Best Management Practices for Pollen Substitute Application for

Pollination Colonies

Les Eccles

OBA Tech-Transfer Program

Importance of Pollination to Ontario Beekeeping

• New Brunswick

– 12-13 million pounds

– $7.2-7.8 million

Ontario Honey Bees Colonies in the Maritimes

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of Colonies

Number of Colonies

Importance of Pollination to Ontario Beekeeping

Remember Cranberries!

• Québec

– 10% annual growth

– 2010 ~6000 acres

• Predict increase annual growth rate

Added Opportunities = Added Challenge

• Nutrient Deficiencies

• Transportation

• Pest and Disease

• Population maintenance

• Overwintering

What Bees Need from Pollen

“All amino acids are protein; but not all proteins are

amino acids”

Is all pollen the same?

• 20% protein minimum requirement

• Proper balance of amino acids (DeGroot, 1953)

• 30 – 100 lbs yr

Pollen Type % Protein Amino Acids

Pear 26.2 9/9

Vetch 24 9/9

White Clover 23.9 8/9

Lavender 19.4 8/9

Corn 14.5 9/9

Willow 14.8 -21.9 8/9

Blueberry 13.9 9/9

Fireweed 13.8 8/9

Sunflower 12.9 9/9

Buckwheat 11 9/9

BeePro 48.5 9/9

Global Patties 22.2 ?

Feedbee 41.51 9/9

Vitellogenin What is it Good For?

ABSOLUTELY EVERYTING

Vitellogenin

• Food Reservoir

• Synthesize royal Jelly

• Immune system component (Amro, Zayed)

• Hormonal activity – foraging and queen longevity

• Overwintering ability

Causes of Protein Deficiency

• Low or poor quality pollen

• Increased activity over pollen requirements

– I.e. high nectar flow with poor pollen

• Pollen too far away

• Varroa effects protein storage

– Poor overwintering

Effects of Protein Deficiency

• Halt to brood rearing

– Consume eggs and larva

– Premature capping of pupa

• Increased risk of EFB

• Lower or poor quality supercedure

• Decreased foraging behaviour

• Poor overwintering

EFB

Recover Time

• 2 weeks – month

• Critical in Fall when body protein build up for overwintering takes place

Weight of new emerging adult bees sampled from the broodnest of varroa infested honey bee colonies fed BeePro® + 4% pollen (USDA)

Measurement

Treatments

Low mites,

fed diet

n=31/31

Low mites,

no diet

n=31/29

High mites,

fed diet

n=31/29

High mites,

no diet

n=31/26

Newly

emerged adult

weight at start

112.7 a

113.89 a

113.19 a

112.01 a

Newly

emerged adult

weight at end

112.59 a

109.98 b

106.19 c

106.50 bc

Δ in weight of

new adults

during trial

0.78 a

-6.45 ab

-7.75 b

-6.98 b

Added Opportunities = Added Challenge

• Recommendations

– Nutrition

• How much – U.S. 18-30 lbs

• Timing – Prevent negative effects

– Pest and Disease Management

• More sensitive to disease

• Amplified with stress

What to Do? • Goals and Conditions

– Local Pollination vs. Long Distance

– Single or Multiple

– Other floral sources

• Experimenting

– Recipes

– quantities

• Cost Benefit

– Feeding x lbs = y $profit

Randy Oliver, 2007 – Fat Bees Part 2

2012 Nutritional Study

• Apply 3 quantities of pollen (Global Patties)

– 2 lbs. – low

– 3 lbs. – mid

– 5 lbs. – high

– Study optimal amount

• Upon return from pollination

• Colony Strength (Bees and brood)

• Disease profile

• Food stores (honey and pollen)

– Cost Analysis

Effect of Feeding on Bee Population July 2012

47 30.207 14.158 2.065

58 16.511 8.948 1.175

56 16.525 6.934 .927

66 13.538 7.840 .965

Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err.

Ni ll

Two

Three

Five

7 cases were omitted due to missing values.

Means Table for F Bees Su

Effect: Feed Amt

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Cell M

ean

Ni ll Two Three Five

Cel l

7 cases were omitted due to missing values.

Interaction Bar Plot for F Bees Su

Effect: Feed Amt

Error Bars: ± 1 Standard Error(s)

Effect of feeding/Pollination on Varroa Infestation

181 1.194 2.583 .192

32 3.816 4.301 .760

Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err.

Fed

Not Fed

21 cases were omitted due to missing values.

Means Table for % Varroa Su

Effect: Fed

0

.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Cel

l Mea

n

Fed Not Fed

Cel l

21 cases were omitted due to missing values.

Interaction Bar Plot for % Varroa Su

Effect: Fed

Error Bars: ± 1 Standard Error(s)

Effect of Feeding/Pollination on Nosema

129 1164470.295 1851353.672 163002.602

44 484848.455 743184.618 112039.297

Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err.

Fed

Not Fed

8 cases were omitted due to missing values.

Means Table for Spores/bee Su

Effect: Fed

Split By: NosemaD

Cell: Positive

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

1400000

Cel

l Mea

n

Fed Not Fed

Cel l

8 cases were omitted due to missing values.

Interaction Bar Plot for Spores/bee Su

Effect: Fed

Split By: NosemaD

Cell: Positive

Error Bars: ± 1 Standard Error(s)

Pollen Substitute Results

• No difference 2, 3 and 5 lbs

– Brood

– Frames of Bees

– Food Stores

• Colony Health

– Increase EFB

– Increase Nosema compared to non pollination

– Decreased Varroa compared to non pollination

– Missing eggs and larva

What is going on??

• Quantity of Pollen?

• Quality of Pollen?

• Disease build up in Comb?

• Management of EFB

• Recovery conditions before overwintering

2013 Pollen Substitute Types

• Bee Pro

– 15% protein

– $1.20

• Global Patties

– 15% protein

– $1.20

Home Made Substitute

Parts Quantity Ingredient Specs Price

8 100 lbs. Granulated Sugar $38.00

2 25 lbs. Brewer’s Yeast 48% protein $39.25

1 12 lbs. Dried Whole Egg 47-48% protein $26.40

5 litres Water

3 cups Veg Oil $01.75

3 cups Lemon Juice $01.25

Total 150 lbs. 11.2% $106.65

2013 Project Set up and Evaluation

• Application rate for each substitute type

– Control (no substitute)

– 3 lbs.

– 5 lbs.

• Assessment – 180 colonies

– Frame by frame

• Honey, pollen, brood, bees

• Disease presence (chalkbrood, sacbrood etc)

– Weight (food stores

– Varroa, nosema and tracheal mites

PHOTOS

0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

C HM BP GL

Effect of substitute type on frames of bees after pollination

b

a

b b

Rel

ativ

e C

han

ge in

po

pu

lati

on

(%

)

0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1

HM BP GL

3lbs

5lbs

Effect of substitute amounts on frames of bees

a

b

b

b

b a

0

0,05

0,1

0,15

0,2

0,25

0,3

0,35

0,4

0,45

0,5

C HM BP GL

Effect of substitute type on brood after pollination

ab

a

b b

Effect of substitute application rate on stored Pollen

0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1

1,2

1,4

1,6

HM BP GL

3 lbs

5 lbs

a a

b

a

a

a

Fram

es o

f St

ore

d P

olle

n

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

C HM BP GL

Effect of Substitute type on Population Build up for Winter

a ab bc c

Fram

es o

f B

ees

Home Made Substitute $0.71/lb

Parts Quantity Ingredient Specs Price

8 100 lbs. Granulated Sugar $38.00

2 25 lbs. Brewer’s Yeast 48% protein $39.25

1 12 lbs. Dried Whole Egg 47-48% protein $26.40

5 litres Water

3 cups Veg Oil $01.75

3 cups Lemon Juice $01.25

Total 150 lbs. 11.2% $106.65

Benefits of Home Made Substitute

• Higher immediate consumption

• Improved brood and bee populations after pollination

• Improved build up to winter time

• Cost approx. $2.10 per colony compare to approx. $3.60 per colony (BP and GL)

Pollination vs. Non-pollination

-

500 000

1 000 000

1 500 000

2 000 000

2 500 000

3 000 000

Spring Summer Fall

Average Nosema spores per bee

Pollination colonies

Non-pollination colonies

0,00

2,00

4,00

6,00

8,00

10,00

12,00

14,00

16,00

18,00

Spring Summer Fall

Average Varroa per 100 Bees

Nosema control may be an especially big concern for beekeepers who provide pollination services

Virulence – Winter mortality

0

200 000

400 000

600 000

800 000

1 000 000

1 200 000

1 400 000

1 600 000

spring* summer fall

No

sem

a (

sp

ores/

bee)

2012 Nosema levels for 2013 live vs dead colonies

live

dead

Nosema Ceranae infection does not seem to contribute to winter mortality in Ontario

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

spring summer* fall*

Varro

a m

ites/

10

0 b

ees

2012 Varroa levels for 2013 live vs.

dead colonies

live

dead

Virulence – Winter mortality

A much stronger relationship exists between Varroa levels and winter mortality

Pollination vs. Non-pollination

-

500 000

1 000 000

1 500 000

2 000 000

2 500 000

3 000 000

Spring Summer Fall

Average Nosema spores per bee

Pollination colonies

Non-pollination colonies

0,00

2,00

4,00

6,00

8,00

10,00

12,00

14,00

16,00

18,00

Spring Summer Fall

Average Varroa per 100 Bees

Nosema control may be an especially big concern for beekeepers who provide pollination services

IPM for Pollination Service

• Varroa

– Decreased varroa rate of reproduction in pollination

– Resulting in decreased winter mortality

• Will this change if improved management increases brood production?

Current Control

0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

spring* summer* fall

No

sem

a sp

ore

s/b

ee

Effect of spring Fumagillin treatment on Nosema levels in 2012

pollination colonies

not treated

treated

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

1400000

1600000

1800000

spring* summer fall

No

sem

a sp

ore

s/b

ee

Effect of spring fumagillin treatment on Nosema levels in 2013 pollination

colonies

not treated

treated

IPM for Pollination Service

• Nosema

– increased concern for pollination colonies

– No impact on overwinter mortality however

– Possible significant economic impact

– Improve BMPs to reduce stress, and improved treatments and application methods

Best Management For Pollination

• Pollen substitutes should be tested in field just like other in hive products

• Reducing other stresses could greatly improve colony conditions

– Transportation

– Management while in pollination

• Nosema requires improved BMP recommendations

Control room

Duckwork and inside

Protocol for Comb testing - Les

Results for Pesticide Residue

a

a

a

b

a

a 0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

tau-Fluvalinate Coumaphos 2,4-DMA

ppm

Effect of Ozone Treatment

Before Ozone

After Ozone

a

a

b

a

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Tebufenozide Boscalid

ppm

Effect of Ozone Treatment

Before Ozone

After Ozone

0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1

1,2

1,4

1,6

1,8

2

Frames of Bees

Frames of Bees

Difference in Frames of Bees June

OZ Difference

C Difference

H Difference

Development of Nosema

0

2000000

4000000

6000000

8000000

10000000

12000000

14000000

16000000

April May June July Oct

Nosema Spores Per Bee

Oz Nosema

H Nosema

C Nosema

Summary of Results From Ozone Treatment

• Significant reduction of some pesticide residues in wax

• Did not reduce the level of Coumaphos residue in Wax

• Did provide significant increase in bee production leading to pollination

Other Observations • Significant levels of nosema and chalkbrood

arriving with imported packages from Australia

• Ozone benefit could be negated by the introduction of disease with new nuc or package of bees

• Culling of old comb and important BMP to remove pesticide residues over time

• Neonics residues not present in dead out comb in tested colonies

2017:

• 7,686 colonies inspected by brood chamber and 21,420 by top bar inspections. 322 individual beekeepers and 724 individual beeyards were inspected (as of Oct 10, 2017)

• 21 yards positive for SHB outside of the Quarantine Area to date (13 in Niagara; 6 in Norfolk; 1 in Haldimand; 1 in Timiskiming)

• 1st in Haldimand is linked to one of the two large operations in Niagara

• 2 other large operations from Niagara (one with >1,000 colonies and one with ~10,000 colonies) are both found positive with SHB

• Of these one has self-reported SHB in northern Ontario (first case in this region)

– 1st operation in Timiskiming found with SHB. This operation originates in Niagara Region

National Biosecurity Standards

• National biosecurity standards have been developed for several commodities – poultry, swine, beef, dairy, sheep, goats, mink, bees, potatoes and grain/oilseeds

Other Important Issues

• Treatment Free Beekeepers

• Need for more varroa management tools

• Apivar resistant varroa

• New Regulations on Antibiotic use

• Education standards for beekeepers

• Opportunity to increase habitat for pollinators

Honey Bee Population and Varroa Mite Population Over a

Season

Acknowledgements

Dr Ernesto Guzman’s lab:

Dr. Guzman, Paul Kelly, Mollah Md. Hamiduzzaman, Hailey Ashbee, Berna Emsen, Jessica Gu, Dan Borges, Esther Uribe

Tech Transfer Program:

Les Eccles, Devan Rawn, Melanie Kempers, Raquel Mijares,

Natalie Talbot, Sarah D’Andrea, Kinnison Ma, Daniel Thurston