The excessive amount of colony losses this last fall and winter has been a major disruption to our industry. Two decades ago something similar happened, shifting the economics of our industry. Since then, our industry has been riding on the backs of four resulting economic opportunities. But those rides may now be losing steam. It may be time to re-evaluate.

Professional Beekeeping

The vast majority of those who keep bees do it as a recreation, hobby, passion, avocation, or a sideline occupation. But most of the hives in North America are managed by those of us who do it as their main or only profession – often referred to as “commercial” beekeepers (a term used proudly by those who make their living at it, and sometimes disparagingly by those who don’t).

I’ve had the honor of visiting professional beekeepers all over the world, and don’t have words to express how impressed I always am with their work ethic, dedication, inventiveness, business acumen, and perseverance. Professional beekeeping as an agricultural business has always been hard, dirty work, with long hours and many challenges []. To make money, one is at the mercy of the weather, the market, and requires having strong, healthy colonies in the right place at the right time(s). As in any business, some operations are more consistently successful than others.

I myself made my living as a “small commercial” beekeeper in California for many years, pollinating almonds, selling nucs, and producing honey. It was an especially wild ride following the introductions of parasitic mites and “nosema” ceranae. Adapting to these parasites (and associated viruses) was (and continues to be) a challenge, with many beekeepers going out of business, being replaced by a new generation who’ve never known beekeeping without varroa.

Along that line, I handed my operation over to my sons a few years ago (so that I could focus upon research). This past September they got blindsided, when their colonies did not respond “normally” to the feeding of pollen sub and syrup that they’ve long used to build them up for winter. Instead, many colonies inexplicably dwindled, despite varroa being well under control, no pesticides, and low nosema. Come February, my sons were desperate to fill their longtime almond pollination contracts, and for the first time ever, came up seriously short (Figure 1).

Fig. 1 Prior to grading, Eric and Ian scavenged every comb of bees in the operation to boost the hives they’d placed in almonds. Even so, they were only able to fill two thirds of their contracts.

This was a really bad start to the year, since they count on making most of their annual income between February and the end of April (from almond pollination rentals and nuc sales), and Eric questioned whether they could even stay in business. But the reason for me writing this article is because they weren’t the only professional beekeepers wondering whether they were going to be able to continue to “make it work.”

Things change, and beekeeping is no exception. I recently visited New Zealand, where the manuka honey joyride had collapsed, resulting in a complete reset for their industry. But some established Kiwi beekeepers had foreseen that changes were likely to come, and are surviving the crisis. But turmoil is not occurring only in New Zealand — it’s also happening in Australia, throughout Europe, and in South and North America (with varroa always being involved, but also climate issues and changing markets). It occurs to me that we American beekeepers might want to think about some changes that will likely affect our own futures.

The Beginning of a Boom

Back in the day, California beekeepers used to move their hives to almond growers’ orchards free of charge, to take advantage of the early forage (as they currently do in Chile). In the mid-‘60s, almonds became more profitable to grow, so plantings increased, and need for pollination exceeded supply, so beekeepers started demanding compensation (with growers begrudgingly paying 25 cents per hive). By the time I personally began moving hives to almond pollination in the early 1980s, we were getting around $12, with rental rates going up about a dollar a year (I remember hitting $18 and thinking that I’d died and gone to heaven!). And then around 1995 two things happened: (1) consumer demand for almonds went up, so growers started a spree of almond planting, and demand for pollination services exceeded the supply of bees, and (2) varroa got firmly established.

By 2004 we’d bargained our way up to about $45 for hive rental. But by then our varroa treatments began to fail, new variants of EFB showed up, viruses went rampant, and unknown to us, “nosema” ceranae invaded the U.S. These together hammered our poor bees, and for the 2004/2005 pollination season, we came up seriously short on hives. In response, growers desperately bid the offered price to $155 (and thus could no longer bluff that they were unwilling to pay more than what they had been).

The huge increase in the offered price for beehives started a new Gold Rush to California, and the next year beekeepers from all over the country showed up with semi-loads of hives, hoping to cash in. Although the problem did not start in California, this transport also quickly spread the new parasites and pathogens all over the country (and in November of 2006 Dave Hackenberg pulled into a location in Florida where he’d left 400 hives a few weeks before, and found most of them dead and without any sign of the bees. Thus was born what later came to be known as CCD (Colony Collapse Disorder).

Practical application: In 2005 I wrote to the editors of both bee journals, pointing out that our industry had just passed a watershed moment – for the first time in history, the U.S. beekeeping industry made more money from pollination than from honey production.

Indicators of Change

The Greek philosopher Heraclitus famously observed that “nothing is constant but change.” And Rucker and Thurmond [] pointed out that “Beekeeping evolves in response to exogenous shocks.” Anyone in business would do well to read the book “Who Moved My Cheese?” by Spencer Johnson, which shows us how embrace change and adapt to new circumstances (Figure 2).

Fig. 2 I thank beekeeper Jay Miller for bringing this book to beekeepers’ attention years ago.

Some of Dr. Johnson’s key recommendations are to:

• Embrace change: Accept that change is inevitable and that it can lead to new opportunities.
• Be adaptable: Be open to change and ready to adjust your plans and strategies.
• Anticipate change: Look for early indicators of change so you can prepare.
• Be proactive: Take action to find new opportunities instead of waiting for them to happen.

To evaluate our current situation, let’s take a look at the early indicators of changes regarding the “rides” that we beekeepers in the U.S. have been on for the past twenty years, and how we might want to prepare for them.

The Four Booms, Sprees, and Joyrides that We’ve Been Enjoying

• The demand for bees for almond pollination
• The boom of interest in beekeeping after CCD.
• The synthetic miticides as “silver bullets”
• The profitability of beekeeping and Government subsidies.

I’ll go over each of the above in turn, and point out early indicators and preparation.

The Demand for Bees for Almond Pollination

We’ve been riding on the coattails of the almond industry for twenty years now, resulting in beekeepers managing for number of rentable hives rather than honey yield, resulting in overcrowding of apiaries and overstocking of the landscape in many areas. But as pointed out by Todd Fitchette, writing in Farm Progress [], this ride may be coming to an end (Figure 3).

Fig. 3 From the above article: Non-bearing almond acreage … is well under half of the average acreage of non-bearing trees in the ground over the past 10 years, suggesting that farmers have not been as optimistic about almonds as they were a decade ago.

Total almond acreage fell for the third consecutive year to just over 1.5 million acres… a drop of about 40,000 acres from the previous crop year. The decline in total almond acreage may have a multi-faceted cause. Low almond returns over the past several years have turned what was once a profitable crop into an unprofitable one, forcing some growers to give up on the crop altogether. Increased input costs to farm those almonds, and the reduction in irrigation water in some growing areas likely led farmers to remove or abandon orchards.

Not only this, but the current price of colony rental constitutes 14% of total cultural costs – more than fertilizer or pest control, and over half what they spend for irrigation []. Growers were willing to pay over $200 rent when they were making money, but not when there’s no profit margin.

Since the price for pollination jumped in 2005, there has been strong pressure to develop almond cultivars that are self-fertile, and thus requiring fewer (if any) hives per acre (and are of the quality of Nonpareil). Currently, only about 3% percent of bearing acreage is of self-fertile trees (predominately Independence). That percentage can be expected to go up, since there have been some recent advances in almond breeding (Figures 4 & 5).

Fig. 4 Yorizane is a new self-pollinating almond variety developed by USDA’s Agricultural Research Service with “superb consumer traits such as size, color, and flavor” [].

Fig. 5 Even more worrisome to us almond pollinators, are two new gene-edited self-fertile cultivars of Nonpareil [], which may match Nonpareil in quality.

Almond orchards are typically replanted every 25 years, and take 3-4 years to produce a harvest. So growers are cautious about gambling on planting new cultivars until they’ve been field tested (and sold) by fellow growers. I just heard that one of the nurseries that had been selling a self-fertile cultivar that had been competing with Independence, is now telling their growers to pull them out and replant with something else.

Early Indicators and Preparation

USDA’s 2023 California Almond Nursery Sales Report indicated that 42% of recent sales of trees have been for self-fertile varieties []. Since total almond acreage has plateaued, and is shifting towards self-fertile cultivars, we can expect the demand for hives for pollination to decrease substantially. Growers will likely be back in a strong bargaining position, with supply of hives exceeding demand. Many of us will need to adjust our business models.

The Boom of Interest in Beekeeping after CCD

Fig. 6 An example of the sudden collapse of one of my own colonies down to a silver-dollar sized patch of bees and their queen. Although this symptomology largely disappeared by 2010 (as nature selected against bees that couldn’t handle “nosema” ceranae), concern about bees “disappearing” got the world’s attention.

Out of curiosity, I ran a Google trends search for the use of the phrase “save the bees” (Figure 7).

Fig. 7 Timeline of searches for the phrase “save the bees.” Interestingly, although there was a spike right after CCD made the press in 2007, interest appeared to peak ten years later. But then note that it’s been in decline since then.

Being put in the limelight benefitted us in several ways:

• It made it a lot easier for us to get new bee locations,.
• Public awareness and pressure helped to reduce pesticide issues.
• There was more funding for bee research.
• An increased demand for those of us who sold bees or queens.
• An awareness that the consumer could help beekeepers by buying local honey.
• And perhaps most importantly, a huge shift in the demographics of beekeepers, with far more women and younger beekeepers getting involved.

The beekeeping supply houses enjoyed a wild (and very profitable) ride from the hobby interest in beekeeping, which often led to shortages in essential beekeeping woodenware and feed. It also brought a gazillion new products to market, but unfortunately not lower prices (adjusted for inflation).

Although the best way to save the bees is to provide more insecticide-free forage, many people decided to give beekeeping a try (Figure 8).

Fig. 8 Similar to saving the bees, the interest in beekeeping also appears to be wearing off, as people learn that there’s more work involved than they hoped. I still wonder whatever happened to all the hives bought by newbies who later gave up when they realized that work was involved in being a bee-keeper!

Early Indicators and Preparation

It appears that we are on the downside in the hump of public interest in bees and beekeepers, and that a younger and more diverse generation will likely settle into a more stabilized market.

The Synthetic Miticides as “Silver Bullets”

Since the discovery that the agricultural miticide tau-fluvalinate could also be used to control mites in beehives, our industry has been dependent upon synthetic miticides. But there are three issues with the current miticides (aka acaricides): (1) Loss of efficacy, (2) the availability of inexpensive treatments, and (3) the need to learn how to shift to other methods of mite control. I’ll go over them one at a time.

Loss of Efficacy

The synthetic miticides were “silver bullets” that cleared varroa from our hives like the wave of a wand. The bummer is that mites have shown their ability to fairly rapidly evolve resistance to neurotoxic synthetic acaricides. As bemoaned by Dr. Frank Rinkevich, the synthetic miticides “work great until they don’t” (Figure 9).

Fig. 9 In recent years I’ve visited beekeepers all over the world (here Camilo Valdivia in Chile), and everywhere I go they complain of amitraz no longer being efficacious.

Early Indicators and Preparation

In parts of Canada, mites are nearly fully resistant to amitraz [], and in many U.S.operations, mites are also exhibiting degrees of resistance. Unless there is another silver bullet in the pipeline that I haven’t heard of, commercial beekeepers are going to need to learn how to shift to other methods of mite control (something I hope to cover next month).

The Availability of Inexpensive Treatments

Many commercial beekeepers have been saving money with “off label” use of miticides registered for other uses – notably amitraz. The EPA has long been turning a blind eye to that practice. But since the Agency has now registered both Apivar and Amiflex specifically for varroa, it has lost patience with beekeepers who are flouting the law by using amitraz products not registered in the U.S., and has been disrupting the supply by cracking down on the smugglers (Figure 10).

Fig. 10 “In pleading guilty, the defendant acknowledged that since at least November 2020, he coordinated the smuggling of … Taktic and Bovitraz. Maximum Penalty: Five years in prison and $250,000 fine” [] (AI generated image).

Practical application: It remains to be seen how these actions are going to affect the availability of low-cost amitraz treatments.

Early Indicators and Preparation

It’s likely to become more difficult to obtain cheap amitraz. This will add an additional expense to operations that have enjoyed this inexpensive treatment.

The Profitability of Beekeeping and Government Subsidies

Commercial beekeepers are struggling with tight operating margins, trouble keeping varroa under control (with resultingly high winter losses), and depressed honey prices. Some months ago, a questionable offer was made to beekeepers by an entity called Geocure, which offered to buy their hives and pollination contracts for a lavishly generous sum. A number of those thinking of retirement were eager to jump at the opportunity of cashing out (if the offer wasn’t a scam). This observation suggests that a number of beekeeping operations are “on the edge,” which raises the following question:

The Question: Is beekeeping Less Profitable Today than it Used to Be?

Beekeeping as a business has always been hard work for minimal return – there are easier ways to make money. Most of us do it for our enjoyment of the occupation, the lifestyle, and the connection with “our” bees. Sure, we all know that varroa has made things tougher, but is the business of beekeeping less profitable than it used to be? Let’s compare the returns from our main revenue sources, compared to the inflation of the dollar over the past 37 years (Figure 11).

Fig. 11 A dollar in 1988 would be worth $2.75 today. Labor has tracked inflation, but our returns for pollination, honey, or nuc sales have increased far more greatly – suggesting that beekeeping might actually be more profitable today than “back then.” (Some prices from memory, honey data from []).

Curious, I searched for historical data on income and expenses for commercial beekeeping prior to varroa. Thanks to Rucker,Thurman, and Burgett [], and more recently, Champetier, Lee, and Sumner [], there are some great reviews. But I struck gold with a 1994 paper by Hoff and Willet [], which had a copious number of data tables for beekeepers in different regions, and by size of operation – based upon an extensive 1988 survey. This allowed me to compare the profitability of commercial beekeeping “back in the old days” (before varroa and the jump in almond pollination) to our situation today (adjusted for inflation).

Let’s begin by seeing what sizes of operations were profitable back then (Figure 12).

Fig. 12 All operation sizes were in the black other than those in the 5-10 thousand hive range (perhaps due to being in expansion mode?).

Back in 1988, honey sold for about 40 cents per pound. Pollination fees varied across the country by crop, ranging from $9.50 to $35. The hourly wage rates paid to hired labor averaged $5.83 for full-time workers and $4.59 for part-time workers. So how do the revenues and expenses back then compare to those today?

I used the data from Hoff and Willet for 1988, which they had broken down for income by region of the country, revenues for “full-time” beekeepers, and expenses by operation size. In Table 1, I show their Midwest and West figures, and Country averages. In red I convert the averages into today’s dollars. Then for comparison, I added my best guess estimates for figures for a commercial beekeeper today.

Table 1. Out of curiosity, I spent a lot of time creating this table, using guestimates for the 2025 figures. Since varroa, labor per hive has roughly doubled (plus cost of treatments). Costs for feed and trucking will of course vary greatly with one’s location. Some have more income from bee or queen sales, from using use cheaper miticides, or government/insurance benefits. I’d appreciate any feedback on current revenue and expense figures from other commercial beekeepers, since I’d like to follow up on John Miller’s calcs on what it costs to supply a hive for almond pollination.

Bottom line: Even though we get a heckuva lot more today for almond pollination, our expenses for labor, feed, queen replacement, and trucking have increased more than inflation. So it appears that commercial beekeeping is in the same ballpark of profitability today than it was back then. But that is greatly dependent upon one’s overall colony “losses.”

Impact of Colony “Loss”

This is a touchy subject to write about. Back in the day, the standard rule of thumb for almond pollinators was “plan on being able to take 2/3 of your June colony count to almonds.” Some degree of colony or queen failures was expected, and during summer, in autumn, and again in February we combined our weak or poorly-performing colonies. This 33% reduction in hive numbers was an accepted rate of “colony loss” prior to varroa. So now, with many beekeepers failing to adequately control mites, the surveys trumpeting 40% colony loss rates come as no surprise.

That said, the percentage of colonies that fail (for whatever reasons) definitely affects one’s bottom line. So I did some more seat-of-the-pants calcs (Table 2).

Table 2 It’s no surprise that the lower your losses, the more profitable your business. These rough calcs indicate that 50% (or greater) losses put you in the red.

Early Indicators and Preparation

It’s hard to stay in business unless you control varroa! Due to issues with amitraz, many beekeepers will need to learn other methods of mite management. Due to decreasing honey crops, and the outlook for almond pollination demand, many beekeepers may need to tighten their belts (especially those distant from California).

Changes that May Affect Profitability

Government Support

Since I’ve brought up the touchy subject of government support, I may as well address this next, since as I type these words, the news is rife about a guy named Elon who is taking a chainsaw to federal outlays and support programs.

U.S. farmers and ranchers receive a good deal of taxpayer support in the form of farm subsidies, and the beekeeping industry gets our share of it. Back in 1988, government payments accounted for about 25-50% of the revenue reported by the beekeepers surveyed. Today there is no lack of programs that beekeepers are eligible for [], a primary one being The Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honeybees, and Farm Raised Fish Program (ELAP), which provides emergency assistance to eligible producers of livestock, honeybees, and farm-raised fish who have losses due to disease, adverse weather, or other conditions, including losses due to blizzards or wildfire (Figure 13).

Fig. 13 Annual ELAP compensation for emergency losses. Total annual outlays have been in the $40-50 million range (for only about 1% of colonies in the U.S. each year, at around $120 per colony). This program has saved many beekeepers asses. Source [].

“In 2019, about 57% of all colonies were insured, with subsidies totaling $25 million ... For perspective, total beekeeper income in 2017 was $695 million” [] (that works out to less than 4% of total income).

Practical Application: However, there are gripes that some beekeepers have learned to “work the system,” with some having received hundreds of thousands of dollars, year after year for their recurring “emergencies” []. In my own case, I was averse to applying for taxpayer handouts, but this January I encouraged my son Eric to apply for ELAP compensation for his serious unexplained losses – not simply because those losses put us into the red, but because if we didn’t receive the compensation that others are getting, we’d be competing on an uneven playing field, since those who get checks for many thousands of dollars each year can then sell their honey or nucs, or rent their hives at cheaper rates than we can.

Our new Administration is telling the USDA to cut 10% of their outlays. So Elon will likely be looking for programs tainted by fraud or abuse. So I did a quick internet search to see what he might find.

Taxpayers for Common Sense and the influential Cato Institute may help him look for targets: “The federal government spends more than $30 billion a year on subsidies for farm businesses and agriculture…Like many subsidy programs, farm programs suffer from bureaucratic waste and recipient fraud and abuse” []. Although much of that abuse goes to wealthy farmers who don’t need the help, they are also the ones with the most political clout.

A 2017 audit by the Inspector General for the USDA found that beekeepers received nearly 80 percent of all ELAP commodity payments, and that there were questions about overpayments [].

Early Indicators and Preparation

At the time of this writing, the pause in ELAP was lifted, but Government assistance to beekeepers will likely be under continued scrutiny and pressure to be reduced. Plan accordingly.

The Cost of Labor

Farm labor (adjusted for inflation) doesn’t cost much more today than it did in 1988. But our current Administration is hellbent on deporting undocumented workers. Due to the law of supply and demand, this could raise the cost of agricultural labor (including beekeeping).

Early Indicators and Preparation

It’s not like the old days when you could hire high school and college kids during the summer – few Americans nowadays are interested in hard, hot, dirty outdoor work. And without a labor pool of immigrants, it’s too early to tell how much it’s gonna cost to hire beekeeper labor in the future.

Competing Against Fake Honey

A huge issue in the profitability of beekeeping is that although the honey that our bees produce is beloved by U.S. consumer, its market price is suppressed by competition with “fake honey” largely from China, which can be produced at a much lower price (Figure 14).

Fig. 14 This “economically motivated adulteration” of honey really hurts us, because it sets the bottom line for the price of true honey, since large food manufacturers can state that their products contain “honey,” even if it is actually flavored rice syrup. Source [].

Perhaps as worrisome, agricultural efficiency and herbicides have greatly reduced our once-plentiful forage, and climate change means unpredictable weather, with more droughts and stronger storms. As a result, honey yield per hive has been on a downward trend (Figure 15).

Fig. 15 Although honey yield has been trending downward, the inflation-adjusted price for honey has been going upward (black trendline), resulting in an increase in the inflation-adjusted net income per hive for honey production.

There is some government action being taken to thwart the importation of “mislabeled” honey (Figure 16).

Fig. 16 Special agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), and officers with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) seizing illegally imported Chinese honey destined for U.S. consumers. Source [].

But despite the pleas from our industry for the creation of a Standard of Identity for honey, the FDA has deferred [], and it’s been up to the AHPA and other parties to file antidumping duty petitions for the Government to enforce antidumping measures against “honey” being sold at less than fair value (due to its causing material injury to the domestic raw honey industry).

The EU better understands that artificially-low honey prices are an aspect of food security, since the sustainability of beekeepers is necessary to supply the pollinators for many agricultural crops, and that “current rules do not take account of fraudulent practices affecting processed products such as biscuits breakfast cereals, confectionary, etc.; whereas the label ‘honey’ can mislead consumers in regard to the real content of the given product” [].

There appears to be more pressure in the EU to move forward on reducing honey fraud, but “analytical methods to ascertain honey authenticity exist but are lagging behind and are lacking sufficient sensitivity to detect low and intermediate levels of sugar adulterations. Thus, fraudsters are adapting the level of adulteration with extraneous sugars in honey to exploit the weakness of the current analytical capabilities” [].

Early Indicators and Preparation

The demand for hives for almond pollination appears to be downhill. So unless we can get serious enforcement against the import of fake honey, it will be more difficult for commercial operations to remain profitable with honey production as their sole source of income.

Good news! The American Honey Producers Association was proud to announce the introduction of the Honey Integrity Act. In partnership with Representatives Steube and Panetta, and Senator Tuberville, they have worked hard to craft a bill that will bring fairness back to honey markets.

Outlook for the Future

Early Indicators and Preparation

Bob Dylan said it well: The times they are a’changin’. Similar as to what is currently occurring in both New Zealand (following the crash of the manuka bubble), Australia (undergoing the invasion of varroa), as well as in most of the rest of the world (failure of miticides and the invasions of hornets and tropilaelaps) beekeeping industries are undergoing “resets” as they adjust to new realities.

Keep your Eye on the Rainbow! During times of economic changes or even collapse, opportunities arise for businesses that are able to adapt (Figure 17).

Fig. 17 I love this photo from Northern California recently shared with me by Katie Davis. Although the storm cloud looks threatening, you can focus instead on the rainbow.

When times are tough, some give up, but others address it as a challenge. Beekeeping is hard work, with a slim margin of profit, and much dependent upon weather and colony health. Let me wrap up with a couple of quotes:

What is a Disaster for Most is an Opportunity for a Few – Richard Ney

Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work – Thomas Edison

My sons were heartbroken as they watched their colonies dwindle away last autumn, and then hauled in truckloads of deadouts, rather than enjoying the profit they had planned to make from almond pollination (this put them in the red). But as I type these words, they are working their butts off, splitting their returned hives into nucs today (despite the weather going from sunny and warm to cold and snowing). That’s beekeeping!

Next

A New Era in Mite Management

Citations and Notes

[1] Get an idea by reading the book Bad Beekeeping by Ron Miksha (2004), or watching the movie The Last Beekeeper by Jeremy Simmonds https://tubitv.com/movies/578162/the-last-beekeeper

[1] https://ecg742.wordpress.ncsu.edu/files/2019/03/Combing-the-Landscape-complete-package.pdf

[1] https://www.farmprogress.com/tree-nuts/calif-almond-acreage-continues-to-decline

[1] https://coststudyfiles.ucdavis.edu/2024/09/30/AlmondsSJVNorth%20Final%20draft4.pdf

[1] https://www.ars.usda.gov/news-events/news/research-news/2021/researchers-develop-self-pollinating-almond-with-a-gold-mine-of-tasty-traits/

[1] Lee, C (2025) Gene editing behind two new self-pollinating Nonpareils. Ag Alert 29 Jan 2025.

[1] United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service 2023 California Almond Nursery Sales Report.

[1] Bahreini, R, et al (2025) Arising amitraz and pyrethroids resistance mutations in the ectoparasitic Varroa destructor mite in Canada. Scientific Reports 15(1): 1587.

[1] https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdca/pr/man-pleads-guilty-conspiring-smuggle-pesticides-united-states

[1] https://usda.library.cornell.edu/concern/publications/hd76s004z?locale=en#release-items

[1] Rucker, R, et al (2019) Honey Bee Mortality, Markets, and the Food Supply. Choices 34(4): 1-9.

[1] Champetier, A, et al (2019). Honey, forage and almond-pollinating honey bees. Choices 34(4): 1-8

[1] Hoff, F & L Willett (1994) The US Beekeeping Industry. USDA Economic Research Service, Agricultural Economic Report AER-680.

Due to concerns about the effects of recently-introduced mites, the use of certain toxic chemicals in honeybee foraging areas, increasing honey imports, and possible changes in the honey price support program, Congress mandated a study of the state of the beekeeping industry in 1987. The result (the 1988 Honey Industry Survey) was analyzed in detail in this paper.

[1] https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/usda-programs-resources-support-beekeepers.pdf

[1] https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/print-publications/agec/disaster-assistance-for-honeybee-producers-a.pdf

[1] https://www.rcreader.com/news-releases/usda-extends-sign-emergency-assistance-eligible-producers-livestock-honeybees-and-farm

[1] https://www.fsa.usda.gov/documents/state-al-infoianapmt24finaldt25002

[1] https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2023-08/briefing-paper-162.pdf

[1] https://usdaoig.oversight.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2024-11/03702-0001-23_FR_09282020.pdf

[1] https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/IF12185.pdf

[1] https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/ice-cbp-houston-seize-illegally-imported-honey-valued-245-million

[1] https://cambp.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk2526/files/media/documents/honey_white_paper.pdf

[1] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2018-0057_EN.pdf

[1] https://food.ec.europa.eu/food-safety/eu-agri-food-fraud-network/eu-coordinated-actions/honey-2021-2022_en#findings-of-the-eu-action