Evaluation of Three Methods of Artificial Colony Division in Honeybee, Apis Mellifera Adansonii (Hymenoptera: Apidae): Initial Response of Daughter Colony.


ABSTRACT: One of the major problems facing beginner apiculturists in tropical countries is late colonization of baited hives. Towards providing practical solution to this problem, three methods of artificial colony division were experimented in Ogbomoso (longitude 4° 10’E,
latitude 8° lO’E), Nigeria, a derived savanna zone, using top bar hives. Hives with strong and active colonies (aged? 12 months) were used as Mother colony and was divided into new hive tagged Daughter colony hives. Division Method A involved placing Daughter colony hive at original place of Mother Colony hive and taking Mother colony hive to a distance of 30 m away from its original position. Division Method 13 involved placing Daughter colony hive on top of Mother colony hive. maintaining original position of the Mother colony hive but facing opposite direction. Division Method C involved placing Daughter colony hive at a totally new place, 30 m away from its Mother colony hive. In each of the three methods. 3 brood combs and 4 honey
combs were placed in the new hive tagged Daughter colony. The remaining space on the hive was filled with empty top bars. Thereafter, corrugated asbestos were used as roofing materials to prevent adverse weather condition. The results indicate that Method A was the best. having significantly (P<O.05) higher Daughter colony weight gain than Methods B or C, and having no
pest infestation or intruder. Pests and intruders encountered in Methods Band C were responsible for their failure. The pests were Oecophvlla louginoda (Latreille, ] 802), Galleria melotiella (Linnaeus, 1758) and Aethina tutnida Murray 1867, while Brachymeria species (Westwood, 1829) was the only intruder encountered in the study. A. tutnida was most frequently encountered while Brachvtneria species was least encountered.

Download PDF