Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner

1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I had a hive that absconded last summer for reasons that I never figured out. The hive looked OK when I checked it out (minus the bees) so I left it place in the event I caught a swarm later on.

That never happened and I was going to put the hive into storage. When I opened it 2 brood frames had the signs of AFB on 1 side in a small area that would have been facing each other in the hive.

Do you think this is AFB or brood that got left behind and turned rancid?
 

·
Vendor
Local feral survivors in eight frame medium boxes.
Joined
·
54,050 Posts
>Do you think this is AFB or brood that got left behind and turned rancid?

When they abscond all the old brood dies and then rots. If it's all dry now it's hard to tell for sure. If it was still wet the string test would be the standard field test. One sign is to open some of the capped cells and look for pupae with their tongues out and look for dark scale. Also smell it if you have an idea what AFB smells like. You can buy an AFB kit from the bee suppliers. Most of them have one now, or you can do a Holst milk test.

"The Holst milk test: The Holst milk test was designed to identy American foulbrood diseas in scales by the high level of proteolytic enzymes produced by B. Larvae when sporulating (Holst, 1946). A scale or tothpick smear is swirled gently in a tube containing 3-4 milliliters of 1 per cent powdered skim milk and incubated at body temperature. If spores of B. larvae are present, the cloudy suspension will celar in 10-20 minutes. Scales from EFB or scacbrood are negative in this test." The Hive and the Honey Bee 1970 edition Page 623

I would try to do either the Holst milk test or the tests from the bee suppiers before you assume anything. Try to do a definitive test, and don't speculate. I would want to know for sure either way.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,182 Posts
> The Holst milk test was designed to identy American foulbrood diseas in scales by the high level of proteolytic enzymes produced by B. Larvae when sporulating (Holst, 1946).

Mike,
I thought there was a reclassification of the bacterium behind AFB? The spore-forming bacterium 'Paenibacillus larvae', or (P. larvae) was found to be the agent behind American foulbrood (AFB).

http://www.hgsc.bcm.tmc.edu/projects/microbial/Plarvae/
 

·
Vendor
Local feral survivors in eight frame medium boxes.
Joined
·
54,050 Posts
>I thought there was a reclassification of the bacterium behind AFB? The spore-forming bacterium 'Paenibacillus larvae', or (P. larvae) was found to be the agent behind American foulbrood (AFB).

Not in 1970. Yes it's been reclassified. But it's still the same bacteria. The test has been around since 1946 and I got it out of a 1970 edition of The Hive and the Honey Bee. So it still has the old name in that edition.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,182 Posts
Michael, I checked on BEE-L.
A few there have mentioned that the correct agent of AFB is Paenibacillus larvae, or
(P. larvae). This was changed 1996 according to posts on BEE-L and some private responses. The name Bacillus larvae or B. Larvae is not the name of the agent that causes AFB
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,182 Posts
Michael, I checked on BEE-L.
A few there have mentioned that the correct agent of AFB is Paenibacillus larvae, or
(P. larvae). This was changed 1996 according to posts on BEE-L and some private responses. The name Bacillus larvae or B. Larvae is not the name of the agent that causes AFB
 

·
Vendor
Local feral survivors in eight frame medium boxes.
Joined
·
54,050 Posts
>A few there have mentioned that the correct agent of AFB is Paenibacillus larvae, or
(P. larvae). This was changed 1996 according to posts on BEE-L and some private responses. The name Bacillus larvae or B. Larvae is not the name of the agent that causes AFB

The agent (microorganism) that casues AFB has not changed. The test has not changed. Only it's name changed. "The
artist formerly know as Prince" is still the same guy no matter what you call him. The same bacteria is still the cause and the test is still valid. I quoted a paragraph from The Hive and the Honey Bee. The text in that edition has not changed and still has the old name. If I had changed it I would have been guilty of misquoting it. The test is still valid and the bacteria is still the same thing that USED to be calld Bacillus larvae until the taxomimists decided it should be called Paenibacillus larvae in 1996.

I fail to understand what significance there is to that other than it's good to know both names since all literature written before 1996 calls it B. larvae and all literature written after 1996 calls it P. larvae.

>The name Bacillus larvae or B. Larvae is not the name of the agent that causes AFB

The name Bacillus larvae or B. Larvae was the proper name of the agent that causes AFB for almost a hundred years. They did not discover a different bacteria that caused it. But now it has been renamed Paenibacillus larvae for the last 11 years. If I was refering to it I would have called it P. larvae, but I was quoting literature written when it was called B. Larvae.

BTW they also reclassified the bacteria that causes EFB. It used to be Streptococcus pluton but has now been renamed Melissococcus pluton. However, it does not know that it has been renamed and still answers to the old name if you pass it in the hallway. ;)

The Taxonimists also got bored and decided that the Varroa we have is not really Varroa jacobsoni but a different kind which they named Varroa destructor. But all the old literature still calls it Varroa jacobsoni, so it's good to know both names. I don't think anyone informed the Varroa of this.


All of these are merely name changes. They did not discover a different organism was responsible, they simply reclassified the organism. The underlying organism is the same as it always was.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,964 Posts
Ahem. Today on Bee-l, I read that the "real" name is Paenibacillis larvae, subspecies larvae. There are other Paenibacillis larvae that do not cause AFB.

Dickm
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,182 Posts
Michael,

Bacillus describes a different genus altogether.
Foulbrood is in the Paenibacillus genus!
It is Not the “same thing” anymore!

The correct name is Paenibacillus larvae subsp
Or,,,,, some will abbreviate to P. larvae, or P. larvae subsp

Be careful, if you say your hives are infected with Bacillus, you will be saying your hives have anthrax which is a Bacillus.


The bacterium, formerly named Bacillus larvae, was reclassified into the new genus Paenibacillus (5) on the basis of the 16S rRNA sequence diversity. P. larvae subsp. larvae is considered to be the cause of American foulbrood.

http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/full/69/3/1504

In 1993 Ash et al. proposed that members of "group 3" within the genus ¤ Bacillus should be transferred to the genus Paenibacillus, for which they proposed ¤ Paenibacillus polymyxa as the type species. These proposals were validly published by publication in the Validation Lists No. 51 (Paenibacillus polymyxa) and No. 52 (further species) in 1994 and 1995 respectively.

http://www.bacterio.cict.fr/p/paenibacillus.html
 

·
Vendor
Local feral survivors in eight frame medium boxes.
Joined
·
54,050 Posts
>Bacillus describes a different genus altogether.

Of course it does.

>Foulbrood is in the Paenibacillus genus!
It is Not the “same thing” anymore!

How has the organism changed? In other words when the taxomomists named it Paenbacillus the organism mutated from a Bacillus into a Paenbaciullus? I wonder how the oganism knew about it? Probably on NBBC radio. National Bacillus Broadcasting Company. I wonder how it feels about it?

The organism that caused AFB in the 1800s is the same organism that causes AFB now in the 2000's. It has not changed. The test for it still works the same for the same reasons. If the taxomomists decide to classify it as a Pachyderm it will still be the same organism, it will simply have a new "official" name. And you should be aware of both the old name and the new name since FAR MORE material exists in print that call it by it's old name than call it by it's new name.

>Michael, ever feel like your yelling in a windstorm?

Yes.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,182 Posts
>How has the organism changed? In other words when the taxomomists named it Paenbacillus the organism mutated from a Bacillus into a Paenbaciullus?

Has not changed but has been renamed under a different class. The Bacillus name is wrong.

>FAR MORE material exists in print that call it by it's old name than call it by it's new name.

But it's still wrong.

>ever feel like your yelling in a windstorm?

YES! Lotto wrong information blowing around here, just trying to keep it as correct as I can.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,071 Posts
Yes, keep it as correct as you can, but accept the fact that your still talking about the same orginism that has been given a new identity. MB has bent over backwards to make the point that the only change has been the name, and that you should know both names so you can cross reference the old written info with the new written info. And likewise, any old test developed to detect the presence of this orginism in a sample will still work for detection of it.

peggjam
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,182 Posts
>MB has bent over backwards to make the point that the only change has been the name, and that you should know both names so you can cross reference the old written info with the new written info.

He has bent over backwards to force the old name and omit the new,,, That's my point! If your gonna use the old name because of reference material, you should also include the new name as another point of refrence material.

Or maybe we could use all old names and refer to honeybees as "white mans flies" :cool:
 

·
Vendor
Local feral survivors in eight frame medium boxes.
Joined
·
54,050 Posts
>He has bent over backwards to force the old name and omit the new,,, That's my point!

Actually on every occasion that I've seen Bacillus larvae used by others, I have corrected it. Not because I'm trying to be hard to get along with but because it has a new name and it's just as important to know the new name as it is to know the old name. I was NOT using the old name. I DO NOT use the old name. But when I quote a book, I quote it word for word as it is in the book. Dadant's The Hive and the Honey Bee 1970 edition, which I quoted, used the old name. I DID not and I DO not use the old name. But I do not misquote references in order to be "up to date".

>If your gonna use the old name because of reference material, you should also include the new name as another point of refrence material.

Is that what this is all about? I apologize. I will try to make corrective comments concerning the reference material I quote from now on. I'm not sure, however, how that would help anyone do a Holst milk test.

Am I also required to make "corrective comments" on Huber's references to "worms" and point out that they are larvae and his references to "flies" and point out that they are adults and his references to "nymphs" and correct them as pupae?

I will try to remember.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,413 Posts
Just get OVER it!


Arguments over terminology are "illusory", in that
they are both "ill" and "for losers".


In each and every case, old and new names must
co-exist and be interchangeable, simply due to
books and articles that still exist, and still
use "old" names, which are (mostly) retired,
and are not reused.

If you want to be really confused, realize that
Cellular Biology is a field in which
"multiplication" means the same thing as
"division"!
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top