Name and shame bad management"

[ron]

Where EFB /AFB out brakes have accord in Scotland/England/Wales most has stated the bee sites reported are a complete mess. As have been stated by others on this forum recently in Essex Epping and Scotland.

Tim1606 Please explain how a black comb left outside "brings in" disease?

I am not talking of a back comb but whole discarded hives and frames dead outs!
Left on site after the inspection and standstill order has been lifted.
Both diseases are spread by robbing from neighbouring Apiaries in discarded honey spores and diseased stocks
The poor beek down the road that has a few hives and a spotless Apiary contacts the same disease though visiting bees, and if a newbee don’t know he/she has it. Off it go’s again to someone else.

Poly hive I fail to see why commercial operations have to be picked on.
“Your right” should include one and all.

Last year it was reported on this forum that Scotland was near epidemic with EFB/AFB some Aperies had been completely destroyed. Others in there wisdom decided to overwinter and treat in the spring. “Why?”
It is a well published fact there is NO known method of treating diseased brood.
Complete destruction is recommended of diseased brood if treating the bees must be carried out treat ASAP.

A meeting is to be held between Dafra staff and suppliers of bees to
TRY and Reduce the Risk of Disease though the sale of bees, due to the large number of outbreaks in recent years.
The publication of diseases doesn’t go far enough, Name and shame? Impose Fine? License? Issue a management code of practice to Dafra inspectors? Bring back seasonal inspectors?

I would like this forum to suggest any other ideas

 

[Poly Hive]

Hang on a minute here.

I said nothing about commercial operations as I recall matters.

I asked how a black comb could introduce disease into the same apiary.

Before making free with my nic get the facts right please.

Further for many years black combs were considered to be perfectly usable. It is only over the last few (very few) years that the attitude has changed.

Yes they can harbour nosema, that is not the issue.

I asked how a disease free black comb could introduce disease. Please read before the prejudice takes off.

PH

 

[RoofTops]

"It is a well published fact there is NO known method of treating diseased brood."

I don't think so.

Light infections of EFB are treated by NBU inspectors, not destroyed. The usual treatment is a shook swarm. Antibiotics can be used but I think their use is discouraged and if it isn't it should be because of the risk of creating immunity.

The policy for AFB in this country is destruction but this does not apply everywhere. As far as I know Denmark still allows a form of double shook swarm to be used for light infections - if there is such a thing. In the US antibiotics are widely used.

However, destruction of the colony and sterilisation of the hives and other equipment does not alway guarantee the elimination of AFB from an apiary, although it goes a long way to ensuring it. The disease can still remain in bees which escaped the destruction - for example drones visiting other apiaries in the area.

I would be very reluctant to see a name and shame policy as both of these diseases can hit a beekeeper who is otherwise blameless. Identifying AFB in particular is extremely difficult which is why something like 90% of cases in England are found by the bee inspectors. To spot AFB in the early stages you have to shake all the bees off the frame and then look for what might only be a few cells with slightly sunken cappings. These are hard to spot even when they are pointed out - as I can testify from personal experience*. The brood pattern in both diseases is characteristically "spotty" but the same pattern can also show with the much commoner chalk brood.

The answer is better education of beekeepers but given the independent nature of a lot of beekeepers I suspect the elimination of AFB in the UK is a very long way off. Our BKA has over 60 members but less than 10% turned up to look at frames of EFB and AFB the local inspector dug out of his freezer to show us.

On a related note whilst doing a bit of research on how AFB is treated in other countries I came across concern in New Zealand over the growing number of TBH beekeepers. The reasoning was the detection of AFB needs a hive with moveable frames and types of beekeeping where regular inspections are not practised or in the case of Warre hives not really possible at all could lead to an upsurge of AFB cases. Of course a standard TBH can be fully inspected but the implication of the article was under "natural" beekeeping, inspection were much fewer so AFB cases are more likely to be missed.

I am not trying to start another argument here over the merits of TBHs. I guess so far their numbers are sufficiently small that the AFB risk in a TBH is statistically low and TBH supporters could well argue, with some justification, that brood diseases are rare because the bees are less stressed and often (e.g. in a Warre) the bees are brooding in new comb each year.


*Not my bees I hasten to add!

 

[Midland Beek]

I think the problems with foulbrood in Scotland were not just the fault of beekeepers, but also the fault if the inspection service.

 

[hedgerow pete]

Sorry , but I have seam to have missed a few postings else where . As I seam to have come half way into a conversation.

afb and efb is bad news to name and shame is a bit like a good old fashioned whitch hunt to me the good as well as the bad could get hurt with that no, poor quality and poor husbandry , yes that should allowed but with afb and efb any poor sod can get those

 

[OXFORDBEE]

Antibiotics can be used but I think their use is discouraged and if it isn't it should be because of the risk of creating immunity.

There's a a higher re-ocurrance rate if antibiotics are used. Antibiotics are a cheaper option for the beekeeper but not as effective as a shook swarming for removing infections from an apiary.

If there are a large number of hives in an apiary that are infected then best practice would be to shook swarm all hives in the apiary.

Shook swarming involves purchasing more frames and foundation which is why some beekeepers opt for antbiotics.

 

[oliver90owner]

Shook swarming involves purchasing more frames and foundation which is why some beekeepers opt for antbiotics.

And there I was, under the distinct impression that, with EFB, oxytetracyclin was only administered in conjunction with a shook swarm. Silly me, or have they quietly relaxed the rules?

RAB

 

[Tim1606]

Where EFB /AFB out brakes have accord in Scotland/England/Wales most has stated the bee sites reported are a complete mess. As have been stated by others on this forum recently in Essex Epping and Scotland.

Tim1606 Please explain how a black comb left outside "brings in" disease?

I am not talking of a back comb but whole discarded hives and frames dead outs!
Left on site after the inspection and standstill order has been lifted.
Both diseases are spread by robbing from neighbouring Apiaries in discarded honey spores and diseased stocks
The poor beek down the road that has a few hives and a spotless Apiary contacts the same disease though visiting bees, and if a newbee don’t know he/she has it. Off it go’s again to someone else.

Poly hive I fail to see why commercial operations have to be picked on.
“Your right” should include one and all.

Last year it was reported on this forum that Scotland was near epidemic with EFB/AFB some Aperies had been completely destroyed. Others in there wisdom decided to overwinter and treat in the spring. “Why?”
It is a well published fact there is NO known method of treating diseased brood.
Complete destruction is recommended of diseased brood if treating the bees must be carried out treat ASAP.

A meeting is to be held between Dafra staff and suppliers of bees to
TRY and Reduce the Risk of Disease though the sale of bees, due to the large number of outbreaks in recent years.
The publication of diseases doesn’t go far enough, Name and shame? Impose Fine? License? Issue a management code of practice to Dafra inspectors? Bring back seasonal inspectors?

I would like this forum to suggest any other ideas

I think you will find that it was me who said about picking on commercial operations not poly hive.

We shook swarm every spring onto new foundation. I know some may say this could be a waste of money and time, but we think it would be better for the health of the colonies. This does not mean we are immune from AFB/EFB but it is our feeling that we are trying to reduce the risk.

 

[OXFORDBEE]

Shook swarming involves purchasing more frames and foundation which is why some beekeepers opt for antbiotics.

And there I was, under the distinct impression that, with EFB, oxytetracyclin was only administered in conjunction with a shook swarm. Silly me, or have they quietly relaxed the rules?

RAB

A quick snip from the DEFRA Foulbrood diseases of bees leaflet reads:


EFB is a notifiable disease under the Bee
Diseases and Pests Control Order (for England
and Wales) and is subject to official control by the
examination of colonies for signs of disease and
compulsory treatment or destruction of diseased
colonies. Weak colonies and colonies with a high
proportion of diseased brood are destroyed, as
with American foul brood, but lightly diseased
colonies may be treated with an antibiotic.
Treatment must be carried out only by an
Appointed Officer under the Order, using drugs
officially dispensed following confirmation of
European foul brood in a disease sample
submitted for diagnosis at an approved laboratory
or by LFD. Treatment is prescribed by the
designated Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA).

Control of the disease by a husbandry method
known as the “shook swarm” has also been shown
to be effective and is an option available to
beekeepers (see pages 19-23).


The whole point of shook swarming is that antibiotics are not needed. DEFRA found the EFB recurance rate with shook swarms to be much lower than with antibiotic treatments when compared. This is why DEFRA preferentially recommend them.

Further information can be found here.

I do hope this helps with your understanding...

 

[Poly Hive]

AVG found a Trojan Horse in that document.

I have Vaulted it and deleted.

Be careful.

PH

 

[OXFORDBEE]

It might be a false positive Poly, McAfee did not throw a wobbly but there again all antivirus programs are different...

It would be interesting if it was infected as it's on a goverment server...
http://randd.defra.gov.uk /Document.aspx?Document= PH0502_9115_FRP.doc

I was trying to save forum space but not copying and pasting woffle but here's the executive summary:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

European foulbrood (EFB), caused by the bacterium Melissococcus plutonius (ex. White, 1912), is one of the most serious, infectious and economically important brood diseases known to affect the honey bee (Apis mellifera). EFB occurs on every continent where apiculture is practiced, and it is the most widespread bacterial brood disease in Great Britain. The total number of English and Welsh colonies found to be infected between 2005 and 2007 was in excess of 500 per annum. The primary aim of this project was to investigate the field-scale efficacy of the available control methods for EFB. These include antibiotic application, and husbandry methods applied both at the level of the diseased colony and the whole apiary. The secondary aim was to obtain a better understanding of EFB epidemiology by collecting data regarding the national and within-hive distributions of the causative organism M. plutonius, as well as other bacteria associated with the disease. Project steer was provided by meetings of the Bee Health Advisory Panel which met four times during the project.

Two field trials were conducted to establish which control method(s) was/were superior for the management of EFB in A. mellifera: The first trial compared the efficacy of the standard available antibiotic treatment for EFB, oxytetracycline (OTC), with the success of a husbandry-based approach known as shook swarm (SS). SS is a non-chemical approach which involves transferring all adult bees from an infected hive into a clean hive, thereby removing the infected larvae from the colony. The second trial compared SS of symptomatic colonies against SS of all the colonies in the affected apiary (whole apiary SS). Treatment methods were evaluated by monitoring several criteria: First, samples of adult bees and larvae were collected, the genetic material extracted and tested for the presence of M. plutonius; second, the amount of M. plutonius was determined using quantitative, species-specific real-time PCR (qPCR). Finally, disease occurrence and colony mortality rates were monitored.

Significant differences were observed in the likelihood of treated colonies to test positive for M. plutonius using real-time PCR, depending on the treatment method employed. For the first trial in the season post-treatment, OTC-treated colonies were more likely to test positive for M. plutonius than SS-treated colonies. For the second trial in the season post-treatment, colonies from apiaries treated using SS were more likely to test positive for M. plutonius than colonies from apiaries treated using the SS whole apiary approach. Interestingly, contact colonies (i.e. asymptomatic colonies in diseased apiaries) were more likely to test positive than asymptomatic colonies from disease free apiaries, suggesting an inoculum burden on larvae and adult bees in the contact colonies. The levels of M. plutonius were not significantly different between either OTC and SS treated colonies (first trial) or SS treated colonies and the whole apiary SS approach (second trial) when measured after treatment with qPCR. Significant differences were observed in the amount of M. plutonius between symptomatic and asymptomatic colonies. These differences were significant for both larvae and adult bee samples using qPCR (p < 0.001). Disease reoccurrence was measured as EFB presence between the time of treatment and the end of the season following treatment. Colonies treated in the first trial incurred disease reoccurrence more frequently after treatment with OTC (22%) compared to SS (4%) (p=0.037). Colonies treated in the second trial incurred disease reoccurrence more frequently in apiaries where only symptomatic colonies were treated using SS (17%) compared to apiaries where SS was applied to the entire apiary (8%), although this did not reach statistical significance (p=0.16). Clearly a large year-to-year variation in the efficacy of SS treatment was observed between the first and second trial. However, the higher reoccurrence in the second trial occurred in a year which showed a 34% increase in national EFB incidence compared to the first year. High levels of colony mortality were experienced in both years, however, this did not differ significantly between colonies receiving treatment and untreated control colonies in either year (2006 p=0.77; 2007 p=0.88).

Over 80 samples from apiaries in the north of England and north Wales tested negative for M. plutonius. Samples from only one northern apiary tested positive for M. plutonius, suggesting the bacterium is not distributed widely in Northern areas. There were no differences in the amount of M. plutonius in foraging versus hive bees using qPCR, suggesting infected foragers may post a high risk of colony-colony spread. Dissections revealed the distribution of inoculum in adult bees from EFB-infected colonies, suggesting all external and alimentary organs were positive for M. plutonius. Interestingly the bacterium was most prevalent in the rectum of the honey bee, an area known to contain a high titre of anaerobic organisms.

The main findings of this project have been effectively disseminated by way of presentations, paper summaries for beekeepers, training by bee inspectors and the submission of a manuscript for peer-review publication. The uptake of husbandry-based methods of EFB-control have increased since this project was commissioned, demonstrating effective extension of research findings to beekeepers. The data generated in this project will assist with improved, evidence-based management of EFB in England and Wales.

 

[OXFORDBEE]

Just installed AVG on laptop and updated to latest patch. Have downloaded document from original link and opened it without getting any virus warnings.

 

[ron]

Oxfordbee
A quick snip from the DEFRA Foulbrood diseases of bees leaflet reads:
EFB is a notifiable disease under the Bee
Diseases and Pests Control Order (for England
and Wales) and is subject to official control by the
examination of colonies for signs of disease and
compulsory treatment or destruction of diseased
colonies. Weak colonies and colonies with a high
proportion of diseased brood are destroyed, as
with American foul brood, but lightly diseased
colonies may be treated with an antibiotic.

Treatment must be carried out only by an
Appointed Officer under the Order, using drugs
officially dispensed following confirmation of
European foul brood in a disease sample
submitted for diagnosis at an approved laboratory
or by LFD. Treatment is prescribed by the
designated Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA).

MY QUESTION AGAIN why has Dafra bee inspectors not destroyed the hives and bees of diseased brood instead of allowing beeks to overwinter the bees.
Not taken the precaution by allowing the dead out hives to be stored in the open with the comb left in?
Quote
but lightly diseased colonies may be treated with an antibiotic

Who is to say the brood is lightly diseased? DISEASED IS DISEASED

Quote
Treatment must be carried out only by an
Appointed Officer under the Order, using drugs
officially dispensed following confirmation of
European foul brood in a disease sample
submitted for diagnosis at an approved laboratory
or by LFD. Treatment is prescribed by the
designated Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA).

By the time the disease sample has been extracted- sent to a Veterinary Laboratories Agency confirmed- diagnosed - confirmed back to the field inspector-then arrange a site meeting to dispose of the hives.
How long would it take---------- a week/ two/ a month? Meanwhile the 3 neighboring beekeepers has been infected.
Destroy Burn same day job done

The Diseases and Pests Control Order for this island don’t go far enough Again stricter controls should be called for to destroy

 

[OXFORDBEE]

MY QUESTION AGAIN why has Dafra bee inspectors not destroyed the hives and bees of diseased brood instead of allowing beeks to overwinter the bees.

Not taken the precaution by allowing the dead out hives to be stored in the open with the comb left in?

but lightly diseased colonies may be treated with an antibiotic

Who is to say the brood is lightly diseased? DISEASED IS DISEASED

I suggest you contact the National Bee Unit and voice your concerns.

 

[DanBee]

Treatment must be carried out only by an
Appointed Officer under the Order, using drugs
officially dispensed following confirmation of
European foul brood in a disease sample
submitted for diagnosis at an approved laboratory
or by LFD. Treatment is prescribed by the
designated Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA).

By the time the disease sample has been extracted- sent to a Veterinary Laboratories Agency confirmed- diagnosed - confirmed back to the field inspector-then arrange a site meeting to dispose of the hives.
How long would it take---------- a week/ two/ a month? Meanwhile the 3 neighboring beekeepers has been infected.
Destroy Burn same day job done

Calm down, dear. An LFD positive test result can be obtained at the side of the hive within 5 minutes. A positive LFD result is now treated as evidence on a par with a microscope slide showing the causative organism, and hence is grounds for destruction or treatment, as deemed appropriate. The paperwork is all in place, it's merely a matter of ticking boxes, labelling the LFD, writing the standstill order and proceeding with treatment or destruction.

If you get the chance, why not ask your local Inspector if you can accompany them on some apiary visits?

 

[Hivemaker.]

Have they improved on the LFD test now Dan,there were some problems with it at one stage i believe,and a sample still had to be sent in for microscopic examination before any action would be taken.

 

[markylaird]

ron ?As have been stated by others on this forum recently in Essex Epping and Scotland
you do know that scotland is a country broken into regions also?. the whole of scotland wasnt infected

 

[Hivemaker.]

I suggest you contact the National Bee Unit and voice your concerns.

I agree,and if you do,could you also voice some about allowing the imports of queens bees from Australia at the same time.

 

[susbees]

I agree,and if you do,could you also voice some about allowing the imports of queens bees from Australia at the same time.

Why let NZ off the hook....the issue referred to earlier with tbh and inspections in New Zealand was a bit of a red herring: what about the forumer in NZ who claimed to have found FORTY AFB positive colonies in around 120 hives he'd just bought! Great people UK bee inspectors

 

[Hivemaker.]

Why let NZ off the hook....

Because NZ does not have the same bugs and viruses that Australia has, as far as i know,plus the bees from NZ are more likely to be able to tolerate varroa slightly better than bees that have never had them.