# Newbees, Mediums and AFB -- a cautionary tale



## Bblock (Sep 2, 2014)

I'm new to bee keeping and want to be a beekeeper not a bee haver. I started 2 hives this May 2014. I have been attending meetings, reading books talking to ppl ect. I get the impression ppl are reluctant to help. I don't know if it's the thought that I maybe competition in the honey market one day or they have spent the time figuring out 'something' that works and they'll be darned if they are going to give up that info. I figured it out now you have to figure it out mentality. I understand that each location may pose different challenges but I believe there are standard practices that are the same and why try an reinvent the wheel? Just my $.02.


----------



## homesteader824 (Jun 9, 2012)

I don't think you can pin all the problems you list on medium supers and foundationless frames. If a hive is contaminated, it is not assumed to only be in the brood boxes--the whole hive should be considered contaminated in my opinion. The cross contamination could have as easily been transferred if deep frames were shared with other hives. I hope beekeepers aren't saving the frames and honey from honey supers that sat upon hives with AFB. And of course there's the warning to assume all honey has AFB spores unless it was taken from your own hives.

As far as giving frames to other beekeepers, I would blame both parties for the spread of disease. Who in their right mind would take frames from a new beekeeper who said "my hive died of something, here are some frames from it that you can have"?

Regarding foundationless frames, if the bees won't build new comb in a FL frame, then they won't draw out foundation either, in the same conditions. I am running hives with both right now, and I can't tell that foundationless is slower than using foundation; what I have experienced is that sometimes the bees just don't build good comb under either system.

I do agree with you about the "old guard,'' but I think opinion may be swinging back the other way. Often when you hear a story, it is qualified with something along the lines of "of course, that was before varroa and SHB." It may just be my personal experience, but with the availability of a lot of the old beekeeping books online, by authors such as Dadant and Doolittle, I have found a lot of knowledge that still applies to current beekeeping, even though it was written well over 100 years ago.

Lastly, about spendthrift beekeepers, I think beekeepers fall into two general categories. There are the ones you describe, with the fancy hives that look like they belong in an English garden, who have probably never swung a hammer or sawed a board. Not that there's anything wrong with buying something when you wouldn't be satisfied with what you could have made. But there are also the others, who are thrifty, who scrounge materials and make their own equipment; they build or repair before they consider buying new. Around here, there are more of the latter.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

No, I don't pin all the problems on Medium FL. That combination **facilitates** poor decisions by poor decision makers. Supers need ladder frames, and in a FL system the drawn ladder frames are at a premium, hence the decision to recycle suspect material.

The new beek didn't say "My hive died of something", she said "My hive died of Monsanto/GMO/CCD" (which is why I became involved). The externalization of blame causes like-minded people to utterly suspend judgement. The "Monsanto is the devil's stepchild" meme is promoted with a constant barage of glossy color posters on the i'net. That sort of externalization of threat is a very effective propaganda technique.

A key point: * the master/apprentice model is self-regulating*. If a mentor has bad, unsuitable practices -- he will vanish and train no one. Only the successful transmit their practices. In the current state, any blowhard with an attractive theory (say "_hives must be oriented to Alpha Centurii, because bees are interstellar aliens_") and unlimited time to post it to the internet can attract a small army of emulators.


----------



## Santa Caras (Aug 14, 2013)

new beek here, first year and I will say I'm guilty of watching some of the Youtube stuff. Thing is, I'm also old enough to have learned as the old saying goes: to believe only half of everything one reads and doubt the half you do believe in. I think tho, most everything that I've learned that was actually useful, was learned on this site here. TF sounds like a pipedream...Working in our clubs apiary on the weekends has given me an aprreciation of the devasation of what pests/disease can do to a hive. Down here in Florida with our semi-tropical climate...there is no freeze to kill them during the winter. Hopefully I'll be lucky enough to avoid any encounters with AFB!!


----------



## Snowhitsky (Mar 1, 2014)

Isn't the remedy for AFB to burn everything? In which case what does it matter whether it's deep brood chamber + medium super or all mediums?

Which way is Alpha Centaurii by the way? Thanks for the tip.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>>Newbees, Mediums and AFB -- a cautionary tale 
>That combination **facilitates** poor decisions by poor decision makers.

Wow! Talk about grasping at straws... so you list everything I recommend and blame it for the spread of AFB... I really wish you would get another hobby...


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> The TF ethos encourages blaming some external agent (CCD) and blinds the practioner to internal practices that are damaging.


Eloquently well put. Or else the beekeeper blames self but doesn't take the next logical step which it to learn the needed methods.

Example: "It's my fault the bees died; I don't know why they died."


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

Yes, the remedy for AFB is burning, or, for the risk-tolerant, scorching. Or for those with access, radiation.

Unless one has had experience with AFB, one does not realize it is a ~~slow~~ wasting disease. Only in the end stages does it present its classic expression. In the early aspects, it expresses as a general malaise -- more than the usual dead cells, and lack of interest in feed. A hive will shrink (and the condition be attributed to dearth, or mites, or a host of other maladies). 

Folks confronted with a shrinking hive, take off supers and redistribute. 

The AFB burden in spores is highest in the brood and diseased larvae portion of the hive. These are the most infectious. AFB is relatively ubiquitous, and the epidemic spore load of the highly infected brood is the core danger.

A deep + shallow honey system is unlikely to have the most infectious combs repurposed into other honey supers. A medium system with a brood nest that is in the highest boxes is, conversely, very likely to have highly contagious brood frames exported.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

"Without a doubt, modern apiculture with movable-frame hives and a global trade in bees and bee products is one of the most efficient vectors for disease"--Honey Bee Colony Health: Challenges and Sustainability, Diana Sammataro, Jay A. Yoder, Pg 99

Maybe we should encourage people to quit using movable frames... after all that is the real root of the problem, not the size of the frames or the size of the boxes or the location of the entrance or whether it's natural comb...


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

Michael,
If a system is promoted on account of its universal interchangeability, then the risks of interchangeability must be accepted along with the benefits. Slowing the velocity of transmission (by making it unlikely that a deep brood frame will be squeezed into a western super) is a useful consideration.

I consider many cultural practices through the lens of "natural" selection. Beekeepers have a Deep + Medium system, not just because they are hide bound traditionalists, but because it has been winnowed by cruel fate from other practices. I can point to historic patterns that used universal boxes, but except for double deeps, those didn't persist. A testable hypothesis is the "universal" systems had higher incidence of disease, and disease that was more catastrophic. "Natural" cultural selection makes the poor choices vanish.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>If a system is promoted on account of its universal interchangeability, then the risks of interchangeability must be accepted along with the benefits.

That risk of interchangeability came with movable frames. Most commercial guys are running all deeps. Shallows were only invented because the deeps were too heavy to lift, not because diseases were being spread by having all one size frame.


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

The cause of the problem described in the Original Post was an ignorant beekeeper, who's bias against corporations was so strong that it blinded her to what was really going on in her hives.

In other words, it was her decision to remain ignorant rather than her choice of equipment or her reading the internet that made her a victim and probable vector of AFB.


----------



## FlowerPlanter (Aug 3, 2011)

Are you sure it is AFB, were samples sent for testing?

Without knowing any info or seeing any frames I would put my money on EFB. Can you post pictures?

AFB can take 2 years to kill a hive; it's a slow and steady disease. EFB can take down a hive in as little as a month.

I don't remember reading anyone here that had a confirmed case of AFB (I’m sure it happens). But have seen pictures and read a lot of EFB cases and many more suspected just in the last few months.

There have been EFB out breaks in CA for the last 3 years. Then those bees are moved. Dr. Jeff Pettis from Beltsville Bee Lab has seen an increase in EFB. Randy Oliver talks about bad cases of EFB on his site.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

Michael Bush said:


> >If a system is promoted on account of its universal interchangeability, then the risks of interchangeability must be accepted along with the benefits.
> 
> That risk of interchangeability came with movable frames. Most commercial guys are running all deeps. Shallows were only invented because the deeps were too heavy to lift, not because diseases were being spread by having all one size frame.


Most commercial guys know all too well the risks of AFB, and will spot it early enough to prevent its spread. Starry-eyed newbees are the ones at risk, and also are the target of the various "new wave" management prescriptions.

Again, practices evolve and successful ones persist. There are many Western supers used in the West, because honey flows don't support deep supering on many crops (Cotton comes to mind).


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

(no need)


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Not true, didn't mention dipping boxes in melted Wax/Resin. Do you want to fold that into the screed too? 

How did you miss that?

> Starry-eyed newbees are the ones at risk, and also are the target of the various "new wave" management prescriptions.

I run into a lot of "starry-eyed" newbees who try all the "standard management" and treatments and after all their bees die they decide to skip all that and they do much better. I don't think there is one thing I'm doing that hasn't been done for the last 150 years. I'd hardly call them "new wave".

http://bushfarms.com/beesnotinvented.htm


----------



## John Scifres (Mar 25, 2014)

What is even funnier than the internet forum "expert" is the internet forum critic who spends inordinate amount of posts trying to debunk the "expert". Every board has one.

Those who can, do. Those who cannot, teach. Those who can neither do nor teach, critique.


----------



## Duncan151 (Aug 3, 2013)

John Scifres said:


> What is even funnier than the internet forum "expert" is the internet forum critic who spends inordinate amount of posts trying to debunk the "expert". Every board has one.
> 
> Those who can, do. Those who cannot, teach. Those who can neither do nor teach, critique.


Amen!


----------



## wdale (Jun 27, 2014)

My past experience with AFB and EFB no matter how big or how small: Is to BURN all frames and foundations both brood and honey Scorch the supers. Newer plastic frames and foundations to be cleaned of all wax and then irradiation treatments. The biggest thing is KNOWING from whom your are getting your equipment from better yet spend a few $$$ and buy NEW


----------



## Backyarder (Mar 25, 2014)

> Unless one has had experience with AFB, one does not realize it is a ~~slow~~ wasting disease. Only in the end stages does it present its classic expression. In the early aspects, it expresses as a general malaise -- more than the usual dead cells, and lack of interest in feed. A hive will shrink (and the condition be attributed to dearth, or mites, or a host of other maladies).


Im a new guy and I'm a little confused now. If AFB doesn't show any outward signs how do you know if you have it? Should i be sending samples to a bee lab at regular intervals?
From the description given by the time its identifiable its already to late. Drift may have occurred, or requeening from another hive via donating a frame of eggs. 
I'm thinking I may have to burn the whole yard down someday.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>I'm thinking I may have to burn the whole yard down someday. 

And now we've succeeded in getting a newbee obsessed with something new...

It's not unheard of but it's unlikely you'll ever have to burn the whole yard down.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Here are pictures of AFB:

https://agdev.anr.udel.edu/maarec/h...oney-bees/nggallery/image/american-foulbrood/


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Michael Bush said:


> >> so you list everything I recommend and blame it for the spread of AFB... I really wish you would get another hobby...


Not to worry Mike, he did mention blow hard's on the internet so just think of his post as another blow hard.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

JWChesnut said:


> Starry-eyed newbees are the ones at risk, and also are the target of the various "new wave" management prescriptions.


Ah Michael you should have read between the lines. He wants to teach these starry-eyed newbees his way not your way and be able to flunk them if they don't conform. This has got to be the craziest AFB scare I have ever seen. The equipment is causing an AFB epidemic.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

that the newbee was blaming all of his/her problems on neonics and that the newbee had afb epidemic in the beeyard is.... telling.

this goes well above and beyond equipment choices. it's downright scary and frankly i would have been a little po'ed if this had happened within flying distance of my colonies.


----------



## CajunBee (May 15, 2013)

Bblock said:


> I get the impression ppl are reluctant to help.


That's my impression as well. Like many other hobbies, if you don't join a club and pay for the "expertise", your on your own. Too bad my grandfather still isn't around to lend helpful advice.
Oh well, off to tear down all my 8-frame medium disease factories. :lpf:


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

> The TF ethos encourages blaming some external agent (CCD) and blinds the practioner to internal practices that are damaging.





peterloringborst said:


> Eloquently well put.


This can be said every bit as strongly for the case of varroa, and this exposes the deeper issue of a hierchy of causes.

"My bees died because of an introduced parasite, to which they had no defence."

That was an immediate cause. Acknowledgement of a deeper cause would be:

"My bees died because they were not equipped to handle varroa" 

At this stage in the game, its quite fair to say:

"Your bees died because you didn't take the precaution of breeding out vulnerability to varroa."

Or:

"Your bees died because you bought queens/nucs that were vulnerable to varroa".

To paraphrase John: 

"The commercial ethos encourages blaming some external agent (CCD) and blinds the practioner to internal practices that are damaging."

My tf bees are thriving. I blame myself. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

JWChesnut said:


> Yes, the remedy for AFB is burning, or, for the risk-tolerant, scorching.


The proper remedy is termination of the line, first. Some individuals are more more resistant to afb. Act accordingly. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Michael Bush said:


> "Without a doubt, modern apiculture with movable-frame hives and a global trade in bees and bee products is one of the most efficient vectors for disease"--Honey Bee Colony Health: Challenges and Sustainability, Diana Sammataro, Jay A. Yoder, Pg 99
> 
> Maybe we should encourage people to quit using movable frames... after all that is the real root of the problem, not the size of the frames or the size of the boxes or the location of the entrance or whether it's natural comb...


Stopping importation of multiply vunerable queens would likely have a greater effect. Commercial Beekeepers should be made to raise their own bees, and prevented from spreading 'domesticated' genes.
.

I think John may have a point with the box thing. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Andrew Dewey (Aug 23, 2005)

Bblock said:


> I get the impression ppl are reluctant to help.


My condolences. I suggest you move. Quickly.


----------



## Andrew Dewey (Aug 23, 2005)

We're in danger of reaching dead horse territory quickly in this thread.

What I see, and am frustrated by, are new beekeepers who are instant "experts" with no experience to back them up. I tend to let them go - I may think their practices odd or unwise but as long as they are not hurting the public and other beekeepers IF they are determined to do things their way, I don't see it as my role to force them to change their ways. And who knows, I might learn something!

There are certain things though, like AFB, that every beekeeper needs to know about. If recognition/identification of disease is an issue, at a minimum a new beekeeper ought to know what healthy brood looks like, and what to do when what they see doesn't look healthy. {I am currently raising two pigs never having kept pigs previously. Should I know what healthy pigs look like? Should I have plans made for when I feel over my head? Some things are like organic gardening - it is relatively easy the first year. The second year every bug and disease somehow "knows" that you have a buffet ready just for them.}


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

I never would have guessed that dave hackenburg and Jim Doan were treatment free beekeepers.



peterloringborst said:


> Eloquently well put. Or else the beekeeper blames self but doesn't take the next logical step which it to learn the needed methods.
> 
> Example: "It's my fault the bees died; I don't know why they died."


----------



## Rusty Hills Farm (Mar 24, 2010)

JWChesnut said:


> I can point to historic patterns that used universal boxes, but except for double deeps, those didn't persist. A testable hypothesis is the "universal" systems had higher incidence of disease, and disease that was more catastrophic. "Natural" cultural selection makes the poor choices vanish.



ha. ha, ha! You are a funny fellow.  What this ACTUALLY means is that beekeepers--like everybody else--get OLD and when we do we discover that deeps get heavier with every passing year! THAT is the first reason that the deep/super configuration became so widespread. The other reason had to do with short flows and producing varietal honeys for market. Disease had little, if anything, to do with it!

JMO

Rusty


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

FlowerPlanter said:


> AFB can take 2 years to kill a hive; it's a slow and steady disease.


It may very well be slow acting in most cases, but I just diagnosed my first case of AFB in 30 years just the other day (used the test kit to verify my visual confirmation), and it occured in two colonies started from package bees this last May. Only reason I suspected something is because when I was pulling honey off one of the hives, the population seemed very low, so I looked into the brood chamber (single deep with excluder over it) and discovered virtually every brood frame with sealed brood had some cells with AFB symptoms.

After suspecting AFB (and before I did the test) I sealed up the two hives so nothing can get in or out, and today I will be burning them. Needless to say, I'm nervous about the other forty hives of mine within flying distance of those two infected ones.


----------



## dsegrest (May 15, 2014)

Bblock said:


> I'm new to bee keeping and want to be a beekeeper not a bee haver. I started 2 hives this May 2014. I have been attending meetings, reading books talking to ppl ect. I get the impression ppl are reluctant to help. I don't know if it's the thought that I maybe competition in the honey market one day or they have spent the time figuring out 'something' that works and they'll be darned if they are going to give up that info. I figured it out now you have to figure it out mentality. I understand that each location may pose different challenges but I believe there are standard practices that are the same and why try an reinvent the wheel? Just my $.02.


Try joining your local and state Beek assn. The beeks in our association have been extremely helpful to me and others I know who are just getting started. People who are extremely committed to an industry or hobby are willing to share knowledge because they know that good competition is an asset.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Bblock said:


> I'm new to bee keeping and want to be a beekeeper not a bee haver. I started 2 hives this May 2014. I have been attending meetings, reading books talking to ppl ect. I get the impression ppl are reluctant to help. I don't know if it's the thought that I maybe competition in the honey market one day or they have spent the time figuring out 'something' that works and they'll be darned if they are going to give up that info. I figured it out now you have to figure it out mentality. I understand that each location may pose different challenges but I believe there are standard practices that are the same and why try an reinvent the wheel? Just my $.02.


How many meetings have you been to? How many people at those meetings do you know on a first name basis? Establishing relationships takes time. You have to spend that time and earn your place in any group. But you already know that, don't you?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

JW, what I see happening is a lack of actual personal communication and understanding and knowledge. This is what happens in an instant information age. People can form opinions on what feels good to them over actual knowing.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

JWChesnut said:


> Unless one has had experience with AFB, one does not realize it is a ~~slow~~ wasting disease. Only in the end stages does it present its classic expression. In the early aspects, it expresses as a general malaise -- more than the usual dead cells, and lack of interest in feed. A hive will shrink (and the condition be attributed to dearth, or mites, or a host of other maladies).


Are you saying that you have the ability and experience to positively detect AFB in its early stage?
I'd like a show of hands from our experienced beekeepers, can you/have you detected AFB in a hive in its early stages, before all the classic end signs (pepperbox symptom, unusual cappings, darkened larvae, ropiness, smell) show up, as detailed in most books?


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

Barry said:


> Are you saying that you have the ability and experience to positively detect AFB in its early stage?


No, and unless one wears out one's welcome with Beltsville, I doubt many do. I'm never happy with the read of the milk test.
Experience and caution will train us to look careful at "peppered" brood, looking for (incipient) scales and tongues -- but the larvae will still be liquid. In the current age, peppered brood is breezily dismissed as evidence of VSH, and its prescence is considered a sign of better genetics.

What can be done: the impact of frame transfer can be considered, and prevalence reduced. The advice "add a frame of eggs" is proffered for every imaginable issue with young hives. This, of course, means a frame is removed (and transferred to....). The enthusiastic transfer of frames to and from hives that are failing to thrive is a RISK factor.

Many newbees gather "free bees" from cut-outs and swarms. It is important that any new bees go through a "quarantine" stage in an isolated out-yard. This doesn't happen with backyard bees.

AFB has been rare for decades. It's resurgence is a "positive" sign, as it likely means there is some natural survival against Varroa. In the 90's, Bees died long before AFB could gain a foothold. What we have now, is an entire generation of people with zero experience with AFB, and the corrosive arrogance to refuse to listen to those that have had to deal with it.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

JWChesnut said:


> What can be done: the impact of frame transfer can be considered, and prevalence reduced. The advice "add a frame of eggs" is proffered for every imaginable issue with young hives. This, of course, means a frame is removed (and transferred to....). The enthusiastic transfer of frames to and from hives that are failing to thrive is a RISK factor.


OK, but you carried this a lot farther in your first posts by demonizing an all medium hive. This would apply to any hive configuration. I use all mediums. I do keep my honey comb separate from brood comb so I don't have to worry about moth damage during storage.


----------



## FlowerPlanter (Aug 3, 2011)

Andrew Dewey said:


> There are certain things though, like AFB, that every beekeeper needs to know about. If recognition/identification of disease is an issue, at a minimum a new beekeeper ought to know what healthy brood looks like, and what to do when what they see doesn't look healthy.


Exactly!!! 
But there are too many beek worried about how to make 2:1.



jmgi said:


> It may very well be slow acting in most cases, but I just diagnosed my first case of AFB in 30 years just the other day (used the test kit to verify my visual confirmation), and it occured in two colonies started from package bees this last May. Only reason I suspected something is because when I was pulling honey off one of the hives, the population seemed very low, so I looked into the brood chamber (single deep with excluder over it) and discovered virtually every brood frame with sealed brood had some cells with AFB symptoms.


And your quick actions will hopefully keep it from spreading.

>and it occured in two colonies started from package bees this last May.

AFB and EFB, spread all over the country in packages.

"Transmission of American foul brood by package bees"
In May, 1965, 9 1-kg packages of honeybees were shaken from healthy colonies (group A), and 7 from colonies infected with American foul brood (group B). They were then transported from southern British Columbia to Beaverlodge, Alberta, and installed in sterile equipment with new frames and foundation. Six weeks after installation the 8 colonies remaining from group A remained free of-Afb, but 4 of the 6 remaining in group B were infected. Rigid inspection of the colonies from which package bees are shaken is therefore recommended, together with preventive feeding on installation, in order to prevent the spread of Afb to disease-free areas.

"Transmission of European foul brood disease by package bees"
In April 1964, 15 1-kg. packages of honeybees shaken from colonies infected with European foul brood and 15 1-kg. packages shaken from non-infected colonies were transported 1300 km, and installed in sterile equipment with new frames and foundation. All colonies derived from infected colonies developed E.F.B., whereas all those derived from non-infected colonies remained healthy. The disease did not appear until 5 wks. after packages were hived, and therapeutics given as soon as packages are installed should prevent build-up of infection to a level that causes disease.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> Are you saying that you have the ability and experience to positively detect AFB in its early stage?


Having worked as a NYS bee inspector, not only do I critique, teach, etc but I also _can do._ One time I found one cell of AFB in a four story hive. The law allows the beekeeper to wait until the test comes back from Beltsville, before destroying an infected colony. That beekeeper was adamant that he did not want AFB in his outfit (he had about 100 hives). That very night he dug a hole with a backhoe, threw the whole hive in and burned it. The test was positive, by the way. 

I have argued on several occasions on diagnosis, with beekeepers. One time I found a few cells of decayed brood. It was a very light brown, the color of cafe latte. The beekeeper thought it was not AFB, but again, the test came back positive. Most beekeepers would rather destroy a few cases now, in lieu of destroying whole apiaries later. 

I should state here and now, that not all states require destruction of AFB colonies, especially at such an early stage. A competent beekeeper could successfully cure such cases as these. The operating word is _competent_, that's why most inspectors recommend the destruction of the colony. Usually the heavier woodenware can be saved; it should be scorched or soaked in lye or chlorine. 

AFB is a bacterial infection, which responds to cheap antibiotics. However, the beekeeper has to know whether it is at the stage where it can be successfully managed or not. This knowledge comes from many years of experience, seeing success and failure firsthand in the field. I still recommend burning the bees, brood, and honey. The equipment can be irradiated but it's seldom cost effective.

If AFB has been found in your apiary or in the vicinity I recommend preventive treatments during the seasons when robbing is most likely to occur. Drifting bees have been found to be of minimal concern. Robbing, transfer of combs, and splitting sick hives are the principal sources of new cases. Not to be trifled with. Seldom disappears "on its own."


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> What we have now, is an entire generation of people with zero experience with AFB, and the corrosive arrogance to refuse to listen to those that have had to deal with it.


Once again, well put. Ignorance is a powerful thing.


----------



## Beelosopher (Sep 6, 2012)

This thread is laughable. At the core of it is a whiny complaint about how new people think they know everything. Get over yourselves. 

This is a common theme in every hobby, and many things in life. At the core of it all you have knowledge seekers, continuously pursuing answers and usually at the top of their game. Then you have the people who have no management and those in between. You will never be able to to weed out ignorance or stupidity by getting rid of mediums or interchangeable frames. People bring the ignorance for free, despite the platform.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

I have talked to a few people who feel that the bee inspector is there as part of a conspiracy to take away their bees. Some have talked about hiding away a hive that they were treating for AFB and considered it perfectly curable. I would not want to share any equipment with them. 

I have not personally set eyes on AFB comb but feel I could spot it if looking specifically for it. In all honesty most inspections I do would leave entirely too many bees on comb to be sure i had not missed the start of a small batch of AFB. I recently watched a pair of inspectors go through some of my hives and they certainly dont inspect every frame thoroughly either.

I think it is not entirely fair to give a blank "black eye" to the use of all medium frames; I am contemplating that myself. I dont subscribe to the notion of interchanging brood and honey frames though. Even though I dont have problems with small hive beetles or wax moths, I simply do not like the appearance of brooded comb and pollen in honey combs. I get along quite well with excluders and the queens seem quite occupied without the debatable benefits of an unlimited brood nest.

None of these things *have* to be done just because you use all mediums but there is very little said about the potential risks from doing them. There is a lot of praise for the benefits of being able to ignore any drawbacks. It is appealing to a lot of newcomers especially if you tack on the emotional tags of "natural" and "less work"
_
The good old days are oft remembered best by those with failing memory!_


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> This thread is laughable.


Back in the 1980s I was running 500 colonies in San Diego County. A friend of mine called me and asked me to look at some hives of his which he thought didn't look so good. 

Turns out he had 80 hives about a half of a mile from me. The bee yard was a junk yard. Hives and equipment thrown about, swarms living for years in the bushes, trash everywhere. Every other hive I opened was either dying or dead of AFB. 

I just stopped and said, I can't help you. He looked at me and said: "But you're the expert on this stuff!" I told him it was too far gone, the whole yard needed to be destroyed. I called the County Inspector. My friend didn't speak to me after that. But his wife told me she was grateful to me for having told him what a bum he was. 

It's people like this who have money to get in deep in the bees, and then make a huge mess for someone else to deal with. Pretty funny, eh?


----------



## Beelosopher (Sep 6, 2012)

peterloringborst said:


> Back in the 1980s I was running 500 colonies in San Diego County. A friend of mine called me and asked me to look at some hives of his which he thought didn't look so good.
> 
> Turns out he had 80 hives about a half of a mile from me. The bee yard was a junk yard. Hives and equipment thrown about, swarms living for years in the bushes, trash everywhere. Every other hive I opened was either dying or dead of AFB.
> 
> ...


You can't blame that on mediums, foudationless, newbies, or newbies with money. You can blame it on one irresponsible ignorant "bee haver" person. I am willing to bet that he was irresponsible in life with more than just bees too. 

1. I took the NYS disease identification classes, know what to look for for most diseases. But I would never rely on my diagnosis outright, I would call in help from an experienced beek. 
2. I observe, read, research, read, discuss with beeks about all things bees.
3. I am a responsible newbie with healthy hives being well managed with medium frames who knows not to interchange frames of sick hives with healthy ones.

I don't think I am the only new guy with this approach

At this point you are taking a case study approach to prove your point. You can't rely on a case study to prove causation, or correlation. If we had outbreaks of AFB all the time, or at least frequently, from newbies like you describe above I could maybe take what you are saying seriously. Locally here I am not hearing those stories with any kind of frequency. 

Many of us newbies are responsible beeks in training and learning from long time beeks. Some of us "whippersnappers" aren't.


----------



## Andrew Dewey (Aug 23, 2005)

Beelosopher said:


> This thread is laughable. At the core of it is a whiny complaint about how new people think they know everything.


This thread is far from laughable - even if some of the statements from people with much experience are over the top on the far side of reality.

What concerns me most is the abandonment of critical thinking and personal responsibility. The manifestation of these that I see most frequently are new converts to the bee cause who act as if the concept of keeping bees is something only they and their movement know anything about. Most people are open minded and realize the limits of their knowledge.

I was talking with several Master Gardeners this morning about GMOs, and how what Gramps was doing out in the orchard was fairly clearly modifying genetic material for his own purposes. He was doing it at a slower speed then is happening currently and without modern knowledge and facilities. It was observed that what many folks are actually against is often not the modification of genetic organisms itself, but rather instead the speed at which changes are being released, the profit motive in making the changes, AND distrust of methodologies for making sure the changes are safe long term. But what they are concerned about is not what they are saying it is.

And at some point people need to be responsible for the words they use and the decisions that they make. Any beekeeper, new or not, who spreads AFB as casually as described by the OP, is clearly not as smart as he/she thinks AND is a danger to everyone. No excuses.


----------



## waynesgarden (Jan 3, 2009)

Andrew Dewey said:


> ...I was talking with several Master Gardeners this morning about GMOs, and how what Gramps was doing out in the orchard was fairly clearly modifying genetic material for his own purposes. He was doing it at a slower speed then is happening currently and without modern knowledge and facilities. It was observed that what many folks are actually against is often not the modification of genetic organisms itself, but rather instead the speed at which changes are being released, the profit motive in making the changes, AND distrust of methodologies for making sure the changes are safe long term.....


I think your discussion was very limited, Andrew. What gramps may have been doing out in the garden was cross-breeding various tomatoes to get a flavorful, long-keeping slicing tomato with low acid that grew well in the shade. Or he was working towards a rose that had large, creamy-white blossoms with the smell of vanilla. He was using the natural materials of the species and absolutely no one would have objected if Gramps succeeded overnight. 

What some might have objections to is Gramps splicing arctic fish genes into his tomatoes, inserting human genes into corn, spider genes into goats or jellyfish genes into pigs to light up their snouts.

Gramps was breeding plants. It is a very, very far stretch to say he was "genetically engineering" his tomatoes.

Wayne


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

> The advice "add a frame of eggs" is proffered for every imaginable issue with young hives.

We made a jump from the totally illogical "it's because of eight frame mediums" to "it's because they gave a frame of eggs to a queenless hive"... Actually you have escalated it from queenless hives to "add a frame of eggs... for every imaginable issue with young hives" If you're saying that's my recommendation ("for every imaginable issue.."), my posts are all out there for the world to see. Show me one post of mine that recommends a frame of eggs and open brood that doesn't involve potential queenlessness or anchoring a swarm. You hyperboles are tiresome.


----------



## Andrew Dewey (Aug 23, 2005)

@Wayne - I disagree with you that it is a very, very far stretch to say Gramps was "genetically engineering" his tomatoes. I was actually thinking of him grafting apple trees - exchanging genetic material within a species. This disagreement highlights people not speaking with precision. In reading your post I conclude that what bothers you is not "breeding plants" but instead combining genes from one species into another.

I tried to include your concern in "He was doing it at a slower speed then is happening currently and without modern knowledge and facilities. It was observed that what many folks are actually against is often not the modification of genetic organisms itself, but rather instead the speed at which changes are being released, the profit motive in making the changes, AND distrust of methodologies for making sure the changes are safe long term."

I guess I was not writing clearly enough. And that goes to prove my point.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> What some might have objections to is Gramps splicing arctic fish genes into his tomatoes, inserting human genes into corn, spider genes into goats or jellyfish genes into pigs to light up their snouts.


If you look at this issue on a genetic level, all genetic coding is the same: it's all DNA. We share something like 99% of our genetic coding with other species. DNA does not belong to a particular species. The so-called jellyfish genes are not used in the process, nor are any other actual genes. DNA is synthesized, much like a page of print is photocopied. 

This synthetic DNA is incorporated into the target organism, so that the code becomes part of their own DNA, hence it isn't a jellyfish gene but a pig's gene, for example. DNA transference is common in nature. Every time a plant gets pollinated, DNA is transferred. Beyond that, many species swap DNA laterally. Look up "lateral gene transfer." 

But this is off topic. His point is _the abandonment of critical thinking and personal responsibility._ And, that people often object most strenuously to things that know very little about.


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

Excuse me, but how many AFB spores can fit on the head of a pin? Just a rough number will do, no need to be precise.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

Michael Bush said:


> the totally illogical "it's because of eight frame mediums" to "it's because they gave a frame of eggs to a queenless hive"... .


You are refusing to understand my cautionary advice. The risks of AFB must be understood epidemiologically -- all other inputs held equivalent -- the system with the *least constrained transfer of the infectious comb* will experience the highest incidence and velocity of spread.

Patently, all mediums, 8/9 frame boxes, top entrances, ladder comb introductions to foundation less boxes can all be used successfully in disease-free environments, but since the risk of transmission is higher with these practices, greater vigilance must be exercised.

In sumary, practices that are epidemiologically risky should be reserved for expert practice, and not novices.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

jmgi said:


> Excuse me, but how many AFB spores can fit on the head of a pin? Just a rough number will do, no need to be precise.


Paenibacillus larvae spores are 0.6 x 1.3 microns (per Cushman web-site)
Head of Pin is 2000 microns in diameter.
Hence: 4, 027, 683 spores will fit in one layer on the head of a pin.

If spores are stacked and mounded in a low cone, suppose 800 million or so.

http://www.dave-cushman.net/bee/jpg/paenibacillus_spores.jpg
(I know you were being satiric).


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Before you go throwing a percentage of beekeepers under the bus, is there data you can site that supports your claim that AFB is on the rise or is found in higher percentages amongst those with "systems with the *least constrained transfer of the infectious comb"*? It should read *least constrained transfer of comb* as you are assuming the infectious part. You may be arguing a point that has little to no real world significance.


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

JWChesnut said:


> Paenibacillus larvae spores are 0.6 x 1.3 microns (per Cushman web-site)
> Head of Pin is 2000 microns in diameter.
> Hence: 4, 027, 683 spores will fit in one layer on the head of a pin.
> 
> ...


Thanks JWC, that's a scary large amount. Ok, another question, how many spores does it take to infect a larva and cause eventual death?


----------



## Beelosopher (Sep 6, 2012)

Andrew Dewey said:


> And at some point people need to be responsible for the words they use and the decisions that they make.


I agree. Let's start with the first post on this thread.

The thread should have been entitled. " New Beeks - Be careful about interchanging your frames, you may spread disease". You would have put out a good word in a few posts. 

I am moving on.


:applause:


Barry said:


> Before you go throwing a percentage of beekeepers under the bus, is there data you can site that supports your claim that AFB is on the rise or is found in higher percentages amongst those with "systems with the *least constrained transfer of the infectious comb"*? It should read *least constrained transfer of comb* as you are assuming the infectious part. You may be arguing a point that has little to no real world significance.



:applause:

Thank you Barry, as per my previous post I am in full agreement with proof and not assumptions with no data. Where is the outbreak?


----------



## rwurster (Oct 30, 2010)

Acebird said:


> Not to worry Mike, he did mention blow hard's on the internet so just think of his post as another blow hard.


There's the pot calling the kettle black.


----------



## dixiebooks (Jun 21, 2010)

JWChesnut said:


> <snip> (say "_hives must be oriented to Alpha Centurii, because bees are interstellar aliens_") <snip>.


Hmmm. News to me. I'll look up where Alpha Centurii is and re-orient those hives ASAP. Thanks for letting us know. Mind if I share this info on other beekeeping sites? (lol - and THAT'S how these crazy ideas get started.)


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Barry said:


> Are you saying that you have the ability and experience to positively detect AFB in its early stage?
> I'd like a show of hands from our experienced beekeepers, can you/have you detected AFB in a hive in its early stages, before all the classic end signs (pepperbox symptom, unusual cappings, darkened larvae, ropiness, smell) show up, as detailed in most books?


I have found one cell of AFB in an otherwise healthy looking frame of brood. But I know no one who can detect AFB in a colony in anything other than vegetative state, aka ropy, or by seeing AFB scale. Otherwise there is nothing to see, visually.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

peterloringborst said:


> One time I found one cell of AFB in a four story hive. The law allows the beekeeper to wait until the test comes back from Beltsville, before destroying an infected colony.


I had this experience too. But, upon re-inspection, after the Lab Verification came back, I could find no more signs of infection. The beekeeper appealed the Quarantine and was granted Release by the Office in Albany.

So, Peter, what happened? The beekeeper didn't dust the hive after detection. The bees must have cleared it up, no?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

peterloringborst said:


> Once again, well put. Ignorance is a powerful thing.


Knowledge and experience is also. Thanks to Pat Bono, beekeepers in NY have had Bee WEllness Workshops to go to to learn about bees, pests, and diseases.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

JWChesnut said:


> Patently, all mediums, 8/9 frame boxes, top entrances, ladder comb introductions to foundation less boxes can all be used successfully in disease-free environments, but since the risk of transmission is higher with these practices, greater vigilance must be exercised.
> 
> In sumary, practices that are epidemiologically risky should be reserved for expert practice, and not novices.


How can you point to a certain practice or technique and say that it is risky, that "the risk of transmission is higher" using "all mediums, 8/9 frame boxes, top entrances, ladder comb introductions to foundation less (do you mean foundationless, perhaps?) boxes"? I don't buy your analysis and stance. None of these practices in and of themselves is risky behavior which could lead to disease infection in hives managed by novice beekeepers or anyone else.


----------



## JakeDatc (Apr 19, 2010)

sqkcrk said:


> How can you point to a certain practice or technique and say that it is risky, that "the risk of transmission is higher" using "all mediums, 8/9 frame boxes, top entrances, ladder comb introductions to foundation less (do you mean foundationless, perhaps?) boxes"? I don't buy your analysis and stance. None of these practices in and of themselves is risky behavior which could lead to disease infection in hives managed by novice beekeepers or anyone else.


no one's posted foundationless pictures in a while so he has to make up his own crap to fill his need to bash the system.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Oh, okay. I would not have thought that of JW.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

sqkcrk said:


> How can you point to a certain practice or technique and say that it is risky, that "the risk of transmission is higher" using "all mediums, 8/9 frame boxes, top entrances, ladder comb introductions to foundationless boxes"?.


\\

I believe I established the nexus in my original post.

1. Universal interchange is the first advantage cited for "all mediums" --- this means that brood comb (with higher disease loading) is more likely to be introduced widely into honey supers which are installed freely on arbitrary hives.

2. Eight frame / Top entrances are more likely to develop a "chimney" brood nest. --- this means that brood comb (with higher disease loading) is likely to be found in any arbitrary box. Those arbitrary boxes are shared without restriction on any hive (per the "universal" interchange).

3. Foundationless frames in a new super are introduced with a model, ladder comb in the center position -- and this ladder comb is likely to be drawn from a brood comb per the first two effects cited above.

4. This constellation of practices leading to higher likelihood of transmission is most acute in my region, where drawn comb is valuable and rare (due to our prolonged dearth), and the incentive to repurpose suspect comb is greatest.


I've been paranoid about lateral transmission of disease for some time. I have attempted to retain the super and frame relationship to individual hives, but find this impossible to maintain in practice, do other code frames so they return to the very same hive? I do have a strict protocol to never mix supers from separate outyards, these are color coded and (virtually) never cross boundaries. Do others have a spy-cell isolation protocol with their yards?


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

JWChesnut said:


> A recently-minted local beek in my region made the claim that Monsanto GMO was causing CCD and was killing her hives. I was vocally skeptical, and was invited to her apiary to see the "evidence".


the best thing about this forum discussion is that it will likely get the attention of those who may not be versed on this problem and help them to realize that they need to be.

at least the keepers in the op got around to calling in some help, but what if jwc had not been 'vocally skeptical'. there's really no excuse for anyone accepting the responsibility that comes along with keeping bees not being being able to recognize sick colonies and being proactive about it.

it's a similar consideration for mites being spread from collapsing colonies. can we all agree that one has to know enough or get some help until you learn to make sure that any colonies in one's charge don't dwindle to the point of getting robbed out?

it's not that hard to take preventive action long before a colony weakens to the point of getting robbed, and it's easy enough to stop robbing in it's tracks if it should start.

i don't question jwc's motives for getting involved, he may very well have headed off a nasty outbreak and saved untold loss of (bee) life and (beekeeper) property.

it's about all of us doing what we can to get educated and help to educate others, but that's easier said than done when it comes to beekeepers.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

I don't believe in your this ergo thus premises. No. 1? Really? Where has this been established? No. 2? From your observation? And brood comb means higher disease loading? One does not necessarily follow another, does it?

No. 3? Likely? But not necessarily always, right?

No. 4? What is it about your region that makes drawn comb rare? How do you know of its rarity? And why do you jump to a conclusion that just because comb is re-purposed it is inherently suspect?

I think you are acting over zealously.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

fwiw i run a single deep with medium supers and no excluder. in the spring and fall the broodnest moves up into the supers and can extend into the first two or three of them. they are usually backfilled after spring build up and then again during fall preps. very few of my drawn medium frames haven't had brood in them at some point.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

squarepeg said:


> he may very well have headed off a nasty outbreak and saved untold loss of (bee) life and (beekeeper) property.


I have always questioned the use of the word "outbreak" in reference to AFB. What constitutes an outbreak? Is an outbreak different from an "occurance"? Is an outbreak of greater intensity?


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

i'm not coding frames to each hive, but using them where needed. some risk there? sure, but not enough to make me want to not interchange resources. my approach is to keep my hives strong which for me mostly means keeping them queenright. the rare 'attempted' robbing events i have seen have most often alerted me to queenlessness.


----------



## JakeDatc (Apr 19, 2010)

How about bee suppliers who do a large amount of splits to make nucs and shake bees from many hives to make packages. Swapping around bees and frames to produce queens and cells. How about all deep's without an excluder, do people keep track of where the extracted frames go back to? unlikely. There are plenty of places where frames get moved around that are not in foundationless 8 frame mediums. 

JW just has a major beef against the system that he can't let go and will vilify it anyway he can.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

JakeDatc said:


> shake bees from many hives to make packages.


I don't think that is actually how they do that, do they?


----------



## JakeDatc (Apr 19, 2010)

even if they don't mix hives in one package they are still taking bees from many different hives and sending them all over the country. you'd figure a larger size operation has less oversight on each hive than a hobbyist who concentrates on a few hives (with 8 frame mediums GASP)


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

JakeDatc said:


> even if they don't mix hives in one package they are still taking bees from many different hives and sending them all over the country.


Well sure. How else could they do what they do, for us?

You may figure that about a large operation, but you might also figure that a large package bee operation that lives and dies on its reputation has a crew of very well trained employees looking for diseases all of the time. Every time they shake bees they also look at the frames they are shaking from.


----------



## waynesgarden (Jan 3, 2009)

JWChesnut said:


> \\
> 
> I believe I established the nexus in my original post.
> 
> ...


In the absence of any factual data, I believe that, rather than scrap all my mediums, I will simply accept the supposed "risks" of your so-called "epidemiologically risky " practices. 



JWChesnut said:


> 4. .... drawn comb is valuable and rare (due to our prolonged dearth), and the incentive to repurpose suspect comb is greatest....


The rarity of drawn comb is not an issue in my hives, but if it were, it is unlikely that I would repurpose "suspect" comb. Do beekeepers actually look at comb they suspect of harboring AFB and think "Hey, maybe I'll start some nucs with these?" Or do you consider all comb to be suspect? Which brings us to #4:



JWChesnut said:


> I've been paranoid about lateral transmission of disease for some time.. ....


And you've developed a quite an imaginative, if not data-supported hypothesis to justify it. 



JWChesnut said:


> The TF ethos explicitly deprecates the experience and insight of the "old guard" that have kept bees for decades. We are considered dinosaurs with nothing to contribute to the Monsanto-free New Age. The TF ethos encourages blaming some external agent (CCD) and blinds the practioner to internal practices that are damaging.....


The height of BS. Perhaps stemming from a paranoia that goes far deeper than "lateral transmission of disease."



JWChesnut said:


> 8-frame, All-mediums are a high cost practice in terms of hardware, and the deprecation of the additional cost per colony -- may lead to a consumptive, consumerist approach to the bees.....


And then, to grasp at even smaller, more desperate straws, you somehow seek to tie the cost of equipment to the spread of AFB.

Your "cautionary tale" really does make your point clearly. The new beekeeper in your "tale" had developed a questionable set of ideas that you presented in a manner to make her look like a total buffoon while your own questionable set of so-called "lessons and observations" uses terms like "epidemiologically risky" to make your opinions appear less so.

But thank you for your 'Cautionary Tale." 

Tale: n. a fictitious or true narrative or story, especially one that is imaginatively recounted.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

sqkcrk said:


> I have always questioned the use of the word "outbreak" in reference to AFB. What constitutes an outbreak? Is an outbreak different from an "occurance"? Is an outbreak of greater intensity?


you probably know more about this than i mark as i haven't experienced it. one of my mentors had a large package operation back in the seventies and he said that foul brood was almost unheard of around here for many years. he explained that within a one to two year period beekeepers started losing colonies left and right to afb, and the source was traced back to one beekeeper who brought in a bunch of hives from out of state. that's when alabama passed it's comb law (it's illegal here to bring in bees on comb) and when almost all beekeepers started applying preventative antibiotics twice a year.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Now that sounds to me like an outbreak. When a disease spreads like you described. Most cases I hear about seem like occurrences. One case or more in one apiary or w/in an operation. I would call an outbreak something that happens at one location and then another near by and so on. I believe that words paint pictures in the minds of those who read them.


----------



## CajunBee (May 15, 2013)

JWChesnut said:


> \\ I do have a strict protocol to never mix supers from separate outyards, these are color coded and (virtually) never cross boundaries. Do others have a spy-cell isolation protocol with their yards?


Do you also have separate extraction facilities and equipment that never cross boundaries? Just curious how far this goes for us lowly hobbiest that don't have that luxery.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

sqkcrk said:


> Now that sounds to me like an outbreak. When a disease spreads like you described. Most cases I hear about seem like occurrences. One case or more in one apiary or w/in an operation. I would call an outbreak something that happens at one location and then another near by and so on. I believe that words paint pictures in the minds of those who read them.





yep. it appears that with afb an occurrence has the potential to become an outbreak if measures aren't taken to contain it. i know of newbees buying old hives of bees from veteren beekeepers that have retired or passed away and didn't know the hives had been receiving prophylactic antibiotics twice yearly. afb showed up in these hives the next season. i think the mandatory burn policy makes the most sense and is what should have been adopted when afb hit here, but i suppose the beekeepers at the time made the case that they couldn't afford to burn all of their hives.


----------



## wdale (Jun 27, 2014)

here is a link to AFB and EFB very interesting reading for all those newbies out there 

www.utahcountybeekeepers.org/Other Files/.../AFB UK Article.pdf 

The biggest thing is detection and how to control and ways to stop the spread.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

wdale said:


> The biggest thing is detection and how to control and ways to stop the spread.


:thumbsup:

(except the link didn't work for me)


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Here is a working link to the document _wdale _posted in post #83:

http://www.utahcountybeekeepers.org/Other Files/Information Articles/AFB UK Article.pdf


(Note: when copying links from Beesource posts, be aware that the forum software shortens the _displayed _version of long links by putting in ellipses, but the underlying link is still correct. However, when one copies the _displayed _link, the ellipses get copied and the copied link is therefore unusable. If you repost the link with the ellipses, the link _looks _correct, but won't actually work. I know all this because it has happened in my posts - several times. 

The trick to making it work is to be sure to copy the _actual _link, not the _displayed _version. )

.


----------



## homesteader824 (Jun 9, 2012)

JWChesnut said:


> Patently, all mediums, 8/9 frame boxes, top entrances, ladder comb introductions to foundation less boxes can all be used successfully in disease-free environments, but since the risk of transmission is higher with these practices, greater vigilance must be exercised.


If you mentioned top entrances before, I missed it. It sounds like you're against any innovation Langstroth didn't personally introduce. This year I made some changes to my hives. In the past I ran deep brood boxes with shallow supers, SBB, bottom entrances, on 10 frame equipment. I had hives that never fully utilized the the outer frames, didn't fill the frames in the bottom box, and had several SHBs running around whenever I opened the hive.

With 8 frame, all medium, solid bottoms and top entrances, I have brood boxes that are FULLY used, from the bottom board to the top, and I have seen one single SHB. Not to derail the topic, SHB are not much of a problem here, and I don't know for sure the top entrances help, but I have only seen one.

Beekeepers using deeps still have to transfer frames, make splits, combine hives and such. Using all mediums really isn't a new idea. I know at least one beekeeper who has done it for decades.

I would think foundationless would be the safest way to go. The bees are only using wax that they made in that hive. Foundation is made from multiple sources from hives with unknown health run by beekeepers that may or may not know what they are doing. The finding of pesticides in purchased wax foundation shows the manufacturing process doesn't eliminate everything from the wax.

By using frames which are interchangeable, I have more control over the management of my bees.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Andrew Dewey said:


> .... it is a very, very far stretch to say Gramps was "genetically engineering" his tomatoes. I was actually thinking of him grafting apple trees - exchanging genetic material within a species. .


Just for the record: grafting plants doesn't involve any exchange of genetic material. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

deknow said:


> I never would have guessed that dave hackenburg and Jim Doan were treatment free beekeepers.


:thumbsup:


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

deknow said:


> I never would have guessed that dave hackenburg and Jim Doan were treatment free beekeepers.


Even following Peter Loring Borst's statement, I don't understand your point, Dean. Or even why you would mention David and Jim at all.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

JWChesnut said:


> A key point: * the master/apprentice model is self-regulating*. If a mentor has bad, unsuitable practices -- he will vanish and train no one. Only the successful transmit their practices.


The problem comes when the 'masters' are the ones causing the problems... (do I need to list the flaws in the practices of the most 'successful' beekeepers?) 

I think in that situation my 'master' would have said something like: 

"You might just be able to pull something of value from this situation - as well as the lesson. Evaluate the remaining colonies and choose those least affected to make increase. In that way you may find you're much less likely to be affected by this problem in future."

Did you say anything of that sort?

I still think you're on the something btw. You've made me think about my own practices.

Mike (UK)


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> So, Peter, what happened? The beekeeper didn't dust the hive after detection. The bees must have cleared it up, no?


Right. We know that some colonies are not susceptible and/or they can clean up light infections. Back in the forties researchers generated low and high susceptibility lines. But these aren't foolproof (and there are many fools). 

This is the same as you or I getting a light infection in a cut, for example. We don't die of it. Some people are more susceptible than others, though. I usually put neosporin on cut. Quite a few times I have ended up at the doctor's office to get something stronger. But very seldom does anyone have to have their leg cut off these days due to a bacterial infection. 

AFB is similar in that it responds to antibiotics or aggressively hygienic behavior. Some states either allow or look the other way if a beekeeper wants to treat infected colonies. I did this for years in California. 

But the infection will never be cured as long as there are high levels of spores in the hive. If you have hygienic bees and give them a little assistance with antibiotics, they can rid the hive of spores over time. But I never recommend this because it's too chancy.

Many livestock producers, including beekeepers, just keep their animals on antibiotics all the time. Some say it even boosts the performance of healthy colonies. The implications of constant antibiotic use are widely known: antibiotic resistance, ineffective antibiotics, etc. 

That's why I don't recommend constant feeding of antibiotics, either. But spring and fall treatment in an area with known pockets of AFB is simply a wise and judicious use, and has no downside, _In My Opinion. _


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> Just for the record: grafting plants doesn't involve any exchange of genetic material.


Sorry. You haven't kept up with the new discoveries being made in the field of genetics. 



> Tissue grafting includes applications ranging from plant breeding to animal organ transplantation. Donor and recipient are generally believed to maintain their genetic integrity, in that the grafted tissues are joined but their genetic materials do not mix. We grafted tobacco plants from two transgenic lines carrying different marker and reporter genes in different cellular compartments, the nucleus and the plastid. Analysis of the graft sites revealed the frequent occurrence of cells harboring both antibiotic resistances and both fluorescent reporters. Our data demonstrate that plant grafting can result in the exchange of genetic information via either large DNA pieces or entire plastid genomes. This observation of novel combinations of genetic material has implications for grafting techniques and also provides a possible path for horizontal gene transfer.
> 
> Stegemann, S., & Bock, R. (2009). Exchange of genetic material between cells in plant tissue grafts. Science, 324(5927), 649-651.





> We show that upon grafting—a mechanism of plant–plant interaction that is widespread in nature—entire nuclear genomes can be transferred between plant cells. We provide direct evidence for this process resulting in speciation by creating a new allopolyploid plant species from a herbaceous species and a woody species in the nightshade family. The new species is fertile and produces fertile progeny. Our data highlight natural grafting as a potential asexual mechanism of speciation and also provide a method for the generation of novel allopolyploid crop species.
> 
> Fuentes, I., Stegemann, S., Golczyk, H., Karcher, D., & Bock, R. (2014). Horizontal genome transfer as an asexual path to the formation of new species. Nature, 511(7508), 232-235.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Not only is horizontal gene transfer between species not uncommon but it is relevant in this context because it has been implicated in the proliferation of antibiotic resistance genes 



> Bacterial infections are becoming increasingly difficult to treat due to widespread antibiotic resistance among pathogens. This review aims to give an overview of the major horizontal transfer mechanisms and their evolution and then demonstrate the human lower gastrointestinal tract as an environment in which horizontal gene transfer of resistance determinants occurs. Finally, implications for antibiotic usage and the development of resistant infections and persistence of antibiotic resistance genes in populations as a result of horizontal gene transfer in the large intestine will be discussed.
> 
> Huddleston, J. R. (2014). Horizontal gene transfer in the human gastrointestinal tract: potential spread of antibiotic resistance genes. Infection and drug resistance, 7, 167.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

peterloringborst said:


> Right. We know that some colonies are not susceptible and/or they can clean up light infections. Back in the forties researchers generated low and high susceptibility lines. But these aren't foolproof (and there are many fools).
> 
> 
> That's why I don't recommend constant feeding of antibiotics, either. But spring and fall treatment in an area with known pockets of AFB is simply a wise and judicious use, and has no downside, _In My Opinion. _


the biggest downside to practicing spring and fall treatments in areas with known pockets is that it allows them to contiually be known pockets. i don't think we can assume that acquiring resistance isn't a downside with repeated spring and fall treatments any more or less than 'constant' use.

i've wondered about the feral hive that succumbs to afb. does it become the gift that keeps on giving? if so wouldn't the number of feral hives that harbor significant spore counts gradually increase? and wouldn't the spring swarms find these dead out cavities and set up shop only to collapse and set the stage for even more spreading? and if so wouldn't the pocket just keep getting bigger and wouldn't we expect to see afb on a much more regular basis?

around here it's pretty rare to hear of a confirmed afb case. the very few that i know about were all traced back to hiving new bees on old equipment. since i live an area that has ferals it might be that they have developed some natural resistance to afb, or it could be that they are spread out enough such that the pocket is too diffuse. or it could be that when a swarm takes up residence in such a cavity it dies out right away and doesn't have time to create stores which would invite robbing after the collapse and cause further spreading.

the other potential downside that needs further investigation is the role of beneficial microflora on colony health. using broad spectrum antibiotics twice yearly is bound to have off target effects which may or may not be harmful to the hive's ecosystem.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

peterloringborst said:


> But spring and fall treatment in an area with known pockets of AFB is simply a wise and judicious use, and has no downside, _In My Opinion. _


In my opinion this is wrong, very wrong. You neglected to mention the most negative trait of scheduled antibiotics. It develops super bugs, bacteria that cannot be dealt with. A treatment treats everything not just the bug you are wanting to kill. We are not yet done seeing the negative implications of constant antibiotic use in our food supply. I would rather see the hardware disposed of and the bees put in new equipment than try to control AFB with an antibiotic treatment.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> It develops super bugs, bacteria that cannot be dealt with.


Perhaps you would like to provide evidence that this has ever happened as a result of feeding antibiotics to bees on a seasonal basis.



> the bees put in new equipment than try to control AFB


This is an excellent way to propagate susceptible strains. If you are going to destroy the hive, the bees should go too.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> the biggest downside to practicing spring and fall treatments in areas with known pockets is that it allows them to contiually be known pockets.


No. If you use antibiotics as prevention, the hives never get AFB. If you wait to catch it from your neighbors, you are propagating AFB. Look, I have 40 years of dealing with AFB, inspectors, outbreaks, etc. You are entitled to your opinion, but upon what is it based?


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

peterloringborst said:


> Perhaps you would like to provide evidence that this has ever happened as a result of feeding antibiotics to bees on a seasonal basis.


as you know peter there is no such evidence that either confirms or refutes such an outcome.

in the context of varroa vectored viruses and their ability to collapse a colony and given that at the microbial level part of the colonies' resistance against these viruses could turn out come indirectly through competition by beneficials it's worth considering, no?


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

peterloringborst said:


> No. If you use antibiotics as prevention, the hives never get AFB. If you wait to catch it from your neighbors, you are propagating AFB. Look, I have 40 years of dealing with AFB, inspectors, outbreaks, etc. You are entitled to your opinion, but upon what is it based?



are we sure they are not getting afb? i can envision afb still finding its way into the hive, infecting some brood, and leaving spores behind. the antibiotics would only serving to keep the infestation subclinical.

my experience with afb was one of the first things i had to deal with as new beekeeper. i found it in a hive that was among several that i had 'adopted' after they had been abandoned on my property when their keeper passed away. i didn't know that their former owner had been giving them seasonal antibiotics and even though they made it through the first winter if found what i suspected was afb in one of them the following march which ended being confirmed by beltsville.

while i was waiting for the lab tests to come in i removed the hive to a remote location and called our state inspector. he came the next day and told me that it didn't look like afb to him and he diagnosed parasitic mite syndrome. even though he was 'convinced' this was not afb but rather mite related, his instructions to me were to treat that hive and all of my other hives with terramycin.

i chose instead to burn the frames and scorch the boxes on the infected hive. i then went through my remaining hives and removed all of the old adopted combs and gave them all a one time treatment of tylosin after which i adopted a strict burn approach. 

fortunately afb has not surfaced since.

that inspector has since retired and been replaced by a new one who doesn't have any experience or background with bees. 

so i guess that my opinion is based on the totality of this experience, what i have been able to glean from the literature, discussing the issue here and with others, and personal observation.

i think it's fair to say that our understanding of all of this is in flux and evolving. wouldn't you agree that the current state of affairs is very different to that of 40 years ago?


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

squarepeg said:


> as you know peter there is no such evidence that either confirms or refutes such an outcome.


There never is in the now the evidence comes in the future when a bad practice shows its ugly face and now it is too late.



> No. If you use antibiotics as prevention, the hives never get AFB.


Never is a long time and I am sure your statement is false. If you yourself took an antibiotic spring and fall you want to believe you would never get pneumonia or some other bacterial infection? You appear to smart to me for such logic. An antibiotic does not kill the spores so continually treating a hive leaves all the spores still there. If you stop treating the bees, they are a gonner and so to any other bees that take up residence whether they ever had AFB or not.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

40 years ago afb was quite common if not rampant in some areas and not everyone dealt with it by burning hives. Pretty much every commercial operation I know of uses antibiotics prophylactically at least in the spring. I haven't seen a case of afb in years and I don't hear many that are too concerned about it any more. I have often wondered why. Maybe it's the use of antibiotics or maybe it's the trifecta of mites, wax moth and/or shb?


----------



## shannonswyatt (May 7, 2012)

I've never understood just treating with antibiotics on the off chance that they need it. How is that helpful, unless they are already infected with something like nosema or foul brood? Why don't we all get twice yearly antibiotic shots? Not trying to be a smart butt, would love a serious answer on this.


----------



## shannonswyatt (May 7, 2012)

I saw some photos from the seventies (I would guess) of boxes stacked up really high with some gas soaked newspaper in the bottom. I was told they would light it and when flames came out of the top they knocked over the stack and reused them. I'm not sure if this was done on hives near suspect AFB hives or if this was for boxes that were known to have AFB.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

THat's how you scorch boxes when AFB is detected.


----------



## shannonswyatt (May 7, 2012)

Yup. I've heard folks talking about burning the hives in whole, I was wondering why you just wouldn't scorch them.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

shannonswyatt said:


> I've never understood just treating with antibiotics on the off chance that they need it. How is that helpful, unless they are already infected with something like nosema or foul brood? Why don't we all get twice yearly antibiotic shots? Not trying to be a smart butt, would love a serious answer on this.


An operation running thousands of hives is hardly analogous to a human choosing to take an antibiotic for no apparent reason. In commercial beekeeping you spend precious little time on each hive and treatment windows are short, 6 weeks before any surplus honey flow and maybe only a few weeks in the fall between pulling the last of your honey and the point at which queens suspend or seriously cut back on egg laying. Rarely would there be time enough or a need for a comprehensive frame by frame inspection on the off chance you might find a questionable cell somewhere. Let's also remember that while there may not be a lot of afb around, the same cannot be said for efb for which Terramycin is also very effective.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

Dr. Eric Mussen has retired and has just sent his _*very last*_ bimonthly newsletter to California beekeepers. (Dr. Mussen was UC Davis' bee entomologist and is at the very heart of California beekeeping).

His last newsletter retains the high standards and essential reading characteristic of all his earlier work. The lead article is directly relevant to the direction this thread is flowing. On the chance, his successor will continue this publication, everyone should subscribe at: https://lists.ucdavis.edu/sympa/subscribe/ucdavisbeenews

It reports on his own "quick experiment" and a further experiment by others. The finding: While chronic addition of Tetracycline (and other antibiotics) has conditioned AFB for resistance, the same is true of the beneficial gut flora. The bee gut flora is found to be genetically resistant to the antibiotics introduced chronically.

His post:
*Antibiotic Resistance*
I reported earlier on a quick study that Dr. Brian Johnson and I conducted on some newly established packages that we started in new equipment on commercial foundation. We fed 20 of the 80 packages sucrose syrup, ad libitum, throughout the first two months after installation. We fed 60 other packages a cup of sucrose syrup at installation that contained 200 mg of each of the following: oxytetracycline hydro-chloride, tylosin, and fumagillin. Those doses were the amount normally fed to full-sized colonies for disease prevention or treatment. Following that treatment, we fed the 60 colonies a 50:50 blend of sucrose and high fructose corn syrup, ad libitum, for the two months.

In case we eliminated some impor-tant microbes from the honey bee intestines, we fed a dog-designed probiotic containing 18 supposedly helpful microbes, at varying periodicities, including daily, to the 60 colonies.

Over the two-month period, we observed that the colonies fed the sucrose blend out-performed the sucrose-fed colonies. I questioned whether the intestinal microbes were really important to honey bee food digestion. This was not a new idea to me, since it seems that honey bees plow right through freshly collected almond pollen daily and don’t wait for microbial action in storage to assist digestion. Perhaps those intestinal organisms were not so critical, either.

However, I had forgotten to put two and two together. Had not Paenibacillus larvae larvae been treated with oxytetracycline hydro-chloride (oxytet) for decades which eventually resulted in selecting for a strain of bacterium resistant to the antibiotic? That is why we had to start using tylosin and lincomycin. Thus, it might be possible that the intestinal organisms, required to assist in obtaining nutrients from pollens in the honey bee intestinal tracts, also are resistant to the medications.

A recent publication by Baoyu Tian, et al., working in conjunction with the Nancy Moran lab, currently at the University of Texas, Austin, reported on studies to determine the mechanisms of resistance in intestinal microbes of current U.S. honey bee colonies. In comparison, they examined colonies of honey bees from countries, in which antibiotic use is prohibited, and some bumble bees for resistant genes in their intestinal organisms.
The laboratory findings were very inter-esting. Not surprisingly, genes for oxytetracyc-line “efflux” were found in the intestinal organ-isms. Efflux is the name for a type of cellular pump mechanism that pumps antibiotics out of the bacterial cells quickly enough so that they are not toxic to the microbes. A number of these pumps can confer multi-drug resistance be-cause they are not too specific about what they move through the cell wall: metabolic inhibitors, organic solvents, and molecules involved in bacterial cell to cell communi-cations, among others.

The researchers in this study found that after years of being subjected to relatively fre-quent exposure to oxytetracycline, there are at least eight different loci that have genes for resistance, including efflux genes tetB, tetC, tetD, tetH, tetL and tetY, as well as ribosome protection genes tetM and tetW. I included the list not to expect you to analyze your bees’ mi-crobes for resistance, but to show how many different genes have been selected for, appar-ently at different times and places. But, now, they are occurring together.

In the honey bee colonies that had not purposefully been exposed to antibiotics, and the bumble bee samples, there were resistant genes. They were very few in number and not replicated in the genome as extensively as are the U.S. resistance genes. The authors specu-lated that the few resistance genes they found in untreated honey bees and bumble bees are likely due to natural mutations or to chronic exposure to sublethal levels of antibiotics in the environment.

Thus, it might very well be that the reason our heavy dose of antibiotics did not seem to faze our commercial package bees was because the intestinal microbes can handle the antibiotics due to previous exposure to oxy-tetracycline, sulfathiazole, and fumagillin. Multiple drug resistance could also mitigate the effects of tylosin to these microbes. One way or another, it did not appear that feeding that ****tail of drugs negatively affected our colon-ies. But, did they really change anything in the bees?

The research article reviewed is: Tian, B., et al. 2012. Long-term exposure to antibio-tics has caused accumulation of resistance de-terminants in the gut microbiota of honeybees. Doi:10.1128/mBio.00377-12.​


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

"But, did they really change anything in the bees?"

what is dr. mussen asking here? is he suggesting that drug resistance is so developed that the target microbes likely have it too and preventative applications may be useless?


----------



## shannonswyatt (May 7, 2012)

Jim, my question is more for the folks in the 1 to 25 hives and antibiotics. I understand that for the commercial folks it is a numbers game. If the profit that you increase is higher than the outlay of cost you generally go that route. It seemed that the person in question in the first post was a backyard beek more than likely, not a commercial beek.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>The bee gut flora is found to be genetically resistant to the antibiotics introduced chronically.

Those strains that survived are, yes... where the antibiotics have not been used there are a lot of strains that are not in the bees whose ancestors in recent times have been exposed to antibiotics.

http://mbio.asm.org/content/3/6/e00377-12.full


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

jim lyon said:


> An operation running thousands of hives is hardly analogous to a human choosing to take an antibiotic for no apparent reason.


I don't think anyone would take an antibiotic for no apparent reason they would take it more like a vaccine which is why you are using it on bees. That type of use will eventually make it useless for what you want it for. So then the hope is a new drug meanwhile the disease you want to prevent gets stronger and more resistant. To me this is scary. Is there no other economical choice?


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Acebird said:


> I don't think anyone would take an antibiotic for no apparent reason they would take it more like a vaccine which is why you are using it on bees. That type of use will eventually make it useless for what you want it for. So then the hope is a new drug meanwhile the disease you want to prevent gets stronger and more resistant. To me this is scary. Is there no other economical choice?


Did I say that is what I do? . Whether I do or whether I don't, though, is a moot point. What is relevant is that it's a commonly accepted commercial practice, that tm has been used for decades and that afb seems currently to be at a low ebb, though efb is certainly on the rise. It's anyone's guess what the future holds.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

Michael Bush said:


> Those strains that survived are, yes... where the antibiotics have not been used there are a lot of strains that are not in the bees whose ancestors in recent times have been exposed to antibiotics.
> 
> http://mbio.asm.org/content/3/6/e00377-12.full


The most explosively significant element of the discussion in the Tian paper is this paragraph:
In October 2005, Tylosin was approved by the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration for use in beekeeping and was marketed
to beekeepers. In 2007, accelerated losses of colonies occurred
throughout the United States: the causes of these losses are not
clear but appear not to be attributable to spread of a particular
pathogen (27, 28). Speculatively, disruption of the gut microbiota
by a novel antibiotic might contribute to the decline of colonies of
bees, with such effects potentially becoming less pronounced as
members of the microbiota acquire resistance capabilities.​
Tian is hypothesizing that widespread commercial use of the novel, newly competent antibiotic Tylosin upset the gut ecology of commercial hives. The induced chaos resolved with CCD symptoms, and subsequently, the CCD syndrome receeded as bee microbe adaptation generated a new equilibrium.


----------



## CajunBee (May 15, 2013)

CajunBee said:


> Do you also have separate extraction facilities and equipment that never cross boundaries? Just curious how far this goes for us lowly hobbiest that don't have that luxery.


JW, would you be so kind as to address my questions? 
Do you also have separate extraction facilities and equipment that never cross boundaries?
If a person is sharing club-owned extraction equipment, is that cause for concern?
Thanks


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

JWChesnut said:


> Tian is hypothesizing that widespread commercial use of the novel, newly competent antibiotic Tylosin upset the gut ecology of commercial hives. The induced chaos resolved with CCD symptoms, and subsequently, the CCD syndrome receeded as bee microbe adaptation generated a new equilibrium.


"The induced chaos resolved with CCD symptoms, ..." I'm confused by your language, I think. The CCD symptoms resolved what? What was the induced chaos? CCD?

Are you saying that Tian hypothesized that Tylosin use caused CCD and that over time the gut flora of bees across the Nation have adapted thus resulting in the receding of CCD symptoms?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

CajunBee said:


> Do you also have separate extraction facilities and equipment that never cross boundaries? Just curious how far this goes for us lowly hobbiest that don't have that luxery.


CajunBee, if you want to protect your colonies from possibly contaminating each other because of common use of combs, simply number each hive and number each super you use on each hive and number each comb that belongs in each super only used on each hive. Then malke sure that you don't use them on the wrong hives. Then, if you ever have a hive come down w/ AFB you will know which honey combs to burn and won't be tempted to burn all of your honey combs.

Don't worry about your extractor. You do not need an extractor for each hive. You don't need to wash your extractor between combs from each hive. You can even extract combs from different hives in one extractor. Chances of contamination from an extractor are nil.


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

sqkcrk said:


> Don't worry about your extractor. You do not need an extractor for each hive. You don't need to wash your extractor between combs from each hive. You can even extract combs from different hives in one extractor. Chances of contamination from an extractor are nil.


Honestly, I sincerely hope you are right, because I just burned my first two colonies in over 30 yrs. just yesterday. Unfortunately, I pulled honey off both these hives earlier this season without knowing they had AFB at the time. When I pulled honey off both hives again just the other day, that is when I suspected something was wrong and looked into the broodnests. 

I am by no means any kind of an expert on AFB, but it just seems to me that if you have a comb of honey from a clean hive next to a comb of honey from an AFB hive in a radial extractor, and the honey is slung out, wouldn't some of the contaminated honey end up on the clean comb to some degree? Combs from a honey super off of a AFB hive may not have as much spore density as the brood combs from that hive, but surely they must have some. If what you say is true about extracting, then is it possible that the honey supers themselves from an AFB hive (as long as they were used entirely for honey and no brood) really are low risk for contamination of other equipment?


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

i wouldn't think much of the honey from one comb would get on adjacent combs in a radial extractor because the centrifugal force would cause the honey to be slung straight to the wall of the drum.

i'm not sure what i would do with the frames though, probably burn them just to be on the safe side.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

We go round and round on this every year, every 3 to 6 months perhaps. The chances of honey from one frame contaminating another frame is almost nonexistent.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

jmgi said:


> When I pulled honey off both hives again just the other day, that is when I suspected something was wrong and looked into the broodnests.


Why did you suspect something is wrong? This thread has caused me some concern so I went through one of my hives that I knew was dead. I found a little wax moth damage (expected) and a few hive beetles that were hanging around the 25 bees left in the hive. I did not find one cell that had a dead carcass in it. As a matter of fact I saw nothing in the hive. I expected to find at least cells of pollen or bee bread and some dead brood.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

squarepeg said:


> i'm not sure what i would do with the frames though, probably burn them just to be on the safe side.


Maybe Mark can answer this. AFB is a brood disease. So why are the honey frames of any concern?


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

CajunBee said:


> JW, would you be so kind as to address my questions?


Sorry, agree with the other posters. Extractor are not a vector for disease, as honey is pushed away from the comb, the comb will exit the extractor cleaner than it entered.

The case I am concerned about is brood frames with dripping putrid carcasses being used to make up new supers, in the mistaken certainty that the "bees will clean it up".

I suppose in the case of a known infection (as cited above), I would treat prophylactically with Tylosin the hives that were cross extracted. (In theory) The low level of contamination will resolve with simple antibiotic.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

sqkcrk said:


> "The induced chaos resolved with CCD symptoms, ..." I'm confused by your language, I think. The CCD symptoms resolved what? What was the induced chaos? CCD?
> 
> Are you saying that Tian hypothesized that Tylosin use caused CCD and that over time the gut flora of bees across the Nation have adapted thus resulting in the receding of CCD symptoms?


Tian doesn't specify the mechanism, and it his hypothesis. Yes, he is saying Tylosin was the direct agent inducing CCD. I believe what he means is the normally balanced gut flora was disrupted, and some novel or normally benign microbe went totally haywire, or nutrition was compromised by the lack of an essential digestive aide. Think neuro-toxin from botulism. As the traditional slate of bacteria adapted to Tylosin, the gut flora returned to normal, and the CCD event disappeared.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Acebird said:


> So why are the honey frames of any concern?


A rhetorical question? Seriously?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

JWChesnut said:


> Tian doesn't specify the mechanism, and it his hypothesis. Yes, he is saying Tylosin was the direct agent inducing CCD. I believe what he means is the normally balanced gut flora was disrupted, and some novel or normally benign microbe went totally haywire, or nutrition was compromised by the lack of an essential digestive aide. Think neuro-toxin from botulism. As the traditional slate of bacteria adapted to Tylosin, the gut flora returned to normal, and the CCD event disappeared.


I can't ask Tian, Dr. Tian I assume, so I will ask you. In all of the surveys done to try to establish a common link which may have caused CCD was Tylosin noted as a common element? I have never used Tylosin, yet I had great losses the same year Hackenberg did. How would that fit?


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Ace, read the Foulbrood document link that _wdale _posted back in post #83. A corrected [working] version of that link is in post #85.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

JWChesnut said:


> I suppose in the case of a known infection (as cited above), I would treat prophylactically with Tylosin the hives that were cross extracted. (In theory) The low level of contamination will resolve with simple antibiotic.


i'm not sure i see how using tylosin would resolve the contamination of spores. once present they never go away and neither does the potential for infection. the need for prophylaxis would be ongoing and the antibiotic would have to be applied in perpetuity.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

Acebird said:


> Maybe Mark can answer this. AFB is a brood disease. So why are the honey frames of any concern?


the thinking is that when the house bees try to clean out the gooey dead brood they end up tracking afb spores all over the inside of the hive.


----------



## odfrank (May 13, 2002)

>Sorry, agree with the other posters. Extractor are not a vector for disease, as honey is pushed away from the comb, the comb will exit the extractor cleaner than it entered.

Yes but...the contaminated combs are leaving wax, propolis and honey residue on the frame contact parts of the machine which the next batches of frames come in contact with. I would think an extractor could contaminate following frames, especially if contaminated brood frames were extracted. Don't they say a hive tools can transfer foulbrood?


----------



## rwurster (Oct 30, 2010)

sqkcrk said:


> The chances of honey from one frame contaminating another frame is almost nonexistent.


This is good to know, and from reading my understanding is that AFB is hard to transmit via gloves, jacket, hive tool etc also.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

jmgi said:


> I pulled honey off both these hives earlier this season without knowing they had AFB at the time. When I pulled honey off both hives again just the other day, that is when I suspected something was wrong and looked into the broodnests.


the hard part is not knowing if there was active brood disease when you pulled your supers earlier in the season. if the infection arose afterwards those supers may not be contaminated. what made you suspect something was wrong?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

odfrank said:


> Don't they say a hive tools can transfer foulbrood?


They say all sorts of things, whomever they might be. But has anyone ever proved such a thing? I never clean my hive tool, even after finding AFB. I have never cleaned my hive tool after working other peoplkes hives w/ them. Show me the errors of my ways.

Do we have to go over The List again? Yes? Well look it up. I'm tired of sharing it w/ you all, because you don't seem to get it. Those who have never asked before, Sorry, do some research.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

squarepeg said:


> the thinking is that when the house bees try to clean out the gooey dead brood they end up tracking afb spores all over the inside of the hive.


I am sure there are spores all over the hive but if treating with an antibiotic actually works then the next brood cycle would get infected almost immediately by these spores. In order for an antibiotic to work the spores have to be concentrated where the brood is raised. Certainly burning the whole hive eliminates the risk.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> Show me the errors of my ways.


one potato two potato three potato four, five potato, six potato, seven potato more...


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Tian is hypothesizing that widespread commercial use of the novel, newly competent antibiotic Tylosin upset the gut ecology of commercial hives. The induced chaos resolved with CCD symptoms...

I suggested that in this thread in January of 2010:
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?237335-Small-cell-bee-foundations&p=496736#post496736

I probably posted one before that, but I don't have time to find them all... And I put it in my book in 2011 on pg 628.


----------



## homesteader824 (Jun 9, 2012)

Regarding some of the ways to spread AFB, beekeepers more knowledgeable and experienced than me have said never take a hive tool to someone else's bee yard, and don't give honey to your bees that came from the store (or other unknown source). I think most beginning books state this too.

The instructor at my first beekeeping class told of a beekeeper who had AFB, and offered to bring it for show and tell. The instructor told him no, quite emphatically.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> Sorry. You haven't kept up with the new discoveries being made in the field of genetics.


Hmmm. I stand by my statement. Its widely understod by fruit growers that a cox scion produces a cox apple no matter what rootstock its on, and no matter how long its on it for. All cox apple tree are identical to the first cox apple tree.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> Right. We know that some colonies are not susceptible and/or they can clean up light infections. Back in the forties researchers generated low and high susceptibility lines. But these aren't foolproof (and there are many fools).


Because there are many fools, there's no point in applying this strategy anymore - is that your line of reasoning here?

Instead we'll treat them with antibiotics when no-one's looking (and probably get more honey the more we do that), thus preserving the more susceptible and making the wider population more susceptible.

Sounds like a fool's plan to me.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> No. If you use antibiotics as prevention, the hives never get AFB. If you wait to catch it from your neighbors, you are propagating AFB.


If you systemically use a treatment you are removing any pressure on the bee population to promote less susceptible strains at the expense of more susceptible strains.

That's a straitforward application of evoltionary biology/understanding of traditional genetic husbandry. You yourself use the same application to deem that if hives are to be destroyed then bees need to be destroyed too.

What you seem to be saying (in another post, where you say:


> This is an excellent way to propagate susceptible strains. If you are going to destroy the hive, the bees should go too.


... is that light infections should be treated while heavy infections should be destroyed - on the grounds that lighter infections show less vulnerability, and that's a desirable trait, and should be preserved. Is that right?

How do you know you haven't just caught the infection at an earlier stage? 

How do you know (when you use systemic antibiotics as a preventive measure) that you are not preserving a whole bunch of _the most susceptible strains_, allowing their (susceptible) genes to proliferate?

You seem to me to be adopting the thinking of traditional genetic husbandry, but only when it suits you. Or perhaps finding ways of justifying a practice you used to undertake at a time when you didn't understand its consequences?

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Michael Bush said:


> >Tian is hypothesizing that widespread commercial use of the novel, newly competent antibiotic Tylosin upset the gut ecology of commercial hives. The induced chaos resolved with CCD symptoms...
> 
> I suggested that in this thread in January of 2010:
> http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?237335-Small-cell-bee-foundations&p=496736#post496736
> ...


I've been reading this type of thing on Beesource for a few years and feel I should comment.

The popular story line basically goes that antibiotics disrupt or kill the bacteria in the gut of the bee larvae, which then leaves them open to getting infected by other bacteria such as AFB.

While this sounds very plausible and has been repeated often enough to become "fact", it is in fact untrue.

The gut of a bee larvae is pretty much devoid of bacteria, right through till when it hatches as an adult. At that time it gets it's special brew of gut bacteria through contact with other bees. So there are not a whole heap of gut bacteria in a larva that crowd out bad bacteria such as AFB.

QUOTE - _When a honey bee larva emerges from the pupa, its gut contains no bacteria. The bee gains its gut microbiota through grooming, contact with the honey comb, and trophallaxis_

http://www.yalescientific.org/2013/...crobiota-may-yield-clues-to-honey-bee-health/

Or -

"_Bacteria were absent and potentially actively excluded from larvae and newly emerged workers. The microbiota is established in the adult worker gut after brood cell emergence through contact with the hive and trophallaxis between nestmates; the characteristic phylotypes are maintained throughout the worker’s life, spanning diverse tasks and dietary regimens...our non-culture-based methods revealed that healthy A. mellifera larvae from colonies at three geographic locations had few or no bacteria in their guts. The scarcity or absence of gut bacteria in A. mellifera larvae seems especially odd in light of the well-characterized gut community of nurse workers that orally feed larvae. A. mellifera larvae have a blind gut that prevents digested substrates from being voided until just before pupation. The absence or scarcity of bacteria in A. mellifera larvae has been noted on the basis of culture-based methods. However, other culture-based studies have suggested that larvae naturally have large amounts of the characteristic phylotypes within their guts. In these studies, larvae were not surface sterilized, and contamination from the brood cell could have transferred small amounts of these phylotypes to the surface of the larvae...NEWs [newly emerged workers] contain few or no bacteria as anticipated, since A. mellifera goes through a complete metamorphosis in which the gut intima is shed. In contrast to NEWs, day 9 adults have a fully developed microbiota that is not significantly different from that of older bees."_

*Vincent G. Martinson, Jamie Moy and Nancy A. Moran. Establishment of Characteristic Gut Bacteria during Development of the Honeybee Worker. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2012, 78(8):2830. DOI:10.1128/AEM.07810-11.*

In the interest of completeness I should add that studies have shown that certain bacteria, in particular LAB will inhibit development of AFB bacteria, and this has perhaps led to the belief that these bacteria play a part in the larvae of a normal beehive. However in the experiments they were artificially added rather than occurring naturally.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

jim lyon said:


> Did I say that is what I do? . Whether I do or whether I don't, though, is a moot point. What is relevant is that it's a commonly accepted commercial practice, that tm has been used for decades and that afb seems currently to be at a low ebb, though efb is certainly on the rise. It's anyone's guess what the future holds.


Suppressed feral populations (with commensurate loss of biodiversity) is a certainty, not a guess. You've removed pressure to maintain natural resistance to the bugs in your bees, then dosed the local feral populations with the genes of susceptible bees. 

Its the old story: economics is accounted only at the level of the individual company, not at the level of commonly owned resources.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

JWChesnut said:


> The most explosively significant element of the discussion in the Tian paper is this paragraph: [...]
> 
> Tian is hypothesizing that widespread commercial use of the novel, newly competent antibiotic Tylosin upset the gut ecology of commercial hives. The induced chaos resolved with CCD symptoms, and subsequently, the CCD syndrome receeded as bee microbe adaptation generated a new equilibrium.


And/or: genes that were highly susceptible to a range of bugs killed by Tylosin were now spread among the rest of the population.

I know you'll be down on me like a ton of bricks, but parmaceutical companies just LOVE these 'addictive' scenarios. Its their business: finding new ways of inserting drugs that induce dependence _is the name of the game_. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Another popular theory, but any evidence Mike?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

homesteader824 said:


> The instructor at my first beekeeping class told of a beekeeper who had AFB, and offered to bring it for show and tell. The instructor told him no, quite emphatically.


I feel this shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how a colony gets infected w/ AFB. Was there some concern that someone would mistakenly stick that frame in an uninfected hive? Or did someone think that simply handling such a frame was going to lead to those handling it spreading spores to their own hives?


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

It would be a gamble surely? 

Me, I wouldn't use a hive tool straight out of an infected hive on a clean one. Sure, I know how AFB works and how many are required to kill that first larvae so the odds are low, but a low risk is there.

If a bunch of nuubs are encouraged to indulge in that kind of behaviour, sooner or later for someone it will end in tears.


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

Acebird said:


> Why did you suspect something is wrong?


As I said in my earlier post, it was low hive population that signaled something was up. These two hives were in a beeyard in which all the hives were very close to equal strength. When pulling honey I noticed a big difference in population from just a few weeks earlier in the two suspect hives, so then I inspected the broodnest and found what I found, all the classic symptoms of AFB.


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

sqkcrk said:


> We go round and round on this every year, every 3 to 6 months perhaps. The chances of honey from one frame contaminating another frame is almost nonexistent.


The word "almost" is what concerns me, but I understand what you are getting at.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> No. If you use antibiotics as prevention, the hives never get AFB.
> 
> Never is a long time and I am sure your statement is false.


I meant, while they are on antibiotics. The antibiotic prevents the disease from developing. Of course, they can get it when the drug is stopped.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

mike bispham said:


> That's a straitforward application of evoltionary biology/understanding of traditional genetic husbandry.......You seem to me to be adopting the thinking of traditional genetic husbandry, but only when it suits you. Or perhaps finding ways of justifying a practice you used to undertake at a time when you didn't understand its consequences?
> 
> Mike (UK)


Thing is, bees have been living with AFB, untreated, for thousands of years. Allowing natural selection.

But they still get AFB. Our odds of producing a resistant strain via what you term "traditional genetic husbandry", and replicating it across the entire population, are zero. Because nature has been trying it for a long time.

Varroa mites may be different. Our bees have only been exposed to them for a very short time, a blink of time in evolutionary terms. So we do not yet know what potential there may be that is yet to be realised.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> I've never understood just treating with antibiotics on the off chance that they need it. How is that helpful, unless they are already infected with something like nosema or foul brood? Why don't we all get twice yearly antibiotic shots? Not trying to be a smart butt, would love a serious answer on this.


I recommend this not on the _off chance they need it, _ but when AFB is present in the vicinity. There is quite a difference in that. I never use Terramycin on my own hives because I inspected this county for three years and found only one active case involving a couple of hives, which we stamped out. 

Since then I have made myself available to inspect any hive within a one hour drive of my home, free of charge. I am pretty sure there isn't AFB in my vicinity. On the other hand, when I lived in San Diego, every other amateur had AFB and didn't realize it. I treated my hives spring and fall, but always had a few cases each summer during the honey flow. The never got sick while on the drug, always in between treatment. 

By the way, some people do take antibiotics for prevention, especially in areas with Lyme disease. Of course this is a bad idea, and doctors know it. But people demand the drugs anyway. Antibiotic resistance is a terrible problem in people. However, the use of antibiotics is widespread in agriculture and livestock production. 

The problem here is this: a colony of bees is worth a lot of money. Plus, who wants their bees to get sick? The use of antibiotics in a hive can prevent the disease which is nearly always fatal. It can prevent the loss of $300 worth of bees and equipment (more if they are supered up). There is no downside. The use of terramycin had never been shown to have any ill effect.

Now there are some terramycin resistant strains of AFB. But these are rare and they respond very readily to Tylosin. There is no super AFB that cannot be controlled by any drug, like the superbugs in hospitals. All the same, it is perfectly logical to avoid the use of antibiotics in bees altogether and I fully acknowledge the reasoning behind such a position. But be aware that you have to be on the lookout for brood disease either way, and stamp it out early


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> wouldn't you agree that the current state of affairs is very different to that of 40 years ago?


Absolutely. I am not basing my statements on information from 40 years ago, but the entire 40 years. When Tylosin was first recommended I actually asked Jeff Pettis about it. The recommendation at the time was not to use it as a preventative but only as a treatment. I asked him what was meant by this. He said if AFB was present in an apiary, the active cases should be nuked and the yard treated. So there is some boundary shifting going on here between treatment and prevention. I have deliberately steered clear of the subject of treatment of active cases, but I assure you I know a great deal about that, as well, based on personal experience. 

I think we can see that there are several camps in beekeeping. There are those who think giving bees drugs or chemicals is _wrong_ for moral or other reasons. Many of these people avoid going to the doctor, etc. (until they get really sick). There are plenty of beekeepers who use any and all methods to keep their bees healthy, alive and productive. They certainly don't think there is anything "wrong" with what they are doing. To them, it would be wrong to lose a colony to save fifty cents on antibiotics. The use of antibiotics in bees has not been shown to have any negative effect on the colony, just the opposite. They seem to thrive while on it. 

The use of miticides have negative effects, but these pale in comparison to the negative effects of mites and viruses. I have no doubt if a treatment for viruses were made available, we would have this same discussion. There would be the anti-group, the same group that never gets flu shots. You would have the pro-group, the same group that recognizes that the health of the nation depends on modern health care practices, and the health of agriculture and livestock production is no different. 

Of course, there is a third group, standing in the middle, trying to make up their minds. I would point out that it is a lot easier to have healthy bees in a neighborhood where everyone is controlling pests and diseases than it is in a neighborhood where nobody is. These are community issues, community problems. That's why bee inspection was instituted many decades ago. Most states no longer fund bee inspection, and many of those that do, don't have adequate resources. It is up to clubs and associations to be proactive in teaching and helping people diagnose their problems. 

It is no shame to get AFB in your hives, any more than it is a shame to get the flu. But there are steps that you can take to prevent these things. They are not foolproof, of course, but an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Learn to separate reality from fantasy. A lie has gotten half way round the world while the truth was still lacing up its shoes.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

The first time I remember hearing the term "hygienic bees" was back in the 1970's when many (including us) were struggling with afb. Charles Mraz was developing and selling queens that he billed as having superior afb resistance because of their natural inclination to quickly clean out and dispose of any sickly brood. I bought some queens from him (boy were they mean) but never had a whole lot of success with them as they didn't over winter well in central Minnesota.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Re the question of treating a light infection vs a heavy infection, just for those who don't know. Antibiotics kill the vegetative (active) bacteria, but do not kill them when they form spores. So a heavily infected hive is unlikely to be able to be cured with antibiotics as it will be riddled with spores and the disease will reappear when treatment stops. A mild infection might be treatable, if there are few enough spores that during the treatment period infected material is cleaned from the hive by the bees, spores are fed to larvae and go vegetative and are killed, and by end of treatment there are so few spores left that there are not enough of them in one place to be fed in enough quantity to a larva to kill it. So the hive is "cured".


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> There is no downside. The use of terramycin had never been shown to have any ill effect.


There is no_ selfish_ downside. 

No cost to the individual

There is the potential for a significant _social_ downside.

The potential for significant damage to the wellbeing of neighbouring and future generations of beekeepers (and non beekeepers).

Is this something you want to factor in? It depends on your attitude toward other people I guess. 'I'm alright Jack' seem to be the governing ethos these days.

The issue isn't whether or not you use antibiotics. The issue is whether you take steps to reduce the need for antibiotics in the future. There was a reason, a rationale, for colony (as well as woodwork) destruction - to remove susceptible strains. You can't abandon that without being selfish. Its like spitting in public places. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Mike you have contradicted yourself.

You once told me I was wrong to claim that the general bee population is slowly getting more mite resistant because the bottom 20 or 30 % die every year even (supposedly) in treated hives. 
But here you are arguing that to treat and NOT allow to die, the TINY % of hives that get AFB, will effect their ability to become resistant.

So in one case you are claiming these losses will not allow resistance to develop, in the other case you are claiming that preventing small losses will prevent resistance that would otherwise have occurred.

Both cannot be true your 2 positions are contradictory.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> I have no doubt if a treatment for viruses were made available, we would have this same discussion. There would be the anti-group, the same group that never gets flu shots. You would have the pro-group, the same group that recognizes that the health of the nation depends on modern health care practices, and the health of agriculture and livestock production is no different.


The health of humans - where every life is considered precious - is utterly different from the approach in agricuture - where every life is considered expendable, and the heath of the stock population is paramount.



peterloringborst said:


> Of course, there is a third group, standing in the middle, trying to make up their minds.


And there'd be a forth group trying to point out that unlike all other stock animals _bees mate openly and that for that reason the approach to health matters must be completely different_.

This isn't something that can be discounted. Its a reality. It impacts all aspects of bee husbandry.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

mike bispham said:


> finding new ways of inserting drugs that induce dependence _is the name of the game_.
> 
> Mike (UK)


Oh WOW right on and you neglected to mention that the drug they are pushing eventually gets proven that it does nothing for the ailment it was intended for. How about a free bottle of lipitor? Anyone? Yes anyone? You don't need to have heart disease.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

mike bispham said:


> The health of humans - where every life is considered precious - is utterly different from the approach in agricuture - where every life is considered expendable, and the heath of the stock population is paramount.


Interesting dilemma. In the current Ebola outbreak around 10 to 40% of people who get it recover. So if we were farming, the best long term strategy would be to let the disease run free, then eventually the world will be populated by survivors. Course we won't do that cos everybody is scared they might be the one who does not get lucky.

So the way things are we will have a world population mostly not resistant to the disease and we will always struggle with it.

The great plagues and epidemics of the past were solved by natural selection, because we did not have medicine.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

Oldtimer said:


> Re the question of treating a light infection vs a heavy infection, just for those who don't know. Antibiotics kill the vegetative (active) bacteria, but do not kill them when they form spores. So a heavily infected hive is unlikely to be able to be cured with antibiotics as it will be riddled with spores and the disease will reappear when treatment stops. A mild infection might be treatable, if there are few enough spores that during the treatment period infected material is cleaned from the hive by the bees, spores are fed to larvae and go vegetative and are killed, and by end of treatment there are so few spores left that there are not enough of them in one place to be fed in enough quantity to a larva to kill it. So the hive is "cured".


interesting ot and the first time i have heard that. i helps me make sense over why the ferals have not been wiped out by afb.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Wild hives are spread widely (not in apiaries or having combs swapped with other hives) and ought to live in balance with it as they always have. Only thing can mess it up for them is a load of infected managed hives getting dumped near them but sounds like things are under control in the US at this time.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

The work on AFB resistant bees began in the 1930s



> Twenty-five supposedly
> resistant colonies and six supposedly nonresistant colonies were inoculated
> in early August, 1935, by inserting rectangular pieces of comb which contained
> at least 75 scales (dead larvae) of American foulbrood. All but one
> ...


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

that developing resistance is seen and the occurrences are low supports a mandatory burn policy. in states and/or countries where antibiotics are illegal has the incidence of afb waned?


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

That's interesting Peter and I know of similar examples. I have also seen 2 hives cure themselves.

The problem is the complex nature of genetics. Around 100 years ago there were no regulations about bees in my country and methods were crude. AFB arrived and built up to an estimated 75% infection across the country. At beekeepers insistence the government legislated infected hives must be burned and over the next few years there was a huge burnup.

One would assume that the bees that came through that, must have had a measure of resistance. But over time this has been lost, most hives now if deliberately infected with AFB will become symptomatic. Some can throw it off though.

It's one thing to get a resistant bee, it's another to make the trait heritable, and get it through the entire population.


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

Oldtimer said:


> Re the question of treating a light infection vs a heavy infection, just for those who don't know. Antibiotics kill the vegetative (active) bacteria, but do not kill them when they form spores. So a heavily infected hive is unlikely to be able to be cured with antibiotics as it will be riddled with spores and the disease will reappear when treatment stops. A mild infection might be treatable, if there are few enough spores that during the treatment period infected material is cleaned from the hive by the bees, spores are fed to larvae and go vegetative and are killed, and by end of treatment there are so few spores left that there are not enough of them in one place to be fed in enough quantity to a larva to kill it. So the hive is "cured".


Thanks OT for the explanation, it answered some questions that have come up now that I have recently had a couple of AFB cases, now wondering what my next move should be in regards to treatment (or not) of the remaining 40 some hives within flying distance. I have always been TF, prophylactic or otherwise with my operation, but this latest finding of AFB concerns me more than any mite problem ever has. Some recommendations?


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Peter or SQKCRK maybe Jim Lyon will be better placed to give you the correct info for your situation, perhaps by pm.

Me, anything I find even one cell, the hive is obliterated by fire. But someone experienced with antibiotics may be able to talk you through saving some mildly infected hives but it must be done intelligently there is more than just feeding them the antibiotic the primary object is to ensure it is not spread in some way to other hives.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> in states and/or countries where antibiotics are illegal has the incidence of afb waned?


It is almost impossible to get reliable stats on the incidence of AFB. I have asked both NYS and USDA about this. The information is there, but they won't release it. NYS cites confidentiality issues. USDA said they have decades of info, including the incidence of TM resistant foulbrood, but that they don't have the staff to crunch the data. _C'est la vie_


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> Me, anything I find even one cell, the hive is obliterated by fire.


I agree that this is probably the most prudent course for most people in most situations. However, very light infections of a few dozen cells or less can be cleared up using TM or tylosin. This judgment call requires knowledge and experience. The success depends largely on the skill of the operator and the extent of the infection. It is illegal in many jurisdictions, so this should not be taken as a recommendation to circumvent any local laws.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

For what my opinion on this may be worth. If I were running just a few hundred hives or less I would not consider prophylactically treating unless I was aware of an outbreak of afb in close proximity to my hives and I would immediately destroy any hive with signs of afb.....but thats just me.


----------



## homesteader824 (Jun 9, 2012)

sqkcrk said:


> I feel this shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how a colony gets infected w/ AFB. Was there some concern that someone would mistakenly stick that frame in an uninfected hive? Or did someone think that simply handling such a frame was going to lead to those handling it spreading spores to their own hives?


I think the concern was that spores from the frame could have spread to attendees clothing (including shoes) and later be spread to their bees. I made my post to counter the ones who thought it was okay to go hive-to-hive with a possibly spore-carrying hive tool.

I admit the rather low possibility of taking AFB spores back home from a meeting (with an AFB frame present), but why take that chance? I only mentioned the anecdote to show how seriously some take the spread of AFB, and to also show that there are those of us that are learning from our teachers/mentors, and not just the internet as the OP claims.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>QUOTE - When a honey bee larva emerges from the pupa, its gut contains no bacteria. The bee gains its gut microbiota through grooming, contact with the honey comb, and trophallaxis

Inconsistent with this study:
Microbial Gut Diversity of Africanized and European Honey Bee Larval Instars 
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0072106

But I think you're missing the real point anyway. If the Paenibacillus larvae doesn't germinate in the stomach of the nurse bees then it won't get passed on to the larvae.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> If the Paenibacillus larvae doesn't germinate in the stomach of the nurse bees then it won't get passed on to the larvae.


This is incorrect. The spores are passed to the larvae and they germinate there. They don't germinate under other conditions (except in culture dishes).



> American Foulbrood (AFB), as its name suggests, only affects the
> larval stages of honeybees. The extremely tenacious endospores are the only
> infectious form of this organism. The spores are infectious only
> for larvae; adult bees do not become infected upon ingestion of
> ...


----------



## mac (May 1, 2005)

JWChesnut said:


> What I found was frightening.
> 
> • The use of all-mediums inadvertently increase the velocity and range of contamination with AFB. The beek in this case had distributed the medium brood frames as the hives died into the honey supers of dozen other hives (and had given some to others).


 Don't think you should confuse hive sizes with ignorance in not being able ta spot AFB after all when AFB was rampant everyone used all deeps





[/QUOTE]


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Here is a study titled:

"Bacterial Probiotics Induce an Immune Response in the Honey Bee"
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1603/0022-0493(2004)097[0752:BPIAIR]2.0.CO;2

Which would seem to indicate that those probiotics in the gut of the nurse bees does protect the larvae from AFB...


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> Which would seem to indicate that those probiotics in the gut of the nurse bees does protect the larvae from AFB...


Did you read the paper? Nothing in supports your statement. They say



> It also is proposed that nonpathogenic bacteria can be used as a probiotic to enhance honey
> bee immunity, helping bee larvae, and other life stages, survive attacks from pathogens in the field.


They suggest probiotics might be added as an enhancement to the methods already used:



> beekeepers currently use various
> feeding mechanisms to introduce antidisease agents to
> the colonies. These include oil patties with the antibiotic
> oxytetracycline to combat foulbrood, liquid applications
> ...


The trouble with the whole probiotic movement is it is not backed up with verification. It sounds like a terrific idea, all natural, but there is no proof whatsoever that practical results can be obtained feeding probiotics to bees. Somebody has to do the work.

Here these guys started a whole business based on unsupported claims, other than the results are_ highly encouraging_ and _as yet preliminary_.



> Our tests on diseases affecting bees and their larvae have to date demonstrated in the laboratory that
> LAB are effective against both American and European foulbrood disease (4, 6).
> In ongoing international collaborations we have tested SymBeeotic on colonies that were heavily
> infected with Nosema apis and N. ceranae. The colonies were given either SymBeeotic or placebo
> ...


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

jmgi said:


> The word "almost" is what concerns me, but I understand what you are getting at.


Could have said nonexistent, but I don't really know that anymore than I know whether God exists or not.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

peterloringborst said:


> I meant, while they are on antibiotics. The antibiotic prevents the disease from developing. Of course, they can get it when the drug is stopped.


And you and I have seen it develop when TM is used too, haven't we? Which is one reason I prefer inspection and burning over treating.


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

sqkcrk said:


> Could have said nonexistent, but I don't really know that anymore than I know whether God exists or not.


I like the word "almost" much better than "non-existent" anyways. It usually ends up being closer to the truth.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

homesteader824 said:


> I think the concern was that spores from the frame could have spread to attendees clothing (including shoes) and later be spread to their bees. I made my post to counter the ones who thought it was okay to go hive-to-hive with a possibly spore-carrying hive tool.
> 
> I admit the rather low possibility of taking AFB spores back home from a meeting (with an AFB frame present), but why take that chance? I only mentioned the anecdote to show how seriously some take the spread of AFB, and to also show that there are those of us that are learning from our teachers/mentors, and not just the internet as the OP claims.


That's fine. I understand caution. It just seems like there is a lot of fear spawned by a lack of knowledge. If you go to a meeting where no hives are present and a frame of AFB is there so you can become familiar w/ what it looks like and you handle it, wash your hands afterwards. Just like you would after wiping your bum.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Michael Bush said:


> >QUOTE - When a honey bee larva emerges from the pupa,


Huh? When a honeybee larva emerges from the pupa? This isn't any way that an insect grows that I am familiar with. Maybe someone got things backwards? When the pupae emerges from the larva, maybe?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

jmgi said:


> I like the word "almost" much better than "non-existent" anyways. It usually ends up being closer to the truth.


Me too. Just to be safe. Very few things are absolute.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Michael Bush said:


> But I think you're missing the real point anyway. If the Paenibacillus larvae doesn't germinate in the stomach of the nurse bees then it won't get passed on to the larvae.


You missed the point. Larvae receive _P. larvae_ in spore form.  



Michael Bush said:


> Inconsistent with this study:
> Microbial Gut Diversity of Africanized and European Honey Bee Larval Instars
> http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0072106.


Problem with that study was they assayed entire ground larvae carcasses not just gut.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>>QUOTE - When a honey bee larva emerges from the pupa,
>Huh? When a honeybee larva emerges from the pupa?

You make it look like I said that. Oldtimer said it, not me.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Not my intent. Maybe you should have quoted it properly. I didn't read OT's whole Post.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> The trouble with the whole probiotic movement is it is not backed up with verification. It sounds like a terrific idea, all natural, but there is no proof whatsoever that practical results can be obtained feeding probiotics to bees. Somebody has to do the work.


Its a good point. 

Another is: the better it works, the better it will be at spreading susceptibility to AFB...

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Michael Bush said:


> You make it look like I said that. Oldtimer said it, not me.


Oops, when I read Michael say that even I didn't realise it was me originally said it didn't know I'd made the typo LOL.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel (Mar 13, 2013)

Oldtimer said:


> Me, anything I find even one cell, the hive is obliterated by fire. But someone experienced with antibiotics may be able to talk you through saving some mildly infected hives but it must be done intelligently there is more than just feeding them the antibiotic the primary object is to ensure it is not spread in some way to other hives.


In Germany the burning of AFB infected hives was standard until about ten years ago, too. With bees and all. Nowadays the standard is to shake down hives, combine two to three colonies (just the bees) into one. They are put into a cellar into a swarm box where they are left for two days, without much to feed (so they live from the honey in their honey stomach). After that those swarms are put into fresh equipment. 

The infected equipment gets either desinfected properly, or the equipment gets burned. (Brood frames, frames, old hives with lots of cracks...that sort of stuff.) Brood gets destroyed intirely.

Depending on the stage of infection, the whole apiary gets shook swarmed. All neighbour apiaries get tested for AFB, too. 

Although there are cases of EFB, the EFB is ignored completely in Germany. (For whatever reasons...) We do monitor closely for AFB. This is done by yearly testing honey from the brood area. The tests are cost free for the beekeepers and we do it through our beekeeping associations/local beekeeping clubs. (In some states those tests are free, some need to pay a fee.) Through the monitoring and lab testing we are able to detect AFB before you actually see any symptoms. The results are: no AFB detected, low AFB detected, high count of spores. Only if the high count of AFB is detected, some precautionary action is taken. Meaning sanitation. Low counts do not matter much but of course you are warned this way.

No antibiotics allowed in beekeeping in Germany. Monitoring helps to avoid antibiotics as is the continual renewing of comb. By using fresh brood combs you do the best avoiding AFB.

That's the situation here.

Bernhard


----------



## shannonswyatt (May 7, 2012)

jim lyon said:


> For what my opinion on this may be worth. If I were running just a few hundred hives or less I would not consider prophylactically treating unless I was aware of an outbreak of afb in close proximity to my hives and I would immediately destroy any hive with signs of afb.....but thats just me.


Thanks Jim, this is what I was asking about.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

BernhardHeuvel said:


> No antibiotics allowed in beekeeping in Germany. Monitoring helps to avoid antibiotics as is the continual renewing of comb. By using fresh brood combs you do the best avoiding AFB.
> 
> That's the situation here.
> 
> Bernhard


Far too sensible for us to do something like that here. Too much science involved and doesn't employ any old beekeepers.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

A much smaller country w/ a different attitude regarding personal responsibility and Governmental control.

I don't know why you kick "old beekeepers", Brian. And what is the dig about employing them about?

Would you like it if you got an annual visit from an Apiary Inspector who would go through your hive(s) looking for disease, whether you are present or not, and then left a report stating "No disease found." and left it at that? Or left you a Quarantine Notice telling you that you have to kill your bees and burn your hive(s)?


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

interesting bernhard, and that supports the notion which is new to me that foulbrood spores can be removed from the hive from excretion by the house bees. perhaps developed resistance to afb involves this hygienic mechanism.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel (Mar 13, 2013)

sqkcrk said:


> A much smaller country w/ a different attitude regarding personal responsibility and Governmental control.


That was a joke, was it?

Nothing of the above described by me is enforced by law or the goverment. The opposite. It is organized by the beekeepers and run by them. If someone doesn't want to take part, he doesn't have to. There is no apiary inspector allowed on the property without the permission of the owner. So most of the prevention system is cooperation between beekeepers. I think, that is personal responsibility. Isn't it?


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

I do not trust the qualifications of any government employee. If you were to offer to do it or some of the other experienced beekeepers were willing, I would welcome it. So to answer your question, no.

Secondly, detecting AFB after the fact is not a good disease control system. The size of the country has no bearing on the quality of the system.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

BernhardHeuvel said:


> That was a joke, was it?
> 
> Nothing of the above described by me is enforced by law or the goverment. The opposite. It is organized by the beekeepers and run by them. If someone doesn't want to take part, he doesn't have to. There is no apiary inspector allowed on the property without the permission of the owner. So most of the prevention system is cooperation between beekeepers. I think, that is personal responsibility. Isn't it?


Yes, it is Bernhard and good to know. Thanks for correcting me on this.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

BernhardHeuvel said:


> That was a joke, was it?
> 
> Nothing of the above described by me is enforced by law or the goverment. The opposite. It is organized by the beekeepers and run by them. If someone doesn't want to take part, he doesn't have to. There is no apiary inspector allowed on the property without the permission of the owner. So most of the prevention system is cooperation between beekeepers. I think, that is personal responsibility. Isn't it?


awesome. sounds like beekeepers in your country may get along a little better with each other than they do here?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Acebird said:


> I do not trust the qualifications of any government employee. If you were to offer to do it or some of the other experienced beekeepers were willing, I would welcome it. So to answer your question, no.


Even though I was a Government employee?

Okay, then how do you suggest we beekeepers detect AFB before the fact?


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> Even though I was a Government employee?
> 
> Okay, then how do you suggest we beekeepers detect AFB before the fact?


And if I didn't have a good understanding of your qualifications I would not trust you. Do you feel you are the norm for the typical government employee who has the authority to destroy a hive and do you think all the states operated the way NYS did?

Didn't Bernhard just describe it?


----------



## BernhardHeuvel (Mar 13, 2013)

squarepeg said:


> sounds like beekeepers in your country may get along a little better with each other than they do here?


At times, only at times. Wish that would be the case in other topics, too, but it seems beekeepers all over the World are of the same sort.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Here is a method to test for AFB that catches subclinical cases (without visible symptoms)




> The main purpose of this study was to investigate if clinically diseased
> colonies can be found using samples of adult bees. The
> sensitivity of 100% (no false negatives) indicates that sampling of
> adult bees may detect all colonies with clinical symptoms of AFB
> ...


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Acebird said:


> And if I didn't have a good understanding of your qualifications I would not trust you. Do you feel you are the norm for the typical government employee who has the authority to destroy a hive and do you think all the states operated the way NYS did?


I have stated before that knowing what I know now I would not have wanted me in my beehives when I started Apiary Inspection. I learned what I know, beyond the book learning, by doing Apiary Inspection.

Am I the norm? I know some better, Lynn Barton and Peter Borst come to mind, and some I am less impressed with who will remain anonymous. The Inspectors in other States that I have met and dealt w/ seem to me less qualified and knowledgeable than current NYS Apiary Inspectors.

You are under a common misconception as per Apiary Inspectors and their authority. NYS Apiary Inspectors *do not have the authority to destroy hives*. This may be splitting hairs, but that's what I do. NYS Apiary Inspectors, under the authority of the Commissioner of Ag&Mkts can compel you​ to destroy AFB infected hives, but the Apiary Inspector is only supposed to supervise to make sure that the job is done correctly. He/she is not even supposed to help.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> You are under a common misconception as per Apiary Inspectors and their authority.


I know this but with any governmental regulator there is a fear factor. It is not hard for "them" to convince you that they have more power then they do.

For the case of AFB, primarily the only thing that anyone is fearful of, I like Bernhards system of sampling honey. I am not sure how his local group tests for spores but there must be a way. I like the idea of recycling comb out of the brood nest. I think in the long run it would benefit the beekeeper better than just throwing antibiotics at the hive spring and fall.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

Very relevant email from Randy O. on Bee-L in a response to Mark B. This exchange grew out of this particular thread.

Not to add fuel to the fire, but because mediums have only 1/2 the area of a deep, when mediums are dispersed into other hives (as per my discovery cited above), they are going to be transferred to TWICE as many locations. Statistically, they are more likely to infect more hives than deeps.



> Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 05:46:54 -0700
> 
> Subject: Re: AFB Spores
> 
> ...


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

JWChesnut said:


> Not to add fuel to the fire, but because mediums have only 1/2 the area of a deep, when mediums are dispersed into other hives (as per my discovery cited above), they are going to be transferred to TWICE as many locations. Statistically, they are more likely to infect more hives than deeps.


Then maybe we should also limit the number of beekeepers, following your example, because the more there are of smaller apiaries the more disease there will be.

Actually, (and I still wish I could lay my hands on this report and that I had kept a copy) when Robert J. Mungari was first in charge of the Apiary Inspection Program in NYS Dept of Ag&Mkts he ran the inspection program in a way which he could analyse the data gathered and report statistics from that data. This was in 1986 and 87. We were instructed to highlight every forth registered apiary in our County Listings and do those apiaries first when working Townships w/in Counties across the State. These apiaries were used for statistical analysis.

One thing I recall was that as apiaries got smaller, as well as the number of apiaries held by beekeepers did also, the percentage of AFB grew. Apiaries of smaller size, usually held by beekeepers w/ one or few apiaries, had much more AFB than larger apiaries which were usually held by commercial beekeepers.

So, if that analysis holds true even today, we should see more cases of AFB in the hands of those who know the least about it and how to deal w/ it and how to "control" its occurrence.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

sqkcrk said:


> One thing I recall was that as apiaries got smaller, as well as the number of apiaries held by beekeepers did also, the percentage of AFB grew. Apiaries of smaller size, usually held by beekeepers w/ one or few apiaries, had much more AFB than larger apiaries which were usually held by commercial beekeepers.
> 
> So, if that analysis holds true even today, we should see more cases of AFB in the hands of those who know the least about it and how to deal w/ it and how to "control" its occurrence.


And/or perhaps 'wiser' beekeepers benefit from keeping quiet. Lots of things can affect statistics.

Shifting brood combs about is main cause of AFB spread

Smaller brood boxes means more shifting

Seems like the beginning of a case to me. I'm going to consider building avoidance of that into my system of management. Thanks John.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Not to add fuel to the fire, but because mediums have only 1/2 the area of a deep

Actually your math isn't very good. A medium has 2/3 of the area of a deep.

Obviously you need to pass a law against movable combs and you'll resolve the issue. Nothing else will make a significant statistical difference. If you think the difference between a medium and a deep is significant (33% more frames), then we all need to go to double deep frames (19 1/4" deep) and eliminate the double deeps (50% less frames). Otherwise we'll all get overwhelmed with AFB...


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

mike bispham said:


> And/or perhaps 'wiser' beekeepers benefit from keeping quiet. Lots of things can affect statistics. Mike (UK)


Keeping quiet about what?


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> So, if that analysis holds true even today, we should see more cases of AFB in the hands of those who know the least about it and how to deal w/ it and how to "control" its occurrence.


If you are heavy into statistical data and look at regulation for things that really matter you will find that the bigger the organization gets the more it needs to be regulated. There are two reasons for that. As a organization gets large it looses its moral control because it is driven by money not morals. And two the bigger an organization gets the greater the impact it will have on everyone else. Using your data, a small back yard beek may have more instances of AFB but a commercial beek will generate a kazillian more spores in one outbreak. Secondly, a commercial beek is more apt to be moving these spore farms all over the country. So I vote we regulate the hell out of the commercial beeks.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

sqkcrk said:


> Keeping quiet about what?


People often under-report and over-report because they feel it is in their interests to do so. That weakness should always be borne in mind when looking at self-reporting surveys.

That might be nothing more than a nagging feeling that some harm might be less likely if problems are under-emphasised. When the issue concerns something as important as a livelihood - or greater - the temptation is stronger.


----------



## AR Beekeeper (Sep 25, 2008)

I would think the commercial beekeepers have more AFB than hobbyist because they have more colonies. I would also think that more of their cases of AFB are found because they are better at identifying disease than are hobbyist. I also think that AFB is now a minor killer of honey bee colonies, when compared with varroa and the viruses they carry.

Here in Arkansas AFB is not at all common, I have only seen the disease twice in 37 years, and I have never had one of my colonies have the disease. Our State Apiary Section inspects over 6000 colonies each year and usually finds 12 cases or less of AFB.

Rather than talk about what size frame should be used perhaps we should talk about why hobbyist are so poorly educated in identifying the disease, and what the regulatory agencies could do to change that.


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

AR Beekeeper said:


> I would think the commercial beekeepers have more AFB than hobbyist because they have more colonies. I would also think that more of their cases of AFB are found because they are better at identifying disease than are hobbyist.


no I would look the other way, since the commercial beekeepers treat for AFB most of the year, they show no symptoms, but they are loaded with AFB. except for Mark, because he says and I believe that he doesn't treat, just burns.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Acebird said:


> So I vote we regulate the hell out of the commercial beeks.


Well, currently in NY they/we are the only ones getting inspected. 

Maybe you missed my point. Of all the cases found they mostly were in apiaries owned by hobby beekeepers. Being as commercial beekeepers do what they do for a living, why wouldn't the potential source of threat against those who keep bees for a living be what is most heavily inspected. Other than that the bigger ones operation is the more likely one's operation is to be regulated whither it be apiary inspection or some other regulation.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

mike bispham said:


> That weakness should always be borne in mind when looking at self-reporting surveys.


To which Post was this thought a reply? I don't recall anyone writing anything about self-reporting.


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

AR Beekeeper said:


> Rather than talk about what size frame should be used perhaps we should talk about why hobbyist are so poorly educated in identifying the disease, and what the regulatory agencies could do to change that.


After identifying my first case of AFB in over 30 yrs. just a week or so ago, I don't see why it would be so hard for a hobbyist to identify it also. Even though I had never had it myself, or even saw a frame of AFB in person from anyone else's bees, I knew immediately that I had it when I saw it, using a test kit ordered from a supply company to diagnose it was only a formality for me. I would have burned everything even if I wouldn't have done the test or sent a sample in for testing, I was so sure of what I was seeing. Nobody knows they have it until the classic symptoms appear, foul smell of the frames of brood, sunken perforated greasy looking brood cappings, color of the dead larva/pupa, position of the dead larva/pupa, and ropiness of the melted down larva/pupa. Any beginner has access to books, photo's, internet info, internet videos, etc. to learn what it looks like, and how to differentiate it from other common brood diseases. AFB is like no other brood disease, I don't see how you could even confuse it with EFB if you study the information that's out there. In my opinion, everyone is poorly educated about AFB until you have it.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Before you can see AFB, not only do you have to look, you have to know what healthy capped brood looks like and then be curious enough to delve further into what's in a cell when you see unhealthy looking capped brood.

But first you have to look.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

AR Beekeeper said:


> Rather than talk about what size frame should be used perhaps we should talk about why hobbyist are so poorly educated in identifying the disease, and what the regulatory agencies could do to change that.





jmgi said:


> After identifying my first case of AFB in over 30 yrs. just a week or so ago, I don't see why it would be so hard for a hobbyist to identify it also.


agreed. 

i gleaned enough in reading through a couple of books and searching the internet to be able to make a tentative diagnosis. 

afb and varroa for that matter are spread to healthy bees in the process of robbing out collapsing colonies. i think there should be more emphasis on the responsibility for doing one's best to prevent their bees from causing harm to other bees nearby.

it appears that the keepers in the op didn't get that part of their 101.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

Mark that would seem to run counter current to "hands off beekeeping". Some management practices encourage ways of not having to do individual frame inspections unless dwindling or failure to thrive makes the inspection almost an autopsy. Some factions encourage new beekeepers to just jump in, and downplay the amount of knowledge and labor necessary to do the bees justice.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Yeah, I know. Too bad, isn't it?


----------



## homesteader824 (Jun 9, 2012)

AR Beekeeper said:


> Rather than talk about what size frame should be used perhaps we should talk about why hobbyist are so poorly educated in identifying the disease, and what the regulatory agencies could do to change that.


I think the emphasis on varroa mites, coupled with the rarity of AFB has caused tunnel vision when it comes to teaching about pests and diseases. Add that to the fact that the topic can be a bit of a snooze, and many beekeepers are not fully prepared to recognize some diseases.

Putting together a lesson plan recently, I realized the topic of pests and diseases covers too much material to do in a single two-hour session. I divided the topic up, and covered everything but mites (all, not just varroa) in one lesson, and will cover mites on their own. This still forces the instructor and class to cover a lot ground in one sitting, but I feel it helped some to divide it up.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Check out www.nybeewellness.org. You might find beneficial information there.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

jmgi said:


> I was so sure of what I was seeing. Nobody knows they have it until the classic symptoms appear, foul smell of the frames of brood, sunken perforated greasy looking brood cappings, color of the dead larva/pupa, position of the dead larva/pupa, and ropiness of the melted down larva/pupa.


How long after a colony dies out are these systems still prevalent? If you come across an abandoned hive in the woods can you still see these systems one or two years later?


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> I also think that AFB is now a minor killer of honey bee colonies, when compared with varroa and the viruses they carry.


This is a fair statement, so far as it goes. The main difference is that a hive that dies from varroa takes the varroa with it, whereas a hive that dies of AFB has spores that are viable for 35 years or more. Often such equipment gets new bees put in it, perpetuating the cycle. One has to be diligent in diagnosing dead hives as well as live ones.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

Acebird said:


> How long after a colony dies out are these systems still prevalent? If you come across an abandoned hive in the woods can you still see these systems one or two years later?


i believe by that point the melted down larvae would have dried out and become dark scales on the bottom of the cells. the afb spores however remain viable for many years. as peter points out: be very wary of old used equipment.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Errr, wax moths do perform a useful purpose. How long do you think an AFB collapsed hive will still have comb to look for scale in?


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> How long after a colony dies out are these systems still prevalent? If you come across an abandoned hive in the woods can you still see these systems one or two years later?


AFB dries down to a hard scale which is detectable for years in old comb, both visually and by odor. A small square of this old comb can be sent to Beltsville and they can culture AFB from it, confirming diagnosis. Often, however, wax moths or other critters eat the old comb, leaving nothing much to see, but the spores are still there in the debris


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> Errr, wax moths do perform a useful purpose. How long do you think an AFB collapsed hive will still have comb to look for scale in?


I have seen them several years old, and still contain combs. Also, I detected AFB in one abandoned hive from the residue on the plastic foundation. (confirmed by Beltsville). Presumably such hives or cavities will have spores all over the wooden surfaces as well, even embedded in the propolis. Too bad propolis isn't effective against AFB


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

deknow said:


> How long do you think an AFB collapsed hive will still have comb to look for scale in?


Years. I have had old comb unprotected for 2-3 years now and the wax moths haven't touched it. It seems as though (I said seems) that if the comb is old and black and totally cleaned out the wax moths is not so interested in it. I think if the frames are wet all bets are off. If you close up the boxes they have to be totally closed or else mice will make a nest and chew into the comb.

Peter, will the hard scale form even if the brood is still capped?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Acebird said:


> How long after a colony dies out are these systems still prevalent? If you come across an abandoned hive in the woods can you still see these systems one or two years later?


Yes, AFB scale last indefinitely.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Good observation Brian. Yes, wax moth are far more interested in dark comb containing pollen, particularly if stored in a hot environment. Absent pollen and in a cooler less conducive climate for wax moth, such dark comb might stay free of wax moth for years.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

deknow said:


> Errr, wax moths do perform a useful purpose. How long do you think an AFB collapsed hive will still have comb to look for scale in?


Depends. Could be visible for years and years. Could also happen that wax moths do not do what they do. They don't always. I have seen scale in stored comb that had been in storage for 25 years.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

jim lyon said:


> Yes, wax moth are far more interested in dark comb containing pollen, particularly if stored in a hot environment.


Ah, so it is the pollen or bee bread that the wax moth uses for food. Makes sense. I will make sure I don't leave frames out that are packed with pollen in the future. I got lucky with these frames on the timing. Earwigs, ants and a host of other bugs got in there and cleaned out the pollen that was in the frames before the wax moth had a chance.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Acebird said:


> Ah, so it is the pollen or bee bread that the wax moth uses for food. Makes sense. I will make sure I don't leave frames out that are packed with pollen in the future.


I'm not sure that is exactly correct. I only know pollen laden dark combs in a warm environment are the key ingredients of the "perfect storm" for attracting wax moth. They will readily consume all the honey in these combs as well. Once the infestation has begun the larvae will also move into adjacent darker "dry" combs though a very light comb that has never contained brood may well be spared.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Stored? Sure. How long will they last in a bee less hive in the field? In a tree?



sqkcrk said:


> Depends. Could be visible for years and years. Could also happen that wax moths do not do what they do. They don't always. I have seen scale in stored comb that had been in storage for 25 years.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

The assumption is "Not long." But if there are no wax moth around what would you expect?


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

If there were no wax moths 'around', I'd guess that there are precious few mites, AFB spores, or bees around either.

deknow


----------



## Joseph Clemens (Feb 12, 2005)

I have been keeping bees in all medium-depth equipment, for nearly fifty years (after my first few years). It has yet to exacerbate any undesirable issues - at all. In the past decade, or so, I've even switched from 10-frame mediums, to 8-frame mediums, and from bottom entrances to all upper entrances.

Beekeeping is highly location dependent. Here, in my present area of the desert southwest, wax moths do not suffer any little bit of unprotected comb, even plain beeswax foundation, to continue for more than a few days. Perhaps it is because they may have little else, in our area, to subsist upon, other than what the bees provide. I haven't had, nor do I have now, AFB infected comb to test its resistance to wax moths with, but I suspect it would likely not last longer than a week, at best, unless protected with _Bt_, or other wax moth protection method(s). This is probably a very good thing as concerns AFB and its prevalence.

Through the years, I have seen many different honey bee brood diseases. Various ones being more prevalent in different areas of the USA, where I was located at the time. But, I have yet to see a case of AFB in person. Though I've read about it, repeatedly and extensively, watched videos and examined photos of cases, I have yet to see one. And, from what I've heard about it, I would be happy to complete my life without having that experience. Just as I would be most satisfied never having a personal experience with Ebola.

I empathize with those dealing with AFB and other diseases and pests of honey bees, while hoping everyone can keep their bees strong and in good health.

I began keeping bees, and continue keeping bees, for the main purpose, of looking into a beehive and observing them, whenever I want to. Producing a few nucs and queens, each year, and selling them, helps me to maintain my beekeeping hobby.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Do we know that when an AFB spore is passed through the digestive system of a wax moth, the spore is destroyed?


----------



## Joseph Clemens (Feb 12, 2005)

Oldtimer,
That certainly seems like something someone should have investigated, by now. If anyone knows the answer, or research concerning this issue, I hope they will share that information.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Are the spores destroyed if they pass through our digestive system?


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Oldtimer said:


> Do we know that when an AFB spore is passed through the digestive system of a wax moth, the spore is destroyed?


This Swiss paper says no, the AFB spores are not destroyed by wax moth digestion ....



> Adult Wax Moths cause no damage because their mouthparts are atrophied. They do not feed during their adult life. Only larvae feed and destroy combs. However, adult Wax Moths and larvae can transfer pathogens of serious bee diseases (e.g. foulbrood). In colonies infested with foulbrood, the faeces of Wax Moths contain large amounts of Paenibacillus larvae spores.
> 
> http://www.agroscope.admin.ch/imker...O2Yuq2Z6gpJCDeHx2fGym162epYbg2c_JjKbNoKSn6A--


_Paenibacillus _is the bacterium related to AFB: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_foulbrood


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Wow that's scary, never even thought of them as a VECTOR of the disease!


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Acebird said:


> Are the spores destroyed if they pass through our digestive system?


Probably not. But it puts them out of reach.


----------



## WesternWilson (Jul 18, 2012)

I think it's reasonable to think that at least some commercial beekeepers, including pollination services, medicate their bees prophylactically to prevent AFB from "expressing" in their colonies...and this may mean AFB is present but suppressed. Since a lot of pollination hives must be under enormous stress in the field, I would think they are open to robbing from time to time by area colonies that are not rentals?

I think that constant medication (and discreet, "I will handle this myself" attitudes) could well skew figures to make us conclude, in error, that AFB is occurring less in commercial stock than backyard.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

How would anyone account for undectible AFB made so by prophylactically applied TM? If no AFB is present because of preventitive use of TM, how do you know if AFB is present or suppressed?


----------



## WesternWilson (Jul 18, 2012)

Randy Oliver is quoted in an earlier post recommending "Elimination of American Foulbrood Without the Use of Drugs" by Dr. Mark Goodwin. His book seems out of print, and pending one surfacing, can anyone sketch out what Dr. Goodwin's approach is?


----------



## WesternWilson (Jul 18, 2012)

I would think that the spores could be there in the honey and wax, and once bees go to an unmedicated environment, or are robbed out, the AFB spores germinate when ingested?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

If TM is suppressing the generation of spores, how can there be a generation of spores? I'm not saying you are wrong, I just don't see how it works.


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

sqkcrk said:


> How would anyone account for undectible AFB made so by prophylactically applied TM?


Well for one thing from a study I found once, the main ingredient found as a residue in tested honey was toslin. so most of the commercial beeks using antibiotics to supress AFB are using toslin which is not to be used as a preventitive, so they must know that the due have AFB in those hives.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Or they are just using tylosin, aka tylan, improperly.

But my question was about actually counting, not suspecting.


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

If my memory is correct, when I started out beekeeping back in the early 70's, it was standard procedure to medicate as a preventative with TM. There was no talk of "maybe" doing it, you just did it. Of course, back then there wasn't nearly the concern with over-drugging honey bee hives as there is today. We had a hive inspection program here in Michigan also, which we don't have today, and haven't had for many, many years.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> If TM is suppressing the generation of spores, how can there be a generation of spores?


The antibiotic does not kill everything. It kills most of everything. So over time spores will be generated from bacteria that survived the antibiotic and may be stronger against the antibiotic. The immune system in the animal getting treated stops fighting these bacteria because it doesn't have to. If the treatment is stopped the now stronger bacteria takes off against an immune system that is totally not prepared to fight the infection. If you want a race of bees that is prone to die from AFB treat them regularly with an antibiotic. If you could treat every hive on a regular basis with antibiotics the honeybees would become extinct.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Is that how antibiotics work? I guess since that is what they are called, that makes sense. I do know that there are resistant strains of AFB, resistant to TM. But if my bees never get TM medication and my AFB samples come back showing resistance, how did that happen? Naturally resistant AFB?


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

By moving hives around, by buying and using other peoples equipment, by buying bees, by not cleaning your hive tool, he, he, just kidding... Did Jon ever use TM? There have been a whole lot of frames in and out of the hot room and extraction room and we know neither has been sterilized.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> But if my bees never get TM medication and my AFB samples come back showing resistance, how did that happen? Naturally resistant AFB?


Actually, TM resistant AFB is not that prevalent. When I was inspecting I found it very occasionally and most of the cases could be traced back to one beekeeper who sold equipment to the others. TM was used for fifty years before resistant AFB was observed. It is possible that the bacteria got resistance genes from some other bacteria. Bacteria can transfer resistance between species. 

Antibiotics are used in much greater quantities in agriculture than in beekeeping. Animals receive it constantly in their feed and they are sprayed on crops to control various pathogens. I never bought the notion that occasional TM use on bees caused TM resistance in bees. It could have been generated by the ceaseless application required by outfits in which almost every hive had combs taken from some other infected hives.

Judicious use of medication does not cause terrible problems. Just as occasional use of pain killers does not cause addiction, intermittent use of antibiotics causes no long term harm. By the way, comparisons between mammalian immune systems and the honey bee pathogen defense are bound to be incorrect. Honey bee colonies have to be understood for what they are, not for what they are like.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

peterloringborst said:


> Actually,Judicious use of medication does not cause terrible problems.


One should consider the amount of legal drugs consumed in the United States vs. any other country and then try to explain "terrible problems".


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> I never bought the notion that occasional TM use on bees caused TM resistance in bees. It could have been generated by the ceaseless application required by outfits in which almost every hive had combs taken from some other infected hives.
> 
> Judicious use of medication does not cause terrible problems.


'Judicious' is rather subjective. At what point does 'judicious' become 'systemic'?

Use of any drug will tend to:

a) promote resistance to the drug in the disease organism (by selecting for least affected individuals);

b) promote vulnerability to the disease organism in the host population (by removing the pressure to adapt).

Sure, occasional use on a small scale is unlikely to have a marked effect.

Systematic use on a widespread scale is a different matter. Especially, with honey bees, because... 



peterloringborst said:


> [...] comparisons between mammalian immune systems and the honey bee pathogen defense are bound to be incorrect. Honey bee colonies have to be understood for what they are, not for what they are like.


...unlike the mammalian domesticated species, they mate openly. As you say, they have to be understood for what they are; and what they are is a species that passes its genes from agricultural to other domesticated and feral colonies. _ If the resistance of those strains is compromised in any way they tend to pass that vulnerability on_. 

That means that large scale systematic use of antibiotics - like varroa treatments - tends: by first removing the pressure to adapt, and second by passing on weak genes, to lower the health outlook of all colonies. 

That's surely not a good thing. The law of unintended consequences looms large. We'd better try to get a grip on where the division lies between 'judicious' and 'systematic'. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## WesternWilson (Jul 18, 2012)

Nicely put Mike, but one thing troubles me....what if the bees cannot adapt quickly enough to an imported/new stressor ie. Varroa??

Here in Canada, bee scientists have told me there are no feral honey bee colonies. There may be a few in the three warmer weather areas (extreme south of the Maritimes, extreme south of Ontario, and BC's south coast), but even those may be ephemera...merely this season's swarms which fail to overwinter.

If it were not for beekeepers, there would be no honey bees in Canada. That worries me, and suggests that pressure on honey bees has outstripped their ability to survive. A friend in bee research says they have a problem with the VSH trait, in that bees who are VSH enough to keep Varroa numbers down also strip out way too much brood and the hives don't build properly.

Bees have a really different reproductive system...colony turns over 5-6 times a season here, and the queens every year or two. When queens are wild mated, and there is an annual wash of imported genes, and little ability in many areas to find a genetically isolated range, you are literally rolling the dice constantly. 

My sense at this point is that we are not making good progress on Varroa resistant honey bees. I think our best hope remains that some bio-engineer, no doubt funded by private research efforts ie. by Monsanto, manages to raise up a modified Varroa that we and the bees can deal with.

The person who can do that for us gets my nomination for the Nobel Prize!!


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

interesting perspective ww, thanks for the post.


----------



## Gypsi (Mar 27, 2011)

I had EFB kill 3 hives and damage 2 more in 2013 in my apiary. IF I had not donated brood from the sick hive to 2 hives with low numbers I would only have lost one hive. My deep boxes were not an insurance policy.

On willing local mentors, I have been a member of a bee club for 3 years and so far the number of bee club members to show up at my apiary and mentor are zero, and the one who volunteered to help me with my first cutout was too busy, my friend the pest control guy showed me how to get the bees out, and the one member who did show up at my house was buying a hive from me.

Mentors are scarce. We have a bee club field trip today that I will miss for business reasons. The bright side of bee club however are great speakers and slide shows, I have seen slides of AFB so I know what the dried caps on brood cells look like, and phone support, and my bee club mentor who has never made it to my apiary told me more about how to handle my EFB than the state bee inspector.


----------



## Richard Cryberg (May 24, 2013)

Acebird said:


> The antibiotic does not kill everything. It kills most of everything. So over time spores will be generated from bacteria that survived the antibiotic and may be stronger against the antibiotic. The immune system in the animal getting treated stops fighting these bacteria because it doesn't have to. If the treatment is stopped the now stronger bacteria takes off against an immune system that is totally not prepared to fight the infection. If you want a race of bees that is prone to die from AFB treat them regularly with an antibiotic. If you could treat every hive on a regular basis with antibiotics the honeybees would become extinct.


Of course TM does not kill bacteria at all. It is a bacteriastat not a bactericide. So, the bees immune system is what kills AFB when TM is used on an infected hive. So, obviously use of TM DOES NOT harm the functioning of a bees immune system. You are spouting witch craft not science Brian.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

WesternWilson said:


> Nicely put Mike, but one thing troubles me....what if the bees cannot adapt quickly enough to an imported/new stressor ie. Varroa??


They can/do/have. Plenty of beekeepers are working treatment, often using feral/bred from feral stocks. I'm one. I simply have no trouble with varroa. 



WesternWilson said:


> Here in Canada, bee scientists have told me there are no feral honey bee colonies.


Maybe true, I don't know. I do know that while a majority of colonies are being systematically treated there will be little or no adaptation. 

Here in Europe its a very different story, but there are plenty of people willing to claim there are no feral colonies. Its bs. 



WesternWilson said:


> If it were not for beekeepers, there would be no honey bees in Canada.


Perhaps Canad is to cold for bees to survive unaided? Without feral stock to sort your problems out for you you will likely always be working with hospital bees.



WesternWilson said:


> That worries me, and suggests that pressure on honey bees has outstripped their ability to survive.


Again, there - perhaps. Not everywhere. You can't generalise from a single example. 



WesternWilson said:


> A friend in bee research says they have a problem with the VSH trait, in that bees who are VSH enough to keep Varroa numbers down also strip out way too much brood and the hives don't build properly.


that's an old old stroy. If you arrange for all, or too many, patrilines to be vhs yes, that can happen. But that lesson was learned a long time ago. Your friend is well out of date.



WesternWilson said:


> Bees have a really different reproductive system...colony turns over 5-6 times a season here, and the queens every year or two.


Don't follow you here. What do you mean by 'turns over'?



WesternWilson said:


> When queens are wild mated, and there is an annual wash of imported genes, and little ability in many areas to find a genetically isolated range, you are literally rolling the dice constantly.


IF you have viable feral bees that needn't be a problem. 



WesternWilson said:


> My sense at this point is that we are not making good progress on Varroa resistant honey bees.


A good many people disagree. Keeping bees in manner consistent with sound unaided health won't compete easiliy with the more abusive approaches, but the margins don't have to be all that different. 



WesternWilson said:


> I think our best hope remains that some bio-engineer, no doubt funded by private research efforts ie. by Monsanto, manages to raise up a modified Varroa that we and the bees can deal with.


haha! Whats going to stop the gm varroa mating with wild varroa? A pipe dream at best.

Mike (UK)


----------



## WesternWilson (Jul 18, 2012)

Mike, just to clarify...we used to have feral honeybees in abundance in Canada. The cold was not the issue there, and it is no bar to "kept" honey bees either. They tolerate extremely deep cold very well if they have sufficient stores and dry quarters (they are kept in Alaska, nuff said!). The idea is that feral colonies now cannot survive in the face of whatever new pressures are out there, principally Varroa, but I think lack of forage, lack of habitat, pesticide pressure and tracheal mites all take a toll.

As I have said before, we can only import bees from New Zealand, so the "wash" of genes annually is from imported NZ bred bees, diluting out whatever we have in our existing bee populations. I do not know if they are actively trying to improve their lines to include Varroa resistance. If they are, their efforts have not been effective!!

One thing that we could look into here is running survivor bee projects in genetically isolated areas, with a view to getting them to beekeepers across the country.

I think a bioengineering product ie. a hive treatment, that alters the expression of certain genes in Varroa (ie. they are born without working mouthparts, or impaired reproductive capacity), is quite within our technical grasp, and would be most attractive to an outfit like Monsanto!


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Re: bioengineering 



> A serious problem for insecticides is that they can kill non-targeted animals. To address this issue, the possibility of using RNAi to kill only the target animals by down-regulating essential gene functions in insects has been recognized for many years (Price & Gatehouse 2008). Bando et al. (unpublished data) screened Gryllus target genes to develop G. bimaculatus-specific dsRNA insecticides
> 
> Turner et al. (2006) demonstrated that in the horticultural pest, Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), RNAi could be triggered by the oral delivery of dsRNA to larvae. Meyering-Vos and Müller (2007) found that treatment of the adult cricket, G. bimaculatus, by injection or ingestion of a dsRNA for sulfakinin, a group of brain/gut neuropeptides, led to a stimulation of food intake, indicating that the uptake of dsRNA in the Gryllus occurs in the gut.
> 
> ...





> Eukaryotic parasites that exploit insect organs other than the gut would be susceptible to RNAi only where the insect host displays systemic spread of the RNAi signal. This has been demonstrated for the ectoparasitic mite, Varroa destructor, which feeds on the blood of honey bees (Garbian et al., 2012).
> 
> When bees were fed on dsRNA specific to a panel of Varroa genes, the density of Varroa mites on the bees was reduced by up to 50%, with no apparent deleterious effect on the honey bees. The pattern of spread of the RNAi was tested by allowing honey bees to feed on sucrose solution containing dsRNA-GFP (green fluorescent protein; because the genomes of both the insect and mite lack the GFP gene, the distribution of GFP-RNA could be monitored without interference from sequence of endogenous origin).
> 
> ...


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

WesternWilson said:


> The idea is that feral colonies now cannot survive in the face of whatever new pressures are out there, principally Varroa, but I think lack of forage, lack of habitat, pesticide pressure and tracheal mites all take a toll.
> 
> As I have said before, we can only import bees from New Zealand, so the "wash" of genes annually is from imported NZ bred bees, diluting out whatever we have in our existing bee populations. I do not know if they are actively trying to improve their lines to include Varroa resistance. If they are, their efforts have not been effective!!


I'm with you. Yes, that 'wash' could be sufficient (together with ongoing systematic treatment regimes) to be fatal to any feral populations save those protected by a buffer. But of course changes to agricultural practices won't help. Could it be that the pre-industrial agricultural model imported from Europe was what allowed (European) bees to thrive there in the first place?

It may that, as here, the vast majority of beekeepers treat and import (unresistant) stock, and because of those things see no viable feral colonies near them. And they consequently assume.. there are no viable feral colonies. Its only the determined swarm collector/cut-out guys like me, who question people closely, and who work with 'survivor' bees without treating them, who actually have first hand experience that contradicts that assumption. 



WesternWilson said:


> One thing that we could look into here is running survivor bee projects in genetically isolated areas, with a view to getting them to beekeepers across the country.


I'd look up Joe Waggle and talk with him about it. 



WesternWilson said:


> I think a bioengineering product ie. a hive treatment, that alters the expression of certain genes in Varroa (ie. they are born without working mouthparts, or impaired reproductive capacity), is quite within our technical grasp, and would be most attractive to an outfit like Monsanto!


The problem is Monsanto and similar outfits will be selecting projects with the potential for enduring earnings, and they won't be fussy about how that happens. If they can engineer a 'solution' that requires regular use of their product on an ongoing basis, that the way they'll go. If that impacts on feral populations (and it will - for exactly the same reasons varroa treatments do) that won't matter to them. If that fact results in lower biodiversity, that won't matter either. They'll create a nice simple narrative that shows why their 'solution' is good and sensible, and put a lot of effort into spreading it about. That's how they make their money.

Mike (UK)


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

WesternWilson said:


> As I have said before, we can only import bees from New Zealand


since varroa has arrived in new zealand recently enough that natural resistance hasn't had time to develop and the ferals there have been wiped out as well, why does the canadian government allow bees to be imported only from new zealand?


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

It's a world conspiracy. 

No really, it's about pests and genetics and NZ not having stuff that Canada does not want. Other countries likely have stuff the Canadians would like but they are worried about what may come with it.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

And Laws between Canada and The US. Even though Ontario and Quebec have had the tracheal mites and then the Varroa mites which they had hoped the St. Lawrence Seaway would protect them from, taking live bees and equipment across the Border is verbotten. Except under special permitted circumstances.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

A narrow river is some kind of barrier for bees?:scratch:


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

understood ot, and i'm sure that there are experts with lifetimes' worth of experience that know more than i ever will about all this who are making those recommendations, but if varroa is at the top of the list of problems and if the progress made so far is indeed nil, it seems like it would seem a reasonable attempt to establish bees with sufficient resistance that can survive in the feral state. the placing of 'seed' colonies in relative wilderness areas similar to what seeley is attempting at present is easy enough to do, but i submit that it may take many years before a new metapopulation might be estabished.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Don't disagree.

However much agriculture works that way be it bees beef or apples, the importing country does not import from a country that has diseases the importing country does not have if contamination of their own industry could result.


----------



## WesternWilson (Jul 18, 2012)

The question of opening up the USA Canada border to allow importation of USA bees into Canada was examined last winter. The border remains closed, out of fear of importing resistant strains of AFB, africanized genes, and small hive beetle. It is possible but extremely difficult (permits and fees) to import queens.

FWIW the Thunder Bay, Ontario area beekeepers were clever enough to organize ahead of the Varroa mite as it spread across Canada, and managed to quarantine themselves. That area, strictly managed, remains Varroa free to this day. A very hard winter area (though beautiful beyond belief), it does not generally attract retirees, but as a beekeeper...well, I am tempted!! 

I got a lesson in the impact of drift (and how difficult it is to stay isolated from nearby beekeepers) when two local beekeepers moved in 50 hives between them within a mile of an apiary I share with another beekeeper (we have 10 colonies there in a community garden). For different reasons, both the locals had unchecked Varroa populations. It was interesting to note that after my recent round of MAQS treatments, the drop in that apiary was 3 to 4 times as big as in my other apiaries, although all my colonies received identical Varroa control measures this season. 

So it occurred to me that I do live in a relatively isolated genetic area thanks to miles of open farm fields all around our two small towns, which themselves are separated only by that legal entity, the USA/Canada border. We could do two things here...1. work together to get the beekeepers on the USA side to run bees of interesting lineages, which would mate in the air with our Canadian queens, thereby getting some of the great genes you have available across the border...2. work together to knock back or eradicate Varroa in all our hives simultaneously, thus vastly reducing our local Varroa load and Varroa available for drift.

The sticking point is, alas, the blueberry farms that in the last few years have moved into the area (formerly potato, corn, hay and pumpkins only). They bring in scores of pollination hives for the 6 weeks of blueberry bloom, and that punctures our splendid genetic/pest/disease isolation. We would have to offer them pollination services sourced locally, a huge project.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

very interesting ww, and i understand your dilemma.

if i were that close to the border i might consider dedicating a few boxes to be placed strategically in wooded areas so as to pick up swarms. these could be left alone and then observed for winter survival. if any make it they could be allowed to swarm again potentially re-establishing a feral population and grafts could be harvested from them for queenrearing. jmho.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

I heard that Thunder Bay Ont. recently discovered some infestations of mites. Have they managed to re establish their mite free status? Does anyone know how successful the Saskatraz line of bees are proving to bee?


----------



## Gypsi (Mar 27, 2011)

mike bispham said:


> The problem is Monsanto and similar outfits will be selecting projects with the potential for enduring earnings, and they won't be fussy about how that happens. If they can engineer a 'solution' that requires regular use of their product on an ongoing basis, that the way they'll go. If that impacts on feral populations (and it will - for exactly the same reasons varroa treatments do) that won't matter to them. If that fact results in lower biodiversity, that won't matter either. They'll create a nice simple narrative that shows why their 'solution' is good and sensible, and put a lot of effort into spreading it about. That's how they make their money.
> 
> Mike (UK)


Pharmaceutical companies don't want to create "cures", they want "treatments", as in life long treatments producing their income. Same for Monsanto, if they came up with a "cure" I wouldn't trust it and I wouldn't try it. Follow the money

Gypsi


----------



## WesternWilson (Jul 18, 2012)

Perhaps some university bioengineering program will devise a Varroa-ending drench. It would be great to rid North America of this pestilential pest!!

And if I were Monsanto, or some other mega corporation, I would consider it great (and much needed) PR to be the heroic entity that ended Varroa...


----------



## waynesgarden (Jan 3, 2009)

WesternWilson said:


> And if I were Monsanto, or some other mega corporation, I would consider it great (and much needed) PR to be the heroic entity that ended Varroa...


First they would have to sell us non-reproducible, genetically-modified bees that could survive their drench. I doubt that PR is high on any of their lists of importance. I'm sure that creating a dependent customer base is.

Wayne


----------



## dixiebooks (Jun 21, 2010)

sqkcrk said:


> Now that sounds to me like an outbreak. When a disease spreads like you described. Most cases I hear about seem like occurrences. One case or more in one apiary or w/in an operation. I would call an outbreak something that happens at one location and then another near by and so on. I believe that words paint pictures in the minds of those who read them.


Good points of distinction, Mark. Thank you.


----------



## WesternWilson (Jul 18, 2012)

Squarepeg, one of the beekeepers less than a mile away is doing just that (running a survivor bee apiary)...and I take serious issue with his acting as a lone agent, with complete disregard for all the beekeepers around him. His hives are completely untreated and according to him, even uninspected. Within flight range of his apiary of 25 colonies, are 20-40 other beekeepers, many of them backyard beekeepers with 1 or 2 hives. Whether we like it or not, his survivor bee project is impacting our colonies. I had massive varroa drop and late season Varoasis in hives near his (also in this area we had a second beekeeper who, for other reasons, allowed an early season buildup of Varroa), and a nearby beekeeper also had AFB and EFB. Could have come from any one of a number of local sources, but uninspected nearby colonies would be my first stop on a disease source inspection tour.

I am all for survivor bee projects and have lobbied various local landowners to participate in such projects. Until we have a Varroa solution, we need to try to breed up Varroa resistant bees.

But I am not for survivor projects that share a flight range with other colonies, particularly when those projects are not inspected for disease.


----------



## WesternWilson (Jul 18, 2012)

There is a deep well, an understandably deep well, of suspicion and anger at companies like Monsanto. And I frequently hear the mantra "they will come up with a Varroa solution but only one that means we all have to buy their product every year". While I would rather see Varroa eradicated, and while I think this is with bioengineering now possible, I would be delighted to be able to apply a product that is non-toxic to bees, honey and wax, and which truly controls Varroa.

I already have to dedicate a budget to Varroa related expenses...deadouts, sterilization of the deadout equipment, poor performance due to Varroa, the cost of Varroa controls either in purchasing remedies and associated tools, or in the time required for colony manipulations, IPM style. I would be happy to replace all that with a single, safe commercial product. 

I am deeply unhappy with the way companies like Monsanto have behaved. But they are funding research. We are tied to them whether we like it or not. Let's at least encourage them to come up with solutions we would find palatable. They need beekeeper input on that.


----------



## dixiebooks (Jun 21, 2010)

peterloringborst said:


> No. If you use antibiotics as prevention, the hives never get AFB. If you wait to catch it from your neighbors, you are propagating AFB. Look, I have 40 years of dealing with AFB, inspectors, outbreaks, etc. You are entitled to your opinion, but upon what is it based?


I am no expert, but I think you may be confusing antibiotics with vaccines. -james


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

WesternWilson said:


> But I am not for survivor projects that share a flight range with other colonies, particularly when those projects are not inspected for disease.


solidly with you on that ww. no inspections and not taking action to prevent robbing are about as irresponsible as it gets and highly disrespectful for other bees and their keepers nearby.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

One of the problems is people can't get over the old Monsanto and there's too much rumor and flat out nonsense out there that's been perpetuated on the interwebs that no one believes anything good that would come out of Monsanto.


----------



## WesternWilson (Jul 18, 2012)

dixiebooks said:


> I am no expert, but I think you may be confusing antibiotics with vaccines. -james


I think it is well established that using antibiotics as prevention drives the development of antibiotic resistant AFB. 

But I have sympathy for preventive use after having AFB show up in untreated hives nearby. While those hives were dealt with, we gave our bees antibiotic in syrup to prevent AFB spreading to our 10 colonies. Because the source of the AFB was never traced, we must be vigilant...I now have AFB test kits on hand so that any brood disease can be tested immediately. I too struggle with the desire to medicate prophylactically, particularly as another treatment free apiary is also close by. For now, I have decided to just be vigilant and to keep my bees as strong, healthy and well fed and housed as possible. 

But if AFB becomes a persistent visitor to our apiary in that location? I too will consider prophylactic antibiotic use. It is the lesser evil available to me if AFB persists in nearby colonies.


----------



## shannonswyatt (May 7, 2012)

WW, you say that a someone is running a survivor project that is impacting your bees. Could you elaborate?


----------



## Harley Craig (Sep 18, 2012)

WesternWilson said:


> Squarepeg, one of the beekeepers less than a mile away is doing just that (running a survivor bee apiary)...and I take serious issue with his acting as a lone agent, with complete disregard for all the beekeepers around him. His hives are completely untreated and according to him, even uninspected. Within flight range of his apiary of 25 colonies, are 20-40 other beekeepers, many of them backyard beekeepers with 1 or 2 hives. Whether we like it or not, his survivor bee project is impacting our colonies. I had massive varroa drop and late season Varoasis in hives near his (also in this area we had a second beekeeper who, for other reasons, allowed an early season buildup of Varroa), and a nearby beekeeper also had AFB and EFB. Could have come from any one of a number of local sources, but uninspected nearby colonies would be my first stop on a disease source inspection tour.
> 
> I am all for survivor bee projects and have lobbied various local landowners to participate in such projects. Until we have a Varroa solution, we need to try to breed up Varroa resistant bees.
> 
> But I am not for survivor projects that share a flight range with other colonies, particularly when those projects are not inspected for disease.




I'm not sticking up for the guy by any means, but I'm curious. Do you try to eradicate all Ferrell colonies in your bees flight range? How many would you suspect there are and how much do you feel these colonies effect your negatively


----------



## shannonswyatt (May 7, 2012)

I'm with you Harley. I'm not saying the one guy with untreated bees isnt a problem, but other than foul brood I don't think that one beek in the area not treating would make a difference. If his bees are run over with Varroa they will die.


----------



## WesternWilson (Jul 18, 2012)

Hello from Canada, where we debate whether there are ANY truly feral colonies any longer, particularly in cold weather areas. Although the thinking there is that Varroa more than any other single things stresses the bees into not being able to survive the winter.

However, while I agree one cannot defend against local feral colonies, and must accept a certain level of drift and therefore risk, from those....ditto stressed banks of pollination hives in nearby fields, ditto stressed/neglected/ill hives in inexpert hands in nearby backyards...it is a very different thing when a beekeeper chooses to run an apiary untreated and un-inspected, when it shares a flight range with other apiaries, without asking all the surrounding beekeepers "Is that ok with you?"

And by that I mean...is it ok to overlook contagious pests and diseases in your hives when there are other hives nearby for them to spread into? The assumption behind mandating movable frames is that this is not ok...you are expected to identify and treat disease quickly.

Survivor bee projects like this one, where a multiple of hives are set out and are not supported to fend off Varroa, with the correct idea that any survivors may have valuable Varroa defense traits that we'd all love to have in our bees, are fine. But you have just included all your surrounding apiarists in your experiment, particularly if you are going to add to the "no Varroa treatment" approach "no disease treatment" as well.

There is evidence that Varroa drift with bees between hives and forage sites...the more there are out there, the more your bees bring home. In a recent presentation to the BC Honey Producer's Assoc., Dr. Shelley Hoover's presentation included a warning that they have found even low levels of Varroa infestation will negatively affect honey production. So allowing your untreated hives to build up populations of Varroa, particularly if this results in an all important early season boost to the Varroa numbers = exponentially larger number in late season in your neighbour's hives, is a bit of an imposition. One that does not have to be made.

I agree, there are uncontrollable risks in the field. We can't control for feral colonies. We can ask nearby apiarists, and suppliers of pollination hives, to take steps to prevent disease and pest transfer.


----------



## WesternWilson (Jul 18, 2012)

shannonswyatt said:


> I'm with you Harley. I'm not saying the one guy with untreated bees isnt a problem, but other than foul brood I don't think that one beek in the area not treating would make a difference. If his bees are run over with Varroa they will die.


It can make a difference in your Varroa load, at the least. And I was blessed with two untreated apiaries nearby. One treated in midsummer but by then the damage had been done. Varroa infestation is not a benign condition, particularly when it brings Varroa vectored viruses. 

And of course, there was AFB reported late in the year. I was very happy my colonies escaped infection. But I would rather not deal with a deliberately ignored reservoir close by in 2015. And yes, the Varroa may well take care of that for me!


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

I have a hard time thinking that feral colonies have much of an influence on yards of managed colonies. Seems likely that it would be the other way around.

I can more easily see an unmanaged apiary of hives, aka treatment free hives, in the hands of someone who does not know disease identification and control or whose philosophy is to let the bees sort it out potentially being a disease reservoir. I know first hand what a wax/comb rendering outfit can be like when it comes to being an AFB infection source.

I hope your Provincial Apiarist is involved and handling things.


----------



## shannonswyatt (May 7, 2012)

If you know of an apiary that you suspect is a vector of dread things, and that it is not inspected why not just called the state inspector? If there is a requirement for inspection and they are failing to do so, and you also suspect the hives in the location are killing your bees it would seem that would be a prudent action to take. 

I wouldn't think that some noob would have that many hives in a "survivor project". How many hives could such a person be able to keep alive if they couldn't get out of their own way, particularly if their hives are so overrun with pestilence that they infect all the rest of the hives in the area?


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

WesternWilson said:


> Survivor bee projects like this one, where a multiple of hives are set out and are not supported to fend off Varroa, with the correct idea that any survivors may have valuable Varroa defense traits that we'd all love to have in our bees, are fine. But you have just included all your surrounding apiarists in your experiment, particularly if you are going to add to the "no Varroa treatment" approach "no disease treatment" as well.


Beekeepers have always complained about other nearby beekeepers. If it isn't being the source of disease, then its having (the wrong sort of) imported genes. From the modern non -treaters perspective, every nearby treating beekeeper is a nuisance, because maintaining non-resistant bees undermines his own efforts. 

Again, the desire to remove all potentially diseased feral colonies is understandable, but from the darwinian perspective foolish in the long term. Having feral colonies nearby where natural selection weeds out the weak individuals and the strains less well adapted to the local climate and forage, and supplies increasingly resistant genes is a boon. 

As well as discordant philosophies the fact of economic imbalance comes into play. Does a large outfit, supplying a full time livelyhood, have a greater right to dictate the philosophy of beekeeping within impact range? Does soemone wanting to breed bees have a right to aks other beekeepers to stay away? 

As far as I can see anyone has the right to keep bees as they see fit, within the law, and everyone else has to tolerate it. There will always be conflicts of interest. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

shannonswyatt said:


> If his bees are run over with Varroa they will die.


The bees or the varroa? When does the last bee die and how long does the varroa have to jump on another host?


----------



## shannonswyatt (May 7, 2012)

My point was about the bees. The point is that if the guy with the experiment has bees that tolerate Varroa getting out of hand they will die. When he has no more bees you don't have to worry about them. If all the bees die then the Varroa will also die. Could Varroa be spread from robbing, yes of course. But that goes without saying. 

On the other hand, what if this guy has some level of success? Now you have his drones mating with your queens, which potentially will pass down some of the genes through the mated queens. Win-Win.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

It's interesting how often people can look at something and come to opposite conclusions. The Optimist thinks we live in the best of all possible worlds and the Pessimist is afraid he's right. The dog thinks "he feeds me, he takes care of me, he must be a god" while the cat thinks "he feeds me, he takes care of me I must be a god"

My bees are not dying from diseases. My bees are not treated. My bees are inspected. To me the problem is people who are treating. Hiding AFB with antibiotics that won't kill the spores. Breeding super mites that can survive and outbreed the treatments; and wimpy bees that can only survive if they are treated; that will affect my untreated bees by producing drones that will mate with my queens and collapsing in fall to give me super mites. Luckily there are enough feral bees to offset this and the latest statistics seem to be that about 60% of beekeepers are no longer treating...


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

.....or I got a nice honey crop off of 90% of my hives, 75% of my spring hives numbers are going into the winter very strong and with very low mite numbers. Guess I'm just a "glass is 3/4 full" kind of guy.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Of we are concerned about neglected bees spreading disease to managed bees, two things that come to my mind .... any and all bee trees should have the bees removed, cavity filled...and if not possible, gas and seal them. Also, how many swarms are lost by larger commercial beekeepers in a season? Some of the swarms are from colonies with suppressed AFB issues....they are all going to breed mites, and being from stock that is not selected for treatment free survival, they will collapse and send the mites your way.

Even if the seasonal swarm rate is .5% .....out of the 2million+ migratory colonies that is still 10,000 mite bombs out there thanks to your friendly responsible commercial beekeepers. I am not saying this to disparage commercial beekeepers (or bee trees).....just to put a little perspective on who is exposing who to what.


----------



## pgayle (Jan 27, 2008)

WesternWilson said:


> Randy Oliver is quoted in an earlier post recommending "Elimination of American Foulbrood Without the Use of Drugs" by Dr. Mark Goodwin. His book seems out of print, and pending one surfacing, can anyone sketch out what Dr. Goodwin's approach is?


It is available
http://www.beekeeping.com/new/books/afb_nz.htm

but I haven't actually tried ordering it


----------

