Page 46 - Book of Abstracts

5 International Scientific Online Conference DOI: https://doi.org/10.15414/2021.9788055224015

th

NEW APPROACH TO DEFINING THE TYPE (KIND) OF PROPOLIS
Roman Dvykaliuk, Leonora Adamchuk

National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine;
E-mail.: leonora.adamchuk@gmail.com

The goal of our work was to substantiate a new approach to the definition of the type of
propolis. Scientific information sources on propolis research over the past 10 years have
contained a variety of inconsistent types of propolis. This uncertainty complicates the scientific
search, considering the different languages of the publication, the commercial activities of
propolis producers, the educational process, and the systematization and generalization of the
results of existing research. Consequently, new technologies and regions with potentially «new»
types of propolis are overlooked.
Our observations on the behavior of honeybees during the carrying of plant resin in the
2019–2021 beekeeping seasons confirm the results of Isidorov et al. (2016) and Bankova et al.
(2019). We have observed bees with different colours of plant resin. However, not only the
tendency of bees to visit different sources of propolis is the basis for the formation of «Mixed
propolis types». We have found that the way the propolis is collected in apiaries plays an
important role in the formation of the type of propolis. The propolis was collected from 25
apiaries in different regions of Ukraine using special meshes in the 2020 beekeeping season.
Considering the obtained results, we have determined the factors that influence the formation
of mixed or monofloral propolis. These include the presence of various botanical sources (plant
species) that secrete plant resin simultaneously; the method of selection of propolis from hives;
the frequency of rotation of meshes’ areas to which bees have access for laying
propolis; propolis collection period; method of cleaning the tools for collecting propolis (parts
of the hive or special devices). We have proved that within the same climatic zone, at the same
way of collecting propolis in the same period, colour, smell, taste of propolis differ. This is
probably due to the specific location of the collection and the flora within the range of
productive flight of the bees, genetics, and the state of the colony (strength, presence of the
honey harvest, development, etc.).
In our opinion, it is not advisable to link the propolis type name to a particular geographical
region because its origin is primarily due to the species from which the bees collected the plant
resins. The distribution of plant species is not always limited to geographical regions. For
example, Populus spp. is common in most of the world. Considering the common practice in
beekeeping, the type of propolis should be based on the genus name of the plant (botanical
source of its origin). Varieties of honey are similarly identified by botanical origin. Today it is
known that in different regions, at least 7 species of the genus Populus spp. are sources of
propolis. Subsequently, the propolis obtained and identified from the individual plant species
should be classified under the subtype. Depending on the presence of one or more sources in
the propolis, the type of propolis should be named by the dominant source, with additional
sources also mentioned in the name. The adoption of a common approach to the names of
propolis types will promote good research and scientific practice, popularize the product to
consumers and provide a basis for the development of common standards and product quality
for the improvement of human health.
Keywords: propolis, botanical origin, type.

5 International Scientific Conference Agrobiodiversity for Improving the Nutrition, Health, Quality of Life and |45
th
Spiritual Human Development
November 3 2021
rd