From SYSAM@UACSC2.ALBANY.EDUMon May 22 07:18:49 1995 Date: Mon, 22 May 95 08:38:10 EDT From: Aaron Morris To: dicka@cuug.ab.ca ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1992 14:41:14 -0400 Reply-To: Discussion of Bee Biology Sender: Discussion of Bee Biology From: Edward E Southwick Subject: Bee orientation in fl We are attempting to get a better understanding of just how bees find their way around out in the field. The key interest for us is how they find their way back home once they are out foraging somewhere. Do they always find their own home? Or do they sometimes end up in other nearby or not so nearby hive? When we had a class of students marking bees in small hives, many marked bees were found days later in the wrong hives. We would appreciate data, information, and especially literature references on how honey bee workers (or any other hymenopteran) find their way back home, and what might be their error in doing so thus ending up in the wrong hive...Thank you BEE-LINERS for your help... e.southwick, SOUTHWIK@Brock1P, FAX 716-395-2416 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1992 10:23:19 +0200 Reply-To: Discussion of Bee Biology Sender: Discussion of Bee Biology From: EISIK@TAUNOS.BITNET Subject: Re: Bee orientation in fl In-Reply-To: Message of Wed, 8 Jul 1992 14:41:14 -0400 Dear Prof. Southwik, My experince in the desert of Israel is the same ,I've found about 40% of bees moveing to the wrong hive, Dr Kora Rosenthal, Mikhveret Zriffin, Minis. of Agriculture, Israel,she gathered the last 2 years data and I'm sure that she will supply you more information.all the best , Dan Eisikowitc h. (eisik,@taunos). ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1992 20:59:00 +1200 Reply-To: Discussion of Bee Biology Sender: Discussion of Bee Biology From: NICKW@WAIKATO.AC.NZ Subject: Buzzwords July 92 Buzzwords is a monthly newsletter produced by the National Beekeepers Association of New Zealand. It was intended to provide a more immediate, informal means of communication with the 1200 members within NZ when compared with the more technical nature of the quarterly NZ Beekeeper magazine. While some of the contents have interest only in NZ, I will post issues for this list to keep you better informed about beekeeping interest areas in New Zealand. Any comments can be addressed to me (I'm a co-editor and member of the National Executive of the National Beekeepers Assn) Nick Wallingford Bay of Plenty Polytechnic Voice 64 7 544 0920 ext 6848 Home 64 7 578 1422 Fax 64 7 544 2386 Internet NICKW@WAIKATO.AC.NZ ------------------------------------------------------------------- BUZZWORDS 43 JULY 1992 FROM THE PRESIDENT With all the debate going on in our industry right now, it's nice to be able to pass on a bit of good news. The news concerns an increase in apiculture servicing and shows how important it is for the National Beekeepers Association to have a strong voice with government. The imbalance of MAF services between the North and South Islands has been of considerable concern to your executive for some time. Now, as a result of extensive lobbying, MAF Quality Management has approved a new Apicultural Advisory Officer position, hopefully to be based in Dunedin. Members should be under no illusions, however. The new position is conditional on continued industry support and moneys from government for exotic disease surveillance and Emergency Response. The National Beekeepers Association Annual Conference and A.G.M. will take place in Hastings, July 20-23, at the Angus Motor Inn. I look forward to seeing you all there. And finally, sincere thanks to the Buzzwords team for their efforts over this past year. Well done to you both! (Believe it or not, this was unsolicited. Thanks, Dudley! - the editors) AAO POSITION PROPOSED MAF Quality Management has announced that it will soon be advertising for an Apicultural Advisory Officer. The position will most likely be located at Invermay, near Dunedin. The move will increase MAF's services to beekeepers in the South Island and will re-establish a specialist apiculture position in the Southland and Otago regions. The officer will likely take over management of the surveillance program for exotic bee diseases, carry out analysis of surveillance samples currently contracted to MAFTech , and play a significant role in Exotic Disease Response preparedness. The job will also probably involve maintaining the southern South Island Apiary Register and acting as an additional resource servicing the endemic disease control contract on behalf of the NBA. Interviews for the position are scheduled to take place at the end of July. Job specifications and further information on the position can be obtained from Stuart White, MAF Quality Management, Private Bag, Christchurch, ph (03) 794 100 fax (03) 656 479. MAF Quality Management MAF ORGANIC DASH A new European Community (EC) organic food regulation, set to take affect from July 22, 1992, has caused concern for some New Zealand beekeepers supplying the lucrative European organic honey market. The regulation (EC 2092/91) requires that any food product sold in EC countries using the word 'organic' must have been properly inspected and certified during both its production and preparation. For products from outside the EC, the regulation also requires that 'third country' certifying authorities be app roved by the European Commission before the products can be sold in the EC as organic. Currently in New Zealand, both the New Zealand Biological Producers and Consumers Council (Bio-Gro) and the Biodynamic Farming and Gardening Association (Demeter) have certification schemes in place for organic products. But to date, New Zealand has not been added to the EC's list of approved 'third countries'. No one knows for sure whether the EC would directly approve these non-governmental organisations as third country certifying authorities, but the speculation is that they would prefer an independent governmental body to oversee the certification schemes of private organisations. In EC countries, at least, the regulation requires such governmental 'control authorities' to be set up to supervise and approve private certification schemes. The problem for New Zealand producers is that the our government appears to have been a bit tardy in forming a control authority and making application to the EC for approved third country status. Several years ago MAF began putting together a comprehensive certification system for organic products, but this initiative seemed to stall following the release of a public discussion paper issued by John Falloon, the Minister of Agriculture, in September 1991. The paper stated that MAF would 'not move to establish uniform national standards for organic farming and organically grown food.' The minister did pledge, however, to 'support development of uniform international standards and their acceptance by foreign governments'. He also made available the services of MAF Quality Management to any producers who wished to either arrange for inspection and certification based on existing standards or develop standards of their own. Your NBA executive did just that by recently developing a draft set of standards for organic honey production in New Zealand (see Buzzwords 42). Still, producers were left wondering what the government was going to do in the case of the EC. Was it going to just 'support development' or was it going to set up the required control authority. In response to an enquiry from the Bay of Plenty branch, we have now been informed that the government has decided to take the plunge, and is in the process of preparing its application to the EC. This will be dependant on the creation of a 'soon to be established' MAF Regulatory Authority which will act as an overseer supervising private organic inspection bodies. So far, Bio-Gro, Demeter, and MAF Quality Management have all expressed interest in being recognised as 'inspection bodies'. We can only hope that MAF meets the EC deadline and New Zealand honey exports aren't affected. Because as Deputy Minister Denis Marshall points out in his letter to the Bay of Plenty branch, 'there is not a great deal of time to prepare New Zealand's case.' AFB LAB COURSE SOON Beekeepers will soon be able to analyze their own live bee samples for AFB, thanks to a course being devised by Dr. Mark Goodwin, CRI Horticulture, Ruakura, and Cliff Van Eaton, MAF Quality Management, Tauranga. The course will teach beekeepers how to determine likely and inapparent infections in their hives and should help to decrease the spread of American foulbrood, which has more than doubled in New Zealand in the last decade. The lab technique used is a simple, straight-forward test which can be carried out at home using readily available materials. The course will get a trial run with members from the Bay of Plenty branch in late June and will hopefully then be offered to other branches around the country later this winter. Branches will be sent further details at the end of July. GISBORNE ASIA PUSH Gisborne Honey Producers Co. made a marketing push into Southeast Asia last month by attending the International Food Industry Show in Taipei, Taiwan (May 25-29). According to marketing manager Barry Foster, 'The company believes that there is an extremely good future in Asia for exports of New Zealand honey, and particularly to such countries as Taiwan, and we are targeting this area for our future exports.' Taiwan certainly has good potential, with a population larger than that of Australia and overseas investments rivalling those of Japan. Gisborne Honey Producers markets three specialty types of honey (manuka, tawari, and wildflower) as well as comb honey, kiwifruit and honey, and a lemon and honey beverage concentrate. Company director Brian Smith says all the products had a favourable response at the show, and samples of their manuka honey mead were a particular hit. The mead won a silver medal at the 1990 NZ Fruit Wine competition, a first for New Zealand meads. Export News, May 21, 1992 HONEY HITS OZ If you think New Zealand faces a problem with honey brought in by travellers from overseas, consider the poor Australians. In the past two months, Barrier Control officials in their airports have intercepted more than 1000 people carrying honey, and most of them are New Zealanders! The Australian government is concerned that the full message regarding honey exports to their country is not getting through and has asked both the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and the National Beekeepers Association to help. Recently MAF requested all airport shops selling honey to post a notice or at least advise people that off-the-shelf honey cannot be taken into Australia as accompanying baggage. MAF is also likely to contact all New Zealand travel agents in the near future to make sure they advise their clients about the current situation. To help out our friends across the Tasman, your executive would like to remind members that they are currently not permitted to take uncertified honey with them to Australia. Members also have a responsibility to inform customers of these regulations if it is obvious that they intend to take honey products with them overseas. Hopefully in the near future, protocols will be established which will allow Australian entry for our certified heat-treated honey sold in airport gift packs. That way everyone can take over some nectar from the land of milk and honey! * Seizures of honey into New Zealand from all sources (aircraft, mail, yachts) for the 9 months ending March 31 totalled 2015 (224 per month). Fifteen hundred and twenty-two of those seizures were from aircraft passengers (out of a total 1.3 million passengers during the period). The seizures weighed in at a whopping 4.2 tonnes! ADAM CONTROVERSY GROWS In Buzzwords 41 we published an article from the Sunday London Times reporting on the shock retirement of Brother Adam and the way Buckfast Abbey had handled the affair. One of our readers, Lee Elliot from Oskar Honey Co., Auckland, was disturbed by the report, and joined the growing number of beekeepers from around the world who have written to the Abbot of Buckfast expressing their concern about the situation and the future of the Buckfast bee breeding programme. Lee has kindly shared with us his reply from the abbot, which makes interesting reading (to say the least). The abbot claims that Brother Adam's assistant of 20 years standing was not removed, which is basically correct. But The Times reported that it was the newly elected abbot's decision not to actually employ the individual, who had helped Brother Adam on a voluntary basis for over 20 years and was his chosen successor, which led to Adam's resignation in February. The abbot also does not specifically say that the Abbey will continue on with Brother Adam's work in the future. The abbot claims Brother Adam 'has been supported by the abbey community far beyond what would be expected in academic or industrial circles, where he would probably have retired some 20 years ago, simply because he is a member of this monastic community.' The only promise the abbot makes is that 'the principles upon which Brother Adam's research is based will continue to be used at Buckfast Abbey.' You never know, maybe that means they'll just use Buckfast bees in their honey production colonies! Overseas, the controversy continues to grow. The May issue of The American Bee Journal reports a little detail that The Times must have missed. It seems the abbot changed the keys to the Buckfast bee department hours after Brother Adam resigned, supposedly for fear that Adam might set fire to his own files! This and other revelations have led to a threat from queen producers in the U.S. and Europe to withhold royalties to Buckfast Abbey worth over NZ$115,000 a year. It is also claimed that the retiremen t may result in additional lost revenue of up to a third of a million dollars once the new mite-resistant Buckfast Bee begins to be sold in North America. According to Brother Adam, 'the tragedy is that I was on the verge of a breakthrough' with this new bee. Negotiations are still under way to try to resolve the problem. Brother Adam's keys have been returned and beekeeping organisations in Europe are pledging funds to subsidize the salary of a competent replacement. But so far the abbot won't budge on the appointment of Brother Adam's now-famous 'non-employed' assistant. IMPORT/EXPORT CRITERIA EXPLAINED How does the government go about deciding whether honey imports will be allowed in from Australia? And why is our industry being asked to adopt conformity systems for exports of bee products? An article in the June 15 edition of Sentinal magazine provides interesting background to these questions and also explains why export certification needs to stay in the hands of government departments. According to the article, the decision to allow imports is made by the New Zealand government after an in-depth animal and plant health assessment has been carried out. The assessment looks at: - the structure, authority and capabilities of the agency responsible for agricultural security and health certification; - the infrastructure and capabilities of the plant and animal health services available to producers; and - the plant and animal health status of the country concerned. The policy of the New Zealand government is to hold the exporting government (rather than its producers) accountable for the health status of its exports. It only approves certifying authorities which are government agencies capable of independently assuring health status on behalf of the country concerned. It does not approve certification from private bodies or associations. The article points out that this policy is also an international convention, and that the same criteria are enforced by other countries on New Zealand. According to the article, 'these assessments are becoming critical to continued access of New Zealand products into import markets.' Since most countries are now making assessments of their trading partners, our government believes there is a need for an international standard for use in judging the conduct and fairness of these assessments. 1080 HEATS UP Pest Control Coordinators employed by the country's Regional Councils recently received a letter from the Pesticides Board outlining a new policy regarding beehives and 1080. The letter recommends that beekeepers be given a minimum of four weeks warning of any 1080 jam bait applications, and asks coordinators to provide notification to all beekeepers with hives within a 3 km radius of 1080 jam bait operations. The letter follows continuing reports of bee deaths from such operations, including a publicised case in the Taumarunui area involving the loss of field bees from 120 hives just prior to kiwifruit pollination. Norm and Mary Dean, the beekeepers involved, have so far not received compensation for the loss from the Manawatu Wanganui Regional Council. This is because the Land Resource Officer in charge of the operation, Mr. Eric Dodds, believed that in this case the council's only legal requirement was to no tify beekeepers owning hives within a 400m radius of the operation. A Rural Report item on the case quoted Mr. Dodds as saying that until the Dean's poisoning 'he was totally unaware that bees foraged up to 5km away from hives. Knowing that makes the ruling of only notifying beekeepers with hives within 400m of the bait stations totally inadequate.' We find it hard to believe that Mr. Dodds wasn't really aware of the problem, especially since the King Country has had a number of 1080 operations over the years, many of them involving beekeepers and bee poisonings. Mr. Dodds actually told Rural Report that he had been poisoning possums for the Regional Council for more than six years and had never had an issue like this come up before. Contrast these statements with a letter written personally to him by John Bassett from Te Kuiti, six months before the poisoning, which clearly informed him that bees can fly at least 3 km! There were a number of other disturbing issues in the Dean case, including the use of an out-of-date (aerial) application permit from the Medical Officer of Health and the 'inadvertent' placing of 50 bait stations within 60m of a public road. In such circumstances the operation could only be described as 'an accident waiting to happen' and it may have been fortunate that the bee hives and the possums were the only things poisoned! This new recommendation from the Pesticides Board should at least clear up the problem of Pest Coordinators not knowing how far bees fly. And the four week notice period should give beekeepers some additional warning so that they can move their hives. The new warning period may still causes problems, however, both for the beekeepers and Pest Coordinators. For the beekeepers, four weeks' warning might very well not be enough time during pollination, when the weather is wet, or in the middle of a honey flo w. And for the Coordinators, the recommendation makes it difficult for them to act in the stipulated 48 hours once a case of bovine Tb is confirmed. Council staff don't apply the 1080 baits immediately because they first have to survey the area and feed out a series of non-toxic lure baits. But according to at least one Pest Coordinator, there are still likely to be times when the full four weeks won't be met. The letter from the Pesticides Board also contained news regarding the oxalic acid bee repellent for 1080 jam. According to the board, trials to date have indicated that while oxalic acid is an effective repellent in 1080 jam formulations, test results have been variable in terms of possum acceptance. The letter says that work is proceeding to resolve this problem, and Coordinators have indeed been instructed to once again carry out trials with oxalic acid. However, the question would seem to be whether such trials, carried out in a non-scientific way, are ever going to produce a consistent (or even valid) result. As Norm Dean said on Rural Report, 'beekeepers are not against poisoning possums. They are a curse to us as well because they kill the forage we depend on.' It's just that maybe beekeepers have been a bit too cooperative. Some people in the industry are beginning to wonder whether it isn't about time we insisted publicly that the government possum programme stop killing our bees. End of Buzzwords July 1992 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1992 16:54:04 EDT Reply-To: Discussion of Bee Biology Sender: Discussion of Bee Biology From: Stephen Bambara Subject: Returned mail: Host unknown (fwd) > > > I recently received a request from a person with the American Red Cross. > They are working on a new first-aid manual and would like a color photo > or slide of a stinger in skin and then one with the stinger being > scraped out with a credit card (or the like). > > If anyone has such photos and would agree to let them be used, please > let me know within the week. > -- > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > | Stephen Bambara NCSU-Entomology, Box 7626, Raleigh NC 27695-7626 | > |=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=| > | Voice: (919) 515-3140 | INTERNET: sbambara@ent.ncsu.edu | > | FAX: (919) 515-7746 | | > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= | Stephen Bambara NCSU-Entomology, Box 7626, Raleigh NC 27695-7626 | |=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=| | Voice: (919) 515-3140 | INTERNET: sbambara@ent.ncsu.edu | | FAX: (919) 515-7746 | | =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1992 16:53:00 LCL Reply-To: Discussion of Bee Biology Sender: Discussion of Bee Biology From: Kerry Clark Subject: RE: Bee orientation in fl Dr. Cam Jay, recently retired from the University of Manitoba, and several graduate students over many years, studied the extent of drift of honey bees, and the effect of various factors such as orientation marks, colour, entrance direction. Don Dixon, Provincial Apiarist Manitoba Agriculture, Agricultural Services Complex, Rm 201 - 545 University Crescent, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 5S6 Tel (204) 945 3861 Fax (204) 945-4327, was one of the grad students and could give you a better summary, and specifics. Dr. Rob Currie, a more recent grad student, worked on the drift of drones. He is now at Dept of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C. V5A 1S6 As part of a study of the resistance to tracheal mites of a variety of lines of honey bees, I marked newly-emerged bees, introduced them into an infested colony (in a yard of 20 -25), then retreived them on day 7 or 11. I've done this 6 times over 2 years, between April and August. There were seasonal differences, but I was sometimes surprised to find quite a few of these marked bees flying by day 11, and in one case found a few marked bees in every one of the 20 -25 other colonies, from 2000 - 2500 bees introduced into 3 hives. At other times I recovered over 90 % of the marked bees in the hive they had been placed. I wonder if these introduced bees drift similarly to normaly emerged ones. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1992 13:16:03 -0400 Reply-To: MunnPA@cardiff.ac.uk Sender: Discussion of Bee Biology From: Dr P A Munn 92 Subject: Varroa symposium ADVANCE NOTICE: 'LIVING WITH VARROA' Since April British beekeepers have had to face the reality that varroa is present in this country, and that from now on beekeeping management will be radically different. To help British beekeepers prepare for this change, IBRA is holding a one-day symposium in London called 'Living with varroa'. This won't be just a review of the biology of Varroa jacobsoni, but it will contain a series of sessions with real practical application. This symposium will arm beekeepers with the knowledge to keep bees successfully in the age of varroa. Top scientists from the UK and Europe will talk on: * what control methods are available now, * the prospects for non-chemical control, * what varroa has done in countries that are similar to Britain, * how varroa behaves in cold climates, * the likely future changes for British beekeepers. KEEP SATURDAY 21 NOVEMBER FREE FOR THIS IMPORTANT MEETING Full details will be available early in September, and registration forms will be distributed to all IBRA members, and secretaries of all beekeeping associations affiliated to the BBKA, WBKA and SBA. Details will also be published in British beekeeping magazines and newsletters. Make plans now to be there, or to have your association represented Please circulate this as widely as possible. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1992 13:15:30 EDT Reply-To: Discussion of Bee Biology Sender: Discussion of Bee Biology From: Kenna MacKenzie Subject: Re: Honey bees vs native bees In-Reply-To: Message of Wed, 17 Jun 1992 16:40:25 CST from I, too, am interested in the issue of competition between honey bees and native bees. My research is currently focused on cranberry and highbush blueberry pollination. I have been evaluating the abundance and diversity of pollinators on these two crops. Bumble bees are quite numerous on the cranberry bogs in Southeastern Massachusetts. But I've often wondered what happens to their foraging success when hundreds of colonies arrive in an area over a very short period of time. This apparent increase in competitors must have some effect on them. Wish I had the time to explore this issue, as I think it produce some interesting results. Kenna ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1992 15:33:53 EDT Reply-To: Discussion of Bee Biology Sender: Discussion of Bee Biology From: Stephen Bambara Subject: no subject (file transmission) Does anyone have any experience with, or have any references for using pollen traps to exclude pollen which has been contaminated with pesticides from a hive? Several years ago Jack Matthenius (NJ) used to recommend this. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1992 09:39:00 +1200 Reply-To: Discussion of Bee Biology Sender: Discussion of Bee Biology From: NICKW@WAIKATO.AC.NZ Subject: Apicultural position in NZ... POSITION AND PERSON DESCRIPTION FOR AN APICULTURAL ADVISORY OFFICER POSITION AVAILABLE IN NEW ZEALAND TITLE: Apiculture Advisory Officer LOCATION: Invermay RESPONSIBLE TO: Apiculture Services Manager BUSINESS GROUP: Agricultural Security PERSPECTIVE: Regional [ ] Business [*] STAFF SUPERVISED: Nil SALARY RANGE: $22,252 - $41,644 Starting salary dependant on qualifications and experience APPLICATIONS TO: Stuart White Services Manager MAF Quality Management Private Bag CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND ph (03) 794 100 fx (03) 656 479 RELATIONSHIPS: Reports to Apicultural Services Manager and works in a team with other apiculture and agricultural security staff who deliver services in the South Island. Functional relationships will be created with Apiculture Advisory Officers in other regions and with the National Co-ordinator (Apiculture). Relationships will be established with existing and new clients. Rapport with Beekeepers Association is essential. PURPOSE: To organise and deliver technically credible services to the requirements of the MAF Regulatory Authority and the apiary industry in Otago/Southland and contribute to national projects as required. RESPONSIBILITIES: 1 To maximise the capability of MAF Quality Management and the apiary industry to prevent, detect or respond to the entry of an exotic disease or pest. This involves the development and implementation of systems for quarantine, surveillance and emergency response and programmes to increase industry and public awareness. This position will be responsible for contributing to the development and implementation of training programmes for MAF and beekeeping industry personnel. 2 To administer the Apiary Registration requirements in the Otago/Southland. This involves maintaining the database of the Apiary Register for the Otago/Southland district. 3 To manage a hive inspection audit programme for endemic disease to the level contracted. 4 To provide quality control or quality assurance programmes for export certification of bees, bee products and bee equipment. Included is the responsibility for monitoring and training of certifying officers in the South Island. 5 To co-ordinate the active surveillance programme and be responsible for lab analysis of all samples taken by MAF or submitted by beekeepers. 6 To provide commercially viable consultancy services to individuals, companies or client groups in New Zealand and overseas. 7 To contribute to the development of information systems which assist in meeting reporting requirements and enable the identification of opportunities for business efficiency or growth. KEY TASKS: 1 Provide leadership to and liaise with the apiculture industry. 2 Establish an effective public relations capability. 3 Continually monitor new developments and new technologies and utilise information technology to benefit MAF Quality Managements apiculture services. 4 Provide reports as required by the Apiculture Services Manager. 5 Participate in the planning of apicultural services regionally and nationally as required. 6 Prospect for new business with the apiary industry and individual clients by maintaining industry intelligence and rapport with clients. 7 To provide regional and national management with advice and guidance on technical and business matters in the apiculture service, market access and agricultural security areas. 8 Develop and implement delivery systems which comply with relevant ISO standards. 9 To provide apiculture and Border Protection staff training in the South Island. 10 Ensure highest priority is given in responding to any suspect outbreak of exotic disease by maintaining procedures and after hours contact systems. PERSON SPECIFICATION Qualifications: The applicant should hold a tertiary qualification. Previous Experience: The appointee to the above position must have experience in beekeeping. Experience in extension, public relations, microbiology and computing is also desirable. Physical Requirements: Because the job requires some field inspection of beehives, the applicant must be capable of lifting relatively heavy loads and have good eyesight. Knowledge: Knowledge of beekeeping, the apiculture industryand agricultural security concepts. Personal Attributes/Qualities: 1 Show high degree of self-motivation, initiative and sensitivity in order to support the business objectives of MAF Quality Management. 2 Demonstrate highly effective interpersonal and written and verbal communication skills, with emphasis on an ability to relate to people at all levels. 3 Demonstrate innovative and interpretive qualities in developing and improving technical systems and applications. 4 Demonstrate technical competence and credibility in developing delivery systems and training programmes. 5 Demonstrate perception and competence in contributing to planning at national and regional levels. 6 Demonstrate ability to liaise effectively with regional staff, other government departments, CRI's and private sector interests. 7 Work with integrity, energy and sensitivity in securing established MAF Quality Management business in the South Island, and in achieving client satisfaction. 8 Demonstrate initiative and business acumen in developing new opportunities in MAF Quality Management. 9 Identify and take advantage of opportunities to improve personal development. 10 Demonstrate leadership, decision-making and self management skills. July 1992 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 11:41:58 BSC Reply-To: Discussion of Bee Biology Sender: Discussion of Bee Biology From: Kleber Del-Claro Subject: Subscription I would like to take part in this list. Sincerely Yours, Kleber. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:21:55 -0500 Reply-To: Discussion of Bee Biology Sender: Discussion of Bee Biology From: "Seal City (Liz Day)" Subject: It would be a fine thing if the namelist of subscribers were alphabetized.. L.Day ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 11:26:26 BS3 Reply-To: Discussion of Bee Biology Sender: Discussion of Bee Biology From: AriBassi Subject: Re: It would be a fine thing In-Reply-To: Message of Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:21:55 -0500 from I agree with this subject, but how do to access to those nemelist? Ari Bassi do Nascimento Universidade Estadual de Londrina CCB - Depto. de Psicologia Fone (0432) 21-2000 R. 587 86051 - Londrina - Pr. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 09:38:50 PDT Reply-To: Discussion of Bee Biology Sender: Discussion of Bee Biology From: Ray Shapouri Subject: Re: It would be a fine thing In-Reply-To: <9207231212.AA21704@talcott.harvard.edu>; from "AriBassi" at Jul 23 , 92 11:26 am I guess I don't get it! what's the purpose of sorting the namelist? The list is maintained and you get the e-mail! or don't you? -- ___ ___ ( ,) / __) Ray Shapouri (ray@lccsd.sd.locus.com) ) \ \__ \ Locus Computing Corporation * San Diego * (619) 587-0511 (_)\_)(___/ ...!ucsd!lccsd!ray or ray%lccsd@UUNET.UU.NET ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 12:25:41 -0500 Reply-To: Discussion of Bee Biology Sender: Discussion of Bee Biology From: "Seal City (Liz Day)" Subject: Re: It would be a fine thing Oh, the idea is if you want to see if Dr. X or whoever is on and you want his/her address, it's easier to find. Liz Day ps - a fancy .sig! ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 13:35:24 EDT Reply-To: Discussion of Bee Biology Sender: Discussion of Bee Biology From: Aaron Morris Subject: A fancy idea, but you're asking the wrong guy! The subscriptions for any list are maintained by LISTSERV. Subscribers are added to the list as the requested subscriptions are honored. LISTSERV makes no attempt to order these requests other than first come, first served. To sort the list would require that LISTSERV be suspended while the subscription lists are sorted, and when LISTSERV is resumed, the subscription lists will be out of order as soon as the next subscription request is serviced. It might be possible to modify LISTSERV to re-sort subscription lists whenever new subscribers are added, but that is a request for the LISTSERV writers and not BEE-Liners. Another problem inherent with the request to sort the subscription list is how should the list be sorted? By subscribers last name? By site? It's not clear. If a user wants an ordered subscription list, request the subscription list (TELL LISTSERV AT site REVIEW list). LISTSERV will return to the user the subscription list ordered by first subscription to last subscription. The user receiving the list can then sort the list in any manner they choose. Finally, what does an ordered subscription list have to do with the discussion of Bee Biology in the first place? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 12:40:42 -0500 Reply-To: Discussion of Bee Biology Sender: Discussion of Bee Biology From: "Seal City (Liz Day)" Subject: Re: A fancy idea, but you're asking the wrong guy! (What does it have to do with bee biology...) Very little; I meant to send the note to whoever operates the server, not to everybody (oops..). I only meant that if you are looking for someones' address it takes awhile to find. Sorry! LD ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 13:52:39 EDT Reply-To: Discussion of Bee Biology Sender: Discussion of Bee Biology From: Doug Cutler Subject: Re: A fancy idea, but you're asking the wrong guy! In-Reply-To: Message of Thu, 23 Jul 1992 13:35:24 EDT from No this has nothing to do with BEE-L but as a Listserv "keeper and feeder" (in addition to my Italian bees) I will correct some possible mis- information. If you do a REV to a list you will find that it is sorted, the prime key is the node, the secondary key is the user-id at that node, at least that is true for our version of Listserv. Doug. Cutler Office of Information Technology, VM Systems Programmer University of North Carolina. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 17:19:56 -0400 Reply-To: Discussion of Bee Biology Sender: Discussion of Bee Biology From: Edward E Southwick Subject: List of subscribers Anybody out there have any information on social insects? The subscriber list is hardly long enough to bother with all this fall- der-do! It's only a little over 100 names. I just print it out once in awhile to find out who s out there. Now, back to the bees .................................................................. Still looking for data/information on foragers finding their way back home or to some other whom (drifting). Thank you who responded the first time! (that whom should be home). No interest in drone drifting, but if foragers drift, this would not be in the interest of their colony adaptation, so we should not find much drifting (unless there is some adaptive reason for it). ================================================================== º Edward E. Southwick Department of Biology º º Phone 716-395-5743 State University of New York º º FAX 716-395-2416 Brockport, New York 14420 º º BITNET SOUTHWIK@BROCK1P U.S.A. º ================================================================== ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 10:51:12 +1000 Reply-To: Discussion of Bee Biology Sender: Discussion of Bee Biology From: Schwarz@ZOOM.ZOO.LATROBE.EDU.AU Subject: inter-colony drifting (not honeybees tho) In reply to Ed Southwick's query regarding drifting between bee colonies, I think that in your initial request, you mentioned interest in other social insects as well as honeybees. Some of our work on allodapine bees may be distantly relevant to your interest. We find that when females are forced to eclose in solitary nests, most females will eventually move in with non-relatives (1991 Jour. Aust. ent. Soc. 30;251-255). We also have some anecdotal evidence for temporary colony fusion (involving colony sizes > 4 but < 8, - these are primitively social bees!). A manuscript is in prep (mainly looking at behavioural specialization, but also describing the fusion incident); if you're interested I can send you a copy of the ms. Generally, these bees have excellent kin recognition capability (Psyche 1991, 98;241-250), but group living is possibly mandatory, so that colony fusion, singletons joining together, etc may be quite common even among non-relatives. Michael Schwarz (Schwarz@zooms.latrobe.edu.au) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Michael Schwarz Zoology Dept La Trobe University Ph +61 3 479-2201 Fax +61 3 479-1188 Internet Schwarz@zoom.latrobe.edu.au ================================================================= ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 12:23:00 PST Reply-To: Discussion of Bee Biology Sender: Discussion of Bee Biology From: KIRK VISSCHER Subject: drifting foragers There has been a great deal of talk in the biology literature of the fallacy of the "adaptationist" assumption that if we observe something in Nature (e.g. honey bee workers drifting between colonies) there must be some way in which it serves the evolutionary interests of the organisms involved. Well, it just ain't necessarily so. In this case, one could argue that in Nature before Apiculture, honey bee colonies were quite dispersed. Under these conditions, the chance of a forager encountering another colony would be relatively remote. So there would be no selective pressure for bees to evolve adaptations to prevent them accepting another colony as home. When we cram them together in an apiary, they sometimes are not sufficiently oriented to precise location of their own hive that they wander into others. I think its remarkable that it doesn't happen more! ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:21:06 BSC Reply-To: Discussion of Bee Biology Sender: Discussion of Bee Biology From: dejair Subject: Re: Apicultural position in NZ... In-Reply-To: Message of Mon, 20 Jul 92 10:19:17 CDT from fernando, como vao as coisas por ai. aqui acabei de chegar de um curso de 3 semanas sobre controle biologico de pragas que fiz no cenargem em brasilia foi otimo. inclusive acho que vou voltar em novembro ou fevereiro para tentar isolar o "virus da cria ensacada". o pessoal por la e muito aberto e fiz exce- lentes contactos. mandei uma mensagem antes de viajar para a florida pedindo informacoes a respeito daquele sistema de informacoes sobre apicultura, no entanto, ainda nao recebi nada. se voce puder mandar melhores informacoes a res peito de como entrar para o grupo, eu agradeceria. tudo de bom para voce e familia, abracos, dejair ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 20:16:11 -0400 Reply-To: Discussion of Bee Biology Sender: Discussion of Bee Biology From: cp@UPLOW.UUCP Subject: Forthcoming manuscript . . . From: plowright@csi.uottawa.ca Dear Bee-Liners: "I took my harp to the party but nobody asked me to play". Well, in this case (where the "party" is the Workshop on non-Apis pollinators in Utah in August, and the "harp" is the paper that I had intended to give at the aforementioned Workshop), it wasn't just that I wasn't asked to play my harp, but the "Organizers" (a.k.a. Torchio and Tepedino) didn't even invite me to come to the party! Well, who needs to go to Utah in August anyway--better to stay in Toronto and chew on some sour academic grapes . . . but I DO regret not having the chance to give my paper: I thought that it was one of my better efforts and certainly deserved a place in any non-Apis pollinator workshop. So what I have decided to do is to "publish it" on the BEE-L (I think that I quite like the idea of electronic journals--especially ones where all the refereeing can take place as a general free-for-all after the paper has been "published": it smacks of those vicious 19th Century meetings of British learned societies where people like the infamous Dr. Owen--a real charmer, that one--would combine personal attack with scholarly criticism to humiliate the guy who had just read his/her paper to the point where he/she just wanted to hide under a table!). So the paper will come to you as a forthcoming message on this LISTSERV. Enough people who are going to the Utah meeting are subscrib- ers of BEE-L to ensure that if the paper has any merit then it will get discussed in Utah anyway . . . but if you are not interested in non-Apis pollinators, then please feel free to ignore the thing entirely; and accept my apologies, if you will, for temporarily cluttering up your hard disk. [Oh, but let me add also that even if you AREN'T a non-Apis person, I have put in a few provocative comments about possible negative effects of honeybees on cranberry marshes at the end of the paper . . .] Sincerely, Chris Plowright. -- Chris Plowright - via the University of Ottawa Return addresses: via INTERNET: plowright@csi.uottawa.ca via UUCP : ...uunet!mitel!cunews!csi2!uplow!chris ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 07:22:47 EDT Reply-To: Discussion of Bee Biology Sender: Discussion of Bee Biology From: Chris Plowright Subject: Paper on pollinator application rates, etc. THE ECONOMICS OF CROP POLLINATION: A COMMENTARY, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO BUMBLE BEES, CRANBERRIES AND BLUEBERRIES R.C. Plowright Department of Zoology University of Toronto Toronto, Ontario Canada M5S 1A1 A friend of mine recently demonstrated to me how one could calculate how many bumble bees would be required to pollinate an acre of lowbush blue- berries. It was a nicely reasoned piece of work: he had previously obtained data on the working speed of bumble bee workers (number of flowers visited per minute), the length of time that each blueberry flower remained open and receptive, the number of flowers per sq. metre, and so on. From all of this, using some standard logical tools (such as assuming that if a flower bloomed for X days, then the average age of a flower picked at random should be X/2 days) he was able to demonstrate that some number (call it N) of foraging Bombus workers should be able to visit and pollinate each and every blueberry flower within their designated area. As mentioned, I thought that my friend's approach, which seemed to be a fairly typical example of the methods that have hitherto been used to calculate application rates for insect-pollinated crops, was well- reasoned. But the problem with it, I believe, is that it is highly misleading and would under most circumstances greatly underestimate the actual number of bumble bees required to do a good job on an acre of lowbush blueberries. The reason for this is that the method makes some exaggerated assumptions about the perfection of bumble bee foraging behaviour, and therefore misconceives the nature of the relationship between crop yield and pollinator density. Now I would certainly be just about the last person in the world to admit that the foraging efficiency of Bombus workers is anything other than wonderful and just about the best there is in the business (or at least in that part of the business where the insects are not able to communicate with each other by dancing and stuff). To appreciate this one only has to follow a Bombus impatiens worker as she proceeds method- ically along a row of tomato plants in a greenhouse. At times it seems as though her foraging performance is well-nigh perfect: she hardly ever skips even a single flower (although she may decide not to actually land on some of the blossoms that she inspects), and often she may even fly back to visit one that she nearly missed. Similarly, although the foraging path of foraging bumble bees across a meadow of flowers (or an insect-pollinated crop) is not quite as straight as it is along a row of tomatoes, the flight path is usually linear enough to avoid much re-visiting (Galen & Plowright etc.). But the problem is that although we may visualize many bees proceeding in approximate straight lines across a field, there is no guarantee that all these approximately straight lines will be arranged in a perfectly regular pattern so that the whole field will be exactly covered with no overlap. Far from it: in most cases the actual state of affairs will be that many flowers will be visited more than once, and numerous other flowers will never be visited at all. It was for reasons like this that Lester Hartling and I, in the course of our study of the dynamics of red clover pollination (Plowright & Hartling, J. Appl. Ecol., 1981), felt it necessary to remind our colleagues that the shape of the curve relating pollinator density to percentage seed-set must generally look like this: | . P | . E | . R | . C | . E | . N | . T | . | . S | . E | . E | . D | . | . S | . E | . T | . |. +---------------------------------------------------------------- POLLINATOR DENSITY [The foregoing is intended to depict a smoothly saturating curve--i.e. a "diminishing returns" curve--often described by a simple mathematical equation known as the "Michaelis-Menton" formula. The saturation point in such a diminishing returns curve may indeed not be fully 100%, for after all, the seed set in most insect-pollinated crops is not only limited by insufficient pollination--other factors come into play at high pollinator densities]. Is all this terribly obvious? Well, I would hope so, but the signifi- cance of the argument sometimes seems to be lost under the well-inten- tioned mantle of: "But surely, we HAVE to be able to recommend SOME justifiable application rate to the grower, don't we?" MARGINAL-VALUE CONSIDERATIONS: The approach we have taken in recent years has been to ask what is the marginal-value (to the grower) of each extra hive that is placed on the crop. We start with the limiting condition of a hypothetically "empty field"--empty, that is, of all pollinators. (This is not intended to depict a realistic state of nature: the realism will be added later on). We can then ask: "How many dollars will a single hive placed on such an empty field return to the pocket of the grower?". Because in the limit- ing condition of the empty field we can assume that virtually each and every flower visited by a foraging bee will be in a virginal condition, it is relatively easy to make some plausible calculations. Here follow some data which we collected last summer, as part of a study of cran- berry pollination in Wisconsin, in collaboration with Elden Stang and Dan Mahr: No. of bumble bees leaving hive in a the course of one day 1,540 Average duration of each foraging trip (mins.) 10 No. of flowers visited per minute by a single bee 14 Duration of pollination period for the crop (days) 14 If we multiply all these numbers together we deduce that foragers from the bumble bee colony would visit about 3,018,400 cranberry flowers during the 14-day pollination period. (I will comment upon the plausi- bility of each of these figures later in this talk). Making the assump- tions that (1) each bee visit to a virginal flower results in 1 extra cranberry (remember that we are at present considering only the "empty field" situation), (2) that there are approximately 400 cranberries per pound, and (3) each pound of cranberries returns $0.50 to the grower, then we conclude that the bumble bee hive is "worth" $3,773 in terms of added value of the crop. It hardly needs to be said that the notion that a single bumble bee colony could be worth over three thousand dollars is not about to be widely believed by either growers or bee biologists. Let me quickly discuss, and then modify, our figures so that we can move toward a more plausible estimate. First, some comments about the data in my table: (1) Nest-traffic data: Our count of 1540 sorties from a bumble bee colony was obtained from an extremely large B. impatiens hive which, at the time the data were taken contained over 300 worker bees. A more realistic value would be about half this (i.e. bet- ween 700 and 800 sorties, according to values obtained by Lisa Guy and Steve Buchmann this summer). (2) Foraging-trip-duration. A value of 10 minutes might seem rather low (20-mins would seem closer to the mark for an experienced Bombus forager), but for our purposes this figure must represent an average for every sortie from the hive--in other words it must include "play flights", orientation flights, etc., and not just the flights made by real foragers. We will be able to get a more precise estimate for this parameter after this summer's data are analyzed, but the 10-minute estimate seems likely to be pretty close to the mark. (3) Rate of flower visitation. This is probably a good estimate, as far as it goes: we found that the average of 14 flowers per minute was a very constant value for bumble bee workers visiting flowers on the Wisconsin cranberry marshes during the summer of 1991, at least during the middle hours of warm sunny days. How- ever, we still need more data to fill in those parts of the blooming period when environmental conditions are less than perfect. (4) It is probably an overestimate, even in the "empty field" situation, to equate each bee visit with "one added cranberry". Not all flowers visited would necessarily have receptive stigmas at the time of visitation, and even in an empty field, the forag- ing bees from a large B. impatiens colony would doubtless sometimes cross each other's tracks--i.e. some revisiting of flowers would take place. Taking the foregoing cautionary remarks into account, we would probably do well to halve our estimate of the "value" of a B. impatiens colony in an empty cranberry bog, and then to halve it again: $943.25 sounds much more believable! But even if this new estimate might persuade a few people (and I know that some of my audience would at this point be shaking their heads and muttering "Well, COME ON!! Until recently this guy made his living from the sale of bumble bee colonies! Does he really expect us to swallow this sort of exaggeration?!"), it certainly bears little relationship to what is happening out there in the real world. Because, of course, in reality fields are usually far from "empty": other pollinators, includ- ing other bumble bees both wild and introduced, are out there doing their part to assist in the production of cranberries . . . [And even if it were not so, the poor cranberry farmer would scarcely have remained in business for long under the limiting "empty field" situation]. So what use can be made of the calculations that I have presented? POLLINATION DEFICITS: To proceed futher, I should next introduce what we call the "pollination deficit". This is simply the difference between (a) the maximum possi- ble percentage of fruit that could be obtained if pollination were perfect and (b) that actually realized under field conditions. Note that, as mentioned above, the pollination deficit is NOT the difference between the field conditions and 100% because even under the most perfect pollination regimes it is hardly ever the case that each and every flower on a plant will bear fruit. Pollination deficits are not always easy to measure, again, largely because of this same difficulty: what WOULD be the maximum possible fruit-set under conditions of satura- tion pollination? Nevertheless, in order to calculate the economic impact of a bumble bee hive, or a colony of honeybees, or some other pollinator, it is absolutely essential to know what is the maximum possible yield that could be obtained. For some crops, the pollination deficit is known with fair precision. Elden Stang has told me that for Searle's, a cranberry cultivar grown widely in Wisconsin, a pollination deficit of about 8% is a fairly typi- cal occurrence. From this, we might conclude, as a simple beginning, that the field, so far from being empty, is "92% full" or, if you like, that only 8 out of 100 flowers visited by a foraging bee are actually available to be pollinated. From this it follows that the marginal value of a bumble bee colony set out in the marsh would be only 0.08 of the "empty" value, i.e. $75.46. Now, while I am not about to admit that improvements in rearing technology might not eventually result in our ability to produce bumble bee colonies at a cost of less than $75 each, that day is certainly not yet with us. So I have to say that those growers who are working with Searle's and getting pollination rates of 92% are doing extremely well and are extremely unlikely to be calling on any of the commercial bumble bee raising companies in the near future. Such is not always true, however, for cranberry crops of other cultivars in other parts of North America. We hear, repeatedly, that growers in Massachusetts have reported substantial pollination deficits. The same has been reported for lowbush blueberry producers in areas such as the Lac St-Jean region of Quebec. As is so often the situation with regard to insect-pollinated crops, the worst pollination problems seem to occur in those farms which have the largest monoculture stands. This makes sense ecologically, because if you think of one of these Vaccinium farms as being a huge "sink" which pulls in wild pollinators from the sur- rounding areas, then it would seem reasonable that the pollinators are going to be spread most thinly in circumstances where the crop-acreage is relatively large. In these huge farms, it is likely that the marginal value of an introduced bumble colony (a large colony of B. impatiens, for example) may reach $500 or more. So in these cases we are probably within the domain of commercially feasible bumble bee pollination. To extend the analysis which I have presented, so that some sort of economic break-even point can be determined, requires other types of knowledge of the foraging biology of the bees: we need to know the EXTENT TO WHICH THE FORAGING INSECTS WILL OVERLAP WITH EACH OTHER-- because it is this that determines the shape of the diminishing returns curve. In the simplest case, I suppose one could fall back on the notion of the flowers in the crop as being like balls in an urn: two "colours" of ball are present, one being a previously visited flower and the other a flower that is still virgin. Then one could develop a model from probability theory to track the changing dynamics of flower visita- tion throughout the blooming period. But such an approach is probably at the same time both too sophisticated and too crude: too sophisticated because the necessary mathematics are probably in advance of the data, and too crude because in most instances we do not think of bees as moving randomly through the crop (or at least not entirely randomly). So it seems likely that some spatial parameters should appear explicitly in models used to estimate overlap frequencies--and this in turn leads us to the conclusion that data on "foraging ranges" are likely to be needed. There is plenty of scope for useful research here, and this is indeed where a large part of our efforts are currently directed. BLUEBERRY POLLINATION IN THE SOUTH-EASTERN UNITED STATES: I must here return again to the topic of "pollination deficits", because they are crucial, in my opinion, to some of the most interesting contem- porary problems in the ecology of crop pollination. I have recently been attempting to gather data on the pollination deficits to be found among blueberry farms (highbush and rabbiteye) up and down the eastern seaboard of the United States--i.e. from Florida through Georgia, through North Carolina, and so finally to New Jersey. There seem to be major differences between the major regions with respect to the growers' perceptions (and also the perceptions of the scientists who advise the growers) of how well their crops are being pollinated. At the risk of oversimplification, one might summarize by saying that Florida and Geor- gia admit certain problems with regard to pollination, North Carolina steadfastly maintains that pollination is not a problem for the industry there, and New Jersey leans toward the view that pollination is diffi- cult in some years. But even WITHIN each region, it is rare to find strong unanimity on the subject of pollination: some will tell you that poor fruit-set is due to scarcity of pollinating insects, while others are convinced that other factors are responsible. To some extent, these differences in opinion are merely reflections of differences in the floral morphology of the various cultivars: for exam- ple, the rabbiteye blueberry (Vaccinium ashei) has a distinctly longer and less accessible corolla than the commercial highbush varieties. It is commonly assumed, therefore, that rabbiteye flowers are more diffi- cult to pollinate (especially because of the greater need for cross- pollination in many cultivars of this species) by short-tongued bee species--i.e. honeybees--than are highbush flowers. Though plausible, I haven't yet seen much strong evidence for this: but it certainly was true in North Carolina in both 1991 and 1992 that in farms containing mostly highbush with only a minority planting of rabbiteye, the long- tongued bees (mostly Bombus spp.) were to be found predominantly on the rabbiteye bushes. THE ROLE OF HONEY BEES: Overlaying all of this, I suspect, is a tapestry of misgivings regarding the efficacy of honey bees as pollinators of Vaccinium. Again at the risk of oversimplification, it seemed that until the onset of Varroa, American beekeepers enjoyed a fairly comfortable relationship with the cranberry and blueberry growers of North America. The rental charges for the hives were fairly modest, and the growers, even when they weren't perfectly convinced of the value of the honey bee colonies as pollinators of their crops, were smart enough to accept the wisdom of paying a certain amount of "vigorish" if that was what it took to provide a little extra pollination-insurance. However, there are signs that this cozy partnership may be falling apart. In the first place, beekeepers have been hard pressed in the past few years to be able to provide hives of adequate quality for blue- berry pollination. (Cranberry pollination is easier, in the sense that the crop blooms so much later in the season). But more ominous for the beekeeper, some of us have begun to question what may be the ecological consequences of indiscriminate "laying on of hives". We were most impressed in the summer of 1991 to observe that while most of the forag- ing bumble bees that we saw working in the Wisconsin marshes were carry- ing pollen in greater or lesser amount, almost NONE of the foraging honey bees (less than 1%) were carrying any pollen at all. We muttered dutifully about the fact that honey bees, in contrast to their Bombus cousins, cannot buzz-pollinate the cranberry flowers, but a point of greater significance appeared to be the following: if, as seemed likely, the honey bees were foraging only for nectar, what influence might they be having (in terms of exploitation competition) on the well- being of the bumble bees? Could it possibly be, we thought, that by renting honey bee colonies in their fields the cranberry growers are actually having a negative impact upon the more efficient (bumble bee) pollinators? In fact, might it be the case that the cranberry growers are actually spending money in order to LOSE money? What a heretical notion that would be! SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The two main points that I have tried to make in this paper are: (1) That any estimate of the economic value of bees to growers of insect-pollinated crops be based upon realistic knowledge of insect behaviour; (2) That because of the diminishing-returns relationship between pollinator density and crop yield, it makes the most sense to start from marginal value considerations as a prelude to working out specific recommendations regarding application rates. I have not attempted to carry my arguments forward to the point where I would feel confident in recommending to growers of cranberries or blue- berries how many bumble bee hives they should use to pollinate their crops. This is a topic which will be addressed by other contributors to the Non-Apis Pollination Workshop. My only recommendation is that any recommendations that ARE made should be carefully scrutinized to deter- mine whether, during the course of their formulation, the issues raised in this paper have been properly taken into account. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My warmest thanks to all those who have enriched my life with interest- ing discussions about Vaccinium crops: Phil Emmer, Guy Gottschalk, Lisa Guy, Kenna MacKenzie, Mike Mainland, Phil Marucci, Elden Stang, Alto Straughn, and last but certainly not least, my good friend Paul Lyrene. And, as always, I would like to thank my bombolongical colleagues, Rick Fisher, Nelson Pomeroy, Bill Stephen, and James Thomson, for their patience and wise comments. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 08:43:27 EDT Reply-To: Discussion of Bee Biology Sender: Discussion of Bee Biology From: Stephen Bambara Subject: Re: Forthcoming manuscript . . . In-Reply-To: <9207290020.AA13936@ncextc.ces.ncsu.edu>; from "cp@ncextc.ces.ncsu.edu" at Jul 28, 92 8:16 pm Thanks for the info. It is good food for thought. Remember also, some people who wait to be asked to dance, never get the chance. -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= | Stephen Bambara NCSU-Entomology, Box 7626, Raleigh NC 27695-7626 | |=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=| | Voice: (919) 515-3140 | INTERNET: sbambara@ent.ncsu.edu | | FAX: (919) 515-7746 | | =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 01:41:00 CDT Reply-To: Discussion of Bee Biology Sender: Discussion of Bee Biology From: DOUG 'SPEAKER-TO-INSECTS' YANEGA Subject: Re: drifting foragers > From: KIRK VISSCHER > Subject: drifting foragers > > There has been a great deal of talk in the biology literature of the > fallacy of the "adaptationist" assumption that if we observe something in > Nature (e.g. honey bee workers drifting between colonies) there must be > some way in which it serves the evolutionary interests of the organisms > involved. Well, it just ain't necessarily so. In this case, one could > argue that in Nature before Apiculture, honey bee colonies were quite > dispersed. Under these conditions, the chance of a forager encountering > another colony would be relatively remote. So there would be no selective > pressure for bees to evolve adaptations to prevent them accepting another > colony as home. When we cram them together in an apiary, they sometimes > are not sufficiently oriented to precise location of their own hive that > they wander into others. I think its remarkable that it doesn't happen more! I tend to agree, and I have some data to throw into the pot, albeit Sweat Bee data...in my paper on philopatry in Halictus rubicundus (Behav Ecol Sociobiol 27: 37-42, '90) I gave data on worker fidelity in this primitively social species, as follows: of 542 workers, 11 (2%) switched "allegiance" and acted as a worker in a nest other than the one they were born in; errors in orientation led to occasinal "visits" to non-natal nests (some 83 cases out of >>50,000 observations), but on such occasions workers left soon and relocated theirnatal nests (only 6 bees made the same mistake twice or more). Considering that nests were typically something less than 20 cm from their nearest neighbor, and the probably fairly high degrees of relatedness between neighbors, it indeed would appear that there is some selective pressure at work; these bees *normally* nest in fairly dense aggregations, and they appear to be quite capable of discriminating among nests (unlike communal species such as Agapostemon virescens). A good rule of thumb appears to be that if a bee is social and nests in aggregations, "drifting" will be at a bare minimum. -------(please include "DY" in subj header of mail to this user)-------- Doug "Speaker-To-Insects" Yanega "UT!" Bitnet: KUENTO@UKANVAX My card: 0 The Fool (Snow Museum, Univ. of KS, Lawrence, KS 66045) "Ev-ry-bo-dy loves the Michigan RAAAAaaaaag!" - The Singing Frog ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 17:30:42 EDT Reply-To: Discussion of Bee Biology Sender: Discussion of Bee Biology From: Peter Kevan Subject: Re: drifting foragers In-Reply-To: Message of Thu, 30 Jul 1992 01:41:00 CDT from The issues which have come up over bee drifting are interesting. Kirk's remarks, and those of Speaker to Insects, reminded me of the multiple nesting aggregations of Apis dorsata on particular trees and other lofty supports. In such places, one may see up to may tens of colonies on the same support, and colonies separated by only a meter or so on the same limbs or ledges. One might expect that these honey bees, naturally nesting in aggregations, might show lesser propensity for drifting than other species of honey bees. I don't know if anyone has looked at this aspect of the sociobiology of A. dorsta; I suspect not.