Defra

has anyone read DEFRA's
Improving honey bee health Proposed changes to managing and controlling pests and diseases

Worth reading

No, but I will. Here's the link:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/consult/2013/01/10/bee-health-1301/

Consultation runs 'til 9 March 2013.

Bumped because the deadline approaches.



What does this really mean for hobby beeks?

Sure the official priority switches to varroa rather than Foul Brood, but what difference will we actually see?

My estimation is less inspector visits and paying (or paying more) for training by inspectors.
What have I missed?


Interesting to note that Bee Farmers *do* have a much greater incidence of EFB problems than hobby beeks ...

itma said:

Bumped because the deadline approaches.



What does this really mean for hobby beeks?

Sure the official priority switches to varroa rather than Foul Brood, but what difference will we actually see?

My estimation is less inspector visits and paying (or paying more) for training by inspectors.
What have I missed?


Interesting to note that Bee Farmers *do* have a much greater incidence of EFB problems than hobby beeks ...

Click to expand...

More Seasonal Inspectors?

I think they are looking to cut costs, so fewer inspectors on the payroll I expect.



Not sure I like the sound of their approach to Nosema. (Page 17)
"Elimination of susceptible colonies" - huh?

itma said:

I think they are looking to cut costs, so fewer inspectors on the payroll I expect.



Not sure I like the sound of their approach to Nosema. (Page 17)
"Elimination of susceptible colonies" - huh?

Click to expand...

agree, that seems to be the underlying trend, but also puts more emphasis on varroa treatments and controls in the bee health programs

How are they going to engage with non BKA members if the emephasis on Disease inspection falls more on a BKA volunteer Bee Disease person to liaise with Fera

itma said:

. . . Interesting to note that Bee Farmers *do* have a much greater incidence of EFB problems than hobby beeks . . .

Click to expand...

Not surprising really as they probably have a significantly greater number of colonies and apiaries, so it's not something that you can just wave the figures at and come to a judgemental conclusion. I suspect that you weren't however and just promoting discussion.

Hombre said:

Not surprising really as they probably have a significantly greater number of colonies and apiaries, so it's not something that you can just wave the figures at and come to a judgemental conclusion. I suspect that you weren't however and just promoting discussion.

Click to expand...

I was indeed hoping to promote discussion of that very topic.

These quotes are particularly relevant --

Case studies from NBU’s inspection records highlight the many factors under the direct influence of beekeepers which contributed to the successful control of EFB. The Review Group considered that some beekeepers’ attitudes and perceptions were acting as a significant barrier to getting on top of EFB and disproportionately affected its successful control. Such unhelpful attitudes were in evidence from inspection records; for example a high number of repeat inspection visits had been necessary over the last 10 or more years to a limited number of beekeepers who have persistently mis-managed EFB.

Click to expand...

Factors under the direct control of all beekeepers to manage EFB include:

o following good husbandry practices such as regular observation of their bees, strict
controls on movement of colonies, taking care when sourcing and buying nucleus
colonies, regular checks over winter and destroying poor colonies;​

o implementing barrier management and integrated pest management (see the NBU’s
Foulbrood advisory leaflet) as well as other biosecurity and disease prevention measures.​

Click to expand...

Although some bee farmers have got on top of EFB and do not feel dependent on the NBU for this, many had not succeeded in dealing with the disease as shown from the recent data from RAS and inspections which found that bee farmers were more likely to have EFB than amateur beekeepers.

Click to expand...

We needed tougher policies to address the problem of (the limited number of) beekeepers with recurrent outbreaks of EFB who do not follow the bee inspector’s advice to improve their beekeeping practices leading to continuing disease risks at their apiaries and risks to other beekeepers’ apiaries nearby. Current policies in these and possibly other cases did not appear to offer the right incentives or signals for beekeepers to accept disease as a liability and to take appropriate action to address/minimise disease risk and spread.

Click to expand...

Extracts from http://www.defra.gov.uk/consult/files/bee-health-consult-efbprofile-20130110.pdf at pages 12 and 13.

DEFRA report that there are "a limited number" of beekeepers with a persistent EFB problem.
And that includes "many" bee farmers who have "not succeeded in dealing with the disease".

I for one will remember this every single time a large-scale bee operator tells a hobby beekeeper that her brood inspection is too thorough, and that checking for swarm cells is all that is needed.
The "attitudes and perceptions" of a few beekeepers is "a significant barrier", "disproportionately affect{ing} successful control" of EFB.


From pages 2 and 3 of that document one learns that
-- in Norfolk, 2 particular beekeepers had EFB every single year from 2001 to 2011 (requiring 775 inspection visits to just those two beeks, at about £200 each time)
-- in Kent, 4 beekeepers had EFB in 7 of those years (costing 168 inspections of just those 4)
-- in Dorset, one individual had EFB in more than 6 of those years, requiring over 125 inspector visits alone.

There are clearly some "rotten apples" in the barrel.

Naming and shaming ought to be part of the sanction against those who are so clearly not getting it right. "Tougher policies" are indeed needed to deal with this minority.

MuswellMetro said:

How are they going to engage with non BKA members if the emephasis on Disease inspection falls more on a BKA volunteer Bee Disease person to liaise with Fera

Click to expand...

It does say it's a process open to other associations. They seem to mention WBKA, BBKA etc because they have existing formal processes in place. I'm sure there is nothing to stop other organisations that can scale doing the same thing.

.....many had not succeeded in dealing with the disease as shown from the recent data from RAS and inspections which found that bee farmers were more likely to have EFB than amateur beekeepers.

That's an interesting one, and gives a false impression if taken out of context.

I had a colony show up for EFB during the RAS. It was sampled in autumn 2009 and they told me it had EFB in spring 2012. There were four other colonies sampled in the same apiary that were clear.

Bee inspector had inspected this colony in summer of 2009 and again in 2011, with no signs of clinical EFB in this colony or any of the other 11 in the apiary. Obviously I've paid special attention to these bees since last spring. However, bee inspectors have not been to this apiary in 2012, giving a higher priority to amateur beekeepers in the vicinity of apiaries that have shown clinical signs.

The fact remains that bee farmers do have a higher proportion of their apiaries with clinical signs of EFB, but it doesn't give comparative figures (not that I could find).
What the stats. don't tell you is the cost to NBU per colony owned among both professional and amateur sectors. It's much lower among professionals even after accounting for "bad apples". The reason being, EFB is still at a relatively low level right across the board, and bee inspectors spend most of their time looking for it where it doesn't exist, among beekeepers who wouldn't recognise it. By and large bee farmers are notifying cases whereas amateurs are reliant on bee inspectors finding it. Even when the inspector does carry out a risk-based inspection with a bee farmer, they can manage at least 50 colonies a day (based on my own experience) versus maybe a dozen when visiting a string of small scale beekeepers with 2 or 3 colonies each.
The cost per colony would be lower still among professionals if the inspectors were not obliged to supervise shook swarms/destructions as they mostly are at present.

The proposals are all about cost-saving one way or another - education for those that need it, greater autonomy for those that don't, and a bigger stick to beat those with a high cost per colony owned.

This is absolutely necessary - colonies owned has rocketed, so cost per colony must come down. I don't believe it's about cutting the overall budget.

Chris B said:

.....many had not succeeded in dealing with the disease as shown from the recent data from RAS and inspections which found that bee farmers were more likely to have EFB than amateur beekeepers.

That's an interesting one, and gives a false impression if taken out of context.
...

Click to expand...

But Chris, you took it out of context!

The full paragraph reads in its entirety

Although some bee farmers have got on top of EFB and do not feel dependent on the NBU for this, many had not succeeded in dealing with the disease as shown from the recent data from RAS and inspections which found that bee farmers were more likely to have EFB than amateur beekeepers.

Click to expand...

The emphasis is mine.

The 'take-away' message is that "many" bee-farmers have "not succeeded in dealing with the disease".
'Sorting out' a rather small number of individuals would appear likely (in DEFRA's estimation) to have a major impact on the prevalence of the disease.



It would be helpful to any discussion to know rather a lot more about the "bad apples".
The clear implication of the report is that many of them (if not all) are bee-farmers who are not heeding the advice of the inspectors regarding their practices.
Those two Norfolk beekeepers had an AVERAGE of over 35 Inspector visits each per year maintained over TEN YEARS ... and failed to eliminate their problem. If indeed they regarded it as a problem.
And I rather doubt that they were "two-hive-owning hobbyists" - who would more likely have quit the game long ago.
Are they well-known locally?
I think they should be.

At the bottom of Page 14 the report says one identified disadvantage of the status quo was that -

Current controls were ‘too soft’ for certain individuals and this was associated with lack of co-operation, barriers to improving disease control and recurrence of EFB in certain areas.

Click to expand...

Maintaining the privacy of such "rotten apples" is doing no favours to their beekeeping neighbours.