[NatureNS] Colony Collapse Disorder

To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca
From: c.majka@ns.sympatico.ca
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 09:49:25 -0300
Precedence: bulk
Return-Path: <naturens-mml-owner@chebucto.ns.ca>
Original-Recipient: rfc822;"| (cd /csuite/info/Environment/FNSN/MList; /csuite/lib/arch2html)"

next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects



--Apple-Mail-183--60780727
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=WINDOWS-1252;
	delsp=yes;
	format=flowed

Hi folks,

There has been some recent discussion on naturens of Colony Collapse =20
Disorder (CCD), the recent phenomenon that has been noted in relation =20=

to bee colonies in a number of areas. This following article =20
originally appeared in Hivelights [20(2): 18-20] and then was =20
reprinted in the most recent Bulletin of the Entomological Society of =20=

Canada [Volume 39(2) June 2007]. I thought it might be of interest to =20=

naturens subscribers

Cheers,

Chris

Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) in Canada: Do we have a problem?
Peter G. Kevan, Ernesto Guzman, Alison Skinner, and Dennis van =20
Englesdorp

Colony Collapse Disorder (also known by several other names) has =20
become a plague in throughout the United States. Major losses in =20
colonies have been reported from all states that have reported =20
(http://maarec.cas.psu.edu) as of 26 February 2007. In Canada, where =20
winter losses are com monly problematic, no instances of CCD have =20
been confirmed, at least so far. But, very recent reports are of =20
suspicious losses having been experienced in Ontario and =20
Saskatchewan. Should Canadian beekeepers be concerned? Does Canadian =20
beekeeping provide insights into CCD?

Let=92s first look at the information that the CCD Working Group in the =20=

USA has provided (http://maarec.cas.psu.edu).
The symptoms of a CCD collapsed colony are no adult bees and no =20
corpses, presence of capped brood, presence of both honey and pollen =20
(bee-bread) stores. A collapsing colony shows too small a workforce =20
for colony maintenance and that workforce is made up of young bees, =20
and the bee cluster seems reluctant to feed on either stored honey or =20=

pollen. One of the most peculiar of symptoms is the lack of robbing =20
behaviour of surviving colonies of colonies that have died out. What =20
is going on? Strange symptoms indeed!

The CCD Working Group concludes that =93stress=94 is a major contributor =
=20
to the condition, and they itemize a number of stresses that are =20
likely involved. In particular, they mention that migratory =20
beekeeping practices are stressful to the bees. The reasons suggested =20=

are con=ADfinement and temperature fluctuations during transport. =20
Certainly, added to those reasons are the mechanical vibrations and =20
shocks that colonies on trucks experience, which, when protracted =20
over several days=92 duration would be upsetting to the bees. =20
Confinement itself would cause the air within the hives to become =20
stale, with higher than usual levels of Carbon dioxide (CO2) and =20
moisture. Even moving colonies short distances for pollination or =20
honey production is well known to cause the bees to become upset, so =20
moves taking days and over thousands of kilometres would be expected =20
to be stressful on the bees, as well as on the beekeepers.

Rapid movement of colonies of bees across the USA may cause =93jet-=20
lag=94. Yes, bees do sleep and do have regular daily rhythms of ac=AD=20
tivity (just as do people) (Kaiser 1988; Sauer et al. 2003, 2004; =20
Zhang et al. 2006), so one can suggest that a colony of bees being =20
whipped across two or three time zones in a quick move would be =20
subject to some stress. Migratory beekeeping involves the packing of =20
large numbers of colonies onto the backs of trucks. There, the =20
colonies are un-naturally close together. The CCD Working Group ac=AD=20
knowledges that when the bees cluster on the outsides of hives packed =20=

as truckloads, mingling of bees between the hives would occur. The =20
bees=92 defecation on the outside of the hives would increase rates of =20=

transmission of pathogens.

That transport in and of itself causes colony death and the CCD =20
Working Group reports that 10% to 30% losses are =93not uncommon=94 as a =
=20
result of moving colonies for pollination. With such losses, =20
migratory beekeepers make splits to compensate for the losses. The =20
Working Group notes that the reuse of equipment from hives that have =20
died out is part of the transfer of diseases and chemical =20
contaminants and may contribute to the problem. They also point out =20
that making splits changes the age structure of the colonies being =20
split, and results in an un-natural age structure of bees in the =20
split itself. Thus, the ratio of young, nurse workers to older =20
foragers becomes imbalanced, further stressing the colonies.

Although migratory beekeepers seem to have suffered badly, reports of =20=

CCD are not confined to their operations. Other stresses noted by the =20=

CCD Working Group are overcrowded apiaries, nutritional stress, =20
drought and contaminated water, use of antibiotics and chemical =20
pesticides (within and outside the hive) and, of course, mite =20
parasitosis.

Overcrowded apiaries are commonly part of migratory beekeeping, =20
especially for pol lination services. The =93staging apiaries=94 where =20=

hundreds of hives are placed cheek-by-jowl are not healthy for the =20
bees. Often there is not enough food within the flight ranges of the =20
foragers, robbing is commonplace (and would lead to disease =20
transmission), and hives weaken despite the efforts of the beekeepers =20=

to provide food (pollen or pollen substitute and syrup).

Nutritional stress is not really addressed by the Working Group, but =20
several points are worth mentioning. Honeybee colonies used for =20
pollination services on large monocultures, such as almonds, =20
blueberries, alfalfa are placed in environments where little or no =20
food choice is available to them. It is known that a diverse diet of =20
a mixture of pollens from different plant sources is beneficial to =20
bees, and the same would be true for nectar (Schmidt et al. 1987, =20
1995). Thus, nutritional imbalance could ex plain, in part, some of =20
the observed symptoms. Moreover, the situation for almonds is com =20
plicated by the potential toxicity of pollen and nectar from almond =20
flowers (Kevan and Ebert 2005), especially perhaps in large quantity =20
and for prolonged durations.

Pollen or pollen substitutes fed to the colo nies, although not =20
generally used by the bee keepers surveyed by the CCD Working Group, =20
may offer some relief to migratory beekeeping and the potential =20
problems that could result from prolonged use of colonies on a single =20=

crop, but care must be taken. Pollen can be a route for transmission =20
of diseases, so only properly treated and sterilized pollen should be =20=

used. Pollen substitutes that use soy flour as the main source of =20
protein are not as well accepted, nor as nutritious, as pollen substi =20=

tutes that avoid the use of soy flour (Saffari et al. 2004). Some soy =20=

flours seem to contain anti-feedant compounds that detract from their =20=

palatability to honeybees.

The problems that mite parasitosis pose to beekeeping are the same in =20=

Canada as in the USA. Varroa infestations have lethal conse=ADquences, =20=

and must be kept in check. Although varroa is recognized as the major =20=

problem, tracheal mites are still very much around. Their presence in =20=

the breathing tubes of honeybees has bee