Practical experiences with a syrup feeding study design based on a new MRL guideline SANTE11956/2016 rev.9 (2018)

A new study design, according to the guideline SANTE11956/2016 rev:9 (2018), was established to determine the maximum residue level (MRL) of plant protection products in honey. The guideline describes a syrup bee feeding study designed as a worst-case scenario for transferring plant protection products into honey. Previously, field and semi-field studies designs were used. The objectives of this study were to validate the suitability of this feeding semi-field studies according to the new guideline.A new study design, according to the guideline SANTE11956/2016 rev:9 (2018), was established to determine the maximum residue level (MRL) of plant protection products in honey. The guideline describes a syrup bee feeding study designed as a worst-case scenario for transferring plant protection products into honey. Previously, field and semi-field studies designs were used. The objectives of this study were to validate the suitability of this feeding semi-field studies according to the new guideline

Impact of an Oomen feeding with a neonicotinoid on daily activity and colony development of honeybees assessed with an AI based monitoring device

Feeding experiments are standard tools in the pollinator risk assessment. The design (Oomen et al. 1992) was developed to test insect growth regulators and herbicides. In recent years there was an update (Lückmann & Schmitzer 2015) on the outline in order to also focus on the advantage of different rates making a dose response design possible where exposure levels are known. Additionally, this design gives the possibility to test different rates for honey bee colonies foraging in the same landscape. The main objective of the experiment presented here was to determine the natural variability of foragers losses of hives fed with a sub-lethal neonicotinoid concentration compared to an untreated control. Other objectives were to see if the neurotoxic exposure results in any observable sub-lethal effects and to find out if losses can be correlated to hive development. This was assessed with traditional methods and a novel, visual monitoring device.Feeding experiments are standard tools in the pollinator risk assessment. The design (Oomen et al. 1992) was developed to test insect growth regulators and herbicides. In recent years there was an update (Lückmann & Schmitzer 2015) on the outline in order to also focus on the advantage of different rates making a dose response design possible where exposure levels are known. Additionally, this design gives the possibility to test different rates for honey bee colonies foraging in the same landscape. The main objective of the experiment presented here was to determine the natural variability of foragers losses of hives fed with a sub-lethal neonicotinoid concentration compared to an untreated control. Other objectives were to see if the neurotoxic exposure results in any observable sub-lethal effects and to find out if losses can be correlated to hive development. This was assessed with traditional methods and a novel, visual monitoring device

Bee colony assessments with the Liebefeld method: How do individual beekeepers influence results and are photo assessments an option to reduce variability?

Colony strength, food storage and brood development are a fundamental part of each honeybee field study. Colony assessments are used to compare and assess those for beehive over time. At present, most colony assessments are made by experienced beekeepers according to Liebefeld method. This method is based on an estimation of areas covered by honeybees, food and brood stages on each side of a comb. Areas are counted from a grid separating the comb side into 8 sections which are protocolled with an accuracy of 0.5 sections. An assessment for a hive takes up to 20 min and even with two field locations, it is necessary to split assessments between beekeepers. So, it is important to make estimates as comparable as possible. For this purpose, beekeepers practice the assessments on pre-determined photographs to “calibrate themselves”. The advantage of the Liebefeld assessment is that the condition of bee hive is estimated with minimum disturbance of the bees. Digital photography is under discussion to gain data with high precision and accuracy with one major disadvantage. To be able to see food and brood stages in photographs, bees have to be removed from combs. This, however, results in a disturbance of the colony – especially if the assessments take place in short time intervals of 7 ± 1 days. An experiment was performed to evaluate the variation between individual beekeepers and to compare the results to data generated with photographs. For the experiment, five colonies were assessed each by four beekeepers independently according to Liebefeld method. Each comb side of the five colonies was photographed with and without honeybees sitting on it for precise analysis at the computer for a number of bees, nectar cells, pollen cells, eggs, open brood and capped brood. The number of bees and cells with the different contents were generated by an area-based assessment in ImageJ as well as a detailed counting with help of HiveAnalyzer® Software. Data from beekeeper estimations were then compared with assessments based on digital photography. With the results of the experiment, we tried to answer several questions. With the study, we wanted to determine the level of variation between the beekeepers for the live stages and food stores estimated.Colony strength, food storage and brood development are a fundamental part of each honeybee field study. Colony assessments are used to compare and assess those for beehive over time. At present, most colony assessments are made by experienced beekeepers according to Liebefeld method. This method is based on an estimation of areas covered by honeybees, food and brood stages on each side of a comb. Areas are counted from a grid separating the comb side into 8 sections which are protocolled with an accuracy of 0.5 sections. An assessment for a hive takes up to 20 min and even with two field locations, it is necessary to split assessments between beekeepers. So, it is important to make estimates as comparable as possible. For this purpose, beekeepers practice the assessments on pre-determined photographs to “calibrate themselves”. The advantage of the Liebefeld assessment is that the condition of bee hive is estimated with minimum disturbance of the bees. Digital photography is under discussion to gain data with high precision and accuracy with one major disadvantage. To be able to see food and brood stages in photographs, bees have to be removed from combs. This, however, results in a disturbance of the colony – especially if the assessments take place in short time intervals of 7 ± 1 days. An experiment was performed to evaluate the variation between individual beekeepers and to compare the results to data generated with photographs. For the experiment, five colonies were assessed each by four beekeepers independently according to Liebefeld method. Each comb side of the five colonies was photographed with and without honeybees sitting on it for precise analysis at the computer for a number of bees, nectar cells, pollen cells, eggs, open brood and capped brood. The number of bees and cells with the different contents were generated by an area-based assessment in ImageJ as well as a detailed counting with help of HiveAnalyzer® Software. Data from beekeeper estimations were then compared with assessments based on digital photography. With the results of the experiment, we tried to answer several questions. With the study, we wanted to determine the level of variation between the beekeepers for the live stages and food stores estimated