STANJE PČELARSTVA U REPUBLICI HRVATSKOJ

In this paper analysis of beekeeping conditions, number and distribution of beekeepers and honeybee colonies, annual colony losses as well as honey production, export, import and consumption are given. Beekeeping in Croatia has a long tradition. In comparison to pasture potential and necessity for pollination of cultivated and wild plants, present beekeeping is inadequately developed and distributed in different regions. According to data of the Croatian Livestock Center (2008) there are 313 978 honeybee colonies registered in the 2007 in Croatia on professional and sideline apiaries. The majority of honeybee colonies is placed in Pannonian region with 238 300 (76%), second in representation is in Mediterranean region with 59 763 (19%) and less represented is in Mountain region with 15 915 (5%) honeybee colonies. Yearly honey production is approximately 5 000 t and 2 000 t of national honey consumption (0.4 kg per capita) gives possibility for honey export. Croatia exported 1 051 in 2003, but 274 t of honey in 2007, which indicates on significant export decreasing trend. Normal 10 % of winter colony losses till 2007 increased in 2007/2008 on 55 615 (41.71 %) in Pannonian region, 13 892 (37.46 %) in Mediterranean and 5 359 (32.71 %) in Mountain region. There is a need to make beekeeping much more flexible to fit into an integrated agricultural system, as well as more oriented to the consumers’ demands, to be able to increase competitiveness.U ovom je radu prikazana analiza stanja pčelarstva u Republici Hrvatskoj, broj i raspodjela pčelara i pčelinjih zajednica, godišnji gubitci pčelinjih zajednica, kao i analiza proizvodnje i potrošnje meda, te uvoza i izvoza meda. Pčelarstvo u Hrvatskoj ima dugu tradiciju. U odnosu na pašne potencijale i potrebu za oprašivanjem kultiviranog i samoniklog bilja, sadašnje je pčelarstvo nedekvatno razvijeno i raspodjeljeno u različitim regijama. Prema podatcima Hrvtaskog stočarskog centra (2008.), u Hrvatskoj je 2007. godine registrirano 313.978 pčelinjih zajednica [2]. Većina pčelinjih zajednica, odnosno 238.300 (76 %) smješteno je u panonskoj regiji. Druga po zastupljenosti je mediteranska regija sa 59.763 pčelinjih zajednica (19 %), a najmanji broj zajednica, odnosno 15.915 (5 %) nalazi se u gorskoj regiji. U Hrvatskoj se godišnje proizvede približno 5.000 tona meda [8], a potroši tek 2.000 t. Potrošnja meda u Hrvatskoj je vrlo niska, samo 0,4 kg po stanovniku godišnje. Takav omjer proizvodnje i potrošnje meda pruža mogućnost za izvoz. Hrvatska je u 2003. godini izvezla 1.051 t meda, a u 2007. godini 274 t, što ukazuje na značajan opadajući trend izvoza meda. Normalnih 10 % zimskih gubitaka pčelinjih zajednica u Hrvatskoj do 2007. godine, poraslo je u razdoblju 2007./2008. na 55.615 (41,71 %) u panonskoj regiji, 13.892 (37,46 %) u mediteranskoj i 5.359 (32,71 %) u gorskoj regiji. Pčelarstvo bi u Hrvatskoj trebalo biti fleksibilnije kako bi se uklopilo u integrirani poljiprivredni sektor, te usmjerenije zadovoljavanju potreba potrošača sa ciljem postizanja bolje konkurentnosti

THE ROLE OF GENE BANKS TO CONSERVE INDIGENOUS BREEDS OF FARM ANIMALS

Očuvanje genetskih resursa predstavlja odgovornost svakog naroda, stoga su mnoge zemlje prepoznale potrebu unaprijeđenja praćenja, očuvanja i dokumetniranja životinjskih genetskih resursa. Animalna proizvodnja je od vitalnog značaja za čovječanstvo i očuvanje genetske raznolikosti u populacijama životinja čime im se osigurava budućnost. Nužno je da svaka zemlja razvije najbolju pojedinačnu strategiju ili politiku očuvanja farmskih životinjskih genetskih resursa prije dizajniranja nacionalnog krioprezervacijskog programa. Osnivanje i integracija banke gena u uzgojne programe i programe očuvanja izvornih i zaštićenih pasmina od značaja je za održivost ukupnih genetskih resursa u HrvatskojConservation of genetic resources is the responsibility of each nation, so many countries have recognized the need to improve the monitoring, conservation and documentation of animal genetic resources. Animal production is of vital importance for humanity and the preservation of genetic diversity in populations of animals providing them with the future. It is necessary for each country to develop the best single strategy or policy of conservation of farm animal genetic resources before designing national cryo-preservation program. The establishment of gene banks and the integration into breeding programs and conservation of native and endangered breeds is important for the sustainability of the overall genetic resources in Croatia

THE ROLE OF GENE BANKS TO CONSERVE INDIGENOUS BREEDS OF FARM ANIMALS

Očuvanje genetskih resursa predstavlja odgovornost svakog naroda, stoga su mnoge zemlje prepoznale potrebu unaprijeđenja praćenja, očuvanja i dokumetniranja životinjskih genetskih resursa. Animalna proizvodnja je od vitalnog značaja za čovječanstvo i očuvanje genetske raznolikosti u populacijama životinja čime im se osigurava budućnost. Nužno je da svaka zemlja razvije najbolju pojedinačnu strategiju ili politiku očuvanja farmskih životinjskih genetskih resursa prije dizajniranja nacionalnog krioprezervacijskog programa. Osnivanje i integracija banke gena u uzgojne programe i programe očuvanja izvornih i zaštićenih pasmina od značaja je za održivost ukupnih genetskih resursa u HrvatskojConservation of genetic resources is the responsibility of each nation, so many countries have recognized the need to improve the monitoring, conservation and documentation of animal genetic resources. Animal production is of vital importance for humanity and the preservation of genetic diversity in populations of animals providing them with the future. It is necessary for each country to develop the best single strategy or policy of conservation of farm animal genetic resources before designing national cryo-preservation program. The establishment of gene banks and the integration into breeding programs and conservation of native and endangered breeds is important for the sustainability of the overall genetic resources in Croatia

Honey bee colony winter loss rates for 35 countries participating in the COLOSS survey for winter 2018–2019, and the effects of a new queen on the risk of colony winter loss

peer-reviewedThis article presents managed honey bee colony loss rates over winter 2018/19 resulting from using the standardised COLOSS questionnaire in 35 countries (31 in Europe). In total, 28,629 beekeepers supplying valid loss data wintered 738,233 colonies, and reported 29,912 (4.1%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.0–4.1%) colonies with unsolvable queen problems 79,146 (10.7%, 95% CI 10.5–10.9%) dead colonies after winter and 13,895 colonies (1.9%, 95% CI 1.8–2.0%) lost through natural disaster. This gave an overall colony winter loss rate of 16.7% (95% CI 16.4–16.9%), varying greatly between countries, from 5.8% to 32. 0%. We modelled the risk of loss as a dead/empty colony or from unresolvable queen problems and found that, overall, larger beekeeping operations with more than 150 colonies experienced significantly lower losses (p<0.001), consistent with earlier studies. Additionally, beekeepers included in this survey who did not migrate their colonies at least once in 2018 had significantly lower losses than those migrating (p<0.001). The percentage of new queens from 2018 in wintered colonies was also examined as a potential risk factor. The percentage of colonies going into winter with a new queen was estimated as 55.0% over all countries. Higher percentages of young queens corresponded to lower overall losses (excluding losses from natural disaster), but also lower losses from unresolvable queen problems, and lower losses from winter mortality (p<0.001). Detailed results for each country and overall are given in a table, and a map shows relative risks of winter loss at regional level

Multi-country loss rates of honey bee colonies during winter 2016/2017 from the COLOSS survey

Publication history: Accepted - 5 March 2018; Published online - 8 May 2018.In this short note we present comparable loss rates of honey bee colonies during winter 2016/2017 from 27 European countries plus Algeria, Israel and Mexico, obtained with the COLOSS questionnaire. The 14,813 beekeepers providing valid loss data collectively wintered 425,762 colonies, and reported 21,887 (5.1%, 95% confidence interval 5.0–5.3%) colonies with unsolvable queen problems and 60,227 (14.1%, 95% CI 13.8–14.4%) dead colonies after winter. Additionally we asked for colonies lost due to natural disaster, which made up another 6,903 colonies (1.6%, 95% CI 1.5–1.7%). This results in an overall loss rate of 20.9% (95% CI 20.6–21.3%) of honey bee colonies during winter 2016/2017, with marked differences among countries. The overall analysis showed that small operations suffered higher losses than larger ones (p < 0.001). Overall migratory beekeeping had no significant effect on the risk of winter loss, though there was an effect in several countries. A table is presented giving detailed results from 30 countries. A map is also included, showing relative risk of colony winter loss at regional level.The authors are also grateful to various national funding sources for their support of some of the monitoring surveys [including, in the Republic of Serbia, MPNTR-RS, through grant number III46002]. The authors acknowledge the financial support by the University of Graz for open access publication

Loss rates of honey bee colonies during winter 2017/18 in 36 countries participating in the COLOSS survey, including effects of forage sources

This short article presents loss rates of honey bee colonies over winter 2017/18 from 36 countries, including 33 in Europe, from data collected using the standardized COLOSS questionnaire. The 25,363 beekeepers supplying data passing consistency checks in total wintered 544,879 colonies, and reported 26,379 (4.8%, 95% CI 4.7–5.0%) colonies with unsolvable queen problems, 54,525 (10.0%, 95% CI 9.8–10.2%) dead colonies after winter and another 8,220 colonies (1.5%, 95% CI 1.4–1.6%) lost through natural disaster. This gave an overall loss rate of 16.4% (95% CI 16.1–16.6%) of honey bee colonies during winter 2017/18, but this varied greatly from 2.0 to 32.8% between countries. The included map shows relative risks of winter loss at regional level. The analysis using the total data-set confirmed findings from earlier surveys that smaller beekeeping operations with at most 50 colonies suffer significantly higher losses than larger operations (p<.001). Beekeepers migrating their colonies had significantly lower losses than those not migrating (p<.001), a different finding from previous research. Evaluation of six different forage sources as potential risk factors for colony loss indicated that intensive foraging on any of five of these plant sources (Orchards, Oilseed Rape, Maize, Heather and Autumn Forage Crops) was associated with significantly higher winter losses. This finding requires further study and explanation. A table is included giving detailed results of loss rates and the impact of the tested forage sources for each country and overall