# Almond Pollination Payment



## Elwood (Apr 8, 2009)

My understanding is if a colony does not cover 8 frames when they pop the lid, then that colony does not count and wont be paid for, is that right?


If that is right, wouldn't it be more equitable to pay per frame covered. A colony covering 6 frames will still fly and do some good wouldn't they?

I've never done pollination and not sure I will but still am curious about this. Seems like somewhere in the range of 10 -20$ per frame would be fair to everyone.


----------



## Skinner Apiaries (Sep 1, 2009)

Not towards almonds, but I started doing pollination by frame count. I got a raise, and picked up another contract.


----------



## Elwood (Apr 8, 2009)

Seems like it would help to stabilize the market.


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

I guarantee 6 frames of brood and 8 frames of bees. But I presently only pollinate apples, blueberries and cranberries. Most of my hives are much stronger than that by pollination time.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Isn't customary in Almonds that a number of hives are inspected to see what the average is and the lot paid according to the average?


----------



## Stevebeeman (May 22, 2011)

Our standard contract has the following definition of what the 7 or 8 frame average negotiated in the contract requires:

“By definition an “Active Frame of Bees” shall mean two sides of a standard Hoffman frame of comb (8” X 17”), or equivalent comb area, at least 75% covered by brood at a density of four bees per square inch or more. Frames of less than 75% coverage shall be combined and counted toward the standard active frame of brood within the hives. Brood shall mean total area of comb of colony containing healthy brood in any stage of development, including eggs or larvae in open cells and capped larvae, pupae or imago stages.
Hives will have a laying queen and bees to care for the active brood.”

In 2012, we had planned to include in our contracts an additional “bonus” fee for hives that exceeded whatever the average number frames per hives the contract called. For example, if the contract called for an 8-frame minimum and we produced an average of 9-frames we receive an additional rental fee maxing out at say up to 10-frames, however, with the surplus of hives available this year that plan met with growers’ resistances.

This year we received a contract for 3,000 hives in which the grower required the terms of the contract to be a 7-frame minimum of bees at the start of the bloom. There was an inspection prior to bloom counting each hive by looking at the top bars of frames in each super and counting the number of bars that had bees on each side of at least 75% of the length of the frame. Hives with the average of less than 7-frames were used in the average only if the 4 hives on the pallet averaged 7-frames, if it did not average 7 frames no hives with 3 or less frames were paid for. If the Set of pallets did not averaged 7-frames per hive, no hives were paid for that had 3 or less frames of bees in that Set.

In late February, 15% of the hives were inspected to verify, (based on the above definition of an “active Frame of Bees”) that the hives were still healthy. The growers reasoning for this (besides being burn by the beekeeper in previous years) was that counting the brood after the bloom did not indicate the number of foraging bees when need most, during the bloom. Verifying the “active frame of brood” after the bloom indicated that the hives were productive during the bloom and prevented the beekeeper from combining several weak hives into one strong just too past grade prior to bloom then crashing.

I believe with the excess supply of local bees in California, we will see increasing higher standards for pollination contracts in the coming years.


----------



## Skinner Apiaries (Sep 1, 2009)

Second inspection sounds annoying. As to more bees, I take it better genetics and better practices are coming around.


----------



## Stevebeeman (May 22, 2011)

I believe the “more bees” are coming from unemployed and mostly east European immigrants who seem to come from a long family beekeeping background, they work very hard at what they do; father, mother, son, uncle, and cousin all work in the business. They make most of their own equipment, have a large network among themselves, and are rapidly building a large inventory of hives. Many have gone from just a few hives to a thousand hives in only a matter of a few years. One local entrepreneur went from 300 hives, to over 10,000 in 4 years. 

As a group they “Fly Under the Radar” in the sense that they do not report or register with any governmental agency. They do not belong to any beekeeping associations, work on a cash only basis, (or have a straw man that receives payment and buys pesticides on their behalf) and they and their hives are not counted in any of the census reports as to how many local active hives are really in California.

When I go into the local Mann Lake store in Northern California, which has tripled in volume in the last 3-years, 9 times out of 10 I am the only English-speaking person out of 10-15 customers in the store.

They pollinate almonds for less than $120.00 a hive, yet their net profit is much higher than someone who ships a truckload of hives from out-of-state and charges $155.00 per hive.

It is The OLD American Way!


----------



## Elwood (Apr 8, 2009)

Stevebeeman, Thanks for the detailed explanation. The way you described it, explained the agreement in much better terms. Sounds more fair and reasonable than I first thought.

I bumped into an eastern European (Ukrainian) who was taking hive bodies from an older associate. After an intense exchange where I explained to him that he was committing a crime and had informed the Sheriffs office, he promptly returned the 150 hive bodies as well as quite a few colonies. Haven't seen him since. I'm sure he was the exception but it left a first impression.


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

Elwood said:


> I bumped into an eastern European (Ukrainian) who was taking hive bodies from an older associate. After an intense exchange where I explained to him that he was committing a crime and had informed the Sheriffs office, he promptly returned the 150 hive bodies as well as quite a few colonies. Haven't seen him since. I'm sure he was the exception but it left a first impression.


Where's the popcorn. lol lol...


----------



## Level 4 (Feb 4, 2012)

That 2nd inspection sounds like it could benefit the growers. Union Pacific Railroad use to bring in huge numbers of laborers, work them hard for a month on a really difficult site and then a "landslide" would killed most of them right before payday. "OOPS sorry your bees are all dead, I guess I don't need to pay you." @ days after they poison your hives.....I'm just sayin"


----------



## Stevebeeman (May 22, 2011)

Level 4 said:


> That 2nd inspection sounds like it could benefit the growers. Union Pacific Railroad use to bring in huge numbers of laborers, work them hard for a month on a really difficult site and then a "landslide" would killed most of them right before payday. "OOPS sorry your bees are all dead, I guess I don't need to pay you." @ days after they poison your hives.....I'm just sayin"


Interesting way of thinking, I believe they could as easily and purposely kill your bees just before the “first” post bloom inspection if their intent was to avoid payment. Most successful businesspeople/growers do not become successful thinking or acting in that way, it becomes very problematic. Who would continue dealing with them in the future, testing the bees though the lab would verify poisoning, and Nut Set would prove that trees were pollinated. 

FYI, Union Pacific Railroad, paid the next of kin or the beneficiary of the employee killed along with burial expenses. U.P. was under an extreme time deadline and short of workers to be killing them off, not good business practice, very similar to the growers situation, short bloom period, few bees. You’re watching too much T.V.


----------



## Elwood (Apr 8, 2009)

Steve,
Explaining the terms of your contract went a long ways at putting my mind at ease. I can see there are some risks on both sides of the deal and it looks like the agreement addresses both sides. Striking a balance is the art of the deal and is no small feat, my hat is off to those of you that have learned to cooperate to the benefit of all sides.

My next concern would be security, how to best guard against theft? Is it even a problem?


----------



## Level 4 (Feb 4, 2012)

Kind of hard to send $ to next of kin, when there is none. This might be hard to believe, but large numbers of Chinese came to this land with no paper work. I worked for UP for 8 years and might know just a little about their history as well. Maybe you watch too much T.V. Steve.LOL


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Level 4 said:


> Union Pacific Railroad use to bring in huge numbers of laborers, work them hard for a month on a really difficult site and then a "landslide" would killed most of them right before payday.





Level 4 said:


> Kind of hard to send $ to next of kin, when there is none. This might be hard to believe, but large numbers of Chinese came to this land with no paper work. I worked for UP for 8 years and might know just a little about their history as well. Maybe you watch too much T.V. Steve.LOL


_Level 4_, you are either confused or deliberately misrepresenting the situation. It was the _Central Pacific Railroad_, starting from about Sacramento, CA and building east, that employed large numbers of Chinese immigrants. The Union Pacific built west from Nebraska, til both railroads met in Utah. The _Union Pacific Railroa_d did not employ any significant number of Chinese.



> The main workers on the Union Pacific were many Army veterans and Irish immigrants. Most of the engineers and supervisors were Army veterans who had learned their trade keeping the trains running during the American Civil War. The Central Pacific, facing a labor shortage in the West, relied on mostly Chinese immigrant laborers. They did prodigious work building the line over and through the Sierra Nevada mountains and across Nevada to the meeting in Utah.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Transcontinental_Railroad


----------



## SRatcliff (Mar 19, 2011)

Interesting thread. I had no idea of all the stuff that goes on...


----------



## Stevebeeman (May 22, 2011)

Elwood said:


> My next concern would be security, how to best guard against theft? Is it even a problem?



Theft is a problem, we have not experienced it personally but we hear the stories. It is the risk of running any business. Out of site-out-of mind, locked gates, name and number on the hive, etc.


----------



## Stevebeeman (May 22, 2011)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> _Level 4_, you are either confused or deliberately misrepresenting the situation. It was the _Central Pacific Railroad_, starting from about Sacramento, CA and building east, that employed large numbers of Chinese immigrants. The Union Pacific built west from Nebraska, til both railroads met in Utah. The _Union Pacific Railroa_d did not employ any significant number of Chinese.


Darn, I hate it when someone has all the facts!
Good Job Explaining the facts!

The point is why would you do business with a grower that will kill your bees? Check their references! 

AND WHY for God's sakes, Level 4, would you work for a company that you THINK killed its employees??


----------



## Level 4 (Feb 4, 2012)

Steve I didn't say that I would do business with a grower who operated that way, so stop assuming for me.Thanks. Secondly as I stated above I "worked for UP" meaning I no longer do. Sometimes people work in less than ideal situations. You're lucky if you never had to. Do a little more research and you will find out that Central and Union are one of the same, due to a merger in 1901. I hope those facts are explained well enough for you. If I offended you, I offer my deepest apologies.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Level 4 said:


> Do a little more research and you will find out that Central and Union are one of the same, due to a merger in 1901.


Not correct. The Central Pacific Railroad was absorbed into the Southern Pacific Railroad in 1885. The Southern Pacific and Union Pacific were both controlled by E.H. Harriman for 8 years, starting in 1901, but were not merged due to the US Government blocking it. The Southern Pacific and Union Pacific were competitors after the end of Harriman control of Southern Pacific in 1908. It was not until 1996 that the Southern Pacific Railroad was merged into the Union Pacific Railroad.

References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Pacific_Railroad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EH_Harriman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Pacific_Transportation_Company



Level 4 said:


> I hope those facts are explained well enough for you.


:lookout:


----------

