News

By Andrew Porterfield

Black queen cell virus is a serious problem for beekeepers. It infects developing queen honey bee larvae, turning other pupal cells black and ultimately killing the larval queen. The virus is capable of wiping out entire honey bee colonies and has no known deterrent beyond preventing its spread.

In 2020, when Canadian researchers were looking for viruses and other microbes spread by mosquitoes, a virus known for afflicting honey bees (Apis mellifera) was the last thing they expected to find. But they did.

As the researchers report in April in the Journal of Insect Science, for the first time, black queen cell virus (BQCV) has been discovered in North American mosquitoes. Also for the first time, researchers sequenced the virus’ genome.

Cole Baril, Christophe LeMoine, Ph.D., and Bryan Cassone, Ph.D., researchers at Brandon University in Manitoba, Canada, used a genetic sequencing method known as massively parallel next-generation sequencing to identify BQCV in a mosquito (Aedes vexans). The researchers believe that the mosquitoes indirectly acquired the virus by foraging at the same nectar sources as honey bees.

Since its discovery in 1955, BQCV has been known as one of the most common honey bee viruses. It is also one of the most poorly understood viruses affecting bees. Black queen cell virus infects queens and adult bees alike, but adults rarely show any symptoms of infections. It is part of the picornavirus order, and its genome consists of about 8,550 nucleotides of RNA. Exactly how it is transmitted from host to host is not fully understood. It may be spread by the microsporidia Nosema apis or by the Varroa mite, but it also may be transmitted by foraging expeditions of adult honey bees.

The scientists had been carrying out a genomics analysis of various mosquitoes in the Canadian prairie provinces. They identified several novel viruses and other microbial flora and were surprised to find BQCV during that search.

The Brandon researchers collected mosquitoes during 2019 and 2020 with miniature light traps. Aedes vexans mosquitoes were identified, and their RNA isolated. In 2019, 1,783 pooled mosquitos were sequenced; 2,208 were sequenced in 2020. The sequencing data was matched against BQCV sequences using the National Center for Biotech Information (NCBI) database.

The researchers also wanted to determine the evolutionary relationships within BQCVs and compared the new Canadian strain they’d found against existing viral genomes in the NCBI database. One of the sequencing reads matched a BQCV isolate from Sweden. No matches to Varroa mites or Nosema apis genomes were found, largely ruling out the potential for transmission through those organisms. However, three sequences were matched to plant chloroplasts and mapped to plants, trees and shrubs, indicating a foraging route of viral transmission.

Although mosquitoes need to feed on blood to produce eggs, flower nectar is also an important source of nutrition. Sugar deprivation is linked to reduced survival and reproduction capacity in females. However, no evidence exists showing that BQCV can replicate in mosquitoes, indicating that mosquitoes are a dead end for the viruses. But further research will be needed to determine if mosquitoes can transmit the virus to honey bees.

“To our knowledge, this is the first report of BQCV detected in mosquitoes or any other dipteran,” the authors write. “Interspecies transmission of BQCV has been hypothesized to be due to direct (parasitism, predation, and scavenging) and/or indirect (foraging at the same nectar source) interactions between honey bees and these arthropods.”

Cassone says much remains unknown. “The virus has been found in North America; however, never in mosquitoes and never has the genome sequence been characterized,” he says. “It is surprising to me that little work has been done with this virus given its potential determinantal impacts to apiculture.”

The study is also one of the first to use recently developed next-generation sequencing (NGS) techniques to characterize the insect and virus genome. The researchers recommended the further use of NGS but with a caveat common to sequencing: “Although it requires considerable integration of bioinformatics, many limitations of traditional approaches for pathogen identification (PCR methods and serological testing) can be overcome using NGS. In addition to its greater resolution and sensitivity, NGS does not require a priori knowledge of the nucleic acid to be sequenced or specific antibodies.”

The Brandon researchers collected mosquitoes during 2019 and 2020 with miniature light traps. Aedes vexans mosquitoes were identified, and their RNA isolated. In 2019, 1,783 pooled mosquitos were sequenced; 2,208 were sequenced in 2020. The sequencing data was matched against BQCV sequences using the National Center for Biotech Information (NCBI) database.

The researchers also wanted to determine the evolutionary relationships within BQCVs and compared the new Canadian strain they’d found against existing viral genomes in the NCBI database. One of the sequencing reads matched a BQCV isolate from Sweden. No matches to Varroa mites or Nosema apis genomes were found, largely ruling out the potential for transmission through those organisms. However, three sequences were matched to plant chloroplasts and mapped to plants, trees and shrubs, indicating a foraging route of viral transmission.

Although mosquitoes need to feed on blood to produce eggs, flower nectar is also an important source of nutrition. Sugar deprivation is linked to reduced survival and reproduction capacity in females. However, no evidence exists showing that BQCV can replicate in mosquitoes, indicating that mosquitoes are a dead end for the viruses. But further research will be needed to determine if mosquitoes can transmit the virus to honey bees.

“To our knowledge, this is the first report of BQCV detected in mosquitoes or any other dipteran,” the authors write. “Interspecies transmission of BQCV has been hypothesized to be due to direct (parasitism, predation, and scavenging) and/or indirect (foraging at the same nectar source) interactions between honey bees and these arthropods.”

Cassone says much remains unknown. “The virus has been found in North America; however, never in mosquitoes and never has the genome sequence been characterized,” he says. “It is surprising to me that little work has been done with this virus given its potential determinantal impacts to apiculture.”

The study is also one of the first to use recently developed next-generation sequencing (NGS) techniques to characterize the insect and virus genome. The researchers recommended the further use of NGS but with a caveat common to sequencing: “Although it requires considerable integration of bioinformatics, many limitations of traditional approaches for pathogen identification (PCR methods and serological testing) can be overcome using NGS. In addition to its greater resolution and sensitivity, NGS does not require a priori knowledge of the nucleic acid to be sequenced or specific antibodies.”

https://entomologytoday.org/2023/04/25/black-queen-cell-virus-honey-bees-mosquitoes/

As we get ready for our honey extraction season, we wanted to pull together a few documents about honey labeling.

1. Food Manufacturer License
From the DSHS Foods Group page in Frequently Asked Questions https://dshs.texas.gov/foods/faqs.aspx#:~:text=Beekeeper%20Honey%20Production,
“Beekeeper Honey Production Frequently Asked Questions – Added July 16, 2020
• Did anything change for beekeepers selling honey in Texas with the adoption of the updated 25 TAC 229.210-225 Subchapter N, Current GMP and GWP in Manufacturing, Packing or Holding Human Food that became effective August 2, 2017?
Yes, beekeepers that sell raw honey produced from their own bees/hives are “farms” and are exempt from licensing as food manufacturers when engaged in allowable farm activities. Examples of allowable farm activities include extracting and bottling raw honey whether for retail or wholesale. DSHS adopts the clarification provided by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in its Questions and Answers Regarding Food Facility Registration (Seventh Edition): Guidance for Industry in Question B.1.19.
• Is pasteurization of raw honey an allowable farm activity?
No, pasteurizing raw honey is a manufacturing activity that requires a license as a food manufacturer. DSHS adopts the clarification provided by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in its Questions and Answers Regarding Food Facility Registration (Seventh Edition): Guidance for Industry in Question C.4.3.
• Are there any laws that apply to beekeeper raw honey producers?
Yes, while beekeepers harvesting raw honey will not be required to license with DSHS as long as they are only engaged in allowable farm activities, harvesting operations that conduct filtering, packaging, and labeling of honey are still subject to the adulteration and misbranding provisions of Texas Health and Safety Code 431. Texas Agriculture Code, Title 6, Chapter 131, Bees and Honey, Subchapter E, Labeling and Sale of Honey gives DSHS regulatory authority over the labeling of honey. DSHS will investigate complaints of adulterated honey and mislabeled honey and take appropriate compliance action.
• Can a beekeeper blend other raw honey into raw honey from their own bees/hives?
Yes, as long as some of the raw honey is from the beekeeper’s own bees/hives, a beekeeper can blend other raw honey with the beekeeper’s honey. If you blend honey no longer considered raw, like pasteurized honey, blending is no longer an exempt farm activity and a food manufacturer license is required.
• Is allowing raw honey to dry so that it crystallizes an allowable farm activity for beekeepers?
Yes, a beekeeper drying raw honey from their bees/hives is an allowable farm activity as long as there is no additional manufacturing/processing (other than packaging and labeling). Packaging and labeling raw agricultural commodities are allowable farm activities.
• If a beekeeper whips air into their raw honey to sell as whipped honey, would this be considered manufacturing requiring the firm to license as a food manufacturer?
Yes, whipping air into raw honey is a manufacturing activity that requires a food manufacturer license.”
• Additional FDA Guidance:
Draft Guidance for Industry: Classification of Activities as Harvesting, Packing, Holding, or Manufacturing/Processing for Farms and Facilities
Exempt Farm Activity:
Packing- Filtering for safe/effective packing (e.g., filtering honey to remove hive debris)
Filtering RACs for safe/effective packing (e.g., filtering honey to remove hive debris) is a packing activity.

2. Retail Permits, Cottage Foods, Small Honey Producers
Texas Health and Safety Code Chapter 437 REGULATION OF FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS, RETAIL FOOD STORES, MOBILE FOOD UNITS, AND ROADSIDE FOOD VENDORS
• Small honey production operation restrictions: amount produced, uninspected kitchen label, where sold.
o Small honey production operation defined: H&SC 437.001(7)
o H&SC 437.0197-437.0199
• Cottage food production operation
o Cottage food production operation defined: H&SC 437.001(2-b)
o H&SC 437.0191-437.0193

If you need more information, please contact the DSHS PSQA Unit at 512-834-6670 or foods.regulatory@dshs.texas.gov.

Davonna Koebrick, LMSW, RS
Food Safety Officer/MFRPS Coordinator
Texas Rapid Response Team/Texas Food Safety Taskforce
Division for Consumer Protection Texas Department of State Health Services
Davonna.koebrick@dshs.texas.gov       (512) 231-5783
www.dshs.state.tx.us/foods

3.  The Texas Agricultural Code 131 identifies very specific honey label requirements.  The list below is provided by the Texas Beekeepers Association to its members as a reference, and is not a replacement or substitution for current laws or requirements by the State of Texas or any federal agency requirements for items required on a beekeeper’s honey label.  For a complete list of all current Texas beekeeping laws see Texas Agricultural Code 131

• SUB-CHAPTER E. LABELING AND SALE OF HONEY
Sec. 131.081. USE OF “HONEY” ON LABEL.A person may not label, sell, or keep, offer, or expose for sale a product identified on its label as “honey,” “liquid or extracted honey,” “strained honey,” or “pure honey” unless the product consists exclusively of pure honey.
Added by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 1884, ch. 350, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1983.
• Sec. 131.082. USE OF BEE, HIVE, OR COMB DESIGN.A person may not label, sell, or keep, expose, or offer for sale a product that resembles honey and that has on its label a picture or drawing of a bee, hive, or comb unless the product consists exclusively of pure honey.
Added by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 1884, ch. 350, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1983.
• Sec. 131.083. SALE OF IMITATION HONEY.A person may not label, sell, or keep, expose, or offer for sale a product that resembles honey and is identified on its label as “imitation honey.”
Added by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 1884, ch. 350, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1983. label, sell, or keep, expose, or offer for sale a product that consists of honey mixed with another ingredient unless:(1) the product bears a label with a list of ingredients; and (2) “honey” appears in the list of  ingredients in the same size type of print as the other ingredients.
• Sec. 131.084. SALE OF HONEY MIXTURES.

  (a) A person may not label, sell, or keep, expose, or offer for sale a product that consists of honey mixed with another ingredient unless:

  (1) the product bears a label with a list of ingredients; and

  (2) “honey” appears in the list of ingredients in the same size type of print as the other ingredients.

  – See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/AG/6/A/131/E/131.084#sthash.JiLAWhLF.dpuf

  (b) A person may not label, sell, or keep, expose, or offer for sale a product that contains honey mixed with another ingredient and contains in the product name “honey” in a larger size of type or print or in a more prominent position than the other words in the product name.
Added by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 1884, ch. 350, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1983.

• Sec. 131.123. LABELING OR SALE OF HONEY.(a) A person commits an offense if the person violates a provision of Subchapter E of this chapter.(b) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor. Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 1884, ch. 350, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1983.

WASHINGTON, June 22, 2023 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) today announced its selection of 50 projects for potential award, totaling approximately $300 million. These innovative projects will help improve access to land, capital, and markets for underserved farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners. The Increasing Land, Capital, and Market Access (Increasing Land Access) Program, which is funded by President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, works to increase access to farm ownership opportunities, improve results for those with heirs’ property or fractionated land, increase access to markets and capital that affect the ability to access land, and improve land ownership, land succession and agricultural business planning.

“Land access, market access and capital are critical to the success of the hardworking producers who keep agriculture thriving,” said Kelly Adkins, FSA State Executive Director in Texas. “Underserved producers have not had access to the amount of specialized technical support that would increase opportunities to access and capital and benefit the launch, growth, resilience, and success of their agricultural enterprises. The Increasing Land Access Program is part of the Biden-Harris administration’s commitment to advancing equity for all, including people who have been underserved, marginalized, and adversely affected by inequality, by providing the resources, tools and technical support needed to directly help local farmers and ensure we have a strong
agricultural system across the country.”

Examples of selectees for potential award in Texas include:
 Center for Heirs’ Property Preservation whose goals are (1) to increase land access for underserved landowners/producers so they can increase their opportunities to access capital and markets in agriculture which will result in viable farming/forestry operations and (2) build and deepen infrastructure in the subregion of East Texas, Arkansas, and Mississippi for addressing Heirs Property among black producers.

 Kansas Black Farmers Association, Inc. has a primary goal to address capital, market, and land access concerns with the end goals of 1) connecting more underserved producers and would-be producers to technical services and to increase the number of BIPOC owned and operated agribusinesses in the identified region; 2) providing producers and would-be producers with tangible capital assistance, and resources including continuing education to build industry and market awareness, down-payment and/or credit assistance; and 3) building various forms of community partnerships such as cooperatives and equipment sharing programs and a robust and long-lasting multi-generational education and mentorship program that will continue long after year five of the project.

 H.O.P.E. for Small Farm Sustainability will conduct The Victory Farms project to address barriers affecting beginning (Black, Indigenous, and people of color) BIPOC farmers, including refugees and asylum seekers. After partaking in peer-to-peer training, participants in the program will have the opportunity to practice farming through HOPE’s apprenticeship program, which allocates a 20’ x 20’ starter plot to farmers and provides specialized, hands-on training and mentorship. Farmers will receive larger plots once they begin scaling up production. Participants will have access to this land at no cost for up to three years, during which they can gain the education, experience, income, management skills, and brand awareness they will need to qualify for FSA loans and set up profitable long-term agribusinesses.

The tentative selectees include national, regional, and local projects that cover 40 states and territories including Washington D.C., Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. USDA will work with the selected applicants to finalize the scope and funding levels in the coming months.

See the full list of Increasing Land Access Program selected projects.

Environmental Assessment

These projects will likely result in the purchase of land, construction of farm infrastructure and other activities that could have potential impacts on environmental resources. USDA has developed a Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the Increasing Land Access Program to evaluate the program’s overarching environmental impacts as they relate to the National Environmental Policy Act.

The environmental assessment is available online for public review. USDA is requesting comments on the program’s potential impact on the environment. The feedback will be incorporated into the final assessment, as appropriate, prior to a decision.

USDA will consider comments received by Friday, July 14, 2023, at 5 p.m. EDT. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent possible.

Comments may be submitted:
 Electronically at: Land.Access@usda.gov
 By mail at: Attn: Michael Mannigan, Grants Management Specialist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, Outreach Office, 1400 Independence Ave., S.W., Washington, DC, 20250-0506

For more information, contact Michael Mannigan at Land.Access@usda.gov. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication should contact the USDA Target Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice).

More Information  
The Increasing Land Access Program was originally announced in August 2022 as part of a broader investment to help ensure underserved producers have the resources, tools, programs and technical support they need to succeed and is being funded by the Inflation Reduction Act.

The Increasing Land Access Program is part of USDA’s commitment to equity across the Department and steps it has taken under Secretary Vilsack’s direction to improve equity and access, eliminate barriers to its programs for underserved individuals and communities, and build a workforce more representative of America. Earlier in the year, the USDA Equity Commission, which is comprised of independent members from diverse backgrounds, released its interim recommendations to remove barriers to inclusion and access at USDA. The program is also an important component of the Department’s and President Biden’s vision to Advance Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government.

USDA touches the lives of all Americans each day in so many positive ways. Under the Biden-Harris Administration, USDA is transforming America’s food system with a greater focus on more resilient local and regional food production; fairer markets for all producers; ensuring access to safe, healthy and nutritious food in all communities; building new markets and streams of income for farmers and producers using climate smart food and forestry practices; making historic investments in infrastructure and clean energy capabilities in rural America and committing to equity across the Department by removing systemic barriers and building a workforce more representative of America. To learn more, visit usda.gov.

#

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.

WASHINGTON, June 15, 2023 — The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is now accepting
nominations for county committee members for elections that will occur later this year. Additionally, USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA) is unveiling a new GIS tool to make it easier for producers to participate in the nomination and election processes for county committee members, who make important decisions on how federal farm programs are administered locally.
All nomination forms for the 2023 election must be postmarked or received in the local FSA office by Aug. 1, 2023.

“Producers serving on FSA county committees play a critical role in the day-to-day operations of the agency, and they serve as the eyes and ears for the producers who elected them,” said FSA Administrator Zach Ducheneaux. “In order for county committees to be both effective and equitable in their decision-making at the local level, they must reflect the full diversity of American agriculture. I am excited that we have another opportunity through this year’s nominations and elections cycle to make our committees more inclusive, and in turn, better equipped to best serve all our customers. I encourage you to consider serving the farmers, ranchers and producers in your community on your local FSA county committee, and I thank you in advance for your public service.”

Elections will occur in certain Local Administrative Areas (LAA) for members. LAAs are elective areas for FSA committees in a single county or multi-county jurisdiction and they may include LAAs that are focused on an urban or suburban area.
Customers can locate their LAA through a new GIS locator tool available at fsa.usda.gov/elections.
“Based on feedback from stakeholders, including the USDA Equity Commission, we are unveiling this new tool to make it easier for producers to effectively participate in the process,” Ducheneaux added.

Agricultural producers may be nominated for candidacy for the county committee if they:

• Participate or cooperate in a USDA program; and
• Reside in the LAA that is up for election this year.

1400 Independence Ave. SW Washington, DC 20250

Contact:
FPAC.BC.Press@usda.gov
Farm Service Agency

A cooperating producer is someone who has provided information about their farming or ranching operation to FSA, even if they have not applied or received program benefits. Individuals may nominate themselves or others and qualifying organizations may also nominate candidates. USDA encourages minority producers, women and beginning farmers or ranchers to nominate, vote and hold office.

Nationwide, more than 7,700 dedicated members of the agricultural community serve on FSA county committees. The committees are made up of three to 11 members who serve three-year terms. Committee members are vital to how FSA carries out disaster programs, as well as conservation, commodity and price support programs, county office employment and other agricultural issues.

Urban and Suburban County Committees
The 2018 Farm Bill directed USDA to form urban county committees as well as make other advancements related to urban agriculture, including the establishment of the Office of Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production. FSA established county committees specifically focused on urban agriculture. The urban county committees will work to encourage and promote urban, indoor and other emerging agricultural production practices. Additionally, the new county committees may address areas such as food access, community engagement, support of local activities to promote and encourage community compost and food waste reduction.

Urban committee members are nominated and elected to serve by local urban producers in the same jurisdiction. Urban county committee members will provide outreach to ensure urban producers understand USDA programs and serve as the voice of other urban producers and assist in program implementation that support the needs of the growing urban community.
The 17 county committees for urban agriculture are located in:

• Albuquerque, New Mexico
• Atlanta, Georgia
• Chicago, Illinois
• Cleveland, Ohio
• Detroit, Michigan
• Dallas, Texas
• Grand Rapids, Michigan
• Los Angeles, California
• Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota
• New Orleans, Louisiana
• New York, New York
• Oakland, California
• Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
• Phoenix, Arizona
• Portland, Oregon
• Richmond, Virginia
• St. Louis, Missouri

Learn more at farmers.gov/urban.

More Information
Producers should contact their local FSA office today to register and find out how to get involved in their county’s election, including if their LAA is up for election this year. To be considered, a producer must be registered and sign an FSA-669A nomination form. Urban farmers should use an FSA-669-A-3 for urban county committees. These forms and other information about FSA county committee elections are available at fsa.usda.gov/elections.

Election ballots will be mailed to eligible voters beginning Nov. 6, 2023.
To learn more about FSA programs, producers can contact their local USDA Service Center. Producers can also prepare maps for acreage reporting as well as manage farm loans and view other farm records data and customer information by logging into their farmers.gov account. If you don’t have an account, sign up today.

USDA touches the lives of all Americans each day in so many positive ways. In the Biden-Harris
administration, USDA is transforming America’s food system with a greater focus on more resilient local and regional food production, fairer markets for all producers, ensuring access to safe, healthy and nutritious food in all communities, building new markets and streams of income for farmers and producers using climate smart food and forestry practices, making historic investments in infrastructure and clean energy capabilities in rural America and committing to equity across the department by removing systemic barriers and building a workforce more representative of America. To learn more, visit usda.gov.

#

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Top British scientists at Porton Down lab plan to use Manuka honey’s antibacterial qualities to create specialised chemical attack resistant gas masks

• Ben Wallace has lodged application into use of honey as protective equipment
• Manuka honey is the result of bees foraging on the manuka bush

By Katherine Lawton and Milo Pope

Published: 13:30 EDT, 13 May 2023 | Updated: 13:52 EDT, 13 May 2023

British scientists at Porton Down are making plans to use the antibacterial qualities of Manuka honey to create specialised chemical attack resistant gas masks.

They would harness the antibacterial qualities of the honey – which is seen as a special superfood that can ward off colds and banish sore throats – by creating a ‘manuka gas mask’ to defend against airborne biological and chemical attacks.

UK Defence Secretary Ben Wallace has lodged a patent application revealing that the honey could be used as ‘glue’ to ‘capture and neutralise’ poisonous toxins such as Covid-19.

Manuka honey is the result of bees foraging on the manuka bush (Leptospermum scoparium), a plant that produces a compound with strong antibacterial properties.

The honey could be deployed as one of several ‘sticky’ layers applied to filters fitted to masks or personal protective equipment (PPE), according to the 22-page government document.

The document also explains that ‘maze-like zigzags’ fitted within the gas mask filter can be coated with ‘adhesive layers’ of honey which will ‘neutralise the threat’.

The patent has yet to be tested yet and is only at the concept stage, but in another possible design the honey could be coated onto ‘an absorptive tissue’.

The document says: ‘Passing the dynamic airflow over the absorptive tissue ensures particulate matter in the dynamic airflow is captured by the manuka honey, thus filtering the dynamic airflow.’

Researchers have previously found that manuka honey holds ‘great promise’ in fighting Mycobacterium abscessus, the nasty bug it was tested on.

Made by bees that feast on manuka trees located only in New Zealand and Australia, the product often warrants sky-high price tags.

A-listers Gwyneth Paltrow, Scarlett Johansson and Katherine Jenkins have all extolled the virtues of this ‘liquid gold’ in the past few years.

Mycobacterium abscessus is dangerous to people with weakened immune systems or those with existing lung conditions like cystic fibrosis.

It comes from the same family as tuberculosis and requires a cocktail of antibiotics — known as antimicrobial chemotherapy — to treat.

Patients can experience severe side effects from the drugs, including hearing loss, vomiting, diarrhea, hives and fatigue.

But Aston University in Birmingham experts found using the honey in combination with lower doses of one type of antibiotic could help treat the infections.

This could pave the way for new drugs combining the two substances that would improve the quality of life of patients in the future, they said.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12079013/Top-British-scientists-plan-use-Manuka-honey-make-special-chemical-attack-resistant-gas-masks.html

The honey bee has specialized neurons that provide buzz-worthy clues.

By Laura Baisas | Published May 8, 2023 8:00 AM EDT

If humans want to learn more about our higher brain functions and behaviors, some scientists think we should look towards insects—including everything from busy bees to social butterflies to flies on the wall. A study published May 5 in the journal Science Advances found three diverse, specialized Kenyon cell subtypes in honey bee brains that likely evolved from one single, multi-functional Kenyon cell subtype ancestor. Kenyon cells (KCs) are a type of neural cell that are found within a part of the insect brain. These cells are involved in learning and memory, particularly with the sense of smell called the mushroom body. They are found in insects in the large Hymenoptera order from more “primitive” sawflies up to the more sophisticated honey bee.

“In 2017, we reported that the complexity of Kenyon cell subtypes in mushroom bodies in insect brains increases with the behavioral diversification in Hymenoptera,” co-author and University of Tokyo graduate student said in a statement. “In other words, the more KC subtypes an insect has, the more complex its brain and the behaviors it may exhibit. But we didn’t know how these different subtypes evolved. That was the stimulus for this new study.”

In this study, the team from University of Tokyo and Japan’s National Agriculture and Food Research Organization (NARO) looked at two Hymenoptera species as representatives for different behaviors. The more solitary turnip sawfly has a single KC subtype, compared to the more complex and more social honey bee that has three KC subtypes.

It is believed that the sawfly’s more “primitive” brain may contain some of the ancestral properties of the honey bee brain. To find these potential evolutionary paths, the team used transcriptome analysis to identify the genetic activity happening in the various KC subtypes and speculate their functions.

“I was surprised that each of the three KC subtypes in the honey bee showed comparable similarity to the single KC type in the sawfly,” co-author and University of Tokyo biologist Hiroki Kohno said in a statement. “Based on our initial comparative analysis of several genes, we had previously supposed that additional KC subtypes had been added one by one. However, they appear to have been separated from a multifunctional ancestral type, through functional segregation and specialization.”

As the number of KC subtypes increased, each one almost equally inherited some distinct properties from a single ancestral KC. The subtypes were then modified in different ways, and the results are the more varied functions seen in the present-day insects.

To see a specific behavioral example of how the ancestral KC functions are present in both the honey bee and the sawfly, they trained the sawflies to partake in a behavior test commonly used in honey bees. The bees, and eventually sawflies, learned to associate an odor stimulus with a reward. Despite initial challenges, the team got the sawflies to engage in this task.

Then, the team manipulated a gene called CaMKII in sawfly larvae. In honey bees, this gene is associated with forming long-term memory, which is a KC function. After the gene manipulation, the long-term memory was impaired in the larvae when they became adults, a sign that this gene also plays a similar role in sawflies. CaMKII was expressed across the entire single KC subtype in sawflies, but it was preferentially expressed in one KC subtype in honey bees. According to the authors, this suggests that the role of CaMKII in long-term memory was passed down to the specific KC subtype in the honey bee.

Even though insect and mammalian brains are very different in terms of size and complexity, we share some common functions and architecture in our nervous systems. By looking at how insect cells and behavior has evolved, it might provide insights into how our own brains evolved. Next, the team is interested in studying KC types acquired in parallel with social behaviors, such as the honey bee’s infamous “waggle dance.”

“We would like to clarify whether the model presented here is applicable to the evolution of other behaviors,” co-author and University of Tokyo doctoral student Takayoshi Kuwabara said in a statement. “There are many mysteries about the neural basis that controls social behavior, whether in insects, animals or humans. How it has evolved still remains largely unknown. I believe that this study is a pioneering work in this field.”

https://www.popsci.com/environment/honey-bee-brain-evolution/

by Bob Yirka , Phys.org

A multi-institutional team of biologists and ecologists from Chile and Argentina has found evidence suggesting that electromagnetic fields emanating from electrical towers disrupt pollinating honeybees. The research is published in the journal Science Advances.

Prior research has suggested that electromagnetic radiation emitted from power lines may interfere with plants and animals in the vicinity—though some have suggested that the unique habitat of the treeless regions where power lines pass through forests may confer some natural benefit.

In this new effort, the research team focused specifically on the impact of electromagnetic radiation emitted from electrical towers on honeybees—they chose honeybees because prior research has shown they navigate using natural electromagnetic fields. And they chose to use electrical towers rather than power lines themselves because they had access to similar towers without power lines, allowing for comparison purposes.

The researchers first counted the number of poppies flowering around active towers and towers that were inactive—they found there were far fewer flowering around the active towers. The researchers also measured the electromagnetic fields around multiple towers to discover how strong they were at various distances.

They then collected several honeybee specimens flying at different distances from a tower and measured the levels of a protein called HsP70 in their bodies—this protein has been shown to be related to stress in the bees. As expected, they found higher levels in the bees working closest to the electrical towers.

The research team then collected more honeybee specimens at a distance from any towers or lines and brought them back to their lab for study. They exposed them to different amounts of electromagnetic radiation and then measured expressions related to 14 genes known to be associated with navigation, stress and the immune system. They found differences in 12 of those exposed to electromagnetic radiation.

The team finished their study by once more venturing into the field to study the bees working closely to electrical towers—they found that the frequency of visits to a nearest flower that were closest to a tower were approximately 308% lower than in areas where there were no towers.

The group concludes that electromagnetic fields around electrical towers have a detrimental impact on honeybee pollination, and by extension, the surrounding plant community.

https://phys.org/news/2023-05-evidence-electromagnetic-fields-electrical-towers.html

Keeping queen bees chilled in indoor refrigeration units can make storing them more stable and less labor-intensive

February 27, 2023
Source: Washington State University

Summary: Keeping queen bees chilled in indoor refrigeration units can make the practice of ‘queen banking’ — storing excess queens in the spring to supplement hives in the fall — more stable and less labor-intensive, a study found. It may also help strengthen honey bee survival in the face of a changing climate. In a paper published in the Journal of Apicultural Research, researchers compared queen banks stored in refrigerated units to those stored in the conventional way outdoors and an ‘unbanked’ control group. They found that the queens stored at cooler temperatures had a higher survival rate and required less maintenance than those stored outdoors.

Keeping queen bees chilled in indoor refrigeration units can make the practice of “queen banking” — storing excess queens in the spring to supplement hives in the fall — more stable and less labor-intensive, a Washington State University study found. It may also help strengthen honey bee survival in the face of a changing climate.

In a paper published in the Journal of Apicultural Research, researchers compared queen banks stored in refrigerated units to those stored in the conventional way outdoors and an “unbanked” control group. They found that the queens stored at cooler temperatures had a higher survival rate and required less maintenance than those stored outdoors.

This study, and future potential refinement, could be another piece in the ultimate puzzle of reducing the loss of bee colonies each year, said senior author Brandon Hopkins, an assistant research professor in WSU’s Department of Entomology.

“A lot of honey bee losses are queen-quality issues,” Hopkins said. “If we have a method that increases the number of queens available or the stability of queens from year to year, then that helps with the number of colonies that survive winter in a healthy state.”

In the beekeeping industry, queen producers often “bank” queens over the summer by storing them in small cages. Those small cages are then put into a large colony with many workers to care for the caged queens, with as many as 200 queens per bank. A bank of 100 queens has a value of more than $5,000, and producers may have 10 to 20 banks on hand.

For this study, the team prepared 18 banks with 50, 100 and 198 queens per bank. The refrigerated banks matched survival of the outside groups, and in the banks of 100, survival was higher, with 78% of queens surviving the six weeks of storage compared to 62% in the outdoor group. The queens in both groups were of the same quality, showing similar good health. The cooled queen banks also needed less maintenance.

Beekeepers need honey bee queens to sustain colonies that pollinate crops, and there’s a huge spike in demand for queens in the spring. That’s when beekeepers replace their losses from the previous year.

Once queen producers meet that demand, they can’t just turn off queen production. Producers can bank excess queens to help meet the future needs of beekeepers, who often replenish their queen supplies after the summer.

Queens can’t be produced in hot temperatures, Hopkins said. Banking keeps an inventory on hand for when demand returns in the fall.

Keeping a supply of queens available for beekeepers to purchase is growing increasingly difficult. The vast majority of U.S. queen producers are based in California, where rising temperatures and wildfires are becoming more common.

“We heard queen producers in California are having a difficult time banking queens when temperatures are over 100 degrees in the summer,” said Hopkins. “It’s a little scary to be banking 80% of the country’s queen supply in a location prone to wildfires, smoke and high temperatures.”

Hopkins was surprised by how well the experiment worked, considering the challenges of queen banking.

“It’s an art,” he said. “There’s a significant amount of maintenance, skill and care required: managing, feeding and moving resources around.”

The team found that in the refrigeration units, the bees fared well with just food and no human interference.

Hopkins worked on the study with WSU colleagues Anna Webb, Stephen Onayemi, Rae Olsson and Kelly Kulhanek. This project was supported with funding from Project Apis m.

Story Source:
Materials provided by Washington State University. Original written by Scott Weybright. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Journal Reference:
1. Anna Webb, Stephen O. Onayemi, Rae L. Olsson, Kelly Kulhanek, Brandon K. Hopkins. Summer indoor queen banking as an alternative to outdoor queen banking practices. Journal of Apicultural Research, 2023; 1 DOI: 10.1080/00218839.2023.2165747

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/02/230227132612.htm

Posted on May 29, 2023 by Tiffany Dowell

The El Paso Court of Appeals recently enforced a liability waiver against a party injured when she fell off a horse in Green v. Lajitas Capital Partners, LLC. [Read Opinion here.] This case is a great reminder about the law surrounding liability waivers and how they can be an important part of a risk management plan.

Background

In June 2020, Sherri Green and other members paid to go on a sunset trail ride at Lajitas Resort. Prior to the ride, Sherri signed a release that was labeled in bold, capital letters. The release noted a number of potential risks, which Sherri initialed, and then provided that she waived any claims, including negligence claims, against the Resort.

The ride began and ended at the stables. On the return to the stables, the group was walking next to the golf course, when the underground sprinklers activated making a hissing sound that spooked the horses. Sherri fell off her horse, resulting in bruises and a fractured wrist. The guide testified that Sherri’s horse “sped up for a few steps” when the sprinklers went off and Sherri fell off. Sherri and her husband testified that her horse “bucked wildly” and violently threw her off.

Sherri filed suit against the Resort and other related defendants claiming she was an invitee and their negligence caused her injury. In particular, she claimed the sprinklers were a “dangerous latent condition of land” and the defendants failed to guard against the danger by allowing the horses to come close to the sprinklers knowing they were about to activate. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on two grounds. First, they claimed that Sherri signed a release prior to the ride releasing them from liability for negligence. Second, they raised the Texas Farm Animal Liability Act (FALA) as a defense, arguing that Sherri was a participant in a farm animal activity and her injury resulted from an inherent risk of that activity.

Sherri argued the release was not valid for two reasons. First, she claimed the release only applied to occurrences arising from nature, not man-made conditions like the sprinklers. Second, she argued the waiver was “insufficiently specific” under Texas law.

Sherri argued the FALA did not bar her claim because an exception applied. Specifically, she claimed her injury was caused by a latent condition of the land for which no warning was provided to her, making the FALA inapplicable.

The trial court granted the defendants motion for summary judgment but did not indicate on which grounds it did so. Sherri appealed.

Court of Appeals Opinion

The El Paso Court of Appeals affirmed. [Read Opinion here.]

Release of Liability

Under Texas law, a release must satisfy two elements of the “fair notice requirement”: (1) express negligence doctrine; and (2) conspicuousness. The express negligence doctrine states that the intent of a party to release claims of negligence must be specifically stated in the four corners of the document. The conspicuousness requirement provides that something must appear on the face of the document to attract the attention of a reasonable person to the release language, such as the release language being in larger type, capital letters, contrasting colors, or otherwise drawing attention to itself.

Conspicuousness

First, the court addressed the conspicuousness requirement. The court noted this was not raised at trial, meaning it was not properly presented for review. However, were the court to overlook this procedural issue, it would have found the requirement satisfied. The release was labeled “Liability Release and Assumption of Risk Agreement” in bold, capitalized letters. The liability release paragraph, which she initialed, included bold, capitalized letters and large font for key provisions. These provisions, along with her initials next to each paragraph, were sufficient to alert Sherri that was releasing the defendants from a future claim of negligence with regard to injuries she might suffer on the trail ride. Sherri argued the fact that only some terms, but not the entire release, were in bold, capitalized, underlined letters rendered the release invalid. The court disagreed, noting there is no requirement that the entire release must be highlighted, and the requirement is met if the key terms are sufficiently highlighted to draw the reader’s attention to them.

Express Negligence Doctrine

Sherri argued that the release was overly broad and ambiguous and that it covered only accidents caused by natural conditions. The court disagreed on both counts.

First, Sherri claimed the release was so broad it purported to waive her right to sue for anything. However, the express negligence requires the release clearly state that the party is releasing claims for negligence, as opposed to a general statement that the party releases all claims without specifying the nature of any such claims. Here, the release did expressly state that she waived all claims, including claims of negligence, which satisfied the express negligence doctrine. Courts have held that the mention of negligence is sufficient to satisfy the doctrine.

Second, Sherri argued that the release was limited to claims caused by natural conditions. She based this on a paragraph titled “Wilderness Experience” that says the defendants are not liable for “total or partial acts, occurrences, or elements of nature and/or sudden and/or unfamiliar sights sounds and/or sudden movements that scare a horse, cause it to fall, or react in some other unsafe way.” She claimed that because “elements of nature” is not followed by a comma, it modifies everything after it, limiting the release to natural conditions.

The court disagreed. The lack of comma was irrelevant because of the “and/or” language that follows “elements of nature,” which indicates it applies to both elements of nature and other incidents caused by unfamiliar sights, sounds, and sudden movements. The court also pointed out that another sentence in the “Wilderness Experience” paragraph provides examples of both natural and man-made changes in landscape, indicating it was intended to apply to incidents caused by unfamiliar sights and sounds, regardless of source. Finally, and most importantly to the court, there were several other paragraphs other than the “Wilderness Experience” paragraph describing the negligence claims that Sherri was releasing.

Farm Animal Liability Act

Because the court found that the liability release was valid, it did not address whether the FALA also applied to bar her claim.

Potential Appeal

Do note that the deadline to file an appeal has not yet passed.

Key Takeaways

First, this case is a good reminder that having people sign a liability release before engaging in recreational activities like horseback riding is an important step towards liability protection. To read more about this, see Chapter 5 of my Owning Your Piece of Texas handbook.

Moreover, it is a great reminder of the two main requirements to ensure a liability waiver is valid: the express negligence doctrine and conspicuousness. Because liability waivers are an important part of a risk management plan, and because the law is particular about their drafting, I highly recommend working with an attorney to obtain a good, valid liability release to use for your operation.

Lastly, one takeaway that I will be adding to my own waiver is a requirement that each party sign the waiver and initial each paragraph. The court seemed to rely on the initials here in analyzing the conspicuousness requirement and cited at least one other case where the initials were noted.

Today, the European Commission published two joint reports1 2 on fraudulent practices in imports of honey into the EU. According to investigations, 46% of the collected samples were suspected of being adulterated with added syrups. This dramatic situation has been denounced by Copa and Cogeca for years now. Yet solutions are known and unanimously supported by the sector: it is high time for the EU to act!

Thanks to joint work by DG Sante, JRC and OLAF, the Commission has quantified an alarming reality: of the 320 samples received from competent national authorities, 147 (46%) were suspected of non-compliance with the requirements of the EU Honey Directive. Almost 74% of the Chinese, 93% of the Turkish and 100% of the British honey samples were considered “suspicious”!

1 https://food.ec.europa.eu/safety/eu-agri-food-fraud-network/eu-coordinated-actions/honey-2021-2022_en
2https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/jrc-news/food-fraud-how-genuine-your-honey-2023-03-23_en
https://anti-fraud.ec.europa.eu/media-corner/news/no-sugar-my-honey-olaf-investigates-honey-fraud-2023-03-23_en

Source: EU Coordinated action to deter certain fraudulent practices in the honey sector, JRC Technical report

Commenting on the JRC’s report, Stanislav Jaš, Chairman of the Copa and Cogeca Honey Working Party said, “The survey clearly shows where problems come from. If almost every second honey product imported into the European Union is adulterated, this means that 20% of all “honey” consumed in the EU is adulterated! If we throw into the mix the fact that “fake honeys” are entering the EU at a cost as low as 1,5€/kg from a relatively small number of countries, one can understand why we are going through a real agricultural disaster in the EU.”

The second report by DG Sante contains important conclusions too. The Commission “confirms that a significant part of honey imported from non-EU countries and placed on the EU market is suspected of not complying with the provisions of the EU Honey Directive but goes undetected”. The report further outlines that “improved, harmonised and generally accepted analytical methods are still needed to increase the capability of official control laboratories to detect honey adulterated with sugar syrups”.

“When will consumers finally know what’s really on their spoon? To make this happen, three matters should be resolved at EU level as a priority. Firstly, better labelling of honey blends with an obligation to mention the respective countries of origin with percentage shares in descending order. Secondly, the European Union must update the official methods available to national control authorities for the detection of honey fraud and establish a community reference centre to continuously improve these methods. Lastly, Member States must reinforce controls and systematically check imported honey batches based on those improved methods combined with proof of traceability from hive to pot.” added Etienne Bruneau, Vice-Chair of the Working Party.

EU decision makers must act now to avoid the wrecking of the profession, which could lead to a substantial decline of honeybees on the continent. Copa and Cogeca call on DG AGRI for an in-depth revision of the EU Honey Directive in the coming months.

About us – Copa and Cogeca are the united voice of farmers and agri-cooperatives in the EU. Together, we ensure that EU agriculture is sustainable, innovative and competitive, while guaranteeing food security for 500 million people throughout Europe. >>> More information www.copa-cogeca.eu

For further information, please contact

Federico Facchin Senior
Policy Advisor
federico.facchin@copa-cogeca.eu

Jean-Baptiste Boucher
Communication Director
+32 474 840 836
jean-baptiste.boucher@copa-cogeca.eu