Is Wintering Locally Adapted Queen Bees in Bulk in Climate Controlled Storage a Viable Climate Change Adaptation for Northeast Beekeepers?

Progress report for FNE24-094

Project Type: Farmer
Funds awarded in 2024: $30,000.00
Projected End Date: 05/31/2026
Grant Recipient: They Keep Bees (Formerly Yard Birds Farm & Apiary)
Region: Northeast
State: Massachusetts
Project Leader:
Angela Roell
They Keep Bees (Formerly Yard Birds Farm & Apiary)
Expand All

Project Information

Project Objectives:

This study will evaluate the efficacy of overwintering honey bee queens indoors in climate controlled storage when comparing queen banks to nucleus
hives.  Utilizing recommended temperature, humidity and queen banking techniques, we will overwinter 100 queens in queen banks and 40 nucleus
colonies in a climate controlled modular storage facility. 

Our objectives:

  • Assess the percent survival of queens banked overwinter in bulk indoors for 4 months.  
  • Compare survival of 5 indoor queen banks with 20 queens per bank to queen survival of 40 nucleus colonies with a laying queen. 
  • Analyze the sperm viability and morphology of queens overwintered in bulk in an indoor climate controlled environment utilizing laboratory
    testing.  
  • Evaluate the performance of queens overwintered in queen banks and nucleus colonies in a climate controlled environment by comparing open & capped brood, population density, and brood disease prevalence when introduced to hives.
  • Utilize a cost benefit analysis to evaluate the economic viability of indoor temperature controlled storage of honey bee queens when comparing queen banks to nucleus colonies.
  • Disseminate results to 500 beekeepers in the Northeast with the goal of assessing how climate controlled technology could supply the market with localized honey bee genetic stock, making Northeast beekeeping more sustainable.
Introduction:

“Bee Informed Partnership” (BIP) data shows that winter loss rates in 2022-2023 were at 37.4%.  This is an increase of 13.2 percentage points from the winter loss rate of 24.2% from the year prior.  This is more than a 50% increase in winter hive loss over a single year.  According to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization 90% of the world’s food supply comes from about 100 crop species, and 71 of those crops rely on bees for pollination. Honey bees play a vital role within our food system and their population decline has direct negative effects on our food security. 

Winter in the Northeast region poses a myriad of challenges for honey bees; including  more pronounced temperature and humidity changes as a result of climate change and increasing pest pressure.  Pest pressure includes the presence of varroa mites as well as viruses such as honey bee paralysis viruses, deformed wing virus and nosema. Desai, S. found that “Varroa mites weaken the bee’s immune systems, making them more susceptible to viruses, and act as effective vectors to spread viruses within colonies [58, 6163]. Varroa and DWV together affect storage lipoproteins (vitellogenin) necessary for winter survival [16] and affect immune system function [6466].”

Climate is a crucial factor in the successful overwintering of honey bees.  Humidity in hives must be kept low, while temperature must be maintained at 94°F.  In winter, the core temperature of the hive must not fall below 55°F.  The combination of cold and wet winter weather depletes food sources and can have a negative impact on hive health.

Due to these challenges, innovations are necessary to improve sustainability and profitability of beekeeping in our region. Climate controlled storage of honey bees is a known and established practice in Canada where it has demonstrated success improving the health and profitability of beekeeping.   Climate controlled storage of honey bees in the Northeast could provide an innovative opportunity for beekeepers to adapt to a changing climate, reduce colony losses, increase the number of locally adapted early season queens available in the region, and minimize dependency on Southern-sourced queens & packages.  Queens can be “banked” in climate controlled storage using full sized hives called “queen banks” designed to store multiple queens in one hive unit over winter, or queens can be individually placed in small hives called “nucleus colonies.”  However, with high winter losses, climate controlled storage units could prove to be more efficient and cost effective at overwintering a higher number of queens.  

Overwintered queens offer beekeepers a smooth start to the spring growth season.  Rather than purchasing queen bees from another region to introduce into the Northeast, the queen bees are already present from the year prior and have demonstrated winter-hardy qualities and characteristics.  This gives the hive coming out of winter a natural progression into early spring brood-rearing season.  Overwintered queens support the sustainability of Northeast beekeeping by reducing the reliance on shipped queens from outside of the region, and increasing the development of localized honey bee genetic stock. Our project proposes that utilizing a climate-controlled overwintering environment for bulk honey bee queens will help to increase the overwintering survival rate for honey bees in the Northeast region.  As it has been demonstrated thus far in the proposal, we know that the overwinter survival of queen bees could help:

  • Reduce the amount of queen bees being shipped in from outside of the region in early spring and therefore maintain healthier queens with more robust spermatheca.
    • As demonstrated in research by CRSAD in Ontario, Canada, shipped queens can undergo spermatheca damage depending on shipment temperatures.  Spermatheca damage occurred in nearly ⅓ (32%) of shipped queens.  
  • Increase localized survivor queen stock.  
  • Reduce southern migration necessary for honey bees to achieve overwintering success.  
    • Reduce the effects of pests and viral load on honey bees, since transport leads to highly stressful conditions for honey bees.  Stress leads to weakened immunity and higher pest and viral load.  

In summary, the results from this grant will help us to improve the survivability of honey bees in the Northeast region, and increase the production, dissemination and exchange of northern queen genetics – ultimately strengthening  the sustainability of beekeeping in the Northeast.

Cooperators

Click linked name(s) to expand/collapse or show everyone's info

Research

Materials and methods:

Hives that eventually became queen banks were assembled in the Spring of 2024.  These hives were maintained with a single brood break in June, as well as one oxalic acid treatment in late July.  Feeding occurred after the autumn knotweed nectar flow concluded in mid-September.  Feed consisted of 2:1 sugar syrup provided in frame feeders within each bank.  Feeding continued until the end of September, which gave the banks ample time to dehydrate and cure feed prior to entry into the HiveTech unit.  

On September 5th, 2024, we pulled the original queen from four double-deep hives located in the field apiary.  We introduced 10 queens into each bank, except for one which contained 13 queens (this hive had an observably larger cluster at the time of bank creation).  We started with 43 queens across four banks as instructed by our technical advisor, Ellen Topitzhofer.  Queens were held on JZBZs style shipping bars in JZBZs style plastic shipping cages, pressed into a typical Langstroth frame and attended to by nurse bees within the hive.  The queen frame was located in the center of the top box, allowing for greatest access to the centralized typical cluster of bees.  After the banks had been broodless for three weeks, we treated all banks with Amitraz, locating the strip in the bottom box to keep good distance from the queens.  Due to the warm weather conditions, we delayed bringing queen banks into the HiveTech unit until temperatures dropped.  Significant temperature drop did not occur until late November.  As a result, these banks stayed in the field without an actively laying queen from September until late November.  We performed routine checks on the banks to observe queen health over time. 

The following is queen loss data that occurred between September and late November:

10/1/24: 4 lost, total remaining: 39

10/7/24: 5 lost, total remaining: 34

11/9/24: 2 lost, total remaining: 32

11/19/24: 3 lost, total remaining: 29 

On 11/29/24, we condensed the banks into three and moved the banks into the HiveTech unit, hoping that the increased uniformity of conditions might stabilize queen survival.  Temperatures within the HiveTech unit ranged from between 46F to 52F, with the thermostat set at 49F.  Relative humidity ranged from 45% to 79%.  The queen banks had screened bottom boards as well as unencumbered entrances for increased ventilation.  Banks were placed on top of plastic pallets that also contained holes for effective ventilation.  

We re-checked banks for survival on 12/15/24 and found loss of 10 queens across all three banks.  19 queens remained amongst three banks.  

Observationally, we noticed a significant amount of nurse/worker die off present inside of the HiveTech unit.  This manifested as a very high number of bees dead on the floor around the hives.  We would estimate between to six to eight-hundred bees were dead on the floor inside of the unit.  

We re-checked banks for survival on 12/29/24 and found a complete loss of the remaining 19 queens across all three banks.  0 queens remained amongst three banks.  There was a continued substantial amount of nurse bee die off we observed by dead nurse bees present on the floor of the unit.

At the time of this report, all 40 nucleus colonies involved in the trial are alive.  

Research results and discussion:

This project measured the survival of honeybee queens banked in double-deep Langstroth boxes from the beginning of September until the end of December.  Originally, we intended to move the banks into the HiveTech unit earlier than late November, but seasonally above-average temperature and humidity conditions did not make this possible.  The HiveTech unit was often reading above 90% humidity (with no hives present) during the month of November, due to rainy conditions.  

Observationally, we hypothesized that some of the queen loss that occurred was the result of night-time chilling, or the cluster not effectively tending to the entirety of the banked queens.  In nearly 100% of the loss instances, queens on the ends of the bar were the typical loss locations.  We hypothesize that clusters were not able to sustain the amount of provided queens and chilling occurred, or clusters chose to reject the amount of provided queens for reasons unknown to us.  

We also observed high rates of nurse bee die-off when banks were moved into the HiveTech unit.  Observationally, we estimated between six to eight-hundred bees perished on the floor over the course of the month within the unit.  We also observed evidence of early signs of nosema/dysentery exhibited by the bees present within the banks.  This presented as dysentery at the entrances of the queen banks, on the walls of the HiveTech unit, on our suits as we inspected, as well as a large number of dead nurse bees outside of the bank hive entrances.  

Participation Summary
2 Farmers participating in research

Education & Outreach Activities and Participation Summary

5 Consultations

Participation Summary:

Education/outreach description:

Data collection is still ongoing and has not yet been disseminated to our networks at this time.  

Learning Outcomes

2 Farmers reported changes in knowledge, attitudes, skills and/or awareness as a result of their participation
Key areas in which farmers reported changes in knowledge, attitude, skills and/or awareness:

Research thus far has indicated significant challenges attaining indoor queen survival within this region.  More research is needed to understand the variables negatively impacting queen survival.  

Project Outcomes

2 Farmers changed or adopted a practice
6 New working collaborations
Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and should not be construed to represent any official USDA or U.S. Government determination or policy.