Checking out the acceptance of Beeosensor by beekeepers and beekeeping institutions
Adapt the method with the continuous feedback of beekeepers and beekeeping institutions
“Normal” and integrated Human practices are necessarily intertwined and we got relevant information from all of our interactions, therefore we did not separate more and less important information and events, as it would have caused confusion.
Those parts of Human practice, which are most relevant for Integrated human practice, are in italics. To summarize how we integrated our human practices, here are the main points which were most important for the development of our concept.
The underlining notion is that the American foulbrood is the most dangerous bacterial bee disease and a real threat to beekeeping. This foundation of our project was further reinforced by talks with beekeeping experts, who always confirmed this vie and encouraged us to develop our project further.
The plan to develop the portable measuring device was really tackled when we got positive feedback from the director of the beekeeping school and used his advice. These include the collection of ideas of how to set up the measuring concept which were incorporated in the survey.
The survey gave us valuable insights and led to the adaption of several points of our concept for Beeosensor. This includes but is not limited to the method of display, the data displayed, the possible use of geographical data and most importantly the properties beekeepers value the most.
The measuring method itself can hardly be changed, as EIS-Spectroscopy has a very clear way of working. Nevertheless talks with experts lead to the idea to change the Redox solution to make the handling safer and easier for beekeepers.
Integrated human practice
“Normal” and integrated Human practices are necessarily intertwined and we got relevant information from all of our interactions, therefore we did not separate more and less important information and events, as it would have caused confusion.
Those parts of Human practice, which are most relevant for Integrated human practice, are in italics. To summarize how we integrated our human practices, here are the main points which were most important for the development of our concept.
The underlining notion is that the American foulbrood is the most dangerous bacterial bee disease and a real threat to beekeeping. This foundation of our project was further reinforced by talks with beekeeping experts, who always confirmed this vie and encouraged us to develop our project further.
The plan to develop the portable measuring device was really tackled when we got positive feedback from the director of the beekeeping school and used his advice. These include the collection of ideas of how to set up the measuring concept which were incorporated in the survey.
The survey gave us valuable insights and led to the adaption of several points of our concept for Beeosensor. This includes but is not limited to the method of display, the data displayed, the possible use of geographical data and most importantly the properties beekeepers value the most.
The measuring method itself can hardly be changed, as EIS-Spectroscopy has a very clear way of working. Nevertheless talks with experts lead to the idea to change the Redox solution to make the handling safer and easier for beekeepers.
17.05.2019 – Interview with Mark Schäfer from the national reference laboratory for bee diseases
To get a first impression of the disease and the current situation, we did an email-interview with Marc Schäfer from the German national reference laboratory for bee diseases at the Friedrich Loeffler Institut in Greifswald, Germany.
How frequent is AFB How important is AFB for bee health?
I can only tell you concrete data for Germany. Here every bee stand, where an outbreak occurred, must be reported to the TierSeuchenNachrichten-System (system for animal disease notification), where data is partially available for the public. AFB is one of the most important bee diseases. Therefore it has a duty of disclosure and appropriate treatment is mandatory. Even though adult bees are resistant against the disease, the economic loss can be enormous, due to the potential eradication of complete colonies. Furthermore the Spores are very robust and have a high potential of spreading from one colony to another. Everything, which has been in contact with the colony, must be seen as contaminated, from the bees to the hives and every other equipment.
Do beekeepers always report cases of AFB or are there some, who try to hide it? We heard about cases, where beekeepers are ashamed of having AFB and rather burn their hives secretly, than let anybody know about it. Is that plausible?
Sadly, it is to be assumed that not all cases of AFB are reported. Sometimes beekeepers don’t recognize the symptoms and spread the disease unknowingly. AFB has long been a sign of bad beekeeping practice among beekeepers, which can explain, why beekeepers might be ashamed when their hives are affected. It is nor unusual, that people gave up beekeeping after their hives have been diagnosed with AFB. That is why experts try to fight against this perception and try to make cleat, that AFB can hit everybody. The secret burning of hives does not sound very likely to me, rather beekeepers see the measures of AFB-treatment as too extreme and try to “save” as much material as possible, but there is no data for that and every comment about that is pure speculation.
What are the first steps of an expert, when he is confronted with an infected beehive.
In German the official veterinary or a commissioned expert will take a sample, which is tested in the responsible laboratory. Furthermore the colony is examined for visual sings of a clinical manifestation.
How long does the verification of AFB take with the lab method? What happens to the hives in the meantime?
When the samples arrive at the lab it takes four to 9 days until you get results. If there are many samples and/or there is too little lab personal it can also take longer. As soon as a hive is suspected to be infected, the apiary needs to be closed until the results are known. The colonies cannot be moved from the apiary, the same goes for combs, wax and equipment. The apiary may only be accessed by the owner or instructed personnel.
Which treatment is used? Is it more common to save the hives or to destroy them? What is the threshold where hives can still be saved?
That depends on the state. Usually they try to save the colony by the artificial swarming method, but there are also states, where every hive with clinical symptoms and positive AFB-Test in the laboratory is completely destroyed and all the bees are killed.
Is it common amongst beekeepers to make routine controls for AFB? What is the biggest problem for establishing a comprehensive routine control? Is the age of the beekeepers relevant, when it comes to doing routine controls?
I don’t have data regarding most of these questions, but generically the acceptance of AFB-monitoring seems to be rising and more and more beehives are being monitored regularly. Sometimes these controls are done for free to elevate the motivation to participate in these programs. Beside that, beekeepers must have a health certificate if they want to move their hives into a new area. In Germany, the responsibility for comprehensive monitoring would lie with the states.
Is it possible to eliminiate the american foulbrood by gap-less monitoring and prevention? Is there any chance of eradicate the bacterium completely?
It would be nice if we had answers to this question. It is a fact, that we have new cases all the time everywhere, even in regions where we didn’t find any cases for years. Comprehensive monitoring would be very useful and could reduce the cases to a minimum. Very likely international trade plays a certain role in the spread of the disease, but we don’t have data to prove that. A complete eradication seems very difficult to me.
Is it thinkable, that an other method than the current microbiological method is approved governmentally?
If a new method is better than the current one that is possible and I think you will get the help from experts, if the new method really is faster, easier and as reliable as the current method.
25.05.2019 – First visit at the local beekeeping association
We went to the local beekeeping school “Steirische Imkerschule” of the Styrian regional beekeeping association
There we got in touch with beekeeping, listened to some presentations and talks about beekeeping and built the connections with the team of the beekeeping school.
Felix Schweigkofler, Henrik Seyfried, Patrick Woryna and several hundred bees in the background
Our visit at the laboratory of the beekeeping school was helpful to get a feeling for the risks and the workflow of Paenibacillus larvae research. We talked with the laboratory manager Andreas Fritsch, who showed us how he works with these bacteria.
Learning from experienced practitioners by seeing their working method, getting concrete and detailed information about specific problems and solutions and finding potential dangers is very valuable, especially at the early stage of a project.
Andreas Fritsch, the laboratory manager at the “Steirische Imkerschule”
We also had a first talk with the director and presented our rough idea of doing a quantitative measurement of Paenibacillus larvae. His general approval of our project gave us some additional motivation.
Furthermore his feedback led us to a more application-oriented path. Initially the idea was to adapt the EIS-method to AFB, which shifted more and more to the development of complete device, which can be used by beekeepers.
We adopted to the new tasks by getting
biomedical engineers on board, which then started with planning and building a small device, capable of doing the measurement.
At this point it was clear that we would need feedback from beekeepers. That is why we developed a survey,
to reach as many beekeepers as possible with a reasonable amount of effort. We planned to disseminate the survey via the most influential medium for beekeeping in Austria: the journal Bienen aktuell,
a monthly journal for beekeepers and experts. See more under “Survey”
27.06.2019 – Talk with Bernhard Weber
With the idea in mind, that the project can be commercialized we contacted Bernhard Weber from the ZWI
(Center for the Transfer of Knowledge and Innovation). He gave us some very insightful information about possibilities of further developing our project
after iGEM. His general knowledge about starting a business and the transition from science to economy was interesting and furthered our focus on developing a product and not only testing the detection of P. larvae with phages.
He also encouraged us to talk with Prof. Thomas Schmickl, which we did later.
02.07.2019 – Talk with Prof. Thomas Schmickl and his group from the artificial life lab
When we found out there is a EU-funded project to develop a modern beehive and a new way of beekeeping we really wanted to talk with the researchers involved.
The Artificial life lab at the Department for Zoology at the University of Graz (Austria) coordinates Hiveopolis, which has several more labs around Europe working on the topic.
It could be possible to integrate our biosensor in their highly equipped beehive, but that would require drastic changes to the method.
We discussed a few ideas with Prof. Thomas Schmickl and his team and found them interesting, but difficult to implement at this stage of development.
So we decided that we would focus on the concept of non-autonomous measurements, at least for now.
23.07.2019 – Interview with Dipl.-Ing. Hemma Kögelberger from Ages
The AGES is the Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety and has a department for bees and bee health.
It also is the national reference laboratory, a “report point” as per the Bienenseuchengesetz, the Austrian law for bee diseases.
Furthermore they do research on issues of bee health.
We arranged an interview with one of the researchers, to learn about the positions of the official health-institutions. Knowing what the official position is and getting in touch with representatives is a good way to see, if there is a possibility of collaborating with official bodies,
which is relevant, as the handling of the disease is regulated by law.
It would therefore be of great use to integrate our method in the legal provisions.
Following the most important parts of the interview.
How important is AFB for your department and how dangerous is it for the bees?
AFB-controls are routine for us. The veterinary examines the hives on the spot by looking at the combs and checking for symptoms such as the sour smell and caved-in cells. In 2018 there have been 48 cases of an outbreak, but way more samples are tested in the labs. Most of the several hundred samples are negative.
What happens in Austria, when an apiary is under investigation?
The apiary is closed as long as one or more hives are suspected of being infected. The laboratory method for the detection of Paenibacillus larvae is enough for a suspicion but not more. Only the veterinary can make the diagnosis of AFB by examining the hive. (Of course this only works for already clinical hives, NAWI-Graz’s note). If the outbreak is confirmed, a quarantine zone with a radius of 3 kilometers is set up.
Could Beeosensor be used for the diagnosis of AFB? What is necessary for gaining governmental approval.
Your method can be used to prove the existence of Paenibacillus larvae. The diagnosis of the disease American foulbrood only relies on clinical symptoms an requires therefore a manifestation. But the sensor can be a valuable tool for the detection of the spores and a comprehensive use is possible. It would be a preventive mean and is surely useful for every beekeeper. To be approved by the government as a method of detection of spores it would need to be reliable. That of utmost importance.
What happens when a hive really is diseased?
The veterinary obliges means for the remediation. There are several things that need to be done, like artificial swarming and properly disinfection the hive. The honeycombs are usually burnt, the wax needs to be sterilized with high temperature. In Austria the colony is rarely destroyed, in Italy for example they do it almost always. Antibiotics are not allowed as a treatment for AFB in the EU (unlike in the US, NAWI Graz’s note)
Do you envision a market for our sensor? Do you think beekeepers would like to do the measurement themselves.
Generally, beekeepers have an urge to play with gadgets like this one. I think a lot of beekeepers are willing to do the measurement themselves and are also capable of doing it. They usually value education, beekeeping courses for example are well attended.
With the data generated we could generate a map with the local infection risk. What do you think about this possibility?
Of course the division between the proof of spores and the actual outbreaks is important. Beekeepers usually don’t want others to know, if they have an infection. By blurring the map the acceptance could rise. There already is a system to provide beekeepers with such information, but it is not very transparent and difficult to find and understand. This system works better for Varroa mites, because everybody is affected, while the American foulbrood only is a potential threat.
How relevant is the economic damage due to the AFB?
Economical damage comes from the cost of the remediation of the hives, the new comb material and the loss of the harvest. The costs for cleaning 40 colonies can be as high as a new car and is always connected to expenditure. It can easily be necessary to clean that many hives, as the whole apiary must be seen as one and if only one colony is affected all the hives must be remediated.
05.08.2019 – Second visit at the local beekeeping association
After the promising first talk with the director of the Styrian beekeeping association we
were looking forward to discuss Beeosensor in detail with him and learn more about possibilities and problems linked to our project.
We discussed different approaches for the use of the method, ranging from the usefulness as a pure laboratory method to replace the current microbiological method, to a service by the beekeeping association, which goes from beekeeper to beekeepers, doing the measurements, to a device, which can be handled be the beekeepers themselves.
There are different things to consider, because the target group is a specific part of the society. We discussed whether beekeepers would be ready or even eager to do measurements by themselves. We didn’t come to a conclusive decision and wanted to wait for the results of the survey, which we would get soon.
We also learned about the teams experience with AFB and the link between spore concentrations and the clinical outbreak of the disease,
what the legal requirements are and how they as practitioners handle this disease. He thinks the Seuchengesetz (law for aminal diseases) prevents initiative e.g. from local
beekeeping associations and the always need be creative if they want to help the beekeepers the most.
It was even more interesting to see the pure theoretical approach we knew from our research and the reality, where real people and real,
sometimes unpredictable complications require a more “human” approach.
We learned that some beekeepers avoid getting detected with AFB by sending manipulated samples to the voluntary (!) laboratory tests.
Beekeepers are often elderly people in rural structures and therefore you sometimes need a feeling for those communities to communicate and collaborate
effectively with them.
This conversation really gave us a deeper feeling for an other side of the Austrian beekeeping community, outside of
the necessarily
incomplete media coverage and the public perception of beekeeping.
23.08.2019 – Interview with Andreas Platzer – Imkerbund Südtirol
Felix met with Andreas Platzer from the Imkerbund Südtirol in South Tyrol at a local beekeeping event, the “Honey Days”. We wanted to get some more professional input and wanted to know, what he thinks of the commercialization of Beeosensor. Until now we only had major contact with experts and beekeepers from Styria and wanted to get some more information about how it looks in other places.
Following the most important parts of the interview.
I briefly explained our project to him and he told me a few general things about AFB in South Tyrol:
There is a duty of disclosure with AFB in Italy too. The most important method is the Lab method, which takes between 1 week and 10 days, similar to the procedure in Styria. If the disease is already clinical, there are no further tests required. The ministry prescribes the methods, which must be used by the reference laboratories. They are always open for new methods. The European foulbrood is a big problem in Switzerland and so they have better methods for that and the Institute for animal diseases simply took the Swiss method.
In Austria there has been a preventive monitoring program for a few years now and random sampling is done routinely. Is there anything similar in South Tyrol?
Preventive random sampling is done especially in three areas, where we observed an increase in clinical outbreaks in the last two or three years. In this areas all the beekeepers are tested. In the remaining region we take a few random samples from 1% of the South Tyrolean beekeepers, which are 35. Additionally, beekeepers are asked to do tests before they sell hives.
Is AFB relevant in South Tyrol?
Yes. Each year we have confirmed cases of AFB. With 3500 beekeepers and 40.000 hives, the long-term average is 3 to 5 known cases.
That doesn’t seem like very much.
No, it doesn’t. Nevertheless it has relevance. We even organized a beehealthmobile, which contains all the gadgets necessary for a quick disinfection of beehives. There we have everything we need to do a AFB-decontamination. We can clean 75 hives a day. That is sufficient to disinfect almost any apiary we have here in South Tyrol, if it is necessary.
Does the prevalence of AFB in South Tyrol increase or decrease.
Neither. Of course there are peaks, if an outbreak is reported and we test beehives in the surrounding area and find some more. But generally speaking the AFB is stable.
Since when do you do these tests?
We began 1975 under my predecessor. Since that time we have the data … somewhere.
Beside the lab method you are using, do you know any other interesting methods of AFB-detection?
At the bee institute in Dol (Czechia) they developed a method for the sampling of AFB. They use a plastic foil with a sticky side, which is laid under the hive, in order to collect the debris. This debris is then tested for Paenibacillus larvae. If you can integrate this method into your measurement, that would be interesting.
What is important, if we would like to sell our biosensor?
For a commercialization it is very advisable to have the method governmentally approved. Otherwise it is like the Vitatest from the firm Vita, which uses a concept similar to a pregnancy test. It only provides unreliable data and is therefore not approved, which makes it useless for us. Additionally, it should be possible to eliminate possibilities for manipulation, in order to prevent beekeepers from influencing the outcome of the test. If you know, how the Vitatest works, you can easily manipulate it. An examination of the debris cannot be manipulated easily, for example. In Italy the approval of such methods is done by the national reference laboratory in Padova.
Is there an EU-institution for the approval?
No. You need to do it in every country separately. But that is not something very difficult, as you might think. The tests will run for half a year or so and compared with the standard methods and then you have your approval. Its not something, that drafts on for years and years.
And what if our method works, but is not approved? What is the most realistic scenario for Beeosensor?
… then we can use it indicative, but not as proof. Anyway, we would be interested in that too. I don’t think that every beekeeper will buy one of your sensors. Of course, there are some beekeepers who would buy it, e.g. those, who sell hives commercially. But the lowest level, which seems reasonable to me, is the county level. Of those we have 14 in South Tyrol. Ideally, every local group should have one, but of course it is a question of price.
We hope we can keep the price below 100€
In that case I would recommend the local level. We have 114 local branches in South Tyrol.
That sounds encouraging. Thank you for the interview.
You are welcome. It was a pleasure to hear about your project.
25.09.2019 – Interview with Dr. Andreas Schierling
We also talked to Dr. Andreas Schierling from the Bavarian animal health service
Do beekeepers always report potentially infected hives?
I hope so. Probably the majority is reported, but a certain part isn’t. The quarantine zone which is established in the case of a diagnosed outbreak can be an existential threat to beekeepers who’s main source of income are apiary products, because they cannot move the hives, once they are diagnosed. That might be a motive not to report infected hives. Furthermore a stigmatization of affected beekeepers can be a cause to be silent, also because the beekeepers are ashamed of their “bad practice”, even though AFB can hit everybody.
What happens when a infected hive is found?
If infected means only spores have been found but no clinical symptoms, then the veterinary will recommend artificial swarming and cleaning of the hive, but cannot order the beekeeper to do so. But in the surrounding apiaries will be taken samples to see if there are more infected colonies. If there are sings of a clinical manifestation, material is send to the lab and examined. This usually takes up to two weeks and in this rather long time the colony can infect other hives, because the apiary is closed, but the bees will still fly around and cannot be isolated from the environment. If P. larvae is found in the samples its proven that the symptoms are really caused by these bacteria and the hive is diagnosed with AFB. Only now the official disease treatment starts.
Which treatment is chosen for diseased colonies in Germany?
Colonies, which can be remediated, are those with a microbiologically proven spore infection, but no clinical signs and symptoms. If the disease has broken out, they are usually killed. Strong colonies with only a few clinical cells can also be remediated by artificial swarming, but the general recommendation is to kill clinical colonies. In every case the combs must be destroyed and the hives decontaminated. For every one of these means the beekeepers is compensated.
Do beekeepers regularly test their colonies for AFB?
In many states in Germany there are free or subsidized monitoring programs for AFB, e.g. in Bavaria. The tgd has tested around 1000 samples in 2019, which is rather low for a state as big as Bavaria (around 35,000 beekeepers, NAWI-Graz’s note[a]). We could do way more tests, if it weren’t for certain reservations on the side of the beekeepers. Many beekeepers fear the consequences of P. larvae positive lab results, e.g. restrictions. Despite the intense educational campaigns these biases remain in the minds of many, but it is possible to create the readiness to participate in these programs. Usually younger beekeepers are more open than the older ones – of course with exceptions.
What is the relevance of geographical data about AFB and P. larvae?
The data is relevant for everybody – institutes, veterinaries and beekeepers. The official bodies use it for the effective control of the disease and communicate with each other, beside them having a very detailed databank, which is not publicly available. The publicly available data is used by some beekeepers to plan the transhumance of their colonies.
Is it possible to eradicate AFB in Europe completely?
No, that is very unlikely, due to the import of contaminated honey, the wide spread of the disease and the high resistance of the spores.
Would veterinaries accept and use Beeosensor?
If veterinaries should use the method, it must be approved by the Friedrich-Löffler-Institut (FLI) and included in its official method collection. Only the listed methods can be used for the diagnosis of animal diseases in Germany. The national reference laboratory for bee diseases at the FLI would be responsible for your method.
25.09.2019 – Discussion with beekeepers at the „Mittwochsakedmie“ of the beekeeping school.
A final visit at the beekeeping school was the presentation of our project to Styrian beekeepers. This so called “Wednesdays academy” was the perfect possibility
for us to get in touch with many beekeepers and hear about their concerns and questions.
After the presentation we discussed several topics from taking the sample to the actual measurement.
It was vey motivating to see how interested the beekeepers are in our project.
There we also were contacted by a Start-Up for a beekeeping app. They want to gather all the relevant information for beekeepers and present
it in an app, so that the beekeepers don’t have to search for all the information, which is difficult to find at best or simply not available at worst.
They are interested in our concept and would like to use the information from beekeepers about the intensity of infestation of AFB in a certain region. We included this question in our survey and as many beekeepers seem surprisingly open to share their data,
if it is sufficiently anonymised, this is a real option. We would need to adopt the device and include an interface for smartphones, which is definitely possible.
Survey
We conducted a survey among beekeepers to examine the knowledge about AFB, to get an understanding of the potential of the Beeosensor and to let the beekeepers actively participate in the design process. About 77 questionnaires were collected. The analytics were done with Google forms. We wanted to know how the beekeepers see AFB and what they think about the current situation. Furthermore we wanted them to give us some insight on how open they are for new methods, which obstacles Beeosensor would face and how we can adopt our method to the wishes of beekeepers. This was of special importance to us and guided us through the most part of our project and short talks with a few beekeepers, the knowledge of two members who are beekeepers and discussions with experts were not enough to fulfill the need for feedback. We wanted more feedback from potential users and therefore we conducted the survey, which was promoted in the Austrian beekeeping journal “Biene aktuell”. The survey was also done by approximately twenty more beekeepers at the “Mittwochsakademe” at the beekeeping school.
The biases of the survey are that almost only already interested Austrian beekeepers participated. Nevertheless it’s a good starting point for the design process of the final device. We gained some very clear insights on how the device should be designed form the beekeeper’s point of view.
In the design of novel products, there has to be sufficient research in the target group’s needs. As we have not many comparable products in the market, we decided to conduct a survey to get a clear understanding of the beekeeper’s needs. In order to utilize the collected data, we took the clearest and most significant data and transformed them into sentences and put them into the requirement specification of the final device. Through this process, the wishes of the beekeepers directly affected the final design choices.
The following table connects the results of the survey with the design specifications.
Question
Survey Result
Resulting Requirement
Most important property
REQ_EXT_001:
A device for the detection of AFB should be built that is more accurate that the current laboratory test method. Furthermore the device has to be easy to use and withstand a usability test.
Display of results (multiple answers)
REQ_EXT_002:
The measurement results should be displayed on a display directly on the device.
REQ_EXT_003:
The user should be able to connect the device to an android smartphone. The device should be able to display results and be controlled via the smartphone.
REQ_EXT_004:
(optional)
The device should display the severity of infestation also by color coded LEDs (red, yellow, green).
Which results are useful (multiple answers)
REQ_EXT_005:
The device should display the concentration of spores on a display, the severity of infestation by color coded LEDs.
REQ_EXT_006:
There should be detailed explanation regarding the measurement results including recommended activities available in the smartphone app.
Operating instructions
REQ_EXT_007:
There should be a video tutorial available online.
REQ_EXT_008:
There should be a manual within the smartphone app.
Would you rather use honey samples than bee samples
REQ_EXT_009:
(if technically feasible)
The device should be able to measure honey dome samples (maybe dissolved in water).
How much would you spend (in €)
REQ_EXT_010:
The price of the device should not exceed 75€.
Are you ready to share anonymised data
REQ_EXT_011:
The smartphone-app should give the user the possibility to enter his geographic information.
REQ_EXT_012:
The smartphone-app should (if permitted by the user) automatically upload the measurements with geographic information.
Safety and Sustainability
Reusable Electrodes
Initially we planned to use cheap one-use-electrodes, which would be discarded after every measurement.
Increased thoughts about the environmental consequences have led to the search for other options.
We came up with the idea of reusable electrodes with a higher quality and a recycling system:
The beekeeper or the local Beeosensor-Group (beekeepers, who share one device) will use the electrodes and give them back to us. We will safely remove the Redox-reagent and clean the electrode by electropolishing it. Then it can be loaded with phages again.
Reusing the electrodes can compensate for the higher costs and maybe even overcompensate them, depending on how often they will be reused.
The EIS-Measurement requires an electroconductive liquid, through which the currency can reach the electrodes.
Potassium ferrocyanide is not toxic and is not decomposed to cyanide in the body, as the cyanide groups are tightly bound to the iron2. In the EU it is a food additive3 for salt (number E 536) with a max dose of 0,025 mg/kg bodyweight.
Even if the reagent is not discarded properly by the beekeeper, which might be the case, the effects on the environment are minimal due to the very low volumes (one drop) used.
The use of our solution poses a very small risk to the beekeeper. Through talks with experts and closer contact to beekeepers we learned that some beekeepers may completely ignore the hazard the Redox solution poses to them and to the environment. Usually they are elderly are not properly trained for the use of such substances and may underestimate the risk and so we cannot turn a blind eye to this topic.
Therefore we plan to substitute potassium ferrocyanide with an other Redox solution with less or no hazardous potential. Before the biosensor is commercialized there we definitely need to search intensely for the best and harmless solution.
Sustainability comparison
We did not perform a detailed comparison between the Beeosensor-method and the current laboratory method for the detection of AFB,
as our momentaneous concept is not the final one, but nevertheless some general comparisons can be made:
Current method
The microbiological method requires the collection of a sample by the beekeepers in a plastic cup. The cup is then sent to the laboratory,
where the sample is plated onto special agar-plates which are bought ready-to-use in plastic Petri dishes. The incubation is done over several days on 37°C and after that the plates need to be autoclaved and discarded.
This requires a fully equipped microbiological lab.
Beeosensor system
Our current method requires the production and use of the measuring device. Probably several beekeepers will use one device, as the test doesn’t have to be performed more often than one or two times a year.
The electrodes are reusable, but need to be prepared each time with the phages. Therefore a routine production of phages is necessary. A microbiological lab is required too, but the production can be optimized and scaled up.
Other methods are imaginable, such as the production of the phages in a cell-free system, which is heavily researched lately, e.g. by Munich 2018.
As there are more than 1 Million beekeepers in the western hemisphere, it would require several hundred or thousand microbiological laboratories for the comprehensive “classical” detection of AFB, depending on the size and structure of beekeeping organizations, which would very likely operate these laboratories. On the other hand a few facilities for the production of the phages and a proper distribution system in cooperation with local beekeeping organizations as e.g. the Styrian and South Tyrolean beekeeping associations (each with several thousand members) would suffice for the Beeosensor system.
We therefore think that Beeosensor could provide a way of testing every beehive without increasing the environmental impact
drastically and the increase would definitely less drastically then with a gap-less monitoring via the lab method.
References
[1] H. Beims et al., ‘Paenibacillus larvae-Directed Bacteriophage HB10c2 and Its Application in American Foulbrood-Affected Honey Bee Larvae’, Appl. Environ. Microbiol., vol. 81, no. 16, pp. 5411–5419, Aug. 2015.
Felix Schweigkofler, Henrik Seyfried, Patrick Woryna and several hundred bees in the background
