Bees for Development Journal Edition 122 - March 2017

Bees for development

JOURNAL

No 122 March 2017

• TOM SEELEY • WOLFGANG RITTER • THE LAYENS HIVE • THE FLOW HIVE • CROWD FUNDING

The Journal for sustainable beekeeping 1

Bees for Development Journal 122 March 2017

Dear friends

French apiculturalist Georges de Layens wrote those wise words for beekeepers 120 years ago, and they remain wise advice. In this edition of BfD Journal we bring you important articles surrounding this theme.

Tom Seeley’s’ explanation of Darwinian beekeeping helps us to understand how industrial beekeeping practices are moving bees away from how they need to live, ‘the bees’ natural tendencies’.

Wolfgang Ritter’s discussion of our spreading of bees’ pathogens and predators around

Issue 122 March 2017 In this issue

page

Darwinian beekeeping ................ 3 Bee diseases worldwide............... 8 Crowdfunding..............................11 Review of the Flow Hive...............12 Bookshelf.....................................14

the world, is a plea for an end to international movement of bees - it is now too difficult or even impossible to prevent the introduction of exotic pathogens, and our honey bees should not have to, and perhaps cannot, cope with any more.

On page 11, a young and entrepreneurial Dutchman explains how he encouraged his friends and relatives to help finance his beekeeping business: it was crowd funding at the level of nearest and dearest. At the other end of the scale, one of the most successful crowdfunding campaigns in history was run by inventors of the Flow Hive. Just two years ago in February 2015, they launched their campaign with the aim of raising US$70,000.

That goal was achieved within the first few minutes, and their total now stands at US$ 4.2 million. This success story caught everyone’s imagination, and beekeepers world-wide found themselves being asked about the Flow Hive. It is one

Bees for Development Trust gratefully acknowledge: Charles Hayward Foundation, Didymus Trust, E H Thorne Ltd., Eva Crane Trust, Hub Cymru Africa, Stroud Buzz Club, The Daylesford Foundation, The Waterloo Foundation, Welsh Government.

Nicola Bradbear Director, Bees for Development

Copyright You are welcome to translate and/or reproduce items appearing in Bees for Development Journal (BfDJ) as part of our Information Service. Permission is given on the understanding that BfDJ and author(s) are acknowledged, BfD contact details are provided in full, and you send us a copy of the item or the website address where it is used.

Bees for Development Journal Produced quarterly and sent to readers in over 130 countries Editor: Nicola Bradbear PhD Co-ordinator: Helen Jackson BSc Subscriptions cost £26 per year - see page 18 for ways to pay Readers in developing countries may apply for a sponsored subscription. Apply online or use the form on page 20.

Bees for Development Works to assist beekeepers in developing countries.

of the world’s most expensive hives, and many beekeepers are intrigued to know if it really works. We are delighted to bring you John Gates discussion - as a highly-experienced beekeeper, he was chosen to begin testing The Flow Hive from its early days, long before the crowd funding sensation: you can read his careful considerations on pages 12-13. Its cost makes The Flow Hive beyond the reach of most beekeepers and readers of this Journal, however it is of interest to us as Cedar and Stuart Anderson, inventors of the Flow Hive, have sought to find a way to harvest honey that is less stressful for the bees and the beekeeper. Would the Flow Hive satisfy Georges de Layens requirements? His marvellous book is now available in English - learn more about his ideas on page 14.

Photo © Milan Wiercx van Rhijn

We cannot improve beekeeping by going further and further away from the bees’ natural tendencies. Instead, select the hive model that is best matched to your locale, populate it with local bees, and the results will speak for themselves.

Bees for development 1 Agincourt Street Monmouth NP25 3DZ, UK Telephone: +44 (0)1600 714848 info@beesfordevelopment.org www.beesfordevelopment.org 2

Cover picture Sunflowers being pollinated by honey bees, who gather nectar and pollen from the flowers of this useful crop, planted throughout tropical, subtropical, and temperate regions.

Sunflower pollen is yellow to dark orange in colour, and the honey has a characteristic, mild flavour, with reported antibacterial properties.

Bees for Development Journal 122 March 2017

An evolutionary approach to apiculture Professor Tom Seeley, Cornell University, USA Evolution by natural selection is a foundational concept for understanding the biology of honey bees, but it has rarely been used to provide insights into the craft of beekeeping.

This is unfortunate because solutions to the problems of beekeeping and bee health may come most rapidly if we are as attuned to the biologist Charles R. Darwin as we are to the Reverend Lorenzo L. Langstroth.

Photo © Sierra Salin

Darwinian beekeeping subspecies, natural selection produced ecotypes, which are fine-tuned, locally adapted populations. For example, one ecotype of the subspecies Apis mellifera mellifera evolved in the Landes region of southwest France, with its biology tightly linked to the massive bloom of heather (Calluna vulgaris L.) in August and September. Colonies native to this region have a second strong peak of brood rearing in August that helps them exploit this heather bloom. Experiments have shown that the curious annual brood cycle of colonies in the Landes region is an adaptive, genetically based trait (Louveaux 1973, Strange et al. 2007).

Modern humans (Homo sapiens) are a recent evolutionary innovation compared with honey bees. We arose some 150,000 years ago in the African savannahs, where honey bees had already been living for aeons. The earliest humans were hunter gatherers who hunted honey bees for their honey, the most delicious of all natural foods. We certainly see an appetite for honey in one hunter-gatherer population still in existence, the Hadza people of northern Tanzania. Hadza men spend 4-5 hours per day in bee hunting, and honey is their favourite food (Marlowe et al. 2014).

Adopting an evolutionary perspective on beekeeping may lead to better understanding about the maladies of our bees, and ultimately improve our beekeeping and the pleasure we get from our bees. An important first step toward developing a Darwinian perspective on beekeeping is to recognise that honey bees have a stunningly long evolutionary history, evident from the fossil record. One of the most beautiful of all insect fossils is that of a worker honey bee, the species Apis henshawi, discovered in 30-million-year-old shales from Germany (Fig. 1). There also exist superb fossils of our modern honey bee species, Apis mellifera, in amberlike materials collected in East Africa that are about 1.6 million years old (Engel 1998).

We know, therefore, that honey bee colonies have experienced millions of years of being shaped by the relentless operation of natural selection. Natural selection maximizes the abilities of living systems (such as honey bee colonies) to pass on their genes to future generations. Colonies differ in their genes, therefore colonies differ in all the traits that have a genetic basis, including colony defensiveness, vigour in foraging, and resistance to diseases. The colonies best endowed with genes favouring colony survival and reproduction in their locale have the highest success in passing their genes on to subsequent generations, so over time the colonies in a region become well adapted to their environment.

This process of adaptation by natural selection produced the differences in worker bee colour, morphology, and behaviour that distinguish the 27 subspecies of Apis mellifera (e.g., A.m. mellifera, A. m. ligustica, and A. m. scutellata) that live within the species’ original range of Europe, western Asia, and Africa (Ruttner 1988). The colonies in each subspecies are precisely adapted to the climate, seasons, flora, predators, and diseases in their region of the world.

Moreover, within the geographical range of each

Bee hunting began to be superseded by beekeeping some 10,000 years ago, when people in several cultures

Photo © Laurie Burnham

Fig. 1. Photograph of a 30-million-year-old fossil of a worker honey bee in the species Apis henshawi. This worker is 0.55 inches long, so its size is close to that of an Apis mellifera worker bee.

3

Bees for Development Journal 122 March 2017

started farming and began domesticating plants and animals. Two regions where this transformation in human history occurred are the alluvial plains of Mesopotamia and the Nile Delta. In both places, ancient hive beekeeping has been documented by archaeologists.

Both are within the original distribution of Apis mellifera, and both have open habitats where swarms seeking a nest site probably had difficulty finding natural cavities and occupied the clay pots and grass baskets of the early farmers (Crane 1999).

living conditions of honey bees differ between wild and managed colonies, and I am sure you can think of more.

Difference 1: Colonies are versus are not genetically adapted to their locations. Each of the subspecies of Apis mellifera was adapted to the climate and flora of its geographic range and each ecotype within a subspecies was adapted to a particular environment. Shipping mated queens and moving colonies long distances for migratory beekeeping forces colonies to live where they may be poorly suited. A recent, large-scale experiment conducted in Europe found that colonies with queens of local origin lived longer than colonies with queens of non-local origin (Büchler et al. 2014).

Difference 2: Colonies live widely spaced across the landscape versus crowded in apiaries. This difference makes beekeeping practical, but it also creates a fundamental change in the ecology of honey bees.

Crowded colonies experience greater competition for forage, greater risk of being robbed, and greater problems reproducing (e.g., swarms combining and queens entering wrong hives after mating). Probably the most harmful consequence of crowding colonies, though, is boosting pathogen and parasite transmission between colonies (Seeley & Smith 2015). This facilitation of disease transmission boosts the incidence of disease and it keeps alive the virulent strains of the bees’ disease agents.

Difference 3: Colonies live in relatively small nest cavities versus in large hives. This difference also profoundly changes the ecology of honey bees. Colonies in large hives have the space to store huge honey crops but they also swarm less because they are not as space limited, which weakens natural selection for strong, healthy colonies since fewer colonies reproduce.

Colonies kept in large hives also suffer greater problems

In Egypt’s sun temple of King Ne-user-re at Abu Ghorab, there is a stone bas-relief ca. 4400 years old that shows a beekeeper kneeling by a stack of nine cylindrical clay hives (Fig. 2). This is the earliest indication of hive beekeeping and it marks the start of our search for an optimal system of beekeeping. It also marks the start of managed colonies living in circumstances that differ markedly from the environment in which they evolved and to which they were adapted. Notice, for example, how the colonies in the hives depicted in the Egyptian basrelief lived crowded together rather than spaced widely across the land.

Wild colonies versus managed colonies Today there are considerable differences between the environment of evolutionary adaptation that shaped the biology of wild honey bee colonies and the current circumstances of managed honey bee colonies. Wild and managed live under different conditions because we beekeepers, like all farmers, modify the environments in which our livestock live to boost their productivity.

Unfortunately, these changes in the living conditions of agricultural animals often make them more prone to pests and pathogens. In Table 1, I list 20 ways in which the

Fig. 2. Earliest known depiction of beekeeping and honey preparation, from the sun temple of King Ne-user-re, at Abu Ghorab, Egypt, built around 2400 BCE. Harvesting honey from a tall stack of cylindrical hives on the left, handling honey in the middle, and packing honey on the right. Drawing based on Fig. 20.3a in Crane (1999).

4

Bees for Development Journal 122 March 2017

with brood parasites such as Varroa (Loftus et al. 2016).

Difference 4: Colonies live with versus without a nest envelope of antimicrobial plant resin. Living without a propolis envelope increases the cost of colony defense against pathogens. For example, workers in colonies without a propolis envelope invest more in costly immune system activity (i.e., synthesis of antimicrobial peptides) relative to workers in colonies with a propolis envelope (Borba et al. 2015).

Difference 5: Colonies have thick versus thin nest cavity walls. This creates a difference in the energetic cost of colony thermoregulation, especially in cold climates. The rate of heat loss for a wild colony living in a typical tree cavity is 4-7 times lower than for a managed colony living in a standard wooden hive (Mitchell 2016).

Difference 6: Colonies live with high and small versus low and large entrances. This difference renders managed colonies more vulnerable to robbing and predation (large entrances are harder to guard), and it may lower their winter survival (low entrances get blocked by snow, preventing cleansing flights).

Difference 7: Colonies live with versus without plentiful drone comb. Inhibiting colonies from rearing drones boosts their honey production (Seeley 2002) and slows reproduction by Varroa (Martin 1998), but it also hampers natural selection for colony health by preventing the healthiest colonies from passing on their genes (via drones) the most successfully.

Difference 8: Colonies live with versus without a stable nest organisation. Disruptions of nest organisation for beekeeping may hinder colony functioning. In nature, honey bee colonies organise their nests with a precise 3-D organisation: compact broodnest surrounded by pollen stores and honey stored above (Montovan et al. 2013). Beekeeping practices that modify the nest organisation, such as inserting empty combs to reduce congestion in the broodnest, hamper thermoregulation and may disrupt other aspects of colony functioning such as egg laying by the queen and pollen storage by foragers.

Difference 9: Colonies experience infrequent versus sometimes frequent relocations. Whenever a colony is moved to a new location, as in migratory beekeeping, the foragers must relearn the landmarks around their hive and must discover new sources of nectar, pollen, and water. One study found that colonies moved overnight to a new location had smaller weight gains in the week following the move relative to control colonies already living in the location (Moeller 1975).

Difference 10: Colonies are rarely versus frequently disturbed. We do not know how frequently wild colonies experience disturbances (e.g., bear attacks), but it is probably rarer than for managed colonies whose nests are easily cracked open, smoked, and manipulated. In one experiment, Taber (1963) compared the weight gains of colonies that were and were not inspected during a honey flow, and found that colonies that were inspected gained 20-30% less weight (depending on extent of disturbance) than control colonies on the day of the inspections.

Difference 11: Colonies do not versus do deal with novel diseases. Historically, honey bee colonies dealt only with the parasites and pathogens with whom they had long been in an arms race. Therefore, they had evolved means

of surviving with their agents of disease. We humans changed all this when we triggered the global spread of the ectoparasitic mite Varroa destructor from eastern Asia, small hive beetle (Aethina tumida) from sub-Saharan Africa, and chalkbrood fungus (Ascosphaera apis) and acarine mite (Acarapis woodi) from Europe. The spread of Varroa alone has resulted in the deaths of millions of honey bee colonies (Martin 2012).

Difference 12: Colonies have diverse versus homogeneous food sources. Some managed colonies are placed in agricultural ecosystems (e.g., huge almond orchards or vast fields of oilseed rape) where they experience low diversity pollen diets and poorer nutrition. The effects of pollen diversity were studied by comparing nurse bees given diets with monofloral pollens or polyfloral pollens. Bees fed the polyfloral pollen lived longer than those fed the monofloral pollens (Di Pasquale et al. 2013).

Difference 13: Colonies have natural diets versus sometimes being fed artificial diets. Some beekeepers feed their colonies protein supplements (“pollen substitutes”) to stimulate colony growth before pollen is available, to fulfill pollination contracts and produce larger honey crops. The best pollen supplements/ substitutes do stimulate brood rearing, though not as well as real pollen (http://scientificbeekeeping.com/acomparative-test-of-the-pollen-sub/) and may result in workers of poorer quality (Scofield and Mattila 2015).

Difference 14: Colonies are not versus are exposed to novel toxins. The most important new toxins of honey bees are insecticides and fungicides, substances for which the bees have not had time to evolve detoxification mechanisms. Honey bees are now exposed to an ever increasing list of pesticides and fungicides that can synergise to cause harm to bees (Mullin et al. 2010).

Difference 15: Colonies are not versus are treated for diseases. When we treat our colonies for diseases, we interfere with the host-parasite arms race between Apis mellifera and its pathogens and parasites. Specifically, we weaken natural selection for disease resistance. It is no surprise that most managed colonies in North America and Europe possess little resistance to Varroa mites, or that there are populations of wild colonies on both continents that have evolved strong resistance to these mites (Locke 2016). Treating colonies with acaracides and antibiotics may also interfere with the microbiomes of a colony’s bees (Engel et al. 2016).

Difference 16: Colonies are not versus are managed as sources of pollen and honey. Colonies managed for honey production are housed in large hives, so they are more productive. However, they are also less apt to reproduce (swarm) so there is less scope for natural selection for healthy colonies. Also, the vast quantity of brood in large-hive colonies renders them vulnerable to population explosions of Varroa mites and other disease agents that reproduce in brood (Loftus et al. 2016).

Difference 17: Colonies do not versus do suffer losses of beeswax. Removing beeswax from a colony imposes a serious energetic burden. The weight-to-weight efficiency of beeswax synthesis from sugar is at best about 0.10 (data of Weiss 1965, analyzed in Hepburn 1986), so every pound of wax taken from a colony costs it some 10 pounds of honey that is not available for other purposes, such as winter survival. The most energetically burdensome way of harvesting honey is removal of 5

Bees for Development Journal 122 March 2017

2. Space your hives as widely as possible.

Where I live, in central New York State, there are vast forests filled with wild honey bee colonies spaced roughly a half mile apart. This is perhaps ideal for wild colonies but problematic for the beekeeper.

Still, spacing colonies just 30-50 yards apart in an apiary greatly reduces drifting and thus the spread of disease.

3. House your bees in small hives.

Consider using just one deep hive body for a broodnest and one medium-depth super over a queen excluder for honey. You will not harvest as much honey, but you will likely have reduced disease and pest problems, particularly Varroa. And yes, your colonies will swarm, but swarming is natural and research shows that it promotes colony health by helping keep Varroa mite populations at safe levels (see Loftus et al 2016).

4. Roughen the inner walls of your hives, or build them of rough-sawn lumber.

This will stimulate your colonies to coat the interior surfaces of their hives with propolis, thereby creating antimicrobial envelopes around their nests.

5. Use hives whose walls provide good insulation.

These might be hives built of thick lumber, or they might be hives made of plastic foam. We urgently need research on how much insulation is best for colonies in different climates, and how it is best provided.

6. Position hives high off the ground.

This is not always do-able, but if you have a porch or deck where you can position some hives, then perhaps it is feasible. We urgently need research on how much entrance height is best in different climates.

7. Let 10-20% of the comb in your hives be drone comb.Giving your colonies the opportunity to rear drones can help improve the genetics in your area.

Drones are costly, so it is only the strongest and healthiest colonies that can afford to produce legions of drones. Unfortunately, drone brood also fosters rapid growth of a colony’s population of Varroa mites, so providing plentiful drone comb requires careful monitoring of the Varroa levels in your hives (see suggestion 10, below).

8. Minimize disturbances of nest organisation.

When working a colony, replace each frame in its original position and orientation. Also, avoid inserting empty frames in the broodnest to inhibit swarming.

9. Minimize relocations of hives. Move colonies as rarely as possible. If you must do so, then do so when there is little forage available.

10. Refrain from treating colonies for Varroa.

WARNING: This last suggestion should only be adopted if you can do so carefully, as part of a program of extremely diligent beekeeping. If you pursue treatment-free beekeeping without close attention to your colonies, then you will create a situation in your apiary in which natural selection is favouring virulent Varroa mites, not Varroa-resistant bees. To help natural selection favour Varroa-resistant bees, you will need to monitor closely the mite levels in all your colonies and kill those whose mite populations are skyrocketing long before these colonies can collapse. By preemptively killing your

entire combs filled with honey (e.g., cut comb honey and crushed comb honey). It is less burdensome to produce extracted honey since this removes just the cappings wax.

Difference 18: Colonies are versus are not choosing the larvae used for rearing queens. When we graft day-old larvae into artificial queen cups during queen rearing, we prevent the bees from choosing which larvae will develop into queens. One study found that in emergency queen rearing the bees do not choose larvae at random and instead favour those of certain patrilines (Moritz et al.

2005).

Difference 19: Drones are versus are not allowed to compete fiercely for mating. In bee breeding programs that use artificial insemination, the drones that provide sperm do not have to prove their vigour by competing amongst other drones for mating. This weakens the sexual selection for drones that possess genes for health and strength.

Difference 20: Drone brood is not versus is removed from colonies for mite control. The practice of removing drone brood from colonies to control Varroa destructor partially castrates colonies and so interferes with natural selection for colonies that are healthy enough to invest heavily in drone production.

Suggestions for Darwinian beekeeping

Beekeeping looks different from an evolutionary perspective. We see that colonies of honey bees lived independently from humans for millions of years, and during this time they were shaped by natural selection to be skilled at surviving and reproducing wherever they lived, in Europe, western Asia, or Africa. We also see that ever since humans started keeping bees in hives, we have been disrupting the exquisite fit that once existed between honey bee colonies and their environments.

We have done this in two ways: 1) by moving colonies to geographical locations to which they are not well adapted, and 2) by managing colonies in ways that interfere with their lives but that provide us with honey, beeswax, propolis, pollen, royal jelly, and pollination services.

What can we do, as beekeepers, to help honey bee colonies live with a better fit to their environment, and thereby live with less stress and better health? The answer to this question depends greatly on how many colonies you manage, and what you want from your bees. A beekeeper who has a few colonies and low expectations for honey crops, for example, is in a vastly different situation from a beekeeper who has thousands of colonies and is earning a living through beekeeping.

For those interested, I offer 10 suggestions for beefriendly beekeeping. Some have general application while others are feasible only for the backyard beekeeper.

1. Work with bees that are adapted to your location. If you live in a location where there are few beekeepers, use bait hives to capture swarms from the wild colonies living in your area. (Incidentally, these swarms will build you beautiful new combs, and this will enable you to retire old combs that could have heavy loads of pesticide residues and pathogen spores/cells.) The key thing is to acquire queens of a stock that is adapted to your climate.

6

Bees for Development Journal 122 March 2017

Varroa-susceptible colonies, you will accomplish two important things: 1) you will eliminate your colonies that lack Varroa resistance and 2) you will prevent the “mite bomb” phenomenon of mites spreading en masse to your other colonies. If you don’t perform these preemptive killings, then even your most resistant colonies could become overrun with mites and die, which means that there will be no natural selection for mite resistance in your apiary. Failure to perform preemptive killings can also spread virulent mites to your neighbours’ colonies and even to the wild colonies in your area that are slowly evolving resistance on their own. If you are not willing to kill your mite-susceptible colonies, then you will need to treat them and requeen them with a queen of miteresistant stock.

nest insulation? Do colonies tightly seal their nests with propolis in autumn to have an in-hive water supply (condensate) over winter? How exactly do colonies benefit from having a high nest entrance? The methods of Darwinian Beekeeping are still being developed, but fortunately, apicultural research is starting to embrace a Darwinian perspective (Neumann and Blacquiere 2016).

I hope too that you will consider giving Darwinian Beekeeping a try, for you might find it more enjoyable than conventional beekeeping, especially if you are a small-scale beekeeper.

Everything is done with bee-friendly intentions and in ways that harmonize with the natural history of Apis mellifera. As someone who has devoted his scientific career to investigating the marvellous inner workings of honey bee colonies, it saddens me to see how profoundly – and ever increasingly – conventional beekeeping disrupts and endangers the lives of colonies. Darwinian Beekeeping, which integrates respecting the bees and using them for practical purposes, seems to me like a good way to be responsible keepers of these small creatures, our greatest friends among the insects.

Two hopes

I hope you have found it useful to think about beekeeping from an evolutionary perspective. If you are interested in pursuing beekeeping in a way that is centred less on treating a bee colony as a honey factory, and more on nurturing the lives of honey bees, then I encourage you to consider what I call Darwinian Beekeeping. Others call it Natural Beekeeping, Apicentric Beekeeping, and Beefriendly Beekeeping (Phipps 2016). Whatever the name, its practitioners view a honey bee colony as a complex bundle of adaptations shaped by natural selection to maximize a colony’s survival and reproduction in competition with other colonies and other organisms (predators, parasites, and pathogens). It seeks to foster colony health by letting the bees live as naturally as possible, so they can make full use of the toolkit of adaptations that they have acquired over the last 30 million years. Much remains to be learned about this toolkit – how exactly do colonies benefit from better

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I thank Mark Winston and David Peck for many valuable suggestions that improved early drafts of this article.

Attending the Bee Audacious Conference in December 2016 is what inspired my thinking on Darwinian Beekeeping, so I also thank Bonnie Morse and everyone else who made this remarkable conference a reality.

Thomas D. Seeley email: tds5@cornell.edu All references for this article are available at Bees for Development’s Resource Centre www.beesfordevelopment.org/resource-centre

Table 1. Comparison of the environments in which honey bee colonies lived (and sometimes still do) as wild colonies and those in which they live currently as managed colonies.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

Environment of evolutionary adaptedness Colonies genetically adapted to location Colonies live widely spaced in landscape Colonies occupy small (ca 1.5 cu ft) cavities Nest cavity walls have a propolis coating Nest cavity walls are thick (ca. 4+ in, 10+ cm) Nest entrance is high & small (ca. 4 sq in, 26 cm2) Nest has 10-25% drone comb Nest organisation is stable Nest-site relocations are rare Colonies are rarely disturbed Colonies deal with familiar diseases Colonies have diverse pollen sources Colonies have natural diets Colonies are not exposed to novel toxins Colonies are not treated for diseases Pollen not trapped, honey not taken Beeswax is not removed Bees choose larvae for queen rearing Drones compete fiercely for mating Drone brood not removed for mite control

Current circumstances Colonies not genetically adapted to location Colonies live crowded in apiaries Colonies occupy large (ca. 3+ cu ft) hives Hive walls have no propolis coating Hive walls are thin (ca. 3/4 in, 19 mm) Nest entrance is low & large (ca. 12 sq in, 77 cm2) Nest has little (< 5%) drone comb Nest organisation is often altered Hive relocations can be frequent Colonies are frequently disturbed Colonies deal with novel diseases Colonies have homogeneous pollen sources Colonies sometimes have artificial diets Colonies exposed to insecticides and fungicides Colonies are treated for diseases Pollen sometimes trapped, honey often taken Beeswax is removed during honey harvests Beekeepers choose larvae for queen rearing Queen breeder may select drones for mating Drone brood sometimes removed and frozen 7

Bees for Development Journal 122 March 2017

Bee diseases - a worldwide problem Bees are suffering increasingly from diseases. In addition to changing environmental conditions and application of pesticides, increasingly profit-focussed hive management systems contribute to this situation. The worldwide trade of bees and their products constantly confronts bees with the challenge of new diseases and parasites.

Protection against diseases within the bee colony Honey bees are socially organised insects. Their colony consists of ten to fifty thousand infertile worker-bees, a number of males (drones) and one egg-laying female, the queen. However, a bee colony is far more than the sum of its individual bees. Like cells in higher organisms, they are able to cooperate via neuronal stimuli and hormones.

The individual bee owns a cellular and humoral defence system, similar to higher animals, and their social defence system is of major importance. Old and ill bees die on forage flights or are rejected from entering the hive on their return. Furthermore, the hygienic behaviour of the bees involves the removal of ill brood from the nest. This hygienic behaviour is genetically fixed and more or less obvious within the different breeding lines, bee races and species.

The negative effect of the pathogens and parasites is revealed by a shortened lifespan, a modified morphology, physiology or behaviour of the individual bee.

For the colony, the consequences are a reduction of colony strength until it approaches collapse.

Photo © Wolfgang Ritter

Dr Wolfgang Ritter, Bees for the World, Germany

The yellow remains of larvae killed by EFB Diseases are spread within the honey bee colony, and between honey bee colonies. A horizontal transfer of diseases means the transfer of pathogens or parasites within the colony from bee to bee, and from colony to colony.

A vertical transfer means that the pathogen is transferred ‘down through the generations’ from the queen, the drones or the workerbees to the brood. Between apiaries, diseases are spread by swarms and by beekeepers’ interventions.

Bee diseases have different causes Like other animals, honey bees can be infested by different pathogens or parasites. In addition to fungi and bacteria, viruses have become increasingly important, because they are transferred by parasites.

Most of the parasites found with bees are mites and other insects.

Foulbrood is spread worldwide American foulbrood (AFB) and European foulbrood (EFB) have been spread nearly all over the world. However, AFB and EFB do not present a serious problem for 8

honey bee colonies everywhere, and often colonies are able to heal themselves. In Africa foulbrood has importance only where bees are kept in the industrialised American/European way, using frame hives. The conventional African way of beekeeping allows bees to swarm. (Formation of artificial swarms is commonly used to control foulbrood in Europe.)

In many countries, for example in USA, antibiotics are used for control of foulbrood. However, their use masks the infectious disease with the effect that after the end of the treatment, a relapse happens.

Moreover, this introduced the risk of residues in honey.

Nosemosis has different kinds of pathogens Nosemosis represents a diarrheal disease of the bee caused by a fungus. The pathogen destroys the bee’s midgut epithelium where it multiplies inside cells.

As long as the infested bees are able to defecate outside the hive or die there, the bee colony is able to heal itself. With increasing infestation, the bees are more likely to defecate within the nest. When other bees pick up the faeces to

Photo © Wolfgang Ritter

Bees for Development Journal 122 March 2017

also the Acute Bee Paralysis Virus, accelerate the collapse of the colonies. In most parts of the world the bee colony dies within a short time. Bee colonies of Apis cerana native to Asia are able to survive an infestation of Varroa mites without any problems. In sub-Saharan Africa and other regions of the world, for example Brazil, bee colonies of the western honey bee Apis mellifera survive without any treatment when allowed to develop in a natural way.

Tropilaelaps mites not yet spread everywhere

American foul brood is recognised by larval remains that can be drawn out by a match stick becomes increasingly weak and also more susceptible to other diseases.

Originally, the only parasite of Apis mellifera was Nosema apis, and the Asian hive bee Apis cerana was infested exclusively by Nosema ceranae. In 1973 Nosema ceranae was found for the first time in Apis mellifera in China. Since 2003, this parasite new for Apis mellifera has rapidly spread all over the world.

Today it has nearly everywhere replaced the original parasite Nosema apis. However, the spores of this new parasite cannot survive frost, and reproduce more quickly in warm climates. Therefore, opposite to Nosema apis, Nosema ceranae causes more problems in warm climates than in cold ones.

Because of the structure of their epidermis, honey bees are well protected against many kinds of viruses. The Varroa mite overcomes this natural defence mechanism when sucking, and thus infests the brood with viruses directly or via the adult bees. Especially the Deformed Wing Virus, and

However, Tropilaelaps mites cannot survive on adult bees: they use adult bees only as their carrier for spreading.

Generally, Tropilaelaps mites

Photo © Denis Anderson

remove them, mass infestation takes place. Finally, the bee colony dies.

Different types of the Tropilaelaps mite infest the giant honey bee species Apis dorsata and Apis laboriosa. Some have switched to Apis mellifera that have been introduced into Asia. Only a few types of Tropilaelaps damage the European honey bee species, including Tropilaelaps clareae and Tropilaelaps mercedesae.

Though the outer appearances of Tropilaelaps and Varroa mites are different, the ways they live parasitically are similar: both mite species infest honey bee brood and multiply within it. When brood is infested by both kinds of the mite, the Tropilaelaps mite dominates, because its offspring develop faster.

Varroa mites transfer viruses Regarding Varroosis, now spread all over the world, the situation is nearly the same. Originally, the mite Varroa destructor infested only Apis cerana. The introduction of Apis mellifera to Asia provoked its shift to the new host. In the meantime, Varroa destructor has spread nearly worldwide on Apis mellifera. This parasite only multiplies in the brood of honey bees. There it damages the developing bees: the colony

In Asia, bee brood is often infested with both mites: Varroa (right) and Tropilaelaps (left) 9

Bees for Development Journal 122 March 2017

Photo © Rau/Oberursel

is the frequent migration, swarming and absconding of African honey bee races. Moreover, in African beekeeping methods, honeycombs, which beetles can damage, are not stockpiled. Therefore, the Small hive beetle is a problem in Africa only when bees are kept in oversized hives - like most frame hives.

Spreading bee diseases must be prevented

In comparison with an adult Apis mellifera bee, the wandering Small hive beetle larvae is the same size, while the adult beetle is only two thirds of the length spread in ways similar to Varroa, although we still do not know why Tropilaelaps mites have only partially left their original range on their new host Apis mellifera. The difficult way of transfer via adult bees, and the mites’ susceptibility to brood-free phases in a bee colony, could be reasons.

Small hive beetle damages only weak colonies and honey stores Another pest is not so easy to classify into the general scheme of diseases. The Small hive beetle, Aethina tumida, is often classified as a pest but it can undoubtedly be regarded also as a predator.

Originally this beetle was exclusively spread in sub-Saharan Africa. African bees actively defend themselves against the beetle. Since at least 1996 the Small hive beetle has been carried to

new continents by global trade.

There it has spread via bees, or independently on its own wings. It is difficult to diagnose the beetle in the bee colony. After opening the hive, the beetle immediately runs to the dark. Special traps have been developed in which the beetle can hide from the bees: these make it easy to identify a newly-beginning infestation. In most cases, the beetle is detected only when its larvae appear in huge numbers and ferment the food, which makes honey leak out of the cells. However, this only happens in very weak colonies or in honeycomb stores. Therefore, this beetle will cause only limited damage to colonies, but is a real pest in honey storage. The native host of this beetle, the African honey bee races, are able to keep the beetle population at a low level: one important defence mechanism

Good bee news from Uganda

Bee health problems have increased mainly because of the constant import of new diseases.

The introduction of diseases via bees can be inhibited by strict import controls or bans on importation of bees. Despite this, there is still the risk of importing diseases by land, because of the movement and drifting of bees and swarms, and by sea due to wild swarms, for example in containers.

The biggest problem worldwide, is caused by the fact that in veterinary medicine, honey bees are not everywhere regarded as livestock, and consequently are given insufficient attention at national frontiers. In addition to illegal imports, there are also uncontrolled imports. This is a worldwide problem.

Conclusion Honey bee disease control has to consider management methods and environmental conditions.

Local honey bee races and local management systems cause fewer disease problems. To have healthy honey bees in the future, we must end this global spreading of diseases.

Dr Wolfgang Ritter Bees for the World Germany wolfgang.ritter@beesfortheworld.de

TUNADO’s Director is working with the Agriculture Sector Skills Council to develop an accredited standard for beekeeper trainers in Uganda.

Bees for Development has been working with Uganda’s beekeeping sector for twenty years, working with many inspirational beekeepers and organisations.

Bees for Development’s current focus is to support Mount Elgon Women’s’ Honey Hub – a marketing initiative for women beekeepers. There are many challenges to selling honey, with price just one factor.

Women beekeepers are challenged to travel far to market and too often lack confidence to negotiate with honey traders. The Women’s Honey Hub offers a local, safe, and trustworthy outlet where they know they will sell their honey at a fair price without hassle!

TUNADO (The Uganda National Apiculture Development Organisation) is Uganda’s national association - a membership organisation for the whole country. We heard this week the exciting news – that TUNADO is securing their own dedicated premises.

This means that TUNADO will be able to grow and develop as an information and advocacy service for all Uganda’s beekeepers.

10

Bees for Development Journal 122 March 2017

Crowdfunding: getting it done together

by Milan Wiercx van Rhijn

for example: Indiegogo.com Kickstarter.com Gofundme.com

Milan Wiercx van Rhijn is running a successful beekeeping business in France. From a beginning five years ago, he now owns an effective enterprise enabling people who do not have the time or skills to be beekeepers, to still have the pleasure and enjoyment of honey bees. This is Milan’s explanation of how he began his business: his tips for success are valuable for beekeeping entrepreneurs everywhere.

How I did it

Want to start a beekeeping business? Great! But - unless you have your own financial reserves, it can be difficult to get your business financed nowadays. In general the economic difficulties are omnipresent. Banks and other financial investors are very reluctant to provide loans for starting businesses (risky investments), let alone investing in a starting a beekeeping business: part of agriculture which we know is harder than it used to be, due to the many problems bees face today.

I never used an (online) crowdfunding platform for my project, for I believed I would lose the personal contact with the participants (this is my own opinion of course).

We are all in different personal situations. In my case, I was a 20-year old boy when I left the Netherlands for France in 2009. When I wanted to start a beekeeping company I did not have any diploma, let alone a job.

But still, this drive, this passion, to start as a professional beekeeper was very strong. I decided to launch my project with the help of crowdfunding.

What is crowdfunding?

Crowdfunding was a relatively new phenomenon when I started.

When one has an idea for a project or product, he/she can ask the public (you and me) to help to fund it. In return he/she gives you something (this can be one of the first prototypes, a special thank you note or even a part in the enterprise). There are many crowdfunding platforms,

I wanted my crowdfunding project to be very close and personal. I started with writing to people close to me: friends and family. I wrote them a personal letter, explaining what I was planning and how I wanted them to be a part of it.

The agreement was stated clearly, because in the end it still is a business contract. The participant would pay for a hive and in return they would get 40% of the average honey harvest each year. They were given the possibility to name their hive (which I would then paint on) and I sent them periodically a newsletter.

How it went Honestly, I do not think that I would ever have come so far without crowdfunding. Next to the financial support, you will receive also moral support. People are with you, you are doing it together. There is another extra benefit: there is no financial pressure. I lost 80% of my colonies during winter 20132014, which would be catastrophic in the case of a loan with a bank.

How does one pay off a loan when there is no honey to sell? Again, the people who were part of the crowdfunding were there to restore my lost confidence.

At this moment, I have about 50 people participating. They have given me a great start, financial independence, moral support and an amazing network of ambassadors.

Can it work for you?

Although everyone is in a different situation, I am convinced that creativity is the key. Do not expect a crowdfunding platform to be like Santa Claus: posting a plain wish list for your beekeeping essentials will probably result in failure.

Instead, try to let your close friends and neighbours become part of 11

Milan checks honey stores in one of his frame hives your beekeeping adventure. Give them (proportionally) honey in return for hives/financial support/ labour. Be sure to have everything on paper, especially with people that are close to you. It would be a shame if a misunderstanding results in disagreement. Make them understand that it is a business that will benefit everyone: they get honey and by participating they also contribute to more bees in the world - pollination benefits everybody!

Make sure that you know what you are doing. Are your expectations realistic? What will you do when things go differently from expected? Write it all out and make sure it is all clear for you. Then, go for it.

Good luck! Bzz! See Milan’s pictures at www.instagram.com/milan_ proupbees and his website www.proup.com

Bees for Development Journal 122 March 2017

Review of

The Flow Hive

By John Gates

I have used Flow frames for the past three seasons in a few of my hives.

I was contacted by the inventors with a request to test the system in Canada and to give them my honest feedback. During my 26 years with the Apiculture Program in British Columbia I tested many inventions.

Some were worthwhile, a lot were not. At first I was reluctant to test this one because I thought the concept of sticking a tube into a hive and turning a valve to get honey was ridiculous. I wasn’t thinking “out of the box”, however after viewing their video I thought it was worth exploring.

I was pleased with the results in each of the seasons using the Flow system. My Flow frame-equipped hives produced just as much honey as the regular hives. The equipment worked as advertised and the honey quality was excellent. I loved being able to judge the progress of the nectar flow by seeing the frame end cells filling with honey. Although I have kept bees for over 40 years I found myself wandering up to my home hive several times a day to spend some quiet time with the bees. It has brought me full circle, back to the days when I started beekeeping and was eager to learn everything I could about these fascinating creatures.

Flow Hives provide an innovative and convenient method of removing honey from beehives without disturbing bees. When removing honey with this system there is no need to open hives, remove bees from frames, lift and transport heavy boxes, extract honey using expensive equipment or process honey before consumption or sale.

Everything is done at the hives.

When you purchase a Flow Hive you receive a ventilated bottom board with mite detection tray, one brood box with frames, a queen excluder, one honey super with flow frames, an inner cover and gable lid. Boxes are standard Langstroth frame hive

dimensions that accommodate either 8 or 10 standard, deep frames.

Beekeepers should order the size boxes that will be compatible with their other equipment or, for new beekeepers, be the size most commonly used in their area.

While Flow equipment is unique in many aspects, the major innovation that sets this system apart from any other is the patented frames that deliver clean honey straight from a hive to exterior containers of the beekeeper’s choice. By simply inserting a spigot into the end of each frame and turning a key, the frame cells split, the honey flows down behind the cappings into a sealed trough then outside the hive.

Honey boxes are orientated so that all this takes place at the rear of a hive away from bee flight. Sounds unbelievable but it works. Honey from Flow frames is delicious. It has all the subtleties of comb honey including a slight waxy taste.

There is no need to buy whole Flow Hives. The web site HoneyFlow.com has instructions to modify regular boxes to fit Flow frames. Eight frame Langstroth boxes accommodate six Flow frames; ten frame boxes accommodate seven Flow frames. Hatches cut in the boxes provide openings for spigots and keys and to observe bee behaviour. The design of the frames and hatches prevents bees from escaping during honey removal and observation. Customers can purchase any number of frames.

Flow frames and regular frames can be mixed in the same box. That is a good way to try a few Flow frames, however the mixing will cause bees to be disturbed and escape during honey removal.

Because Flow frame ends are clear plastic, you have an end-on view of bees working inside cells, cleaning, depositing and removing honey and constructing cappings. This view is not possible with standard observation hives. Each honey super also has a side window. When frame-end cells are full of honey and the side frame is mostly capped, the honey is ripe for removal.

The area where I keep bees is not great honey country.Yields are small, forage is relatively scarce. Building development is slowly crowding out farming. This is however, one of the best areas in Canada to breed 12

John Gates, retired Apiculture Specialist with the British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture, Canada. From 2002 to 2015 John owned and operated a bee breeding and honey bee stock production business. He conducts courses in queen rearing (most recently in Tobago), lectures to beekeeping groups, and is a private consultant. He has no financial ties with the makers of The Flow Hive nor does he sell their equipment. and raise bees because of its long season with dry warm springs and hot summers.

Beekeeping is an enjoyable but complicated art. It requires time, patience, plenty of observation and a desire to learn. To be successful beekeepers must develop skills necessary to keep bees healthy and productive. The Flow Hive system offers an alternative method to produce honey, but it is only beekeeping equipment, it does not manage bees. There are also several things to learn that are necessary to keep the system operating properly.

Moving parts in a beehive tend to get clogged up. Brood, propolis and pollen in flow frames can all impair their operation. I highly recommend using excluders between brood and honey areas of Flow Hives to prevent queens from accessing the honey boxes. Likewise, in pollen rich areas it may be helpful to install pollen traps to reduce the amount of pollen in the hives. The Flow Hive website includes information on frame disassembly and more thorough cleaning if necessary.

Granulated honey can also cause problems in flow frames. To clean them out, after your crop is removed, spray the affected frames with a little water and place them in a box above

Bees for Development Journal 122 March 2017

hive. Standard boxes of drawn wax comb will help draw your bees through the excluders. At the end of the season you can leave the standard boxes of honey on the hives for bee feed after you remove the excluders and Flow boxes.

One full Flow frame will contain almost 3 kg of honey. Depending on the thickness of the honey it may take more than ½ hour to drain a frame. I have modified some of my Flow spigots to direct each frame’s honey vertically into 3 kg buckets through holes cut in their lids. I can leave two frames to drain into two buckets while I go about other tasks without the fear of my containers overflowing or debris or insects getting into the honey. I have even left frames to drain overnight.

In my area, we have intense but short nectar flows from minor sources like dandelion, tree fruits or black locust that usually only result in a frame or two of honey. That honey normally is mixed into the rest of the crop when it is extracted at season’s end. I’m

looking forward to tapping off those honeys individually and sampling their unique flavours using the Flow System.

The Flow System is well suited for small time beekeepers yet is not practical for producing large amounts of honey for commercial operations. However, I can envisage commercial operators owning a Flow Hive or two to have fresh, delicious, high quality honey available to enjoy without starting up their large extracting systems.

The cost of the frames will put them out of range for many, although remember no expensive extracting system is necessary. Three Flow frames sell for UK£ 208 (€ 246, US $259), seven Flow frames for UK£ 358 (€ 424, US $447).

To now, my experience with the Flow System has been very positive. I believe it has a place in our beekeeping culture and look forward to using my equipment for many years to come.

Photos © Bees for Development

the inner cover. The bees will come up through the feed hole and move the honey down to the brood nest.

In areas where bees form tight clusters and are confined for long periods of time due to inclement weather and lack of forage, excluders and Flow honey boxes must be removed after the honey gathering period. If not the bees will move upwards through the excluders to access their feed leaving their queens below to die.

I use two brood boxes, not one, when using the Flow System, to prevent crowding. Excluders and plastic Flow frames can inhibit bees from moving into honey boxes.

Baiting flow frame honey boxes with brood frames from brood boxes or spraying flow frames with a thin mixture of honey will encourage your bees to move through excluders on to the frames.

You can use standard honey boxes with standard frames, and Flow boxes with Flow frames on the same

The transparent panels make The Flow Hive an excellent observation hive: it is possible to see bees filling cells with honey. As an observation hive it will be useful in schools and for demonstration purposes 13

Bees for Development Journal 122 March 2017

BOOKSHELF Keeping bees in horizontal hives A complete guide to apiculture Georges de Layens, Gaston Bonnier Translated by Mark Pettus, edited by Leo Sharashkin £39 at beesfordevelopment.org

Bees producing ‘come-hither’ signal Georges de Layens was a French botanist and apiculturalist. In 1897 he published the Cours complet d’apiculture describing his system of sustainable beekeeping, based on two main principles: using local bees, and keeping them in appropriate hives. At that time beekeeping in France was practiced using fixed comb hive - boxes made of wooden planks, or more commonly skeps woven from straw, and many styles of movable frame hives, some now long-forgotten.

Layens recommended a style of movable frame hive that he described as gentle on the bees and on the beekeeper too. It is a horizontal hive, i.e. with all the

frames at the same level, containing 20 large frames, each 13 inches (33 cm) wide and 16 inches (41 cm) deep. When completely filled, one frame can contain 4 Kg of honey.

Having all the frames on the same level means that the beekeeper has easier access to all of the hive, and never has to lift heavy boxes of frames. In spring time the hives are filled with frames, and some of the frames containing honey are removed at autumn harvest.

Over 24 Chapters, Layens detailed every activity concerned with beekeeping, providing exact descriptions of what the beekeeper should be doing at each season, and how to cope with tricky situations that arise, for example ‘When a swarm is awkwardly situated’ and ‘A weak colony that has wintered well’.

He describes precisely how he works with bees, but nevertheless, he advises that established beekeepers should disturb their bees as little as possible, and thus avoid the great dangers of robbing and foulbrood. All aspects of harvesting and processing honey and beeswax are described in detail, with for example his fail-safe procedure for making mead, and indeed recommending honey from fixed comb hives for this purpose, as it contains a little pollen to aid smooth fermentation. Layens describes also how to make vinegar, and cyser (cider ameliorated with honey), and highly recommends honey brandy too.

A swarm hanging from a tree branch

Layens design of hive and his easy beekeeping method proved popular in mainland Europe, especially in France and Spain, and his original book remains in print today. The book contains almost 250 charming drawings by many illustrators. It is amazing that de Layen’s book has not been published in English until now, and it is the effort of Dr Leo Sharashkin that has achieved this excellent new edition. Dr Sharashkin has been using Layens hives for many years and is now a proponent of Layens simple and sustainable methods.

Dr Sharashkin is providing a Course with Bees for Development in the UK: see opposite for details.

Beekeeper priming frames with pieces of comb

14

Bees for Development Journal 122 March 2017

LOOK AHEAD TURKEY

45th APIMONDIA International Congress 29 Sep - 4 Oct 2017, Istanbul Further details www.apimondia2017.org

UK

Sustainable Beekeeping Course 22-23 April, and 23-24 September, Forest of Dean Strengthening livelihoods in developing countries through beekeeping 28 April 2017, Monmouth Treatment free beekeeping in horizontal hives, with Dr Leo Sharashkin 22-23 July, Forest of Dean Further details of these courses are at beesfordevelopment.org National Honey Show 26-28 October, Sandown Park Further details honeyshow.co.uk If you want notice of your conference, workshop or meeting to be included here and on our website, send details to Bees for Development.

BfD Beekeepers Safaris Trinidad & Tobago January 2018

TECA FAO discussions teca.fao.org Adulteration of honey 14 April to 7 May Moderated by Etienne Bruneau, President of the Technology and Quality Commission of Apimondia, Head of CARI asbl, Centre for Beekeeping Research and Information, Belgium Simplified field methods for diagnosing bee diseases 3 July to 7 August 2017 Moderated by Giovanni Formato, Head of the Beekeeping Laboratory, at the Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale (Regional Institute for Animal Diseases), Latium and Tuscany Italy Secure order and payment at www.beesfordevelopment.org/shop WAYS Send Money via PayPal to TO PAY store@beesfordevelopment.org Credit/Debit card Maestro/MasterCard/ Visa. We need card number, name on card, valid from and expiry dates, card issue number (if given), security number on back of card.

Cheque/bank draft in GBP payable to Bees for Development

Bottlingtanks Made of high quality stainless steel. All tanks come with a loose-fitting lid or with an airtight lid as an option. Capacity from 25 kg - 600 kg.

Solar Wax Melter For frames or comb.

It has a strong wooden frame, insulating double window and a small tray for collecting the melted wax / honey.

Refractometer Measures water content in honey.

Range: 12-25%.

With automatic temperature compensation.

Honey Press Easy and effective way to press your honey. Made entirely of stainless steel. Holds approx.

9.5 L.

Honey Extractors Our modern tangential manual extractors. High quality machines at a very affordable price.

Packaging Many different sizes and shapes in both PET plastic and glas.

Available with plastic and metal lids.

at Available om ienty.c www.sw ... for better honey

Swienty A/S

15

Hørtoftvej 16, Ragebøl DK-6400 Sønderborg Tel. +45 74 48 69 69

www.swienty.com Fax + 45 74 48 80 01 shop@swienty.com

Bees for Development Journal 122 March 2017

Bees for Development Trust raises the funds we need to undertake our work 45th Apimondia International Congress 29 Sep – 4 Oct 2017 Istanbul, TURKEY

PROTECTING BEES & POLLINATORS TEACHING SUSTAINABLE LIFE SKILLS CHAMPIONING BIODIVERSITY

WORKING TO ALLEVIATE POVERTY FACILITIATING FAIR MARKET ACCESS SHARING KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE

If you share our passion for protecting bees and pollinators, and working to alleviate poverty in some of the world’s poorest regions, you can help us by

Making a regular donation Subscribing to BfD Journal Sponsoring a Journal subscription Sponsoring a Teaching Resource Box Please give us your support at:

www.beesfordevelopment.org

Bees for Development Trust www.apimondia2017.org

An independent UK-based charity, registered no 1078803

SUPPORT FOR TRAINING BfD Training Booklets and Training Cards are for use by beekeeper trainers in Africa Each booklet provides one day of training on one topic. The cards provide pictures and plans illustrating techniques discussed in the booklets. These are included in our Resource Boxes for training events and workshops.

Projects and associations in developing countries are welcome to apply for a Sponsored Resource Box by filling out an application form on our website, or request the form by email.

Projects in other areas can purchase Resource Boxes through our website store.

www.beesfordevelopment.org

SUBSCRIPTIONS AVAILABLE This Journal is available for resource-poor beekeepers, projects, schools and groups in developing countries Supported with funds raised by Bees for Development Trust Name.................................................................................................

What is your involvement with bees and beekeeping? ......................................................................................................... .........................................................................................................

Organisation .....................................................................................

Postal address................................................................................... ......................................................................................................... .........................................................................................................

Country.............................................................................................

E-mail address...................................................................................

Date of application.............................................................................

Additional copies of this form are available from our website Email journalrequest@beesfordevelopment.org Post to BfD Trust at the address below

Bees for Development, 1 Agincourt Street, Monmouth NP25 3DZ, UK Telephone +44 (0)1600 714848 info@beesfordevelopment.org www.beesfordevelopment.org © Bees for Development 2017 ISSN 1477-6588 Printed on environmentally friendly paper