For 2020 and newer grants, please go to https://grants.ipmcenters.org/
Home       Current RFAs       PD User Guide       Projects       Login

Funded Project

Funding Program: Regional IPM Competitive Grants - Northeastern

Project Title: A Reduced Pesticide IPM Strategy for Control of the Parasitic Honey Bee Mite, Varroa jacobsoni

Project Directors (PDs): Nicholas Calderone [1] Lois S. Willett [2]

Lead State: NY Lead Organization: Cornell University

Research Funding: $100,000

Start Date: Sep-01-1997 End Date: Aug-31-1999

Pests Involved: mites

Site/Commodity: honey

Area of Emphasis: bees

Summary: Objectives: 1. The first objective of this research is to develop a mite control strategy that: a. offers effective, reliable and affordable management of Varroa over a range of environmental conditions, b. does not contribute to the development of pesticide resistance in the pest population, thereby extending the useful life of Apistan, c. minimizes the potential for pesticide contamination of hive products, and d. minimizes beekeeper exposure to pesticides. The proposed research focuses first on establishing an effective, reliable and affordable control strategy based on the development of an effective pattern of pesticide use with the only currently registered acaricide, Apistan. This is essential in order to reduce the volatility and uncertainty in the supply and price of honey bee colonies. The proposed research incorporates three additional objectives. First, it minimizes the potential for the development of resistance to Apistan in the mite population, thereby increasing the effective life-span of Apistan and increasing the time available for development of new control strategies. It achieves this goal by using two, 45 day treatments during the year. This insures that mite population are always treated with an effective does of Apistan, rather than with a progressively diminishing level of pesticide that occurs with the use of a single dose left in the colony for 6-7 months. Additionally, the amount of pesticide used for the fall and spring treatments will be tailored to the size of the bee populations at the time of treatment to allow for minimum use of pesticide and minimum cost to the beekeeper. Second, it minimizes the opportunity for contamination of hive products, thereby safeguarding their quality and their safety to consumers. It achieves this goal by limiting the amount of pesticide used to that which is absolutely necessary (based on size of bee population) and by limiting the time that pesticides are kept in a colony to that period specified on the label. Third, it stresses safe handling procedures for users of pesticides. Although this goal will be promoted primarily through an independently funded extension program, the research on which that program will be based must employ safe handling procedures for Apistan and any alternative chemical treatments. Apistan and alternative chemical treatments will be handled with appropriate hand protection as a integral part of the protocol, and this requirement will be emphasized in subsequent educational programs. 2. The second objective is to evaluate promising alternative strategies that: a. offer a reasonable potential for a reduction in total pesticide use and/or the substitution of less toxic pesticides, b. can be implemented with an overall net savings to the beekeeper, and c. further reduces beekeeper exposure to pesticide. The long term objective of our research is to identify alternative control strategies based either on natural products with low toxicity or on non-chemical methods, which can be substituted in part or in total for current pesticide treatments. The alternative methods evaluated in this research have substantial experimental support from work in my lab. They are also supported by a significant body of European literature and are currently in use by the European community as part of their alternative Varroa control program. The proposed research achieves these goals two ways. First, less toxic, natural plant extracts with promising track records as acaricides and with existing approval from FDA as food additives will be evaluated. This will allow for the substitution of a less toxic chemical treatment for the fall Apistan treatment. Second, a non-chemical, physical mite trap will be evaluated. This will not require regulatory approval and could replace the spring Apistan treatment, thereby reducing the total amount of pesticide used in the system and reducing the number of times that a beekeeper comes into contact with a pesticide. The cost of these materials is considerably less than that of Apistan. The program incorporates an economic analysis to evaluate the overall cost to the beekeeper, including both materials and labor (see #3 below). 3. The third objective is to provide beekeepers with a cost/benefit analysis of alternative IPM strategies. Adoption of any IPM strategy will depend on the individual beekeeper understanding the costs and benefits to his or her operation. In the proposed research, a number of variables measuring the success of each strategy will be measured. Second, careful records will be kept of the actual costs and time involved in implementing each of the four protocols. This information will be used to develop a comprehensive cost/benefit analysis and the results of the analysis will be made available to extension agents and beekeepers as a peer reviewed article and through an independently funded extension program. 4. The fourth objective is to identify additional control techniques that may be developed into an independent IPM strategy, or that may increase the effectiveness and reliability of an existing IPM strategy. This component is exploratory in nature and constitutes between 5-10% of total project time. I propose to evaluate a number of promising plant materials which, when incorporated into the beekeeper's smoker fuel, will be effective as mite knockdown agents. These materials will initially be evaluated in lab assays. Effective materials will be evaluated in field trials as additives to or substitutes for the beekeeper's smoker fuel. The goal is to develop a treatment that can be applied as part of existing management procedures. Since the use of smokers is universal among beekeepers, this is an ideal delivery vehicle. Effective materials may be substituted for one of both Apistan treatments, or they may provide additional protection during the critical late summer period when parasitic mite syndrome becomes problematic. Outcomes and Impacts Summary from 2001 IPM Center report The honey bee pollinates more than 90 commercial crops in the United States, increasing annual crop production levels by up to $20 billion. Two parasitic mites, Varroa destructor and Acarapis woodi, sap the strength of honey bee colonies, threatening crops like apples, blueberries, and cranberries that depend on bees for pollination. The annual value of honey bee pollination of these crops in the Northeast exceeds $300 million. Nicholas Calderone explored effective and reliable controls for the mites, which have begun to develop resistance to available pesticides. He found that formic acid shows promise as an alternative mite-control tool that will help beekeepers manage pesticide resistance. His new approach kills 95 percent of mites, a level of effectiveness that is comparable with that of standard pesticides. This information has been published and is available to beekeepers through an independently funded extension program.

Close Window

Northeastern IPM Center 340 Tower Road Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853 NortheastIPM.org		Developed by the Center for IPM © Copyright CIPM 2004-2026