> Blueberry pollination has become big business and the reason is > increased yields with additional bees. The increases have not > been marginal. The variable that caused the increase was honeybees. Well, I have a grand total of 3 highbush blueberry bushes in my garden, so I can't claim any subject-matter expertise in blueberries, but I'm pretty good at typing "blueberry yield factors" into Google and slogging through the papers so found. It appears that no one gives the bulk of the credit for yield increases to additional pollination, but instead, they cite other factors. http://res2.agr.ca/kentville/emp/achievements-realisations_e.htm#measure "New Technique To Measure Blueberry Pollination Researchers have developed a new technique to measure blueberry pollination by assessing the amount of pollen deposited the proportion of stigmas pollinated. This method showed that there was little relationship between the initial fruit set and final yield of lowbush blueberry. Thus, other factors are more important in determining blueberry yield." http://counties.cce.cornell.edu/ontario/gardening/gardening_newsletter/000277.ph p "well-known New Jersey blueberry researcher, Phil Marucci, stated many years ago that there were a few factors that have greatly influenced the lack of increase in blueberry yield on a per acre basis over the last 30 years. Pruning was the most significant factor he cited. More recent research has revealed that young canes are more efficient fruit producers than old canes. In fact, canes that are 3 to 10 years old allocate greater than 50% of applied water and fertilizer to fruit production. By the time a cane reaches 20 years of age, only 25% is allocated to fruit. (Water and fertilizer cost the grower money and there is no profit in the production of blueberry leaves.)" http://www.mac.umaine.edu/projects/_private/MAC_page/projects%201-11/MAC002.htm "Several factors may explain why producers have not invested in supplemental irrigation. These include limited understanding of the yield effect of irrigation..." http://www.haworthpress.com/store/ArticleAbstract.asp?sid=82NUCNHM6X7K8JPUUB503S CQPH5CA1T3&ID=46090 "Preemergence weed control with the herbicides terbacil and hexazinone in the 1980's provided a release from the weed competition, and immediately doubled yields on many fields. It also allowed for improved fertility management and the increased use of bees for pollination which resulted in even more production. Good disease and pest control using integrated pest management keeps crop losses from pests to a minimum. Recently, in Maine, there has been an investment in use of irrigation, with approximately 3,000 ha of in-ground irrigation and 850 ha of above-ground irrigation now in use. Recent research has shown a 43% increase in yield with irrigation. All of these factors have combined to produce a three fold increase in the wild blueberry crop over the past 20 years. Mechanical harvesting has increased but is only used on a small percentage of the Maine crop, whereas more than half of the Canadian crop is harvested mechanically. This contributes to the efficiency of production since it reduces the cost of the most expensive production practice." http://www.nsac.ns.ca/wildblue/reports/sands01.htm "Averaged over these three sites, marketable yield was increased 47% by the application of gypsum at 4.0 t/ ha. Yield was not affected in the second and third cropping cycles. Mean berry weight and plant growth were not affected by gypsum application." ...and so on, each research project mentioning pollination only tangentially, if at all. So, if nothing else, beekeepers have not captured the hearts and minds of blueberry growers by providing good data to the "blueberry researchers" to prove what you say is true. That's bad. One wants one's customers to believe in the value of one's services. > I tend to think that it is impossible to quantify the number > of billions of dollars of farm products that pollination produces, > since first you have to remove all honeybees from agriculture, > measure, and then put them back in. One can compare crops where bees are not deployed with crops where bees are deployed. There are always a few growers to decline to use bees every season, but one must take care to eliminate "freeloaders" from the study, where bees placed on someone else's nearby crop also work the crop of the "freeloader". Anyway, my point was not that it would be easy to do the work properly, but that the closest thing an "authoritative" work on the subject is defective in basic assumptions, and easily "debunked" by anyone who understands the concepts of "inputs and costs" in agriculture. Not a good sales pitch for the industry as a whole. > I have seen studies that promote the value of solitary bees > over honey bees that were junk science. They were written by > proponents of solitary bees... I agree with the critique of most of those studies, but I am so impressed with the Japanese Hornfaced Bee work by Susan Batra (USDA, now retired) that I started raising the little critters to see how they would fare around here. They are not native to the USA, but where imported back when one could get away with such things. They are much like the "Orchard Mason Bee", which only thrives West of the Rockies. They certainly do many more cross-plant flower visits per hour, and the use of their entire body to carry pollen clearly implies more pollen being left behind on the plants. They also fly in bad weather, when my honey bees all stay home. The only problem with these non-honey bees is keeping the little suckers alive, as they are not as well-documented as honey bees. The initial batch of cocoons I bought from someone who claimed to know what they were doing turned out to be infested with a parasite, for example. Several attempts have been made to ramp up to large-scale deployments, and in all cases, it was difficult to maintain the population levels over several years. On the other hand, they do well in Japan, so we simply don't understand enough, or the bee simply cannot be kept in massive numbers at any one location due to the "plague risk" of putting all one's bees in one basket. But they are an interesting "hedge investment", given the increasing problems and costs associated with running honey bees, and the best part is that the equivalent of a typical honey bee hive in terms of pollination ability is no bigger than a 1-gallon paint can, weighing less than 2 lbs. I'm not suggesting that anyone bet their livelihood on alternative bees, I'll wait until I can arrive at a grower with nothing more than a Volvo wagon full of small, lightweight deployment canisters, and pick up checks for pollinating a few hundred acres every year for a few years before I go shoot off my mouth. Don't hold your breath waiting. :) -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info ---