-resistant queens. We should start asking our queen producers what their selection criteria is and we should refuse to buy queens that are from non-resistant stock.  We should also stop buying queens from areas where Africanized bees are making in-roads.  And lastly, we should change the way we make up for hive losses or we will be fighting a losing battle that will eventually destroy backyard beekeeping in NJ.

Editor’s note: Additional NJ Local Queen Sources 

Charlie Toth -  (Carniolan) (732) 873-2989

Landi Simone – (Minnesota Hygienic)  (973) 263-0674

 

Posted in Breeding Honeybee Queens | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Apiary Record Keeping with FileMaker Pro

Database Relationships

We moved our Apiary field paper records to an iPad 2 FileMaker Go relational database in 2011. We decided to use a relational database record keeping system because of its capability to quickly sort and view many thousand pieces of data and its ability to display search results via formatted or on-the-spot reports.

We had experimented with Palm Pilot databases in early 2003 but found that sun glare and battery issues made these devices impractical. We began looking at FileMaker Pro 8 in 2005 and then upgraded to FileMaker Pro 9 in 2007; but we were just playing around. Then we got serious and upgraded to FileMaker Pro 10 in 2010 after the iPad introduction was announced. We completed all the flat file database work in 2010.

If we were going to use the iPad in our bee yards we needed to turn our flat file database into a relational database.  For the serious relational development work I needed an expert.  I went to the FileMaker Pro web site and searched for Certified FileMaker Pro Consultants. From the certified list we picked. Awaisi Inc. They did all the relational development work during the 2011 database transition. We worked very closely with them from May through November; we are very satisfied with their work.

The transition to the iPad and FileMaker Go was not easy.  We had to modify the FileMaker Go iPad layout as the beekeeping season progressed. We found the FileMaker Go layout had to be changed due to field conditions and user input. For instance we needed to simplify the screen layout by making input boxes and fonts larger, we needed to change the layout from landscape to portrait, and we needed to change the way Checkbox and Radio button choices were pre-populated.

Last year Mary made over 2,200 visits to our 120 hives. After each hive inspection, hive manipulation or hive measurement she recorded her notes on the iPad 2. When she completed the out yard inspection she used a cellular 3G network to transmit the new and updated records from the iPad 2 back to a FileMaker Pro database located in our Honey House. Finally we covered the iPad 2 with an Otter box defender 2 series case and an iPad screen protector to provide extra protection while in the field.

FileMaker Pro Layout- Mac Mini

FileMaker Go- iPad - top of layout

Queen Rearing Report sample

Yard Honey Report sample

Posted in Working with Honeybees | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Honey Bee Genetic Diversity and Breeding

This is a reminder that Dr. Deborah Delaney, Assistant Professor Entomoloy & Wildlife Ecology will be speaking at the  February 25, 2012 New Jersey Beekeepers Association Late Winter Meeting. Dr. Delaney will be discussing her research on Feral Honeybees and Honeybee nutrition. The meeting begins at 8:30 am at the Rutgers EcoComplex, 1200 Florence-Columbus Road, Bordentown, New Jersey.

The following excerpt from a recent American Bee Journal article references her research.

 

….The original distribution of the honey bee included Europe, Africa and parts of Asia where as many as 28 distinct “subspecies” or geographic races are known to occur. Records indicate that, with the assistance of sailing ships, North American beekeepers established a population of one of these subspecies (A. mellifera mellifera) in Virginia by 1622. The subsequent history of beekeepers-assisted honey bee transport to North America is a fascinating topic in its own right, with most additional introductions taking place between 1859 and 1922. By 1922, when further importations were restricted by the US Honey Bee Act, seven additional subspecies had been sampled and introduced to the US, including three that found eventual favor with US beekeepers: A. m.  ligustica (Italians), A.m. carnica (Caniolans) and A.m. caucasica (Caucasians) (Sheppard 1989a,b).

 As a by-product of these various introductions, a large population of feral honey bees became established in the US. Genetic studies demonstrated that this feral population contained genetic markers indicative of various honey bee subspecies that constituted historical founding populations (Schiff and Sheppard 1995, 1996), thus providing evidence that the feral population could serve as a genetic reserve for bee breeders. Unfortunately, the arrival and establishment of parasitic mites in the late 1980′s eliminated  much of the feral bee population and consequently, the potential source of usable germplasm for  breeding. There is a recent evidence that remnants of the US feral population may yet persist (Magnus and Szlansky 2005; Seeley 2007), which could restore the utility of this population to bee bredding. A further challenge to the maintenance of a broad genetic foundation for breeding results from current large-scale queen production practices, whereby each queen “mother” is typically used to produce more than a thousand daughter queens. Overall, it has been estimated that fewer than 500 queen mothers are used to produce around 900,00 daughter queens annually for commercial sale in the US (Delaney et al. 2009)………

Honey Bee Genetic Diversity and Breeding – Towards the Reintroduction of European Germplasm, by Walter S. Sheppard, American Bee Journal, Volume 152 No. 2 February 2012, pages 155- 156

Additional Links:

Managed Pollinator CAP

 

Posted in Honeybee Researchers, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment