ABF Meets in Fort Worth (2000):  Bill Wilson says Goodbye

 

by

 

Malcolm T.  Sanford

http://apis.shorturl.com

 

Dr. William (Bill) T. Wilson said a formal goodbye to the beekeeping industry at the 57^th meeting of the American Beekeeping Federation in Forth Worth, Texas, January 12, 2000.  Bill’s long and distinguished career began in 1951.  He received his M.S. degree from Colorado State University and his Ph.D. from The Ohio State University.  Over the years, he was leader of the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) honey bee research facilities in both Laramie, WY and Beltsville, MD.  In 1985, he supervised movement of the Laramie facility to Weslaco, TX.  He is now the currently designated lead scientist of the honey bee research group at the recently re-named Kika de la Garza USDA-ARS Subtropical Agricultural Research Center at that location.  Bill will retire from that facility sometime this year, relocating to Seattle. 

 

Bill is one of a number of Dr. Walter Rothenbuhler’s students currently working in apiculture.  They also include Drs. H. Shimanuki at the Beltsville Bee Laboratory and T. Rinderer at the Baton Rouge Facility.  Others trained by Dr. Rothenbuhler are Drs. Anita Collins and Nick Calderone.  Bill Wilson has perhaps become the best example of the beekeeper’s researcher.  He is unabashedly pro beekeeping and has fearlessly stepped into controversial issues squarely on the side of the industry, helping to cut red tape when necessary.  Among his considerable accomplishments, Bill is credited with being instrumental in developing the antibiotic extender patty.  More recently, he has been at the forefront in testing mite treatments and determining resistance to chemical treatments by Varroa.  His facility also provided emergency initial research assistance on small hive beetle (Aethina tumida), when it was discovered in Florida in 1999.  Because Bill continues to help the beekeeping industry adapt to the changes brought on by modern society, he was invited to be the Federation’s keynote speaker with the ambitious assignment to discuss his vision of: “Bee Research Priorities in 2000 and Beyond.” 

 

Bill began with a historical perspective of modern commercial beekeeping.  It has gone from a relative simple enterprise with low overhead and low honey prices that he knew in the 1950s, he said, to something that now has high overhead, but is still plagued with low prices.  Most of the overhead changes have to do with introduction of parasites (introduction of mites and the beetle), developments in migratory beekeeping and demands of the modern business climate.  The future will see more changes, according to Bill, probably in response to a multiplicity of problems that will continue to confront beekeepers. 

 

Bill said commercial beekeeping will be able to survive in the future by getting bigger.  This means consolidation, something other industries have been doing throughout the 1990s.  Larger enterprises have increased efficiency and lower overhead, especially labor.  In addition, they have more opportunities to join with others in strategic relationships.  Thus, Bill suggested beekeepers examine the possibility of partnering with corporate sponsors and/or other agricultural enterprises.  This would provide increased bargaining power in both sales and purchasing.  Improved efficiency may also assist migratory beekeepers in identifying and reducing stress so that their bees will live longer, and produce and pollinate better.

 

In the next few years, Bill predicted that the beekeeping industry’s current preoccupation with parasites, diseases and pests will continue.  In addition new species may emerge to challenger U.S. beekeepers, including other exotic mites now found in Asia or the African cape bee (Apis mellifera capensis), which is now devastating areas in the Republic of South Africa where it has been transported out of its native range.  Treatments and application methods will no doubt change with the times, Bill said.  He sees on the horizon use of both hard and smart chemicals, such as Apistan® and CheckMite+® with slow release and better targeting.  These will be combined with soft materials like formic acid that are less toxic, but, presently not as effective as the hard chemicals.

 

Besides treatments, honey bee breeding will also change in the future, Bill said.  Genetic selection has great potential and there has been excellent progress in this area, however, chemicals will still play a role in controlling pest populations, as is currently the case with modern integrated pest management (IPM) practices.  Crops, too, may be genetically modified to attract bees and perhaps produce more pollen/nectar.  Bee stocks will develop under human selection pressure, although we will not see increases in some basic biological functions, like egg-laying potential.  It is possible, however, Bill said, that bees may be selected to fly under more adverse conditions, be better pollinators or store and process more honey.

 

The mission of honey bee research in both the ARS and universities will be the same as it always has Bill said.  It must continue to strive to provide dependable, useful information, leading to alternatives that beekeepers can use.  The big challenge is to keep up with the constant changes that are likely to appear.  These might include coping with novel diseases or parasites (and developments in current controls such as developing resistance), screening a multiplicity of chemical control agents, determining new management techniques, evaluating plants’ importance to honey bees, promulgating new regulations, and developing new honey bee products.  In addition, innovative uses for honey bees never before considered will be part of the mix, Bill said, mentioning work by Dr. Jerry Bromenshenk and his team at the University of Montana.  Research, he concluded, will provide the tools the bee industry needs including staff with technical training, an understanding of the scientific method, equipment and instrumentation, but the beekeeper must ultimately be the one to produce the needed funding through political participation. 

 

In the future, there will probably be more beekeeper involvement with research.  The regulators will also be involved as has recently happened in Florida with small hive beetle study.  Cooperation of this kind with researchers has a lot to recommend it.  Both producers and regulators have lots of field experience and access to colonies.  They are excellent observers and can easily spot problems associated with studies and provide counsel on the final practicality of management techniques.  Part and parcel of this, Bill cautioned, is that beekeepers must be more careful than in the past in employing informal experimental results, particularly chemical treatments.  This is especially true when it comes to either providing or receiving data on the information superhighway (Internet). 

 

Bill also predicts more contributions to beekeeping by beekeepers.  Those in the past have ranged from the Langstroth Hive to Ross Rounds® to migratory beekeeping practices.  Extractors, uncappers, smokers, loaders and dozens of other equipment innovations have enabled beekeepers to improve their management in many ways. 

 

Recent improvements in communication between beekeeping industry leaders and researchers, especially those in ARS, should get even better in the future, Bill said.  Administrators regard beekeepers as customers and stakeholders.  In addition, ARS is engaging in technology transfer, looking at this as the end product.  As part of this, they are also taking the lead in bringing commodity groups together, which might produce a synergy of efforts, leading to win-win situations when it comes to confronting production problems.  Beekeepers have helped in this effort, Bill said, by serving on liaison committees and going to political leaders to secure needed funding.  He urged those in attendance to demand nothing less than the best from honey bee research.

 

Areas of future concern, according to Bill, are effects of recent developments in plant breeding and a decline in agriculture in general leading to the necessity of developing a stronger policy concerning food production as a strategic issue.  We don’t really know what plant genetists are up to, Bill said.  Some ideas may be bad for beekeeping in general, such as developing varieties of almond or apple that don’t require pollination.  The use of genetically modified plants (GMOs) may also affect beekeeping in ways we don’t know or haven’t yet considered. 

 

If agriculture continues to decline, Bill asked what might be the effect on large-scale pollination.  One place to look is at other commodities, which have the same underlying price problems as honey production.  Trends here are not encouraging.  The U.S. appears to be giving up its role as the world’s food producer, Bill said.  The conventional wisdom is that agriculture is inefficient and outdated, and that food can be had easily from areas where production costs are lower.  Bill sees this as a dangerous precedent.  The military was not disbanded after the Berlin wall came down, he said, even though threats were reduced.  Why should food be treated differently?  Are we gambling with our food supply when we employ free trade (GATT and NAFTA)?  What if those who say we are only two major crop failures away from international famine are correct?

 

The best way to promote U.S. agriculture, Bill said, is to empanel a prestigious group of scientists and lay persons with adequate financial backing and the power to influence congress to make food production and storage vital to the national existence.  Bill concluded that beekeepers cannot do this by themselves, but could lead the way, in the process ensuring that large-scale pollination will survive as a vital part of this initiative.  In summary, Bill concluded, beekeepers should actively form alliances with other groups in a joint effort to maintain a strong agriculture well into the future.  Doing nothing, keeping one’s fingers’ crossed and hoping for the best are not simply suitable alternatives. 

 

Risk Management: Focus of the Federation Convention

 

The official motto of the convention was “Seeking New Ways to be Profitable in 2000 and Beyond.”  The key to this that many presentations emphasized was appropriate risk management, the ability to judge the effects of uncertainty in the modern business climate.  Steve Conlon, National Honey Board chair, provided his analysis of the current honey marketing situation.  It is easy to produce honey, Mr. Conlon said.  The difficulty comes in selling it.  Promotion is essential in the process and what the Board is charged with doing.

 

The long-range focus of the Board is changing, according to Mr. Conlon.  Honey is now being considered “more than just a food.”  This means that research is becoming more emphasized.  It is now important to scientifically validate much of the conventional wisdom about honey’s effect on human health.  When this is accomplished it will be possible to market the product in other venues as a nutraceutical, burn treatment or antioxidant.  This ties into risk management as well, both within the context of new products and more incentive to adulterate.

 

Mr. Conlon discussed recent changes at the National Honey Board; including the decision to hire a new manager in preference to designating a consulting group to run day-to-day operations.  Delegates are currently interviewing candidates for the leadership position now provided by Bob Smith.  Mr Smith is expected to stay on in a consulting capacity to help orient his successor.

 

As a follow up to this presentation, Mr. Bruce Beekman discussed the importance of keeping honey clean, especially from bacterial spores, given the National Honey Board’s emphasis on promoting honey use in new products.  This is particularly true when honey is added as an ingredient.  Although pure honey keeps spores from developing, when diluted as an addition to other products, the spores can develop.  In addition, Mr. Beekman discussed the issue of adulteration within the context of this program, and the possibility that more honey testing will be carried out by both packers and beekeepers.  The Board’s pride program was discussed as it relates to both adulteration and cleanliness of honey.  An elaborate pamphlet has been developed by to inform the beekeeping community about these issues.  It is available from the Baord at:

 

Dr. Carl Shafer, retired professor of agricultural economics at Texas A & M University discussed world honey prices.  The year 1996, with its historically high prices, was anomaly, Dr. Shafer said.  Supply is ultimately the price driver for honey and there is plenty of that now with imports continuing to climb.  In addition, the current price, when deflated against the Cost of Living Index, is actually lower than it appears.  For example. $.58/pound honey is really $.43, when properly deflated!

 

Honey supply and thus price is dependent on several factors, Dr. Shafer said.  These include production, marketing margins, imports, and stocks, the amount on hand.  There has been a significant shift in the latter variable, according to Dr. Shafer, that is helping to drive today’s market.  Government stocks are gone and this makes many suppliers nervous.  These were a buffer that could be used when conditions soured and supply suffered.  Now that world stocks are in command, there is consequently much more price volatility.  Conditions are not expected to change as long as we continue to find ourselves in a Wallmart®-Kmart® age, Dr. Shafer said. Other commodities are in the same boat with free trade policy being what it is and so honey producers should not feed totally alone.  Unfortunately, there is little possibility of hedging on honey using the financial markets to minimize risk as is done with many other world commodities.  He concluded with the phrase: “Welcome to the free market.”  

 

Producers should consider risk management as a way to improve profitability, according to Dr. Jim Sartwelle of Texas A & M University.  Again, this is true no matter what the commodity.  Most farming operations are highly leveraged and capital intensive.  Producers should, therefore, focus on profitability rather than protfits, Dr. Sartwelle said.  Risk equals uncertainly and risk management is attempting to find a preferred combination of activities to increase profitability or margin.  Margin is a measure of how close one is to being in or out of business and the dynamic is always present that the next most vulnerable person in business could be the one to fail.  Since this is true across all commodities, Dr. Sartwelle discussed the concept and development of the Texas Risk Management Education Project funded by the Texas Legislature<http://trmep.tamu.edu/>. 

 

Risk management is based on knowing the costs of production.  Without these, it is impossible to market because profitability will be only guesswork.  The risk education program covers sources of risk such as price and yield variability and changes in input costs and environmental regulations.  It discusses a large number of specific strategies, including debt management, enterprise diversification, forward contracting, selling and hedging.  This information is all available free on the World Wide Web <http://trmep.tamu.edu/guide.htm >, and it is also possible to receive the risk management guide via regular mail. The cost is $150, which includes two 4-inch notebooks.  To purchase the curriculum guide, please make the check payable to: TAEX Account 222114, and mail it to: Dean McCorkle,Texas Agricultural Extension Service,Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843-2124.

 

Several beekeeping operations have taken risk management to heart.  They have repositioned themselves for survival in the new millennium.  Pat Heikam discussed becoming a pollination broker of sorts.  In essence handling others’ bees for almond pollination.  Growers are better served under this system.  They get a steady supply of good-quality bees and are able to hold someone accountable for pollination.  Beekeepers get more stable and predictable prices for their pollinating bees under this system.  Darrel Rufer, who used to only produce honey, sells both nuclei and splits out of Minnesota.  Pat Niemeyer delivers package bees.  He has purchased a special truck (equipped with insulation and sprinklers) that ensures the bees make it to their destination in the best shape possible.  Finally, Fred Rossman has shifted much of his queen and package bee business into making equipment.  No doubt all of the above operators employed risk management analysis in determining the profitability of such ventures.

 

One of the best possibilities for reducing one’s risk mentioned on the Texas Risk Management Education Project is forming cooperatives.  That was the topic discussed by Mr. James Matson, Cooperative Marketing Specialist, of the USDA’s Rural-Business Cooperative Service.  Cooperatives often fill expressed needs, Mr. Matson said, and they can improve bargaining power tremendously.  Costs can be reduced and products and services not available to single entrepreneurs may be bargained for collectively.  In comparison to corporations owned by stockholders, cooperatives are owned by the members.  Some special benefits of cooperatives include single tax treatment and limited anti trust exemption.  Cooperatives also provide marketing power, diverse ownership, access to value chains and markets (more direct contact with the consumer), ability to provide vertical product control and, of course, risk sharing.

 

Unfortunately, the idea of a cooperative is sometimes difficult to sell to farmers Mr. Matson said.  His analogy was that getting producers to cooperate  is often comparable to “herding cats.”  There are also some pitfalls, including boards of directors that may try to micromanage.  Most successful coops have professional management, which is one way to establish objective control.  On the other hand, the manager must also be able to relate to the member owners.  Very few beekeeping cooperatives seem to have survived for long periods, Mr. Matson, said.  He suggested that case studies done on those that have longevity would be valuable exercises.  The USDA publishes several documents on cooperatives, including a circular on how to begin their formation.  The Rural Business-Cooperative Web site <http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/csdir.htm> has some good information.  A financial profile of the top 100 cooperatives in both 1996 and 1997is found there.  A publication on how to develop a business plan can be found on the Small Business Administration’s site. <http://www.sba.gov/starting/indexbusplans.html>.

 

No Federation convention in recent years would be complete without mention of Varroa.  This one was no exception.  First, a new treatment has been rolled out with formic acid at its base.  This material should now be available in bee supply outlets.  Although soft chemicals are not as effective as hard ones, a degree of control can be achieved and the material is useful as an alternative to those to which mites have become resistant.  Where already available, generally speaking soft materials are applied in the Spring if there is a major infestation.  This leaves the fall to apply the most effective materials, ensuring a maximum supply of winter bees during the off season.