APIS Volume 14, Number 3, March 1996
In this issue
- A Pollination Crisis?
- Beyond Bee Inspection--What FDACS Does
- 1995 Honey Crop Statistics
A POLLINATION CRISIS?
There is another APIS newsletter in the world. Hopefully, this fact will not confuse those reading this publication. Anyway, it's pretty removed from the U.S. audience, down under in Australia. The full title is Apis Melbourne. The editor, Mr. Frank Hosemans, has reprinted information from this newsletter on occasion. An article in his publication brings up an ages-old debate: the ecological consequences of introducing Apis mellifera around the world.
The following was published in the January 1996 issue of Apis Melbourne. It quotes an article from the Melbourne Sun, published January 22, 1996:
"The humble honeybee is one of Australia's most environmentally damaging creatures, according to a scientist. Dr. Graham Pike said the honeybee was responsible for driving out several native species of fauna as well as having a bad effect on Australian flora. While the theory is not new, Dr. Pike said evidence was mounting to support the idea that the honeybee was having a long-term impact on the environment.
"Introduced to Australia from Europe in 1822, the honeybee was an established feral predator competing with the 3000 Australian native species of bees for territory, Dr. Pike said. It stole pollen and nectar from under the noses of native bees, moths, butterflies and birds such as the honeyeater, forcing native species out of the environment. It also competed with native fauna for tree hollows and was a poor pollinator of Australian flora -- thereby retarding natural ecological development. Dr. Pike said while there were imperfections in some of the research done on the bees, there was overwhelming evidence pointing to honeybees having a damaging effect on the Australian environment. "When you look at all these facts pointing to honeybees having a negative impact on flora and fauna you have a strong prima facie case," Dr. Pike, an expert in pollination ecology, said. Field studies have shown heavy impact on native fauna and flora in areas where high concentrations of honeybees were found.
"Most bees you see are honeybees, they use most of the Australian flora and this results in poor pollination because they haven't adapted to Australian flora," he said. But Dr. Pike's contentions have been met with opposition from the beekeeping industry. Honeybees are a huge industry in Australia worth tens of millions of dollars a year. "Let's say we don't see eye to eye," said Dr. Pike. Dr. Pike said studies were being done into possible poison control methods to reduce the numbers of feral bees. A program of no new licences for beekeepers under New South Wales State Government legislation would also see the eventful phasing out of licences," he said.
[Mr. Hosemans added an editor's note: "Recent scientific findings are contrary to the theme of this article, and should be highlighted to counter this continuous push to drive out the beekeeper from native forests."]
Mr. Hosemans' remarks notwithstanding, many of Dr. Pike's arguments seem pertinent to a number of world regions where honey bees have been introduced. They have also been reiterated on occasion in Florida, which has many unique ecosystems that exotic species might affect. This is the reason those in charge of state preserves and other "natural" areas have considered actively eliminating beekeepers. In the past, the argument that feral honey bees would simply fill the void left by beekeepers existed. And there is the pollination value of honey bees in both wild and agricultural areas. Honey bees, however, are not necessarily the best pollinators in all situations (see June 1992 APIS).
No efforts to reduce honey bee populations by poisoning feral colonies have been proposed in the Sunshine State to my knowledge. However, at least one recent event may have in fact created results that might be expected from such a program. Introduction of Varroa into Florida appears to have eliminated many feral honey bee colonies, setting the stage for a possible native pollinator comeback of some proportions. Unfortunately, unmanaged pollinators are also in danger from many of the same phenomena that have affected honey bees in the past. These organisms, however, have no beekeepers to intervene when threatened with adversity. The risk exists, therefore, that an as-yet-unnoticed crisis in pollination in both agricultural and so-called "natural" areas might be brewing.
This potential lack of pollinators has also been a concern outside Florida, according to the February 7, 1996 edition of PANUPS, Pesticide Action Network North America Updates Service: http://www.panna.org/panna/ on the world wide web.
"Agricultural production could be threatened if populations of bees and other pollinators continue to decline, according to the Forgotten Pollinators Campaign, a recently launched effort to educate the public about pollinators' critical economic and agricultural importance. The Campaign emphasizes North American agriculture and ecology, but advocates greater awareness and protection of pollinators worldwide. Most fruits and vegetables consumed globally grow as a result of pollination, the process by which pollen is carried from one flower to another, thereby increasing the chances for fertilization and fruit production. According to the campaign's literature, a recent survey of wild plants documented that over 60% of the plant species studied may suffer reduced seed set due to pollinator scarcity.
"The Campaign, initiated by the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum (ASDM) in Tucson, Arizona, aims to create common cause among farmers, pesticide reform activists, beekeepers, plant and animal conservationists and green belt proponents, all of whom may be concerned about declining pollinators -- especially honey bees -- and the lack of policies aimed at protecting them. According to Gary Paul Nabhan, a crop ecologist and Director of Science for the Campaign, pesticide use, disease, habitat fragmentation, and the arrival of Africanized bees in North America have dramatically reduced honey bee populations in the U.S., by as much as 25% since 1990.
"Honey bees and the 4,000-5,000 species of wild bees native to North America pollinate 60 major crops in the U.S., including potatoes, melons, cotton, onions and almonds. According to the Forgotten Pollinators Campaign, the pollination services provided by wild and domestic bees are 40-50 times more valuable than the market price of all honey produced in the U.S. Steve Buchmann, a specialist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) bee laboratory in Tucson, Arizona and a research associate at the Campaign, recently stated that the hidden value to crop pollination by bees could be as high as US $10 billion. Other significant pollinators include flies, butterflies, moths, beetles, hummingbirds and bats.
"To illustrate the impacts of declining pollinator populations on agricultural production, Nabhan points to cranberry bogs, where as many as 20 million flowers bloom on each acre, but less than a third of the flowers develop into ripened fruit in years when pollinators are scarce. In 1970 widespread organophosphate spraying (mostly fenitrothion) for spruce budworms decimated native bee populations, causing cranberry yields to plummet from 5.5 million pounds in 1969 to 1.5 million pounds in 1970. More recently, the California almond industry has begun borrowing bee hives from other states to compensate for pollinator scarcity, and the 1995 New York pumpkin crop suffered from a paucity of native bees.
"Wild pollinators are often more vulnerable to pesticides than domestic honey bees, and the Campaign calls for more stringent controls of toxic chemical applications near their nesting and foraging sites and for better training of pesticide applicators in monitoring for pollinators. Pollinators receive only piecemeal attention at university agricultural programs and government agencies.
"The Campaign calls for placing greater emphasis on pollinator diversity and ecology at agricultural schools. It also urges USDA, the U.S. National Biological Service and similar agencies in other countries to take comprehensive inventories of crop pollinators and pollinators of keystone plant species in wildlands. Such inventories would allow for more accurate appraisals of the costs to agriculture due to pollinator loss inflicted by pesticide use and habitat destruction. Presently, the economic value of pollination services are generally not taken into account when government agencies assess the value of protecting wild species or the costs of maintaining agricultural yields."
For further information on the effort to protect pollinators, contact: Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, 2021 N. Kinney Road, Tucson, AZ 85743; phone (520) 883-3006; fax (520) 883-2500; email: fpollen@azstarnet.com.
The Forgotten Pollinators Campaign takes into consideration both the agricultural and natural landscapes, and considers all organisms important in the pollination process. This focused approach to ensure adequate pollinating of all plants so important to human welfare should be embraced by the beekeeper (see July 1995and October 1995APIS). In the long run, this will be a much more effective strategy to strengthen the apicultural industry's image and credibility than by promoting the honey bee as the pollinating agent of choice in all circumstances.
BEYOND BEE INSPECTION--WHAT FDACS DOES
In this era of government bashing, it is important to reflect on the many services provided by such agencies that often get dismissed as the rhetoric heats up. Good examples are those of the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Most are familiar with the Apiary Inspection Program. It is one of the most comprehensive in the nation with a dozen full-time inspectors, as well as others working on a part-time basis. But how many know what else the Department does to help the industry?
At a recent meeting, Ms. Betsy Woodward, chief of the Food Residues Laboratory, ph 904/488-0670, FAX 904/487-6573, provided a "Summary of Honey Analytical Laboratory Support" available to Florida beekeepers:
"The Bureau of Food and Residue Laboratories provides comprehensive support to Florida's honey industry and consumers who buy honey. Included in this program are certification of the tupelo honey crop, authenticity analyses, label reviews (see October 1994 APIS), pesticide residue analysis and analytical methods to meet export testing requirements. The following summarizes the analytical work to date:
Fiscal Year No. Samples Analyzed Approximate Cost
(No. Adulterated)
1992/93 105 (11) $11,550
1993/94 106 (18) 11,660
1994/95 (to date) 117 (15) 12,870
Total $36,080"These costs do not reflect additional analyses required by adulterated (fraudulent) products. The results of these laboratory analyses have been provided to the criminal investigations unit of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and we continue to cooperate with them.
"Finally, this program has championed the need to address adulteration and misbranding of honey with federal agencies, especially as it relates to out-of-state firms selling product in Florida and our program is recognized for these efforts. We are also the only regulatory authority looking at foods prominently claiming honey on their label to verify that honey is the major saccharide ingredient."
1995 HONEY CROP
The Florida Agricultural Statistics Service, 1222 Woodward St., Orlando, FL 32803, ph 407/648-6013, released its 1995 honey crop analysis on February 27, 1996. According to this report, honey production was 19,780,000 pounds, a two percent increase over 1994 production. Florida ranked fourth nationally behind North Dakota, South Dakota and California. Average yield per colony was 86 pounds, up two pounds over 1994. The colony count remained at 230,000, the same as last year.
The U.S. honey crop was 210 million pounds in 1995, down 3 percent from last year. There were 2.65 million colonies in production, compared with 2.77 in 1994. Yield was up 1.1 pounds per colony over last year to 79.5. Prices in 1995 averaged 64.4 cents per pound, up 22 percent over 1994.
Sincerely,
Malcolm T. Sanford
Bldg 970, Box 110620
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611-0620
Phone (904) 392-1801, Ext. 143 FAX: 904-392-0190
http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~entweb/apis/apis.htm
INTERNET Address: MTS@GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU
©1996 M.T. Sanford "All Rights Reserved
