Recent Honey Bee Colony Declines

Recent Honey Bee Colony Declines
Updated May 28, 2008
Renée Johnson
Analyst in Agricultural Economics
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

Recent Honey Bee Colony Declines
Summary
In 2006, commercial migratory beekeepers along the East Coast of the United
States began reporting sharp declines in their honey bee colonies. Because of the
severity and unusual circumstances of these colony declines, scientists have named
this phenomenon Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). Reports indicate that beekeepers
in 35 states have been affected. Overall, bee colony losses averaged about 30% in
2007. Reports for 2008 show continued declines with estimated average annual
losses nationwide approaching 35%.
Honey bees are the most economically valuable pollinators of agricultural crops
worldwide. Many scientists at universities and the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) frequently assert that bee pollination is involved in about one-third of the
U.S. diet, and contributes to the production of a wide range of fruits, vegetables, tree
nuts, forage crops, some field crops, and other specialty crops. The monetary value
of honey bees as commercial pollinators in the United States is estimated at about
$15 billion annually.
Honey bee colony losses are not uncommon. However, current losses seem to
differ from past situations in that colony losses are occurring mostly because bees are
failing to return to the hive (which is largely uncharacteristic of bee behavior); bee
colony losses have been rapid; colony losses are occurring in large numbers; and the
reason(s) for these losses remains largely unknown. The potential causes of CCD,
as reported by the scientists who are researching this phenomenon, include but may
not be limited to
^!parasites, mites, and disease loads in the bees and brood;
^!emergence of new or newly more virulent pathogens;
^!poor nutrition among adult bees;
^!lack of genetic diversity and lineage of bees;
^!level of stress in adult bees (e.g., transportation and confinement of
bees, overcrowding, or other environmental or biological stressors);
^!chemical residue/contamination in the wax, food stores, and/or bees;
^!a combination of these and/or other factors.
In 2007, the House held two subcommittee hearings to review the recent honey
bee colony declines and to address concerns about pollinator health. In 2008, the
Senate hosted a briefing on pollinators and their role in agricultural security. Various
policy options were discussed at these hearings and briefings, including increasing
federal funding for research and monitoring, providing technical support and
assistance for beekeepers, and emphasizing the importance of pollinator diversity and
sustaining wild and native pollinator species.
The enacted 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-234) contains provisions that would,
among other things, provide additional funding for research and conservation
programs addressing honey bees and pollinators.

Contents
Importance of Honey Bee Pollination..................................1
Extent and Symptoms of Colony Collapse Disorder.......................4
Past Honey Bee Population Losses................................5
Recent Colony Losses from Available Surveys.......................6
Symptoms of Colony Collapse Disorder ............................9
Possible Causes of Colony Collapse Disorder........................9
USDA’s CCD Action Plan......................................13
Issues for Congress...............................................14
List of Figures
Figure 1. Colony Collapse Disorder, Affected States, June 2007.............5
List of Tables
Table 1. Estimated Value of the Honey Bee to U.S. Crop Production,
by Major Crop Category, 2000 Estimates...........................3

Recent Honey Bee Colony Declines
In 2006, commercial migratory beekeepers along the East Coast of the United
States began reporting sharp declines in their honey bee colonies. Because of the
severity and unusual circumstances of these colony declines, scientists have named
this phenomenon Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). Reports indicate that beekeepers
in 35 states have been affected. Recent surveys indicate that about one-half of
surveyed beekeepers have experienced “abnormal” or “severe” colony losses.
This report provides an overview of the importance of honey bee pollination to
U.S. agricultural production, especially specialty crops. It describes the extent and
symptoms of CCD and how it differs from previous honey bee colony losses,
describing some of the reasons why scientists believe honey bee colonies are being
affected by CCD. Finally, this report discusses policy options and subsequent action
that Congress could consider in this area.
In March 2007, the House Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic
Agriculture held a hearing to review the recent honey bee colony declines. In June
2007, the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans of the House Committee
on Natural Resources held a hearing on the role of pollinators in ecosystem health,
which also addressed concerns about bee colony declines. In April 2008,
Chairwoman Barbara Boxer and other members of the Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee hosted a briefing on pollinators and their role in
agricultural security. These hearings and briefings presented a range of policy
options. The enacted 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-234) contains provisions that would,
among other things, provide additional funding for research and conservation
programs addressing honey bees and pollinators.
Importance of Honey Bee Pollination
Honey bees (Apis mellifera) are the most economically valuable pollinators of
agricultural crops worldwide and are the only bee species kept commercially in the¹
United States. In the United States, bee pollination of agricultural crops is said to
account for about one-third of the U.S. diet, and to contribute to the production of a
wide range of high-value fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, forage crops, some field crops,
and other specialty crops.²

¹ Other known animal pollinators are stingless bees, bumble bees, other bees, wasps, hover
flies, other flies, beetles, thrips, ants, butterflies, moths, bats, hummingbirds, and other birds.
² M. R. Berenbaum, University of Illinois, Statement before the Subcommittee on
Horticulture and Organic Agriculture, U.S. House of Representatives, March 29, 2007, at
(continued...)

The monetary value of honey bees as commercial pollinators in the United
States is estimated at about $15 billion annually³ (Table 1). This estimated value is
measured according to the additional value of production attributable to honey bees,
in terms of the value of the increased yield and quality achieved from honey bee
pollination, including the indirect benefits of bee pollination required for seed
production of some crops. About one-third of the estimated value of commercial
honey bee pollination is in alfalfa production, mostly for alfalfa hay. Another nearly
10% of the value of honey bee pollination is for apples, followed by 6%-7% of the
value each for almonds, citrus, cotton, and soybeans.
A number of agricultural crops are almost totally (90%-100%) dependent on
honey bee pollination, including almonds, apples, avocados, blueberries, cranberries,
cherries, kiwi fruit, macadamia nuts, asparagus, broccoli, carrots, cauliflower, celery,
cucumbers, onions, legume seeds, pumpkins, squash, and sunflowers. Other
specialty crops also rely on honey bee pollination, but to a lesser degree. These crops
include apricot, citrus (oranges, lemons, limes, grapefruit, tangerines, etc.), peaches,
pears, nectarines, plums, grapes, brambleberries, strawberries, olives, melon
(cantaloupe, watermelon, and honeydew), peanuts, cotton, soybeans, and sugarbeets.⁴
In the United States, most pollination services are provided by commercial
migratory beekeepers who travel from state to state and provide pollination services
to crop producers. These operations are able to supply a large number of bee
colonies during the critical phase of a crop’s bloom cycle, when honey bees pollinate
a crop as they fly from flower to flower collecting nectar and pollen, which they carry⁵
back to the nest. The most recent U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) data
indicate that there were about 17,000 operations with 2.4 million bee colonies in the⁶
United States. The majority of these, more than 2 million bee colonies, are reported

² (...continued)
[http://agriculture.house.gov/testimony/110/h70329/Berenbaum.pdf]; J. Pettis, USDA’s
Agricultural Research Service (ARS), interview with University of Pennsylvania staff,
January 23, 2007, available at [http://podcasts.psu.edu/taxonomy/term/62]. Staple crops
(wheat, corn, and rice) do not rely on insect pollination and are mostly wind pollinated.
³ R. A. Morse and N. W. Calderone, The Value of Honey Bees as Pollinators of U.S. Crops
in 2000, March 2000, Cornell University, at [http://www.masterbeekeeper.org/pdf/
pollination.pdf]. Other studies show a range of estimated values from $5.7 billion to $19.0
billion (see National Research Council, Status of Pollinators in North America, 2006).
⁴ Ibid. Another study found that pollinators are essential for the production of some U.S.-
grown crops, particularly macadamia nuts, squash, and pumpkins. A.-M. Klein, B. E.
Vaissière, J. H. Cane, I. Steffan-Dewenter, S. A. Cunningham, C. Kremen, and T.
Tscharntke, “Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops,”
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Vol. 274, No. 1608, February 7,

2007.

⁵ Some “spillover” pollination occurs, including pollination from colonies owned by part-
time beekeepers and hobbyists, or pollination of adjacent fields from commercial hives.
⁶ USDA, Honey, February 2007, at [http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/Hone/2000s/
2007/Hone-02-28-2007.pdf]; and USDA, 2002 Census of Agriculture, Table 19. Based on
honey production statistics. Other estimates by Cornell University indicate that the number
(continued...)

to belong to commercial migratory beekeepers. About one-third of all colonies are
in California (about 20%) and Florida (10%). The Dakotas accounted for another 7%
each of all bee colonies, and Texas and Montana accounted for another 5% each.
Other states with a large number of bee colonies were Minnesota, Idaho, Michigan,
Washington, Wisconsin, Oregon, and New York, which together accounted for about
20%. Although these operations also produce honey for commercial sale, it is their
value as crop pollinators that provides the greatest economic impact in the production
of food and feed crops.
Table 1. Estimated Value of the Honey Bee to U.S. Crop
Production, by Major Crop Category, 2000 Estimates
Crop CategoryProportion of
(ranked by share of DependencePollinatorsValue Attributed^aMajor
honey bee on InsectThat Areto Honey BeesProducing ^b
pollinator value) PollinationHoney Bees($ millions)States
Alfalfa, hay & seed100%60%4,654.2CA, SD, ID, WI
Apples100%90%1,352.3WA, NY, MI, PA
Almonds 100% 100% 959.2 CA
Citrus20% - 80%10% - 90%834.1CA, FL, AZ, TX
Cotton (lint & seed)20%80%857.7TX, AR, GA, MS
Soybeans10%50%824.5IA, IL, MN, IN
Onions100%90%661.7TX, GA, CA, AZ
Broccoli 100% 90% 435.4 CA
Carrots100%90%420.7CA, TX
Sunflower100%90%409.9ND, SD
Cantaloupe/honeydew80%90%350.9CA, WI, MN, WA
Other fruits & nuts^c10% - 90%10% - 90%1,633.4 —
Other vegetables/melons^d70% - 100%10% - 90%1,099.2 —
Other field crops^e10% - 100%20% - 90%70.4 —
Total — — 14,564 —
^Source:^C^o^m^pⁱ^l^e^{d by}^C^R^S^u^sⁱⁿ^g^v^a^l^u^es^r^e^port^e^{d i}ⁿ^R^.^A^.^Mors^{e, an}^{d N}^.^{W. C}^a^l^d^eron^e,^Th^{e V}^a^lu^e
^of^H^{oney Bees}^as^Pol^lⁱ^nat^or^s^of^U^.^{S. C}^r^opsⁱⁿ²⁰⁰⁰^{, March}^{2000, C}^o^rn^{ell Un}^iv^ers^ity^{, at [h}^ttp://^www.
^m^a^ster^b^eek^eep^er^.o^r^g^/p^d^f^/p^o^llin^atioⁿ^.^p^d^f^]^.
^{a. A}^ttr^ib^u^t^ed^v^a^lu^{e is th}^{e ad}^d^itioⁿ^a^{l v}^a^lu^{e o}^f^p^r^o^d^u^ctioⁿ^attr^ib^u^t^ab^{le to}^h^oⁿ^e^y^b^e^e^s^{, in}^ter^m^{s o}^f^th^e
^v^a^l^u^e^o^f^t^h^eⁱⁿ^c^r^e^a^s^e^d^yⁱ^e^l^d^aⁿ^d^q^u^a^lity^a^c^hⁱ^e^v^e^d^f^r^o^m^h^oⁿ^e^y^b^e^e^p^o^llin^atioⁿ^,ⁱⁿ^clu^dⁱⁿ^g^th^e
ⁱⁿ^dⁱ^r^{ect b}^eⁿ^e^f^{its o}^f^b^{ee p}^o^llin^atioⁿ^r^e^q^u^ir^ed^f^o^r^seed^p^r^o^d^u^ctioⁿ^o^f^so^m^e^cr^o^p^s^{. Calcu}^l^ated^f^r^o^m
^t^o^t^a^l^av^erag^{e produ}^ctⁱ^oⁿ^v^a^l^u^{e (1996-}^1998).

⁶ (...continued)
of colonies in the early 2000s may have been greater, at 2.9 million colonies in 2000.

^{b. For m}^o^s^t^com^m^odities^,^m^a^j^o^{r produ}^cin^g^s^t^ates^ref^l^{ect r}^e^p^o^r^t^e^d^{2006 produ}^ction
⁽^[^h^t^t^p^:^/^/^www.ⁿ^a^s^s^.^u^s^d^a^.^g^o^v^/^Q^uⁱ^c^k^S^t^a^t^s^/^]⁾^.^M^e^l^oⁿ^p^r^o^d^u^c^tⁱ^oⁿⁱ^s^b^a^s^e^d^oⁿ^r^e^p^o^r^t^e^d²⁰⁰²
^h^a^rv^es^{ted acreag}^e.
^{c. A}^p^ricots^{, av}^ocados^{, blu}^e^berries^{, bram}^bleberri^es^{, ch}^erries^{, c}^r^an^berries^,^g^r^apes^{, k}ⁱ^wⁱ^f^r^u^it,
^m^acadam^{ia n}^u^t^s^,^oliv^es^{, peach}^es^{, pears}^,ⁿ^ectarin^es^{, plu}^m^s^,^an^{d s}^t^raw^b^erries^.
^d.^A^s^parag^u^s^,^cau^lif^low^e^r,^celery^,^cu^cu^m^b^ers^,^pu^m^p^kⁱⁿ^s^{, s}^q^u^a^s^h^{, w}^a^term^elon^{, an}^{d v}^e^g^e^{table s}^eeds^.
^{e. P}^ean^u^t^s^,^can^{ola (rapes}^{eed), an}^{d s}^u^g^a^rbeets^.
Each year, an estimated more than 2 million bee colonies are rented for U.S.
crop pollination. Available limited information indicates that the greatest number of
honey bee colony rentals are for apple and almond production, followed by clover
seed, cherries, and pears.⁷ Rental fees collected by commercial beekeepers for
pollination services may vary by crop type, and often tend to be lower for some seed
crops and higher for berry and tree crops. In recent years, pollination fees paid by
crop producers have increased. For example, fees paid by California’s almond
industry have risen from a reported $35 per colony in the late 1990s to about $75 per⁸
colony in 2005. More recent estimates of fees for pollinating almond trees are even
higher, at $150 per colony or more. Among the reasons for higher pollination fees
are expanding almond acreage and relatively high honey prices, but also fewer
available honey bees for pollination due, in part, to colony declines and bee
mortalities. About one-half of the nation’s honey bee colonies are used to pollinate
California’s current 550,000 acres of almond trees.⁹
Extent and Symptoms of Colony Collapse Disorder
Starting in the last three months of 2006, a seemingly new phenomenon began
to occur based on reports of an “alarming” number of bee colony losses and die-off
along the East Coast. By the end of 2006, beekeepers on the West Coast also began¹⁰
to report “unprecedented” losses. Current reports indicate that beekeepers in 35
states have been affected (Figure 1).¹¹ Because of the severity and lack of precedent,
scientists coined a new term, Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), for this phenomenon.

⁷ M. Burgett, 1999 Pacific Northwest Honey Bee Pollination Survey, Oregon State
University.
⁸ National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Status of Pollinators in North
America, 2006.
⁹ USDA, CCD Steering Committee, “Colony Collapse Disorder Action Plan,” June 20,

2007, at [http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/br/ccd/ccd_actionplan.pdf].

¹⁰ D. vanEngelsdorp et al., “Fall Dwindle Disease: Investigations into the Causes of Sudden
and Alarming Colony Losses Experienced by Beekeepers in the Fall of 2006,” December

15, 2006.

¹¹ Bee Alert, Inc., “Latest U.S. CCD Map,” [http://www.beealert.info/].

Much of the current research on CCD is being conducted by scientists at
Pennsylvania State University, University of Montana, USDA’s Agriculture Research
Service (Beltsville bee laboratory), and the Pennsylvania and Florida Departments
of Agriculture. Many of these researchers also participate in the CCD Working
Group, which includes Bee Alert Inc., the Florida and Pennsylvania Departments of
Agriculture, Pennsylvania State University, and USDA. Up-to-date information is
regularly posted to the website of the Mid-Atlantic Apiculture Research and
Extension Consortium (MAAREC), which represents beekeeping associations in
New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.
Figure 1. Colony Collapse Disorder, Affected States, June 2007

^Source:^B^e^e^A^l^e^r^t^Iⁿ^c^.^,^“^L^a^t^e^s^t^U^.^S^.^C^C^D^M^a^p^,^”^[^h^t^t^p^:^/^/^www.^b^eealert.in^f^o^{/]. Sh}^{aded areas}^s^h^ow
^{reported af}^f^{ected s}^t^ates^.
Past Honey Bee Population Losses
Honey bee colony losses are not uncommon. A recent report by the National
Research Council (NRC) documents the extensive literature on honey bee population
losses due to bee pests, parasites, pathogens, and disease. Most notable are declines
due to two parasitic mites, the so-called vampire mite (Varroa destructor) and the
tracheal mite (Acarapis woodi), and also colony declines due to the pathogen¹²
Paenibacillus larvae. Other reasons for bee colony declines reported by the NRC
include interspecific competition between native and introduced bees, pathogen
spillover effects, habitat loss, invasive plant species that reduce nectar- and pollen-
producing vegetation, bee genetics, and pesticides, among other factors.
¹² National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Status of Pollinators in North
America, 2006.

Mite infestations are a relatively new occurrence. The 1980s saw two periods
of large die-offs due to Varroa and tracheal mites: The first Varroa mite infestation
was reported in 1987; tracheal mites were first detected in 1984.¹³ Varroa mites are
also said to have eliminated most feral bee colonies in the mid-1990s.¹⁴ Varroa
parasitism affects both worker bees and male larvae and can affect the ability of the
queen to reproduce. It is associated with viral pathogens and if left untreated can
cause colony mortalities usually within six months to two years after the initial
infestation. Less is known about the effects of the tracheal mite. The pathogen
Paenibacillus larvae is the most serious honey bee pathogen and causes American
foulbrood (AFB), which is a disease of larval honey bees. AFB resulted in large
colony losses in the 1940s, but its incidence has been reduced by the use of
antibiotics and increased apiary inspection programs. Nevertheless, mite and
pathogen infestations have likely raised beekeeper operating costs to pay for
miticides and/or antibiotics, labor and expenses for treatment, improved management
and inspection, and colony replacement of dead bees.
Symptoms similar to those observed for CCD have been described in the past,
and heavy losses have been documented. It is still not clear whether the current
colony losses are being caused by the same factors or if new contributing factors are
involved.¹⁵ MAAREC also reports that large beekeeper operations may have
experienced higher than normal losses compared with the past few years, and heavy
overwintering losses were reported in 2003-2004 for many northern beekeepers.
Overall, USDA reports that bee colony losses have averaged 17%-20% per year
since the 1990s, attributable to a variety of factors, such as mites, diseases, and
management stress. By comparison, bee colony losses for 2007 averaged about 30%
during the year.¹⁶ Reports for 2008 show continued declines, with estimated average
annual colony losses approaching 35%.
Recent Colony Losses from Available Surveys
The first report of CCD was in mid-November 2006 by a Pennsylvania
beekeeper overwintering in Florida. By February 2007, large commercial migratory
beekeepers in several states had reported heavy losses associated with CCD. Their
reports of losses varied widely, ranging from 30% to 90% of their bee colonies; in
some cases beekeepers feared loss of nearly all of their colonies.¹⁷ Surviving colonies

¹³ National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Status of Pollinators in North
America, 2006; Interview with Maryann Frazier, Senior Extension Agent, Pennsylvania
State University, January 28, 2007, at [http://podcasts.psu.edu/taxonomy/term/62].
¹⁴ R. A. Morse and N. W. Calderone, The Value of Honey Bees as Pollinators of U.S. Crops
in 2000, March 2000, Cornell University, at [http://www.masterbeekeeper.org/pdf/
pollination.pdf].
¹⁵ Similar conditions have been termed autumn collapse, May disease, spring dwindle,
disappearing disease, and fall dwindle disease.
¹⁶ Statements by USDA staff, briefing for House Agriculture committee staff, July 11, 2007.
¹⁷ Interview with Maryann Frazier, Senior Extension Agent, Pennsylvania State University,
(continued...)

were reportedly weakened and might no longer be viable to pollinate or produce
honey. Losses were reported in migratory operations wintering in California, Florida,
Oklahoma and Texas. In late February, some larger non-migratory beekeepers in the
mid-Atlantic and Pacific Northeast regions also reported significant losses of more
than 50%.¹⁸ Bee colony losses also were reported in five Canadian provinces, several
European countries, and countries in South and Central America and Asia.
In March 2007, the Apiary Inspectors of America (AIA) conducted a survey of
its members in 15 states.¹⁹ The survey tracked changes from September 2006 and
March 2007. Overall, responding beekeepers suffered an average loss of 38% of
their colonies during the winter of 2006-2007. If these losses are representative of
the nation, between 651,000 and 875,000 of the nation’s estimated 2.4 million
colonies were lost over that winter.²⁰ While a majority of losses were attributable to
known causes, approximately 25% of beekeepers are believed to have suffered from
CCD.²¹ The survey indicated that, among the beekeepers surveyed, more than 50%
reported “abnormally heavy losses” with total colony losses of 55%. This compared
to those reporting “normal losses” with total colony losses of 16%. Of the
responding beekeepers, about one-fourth reported conditions associated with CCD.²²
Beekeeping operations experiencing CCD-like conditions reported losses of 45% of
their managed bee colonies. Among the leading causes reported by most affected
commercial beekeeping operations were pest diseases.
An ongoing survey conducted by Bee Alert Technology, Inc., published
preliminary results in March 2007.²³ Of the beekeepers surveyed, more than 40%
reported “severe losses,” with losses of nearly 60% of their colonies. Most losses
occurred during the time period between October 2006 and March 2007. The
majority of beekeepers surveyed were at smaller operations with less than 100

¹⁷ (...continued)
January 28, 2007, at [http://podcasts.psu.edu/taxonomy/term/62]; vanEngelsdorp et al., “Fall
Dwindle Disease: Investigations into the Causes of Sudden and Alarming Colony Losses
Experienced by Beekeepers in the Fall of 2006,” December 15, 2006.
¹⁸ MAAREC, “Colony Collapse Disorder,” at [http://maarec.cas.psu.edu/FAQ/FAQCCD.
pdf].
¹⁹ D. vanEngelsdorp, R. Underwood, D. Caron, and J. Hayes Jr., “An Estimate of Managed
Colony Losses in the Winter of 2006-2007: A Report Commissioned by the Apiary
Inspectors of America,” American Bee Journal, July 2007, at [http://www.ento.psu.edu/
MAAREC/CCDPpt/CCDJuly07ABJArticle-1.pdf]. Based on a survey of beekeepers that
included 384 respondents representing 153,000 managed bee colonies located in AR, FL,
GA, MD, MI, MS, MT, NM, ND, OH, PA, SD, TN, and WI.
²⁰ Estimated at the 95% confidence interval.
²¹ These statistics may have been misrepresented in the popular press, which often state that

25% of the nation’s 2.4 million colonies have been lost (citing the AIA survey as its source).

²² Other reports indicate that the 2007 AIA survey found 30% colony losses.
²³ C. Henderson, L. Tarver, D. Plummer, R. Seccomb, S. Debnam, S. Rice, J. Bromenshenk,
and J. Glassy, “U.S. National Bee Colony Loss Survey, Preliminary Findings with Respect
to Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD),” March 26, 2007, at [http://www.beealert.info/]. More
than 400 responses received.

colonies, with colony losses mostly less than 10 colonies per keeper. Information for
about 10 larger operations (1,000 to more than 10,000 colony size) indicated an
average of 1,800 colonies lost. This compares to other estimates of winter losses
from various different surveys showing overall colony losses of about 30% during
the period 2000-2006, mostly associated with losses due to Varroa mites.²⁴
Colony losses have reportedly continued during the winter 2007-2008 season.
A recent USDA survey, along with even more recent survey information from AIA,
indicates that overall average loss across 21 states is 35%, with losses ranging widely
depending on area.²⁵ States with losses of roughly 50% or more of their bee colonies
were Louisiana, Michigan, South Dakota, and West Virginia. USDA reports that bee
colony losses in select European countries have averaged 26% during the winter

2007-2008 season.

How CCD Differs from Past Bee Colony Losses
Current bee colony losses seem to differ from past losses in that colony losses
are occurring mostly because bees are failing to return to the hive (which is largely
uncharacteristic of bee behavior); bee colony losses have been rapid; colony losses
are occurring in large numbers; and the reason why these losses are occurring
remains still largely unknown.
The current phenomenon was first called “Fall-Dwindle Disease,” but was
renamed because of the unusual characteristics of the colony declines. Moreover, the
condition is not only seasonal but manifests itself throughout the year. The term
“dwindle” implies a gradual loss, whereas CCD onset is sudden. Also, the term
“disappearance” is used to describe other types of conditions, which differ from the
symptoms currently being associated with CCD. Finally, the term “disease” is
usually associated with a biological agent, but none has yet been identified.²⁶

²⁴ E. Burdick and D. M. Caron, MAAREC Beekeeper Survey, University of Delaware, at
[http://maarec.cas.psu.edu/pdfs/MAARECSurveyPub.pdf].
²⁵ Jeff Pettis, “Colony Collapse Disorder Affecting Honey Bee (Apis mellifera) colonies,”
presentation to Senate Environment and Public Works committee staff, April 9, 2008.
USDA’s survey based on 22 operations that manage 10% of all the colonies nationwide.
²⁶ D. vanEngelsdorp, D. Cox Foster, M. Frazier, N. Ostiguy, and J. Hayes, “Fall Dwindle
Disease: Investigations into the Causes of Sudden and Alarming Colony Losses Experienced
by Beekeepers in the Fall of 2006,” December 15, 2006.

Symptoms of Colony Collapse Disorder
The symptoms of CCD, based on the current research, include the following:²⁷
^!rapid loss of adult worker bees,
^!few or no dead bees found in the hive,
^!presence of immature bees (brood),
^!small cluster of bees with live queen present, and
^!pollen and honey stores in hive.
Among the key symptoms of CCD in collapsed colonies is that the adult
population is suddenly gone without any accumulation of dead bees. The bees are
not returning to the hive but are leaving behind their brood (young bees), their queen,
and maybe a small cluster of adults. What is uncharacteristic about this situation is
that the honey bee is a very social insect and colony-oriented, with a complex and
organized nesting colony. Failing to return to the hive is considered highly unusual.
An absence of a large number of dead bees makes an analysis of the causes of CCD
difficult. Also there is little evidence that the hive may have been attacked. In
actively collapsing colonies, an insufficient number of adult bees remain to care for
the brood. The remaining workforce seems to be made up of young adult bees. The
queen is present, appears healthy and is usually still laying eggs, but the remaining
cluster is reluctant to consume feed provided by the beekeeper, and foraging is
greatly reduced.
Possible Causes of Colony Collapse Disorder
The current search for factors involved in CCD focuses on four areas:²⁸
^! pathogens,
^! parasites,
^!environmental stresses, and
^!bee management stresses such as poor nutrition.
Initially, the potential causes of CCD, as reported by the scientists researching
this phenomenon, were thought to include but not be limited to parasites, mites, and
disease loads in the bees and brood; emergence of new or newly more virulent
pathogens, such as fungal diseases; poor nutrition among adult bees; lack of genetic
diversity and lineage of bees; level of stress in adult bees, as indicated by stress-
induced proteins (e.g., transportation and confinement of bees, overcrowding, or
other environmental or biological stressors); chemical residue/contamination in the

²⁷ D. vanEngelsdorp et al., “Fall Dwindle Disease: Investigations into the Causes of Sudden
and Alarming Colony Losses Experienced by Beekeepers in the Fall of 2006,” December

15, 2006; published interview with Maryann Frazier, Penn State University, January 28,

2007, at [http://podcasts.psu.edu/taxonomy/term/62]; and Jeff Pettis, “Colony Collapse
Disorder Affecting Honey Bee (Apis mellifera) colonies,” presentation to Senate
Environment and Public Works committee staff, April 9, 2008.
²⁸ USDA, ARS, “Questions and Answers: Colony Collapse Disorder,” January 2008, at
[ ht t p: / / www.ar s.usda.gov/ News/ docs.ht m? doci d=15572] .

wax, food stores, and/or bees, including acute or cumulative exposure to new types
of agricultural pesticides as well as exposure to chemicals that beekeepers use to
control mites; and a combination of these and/or other factors.²⁹
In July 2007, USDA reported that theories about the causes of CCD were
focused on increased losses due to the Varroa mite; new or emerging diseases,
especially mortality by a new species of a single-celled parasite Nosema ceranae;
pesticide exposure; and potential immune-suppressing stress on bees due to one or
a combination of these factors.³⁰ In September 2007, a research team that included
USDA published the results of a genetic screening of CCD-affected honey bee
colonies and non-CCD-affected hives.³¹ The only pathogen found in nearly all
samples (96.1%) from CCD-affected colonies, but not in non-CCD colonies, was the
Israeli acute paralysis virus (IAPV), a dicistrovirus that can be transmitted by the
Varroa mite.³² USDA considers this research to have identified IAPV as a marker
of CCD, since it is found in affected bees, but not to have identified IAPV as the
cause of CCD; however, this research indicates there is a strong correlation of the
appearance of IAPV and CCD together.³³
Early on, researchers had tentatively removed some practices and conditions
from the list of possible causes of CCD. These included feeding practices, chemicals
used by beekeepers (such as antibiotics and miticides), use of bees (primarily for
honey production versus pollination), and queen source.³⁴ However, the scientists
researching this phenomenon note that these could contribute to the risk of bee
colonies developing CCD. Some scientists also wonder whether a combination of
the stressors, including mites, disease, and nutritional stress, are interacting to
weaken bee colonies and are allowing stress-related pathogens, such as fungi, thus
causing a final collapse.³⁵ Others note the possible role of miticide resistance in bees.

²⁹ Published interview with Maryann Frazier, Penn State University, January 28, 2007, at
[http://podcasts.psu.edu/taxonomy/term/62]; and MAAREC, “Colony Collapse Disorder,”
at [http://maarec.cas.psu.edu/FAQ/FAQCCD.pdf].
³⁰ USDA, CCD Steering Committee, “Colony Collapse Disorder Action Plan,” June 20,

2007, at [http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/br/ccd/ccd_actionplan.pdf].

³¹ D. L. Cox-Foster et al., “A Metagenomic Survey of Microbes in Honey Bee Colony
Collapse Disorder,” Science, September 6, 2007, at [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/
abstract/318/5848/283].
³² USDA, ARS, “Questions and Answers: Colony Collapse Disorder,” January 2008, at
[http://www.ars.usda.gov/News/docs.htm?docid=15572]. The study also found IAPV in
honey bees from Australia that had been imported into the United States, as well as in royal
jelly imported from China. Further studies challenge the idea that IAPV is a recent
introduction from imported bees.
³³ USDA press release, “Genetic Survey Finds Association Between CCD and Virus,”
September 6, 2007, at [http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2007/070906.htm].
³⁴ Most queens are purchased from suppliers in Florida, California, Texas, Georgia, and
Hawaii, or from suppliers in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
³⁵ D. Cox Foster, Pennsylvania State University, Statement before the Subcommittee on
Horticulture and Organic Agriculture, U.S. House of Representative, March 29, 2007, at
(continued...)

High levels of bacteria, viruses, and fungi have been found in the guts of the
recoverable dead bees. Early evidence does suggest the possible presence of a
pathogen, given that some bee colonies have recovered once their bee boxes were
irradiated.³⁶ Researchers have found the fungus Nosema ceranae and other
pathogens such as chalkbrood in some affected hives throughout the country.³⁷ Some
researchers have speculated that these high infection levels may be compromising the
immune system of the honey bees, resulting in immune deficiencies in bees that may
be among the possible causes for bee mortalities and disappearance.³⁸
Others have speculated that because most of the reported colony losses are
among large commercial migratory operations, which may move bees two to five
times during a growing season, the current disorder may be the result of accumulated
stress, and factors such as confinement and temperature fluctuations. These stresses
may increase the colony’s susceptibility to disease and may also increase its potential
exposure to other diseases and parasites.³⁹ A 10% die-off is not uncommon
following transportation, with losses of 30% possible.
Of the possible causes of CCD being examined, one that has become the subject
of debate is whether certain chemicals or combinations of chemicals could be
contributing to CCD, including some pesticides and possibly some fungicides. One
class of insecticide being studied are neonicotinoids, which contain the active
ingredient imidacloprid, and similar other chemicals, such as clothianidin and
thiamethoxam. Honey bees are thought possibly to be affected by such chemicals,
which are known to work their way through the plant up into the flowers and leave
residues in the nectar and pollen (which is the food for young, developing bees). The
scientists studying CCD have tested samples of pollen and have indicated findings

³⁵ (...continued)
[http://agr iculture.house.gov/testimony/110/h70329/CoxFoster.pdf].
³⁶ K. Ramanujan, “Parasites, pathogens and pesticides called possible suspects in honeybee
decimation,” Cornell Chronicle, Cornell University, May 17, 2007, at [http://
www.news.cornell.edu/ Chronicle/07/05_17_07.pdf].
³⁷ C. Henderson, L. Tarver, D. Plummer, R. Seccomb, S. Debnam, S. Rice, J. Bromenshenk,
and J. Glassy, “U.S. National Bee Colony Loss Survey, Preliminary Findings with Respect
to Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD),” March 26, 2007, at [http://www.beealert.info/].
³⁸ D. Cox Foster, Pennsylvania State University, and C. Rexrod, USDA’s ARS, Statement
before the Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture, U.S. House of
Representatives, March 29, 2007, at [http://agriculture.house.gov/testimony/110/h70329/
CoxFoster.pdf] and [http://agriculture.house.gov/testimony/110/h70329/Rexroad.pdf]; and
published interview with Jerry Hayes, Florida’s Department of Agriculture, Apiary Section,
March 2, 2007, at [http://www.loe.org].
³⁹ D. vanEngelsdorp et al., “Fall Dwindle Disease: Investigations into the Causes of Sudden
and Alarming Colony Losses Experienced by Beekeepers in the Fall of 2006,” December
15, 2006; C. Rexrod, USDA’s ARS, Statement before the Subcommittee on Horticulture and
Organic Agriculture, U.S. House of Representative, March 29, 2007, at [http://agriculture.
house.gov/testimony/110/h70329/Rexroad.pdf].

of a broad range of substances, including insecticides, fungicides, and herbicides.⁴⁰
These scientists note that the doses taken up by bees are not lethal, but they are
concerned about possible chronic problems caused by long-term exposure. As noted
by the NRC, some studies report sublethal effects of pesticides on bee foraging
behavior that may impair the navigational and foraging abilities of honey bees.⁴¹
Concerns about imidacloprid, as reported by beekeeping associations in the
United Kingdom and France⁴² and by some U.S. beekeepers,⁴³ have focused on its
potential to affect complex behaviors in insects, including flight, navigation,
olfactory memory, recruitment, foraging, and coordination. However, the NRC and
some scientists who study CCD note there is conflicting information about the effect
of these pesticides on honey bees. Still, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
has identified some of these chemicals as highly toxic to honey bees,⁴⁴ and use of
some of these pesticides has reportedly been discontinued in parts of Europe because
of their potential effects on pollinators.⁴⁵ However, bee colony losses are also
occurring in Europe, where these chemicals are reportedly no longer used. In the
United States, the Organic Consumers Association reports that bee colony losses are
not occurring at organic beekeeping operations.⁴⁶
Other reported theories include the effects of shifting spring blooms and earlier
nectar flow associated with broader global climate and temperature changes,⁴⁷ the
effects of feed supplements that are produced from transgenic or genetically modified

⁴⁰ S. Williams, “The Case of the Missing Bees,” Penn State Agriculture Magazine,
Winter/Spring 2008, available at [http://aginfo.psu.edu/psa/08WinSpr/bees.html].
⁴¹ National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Status of Pollinators in North
America, 2006.
⁴² Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, “Imidacloprid, Fact Sheet,” Journal
of Pesticide Reform, Spring 2001, at [http://www.pesticide.org/imidacloprid.pdf];
Apiculteurs de France, “Composite Document of Present Position Relating to Gaucho,
Sunflower and Bees, at [http://www.beekeeping.com/articles/us/gaucho/manifestation_
paris_us.htm].
⁴³ Joe Cummins, “Neoniccotinoid insecticides used in seed dressing may be responsible for
the collapse of honeybee colonies,” April 24, 2007, at [http://www.organicconsumers.org/
articles/article_4972.cfm].
⁴⁴ For example, see EPA’s fact sheet on clothianiden, issued May 3002, at [http://www.epa.
gov/ opprd001/factsheets/clothianidin.pdf].
⁴⁵ D. vanEngelsdorp et al., “Fall Dwindle Disease: Investigations into the Causes of Sudden
and Alarming Colony Losses Experienced by Beekeepers in the Fall of 2006,” December

15, 2006; published interview with Jerry Hayes, Florida’s Department of Agriculture,

Apiary Section, March 2, 2007, at [http://www.loe.org].
⁴⁶ Organic Consumers Association, “Honey Bee Health & Colony Collapse Disorder,”at
[http://www.orga nicconsumers.org/ bees.cfm].
⁴⁷ W. Esaias, “Honey Bees, Satellites and Climate Change,” presentation at the Library of
Congress, April 3, 2007.

crops, such as high-fructose corn syrup,⁴⁸ and also the effects of cell phone
transmissions and radiation from power lines that may be interfering with a bee’s
navigational capabilities.⁴⁹ The contributions of these possible factors have not been
substantiated by evidence examined by the key researchers of this issue.⁵⁰
USDA’s CCD Action Plan
USDA released its action plan for addressing CDC in July 2007. USDA’s
action plan focuses on improving coordination and redirecting existing resources and
research for mitigation and prevention, including education and outreach, as well as
expanding research and diagnostic resources to prevent future losses, working with
the land grant universities. It also coordinates activities across three USDA agencies:
Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS), and Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
(CSREES). USDA’s focus on expanded research is consistent with the approach
taken in the most recently introduced Congressional bills and with recommendations
by the American Honey Producers Association and the American Beekeeping
Federation.⁵¹
Under the plan, USDA will (1) conduct surveys and collect data on bee health;
(2) analyze bee samples for pests, disease-causing pathogens, pesticide exposure, and
other factors; (3) conduct controlled experiments to identify factors affecting bee
health, including potential causes of colony collapses; and (4) develop best
management practices and guidelines to improve the general bee health and reduce
their susceptibility to colony collapses and other disorders, among both honey bees
and non-Apis bees.⁵² Aspects of USDA’s action plan were presented at a hearing
before the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans of the House Committee
on Natural Resources in June 2007.⁵³

⁴⁸ See, for example, Louise A. Malone and Minh-Hà Pham-Delègue, “Effects of transgene
products on honey bees (Apis mellifera) and bumblebees (Bombus sp.),” Apidologie, 32,
2001, at [http://www.hortresearch.co.nz/files/science/gmimpacts/m1403malone.pdf]; also
research conducted by Hans-Hinrich Kaatz, University of Halle, Germany, cited at
[ h t t p : / / www.si er r acl ub.or g/ biot ech/ r ef er ences.asp] .
⁴⁹ Reportedly, this theory originated with initial research conducted in 2003 by J. Khun and
H. Stever of Landau University in Germany.
⁵⁰ Statements and expert testimony at a public hearing of the U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture, March 29, 2007.
⁵¹ R. Addee, American Honey Producers Association, Statement before the Subcommittee
on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture, House Committee on Agriculture, March 29, 2007,
at [http://agriculture.house.gov/testimony/110/h70329/Adee.pdf]; D. Weaver, American
Beekeeping Federation, Inc., Statement before the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and
Oceans, House Committee on Natural Resources, June 26th, 2007, at [http://resources
committee.house.gov/images/Documents/20070626/testimony_weaver.pdf].
⁵² USDA, CCD Steering Committee, “Colony Collapse Disorder Action Plan,” June 20,

2007, at [http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/br/ccd/ccd_actionplan.pdf].

⁵³ K. Hackett, USDA, Statement before the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and
(continued...)

Funding for honey bee and CCD research at USDA’s ARS averaged more than
$7.7 million annually in FY2007 and FY2008. Proposed funding for FY2009 is $8.6
million. ARS also has an “Area-wide Project on Bee Health,” which consists of
temporary funding of $670,000 in FY2008 and will continue for at least four
additional years at approximately $1 million per year.⁵⁴ Additional funding is
available to USDA’s CSREES, and includes combined research on honey bees,
funding specific to CCD and bee health, and funding for various research labs and
grants. Recently, emerging issues grants were awarded to Penn State University and
the University of Georgia to study the effects of pesticides, pathogens, and miticides
on pollinator populations.⁵⁵
Issues for Congress
In March 2007, the House Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic
Agriculture held a hearing to review the recent honey bee colony declines reported
throughout the United States. In June 2007, the Subcommittee on Fisheries,
Wildlife, and Oceans of the House Committee on Natural Resources held a hearing
on the role of pollinators in ecosystem health, which also addressed concerns about
bee colony declines. In April 2008, Chairwoman Barbara Boxer and other members
of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hosted a briefing on
pollinators and their role in agricultural security.
Policy options discussed at these congressional hearings and briefings have
focused on the need for increased federal funding for multi-disciplinary research and
monitoring to document changes in pollination reserves, as well as additional
technical support and assistance for beekeepers. Additional research funding would
help support USDA’s research efforts and those at its laboratories located in Arizona,
Louisiana, Maryland, Texas, and Utah.⁵⁶ Other recommended options include
expanding crop insurance to include beekeepers and honey producers; providing a
one-time payment for incurred losses; improving existing USDA conservation
programs to better prevent habitat loss and sustain wildlife populations; emphasizing
the importance of pollinator diversity and sustaining wild and native pollinator
species; developing or improving existing federal and state best management
practices for beekeepers; improving regulatory enforcement to prevent misuse of
agricultural chemicals; and continuing the current marketing loan program for honey.

⁵³ (...continued)
Oceans, House Committee on Natural Resources, June 26th, 2007, at [http://resources
committee.house.gov/images/Documents/20070626/testimony_hackett.pdf].
⁵⁴ CRS communication with ARS staff, April 8, 2008. The Conference Report of the 2008
Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-161) identified CCD as an area that USDA is
encouraged to take appropriate actions, using available resources.
⁵⁵ Jeff Pettis, “Colony Collapse Disorder Affecting Honey Bee (Apis mellifera) colonies,”
presentation to Senate Environment and Public Works committee staff, April 9, 2008.
⁵⁶ Recent reports suggest that the University of California at Davis is revitalizing its honey
bee research program by hiring a nee breeder and geneticist and renovating the biology
facility. See “News Briefs,” AgriPulse, Vol. 3, Number 20, May 16, 2007.

On May 22, 2008, Congress enacted the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-234). The
enacted bill contains provisions that would, among other things, provide additional
funding for research and conservation programs addressing honey bees and
pollinators. The bill reflects provisions that were included in both the House- and
Senate-passed versions of the farm bill, which provided for honey bees and
pollinators as part of their conservation, specialty crop, research, and miscellaneous
title provisions. Below is a summary of these provisions.
The conservation title of the 2008 farm bill includes language that broadly
encourages habitat development and protection among the administrative
requirements for native and managed pollinators under USDA’s conservation
programs (Section 2708) and ensures that USDA’s conservation technical assistance
includes standards that account for native and managed pollinators (Section 2706).
The inclusion of these provisions could broaden the focus of USDA’s farm
conservation programs to include pollinator habitats and habitat improvement among
the goals of these programs, as well as require USDA to review its conservation
practice standards with respect to managed and native pollinators.
In addition, the research title of the 2008 farm bill identifies pollinator
protection among its so-called high-priority research and extension areas (Section
7204). This provision provides for research and extension grants (1) to survey and
collect data on bee colony production and health; (2) to investigate pollinator
biology, immunology, ecology, genomics, and bioinformatics; (3) to conduct research
on various factors that may be contributing to or associated with colony collapse
disorder and other serious threats to the health of honey bees and other pollinators,
including parasites and pathogens of pollinators, and the sublethal effects of
insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides on honey bees and native and managed
pollinators; (4) to develop mitigative and preventative measures to improve native
and managed pollinator health; and (5) to promote the health of honey bees and
native pollinators through habitat conservation and best management practices. For
this provision, the 2008 farm bill authorizes appropriations for grants at $10 million
annually for FY2008-FY2012.
The research title provisions also directs USDA to increase its capacity and
infrastructure to address colony collapse disorder and other long-term threats to
pollinator health (including hiring additional personnel) and to conduct research on
colony collapse disorder and other pollinator issues at USDA’s facilities. Annual
appropriations are authorized at $7.25 million (FY2008-2012), with another $2.75
million annually (FY2008-2012) for honey bee pest and pathogen surveillance. The
2008 farm bill also directs USDA to submit an annual report to Congress on its
response to Colony Collapse Disorder, indicating that the report should investigate
the cause(s) of honey bee colony collapse and recommend appropriate strategies to
reduce colony loss.
Additional provisions in the 2008 farm bill supporting pollinators are provided
for in the enacted bill’s crop insurance and other disaster assistance provisions. One
such provision identifies honey farms as possible beneficiaries of the bill’s
supplemental agricultural disaster assistance (Section 12033); another provision
provides contracts for additional policies and studies to carry out research and
development regarding insurance policies that cover loss of bees (Section 12023).

The enacted bill also contains provisions that generally support honey production.
These include, for example, provisions pertaining to the National Honey Board
(Section 10401-10402); provisions covering rates for marketing assistance loans for
certain commodities, including honey (Section 1202); and other provisions covering
certain nutrition title provisions (such as Section 4231).