APIS Volume 4, Number 10, October 1986
In this issue
- Brazilian Pepper and Maleleuca Control
- Marketing: Key to Profitability
- Bees and Chernobyl: Radioactive Contamination
BRAZILIAN PEPPER AND MELALEUCA CONTROL
There is preliminary interest by several groups in Florida to look into biological control of both Brazilian pepper and the so-called punk tree, or Melaleuca. The technology involves introducing insects or other organisms which would predate on the plants' seeds, controlling further spreading. There is universal agreement that it would be impossible to eradicate these species from Florida, but many persons would like to see native plants become more competitive in many areas of south Florida.
Experience in Australia reveals that similar attempts to control one species of so-called weed, which is a good nectar source, have met with a great deal of resistance by beekeepers. Those interested in pursuing biological control in Florida of the plants mentioned above have asked for comments from the State's beekeeping community.
It is emphasized that this is a preliminary step to establish a dialogue concerning feasibility of such a program. No funding has been appropriated and no insects have been introduced. In addition, the suggested program will be oriented toward reducing the number of seeds that will germinate in the future, and not toward eliminating grown plants that presently bloom. In the long term, this program should result in restablishing native vegetation, much of which is also nectar producing.
[Editor's Note 5/12/1997--The use of biological control in this effort is gaining ground. Many beekeepers are not in favor of this effort, but are probably on the loosing side (See January 1997 APIS).
MARKETING--KEY TO PROFITABILITY IN THE 1980S
At a recent marketing conference held on the campus of the University of Florida, Agriculture Commissioner Doyle Conner quipped, "We have a product, now what do we do with it?" Increasingly marketing strategy is necessarily playing a larger role in agriculture and is the key to short run survival and long run profitability.
According to presentations at the Conference:
- Of the $343.6 billion spent for food in 1985, $306.5 billion (that's ninety percent!) went for value added in non- farm processing, packaging, advertising.
- The farmer's real share of the consumer food dollar has dropped from 18 percent in 1973 to 11 percent in 1985.
- Marketing efforts must necessarily be international in scope and should be examined in this light. The world is interconnected economically into one system.
- Not all factors affecting farmers can be controlled at the farm level. Those identified as controllable are: efficiency, size (asset management), management/control, information and analysis, and mix of enterprises.
- Agriculture must become more consumer oriented; it is no longer acceptable to produce something without first establishing a market.
- A good deal of excess capacity exists in agriculture. Current production about 7 percent over what market will support at current prices means that 7 percent excess resources are committed to agriculture.
- The current low rate of inflation dictates the level of farm efficiency. Two percent real inflation means a finer line between what is efficient what is not than when inflation runs at 10 percent.
What can the individual farmer do? According to Dr. John Ikerd, head of Extension and agricultural economist at the University of Georgia, the agriculturalist must adopt some of the same strategy used in other industries. Run the farm as a business and manage it by objectives. This will orient all decisions toward a common purpose. Two suggestions are: (A) decide what you are really doing and (B) focus on the future, not on the past.
Approaches to developing individual marketing strategy include:
- Product decisions--deciding what to produce. The farmer should produce what has a "reasonable" chance to return an "acceptable" proift. Involved in this decision is the degree of risk acceptable to each individual.
- Marketing methods decisions--deciding how to market. The objective should be to increase the "net" value of products through decisions affecting quality and time and place of delivery of exchange of product. Consumers are more and more willing to pay for inherent quality in a product and for convenience associated with its availability.
- Pricing decisions--what level to price. Each individual needs to decide on an "acceptable" price to realize a profit objective. Of special significance is that agriculturalists can usually choose prices, but are not able to set them. There is, therefore, a built in flexibility in setting prices; still the farmer must decide when to price and when to pass, so to speak.
- Merchandising decisions--where and how to complete a sale. Here is the most opportunity for an individual to get an edge over the competition. Considerations are that value is greatly affected by physical quality and also that positive differences between products mean a great deal. From an individual viewpoint this means that added value, such as unique information about a product and how it might be used can be exploited to enhance consumer demand.
Does any of this apply to the beekeeper? It does in almost all cases for most sizes of operations. For specific analysis, you may wish to consult Florida Cooperative Extension Circular 722, "A Study in Profitability for a Mid-sized Beekeeping Operation," available through publication channels at your local Cooperative Extension Office (See September 1986 APIS).
RADIOACTIVE CONTAMINATION: CHERNOBYL AND BEES
Fallout from the recent Chernobyl reactor accident included a call to the editor of the Cook Inlet Beekeepers' Association, according to Dr. Elbert Jaycox, writing in his September issue of The Newsletter on Beekeeping, New Mexico State University. It seems the Russian Embassy called the editor asking if he was interested in bees that glowed in the dark (presumably from the area of the accident) and left a number. On returning the call, the party answering knew nothing about bees, but enjoyed the story (as well as the practical joke) immensely.
Although fiction, the above scenario brings to further light the immense potential of bees and their products in environmental monitoring. The Institute for Beekeeping at the University of Hohenheim, Germany, reported measurements of radioactivity in pollen and in the air. Pollen readings, according to Dr. Jaycox, rose and fell, more or less mirroring measurements of the air. Of most concern, is not the short range, however, said Dr. Jaycox, but rather long-term "secondary" contamination possible when nectar next becomes available from plants growing in contaminated soil. One possible ramification, more interest in purchasing U.S. honey by Europeans concerned with contamination. Stay tuned.
[Editor's Note 5/12/1997--Information from southern France is that radioactive wild hogs have for the first time been found in this region. It is not known whether they were contaminated locally by radioactive mushrooms from fallout, migrated in from Russia or were hunted in Russia and brought into France.]
Sincerely,
Malcolm T. Sanford
Bldg 970, Box 110620
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611-0620
Phone (352) 392-1801, Ext. 143 FAX: (352)-392-0190
http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~mts/apishtm/apis.htm
INTERNET Address: MTS@GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU
©1986 M.T. Sanford "All Rights Reserved
