1509© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Entomological Society of America. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com Apiculture and Social Insects Pollen Collection, Honey Production, and Pollination Services: Managing Honey Bees in an Agricultural Setting Shelley E. Hoover1 and Lynae P. Ovinge Alberta Agriculture and Forestry, Lethbridge Research Centre, 5401-1 Avenue South, Lethbridge, AB T1J 4V6, Canada and 1Corresponding author, e-mail: shelley.hoover@gov.ab.ca Subject Editor: James Strange Received 15 November 2017; Editorial decision 13 April 2018 Abstract Hybrid canola seed production is an important pollination market in Canada; typically both honey bees (Apis mellifera L. (Hymenoptera: Apidae)) and Alfalfa Leafcutting bees (Megachile rotundata Fab. (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae)) are concurrently managed to ensure pollination in this high-value crop. Beekeepers are paid to provide pollination services, and the colonies also produce a honey crop from the canola. Pollen availability from male-fertile plants is carefully managed in this crop to provide an abundance of pollen to fertilize male-sterile (‘female’) plants. This abundance of pollen represents an underutilized resource for beekeepers, and an opportunity to diversify the hive-products produced for market in this management system. We used a commercial-style pollen trap to collect pollen from colonies twice weekly for the duration of canola pollination, and compared the honey production and amount of sealed brood in colonies with pollen traps to those without pollen traps. We found that while pollen trapping reduced honey production, there was no negative impact on brood production, and at current market prices, the per-hive revenue was higher in colonies from which pollen was trapped. Pollen trapping honey bee colonies in the context of hybrid canola pollination, therefore, offers beekeepers an opportunity to diversify their products and increase their revenue. Key words: pollen trapping, pollen collection, honey production, honey bee management, pollination In addition to water, honey bees gather two foods; nectar is converted to honey and acts as a source of carbohydrates, while pollen satis- fies the need of the colony for protein, minerals, and fats (Winston 1987). Nutritionally, pollen is important not only for the produc- tion of brood food, but is also critical for newly emerged workers to fully develop tissues such as the hypopharyngeal gland and fat body (Haydak 1970, Fluri and Bogdanov 1987, Hrassnigg and Crailsheim 1998, Keller 2005a) required for brood-rearing and overwintering. In adult workers, pollen consumption is dependent on the age and behavioral tasks performed by workers, with nurse bees that are actively engaged in brood-rearing and feeding the queen consuming relatively large amounts of pollen (Hrassnigg and Crailsheim 1998). Honey bee colonies do not maintain a large amount of stored pollen, rather they actively regulate the amount of pollen in the colony according to their current need. Fewell and Winston (1992, 1996) demonstrated that in contrast to nectar foraging, which is largely controlled by avail- ability, pollen foraging behavior in honey bees is very sensitive to colony state, in particular, the amount of uncapped brood (eggs and larvae) rela- tive to pollen stores. The presence of eggs and larvae stimulate pollen foraging (Free 1967), in particular, the presence of older larvae is highly stimulatory to pollen collection (Hellmich and Rothenbuhler 1986). Colonies manipulated by experimenters or beekeepers to have low pollen stores respond primarily by increasing the foraging effort of individual workers (intensity and load size) (see also Eckert et al. 1994), but also secondarily by changing the choices made by forag- ing bees (pollen vs. nectar or water, see also Free 1967, Camazine 1993, Dreller et al. 1999, Pernal and Currie 2001) and the recruit- ment of previously inactive foragers (Fewell and Bertram 1999, Anderson 2001). Fewell and Winston (1992) suggest that there is a ‘set point’ around which honey bee colonies regulate pollen levels; too little incoming pollen would limit the colony’s ability to rear brood, too much is unnecessary expenditure of foraging energy. Ultimately, the ability of the colony to rear adequate amounts of brood determines the population of adult bees and probability of colony survival; therefore, any restriction to the amount of pollen brought into a colony can have dramatic consequences on colony survival, particularly overwintering success in temperate climates. In commercially managed honey bee hives, pollen can be eas- ily collected from returning foragers through the use of pollen ‘traps’. These traps are placed either in front of or underneath the hive entrance, and returning foragers are required to walk through a metal or plastic mesh to enter the hive. The mesh is specifically sized such that the foragers can get through it, but large corbicu- lar pollen loads are scraped off the bees’ legs and into a collection tray (e.g., GOA 1985, BC Ministry of Agriculture & Lands 2006). These traps are used by beekeepers when there is an abundance of Journal of Economic Entomology, 111(4), 2018, 1509–1516 doi: 10.1093/jee/toy125 Advance Access Publication Date: 9 May 2018 Research Article D ow nloaded from https://academ ic.oup.com /jee/article/111/4/1509/4994242 by Agriculture and Agri-Food C anada (O ttaw a) user on 25 April 2023 http://www.oxfordjournals.org/ mailto:shelley.hoover@gov.ab.ca?subject= pollen to collect pollen either for sale or to feed their bees during periods of pollen dearth, or more recently to sell to the managed bumble bee industry to feed commercial bumble bee colonies. They are not typically used by beekeepers who are being paid to pollinate crops in Alberta. While a large amount of pollen can be collected this way, some pollen still enters the colony as traps are typically only 3–43% efficient at trapping incoming pollen (Duff and Furgala 1986b, Keller et al. 2005b). The efficiency of a trap depends on trap style and manufacture, bee size, pollen load size, and hive equipment. Small corbicular loads may not be scraped off the forager’s legs, and any holes in the equipment may allow the bees another (non- trapped) entry to the comb. In addition, reducing the pollen income of a colony results in increased foraging effort (Camazine 1993). This allows some pollen to enter the hive, ensuring continued brood- rearing. However, depending on the type of trap, hive equipment, pollen supply, and the duration of trapping, reducing the colony pol- len income via trapping can have unintended negative consequences on the ability of the colony to rear brood, and ultimately to survive. Long-term pollen trapping can have negative consequences on honey and wax production (Moriya 1966, Lavie 1967, Katsanov and Petkova 1975, Duff and Furgala 1986b), brood-rearing, adult population (Moeller 1977, Webster et  al. 1985, Duff and Furgala 1986a), and in some cases, disease levels and colony survival (McLellan 1974, Moeller 1977). Even short-term pollen dearth, when severe, can lead to cannibalism of young larvae and a shorten- ing of larval development time (Schmickl and Crailsheim 2001), and the effects of pollen limitation on brood development can be meas- ured for multiple generations (Dustmann and Ohe 1988). However, these effects are not always observed, particularly when traps are placed for a short period of time, or used intermittently (Rybhakov 1961, Lavie and Fresnaye 1963, Lavie 1967, Barker 1971, van Laere and Martens 1971, Goodman 1974, Katsanov and Petkova 1975, Duff and Furgala 1986a, Nelson et al 1987). The Prairie Provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan are the largest honey producers in Canada. Production far exceeds consumption, and beekeepers in the region primarily sell their honey in bulk, to packers in Alberta and other regions of Canada as well as to export markets, notably the United States and Japan. Beekeepers in Alberta sell an estimated 94% of their honey through bulk sales (Laate 2017) as opposed to direct to consumer sales or retail pack- ages. The price of bulk honey fluctuates with international pro- duction, and from 2007 to 2017 ranged between $0.98 and 2.25 CDN per lb ($2.16–4.95 per kg; Laate 2017). Alberta accounts for 42–45% of honey production in Canada and 43% of national production is exported rather than being consumed domestically (Statistics Canada 2016). Annually, 55,000–75,000 honey bee colonies are rented to pollin- ate hybrid canola seed production fields in southern Alberta (Figs. 1 and 2). These fields are carefully managed to produce an abundance of pollen to ensure adequate seed set of this high-value crop. As seed canola pollination takes place primarily in mid-summer (end of June to the beginning of August), these colonies are typically very large, double brood chamber colonies that produce a honey crop while in pollin- ation, despite a high stocking rate (1–1.5 hives per acre). In addition to quantity, the quality of pollen in this crop is also high. Canola pollen is high in fat, has sufficient protein and the required amino acids for suc- cessful brood rearing, and is highly attractive to honey bees (Somerville 2002). As a result, the abundance of quality pollen is a boon to the colonies, which typically grow their populations while on this crop. This abundance of pollen is also a potential resource for bee- keepers, who can collect it for resale or to feed their colonies during subsequent periods of pollen dearth. While some previous research has demonstrated negative effects of prolonged pollen trapping on brood production, we predicted no negative effect of short-term trapping during canola pollination. Here we investigate whether beekeepers paid to provide pollination services in seed canola pro- duction systems could increase their revenue by collecting pollen, without detrimental effects on their colonies. Methods and Materials We identified 40 queenright double brood-chamber colonies (colonies with a mated, laying queen, each with two boxes containing brood and two additional boxes of comb for honey collection as per indus- try standards on this crop) in each of three hybrid canola seed produc- tion fields (total n = 120 colonies) near Burdett, AB (49°49′44.4″N 111°31′03.9″W) on 4–7 July. Each field was stocked with a total of 160 honey bee colonies, and approximately two gallons of Alfalfa Leafcutting bees per acre (3.1 liters per hectare). All fields were irri- gated and approximately 49 hectares (120 acres) in size. Each hive was marked with a unique numbered tag, and an ini- tial assessment of brood population was conducted 4–7 July 2016, within a week of the hives being moved to the crop. For this initial assessment, the total amount of sealed brood in each colony was assessed by taking a photo of each side of each frame containing brood, and subsequently analyzed with HoneyBee Complete (WSC Regexperts, version 4.2) software. The brood population for all col- onies was assessed when the colonies were first brought into pollin- ation (4–7 July 2016), then again shortly before they were removed from the field (25–28 July 2016). Between these two assessment periods, we placed pollen traps on 20 double brood chamber hives per field (total n = 60 trapped colonies), dispersed amongst the un- trapped hives. We placed the pollen traps on all four hives on each of five pallets, in an alternating manner with pallets of un-trapped hives. We used bottom mounting ‘OAC’ (Ontario Agricultural College)-style pollen traps (BC Ministry of Agriculture and Lands 2006), with a front entrance, and an absorbent liner in the collec- tion tray to reduce the amount of moisture in the collected pollen samples. We collected the pollen twice weekly throughout the period (approximately 3 wk) the colonies were on the field. We then dried and weighed all the pollen collected. We dried the pollen by placing them in organza wedding-favor bags with color-changing silica gel Fig. 1. The dot indicates the location of the study sites, three hybrid canola seed production fields near Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada (Nearctic-Ecozone Western Canada by CarolSpears is licensed under CC by-SA 3.0). Journal of Economic Entomology, 2018, Vol. 111, No. 41510 D ow nloaded from https://academ ic.oup.com /jee/article/111/4/1509/4994242 by Agriculture and Agri-Food C anada (O ttaw a) user on 25 April 2023 beads. We repeatedly changed the beads until they no longer changed color, indicating that the pollen was dry. We also recorded the honey production for each of the 120 colonies over the same time period by recording the weight of each honey super (box containing comb used to store honey) at both the initial and final hive assessments, and subtracting the initial weight of each super from its weight at the end of the study. Statistical Analyses All statistical analyses were performed using JMP 13 (JMP, Version 13 SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, 1989–2007). Separate factorial ANOVAs were conducted to compare the main effects of site and pollen trapping, and their interaction on honey production and change in sealed brood population (final–initial measurement), with Tukey’s HSD post-hoc analyses (α = 0.05) where appropriate. A paired t-test was used to compare the sealed brood population of the colonies at the two different time points. ANOVA was also used to compare the initial brood population across sites, with Tukey’s HSD post-hoc analyses (α = 0.05). The relationship between sealed brood and honey production was examined with linear regression, as were the relationships between initial brood and honey produc- tion, and pollen production and honey production. Finally, differ- ences in pollen production across sites were examined using ANOVA with Tukey’s HSD post-hoc analyses (α = 0.05). Results Colonies that became queenless over the duration of the experiment (four trapped and two untrapped were excluded from subsequent analyses. Sealed Brood Despite previous reports of negative impacts on brood production associated with prolonged pollen trapping, short-term trapping dur- ing an abundant pollen flow had no impact on brood production, whereas apiary did (factorial ANOVA with factors: trap, apiary site, and trap*apiary site on change in sealed brood from initial to final measurement; FTRAP 1,114 = 0.23, P = 0.64; Fsite 2,114 = 4.80, P < 0.01; FTRAP*site 12,114  =  0.03, P  =  0.97). Colonies at site ‘92’ increased in sealed brood area less than colonies at the other two sites (api- ary ‘92’ x  = 1,946 ± 825 cell increase [mean ± 1 SE], apiary ‘84’ x  = 4,917 ± 533 cell increase, apiary ‘83’ x  = 2,853 ± 689 cell increase). Both trapped and un-trapped colonies increased the amount of sealed brood per colony (paired t-test between time points, T1,114 = 7.930, P < 0.0001) (Fig. 3). The experimental colonies had approximately 14,000 sealed brood cells at the initial assessment (initial trapped x  = 13,955 ± 486 [mean ± 1 SE] cells, initial un-trapped x   =  13,749  ±  579 cells), increasing in size while used for canola pollination to approximately 17,000 sealed brood cells (final trapped x   = 17,027 ± 454 cells, final un-trapped x  = 17,137 ± 472 cells). This represents a growth in brood of circa 1,000 cells per week regardless of pollen collec- tion, demonstrating that brood production was not pollen-limited in the colonies from which we collected pollen. There was a sig- nificant effect of site on the initial amount of unsealed brood in the colonies, with field site ‘92’ having more brood initially per colony ( x  = 15,896 ± 623 cells) than sites ‘84’ ( x  = 12,790 ± 615 cells) or ‘83’ ( x  = 12,885 ± 623 cells) (F2,114 = 8.08, P = 0.0005, Tukey’s HSD α < 0.05). As this site difference was present at the initial col- ony assessment, it represents a difference among the colonies due to the source apiaries rather than the pollination sites. Honey Production In contrast, honey production was negatively impacted either by the physical addition of the pollen traps themselves, perhaps by slowing down foragers returning to the colony or by the removal of pol- len which led to a colony-level requirement for additional pollen foraging (ANOVA on site, trap, and site*trap; FTRAP 1,114  =  12.05, P = 0.0007) (Fig. 4). There was also a significant effect of site on honey production (Fsite 2,114  =  16.02, P  <  0.0001), with one of the Fig. 2. Photograph of a typical layout of a canola seed production field, showing honey bee colonies on the field edge, and leafcutting bee shelters (orange and green tents) within the crop. Visible are the wide bays containing male-sterile (female) plants, and the narrower, pollen-bearing male bays. Both male and female plants offer nectar as a floral reward, whereas only the male plants offer pollen. Male bays may be mowed to induce re-flowering. Journal of Economic Entomology, 2018, Vol. 111, No. 4 1511 D ow nloaded from https://academ ic.oup.com /jee/article/111/4/1509/4994242 by Agriculture and Agri-Food C anada (O ttaw a) user on 25 April 2023 three apiaries producing significantly less honey than the other two (Tukey’s HSD α < 0.05; ‘83’ x  = 9.26 kg vs. ‘84’ x  = 16.13 kg and ‘92’ x = 21.03 kg). There was no interaction between site and trap- ping (Fsite*trap 1,114 = 0.45, P = 0.64). Across all colonies, those with more sealed brood initially collected more honey (linear regression Rinitialbrood 212 0= . , t1,114 = 5.43, P < 0.0001, honey = −0.84 + 0.001 * brood). Cumulative honey production over the 3-wk period decreased from a mean of 18.30 ± 1.36 kg among untrapped colonies to only 12.41 ± 1.32 kg from colonies fitted with pollen traps, representing a loss of 5.89 kg per colony. This 32.19% decrease represents an eco- nomic loss to the beekeeper valued at that time at $17.91 CDN for bulk sales ($3.04 CDN/kg × 5.89 kg = $17.91; Laate 2017), $46.47 CDN for consumer pack sales ($7.89 CDN/kg × 5.89 kg = $46.47; Laate 2017), or $97.19 CDN for direct (e.g., farmers’ market) sales ($16.50 CDN/kg × 5.89 kg = $97.19; Lethbridge Farmer’s market, July 2016 mean price = $16.50/kg, range $13–20 per kg) (Table 1). Pollen Collection and Revenue As with honey production, there was a significant difference in the amount of pollen collected in the traps among sites, with one site pro- ducing more pollen than the other two (site ‘92’ x = 2,536 g vs. site ‘84’ x = 1,546 g and site ‘83’ x = 1,339 g) (F2,54 = 9.07, P < 0.0004; Tukey’s HSD α < 0.05). Interestingly, the site (‘92’) that produced the most honey was also the site that produced the most pollen, likely due to the colonies at that site having had the most brood at the out- set of the project; colonies with more brood at the initial assessment produced more pollen (R2 = 0.17, t1,54 = 3.30, P = 0.0018, weight pollen = 157.62 + 0.1179 * initial brood). We found a positive correlation between honey production and pollen production (R2 = 0.134, t1,54 = 2.87, P = 0.006; dry weight pollen = 1324.07 + 38.5 * honey) (Fig. 5), a relationship likely based on colony population, with larger colonies having a larger foraging force and greater demands for feeding brood. We collected an average of 1,802  ±  139  g cleaned, dried pol- len per colony during the pollination period. At a market price of $30.86 per kg bulk and $99.21 at a local Farmer’s market for clean, dried pollen, this represents $55.61 CDN in bulk sales or $178.78 CDN in direct pollen sales (Table 1). For bulk sales of fresh pollen to commercial pollen buyers with their own pollen cleaning lines, this would generate a revenue of $39.20 per hive. Overall, the per hive revenue was larger from pollen-trapped colonies than untrapped colonies because of the high value of pollen relative to honey, and the large amounts of pollen collected from this crop (Tables 1 and 2). This was particularly true for bulk sales, which saw a 68% increase in revenue (38% for fresh pollen) with pollen trapping (Table  1), Table 1. Total revenue per hive across all hives ($CDN) with and without pollen trapping Honey (kg) Price (/kg) Revenue Pollen (kg) Price (/kg) Revenue Total revenue per hive % Increase in revenue Bulk pricing Trap (pollen cleaned and dried) 12.41 3.04 37.73 1.80 30.86 55.55 93.28 67.68 Trap (pollen sold fresh)a 12.41 3.04 37.73 2.16* 18.15 39.20 76.93 38.29 No trap 18.30 3.04 55.63 — — — 55.63 Direct sales Trap 12.41 16.50 204.77 1.80 99.21 178.58 383.35 26.96 No trap 18.30 16.50 301.95 — — — 301.95 aEstimated, as 15–25% loss in weight is typically associated with cleaning and drying pollen. Fig. 3. There was no effect of pollen trapping on the amount of sealed brood in pollen trapped (light gray) versus untrapped (dark gray) colonies over the duration of canola seed pollination. Both trapped and untrapped colonies increased in the amount of sealed brood per colony between the initial and final assessments. For each box, the lowest part of the shaded box represents the 25th percentile, the solid line is the median, the dashed line is the mean, and the top of the shaded box is the 75th percentile. Whiskers represent 5th/ 95th percentile, and dots represent outliers. Fig.  4. The placement of pollen traps and active collection of pollen significantly reduced the honey production of trapped colonies (light gray) compared to those with no trap (dark gray). For each box, the lowest part of the shaded box represents the 25th percentile, the solid line is the median, the dashed line is the mean, and the top of the shaded box is the 75th percentile. Whiskers represent 5th/ 95th percentile, and dots represent outliers. Journal of Economic Entomology, 2018, Vol. 111, No. 41512 D ow nloaded from https://academ ic.oup.com /jee/article/111/4/1509/4994242 by Agriculture and Agri-Food C anada (O ttaw a) user on 25 April 2023 versus 27% for direct sales. Beekeepers could realize even larger rev- enue increases if they focused on pollen collection from only high producing colonies. If we examine the potential revenue generation from the mean of the top 10 pollen producing colonies (18% of trapped colonies, Table 2), pollen trapping resulted in a 92% increase in revenue for bulk sales and a 41% increase for direct sales revenue. Because of the positive correlation between pollen and honey production, colonies that collected relatively little pollen usually also collected relatively little honey. Of the 55 colonies we trapped pollen from, only two (3.6%) would have generated more revenue from honey production alone rather than both honey and pollen produc- tion (assuming a 32.19% decrease in honey production associated with pollen trapping). However, the absolute value of the profits generated will depend on the costs associated with pollen collec- tion, which can vary substantially among beekeeping operations and whether the pollen is sold clean and dried or fresh and uncleaned. Individual colonies tended to be consistent in the relative amount of pollen they produced (Fig. 6A and B), such that colonies that were top producers on the first sampling date were likely to be highly ranked on subsequent dates. Colonies that produced little pollen on the first sampling date tended to remain poor producers. Beekeepers that collect pollen as a hive product should, therefore, focus their efforts on colonies that yield high amounts of pollen, as collecting pollen from poor yielding colonies may not be cost-effective when the reduction in honey and cost of collecting, cleaning, and drying pollen are included. Discussion While previous studies have found that long-term pollen trapping can have negative consequences on colony productivity, population, and even survival (Moriya 1966, Lavie 1967, Katsanov and Petkova 1975, McLellan 1974, Moeller 1977, Webster et al. 1985, Duff and Furgala 1986a), our study found no impact of short-term pollen trapping on brood production during a period of high pollen availability. This is important to establish because colonies without adequate pollen sup- ply can maintain brood rearing for only a short time (Brodschneider and Crailsheim 2010). First, workers consume stored bee bread, then nurse bees deplete their own bodily reserves to ensure the continued protein feeding of developing brood (Haydak 1935). Finally, without incoming pollen, even short-term pollen dearth can lead to a shorten- ing of larval development time and the cannibalism of young larvae (Schmickl and Crailsheim 2001). While cannibalized larvae can be used to supplement the protein status of the colony allowing remain- ing brood to be reared successfully, malnourished brood have been observed to have impairments such as malformations (Jay 1974), reduced life span, and smaller size (Eischen et al 1983, Daly et al. 1995, Brodschneider et al 2009). Finally, adult bees without access to adequate protein may also have decreased longevity (see discussion in Brodschneider and Crailsheim 2010), and decreased development of ovaries and hypopharyngeal glands (Pernal and Currie 2000, Hoover et al. 2006), thus impacting their ability to rear brood. Pollen depri- vation can, therefore, have long-term impacts on colony health and survival, effects that we did not observe with our short-term trapping during a period of abundant pollen. As we wished to examine the effects of pollen trapping on com- mercially managed honey bees, it is also important to identify any impacts to honey production, as that is the primary hive-product pro- duced by beekeepers in the region. Colonies used to pollinate canola produced an average of 40.3 kg (88.9 lbs) honey per colony (2014– 2016, n  =  880 colonies across 22 apiaries) whereas colonies used exclusively for honey production in the same region produce an aver- age of 24% more honey (2014–2016, n = 320 colonies across eight apiaries; Hoover and Ovinge, unpublished data). While beekeepers pollinating hybrid canola seed production fields are paid to provision each field with 120–160 hives, for a fee of $177 per colony in 2016 (Laate 2017), the income from honey production is a substantial por- tion of their revenue, and factors into their decision of whether to pollinate the crop or use their colonies solely for honey production. The value of this honey crop fluctuates with market prices and avail- ability in international markets and is primarily sold in bulk. Table 2. Total revenue per hive for top 10 pollen-producing hives ($CDN) with and without pollen trapping, for clean dry pollen Honey (kg) Price (/kg) Revenue Clean dry pollen (kg) Price (/kg) Revenue Total revenue per hive % Increase in revenue Bulk pricing Trap 19.83 3.04 60.28 3.57 30.86 110.17 170.45 91.75 No trap 29.24a 3.04 88.89 — — — 88.89 Direct sales Trap 19.83 16.50 327.20 3.57 99.21 354.18 681.38 41.29 No trap 29.24a 16.50 482.46 — — — 482.26 aCalculated by dividing the mean weight of honey produced by the top pollen producing colonies by 32.19% decrease in production with pollen trap- ping = (19.83 kg) / (1 − 0.3219) = 29.24 kg, as we could not measure the honey production of these specific colonies without pollen traps. Fig.  5. Colonies that produced more honey also tended to produce more pollen. Each dot represents one colony; blue shading represents 95% confidence interval of the prediction. Journal of Economic Entomology, 2018, Vol. 111, No. 4 1513 D ow nloaded from https://academ ic.oup.com /jee/article/111/4/1509/4994242 by Agriculture and Agri-Food C anada (O ttaw a) user on 25 April 2023 Pollen production allows beekeepers to diversify their sources of revenue, mitigating the effects of fluctuations in honey price as an international commodity, and enabling beekeepers with dir- ect sales to diversify their product range by selling pollen or other value-added products containing pollen. Our results (Tables 1 and 2) demonstrate that beekeepers can increase their revenue by 27–92% by collecting and selling pollen itself. The magnitude of the rev- enue increase depends on how the pollen is sold (bulk clean and dry [68%] vs. bulk fresh [38%], bulk clean and dry [68%] vs. direct sales clean and dry [27%]), as well as which colonies are trapped for pollen (all colonies [68%] vs. targeted high producers [92%]). In addition, value-added products such as soaps, lotions, cosmetics, and supplements could be produced with the collected pollen to fur- ther increase revenues. However, there is also a large variation in the costs associated with collecting, cleaning, and storing pollen, as well as in the production and sales of value-added products, specific to the management of individual beekeeping operations. We found an average of 5.89 kg reduction in honey production among colonies fitted with pollen traps. This could be due to the presence of the trap itself, physically impeding foragers. Alternately, the removal of some pollen from the incoming foragers may increase the need for pollen foragers, reducing the availability of foragers to collect nectar to produce honey. If the former is true, improvements to trap design to minimize the disruption of traffic at the colony entrance could significantly reduce the impact on colony-level honey production. Indeed previous studies have varied substantially in their findings regarding the magnitude of decrease in honey production caused by pollen trapping, with some studies in some years find- ing no effect, and others a substantial reduction in honey. However, even within a single study, using a single trap type, substantial vari- ation remains present. For example, in the Peace Region of Alberta, Nelson et al. (1987) found a significant reduction in honey produc- tion in only 1 year of a 3-yr pollen trapping study, with a reduction of 31.3% of honey production (79 vs. 115 kg). Despite this reduction, however, Nelson et al. (1987) found that in all 3 yr beekeepers would receive more revenue with pollen trapping than without (21–26% increase in revenue with pollen trapping compared to honey produc- tion alone). Duff and Furgala (1986b) found that full-time pollen trapping for the entire foraging season decreased honey production more than part-time pollen production (every other week), and that both treatments caused increased moisture levels in honey compared to un-trapped controls, thus affecting honey quality. Interestingly, they also found that colonies fitted with a trap that was not engaged (and therefore did not remove pollen) also had a reduction in honey production, suggesting that in part, the traps themselves act as a physical barrier to foraging. Pollen can either be fed back to bee colonies during periods of pollen dearth, such as early spring or late fall, used to rear other bee species, or sold for human consumption. Locally collected pollen is more expensive than either imported pollen or pollen substitutes for bee feed; however, the risks of introducing new pathogens or pesticides to a beekeeping operation is minimized with the use of locally collected pollen. Pollen for human consumption sells for a greater price; however, the market may become saturated more eas- ily than the market for honey and bumble bee feed. Regardless of the intended use, pollen must be cleaned before use and dried or frozen for storage. The costs of collecting pollen, as well as those of cleaning and storing it must also be considered. Targeting collection to colo- nies that are high producers, using deep collection trays to minimize the frequency of collection visits (McDonald 1980), and targeting times and areas with a pollen flow are critical to the profitability of pollen collection. In addition, colony size must be optimized, with large (25,000–40,000 adult worker bees) colonies with ample open brood yielding the most pollen (Moeller 1977) and honey. Beekeepers who are being paid to provide pollination services must also consider any effects of pollen trapping on the level of ser- vice provided. Pollination effectiveness, the percentage of flowers setting fruit, as well as the number of pollen grains deposited, is Fig. 6. (A) Colonies tend to be consistent in terms of the amount of pollen they collected per sampling date. The top 10 (black lines) and lowest 10 (red lines) pollen-producing colonies (of 58 total) as ranked on the first sampling date were reliably ranked relatively high or low on subsequent dates, with only a few exceptions. Dashed green line represents the mean weight of pollen collected per date. (B) Mean (dashed line) ± 2 SE (solid lines) for the top (black lines, n = 10), middle (grey lines, n = 38), poorest (red lines, n = 10) pollen-producing colonies. Note that the ±2 SE of the top producers does not overlap with lower producing colonies at any date. That is, the top performing group of colonies remains the top performing at all dates. Journal of Economic Entomology, 2018, Vol. 111, No. 41514 D ow nloaded from https://academ ic.oup.com /jee/article/111/4/1509/4994242 by Agriculture and Agri-Food C anada (O ttaw a) user on 25 April 2023 linked to the foraging behavior of visiting bees, which could poten- tially be affected by pollen trapping. In general, bees that are col- lecting pollen are more effective pollinators than bees foraging only for nectar (e.g., Bosch and Blas 1994, Javorek et al. 2002, Monzón et al. 2004). For ‘Comice’ pears, e.g., Monzón et al. (2004) found that the rate of honey bee contact with flower stigmas (the part of the female reproductive organ where pollen germinates) was 51.8% for pollen / nectar foragers, and only 19.0% for nectar only foragers. In almonds, one visit from a pollen (or pollen and nectar) forag- ing honey bee produced fruit set 17–26% of the time, whereas only 0–9% of nectar forager visits produced fruit set (Bosch and Blas 1994). The increased pollination effectiveness of pollen over nectar foragers likely results both from increased body pollen, as well as increased contact with flower reproductive organs. However, the pollination of hybrid seed crops is complicated by the need to transfer pollen from male-fertile plants to male-sterile plants. The male-sterile (or ‘female’) plants are harvested, whereas the male-fertile (‘male’) plants are only pollen donors. These distinct plant morphs are planted in rows or bays of rows, and pollinators travelling directly from male flowers deposit much higher canola pollen loads (32.19 grains) on female stigmas than pollinators trav- elling from female to female flowers (1.73 grains) (Waytes 2017). However, honey bees have been known to orient themselves to the rows and forage up and down rather than crossing between rows or bays (Free 1966, Thorp 1979), and the relative contribution of nec- tar and pollen foragers to hybrid seed pollination is unclear. As early as 1967, it was suggested that colonies selectively bred to collect large amounts of pollen could be beneficial for commer- cial pollination (Free 1967). However, this practice was never widely adopted due to the logistical difficulties of selecting and maintain- ing pollen-hoarding lines of bees. Pollen hoarding is a genetic trait in honey bees, as is a preference for particular types of pollen (Mackensen and Nye 1966, 1969), and can be increased through selective breeding (Free 1967, Hellmich et al. 1985). Strains for bees selected for canola pollen hoarding could both increase the pollen collection (and therefore per hive revenue in this system, as well as increase the efficacy of pollination by increasing the preference for canola pollen). As pollen-trapping increases the number of pollen for- agers (Webster et al. 1985), pollen-trapping could similarly be used to increase the pollination efficiency of colonies rented to provide pollination services to crops, without intensive breeding programs. In addition to honey, pollen is a valuable hive product. In crops with ample pollen, focusing on periods of high pollen availability and high producing colonies, substantial increases in revenue can be gained by collecting pollen, even with concomitant decreases in honey production. Our results suggest that colonies with adequate pre-polli- nation nutrition may be trapped for a short period (3–4 wk) with no negative consequences on colony health. Pollen collection likely has no negative impact on pollination services, and may, in fact, enhance pol- lination as the number of pollen foragers increases. Pollen collection can, therefore, fit into a management paradigm focused on pollination service delivery and honey production, increasing the per hive revenue without negative effects on pollination services or colony health. Acknowledgments We sincerely appreciate the assistance of Kevin Nixon and Nixon Honey Farm for allowing us to use their colonies for this experiment, Krista Fjordbotten, Jeff Kearns, Andony Melathopoulos, and Christian Sprinkhuysen in the field, and the Alberta Beekeepers Commission and Alberta Crop Industry Development Fund for financial support. The authors wish to thank the two anonymous reviewers, whose comments improved this manuscript. References Cited Anderson, C. 2001. The adaptive value of inactive foragers and the scout-recruit system in honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies. Behav. Ecol. 12:111–119 Barker, R. J. 1971. The influence of food inside the hive on pollen collection by a honeybee colony. J. Apic. Res. 10: 23–26. Bosch, J., and M.  Blas. 1994. Foraging behaviour and pollinating effi- ciency of Osmia cornuta and Apis mellifera on almond (Hymenoptera, Megachilidae and Apidae). Appl. Entomol. Zool. 29: 1–9. British Columbia (BC) Ministry of Agriculture & Lands. 2006. Beehive Construction. Paul van Westendorp (ed.). https://www.ontariobee.com/ sites/ontariobee.com/files/document/construction.pdf (accessed 27 April 2018). Brodschneider, R., and K. Crailsheim. 2010. Nutrition and health in honey bees. Apidologie 41: 278–294. Brodschneider, R., U. Riessberger-Gallé, and K. Crailsheim. 2009. Flight per- formance of artificially reared honeybees (Apis mellifera). Apidologie 40: 441–449. Camazine, S. 1993. The regulation of pollen foraging by honey bees: how foragers assess the colony’s need for pollen. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 32: 265–272. Daly, H. V., R. G. Danka, K. Hoelmer, T. E. Rinderer, and S. M. Buco. 1995. Honey bee morphometrics: linearity of variables with respect to body size and classification tested with European worker bees reared by varying ratios of nurse bees. J. Apic. Res. 34: 129–145. Dreller, C., R. E. Page Jr, and M. K. Fondrk. 1999. Regulation of pollen forag- ing in honeybee colonies: effects of young brood, stored pollen, and empty space. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 45: 227–233. Duff, S. R., and B.  Furgala. 1986a. Pollen trapping honey bee colonies in Minnesota. I. Effect on amount of trapped, brood, reared, winter survival, queen longevity, and adult bee population. Am. Bee J. 126: 686–689. Duff, S. R., and B.  Furgala. 1986b. Pollen trapping honey bee colonies in Minnesota. II. Effect on foraging activity, honey production, honey moisture content, and nitrogen content of adult workers. Am. Bee J. 126: 755–758. Dustmann, J. H., and W. V. D. Ohe. 1988. Einfluss von Kälteeinbrüchen auf die Frühjahresentwicklung von Bienenvölkern (Apis mellifera L.). Apidologie 19: 245–254. Eckert, C. D., M. L. Winston, and R. C. Ydenberg. 1994. The relationship between population size, amount of brood, and individual foraging behav- iour in the honey bee, Apis mellifera L. Oecologia 97: 248–255. Eischen, F. A., W. C. Rothenbuhler, and J. M. Kulinčević. 1983. Brood rearing associated with a range of worker-larva ratios in the honeybee. J. Apic. Res. 22: 163–168. Fewell, J. H., and S. M. Bertram. 1999. Division of labor in a dynamic environ- ment: response by honeybees (Apis mellifera) to graded changes in colony pollen stores. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 46: 171–179. Fewell, J. H., and M. L. Winston. 1992. Colony state and regulation of pollen foraging in the honey bee, Apis mellifera L. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 30: 387–393. Fewell, J. H., and M. L.  Winston. 1996. Regulation of nectar collection in relation to honey storage levels by honey bees, Apis mellifera. Behav. Ecol. 7: 286–291. Fluri, P., and S. Bogdanov. 1987. Age dependence of fat body protein in sum- mer and winter bees (Apis mellifera). In K Eder and H. Rembold (eds.), Chemistry and biology of social insects, pp. 170–171. Munich: Verlag J. Peperny. Free, J. B. 1966. The foraging behavior of bees and its effect on the isolation and speciation of plants. In Hawkes JG (ed.), Reproductive biology and taxonomy of vascular plants, pp 76–91. Oxford. Free, J. B. 1967. Factors determining the collection of pollen by honeybee foragers. Anim. Behav. 15: 134–144. Goodman, R. D. 1974. The rate of brood rearing in the effect of pollen trap- ping on honeybee colonies. Aust. Beekeep. 76: 39–41. Government of Alberta (GOA). 1985. Build your own pollen trap. Agdex 616–622, August 1985. Haydak, M. H. 1935. Brood rearing by honeybees confined to a pure carbohy- drate diet. J. Econ. Entomol. 28: 657–660. Haydak, M. H. 1970. Honey bee nutrition. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 15: 143–156. Journal of Economic Entomology, 2018, Vol. 111, No. 4 1515 D ow nloaded from https://academ ic.oup.com /jee/article/111/4/1509/4994242 by Agriculture and Agri-Food C anada (O ttaw a) user on 25 April 2023 https://www.ontariobee.com/sites/ontariobee.com/files/document/construction.pdf https://www.ontariobee.com/sites/ontariobee.com/files/document/construction.pdf Hellmich, R. L., and W. C. Rothenbuhler. 1986. Relationship between differ- ent amounts of brood and the collection and use of pollen by the honey bee (Apis mellifera). Apidologie 17: 13–20. Hellmich, R. L., J. M. Kulincevic, and W. C. Rothenbuhler. 1985. Selection for high and low pollen hoarding honey bees. J. Heredity 76: 155–158. Hoover, S. E., H. A. Higo, and M. L. Winston. 2006. Worker honey bee ovary development: seasonal variation and the influence of larval and adult nutrition. J. Comp. Physiol. B 176: 55–63. Hrassnigg, N., and K. Crailsheim. 1998. Adaptation of hypopharyngeal gland development to the brood status of honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) colonies. J. Insect Physiol. 44: 929–939. Javorek, S. K., K. E. Mackenzie, and S. P. Vander Kloet. 2002. Comparative pollination effectiveness among bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) on lowbush blueberry (Ericaceae: Vaccinium angustifolium). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 95: 345–351. Jay, S. C. 1974. Nectar and pollen collection by honeybees from coconut flow- ers. Bee World 55: 105–111. Katsanov, G., and O.  Petkova. 1975. The effects of partial pollen removal (trapping) on the development and productivity of honeybee colonies in the central Rhodope region. Zhivotnovud Nauki 12: 127–133. Keller, I., P. Fluri, and A. Imdorf. 2005a. Pollen nutrition and colony develop- ment in honey bees: part I. Bee World 86: 3–10. Keller, I., P. Fluri, and A. Imdorf. 2005b. Pollen nutrition and colony develop- ment in honey bees—Part II. Bee World 86: 27–34. Laate, E. 2017. Economics of beekeeping in Alberta in 2016. Economics and Competitiveness Branch Alberta Agriculture and Forestry, December 2017. https://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$Department/deptdocs.nsf/all/econ16542/$FILE/ Beekeeping2016.pdf (accessed 27 April 2018). van Laere, O., and N. Martens. 1971. The effect of an artificial reduction of protein stores on the foraging activity of a honeybee colony. Apidologie 2: 197–204. Lavie, P. 1967. Influence de l’utilisation du piege à pollen sur le rendement en miel des colonies d’abeilles. Ann Abeille 10: 83–95. Lavie, P., and J. Fresnaye. 1963. Experimental study with a pollen trap at the top of the hive. Ann. Abeille 6: 277–301. Mackensen, O., and W. P. Nye. 1966. Selecting and breeding honeybees for collecting alfalfa pollen. J. Apic. Res. 5: 79–86. Mackensen, O., and W. P. Nye. 1969. Selective breeding of honeybees for alfalfa pollen collection: sixth generation and outcrosses. J. Apic. Res. 8: 9–12. McDonald, D. 1980. Pollen trapping in the Peace River region of Alberta (1980). Skeptic (Alberta Beekeepers’ Association) 2: 11. McLellan, A. R. 1974. Some effects of pollen traps on colonies of honey-bees. J. Apic. Res. 13: 143–148. Moeller, F. E. 1977. Managing colonies for pollen production, pp. 232–239. In Proceedings, 26th International Agricultural Congress, Adelaide, 13–19 October 1977. Apimondia Publishing, Bucharest, Romania. Monzón, V. H., J. Bosch, and J. Retana. 2004. Foraging behavior and pol- linating effectiveness of Osmia cornuta (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) and Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera: Apidae) on “Comice” pear. Apidologie 35: 575–585. Moriya, K. 1966. Effects of pollen trap on numbers of pollen foragers in hon- eybee colony. Japan. J. Ecol. 16: 105–109. Nelson, D. L., D. McKenna, and E. Zumwalt. 1987. The effect of continuous pollen trapping on sealed brood, honey production and gross income in Northern Alberta. Am. Bee J. 127: 648–650. Pernal, S. F., and R. W. Currie. 2000. Pollen quality of fresh and 1-year-old single pollen diets for worker honey bees (Apis mellifera L.). Apidologie 31: 387–409. Pernal, S. F., and R. W. Currie. 2001. The influence of pollen quality on forag- ing behavior in honeybees (Apis mellifera L.). Behav. Ecol. Sociobio. 51: 53–68. Rybhakov, M. V. 1961. Pollen traps and the activity of bees. Pchelovodstvo 38: 15–16. Schmickl, T. and K. Crailsheim. 2001. Cannibalism and early capping: strategy of honeybee colonies in times of experimental pollen shortages. J. Comp. Physiol. A Neuroethol. Sens. Neural Behav. Physiol. 87: 541–547. Somerville, D. 2002. Honey bees on canola. NSW Agriculture Agnote: DAI- 82. ISSN 1034-6848. https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_ file/0013/117112/bee-on-canoloa.pdf (accessed 27 April 2018). Statistics Canada. 2016. Statistical overview of the Canadian honey and bee industry and the economic contribution of honey bee pollination, 2016. http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/industry-markets-and-trade/market- information-by-sector/horticulture/horticulture-sector-reports/ s ta t i s t i ca l -overv iew-of - the -canadian-honey-and-bee - indus - try-and-the-economic-contribution-of-honey-bee-poll ination- 2016/?id=1510864970935#a1.8 (accessed 27 April 2018). Thorp, R. W. 1979. Structural, behavioral, and physiological adaptations of bees (Apoidea) for collecting pollen. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 66: 788–812. Waytes, R. 2017. Pollinator movement and pollen transfer in hybrid seed can- ola (MSc. dissertation, University of Calgary). Webster, T. C., R. W.  Thorp, D.  Briggs, J.  Skinner, and T.  Parisian. 1985. Effects of pollen traps on honey bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) foraging and brood rearing during almond and prune pollination. Environ. Entomol. 14: 683–686. Winston, M. L. 1987. The biology of the honey bee. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Journal of Economic Entomology, 2018, Vol. 111, No. 41516 D ow nloaded from https://academ ic.oup.com /jee/article/111/4/1509/4994242 by Agriculture and Agri-Food C anada (O ttaw a) user on 25 April 2023 https://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$Department/deptdocs.nsf/all/econ16542/$FILE/Beekeeping2016.pdf https://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$Department/deptdocs.nsf/all/econ16542/$FILE/Beekeeping2016.pdf https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/117112/bee-on-canoloa.pdf https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/117112/bee-on-canoloa.pdf http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/industry-markets-and-trade/market-information-by-sector/horticulture/horticulture-sector-reports/statistical-overview-of-the-canadian-honey-and-bee-industry-and-the-economic-contribution-of-honey-bee-pollination-2016/?id=1510864970935#a1.8 http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/industry-markets-and-trade/market-information-by-sector/horticulture/horticulture-sector-reports/statistical-overview-of-the-canadian-honey-and-bee-industry-and-the-economic-contribution-of-honey-bee-pollination-2016/?id=1510864970935#a1.8 http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/industry-markets-and-trade/market-information-by-sector/horticulture/horticulture-sector-reports/statistical-overview-of-the-canadian-honey-and-bee-industry-and-the-economic-contribution-of-honey-bee-pollination-2016/?id=1510864970935#a1.8 http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/industry-markets-and-trade/market-information-by-sector/horticulture/horticulture-sector-reports/statistical-overview-of-the-canadian-honey-and-bee-industry-and-the-economic-contribution-of-honey-bee-pollination-2016/?id=1510864970935#a1.8 http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/industry-markets-and-trade/market-information-by-sector/horticulture/horticulture-sector-reports/statistical-overview-of-the-canadian-honey-and-bee-industry-and-the-economic-contribution-of-honey-bee-pollination-2016/?id=1510864970935#a1.8