The Bees of Oregon 2025 report outlines several key areas of progress for bee health in the state across three broad areas, the Oregon Bee Project, honey bee colony survival, and the Oregon Bee Atlas. The Oregon Bee Project is a collaborative initiative led by the Oregon State University (OSU) Extension Service in partnership with state agencies for agriculture, forestry, and transportation. Established after the 2014 Legislative Task Force on Pollinator Health, the Project focuses on reducing pesticide exposure, increasing habitat, and monitoring exotic pests. The Project is currently nearing the end of its Second Strategic Plan (2022-2027) and has met or exceeded many of its targets. It successfully trained over 12,000 licensed pesticide applicators, with 95% demonstrating comprehension of bee protection provisions, contributing to a downward trend in reported pesticide incidents documented by Oregon’s Pesticide Analytical and Response Center (PARC). Training on creating bee habitat has been delivered to thousands of licensed pesticide applicators but also to the public through initiatives like the Bee Advocate and Bee Stewards programs, supported by the distribution of regional garden designs and seed packets. The Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) Insect Pest Prevention and Management (IPPM) program has been working with the Oregon Bee Atlas to track and conduct active surveillance against exotic bees and pests such as the Houdini fly and invasive hornets. The state has also built up considerable capacity to survey for wild bees through 275 OSU Master Melittologist volunteers and a series of reports and taxonomic guides developed through the OSU Melittology Lab. K-12 students at over 370 Oregon schools have been introduced to the richness of the state bee fauna through the Explore Oregon Bees activity book. Despite generating over $800,000 since 2023 through the “Pollinator Paradise” license plate to fully support a bee taxonomist position and honey bee disease diagnostic positions at OSU, the project faces a funding gap in May 2026 as federal support for a coordination position ends. This report also provides a summary of honey bee colony loss compiled by the Oregon State University Honey Bee Lab. The Lab has been tracking colony health among commercial honey bee colonies, as well as among hobby beekeepers by delivering a survey since 2010. Over this time there has been a decreasing trend of colony losses for hobbyist beekeepers but an increasing trend for commercial beekeepers. Commercial losses across this period, however, remain lower across this period compared to those of hobbyists (22% vs. 36%). Preliminary results for the 2025–2026 season show hobbyist losses at 22%, with commercial data still pending. The Oregon Bee Atlas has grown into North America’s largest contemporary state bee inventory, producing over 30,000 specimen records in 2025 alone. Supported by the nation’s first Master Melittologist Extension program, the Atlas utilizes a network of highly trained volunteers to document bee biodiversity and bee-plant associations across the state’s ecoregions. The project presents 567 bee species in this report, while DNA barcoding results provide evidence of nearly 200 additional species. These species combined with those awaiting identification among Atlas material, and those awaiting discovery in Oregon’s diverse landscapes constitute an impressive fauna. The report provides a list of species collected since 2017, as well as Level III ecoregion summaries of common and uncommon bees and the plants they rely on. Based on these surveys, the Blue Mountains ecoregion currently represents the highest documented diversity in the state with 418 species. There are likely more bee species to be detected in the state, with over 100 species likely not detected in the Columbia River Plateau alone. These data are informing new conservation tools like the Melittoflora (melittoflora.org) that will enable Oregon to make more precise investment in bee habitat.

Summary Estimates of winter loss for managed honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies are an important measure of honey bee health and productivity. We used data from 5,500 US beekeepers (5,244 backyard, 189 sideline and 67 commercial beekeepers) who responded to the April 2012 Bee Informed Partnership Winter Colony Loss Survey and calculated loss as the difference in the number of colonies between October 1, 2011 and April 1, 2012, adjusting for increases and decreases over that period. In the US, the total colony loss was 22.5% for the 2011–12 winter; 45.1% (n = 2,482) of respondents reported no colony loss. Total loss during 2011–12 was substantially lower than loss during 2010–11 (29.9%). Of the 4,484 respondents who kept bees in 2010–11 and 2011–12, 72.0% reported that the loss during 2011–12 was smaller or similar to the loss during 2010–11. There was substantial variation in total loss by state (range 6.2% to 47.7%). The average loss per beekeeping operation was 25.4%, but the average loss was not significantly different by operation type (backyard, sideline, commercial). The average self-reported acceptable loss per respondent was 13.7%; 46.8% (n = 2,259) of respondents experienced winter colony losses in excess of the average acceptable loss. Of beekeepers who reported losing at least one colony during 2011–12, the leading self-identified causes of mortality were weak condition in the fall and queen failure. Respondents who indicated poor wintering conditions, CCD, or pesticides as a leading cause of mortality suffered a higher average loss when compared to beekeepers who did not list these as potential causes.

This study records the fifth consecutive year that winter losses of managed honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies in the USA have been around 30%. In April 2011, a total of 5,441 US beekeepers (an estimated 11% of total US beekeepers) responded to a survey conducted by the Bee Informed Partnership. Survey respondents reported that they had lost an average of 38.4% of their colonies, for a total US colony loss of 29.9% over the winter of 2010-11. One-third of respondents (all classified as backyard beekeepers, i.e. keeping fewer than 50 colonies) reported no winter loss. There was considerable variation in both the average and total loss by state. On average, beekeepers consider acceptable losses to be 13.2%, but 68% of all responding beekeepers suffered actual losses in excess of what they considered acceptable. Of beekeepers who reported losing at least one colony, manageable conditions, such as starvation and a weak condition in the fall, were the leading self-identified causes of mortality. Respondents who indicated that varroa mites (Varroa destructor), small hive beetles (Aethina tumida), poor wintering conditions, and/or Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) conditions were a leading cause of mortality in their operations suffered a higher average loss than beekeepers who did not list any of these as potential causes. In a separate question, beekeepers who reported the symptom "no dead bees in hive or apiary" had significantly higher losses than those who did not report this symptom. In addition, commercial beekeepers were significantly more likely to indicate that colonies died with this symptom than either backyard or sideliner beekeepers.

Quantifying colony losses is a two-part process. First, colony loss data needs to be collected by surveying beekeepers and then it needs to be calculated and reported in a standardized way. We propose using two different ways to calculate and communicate colony losses. The first we term the total colony losses, sometimes referred to as cumulative loss rate in other systems, which aggregates all losses suffered by all beekeepers surveyed. While the total loss calculation is straightforward, calculating a 95% CI for this metric is complicated by the need to account for the varying sizes of responding beekeeper operations and the nested nature of colony losses within those operations. The second reporting method, termed average loss, is the mean loss suffered by each responding beekeeper. The utility of these two reporting mechanisms differs, in that both are potentially biased by the demographics of the apicultural industry; total loss figures are more heavily influenced by the losses experienced by the few large operations, while average losses are more representative of the many small operations. Additionally, it is important to note that the results from this survey are representative of the responding population alone, and cannot be considered representative of the industry unless some means of identifying and adjusting for varying response is performed.

Beginning in 1986 Dr. Mike Burgett of the Honey Bee Lab at Oregon State University began an annual survey of pollination economics in the Pacific Northwest states (OR, WA and ID). The 25 Annual report (2010) was published in Jan, 14 2011 Honey Market News and the BEELINE, newsletter of the Oregon State Beekeepers Association (ORSBA.org). The 2010 survey year revealed a 21% drop in average weighted pollination fee, the greatest decrease in the 25 year record. The current authors, with concurrence of Dr. Burgett , have continued and expanded the annual survey into the 26 year. By expanding our survey base, we report that weighted income level of all rentals for 2011 has once again increased over previous years.

This study records the fourth consecutive year of high winter losses in managed honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies in the USA. Over the winter of 2009-2010, US beekeepers responding to this survey lost an average of 42.2% of their colonies, for a total loss of 34.4%. Commercial beekeepers (those operating more than 500 colonies) experienced lower total losses as compared to sideline and backyard beekeepers. Similarly, operations that maintained colonies in more than one state and operations that pollinated almond orchards over the survey period had lower total losses than operations either managing colonies in one state exclusively or those not pollinating almonds. On average beekeepers consider acceptable losses to be 14.5%, and 65% of all responding beekeepers suffered losses in excess of what they considered acceptable. The proportion of operations that experienced losses and reported having no dead bees in their colonies or apiaries was comparable to that reported in the winter of 2008-2009. Manageable conditions, such as starvation and a weak condition in the fall were the leading self-identified causes of mortality as reported by all beekeepers. Commercial beekeepers were, however, less likely to list such manageable causes, instead listing poor queens, mites, and pesticides most frequently as the self-identified causes of mortality in their operations.

In an attempt to quantify the degree and extent of losses experienced in U.S. beekeeping operations between September 2006 and March 2007, members of the Apiary Inspectors of America (AIA) were asked to survey beekeepers who represent the hobby, sideline, and commercial beekeeping industries of their state. In all, 384 beekeeping operations were surveyed representing a total of 143,816 colonies plus 9,507 splits made between September and March. The total loss and average loss of bees in all operations was 31.8% and 37.6%, respectively. Of the surveyed beekeepers, 51.9% reported "abnormally heavy losses"; these beekeepers had a total loss of 55.4%, compared to the 15.9% total loss experienced by beekeepers who reported "normal losses". Of responding beekeepers reporting the number of hives containing few or no bees in spring, 23.8% met the specified definition of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), meaning that 50% of their dead colonies were found without bees and/or with very few dead bees in the hive or apiary. CCD-suffering operations had a total loss of 45.0% compared to the total loss of 25.4% of all colonies experienced by non-CCD suffering beekeepers. Most hobbyist beekeepers believed that starvation was the leading cause of death in their colonies, while commercial beekeepers overwhelming believed invertebrate pests (Varroa mites, honey bee tracheal mites, and/or small hive beetles) were the leading cause of colony mortality. Considerable variability in losses and in the proportion of operations suffering from CCD was reported from the various states.

Newly emerged honey bees, Apis mellifera L., fed diet containing sucrose plus 23 '% protein from a yeast-whey product reared more brood than similar bees fed diets containing 30, 10, 50, and 5 % protein in that order.When cellulose was added to the same diets bees fed 5 and 10 % protein reared no brood, but optimum amounts of brood continued to be reared by bees fed diets containing 23 and 30 °!! protein.1.

Diets for honey bees, Apis mellifera L., that might substitute for pollen were formulated on the basis of chemical analyses of the essential nutrients in bee bread and pollen from 7 locations.These diets were then fed to newly emerged bees, and the brood-rearing capabilities were determined.A spray-dried brewers' yeast, whey by-products, and pollen were most effectively utilized by the bees for brood rearing, but formulated diets could be made more attractive by the addition of extracts of corn gluten.Bees fed diets fortified with 20 °/, whey-10 % corn gluten produced significantly more brood than bees fed whey fortified with either 1 or 5 % corn gluten or a pollen diet.1.