From MAILER-DAEMON Sat Feb 28 10:55:56 2009 Return-Path: <> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.8 (2007-02-13) on industrial X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-87.1 required=2.4 tests=ADVANCE_FEE_1,AWL, MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR,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 5B17648988 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 2009 10:52:20 -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 n1SFkpId016612 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 2009 10:52:20 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 10:52:18 -0500 From: "University at Albany LISTSERV Server (14.5)" Subject: File: "BEE-L LOG0712D" To: adamf@IBIBLIO.ORG Message-ID: Content-Length: 136659 Lines: 2931 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 21:53:15 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: Re: "pimping bees" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Brian & All, > Brian said: > What baffles me is why there is not a bigger push to get (COOL) Country of > Origin Labeling > implemented on honey. IMO this is one of the key policy issues that could > be changed by our > government that would benefit the current state of US beekeeping and > should have been part of > the recent Farm Bill. > I have fought for the above legislation for years but to no avail. in my opinion lobbyists from the large packers are the problem. I have not been able to get support from the two national groups because in my opinion a few of both leadership pack some foreign honey. Money seems to trump hard facts in Washington. When we got the current label laws we saw a minor victory and thought we had a foot in the door to get what we were really after but we soon realized the packers simply agreed to a small reference to countries of source *without reference* to exact country of origin and the label implies the honey might even be from the U.S.. Simply a generic label. Also we have had contacts in two of the largest packers before and our contacts have said many times labels saying *product of the U.S.A.* go on bottles of imported honey. Labels are on the honor system. At a recent two state meeting of the MSBA & KHPA I brought a USDA label person to task on the subject. I was very hot (which I should not have been I suppose) but the crowd cheered when I sat down. I said that there were no label police and in the U.S. you can get away with whatever you want to put on your label. As Eric pointed out there is no problem for the dishonest to put whatever they want on their label. My current problem is a packer selling all his out of state honey as *local* and selling his pressure filtered & pasteurized honey with a raw label. After the K.C. Star paper did an article about his honey around ten of us called the reporter and complained to no avail! Our bee organization has complained to the health food stores he sells in and all Whole Foods says is " If he says the honey is raw or is local then that's all we can do". A local address does not mean the product is local. I finally gave up trying to make the packer correct his labels but as Eric says the public is very gullible. The one thing most buyers read on a label is the area from which the packer is. bob -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:32:05 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Mike Stoops Subject: Re: Sustainability and progress In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I'm tired of sustainability arguments. The only reason you're able to argue here on the net is because somebody went beyond sustainability. Industrial progress allowed the individual farmer to grow enough food to sustain not only himself and his family but ten other families as well. This allowed one of those other nine guys the opportunity to invent the computer. And another one to develop the internet. And so forth. This is greatly simplified but you get the idea, Or probably you don't. Mike in LA --------------------------------- Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 22:36:03 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Paul Cherubini Subject: Re: Sustainability and progress MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Another point that hasn't been mentioned is what do the organic farm operations do with the large profits they make from their high priced yuppie foods? I've come to know a great many organic farm operations in California over the past 25 years via selling organically approved pesticides to them. I've found the owners and high salaried managers of most of these big organic farm operations buy big homes and vehicles and live the the same highly resource consumptive lifestyles as industrial farmers with similar high incomes. Thus I feel the ultimate objective of organic farmers is the same as industrial farmers: making enough money to support an affluent lifestyle. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:24:45 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Mike Rowbottom Subject: Fuel Use in Beekeeping MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all Just a further thought to illuminate the debate on sustainability of beekeeping from another direction. I calculate that the calorific value of petrol is 120 MJ per US gallon. The calorific value of honey is around 13 MJ per Kg. Putting these together, if one uses one US gallon of petrol when driving in connection with beekeeping, then this would require the energy equivalent of 9.2 Kg ( 20 lbs) of honey to be expended. On this basis I suspect that many beekeepers may largely be using their colonies of honeybees and trucks to convert oil into honey. There is other energy use to consider in addition, for fertilising the flowering crops, for heating the honey, for driving the extractor, for producing the drums, jars, caps etc, etc. I wonder what the net honey production would be if all the energy required to produce honey had to be supplied by burning honey? Best wishes to all Mike Rowbottom HARROGATE North Yorkshire UK ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 08:40:35 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Sustainability In-Reply-To: <1198286689.22623.1227846251@webmail.messagingengine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lanfeust wrote: > When you use remanent chemical that bring up pests resistance you know > you are out of the way. > When you treat systematically and massively bees because your management > weaken your bees, you know you are out of the way. > When you move infested ill bees all over the country, you know you are > out of the way. > When you are bank rupted with all your familly because you wanted to > keep bees as in the 1700's, you know you are no way. Change all references from bees to humans and most on this list would be dead. Stop antibiotics because bugs develop resistance. Stop all surgery and treatment of children and adults to weed out the weak. Stop all travel since infected people spread disease. True, if you lived like we did in the 1700's, most of us would never have been born. Also, most all over the age of forty would be dead. Just check a graveyard from that period. Sustainability seems to apply to the other guy. Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 08:56:00 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Sustainability In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Eric Brown wrote: > The whole reason anyone is talking about sustainability is because > what "the market decided" is so obviously destructive of the communities > and ecosystems that sustain our quality of life. Actually, the market works. The market responds to buzz words like "sustainability" and "organic". It also responds to social pressure, and generally works with government for accommodating laws. Remove the market and, as in the ex-Soviet Union, you have massive corruption and pollution. Also, such broad statements like "so obviously destructive of the communities and ecosystems that sustain our quality of life" seem a bit overblown for what is right here in the US compared to the old USSR. Merry Christmas to all. For Christmas dinner, we are having roasted Spotted Owl. Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:46:30 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "Peter L. Borst" Subject: Sustainability MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sustainability -- of course it's a loaded term, just like truth, love and justice. I mean, who or what is sustained? I understand that it's easy and logical to start with yourself, your business, and move on to your community. I mean, if your own community is a disaster, will you go somewhere else? And yet, hasn't this been the trend of mankind -- spoil the land and move on, to "new worlds", if need be? Only now, we have pretty much gotten to be everywhere, so one can't really spoil things without haven't the consequences come back at you. It's very sticky to talk about sustaining my business and my town, because it all starts to sound like looking out for me and to hell with the rest of you. The keystone of the search for sustainability is inclusiveness. It wants to sustain people, of course, but as much of the rest of creation as possible. We know we have displaced and annihilated countless communities and species as a consequence of turning the planet into one big factory farm. And, most of us realize we can't just stop, cold turkey. So the challenge for this century is how to steer spaceship earth on a course away from global disaster and toward a vision of health. One can argue endlessly about how much we should consume, how much we need to be happy, or to just get by. But the one real objective value that we can discuss right now is health. When people are dying at age 40, there is something wrong. When the water is full of germs and chemicals, when the air is filthy, when the bees fly off and don't come back, something is wrong. By agreeing that health -- our own, our community's, our planet's -- is the goal we seek, we can set aside a lot of our differences. Differences of economic expectations, politics, religion, etc. I propose that a planet populated by lots of healthy plants and animals is a better scenario than one in which we have to hole up in isolated communities afraid that every truck that comes down the highway might be carrying tainted food, exotic pests or people from other countries. If global health is achievable, we should work for it. If a healthy bee industry is possible, then that must be the goal of progressive beekeepers. If we have healthy bees, everyone benefits. You may be able to avoid other people's problems for a while but eventually we will all have to join together as a world community, and work for the common good. I just don't think the motive of saving my own skin and to the hell with the rest is sustainable. -- Peter L. Borst Danby, NY USA 42.35, -76.50 ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:54:21 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Lanfeust Subject: Re: Sustainability In-Reply-To: <476D1770.6050705@suscom-maine.net> Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I have to say this interesting debate is a bit odd for me since usually I have to argue with managers and politicians who ride the concept for propaganda, namely I am used to be the sceptic one about the so-called sustainability... > Actually, the market works. The market responds to buzz words like > "sustainability" and "organic". It also responds to social pressure, and > generally works with government for accommodating laws. Remove the > market and, as in the ex-Soviet Union, you have massive corruption and > pollution. > > Also, such broad statements like "so obviously destructive of the > communities and ecosystems that sustain our quality of life" seem a bit > overblown for what is right here in the US compared to the old USSR. Here is the shift in logic : sustainability does not go along with market abscence of market leads to communsim communism leads to USSR thus to dictature and pollution so sustainability leads to dictature and pollution Then we have to debug: sustainability is a concept developed in democratic and free market societies. It never meant nor required the disappearance of market or democraty but - at least - it leads to the internalisation of environemental and social impacts in the market prices. Namely, pollution or ecosystems destruction must no longer be free. Thus, sustainability does not imply communism and so on, as far I understand the concept. One can benchmark countries on a serie of sustainability indicators and see that different results can be obtained in democratic and free market countries. By the way, we can measure how destructiv are certain developement pathways. > > When you use remanent chemical that bring up pests resistance you know > > you are out of the way. > > When you treat systematically and massively bees because your management > > weaken your bees, you know you are out of the way. > Change all references from bees to humans and most on this list would be > dead. > Stop antibiotics because bugs develop resistance. > Stop all surgery and treatment of children and adults to weed out the > weak. > Stop all travel since infected people spread disease. > True, if you lived like we did in the 1700's, most of us would never > have been born. Same shift in logic. Questioning the use of hard chemical means total ban of medication so leads us to prehistoric times. Questioning the current intensiv breeding of porks (or othe feedstock) that leads to intensiv development of illness, antibiotic treatments/resistance and intensiv pollution flow will prevent us to take care as well of our children. Then we have to debug: Questioning the use of hard chemical, be in beekeeping or other sector, means to look for their rational use. In beekeeping, the fashion 3 years ago was with IPM after 10 years of massiv systematic use. With regard to antibiotics, let me take the time of a personnal anecdote as an illustration. I have 2 children, 5 and 7 years old. One never had to use anitbiotics in her life. The other had to use them 3 or 4 times because of persisting otitis. We were critic about the use but not dogmatic. A couple of years ago, otitis were systematically treated with antibiotics. It appeared that 80% of otitis were viral, so antibiotics were useless. Now, MD recommand to let 3 days to children to recover from the potential virus and if the otitis persists, then it is assumed bacterial and treated. We a have friends with 2 young children of same age. Each one was treated with antibiotics multiple times per year, by fear at the first doubt of an otitis. They already have resistance with 5 classes of antibiotic over 6 if I understood well. The fact that I question to way feedstock are reared, how it impacts our quality of life doesn't prevent me from caring of my children. Sustainability doesn't lead to let my children die of the first desease around. But I read everyday how much pesticides are present in mothers milk and pollen, how air quality impacts children allergies. The idea is that we have to let apart dogmatic positions as "free for all, let's do anything we want anyway we want" or "go back to caves". As defined, sustainability is certainly not a back in past nor a run against progress. It should not be a dogmatic religion either. It is quest for a more intelligent and a lucider way to develop. I think we are intelligent enough to allow us to question the way we are donig things, aren't we ? Hervé -- Hervé www.emelys.com -- http://www.fastmail.fm - And now for something completely different… ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:05:48 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "Malcolm T. Sanford" Subject: National Beekeeping Conference In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed I will be doing the last presentation of the day for the honey producers SIG on web sites and discussion lists. Malcolm T. Sanford Dr. Malcolm T. Sanford Executive Director Global Bee Breeders Association http://gbba.vze.com/ http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/gbba/ Australia Blog http://abeekeepersblog.blogspot.com ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:37:50 GMT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "deknow@netzero.net" Subject: Re: Sustainability and progress Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit ...if you are going to look at owners and high salary managers of large operations of _any_ industry you would see this....i think this is about desiring and working towards big business/money, and not really about farmers per se. big money entertainers and ex vice presidents who are very vocal about global warming, but their professional and personal lives don't reach such goals (with perhaps the only exception to be willie nelson)....because they are big money. i can tell you from personal experience that it's much easier to consume less when you are poor. all that said....even if these execs are wasteful in the personal lives...could it be outweighed by conserving and being sustainable on an "industrial scale?"...perhaps, but i don't think most large scale commercial organic farms are actually sustainable, so it's kind of a moot point. i'm pretty convinced that in the end, we are going to need more, smaller farms that grow with more diversity. if fuel goes way up, shipping food will become prohibitive (and likewise, bees). deknow -- Paul Cherubini wrote: I've found the owners and high salaried managers of most of these big organic farm operations buy big homes and vehicles and live the the same highly resource consumptive lifestyles as industrial farmers with similar high incomes. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 08:59:25 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: randy oliver Subject: Re: On Sustainable Beekeeping MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="Windows-1252"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >I think every California beekeeper would ask to move his hives into almonds to build rather than leave in an area of no flow. Bob is correct on this point. Bees thrive in almonds. >Nosema is usually unseen by the uninformed beekeeper. Again, if you haven't looked, you can't tell if it is an issue. I've looked--it is. And I live in a warm, dry climate, and use screened bottoms. >[Bees}don’t seem to be thriving under current mode. No they don't, but I'd be hard pressed to say that commercial beekeepers are to blame. I'd look at the several new diseases, the loss of genetic diversity (yes, partially due to few queen producers), loss of forage land, and effects of global warming. I have a lot less trouble accepting commercial beekeeping practices, than I have with egg, pork, veal, or corn production! I am heartened at seeing the new generation of commercial beekeepers. At convention presentations, they are all ears, and looking toward the future. They seek out good information, and are willing to change their management if indicated. Some are actually making a good living! I just don't see the sky falling on beekeeping. Things are indeed changing. Our entire agricultural system is in the process of change (I have read every weekly issue of Ag Alert from the Calif Farm Bureau for many years). The changes are toward the better, as far as sustainability. The pace is agonizingly slow, yes. But shrill condemnation of those in the process of change is, IMHO, counterproductive. Randy Oliver ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:51:43 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: First time In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have never in the many years I have been on the BeeL received an off list email that was insulting. I have had some that disagreed who sent me an email explaining their differences, but we conducted an exchange that was illuminating. Unfortunately, some with fervor, no matter which side, tend toward the behavior I experienced. It is interesting that the whole topic of sustainability seems to wander into the hyper sphere with lots of heavy breathing. It seems that there is purity on only one side and if you do not buy into the hype, you are condemned. I think it was the spotted owl for Christmas dinner comment that sent them over the edge. To put their mind at ease, our Christmas dinner is actually roasted Bald Eagle, since they are off the endangered list. Just doing our part for the planet. Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 13:05:59 -0500 Reply-To: james.fischer@gmail.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: "pimping bees" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bob said: >>> If I were to guess I would say Mr.. Michael Pollan has read one of >>> my five articles on the Australian bee import... And Bob added: >> Michael Pollan might understand things better if he spoke >> with an informed beekeeper. Please explain in more detail. Brian said: > problem is Bob some folks like you don't like the answers. No one likes "answers" that do nothing but wander around seeking problems to which they can attach themselves. Everyone and his 2nd cousin has been trying to hitch the wagon of their own agendas to the well-publicized problems that bees and beekeepers have been having. We covered it all in detail last spring, here: http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0707B&L=BEE-L&D=0&I=-3& P=70 Brain said: > I and other like minds can only hope that these systems > break down from the fact that they are unsustainable. Well, there's an interesting thing to hope for. Nothing less than a complete demolition of the most productive methods of agriculture ever developed by man, to create one you'd call "sustainable". The result would be, what, exactly? One could call it a form a genocide, in that the first food not shipped would be the multi-ton foreign aid and emergency aid shipments that the US sends so many places so often. The "problems" of beekeeping have little or nothing to do with the "sustainability", or lack thereof in agriculture as a whole. Our problems are the direct result of exotic invasive pests and pathogens that would have stayed on the other side of the planet if not for all this newfangled "world trade" that goes on without anything more than grudging lip service to the issue of "biosecurity". No other live creature crosses international borders without specific tests, screening, and sampling to protect biosecurity and animal health, so why are bees an exception to these rules? > you seem more interested in importing bees then fixing > the problems we created as an industry. Neither approach would have a positive effect, as neither approach has anything to do with the actual causes of "the industry's problems". IMPORTING BEES Bob's support for importing bees from the other side of the planet, and his open opposition to any sort of disease and pest sampling/inspection at port of entry ( see http://bee-quick.com/reprints/beepocalypse.pdf ) does seem like less of a "solution" to a problem, and much more like the best possible way to bring yet even MORE pests and diseases from the other side of the planet here. And this movement of additional pathogens may be happening as I type. Diana Cox-Foster's presentation at the recent Entomological Society of America meeting indicated that the Australian bee imports may not be "off the hook" after all. Something about different strains of IAPV, and multiple introductions of IAPV over time. (Anyone have a recording or transcript?) So Bob's approach is much like calling upon Mothra to protect Tokyo from Godzilla, and we all know how that worked out for Tokyo. Double the buildings got knocked down. (See "Mothra vs. Godzilla", 1964 and/or "Godzilla vs. Mothra", 1992). FARM "SUSTAINABLY" But the claim that anything would be "fixed" by dragging all of agriculture to the granola-and-Birkenstock fantasy of small-scale, organic, so-called "sustainable" operations is to propose something much, much more dangerous. There is a technical term to describe such agriculture - it is called "subsistence farming", and it is massively wasteful of scarce resources like water, and produces, at best, only enough food to feed the farmer's family. In anything less than a "good year", people starve, and die in large numbers. When Sally Struthers appears on TV commercials asking us to Save The Children, she is asking us to help feed the children of "subsistence farmers". We can afford to feed them with ease precisely because we abandoned subsistence farming several centuries ago. Lucky for us, science ignores the neo-luddites who have never missed a meal in their lives, and does things like come up with rice that needs less water, and can feed more people with less resource consumption: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070910173802.htm Now that's sustainability! > stop planting massive monoculture crops which require > pollination services that do not exist. Funny, I haven't seen any crops going unpollinated, so I'd submit that not only do the services exist, but that they are still such a bargain that growers have not even tried moving the function in-house. Even at prices over $100 per hive, pollination is one of the cheapest inputs a grower can deploy, per ton of crop produced. Dollar for dollar, pollination is "almost free" to the grower at current prices. > people are and will be asking is that honey from china or a > migratory operation? no thanks I'll get the non-industrial, > more sustainable version from a local beekeeper. No one buying honey has ever asked that sophisticated a question. What they ask about all food are questions like: "Is it local food?" "If not, why not?" That's a good question to ask, as it should be obvious that consumers want Country Of Origin Labeling on all food, including honey, and would prefer to buy food produced as close as possible to home rather than from far far away. That's a good thing. But the massively misinformed idea that "migratory beekeeping" is anything new, or puts some new "stress" on the bees is laughable in the extreme, given that migratory beekeeping has been around since at least 3,000 BC or so. Back then, they were moving hives around on donkeys. Anyone who has ever tried to ride a donkey can confirm that this would be several orders of magnitude more "stress" than the modern approach of lifting pallets smoothly with Swingers onto flatbeds with air-ride shock absorbers, which drive on nice smooth interstates fast enough to provide a cool breeze to the hives. An entertaining story can be found in the collection of papers called "The Bureaucracy of Ptolemaic Egypt" (found at Columbia U, copies elsewhere), where a group of beekeepers petition a local official for the return of their donkeys, conscripted for some unnamed public works project. They point out that they had loaned their donkeys for 10 days, and 18 days had passed without their return. The growers were waiting impatiently for the beekeepers to move their hives, as the growers wanted to burn the weeds and brush and then flood the fields. The farmers were hinting that they would set the fires by some deadline, hives moved or not, so the beekeepers pointed out that their loss of hives would reduce the taxes that could be paid to the king. Sound familiar? Growers anxious to do their pest control and fertilization, wanting the hives out NOW. Beekeepers forced to beg for even minimal attention from the government. Some things never change. :) The only reason researchers have been saying that beekeepers should "reduce stress", was that they didn't have any better advice, and are fumbling for something, anything to say in response to the question "what can beekeepers do about CCD?". They certainly did not want to admit the unvarnished truth, which is that "All we can do here is watch hives die". ("Saving Private Ryan", 1998) Bob said: > Those beekeepers on here from another forum know I have been > asking all beekeepers to contact me if having problems. I have > spoke with around 10 beekeepers which have attended their state > meetings and few if any problems. We've been over this before. Beekeepers are reluctant to tell another beekeeper their actual problems. The folks doing the actual research don't seem to be having any problem getting "fresh samples", if that's any help in grasping the current scope/extent of the issue. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:43:19 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Richard Stewart Subject: On sustainability In-Reply-To: <476D1770.6050705@suscom-maine.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; delsp=yes; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I am new to bees and probably shouldn't be opening my mouth on this forum, but here it goes. I AM not new to farming though. I am a traditional row crop farmer that has diversified the farm with a variety of businesses making it, I think, more robust. I am not an organic farmer. I see a whole lot of poorly informed comments here regarding sustainability. First sustainability has nothing to with organic. Organic is a growing technique. Nothing more and nothing less...probably even less considering how watered down it has become. Sustainability is a catch phrase (something it does have in common with the term "organic") that has little meaning these days because it is used for a variety of things and as a sales term "Hey its sustainable". Its all about definitions I suppose and the more we modify what words mean the less value they have. I plant row crops, corn and soybean, and almost all of it is GM. It makes my life easier. I kill weeds that would literally overtake the ground regardless of what farming technique I used. We rotate crop types and always rotate a portion of our land into the federal soil bank, never to be used and let it rebuild its health. You know what is happening locally though? Farmers are growing multiple corn crops back to back (not good) rather than rotating. To make it worse, they are baling the stovers for feed and ethanol plants. That is NOT sustainable (even if you pump lots of money back into poorer fertilizers). Which is more sustainable? Rotating crops and keeping a portion of the land fallow or harvest the same exact crop EVERY year and try to artificially keep the ground alive? I am branching out into Christmas trees. People will come, pay 30 to 50.00 per tree and cut their own off a hill side that is great for trees but poor for much else. Do I plant all the trees at once, the maximum capacity of the acreage or do I stagger them so I have in 10 years time 10 steps of growth? Do I replace what is cut? Do I maintain a cover crop around the trees to control erosion? Maybe you see what I am getting at. Planting all the trees at once and then harvesting them all at once may get me one big pay check (assuming I can move all the trees and the market is healthy) but in the long haul its a poor way of sustaining a business and the local environment. It is far better both as a long term investment for my family and the ground they will use after I am dead and gone if I make sure there will always be a constant flow of stable income coming from those trees. The ground will be healthier in the long run as well and provide a better income. It'll be less susceptible to droughts and in case there is a pest that targets s specific species it should be diverse as well. Nor am I spreading it out over 100 acres. Its high density on 15 acres. Next to that I am putting in acres of grapes. Next to that exists a multi-species hay field for my horse boarding operation. And sandwiched between all of it are a variety of produce plots. Ask the paper companies... How sustainable would their business be if they did not invest in replanting their trees and harvesting them in s smart manner rather than clear cutting EVERYTHING at once? Maybe folks need to define what "sustainable" means so everyone is on the same page. I think Hervé quoted it the best: " development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." Richard Stewart Carriage House Farm North Bend, Ohio An Ohio Century Farm Est. 1848 (513) 967-1106 http://www.carriagehousefarmllc.com rstewart@zoomtown.com ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:29:35 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Barry Digman Subject: Re: Sustainability In-Reply-To: <1198338861.18279.1227904599@webmail.messagingengine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit "It should not be a dogmatic religion either. It is quest for a more intelligent and a lucider way to develop. I think we are intelligent enough to allow us to question the way we are donig things, aren't we ? Hervé" The problem here in the US is that once the momentum of something like "sustainability" gets moving, it's never enough for the advocates to simply promote the advantages in the private sector and in the free market and try to convince the public to change their ways. At the first chance, folks will impose their will upon others using a combination of our political system and our tendency to not pay attention to our legislative process until it's too late. I think one could make a case that we once has an opportunity for "sustainable" energy in the form of nuclear power, but for a multitude of reasons (including a huge dose of scare tactics and misinformation) we effectively slammed the door on that industry and put ourselves into a rather ridiculous situation. Now the big bad oil corporations are profiting hansomely from our refusal to deal with the issue rationally. And they're doing it with "unstainable" hydrocarbons. "Sustainable" is a noble pursuit, but let's not be so naive as to believe it's a free lunch. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 13:34:05 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Sustainability In-Reply-To: <1198338861.18279.1227904599@webmail.messagingengine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lanfeust wrote: > The idea is that we have to let apart dogmatic positions as "free for > all, let's do anything we want anyway we want" or "go back to caves". > As defined, sustainability is certainly not a back in past nor a run > against progress. It should not be a dogmatic religion either. It is > quest for a more intelligent and a lucider way to develop. I think we > are intelligent enough to allow us to question the way we are donig > things, aren't we ? > Totally agree, but that is the reasoned approach to life. My argument is and will be with those who distort it to achieve their agenda. Before the buzz word, sustainable, there were those who cleaned up the rivers, air and fought for a clean environment. We do have cleaner air, rivers and and longer lives now than we did just twenty years ago, much less 100. But reading some posts here, you would think that we are all near death at the next drink of water or breath of air. This whole thing started with an attack against commercial beekeeping and BIG AGRICULTURE (caps since it is an inviting target) and that they are not sustainable. Actually, they are and have been for years. Can they be improved? Certainly, but that is not what is desired. Just read those posts. Which is my issue with the movement, and it is a movement, not a plan or concept. Were it only the latter as you describe, there would be no issue. BTW, I have been practicing it for years, as have many on this list, just we have called it by its correct name, husbandry and conservation, concepts that have been around for centuries. There is no way I am going to pollute my garden with either fertilizer or pesticides since I get my water from a dug well in the back yard about twenty feet from the garden. Plus, I live by a body of water with 7 endangered/threatened plants, which I have helped to spread and encouraged their growth, with the help and approval of the State DEP. Anything I put on my soil would run-off into the river. The river, the Kennebec, has been cleaned up so well that we have salmon and other commercial game fish that support a sport fishing industry on the river. BTW, the endangered plants are our Christmas Dinner mixed salad........ (keep those emails coming) Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 14:03:10 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Sustainability and progress In-Reply-To: <20071222.113750.15539.1@webmail13.dca.untd.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit deknow@netzero.net wrote: > i can tell you from personal experience that it's much easier to consume less when you are poor. > Thanks for both truth and humor in the same line. Classic. > if fuel goes way up, shipping food will become prohibitive (and likewise, bees). We tend to think in the concept of a static universe, that what we have now is what will be in the future. I am sure those who needed whale oil for lighting and lubrication were looking at a bleak future as prices rose because of scarcity. It is interesting that oil is now over the price that makes alternative electrical supply attractive as well as procuring oil from oil shale, which the US and Canada have a huge supply. (It is not in OPEC's interest to let it get much higher.A couple of years ago the break even number was about $80 a barrel, so my guess is it will stabilize around the mid 80s.They do not want a worthless commodity.) We really cannot see very far into the future and what discoveries await. We still have that great big furnace in the sky that will be good for another 3-5 billion years. Even coal in the US would last about 200 years. Methane from the ocean is estimated to be able to supply the world for 10,000 years. Thin film solar panels are right at the break even point for home electrical supply. Even oil, which is thought to be a non-renewable resource seems to be replenishing itself in some reservoirs and may be formed by methane cracking deep in the earth. There is so much we do not know about the future that we worry about things we have no idea will happen. If you want to worry, worry about the well intentioned nutcases out there who have way too much fervor and want us all to live properly, but as they dictate and with the sacrifice of our freedom After all, we cannot save the planet without "sacrifice" and they will determine what we sacrifice (not necessarily what they give up).C.S. Lewis said it well. They are the ones to fear. Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:29:14 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Grant Gillard Subject: Re: National Bee Meeting in Sacramento In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On a recent mission trip to Jamaica (no, not that part of Jamaica) we traveled down as a group dressed in neon-lime t-shirts. The t-shirts had our logo and first name. It kept anyone from getting lost. Maybe we need someone to print a bunch of t-shirts with "bee-l.com" and our log-in handle. It might make for a very interesting method of introduction/ice-breaking. Grant Jackson, MO http://www.MakingPlasticFramesWork.homestead.com --------------------------------- Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 14:20:42 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: Re: On sustainability In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Richard & All, Welcome to BEE-L! My income tax return lists me as a farmer( along with beekeeper). I have got a USDA-ARS farm number. All my neighbors are farmers except for a few city folks which moved to the country to raise dogs. > > Farmers are growing multiple corn crops back to back (not good) rather > than rotating. This trend is not new and started with soybeans when soybeans were high. i have questioned a few of these farmers as to why as I keep bees on their farms. They say its to survive. Since they have went to roundup ready their profit margins keep shrinking. They are forced to buy from big ag and pay the price big ag charges for the no till. Big Ag keeps tightening the web because they can! Most of the strickly row crop farmers are gone in our area unless they run cattle. Good money in cattle. last week this years calves brought cattlemen a third higher than expected at the Kingsville auction. Missouri was at one time the largest cow/calf state in the U.S.. Big Ag will never get its hooks into the cattle business. > I am branching out into Christmas trees. Been there and done that! Glad I only stated with a few hundred and glad now all but a few are gone. Email Richard and I will describe the problems. Hope you are not planting Scotch pines! bob -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:22:29 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Aaron Morris Subject: Re: National Bee Meeting in Sacramento MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Grant wrote, "Maybe we need someone to print a bunch of t-shirts with = "bee-l.com" and our log-in handle." =20 BEE-L Tees! My favorite sandwich! However, bee-l.com and = bee-l@listserv.albany.edu are two different animals, the later the = original running for over 20 years now! The former merely a hyperlink = on web page serving as a portal to the real thing. =20 Aaron Morris - thinking I'll have a BLT for dinner. Much better than = spotted owl! ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 19:13:22 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?windows-1252?Q?Eric_Brown?= Subject: Re: "pimping bees" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >The one thing most buyers read on a label >is the area from which the packer is. Bob reminds me of a story. Several years ago a close family friend decided to try eating "local" honey to see if it would help her allergies any. This friend was well educated, shops at places like Whole Foods, and would consider herself a savvy shopper. She ate a little honey, her allergies got a lot worse, and she decided she had actually adversely reacted to all the "local" pollen in the honey. She offered to give me the jar of honey afterwards, because she was afraid of its effect on her allergies by then. I noticed the jar had the local address of the packer in large lettering, but it also said "Product of Argentina and/or China" in small letters. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 10:28:26 +1000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: queenbee Subject: CCD MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thought the following interview may be of some interest to my US = colleagues. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/2093353.htm#transcript Trevor Weatherhead AUSTRALIA ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 21:46:19 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?windows-1252?Q?Eric_Brown?= Subject: Re: "pimping bees" Comments: To: james.fischer@GMAIL.COM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >FARM "SUSTAINABLY" >But the claim that anything would be "fixed" by dragging >all of agriculture Can you cite any example of any proponent of sustainability wanting to "drag" all of agriculture anywhere? Or are the references to "dragging"/force/mandates/Soviet-style communism just unfair attempts to make sustainability look sinister? >There is >a technical term to describe such agriculture - it is called >"subsistence farming", I would agree that sustainability, properly understood, is very closely related to substistence farming, as well as to husbandry and conservation. As someone that believes in the goal of sustainability, I've been thinking a lot lately about nutrient cycles. I just bought some farmland that has very low phosphorus levels. My family's farm is committed to uncertified organic production, so we had limited options for increasing phosphorus levels. Rock phosphorus is one option, but it's just another mined nutrient that's less nutrient-dense and therefore much more expensive (in dollars and in fossil fuels for transport) than conventional phosphorus fertizilizers besides suffering from very poor economies of scale. The only other sources are the waste by-products (non-recycled nutrients) of conventional farms: bonemeal and manure. We went with manure from a very large dairy farm, which will hopefully bring levels up to a minimally sufficient level. Relying on someone else's wastefulness doesn't seem especially sustainable, although I hope we made the best of available circumstances. So long as farming continues to be another extractive activity, I don't know how else to keep going. I bring up this example in defense of subsistence farming. Apart from the well publicized destructiveness of fossil fuel consumption (particularly of fossil fuel reserves, but also pollution, oil spills, oil wars, etc.), there is no efficient way to return nutrients to the soil without consumers ceasing to be consumers in consumer communities and instead living close to the land, which is to say more or less: subsistence farming. A good example of the nutrient cycle problem is the soil toxicity resulting from all the chicken manure spread on land around me from all the broiler houses. Midwest grain farms are levelling mountains in West Virginia to fuel the processing of nutrients from yet other mines while nutrients are building up here at the end of the nutrient line (as opposed to nutrient cycle) to the point of toxicity. It seems clear to me that valuable/costly (ecologically and monetarily) nutrients shouldn't be turned into pollutants, and it seems clear that a relatively more subsistent style of agriculture is the only sensible way to deal with the problem. >and it is massively wasteful of scarce >resources like water, When I think about scarce water resources I think especially about Great Plains aquifers and the Colorado River. Are these waters being depleted or are they or were they ever threatened by subsistence farmers? That seems ridiculous. How on earth do you figure that subsistence farmers are "massively wasteful" of water resources? >and produces, at best, only enough food >to feed the farmer's family. Economics as the study of *scarcity* fits neatly with extractive economies, and they evolved hand in hand. On the other hand, the people I know who live most bountifully and generously with their neighbors are the people that live nearest the model of subsistence farming. >We can afford to feed them with ease >precisely because we abandoned subsistence farming several >centuries ago. Clearly the economies of the kinds of places that we send food aid to are not healthy. These same places, however, have only become more dependent and suffered more hunger as their involvement in the global economy has increased. I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that the world as a whole has made great strides in dealing with famine by means of globalization. You also imply that our ability to produce food "with ease" is an indication of the success of our agriculture. Obviously, modern, conventional agriculture does produce food "with ease." For the proponent of globalization that's the whole story; for the proponent of subsistence farming, the question is whether our ease is "compromising the ability of future generations [or even our neighbors right now] to meet their own needs." If our agriculture is mistaken, it's certainly not by accident; we farm unsustainably because some people profit from it (some greatly). I think proponents of sustainability do frequently fail to admit the cost (in terms of "ease" and luxury and privilege) of turning to more subsistent farming. >Lucky for us, science ignores the neo-luddites who have >never missed a meal in their lives, and does things like >come up with rice that needs less water, and can feed >more people with less resource consumption: I think the most common problem with so-called "scientific" solutions to problems of agriculture is that the farmer is disempowered and made dependent on people that don't have enough knowledge of the land to care for it. (Not all science is like this. Research by the Swiss Bee Research comes to mind first for empowering beekeepers.) If we give this world over to absentee landlords (with elite credentials and big paychecks), we'll surely fail to care for it. Randy's mention of the previously underestimated cost of sourcing our queens from a small number of large, "efficient" producers comes to mind. Perhaps it wasn't so "efficient" after all, and perhaps we're in a worse situation now on account of our short-sightedness then. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 22:12:55 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Dan_Grandy?= Subject: Bee Candy Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I read some of the comments on bee candy.I am very interested in this method of feeding, i had some hives that would not take the sugar. I whipped up a batch of candy and poured it on to some frames and put the frames into the hives. on a warmer day i noticed the candy was melting. If you put the candy in place of the inner cover,what keeps it from melting and drowning?I would appreciate any info. on the subject,like can you mix pollen in with it in the spring to promote brook laying,etc. Thank you Dan Grandy ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 20:49:06 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: C Hooper Subject: Miniature Fuel Cell Harnesses the Power of Bee Venom MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII Miniature Fuel Cell Harnesses the Power of Bee Venom Kathryn Young, CanWest News Services, 12/16/2007 http://apitherapy.blogspot.com/2007/12/miniature-fuel-cell-harnesses-power-of.html Harnessing the power of ant bites and bee stings, a B.C. company has developed a micro fuel cell that will come on the market next year to recharge cellphones, digital cameras, iPods or any other electronic device anywhere, anytime. "It's like carrying your wall plug around with you," said Neil Huff, chief executive officer of Burnaby-based Tekion. "It'll charge your cellphone at the same rate the wall plug does." Tekion's recharger, which contains a miniature fuel cell that runs on formic acid - the same chemical emitted as venom by biting ants and bees - is about the size of a BlackBerry and should retail for under $100... ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 22:54:44 -0500 Reply-To: bee-quick@bee-quick.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: "pimping bees" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Can you cite any example of any proponent of sustainability > wanting to "drag" all of agriculture anywhere? Sure, just read the post to which I was directly responding in this very thread, where Brian said: >> I and other like minds can only hope that these systems >> break down from the fact that they are unsustainable. Hoping that agriculture as we know it "breaks down" is about as clear an example as one could find. It is a horrible goal, one that one either loudly condemns, or tacitly supports with one's mere LACK of immediate and clear condemnation of any such twisted and nightmarish plan/wish/hope/dream. Silence Is The Voice Of Complicity! (The line above works so well for so much of what we face these days that I had an artist make me a tee-shirt.) Please have a Merry Christmas, and enjoy the products of an agricultural system that has been able to easily support days of feasting and presents all around for so long that no one recalls a Christmas without every ingredient they could imagine readily available at the local supermarket. But Spotted Owl for Christmas dinner? Wow Bill, you must have sprung the extra $50 a year for one of those "Executive" Costco memberships! I've never even spotted any Spotted Owl. I served goose at Christmas once. In a word - don't. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 08:27:26 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Padraic MacLeish Subject: Re: Sustainability In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Perhaps one of the great proponents of contemporary industrialized agriculture out there can explain for me why, if this system is SO efficient, it gobbles of billions of dollars of subsidies every year. These come in the form of subsidized water (especially California, whose farmers pay pennies on the dollar for all the water they get from huge federal projects), direct subsidies (corn, soybeans, and cotton, especially), indirect subsidies (federal government mandating the use of energy-inefficient corn-based ethanol, while at the same time taxing imported but more-efficiently produced sugarcane ethanol), and import tariffs (everything from avacadoes to sugar). All of these things take money from the consumer/taxpayer and hand them directly to large corporations and wealthy individuals (and on occasion, an actual farmer!) to support this so-called "efficient" system. If all these government supports vanished, whose food would be expensive? It's possible that industrially-grown food would still be cheaper, but I think we would find the gap a great deal smaller. In my mind, there is no question that the free market is the most efficient and effective means of allocating our resources and production. However, it is important to remember that commodity agriculture is anything but a free market. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 08:47:34 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Michael Palmer Subject: Re: "pimping bees" In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed > I noticed the jar had the local address of the packer in large lettering, >but it also said "Product of Argentina and/or China" in small letters. I'm sure. The USDA Grade A was in bold letters, too. With all you going to the national beekeeping meeting in California, how about making some noise about fair labeling and country of origin issues. Uninformed consumers see "USDA Grade A" in bold letters on the front label, and believe the product was produced in the US. It's time that "Product of" was listed in the same place, in the same bold lettering. I won't hold my breath. Mike ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 11:46:05 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dick Marron Subject: Sustainability MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Everyone is yammering on about sustainability as if there actually were such a thing. With the outer reaches of what we can sense moving away from us at half the speed of light; with 100 billion galaxies in our view, each with the likelihood of life; with the sun cooling; with the earth fomenting an earthquake, on occasion to remind us that it's shrinking; with matter marching toward entropy...just what do you think is likely to be sustainable? It is known that oil is a finite resource but we still think the answer to that is to drill somewhere else. We should keep a little by for medicinal purposes. >From birth, each human tries to put what infant eyes see as chaos, into a snapshot that will remain stable long enough to understand the world. Those with courage see the constantly shifting sands of existence. Those without it get rigid. That's where man becomes irrational. Being born of woman does not auger well for eternal life. Yet we tend to live and think as if there were no end for us. It just continues into the hereafter. It's been said if the history of the world were a book, mankind makes its' appearance in the last sentence of the last page. Starting on that last page, if the history of MANKIND were written, not much would change since we came out of the caves except technology. That has served to arm us savages with enough stored energy to obliterate all life on the planet. This is currently guarded by a variety of superstitious fanatics that believe that an all powerful force is on their side. Some of them blow themselves up; others of them merely send their youth to fight wars in foreign sands. In the last billionth of a microsecond of that last page is the era we live in. To even use the word sustainable about anything in it is laughable. Physical systems either adapt or die. If they adapt it is only temporary. Death has time to wait. Every species changes its environment. This change is to its' own disadvantage. We are no different. This "sustainable" macro-farming is running its little course. According to the USDA our produce has only about half the nutrition in it than it had 50 years ago. Can we expect the bees to be superior to us? If given time, they may adapt to living on a semi and waking up in a new place every morning. For a while. That change was not certain but the little chance it had is obviated by the narrowing of the gene pool in an almost systematic way. It is only a question of time until some fellow human explodes an atomic bomb. That may solve the population problems of the planet for a bit. Every species changes the environment to its disadvantage. Our warlike nature may be an adaptation. Now that I've cheered you up, have a nice holiday. Dick Marron ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 20:26:21 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?windows-1252?Q?Steve_Noble?= Subject: Sustainability Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dick waxes nihilistically: “With the outer reaches of what we can sense moving away from us at half the speed of light; with 100 billion galaxies in our view, each with the likelihood of life; with the sun cooling; with the earth fomenting an earthquake, on occasion to remind us that it's shrinking; with matter marching toward entropy...just what do you think is likely to be sustainable? … It is only a question of time until some fellow human explodes an atomic bomb.” Hmm. You have a point. How much time do you think we have, Dick? I mean should I order packages for next season or not? I was thinking I could sustain myself for that much longer anyway. In a manner of speaking that is. Steve Noble ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 08:02:44 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?windows-1252?Q?Howard_Kogan?= Subject: Happy Holidays Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dear Bee-L; Warmest wishes to all for a wonderful holiday and peace on earth. And how about a little peace on Bee-L too. Have a honey filled 2008. Howard ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 08:54:56 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: Re: Happy Holidays In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="Windows-1252"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Warmest wishes to all for a wonderful holiday and peace on earth. I go along with Howard with wishing everyone the best! As you get older Christmas time is full of memories of Christmas past! Some good and some not so good! My Mother was born at Christmas and died very young at Christmas time. The memories of kids at Christmas and their excitement will always put a smile on your face. Now its Grandkids (nine) and soon to be great grandkids. The most sentimental time of year for me is around New Years. Some good memories and some not so good. I wonder at how fast the year has gone. Think of my comrades funerals I attended over the last year. I call family & friends I have not spoke with in awhile to wish happy Holidays. its nice to get Christmas cards but phone calls are cheap these days. I still prefer the phone to all forms of communication other than a visit. The world we live in is truly a mysterious place as Dick Marron pointed out. Einstein pondered the vastness of space and Man's creation of time. Our everyday world is similar to the bee hive. We live each day and go through our routines without really thinking about the vastness of it all. New bees emerge and old bees are flown twenty feet from the hive and dumped at the end of life. Today the days become longer. For the bees the new year has started. Eggs will be laid in strong hives today. Sincerely, Bob Harrison -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 11:17:52 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Sustainability In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit There seems to be interest in my addition of the USSR to the argument about sustainability, that is was a leap of logic. How are we going to get to small "sustainable" farms, and get rid of big agriculture and achieve all the rest of the desires of the sustainable faithful? Government is the only vehicle and the faithful are trying to use it. So a look at the extreme of government management, the USSR, is valid. Especially if you look at the posts on this list to breakup big agriculture and do away with commercial beekeepers.If that is not totalitarian in its thinking, then nothing is. If anyone here thinks government is benign, they are in company with Peter Pan. Just a look at some of the good intentions of our own government recently. Congress mandated Folic acid supplements to many foods to help prevent a small number of people with problems in pregnancy. The only problem is, a recent increase in colon cancer has been tied to the increase in Folic acid in our diets. The reason, Folic acid is a cell grower and helps cancers to grow and not remain dormant. So Congress, in doing good and help a few, has done bad and hurt many at the same time. Truth is, if you want to be sustainable, as I am in my agricultural practices, it is an individual, market and social driven thing. That works best. When you are going to save the planet with irrational approaches, which only the government is capable of attaining on a daily basis, then you are moving into territory which all of us should be very concerned. If you think that is impossible in any of our societies, you are not a student of history. Or of some of our presidential candidates. Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 14:31:34 -0300 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Juanse Barros Subject: Mayan Sustainability, not! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Steve: I think we are left some 4 to 5 years before we really sense "the sun cooling" of Dick. Then 24 years of low sun. Order packages but with Russian or Carnic queens!!!! On the next saturn cycle some 29 years ahead maybe things start coming to normal again. The next 4 years will have lots of honey and the price will remain high!. Good luck to everyone!! -- Juanse Barros J. APIZUR S.A. Carrera 695 Gorbea - CHILE +56-45-271693 08-3613310 http://apiaraucania.blogspot.com/ juanseapi@gmail.com ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 02:36:02 GMT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "waldig@netzero.net" Subject: Re: Sustainability Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I like Kirk Webster's (of Vermont) approach to sustainable beekeeping in the north. The man may not live in a McMansion - and only a shallow fool would want to - but he does make a enjoyable living from the bees. Without Fed or EU subsidies and tarrifs Big Ag in North America and Europe would have to compete with lower cost, often more sustainable farmers from other continents. The poor farmers from other countries resist terminator seeds, GMO trash, and synthetic chemicals of all sorts. God bless them and keep them (until the artificial subsidies in the West subside). My view is: if the Amish can make a wholesome living with their basic/sustainable methods then that's just dandy. Big Ag does not impress me one bit. Waldemar Long Island, NY ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 18:18:16 -0300 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Juanse Barros Subject: Re: Sustainability In-Reply-To: <20071223.183602.17486.0@webmail09.dca.untd.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline We could all start here http://www.blackle.com/about/ -- Juanse Barros J. APIZUR S.A. Carrera 695 Gorbea - CHILE +56-45-271693 08-3613310 http://apiaraucania.blogspot.com/ juanseapi@gmail.com ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 18:16:47 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dick Marron Subject: Sustain MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Juanse wrote:>>>I think we are left some 4 to 5 years before we really sense "the sun cooling" of Dick.<<< Steve Wrote:>>> How much time do you think we have, Dick? I mean should I order packages for next season or not?<<<< Make fun. Make fun! What else is there to do? One of my favorite songs of all time, I think sung by Rosemary Cloony, was, "Is that all there is? If that's all there is, then let's keep dancing!" To answer the question, I am going to order at least one package of bees. How much time do you have left? If I knew I wouldn't tell you. Any answer would be grim and you couldn't handle it. I love you all. Let's make next year a great one. If you ever get too cheerful, write me. I'll find a way to bring you down. Dick Marron ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 18:50:06 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: John Edwards Subject: Re: Sustainability, bees, and oil In-Reply-To: <23361497.1198451363399.JavaMail.root@m03> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hey, Dick (and all) - - Try reading at these two sites - It might help you feel better. And no, abiotic oil is not a joke. I do like the idea of buying bee stock based on climate cycles - might be workable! http://www.gasresources.net/Introduction.htm http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Theory/SustainableOil/ (BTW, I ponder the infinite and the unknowable as often as I can) - John Edwards, former USDA killer bee tracker and identifier, now a happy photographer. Check out my attitude for free at http://Plusiotis.imagekind.com MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL !! Dick Marron wrote: >It is known that oil is a finite resource > > ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 15:08:51 GMT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "waldig@netzero.com" Subject: Re: Sustainability Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Big Ag USSR style was an environmental fiasco. I grew up in Poland where the communist government tried to impose huge Soviet-style communal farms. These were notoriously unproductive and relied on heavy chemical use. Thankfully, most of the land remained in small farmers' hands. These folks have always been the true custodians for the farm lands. They raised a variety of crops and animals, practiced manuring and crop rotation. They also kept bees! They also set aside areas for wildlife. All without government mandates. Communism failed miserably. I'd love to see Amish-size/style farms using modern equipment replace Big Ag across the US farmland. Waldemar Long Island, NY ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 10:46:57 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: Re: Sustainability In-Reply-To: <20071225.070851.20467.0@webmail01.dca.untd.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I'd love to see Amish-size/style farms using modern equipment replace Big > Ag across the US farmland. Being the largest supplier of honey in Missouri to the horse & buggy people (not all are Amish) I am very familiar with their methods. Modern equipment is not going to happen. Most of mine mow their lawns with a Belgian horse pulling a non motor cutter. For the amount of labor involved the return is not very good. However many use chemicals and pesticides bought from the Amish Seed supply in south Missouri (also a honey customer). When ever I deliver the drums I bring a swinger forklift with barrel attachment plus a hand barrel jack. If not problems happen fast. The Amish want to hoist the barrel from a tree and hand roll to the building. Stand up and then maneuver through a door way. I believe I might take time one of these days to write an article about my experiences with the Amish. The Amish are easy to do business with and honest. At times its hard to get away from the kids and teenagers for all the questions about bees and the outside world. They (at least from my experience) never try to get a reduced price and either take or leave the price of honey. They do not mind paying a gasoline surcharge for delivery but seldom know the current price of gasoline. On my last trip they thought gasoline was $3 a gallon when in reality was cheaper by around .25. I am always honest with the Amish and try to help place the barrels in the places they want. I sell to the Amish at the going rate for raw unprocessed honey in 55 gallon drums and the Amish ladle the honey from the drum. Some they sell along with the sorghum they make. The Amish sought me out because some unscrupulous beekeepers had been cutting honey with up to 50% HFCS and selling to the Amish for years. The beekeeper is deceased now but used to brag at meetings about selling honey cut with HFCS to the Amish cheap. When I go into the Ozarks to deliver drums of honey its like going back in time to the days of the pioneers. The Amish have only got a communal phone and they can call out but you can not call in. Accurate directions are essential. Usually I meet a horse and buggy along a gravel road and then follow to the delivery point. The Amish are loyal customers and will keep coming back as long as they are treated with respect. A couple times I have had to at least chuckle around the Amish. One Elder could not figure out how to work a barrel jack. Another wondered how he would get the honey out of an open top drum. bob -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 17:42:20 -0500 Reply-To: lloyd@rossrounds.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Lloyd Spear Subject: Sustainability MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline It was just said "if the Amish can make a wholesome living with their basic/sustainable methods then that's just dandy." I work pretty closely with both Amish and Mennonite communities. They snicker when I tell them some English think they do not use pesticides, herbicides, and artificial fertilizers. In fact, they use all of each that they can afford. Don't think you will see Amish hoeing corn, it just doesn't happen. From raw pastures, the first treatment is with Roundup, then plowed and a cover crop. Then seeded and a pre-emergent herbicide, and finally GMO corn (which is duly shocked). The second year they will use no-till planting. That is, the Amish community near here. Mennonite's, of course, are far more likely to use mechanical devices and some even use tractors, combines, etc. but still no electricity in their homes. Others have community telephones with different extensions for voice mail messages on incoming. All that said, they are probably much better stewards of land than we English as they produce very little more than what they need to sustain themselves and their communities. But I would not like to live like them. I believe their average life span right now (in America) is some 20 years lower than ours; mumps, measles and chickenpox are still common childhood diseases (with all the problems they bring to the adult community); home births are normal; sometimes they will not accept special care for handicapped (Downs Syndrome) children; death due to tetanus is not uncommon, etc. Those who wish for 'the good old days' sometimes do not really know what those days involved. Lloyd -- Lloyd Spear Owner Ross Rounds, Inc. Manufacture of equipment for round comb honey sections, Sundance Pollen Traps, and producer of Sundance custom labels. Contact your dealer or www.RossRounds.com ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 06:38:50 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Sustainability In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lloyd Spear wrote: > Those who wish for 'the good old days' sometimes do not really know what > those days involved. > > When we had small farms the cost of food for a normal family was more than 1/3 of their income. By 1960 the cost was 20% and is now 11%. Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 14:46:22 GMT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "waldig@netzero.net" Subject: Fw: Re: [BEE-L] Sustainability Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >>When we had small farms the cost of food for a normal family was more than 1/3 of their income. By 1960 the cost was 20% and is now 11%. Do these numbers represent the real cost of food or the food prices at the supermarkets? Your figures may not include the significant farm subsidies that artificially make the food look cheaper than it really is. I may buy cheap food in supermarkets but a part of my income taxes goes to ag subsidies. Since a part of my taxes is devoured by the federal buecracy, the real subsidy cost to taxpayers is much higher as well. As these food production prices have gone down, the federal and trade deficits have gone from surpluses and discpline to the huge deficits of today. (Since the 70's the greenback is no longer backed by gold but by 'the faith of the US government' [more responsive to the lobbyists than the people].) If you also consider the huge personal debt Americans carry in the form of credit cards and equity loans, the good standard of living as indicated by, among others, the cheap food is a bubble. My point is, if you include the deficts (to be paid by taxpayers) and personal debt (to be paid hopefully by the debtors, not taxpayers!), the real income will be much lower. And if you add ag subsidies to the price tag, the cheap food will no longer appear so cheap. And what is the value of the cheap, processed food based on GMO corn, HFCS? Look at the obesity epidemic for instance in America and the related health care costs. We spend the most on our healthcare but don't rank among the healthiest nations in the world. Does our cheap food still appear so cheap? I may not be thrilled with the Amish using pesticides etc. but I would gladly pay 25% of my income for good quality, healthy food produced in a sustainable way. Waldemar ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 12:48:20 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Brian Fredericksen Subject: Re: Sustainability Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 06:38:50 -0500, Bill Truesdell wrote: >When we had small farms the cost of food for a normal family was more >than 1/3 of their income. By 1960 the cost was 20% and is now 11%. > that gets to the core of the sustainability question. as food prices as a percent of income declined obesity has gone up, rural economies have declined , environmental issues have increased, and the income generated by food production has moved upstream to the processors. so if food was to cost more if we had less emphasis on industrial Ag would that be such a bad tradeoff if we could reverse some of the negatives I listed? I just don't see the glory in cheap food. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 14:01:21 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Grant Gillard Subject: Re: Sustainability In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Brian wrote: "I just don't see the glory in cheap food." And you didn't list that diabetes is the fastest growing disease right now, another by-product of our overly indulgent, overly processed, hyper-convenienced food system. Grant Jackson, MO --------------------------------- Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 17:38:23 EST Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Chris Slade Subject: Re: "pimping bees" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 20/12/2007 15:43:00 GMT Standard Time, bba@DISCOVERYNET.COM writes: Adee Honey Farms had been sitting on drums of honey ( how many years?)waiting for the price to reach levels it did once a few years ago Is there a maximum limit to the HMF in honey in the USA? Chris ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 19:50:24 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Lanfeust Subject: Sustainability - demystification attempt In-Reply-To: <476FDBB0.8010406@suscom-maine.net> Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Beyond definition and philosophy, sustainable development must be translated into practice. Let's give it a try ! I think any commercial beekeeper is used to manage economics of his business: listing inputs and outputs; establishing economic performance indicators; identifying sectors of profits and losses; distinguishing what is promising from activities that must be improved. Products/services production cost and selling cost on the market decide of short term success or failure. Market is your absolute benchmarking tool, your finality. With regard to Environment, as long as environmental/ H&S regulations seem to be respected, everything is assumed OK. In the reality, as long as there is no infraction or pursuit, it is OK. Minimum conformity is your management, in best cases. Now you entered into the XXI century. Environment should be integrated in your management practice. Decisions process should take into account social, econimic and environmental paramaters. Seriously, do you think all majors develop sustainable development policy to go back to Iron Age ? Or to be positionned in the global market for the coming century ? Yes there is propaganda stuffed of buzz words in those policies, but there is also a necessary evolution of modern, dense and advanced societies which face competition in a limited space of limited ressources. So, large professionnal beekeepers (the large ones first, but others can do it as well) can take their list of inputs and outputs expressed - this time - in ressources consummed, products, by-products and waste instead of dollards only, can establish environmental performance indicators: kgCO2e or ton of DBO5, Ptotal, CDO or any other pollutant per ton of honey sold, or per $ of gross rate, liters of fuel per $ of income for pollination, etc. List direct environmental impacts, according to your common sense and your knowledge, for each item. Now, you can measure and improve your environmental impact. First goal hast not change : making money. But you also want to reduce your environmental impact as being in business. Some decisions are easy: the less resources you consume, the more savings. But some have to be balanced between environmental and economic parameters. 2 years pay back in energy efficiency measures for old motors and honey house insulation or a new forklift to improve your business efficiency ? Depending on your sense of community, you may evaluate what you can afford to let the same possiblities of development to the next generation. Bonus: democracy will not be threatened by your decision nor by your management system. That's just progress on its way... Hervé Laval, QC -- Hervé www.emelys.com -- http://www.fastmail.fm - I mean, what is it about a decent email service? ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 20:11:11 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "Peter L. Borst" Subject: Re: Sustainability MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Brian writes > obesity has gone up, rural economies have declined , environmental issues have increased, and the income generated by food production has moved upstream to the processors. > so if food was to cost more if we had less emphasis on industrial Ag would that be such a bad tradeoff if we could reverse some of the negatives I listed? I assume you intend to say that if food cost more, -- people would lose weight because they would eat less, rural economies would thrive, the environment would be saved, and farmers would have more money. I rather doubt these consequences. If good food costs more, people tend to buy cheaper, poorer food. They switch to cheap starches and fats instead of high quality fruits, vegetables and protein rich items. If domestic food prices go up, what actually happens is the distributors just buy more and more food from other countries. To be a sustainable producer, you have to have customers who want what you are selling and are willing to pay for it. If they are willing to pay more to get your particular product, you will survive. If they aren't -- either you have to lower your price or try to get subsidized, thereby forcing them to pay for it. > Craig Infanger, University of Kentucky College of Agriculture economist, said "With the changing tastes of the American consumer and an improving economy, you can understand why imported foods are the fastest growing section of the typical supermarket," he said. "Our food stores are now stocked with fruits and vegetables year-round with the origin and source changing with the seasons. That's why horticultural products are the largest component of agricultural imports." * * * USA Today reports: The FDA inspects about 1% of the imported foods it regulates, down from 8% in 1992 when imports were far less common. The FDA also doesn't require that exporting countries have safety systems equivalent to those in the USA. The USDA does that for countries that export meat and poultry, and the Government Accountability Office -- the investigative arm of Congress -- has said for at least a decade that the FDA should, too. The decline in FDA inspection resources has been pronounced in the past five years. While food imports have soared about 50%, the number of FDA food-import inspectors has dropped about 20%, the agency says. Meanwhile, more food imports come from developing countries, where pesticide use is often higher than in the USA, water quality is often worse and workers may be less likely to be trained in food safety, says Michael Doyle, head of the Center for Food Safety at the University of Georgia. A 2003 FDA study found pesticide violations in 6.1% of imported foods sampled vs. 2.4% of domestic foods. * * * The International Herald Tribune reports: "The public thinks the food supply is much more protected than it is," said William Hubbard, a former associate commissioner who left in 2005 after 27 years at the agency. "If people really knew how weak the FDA program is, they would be shocked." "With globalization, American food processors are turning to less-developed countries to get food ingredients because they can get them so much more cheaply," Hubbard said. "The word is out," he said. "If you send a problem shipment to the United States it is going to get in and you won't get caught, and you won't have your food returned to you, let alone get arrested or imprisoned." ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 20:01:10 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: Re: "pimping bees" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Is there a maximum limit to the HMF in honey in the USA? I really do not know. Honey several years old sold to packers is not uncommon. About the current USDA CCC loan process: A friend in Nebraska sold 200 drums to Sioux Bee ( never has used the loan process) last week and the subject of HMF did not come up but the honey was sampled. All packers today sample and do some testing. When I sold to packers each year the packer always sampled each drum and tested in his lab. I had sent a random sample before delivery but the lab tested on delivery. The large packers always have a lab and lab people. The USDA always tested honey when the honey could be forfeited. No sampling is done for CCC loan today mainly because all you are getting is a loan of about two thirds of the value of the honey WITH INTEREST. Forfeiture is not possible. The loan limit I believe is $125,000 which is small compared to the loan limits for other crops. Only very small packers honey and small beekeepers honey is usually not tested. Most store honey was tested during the three years honey was on the FDA honey watch. I never heard of any problems. I think U.S. packer honey is very safe. The U.K. and Canada pride themselves for their imported honey inspection but for how many years did the people of both countries consume honey tainted with chloramphenical ( spelling?). Guesses range to over a decade. However as Jim Fischer pointed out on this list the PPM was so slight he doubted health problems would ever occur but still any amount to the purest is too much. Our contamination in the U.S. has come from China and Argentina in the form of U.S. banned antibiotics. I am no chemist but really can not see *huge* health risks from HMF levels and see mainly as a way to stop the flow of imported honey into the U.K. rather than a safety issue. bob -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 10:25:16 +0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dave Cushman Subject: Re: "pimping bees" In-Reply-To: <27F7DE2DCC2A437A8F90A0C28EABE66E@bobPC> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Bob > I am no chemist but really can not see *huge* health risks from > HMF levels and see mainly as a way to stop the flow of imported > honey into the U.K. rather than a safety issue. I should point out that UK has the highest limit for HMF (80mg/kg), in order to allow importation of more honey, not the other way around. HMF is supposedly not harmful to humans, the levels of it that occur in corn syrup are, hundreds, if not thousands, of times higher than in honey. Regards & Best 73s, Dave Cushman, G8MZY http://www.dave-cushman.net (http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman) Short FallBack M/c, Build 7.01/2.01 ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 05:54:21 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: C Hooper Subject: U.S. Pharmacies to Stock Honey-Laced Bandages Next Year MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII U.S. Pharmacies to Stock Honey-Laced Bandages Next Year Sweet Health News About Honey By Jordan Lite, Daily News (USA), 12/27/2007 http://apitherapy.blogspot.com/2007/12/us-pharmacies-to-stock-honey-laced.html ..Used for thousands of years to treat wounds, honey is finding new credibility as a health aid from government regulators and scientists who have rediscovered its healing properties. Last month, the Food and Drug Administration allowed a Princeton, N.J.-based company to promote the first honey-based wound dressing. Honey can ease children's coughs, a recent study found. And it may even reduce the risk of anemia and infection in cancer patients getting chemotherapy, 2006 research shows... ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 07:10:15 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Barry Digman Subject: Re: Sustainability In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Amish and Mennonite lifestyles are all about faith and dedicating one's life to God. To even consider them in any other context (such as"sustainable") completely misses the very point of living that lifestyle and what makes it possible. In case no one has noticed, it's their faith that sustains them and allows them to live simply, not the other way around. I know that concept is hard for some to get their arms around, but it is essential for us to understand that some things are not subject to a smorgasboard approach. It's all or nothing. If you're interested in living that model, you absolutely must accept the religious dicipline first. It doesn't work otherwise, as we proved in numerous communes in the 60's. Not to disparage these folks or their systems, but living such a simple and pacifist life in this world is only possible within the confines of a hugely complex military/industrial system that's actually doing the heavy lifting. In addition, as Lloyd points out, those systems do not produce the surplus required by a nation of 300+ million people in the 21st century. barry digman ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 08:32:25 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "Berube, Conrad ENV:EX" Subject: french beekeeping pen-pals wanted/ en cherche de apiculteurs francophone correspondents In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Seasonal salutations ;-) I tried sending this out last week-- not sure if it worked-- sorry if this a repeat. I've just returned from Guinea West Africa where I was assisting a Guinean beekeeping association-- it would be great if we could get some francophone beekeepers to start a "pen pal" relationship with the beekeepers here. Anyone know of any clubs or individuals who might be interested in doing so? je suis arrivee de Guinée afrique de l'ouest ou j'assistai une fédération des apiculteurs-- il sera grand chose si je pourrais avoir quelques apiculteurs francophone pour commencer une correspondance avec les apiculteurs ici. Quiconque connaissant un club ou des individus qui pourrait être interrésser peut le faire? The beekeepers' federation in Guinea is hoping to connect with francophone beekeepers who might be able to assist in donating French beekeeping books and magazines and/or sharing contact information for suppliers of packaging and labels for honey and other bee products. Any help you can provide along those lines would be appreciated. You can respond to me or contact the Fédération des apiculteurs de Guinée via: Contact Person :Diallo Mamadou Yaya Address: BP 49 Labe or BP 5747 Conakry Republique de Guinee Tel: (224) 60 33 52 21/ 64 26 20 04 Email: fapifouta@yahoo.fr Thanks/Merci! - " ` Conrad Bérubé " ` 890 Eberts St. _- -_`-_|'\ /` Nanaimo, BC _/ / / -' `~()() V9S 1P6 \_\ _ /\-._/\/ (250)754-1155 / | | email: uc779@freenet.victoria.bc.ca '` ^ ^ http://www3.telus.net/conrad ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 19:35:37 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "Peter L. Borst" Subject: Re: Sustainability MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sustainability is not some far-out pipe-dream of the idle, but is widely accepted as a realistic goal toward which to work. I would suggest that only people without children could have no concern about the future and the world we are leaving for them. I only hope that any such folks can learn compassion and support the effort to transform agriculture. It must be observed, however, that agriculture is driven by both the producers and the customers. Producers seek to create a demand for their merchandise by making it attractive and affordable while customers help shape the variety of items available through their expectations and demands. In terms of beekeeping, large scale pollination is one of the things the bee industry has taken on as a means of earning a livelihood as honey prices have sagged. As a country, we can support their efforts and try to create a wider awareness of what they do. As beekeepers, we can counter the ill-conceived attempts to portray beekeepers as some sort of slave-drivers who are bringing on the demise of their faithful herds. I submit that nobody wants a healthy bee population more than we do. Rather than trying to fix blame somewhere, we should concentrate on finding out what really works. > Sustainability rests on the principle that we must meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Therefore, stewardship of both natural and human resources is of prime importance. Stewardship of human resources includes consideration of social responsibilities such as working and living conditions of laborers, the needs of rural communities, and consumer health and safety both in the present and the future. Stewardship of land and natural resources involves maintaining or enhancing this vital resource base for the long term. > A systems perspective is essential to understanding sustainability. The system is envisioned in its broadest sense, from the individual farm, to the local ecosystem, and to communities affected by this farming system both locally and globally. An emphasis on the system allows a larger and more thorough view of the consequences of farming practices on both human communities and the environment. A systems approach gives us the tools to explore the interconnections between farming and other aspects of our environment. > Making the transition to sustainable agriculture is a process. For farmers, the transition to sustainable agriculture normally requires a series of small, realistic steps. Family economics and personal goals influence how fast or how far participants can go in the transition. It is important to realize that each small decision can make a difference and contribute to advancing the entire system further on the "sustainable agriculture continuum." The key to moving forward is the will to take the next step. http://www.sarep.ucdavis.edu/concept.htm ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 09:47:13 -0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter Edwards Subject: Re: "pimping bees" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dave wrote: > I should point out that UK has the highest limit for HMF (80mg/kg), in > order to allow importation of more honey, not the other way around. For clarity, the 80mg/kg applies only to imported honey of tropical origin and blends thereof; UK beekeepers have to comply with the EU limit of 40mg/kg. My understanding is that these limits are purely to prevent overheating and long storage, as other foods can contain much higher amounts, e.g. jam has, I believe, up to 2000mg/kg. Best wishes Peter Edwards beekeepers at stratford-upon-avon.freeserve.co.uk www.stratford-upon-avon.freeserve.co.uk/ ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 03:48:11 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: C Hooper Subject: Propolis Component Induces Cancer Cell Death MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII Propolis Component Induces Cancer Cell Death Caffeic Acid Phenethyl Ester Induces Mitochondria-Mediated Apoptosis in Human Myeloid Leukemia U937 Cells Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry, December 03, 2007 http://apitherapy.blogspot.com/2007/12/propolis-component-induces-cancer-cell.html Abstract: Caffeic acid phenyl ester (CAPE), a biologically active ingredient of propolis, has several interesting biological properties including antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, antiviral, immunostimulatory, anti-angiogenic, anti-invasive, anti-metastatic and carcinostatic activities... ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 08:04:56 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Sustainability In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Peter L. Borst wrote: > Sustainability is not some far-out pipe-dream of the idle, but is > widely accepted as a realistic goal toward which to work. I doubt if you will find anyone against husbandry, which is what most of us understand sustainability to be. The problem with "sustainability" is who defines what it is you are trying to achieve, and who determines how you get there. This whole thread came about because of extreme ideas of what sustainability is, rather than the rational (and usually warm and fuzzy) ones that also say what it is. So we have a term that means what we want it to mean. That is dangerous. Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:39:37 +0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Gavin Ramsay Subject: Re: Sustainability MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bill said: > I doubt if you will find anyone against husbandr= Hi All=0A=0ABill said:=0A> I doubt if you will find anyone against husbandr= y, which=0A> is what most of us understand sustainability to be.=0A=0AMost = people these days, if pressed, would sign up to the internationally accepte= d definition of sustainability. The Brundtland Commission is the highest a= uthority:=0A=0A"..development that meets the needs of the present without c= ompromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs"=0A= =0AIf that is a bit brief, Wikipedia has an expanded version:=0A'Sustainabi= lity is a characteristic of a process or state that can be maintained at a = certain level indefinitely. The term, in its environmental usage, refers to= the potential longevity of vital human ecological support systems, such as= the planet's climatic system, systems of agriculture, industry, forestry, = and fisheries, and human communities in general and the various systems on = which they depend.'=0A=0AThat is quite a bit more than just husbandry, it i= s maintaining a focus on leaving the same legacy for future generations. Y= ou can (and should) add sustained economic health to the Wikipedia definiti= on above.=0A=0ACan current agricultural systems be maintained indefinitely?= To take a very long view (I guess that my kids are quite likely to leave = kids of their own, and then further generations after them) it is not susta= inable to do any of the following:=0A=0A- practices that add persistent far= m chemicals or soil particles to run off or groundwater=0A- practices that = use up mineral fertilisers=0A- practices that do not return nutrients from = wastes in the processing chain (including human consumption) to the land=0A= - use energy other than energy from renewables in its operations=0A=0AIn th= e last of these, there might be a case for the sustainable use of a small a= mount of fossil fuels if it can be shown that the Earth is capable of moppi= ng a little bit of the huge quantities of CO2 currently being released. Cu= rrently it can't. The 180-280ppm CO2 cycle from glacial to inter-glacial p= eriods has been left far behind and we're now at over 380ppm. The effects = of this and the further likely increases (on oceanic acidity, mean energy b= alance per sq metre and knock-on climate effects) are surely undeniably uns= ustainable. =0A=0AI'm not expecting everyone to agree with that, but ultima= tely that has to be the long-term aim. Pressures are building in many part= s of the world to meet these requirements, and beekeeping will bear that pr= essure too. I don't see this as greens against corporate agriculture, tota= litarian left or totalitarian right against democracy, but just a fact of l= ife to which everyone needs to adjust. If we don't, we're stealing from ou= r children and their childern. That adjustment will affect beekeeping just= as it will affect other areas of life.=0A=0ASeason's Greetings to one and = all, and Good Luck to the Planet for 2008=0A=0AGavin ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 08:39:21 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: randy oliver Subject: Re: Sustainability MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >So we have a term that means what we want it to mean. Doesn't "sustainability" simply mean that a method can be used for multiple generations while leaving the system (both immediate, and the larger) in at least as good a shape as it began at? (This of course assumes that Dick allows us future generations) I practice "leave no trace" camping. That model could apply for both our lifestyles and businesses. The question to ask ourselves is, "Does what I do leave the next generations as good a world as I inherited?" To pull this thread back to beekeeping, we might ask whether our current beekeeping practices will work in the long term, without nonrenewable inputs. Clearly, synthetic acaricides are not sustainable, since they will be effective against only a relatively few generations of varroa. Clearly, migratory beekeeping requiring massive input of diesel fuel is not sustainable. In the short term, both are cost effective. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be looking ahead to the long term. Randy Oliver ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:49:33 -1000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Howard McGinnis Subject: Tennessee Apiary Law of 1995 In-Reply-To: <000001c836a8$9ba50cf0$0201000a@j> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Any comments on this legislation? Any Tennessee beeks lurking? Thanks, Howard In Hawaii ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 22:28:52 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?windows-1252?Q?Eric_Brown?= Subject: Re: Sustainability Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >The problem with "sustainability" is who defines what it is you are >trying to achieve, and who determines how you get there. ... >So we have a term that means what we want >it to mean. That is dangerous. I really don't see that the term is so ambiguous. Have any contradictory definitions even been offered in this whole discussion so far? What's this danger that you fear, Bill? The way I see it, what this is about is simply considering the impacts of our actions (especially what we do in and through our beekeeping operations) on our neighbors, near and far, and on posterity. Living as if considering other people's welfare were taboo is what I see as dangerous. I'm sure that's not what you would suggest, but you're not clearly differentiating your position. Failing to consider the wider impact of our actions as beekeepers could be compared to neglecting our roles as parents of children just because "who defines what it is you are trying to achieve, and who determines how you get there." I think the answer (to the question of who) is obvious in both cases, although defining broad goals and determining how to get there (i.e. raising children and managing a farm) will always be complicated. Certainly, calling for individual beekeepers to take responsibility for the broader consequences of their business decisions is anything but communist. A broad dispersal of responsibility and decision-making is practically the definition of democracy, and that's what I and most every proponent of sustainability would advocate in contrast to modern consolidation and institutionalization of farms. It's also worth noting that sustainable "technologies" (e.g. drone brood trapping or locally raised queens) are much more "democratic" than the technologies that proponents of sustainability most commonly object to (e.g. patented genes or heavily regulated chemicals). As beekeepers, I think we have two big advantages over other "farmers" when it comes to sustainability. First, the machinery can be scaled down (i.e. beekeepers can profitably operate with inexpensive equipment on a relatively small scale). Second, we don't have to control incredibly expensive acreages in order to do what we do. This means that many of us on this list didn't have to inherit a beekeeping operation in order to keep bees for profit. And it means a fairly healthy segment of uninstitutionalized beekeepers have been able to continue to operate and influence the industry as a whole. Another big advantage is the special demand for "local" honey compared to local wheat, milk, meat, etc. Selling locally gives us opportunities to differentiate our product and our processes. I think mass-marketing makes it very difficult to sell the value of how we operate, and ultimately, if we can't sell the value of how we operate, we're going to be hard pressed to pay for sustainable operation. Sustainable operation demands that we don't sacrifice everything else for the sake of profit maximization, but commodity prices leave little to no margin for compromising profit. Eric "capitalism against communism...If one must spend one's life as an employee, what difference does it make whether one's employer is a government or a corporation?" --Berry ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:53:31 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Brian Fredericksen Subject: Re: Sustainability Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:39:37 +0000, Gavin Ramsay wrote: Can current agricultural systems be maintained indefinitely? To take a very long view it is not sustainable to do any of the following: - practices that add persistent farm chemicals or soil particles to run off or groundwater - practices that use up mineral fertilisers - practices that do not return nutrients from wastes in the processing chain (including human consumption) to the land - use energy other than energy from renewables in its operations I would add that spreading disease and non-native pests or genetics would not be adding to the future longevtity of an agricultural process. Being unable to maintain your "livestock" by needing packages,nucs or hives each year also would be indicative of a non-sustainable operation. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ******************************************************