Various kinds of agreements have been used in renting bees for pollination. Some have been verbal, others written. The written ones have varied in length from a brief paragraph to several pages. Too frequently, a pollination agreement ends in dissatisfaction, to the detriment of both the grower and beekeeper, because of some condition not clearly agreed upon in advance. One reason for such misunderstandings may be that conditions peculiar to the use of bees in a pollination program are not usually encountered by either grower or beekeeper in other agricultural or apicultural practices.

Because of these and numerous other reasons that may arise, involving legal considerations as well as good-neighbor policy, an explicit agreement should be insisted upon by the participants when bees are rented to pollinate a crop. The agreement is more likely to be satisfactory if it is drawn from the experience and knowledge of numerous growers and beekeepers who have used bees to pollinate crops. Legal experts with knowledge of the value and limitation of specific items proposed for the agreement should also be consulted.

Sometimes a written agreement is no stronger than the party's word, because no penalty for breaking the agreement is included. For example, one agreement that has been used merely stated:

"I, (beekeeper's name), agree to supply ___ colonies of bees to (grower's name) to pollinate ___ acres of (crop) for the year . I (grower's name), agree to pay (beekeeper's name) $ ___ per colony for colonies of honey bees to pollinate my (crop) for the year." (Date), (Beekeeper's signature), (Grower's signature).

In this agreement, neither the grower nor the beekeeper is adequately protected. There is no penalty if the beekeeper fails to deliver the colonies, delivers inadequate colonies, fails to take adequate care of the colonies while they are being used in the pollination program, or fails to remove them at the time desired by the grower. There is no indication as to what steps the beekeeper might take in caring for the colonies or even if he has the rights of entry upon the premises to care for them. There is no indication that the grower is obligated in any way to take steps to protect the colonies from pesticides or other harmful farm practices. Nor is there a penalty for delay in payment or nonpayment of fees, and no agreed-upon recourse for the beekeeper in case of default by the grower.

Such an agreement usually leads to later misunderstanding between the parties involved. More lengthy agreements have been used that covered many obligations of both parties, including changes of plans because of environmental conditions and acts of God.

Regardless of the type or the length of agreement used, unless it protects both parties and includes enforceable penalties for breach of contract, it is unlikely to be satisfactory.

IDENTIFICATION OF PARTICIPANTS

The general terms of the agreement should be indicated in a preamble, including the date, the landowner or grower and his address, the owner or operator of the bees or their agent and his address, and the crop involved and its location. If special beekeeping or farming terms are used, which are not clearly understood by all parties involved, a glossary should be included. Some agreements require signatures in the presence of a notary public or witness.

RENTAL PRICE

The rental price for the colonies should be specified. If the rental payment is to be made by cash or check, the time, place, and method of delivery of the payment should be stipulated. If payment consists of a portion of the pollinated crop, the amount and quality of the product should be clearly stated. In addition, the responsibility for delivery of the portion of the pollinated crop to the beekeeper or designated place of storage should be specified. If costs of containers, transportation, storage, or special treatment of the crop is involved, the agreement should specify who pays such costs.

TIME OF DELIVERY OF THE COLONIES

The date of delivery of the bees should be specified or a mutually satisfactory arrangement made for notifying the beekeeper when they are desired. (For some crops a delay of a few days may result in complete failure of the bees to pollinate the crop. For other crops a staggered rate of delivery, as growth and flowering progresses, may be desired.) The exact method of notification should be specified. The penalty for late delivery should also be specified.

Enough time after notification to permit orderly scheduling of colony delivery should be required. Weekends and periods requiring overtime pay of employees should be considered. The parties should remember that if weather is the predominant factor in the initiation of flowering, it is likely to affect all fields under pollination agreement of the beekeeper. The beekeeper should therefore schedule no more colonies than he can deliver in an anticipated alloted time.

NUMBER OF COLONIES

The number of colonies to be used per acre of a specific crop and the acreage should be stated. The contract may designate "colony equivalents," if the bees are rented on the basis of size of cluster or area of the broodnest. By this method, 90 populous or 110 weaker colonies may be equivalent to 100 colonies of a specified strength. Payment on the basis of colony equivalents should encourage the delivery of colonies of adequate strength. This method of payment would require rather close examination of the colonies by a qualified person. If this method of determining the numbers of colonies is to be used, the details should be expressed in the agreement.

STRENGTH OF COLONIES

Honey bee colony populations can vary from a few hundred to about 100,000 bees, the cluster size from a few cubic inches to a cubic foot or more, and the brood area from none to about 2,000 in². For these reasons, the agreement should specify the colony strength. This might be in square inches of sealed brood, square inches of total brood (eggs, larvae, and pupae), or cluster size at certain approximate outdoor temperatures. The cluster size might be described as covering a specified number of combs or filling of specific size chambers or "supers" of the hive.

The grower should require permission to examine the colonies or have them examined to determine if they qualify for the standards agreed upon.

The beekeeper should attempt to deliver only colonies that meet these standards. He should require incentive payments for colonies that exceed the requirements if penalties are imposed for those that fail to reach the requirements.

If the grower examines the colonies to determine their strength, the beekeeper should require that such examination be made in a way that is not detrimental to the hives or their contents. The method of examining the colonies should be agreed upon in advance. The tolerance permitted on standards for colony strength should be specified.

PLACEMENT OF THE COLONIES

The locations for the colonies should be specified precisely, so that no confusion will arise when the laden vehicle arrives at the location during the night. If the colonies are to be distributed in the field or orchard, the distance between locations and the approximate number of colonies per location should be stated. The colonies should be placed as nearly as possible where the grower desires them, but so that they can be maintained and operated normally. If only a portion of the colonies are to be delivered at a time, the number and rate of delivery should be specified. Locations should be designated where they are accessible to the beekeeper or his vehicles from time of placement until removal. The locations should be so designated that farm employees, the public, and domestic animals are unlikely to be stung by the bees.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF COLONIES

The grower should allow access to the colonies by the beekeeper so that they can be maintained in optimum condition for pollination of the crop. The beekeeper should make every effort to keep them in this condition. This may require feeding of the colonies if stores are low, or removing excess honey so there is storage space for nectar and pollen. The beekeeper may need to add extra space as the colony expands. This requires expert care of the colonies by the beekeeper. If the colonies are more than about half a mile from a water supply, the beekeeper should arrange with the grower in advance to provide water. He might explain to the grower that considerable time is required by the bees in collecting water; therefore, the nearer the supply, the more time the bees have to pollinate the crop.

The beekeeper should be prudent in entering upon the property of the grower to service the bees. He should also manage them prudently to minimize the danger of stings.

PROTECTION OF COLONIES FROM PESTICIDE APPLICATIONS AND OTHER FARM PRACTICES

The agreement should explicitly state the pesticide program likely to be in effect at the time the crop is to be pollinated, on the grower's property and, to the best of his ability, on nearby property. The grower should determine in advance if a pesticide application is likely to be needed, its probable effect on the bees and their pollinating efficiency, and the liability if damage to the bees occurs.

The time and method of notifying the beekeeper before application of the pesticide and the penalty for damage to the colonies should also be specified.

In the event of bee kill and the two parties cannot agree as to its extent, the agreement should specify that each shall select an arbiter and that these two shall select a third party. This three-man team will then examine the colonies and determine the extent of loss within a specified time.

REMOVAL OF THE COLONIES

The failure of the beekeeper to remove the colonies after the crop has been sufficiently pollinated is often frustrating to the grower who wants to spray, cultivate, or harvest the crop. For a few crops, an excessive set of fruit can create a thinning problem. The agreement should therefore specify the time and conditions of removal of the colonies, the time and method of notification of the beekeeper, and the penalties for the failure to remove the colonies within a specified time.

The agreement should also specify under what conditions the colonies may be removed for protection from pesticides. If the colonies are to be returned to the field after such removal, the cost of removal and return should be specified, along with the time and method of paying this cost.

Frequent misunderstandings arise over the need for the bees to be returned to the crop after their premature removal. This removal date, in relation to the progress of the crop, can seldom be predetermined. The agreement should, therefore, indicate who makes the final decision in this situation.

PROTECTION FROM STINGS AND ASSOCIATED LIABILITIES

Although the colonies should be so placed that stings are unlikely to occur to the innocent, the agreement should specify who is liable in the event trouble arises over stings. Such incidents can arise as a result of the manipulating of the colonies by the beekeeper, the disturbance of the colonies by certain farm operations, or by the molesting of the colonies by outsiders.

PAYMENT OF POLLINATION FEES

Most of the problems with pollination agreements arise over the payments. The agreement should, therefore, be explicit in stating how, when, where, and under what conditions payment is made. If the colonies, when delivered, failed to comply with a specified standard and deductions influence the payments, the agreement should specify when and how such deductions are calculated and how they influence the payments.

The agreement should also specify penalties for defaulting on payments, including such costs of collection as legal fees, interest, and damages.

PENALTIES AND REWARDS

Both the grower and the beekeeper should strive to adhere to the terms of the agreement; however, no agreement is likely to be binding without penalties and rewards. The agreement should specify the rewards, such as discounts, if any, for prompt payment of fees, credit for colonies that exceed the standards set, or bonuses for crop production that exceeds specified amounts.

Penalties should also be specified. Those against the beekeeper might cover late delivery or early removal of the colonies, failure to remove the colonies within specified dates, inadequate colony strength, inadequate colony care, or lack of prudence in relation to activities on the grower's premises. Penalties against the grower might include interest on delayed payment of pollination fees and expenses for collecting the fees, including legal action, cost of collection agencies, or other expenses, or damage to the colonies or hives by imprudent action of the grower or his employees while the colonies are on his premises.

The beekeeper should be available by phone in the event the grower needs to contact him about the bees, their services, protection, delivery, or removal. Likewise, the grower should be available in the event something occurs concerning delivery, removal, or protection of the bees while on the grower's premises.

The grower and the beekeeper or agent should agree on the bee sites or locations when the agreement is signed. These sites must be accessible when the bees arrive. Frequently, the truck loaded with the bees arrives late at night. If a gate is locked, a road or driveway changed, a field plowed or irrigated so that the site is inaccessible, and the driver is unacquainted with the farm layout, valuable time is lost and the beekeeper's schedule is disrupted. Disturbing the grower or learning that he is unavailable for deciding upon an alternate site may cause delay and ill will.

Colonies are sometimes rented on a flat-rate basis with little regard to their condition, although populous colonies supply more bees to the field, and their bees also tend to fly at lower temperatures than bees in weaker colonies (Todd and Reed 1970).

Farrar (1929) proposed a price adjustment based on the number of frames covered by the cluster when the temperature was in the range of 60 deg to 65 deg F. He proposed that with the then current price of $5 for a cluster that covered five- to six-frames, there should be a reduction of $1.25 for each frame less than five, and $1 additional for each frame above six that was covered with bees.

By this method, a cluster covering only four frames would rent for $3.75 and three frames, for only $2.50. Those with seven frames would rent for $6, eight frames for $7,10 frames for $9, and 13 or more for $12.

The defect in this proposal was that the incentive to have stronger colonies was not sufficiently great. A more realistic stimulus for supplying stronger colonies might be based on one of the following equivalent scales:

Cluster Frames with Sealed Proposed comparative Size brood brood price __________________________________________________________ Square inches dollars 2

100 0.50 4 2 200 3.00 6 3 300 5.50 8 4 400 8.00

10 5 500 10.50 12 6 600 13.00 14 7 700 15.50 16 8 800 18.00 18 9 900 20.50 20 10 1,000 23.00 _________________________________________________________ 1 Frames of bees.

By using such a scale, the beekeeper would have an incentive to unite his weak colonies or otherwise provide stronger ones. Such a scale is supported by data of Sheesley and Poduska (1970). They showed (table 6) that colonies with eight or more frames covered on both sides with bees collected more than two and one-half times as much almond pollen (and presumably pollinated the almond flowers in the process) as colonies with only four or five frames covered with bees, and more than four times as much pollen as colonies with only three frames covered with bees.

In this way, a standard for colony strength may be used, but the price of the unit should fluctuate. The beekeeper should consider costs and other expenses when considering and establishing the price for his colonies. Factors that will enter into this price cost will include the length of time the crop will be in bloom, the distance that the bees must be hauled to the crop, the relative danger of pesticide damage while the bees are on the crop, and the time of flowering in relation to the major honey flows in his area.

Instead, the beekeeper is frequently more inclined to set the price for the colonies below the expense of supplying them. Too frequently, he fears that better pollination fees will attract competition into the area, and the locations will be lost or decreased in value. The price is set with "his eye on the honey can" rather than his consideration of maximum pollination service to the grower.

Both the beekeeper and the grower would benefit if cutrate prices were not used. If the beekeeper is to stay in business and provide optimum service, he must be adequately reimbursed. Failing to do this, he eventually must abandon the pollination business, wherupon the grower suffers. Probably the best way this can be achieved is through independent contractors who can determine adequate fees and appropriate strength and numbers of colonies for the crop then enforce these requirements for the betterment of both groups.

TABLE 6.--Average weight of pollen collected by colonies of 5 population strength groups, expressed as percentage of group 3 (Sheesley and Poduska, 1970)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Experimental colony group Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 colony (O-2 (3 (4-5 (6-7 (8 + group frames') frames) frames) frames frames) __________________________________________________________ Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent 1962 2 6.2 63.9 100 199.1 286.9 1970 3 5.2 42.4 100 164.7 292.4 1970 4 16.0 54.1 100 148.6 305.9 __________________________________________________________

¹ The equivalent number of frames covered on both sides with bees.

² 6-day collection from 113 colonies.

³ 7-day collection from 143 colonies.

⁴ 10-day collection from 99 colonies. his consideration of maximum pollination service to the grower.

INDUSTRY REPRESENTATION

A pollination service that expects to continue on a large scale over a long period must be equally interested in the welfare of the grower and the beekeeper. It should be directed by both crop and bee specialists. Unless both industries are represented and have equal status in directing the program, it is doomed to failure.

The crop specialist should strive to obtain the pollination service that will result in maximum economic crop production.

The bee specialist should strive to obtain fees for the beekeeper who supplies the pollination service sufficient to profitably maintain the colonies, equipment, and help in providing the grower service.

Each specialist should have equal expression in determining the services the grower needs and the fees that the beekeeper receives. Each should see that the contracts are so written that both parties are legally protected and that the responsibilities of each party is clearly and explicitly delineated.

SCOPE

A pollination service organization that includes a large number of growers and beekeepers should be more stable and likely to continue to function, if managed properly, than one with a smaller number of members. Like a large insurance company, it should survive individual or local failures or adversities that affect the crops, the bees, or both.

Because of the costs and other logistic problems associated with moving honey bee colonies long distances, the contracts and services would, from the economy standpoint, tend to be regional in scope. For example, the area of operation of an individual beekeeper is based largely on the distance he can move a truckload of bees during the night, with a possible extension into the cooler part of the next morning-- some 300 to 600 miles.

Some States have regulations prohibiting transportation of colonies into the State, entry fee for the transported colonies, or control of the location of the colonies after they enter the State. Most States require a certificate of inspection indicating that the colonies are apparently free of contagious or infectious diseases (Michael 1967). From the crop pollination standpoint, these regulations, important in the control of bee diseases, can hamper but will not prevent large-scale use of colonies in a pollination program.

METHOD OF OPERATION

A large-scale pollination program would lend itself well to computerization, although field men would be required to "sell" the service by making the contracts with the growers, mapping the locations for the bees, insuring colony quality control, and providing other grower and beekeeper protective measures. For example, the various grower and beekeeper locations could be fed into the computer, along with dates bees might be needed and when they are available. Then the computer could, without bias, determine the nearest or most logical beekeeper available for pollination of a specific crop. If the beekeeper could not comply, the computer could immediately indicate the most logical second choice. Such a program might be national or even international in scope, subject to existing laws and regulations, with regional and local headquarters for the field men who make personal contact with the growers and beekeepers. Its size would permit greatest flexibility in the use of bees on different crops in the different areas. This could benefit both parties.

In summary, the pollination agreement should be as complete as possible so that both the grower and the beekeeper are protected. Agreements between individual growers and beekeepers can be satisfactory. A pollination service encompassing numerous growers and beekeepers, and administered by agents equally concerned with the welfare of both groups, offers the possibility of greater and continual stability.

FARRAR, C. L.
1929. BEES AND APPLE POLLINATION. Mass. Agr. Ext. Sen. Spec. Cir. 7, 10 pp.

MICHAEL, A. S.
1967. FEDERAL, AND STATE BEE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. In Beekeeping in the United States, U.S. Dept Agr., Agr. Handb. 335, pp. 119-124.

ACEROLA SHEESLEY B., and PODUSKA, B.
1970. GRADING BEE COLONY STRENGTH. Almond Facts 35(5): 22-24.

TODD F. E., and REED, C.B.
1970. BROOD MEASUREMENT AS A VALID INDEX TO THE VALUE OF HONEY BEES AS POLLINATORS. Jour. Econ. Ent. 63: 148 -149.