APIS Volume 11, Number 7, July 1993

eZine lover (@eZine)

Published in 

APIS

 · 1 year ago

In this issue

• Honey Bee Health--When is a Colony Sick?
• Apitherapy and Human Health

HONEY BEE HEALTH--WHEN IS A COLONY SICK?

A recent Article in American Bee Journal (June, 1993, pp. 431-434) by Jost Dustmann discusses the natural defense mechanisms protecting the health of the honey bee. It asks a provocative question: when is a social organism like the bee colony sick? The presence of pathogens, the article continues, in a colony, single bees, food or wax does not mean a colony is sick (emphasis is mine). Only when the number of diseased or dead bees, larvae or pupae exceeds a certain limit and normal functioning of the colony is disturbed, is a colony deemed sick. A small loss of infected bees and developmental stages is necessary for any healthy colony.

The article discusses ten main defense mechanisms honey bees have against diseases and pests:

1. Cleaning or grooming behavior of adults. Some call this "hygienic behavior." It is the basis for several breeding programs in the U.S. This pattern includes: (a) single infected bees reacting quickly by dying soon and removing themselves as a source of infection and/or (b) sister bees quickly identifying abnormal (diseased) individuals (adults, larvae and pupae) and eliminating them from the population. Hygienic behavior is shown to be effective against American foulbrood, nosema, chalkbrood, sacbrood and paralysis. The article also indicates it will probably be involved in resistance to Varroa mites in European bees as has been observed in Asian species.
2. Quickly regenerating losses of population. This is extremely effective as removal of diseased individuals can be compensated for in a short time. The ability to replace bees rapidly generally outstrips even the greatest current threat to populations, the Varroa bee mite.
3. Continuous rotation of bee generations. Brood followed by adults followed by brood is analogous to crop rotation in commercial agriculture, where growing of one crop is often followed by sowing another. The article suggests a good example of this is tracheal mite infestation, which cannot keep up with replacement of bees by a colony in normal times. There is also evidence of active movement of mites into older bees. However, when older bees live longer, the mites may get the upper hand.
4. Swarming. A major defense is building new wax combs after bees swarm from their old colony. This appears to be a predominant strategy of African honey bees, which not only swarm, but also abandon (abscond from) their nests.
5. Restricting disease to either larvae or adults. This strategy ensures that if larvae are diseased, adults are not and vice versa. Both stone brood and Varroa are exceptions to this rule.
6. Control of fertility and population control. More in evidence in Varroa infestations, the mite's preference for drone brood deflects parasitization away from workers. In addition, the heavy cappings on affected drone brood, if left intact, ensure no mites will emerge.
7. Immune reactions. Observed in single adult bees, this has not been shown for the colony as a whole. Bactericidal molecules (peptides) are formed in individual bees and consumption of foreign materials (phagocytosis) by blood (hemolymph) cells has also been observed.
8. Stinging and biting. The first is self-evident. Biting has been shown to be a defense mechanism against Varroa, but found at low levels in European bees.
9. Proventriculus and peritrophic membrane. The former structure prevents entry of foreign organisms (bacteria, pathogens) from the crop or honey stomach into the digestive system. The latter lines the digestive tract, protecting it from rough materials and also preventing entry of bacteria and fungi into the hemolymph.
10. Antibiotic substances. An extremely important aspect of the honey bee's defenses, these chemicals can be found in honey (called "inhibine"), stored pollen and propolis (flavonoids, terpenes). These substances have also been implicated in human health concerns, including the use of diluted honey as a surgical dressing and consumption of propolis as preventative medicine.

The article concludes with another question: How can the beekeeper manage bees without interfering with the above natural strategies? There are five recommendations:

1. Selecting and breeding bees that have the necessary defense mechanisms already in place. Controlled mating is seen as essential.
2. Ensuring the environment provides enough of the right food for bees. If not, then the beekeeper must feed both carbohydrate (sugar) and protein (pollen substitute/supplement).
3. Determining the beehive is the right size with reference to colony size and management practices. Establishing artificial swarms that build new combs and uniting young colonies with older ones established the year before ensure rotation of bees and wax. Routinely replacing old combs is something every beekeeper should consider.
4. Keeping bees without using drugs (emphasis the author's). In general, the article concludes that medical treatment of a colony will interfere with the natural defense mechanisms discussed above. This is especially true for antibiotics, which cannot eradicate infections, but only mask symptoms, leading to sometimes huge reservoirs of disease ready to break out at any moment. One exception to this, however, is the use of a registered pesticide to control Varroa, an absolute necessity.

APITHERAPY AND HUMAN HEALTH

The latest Bee Well newsletter, April 1993, of the American Apitherapy Society (AAS) contains evidence that the activities of the Society are increasing and that the use of apitherapy by some physicians is on the rise. This year's AAS annual meeting and scientific symposium was held in May in Baltimore. The Society is attempting to get a group together to travel to China in conjunction with the World Apicultural Congress, which will attend Dr. Fang Zhu's International Conference on Apitherapy in Nanjing, September 27-30, 1993. Cost is approximately $4,000.00; for more information contact Mr. Michael Renaker, Citizen Ambassador Program, 509/534-0430.

The newsletter contains an introductory letter by President Weeks: "...the AAS has begun an historic working relationship for the first time with the National Institute of Health. Up until now, only foreign governmental scientific agencies have accepted our challenge to research the merits of apitherapy. The National Multi-Center Apitherapy Study (NMCAS)...constitutes approximately 6,000 cases." These include 250 multiple sclerosis patients, 1800 arthritic patients, and 50 gout patients. If you or your physician have information on cases that are being effectively treated with apitherapy, you should contact Dr. Weeks and fill out a form for the NMCAS database.

A feature article concerning venom therapy and arthritis published in 1988 in the Journal of Rheumatology, 15:10: 1461 was reprinted with permission in the newsletter. It concludes: "Based on accumulating evidence, venom therapies merit attention both for possible (adjunctive) clinical value and as a probe to better understand the pathogenesis of inflammatory arthritis." A footnote suggests much has been learned since this article was published.

Two articles published in the American Bee Journal (March 1993) are also reprinted. One is by Pat Wagner, Waldorf, MD, 301/843-8350, telling about her experiences with bee stings and multiple sclerosis (M.S.): "...when they (doctors) give medicines (ACTH, steroids, antibiotics, etc.) they are giving the adrenal glands (your internal get-well system) a day off for bad behavior. Bee stings tell your adrenal glands 'Hey! Wake up! You are going to work overtime until this person is well again. What have you got to lose? A wheelchair? Numbness? Rigidity? Incontinence?...whatever it is, go ahead and lose it...you have everything to gain."

Charles Mraz, arguably, the U.S.' longest active beekeeper practitioner (60 years!) of apitherapy, details his experiences treating M.S. cases, almost all responding well, some dramatically. Mr. Mraz will be visiting China, and he and Dr. Weeks recently spent time in France at that country's equivalent of the U.S. NIH.

Kate Chatot, a Registered Nurse (RN), shares her experiences in a column entitled, "Kate's View." This is a moving account of using bee venom therapy to treat "L'hermitte's sign," a painful electric shock accompanying a flare up of M.S. The symptoms were alleviated in one week with the help of 46 bee stings. Ordinarily, this would have meant some three months of serious disability.

A review of world scientific literature in this issue publishes abstracts about venom and allergy, glaucoma, M.S., Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, cancer and inflammation. There follows a number of letters to the editor from persons who have had venom therapy for tennis elbow, arthritis (3), M.S. (3), melanoma, numbness, optic neuritis, and ankylosing spondylitis.

Finally, the newsletter publishes a statement from Charles Pixley, President of Writers and Research, Inc. entitled: "Health Care Reform...Another View," and sent to the Clinton transition team for consideration. The current system of health care, according to this statement, is that the industry of medicine has become driven by decision making prejudiced by commercial considerations to the obvious detriment of "health care." A resolution then calls for (1) removal of the Medical Practice Acts, the legislation that U.S. medical practice is based on, (2) a mandate that insurance companies cover "alternative" treatments and all branches of the healing arts be made available to every member of society and the medical profession without prejudice and (3) elimination of funding for NIH, CDC and FDA, considered reactive, not proactive in health care issues. It concludes: "...'fear of quackery' harbored by the prevailing body of medical government has prevented the medical professionals from expanding their knowledge and providing these alternative treatments."

For those interested in bee venom therapy, contact the American Apitherapy Society, Bradford Weeks, President, P.O. Box 74, North Hartland, VT 05052, ph 802/295-6383. Membership is set at $30.00 per year. In addition, the Society offers annotated bibliographies of apitherapy, proceedings of the Society's annual meeting, back issues of the newsletter and other information.

Now, for my experiences. I personally know two individuals who were repeatedly stung throughout their apicultural careers and yet came down with diseases that venom therapy has been recommended for. One case involves a professional beekeeper who remains afflicted with multiple sclerosis. Another is a scientist who late in life contracted Parkinson's disease. Why did exposure to venom not prevent their conditions? To my knowledge, neither of these individuals has undergone bee venom therapy. If they did, would their situations improve?

Some clues to answer these questions may be provided in how one defines "therapy." The system may need to be continually challenged by venom and dosages are critical. As Dr. Jean-Marie Van Dyck recently wrote on the Bee-L network , "The 'Mast Cell Degranulating (MCD) Peptide' [H-Ile-Lys-Cys-Asn-Cys-Lys-Arg-His-Val-Ile-Lys-Pro-His- Ile-Cys-Arg-Lys-Ile-Cys-Gly-Lys-Asn-NH2, two disulfide bonds Cys3- Cys15 and Cys5-Cys19] is present in small amounts in the venom of the European honeybee, Apis mellifera. This highly basic peptide causes, at low doses, mast cell degranulation and subsequent histamine release (inflammation, swelling, irritation). At higher doses, it produces an anti-inflammatory effect, which may be beneficial in rheumatic and allergic diseases. Dr. Van Dyck gives two references: Dempsey C.E. (1982) "Selective formulation of a- amino group or s-amino group of peptides." J. Chem. Soc. Perkin Trans I 1982(11), p2625-2629, 28 ref. Univ of London, Univ. Coll. Christopher Ingold Labs, and Buku A., Blandina P., Birr C. & Gazis D. (1989) "Solid-phase synthesis and biological activity of Mast Cell Degranulating (MCD) peptide, a component of bee venom." Int. J. Peptide Protein Res. 33(2), p86-93, 58 ref. Cuny Mt. Sinai Sch. Med., Dept Physiol & Biophys, NY. With reference to the last study, Dr. Van Dyck concludes: "...a really immunized beekeeper doesn't keep a very long time this peptide avidly catched by his own immunoglobulins !" I purposefully kept that colorful speech pattern for emphasis.

An interesting postscript to the above is that "new" drugs can sometimes cause unknown complications. For example, a recent re- published article in the Newsletter of the Florida State Beekeepers Association, obtained from the Maryland Beekeeping Newsletter, indicates that at least two cases have been reported of anti- inflammatory drug (ibuprofen, fenoprofen, naproxen, etc.) use correlated with loss of immunity to bee stings, resulting in allergic reactions. This originally was published in Understanding Prescription Drugs by Dorothy L. Smith (pp. 270-271) and referenced in the British Medical Journal 292:378, 1986. The bottom line from all this is apparent. There's still a lot to learn.

Malcolm T. Sanford
Bldg 970, Box 110620
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611-0620
Phone (904) 392-1801, Ext. 143 FAX: 904-392-0190
BITNET Address: MTS@IFASGNV
INTERNET Address: MTS@GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU