Source: MICHIGAN STATE UNIV submitted to NRP
FIELD TEST OF AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD FOR CONTROLLING THE MOST SERIOUS HONEY BEE PEST, THE VARROA MITE
Sponsoring Institution
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Project Status
COMPLETE
Funding Source
Reporting Frequency
Annual
Accession No.
0192600
Grant No.
2002-34381-12143
Cumulative Award Amt.
(N/A)
Proposal No.
2002-03769
Multistate No.
(N/A)
Project Start Date
Sep 1, 2002
Project End Date
Aug 31, 2005
Grant Year
2002
Program Code
[MX]- (N/A)
Recipient Organization
MICHIGAN STATE UNIV
(N/A)
EAST LANSING,MI 48824
Performing Department
ENTOMOLOGY
Non Technical Summary
The varroa mite, an obligated ecto-parasite, is by far the most devastating pest of the honey bee. The mite is becoming resistant to many pesticides and alternative control for this pest is urgent. The objective of this research is to determine i) the optimal conditions for using the Mitezapper and ii) how the Mitezapper performs under field conditions, and whether the method alone is sufficient for mite suppression.
Animal Health Component
90%
Research Effort Categories
Basic
(N/A)
Applied
90%
Developmental
10%
Classification

Knowledge Area (KA)Subject of Investigation (SOI)Field of Science (FOS)Percent
31130101130100%
Knowledge Area
311 - Animal Diseases;

Subject Of Investigation
3010 - Honey bees;

Field Of Science
1130 - Entomology and acarology;
Goals / Objectives
The objective of this research is to determine i) the optimal conditions for using the Mitezapper and ii) how the Mitezapper performs under field conditions, and whether the method alone is sufficient for mite suppression. This knowledge is critical before the method is recommended to, and widely adopted by beekeepers. If this filed test yields positive results, the method will provide with us yet another, more effective, non-chemical method for mite control. It will reduce our dependence upon chemicals and add one more arsenal to the Integrated Pest Management strategy toward varroa control.
Project Methods
Objective 1: The Mitezapper frame will be confined to a frame holder that allows workers to pass through but confines the queen on the Mitezapper frame to obtain drone eggs. After the larvae are ready to be capped, the Mitezapper frame will then be moved into a foster colony that has a high mite population. Two to three days before the drones are to emerge, the Mitezapper frame and a control frame (a regular drone frame with mites trapped from the same source colony) will be placed into an observation hive (test colony) and electricity will be applied to the Mitezapper. A thermocouple will be placed on the surface of the Mitezapper comb to monitor the temperature increase. Electrical connection will be maintained for 5, 10, 20, or 30 seconds (one treatment per Mitezapper). After 24 hours, mortality of mites will be determined by opening brood cells carefully and counting the live and dead foundress mites (immature mites will not be counted since they do not survive when workers emerge). Mites will be considered dead if no leg movement is observed under a microscope when poked by a probe (Elzen et al 2000). Natural mite mortality will be determined in the control frame. Rates of drone emergence of the Mitezapper and control frame will also be compared. This experiment will be replicated 5 times (4x5=20 Mitezappers tested). In addition we will observe and record the reaction of workers and the queens to the heating of the frame. We will also determine how long it will take the workers to clean the dead pupae and start a second cycle of drone brood rearing. Objective 2: To test the effectiveness of the Mitezapper under field conditions, we will compare the "mite-load" between colonies treated with Mitezapper and untreated colonies. Twenty packages will be purchased in the spring and mite-free colonies will be established by using combined Apistan and coumaphos (Checkmite+) treatment, in case mites are resistant to one of the miticides. Colonies established with packages will not have sealed brood for the first two weeks, so all mites on adult bees can be killed within a short time. Each colony will then be inoculated with 200 mites (received from Baton Rouge, Louisiana) around mid-May. Around mid-June a Mitezapper will be introduced into each colony and electricity applied 15 days later. Mites will be "zapped" again following the first treatment (actual interval will depend on the result of Experiment 1). Total mite population will be assessed during the fall (September).

Progress 09/01/02 to 08/31/05

Outputs
We conducted a second year field test of using the mitezapper in regular honey bee colonies. The study was conducted in two beekeepers' apiaries in addition to the Michigan State University apiary. News articles about the Mitezapper have brought parties interested to license the Mitezapper product.

Impacts
The Mitezapper, once in the market and adopted by US beekeepers will save them millions of dollars. Assuming $6 per colony per year, currently the US beekeepers spend about $14 million per year for chemicals. The Mitezapper will reduce that number by 50% considering a Mitezapper will last 5 years at $15 a piece. Currently MSU is negotiating with a few possible parties interested in licensing the right of producing the Mitezapper. One company has signed an agreement for possible production.

Publications

  • Qin, Y., Z.Y. Huang. 2006. Thermal death kinetics for varroa mites and honey bees. In preparation.
  • Huang, Z.Y., M. Langenburger. 2007. Using an electrically heated drone comb for varroa mite control. In preparation.


Progress 01/01/04 to 12/31/04

Outputs
We have tested the mitezappers in 2 locations and the efficacy arranged from 28% to 86%. We have designed a circuite board to obtain temperature reading on the zapper frame, and when the temperature reaches a certain level (say 46 degrees C), the power to the mitezapper is automatically shut off. This can be used to prevent the zapper reaching a too high temperature causing beeswax meltdown. We also obtained more data of thermal kinetic data, comparing bees of various physiological status (nurses, foragers, winter bees) bees to if they have different thermal sensitivity. Foragers and winter bees showed no difference in thermal tolerance, but nurses are more tolerant than both foragers and winter bees.

Impacts
Varroa mites continue to be the worst honey bee pest national wide. Resistance has been observed by this pest to all registered chemicals: fluvalinate (Apistan), coumaphos (CheckMite+), and amitraz. Physical method such as the 'Mitezapper', combined with integrated pest management (IPM) and using resistant bees, will prove to be the only way that the mites can be successfully managed.

Publications

  • No publications reported this period


Progress 01/01/03 to 12/31/03

Outputs
We have now designed a PCB (printed circuit board) heating element that can be used to produce heat to kill varroa mites. We have made 12 prototypes but it was too late in the season to have field data for mite-killing efficacy. We determined the thermal death kinetics for both varroa mites and the honey bees. These information are crucial for the design of a circuit that would kill mites but not harm honey bees. We also determined the thermal capacity of honey bee drone pupae. These data are allowing us to design the third version of the heating circuit that will be used in colonies next spring.

Impacts
Varroa mites continue to be the worst honey bee pest national wide. Resistance has been observed by this pest to all registered chemicals: fluvalinate (Apistan), coumaphos (CheckMite+), and amitraz. Physical method such as the 'Mitezapper', combined with integrated pest management (IPM) and using resistant bees, will prove to be the only way that the mites can be successfully managed.

Publications

  • No publications reported this period


Progress 01/01/02 to 12/31/02

Outputs
The Mitezapper patent has been approved (patent #: 6,457,061). We have been working with Dr. Tom Mase in Engineering to develop a plastic foundation with wires embedded, we are making progress but the prototype was not ready during summer of 2002. We therefore hand-wired 50 drone frames with wax foundation. We tried to test the best time for killing mites using these wax-foundation prototype mitezappers. While the wax foundation alone (without combs built or pupae inside) melted in about 4-8 seconds, we discovered that with drone pupae in every cell, the same portable battery did not have enough power to heat the comb even after 5 minutes. A regular car battery, on the other hand, burned all the wires immediately, without any harm to the bees or mites. Clearly we will need some current regulation mechanisms for the wires.

Impacts
esults generated from the research above and other extension information will be used to develop an IPM program for controlling varroa mites. There is a critical need to educate beekeepers about mechanisms of resistance development in varroa mites and the need to reduce chemical usage by using other alternative methods

Publications

  • none yet (grant started in fall of 2002).