>So which view is correct? Pollen trapped from foragers returning to
the hives placed at the Guelph study test fields was found to contain on
average 88% canola pollen, indicating the foragers mainly foraged on site,<
Has anyone ever shown direct correlation between pollen & nectar
collection or is this just an ongoing assumption? I asked a number
researchers over the years about this and no one could point to any
specific study(ies). Been a while since I've asked the question, so is
there anything now? There are many times I've seen pollen collectors
returning from one direction and the main foraging force from another.
My interest in this started in the fall of '84 when I was in the Peace
region of Alberta. We stacked hives on a 400 plus acre field of Red
Clover buried back in the bush. As a honey producer this crop can be
rather fickle. Some years, in the right conditions, you can't keep
ahead of the bees and other times you won't pay for the move. That year
things clicked, we moved in more hives and stacked everything to the
sky. When we extracted the honey in late September, it was clear as
glass and as I recall about 17.2%. At the time there was still a high
demand and more importantly a premium for Clover honey to Europe. In
February when the market appeared to be reaching its apex, my employer
decided to really shop this load around and needed a lot of samples.
Those pulled at the time of barreling were still very much liquid (a
characteristic of clover), while most other lot samples on the shelf
from that season had long ago granulated (We often had trouble getting
the honey from rapeseed & early canola varieties out of the comb before
it started to crystallize. In the barrel it setup in a matter of
days). When we opened the drums for more samples, there wasn't even a
hint of it starting to granulate.
Even then when you sold into Europe everything went for pollen
analysis. As the first reports came back, we thought that perhaps
samples had been mixed up or buyers were just trying to scam us
(Apparently they thought we were trying to scam them). Report after
report returned that the honey was at least 70% canola/rape (at that
time could have been either); some said as high as 85%. As we
reflected back, the crew did remember observing the bees working some
small (<100 sq. ft ea.) patches of volunteer yellow flowers hard for
pollen. That hadn't come as much of a surprise to any of us, as bees
appear to prefer almost anything to red clover pollen. No idea if that
has to do with taste, ease of collection or both. What did come as a
surprise was that pollen analysis said we'd supposedly produced 30,000+
lbs of honey from probably less than a combined 1/2 acre of some
volunteer member of the Brassica family. Didn't happen. When we sold
that honey the following June it was just starting to show signs of
granulation.
Since that incident, I've made it a point to note the flight of pollen
collectors. As I stated earlier, they often return from an entirely
different direction or are observed working plants which I know are not
good nectar producers. When we trapped pollen we found this was even
more evident. Over the years I've heard others tell similar stories,
which has lead me to question just how valid pollen analysis in honey
really is. Perhaps a tool, but I don't think it's the deal breaker it's
been held up to be.
In this study I suspect that the main concern was with the pollen
anyway, but I wouldn't make any assumptions about the main source of
nectar for these hives. A whole other topic for another day is that I
(and others) have observed that certain varieties of canola do not
produce pollen, nectar or both which honeybees can/wish to collect.
Dave Tharle
Ardmore, AB
Canada
***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm
|
