From MAILER-DAEMON Sat Feb 28 10:58:48 2009 Return-Path: <> X-Original-To: adamf@IBIBLIO.ORG Delivered-To: adamf@IBIBLIO.ORG Received: from listserv.albany.edu (unknown [169.226.1.24]) by metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E813949090 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 2009 10:52:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from listserv.albany.edu (listserv.albany.edu [169.226.1.24]) by listserv.albany.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n1SFkpIv016612 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 2009 10:52:21 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 10:52:17 -0500 From: "University at Albany LISTSERV Server (14.5)" Subject: File: "BEE-L LOG0707B" To: adamf@IBIBLIO.ORG Message-ID: Content-Length: 262223 Lines: 5797 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2007 21:09:55 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Paul Cherubini Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit randy oliver wrote: > Scapegoating of the native pollinator folk is not in the overall > interest of the beekeeping industry. I believe the native pollinator folks are already changing the general thinking and perceptions of not only the general public, but of university entomologists and biologists as well. Example: When Boxer's Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 was recently discussed on the ENTOMO-L@listserv.uoguelph.ca one entomologist, Doug Yanega, from the University of California at Riverside commented 29 Jun 2007: "Maybe the fact that these [native] pollinators are unaffected by CCD is the very reason they're worth talking about? Maybe practical agriculture could benefit from pollinators that don't have to be rented from out-of-state every year, because it could ultimately be more profitable for the growers?" And another entomologist, Karl Magnacca, UC-Berkeley commented 1 Jul 2007: "Not to justify this kind of politicking, but one can reasonably point out that the reason CCD could potentially be such a crisis is that we are so dependent on honeybees alone, due to farming practices that reduce native bee populations and lack of research on semi-domestic use of native bees in crops." Thus I agree with Jim Fischer that advocates of native pollinators tend to view beekeepers as "part of the problem" and therefore it would not be in the best interest of beekeepers and growers to form aliances with city folk based organizations and politicians that have an anti-industrialized agriculture agenda. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2007 21:34:49 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Brian & All, Thanks for your civil reply. I am going to reply honestly and give what I see as I am close to many commercial beekeepers and we need to look honestly at what is happening. > 90% of the citations are not published. They are available to the public. I will see if my contact in your state will respond as too what they are seeing and what chemicals are in use. Without contacting the inspection service and from what I have been told the violations are mostly formic acid on rags/pads. We used to have a member of the Minnesota apiary inspection service on the list but he has not posted in several years. Maybe he will comment? As I said earlier the use of formic and OA in forms (as approved in Canada) is widespread in commercial operations. Many of those operations are very open about the use on another bee list which I read but do not post on due to the time involved. My best industry information comes from the phone. Much faster than internet typing and waiting for a response. However I do post on BEE-L as I feel the worlds best beekeeping minds read BEE-L. Those FA/OA methods can be found on many websites. Those methods have been taught for years at bee meetings. Have been in use for decades around the world. But still not approved in the U.S. Why not? Both the ABF & AHPA associations have made resolutions to get both methods (as used in Canada) approved for use in the U.S. However both organizations only meet once a year and despite statements made at both national meetings bringing commercial U.S. beekeepers within the law concerning use as approved in Canada has not happened and not sure if ever will happen. >They news released the big operator last year for show. Many large U.S. operations are using liquid formic acid on pads as used in Canada. Is this use a threat to the purity of honey? A dangerous chemical? Is not FA approved as a treatment for mites in the U.S.? Canada beekeepers got the use of both approved so why not in the U.S.? I use the Miteaway two treatment and have receipts to prove legal FA use but I have a hard time seeing the danger (other than safety concerns of application) from the *not yet approved* use of FA & OA *if* the user follows the methods approved in Canada. I personally think the Miteaway two pad is the best treatment around for varroa & tracheal mites. Quick and easy and treatment done in 21 days (half the time of Apistan or checkmite). I have no desire to fight jugs of liquid formic in the field. Coumaphos and fluvalinate are worthless in most areas of the U.S as a varroa control.. Rumors of their illegal use were based in fact some years ago. Especially in Florida as documented by the USDA-ARS. I have read of illegal chemical use in recent articles from the West in bee magazines but none of the beekeepers I talk to have used those chemicals in years mainly as they do not control mites and attempts to return to Apistan has been met with failure. > Bob I know you are smart guy and you don't expect a silver bullet to come out of the CCD working group where all of a sudden all is well in the bee yard. I have actually found very little help so far from the CCD information so far. The USDA-ARS ( ran by Jeff Pettis Beltsville Bee Lab) testing done on Dave Hackenbergs CCD deadout boxes has got our attention. Most of us looking into CCD are interested in seeing if hives going backwards can be reversed. Our current project is taking hives with disappearing bees and making nucs with new queens. Time will tell if requeening with reverse the problem. IF Harry Rothenbuler was correct in his opinion that the old disappearing disease was a genetic problem then perhaps changing queens might help. Placing hives dwindling on new comb is also being tried. Too early to tell if these approaches will work. Hives with more brood than bees are being reported right now in several areas of the U.S.. Many beekeepers are taking my advice and taking a single hive per yard and monitoring bee population ( number of bees times number of brood in hive) The number one indicator of *real* CCD seems to be a hive full of brood and missing bees. We are trying to catch CCD in its early stages and see if the dwindling can be reversed. Another method being tried is removing the hive from the area to other area to see if the hive will return to a positive progress situation. >So my point is why toss a bunch of CCD money at the problem if mite management is a source of big pay back and what to do about stressful migratory practices is a Ag policy issue. All research concerning bees should be welcome. Putting men on the moon was considered by many to be a waste of tax payer dollars but many discoveries were learned other than simply putting men on the moon. Sincerely, Bob Harrison "What we don't know is so vast it makes what we do know seem absurd" Bob Harrison -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 09:54:23 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "Peter L. Borst" Subject: The Night Shift: pollinating after dark MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline With the setting of the sun, the nocturnal garden awakens and the night shift begins. Many plants bloom exclusively at night. Many more wait until evening to release their heady scent. White flowers and plants with variegated foliage glow softly as they reflect the moonlight. To those who work all day, the garden can be a peaceful refuge in the evening. But for a few of our flying friends, the work goes on. The bright blooms of some plants and heavenly scent of some flowers attract nectar-feeding moths and bats. These pollinators work only after dark. Other bats are drawn to the night-blooming garden to prey on insects. They each can consume 600 mosquitoes per hour. Night-flowering Plants Evening Primroses: (Oenothera ) are perennials with sweetly scented blossoms of soft white, pink and bright yellow that open each evening. Moonflower: (Ipomoea alba ) is a night-blooming relative of the morning glory that perfumes the garden with five- to six-inch white flowers. Angel's Trumpet: (Datura innoxia ) produces fragrant, six-inch white flowers that appear from midsummer until frost on this viney annual. Note that this plant is poisonous and should be kept away from children. Night Phlox: (Phlox 'Midnight Candy' ) at dusk, flowers open to release a honey/almond/vanilla fragrance. Evening Stock: (Matthiola incana ) has small pink or purplish flowers that are not showy, but emit an intoxicating fragrance at night. Four O'Clock: (Mirabilis jalapa ) is a sweetly fragrant annual with colorful trumpet-shaped flowers that open in late afternoon and release a jasmine-like perfume. Nottingham Catchfly: (Silene nutans ) offers a scent reminiscent of hyacinths. The flowers open on three successive nights before fading. >From The Night Shift By Judy Sedbrook, Master Gardener, Colorado State University http://www.ext.colostate.edu/PUBS/COLUMNGW/gr020422.html ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 10:07:37 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Native pollinators In-Reply-To: <076f01c7c0f2$6d77e0e0$d4ab5142@MyPC> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The problem that native pollinator advocates have is when they shift from small scale pollination to the mono-culture today. Many of the vegetables and fruits I grow do not solely rely on my bees but get good pollination from "native pollinators". But the number of plants and the number of pollinators is fairly well in balance. (However, I did notice a substantial increase in yields after I started keeping bees.) Small plots are fine, but go to almonds in California or blueberries/raspberries/cranberries on the NE US and you have growers clamoring for honeybees. Add squash, apples and other crops that got by because there were honeybees in the area which Varroa killed off. They were not being pollinated by native pollinators but had a mix, including honeybees. When you look closely at native pollinators, you just cannot achieve the saturation needed for commercially grown crops without tremendous expense compared to honeybees. Solitary bees are often touted as a replacement for honeybees on the Maine blueberry fields because they are more efficient pollinators (a standard phrase and true). There was even a nice study done by a University Professor solitary bee advocate that proved they increase blueberry yields. Only problem with the study was it was done in a field where honeybees were also pollinating and before the growers learned that they were still below optimum for number of colonies per acre. From a scientific point of view it was a terribly designed study. From an advocacy POV, it was perfect. Many native pollinator groups come from the same gene pool- the small/sustainable/organic/I HATE BIG AG crowd. Commercial pollinators are their main competitor, so honeybees are, by association, not on their most loved pollinator list. They also tend to live in a wold inhabited by my University Professor solitary bee advocate. In small scale agriculture they think it is all native pollinators, when, in truth, honeybees are probably a major part. There is no way anyone can say that one agricultural crop is pollinated by just native pollinators when honeybees are in the area. If you look at small stands of blueberries, they all are being pollinated by bumblebees. But go to the commercial fields and it is honeybees. Same with alpha and leafcutters. Honeybees play an important part in that pollination, but as an adjunct. Squash growers in Maine were of the native pollinator group until Varroa and they saw their crops dwindle. They were getting free pollination from local beekeepers or feral bees. Native pollinators could not do it, even after several years. Same with apples. Now all want honeybees. The main problem with native pollinators is economy of scale. As long as you keep it small, they will do the job, but move into what is actually sustainable agriculture which has the ability to feed all of us not just 20%, native pollinators cannot do it, as the Squash, Blueberry, Raspberry, Cranberry, Apple and Almond growers (naming only a few that I know of locally and the List) learned. In my opinion, and I seldom have any, the issue is the same that we see here often, which is the small guy in touch with Gaia (not to be confused with Gia, an Islamist terrorist group) against BIG AGRICULTURE. Anything big is by definition evil, and we need to return to the earth and die young but thin. Might there be a reason native pollinator agriculture in the Americas was fairly limited, along with the population, until the arrival of the honeybee? Maybe the honeybee and beekeeping is the foundation for all advanced civilization? Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 15:11:45 GMT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "deknow@netzero.net" Subject: Re: Native pollinators Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit in doing some native pollinator research, i did find a few interesting studies that showed that the _best_ pollination was when there were both native pollinators and honeybees present. in my own yard, i see more native pollinators than i did without bees. this may well be due to my increased observation rather than an actual increase. my own logic tells me that the best way to encourage native pollinators is to keep honeybees. honeybees insure that (some) flowering plants are pollinated, and therefore reproduce successfully, creating more forage for all. yes, the 1/4mile around an apiary site _might_ be "saturated" with honeybees, everything else turns into better habitat for native pollinators. deknow ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 08:55:01 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dee Lusby Subject: Re: The Night Shift: pollinating after dark In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Peter: Don't forget our honeybees too that fly at night with night blooming plants during the full moon, during hot summer months when days are long and nights are short! Been watching that for decades and believe in the past this has been talked about here and other sites! Dee A. Lusby ____________________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 15:05:45 EDT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Chris Slade Subject: Re: Propolis use and CCD MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Can those who have studied hives that have succumbed to CCD please say whether the amount and distribution of propolis within the hives is greater or less than or equal to that of hives that have not? Chris ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 16:29:13 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?windows-1252?Q?Steve_Noble?= Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lets see, in beekeeping you have; the flowers, the bees and the beekeepers. So if there is a problem in beekeeping then it would seem to follow that beekeepers are part of the problem. I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong on that. It seems ridiculous to consider proponents of an environment that is healthy for native pollinators to be the enemies of beekeepers. While we are asking ourselves what is good for beekeepers, of course others will be asking what is good for the system as a whole; you know the big system of beekeeping, agriculture, nature and society. Some of those who ask this question may reasonably conclude that what is good for the system as a whole is not bad for beekeeping, and maybe it is even good for it in the long run. It is not wise to narrow your focus of concern to the point where you loose sight of what is good for the larger system of which you are a part. In other words whatever you do to improve the situation for beekeeping had better be good for the whole system, the environmental system the agricultural system, etc, or you are just creating more problems for yourself down the road. Perhaps that has already happened to a significant degree in beekeeping. It’s foolish to think that migratory beekeeping is and can be the only answer to the needs of those who have no particular attachment to having their crops pollinated by honeybees. If the crops that need pollinating are as economically significant as everyone says they are then if there is better way than trucking honeybees across the country to get those crops pollinated someone will find it. The advocates of native pollinators certainly have not created the pollination void left by the unsuccessful struggle to keep honeybees healthy, but they have every right to try and find a good long term solution to it. I just don’t see how that makes them an adversary of the long term viability of beekeeping. It might make beekeepers the enemy of what works, which is not a good position to be in. The smart way to approach a system that is big enough to be pretty much out of your control is to search for a way that you can fit into it seamlessly in order to fill a need without creating an imbalance within the system. You know you’ve done it right when your interests and the vitality of the system you are a part of are enhanced and little or no integral part of that system is damaged or lessened. As beekeepers if our interests find us in conflict with those who are concerned about the health of something as close to us as native pollinators, then we need to take another look, expand our vision and see how both those interests can be served. It might require some adjustment in the way we do things. Steve Noble ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 17:05:08 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dick Marron Subject: Re: The Night Shift: pollinating after dark In-Reply-To: <20070708155501.64307.qmail@web51602.mail.re2.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Dee, I read somewhere this year that one of our Asian? Bees work at night and when it dances, it makes reference to the sun ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WORLD. Did anyone else see this? Dick Marron >>>>> Peter: Don't forget our honeybees too that fly at night Dee A. Lusby<<<<< ____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 17:57:16 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Paul Cherubini Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Steve Noble wrote: > It seems ridiculous to consider proponents of an environment that > is healthy for native pollinators to be the enemies of beekeepers. I shall attempt to present a potential real life example (based, in part, on my 24 years of career experience selling agricultural chemicals to California farmers): Here is a graph showing how almond yields in California have been steadily increasing in recent decades thanks, in part, to industrialized agricultural practices: http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/4af/beea.jpg Here is what a typical almond orchard looks like right now the San Joaquin Valley of California: http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/4af/almondc.jpg http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/4af/almonda.jpg http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/4af/almondb.jpg The crop is heavy thanks to favorable weather and the pollination services of a local or migratory honey beekeeper the grower hired in February. As you can also see, the orchard landscape is free of most weeds and other extraneous vegetation (which is good for top almond yields) and is probably not a great place for native pollinators. Now imagine what the owner of this orchard would think if the honey beekeeper he hired told him: "I'm thinking of supporting the Barbara Boxer Pollination Protection Act of 2007 which will provide tens of millions of dollars to help government and university researchers "investigate the sublethal effects of insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides, native bee crop pollination and habitat conservation, and effects of genetically modified crops." The almond grower would likely tell the beekeeper: "Sounds nice, but you know that can't be good for me because you can bet the researchers will find this or that adverse impact and propose restrictions on my orchard chemicals or cultural practices. And if they make me plant and irrigate green belts / refuges in and around my orchard for the sake of native pollinators it could aggravate my weed, rodent, insect and disease control problems, steal some space I need for growing the crop and add to my irrigation costs. Higher nut production costs and lower yields will make my California almonds less cost competitive with other almond producing countries around the world. Please tell me you WON'T support these big city native pollinator advocates as they could hurt both of us. They might even make it necessary for growers to plant more wildland in crops to make up for the yield shortfalls and that certainly couldn't be good for native pollinators." Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 21:11:59 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: John & Christy Horton Subject: For LLoyd Spear + about Chem-free super storage MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lloyd I had written a few months ago about cross stacking supers in rooms that have some light. It seemed to me that I detected a note of incredulity in one of your responses(I may have remembered wrong-it "seemed" that way) Anyhow, I have purposely left a stack of Illnois supers stacked undisturbed through last year to this moment-some with really really black comb. I wanted to nail this issue down beyond a shadow of a doubt because i think it is such a better way of doing things(I am not tooting my own horn at present-I didnt come up with this method of storage) There is not tthe slightest evidence of any wax moth damage in any of them. Now i have found hives in the field this year that were just eaten up with wax moths. As was mentioned by another, it may be good idea to provide poison for rats etc or screen them off somehow. The supers themselves require no crystals etc. Best Wishes John Horton N. Alabama USA ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 21:06:42 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Dan_Grandy?= Subject: Queen acceptaince Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I have one hive of russians and 10 hives of italians.I am trying to produce my own queens. I would like to know if anyone has ever put a italian queen cell in with a russian hive.Would they except the hatching queen or kill her. Thank you Dan ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 19:03:46 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Mea McNeil Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate In-Reply-To: <076f01c7c0f2$6d77e0e0$d4ab5142@MyPC> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> James Fischer wrote: >>> These advocates of native pollinators can't list even >>> a single example crop randy oliver wrote: > Squashes and sunflowers are native American crops that grew naturally > here before the honeybee arrived. > Alfalfa is nonnative, but is effectively pollinated by the alfalfa > leafcutter bee, and alkali bee. > Blueberries in my area are pollinated entirely by bumblebees. Tomatoes are pollinated by bumblebees, as honey bees are not heavy enough to trigger pollination -- according to the late Charlie Rick, the UC Davis tomato research guru. Gordon Frankie, the expert on native pollinators at UC Berkeley suggests that we don't get up early enough to watch the iridescent blue squash bees pollinating in the mornings. Mea McNeil ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 22:04:44 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > If the crops that need pollinating are as economically significant as everyone says they are then if there is better way than trucking honeybees across the country to get those crops pollinated someone will find it. Many many people have looked but the answer has always been the trucking of honeybees. The only place the native bee has got a foothold has been the Alfalfa Leaf cutter bee. Bees do not like to work alfalfa. Bees will work alfalfa and do a good job when certain conditions are met such as irrigated alfalfa. When only the alfalfa is in bloom and the honeybees are placed directly on the field after the bloom is started I have had success getting bees to work alfalfa for seed. I have had failure even following the above when the field is in an area of yellow & white sweet clover. The pull of sweet clover is very strong with bees. In the archives you will find I did testing of Orchard mason bees on a fairly large scale. I did exactly as the USDA-ARS in Utah said and my reeds and bees came from their Utah project. What happened shocked the Utah people. The bees decided to nest in the huge trees around my place instead of the reeds. I placed new reeds (and took the old away as my mentors said)but only a very small percent came back to nest in the reeds. My population went backwards instead of increasing each season. My dream of bringing a pickup load of mason bees and do the work of a semi load of honeybees did not work out! The project ran four years. Instead of the numbers of reeds (with bees ready to pollinate the next season) the number dwindled. I still see the bees in my orchard in spring so not a total lost but other than learning about mason bees the project was a total monetary loss. I was going to try the Japanese horned bee but was never able to get any for some reason (tried placing the order a year in advance but still the order was cancelled due to supply)so gave up on those. The USDA-ARS imported those years ago to replace honeybees but was wishful thinking. I get calls all the time from growers wanting pollination. Cranberry growers are especially needing bees but like many crops the bees are needed at the same time of most main honey flows. We heard this year of shortage in blueberries and of course strong hives have no problem getting placed in almonds. The truth is each year ( I think since 1946 in the U.S.) the number of commercial beekeepers drops in numbers. Even if the many problems beekeeping faces are solved unless the numbers of commercial beekeepers starts going in the other direction pollination may be a problem in the future. Many beekeepers find a beekeeping niche and want no part of migratory beekeeping and its hassles. bob -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 20:25:16 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: K&W Jarrett Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Paul wrote, > Here is a graph showing how almond yields in California > have been steadily increasing in recent decades thanks, > in part, to industrialized agricultural practices: > http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/4af/beea.jpg What is left out here is, the huge increase of bearing almond acres between 1990- 2007, the yields have not increased all that much. That is a very misleading statement. > California almonds less cost competitive with other almond > producing countries around the world. California has 80% plus of the WORLD market share. Even this week as almond prices are 1.60 a pound range, down sharply. rookie keeper Keith ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 08:41:13 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Researchers Discover Compound Responsible for Manuka Honey's Anti-Bacterial Activity In-Reply-To: <007f01c7be8e$af8a7a30$9cb46a58@office> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Peter Edwards wrote: > Could be bad news for NZ beekeepers - no doubt it will soon be > manufactured for far less than the £12 per lb that manuka fetches > round here! > > Presumably we can now find out if other honeys contain methylglyoxal. > Might want to go slow on that. http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/29/16/3433 To quote a paragraph form the article: "Moreover, methylglyoxal reacts with free amino acids (16 ,17 )^ and Arg and Lys residues in proteins under physiological conditions^ to form advanced glycation end products (18 ,19 ), which play^ an important role in the pathophysiology of aging and diabetic^ complications (20 ,21 ). It was also reported that the concentration^ of methylglyoxal in blood is elevated in diabetes mellitus patients^ (22 --24 ). Thus, the reactions of methylglyoxal with proteins^ as well as DNA may cause many age-related human diseases." You can buy it from some places as an alternative medicine on line. The NIH has lots of articles on it especially as a bacteria produced toxin. Most of the articles relate to a go slow approach to its use as a dietary supplement. I would be hesitant to want higher concentrations of it in food since it can cause problems, as noted. It could be a drawback for consumption of certain honey. My guess is it is a byproduct of the reaction between bacteria and the peroxide produced by the normal breakdown of the honey/water interface. The researchers might be looking at the effect, not the cause. Bacteria do release it as a toxin.Peroxide is a natural bacteria killer while, from my reading of the NIH articles, bacteria have developed protective processes for handling methylglyoxal, since they produce it. Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 09:02:00 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate In-Reply-To: <000d01c7be42$6a0f1200$9ca7ff04@wendyf10934cd0> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I agree with both sides of this issue. Jim is absolutely right in that funds were needed immediately when CCD came to notice. This has been a major problem for me in getting a handle on just what we are really looking at. We see after effects but have not tracked an apiary from before there were symptoms through CCD. Even now, money is needed to try and find out just what CCD is. Many of us see that CCD exhibits the same symptoms as prior unidentified, except by name, bee disappearances, such as the aptly named Disappearing disease. Something has happened in the past and may be happening now, so it is only prudent to get funding soon to see if anything can be learned. That is just good science. To discount it just because it has happened before just delays the solution. I know I want an answer so I can at least be a bit prepared or take preventative actions, if possible. I also agree that the only way we will get funding is jointly with the "native pollinators". Politics is the art of the possible. Any well run Lobbyist Group knows that and will piggyback on any legislation it can inject itself into. It is not hijacking, it is Politics. Politics is never pure and does make "strange bedfellows". But we should be in there lobbying to get as much of the pie as possible. That is also good politics. Along with Jim, I have less than the greatest respect for some of the "native pollinator" group since they seem to hold honeybees in contempt, at least the few I have run into. Some of their science is biased to the extent that it is bad science when they put their native bee against the honey bee. They contrive to produce the correct outcome. So we are now joined at the hip and must make the best of bad law, which I am sure is close to the same feelings of some of the "native pollinators". Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 12:02:59 GMT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "waldig@netzero.com" Subject: Re: Long Island honey plants. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >>All you Long Islanders, could you tell me what your main honey plants are down state? Just curious to see if it is similar to upstate... Here is what I've seen in north-western Suffolk County: Spring: skunk cabbage (in wetlands), willows, maples, wild crabapples, autumn olive (major plant), black locust (major plant), tulip poplar Summer: catalpa, basswood/linden (major plant), sumacs (good producer), white clover (good support producer until the lawns are cut before the weekend!), purple loosestrife (increasing), Japanese knotweed (increasing), golden raintree (local stands in some residential areas), clethera (in wetland areas with good sun penetration), poison ivy (where there's a lot) Late Summer/Autumn: goldenrod (major in few locations only), asters (major in few locations) Since most of Long Island is suburban now, there are also a bunch of ornamental plants (and fruit plants) people grow to decorate their properties that bees work but these are minor sources in my opinion. I think the major plants upstate are the same as here. The LI season seems to be a couple of weeks longer at both ends. Waldemar ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 08:12:50 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Aaron Morris Subject: Re: Queen acceptaince MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit This message was originally submitted by mtnhoney@ALLTEL.NET to the BEE-L list at LISTSERV.ALBANY.EDU. It was edited to remove quotes of previously posted material. -----Original Message----- From: Carl & Virginia Webb [mailto:mtnhoney@alltel.net] Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 8:55 AM > Dan asked: > Has anyone ever put a italian queen > cell in with a russian hive. Would they accept the hatching queen or kill > her. I would hope they would kill her but unfortunately they would accept her. Carl ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 08:10:14 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: Grass Fires in NW Nebraska & SW South Dakota MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello All, Reports are coming in of two out of control grass fires in some of the best honey producing areas of SW. South Dakota & NW Nebraska. Many hives in those areas right now. Most hives are on pallets but are in two deeps with two and up deep honey supers on. Their main honey flow is still going on and moving those hives in a hurry is problematic. What has the list heard? bob -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 14:27:24 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dave Cushman Subject: Re: Queen acceptaince In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Dan > I would like to know if anyone has ever put a italian queen > cell in with a russian hive.Would they except the hatching queen or kill her. There are a lot of variables in this... It depends on how desperate the colony's need for a queen is and whether an Italian queen would be considered a step too far. If I were deliberately trying to introduce a queen to a colony that is so racially distant in genetic terms, I would expect to have to take a lot of trouble. I cannot guarantee that the queen would not be accepted, but I think the odds are very low... Probably in the 1% region. I would use the method that has been derived by Steve Taber, Albert Knight and John Dews... http://www.dave-cushman.net/bee/queenintro.html#ak_st_jd http://www.dave-cushman.net/bee/obsboard.html because that has proved to work 100%, if the method is followed exactly, however some have tried to shortcut it and they have failed. Regards & Best 73s, Dave Cushman, G8MZY http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman or http://www.dave-cushman.net Short FallBack M/c, Build 6.02/3.1 (stable) ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 14:44:14 GMT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "waldig@netzero.com" Subject: Re: Queen acceptaince Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > I would like to know if anyone has ever put a italian queen > cell in with a russian hive.Would they except the hatching queen or kill her. This time of year is not easy for re-queening or cell introduction because the colony worker numbers are peaking. Your attempt is likely to succeed if you deny the bees any alternatives though. I'd make the hive queenless and go through it a week later to remove any emergency queen cells. You can introduce the cell with a cell protector. It will stop the bees from destroying it if they are bent on it at first. When the virgin emerges, I would not free her from the protector for about 3 days (she'll need about 5 days to mature somewhat before taking a mating flight anyway). By then, hopefully, her pheromones will have spread through the colony and will have 'mesmorized' the bees to the point where they will not kill her. Cell acceptance is often better than virgin queen acceptance. A virgin introduced in a cage will not starve to death because some good Samaritan bees will feed her through the screen. But a few bees may be determined to kill her and may do so when she's finally released. Laying queen introduction may be the most successful when the colony is denied all other options. I had an interesting experience this year. In an unlimited broodnest (3 deeps and 5 medium supers), I removed the old queen and in the 2nd top super inserted a caged, young laying queen. [I put the cage in the 2nd top super because I wanted to avoid lifting those heavy boxes underneath.] I released the young queen 3 days later. I checked the colony a week later. The young queen was laying a little in the top, mostly honey bound deep and there were several queen cells in the middle deep. It seemed as though the colony was determined to raise a queen with their genetics [and kept the new queen out of the lower deeps] yet the new queen's pheromones were strong enough to keep her alive. I removed all the queen cells and closed up to hive to leave the new queen as the only option for the bees. In big hives with huge worker populations and screened tops/bottoms, queen pheromones are distributed rather slowly. When a 'band' of mature bees from a far corner of the hives stumbles upon a new queen, they may well want to eliminate her. Waldemar ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 08:57:15 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Paul Cherubini Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Keith Jarrett wrote: > Paul wrote, > > Here is a graph showing how almond yields in California > > have been steadily increasing in recent decades thanks, > > in part, to industrialized agricultural practices: > > http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/4af/beea.jpg > > What is left out here is, the huge increase of bearing almond acres > between 1990- 2007, the yields have not increased all that much. That is a > very misleading statement. Keith, I agree it would have been better for me to have cited the hard National Ag Stat Service statistics instead of a newspaper article. However, these statistics show that since the mid-1970's California almond yields per acre have been increasing at a rate almost proportional to the increases in bearing acreage: http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/4af/almondd.jpg Bearing Acres (up 27% per decade) 1976-1985: 331,000 acres 1986-1995: 414,000 acres 1996-2005: 510,000 acres Yield Pounds / Acre (up 25% per decade) 1976-1985: 1059 pounds 1986-1995: 1274 pounds 1996-2005: 1594 pounds What dissappoints me about the native pollinator advocate organizations is that they don't display hardly any alarm or concern about the permanent adverse impact of increasingly large homes and vehicles on native pollinator diversity and abundance. Example: According to the National Association of Home Builders the average size of a new home was: In 1950 983 square feet In 1970: 1,400 square feet In 2004: 2,349 square feet In 2005: 2,434 square feet. Here's how this building trend has been changing the landscape just south of Sacramento, California : http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/4af/sac.jpg Could it be that the underlying reason the native pollinator organizations don't want to campaign against big homes cars and the associated sprawl is because their dues paying members are primarily affluent city folks who live in these homes and would feel alienated by such campaigns? And could it be the reason these organizations campaign against industrialized agriculture is because farmers are not an important part of their dues paying membership base? Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 13:24:25 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?windows-1252?Q?Steve_Noble?= Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Paul and all, In the interest of full disclosure let me just say that I love almonds and I like that I can afford them. That said I have to tell you that when I look at those pictures I see healthy almond trees but I can’t help getting the feeling that I am looking at a system of agriculture that is so at odds with nature that it runs a real risk of suffering the same kind of calamity that seems to have befallen at least some migratory beekeepers. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t wish bad things on the almond industry or the migratory beekeeping industry that helps support it. My concern is with the long term sustainability of these kinds of agricultural systems that have to be so tightly managed against the tendencies of nature. When an organism such as a tree or a bee has to be so isolated from what’s “out there” in nature that could do harm to them, that you have to also sacrifice most of what wouldn’t harm them or even some things that might benefit them, then you eliminate the need for that organism to adapt and maintain natural defense mechanisms. This leaves them open to being blind sided by attacks from unforeseen sources of stress in nature. If this is what is happening with honeybees, and it continues to become harder to sustain them at the level required by almond farmers, either some other way of pollinating almonds will be found or the economics of growing almonds will make a correction which may not be favorable to orchardists. To the degree that all I have said applies in any given situation, then those who support an environment that is healthy for natural pollinators should not be viewed as adversaries of what is in the long term interests of beekeepers. While it is true that the immediate economic interests of those who rely on highly industrialized agriculture for a living may be adversely affected by a requirement to allow for more diversity of habitat, in the long run the system as a whole will be more stable if such practices can be mastered. At least that’s the theory. I think that’s the theory that the proponents of natural pollinators go by. At any rate as Bill has points out, the political reality is that beekeepers find themselves needing some extra clout from natural pollinators to get funding for the study of CCD and related problems. Steve Noble ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 18:22:27 +0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Gavin Ramsay Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ascii Hi All I have to admit that I'm perplexed and saddened by some of the debate taking place on Bee-L. > And could it be the reason these organizations campaign > against industrialized agriculture is because farmers are > not an important part of their dues paying membership base? On this side of the pond it is assumed that the diversity of nature - in our managed areas on farms and everywhere else - is a *good thing*. Aesthetic and heritage reasons are usually to the fore, but economic justification ('pollination services', for example) are also part of the mix. The great majority of the public supports the idea that the ideal environment is one where there is a place for wild species to thrive, and that altering farming practise and other types of management of the land to this end is a desirable aim. Agricultural economic support is tending more and more to go in the direction of encouraging this attitude. Even amongst farmers you would have difficulty these days finding one that would be hostile to the idea of managing land sympathetically for native pollinators. Most are enthusiastic conservationists themselves. So is the issue in the US really as polarised as Paul C implies, or are we hearing here from an insignificant part of the US agricultural community hanging on to outdated views that have largely disappeared? all the best Gavin ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 13:05:40 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Erin Martin Subject: Bees of the World (book) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi all-- Just came across a report of an update of Bees of the world by Charles Michener. I was hoping to get some opinions on this book, either edition. Thoughts? Here's a link about the new version: http://www.news.ku.edu/2007/july/9/beesoftheworld.shtml Thanks! Erin ____________________________________________________________________________________ Luggage? GPS? Comic books? Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 22:17:15 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter Edwards Subject: Re: Researchers Discover Compound Responsible for Manuka Honey's Anti-Bacterial Activity MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bill wrote: > Might want to go slow on that. and provided more information than I wanted to know about methylglyoxal! Very slow I think - took me a while to read it - and I am not sure that I really know now whether it is a good or bad thing. However, since there are large quantities in toast, coffee and soy sauce, can we assume that treating wounds with an inexpensive poultice made of toast (we used to use bread poultices) soaked in coffee and soy sauce would be as effective as manuka honey? Perhaps a UTCSF instead of UMF is now needed! Best wishes Peter Edwards beekeepers@stratford-upon-avon.freeserve.co.uk www.stratford-upon-avon.freeserve.co.uk/ ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 15:33:28 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: K&W Jarrett Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Paul wrote, > Keith, I agree it would have been better for me to have cited the > hard National Ag Stat Service statistics instead of a newspaper > article. However, these statistics show that since the mid-1970's > California almond yields per acre have been increasing at a rate > almost proportional to the increases in bearing acreage: > http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/4af/almondd.jpg Paul, if you are going to quote since the 70's then do so. Don't put up a chart ( photobucket) since the 90's then quote the 70's. This, I feel is misleading the readership here at BEE-L. Paul, you are talking about some thing I have done . I rent heavy equipment to A.Teichert & sons a name that should ring a bell to you, also have family that grows almonds too. Keith ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 21:27:57 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Paul Cherubini Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Keith Jarrett wrote: > Paul wrote, > > Here is a graph showing how almond yields in California > > have been steadily increasing in recent decades thanks, > > in part, to industrialized agricultural practices: > > http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/4af/beea.jpg > > What is left out here is, the huge increase of bearing almond acres > between 1990- 2007, the yields have not increased all that much. > That is a very misleading statement. OK, Keith, I now see it was misleading for me to have simply said "almond yields" when I should have compared "Bearing Acreage" vs "Yield Per Acre" to see how they both influence the Total State Harvest. I have now compiled a new chart* with all this information for the period 1976-2005 including projections for the year 2007 http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/4af/almonde.jpg As you can see, bearing acreage between 2007 (615,000 acres) and 1990 (415,000 acres) is way up (48%) like you said, but yield per acre is up even more dramatically: 2130 lbs/acre vs. 1250 lbs/acre = 70% increase. And the increase in yield per acre influences the Total State Harvest more strongly than the increase in bearing acreage. Example: In 2007 we have 615,000 bearing acres, but if we had a 1990 level yield (1250 lbs/acre, the Total State Harvest would be only 768,750,000 pounds instead of 1,310,000 pounds. Conversely, in 1990 we had 415,000 bearing acres, but if we had a 2007 level yield (2130 lbs/acre, it would give us a Total State Harvest of 883,950,000 pounds. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif. *data compiled from the National Ag. Statistics Service, Blue Diamond Growers and Almond Board of Calif. websites ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 21:50:39 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: randy oliver Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi All, I'd like to keep this thread on track. The facts are that some = beekeepers have had trouble with CCD. Some in Congress wish to help. = This timing happens to coincide with National Pollinator Week, = spearheaded by groups that lobby for support of native pollinator = species. Emergency spending is difficult to fund. We are all = frustrated by this fact. However, that does not imply that we need to = heap opprobrium upon the native pollinator folk. Could we all just drop the nonsense that any native pollinator advocate = thinks that native species will replace honeybees for general = agricultural pollination, or that they are "against" honeybees. It's a = clear fact that honeybees are instrumental in pollinating nonnative = weeds, thereby disrupting some natural ecosystems, and that honeybees = may at times compete for resources with native pollinators. For the = record, I have never spoken with Xerces Society, The North American = Pollinator Protection Campaign, nor the Coevolution Institute. I'm = coming at this issue from the standpoint of a commercial beekeeper who = makes his living by renting his honeybees for pollination, and as a = biologist who realizes the importance of biodiversity. The fact is that beekeepers are a disjointed and crochety group. Our = two main lobbying associations are often at odds, thereby paralyzing = legistators, since none want to offend one group or the other. Heck, we = couldn't even vote to continue funding the National Honey Board! = Remember, we're still trying to recover from our negative image = generated by Senator Proxmire's Golden Fleece criticisms of our honey = price support program some years ago. Amazingly, right here in = California this last week, the legislature passed a bill restricting = honeybees from mandarin citrus plantings! Just shows you how much = support we have from the agricultural lobby--our own Farm Bureau even = backed off from supporting us. And this is in a state that cries for = bees to pollinate almonds and other crops every year! The lobbyists = hired by the AHPA and ABF have been notably absent in D.C of late. The = organizing of beekeepers is as difficult as herding cats. If we could = only present a common agenda to Washington, we might finally get some of = the respect that we (our industry, not necessarily our members) deserve. = We do not need to go blaming our problems on other groups, as we are = often our own worst enemy, and other groups our best supporters. To = wit, the Senate Resources Committee hearings on pollinators at the end = of June were organized and given by the Coevolution Institute, to = coincide with National Pollinator Week, which was organized long before = we had ever heard of CCD. Shortly before the hearings, Coevolution = realized that beekeepers were not going to be represented. (And by the = way, their "well-paid lobbyist" donates much of his time, as do the = volunteer members of the organization). They did not need to invite us = to their "party." However, in a generous gesture to beekeepers, they = sent out feelers to find an appropriate beekeeper to speak (and for full = disclosure, an email did reach me from their lobbyist, to which I = replied by recommending more politically connected beekeeping figures). = Now here's the point: CoE VOLUNTARILY GAVE UP THEIR WITNESS SPOT TO = DANNY WEAVER IN ORDER TO ALLOW BEEKEEPERS TO BE REPRESENTED AT THE = HEARINGS! They did this intentionally, and graciously. Immediately afterward, their generous gesture was responded to by a = totally unfounded vituperative name-calling spew in which the writer = accused them of hopping on "our" bill. What a slap in the face! A = loose cannon beekeeper publicly insulted the very group that went out of = their way to include us in the program. There have been heated words in = D.C. these last few days, and only by the intervention of unnamed (not = me) beekeepers has this damage not blown up into a battle between the = groups. Indeed, I hope that my posts are acting toward damage control. = We need all the allies we can get in Washington--I hope we haven't lost = this influential one due to other irresponsible posts. Thanks, Steve, for your clear post re keeping an open mind about native = pollinators. If readers wish to learn more FACTS, they can go to this = link (sent to me yesterday by a commercial beekeeper) = http://www.ebeehoney.com/Pollination.html. Beekeepers and native = pollinator supporters have much in common. I see no reason that we = can't work together, if we expand our vision. Let me tell you a story = that illustrates the kind of chauvanistic tunnel vision that beekeepers = are prone to: In southern California, the desert bighorn sheep is trying to survive in = a habitat increasingly impacted by humans. It ekes out a tough living = in a mountainous desert environment. Critical watering holes are few = and far between. A few years ago, bighorn researchers noticed that the = sheep were unable to get a drink, since a beekeeper had set down a = truckload of hives within flight range of their desert water hole. The = bees mobbed the hole, and the sheep went thirsty. Now, something = similar has happened to me, with cattle troughs during drought, and = there was never any question as to whether I would IMMEDIATELY move my = bees, because the rancher spoke for his cattle. However, when the = wildlife managers spoke for the bighorns, the beekeeper, and a State = beekeeping official, stood up for the "right" of the beekeeper to move = his (nonnative) bees into a desert area which did not have enough water = to support them, even though it threatened the survival of the native = bighorn sheep! Beekeepers with this kind of attitude, do not, in my = opinion, "play well with others." Allow me to return to the Senate hearings (I'm quoting brief notes from = one of my independent sources): "All 'stake holders' were encouraged to take part in National Pollinator = Week: www.pollintor.org. Again, honey bee industry except for Danny Weaver's presence = testimony was remarkably slim. Testimony given to The Natural Resources Committee: CoE witness spot = was given over to the bee industry.. Danny Weaver was asked to give testimony.. he = did a fabulous job. ... and Kevin Hackett, USDA , also used much of his time to give info. = on CCD and honey bees, habitat needs.=20 Over and over again during that week orchestrated by Nappc and CoE = the spotlight was turned to honey bees. Even at the stamp unveiling Secretary Johanns = dedicated his entire speech to CCD and honey bees... CoE is advocating for long term funding that would potentially reflect = issues with all pollinators but is also supporting short term for honey bees... [and from another report] Emergency or 'earmark' appropriations can occur without new authority = under the farm bill. Maybe that was on the table at some point, conceivable that a member of = Congress could have slipped $$$ into FY(fiscal year) '08 ag. approps, but that when I = was in D.C. that was not the conversation. But what is important to understand is that it could still happen thru = conference. If [the critic] ... wanted to write a letter and get = support for emergency appropiations to be the focus he but that needs to = be communicated to [the congressional staffs]. It will be a long shot to get home run on that.. But the important thing is to = communicate, so that it paves the way for future dialogue.=20 I wish he could respect the work these people have put in over the years = and that it has been a long time coming and was not something that took advantage = of dead outs from CCD or whatever. And I wish he could understand that = while growers may support the current bills there is no crisis being expressed from = the ag point of view thus little urgency for Congress to act. If he could have heard the speakers at all = these events emphasize the importance of honey bees and pollination services.. in = particular May's [May Behrenbaum] concern for guys in the industry, I think he would see that everyone = seems to be on the same page except him....Economics, not fear still rules in D.C." O.K., Senator Hasting's staffer in charge of the Pollinator Protection = Act finally returned from vacation, and we chatted this morning. I = asked him why the Senator had not requested an "appropriation" for = immediate funds. He explained that one needs to have an "authorization" = BEFORE one can ask for an "appropriation"--that's why he introduced the = Pollinator Protection Act. The impression that some got that there were = to be emergency funds released immediately was due to the Senator's hope = that emergency appropriations could be "stolen" from some agency's = existing agricultural research budget. However, the Senator realizes = how difficult it would be to pry such funds out of someone else's budget = this late. He has, however, been writing letters in order to drum up = such funds, and will continue to seek them. Thank you, Senator = Hastings! This is an area in which the beekeeper's lobbyists could be = exerting their influence. Our efforts might be best directed toward = them positively. What the Senator is clear on is that the most likely way to get funding = is in the new Farm Bill, even though such funding would not be = forthcoming quickly. Senator Boxer is a heavy hitter who could use as = much support as we can throw her way. I hope that you all have written = your legislators! In summary, there is little chance of getting emergency funding, = although it is possible if our national organizations could wrest such = funds from some existing agricultural budget. There is far greater = chance of securing long-term funding by working with our native = pollinator allies, whose issues largely reflect ours. The most = important thing is for the beekeeping industry to present a unified face = to Congress, and to make clear a "wish list" that we can agree upon. I hope now that I can return to my usual interests--bee biology and mite = management. I'd rather leave this political stuff to others! I am as = frustrated as others by the difficulty in obtaining emergency funding = for research. But if we can't find that, let's support Senator Boxer's = bill for long-term funding. Let's also step outside our honeybee myopia = and give our native pollinator species, and the folk that support them, = the respect they deserve, and gratitude for their efforts on our behalf. Randy Oliver Trying to play well with others ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 08:19:48 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Steve Noble wrote: > I look at those pictures I see healthy almond trees but I can’t help > getting the feeling that I am looking at a system of agriculture that is so > at odds with nature that it runs a real risk of suffering the same kind of > calamity that seems to have befallen at least some migratory beekeepers. > Some reality. We have been farming like this for many decades only the crops are different. Think wheat. Agriculture and beekeeping are by their practice, no matter how small, are "at odds with nature". I have yet to find movable frames in a feral colony. If we really wanted not to be at odds with nature, we would all be buck naked. Since I know some on this list by sight, I shudder at the thought. Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 05:59:14 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: K&W Jarrett Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Paul wrote, > Conversely, in 1990 we had 415,000 bearing acres, but if we > had a 2007 level yield (2130 lbs/acre, it would give us a Total > State Harvest of 883,950,000 pounds. Paul your examples are well taken, One must remember that 2007 is going to be a record crop and is not a avg crop. Also, the planting of trees per acre has risen greatly , all most to a hedge row effect. So, has the yield gone up twenty five percent or is there more trees per acres, and indirectly producing the same. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:22:16 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "Peter L. Borst" Subject: Awake at 2 in the morning? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline http://www.news-press.com/ Florida's first Africanized honey bees showed up in the Tampa Bay area in 2002. The main territory of Africanized bees is south from Tampa to the east coast, said Jerry Hayes, chief of the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services' Apiary Section. "They're filling up the environment," he said. "We've lost a lot of gentle colonies to predators and diseases. The feral population is all gone, which opened up a niche for Africanized bees." "That's what wakes me up at 2 in the morning, wondering if I've done everything I can to educate people," Hayes said. Entomologists advise people against trying to get rid of Africanized bees themselves; instead, professionals should be called in. The cost ranges from $100 for a free-hanging swarm to $800 depending on how far the bees have moved into the structure, said Justine Rizzolo, office manager for Pro Tech Pest Control in Fort Myers. "I've been fighting these things for two years," Douyon said. "I've called every institution I know, Health Department, Fire Department, the Police Department. Nobody can help me." "I hear it five times a week: people on fixed incomes," Hayes said. "Yes, it's an awkward situation, but the alternative is to get hurt, or maybe the bees kill your dog." -- Peter L. Borst Ithaca, NY USA http://picasaweb.google.com/peterlborst ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 14:44:37 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Brian Fredericksen Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate Comments: To: Paul Cherubini Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 17:57:16 -0700, Paul Cherubini wrote: >I shall attempt to present a potential real life example >(based, in part, on my 24 years of career experience >selling agricultural chemicals to California farmers): > Paul I'm curious, do you or have you kept bees? I can't help but wonder if you speak as a defender of bees or a defender of the farm chemical business sector? Your posts have a consistent theme of defending Ag chemical use. I think the List would be interested to know if your views come from the perspective of a beekeeper or a Ag chemical salesman or both? ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 15:24:09 -0400 Reply-To: bee-quick@bee-quick.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > The facts are that some beekeepers have had trouble with CCD. And still are. Hives in Colorado, in the midst of a very nice clover bloom are weak with classic CCD symptoms, not even worth supering. This is happening right now. > This timing happens to coincide with National Pollinator Week... I see more than mere coincidence. Here are a few statements made in the hearing by Congressman Blumenauer, a co-sponsor of HR1709 (caps added): http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/hearings/ ("The Birds and the Bees: How Pollinators Help Maintain Healthy Ecosystems") "Many do not realize that agricultural production is heavily dependent on pollinators. In the US, for example, it is ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY DEPENDENT ON WILD NATIVE BEES." "Native bees are also crucial to the health of our ecosystems, as THEY ARE MORE VERSATILE THAN HONEY BEES." "It is apparent that we put our agricultural production - and food supply - at risk when WE RELY ON A SINGLE SPECIES SUCH AS THE HONEY BEE, for pollination." Who briefed this Congressman? Where did these statements come from? Oh wait, he mentioned a few groups: "I would like to recognize... the Coevolution Institute... Additionally, I would like to highlight the Xerces Society, located in my hometown of Portland, Oregon..." So I don't think I'm out of line at all. I'm just connecting the dots. Senate testimony is never ad-hoc. It is carefully prepared in advance. The testimony tends to give the clear impression that a "solution" to CCD is to simply start using other bees, native bees. Somehow, it undercuts the simple message that some short-term funds are needed for addressing CCD. If nothing else, it is certainly a distraction. > Could we all just drop the nonsense that any native > pollinator advocate thinks that native species will > replace honeybees for general agricultural pollination, Re-read the quotes above. When Senate testimony clearly expresses EXACTLY the "nonsense" claimed to not exist, I think that it is appropriate to call attention to it. > Remember, we're still trying to recover from our > negative image generated by Senator Proxmire's > Golden Fleece criticisms of our honey price support > program some years ago. That's a very good point. So is it prudent to propose a sweeping $20 million-dollar, multi-year program? Might this will earn us yet another "Golden Fleece Award", if it even survives appropriations? We merely need modest funds quickly. > the writer accused them of hopping on "our" bill. HR1709, the "Pollinator Protection Act" was introduced in the house on March 27, 2007 "To authorize resources for sustained research and analysis to address Colony Collapse Disorder, and for other purposes." That was the basis for getting some funding. One might even call it "our" bill. The Senate bill bearing the same name (S1694), introduced on June 26, 2007 has similar text, but inserts "native bees", "native pollinators" and "pollinators" in multiple places. Why the changes? Well, if it looks like a coattail, and drags across the floor like a coattail, and has several people we've never heard of before hanging onto it, what else can we call it? > publicly insulted Public? You think non-beekeepers read Bee-L? No, sorry, only about 700 people subscribe, so this list is not merely "private", it could be called absolutely obscure! > There have been heated words in D.C. these last few days, Perhaps someone will mention the need for some short-term funding. If so, good. > He explained that one needs to have an "authorization" > BEFORE one can ask for an "appropriation"--that's why > he introduced the Pollinator Protection Act. Yes, there are two kinds of bills - "Authorizations" and "Appropriations". "Authorizing" (or "Enabling") legislation is pure philosophy and has grand goals. It is where everyone supports hot issues. Yes, dollar values are included, but often these dollar values are far beyond what can be justified. Sometimes, the dollar amounts are breathtaking. "Appropriations" are where the rubber meets the road. Money is parceled out to fund very specific efforts. Appropriations are never very glamorous - they are about as exciting as balancing a checkbook. To put the situation in terms to which we can relate, let's assume we want to go to the beach this summer. We can "Authorize" ourselves to buy yachts in the event that we win the lottery and dream of how much fun that would be, but when it comes time to do "Appropriations", we look at our bank balance, and we find that we need to cut back on eating out and movies to have the money to spend a few days at the beach this summer. What happened this spring is that lobbying resulted in a stated goal of not going to the beach, not buying a yacht, but nothing less than the restoration of environmentally-friendly sailing ships to the high seas. Yes, that would be nice, but the plan is very very grand, far beyond even the dreams of a lottery winner, and a long-term project. Meanwhile, we still don't even any actual money to even go to the beach! All we really wanted to do was to go to the beach for a long weekend! Remember? But to recognize National Pollinator Week, let's think about really protecting native pollinators, as this certainly is an issue that should concern beekeepers. Everyone's heard about bumblebees being used in greenhouse tomato operations, so this would seem a success story of native species used in agriculture. But what does the Xerces Society itself say about the unintended consequences of this effort? "The bumble bee subgenus Bombus is represented by five species in North America. Of these, one, B. franklini, may be extinct, and two others, the western B. occidentalis and the eastern B. affinis, appear to be in steep decline... circumstantial evidence indicates that the principal cause for these population declines is the introduction of exotic disease organisms and pathogens via trafficking in commercial bumble bee queens and colonies for greenhouse pollination of tomatoes." http://www.xerces.org/Pollinator_Red_List/Bees/Bombus_Bombus.pdf So, bumblebees native to the USA were bred overseas, and sold to greenhouse operators. Some of them escaped the greenhouses, and spread a very nasty European form of bumblebee nosema. It killed off the native bumblebees. In this case, advocates of the use of native species in agriculture appear to have been the cause of the extinction of at least one entire species of native bumblebee. Keep your fingers crossed for the other bumblebees, but the National Academy of Sciences 2007 report "Status of Pollinators in North America"5 concludes that both Bombus occidentalis and Bombus Franklini have a status of "apparent local extinction". Whoops. Perhaps the best thing we can do for native species is to realize that they are precious and fragile creatures that should not be exposed to the rough-and-tumble of modern agriculture. Crop plants are a mixed bag of introduced species and high-tech hybrids that bear little similarity to any plants native to the USA, so why should we expect a native species to work these very recent creations of man? Perhaps we should DISCOURAGE the use of native species in large-scale agriculture so as to avoid additional extinctions. After all, we never used deer to pull wagons and plows for good reason - we imported horses carefully bred in Europe over the centuries, each breed suited to a specific type of task. Different lines of honey bees were also carefully bred in Europe over the centuries. Somehow, I see a connection. A future in which bumblebees don't exist to entertain us with their antics would be a bleak one indeed. Preservation is a laudable goal, but the attempt to justify preservation efforts by making claims about the advantages of "alternative pollinators" in practical agriculture are disingenuous, and tend to dispel the sense of urgency that CCD requires. How many innocent species of pollinators have to go extinct before we stop trying to force them into the gaping maw of 21st Century agriculture in misguided and misinformed attempts to make them "work" for humans? Can't we leave these bees alone, and just let them bee? Please, do it for the poor bumblebees! ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:55:06 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Paul Cherubini Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Brian Fredericksen wrote: > I'm curious, do you or have you kept bees? > I can't help but wonder if you speak as a defender > of bees or a defender of the farm chemical > business sector? Not bees, but I do actively raise and study other pollinators (butterflies) as a hobby while at the same time making a living selling farm chemicals. So I've had considerable field experience witnessing how benign or harmful farm chemicals can be to target and non-target (e.g. pollinators) insects. Naturally I'm curious as to whether or not the CCD phenomenon might or might not be legitimately linked to farm chemical use and so I joined this list to keep abreast of the situation. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 23:00:15 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "=?windows-1252?Q?J._Waggle?=" Subject: Re: Awake at 2 in the morning? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >The feral population is all >gone, which opened up a niche for Africanized bees." I sometimes wonder how they keep coming to this conclusion that “The feral population is all gone”. Feral populations may have been ‘reduced’ in the 90’s from disease and pests, but they certainly are not ’all gone’ and lately seem to be rebounding strong. In my neck of the woods, I am seeing some intense competition coming from woodland ferals. It seems in this feral recovery competitiveness is back, and if hives are not kept strong an healthy, the woodland ferals here seem quick to make a happy meal out of it. Perhaps, in these times of fall colony crashes, any colony able to identify these weak colonies first to rob will a selective advantage. So as of late, I continue to see a high degree of testing from scouts. And beelines from my neighbors colonies and some of my nucs that were robbed out zip off to the woodlands where many of the ferals seem to “have all gone”. ;) Best Wishes Joe Waggle ~ Derry, PA ‘Bees Gone Wild Apiaries' FeralBeeProject.com http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/H...neybeeArticles ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 18:53:52 +1000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: queenbee Subject: Apimondia 2007 program MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Just to let you know that the scientific program for Apimondia 2007 in = Melbourne has now been posted on the website. Go to = www.apimondia2007.com and click on the scientific program. I look forward to meeting you in Melbourne. Trevor Weatherhead AUSTRALIA ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 07:25:14 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "=?windows-1252?Q?J._Waggle?=" Subject: Do Pollinators have Value as a Carbon Offset? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hello All, The current trend with the environmental conservationists is to be ‘green’ and minimize OR lessen the impact as much as possible, ones contribution of things that may pose harm to the environment. This may necessitate conservation efforts and making beneficial contributions back to the environment for the purpose of reducing the harmful impact from ones own carbon emissions beyond that which conservation efforts are able to achieve by purchasing ‘carbon offsets‘. The idea behind carbon offsets is to reduce the net carbon emissions of individuals or organizations indirectly, through proxies who reduce their emissions and/or increase their absorption of greenhouse gases. A wide variety of offset actions are available; tree planting is the most common. “Due to their indirect nature, many types of offset are difficult to verify.” The trend, (because of its public relations appeal) is prompting celebrates such as Arnold Schwarzenegger to purchase carbon offsets (in Arnolds case in the form of planting of trees) to offset the carbon emissions caused by his private jet and Hummer. Some consumers are also trending towards buying ‘green products’ and swaying purchases towards companies that contribute to the environment thru carbon offset purchases. The question is: Can a basic formula for “carbon offset” value be determined for a feral / domestic honeybee colony OR pollinators in general? We do know that: ‘Younger trees take up more carbon.’ Perhaps, pollinators in forested areas would contribute young tree growth by pollination of seeds which would grow into saplings.. CO2 intake increases after seed and fruit producing plants are pollinated. ‘In one study the CO2 intake of the bean and apple plant were examined; it was found that after pollination these plants had increased photosynthetic rates, and net CO2 assimilation rate also increased due to the embryo growth.’ ‘Plants consume more CO2 when they are producing nectar.’ Carbon offsets perhaps might be: 1. Planting and preserving bee habitat areas 2. Providing nest sites for bee pollinators. 3. Protecting the feral bees. 4. Supporting your local beekeeper, by buying their products. Considering the wide area bees forage, perhaps a substantial carbon offset may exist in this area, and may have a potential monetary value from those wishing to purchase carbon offsets OR just wanting to help the environment. Joe Waggle ~ Derry, PA ‘Bees Gone Wild Apiaries' FeralBeeProject.com http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/H...neybeeArticles ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 09:59:01 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Aaron Morris Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate In-Reply-To: <200707101255.l6ACiDmO004214@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit There have been a lot of exchanges on this topic bantered about the past few months, some barbed, some more subtle. I am certainly not well versed in the rules of the game as played in DC. Neither have I closely followed the "Pollinator Protection Act of 2007" as it evolved from what it was in April to what it is today, to add to an informed discussion. I remember being thrilled that congress critters were considering dollars for CCD research, I was surprised when the Act brought in native pollinators, but figured that's how things are done in DC, and I am disappointed that to date no money has been forthcoming for anyone. I am also disappointed with the discussion regarding said act as it has been playing out on BEE-L. I am appreciative of the lessons of the rules of the game as have been explained, and I appreciate the viewpoints of the various camps (Apis vs. native pollinators), but the tone of the discussion bothers me. It seems to me to be counter productive to have the Act perceived as an issue of "us and them". Like it or hate it, the act has become what it has become. The players in DC (congress critters, lobyists, grass root folks representing different points of view and interest) have played the game by the rules by which the game is played. Bemaoning the outcome and belittling the players is crying over being out finessed on the playing field. One may not like being out finessed, but too bad, one was out finessed. We need to make the best of the result. If there is a way to have the needs of the Apis camp divested of the Act as it currently exists, let's hear it! If there is not, no amount of vilification of the players who out finessed we beekeepers will be productive. And continued discussion along that vein only serves to drag BEE-L into the gutter. That is the only dog I have in this fight. Keeping BEE-L a place for discussion, it is not a place for fights. Aaron Morris - thinking I need a bigger dog! ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 10:38:21 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "=?UTF-8?Q?Peter_L._Borst?=" Subject: Re: Do Pollinators have Value as a Carbon Offset? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit J. Waggle wrote: >The trend, (because of its public relations appeal) is prompting >celebrates such as Arnold Schwarzenegger to purchase carbon offsets (in >Arnolds case in the form of planting of trees) to offset the carbon >emissions caused by his private jet and Hummer. * Maybe he should plant trees AND get rid of the Hummer. > The Boston Globe found more than 60 websites that sell offsets to US consumers, but there is no government oversight of these sites, nor is there a uniform standard for what constitutes a legitimate offset. Some websites provide scant information about the criteria they use to pick projects and how much they charge for overhead, making it difficult for consumers to sort out effective offsets from projects that have little true environmental value. > "Because there is no one standard in the voluntary market, the offsets being sold to people are often like money made with your own Xerox machine," said Seth Kaplan, senior attorney for the Boston-based Conservation Law Foundation. "People can't be sure if what they are buying has any value." > "It really is anything goes," says Anja Kollmuss, outreach coordinator for the Tufts University Climate Initiative. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 12:05:57 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: randy oliver Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi All, Thanks to all those who have written me in support for researching this issue! I have personally written Jim Fishcher and apologized if I have offended him in any way. I think that Jim is a brilliant analyst and an asset to the beekeeping community. I'm out of the loop in bee politics, and generally find the subject distasteful, this case being no exception! I've posted my findings on this topic, and am not convinced that the native pollinator folk hijacked our CCD emergency funding--its failure to date seems to be a casualty of fiscal limitations, and lack of lobbying by the bee industry. I also don't see that they'd overloaded the bills designed to help beekeepers. Indeed, not only do I not see that we have any axe to grind with them, they appear to have used their influence in Washington to help beekeepers. The statements made by Congressman Blumenauer appeared to be overstated, but essentially truthful--a mix of pollinators does help to maintain healthy ecosystems and result in better pollination, a huge amount of pollination is indeed effected by native bees, native bees as a group are indeed more versatile than honeybees, and we are indeed at risk in agriculture when we rely wholly on any single species of crop or pollinator (just ask the almond growers). On the other hand, the honeybee is by far the most manageable species of pollinator since it is a generalist, exhibits species fidelity, transfers pollen from bee to bee within the hive, and can be delivered upon demand at any time to any crop. A number of agricultural crops are nearly entirely dependent upon migratory beekeepers. I make my living as such by charging for pollination, and do not feel threatened by competition from native pollinators. > The testimony tends to give the clear impression that a "solution" to CCD > is to simply start using other bees, native bees. Somehow, it undercuts > the simple message that some short-term funds are needed for addressing > CCD. If nothing else, it is certainly a distraction. Jim's point is well taken, although the congressional staff I spoke to did not appear to have been distracted. This again illustrates the importance of the wording of our statements. At this point I would like to express my ignorance again. I have not spoken to any native pollinator groups. I know that they at least sometimes read these posts. I think that this might be a good time for them to clarify their positions, if they wish to. Not in response to Jim, nor argumentatively, but simply so we can see if beekeepers and the native pollinator folk can work together or not. They have been notably silent during this debate (and I hardly blame them). Would you please speak up now? Specifically: 1. As I stated before, it's generally accepted that honeybees can disrupt ecosystems by pollinating exotic weeds, and by competing with native pollinators for resources. Given that, do the NP groups have any problem with accepting honeybees as a vital component of American agriculture? 2. Is your position to replace honeybees in agriculture with native pollinators, or simply to generate recognition of the contributions already made by them? 3. Are you promoting commercial exploitation of native pollinators, or is your intent to simply help them to exist in the wild? 4. I've already posted to this List that Coevolution Institute was instrumental in helping beekeepers present their case in the recent Senate hearings. Also, my opinion that habitat improvement for native pollinators would likely benefit beekeepers as well. Do your organizations feel that your goals are at odds with beekeepers, or do you feel that we can work together? 5. Is there discussion going on between your organizations and beekeepers organizations to coordinate our efforts politically? If not, are you open to such coordination? Randy Oliver Hoping this thread ends soon! ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 14:31:40 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: randy oliver Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi All, I recently received a private email from a large commercial beekeeper. He suggests that Gary Naban and Steve Buchman, in their book The Forgotten Pollinators paint honeybees in a poor light. Has anyone else on the List read this for a comment? My friend also points out, as Jim does, that on the committees, native pollinator people outnumber honeybee people. To me, that means that we beekeepers aren't doing our job as well as the native pollinator folk are doing theirs. Jim, any suggestions as to how we can get beekeepers better represented? Randy Oliver ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 07:45:20 +1000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: queenbee Subject: Re: Do Pollinators have Value as a Carbon Offset? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="Windows-1252"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > CO2 intake increases after seed and fruit producing plants are > pollinated. ‘In one study the CO2 intake of the bean and apple plant were > examined; it was found that after pollination these plants had increased > photosynthetic rates, and net CO2 assimilation rate also increased due to > the embryo growth.’ > > ‘Plants consume more CO2 when they are producing nectar.’ Joe made the points above. Can you supply the references for these please. Whilst it may be well known, nothing better than being able to quote the source to reinforce an argument. Trevor Weatherhead AUSTRALIA ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 19:30:38 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "=?windows-1252?Q?J._Waggle?=" Subject: Re: Do Pollinators have Value as a Carbon Offset? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >Joe made the points above. Can you supply the references for these please. >Whilst it may be well known, nothing better than being able to quote the >source to reinforce an argument. Hello, I’m not in any argument, just asking a question to list members for a little info article I am writing for homeowners about the benefits of pollinators. The hope is that it will help convince them to keep that feral colony live out it’s existence in their house or hollow tree out back that grandpa planted. Do Pollinators have Value as a Carbon Offset? Does their pollination they provide play a substantial role in the absorption of carbon from the atmosphere as a result of embryo growth in the pollinated flower? As previously mentioned, we do know: ====> http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S1677- 04202006000300007&script=sci_arttext "After pollination, net CO2 assimilation rate (A) is increased due embryo growth (Pimentel et al., 1999b)," ====> http://www.cnr.vt.edu/DENDRO/forestbiology/htmltext/chapter3.htm “It is known that apple trees with fruit present have higher photosynthetic rates than when the fruit is removed” (Higher photosynthetic =’s more carbon uptake.) ====> http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12058-nitrogen-pollution- drives-trees-to-soak-up-more-cosub2sub.html "Young, rapidly growing trees take more carbon from the atmosphere than old trees," ====> Best Wishes, Joe Waggle ~ Derry, PA ‘Bees Gone Wild Apiaries' FeralBeeProject.com http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/H...neybeeArticles ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 19:38:24 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Rossy Castillo Subject: quens bees fromcChile to Canada MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Canada has opened importation of live bees from Chile.I'd like to tell that Chile is the only one country in South Americas that has NO African BEES, we can send queens to Canada since january until march or april.I'm queen breeder and I work with Buckfast queens.I've sent queens and packages bees to Spain, France ,and Germany. Our breeding season begins in september until march or april. If somebody is interested please contact me . rossybee@terra.cl or rossycastillo.orozco@gmail.com Thanks beforehand Rossy ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 21:00:05 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "=?UTF-8?Q?Peter_L._Borst?=" Subject: Re: Do Pollinators have Value as a Carbon Offset? Comments: To: "J. Waggle" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >>Whilst it may be well known, nothing better than being able to quote the >>source to reinforce an argument. > >I'm not in any argument I think he is using the word "argument" in a difference sense than you think. As in: "stated point of view: the main point of view expressed in a book, report, or speech" pb ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 22:15:28 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Aaron Morris Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > _The_Forgotten_Pollinators_ by Stephen L. Buchmann and Gary=20 > Paul Nabhan (may have) painted honeybees in a poor light. =20 It's been a while since I read it, but it was a great read and I = thoroughly enjoyed it. I don't recollect honeybees as being cast in a = particularly bad light. I think they called a honey bee a honey bee (or = a spade a spade). Honey bees are not native. But they're here, they're = qu..., eh, not native, deal with it! I don't recollect honey bees being = cast as villains who have displaced native pollinators or pushed the = home team out of their native turf. If anything, my recollection of the = true villain is man, who has cut up ecosystems to such a degree that the = native pollinators are hard pressed to keep migration routes between = starting and ending point because there are not enough fueling stations = alone the way. Another point made in the book is the concept of = endangered relationships (as opposed to endangered species). For = example (and I apologize because I do not remember the species) is a = flower that grows on cliffs in Hawaii that may become extinct because = the pollinator that evolved along with the flower to be its sole = pollinator is in major decline and in jeopardy of extinction. Without = the pollinator, the plant perishes. My recollection is the pollinator = is in decline, the plant is following the declining path, and in an = attempt to save both volunteer rock climbers are repelling down the = cliffs with paint brushes to make sure the plants get pollinated to keep = the cycle going. I know it's in the BEE-L archives because I wrote = about it when I read the book. Anyway, the endangered relationship is a = commonly examined phenomenon throughout the book. =20 No, I don't recall honey bees being vilified in the book, I remember an = inspection of the other players in the pollination game, or as the title = says, the forgotten pollinators. =20 > on the committees, native pollinator people outnumber honeybee > people. To me, that means that we beekeepers aren't doing our job > as well as the native pollinator folk are doing theirs. Out finessed again! =20 Aaron Morris - thinking I've forgotten _The_Forgotten_Pollinators_! ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 19:42:25 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Paul Cherubini Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit randy oliver wrote 6/27/07: > As the Xerces guy stated: "This bill can help to improve crop > security and the sustainability of agriculture, by helping farmers > in the United States diversity their pollinator portfolio." I went to the Xerces Society website to find out specifically what native pollinator habitat enhancement measures Xerces is recommending for farms: http://www.xerces.org/Pollinator_Insect_Conservation/ag_info.html "Adding flowers, leaving areas of soil untilled where possible, and providing bee blocks (tunnels drilled into wood) are all ways to increase the number of native bees on your farm." But Xerces doesn't tell growers if the magnitude of the increase in native bee diversity and abundance from such measures will be large or small. Nor does Xerces tell growers if these measures might also risk unintended side effects like providing more habitat and harborage for for pest rodents, insects, weeds and crop disease pathogens, which in turn might make it necessary for a grower to use more pesticide. Thus I wonder if growers would consider Xerces's recommendations helpful or harmful to crop security? today you wrote: > we are indeed at risk in agriculture when we rely wholly > on any single species of crop or pollinator (just ask the > almond growers). I think Bill Truesdell pointed out this is the way farming has been conducted in the USA for decades and yet yields per acre of practically all crops have been steadily increasing. I wonder if the crop insurance companies and farm credit banks would say industrialized farming methods have improved or worsened the frequency and magnitude of the crop failure claims and loan defaults they have to deal with? Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 21:30:21 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: randy oliver Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> we are indeed at risk in agriculture when we rely wholly >> on any single species of crop or pollinator > > I think Bill Truesdell pointed out this is the way farming has > been conducted in the USA for decades and yet yields > per acre of practically all crops have been steadily > increasing. Thank you, Paul. I don't dispute your point about yields at all. However, history shows us the risk of putting all our eggs into one biological basket. The Irish potato famine was due to the planting of only one cultivar (the Lumpkin) of potato, which turned out to be exceptionally susceptible to phytophera. If the Irish had planted only three or four cultivars, the famine likely would not have occurred. Ditto with the total crash of the world's entire banana crop when the Gros Michael variety was hit by a virus, and the Green Indian coconut when it was hit by something or another, and all the coconut trees planted in the Caribbean died suddenly. The almond growers are feeling the same about being totally dependent upon honeybees for pollinating their crop. If this one species of pollinator crashes, as it did a couple of years ago, their production costs suddenly skyrocket without warning; or even worse, their crop could fail, since they didn't have any alternatives available. Massive monoculture can be extremely efficient. By the same token, it can crash in a big way without warning. Kinda similar to putting all your investments into only one stock. Diversification of your portfolio spreads the risks. Diversity in biological systems, including agriculture, lends more stability to the system. Randy Oliver ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 19:57:51 +1000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: queenbee Subject: Re: Do Pollinators have Value as a Carbon Offset? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="Windows-1252"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > I’m not in any argument, I am not arguing with Joe, I just want to use your data to use in my arguments as outlined by Peter. I find your data very interesting. We currently have an Inquiry by one of our Federal Government Committees into the beekeeping industry. If there are references that I can use, I would like to argue the case for our industry. So I am not at odds with Joe, just wanting details. Trevor Weatherhead AUSTRALIA ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 05:34:18 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: C Hooper Subject: Strong Antioxidants Found in Brazilian Bee Pollen MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII Strong Antioxidants Found in Brazilian Bee Pollen Antioxidant Hydroxycinnamic Acid Derivatives Isolated from Brazilian Bee Pollen Natural Product Research, Volume 21, Issue 8 July 2007, pages 726 - 732 http://apitherapy.blogspot.com/2007/07/strong-antioxidants-found-in-brazilian.html Among the isolated compounds, monocaffeoyl-tri-p-coumaroyl spermine showed the strongest free radical-scavenging activity, which was almost identical to that of alpha-tocopherol… ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:56:37 -0400 Reply-To: bee-quick@bee-quick.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > My friend also points out, as Jim does, that on the committees, native > pollinator people outnumber honeybee people. To me, that means that we > beekeepers aren't doing our job as well as the native pollinator folk are > doing theirs. Jim, any suggestions as to how we can get beekeepers better > represented? Let us for a moment, take a "paranoid" stance. Now, let's look at the bills one can find with "Pollinator" in the title and note their dates of introduction: 1) Pollinator Protection Act [House HR1709] 03/27/07 2) Pollinator Habitat Protection Act of 2007 [Senate S1496] 05/24/07 3) Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 [Senate S1694] 06/26/07 4) Pollinator Habitat Protection Act of 2007 [House HR2913] 06/28/07 There are two bills here, each with a "House" and "Senate" version. That makes two in each body, a total of four. OK, so at first, we had the (Honey Bee & CCD Focused) HR1709, but note well that it included R&D funding for native bee research in its language. In fact, it would be impossible to fund ONLY Honey Bee research, as the Bee Labs are all run out of the same accounts, by the same manager, and he is not gonna let the Logan UT lab (where native bees are studied) starve when the other labs get cash, now is he? And then we have S1496, a purely "native pollinator habitat" bill. It added "native pollinators" to a bunch of conservation set-aside bills, so that landholders, farmers, and the federal government itself (who owns lots of the prime native bee habitat in the USA) could get the same advantage from a set-aside for native pollinators that they could from a set-aside for wolves or bighorn sheep. So far, so good, right? But now let's look at the "companion bills". (Civics 101: Everything has to be passed by BOTH houses, House and Senate, or you have a no-go). In the case of HR2913, you find no changes at all from S1496 both "Pollinator Habitat Protection Acts" are the same, with no funny business. The bills match, so there is nothing to "work out in committee, and no need for House/Senate negotiation. But look at S1694! Same title (ok, they added the year), so one would think it was a companion bill to HR1709, the one about CCD. But surprise! It has all sorts of new language! About... all together now, "native pollinators", of course. How'd that happen? Why didn't they add whatever they wanted to add to the "Pollinator HABITAT Protection Act", still "in committee" in both houses of congress: HR1709 - Referred to House Committee on Agriculture. HR2913 - Referred to House Committee on Agriculture. S1694 - Referred to (Senate) Committee on Ag, Nutrition, and Forestry. S1496 - Referred to (Senate) Committee on Ag, Nutrition, and Forestry. But hold on a second here - why were the hearings held by the Senate's "Committee on Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans" if the bill itself was properly the business of the Senate AGRICULTURE Committee, to who the bill was referred?. And why did it have a funny name like "The Birds and the Bees"? I mean, it is cute, but do we want to be "cute" when we go hat in hand to beg for dollars to try and stop what is starting to look like it might be "Beekeeping's Dust Bowl"? http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/hearings/ ("The Birds and the Bees: How Pollinators Help Maintain Healthy Ecosystems") The answer is that "we" did not pick the title. Beekeeping and CCD was the very small tail on the very large dog in those hearings, except when it was felt that they would make good stalking horses for the native pollinator agenda. Why and how did THAT happen? Well, it should be obvious! The AGRICULTURE committee would have said "we don't DO 'environment' we do farming and such." So, the game was rigged from the moment the native pollinator types "so graciously invited" the beekeepers to speak about CCD to the Senate. The beekeepers could have said, SHOULD have said. "Gee thanks, we will support your efforts, but we have a purely Agriculture issue here, and we need to present our plea to the AGRICULTURE Committee, not the NATURAL RESOURCES Committee." But they didn't. And now that the hearings are over, and CCD has been given a voice before the Senate, why should the Senate Agriculture Committee hold hearings on S1694 When they've already been held before another committee? So, the "companion bill" to HR1709 was thereby usurped, utilizing the same title, but having add-ons not found in the HR1709. This really delays stuff, as the two bills MUST match (remember Civics 101?) if they are to be more than a waste of dead trees. So, all the hype and press over CCD resulted in hearings in the Senate held by the WRONG COMMITTEE, where DIFFERENT GOALS were the primary focus of a bill DELIBERATELY GIVEN THE SAME NAME. And, in the process, no way to ask for some shuffling around of USDA slush funds to get us over the short-term hump because it was the WRONG COMMITTEE. ("Wrong for our needs, but "right" for the needs of the protectors and promoters of native pollinators. You remember those guys, right? What's their body count by now? Any MORE confirmed extinctions as a direct result of their smug insistence that they have some insects that are better than Honey Bees somehow?) One thing that I wonder about - How can the Natural Resources Committee hold "oversight" hearings on a bill that is promptly referred to the Agriculture Committee? Doesn't the Senate have committees for a reason? (Or was a fraud perpetrated upon the Senate by presuming to hold oversight hearings on an issue over which the Natural Resources Committee has no jurisdiction?) I dunno - turn on the TV, and confirm that no one seems to play by the rules any more, even when Congress issues freakin' subpoenas. So, every one will point to the hearings on the 28th as "about CCD", even though it was actually set up the way it was and WHERE it was soley to address "native pollinator" needs that could have been added to THEIR OWN DARN BILL. (The "Habitat" bill) While I may certainly be accused of being "unfair" in my analysis, the lobbying continues, and it appears to continue to be single-minded and self-serving, now that the press hype over CCD has been used as a bullet-point to justify UNRELATED things like habitat protection for native pollinators. (I love mailing lists, as people put their playbooks on them for all to see: http://lists.sonic.net/pipermail/pollinator/2007-July/000778.html ) Yep, their goal now is to back-fit the same language into HR1709. And they will keep going and going, just like the Energizer Bunny, as long as it takes, and short-fuse CCD funding be damned. With "friends" like these... We never even got a CHANCE to go before the Senate Ag Committee and ask for some short-term, small-time bucks. Now, go ahead and just try to call me paranoid. Just try. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 12:39:45 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Aaron Morris Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate In-Reply-To: <200707121611.l6CEYS2d009293@listserv.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > Now, go ahead and just try to call me paranoid. Just try. That part's easy Jim, you're paranoid. Regarding things as they went (and are still going) down, I go back to we beekeepers are being (have been) out-finessed. I won't attempt to challenge your assessment of the goings on, you obviously have followed closer and analyzed deeper than have do I. For the sake of moving on in a positive direction I will grant you that everything has and continues to happened just as you say. The thing I want to know is, "WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT IT?" If, as you say the CCD concerns were doomed right from the start by being presented to the incorrect committee, and if as you say beekeepers' concerns went further astray due to collusion and subterfuge, what can we beekeepers do at this juncture to set things straight? If all you want to do is cry over spilt milk, well, shut up! Bring us solutions man! Is this a problem that can be fixed? I'll be attending the summer picnic of my state association next weekend. What sort of political statement might I try to elicit from the Empire State Honey Producers Association to address the situation as it currently exists in Washington, DC.? What should other grass root beekeepers be doing? Aaron Morris - thinking don't bring me problems, bring me solutions! ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 17:03:15 GMT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "waldig@netzero.com" Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Sena te Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit With all this talk about native pollinators, it occured to me that banning honey bee hives from the vicinity of mandarine orange groves will not prevent native pollinators from their [perhaps smaller?] contribution to seeds in the oranges. Is this the case? Waldemar ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:48:05 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: randy oliver Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi All, This venue is presumably an "informed discussion" of beekeeping issues. I appreciate that we can share facts and opinions, and then allow the readers to come to their own conclusions. Lately, I've been getting a lesson on politics--something of which I know little, but am learning quickly! The main issue of this thread appears to be whether native pollinator lobbyists were instrumental in delaying a simple emergency funding bill for CCD research, due to their "hijacking" of the bills, in attempts to insert funding for native pollinators. Some on the List feel strongly that this occurred. Perhaps it did, and if so, it should be rather easily verifiable. In my interviews of several of the major players, I could not verify that this happened. However, I am always open to new facts. Jim Fischer states accurately that somehow CCD funding focus got shifted from Agriculture to Natural Resources. I totally agree with him that this is not the proper arena for an agricultural issue. My question is, what occurred in the interim between the April USDA-ARS CCD meeting that he attended, and the June 26 Natural Resources pollinator hearings. The June meetings were apparently set up well in advance, independent of CCD, and for different reasons. They had nothing to do with the CCD issue, and beekeepers were invited almost as an afterthought, as I have previously detailed. So the CCD research funding need was spelled out in March (in Hasting's bill), a list of research points detailed in April, and then next discussed at a late June "Birds and Bees" show. What happened in the interim? What were the beekeepers lobbyists doing from April 'til the end of June? This is when we needed the emergency funding. They key issue to me is--what happened to the emergency appropriation "expectations" after the Beltsville meeting? Some apparently came away from the meeting expecting emergency funding for CCD research to be quickly made available. I think that most on this list would have welcomed such funding, so that the CCD samples could be analyzed in a timely manner. Jim Fischer was at that meeting, and might be able to clarify some issues for us. 1. Who made any promises for emergency appropriations? 2. Senator Hastings had already introduced HR1709 in March. This bill authorized for appropriations for FY 2008. Please correct me, but wouldn't that be beginning Oct 2007 at the earliest? 3. Is there a bill that I haven't seen requesting emergency appropriations for 2007? 4. Whose budget were those emergency appropriations going to come out of? As bees were dying, the wheels of Congress turned slowly and messily. Since the native pollinator folk already had a presence in Washington due to their upcoming National Pollinator Week and the associated trappings, they would of course approach, or be approached by, congressional staff. So did they then hijack the bill? I've gone over the bill, and searched out every instance of the word "native." Native bees are mentioned 10 times, honey bees 13 times. In most sentences, native bees are a minor addition, such as in "pollination by honey and native bees adds more than $18,000,000 annually to the value of United States crops." There are only two stand alone instances of requests specifically for native bees: "native bee crop pollination and habitat conservation" and "native bee taxonomy and ecology." These two instances are in a list of nine items referring mostly to honeybees. Some mention of native pollinators would be expected in any case, due to the native pollinator researchers at ARS, Logan, Utah. I just can't see how Jim comes to the conclusion that adding these two sentences "hijacked" a bill, or killed funding. Here's the point: Congress moves only when it's pushed. Money has to be squeezed out, generally by pressure exerted by lobbyists who speak for groups of voters (read that "donors"). U.S. agricultural lobbyists are not pushing for honeybees--they don't feel the need. Congressional staffs have a nebulous idea that there is some kind of problem with honeybees disappearing due to cell phones or something, but they aren't being pushed and educated by the bee industry. The native pollinator people appear to be setting a fine example for the bee industry as to what a small group of dedicated individuals can effect politically--my hat's off to them. I heartily agree with Aaron--let's stop whining and being paranoid, and, as an industry, write letters to our representatives, and donate money to our lobbyists to get our needs clearly spelled out to Congress. This is clearly the way that things get done in Washington. It appears to me that badmouthing a group with whom we have common interests is clearly not in our best interest as an industry. It mixes messages up in Washington, and makes us look like whiners. Politicians need to get a lot of people on board to get their train moving. They want passengers who can get along. The players in the beekeeping industry are notorious for being unable to work together to promote a common agenda. I suggest that we try to focus upon letting Congress know that we are an integral part of the agricultural team, which includes orchardists, berry growers, seed growers, pesticide manufacturers and applicators, hobby and migratory beekeepers, and native pollinators. Randy Oliver All aboard? ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:57:28 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: randy oliver Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Sena te MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >banning honey bee hives from the vicinity of mandarine orange groves will not prevent native pollinators from their [perhaps smaller?] contribution to seeds in the oranges. Is this the case? Apparently not the case in studies performed. Trailer loads of migratory bees are the issue. Randy Oliver ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:49:04 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: randy oliver Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi All, Things are moving in a positive direction! The ABF and AHPA are sending a joint letter to Agriculture Secretary Michael Johanns, requesting immediate CCD funding. It's been suggested to me by a major player that our best course of action right now would be to flood our congresspersons with letters to get them to sign on to support immediate funding to analyze the CCD samples before they degrade, and to support SB1694--The Pollinator Protection Act of 2007, for long-term funding. Congress needs to hear from the rank and file, as well as our industry leaders. It is easy to find you representative at http://www.house.gov/writerep/, and your senator at http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm. Randy Oliver ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 14:17:21 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: randy oliver Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Quote from Ag Secretary Johanns, from his remarks to the Pollinating Partners Celebration Ceremony and Release of a New U.S. Stamp Washington D.C. - June 29, 2007 (http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?contentidonly=true&contentid=2007/06/0189.xml): "The honeybee population is absolutely critical to agricultural production, and 90 percent of our apples and blueberries are pollinated by honeybees. Nearly half our peach crop depends on them, and more than 25 percent of our orange production. CCD is a significant problem, and it's affecting bees in 35 states. It is characterized by a rapid loss of adult worker bees. Intact stores of pollen and honey are left in the colony but few or no dead bees can be found. In the six months between September of '06 and March of this year, some beekeepers reported losses in their colonies as high as 80 to 100 percent. If left unchecked, Colony Collapse Disorder has the potential to cause a $15 billion direct loss of crop production and $75 billion in indirect losses. " Just to let the List know that the native pollinator people have not totally bamboozled the Secretary. He can be emailed at http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?edeployment_action=changenav&navid=FEEDBACK_FORM Randy Oliver ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 20:40:39 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Aaron Morris Subject: Level playing field MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I have for the time being turned off moderation on BEE-L. =20 Please keep things civil, please behave and follow Guidelines for = Posting (which I'm sure we all know by heart by now). For at least = until tommorrow morning, and until I regret doing so, BEE-L is wide = open. Post what you will. =20 Aaron Morris - thinking I must be crazy! ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 20:41:47 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Dan_Grandy?= Subject: Queen Rearing Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I purchased a Queen Rearing Kit.The one that the Queen layes the eggs in. I have followed the instructions but have not been able to get the raising hive to accept them. the Queen layes the eggs and the bees start feeding them but when i transfer them to the cell cup holder and into the new hive they let the eggs dry up. What am i doing wrong? ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 21:04:46 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Aaron Morris Subject: Re: Queen Rearing MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > but when i transfer them to the cell cup holder and into the new hive > they let the eggs dry up. What am i doing wrong? There are so many variables in this equation it's a hard question to = answer. I would focus on the hive into which you're putting the primed = cups. Is it in cell building mode? It should have lots, lots and lots, = LOTS AND LOTS of young nurse bees eager to finish the queen cups It = muse be well provisioned (plenty of honey and pollen), and oh yes, did I = mention that it must have lots and lots and LOTS of young nurse bees? = It need not be queenless, but if it IS queenless you will have better, = almost assured success. You might try adding pollen patties to make = sure it is beyond well provisioned, and while you're adding pollen = patties, you might consider adding a few more young nurse bees, no, LOTS = more young nurse bees to get the hive focused on nothing other than = raising queens.=20 =20 And then you might search the BEE-L archives for a well authored article = titles "Good queens don't just happen!" =20 Good luck! =20 Aaron Morris - thinking good queens don't just happen! ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 21:22:15 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Darrell Subject: Re: Level playing field In-Reply-To: <9D95C2906FCCE04F836ECA17C4CE092108BE16B1@UAEXCH.univ.albany.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v728) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 12-Jul-07, at 8:40 PM, Aaron Morris wrote: > I have for the time being turned off moderation on BEE-L. > > Hi All My E-mail wasn't working for a couple of weeks so I have been catching up lately. I missed the discussion and the banter. My bees, including this years splits, have been filling boxes with basswood honey which Peter so aptly described. I followed along with the pollinator act thread for a while until it started getting nasty, after which I deleted all regardless of who the writer was. I am, likely, not the only person doing this. Bob Darrell Caledon Ontario Canada 80W44N ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 21:28:47 -0400 Reply-To: james.fischer@gmail.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Randy, stop playing chief apologist, and SHOW ME THE MONEY. It is nice to know that the ABF and AHPA are writing letters. Hope someone in Congress bothers to read them before they recess for summer. (It might have been nice to give the issue of quick funding a nod in the hearings, but who am I to criticise? (Oh, yeah - that's right, I am apparently the only guy who reads this stuff and keeps score.) If someone in each group could MAKE THE LETTERS PUBLIC, we mere beekeepers could then participate by writing letters that dovetailed with the organizations' words, or at least did not appear to contradict them. But we never know WHAT is said until too late, and we never know about hearings or meetings that we might want to attend and (by our humble presence) support, as we never are told about the meetings, either. Ya know, there's this internet thingy, and it has all kinds of beekeepers that use it. There are even organized groups that hang around on the corners and whistle and catcall at all the pretty packets as they fly by... ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 20:11:26 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: randy oliver Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Randy, stop playing chief apologist, Labeling me as an apologist makes the implication that there is something to apologize for. I'm not sure that the List is convinced that any wrongdoing has occurred. If you would care to answer the four questions that I specifically posed to determine the truth of the matter (7/12 12:25), we could all form our own opinions as to whether there was any improper action on anyone's part. >and SHOW ME THE MONEY. Sorry, Jim, but showing you money is not in my power. However, I've posted to this list action that we all can take. No one is hiding anything I've posted the link to Danny Weaver's letter, and have asked for permission to post the AHPA/ABF letter. I've also requested that other persons "in the know" give me permission to post their comments. I'm trying to be as transparent and polite as possible (especially since Aaron has left us at home without a babysitter). I have only the best interests of the beekeeping community in mind. Randy Oliver ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 21:33:25 -0700 Reply-To: mdshepherd@xerces.org Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "Matthew Shepherd (Xerces Society)" Subject: Xerces Society response to Randy Oliver=?us-ascii?Q?=92s?= questions Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Randy Oliver observed that the =93native pollinator folk=94 had been= silent, and posed some specific questions (in italics below). Here are= answers to those questions from the Xerces Society. In the recent= discussion, we, NAPPC (Coevolution Institute), and university scientists= have all been included under the umbrella of =93native bee advocates.=94= The answers below only reflect the opinions of the Xerces Society. ****************** 1. As I stated before, it's generally accepted that honeybees can disrupt= ecosystems by pollinating exotic weeds, and by competing with native= pollinators for resources. Given that, do the NP groups have any problem= with accepting honeybees as a vital component of American agriculture? We have read the recent research providing evidence that honey bees may= provide an extra advantage to exotic weeds. We also have closely followed= the research that suggests honey bees may compete in some cases/places= with native bees (particularly with generalist foragers like bumble bees).= However, we believe that honey bees are, and will remain, the primary= pollinator workhorse of agriculture. This is what we promote to the press,= in our publications, and in our workshops. That being said, we do not actively work on the conservation of honey bees.= The honey bee community (beekeepers and researchers) have an established= presence, many advocates, many research labs across the country, and a= support network of extension agents, Departments of Agriculture, etc. We= are just one small organization with limited funds. We are disappointed= in the steady trend of the last twenty years in which funding has been= pulled from Apiary Inspector programs and support for beekeepers, but= honey bees have not been the main focus of our pollinator program. (Just as an FYI: Mace Vaughan, Xerces Conservation Director (he also= manages our Agricultural pollinator program) has a background in honey bee= research and beekeeping, working with the Nick Calderone at Cornell= University in the late 1990s. That work focused on honey bee behavior,= and was an entr=E9e for him into the wonderful diversity of bees (and= other invertebrates) in the world and his present efforts in invertebrate= conservation here at the Xerces Society.) ****************** 2. Is your position to replace honeybees in agriculture with native= pollinators, or simply to generate recognition of the contributions= already made by them? We never have proposed that native bees will replace honey bees in= agriculture. Our position, and the goal of our Agriculture Program, is to= come up with incentives for growers to protect or restore habitat on their= lands that provides resources (forage and nest sites) for native bees and= other pollinators. This same habitat will provide additional resources for= honey bees and, if competition with a crop is a concern, can even be= designed to provide bloom before and after focal crops. This would support= a diverse community of native bees, as well as honey bees. To be clear, we also believe and promote that native bees can play more of= a role in agriculture than they are generally given credit for and that= they can be an excellent partner with honey bees in crop pollination. Should honey bees become more difficult to acquire for some growers, we= also believe that cultivating good habitat around the farm may be an= insurance policy where native bees can fill in gaps if a grower can only= get a percentage (say 75%) of the bees she or he needs. ****************** 3. Are you promoting commercial exploitation of native pollinators, or is= your intent to simply help them to exist in the wild? We support commercial management of native pollinators as long as these= organisms are not moved across ecoregions, but we do not actively promote= it. We are a conservation organization and our aim is to protect or= restore habitat on the land for pollinators. That being said, we do not shy away from managed native bees. In fact, we= are helping the USDA-ARS Logan Bee Lab with some field trials for= management of a native bee for berry pollination in Oregon. Our concern with managing native pollinators is in the transport of disease= and inappropriate genetic stock across the country, should, for example,= bees be raised in Ohio and shipped to California. As we=92ve seen with= some species of bumble bees, their transport across the country (or from= Europe to the U.S.) may have led to the introduction of diseases. This is= the same problem the honey bee community faced in the 1980s (and continues= to struggle with) when varroa mite, tracheal mite, and European foulbrood= were introduced into the U.S. ****************** 4. I've already posted to this List that Coevolution Institute was= instrumental in helping beekeepers present their case in the recent Senate= hearings. Also, my opinion that habitat improvement for native= pollinators would likely benefit beekeepers as well. Do your= organizations feel that your goals are at odds with beekeepers, or do you= feel that we can work together? We strongly believe that our goals are in line with beekeepers and that we= can work together. We are working to have more habitat on the land for= pollinators. This goal will help diversify pollen and nectar sources for= honey bees. Also, our target is to get land managers to think about when= there are periods when no or few flowers are available, and to try to fill= these holes with a diversity of bloom. This would have benefits for= native pollinators and honey bees. We also work to educate farmers on the= use of pesticides which will help all insect pollinator species. ****************** 5. Is there discussion going on between your organizations and beekeepers= organizations to coordinate our efforts politically? If not, are you open= to such coordination? We have had conversations with beekeepers and bee researchers, and we are= open to coordination with the honey bee community. In fact, in the past= we have been very active in improving labels on insecticides and in= editing guidelines for protecting honey and native bees from pesticides. Our work is focused on habitat conservation, however, and efforts to= coordinate with the honey bee community, is difficult to do because of= this. But we certainly would welcome having a discussion with leaders in= the beekeeping community. ****************** As a footnote, our pollinator conservation work extends beyond simply= agriculture. We are engaged with land managers of all sorts, both public= and private, to promote safe habitat for pollinators, including on golf= courses, in urban parks and greenspaces, on power line easements, in= gardens, and in natural areas. In many situations, the people we work with= have land adjacent to farms, so the work they do will have spill over= benefits for growers. We also work to protect at-risk pollinator insects= and their habitat. More information about our work can be found on our= website, www.xerces.org. Randy, thanks for this specific request to respond to this discussion. We= very much appreciate it and hope that what we=92ve written clears up our= positions on these issues. Sincerely, Scott Black, Executive Director Mace Vaughan, Conservation Director Matthew Shepherd, Pollinator Program Director ______________________________________________________ The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation The Xerces Society is an international nonprofit organization that protects the diversity of life through invertebrate conservation. To join the Society, make a contribution, or read about our work, please visit www.xerces.org. Matthew Shepherd Director, Pollinator Conservation Program 4828 SE Hawthorne Boulevard, Portland, OR 97215, USA Tel: 503-232 6639 Cell: 503-807 1577 Fax: 503-233 6794 Email: mdshepherd@xerces.org ______________________________________________________ ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 21:35:14 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dee Lusby Subject: Re: Level playing field Comments: To: Aaron Morris In-Reply-To: <9D95C2906FCCE04F836ECA17C4CE092108BE16B1@UAEXCH.univ.albany.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Aaron: You are not crazy. Also there is nothing wrong with straight out talk as long as it is kept civil. Things might get hot here and there, but that's what good discussion is all about, to get to the heart of matters for better understanding and learning. Besides those pulling really bad stuff can always be dealt with at the push of a key, kept in reserve, if stupid enough to show their colors in such detrimental ways. Regards, Dee A. Lusby ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss an email again! Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/ ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 08:34:33 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter Edwards Subject: Re: Queen Rearing MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dan asked: > them but when i transfer them to the cell cup holder and into the new hive > they let the eggs dry up. What am i doing wrong? You need to transfer them to the cell raising colony after the eggs hatch. Best wishes Peter Edwards beekeepers@stratford-upon-avon.freeserve.co.uk www.stratford-upon-avon.freeserve.co.uk/ ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 02:29:24 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Paul Cherubini Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit randy oliver wrote July 6: > may I reiterate that the "native pollinator people" are > our allies in a battle for recognition and funding, and > that we should be appreciative of our allies, not insulting. James Fischer wrote July 7: > Further, the STATED GOAL of these advocates of native pollinators > is to COMPETE with beekeepers: > http://www.xerces.org/Pollinator_Insect_Conservation/pollinator_week_action.html I keep wondering whether or not the conventional growers of almonds and other honeybee dependent crops would consider the "native pollinator people" as allies? The native pollinator people frequently refer to the following landmark California study: "Case Studies on Conservation of Pollination Services as a Component of Agricultural Biological Diversity." http://www.fao.org/AG/aGp/agps/C-CAB/Castudies/pdf/6-023.pdf One of the stated goals of that study was to: "investigate the influence of agricultural intensification on the [wild] crop pollinating species and on the pollination services they provide" Some of their key results were: - Wild bee diversity, abundance and services declined significantly with agricultural intensification. -The most important [wild] pollinating species were also most sensitive to agricultural intensification. - In watermelon, a plant species with large pollination requirements, the wild bee community can provide sufficient pollination services, but only on low intensity farms. - A few wild bee species were found nesting in the ground on farms. We found that nesting bees were more abundant on farms close to natural habitat, suggesting that natural habitat provides the source of these nesting females In the Section IV Analysis part of the study the authors said: · 2d. the scale of [wild] pollination services is on the order of 1 ­ 2 km. We identified a relationship between the proportion of natural habitat at this scale and the level of services provided. · 2d. Barriers to management at this scale are that multiple private land-owners must cooperate to restore habitat or improve farming management practices with benefits for all. If one farmer uses pesticides while his neighbor restores pollinator habitat, results are likely to be unsatisfactory. · 3a. This study shows that diversity and abundance of [wild] pollinators are at risk from increasing agricultural intensification, with important effects on [wild] pollination services. · 3b. We identified management practices that we think will promote wild bee existence and persistence on farms · 3c. Farming communities naturally form interactive social units that depend upon one another for various kinds of assistance (sharing equipment, transport, techniques). Therefore, although implementing positive practices for pollinators across an entire landscape is a challenge (see 2d), working with farming communities means working with individuals who may already see the benefits of a communal approach. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So Randy & Jim it appears to me these native pollinator people are NOT the allies of conventional growers and beekeepers because they appear to want conventional farmers to adopt low intensity organic type farming practices and to "implement positive practices for pollinators across an entire landscape" and get them all to organized and cooperating with one another in "communal interactive social units". My guess is that the conventional growers of honeybee dependent crops like almonds would say agricultural intensification one of the main reasons they have achieved large and consistent yield increases like these: http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/4af/almonde.jpg Still another angle on all this whole matter is that the native pollinator people sometimes suggest native wild bees could perform better as pollinators in non-farm settings in the absence of honeybees. They further advise that honeybee removal research experiments be conducted to determine how much better the native pollinators might perform in their absense. Seems to me the native pollinator people might eventually recommend this research to be conducted in farm settings as well. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 11:36:07 +0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Gavin Ramsay Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ascii Hi Paul and All First of all, I should declare that I'm a hobby beekeeper and I live far, far away from almonds, Capitol Hill, orange groves, Xerces HQ, and, it seems, CCD. (This year we seem to have Queen Mating Disorder over here instead, but that's another story) I'm a scientist too, and have dabbled in pollination biology on occasion. Paul said: > Further, the STATED GOAL of these advocates of native pollinators > is to COMPETE with beekeepers: http://www.xerces.org/Pollinator_Insect_Conservation/pollinator_week_action.html Well, I read the link you sent. It seems to me to be a reasonable statement on pollinators in the US and pretty much agrees with what Matthew Sheperd wrote in his reply earlier. It is true that honeybees are poor pollinators of some crops. It is true that, collectively, native pollinators are more versatile than honeybees. It is also true that the honeybee is the singlemost important pollinator in the US. To say that it is the 'STATED GOAL' to 'COMPETE' with honeybees is far from the mark. For what its worth, over on this side of the pond (and, I guess, most of the time on yours) beekeepers think like conservationists. As Randy said, they see diverse habitats and healthy environments as beneficial for honeybees *and* for native pollinators. My bees are currently in my garden in a small hamlet in an arable farming area in E Scotland. It is clear to me that they both suffer and benefit from the monoculture around us. One big surge of OSR (or Canola) nectar and pollen and a sudden burst of brood raising and honey making in May, then for the rest of season - until I take them to the hills - they scrape a living from some bramble (blackberry), dandelion and a few other plants in the hedgerows in our comparatively sympathetically managed landscape. Without doubt they would suffer in a more intense system and thrive better with access to more natural and semi-natural flora. That fact must be obvious to the great majority of beekeepers on here. I propose to move them to a new site with this in mind. The ideal position would have access to the main honey crops *and* sufficient semi-natural forage to give them a decent living for the rest of the season. The ecological deserts which Paul seems to wish to promote seem sterile by comparison. My take on native pollinators - here or in the US - doesn't have at its centre the economic argument used by Xerces and by others. It is that our generation has been bequeathed an environment with a wonderful diversity of life. We are now, apparently, in what is regarded as the 7th mass extinction event in the history of our planet. Some believe that within the time span of a mere century we will lose 50% of all species on Earth, more if we don't get a grip on global warming. To me, preserving diversity on this planet is the big issue rather than short-term economic ones. We need to think long-term and adopt a responsible attitude to conserving natural habitat, semi-natural habitat around and within farmland, and yes, the native pollinators and other critters that live there. best wishes to all Gavin ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 08:43:20 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Jim Young Subject: USDA Announces Colony Collapse Disorder Research Action Plan In-Reply-To: <377632.20713.qm@web86211.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed ARS News Service Agricultural Research Service, USDA Kim Kaplan, (301) 504-1637, kim.kaplan@ars.usda.gov July 13, 2007 WASHINGTON, July 13, 2007--U.S. Department of Agriculture Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics Gale Buchanan today announced that USDA researchers have finalized an action plan for dealing with colony collapse disorder (CCD) of honey bees. The plan can be read at www.ars.usda.gov/is/br/ccd/ccd_actionplan.pdf "There were enough honey bees to provide pollination for U.S. agriculture this year, but beekeepers could face a serious problem next year and beyond," Buchanan said. "This action plan provides a coordinated framework to ensure that all of the research that needs to be done is covered in order to get to the bottom of the CCD problem." The action plan coordinates the federal strategy in response to CCD. It addresses four main components: (1) survey and data collection needs; (2) analysis of samples to determine the prevalence of various pests and pathogens, exposure to pesticides, or other unusual factors; (3) controlled experiments to carefully analyze the potential causes of CCD; and (4) developing new methods to improve the general health of bees to reduce their susceptibility to CCD and other disorders. Four possible causes for CCD are identified in the plan: (1) new or reemerging pathogens, (2) new bee pests or parasites, (3) environmental and/or nutritional stress, or (4) pesticides. Research will focus on determining which of these factors are contributing causes of CCD, either individually or in combination. CCD became apparent as a problem beginning in the winter of 2006-2007 when some beekeepers began reporting losses of 30-90 percent of their hives. While colony losses are not unexpected during winter weather, the magnitude of loss suffered by some beekeepers was highly unusual. There is currently no recognizable underlying cause for CCD. The main symptom is finding no or a low number of adult honey bees present with no dead honey bees in the hive. Often there is still honey in the hive and immature bees (brood) are present. Pollination is a critical element in agriculture, as honey bees pollinate more than 130 crops in the United States and add $15 billion in crop value annually. The research action plan was developed by a CCD Steering Committee, chaired by Kevin Hackett, USDA's Agricultural Research Service (ARS) national program leader for bees and pollination; H.J. Rick Meyer, national program leader for plant and animal systems for USDA's Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES); and Mary Purcell-Miramontes, national program leader for biobased pest management, entomology and nematology for CSREES. The committee also included other federal and university experts. Even before the completion of this research plan, considerable research efforts have begun to be redirected to deal with CCD. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 06:57:42 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: William Sharp Subject: gatorade bottle as a feeder MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi all, I keep about 20 hives in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. I want to use a gatorade bottle as a feeder - stuck in a 1-3/4" hole in the plywood top. Will that work? Any comments/suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Bill Sharp ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 11:09:08 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "Timothy C. Eisele" Subject: Re: gatorade bottle as a feeder In-Reply-To: <538812.80048.qm@web53108.mail.re2.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit William Sharp wrote: > Hi all, I keep about 20 hives in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. I want to use a gatorade bottle as a feeder - stuck in a 1-3/4" hole in the plywood top. Will that work? > Any comments/suggestions would be greatly appreciated. > > I'd suggest testing your gatorade bottle by filling it with water, filling a bowl with water, then inverting the bottle in the bowl so that the water stays in it. If the sides of the bottle collapse, it won't work very well, but if it is rigid enough to keep its shape under the suction, it should be fine. Personally, I use mason jars. That way, you can use feeders anywhere from about a pint, all the way up to half a gallon (although you might need to specially request the half-gallon jars from the store). You can get plastic lids for mason jars that you can turn into feeder lids, they are usually sold in the same part of the hardware store as the other canning supplies. -- Tim Eisele tceisele@mtu.edu ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 11:28:31 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Lloyd Spear Subject: Queen Rearing MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Just to reinforce what Aaron said: Your queen rearing hive should be queenless (Queenright, IMO, is too complicated) and should have *10 pounds* of bees shaken from other hives the previous night. (Think three 3-pound packages.) No brood in other frames. Put the queen cells in between two frames almost full of pollen, and be sure they have at least two more frames filled with honey or nectar. If you have set up the cell finishing colony properly (with a space between frames for the cells, 10 pounds of bees shaken from colonies, at least two frames of pollen and two frames of honey and nectar, and left overnight) the bees will literaly 'jump' on the cells when slid in place. Quite a sight! Good luck, Lloyd -- Lloyd Spear Owner Ross Rounds, Inc. Manufacture of equipment for round comb honey sections, Sundance Pollen Traps, and producer of Sundance custom labels. Contact your dealer or www.RossRounds.com ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 11:33:55 -0400 Reply-To: Stacy L Brockett Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Stacy L Brockett Subject: Re: gatorade bottle as a feeder MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I don't see why not. I have a tree hive I feed with a 1 liter soda bottle. It works rather nice too. :-D Stacy L. Brockett SM3Pines Farm - Canandaigua, NY http://www.smthreepines.com > Hi all, I keep about 20 hives in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. I > want to use a gatorade bottle as a feeder - stuck in a 1-3/4" hole in the > plywood top. Will that work? > Any comments/suggestions would be greatly appreciated. > > Bill Sharp ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 08:37:57 -0700 Reply-To: k.kellison@earthlink.net Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Kathy Kellison Subject: FW: RE: FW: USDA Announces Colony Collapse Disorder Research Action Plan MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII fyi From: Martin, Jennifer [mailto:jmartin@CSREES.USDA.GOV] On Behalf Of CSREES News Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 9:07 AM To: CSREES News Subscription List Subject: USDA Announces Colony Collapse Disorder Research Action Plan To view this article online, visit http://www.csrees.usda.gov/newsroom/news/2007news/ccd.html. USDA Announces Colony Collapse Disorder Research Action Plan WASHINGTON, July 13, 2007 - U.S. Department of Agriculture Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics Gale Buchanan today announced that USDA researchers have finalized an action plan for dealing with colony collapse disorder (CCD) of honey bees. The plan can be read at www.ars.usda.gov/is/br/ccd/ccd_actionplan.pdf. "There were enough honey bees to provide pollination for U.S. agriculture this year, but beekeepers could face a serious problem next year and beyond," Buchanan said. "This action plan provides a coordinated framework to ensure that all of the research that needs to be done is covered in order to get to the bottom of the CCD problem." The action plan coordinates the federal strategy in response to CCD. It addresses four main components: (1) survey and data collection needs; (2) analysis of samples to determine the prevalence of various pests and pathogens, exposure to pesticides, or other unusual factors; (3) controlled experiments to carefully analyze the potential causes of CCD; and (4) developing new methods to improve the general health of bees to reduce their susceptibility to CCD and other disorders. Four possible causes for CCD are identified in the plan: (1) new or reemerging pathogens, (2) new bee pests or parasites, (3) environmental and/or nutritional stress, or (4) pesticides. Research will focus on determining which of these factors are contributing causes of CCD, either individually or in combination. CCD became apparent as a problem beginning in the winter of 2006-2007 when some beekeepers began reporting losses of 30-90 percent of their hives. While colony losses are not unexpected during winter weather, the magnitude of loss suffered by some beekeepers was highly unusual. There is currently no recognizable underlying cause for CCD. The main symptom is finding no or a low number of adult honey bees present with no dead honey bees in the hive. Often there is still honey in the hive and immature bees (brood) are present. Pollination is a critical element in agriculture, as honey bees pollinate more than 130 crops in the United States and add $15 billion in crop value annually. The research action plan was developed by a CCD Steering Committee, chaired by Kevin Hackett, USDA's Agricultural Research Service (ARS) national program leader for bees and pollination; H.J. Rick Meyer, national program leader for plant and animal systems for USDA's Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES); and Mary Purcell-Miramontes, national program leader for biobased pest management, entomology and nematology for CSREES. The committee also included other federal and university experts. Even before the completion of this research plan, considerable research efforts have begun to be redirected to deal with CCD. # Media Contacts: Jennifer Martin (202) 720-8188 Kim Kaplan (301) 504-1637 This article is a service of the USDA Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service. News on other topics can be found on the CSREES newsroom at http://www.csrees.usda.gov/newsroom/news/news.html. --- ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 08:39:37 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: mark berninghausen Subject: Re: Spamed? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit No, I am not. I don't know how my e-mail could have gotten on a spammer website. Which one is it on? How do I get it off? Mark Berninghausen Squeak Creek Apiaries 437 Hurley Rd. Brasher Falls, NY 13613 315-769-2566 bee-l@listserv.albany.edu wrote: Are you a spammer? (I found your email on a spammer website!?!) --------------------------------- Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 12:18:35 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: symptoms In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Medhat Nasr wrote: > I am getting bees from an operation that has > been using OA for the past 4 years as the sole mite control method. These > bees will be examined for any M. tubules damage. > Did you find anything? Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:11:35 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: randy oliver Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi All, My request for others savvy in the politics of this issue to speak up has been fruitful. You've had a chance to read Xerces Society's position. I thank them for responding, and I hope that their answers put an end to misrepresentation of them on this List. Troy Fore of ABF is instrumental in getting our two national organizations to present a common agenda re CCD to Congress and the Secretary of Agriculture. He says, "The native pollinator vs. honey bee issue is a time-waster. There has been little enough attention paid to all pollinators." I will attach Troy's letter to the Secretary at the end of this post. In support of the ABF/AHPA letter, the Coevolution institute also sent a letter to the Secretary in support of beekeepers. Excerpts: "Coevolution Institute would like to add our support to a recent appeal to you by the American Beekeeping Federation and the American Honey Producers Association for you to make funds available from the Commodity Credit Corporation to fund the additional, immediate research necessary to find the cause(s) to Colony Collapse Disorder. "CoE concurs that resource limitations are seriously constraining efforts being led and coordinated by USDA to research this important issue.. "Mr. Secretary, the only sources of available funds for the forseeable future are those under your control. We urge you to pursue all immediately available options at your disposal, including release of CCD emergency funds to allow researchers to move forward in helping to address this extremely serious situation that threatens American agriculture." Danny Weaver made it clear to me that CoE volunteered to write this letter of support, even though it was not in any way in their self interest! The ABF feels deeply in gratitude for CoE's support throughout this process. I hope that we can now put an end to the destructive criticism of our native pollinator allies. They have helped us generously at every turn, and in the absence of any evidence that they have hampered our obtaining funding in the process of lobbying for their own interests, let's shake hands and work together! Randy Oliver Letter following AMERICAN BEEKEEPING FEDERATION AMERICAN HONEY PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION Secretary Michael Johanns United States Department of Agriculture 1400 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, DC 20250 Dear Secretary Johanns: Thank you for the attention you have drawn to the importance of pollinators through the activities of last week. We join you in the hopes that Pollinator Week raised the level of awareness of the importance of pollinators in the general public. We also thank you for the specific references you made to honey bees during the Pollinator Stamp ceremony on Friday. We are pleased that you recognize the contributions of honey bees to the U.S. economy. The $90 billion you estimate in potential losses from Colony Collapse Disorder is certainly not to be ignored. You correctly cite the crops to which honey bee pollination is so vital, as well as the devastating bee colony losses so many of our beekeepers have experienced. In light of the loses that have already been incurred by beekeepers and growers, the potential for additional losses as the effects of CCD spread to those indirectly affected, and the importance of honey bees to the diversity of our food supply, we call upon you to declare this situation to be an emergency, making funds available from the Commodity Credit Corporation to fund the additional, immediate research necessary to find the cause(s) and solution(s) to Colony Collapse Disorder. The beekeeping industry and the universities and ARS laboratories have come to the end of the resources that they have been able to redirect to this work. Promising avenues of research are being put on hold. Legislation is pending in Congress to bring much needed new money to the effort over the longer term, but that will take several months to see fruition. The only sources of immediately available funds are those under your control, Mr. Secretary. We appeal to you to take the steps to release these funds. Making CCC emergency funds immediately available to address this extremely serious situation that threatens American agriculture. This action we believe would be supported by Congress, including the 44 Senators that wrote you in April , 2007 about the urgent need for prompt action. As you stated last week, "In the six months between September of '06 and March of this year, some beekeepers reported losses in their colonies as high as 8 to 100 percent. If left unchecked, Colony Collapse Disorder has the potential to cause a $15 billion direct loss of crop production and $75 billion in indirect losses." If funds are not made available immediately and a remedy to CCD is not found before honey bee colonies go into winter again, we certainly expect to repeat the losses of this past winter, perhaps even to a great degree. Already, some commercial beekeepers are questioning how they will be able to remain in business following this year's colony losses; a repeat of those losses will surely bankrupt many of them. We leave it to you and your advisors to determine the amount of funds that are necessary, but our estimate is on the order of $4 million to $5 million dollars. We surely appreciate the rapid response ARS and CSREES-funded scientists have given to this crisis, but they have now exhausted the meager resources they had to use. Now, we need you to put up the money necessary to correct the very problems you so clearly delineated this past week. We stand ready to assist you in any way as you finalize this decision. If you feel it would be helpful to meet with representatives of our organizations, we can arrange that at a moment's notice. Thanks you for your consideration of our request. Sincerely, Mark Brady Danny Weaver President President American Honey Producers Association American Beekeeping Federation cc Chairman Harkin Senator Chambliss Chairman Peterson Congressman Goodlatte Congressman Cardoza Congressman Neugebauer ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 13:14:00 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Native pollinators, diversity and all that stuff In-Reply-To: <0c5e01c7c43d$5c8aadf0$d4ab5142@MyPC> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Agriculture in the Americas did not reach the level of that in Europe or Asia before the honeybee. Why? Because Man and the honeybee do not follow nature's rules. You have a continuous, transportable pollination source so can plant non-indigenous crops and get good yields.In a native pollinator area, you are stuck with what is there and the plants they naturally pollinate. You are also stuck with the number of pollinators available so need to keep things small. If you follow the NP arguments, they agree the scale must be small for NP to work. Most of the NP crowd is also organic. Small is good. Why no NP for mandarin oranges? Because they were not there in the first place.You do need plants to pollinate and usually NP and the plants have a symbiotic relationship A newcomer, like oranges in a semi-arid region, will be ignored since the NP has all it needs with what was already there.Plus, the NP may not be fitted to pollinate the newcomer. A NP can be a bat. Doubt if they are interested in pollinating oranges. It was not always agriculture and the honeybees that displaced NPs. There was nothing there to displace. Think deserts transformed to cropland by irrigation. Or fruit trees planted in prairies.If you wanted everything to be just like it was when nature set down the plan, you would have to eliminate NP along with the honeybees and revert to grassland and desert. Plant diversity is wonderful, and it is in BIG Agriculture more than you might expect. Just do a search for soybean seed on the Internet and you can get many different varieties. We are not mono-culture in the sense of only one seed variety. We have large stands of a single variety, but they are right alongside another that ripens earlier or later or has some other feature that increased yields for the farmer. I am more concerned with shifting to native pollinators and stands of weeds that can harbor just the pathogens that we are supposedly worrying about. Often, another plant will carry the killer of the agricultural crop. Too often, when we think we are getting back to nature, we forget just how cruel the result can be. I have nothing against NP. My gardens and orchard teems with them. But I am not feeding a nation and parts of the rest of the world. Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:15:54 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: randy oliver Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi All, I received a letter from a prominent member of the CCD working Group, who wished to remain anonymous due to funding issues. Here are some excerpts: "[A certain critic] needs to [stop talking], CCD was added to the Pollinator Train that was already leaving the station, not the other way around. "... we need to speak with a single voice/agenda to Congress. "The staffers can not push the urgency, if USDA doesn't acknowledge the need, and if the industry doesn't raise a hue and cry. Congress folks respond to LOTS of input -- i.e., voters. Reps of organizations may speak for the associations, but its the input from the rank and file that really gets attention. "That said, smart staffers pick out folks to use as sounding boards - and we've done our best to emphasize that the first priority is to help an industry that is at its limits -- 40% of our respondents saying their losses from all causes over the last 16 months was severe is a disturbing statistic. CCD may be the attention getter, but the surveys indicate just how badly we have failed - whether its mites, poor diet, climate - we've let the industry slide toward self destruction. "As per the native pollinator folks -- the public is sympathetic to pollinators, and some are prettier (depends on your background) than bees. But it doesn't matter, as long as the public is concerned about pollinator loss (all pollinators), the Congressional folks know that they won't get a backlash for supporting a small special interest group. Remember, voters (especially urban folks) don't necessarily understand or support ag subsidies, but suddenly, saving the pollinator has transcended those petty interests." It really appears to me that it is in the best interest of the beekeeping community to capitalize on the "Save the pollinators" feeling of the Public. We can best do this by working in harmony with the native pollinator folk. Another news release of interest: USDA Announces Colony Collapse Disorder Research Action Plan WASHINGTON, July 13, 2007 - U.S. Department of Agriculture Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics Gale Buchanan today announced that USDA researchers have finalized an action plan for dealing with colony collapse disorder (CCD) of honey bees. The plan can be read at www.ars.usda.gov/is/br/ccd/ccd_actionplan.pdf. Randy Oliver ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 13:22:34 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate In-Reply-To: <000001c7c4ed$29b77290$0701000a@j> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Call your Congresser (beats congressperson) or Senator. I find that their staffs are responsive and actually listen, especially when it is something exotic and new to them like honeybees. You can explain the problem and ask for their support for funding to help solve the problem. Even nicer if you have the right bill number (thank you, Jim). I then follow-up with a letter both thanking the staffer by name for listening and give more detail about the problem. Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:30:59 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: randy oliver Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi All, Are you all as exhausted by this thread as I am? Folks, I don't know how it fell upon me to sort fact from opinion and rebut the tirade against the native pollinator folk, but it did. I've made phone calls and sent emails to virtually all involved in the process--congressional staffers, CCD team members, leaders of our national organizations. I've been unable to find a shred of support for the premise that the native pollinator folk caused our CCD funding to be delayed. On the contrary, I've found abundant evidence that the bee industry has greatly benefitted from the Coevolution Institute's lobbying presence, and all their hard work to bring about National Pollinator Week. The bee industry appears to have hopped onto the native pollinator train, which was already rolling. Every player I've spoken to has told me that the bee industry is in debt to Coevolution Institute for their support of our agenda, and that there is no justification for any criticism of the native pollinator folk whatsover. This is a historic moment in the bee industry--our two national groups are working together to present a common agenda to Congress! We've been blessed also by the hand that the established native pollinator lobby has offered us. This is not the time for bickering, but rather to show the public and Congress that we are team players. Can we move on? Randy Oliver ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 13:33:06 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Spamed? In-Reply-To: <849322.16309.qm@web32112.mail.mud.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit mark berninghausen wrote: > I don't know how my e-mail could have gotten on a spammer website. Which one is it on? How do I get it off? > You end up as a "spammer" because someone harvests your email address and send stuff out using it. Usually the first indicator are lots of bounced messages with your email address as the sender. If you know how to read the source (View/Message Source) you can ID the spammer's ISP and, if it is a legit ISP, report them by sending the ISP a copy of the source code. Lists (like the BeeL), websites, and newsgroups are places where spammers harvest addresses. Long ago I had a person in Hong Kong capture my email address and use it to spam. Literally had hundreds of bounced messages. Shut it off quickly with an email to the ISP in HK. So if you are not seeing this problem, don/t worry. You are in good company. Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:31:32 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Brian Fredericksen Subject: Re: Native pollinators, diversity and all that stuff Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Looks like planting bee gardens is the next thing for the granola - get - touch- with - the -earth crowd. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118428490685465247.html?mod=googlenews_wsj I think its great, kinda like a carbon offset. People indirectly plow under farm land or wild land for a house and now they give some square footage of ground back to the pollinators. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 19:01:37 +0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Gavin Ramsay Subject: Re: Spamed? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ascii Hi Mark, Bill and all When I changed ISPs 4 months ago I took the opportunity to set up separate addresses for each internet activity. Just this last week I've started receiving spam (several a day) and it is all coming to my Bee-L address. Either someone has recently harvested Bee-L addresses off the web, or perhaps a subscriber (I'm not pointing the finger at Mark) has had their PC hijacked by a spammer and email addresses residing on the PC are being used. My ISP lets you shut down and open up new variants of your address, which I may be grateful for one day. all the best Gavin ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:33:26 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?windows-1252?Q?Eric_Brown?= Subject: Re: Queen Rearing Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 11:28:31 -0400, Lloyd Spear wrote: >No brood in other frames. Lloyd or anyone else, I'm curious, what difference would it make if there were older (too old to turn into a queen) brood in the hive? Is the idea merely to eliminate competition for the nurse bees' attention? Thanks, Eric ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 11:36:57 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Mea McNeil Subject: Re: Seedless Mandarin "Protection" In-Reply-To: <794703.31359.qm@web86211.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Regarding the problem in California for beekeepers near orchards that are now growing seedless citrus, I received the following response to my letter of concern to State Senator Carole Migden regarding AB 771, the Seedless Mandarin Protection Area Act sic). She says it is to "reduce the risk of contamination in seedless varieties of citrus while also providing reasonable and necessary access to citrus for CA beekeepers. You might be happy to know that recent amendments removed the 2 mile buffer zone." This legislation has not come up for a vote yet. Mea McNeil ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:37:12 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Lloyd Spear Subject: Queen Rearing MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Eric asks "Is the idea merely to eliminate competition for the nurse bees' attention?" That is part of it, but there are also other factors. Perhaps the most notable is that bees are apparently able to determine whether larvae are related to them and, if so, the degree of relatedness (first cousin, second cousin, sister, half sister, 1/4 sister, etc.) individual bees then give 'preference' to those most closely related. As 10 pounds of bees will surely come from at least two hives, and more likely 3-4, some brood might be related and therefore be given preference to a queen cell not related. It is best for the nurse bees to be wholly focused on the queen cells with no distractions. Lloyd -- Lloyd Spear Owner Ross Rounds, Inc. Manufacture of equipment for round comb honey sections, Sundance Pollen Traps, and producer of Sundance custom labels. Contact your dealer or www.RossRounds.com ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 19:02:05 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "=?UTF-8?Q?Peter_L._Borst?=" Subject: Re: USDA Announces Colony Collapse Disorder Research Action Plan Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Makes a very interesting read. I found this buried in there: Introduce resistance traits into bee stocks favored by the industry. Since bees carrying resistance genes will not likely have all other important characteristics, it will be important to introduce resistance genes into preferred lines. The bee industry will be consulted to determine preferred lines, and *genetic engineering techniques* will be further developed and used to transfer genes. pb ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 20:58:50 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Brian Fredericksen Subject: Re: Spamed? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit many folks will use a hotmail, yahoo, gmail etc mail account in their online postings. I rarely give out my real ISP email to anyone. gmail now allows your desktop mail software package to download from a gmail account so one can have numerous email accounts forwarded to your ISP email. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 20:39:07 -0700 Reply-To: k.kellison@earthlink.net Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Kathy Kellison Subject: Re: Seedless Mandarin "Protection" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Amended 771 passed committee and has been revamped providing for planting locations and 'best practice' of seedless Mandarin to be determined by 'work group' comprised of representatives of the bee industry, growers and academia. Troublesome is the bill now authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to have final say in the event of a conflict. Something tells me that variable will put the needs of beekeepers at risk. CSBA is remaining in opposition. Regards, Kathy > [Original Message] > From: Mea McNeil > To: > Date: 7/13/2007 12:37:00 PM > Subject: Re: [BEE-L] Seedless Mandarin "Protection" > > Regarding the problem in California for beekeepers near orchards that > are now growing seedless citrus, I received the following response to my > letter of concern to State Senator Carole Migden regarding AB 771, the > Seedless Mandarin Protection Area Act sic). She says it is to "reduce > the risk of contamination in seedless varieties of citrus while also > providing reasonable and necessary access to citrus for CA beekeepers. > You might be happy to know that recent amendments removed the 2 mile > buffer zone." > This legislation has not come up for a vote yet. > Mea McNeil > > ****************************************************** > * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * > * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * > ****************************************************** ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 01:24:23 -0400 Reply-To: james.fischer@gmail.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Here's some ACTUAL good news. USDA has published an "action plan": http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/br/ccd/ccd_actionplan.pdf Its more than a day late, and it is lots of dollars short, but it is "a plan", which is better than where we were before, which was "no plan". Randy said: > Folks, I don't know how it fell upon me to sort fact from opinion A lot of opinions have presented AS "facts", but few of them have been documented to support your contentions. As it is, you've presented a pretty garbled version, in a laudable attempt to explain away what can only be the worst example of "working together" since the Soviets and the rest of the Allies liberated Berlin into a city divided. > It's been suggested to me by a major player Funny how these "major players" never seem to have names. Alex Rodriguez is a major player in the major leagues, but then some people would give Barry Bonds that title. (Me, I'm a Mets fan, a Red Sox fan, or rooting for anyone playing the Yankees. Remember, it is not enough for the Mets to win, the Yankees must also loose!) > that our best course of action right now would be to flood our > congresspersons with letters to get them to sign on to support > immediate funding to analyze the CCD samples before they degrade, While that sounds nice, it (once again) evinces a naivete so profound that it contradicts the basic notion of a "major player". Support WHAT? Some new bill? Nothing said to either the House or Senate has even mentioned ANY KIND of "immediate funding". And neither bill calls for any sort of "immediate funding". The "major players" didn't just drop the ball, they forgot to BRING the ball altogether! But how does one actually get any "immediate funding"? I'll tell you, because this is a list for "informed discussion". The USDA has to be directed to take money away from something else, don't they? They only have so much money, and all of it is allocated for specific purposes. They have to re-allocate money they already have NOW, if we want funding any time in 2007. I wonder what existing, funded programs could be "borrowed from" to provide some short term cash... wait... I've got it! The HONEY BOARD!!!! They are a "commodity marketing board", so they are under the control of the Secretary of Agriculture, and they are overseen by a branch of the USDA. They must have a few dollars that would otherwise be turned over to the "packer-importer board", so let's put that money to some actual worthwhile use, rather than spending it on printing up more recipe cards and running ads in the Women's Magazines about "Honey" (meaning, for the most part, imported honey from places like Canada, Argentina, and China rather than Honey from the USofA). Now, the honey board will not have nearly enough money to do the job, so the USDA is going to have to scrape up some money from other places. But offering "our money" as the first dollars to be re-tasked would be fitting and proper. Beekeepers have had the "honey board assessments" deducted from the price they are paid by packers for years, so it certainly is "our money", and the first money to be offered should be "our money". When you go "all in", you slide all YOUR chips to the center of the table, you don't grab from someone else's pile of chips, now do you? So, that's how we get some money - by asking Congress to direct the USDA to "take it from OTHER less pressing projects". > and to support SB1694--The Pollinator Protection Act of 2007, for > long-term funding. Congress needs to hear from the rank and file, > as well as our industry leaders. Well, if you are going to write to Congress (your congressperson) then you should NOT talk about S1694, as that is a SENATE bill. You want to talk about HR1709, the HOUSE bill, but it does not request any short-term funding, does it? If you write to your Senator, then you can talk about S1694, if you want to, but it has no mention of any short-term funding either. Once again, if you want to presume to argue, learn the basics. Like the difference between a Congressperson and a Senator, and the difference between a House Bill and a Senate bill. But don't bother to mention anything but the short-term funding. S1694 is not likely to even get out of committee before the August recess. As it is now worded, it won't do anything for anyone until at least the 2008 Farm Bill is enacted, if not later, which means we are talking about actual money that becomes tangible in the 2009 timeframe, maybe later. There's lots of time to "support" the bills, but for now, we need to focus on the short-term need for short-fuse cash. As for the term "rank and file", I find the implications more than "rank". It presumes that the "major players" and "industry leaders" are representing any significant percentage of US beekeepers, or that they have bothered to ask what the membership they represent thinks. As for "organized" I am happy to report that after YEARS of unrelenting harassment from folks like me, the AHPA and ABF are (gasp!) having a joint meeting. If they keep it up, they may just actually learn to work together rather than against each other. Not to worry, they will see the light someday... Claims are made by each of two different organizations that they represent "US beekeeping". These claims are false. The AHPA represents a group of larger beekeepers, and the ABF represents a mixed bag of a few commercial beekeepers, honey packers, and hobby beekeepers. Neither can claim to represent more than a fraction of the total of either hives or beekeepers. So, sure write your Congressperson. Or write your Senator. But DON'T e-mail them, go for broke and buy a darn stamp, so someone has to handle a sheet of paper rather than letting a computer system automatically send you a canned reply, ignoring you and your plea at nearly the speed of light. Or call them. Call your local office, not the DC office. Or send them a fax. If the pen is mightier than the sword, and a picture is worth a thousand words, then truly the fax machine is the most powerful weapon ever. But mention THE USDA-ARS PLAN!! And offer up your own money (which the Honey Board took) to start. But don't bother mentioning the bills, as they will only "help" in the event that CCD turns out to be not so serious a problem, and we can hold out for the next few years. > This is a historic moment in the bee industry- Uh, some of us are trying to make sure that we STILL HAVE a "bee industry" left standing when, at long last, the funding from the current Senate and House bills appear sometime in the murky future. You may call that "bickering", and you may call that "criticism", but if not for voices pointing out the lack of quick funding, do you think any of these "major players" would suddenly be drafting letters to ask for quick funding? Oh no, of course not. They all waited until AFTER the hearings on purpose to ask for quick funding. No one said anything about the need for short-fuse funding in the hearings on purpose. It is so much more effective that way. :) And puh-leeze... don't anybody try to claim that we have been helped at all by groups that CONTINUE to try to make Honey Bees look like optional, easy to get along without, perhaps even scary and undesirable insects. One need look no further than today's Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118428490685465247.html http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB118428490685465247.html To read the happy story of how "the plight of the honey bee" can be solved by putting up "bee boxes" (drilled with 7mm or so holes) to attract "native" bees. Read the article, and see if you detect any sense of urgency to address the problems that honey bees face. (Naw, let's just use these OTHER bees, never mind that we have no clue if they can be used in agriculture, and lots of clues telling us that they are nowhere near ready for prime time.) And please guys, no reason to send me any more "fan mail", I wouldn't be taking the time to type this stuff if I wasn't dead-certain of the facts, and dead-certain that my annoyance at all this is shared by the overwhelming majority of both "beekeepers" and "hives", the two ways to count "shares" of "stakeholders". ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 02:45:13 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?windows-1252?Q?Steve_Noble?= Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Paul quotes James Fischer below; > Further, the STATED GOAL of these advocates of native pollinators > is to COMPETE with beekeepers: >http://www.xerces.org/Pollinator_Insect_Conservation/pollinator_week_action .html I read the above link. In no place could I find any STATED GOAL of native pollinators to COMPETE with beekeepers. I can only conclude that the above statement is a deliberate attempt to mislead. Jim, your reliability if not your credibility has been compromised. Paul, I do not mind hearing from the agricultural chemical industry point of view, but I have to tell you that I do not believe you are motivated by a desire to do anything but protect your source of income. Nothing wrong with that as long as we understand that you therefore lack objectivity and perhaps credibility as well. You certainly do not have an interest in finding out what the truth may be through unbiased research. “[Native pollinator people] further advise that honeybee removal research experiments be conducted to determine how much better the native pollinators might perform in their absense. Seems to me the native pollinator people might eventually recommend this research to be conducted in farm settings as well..” To me your above statement indicates that if the truth stands a chance of not suiting your interests you would rather not have it known. It is time you stopped talking for farmers and beekeepers and spoke directly for the people you represent; the producers and sellers of pesticides and herbicides. It’s an honest living, and you have a right to your point of view, but it is really you who are pitted against native pollinator advocates not beekeepers, and not a whole lot farmers who are trying to fill the rapidly growing demand for organic produce. It may not be in the best economic interests of high intensity corporate agriculture to accommodate the wishes of native pollinator people, but there are plenty of farmers and beekeepers who would at least like to know if and how working with the practices these people advocate might benefit them. I for one am not afraid of what this kind of research might reveal. In fact I am eager to learn from it. Steve Noble ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 07:50:54 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "Peter L. Borst" Subject: Native pollinators are the future of agriculture? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline > In no place could I find any STATED GOAL of native pollinators to COMPETE with beekeepers. > You can help! Please contact your senator and let them know that native pollinators are very important to the future of agriculture. > Why are native bees so helpful? Collectively, native bees are more versatile than honey bees. Some species, such as mason bees, are active when conditions are too cold or wet for honey bees. Many species also are simply more efficient at moving pollen between flowers. Bumble bees and several other native species can buzz pollinate flowers - vibrating the flower to release pollen from deep inside the pollen-bearing anthers - which honey bees cannot do. Crops such as tomatoes, cranberries, and blueberries produce larger, more abundant fruit when buzz pollinated. ACTIVE, MORE EFFICIENT, LARGER, MORE ABUNDANT! NATIVE POLLINATORS! FUTURE OF AGRICULTURE! Sounds like ad copy to me. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 08:09:29 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Protect what Act In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lots of misrepresentation here about what Jim is saying. From what I have read, he is not against the native pollinator crowd, just the way they have moved the actual issue into their own camp. He is also looking for a quick infusion of money rather than a mixed bag of future possible money. He wants to keep it clean, so CCD funds are actually CCD funds and are available now, not some future time. The native pollinators may not have technically hijacked the CCD problem, since they included it in their own bills, but, from a political point of view, they did. They took their own issue and bill(s), which is in the political noise and would get nowhere, and made CCD, a well publicized problem, into a native pollinator solution. I do not fault them; it is good politics. The problem is, bees are not the dominant issue in the bills, so what happens in the future is still political, and, after what has happened to date, bees will be low on the priority list since they are all native pollinator bills. Most people like to think that "people are basically good" and all will be rosy in the future and CCD will be fully funded by the NP bills. Based on the way CCD has been exploited to date, I see more a means to an end exploitation, and bees will not be the benefactor. However, from the government's point of view, they will have solved the CCD problem with the NP bill, and even if the bees are still in bad shape later and CCD never got the necessary funds, the NPs will solve the pollination problem. That may be cynical, but I have worked with politicians for a long time and cynicism is actually reality. Environmental groups are expert in playing the system and exploit "crisis" as a funding tool. This is a case study. Most here do not realize that you are not dealing with just one or two advocacy groups on the NP side and one or two on the bees side. The NP side has all the environmental, organic and related groups available to lobby. They will get what they want and they are not on the side of commercial beekeeping. Another avenue. There is "emergency" money in the Ag budget, but I question if CCD fits under that umbrella.However, that never stopped any congresser/senator from demanding that the President release funds for solving someone's empty pocket problem. Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 08:19:55 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: USDA Announces Colony Collapse Disorder Research Action Plan In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Peter L. Borst wrote: > *genetic engineering techniques* will be further > developed and used to transfer genes. > > Love to see the funding for that. It is always interesting to see a snippet like that which looks so good but it very costly and difficult. I am sure we all know just what the CCD gene looks like in the bee's DNA. We do have the bee's genome, don't we? If not, I am sure a call to CSI LV would get it for us in an hour or less. Maybe two, if they need more than one episode. Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 11:29:43 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?windows-1252?Q?Steve_Noble?= Subject: Native pollinators are the future of agriculture? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Peter quotes and writes; [[[ > In no place could I find any STATED GOAL of native pollinators to COMPETE with beekeepers. > You can help! Please contact your senator and let them know that native pollinators are very important to the future of agriculture. > Why are native bees so helpful? Collectively, native bees are more versatile than honey bees. Some species, such as mason bees, are active when conditions are too cold or wet for honey bees. Many species also are simply more efficient at moving pollen between flowers. Bumble bees and several other native species can buzz pollinate flowers - vibrating the flower to release pollen from deep inside the pollen-bearing anthers - which honey bees cannot do. Crops such as tomatoes, cranberries, and blueberries produce larger, more abundant fruit when buzz pollinated. ACTIVE, MORE EFFICIENT, LARGER, MORE ABUNDANT! NATIVE POLLINATORS! FUTURE OF AGRICULTURE! Sounds like ad copy to me. ]]] end of Peter's post The bulleted items are quotes. Non bulleted items are Peter's words. The quoted items are not attributed to their sources. Because the first quote is from me, and the next two are from the paper I was referring to in the first quote, I think I know what point you are trying to make, Peter. But it might be confusing to someone who hasn't been following the Pollinator Protection Act thread really closely. At any rate, my question to you is, are any of the second two bulleted statements you have quoted untrue, and if not then; A) How so? and B) If those statements ARE true, what else would you expect from a group which advocates for the well being of native pollinators?, and C) How does stating the truth about native pollinators constitute a STATED GOAL on the part of the advocates of native pollinators to COMPETE with beekeepers? In other words how does it being “ad copy” make it anti beekeeping? Steve Noble ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 12:34:32 -0400 Reply-To: bee-quick@bee-quick.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit http://www.xerces.org/Pollinator_Insect_Conservation/pollinator_week_act ion.html > I read the above link. > In no place could I find any STATED GOAL of native > pollinators to COMPETE with beekeepers. I can only > conclude that the above statement is a deliberate > attempt to mislead. That's a pretty serious accusation. OK, maybe you need to be pointed to the appropriate text within the web page I cited: THE COATTAILS: "The recent widespread loss of honey bee colonies from Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) has received a lot of media coverage. Major media outlets across the US have covered this story including the NY Times, the CBS Nightly News, and the Christian Science Monitor. At this time the cause of CCD remains a mystery. It may be one or more factors, such as parasitic mites, disease, pesticides or diet." THE HOOK USED TO RIDE THE COATTAILS: "No matter what the cause of these declines, many scientists feel that native pollinators - specifically, native bees - can be an insurance policy for honey bee scarcity." THE RATIONALE FOR RIDING: "The European honey bee is the most important single crop pollinator in the United States. However, with the decline in the number of managed honey bee colonies from diseases, parasitic mites, and Africanized bees - as well as from Colony Collapse Disorder - it is important to increase the use of native bees in our agricultural system." Now remember, this sort of advocacy has been directly responsible for the EXTINCTION of at least two kinds of bumblebees, so who has the actual "preservation" of native bees foremost in their hearts? The folks who are using CCD as an excuse to justify exploitation when they should simply advocate preservation and conservation? Exploitation is rarely the path to conservation. Check your history, man "manages" nature into a mess. (Read "The Contol Of Nature" by John McPhee.) > Jim, your reliability if not your credibility has been compromised. Again, a pretty serious accusation. While you can feel free to interpret the clear words I quoted above from the web page cited any way you wish, you can't ignore that the best summary of the quoted in context statements is "Kick 'em When They're Down". Further, they are exploiting and exaggerating the scope and depth of the problem before the problem(s) are even understood! They are doing so simply to make the case for exploitation of wildlife. I don't call that conservation. I call that COMPETITION. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 15:06:18 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?windows-1252?Q?Steve_Noble?= Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Jim, and all, Jim, could you please remind me where you found proof that the following statement is true? “Now remember, this sort of advocacy has been directly responsible for the EXTINCTION of at least two kinds of bumblebees…” Since I find your conclusion regarding the paper in question to be totally erroneous, I can not assume that this conclusion, which seems a little far fetched at face value, is not erroneous as well. Two possible sources of error exist in your above statement, 1) Are the advocacies that you are lumping together in this statement truly in alignment with each other as you say? And 2) Did the extinction in question really happen for the reasons you state? Now for the reasons that I find your conclusion that the paper at http://www.xerces.org/Pollinator_Insect_Conservation/pollinator_week_action. html to be way wrong. THE COATTAILS: "The recent widespread loss of honey bee colonies from Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) has received a lot of media coverage. Major media outlets across the US have covered this story including the NY Times, the CBS Nightly News, and the Christian Science Monitor. At this time the cause of CCD remains a mystery. It may be one or more factors, such as parasitic mites, disease, pesticides or diet." ** A simple statement of fact. THE HOOK USED TO RIDE THE COATTAILS: "No matter what the cause of these declines, many scientists feel that native pollinators - specifically, native bees - can be an insurance policy for honey bee scarcity." **Again, a statement of fact. I fail to see anything scary or sneaky about stating facts. THE RATIONALE FOR RIDING: "The European honey bee is the most important single crop pollinator in the United States. However, with the decline in the number of managed honey bee colonies from diseases, parasitic mites, and Africanized bees - as well as from Colony Collapse Disorder - it is important to increase the use of native bees in our agricultural system." **I read that as; To the extent that honey bees do not fulfill a pollination need in agriculture that native pollinators can, agriculture can benefit from a strong alternative source of pollination in the form of native pollinators. I feel that to read it as a statement of a goal to go head to head with beekeepers at the expense of beekeepers is baffling. You say; “you can't ignore that the best summary of the quoted in context statements is "Kick 'em When They're Down". Sorry, Jim, I find that conclusion just plain wrong and yes paranoid does come to mind. You are reading something into it that is not there. The paper referred to above deals with the importance of providing habitat for native pollinators in order, when possible, to benefit farmers. I am unclear as to how providing habitat for a native creature constitutes exploitation of it. I guess if we benefit from it you could say we exploit it. Anyway, we beekeepers may be on shaky ground arguing against the exploitation of insects. Anyway, I appreciate being able to argue the point with you. Steve Noble ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 20:06:18 -0400 Reply-To: bee-quick@bee-quick.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Jim, could you please remind me where you found proof that the following > statement is true? "Now remember, this sort of advocacy has been directly > responsible for the EXTINCTION of at least two kinds of bumblebees." This thread has the quotes and the URLs to the quotes you seek. For example, the post of Tue, 10 Jul 2007 15:24:09. At risk of angering the moderators, I will provide the quotes again here, as it seems clear that there are those who want to argue without even doing the basic homework of reading the discussion thread here on Bee-L. "The bumble bee subgenus Bombus is represented by five species in North America. Of these, one, B. franklini, may be extinct, and two others, the western B. occidentalis and the eastern B. affinis, appear to be in steep decline... circumstantial evidence indicates that the principal cause for these population declines is the introduction of exotic disease organisms and pathogens via trafficking in commercial bumble bee queens and colonies for greenhouse pollination of tomatoes." http://www.xerces.org/Pollinator_Red_List/Bees/Bombus_Bombus.pdf So there's the open admission of the reality of collateral damage as a result of exploitation in the name of conservation. The National Academy of Sciences 2007 report "Status of Pollinators in North America" concludes that both Bombus occidentalis and Bombus Franklini have a status of "apparent local extinction". http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309102898 So there's the confirmation that at least TWO species are considered by qualified experts to have been wiped out by bumblebee nosema from Europe. But I'm sure you'll find some way to painfully parse the plain language of the quotes, and claim that there is another meaning for words like "extinction". > Sorry, Jim, I find that conclusion just plain wrong... > You are reading something into it that is not there. You are certainly entitled to offer an alternative reading of any text you'd like, no matter how tortured and contrived the interpretation. But I think it would be more accurate to merely say that "you disagree", as you have no support for your contention beyond the contention itself, and you have nothing in the way of added value to offer that might hint that those of us who look askance at the situation "are wrong". So, perhaps you need to go back and READ THE THREAD. Also the Senate testimony. Also the bills. And as much pollinator propaganda as you can stomach. A number of people have posted URLs and quote of easy-to-find and clear examples that all clearly and consistently: a) Point to CCD and the other problems of Honey Bees, encouraging panic as the appropriate response when we still have no idea what CCD is, or even if it is anything posing a serious threat to beekeeping as a whole. b) Trot out alternative pollinators as if they were a viable alternative to Honey Bees for the sort of large-scale, vast monoculture that is modern agriculture. c) Make smug references to subjective "advantages" of these alternative pollinators over honey bees (when objective criteria would refute the claims). d) Neglect to mention that using these alternative pollinators would require nothing less than a return to "The 1940s" in regard to agricultural "best practices". e) Completely ignore the amazing correlation between the claimed "loss of native pollinators", and the introduction of tracheal mites and varroa to the USA. In other words, the pollination being done by feral honey bee colonies was a big part of the pollination credited to the "alternative pollinators". So, I'll say it again: If it looks like a coattail, drags across the floor like a coattail, and has a whole buncha people hanging onto it that we've never heard of before, then it is reasonable to conclude that there was and still is some coattail riding going on. But, not to worry, we have the USDA plan, and it only took some poking with sharp sticks to get "industry leaders" and "major players" to realize that one has to ASK for money, and ASK for "emergency funding". All in all, I think we are back on track. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 20:17:49 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Brian Fredericksen Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I'm not understanding the concern over emergency funding for CCD that history suggests has happened before and only affected 5-8% of the nations hives. Its coming up on 9 months and we have nothing but some data that says we lost a lot of hives last winter most of them to weather patterns and winter kill. Is there an emergency here? Is it code red for the bee industry? OR maybe its code red for the almond industry, like they over planted trees with no idea of how they would be pollinated in the future. Hardly an agricultural crisis. Seems like a lot of undies in a bundle over nothing. The fact that we had no pollination shortfall this growing season that has been reported also suggests we have no emergency. No wonder USDA is not moving quickly I hope the request for future funds works out because the industry deserves more funding for bee research and industry support, but I'm not losing much sleep over CCD or emergency funding in the meanwhile. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 21:13:29 -0400 Reply-To: james.fischer@gmail.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: Xerces Society response to Randy Oliver's questions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Randy claimed: > it's generally accepted that honeybees can disrupt > ecosystems by pollinating exotic weeds, and by > competing with native pollinators for resources. "Generally accepted" by who? Please provide us with a list, so that we may be enlightened about these counter-intuitive claims. The premise offered is easy to refute at even the cursory level of examination by anyone with a basic understanding of plants and pollinators. "Exotic weeds", if pollinated by honey bees, clearly are offering pollen and/or nectar of value to the bees. By pollinating these "weeds", the honey bees assure that there will be more of them, thus INCREASING the total number of pollen and nectar sources for all pollinators, both honey bees and others. It would be a rare weed that would be useful to honey bees, but not useful to the "alternative pollinators" claimed to be able to pollinate many of the same plants/crops. It follows that one cannot condemn honey bees for pollinating "invasive weeds" unless one also notes that native pollinators can also do the same. Sorry, the native pollinators are also opportunists, and will be happy to gather nectar and pollen wherever they can, without regard to the preferences of humans. While the example above itself results in an increase in the number of food sources for all pollinators, the entire concept of "competition" is a bit laughable when one speaks of insects who visit some mix of plants that REPLENISH their nectaries multiple times. To go further, if honey bees could somehow be "competing for resources" with native pollinators, the worst damage to the native pollinator populations would have happened in the period between the 1600s and the 1980s, when honey bees were not themselves threatened by pests and diseases. Since 1985, feral honey bee populations have decreased significantly, so any "threat" would be much less an issue now than it was for hundreds of years. So, when was the last time you heard of a suburban child being stung by a honey bee? Now, answer for carpenter bees, wasps, and bumblebees. I'd be happy to walk through any suburb and bet some serious money what a few hours wandering would yield in this area of inquiry. If there was a danger of "competition" being a problem, native pollinators would have been completely extinct long before now, wouldn't they? Recall that "honey bee free areas" are limited to specific islands off the coasts of the USA, where experiments are done. Honey bees are nearly everywhere, and have been for hundreds of years, yet the native pollinators are somehow still in the game. Sounds like we've had a more than adequate time to verify that neither seems to suffer due to the other. And what happened to the claim that native pollinators are somehow "more versatile"? You can't have it both ways - either they ARE more versatile, and therefore can hold their own against honey bees in the wild, or they aren't, and they can't. So which is it? And aren't "weedy patches" one of the things that one wants to preserve if one wants to promote a robust ecosystem that includes native pollinators? OK, so some of the weeds are not from here, but when one does some reading, and learns that both the prairies and the eastern forests (with their lack of undergrowth), assumed to be "pristine" and "natural" by European settlers were in fact "massive public works projects" by the Native Americans, who used fire are their primary management tool to create both, one is forced to reconsider one's assessment of what is "natural", if anything. I'd go on, but addressing such leading softball questions from someone who has made their predispositions clear from the start is like wading through a lake of waist-deep honey it is slow, sticky, and a "waist" of time. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 22:47:54 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?windows-1252?Q?Steve_Noble?= Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Jim and anyone else who is still with us, Wait a minute. Isn’t the Xerces Society the very group that published the paper calling attention to the likelihood that traffic in FOREIGN Bumblebee queens caused the apparent local extinction of one and the steep decline in two other species of NATIVE Bumblebees? Is this same the group that you claim is out to get beekeepers and is somehow responsible for the very calamity they have called attention to? Very strange. Here is a group ostensibly dedicated to the health and well being of NATIVE pollinators being accused of causing their demise through the introduction of FOREIGN pollinators and then telling the whole world about it. Well I’ll be damned if I’m not being tortured by my own logic, Jim. Steve Noble ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:19:20 -0400 Reply-To: james.fischer@gmail.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Isn't the Xerces Society the very group that published the > paper calling attention to the likelihood that traffic in > FOREIGN Bumblebee queens caused the apparent local extinction > of one and the steep decline in two other species of NATIVE > Bumblebees? No, you've got it garbled. It was USA NATIVE bumblebees, exported and reproduced ("bred") overseas, and then shipped back to the USA that carried the European nosema in, escaped from their greenhouses (which happens a lot), and thereby wiped out two native species of bumblebees. So, the exploitation of native bumblebees in agriculture caused the extinction of two types of native bumblebees. Yet self-described "conservationists" and "preservationists" persist in advocating the use of native species in production agriculture, ignoring the track record in terms of its direct negative impact on the exact species they profess to wish to preserve. To repeat the lesson taught by the extinctions, exploitation is neither preservation no conservation. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ******************************************************