Toxicidade, digestibilidade e ganho de peso da abelha Apis mellifera alimentada com ração proteica alternativa

• Ano de defesa: 2017
• Autor(a) principal: Silveira Neto, Antonio Abreu da
• Tipo de documento: Tese
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Palavras-chave em Português: Alimento para abelhas; Proteína bruta; Desenvolvimento das crias; Manutenção das abelhas
• Link de acesso: http://www.repositorio.ufc.br/handle/riufc/28730

The Apis mellifera bee usually obtains the nutrients it needs to survive and develop its colonies from the flowers. In the absence of flowers, bee-keepers resort to ingredients obtained in the market for the elaboration of feeds. However, many of these ingredients can be toxic to bees if used in large quantity or simply if they do not produce the expected results. The objective of this work was to identify, among some of the protein ingredients most used by bee-keepers, those that provide greater longevity for the bees; to formulate, based on them, a feed with 25% crude protein (CP); to verify, in the field, their consumption by the bees, as well as the development of the total brood area; and, in the laboratory, to test their toxicity and digestibility. The ingredients tested were pollen, soybean extract, a food supplement, albumin and powdered milk. These were tested for their toxicity. As a result, the soybean extract and the albumin showed less toxic potential than the others. Based on the data obtained, an experimental feed with 25% crude protein (CP) was formulated. It had 79.44% of soybean extract and 20.56% of albumin. It was compared – for the toxicity, digestibility and weight gain of the confined bees – to a commercial feed (with the same CP level), to pollen and to a controled treatment, which only received water and sugar syrup. There was no statistical difference (p <0.05) between any of these parameters. The performance of the feeds was tested in the field according to its consumption, the development of the brood area and the economic analysis. For the first two parameters, no statistical difference was observed (p <0.05) and the experimental feed was more viable, since it presented lower consumption for colonization maintenance. It was concluded that neither of the two feeds demonstrated capacity for the development of the brood and maintenance of adult bees during the period of food shortage. However, the commercial feed should not be recommended to bee-keepers, since it presented a 50% abandonment rate. The use of the experimental feed by producers would only be possible if the colonies fed had accumulated reserves or if there were floral resources in the off season at the place of installation of the apiary.