New Zealand Beekeeping HistoryMarketing, people and beekeeping politics…

History of AFB Control

If this article does anything, I hope it will help to confirm the futility and ineffectiveness of trying to treat, manage or ‘cure’ a colony that has American foulbrood disease (AFB).  Beekeepers must recognise that the only way to avoid outbreaks of AFB and reduce their severity in your own colonies, or in those of your neighbouring beekeepers, is to follow the rules and guidelines of the Pest Management Plan.  The plan was created by beekeepers and for beekeepers, and through compliance, you can do your part to help eliminate AFB from New Zealand.  It is about time…  

New Zealand’s beekeepers have been dealing with American foulbrood diseases for about 150 years.  For the first half of that time, a variety of schemes, potions and plans were used to ‘treat’ AFB.  None of the methods proved successful.  AFB is just simply not the type of disease that can be ‘cured’…

The Origin and Spread

AFB was first reported in New Zealand in 1877, nearly 40 years after the first introduction of honeybees.  Within 10 years the disease had spread and been confirmed throughout the country.  It is possible that AFB had been initially introduced with the importations of bees through those early years.  The use of moveable frame hives starting in the middle 1870s, and it is also possible that AFB was brought in through one of numerous importations of bee stocks and queen bees about that time.

Before the confirmation of AFB, skeps and box hives that did not flourish were generally just considered poor performers.  If a fixed frame colony died out, the beekeeper would generally just restock it with another swarm for the following season.  It is not surprising that AFB was so widespread in the last decades of the 1800s.

Recognition of Bacterial Origins

The disease was initially misunderstood, and was often lumped in with other brood disorders.  In 1885, one writer referred to two types of AFB – contagious, and non-contagious.  It was clear that the ‘non-contagious’ AFB was little more than brood that had been abandoned or chilled.  But even the ‘contagious AFB’ was described as being caused by ‘bad food’.  

Bacterial diseases were not well understood generally, and the causative organism of AFB was initially known as Bacillus alvei.  In 1906 G.F. White first described the bacteria properly, and gave it the name Bacillus larvae.  That name has been used by most New Zealand beekeepers, though officially the organism has been reclassified and renamed Paenibacillus larvae.

‘Treatments’

Most of the treatments used to treat AFB in the early days did acknowledge its contagious nature, but believed that an active case of AFB could be ‘cured’ by a range of labourious activities.  These fell primarily into three categories:

  • Decontaminating the bees.
  • Sterilising boxes and floors.
  • ‘Shook swarming’ to force the bees to use the last of any honey they might have.

Decontamination of the bees in the colony used some pretty drastic measures.  Carbolic acid (from phenol crystals) and saliclic acid (associated with the production of aspirin) would be sprayed, usually more than once, over all of the bees on the frames.  Obviously, the concentration of the spray would need to be dilute enough that those chemicals did not outright kill the bees!  In some cases phenol crystals were mixed into sugar syrup and fed to the colony.  

Boxes, floors and lids were decontaminated with the same acids, but often at much higher concentrations.  There were no reports of beekeepers themselves being harmed in the treatments, but to read of the work they were doing is somewhat frightening.  The recommendation for dealing with honey boxes involved seriously scraping the inside of the box, then boiling for 15 minutes in a caustic soda bath.  The caustic soda and boiling was not expected to kill the spores of AFB, but rather to saponify the beeswax, allowing it to come away from the wooden surface.  The principle was physical removal, rather than disinfection.

The insides of boxes were commonly scorched with a blowtorch following the acid bath.  The scorching of boxes method was used in New Zealand until about 1960.  These charred and blackened boxes were immediately obvious when working a hive!  They were still somewhat common in the 1970s.  Other commentators said that the blowtorch method was most effective if used on both inside and outside of the boxes – and keep scorching until there was nothing left!

The real key to most treatments, however, involved ‘shook swarming’.  All of the bees from an infected hive would be shaken on to foundation wax.  The bees would be allowed to start to draw out this wax for a few days, and then they would again be shaken off those combs and on to new foundation again.  The theory had it that if the bees could be forced to use up all of the honey in their stomachs, not carrying it forward to the new box and frames, it might be cured of the disease.  The method was, in fact, sometimes referred to as the starvation treatment, and was well-described in 1910 by William B. “Billy” Bray, one of the first apiary inspectors in New Zealand.  It wasn’t until about 1950 that the practice of ‘shook swarming’ was banned.  It is not really surprising that there were periods through those years when AFB made beekeeping near impossible.

Apiaries Act 1906

The introduction of the Apiaries Act 1906 and subsequent legislation did not really alter the belief that AFB could be successfully treated.  It did, however, eliminate the on-going AFB problems brought about by the use of box hives with fixed frames, unable to be inspected for AFB.  The requirement was that a beekeeper needed to be actively ‘treating’ infected colonies by an approved method, rather than that the colony be destroyed.  These ‘treatments’ continued in use as recently as the 1950s.  There was some disquiet within the ranks of beekeepers as the newly appointed apiary inspectors – only two for the whole country – began their work, with a complaint that some of them were calling themselves ‘advisors’ rather than inspectors.

‘Abandoned and Neglected’…

AFB continued to be a problem through the first half of the 20th century, with a particularly bad time coming just after the Second World War.  Many returned servicemen were introduced to the beekeeping industry.  In order to set them up in business, some were given beekeeping outfits in some pretty difficult locations.  After a few years of trying to make a living from their beekeeping, many just gave up, and walked away from their bees.  

These abandoned apiaries, combined with an already high incidence of AFB, posed a real threat to the industry.  The Department of Agriculture claimed that they were unable to legally deal with these “abandoned and neglected” apiaries, in spite of the risks they posed.  There is a story that the apiary inspectors quietly conspired to informally deal with these apiaries, declaring all of the hives in an abandoned apiary to be diseased as soon as they could find even one case of AFB – and sometimes without any confirmation of disease.

Feeding of Antibiotics

Another event of that time that had major impact on most beekeeping countries passed New Zealand by, and with good reason.  Following the War, scientists in the United States began to use the recently discovered antibiotics to treat colonies infected with AFB.  The use of the sulfa drugs (followed later by terramycin) changed the approach to AFB management for the U.S., and most of the rest of the beekeeping world.  As an antibiotic it was quite effective at stopping the active stage of AFB, but as a spore-forming bacteria, Paenibacillus larvae was resistant to this new approach at ‘control’.

New Zealand beekeepers, assisted by the Department of Agriculture and the chief bee scientist Trevor Palmer-Jones, seemed to come to this understanding quite early.  In 1947 the Editor of the NZ Beekeeper magazine wrote:

“Extravagant claims have been made by certain beekeepers in America that sulfa drugs can cure Bacillus larvae.  From their statements, it would appear that foulbrood is as easily cured as is the common cold by taking certain cough cures … The drug does not kill the disease but its use enables the subject to build a resistance to the further growth of the disease.”

In the same article, beekeepers were urged to not do their own experimenting with sulfa drugs, saying that there could be a “…public reaction against drugged honey”.  In 1951, the magazine had an unambiguous headline: “SULFA MASKS FOUL BROOD”, with the article describing how recurrence could occur, with the drugs making it difficult for an inspector to determine whether the hive is infected or not.

In 1961, Eric Smaellie (Superintendent of Beekeeping) warned the NBA Executive that it was clear some beekeepers were still experimenting with terramycin.  He warned that the Department intended to take samples, and if sulfa was detected the honey would be condemned.  

A Joint Committee – Dept Ag and beekeepers

That warning, along with other AFB issues, led to a joint meeting of the NBA and the Department that tried to set a direction for the future of AFB inspection and control.  The Executive said:

“Recognition should be given to the fact that beekeepers are primarily responsible for the detection and eradication of disease in their own apiaries”.  

The Executive proposed a required inspection by the Department before hives could be sold or removed.  They also called for strict prosecution in all cases of evasion of the regulations.

Through most of the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s the basic approach remained inspection-based.  Though it was acknowledged as a beekeeper’s problem, it would seem from the stories from that time that most beekeepers were just depending on that.  

And then came the August 1961 issue of the NZ Beekeeper, with a set of stories titled “Beekeeping Industry Looks Ahead” and “Farewell, Foul Brood”.  One might think the goal of elimination had been achieved!  But, no, the 1961 NBA Conference had simply resolved to “…abandon the disgusting name ‘foul brood’.”  Rather than that ‘obnoxious’ term, the NBA decided to forthwith refer to it as “BL”.  It is unclear how long this linguistic nicety lasted…

Developing a New Approach

But the 1990s changed the whole regulatory basis for dealing with AFB.  From 1906 the Apiaries Act had provided the ‘teeth’ of enforcement – and the Government signalled very clearly that that act would be soon repealed.  The Biosecurity Act would repeal the Apiaries Act, and if the industry still wanted some form of regulatory protection, it would need to develop a Pest Management Strategy. 

The industry recognised that without regulation, AFB would likely decimate the industry – the same fears that were held before 1906!  At times it seemed that the bee industry was expected to adopt the same “every year let the Dept of Ag/MAF do the inspections as they have always done.”  Oh, and the beekeepers will have to pay for that, too!  

Instead the NBA took up the challenge/necessity to develop a PMS.

Through the late 1980s and 1990s, Dr. Mark Goodwin carried out exemplary research into many aspects of AFB – and from a remarkably sound practical base.  There was AFB research being carried out in the world of relevance to NZ.  With almost all other major beekeeping countries already well down the “just keep feeding the antibiotics” track, there just wasn’t any interest in researching how AFB spreads between colonies, or how AFB could be dealt with without the use of drugs. Dr. Goodwin’s work informed the industry well as it worked toward a PMS.  

Cliff Van Eaton, then an Apicultural Advisory Officer, is another person to single out for particular mention.  Cliff worked incredibly long and hard to get through the labyrinth of the new (and still changing) legislation.

Those from the NBA who were so immediately involved?  I would not dare to start naming them, for fear of leaving people out.  The two chairs over time of the NBA’s Disease Control committee, Ian Berry and Terry Gavin, led the committee to develop a PMS that could work.  NBA presidents that deserve particular thanks from beekeepers include (again) Ian Berry, but then extend through the years to Allen McCaw, Dudley Ward and Francis Trewby.  And I guess I’ll hold up my hand, too – I was the NBA president through some of the PMS’s development, and remain a committed proponent. 

The approach was more than just ‘inspect and hope you find more than get infected in the same period of time’.  It introduced the idea of a Disease Elimination Conformity Agreement (DECA).  Beekeepers would need to evidence the ability to identify AFB, and agree to the various aspects of inspection, reporting and eliminating AFB from their own outfit.  

Industry Support, Funding and Management

Had the NBA decided to raise the money for the PMS under the Biosecurity Act, there would have been no referendum to gauge support – the Minister would simply approve it.  But the NBA chose to collect the money using the Commodity Levies Order it also needed to put into place.  The referendum revealed more than 70% support for the proposal.

When the NBA (the ‘Management Agency’ for the PMS) failed to get the support from beekeepers needed to renew the levy order, the PMS was in jeopardy.  Fortunately, the overwhelming need for the PMS saw the Minister leave the NBA as the Management Agency, but provided a levy to support the PMS only.  

Transition Into The Present

The NBA continued to manage the PMS (now having been renamed by another Biosecurity Act amendment to a Pest Management Plan – PMP) until the creation of ApiNZ in 2016.  ApiNZ continues to be responsible for the plan and operations, but  it has separated out the governance of AFB control into a separate board.

The philosophical approach remains the same:  Beekeepers are primarily responsible for disease within their colonies.  Beekeepers need to comply with the provisions of a DECA, following the steps that can clearly lead to AFB elimination within their outfit.  

And especially if an outfit’s AFB levels are increasing, the beekeeper should consider:

  • More inspections for AFB than the required ‘once per year’, and certainly whenever equipment is removed or swapped to another hive.
  • Increase the thoroughness of the inspections, the number of frames of brood that are examined.  The more frames of brood inspected, the more likely AFB can be detected at an early stage.
  • Reduce the amount of equipment being moved between colonies. 
  • ‘Quarantining’ – returning equipment, especially extracted supers, to the same hive/apiary/area as needed, again reducing equipment interchange.

If a beekeeper adheres to a DECA’s provisions AFB with an outfit will decrease.  If the other beekeepers in the area are also compliant, the area would be AFB free.  Ultimately, AFB can be eliminated from New Zealand.