Preliminary results: 2017-2018 Total and Average Honey Bee Colony Losses by State and the District of Columbia

By now, we hope that you have taken time to reflect on this past year’s honey bee colony losses – both your own losses, as well as those experienced by beekeepers across the nation. In case you missed it, you can view our official preliminary results abstract here: https://beeinformed.org/results/honey-bee-colony-losses-2017-2018-preliminary-results/

We fared worse this year compared to the previous one, but long-term BIP efforts over the past decade suggest that we actually experienced a relatively ‘normal’ year. That means about 40% of our colonies died!

The United States is vast, and extremely diverse. Everyone can appreciate that beekeeping in the desert oases of the southwest is very different from beekeeping in the forests of New England. Hence the importance of spatially grouping our data. Each year, BIP conveys that information according to state, federal district, and territory.

This year, like previous ones, we present preliminary data for Annual, Winter, and Summer Losses. For each period and region, Total Loss and Average Loss are communicated. It’s important to understand the difference, as one type is likely more relevant to you than the other!

Total Loss treats each colony the same. In other words, one colony has one vote. This means that Total Loss is more representative of commercial beekeepers, as they manage most honey bee colonies in the country.

Average Loss, on the other hand, treats each beekeeper the same – one beekeeper has one vote. Therefore, Average Loss is more representative of the experiences of backyard beekeepers, as they vastly out-number sideline and commercial individuals.

To view region-specific data, check out BIP’s Interactive Loss Map: https://bip2.beeinformed.org/loss-map/.

There you can compare losses among years and regions, and even see how many beekeepers responded to the survey.

Figure 1 illustrates just one of the maps that our Interactive Loss Map can produce. We have also included summaries of the data in tabular formats (see Tables 1, 2 and 3).

Please note that N represents the number of beekeepers that responded from each state/district/territory. To preserve confidentiality, we have not released information for states and territories with five or fewer respondents. This means Alaska, Puerto Rico, and in some cases Hawaii, were excluded.

Figure 1. Annual Total Loss by state and federal district between 1 April 2017 – 1 April 2018.

 

Table 1: Annual Total Loss and Average Loss by state, federal district, and territory between 1 April 2017 – 1 April 2018.

Season State N Total Loss Average Loss
ANNUAL Alabama 52 46.1 39.6
ANNUAL Alaska 0 NA NA
ANNUAL Arizona 6 77.9 37.7
ANNUAL Arkansas 32 47.0 42.3
ANNUAL California 111 34.4 41.4
ANNUAL Colorado 81 23.1 54.4
ANNUAL Connecticut 33 73.0 65.0
ANNUAL District of Columbia 6 68.4 74.3
ANNUAL Delaware 19 49.8 65.8
ANNUAL Florida 52 40.0 38.8
ANNUAL Georgia 132 42.4 55.2
ANNUAL Hawaii 4 NA NA
ANNUAL Idaho 26 36.6 41.4
ANNUAL Illinois 100 58.3 60.1
ANNUAL Indiana 115 27.3 52.3
ANNUAL Iowa 82 60.3 59.6
ANNUAL Kansas 25 43.5 38.5
ANNUAL Kentucky 96 53.3 45.8
ANNUAL Louisiana 11 69.1 34.8
ANNUAL Maine 57 56.9 53.9
ANNUAL Maryland 121 49.4 64.2
ANNUAL Massachusetts 83 64.9 56.8
ANNUAL Michigan 198 35.4 68.1
ANNUAL Minnesota 74 53.6 72.1
ANNUAL Mississippi 12 48.0 35.4
ANNUAL Missouri 70 33.8 34.9
ANNUAL Montana 17 61.9 56.8
ANNUAL Nebraska 13 23.7 48.6
ANNUAL Nevada 12 42.9 42.1
ANNUAL New Hampshire 40 55.2 50.1
ANNUAL New Jersey 68 45.6 58.1
ANNUAL New Mexico 17 69.4 52.7
ANNUAL New York 121 40.4 53.1
ANNUAL North Carolina 226 55.1 60.6
ANNUAL North Dakota 12 31.6 60.5
ANNUAL Ohio 169 59.8 55.9
ANNUAL Oklahoma 26 41.5 34.3
ANNUAL Oregon 92 35.1 43.3
ANNUAL Pennsylvania 456 53.1 60.0
ANNUAL Puerto Rico 1 NA NA
ANNUAL Rhode Island 14 62.4 67.6
ANNUAL South Carolina 61 37.8 51.7
ANNUAL South Dakota 13 27.6 62.8
ANNUAL Tennessee 74 74.7 59.1
ANNUAL Texas 90 34.5 37.8
ANNUAL Utah 127 44.8 53.8
ANNUAL Vermont 44 57.1 68.3
ANNUAL Virginia 460 65.3 68.1
ANNUAL Washington 96 24.2 48.0
ANNUAL West Virginia 48 53.7 56.4
ANNUAL Wisconsin 116 31.4 78.5
ANNUAL Wyoming 7 40.9 43.3
ANNUAL MultiStateOperation 100 33.9 47.2

Table 2: Winter Total Loss and Average Loss by state, federal district, and territory between 1 October 2017 – 1 April 2018.

Season State N Total Loss Average Loss
WINTER Alabama 65 37.9 30.4
WINTER Alaska 0 NA NA
WINTER Arizona 6 71.9 19.1
WINTER Arkansas 42 17.1 24.7
WINTER California 136 25.3 32.1
WINTER Colorado 114 12.6 42.6
WINTER Connecticut 49 54.3 56.2
WINTER District of Columbia 10 57.1 64.2
WINTER Delaware 26 38.7 66.0
WINTER Florida 57 18.4 23.9
WINTER Georgia 150 30.9 45.5
WINTER Hawaii 4 NA NA
WINTER Idaho 34 25.8 42.9
WINTER Illinois 120 53.5 52.5
WINTER Indiana 139 20.1 46.8
WINTER Iowa 91 40.7 54.4
WINTER Kansas 29 19.4 32.7
WINTER Kentucky 112 34.4 35.7
WINTER Louisiana 13 60.5 25.7
WINTER Maine 78 46.0 53.3
WINTER Maryland 152 33.6 60.3
WINTER Massachusetts 100 58.8 57.9
WINTER Michigan 284 25.4 64.7
WINTER Minnesota 101 44.0 68.0
WINTER Mississippi 12 36.8 24.2
WINTER Missouri 85 20.7 23.5
WINTER Montana 22 41.2 53.7
WINTER Nebraska 14 14.0 35.7
WINTER Nevada 16 26.1 34.2
WINTER New Hampshire 52 51.2 44.2
WINTER New Jersey 77 38.8 51.9
WINTER New Mexico 18 44.2 48.1
WINTER New York 154 27.8 46.6
WINTER North Carolina 258 42.2 50.7
WINTER North Dakota 13 25.2 52.9
WINTER Ohio 211 51.9 51.8
WINTER Oklahoma 32 23.4 23.7
WINTER Oregon 122 24.8 35.8
WINTER Pennsylvania 607 46.7 55.2
WINTER Puerto Rico 1 NA NA
WINTER Rhode Island 19 51.2 57.1
WINTER South Carolina 64 24.4 43.1
WINTER South Dakota 14 22.9 57.9
WINTER Tennessee 80 65.0 46.4
WINTER Texas 101 26.6 26.9
WINTER Utah 163 35.3 43.1
WINTER Vermont 57 53.2 64.6
WINTER Virginia 551 59.5 59.1
WINTER Washington 134 21.8 36.8
WINTER West Virginia 60 41.8 48.1
WINTER Wisconsin 156 21.0 73.3
WINTER Wyoming 9 33.3 39.5
WINTER MultiStateOperation 117 24.9 40.2

Table 3: Summer Total Loss and Average Loss by state, federal district, and territory between 1 April 2017– 1 October 2017.

Season State N Total Loss Average Loss
SUMMER Alabama 57 14.4 17.6
SUMMER Alaska 0 NA NA
SUMMER Arizona 7 31.6 27.6
SUMMER Arkansas 35 37.3 29.1
SUMMER California 120 16.0 21.2
SUMMER Colorado 87 12.7 22.2
SUMMER Connecticut 36 22.2 21.9
SUMMER District of Columbia 6 15.8 12.5
SUMMER Delaware 20 21.4 18.6
SUMMER Florida 61 33.1 25.2
SUMMER Georgia 142 20.2 24.1
SUMMER Hawaii 6 11.9 9.7
SUMMER Idaho 27 19.1 10.9
SUMMER Illinois 104 17.1 19.0
SUMMER Indiana 117 13.5 12.4
SUMMER Iowa 85 38.6 17.1
SUMMER Kansas 25 37.0 9.6
SUMMER Kentucky 99 33.5 20.5
SUMMER Louisiana 14 15.1 18.1
SUMMER Maine 59 10.6 12.9
SUMMER Maryland 123 24.8 20.4
SUMMER Massachusetts 87 37.2 16.2
SUMMER Michigan 203 18.4 16.5
SUMMER Minnesota 75 29.8 17.1
SUMMER Mississippi 13 31.5 22.8
SUMMER Missouri 71 15.0 15.1
SUMMER Montana 19 10.7 26.5
SUMMER Nebraska 13 11.4 25.2
SUMMER Nevada 13 28.8 13.8
SUMMER New Hampshire 40 7.0 12.4
SUMMER New Jersey 70 15.8 16.3
SUMMER New Mexico 19 52.8 22.3
SUMMER New York 126 21.8 18.0
SUMMER North Carolina 237 19.7 20.2
SUMMER North Dakota 13 11.7 23.6
SUMMER Ohio 179 17.7 19.1
SUMMER Oklahoma 32 33.3 22.9
SUMMER Oregon 92 16.6 10.4
SUMMER Pennsylvania 468 15.3 14.9
SUMMER Puerto Rico 1 NA NA
SUMMER Rhode Island 15 22.8 14.5
SUMMER South Carolina 67 19.9 18.0
SUMMER South Dakota 15 6.3 17.9
SUMMER Tennessee 85 28.4 31.9
SUMMER Texas 95 12.9 18.5
SUMMER Utah 133 15.9 17.8
SUMMER Vermont 46 8.8 20.5
SUMMER Virginia 484 20.2 21.2
SUMMER Washington 100 7.3 18.2
SUMMER West Virginia 48 16.7 13.1
SUMMER Wisconsin 118 13.6 18.4
SUMMER Wyoming 7 23.4 21.7
SUMMER MultiStateOperation 105 15.5 18.4

 

Written By: The Bee Informed Team

has written 51 post in this blog.

The Bee Informed Partnership is a collaboration of efforts across the country from some of the leading research labs and universities in agriculture and science to better understand honey bee declines in the United States. Supported by the United States Department of Agriculture and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, we’re working with beekeepers to better understand how we can keep healthier bees. The key to our success is the true partnership we maintain across a wide range of disciplines including traditional honey bee science, economics, statistics, and medical research that makes all these tools available to this important research. And just as important as the tools are the people. We not only have the leading researchers in the honey bee industry, we also have advisory boards from the commercial beekeeping industries, almond and other commercial growers, as well as naturalists and conservationists from across the country.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail