The impact of the natural honeycomb management on Apis mellifera colonies

The mite ectoparasite Varroa destructor, poses a serious threat for the survival of the Apis mellifera colonies. The intensive use of acaricidal products is one of the most common methods for defending bees from Varroa that can cause the contamination of the wax foundation used in beekeeping. The natural honeycomb management could provide a solution for this problem, because it involves the use of frames without wax foundation which allows the bees to build a complete comb ex novo. On the other hand, colonies which are free to build cells of their choice, usually build a number of drone cells higher than colonies managed with the wax foundation. This could potentially lead to several negative consequences because the V. destructor reproductive success is greater on drone broods than on worker broods. The aim of the present study was to examine the colony development, to evaluate the honey production and to monitor the growth of V. destructor infestations and associated virus infections in Apis mellifera colonies managed by using natural honeycombs compared with the conventional management. Several colony parameters were measured in spring and summer. The strength of the colony was used to estimate the worker and drone populations. In order to measure the V. destructor infestations were used several methods, such as the natural mite fall, the powdered sugar roll, the soapy water and the brood cell uncapping. Molecular analysis was performed in order to measure the viral load of five Apis mellifera viruses. The honey produced was measured by collecting the honey stored in the supers, which are boxes placed on a beehive for bees to store. The results showed that the higher presence of drone brood in the colonies managed using the natural honeycomb did not negatively affect the colony development nor the mite V. destructor population compared to control colonies. The molecular analysis showed that the DWV was the most common virus found in bee samples, and its viral load was more influenced from the mite infestation rate than from the treatment. The analysis carried out in this study showed that the natural honeycomb management can represent a valid alternative to the wax foundation. This kind of colony management thus appears to contradict our primary hypothesis which was that letting the bees build their own honeycomb would have led to a significant increase in the V. destructor infestation. Productivity data did not provide reliable results about the difference between the natural honeycomb and the conventional colony management due to climatic adversities. Further studies will be performed to better investigate this aspect. Data about the natural mite fall and the estimation of the mite population in the phoretic/reproductive phases provided a useful starting point for further studies on the correct timing to carry out acaricide treatments both in conventional and natural honeycomb managed colonies.