Alberta Bee News Magazine – December 2024
Adapted from presentation by Lynae Ovinge
The parasitic mite Varroa destructor poses a major bee health challenge for beekeepers in Alberta and throughout Canada. Varroa mites parasitize honey bees by feeding on both larvae and adult bees, weakening their immune systems. In severe cases, this can lead to complete colony collapse. Beekeepers must continuously manage Varroa levels, even when infestations are not high, to prevent outbreaks. Additionally, they must contend with several related challenges, such as the increased prevalence of Varroa-associated viruses, the development of resistance to commonly used miticides, and the emergence of “mite bombs,” which facilitate the spread of Varroa. As a result, beekeepers must adapt their management practices to mitigate these escalating issues.
This article will focus on mite bomb colonies, defined as colonies with Varroa levels significantly exceeding economic thresholds. The eventual collapse of these colonies can result in a surge of Varroa populations in surrounding colonies, driven primarily by behaviors such as drifting and robbing1. Over the years, the increasing pressure from rising viral loads and decreasing efficacy of miticide treatments have emphasize the critical need for the implementation of comprehensive Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategies. These strategies are crucial to mitigate the spread and incidence of Varroa mites within beekeeping operations. By understanding the concept of a mite bomb, recognizing its warning signs, and effectively managing highly infested colonies, beekeepers can reduce the spread of Varroa mites, and keep infestation levels more manageable.
As mentioned earlier, a mite bomb refers to a colony with high levels of Varroa, exceeding economic thresholds. Prolonged high levels of Varroa in colonies can lead to the formation of a mite bomb, which will typically begin to collapse and are unlikely to survive the winter. However, the colony collapse period can be more harmful than the loss of the colony itself, as this is when the high population of mites “explodes” and spreads to neighboring colonies. The current economic threshold for Varroa infestation is 1% (1 mite per 100 bees) when brood is present, and 3% (3 mites per 100 bees), during broodless periods2. Colonies with mite levels ≥5% in the spring and ≥10% in the summer and fall have the potential to become mite bombs. These levels, like economic thresholds, are based on the presence of brood due to factors such as season, nectar availability, and overall colony strength. Peck and Seeley (2019) identified worker and drone drifting, as well as robbing, as some of the main mechanisms that spread mites from mite bomb colonies, leading to the “bomb explosion” effect.
Honey bee drifting is common in commercial beekeeping, where apiaries often contain multiple colonies situated in close proximity1. This arrangement can increase the rate of drift, facilitating the transmission of Varroa mites to neighboring colonies. Similarly, robbing behavior enables inter-colony infestation: Varroa-infested robbers can infiltrate healthy colonies, while healthy robbers may enter Varroa-infected colonies, both acting as pathway for mite transfer. While both drifting and robbing contribute to the spread of mites from mite bombs, Peck and Seeley (2019) found that the exponential increase of Varroa levels in neighboring colonies is primarily driven by robbing behavior. During periods of dearth or in the fall season, robbing behavior increases, with robbing bees targeting weaker colonies that lack the strength to defend themselves. These weakened colonies are often diseased and likely to act as mite bombs for Varroa mite infestations. Therefore, to prevent the spread of mites during periods of increased robbing behavior, it is crucial to ensure that mite bomb colonies are not accessible to healthy foraging bees and colonies.
The effects of a mite bomb are most evident in post-treatment apiaries, where most colonies exhibit low Varroa levels, except for one or two with uncontrolled mite populations (Figure 1). Under the right conditions, this mite bomb can proliferate, jeopardizing the entire apiary by raising Varroa levels. This situation is particularly discouraging for beekeepers, as most colonies typically respond well to treatment and effective management practices. However, the presence of a single mite bomb can undermine these efforts.
Figure 1. Mite bomb colony at 9.6% infestation compared to below 1% colonies. Data from select apiary Colony Health Monitoring Fall 2023.
The only effective method for identifying and managing mite bombs is to implement a robust monitoring program. While it may not be feasible to monitor and sample every colony, it is essential for beekeepers to sample a representative portion of colonies within each apiary3. Regular mite shakes are recommended, as they provide a quick and easy assessment of Varroa levels. By implementing and consistently executing a Varroa mite IPM plan, beekeepers can more readily identify mite bombs and take prompt action to mitigate the risk of infecting neighboring colonies. The Alberta Beekeepers Commission’s Tech Transfer Program (TTP), in collaboration with the Bee Health Assurance Team (BHAT), has developed a general Varroa IPM plan that serves as a template for beekeepers to create their own. This resource is valuable for developing an effective monitoring program to identify mite bombs before they become problematic. Find it online by scanning the QR code.
Mite bombs are often characterized by pronounced symptoms and signs, as high Varroa levels are associated with a range of diseases and visual indicators. Common symptoms include parasitic mite syndrome (PMS), deformed wing virus (DWV), while visual signs include the presence of mites on bees (Figure 2). Recognizing these symptoms and signs is a valuable tool for detecting problematic colonies. Our Colony Health Monitoring data from 2022-2023 shows that 94% of apiaries containing mite bombs exhibited 1-3 common symptoms/signs associated with high Varroa mite infestation. Identifying these issues and flagging affected yards during routine management practices can provide a quick and effective approach to pinpointing problematic mite bombs.
Figure 2. Symptoms and signs of mite bombs, from left to right: Parasitic Mite Syndrome, Deformed Wing Virus, and Varroa Mites on Drone.
Mite bomb management is influenced by several factors, including colony strength, mite population levels, seasonal conditions, timing of treatment, and the presence of other diseases. Analyzing these factors collectively allows beekeepers to make informed decisions about whether to apply a flash treatment at the colony’s original location, relocate the colony to a hospital yard, or euthanize it.
Flash Treatment – Colonies with high mite levels often have strong bee populations, as a greater number of bees can typically support a larger mite population without immediately collapsing4. However, it is recommended to apply flash treatments when infestation levels exceed 10%, as they are particularly effective in controlling mite bombs. Since the strength of the colony can temporarily reduce the likelihood of robbing and drift, thereby mitigating the risk of a mite bomb explosion, it’s advisable to apply the flash treatment to strong mite bomb colonies at their original location, rather than relocating it. This is particularly recommended during the spring and summer, when robbing is less likely to occur. Common flash treatments include formic acid (liquid 65% and formic pro) and oxalic acid (drip and sublimation). By combining a flash treatment with the inherent resilience of a strong colony, along with consistent monitoring, beekeepers can effectively reduce mite levels and promote the recovery of the colony to a healthier state.
Hospital Yards – Utilizing hospital yards is also an effective strategy for managing mite bombs. Colonies that appear to be dwindling due to high Varroa levels and are not improving with treatment should be relocated from their original apiary to prevent the infestation of surrounding healthy colonies. Additionally, the presence of other diseases alongside high Varroa loads can further justify moving a colony to a hospital yard. To reduce the risk of drift from bees left behind, it is crucial to conduct relocations at night or early in the morning when most bees are inside the colony. Establishing hospital yards helps mitigate the risk of infecting healthy colonies and enhances the management of diseased colonies.
Euthanasia – Deciding when to euthanize a colony is a balancing act. It’s crucial to act before transmission of Varroa mites from the mite bomb to surrounding colonies is imminent. Key factors to consider are the strength of the colony and the season. Weak colonies with high Varroa loads should be euthanized immediately, as they are more vulnerable to robbing, which is a major pathway for Varroa dispersal to healthy colonies. This is especially important in the fall when robbing is more likely, and mite levels can spike. In the spring, addressing mite bombs is equally critical. If mites spread from mite bomb colonies early in the season, they can increase Varroa levels in the apiary just as summer approaches—a time when mite populations usually rise. Therefore, any colony that is weak and has high mite levels should be eliminated.
When euthanizing a colony, it’s essential to contain the mites. Simply shaking out the colony isn’t recommended, as it can allow infested bees to drift to other hives. The best method is to shake the entire colony into a bucket of soapy water, ensuring that all bees and mites are disposed of safely.
With Varroa mites remaining one of the most significant disease threats in Alberta, it is crucial to implement effective IPM practices to safeguard the beekeeping industry. Recognizing the signs and symptoms of mite bombs can help beekeepers maintain low Varroa levels, thereby ensuring the production and sustainability of healthy honey bee populations. Training apiary workers to identify mite bombs can enhance operational monitoring, as they are often tending to colonies and can readily perform mite shakes on-site.
Additionally, utilizing different management practices such as flash treatments and hospital yards can improve the overall health of an operations colonies while enhancing the effectiveness and efficiency of treatment and monitoring efforts. Maintaining low mite levels will enable the bees to thrive, ensuring optimal honey production and effective pollination services.
References
1Peck, D. T., & Seeley, T. D. (2019). Mite bombs or robber lures? The roles of drifting and robbing in Varroa destructor transmission from collapsing honey bee colonies to their neighbors. PloS one, 14(6), e0218392. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0218392
2Currie, R. (2008). Economic Threshold for Varroa on the Canadian Prairies. University of Manitoba, Dept. of Entomology, Winnipeg Manitoba. https://capabees.com/shared/2013/02/varroathreshold.pdf
3Lee, K. V., Moon, R. D., Burkness, E. C., Hutchison, W. D., & Spivak, M. (2010). Practical sampling plans for Varroa destructor (Acari: Varroidae) in Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera: Apidae) colonies and apiaries. Journal of Economic Entomology, 103(4), 1039-1050. https://doi.org/10.1603/EC10037
4 Borba, R. S. et al. Phenomic analysis of the honey bee pathogen-web and its dynamics on colony productivity, health and social immunity behaviors. PLoS one 17, e0263273 (2022).
By Maren Vickers, TTP Summer Technician
Honey bee swarms are a nuisance that every beekeeper is familiar with, as they are a natural part of the hive’s reproduction behaviour. While generally indicating a very strong colony, the consequences afterwards are unsavory: half your bees gone, a wild hive in an unknown location, a virgin queen that needs to be mated (slowing down colony production), and a biosecurity risk to evaluate. However, as inconvenient as swarms are, they are also a fascinating display of physical, visual, and hormonal communication between bees. Finding a new home is quite the event!
Before the colony decides to swarm, there are three major criteria a colony must fulfill to signal its necessity (Figure 1). The first and most obvious is overcrowding: too many bees are in one colony, and there is simply not enough space to accommodate them all. With the queen continually laying, the population will continue to grow, further escalating the congestion. This point is typically reached when 90% of the comb is occupied by brood, honey, and pollen (Grozinger et al. 2013).
The second factor is a reduction in Queen Mandibular pheromone (QMP); usually QMP stops queen cell production within a hive even if it’s congested (Richards et al. 2015). However, a high volume of bees
Figure 1: The three criteria that signal a hive may swarm.
within the colony can dilute the QMP significantly enough to overcome its effect. A queen may also have lower levels of QMP due to old age. In either case, this hormonal reduction stimulates the bees to begin producing queen cells to replace the queen when she swarms.
The third factor is the ratio of bees to brood. Once there is a surplus of bees to care for the quantity of brood, the workforce has reached a point where the loss of bees to a swarm would not be harmful to the original colony. Considering swarms are a natural way to grow bee populations in an area, it would be counterproductive to swarm if it guaranteed the parent colony’s demise. Ensuring there is a sufficient workforce to upkeep the colony after swarming is critical.
These three colony-based criteria all interact and amplify each other to initiate the preparation of a swarm by the bees (Figure 1). However, the precise trigger for a swarm is still unknown (Grozinger et al. 2013). For example, a highly congested colony by itself does not guarantee a swarm will occur. Neither does the production of queen cells due to low QMP. Rather, the accumulation of factors summates to warrant a swarm. al environment of the colony and the bees themselves in the machinations of the swarm.
In order to start the swarming process, bees must partake in certain preparations. These occur at the individual, colony, and caste level, with a host of stimuli directing movements (Table 1.1).
At the colony level, scout bees (older bees that assume guiding responsibilities) begin peremptory waggle dances, searching for a new nest location. Closer to bivouac formation, these scouts initiate several physical and auditory stimuli to increase the worker bees’ metabolic rates to the necessary flight temperature. Since bees require their thoracic flight muscles to reach a minimum of 33°C for rapid flight, a collective effort of piping, buzz running, and shaking signals allows assimilation to this state for effective take-off (Seeley et al. 2001) (Table 1.1). Remember, it is nearly 10,000 bees that must all be prepared at the same time.
Table 1. Description of each stage of swarming and its associated stimulus. There may be multiple actions per stimuli.
Piping is one of the earlier signals, beginning 6-10 days before bivouac formation, with increased intensity in the hour before swarm departure (Grozinger et al. 2013). This auditory stimulus is created when the queen or workers set their thorax on the ground and push their wings together while vibrating them for 0.2-2.0s at 100-250 Hz (Seeley & Tautz 2001). The subsequent high frequency sound signals for increased activity and is initiated by the nest-seeking scouts.
Buzz running is exactly as it is named: bees (activators) run through the hive in a zig-zag pattern while periodically buzzing, and in doing so, stimulating other bees (unactivated) into activity (activated). This phenomenon is displayed before bivouac formation, as well as in the bivouac before the swarming flight. As seen in Figure 2, contact between unactivated bees and buzz running individuals (activators) quickly transmits the signal to warm-up and get ready for flight. Generally, this stimulation begins shortly before departure.
Figure 2: The process of buzzing runs breaking up a clump of inactive bees to prepare for sustained flight.
Different from buzz running, but with the same outcome, is the shaking signal (or vibration signal) (Grozinger et al. 2013). Here, scout bees will contact another bee and “shake them” by grabbing and moving them dorso-. Shaking may be used at any time within a hive but is increasingly utilized before bivouac formation and before the swarming flight.
At the individual level, bees intending to swarm will engorge themselves on food in the days leading up to take-off to have enough sustenance to endure the swarming process. This is done by storing nectar in their crop to use throughout the journey. O It is imperative they conserve heat and energy as the swarm flight is energetically taxing, so leaving the bivouac would not be practical. Instead, the bees will lower their metabolic activity and use the food stored in their crop (Seeley et al. 2003). Foraging for resources will occur only after landing at their final destination. Additionally, as it takes about a month for the new hive to produce adult bees, the more fat reserves the swarming bees have, the higher their chances of survival. As such, mainly young individuals are selected to swarm to overcome this gap between resource foraging and the emergence of new bees.
Now metabolically and physically ready for flight, the swarming bees are finally ready for take-off, and the trigger can be set off to begin their journey to a new nest!
Having finally taken-off from the hive, the bees form the bivouac. Should multiple clumps form in different areas, the landing place of the queen will attract the separated bees to form a single clump as the queen pheromone is released (Table 1.2). This bivouac stage can last anywhere from 1-4 days; that is, until the scout bees have located a new permanent nest site (Camazine et al. 1999). With a search radius of up to 150km2, there is a lot of ground to cover! There are many factors that scouts must consider for a new home, as discussed by Camazine (1999). A few of these include “volume, exposure, entrance size, and height from the ground” (Camazine et al. 1999). Once a scout has appraised a spot to meet these parameters, she will return to the bivouac and perform recruitment dances (alternative waggle dances) for the other scouts, to convince them this location is favorable. Some scouts will travel directly to the location to evaluate the nest site after receiving the message, but most scouts are swayed based on enthusiasm and dancing length. The more enthusiastic a bee is during recruitment dancing, paired with a longer sequence, the better the nest quality. The message is further amplified once a sufficient number of bees are convinced of the site’s caliber in accordance with their nature; that is, the phenomenon wherein individuals of a social group are influenced into collective activity by the actions of a few: similar to a large-scale and complex ‘follow the leader’ effect. As such, it enough scouts convinced by one bee, recruitment dances will cease, and the swarm will begin preparations for flight once more – the trigger likely initiated by the scouts.
Similar to ‘Swarming Stage 1’, piping, buzz running, and shaking signal activity begins to warm body temperatures up to flight-ready. During bivouac suspension, bees huddle together and decrease their body temperature to around 15°C to conserve heat and energy, maintaining higher temperatures only around the queen near the center (Seeley et al. 2003). Therefore, warming-up is necessary for successful rapid flying. From there, they form their swarm in unison, all abuzz.
Figure 3: The process of scout bees streaking through the swarm to influence the direction of movement. Bees will deviate their course in the direction the ‘streaker’ is travelling
Many animals display herding, swarming, or migratory behavior, and to do so successfully, employ their own creative methods. Bees rely on a herding-like system to move. Similar to dogs herding sheep, there are a low number of scout bees that are in charge of guiding the rest of the uninformed colony. However, instead of moving around the other bees to incite change in direction, certain bees called ‘streakers’ zoom through the swarm (faster than the other bees) in the direction the swarm needs to go (Table 1.3). The action of streaking pulls the other bees along the line the streaker bee is moving, therefore slightly changing course. With consistent streaking behavior, the uninformed bees are kept on track during flight towards their destination, and even guided around physical barriers (Janson et al. 2005) (Fig. 3). This all happens while the swarm is moving at up to 7km/h (Beekman et al. 2006).
Approximately 80 m before the nest site is reached, scout bees will cease streaking (Janson et al. 2005). With no direction, uninformed bees will lose velocity until they are at a standstill around 10 m from the nesting cavity. It takes a long time for the swarm to slow down! During this time, scout bees will enter the new nest and release attraction signals from their gland (a gland in their abdomen that produces attraction pheromones) (Table 1.4). The chemical signal tells the swarm “this is our new home” and accelerates acceptance of the colony to the location (Janson et al. 2005).
With a new hive to build, the bees will be under significant pressure for the first month, after which stability and growth will recommence; comb will have been built, resources gathered, and new bees emerging to replace the old swarmed bees. A new beginning will be established by a variety of physical, auditory, visual, and chemical signals that developed a choreography of movement interlinking thousands of honey bees. This sophisticated communication continues to be a wonder of the animal kingdom, representing the intelligence of life in our everyday world.
References:
Grozinger, C. M., Richards, J., & Mattila, H. R. (2013). From molecules to societies: Mechanisms regulating swarming behavior in honey bees (apis spp..). Apidologie, 45(3), 327–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13592-013-0253-2
Richards, J., Carr-Markell, M., Hefetz, A., Grozinger, C. M., & Mattila, H. R. (2015). Queen-produced volatiles change dynamically during reproductive swarming and are associated with changes in honey bee (apis mellifera) worker behavior. Apidologie, 46(6), 679–690. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13592-015-0358-x
Seeley, T., & Tautz, J. (2001). Worker piping in honey bee swarms and its role in preparing for liftoff. Journal of Comparative Physiology A: Sensory, Neural, and Behavioral Physiology, 187(8), 667–676. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-001-0243-0
Seeley, T. D., Kleinhenz, M., Bujok, B., & Tautz, J. (2003). Thorough warm-up before take-off in honey bee swarms. Naturwissenschaften, 90(6), 256–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00114-003-0425-4
Camazine, Scott & Visscher, P. & Finley, J. & Vetter, R.. (1999). House-Hunting by Honey Bee Swarms: Collective Decisions and Individual Behaviors. Insectes Sociaux – INSECTES SOC. 46. 348-360. 10.1007/s000400050156.
Janson, S., Middendorf, M., & Beekman, M. (2005). Honeybee swarms: How do scouts guide a swarm of uninformed bees? Animal Behaviour, 70(2), 349–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2004.10.018
Beekman, M., Fathke, R. L., & Seeley, T. D. (2006). How does an informed minority of Scouts guide a Honeybee Swarm as it flies to its new home? Animal Behaviour, 71(1), 161–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2005.04.009
Seeley, T. D., Morse, R. A., & Visscher, P. K. (1979). The natural history of the flight of honey bee swarms. Psyche: A Journal of Entomology, 86(2–3), 103–113. https://doi.org/10.1155/1979/80869
By: Seanna Wengryn, TTP Summer Student
Honey bees are one of the most economically important pollinators and contribute approximately 6.1 billion dollars annually to the Canadian economy in pollination services (1). Alongside this, Canadian honey bees produce upwards of 75 million pounds of honey each year, adding another 253 million dollars to this contribution (1). Unfortunately, like many other agricultural commodities, the beekeeping industry is declining in its number of producers (2). This is because there has been a major increase in colony mortality throughout Canada and the world, with upwards of 45% of honey bee losses annually, averaging around 27% in the past 15 years (1). These losses have forced many hobbyist and commercial beekeepers to leave the industry, while hindering business planning and expansion for commercial producers that have endured (2). One of the biggest reasons for the decline in managed honey bees is extensive and unpredictable colony death due to the increased presence of virulent pathogens, including viruses, bacteria, and fungi (3). Viruses are a particularly challenging pathogen in honey bees, as there are currently no commercialized treatment options for producers (4). Additionally, viruses are transmitted through the varroa mite vector; an increasingly prevalent ectoparasite that has caused a significant burden to beekeepers worldwide. This highlights the importance of developing strategies to mitigate these pathogens, which is crucial for the health and welfare of honey bees, the livelihood of producers, and the Canadian economy.
The Central Dogma of Molecular Biology. The central dogma illustrates the flow of genetic information from DNA to RNA to protein. DNA is transcribed into RNA, which is then translated into a protein. It also includes reverse transcription, where RNA is reverse transcribed back into DNA, and DNA replication, where DNA is duplicated before cell division.
Ideally, the development of a viable viral treatment may reduce the need for frequent interventions, as improper chemical use, inadequate diagnostics, or mismanagement of pesticides can exacerbate bee diseases rather than alleviate them (2). Alternatively, a more sustainable approach would be to prevent the spread of disease altogether using genetic technologies. Genetics, a branch of biology that studies the inheritance of traits in organisms, offers promising avenues in this regard (5).
Before we delve into genetic technologies, we will briefly touch on the principles of genetics and gene flow, and explore how these principles can be utilized in the development of viral treatments. A gene is the basic unit of inheritance, containing genetic material that determines specific characteristics. Genes are passed from parent to offspring during reproduction. A gene is made up of DNA, which can be found in almost every cell in the body. DNA functions as a code that specialized enzymes can read. This code is transcribed into a small useful segment, known as messenger RNA, or mRNA (like DNA, but has an easier code to read), which carries the genetic information. Subsequently, other enzymes translate mRNA into a protein (Figure 1.) (5). These proteins constitute the building blocks of all living beings on Earth, including bees! The genome is the sum of all the genetic material in a cell and has many similarities and differences from one individual to the next. Genetic variation is what contributes to these differences, which primarily occurs through inheriting different versions of genes, also known as alleles (5). As a result, gene expression varies from bee to bee and can be influenced through natural inheritance or artificial manipulation. Gene expression changes over time; for instance, a viral infection can lead to an increase in the expression of genes related to immunity or disease protection (5). Scientists have been able to manipulate these biological processes to study diseases, breed animals towards more efficient and sustainable targets, and develop animals that are resistant, resilient, or tolerant to pathogen challenges (6). Along with the health and welfare benefits associated with an animal’s ability to cope with disease challenges, genetic biotechnology can optimize production and performance levels, therefore reducing potential production losses (6).
. The Basic RNAi Pathway in Honeybees. RNAi pathway starts with an enzyme cleaving double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) into small interfering RNAs (siRNAs). These siRNAs are then incorporated into a cutting complex, which targets and degrades viral messenger RNA (mRNA), leading to decreased gene expression.
The use of genetic tools for viral treatments in honey bees may be an innovative way to either reduce the spread of disease or completely remove it altogether. There are various tools already being explored, such as CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing, estimated breeding values within quantitative genetics, or more accurate bioinformatic databases. However, a promising technology in the beekeeping world is RNA Interference, or RNAi. RNAi is a natural antiviral immune mechanism already found in bees, along with other invertebrates, plants, and mammals (7). Scientists have been able to create an artificial version of this technology that allows them to precisely target viral mRNA and cut it into pieces (Figure 2.). They make use of the body’s natural production of small interfering RNA, or siRNA, that is made to match the virus’ mRNA. The siRNA then forms a ‘cutting’ complex with host enzymes and guides the group to the viral mRNA of interest. Finally, the complex cuts up the genetic material, resulting in non-functional, degraded viral mRNA that can no longer encode for a protein (7). This is crucial, as the virus will no longer have a method to replicate, which will in turn protect the honey bee from infection.
The main concern is always the safety of the animals along with the humans consuming their food products. RNAi is a natural process already present in bees, with the genetic technology primarily making use of building blocks within the animal. In the lab, double-stranded RNA (dsRNA), which is the precursor to siRNA, can be produced and easily consumed orally by honey bees in the field, making it feasible to implement at the production level (7). Although this genetic material must be artificially introduced into the bee, it breaks down quickly and will not cause permanent genetic changes to the animal.
. A honeybee infected with Deformed Wing Virus (DWV). This condition impairs the bee’s ability to fly due to its characteristic crumpled and misshapen wings. This virus strongly impacts the honeybee’s role in the hive and overall colony health. Photo taken by Shelley Hoover.
RNAi is a technology to help combat viruses as they are acquired by leveraging the body’s natural antiviral defense mechanisms (7). If implemented effectively, this technology may completely wipe out viral diseases altogether due to the newfound lack of susceptibility in honey bee hosts. In terms of honey, there should be no siRNA residues in the product, as again, the technology makes use of natural processes within the bee and degrades rapidly post-application. RNAi has already been shown to be highly effective in the treatment of Sacbrood Virus (SBV), Deformed Wing Virus (DWV), and Acute Paralysis Virus (APV) (Figure 3.) (3,8,9). However, more research is needed to further explore feasibility at a commercial level, viral resistance to siRNA, and the risk of off-target effects (7).
RNAi and genetic biotechnology have the power to combat any virus a bee may encounter, revolutionizing modern beekeeping throughout Canada and the world. The use of these technologies may help reduce the extensive amount of colony losses and significant disease-related challenges that beekeepers continue to face. With the agriculture sector constantly evolving towards more efficient and sustainable goals, the use of genetic tools within the beekeeping industry may be crucial for developing long-term disease management solutions. It may also help continue to grow the economy and provide further revenue for all producers, reducing the loss of small hobbyist farmers and continuing to support growing commercial beekeepers. Further exploration of genetic biotechnology within the beekeeping industry may lead to insights that enhance animal, economic, and producer outcomes.
References