New AFB Plan Leaves Door Ajar to Detector Dogs, But Doesn’t Welcome Them Through
When the American foulbrood (AFB) National Pest Management Plan was revised recently it made an allowance for potential, future use of detection dogs. However, nothing has changed in practice as New Zealand Bee Health and Biosecurity (NZBB) continue to state more research is needed while no clear pathway towards field trials exists. Those closest to the most recent AFB detector dog project believe nothing will move forward unless someone steps up to champion the idea.
By Eloise Martyn
The revised plan has ministerial and Cabinet approval, but the current plan stays in place while drafting and a final Cabinet decision are completed. The new plan refers to the potential use of dogs "should the scientific community confirm that detector dogs are effective".
An MPI spokesperson referred questions to NZBB, but noted the Biosecurity Act 1993 already provides a power to use dogs (section 115), which the review proposal adds to the powers NZBB can access.
"Whether, and how, dogs are used is up to NZBB, so long as they are shown to be effective and any animal welfare is taken into account," the MPI spokesperson said.
Beekeepers may already use detector dogs, though not to replace mandated visual inspections.
"While the use of detector dogs is promising, NZBB requires further research to confirm the sensitivity and specificity of the dogs for detecting AFB cases,” NZBB chief executive Niha Long explains.
Early Trials
Dogs weren't new to AFB when dog trainer Pete Gifford and Manawatu beekeeper Jason Prior began their research into using detector dogs. As Apiarist's Advocate reported in 2022 (Passing the Sniff Test) and 2023 (AFB Dogs Research Debate Goes Around in Circles), beekeepers had used them for some time with little published research behind them – including a South Island trial with detection dogs, unconnected to their project.
"There were guys down south who did a similar test and the dogs were very unreliable," Prior says.
"It was a big factor when trying to get funding. This perception that dogs were unreliable at detecting AFB was an issue. We did the initial project to answer whether dogs could reliably detect AFB and the answer was ‘yes’.”
Gifford believes these dogs not connected to their trial gave incorrect positive indications, possibly because AFB wasn't presented in a sterile odour in training.
How the Trial Worked
Gifford and Prior’s project was led by Neroli Thomson of Massey University, with the research published in the Animals journal in December 2022. It received backing from a range of organisations and individuals, with MPI’s Sustainable Food and Fibres Future fund contributing $50,000. Alongside that was $44,000 of co-investment funding, primarily from the Honey Industry Trust, but with Massey University paying for spore production, and the Southern North Island Beekeeping Group, and Gifford’s business, K9 Search Detection Dogs also contributing. Prior also sponsored the project through his beekeeping company, Downunder Honey, and provided practical assistance and support.
Gifford sparked the plan to culture the spore, which is a complicated process, and he led and drove the dog training, bringing around 45 years’ experience in military scent detection, explosives detection, land search, police work and early cancer detection by dogs. He had no beekeeping background when he took on the question of whether dogs could detect AFB.
“It seemed logical to try to find the contamination at the pre-clinical stage," Gifford says.
"The first stage was to produce sterile target odours so I contacted my friend, a pathologist lecturer vet from Massey University and then a scientist bee expert at Plant and Food Research, to culture the spores.”
He trained the dogs by pairing the odour with a toy or ball as reward, using their natural drive to sniff and play. His aim was to imprint the spores rather than the smell of rotting pupae, which signals advanced, visible disease.
The MPI spokesperson describes the work as a preliminary piece of research, which found dogs "can reliably detect the presence of AFB spores at varying concentrations inside a sterile lab environment with the presence of beehive components".
Why it Stopped
“I only did stage one of three stages, the spore stage which is the most difficult, but the most useful, with the aim to come up with a tool to find pre-clinical sings of AFB – to identify the spore at a level before you can actually see or smell it.” Gifford says.
"The honey industry hit a slump and everything went dead. When the licence ran out to hold the spore, instead of destroying it, MPI stored them in case there will be future use." Gifford says.
The next step – developing an operating model and testing it in the field – needed more support and resources.
Gifford expects the next two proof-of-concept stages would cost about $125,000 each.
“The next step is to continue with a proof-of-concept trial on the AFB bacteria and pupa decomposition detection, two separate trials with different dogs that can be run concurrently. With field trials when ready. I would be very keen to work alongside John Mackay at dnature in using his qPCR swabs for confirmation of positive indications. We have spoken at length,” Gifford says.
For Prior, however, the frustration is around what happened after the initial research ended.
“I’m disappointed in the outcome. We were told by the former AFB programme manager that we need to prove dogs could work as the programme had no ability to use levy funds for this type of work,” Prior says.
“So, we were asked to prove that AFB could be reliably detected by dogs, and I believe we did that. And then we asked the programme to help or support us to get an operating model to field test. MPI said they would fund it, but the programme wouldn't come to the party. Considering we pay levies, it's completely inadequate.”
While the project is stood down, the tools – trained dogs and stored spores – remain available if the work is picked up again
Why it Matters
With less than five percent of New Zealand’s approximately 480,000 registered beehives inspected by NZBB personnel each year, Prior sees dogs as having the potential to close that gap.
"What dogs give you is the ability to pull all your honey supers out of the shed in winter, just a day’s labour, and have the dog come in for one day and it can find AFB while its sub-clinical.
“I don’t believe we can eradicate using the tools we have. It spreads too fast, and we have a sink of spores in most operations that continue to reinfect.”
Gifford also sees opportunities for dogs with AFB detection, particularly around “dump sites” – areas where large amounts of hives are placed during times of transit, particularly around pollination. He also insists on proof though.
"If you are going to burn your hives based on a dog, you need proof the dog is quantified. Proof of concept."
What a Trial Needs
“What’s needed is a 12-month field trial could help establish how detector dogs might best be used as an AFB tool, exploring how and when you would use them – would it be all year round or just over winter?” Prior explains.
He says the trial could involve four or five large beekeepers, with dogs inspecting hives before selected hives are tested using qPCR swabs.
NZBB wants data only a trial can provide, but Prior says they need NZBB to engage – a stalemate now lasting years.
"We don't expect them to come up with money, just some time, and to demonstrate they want this to happen and engage. I think people would rally around this,” Prior says.
So, while the incoming Pest Management Plan might keep the door to AFB detector dogs ajar, at present they can’t fit through, and industry sentiment around their use is varied.
"We may find that dogs aren't great, and that there's a whole lot of issues. I suspect not, but it's worth exploring," Prior says, while Gifford adds, “I’m a bit disappointed at some people’s responses who say, ‘get a tool that works and come back to me’ – people need to be pro-active rather than reactive.”
Comments