BAL ARISI KOLONİLERİNDE (APİS MELLİFERA L.) SODYUM HUMAT KATKILI BESLEMENİN PERFORMANS ÜZERİNE ETKİLERİ

Abstract

Bitkisel ve hayvansal üretimde, humik maddelerin çözünür formları olan sodyum veya potasyum bileşikleri kullanılır. Hayvansal üretimde hayvanlar için önemli olan sodyum içeriği nedeniyle sodyum humatlar kullanılmaktadır. Bu çalışma, şeker şurubuna eklenen sodyum humatın ergin bal arılarının gelişimi, kuluçka üretimi ve bal verimindeki etkilerini araştırmak amacıyla yapılmıştır. Deney kolonileri rastgele seçilmiş ve her grupta 6 tekerürlü koloni ile 5 çalışma grubu oluşturulmuştur. Çalışmada 1 litre 1: 1 oranında sükroz şurubuna 4 farklı doz sodyum humat (5 cc, 10 cc, 20 cc, 50 cc / L ve kontrol 0 cc / L) ilave edilerek deney kolonilerine verilmiştir. En yüksek kuluçka üretimi 10 cc'lik dozda elde edilmiştir. Ayrıca yüksek doz (50 cc) kuluçka üretimini olumsuz etkilemiştir. Ortalama bal verimi 5 cc, 10 cc, 20 cc, 50 cc ve kontrol grupları için sırasıyla 19.15 ± 1.48, 26.35 ± 1,83, 22.50 ± 1.86, 8.75 ± 1.29 ve 18.50 ± 1.57 kg / koloni olarak belirlendi. En yüksek bal verimi 10 cc grubundan elde edildi. Bu grup için bal verimi, kontrol grubuna göre % 29.79 daha yüksekti.

Keywords

• Bal Arısı
• Bal Verimi
• Kuluçka Alanı
• Koloni Gelişimi
• Sodyum Humat

THE EFFECTS OF SUPPLEMENTAL FEEDING WITH SODIUM HUMATE ON THE PERFORMANCE OF HONEY BEE COLONIES (Apis Mellifera L.)

Abstract

In plant and animal production, sodium or potassium compounds which are soluble forms of humic substances are used. Sodium humates are used because of the sodium content which is important for animals in animal production. This study was carried out to investigate the effects of sodium humate added to sugar syrup in the development of adult honey bees, brood production and honey yield. Experimental colonies were randomly selected, and 5 study groups were formed with 6 colonies in each group. In the study, 4 different doses of sodium humate (5 cc, 10 cc, 20 cc, 50 cc/L and control 0 cc/L) were added to 1 liter 1:1 ratio of sucrose syrup and given to the experimental colonies. The highest brood production was obtained at a dose of 10 cc. In addition to, high dose (50 cc) negatively affected brood production. The average honey yield for the 5 cc, 10 cc, 20 cc, 50 cc and control groups was determined as 19.15±1.48, 26.35±1,83, 22.50±1.86, 8.75±1.29 and, 18.50±1.57 kg/colony, respectively. The highest honey yield was obtained from the group of 10 cc. For this group, the honey yield was 29.79 % higher than the control group.

Keywords

• Brood area
• colony development
• honey bee
• honey yield
• sodium humate

References

1. Akyol, E., Ünalan, A., Yeninar, H., Özkök, D., Öztürk, C. (2014). Comparison of colony performances of Anatolian, Caucasian and Carniolan honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) genotypes in temperate climate conditions. Ital J Anim Sci 13(3): 637-640. DOI: 10.4081/ijas.2014.3409.
2. Akyol, E., Yeninar, H., Sahinler, N., Guler, A. (2006). The effects of additive feeding and feed additives before wintering on honey bee colony performances, wintering abilities and survival rates at the East Mediterranean region. Pak J Biol Sci. 9(4): 589-592. DOI: 10.3923/pjbs.2006.589.592.
3. Arslan, S. (2003). Çukurova Koşullarında Doğal Olarak çiftleştirilen Farklı Genotipli Ana Arılar (Apis mellifera L.) İle Oluşturulan Kolonilerin Tokat İli ve Çevresindeki Performanslarının Belirlenmesi. Doktora Tezi, Gazi Osman Paşa Universitesi. Fen Bilimleri Estitüsü, Türkiye.
4. Bonoan, R.E., O'Connor, L.D., Starks, P.T. (2018). Seasonality of honey bee (Apis mellifera) micronutrient supplementation and environmental limitation. J Insect Physiol. 107: 23-28. DOI: 10.1016/j.jinsphys.2018.02.002.
5. Cengiz, M.M., Erdoğan, Y. (2017). Comparison of wintering ability and colony performances of different honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) genotypes in Eastern Anatolian/Turkey conditions. Kafkas Univ Vet Fak Derg. 23(6): 865-870. DOI: 10.9775/kvfd.2017.17667.
6. Cengiz, M.M., Dülger, C. (2018). Determining the some physiological characteristic of honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) colonies established by controlled reared queens in migratory and stationary beekeeping conditions. Atatürk Üniversitesi Vet Bil Derg. 13(1): 19-27. DOI: 10.17094/ataunivbd.309110.
7. De Melo, B.A.G., Motta, F.L., Santana, M.H.A. (2016). Humic acids: Structural properties and multiple functionalities for novel technological developments. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 62: 967-974. DOI: 10.1016/j.msec.2015.12.001.
8. Dodologlu, A., Dülger, C., Genc, F. (2004). Colony condition and bee behaviour in honey bees (Apis mellifera) housed in wooden or polystyrene hives and fed ‘bee cake’or syrup. Journal of Apicultural Research. 43(1): 3-8. DOI: 10.1080/00218839.2004.11101100.

9. Ergün, G., Aktaş, S. (2009). Comparisons of Sum of Squares Methods in ANOVA Models. Kafkas Univ Vet Fak Derg. 15(3): 481-484. DOI: 10.9775/kvfd.2009.055-A.
10. Genç, F., Dülger, C., Dodoloğlu, A., Kutluca, S. (1999). Comparision of Some Physiological Characters of Caucasian, Central Anatolian and Erzurum Honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) Genotypes in the Conditions of Erzurum. Turk J Vet Anim Sci. 23(Ek4): 645-650.
11. Genç, F., Dodoloğlu, A. (2017). Arıcılığın Temel İlkeleri. Atatürk Üniversitesi, Ziraat Fakültesi, Yayın No: 341. Atatürk Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Ofset Tesisi, Erzurum, Türkiye, s. 467.
12. Güler, A., Kaftanoğlu, O. (1999). Türkiye’deki önemli balarısı (Apis mellifera L.) ırk ve ekotiplerinin göçer arıcılık koşullarında performanslarının karşılaştırılması. Turk J Vet Anim Sci. 23(Ek4): 577-581.
13. Güler, A. (2000). The Effects of Cake and Saccharose Syrup Feeding on The Performances of Honey Bee (Apis Mellifera L.) Colonies. Hayvansal Üretim. 41: 65-75.
14. Higes, M., Gómez-Moracho, T., Rodriguez-García, C., Botias, C., Martín-Hernández, R. (2014). Preliminary effect of an experimental treatment with “Nozevit®”, (a phyto-pharmacological preparation) for Nosema ceranae control. Journal of Apicultural Research. 53(4): 472-474. DOİ: 10.3896/IBRA.1.53.4.03
15. Islam, K.M.S., Schuhmacher, A., Gropp, J.M. (2005). Humic acid substances in animal agriculture. Pak J Nutr 4(3): 126-134.
16. Karacaoğlu, M., Gençer, H.V., Koç, A.U. (2003). Effects of Supplemental Feeding on Brood Production and Honey Yield of Honey Bee (Apis mellifera L.) Colonies in the Conditions of Aegean Region. Hayvansal Üretim. 44: 47-54.
17. Kumova, U. (2000). Feeding Effection on Colony Development and Honey Production of Honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) Colonies. Hayvansal Üretim. 41: 55-64.
18. Kutluca, S. (2003). Propolis Üretim Yöntemlerinin Koloni Performansı ve Propolisin Kimyasal Özellikleri Üzerine Etkileri. Doktora Tezi, Atatürk Universitesi. Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Türkiye.
19. Mendeş, M., Akkartal, E. (2010). Comparison of ANOVA F and WELCH tests with their respective permutation versions in terms of type 1 error rates and test power. Kafkas Univ Vet Fak Derg. 16(5): 711-716. DOI: 10.9775/kvfd.2009.1507.
20. Mortensen, A.N., Jack, C.J., Bustamante, T.A., Schmehl, D.R., Ellis, J.D. (2018). Effects of Supplemental Pollen Feeding on Honey Bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) Colony Strength and Nosema spp. Infection. J Econ Entomol. 112(1): 60-66. DOİ: 10.1093/jee/toy341.
21. Moudgil, P., Bedi, J.S., Moudgil, A.D., Gill, J.P.S., Aulakh, R.S. (2018). Emerging issue of antibiotic resistance from food producing animals in India: Perspective and legal framework. Food Reviews International. 34(5): 447-462. DOİ: 10.1080/87559129.2017.1326934.
22. Sanmiguel, P., Rondón, B. (2016). Supplementation with humic substances affects the innate immunity in layer hens in posfasting phase. Rev MVZ Córdoba. 21(1): 5198-5210.
23. Silva, L.R., Sousa, A., Taveira, M. (2017). Characterization of Portuguese honey from Castelo Branco region according to their pollen spectrum, physicochemical characteristics and mineral contents. J Food Sci Technol. 54(8): 2551-2561. DOİ: 10.1007/s13197-017-2700-y.
24. Suwannapong, G., Maksong, S., Phainchajoen, M., Benbow, M.E., Mayack, C. (2018). Survival and health improvement of Nosema infected Apis florea (Hymenoptera: Apidae) bees after treatment with propolis extract. Journal of Asia Pacific Entomology 21(2): 437-444. DOİ: 10.1016/j.aspen.2018.02.006.
25. Şahinler, N., Kaya, Ş. (2001). The Effects of Supplementary Feeding on Honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) in Çukurova Region. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi. 6: 83-92.
26. Tunç, M.A., Yörük, M.A. (2017). Effects of Humate and Probiotic on he Number of Escherichia coli, Blood and Antioxidant Parameters in Suckling Period of Calves. Asian J Anim Vet Adv. 12: 169-176. DOI: 10.3923/ajava.2017.169.176.
27. Van Rensburg, C.E.J. (2015). The antiinflammatory properties of humic substances: A mini review. Phytother Res. 29(6): 791-795. DOI: 10.1002/ptr.5319
28. Yeninar, H., Akyol, E., Sahinler, N. (2009). Determiming the performances of honeybees, pure bred Caucasian, Anatolian and their reciprocal crosses under nomad beekeeping conditions. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances. 8(5): 995-999.
29. Yücel, B., Kösoğlu, M. (2011). Comparisons of Mugla Ecotype and Italian Cross Honey Bees for Some Performances in Aegean Region (Turkey). Kafkas Univ Vet Fak Derg. 17(6): 1025-1029. DOI: 10.9775/kvfd.2011.5092