So far, the numbers don't add up.

I can’t imagine being a beekeeper whenVarroamites first landed on our shores and began their destructive march across the U.S. What a feeling of hopelessness it must have been knowing there was little to nothing you could do to protect your colonies from the onslaught that was about to occur. Aware of reports that mites were just a state or county away and within days or weeks your healthy colonies were about to encounter a pest they would have no defense against would have been maddening. These blood sucking ecto-parasites rampaged colonies from sea to shinning sea and by 1991, Kentucky, the last state thought to detect their presence, finally surrendered.

Within a year of Varroa’sarrival, Apistan^®, a fluvalinate based product, was quick to emerge as the cure-all against mites. In 1993 Miticur^®, an amitraz formulation became available on the market. However, shortly following its introduction came a lawsuit charging the product damaged numerous colonies in central Florida. Therefore, it was pulled from shelves disappearing almost as quickly as it appeared. This left only one registered chemical available to beekeepers. Hence, it was only a matter of time before the effectiveness of this chemical began to diminish. As reports of mite resistance became increasingly numerous, a coumaphos based chemical treatment arrived on the scene in the late 90s. At the time chemicals may have been necessary but we all knew this was not the long-term solution.

Since their arrival beekeepers have been experimenting with a variety of non-chemical or 'soft' methods for ridding colonies of mites and their destructive behavior. Garlic powder and tea tree oil, camphor and wintergreen tinctures, foggers and smokers stuffed with sumac, grapefruit leaves, mineral oil and tobacco were some of the ideas tested. Researchers across the country were also diligently exploring alternatives to chemicals using Integrated Pest Management strategies – resistant stock, drone trapping, powder sugar and bottom screens.

Several years ago a good friend, Bill Owens, and I were talking about never again dumping chemicals into our colonies. He informed me about something he had been reading on the internet, small cell foundation. He was so influenced by the success stories being told he started to regress his colonies down to the smaller 4.9 cell size. Providing nothing other than small cell combs, it became his only method forVarroacontrol. Over time as he watched his colonies thrive without chemical intervention he was convinced, small cell was the answer. So we decided to test this assumption here at the UGA bee lab. Over a three-year period we compared small cell to conventional cell comb to see if it impededVarroamite population growth in honey bee colonies. The following is a condensed version of our paper which has been submitted for publication inApidologie.

Mite reproduction is limited to the brood cells of its host bee, and it is clear in free-choice studies thatVarroapreferentially enter comparatively larger brood cells. When Message and Gonçalves (1995) compared brood reared in small worker cells produced by Africanized bees with brood reared in large cells produced by European bees, they found a two-fold increase in mite infestation rates in the larger cells. When Piccirillo and De Jong (2003) comparedVarroainfestation rates in three types of brood comb with different cell sizes (inner width), 4.84 mm, 5.16 mm, or 5.27 mm, they found that the percentage of cells infested was significantly higher in the largest cells compared to the other two groups.

These kinds of observations have led to an interest among beekeepers in downsizing comb foundations as a cultural control againstVarroa. In North America, the resulting 'small-cell' foundation measures 4.9 mm (Dadant & Sons, Hamilton, IL, USA) compared to that of conventional foundation measuring between 5.2 mm and 5.4 mm. These numbers are derived by measuring the width of 10 cells in a straight line, inclusive of wall widths. In this study we challenged a null hypothesis of no difference inVarroaand bee population metrics between bee colonies housed on combs of small-cell or conventional-cell foundation.

In three independent experimental replicates, we compared biometrics ofVarroamite and honey bee populations in bee colonies housed on one of two brood cell types: small-cell or conventional-cell. Small-cell foundation was drawn out by colonies containing honey bees which had themselves been reared in small-cell combs. Conventional foundation was similarly drawn out by colonies whose bees were derived from conventional combs. Once combs were drawn we determined realized cell width (walls inclusive) by counting the number of cells in 10 cm linear (n=60 samples each cell type). Cell width from small-cell combs was 4.9 ± 0.08 mm and from conventional- 5.3 ± 0.04 mm. Ten of the hives each contained 10 frames of drawn small-cell comb, and the other 10 contained drawn conventional-cell comb.

Bees were collected from a variety of existing colonies (irrespective of rearing history) and combined in large cages to achieve a homogeneous mixture of bees andVarroamites. Twenty screened packages were made up then transported to a test apiary in Oconee County, Georgia where each was used to stock one of 20 single-story deep Langstroth hives. One alcohol sample ofca300 bees was collected from each package to derive starting mite:adult bee ratios and, by extrapolation, beginning mite populations (colonies were broodless so all mites were phoretic on adults). Queens from a single commercial source were introduced into colonies. All colonies received sugar syrup and pollen patties. Colonies were removed from the experiment if they died or their queens failed.

We collected the following ending parameters: daily mite counts on bottom board sticky sheets (72-h exposure), average mites per adult bee recovered from alcohol samples (ca. 100-300 bees), mites per 100 cells of capped brood, and brood area (cm2). A measure of ending bee population was made by summing the proportions of whole deep frames covered by bees (after Skinneret al.,2001) then converting frames of adult bees to bee populations with the regression model of Burgett and Burikam (1985). Brood area (cm2) was converted to cells of brood after determining average cell density as 3.93 per cm2 for conventional-cells and 4.63 for small-cell. From cells of brood we calculated the number of cells sealed by applying the multiplier of 0.53 derived by Delaplane (1999). From mites on adult bees and mites in brood we could derive ending mite populations and percentage of mite population in brood – a positive indicator of the fecundity of a mite population (Harbo and Harris, 1999). Finally, for the Aug 2006 colonies we sampled adult bees in Oct 2006 for average body weight

Although a significant and favorable trend for small-cell colonies was indicated for ending bee populations the chief interest in small-cell technology resides in its potential as a non-chemical limiter ofVarroapopulation growth. By this criterion, the present results are not encouraging. The ending number of mites in brood, percentage of mite population in brood, and mites per 100 adult bees were significantly higher in small-cell colonies (Table 1). Moreover, with all remaining endingVarroapopulation metrics, mean trends were unfavorable for small cell as well (Table 1). We conclude that small-cell comb technology does not impedeVarroapopulation growth. This null conclusion is reinforced by the facts that: (1) the experiment was replicated independently three times with start dates varying between spring and fall and test periods ranging from 12-40 weeks, (2) there were no interactions between start date and treatment for endingVarroametrics, showing that responses were consistent across experiments, (3) the question ofVarroapopulation growth was examined holistically with six dependent variables, and finally (4) the bar for performance should be high before a candidate technology is recommended for field use. It is worth noting thatVarroadensities in this study (3.3 – 5.1 mites per 100 bees, Table 1) were not within the action threshold ofca. 13 mites per 100 bees shown for the region by Delaplane and Hood (1999).

Interest in small-cell foundation has been fueled in part by observations of Martin and Kryger (2002) that conditions which constrict the space between the host pupa and male protonymph mite promote male mite mortality. However, as these authors point out, 'reducing cell sizes as a mite control method will probably fail to be effective since the bees are likely to respond by rearing correspondingly smaller bees.' Our study supports this deduction directly, and its premise indirectly: average bee live weight in October was numerically smaller in small-cell colonies than conventional (Table 1).

Ours is not the only lab to examine small cell foundation as an IPM tool for managingVarroamites. This year the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer services published their small cell study inExperimental and Applied Acarology(2009) 47:311-316.

Other than a few differences in the methods and materials each study was fairly similar. First they had a one-year trial with 30 experimental colonies (15 small cell- 15 conventional cell). Second, all colonies were located in the same area however to discourage horizontal transmission of mites between groups, small cell and conventional cell colonies were in separate apiaries.

Variables measured were also the same with results again being very similar. To summarize their findings; cm² total of brood, total mites per colony, mites per brood cell and mites per adult bee had statistically similar averaged values with some of those values being identical in both of the treatment groups (small and conventional cell). Also, by the end of the study mite levels in both treatments had surpassed the economic threshold. Hence, they concluded that no evidence was found to support anecdotal claims that small cell foundation will reduceVarroa mites and without further data cannot recommend it as a method for controllingVarroa mites.

Last year researchers at the Ruakura Research Centre in Hamilton, New Zealand also examined the effects of worker brood cell size onVarroamite infestation and reproduction levels. The original research article has been published in theJournal of Apicultural ResearchandBee World47(4): 239-242 (2008). Their methods and materials were much different than the two studies previously mentioned.

Five different foundations with widths of 4.7, 4.8, 5.0, 5.1, and 5.4 mm were used. Six sheets of each foundation type were drawn out in honey supers I’m assuming to avoid brood being reared in the comb. Then 50 x 80 mm rectangular sections were cut out from each foundation type and randomly inserted into the center of newly drawn deep frames that measured 5.4 mm. The sections were held together in the deep frames with melted wax.

A total of ten nucleus colonies each were set up with two of the above mosaic frames, a frame of worker brood infested with Varroa, a frame of honey, adult bees infested with Varroa and a mated sister queen. Colonies were monitored to insure queens were laying well in each of the foundation sections.

For each of the foundation types between 234 and 440 evenly drawn cells were uncapped and the internal width of each cell measured for a grand total of 1636. Number of adult femaleVarroamites and femaleVarroadeutonymphs were recorded along with the age of the pupae (determined by eye color).

Mite infestation ranged from 28% to 47%. The 4.8mm foundation size had a significantly higher infestation (46.6%) of mites than the others with the 5.4mm coming in with the lowest infestation of 27.7%. In this particular mite choice study the mites preferred the smaller cells than the larger ones. They too concluded that small cell does not reduce infestation byVarroaand therefore offers no solution to the mite issues in New Zealand.

The trouble with experiments is that they have a knack for demolishing good ideas. Aristotle was full of good ideas. In fact, his ideas about the natural world were so reasonable that they held unquestioned authority for over a millenium until the so-called enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries engendered investigative methods that mitigate against bias and presupposition. From this point on, arm-chair science was doomed, and many a brilliant idea has since been ship-wrecked by the unforgiving objectivity of the scientific method.

See Ya!

Jennifer Berry is the Research Coordinator at the University of GA Bee Lab. Contact her at Jennifer@BeeCulture.com.

Return

National Honey Board

The November, 2011, Food Safety News story on honey may have led readers to believe that any honey without pollen is not real honey. This is not true. (Read the story at www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/11/tests-show-most-store-honey-isn’t-honey.)

According to the United States Standards, honey can be filtered to remove fine particles, pollen grains, air bubbles and other materials found suspended in the honey¹. In fact, the U.S. Department of Agriculture gives higher grades for honey that has good clarity. Importantly, honey that has been filtered to meet USDA’s grading standards may not have pollen, but it is still honey.

Honey is filtered by U.S. packers for various reasons:

1. Many consumers prefer honey that is liquid and stays liquid for a long time.

• All honey crystallizes eventually. Suspended particles and fine air bubbles in honey contribute to faster crystallization. Filtering helps delay crystallization, helping the honey to remain liquid for a much longer period than unfiltered honey.

2. Many consumers prefer honey to be clear and brilliantly transparent.

• The presence of fine, suspended material (pollen grains, wax, etc.) and air bubbles results in a cloudy appearance that can detract from the appearance. Filtering is done to give a clear brilliant product desired by consumers. For the filtered style of honey, USDA Grading Standards for Extracted Honey give higher grades for honey that has good clarity.

• Honey is filtered to remove extraneous solids that remain after the initial raw processing by the beekeeper.

In contrast to the filtration methods used to meet USDA grading standards, ultrafiltration is a more complex process that results in a sweetener product. The FDA says this product should not be labeled honey. The article (in Food Safety News) confuses filtration and ultrafiltration, applying FDA’s position on ultrafiltered honey to any honey without pollen. The fact is filtered honey may not have pollen, but it is still honey by national standards and is preferred by many consumers.

We are all concerned about illegal activities that negatively impact the honey industry, damage the image of honey, or cheat consumers. We support the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in its regulation of honey and oppose any practice that would jeopardize the quality, purity and image of honey.

However, the misunderstanding about ultrafiltration has misinformed consumers. Here’s what consumers need to know:

- Filtered honey is honey produced to meet national standards. Filtration removes floating particles, and sometimes pollen, and keeps the honey liquid longer and improves clarity.

- Ultrafiltration produces a sweetener that should not be called honey.

- Honey bees make honey from nectar, not pollen.

1For decades, many U.S. honey packers have been filtering raw honey prior to bottling in accordance with USDA’s United States Standards for Grades of Extracted Honey (May 23, 1985). According to section 52-1393 of the Standards , Filtered honey is honey of any type defined in these standards that has been filtered to the extent that all or most of the fine particles, pollen grains, air bubbles, or other materials normally found in suspension, have been removed. Section 52.1394 of the Standards also says that Pollen grains in suspension contribute to the lack of clarity in filtered style.

Return

Consejo de la miel nacional

El noviembre de 2011, la Noticia de la Seguridad alimentaria en la miel puede haber llevado a lectores a creer que cualquier miel sin el polen no es la verdadera miel. Esto no es verdad. (Lea la historia en www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/11/tests-show-most-store-honey-isn’t-honey. )

Según los Estándares de los Estados Unidos, la miel se puede filtrar para quitar partículas finas, granos del polen, burbujas de aire y otros materiales encontrados suspendidos en el ^honey1. De hecho, el Ministerio de Agricultura estadounidense da grados más altos para la miel que tiene la claridad buena. Importantemente, la miel que se ha filtrado para encontrar la clasificación del USDA de estándares puede no tener el polen, pero todavía es la miel.

La miel es filtrada por empaquetadores estadounidenses por varios motivos:

1. Muchos consumidores prefieren la miel que es el líquido y se queda el líquido mucho tiempo.

• Toda la miel se cristaliza finalmente. Las partículas suspendidas y las burbujas de aire finas en la miel contribuyen a la cristalización más rápida. La filtración ayuda a retrasar la cristalización, ayudando a la miel a permanecer el líquido durante un período mucho más largo que la miel no filtrada.

2. Muchos consumidores prefieren la miel estar clara y gloriosamente transparente.

• La presencia del material fino, suspendido (granos del polen, cera, etc.) y burbujas de aire causa un aspecto nublado que puede quitar mérito al aspecto. La filtración se hace para dar un producto brillante claro deseado por consumidores. Para el estilo filtrado de la miel, USDA la Clasificación de Estándares para la Miel Extraída da grados más altos para la miel que tiene la claridad buena.

• La miel se filtra para quitar sólidos extraños que permanecen después del procesamiento crudo inicial por el apicultor.

En contraste con los métodos de la filtración usados para encontrar USDA clasificación de estándares, la ultrafiltración es un proceso más complejo que causa un producto del dulcificante. El FDA dice que este producto no debería ser la miel marcada. El artículo (enNoticias de la Seguridad alimentaria) confunde la filtración y la ultrafiltración, aplicando la posición del FDA en la miel ultrafiltrada a cualquier miel sin el polen. El hecho es la miel filtrada puede no tener el polen, pero todavía es la miel en estándares nacionales y es preferido por muchos consumidores.

Todos nos preocupamos por actividades ilegales que negativamente afectan la industria de la miel, dañan la imagen de la miel o engañan a consumidores. Apoyamos la Administración de Alimentos y Fármacos estadounidense en su regulación de la miel y nos oponemos a cualquier práctica que pondría en peligro la calidad, pureza e imagen de la miel.

Sin embargo, el malentendido sobre la ultrafiltración ha informado mal a consumidores. Aquí está lo que los consumidores tienen que saber:

-La miel filtradaes la miel producida para encontrar estándares nacionales. La filtración quita partículas flotantes, y a veces polen, y guarda el líquido de la miel más largo y mejora la claridad.

-La ultrafiltraciónproduce un dulcificante que no se debería llamar la miel.

- Las abejas de la miel hacen la miel del néctar, no el polen.

1For décadas, muchos empaquetadores de la miel estadounidenses han estado filtrando la miel cruda antes del embotellamiento de acuerdo con los Estándares de los Estados Unidos del USDA para Grados de la Miel Extraída (el 23 de mayo de 1985). Según el artículo 52-1393 de los Estándares, la miel Filtrada es la miel de cualquier tipo definido en estos estándares que se ha filtrado hasta el punto de que todos o la mayor parte de las partículas finas, granos del polen, burbujas de aire, u otros materiales normalmente encontrados en la suspensión, se han quitado. El artículo 52.1394 de los Estándares también dice que los granos del Polen en la suspensión contribuyen a la carencia de la claridad en el estilo filtrado.

Devolver

First state to do so.

In April of this year, West Virginia became the first state in the nation to pass a law giving beekeepers immunity from civil liability for ordinary negligence. This law came about as a result of strong support by the leadership of both the House and Senate. We are fortunate to have a State Senate President, Earl Ray Tomblin, whose father is a beekeeper. Additionally, House Speaker Richard Thompson was raised by a grandfather who was a beekeeper. The bill passed the House 94-2 and the Senate 34-0. Finally, it helped that the honey bee is our state insect!

The law requires that beekeepers register their hives. It also mandated the WV Department of Agriculture to promulgate Best Management Practices [BMP] for beekeepers. After extensive review of the BMPs of many other states, the Department promulgated 14 rules that beekeepers must agree to comply with to receive immunity from civil suits. All beekeepers who abide by these provisions will have absolute civil immunity from ordinary negligence.

The rules themselves relate mainly to urban beekeeping and being a good neighbor. They require beekeepers to post a warning sign in every apiary and to limit the number of hives in any one location based on the size of the lot. This varies from no more than four hives on a half-acre lot, to no more than eight hives on a lot of more than an acre. If all the hives are at least 200 feet from all property lines, there is no limit on the number of hives at the apiary site.

Hive entrances must face away from neighboring property and the beekeeper must have a six foot barrier if the hives are within 50 feet of the property line.

An interesting rule requires the beekeeper to maintain a water source near the colonies at a distance less than the nearest unnatural water supply. This should help keep the bees out of the neighbor’s bird baths and swimming pools. The rules also prohibit locating a hive within 50 feel of where any animal is tethered or kenneled so they could not escape from stings. The last of the ‘good neighbor rules’ prohibits opening a hive when neighbors are present in the immediate vicinity.

WV beekeepers are strongly encouraged to avoid purchasing queens and bees form areas known to have Africanized honey bees [AHB]. They are also required to replace all queens which head colonies which exhibit such defensive behavior as may be injurious to the general public or domesticated animals.

Finally, beekeepers are urged to manage all their hives to prevent swarming.

The remaining rules all deal with special conditions such as requiring that bees used for public demonstrations, entertainment or educational purposes be enclosed so as to prevent release in public. Similarly, bees being transported need to be screened to prevent escape, and a caution sign posted at sights where bees are collected prior to shipping. All bees being transported must be secured and netted.

The last requirement is that all pesticides and control agents must be discarded properly following label directions.

The Department reserved the right to promulgate additional rules in the future if AHB became established in West Virginia, but these rules are something beekeepers can live with for now.

Because the legislation allowed the Department to issue emergency rules, they will remain in effect until the end of the next legislative session. During that session, the legislators can add or amend these rules. As you might expect, every beekeepers sees something in the rules that they would have written differently so the danger is that beekeepers will descend on the state capitol demanding their representatives to change this rule or that one to suit their operation. Fortunately, wiser heads are urging all beekeepers not to open Pandora’s Box and allow non-beekeeping delegates and senators to begin adding rules that they feel would better regulate bees in West Virginia. After all, the rules are completely voluntary so you can simply run your operation as you see fit, the same as you did before the law was passed. You will still be subject to civil suits, but the choice is yours.

The beneficial effects of the law have already been felt by some beekeepers. At our last club meeting, several beekeepers told me they contacted their insurance companies and received significant reductions in the insurance premiums on their beekeeping policies. Beekeepers have written to several other insurance companies as well as to our Insurance Commissioner asking them to give us rate reductions similar to what doctors received on malpractice policies when tort reform lowered their civil liability.

West Virginia beekeepers are pleased and proud to be in the first state in the nation to help shield beekeepers from lawsuits. They hope that many other states will follow our lead and protect their beekeepers. A copy of the law and the rules can be found at www.BeeCulture.com/contents/links.cfm.

Judge Dan O’Hanlon is an active member of the West Virginia Beekeepers Association and the Heartland Apicultural Society.

Return

En primer estado para hacerlo.

En abril de este año, West Virginia se convirtió en el primer estado en la nación en aprobar una ley que da inmunidad a los apicultores de la responsabilidad civil por negligencia ordinaria. Esta ley se produjo como resultado de un fuerte apoyo de los dirigentes de la Cámara y el Senado. Tenemos la suerte de tener un presidente del Senado estatal, Earl Ray Tomblin, cuyo padre es un apicultor. Además, la Cámara de Representantes Richard Thompson fue criado por un abuelo que era un apicultor. El proyecto de ley aprobado por la Cámara y el Senado 94-2 34-0. Por último, ayudó a que la abeja de la miel es nuestro insecto del estado!

La ley requiere que los apicultores registran sus colmenas. También encomendó al Departamento de Agricultura de Virginia Occidental a promulgar Mejores Prácticas de Gestión [BMP] para los apicultores. Después de una extensa revisión de la BMP de muchos otros estados, el Departamento promulgó 14 normas que los apicultores deben estar de acuerdo en cumplir para recibir la inmunidad de demandas civiles. Todos los apicultores que incumplan estas disposiciones tendrán inmunidad civil absoluta de negligencia ordinaria.

Las normas que ellos mismos se refieren principalmente a la apicultura urbana y ser un buen vecino. Requieren a los apicultores a colocar una señal de advertencia en cada apiario y limitar el número de colmenas en un lugar determinado en función del tamaño del lote. Esto varía de no más de cuatro colmenas en un terreno de medio acre, a no más de ocho colmenas en un terreno de más de un acre. Si todas las colmenas por lo menos 200 pies de distancia de las líneas de propiedad, no hay límite en el número de colmenas en el lugar apiario.

Entradas de la colmena deben enfrentar fuera de la propiedad vecina y el apicultor debe tener una barrera de dos metros si la urticaria es dentro de 50 pies de la línea de propiedad.

Una regla interesante requiere el apicultor para mantener una fuente de agua cerca de las colonias a una distancia menor que el suministro de agua no natural más cercano. Esto debería ayudar a mantener a las abejas de los baños de aves del vecino y piscinas. Las reglas también prohíben la localización de una colmena dentro de 50 sensación de que cualquier animal es atado o kenneled para que no pudieran escapar de las picaduras. La última de las "buenas reglas vecino prohíbe la apertura de una colmena cuando los vecinos se encuentran en las inmediaciones.

WV apicultores se les recomienda evitar la compra de reinas y abejas áreas de formulario se sabe que tienen las abejas de miel africanizadas [AHB]. También tienen la obligación de reemplazar todas las reinas que son cabeza de colonias que presentan este tipo de comportamiento de defensa que puedan ser perjudiciales para los animales domésticos o públicos generales.

Por último, se insta a los apicultores para gestionar todos sus colmenas para prevenir la enjambrazón.

El resto de normas de todo trato con condiciones especiales como la exigencia de que las abejas utilizan para manifestaciones públicas, el entretenimiento o con fines educativos estar encerrados con el fin de evitar la liberación en público. Del mismo modo, las abejas transportadas necesidad de ser controlados para evitar que escape, y una señal de precaución fijado en lugares donde las abejas se recogen antes del envío. Todas las abejas en transporte, deben estar bien sujetos y compensan.

El último requisito es que todos los pesticidas y agentes de control deben ser desechados adecuadamente siguiendo las instrucciones de la etiqueta.

El Departamento se reserva el derecho de dictar las normas adicionales en el futuro si AHB se estableció en Virginia Occidental, pero estas reglas son algo apicultores pueden vivir por ahora.

Debido a que la legislación permite que el Departamento de emitir normas de emergencia, se mantendrá en vigor hasta el final de la próxima sesión legislativa. Durante esa sesión, los legisladores pueden agregar o modificar las presentes bases. Como es de esperar, cada apicultores ve algo en las normas que habrían escrito de forma diferente por lo que el peligro es que los apicultores descenderán en la capital del estado exigiendo a sus representantes a cambiar esta regla, o que uno que se adapte a su operación. Afortunadamente, cabezas más sabias están instando a todos los apicultores de no abrir la caja de Pandora y permitir que los delegados no apicultura y senadores para empezar a añadir reglas que ellos sienten que regular mejor las abejas en West Virginia. Después de todo, las reglas son completamente voluntaria para que pueda simplemente ejecute su operación como mejor le parezca, lo mismo que usted hizo antes de que se aprobara la ley. Usted seguirá siendo objeto de demandas civiles, pero la elección es suya.

Los efectos beneficiosos de la ley ya se han dejado sentir por algunos apicultores. En nuestra última reunión del club, varios apicultores me dijeron que se comunicaron con sus compañías de seguros y recibieron importantes reducciones en las primas de seguros sobre sus políticas apícolas. Los apicultores han escrito a varias otras compañías de seguros, así como a nuestro Comisionado de Seguros para pedirles que nos dan reducciones en las tasas similares a lo que los médicos recibidos en las políticas de negligencia cuando la reforma de agravios bajó su responsabilidad civil.

Apicultores de Virginia Occidental están contentos y orgullosos de estar en el primer estado en la nación para ayudar a los apicultores de escudo contra demandas. Tienen la esperanza de que muchos otros estados sigan nuestro ejemplo y proteger sus apicultores. Una copia de la ley y las normas se puede encontrar en www.BeeCulture.com / contenido / links.cfm.

Juez Dan O'Hanlon es un miembro activo de la Asociación de Apicultores de West Virginia y la Sociedad Apícola Heartland.

Retorno