BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Stan Sandler <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 14 Sep 2002 09:09:23 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (67 lines)
James Kilty wrote (concerning foulbrood in UK):

  Destruction follows a.s.a.p. after confirmation of
>AFB. There is some discretion when EFB is found, depending on colony
>strength, % comb affected and time of year.

Please elaborate James on criteria for EFB comb destruction.  I raised the
question of dealing with EFB a little a year ago on this list ( thread had
subject label AFB/EFB I believe).  There were interesting comments from
around the world, but it struck me that EFB is not as well understood as
AFB and comb destruction was rarely mentioned, which is the reason for my
asking for your elaboration.

Without searching the archives, here is my recollection of some things said
in the discussion:

-  EFB is primarily a disease of stress and environmental causes (you must
recognize that James, as you remark):

 >. EFB is much more common by virtue of our intermittent flows.

-  EFB is not a spore forming bacteria.  I would still like confirmation of
this,  and it leads one to the question of how long the bacteria itself
remains infective.  This is a simple question, it should have a simple,
experimentally verified answer.  It is also a question of importance to the
idea of comb destruction, and to the beekeeper if he wants to decide how
long to remove frames from active duty before reintroducing them.  Despite
raising this question twice in the previous discussion I received no answer
to it that satisfied me.

- I  believe there were two contributions, one from South Africa, and one
from Australia saying that most beekeepers did not bother with antibiotics
any more, and considered the treatment to be requeening and moving the
hives to better forage.

-A  New Zealander (Peter Bray, I think) compared it to half moon disease.

-A commercial beekeeper in the US said he had never seen anything make a
whole operation collapse as quickly as EFB.

-Someone said that antibiotics were more effective as a preventative than a
treatment.

 From my own experiences, I would say

1.  The last comment is accurate.
2.  So is the second last (one operation here in PEI lost half its 500
hives this summer and many were packages with young vigorous
queens.  Packages from the same pallet in my operation are averaging over
100 lb. of honey with little loss, so management can affect the progress of
the disease.
3.  The disease certainly does seem to be infective and does spread in the
apiary so comb removal is likely indicated.  Wish I knew about destruction.
4.  Here is PEI the disease is almost always accompanied by severe
chalkbrood.  The hives depopulate quickly.  I visit yards about every three
weeks and in that of space of time a hive can go from looking like it needs
supers to a hive with a queen, a few hundred bees and many frames of
abandoned brood some with the characteristic twisted, striated dried EFB
remains, but usually much more chalkbrood.  This can even happen during a
flow, and the deadouts may not be robbed out and could have considerable
stores.
5.  Requeening, like antibiotics, is most effective before the disease gets
going.

Regards,
Stan

ATOM RSS1 RSS2