Distributed to:
        USR:[MTS]INTERNET.DIS;87, mts
This is the last copy to be sent to this list.  From now on, all
issues will go only to the Apis-L list as described in the
attached issue of this newsletter
 
Tom Sanford
 
 
 
 
FILENAME: JULAPIS.96
 
            Florida Extension Beekeeping Newsletter
    Apis--Apicultural Information and Issues (ISSN 0889-3764)
                 Volume 14, Number 7, July 1996
 
      Copyright (c) 1996 M.T. Sanford "All Rights Reserved"
 
             THE APIS-L LIST--APIS GOES INTERACTIVE
 
     Electronic delivery of this newsletter has changed not only
how it is distributed, but the very nature of the publication
itself (see December 1995 APIS).  Originally it was a paper
document carrying on the tradition of information delivery begun
back in the 1950s.  I began to send out the newsletter as
electronic copy in 1984 on BITNET (Because It's Time Network)
which has now been retired in favor of the Internet.  It was a
short-year-and-a-half ago (see January 1994 APIS) that I noticed
it was being collected at several Gopher sites around the
country.  All back issues are now mounted on our site at the
College of Agriculture (IFAS):
(gopher://gnv.ifas.ufl.edu/11gopher_root3%3a%5bdatabase%5d).
One added advantage of this (for IFAS ONLINE users only at the
moment) is that it is keyword searchable.
 
In October 1994, I reported that this publication had its own
World Wide Web site:
(http://www.gnv.ifas.ufl/~entweb/apis/apis.htm). This makes it
possible to follow certain topics by linking to past issues.  In
spite of these archives, I continue to get requests from around
the world to receive the newsletter electronically as it is
published.
 
     In accordance with its mission (see June 1996 APIS), this
newsletter is still available in a paper version to residents of
Florida only and can be requested in writing or by telephone,
either through county agents or this office.  The paper edition
is sent to about 800 subscribers, down from its high of 1,800 in
1972.  I have also maintained a list of those asking for the
electronic copy and have routinely delivered each issue to the
BEE-L discussion list ([log in to unmask]), which has more
than 450 subscribers and several other lists.
 
     To make it easier to comply with requests for the electronic
version and to take the APIS traffic off other lists, I have
resorted to an automatic list manager at the Northeast Regional
Data Center (NERDC) on this campus.  Anyone around the globe can
now automatically subscribe to this newsletter electronically via
the Internet.  During the two weeks after my preliminary
announcement, some 155 persons had already added themselves to
the list.  It's easy to do.  Send an electronic message to:
[log in to unmask], and on the first line of text,
enter the following:
subscribe Apis-L First Name Last Name
 
     You should receive a verification message to send back.
After that, the listserver will send a final confirmation that
you are added to the list.
 
     Using the Apis-L list has advantages.  I no longer have to
keep up with requests for subscriptions and deletions; interested
persons can subscribe or unsubscribe at will; other lists do not
have to carry full issues of the newsletter.  The listserv
program also gives subscribers other options, including reviewing
the subscription list to find e-mail addresses.  Anyone on the
list can also send a message out to everyone else, providing an
opportunity for subscribers themselves to add to and comment on
the newsletter's contents.  Finally, I, or any other subscriber,
can send occasional tidbits of information to the list which I
might add to the paper edition.  I did this recently, reporting
informally on my recent trip to Uruguay and Brazil in conjunction
with bee meetings.
 
     There are some downsides to using a listserv.  Although the
technology has been around awhile, many people still don't use it
correctly.  Those new to the automatic discussion list concept
inevitably make errors and violate list "netiquette" as they
learn its use  Because an unthinking machine is managing the
list, self-interested subscribers can take over the list for
their own purposes.  This is particularly true for those who
engage in "spamming," sending out commercial messages to huge
numbers of people whether they want them or not.  Electronic junk
mail may also be generated by subscribers who purposely or
naively monopolize the list to espouse their own points of view.
 
 
     As a consequence, here are some initial guidelines for the
Apis-L list that I'm asking subscribers to adhere to:
 
1.  Use the list only to comment about specific topics mentioned
in the APIS newsletter.  Please don't submit general beekeeping
questions or queries.  These should be sent to either the BEE-L
or the USENET group (alt.agriculture.beekeeping), which are
designed to handle these kinds of things.
 
2.  Use the "reply" button with care; this command will usually
send your message and a copy of what you receive.  I have
received thank you notes for sending the newsletter, for example.
However, a full copy of the APIS issue for which I am being
thanked was attached.  In order to see the one word "thanks," I
have had to page through six screens.  Besides the annoyance,
some subscribers may have to pay for every word received from the
list.  They could wind up paying the APIS electronic freight a
huge number of times!
 
     Beyond automated delivery, implementing the Apis-L list
could be a huge change for author and subscribers. In the past
the paper edition, authored by myself, was a one-sided view of
events.  Now, however, the readership is able to become more
involved; the newsletter can be more "interactive."  As an
example, I plan to submit the newsletter first to the list for
feedback before issuing the final paper copy.  Subscribers will,
therefore, have a chance to correct any errors or add important
points before the paper and World Wide Web editions are
published.  In essence, the electronic readership will now have
more "ownership" of the document.  These are privileges and
responsibilities not to be taken lightly, however.  I will be
interested to see how the readership responds.
 
                      MORE ON DOMESTICATION
 
     Beyond the communication I got asking whether honey bee
domestication was relevant to my audience (see April and June
1996 APIS), I also received notes from several folks who were
intrigued with the topic. Jennie Bester ([log in to unmask])
in Zambia quoted from a book, Domesticated Animals from Early
Times by Juliet Clutton-Brock, published by British Museum
(Natural History), London and William Heinemann Ltd., 10 Upper
Grosvenor Street, London W1X9PA in 1981, concerning the criteria
for domestication.  She said these were proposed by Francis
Galton about 1865 and are still used today by archeozoologists.
Candidate organisms should:
 
1.  Be hardy, requiring minimum care.
2.  Have an inborn liking for humans; be a social animal whose
behavioral patterns are based on a dominance hierarchy so that it
will accept man as the leader, and will remain imprinted on him
in adult life.
3.  Be comfort-loving and not be adapted for instant flight as
are, for example, many members of the antelope, gazelle and deer
families. These animals will not feed or breed readily if
constrained in a pen or herded too close together.
4.  Be found useful.
5.  Breed freely, a necessary factor for successful
domestication, as can be seen from the difficulty of maintaining
breeding colonies of many species in zoos, even under the most
favorable conditions.
6. Be easy to tend.
 
     The honey bee fits most of the above points.  I wonder what
most readers think about numbers two and three.  In the end,
however, the insect may not qualify, as Ms. Bester further quotes
Galton:  "A man irritates a dog by an ordinary laugh, he
frightens him by an angry look, or he calms him by a kindly
bearing; but he has less spontaneous hold over an ox or a sheep.
He must study their ways and tutor his behavior before he can
understand the feeling of those animals or make his own
intelligible to them. He has no natural power at all over many
other creatures.  Who for instance, ever succeeded in frowning
away a mosquito, or in pacifying an angry wasp by a smile."
Perhaps, Ms. Bester concludes, the honey bee is merely an
endangered species dependant on humans for its survival.
 
                 NATIONAL HONEY BOARD REFERENDUM
 
     Next month is set for the third National Honey Board
referendum.  Formal notice was published in the Federal Register
on July 2.  Ballots will be mailed to known producers, producer-
packers and honey importers in July; voting will take place
between the first and 31st of August.  Those eligible must have
done business from January 1, 1994 through December 31, 1995.  If
you do not receive a ballot and are eligible, contact Richard
Schultz, Research and Promotion Branch, Fruit and Vegetable
Division, Agriculture Marketing Service, USDA, Room 2535-S, P.O.
Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456, tel 202/720-5976.
 
     In two previous referendums, according to Mr. Troy Fore,
Secretary-Treasurer of the American Beekeeping Federation, the
National Honey Board has received widespread support.  Initial
approval of the Board in 1986 was voted by 87.5 percent of those
voting, representing 87.3 percent of honey produced and imported
by all voters.  The followup vote in 1991 was even more
supportive; 90.73 percent of voters approved continuation.  They
represented 89.01 percent of honey produced and imported by all
those voting.
 
     These favorable ratings are also found in other commodity
programs.  In his March/April 1996 newsletter, Mr. Fore  relayed
the results of a survey by The Agricultural Issues Forum made up
of 15 different California commodity organizations.  Eighty-one
percent of farmers and public policy leaders found mandated
programs to be "very important" or "important" for doing
research, responding to legislative/regulatory issues and
providing information to farmers and advertisers.  The overriding
conclusion was that commodity organizations serve a vital
communications link between producers and consumers.
 
     For voters who need more information, I recommend the
Official National Honey Board Handbook.  This document discusses
the history of the organization and shows in graphic detail the
rise in retail honey prices since the Board was formed.  In 1986,
60 million pounds were sold in the United States.  Ever since,
however, there has been an annual increase in most years,
reaching a high of 90 million pounds sold on the retail market in
1995.
 
     The Handbook lists the following efforts that have
contributed to much of this increased demand:  full-color
advertisements in many national magazines; new and improved uses
for honey; affordable marketing materials; recipes, press
releases and photographs; honey hotline information; regular
newsletter; market research; and others.  The results of many of
these efforts have been reported in the pages of this newsletter
(see February and March 1995 APIS).
 
     A breakdown of the funding for the Board is also shown in
the Handbook:
 
Advertising and Public Relations        51.5%
Product Research and Technology         21.2%
Office Expenses                          9.2%
Export Marketing                         8.7%
Industry Relations                       4.5%
Board Expenses                           2.8%
USDA Expenses                            2.2%
 
Finally, the publication concludes with a list of things it
cannot do based on its charter.  These include:  lobbying
Congress directly, suggesting how much producers should charge
for honey, and setting quality standards for honey.  For a copy
of the Handbook, send a request to the Board, 390 Lashley St.,
Longmont, CO 80501-6045, ph 800/553-7162.
 
 
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
BITNET Address: MTS@IFASGNV; INTERNET Address:
[log in to unmask]
APIS on the World Wide Web--
http://gnv.ifas.ufl.edu/~entweb/apis/apis.htm
Copyright (c) M.T. Sanford 1996  "All Rights Reserved"