Progress 09/01/17 to 08/31/22
Outputs
Target Audience:Our main target audience throughout this project was small or mid-scale stationary beekeepers. One of the great achievements of this project has been creating bridges of communication between beekeepers who manage honey bees using conventional practices and beekeepers who choose to manage bees without using hard chemicals. The latter group has historically been marginalized from mainstream beekeeping meetings because of their ideology for bee management. We have successfully brought together these groups of beekeepers to have open discussions about beekeeping practices. Through over 25 talks and workshops at beekeeping clubs, and regional, national, and international conferences, we have reached an audience of approximately 5,000 beekeepers and farmers about the topic of our project and the promising results of establishing a protocol to keep bees exclusively under organic treatments. Extension talks and audiences 2017 to 2022: Underwood RM, Butzler T, Berner S. Organic Honey Bee Colony Management. All-day hands-on workshop to follow up on the webinar series. (August 27th, 2022; 15 participants). Underwood RM, Butzler T, Berner S. Organic Honey Bee Colony Management. All-day hands-on workshop to follow up on the webinar series. (June 9th, 2022; 13 participants). Underwood RM, Butzler T, Berner S. Organic Honey Bee Colony Management. All-day hands-on workshop to follow up on the webinar series. (June 2nd, 2022; 10 participants). Underwood RM, Butzler T, Berner S. Organic Honey Bee Colony Management. All-day hands-on workshop to follow up on the webinar series. (May 26th, 2022; 13 participants). Underwood RM, Butzler T, Berner S. Organic Honey Bee Colony Management. All-day hands-on workshop to follow up on the webinar series. (May 11th, 2022; 15 participants). López-Uribe MM. Beekeeping philosophy and the benefits of organic beekeeping management practices. Young Harris Institute, Young Harris, GA (May 20th, 2022; 40 participants). Underwood RM, López-Uribe MM, Butzler T. Monitoring and Integrated Pest Management (IPM) - a beekeeper's year. Organic Honey Bee Colony Management. Penn State Extension Webinar Series. (February 22nd, 2022; 142 participants) Underwood RM, López-Uribe MM, Butzler T. Incorporating genetic stocks into beekeeping management. Organic Honey Bee Colony Management. Penn State Extension Webinar Series. (February 15th, 2022; 142 participants) Underwood RM, López-Uribe MM, Butzler T. Dealing with Varroa Mites Using Approved Organic Chemicals. Organic Honey Bee Colony Management. Penn State Extension Webinar Series. (February 8th, 2022; 142 participants) Underwood RM, López-Uribe MM, Butzler T. Dealing with Varroa Mites using Cultural & Mechanical Approaches. Organic Honey Bee Colony Management. Penn State Extension Webinar Series. (February 1st, 2022; 142 participants) Underwood RM, López-Uribe MM, Butzler T. Beekeeping Philosophy in the Context of Teaching a Beginner's Class. Organic Honey Bee Colony Management. Penn State Extension Webinar Series. (January 18th, 2022; 142 participants) Underwood RM, López-Uribe MM. An update on the COMB project: three years of data. Montgomery County Beekeepers Association, PA. Virtual. (September 23rd, 2021; 45 participants) Underwood RM, López-Uribe MM. The impacts of management on honey bee health: a comparison of three management systems. Honey Bee Veterinary Consortium Conference, NC State University. Virtual. (September 2021; 60 participants) Underwood RM, Lawrence B, Kietzman P, Traver BE, López-Uribe MM. The impacts of management on honey bee health: a comparison of three management systems. IPM4Bees, Iowa State University, IA. Monthly seminar. Virtual. (September 2nd, 2021; 6 participants) Underwood RM, Lawrence B, Kietzman P, Traver BE, López-Uribe MM. COMB project update, Beekeepers of the Armstrong, Butler, Clarion, and Indiana (ABCI) counties conference. Kittanning, PA. (August 21st, 2021; 62 participants). Underwood, RM, Lopez-Uribe, MM. The Beekeeping Continuum and a scientific comparison of three management systems. Catskill Mountain Beekeepers' Club, NY. Virtual. (July 13th, 2021; 42 participants) Underwood RM, Lopez-Uribe MM. An analysis of three honey bee colony management systems. Three Rivers Beekeeping Meeting, MO. Virtual. (March 15th, 2021; 125 participants) Underwood RM, Kelsey, T, Lopez-Uribe, MM. Beekeeping Economics. Great Plains Master Beekeepers Virtual Fun Day. (February 13th, 2021; 126 participants) Underwood RM. An organic management system for honey bees. Penn State Webinar Series, University Park, PA. (November 11th, 2020; 1,376 participants) Underwood RM, MM López-Uribe with panelists M Gingrich, L Stahl, V Aloyo. Beekeeping Philosophy. Penn State Webinar Series, University Park, PA. Virtual. (November 4th, 2020; 1,259 participants) Underwood, R., B. Traver, P. Kietzman, K. Evans, M. López-Uribe. Project COMB: Conventional and Organic Management of Bees. Meeting of the Wayne County Beekeepers Association, Honesdale, PA. (September 10th, 2018; 40 participants) Underwood R, B Traver, M López-Uribe. A side-by-side comparison of honey bee health in colonies managed using conventional, organic, and chemical-free systems. Apimondia: International Apicultural Conference. Montreal, Quebec, Canada. (September 8th, 2019; 940 participants) López-Uribe MM. COMB Project: Conventional and Organic Management of Bees. Chester County Beekeeping Association, West Chester, PA (March 9th, 2019; 40 attendees) López-Uribe MM, Underwood RM. Honey bee health and organic beekeeping management practices. Pennsylvania Association for Sustainable Agriculture (PASA). Lancaster, PA USA (February 2019; 50 attendees) Underwood R, Evans K, López-Uribe MM. COMB Project: Technical training. State College, PA USA (March 16th 2018; 12 attendees) Underwood, R. Treatment Free Research Project with Penn State. Treatment Free Beekeeping Conference, Oracle, AZ (March 2nd, 2018; 20 participants). Underwood R, Evans K, López-Uribe MM. COMB Project: First stakeholder meeting. State College, PA USA (November 17th 2017; 30 attendees) Changes/Problems:The COVID-19 pandemic affected our ability to meet deadlines following the initial timeline. The graduate student who was working on this project was on leave for almost one year. Later, we hired a part-time technician to help with the lab work and data analyses, and that person left the position because she found a permanent job outside of academia. As a result, peer-reviewed publications are still in process. One was already submitted, and 2 are in preparation with an expected time of submission of February 2023. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?We had the opportunity to train dozens of less experienced beekeepers throughout this project. Most of them were hired as wage employees to work with us on this project, others were members of the advisory panel who collaborated with us on the data collection and protocol development. These training opportunities have engaged communities that cannot access online information about beekeeping, such as Amish farmers. We have also given talks during the Spanish session of the Mid-Atlantic Vegetable Convention in Hershey PA about the economic opportunity that beekeeping could offer to farmers. In addition, one Master's student completed her thesis work researching this project (one paper was submitted, and there is one in preparation). This student is currently working as a high school science teacher and she is hoping to develop a beekeeping curriculum to teach STEM to these students through honey bee biology. One part-time postdoc was trained on qPCR to help generate the laboratory data for the main paper coming out of this project. Two postdocs have collaborated with us on the data analysis aspect of the project. ? How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?The results of our project have been disseminated to the scientific community (through conference talks and posters, and peer-reviewed articles), and to the beekeeping community (through webinars, talks, workshops, and factsheets). What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?
Nothing Reported
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
Objective 1: Conduct a side-by-side comparison of the impact of three management systems (organic, chemical-free, and conventional) on honey bee colony health. We investigated (1a) colony performance, (1b) immune gene expression, and (1c) parasite and pathogen levels to quantify the effect of different beekeeping management practices on honey bee colony health. We completed three years of data collection for this objective. Our results indicate that the colonies in the organic and conventional management systems have similar levels of survival, honey production, immune gene expression, and levels of pathogens. This is one of the most important findings of this study as it demonstrates that beekeepers do not need to use synthetic chemicals to keep healthy and productive honey bees. In an additional project that investigated the impact of miticide applications on the bee bread microbiome, we detected an increase in the abundance relative abundance of beneficial bacteria such as Lactobacillus kunkeei after organic miticide treatments. Because the application of formic acid to the colony likely lowers the pH of the bee bread, our results suggest that organic miticide applications may create an environment that favors the growth of beneficial bacteria in the bee bread. (Outputs: one paper was published, one is submitted, and one is in preparation) Objective 2: Quantify cumulative pesticide residues in wax used by bees maintained with different management systems. Wax comb collected from colonies managed under the three management systems (organic, conventional, chemical-free) showed low traces of pesticide residues. Of the 93 agricultural and apicultural chemicals included in the pesticide analysis (https://blogs.cornell.edu/ccecf/the-facility/), only 23 were detected in any of our samples. The three most common compounds were metolachlor (herbicide), piperonyl butoxide (synergistic compound), and fenpyroximate (miticide used for leafhoppers, mealybugs, other mites), which are all considered 'no bee precaution' by the EPA. Results from wax comb pesticide residues collected from colonies foraging on organic land are 100 times lower than the values previously reported for colonies foraging on conventional agricultural land. We are currently in conversations with members of EPA to begin conversations about the development of guidelines for what would be allowable levels of certain pesticides in honey in order to be able to market these products as organic. (Outputs: one short communication paper is in preparation) Objective 3: Conduct a cost-benefit analysis of honey bee management systems to quantify the profitability of each of these systems to beekeepers. We found that the operations following an organic management system are the most profitable. During the last year of the experiment when colonies were established and most productive, colonies managed under the organic management system produced on average 34% and 45% more honey than colonies in the chemical-free and conventional systems, respectively. These differences in honey production resulted in $238 of income per colony for colonies in the organic system compared to $165 for colonies in the conventional system. Low overwintering survival in the control (CF) group drastically decreased total honey production and profits over time. (Outputs: one paper is in preparation) Objective 4: Work with the advisory panel on extension activities that will lead to behavioral changes in conventional and organic beekeepers interested in alternative management practices. Throughout the project, we had close communications with the stakeholder group comprised of 30 experienced beekeepers who use different management practices (chemical-free, organic, conventional). These stakeholders were involved with the development of the management protocols (representing the conventional, organic, and chemical-free systems), and were later on key for the dissemination of our results. We presented updates about the results of the project yearly throughout the duration of the project. Thus, the goal of having constant stakeholder input for our project was successfully accomplished. Our results support that organic beekeeping offers several benefits to beekeepers as they can avoid the use of hard chemicals while keeping highly productive honey operations. We published extension articles, gave over 30 talks to national and international beekeeping groups, and offered a webinar series followed by a hands-on workshop. With all of these training opportunities, we have reached over 15,000 beekeepers.
Publications
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Under Review
Year Published:
2023
Citation:
Underwood RM, Lawrence B, Turley NE, Cambron-Kopco L, Kietzman P, Traver BE, López-Uribe MM. (In review) A longitudinal experiment demonstrates that organic beekeeping management systems support healthy and productive honey bee colonies. Scientific Reports.
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Other
Year Published:
2023
Citation:
Lawrence B, Custer GF, Underwood RM, Dunn RR, Dini-Andreote F, López-Uribe MM. Honey bee bread is characterized by a core microbiome despite large effects of geography and miticide treatments (In preparation for ISME Communications)
|
Progress 09/01/20 to 08/31/21
Outputs
Target Audience:Our main targeted audience is beekeepers. One of the great achievements of this project has been the ability to create bridges of communication between beekeepers who manage honey bees using conventional practices and beekeepers who choose to manage bees without the use of chemicals. The latter group has historically been marginalized from mainstream beekeeping meetings because of their ideology for bee management. We have successfully brought together these groups of beekeepers to have open discussions about beekeeping practices. Through over 50 talks and workshops at beekeeping clubs, regional, national and international conferences, we have reached an audience of approximately 15,000 beekeepers and farmers about the topic of our project and the promising results of establishing a protocol to keep bees exclusively under organic treatments. Extension activities for the year 2021 included the following talks: Underwood RM, Lopez-Uribe M. Sep. 23, 2021. An update on the COMB project: three years of data. Montgomery County Beekeepers Association, PA. Virtual. 45 participants Underwood RM, Lopez-Uribe M. Sep. 18, 2021. The impacts of management on honey bee health: a comparison of three management systems. Honey Bee Veterinary Consortium Conference, NC State University. Virtual. 60 participants Underwood RM, Lawrence B, Kietzman P, Traver BE, López-Uribe MM. Sep. 2, 2021. The impacts of management on honey bee health: a comparison of three management systems. IPM4Bees, Iowa State University, IA. Monthly seminar. Virtual. 6 participants Underwood RM, Lawrence B, Kietzman P, Traver BE, López-Uribe MM. Aug. 21, 2021. COMB project update, Beekeepers of the Armstrong, Butler, Clarion, and Indiana (ABCI) counties conference. Kittanning, PA. 62 participants Underwood, RM, Lopez-Uribe, M. July 13, 2021. The Beekeeping Continuum and a scientific comparison of three management systems. Catskill Mountain Beekeepers' Club, NY. Virtual. 27 participants Underwood RM, Lopez-Uribe MM. Mar. 15, 2021. An analysis of three honey bee colony management systems. Three Rivers Beekeeping Meeting, MO. Virtual. 36 participants Underwood RM, Kelsey, T, Lopez-Uribe, MM. Feb. 13, 2021. Beekeeping Economics. Great Plains Master Beekeepers Virtual Fun Day. 126 participants López-Uribe MM, Underwood RM, with panelists Noorlander C, Gagne J, Whealan K. Feb. 6, 2021. Beekeeping philosophy and the range of options in management practices. New Mexico Virtual Winter Conference. 72 participants Underwood et al. Jan. 21, 2021. Fourth Annual COMB Stakeholder Meeting Virtual. 30 participants. Changes/Problems:The COVID-19 pandemic had some impact on our ability to collect data from the established colonies for this project in 2021. Specifically, we had planned to visit all colonies every 2 weeks (as was done in previous years) and we were only able to visit the colonies every 4 weeks. However, we completed the data collection for 3 years. The major challenge at the moment is to finalize the data analysis for the publication of the data. However, we have almost completed that part and will be submitting two of the major papers for publication before the next reporting cycle. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?We have had the opportunity to train less experienced beekeepers who have been hired as wage employees to work with us on this project. These training opportunities have engaged communities that cannot access online information about beekeeping such as Amish farmers. During this project, they have learned with us how to do advanced beekeeping, and how these different management types differ. In addition, one Master's student has been involved with this project. She is involved with the field data and sample collection and she is leading the laboratory analysis for the immune gene expression and viral work as well as the bee bread microbiome study. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?We held three stakeholder meetings throughout the duration of the project, and we continue to give talks to beekeeping clubs, and national/international conferences. Regionally, beekeepers are aware of our project because of talks at the State Beekeeping Meeting and local clubs. Nationally, we have presented talks at the American Bee Conference attended by over 100 scientists and beekeepers from the US and Canada. Internationally, we have shared our reseat at Apimondia with thousands of participating scientists and beekeepers from all around the world. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?Remaining activities include: (1) completing the laboratory analyses of the samples to quantify viruses and immune gene expression, (2) finalizing statistical analyses of the management data, (3) finalizing data analysis of the economic data, and (4) submitting both papers for publication. We already have drafts of the studies and will be submitting both papers before the next reporting cycle. For our extension activities, we plan to offer a hybrid organic beekeeping management workshop, where participants will be able to obtain a certificate after the completion of the program.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
Below, we report on the specific accomplishments for each goal: Objective 1: Conduct a side-by-side comparison of the impact of three management systems (organic, chemical-free, and conventional) on honey bee colony health. Specifically, we will investigate (1a) colony performance, (1b) immunocompetence, and (1c) parasite and pathogen levels. We completed all the goals of the project. Our results from three years of study indicate that the colonies with organic management have the highest survival, honey production, and the lowest prevalence of the gut parasite Nosema ceranae and the virus DWV. In an additional project looking at the impact of miticide applications on the bee bread microbiome, we detected a decrease in the relative abundance of beneficial bacteria such as Lactobacillus kunkeei in bee bread after miticide treatment. Objective 2: Quantify cumulative pesticide residues in wax used by bees maintained with different management systems. Wax comb collected from colonies managed under the three management systems (organic, conventional, chemical-free) showed low traces of pesticide residues. Of the 93 agricultural and apicultural chemicals included in the pesticide analysis (https://blogs.cornell.edu/ccecf/the-facility/), only 23 were detected in any of our samples. The three most common compounds were metolachlor (herbicide), piperonyl butoxide (synergistic compound), and fenpyroximate (miticide used for leafhoppers, mealybugs, other mites), which are all considered 'no bee precaution' by the EPA. Results from wax comb pesticide residues collected from colonies foraging on organic land are 100 times lower than the values previously reported for colonies foraging on conventional agricultural land. Objective 3: Conduct a cost-benefit analysis of honey bee management systems to quantify the profitability of each of these systems to beekeepers. We found that the operations following an organic management system are the most profitable. During the last year of the experiment when colonies were established and most productive, colonies managed under the organic management system produced on average 34% and 45% more honey than colonies in the chemical-free and conventional systems, respectively. These differences in honey production resulted in $238 of income per colony for colonies in the organic system compared to $165 for colonies in the conventional system. Low overwintering survival in the control (CF) group drastically decreased total honey production and profits over time. Objective 4: Work with the advisory panel on extension activities that will lead to behavioral changes in conventional and organic beekeepers interested in alternative management practices. Since the beginning of the project, we have had close communications with the stakeholder group comprised of 30 experienced beekeepers who use different management practices (chemical-free, organic, conventional). The main goal of these meetings has been to have stakeholder input to develop beekeeping management protocols that would represent how conventional, organic and chemical-free beekeepers manage their honey bees colonies. In addition, we have presented updates about the results of the project. In-person meetings have been followed up by multiple virtual meetings with each group independently. Our goal of having stakeholder input for our project has been successfully accomplished. We used the protocols obtained from these groups for our experiments, and we have been in close communication with them about our results. We recently published an extension publication delineatingthe details of organic beekeeping management: https://extension.psu.edu/an-organic-management-system-for-honey-bees In summary, we have three full years of data and are now completing the data analysis. We are working on two publications; one about the impacts of management on honey bee health and the other on the economics of beekeeping using the three management systems. Our analysis indicates that the organic management system is the most cost-effective management system while also keeping bees healthy. This coming year (2022), we plan to conduct extension activities to teach beekeepers how to manage their bees using organic management practices. Through a 6-section webinar series and in-person workshops, beekeepers will learn all of the details of keeping bees healthy and productive without the use of synthetic miticides.
Publications
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2021
Citation:
Underwood, R. July 2021. An Organic Management System for Honey Bees. Penn State Extension, University Park, PA. https://extension.psu.edu/an-organic-management-system-for-honey-bees
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2021
Citation:
Evans KC, Underwood RM, L�pez-Uribe MM. (2021) Combined effects of oxalic acid sublimation and brood breaks on Varroa Mite (Varroa destructor) and Deformed Wing Virus levels in newly established honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies. Journal of Apicultural Research: 1-9
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Accepted
Year Published:
2021
Citation:
Underwood RM, Kelsey T, L�pez-Uribe M. Jan. 6-7, 2021. Beekeeping Economics: A comparison of the profitability of conventional, organic and treatment-free management systems (Oral Presentation) American Bee Research Conference. Virtual. 120 participants
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Accepted
Year Published:
2021
Citation:
L�pez-Uribe M, Lawrence B, Underwood RM. Jan. 6-7, 2021. Longitudinal DWV and immune gene expression dynamics in colonies managed under conventional, organic, and chemical-free systems. (Oral Presentation) American Bee Research Conference, Virtual. 120 participants
|
Progress 09/01/19 to 08/31/20
Outputs
Target Audience:Our main targeted audience are beekeepers. One of the great achievements of this project has been the ability to create bridges of communication between beekeepers who manage honey bees using conventional practices and beekeepers who choose to manage bees without the use of chemicals. The latter group has historically been marginalized from mainstream beekeeping meetings because of their ideology for bee management. We have successfully brought together these groups of beekeepers to have open discussions about beekeeping practices. Through over 18 talks and workshops to beekeeping clubs, regional, national and international conferences, we have reached an audience of approximately 10,000 beekeepers and farmers about the topic of our project and the promising results of establishing a protocol to keep bees exclusively under organic treatments. Underwood RM. The three most important steps to ensuring honey bee colony survival over the long term. Penn State Extension Webinar Series, University Park, PA. (June 10, 2020; 1,000 participants). López-Uribe MM. Health Challenges from a Bee's Perspective. Penn State Extension Webinar Series, University Park, PA. (June 3, 2020; 1,200 participants). Underwood, R. Honey Bee Anatomy. For the Lehigh Valley Beekeepers Association, Lehigh Carbon Community College, Schnecksville, PA. (February 20, 2020; 62 attendees) López-Uribe MM. Bees and Pollination 101. Mid-Atlantic Fruit and Vegetable Convention. Hershey, PA USA (January 2020; 40 attendees) Underwood R, M. López-Uribe. Conventional and Organic Management of Bees (COMB) Project: 3rd Stakeholder Meeting, Co-Instructor, Boalsburg, PA (October 31, 2019; 30 registrants). Underwood R, B. Traver, M. López-Uribe. Project COMB: Conventional and Organic Management of Bees. Lancaster County Beekeepers Society, (September 17, 2019; 35 attendees). Underwood R, B. Traver, M. López-Uribe. Project COMB: Conventional and Organic Management of Bees. Lehigh Valley Beekeepers Association, Northampton, PA. (August 22, 2019; 55 attendees). Underwood R, B. Traver, M. López-Uribe. Project COMB: Conventional and Organic Management of Bees. Wayne County Beekeepers Association, Honesdale, PA (August 20, 2019; 62 attendees). López-Uribe MM. COMB Project: Conventional and Organic Management of Bees. Chester County Beekeeping Association, West Chester, PA (March 9, 2019; 40 attendees) Underwood RM, López-Uribe MM. Honey bee health and organic beekeeping management practices. Pennsylvania Association for Sustainable Agriculture (PASA). Lancaster, PA USA (February 2019; 50 attendees) [90 minute workshop] López-Uribe MM. López-Uribe Lab: Research and Extension Updates. Horticulture Extension Team Group Meeting. State College, PA USA (April 2018; 50 attendees) Underwood R, López-Uribe MM. Conventional and Organic Management of Bees (COMB) Project: 2nd Stakeholder Meeting, Co-Instructor. (November 30, 2018; 30 participants). Underwood R, Evans KC, López-Uribe MM. COMB Project: Technical training. State College, PA (March 16, 2018; 12 attendees) Underwood, R. Introducing the COMB Project. Treatment Free Beekeeping Conference, Oracle, AZ. (20 participants, 2-4 March 2018) Underwood R, Evans KC, López-Uribe MM. COMB Project: First stakeholder meeting. State College, PA USA (November 17th 2017; 30 attendees) Underwood R. Chemical Free Protocol Follow-up. Skype. (December 7 2017; 5 attendees) Underwood R. IPM Protocol Follow-up. Skype. (December 11 2017; 6 attendees) Underwood R. Conventional Free Protocol. Skype. (December 13 2017; 7 attendees) Changes/Problems:The colonies that survived the winter of 2019-20 were generally strong and managed to prevent swarming by splitting the colonies (removing the queen and some brood to make additional colonies). This resulted in most (almost all) colonies having a brood break and queen replacement at least once in 2020. Unfortunately, about 35% of the colonies did not successfully produce a mated queen, which resulted in the loss of these colonies. This was not something we intended to allow in our management systems. Nevertheless, it was consistent across treatments, so it should not cause a problem with the results. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?We have had the opportunity to train less experienced beekeepers who have been hired as wage employees to work with us on this project. These training opportunities have engaged communities that cannot access online information about beekeeping such as amish farmers. During this project, they have learned with us how to do advanced beekeeping, and how these different management types differ. We successfully led a 90 minute workshop during the Pennsylvania Association for Sustainable Agriculture (PASA) Meeting where we talked about the details of organic beekeeping. In addition, one Master's student has been involved with this project. She is involved with the field data and sample collection and she is leading the laboratory analysis for the immune gene expression and viral work as well as the bee bread microbiome study. She is currently also working on developing a 4H curriculum about beekeeping for Penn State Extension. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?As mentioned above, we have held three stakeholder meetings throughout the duration of the project. We will hold the last stakeholder meeting in the spring of 2021. We have given 15 talks at local beekeeping clubs reaching an audience of over 350 people. Regionally, beekeepers are aware of our project because of talks at the State Beekeeping Meeting. We send regular updates to beekeepers through our lab listserv (more than 200 subscribers). We have conducted two successful webinars to 2,200 attendees each and we will now work on an additional presentation through eXtension about the findings of our project. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?We will continue our assessments of colony health status through spring of 2021 (objective 1a), analyses of immune gene expression and pathogens are underway (objective 1b and 1c), and the economic analyses of the detailed time and expenditure records will be finalized (objective 3). We also plan to send wax samples for pesticide residue analysis to a testing lab to accomplish objective 2 of the project.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
Since the beginning of the project, we have had close communications with the stakeholder group comprised of 30 experienced beekeepers who use different management practices (chemical free, organic, conventional). The main goal of these meetings has been to have stakeholder input to develop beekeeping management protocols that would represent how conventional, organic and chemical free beekeepers manage their honey bees colonies. In addition, we have presented updates about the results of the project. In-person meetings have been followed up by multiple skype meetings with each group independently. Our goal of having stakeholder input for our project has been successfully accomplished. We used the protocols obtained from these groups for our experiments, and we have been in close communication with them about our results. For the first year of the experiment, efforts were focused on finalizing the establishment of the colonies in the 24 apiaries included in the project. After the first year of the project, we successfully installed 288 honey bee colonies on 8 farms located in northeastern PA, southeastern PA, central PA and western WV. Each region comprises two farms with three apiaries each (for a total of 24 apiaries and 288 colonies). For the success of this project, wage employees with some beekeeping experience have been hired in the various regions. These workers were hired to assist with colony assessments. Colonies were assessed every month to collect data on the levels of the parasitic varroa mites. Each season, spring and summer, bees were collected for lab assays for Nosema disease, viruses, and immune gene expression. Building of wax comb was quantified each month as well. During assessments that simulate a normal beekeeper visit, inspections were timed for use in an economic analysis of each management system. In addition, we have an ongoing project looking at the changes in the microbiota of beebread before and after miticide treatments. Our preliminary results indicate that the colonies with organic management have the lowest prevalence of the gut parasite Nosema ceranae. We have found that honey bee colonies treated with organic and synthetic miticides have fewer varroa mites and better winter survival than those left untreated. However, untreated colonies produce significantly more honey than treated colonies. In addition, we have also detected a decrease in the relative abundance of beneficial bacteria such as Lactobacillus kunkeei in bee bread after miticide treatment. We have successfully developed protocols to manage honey bee colonies exclusively using cultural and organic chemicals management practices. We are working on developing a better understanding of the variation and effectiveness of different beekeeping management practices on honey bee health. We have demonstrated that variation in management practices among beekeepers is mainly driven by two factors (1) size of the operation and (2) beekeeper's philosophies towards chemical use (Underwood et al 2018). Therefore, there is a clear need for development of best management practices for these different groups of beekeepers. We have two full years of data and are now completing the data collection for year 3 and have begun to analyze the data for the economic analysis of each of the beekeeping management systems. Our preliminary analysis indicates that the organic management system is the most cost-effective management system. This coming year, we also plan to publish two more peer-reviewed publications, factsheets that take beekeeping management philosophy into account when considering pest and pathogen control, and a seminar through eXtension about our project.
Publications
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2020
Citation:
McAfee, A., Chapman, A., Higo, H., Underwood, R., Milone, J., Foster, L. J., Guarna, M. M., Tarpy, D. R., & Pettis, J. S. (2020). Vulnerability of honey bee queens to heat-induced loss of fertility. Nature Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0493-x
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2019
Citation:
Underwood RM, Traver BE, L�pez-Uribe MM (2019) Beekeeping management practices are associated with operation size and beekeepers philosophy towards in-hive chemicals. Insects 10: 10 doi.org/10.3390/insects10010010
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2019
Citation:
L�pez-Uribe MM, Simone-Finstrom MD (2019) Honey bee research in the US: Current state and solutions to beekeeping problems. Insects 10: 22 doi.org/10.3390/insects10010022
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2020
Citation:
Underwood RM, B Lawrence, P Kietzman, BE Traver , MM L�pez-Uribe. Management trade-offs of conventional, organic and chemical-free beekeeping (Poster Presentation) American Bee Research Conference, Schaumburg IL, 9-10 January 2020. (60 attendees)
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2019
Citation:
Underwood R, B Traver, M L�pez-Uribe. A side-by-side comparison of honey bee health in colonies managed using conventional, organic, and chemical-free systems. Apimondia: International Apicultural Conference. Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 8-12 September 2019. (~1500 audience members)
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2019
Citation:
Underwood R, B Lawrence, B Traver, M L�pez-Uribe. A side-by-side comparison of honey bee health in colonies managed using conventional, organic, and chemical-free systems. International Pollinator Conference, UC Davis, Davis, CA 17-20 July 2019. Poster. (250 attendees)
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2019
Citation:
Underwood R, B Traver, M L�pez-Uribe. COMB project (management systems comparison). Alternative Beekeeping Conference, Kerhonkson NY, 25-26 May 2019. (15 attendees)
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2018
Citation:
Underwood, R, D vanEngelsdorp, B Traver, and K Nichols. 2018. A side-by-side comparison of honey bee management systems. American Bee Research Conference, Reno, NV. (11-12 January 2018)
- Type:
Websites
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2019
Citation:
Underwood R. November 2020. COMB Update November 2019. (invited blog post November 25th 2019) https://lopezuribelab.com/2019/11/25/elementor-5997/
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2019
Citation:
Underwood, R. March 2019. The Beekeeping Continuum: Whats Your Philosophy? American Bee Journal 159:337-339. (approximately 15,000 subscribers)
- Type:
Websites
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2018
Citation:
Underwood R (2018) Project COMB, equipment story (invited blog post May 19th 2018) http://lopezuribelab.com/2018/05/19/project-comb-equipment-story/
- Type:
Websites
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2018
Citation:
Underwood R (2018) Protocol for hive irradiation (invited blog post February 14th 2018) http://lopezuribelab.com/2018/02/14/gamma-irradiation-beekeepers/
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2019
Citation:
Underwood R, B Traver, M L�pez-Uribe. What is Alternative Beekeeping - Defining our Methods. Alternative Beekeeping Conference, Kerhonkson NY, 25-26 May 2019. (12 attendees)
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2018
Citation:
Traver B, K Alemany, A Hatter, M Stoner, R Underwood, P Kietzman, KC Evans, MM L�pez-Uribe. Examining Nosema spp. in honey bee hives under different management practices (Poster presentation) Entomological Society of America, Vancouver, BC, Canada, November 2018 (3800 attendees)
- Type:
Websites
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2017
Citation:
Underwood R (2017) COMB, Conventional & Organic Management of Bees Stakeholder Meeting (invited blog post November 20th 2017) http://lopezuribelab.com/2017/11/20/comb-conventional-organic-management-bees/
|
Progress 09/01/18 to 08/31/19
Outputs
Target Audience:Our main targeted audience are beekeepers. One of the great achievements of this project has been to be able to create bridges of communication between beekeepers who manage honey bees using conventional practices and beekeepers who choose to manage bees without the use of chemicals. The latter group has historically been marginalized from mainstream beekeeping meetings because of their ideology for bee management. We have successfully brought together these groups of beekeepers to have open discussions about beekeeping practices. Through over 15 talks and workshops to beekeeping clubs, regional, national and international conferences, we have reached an audience of over 600 beekeepers and farmers about the topic of our project and the promising results of establishing a protocol to keep bees exclusively under organic treatments. Changes/Problems:The colonies that survived the winter of 2018-19 were generally strong and, despite management to prevent swarming, nearly every colony swarmed. This resulted in most (almost all) colonies having a brood break and queen replacement at least once in 2019. Neither of these was something we intended to allow in our management systems. Nevertheless, it was consistent across treatments, so it should not cause a problem with the results. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?We have had the opportunity to train less experienced beekeepers who have been hired as wage employees to work with us on this project. These training opportunities have engaged communities that cannot access online information about beekeeping such as amish farmers. During this project, they have learned with us how to do advanced beekeeping, and how these different management types differ. We successfully led a 90 minute workshop during the Pennsylvania Association for Sustainable Agriculture (PASA) Meeting where we talked about the details of organic beekeeping. In addition, one Master's student has been involved with this project. She was involved with the field data and sample collection and she is leading the laboratory analysis for the immune gene expression and viral work as well as the bbee bread microbiome study. She is currently also working on developing 4H curriculum about beekeeping for Penn State Extension. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?As mentioned above, we have held three stakeholder meetings throughout the duration of the project. We will hold the last stakeholder meeting on October 2019. We have given 15 talks at local beekeeping clubs reaching an audience of over 600 people. Regionally, beekeepers are aware of our project because of talks at the State Beekeeping Meeting. We send regular updates to beekeepers through our lab listserv (more than 200 subscribers) and we will now work on one presentation through eXtension about the findings of our project. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?We will continue our assessments of colony health status through Spring of 2020 (objective 1a), analyses of immune gene expression and pathogens will be completed (objective 1b and 1c), and the economic analyses of the detailed time and expenditure records will be finalized (objective 3). We also plan to collect and send wax samples for pesticide residue analysis to a testing lab to accomplish objective 2 of the project.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
Since the beginning of the project, we have had close communications with the stakeholder group comprised of 30 experienced beekeepers who use different management practices (chemical free, organic, conventional). The main goal of these meetings has been to have stakeholder input to develop beekeeping management protocols that would represent how conventional, organic and chemical free beekeepers manage their honey bees colonies. In addition, we have presented updates about the results of the project. In-person meetings have been followed up by multiple skype meetings with each group independently. Our goal of having stakeholder input for our project had been successfully accomplished. We used the protocols obtained from these groups for our experiments, and we have been in close communication with them about our results. For the first year of the experiment, efforts were focused on finalizing the establishment of the colonies in the 24 apiaries included in the project. After the first year of the project, we successfully installed 288 honey bee colonies in 8 farms located in northeastern PA, southeastern PA, central PA and western WV. Each region comprises two farms with three apiaries each (for a total of 24 apiaries and 288 colonies). For the success of this project, wage employees with some beekeeping experience have been hired in the various regions. These workers were hired to assist with colony assessments. Colonies were assessed every month to collect data on the levels of the parasitic varroa mite. Each season, spring and summer, bees were collected for lab assays for Nosema disease, viruses, and immune gene expression. Building of wax comb was quantified each month as well. During assessments that simulate a normal beekeeper visit, inspections were timed for use in an economic analysis of each management system. In addition, we have an ongoing project looking at the changes in the microbiota of beebread before and after miticide treatments. Our preliminary results indicate that the colonies with organic management have the lowest prevalence of the gut parasite Nosema ceranae. We have found that honey bee colonies treated with organic and synthetic miticides have fewer varroa mites and better winter survival than those left untreated. However, untreated colonies produce significantly more honey than treated colonies. In addition, we have also detected a decrease in the relative abundance of beneficial bacteria such as Lactobacillus kunkeei in bee bread after miticide treatment. We have successfully developed protocols to managed honey bee colonies exclusively using cultural and organic chemicals management practices. We are working on developing a better understanding of the variation and effectiveness of different beekeeping management practices on honey bee health. We have demonstrated that variation in management practices among beekeepers is mainly driven by two factors (1) size of the operation and (2) beekeeper's philosophies towards chemical use (Underwood et al 2018). Therefore, there is a clear need for development of best management practices for these different groups of beekeepers. We are now completing the data collection for year 2 and have begun to analyze the data for the economic analysis of each of the beekeeping management systems. This coming year, we also plan to publish two more peer-reviewed publications, factsheets that take beekeeping management philosophy into account when considering pest and pathogen control, and a seminar through eXtension about our project.
Publications
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2019
Citation:
Underwood R, B. Lawrence, B. Traver, M. L�pez-Uribe. A side-by-side comparison of honey bee health in colonies managed using conventional, organic, and chemical-free systems. International Pollinator Conference, UC Davis, Davis, CA 17-20 July 2019. Poster. (250 attendees)
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Other
Year Published:
2019
Citation:
Underwood R, B. Traver, M. L�pez-Uribe. -COMB project (management systems comparison). Alternative Beekeeping Conference, Kerhonkson NY, 25-26 May 2019. (15 attendees)
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Other
Year Published:
2019
Citation:
Underwood R, B. Traver, M. L�pez-Uribe. What is Alternative Beekeeping - Defining our Methods. Alternative Beekeeping Conference, Kerhonkson NY, 25-26 May 2019. (12 attendees)
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2019
Citation:
Underwood RM, L�pez-Uribe MM. (2019). Methods to Control Varroa Mites: An Integrated Pest Management Approach. Pennsylvania State Extension https://extension.psu.edu/methods-to-control-varroa-mites-an-integrated-pest-management-approach
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2019
Citation:
L�pez-Uribe MM, Underwood RM. (2019). Honey Bee Diseases: American Foulbrood. Pennsylvania State Extension https://extension.psu.edu/honey-bee-diseases-american-foulbrood
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2019
Citation:
Underwood RM, Traver BE, L�pez-Uribe MM (2019) Beekeeping management practices are associated with operation size and beekeepers philosophy towards in-hive chemicals. Insects 10: 10 doi.org/10.3390/insects10010010
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2019
Citation:
L�pez-Uribe MM, Simone-Finstrom MD (2019) Honey bee research in the US: Current state and solutions to beekeeping problems. Insects 10: 22 doi.org/10.3390/insects10010022
|
Progress 09/01/17 to 08/31/18
Outputs
Target Audience:Our main targeted audience are beekeepers. One of the great achievements of this project has been to be able to create bridges of communication between beekeepers who manage honey bees using conventional practices and beekeepers who choose to manage bees without the use of chemicals. The latter group has historically been marginalized from mainstream beekeeping meetings because of their ideology for bee management. We have successfully brought together these groups of beekeepers to have open discussions about beekeeping practices. Our goal for next year is to engage organic farmers on this project, as results of our experiments start coming out. Changes/Problems:The original package bees that were purchased for the project were from two different sources. Because we are studying management and need to ensure that differences between treatments are due to management, not bee source, all colonies must contain the same genetic line of bees. Therefore, we purchased queen honey bees from a single source to replace the existing queens and make all of the colonies genetically as similar as possible. The requeening process was difficult and resulted in some colonies rejecting the new queens. A second attempt to requeen was made, as needed, with varied success. One particular set of 36 colonies has proven to be particularly difficult in this respect. We are currently evaluating whether the cost and efforts to requeen these 36 colonies is feasible. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?We have had the opportunity to train less experienced beekeepers who have been hired as wage employees to work with us on this project. This summer they have learned with us how to do advanced beekeeping, and how these different management types differ. We submitted a proposal for the Pennsylvania Association for Sustainable Agriculture (PASA) Meeting to hold a workshop on organic beekeeping during their annual meeting in February 2019. The proposal is currently under review. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?As mentioned above, we have held two stakeholder meetings before the beginning of the project. We will hold another stakeholder meeting this coming winter (December 2018). We have given talks at local beekeeping clubs. Regionally, beekeepers are aware of our project because of talks at the State Beekeeping Meeting. We send updates to beekeepers through our lab listserv (more than 200 subscribers). What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?We will continue our biweekly assessments of colony health status (objective 1a), samples for immune gene and pathogen analysis (objective 1b and 1c), and detailed time and expenditure records for the economic analysis (objective 3). By the end of next year, we also plan to collect wax samples for the pesticide residue analysis necessary to accomplish objective 2 of the project.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
We initiated the project by organizing a stakeholder meeting in State College PA on November 17th 2017. A total of 30 experienced beekeepers, who use different honey bee management practices, participated of open discussions and round tables during the day. The main goal of this meeting was to have stakeholder input to develop beekeeping management protocols that would represent how conventional, organic and chemical free beekeepers keep honey bees. The meeting was a success as we were able to identified three groups of beekeepers who identified themselves with the 3 different management practices that we are testing side-by-side on this project. This in-person meeting was followed up by multiple skype meetings with each group independently. Our goal was accomplished, we obtained the detailed protocols for each management group, and we are currently using those protocols for our experiment. After those protocols were established, our efforts were focused on finalizing the locations of the 24 apiaries of the project, purchasing the equipment and bees, and preparing and transporting all the equipment to the 4 different regions. After the first year of the project, we successfully installed 288 honey bee colonies in 8 farms located in northeastern PA, southeastern PA, central PA and western WV. Each region comprises two farms with three apiaries each (for a total of 24 apiaries and 288 colonies). Currently we are collecting data on biweekly assessments of colony health status, and samples for immune gene and pathogen analysis. We are also keeping a detailed record of the time spent managing all the colonies, which will be incorporated into an economic analysis that will estimate the cost of time and inputs into the three management systems. Our preliminary results indicate that the colonies with organic management hold have the lowest prevalence of the gut parasite Nosema ceranae. Virus and immune genes will be screened after the winter of 2018.
Publications
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Other
Year Published:
2018
Citation:
Underwood, R, vanEngelsdorp D, Traver B, and Nichols K. 2018. A side-by-side comparison of honey bee management systems. American Bee Research Conference, Reno, NV. (11-12 January 2018)
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Other
Year Published:
2018
Citation:
Underwood R, Traver B, L�pez-Uribe MM. Management Philosophies of Beekeepers in the United States (In preparation for Insects)
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Other
Year Published:
2018
Citation:
Traver B, Alemany K, Hatter A, Stoner M, Underwood R, Kietzman P, Evans KC, L�pez-Uribe MM. Examining Nosema spp. in honey bee hives under different management practices (Poster presentation) Entomological Society of America, Vancouver, BC, Canada (November 2018)
|
|