I am a beekeeper and have been for longer than I care to
remember. Much is spoken about honeybees and their
contribution to world food stocks, but is this really
the case? Now that my years are advancing, I seem to
have more time to sit and observe, and the results of this
have been something of an 'eyeopener'. I grow cherries,
raspberries, strawberries, a victoria plum and various
apples. all are in flower or recently flowered and I have
not seen a single honeybee on any of them, despite hours
of observation. My hives are strong and the garden is
full of bees, but the only bees on my fruit are bumblebees.
If there were no honeybees within ten miles of me, I
would still have the same amount of fruit set.

The most important world food crop is cereal, whether
it be sweet corn in America, rice in Asia or wheat and
barley in the temperate regions. This is wind pollinated.
Other important food sources such as potatoes and yams
are vegetative and none of these food sources are
dependant on honeybees. So how important are
honeybees? Ancient agricultural civilisations kept bees,
but for their honey and not for any advantage to their
crops. We see honeybees in our gardens and assume
that they are 'doing good', but at the moment my bees
are much more interested in the clover, dandelion, daisy
and buttercup in the field on the other side of the fence;
but they are opportunists and will gather where the
feeding is best. There is also the fallacy that honeybees
are 'busy'. This is totally wrong, honeybees are lazy
little gits. They rarely come out of the hive before
10.00am. and finish their work around 4.00pm.
Bumblebees are working from around 6.00am. and
are still going strong at about 9.00pm. - more than twice
as long in the day as honeybees. I love my bees as pets,
but I really don't think that they contribute much to my
garden - or to world food sources!

On 23/06/2013 13:10, Phil Gurr wrote:
I am a beekeeper and have been for longer than I care to
remember. Much is spoken about honeybees and their
contribution to world food stocks, but is this really
the case?

(snip - see OP)

I think that what you are saying is so unpopular that most of the UK now
believes we are all in imminent danger of starvation as our food crops
will fail if there are no honeybees. Never mind the facts - if honeybees
go we will all die!

Apart from the usual cereals, sugar cane is an enormous source of
calories (whether you consider them good or bad is another matter), and
that, being a grass, is also wind pollinated. So, although we do not
eat the fruit of the sugar cane, we can continue to propagate it without
insect pollinators.

What we /might/ lose from our diet is the large choice of flavours, and
perhaps more importantly, vitamins such as ascorbic acid. However, as
nature abhors a vacuum, it would not be long before other pollinators
appeared to take the place of honeybees.

We would, of course, lose honey. And for that alone we should look
after our honeybees!

--

Jeff

On 2013-06-23 19:13:46 +0100, Jeff Layman said:

On 23/06/2013 13:10, Phil Gurr wrote:
I am a beekeeper and have been for longer than I care to
remember. Much is spoken about honeybees and their
contribution to world food stocks, but is this really
the case?

(snip - see OP)

I think that what you are saying is so unpopular that most of the UK
now believes we are all in imminent danger of starvation as our food
crops will fail if there are no honeybees. Never mind the facts - if
honeybees go we will all die!

Apart from the usual cereals, sugar cane is an enormous source of
calories (whether you consider them good or bad is another matter), and
that, being a grass, is also wind pollinated. So, although we do not
eat the fruit of the sugar cane, we can continue to propagate it
without insect pollinators.

What we /might/ lose from our diet is the large choice of flavours, and
perhaps more importantly, vitamins such as ascorbic acid. However, as
nature abhors a vacuum, it would not be long before other pollinators
appeared to take the place of honeybees.

We would, of course, lose honey. And for that alone we should look
after our honeybees!

Indeed we should look after our honeybees and all our pollinating
insects. But what Einstein actually said was "if the bees died..." not
"if the honeybees die". Apparently. So bumble bees are doing a great
job. Just look after ALL the pollinators and plant pollinating insect
attractive plants.
--

Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon
www.helpforheroes.org.uk

On 23/06/2013 19:36, Sacha wrote:
On 2013-06-23 19:13:46 +0100, Jeff Layman said:

We would, of course, lose honey. And for that alone we should look
after our honeybees!

Indeed we should look after our honeybees and all our pollinating
insects. But what Einstein actually said was "if the bees died..." not
"if the honeybees die". Apparently. So bumble bees are doing a great
job. Just look after ALL the pollinators and plant pollinating insect
attractive plants.

The "Einstein quote" is an urban legend:
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/einstein/bees.asp

--

Jeff

On 2013-06-23 22:04:22 +0100, Jeff Layman said:

On 23/06/2013 19:36, Sacha wrote:
On 2013-06-23 19:13:46 +0100, Jeff Layman said:

We would, of course, lose honey. And for that alone we should look
after our honeybees!

Indeed we should look after our honeybees and all our pollinating
insects. But what Einstein actually said was "if the bees died..." not
"if the honeybees die". Apparently. So bumble bees are doing a great
job. Just look after ALL the pollinators and plant pollinating insect
attractive plants.

The "Einstein quote" is an urban legend:
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/einstein/bees.asp

Hence 'apparently'. Nonetheless, we do need pollinatiing insects!
--

Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon
www.helpforheroes.org.uk