>
> >Upon further reflection, it appears that the trend upward is probably
> tied to the shaking out of inefficient operations.


Ah, now that's what I was hoping for--discussion and interpretation of the
data at hand!  The above explanation appears to be plausible.  However, it
is offered in a very brief form, without supportive evidence.  A few
questions re the hypothesis then immediately come to mind:

1.  It assumes that those who chose to report data to NASS over the years
included a larger proportion of inefficient beekeepers in the early years
than in the later years.  In my experience, until recent years, beekeepers
have always striven to produce to maximum amount of honey per hive (as
evidenced by any of the old bee books).  Can anyone offer evidence that
beekeepers in general were less efficient at honey production in the 1940s
than in the 1980s?

2.  Can anyone offer information on how the increased amount of migratory
movement affected yields?

3.  Can anyone explain why the continuous trend of such shakeout of
inefficient operations would go on for a full 60 years?  It doesn't take
long for an "inefficient" operation to go broke.

4.  How does the hypothesis account for the major reduction in forage over
that period of time?  Beekeepers in the Farm Belt have clearly indicated
that there is far less forage than there used to be.  That factor alone
should have caused honey yields to decrease, not increase.


> >The falling numbers post 1998 correspond to rising pollination fees in
> almonds.


Yes, correspondence, but I suspect that the causality is reversed.  The
reason for rising almond prices was due to demand for healthy colonies
exceeding supply.  Diminished supply since 1998 (esp in the landmark winter
of 2004/2005) has been largely due to poor colony health, due to
varroa/virus, nosema, EFB, and poor forage availability.


> >When beekeepers focus more on pollination and less on honey production as
> income, the one would affect the other.
>

The above hypothesis also seems like a stretch to me.  I know a number of
the largest almond pollinators well, as well as a number of the largest
honey producers.  They DO NOT give up honey production for pollination in
general.  The highest demand for pollination services, as well as (in
general) the highest rates, are paid in almonds.  But almond fees do not
cover operating costs, and you still have the whole season ahead of you
after release from almonds.  In order to stay in the black (let alone make
a profit) those operations need to either sell bees, take on additional
pollination contracts, or make as large a honey crop as possible.  Most
that I know do the latter.

Charlie makes that exact point--that if your hives are in an area in which
you can produce a good honey crop, there is little economic reason to go
through the additional expenses and hassle of going to paid pollination.

> It is equally as likely that a third variable caused both an increase in per
hive yields and a decrease in colony populations, without having any
interaction with native pollinators.

I'm not sure that the word "equally" applies.  How about "there could be
alternative explanations for the observed correlation"?  Talks, cheap,
Justin--how about offering some plausible explanatory "variables," along
with supportive evidence?


-- 
Randy Oliver
Grass Valley, CA
www.ScientificBeekeeping.com

             ***********************************************
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