Pollination Australia

Research and Development Priorities

Michael Clarke

April 2008

RIRDC Publication No 08/055 RIRDC Project No PRJ-002582

ISBN 1 74151 275 1 ISSN 1440-6845

Pollination Australia: Research and development priorities Publication No 08/055 Project No. PRJ-002582

The information contained in this publication is intended for general use to assist public knowledge and discussion and to help improve the development of sustainable regions. You must not rely on any information contained in this publication without taking specialist advice relevant to your particular circumstances.

While reasonable care has been taken in preparing this publication to ensure that information is true and correct, the Commonwealth of Australia gives no assurance as to the accuracy of any information in this publication.

The Commonwealth of Australia, the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC), the authors or contributors expressly disclaim, to the maximum extent permitted by law, all responsibility and liability to any person, arising directly or indirectly from any act or omission, or for any consequences of any such act or omission, made in reliance on the contents of this publication, whether or not caused by any negligence on the part of the Commonwealth of Australia, RIRDC, the authors or contributors.

The Commonwealth of Australia does not necessarily endorse the views in this publication.

This publication is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, all other rights are reserved. However, wide dissemination is encouraged. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the RIRDC Publications Manager on phone 02 6271 4165.

Researcher Contact Details Michael Clarke AgEconPlus Pty Ltd 44 Barons Crescent Hunters Hill NSW 2110

Phone: 02 9817 5888 Fax: 02 9816 4840 Email: [email protected] Web: http://www.AgEconPlus.com.au

RIRDC Contact Details Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation Level 2, Pharmacy Guild House 15 National Circuit BARTON ACT 2600 PO Box 4776 KINGSTON ACT 2604

Phone: 02 6271 4100 Fax: 02 6271 4199 Email: [email protected] Web: http://www.rirdc.gov.au

Published in April 2008

Foreword

This report is the result of a consultancy which aimed to establish research and development (R&D) priorities for ‘Pollination Australia’, an industry alliance between the honeybee industry, as providers of pollination services, and those horticultural and agricultural industries, which are dependent on honeybee pollination.

The project objective was to ensure effective investment in R&D projects to secure horticulture and agriculture’s ongoing access to reliable, consistent quality and cost effective pollination services without which many Australian rural industries would not be productive.

The need for well organised and structured R&D priorities has its genesis at the Honeybee Industry Linkages workshop in Canberra in April 2007. The workshop was funded by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) under its Advancing Agricultural Industries Program (Advancing Industries) and by the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC). The workshop was attended by stakeholders across a range of pollination and pollination dependent industries. At the workshop, the pollination industry agreed to form an entity known as ‘Pollination Australia’, prepare a business plan for that entity and complete three linked consultancies to inform the business plan. The additional consultancies to this R&D priorities report included a risk management assessment and an education and training strategy for the pollination industry. Advancing Industries and RIRDC are providing support for the formation of the industry alliance and for the development and endorsement of a business plan.

The purpose of this document is to provide stakeholders with background information on what R&D is being done on the pollination industry, possible needs and knowledge gaps and a prioritised list of R&D projects. A brief review of the ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ of R&D funding models is also provided.

This report has been prepared as part of a project for the Australian Government’s Advancing Agricultural Industries Program and the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation.

This report, an addition to RIRDC’s diverse range of over 1800 research publications, forms part of our Honeybee R&D program, which aims to improve the productivity and profitability of the Australian beekeeping industry.

Most of our publications are available for viewing, downloading or purchasing online through our website:

• downloads at www.rirdc.gov.au/fullreports/index.html • purchases at www.rirdc.gov.au/eshop

Peter O’Brien Managing Director Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation

iii

Abbreviations

AFB American Foulbrood AHA Animal Health Australia AHBIC Australian Honeybee Industry Council AHGA Australian Hydroponic and Greenhouse Association ARRIP Australian Rural Research in Progress EADRA Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement EFB European Foulbrood CCD Colony Collapse Disorder CIE Centre for International Economics CPI Consumer Price Index CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation DAFF Australian Government Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries DPI Department of Primary Industries FSANZ Food Standards Australia New Zealand GM Genetically modified GVP Gross Value of Production IAPV Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus KPI Key Performance Indicator MoU Memorandum of Understanding MRL Minimum Residue Level NLIS National Livestock Identification System NZ New Zealand OTC oxytetracycline hydrochloride pa per annum PBR Plant Breeders Rights PIBs Peak Industry Bodies PHA Plant Heath Australia QA Quality Assurance R&D Research and Development RDC Research and Development Corporation RIRDC Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation SIAA Seed Industry Association of Australia SME Small to Medium Enterprises US United States of America

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge the assistance of RIRDC and the Pollination Australia Steering Committee. In particular we wish to thank the following individuals for their assistance with the project: • Des Cannon, Chair RIRDC Honeybee R&D Advisory Committee • Lindsay Burke, Honeybee Quarantine and Disease Specialist, Tasmania • Stephen Fewster, Chairman, AHBIC • Stephen Ware, Executive Director, AHBIC • Max Whitten, Adjunct Professor, Department of Integrative Biology, University of Qld • Dr Paul de Barro, CSIRO • Dr Denis Anderson, CSIRO • Doug Somerville, NSW DPI • Gerald Martin, PIRSA • Julie Haslett, Almond Board of Australia • Warwick Scherf and Kim James, HAL • Tanya Stacpoole and Damien Bond, DAFF • Greg Martin, Dr Jenny Gordon, CIE • Michael Monck and Dr George Reeves, CIE • David Brous and Rob Keogh, Impact Consulting • Mark Goodwin, HortResearch New Zealand • Margie Thomson and Lea Edwards, RIRDC

Contents

Foreword...... iii Abbreviations...... iv Acknowledgments...... v Executive Summary ...... viii What the report is about ...... viii Who is the report targeted at?...... viii Background ...... viii Aims/objectives...... viii Methods used...... ix Results/key findings ...... ix Implications for relevant stakeholders...... x Recommendations ...... x 1. Study purpose ...... 1 1.1 Introduction ...... 1 1.2 Objectives...... 1 2. Conceptual framework ...... 2 PART 1:WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE CURRENT POLLINATION INDUSTRY ...... 4 3. Profile and importance of honeybee pollination to Australian industries ...... 4 3.1 Overview ...... 4 3.2 Crops dependent on honeybee pollination ...... 5 3.3 Commercial pollination service supply chain ...... 6 3.4 Commercial, operational, biological asymmetries in the Australian pollination industry ...... 7 4. Current effectiveness of paid pollination services ...... 9 4.1 General relevant research ...... 9 4.2 The economics of pollination...... 11 4.3 Optimal size of the honeybee pollination industry...... 12 4.4 The Technical Attributes of an Effective Paid Pollination Service...... 12 4.5 Research gaps and needs to improve the effectiveness of paid pollination services...... 12 5. Resource access and ecology...... 14 6. Other honeybee R&D issues...... 16 6.1 Beehive health/strength ...... 16 6.2 Honeybee production ...... 16 6.3 Stock improvement...... 17 6.4 Biotechnology ...... 18 6.5 Gaps and needs for other honeybee R&D issues...... 19 PART 2:THREATS AND SUSTAINABILITY OF THE POLLINATION INDUSTRY ...... 20 7. Exotic pests and diseases and the risk of incursion ...... 20 7.1 General relevant research ...... 20 7.2 Varroa mite (Varroa destructor) ...... 22 7.3 Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) ...... 26 7.4 Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus (IAPV) ...... 26 7.5 Asian Mite (Tropilaelaps clareae) ...... 27 7.6 Tracheal mite/Acarine Diseases ...... 27 7.7 Africanised Bee ...... 28 7.8 Cape Honeybee ...... 28 7.9 Other bees – Giant and Asian...... 28 7.10 Exotic pest and disease implications ...... 28 8. Endemic honeybee pests and diseases...... 29 8.1 Braula Fly/Bee Louse...... 29

8.2 Wax Moth...... 29 8.3 Nosema (Nosema apis)...... 29 8.4 Nosema (Nosema ceranae)...... 30 8.5 American Foulbrood (AFB) ...... 31 8.6 European Foulbrood (EFB)...... 32 8.7 Chalkbrood...... 32 8.8 Sacbrood Virus...... 33 8.9 Small Hive Beetle...... 33 8.10 Other present/potential endemic pests and diseases...... 34 8.11 Gaps and needs pollinator pest and disease research ...... 36 9. Future resource issues...... 37 9.1 Threat of restricted resource access and R&D needs ...... 37 9.2 Threat of climate change and R&D needs...... 37 9.3 Effect of honey prices...... 37 9.4 Other future resource issues ...... 38 PART 3: IMPROVING THE POLLINATION INDUSTRY, MINIMISING RISKS...... 39 10. Alternative pollinators ...... 39 10.1 General relevant research ...... 39 10.2 Bumblebees ...... 39 10.3 Leafcutter bees ...... 41 10.4 Other exotics ...... 41 10.5 Native bees and other native pollinators ...... 41 10.6 Mechanical or hand pollination techniques...... 43 10.7 Plant breeding to reduce dependence on insect pollination...... 43 10.8 Lessons learned – alternative pollinators ...... 43 11. Incursion risk minimisation ...... 45 12. Education and better information ...... 45 13. Economics of pollination...... 46 PART 4: WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR R&D?...... 47 14. Consultation findings ...... 47 14.1 Consultation approach...... 47 14.2 Workshop outcomes...... 47 14.3 Stakeholder comment on higher priority projects ...... 49 PART 5: R&D PRIORITIES AND THEIR FUNDING ...... 50 15. Description of proposed R&D projects ...... 50 15.1 Cost/benefit method ...... 50 Project 1: Surveillance best practice...... 50 Project 2: Resource access - landscape management for pollination...... 52 Project 3: Improving the economics of pollination ...... 54 Project 4: Pest and disease management to ensure the ongoing supply of pollinator services.... 56 Project 5: Living with Varroa – management practices ongoing supply pollination services..... 58 Project 6: Alternative pollinator/reduced insect dependency research...... 59 Project 7: Pollination best management practices – Crop by crop guide ...... 60 16. Project budgets and program scheduling...... 61 17. R&D funding models...... 64 17.1 Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) application...... 64 17.2 Independent commercially oriented research institute ...... 65 17.3 Research and development corporation (RDC) cooperative alliance...... 65 17.4 Establish a new RDC funded with a new levy ...... 66 17.5 Public good...... 66 18. Conclusion...... 67 References ...... 69

vii

Executive Summary

What the report is about This report is an investigation of current research and development into the control of present and potential exotic pest or disease incursions that could affect the pollination industry, beehive health, production, ecology (environment), climate change, stock improvement and biotechnology. It investigates the effectiveness of paid pollination currently being undertaken and the use of alternative pollinators to the European honeybee. It develops a list of priorities for research and development for the Australian pollination industry.

Who is the report targeted at? The report is targeted at potential investors in the ‘Pollination Australia’ industry alliance.

Background Pollination of Australian crops by European honeybees is largely taken for granted – pollination being provided by European honeybees managed for honey production or by feral European bees. About 20% of hives are currently used for paid pollination services.

Many horticultural crops are highly reliant on European honeybees. Some pasture species and broadacre crops are reliant to a varying degree on honeybees for pollination.

Several issues threaten to upset traditional relationships between beekeepers and producers.

The prospective marked increase in demand for managed pollination services will result in some producers having to pay for pollination services and, relative to the current prices, pollination service charges will increase substantially. Even though these higher prices would encourage expansion of the industry, there are likely to be constraints to the rate of industry expansion, especially recognising the time and resources required to train and equip additional beekeepers.

In seeking to establish Pollination Australia, studies were commissioned to identify the scope and funds needed to address potential biosecurity risks, research and development and education and training. This document is the research and development study outcome. A business plan is being developed for Pollination Australia which includes findings from all three research projects.

Aims/objectives The objectives of this study were to: investigate current R&D into Varroa mite and its control, and other exotic (and endemic) pests and diseases which could potentially impact on the pollination industry investigate current R&D into beehive health, production, ecology (environment), climate change, stock improvement and biotechnology investigate the effectiveness of paid pollination services investigate use of alternative pollinators to European honeybees develop a list of priorities for R&D within the Australian pollination industry.

The goal of R&D investment was:

To provide a framework to shape and prioritise future research, development and extension that will secure the pollination of Australia’s horticultural and agricultural crops into the future.

viii

Methods used The study required review of the current scientific literature, preparation of a project discussion paper, consultation with research providers and other stakeholders, a priority identification workshop, project development and costing.

Results/key findings The research, development and extension projects that will drive Pollination Australia, their expected cost and priority order are outlined below: 1. Surveillance best practice – research to ensure Varroa or a similar catastrophic pest or disease incursion does not destroy our primary pollinator (the European honeybee). This will include research into sentinel hive and baited hive best practice, development of appropriate surveillance monitoring, sampling, reporting and incentive systems for incorporation into B- Qual, and development of materials and systems to engage amateur beekeepers in Varroa identification and reporting. (A total cost of $370,000) 2. Resource access – landscape management for pollinatioN. Through a suite of research initiatives ensure that floral resources are available to honeybees to permit the ‘build-up’ of hive strength prior to providing pollination services. Research initiatives will include the investigation of New Zealand hive ‘build-up’ practices, improved artificial diets, ‘bee farms’, revegetation, alliances with timber companies and the encouragement of native pollinators. This project will also include social/political science research to understand community attitudes to introduced species in protected areas. Further investment in ecological data that may show bees have no impact in native forests is not proposed. ($200,000 pa for five years) 3. Improving the economics of pollination – investigate opportunities for improving productivity performance in pollination in view of forecast growth in pollination demand, especially in horticulture. Complete outstanding research on a prioritised crop-by-crop basis that will demonstrate the economic advantage of moving from current pollination to optimal pollination and the losses that will be incurred from a Varroa, or similar, incursioN. Review further opportunities for productivity improvement in pollination resulting from Varroa management. Complete research to understand the role of feral bees/incidental pollination on a regional crop/pasture basis especially in relation to broadacre crops. Outputs from this research are to be used in an education and communication campaign to ‘sign up’ Australian plant industries to the Pollination Australia alliance. (A total cost of $150,000) 4. Pest and disease management to ensure the ongoing supply of pollination services – protect the European honeybee through research into diagnostics, biosecurity plans, hive tracking and an associated national database, bee breeding, pest and disease management under pollination conditions, understanding Nosema ceranae and Colony Collapse Disorder and being responsive to other pest and disease threats as they emerge. The major thrust of this project will be research into the production of honeybees that are genetically resistant to Varroa. ($850,000 pa for 5 years) 5. Living with Varroa - management practices for beekeepers and growers: research to understand the changes required in management practices for beekeepers and growers with Varroa established in the Australian landscape. Projects will include investigation of what New Zealand, the US and others have done successfully to manage Varroa. Practical response options will include husbandry practices, chemical management options, avoiding chemical resistance and hive monitoring and checking. ($125,000 pa for 4 years) 6. Alternative pollinator research/reducing insect dependency - to manage the risk of loss of our primary pollinator (European honeybee) through a catastrophic pest or disease outbreak. This project will invest in long-term research into alternative, mainly native, pollinators. It will also include research to reduce crop dependency on insect-mediated pollination – self-pollinating plant varieties and mechanical pollination options. ($100,000 pa for 5 years)

7. Pollination best management practices - the objective of this project is to research and document, on a crop-by-crop basis, pollination best management practice guidelines in a post Varroa setting. The project would include bee behaviour research in individual crops i.e. navigation and foraging behaviour. The outcome of this research will be a series of guidelines capable of shifting Australian horticultural and agricultural industries from current pollination levels to optimal pollination levels, improving enterprise returns and managing with Varroa. This project would make use of economic data generated in the ‘Economic case for pollination’ and the ‘Living with Varroa’ projects and would research bee behaviour in individual crops. The choice of crops for this research would be largely driven by funding sources – since each crop would largely capture the benefits of crop-specific research. ($100,000 pa for 5 years)

R&D portfolio budget The above priority projects combine to form a five-year pollination research program in which investment is scheduled in three parts: protection against Varroa and other pests and diseases anticipation of Varroa post Varroa establishment.

A five-year cash flow is provided in the body of the report.

Pollination R&D funding models Four possible funding models for pollination R&D are identified and the advantages and disadvantages of each reviewed. Further consideration of funding models will need to be made against the long established user/beneficiary pays principle, the presence of ‘public good’ and the Productivity Commission’s report ‘Public Support for Science and Innovation’ (Productivity Commission 2007), including consideration of ‘spillovers’ and ‘additionality’.

Implications for relevant stakeholders This report will provide direction for the Pollination Australia Alliance for future investment and may reduce duplication and missed opportunities in R&D investment.

Recommendations This initial research and development portfolio, developed with the assistance of literature and informed stakeholders, should be refined and expanded as other plant industries reliant on insect pollination are incorporated in the alliance and their priorities are added. Work on ‘portfolio balance’ will also be required to ensure there is an appropriate mix of long-term high cost ‘fundamental’ research (e.g. bee genetics) and short-term immediate payback ‘development’ activities for affected plant industries (e.g. pollination best management practices). Communication and research to support the economic case for pollination is critical to the overall success of the alliance.

Project recommendations, suggested budget and funding models should now be considered by potential investors in Pollination Australia through the Pollination Australia Business Plan (CIE 2008).

1. Study purpose

1.1 Introduction

This report is the outcome of an investigation into current research, development and extension requirements for those horticultural and agricultural industries that depend or benefit from insect pollination with special emphasis on the European Honeybee, Apis mellifera. With the loss of incidental pollination following the likely incursion of Varroa mite (Varroa destructor), it focuses on managed pollination services and therefore on the viability of commercial beekeeping as the principal provider of these services.

Major R&D topics include the threat and control of Varroa mite and other exotic disease or pest incursions, as well as other aspects, which could impact on the future development of a prosperous pollination industry sector. These include beehive health, production, ecology (environment), climate change, stock improvement and biotechnology. The study looks at the effectiveness of paid pollination currently being undertaken and the use of alternative pollinators to European honeybees and includes an assessment of priorities for R&D within the Australian pollination industry. These priorities are based on substantial input from all sectors of the pollination industry.

The study was a component of a broader project, funded under the Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) Advancing Industries program, for the formation of the Pollination Australia industry alliance and for the development and endorsement of a business plan.

1.2 Objectives

The objectives of the study were to: investigate current R&D into Varroa mite and its control, and other exotic (and endemic) pests and diseases which could potentially impact on the pollination industry investigate current R&D into beehive health, production, ecology (environment), climate change, stock improvement and biotechnology investigate the effectiveness of paid pollination services investigate use of alternative pollinators to European honeybees develop a list of priorities for R&D within the Australian pollination industry.

The study identified and prioritised honeybee and pollination dependent industry R&D needs. It determined whether there were specific pollination issues relating to Australian crops and how those issues might be addressed. It also investigated alternative funding models for pollination R&D. A ‘first principles’ approach was adopted that included an assessment of R&D needs, identification of research gaps, prioritisation of new R&D and determination of potential R&D providers.

The project was completed in eight tasks: 1. Finalisation of the study plan with the project steering committee. 2. Literature review – Australian and international. 3. Initial briefing paper preparation. 4. Consultation with current researchers. 5. Briefing paper update - risk analysis, education insights and consultation results. 6. Workshop – to review current research and set future research priorities. 7. Analysis of workshop outcomes and scoping of project options. 8. Draft and final Pollination Australia R&D consultancy report preparation and presentation.

2. Conceptual framework

This chapter outlines a framework for the conduct of this consultancy. This includes linkages to the other two companion consultancies, one on risk management strategies for biosecurity and the other on education and training needs to ensure that the honeybee industry is equipped to deliver on biosecurity strategies. These three consultancies are designed to inform an overarching business plan which is being developed for Pollination Australia by the Centre for International Economics (CIE). CIE is also undertaking an additional assignment to investigate economic aspects of the current pollination industry and assess likely future developments and potential.

Figure 2.1 (over page) provides an overview of the framework for this study. The first key question is 'what do we know about the pollination industry?' This industry at present is not well developed and there are many uncertainties associated with it. Only for a relatively few crops is paid pollination being undertakeN. Yet many agricultural crops and most horticultural crops are highly dependent on pollination which is mostly incidental. The CIE is currently undertaking a detailed study of the pollination industry, including its future potential. This will be a valuable input to this part of our study. In addition, our consultations with key stakeholders, the outcomes of workshops held and our review of the literature, including a review on ongoing research, will provide a good basis to assess the current state of knowledge about the pollination industry. This will enable us to assess knowledge gaps and research opportunities.

The next key question is 'what are the threats to the industry?' If the existence or viability of the honeybee industry is at risk so to is the viability of many horticultural and agricultural crops in Australia - those dependent on pollinatioN. The most important risk factor is the potential incursion and establishment of Varroa. This and other biosecurity risk factors are being studied in detail in one of the companion consultancies which aim is to develop a risk management strategies for biosecurity. This will provide a valuable input to our consideration of R&D gaps and priorities.

Biosecurity issues are not the only source of risk to the pollination industry. Other issues such as access to pollen and nectar resources, especially access to native forests, are also very important. In the longer term, consideration needs to be given to climate change issues as well. Several honeybee industry leaders have expressed concern about future research capacity and availability of experienced researchers. The companion ‘Pollination Australia Education and Training Needs’ consultancy will provide valuable input.

The third key question is 'how can the risks to future sustainability be minimised, and how can the pollination industry be improved - what R&D needs to be done now to put the industry on the best path?' This question was addressed at the Pollination Australia R&D Workshop held at Rydges Capital Hill Canberra Thursday 6 December 2007. An important outcome of this workshop was a list of priority R&D projects with specific details on each project. These were further assessed within a benefit cost framework to provide a recommended final list of priority R&D projects together with relevant details on each.

Finally, our study examines how the R&D component of Pollination Australia's work plan can best be funded. This issue was considered in depth at the December R&D Workshop.

The outcomes of this consultancy will be utilised by the CIE in the development of a business plan for Pollination Australia.

Figure 2.1 A framework for assessing R&D priorities for Pollination Australia

CIE Consultancy on pollination industry

Outcomes of April 2007 Workshop What do we know Identify knowledge gaps Literature review about the current and research pollination industry? opportunities

Consultations

December R&D workshop

Risk management Identify key biosecurity strategies consultancy threats and associated • Biosecurity R&D Education and training - R&D gaps • What are the threats consultancy to the current pollination industry? Identify other threats

- resource access • Workshops How sustainable is it? - climate change Consultations • - research resources • Literature review - R&D gaps ongoing research

Inputs as above How can risks be Identify and develop minimised and the specific high priority Benefit cost assessment pollination industry R&D projects of R&D priorities improved?

Review of R&D funding models How will R&D Recommended R&D activities be funded? funding model Industry consultations

Key input to development of Pollination Australia’s Business Plan

PART 1:WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE CURRENT POLLINATION INDUSTRY

3. Profile and importance of honeybee pollination to Australian industries

3.1 Overview

The following summary was prepared for the Honeybee Industry Linkages Workshop 2007 and is drawn from Gibbs and Muirhead (1998), Gordon and Davis (2003) and Cook et al (2007).

Honeybee pollination is essential for some crops, while for others it raises yield and quality. Honeybee pollination provides significant value to Australian horticulture and agriculture with services being valued at $1.7 billion per annum in 1999-2000 for the 35 most important honeybee dependent crops (Gordon and Davis 2003). When other crops, including pastures such as lucerne and clover, are added this estimate becomes even larger. If honeybee pollination were to stop completely, large losses would be felt in a horticulture sector that provides produce valued at around $3.8 billion per annum. This is because approximately 65% of horticultural and agricultural crops produced in Australia require pollination services from honeybees. Furthermore, it needs to be noted that feral honeybee populations play a key role in the pollination of pasture plants where paid pollination or even unpaid pollination from managed bees is less significant compared to concentrated horticultural crops.

Figure 3.1 shows a flow diagram of the role honeybees play in the horticulture and broadacre industries. Pollination can occur through feral honeybees, paid pollination services and/or incidental and unpaid pollination from European honeybees. Paid pollination involves employing an apiarist to place bees on the grower’s land in order for the bees to pollinate crops. Honey production is a secondary objective for the apiarist. With incidental pollination, the apiarist’s specific purpose is to produce honey, and pollination of crops is a positive externality received by growers.

Both paid honeybee pollination services and incidental honeybee pollination increase the value of crops to growers through an increase in yield and an increase in quality. This means that pollination has a direct impact on welfare for those growers who benefit from pollination services. In addition, there are positive benefits to the entire agriculture industry due to flow-on effects from an increase in the value of crops, and positive benefits from pollination to consumers as it increases production (thereby putting downward pressure on prices) while providing better quality products.

It has been estimated that if honeybee pollination had stopped completely in 1999-2000, the agriculture industry would have experienced a loss of around $1.7 billion in production and consumption, resulting in the loss of around 9,500 jobs. It was also estimated that there would have been short-term flow-on effects which would add an additional $2 billion loss to agricultural industry output and another 11,000 jobs. Partial loss in pollination services would have still resulted in major economic costs. Even if dependence on pollination were half that assumed in this study the direct loss to Australia would have been $0.6 billion per annum. This shows that honeybee pollination is very important to horticultural industries (Gordon and Davis 2003). Inclusion of pasture species and the full range of agricultural crops only increases this impact. For example, clover pollination is the most important pollination job that honeybees perform in New Zealand.

The speed with which Australian horticulture Figure 3.1 Economic benefits attributable to honeybee pollination services and agriculture would recover from a loss in honeybee pollination services of the type that might occur from an incursion of Varroa mite will depend on several factors. One is the extent that other pollinators can replace the honeybee. In the case of large production systems such as almonds and canola no other insect pollinator is possible so a loss in honeybee pollination services would represent a direct loss to these industries. A second factor is the profitability of current crops and their ability to absorb additional production expenses. A third is the impact on markets from a large-scale switch in enterprises, including the diversion of exports back onto the Australian market and the potential for imports to pass quarantine and ‘plug’ local production gaps.

3.2 Crops dependent on honeybee pollination

Gordon and Davis (2003) identify 35 Australian horticultural and agricultural industries dependent on honeybee pollination for a significant part of their production using a methodology developed by Gill (1989). The 35 crops identified were ‘largely honeybee pollination dependent’ and had readily available data. Their list excluded a wide range of pastures, including lucerne and clover.

Cook et al (2007) model 25 crops dependent on honeybee pollination, 13 of which avoid costs of over $1 million pa from the maintenance of pollination services. These 25 crops were selected as important and fitting within the ‘technical limitations’ of their model (see Chart 3.2 below).

Figure 3.2 Twenty five crops that will benefit from protection of honeybee pollination services1

5,000

4,500 4,000

3,500

3,000 2,500

2,000

1,500

($'000/yr) Exclusion to Attributable 1,000 Benefit Pollination Average Estimated 500 0 Almond Blueberry Sunflower Pumpkin Cherry Cucumber Apple Plum Apricot Nectarine Peach Field Pea Nut Macadamia Nashi) (Not Pear Strawberry Mandarin Orange Mangoes Lemon & Lime Canola Lupin Avocado Watermelon Rockmelon Zucchini

Source: Cook et al 2007

Plant Industry

This R&D project considers all industries identified by Gordon and Davis (2003), those modelled by Cook et al (2007) along with lucerne and clover pastures.

3.3 Commercial pollination service supply chain

The commercial pollination service supply chain involves a beekeeper delivering an agreed number of hives to a location specified by the pollination service customer on a specified date and leaving them there for an agreed period, usually a few weeks, to allow the bees to effect the pollination of the customer’s crop or pasture.

Such a simple description grossly understates a process that may require the beekeeper to commence preparing the hives to perform the service months in advance and may render the hives so depleted by the performance of the service that they require a further period of months to recover before they can be of further commercial value to the beekeeper. The degree of depletion depends on the nature of the crop in which the hives are placed.

Such a description may not adequately reflect the requirement for: the preparation of the hives to occur at a location some hundreds of kilometres from the site at which the service is performed hive recovery which, in some cases, may require transport of the hives to a third location a similar distance removed, in a different direction followed by a further move, for a significant distance, to a fourth location where they resume activities that produce a commercial return to the beekeeper from honey production or provision of further pollination services.

1 Canola is included in this list. It is noted that broadacre canola crop production is an activity of mutual benefit for growers and beekeepers but that the canola seed industry is one that is very taxing on pollination service providers. 6

Figure 3.3 Beehive management for crop pollination – a beekeepers view

Source: Parker 1989

The combination of activities that precede and follow the performance of a particular commercial pollination service will be determined by the interaction of a number of factors including: the time of the year at which the service is required the species and variety of the crop to be pollinated the location of the crop weather conditions at the time and at the site of the crop to be pollinated seasonal conditions and floral resources at the various sites where preparation or recovery of the hives may occur access to availability of apiary sites at those locations the nature, location and timing of other demands for pollination services the incidence and severity of pest and disease burdens at each point along this supply chain.

Given such complexity and uncertainty, it is inevitable that risks for both parties to a commercial pollination service contract arise at various points along the supply chaiN. Some of these risks are, to a greater or lesser extent, within the control of one party to the agreement or the other, but many are outside the control of both parties.

3.4 Commercial, operational, biological asymmetries in the Australian pollination industry

Any consideration of the Australian pollination industry must recognise and take account of a number of significant asymmetries between those components requiring pollination services and those capable of providing those services. Many of these asymmetries also apply in other countries but some are either unique to the Australian industry or displayed in the extreme when compared to the circumstances prevailing in these other places. They include: Commercial Asymmetries o revenue earned from paid pollination services is minute compared to the value attributable to those services o the revenue the beekeeping industry derives from the provision of paid pollination services is very small compared to that derived from other beekeeping activities, mainly honey production.

Operational Asymmetries o enterprises most heavily dependent upon pollination services require those services for only about four weeks each year o managing hives to provide these services may involve a 12 to 18 month cycle, and o a major concern for growers of pollination dependent crops is the quality of the management of the hives that perform the lesser part of the pollination service yet in many situations growers attribute the majority of pollination to feral hives the quality of which they cannot ascertain or, by definition, control. Biological Asymmetries o some of the species most heavily dependent upon pollination require pollination at a time when hives, both managed and feral, are naturally not normally in a condition to meet the requirement o most of the crops most heavily dependent on pollination deliver little by way of nectar to sustain the hives pollinating them and therefore, by extension, even less, by way of honey to the apiarists providing the hives, whilst the floral resources that are most rewarding to apiarists in terms of honey flows have little or no requirement for pollination by honeybees o the requirement for commercial pollination services is generally quite time-specific and highly predictable, whilst in Australia, the events that produce the most honey and which are often used to condition hives to provide pollination services are generally imprecise and comparatively unpredictable. Biosecurity Asymmetry o feral hives that currently perform the majority of pollination activity in Australia’s pollination dependent industries represent the greatest biosecurity risk to themselves, managed hives and pollination dependent industries.

These asymmetries need to be taken into account when assessing the effectiveness of paid pollination services.

4. Current effectiveness of paid pollination services

This chapter investigates the effectiveness of paid pollination services by reviewing the economics of pollination (reasons why the service might not currently be effective), the optimal size of the honeybee pollination industry (CIE 2007a – forthcoming) and the delivery of the technical attributes that determine the effectiveness of paid pollination services (for example, timing, rotation, removal, stocking rate, pollen management). Research gaps and needs to improve the effectiveness of paid pollination services are also identified.

4.1 General relevant research

A common issue revealed in the literature review, across all plant industries is the undersupply of pollination services.

Future directions for the Australian honeybee industry – Pollination (CIE 2005)

Apiarists who provide pollination services have limited ability to capture the value generated for horticulture due to lack of information on the part of some beekeepers and horticulturalists. There is difficulty in controlling the quality of paid honeybee pollination services within the industry as some apiarists supply below strength hives, are unsure of stocking rates, and available colony management techniques. They also have clients who don’t understand the advantages of pollination, which is to the detriment of skilled pollinators. Well-publicised industry standards for the supply of pollination services are needed along with an education program for growers receiving pollination services.

There is a high risk2 faced by honeybee pollinators from chemical spray drift used by neighbouring growers. In addition, labels on chemicals used by growers do not identify whether they are dangerous to bees34. Currently there are not enough hives available for the expected demand in pollination services. This is in part because the supply of honeybees for pollination has been limited by drought and access to public forests. This problem also has an economic dimension – hives will be provided if the financial incentive is sufficient for beekeepers. For example in New Zealand in 1990 it was predicted that there were not going to be enough hives to pollinate the rapidly increasing kiwifruit industry by 2000. The demand for hives was increasing much faster than the increase that was occurring in hive numbers in New Zealand. However, the shortfall never occurred. New Zealand kiwifruit growers were forced to pay higher prices for hives, which encouraged beekeepers to increase their hive numbers and for new beekeepers to enter the industry. A shortfall would have occurred if kiwifruit growers could not have afforded to pay higher prices to rent beehives.

Actions suggested in a May 2005 pollination workshop in Orange, NSW, included (CIE 2005): Development of industry education programs for apiarists on correctly pricing paid pollination services as well as education on industry standards, and regional coordination to ensure pollination services are effective. Paid pollinators need to market the benefits of honeybee pollination to horticultural and agricultural producers through advertisements and articles in agricultural journals. Information provision to government would also assist with ongoing access to public forests. Increased coordination between apiarists, seed companies and agricultural and horticultural producers. Joint research needs to be undertaken between these industries on improving the effectiveness of honeybee pollination in order to maximise the benefits of paid honeybee pollination services.

2 This is a low risk in New Zealand. 3 Bee safety statements are a requirement of pesticides used in New Zealand. 4 Even those chemicals that do carry warnings regarding their risk to bees need more meaningful statements e.g. how long are the chemicals toxic to bees in days after application. 9

In addition to these suggestions growers should be educated on the importance in better managing their pollination so they can see the value of paying more for a better pollination.

Analysis of the Market for Pollination Services in Australia (Michael Monk CIE in progress)

This project identifies those factors that determine the supply and demand for pollination services in Australia and assesses the size and scope of such a market. Furthermore it examines the impact of a Varroa incursion and the difference in returns that would arise from a proactive development of the industry versus a reactive ex post response by industry.

This project is an input into the Pollination Australia business plan.

Importance of Pollination and Pollination Services – New Zealand Situation (Mark Goodwin Honeybee Research Unit, Honeybee Industry Linkages Workshop April 2007)

Pollination is one of the most important factors affecting crop yields and hence profitability. Grower responsibilities include ensuring sufficient flowers are available, bees are protected from pesticides, suitable sites are available to put hives and that the bees have easy access to water. Beekeepers responsibilities include ensuring that colonies are prepared so that sufficient bees will visit the crop, that they are introduced at an appropriate time, sufficient hives are placed in an appropriate location and managed effectively.

To be able to carry this out the pollination requirements needed for each crop need to be established either from the literature or research. Growers and beekeepers then need to be educated on their responsibilities.

In New Zealand, grower and beekeeper industry groups both fund research of interest to both groups, and organise educational opportunities.

The education program is so effective that all growers understand the need for pollination and more than NZ$15 million is paid for pollination services each year.

It is noted that hives are not left in most crops for long enough for honeybee survival to be a problem5.

Inquiry into the Future Development of the Australian Honeybee Industry (House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 2007)

The House of Representatives Discussion Paper (2007)6 noted that research on crop pollination is important. Each plant species has its own pollination characteristics, and these must be identified and addressed to maximise returns from paid pollination services. Moreover, the impact on hive health for each plant species must also be identified (i.e. nectar and pollen production and how well honeybees survive on it).

Importance of Pollination and Pollination Services (James de Barro April 2007)

The seeds industry invests more than $250,000 pa in hives for pollinatioN. There is no correlation between cost of hives and quality of service provided.

North America has a hive-brokering scheme based on standards set on natural European honeybee dynamics. The basis of the scheme is the provision of hives for pollination rather than honey collection.

Since the introduction of Varroa in the US the cost of hives for pollination has increased from $15/hive in 1990 to $110/hive in 2007.

5 The exception here might be cherries grown under nets where bee survival after 14 days is an issue. 6 The House of Representatives Inquiry Discussion Paper was issued to stimulate discussion and is not the formal findings of the Inquiry. Discussion papers are to stimulate discussion only and do not have findings. 10

New Zealand has a similar hive- Protection against Varroa and other pests and diseases scheme and hives are fed sugar syrup to promote colony development.

Honeybee R&D Plan 2007-12 – Pollination Research (RIRDC 2007a)

Pollination research goal objectives are: to better understand the cost and value of pollination services provided by beekeepers to generate industry value through shared learning with crop producers, especially the Australian almond industry.

Strategies include: assessment of the value to crop producers of pollination services on an individual crop basis to assist beekeepers with the pricing of their services (e.g. almonds, pome fruit, canola) undertaking further research and communication activities on the cost of pollination service provisions to beekeepers to assist them with the pricing of pollination services (costs to include beekeeper investment in hive preparation) extension of the Tasmanian Crop Pollination Association Code of Practice to all Australian states investigations on the feasibility of investment in joint R&D projects with the Australian almond industry (especially with HAL).

Performance indicators and related measures include: information guides available on costs of pollination services and value generated for each of the most important horticultural/agricultural crops by 2012. Information guides to be published at the rate of two per annum six state based codes of practice for pollination to be published by 2012. Codes to be published at the rate of one per annum completion of at least one joint R&D project with the Australian almond industry by 2010.

The Pollination Research Goal is to receive 10% of the Honeybee R&D program funds of approximately $550,000 pa through to 2011-12 i.e. approximately $55,000 pa. By way of comparison NZ spends approximately ten times this amount on pollination efficiency R&D.

Implications for the pollination industry The literature review and subsequent consultation reveals: the quality of Australian pollination services is substandard.

4.2 The economics of pollination

Review of the literature relating to the economics of pollination reveals that in many instances individual plant industries receive an economic return from incorporation of pollination services while beekeepers do not receive an economic return for the services provided.

Implications for the pollination industry

A big threat is that beekeepers consider that they are underpaid for providing pollination services which means that they are unlikely to invest in the time and effort required to bring hive strength up to a required standard for effective pollination of key crops. Straight honey production is a more financially rewarding alternative enterprise and at present unpaid incidental pollination is probably more important for most crops. In the event of a serious biosecurity breach and loss of unpaid pollination services (incidental pollination from managed and feral honeybees) these plant industries will face massive pollination cost increases or significant loss of production (see for instance Sumner and Boriss 2006).

Research is needed here to inform the pollination industry on all aspects of pollination economics.

4.3 Optimal size of the honeybee pollination industry

There is an urgent need to grow the size of the pollination industry (CIE 2007a) to meet forecast growth in horticulture (especially almonds) let alone be prepared if Varroa or another exotic pests and or diseases takes hold in Australia.

4.4 The Technical Attributes of an Effective Paid Pollination Service

Review of the literature and consultation suggests the following are the technical attributes of an effective pollination service. These attributes must be known for each crop requiring an effective paid pollination service: stocking rate – hives per hectare bees per hive (measured as frames covered with bees) and what constitutes a optimum strength hive optimum age structure of the colonies amount of brood (larvae and pupae) in the colony the timing of bee introduction and bee removal the flowering conditions needed for a successful pollination (sufficient flowers available and synchrony where dioecious plants are present) optimal plant density and crop row configuration to allow optimum honeybee movement through the crop placement of hives in appropriate locations effective management e.g. rotation, supplementary feeding chemical management needs to avoid bee deaths or reductions in pollen viability.

Implications for the pollination industry

Consultations undertaken with Research and Development Corporations/Companies (RDCs) and plant industry Peak Industry Bodies (PIBs) as part of this study reveals that this information on the technical attributes of an effective paid pollination service are not widely known and the research on technical attributes has not been completed. Pollination Australia's research program should include projects to rectify this situation.

4.5 Research gaps and needs to improve the effectiveness of paid pollination services

Literature review and consultation reveals the following research needs and gaps: research on what constitutes optimum strength hives (readily agreed standards, development of a certification/branding system to support hive strength, QA implementation) - these standards will likely vary from crop to crop and at different times of the year and geographic location how optimum strength hives can be established and maintained (research and extension advice to apiarists) the economics of preparing optimum strength hives and the costs/returns needed to profitably provide pollination services (template like old NSW DPI gross margins – benchmark cost versus your costs) establishment of pollination requirements needed for each crop either from the literature or from research (for Australian conditions)

development of pollination standards for all the major Australian crops (stocking rates/hives per hectare, bees per hive, the timing of bee introduction, placement in appropriate locations, in- field effective management, chemical management needs, costing models, QA implementation) development of best practice guidelines for crop growers outlining their responsibilities to beekeepers – e.g. ensuring sufficient flowers are available and bees are protected from pesticides and other harmful chemicals (Tasmanian Code provides a useful template) economic benefits to growers of correct pollination ($/ha additional profit – info for growers) labelling of chemicals to notify crop growers of possible dangers to bees (and research to support label recommendations) research to understand the impact of agricultural chemicals in subsequent generations of plants on bees and the impact of chemicals in combination, impact of nicotinoids in sub-lethal on bee performance and behaviour education and training materials for agronomists so that they understand both the economic benefits of paid pollination and chemical management responsibilities complete research to overcome problems associated with pollinating crops under nets e.g. apples, cherries, blueberries, strawberries. Managing honeybee colonies under nets is a significant challenge develop and test pollination service marketing materials (for example, brochures and agricultural journal articles outlining the economic benefits to crop/horticultural producers of correct pollination) research the feasibility of a US and New Zealand style hive-brokering service. In reality US/NZ hiving broking is little different to systems that have emerged in Australia to deal with the growth of the almond industry. A broker manages the supply of hives to growers and the negotiation of charges either with or without a centralised hive marshalling facility. Preliminary research would indicate that there are few barriers to new players becoming Australian hive brokers spatial information to highlight which regions in particular will be effected by pollinator loss strategies to provide drought reserves and over wintering areas, etc to build bee strength prior to employment in pollination (e.g. information to government) strategies to achieve regional coordination in the provision of pollination services (something like the harvest trail used for coordinating backpacker labour) produce a New Zealand style pollination manual. New Zealand pollination manual currently only available for kiwifruit and includes understanding pollination biology, pollination problems, honeybee behaviour, managing honeybees for pollination, artificial pollination, male vines, and management issues7 carry out a New Zealand style seminar series aimed at educating both beekeepers and growers.

7 Consultation opinion was divided on the best form of this manual with some preferring a loose leaf systems so that when a grower or beekeeper wants to hire hives for pollination they can be given a sheet on the crop that tells the full story from growing to pollinatioN. It was also acknowledged that some fact sheets were already available. 13

5. Resource access and ecology

Introduction

Honeybee ecology relates to the contention that honeybees disturb ecological balances and displace native pollen and nectar dependent native birds and insects. As a consequence, some take the view that honeybee access to native forests, national parks and wilderness areas should be restricted. The impact of these contentions is resource access restrictions, which limit the beekeeper’s ability to strengthen hives on native flora prior to embarking on paid pollination assignments. It is noted that the bulk of honey produced in Australia currently comes from native flora sources and that honey production currently underpins the viability of paid pollination services. It is also noted that Queensland Government policy is to remove beekeeper access to native reserves by 2020 and the Victorian Government is to increase ‘no bee’ buffer zones around ‘no bee’ native forest reference areas.

A related issue is the risk to native floral resources from a biosecurity breach (e.g. Guava Rust in eucalypts from South America), further clearing or destruction associated with bushfire linked to climate change and the drying of the Australian continent.

Access to and the security of floral resources is a major issue for the honeybee industry, second only to pest and disease management (CIE 2005), and has been the subject of significant R&D investment by the honeybee industry. Natural resource database for the South Australian Apiary Industry (David Paton and Emma Crossfield, University Adelaide 2003). Eucalypt regrowth thinning trials to optimise leatherwood honey production (Frieda Heese, Forestry Tasmania 2005). The effect of logging on nectar production in NSW forests (Dr Brad Law, NSW DPI 2007). Forest plantations and their value to honeybees (Dr Doug Somerville, NSW DPI 2007). Long-term flowering patterns of South-East Australian Melliferous Flora (Dr Maria Gibson, Deakin University 2007). Securing long-term floral resources for the honeybee industry (David Paton, University Adelaide 2007).

Implication for the pollination industry

The issue is of relevance to the pollination industry as it directly impacts on the beekeepers ability to prepare hives prior to contracting for paid pollination services. Supplementary feeding of honeybees as a substitute for native flora ‘overwintering’ has not proved cost effective at current honey and pollination service prices (this may change with a biosecurity breach). Other forms of hive strengthening that do not require native reserve access also need to be explored. These might include ‘bee farms’ where landholders create deliberate havens for colony build up and linkages to the plantation forestry sector which has indicated a preliminary preparedness to plant ‘honeybee friendly’ canopy under stories and make these available to the pollination industry. There may even be opportunities for the pollination industry to participate in emerging carbon sequestration initiatives in partnership with those planning tree-planting programs.

The House of Representatives (2007) Discussion Paper notes the need for research into the impact of honeybees (Apis mellifera) upon the natural environment in Australia. This is particularly important in addressing the vexed question of the presence of bees in national parks. It must be established through independent research (i.e. neither funded by industry nor conservation groups) what impacts honeybees are having on native species, and whether significant negative impacts, if any, can be managed or suppressed. The development of effective environmental management systems (EMS), or similar arrangements without the ‘paperwork’ burden which EMS can entail for SMEs, should be developed and applied across the industry as a priority (see for instance papers by Linton Briggs, and Don Keith).

R&D gaps and needs

R&D gaps and possible needs in relation to resource access and the security of floral resources include: strategies to provide additional drought reserves and overwintering opportunities for bees strategies to ensure Australia remains free of biosecurity threats to our native flora (e.g. Guava Rust) bee farms where landholders create deliberate havens for colony build up – Qld big priority linkages to the plantation forestry sector, under story planting and carbon credit offsets supplementary feeding strategies (viable with pollination fees post Varroa) independent research on honeybee impacts in national parks strategies for the management of ecological impact of honeybees in national parks research to develop effective EMSs or alternatives for the honeybee industry community education on the importance of resource access.

6. Other honeybee R&D issues

This chapter reviews other current honeybee research issues as they relate to pollination dependent plant industries. It draws on a wide review of research including the current RIRDC Honeybee R&D Plan (RIRDC 2007a).

6.1 Beehive health/strength

Introduction

Beehive health includes prevention and management of the exotic and endemic pests and diseases along with nutritional management and bee longevity. The Honeybee R&D program has been investing in nutritional management research since the late 1980s. Current and recent research includes: a review of honeybee nutritional research and practices (Dr John Black, Consultant 2005) predicting the productivity of honeybees from the nutritional value of pollen (Dr Ian Wallis and Professor William Foley 2006) development of a pollen substitute to meet the nutritional needs of honeybees (Dr John Black, Consultant 2006-09) ‘Fat bees/Skinny bees,’ a manual on honeybee nutrition for beekeepers (Dr Doug Somerville, NSW DPI 2005 RIRDC Publication Number 05/054) nutritional field trials to maximise colony population - winter supplementary feeding (Dr Doug Somerville, NSW DPI 2005 RIRDC Publication Number 05/054) the effect of high and low fat pollens on honeybee longevity (Dr Rob Manning, WA Department of Agriculture and Food 2006 in Honeybee Research Compendium 2007).

Implication for the pollination industry

Pollen substitutes and sugar feeding may have a role to play in bee survival and alleviating the resource access problem in terms of preparing hives from pollination services. The economics of supplementary feeding will change as the price paid for pollination services grows (e.g. growth in almond production or post Varroa incursion).

Research gaps and needs in relation to honeybee health/strength are: pest and disease management needs a boost (see chapters below) supplementary feeding in context of boosting services to pollination (possibly viable at higher pollination prices).

6.2 Honeybee production

Introduction

Honeybee production addresses bee husbandry, management and hive productivity. Current research includes drone honeybee semen production - projects to ensure queen and hence hive fertility are managed for maximum honey production/pollination potential (John Rhodes, NSW DPI 2003-08).

Proposed honeybee production research under the current RIRDC Honeybee R&D Plan and the Queen Bee Breeding Group, will address production and financial benchmarks to raise average industry yield and reduce yield spread for beekeepers working under similar conditions.

Implication for the pollination industry

There appears to be few gaps in research coverage that should be filled by the pollination industry.

6.3 Stock improvement

Introduction

Stock improvement addresses honeybee genetics and bee breeding programs in both Eastern and Western Australia. Recent research in this area includes: development of two genetic markers for hygienic behaviour of honeybees, a supporting diagnostic test and general procedures for identification and exploitation by industry (Dr Ben Oldroyd, University of Sydney 2003-07 in RIRDC 2007d) genetic improvement through introduction of Italian Queen Bees and planned work on Caucasian Lines (Black Lines) by the Queen Bee Breeding Sub Committee of the Australian Honeybee Industry Council Inc (Lindsay Burke, Honeybee Quarantine and Disease Specialist Tasmania pers. comm.) international work including production of Varroa resistant bees in New Zealand that while capable of resisting Varroa in the first generation have their resistance ‘bred-out’ by Varroa vulnerable bees under field conditions (Dr Mark Goodwin, HortResearch New Zealand pers. comm. 8 December 2007).

Bee breeding is capable of producing queen bees that show disease resistance, superior honey production and placid temperament. Of all livestock species, the honeybee is by far the best suited to genetic improvement and then the rapid and cheap replacement of current stock with improved strains. The importation of breeding stock is vital to maintaining the quality and vigour of the Australian honeybee population.

The new RIRDC Honeybee R&D Plan 2007-12 addresses genetics as a major priority for the honeybee industry, strategies include: facilitation of genetic improvement in the Australian bee industry through the introduction of superior queen bees facilitation of genetic improvement to lift bee hygienic behaviour and control pests and diseases seeking out and facilitating the introduction of genetics for mite tolerance i.e. Varroa and Tropilaelaps identifying bee genetic traits that facilitate the further development of the packaged bee sector.

The Productivity and Profitability Enhancement goal is to receive 15% of the Honeybee R&D program funds of approximately $550,000 pa through to 2011-12 i.e. approximately $82,500 pa.

The House of Representatives Discussion Paper (2007) notes the need for research into the improvement in honeybee (Apis mellifera) genetic stock.

Implication for the pollination industry

While the RIRDC Honeybee R&D program addresses stock improvement in a systematic way there are significant gaps in coverage including: A properly resourced program of research into the genetics of mite tolerance – this is a highly prospective area, some honeybee races show natural resistance to Varroa (African and Russian) and the bee genome has recently been mapped. The aggressive nature of Africanised bees is such that this avenue is unsuitable for the development of mite-tolerant strains of honeybees. Research carried out in New Zealand has already developed a resistant line of Apis mellifera. The exploitation of theses bees and those produced in the USA and in Russia should be considered. It may be possible to buy in the gains made overseas. Breeding the optimal pollinator bee also holds promise (although this is not currently an economic proposition – Mark Goodwin HortResearch NZ pers. comm. and beekeepers suggest that greater ‘payback may be available from beekeeper hive preparation work than from investment in genetics - Lindsay Burke Honeybee Quarantine and Disease Specialist Tasmania).

6.4 Biotechnology

Introduction

Biotechnology is a broad technology in biological research. It includes modern techniques such as recombinant DNA (including genetically modified (GM) organisms), molecular markers and tissue culture for use in agriculture, food science and medicine. The recent sequencing of the honeybee genome has opened up a wide range of opportunities for honeybee research relevant to the pollination industry.

Implication for the pollination industry

Biotechnology plays an important role in many of the honeybee genetics and bee breeding projects listed above (such as the development of markers for hygienic behaviour of honeybees, and investigating the genetics of mite tolerance). There are also opportunities for using biotechnology to improve honeybee pest and disease management. Biotechnology has applications in pest and disease detection and diagnostics, genetics and characterisation of honeybees themselves, and of their pest and disease agents and in the development of biological control agents and discovery of novel pesticide and fungicide actives.

A specific biotechnology-related issue is the adoption of GM crops. All GM crops approved for commercial release in Australia, including GM canola that may be deployed in our cropping systems in the near future, have been assessed to have no effect on honeybee foraging behaviour or health by the independent national Gene Technology Regulator. Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) is the national regulator administering food standards related to food produced using gene technology. GM canola cropping may have separate (non-safety) implications for the pollination industry, and this could be a topic for further research.

Research gaps and needs in relation to biotechnology are: review of biotechnology applications relevant to the pollination industry e.g. development of novel Varroa controls review the implications of GM crops for the pollination industry e.g. pollination of GM canola.

6.5 Gaps and needs for other honeybee R&D issues

A summary of research gaps and needs in relation to other honeybee R&D issues is provided in the table below.

Issue R&D Status Research Needed – Comments supplementary pollination industry investment Honeybee health and Core business RIRDC Yes Pest/disease research strength R&D program, gaps ‘needs’ and ‘gaps’ o pests and diseases include pest/disease covered in detail in o nutrition under funding and their own chapter. o longevity supplementary feeding to overcome resource Supplementary access constraints. feeding ‘needs’ and ‘gaps’ covered under resource access.

Honeybee production Priority projects have No o bee husbandry been addressed by o management RIRDC R&D o hive productivity program. The program plans a greater emphasis on hive productivity in the future Stock improvement Covered by RIRDC Yes ‘Genetics of mite o genetics R&D program. tolerance – However additional appropriately funded funding could yield program’ and benefits for ‘Breeding the optimal pollination pollinator bee’ are identified.

Biotechnology Current RIRDC R&D Yes Review applications o applications and research into Genetics. and implications, such implications for as novel applications the pollination (e.g. for control) and industry' pollen transfer from GM crops.

Source: Literature review and stakeholder consultation

PART 2:THREATS AND SUSTAINABILITY OF THE POLLINATION INDUSTRY

7. Exotic pests and diseases and the risk of incursion

This chapter addresses Varroa and other exotic pests and diseases, their control and requirements for R&D. The chapter is prefaced with a review of general relevant research.

7.1 General relevant research

Threats to pollination (Dr Mark Goodwin, Honeybee Industry Linkages Workshop April 2007)

Probably the two single greatest threats to pollination services worldwide are Varroa and beekeeping economics. In the 7 years Varroa has been in the North Island of New Zealand (NZ) it has killed most feral colonies and there are now 22,000 fewer managed colonies. Varroa is expected to build up resistance to most of the main Varroa control chemicals we have in NZ as it has elsewhere in the world8. Varroa control in NZ and elsewhere is not sustainable long term.

Lessons for the Australian beekeeping industry – The New Zealand experience with pests and diseases (Dr Doug Somerville, NSW DPI 2007)

New Zealand has been unfortunate enough to be invaded by the Varroa mite, a highly destructive honeybee pest. Australia is ill prepared for a similar devastating invasioN. The NZ industry, not government, manages its American Foulbrood (AFB) program. NZ has shown flair and originality in its pollination management systems, in the way it markets its honey, and in its ability to capture the public’s awareness and understanding of its industry. There is opportunity for Australia to learn from this experience. It is hoped that exposure of the Australian industry to NZ’s recent successes and failures will better prepare us for an uncertain future.

Animal Health Australia – Emergency response arrangements (Dr Mike Bond, Honeybee Industry Linkages Workshop April 2007)

AHBIC is a signatory to the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement (EADRA), which commits government and industry to a range of measures for the management of exotic pests and diseases. Details of response strategies for each pest/disease are contained in an AUSVETPLAN manual Bee Diseases and Pests (see www.animalhealthaustralia.com.au/programs/eadp/ausvetplan).

The listing of pests and diseases, including other competitive species of bees, has been a contentious issue for some time. This matter will be considered as part of the five-yearly review of EADRA that is now underway.

To assist in early detection of pests and diseases the National Sentinel Hive Program is maintained.

In addition to Dr Bond’s comments it is noted that a National Bait Hive program is also being considered. At the current time there is a state based bait hive program in Tasmania, Queensland and

8 It is noted that NZ has few native bees compared to Australia. It is also interesting to consider the South African response to Varroa which was to allow the mite to ‘run its course’ and natural selection to produce a more resistant bee. 20

South Australia. A National Bait Hive program would, like the National Sentinel Hive program cover all 37 Australian ports and be managed jointly by National Sentinel Hive program staff. Bait hives work by providing pheromone attractants and a possible hive site for foreign bee swarms arriving by ship. Swarms can then be contained, euthanased and analysed.

AUSVETPLAN Disease strategy: Bee diseases and pests (AHA 2006)

AUSVETPLAN includes Tropilaelaps mite, Varroa mite, Braula fly, tracheal mite and Asian bees (categorised as emergency animal diseases under the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement) and Africanised bees (not categorised as emergency animal diseases under the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement).

Emergency Plant Pest Response Deed (PHA 2005)

The honeybee industry, through Australian Honeybee Industry Council (AHBIC) is a member of Plant Health Australia (PHA) and this is important in the event of an exotic plant pest or disease incursioN. It is important that beekeepers who may have their income affect by another industry’s exotic response plans, be fully compensated. AHBIC continues to negotiate with PHA on emergency plant pest response cost sharing arrangements. There is an alignment between PHA and AHA on emergency pest and disease response affecting the honeybee and hence pollination industries.

Honeybee R&D Plan 2007-12 – Pest and disease protection goal (RIRDC 2006)

Pest and Disease Protection Goal is: to be prepared for exotic pests and diseases before they occur to prevent the establishment of economic exotic pests and diseases of economic significance to manage endemic pests and diseases that impact on beekeeper profitability.

Strategies include: researching New Zealand’s experience with Varroa destructor incursion and ensure response strategies for Australia are appropriate/best practice undertaking Tropilaelaps clareae mite research and ensuring incursion response strategies are appropriate/best practice researching the implications of Africanised gene establishment in Australia. Africanised bees are an exotic pest investing in Small Hive Beetle (Aethina tumida) control to arrest its spread and economic impact increasing awareness of the need to manage and control endemic pests and diseases including Nosema apis, American Foulbrood, European Foulbrood, Chalkbrood and sacbrood virus developing American Foulbrood scent detection equipment encouraging beekeeper participation and commitment to the industry’s QA program with its requirements for pest/disease control and chemical residue management developing non-chemical controls for pests and diseases to ensure Australian apiary products are contaminant free.

Performance Indicators and Related Measures include: early detection of Varroa and Tropilaelaps incursion should this occur cost effective non-chemical controls for small hive beetle and other pests/diseases of economic significance by 2010 reduction in production losses caused by pests and diseases – to be established by survey in 2012 where appropriate

increased industry participation in the industry’s QA program to stem the spread of pests and disease – participation to be established by survey in 2012.

This goal is to receive 45% of the Honeybee R&D program funds of approximately $550,000 pa through to 2011-12 i.e. approximately $250,000 pa. The April 2007 Honeybee Industry Linkages Workshop concluded that this was insufficient funding to tackle the challenge of Varroa and other potential/present exotic pests and diseases.

7.2 Varroa mite (Varroa destructor)

Overview

The greatest threat to beekeeping in Australia is probably the species of Varroa mite known as Varroa destructor (known henceforth as Varroa). Australia is one of the few countries free from Varroa. It was found in the North Island of NZ in early 2000 and has since spread to the South Island. In 2007 it became established in the Hawaiian Islands. The European honeybee is unable to tolerate this mite. Overseas experience would suggest that should Varroa become established in Australia it would spread rapidly and would, within two to three years, kill most colonies, managed or feral, not being treated with an appropriate acaricide. Treatment is expensive both for the purchase of the acaricide and for the additional labour involved. Australia has plans in place to attempt to contain an outbreak should one occur and monitors bee colonies through the sentinel hive program (RIRDC 2007c). Varroa is covered under the AUSVETPLAN.

The Varroa Mite

Varroa destructor is an external parasitic mite on Asian honeybees (Apis cerana) and European honeybees Apis mellifera. The disease caused by the mites is called varroatosis.

Varroa destructor can only replicate in a honeybee colony. It attaches at the body of the bee and weakens the bee by sucking hemolymph. In this process the mite spreads RNA viruses like Deformed Wing Virus to the bee. A significant mite infestation will lead to the death of an untreated honeybee colony, usually in the late autumn through early spring. The timing of the death of the colony may however be different in the more tropical parts of Australia should Varroa arrive in this country. The Varroa mite has been the parasite with the most pronounced economic impact on the beekeeping industry worldwide. It may be a contributing factor to Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), which is threatening hives throughout North America.

Reproduction, infection and hive mortality

Mites reproduce on a 15-20-day cycle. The female mite enters a honeybee brood cell. As soon as the cell is capped, the Varroa mite lays eggs on the larva, which hatch into one male and two females. The brother and sisters then mate, the two sisters and the mother leave the cell and the brother dies. The young mites mature at about the same rate as the young bee develops. When the young bee emerges from the cell after pupation the Varroa mites also leave and spread to other bees and larvae. The mite preferentially infests drone cells.

The adults suck the "blood" of adult honeybees for sustenance. The compromised adult bees are more prone to infections especially viral infections. With the exception of some resistance in the African and Russian Honeybee, the European honeybees have few defences against these parasites. Russian honeybees are one third to one half less susceptible to mite reproduction (Anderson, D. and Trueman, J. W. H. (2000) “Varroa jacobsoni (Acari: Varroidae) is more than one species.” Experimental & Applied Acarology, 24, 165-189). Apis cerana has developed grooming procedures that remove these parasites so they are not a threat to its hives. Varroa also normally also only invades drone cells in Apis cerana colonies.

The model for the population dynamics is exponential growth when bee brood are available and exponential decline when no brood is available. In 12 weeks the number of mites in a honeybee hive can multiply by (roughly) 12. During the spring and summer the bees can out breed the Varroa. However when colony expansion slows down in the autumn in temperate climates Varroa reproduction continues resulting in high Varroa numbers that spread viruses, which can quickly kill the colony.

Varroa mites have been found on flower feeding insects such as the bumblebee Bombus pennsylvanicus9, the scarab beetle Phanaeus vindex and the flower-fly Palpada vinetorum (Kevan, P., et al. (1990) “Association of Varroa jacobsoni with organisms other than honeybees and implications for its dispersal.” Bee World 71: 3, 119-121). Although the Varroa mite cannot reproduce on these insects, its presence on them may be a means by which it spreads short distances.

Introduction around the world

From the early 1960’s Varroa has quickly spread around the world. Early 1960s Japan, Korea, Philippines, Thailand, USSR 1960s-1970s Eastern Europe 1971 Brazil Late 1970s South America 1982 France 1984 Switzerland, Spain, Italy 1987 USA 1989 Canada 1992 England 2000 New Zealand (North Island) 2006 New Zealand (South Island) 2007 Hawaiian Islands

Identification

Varroa destructor was, until recently, thought to be contained within a closely related mite species called Varroa jacobsoni. Both species parasitise the Asian honeybee, Apis cerana. However, the species originally described as V. jacobsoni by Oudemans in 1904 is not the same species that also attacks Apis mellifera. The jump to mellifera probably first took place in the far north-east regions of Asia where imported Apis mellifera came into close contact with infected Apis cerana. Up until 2000, scientists had not identified Varroa destructor as a separate species. This late identification in 2000 by Anderson and Trueman 2000 corrected some previous confusion and mislabelling in the scientific literature. As of 2005, the only Varroa mites that can reproduce in colonies of Apis mellifera (European honeybee) are the Korea and Japan/Thailand genotypes of Varroa destructor. The Korean genotype is outperforming the Japanese.

V. jacobsoni, the non-destructive genotype, is understood to be present in the Australian Torres Strait.

9 Thirty-five countries with bumblebees have Varroa and bumblebees are known to enter honeybee hives in an attempt to rob stored honey. 23

Control or preventative measures and treatment

Chemical Measures Varroa mites can be treated with commercially available miticides. Miticides must be applied strictly according to the label in order to minimise the contamination of honey. Proper use of miticides will also help to slow the development of resistance among the mites. A list of chemicals commonly used for Varroa control is shown in the table below.

Chemicals commonly used for Varroa control Product trade name Active ingredient Chemical class Apicure®, Mite Away®, formic acid Organic acid Mitegone® Apiguard® thymol Essential oil Apilife VAR® thymol, eucalyptol, menthol, Essential oil camphor Apistan® fluvalinate Pyrethroid Apitol® cymiazole Iminophenyl thiazolidine derivative Apivar® amitraz Amadine Bayvarol® flumethrin Pyrethroid Check-Mite+®, Perizin® coumaphos Organophosphate Folbex® bromopropylate Benzilate generic lactic acid Organic acid generic oxalic acid Organic acid generic formic acid Organic acid generic food grade mineral oil Mineral oil generic thymol Essential oil Thymovar® thymol Essential oil Source: Mark Goodwin, HortResearch New Zealand pers. comm. December 2007

Behavioral methods The following behavioural methods are included for completeness. However, those in Varroa infested countries report that not even hobby beekeepers are using them for the control of Varroa: Powdered sugar (Dowda Method), talc or other "safe" powders with a grain size between 5 and 15 micrometres can be sprinkled on the bees. The powder does not harm the bees (and, if you use sugar, can even become a small source of feed), but does interfere with the mite's ability to maintain its hold on the bee. It is also believed to increase the bees' grooming behaviour. This causes a certain percentage of mites to become dislodged. Powdered sugar works best as an amplifier of the effects of a screened bottom board. Freezing drone brood takes advantage of Varroa mites' preference for longer living drone brood. The beekeeper will put a frame in the hive that is sized to encourage the queen to lay primarily drone brood. Once the brood is capped, the beekeeper removes the frame and puts it in the freezer. This kills the Varroa mites that are parasitising those bees. It also kills the drone brood, but most hives produce an excess of drone bees so it is not generally considered a loss. After freezing, the frame can be returned to the hive. The nurse bees will clean out the dead brood (and dead mites) and the cycle continues. Drone brood excision is a variation applicable to top bar hives. Honeybees tend to place comb suitable for drone brood along the bottom and outer margins of the comb. Cutting this off at a late stage of development ("purple eye stage") and discarding it reduces the mite load on the colony. It also allows for inspection and counting of Varroa on the brood.

Swarming or queen-arrest method by interrupting the honeybee brood cycle, mites reproduction is also blocked10. Hygienic Behaviour Hygienic behaviour is biological behaviour with genetic traits that can be bred into bees. This behaviour causes bees to smell infected brood and remove them before the infestation spreads further. Russian bees display this trait. See: http://www.sare.org/publications/factsheet/0305_01.htm for further informatioN.

Varroatosis The infection and subsequent parasitic disease caused by Varroa mites is called varroatosis. Its treatment has been of limited success. First the bees were medicated with fluvinate, which had about 95% mite falls. However the last five percent became resistant to it and later, almost immune.

Resistance Resistance is defined as the ability of Varroa to withstand a dose of a chemical that would ordinarily kill the majority of individuals in a population.

The development of Varroa that show resistance to the chemicals used to control them is a major problem worldwide. The first resistant mites were reported in Italy in 1992. Since then resistant mites have been reported from Europe, UK, Middle East and North and South America. Resistance has been reported to all the common chemicals used to control Varroa (e.g. Fluvalinate, flumethrin, coumaphos, bromopropolate). Resistance has not yet been reported to organic control products.

Resistance has resulted in large colony losses and has made keeping bees both more difficult and more expensive. It is one of the largest problems facing the beekeeping industry worldwide.

Australian readiness for Varroa

Australia faces the prospect of an incursion of mites that have already evolved a high degree of chemical tolerance (Discussion Paper, House of Representatives 2007). This has implications for the choice of chemicals that are used in the National Sentinel Hive program.

Australian preparedness measures for a Varroa incursion include: the National Sentinel Hive program Registration of Varroa control chemicals for use on an emergency basis Varroa resistant bee breeding program (Dr Denis Anderson, CSIRO, pers. comm. November 2007) New Zealand study tours by the honeybee industry Swarm trapping (including exploration of techniques such as pheromone trapping). This is occurring in Tasmania, Queensland and South Australia through bait hive programs Animal Health Australia has trained beekeepers and made them members of field surveillance teams in all Australian states.

The Varroa resistant bee breeding program (Dr Denis Anderson, CSIRO pers. comm. November 2007) has developed a method, using a light microscope-based tissue section technique, to differentiate body tissues of the mite, such as nerves, fat bodies, ovary and muscle tissue. The next stage is to develop a model of the mite’s reproductive system. This will greatly enhance the chances of then discovering the bee signal that triggers egg laying by the Varroa destructor mite in honeybee larvae after their cells are capped and finally modifying the bee signal by genetic manipulation to produce Varroa resistant bees.

10 This is providing some relief in cold climate countries. 25

Implication of Varroa for the pollination industry

The probability of a Varroa incursion with subsequent establishment is high.

When Varroa breaches Australia’s biosecurity barriers and becomes established here, it will destroy Australia’s feral honeybee populatioN. Feral honeybees are relied on by many Australian plant industries for unpaid pollination services. Likewise it will increase the cost of paid pollination services as the cost of Varroa control becomes factored into pollination fees and demand for pollination services out-stripes the honeybee industry’s capacity to supply.

Chapter 8 includes a list of Varroa research gaps.

7.3 Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) Large, unexplained mortality events were reported in US bee colonies as early as 2004 and were labelled Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). The syndrome known as CCD is not well understood and experts are yet to confirm a detailed case definition for the phenomenoN. Beekeepers have observed a similar phenomenon in Poland, Greece, Portugal and Spain.

Many scientists are not convinced that CCD is a new disorder while other observers have suggested that beekeeping practices are a primary factor in the incidence of CCD due to the disappearances almost exclusively being reported by commercial beekeepers.

Dramatic colony losses have been documented worldwide since as early as 1896 and labelled as disappearing disease, spring dwindle, May disease, autumn collapse and fall dwindle disease. In these, and the current atypical colony losses, the occurrences have not been linked or explained by a common factor.

It is possible that the more virulent strain of the microsporidium Nosema (Nosema ceranae) may be responsible. This seems to be a common link in practically all cases of CCD investigated.

Implication for the pollination industry The case definition for CCD is ambiguous and the symptoms are indistinguishable from those of the normal winter colony collapse reported in the US since the late 1980s. Substantially more research into the CCD syndrome is required before any conclusions can be reached. The potential affect of CCD- like events on the Australian honeybee and other dependent industries is significant.

7.4 Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus (IAPV)

In September 2007, an article published online by Science magazine proposed a causal link between Israeli acute paralysis virus (IAPV) and the incidence of CCD in the US. In addition, the researchers suggested the presence of IAPV in the US was due to imports of Australian packaged bees. The article was published online by Science magazine and led to calls for a suspension of Australian bee imports to the US, highlighting the significance of this issue to the Australian industry.

The link between IAPV, CCD and Australian bees presented in the Science article has not yet been proven by Koch’s postulates and requires further investigation before such claims can be made. Australian scientists believe that IAPV is unlikely to be a causal agent of CCD without other predisposing factors being involved (e.g. Nosema ceranae). In addition, the IAPV claims have been refuted by US scientists, notably finding that IAPV was present in the US prior to the import of Australian bees.

Implication for the pollination industry

Monitoring of United States research on IAPV is required.

7.5 Asian Mite (Tropilaelaps clareae)

Introduction

The Tropilaelaps or Asian Mite may be even more of a problem than Varroa if it reaches Australia. It is about half the size of Varroa and even more deadly. Its native host is the Giant Honeybee (Apis dorsata) but it is able to transfer to Apis mellifera. The treatment for Tropilaelaps is similar to that for Varroa i.e. use of various acaricides (RIRDC 2007c).

Tropilaelaps is covered under the AUSVETPLAN.

Tropilaelaps is actually two species – Tropilaelaps clareae and Tropilaelaps koenigerum. Ongoing molecular research being carried out on this genus in Asia may identify other species.

Control

A combination of both veterinary medicines (acaricides or varroacides) and bio-technical methods can be used to control Tropilaelaps. Many of the same acaricides used for Varroa are also likely to be effective against Tropilaelaps.

‘Bio-technical Methods’ of Tropilaelaps control use bee husbandry to reduce the mite population through physical means alone. Tropilaelaps is considered relatively straightforward to control using husbandry methods that simulate broodless periods. The inability of Tropilaelaps to feed on adult bees, or to survive outside sealed brood for more than a few days, is a weakness in the mites’ life cycle, which can be exploited to control it. In areas where the mite is present, methods such as queen caging and the use of artificial swarms, to create breaks in the brood, should be effective to reduce numbers of mites (see Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs UK http://www.defra.gov.uk/hort/Bees/pdf/trop.pdf).

Tropilaelaps does not appear to be as mobile as Varroa as it survives for only a few days on adult bees. Where Varroa may be introduced with single queen, worker or broodless swarms, Tropilaelaps is likely to be introduced only through the introduction of a colony with brood.

Implication for the pollination industry

The probability of this pest becoming established is unknowN. If an incursion occurs the impact on pollination services will be similar or greater than Varroa. Tropilaelaps reproduces faster and is likely to kill colonies more quickly than Varroa and therefore require more frequent treatments. Preparedness will also require the same steps as Varroa.

7.6 Tracheal mite/Acarine Diseases

Introduction

The Tracheal mite (Acar Apis woodi) is the cause of what was previously known as Acarine Disease, or Isle of Wright Disease. The mite infests the trachea of the bee and slowly weakens the host, eventually killing it. Colonies may die when the infestation is acute. The disease is not as dramatic in its effect as Varroa or Tropilaelaps. European honeybees have considerable tolerance to the mite, which is reportedly more of a problem in cooler climates (RIRDC 2007c).

Tracheal mite is covered under the AUSVETPLAN.

Implication for the pollination industry

The probability of Tracheal mite establishment is high considering its wide distribution, if it does the impact will be manageable i.e. there will probably be no catastrophic loss of honeybees.

7.7 Africanised Bee

Apis mellifera scutellata is a subspecies of honeybee naturally occurring in an extensive range of eastern and southern Africa from Ethiopia to the Cape. The subspecies was introduced into Brazil from Africa in 1956.

The subspecies has spread into much of South America, all of Central America, Mexico, and into some areas of the south-western United States. The hybrid created is usually called the ‘Africanised’ bee’ or African Killer bee in the media.

Africanised bees have a number of behavioural traits that make them difficult to manage, the most important being their exceptionally high level of defensive behaviour, and their lower honey productioN. It is believed that they have the potential to be the single most severe insect pest in the United States.

The Australian honeybee industry would like to import drone semen as part of its genetic improvement program. This is no longer possible due to the inability to detect Africanised bee genes in semen imports.

Implication for the pollination industry

Africanised bees presence in any country would be considered to be a major problem. It would stop live bee exports and cause problems in finding sites for managed hives and the supply of hives for pollination because of their high level of aggression.

7.8 Cape Honeybee

The Cape honeybee (Apis mellifera capensis) is a subspecies of A. mellifera found in the Cape region of southern Africa. They have the ability to produce diploid (female) adults from unfertilised eggs generated from laying workers. The Cape bee is likely to take over European honeybee colonies.

In southern Africa, A. m. scutellata colonies are successfully usurped by A. m. capensis workers, and the result is colony death, since once the A. m. scutellata queen disappears no new adult queens of either race are observed in the usurped colonies.

Implication for the pollination industry

This species of bee has the potential to cause a major problem for beekeeping in any country it is iN. It would make beekeeping more difficult and would destroy many feral colonies.

7.9 Other bees – Giant and Asian

Asian bees (Apis cerana) and the Giant honeybee (Apis dorsata) are considered to be pests. Incursions of both species have been detected in Australia. All were destroyed and there is no evidence of established colonies (Discussion Paper House of Representatives 2007). Of the two species Asian bees are probably the most concern to Australian industry. Asian bees are a conduit for exotic pests and diseases, will crowd out native pollinators and are much more difficult to detect than the large and more obvious Giant honeybee. It is thought that the Asian honeybee could establish a range in Australia extending as far south as the NSW-Victorian border.

Implication for the pollination industry

Monitoring and surveillance is required for both species.

7.10 Exotic pest and disease implications

There are a limited number of exotic pests and diseases of significance to the pollination industry. These pests and diseases along with a summary of research gaps and needs are highlighted at the end of Chapter 8 – Endemic honeybee pests and diseases. 28

8. Endemic honeybee pests and diseases

This chapter addresses current R&D on endemic pests and diseases. In each instance the pest/disease is described, a précis of current research presented and a conclusion drawn on its threat to the pollination industry is given.

8.1 Braula Fly/Bee Louse

Introduction

The Braula fly, also known as the bee louse, is only present in Tasmania. These pests may occasionally be found on worker bees and drones, but they mainly infest queen bees. As a rule the adult louse does little damage. It is not a true parasite, but feeds on the nectar or honey, which it extracts, from the mouthparts of the host. The greatest damage is caused by the larvae burrowing into the cappings of honeycombs. In Tasmania the louse is widespread and commonly encountered. Braula fly is considered harmless by most beekeepers (RIRDC 2007c).

Braula fly is covered under the AUSVETPLAN.

Implication for the pollination industry

This is a relatively minor pest. Establishment on the mainland is a ‘manageable’ problem for the pollination industry.

8.2 Wax Moth

Introduction

The wax moth is a pest of stored combs. Both the greater wax moth and the lesser wax moth thrive in Australia’s tropical and subtropical north. In Western Australia where frames are usually used on a regular basis (wax moth does not have a chance to establish) it is less of a problem. Phostoxin is registered for use by beekeepers for control of wax moth but effective delivery of the chemical requires airtight conditions that are not easily achieved. Wax moth can also be controlled in cold rooms or by heating. Chemical free controls may be attempted with insect attracting devices such as ultra-violet light, ‘bug eaters’ or insect ‘zappers’.

Implication for the pollination industry

This is an endemic pest that has reached its maximum Australian distributioN. A variety of tools are available for its control. Wax moth does not appear to be a threat to the Australian pollination industry.

8.3 Nosema (Nosema apis)

Introduction

Nosema is a disease caused by a parasitic protozoon and can seriously limit production in some years. Nosema is rated as a serious disease of bees in most states. The antibiotic fumagillin is useful in controlling Nosema disease, but because of the persistence of fumagillin residues, its use is restricted. There is no real control for Nosema (RIRDC 2007c).

Literature review and survey of Nosema apis in Australia (Dr Michael Hornitzky, NSW DPI 2007)

Nosema apis can significantly limit honey production and pollination efficiency in years when infestation levels are high. The disease is hard to detect in commercial beehives as there are no obvious disease signs and little is known of the prevalence of the disease in Australia.

This project undertook a comprehensive review of the literature on the disease and, importantly, conducted surveys over three years 2004 to 2006 to discover the extent and severity of the disease, and how different management practices influenced its severity.

The parasite was detected in all apiaries examined over the three years, indicating that it is widespread in bees in Australia. Management practices associated with low infestation levels include no shifting or manipulating of hives during winter, and packing them down tightly during the winter. Hives that had abundant honey when placed in almond orchards were also observed to be associated with low infestation levels.

Implication for the pollination industry

It is a serious honeybee disease that has already become widely established in Australia. It would seem unlikely that it will further constrain the pollination industry.

8.4 Nosema (Nosema ceranae)

Introduction

Nosema ceranae is a microsporidian, a small, unicellular parasite that mainly affects Apis cerana, the Asiatic honeybee. It may cause nosemosis, also called Nosema (the most widespread of the adult honeybee diseases). The dormant stage of Nosema is a long-lived spore which is resistant to temperature extremes and dehydration.

Nosema ceranae was first described in 1996 and was identified as a disease of European honeybees in 2004 in SpaiN. During 2006, both France and Germany have detected the disease and recognised the genetic sequence of Nosema ceranae in their respective territories. In 2007, Nosema ceranae was found in Australia.

This pathogen has been tentatively linked to Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), a phenomenon reported primarily from the United States, since autumn of 2006. Highly preliminary evidence of N. ceranae was reported in a few hives in the Merced Valley area of California (USA). "Tests of genetic material taken from a "collapsed colony" in Merced County point to a once-rare microbe that previously affected only Asian bees but might have evolved into a strain lethal to those in Europe and the United States." The researcher did not, however, believe this was conclusive evidence of a link to CCD: "We don't want to give anybody the impression that this thing has been solved." A USDA bee scientist has similarly stated, "While the parasite Nosema ceranae may be a factor, it cannot be the sole cause. The fungus has been seen before, sometimes in colonies that were healthy.” Likewise, a Washington State beekeeper familiar with N. ceranae in his own hives discounts it as being the cause of CCD.

N. ceranae and N. apis have similar life cycles, but they differ in spore morphology. Spores of N. ceranae seem to be slightly smaller under the light microscope and the number of polar filament coils is between 20 and 23, rather than the more than 30 often seen in N. apis.

The disease inflicts adult bees and depopulation occurs with consequent losses in honey productioN. One does not detect symptoms of diarrhea like in Nosema apis.

Without doubt, the most significant difference between the two types is just how quickly N. ceranae can cause a colony to die. Bees can die within 8 days after exposure to N. ceranae, which is faster than bees exposed to N. apis. The foraging force seems to be affected the most. They leave the colony and are too weak to return, thus dying in the field. This leaves behind a small cluster and a weak colony, very similar to the symptoms being used to describe CCD. There is little advice on treatment but it has been suggested that the most effective control of Nosema ceranae is the antibiotic fumagillin as recommended for Nosema apis.

Implication for the pollination industry

A survey of Australia honeybee hives was completed in 2007 to ensure this new form of Nosema was not in this country (Margaret Thomson, RIRDC Honeybee R&D Program Manager, pers. comm. November 2007). Nosema ceranae was detected in the Australian survey. Nosema ceranae has a deleterious affect on colonies and can render them prone to other infections and disorders. A possible link to CCD is noted in the literature. Nosema ceranae has significant implications for the pollination industry.

8.5 American Foulbrood (AFB)

Introduction

American Foulbrood (AFB) can be the worst of the endemic bee diseases and is cripplingly expensive to control. AFB has been endemic to most parts of Australia for at least the last 90 years. Most states have some form of public inspection service available for AFB. Only in the state of Tasmania is the use of antibiotics registered to control AFB. The antibiotic is oxytetracycline hydrochloride (OTC). In a major breakthrough, Dr Michael Hornitzky has found that the spores of the organism that cause AFB are susceptible to gamma radiation from cobalt 60. Irradiation has now largely replaced hive burning as the preferred method of sterilising AFB infected equipment. Hornitzky has also developed a very sensitive test for the detection of AFB (RIRDC 2007c).

American Foulbrood Control – Has resistance emerged to Oxytetracycline (Dr Michael Hornitzky, NSW DPI started 2006)

American foulbrood (AFB has been controlled with Oxytetracycline (OTC) for five decades. However, in recent years OTC-resistant strains of bacteria have emerged in the US, Canada and Argentina. Although in Australia OTC is only used in Tasmania to treat AFB it is important for the Australian beekeeping industry to know whether OTC-resistant bacteria strains are in Australian bees and whether imported honey contains OTC-resistant bacteria. Hornitzky (in RIRDC 2007d) did not find any OTC-resistant strains of AFB in Australia.

RIRDC Honeybee R&D Plan 2007-12

The current RIRDC Honeybee five year R&D Plan (2007a) has as a strategy for the development of American Foulbrood scent detection equipment.

Implication for the pollination industry

AFB is the worst of the common bee diseases. The disease has been in Australia for 90 years and controlled in Tasmania with OTC for 50 years. Ongoing work is required to monitor OTC resistance and identify other treatments. It is noted that there are more virulent strains of AFB overseas than currently present in Australia.

New Zealand experience has shown that many of the practices required to provide a pollination service (putting large numbers of colonies belonging to different beekeepers in close proximity and swapping bees and brood between colonies) can dramatically increase AFB disease levels. AFB control must be considered when developing a pollination industry. The disease would appear to warrant supplementary investment by the pollination industry.

8.6 European Foulbrood (EFB)

Introduction

European Foulbrood (EFB) is a bacterial disease endemic in eastern Australia since the mid 1970s. EFB’s impact can be managed through ‘good beekeeping’ practices. EFB is commonly controlled with the antibiotic OTC (RIRDC 2007c).

Development of treatment options for European Foulbrood (Dr Michael Hornitzky, NSW DPI started 2006)

EFB causes significant economic losses to the honeybee industry worldwide. The antibiotic OTC is the only registered chemical treatment in Australia. However, traces of OTC have been found as residue in honey and this can have serious adverse implications for domestic and particularly export sales of honey. This project is looking at the use of eight fatty acids, which potentially could be used as alternatives to OTC in controlling EFB. Difficulties have previously been encountered because, in experimental hives, bees detect and eject diseased larvae. Larval assays, which overcome this problem, have now been developed. Assessing the effectiveness of the fatty acids in controlling EFB is now proceeding.

Evaluating alternative antibiotics for control of European Foulbrood Disease (Stephen Doughty, Joanne Luck and Russell Goodman - Primary Industries Research Victoria (EFB)

This project examined six alternative antibiotics that were effective in controlling the disease. Two, namely Ampicillin and Amoxicillin, had a short residue life and were selected as promising alternatives to OTC.

Implication for the pollination industry

EFB causes significant economic loss. The only current antibiotic may leave residues in honey. Other antibiotics with potential have been identified. EFB may be more prevalent under pollination conditions11.

8.7 Chalkbrood

Introduction

Chalkbrood is an endemic fungal disease first diagnosed in Australia in 1993. Chalkbrood is not normally fatal to Australian honeybees but can cause substantial production losses. There is no cure for chalkbrood but its symptoms may be reduced by ‘good beekeeping practice’ (RIRDC 2007c).

It is understood that some colonies clean out Chalkbrood infested dead brood much faster than others and more research is required to understand why (RIRDC 2007c).

Biological control of Chalkbrood by anti-fungal bacterial symbionts of bees (Dr Murali Nayadu ANU 2002-2008)

The project has identified natural bacteria found in the gut of Australian honeybees that can attack the Chalkbrood fungal pathogeN. The feasibility of a non-chemical disease control agent is currently being assessed.

11 Whole apiaries have been known to develop EFB when pollinating apples and almonds. 32

Implication for the pollination industry

Low risk disease for the pollination industry.

8.8 Sacbrood Virus

Sacbrood is the most common of a group of viral diseases infecting honeybees in Australia. RIRDC 2007c reported these viruses as sacbrood virus, black queen cell virus, chronic bee-paralysis virus, Kashmir bee virus and cloudy wing virus. These viruses are thought to be present in bees at all times and only become problematic when the bee is under stress. Nutrition is thought to play a part in avoiding sacbrood. Generally the disease is of little economic importance.

Implication for the pollination industry

Low risk disease for the pollination industry.

8.9 Small Hive Beetle

Introduction

The Small Hive Beetle (Aethina tumida) thrives in subtropical and tropical climates. It was identified in colonies near Sydney in 2002 and has since spread widely in South Eastern Australia. In the circumstances, eradication is not an option (RIRDC 2007c). Its spread to date has been limited by persistent drought conditions (Dollin 2007).

Temperature manipulation to control Small Hive Beetle (Dr Garry Levot – NSW DPI 2003-05)

Storage of comb at cold or freezing temperatures can be effective in disinfesting bee boxes and other material of small hive beetle. However, lack of access to freezers and the protracted time needed to kill larvae in cool rooms may make temperature manipulation an impractical option.

Insecticidal control of Small Hive Beetle (Dr Garry Levot – NSW DPI 2007)

NSW DPI has developed a safe and effective Small Hive Beetle harbourage (trap) with built in insecticide. There are patents pending for the harbourage in Australia and overseas but at this stage a supply of insecticide for the product cannot be secured.

AJ’s Beetle Eater (Tom Kennedy, Kundabung NSW as seen on ABC: The New Inventors 2007)

AJ’s Beetle Eater is a non-chemical trap, which is placed in the top of the hive, between the frames of honeycomb. The bees chase the beetle, which likes to hide in dark crevasses. Once the small hive beetles enter the trap through the slots they are trapped in vegetable oil and are usually unable to escape by climbing out (see: www.ajsbeetleeater.com.au). Beekeepers report success with the AJ’s Beetle Eater.

Sustainable control of Small Hive Beetle through targeting in-ground stages (Associate Professor Robert Spooner-Hart 2007)

The life cycle of the Small Hive Beetle means that it is vulnerable to destruction when its larval (grub) stage drops out of the hive and buries itself in surrounding soil to pupate. A non-chemical way of controlling Small Hive Beetle may be to destroy its pupae in the soil surrounding hives using a drench made from its natural enemies (nematode worms and/or fungus).

Other small hive beetle control research

Other recently developed control techniques which may lead to additional solutions include physical trapping into plant-based oils (e.g. the ‘Beetle Eater’) and research into beetle behaviour (e.g. responding to sound and evading worker bees).

Implication for the pollination industry

Control options are available or are in the pipeline - a low risk disease for the pollination industry.

8.10 Other present/potential endemic pests and diseases

The RIRDC publication Commercial Beekeeping in Australia identifies ‘other’ pests as ants, cane toads, and the Rainbow Bee Eater. These are generally regarded as a nuisance rather than a serious threat to the industry (RIRDC 2007c).

Honeybee pests/diseases relevant to a secure pollination industry

Pest/ Control status Research needed – Comments disease supplementary pollination industry investment Varroa Mite Chemical treatment but Yes Imminent arrival likely. mite rapidly becomes Biosecurity arrangements resistant. Alternative may require further ‘therapies’ offer minor strengthening and control mitigation responses, including resistant bees, need to be developed. Tropilaelaps Mite Ditto Yes Imminent arrival seems less likely Tracheal Mite Ditto No Honeybee well adapted to this mite Braula Fly Relatively minor pest No Covered by AHA cost (Bee Louse) sharing Wax Moth Chemical and mechanical No Variety of control options alternatives available Nosema apis Control only through No Manageable impacts good management practices Nosema ceranae Little advice on treatment Yes Just found in Australia, negative effect on colonies and seems to be associated with CCD CCD Basic cause still needs to Yes May not be a pest or a be researched and disease in its own right. understood. Research needed. Israeli Acute Paralysis Possible link to Yes Monitor US research. Virus Nosema ceranae Possible link to Nosema ceranae. American Foulbrood Antibiotics only available Yes Disease is established in for use in Tasmania. Australia for 90 years. Ongoing work on However, more prevalent resistance needed + when a pollination control alternatives industry has been developed European Current antibiotic may Yes Management options Foulbrood leave residues but available but may be more alternatives have been prevalent under identified pollination conditions Chalkbrood Chemical treatments No Endemic and non fatal available, non-chemical fungal disease solutions being researched Sacbrood Control by nutrition No Minor and endemic management Africanised bees Nil No Imminent arrival seems less likely Small Hive Beetle Chemical and non- No Endemic and options chemical treatments now available or in pipeline Other bees Effective biosecurity No Biosecurity arrangements require further strengthening Source: Literature review

8.11 Gaps and needs pollinator pest and disease research

Clear priority pests and diseases for the pollination industry are: Varroa Tropilaelaps Nosema ceranae CCD.

These priorities are consistent with those identified in the under-funded Honeybee R&D plan for the period 2007-12.

Research gaps and needs associated with these priority pests and diseases are: ensuring appropriate Varroa control chemicals are registered for use in Australia ensuring Australia has adequate supplies of Varroa control chemicals ensuring that the correct chemicals are used for surveillance and that chemicals used in the Sentinel Hive Program are varied from time to time to account for possible Varroa resistance examining the feasibility of a National Bait Hive program to complement the biosecurity role played by the National Sentinel Hive program consideration of the requirement that all beekeepers be registered – beekeepers in Tasmania and the ACT are not currently registered breeding of Varroa resistant honeybee genetic stock (mindful of gains made overseas) addressing pesticide resistance in Varroa mites developing Varroa tolerance within bee populations (e.g. mite grooming) using new techniques (e.g. pheromone trapping) to manage Varroa infestation closely monitoring US and other overseas developments on CCD definition and causality monitoring of US research on Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus (proposed to be linked to CCD) if IAPV is shown to be the cause of CCD, determine its distribution in Australia ensuring Varroa research and incursion preparations are also valid for Tropilaelaps determine the effect of Nosema ceranae on beehives control strategies for Nosema ceranae, recently discovered in Australia AFB management under pollination industry conditions ongoing management of AFB, EFB, Small Hive Beetle and Nosema apis overseas study tours/learning opportunities for Australian industry/researchers pest and disease management through compulsory participation in B-Qual.

9. Future resource issues

9.1 Threat of restricted resource access and R&D needs

As noted earlier, restrictions on beekeeper access to some public native forests is a very important issue for the honeybee industry. It is also important for the pollination industry because of the need to strengthen hives prior to placement in orchards or in crops requiring pollinatioN. There are real threats that access regulations will get even tougher for beekeepers in the future and this could significantly impact on the pollination industry. Strategic research may be needed to counter any false claims that honeybees are 'crowding out' native pollinators or otherwise harming native forest ecosystems.

The pollination industry has as much a stake in these issues as the honey production industry.

9.2 Threat of climate change and R&D needs

Introduction

Climate change has serious implications for what crops are grown, where and when (pollination needs) and may have consequences for the flowering patterns of the eucalypts on which the honeybee industry depends for hive strengthening prior to pollination assignments (capacity to supply pollination services). Climate change may also affect the pattern and prevalence of honeybee pests and diseases.

The RIRDC Honeybee R&D program does not address this issue and climate change research, per sae, is likely to be outside the scope of a Pollination Australia R&D program. It is just all too encompassing and expensive.

Implication for the pollination industry

The Pollination Australia R&D program might like to consider the allocation of resources for monitoring climate change research findings in other programs and reporting their implications to the pollination industry. Climate change may have implications for crops, eucalypts and the spread and prevalence of pests and diseases. It is suggested that this is a longer term R&D priority for Pollination Australia.

9.3 Effect of honey prices

Introduction

There are few beekeepers any where in the world that only provide pollination services. Worldwide most beekeepers also collect honey and other products which cross subsidises their income from pollinatioN. If honey prices fall to levels where beekeeping economics are marginal it could have a large effect on the number of hives available for pollinatioN.

Implication for the pollination industry

This could result in both a shortage of available hives and an increase in the cost of providing colonies.

9.4 Other future resource issues

Introduction

A concern expressed by some leaders in the honeybee industry is the limited number of honeybee researchers. Several are approaching retirement age but with relatively few younger researchers coming through the pipeline. This issue is being addressed in much greater detail in the companion consultancy on education and training.

If a program of research for Pollination Australia is developed, which organisations have the capability to deliver it, is a related question posed in the brief for this consultancy and addressed in the evaluation of proposed R&D projects.

PART 3: IMPROVING THE POLLINATION INDUSTRY, MINIMISING RISKS

10. Alternative pollinators

This chapter reports on an investigation into the plusses and minuses of alternative pollinators to European honeybees and draws conclusions on their ability to improve the pollination industry and minimise future risks. Alternative pollinators include bumblebees, leaf-cutter bees, native bees, etc. General research relevant to the consideration of alternative pollinators is also presented.

10.1 General relevant research

Overview from the literature review

The literature review completed for this study reveals the following alternative pollinators: Digger Bees, Bumblebees, Sweat Bees, Alkali Bees, Squash Bees, Leafcutter Bees, Resin Bees, Carpenter Bees, Mason Bees, Shaggy Fuzzyfoot Bee, and Japanese hornfaced bee. Other specialist pollinators such as sunflower bees, blueberry bees, halcid bee, the flower wasp, and the lycid beetle. Some are specialist pollinators for particular crops, such as the halcid bee for macadamia nuts (Vithanage and Ironside 1986). Hawkmoths are the original pollinators of papaya plants. Carpenter bees are an alternative to bumble bees for greenhouse pollinatioN. Native insects such as beetles, butterflies, moths, and flies can also be effective pollinators in certain situations.

The main constraint on the use of Australian native alternative pollinators is a lack of research into their husbandry and effectiveness (Dollin 2007).

There is no alternative to the European Honeybee that will pollinate as broad a range of plants in as many Australian climatic zones. Worldwide this is also the case. Truckloads of managed honeybees can be concentrated in one place at one time to perform effective commercial pollination.

Importance of pollination and pollination services (James de Barro, Honeybee Industry Linkages Workshop April 2007)

Honeybees are currently the most reliable pollinator of lucerne in Australia but are vulnerable to Varroa. We need to develop alternative pollinator sources such as lucerne leafcutter bees for lucerne seed production.

Valuing honeybee pollination (Gordon and Davis 2003)

No known alternative pollinator to the European honeybee is able to pollinate almond flowers.

10.2 Bumblebees

Bumblebees (Bombus terrestris) are not native to Australia. In Europe and North America they play an important role in crop pollinatioN. This role may be particularly important post honeybee decline following the establishment of Varroa. Bumblebees are not susceptible to Varroa12 but are susceptible to the less problematic Tracheal mite. They are susceptible to bird and ant predicatioN. Bumblebees include a range of species, are social and pollinate without collecting nectar for honey

12 Overseas Varroa mites have been found on bumblebees but cannot reproduce on them (see Varroa literature review). 39

productioN. Bumblebees operate in competition with honeybees and are able to pollinate at cooler temperatures and earlier in the day. Bumblebees are increasingly cultured for agricultural use as pollinators because they can pollinate plant species that other pollinators cannot by using a technique known as buzz pollination. For example, bumblebee colonies are often used as pollinators in greenhouse tomato production, because the frequency of buzzing that a bumblebee exhibits effectively releases tomato polleN. The Australian Hydroponics and Greenhouse Association favour the introduction of bumblebees to the Australian mainland (Smith 2007 - submission to the House of Representatives). Bumblebees are already present in Tasmania where they are both a pollinator and a feral pest. In Victoria bumblebees have been listed as a potentially threatening process under the Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act. Potential impacts include competition with native nectar feeding fauna, decline in the seed production of native plant species and increase in the seed production of introduced plants that currently lack an efficient pollinator (often called “sleeper weeds”). See http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/dpi/nreninf.nsf/LinkView/823E3E9A7566B26CCA256C40001AE6A3A5F 56BB1473442224A256DEA00282268 for further information.

Bumblebees are known to be suitable for the pollination of: almonds (Australian Hydroponic and Greenhouse Association submission and other sources), apple, avocado, berry fruit, blueberry, cherry, clover, capsicum, egg plant, mandarin, nectarine, passionfruit, peach, pear, strawberry, stone fruit, tomato and most vegetables. This is a non-exhaustive list. It is also understood that bumblebees are very effective pollinators of greenhouse tomatoes.

Current hand pollination of greenhouse tomatoes costs growers about $25,000/ha and bumblebees, imported into Australia each three months, would cost about $7,000/ha. Horticulture Australia is supporting the application to import bumblebees into mainland greenhouses. The bumblebees will not be released into the wild, with the queen bee contained in the glasshouse. Bumblebees will also result in lower pesticide use in green houses. The Australian Government response has raised questions that are being answered by scientists on behalf of the applicants.

Advantages Effective pollinator that is not affected by Varroa. Pollinate in cooler climates and temperatures than honeybee, useful for crops like cherries.

Disadvantages Possible feral pest that competes with native flora and fauna (Honeybees do not start to pollinate until ‘sun warmed’, which gives native insects and birds a chance to feed. Bumblebees harvest early – Lindsay Burke pers. comm. November 2007). Bumblebees typically only form small colonies (<300 individuals) compared to a honeybee pollination unit with 30,000 individuals (fewer workers for pollination services). While bumblebees are not susceptible to Varroa they are known to both transport it and rob honeybee hives. Thirty-five countries with Varroa also have bumblebees. Managed bumblebees are very expensive to purchase for pollinatioN. Even though they are better pollinators of Kiwifruit in New Zealand and it costs up to $NZ160 to hire a honeybee colony, it is still much too expensive for growers to consider using bumblebees.

Implications for the pollination industry

Research is needed on bumblebee threats to flora/fauna (EIS completed in the past), possible containment strategies needed, the pollination potential of bumblebees, and husbandry requirements for the full range of Australian plant industries.

10.3 Leafcutter bees

Leafcutter bees (Megachile rotundata) are not native to Australia. They are a European species which have been cultured in North America for pollination purposes. They have also become feral and widespread. Leafcutter bees are placid and do not sting. They are not susceptible to Varroa. As a solitary but gregarious bee species, leafcutters do not build colonies or store honey, but are very efficient pollinators. Leafcutter bees are industrious and work a 16 to 20 hour day. The RIRDC Pasture Seeds R&D program has been investing in leafcutter bee establishment in Australia for lucerne seed production since the late 1990s and following ecological impact assessment work by Tony Campell and others in the 1980s (Tony Campbell pers. comm. October 20007). Successful naturalisation of leafcutter bees has the potential to dramatically lift lucerne seed yield and profits. The RIRDC funded research has needed to address more effective import protocols, leafcutter bee persistence over winter and through second and third generations, long term field survival, native Australian pest management and managing leafcutter bees on lucerne crops under Australian conditions. With the completion of the most recent project (Anderson 2006) the last major obstacle to the establishment of leafcutter bees in Australia for lucerne production has been removed.

Internationally, leafcutter bees are known to be suitable for the pollination of (non exhaustive list) blueberries, citrus, lucerne seed, carrot seed, and some other vegetables.

In New Zealand, leafcutter bees were introduced in the 1970’s. Even though they have been managed and available for more than 30 years they are seldom used for pollinating crops as it has been found to be still easier, even with Varroa, to use and manage honeybees. If New Zealand had a large lucerne industry that leafcutter bees are reported to be better at pollinating than honeybees they may have received more attention.

Advantages Industrious, non-invasive and effective pollinator.

Disadvantages Still somewhat challenging to establish in Australia. Their relevance to other Australian plant industries, under Australian conditions, is not known.

Implications for the pollination industry

Research may be needed on the usefulness of leafcutter bees for a wider range of Australian plant industries under Australian conditions (e.g. Australian pest management regimes).

10.4 Other exotics

The question is raised as to whether other exotic bee species that are not susceptible to Varroa, such as the giant honeybee (Apis dorsata) or the Asian honeybee (Apis cerana) could be considered for importation into Australia as pollinators. The biosecurity implications of such an importation discount the viability of this optioN. It is unlikely that any new species would be available to the pollination industry within a meaningful timeframe.

10.5 Native bees and other native pollinators

According to the Australian Native Bee Research Centre (Dollin 2007) potentially suitable alternative native pollinators include: The stingless social bees, Trigona and Austroplebeia, which show considerable potential for both field and greenhouse crops. They can be effectively hived and transported. They have already proven successful with the pollination of Australian field crops such as macadamia, watermelon and lychee, and their short flying range makes them especially suited for

greenhouse environments. Research on the use of stingless bees for pollination of greenhouse capsicums is currently in progress by PhD student Mark Greco, at the University of Western Sydney - Hawkesbury. Native blue-banded bees, Amegilla, show great potential for the pollination of greenhouse tomatoes according to research at the University of Western Sydney and the University of Adelaide. Leafcutter bees and resin bees, Megachile, could also be valuable pollinators for crops such as lucerne and almonds (it is understood that there are native leafcutter bees in Australia as well as imports from North America). Other groups of insects also show potential for pollination of agricultural crops such as Nitidulid beetles for custard apple and hawkmoths for papaya.

Current and recent research on native bees and native pollinators at the University of Western Sydney, Hawkesbury, includes: Marc Greco ‘Pollination of greenhouse capsicums using Trigona carbonaria and Austroplebia australis’ Megan Halcroft ‘The effects of African Small Hive Beetle on the colony health of Austroplebia australis’ Megan Halcroft ‘Biology, behaviour, resin chemistry and pollination flower preferences for the Australian native bee Austroplebia australis’ Melissa Bell ‘Pollination of Greenhouse Tomatoes using the Blue Banded Bee Amegilla cingulata’.

Dollin (2007) states that the main constraint to the use of alternative Australian native pollinators is a lack of research into their husbandry and effectiveness.

The Australian Hydroponics and Greenhouse Association are less convinced of the worth of native bees as pollinators. Smith (2007) concludes that while there have been notable successes such as Trigona carbonaria, the great majority of native bees are solitary and do not lend themselves to mass production and pollination on demand. Nor are most adapted to pollinating the European crop plants on which Australia depends. Native blue-banded bees are a long way from mass production.

Advantages Natives are not required to clear Australia’s biosecurity system and are therefore more likely to be released. Success for some crops with Trigonia and Amegilla.

Disadvantages Largely solitary in nature. Long term research required to deliver viable alternatives. In some species, distribution is limited by climate constraints (e.g. Trigonia).

Implications for pollination industry

This is an area requiring long-term investment horizons and is unlikely to yield a large-scale commercial alternative before the arrival of Varroa.

10.6 Mechanical or hand pollination techniques

Hand pollination (also called "mechanical pollination") is a technique used when natural, or open pollination is insufficient or undesirable. The most common techniques are for crops such as cucurbits, which may exhibit poor pollination by fruit abortion, fruit deformity or poor maturatioN. Hand pollination is only an option on a small scale, but is a common technique by gardeners who transfer pollen with an artist brush or cotton swab.

Artificial pollination is well developed for kiwifruit in New Zealand. New Zealand collects over picking about 100 tons of kiwifruit flowers. These are processed to remove about 1,000kg of pollen, which is applied to orchards. It is possible to completely pollinate kiwifruit orchards without bees. Research is being carried out to decrease the cost of artificial pollination so it can be used over larger areas.

Implications for pollination industry

Artificial pollination is a viable alternative for a number of crops. Whether it is possible usually depends of floral architecture, the number of pollen grains needed per flowers and the ease with which pollen can be collected.

10.7 Plant breeding to reduce dependence on insect pollination

A risk assessment of Australian plant industries highlights the dependence of horticultural/agricultural crops on insect pollinators. A sensible approach to minimise Australian plant industry’s exposure to loss of insect pollinators would be to include research investment in varieties which do not require insect pollination.

Implications for pollination industry

Plant varieties that do not require insect pollinators are a wider horticulture/agriculture research gap that should be addressed in a Pollination Australia research portfolio

10.8 Lessons learned – alternative pollinators

As you look around the world there are few managed crops pollinated only by bees other than honeybees. The most conspicuous exceptions are some glasshouse crops pollinated by bumblebees and some lucerne crops that are pollinated by managed leafcutter and alkali bees (solitary North American native).

For most crops it is too expensive to use alternative bees. The reason is that they do not produce anything like honey that can cover the cost of managing them for the rest of the year. Although an argument can be made for investigating the use of alternative pollinators to meet the needs of some crops that they can do a better job of pollinating than honeybees because of the plants biology, it would seem that despite the threats to honeybees the best course of action would be to minimise these threats rather than looking for alternatives.

Alternative pollinator lessons learned include: bumblebee – care needed to ensure it does not become a mainland feral pest leafcutter – potential niche pollinator but has proven difficult to establish in Australia natives – long term research required mechanical pollination – may hold potential for some high value horticulture crops plant breeding to reduce dependence on insect pollination – sensible risk spreading investment.

Alternative pollinator research needs and gaps therefore include: research on bumblebee threats to Australian mainland flora/fauna and weeds research into the effective containment and management of bumblebees on the Australian mainland research on what range of crops and under what Australian conditions bumblebees are useful pollinators research on pest management regimes for bumblebees (e.g. very susceptible to birds) cost benefit analysis of mainland bumblebee introduction research on what range of crops and under what Australian conditions leafcutter bees might be useful research on pest management regimes for leafcutter bees (e.g. leafcutters are susceptible native insects) integrated pollination management –re-vegetation to encourage native pollinators ongoing long term research for Trigonia, Amegilla and other native pollinators mechanical pollination – scoping research on which crops is it suitable plant breeding to reduce dependence on insect pollination – sensible risk spreading investment.

11. Incursion risk minimisation

This chapter identifies risks and R&D gaps including research on effectiveness of current preventative measures. Review of existing literature and industry consultation reveals the following risk incursion minimisation needs: surveillance auditing, training, simulations and augmentation surveillance methodology – further development and testing automation technologies to reduce surveillance cost (in possible partnership with CRC for Plant Biosecurity) tracking systems (like the National Livestock Identification Scheme) that can swing into place in event of a Varroa mite incursion tools to measure the spatial impact of an exotic pest/disease incursion incursion management systems – fully functioning and tested methods to eradicate introduced pests and diseases investment boost for quarantine facilities and the National Sentinel hive program.

Issues the risks management consultancy might consider include: 1. Registration and stocks of appropriate Varroa control chemicals – has Australia got stocks of these and are the main chemicals registered for use in Australia or is additional research required? 2. Are the risks of honey contamination from use of Varroa chemicals understood? 3. What are the trade implications of a CCD-like phenomenon? 4. Is QA an effective way to mitigate pollination industry risks – record keeping and audits to help with incursion identification and management?

12. Education and better information

This chapter identifies education and training requirements along with the need for better pollination industry information and communicatioN. Industry consultation reveals the following risk incursion minimisation needs: skills mapping required to ensure generation handover and successful implement of the R&D program o core skills that could be lost when current researchers retire in 2010 include pathology, genomics, ecology and biology.

Issues the education and training consultancy might consider include: 1. Training in the correct pricing of pollination services for both suppliers and plant industry purchasers. 2. House of Representatives 2007 Discussion Paper and its 2006 report provide information on rural skills needs. 3. Warren Jones: Need a national program of education for agronomists – they and the chemical companies are unaware of the ‘witch’s brew’ of chemicals, their effect in the second generation of plants and the impact on bee health of nicotinoids at very low levels. Nicotinoids don’t kill bees but disorientate and make them many times less effective. 4. Community education on the importance of pollination and need for resource access should be a Pollination Australia priority.

13. Economics of pollination

What can be done to improve the financial return for both the beekeeper and plant industry perspectives? 1. What scope is there for greater efficiency e.g. using fewer hives/bees and doing a better job? 2. Economics of pollination may include research on overseas contracts or management issues. 3. Examination of the feasibility of US/NZ style pollination broking service that builds on current Australian initiatives 4. R&D on how sensitive the industry is to changes in commodity prices. 5. Research into reducing the cost of producing pollination hives. 6. Strategies to ensure profitable honey prices are achieved (e.g. further development of nutritional honey).

PART 4: WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR R&D?

14. Consultation findings

14.1 Consultation approach

The R&D needs and gap analysis presented in the above chapters was circulated to a wide and representative selection of stakeholders. Stakeholders were drawn from Australian plant industries, the honeybee industry, providers of pollination services, researchers across all relevant facets of pollination both in Australia and overseas and government including both national and state jurisdictions. Stakeholders met at Rydges Capital Hill Canberra 6 December 2007 and workshopped the needs and gap analysis together with feedback received from stakeholders who could not attend. A total of forty-five industry, government and researcher representatives were present on the day.

14.2 Workshop outcomes

Workshop participants were asked to consider the gap and needs analysis and identify R&D projects to secure the future pollination of Australia’s horticultural and agricultural crops. Workshop participants were then asked to rank their three highest priorities using a scale of 10 (most important), 5 (important) and 1 (least important). Similar projects were amalgamated into single research initiatives with workshop attendees prior to voting. The results of this process is summarised in the table below.

Research project Indicative Priority cost ranking (based on votes received) Pest and disease management to ensure the ongoing supply of $1 million pa 250 pollination services through research into: for 5 years honeybee pest and disease diagnostic measures and biosecurity protection initiatives reducing honeybee vulnerability to Varroa through the production of genetically resistant bees understanding Nosema ceranae’s Australian impact and its relevance to Colony Collapse Disorder monitoring US developments with respect to Colony Collapse Disorder and Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus being responsive to other critical honeybee pests and diseases as they emerge.

Economic case for pollination – building the economic case on $150k total 144 a prioritised crop-by-crop basis for an Australian pollination cost industry. The economic case will research and demonstrate returns to growers at: current pollination levels optimal pollination levels post Varroa, or similar pest/disease incursion, in the absence of investment in Pollination Australia initiatives. Outputs from this research are to be used in a horticultural and agricultural industry education campaign.

Research project Indicative Priority cost ranking (based on votes received) Resource access - landscape management for pollination $1 million 33 including: total cost over the feasibility of ‘Bee farms’ – the allocation of land where 5 years hives can be ‘built-up’ prior to pollination revegetation with ‘bee friendly’ species working with timber companies to secure ‘bee friendly’ under-story planting and carbon sequestration investigate NZ practices that rely less on floral hive build up and more on supplementary feeding revegetation to encourage native pollinators.

Pollination best management practices – crop-by-crop guide $500k every 5 20 to achieving optimal pollination and hence enterprise returns. years This project would make use of economic data generated in the ‘Economic case for pollination’.

Alternative pollinator research – research to further knowledge $100k pa for 5 20 of alternative, mainly native, pollinators in an Australian setting. years

Training for researchers – to ensure the pollination industry’s $100k per 15 ongoing capacity to address research issues. The industry annum currently has a limited number of senior researchers.

Survey of Asian bee (Apis cerana) pests and diseases - to $100k total 5 identify future pollinator pest and disease threats. Apis cerana is cost the source of Varroa, Tropilaelaps and other current European honeybee (Apis mellifera) pests and diseases.

Nutrition research - for strong vigorous hives that will ensure an $1 million 3 effective pollination service. This project might also test the NZ total cost practice of not building up hives prior to pollination.

Crop management research - to improve the management of $1 to $2 1 pollination in crops. This project would include understanding million total the technical requirements of crops in an Australian setting. cost

Honeybee disease management in a pollination setting – $200k total 0 provision of pollination services brings hives together from many cost apiarists and locations. These conditions are ideal for the spread and multiplication of pests and diseases. Strategies are needed to deal with pests and diseases (e.g. AFB) under pollination conditions.

Africanised bee incursion prevention – Africanised bees, $50k pa 0 known colloquially as ‘killer bees’ are a hybrid of European honeybees and African strains. They are not present in Australia.

Higher priority projects that warrant further development in a cost benefit framework are:

pest and disease management to ensure the ongoing supply of pollination services economic case for pollination resource access - landscape management for pollination pollination best management practices – a crop by crop guide alternative pollinator research.

14.3 Stakeholder comment on higher priority projects

Workshop and post workshop comment on higher priority projects included: Lack of widespread knowledge of the presence and importance of Nosema ceranae in Australia and its possible links to CCD probably resulted in a lower vote for this project than would otherwise have been the case. Nosema ceranae research has therefore been incorporated into the project ‘Pest and disease management to ensure the ongoing supply of pollination services’. Pest and disease management in a pollination setting is a priority. Even though it received no votes at the workshop it should be incorporated into a pest and disease research package. Much of the knowledge needed to mount and communicate the economic case for pollination has already been prepared by RIRDC. A budget of $500,000 (as proposed in the workshop) is excessive. It is mainly a matter of collating what is already known and commissioning smaller crop specific research projects to fill outstanding information needs. This supplementary research should be completed in consultation with plant industries and their peak industry bodies to ensure its relevance, credibility and financial support. Access to floral resources is the second most important priority after pest and disease control for the honeybee pollinator industry (CIE 2005). While research on the impacts of managed honeybees in protected areas is unlikely to sway policy makers on its own and in the face of strong community sentiment for the removal of exotics from national parks, its importance is noted. Alternatives to access to protected area resources are proposed as a key priority for Pollination Australia R&D. There are synergies between this project and other Australian research and commercial priorities (e.g. the plantation timber industry and carbon sequestration). There needs to be a clarification in the ‘resource access – landscape management for pollination’ project between research and extension (‘rollout’) activities. ‘Pollination best management practices – crop-by-crop guide’ would need to be supported by individual agricultural industries. The alliance might complete one crop as a template/pilot. If pollination dependent horticultural/agricultural industries showed interest in it, having them rolling out their own crop specific projects could be completed using the template. Training of new researchers is imperative. However, this does not warrant its own Pollination Australia research project. Researcher training can be accomplished within the context of the selected priority projects. Other research gaps and needs, and lower priority projects, can be addressed as the Pollination Australia alliance gains momentum.

PART 5: R&D PRIORITIES AND THEIR FUNDING

15. Description of proposed R&D projects

15.1 Cost/benefit method

This chapter more fully describes the high priority projects identified through literature review, consultation, the 6 December 2007 workshop and the project steering committee’s feedback on the draft report. Projects are described in a benefit cost framework including: project objectives probability of success likely project benefits indicative cost type of research institution required pathway for implementation of project findings.

The five priority projects are each described in a separate section below.

Project 1: Surveillance best practice

Project objectives

The objective of this first and most important research project is the prevention of Varroa, or similar honeybee pest or disease outbreak, in Australia. This will require leading edge pest and disease surveillance research, and subsequent implementation, including: Research into, and comparison with, Sentinel Hive and Baited Hive best practice Development of appropriate surveillance monitoring, sampling, reporting and incentive systems for incorporation into B-Qual Development of materials and systems to engage amateur and commercial beekeepers in (Varroa) disease identification and reporting Development of a prioritised research plan for improving productivity performance in pollination in view of forecast growth in pollination demand, especially horticulture.

This research project embraces the findings of the Pollination Australia Risk Management Plan (Impact Consulting Group in press).

Probability of success

The package of research described in this project has a high probability of delivering appropriate outputs. Whether it is sufficient to achieve the research objective i.e. a no Varroa outcome for Australia is not knowN.

Likely project benefits

Cook et al (2007) have shown that the economic benefit from prevention of Varroa establishment in Australia is between $21.3 million and $50.5 million pa.

Indicative cost

The total cost of this research project is $370,000.

Type of research institution required

This project requires practical biosecurity skills and experience along with primary producer training ‘know how’.

Pathway for implementation of project findings

The biosecurity research completed as part of this project will require Australian Government/AQIS support for implementatioN. Training outcomes will require the support of AHBIC and others.

Conclusion

This is a priority research project for prevention of establishment of Varroa in Australia and the ongoing efficient pollination of Australian crops.

Project 2: Resource access - landscape management for pollination

Project Objectives

The objective of this research is to ensure, through a suite of research initiatives, that floral resources are available to honeybees to permit their ‘build up’ prior to undertaking horticultural and agricultural crop pollinatioN. For some crops, colony 'build up' is also required after pollination service. Research initiatives will include the investigation of New Zealand hive ‘build-up’ practices (i.e. less reliance on ‘build-up’), improved artificial diets, ‘bee farms’, re-vegetation, alliances with timber companies and the encouragement of native pollinators. This project will also include social/political science research to understand community attitudes to introduced species in protected areas. Further investment in ecological data that may show bees have no impact in protected areas might be considered in ‘round two’ of pollination R&D projects or as part of the RIRDC Honeybee R&D program. Investment in this area requires credible, independent (and costly) research.

Resource access project objectives will be delivered through research into: Investigation of New Zealand practices that rely less on hive build up using floral resources and more on supplementary feeding. Supplementary feeding may be economically viable, as the benefits of optimal pollination are more widely understood. The feasibility of ‘Bee farms’ – the allocation of land where hives can be ‘built-up’ prior to pollinatioN. Landholders may plant honeybee friendly plant species and earn an income from leasing land to beekeepers. In the first instance, a proof of concept study that determines which mixes of native vegetation best promote the rapid increase in the health and vigour of hived honeybees is required. The research would consider factors affecting hive increase with respect to the environmental areas, timber plantations, seed orchards and open areas. These factors include vegetation mixes, the usefulness of understorey planting, pollen and nectar quality and the relationship between bee farms and pollination service to surrounding areas such as seed orchards, timber plantations and adjoining agricultural activities. Revegetation with ‘bee friendly’ species – crop growers would set aside non-cultivated strips of land planted with bee friendly species. Bees would replenish hive strength in native flora while providing pollination services. Working with timber companies to secure ‘bee friendly’ under-story planting in timber plantations and participation in carbon sequestration initiatives. Revegetation of grower land to encourage native pollinators in partnership with honeybees. Social/political research to understand community attitudes to introduced pollinators in protected areas. The outcomes of this research might assist with improved access to protected areas for hive built-up, or at least no further loss in protected areas, in the future.

While each of these investments requires research, there is also an extension and communication element. The Pollination Australia alliance will need to decide if it wishes to invest in ‘rollout’ of this type of project outcome.

Probability of success

The project has a high probability of success. There are few technical barriers to the research. Beekeepers question the ultimate feasibility of bee farms. Economic viability of resultant recommendations will in part be determined by communication of outcomes associated with ‘the economic case for pollination’ project.

Likely project benefits

Potentially, the project will deliver cost effective hive build up solutions that underpin the economic viability of commercial pollination services. The project also has ‘spin-off’ benefits in relation to revegetation, alternative income generation for landholders and other environmental benefits (for example, catchment management, carbon sequestration).

Indicative cost

The cost of this research project, including all components of the project objective, would be approximately $200,000 pa for 5 years.

Type of research institution required

This project requires field research capability of the type available through state departments of primary industries (DPI). There may also be scope within this project for partnerships with Catchment Management Authorities and carbon sequestration groups.

Pathway for implementation of project findings

The research is applied in nature and could be extended through the usual DPI channels and RIRDC and HAL communication tools.

Conclusion

This is a priority research project for securing strong hives capable of providing sustained pollination services.

Project 3: Improving the economics of pollination

Project objectives

To demonstrate to Australian plant industries dependent on insect pollination, the financial improvements possible in grower returns from a movement from current pollination levels and in many cases incidental pollination, to optimal pollination levels. Several agricultural and horticultural industries have little knowledge of the value of honeybee pollination to their industry. Many growers need to know and be convinced of the value of pollination services for their crops. The economic case for pollination would also demonstrate, and communicate to growers, the losses they would experience as a consequence of Varroa, or a similar pest/disease incursion, removing their current, mostly free, pollination services (i.e. development of an understanding of the role feral bees/incidental pollination plays especially in relation to broadacre crops).

The project would draw together research already completed by RIRDC and others (e.g. Gibbs and Muirhead 1998, Gordon and Davis 2003, Cook et al 2007, CIE 2007a) and would then commission smaller crop specific research projects to fill critical outstanding information needs. This new research would be completed in consultation with plant industries to ensure its relevance and credibility and to ensure that the relevant information was widely disseminated. Plant industries not contributing to Pollination Australia funding may be expected to jointly fund projects relevant to those industries.

The project would generate industry understanding of the additional yields possible from optimal pollination (e.g. 15% in canola) and the loss of income likely as a result of pollinator removal due to pest/disease incursion (e.g. 100% in almonds).

The project would include the completion of research to understand the role of feral honeybees/ incidental pollination on a regional crop/pasture basis especially in relation to broadacre crops and pastures.

The resultant research findings would be used in Pollination Australia communication strategies to educate plant industries on the importance of pollinator protection, the apparent threat to these services and the need to fund pollinator protection initiatives. Outputs would be used to ‘sign-up’ additional plant industries to the Pollination Australia alliance.

Probability of success

The research project, the economic case for pollination, has a high probability of success.

Project risks include the possible lack of data on crop response to pollination for key crop industries and the possible need to use overseas research with assumptions for Australian conditions or commission expensive field trials. The proposed budget ($150,000) does not allow for field trials.

Likely project benefits

The likely project benefits would be estimated as the additional grower income across forty horticultural and agricultural industries from the movement from current pollination levels, mostly incidental pollination, to optimal pollination levels. Typically this might be anywhere from an increase in grower income of 0% to 35%. Realisation of this benefit would be dependent on ‘extension’ of results through pollination Best Management Practices (see project description below).

Indicative cost

The total cost of this research project is $150,000.

Type of research institution required

This project requires a team approach including agricultural economists, agronomists with pollination knowledge and honeybee experts. It could be completed in the public sector (CSIRO or a DPI) or by private consultants. Tendering of the research opportunity is suggested.

Pathway for implementation of project findings

Research would be completed in partnership with stakeholder plant industries. Implementation would be most effective if plant industry RDC and peak industry bodies were used to communicate outcomes.

Conclusion

This research and extension project is a ‘year one’ priority for Pollination Australia.

Project 4: Pest and disease management to ensure the ongoing supply of pollinator services

Project objectives

To secure the ongoing supply of pollination services to Australian horticultural and agricultural crops through the protection of the European honeybee from devastating exotic and endemic pests and diseases.

This objective will be delivered through research into: reviewing options for hive tracking and an associated national database honeybee pest and disease diagnostic measures biosecurity plans reducing honeybee vulnerability to Varroa through the production of genetically resistant bees understanding Nosema ceranae’s Australian impact and its relevance to Colony Collapse Disorder understanding honeybee disease management in a pollination setting monitoring US developments with respect to Colony Collapse Disorder and Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus and gaining a better understanding of these diseases being responsive to other critical honeybee pests and diseases as they emerge.

The major thrust of this project (70% of available budget) will be research into the production of bees that are genetically resistant to Varroa. Follow up research will then be required to develop delivery systems to ensure genetic resistance to Varroa can be achieved in field populations. DNA typing shows that the destructive Korean form of the Varroa mite (Varroa destructor) is able to reproduce when the honeybee secretes a chemical trigger into the brood sac that then permits Varroa reproductioN. The research hypothesis is that the honeybee gene responsible for the chemical trigger can be isolated and ‘switched off’. This basic research would then permit Varroa control through a genetically engineered solution, a conventional breeding program or a chemical control optioN. The ultimate result would be the capacity to breed bees that are 100% resistant to the Varroa mite. Australia is fortuitous in having pre-eminent research capacity in this area. Overseas researchers are not addressing this most important research opportunity and the reasons for this ‘gap’ should be reviewed prior to project commencement. Honeybee researchers in the US and New Zealand have been successful in breeding Varroa resistant bees but the recessive genetic trait has not been isolated and is soon ‘bred out’ and therefore overwhelmed in field conditions. A research proposal for this major and fundamental piece of research should be sought from the researcher and would include an assessment of likely research implementation pathways (for example, GM, conventional, miticide). This research proposal should then (with the researcher’s knowledge) be subjected to international peer review and a ‘portfolio balance’ assessment prior to funding. A portfolio balance assessment would weigh up the risk/return equation for this large long-term project compared to a range of smaller investments with immediate payback.

Honeybee pest and disease diagnostic measures and biosecurity protection initiatives would include better bait hives, more work on sentinel hives (including their capacity to act as pest/disease 'bridges'), research on more effective surveillance, automation technologies to reduce pest/disease surveillance costs, hive tracking systems to manage incursion events, tools to measure spatial impact of pest/disease incursions and surveillance system audits. A suit of small-scale investments is envisaged.

Honeybee disease management in a pollination setting would include research to manage the spread and multiplication of pests and diseases that have the opportunity to ‘jump’ colonies when pollinators bring hives together from many beekeepers and locations. AFB is thought to be particularly problematic under these conditions. Investments would include (1) early warning diagnostics including basic work to understand what pests and diseases pose what threats, (2) containment strategies – not just for an emergency response but in general such as in the pollination setting (3)

chemical management options – including impact on crops, honey residues and chemical resistance management (4) non-chemical management options (5) other R&D to support risk management strategies.

Probability of success

With modern biotechnology techniques and the complete mapping of the honeybee genome already at hand, genetic research has a high probability of success as do other parts of this package.

Risks in relation to this research include community resistance to the genetic modification of honeybees. However, there are alternative mechanisms for delivery of this research that do not depend on genetic modification.

Likely project benefits

Cook et al (2007) have shown that the economic benefit from prevention of Varroa establishment in Australia is between $21.3 million and $50.5 million pa. A successful research outcome would also generate export opportunities for Australia’s packed bee sector.

Indicative cost

The cost of this research project, including all components of the project objective, would be approximately $850,000 pa for 5 years, a total cost of $4.25 million.

Type of research institution required

This project requires sophisticated scientific research facilities of the type available through CSIRO or the University of Sydney. Skills required will include genomics, pathology, biology and ecology.

Pathway for implementation of project findings

Fundamental research completed as part of this project will then require applied research to translate the genetic breakthrough into ‘parent bees’ suitable for commercial reproductioN. The most likely implementation path will be for ‘parent bees’ with the required Varroa tolerance trait to be replicated by commercial bee breeders.

Conclusion

This is a priority research project for securing the ongoing pollination of Australian crops.

Project 5: Living with Varroa – management practices ongoing supply pollination services

Project objectives

This project will provide research outcomes in the form of management practice recommendations to assist both beekeepers and growers adapt to an operating environment that includes the establishment of Varroa in the Australian landscape.

Project will include investigation of what New Zealand, the US and others have done successfully to manage Varroa.

Practical response options will include husbandry practices, chemical management options, avoiding chemical resistance and hive monitoring and checking.

Probability of success

The project has a high probability of success – most of the information needed is already known in countries affected by Varroa. Knowledge needs packaging and assimilating for the Australian situation.

Likely project benefits

The beneficiaries of this project are Australian crop growers and the pollinators (beekeepers) that serve them.

Indicative cost

The total cost of this research project is estimated to be approximately $125,000 pa for 4 years.

Type of research institution required

This project requires practical agronomic and beekeeping skills of the type found in DPIs or the University of Western Sydney - Hawkesbury.

Pathway for implementation of project findings

Research would be completed through RDC and DPI channels.

Conclusion

This research project provides a ‘fall back position’ if Varroa (or similar pest/disease) becomes established in Australia.

Project 6: Alternative pollinator/reduced insect dependency research

Project objectives

To manage the risk of loss of our primary pollinator (European honeybee) through a catastrophic pest or disease outbreak this project will invest in long-term research into alternative, mainly native, pollinators and explore options for non-insect pollination of plants including mechanical pollination and self-pollinating plant varieties.

The research acknowledges that there is no alternative universal pollinator to match the European honeybee, that in the first instance it is better to protect the European honeybee from catastrophic pest and disease incursion and alternative pollinators may be able to fill useful niche roles.

The objective will be delivered through research into: Trigonia, Amegilla and other natives to understand domestication, colonisation, reproduction, field management, pest and disease management integrated pollination management including re-vegetation to encourage native pollinators.

Probability of success

The project has a medium probability of success. Alternative pollinators are a long-term higher risk research investment.

Likely project benefits

The benefit of this project is as a risk spreading exercise. If a catastrophic pest or disease were to establish in Australia and ‘knock-out’ the European honeybee it would be highly beneficial to have access to knowledge on alternative native pollinators that could be brought ‘on line’ relatively quickly. Likewise it would be useful to have an all-round reduction in dependency on insect pollinators through mechanical pollination and self-pollinating varieties.

Indicative cost

The total cost of this research project would be approximately $100,000 pa for 5 years.

Type of research institution required

This project requires relatively sophisticated research facilities of the type found at the universities, CSIRO or possibly the DPIs.

Pathway for implementation of project findings

Research would be completed in partnership with stakeholder plant industries (alternative pollinators are likely to be specialists in a small number or even single crops or fruits). Implementation would therefore be most effective if plant industry RDC and peak industry bodies were used to communicate outcomes.

Conclusion

This research project is a ‘risk spreading’ exercise for pollination dependent Australian horticultural and agricultural crops.

Project 7: Pollination best management practices – Crop by crop guide

Project objectives

The objective of this project is to research and document, on a crop-by-crop basis, pollination best management practice guidelines. The outcome of this research will be a series of guidelines capable of shifting Australian horticultural and agricultural industries from current pollination levels to optimal pollination levels and hence improving enterprise returns. This project would make use of economic data generated in the ‘Improving the economics of pollination’ project but additional data may be required. Best practice guidelines would need to be updated every five years (as best practice changes) and could draw on the pollination manual prepared by HortResearch in New Zealand for kiwifruit. Data on the strength of hive colonies after pollination services in specific crops would be required as would new research on bee behaviour in individual crops (navigation and foraging behaviour in particular). In short, pollination best management practices for crop owners and beekeepers as well as the benefits of pollination to both sides of the partnership need to be identified and communicated.

This project could commence with a template/pilot for a single industry and be rolled out on a crop- by-crop basis if plant industries show an appropriate level of interest.

Probability of success

The project has a high probability of success. The project risk is failure to capture crop grower interest in participation and uptake of the resultant research.

Likely project benefits

The likely project benefits would be estimated as the additional grower income across forty horticultural and agricultural industries from the movement from current pollination levels to optimal pollination levels. Typically this might be anywhere from an increase in grower income of 0% to 35%. Benefits of paid pollination to beekeepers not now involved in providing pollination services would also be identified. Realisation of these benefits would be dependent on completion of the ‘Improving the economics of pollination’ project.

This project provides immediate payback for horticultural and agricultural industries who are being asked to participate in the Pollination Australia alliance.

Indicative cost

The total cost of this research project would be approximately $125,000 pa for 5 years.

Type of research institution required

This project requires agronomists and apiary officers with pollination knowledge and could be completed by one or more DPIs. Bee behaviour research could be completed by the likes of University of Western Sydney - Hawkesbury and may require the establishment of a bee behaviour laboratory.

Pathway for implementation of project findings

Research would be completed in partnership with stakeholder plant industries and selected beekeepers. Implementation would be most effective if plant industry RDC, peak industry bodies and ABIC were used to communicate outcomes.

Conclusion

This research and extension project is a ‘year two’ priority for Pollination Australia after completion of the ‘Economic case for pollination’ project.

16. Project budgets and program scheduling

The above priority projects combine to form a five-year pollination research program in which investment is scheduled in three parts: protection against Varroa (and other pests and diseases) anticipation of Varroa post Varroa establishment.

A five-year cash flow is provided in the table below.

Pollination Australia R&D Projects – Cost and Priority Order

Plan Period Project Expected cost $’000 in addition to current program of AHA, RIRDC, CSIRO, state DPIs and education agencies (fiscal year basis) 08 09 10 11 12 Protection 1. Surveillance best practice against- Research and compare Sentinel Hive and Baited Varroa and Hive best practice other pests Develop appropriate surveillance monitoring, $370 and diseases sampling, reporting and incentive systems for

(these are incorporation into B-Qual not Varroa Develop materials and systems to engage amateur specific) and commercial beekeepers in (Varroa) disease identification and reporting Develop prioritised research plan for improving productivity performance in pollination in view of $30 forecast growth in pollination demand, especially horticulture

2. Resource access – landscape management for pollination Investigation of New Zealand build-up practices Bee farms and revegetation $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 Alliances with timber companies Encouragement of native pollinators Social attitudes to forest access

Anticipation 3. Improving the economics of pollination of Varroa Complete outstanding research on a prioritised crop- by-crop basis that will demonstrate advantage of moving from current pollination to optimal

pollination and the losses that will be incurred post $150 Varroa. Review further opportunities for productivity improvement in pollination given the higher costs of pollination resulting from Varroa management Complete research to understand the role of feral bees/incidental pollination on a regional crop/pasture basis especially in relation to broadacre crops and pastures Outputs to be used in a Pollination Australia education and communication campaign

4. Pest and disease management to ensure the ongoing supply of pollination services Review options for hive tracking and associated national database

Disease diagnostics $250 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 Biosecurity plans Breeding genetically resistant bees Understanding Nosema ceranae and CCD Pest and disease management under pollination conditions Capacity to respond to other pests and diseases as they emerge

5. Living with Varroa – management practices for beekeepers and growers: Research to understand changes required in $125 $125 $125 $125

Plan Period Project Expected cost $’000 in addition to current program of AHA, RIRDC, CSIRO, state DPIs and education agencies (fiscal year basis) 08 09 10 11 12 management practices for beekeepers and growers with Varroa established in the Australian landscape Investigate what New Zealand, the US and others have done successfully to manage Varroa Husbandry options for Varroa management Chemical management options Avoiding chemical resistance Hive checking tools and procedures

Post Varroa 6. Alternative pollinators/reduced insect dependency Establish- Long term research into alternative, mainly native $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 ment pollinators Research to reduce plant dependency on insect mediated pollination

7. Pollination Best Management Practices Crop by crop guidelines for pollination best practice in a post Varroa setting $125 $125 $125 $125 Would include bee behaviour research in individual crops (navigation and foraging behaviour)

Total $1,100 $1,550 $1,550 $1,550 $1,550

17. R&D funding models

This chapter reviews possible funding models for pollination R&D providing a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of each model.

R&D funding models identified are: Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) application (e.g. Weeds CRC) independent commercially oriented research institute (E.g. NZ Honeybee Research Unit) RDC Cooperative Alliance (e.g. Pastures Australia) establish a new RDC funded with a new levy.

17.1 Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) application

Interested Pollination Australia stakeholders would contribute seed capital, appoint an application preparation team and fund the writing of a CRC application to the Australia Government Department of Education, Science and Training. The application would need firm research-funding commitments and may be eligible for Australian Government CRC funding. The successful precedent for this model is the Weeds CRC. A CRC style entity that would conduct research into apiculture and pollination, but also provide a critical mass of expertise for the provision of extension services and industry training was recommended by the House of Representatives 2006 – Skills: Rural Australia’s Need (House of Representatives 2006).

Advantages Established research funding channel and a way of tapping broadly based political support for Pollination Australia’s stated goals. Reflects the public good nature of much of the pollination research proposed. Is a sound way of achieving the critical mass needed for Pollination Australia? Successful cross-industry precedent exists (e.g. Weed CRC application).

Disadvantages Very high funding application failure rate. Excessively long lead-time between funding application and research commencement. This lead-time may not be available to the pollination industry given the immediacy of Varroa and other pest/disease threats. Does not establish a permanent funding structure and support may unravel after a relatively short time (<5 years). CRC’s with their extensive requirements for reporting are a high administration cost option.

A permeation of this option would be for the Pollination Australia alliance to join an existing CRC e.g. the CRC for Plant Biosecurity. A number of workshop attendees were not convinced that this would result in a workable outcome for Pollination Australia.

17.2 Independent commercially oriented research institute

A more expedient variation on the above CRC option would be the New Zealand approach. This was as simple as ‘employing some good people and giving them the responsibility to organise funding for their activities’. The result, more by accident than by planning, was the Honeybee Research Unit which currently attracts $NZ 1 million pa from commercial and non-commercial sources to investigate pollination, Varroa, AFB, pollination education and miscellaneous commercial work linked to pollinatioN. The NZ Honeybee Research Unit has been a major factor in the development of the pollination industry in New Zealand. A similar Australian research unit/institute could be attached to an existing organisation like the CSIRO. Initial seed capital would be required during the establishment period (Mark Goodwin, Honeybee Research Unit pers. comm. December 2007).

Advantages Immediate response to required R&D is possible. Low overheads.

Disadvantages Highly dependent on drive and motivation of key staff. Possibility of research agenda ‘capture’ by those who fund the institute's projects rather than the industry or national good. Concerned with short-term development style research, which will generate a profit for the Unit. This style of arrangement is best suited to applied research, it is less able to complete fundamental genetic research of the type dominating the proposed list of Pollination Australia research projects. Less well suited to a federal Australian system where there are nine Departments of Primary Industries each with resources to contribute to pollination research. New Zealand has a single central capacity, which the Honeybee Research Unit is able to serve.

17.3 Research and development corporation (RDC) cooperative alliance

Establish a cross RDC coordinating body, based inside one RDC, to manage a program of pollination research. The coordination body and the program would be funded by direct contributions from RDCs with an interest in pollinatioN. RDCs with a possible interest in funding a cooperative alliance might include HAL, RIRDC, GRDC, MLA, DA and AWI. The successful precedent for this model is Pastures Australia which is a cooperative alliance of RDCs to fund pasture research. Pastures Australia was established with an initial float of $1.5 million from five RDCs and a brief to ‘get across all the R&D taking place in this sector, coordinate all ongoing R&D in this area and eventually build Pastures Australia into a $12 million portfolio’.

Advantages Could be established relatively quickly (simple Memorandum of Understanding to secure funding for five years) and with few overheads (based inside an established RDC). It is a flexible model that can be tailored to the specific needs of the pollination industry Could be expanded to include other entities such as Almonds Australia, Timbercorp, Macquarie Bank and other investment organisations. Successful cross-industry precedent exists (Pastures Australia). Captures Australian Government dollar for dollar matching funds. Consistent with government priorities– RDCs should work across industries to achieve synergies.

Does not require any new funding structure e.g. the striking of a new levy, although it means redirection of funds from existing RDC budgets unless levies are raised. May not require any new funding to be found. A low overhead option.

Disadvantages RDCs may not be willing to draw funds away from existing priorities for this new need. Pastures Australia simply pooled and streamlined existing RDC investments in an already established priority. HAL has considerable difficulty in securing individual horticultural industry support for contributions to its internal ‘whole of horticulture’ programs. This initiative could be even more problematic. Recent initiatives in cross-RDC rural energy investment have met with luke-warm support from the RDCs. Does not establish a permanent funding structure and support may unravel after a relatively short time (<5 years).

A simple implementation path for this option would be management by RIRDC through its National Rural Issues portfolio or alternatively the alliance could be hosted by HAL as a Cross Industries program. This latter option may help with support from key horticultural industries.

17.4 Establish a new RDC funded with a new levy

Under the Primary Industries and Energy Research and Development Act 1989 (PIERD Act) industries can prepare new levy applications for the funding of R&D and establish a new RDC to manage levy receipts.

Advantages Establishes a new and clearly defined long-term source of funding for pollination R&D.

Disadvantages New levies can sometimes be difficult to establish. DAFF estimates that at least $2.5 million per year in levies is required to make a new industry- owned RDC viable. Could be viewed by existing producers as ‘double dipping’. High overhead option. A long lead-time between funding application and research commencement.

Advice from the 6 December 2007 workshop is that pollination is a service and would not qualify for inclusion under the PIERD Act. This option received no support.

17.5 Public good

Further consideration of funding models will need to be made against the long established user/beneficiary pays principle, the presence of ‘public good’ and the Productivity Commission’s report ‘Public Support for Science and Innovation’ including consideration of ‘spillovers’ and ‘additionality’.

18. Conclusion

This project has shown the there are important research, development and extension gaps that are not being addressed in current research portfolios. Important research gaps include:

Pollination efficiency research gaps Economic benefits of pollination are poorly understood by both growers and pollination service suppliers (beekeepers) Pollination requirements by crop and by climatic zone are poorly understood Work is needed on optimal orchard/crop layout for the facilitation of efficient pollination Impact of pollination on hive health is largely unknown Research is needed to reduce insect dependence on crops Pollination efficiency research is required e.g. fewer hives delivering a better result for growers Hive husbandry protocols pre-pollination are needed including the need for build-up Hive stress reduction during pollination e.g. nutrition substitutes Best practice, crop specific, pollination guidelines There is a need for a NZ style pollination manual National standards for pollination service providers are required, possibly based on the Tasmanian model Further adoption of QA (e.g. B-Qual) is needed Crop management guidelines (chemical use, labelling) are suggested Research on the impact of agricultural chemicals on bees (e.g. nicotinoids, fibronil) Agronomist training to improve their awareness of pollination and chemical management Grower training – NZ style seminar program Research on US/NZ style pollination brokering service Strategies regional coordination of pollination services Strategies to grow industry to meet forecast requirements Strategies to effectively ‘market’ the industry’s importance

Alternative pollinator research gaps Bumblebee research including Australian mainland pest threat potential, containment and management strategies, research on their range of useful crop species and cost-benefit analysis of mainland introduction Leafcutter bee research including their potential for crops other than lucerne and their pest management regimes Integrated pollination management (re-veg for natives) Long-term research on native pollinators Trigonia, Amegilla and other natives Mechanical pollination – scope, which crops possible etc

Pest and disease research gaps Varroa - ensure appropriate chemicals are registered and available, ensure correct chemicals used in surveillance, breeding Varroa resistant honeybee stock (mindful OS research), addressing pesticide resistance in Varroa mites, developing Varroa tolerance in bee populations (e.g. grooming) and using new techniques to manage Varroa infestation (e.g. pheromones) CCD - monitor overseas developments on causality Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus - monitor US research and any CCD link Tropilaelaps - ensure Varroa research and incursion preparation also valid for this mite

Determine the effect of Nosema ceranae on bee hives and develop control strategies American Foulbrood – management under pollination industry conditions Ongoing management – AFB, EFB, Small Hive Beetle, Nosema apis Overseas study tours/learning opportunities industry/researchers

Resource access research gaps Strategies for the creation of extra drought reserves and overwintering sites Bee farms – landholders providing deliberate havens for honeybees Plantation managed Investment Scheme (MIS) linkages including provision of bee friendly forest under stories and greenhouse gas carbon sequestration opportunities Supplementary feeding strategies – these may be economically viable post Varroa incursion Independent research on bee impacts in national parks including political/social research Strategies for effective Environmental Management Systems (EMS) or alternatives Community education importance of resource access

Other research issues Stock improvement – the genetics of mite tolerance mindful of possibility of buying in overseas research gains, breeding the optimal pollinator (difficult + costly) Climate change research including monitoring research implications for crops, eucalypts, diseases Biotechnology - review biotech applications e.g. novel Varroa control and the implications of GM crops on pollination industry

Addressing these gaps will lead to the improvement and sustainability of the pollination industry and its dependent plant industries. The initial research portfolio described in this study, developed with the assistance of informed stakeholders, should be refined and expanded as other plant industries reliant on insect pollination are added to the Pollination Australia alliance.

References

Anderson, D. and Trueman, J. W. H. (2000). "Varroa jacobsoni (Acari: Varroidae) is more than one species." Experimental & Applied Acarology, 24, 165-189.

Anderson, D. (2006). Improving lucerne pollination with leafcutter bees Stage 2, CSIRO Entomology. Report prepared for Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra. Publication No. 06/180.

Cook, D., D.L. Anderson, S.A. Cunningham and P.J. De Barro (2007). De-pollination of a nation: Estimating the economic impact of Varroa on major Australian crops, Journal of Ecological Applications.

CIE (Centre for International Economics) (2005). Taking stock and setting directions: Future directions for the Australian honeybee industry. Report prepared for the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Forestry.

CIE (Centre for International Economics) (2007a). Analysis of the market for pollination services in Australia – Consultation Paper. Report prepared for Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra. Publication forthcoming.

CIE (Centre for International Economics) (2007b). Submission to the House of Representatives Agriculture, Fisheries, and Forestry Committee Inquiry, June 2007. Submission prepared on behalf of the Australian Honeybee Industry Council.

CIE (2008) Pollination Australia Business PlaN. Business Plan prepared by the Centre for International Economics for Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Horticulture Australia and the Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.

Dollin, A. (2007). Submission to the inquiry into the future development of the honeybee industry. House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (native alternative pollinators).

Gibbs, D. and I. Muirhead (1998). The economic value and environmental impact of the Australian honeybee industry. Report prepared for the Australian beekeeping industry. Available at: www.honeybee.org.au/economics.htm [Accessed: 10/5/2005].

Gill, R.A. (1989). The value of Pollination Services in Australia, The Australasian Beekeeper, December, pp 256-275.

Gordon, J. and L. Davis (2003). Valuing honeybee pollinatioN. The Centre for International Economics. Report prepared for Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Project No. CIE-15A, Publication No. 03/077.

House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (2006). Report on Rural Skills Training and Research Available at www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/Primind/ruralskills/index.htm [Accessed 8/1/2008]

House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (2007). Discussion Paper on the Future Development of the Honeybee Industry Available at www.aph.gov.au/House/committee/primind/honeybee/discussion%20paper.pdf [Accessed 8/1/2008].

Impact Consulting Group (in press). Pollination Australia Risk Management PlaN. A Report for the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation

Impact Consulting Group (in press). Pollination Australia Education and Training Needs Project. A Report for the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation

Kevan, P., et al. (1990). Association of Varroa jacobsoni with organisms other than honeybees and implications for its dispersal. Bee World 71: 3, 119-121.

Parker, C. (1989). Beehive management for crop pollinatioN. A pollination service - a beekeeper's view. In: Pollination Services. Proceedings of seminars held at Hobart and Deloraine on 19- 20 September, 1989. Department of Primary Industry, Tasmania.

Productivity Commission (2007). Public Support for Science and Innovation Productivity Commission Research Report 9 March 2007 available at: http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/37121/scienceoverview.pdf [Accessed 8 January 2008].

Primary Industries and Energy Research and Development Act 1989 (PIERD Act) i.

RIRDC (Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation) (2006). Pasture Seeds Completed Projects in 2005-06 and Research in Progress as at June 2006. Report prepared for Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra.

RIRDC (Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation) (2007a). Honeybee R&D Plan 2007-2012. Report prepared for Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra. Publication No. 07/056.

RIRDC (Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation) (2007b). Honeybee Industry Linkages Workshop 2007: - Presenter abstracts - The importance of honeybee pollination to Australian industries – an overview.

RIRDC (Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation) (2007c). Commercial Beekeeping in Australia, new editioN. Report prepared by F Benecke. Report prepared for Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra. Publication No. 07/059.

RIRDC (Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation) (2007d) Honeybee Research Compendium Edited by AgEconPlus. Report prepared for Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra. Publication No. 07/139.

RIRDC (Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation) (various dates). Honeybee Research Report 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006.

Smith (2007) Submission to the House of Representatives Agriculture, Fisheries, and Forestry Committee Inquiry, June 2007. Submission prepared on behalf of the Australian Hydroponics and Greenhouse Association.

Solignac, M., J. Cornuet, D. Vautrin, Y. Le Conte, D. Anderson, J. Evans, S. Cros-Arteil and M. Navajas (2005). The invasive Korean and Japan types of Varroa destructor, ectoparasitic mites of the western honeybee (Apis mellifera), are two partially isolated clones. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 272: 411-419.

Somerville, D (2005). Fat Bees Skinny Bees: A Manual on honey bee nutrition for beekeepers RIRDC Publication Number 05/054.

Spangler, H. and J. Moffett (1979). Pollination of melons in greenhouses. Gleanings in Bee Culture 107: 17-18.

Stockstad, E. (2007). Disappearing Bee Mystery Deepens, ScienceNOW Daily News 2 November 2007 http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/1102/2

Stubbs, C. F. Drummond, and D. Yarborough (2000). Commercial bumblebee. Factsheet 302. University of Maine, Orono. Available at: http://wildblueberries.maine.edu/FactSheets/302.htm [Accessed 31/10/2007].

Stubbs, C. F. Drummond, and D. Yarborough (2007). How to manage alfalfa leaf cutting bees for wild blueberry pollinatioN. Factsheet 300. The University of Maine, Orono. Available at: http://wildblueberries.maine.edu/FactSheets/300.htm [Accessed: 31/10/2007].

Sumner, D.A. and H. Boriss (2006). Bee-conomics and the Leap in Pollination Fees. University of California. Occasional Paper.

Vithanage, V. and D.A. Ironside (1986). The insect pollinators of macadamia and their relative importance. Journal of the Australian Institute of Agricultural Science 52: 155–160.