• Fr
  • En
  • Es

How to reduce the Impact of Residues when fighting against Varroa

Table of contents

Honey bees, vital for global pollination and agricultural crop yields, ensure food security and biodiversity.Nevertheless, the beekeeping industry face a significant threat from Varroa destructor—a menace to bee health and colony survival. Varroa mites infest honey bee colonies, causing considerable damage by feeding on bees’ hemolymph and fat body and transmitting harmful viruses, resulting in widespread colony losses, and jeopardizing sustainable apiculture.2


Beekeepers commonly employ Amitraz (formamidine), Coumaphos (organophosphate), and Tau-fluvalinate (pyrethroid) to combat Varroa mites.3 Clear differences with regards to in-hive residues have been observed after application of these molecules in different formulations to control varroosis in honey bee colonies.4-5

 

Comparing the residues of coumaphos, amitraz and pyrethroids in honey and wax involves examining their persistence, potential accumulation, and effects within beehives after treatment application. Typically, amitraz has a relatively shorter half-life compared to some pyrethroids. Its residues in honey and wax are lower compared to pyrethroids due to its quicker breakdown and elimination from the hive. While amitraz can affect bees if not used properly or if exposure levels are high, its quick degradation might lower the risk of long-term adverse effects. Besides, some pyrethroids can have acute toxicity to bees, and their residues in honey and wax might pose risks to bee health, especially if concentrations accumulate over time.6

 

Not only are residues in hive products relevant for consumer safety and potential toxic effects on honey bees, but they are also known to play a crucial role in the development of resistances of varroa mites against active ingredients.7-8 Pyrethroid resistance is known to develop relatively quickly, within a few years after introduction to a geographic region, in varroa mites9, and pests that are treated with pyrethroids in agriculture.10-11

 

On the other hand, amitraz resistance has developed much more slowly in varroa mites and insects exposed to veterinary medicines / pesticides based on amitraz compared with pyrethroid resistance. Until today, amitraz resistance has been found to occur in patches rather than in a geographically widespread pattern. Sensitivity reduction against amitraz in varroa mite populations in the field happen to a lesser degree12, and the detected reduction in treatment efficacy in the rare cases of resistance development in the field is smaller.13 In Spain, Amitraz has been authorized as a varroa treatment since 1999. But recent data collected in Spain clearly indicate that varroa mite sensitivity against amitraz is still 100%.14 A possible link between the high instability and quick degradation of amitraz residues in hive products4, 15 appears likely.

Impact of residues of Varroa treatment and pesticide molecules

Residues from several varroa treatments and pesticides can alter bee behavior, compromise foraging efficiency, and negatively impact colony productivity. Sub-lethal exposure to pesticides residues during critical developmental stages, particularly in larvae, can lead to developmental abnormalities and weakened immune systems.1617 The presence of residues within the hive environment poses risks not only to individual bees but also to the entire colony, potentially impacting brood development, queen fecundity, and overall colony productivity.18 Residues in hive products can also contaminate pollen and nectar, posing risks to non-target organisms and disrupting ecosystem dynamics.

Sub-lethal pesticide exposure of fluvalinate and coumaphos through wax can have adverse reproductive consequences such as reduced egg laying, early supersedure, increased queen cell rejection, and reduced ovarian weight in queen bees.19-20

The presence of coumaphos and fluvalinate in beeswax can decrease brood survival21, and the simultaneous application of coumaphos and fluvalinate can increase bee mortality22-23 and decrease three-day brood survival24.

Drones exposed to coumaphos or fluvalinate have been shown to have reduced sperm viability25, and drones exposed to fluvalinate during immature development experience increased mortality and reduced body weight and tend toward lower sperm counts26. The application of coumaphos to colonies can impact queen development and negatively impact queen health27 and residues in wax queen cells can reduce developing queen survival and weight.

 

Ultimately, acaricides can alter physiological functions, immune responses, and detoxification functions in the exposed bees, possibly rendering them more susceptible to pathogens and pesticides28.

Most investigations into pesticide impacts on honey bees are focused on adult bees, even though brood (eggs, larvae and pupae) is crucial to colony fitness. A robust risk assessment for any pesticide should include an evaluation of possible sublethal effects on honey bee brood29, including the considered “natural” soft compounds like Thymol, Formic and Oxalic acids. Overall, sub-lethal exposure to those “natural” acaricides can causes stress and queen mortality and affects the health, memory, behavior of honey bees, and their lifespan (adult bees and queen).30-31-32

 

Several studies have investigated the impact of treatment residues on bee health and surrounding biodiversity, emphasizing the importance of using legal veterinary treatments rather than illegal or unapproved medicines for bees. Research indicates that exposure to sublethal doses of unregulated or illegally used medicines can have additional detrimental effects on bee colonies, including increased susceptibility to diseases, queen failure, and elevated mortality rates among worker bees.33 Additionally, illegal treatments lacking proper authorization may have higher persistence and toxicity, leading to more severe impacts on bee health and biodiversity compared to legally approved treatments.34 Furthermore, treatment residues in or on food derived from beehives (e.g., honey, comb, wax, propolis, royal jelly, pollen) must comply with any tolerances under European regulations.

 

Legal veterinary treatments, when used according to prescribed guidelines and regulatory standards, undergo rigorous testing to assess their safety for bees and the environment, thereby minimizing potential adverse effects on biodiversity.

Regulations and best practices

Current regulations governing the use of varroa treatments and authorized residue limits in hive products vary across regions and compounds.

For instance, amitraz, commonly used in strips or liquid solutions, is authorized for veterinary use, and shows a high level of degradation within the hive. The allowed residue limits set for amitraz in honey are within the range of 0.02-0.03 mg/kg, emphasizing its fast degradation, thus reducing its persistence in hive products.35
Flumethrin and tau-fluvalinate, pyrethroid-based treatments applied via strips, also exhibit relatively high degradation rates in hive products, with residue limits ranging from 0.01-0.02 mg/kg in honey.36 Organic acids such as oxalic acid and formic acid, often used for their natural origins, have no specified residue limits, which underlines their advantages in terms of degradation and reduced persistence in hive products.37 Thymol, derived from plant sources, also lacks specific residue limits due to its relatively rapid degradation within the hive environment.38 According to the European Commission, there is no specific MRL for oxalic acid in honey, but this in no way detracts from the guidelines for its use, especially when applied to ensure optimum effect on varroa mites and limit damage to bees. (European Commission, 2020).39

Conclusion

Amitraz, with its advantageous residue profile, emerges as a preferable option over Pyrethroids and Organophosphates in the context of in-hive residues as a potential risk for human consumers and the cause of toxic effects on bees. The limited level of amitraz residues in the beehive prevents the development of resistance in varroa mites.

Adopting best practices for varroa control that minimize residues while ensuring sustainable beekeeping is crucial.2 Implementing rotation and diversification of acaricides also plays a pivotal role in reducing residues and preventing the development of resistant varroa strains.40

The adoption of IPM strategies, considering mechanical interventions and judicious chemical use, plays a crucial role in minimizing residues while maintaining effective varroa control and sustainable beekeeping practices.

Brood comb renewal is an essential element to avoid the accumulation of residues over the years. It helps to limit the impact of these residues on the colonies, and also to reduce the emergence of resistances linked to prolonged contact with these residues.8

Amiflex flash treatment
Learn about the safety of Amiflex, an amitraz-based flash treatment for Varroa mites, with a focus on the residues found in honey and wax. Our clinical studies show how Amiflex
miticide_resistance_tinified-1-770x540
We review in this article the Emergence of Miticide Resistance in Varroa Mites, the challenges related to climate change, global warming and the lack of diversity of miticides options in
Video – Understand the varroa mite life cycle
5’30min animated video to better understand how varroa mites feed, reproduce and impact honey bee colonies.

References:

  1. Klein A.M., Vaissière B.E., Cane J.H., et al. (2007). Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 274(1608): 303-313.

  2. Rosenkranz P., Aumeier P., Ziegelmann B. (2010). Biology and control of Varroa destructor. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology, 103(Suppl 1): S96-S119.

  3. Johnson RM, Ellis MD, Mullin CA and Frazier M, Pesticides and honey bee toxicity – Apidologie 41:312–331 (2010).

  4. Wallner, Klaus. “Varroacides and their residues in bee products.” Apidologie 30.2-3 (1999): 235-248.

  5. Bonzini, Sara, et al. “Predicting pesticide fate in the hive (part 1): experimentally determined τ-fluvalinate residues in bees, honey and wax.” Apidologie 42.3 (2011): 378-390.

  6. Pingli DaiCameron J JackAshley N MortensenJames D Ellis. Acute toxicity of five pesticides to Apis mellifera larvae reared in vitro. Pest Manag Sci. 2017 Nov;73(11):2282-2286.

  7. Medici, Sandra K., et al. “The presence of synthetic acaricides in beeswax and its influence on the development of resistance in V arroa destructor.” Journal of Apicultural Research 54.3 (2015): 267-274.

  8. Benito-Murcia, María, et al. “Residual tau-fluvalinate in honey bee colonies is coupled with evidence for selection for Varroa destructor resistance to pyrethroids.” Insects 12.8 (2021): 731.

  9. Lodesani, M., M. Colombo, and M. Spreafico. “Ineffectiveness of Apistan® treatment against the mite Varroa jacobsoni Oud in several districts of Lombardy (Italy).” Apidologie 26.1 (1995): 67-72.

  10. Fjørtoft, Helene Børretzen, et al. “Aquaculture-driven evolution: distribution of pyrethroid resistance in the salmon louse throughout the North Atlantic in the years 2000–2017.” ICES Journal of Marine Science 77.5 (2020): 1806-1815.

  11. Rodriguez-Vivas, R. I., et al. “Evolution of acaricide resistance: phenotypic and genotypic changes in field populations of Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus in response to pyrethroid selection pressure.” International Journal for Parasitology 41.8 (2011): 895-903.

  12. Rodríguez-Dehaibes, Sóstenes R., et al. “Resistance to amitraz and flumethrin in Varroa destructor populations from Veracruz, Mexico.” Journal of apicultural research 44.3 (2005): 124-125.

  13. Elzen, Patti J., et al. “Control of Varroa jacobsoni resistant to fluvalinate and amitraz using coumaphos.” Apidologie 31.3 (2000): 437-441.

  14. Higes, Mariano, et al. “Assessing the resistance to acaricides in Varroa destructor from several Spanish locations.” Parasitology Research 119.11 (2020): 3595-3601.

  15. Korta, E., et al. “Study of acaricide stability in honey. Characterization of amitraz degradation products in honey and beeswax.” Journal of Agricultural and food Chemistry 49.12 (2001): 5835-5842.

  16. Blacquière T., Smagghe G., van Gestel C.A., et al. (2012). Neonicotinoids in bees: a review on concentrations, side-effects and risk assessment. Ecotoxicology, 21(4): 973-992.

  17. Thompson H.M., Brown M.A., Ball R.F., et al. (2014). An investigation into the detection of pesticide residues in beeswax samples sourced from honey bee colonies (Apis mellifera) in England. Pest Management Science, 70(8): 1255-1262.

  18. Sánchez-Bayo F., Goulson D., Pennacchio F., et al. (2016). Are bee diseases linked to pesticides? – A brief review. Environment International, 89-90: 7-11.

  19. Haarmann T, Spivak M, Weaver D, Weaver B, Glenn T (2002) Effects of fluvalinate and coumaphos on queen honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in two commercial queen rearing operations. J Econ Entomol 95: 28–35.

  20. Pettis JS, Collins AM, Wilbanks R, Feldlaufer MF (2004) Effects of coumaphos on queen rearing in the honey bee, Apis mellifera. Apidologie 35: 605–610.

  21. Medici, S. K., Castro, A., Sarlo, E. G., Marioli, J. M. & Eguaras, M. J. The concentration effect of selected acaricides present in beeswax foundation on the survival of Apis mellifera colonies. J. Apic. Res. 51, 164–168 (2012).

  22. Johnson, R. M., Pollock, H. S. & Berenbaum, M. R. Synergistic interactions between in-hive miticides in Apis mellifera. J. Econ. Entomol. 102, 474–479 (2009).

  23. Johnson, R. M., Dahlgren, L., Siegfried, B. D. & Ellis, M. D. Acaricide, fungicide and drug interactions in honey bees (Apis mellifera). PloS One 8, e54092 (2013).

  24. Berry, J. A., Hood, W. M., Pietravalle, S. & Delaplane, K. S. Field-level sublethal effects of approved bee hive chemicals on honey bees (Apis mellifera L). PLoS One 8, e76536 (2013).

  25. Burley, L. M., Fell, R. D. & Saacke, R. G. Survival of honey bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) spermatozoa incubated at room temperature from drones exposed to miticides. J. Econ. Entomol. 101, 1081–1087 (2008).

  26. Rinderer, T. E., DeGuzman, L., Lancaster, V., Delatte, G. & Stelzer, J. A. Varroa in the mating yard: The effects of Varroa jacobsoni and Apistan on drone honey bees. Am. Bee J. 139, 134–139 (1999).

  27. Haarmann, T., Spivak, M., Weaver, D., Weaver, B. & Glenn, T. Effects of fluvalinate and coumaphos on queen honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in two commercial queen rearing operations. J. Econ. Entomol. 95, 28–35 (2002).

  28. Locke, B., Forsgren, E., Fries, I. & de Miranda, J. Acaricide treatment affects viral dynamics in Varroa destructor-infested honey bee colonies via both host physiology and mite control. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 78, 227–235 (2012).

  29. Medrzycki, P. et al. Standard methods for toxicology research in Apis mellifera. J. Apic. Res. 52, 1–60 (2013).

  30. Charpentier, G., Vidau, C., Ferdy, J. B., Tabart, J. & Vetillard, A. Lethal and sub-lethal effects of thymol on honeybee (Apis mellifera) larvae reared in vitro. Pest Manag. Sci. 70, 140–147 (2014).

  31. Saskia Schneider, Dorothea Eisenhardt, Eva Rademacher. Sublethal effects of oxalic acid on Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera: Apidae): changes in behaviour and longevity. Apidologie, 2012, 43 (2), pp.218-225. 10.1007/s13592-011-0102-0. hal-01003525

  32. Hanan A. Gashout, Ernesto Guzman-Novoa, Paul H. Goodwin, Adriana Correa-Benítez, Impact of sublethal exposure to synthetic and natural acaricides on honey bee (Apis mellifera) memory and expression of genes related to memory, Journal of Insect Physiology, Volume 121, 2020, 104014, ISSN 0022-1910, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinsphys.2020.104014.

  33. Boncristiani H.F., Underwood R.M., Schwarz R.S., et al. (2012). Direct effect of acaricides on pathogen loads and gene expression levels in honey bees Apis mellifera. Journal of Insect Physiology, 58(5): 613-620.

  34. Gajger I.T., Sakač M., Gregorc A. (2017). Pesticide residues in honey bees, pollen and beeswax: Assessing beehive exposure. Environmental Pollution, 242(Pt B): 855-864.

  35. Calatayud-Vernich P., Calatayud F., Simó E., et al. (2018). Pesticide residues in honey bees, pollen and beeswax: Assessing beehive exposure. Environmental Pollution, 242(Pt B): 855-864.

  36. Krupke C.H., Hunt G.J., Eitzer B.D., et al. (2012). Multiple routes of pesticide exposure for honey bees living near agricultural fields. PLoS ONE, 7(1): e29268.

  37. Bogdanov S., Kilchenmann V., Imdorf A. (2002). Acute oral toxicity of oxalic acid and formic acid to Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Apidologie, 33(5): 447-452.

  38. Nanetti A., Rodriguez-Morales A.M., Baruzzi C. (2003). Evaluation of thymol treatment in the control of Varroa destructor (Acari: Varroidae) in Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in Argentina. Experimental and Applied Acarology, 31(1-2): 157-162.

  39. European Commission. (2020). Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/749 of 5 June 2020 amending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for acequinocyl, ametoctradin, cyazofamid, cyprodinil, fenazaquin, fenpicoxamid, fluopyram, fluxapyroxad, mepiquat, pendimethalin, picolinafen, propaquizafop, pyriofenone, thifensulfuron-methyl and trifloxystrobin in or on certain products. Official Journal of the European Union, L 176/17: 7-80.

  40. Calderone N.W. (2012). Insect pollinated crops, insect pollinators and US agriculture: Trend analysis of aggregate data for the period 1992-2009. PLoS ONE, 7(5): e37235.