On behalf of the Atlantic Tech Transfer Team for Apiculture, we wish you a safe and joyful holiday season.
Connecting with ATTTA Specialists
If you’d like to connect with ATTTA specialists or learn more about our program, you can:
visit our website at https://www.perennia.ca/portfolio-items/honey-bees/
Email attta@perennia.ca
From December 3rd to 5th the Atlantic Tech Transfer Team for Apiculture attended the American Honey Producers’ Association Conference for 2025. This was a great opportunity to learn about the American beekeeping industry, which experiences many similar challenges as the Canadian industry, provided an opportunity to network with beekeepers across the globe, and included an abundance of high-quality research presentations. Read this week’s blog for a summary of the event, and to learn about current research happening in the United States.
The American Honey Producers’ Association
(AHPA) 57th Conference, held in Tampa, Florida, was well attended
with over 500 attendees with good international representation. The official
conference commenced on December 3rd with an opening address from
Steven Coy (AHPA president) who highlighted some important issues. These
included the prevention of low market value of imported honey to better support
domestic honey producers, standardized testing protocols for imported honey,
and advocating for beekeepers across the country to join the AHPA to support
their industry. Next, Scott Hamilton (AHPA vice president) appointed member to
AHPA’s board of directors.
Eric Silva (AHPA Lobbyist in DC from North
South Government Strategies) discussed federal issues for the beekeeping
industry, including reduced funding for honey bee research across the country,
and tariff uncertainty. Eric also highlighted some positives for the industry
including various disaster relief programs available, and the recent
registration of a new Varroa mite miticide using RNA interference technology
(Vadescana - marketed as Norroa™ manufactured by Greenlight Biosciences).
An update on behalf of the American Honey
Institute was provided by Brian McCornack (Kansas State University). He further
highlighted the issue of the US honey market being dominated by imported honey
(more than 500M lbs. per year), and domestic honey only accounts for an
approximate 20% of the market (125M lbs. per year). Overall, the demand for
honey in the US is high, but production is comparatively low. The industry is
also working to improve the accuracy and amount of testing occurring, and is
currently establishing a honey bank to provide a strong baseline for the
American honey profile.
Dr. Zac Lamas (United States Department of
Agriculture – USDA-ARS, Beltsville, MD) gave an informative talk on American
honey bee winter loss. The United States loss 62.5% of honey bee colonies
during the winter of 2024-2025, and across the globe beekeepers have been
asking what caused this catastrophic loss. Dr. Lamas described the challenge to
identify a single cause for winter loss, as often it is multiple factors
interacting and impacting the health of the colony. There are two main culprits
suspected by beekeepers and researchers. The first being Varroa mites and
associated viruses, where, across the country, amitraz resistance is being
detected. Last spring the USDA did some preliminary testing on a sample of
Varroa mites (n=39) where 100% had amitraz resistant genetics. Although a small
sample, this work was further supported by research conducted by Scott McArt
(Cornell University) which also detected amitraz resistant genetics. The second
culprit for colony loss was agrochemical exposure. The USDA tested commercially
managed colonies in California for pesticide residues (wax, bee bread and adult
bees) and found that of the pesticide residues detected 57.44% were fungicides,
17.56% were miticides, 16.07% were insecticides, and 8.93% were herbicides. It
is important to recognize that each of these pesticide groups present a
different risk to honey bees depending on the dose detected and toxicity of
product. For example, imidacloprid (insecticide) presents a high/extreme risk
to honey bees and it had a high detection rate among the sampled colonies. Dr.
Lamas also explained sampling bias that occurs when testing for pesticides.
Pesticides break down over time, so although a particular pesticide can be
detected soon after a colony dies it may not be detected later on. Finally, it
is important that beekeepers understand that although both Varroa mite levels
and agrochemical exposure impact colony health and contribute to winter loss,
there may also be a greater impact occurring from the interaction of these two
factors further declining the health of colonies.
Dr. Michael Simone-Finstrom (USDA-ARS Baton
Rouge, LA) discussed the science of sampling with a focus on determining the
cause of colony loss. Dr. Simone-Finstrom discussed each step of conducting
honey bee research, and provided good insight to when researchers should be
sampling, how they should collect their data, and how much sampling needs to be
conducted. Dr. Simone-Finstrom presented the findings of a large-scale
commercial study (720 colonies over 2 years) which followed colonies in
migratory operations. One of the main findings, which further supports other
research conducted, is that Varroa mite levels are a good predictor of colony
survival.
A brief update on Project Apis was provided
by Dave Mendes and Ryan Lamb. This included a summary of how Project Apis is
funded, overview of their many research partners, and the large geographic
region where research is being conducted.
Zack Bateson (Agriculture Genotyping and
Pathogen Testing Center) discussed the various testing offered by the
laboratory and what trends are being observed nationally. One interesting
finding that Zack shared is that more pest diversity and higher observed loads
were detected in commercial operations compared to sideliner or hobbyist
beekeepers. Additionally, the diagnostic laboratory is developing methodology
for molecular detection of the Tropilaelaps mites, which determined that swabs
from the hive entrance detect Tropilaelaps positive colonies 95% of the time,
which is greater than colony debris (90%) or adult bees (80%).
To conclude the first day of presentations,
Bret Adee (Adee Honey Farms) further explained the implications and causes of
the extreme winter loss observed in 2024-2025. Overall, this past beekeeping
season was a struggle for American beekeepers who on top of a 62.5% winter loss
they also experienced both a poor honey and pollination market. Bret further
discussed the role agrochemicals played in contributing to winter loss, and, of
particular concern, herbicides such as Dicamba could be a contributing factor.
Dicamba, which controls various weeds in agriculture, causes damage to plants
that bees require nectar from. Bees are less likely to visit plants with injury
which reduces the available nectar and in turn honey production. It has been
observed that regions within the United States with significant Dicamba
applications (commonly used for soy beans) have reduced honey crops which is
also linked to reduced bee health.
To start the second day of presentations, Dr.
Peter Fowler (Michigan State University) discussed the prevalence of European
foulbrood (EFB), the susceptibility of EFB to oxytetracycline, and common
disinfectants for EFB infected equipment. Research conducted by Dr. Fowler did
not observe a significant difference in EFB infection rates between colonies
that did or didn’t go to pollination, nor was there a significant difference in
EFB infection rates between colonies that have hygienic behaviour or those that
have not been breed for hygienic behaviour. When testing the efficacy of
oxytetracycline against EFB it was found that oxytetracycline breaks down
quickly within a colony and once the antibiotic breaks down any remaining
bacteria are able to grow. What this indicates is that although the tested EFB
populations were susceptible to oxytetracycline, if EFB is persisting on hive
equipment the bacteria has the opportunity to reinfect the colony. Therefore,
Dr. Fowler also investigated various products to disinfect EFB infected
equipment. It was found that ethanol kills 99.9% of EBF on wood and 85.5% on
steel, and blech kills 100% of EFB on wood and steel.
Next, Dr. Brandon Hopkins (Washington State
University) and Dr. Thierry Bogaert (APIX Biosciences) highlighted the impact
of nutritionally complete pollen replacing feed. Some of their findings were
that not all natural pollen provides equal benefit to bees depending on the
protein composition and potential toxicity of some pollen. They also found that
commercially available pollen patties provided significantly less benefit to
the overall health of the colonies compared to the newly developed pollen
replacement feed from APIX biosciences. The researchers investigated what
components of pollen provided the greatest benefit to bees and how to provide
this composition commercially. They also showed impressive results of the
benefits of feeding colonies this pollen replacement feed in greenhouses,
during stressful pollination events (such as blueberry and sunflower
pollination) and marked increase winter survival of colonies in the studies.
Dr. Pierre Lau (USDA) explained how both
honey and pollen can be an indicator of environmental parameters. Dr. Lau found
that the abundance of various plant taxa found in honey and pollen correlates
with weather data including precipitation and temperature.
Dr. Thierry Bogaert from APIX biosciences
presented video footage of showing how honey bees consume and use pollen
patties inside the colony. When observing the behaviour of colonies consuming
commercially available pollen supplement, forager bees were observed licking
the substance, presumably consuming the sugar in the patty. Conversely, when
observing how the colony consumes pollen replacement feed, it was found that
only bees less than 12 days (nurse bees) would consume pollen. Nurse bees have
the needed enzymes to digest pollen. It was also observed that the young bees
would consume pollen for approximately 8 minutes, then leave, and new bees
would rotate in. Honey bees have a unique “scrape-mash cycle” of consuming food
where they’ll spend approximately 1 second scraping pollen and an approximate 8
seconds mashing/crushing the pollen with their mandibles.
Agostina Giacobino (Auburn University) gave a
presentation on the efficacy of VarroxSanTM strips as a summer
treatment in Southeastern United States. The researchers compared the efficacy
of VarroxSanTM to Apivar® and a control group, and found
VarroxSanTM to be the most effective after a 56-day treatment
period. However, the efficacy of VarroxSanTM is highly dependent on
the starting infestation level of Varroa mites, and is most effective when
levels are already below 3%. It was also concluded that regardless of
treatment, there is a 5x greater risk of colony loss when levels are greater
than 3%, which is why frequent and representative monitoring is crucial to
managing mite levels.
During the afternoon of day two there was
multiple concurrent sessions covering topics such as nutrition in carrot seeds
(Riley Reed – Washington State University), Environmental Livestock and
Agriculture Program, taxes and the future of Beekeeping (Donovan Gonzalez –
Smart Bee App), and the benefits of algae nutrition and agrochemical inhibiting
probiotics in blueberry pollination (John Turpin – Strong Microbials) and the
new SHARP/MELI program from Nectar Technology to name a few.
To conclude the second day of the conference
there was a panel discussion on miticides which consisted of Heather Broccard-Bell
(NOD Apiaries), Adam Pachl (Greenlight Biosciences), Amber Leach (Veto-Pharma)
and Dave Westervelt (Vita Bee Health). Each panelist highlighted the importance
of integrated pest management and acknowledged that it requires various
products with different modes of action to successfully manage Varroa mite
levels. Each panelists also discussed the limitations to the various products
their company manufactures. To elaborate, Apiguard and VarroxSanTM
(Vita Bee Health) are not recommended options when mite levels are high. Formic
pro (NOD Apiaries) is not recommended for small or weak colonies. Apivar®
(Veto-Pharma) cannot be used when honey supers are present. NorroaTM
(Greenlight Biosciences) can also not be used when honey supers are present,
and it is also not a recommended option when mite levels are high. Additionally,
each of these manufacturers are researching and working towards developing or
improving products for Tropilaelaps mites, which are an impending threat to the
North American beekeeping industry. The panelists also discussed the challenges
associated with registering new products, and the various criteria each of
these new products must meet.
To start the final day of the conference, Dr.
Frank Rinkevich (USDA-ARS Baton Rouge, LA) gave a talk on the efficacy of
amitraz for managing Varroa mites. To start, Dr. Rinkevich highlighted Varroa
mite trends across United States and how high mite levels are correlated with
high winter loss. Since 2019, amitraz resistance is increasing approximately 5%
per year. Dr. Rinkevich explained how there is different levels of amitraz
resistance, or reduced efficacy, where if amitraz kills greater than 90% of the
mite population this is considered “no resistance”, between 70-90% of the mite
population is “low resistance”, between 50-70% of the mite population is “high
resistance”, and less than 50% of the mite population is “very high
resistance”. Despite the increase in amitraz resistance across the United
States, Dr. Rinkevich has actually found a downward trend in mite levels since
2019, which suggests that beekeepers are changing their product applications
and using integrated pest management. Dr. Rinkevich explained that once amitraz
resistance is present in a population of mites it is unlikely that those
genetics will be reduced quickly. This is because there is a lack of fitness
cost associated with amitraz resistance (for example, it does not impact Varroa
mite reproduction). Dr. Rinkevich found that commercial beekeepers have higher
levels of amitraz resistance compared to sideliner or hobbyist beekeepers. It
was also found that queen producers, who do not use amitraz products as
frequently, have lower amitraz resistance. One of the take home messages from
this presentation is that the overuse of any Varroa mite product has the potential
to lead to resistance, and beekeepers need to practice integrated pest
management.
Jennifer M. Standley (Auburn University) gave
a presentation on the benefits the tallow tree provides for honey bees. The
tallow tree (native to China and Japan) produces lots of nectar for honey bees,
but no research has been conducted on whether or not the pollen is collected
and/or provides good nutrition for honey bees. Jennifer found that during the
period of time the tallow tree blooms approximately 20-40% of the collected
pollen is from the tallow tree. In terms of nutrition, the tallow tree contains
nine out of ten of the required amino acids for honey bees, and it contains
both of the fatty acids honey bees require.
Dr. Judy Chen (USDA-ARS Beltsville, MD)
presented on the biology and threat of the Tropilaelaps mite to the North
American beekeeping industry. Some of the challenges associated with
Tropilaelaps mites when compared to Varroa mites, are that Tropilaelaps mites
are smaller and harder to detect (1/3 the size of Varroa mites), Tropilaelaps
mites reproduce faster than Varroa mites allowing them to quickly grow their
population, and they have more harmful feeding mechanisms. Varroa mites mainly
feed on the metastoma, and it was found that Tropilaelaps mainly feeds on the
antennae and they induce more feeding wounds compared to Varroa mites. Both
species of mites cause serious damage to the fat bodies of honey bees and
impact immune function. However, unlike Varroa mites, Tropilaelaps mites impact
phototaxis in honey bees, which is their ability to navigate towards light.
Preliminary testing of amitraz to manage Tropilaelaps mites found that amitraz
was significantly less effective at knocking down the population of
Tropilaelaps mites when compared to Varroa mites.
To wrap up the conference there was a couple
of workshops, one of which was on breeding strategies and queen quality
facilitated by Dr. Esmaeil Amiri (Mississippi State University). During the
workshop it was discussed what a realistic breeding program would consist of
for managing Varroa mites. A strong breeding program should reduce the need of
Varroa mite treatment by selecting for Varroa mite resistant genetics, but will
never eliminate the need for treatment. Also, to be successful, mite resistant
genetics must be consistently reintroduced. One thing that breeders can do to
help develop Varroa mite resistant stock is leave approximately 3% of colonies
(ones with low Varroa mite loads) untreated so that those genetics can be
spread throughout the operation. If breeders are consistently treating 100% of
their colonies they mask resistant traits. During the workshop, the various
levels of breeding were also discussed. Level one is incidental selection where
beekeepers keep choosing the traits they prefer. Level two is more controlled
with record keeping, and aiming to control the trait either with drone flooding
or artificial insemination. Level three is actually selecting based on genetic
information for the desired trait.
The event also consisted of a tradeshow with
approximately 50 vendors and industry suppliers who were all keen to share
information with conference attendees.
Thank you to everyone who helped organize
this great event. The conference and tradeshow provided an excellent
opportunity to learn about the American ‘commercial’ beekeeping industry,
including both their challenges and successes, and provided insight to the
similarities between both the Canadian and American beekeeping industries. Both
countries are continuing to adapt practices for managing Varroa mites,
navigating the various climate change impacts to the beekeeping industry,
advocating for fair prices of domestic honey, learning about the treat of the
Tropilaelaps mite to the North American beekeeping industry, and growing their
industries to meet honey production and pollination demands. Beekeepers rely on
research happening across the globe to benefit their own region, and there is
always benefit to beekeepers traveling to different countries to learn and
share new information.
Connecting with ATTTA Specialists
If you’d like to connect with ATTTA specialists or learn more about our program, you can:
visit our website at https://www.perennia.ca/portfolio-items/honey-bees/
Email attta@perennia.ca