SummaryIn 2008 the COLOSS network was formed by honey bee experts from Europe and the USA. The primary objectives set by this scientific network were to explain and to prevent large scale losses of honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies. In June 2008 COLOSS obtained four years support from the European Union from COST and was designated as COST Action FA0803—COLOSS (Prevention of honey bee Colony Losses). To enable the comparison of loss data between participating countries, a standardized COLOSS questionnaire was developed. Using this questionnaire information on honey bee losses has been collected over two years. Survey data presented in this study were gathered in 2009 from 12 countries and in 2010 from 24 countries. Mean honey bee losses in Europe varied widely, between 7–22% over the 2008–9 winter and between 7–30% over the 2009–10 winter. An important finding is that for all countries which participated in 2008–9, winter losses in 2009–10 were found to be substantially higher. In 2009–10, winter losses... ResumenEn 2008, expertos de Europa y EEUU formaron una red, llamada COLOSS, con el objetivo de explicar y prevenir la pérdida de colonias de abejas a gran escala. Esta acción se designó en Junio del 2008 por la Unión Europea como acción COST FA0803. Se desarrolló un cuestionario estandarizado COLOSS que permitiera la comparación de los datos de pérdida entre los países participantes. Los datos presentados en este estudio fueron recogidos en 2009 en 12 países y en 2010 en 24. Las pérdidas invernales medias de colonias de abejas en Europa mostraron una gran variación del 7 al 22% en el invierno de 2008–9 y del 7 al 30% en 2009–10. Una observación importante es que para todos los países participantes en 2009, las pérdidas invernales observadas en 2010 fueron sustancialmente mayores que en 2009. En 2010 las perdidas invernales en el sureste de Europa fueron de un nivel tan bajo que parece que los factores causantes de las pérdidas en otras partes de Europa estuvieron ausentes o no a un nivel que afecta a la s...

IBRA, the world's longest established apicultural research publishers, promotes the value of bees by providing information on bee science and beekeeping worldwide. A not-for-profit organisation founded in 1949

In this short note we present comparable loss rates of honey bee colonies during winter 2016/2017 from 27 European countries plus Algeria, Israel and Mexico, obtained with the COLOSS questionnaire. The 14,813 beekeepers providing valid loss data collectively wintered 425,762 colonies, and reported 21,887 (5.1%, 95% confidence interval 5.0–5.3%) colonies with unsolvable queen problems and 60,227 (14.1%, 95% CI 13.8–14.4%) dead colonies after winter. Additionally we asked for colonies lost due to natural disaster, which made up another 6,903 colonies (1.6%, 95% CI 1.5–1.7%). This results in an overall loss rate of 20.9% (95% CI 20.6–21.3%) of honey bee colonies during winter 2016/2017, with marked differences among countries. The overall analysis showed that small operations suffered higher losses than larger ones (p < 0.001). Overall migratory beekeeping had no significant effect on the risk of winter loss, though there was an effect in several countries. A table is presented giving detailed results from 30 countries. A map is also included, showing relative risk of colony winter loss at regional level.

This short article presents loss rates of honey bee colonies over winter 2017/18 from 36 countries, including 33 in Europe, from data collected using the standardized COLOSS questionnaire. The 25,363 beekeepers supplying data passing consistency checks in total wintered 544,879 colonies, and reported 26,379 (4.8%, 95% CI 4.7–5.0%) colonies with unsolvable queen problems, 54,525 (10.0%, 95% CI 9.8–10.2%) dead colonies after winter and another 8,220 colonies (1.5%, 95% CI 1.4–1.6%) lost through natural disaster. This gave an overall loss rate of 16.4% (95% CI 16.1–16.6%) of honey bee colonies during winter 2017/18, but this varied greatly from 2.0 to 32.8% between countries. The included map shows relative risks of winter loss at regional level. The analysis using the total data-set confirmed findings from earlier surveys that smaller beekeeping operations with at most 50 colonies suffer significantly higher losses than larger operations (p < .001). Beekeepers migrating their colonies had significantly lower losses than those not migrating (p < .001), a different finding from previous research. Evaluation of six different forage sources as potential risk factors for colony loss indicated that intensive foraging on any of five of these plant sources (Orchards, Oilseed Rape, Maize, Heather and Autumn Forage Crops) was associated with significantly higher winter losses. This finding requires further study and explanation. A table is included giving detailed results of loss rates and the impact of the tested forage sources for each country and overall.

This article presents managed honey bee colony loss rates over winter 2018/19 resulting from using the standardised COLOSS questionnaire in 35 countries (31 in Europe). In total, 28,629 beekeepers supplying valid loss data wintered 738,233 colonies, and reported 29,912 (4.1%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.0–4.1%) colonies with unsolvable queen problems, 79,146 (10.7%, 95% CI 10.5–10.9%) dead colonies after winter and 13,895 colonies (1.9%, 95% CI 1.8–2.0%) lost through natural disaster. This gave an overall colony winter loss rate of 16.7% (95% CI 16.4–16.9%), varying greatly between countries, from 5.8% to 32.0%. We modelled the risk of loss as a dead/empty colony or from unresolvable queen problems, and found that, overall, larger beekeeping operations with more than 150 colonies experienced significantly lower losses (p < 0.001), consistent with earlier studies. Additionally, beekeepers included in this survey who did not migrate their colonies at least once in 2018 had significantly lower losses than those migrating (p < 0.001). The percentage of new queens from 2018 in wintered colonies was also examined as a potential risk factor. The percentage of colonies going into winter with a new queen was estimated as 55.0% over all countries. Higher percentages of young queens corresponded to lower overall losses (excluding losses from natural disaster), but also lower losses from unresolvable queen problems, and lower losses from winter mortality (p < 0.001). Detailed results for each country and overall are given in a table, and a map shows relative risks of winter loss at regional level.

SummaryThis article presents results of an analysis of winter losses of honey bee colonies from 19 mainly European countries, most of which implemented the standardised 2013 COLOSS questionnaire. Generalised linear mixed effects models (GLMMs) were used to investigate the effects of several factors on the risk of colony loss, including different treatments for Varroa destructor, allowing for random effects of beekeeper and region. Both winter and summer treatments were considered, and the most common combinations of treatment and timing were used to define treatment factor levels. Overall and within country colony loss rates are presented. Significant factors in the model were found to be: percentage of young queens in the colonies before winter, extent of queen problems in summer, treatment of the varroa mite, and access by foraging honey bees to oilseed rape and maize. Spatial variation at the beekeeper level is shown across geographical regions using random effects from the fitted models, both before a... ResumenEste artículo presenta los resultados de un análisis de los datos de la tasa de pérdida de invierno de 19 países, en los que se aplicó mayoritariamente el cuestionario estandarizado Coloss 2013. Se usaron modelos de efectos mixtos generalizados lineales para investigar los efectos de varios factores sobre el riesgo de pérdida de colonias de abejas de la miel, incluyendo diferentes tratamientos para Varroa destructor, y teniendo en cuenta los efectos aleatorios del apicultor y la región. Se consideraron tanto los tratamientos de invierno como los de verano, y las combinaciones más comunes de tratamiento y momento del mismo para definir los niveles del factor tratamiento. En general y dentro de cada país se presentaron pérdidas proporcionales. Los factores significativos del modelo fueron: porcentaje de reinas jóvenes en las colonias antes del invierno, alcance de los problemas de la reina en el verano, el tratamiento contra Varroa, y el acceso de las abejas pecoreadoras a las semillas oleaginosas y ...