The US National Honey Bee Disease Survey sampled colony pests and diseases from 2009 to 2014. We verified the absence of Tropilaelaps spp., the Asian honey bee (Apis cerana), and slow bee paralysis virus. Endemic health threats were quantified, including Varroa destructor, Nosema spp., and eight honey bee viruses. Varroa loads varied across years, with annual fall peaks; Nosema peaked January to April. Migratory beekeepers had significantly lower Varroa prevalence (84.9 vs. 97.0 %) and loads (3.65 ± 0.28 vs. 5.99 ± 0.22) than stationary operations, while Nosema was more prevalent (59.9 vs. 46.7 %) in migratory colonies. Since 2010, chronic bee paralysis virus prevalence doubled annually. We detected strong positive relationships between V. destructor and Varroa-transmitted viruses, between Nosema and Lake Sinai virus 2, and a positive relationship across several viral pathogens of bees. The results provide a disease baseline to help identify drivers of poor bee health.

This study measured part of the in-hive pesticide exposome by analyzing residues from live in-hive bees, stored pollen, and wax in migratory colonies over time and compared exposure to colony health. We summarized the pesticide burden using three different additive methods: (1) the hazard quotient (HQ), an estimate of pesticide exposure risk, (2) the total number of pesticide residues, and (3) the number of relevant residues. Despite being simplistic, these models attempt to summarize potential risk from multiple contaminations in real-world contexts. Colonies performing pollination services were subject to increased pesticide exposure compared to honey-production and holding yards. We found clear links between an increase in the total number of products in wax and colony mortality. In particular, we found that fungicides with particular modes of action increased disproportionally in wax within colonies that died. The occurrence of queen events, a significant risk factor for colony health and productivity, was positively associated with all three proxies of pesticide exposure. While our exposome summation models do not fully capture the complexities of pesticide exposure, they nonetheless help elucidate their risks to colony health. Implementing and improving such models can help identify potential pesticide risks, permitting preventative actions to improve pollinator health.

Declines of pollinators and high mortality rates of honey bee colonies are a major concern, both in the USA and globally. Long-term data on summer, winter, and annual colony losses improve our understanding of forces shaping the viability of the pollination industry. Since the mass die-offs of colonies in the USA during the winter of 2006–2007, generally termed “Colony Collapse Disorder” (CCD), annual colony loss surveys have been conducted. These surveys gage colony losses among beekeepers of all operation sizes, recruited to participate via regional beekeeping organizations, phone calls, and postal mail. In the last three years, these surveys include summer and annual losses in addition to winter losses. Winter losses in this most recent survey include 5,937 valid participants (5,690 backyard, 169 sideline, and 78 commercial beekeepers), collectively managing 414,267 colonies on 1 October 2014 and constituting 15.1% of the estimated 2.74 million managed colonies in the USA. Annual losses are typically higher than either winter or summer losses, as they calculate losses over the entire year. Total reported losses were 25.3% [95% CI 24.7–25.9%] over the summer, 22.3% [95% CI 21.9–22.8%] over the winter, and 40.6% [95% CI 40.0–41.2%] for the entire 2014–2015 beekeeping year. Average losses were 14.7% [95% CI 14.0–15.3%] over the summer, 43.7% [95% CI 42.8–44.6%] over the winter, and 49.0% [95% CI 48.1–50.0%] over the entire year. While total winter losses were lower in 2014–2015 than in previous years, summer losses remained high, resulting in total annual colony losses of more than 40% during the survey period. This was the first year that total losses were higher in the summer than in the winter, explained in large part by commercial beekeepers reporting losses of 26.2% of their managed colonies during summer, compared to 20.5% during winter. Self-identified causes of overwintering mortality differed by operation size, with smaller backyard beekeepers generally indicating colony management issues (e.g., starvation, weak colony in the fall), in contrast to commercial beekeepers who typically emphasize parasites or factors outside their control (e.g., varroa, nosema, queen failure). More than two-thirds of all beekeepers (67.3%) had higher colony losses than they deemed acceptable.

While the ancient Egyptians and Greeks used honey for wound care, and a broad spectrum of wounds are treated all over the world with natural unprocessed honeys from different sources, Medihoney™ has been one of the first medically certified honeys licensed as a medical product for professional wound care in Europe and Australia. Our experience with medical honey in wound care refers only to this product. In this review, we put our clinical experience into a broader perspective to comment on the use of medical honey in wound care. More prospective randomized studies on a wider range of types of wounds are needed to confirm the safety and efficacy of medical honey in wound care. Nonetheless, the current evidence confirming the antibacterial properties and additional beneficial effects of medical honey on wound healing should encourage other wound care professionals to use CE‐certified honey dressings with standardized antibacterial activity, such as Medihoney™ products, as an alternative treatment approach in wounds of different natures.