born to “b”: what’s hot and not after 50+years beekeeping · 2019-12-11 · the beginning...
TRANSCRIPT
BORN TO “B”: WHAT’S HOT AND NOT AFTER 50+YEARS
BEEKEEPING
Dr. Medhat NasrApiculturist, St. Albert, Alberta, Canada
“I am“Medhat Nasr”
HELLO
THE BEGINNING
0 2011 Geologr .com
THE BEGINNING
' Nubian De5er1
Tahway .sl.,b
GOVERNORATE
Samadun ,_,,,IA-,
Abou Gha!eb ....Jlcj.>1
Ashmun __,.I
Bahnay .st.,,
Tant Al Jazirah S~n oy~l.h..b
Al Farauniyyah <t..,~,>AJI
Subk Al Ahad .1.>\Jl.!L....u
j I
Sarawah o,1,.o
KafrTahlah .w,,_.s
A~;a MENOFIA GOVERN.ORATE
Sphinx Airport ~,u..
...,J,..JI
Q
GIZA GOVERNORATE
Sheikh Zayed City
CI....J.l.o .,_,1;~1
Birqash _,.,b,,
AIQanatirAI Khayriyyah
_,1,1...JI .,,.,_JI
Ausim ,,.....,,1
Toukh t.,b
Qaha ...
Qalama w,
Qalyub ._,,J.,
Marsa fa L..o,.
Tanan ul.l,
Arab Al Muqabilah
<uJL.iuJI...,~
Al Ahraz )lp\JI
Shibin Al Qanatir
;bt....JI..............,
MashtulasSuq .,._JI J.,._....
Abu Zabal
qfiJR(I
~ .. j-11
Al Khankah .S.,WI
Al Marj ~ I
Shubra Al Ain Shams
Cairo International
Airport o,,&Wl)lho
..,J,..JI
Khaymah ~~ ~II~
Al Qubbaah Palace
...JI,...
Q
lnshas
""L..ul
Cairo o_,.;:,WI
Nas r City ~~..l.o
THESTH SETTLEMENT
#1-L Q#I-L yUBI"-ooV
(;A\ROGOVER
AL REHAB v~)
New Cairo City
~- - ! ..: II -:' ,
THE BEGINNING
26th Dynasty hieroglyph depicting a beekeeper with their hives of bees
This reconstruction of 26th Dynasty hieroglyph depicts a scene involving beekeepers
collecting honey
The TEARS of REBeekeeping in Ancient Egypt 2400 B.C.
MY INTRODUCTION TO BEESTraditional Beekeeping in Egypt
ABOUT ME AND THE BEES
01
02
03
041977 - M.Sc. Factors Affecting the Mating of Honey Bee Queens. Entomology Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt
1960’s - Introduction to bees, traditional beekeeping and insects world. Mansouria, Giza, Egypt
1972 - B. Sc. Entomology and Pesticide Toxicology – Faculty of Agriculture, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt
1972 - 1979. Assistant Lecturer, Entomology Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt
+ + + +
PROGRESS STUDYING HONEY BEE QUEENS IN EGYPT
M
GE
SW
V
O
L
5- frame nucs are the most suitable size for mating nucs
Chemical changes in queens during sexual maturity and after mating periods+ +
D
PICTURE OF THE YEAR
TIME LINE IN NORTH AMERICA- 1997- Present
1979 1990 1994 2000 2002 2019 Present
◄ti
UC Davis, CA 1979-1990
• Semen collection in the air• Queen reproductive physiology “Hormone regulations of
vitellogenin production and egg laying”.• Enhancing honey bee pollination of almond and kiwi in
California: – Bee cluster size/colony strength– Feeding sugar syrup– Pollen trap– Colony location and dispersal
• Breeding bees for pollen hoarding• Bee nutrition: Pollen digestibility by bees
UC Davis, CA 1979-1990
• Tracheal mite diagnoses- 1984
University of Guelph: 1990-1994
q Breeding bees for tracheal mite resistance using 2-way breeding systemØ Ontario - NY stock
q Assist in introducing and establishing Buckfast bees in Canada
q Study tracheal mite biology and behaviour
2-WAY BREEDING PROGRAM FOR HBTM- NY: 1990-1994
Before we talk I have
to know if you have been tested
for mites
Average Number of Mites / Bee
2000
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
20
40
60
80
100BKPR-1BKPR-2BKPR-3
BKPR-4BKPR-5BKPR-6
BKPR-7BKPR-8BKPR-9
Mite
Pre
vale
nce
0 10 20 30 400
10
20
30
40
501992
2-WAY BREEDING PROGRAM FOR HBTM- NY: 1990-1994
• "'
• • "'. :;] lla.rll.ll..,,..■ 11■111~■119'1■11111 ■1ti'■llloill ..,. ■II ■'-'
::J • ■ ... , i :J
:I
1::1
l'.J
. ~
• • IIDDIIIIIIIIIIIDIDIIIIJlauu■111111DID: .. • • •• •
• -■
• --. ..
■
• • ■ 0
V
0
0
0
80 • 0 • 0 ••
• •
ESTABLISHED THE 1ST TECH-TRANSFER PROGRAM IN
ONTARIO IN 1994
The Ontario Beekeepers’ Association (OBA), Technology Transfer Program (TTP) was established in the early 1990’s byDr. Medhat Nasr.The mandate of the TTP is:- to conduct APPLIED research for Ontario’s
beekeeping industry,- to FACILITATE AND SUPPORT development of
a honey bee breeding program in Ontario,- to TRANSFER information, teach, and develop
beekeepers’ skills.
About the Tech-Transfer Program
ONTARIO BEEKEEPERS' ASSOCIATION
ADDING SELECTION FOR HYGIENIC BEES
INTPORDUCTION OF NY STOCK AND RUSSIAN BEES TO
ONTARIO
2.0 ± 1.089Selected Ontario
2.0 ± 0.903Selected Carniolan
2.2 ± 0.8525Buckfast2.7 ± 0.971Ontario *2.3 ± 1.057O x R2.4 ±0.666R x O 2.7 ± 0.945Russian
TM AbundanceMean ± std
NStrain
53 ± 3Ontario
71 ± 3Russian * Ontario
73 ± 2Ontario x Russian
75 ± 3Russian
% Removed pupae
(Mean ± std error)Strain
DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE TREATMENTS FOR MITES IN BEES
Multiple applicationMiteWipe pad
single applicationMiteAway pad
1) Formic Acid 2) Essential oils:- Apilife-Var -Thymol
3) Oxalic acid
RUTGERS UNIVERSITY2000 -2002
Pine BarrensColony
strength evaluation
ALBERTA PROVCINCIAL APICULTURIST 2002-2019
Competitive CapacitySustainable
Growth
RiskManagement
HEALTHY INDUSTRY
Tech-TransferResearch
Regulatory
ALBERTA PROVCINCIAL APICULTURIST 2002-2019
ThymovarØ Thymol product Ø Best applied
between 20C and 25C
Ø Currently being registered in Canada
Ø Wafers left on for 6 weeks
Ø Registered Ø Treated with
2 x 40mL pads/colony once a week for 3 weeks.
Ø Hops product from BetaTec
Ø Undergoing registration in USA
Ø Four strips left in for 6 weeks
Ø RegisteredØ 4 strips left
in for 6 weeks
Formic Acid HopGuard Apivar
IPM: DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVE CONTROL OPTIONS
FOR VARROA
STUDY EFFICACY OF 4 ALTERNATIVE CONTROL METHODS FOR VARROA
Spring TreatmentApivar (74.93 ± 3.18%)Formic acid (71.90 ± 6.52%)Thymovar (82.33 ± 3.32%)HopGuard (43.56 ± 3.18%)Control (24.09 ± 3.89%)
- - - • r<lfllllC Add
- H ,r ••••••• T
- - Control
3 -19 t'..
1 l M 31· 6,.Jun 12. Jun l l
Fall TreatmentApivar (87.07 ± 2.69%)Formic acid (78.48 ± 8.47%)Thymovar (88.91 ± 8.47%HopGuard (42.96 ± 6.46%), Control (28.69 ± 7.33%).
STUDY EFFICACY OF 4 ALTERNATIVE CONTROL METHODS FOR VARROA
0
2S u :... 20
lS
10
s
- ~ - - Control
• - - • Fonnic Ac.id -HopGurd'-....... lhymova,.
0------------------------------->Sal> S-Ott 11-0ct 17-0ct
DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW APPLICATION METHOD:
HOPGUARD2
EFFICACY OF HOPGUARD2
TREATMENTS IN ALBERTA AND SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA, FALL 2013
AlbertaSaskatchewan
100 97 98
100 92 96.95 92.3
~ ;;;;' 80 - 90
~ "0 ~ 80 ... ta ,, :::, 60 ... 70 (!) res CL ::::, 0 (!) 60 = 40
a. 0 50 0 :I:
>, .... 40 " 0 :l 20 >, 30 IE I.)
res w I.) 20 0 5: w 10
Contro l (No HopG uard 11- HopGuard 11- HopGuar d 11-0 Treatment) one two th ree
application applications applications HopGuard II- one HopGuard II- two HopGuard - three appl icat ion appli cations-10 days applicat ions-5 days
EFFICACY OF HOPGUARD2
TREATMENTS IN ALBERTA, CANADA, SPRING 2014
I put off writing this post for a very long time—since November, actually.
Although I often display irritation in my posts, I try damn hard to remain civil. But the makers of HopGuard have pushed my civility to the limit.
I had to cool down for months before I could write something that wouldn’t get me banned from the Internet.
Hopping mad at HopGuard 100
90
80
70
60 -~ -so >-u
49 52
44
~ 40 :f w 30
20 17
10
0 ., ~,q
'?., ~q R., R., i::,., ,:.., t::-" ~
... ~ ,.;:: ,.,:: ~o ~ ,to~ ~e ½., '\,., ""' ~,!J § .... I ~<, ~e
,,,q Rq Rq ~o +"- "-"' "-"' ., R+ ,.+
~,q '-,:: '-~q '?,.
... ., ½., ....
30
Oxalic acid applicationsSpraying, Trickling, sublimation
31
EFFICACY OF OXALIC ACID SUBLIMATION
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38Hive Number
Varro
a In
fest
atio
n (%
) Before TreatmentAfter Treatment
Before:M=19.08±9.00
After:
M=1.37±1.42
Efficacy:
M=93.8±7.4
□ -I- --- I ■
SCREENING MITICIDES WITH DIFFERENT MODES OF ACTIONS
Evaluation of a potential miticide toxicity (LC50 and LD50) to Varroa mites and bees
l a
100 a ~ e :i: 80 w ! '" -0 :.;
60 ; u -0
~ 40 ! 0 w VI 20 +I C
'" .. ~
0
Candidate2 Candidate 1 Candidate3
PICTURE OF THE YEAR
CCD: WHAT IS CCD?
CCD
Healthy
HONEY BEE HEALTH STATUS IN FALL 2007
PROVINCIAL RESULTS - 2007Beekeeper # of samples Mean Nosema infection Mean HBTM Mean Varroa
checked per bee (millions) % %1 12 0 0.8 1.392 30 3.1 2.7 6.13 12 1.4 0 1.594 20 58.04 0 0.135 24 3.8 0.42 0.036 30 0.2 0 0.97 8 0.5 10 0.18 24 0.8 0.3 10.89 30 11.9 0.9 6.710 20 0.2 0 0.5211 4 11.35 0 0.2712 24 3.1 6.7 6.613 12 0.5 13.3 0.0314 30 0 4.5 12.315 30 2.5 1.1 3.516 30 0 17.3 2.917 30 0.9 2.1 1018 12 2.9 2.9 0.1619 30 0 9.9 2.420 12 0 5.8 0.1921 30 3.9 0.4 17.722 30 0.8 5.8 2.623 24 2.6 2.9 6.824 24 2.9 4 5.725 24 3.2 0 0.226 8 6.4 2.5 24.2127 24 4.7 2.1 0.7328 16 8.6 0 0.2329 24 49.2 13.8 1.4630 24 1.2 0 4.231 30 2 13.7 8.132 12 0.6 17 033 18 NA 1.39 20.7334 30 0.2 NA 2.635 20 0 0 5.636 24 0 2.2 5.537 4 NA 0 5.2138 14 0 2.5 0.139 6 10.5 0 15.140 47 0.01 NA 0.8
60% Varroa mite infestation ≥1% (24/40)
47.5% Nosema infestation ≥1mil (19/40)
30% Nosema and varroa ≥ ETT (12/40)
15% HB tracheal mite ≥ 10% (6/40)
17.5% HEALTHY COLONIES (7/40)
1714 samples from 40 operations:- 4- 47 samples /operation (300 -400 bees/hive) for varroa- 4-47 samples / operation for nosema (100 bees/hive)
c=J c=J
c=J 1111 c=J
Nose ma Pre va lnc e Va rroa
Be e ke e pe r Mil/ Be e Nose ma % a ve ra ge
Infe sta tion %
1 0.06 25 0.312 0.02 25 4.633 0.00 0 11.794 0.01 42 0.605 0.00 0 1.196 0.01 16 1.787 0.00 0 0.488 0.00 0 1.619 0.08 20 0.1110 0.12 25 0.2811 0.16 67 0.1412 0.10 50 0.2313 0.10 58 1.9714 0.06 25 0.215 0.15 17 1.0916 0.06 33 0.4417 0.01 17 3.1818 0.26 50 0.1419 0.01 33 0.0220 0.39 33 0.0021 0.07 8 0.2922 0.02 25 2.3423 0.02 8 1.1924 0.00 25 0.3625 0.08 16 0.5826 0.90 25 0.1727 0.07 17 7.4728 0.00 8 0.4029 0.14 25 0.1830 0.55 66 NS31 0.19 75 6.6132 0.57 50 0.1833 0.00 8 0.70
Fall Inspection Results 2009Nose ma Pre va lnc e Va rroa
Be e ke e pe r Mil/ Be e Nose ma % a ve ra ge
34 0.00 8 1.7735 0.09 17 9.5336 0.00 17 2.3137 0.52 75 0.1638 0.15 33 0.0839 0.02 50 0.5840 0.01 25 1.5041 0.48 33 1.9142 0.11 50 0.2343 0.00 8 0.0944 0.01 33 2.3045 0.01 25 0.0746 0.02 17 0.1747 0.13 25 8.3548 0.01 25 3.3849 0.21 33 0.7250 0.00 8 5.8851 0.04 27 6.8952 0.03 17 0.1753 0.08 17 2.9954 0.05 50 0.8355 0.00 8 3.7056 0.01 25 4.8757 0.01 17 0.5758 0.00 0 1.7759 0.00 8 0.1860 0.00 0 0.0761 0.01 8 0.0062 0.00 0 0.5663 0.01 25 9.8964 0.05 16 0.1065 0.01 17 13.7466 0.01 16 1.1967 0.01 16 0.268 0.02 42 0.0069 0.00 0 7.1670 0.00 8 0.9571 0.00 16 0.3672 0.00 0 0.62
Average Totals 0.09 22.91 2.20
Fall Inspection Results 2009
39% Varroa mite infestation ≥ 1%18 Varroa mite infestation ≥1-3
0% Nosema and Varroa ≥ ETT
51% HEALTHY COLONIES
21 % Varroa mite infestation ≥ 3%
1.5 % Nosema infestation 0.9 mil
5% Varroa mite infestation and Apivar Application
35.3
27.9
17.6
8.8
10.3Varroa
Nosema
Varroa andNosemaHBTM
Healthy
Fall 2007
80%
16% 4%
Spring 2010
HONEY BEE HEALTH STATUS IN FALL 2010
CJ CJ
CJ CJ
CJ
I
CANOLA POLLINTION IN ALBERTA
USA
CA,Eh
Administration of the Bee Act and Regulations
Pest and disease surveillance: Blueberry and bee pollination, SHB, AFB, etc.
Annual winter losses and management survey
Drug free honey (Food Safety Program)
Bee Biosecurity Program
New market opportunity
REGULATORY ACTIVITIES
C C C C C C
Bee Health App
Keep bee health abuzz
with the new
Bee Health App from Alberta
Agriculture and Forestry
Finding honey bee health information has never
been easier.
Get bee disease diagnosis and treatment informa tion wi th
the tap of an app.
Download the free
Bee Hea lth app today:
www agr1culture alberta ca/beeapp
Contact info: [email protected]
Phone: 310-FARM
Fund ing for this App provkied by Growing Forward 2
a federa l-provincial-terntorial init iat ive and Alberta Crop Industry Fund
Beekeeping Industry in Alberta Number of Bee Colonle5 and Beekeeper5 (1924 to 2017)
3 50,000 12000
Beekeepers - Bee Colonies 300,000
10000
250,000 .,. 8000 ~ CII ·c: 41,1
~ 200,000 Q. 41,1 41,1 u 6000 ~
Cl)
~ 150,000 Cit
Cl)
0 0 z 4000 z
100,000
50,000
ll~tu ,111111111111 1111m11111111111111111,,,1111111
2000
0 0
Year