From MAILER-DAEMON Sat Feb 28 08:53:00 2009 Return-Path: <> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.8 (2007-02-13) on industrial X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-90.0 required=2.4 tests=AWL,MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP,SPF_HELO_PASS,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=disabled version=3.1.8 X-Original-To: adamf@IBIBLIO.ORG Delivered-To: adamf@IBIBLIO.ORG Received: from listserv.albany.edu (unknown [169.226.1.24]) by metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2671749081 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 2009 08:44:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from listserv.albany.edu (listserv.albany.edu [169.226.1.24]) by listserv.albany.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n1SDdDKZ012145 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 2009 08:44:22 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 08:44:18 -0500 From: "University at Albany LISTSERV Server (14.5)" Subject: File: "BEE-L LOG0403E" To: adamf@IBIBLIO.ORG Message-ID: Content-Length: 36020 Lines: 796 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 14:57:23 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Kathy E Cox Subject: Re: Creamed Honey w/ Added Fruit MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/26/2004 5:42:41 AM Pacific Standard Time, mws@FRONTIERNET.NET writes: H. Morton wrote: "Does anyone have a recipe/process for creaming honey and adding berries/fruit." I am going to try to dehydrate berries and grind them to powder and mix with creamed honey. Anyone do that? Kathy Cox, Bloomfield Bees and Bouquets Northern California, Italian, 27 hives www.kathycox.frankcox.net :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and other info --- :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 08:15:15 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Lionel Evans Subject: Number of bees in a pound MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit How many regular Italian bees are there in 1 pound? Lionel :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and other info --- :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 15:41:33 +0200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Jean Jean Menier Subject: Re: Number of bees in a pound In-Reply-To: <1e2.1c792e7b.2d997b63@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi to all, Rule of the thumb : we usually say that for Apis mellifera mellifera, there are roughly 10 000 bees per kilo. Now, make your calculation for an english pound which is 453,6 gr .... But the number may vary if the bees are starving or are filled with nectar ! Sincerely to all, Jean J. Menier Paris, France At 08:15 29/03/04 -0500, vous avez écrit: >How many regular Italian bees are there in 1 pound? > >Lionel > >:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: >-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and other info --- >:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and other info --- :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 13:12:20 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: GImasterBK@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Number of bees in a pound MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Although some bees without a load of nectar are lightweight while incoming foragers with a nectar load are heavier, the figure of 3,500 bees to the pound is the standard figure used by all parties in the U.S. George Imirie Certified EAS Master Beekeeper :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and other info --- :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 15:22:40 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Kathy E Cox Subject: Re: Number of bees in a pound MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit not counting the brood, how many bees/# and pounds are on one frame? Kathy Cox, Bloomfield Bees and Bouquets Northern California, Italian, 28 hives www.kathycox.frankcox.net :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and other info --- :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 18:35:15 -0500 Reply-To: jfischer@supercollider.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Organization: Bedford Advanced Technology Test Lab Effort Subject: Re: Number of bees in a pound The following two statements have been made so far: >> 10,000 bees per kilo... > 3,500 bees to the pound is the standard > figure used by all parties in the U.S... 1 kilo is 2.2 pounds or so, so the two estimates are far from being in agreement. If there are 10,000 bees per kilo, then there should be 4,500 bees per pound. (0.45 * 10,000) = 4,500 On the other hand, if there are 3,500 bees per pound, then there should be 7,700 bees per kilo. (2.2 * 3,500) = 7,700 Perhaps the difference is due to a failure to account for the fanning action of some fraction of the bees, which (as a result of lift caused by such wing action) would make the same number of bees weigh less than one might otherwise expect. :) There is also work afoot at MAAREC (The Mid-Atlantic Apicultural Research and Extension Co-Op) to try and develop standards for "how many bees in a jar" when one is doing a sugar roll or (much more depressing) ether roll. It seems that everyone's estimate of "300 bees" is subject to massive revision when their estimate is actually counted. The apparent end result of this still ongoing work will be to encourage the use of measurements like "a half cup" or a "quarter cup" of bees, as volume appears to be a more reliable measure than a guess at a number of bees in a jar. Clearly a mite count from a "roll" would be more useful if the sample of bees contained a more consistent number of bees. But other questions arise, such as: a) "How big is a jar?" (900 Jars = 1 micro-Farad) b) "How many lids in a jar?" (This unit of measure was last used in Haight-Ashbury in the 1960s, and while it depends on the size of the jar, it only serves to define the age of the person asking the question.) c) If you leave bees in a jar long enough, will you be able to get rid of your extractor? d) Why have beekeepers not adopted plastic for use in such applications? Tupperware, perhaps? jim :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and other info --- :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 09:21:04 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dave Cushman Subject: Number of bees in a pound/more MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all Thinking back to when pounds and ounces were used to measure weight... I remember 5,000 bees to the pound being quoted several times. So I decided to look at what Wedmore said about it. I hope the tabbing works out for you WEIGHT OF WORKER BEES Weight Number in per Description Milligrams Pound 110 4,100 on emergence 158 2,900 on 8th day 100 4,500 at 3 weeks old 80 5,700 as an old forager 95 4,800 Average age of field bee (empty) 133* 3,400 Average age of field bee (fully loaded) 60 7,600 weight of old starved bee * This figure was probably taken during a good harvest. The general average would be much below this. 14. The round figure of 5,000 bees per pound is clearly over- estimated, especially as applied to bees in a swarm. Package bees vary from about 2,600 to 4,500 per pound, averaging say 3,500. Probably a figure of 3,500 to 4,000 is about right for a swarm, varying with the strain and the number of hours the swarm has been out. Quite why he measured in milligrams and stated figures per pound eludes me, but using 3,500 to 4,000 from the above text, I would say that 4,000 was a good bet for US bees, because they have high content of Italian genes (which are small bodied) and a very low content of AMM genes (which are large bodied) and as the reverse is true in UK I reckon a good figure for the UK would be 3,500. Having said all that I am not about to hunt out a set of old avoirdupois weights in order to check. Best Regards & 73s, Dave Cushman... G8MZY Beekeeping & Bee Breeding Website Email: cyberbeek@tiscali.co.uk or dave@dave-cushman.net http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman & http://www.dave-cushman.net :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and other info --- :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 19:53:53 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Kilty Subject: Re: Canadian Honey In-Reply-To: <000801c413fc$aff4d140$cba35b40@rickWG5N33DUTV> MIME-Version: 1.0 In message <000801c413fc$aff4d140$cba35b40@rickWG5N33DUTV>, Rick Drutchas writes >Is it true that Canadian honey is not being sold in Europe because it is >contaminated with GM pollen? It should be noted that there is huge antagonism to GM crops and anything derived from them here in the EU. I cannot open the discussion in view of past posts but just to note that the arguments against include environmental, economic and cultural factors - if you follow the detail - and there is an increasing resistance to the attempt by a few huge businesses to dominate world food production with their choices, which reduces our freedom of choice to grow crops organically and purchase them. Honey from bees which are within 6 miles of a GM crop such as OSR and I imagine maize (whose pollen is taken) is not purchased for resale as the public demand no GM contamination of honey. So, 1 field of 1 acre takes out 144 sq miles of potential bee hive locations. Our supermarkets won't stock GM food or any food which knowingly has a GM component. Since a recent study showed that 75% of US seed from crops with a GM cousin are contaminated by 1-2%. This may have a serious long term affect on trade, once even "non-GM" crops are banned because of this contamination. -- James Kilty :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and other info --- :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 08:42:13 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "Dr. Pedro Rodriguez" Subject: Re: BEE-L Digest - 27 Mar 2004 to 29 Mar 2004 (#2004-89) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hello folks. I work with US and European (metic) measure conversions daily, so the answer to this question is rather easy to explain. How many bees in a kilo? Accepted figure is 10,000 How many bees in a US pound? 4,000 Explanation: There are (roughly) 4.54 grams in a US pound. Hence, there are 2 1/4 pounds (roughly) in one kilo. Answser: Divide 10,000 by 2.5 = exactly 4,000 This computation is applicable to Apis mellifera mellifera bees recently fed. Best regards and God bless. Dr. Rodriguez __________________________________________________________________ Introducing the New Netscape Internet Service. Only $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register Netscape. Just the Net You Need. New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups. Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and other info --- :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 10:48:51 -0500 Reply-To: jfischer@supercollider.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Organization: Bedford Advanced Technology Test Lab Effort Subject: Re: Canadian Honey >> Is it true that Canadian honey is not being sold in Europe because >> it is contaminated with GM pollen? Not really. It is just that selling any food crop to any EU buyer has a much higher "gamesmanship" factor than when selling to buyers in other places. In general, one does business in the usual manner, but one's crop is disparaged upon receipt, and one is then faced with a lower price than had been quoted. Note that the EU buyer is still willing to purchase the commodity, so it should be clear that the whole "contamination" issue is not an actual health concern, but is merely a negotiating ploy to offer a lower price upon arrival of the shipment than the one quoted based upon samples sent prior to shipment. Here is the USA, there is a term for such activities - "breech of contract". > It should be noted that there is huge antagonism to GM crops and > anything derived from them here in the EU. Exactly which WTO SPS guideline do the UK and the EU cite in regard to this stance? > ...arguments against include environmental, economic and cultural factors But no actual health or biosecurity factors? I thought not. > there is an increasing resistance to the attempt by a few huge businesses > to dominate world food production I think it would be more accurate to say that the UK and EU have simply stumbled upon a purely emotional/political stance which serves as a basis for attempting to restrict imports and thereby protect domestic producers without the need for all that boring and expensive "testing". As nothing more than an accusation thrown at entire countries is required, it is a uniquely low-cost non-tariff barrier to trade, as it requires no tangible evidence, no proof that any health risk exists, and does not even require a coherent explanation of the specific risk in quantitative terms. > which reduces our freedom of choice to grow crops organically and > purchase them. Even ignoring the obvious (that only a tiny fraction of the UK's and EU's crops could be called "organic" in any sense of the term) what about actual "Certified Organic" producers? > Honey from bees which are within 6 miles of a GM crop such as OSR and I > imagine maize (whose pollen is taken) is not purchased for resale as the > public demand no GM contamination of honey. While the 6-mile limit is an admirable standard, it ignores the basic concept of plant blooming sequences, where placing hives within 6 miles of a GM crop that is not in bloom, and removing them from that area before the GM crop is in bloom can result in honey that cannot be contaminated by "GM pollen" in the least. > Our supermarkets won't stock GM food or any food which knowingly has a > GM component. This is a basic point. To block the imports of an entire country simply because some of the imports MIGHT have been unknowingly "tainted" by something that is mostly filtered out before it is shipped on the grounds that it is "GM Food" is a highly creative approach to honoring trade agreements. > Since a recent study showed that 75% of US seed from crops with a > GM cousin are contaminated by 1-2%. So, now we are applying statistical estimates to entire continents? Hey, that's a neat trick! Its not good science (in fact, it is not even science at all), but it sure stirs up the general public with yet more fear, uncertainty, and doubt. This would create a basis for the UK and EU to attempt to block imports of just about everything from just about everywhere, wouldn't it? But whoops, the same exact problem exists in the UK! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/753679.stm So even a 6-mile limit won't help when even the farmer does not really know when his seed might be contaminated by GM seed. The only logical conclusion would have to be that no honey at all will be consumed in the UK ever again. Sad. Meanwhile, the UK group chartered to protect the public health is too busy trying to counter scare-mongering in the press to come up with some quantitative tests to at least detect actual cases of contamination when and if they might ummm, "crop up": http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/acre/advice/advice19.htm And these same defenders of the public health remain bemused by the highly creative idea that terms like "contamination" can be applied to such cases, when even the "detection" is dismissed as "not quantitative". > This may have a serious long term affect on trade, once even "non-GM" > crops are banned because of this contamination. The serious long-term effect on trade will not be what the UK and the EU expect. The WTO sanctions that will result from such a stance will mean that the UK and the EU will be unable to export as much as a paperclip to anyone but each other. I wonder if the UK and EU can produce enough food to be self-sufficient? :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and other info --- :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 22:57:02 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Jack Grimshaw Subject: Re.Number of bees in a pound ? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jim, Last I knew,there were 20 lids to a lb.,so according to G.I.that would be 175 bees, which is a little shy of the recomended 300. You do have a valid point.If we are to test for mites,either sugar/ether roll or 24hr drop,we should know the number of bees.I don't count the bees,nor,sometimes, the frames of bees. Any one know the number of bees in 1/2 cup?Thats about 2 fingers in a one quart mason(spagetti sauce) jar. Jack :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and other info --- :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 03:52:41 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: CSlade777@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Canadian Honey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 31/03/2004 06:03:18 GMT Standard Time, LISTSERV@LISTSERV.ALBANY.EDU writes: > I think it would be more accurate to say that the UK and EU have > simply stumbled upon a purely emotional/political stance which serves > as a basis for attempting to restrict imports and thereby protect > domestic producers without the need for all that boring and expensive > "testing". > > Jim, > > As always perception is more important than reality. The public perception > of GM food crops, rightly or wrongly, is that we don't know enough about them > and until we do it is safest to regard them as being best avoided. This is > a grass roots perception and is not government inspired; in fact the > government appear to be pressing for GM and this is costing them a lot of popularity. > > I recently had an enquiry from a small local bakery who wanted to buy my > honey to incorporate in their products. I told them it would be like pouring > Chateauneuf de Pape in the stew but they bought it anyway. However as part of > their supply risk assessment they wanted to know whether there was anything > GM in my honey. I was happy to assure them that my hives are more than 6 > miles from where field crop trials took place last year. > > It is the customer who demands GM free products and the customer is always > right (even when wrong). > > Chris :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and other info --- :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 10:00:32 -0500 Reply-To: jfischer@supercollider.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Organization: Bedford Advanced Technology Test Lab Effort Subject: Number of bees on a frame > not counting the brood, how many bees/# and > pounds are on one frame Dave Cushman has a nice visual representation of "number of bees on a frame" for "British Standard" frames, which appear to be about 8.5 inches deep and about 13 inches wide. With a little math and imagination, you can convert the images to equivalent areas on whatever frame size(s) you use. http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman/beesest.html But "British Standard"? I guess that's a little like calling the Whitworth tools I need for 1950s and older MGs "standard". The neat thing about "Standards" in beekeeping is that there are so many different ones to chose from! :) jim :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and other info --- :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 12:05:08 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Gilles and Lee-Ann Organization: Turtle River Apiaries Subject: Genetic Patents MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I can't resist this topic, I think that public mistrust of genetically modified foods is not isolated in Europe or India, but is a global concern or fear. We don't want and probably don't need GM wheat. The only group that wants it released is Monsanto. A large Canadian potato processing company refused GM potatoes out of fear customers would reject their processed spuds. Interestingly, monsanto stopped producing these GM potatoes much to the dismay of gardeners who loved them since the dreaded potato beetle couldn't eat them, thus required NO pesticide. Potato growers have returned to using mutliple pesticides to control this voracious beetle. Not too good for our bees, and just about everything else. We are shocked to hear that scientists are cloning farm animals yet every apple we eat comes from a cloned apple tree. We've been doing this for a very long time. Public perception of knowledge and new tecnologies has usually been accompanied by misunderstanding and fear of what deleterious consequences will follow as a result. Cellular phones are thought to cause brain tumours, although I believe Europeans have embraced this technology. By the way, a canadian invented it. Why hasn't Europe banned tobacco? We know for cerain that it kills, plus it originates from north america. Remember how scared the Catholic clergy became when someone dared mention the earth revolved around the sun, even though other great civilizations that existed prior already knew this and a great deal more about the cosmos. A few people got burned over that one. The single greatest threat of genetically modified organisms is the patent laws which grant ownership of life. The world would be better served should patent rights be struck down, thus genetic reseach should follow a path to improve humanity. Currently, the patent laws have allowed a few powerful transnational corporations to quickly dominate this field of research to which only serves to futher their interests. Corporated controlled GM foods will not relieve the hunger that hundreds of millions suffer everyday. This is the issue that needs to be addressed. Publicly funded genetic research can offer an enourmous array of new options for those struggling to produce food. We can't stick our heads in the sand and ignore options which can offer solutions to our dependence on pesticides, etc. Gilles :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and other info --- :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 03:25:27 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Sharon Labchuk Subject: Re: Canadian HOney In-Reply-To: <200403310502.i2V0eOsn016157@listserv.albany.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 12:00 AM 31/03/04 -0500, Automatic digest processor wrote: >Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 10:48:51 -0500 >From: James Fischer >Subject: Re: Canadian Honey > >>> Is it true that Canadian honey is not being sold in Europe because >>> it is contaminated with GM pollen? > >Not really. It is just that selling any food crop to any EU buyer >has a much higher "gamesmanship" factor than when selling to buyers >in other places. CANADIAN HONEY BANNED IN EUROPE April 3, 2001 Ontario Farmer Canadian beekeepers say they're powerless to do anything about new European regulations banning Canadian honey because it isn't certified GMO-free. CBC reports trace amounts of GMO canola have been found in Canadian honey shipments. That has led to a ban in Europe and could potentially cost beekeepers a substantial amount of income. The European move has already driven down honey prices. Canadian beekeepers say they have no control over the plants visited by their bees and there are plenty of canola and wheat fields in their foraging area. They also say they're helpless to do anything about the ban because it's expensive to test honey samples for GMO content. After filtration, honey is left with just 0.1 per cent pollen, the article says. A Canadian Honey Council spokesman said that's a very small percentage and, on that basis, the product should be declared GMO-free. >> there is an increasing resistance to the attempt by a few huge businesses >> to dominate world food production > >I think it would be more accurate to say that the UK and EU have >simply stumbled upon a purely emotional/political stance which serves >as a basis for attempting to restrict imports and thereby protect >domestic producers without the need for all that boring and expensive >"testing". As nothing more than an accusation thrown at entire countries >is required, it is a uniquely low-cost non-tariff barrier to trade, as >it requires no tangible evidence, no proof that any health risk exists, >and does not even require a coherent explanation of the specific risk >in quantitative terms. Oh please. This is almost too lame to even respond to. The fact is people in the EU have more awareness of the health and environmental implications of tinkering with the genes of our food plants than do North Americans. And many of them are saying "no" to GMOs. The USA seems to think it has the right to shove GM foods down the throats of people in other countries and that any protestation is simply playing trade games. To imply that these people are deluded, conned or otherwise too dumb to understand the 'truth' is just ridiculous. Why do you think the corporations fight tooth and nail to prevent their GM foods from being labelled? They know people won't buy them, that's why. International trade regimes make rules to allow the free flow of goods around the world. They subordinate environment, human health and social justice. They are created to protect and increase corporate power. Have you never heard of the Precautionary Principle? It means it is not necessary for citizens to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a substance is harmful before we take action to eliminate or prohibit the substance. People have the right to refuse involuntary exposure to substances they suspect may be harmful, or have not been proven safe. The onus is on the proponent of a new product to prove it is safe. The old game played by government and corporations, especially the pesticide corporations, was to inflict a new chemical on the planet, and tell citizens THEY must prove it unsafe. By the time evidence of damage could be studied and assessed, people were dead from cancer, wildlife poisoned and lives ruined. By then, the corporations did not care if the pesticide was banned. They had made their money from that particular chemical and had new products to bring to the market. And round and round we go. People are fed up with that game and now are demanding the onus be put on the corporations to prove their products safe before unleashing them on the world. If the US and other GMO producing countries wants to compete globally, they had better get with it. Increasingly, the rest of the world is saying it does not want your contaminated food. Even some Americans are now saying this - Mendocino County just banned the growing of GMO crops. This month a petition representing one million people from Japan was presented to the Canadian government saying they will not eat GMO wheat from Canada if government approves this plant. US and Canadian wheat growers also do not want this plant approved but Monsanto persists. And how about this excerpt: The Associated Press March 12, 2004, HEADLINE: Genetically modified corn threatens Mexico's native species, NAFTA study says BYLINE: By WILL WEISSERT, Associated Press Writer DATELINE: OAXACA.Mexico If left unchecked, modified genes spread by imported U.S. biotech corn threaten to displace or contaminate native varieties in Mexico, the birthplace of corn, a NAFTA watchdog panel said. The study for the Commission for Environmental Cooperation said gene transfers could damage Mexico's vast storehouse of native corn, whose wild ancestral genes might one day be needed to help commercial crops overcome diseases or adverse conditions. ======== There is more to this than the simplistic notion that other countries are just ganging up on the poor old USA. Sharon Labchuk :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and other info --- :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 14:42:33 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Chuck Norton Subject: Re: Creamed Honey with Fruit Added Comments: To: "h.morton@worldnet.att.net" On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, H. Morton asked: "Does anyone have a recipe/process for creaming honey and adding berries/fruit"? The August 2002 issue of Beeculture Magazine published a piece by Robery Berthold titled: "Making Honey Fruit Spreads". This article covers quite a bit about honey fruit spreads and the references will take you back to 1968 when Berthold published in the American Bee Journal, 108(6):236-7. Also given is E. J. Dyce's patent number for the Dyce Process, U.S. Patent # 1,978,893. Cheers, Chuck :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and other info --- :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 14:51:34 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Michael Fry Organization: UMD Libraries Subject: Re: Number of bees on a frame Comments: To: jfischer@supercollider.com In-Reply-To: <162401c41730$ea51b970$7604c518@gollum> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit James Fischer wrote: > Dave Cushman has a nice visual representation of "number of bees on a frame" Could one generalize about which of those images would indicate that a hive might be ready to swarm? Thanks. mf :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and other info --- :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 14:52:08 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Chuck Norton Subject: Re: Canadian HOney Sharon Labchuk wrote: "Canadian beekeepers say they're powerless to do anything about new European regulations banning Canadian honey because it isn't certified GMO-free..." IMO she is probably correct in her assumption; however, if the beekeepers in Canada - and in the USA as well - act as one huge body all in agreement on this matter as a powerful lobbying body then perhaps the "right" folks will listen and act in the best interests of something bigger than one huge corporation. Unfortunately it will likely not happen. Chuck :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and other info --- ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::