Honey Bee Lifespans are 50% Shorter Today Than They Were 50 Years Ago

A drop in longevity for lab-kept honey bees could help explain colony losses and lower honey production in recent decades.
A new study by University of Maryland entomologists shows that the lifespan for individual honey bees kept in a controlled, laboratory environment is 50% shorter than it was in the 1970s. When scientists modeled the effect of today’s shorter lifespans, the results corresponded with the increased colony loss and reduced honey production trends seen by U.S. beekeepers in recent decades.

Colony turnover is an accepted factor in the beekeeping business, as bee colonies naturally age and die off. But over the past decade, U.S. beekeepers have reported high loss rates, which has meant having to replace more colonies to keep operations viable. In an effort to understand why, researchers have focused on environmental stressors, diseases, parasites, pesticide exposure and nutrition.

This is the first study to show an overall decline in honey bee lifespan potentially independent of environmental stressors, hinting that genetics may be influencing the broader trends seen in the beekeeping industry. The study was published November 14, 2022, in the journal Scientific Reports.

“We’re isolating bees from the colony life just before they emerge as adults, so whatever is reducing their lifespan is happening before that point,” said Anthony Nearman, a Ph.D. student in the Department of Entomology and lead author of the study. “This introduces the idea of a genetic component. If this hypothesis is right, it also points to a possible solution. If we can isolate some genetic factors, then maybe we can breed for longer-lived honey bees.”

Nearman first noticed the decline in lifespan while conducting a study with entomology associate professor Dennis van Engelsdorp on standardized protocols for rearing adult bees in the laboratory. Replicating earlier studies, the researchers collected bee pupae from honey bee hives when the pupae were within 24 hours of emerging from the wax cells they are reared in. The collected bees finished growing in an incubator and were then kept as adults in special cages.

Nearman was evaluating the effect of supplementing the caged bees’ sugar water diet with plain water to better mimic natural conditions when he noticed that, regardless of diet, the median lifespan of his caged bees was half that of caged bees in similar experiments in the 1970s. (17.7 days today versus 34.3 days in the 1970s.) This prompted a deeper review of published laboratory studies over the past 50 years.

“When I plotted the lifespans over time, I realized, wow, there’s actually this huge time effect going on,” Nearman said. “Standardized protocols for rearing honey bees in the lab weren’t really formalized until the 2000s, so you would think that lifespans would be longer or unchanged, because we’re getting better at this, right? Instead, we saw a doubling of mortality rate.”

Although a laboratory environment is very different from a colony, historical records of lab-kept bees suggest a similar lifespan to colony bees, and scientists generally assume that isolated factors that reduce lifespan in one environment will also reduce it in another. Previous studies had also shown that in the real world, shorter honey bee lifespans corresponded to less foraging time and lower honey production. This is the first study to connect those factors to colony turnover rates.

When the team modeled the effect of a 50% reduction in lifespan on a beekeeping operation, where lost colonies are replaced annually, the resulting loss rates were around 33%. This is very similar to the average overwinter and annual loss rates of 30% and 40% reported by beekeepers over the past 14 years.

Nearman and vanEngelsdorp noted that their lab-kept bees could be experiencing some sort of low-level viral contamination or pesticide exposure during their larval stage, when they’re brooding in the hive and worker bees are feeding them. But the bees have not shown overt symptoms of those exposures and a genetic component to longevity has been shown in other insects such as fruit flies.

The next steps for the researchers will be to compare trends in honey bee lifespans across the U.S. and in other countries. If they find differences in longevity, they can isolate and compare potential contributing factors such as genetics, pesticide use and presence of viruses in the local bee stocks.

https://agnr.umd.edu/news/honey-bee-lifespans-are-50-shorter-today-they-were-50-years-ago

Join Hives for Heroes for their NewBEE Hive Meeting

Join Hives for Heroes for the National Hive for Heroes NewBEE Hive Meeting where we discuss anything from beekeeping to personal growth and development. After a quick update on the progress of the organization the floor is open for us to build knowledge and relationships together.

This meeting occurs on the first Tuesday of every month via Zoom with members from all over the country contributing. Next meeting will be 7 Feb 2023 19:00, CST

See you soon!!

https://zoom.us/j/99125496898?pwd=WnhUMS9CSFdTK1pkOFVRRldOWWpudz09

Best regards,
Hives for Heroes

Growing Sunflowers Near Honey Bee Colonies Helps Reduce Mite Problems

Sunflower plantings have the potential to significantly reduce mite infestations in nearby honey bee colonies, according to research recently published in the Journal of Economic Entomology by researchers with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). With pollinators under threat from pesticides, climate change, loss of habitat, and the spread of disease and parasites, sustainable methods that address multiple factors at once are needed. This study points to a way to address destructive Varroa mites, while reducing the need for in-hive use of miticides that can likewise harm colony health. “If sunflowers are as big of a factor in mite infestation as indicated by our landscape-level correlations … having a few more acres of sunflower within a mile or two of apiaries could bring colonies below the infestation levels that require treatment of hives with acaracides (i.e., mite-controlling chemicals),” said lead author Evan Palmer-Young, PhD, of USDA’s Bee Research Lab in Beltsville, MD.

Prior research has pointed to sunflower pollen as a potential benefit for a number of common bee diseases and infestations, including the Varroa mite, the fungal parasites Nosema spp, and various viruses. Investigations went through four different experiments aimed at characterizing any potential effects. The first focused on landscape associations between Varroa mites and Nosema using National data on over 400 apiaries in 30 states, comparing the amount of sunflower crop area to colony health. The second took a group of 30 bee colonies at the University of Maryland and supplemented their feeding with either an artificial pollen patty, sunflower patty, or wildflower patty during the late summer to early fall, and then assessing the prevalence of mites and disease. The third supplemented a group of 30 colonies in Massachusetts with the same pollen options in springtime, and then evaluated colony health. The last experiment focused on the impact of sunflower pollen on worker bees already infected with Nosema and deformed wing virus.

For the initial experiment on landscape associations, areas with more sunflower production were found to have lower levels of mite infestation. For every doubling of sunflower crop production, models employed show a nearly 1/3 decrease in varroa mite infestation. For the fall pollen feeding experiment, colonies fed sunflower pollen saw a 2.75 fold reduction in the intensity of Varroa infestation compared to the artificial pollen treatment. For the spring feeding, Varroa was found in only one-third of hives sampled. Neither the fall nor spring feed experiment, or the individual caged bee experiment saw a significant effect on viral loading or Nosema prevalence, however. “Although we did not find significant effects of sunflower pollen on endopasrasites [Nosema ceranae] or viruses in laboratory or field settings, sunflower pollen was associated with reduced levels of Varroa mites in honey bee colonies,” the authors write.

This finding is important in the context of declining diversity in U.S. crops. According to the study, the acreage of US farmland under sunflower production has declined by 2% per year since 1980.

While the pesticide industry often cites Varroa mites as the primary factor in pollinator declines, it is critical to understand that pesticides are playing a role in this phenomenon. Evidence shows that exposure to neonicotinoid insecticides increase honey bee vulnerability to mite problems. While mites infestations are relatively simple to diagnose in the field, it is much more difficult to test for insecticide exposure in a hive, requiring specialized labs and equipment.

Typical approaches to Varroa management include regular hive treatments with various miticides, many of which can likewise place a colony at risk. Any approach that will allow beekeepers to reduce stress on honey bee hives provides important benefits. “If sunflower pollen can be used to effectively manage Varroa mites, the timing of sunflower pollen production—which peaks in late summer (in temperate regions), just as mite levels begin to rise towards their peak in October and November (Traynor et al. 2016)—is ideal for reducing infestation during the critical late-season time frame,” the study notes.

Nearly a decade ago, then-President Obama established a Presidential Pollinator Health Task Force aimed at reversing declines in honey bees and other pollinators, coordinating action among various government agencies, and including guidelines for federal agencies to protect pollinators. USDA did announce some actions to increase habitat, but neglected other factors like pesticides, and only two years later, the Government Accountability Office cited USDA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for its failure to address threats to pollinator populations. While the Trump administration took an antagonistic approach towards pollinator safety, siding with industry and delaying even the listing of an endangered pollinator, President Biden has yet to pick up the important work that President Obama began, or take any similar steps to protect pollinators.

With a vacuum in leadership at the top, both managed and wild pollinators continue to suffer unacceptable declines that threaten not only the health of ecosystems, but critical food sources humans rely upon. Earlier this year a study found pollinator declines are the reducing the global production of nuts, fruits, and vegetables by 3-5% annually, and this loss of healthy, nutrient-dense food is resulting in over 425,000 excess deaths each year.

Join Beyond Pesticides in urging the Biden administration to take meaningful steps to reform pesticide regulation and address the coinciding existential crises of our time – climate change, public health, and pollinator and biodiversity decline.

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.
Source: Entomology Today, Journal of Economic Entomology

Growing Sunflowers Near Honey Bee Colonies Helps Reduce Mite Problems

Texas Department of Agriculture Specialty Crop Block Grant Program


2023 Speciality Crop Block Grant Program

Proposals Due: February 2, 2023

The Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA) is pleased to announce the competitive solicitation to award 2023 Specialty Crop Block Grant Program (SCBGP) funds for projects that solely enhance the competitiveness of Texas specialty crops.
The Request for Application (RFA), application link, project profile template and financial capability questionnaire  may be found on TDA’s website under Grants & Services, www.TexasAgriculture.gov.

 

Eligibility

Responses will be accepted from Texas state agencies, universities, institutions, and producer, industry, or community-based organizations involved with, or that promote specialty crops.

  • Grant applications must demonstrate that they will enhance the competitiveness of a Texas specialty crop industry.
  • Grant funds may only be used for activities benefiting specialty crops.
  • Grant funds must benefit more than one individual, institution or organization.
  • Grant funds will not be awarded for projects that solely benefit a particular commercial product or provide a profit to a single organization, institution or individual.

 

Questions

For questions regarding SCBGP, please contact Kat Neilson, Grant Coordinator, at (512) 463-6695 or by email at Grants@TexasAgriculture.gov

Texas Boll Weevil Eradication Foundation-Notice of Entry


The Texas Boll Weevil Eradication Foundation will begin conducting eradication activities in and around production cotton fields, beginning December 19, 2022. All cotton fields will be mapped, and treatment will begin during the 2022 cotton growing season. Field entry and treatment is expected to last until all cotton is harvested in the eradication zones.

The eradication zones include the following ten counties in the Lower Rio Grande Valley (LRGV): Brooks, Cameron, Hidalgo, Jim Hogg, Kenedy, Maverick, Starr, Webb, Willacy, and Zapata.

To mitigate risk, all beekeepers should notify the Foundation of beehive locations near cotton fields. The Foundation will monitor treatments in these locations where bees are present to ensure the security of hives and will notify you prior to Foundation chemical treatments upon your request, so that steps may be taken to protect the safety of the hives.

For more information regarding this program and to notify the Foundation of hive locations, please call the Texas Boll Weevil Eradication Foundation at 1-800-687-1212.

Taylor Powell
CHIEF APIARY INSPECTOR

Applying for Farm Storage Facility Loans

The Farm Service Agency’s (FSA) Farm Storage Facility Loan (FSFL) program provides low-interest financing to help you build or upgrade storage facilities and to purchase portable (new or used) structures, equipment and storage and handling trucks.

Eligible commodities include corn, grain sorghum, rice, soybeans, oats, peanuts, wheat, barley, minor oilseeds harvested as whole grain, pulse crops (lentils, chickpeas and dry peas), hay, honey, renewable biomass, fruits, nuts and vegetables for cold storage facilities, floriculture, hops, maple sap, rye, milk, cheese, butter, yogurt, meat and poultry (unprocessed), eggs, and aquaculture (excluding systems that maintain live animals through uptake and discharge of water).

Qualified facilities include grain bins, hay barns and cold storage facilities for eligible commodities.

Loans up to $50,000 can be secured by a promissory note/security agreement, loans between $50,000 and $100,000 may require additional security, and loans exceeding $100,000 require additional security.

You do not need to demonstrate the lack of commercial credit availability to apply. The loans are designed to assist a diverse range of farming operations, including small and mid-sized businesses, new farmers, operations supplying local food and farmers markets, non-traditional farm products, and underserved producers.

For more information, contact your local USDA Service Center or visit fsa.usda.gov/pricesupport.

Is the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program Right for You?

Farmers and ranchers rely on crop insurance to protect themselves from disasters and unforeseen events, but not all crops are insurable through the USDA’s Risk Management Agency. The Farm Service Agency’s (FSA) Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP) provides producers another option to obtain coverage against disaster for these crops. NAP provides financial assistance to producers of non-insured crops impacted by natural disasters that result in lower yields, crop losses, or prevents crop planting.
Commercially produced crops and agricultural commodities for which crop insurance is not available are generally eligible for NAP. Eligible crops include those grown specifically for food, fiber, livestock consumption, biofuel or biobased products, or be commodities such as value loss crops like Christmas trees and ornamental nursery, honey, maple sap, and many others. Contact your FSA office to see which crops are eligible in your state and county.
Eligible causes of loss include drought, freeze, hail, excessive moisture, excessive wind or hurricanes, earthquake, flood. These events must occur during the NAP policy coverage period, before or during harvest, and the disaster must directly affect the eligible crop. For guidance on causes of loss not listed, contact your local FSA county office.
Interested producers must apply for coverage using FSA form CCC-471, “Application for Coverage,” and pay the applicable service fee at the FSA office where their farm records are maintained. These must be filed by the application closing date. Closing dates vary by crop, so it is important to contact your local FSA office as soon as possible to ensure you don’t miss an application closing date.
At the time of application, each producer will be provided a copy of the NAP Basic Provisions, which describes how NAP works and all the requirements you must follow to maintain NAP coverage. NAP participants must provide accurate annual reports of their production in non-loss years to ensure their NAP coverage is beneficial to their individual operation.
Producers are required to pay service fees which vary depending on the number of crops and number of counties your operation is located in. The NAP service fee is the lesser of $325 per crop or $825 per producer per administrative county, not to exceed a total of $1,950 for a producer with farming interests in multiple counties. Premiums also apply when producers elect higher levels of coverage with a maximum premium of $15,750 per person or legal entity depending on the maximum payment
limitation that may apply to the NAP covered producer. The service fee can be waived for beginning, qualifying veteran, and limited resource farmers and rancher., These farmers and ranchers can also receive a 50 percent reduction in the premium.
For more detailed information on NAP, download the NAP Fact Sheet. To get started with NAP, we recommend you contact your local USDA service center.

USDA Previews Crop and Revenue Loss Assistance for Agricultural Producers  

New Programs Will Provide Additional Pandemic and Natural Disaster Assistance for 2020 and 2021; Deadline Announced for Previous Emergency Relief

WASHINGTON, Nov. 15, 2022 — Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack today announced plans for additional emergency relief and pandemic assistance from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). USDA is preparing to roll out the Emergency Relief Program (ERP) Phase Two as well as the new Pandemic Assistance Revenue Program (PARP), which are two programs to help offset crop and revenue losses for producers.  USDA is sharing early information to help producers gather documents and train front-line staff on the new approach.

“We have worked diligently to help agricultural producers bounce back from devastating natural disasters as well as the coronavirus pandemic through an extensive suite of programs,” said Vilsack. “No matter how well we design these targeted efforts, we often find that some producers fall through the cracks or were harmed more severely than their neighbors. These new programs apply a holistic approach to emergency assistance – an approach not focused on any one disaster event or commodity but rather one focused on filling gaps in assistance for agricultural producers who have, over the past few years, suffered losses from natural disasters and the pandemic.”

ERP Phase Two will assist eligible agricultural producers who suffered eligible crop losses, measured through decreases in revenue, due to wildfires, hurricanes, floods, derechos, excessive heat, winter storms, freeze (including a polar vortex), smoke exposure, excessive moisture and qualifying droughts occurring in calendar years 2020 and 2021.

PARP will assist eligible producers of agricultural commodities who experienced revenue decreases in calendar year 2020 compared to 2018 or 2019 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. PARP will help address gaps in previous pandemic assistance, which was targeted at price loss or lack of market access, rather than overall revenue losses.

Emergency Relief Program Phase Two

ERP is authorized under the Extending Government Funding and Delivering Emergency Assistance Act, which includes $10 billion in assistance to agricultural producers impacted by wildfires, droughts, hurricanes, winter storms and other eligible disasters experienced during calendar years 2020 and 2021.

2405 Texas Ave. S.
College Station, TX 77840
www.fsa.usda.gov/tx

Contact:
FPAC.BC.Press@usda.gov

Phase Two builds on ERP Phase One, which was rolled out in May 2022 and has since paid more than $7.1 billion to producers who incurred eligible crop losses that were covered by federal crop insurance or Non-insured Crop Disaster Assistance Program.

ERP Phase Two includes producers who suffered eligible losses but may not have received program benefits in Phase One. To be eligible for Phase Two, producers must have suffered a loss in allowable gross revenue as defined in forthcoming program regulations in 2020 or 2021 due to necessary expenses related to losses of eligible crops from a qualifying natural disaster event.

Eligible crops include both traditional insurable commodities and specialty crops that are produced in the United States as part of a farming operation and are intended to be commercially marketed. Like other emergency relief and pandemic assistance programs, USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA) continues to look for ways to simplify the process for both staff and producers while reducing the paperwork burden. The design of ERP Phase Two is part of that effort.

In general, ERP Phase Two payments are expected to be based on the difference in certain farm revenue between a typical year of revenue as will be specified in program regulations for the producer and the disaster year.  ERP Phase Two assistance is targeted to the remaining needs of producers impacted by qualifying natural disaster events, while avoiding windfalls or duplicative payments. Details will be available when the rule is published later this year.

Deadline for Emergency Relief Program Phase One 

Producers who are eligible for assistance through ERP Phase One have until Friday, Dec. 16, 2022, to contact FSA at their local USDA Service Center to receive program benefits.  Going forward, if any additional ERP Phase One prefilled applications are generated due to corrections or other circumstances, there will be a 30-day deadline from the date of notification for that particular application.

Pandemic Assistance Revenue Program   

PARP is authorized and funded by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021.

To be eligible for PARP, an agricultural producer must have been in the business of farming during at least part of the 2020 calendar year and had a certain threshold decrease in allowable gross revenue for the 2020 calendar year, as compared to 2018 or 2019. Exact details on the calculations and eligibility will be available when the forthcoming rule is published.

How Producers Can Prepare 

ERP Phase Two and PARP will use revenue information that is readily available from most tax records. FSA encourages producers to have their tax documents from the past few years and supporting materials ready, as explained further below. Producers will need similar documentation to what was needed for the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program (CFAP) Phase Two, where a producer could use 2018 or 2019 as the benchmark year relative to the disaster year.

In the coming weeks, USDA will provide additional information on how to apply for assistance through ERP Phase Two and PARP. In the meantime, producers are encouraged to begin gathering supporting documentation including:
 Schedule F (Form 1040); and
 Profit or Loss from Farming or similar tax documents for tax years 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 for ERP and for calendar years 2018, 2019 and 2020 for PARP.

Producers should also have, or be prepared to have, the following forms on file for both ERP and PARP program participation:

 Form AD-2047, Customer Data Worksheet (as applicable to the program participant);
 Form CCC-902, Farm Operating Plan for an individual or legal entity;
 Form CCC-901, Member Information for Legal Entities (if applicable); and
 Form AD-1026 Highly Erodible Land Conservation (HELC) and Wetland Conservation (WC) Certification.

Most producers, especially those who have previously participated in FSA programs, will likely have these required forms on file. However, those who are uncertain or want to confirm should contact FSA at their local USDA Service Center.

In addition to the forms listed above, underserved producers are encouraged to register their status with FSA, using Form CCC-860, Socially Disadvantaged, Limited Resource, Beginning and Veteran Farmer or Rancher Certification, as certain existing permanent and ad-hoc disaster programs provide increased benefits or reduced fees and premiums.

More Information 

Through proactive communications and outreach, USDA will keep producers and stakeholders informed as program eligibility, application and implementation details unfold.

USDA touches the lives of all Americans each day in so many positive ways. In the Biden-Harris administration, USDA is transforming America’s food system with a greater focus on more resilient local and regional food production, fairer markets for all producers, ensuring access to healthy and nutritious food in all communities, building new markets and streams of income for farmers and producers using climate smart food and forestry practices, making historic investments in infrastructure and clean energy capabilities in rural America, and committing to equity across the Department by removing systemic barriers and building a workforce more representative of America. To learn more, visit usda.gov.

FSA Offers Safety Net Programs for Honeybee Producers

The Farm Service Agency (FSA) administers two programs that have specific safety net benefits for producers of honeybees and honey. The Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP) and the Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honeybees and Farm-Raised Fish Program (ELAP) assist producers when disasters impact honey production or damage or destroy colonies, hives or honeybee feed.
NAP is designed to reduce financial losses when natural disasters result in lower yields or crop losses, including honey. NAP coverage is equivalent to catastrophic insurance, meaning it covers up to 50 percent of a producer’s normal yield (must have at least a 50 percent loss) at 55 percent of the average market price. The 2018 Farm Bill reinstates higher levels of coverage, from 50 to 65 percent of expected production in 5 percent increments, at 100 percent of the average market price. Producers of organics and crops marketed directly to consumers also may exercise the “buy-up” option to obtain NAP coverage of 100 percent of the average market price at the coverage levels of between 50 and 65 percent of expected production.
The NAP service fee is the lesser of $325 per crop or $825 per producer per administrative county, not to exceed a total of $1,950 for a producer with farming interests in multiple counties.  You must apply for NAP coverage by Dec. 31 prior to the year for which you’re seeking coverage.
ELAP covers colony losses, honeybee hive losses (the physical structure) and honeybee feed losses in instances where the colony, hive or feed has been destroyed by a natural disaster or, in the case of colony losses, because of Colony Collapse Disorder. Colony losses must be in excess of normal mortality.
Both the NAP and ELAP programs require you to report the number of colonies you have in production to FSA by Jan. 2, 2023. You must notify FSA within 30 calendar days of changes in the total number of colonies or when honeybees are moved to another county. 
For both programs, you must notify FSA within 15 calendar days of when a loss occurs or from when the loss is apparent.
To learn more about programs for honey and honeybee producers, contact your local USDA Service Center or visit fsa.usda.gov.

2022 Annual Meeting

We had a successful annual meeting at the Texas Beekeepers Association Convention in Temple, Texas.

Congratulations to our new President, Dodie Stillman & Vice President, Byron Compton. As well as our 3 new board members, Jake Moore, Barbi Rose, and Andy Knight.

Here are the slides from the meeting for those of you who missed it.

The TBA Board is excited to continue to move forward in this upcoming year with new projects and initiatives. Stay tuned!

2022 TBA Annual Business Meeting