Comparable performance of commercial honey bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) colonies under alternative fall feeding strategies

Clicks: 3
ID: 319906
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #52 of 70 articles by views in Journal of Economic Entomology

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Beekeepers use supplemental diets to support colonies when natural forage is scarce. Fall feeding is commonly used to bolster colony health, prepare them for winter, and ensure strong colonies for the spring. Unfortunately, any benefit that fall feeding offers comes only after substantial investments in feed and winter storage. Although many studies have examined the nutritional value of supplements, these questions have rarely been tested under commercial beekeeping conditions or in the context of fall feeding. We tested 2 hypotheses: (1) supplement‑fed colonies are as large and profitable as colonies fed natural pollen, and (2) colonies fed natural pollen or supplements are as large and profitable as unfed colonies. Across 2 years, we evaluated ∼700 colonies in 2 North Dakota apiaries. Colonies were fed the following in the fall (August-September) and before cold storage: 1 of 5 commercially available diets, a natural‑pollen positive control, or (in trial 2) no diet. Colony size was measured at 4 time points from pre‑feed to post‑almond pollination. Profitability was defined as the likelihood that colonies graded adequately for almond pollination or could be split after bloom. After accounting for fall apiary location and pre‑feed colony size, colonies fed Global 4% and AP23 were consistently as large and profitable as those fed natural pollen. In trial 2, unfed colonies performed as well as colonies fed pollen or supplements. Although outcomes were similar for colonies fed certain and natural pollen, the results of trial 2 indicate that fall feeding may not always be necessary.
Reference Key
openalex_W7167629110 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Vanessa Corby‐Harris, Lucy Snyder, Emily Watkins deJong, Charlotte Meador, Gloria DeGrandi‐Hoffman, Blake Shook
Journal Journal of Economic Entomology
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/jee/toag203
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/toag203
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.