On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, Bob & Liz wrote:

> -----Original Message-----

> To reply to my own statement. When an industry reduces in size by
> 50-75% ( like commercial beekeeping) the government sees help furnished
> reduced by the same amount.
> I had a senator tell me he could not tell the difference in taste from
> foreign honey and U.S. honey.
...

As far as blended honey is concerned, he's probably right.  Put aside any
unsafe chemical residue.

For that reason, I don't think our arguments should rest on honey.  We
don't do any itinerant pollination.  The gals work on what's close by. But
I'm told that honey does provide a good bit of the margin for many
pollination services.

Perhaps the first think we should do is quit referring to the honey
economy.  It should be the "bee economy" or the "pollination economy."
Don't you think the argments we can make would be stronger if we insist on
Congress accepting the fact that our bees are pivotal in the abundance our
farmers manage to produce?

Then I'd tell your Senator that increasing the efficiency of the bees is
beyond us.  That we've cut most of the costs we'll be able to cut, but
that new costs are thrust on us by the very need to ship hives hither and
yon and the need to deal with parasites and disease which, in the long
run, can't and shouldn't be dealt with chemically - we agree:
organophospates have no business anywhere near an edible product over
which we have no control inside the hive.

> Cutting research funding makes the "prediction" of the death of US
> commercial beekeeping a self-fulfilling prophesy.
> Research will help in many areas but in my opinion the problems facing
> the U.S. large beekeeper can not be solved by research alone.   In
> Farming as Dr. Shilling pointed out  20% of farmers survived by
> increasing production 17 times.  If the average commercial beekeeper
> even averaged 100 pounds per hive which is a high figure after talking
> to my friends then the beekeeper would need to increase production by 17
> times.  We all know that even doubling the honey production per hive to
> 200 pounds would be quite a feat when dealing with large numbers of
> hives. .

But do tell him, your Senator, that some of that 17 fold increase in other
agriculture components is due to contract pollination services.  We know
yields are increased when our bees are trucked in.  We know that huge
areas of monocropping eliminate the natural range of forage which might
support ferral colonies if they were able to survive the same parasites we
battle.  And point out, if China, Argentina, and any other country which
subsidizes its honey industry is allowed to put the American industry in
the tank, it's not likely they will step up to ship bees across the water
to provide, what was it, 400,000 hives just for the almond bloom?

If the seed and fruit producing farmers have to pay all the costs of
putting hives in their fields, that is if there is no market for domestic
honey at all, those farmers would see their customers looking overseas
too.

I recently visited the site of our former ranch in San Diego County.  Now
that that 1000 acres has been subdivided into 2 acre lots with houses,
there is no way in the world it's ever going back into production.  The
politicians harp on our becoming energy independent: We'd best look to
maintaining a farm economy that can feed us against the day when overseas
sources of food are lost to us through disease, conflict, or some other
calamity.


---------------
Richard Yarnell, SHAMBLES WORKSHOPS | No gimmick we try, no "scientific"
Beavercreek, OR. Makers of fine     | fix we attempt, will save our planet
Wooden Canoes, The Stack(R) urban   | until we reduce the population. Let's
composter, Raw Honey                | leave our kids a decent place to live.