Ingredients
□ ¼ cup butter
□ ¾ cup honey
□ 1 egg
□ 1 tsp vanilla extract
□ ½ cup flour
□ 1 tsp baking powder
□ ½ tsp salt
□ 4 tbsp cocoa powder
□ ½ cup chopped nuts (optional)
□ ½ cup chocolate chips (optional)

Directions
Makes 6-8 servings
Cook time: 20-30 minutes

Step 1
Preheat oven to 325°F

Step 2
In a medium bowl, cream together butter and honey. Warm butter works better.

Step 3
Beat in egg and vanilla extract.

Step 4
Stir in flour, baking powder, cocoa powder and salt.

Step 5
Stir in nuts and chocolate chips, if using.

Step 6
Grease a 9×9” baking pan.

Step 7
Pour batter into the greased pan, then even it out smoothly.

Step 8
Bake at 325°F for 20 minutes.

Step 9
Check consistency. If the edges aren’t crispy, bake for another 5-10 minutes until crispy.
Enjoy with ice cream or by themselves!

Healthy nuc overflowing with bees.

Beekeepers have many options when deciding how to enlarge their apiary or add new genetics to their beekeeping records. One popular choice is to purchase nucs or nucleus colonies. You can buy a nuc from local beekeepers or other states; in fact, some serious beekeepers purchase queens from other states then sell nucs from those queens’ progeny. A common definition of a nucleus colony is a colony, or nuc, in a smaller hive, consisting of bees in all stages of development, as well as food, a laying queen and enough workers to cover three to five combs. When placed into a full-sized hive body and given supplemental feeding, the nuc should expand rapidly into a strong colony.

However, you will soon learn that “anything goes” as far as what is actually sold. Beekeeper complaints range from a box with one frame of brood and four frames of mixed plastic and wax foundation; frames with no foundation; ragged old black comb; no food stores; or a handful of bees with a sick looking queen. Some colonies used for pollination that are too weak to be transported forward are shaken out and scavenged so that the old black comb is sold to low bidders to use and sell as needed. Its “Business ROI” (Return on Investment). If the buyer of the final nuc complains, it is not perceived as a big deal, because meanwhile the seller has made a lot of money from their total sales. Other complaints include a queenless colony, a queen that is DOA or a cluster of laying workers. One person bought a nuc with a green drone frame in it!

The origin and history of the queen can vary from a strong queen with a pedigree of Winter hardiness and vigorous brood to a queen with unknown parentage or that of a second or third swarm. It could possibly be a queen from a state with vastly different climate conditions or one that was pushed for production and has not bred well. Prices vary significantly between “local” and “A.I.” (artificially inseminated) versus queens from other sources. The catch is knowing that you are paying for what you receive.

The buyers may assume that they are purchasing a queen from a local overwintered colony, but they are actually getting a queen from a package, from colonies used for pollination or a queen that was mass produced in another state. The nucs fail, then the beekeeper has spent a great deal of money for nothing or worse, introduced disease to their apiary. Meanwhile, time has passed with no colony(s) growing and producing.

The key to knowing from whom to buy and if the nuc(s) are worth the price, is to do a little homework- It’s worth the effort! Start by asking some basic questions and do some investigating. Ask other beekeepers from whom they bought nucs and how the colonies performed. Ask beekeepers who are not club members or work with the nuc producer. Ask the producer how many colonies and yards they have and how well they overwintered, or if the state (region) has an inspector, learn the size of the nuc producer’s operation. Reputable, serious queen/nuc producers recommend that one should have at least 40 colonies and at least two apiaries. Is the beekeeper or their apiaries registered with the state/region? How long has the beekeeper kept bees? Determine if the producer knows basic bee biology and has a solid varroa mite management program. How often does the producer monitor the colonies? What mite control products are used? Are the products from different chemistry families?

Frame of plastic foundation and “parallel comb” found in a nuc box.

Does the producer target the control strategy at the proper times or do they depend on vaporizing or other quick fixes? Are other products used to control pests that are not legal/labeled for use in beehives? Don’t get stuck buying sick or physically challenged colonies!
Does the producer know the requirements to raise healthy, fat queens? Each queen cell requires frames of young nurse bees and substantial quantities of nectar. Raising queens during a nectar flow is far superior to any other time of the season, despite the amount of syrup fed to the bees. What months were the queens made? If it has been cold and raining all Spring, the chance of producing enough quality queens to build nucs is highly unlikely. The queens have not had a chance to mate and the colonies have not grown enough to produce enough workers to feed and nourish queens. Someone selling nucs from overwintered queens in cool, wet Spring months is most likely supplementing with queens purchased from warmer states.

The more serious concern is introducing disease to your apiary. Experienced beekeepers caution that package bees should always be placed on foundation initially in case they have bacteria in their crops which is then deposited into drawn comb. When purchasing nucs, one can only hope that the nucs or colonies from which the nucs were made were inspected, but truthfully only a percentage of colonies are inspected and when multiple yards are involved, only a portion of the apiaries are inspected. Also, colonies that had been treated with an antibiotic may not show symptoms when they were inspected. In addition, frames from storage may be swapped into some nucs if needed that may contain bacterial spores or chemical residue.

It is important to know which yards and when the colonies were inspected and if possible, to purchase nucs from those yards. If not possible, make sure to inspect the nucs before purchasing them. Even if the lid is nailed or screwed down, or if weather is inclement, take the time to look at the frames and evidence of a brood pattern. It is sometimes hard to tell who the originator of the nucs is and how long that colony or nuc box has been around. Check and make sure that the colony is queenright and that all stages of healthy brood are present.

If you are buying a nuc with a purchased queen, she will be in a queen cage. You still need to have larvae and capped brood to care for the queen, as well as one to two frames of honey when she is released. If you are getting a nuc with its own queen, she should be loose in the nuc. If the queen is in a cage, leave the nuc and find another producer. Keep in mind that a locally produced queen in a nuc usually sells for a higher price than a purchased queen from another state. If the nuc contains a swarm caught recently or a month ago, the cost should be that of the box and value of the frames.

Frame with American
Foulbrood (AFB).

It is wise to place newly purchased nucs in a quarantine yard until they have cycled through two generations. Look at the larvae and developing brood. Are the larvae floating in royal jelly or dry? Do the larvae look dry, rubbery, brown or yellow? These are symptoms of European foulbrood and should be sent to a designated diagnostic laboratory. What do the pupae look like? Brown or sunken pupal cells can be symptoms of American foulbrood. Both can be found in purchased nucleus colonies and will cause chronic illness and heartache in the apiary.

Do the emerging bees look healthy? How prolific is the queen? Is her laying pattern normal? A strong nuc may need to be transferred to an eight or 10-frame within a week. Continue to monitor the colony(s), then if no disease is detected, the colony(s) can be moved to another yard.

Any colony can contract American foulbrood or European foulbrood at any time because the bacteria are always present on other bees, flowers, abandoned apiaries and the environment. Nucleus colonies made under stress or during poor weather are especially prone to EFB. Symptoms of PMS (parasitic mite syndrome) and other mite related illnesses often don’t show until later. The important point is monitor new colonies weekly or every two weeks and check all colonies monthly. Check the brood and make sure that the queen is healthy. If a problem arises, act, don’t wait for it to dissipate. Ask the inspector or an experienced, successful beekeeper for help.

Part of the fun in beekeeping is learning and growing but deceptions arise from those who are unprepared or too trustful in their beekeeper “friends” or club members and don’t learn how to protect themselves. Successful beekeepers are often tempted to sell nucs after a few years to keep their apiary size to a manageable level; others think that selling nucs will make them “easy money” and may not have a desire to sell a good product. Many don’t care because with 40% losses every year, the market is still great.

Visit their apiary and talk with them. If you can buy local nucs, do so but mainly buy nucs from beekeepers who have figured out how to successfully grow their colonies and have a sound management program. If you spend time with them and manage your own colonies well, you will soon be enjoying the sweet scent of success.

References
https://canr.udel.edu/maarec/nucleus-colonies/#:~:text=A%20nucleus%20colony%2C%20or%20nuc,five%20combs%20(Figure%2017).
https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/IN869
https://catalog.extension.oregonstate.edu/sites/catalog/files/project/pdf/pnw682_2.pdf

A check in with farmer Keith Johnson is always informative. Keith’s passion for farming and pollinators makes for an interesting perspective on bee advocacy issues. Photo credit: Rebecca Masterman

A check in with our favorite farmer and pollinator promoter, Keith Johnson, reminds us that we have some work to do. Today we’re sharing a few ideas that Farmer Keith thinks might help beekeepers promote bee health. From connecting to local government to reaching out about federal legislation, the more beekeepers promote bees and other pollinators, the better.

Let them know you are a beekeeper
Last year’s midterm election winners are now in office and it is a good time to introduce (or reintroduce) yourself. Politiwatch, a non-partisan tech non-profit, has an excellent search engine that will connect you to your local, state and federal representatives. From this site, you can navigate to websites where you can find the phone numbers, emails and letter addresses for those representatives: (https://whoaremyrepresentatives.org/).

Once you reach out, what should you say? It doesn’t have to be long (just sincere) to be impactful! Share who you are, and why you are concerned about the health of pollinators. In particular, underline that increasing habitat is a number one issue that you would like addressed!

2023 Farm Bill
Don’t let the name of this bill confuse you. If you eat, you are impacted by some part of the farm bill. Farm bill legislation is voted on every five years and the 2018 bill even has its own Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_States_farm_bill). This comprehensive legislation guides many programs overseeing many issues like nutrition (including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP), crop insurance, trade, horticulture and forestry programs. One area of the bill that has enormous potential to support bees and wildlife is the conservation programs. This year the Farm Bill is up for renewal and its conservation programs need your support.

If you bring up conservation programs with Farmer Keith (he usually gets there first though, he will tell you that enrollment in these programs is down. These programs incentivize farmers and private landowners to keep land out of production and instead adopt practices that support wildlife. Signed into law by President Ronald Regan in 1985, peak enrollment was at 36 million acres in 2007 (https://www.agweb.com/opinion/history-conservation-reserve-program). Unfortunately, enrollment has been under 25 million acres since 2014 (https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/Conservation/PDF/35_YEARS_CRP_B.pdf). Eleven million acres of potential conservation reserve program (CRP) habitat have been lost in under 20 years.

If you want to impress Farmer Keith, follow farm bill news and connect with your senators and representatives to let them know that you want them to promote and increase conservation programs in the 2023 farm bill.

Time to send a letter (or email)? Reaching out to your representatives is a great and easy way to support your bees. Photo credit: Rebecca Masterman

Connect with your state and local agencies
We live in a state where each state-level agency and many cities have pro-pollinator directives. Although Minnesota has done an excellent job with promoting pollinator health with regard to habitat and pesticide use, there is always room for improvement. Farmer Keith’s advice when reaching out to your local and state agencies is to ask them how you and your beekeeper friends can help support their work supporting pollinators. You might be surprised about programs that already exist and are available to help efforts to increase pollinator habitat. We were (https://bwsr.state.mn.us/practices/pollinator/index.html)!

Join the Farm Bureau and/or Farmers Union
Both the Farmers Union and the Farm Bureau are organizations that advocate for farmers. Because they lobby for their members’ interests, membership could be in the best interest of beekeepers. Per the Minnesota Farmers Union website, one of the legislative priorities for 2022 was supporting pollinator habitat and research to promote crop pollination. Check out your state Farmers Union to see if pollinators have made the list of their legislative priorities (https://nfu.org/join/). While the Farm Bureau recognizes the importance of honey bees for crop pollination, when it comes to neonicotinoids their policy opposes a ban and encourages cooperation among regulators and stakeholders. Whether you agree or disagree, consider joining the bureau and let your voice be heard. As Farmer Keith says, the Farm Bureau and Farmers Union advocate for their members. Join and they will advocate for you (https://www.fb.org/about/join).

Becky Masterman led the UMN Bee Squad from 2013-2019. Bridget Mendel joined the Bee Squad in 2013 and has led the program since 2020. Photos of Becky (left) and Bridget (right) looking for their respective hives. If you would like to contact the authors with your bee advocacy success stories or thoughts, please send an email to mindingyourbeesandcues@gmail.com.

Research and Extension
Honey bees also need your help in the form of supporting research. We suggest checking in with your local university bee research and extension programs for an update on their work. Your support does not necessarily need to be financial. Staying connected with these groups might result in the opportunity to have your bees help answer research questions or simply give you the opportunity to share communications with other beekeepers.

Effort
Advocating for all the bees (honey and native) is a lot of work. After writing this to-do list of how we can work harder for our bees, it reminds us of how it is easy to feel behind in management tasks throughout the beekeeping season. So, our solution is to share the burden with other beekeepers and join a beekeeping club. Beekeeping clubs are a way to streamline bee advocacy and stay informed about emerging issues, whether political or biological. Remember, the club advocates for its members, so become a member!

Acknowledgments and Suggestions
The authors would like to thank Dr. Marla Spivak for helpful edits and suggestions.
If you thought Varroa was bad, we suggest reading John Miller’s article titled It’s Worse Than You Think (https://www.beeculture.com/its-worse-than-you-think/). We all need to be aware and ready for threats to bee health.

Vendor area example

The 2023 Hive Life Conference was held in Sevierville, Tennessee at the Sevierville Conference Center on January 5-7, 2023.

Please allow me to share some observations and critical thoughts on the second annual Hive Life conference.

Honey show

I have attended both Hive Life conferences, last year’s and this year’s.

My intent, is to not repeat the excellent reviews and discussions on the event, but to inject thoughts on WHY is the Hive Life Conference so successful? Please feel free to expand your thoughts on your next Bee Conference.

Lecture Hall

Just like real estate, it’s location, location, location. Tennessee is in the middle of the Eastern part of the United States of America. It’s a one day drive on average, while some drove for two days to be at the conference. Yes, it does have a major airport nearby in Knoxville, TN, but most beekeepers prefer to avoid the airports like the plague (How many of my small pocket knifes has TSA stolen from me? I have lost count.).

Group Talk

Please let me share a few of my observations with you. Individually, each of these observations may seem trivial and of no significance, but all rolled into one big conference, they are the magic that makes the Hive Life Conference in Sevierville, Tennessee special.

• An abundance of clean, moderately priced hotels in the Sevierville, Pigeon Forge, Gatlinburg area.
• Lots of things to do in the area, before the conference, during the conference and after the conference.
• Parking at the Hive Life Conference was more than enough and it was free!
• “Free” fresh great tasting coffee all day long, with a ton of snacks all day as well.
• 

  Vendor area example

  The catered lunch meals were fantastic, more than enough and they tasted home cooked, at a great low price. And they fed almost two thousand people in less than two hours each day. WOW.

• The Conference Center in Sevierville, Tennessee is one of the largest and cleanest facilities I have ever enjoyed. The Conference Center staff was friendly and abundant.
• The restroom facilities were more than great, they were clean and open. Service was always there.
• Lots of pre-orders and business to business traffic. I wish you could have seen the massive loading dock area. It was buzzing with activity before, during and after the conference.
• Millions and millions of dollars of bee equipment and inventory was at hand. Many sold out of equipment.
• Almost one hundred (100) vendors and exhibitors!
• Loading dock area was not managed by any logistics firm. This reduced the cost to use the facility by magnitudes. Vendors had free will to move and transport equipment as needed.
• During three (3) long intense days at the conference, I detected NO unhappy beekeepers; they were all excited to be at the Hive Life Conference
• Fantastic honey show and competition, the largest in North American in over fifty (50) years with over five hundred (500) entries with world class judges. Better, in my humble opinion, than Apimondia 2019.
• The event schedule gave break time between speakers and everything was in the same building.
• 

  Pins marking where the attendees are from

  Name badges had your meal ticket printed on it and it was double sided (smart?). I could read the names.

• Total cost to sponsor and pay vendor fees was about half what other conferences charge.
• No drama detected, most were happy to be there.
• Speakers were and are great beekeepers with years of experience. They shared their wisdom each time they spoke. Lots of useful information was shared by all.
• Lots of Master Beekeepers and enthusiastic sideliners in attendance.
• This event was a low cost educational opportunity.

Speakers Bob Binnie and Ian Steppler.

Everyone said that they will be back next year. They were not disappointed. Hive Life Conference: under promise and over deliver. That’s the way they roll.

Please consider these Critical Thoughts the next time you attend a Bee Conference.

Respectfully, EAS Master Beekeeper – EARL HOFFMAN

This was the 80th anniversary of the American Beekeeping Federation convention. About 500 participants from throughout the country attended.

By: Charles & Karen Nielsen Lorence

The American Beekeeping Federation had their 2023 convention in Jacksonville, Florida from January 4-7, 2023. About five hundred people attended including a few international people. We were all delighted to attend. Even the weather cooperated. Now we are all anticipating the 2024 convention in New Orleans.

Three speakers were showcased, one of which was Diana Cox Foster who runs the pollinating insect research unit out of Logan, Utah. Their studies include other pollinating insects in addition to honey bees. How does the presence of the honey bee impact other native bees? All require pollen and nectar. How much food is available and how many mouths are there to feed? What is the interaction between pesticides, pathogens, poor nutrition and parasites? These were some of the topics she addressed.

Another speaker was Dr. Sam Ramsey who addressed the Tropilaelaps mite hereafter referred to as ‘Tropi’. This is not the first we have heard about it but it is another parasitic mite and we must worry about it coming to America from Southeast Asia. We beekeepers frequently wonder why the varroa gets into hives. It is the perfect home for them with perfect temperature and perfect food source. Actually, bees prefer to be away from other bees. What do we do? We put them near each other, enabling them to reproduce.

Varroa and ‘Tropi’ share one feature and that is that they reproduce rapidly and easily and it only takes one mite. Varroa and ‘Tropi’ DO live in the same hive. We don’t know if they compete or if they cooperate. We need to learn to ‘think like the mite.’ Heat treatment including solar cells is being tried at this time.

Finally, Jay Evans spoke about Understanding and Managing Honey Bee Diseases. We need the colonies to be resilient. Stressors such as climate, disease, chemicals, even goats (because they eat all the forage) impact them. Our researchers are trying to find nature antidotes with over 500 natural ones yet to be tested. Our last resort should be medication.

The break out sessions were well attended and extremely interesting. Commercial beekeepers, sideliners/small scale beekeepers and package bee/queen breeders were all in break out sessions. Since so many of us in this state are small scale/sideliners, I might add that a few favorites were Becky Tipton’s value added product demonstration, wax rendering and how to make creamed honey. Also included, were comb honey production, encaustic painting, queen rearing, therapeutic uses of honey, overwintering bees in climate controlled environments and establishing markets.

Kids and Bees was a popular place for kids to learn about bees and beekeeping. About 600 kids from the community came to tour the exhibit.

Always a highlight of the convention is ‘Kids and Bees’. This open house for community children was attended by over 600 kids and their teachers/parents!

The foundation luncheon, delegate luncheon and auxiliary luncheon showcased their respective interests. The trade show brought in some new and unique companies this year. There was a push for plastic foundation and plastic beeswax coated frames, extracting equipment on display, insurance and purveyors of gadgets. There was an absence of glass and plastic bottle purveyors. Pollinator friendly plants was a high priority booth.

Mark Killion represented his father, Gene, as we all honored the Killion family and their contribution to the beekeeping industry but especially to the section box product of comb honey. The proceeds of a silent auction of Killion memorabilia as well as the auction of Mark’s donated honey will go to a scholarship for a worthy entomology student.

State honey queens represented for Florida, Iowa and Wisconsin with Florida’s queen being chosen as the American Honey Queen and the Iowa queen as the American Honey Princess.

Our queen candidates this year represented Wisconsin, Iowa and Florida. Throughout the convention, they circulated amongst the group, sharing their experiences in beekeeping. Selena Rampolla was the Florida Honey Queen and became the winner for American Honey Queen; Iowan, Allison Hager, became the American Honey Princess. In addition, Wisconsin was represented by their 2022 honey queen – Shannon Lamb. Please remember that our queen and princess are now available for appearances at your events. Contact Anna Kettlewell to schedule them for your clubs or events. Outgoing American Honey Queen, Lucy Winn, was a phenomenal candidate this past year.

The honey contest gave participants an opportunity to bring their honey and beeswax products to be judged competitively against other professional beekeepers. The winning honey was then auctioned off. Participants take the competition very seriously and winning is everything to those who take that honor!

The National Honey Show displayed the best honey in America and was entered by individuals from throughout the country. Stephanie Slater from Wisconsin earned BEST IN SHOW with her extra light extracted honey. Her jars were auctioned off at the banquet on the final night and brought $840 per jar! The money will go to the legislative fund.

The convention will be held in New Orleans in January of 2024. Plan to join us!

Invasive species are among the leading threats to native ecosystems, habitats and wildlife; they can also have a negative impact on economy and livelihoods. One such example is the Asian hornet (Vespa velutina) first spotted in France back in 2004. Since that time, this honey bee predator has spread all across France, down into Spain and Italy, up into Belgium and even crossed the sea to the UK. As a result, the Asian hornet is now regarded in many parts of Europe as a bigger threat to beekeeping than Varroa destructor. Following several years of field work, conducted in northern Italy, using sound, we managed to identify a pretty robust acoustic signature to identify the invasive hornet. Indeed the algorithm could even distinguish the Asian hornet from the native European hornet (Vespa crabro).

In 2019, Vespa mandarinia was seen for the first time in Washington state and British Columbia. Termed the murder hornet by the U.S. media, the V. mandarinia is larger than its cousin the V. velutina. Furthermore, rather than picking off foragers as they return to the hive, the V. mandriana scouts, invades and occupies honey bee colonies.

Hornet in flight tent

Flight tent with acoustic monitor

Working with the USDA, we were able to position an acoustic monitor within an inch of a nest entrance for several days before the nest was exterminated. This resulted in a large quantity of high quality acoustic data, which enabled us to tune the recognition algorithm to the V. mandarinia. Dr. Chris Looney, entomologist and field engineer at the WSDA, managed to catch a few of the hornets with a net, and contain them in a flight tent along with the acoustic monitor. From this acoustic data, we could see a clear difference in the size of the specimens, later confirmed by size information (weight and dimensions) forwarded by Chris.

The acoustic data also allowed us to observe flight behavior, offering valuable insights into total activity, precisely when the hornets started and stopped flying, flight hours and flight frequency, allowing us to plot the daily flight profile. Furthermore, we could retrospectively apply the size information giving us insights into the nest demographic.

One of the major obstacles facing field engineers studying the hornet and tracking its spread is one of inaccessibility; these areas rarely have cell coverage or even good road access. Therefore, the ability to monitor for hornets remotely is very valuable. This has been achieved using a gateways unit with satellite communications to which up to 32 acoustic monitors can communicate, raising an alarm if a hornet is seen or monitoring activity in areas the hornets are already established. Moving forward, such acoustic monitoring techniques can be employed both within the apiary and at major ports or other potential points of entry.

Dr. Huw Evans. Heads BeeHeroX, the innovation arm of BeeHero.
Acknowledgments: Dr. Chris Looney (WSDA), Dr. Todd Gilligan (APHIS) and Anne M Lebrun (APHIS).

Dr. Tracy Farone

State Apiarists and Veterinarians
By: Dr. Tracy Farone

Over the holidays, I had the opportunity to reach out to several State Apiarists to discuss ways they believe veterinarians could help to serve honey bees and the beekeeping industry. Joan Mahoney, the State Apiculturist for the New York’s Department of Agriculture; Barbara Bloetscher, State Apiarist for the Ohio Department of Agriculture; and Kim Skyrm, Chief Apiary Inspector for the State of Massachusetts’s Department of Agricultural Resources (with contribution help from the entire MA Bee team: Paul Tessier, Shay Willette and Jessica Glover) all graciously agreed to share their thoughts on the matter. I asked a few basic questions, but we also touched on a few more sensitive subjects. I was excited to listen to what they had to say, give my two ears and (mostly) keep my mouth shut for a month.

Q1. Are there any existing collaborations between state apiculturists and veterinarians in your State in the care and treatment of honey bees?
Joan – Yes, when beekeepers request antibiotics to treat non-symptomatic colonies exposed to American Foulbrood (AFB), the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets refers them to veterinarians who are able to provide the necessary prescription.

Barb and Hailey (vet student) inspecting. Photo credit: Barb Bloetscher

Barb – The Ohio State University College of Veterinary Medicine has invited me and The Ohio State University State Apiculturist to give talks to the veterinary students who are interested in the apiary program. Both undergraduate and veterinary students have invited us to speak to their clubs and participate in the OSU Food Animal Medicine Student Symposium Hands-On Workshop- Wet lab they have in early Spring. I have also spoken at the Midwest Veterinary Conference on honey bee diseases. OSU offers an externship for graduating veterinary students to experience areas of interest. Thanks to one persistent student, the OSU Apiculturist and I have “shared” one or two students each season three different years. The intern works with the Apiculturist on different studies and spends a day or two with me in the field, inspecting colonies. They have all commented on how much they appreciated the opportunity.

Kim – Yes! Apiarists or Apiary Inspectors visit beekeepers to perform health inspections of honey bee colonies and used equipment. If during an inspection, the inspector discovers visual symptoms of European Foulbrood (EFB), then a sample is taken from the colony and sent to the lab for analysis. Inspectors provide a report of the findings from the inspection and the lab provides results for the sample directly to the beekeeper. If lab analysis confirms the presence of EFB, then inspectors recommend treatment using an antibiotic. To obtain the antibiotic, inspectors instruct the beekeeper to contact a local veterinarian and provide the documentation received from the inspection including the report and lab analysis. The veterinarian then meets with the beekeeper and establishes a veterinary-client-patient relationship (VCPR) and issues a prescription for the antibiotic to the beekeeper. The inspector and the veterinarian follow up with the beekeeper to ensure the medication was successful and EFB controlled. As part of their role, Apiary Inspectors must ensure compliance for the treatment and management of contagious or infectious diseases and EFB is typically listed as a regulated disease.

One area we feel has expedited this process is that we supply beekeepers with free sample kits that provide the materials and instructions they need to take samples for EFB/AFB, Varroa mites/Nosema from their colonies and send directly to labs for analysis. This has really sped up disease detection and diagnostic services in our state. We started this component of our program services in 2018 and it has been so well received and popular in our state that we have given out over 3,000 of these to date for beekeeper use. In addition to supporting our program in finding incidences of health issues, it has also allowed veterinarians to get quick lab analysis for samples to enable them to respond faster when needed.

Q2. What services from veterinarians could be of the most assistance to State Apiculturists? To beekeepers/the beekeeping industry? Could you use some help BEYOND providing VFDs and prescriptions for three antibiotics?

Veterinarian beekeeper talk at Betterbee in NY. Photo credit: Joan Mahoney

Joan – With the development of vaccines for AFB and RNAi treatments for varroa mites on the horizon, greater veterinary involvement will be beneficial to beekeepers.

Barb – It would be very helpful for beekeeping organizations such as ABF, AHPA, HBHC and all State and local beekeeping associations to have a vet on their board and as a speaker every year. We would like veterinarians to explain their role in prescribing VFD’s for bees and the reasons that the FDA is taking this role more seriously. The Honey Bee Veterinary Consortium provides names of veterinarians who work with beekeepers, but I don’t think it is widely known. In addition, every vet school should invite bee knowledgeable veterinarians to share ideas and solutions.

I have witnessed beekeepers spend several hours teaching a veterinarian basic beekeeping knowledge only to have the veterinarian charge him for the vet’s time. Seems like it should be the other way around! I think beekeepers and the veterinarians need to understand each other’s perspectives so that we can work together better.

Kim – Our biggest challenge is finding veterinarians who can assist beekeepers in accessing the antibiotics necessary for the treatment of EFB. There are only a few veterinarians who are aware of the existence of apiary programs and the prescription needs for beekeepers. My suggestion is that if you are an interested veterinarian, please advertise your willingness to be of service to the beekeeping community by contacting local bee groups and sharing your information with them as well as on the “Find a Bee Vet” listing on the Honey Bee Veterinary Consortium website. We have been lucky in Massachusetts to have a few veterinarians who have been willing to take on this role and “bee” diligent about responding quickly to beekeeper needs and providing support, but we have a lot of beekeepers, and these wonderful veterinarians could use additional support too!

AFB/EFB kits Kim Skyrm provides to beekeepers to take samples. Photo courtesy of Kim Skyrm.

Q3. Beyond possible antibiotic treatment for AFB and EFB, do you think it is important for veterinarians to have a solid understanding of honey bee management, biology, nutrition and pathology to serve these animals and beekeepers?
Joan – Yes, in New York, we recognize that veterinarians should understand honey bee health and have been working to educate and train veterinarians. Dr. Scott McArt, PhD, from Cornell University and Dr. Christopher Cripps, DMV from Betterbee have been working together, along with Drs. Robin and Rolfe Radcliffe, DMV and Dr. David Peck, PhD, to hold workshops aimed at giving our veterinarians a solid understanding of honey bee management and diseases. Additionally, Cornell has added curriculum in their College of Veterinary Medicine to ensure that honey bees are part of veterinary training.

Barb – Yes, I see the need for veterinarians to show beekeepers why prophylactic use of antibiotics hurts the honey bee industry by weakening the bees and spreading disease to other apiaries. Some State Apiary Inspection Programs do not receive the support needed to stop the spread of AFB and EFB. If the veterinarians can also guide beekeepers toward proper use of antibiotics and to burn, when necessary, it would help support the state programs.

Kim – We do not recommend antibiotic treatment for AFB – this pathogen is too virulent and pathogenic to be treated – infected colonies should be destroyed. Honey bees are no different from any other managed animal in that they require care; therefore, veterinarians are uniquely suited to partner with beekeepers to provide support. It is imperative that veterinarians have a working knowledge of honey bee management, biology, nutrition and pathology to best assist these amazing organisms and the beekeepers who manage them for pleasure and profit. I have always found both beekeepers and veterinarians to bee as (com)passionate and fascinated with the art and science of beekeeping as well as intent to ensure bee health and sustainability of the population.

Q4. In some States, honey bees and State Apiculturists are housed in the Plant Division or Bureau of the Department of Agriculture. Do you think there could be any benefit for honey bees to be classified as animals (by State governments)? Could this realignment bring more attention, recognized status and possible funding to honey bees as an agricultural animal or would that cause too many bureaucratic issues?
Joan – In New York we have explored this. After the recent retirement of our director of the Division of Animal Industry and a new incoming director, we discussed the move but thought it best to continue to house honey bee work in the Division of Plant Industry. The New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets is a small agency, so communication between divisions is continuous.

Barb – Oh boy, I don’t think I know enough of the politics to answer this, but honey bees are livestock, and are maintained as livestock. Maintaining healthy colonies is crucial for agriculture so perhaps the beekeeping industry would be taken more seriously and receive funding from multiple sources. Through time, these programs evolve and move around. No doubt when the apiary programs were first developed, the plant industry was mostly agricultural and the bees are the means to achieve a yield, so being in the plant division made sense.

Kim Skyrm inspecting nucs. Photo courtesy of Kim Skyrm

Kim – You may have heard the recent California ruling that bees are now classified as “animals” (i.e., fish). In short, yes, for some states/territories there are many benefits to classifying bees and insects under the umbrella of “animal”. The need for this depends on the language in each state/territory legislature. Ultimately, the root of this question is about support. Honey bees, beekeepers who manage them and veterinarians who provide support would all benefit if Apiary Programs across the country were more adequately funded with a sustainable budget and full-time staff. This would not only allow for better services to beekeepers but also a team of folks working together (including veterinarians) who are focused on honey bee health full time, year-round. Getting the word out about the vital role of Apiary Programs and the services they provide is hard given that budgets are never static, and bees should always be considered a top priority. Honey bees and beekeepers deserve attention now and, in the future!

Q5. Do you think there is a way to correct, modernize and update honey bee diseases’ focuses to realize the current and actual threat level of all diseases in honey bees to create more support in staff and funding? (i.e., CCD and AFB playing a lesser overall role with Varroa, viruses, nutrition, Nosema, etc. gaining larger and additional attention).
Joan – Yes. This year in New York State, we saw a decrease in AFB; however, varroa mite losses, coupled with viruses and drought conditions, are expected to lead to many more colony losses than AFB. We need to focus on beekeeper education and continued development of queens with resistant, hygienic traits. Such traits have been shown to reduce varroa levels and virus levels, as well as AFB infections.

Barb – Education is the key. We need to teach and emphasize the best strategy to solve beekeeping problems and lead people to the best resources so that they are less tempted to “go fishing” online. Beekeepers don’t consider varroa mites to be the serious vector that it is. We may consider AFB to be serious, but since “everyone” has varroa, it is just a problem that constantly hinders our success. As long as 40% of our colonies are dying every year, it is obvious that varroa needs to be monitored all season and treated with labeled products as needed. Varroa control should be a priority in colony management.

Kim Skyrm taking samples of deadout. Photo courtesy of Kim Skyrm

Kim – Knowledge and exposure is key. No other entity inspects more honey bee colonies, visits more beekeepers, submits more lab samples or communicates with the beekeeping community than Apiary Inspectors. Keep in mind that many of the major honey bee health issues were also initially discovered by Apiary Inspectors or collaborators working closely with these entities. Given this, I always say if you want to know about honey bee health in your area, talk with an Apiary Inspector. “My” responses were a whole hive effort from the entire MA Bee team: Paul Tessier, Shay Willette and Jessica Glover!

Q6. How would you like to see apiculturists and veterinarians work together to serve beekeepers in the future. What do you think is ideal… possible… and practical?
Joan – Apiculturists and veterinarians should keep lines of communication open and provide each other with regular updates. Apiary inspectors should continue conducting inspections with veterinarians serving as a resource and providing guidance and medical services as needed.

Barb – I think the first step is to communicate more. I would like to have veterinarians attend beekeeping meetings and speak, or at least have a booth to answer questions.

The perception is that veterinarians have not been taught the importance of managed honey bees. Mammal livestock and poultry have been considered the important “animal” livestock and where the money is. Honey bees were seen as a production agriculture input and not as a vitally important industry. Beekeepers do not promote themselves well as livestock managers but if you think about it, beekeepers make up for losses by making splits. You can’t do that with animals. If growers lost 40% of their herd, we would all be in serious trouble, yet statistics show that beekeepers continue to lose 40% of their colonies every year. This is not a sustainable practice. We don’t get ahead, we just stay “even”.

The comments I have heard from hobby, sideliner and big commercial beekeepers is that beekeepers have been their own “veterinarians” since the beginning of beekeeping. They have “done everything a veterinarian would do” (with the help of USDA, Universities and dumb luck). “Why do ‘we’ need a real veterinarian when we know more than they do?” We need to communicate this issue so that both parties understand how we can work together to improve beekeeping biosecurity. Honey bees have the potential to be flying pest/pathogen carriers as colonies are moved around the state and the country. We all have the same goal – to maintain healthy colonies. Beekeepers need to be able to recognize serious bee diseases, as do veterinarians. We need to know when to use antibiotics and when to burn.

The beekeeping industry needs to be universally recognized as being critical to pollinating our food supply. With veterinarians assisting with maintaining strong colonies and stressing the importance of using them to produce optimal crop yield, I think organizations and growers will realize how much we depend on the beekeeping industry.

Shay Willette and David Saleh inspecting nucs. Photo courtesy of Kim Skyrm.

Kim – Ideally, every state/territory would have a fully funded and staffed Apiary Program. Apiary Inspectors would provide inspection services and lab analysis for beekeepers and collaborate with veterinarians to ensure honey bee health is maintained regarding the use of antibiotics. Every state/territory would have a list of several eager veterinarians who have advertised their availability and willingness to provide services to the beekeeping community. Veterinarians would work collaboratively with apiarists to monitor honey bee health, support beekeepers real time and follow up to ensure that recommendations and treatments were successful.

Possibly and practically, apiarists would inspect beekeepers and provide recommendations and veterinarians would assist with prescription and treatment plans. It’s fairly simple in the need and execution of these roles but could be complex in the ability of states/territories to direct funding and visibility to ensure these groups are able to collaborate and provide service.

I appreciate these knowledgeable folks sharing their input and experiences! Thanks Kim, Joan and Barb! For me, they are largely preaching to the choir, and I can happily say that in the last five years, I have personally witnessed positive strides in many of the concerns they bring up. However, we still have some things to figure out, improvements to be made and some time to pass to appreciate current investments. I believe this is a conversation that will continue to develop into the future. Like most things, it’s all about developing positive relationships and accomplishing common goals.

A Couple of Resources:
List of State Apiarists: https://www.blueskybeesupply.com/state-apiarists/ Accessed 12/28/22.
Apiary Inspectors of America (AIA) https://apiaryinspectors.org/

Click Here if you listened. We’re trying to gauge interest so only one question is required; however, there is a spot for feedback!

Read along below!

For the Eager Honey Producer –

The Classic System of Two-Queen Colony Honey Production

An old technique for the modern mega-management beekeeper

By: James E. Tew

Beekeeping then and now
Happily, beekeeping has kept up with many modern-day advances, but that evolving characteristic means that beekeeping today is not the same as beekeeping was many decades ago. Advances in protective equipment, improvements in honey processing equipment, introduction of new pest complexes and large migratory operations are only a few of the myriad of changes that have been occurring in our beekeeping industry.

I surmise that one of the biggest changes is that modern beekeeping is now primarily known for pollination while honey production is now the second factor for which beekeeping is known. That is exactly opposite of what beekeeping priorities were thirty or so years ago.

In the golden years of beekeeping past, honey production was the Number 1 goal of dedicated beekeepers. Nectar flows determined the beekeeper’s management schedule and then, when possible, supplemental pollination services were sometimes provided. In many instances, neither the grower nor the beekeeper felt that it was financially feasible to use added honey bee populations. That concept has radically changed. Priorities have evolved.

Figure 1. A post card from Amasa Holcomb, Southwick, MA, that was sent to Dr. C.C. Miller in 1883. Note that 300 pounds of comb honey were produced in 1882. There was no mention of extracted honey.

As a young beekeeper all those years ago, I was familiar with the beekeeping priorities of the day. Yes, even then, liquid honey ruled, but even that emphasis was a change from what honey production was decades before my time. I roughly estimate that eighty to one hundred years ago, comb honey was preferred to liquid honey because it could not be adulterated with sugar syrup. Comb honey was “pure.” Books were written about comb honey production. Talks were presented at meetings. Techniques abounded.

While comb honey is still produced in newly developed plastic containers, the old tried and true way of producing honey in basswood section boxes has seemingly died a long, slow death. Basswood boxes for comb honey production are only available from a few remaining vendors – if you can find them at all. The loss is not horrendous, but it is significant.

Figure 2. Basswood section boxes of comb honey. C. Killion photo, 1951.

It always bothered me that perfectly good nectar sources – basswood trees – had to be harvested to produce the unique wood that would bend into a box shape. But in obvious ways, moving from basswood boxes to plastic containers has only brought us different challenges. I suppose that could be a discussion for another time, but not today.

My belabored point is that beekeepers once produced comb honey in basswood boxes and now we don’t. That technology is gone. That’s a big change that took decades to develop.

An aside…
In this vein of bee things that are gone, a rarely lamented change is the move from 60# metal tins to common white plastic buckets. The tins could be tightly stacked on a truck while round buckets do not stack tightly. But current plastic buckets have more comfortable handles than the small metal handles on honey tins. But you should know that the change was rapid. It seems to me that in just three to four years, metal tins were dropped from catalogs to be replaced by plastic buckets. Now, I can’t even find a photo of a honey tin on the web. Things change. They always do.

Figure 3. Double crates of honey tins. Each crate weighed 125 pounds.

The classic double-queen system of honey production
Everything I have written in this article, has been to get to this point. Why write about a dated technique that few modern beekeepers still use? It was the rage then but as with basswood comb honey boxes and metal honey tins, things change. But if you have the energy and the interest, this is a technique you can still use in your bee operation.

When I began beekeeping, one of the advanced concepts was to use two queens to build up an abnormally large population of worker bees just in time for the nectar flow. Just as the flow started, the colony, that had two queens, whose brood nest was separated by a double screen or a modified inner cover, produced a double bee population. Excessive honey crops were the desired results.

A disclaimer…
I have not tried to manage bees in two-queen colonies in about thirty-five years. Readers, due to my current energy and strength capabilities, I doubt that I will ever try again. Never in my entire beekeeping career have I been an accomplished two-queen beekeeper, but all the advanced beekeepers were giving it a try. Talks were presented at meetings. Success stories were staggering. You had to be there. At this moment, I do not know a single two-queen beekeeper. But in its day, this management scheme was widely touted.

To put this article together for you, I relied heavily on the pamphlet published by C.L. Farrar in August, 1958 (Farrar, C.L. Two-Queen Colony Management for Production of Honey. ARS-33-48. Available in archival form at: https://archive.org/details/twoqueencolonyma48farr/page/4/mode/2up).

Quoting Farrar from his work,
“Two-queen colony management represents an intensive system of honey production designed to obtain the maximum yield from each hive. During any short honey flow (about two weeks) one large colony will produce more honey than two or more smaller colonies having the same aggregate number of bees. In single-queen colonies the production per unit number of bees increases as the number in the colony increases up the maximum (60,000 bees). This efficiency relationship remains high when populations are further increased through the use of a second queen. Because small colonies increase in population with time, their production efficiency over long honey-flow periods will rise. However, colonies with large populations throughout either long or short flow produce the greatest amount of honey, because their efficiency is high over the entire honey-flow period.”

To emphasize his point, a large population of bees will produce more honey than the same population housed in two or more hives. Getting an abnormally large bee population – before the flow started – was the reason for using a second queen.

Figure 4. An old photo comparing two-queen colonies with standard colonies. The small colonies were in bright sunlight while the tall colonies were deeply shaded. My photo editing skills were stressed.

Everything about the double queen system was big. Big bee populations, big (tall) colonies, big honey and pollen crops, and big management inputs. The results were to be big honey crops with powerful colonies passing into the following Winter. A five-hundred-pound crop (yes, 500 pounds) was not considered impossible when using this technique. A fully functional double-queen colony could have the amazing population of twenty-five to thirty pounds of bees in it.

It’s all in the management details
Pollen reserves
In 1958, our industry had not yet developed artificial pollen products. At that time, to produce large bee populations, a beekeeper would need extensive pollen sources. Obviously, your colonies cannot produce brood without pollen. That same pollen reserve later became important to wintering colonies. The desire was to produce large colonies going into Winter to have strong colonies for the two-queen system during the next season.

Queens
For this system, queens need to be purchased and be readily available. In 1958, they were and the cost was not as great as today. You should be wondering if allowing the split part of the colony to produce its own queen was an option. The is answer is, “not really.” While it clearly could be done, valuable seasonal time would be lost while the bees were growing queens and not growing a worker bee population. It would seem to me that modern two-queen beekeepers would be confronted by queen availability during the early season of the year.

Hive equipment
Two queens with a double worker population naturally results in a tall hive. Due to that fact, the two-queen colony would need to sit on a firm foundation that was essentially on the ground. Hives that were seven deep boxes tall were not uncommon. Hive stands would not be used.

To forestall bees storing honey in the valuable brood nest area, supers were never allowed to be more than half full. As boxes were filled, they were removed and processed and then the wet equipment was returned to the tall hive.

Other than purchase costs and assembly labor, shallower equipment was not held in disfavor. The reduced weight of full supers was the obvious reason. But a lesser-known reason was that some researchers felt that bees wintered better in shallow boxes. It was felt that bees’ wintering cluster had more interactive space to share Winter food stores in the spaces between the boxes. In fact, Dr. Farrar wrote, “The size and shape of the hive units have little effect on production if enough (boxes) are used for brood rearing, food reserves, and the storage of surplus honey.” That is an interesting observation that goes beyond this honey production discussion.

Farrar added the comment that the most efficient management was possible when all brood boxes were uniform and therefore interchangeable. The same would be (mostly) true for super sizes.

Shallower supers were preferred to deeper supers. Apparently, bees fill and cap the shallower equipment faster than deeper equipment. Again, weight would be another prime reason for using shallow equipment.

Figure 5. The position of the two brood nests in a full functional two-queen system.

Figure 6. Late season two-queen system with brood nests combined and excluders removed.

Management points
To produce stronger colonies, you need to begin with strong colonies headed by young queens. Weak colonies had no place in the two-queen system. Make everything large. Beginning five to seven weeks before the flow, begin the two-queen development process. Two weeks later, make a strong divide from the original colony and either use a double screen or a screened inner cover to separate the split from the parent colony. In his paper, Farrar provides intricate details for quantities of brood and bees that will need to be moved to different locations with the developing mega-hive.

After the new queen was installed and was producing copious amounts of brood in the split above the screen inner cover (usually ten to fourteen days), the screened inner cover was removed. The colonies were kept separated by queen excluders.

Empty brood nest space was provided above the lowermost colony. A queen excluder was used above the bottom colony. This was a necessity. At this point, the beekeeper had a strong queen in the lower unit with an empty box of drawn comb (preferred to foundation) atop of the lower unit. The extra space allowed for continued brood production.

Above the lower queen excluder was the recently introduced queen with a second brood nest with a similar configuration of brood and empty brood nest space. Then yet another queen excluder was put above the second top colony between the top brood nest and the supers. The dual queen excluders confine the queens to their respective spaces and became an aid to keeping up with the two queens when the colony was opened to remove full supers and for inspection.

Most of the surplus honey storage occurred above the second colony in the top of the tall colony. Again, it is important to write that the supers were inspected and additional space was added when supers were only 50% full. The intent was to discourage the bees from storing honey in either brood nest area.

Swarming and supersedure were not thought to be any more relevant than swarming and supersedure in single-queen colonies. If swarming was becoming an issue in a two-queen unit, the recommendation to use the “shook swarm” technique to attempt to get things back into order. That sounds like a management headache.

Not a technique for colony increase
As I began to write this piece for you, I envisioned the two-queen system having the possibility of ending the season with two colonies. While I feel that could still be accomplished, Dr. Farrar discouraged using this two-queen system as a technique for making colony increase.

Indeed, as the season ended, he suggested just removing the excluders and allowing the bees to select the better queen. Presently, the current cost of queens would be a hinderance to that recommendation. Having a $40 queen only produce for a single season feels extravagant. However, outside of the two-queen system, this general setup could be used to assist a “weaker” colony in becoming stronger but is a totally different discussion.

Figure 7. Former two-queen system
prepped for Winter.

The reason for this recommendation of not using the double-queen system for colony number increase was presented in his summary included in his paper. “The larger pollen reserves accumulated after the colonies have been reduced to a single queen status make it possible to overwinter stronger colonies for the next season.”

Times have changed. I extensively discussed that. Does the development of modern pollen supplements obviate some of the old two-queen management recommendations?

This is not for the faint-hearted
After my experience all those years ago and after reviewing my sources for this article, I can clearly write that this is not a management scheme for all beekeepers. Only those beekeepers with the time and the penchant for intensive colony management should take it on. The payoff is great, but so is the labor and monetary input.

Then why bring it up?
Like so many other things and recommendations within beekeeping, managing bees for a double queen scheme is an idea dating back to the 1930s. Does it still work? It certainly worked at one time, but I can’t speak for the present.

In the 1950s, herbicides were nonexistent. Queens were available and were not as costly. Honey was the Queen of Beekeeping. But we now have ready access to pollen substitutes and other improvements. So, I bring this subject up for those rarefied few of us who want to push the beekeeping envelope. That will not be me doing the pushing. If you try this technique, I would like to know how it works out.

For more information and instruction, in addition to the reference already provided, I refer you to the sources that I have provided below.

Current information on the two-queen system is included in:
The Hive and the Honey Bee. 2015. Pp 505-507.
ABC & XYZ of Beekeeping. 2020. Pp 679-680

As always, thank you.
If you are still reading, you are one tough beekeeper. A sincere thank you for your beekeeping dedication. I have not been able to do any more than introduce you to this old, advanced concept. I know you will have questions. I certainly do.

Dr. James E. Tew
Emeritus Faculty, Entomology
The Ohio State University
tewbee2@gmail.com

Co-Host, Honey Bee
Obscura Podcast
www.honeybeeobscura.com

Click Here if you listened. We’re trying to gauge interest so only one question is required; however, there is a spot for feedback!

Read along below!

Found in Translation

Bees Good

By: Jay Evans, USDA Beltsville Bee Lab

Waiting for Spring makes one hopeful and, simultaneously, a bit reflective on why we all keep at this, despite heavy Winter losses and expenses. This year, massive floods in California will wreak havoc with bees and beekeepers in holding yards and during the first commercial stop of the year in almond plantations. Most years the opposite is true; crippling droughts decrease yields from almonds and other crops, diminishing the agricultural benefits of bee pollination. Still, most of the time, bees and beekeepers get a break and honey bees and other pollinators provide a solid boost to the production of healthy foods. This essay is devoted to the bees and beekeepers whose actions improve food production and human welfare.

Our sister branch of USDA, the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), provides quarterly and annual views showing how honey bees impact humanity in the USA (https://www.nass.usda.gov/Surveys/Guide_to_NASS_Surveys/Bee_and_Honey/index.php). These reports document how the hard work to keep bees alive pays off in the farming economy and the food supply. Jennifer Bond and colleagues at the USDA’s Economic Research Service pulled data from NASS and other sources to generate a full view of the bee industry and its drivers in Honey Bees on the Move: From Pollination to Honey Production and Back (2021, https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/101476/err-290.pdf). This short book shows the challenges faced by beekeepers and the targets that keep them on their toes, highlighting that 80% of annual pollination income to beekeepers is derived from one early-season source (almond plantations, flooded or otherwise). Bees and their migratory keepers then disperse widely for additional pollination events and, weather and habitat permitting, the production of honey and wax. Overall, beekeepers receive $320 million in pollination fees for their efforts, and these efforts have a twenty-fold greater impact on U.S. crop production.

Pollination of crops not only provides an economic engine for growers and (some) beekeepers, but pollination by bees is literally saving lives. A recent global analysis generated values for pollination impacts on world crops by estimating decreased productivity when bees were limiting (Matthew Smith and colleagues, Pollinator deficits, food consumption, and consequences for human health: A modeling study, 2022, Environmental Health Perspectives, 130(12) 127003-1 https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP10947). By looking at peaks versus observed productivity across farmed regions, the authors estimate that inadequate pollination decreases yields for fruit and nut crops by 5%, on average. Similarly, vegetable yields are reduced by 3%. These estimates cover 60+ crops that supplement the diets of billions of people on all continents except Antarctica. Using conservative measures, the authors estimate that 500,000 people die annually due to decreased food yield or quality caused by missed pollination events by bees. This human toll differs across countries, with some populations suffering from all-out hunger and malnutrition while others (including the United States) are impacted more by shifts in diet tendencies away from more nutritious pollinated crops such as fruits and nuts. In a second recent paper (Pollination deficits and contributions of pollinators in apple production: A global meta-analysis, 2022, Journal of Applied Ecology, DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.14279), Aruhan Olhnuud and colleagues present data for one critical worldwide fruit (the apple) and argue for even greater impacts of missed pollination on yields and seed set, in the range of 40% and 20%, respectively, much higher in some countries. Seed set for apples does not limit the industry overall, but fertilized seeds lead to a more attractive fruit shape. Honey bees, of course, are not the only insect pollinators of crops and both of these papers take great pains to account for the impacts of diverse pollinators. Nevertheless, in many counties, including ours, honey bees are the primary pollinators of crops, especially for larger farms.

While these studies focused on pollination impacts, honey bees provide a bounty for beekeepers small and large that was not accounted for in these two studies. The nutritious value of honey, and to a lesser extent pollen and brood, improves nutrition in many countries. Further, the receipts from honey and wax sales have a huge impact on human health worldwide and are arguably one of the most important sources of small-farm income in developing and industrialized incomes. Bernard Phiri and colleagues analyze yields from hive products worldwide in Uptrend in global managed honey bee colonies and production based on a six‑decade viewpoint, 1961–2017, 2022, Scientific Reports 12:21298, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-25290-3). This fascinating synopsis highlights the losses and (mostly) gains of beekeeping across continents alongside the economic and population drivers behind those changes. As has been well documented, North America has seen a 30% decrease in honey bee colonies since 1961, while Europe (including Russia) has lost 12% of its colonies. South America, Africa, Australia and Asia have more than compensated for those losses, doubling or even quadrupling (Asia) managed hives in that time frame. Overall, the number of managed honey bee hives has doubled since 1961, matching a doubling in human population. All regions have perfected honey and wax harvesting, with honey yields even in North America surpassing those of prior years, despite lower colony numbers. This North American increase reflects heavier harvests in Mexico and Canada that outweigh decreased honey yields in the U.S. (https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/mapped-food-production-around-the-world/). Asian countries increased honey harvests by eight-fold over this time frame. It would be fascinating to estimate how greatly honey production impacts populations worldwide, not simply in local consumption but as an attainable and sustainable cash crop in developing and more industrialized countries. My guess is that the impacts of honey harvesting on lives improved and saved from premature death would rival that achieved by increased pollination from managed hives.

Whether you are keeping bees for family munchies, selling honey on a table or fully engaged in commercial pollination and the production of hive goods, you are playing a role in an essential partnership with one of the planet’s truly extraordinary animals. Thanks for doing that.

Other groups met concurrently during the January 2023 American Beekeeping Federation convention in Jacksonville, FL. One of those groups is the Apiary Inspectors of America. These inspectors do a lot of bee sampling in a lot of different states. During the Thursday, January 5 AIA meeting, AIA attendees and invited guests discussed and brainstormed the known and the unknown about Tropilaelaps mercedesae (Tropi).

We know a lot less than we think we do. For one thing, we don’t know what the Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) action plan for Tropi is. We should. Soon. It’s important – but the plan is focused on reactive action after a detection. This will be too late for North American beekeeping.

May 19, 2019 – Aussie Beekeepers in Gackle, ND

My focus is prevention. Prevent Tropi from further range expansion. Keep it in Asia.

A four-year study will soon commence in South Korea. Tropi is in Korea. Tropi requires brood rearing to continue reproduction. But wait: Korea has Winter like North America has. Brood rearing ceases – yet, Tropi persists in Korea. How?

Parasites come in a lot of flavors and colors. Most are obligate parasites. A parasite depending entirely on its’ host is called an obligate parasite. A parasite that does not depend entirely on a host is referred to as a facultative parasite. According to Jeff Pettis, PhD and President of Apimondia, who attended the meeting – it is possible Tropi may be a facultative parasite. The secondary host may be rats (and their nests). The facultative host site may be in the soft tissues of the rat mouth, eyes or in the nest, surviving on nest debris, or lice living in the nest. Maybe.

Rats are global. They like riding on ships. They come ashore in/on shipping containers. They like fresh produce, dry goods, clothing, just about anything that floats can be a home for rats. Rats don’t mind beekeeping operations either. But overall, Tropi prefers bee brood. Not just Dorsata or Meliffera brood; although Tropi does not prefer Cerana, a small comfort.

Australia is now in a fevered rush to eradicate Varroa. Varroa almost certainly arrived from Indonesia, a host country to Tropi. Australia is a big supplier of packages bees to Canadian beekeepers. Thoughtful leaders suggest now might be a time to re-open the Canadian border to American queens and packages – and close the border(s) to Australian packages. This out of an abundance of preventative caution. I don’t know a single beekeeper wishing harm to our Aussie beekeeping friends.

American beekeepers are the most mobile beekeeping industry on earth. September 25, 1987, Varroa destructor was discovered in Florida. Six years later it had infested virtually the entire nation. The need, the urgent need is to prevent history from repeating. The voice of beekeepers must be mobilized.

How could we better converse with each other? Facebook must have a zillion beekeeper pages; LinkedIn is not far behind. We all have our favored group of beekeepers with whom we share photos, snark, information, gossip and announcements. What we don’t have is a contact list for ALL INTERESTED BEEKEEPERS, or even all the clubs, or even all the state associations.

Beekeepers join local, county, state, regional and national organizations. In every organization, a faithful worker bee person keeps track of membership and contact information. Hundreds of thousands of other human worker bees attend, learn and keep bees. These beekeepers have a real live stake in contacting APHIS. Beekeepers are entitled to know what the action plan is. Beekeepers should arouse APHIS and 535 Congresspersons of this real live existential threat to our food supply. No bees = no food.

According to unconfirmed reports, when Tropi entered Pakistan, it killed every single Meliffera colony in the country. For reference, please watch Dr. Sammy Ramsey’s YouTube video: The Tropilaelaps Mite: A Fate Far Worse Than Varroa – YouTube.
The idea becomes real clear.

I’m not the guy to congregate the anti-Tropi congregation. I don’t know how.

What I can do, and am doing is nudging key stakeholders towards an activist campaign to prevent Tropi from North American shores. I have reached out to:

• California State Beekeepers Association and the 13 affiliated CA bee clubs
• California Bee Breeders Association
• The Almond Board of California
• Blue Diamond Growers
• Apiary Inspectors of America
• North Dakota Beekeepers Association

I know these groups.

I don’t know the 48 other state beekeeping organizations. I don’t know the hundreds of clubs.

I don’t know if the Federation or if American Honey Producers Association are ramping up the anti-Tropi alarms. But the readership of Bee Culture Magazine do know the hundreds of clubs, the states and are members and probably participants in whichever of the above clubs is their homey club. A lot of us are members of several clubs.

Where does lightning need to strike? Congress: via the 2023 Farm Bill. APHIS. Organizations representing insect-pollinated food for humans and livestock; Apimondia; ABF; AHPA.
Where will North American beekeeping be in five years?

For additional reading on Tropilaelaps: Download PDF

Figure 1. The western honey bee, our test subject. Photograph – Mike Bentley

I hope you have been enjoying the series my colleagues and I have been writing about the University of Florida (UF) Honey Bee Research and Extension Laboratory (HBREL). Our goal is to administer dynamic research, extension and teaching programs focused on the western honey bee (Figure 1). We have been using this article series to give you a sneak peek into the life of the faculty, students and staff of Land Grant University (LGU) honey bee programs. In my first column in the series, I provided a general overview of LGUs and noted that faculty working at LGUs can have responsibilities in research, teaching and extension. In February, my colleague Dr. Cameron Jack discussed the honey bee teaching program at the HBREL. I believe Dr. Jack, who teaches nine different courses on honey bees at UF, has one of the most comprehensive teaching programs focused on honey bees in any academic institution globally. Our team also conducts vibrant extension and research programs. My colleague Amy Vu (UF State Specialized Program Extension Agent – Apiculture) will spend April and May discussing LGU extension programs and introduce you specifically to what our UF program has to offer. That leaves me, this month, to discuss honey bee research programs.

What is science?
Science is the systematic method with which one attempts to understand the physical/natural world. This is accomplished through experiments in which observations are made and theories tested, with the theories ultimately being supported/refuted through the process of experimentation. There are some things science cannot address. I found a great list of the limitations of science at a U.C. Berkley website (Google: “U.C. Berkley – What science cannot do”). From that list, science does not make moral judgments. Second, science does not make aesthetic judgments. Third, science does not tell you how to use scientific knowledge. Finally, science does not (and cannot) draw conclusions about supernatural explanations/events/conditions. I know many folks are intimidated by scientists – thinking we are overly academic, not in tune with the real world, out to disprove the existence of God, etc. In fact, most scientists are just normal humans whose brains really like to solve problems related to the natural world.

Individuals who engage in the practice of science are called scientists or researchers. Scientists do not just sit around and “think” our way to answers. If we did, we would all be philosophers sitting by the fire, wearing our tweed jackets, smoking our pipes and thinking the day away. Instead, scientists use research to answer questions related to the natural world. [Note 1: philo (from the Greek word philein, meaning love) + sophia (wisdom or knowledge); Note 2: philosopher = one who loves knowledge/wisdom; Note 3: Professors usually have a PhD, which stands for “philosophiae doctor” in Latin, or “doctor of philosophy” in English. I really like this imagery because my PhD is in entomology, which literally translates to “lover of the knowledge/wisdom associated with insects”. I think that about sums this up.]

Figure 2. The David J. Mendes Honey Bee Laboratory at the UF HBREL. This laboratory has a number of peripheral rooms that support research on honey bee toxicology, molecular biology, etc. Photograph – Jamie Ellis

Figure 3. One of the research apiaries at the UF HBREL. Photograph – Jamie Ellis

Faculty at LGUs have a responsibility to conduct research that adds to the human understanding of the natural world and research that ultimately leads to application. This is true, also, for faculty who study honey bees. I always have been a scientist, even if I did not know it during my childhood years. My work as a beekeeper and professor is rooted in my desire to understand how honey bees and their colonies function and how they support ecosystem health and sustainability. This includes research in the laboratory (Figure 2) but also in the field (Figure 3). This is true of most of my research colleagues globally.

How is research conducted?
You likely learned about the scientific method in your elementary or middle school science classes. If so, you will remember that there are multiple steps within this method, steps that one follows when trying to address a question related to the natural world. I know it may seem cliché, but scientists really do follow these steps to address questions related to their discipline.

Figure 4. The Jester Bee Observation Hive Room at the UF HBREL. This room is used to support honey bee behavior research. It can accomodate 12 observation hives. It is red lit to minimize disturbance to the colonies being observed. Photograph – Jamie Ellis

Step 1 – Make an observation. All research starts with an observation that someone makes. Sometimes, the observation is 100% novel. Other times, the observation is made during the execution of an ongoing research project. As an example, a colleague of mine, Dr. Peter Neumann (Professor, University of Bern), was a postdoc in the same research laboratory in which I was a PhD student in South Africa. At the laboratory, Dr. Neumann spent considerable time watching small hive beetle/honey bee interactions in glass observation hives, similar to those we manage in the Jester Bee Observation Hive room at UF (Figure 4). Before I moved to South Africa, Dr. Neumann had already discovered that small hive beetles hide in cracks/crevices around the honey bee nest, and then honey bees station guards at these hiding sites, effectively keeping the beetles in prison. Dr. Neuman had communicated his findings (i.e. his observations from a previous study) to me and I wanted to see this behavior for myself. So, I established an observation hive and watched bee/beetle interactions at these prison sites. One day, while watching the interactions, I noticed that small hive beetles appeared to come to the edge of the prison, rub antennae with the bees and cause the bees to regurgitate honey on which the beetle would feed. I was specifically looking for this behavior because my PhD supervisor (Professor Randall Hepburn) had noticed seeing it himself. This took me to the very next step of the scientific method.

Step 2 – Ask a question. An observation, in science, often causes one to ask a question about what has been observed. From the example above, I asked: “Why would a honey bee and small hive beetle touch mouthparts while rubbing their antennae on one another?”

Step 3 – Form a hypothesis about the question. You all probably know that the word “hypothesis” is defined as “an educated guess.” Many folks focus exclusively on the “guess” part of this definition, but I feel the “educated” part is just as important. What does this mean? Think about my question “Why would a honey bee and small hive beetle touch mouthparts while rubbing their antennae on one another?” I could “guess” that they are talking to one another, perhaps speaking to one another in a coded language. I could also “guess” that they are kissing one another, having discovered their love for the other during the imprisonment. Both of these qualify as “guesses” but certainly fall short of the “educated” part. A hypothesis is an educated guess about why something is happening. The “educated” part comes from prior observations, usually already published in the literature. I am sad to report that I did not do my homework when I was a PhD student. I just took a “guess” and said that I suspect the beetle is getting fed by the honey bee. However, had I done a background literature search, I would have discovered that some other members of the small hive beetle family live with other social insects, and some of these beetles can trick their hosts into feeding them. That, then, would have made my guess educated, in other words, I would have had an educated reason to believe that the beetle can successfully trick bees into feeding it. Incidentally, many scientists consider “conduct a background literature search on the topic to discover what is already known” a separate part of the scientific method, essentially a step that would occur between my Steps 2 and 3. However, I argue a literature search is simply part of forming a hypothesis that is equal parts educated and guess. The hypothesis does not have to be right. Many great scientific discovers have happened when a hypothesis was wrong. That said, hypotheses do have to be testable! Otherwise, they are useless to science.

Step 4 – Make a prediction. This step is pretty simple. It is a result we anticipate if our hypothesis turns out to be true. This step is getting us to the experiment, so it is the prediction we are making with an experiment in mind. For example, I had hypothesized that small hive beetles can trick honey bees into feeding them. Thus, I predicted that if I fed dyed sugar water to honey bees, the dyed sugar water would end up in small hive beetles that otherwise had no direct access to it. This is the conceptualization of a project that I developed to test the hypothesis.

Step 5 – Test the prediction. This is a key step of the practice of science. We could have simply stopped at Step 4 and announced that we had the answer. However, announcing the answer does not mean we actually had the answer. This step includes experimental design, the controls (positive controls, negative controls, etc.), the treatment groups, data collection/observation, data analysis, etc., all the necessary parts of a well-designed study. Hypotheses are made to be tested. I had hypothesized that bees can feed small hive beetles. I predicted that I would see dyed sugar water in the guts of small hive beetles that had close contact with bees that were fed dyed sugar water. This, then, lends itself directly to experimentation. I created a two chambered observation hive. I placed two deep frames with bees in the bottom chamber and I placed adult small hive beetles in the top chamber. The two chambers were separated by screen mesh. I fed the bees in the bottom chamber sugar water that had been dyed red. My colleague (Dr. Christian Pirk, Professor, University of Pretoria) collected the beetles in the top chamber after a little time, squeezed them and looked for dyed sugar water. Sure enough, we found dyed sugar water in the guts of beetles that otherwise had no direct access to this water. I suspect that they had coerced the bees to feed them the sugar water through the screen mesh!

Step 6 – Reflect on and communicate the results. Science does not exist in a vacuum. I always tell my students that their results do not exist unless they are disseminated. In this step, the scientist reflects on any number of questions. What were my results? What did I find? What larger implications might exist? What remains unknown? Did my results support or refute my hypothesis? What other situations might explain what I found? What future studies should I conduct to understand this system better than I currently do? These questions help you place your work in context and even allow you to reflect on observations you made, observations that may lead to new questions. After you have done all of this, you have to tell someone what you found!

Figure 5. Kathryn Naherny (UF HBREL – undergraduate student scientist) disseminating research information to other scientists through a poster presentation. She is joined by Amy Vu (right) and Dr. Cameron Jack (left), both of the UF HBREL. Photograph – UF HBREL Staff

Communication of results
There are multiple ways that scientists can share the results from their research projects. The first way is communication of the results at research or extension meetings. A research meeting is one likely to be attended only by scientists in the discipline. In the honey bee world, that includes meetings such at the American Bee Research Conference, EurBee, Apimondia, Annual Meeting of the Entomological Society of America, etc. These meetings are attended by scientists, sometimes in the thousands, each presenting a lecture or poster (Figure 5) of their research. In this case, the scientists are communicating their results to peers, i.e. other academic, government or industry scientists.

Figure 6. Dr. Jose Marcelino (UF HBREL) disseminating research information to beekeepers through the UF Bee College. Photograph – UF HBREL Staff

An extension meeting is one attended by specific target audiences for continuing education purposes. For example, the target audience could be beekeepers attending the annual meetings of the American Beekeeping Federation, the American Honey Producers Association, any of the U.S. state beekeeper organizations and even local/regional beekeeper organizations (Figure 6). These beekeepers are eager to hear about the latest research advances, especially if the advances lead to positive changes in their beekeeping operations. The information communicated by scientists at these meetings is usually delivered in lecture format, but there may be some hands-on workshops as well. This activity is not research per se, but rather falls under the category of extension. My colleague, Amy Vu, will teach you all about extension the next two months.

These days, research can be communicated through websites, videos, fact sheets, online presentations and social media. The latter includes Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and more (you can find our laboratory’s social media accounts: @UFhoneybeelab). Scientists are getting incredibly creative at disseminating information, allowing information to flow freely, quickly, (and sometimes in need of fact-checking) to the masses.

Finally, and most importantly, science is communicated in peer-reviewed research journals. Honey bee scientists are invited by beekeepers to speak at many local, state and national beekeeping organizations. These same scientists are under university pressure to publish the results in refereed journals. This is something that is hard for many folks unfamiliar with science to appreciate. Publishing a refereed manuscript is the output by which faculty are judged by their administrators. Frankly, universities value refereed manuscripts more than they value likes on Twitter, presentations at industry meetings and electronic factsheets. Thus, I feel it is important to spend a little time talking about a refereed manuscript, given the great emphasis put on this method of research communication.

A refereed manuscript published in a peer-reviewed journal is simply code for “other scientists look at and scrutinize your work before it is published”. Refereed manuscripts all have the same basic organization. The layout of the standard refereed manuscript follows the steps of the scientific method. I list the key (though not all) parts of a typical reach manuscript below.

1. Title – This is a concise, hopefully catchy, summative statement of the research project.
2. Authors/author affiliations – This is a list of scientists involved in the work. Generally speaking, the “first” author is the one who conducted the research or worked most on the project. Typically, the last author is the one in whose lab the work was conducted. The remaining authors may be listed in order of level of contribution to the research, alphabetically, etc. The authors then list their employers or other affiliations in the affiliations list.
3. Abstract – This is a concise summary of the project. It includes a few sentences on project introduction, methods, analysis and discussion. This is often limited to 200-300 words, depending on the journal to which the paper is submitted.
4. Keywords – These five to 10 words summarize the key topics or themes of the study.
5. Introduction – This section is a discussion of your observations, hypothesis and prediction. Essentially, it is a summary of Steps 1-4 of the scientific method.
6. Materials and Methods – This should be a near exact description of how the hypothesis was tested. Any scientist in the field should be able to read the M&Ms and be able to repeat the study exactly. This outlines the scientist’s approach to Step 5 of the scientific method.
7. Results – This section includes information on exactly what was found during the study. This is also the section in which the scientist(s) presents the data and data analyses, usually in table or figure format. This is also included in Step 5 of the scientific method.
8. Discussion – This is where the authors place their results in a larger scientific context. It includes some speculation, supporting literature analyses and even future predictions. The authors may choose to outline additional projects that would be good to do in the future. This is part of Step 6 in the scientific method.
9. Acknowledgments – Here is where the authors thank the individuals who helped with the study in any capacity. This may include technicians, beekeepers, statisticians, the funding agencies, etc.
10. References – This is a list of all of the research articles cited throughout the manuscript. This list allows readers to double check the assumptions made throughout the manuscript and the authors to acknowledge the scientific contributions of others in the same field.

What makes these manuscripts “refereed”? Once the science authors have developed their manuscript, they submit the manuscript to a peer-reviewed journal. Scientists try to match the subject of their article with the aims/scope of the journal to which they choose to submit their article. For example, I would not submit a manuscript on honey bee toxicology to a quantum physics journal. Instead, I would submit it to a journal that publishes honey bee, insect, toxicology or similarly themed manuscripts. The editor of the journal receives the submission, reads it and forwards it to two (or more) international scientists who are experts in the field. If I write and submit an article on some aspect of honey bee toxicology to a journal, the editor is going to forward the manuscript to two or more honey bee toxicologists. These individuals, now serving as the “peer reviewers” or “referees,” will read the paper to see if it is worth publishing in the target journal. They review the introduction, determine if the hypothesis is reasonable, ascertain if the correct experiments were conducted to address the stated hypothesis, scrutinize the data analysis and correct faulty assumptions/conclusions in the discussion. They also comment on table/figure utilization, author understanding of the subject, presentation of the information and even grammar. They complete sometimes lengthy reports and forward those to the journal editor whose uses the reviewer reports to determine if the paper: (1) can be accepted as is (no other changes needed, publishable as written), (2) needs minor revisions (the authors need to make minor changes and resubmit), (3) needs major revisions (the authors need to rework entire sections of the manuscript), or (4) should be rejected (the paper does not fit the theme of the journal, the science is bad, the experiment was poorly performed, etc.). The editor has full authority to determine the fate of the manuscript. Some journals, such as Nature/Science, have incredibly high rejection rates. Others do not. Scientists hope that their manuscripts are scientifically rigorous and stand up to the scientific scrutiny of the international experts.

There is a reason that manuscripts undergo peer review. Anyone can publish anything nearly anywhere. I can publish my research in a bee journal or other periodical with no scrutiny. I can speak about my research at bee conferences, and you might believe it. I might post our findings on social media and beekeepers everywhere follow my suggestions. However, science advances best when expert peers review one another’s research to see if it is meritorious and appropriately conducted. The peer review process is science’s quality control. It is not a perfect system (and I could discuss this forever) but no other alternative is as good. Faculty at LGUs are expected to conduct research, yes; but more importantly, they are expected to publish it in peer-reviewed journals. Failure to do that, and the research remains unvetted and in danger of dying in someone’s lab journal. Research is only over the finish line once it is published in a peer review journal. At that point, it moves into the court of public opinion, scrutiny, trial and error (which you could argue is a more informed refereed process), but only after other scientists took their pound of flesh first.

Basic vs. applied research
I fall into the camp that believes research is best represented as a spectrum, where basic research is on one side of the spectrum and applied research is on the other. You get hybrids of the two as you move from one to the other. In my experience, most research is not purely basic or strictly applied. What do I mean by this?

Well, scientists almost always discuss applied research at beekeeper meetings. Applied research (at the risk of using the words in their own definition) is research that leads to some sort of application. This is exactly the type of research most beekeepers want from their LGU’s bee scientist(s). Applied research includes testing various pollen patties in colonies to determine their impact on brood and bee production, finding new strategies to control Varroa, developing a new hive style that improves colony overwintering success, etc.

Basic research, on the other hand, has no immediate application and simply answers questions that help us understand a system we are studying. These types of projects often are not discussed at beekeeper meetings. Basic research with honey bees might include determining how honey bees find new nest sites when swarming, how a particular compound acts as an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor in honey bees and how small hive beetles trick honey bees into feeding them.

Now, an astute reader will notice that there likely is no such thing as purely basic research. You could argue that all basic research could, someday, end up having a practical application. What seems basic now may end up having an important application later. I can even show you that with the three examples of basic research that I provided previously. You could argue that knowing how honey bees find nest sites could lead to the development of optimum hive styles. Knowing how a compound acts as an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor in honey bees could lead to the production of safer compounds to use to control Varroa. Finally, knowing that bees feed small hive beetles could lead to the development of control agents that are delivered in sugar water, through bees, and to the beetles.

How is research funded?
Research costs money, sometimes lots of money. Before I was a professor, I assumed that universities pull up to your laboratory with a dump truck full of money that they dump right at the front door. In fact, I assumed they did this monthly, providing you all the funds you will ever need to conduct research. Well guess what? That does not happen. I was also under that faulty assumption that everything in a university laboratory was bought/paid for by the university. Surely, you only needed to make a reasonable equipment request to your administrators and they would trip over themselves wanting to get you what you need. That, too, was incorrect.

Do not hear me wrong. Administrators at LGUs are among a laboratory’s biggest advocates and will certainly help carry the financial burden when they can; but they often cannot, meaning that the laboratory leader has to be the chief fundraiser for the laboratory. I will list a few key ways that research is funded at LGU laboratories, with a promise to discuss these in greater detail in the forthcoming July article in this series.

(1) Competitive grants – This is a very common method used to fund research. A grant is a monetary award given by an agency to a scientist or group of scientists to conduct a specific series of research projects. To receive the award, the scientist had to develop a proposal, usually in response to a “request for applications” (RFA) made by the agency. For example, the USDA National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA) has a specific funding program on pollinator health. They put out a RFA once a year. The RFA will include specific instructions on how to develop a proposal and what they want to fund. The scientist, in turn, will develop a proposal that aligns with the goals of NIFA outlined in the RFA. The proposal contains background information, hypotheses to be tested, methods the scientist plans to use to test the hypotheses, expected results, a budget, list of collaborators, letters of support and a lot of other information required by the agency and the scientist’s host institution. Proposals are considerable work to develop, taking significant time, resources and energy.

The scientist(s) must submit the proposal by a specified deadline, at which time the sponsoring agency organizes a review panel of scientists that reviews the merits of many proposals, rank them and provides the rankings to agency staff. The staff then works their way down the ranked list, awarding funds until they run out of funds to award. The funding rate of proposals, especially among the federal granting agencies, is low, often <10%. Some of the best grant writers in my department write seven to eight proposals per year, only getting one or two of those funded. Even still, there are many sources of funding for honey bee research. Such funding agencies include USDA NIFA, National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, Project Apis m (PAm), USDA APHIS, etc. I will share a lot more about grants in my July article.

(2) Contracts – A contract is when a company, individual, organization, etc. approaches a scientist about conducting very specific work that the organization wants conducted. For example, one of the beekeeping equipment supply companies may have developed a new type of pollen patty that they wanted tested by a scientist. Perhaps a wildflower seed company wants someone to test their new seed mixture to see how attractive it is to pollinators. A chemical company may have developed a new compound and want to know its impact on bees in the field.

In these and other similar cases, the scientist will develop a scope of work (SOW, a scaled down proposal) that includes the problem that will be addressed, how it will be tested and a budget. The scientist provides the SOW directly to the interested party who will determine whether or not to fund the research directly. Contracts usually are not competitive. A company/industry representative or individual approaches the scientist directly, asking them to perform the work and agreeing to fund them through a contract.

I will make a quick note here to share that for grants and contracts, money does not flow directly to the scientist. Instead, the funding agencies/individuals provide the money to the institution, which then enters a contractual agreement with the funding agency/individual to perform specified work as outlined in the SOW or research proposal. I share this to note that some beekeepers worry that contracts lead to nefarious work by the scientist (i.e. that the company/individual/etc. is “buying” services and favors from the scientist). This simply is not true. All work of this type is done through contracts mutually agreed upon by both parties, with the scientist’s institute (rather than the scientist themselves) being the responsible party and the receiver of the funds. There is significant scrutiny and oversight by the scientist’s home institution. Can there be abuse? Yes. Yet it is not nearly as common as some folks suspect.

(3) Unrestricted free gifts – This final way to receive money for research is, essentially, the donation route. Individuals, groups, businesses, etc. can make a monetary donation to a scientist’s program. I will stress that this money does not go to the scientist’s personal bank account. Instead, it goes through the university’s development office (fancy title for their fundraising arm) and routes to the scientist’s home department for their programmatic use. These donations can range from $100 to $1 million or more. Often, the larger donations can be used to create “endowed” positions. Endowed positions usually come in three types: endowed professor, endowed chair, eminent scholar, with the money needed to create each position being greater as you move up the chain. Endowment money will be safely invested by the university, with the funds generated from it yearly (usually about 4%) going to support the scientist’s research program. To illustrate this, a $1 million endowment will generate ~$40,000 for the scientist to use each year. Smaller donations are not used for endowments and, instead, are spent by the scientist however they see fit.

Why is this called an “unrestricted free gift”? This is a very important question, and the answer distinguishes this type of money source from those of a contract or grant. The “free gift” part means that the money was given to the scientist’s program (again, through the university) with no strings attached. The individual/company/group making the donation cannot demand anything in return. The scientist is not agreeing to conduct a specific research project as a condition of receiving the funds. The money is simply a donation made to support the scientist’s program however they see fit to use it (equipment, supplies, new colonies, staff salary, etc.). Endowments are the one exception to this as the donor can specify, in general terms, how they want the funding spent. For example, they may only want it to be used to support graduate student stipends, or work on honey bee disease/pest control.

Honey bees as research models
Honey bees are one of the most studied insects on earth. There are research laboratories focused on honey bees in many (maybe most) countries, with some countries (such as the U.S.) having dozens or more of such laboratories. The scientists at those laboratories may study honey bees from a beekeeping/colony health and production perspective, as model research organisms, or both. This goes back to my discussion on basic vs. applied research. As I noted then, beekeepers interact with bee scientists most from an applied research perspective, when the scientist shares about a specific project they conducted on behalf of beekeepers. However, honey bees and their colonies are remarkable research models for scientists who investigate basic research topics as well.

Figure 7. A collage of scientists in action. Photograph – UF HBREL Staff

Honey bees have something to offer nearly anyone interested in any of the scientific disciplines (Figure 7). Neurobiologists may study honey bee colonies to gain greater insight into how the human brain function. Ecologists may study honey bee contributions to healthy and sustainable ecosystems. Mathematicians may want to model the honey bee nest architecture. Biologists may be interested in a particular type of honey bee behavior. Apiculturists (the name given to scientists who study honey bees from a beekeeping/production perspective) may be interested in controlling a particular bee pest or search for a way to improve queen health and longevity. The list goes on and on. I love attending research meetings where honey bee scientists present their work. You would be amazed at what scientists study regarding honey bees, their colonies, social organization and environmental impact. There are many careers waiting to be had in the honey bee research world!

Figure 8. Using Google Scholar to find a list of refereed manuscripts for any scientist. You can get to Google Scholar by searching “scholar” in Google. That will take you to a new search page. Once there, type the name of the scientist in question and then add “honey bee” after their name.

Honey bee research at the UF HBREL
I have spent considerable time talking about science and research in general. I will conclude this article discussing what members of the UF HBREL study. My team and I plan to discuss some of our research in future contributions to this article series. Thus, I will not go into great detail about any one project here. I will also share that my complete library of refereed publications (i.e. a list of all the research projects I have published) can be found by visiting this link https://entnemdept.ufl.edu/honey-bee/research/honey-bee-husbandry/publications-by-year/ or Googling “UF honey bee lab” and then clicking through this pathway: research (top of page) > publications by year. As a quick cheat, you can find refereed manuscripts for other scientists at their institutional website or by going to Google Scholar (a Google search engine just for refereed manuscripts) and searching the scientist’s name + “honey bee” (for example: James Ellis honey bee)(Figure 8). Now, on to what my team and I study at UF…

1) Honey Bee Husbandry – Improving the sustainability of beekeeping. Most of the research in this category (the largest of all our research efforts) encompasses four research emphases: (1) integrated pest management control of honey bee pests/diseases, (2) understanding the proximal causes of colony losses, (3) the impacts of pesticides on bees and (4) understanding the spread and mitigating the threat of African honey bees. Correspondingly, my team and I have published on the impacts of pesticides on honey bees, the spread, biology and control of honey bee pests/pathogens, honey bee nutrition, African honey bees and honey bee colony losses. Furthermore, we have co-led the development and compilation of research methods on honey bees, their pests/predators and hive components.

2) Honey Bee Natural History, Biodiversity and Conservation – Understanding the relationship between honey bees and their environment and working to conserve honey bee populations for the benefit of healthy ecosystems. This represents a newer field of investigation for my team. We are keenly interested in the health of wild, natural populations of honey bees, particularly in southern Africa. The studies in this category fall within our basic research interests. We are developing/refining methods that can be used to differentiate between the various subspecies of honey bees. Thus far, we have published the sequenced mitochondrial genomes of a number of Apis species and Apis mellifera subspecies. Additional projects in this area include understanding why honey bees nest where they do, the epidemiology of wild honey bee colonies, the contributions of honey bees to natural ecosystems, honey bee natural history, how complex behavioral interactions develop between honey bees and their nest invaders and general biodiversity topics. We hope our growing efforts in this subject area produce an interest in honey bee conservation in light of the high gross loss rates of managed colonies.

3) Integrated Crop Pollination (ICP) – Determining the contributions of unmanaged bees to the pollination of various cropping systems and working to conserve native pollinators through sound ecological principles and understanding. Admittedly, I do less work in this area now than in the past. However, our past work here encompassed efforts to study the impact of native pollinators on U.S. agriculture and to understand native pollinator ecology in general. The results from this research may someday allow us to develop targeted conservation practices for native pollinators and make recommendations to Florida and U.S. farmers about how to enhance native pollinator biodiversity on their farms. Ultimately, we want to help growers achieve adequate pollination of crops by integrating current practices focusing on pollinator management and general wellbeing. My colleagues and I published research on ICP, including defining and introducing the topic to science. Furthermore, we determined the contributions of unmanaged pollinators to some Florida crops, determined how native wildflowers impact pollinator populations, worked to understand aspects of the biology of two native bees in Florida and even created a citizen science project to introduce the public to the topic of pollination.

The UF HBREL’s research has a broad impact for beekeepers, the industry, growers and the public. Our team actively manages 30+ research projects at any given time. The results of these projects are peer-reviewed scientific publications in refereed journals, better positioning for future grants, enhanced extension programs, fulfilling instructional efforts and immediate and long-term solutions to identifiable research needs. Thanks for joining me on this journey through a look at honey bee research.

Click Here if you listened. We’re trying to gauge interest so only one question is required; however, there is a spot for feedback!

Read along below!

Time to Expect the Unexpected

“Beekeepers commonly claim that during times of nutritional stress or dearth, the queen will stop laying eggs… Unfortunately, this common belief does not appear to be totally accurate.”

By: Ross Conrad

Last season I killed off a perfectly good colony of bees. Not purposely, mind you. Believe me, I thought I was doing what was best for the bees – until I thought again.

It was mid-September when I noticed that a colony in one of my Vermont beeyards had no brood. This is a situation I have gotten somewhat used to. After harvesting the honey supers between the end of August and early September, all the bees get crowded down into the equivalent of two to 2½ deep supers and they sometimes send off a late season swarm. I figure that the part of the colony left behind following these late season swarms have a more difficult time successfully replacing their queen due to the cooler weather, lower drone population and reduced forage that typically occur here in the northeast at that time of year. All too often in September and October, I have seen colonies become queen-less, or turn into drone layers, and I have typically attributed this situation to the poor mating conditions that exist at this time of the season. It’s beekeeping and stuff happens.

Rather than simply let these queenless colonies slowly fizzle out, and possibly get invaded by wax moths, I have always preferred to place any full honey supers from the queenless hive on colonies that could use more honey for Winter. The hive bodies full of bees get temporarily placed on top of the inner covers of colonies that could use a boost in their bee population. As I was breaking this queenless hive up to share its resources between some of the other colonies in the apiary, I noticed that the hive was unusually full of bees. The population was much more than I would expect for a hive that didn’t have a laying queen. Then I saw the queen. She looked perfectly normal. In fact more than normal; she looked good. But I judged her on her performance and there was no brood, and without the ability to raise new workers a colony is doomed.

Now, I don’t normally subscribe to the management style of killing off queens and replacing them, but when combining a colony with a queen that is no good with a queenright hive, I will kill the failed queen just to be sure she doesn’t somehow replace or injure the good queen. This queen was not laying eggs so she had to go.

Then about two and a half weeks later, well into November, the weather finally turned cold enough to kill off the wax moths. I went around removing the empty supers I had stored above the inner covers of my hives to place them in an unheated shed for Winter. I like to go out early in the morning to do this while it is still cold and the bees have not warmed up and broken out of the cluster around the brood nest. This makes taking off the empty supers much easier and faster since I don’t have to light a smoker because the bees are all down below the inner cover and slow to take flight.

My Ah-Ha! Moment
I didn’t think much more about this queenless hive until the holiday season when I ran into another beekeeper and we did what beekeepers tend to do when they get together: we talked about the bees. This beekeeper told me that he had noticed some of his colonies shutting down their brood rearing much earlier in the season than normal. He attributed this to the very dry weather we had experienced late in the Summer and that’s when I got this sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach and realized that it was highly likely that I had destroyed a perfectly good colony of bees.

Science has already determined that in a high carbon dioxide atmosphere, plants on earth produce more carbohydrates and less protein which has resulted in a dramatic decrease in the protein content of pollen over the past century. When this greenhouse-gas induced protein reduction is combined with drought induced protein declines in pollen, the resulting dietary deficiency of protein on honey bee colonies can be severe.

The Drought Response of Plants
The impacts of drought can be much more subtle than the increased incidences of wildfires we have seen around the globe in recent years. Plants in temperate climates typically need much larger quantities of water than bees do, and the negative consequences of dry weather conditions on flowering plants is well documented.

One effect of drought on vegetation is a reduced rate of photosynthesis (Pinheiro and Chaves, 2011), which leads to a reduction of energy available for plants to invest in the production of flowers. This means fewer and smaller blossoms are produced by effected plants (Kuppler & Kotowska, 2021).

When plants are able to produce flowers during drought conditions the blossoms produce less pollen (Waser & Price, 2016) and the pollen produced is more likely to be of low quality with reduced protein content and less reproductively viable (Al-Ghzawi et al., 2009; Rankin et al., 2020; Descamps et al., 2021). Even the scents that flowers use to attract and influence pollinators are impacted by extremely dry conditions (Burkle & Runyon, 2016; Rering et al., 2020).

Nectar production in flowers is likewise negatively impacted by drought. Generally speaking there needs to be water in the soil in order for plants to produce nectar. Reduced water availability is linked to lower nectar volume in flowers (Carroll et al., 2001; Phillips et al., 2018; Gallagher & Campbell, 2017; Halpern et al., 2010; Villarreal & Freeman, 1990). Sometimes, even the sugar concentration of the nectar produced under drought conditions is negatively impacted (Wyatt et al., 1992; Waser & Price, 2016; Rankin et al., 2020).

Droughts Effect on Bees
Since drought conditions cause plants to produce less pollen and nectar and any pollen and nectar that is produced tends to be of lower quality, it is generally accepted that drought conditions result in nutritional stress to honey bee colonies. Beekeepers commonly claim that during times of nutritional stress or dearth, the queen will stop laying eggs. This is commonly observed in northern climates during the Winter months when brood production slows dramatically and often stops altogether during Winter. Unfortunately, this common belief does not appear to be totally accurate.

Back in 2004, Austrian researchers found that in times of nutritional stress the queen does not necessarily stop laying eggs or even reduce her egg laying, but she does reduce her walking activity within the hive (Schmickl & Crailsheim, 2004). The colony response that does appear to be consistent with lack of adequate food availability is that worker bees will cannibalize eggs and larvae to conserve nutrients (Webster et al., 1987). Eggs and middle-aged larvae are the most likely to be cannibalized. This causes the colony’s larvae demographics to change dramatically within days resulting in a rapid decrease in the older larvae population. During nutritional stress events such as those that occur during a prolonged drought, cells containing the oldest larvae are capped earlier for pupation, while the eggs and younger larvae are cannibalized (Schmickl & Crailsheim, 2001). Researchers found that the less pollen stored by the hive during larvae’s development, the earlier the larvae are capped. This is a logical decision by the bees since the oldest uncapped brood represents the greatest investment in brood care resources. Prior to capping, older larvae also have the greatest need for pollen, so by capping their cells early, the colony is able to compensate for a food supply shortage by reducing the young with the greatest demand. This leads to a quick reduction of older unsealed brood in response to a shortage of available protein. If a period of dearth extends long enough, all the capped brood will hatch and there will be no brood left in the hive due to the egg cannibalization efforts of the nurse bees. This explains why my broodless colony had a queen that looked perfectly normal and she was not shrunken and small from a lack of egg production like a virgin queen who has yet to lay eggs.

A Taste of Things to Come
Under climate change, extreme climatic events such as droughts are projected to increase in frequency, duration and severity (IPCC, 2022). In temperate regions, the consequences of water deficit during the peak growing months can be expected to be more severe because drought has not previously been an important environmental factor on plant evolution like it has been in arid regions (Chen et al., 2013).

Current predictions suggest that in temperate zones such as those throughout the northeastern U.S., climate change will increase the frequency of extreme events such as Summer droughts, leading to deficits in water availability for ecosystems. This is expected to result in plants more often experiencing water stress during the Spring and Summer. As beekeepers we need to be conscious of the fact that the current pace of climate destabilization will continue to accelerate due to our slow transition away from fossil fuels, rampant consumerism and materialism. This will cause our honey bee colonies to behave differently than what we have grown used to during previously more climate stable times.

I definitely learn more from my mistakes than from my successes. In sharing this experience, I am reminded that we all have something we can teach others, even if we only act as a stellar example of what not to do.

Ross Conrad is the author of Natural Beekeeping: Organic Approaches to Modern Apiculture and coauthor of The Land of Milk and Honey: A history of beekeeping in Vermont.

References:
Al-Ghzawi, A.A.M., Zaitoun, S., Gosheh, H., Alqudah, A. (2009) Impacts of drought on pollination of Trigonella moabitica (Fabaceae) via bee visitations, Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science, 55(6): 683-692
Burkle, L.A. & Runyon, J.B. (2016) Drought and leaf herbivory influence floral volatiles and pollinator attraction, Global Change Biology, 22: 1644-1654
Carroll, A.B., Pallardy, S.G., Galen, C. (2001) Drought stress, plant water status, and floral trait expression in fireweed, Epilobium angustifolium (Onagraceae), American Journal of Botany, 88(3): 438-446
Chen, T., van der Werf, G.R., de Jeu, R.A.M., Wang, G., Dolman, A.J. (2013) A global analysis of the impact of drought on net primary productivity, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 17: 3885–3894, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-3885-2013
Descamps, C., Quinet, M., Jacquemart, A.L. (2021) The effects of drought on plant-pollinator interactions: What to expect? Environmental and Experimental Botany, 182: 014297
Gallagher, M.K. & Campbell, D.R. (2017) Shifts in water availability mediate plant-pollinator interactions, New Phytologist, 215(2): 792-802
Halpern, S.L., Adler, L.S., Wink, M. (2010) Leaf herbivory and drought stress affect floral attractive and defensive traits in Nicotiana quadrivalvis, Oecologia, 163: 961-971
IPCC – International Panel on Climate Change (2022) IPCC Sixth Assessment Report: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/
Kuppler, J. & Kotowska, M.M. (2021) A meta-analysis of responses in floral traits and flower-visitor interactions to water deficit, Global Change Biology, 27(13): 2095-3108
Phillips, B. B., Shaw, R. F., Holland, M. J., Fry, E. L., Bardgett, R. D., Bullock, J. M., Osborne, J. L. (2018) Drought reduces floral resources for pollinators, Global Change Biology
Pinheiro, C. & Chaves, M.M. (2011) Photosynthesis and drought: Can we make metabolic connections from available data? Journal of Experimental Botany, 62: 869-882
Rankin, E. E. W., Barney, S. K., Lozano, G. E. (2020) Reduced water negatively impacts social bee survival and productivity via shifts in floral nutrition, Journal of Insect Science, 20(5): 15
Rering, C.C., Franco, J.G., Yeater, K.M., Mallinger, R.E. (2020) Drought stress alters floral voatiles and reduces floral rewards, pollinator activity, and seed set in a global plant, Ecosphere, 11(9)
Schmickl, T. & Crailsheim, K. (2001) Cannibalism and early capping: strategies of honey bee colonies in times of experimental pollen shortages, Journal of Comparative Physiology A, 187: 541-547
Schmickl, T. & Crailsheim, K. (2004) Inner nest homeostasis in a changing environment with special emphasis on honey bee brood nursing and pollen supply, Apidologie, 35: 249-263
Villarreal, A.G. & Freeman, C.E. (1990) Effects of temperature and water stress on some floral nectar characteristics in Ipomopsis longiflora (Polemoniaceae) under controlled conditions, Botanical Gazette, University of Chicago Press
Webster, T.C., Peng, Y.S., Duffey, S.S. (1987) Conservation of nutrients in larval tissue by cannibalizing honey bees, Physiological Entomology, 12(2): 225-231
Waser, N. M., Price, M. V. (2016) Drought, pollen and nectar availability, and pollination success, Ecology, https://doi.org/10.1890/15-1423.1
Wyatt, R., Broyles, S.B., Derda, G.S. (1992) Environmental influences on nectar production in milkweeds (Asclepias syriaca and A. exaltata), American Journal of Botany, 79(6):636-642