Cookies on Invasive Species Compendium

Like most websites we use cookies. This is to ensure that we give you the best experience possible.

Continuing to use means you agree to our use of cookies. If you would like to, you can learn more about the cookies we use.


American foulbrood of honey bees


  • Last modified
  • 26 September 2017
  • Datasheet Type(s)
  • Animal Disease
  • Preferred Scientific Name
  • American foulbrood of honey bees
  • Overview
  • This datasheet is about American foulbrood of honeybees as defined by the OIE (OIE, 2013a), i.e. a disease of the larval...
  • There are no pictures available for this datasheet

    If you can supply pictures for this datasheet please contact:

    CAB International
    OX10 8DE
  • Distribution map More information

Don't need the entire report?

Generate a print friendly version containing only the sections you need.

Generate report


Top of page

Preferred Scientific Name

  • American foulbrood of honey bees

International Common Names

  • English: AFB; American foul brood; American foulbrood


Top of page

This datasheet is about American foulbrood of honeybees as defined by the OIE (OIE, 2013a), i.e. a disease of the larval and pupal stages of honey bee, Apis mellifera and other Apis spp., which occurs in most countries where such bees are kept. It is on the list of diseases notifiable to the OIE, and the disease and pathogen are included in the Invasive Species Compendium for that reason.

The causative organism is a bacterium, Paenibacillus larvae, which can produce over 1 billion spores per infected larva. The spores are very long-lived and resistant to heat and chemical agents. Only the spores are capable of inducing the disease (OIE, 2013a).

Paenibacillus is a genus of Gram-positive, facultative anaerobic, endospore-forming bacteria. Members of this genus were originally included in Bacillus, until reclassification separated them into a distinct genus in 1993 (Ash et al., 1993). Previously, American foulbrood and powdery scale disease were considered distinct (Graaf et al., 2006), but this is no longer valid and the pathogenic agents, Paenibacillus larvae subsp. larvae and Paenibacillus larvae subsp. pulvifaciens, were reclassified as one species, Paenibacillus larvae (Genersch et al., 2006), although the subspecies are still referred to in the literature.

American foulbrood is a serious disease of honey bees worldwide and causes considerable economic losses (Basualdo et al., 2008). It has caused a significant decrease in honey bee populations, beekeeping industries and agricultural production (Antúnez et al., 2010). Honey bees are important to the agricultural and horticultural sectors as pollinators, so any disease causing decline in bee populations will have a significant impact on their role in these industries. Once this disease becomes established in a region it is very difficult to eradicate (Matheson and Reid, 1992).

Host Animals

Top of page
Animal nameContextLife stageSystem
Apis (bees)Wild hostOther: Juvenile
Apis melliferaDomesticated host|Wild hostOther: Juvenile

Hosts/Species Affected

Top of page

American foulbrood of honeybees is a disease of the larval and pupal stages of honey bees, Apis mellifera and other Apis spp., and occurs in most countries where such bees are kept (OIE, 2013a).

Robber bees may enter a hive that has become weakened by American foulbrood infection and take contaminated honey back to their hives, so assisting disease spread to other colonies and apiaries (Lindström et al., 2008).


Top of page

American foulbrood has a worldwide distribution (D’Alessandro et al., 2007) and cases have been reported in almost all the beekeeping regions of the five continents (Antúnez et al., 2004). It appears to be uncommon or even absent in significant parts of sub-Saharan Africa (Fries and Raina, 2003), but has been reported from some countries there (Hansen et al., 2003).

Studies have shown geographical clustering of different genotypes; for example Peters et al. (2006) reported non-random distribution of five different genotypes in the district of Arnsberg, Germany.

Distribution Table

Top of page

The distribution in this summary table is based on all the information available. When several references are cited, they may give conflicting information on the status. Further details may be available for individual references in the Distribution Table Details section which can be selected by going to Generate Report.

Continent/Country/RegionDistributionLast ReportedOriginFirst ReportedInvasiveReferenceNotes


AfghanistanNo information availableOIE, 2009
ArmeniaDisease not reportedOIE, 2009
AzerbaijanDisease not reportedOIE, 2009
BahrainDisease never reportedOIE, 2009
BangladeshNo information availableOIE, 2009
BhutanNo information availableOIE, 2009
CambodiaNo information availableOIE, 2009
ChinaPresentOIE, 2009; Näumann et al., 2012
-Hong KongNo information availableOIE, 2009
Georgia (Republic of)PresentOIE, 2009
IndiaNo information availableOIE, 2009
IndonesiaDisease not reportedOIE, 2009
IranPresentOIE, 2009
IraqPresentOIE, 2009
IsraelPresentOIE, 2009
JapanPresentOIE, 2009
JordanNo information availableOIE, 2009
KazakhstanDisease not reportedOIE, 2009
Korea, Republic ofNo information availableOIE, 2009
KuwaitDisease not reportedOIE, 2009
KyrgyzstanDisease not reportedOIE, 2009
LaosNo information availableOIE, 2009
LebanonPresentOIE, 2009
MalaysiaDisease never reportedOIE, 2009
MongoliaNo information availableOIE, 2009
MyanmarNo information availableOIE, 2009
NepalNo information availableOIE, 2009
OmanNo information availableOIE, 2009
PakistanNo information availableOIE, 2009
PhilippinesNo information availableOIE, 2009
QatarNo information availableOIE, 2009
Saudi ArabiaNo information availableOIE, 2009
SingaporeDisease never reportedOIE, 2009
Sri LankaDisease never reportedOIE, 2009
SyriaNo information availableOIE, 2009
TaiwanPresentChen et al., 2008
TajikistanDisease not reportedOIE, 2009
ThailandPresentChen et al., 2008; OIE, 2009
TurkeyPresentOIE, 2009
United Arab EmiratesDisease not reportedOIE, 2009
VietnamNo information availableOIE, 2009
YemenNo information availableOIE, 2009


AlgeriaPresentOIE, 2009
AngolaNo information availableOIE, 2009
BeninNo information availableOIE, 2009
BotswanaDisease never reportedOIE, 2009
Burkina FasoNo information availableOIE, 2009
ChadNo information availableOIE, 2009
CongoNo information availableOIE, 2009
DjiboutiDisease not reportedOIE, 2009
EgyptPresentOIE, 2009; Al-Fattah et al., 2010
EritreaNo information availableOIE, 2009
EthiopiaDisease never reportedOIE, 2009
GabonNo information availableOIE, 2009
GambiaNo information availableOIE, 2009
GhanaNo information availableOIE, 2009
GuineaNo information availableOIE, 2009
Guinea-BissauPresentHansen et al., 2003; OIE, 2009First confirmed in 2001.
KenyaNo information availableOIE, 2009
LesothoDisease never reportedOIE, 2009
MadagascarDisease never reportedOIE, 2009
MalawiNo information availableOIE, 2009
MaliNo information availableOIE, 2009
MauritiusDisease never reportedOIE, 2009
MoroccoNo information availableOIE, 2009
MozambiqueNo information availableOIE, 2009
NamibiaNo information availableOIE, 2009
NigeriaNo information availableOIE, 2009
RwandaNo information availableOIE, 2009
SenegalNo information availableOIE, 2009
South AfricaPresentHansen et al., 2003; OIE, 2009; Human et al., 2011First confirmed in 2001.
SudanDisease never reportedOIE, 2009
SwazilandNo information availableOIE, 2009
TanzaniaNo information availableOIE, 2009
TogoNo information availableOIE, 2009
TunisiaDisease not reportedOIE, 2009
UgandaNo information availableOIE, 2009
ZambiaNo information availableOIE, 2009
ZimbabweNo information availableOIE, 2009

North America

CanadaPresentOIE, 2009
GreenlandDisease never reportedOIE, 2009
MexicoPresentDjordjevic et al., 1994; OIE, 2009
USAPresentOIE, 2009

Central America and Caribbean

BelizeDisease not reportedOIE, 2009
Costa RicaPresentOIE, 2009
CubaPresentOIE, 2009
Dominican RepublicDisease never reportedOIE, 2009
El SalvadorDisease not reportedOIE, 2009
GuadeloupeNo information availableOIE, 2009
GuatemalaDisease not reportedOIE, 2009
HaitiNo information availableOIE, 2009
HondurasNo information availableOIE, 2009
JamaicaDisease not reportedOIE, 2009
MartiniqueDisease never reportedOIE, 2009
NicaraguaNo information availableOIE, 2009
PanamaNo information availableOIE, 2009

South America

ArgentinaRestricted distributionAlippi, 1992; Alippi, 1997; OIE, 2009
BoliviaNo information availableOIE, 2009
BrazilPresentSchuch et al., 2003; OIE, 2009
ChilePresentOIE, 2009
ColombiaDisease never reportedOIE, 2009
EcuadorDisease never reportedOIE, 2009
French GuianaDisease never reportedOIE, 2009
PeruDisease not reportedOIE, 2009
UruguayPresentOIE, 2009
VenezuelaDisease never reportedOIE, 2009


AlbaniaNo information availableOIE, 2009
AustriaPresentOIE, 2009
BelarusDisease not reportedOIE, 2009
BelgiumPresentOIE, 2009
Bosnia-HercegovinaPresentHadzimuratovic et al., 1986
BulgariaPresentOIE, 2009
CroatiaPresentOIE, 2009
CyprusPresentOIE, 2009
Czech RepublicPresentOIE, 2009
DenmarkPresentOIE, 2009
EstoniaPresentOIE, 2009
FinlandPresentOIE, 2009
FranceRestricted distributionOIE, 2009
GermanyPresentOIE, 2009
GreeceRestricted distributionOIE, 2009
HungaryPresentOIE, 2009
IcelandDisease never reportedOIE, 2009
IrelandPresentOIE, 2009
ItalyPresentOIE, 2009
LatviaDisease not reportedOIE, 2009
LiechtensteinDisease not reportedOIE, 2009
LithuaniaDisease not reportedOIE, 2009
LuxembourgDisease not reportedOIE, 2009
MacedoniaPresentOIE, 2009
MaltaAbsent, reported but not confirmedOIE, 2009
MontenegroPresentOIE, 2009
NetherlandsPresentOIE, 2009
NorwayDisease not reportedOIE, 2009
PolandPresentOIE, 2009
PortugalPresentOIE, 2009
RomaniaPresentOIE, 2009
Russian FederationPresentOIE, 2009
SerbiaPresentOIE, 2009
SlovakiaPresentOIE, 2009
SloveniaPresentOIE, 2009
SpainRestricted distributionOIE, 2009
SwedenPresentOIE, 2009
SwitzerlandPresentOIE, 2009
UKPresentOIE, 2009
UkraineDisease not reportedOIE, 2009


AustraliaPresentOIE, 2009
FijiPresentDjordjevic et al., 1994
French PolynesiaNo information availableOIE, 2009
New CaledoniaPresentOIE, 2009
New ZealandPresentOIE, 2009


Top of page

The most obvious clinical symptom of American foulbrood is the creamy or dark brown, glue-like larval remains of infected larvae. This is not conclusive, and in addition, diseased cells can easily be overlooked during the early stages of infection (Graaf et al., 2006). At an intermediate stage of larval decay, the remains can be drawn out into a brown mucus-like thread 10-30 mm long; this is stated by FERA (2013) to be a reliable test for the presence of American foulbrood.

Bzdil (2007) described a method for detecting spores of P. larvae in the debris and wax of honey bees using the homogenization agent Tween 80. Material suspected of containing spores is homogenized at 70±2 °C with distilled water and Tween 80. When compared to the method of dissolving wax samples in toluene or benzene and releasing them in a liquid medium, the Tween method was found to be more effective at detecting P. larvae spores.

However, although several sensitive and selective culture media are available for the isolation of this bacterium (Graaf et al., 2006) and clinical symptoms caused by this disease can be diagnosed using colony inspections, such as the method described by Bzdil (2007), Gillard et al. (2008) describe these as time-consuming.

Studies to investigate alternative methods of diagnosis concluded that analysis of honey samples and bees collected at the entrance of the hive are of limited value for diagnosis, because only 86 and 83%, respectively, of samples from colonies showing symptoms of infection were positive (Gillard et al., 2008). Gillard et al. (2008) recommended testing bee samples from the brood nest, edge frame or honey chamber for P. larvae spores.

Other studies have concentrated on decreasing diagnosis time by using real-time PCR diagnostics (e.g. Chagas et al., 2010; Martínez et al., 2010). Chagas et al. (2010) studied the detection of P. larvae using real-time PCR, with the aim of decreasing diagnosis time and ensuring that robustness was not lost, as with conventional PCR methods. They concluded that analysis by real-time PCR of the 16S rDNA gene of Paenibacillus represents an alternative, rapid diagnostic tool for the disease.

In addition to the development of PCR methods for identification and genotyping of P. larvae, other methods available for identification are biochemical profiling, bacteriophage sensitivity, immunological techniques and microscopy of suspect bacterial strains (Graaf et al., 2006).

OIE (2013a) provides an outline of the different diagnostic techniques.

Disease Course

Top of page

Goodwin et al. (1993) stated that there are three possible states of infection: contamination, where P. larvae is present in the hive, but causes no ill effects; subclinical infection, where it adversely affects at least the larvae, although no disease is apparent to observers; and clinical infection, where it adversely affect the larvae and visible signs of American foulbrood are present.

Once a larva has become infected via contaminated food, the spores germinate in the larval gut and the vegetative bacteria move into the gut tissues where they multiply enormously in number. Infected larvae normally die after their cells are sealed, and millions of infective spores are formed in their remains. The dried remains of the larvae adhere to the cell walls and cannot easily be removed by bees, meaning that the comb remains contaminated (FERA, 2013).


Top of page

P. larvae spores contaminate brood food. The spores are then ingested by larvae up to 3 days old and germinate in the gut of the larva. Spores do not germinate in larvae that are older than 3 days; larvae less than 24 hours old are the most susceptible to infection. The vegetative form of the bacterium develops and gains nourishment from the larva. Eventually the larva dies as a result of the growth of the bacteria and the vegetative form of the bacterium also dies, but before doing so it produces millions of spores. One hundred million spores may be contained in one dead larva (Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, undated).

Adult bees spread American foulbrood (AFB) throughout hives as they attempt to remove the dead larvae that contain spores, and thus contaminate brood food. The brood chamber fills with contaminated honey, because spores are contained in the nectar of contaminated cells. As the honey is moved up into the supers of the hive, the entire hive will be contaminated with spores (Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, undated).

Robber bees prey on weakened hives and colonies are weakened by AFB infection. These bees may take contaminated honey back to their hives and so spread the disease to other colonies and apiaries. Beekeepers may also unwittingly spread the disease on equipment (Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, undated). Recent studies have also shown that small hive beetles, Aethina tumida, are vectors of P. larvae (Schäfer et al., 2010).

The spores of P. larvae are very resistant to desiccation and can remain viable for more than 40 years in honey and on equipment. Beekeepers are therefore advised to avoid honey for feeding bees, if the source is unknown, and that used beekeeping equipment should be assumed to be contaminated unless known not to be (Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, undated).


Top of page

Economic Impact

American foulbrood is a serious disease of honey bees worldwide and causes considerable economic losses (Basualdo et al., 2008). This disease has caused a significant decrease in honeybee populations, beekeeping industries and agricultural production (Antúnez et al., 2010). Honey bees are important to the agricultural and horticultural sectors as pollinators (the value of pollination is estimated to exceed the value of products from beehives many-fold -- Delaplane and Mayer, 2000), so any disease causing decline in bee populations will have a significant impact on their role in these industries.

Social Impact

The effect of American foulbrood outbreaks on honeybee health will also have a significant impact on honey products and thus the livelihood of beekeepers.

Environmental Impact

Impact on habitats

A decline in bee numbers has been attributed to American foulbrood, amongst other bee diseases. Bee decline will have a significantly negative affect on pollination within habitats that rely on these insects for development (Delaplane and Mayer, 2000).

Impact on biodiversity

A decline in native bees due to the spread of American foulbrood will have a negative effect on bee biodiversity (Cuthbertson and Brown, 2009).

Disease Treatment

Top of page

Antibiotics are used to treat American foulbrood (AFB) in a number of countries, but in the UK (at least) it is compulsory to destroy infected colonies – the use of antibiotics is prohibited on the grounds that they are ineffective and merely suppress signs of the disease without eradicating it (FERA, 2013).

The development of resistance to commonly used antibiotics such as oxytetracycline, and the presence of residues in honey, have triggered the need for alternative control agents.

Kloucek et al. (2008) have studied the antibacterial activity of the tree Paulownia tomentosa and tested 8 geranylflavanoids against P. larvae. They reported high antibacterial activity against the vegetative stages of P. larvae subsp. larvae strains.

Propolis is a derivative from plant resins collected by Apis mellifera and is antimicrobial. Several studies have investigated the use of propolis to treat hives infected with P. larvae (e.g. Bastos et al., 2008; Antúnez et al., 2008). Bastos et al. (2008) carried out tests in Brazil and Minnesota, USA, using propolis from various Brazilian states. Antúnez et al. (2008) evaluated the efficacy of a propolis ethanolic extract (PEE) against P. larvae, in vitro and in vivo, and as a therapeutic tool for the control of AFB. Toxicity against honeybees was also evaluated. They concluded that PEE appears to be a novel, natural and harmless alternative for the treatment of AFB-affected hives.

Following development of oxytetracycline-resistant P. larvae-strains, subsequent studies have looked at alternative antibiotics and essential oils (e.g. Elzen et al., 2002; Chirila et al., 2011; Maggi et al., 2011; Roussenova, 2011). Elzen et al. (2002) reported that tylosin, an antibiotic, is effective in controlling oxytetracycline-resistant P. larvae in honey bee colonies, with no effect on adult and larval bee mortality.

Later research by Chirila et al. (2011) found a mixed response to various antibiotics and essential oils against samples of P. larvae subsp. larvae from 4 counties in Transylvania, Romania. Bacterial isolates were sensitive to penicillin, erythromycin, oxytetracycline, lincomycin, and enrofloxacin. Thyme, pine and mint oil were most active against vegetative forms of P. larvae.

Evidence of inhibition of P. larvae by omega 3 polyunsaturated fatty acids has been documented (Rumanovská et al., 2011).

Preliminary studies have investigated the possibility of using ozone as a fumigant against honey bee diseases including AFB. Ozone is a powerful oxidant, capable of killing insects and microorganisms (as well as eliminating odours, taste and colour). Treatment with ozone served to sterilize P. larvae, but only when certain concentrations and exposure times were used in conjunction with temperatures of 50 C and ≥75% relative humidity (James, 2011). James (2011) concluded that further evaluation of ozone was required, tailored to acceptability and efficacy in the field.

Cherif et al. (2008) reported the discovery of entomocin 110, a bacteriocin from Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. entomocidus HD 110. It was found to be inhibitory against several Gram-positive bacteria, including P. larvae.  Entomocin 110 is proteinaceous in nature, and with a bactericidal and bacteriolytic mode of action.

Bacteria antagonistic to P. larvae have been discovered in honeybees (Sabaté et al., 2009; Yoshiyama and Kimura, 2009) and honey samples (Alippi and Reynaldi, 2006; Sabaté et al., 2009). Both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria were found in the digestive tract of Japanese honeybees, Apis cerana japonica, using histological and 16S rRNA gene sequence analyses (Yoshiyama and Kimura, 2009). Bacterial populations in the gut were found to be diverse and in vitro assays were used to determine inhibition of isolates against P. larvae. Out of 35 isolates tested, 7 showed potential as biocontrol agents against P. larvae, and most of these were Bacillus spp..

Bacillus subtilis was isolated from honeybee guts and honey samples, and shown to inhibit P. larvae. In particular, it was shown that surfactin inhibited P. larvae, which were immediately affected upon contact. It was concluded that apiculture may benefit from the co-productive activities of Bacillus strains in producing surfactin and a fungicide, to biologically control P. larvae (Sabaté et al., 2009).

There are other bacteria which are antagonistic to P. larvae: aerobic spore-forming Bacillus megaterium, Bacillus licheniformis and several isolates of Bacillus cereus (Alippi and Reynaldi, 2006).

Munawar et al. (2010) investigated the shook swarm method for control of AFB. This involved reducing spore numbers in the mouths of the bees by starving them and shifting them to new, clean hives with new foundation sheets. The results demonstrated that swarms decreased their spore load significantly.

Prevention and Control

Top of page

Beekeepers need to take care not to introduce the disease to their colonies, and to ensure that any new cases are recognised and promptly quarantined and dealt with before it can spread to other colonies. In the UK (at least), infected colonies must be destroyed by burning (FERA, 2013).

The OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code (OIE, 2013b) regulates the movement of bees, equipment and bee products from countries or zones where the disease is or may be present -- adult bees must come from apiaries meeting certain conditions including an absence of local outbreaks, eggs, larvae and pupae must be inspected by a method in the OIE Terrestrial Manual (OIE, 2013a), equipment must be sterilised, and products must be sterilised or inspected.

In addition to the application of chemical control to the bees themselves, beekeepers can also safeguard against the spread of AFB, by disinfecting equipment, which can harbour infection and exacerbate the problem. Hives and appliances can be sterilised by scorching them with a blowlamp and clothing can be washed thoroughly in washing soda or hot soapy water (FERA, 2013). Studies showed that Huwa-san® TR 50 has sporocidal properties and can be used to disinfect metal, wood and wax combs (Gurgulova et al., 2007),

Bee hygienic behaviour refers to cell uncapping and the removal of diseased or parasitized larvae. Bee resistance to brood infectious diseases such as AFB can be increased by selecting for hygienic bees. Invernizzi and Rodríguez (2007) reported that colony hygienic behaviour increased from 77.7±20.9 to 98±1.7% after 6 generations, alongside a decrease in brood diseases from 50 to 0%. Less hygienic behaviour was observed in the diseased colonies than in the healthy ones.

Later, a study by Basualdo et al. (2008) aimed to determine the spread of AFB in a commercial apiary where queens had been selected for hygienic behaviour. Hives that were found to be positive for AFB were isolated from the rest of the apiary and the queens of the remaining hives were replaced with queens selected for hygienic behaviour. AFB prevalence was then monitored, visually and through spore isolation from honey and bee samples.  It was concluded that sampling of the bees, compared to the honey, was a better option for early diagnosis of AFB as it was more sensitive. The researchers stated that the disease could be controlled sufficiently using bee sampling and hygienic bee lines.

(See also the ‘Disease Treatment’ section).


Top of page

Al-Fattah MAA; El-Awady M; Gelan MI; Barakat OS, 2010. Microbiological and molecular diagnosis of American foulbrood in honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) colonies. Arab Journal of Biotechnology, 13(1):1-12.

Alippi A, 1997. Background on American foulbrood in Argentina. Bee World, 78(2):92-95.

Alippi AM, 1992. Characterization of Bacillus larvae White, the causative agent of American foulbrood of honey-bees. First record of its occurrence in Argentina. Revista Argentina de Microbiología, 24(2):67-72.

Alippi AM; Reynaldi FJ, 2006. Inhibition of the growth of Paenibacillus larvae, the causal agent of American foulbrood of honeybees, by selected strains of aerobic spore-forming bacteria isolated from apiarian sources. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology, 91(3):141-146.!&_cdi=6888&view=c&_acct=C000028398&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=3891418&md5=b373781fd57161cbb274352b09176e79

Antúnez K; Anido M; Evans JD; Zunino P, 2010. Secreted and immunogenic proteins produced by the honeybee bacterial pathogen, Paenibacillus larvae. Veterinary Microbiology, 141(3/4):385-389.

Antúnez K; D'Alessandro B; Piccini C; Corbella E; Zunino P, 2004. Paenibacillus larvae larvae spores in honey samples from Uruguay: a nationwide survey. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology, 86(1/2):56-58.

Antúnez K; Harriet J; Zunino P, 2008. Propolis as a natural alternative for the treatment of hives infected with spores of Paenibacillus larvae, causal agent of American foul brood. (Propóleos como alternativa natural para el tratamiento de colmenas infectadas con esporas de Paenibacillus larvae, agente causal de la Loque Americana.) Veterinaria (Montevideo), 43(171):9-14.

Ash C; Priest FG; Collins MD, 1993. Molecular identification of rRNA group 3 bacilli (Ash, Farrow, Wallbanks and Collins) using a PCR probe test. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, 64(3/4):253-260.

Bastos EMAF; Simone M; Jorge DM; Soares AEE; Spivak M, 2008. In vitro study of the antimicrobial activity of Brazilian propolis against Paenibacillus larvae. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology, 97(3):273-281.

Basualdo M; Figini E; Torres J; Tabera A; Libonatti C; Bedascarrasbure E, 2008. Control of American foulbrood disease in Argentine commercial apiaries through the use of queens selected for hygienic behaviour. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research, 6(2):236-240.

Bzdil J, 2007. Detection of Paenibacillus larvae spores in the debris and wax of honey bee by the Tween 80 method. Acta Veterinaria Brno, 76(4):643-648.

Chagas SS; Vaucher RA; Brandelli A, 2010. Detection of Paenibacillus larvae by real-time PCR. Acta Scientiae Veterinariae, 38(3):251-256.

Chen YueWen; Cheng HaoChun; Huang ChuenUei, 2008. American foulbrood spores in honey samples in Taiwan. Formosan Entomologist, 28(2):133-143.

Cherif A; Rezgui W; Raddadi N; Daffonchio D; Boudabous A, 2008. Characterization and partial purification of entomocin 110, a newly identified bacteriocin from Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. Entomocidus HD110. Microbiological Research, 163(6):684-692.

Chirila F; Fit N; Rapuntean S; Nadas G; Nistor AC, 2011. A study regarding the Paenibacillus larvae strains sensitivity isolated from some counties in Transylvania to different antibiotics and vegetal essential oils. Cluj Veterinary Journal, 19(1):60-64.

Cuthbertson AGS; Brown MA, 2009. Issues affecting British honey bee biodiversity and the need for conservation of this important ecological component. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 6(4):695-699.

D'Alessandro B; Antúnez K; Piccini C; Zunino P, 2007. DNA extraction and PCR detection of Paenibacillus larvae spores from naturally contaminated honey and bees using spore-decoating and freeze-thawing techniques. World Journal of Microbiology & Biotechnology, 23(4):593-597.

DEFRA, 2011. Plant health, bee health and plant varieties and seeds. UK: Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, 12 pp.

Delaplane KS; Mayer DF, 2000. Crop pollination by bees. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing, xv + 344 pp.

Djordjevic S; Ho-Shon M; Hornitzky M, 1994. DNA restriction endonuclease profiles and typing of geographically diverse isolates of Bacillus larvae. Journal of Apicultural Research, 33(2):95-103.

Elzen P; Westervelt D; Causey D; Rivera R; Baxter J; Feldlaufer M, 2002. Control of oxytetracycline-resistant American foulbrood with tylosin and its toxicity to honey bees (Apis mellifera). Journal of Apicultural Research, 41(3/4):97-100.

FERA (Food and Environment Research Agency), 2013. Foulbrood disease of honey bees and other common brood disorders. Sand Hutton, UK: Food and Environment Research Agency, 37 pp.

Fries I; Suresh Raina, 2003. American foulbrood and African honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Journal of Economic Entomology, 96(6):1641-1646.

Genersch E; Forsgren E; Pentikäinen J; Ashiralieva A; Rauch S; Kilwinski J; Fries I, 2006. Reclassification of Paenibacillus larvae subsp. pulvifaciens and Paenibacillus larvae subsp. larvae as Paenibacillus larvae without subspecies differentiation. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology, 56(3):501-511.

Gillard M; Charriere JD; Belloy L, 2008. Distribution of Paenibacillus larvae spores inside honey bee colonies and its relevance for diagnosis. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology, 99(1):92-95.

Goodwin RM; Perry JH; Brown P, 1993. American foulbrood disease part III: Spread. New Zealand Beekeeper, No. 219:7-10.

Graaf DC de; Alippi AM; Antúnez K; Aronstein KA; Budge G; Koker D de; Smet L de; Dingman DW; Evans JD; Foster LJ; Fünfhaus A; Garcia-Gonzalez E; Gregorc A; Human H; Murray KD; Bach Kim Nguyen; Poppinga L; Spivak M; Engelsdorp D van; Wilkins S; Genersch E, 2013. Standard methods for American foulbrood research. Journal of Apicultural Research, 52(1):52.1.11.

Graaf DC de; Alippi AM; Brown M; Evans JD; Feldlaufer M; Gregorc A; Hornitzky M; Pernal SF; Schuch DMT; Titera D; Tomkies V; Ritter W, 2006. Diagnosis of American foulbrood in honey bees: a synthesis and proposed analytical protocols. Letters in Applied Microbiology, 43(6):583-590.

Gurgulova K; Zhelyazkova I; Malinova K; Takova S, 2007. Disinfection of beekeeping objects with Huwa-san® TR 50. Zhivotnov'dni Nauki, 44(6):104-107.

Hadzimuratovic M; Nevjestic A; Rukavina L; Sabirovic M, 1986. Prevalence of bee and brood diseases in Bosnia and Hercegovina in the period 1980-1984. (Stanje rasprostranjenosti bolesti pcela i legla u periodu 1980-1984 godine u Bosni i Hercegovini.) Veterinarski Glasnik, 40(7/8):505-508.

Hansen H; Brødsgaard CJ; Kryger P; Nicolaisen M, 2003. A scientific note on the presence of Paenibacillus larvae larvae spores in sub-Saharan African honey. Apidologie, 34(5):471-472.

Human H; Pirk CWW; Crewe RM; Dietemann V, 2011. The honeybee disease American foulbrood - an African perspective. African Entomology, 19(3):551-557.

Invernizzi C; Rodríguez JP, 2007. Improvement in the health of the brood in bee (Apis mellifera L.) colonies selected for hygienic behaviour. (Mejora en la sanidad de la cría en colonias de abejas (Apis mellifera L.) seleccionadas por comportamiento higiénico.) Veterinaria (Montevideo), 42(167):9-13.

James RR, 2011. Potential of ozone as a fumigant to control pests in honey bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) hives. Journal of Economic Entomology, 104(2):353-359.

Kloucek P; Smejkal K; Flesar J; Kokoska L; Titera D, 2008. Susceptibility of three Paenibacillus larvae strains to geranylflavonoids from Paulownia tomentosa. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Medicinal and Aromatic Plants of Southeast European Countries, (5th CMAPSEEC), Brno, Czech Republic, 2-5 September, 2008. Brno, Czech Republic: Mendel University of Agriculture and Forestry in Brno, 34 pp.

Lindström A; Korpela S; Fries I, 2008. Horizontal transmission of Paenibacillus larvae spores between honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies through robbing. Apidologie, 39(5):515-522.

Maggi M; Gende L; Russo K; Fritz R; Eguaras M, 2011. Bioactivity of Rosmarinus officinalis essential oils against Apis mellifera, Varroa destructor and Paenibacillus larvae related to the drying treatment of the plant material. Natural Product Research, 25(3/4):397-406.

Martínez J; Simon V; Gonzalez B; Conget P, 2010. A real-time PCR-based strategy for the detection of Paenibacillus larvae vegetative cells and spores to improve the diagnosis and the screening of American foulbrood. Letters in Applied Microbiology, 50(6):603-610.

Matheson A; Reid M, 1992. Strategies for the prevention and control of American foulbrood. American Bee Journal, 132(6;7;8):399-402;471-475;534-537,547.

Ministry for Primary Industries, 2013. What is American foulbrood? Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry for Primary Industries.

Munawar MS; Shazia Raja; Waghchoure ES; Muhammad Barkat, 2010. Controlling American Foulbrood in honeybees by shook swarm method. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Research, 23(1/2):53-58.

Näumann G; Mahrt E; Himmelreich A; Mohring A; Frerichs H, 2012. Traces of contamination-well preserved in honey: investigation of veterinary drugs and American foulbrood in honeys of global origin. Journal für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit, 7(1):35-43.

OIE (Office International des Epizooties), undated. Diseases of bees. Paris, France: Office International des Epizooties, 6 pp.

OIE (World Organisation for Animal Health), 2013. Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals. Paris, France: World Organisation for Animal Health.

OIE (World Organisation for Animal Health), 2013. Terrestrial Animal Health Code, edition 22. Paris, France: Office International des Epizooties.

OIE, 2009. World Animal Health Information Database - Version: 1.4. World Animal Health Information Database. Paris, France: World Organisation for Animal Health.

Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, undated. American Foul Brood. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA: Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, 2 pp.

Peters M; Kilwinski J; Beringhoff A; Reckling D; Genersch E, 2006. American foulbrood of the honey bee: occurrence and distribution of different genotypes of Paenibacillus larvae in the administrative district of Arnsberg (North Rhine-Westphalia). Journal of Veterinary Medicine. Series B, 53(2):100-104.

Roussenova NV, 2011. Antibacterial activity of essential oils against the etiology agent of American foulbrood disease (Paenibacillus larvae). Bulgarian Journal of Veterinary Medicine, 14(1):17-24.

Rumanovská K; Mudronová D; Toporcák J, 2011. Alternative methods of prevention of American foul brood - Part III: fatty acids. (Alternatívne metódy prevencie moru vcelieho plodu - III. Casthacek~: mastné kyseliny.) Slovenský Veterinársky Casopis, 36(1):19-20.

Sabaté DC; Carrillo L; Audisio MC, 2009. Inhibition of Paenibacillus larvae and Ascosphaera apis by Bacillus subtilis isolated from honeybee gut and honey samples. Research in Microbiology, 160(3):193-199.

Schäfer MO; Ritter W; Pettis J; Neumann P, 2010. Small hive beetles, Aethina tumida, are vectors of Paenibacillus larvae. Apidologie, 41(1):14-20.

Schuch DMT; Tochetto LG; Sattler A, 2003. Detection of Paenibacillus larvae subsp. larvae spores in Brazil. (Isolamento de esporos de Paenibacillus larvae subsp. larvae no Brasil.) Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira, 38(3):441-444.

Yoshiyama M; Kimura K, 2009. Bacteria in the gut of Japanese honeybee, Apis cerana japonica, and their antagonistic effect against Paenibacillus larvae, the causal agent of American foulbrood. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology, 102(2):91-96.


Top of page

23/03/2012: Original text by:

Dr Claire Beverley, CABI, Nosworthy Way, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, OX10 8DE, UK.

Distribution Maps

Top of page
You can pan and zoom the map
Save map