Insecticidal Control of SHB

Insecticidal Control of
Small Hive Beetle

Developing a ready-to-use product
by Dr Garry Levot
September 2007
RIRDC Publication No 07/146

RIRDC Project No DAN 216A
2007 Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation.
All rights reserved.
ISBN 1 74151 542 4

ISSN 1440-6845
Insecticidal Control of Small Hive Beetle: Developing a ready-to-use product
Publication No. 07/146

Project No. DAN216A Pt II
The information contained in this publication is intended for general use to assist public knowledge and discussion
and to help improve the development of sustainable regions. You must not rely on any information contained in
this publication without taking specialist advice relevant to your particular circumstances.
While reasonable care has been taken in preparing this publication to ensure that information is true and correct,
the Commonwealth of Australia gives no assurance as to the accuracy of any information in this publication.
The Commonwealth of Australia, the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC), the
authors or contributors expressly disclaim, to the maximum extent permitted by law, all responsibility and liability to
any person, arising directly or indirectly from any act or omission, or for any consequences of any such act or
omission, made in reliance on the contents of this publication, whether or not caused by any negligence on the
part of the Commonwealth of Australia, RIRDC, the authors or contributors.
The Commonwealth of Australia does not necessarily endorse the views in this publication.
This publication is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, all other rights are
reserved. However, wide dissemination is encouraged. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights
should be addressed to the RIRDC Publications Manager on phone 02 6271 4165.
Researcher Contact Details

Garry Levot
Elizabeth Macarthur Agricultural Institute (NSW DPI)
Woodbridge Road Menangle, NSW 2568
Phone: 02 4640 6376

Fax: 02 4640 6300
Email: garry.levot@dpi.nsw.gov.au
In submitting this report, the researcher has agreed to RIRDC publishing this material in its edited form.
RIRDC Contact Details

Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation
Level 2, 15 National Circuit
BARTON ACT 2600
PO Box 4776
KINGSTON ACT 2604
Phone: 02 6271 4100

Fax: 02 6271 4199
Email: rirdc@rirdc.gov.au.
Web: http://www.rirdc.gov.au
Published in September 2007

Printed by Union Offset
ii
Foreword
This project aimed to refine the prototype refuge trap developed in DAN 216A Part I into a safe and
effective insecticide-based device that beekeepers could use for the control of Small Hive Beetles in
hives. The Small Hive Beetle Harbourage created comprises a fipronil-treated fluted cardboard insert
permanently sandwiched between a pair of custom-designed plastic mouldings that once assembled,
allow beetles to enter but exclude bees. The harbourage was shown to be compatible with existing
hive structure and bee keeping habits, easy to use, highly effective in reducing beetle infestations and
safe to users, bees and honey. There are patents pending for the invention not only in Australia but
also in the United States of America, Canada and New Zealand. However, a lack of commercial
interest in registering the product and restricted access to fipronil for this purpose may delay the
commercial availability of the device until the fipronil patents lapse. The commercialisation of the
device is essential so that beekeepers have an effective means for control of Small Hive Beetles in
hives and to discourage the use of 'home remedies' that could lead to contamination of honey and place
the industry at risk.
This project was funded from industry revenue which is matched by funds provided by the Australian
Government.
This report, an addition to RIRDCs diverse range of over 1600 research publications, forms part of
our Honeybee R&D program, which aims to improve understanding and management of bee diseases
and pests and reduce production losses caused by pests and diseases.
Most of our publications are available for viewing, downloading or purchasing online through our
website:
downloads at www.rirdc.gov.au/fullreports/index.html
purchases at www.rirdc.gov.au/eshop
Peter OBrien
Managing Director
Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation
iii
Acknowledgments
My thanks go to Mr Steve Goray, Mrs Lyn White and Mr Pat Carroll for allowing use of their hives in
the field trials and especially to Mr Nicholas Annand and Mr Bruce White for their willing
participation with the conduct of the field trials. The contribution of Dr Michael Hornitzky to this
project is gratefully acknowledged and I thank Mr John Ryan, NSW DPI Manager Commercialisation
for advice on the production of the commercialisation dossier and patent applications.
Abbreviations
APVMA - Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (the regulatory authority
responsible for the registration of pesticides in Australia).
NSW - New South Wales
NSW DPI - New South Wales Department of Primary Industries
LC50 - Lethal Concentration to 50% of individuals tested
iv
Contents
Foreword ..................................................................................................................................iii
Acknowledgments.................................................................................................................... iv
Abbreviations........................................................................................................................... iv
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ vi
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1
Objective................................................................................................................................. 3
Materials and Methods ............................................................................................................ 4

Refining the harbourage ......................................................................................................... 4
Residue trial with the End-Use-Product ................................................................................. 4
Honey.................................................................................................................................. 4
Cardboard inserts ................................................................................................................ 4
Commercialisation.................................................................................................................. 5
Field trials with the End-Use-Product .................................................................................... 5
Residual efficacy of the harbourages...................................................................................... 5
Refining the harbourage ......................................................................................................... 6
Residue trial with the End-Use-Product ............................................................................... 11
Commercialisation................................................................................................................ 14
Field trials with the End-Use-Product .................................................................................. 14
Trial 1. Wilberforce .......................................................................................................... 17
Trial 2. South Maroota...................................................................................................... 20
Trial 3. North Richmond................................................................................................... 22
Residual efficacy of the harbourages.................................................................................... 24
Discussion................................................................................................................................ 25
References ............................................................................................................................... 27
v
Executive Summary
What the report is about
This report details the development, safety and effectiveness of an insecticide-treated refuge trap for
the control of adult Small Hive Beetles in the hive.
Who is the report targeted at?

The report is written for beekeepers, advisors to the honeybee industry and the agrochemical industry.
Background
The Small Hive Beetle is an introduced pest of bee hives causing hive losses and reduced productivity
for beekeepers on Australia's eastern seaboard. Beekeepers may use oil traps to kill beetles in hives or
permethrin soil drenches to control larvae in the soil. Both are laborious, need regular attention and are
of limited effectiveness.
Aims/Objectives
This project aimed to refine the insecticidal harbourage developed during DAN 216A Part I into a
ready-to-use product for beekeepers. It was hoped that the device could be registered with the
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) and marketed commercially by a
manufacturer.
Methods used
The design of the harbourage evolved from discussions between the Principal Investigator, specialist
plastics fabricators, cardboard manufacturers and beekeepers. Safety of the device was tested in a
honey residue trial conducted in accordance with APVMA Guideline No. 28 Residues in Honey. Field
trials conducted under APVMA Permit PER9732 in co-operation with commercial beekeepers in
western Sydney were used to demonstrate effectiveness in naturally-infested hives.
Results/Key findings
A device that excluded bees but which was actively sought out by adult beetles was developed. The
design: ensured that the insecticide-treated fluted cardboard insert was inaccessible to bees; is suitable
for use in current hive boxes; is user-friendly; and safe for beekeepers, their bees and honey.
Compared to 'control' hives, beetle infestations in hives at three western Sydney apiaries were reduced
by 90-99% over six weeks with no detrimental effects on hive productivity or bee health.
Implications for relevant stakeholders

These results demonstrate that use of this device in well-managed commercial hives provides
effective, safe and economical insecticidal control of Small Hive Beetle. The favourable results of the
honey residue trial demonstrated that use of the device did not compromise the safety of honey to
consumers by leaving unacceptable insecticide residues. There is no other control strategy with
comparable efficacy to the Small Hive Beetle Harbourage but currently no company or other body has
shown any interest in registering and commercialising the device in Australia or elsewhere in the
world where patent protection exists. An essential element of the device is the use of the insecticide
fipronil. Existing formulations of fipronil combine outstanding contact efficacy against Small Hive
Beetle with favourable physicochemical characteristics such as extremely low vapour pressure but
until patents expire BASF holds exclusive rights over all uses of fipronil. At the time of writing BASF
has stated that the use of fipronil as proposed is inconsistent with its product stewardship position.
Recommendations
That effort continues to ensure this product becomes commercially available for beekeepers. It may be
necessary to identify a sufficiently attractive overseas market to make registration of such a specialist
device an economically attractive proposition.
vi
Introduction
The Small Hive Beetle, Aethina tumida Murray was detected at Richmond in western Sydney hives late
in 2002 (Fletcher and Cook 2002). A. tumida is a native of southern Africa where it causes little concern to
apiarists. Primary damage caused by Small Hive Beetle is through the activity of the larvae that feed on
brood, pollen and honey causing it to ferment. Stored supers of honey or extracted comb are also
susceptible to damage by larvae and adult beetles (Elzen et al. 1999). Small Hive Beetle has
established in eastern Australia although initial foci were around Richmond in Sydney's west, Cowra
and Stroud (Gillespie et al. 2003).
The Consultative Committee on Emergency Animal Diseases concluded that the incursion of Small
Hive Beetle into NSW and Queensland could not be eradicated or contained. With the assistance of its
expert steering committee comprising representatives of the Commonwealth and affected State
governments, the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation and the Australian
Honeybee Industry Council, Animal Health Australia developed a National Small Hive Beetle
Management Plan (2003) that had as one of its aims to "reduce the impact on productivity, slow the
spread of the Small Hive Beetle in Australia and minimise the damage in infested apiaries by
identifying and implementing measures (chemical, non-chemical and management) that minimise the
risk of harmful chemical residues" ... to control Small Hive Beetle.
Insecticide use was considered one of the strategies that could be used against adult and larval beetles.
In particular, insecticidal control of beetles inside the hive was the ambitious primary aim. In DAN
216A Part I we identified fipronil as being superior to several alternative insecticides by having the
desirable physicochemical characteristics of extremely low vapour pressure (Colliot et al. 1992) and
low water solubility as well as excellent contact efficacy against adult Small Hive Beetles (Levot and
Haque 2006) and no repellent effects. The behaviour of the beetles in laboratory culture (Haque and
Levot 2005) suggested that a refuge trap incorporating core-fluted cardboard might be devised for in-
hive use. Harbourages comprised of fipronil-treated core-fluted cardboard covered with adhesive-
backed 50 m thick aluminium foil were tested in the laboratory (Levot and Haque 2006) and in a
small number of NSW DPI research hives. The laboratory experiments demonstrated that over 98% of
beetles placed inside sealed hive boxes of stored comb were killed by the harbourages (Levot and
Haque 2006) but the trials in the research hives suggested that unless the open ends of the cardboard
were protected by several layers of foil bees could attack the cardboard (Figure 1) and hives would be
lost. Moreover, small residues of fipronil were detected in the honey produced by hives in which the
prototype harbourage was present.
Another prototype (Figure 2) with strengthened, overhanging foil edges was tested in twenty
commercial hives at two locations under APVMA Permit PER8167. After one month, with the use of
the treated harbourages at a Wilberforce apiary, the numbers of live adult beetles seen on the bottom
boards and elsewhere in the hives indicated a mean reduction of 93% compared to pre-treatment
counts. At an apiary located at Cranebrook the mean reduction in live beetle counts was 87%
compared with untreated control hives. However, at the Cranebrook site one hive was killed when
bees damaged the harbourage.
1
Figure 1. Damage to cardboard done by bees that forced entry into an early prototype
harbourage.
Figure 2. Early prototype cardboard harbourage used in the preliminary field trials (2005).
2
Two conclusions were drawn from the limited field work: the harbourages worked in that beetle
numbers in the hives were drastically and rapidly reduced, and; a more robust covering for the
fipronil-treated cardboard insert was required to protect bees and minimize the possibility of honey
contamination. This became the focus of the current project.
Objective
The project had a single objective:
To refine the insecticidal harbourage developed during DAN 216A Part I into a ready-to-use
product for use by beekeepers that could be registered with the Australian Pesticides and
Veterinary Medicines Authority and developed commercially by a manufacturer.
3
Materials and Methods
Refining the harbourage
Technical drawings of a two-piece rigid plastic harbourage shell thought to contain all the features
deemed important to the safety of bees and to the efficient operation of the device were made by the
Principal Investigator in August 2005. Important design features of the harbourage were:
A two-piece rigid plastic design

Tamperproof after assembly (no user access)
Made such that there are precisely sized openings that allow beetles in but exclude bees
Protective of C flute cardboard insert
Designed such that the cardboard insert is positioned 8 mm in from openings
Black
Compatible with silicone adhesives
Inexpensive
Disposable in household garbage.
Discussions were held with two potential manufacturers. The cardboard insert material ('C' flute
corrugated cardboard (Australian Corrugated Box Pty. Ltd., Wetherill Park, NSW; Product Code no.
CO3 RL150,) was deemed to be ideal in terms of a refuge for the beetles and as a matrix for the
insecticide.
As a check that the plastic harbourage was as attractive to the beetles as the foil-covered versions, a
piece of untreated cardboard was placed inside a final version of the harbourage as soon as it was
delivered. The assembled harbourage was, in turn, placed inside a plastic box containing over 100
adult Small Hive Beetles. The box was inspected four hours later.
Residue trial with the End-Use-Product

Honey
Five research hives located at Belgenny Farm, Camden were used in a honey residue trial that
commenced on 12 September 2006 when ambient temperatures and flowering favoured bee activity.
In accordance with APVMA Guideline 28 Residues in honey (APVMA 2001) two central frames
from the middle super of each hive were removed and brought to the laboratory. The cells on each
frame were uncapped and the honey extracted using a manual bench-top extractor. Honey from each
hive was bulked into a 10 L plastic drum and sub-samples were poured into labelled clean glass jars
prior to being placed into frozen storage. Drawing pins were pushed into the frames so that they could
be easily identified later and the frames were then placed back into the hives. One month later the
same frames were again removed. In accordance with the Guidelines the honey extracted from the ten
frames was bulked together. Five sub-samples of this post-treatment honey were transferred into
labelled clean glass jars which were then placed into a freezer. The frozen sample jars were sent to
AgriSolutions Australia Pty. Ltd. in Queensland as coded samples (i.e. the laboratory was blind to the
sample history).
Cardboard inserts
To quantify the amount of fipronil present in the cardboard used in the harbourages eight 5 x 5 cm
samples (identified as Cardboard samples CS, CT, CU, CV, CW, CX, CY and CZ) were sent to
AgriSolutions for individual analysis. CZ was an untreated 'control' piece of cardboard. Samples CS,
CT, CU, CV and CW were pieces cut from the cardboard that had been inside the harbourages used
for one month in the honey residue trial whereas CX and CY were recently treated cardboard.
4
Commercialisation
Until fipronil comes off-patent, BASF holds exclusive rights to its use. In anticipation of a change of
circumstance a commercialisation dossier was produced in collaboration with Mr John Ryan,
Commercialisation Manager (NSW DPI). This dossier was advertised in a call for Expressions of
Interest in the national newspapers in February 2007. The Executive Summary and the covering letter
calling for Expressions of Interest were also directly mailed to fifteen agrochemical companies. The
dossier contained a thorough description of the features, safety and effectiveness of the harbourage.
The closing date for applications was 13 March 2007.
Field trials with the End-Use-Product

A Category 23 (Application for a Research Permit) permit application was dispatched to the APVMA
in November 2006 as soon as the results of the honey residue trial with the plastic harbourage were
received. The application was based on the efficacy data collected during the 2005 field trials with the
prototype harbourage and on the favourable insecticide residue data collected during the spring 2006
trials with the plastic harbourage. The application contained supplementary information under the
headings Residues and Trade Considerations, Occupational Health and Safety and Target
Species Efficacy and Safety. A draft label with Directions for Use was also provided.
Field trials began shortly after the issue of the permit. On 1 March, previously purchased knife-cut
cardboard inserts were treated with Regent 200SC Insecticide (1.5 mL per litre of water). When the
cards were dry and flat one hundred harbourages were assembled and sealed shut with 'plumbers'
plastic pressure pipe cement (Type P Plumbers Mate PVC-U Pipe Cement). Co-operators in South
Maroota, Wilberforce and North Richmond were enlisted into the trials.
Pre-treatment hive inspections were conducted at each apiary (14-21 March 2007). At each site ten
(usually) hives with suitable numbers of beetles were selected and Small Hive Beetle counts recorded
during disassembly of the hives. A single harbourage was placed on the bottom board of each 'trial
hive' in the apiary and, where possible, into each other hive at the apiary. At the South Maroota and
North Richmond sites two hives acted as 'controls'. At the smaller apiary at Wilberforce a single hive
acted as a control. In these hives a harbourage containing an untreated cardboard insert was placed on
the bottom board. Four and six weeks after placement the numbers of live and dead beetles were
recorded and all dead beetles removed. At each time point the percentage reduction in beetle numbers
was calculated with, and without correction for changes in beetle numbers in the 'control' hives.
Hence, for each site the absolute reduction in beetle numbers compared to the pre-treatment number
was calculated and also, the reduction in beetle numbers relative to the 'controls'. Here the % reduction
in live beetles was calculated using the Henderson and Tilton (1955) formula: 100 x (1 - (Ta/Tb x
Cb/Tb) where Ta and Tb were the mean number of beetles seen in the treated hives post- and pre-
treatment respectively and Ca and Cb were the mean number of beetles seen in the untreated hives
post- and pre-treatment.
After the six weeks post-treatment inspections the harbourages were removed, placed into individual
labelled sealable plastic bags and brought back to the laboratory where they were de-constructed and
the number of dead beetles inside recorded. With these numbers added, the total number of dead
beetles found in each hive during the trial interval was calculated. Of course, this number did not
include any dead beetles removed from the hives by the bees.
Residual efficacy of the harbourages

A trial was undertaken to assess the shelf-life of the fipronil treated cardboard. Cardboard inserts were
removed from four assembled harbourages that had been stored at ambient temperatures for 14 weeks.
The harbourages were from the same treatment batch used in the field trials (see below). The
cardboard had been treated on 1 March and the inserts were removed on 4 June 2007. Pieces of the
cardboard (9 x 9 cm) were wrapped in 50 m thick adhesive backed aluminium foil and placed inside
the plastic containers (18 x 12 x 4 cm) with approximately 20 laboratory reared (Haque and Levot
2005) adult beetles. The containers were kept in an illuminated incubator run at 28oC. Mortality was
assessed after 48 hours and LC50s calculated according to the probit method of Finney (1970).
5
Results
Refining the harbourage
The technical drawings and the project in general were discussed with Low Volume Plastics Pty. Ltd.
Villawood, NSW on 6 September 2005 when a quotation for producing a prototype was requested.
Despite repeated contact, Low Volume Plastics failed to respond and were abandoned as potential
fabricators/manufacturers. Discussions with an alternative supplier were initiated immediately and
subsequently an order was placed with ProPlas Pty. Ltd. (19 October 2005) to provide a milled sample
of the two-piece prototype as originally drawn. A plastic prototype was delivered in early December
2005 (Figure 3) but the dimensions of the beetle entrance were larger than specification and another
prototype was ordered. This was not delivered until 27 April 2006 but again was unacceptable (Figure
4). In this version the gap entrance was too small for beetles to enter. On 20 June yet another revised
prototype was delivered but again was not as per specification. Although the entrance gap was the
correct size in this version, the height of the internal 'atrium' into which this gap opens was less than
the height of the cardboard insert. This effectively prevented beetles from gaining access to half of the
tunnels in the corrugated cardboard. At this point the issue of making the assembled harbourage
'tamperproof' was resolved when the designer suggested that the proposed clip locking device would
be too brittle for an acrylic plastic device and that the only way of permanently closing the device
would be to ultrasonically weld the halves together or to use a plastics' glue. The final design was
delivered in mid-July 2006 (Figure 5). At the recommendation of Mr. Bruce White, a very experienced
apiarist, small holes that could accept thin wire retrieval lanyards were added to the design (Figures 6,
7). Inclusion of a wire lanyard allows easy retrieval of the harbourage without the need to dismantle
the hive. Details of the internal structure of the harbourage, including the locking tabs that hold the
two halves firmly together, are shown in Figures 8-10. The acrylic plastic harbourage is rigid so that
there is little distortion of the assembled device and yet very resistant to breakage. It satisfies all of the
criteria set out in the specifications.
The plastic harbourage was eagerly sought out by the adult beetles in the laboratory experiment. When
checked four hours after placement all the beetles were inside the trap.
6
Figure 3. The first plastic prototype harbourage.
Figure 4. The second plastic prototype harbourage.
7
Figure 5. The final product assembled.
8
Figure 6. Assembled harbourage with retrieval wire attached.
Figure 7. Assembled harbourage showing detail of retrieval wire attachment.
9
Figure 8. Open harbourage showing location of cardboard insert.
Figure 9. Open harbourage showing location of cardboard insert and locking tabs.
10
Figure 10. Open harbourage showing locking tabs.
Residue trial with the End-Use-Product

The residue trial was conducted under ideal conditions for hive activity. This is reflected in the fact
that the bees stored approximately 9.4 kg of honey in the ten 'trial frames' during the month that the
harbourages were in the hives. AgriSolutions Australia Pty. Ltd. provided a Certificate of Analysis
(Figure 11). As expected, the total fiprole content (i.e. the sum of fipronil and its three toxic
metabolites MB 46513, MB 45950 and MB 46136) in each of the pre-treatment samples (Honey
samples #1, #2, #3, #4 and #5) was below the Limit of Quantification (<1.0 g kg-1). The mean total
fiprole content in the bulked post-treatment samples (Honey samples #6, #7, #8. #9 and #10) were also
below the Limit of Quantification. No residue of either fipronil or any of its toxic metabolites was
detected in three of the post-treatment samples. Two samples contained MB 46136 at the limit of
detection (maximum residue 1.1 g kg-1) but no fipronil or either of the other toxic metabolites (Figure
11).
Mean fipronil content in the recently treated cards was 27.0 1.3 (SE) g cm-2 while that in the one
month old 'used' cards was 21.2 1.7 cm-2. No fipronil or metabolites was detected in the untreated
sample.
11
Figure 11. Certificate of Analysis for the honey and treated cardboard.
12
13
Commercialisation
The call for Expressions of Interest failed to illicit any commercial interest from potential registrants.
Until fipronil comes off-patent, BASF holds exclusive rights to its use. When patent protection has
expired a product could be registered or a Permit for general use issued, but at present no commercial
manufacturer/registrant exists. In the absence of a commercial manufacturer/registrant NSW DPI
could apply for a general use permit and manufacture harbourages.
Field trials with the End-Use-Product

On 28 February 2007 a letter was received from the APVMA advised that our permit application had
been successful and that Permit PER9732 (Figure 12) had been issued effective from 26 February
2007 until 25 February 2009. This permit allows NSW DPI to conduct trials of the plastic harbourage
in commercial hives subject to the condition that use of the device is restricted to Dr Garry Levot,
Dr Michael Hornitzky, Mr Nicholas Annand, NSW DPI employees and persons under the supervision
of the NSW DPI employees listed above.
Mean beetle numbers increased by several fold in the 'control' hives at each site. This suggests that
population numbers were naturally increasing during the trial period thereby providing an excellent
test of the effectiveness of the harbourages.
14
Figure 12. APVMA Permit PER 9732.
15
16
Trial 1. Wilberforce
The Wilberforce apiary comprised 10 hives (Figure 14). Three hives were lost to American Foul
Brood during the trial interval. Hence by the end of the trial the mean reduction in beetle numbers was
calculated from only six treated hives. The control hive was located at the end of the row of hives and
contained only two beetles at the pre-treatment inspection. Insecticide treated harbourages were placed
into each of the other hives where pre-treatment beetle numbers ranged from two to over 100. Beetle
numbers were monitored in each hive for the duration of the trial.
Data for the pre-treatment and four and six weeks post-treatment inspections are presented in Tables 1
and 2. After four weeks the absolute mean number of live beetles had declined from about 36 to 12
(66% reduction) in the treated hives but had increased from two to 70 in the control hive. When
allowance was made for the increase in beetle numbers seen in the control hives the mean percentage
reduction in the treated hives was 99%. At six weeks after treatment the absolute mean number of live
beetles in the treated hives was five. This suggests and absolute reduction of 86%. In the two hives
where over 100 beetles were estimated to have resided pre-treatment, only six and seven beetles were
seen at six weeks. When allowance was made for the increase in beetle numbers seen in the control
hive at six weeks after treatment, the mean percentage reduction across all treated hives was 99%.
At Wilberforce 62 dead beetles were removed from the eight treated hives at the four weeks post-
treatment inspection, followed by a further 93 beetles from the six remaining hives at the six weeks
post-treatment inspection. Another 260 dead beetles were removed from the harbourages retrieved
from the six hives remaining at the end of the trial (total 415). Examples of what was found inside the
deconstructed harbourages are shown in Figure 14.
Figure 13. The Wilberforce apiary.
17
Table 1. Pre- and four weeks post-treatment numbers of Small Hive Beetles in hives treated with
the harbourages.
Hive location Pre-treatment 4 weeks post- Mean Corrected

live beetle treatment live percentage mean
count1 beetle count reduction in percentage
beetle count3 reduction in
beetle count4
Wilberforce Control 2 70 +97.1
Wilberforce 1 47 7
Wilberforce 2 3 4
Wilberforce 3 5 17
Wilberforce 4 5 4
Wilberforce 5 24 7
Wilberforce 6 2 21
Wilberforce 7 100+2 28
TOTAL (MEAN) 35.8 12.1 66.2 99.0
Table 2. Pre- and six weeks post-treatment numbers of live Small Hive Beetles in hives treated
with the harbourages.

beetle count4
Wilberforce Control 2 41 +95.1
Wilberforce 1 47 7
Wilberforce 2 3 2
Wilberforce 3 5 AFB
Wilberforce 4 5 6
Wilberforce 5 24 3
Wilberforce 6 2 AFB
TOTAL (MEAN) 35.8 5.2 85.5 99.3
Footnotes to Tables 1-6.

1. No. of live adult beetles seen on bottom boards and elsewhere in hive during hive inspection.
2. Assumed to be 100 for calculations.
3. % reduction in live beetles compared to pre-treatment numbers calculated as: 100 x (B-A/B) where B is the mean 'pre-
treatment' live beetle count and A is the mean 'post-treatment' live beetle count.
4. % reduction in live beetles compared to pre-treatment numbers with allowance made for changes in beetle numbers in the
'control' hives: calculated as: 100 x (1 - (Ta/Ca x Cb/Tb) where Ta and Tb are the mean number of beetles seen in the treated
hives post- and pre-treatment respectively and Ca and Cb are the mean number of beetles seen in the untreated hives post-
and pre-treatment (Henderson and Tilton 1955).
18
Figure 14. Dead beetles inside a deconstructed harbourage removed from a hive at the end of the
field trial.
19
Trial 2. South Maroota
The apiary at South Maroota comprised 35 hives (Figure 15). Three hives with very small entrances
were not used in the trial. The two control hives were located on the ends of two rows (distant end in
Figure 15). The remaining 30 hives were treated by placing a single harbourage on the bottom board.
The two control hives and ten treated hives were monitored for beetle numbers for the six weeks
duration of the trial. All hives remained strong throughout the trial interval.
Figure 15. The South Maroota apiary.
and 4. Pre-treatment beetle counts ranged from five to 36 in the monitored hives. The mean pre-
treatment beetle count in the control hives was seven. Four weeks after the harbourages were put in
place the absolute mean number of live beetles in the treated hives had declined from 16 to one (94%
reduction). By this time the mean number of beetles in the control hives had risen to 20. When
allowance was made for this increase in the control hives the percentage reduction was 98%. At six
weeks after treatment the absolute mean numbers of live beetles was reduced to three in the treated
hives (80% reduction). Between four and six weeks after placement of the harbourages there was a
slight decline in the mean number of beetles in the control hives but still a substantial increase over the
pre-treatment levels. When allowance was made for the increase in beetle numbers seen in the control
hives at six weeks after treatment the percentage reduction was 90%. At the four weeks post-treatment
inspection 115 dead beetles were removed from the treated hives followed by a further 65 beetles at
the six weeks post-treatment inspection. Another 251 dead beetles were removed from inside the
harbourages retrieved from the hives at the end of the trial (total 431).
20
Table 3. Pre- and 4 weeks post-treatment numbers of Small Hive Beetles in hives treated with
the harbourages.

beetle count4
South Maroota Control 6 4
A
B
Combined +65.0
Mean
South Maroota 1 5 0
South Maroota 2 8 0
South Maroota 3 8 1
South Maroota 4 8 0
South Maroota 5 16 0
South Maroota 7 5 3
TOTAL (MEAN) 16.1 1.0 93.8 97.8
Table 4. Pre- and 4 weeks post-treatment numbers of Small Hive Beetles in hives treated with
the harbourages.

beetle count4
A
B
Combined +53.3
Mean
South Maroota 1 5 0
South Maroota 2 8 0
South Maroota 3 8 2
South Maroota 4 8 1
South Maroota 7 5 1
TOTAL (MEAN) 16.1 3.3 79.5 90.4
21
Trial 3. North Richmond
The apiary at North Richmond comprised 44 hives in two rows (Figure 16). The control hives were
located at the end of one row (distant end of right hand row in Figure 16) and four hives in from the
opposite end of the other row. Harbourages were placed into all other hives, however, only the two
control hives and 10 treated hives were monitored. Pre-treatment beetle numbers in the monitored
hives ranged from 12 to 65 (Tables 5 and 6). All hives remained in excellent condition throughout the
six weeks trial interval.
Figure 16. The North Richmond apiary.
and 6. After four weeks the absolute mean number of live beetles in the treated hives declined from 33
to seven (79% reduction) whereas numbers increased by two to three-fold in the control hives. When
allowance was made for this increase the mean percentage reduction was 92%. At six weeks after
treatment the absolute mean numbers of live beetles was reduced to only three (90% reduction). The
mean number of beetles in the control hives continued to increase during this time. When allowance
was made for this increase the mean percentage reduction was 97%.
At North Richmond 132 dead beetles were removed from the treated hives at the four weeks post-
treatment inspection, followed by a further 21 beetles at the six weeks post-treatment inspection.
Another 146 dead beetles were removed from the harbourages retrieved from the hives at the end of
the trial (total 299).
22
Table 5. Pre- and four weeks post-treatment numbers of Small Hive Beetles in hives treated with
the harbourages.

beetle count4
North Richmond 16 37
Control A
Control B
Combined +64.1
Mean
North Richmond 1 30 0
TOTAL (MEAN) 33.1 7 78.9 92.4
Table 6. Pre- and six weeks post-treatment numbers of Small Hive Beetles in hives treated with
the harbourages.

beetle count4
Control A
Control B
Combined +66.3
Mean
TOTAL (MEAN) 33.1 3.3 90.0 96.6
23
Residual efficacy of the harbourages
The cardboard removed from the 14 weeks old harbourages that had been stored at room temperature
caused 100% mortality of beetles when tested in the laboratory bioassay. Control mortality was 7%
(Table 7).
Table 7. Effectiveness of treated cardboard from 14 weeks old harbourages against Small Hive
Beetle adults.
Treatment No. live beetles No. dead beetles Total no. beetles % mortality
exposed
Control (rep. A) 18 3 21
Control (rep. B) 20 0 20
Combined 38 3 41 7.3
Treated (rep. A) 0 21 21
Treated (rep. B) 0 24 24
Treated (rep. C) 0 22 22
Treated (rep. D) 0 21 21
Combined 0 88 88 100
24
Discussion
The ultimate version of the Small Hive Beetle Harbourage has all the attributes identified as being
essential to the development of a safe, effective device for the control of adult Small Hive Beetles in
the hive. It comprises a two-piece rigid, black, acrylic plastic design. Once assembled, the harbourage
is robust and safe to handle and effectively tamperproof. Any attempt to open the assembled
harbourage would result in obvious and malicious damage. The acrylic plastic is compatible with
silicone adhesives that can be used to anchor the harbourages to uneven bottom boards. Once clipped
together and sealed by either glue or ultrasonic welding the plastic shell is protective of the cardboard
insert which is held in position 8 mm in from the end openings by flanges in the plastic. The
dimensions of the opening slots allow beetles to enter and exclude bees. Beyond the thresholds of the
slots but some distance in front of the cardboard, the gap between the two halves of the harbourage
increases to the full height of the cardboard insert, thereby creating an atrium from which beetles may
enter either the 'top' or 'bottom' corrugations of the cardboard insert.
The development of the final design of the protective plastic shell of the harbourage was meticulous
and culminated in the production by Pro-Plas Pty. Ltd. of injection moulds that can be used for mass-
production. Similarly, the selection of knife-cut pieces of the standard C-flute corrugated cardboard
manufactured by Australian Corrugated Box Co. Pty. Ltd. for the insert provided an excellent refuge
for the beetles and an easily treated substrate to retain the insecticide.
The End-Use-Product should be economical for beekeepers. The cost will depend on commercial
decisions made by a registrant/manufacturer. Insecticide cost would be minimal but labour costs to
treat the cardboard, assemble the harbourages and, if necessary, attach the retrieval wire would add to
the overall cost and, in turn, to the price of the devices.
What was not achieved was finding a potential registrant willing to commercialise the invention. This
is a great pity considering the plight of beekeepers not only in Australia but in other parts of the world
where Small Hive Beetle is impacting negatively on the productivity and profitability of commercial
bee keeping. Failure to attract commercial interest in the Small Hive Beetle harbourage and lack of
access to fipronil at least until patents expire, are likely to impact on the success of this project. The
design of the plastic harbourage combined with the extremely low vapour pressure of fipronil combine
to make the likelihood of fipronil residues in honey extremely low and the risk to bees negligible. The
APVMA was sufficiently satisfied that the device was safe to bees and honey to issue the Research
Permit for its use in commercial hives (Figure 12).
In anticipation of an international market for the device NSW DPI sought patent protection for the
device beyond Australia in the United States of America, Canada and New Zealand. Notwithstanding
the potential overseas market, results of a survey (J. Rhodes, unpublished data) of 645 registered NSW
beekeepers (response rate was 323 (49.4%)) suggested that 107 out of 142 respondents to the question
"If an in-hive adult Small Hive Beetle control device using pesticide as a control agent became
available to beekeepers, would you use the device in your hives?" would use the device. It was
impossible to suggest a likely cost for the device but this would, of course, also influence beekeepers.
Potential uptake of the device in Queensland is likely to be similar to that in NSW.
The Small Hive Beetle Harbourages were convenient to use. For our purpose it was necessary to
dissemble the monitored hives to obtain beetle counts but for the remaining hives the harbourages
could be 'posted' through the front hive entrance slot and reclaimed by pulling the retrieval wire. In
this regard they were extremely easy to use. There would always be an advantage in opening the hive
to scrape clean the bottom board and position the harbourage for optimal performance but
incorporation of the retrieval wire means that there can be no excuse for not removing the harbourages
when control has been established or when cool weather lessens the threat of Small Hive Beetle
infestation. Analysis of the cardboard inserts from harbourages that had been used in hives for one
month indicated that mean levels of fipronil dropped very slightly over the period. Moreover, at the
time of writing laboratory trials to determine the shelf-life of harbourages were continuing but
25
effectiveness of 14 weeks old harbourages remained optimal (Table 7). Service life for the harbourage
of at least six months is anticipated but further work on stability is required before shelf-life and
service life are determined.
The Small Hive Beetle harbourages performed extremely well in field trials conducted at three
locations in western Sydney. The trials were conducted during March and April 2007 when beetle
numbers were naturally increasing at each trial site. These were excellent conditions to evaluate the
effectiveness of the harbourages. Six weeks after placement of the harbourages the mean number of
beetles in the treated hives ranged from three to five compared to pre-treatment means of 16-36. This
equals a reduction of 80-90%. Only two hives contained in excess of 100 beetles prior to treatment.
Both were at the Wilberforce location. By the end of the trial these hives each contained seven or
fewer beetles (Table 2). Across the three sites beetles could not be found in six of the 26 monitored
treated hives that remained at the completion of the trials and 19 hives contained five or fewer beetles.
At the same time beetle numbers increased several fold in the control hives suggesting true reductions
in beetle numbers of 90-99%. At the Wilberforce, South Maroota and North Richmond sites
respectively 415, 431 and 299 dead beetles were removed from the treated hives during the four and
six weeks inspections or retrieved from the deconstructed harbourages at the conclusion of the trials.
These numbers do not include the unknown number of dead beetles ejected from the hives by the bees.
This number can be considerable with records for one single hive suggesting 110 beetles were ejected
(and collected in an oil tray positioned in front of the entrance) over 23 days during April/May 2007
(B. White, unpublished data).
These trials have demonstrated that the harbourages are capable of achieving excellent control of
Small Hive Beetles in the hive. They have been shown to be very user-friendly and compatible with
existing hive structure and entrances. Use of the harbourages did not lead to residues in honey and no
ill effects were noticeable in the bees or in productivity. A commercial manufacturer is needed to take
this invention to the waiting markets both in Australia and overseas. In the absence of a commercial
registrant at that time, an application to APVMA for a General Use Permit will be needed and an
alternative manufacturing and marketing strategy developed.
26
References
Animal Health Australia. (2003). Small Hive Beetle National Management Plan.
http://www.honeybee.org.au/SHB_FINAL_Mgt_Plan_AHA%20_31-10-03_.pdf
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (2001). Residue Guideline No. 28. Residues
in Honey. http://www.apvma.gov.au/guidelines/guidln28.shtml
Colliot, F. Kukorowski, K.A., Hawkins, D.W. and Roberts, D.A. (1992). Fipronil: A new soil and
foliar broad spectrum insecticide. Proceedings of the Brighton Crop Protection Conference:
Pests and Diseases; Nov 23-26.
Elzen, P, Baxter, J., Eischen, F. and Wilson, W.T. (1999). Biology of the Small Hive Beetle.
American Bee Journal 139: 310.
Finney D.J. (1970). Probit Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 318 pp.
Fletcher, M.J. and Cook, L.G. (2002). Small Hive Beetle. Agnote DAI-288, NSW Agriculture. pp.3.
Gillespie, P., Staples, J, King, C., Fletcher, M.J. and Dominiak, B.C. (2003). Small Hive Beetle,
Aethina tumida (Murray)(Coleoptera: Nitidulidae) in New South Wales. General and Applied
Entomology 32: 5-7.
Haque, N.M.M. and Levot, G.W. (2005). Laboratory rearing of the Small Hive Beetle Aethina
tumida Murray (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae). General and Applied Entomology 34: 29-31.
Henderson, C.f. and Tilton, E.W. (1955). Tests with acaricides against the brown wheat mite. Journal
of Economic Entomology 48: 157-161.
Levot, GW. and Haque, NMM. (2006). Insecticidal control of adult Small Hive Beetle, Aethina
tumida Murray (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae) in laboratory trials. General and Applied Entomology
35: 1-5.
27

Insecticidal Control of SHB

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Insecticidal Control of SHB

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Insecticidal Control of

Small Hive Beetle

RIRDC Publication No 07/146

ISBN 1 74151 542 4

Insecticidal Control of Small Hive Beetle: Developing a ready-to-use product

Publication No. 07/146

Researcher Contact Details

Phone: 02 4640 6376

RIRDC Contact Details

Phone: 02 6271 4100

Published in September 2007

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ vi

Materials and Methods ............................................................................................................ 4

Who is the report targeted at?

Implications for relevant stakeholders

A two-piece rigid plastic design

Residue trial with the End-Use-Product

Field trials with the End-Use-Product

Residual efficacy of the harbourages

Figure 4. The second plastic prototype harbourage.

Figure 7. Assembled harbourage showing detail of retrieval wire attachment.

Residue trial with the End-Use-Product

Field trials with the End-Use-Product

Figure 13. The Wilberforce apiary.

Hive location Pre-treatment 4 weeks post- Mean Corrected

Hive location Pre-treatment 6 weeks post- Mean Corrected

Footnotes to Tables 1-6.

Figure 15. The South Maroota apiary.

Hive location Pre-treatment 4 weeks post- Mean Corrected

Hive location Pre-treatment 6 weeks post- Mean Corrected

Figure 16. The North Richmond apiary.

Hive location Pre-treatment 4 weeks post- Mean Corrected

Hive location Pre-treatment 6 weeks post- Mean Corrected

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi