Category: News feed

The beekeeping industry is facing serious challenges to maintain the necessary number of colonies to supply the demands for crop pollination. One of the major problems that honey bees have comes from the ectoparasitic mite, Varroa destructor, which transmit lethal honey bee viruses. Currently, most managed honey bee colonies cannot survive the winter without varroa treatment, and even with intensive management regimes, beekeepers are losing on average 50% of their colonies in Pennsylvania.

The Pennsylvania Queen Improvement Project is a beekeeper-led initiative that started in 2010 with the goal of improving hardy Pennsylvania survivor honey bee stocks. The project was conceived by the‑back then‑president of the Pennsylvania State Beekeeping Association (PSBA) Warren Miller, Maryann Frazier, Jeremy Barnes, Mark Gingrich, and Jeff Berta. But things really took off when Jeff received a USDA farmers grant in 2011 and initiated this project that has been building since then. Currently, other beekeepers actively participate of this breeding queen improvement project including Charlie Vorisek in Linesville, Mark Gingich and Steve Finke in Kutztown, Bernie Svidergol in Ebensburg, and Steve Repasky in Pittsburgh. Last year, our group organized 5 field days where attendees learned the basics of queen rearing and also received queens with improved latest genetics. These field days reached over 320 participants this past year.

In 2015, we joined forces with Dr. Hunt at Purdue University, and the Heartland Honey Bee Breeders Coop (HHBBC), because he discovered that some honey bees chew the legs off of varroa mites and then cause them to drop off the colony and die (photo 1). We wanted to add this mite-biting behavior trait to the Pennsylvania survivor stock that we were working on. Since 2017, a group of 6

beekeepers has been working with the HHBBC to compare how the mite-biting Purdue bees compare to feral bees from Pennsylvania and packaged bees from the south. Each beekeeper has been independently comparing the following traits in the Purdue, feral and control (package) honey bees: mite count, mite chewing percentage, hive weight, and winter survival.

The results from 2017 show strong differences among the Purdue, feral and control (package) colonies. The key results are that the Purdue bees showed significantly more chewed mites than the feral or control bees (Fig. 1). In addition, the Purdue colonies also showed the highest weights among all the colonies tested. The average weights were Purdue (132 pounds), control (97 pounds) and feral (85 pounds). Winter survival was measured in March of 2018 and the results indicate that the Purdue and feral bees showed significantly higher survival than the control packaged bees (Fig. 2). Specifically, 21 out of 30 Purdue bees survived (70%), for feral colonies 10 out of 16 survived (62.5%), and for the control 6 out of 18 survived (33.3% ).

Our data indicate that on average the Purdue and feral bees have better overwintering success than packaged bees. These results are very promising and suggest that the queen improvement efforts of our project are generating effective outcomes.

The research advisor of the project is Dr. Margarita López-Uribe from Penn State University. Dr. Brock Harpur, recently hired at Purdue University, will also be working on this project this coming year. Stay tuned for the result of our ongoing efforts in 2018 and 2019 with this work. If you have you would like to participate of our program, please join us; we are stronger together!

Post contributed by Jeff Berta

Co-Chair PA Queen Bee Improvement Project, LLC

CFO-Always Summer Herbs, LLC

2018 COMB Stakeholder Meeting

On November 30th 2018, 33 beekeepers and researchers met at the Wyndham Garden Hotel in Boalsburg, PA to discuss results of the first year of the COMB project, and next steps for beekeeping management decisions for year two of the project.  The day was filled with updates about how the project went in its first bee season.

In summary, the packages were installed in late April 2018 in all four regions of the study (figure 1), and became well established. We gave plastic foundation to each colony, so bees had to build their comb from scratch. On average, 3 full boxes of comb were drawn in time for storage of winter feed.  Varroa mite numbers were low throughout the season, but increased in the fall, as expected. Untreated colonies had more mites, at about 3.5 mite per 100 bees in early October (compared to <1 in treated colonies). As expected, preliminary results show that Nosema ceranae levels were higher in the spring than in the summer in all management systems.

While in 2018 our primary goal was to successfully establish all colonies, 2019 will be a critical year for data collection to answer the main research questions of the project. Our main goals with this project are to both (1) monitor the health of colonies under the different management practices, and (2) assess the economic impacts of each system in terms of inputs (costs) and honey production (revenue). During the second part of our stakeholder meeting, each group discussed protocols for their management system that would allow us to manage colonies using the practices used by beekeepers in the different groups while maximizing economic gains. Some of the topics that were discussed include how to handle winter and spring feeding, splitting and swarm control, and varroa mite control. 

Two new research projects have emerged as part of the COMB project. The first is a study of the microbiome of bees and bee bread before and after treatment of colonies with ApiVar and Formic Pro. This project is led by PSU graduate student Brooke Lawrence. Specifically, she is interested in characterizing how in-hive chemicals change the microbiome of the colony and how that may impact honey bee health. The second project is an investigation of differences in sperm viability in queens from weak and strong colonies, conducted by Ali McAfee of the University of British Columbia. Preliminary results indicate that the two groups have different ovary weights, but it is not clear whether that is a result of or cause of the differences in the worker bee populations.

The meeting was a full day of learning and discussion that brought together beekeepers from across the spectrum of beekeeping management systems.  We are all eager to see what the 2019 bee season brings!

 

Written by Robyn Underwood

Research Assistant Professor

Penn State University

Since 2016 the López-Uribe lab has been leading a citizen science project that aims to map and characterize the health status of feral bees across Pennsylvania (check out our website: Tracking the Health of Feral Bees in PA). We had reports of 17 known feral locations by the end of 2017. Since then the project has grown substantially. In early 2018, a total of 56 feral locations were reported. The colony locations range throughout the state, from Pittsburgh to Harrison Valley and Philly to Scranton (figure 1).

This year, we conducted the first overwintering survey of feral colonies in Pennsylvania and found a feral wintering loss of 42%. These losses are close to the winter losses reported for managed colonies in Pennsylvania by the Pennsylvania State Beekeepers Association (PSBA), which was 44.5% for the 2017-2018 winter. However, Pennsylvania’s wintering loss was higher than the average reported for managed colonies in the US (via Bee Informed Partnership) and Canada (via Canadian Association of Professional Apiculturists), both of which averaged 32% this past year. In the states, beekeepers reported the primary reason for colony loss was ineffective control and mismanagement for the varroa mite, while beekeepers throughout Canada attributed colony loss primarily to weather and poor quality queens. Varroa pressures ranked among the top three causes of wintering losses according to the Pennsylvania beekeepers (PSBA). There is a general consensus that multiple factors are impacting bee health including poor nutrition, pesticides, pathogens and parasites. These stress factors all interact with each other, reducing bees fitness and survival. With added stress, bees more easily succumb to disease pressure and do not make it through winter.

This spring, the feral team started collecting samples later than anticipated due to unusually cool temperatures that persisted into May, as well as unpredictable rain. In 2018, we began collecting spring samples in May (photo 1 & photo 2) and will resume the fall sampling collections between September and October. We will share with you an update about the pathogen and immune gene expression levels of these colonies the 2018 Annual PSBA conference this November in State College!

Summer 2018

In addition to quantifying pathogens and immune genes, this year we also compared behavioral traits between feral and managed colonies. In collaboration with Romina Russo, a visiting scientist from the National Institute of Agricultural Technology (INTA) in Argentina, we assessed the hygienic behavior of feral versus managed colonies using a pin-kill assay. Honey bees are considered more hygienic when they are better able to detect, uncap, and remove infected pupae, slowing the spread of disease and the population growth of varroa. For each colony, we selected a frame with greater than 25% capped brood on both sides. On each side of the frame, about 100 capped pupae (photo 3a) were punctured with a small pin, about the size of a sewing needle or entomological pin, and the frame was placed back in the colony (Image 3b). After a period of 24 hours, we returned to the colony to record how many of the pin-killed pupae had been removed (Image 3c). The pin-kill assay measures hygienic behavior based upon the number of pupae that the bees removed from their cell after a period of 24 hours.
We tested a total of 5 feral and 4 managed colonies with the pin-kill assay. The top 4 “hygienic” colonies were feral, meaning that the feral colonies on average removed more of the dead pupae after 24 hours compared to the managed bees. In addition to performing hygienic assays, we recorded phoretic mite counts via detergent washes (similar to alcohol washes but detergent was used). Overall, the colonies had relatively few mites, less than 4 mites/100 bees). We are hoping to expand this aspect of the project next year.Photo 4. A feral colony in an abandoned shed outside of Harrison Valley, PA.

Future

For the third year of this project, we will continue mapping the distribution of feral bee colonies and their overwintering success throughout Pennsylvania (photo 4). We would like to collect long-term data on the survival and distribution of feral colonies, so we hope we will continue to have your support next spring. If you do locate a feral colony and do not wish us to collect a sample or if the feral colony is in a remote location, simply recording the location and survival of the colony would be of great importance and interest to our research (photo 5).

We are very grateful to the 39 participants that have reported locations of feral colonies and to the individuals who donated feral cut-outs and swarms. We rely on the active participation of beekeepers and the public to report locations of feral bees throughout PA. When we study feral bee colonies, they remain unharmed during collection and all information that you share with us remains confidential. Many times the cavities of colonies that died over winter become re-colonized, so if you know of a feral colony that died over winter please double check the cavity this fall. If you are aware of an unmanaged or feral honey bee colony, please share with us information regarding its location via our Tracking Feral Bee Health FORM or via email at the López-Uribe Lab (lopezuribelab@gmail.com).

We would like to thank everyone for their support and participation!

Feral Bee Tea

Post was written by Katy C. Evans

Pictures by Katy C. Evans

This work is supported by the USDA National Institute of Food and Animal Health Appropriations under Project #PEN04620 and Accession #1011873.

 

References

1. Bee Informed Team (2018). Honey Bee Colony Losses 2017-2018: Preliminary Results [https://beeinformed.org/results/honey-bee-colony-losses-2017-2018-preliminary-results/].
2. Canadian Association of Professional Apiculturists (2018). Statement on Honey Bee Wintering Losses in Canada (2018), August [http://www.capabees.com/capa-statement-on-honey-bees/].
3. Evans K, López-Uribe MM. (2018). Tracking Feral Bee Health in Pennsylvania, preliminary results 2017. Pennsylvania State Beekeepers Association Newsletter, March [https://lopezuribelab.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/1717a-newsletter-march-2018.pdf].
4. López-Uribe MM. (2017). Tracking the health of feral honey bees in Pennsylvania. Penn State Extension Fruit Times, October [https://extension.psu.edu/tracking-the-health-of-feral-honey-bees-in-pennsylvania].
5. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (2018). USDA Honey Bee Pests and Diseases Survey Project Plan for 2018 [https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/plant-pest-and-disease-programs/pests-and-diseases/non-regulated/honey-bees/ct_survey].

In late April, we established 288 honey bee colonies in three regions of Pennsylvania and one region in West Virginia for the COMB (Conventional and Organic Management of Bees) project. In each region, we are working with two certified organic farmers who allowed us to place three apiaries, each holding 12 colonies. In each apiary, four colonies are managed using each of the three management systems: conventional, organic, and chemical free (Figure 1). For establishment and management of colonies, we are using equipment and protocols established with stakeholders in November and December (read more). 

Because of the size of this project, we hired experienced beekeepers from each region to assist with colony assessments (photo 1).  Each team is assessing the colonies every two weeks to ensure colonies were well-fed and queenright. Each month, starting on the day of package installation, we used an alcohol wash to determine the levels of the varroa mites in each colony using an in-field test with washer fluid.

To monitor the levels of pathogens and the levels of immune gene expression, we collected bees in May and July, and will collect samples again in October. The amount of drawn wax comb was also quantified each month (April through August) as the number of drawn frames. Overall, the colonies are in good shape, with three medium boxes of drawn comb and low varroa mite populations.

The colonies were obtained from a few suppliers, therefore, their genetics varied.  To ensure that any differences between the management systems are due to management and not genetics, the colonies were requeened with queens from a single source colony.  In July and August 2018, we removed the current queens and added new queens to all colonies (photo 2). Queen acceptance varied, but every effort was made to ensure that the colonies are descended from the same line of bees.

We treated the colonies for varroa mites according to the protocols (ApiVar for conventional colonies and Formic Pro for organic colonies) and will conduct follow-up mite assessments soon. We’re gearing up for winter by planning to feed colonies, installing wind breaks, adding Styrofoam under lids, and installing mouse guards.  

Varroa mite levels remained low throughout the summer, but increased over time (Figure 2).  We are actively assessing levels of the gut parasites Nosema ceranae and Nosema apis, and viruses such as Deformed Wing Virus and Black Queen Cell Virus.

Written by Robyn Underwood, pictures by Katy Evans

 

National Pollinator Week, #pollinatorweek

“Shoo fly”, we often think; but think again, that fly might be an important pollinator for some of your favorite foods, including mangoes, kiwi, coffee and canola. Insects are the most common of all pollinators, pollinating roughly 90% of all flowering plants. The most common pollinators include bees, wasps, moths, butterflies, flies and beetles. Bees by far receive the most publicity, which is well deserved because they are among the most competent of pollinators. However, there are many other insects that provide significant pollination services.  Beetles and flies were among the first known pollinators of flowering plants, dating back to the Mesozoic about 200 million years ago. A common flower visitor in Pennsylvania is the orange soldier beetle (Image 1). They are generalists commonly found on goldenrod, Virgin’s Bower vine, daisies, black-eyed Susan, and hyssop. The larvae feed on insects while the adults feed on nectar, pollen and grasshoppers.

Another surprisingly important pollinator are flies, but you might not recognize it as one because many of them resemble bees (Image 2). Hover flies and syrphid flies have black and yellow stripes, but they are true flies and are often found hovering above flowers. The larvae are important biological controls of plant pests because they are predators of aphids, consuming up to 400 aphids before they reach adulthood. Flies are an essential pollinator of pawpaw fruit. The fruit have a pungent odor, similar to rotting fish, that attracts flies. Many farmers will hang rotting fish near the plant to attract more flies.

Some pollinators are crepuscular or nocturnal. They are active when the sun goes down. Hawk and yucca moths are common nocturnal pollinators and are regular visitors in the garden, particularly for moon flowers, morning glories, and cacti. Another early pollinating species is the squash bee. They follow the schedule of flowers of common cucurbits, including pumpkins and squash, and are often finished pollinating flowers just after dawn (image 3).

Pollinators come in many sizes and shapes, so celebrate pollinator diversity with us this week during National Pollinator Week (#pollinatorweek)!

Katy Ciola Evans