Comparable performance of commercial honey bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) colonies under alternative fall feeding strategies

Authors: Corby-Harris, Vanessa; Snyder, Lucy; Watkins De Jong, Emily; Meador, Charlotte; Hoffman, Gloria; SHOOK, BLAKE - American Honey Producers Association

Submitted to: Journal of Economic Entomology
Publication Type: Peer Reviewed Journal
Publication Acceptance Date: 6/18/2026
Publication Date: 7/8/2026
Citation: Corby-Harris, V.L., Snyder, L.A., Watkins De Jong, E.E., Meador, C.A., Hoffman, G.D., Shook, B. 2026. Comparable performance of commercial honey bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) colonies under alternative fall feeding strategies. Journal of Economic Entomology. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/toag203.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/toag203

Interpretive Summary: Poor nutrition and lack of forage are key factors in colony declines. When pollen is scarce, beekeepers feed their colonies supplemental diets that provide necessary macronutrients to the colony. Whether diets are purchased or made at home, they are costly. Accordingly, there has been a great deal of research on whether supplemental diets are necessary and what diet benefits honey bees the most, but the answer to these questions remain unclear and the results of different studies often contradict each other. To provide beekeepers with better recommendations, we tested whether and under what circumstances fall diet is necessary and worth the investment. In two separate trials over two years, we evaluated ~700 commercial colonies located in two North Dakota apiaries in the summer and that were fed in the fall. The colonies were fed one of five commercially available diets (and positive and negative controls) between August and September, and colony size and mite levels were measured at four time points (pre-feed, post-feed and before cold storage, post-cold storage and before almond pollination, and post-almond pollination). Colony size differed markedly across trials. Diet affected colony size differently depending on several factors like the apiary and time point. In the first trial, colonies fed Global 4% were the strongest. In trial two, diet did not affect colony size and those fed no diet performed as well as colonies fed supplements. Mite levels did not significantly affect the results. We conclude that supplemental diets might affect colony size and associated profitability, but the surrounding landscape and year-to-year differences are better predictors of colony health, and these factors affect whether and how supplements are useful. These additional factors should be considered in deciding whether fall diet is needed. A targeted approach that accounts for weather and landscape conditions might provide beekeepers with better recommendations and save them money.

Technical Abstract: Beekeepers use supplemental diets to support colonies when natural forage is scarce. Fall feeding is commonly used to bolster colony health, prepare them for winter, and ensure strong colonies for the spring. Unfortunately, any benefit that fall feeding offers comes only after substantial investments in feed and winter storage. Although many studies have examined the nutritional value of supplements, these questions have rarely been tested under commercial beekeeping conditions or in the context of fall feeding. We tested 2 hypotheses: (1) supplement-fed colonies are as large and profitable as colonies fed natural pollen, and (2) colonies fed natural pollen or supplements are as large and profitable as unfed colonies. Across 2 years, we evaluated ~700 colonies in 2 North Dakota apiaries. Colonies were fed the following in the fall (August–September) and before cold storage: 1 of 5 commercially available diets, a natural-pollen positive control, or (in trial 2) no diet. Colony size was measured at 4 time points from pre-feed to post-almond pollination. Profitability was defined as the likelihood that colonies graded adequately for almond pollination or could be split after bloom. After accounting for fall apiary location and pre-feed colony size, colonies fed Global 4% and AP23 were consistently as large and profitable as those fed natural pollen. In trial 2, unfed colonies performed as well as colonies fed pollen or supplements. Although outcomes were similar for colonies fed certain and natural pollen, the results of trial 2 indicate that fall feeding may not always be necessary.