The Robotic Beekeepers are Already Here (and [Steadily] Improving)
You probably imagine a humanoid robot carrying supers and performing inspections. That is all well and good since honey supers are backbreaking manual work. What it can’t (yet) do are the creative aspects – can a robot sense that a hive box is failing, and provide solutions beyond notifying the “central hub” to replace it? Can it predict temperament and seasonal survival likelihood? As of writing, the answer is “kind of”, and perhaps in a few years it will be “yes”.
Sorry beekeepers, the majority of our tasks can be automated with enough datapoints feeding into the “artificial intelligence”. Take temperature control, which can be managed with current technologies that are not-yet-feasible due to scale. Place a temperature sensor in a hive and surround the box with a blanket that heats/cools on demand. Or perhaps consider running HVAC tubings across the top bars to release hot/cold air according to the thermoregulatory needs.
“But the bees will propolise the tubes!!” True, and it’s an easy fix – release warm air through the ventilation tubes to melt the seals and construct tubes out of aluminium so the bees cannot chew through. Implementing this is easy for one hive, not so much for one hundred. What other aspects can a robot (physical or digital) control? Swarm management, queen breeding, inspections, disease management, pest control, honey harvesting… the list goes on.
It’s easier to ask “what can’t a robot do?” As of writing, I’d say creativity, judgement, and taste (both literal and metaphorical). This article will be more explorative pf one possible future for beekeeping and may seem a bit woo-woo at times. Buckle up.
Smart Hives: Current Automations on the Market
A year ago I published “Apps for backyard beekeeping” and focused on the use of Big Data™ to drive beekeeping decisions. Apps like “ApisProtect” were for remote monitoring systems, whereas the “BeeHome” is an upsized Langstroth hive with-built in technology that constantly monitor colonies using AI & cameras. Both use cases are great for commercial pollination (the largest aspect of beekeeping), not so much for honey or propolis/wax harvesting.
BeeHome’s parent company Beewise continues to expand its operations. As of their 2024 annual report, over 1,240 BeeHomes are in the field (likely around North America & [?]Israel), and this number is growing. The devices are developed based on data from “traditional” (Langstroth), “passive” (Langstroth with sensors-only) and “active” (AI+sensors) beekeeping. A single BeeHome unit is the size of a trailer that can hold ~20-24 colonies. As with any hive box, it’s climate-controlled, and insulated from weather extremes.
Within the BeeHome box is a robot that accesses each colony to carry out basic inspections and photograph brood, deploy spot heating for Varroa, feed colonies sugar when needed and harvest honey. There is a camera that provides data on laying patterns, queen status, food stores, and queen/Varroa presence. More data is provided using sensors: temperature, humidity, weight, acoustics and so on. This continual monitoring feeds back into the AI-decision layer for “predictive” beekeeping (elaborated below), which is a level above our current “reactive” beekeeping.
Simpler Automation: Wireless Beehome
Koppert sells a Wireless Beehome, a hive containing Bombus terrestris. The box is WiFi controlled and can be opened & closed automatically at set times according to sunlight levels, based on the findings that bumble bees (and bees in general)1 have difficulty navigating under low-UV light (reviewed in Mathejczyl & Wernet, 2017). Beehome provided a solution to the issue of bumble bees struggling to navigate in the artificial “grow light” of greenhouses, which had been used to provide light for growth during the short daylight hours of in the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere.
From the product manual: “A receiver is placed on each active hive in the greenhouse and tuned to the transmitter signal. Once the devices have been set up correctly, the receivers will open and close all Natupol [brand] hives at set times… Using the Wireless BeeHome system, bumblebees can only leave the hive at times at which there is enough natural light for them to navigate effectively.”.
Sensor Use in Commercial Beekeeping
The rise (and improvement) in sensor use is due to beekeepers’ desires to reduce the (hard-and-sweaty) workload associated with manual assessments of colony health. Research by Cook and colleagues identified a model whereby temperature sensors can remotely asses a colony’s health by estimating the presence and absence of bees relative to a hive’s natural thermal cycles2 (Cook et al., 2022).
Already on the market are sensors that measure temperature, carbon dioxide, humidity, weight, sound, and vibrations. It is the temperature sensors that are the most bang (sting?)-for-your-buck: easy to install with broadly applicable data. A strong hive will tightly control temperatures, and in turn this can be used to anticipate how well it will buffer carbon dioxide and humidity (Note that a humidity sensor could only tell you if there is water scarcity, however given that bees also utilise the water in nectar, such measurements have limited practical applications).
Sound sensors have yet to be widely implemented, and their usage would be around swarm management & queen presence (i.e. queen piping & presence-proclaiming calls, respectively), or maybe listening in for the buzzing of the waggle dance to indicate forage availability. Likewise, vibration & radar sensors can detect activity at the hive that enables a less-experienced beekeeper to differentiate between robbing, swarming and orientation flights.
Barriers to Adoption: High Costs, Connectivity Issues & Limited Commercial Availability
Recent survey results from Sattler, Barron & Colin found the factors mentioned above to be the greatest hurdle for widespread implementation of hive sensors in the Australian commercial beekeeping landscape (and I expand this to include “smart hives”; Sattler, Barron & Colin, 2025). They surveyed 69 beekeepers across the country with the majority being from New South Wales (51). Of the 69, 68% had less than 100 hives and were deemed “amateur beekeepers”3.
The cost vs benefits were viewed more favourably by commercial beekeepers who see advantages in saving time and reducing unnecessary trips to remote apiaries, as in “I need to make sure the queen is okay after falling from the frame”. I presume the amateur beekeepers were more hesitant as their hives are (usually) nearby and their smaller numbers keeps manual inspections viable; after all, opening hives is part of the fun!
A local challenge is the remoteness of pollination sites in Australia. It is difficult to guarantee a reliable signal for communications and data transfer. This makes the reporting of “real-time” metrics (e.g. swarming) redundant since a timely response to an apiary several hundred kilometres away is… uneconomical. The authors suggest two approaches to improve adoption: having governments support the development of “better cellphone network infrastructures in areas that require significant pollination” and having manufacturers partner with “…researchers and beekeepers to help improve user experience, data interpretation and trust in data interpretation” (Sattler, Barron & Colin, 2025).
Robotic Control: Swarming
Can a robotic hive control swarming? “Yes”, if you define swarm management as the removal queen cells as they appear. Also “Yes” if your definition includes adding on supers when conditions get crowded. Now you’re thinking “wow, swarm management is so easy” and I agree with you, it is easy on paper. The hard parts are finding queen cells, making sure the original queen is in the hive, and in assessing colony health and stores.
“Brilliant, I’m keeping a robot for all my swarming needs” – not so fast champ, there’s also swarming’s less-welcome cousin, absconding. You can swarm control all you want, but if the bees become dissatisfied with their home (due to pests/disease/dearth etc…) no technology will save you. Even shutting the hive door upon detection of an “absconding signal” will not suffice, for given how little we know about this phenomenon, there is nothing stopping them from restarting the absconding process once the entrance reopens, assuming the pests/disease/dearth etc… doesn’t get to them first.
Swarming Markers a Robot Would Look For
Our smart hive would look at changes in colony conditions and non-chemical signals 4in the soon-to-swarm hive. Mass queen rearing is the obvious signal, for it is the easiest to spot. Not-so-obvious examples (to a robot anyway) is the possible decrease in brood production (whether as a direct or indirect consequence of reduced queen feeding), congested colonies, as well as the engorgement of workers on honey in anticipation of flight.
The not-so-obvious factors are difficult to determine in isolation. Decreased brood production could be in response to disease or a lack of forage. Likewise, the engorgement of workers could be a false positive, for perhaps the beekeeper had oversmoked the hives during their inspection. Congested colonies generally swarm earlier than the uncongested ones, however this does not mean that a congested colony will swarm; I’ve heard of cases where a relatively-depopulated colony swarmed.
Perhaps in the future we will identify a specific sound or pheromone that heralds swarming preparation, for now, our hive robot’s task is fulfilled by removing swarm cells as they emerge, as bees will not swarm without rearing a new queen. To prevent false positives, they’ll ensure the queen is present and is in good health before destroying the newly made queen cells.
Robotic Control: General Hive Management
Pest, parasite and disease control, removal of wax from the top bars/hive lid, brood health and hive store checks, temperature and humidity controls… all are possible, and not that far out of reach, based on what we know so far. Sensors and “intelligent” data processing are the basis of such actions. Some bullet points:
- Since we have sensors that detect and report changes in temperature and humidity, the next step is to act on them by increasing or decreasing temperature respectively; humidity is self-manageable unless the hive is directly above a downpipe (why would you do this?).
- Temperature control can be achieved by having HVAC ducts around the hive wall, away from the bees and pumping out hot/cool air as required (perhaps by “double layering” the hive box so that the air is released into the space between the two layers?).
- Removal of wax from the top bars, or any unwanted places is achieved by spot-heating the areas in question, and this can be done by perhaps redirecting heat release from the HVAC ducts into the target area. The melted wax is collected and reused elsewhere by the bees.
- This suggests that management is only possible on comb located at the “outer perimeter” of the hive, and that’s fine – the inner areas can be left under the control of the bees.
- This method can also be used for propolis.
- Pest control is simple: if it does not look like a bee, whack it. The “whacking” may be harder to implement, however it does not mean that a robot cannot deploy on-demand bait stations to manage invading small hive beetles and wax moths. Ant control is likewise achieved in a similar man, as I wager that “placing the hive on stilts with the legs inside oil buckets” may not feasible given all the machinery and the (metaphorically) moving parts.
- Disease control and hive health go hand in hand: the robot would assess chemical signatures from a random sample of brood cells and compare those against the chemical signatures of healthy brood at various development stages (Noel et al., 2023). If they align, the brood is healthy. If they do not, it is checked against a database of known pathogens to identify what condition it may be. If it’s an entirely new molecule, the beekeeper is alerted (I can imagine many false positives here).
- This is probably the most straightforward – the robot would have molecular diagnostics capabilities to sequence the pathogen/brood in question and compare that sequence against the template. Results can be transmitted to the beekeeper via apps or a cloud.
- Parasite management like Varroa is interesting. Perhaps the hive entrance and areas throughout box could feature “rubbing posts” that can groom adult mites off, or perhaps upon exceeding a Varroa threshold, a sprinkler/pipe system can release sugar water or a sticky gas that triggers grooming behaviour, which will increase mite removal rates.
- “Spot heating” of infested brood has been trialed with success “These devices expose mites to high temperatures ranging from 40 to 42 °C for 90–180 min, with the aim of adversely affecting mites” (reviewed in Xu et al., 2025):
- Mite zapper (USA), targets mites in drone broodThermovar (Greece) releases heated air into the entire colony, targeting both roaming & in-cell (incel?) mitesThe thermo-solar hive is a box made of glass that increases in temperature when left out in the sun.The Bee Ethic system (Italy), targets mites by heating a select number of frames.
- Vatorex (Switzerland), targets reproductive mites in brood cells by integrating iron coils into wax foundations
- “Spot heating” of infested brood has been trialed with success “These devices expose mites to high temperatures ranging from 40 to 42 °C for 90–180 min, with the aim of adversely affecting mites” (reviewed in Xu et al., 2025):
Altered Chemical Signatures: Pest & Disease Management
We know from the work of Noel and colleague’s that various volatile organic compounds (“VOCs”) are released by brood during their development cycle, and these chemical profiles change according to brood health (Noel et al., 2023). Hygienic behaviour is triggered when dead brood release oleic acid and (E)-β-ocimene, whereas chalkbrood-infected larvae release phenethyl acetate, 2-phenylethanol, and benzyl alcohol that marks them for removal (Swanson et al., 2009).
Multiple chemical signatures are released with Varroa-infested brood, and the specially-bred Varroa-sensitive hygienic bees are better able to detect them and act on parasitised brood. Likewise, brood infected by viruses vectored from the mites show altered chemical signatures, most of which are not very volatile and thus do not “easily diffuse” out of the cell, or across the wax-capped pupa.
Of the 32 compounds identified in their study, (E)-β-ocimene was the most abundant, from the egg stage to the day of adult emergence (“eclosion”; Noel et al., 2023). Other compounds detected varied with the larval stage, and it is possible that when an egg or larva or pupa is diseased or parasitised, the fluctuations in VOC levels will trigger an inspection and/or removal by the nurse bees, with more hygienic bees being more sensitive to the changes.
Dealing with False Positives & Negative: Multiple Analysis & Reporting
An issue with any technology are those false results that appear true. Even our eyes can deceive: suppose you did not find the queen during your rough-and-rushed inspection, but found plenty of eggs. You may (rightfully) conclude that the queen is there, for eggs remain. Two weeks later you reinspect and observe emergency queen cells on frames and utter “huh”. This was a false positive, you thought she was there, but she was not, and as with technology, the probability of these occurrences “should be” low, for the consequences are (potentially) fatal.
A review by Zaman & Dorin suggested that monitoring devices should take on a Operational, Investigative, and Predictive [OIP] framework to provide accurate health assessments & minimise false-positive & -negative reports when assessing unhealthy hives (Zaman & Dorin, 2023). The Operational layer involves raw data monitoring, The Investigative compiles multiple Operational datapoints for establishing a hive’s baseline using historical & external data, whilst the Predictive aspect uses the same investigative data for modelling predicted outcomes (e.g. likelihood to swarm, need for requeening etc…)
Camera-based Hive Monitoring Improves as AI Models Grow
Another study proposed using a camera-based monitoring system to observe bees and Varroa mites (Michel et al., 2024). By training the software on what constitutes a bee (this was conducted in 2023 when “AI” was not-yet-mainstream), they investigated the feasibility of having a camera facing the frames & one at the hive box base. The model showed poor results due to the presence of “mostly blurred bees”; this low precision produced higher rates of false positives/negatives.
No matter, the authors conclude that it is a positive step forward towards novel Varroa detection, and I wager with the improvements in the large language models, the next experiment will provide better results… just one more data centre bro, trust me.
What to Expect from Autonomous Beekeeping
The emerging themes are in accessibility, accuracy, affordability, accountability and… some other noun starting with ‘a’. The accessibility is being managed by governments, who are working at their government pace to erect infrastructure for high-traffic rural areas (oxymoron intended). Accuracy comes with each iteration and rollout of a model; each generation (is meant to) surpasses the next.
Affordability is… a personal one, if money is emotional then purchasing and using this equipment is up to you. It makes more sense to invest in this gear when you have hundreds of hives than a handful. (Your data also feeds back into the system and can be used to improve the models, whether or not you allow cookies). Accountability is a funny one given how well regulations can be gamed, so long as it is “legal”.
Beginners can benefit greatly from this, as on-the-spot “tailored tips” will help them improve confidence in themselves and their decision making. Technology is making the future bright for beekeepers, big and small.
Read the whole post and found puns, typos mistakes? Voice your displeasure with a strongly-worded message to admin@tgbee.com.au, or by filling this form.
Footnotes
- Not all aspects of bumble bee navigation are impacted. For example, de Vries and colleagues found that bees can still land on greenhouse flowers under the red-blue LED lighting (de Vries et al., 2020). Flying and landing are one aspect of navigation, and we shouldn’t jump to “there are no issues with flying under artificial light”. Perhaps flower searching behaviour may be impacted, or their circadian rhythm, or something else; they’ve had sun exposure for hundreds of millions of years versus the several decades of LED lighting (this sentence is not about bees). ↩︎
- Using mathematical models, the authors found that “stronger” hives had reduced variations in hive temperature throughout the day, keeping the (I presume) honey super temperature between 12.5°C-27°C, whereas hives without bees had recorded temperatures 7.4°C greater than this range (i.e. ~ 19.9°C-~34.4°C). Likewise in cooler conditions, hives without bees had reached lower temperatures than those with them.
Another aspect was the time between midnight and peak daytime temperature inside the hive: hives without bees reached peak temperature an hour faster than one with bees. Honey bees control the temperature fluctuations via fanning/heat shielding/bearding/cooling when it is too hot, or shiver to generate warmth. ↩︎ - It could also be that the commercial guys don’t have the time or interest in completing surveys, as similar findings occurred with queen breeders. ↩︎
- There are probably specific chemicals that govern swarming (not just pheromones), however I wager it’s the same pheromones responding to altered colony conditions that drive swarming: e.g. a crowded colony leads to reduced transmission of queen mandibular pheromone due to density, stimulating workers to begin swarming preparations (reviewed in Grozinger et al., 2014) ↩︎