Discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of beekeeping with A. mellifera and A. cerana in Indonesia
Indonesia: There is a lack of data about beekeeping with A. mellifera in Indonesia, although it is reported, that beekeeping with the native Asian honey bee A. cerana decreased. A survey revealed that the remaining percentage of A. cerana in comparison to the introduced A. mellifera in Indonesia lays between 45 - 60% (Theisen-Jones & Bienefeld 2016). In Asia, beekeepers believe in the advantages of beekeeping with A. mellifera, thus the trend to give up the beekeeping with A. cerana and switch to A. mellifera increases instead. This practice leads to decreasing number of honey bee species and in further consequence it is possible that native species are replaced in the ecological niche which they occupy (e.g. in Bhutan beekeeping with A. cerana decreased by 95%) (Theisen-Jones & Bienefeld 2016).
Nevertheless, there are several advantages of A. mellifera compared to A. cerana. The startup costs for hives that are suitable for beekeeping with A. mellifera are low. The colony size of A. mellifera ranges from 30000 - 50000 (i.e. colony size of A. cerana ranges from 2000 - 20000), they have higher productivity and therefore the harvesting of honey bee products is more profitable. A. cerana has a high tendency to abscond (triggered by tropical climate, pressure of pathogens/pests/predators, and insufficient forage-opportunities). A. cerana is also known to be more sensitive to Thai Sac Brood Virus. Due to the higher aggressiveness of A. mellifera, they are often successful in robbing honey from A. cerana, which leads in damaging their colonies (Oldroyd & Nanork 2009; Theisen-Jones & Bienefeld 2016). Studies revealed, that A. mellifera and A. cerana drones are attracted by similar pheromones secreted by the particular queen. Though, the mating between species is not possible due to incompatible organs, A. cerana colony size is significantly lower and therefore they are less able to complement high drone losses (Moritz & Härtel 2005; Ruttner & Maul 1983).
The question is, regarding to the short-term gain from its products in comparison to the long-term costs on number of honey bee species (colony losses, disease introduction, ...) is A. mellifera the better alternative for future beekeeping all over the world? Oldroyd and Nanork (2009) do not believe of a severe impact of A. mellifera on A. cerana colonies, because feral A. mellifera colonies in Asia are so far unknown. This fact may have different reasons: the climate of the tropics brings only minor variation in day length and thus, European honey bees cannot further adapt on these conditions (e.g. brood production). In comparison, feral A. mellifera may be only a question of time, if there are efforts to introduce African A. mellifera that is adapted to tropical climate (Moritz & Härtel 2005). Due to the worldwide distribution of Varroa spp., those parasitic mites also exist in Asia. If infestation of Varroa spp., or Tropilaelaps spp. stays untreated, the survival chance of A. mellifera colonies is further impacted (Ellis & Munn 2005; Theisen-Jones & Bienefeld 2016). A. cerana is not as productive as A. mellifera, but they do have gentle temperament, and are known to be less susceptible against parasitic mites, like Varroa spp. The higher resistance is based on increased hygiene standard (clean themselves and others at higher frequency, infected brood is removed before sealing the brood cells) and therefore the treatment with pesticides against Varroa infestation (e.g. acaricides) is not necessary (Boecking & Spivak 1999). A. cerana has further advantages like they do not need any supplementation if forage is available year round (e.g. coconut plantation), they need less foraging areas, and if well-acclimated, they react less sensitive to changes in climate conditions and are able to forage under more extreme conditions (Oldroyd & Nanork 2009; Theisen-Jones & Bienefeld 2016). Furthermore, we do not know, if beekeeping with A. mellifera is profitable in every region of Indonesia due to the particular fauna and climate. In addition, there are several projects, aiming to encourage the people of Indonesia to harvest honey not from A. cerana, but from A. dorsata nests, rather than changing to beekeeping with A. mellifera. Provided, honey hunting is practiced in a sustainable and hygienic way by for example only harvest of honeycombs instead of destroying the whole nest, wearing protective clothes, or filtrating the honey through simple closed mashed nets (Orldroyd & Nanork 2009).
In summary, knowledge about beekeeping with the indigenous honey bee species A. cerana already exists, while beekeeping with introduced A. mellifera has to be developed from scratch. Native bee species are known to be more resistant against pests and pathogens, while beekeeping with the European A. mellifera implicates regular hive-inspection and care and therefore is more time-consuming (Chantawannakul et al. 2004; Theisen-Jones & Bienefeld 2016). Nevertheless, the higher amount of invested time is relativized with the higher productivity of A. mellifera that leads to a significantly higher income of beekeepers. In conclusion, it has to be mentioned, that "poor people should not be expected to bear the burden of conservation, which is the responsibility of us all" (Oldroyd & Nanork 2009).
