El Debate sobre legitimidad en el Sistema de Justicia y Paz

brood area, the more likely it will be consumed.

that will do this if one wants to produce large quantities, otherwise it may be a case of putting the dough in the middle of a table and rolling it out to the desired thickness.

A useful thickness is one that will fit under the queen excluder (around 10 mm). If the mixture or dough is more sloppy, then handfuls may be removed and placed between sheets of

greaseproof paper.

They can also be squashed to the desirable thickness.

Another method is to take a bucket of the dough to the apiary and

scoop the desired amount into each colony. If the bees don’t eat this sloppy dough it can present a major clean up problem for the beekeeper.

FEEDING / PLACEMENT OF SUPPLEMENT

The amount to be fed to each colony will largely be determined by the need for the supplement. Weaker nucleus colonies of three to four frames of bees may only need 100–200 grams every one or two weeks, whereas a strong colony covering 10 to 12 frames may consume 500 grams of supplement every one or two weeks. The consumption rate will be a function of the area of brood to be fed, which is influenced by the amount of nectar/sugar stimulus and the vigour of the queen. Far too often the amount of pollen supplement is restricted by the beekeeper which then leads to a

reduced area of brood. A rule of thumb should be that enough supplement is fed to a colony so that it doesn’t completely run out before the next visit by the beekeeper or a natural pollen source becomes available.

The placement of the supplement will have

a considerable bearing on the rate of

consumption. The closer to the brood area the supplement is, the greater the likelihood that it will be consumed.

There is an alternative view to the reasons why bees consume supplement placed directly above the brood, and that is it’s simply in the way. Even so, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that to gain the best acceptance of a supplement, it should be placed directly above the brood, below the queen excluder. This placement is probably more important when the colony is still collecting pollen, be it of a low quality. When a colony is more in need of a total pollen replacement due to no fresh pollen available in the field, then the bees are more likely to seek out pollen supplement wherever it is placed, inside or outside of the hive.

Normally, dry mixes are fed in bulk containers within the apiary and the field bees fly to collect it. Straight soy flour is normally provided by this method. While Open feeding pollen substitute in wheelie bin.

Photo: W Jones

Bulk feeding dry pollen supplement.

Photo: W Jones

reducing disturbance of the colonies and possibly minimising Nosema disease (Nosema apis), this method favours stronger colonies and is not satisfactory during wet and cold weather. This method is quick, simple and easily monitored, although unwanted attention from feral pigs, livestock, possums, mice, etc. can cause problems. Soy flour provided in this fashion also forms a crust on the surface after a period of days which can prevent the field bees accessing the flour.

Pests associated with feeding pollen supplements include waxmoth and the small hive beetle. Waxmoth is only a problem when the supplement is unattended by bees or the colony is extremely weak. Under these circumstances it is problematic if in fact a colony is strong enough to warrant the labour and time necessary to keep it alive.

The small hive beetle, a recent arrival in Australia, could pose a significant nuisance when feeding pollen supplements. In areas experiencing high humidities (70%

plus) and temperatures approximating

30°C, the beetle will thrive. Providing pollen supplements to weak hives may favour the beetle with a readily available food source. In these circumstances, supplementary feeding should be closely monitored and either the amount of supplement be reduced or the adult beetle population controlled.

HISTORY

Over the years there has been a range of pollen supplements manufactured for the Australian beekeeping industry by individuals and companies. The evidence of their success is patchy. The reasons for this are numerous, but probably include the lack of attractiveness of the product, the cost of the product, limited knowledge by beekeepers of where, when and how much to feed to each colony, plus the problem of the manufacturer obtaining fresh ingredients and ensuring ample fresh product was available when required.

Given that most of the ingredients have a limited shelf life, yet they have been sold without a use by date. Not all supplements would be used when purchased, probably being kept for 12 months or more. When this “old” supplement is fed to colonies it either produces disappointing results or has a toxic effect on the colony. Either way, this creates a poor image for supplementary feeding and, as such, the practise is often terminated.

Soy flour feeding in empty bee box.

Feeding soy flour — note mesh over drum.

Soy flour feeding on mugga ironbark flow.

One product worthy of mention was produced in SA. Krawaite was the name of a pollen supplement manufactured by Kraft in 1965–1966. It received widespread publicity and was available through Kraft divisions in WA, SA, VIC, NSW and QLD.

The supplement was packaged in half pound packs (226 gms), which were designed to be cut open and be placed above the brood combs under the queen excluder and honey super. If the colony required more than one pack at a time, then two or three packs could be placed in the same area of the hive, only opening one pack and letting the bees chew their way into the other packs.

There were a number of trials conducted with the supplement, one of note was for a whole year during 1965. Essentially five hives were the control (no supplement) and five hives were provided Krawaite on a regular basis throughout the year. The weight gain and brood area were measured every 21 days to determine the impact of the treatment. During this 12 month period various flowering and seasonal events occurred that influenced the results. The total honey yield (av./hive) for the treated hives was 759 lbs (344 kg), whereas for the hives not treated the annual yield average was 550 lbs (250 kg).

A substantial gain in yield and profitability was obtained in 1965. The calculated economic gain was based on the cost of Krawaite pollen supplement ($3.66/hive) versus the price for honey ($0.08/lb or 18c/kg). Unfortunately, there was no factoring in of the travel to and from the apiary and the labour to provide the supplement every three weeks throughout the year.

Brood rearing also declined in all colonies with and without the supplement in July and early August, this may have been due to winter conditions or Nosema. The results may have also been influenced by the race of bee heading each colony, which were Carniolan. Italian bees would have responded more rapidly to the changes in food supply.

Even though the literature and research published on Krawaite was all very positive, there were some expressions of concern that the supplement was not working in all circumstances. A letter to Keith Doull, a senior researcher at the Waite Agricultural Research Institute in SA from Alan Clemson, the chief apiary officer of the NSW Department of Agriculture, suggests that tests conducted in NSW provided unsatisfactory results.

The detail and nature of these tests are not available, which is often the fate of negative results. Even so, the product Krawaite eventually faded from use in the Australian beekeeping industry, probably due to a number of reasons that can only now be speculated.

The most important piece