Subject: _Apis_ 3/96

From: [email-masked] (Adam Finkelstein)
Date: 25 Mar 1996 21:47:12 GMT

Florida Extension Beekeeping Newsletter
    Apis--Apicultural Information and Issues (ISSN 0889-3764)
                 Volume 14, Number 3, March 1996

      Copyright (c) 1996 M.T. Sanford "All Rights Reserved"

                      A POLLINATION CRISIS?

     There is another APIS newsletter in the world.  Hopefully,
this fact will not confuse those reading this publication.  Anyway,
it's pretty removed from the U.S. audience, down under in
Australia.  The full title is Apis Melbourne.  The editor, Mr.
Frank Hosemans, has reprinted information from this newsletter on
occasion.  An article in his publication brings up an ages-old
debate: the ecological consequences of introducing Apis mellifera
around the world.

     The following was published in the January 1996 issue of Apis
Melbourne.  It quotes an article from the Melbourne Sun, published
January 22, 1996:

     "The humble honeybee is one of Australia's most
environmentally damaging creatures, according to a scientist. Dr.
Graham Pike said the honeybee was responsible for driving out
several native species of fauna as well as having a bad effect on
Australian flora.  While the theory is not new, Dr. Pike said
evidence was mounting to support the idea that the honeybee was
having a long-term impact on the environment.

      "Introduced to Australia from Europe in 1822, the honeybee
was an established feral predator competing with the 3000
Australian native species of bees for territory, Dr. Pike said. It
stole pollen and nectar from under the noses of native bees, moths,
butterflies and birds such as the honeyeater, forcing native
species out of the environment. It also competed with native fauna
for tree hollows and was a poor pollinator of Australian flora --
thereby retarding natural ecological development. Dr. Pike said
while there were imperfections in some of the research done on the
bees, there was overwhelming evidence pointing to honeybees having
a damaging effect on the Australian environment. "When you look at
all these facts pointing to honeybees having a negative impact on
flora and fauna you have a strong prima facie case," Dr. Pike, an
expert in pollination ecology, said. Field studies have shown heavy
impact on native fauna and flora in areas where high concentrations
of honeybees were found.

      "Most bees you see are honeybees, they use most of the
Australian flora and this results in poor pollination because they
haven't adapted to Australian flora," he said. But Dr. Pike's
contentions have been met with opposition from the beekeeping
industry. Honeybees are a huge industry in Australia worth tens of
millions of dollars a year. "Let's say we don't see eye to eye,"
said Dr. Pike. Dr. Pike said studies were being done into possible
poison control methods to reduce the numbers of feral bees. A
program of no new licences for beekeepers under New South Wales
State Government legislation would also see the eventful phasing
out of licences," he said.

[Mr. Hosemans added an editor's note: "Recent scientific findings
are contrary to the theme of this article, and should be
highlighted to counter this continuous push to drive out the
beekeeper from native forests."]

     Mr. Hosemans' remarks notwithstanding, many of Dr. Pike's
arguments seem pertinent to a number of world regions where honey
bees have been introduced.  They have also been reiterated on
occasion in Florida, which has many unique ecosystems that exotic
species might affect.  This is the reason those in charge of state
preserves and other "natural" areas have considered actively
eliminating beekeepers.  In the past, the argument that feral honey
bees would simply fill the void left by beekeepers existed.  And
there is the pollination value of honey bees in both wild and
agricultural areas.  Honey bees, however, are not necessarily the
best pollinators in all situations (see June 1992 APIS).

     No efforts to reduce honey bee populations by poisoning feral
colonies have been proposed in the Sunshine State to my knowledge.
However, at least one recent event may have in fact created results
that might be expected from such a program.  Introduction of Varroa
into Florida appears to have eliminated many feral honey bee
colonies, setting the stage for a possible native pollinator
comeback of some proportions.  Unfortunately, unmanaged pollinators
are also in danger from many of the same phenomena that have
affected honey bees in the past.  These organisms, however, have no
beekeepers to intervene when threatened with adversity.  The risk
exists, therefore, that an as-yet-unnoticed crisis in pollination
in both agricultural and so-called "natural" areas might be
brewing.

     This potential lack of pollinators has also been a concern
outside Florida, according to the February 7, 1996 edition of
PANUPS, Pesticide Action Network North America Updates Service:
http://www.panna.org/panna/ on the world wide web.

     "Agricultural production could be threatened if populations of
bees and other pollinators continue to decline, according to the
Forgotten Pollinators Campaign, a recently launched effort to
educate the public about pollinators' critical economic and
agricultural importance.  The Campaign emphasizes North American
agriculture and ecology, but advocates greater awareness and
protection of pollinators worldwide.  Most fruits and vegetables
consumed globally grow as a result of pollination, the process by
which pollen is carried from one flower to another, thereby
increasing the chances for fertilization and fruit production.
According to the campaign's literature, a recent survey of wild
plants documented that over 60% of the plant species studied may
suffer reduced seed set due to pollinator scarcity.

     "The Campaign, initiated by the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum
(ASDM) in Tucson, Arizona, aims to create common cause among
farmers, pesticide reform activists, beekeepers, plant and animal
conservationists and green belt proponents, all of whom may be
concerned about declining pollinators -- especially honey bees --
and the lack of policies aimed at protecting them.  According to
Gary Paul Nabhan, a crop ecologist and Director of Science for the
Campaign, pesticide use, disease, habitat fragmentation, and the
arrival of Africanized bees in North America have dramatically
reduced honey bee populations in the U.S., by as much as 25% since
1990.

     "Honey bees and the 4,000-5,000 species of wild bees native to
North America pollinate 60 major crops in the U.S., including
potatoes, melons, cotton, onions and almonds. According to the
Forgotten Pollinators Campaign, the pollination services provided
by wild and domestic bees are 40-50 times more valuable than the
market price of all honey produced in the U.S.  Steve Buchmann, a
specialist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) bee
laboratory in Tucson, Arizona and a research associate at the
Campaign, recently stated that the hidden value to crop pollination
by bees could be as high as US $10 billion. Other significant
pollinators include flies, butterflies, moths, beetles,
hummingbirds and bats.

     "To illustrate the impacts of declining pollinator populations
on agricultural production, Nabhan points to cranberry bogs, where
as many as 20 million flowers bloom on each acre, but less than a
third of the flowers develop into ripened fruit in years when
pollinators are scarce. In 1970 widespread organophosphate spraying
(mostly fenitrothion) for spruce budworms decimated native bee
populations, causing cranberry yields to plummet from 5.5 million
pounds in 1969 to 1.5 million pounds in 1970.  More recently, the
California almond industry has begun borrowing bee hives from other
states to compensate for pollinator scarcity, and the 1995 New York
pumpkin crop suffered from a paucity of native bees.

     "Wild pollinators are often more vulnerable to pesticides than
domestic honey bees, and the Campaign calls for more stringent
controls of toxic chemical applications near their nesting and
foraging sites and for better training of pesticide applicators in
monitoring for pollinators.  Pollinators receive only piecemeal
attention at university agricultural programs and government
agencies.

     "The Campaign calls for placing greater emphasis on
pollinator diversity and ecology at agricultural schools. It also
urges USDA, the U.S. National Biological Service and  similar
agencies in other countries to take comprehensive inventories of
crop pollinators and pollinators of keystone plant species in
wildlands.  Such inventories would allow for more accurate
appraisals of the costs to agriculture due to pollinator loss
inflicted by pesticide use and habitat destruction.  Presently, the
economic value of pollination services are generally not taken into
account when government agencies assess the value of protecting
wild species or the costs of maintaining agricultural yields."

  For further information on the effort to protect pollinators,
contact: Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, 2021 N. Kinney Road, Tucson,
AZ 85743;  phone (520) 883-3006; fax (520) 883-2500; email:
[email-masked].

     The Forgotten Pollinators Campaign takes into consideration
both the agricultural and natural landscapes, and considers all
organisms important in the pollination process.  This focused
approach to ensure adequate pollinating of all plants so important
to human welfare should be embraced by the beekeeper (see July 1995
APIS).  In the long run, this will be a much more effective
strategy to strengthen the apicultural industry's image and
credibility than by promoting the honey bee as the pollinating
agent of choice in all circumstances.

                      BEYOND BEE INSPECTION

     In this era of government bashing, it is important to reflect
on the many services provided by such agencies that often get
dismissed as the rhetoric heats up.  Good examples are those of the
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.  Most are
familiar with the Apiary Inspection Program.  It is one of the most
comprehensive in the nation with a dozen full-time inspectors, as
well as others working on a part-time basis.  But how many know
what else the Department does to help the industry?

     At a recent meeting, Ms. Betsy Woodward, chief of the Food
Residues Laboratory, ph 904/488-0670, FAX 904/487-6573, provided a
"Summary of Honey Analytical Laboratory Support" available to
Florida beekeepers:

     "The Bureau of Food and Residue Laboratories provides
comprehensive support to Florida's honey industry and consumers who
buy honey.  Included in this program are certification of the
tupelo honey crop, authenticity analyses, label reviews (see
October 1994 APIS), pesticide residue analysis and analytical
methods to meet export testing requirements.  The following
summarizes the analytical work to date:

Fiscal Year         No. Samples Analyzed          Approximate Cost
                    (No. Adulterated)

1992/93                  105 (11)                      $11,550
1993/94                  106 (18)                       11,660
1994/95 (to date)        117 (15)                       12,870

Total                                                  $36,080

     "These costs do not reflect additional analyses required by
adulterated (fraudulent) products.  The results of these laboratory
analyses have been provided to the criminal investigations unit of
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and we continue to cooperate
with them.

     "Finally, this program has championed the need to address
adulteration and misbranding of honey with federal agencies,
especially as it relates to out-of-state firms selling product in
Florida and our program is recognized for these efforts.  We are
also the only regulatory authority looking at foods prominently
claiming honey on their label to verify that honey is the major
saccharide ingredient."

                         1995 HONEY CROP

     The Florida Agricultural Statistics Service, 1222 Woodward
St., Orlando, FL 32803, ph 407/648-6013, released its 1995 honey
crop analysis on February 27, 1996.  According to this report,
honey production was 19,780,000 pounds, a two percent increase over
1994 production.  Florida ranked fourth nationally behind North
Dakota, South Dakota and California.  Average yield per colony was
86 pounds, up two pounds over 1994.  The colony count remained at
230,000, the same as last year.

     The U.S. honey crop was 210 million pounds in 1995, down 3
percent from last year.  There were 2.65 million colonies in
production, compared with 2.77 in 1994.  Yield was up 1.1 pounds
per colony over last year to 79.5.  Prices in 1995 averaged 64.4
cents per pound, up 22 percent over 1994.

Sincerely,

Malcolm T. Sanford
Bldg 970, Box 110620
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611-0620
Phone (352) 392-1801, Ext. 143
FAX: (352) 392-0190
INTERNET Address: [email-masked]
APIS on the World Wide Web--
http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~entweb/apis/apis.htm
Copyright (c) M.T. Sanford 1996  "All Rights Reserved"

-- 
_________________
Adam Finkelstein                    
[email-masked]