Disease Control in Organic beekeeping

Ingemar Fries
Department of Ecology
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
75007 Uppsala, Sweden

First Apimondia Conference on Organic Beekeeping

Bulgaria, 27 - 29 August 2010
 The theory of evolution is based on the concept of
survival of the fittest. Those individuals best adapted
to a changing environment will pass their genes to the
next generation.

Adaptation is based on biological variation.

Without variation no long-term survival because

the abiotic factors change, as do biotic factors
such as pathogen pressure and composition

C. Darwin, 1859
Breeding of animals by man most often means a reduction
in biological variation

• risks for loss of important traits, ex. pathogen resistance

For the honey bee (and most Hymenoptera) genetic variation

is even more important than for other species

• the sex determination system

• the haplo-diploidy system

Why do bees become sick?

To understand disease control we need to understand why bees

become sick

All available data suggest that wild populations of bees are less
afflicted by disease compared to managed populations

Why do apiculture produce disease problems?

• unsuitable apiary locations

• crowding of colonies
• increased horisontal transmission of pathogens
• introduction of bees non-adapted to local climates
• management schemes that upset colony demography
• reducing the genetic variation through selection
How do we breed vital bees?

The main problem with breeding vital bees is breeding

Beekeepers are often racists

Racists limit the genetic pool and choose bees (if bee breeders)
with characteristics not necessarily fitness optimized

Adding isolated mating sites and instrumental insemination

make the potential risk of loosing genetic variation acute
How do we breed vital bees?

Fortunately there are wild honey bee populations

Genetic variation will remain as long as man is not in control

Domesticated bees show higher incidence of disease

compared to wild bee populations (ex. AFB)
Beekeepers can probably influence bee colony fitness
by breeding for hygienic bees

Hygienic bees show more resistance to all brood

infections/infestations

American foulbrood

European brood

Chalk brood

Sac brood

Varroa
Hygienic bees remove
diseased brood fast

Non-hygienic bees remove

diseased brood much slower
 57.3 - 100

95.7 - 100

96.6 - 100

96.7 - 100

93.7 - 100

98.7 - 100

98.9 - 100

100
100

90 Pinned

Percent (%) removed brood in 24 h

80
Control
70

30.6 - 42.4
60

50

40 19.5 - 29.3

30
0 - 25.6

20

10

0
9C 13F 18F 14C 19F 2H 19H 3G 10E 19J 4F
Colony

Figure 1. Average removal rate (N=3) of pin-killed brood 24 h. post treatment in 11 colonies
of A. mellifera scutellata. The range of removed pin-killed brood (min. Ğmax) is given above
the bar for each treated colony

Fries, I., Raina, S. 2003. American foulbrood (Paenibacillus larvae larvae) and African honey bees (Apis mellifera
scutellata). Journal of Economic Entomology 96, 1641-1646.
The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

Varroa Control Strategy

 Varroa mites are the biggest menace
to beekeeping world wide

It is an established fact that European honey

bees will die if effective mite control is not employed

This mite was detected in Sweden 1987

I have spent 15 years working on control strategies

In reality this means I have spent 15 years pouring things

on bees to see what happens….
 Formic acid

short term treatment long term treatment

1-5 days 2-3 weeks
Slide courtesy Preben Kristiansen
Lactic acid

Slide courtesy Preben Kristiansen

Oxalic acid

Slide courtesy Preben Kristiansen

 Which control option
should I choose?

Apistan Ecological control options

• high efficacy • variation in efficacy

• low labor cost • often high labor cost
• expensive • cheap

• residues in wax (& possibly in honey) • none or low residue problems

• resistant mites develop • resistant mites less likely
Slide courtesy Preben Kristiansen
We have been succesful….

But we are also stuck….

Africanized honey bees (Apis mellifera adansoni imported into
Brazil) survive and coexist with Varroa mites in South America
(reviewed in Rosenkranz, 1999; Rosenkranz et al., 2010)

The course of events leading to this co-existance largely remains unknown

Parameters investigated and suggested to explain co-existance include:

– Reduced fertility of female mites on worker brood (Camazine, 1986)

 1: total live mites (0.5 fertility) 2: total live mites (0.85 fertility)
1: 10000.00

1: 5000.00

2 2

1 2 1 2 1 1
1: 0.00
0.00 273.75 547.50 821.25 1095.00

Graph 1 (Mite fertility worker b Days 18.50 04-09-18

Calculations based on model by Calis et al., 1999

Parameters investigated and suggested to explain co-existance include:

– Reduced fertility of female mites on worker brood (Camazine, 1986)

– Lower brood attractivity in Africanized bees (Vandame et al, 1995)

– Increased grooming behavior in Africanized bees (Moretto et al., 1993)

Bees may damage live mites (Ruttner & Hänel, 1992)

Some data do suggest that grooming (expressed as

proportion of damaged mites) actually do influence Courtesy R. Büchler

mite population development (Moosbeckhoofer, 1992)

Bees also damage dead mites (Rosenkranz et al., 1997)

Variations in grooming can not explain the difference in impact from

Varroa infestations between Aricanized and European races of honey
bees in South America (Aumeier, 2001)
The original host, Apis cerana, is more effective in grooming
compared to European races of honey bees (Peng, 1987)

However, it still remains to be demonstrated that grooming is an

important part of the mite resistance in A. cerana (Fries et al.,
1996)

40

35 Cerana 1
30 Cerana 2

25

20

15
27% 16%
10

0
Number of mites found Number of damaged mites

Data from Fries et al., 1996

Parameters investigated and suggested to be involved in co-existance include:

– Reduced fertility of female mites on worker brood (Camazine, 1986)

– Lower brood attractivity in Africanized bees (Vandame et al, 1995)

– Increased grooming behavior in Africanized bees (Moretto et al., 1993)

– Climate (Ritter & de Jong, 1984)

– Hygienic behavior (Corrêa-Marques & de Jong, 1998)

– The flight behavior of infested bees (Kralj & Fuchs, 2004)

– The cell size in Africanized bees (Erickson, 1990)

So, what parameters to focus on!??

Why not all at the same time!??

- Why not use……..

The Bond Test

Live and Let Die

Bond concept stolen from

John Kefuss (1999)

Material and Methods

5 km
 Mortality rates
a b c c ab ab b
0,9
N=120
0,8

0,7
N=21
Colony mortality rate

0,6

0,5

0,4
N=146
0,3
N=13
N=11
0,2
N=8
N=150
0,1

0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Year
 Swarming rates
a b c cd ab abd bd
0,7
N=140 N=7
0,6

0,5
N=9
Swarming rate

0,4
N=112 N=10
0,3

0,2
N=9
0,1
N=26
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year
 Infestation rates bcd
bd
a b b ac c cd
0,5

0,45

0,4
Fall mite infestation rate

0,35

0,3

0,25

0,2

0,15

0,1

0,05

0
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Year
Method

Apiary A Apiary B
Mite source

Control mites Bond mites

10 10 10 10
colonies colonies colonies colonies

Bond Control Bond Control

Queen type
 There is no indication that the source of mites influences the mite
population development

16000 Bond bees/Bond mites

Control bees/Bond mites

14000
Bond bees/Control mites

12000 Control bees/Control mites

Total number of mites

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0
May9 June7 July6 August1 September3 September
29
Date
 So, what are the options for the poor beekeeper!??

Organic disease
control ??

Natural selection Conventional

(i.e. the Bond test) ?? mite control ??
 There are three strategies for Varroa control and breeding
of tolerant bees:

1. The Good Strategy

2. The Bad Strategy

and 3. The Ugly Strategy

3. The Ugly Strategy

First developed by John Kefuss

Results in heavy bee losses

Likely to produce mites and bees

that live happily together

Likely to be unacceptable to beekeepers

2. The Bad Strategy

This is the main stream strategy

Consists of various effective chemical treatments

Removes selective advantage of being tolerant/less virulent

Results in resistant mites and contaminated products

The Bad Strategy resembles the ostrich philosophy

The Bad Strategy gets you hooked forever…..
1. The Good Strategy

This strategy combines the Bad

Strategy and the Ugly Strategy

The Good Strategy allows selection pressure on host and

parasite, without severe bee losses

”Bad” mites are punished by only treating heavily infested

colonies

”Bad” bees are punished by requeening heavily infested

colonies
Time will tell if the Good Strategy is suicide…..
or heaven…..
Thank you for your attention !!