> Blueberry pollination has become big business and the reason is
> increased yields with additional bees. The increases have not
> been marginal. The variable that caused the increase was honeybees.

Well, I have a grand total of 3 highbush blueberry bushes in my
garden, so I can't claim any subject-matter expertise in blueberries,
but I'm pretty good at typing "blueberry yield factors" into Google
and slogging through the papers so found.  It appears that no one
gives the bulk of the credit for yield increases to additional
pollination, but instead, they cite other factors.


http://res2.agr.ca/kentville/emp/achievements-realisations_e.htm#measure

"New Technique To Measure Blueberry Pollination

Researchers have developed a new technique to
measure blueberry pollination by assessing the
amount of pollen deposited the proportion of
stigmas pollinated. This method showed that
there was little relationship between the initial
fruit set and final yield of lowbush blueberry.
Thus, other factors are more important in
determining blueberry yield."

http://counties.cce.cornell.edu/ontario/gardening/gardening_newsletter/000277.ph
p

"well-known New Jersey blueberry researcher,
Phil Marucci, stated many years ago that there
were a few factors that have greatly influenced
the lack of increase in blueberry yield on a per
acre basis over the last 30 years. Pruning was
the most significant factor he cited. More recent
research has revealed that young canes are more
efficient fruit producers than old canes. In fact,
canes that are 3 to 10 years old allocate greater
than 50% of applied water and fertilizer to fruit
production. By the time a cane reaches 20 years
of age, only 25% is allocated to fruit. (Water and
fertilizer cost the grower money and there is no
profit in the production of blueberry leaves.)"

http://www.mac.umaine.edu/projects/_private/MAC_page/projects%201-11/MAC002.htm

"Several factors may explain why producers have not
invested in supplemental irrigation. These include
limited understanding of the yield effect of irrigation..."

http://www.haworthpress.com/store/ArticleAbstract.asp?sid=82NUCNHM6X7K8JPUUB503S
CQPH5CA1T3&ID=46090

"Preemergence weed control with the herbicides terbacil
and hexazinone in the 1980's provided a release from
the weed competition, and immediately doubled yields
on many fields. It also allowed for improved fertility
management and the increased use of bees for pollination
which resulted in even more production. Good disease and
pest control using integrated pest management keeps crop
losses from pests to a minimum. Recently, in Maine, there
has been an investment in use of irrigation, with
approximately 3,000 ha of in-ground irrigation and 850 ha
of above-ground irrigation now in use. Recent research has
shown a 43% increase in yield with irrigation. All of these
factors have combined to produce a three fold increase in
the wild blueberry crop over the past 20 years. Mechanical
harvesting has increased but is only used on a small
percentage of the Maine crop, whereas more than half of the
Canadian crop is harvested mechanically. This contributes
to the efficiency of production since it reduces the cost
of the most expensive production practice."

http://www.nsac.ns.ca/wildblue/reports/sands01.htm

"Averaged over these three sites, marketable yield was
increased 47% by the application of gypsum at 4.0 t/ ha.
Yield was not affected in the second and third cropping
cycles. Mean berry weight and plant growth were not
affected by gypsum application."

...and so on, each research project mentioning pollination
only tangentially, if at all.  So, if nothing else, beekeepers
have not captured the hearts and minds of blueberry growers
by providing good data to the "blueberry researchers" to
prove what you say is true.  That's bad.  One wants one's
customers to believe in the value of one's services.

> I tend to think that it is impossible to quantify the number
> of billions of dollars of farm products that pollination produces,
> since first you have to remove all honeybees from agriculture,
> measure, and then put them back in.

One can compare crops where bees are not deployed with crops where
bees are deployed.  There are always a few growers to decline to
use bees every season, but one must take care to eliminate "freeloaders"
from the study, where bees placed on someone else's nearby crop also
work the crop of the "freeloader".

Anyway, my point was not that it would be easy to do the work
properly, but that the closest thing an "authoritative" work
on the subject is defective in basic assumptions, and easily
"debunked" by anyone who understands the concepts of "inputs
and costs" in agriculture.  Not a good sales pitch for the
industry as a whole.

> I have seen studies that promote the value of solitary bees
> over honey bees that were junk science. They were written by
> proponents of solitary bees...

I agree with the critique of most of those studies, but I
am so impressed with the Japanese Hornfaced Bee work by Susan
Batra (USDA, now retired) that I started raising the little
critters to see how they would fare around here.  They are
not native to the USA, but where imported back when one
could get away with such things.  They are much like the
"Orchard Mason Bee", which only thrives West of the Rockies.

They certainly do many more cross-plant flower visits per
hour, and the use of their entire body to carry pollen
clearly implies more pollen being left behind on the plants.
They also fly in bad weather, when my honey bees all stay home.

The only problem with these non-honey bees is keeping the
little suckers alive, as they are not as well-documented
as honey bees.  The initial batch of cocoons I bought from
someone who claimed to know what they were doing turned out
to be infested with a parasite, for example.  Several attempts
have been made to ramp up to large-scale deployments, and
in all cases, it was difficult to maintain the population
levels over several years.  On the other hand, they do well
in Japan, so we simply don't understand enough, or the bee
simply cannot be kept in massive numbers at any one location
due to the "plague risk" of putting all one's bees in one
basket.

But they are an interesting "hedge investment", given the
increasing problems and costs associated with running
honey bees, and the best part is that the equivalent of
a typical honey bee hive in terms of pollination ability
is no bigger than a 1-gallon paint can, weighing less than
2 lbs.

I'm not suggesting that anyone bet their livelihood on
alternative bees, I'll wait until I can arrive at a
grower with nothing more than a Volvo wagon full of small,
lightweight deployment canisters, and pick up checks for
pollinating a few hundred acres every year for a few years
before I go shoot off my mouth.

Don't hold your breath waiting.  :)

-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and  other info ---