BORN TO “B”: WHAT’S HOT AND NOT AFTER 50+YEARS

BEEKEEPING

Dr. Medhat NasrApiculturist, St. Albert, Alberta, Canada

medhat.bees@gmail.com

“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: Bee@gov.ab.ca

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