Category Archives: Drifting and robbing

Biological control with Varroa

Synopsis : Honey bees were eradicated on Santa Cruz Island following the introduction of Varroa. This provides some useful lessons for beekeepers on the importance of controlling Varroa.

Introduction

Honey bees are not native to North America. They were first introduced in March 1622 at Jamestown, Virginia. The bees did well and spread west, following the settlers. They finally arrived on the west coast, in Santa Clara, California, 231 years later in 1853. Of a dozen hives ordered by Christopher Shelton, a Santa Clara botanist and rancher, only one survived the journey from New York via Panama.

Shelton barely had a chance to enjoy his bees 1 as he was unfortunately killed when the steamboat Jenny Lind exploded in mid-April 1853.

Explosion on the steamboat Jenny Lind near San Francisco, California

His bees survived 2 and three hives derived from the original stock were auctioned for $110 each. This was over 20 times the price of hives on the east coast at that time and equivalent to over $4200 today 3.

Californian Channel Islands map

Bees were in demand and they continued to spread – both as feral swarms and as farmers established apiaries to help pollination and for honey production. Having reached the California coast they were then spread to the nearby islands. Bees were transported to Santa Cruz, the largest of the eight Channel Islands near Los Angeles, in the 1880’s. They flourished, but did not spread to the other Channel Islands.

Field station, nature reserves, pigs and bees

Santa Cruz Island is 250 square kilometres in area and lies ~35 km south of Santa Barbara. It is one of the four Northern Channel islands. There is a long central valley lying approximately east-west and the rocky mountainous land reaches 740 m. It has a marine temperate climate; the average low and high temperatures are 9°C and 21°C respectively and it receives about 0.5 m of rain a year. It is a good environment for bees.

From the 1880’s to 1960’s Santa Cruz Island was farmed – primarily for wine and wool, and from the 1940’s for cattle – but, after period of university geology field trips and the establishment of a field station on the island, in 1973 it became part of the University of California’s Natural Reserve System (UC NRS).

In the late 1970’s the Stanton family sold their ranching business on the island to The Nature Conservancy who subsequently bought additional land on the eastern end of the island.

Santa Cruz Island is now jointly owned by The Nature Conservancy, National Parks Service, UC NRS and the Santa Cruz Island Foundation and much of the island is used for scientific research and education.

But what about the bees?

Good question.

As a nature reserve and research station, the presence of non-native species causes a potential problem. Why go to all the expense of managing a remote island research centre if all the same species are present as on the mainland?

The Nature Conservancy therefore initiated a programme of eradicating non-native species. It took 14 months to eliminate the feral pigs, using a combination of trapping, helicopter-based shooting and the release of sterilised radio-tagged pigs to locate the stragglers 4.

But getting rid of the bees took a bit longer …

Save the bees, or not

Why get rid of the bees? Surely they weren’t doing any harm?

The introduction of any non-native species upsets the balance (if there’s ever balance) in the ecosystem. The introduced species competes directly or indirectly with those native to the area and can lead to local extinctions.

Jonathan Rosen has described 5 how honey bee swarms, through occupying tree cavities previously used for nesting, probably played a major role in the extinction of the Carolina parakeet.

Pining for the fjords … a stuffed Carolina parakeet (nailed to its perch)

Competition between honey bees and native pollinators has been well studied. It is not always detrimental, but it certainly can be. Furthermore, it is probably more likely to be detrimental in a small, isolated, island ecosystem. For example, studies showed that the presence of honey bees dramatically reduced visitation of native pollinator to manzanita blossoms on Santa Cruz Island.

As part of the larger programme of non-native plant and animal eradication on Santa Cruz Island plans were drawn up in the late 1980’s to eliminate European honey bees. The expected benefits were to:

  • eliminate competition with native bee species (and presumably other non-bee pollinators, though these rarely get a mention 🙁 )
  • reduce pollination of weed species (some of which were also non-native to Santa Cruz Island)
  • facilitate recovery of native plant species that were reliant on native bee pollination
  • provide a ‘field laboratory’ free from ‘exotic’ honey bees in which comparative studies of native pollinators would be possible

Killer bees

After the plans to eradicate Apis mellifera were approved an additional potential benefit became apparent.

There were increasing concerns about the spread of Africanised honey bees which had recently reached Santa Barbara County. Although there was reasonably compelling evidence that swarms could not cross from the mainland (e.g. none of the other Northern Channel Islands had been colonised by bees) there were concerns that the Santa Ana winds might help blow drones from the mainland.

Had these drones arrived they might mate with the non-native but nevertheless local queens resulting in the spread of the dominant genes for defensiveness and absconding. The resulting swarmy, aggressive Africanised bees would cause problems for visitors and scientists working on the island (as they have for visitors to Joshua Tree National Park).

Aerial view of Santa Cruz Island

Although the introgression of African honey bee genes was used as further justification for the eradication it’s not clear whether drones could actually cross 30-40 km of open sea 6.

As an aside, there’s a current project – the amusingly named Game of Drones – running on the Isles of Scilly investigating whether drones can cross the sea between St Agnes, Tresco, Bryher, St Mary’s and St Martin’s. These are, at most, 11 km apart (northern most tip of St Martin’s to most southerly point of St Agnes) but the individual islands are only separated by 1-2 km. I would be surprised if drones could not cross that distance (at least with a strong following wind).

Killing bees

Adrian Wenner and colleagues set about exterminating the honey bees on Santa Cruz Island (Wenner et al., 2009). The process started in 1988 and ended in 2007, and was divided into four phases:

  1. 1988-1993 – location and elimination of feral colonies
  2. 1994-1997 – biological control and colony demise
  3. 1998-2004 – monitoring residual honey bee activity
  4. 2005-2007 – confirmation of the absence of honey bees

None of this is ’beekeeping’ – actually it’s the exact opposite – so I don’t intend to dwell in much detail on the work that was conducted. However, the ’94-’97 phase includes some sobering lessons for beekeepers which are worth discussing.

By the end of phase 1 the team had identified the existence (if not the location) of at least 200 colonies and eliminated 153 of them.

Remember, none of these were managed colonies in hives. They were all feral colonies occupying natural cavities in trees or rocks etc. Each colony was found using painstaking bee lining techniques similar to those described in Thomas Seeley’s book Following the Wild Bees.

Once located, nests were destroyed with methyl chloroform and the cavity sealed to prevent it being reoccupied.

Some colonies could not be accessed; in these cases acephate-laced sucrose-honey syrup baits were used. This organophosphate has delayed toxicity for bees, allowing foragers to return to the colony which in due course dies. This approach had been partially successful in eliminating Africanised bees on the mainland (Williams et al., 1989), but baits needed to be be monitored to avoid killing the other insects they attracted.

The scientists also deployed swarm traps (aka bait hives) and destroyed any swarms that moved in.

Together these interventions reduced honey bee numbers significantly – as monitored by regular observations at pollen- or nectar-rich plants – but did not eradicate them.

Let there be mite

Heavy rains in January ’93 washed out roads on Santa Cruz Island, thereby severely limiting travel around the island. In addition, the previous removal of cattle had resulted in the near-uncontrolled growth of fennel which now formed dense, impenetrable thickets.

Bee lining became impossible and the scientists had to invent more devious strategies to eliminate the residual feral colonies.

The approach they chose involved the introduction of Varroa.

Varroa was first detected in the USA in 1987 (in Florida) and became widespread over the next 5-8 years. Up until 1994 the honey bees on Santa Cruz Island were free of the ectoparasitic mite.

It was likely that they would have remained that way … there was no beekeeping on Santa Cruz Island and the location was too remote for bees to cross from the mainland (see above).

Varroa was already known to have a devastating impact on the health of honey bee colonies (Kraus and Page, 1995). It was also known that, other than its native host Apis cerana (the Eastern honey bee), Varroa did not parasitise other bee or wasp species (Kevan et al., 1991).

These two facts – host specificity and damage inflicted – suggested that Varroa could be used for biological control (‘biocontrol’) on Santa Cruz Island.

Biological control

Biological control or biocontrol is a method of controlling pests using natural mechanisms such as predation or parasitism.

The pest could be any living thing – from animals to bacterial plant diseases – present where it’s unwanted.

On Santa Cruz Island the pest was the honey bee.

In other studies (covered in a previous post entitled More from the fungi 7 ) biocontrol of Varroa has been investigated.

Control of the pest involves the introduction or application of a biological control agent. The key requirements of the latter have already been highlighted – specificity and damage.

Biological control works well when the specificity is high and the damage is therefore tightly targeted. It can be an abject failure – or worse, it can damage the ecosystem – if the specificity is low and/or the damage is widespread.

The cane toad was introduced to Australia to control infestations of greenback cane beetle (a pest of sugar cane). Cane toads were introduced in 1935 and rapidly spread. Unfortunately, cane toads can’t jump very high and so singularly failed to control the greenback cane beetle which tends to 8 stay high up the cane stems.

Female cane toad (not jumping)

But it gets worse; cane toads have a very catholic diet and so outcompeted other amphibians. They introduced foreign diseases to the native frogs and toads and – because of the poisons secreted from their skin – harmed or killed predators that attempted to eat them.

Oops.

Vertebrates are usually poor biological control agents as they tend to be generalist feeders i.e. no specificity.

But Varroa is specific and so the damage it causes is focused. The likelihood of ecosystem damage was considered low and so the mite was introduced to the island.

Introduction of Varroa

In late 1993 Adrian Wenner caught 85 foraging bees and, to each one, added a single Varroa mite. The bees were then released and presumably flew back to their colonies … taking the hitchhiking mite with them.

Adult mites – the dark red ones you see littering the Varroa tray after you treat with Apivar – are mated females.

Due to their incestuous lifestyle a single mite is sufficient to initiate a new infestation.

The mated adult female mite parasitises a honey bee pupa and produces a series of young; the first is male, the remainder are female. You’re probably reading this before the 9 pm watershed so I’ll leave it to your lurid imagination to work out what happens next (or you can read all the sordid details in Know your enemy).

The presence of honey bees – determined by successful swarm trapping or field observation at likely sites – was then regularly monitored over the next four years.

Swarm numbers remained largely unchanged until 1996 and then dramatically decreased.

Numbers of new swarms on Santa Cruz Island 1991 – 2005. Varroa introduction indicated.

It’s worth noting that during ’94-’96 over 70 swarms were found in natural sites or bait hives. There must have been a significant number of established colonies in 1993 to produce this number of swarms.

But, from 1997 it all stopped … only a single swarm was subsequently found, in a natural cavity in 2002.

Monitoring and confirmation of eradication

From 1998 to 2004 the scientists continued to actively monitor the island for honey bees, focusing on 19 areas rich in natural forage. Although honey bees were found – in decreasing numbers – there were too few to attempt bee lining to locate their colonies.

At the sites being monitored, bees were detected 9, 7, 4, 2 and 1 times respectively in the 5 years from 2000 to 2004. After that, despite continued monitoring, no more honey bees were detected.

The final phase of the project (’05-’07) confirmed the absence of honey bees on Santa Cruz Island.

Whilst, as a scientist, I’m a firm believer that ’absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence’, as a beekeeper I’m well aware that if there are no scout bees, no swarms and no foragers (when I search in likely places) then there are no honey bee colonies.

Lessons for beekeepers

I wouldn’t have recounted this sorry tale – at least from a beekeeping perspective – unless I thought there were some useful lessons for beekeepers.

There are (at least) three.

The first relates to Varroa resistance, the second to Varroa transmission in the environment and the last to ‘safe’ levels of Varroa. All require some ‘arm waving guesstimates’ 9, but have a good grounding in other scientific studies.

Varroa resistance

There wasn’t any.

At a very conservative estimate there were at least 20 colonies remaining on Santa Cruz Island in 1995. I say ‘conservative’ because that assumes each colony generated two swarms that season (see graph above). In studies of other natural colonies only about 75% swarm annually, meaning the actual number of colonies could have been over 50.

The numbers – 20 or 50 – matter as they’re both much higher than the number of colonies most beekeepers manage (which, based upon BBKA quoted statistics, is about 5).

Whether it was 20 or 50, they were all eliminated following the introduction of 85 mites. Colonies did not become resistant to Varroa.

This all took a few years, but – inferring from the swarm numbers above – the vast majority of colonies were killed in just two years, 1994 and 1995. This timing would fit with numerous other studies of colony demise due to mites.

Wenner estimates that only 3 colonies survived until 2001.

Leaving small numbers of colonies 10 untreated with an expectation that resistance – or even tolerance (which is both more likely and not necessarily beneficial) – will arise is a futile exercise.

I’ve discussed this before … it’s a numbers game, and a handful of colonies isn’t enough.

Varroa spread

Wenner doesn’t elaborate on where the foragers were captured before he added the mites. If I was going to attempt this I’d have chosen several sites around the island to ensure as many feral colonies as possible acquired mites … let us assume that’s what he did.

However, with 85 mites piggybacking on returning workers, and somewhere between (my guesstimated) 20 to 50 colonies, I think it’s highly likely that at least some colonies received none of this ’founding’ mite population.

Yet almost all the colonies died within two years, and those that did not subsequently died with no further intervention from the scientists. We don’t know what killed off the last surviving colonies but — and I know I’m sticking my neck out here – I bet it was the mites.

This is compelling evidence for the spread of Varroa throughout the island environment, a process that occurs due to the activities of drifting and robbing.

If a neighbouring apiary to yours has mites some will end up in your hives … unless you are separated by several kilometres 11.

The transmission of mites in the environment is a very good reason to practice coordinated Varroa control.

One mite is all it takes

But, just as I’ve argued that some colonies may have received none of the founding mites, I’m equally sure that others will have acquired very small numbers of mites, perhaps just one.

And one mite is all it takes.

Without exceptional beekeeping skills, resistance in the bee population or rational Varroa control 12 there is no safe level of mites in a colony.

The more you prevent mites entering the colony in the first place, and the more of those that are present you eradicate, the better it is for your bees.

Here endeth the lesson 😉


Note

It’s worth noting that island populations do offer opportunities for the development of Varroa resistant (or tolerant) traits … if you start with enough colonies. Fries et al., (2006) describes the characteristics of the 13 surviving colonies on Gotland after leaving about 180 colonies untreated for several years. I’ve mentioned this previously and will return to it again to cover some related recent studies.

References

Fries, I., Imdorf, A. and Rosenkranz, P. (2006) ‘Survival of mite infested (Varroa destructor) honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies in a Nordic climate’, Apidologie, 37(5), pp. 564–570. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1051/apido:2006031.

Kevan, P.G., Laverty, T.M. and Denmark, H.A. (1990) ‘Association of Varroa Jacobsoni with Organisms other than Honeybees and Implications for its Dispersal’, Bee World, 71(3), pp. 119–121. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/0005772X.1990.11099048.

Kraus, B. and Page, R.E. (1995) ‘Effect of Varroa jacobsoni (Mesostigmata: Varroidae) on feral Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in California’, Environmental Entomology, 24(6), pp. 1473–1480. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/24.6.1473.

Wenner, A.M., Thorp, R.W., and Barthell, J.F. (2009) ‘Biological control and eradication of feral honey bee colonies on Santa Cruz Island, California: A summary’, Proceedings of the 7th California Islands Symposium, pp. 327–335. Available as a PDF.

Williams, J.L., Danka, R.G. and Rinderer, T.E. (1989) ‘Baiting system for selective abatement of undesirable honey bees’, Apidologie, 20(2), pp. 175–179. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1051/apido:19890208.

 

Rational Varroa control

It’s the end of July … in the next two to three weeks the first eggs will be laid that will develop into the winter bees that get your colonies through to next spring. Protecting these winter bees is necessary to prevent overwintering colony losses.

I’ve written and lectured extensively on Varroa control and related topics for at least 5 years. The following article is published in August’s BBKA Newsletter and The Scottish Beekeeper. It provides an overview of what I term rational Varroa control.

I define this as effective mite management based upon our current understanding of the biology of bees and Varroa. The goal of this control is to minimise winter losses due to Varroa and viruses.

It is not a recipe with easy to follow if this, then that instructions. Neither does it provide a calendar-based guide of what to do and when to do it.

It does not even tell you what you should use for mite control.

Instead it focuses on the principles … understanding these will enable you to implement control strategies that help your bees, in your environment, survive.

This version is hyperlinked to additional, more expansive, posts on particular topics, is slightly better illustrated than those that appeared in print and contains some additional footnotes with caveats and exceptions.


Introduction

Despite almost 30 years experience of Varroa in the UK, this ectoparasitic mite of honey bees remains the greatest threat to bees and beekeeping. With the exception of those fortunate to live in mite-free regions, all beekeepers must manage the mite population in their hives or risk losing the colony to the viruses transmitted when Varroa feeds on developing pupae. 

Fortunately, Varroa control is relatively straightforward; there are a range of approved and effective miticides that – used appropriately – reduce mite infestation levels significantly. The key words in that last sentence are ‘approved’, ‘effective’ and ‘used appropriately’. In reality annual colony losses, primarily occurring in the winter, often exceed 20% (Figure 1) and may be significantly higher in long or harsh winters 1. Many of these losses are attributable to Varroa and viruses. It is therefore clear that many beekeepers are not successful in managing Varroa; either they are not treating at all, or they are treating inappropriately.

Figure 1. BBKA winter survival survey – larger studies (COLOSS and BIP) often show much higher losses

This article is primarily aimed at relatively inexperienced beekeepers, but may also help the more experienced who still suffer with high levels of winter losses. It emphasises the importance of two, correctly timed, appropriate miticide treatments per season that should ensure colony survival. It is not going to deal with treatments of questionable or minor efficacy. These include the use of small cell foundation, drone brood culling or sugar dusting. These may reduce mite levels, but insufficiently to benefit colony health. Nor will it discuss the use of any miticides (or application methods) that are not approved by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate. I will also not discuss treatment-free beekeeping, selection of mite-resistant bees or advanced colony manipulations like queen trapping. In my view any or all of these could or should be tried … but only once a beekeeper can routinely successfully overwinter colonies using strategies similar to those described here.

The problem

Varroa is an ectoparasitic mite that feeds on developing honey bee pupae. During feeding it transmits a range of honey bee viruses, the most important of which is deformed wing virus (DWV). DWV is present in honey bees in the absence of Varroa. In our studies, using sensitive PCR-based detection methods, we never detect bees – even those from mite-free regions of Scotland – without DWV. The virus is transmitted horizontally between bees during trophallaxis, and vertically from drones or the queen through sperm or eggs. These routes of transmission are rarely if ever associated with any significant levels of disease and virus only replicates to modest levels (perhaps 1-10 thousand viruses per bee). However, when Varroa transmits DWV the virus bypasses the bee’s natural defence mechanisms and replicates to very high levels in recipient pupae (billions per pupa, 1 – 10 million times higher than in unparasitised pupae). Studies from our laboratory have shown that ~75% of pupae with these high virus loads either do not emerge, or emerge exhibiting the characteristic “deformed wings” that give the virus its name (Figure 2; Gusachenko et al., Viruses 2020, 12, 532; doi:10.3390/v12050532). The ~25% of bees that do emerge and appear ‘normal’ exhibit a range of symptoms including reduced fitness, impaired learning and reduced foraging. However, most importantly they also exhibit reduced longevity. During the summer this is probably not critical; the lifespan of a worker is only ~6 weeks and, assuming the queen is laying well, there are thousands of half-sisters around with more being produced every day.

DWV symptoms

Figure 2. DWV symptoms

But during the winter, brood rearing either stops completely or drops to a very low level. The bees reared from late summer onwards are physiologically very different. These are the ‘winter bees’, also termed the diutinus bees (from the Latin meaning long-lived). Physiologically these bees resemble juvenile workers and they can survive for many months. And they need to … it is these bees that get the colony through the autumn, winter and into the following spring. They protect the queen, they thermoregulate the hive and, usually around the winter solstice, they start to rear small amounts of new brood for the season ahead.

The longevity of the bees in the hive in winter is critical to colony survival. If the winter bees have high DWV levels their longevity is reduced (in addition to the reduced numbers due to overt disease or non-viability). This means that the winter cluster shrinks in size faster than it would do otherwise. With reduced numbers of bees it cannot keep brood warm enough and so the colony fails to expand early the following season. In cold spells it may be unable to reach the food stores resulting in the colony perishing from ‘isolation starvation’. It may not be able to maintain sufficient warmth to protect the queen, or may simply freeze to death.

The goal of rational Varroa control

Successful overwintering requires lots of winter bees. The size of the winter cluster is directly related to its survival chances. Therefore the goal of rational Varroa control is to prevent the winter bees from being exposed to mites and mite-transmitted viruses during their development. Winter bee production is induced by a range of factors including photoperiod, nectar and pollen availability, brood and forager pheromones. Together these induce slowed behavioural maturation of the winter bees. This is not like flicking a switch, instead it is a seamless transition occurring as late summer segues into early autumn (Figure 3). Winter bee production is also influenced by the queen. Young queens lay later into the autumn, so increasing the numbers of winter bees. 

Figure 3. Colony age structure from August to December.

It is important to note that these events are environment-driven, not calendar-driven. It will not happen at precisely the same time each year, or at the same time in different locations (or latitudes) each year.

To protect these winter bees the colony needs to be treated with an effective miticide before the majority of the winter bees are produced. This ensures that the developing winter bee pupae are not parasitised by virus-laden mites and so do not suffer from reduced longevity. 

When are winter bees produced in the UK? 

Unfortunately, I’m not aware of any direct studies of this. Scientists in Bern (49.9°N) in 2007/08, where the average temperatures in November and December were ~3°C, showed that the Varroa- and virus-reduced longevity of bees was first measurable in mid-November, 50 days after emergence. By extrapolation, the eggs must have been laid in the first week of September. 

Doing large scale experiments of Varroa control is time-consuming and subject to the vagaries of the climate (and, as a molecular virologist, beyond me in terms of the resources needed). I have therefore used the well-established BEEHAVE program of colony development (from scientists in the University of Exeter; https://beehave-model.net/) to model the numbers of developing and adult bees, and the mite numbers in a colony. BEEHAVE by default uses environmental parameters (climate and forage) based upon data from Rothamsted (51.8°N). Using results from this model system, the bees present in the hive at the end of December – by definition the diutinus winter bees – were produced from eggs laid from early/mid August (Figure 4).

Whatever the precise date – and it will vary from season to season as indicated above – at some point in September the adult bee population starts to be entirely replaced with winter bees. Large numbers of these need to live until the following February or March to ensure the colony survives and is able to build up again once the queen starts laying.

When to treat – late summer

The numbers of pupae and adult bees present in the colony are plotted in Figure 4 using dashed lines. Adult bee number decrease in early spring until new brood is reared. The influence of the ‘June gap’ on pupal numbers is obvious. Brood rearing gradually tails off from early July and stops altogether sometime in late October or early November. The shaded area represents the period of winter bee production – from early/mid August until brood rearing stops. 

Figure 4. Winter bee production and mite levels – see key and text for further details

Mite levels are indicated using solid lines. The impact on the mite population of treating in the middle of each month from July to November is shown (arrowed and labelled J, A, S, O and N) using the colours green, blue, red, cyan and black respectively. The absolute numbers of bees or mites is irrelevant, but bees (pupae and adults) are plotted on the left, and mites on the right hand axis, so they cannot be directly compared. The miticide treatment modelled was ‘applied’ for one month and was 95% effective, reproducing many licensed and approved products.

Mite levels peak in the colony in late September to October. If treatment does not occur until this time of the season then the majority of winter bees will have been reared in the presence of large amounts of mites. Unsurprisingly, the earlier the treatment is applied, the lower the mite levels during the period of winter bee production. 

Rational Varroa control therefore involves treatment soon after the summer blossom honey is removed from the hive, so maximising the winter bees produced in the presence of low mite numbers. If you leave treatment until mid-September, you risk exposing the majority of winter bees to high levels of Varroa in the hive. If your primary crop is heather honey, which is not harvested until September, you may need to consider treating earlier in the summer – for example during the brood break when requeening or during swarm control.

Why treat in midwinter?

A key point to notice from Figure 4 is that, paradoxically, the earlier the miticide is applied, the higher the mite levels are at the end of the year. Compare the August (blue) and October (cyan) lines at year end for example. This is because mites that survive treatment – and some always do – subsequently reproduce in the small amount of brood reared late in the season. This is what necessitates a ‘midwinter’ treatment. Without it, mite levels increase inexorably year upon year, and cannot be controlled by a single late-summer treatment. Beekeepers bragging on social media that their mite drop after the winter treatment was zero probably applied the summer treatment too late to effectively protect their winter bees.

And when is midwinter?

Historically beekeepers apply the ‘midwinter’ treatment between Christmas and New Year. This is probably too late. The usual miticide used at this time is oxalic acid, a ‘one shot’ treatment that is ineffective against mites in capped cells. For maximum efficacy this must be applied when the colony is broodless. Brood rearing usually starts (if it ends at all, again this is climate-dependent) around the winter solstice. By delaying treatment until a lull in the Christmas festivities or even early January some mites will already be inaccessible in capped cells. 

Figure 5. Biscuit coloured (or a bit darker) cappings indicating brood rearing in this colony

I check my colonies for brood – either by looking for biscuit-coloured cappings on the Varroa tray (Figure 5) or by quickly inspecting frames in the centre of the cluster – and usually treat in November or very early December. If I cannot check visually I apply the treatment during the first extended cold spell of the winter. By treating when the colony is broodless I can be certain my intervention will have maximal effect.

What to treat with?

I have deliberately avoided – other than mentioning oxalic acid – specific miticides. Rational Varroa control involves the choice of an appropriate miticide and its correct application. Examples of incorrect or inappropriate miticide choice include; use of Apistan when resistance is known to be very widespread, use of Apiguard when the average ambient temperature is below 15°C (which makes Apiguard of little use for effective control in much of Scotland) or the use of Api-Bioxal when there is capped brood present. In addition, use of a half-dose or a reduced period of application will both reduce efficacy and potentially lead to the selection of resistance in the mite population. Used correctly – the right dose at the right time and for the right duration – the majority of the currently licensed miticides are be capable of reducing mite levels by over 90%. If they do not, use one that does. Miticide choice should be dictated by your environment and the state of the colony.

All together now

Most beekeepers grossly underestimate the movement of bees (and their phoretic mites) between colonies. Numerous studies have shown that drifting and (to an even greater extent) robbing can result in the transfer of large numbers of mites from adjacent and, in the case of robbing, more distant colonies. 

Gaffer tape apiary

Figure 6. Gaffer tape apiary …

Rational Varroa control therefore involves treating all colonies within an apiary, and ideally the wider landscape, in a coordinated manner. In communal association apiaries (Figure 6), where beekeeping experience and therefore colony management and health can vary significantly, this is particularly important. Coordinated treatment is only relevant in late summer when bees are freely flying.

Swarms

Swarms originating from unmanaged or poorly managed colonies will have high mite levels. The bee population in a swarm is biased towards younger bees; these are the bees that phoretic mites preferentially associate with. Studies have shown that ~35% of the mite population of a colony leaves with the swarm.

Figure 7. Varroa treatment of a new swarm in a bait hive…

Since swarms contain no sealed brood until ~9 days after they are hived oxalic acid is the most appropriate treatment. I usually treat them using vaporised oxalic acid late in the evening soon after they are hived (Figure 7). Even casts get this treatment and I have not experienced any issues with the queen not subsequently mating successfully. I’d prefer to have a queenless low-mite colony than a queenright one potentially riddled with Varroa.

Midseason mite treatment

The text above describes the mite management strategies I have used for several years. I apply Apivar immediately the summer honey is removed and treat with oxalic acid when broodless before the end of the year. Doing this has almost never required any additional midseason treatments; if mite levels are sufficiently low at the beginning of the season they cannot rise to dangerous levels before the late summer treatment. I still get winter colony losses, but they are almost always due to poor queen mating and rarely due to Varroa and viruses.

Figure 8. Queenright splits and the window(s) of opportunity

However, if midseason treatments are required – either because there are signs of overt infestation, because regular mite counts have shown there is a problem, or to have low mite colonies after the heather honey is collected – then there are two choices. Treat with MAQS which is approved for use when there are supers on the hive and, more importantly, is effective against mites in capped cells 2. Alternatively, treat during swarm control. With care, the majority of splits (e.g. the Pagden artificial swarm or the nucleus method) can be performed to give a broodless period for both the queenright (Figure 8) and queenless partitions. That being the case, a single application of an oxalic acid-containing miticide can be very effective in controlling the mite population.

Costs

Many beekeepers complain about the cost of licensed and approved miticides. However, some perspective is needed. A colony with low levels of mites will be more likely to survive overwinter, so reducing the costs of replacement bees. In addition, a healthy colony will be a stronger colony, and therefore much more likely to produce a good crop of honey (and potentially an additional nuc). Over the last 5-6 years my miticide costs are equivalent to one jar of honey per colony per year. This is an insignificant amount to pay for healthy colonies.

Summary

Rational Varroa control requires an understanding of the goals of treatment – protecting the winter bees and minimising mite levels for the beginning of the following season – and an appreciation of how this can best be achieved using miticides appropriate for the environment and the state of the colony. Like so much of beekeeping, it involves judgement of the colony and will vary from season to season and your location. I’ve applied my midwinter treatment as early as the end of October or as late as mid-December, reflecting variation in timing of the broodless period. Rational Varroa control also involves an understanding of the biology of bees and an awareness of the influence of beekeeping (e.g. crowding colonies in apiaries which increases mite and disease transmission) on our bees. However, none of this is difficult, expensive or time consuming … and the benefits in terms of strong, healthy, productive colonies are considerable.


Note

A version of this post appeared in the BBKA Newsletter, August 2021

A version of this post appeared in The Scottish Beekeeper, August 2021

A virus that changes bee behaviour

Particle physicists might not agree, but I think that evolution is the most powerful force in the universe. It is responsible for the fabulous diversity of life, for everything from the 6,000,000 kg Pando clonal colony of quaking aspen covering 43 hectares of the Fishlake National Forest in Utah, to the teeniest of tiniest of viruses.

As a microbiologist I’m acutely aware of the role evolution has played in the genetic arms race between hosts and pathogens. This is what is responsible for the multi-faceted immune system higher organisms carry – the antibodies, the lymphocytes, the complement and interferon responses, and everything else.

In turn, the fast replicating bacteria and viruses have evolved countermeasures to subvert these immune mechanisms, to switch them off entirely or to decoy them into targeting the wrong thing. This ‘arms race’ has gone on since well before the evolution of multicellular organisms (~600 million years ago) … and continues unabated.

Evolution is powerful for one simple reason; if a particular genetic combination 1 ‘works’ it will be passed on to the progeny. If a virus evolves a way to resist the immune response of the host, or to spread between hosts more efficiently, then the trait will be inherited.

Molecular mechanisms and behavioural changes

Some of changes work at the molecular level, invisible without exquisitely sensitive in vitro analysis; protein A binds to protein B and, in doing so, stops protein B from doing whatever it should have be doing. These are important but often very subtle.

Rabies: Slaying a mad dog, 1566 illustration from Wellcome Images

Other changes are far more obvious. Take rabies for example (or don’t, it’s not recommended as it has a near-100% case fatality rate) … the primary host of the rabies virus are carnivorous mammals. Infection causes gross behavioural changes that facilitate virus transmission. The animal becomes bolder and much more aggressive, resulting in virus transmission through biting.

Recent studies have elegantly demonstrated that this (also) is an example of protein A binding to protein B at the molecular level, it’s just that the phenotype 2 is very much more marked.

A protein on the surface of the virus resembles a snake venom toxin and has the ability to bind to nicotinic acetylcholine receptors present in the central nervous system of the mammalian host. These receptors ‘do what they say on the tin’ and bind the neurotransmitter acetylcholine. If the virus protein binds the receptor the response to acetylcholine is blunted and this, in turn, leads to hyperactivity, one of the key behavioural responses caused by rabies viruses.

That’s enough about mad dogs.

If virus-induced behavioural changes are so obvious, why haven’t lots of different examples already been identified and characterised?

Sniffles

Part of the problem is the blurring of distinctions between overt behavioural changes and the direct symptoms induced due to the virus replicating.

Human rhinovirus, the aetiological agent of the common cold, causes upper respiratory tract infections. You get a runny nose and you sneeze a lot.

Gesundheit

Your behaviour changes.

However, it’s generally accepted that the sneezing and runny nose are a result of the physiological response to infection, rather than a virus-induced behavioural response to facilitate transmission.

It’s worth noting that all that “stuff” that comes out of your nose contains infectious virus, so it’s perhaps an artificial distinction between the general symptoms of sickness and evolutionarily-selected host behavioural changes caused by the virus.

Which in a roundabout way …

… allows me to finally introduce the topic of bee viruses that cause host behavioural changes involved in their transmission.

Or, rather, one bee virus that does this … though I’m certain that there will be more.

Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus (IAPV) is an RNA virus transmitted horizontally by direct contact between bees, or while feeding on developing pupae, by the parasitic mite Varroa destructor. It was implicated as a causative agent of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), though really compelling evidence supporting it as the primary cause never materialised.

It’s a virus UK beekeepers should be aware of, but unworried by, as it is extremely rare in the UK.

A recent paper has shown two behavioural changes in response to IAPV infection in honey bees. One of them – that facilitates horizontal transmission between colonies – is also partially explained at the molecular level.

The paper was published a couple of months ago:

Geffre et al., (2020) Honey bee virus causes context-dependent changes in host social behavior. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 117:10406-10413. 3

I’m going to focus on the results, rather than the methods, though the methods are rather cool. They used barcoded bees to allow the automated image analysis of every bee in a colony for some of the studies where they had introduced known IAPV infected individuals.

Responses of nestmates to IAPV infected bees

Imagine watching a few hundred waggle dances and being able to recount the position, distance and response of every bee ‘watching’ 4 the dance, and then being able to summarise the results.

Over five days.

Non-stop.

Including nights (and yes, bees do still waggle dance at night – a subject for the future).

The scientists orally infected groups of 30 bees with a sub-lethal dose of IAPV, marked them and released them into an observation hive. They then recorded their movements around the hive and their interactions with other bees in the colony. In particular, they focussed on trophallaxis interactions where one bee ‘feeds’ another.

Trophallaxis is also considered to be a method of communication in the hive and has been implicated in disease transmission.

The authors love their whisker plots and statistical analysis.

Who doesn’t? 😉

However, they generally make for rather underwhelming images in a bee blog for entertaining reading. Here .. see what I mean …

Number of trophallaxis interactions per hour.

Suffice to say that the results obtained were statistically significant.

They showed that the infected bees in the colony actually moved about the colony more than their nestmates. Conversely, they were engaged in fewer trophallaxis interactions i.e. it appeared as though they were being ‘ignored’ by their nestmates.

Were they really being ignored altogether or did their nestmates approach them, detect something was amiss and move away?

Antennation

Antennation is the mechanism by which bees recognise nestmates. They use the sensitive chemoreceptors on their antenna to detect cuticular hydrocarbons (CHC) which are distinctive between bees from different hives.

Antennation is a precursor to trophallaxis.

After all, bees do not want to feed a foreigner, or exchange chemicals involved in communications, or even potentially risk being exposed to a new pathogen.

Good as the barcoding and camera system is, it’s not good enough to record antennation within the observation hive. To do this they manually 5 recorded antennation events between IAPV-infected bees and nestmates in cages in the laboratory 6.

In these studies IAPV-infected bees were engaged in the same number of antennation events as control bees. This strongly suggests that the nestmate could detect there was something ‘wrong’ with the IAPV-infected individuals. In support of this conclusion, the authors also demonstrated that bees inoculated with a double stranded RNA (dsRNA) stimulator of the honey bee immune response were also also antennated equally, but engaged in less trophallaxis interactions.

Therefore, these studies appear to show that nestmates exhibit a behavioural response to IAPV-infected bees (and bees with elevated immune responses, recapitulating their response to pathogen infection) that is likely to be protective, reducing the transmission of horizontally acquired viruses.

It’s worth noting two things here.

  1. There were no virus transmission studies conducted. It’s assumed that the lack of trophallaxis reduces virus transmission. That still needs to be demonstrated.
  2. This response is not induced by the virus on the host. It’s a response by nestmates of the host to virus infected individuals (or individuals that present as ‘sick’). As such it’s not the same as the rabies example I started this post with.

Virus-induced behavioural responses

But do the IAPV-infected bees behave differently when they come into contact with other bees who are not their nestmates?

After all, IAPV is a pathogenic virus and its continuing presence within a population (not just a single hive) depends upon it being spread from hive to hive.

For a highly pathogenic virus this is very important. If you spread from bee to bee within a hive and kill the lot you also go extinct … this partly explains the mechanism by which highly virulent viruses become less virulent over time.

But back to IAPV. What happens when IAPV-inoculated bees interact with bees from a different hive?

For example, what would happen if they drifted from one hive to another in a densely populated apiary? Drifting is a significant contributor to the spread of bees between adjacent colonies – studies show that 1% of marked bees drift to adjacent hives over a 3 day window. This partially accounts for the genetic mix of workers (up to 40% are unrelated to the queen that heads the colony) in a hive, a fact generally unappreciated by beekeepers.

The authors first showed that IAPV-infected bees could apparently leave and return to the hive with a similar frequency as uninfected foragers. Their flying was not compromised.

They then resorted again to recording interactions in the laboratory between IAPV-infected bees or control dsRNA-inoculated bees and workers from a different hive.

This was where it gets particularly interesting.

Hello stranger

The dsRNA-immunostimulated bees (remember, these induce a generalised immune response characteristic of a ‘sick’ bee) were treated aggressively by unmatched workers from a different hive.

In contrast, the IAPV-infected bees (which were ‘sick’ and would have been undergoing immunestimulation caused by the IAPV infection) experienced significantly less aggression than both uninoculated workers (which induced an intermediate response) and the dsRNA-inoculated.

This strongly suggests that IAPV is somehow able to modulate the appearance or behaviour (and one often determines the other) of the host to make it more acceptable to an unmatched worker.

They extended this study to conduct “field-based assays at the entrances of three normally managed honey bee colonies”, monitoring whether IAPV-infected bees were more likely to be accepted by the guard bees at the entrance of the hive.

They were. The IAPV-infected bees received a less aggressive reception and/or entered the hives much more easily than the controls.

But what about proteins A and B?

Good question.

The behavioural alterations described above must be explainable in terms of the molecular changes that IAPV induces in the bees. By that I mean that the virus must make, or induce the making of, a chemical or protein or other molecule, the presence of which explains their acceptance by the foreign guard bees.

And the obvious candidates are the cuticular hydrocarbons (CHC) that are recognized during antennation, which I introduced earlier.

And here the story leaves us with some tantalising clues, but no definitive answer.

The scientists demonstrate that there were marked differences between the CHC profile of IAPV-infected and control bees. Again, they used their favoured whisker plots to show this, but collated all of the CHC data into an even more difficult to explain scatter plot of linear discriminant analysis.

CHC profiles (relative abundance) shown using linear discriminant analysis.

The key take home message here is that for each of the CHC’s analysed there were differences in both the quality and relative abundance between the control bees, bees immunestimulated with dsRNA and the IAPV-infected bees.

These differences were so marked that you can see distinct clustering of points in the analysis above … these bees ‘look’ 7 different to the guard bees that antennate them.

This is a great story.

It’s as yet incomplete. To complete the understanding we will need to know which of those CHC’s, or which combination, when suppressed (or overrepresented) induce the guard bees to say “Welcome, step this way … “.

We’ll then of course need to find out how IAPV induces the change in CHC profile, which takes us right back to protein A and protein B again.

Ever the pedant

Much as I like this science I’d perhap argue that, again, the virus isn’t directly inducing a behavioural change in the host.

What it’s doing is inducing a behavioural change in the response to the infected host (by the guard bee). So perhaps this again isn’t quite the same as the rabies example we kicked off with.

A behavioural change in the host might include IAPV-infected bees drifting more, or drifting further. Alternatively, perhaps a colony with widespread IAPV infection could more easily indulge in robbing neighbouring colonies as they would experience less aggression from guard bees.

Smaller is better ...

Reduced entrance to prevent robbing …

I can see immediate evolutionary benefits to a virus that induced these types of behavioural changes. It’s not an original idea … the late Ingemar Fries suggested it in a paper two decades ago 8.

I’m also certain that researchers are looking for evidence supporting these types of directly-induced behavioural changes caused by viral pathogens in honey bees.

All religion, my friend, is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination, and poetry

Edgar Allen Poe may or may not have said this.

However, while we’re on the thorny subject of pathogen-induced behavioural changes in the host, it might be worth mentioning a couple of more controversial areas in which it has been proposed.

In the snappily titled paper “Assortative sociality, limited dispersal, infectious disease and the genesis of the global pattern of religion diversity” Fincher and Thornhill argue 9 that the wide diversity of religions in the tropics (compared to temperate regions) is driven by infectious disease selecting for three anti-contagion behaviours; in-group assortative sociality; out-group avoidance; and limited dispersal. It’s an interesting idea and I’m pleased I don’t have to test it experimentally. Their argument is that these three behavioural changes select for fractionation, isolation and diversification of the original culture … and hence the evolution of religions.

Conversely, perhaps microorganisms induce religious behaviours (rather than religion per se) that facilitate their transmission. This is exemplified in the entertainingly titled paper “Midichlorians – the biomeme hypothesis: is there a microbial component to religious rituals?” by Panchin et al., (2014). They argue that microbes – and they are really thinking about the gut microbiota here – might be able to influence their hosts (humans) to gather for religious rituals at which both ideas (memes) and infections are more easily transmitted.

Perhaps something to think about when mindlessly spinning out all that summer honey in the next few weeks?

Party, party

I think it’s fair to say that both the papers in the section above have some way to go until they achieve mainstream acceptance … if they ever do.

Furthermore, the general area in which parasites, bacteria and viruses, induce changes in the behaviour of their hosts’ is really in its infancy. We are aware of a lot of behavioural changes, but few are understood at the molecular level 10. As such, we often don’t know whether the association is correlative or causative.

Evolution is certainly a powerful enough selective force to ensure that even extremely subtle benefits to the pathogen may become a genetically-fixed feature of the complex interaction it has with the host.

Respiratory viruses, such as the common cold, Covid-19 and influenza infect millions of people globally and are readily transmitted by direct or indirect contact.

That’s why most of the readers of this post have a face mask nearby and a bottle of hand sanitizer ‘at the ready’. Or should.

Direct transmission benefits the virus as it does not have to survive on a door handle, milk bottle or petrol filling pump.

But direct transmission requires that people meet and are in close contact.

And a paper 10 years ago demonstrated that infection with influenza virus resulted in increased social interactions in the 48 hours post-exposure, compared with the same period pre-exposure 11.

It’s amazing what viruses can do … or might do … or (just look around you) are doing.


 

Darwinian beekeeping

A fortnight ago I reviewed the first ten chapters of Thomas Seeley’s recent book The Lives of Bees. This is an excellent account of how honey bees survive in ‘the wild’ i.e. without help or intervention from beekeepers.

Seeley demonstrates an all-too-rare rare combination of good experimental science with exemplary communication skills.

It’s a book non-beekeepers could appreciate and in which beekeepers will find a wealth of entertaining and informative observations about their bees.

The final chapter, ‘Darwinian beekeeping’, includes an outline of practical beekeeping advice based around what Seeley (and others) understand about how colonies survive in the wild.

Differences

The chapter starts with a very brief review of about twenty differences between wild-living and managed colonies. These differences have already been introduced in the preceding chapters and so are just reiterated here to set the scene for what follows.

The differences defined by Seeley as distinguishing ‘wild’ and ‘beekeepers’ colonies cover everything from placement in the wider landscape (forage, insecticides), the immediate environment of the nest (volume, insulation), the management of the colony (none, invasive) and the parasites and pathogens to which the bees are exposed.

Some of the differences identified are somewhat contrived. For example, ‘wild’ colonies are defined fixed in a single location, whereas managed colonies may be moved to exploit alternative forage.

In reality I suspect the majority of beekeepers do not move their colonies. Whether this is right or not, Seeley presents moving colonies as a negative. He qualifies this with studies which showed reduced nectar gathering by colonies that are moved, presumably due to the bees having to learn about their new location.

However, the main reason beekeepers move colonies is to exploit abundant sources of nectar. Likewise, a static ‘wild’ colony may have to find alternative forage when a particularly good local source dries up.

If moving colonies to exploit a rich nectar source did not usually lead to increased nectar gathering it would be a pretty futile exercise.

Real differences

Of course, some of the differences are very real.

Beekeepers site colonies close together to facilitate their management. In contrast, wild colonies are naturally hundreds of metres apart 1. I’ve previously discussed the influence of colony separation and pathogen transmission 2; it’s clear that widely spaced colonies are less susceptible to drifting and robbing from adjacent hives, both processes being associated with mite and virus acquisition 3.

Abelo poly hives

50 metres? … I thought you said 50 centimetres. Can we use the next field as well?

The other very obvious difference is that wild colonies are not treated with miticides but managed colonies (generally) are. As a consequence – Seeley contends – beekeepers have interfered with the ‘arms race’ between the host and its parasites and pathogens. Effectively beekeepers have ‘weaken[ed] the natural selection for disease resistance’.

Whilst I don’t necessarily disagree with this general statement, I am not convinced that simply letting natural selection run its (usually rather brutal) course is a rational strategy.

But I’m getting ahead of myself … what is Darwinian beekeeping?

Darwinian beekeeping

Evolution is probably the most powerful force in nature. It has created all of the fantastic wealth of life forms on earth – from the tiniest viroid to to the largest living thing, Armillaria ostoyae 4. The general principles of Darwinian evolution are exquisitely simple – individuals of a species are not identical; traits are passed from generation to generation; more offspring are born than can survive; and only the survivors of the competition for resources will reproduce.

I emphasised ‘survivors of the competition’ as it’s particularly relevant to what is to follow. In terms of hosts and pathogens, you could extend this competition to include whether the host survives the pathogen (and so reproduces) or whether the pathogen replicates and spreads, but in doing so kills the host.

Remember that evolution is unpredictable and essentially directionless … we don’t know what it is likely to produce next.

Seeley doesn’t provide a precise definition of Darwinian beekeeping (which he also terms natural, apicentric or beefriendly beekeeping). However, it’s basically the management of colonies in a manner that more closely resembles how colonies live in the wild.

This is presumably unnnatural beekeeping

In doing so, he claims that colonies will have ‘less stressful and therefore more healthful’ lives.

I’ll come back to this point at the end. It’s an important one. But first, what does Darwinian mean in terms of practical beekeeping?

Practical Darwinian beekeeping

Having highlighted the differences between wild and managed colonies you won’t be surprised to learn that Darwinian beekeeping means some 5 or all of the following: 6

  • Keep locally adapted bees – eminently sensible and for which there is increasing evidence of the benefits.
  • Space colonies widely (30-50+ metres) – which presumably causes urban beekeepers significant problems.
  • Site colonies in an area with good natural forage that is not chemically treated – see above.
  • Use small hives with just one brood box and one super – although not explained, this will encourage swarming.
  • Consider locating hives high off the ground – in fairness Seeley doesn’t push this one strongly, but I could imagine beekeepers being considered for a Darwin Award if sufficient care wasn’t taken.
  • Allow lots of drone brood – this occurs naturally when using foundationless frames.
  • Use splits and the emergency queen response for queen rearing i.e. allow the colony to choose larvae for the preparation of new queens – I’ve discussed splits several times and have recently posted on the interesting observation that colonies choose very rare patrilines for queens.
  • Refrain from treating with miticides – this is the biggy. Do not treat colonies. Instead kill any colonies with very high mite levels to prevent them infesting other nearby colonies as they collapse and are robbed out.

Good and not so good advice

A lot of what Seeley recommends is very sound advice. Again, I’m not going to paraphrase his hard work – you should buy the book and make your own mind up.

Sourcing local bees, using splits to make increase, housing bees in well insulated hives etc. all works very well.

High altitude bait hive …

Some of the advice is probably impractical, like the siting of hives 50 metres apart. A full round of inspections in my research apiary already takes a long time without having to walk a kilometre to the furthest hive.

The prospect of inspecting hives situated at altitude is also not appealing. Negotiating stairs with heavy supers is bad enough. In my travels I’ve met beekeepers keeping hives on shed roofs, accessed by a wobbly step ladder. An accident waiting to happen?

And finally, I think the advice to use small hives and to cull mite-infested colonies is poor. I understand the logic behind both suggestions but, for different reasons, think they are likely to be to the significant detriment of bees, bee health and beekeeping.

Let’s deal with them individually.

Small hives – one brood and one super

When colonies run out of space for the queen to lay they are likely to swarm. The Darwinian beekeeping proposed by Seeley appears to exclude any form of swarm prevention strategy. Hive manipulation is minimal and queens are not clipped.

They’ll run out of space and swarm.

Even my darkest, least prolific colonies need more space than the ~60 litres offered by a brood and super.

Seeley doesn’t actually say ‘allow them to swarm’, but it’s an inevitability of the management and space available. Of course, the reason he encourages it is (partly – there are other reasons) to shed the 35% of mites and to give an enforced brood break to the original colony as it requeens.

These are untreated colonies. At least when starting the selection strategy implicit in Darwinian beekeeping these are likely to have a very significant level of mite infestation.

These mites, when the colony swarms, disappear over the fence with the swarm. If the swarm survives long enough to establish a new nest it will potentially act as a source of mites far and wide (through drifting and robbing, and possibly – though it’s unlikely as it will probably die – when it subsequently swarms).

A small swarm

A small swarm … possibly riddled with mites

Thanks a lot!

Lost swarms – and the assumption is that many are ‘lost’ – choose all sorts of awkward locations to establish a new nest site. Sure, some may end up in hollow trees, but many cause a nuisance to non-beekeepers and additional work for the beekeepers asked to recover them.

In my view allowing uncontrolled swarming of untreated colonies is irresponsible. It is to the detriment of the health of bees locally and to beekeepers and beekeeping.

Kill heavily mite infested colonies

How many beekeepers reading this have deliberately killed an entire colony? Probably not many. It’s a distressing thing to have to do for anyone who cares about bees.

The logic behind the suggestion goes like this. The colony is heavily mite infested because it has not developed resistance (or tolerance). If it is allowed to collapse it will be robbed out by neighbouring colonies, spreading the mites far and wide. Therefore, tough love is needed. Time for the petrol, soapy water, insecticide or whatever your choice of colony culling treatment.

In fairness to Seeley he also suggests that you could requeen with known mite-resistant/tolerant stock.

But most beekeepers tempted by Darwinian ‘treatment free’ natural beekeeping will not have a queen bank stuffed with known mite-resistant mated queens ‘ready to go’.

But they also won’t have the ‘courage’ to kill the colony.

They’ll procrastinate, they’ll prevaricate.

Eventually they’ll either decide that shaking the colony out is OK and a ‘kinder thing to do’ … or the colony will get robbed out before they act and carpet bomb every strong colony for a mile around.

Killing the colony, shaking it out or letting it get robbed out have the same overall impact on the mite-infested colony, but only slaying them prevents the mites from being spread far and wide.

And, believe me, killing a colony is a distressing thing to do if you care about bees.

In my view beefriendly beekeeping should not involve slaughtering the colony.

Less stress and better health

This is the goal of Darwinian beekeeping. It is a direct quote from final chapter of the book (pp286).

The suggestion is that unnatural beekeeping – swarm prevention and control, mite management, harvesting honey (or beekeeping as some people call it 😉 ) – stresses the bees.

And that this stress is detrimental for the health of the bees.

I’m not sure there’s any evidence that this is the case.

How do we measure stress in bees? Actually, there are suggested ways to measure stress in bees, but I’m not sure anyone has systematically developed these experimentally and compared the stress levels of wild-living and managed colonies.

I’ll explore this topic a bit more in the future.

I do know how to measure bee health … at least in terms of the parasites and pathogens they carry. I also know that there have been comparative studies of managed and feral colonies.

Unsurprisingly for an unapologetic unnatural beekeeper like me ( 😉 ), the feral colonies had higher levels of parasites and pathogens (Catherine Thompson’s PhD thesis [PDF] and Thompson et al., 2014 Parasite Pressures on Feral Honey Bees). By any measurable definition these feral colonies were less healthy.

Less stress and better health sounds good, but I’m not actually sure it’s particularly meaningful.

I’ll wrap up with two closing thoughts.

One of the characteristics of a healthy and unstressed population is that it is numerous, productive and reproduces well. These are all characteristics of strong and well-managed colonies.

Finally, persistently elevated levels of pathogens are detrimental to the individual and the population. It’s one of the reasons we vaccinate … which will be a big part of the post next week.


 

Midseason mite management

The Varroa mite and the potpourri of viruses it transmits are probably the greatest threat to our bees. The number of mites in the colony increases during the spring and summer, feeding and breeding on sealed brood.

Pupa (blue) and mite (red) numbers

In early/mid autumn mite levels reach their peak as the laying rate of the queen decreases. Consequently the number of mites per pupa increases significantly. The bees that are reared at this time of year are the overwintering workers, physiologically-adapted to get the colony through the winter.

The protection of these developing overwintering bees is critical and explains why an early autumn application of a suitable miticide is recommended … or usually essential.

And, although this might appear illogical, if you treat early enough to protect the winter bees you should also treat during a broodless period in midwinter. This is necessary because mite replication goes on into the autumn (while the colony continues to rear brood). If you omit the winter treatment the colony starts with a higher mite load the following season.

And you know what mites mean

Mites in midseason

Under certain circumstances mite levels can increase to dangerous levels 1 much earlier in the season than shown in the graph above.

What circumstances?

I can think of two major reasons 2. Firstly, if the colony starts the season with higher than desirable mite levels (this is why you treat midwinter). Secondly, if the mites are acquired by the colony from other colonies i.e. by infested bees drifting between colonies or by your bees robbing a mite infested colony.

Don’t underestimate the impact these events can have on mite levels. A strong colony robbing out a weak, heavily infested, collapsing colony can acquire dozens of mites a day.

The robbed colony may not be in your apiary. It could be a mile away across the fields in an apiary owned by a treatment-free 3 aficionado or from a pathogen-rich feral colony in the church tower.

How do you identify midseason mite problems?

You need to monitor mite levels, actively and/or passively. The latter includes periodic counts of mites that fall through an open mesh floor onto a Varroa board. The National Bee Unit has a handy – though not necessarily accurate – calculator to determine the total mite levels in the colony based on the Varroa drop.

Out, damn'd mite ...

Out, damn’d mite …

Don’t rely on the NBU calculator. A host of factors are likely to influence the natural Varroa drop. For example, if the laying rate of the queen is decreasing because there’s no nectar coming in there will be fewer larvae at the right stage to parasitise … consequently the natural drop (which originates from phoretic mites) will increase.

And vice versa.

Active monitoring includes uncapping drone brood or doing a sugar roll or alcohol wash to dislodge phoretic mites.

Overt disease

But in addition to looking for mites you should also keep a close eye on workers during routine inspections. If you see bees showing obvious signs of deformed wing virus (DWV) symptoms then you need to intervene to reduce mite levels.

High levels of DWV

High levels of DWV …

During our studies of DWV we have placed mite-free 4 colonies into a communal apiary. Infested drone cells were identified during routine uncapping within 2 weeks of our colony being introduced. Even more striking, symptomatic workers could be seen in the colony within 11 weeks.

Treatment options

Midseason mite management is more problematic than the late summer/early autumn and midwinter treatments.

Firstly, the colony will (or should) have good levels of sealed brood.

Secondly, there might be a nectar flow on and the colony is hopefully laden with supers.

The combination of these two factors is the issue.

If there is brood in the colony the majority (up to 90%) of mites will be hiding under the protective cappings feasting on sealed pupae.

Of course, exactly the same situation prevails in late summer/early autumn. This is why the majority of approved treatments – Apistan (don’t), Apivar, Apiguard etc. – need to be used for at least 4-6 weeks. This covers multiple brood cycles, so ensuring that the capped Varroa are released and (hopefully) slaughtered.

Which brings us to the second problem. All of those named treatments should not be used when there is a flow on or when there are supers on the hive. This is to avoid tainting (contaminating) the honey.

And, if you think about it, there’s unlikely to be a 4-6 week window between early May and late August during which there is not a nectar flow.

MAQS

The only high-efficacy miticide approved for use when supers are present is MAQS 5.

The active ingredient in MAQS is formic acid which is the only miticide capable of penetrating the cappings to kill Varroa in sealed brood 6. Because MAQS penetrates the cappings the treatment window is only 7 days long.

I have not used MAQS and so cannot comment on its use. The reason I’ve not used it is because of the problems many beekeepers have reported with queen losses or increased bee mortality. The Veterinary Medicines Directorate MAQS Summary of the product characteristics provides advice on how to avoid these problems.

Kill and cure isn’t the option I choose 😉 7

Of course, many beekeepers have used MAQS without problems.

So, what other strategies are available?

Oxalic acid Api-Bioxal

Many beekeepers these days – if you read the online forums – would recommend oxalic acid 8.

I’ve already discussed the oxalic acid-containing treatments extensively.

Importantly, these treatments only target phoretic mites, not those within capped cells.

Trickled oxalic acid is toxic to unsealed brood and so is a poor choice for a brood-rearing colony.

Varroa counts

In contrast, sublimated (vaporised) oxalic acid is tolerated well by the colony and does not harm open brood. Thomas Radetzki demonstrated it continued to be effective for about a week after administration, presumably due to its deposition on all internal surfaces of the hive. My daily mite counts of treated colonies support this conclusion.

Consequently beekeepers have empirically developed methods to treat brooding colonies multiple times with vaporised oxalic acid Api-Bioxal to kill mites released from capped cells.

The first method I’m aware of published for this was by Hivemaker on the Beekeeping Forum. There may well be earlier reports. Hivemaker recommended three or four doses at five day intervals if there is brood present.

This works well 9 but is it compatible with supers on the hive and a honey flow?

What do you mean by compatible?

The VMD Api-Bioxal Summary of product characteristics 10 specifically states “Don’t treat hives with super in position or during honey flow”.

That is about as definitive as possible.

Another one for the extractor ...

Another one for the extractor …

Some vapoholics (correctly) would argue that honey naturally contains oxalic acid. Untreated honey contains variable amounts of oxalic acid; 8-119 mg/kg in one study 11 or up to 400 mg/kg in a large sample of Italian honeys according to Franco Mutinelli 12.

It should be noted that these levels are significantly less than many vegetables.

In addition, Thomas Radetzki demonstrated that oxalic acid levels in spring honey from OA vaporised colonies (the previous autumn) were not different from those in untreated colonies. 

Therefore surely it’s OK to treat when the supers are present?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

There are a few additional studies that have shown no marked rise in OA concentrations in honey post treatment. One of the problems with these studies is that the delay between treatment and honey testing is not clear and is often not stated 13.

Consider what the minimum potential delay between treatment and honey harvesting would be if it were allowed or recommended.

One day 14.

No one has (yet) tested OA concentrations in honey immediately following treatment, or the (presumable) decline in OA levels in the days, weeks and months after treatment. Is it linear over time? Does it flatline and then drop precipitously or does it drop precipitously and then remain at a very low (background) level?

Oxalic acid levels over time post treatment … it’s anyones guess

How does temperature influence this? What about colony strength and activity?

Frankly, without this information we’re just guessing.

Why risk it?

I try and produce the very best quality honey possible for friends, family and customers.

The last thing I would want to risk is inadvertently producing OA-contaminated honey.

Do I know what this tastes like? 15

No, and I’d prefer not to find out.

Formic acid and thymol have been shown to taint honey and my contention is that thorough studies to properly test this have yet to be conducted for oxalic acid.

Until they are – and unless they are statistically compelling – I will not treat colonies with supers present … and I think those that recommend you do are unwise.

What are the options?

Other than MAQS there are no treatments suitable for use when the honey supers are on. If there’s a good nectar flow and a mite-infested colony you have to make a judgement call.

Will the colony be seriously damaged if you delay treatment further?

Quite possibly.

Which is more valuable 16, the honey or the bees?

One option is to treat, hopefully save the colony and feed the honey back to the bees for winter (nothing wrong with this approach … make sure you label the supers clearly!).

Another approach might be to clear then remove the supers to another colony, then treat the original one.

However, if you choose to delay treatment consider the other colonies in your own or neighbouring apiaries. They are at risk as well.

Finally, prevention is better than cure. Timely application of an effective treatment in late summer and midwinter should be sufficient, particularly if all colonies in a geographic area are coordinately treated to minimise the impact of robbing and drifting.

I’ve got two more articles planned on midseason mite management for when the colony is broodless, or can be engineered to be broodless 17.