The US Government has historically botched support for the pollination industry. Right now it is being supported by almond growers, bless their hearts, but if China and Australia get into almonds in a big way, that could change. Meanwhile, beekeepers in the East are clamoring for taxpayer's money to restock their dead hives. Maybe we should require them to chuck out all their combs as a precondition for pouring more of our money into their hives. After all, if the combs are causing the bees to croak, pretty dumb to restock the equipment! Those unfamiliar with history are condemned to repeat it: In 1985, a report came out denouncing federal subsidies for beekeeping, which was justified on the basis of the need for pollination. The following are excerpts from that report. Federal Price Support For Honey Should Be Phased Out The beekeeping industry expanded during World War II to meet the needs of the war economy. Honey was a substitute for rationed sugar. Beeswax was considered a strategic material because it could be used instead of petroleum products to waterproof ammunition and other war equipment. For beeswax alone, the industry was categorized as war-essential, which gave beekeepers high priority to secure the scarce materials needed to expand their capacity. with the end of the war and sugar rationing, beekeepers found themselves faced with pricedepressing honey surpluses. Due to the depressed economic situation, representatives of the beekeeping industry asked the Congress for assistance. After World War II the price of honey was so low that beekeepers were finding it impossible to recover their production costs. Despite USDA purchases of more than 23 million pounds of honey in 1948 and early 1949 under USDA surplus removal programs, the price of honey continued to drop. The Congress provided assistance through the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1446(b)). The act expanded existing price-support programs for basic commodities such as corn, cotton, rice, tobacco, and wheat, and added honey as another agricultural commodity to receive federal support. The principal reason that the honey price-support program was enacted was to ensure that honeybees would be available in sufficient numbers for crop pollination purposes. The program was to be in effect until producers of crops requiring pollination could pay for the pollination services. The Congress should eliminate the mandatory program because: The program is not needed to ensure necessary crop pollination, since producers of crops that require honeybee pollination are already renting or own their honeybees. They view the cost as another cost of production, similar to fertilizer, fuel, and labor. Honey production is emphasized instead of crop pollination. Since the program began, the honeybee population has shifted to states where more honey can be produced but where few crops are grown that require honeybee pollination. Some of the top honey-producing states, such as North and South Dakota, are major producers of -sunflowers and the hay crops, such as alfalfa and the clovers. These crops produce large numbers of flowers that contain nectar attractive to honeybees. These crops, however, do not require honeybee pollination. The program, which was originally justified on the need to ensure an adequate supply of honeybees for crop pollination purposes, is actually unnecessary to ensure pollination. Producers of seed or fruit crops to which bee pollination is essential pay for or supply their own honeybees for this purpose. In addition, program management is not adequate to prevent fraud or abuse, and improvements would be costly and may not be completely effective. A beekeeper who operates in five states said that the honey price-support program did not affect pollination. It would not take long, according to him, for part-time and hobbyist beekeepers to take over the pollination services that commercial beekeepers now provide. All almond producers would have to do to ensure that their trees were adequately pollinated would be to own and manage their own bees or hire someone to keep bees for them. In commenting on this report (see app. II), USDA stated that the report was well prepared and that it agreed with our conclusions that (1) the honey program is unnecessary to ensure pollination, (2) it is a costly program and serves few beekeepers, (3) program controls are not adequate, and (4) the Congress should eliminate the mandatory honey price-support program. * * * In subcommittee hearings in 1992, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) testified that the Treasury costs of the honey program would fall below $10 million by 1995 and would remain below that level for the foreseeable future. As in the late 1940s, an argument repeatedly made in defense of the honey program was that without a support price for honey, beekeepers would fail and huge costs would be borne by U.S. agriculture through adverse impacts on pollination activities. An estimate of the value of pollination services that was cited repeatedly was $9.3 billion, almost 60 percent of the gross value of the crops that employ bees. In October 1993, Congress denied appropriations for the honey program. In June 1994, the General Accounting Office submitted an update of their 1985 report on the program to the House and Senate subcommittees. The report concluded that "a price support for honey is not needed for ensuring a supply of honeybees for pollination." Subsequently, the honey program was eliminated under the 1996 Farm Bill. * * * PS: the beekeeping industry did not collapse in 1997. *********************************************** 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