Garth raises some valid points in relation to modifications bees make in an
environment in which they did not evolve.
 
Beekeepers are primary producers utilising multiple use vegetation.    Hives
in the vicinity of fruit orchards derive honey as well as providing
pollination to increase fruit yield.  Annuals and perennials all derive
benefits from the activity of an efficient pollinator and Apis Mellifera is
recognised as being essential to agriculture.  Beekeepers do not own the
crops their bees pollinate and without access to reliable nectar sources
cannot maintain hive strength.
 
>Bees shift a population naturally being a
>different pollinator to the ones of old. So that means that
>eventually you will end up with a population of trees that are
>suitable for bees to live on. With time areas with large stands of
>pollen defficient trees may say for example become bee defficient and
>eventaully the trees there will be replaced by other trees. Maybe
>onces something had a beheviour pattern that meant it could scavenge
>enough pollen of these trees?
 
There is an assumption here that without bees the vegetation will remain
stable.  Forests in Australia have evolved under environmental pressure and
land management practised by indigenous and immigrant populations.  Britain
was once all forested and the rolling plains now featured on television
programmes are the result of clearance for agriculture or ship-building.  At
what point do you attempt to freeze evolution?
The eucalypt forests are here now.
 
 
>> 2.  Bees prefer hive sites with very small access holes, which are unlikely
>> to      be chosen by nesting birds.
>
>But are they likely to be chosen by native Trigonids? And what effect
>does a beehive with increase moisture etc have on the innnerds of a
>tree?
 
No.  Trigonids hives have very different structures as they do not build
combs so much as cones comprised of pollen and propolis.
An informal count by two beekeepers elsewhere in Australia noted that out of
every 100 hollows, 4 were occupied at any given time.  Feral hives live or
die according to the cyclical flowering as they cannot abandon their young.
Abandoned hive hollows are then adopted by birds (the beeswax being chewed
as part flooring with no detrimental effect to eggs.)
 
 Here we have people that say
>trout and oak trees are now naturalised. That is a myth. It takes a
>eucalypt say 10 years to start seeding prolifically, another ten to
>establish a mature thicket, maybe a hundred to go through a
>succession satge. And maybe a thousand to stabilise. Then bees will
>have altered their environment. Then maybe they will be naturalised.
 
In South Australia we have areas designed "Wilderness" which effectively
rules out all outside influences including access by bees.   This is where
the vegetation is recognised as being unique or particularly vulnerable.
However should the ban on introduced species extend to areas allocated for
logging?  How about remnant vegetation on farmland?  Watercourse and
roadside vegetation?  If you extend the analogy for protection of the
historical species too far then you must eventually rule out any occupation
by man.
 
>Are there natural honey producers in Australia?
>No noe that produce a similar surpluss, so something must be wrong
>with the approach of Apis mellifera and it may be an over industrious
>species.
 
This is a bit like saying that rice produces too much food so should not be
grown commercially in other countries.
 
>Sorry to be argumentative about this, but I do believe that A.m must
>have an effect, and hence should be eradicated from nature reserves.
>In the rest of the country it can be kept, just controlled.
 
There is a real argument for protection of nature reserves.  However I do
not believe this extends to an argument against utilization of species for
commercial purposes simply because they are not introduced species.  The key
is to maintain a proper balance and it is only in the last twenty years that
some understanding has been reached of the principles of sustainable
agriculture and land care.
 
I am uneasy with the example set by public servants who flout a direction
from the elected government because it does not meet their ideological
beliefs.  This is lack of accountability.
 
Betty McAdam
HOG BAY APIARY
Penneshaw, Kangaroo Island
j.h. & e. mcadam<[log in to unmask]
http://kigateway.eastend.com.au/hogbay/hogbay1.htm