Tropilaelaps Mites & IPM

The USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture recently funded Alabama's Auburn University Bee Center to enhance honey bee health by developing better tools for Varroa mite Integrated Pest Management (IPM). The new threat of the Tropilaelaps mite is now part of that conversation. Bringing in commercial beekeepers for insight is aimed at defining an “economic threshold” or in practical terms, "At what point do we compromise honey bee health to protect the stability of our nation's food supply chain?"

The challenge is that beekeeping has a history of reacting quickly out of fear to threats, sometimes with unintended consequences:

•     Heavy treatment for Nosema and antibiotics for European Foulbrood prevention contributed to resistance and shifting disease dynamics and is no longer advised.

•     Overuse of chemical treatments for Varroa destructor leads to resistant mite strains and contributes to failure in honey bee natural defenses against viruses and other pathogens. 

Where a chem approach has been avoided, healthy honey bees are seen to apply ancient behaviors that allow for coexistence with varroa, as happened with the tracheal mite of the past. Imagine being told there is a tiny mite coming that will crawl into your bees breathing tubes to breed, suffocating the bees? We had no hard chemical solution when tracheal mites appeared yet are no longer seeing this pest to any degree worth reporting in colony failure stats or with any recommended precautionary treatments.

That’s why the USDA’s IPM approach matters—and begins with cultural and mechanical methods, only using chemicals when necessary. Commercial operations face real pressure to act quickly, but that doesn’t always lead to the best long-term outcomes. It certainly shouldn't dictate backyard beekeeping practices. 40 years later we are dealing with weaker bees and stronger varroa mite resistance to chemical solutions.

Among many useful real-world examples from around the globe of nation-wide populations of our favorite honey bee, apis mellifera, successfully coexisting with varroa - is Cuba. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, Cuba lost access to synthetic miticides and imported agricultural chemicals. Their success comes from careful stock selection, brood management, and coordinated practices, not from eliminating the mite. It shows that reducing chemical dependence is possible, but it requires long-term management and adaptation rather than quick fixes.

Even though backyard beekeepers may need to follow state guidelines, going straight to zero-tolerance treatment skips the intent of the USDA IPM program and can work against long-term colony health. Most of us aren’t managing bees where the nation’s food supply is at stake. There are folks among us who do their best to bring in mite resistant stock and make a honey crop as full-time beekeepers managing several apiaries around New Hampshire. They have an economic threshold to take into account with colony losses, and a community that looks to them for supplies; but you and I can prioritize long term success, developing skills that will matter to the future of beekeeping.

Over the years, I’ve learned to be cautious with fear-driven advice. It has served me very well to wait and see what the science will reveal. I'm glad the USDA has learned from experience on that front and hopefully will get the needed results from peer reviewed studies before we have to deal with fear driven advice on how to react to or anticipate Tropilaelaps.