Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Fri, 7 Jun 1996 11:27:23 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
>Bee experts said that they can't predict how the
> decline in the wild bee population will affect wild plants and the
> animals that eat them. But they guessed that in places such as New
> York and New Jersey, which may have no wild honeybees left, there
> aren't going to be too many wild berries this year.
#Is there anyone besides me who finds this (and other pronouncements
of doom
#in this article) to be excessively pessimistic, ignoring the possible
#ameliorating effects of *native* bee species? There *is* a native bee
#expert in Shimanuki's lab there in Beltsville, after all - so there is no
#obvious excuse for them to neglect to mention this anywhere.
#Exasperated, as usual,
Lawrence Kellogg writes:
" Yes, this does seem too pessimistic to me. I just attended a lecture on
the forgotten pollinators and I'm reading a book by the same name. One
of the major points that was made is that if *native* bees are given a
chance they can do an excellent job of pollinating plants. In many cases
the heavy reliance on honeybees has helped reduce native bee
populations by depriving them of the resources to survive. It appears as
if honeybees may not be as benign as once thought. In a world of
scarce resources they consume a lot of nectar that could support native
bees. It was an interesting lecture and one that I am still contemplating.
Other discussion...?"
I presume there will be some impact on pollination, but I can guess
what the cost of producing a pound of honey will do. I believe most
beekeepers are in it for the honey.
I recently read that the Russians have been living with Varroa for 25
years. Perhaps, now that the curtain is down, we ought to go learn how
they are dealing with it. (Time to kiss and make up!)
Gerry Visel
|
|
|