Subject: _Apis_ 10/95

From: [email-masked] (Adam Finkelstein)
Date: 30 Oct 1995 15:57:23 GMT

Florida Extension Beekeeping Newsletter
    Apis--Apicultural Information and Issues (ISSN 0889-3764)
                Volume 12, Number 10 October 1995

           A STABLE POLLINATION SERVICE-A la Francaise

     In 1976, S.E. McGregor wrote about what he called a "stable
pollination service."  In the "Pollinator's Bible," Agriculture
Handbook 496, USDA ARS, Insect Pollination of Cultivated Crop
Plants, (see July 1995 APIS) he said:  "A pollination service
...must be equally interested in the welfare of the grower and the
beekeeper."  And, in order to be stable, according to McGregor, a
pollination service should be relatively large in scope and
regional in focus.  He also suggested that it be based on
pollination consultants that would "give equal expression in
determining the services the grower needs and the fees that the
beekeeper receives."  Even before the advent of the personal
computer, McGregor also suggested a large-scale pollination program
would lend itself to computerization.  For example, he concluded:
"...various grower and beekeeper locations could be fed into the
computer, along with dates bees might be needed and when they are
available.  Then the computer could, without bias, determine the
nearest or most logical beekeeper available for pollination of a
specific crop."

     To my knowledge, we have yet to see in this country any
sustained stable pollination service of the kind described by
McGregor.  In France, however, the idea appears to have taken hold.
Dr. Bernard Vaissiere, a Texas A & M Graduate, now a pollination
researcher at the Laboratoire de Pollinisation Entomophile, INRA
Unite de Zoologie, 84914 Avignon Cedex 9, France, FAX (33)
90.31.62.70, Tel. (33) 90.31.61.69 (email:
[email-masked]), wrote the following in his
contribution to the notes of a Workshop on Bees for Pollination,
Brussels, 2-3 March, 1992:  "...there was often little cooperation
among the beekeepers renting colonies for pollination to define a
pollination service.  Indeed, the production of honey or other bee
products remained the prime activity while commercial pollination
was usually regarded as a side business."

     "...it is symptomatic," Dr. Vaissiere continued, "that the
beekeeper association which claims to represent most of the
commercial beekeepers calls itself the Syndicat des Producteurs de
Miel Francais (French Honey Producers Association).  Clearly it is
a honey producing association; there is no mention of pollination.
...colonies rented to growers varied considerably among beekeepers
and from season to season, depending upon the expected nectar flow
and the price of honey.  Colonies were usually managed with little
regard to the crop to pollinate and there was little, if any,
monitoring of the foraging activity at hive entrance or in the
target crop once the colonies were delivered."  These conditions
mirror those found in much of the United States today (see March
1995 APIS).

     Several things occurred in France, however, that have
stimulated beekeepers to take a second look at commercial
pollination.  In the process, they developed, what Dr. Vaissiere
says is "a fairly original solution."  It looks a lot like that
envisioned by McGregor almost two decades ago.

     The first pivotal event, according to Dr. Vaissiere, was year-
around availability of bumblebee colonies in southern France.  In
1989, growers were given an alternative to the haphazard commercial
honey bee pollination efforts of the past.  Bumblebee companies
used a combination of sleek marketing brochures, monitoring and
replacement of defective colonies and followup observations of
foraging activity in field to tap the lucrative greenhouse tomato
pollination market.  A monthly fee structure (instead of per
colony) was instituted along with a pollination per unit area of
crop.  In spite of relatively high prices, growers jumped at the
opportunity to take advantage of these services.  Previously, the
only alternative was hand pollination.  Bumblebees (B. terrestris)
now pollinate all commercial greenhouse tomatoes in southern
France.

     In the latter part of 1990, honey prices declined in France.
At the same time, the veterinary service in the departments
(provinces) of Tarn and Garonne attempted to monitor colony
movement and coordinate fluvalinate treatments for Varroa.  The
timing seemed propitious to consider commercial pollination as a
more organized enterprise.  Some ten beekeepers who knew each other
and had some pollination experience joined forces.  After several
meetings over a period of months, the Midi-Pyrenees GRAPP
(Groupement des Apiculteurs Pollinisateurs Professionels) was
formed.

     The GRAPP association developed a set of bylaws to which each
member agreed in writing.  Among key provisions was a guarantee by
the larger group that the maximum time span for delivery/removal of
colonies after notification be 48 hours, even if an individual
contracting beekeeper was unable to comply.  Additional guarantees
were also provided, including the sanitary condition and size of
colonies.

     Other factors were key to the GRAPP.  All members shared a
strong interest in pollination and used most of their colonies in
this activity.  Members considered branching out into bumblebee
culture, a logical next step (See July 1995 APIS), but this did not
materialize.   The GRAPP was also composed of "professionals"; only
full-time beekeepers could join.  The group insisted on a
professional image and believed that including part-time beekeepers
would not be profitable.  In practical terms, beekeepers seeking
entry had to have at least 300 colonies, be sponsored by two
current members and be admitted by the majority of a five-person
governing board.  The board's decision was final with little chance
for appeal.

     The Midi-Pyrenees GRAPP used marketing strategies not
available to individual beekeepers.  These included a brochure
mailed to all growers in the region and a computer bulletin board
providing information on an array of pollination questions.  The
GRAPP also provided growers with a free evaluation of their
pollination requirements in relation to their current agricultural
practices.  Members were in contact with most grower organizations
and gave interviews to journalists and appeared on television.

     Each GRAPP member joined with an established customer base,
which remained with the beekeeper.  New customers, however, were
allocated by the secretary based on geographic location; the
nearest member got first choice.  All members used standard
contract and billing forms.  Based on bills submitted, a voluntary
assessment was requested to support GRAPP activities, which
included a part-time secretary and the printing of informational
materials for distribution to growers.

     The fee structure was decided by majority vote by the general
assembly (all GRAPP members) which met 4 to 5 times per year.
There was a base fee for standard service; on top of this, extra
charges were assessed.  These included feeding colonies upon
arrival, inserting pollen traps and/or implementing  "flash
pollination" (scheduling bees to arrive with 24 hours notice
instead of 48).  Of more than passing interest, the fee structure
was designed to provoke growers into asking questions about the
precise meaning of each possible option and advantage of its use.
Although many members believed the rates were not high enough,
there was optimism they could be raised once growers were familiar
with the quality of service provided.

      A final step implemented by the Midi-Pyrenees GRAPP in 1991,
according to Dr. Vaissiere was registering its name, bylaws and
logo with the INPI (Institut National de la Propriete
Industrielle).  This meant that other organizations using the name
or logo, must endorse the bylaws.  These specify, among other
things, that only one GRAPP exist per administrative region (22 of
these exist in France).  Members must agree to the definition of a
pollination service adapted to each crop, including:  (1)
determining minimum quality standards; (2) monitoring foraging and
resultant pollination; and (3) using a base fee per hive.  GRAPPs
are free to support any research they desire, but must share the
results with all others, and apart from those mentioned above, any
GRAPP can develop its own set of internal rules and/or
organization.  Finally, every association must agree to take part
in a national body of GRAPPs to make more uniform, the language,
rates and service specified in the pollination contracts.

     More recent information from Dr. Vaissiere indicates the GRAPP
Midi-Pyrenees disbanded two years ago.  There is indication,
however, that it is likely to be restarted.  Two others, on the
other hand (GRAPP Rhone-Alpes and GRAPP Mediterranee) are active
and growing.  The latter had a gross income of $300,000 last year.
The formation of the national organization did occur in 1994, but
has yet to be fully functional.

     Beyond the many advantages noted above concerning GRAPPs,
there exists, according to Dr. Vaissiere, a unique opportunity for
these associations to define and carry out needed pollination
research.  As an example, consider the present differences between
bumblebee and honey bee providers in France.  The former charge by
unit area for greenhouse tomatoes, but by colony for crops grown in
the open.  Honey bee providers only use the latter method.
Perhaps, under the dictates of a GRAPP, honey bee keepers will also
shift to charging by unit area, not only inside greenhouses, but
outside in the field.  This focuses on what a pollination service
is all about, getting crops efficiently pollinated, not a stocking
rate (number of hives/unit area), which is really only a means to
pollinate.

     Dr. Vaissiere emphasizes that shifting from stocking rate to
unit area is an important step because the relationship between
forager density (bees/100 flowers) and pollination intensity (the
number of conspecific pollen grains per floral stigma) is fairly
close.  The relationship between forager density and stocking rate,
however, can fluctuate considerably based on other floral resources
nearby the target crop and other environmental conditions.

     As long as the price of pollination is on a per/colony basis,
Dr. Vaissiere says, some solution is needed to guard against the
vagaries of environmental factors.  The usual method, "saturating"
the target areas with imported pollinators, is costly to both
farmers and beekeepers.  In addition, growers may not understand
the subtleties involved when a neighbor gets a good crop with a
stocking rate of one colony/acre while he is being charged for 5
colonies/acre for the "same" service.  Finally, the saturation
strategy ignores the effect of the native pollinator potential in
an area and may backfire in some situations (apples, peaches) where
too much fruit set is detrimental.

     In conclusion, Dr. Vaissiere says, it is essential that the
pollination service be clearly defined and understood by both
parties so it can be objectively evaluated and appropriately
rewarded.  Past experience show this to be unlikely with individual
beekeepers.  Increased exposure, visibility and capability of the
GRAPP structure can provide orchard growers, seed producers and
others with a better working knowledge of the pollination process.
This allows farmers to better plan for adequate pollination and
provides a guarantee of prompt delivery and proper management of
their insect pollinator potential.

     With the advent of Varroa in the United States, commercial
pollination has taken on a new meaning (see November 1993 APIS).
The trials and tribulations of the individual beekeeper as a
commercial pollinator are also well documented (See March 1995
APIS). Thus, it behooves beekeepers considering changing the focus
of their enterprises toward pollination to consider the successes
and failures of the French GRAPP experiment in establishing the
world's first country-wide stable pollination service.  For more
information, interested persons can contact the president of the
GRAPP Mediterranee, Jean Vilain, Les Bouletines F-13980 Alleins,
Tel. 90.57.35.14; FAX 90.59.35.58.

Sincerely,

Malcolm T. Sanford
Bldg 970, Box 110620
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611-0620
Phone (904) 392-1801, Ext. 143
FAX: 904-392-0190
BITNET Address: MTS@IFASGNV; INTERNET Address: [email-masked]
APIS on the World Wide Web--
http://gnv.ifas.ufl.edu/~entweb/apis/apis.htm

-- 
___________________                     "I'm standing in the middle of life
Adam Finkelstein                         with my pants behind me."
[email-masked]                    --Chrissie Hynde