Persian Gulf Crop Protection, 1(3): 7-11 7

Persian Gulf Crop Protection Available online on: www.cropprotection.ir

ISSN: 2251-9343 (Online) Volume 1 Issue 3, September 2012

Pages 7-11

Comparative Study of Conventional and Modified Type of Bee Hive

Khawer Jawad Ahmad1, Khalida Hamid Abbasi1*, Muhammad Shafiq1, Asif Razzaq1, Muhammad Saleem2 and Muhammad Arshad Ullah3

1-Beekeeping and Hill Fruit Pests Research Station Rawalpindi, Pakistan.

2-Entomological Research Institute, Jhang Road, Faisalabad, Pakistan. 3-National Agriculture Research Center, Islamabad, Pakistan, (*Corresponding Author e-mail:

Kha_Pakistan@yahoo.com).

Abstract: The experiment was conducted to determination the effect of two bee hives i. e. conventional and modified on their measure efficacy with reference to brood area. Mite infestation and honey yield at Bee keeping and Hill fruit pests research station Rawalpindi during 2008-2011. The average brood area was 156.022cm2 and 203.059cm2 for conventional and modified type bee hive respectively showed the highly significant difference (p>0.05) between two hives The average percentage mite infestation was 2.705% for conventional bee hive and 0.057 % for modified type showed again the significant difference (P>0.05) between the values. The average honey production was found 5.141 kg for conventional bee hive and 9.958 kg for modified type. In general, the production of honey is double in modified type than conventional type. Key Words: Hive type, Brood area, Mite infestation, Honey yield.

Persian Gulf Crop Protection, 1(3): 7-11 8

Introduction Apiculture is one of the most widespread agriculture activities that are practiced all over the world and has been identified as one of the several ways of achieving millennium development goals (WBR, 2006). It has potential to improve the living standards in the developing countries through improved food supply, intake and generation of productive employment. It entails the management and maintenance of colonies of honeybees for highly desirable products such as honey, comb/wax, pollen, propolis, bee venom and royal jelly (Mahindru, 2007). The main bee product, honey, varies significantly in value, fetching up to 1.70/kg on the international market. Other hive products command higher sums (Paterson, 2006). Beeswax, royal jelly, pollen and propolis are in growing demand for use in the food, pharmaceutical and cosmetic industries as well as in the fast-developing natural medicine sector (Mutsaers, 2005). In 2003, world honey exports totally 1.35 million t valued at US$ 452 million (350 million), according to FAO. But much of the global output - around 67% - is traded on domestic markets (L vants Leven et al., 2005). Bees are important pollination agents and thus aid crop production the pollination work of honeybees increases the yield as well as the quality of crops, fruit and vegetables especially the oil seed and fodder crops (Segren, 1997). Honeybees are responsible for 1/3 of the world food supply by pollination of more than 90 to 100 species of flowering plants. Worldwide economic value is 50 to 100 billion USD annually of food production (Ritter and Akratanakul, 1990). Honey bees are insects of the super family Apoidea in the order Hymenoptera).(Avatar, 1976,Parker, 1981) The most widely spread economic species of the honeybee is the Apis mellifera, which is native to Europe, middle east & Africa with about 25 distinctive races

(ERLS, 1995; Segeren, 1997). The basic principles of beekeeping are simulation of what is evident in the bee colony in the world (Karlsson, 1990) with the ultimate goal of sustaining the bee colony and easing harvesting process. However, the improved interest in beekeeping as a result of the growing demand for bee products and services made the few natural wild colonies inadequate. Hence, the advent of special artificial hollows in the form of beehives (Adejare, 1990) presently engaged in the world over. Beekeeping is a profitable business in Pakistan. About 7,000 beekeepers are now rearing exotic species, Apis mellifera in the modern beehives. There are about 300,000 colonies producing 7,500 metric ton honey annually. Congenial climatic conditions and bee flora in the country provide excellent opportunities for the expansion of beekeeping. Honeybee flora is present on vast areas in all the provinces including Northern areas, FATA and AJK and can support 1,000,000 honeybee colonies (Muhammad, 2006). Different types of bee hives are used world over but now-a- days two types of hives, Langstroth conventional bee hive with fixed bottom board and modified type with movable bottom board are commonly used. The Langstroth hive was invented in the 1860s by Rev. Lorenzo Langstroth. It has become the standard style of beehive and is used by 75% of the worlds apiarists. This type of bee hive has many styles and comes in different sizes and frame numbers. The Langstroth has enclosed frames that hold the honey combs in straight vertical rows. The bees build their combs along each frame. All frames are removable from the top, allowing for easy access to the honey, inspections of hives and making it easy to split the bee colony into two. These types of hives also use queen excluders between the brood-box and honey supers to keep the queen from laying eggs in cells next to those containing honey intended for

Persian Gulf Crop Protection, 1(3): 7-11 9

consumption (Parkman and Skinner, 2004). The modified form of bee hive has removed bottom board trays. These hives are constructed so that there is a bee space between the frames themselves and between the frames and the box holding them. With the recent appearance of mite pests infestation wooden hive floors are often replaced with a wire screen and a removable tray such types of constructions helpful for mite control and more broad area development. Having a screen floor on the hive stops the mites from climbing back up and allows the beekeeper to monitor infestation (Gregory, 2008). The study was carried out between two types of bee hives, conventional bee hive with fixed bottom board and modified bee hive with removable bottom board in order to check the efficacy of both types of bee hive with reference to mite infestation, brood area and honey production. Materials and Methods The experimental trial was conducted at research farm of Bee keeping and Hill Fruit Pests Research Station, Rawalpindi. Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with two treatments and 12 repeats was applied. Twenty four bee colonies having almost equal bee strength ,brood area and even age were selected at random and placed into twenty four bee hives in two treatments T1= 12 bee hives (simple langstroth with fixed bottom board) (1820 inch ), T2 = 12 bee hives (modified type with removable bottom board (1420 inches) during 2008-11. The data will be collected during November up to March on monthly basis. Effect of different bee hives will be recorded on the bases of brood area (egg, larvae, and pupae population), mite infestation and honey yield. In 1st group (T1) the brood area measured on monthly basis in (cm2), by putting the frames outside of the hives and measuring the brood area with the help of measuring tape. Mite infestation percentage is determine by collecting the material from bottom board and dipping them in formaline solution and counted the

numbers of mites settled down at the bottom on daily basis and the production of honey in kg is determined in this group as final produce extracted at the end of March during each year. In case of 2nd group T2 (Bee hive with movable bottom board) the brood area and the honey yield measured in the same manner however the mites infestation percentage is determine by removing the bottom board tray and collecting the no of mites on the white paper sheet placed on the bottom board tray on daily basis .The recorded data was examined for variance by STATISTIX version 8.1 and LSD at 5% level of confidence was used to relate the means of treatments. Results and Discussion The results showed that modified bee hive performance has significant (P>0.05) results over conventional bee hive. During the 1st year in case of T1the brood area increases from Nov. to march .the mite infestation low at November and high at March during 2008-11 .In case of T2 the brood area was 137 cm2 while in March it has been found 935 cm2 (7 times more). During initial months of observation the mite infestation was found nil while in March it has been observed at low level. Similarly the almost same results were obtained during the 2nd and 3rd years of study (Table 1). Analysis of variance for brood area indicated that (F=53.99, P>F=0.0000) was significantly different on both types of hives (Table 3).The mite infestation effects were found (F=204.73, P>F=0.0000), highly significantly different for conventional and modified type of bee hive (Table 3) and for honey production the values showed again highly significant difference (F=2224.53, P>F=0.0000) for two types of hives. Effect of two types of hives on average number of brood area, mite infestation and honey harvest is presented in (Table 2). Brood area was found 203.06 cm2 for modified bee hive have highly significantly different effect over brood area of conventional bee hive 156.02 cm2. In case

Persian Gulf Crop Protection, 1(3): 7-11 10

of mite infestation the average value for modified bee hive have been found 0.0575 cm2, while for conventional bee hive was 2.7050 cm2 again showed significant difference of both hives. For honey production the average value has been

found 9.9583 kg for modified bee hive is significantly higher than 5.1417 kg for conventional bee hive. LSD for each parameter showed the result that all two means are significantly different from one another.

Table 1. Comparative Performance of Apis mellifera.L from November up to March

Parameters Conventional Bee hives Modified German Beehives

Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Nov Dec Jan Feb March

Brood Area (cm2)

137 139 153 756 935 156 177 231 1296 2275

Mite infestation

Low Medi. Medi. High High Nil Nil Nil Low Low

Honey Production

(Kg) - - - - 06 - - - - 12

Table 2. Effect of conventional and modified type of bee hives on average numbers of brood area, mite infestation and honey production. Average of three years (2008-11)

Treatments

Brood Area cm2

Mite Infestation cm2 Honey Production kg

Conventional Bee Hives 156.02 B 2.7050 B

5.1417 A

Modified Bee Hives 203.06 A

0.0575A

9.9583 B

Different letters indicates significant difference among the means ( p>0.05 LSD =2.201 )

Table 3. Analysis of Variance for comparative study of conventional and modified type of bee hive Source D.F SS MS F P

Brood area 1 13276.6 13276.6 53.99 0.0000 Mite infestation 1 42.0555 42.0555 204.73 0.0000

Honeyproduction 1 139.202 139.202 2224.53 0.0000

The comparative studies with reference to honey yield showed that yield obtained double in case of T2 as compare to T1. The results are in accordance with those reported by (IFAD, 2009). According to that the production of honey in modern bee hives obtain 20 kg/season as compare to conventional bee hive 5 kg/season.

Conclusions Modified bee hive had significant effects on honey yield, brood development and minimal mite infestation than conventional bee hive. Therefore modified bee hive was recommended for beekeepers especially for honey production.

References [1] Adejare, S, O. 1989. Ghana: 10 years of

bee keeping development .Beekeeping

in Trop., Subtrop Countries, News l, 16: 12-3.

[2] Avtar, S. 1976. Essentials of Beekeeping and Pollination.

[3] Honeybees and their Relatives. Chapter 2. Kalyani Publishers, New Dehli, India, 238-275 pp.

[4] ERLS, 1995. Beekeeping Technologies for Nigerian farmers, p: 33. Extension

Persian Gulf Crop Protection, 1(3): 7-11 11

Bulletin. Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria.

[5] Gregory, P. 2008. Better Beekeeping in Top bar Hives (Web article). Bees for Development. Subtrop Countries, 17: 11-12 pp.

[6] IFAD. 2009. Beekeeping /Honey value chain .Financing study report. The Institute of the public and organizational Development (CODIT), Kenya.

[7] Karlsson, T. 1990. Practical beekeeping, News L. Beekeepers Trop. Sub Trop. Countries, 17: 11-12.

[8] L vant Leven et al . 2005. Beekeeping in the tropics. Agromisa /CTA, Agrodok 32, 86pp.

[9] Mahindru, S. N. 2007. Beekeeping. Nutritional value of Bee Honey. APH Publishing Corporation, India, 103 pp.

[10] Muhammad, A. 2006. FAQII. Honey production. Pakistan Agriculture Research Council. Mutsaers, M. 2005. Bee products. Agrodok 42.94 pp.

[11] Parker, S. 1981. Mc Graw Hill Concise Encyclopedia of Science and Technology 2nd ed, Mc Graw Hill Publication Company, 254-261 pp.

[12] Parkman, J. P. and Skinner, J. A. 2004. Bee Hives (Web Artical) Wikipedia, The free encyclopedia, Bee Source.com.

[13] Paterson, P. D. 2006. Beekeeping. CTA / Macmillan, 120 pp.

[14] Ritter, W. and Akratanakul, P. 2006. Honey bee diseases and pests; Apractical Guide. Agricultural and Food engineering technical report No 4. FAO, 42 pp.

[15] Segren, P. 1997. Beekeeping in the tropics. Agrodoc 32 Agromisa publication. The Netherland, 83pp.

[16] WBR, 2006. Global /world Income Per Capita. Web copyright retrieve from http://www. finfavts.le/biz 10/globalworld in comeper capita.