Stephen Buchmann wrote much more than this:
> Many beekeepers have adopted the wise strategy of
> becoming pollinator services companies providing cost-effective pollination
> services using honey bees, bumblebees, mason bees and leafcutter bees. The
> need for a mixed "pollinator portfolio" has not diminished. There are many
> crops out of more than 100 grown in the U.S. that get the best pollination
> from a mixed pollinator strategy of honey bees and native bees. In other
> cases (buzz pollination by native bees and about 8% of the world's
> flowering crops) need pollination from other bee species, since honey bees
> are incable of delivering floral sonication to suchblossoms (blueberries,
> cranberries, eggplant, peppers, kiwi fruit, tomatoes).

Interesting that honeybees are incapable of delivering floral sonication to
blueberries and cranberries. But does that translate to an inability to
pollinate?
If it does, then we had best inform the blueberry and cranberry industry
here in Maine who imported over 60,000 hives last year.

I have a very big problem with the propagandists, and I do not use that
word lightly, who are pushing other pollinators. There were studies in
Maine that showed another pollinator had increased blueberry pollination in
a field. But it was never mentioned that honeybees were also in the field,
so you were really increasing the number of pollinators- something the
industry has learned to their benefit by more than doubling the number of
hives coming into the state.
But the advocate for their bee used the data to try and get rid of the
honeybee and replace it with their bee. Only problem was it cost about
$1000 to get the same saturation as one hive of honeybees.

One of my biggest peeves with scientists is the exclusion or skewing of
data to further their cause. Just take a look at both sides of the global
warming issue. There is too much politics and too little science.

There may be misinformation about Ted, but there was also misinformation in
the rebuttal.

Bill Truesdell
Bath, ME