LURASTIM – A STIMULATIVE AND ENVIGORATING PREPARATION FOR HONEY BEES

Lurastim – which is tested here - is produced from placenta with the use of a unique technology invented by the USSR State Prize winner Prof.Yu.I.Liubimov. This technology makes it possible to preserve a high biological activity of placenta’s natural substances. The drug contains all the necessary amino acids, nucleic acids, macro- and microelements, vitamins and a number of other substances essential for a normal development of a living organism. An addition of 0.5% of Lurastim to inverted sugar syrup strengthens vitality of honey bees, acts as a stimulant for their bigger protein consumption, improves egg-laying qualities and increases the bees’ wax excretion.

At present time, both in livestock breeding and in beekeeping we can see an ever widening application of biostimulants which make it possible to influence positively the animal development and growth. However, there is a lot of controversy in regard to their effectiveness in additional nutrition diets. Some 50 years ago antibiotics were used as stimulants. They had a positive effect on bee-family growth and productivity, at the same time decreasing the bee life span [9, 10]. Many researchers of the second half of the 20th century in order to increase the bee brood recommended the use heteroaucsin – a growth stimulant - for additional bee diets. However, along with queen bees’ improved egg-laying qualities (up by 30%), we could see the queens’ faster wearability, which resulted in queen bee rotation and swarming in bee-families [8, 5].

There is a domestic drug Pcholka produced with natural clean needles of fir and pine-tree with addition of a natural garlic extract (Bio-Biz Co., ). The preparation is used a complex and systematic medical and prophylactic protection of bees against ascospherosis, varroosis, rot, at the same time improving reproductive activity in queens (by 20%) and stimulating the development of healthy bee families [6].

A Moscow-based Api-san is offering Kovitsan, a preparation containing microelements and vitamins as a reacting substance and designed to stimulate bee-family development. Life span for bees kept in retainers and fed a diet containing Kovitsan on average increased by four days.

Polisine – a pollen substitute – is also rather widely used in beekeeping. It contains proteins, amino acids, carbohydrates, vitamins, natural antibiotics, growth stimulants and microelements [1].

Favourable reports are also coming from all over about VESP (a vitamin-ecdisterone bee stimulant) – a drug produced by a Russian Zhitar company [7]. Families which were fed VESP developed faster and showed improved egg-laying qualities. The application of VESP facilitated struggle against ascospherosis, rot and varoosis [12].

The local honeybee drug market also offers such preparations as Viran [2], Ekdisteron [13, 14] and a number of other drugs.

Recently, the researchers have been attracted plant hormones found both in pollen and in nectar. A number of studies have shown that the use of phytohormones in sugar syrup as a stimulating additional diet results in increased honey yields and production [3, 4].

And so, at the moment there has accumulated some factual material in regard to invention and use of stimulants in beekeeping. At the same time, both, the nature of their origin and the degree of their influence on economically useful characteristics of honey bees differs. And so, a further research for new effective drugs that are able to influence the growth and development of honey bees is seen as a long-term trend in modern beekeeping practices.

Lurastrim – a preparation invented and produced by MNPK Biotechindustria, JSC – is a tissue preparation made from human placenta. Lurastrim contains a complex of biologically active substances necessary for adequate development of an organism (peptides, nucleic and uronic acids, essential amino acids, vitamins, polysaccharides, microelements, hormone traces of: progesterone, testosterone and estradiol).

Tests showed that the drug strengthens the immunity, improves metabolism and stimulates reproductive function in animals. The immune system is stimulated thanks to nonspecific immunomodulator – nucleins and uronic acids, polypeptides and vitamins. Lurastim has recently seen a rather wide application in agriculture providing a medical, invigorating and stimulating effect in livestock breeding and plant cultivation.

This paper describes facts about Lurastim and its influence on bee activity.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In order to find out the optimal dose of Lurastim a number of lab tests were held in entomological retainers housing one-day genetically heterogeneous bees. The testing included four groups with sixteen retainers in each group. The bees were fed inverted syrup with an addition of 0.3%, 0.5% and 1.0% of Lurastim, in the screening group they were fed inverted syrup.

In isolated conditions in one instance the bees were fed inverted syrup, in another instance they were fed inverted syrup +0.5% of Lurastim. Protein feeds for one and another group of bee families were placed outside bee-hives (3 types of pollen (P1, P2, P3 depending on botanical content) and a protein substitute (soybeans).

Factory testing was continued at GU Krasnopoliansk Experimental Beekeeping Station. Three analogous groups of seventeen bee families in each group were formed there. During the test the first group of bee families was fed only inverted syrup. The second group was fed inverted syrup +0.5% of Lurastim. The third group received inverted syrup with Polisine based on user’s instruction. Stimulating additional diets were fed every other day by 250 ml for each bee family.

Flying activity of bees was determined by the number of bees flying into the hive over a period of 5 minutes twice during the daylight hours.

In order to investigate the influence of stimulating additional diets on autumnal development of bee families, in August four groups of ten bee families were formed using an analogous pair method of selection.

Bee families in the first group received a pure 60% syrup with 0.5% Lurastim, the second group was fed inverted syrup with a 0.5% solution of fermentolisate, the third group received sugar syrup and the fourth group received an inverted sugar syrup.

RESULTS

The biggest feed consumption in the retainer testing was found when bees were fed pure inverted syrup and when adding 0.5% Lurastim to inverted syrup. These feed patterns also showed the longest bee half-life spans (10.2+/-0.09 and 11.4+/-0.03 days correspondingly). The shortest bee life span was found groups fed on inverted syrup with an addition of 0.3% Lurastim; however, such differences were found unreliable.

For feeds of pure inverted syrup the degree of development of pharyngeal glands was equal to 2 points, in all other alternatives – 1 point (per Mauritio, 1954).

In the test involving flying restrictions in cages the bees receiving syrup with an addition of 0.5% Lurastim picked up more pollen compared to bees fed on pure inverted syrup. As illustrated by Fig.1 they were three times more active compared to bees that were fed pure inverted syrup. In the first instance during the observation period the feeder with pollen and soybeans was visited by 70 bees as in the second instance only 23 visiting bees were registered. In both instances they preferred a dandelion-dominated pollen.

Fig.1 Feeder visitation by bees receiving different feeds

Usually the bees refuse to consume a protein substitute if the pollen is present. However, when a bee family received syrup with an addition of Lurastim as a carbohydrate feed, it consumed soybeans practically on the same level as a less attractive pollen compared to the dandelion pollen. That cannot be said about the bees fed pure inverted syrup.

Pollen consumption in the group with Lurastim was on average 56% higher than its consumption in the group receiving pure inverted syrup, regardless of the fact that the bees had a free access to pollen. However, there was not a single instance of the brood developing into a larva, even more so, into imago for the reason of obvious cannibalism.

500 genetically heterogeneous bees marked with paint were let into each of the tested bee families. At the end of the test the family where the feed contained Lurastim had 282 marked bees and the family fed on inverted syrup had only 2 marked bees.

In the family where the feed contained Lurastim the degree of development of pharyngeal glands was equal to 1.84 points and in the screening group – 2.7 points.

Feed samples received as a result of processing of pure inverted syrup and the syrup with an addition of 0.5% Lurastim were collected from bee families in isolation. These samples were tested for hormone content.

The presence of hormones in the feed received from inverted syrup + 0.5% Lurastim was insignificant. It was hundreds of times and in some instance thousands of times below the admissible values for meat.

The feed with the addition of Lurastim was attractive for the bees was collected well and was never put into cells as it was spent on brood.

Over the first 12 days of the experiment in groups of families with Lurastim the number of brood compared to the initial numbers increased by 3.7 times (Fig.2).

In families receiving Lurastim in the conditions of absence of honey yield the number of built wax was 50% higher than in the screening group.

In the experiment held at the apiary of Krasnopoliansk Experimental Beekeeping Station a group of bee families that received pure inverted syrup built up strength by 28.5% compared with the initial group, and groups that had both Lurastim and Polisine in their feeds by 50% in both instances. These differences, however, were of a dubious character.

Fig.2. Brood numbers in tested groups of bee families

Bee families of the second tested group by the end of the test period had 3 times more brood in nests, and in the third test group 2 times more compared to the initial level. In the first group of bee families the number of brood compared to the initial level fell by 24%. Families that received Lurastim in their rations had more honey stored compared to families that received Polisine as a stimulant.

Families that received Lurastim had 203.6+/-15.8 flying-in bees over a period of 5 minutes, for a group with Polisine the figure was 166.1+/-14.75, and for a group with pure inverted syrup the number of flying in bees was 179.8+/-17.7.

Therefore, in view of the received data we can recommend Lurastim for intensification of springtime development of bee families. However, this stimulant is only effective if used in favourable weather conditions and the presence of protein feed in the bee family nests.

During the pre-winter preparation period the positive effect of Lurastim was registered even after 12 days after the first additional feeding. In families fed on inverted syrup with 0.5% Lurastim the egg-laying ability in queen bees increased by 77%.

When using inverted syrup with the addition of 0.5% of pollen fermentolisate the queen bee egg-laying ability increased over a period of 12 days by 37.5%.

By the end of the experiment the egg-laying ability in the group with Lurastim increased by 79% and in the group with pollen fermentalisate by 66%, in the group with sugar syrup such an increase was equal only to 26.5% and in the group fed on inverted syrup by 22.1%.

Correspondingly, the most intensive rate of brood development was shown by Lurastim and pollen fermentolisate. In total, over 3 accounts in the group that received Lurastim there was 5 times more brood that in families fed on sugar syrup and by 40% more than in families fed on inverted syrup. In families where they used pollen fermentolisate as a stimulant, the number of brood was 9.5% below the level of group with Lurastim.

Furthermore, the use of Lurastim contributed to the increase in winter stores of the feed in families by 68% compared to the group of families fed on sugar syrup. In the group of bee families that used pollen fermentolisate such difference equaled to 40%.

CONCLUSIONS

1. Lurastim when used in feeds for stimulation of flying activity in honey bees and for the improvement of egg-laying abilities of queen bees during the period of increasing of the live weight of bee families in the quantity of 0.5% of the carbohydrate feed has a positive effect on their vital activity.

2. Bees kept on inverted syrup + 0.5% of Lurastim consumed 56% more protein feed and in a wider range.

3. Lurastim makes for the increase in the bee life span: at 100% death of marked bees in isolated families and those fed on inverted syrup, the death rate for bees fed on feeds with 0.5%

Lurastim was only 42%.

4. The use of Lurastim in apiary conditions improves bee flying, makes for an increase in egg-laying ability and ensures a growth of 20%-50% in brood numbers.

5. The best application of Lurastim is registered in favourable feeding and weather conditions.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Bankovsky V.V. Bankovskaya A.V. Additional Feeding of Bees. As. 103794, kp.A23 K 1/18, 1983.

2. Batuyev Yu.M., Sychev M.M. Viran – A Development Stimulant // Beekiping. 1994 No.1/

3. Boytseniuk L.I., Antimirov S.V. Epibrassinoid and Development of Families // Beekeeping. – 2000. –N8.

4. Boytseniuk L.I., Vereschaka L.V., Malinovsky L.V. Epibrassinoid and citokipin in springtime breeding of bees. // Beekeeping. – 2002. N2.

5. Glushkov N.M. Yakovlev A.S. Stimulants and Bee Productivity. // Beekeeping. 1964. –N5.

6. Ignatieva G.I., Sokhlikov A.B. Pchelka Biostimulant // Beekeeping. – 1998. – N2

7. Kakpakov V.T. Oktoregulators in Bee Life. Beekeeping. – 1993. – NN.5, 6.

8. Kopanevich P.T. Application of Antibiotics for Higher Family Productivity //Proceedings of Moscow Vet Academy. – M., 1960.

9. Kuksenko N.M.The Influence of Antibiotics on Phisiological Peculiarities of Bees// Beekeeping. -1960. – N9.

10. Kulikov N.S., Cherepov V.T. The Importamce of Antibiotics for the Bees // Beekieeping. 1964. – N11.

11. Lugansky S.I., Klochko R.T.Blinov A.V. Kovitsan – A Stimulant of Family Development // Beekeeping. – 2003. – N4.

12. Maslennikova P.G. VESP Influence on Bees // Beekeeping. – 1995. – N6.

13. Moskalenko P.G.,Tipetskaya N.V., Kholodova Yu.D. The Action of Ecdisterone on Bees and Varroa Ticks // Veterinary. – 1992. – N1.

14. Shangaraeva G.S., Baltaev U.A., Odintsov V.I. Ekdisteron and Breeding of Queen Bees. // Beekeeping. – 1999. – N4.