# Canada wants tracking of individual hives? Just how would that work? Is U.S. next?



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

Anyone know the details of possible regulations coming down the road for Canadian beekeepers to keep track of individual hives, and inputs into them, being required by the appropriate regulatory agency?
A beesource member brought this to my attention and pointed me to the documentation as linked. http://www.inspection.gc.ca/animals...-guide/eng/1378390483360/1378390541968?chap=1

It piqued my curiosity as to the thoughts of Canadian beekeepers to these guidelines/(possible) future regulations and how U.S beeks would react to similar "recommendations" . 

We in the US *are* required to register our production facilities, and the packers take care to know what supplier sent which lots of honey for traceability back to the source in case of a bio-security event. But there is currently no requirement to track and keep detailed records on individual hives, bee yards or the entire operation, (other than for tax considerations). I am now curious if we have similar documents on recommended practices under our food security regulations and will be checking on that. 

But for now, back to Canada. They seem to be recommending detailed record keeping on each _*hive*_? Starting with when and from whom it was acquired, if purchased or if self raised. What type of queen and when requeened and details on temperment. When treated for what/with what plus measurement to determine efficacy of treatment. Who visits your apiary and when and why. What inputs into your operation and the sources of same. 
For accuracy would one have to keep records of movement between colonies of frames and queens, even of which supers are used where and when? I can't see how that would even be practicable in a commercial migratory outfit. Those beekeepers with smaller numbers of colonies might have a hope of living with this level of record keeping but it would seem fairly impossible for large commercial migratory beekeepers with so much switching around of hive components and the fluidity of bees and queens themselves between hives, planned and otherwise. And any end benefit of this collecting of minutia is debatable, other than to the extra employee one would need for the record collecting and reporting. 

It seems at this point the program is voluntary and could be considered recommended micro-management practices for those so inclined. Many of the recommended practices _are_ widely acknowledged as "best practices", but some were obviously written with no consideration of the realities of beekeeping. For example, bees should only be allowed access to "water which meets municipal regulations for drinking water". Somewhat problematic to enforce, I would think. 

There is a big difference between recommending "best practices" and requiring implementation and documentation of tightly defined husbandry practices. Voluntary programs often serve as trial balloons for future regulations, is that where we're headed? 

Sheri


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

...... a solution in search of a problem.


----------



## David LaFerney (Jan 14, 2009)

So, is this the political mudfight forum now?


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

JohnK and Sheri said:


> But for now, back to Canada. They seem to be recommending detailed record keeping on each _*hive*_?


Sheri, I have been through the bio security program, there is *NO* recommendation for detailed record keeping on individual hives. The requirements falls through CFIA to document treatments, which I usually do on a spread sheet on a per yard/operation basis, much as what you guys will be doing to satisfy your own facility registration. There is no mandatory government enforcement, everything to do with facility registration is voluntary but most all honey packers require a registration number. The government is working with producers to help bring honey houses up to a national standard. I imagine its the same in the US


----------



## BMAC (Jun 23, 2009)

Well no, but some politics always come into play when regulators make up new laws and regulations without understanding anything practical in this world.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Its an industry driven, producer adopted, government regulated initiative. It is exactly how these things are to work. The industry demands honey house standards, the producer strives to meet those standards and the government develops a frame work to standardize. 

Soon as Mandatory hits the picture the whole process falls apart.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

"...everything not forbidden is required. Everything not required is forbidden"--T.H. White, The Once and Future King


----------



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

A forum member and Canadian brought this to my attention and I was curious as to people's thoughts. The ramification of additional regulations are a practical concern for those trying to make a living.


----------



## Redbug (Feb 8, 2014)

I really do not see how something like that can be implemented. Canada is such a large country and very diverse. And has more remote areas than the Lower USA. How is someone to know if you have hives somewhere in the woods if a person does not divulge it? I think most Canadians are very independant minded in a wild land. I can see about registering cars, etc., that's different. But bees do not affect anyone especially in a negative way. And there might be less people with beehives if it becomes regulated.


----------



## BMAC (Jun 23, 2009)

Hopefully that does not become regulation in Canada. However if it does, it's really a Canadian problem and hopefully our law makers realize what works for Canada does not also need to work for the US. Could you imagine if the US government set in regulations for controlling the honeybees source of water?

What would we do on the farm? Certainly once water hits a trough for horses or cows (galvenized water troughs) its no longer considered Potable water. I think if such regulations were imposed many or most commercial beekeepers would STOP producing honey and only focus on selling and pollination services more than we are seeing now.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

You guys are over thinking the whole issue


----------



## BMAC (Jun 23, 2009)

Hopefully thats the truth of it.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

BMAC, you hope that's the truth if what? 
Sheri spoke to a beekeeper who miss understood a framework and confused it with another. 

I can talk all day about manditory regs imposed on our cattle industry , to satisfy a trade partners politics...

None of this exists in the beekeeping industry.


----------



## BMAC (Jun 23, 2009)

Ian all Im saying is hopefully we are just overthinking this.

I know a guy in Ga concerned about local folks trying to dictate the water source for his bees. Maybe he is just talking to be heard talking, maybe not.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

BMAC said:


> Ian all Im saying is hopefully we are just overthinking this.
> 
> I know a guy in Ga concerned about local folks trying to dictate the water source for his bees. Maybe he is just talking to be heard talking, maybe not.


And you question whether his point is valid ? Again BMAC, your overthinking. And on a point that has no truth


----------



## Colino (May 28, 2013)

Here is the opening statement about the initiative. It says nothing about "mandatory", but it does mention "Voluntary" twice.

Why a National Standard?

The National Bee Farm-level Biosecurity Standard forms the basis of a comprehensive *voluntary* program designed to provide practical guidance for owners or managers involved in the three main Canadian bee sectors: honey bees, alfalfa leafcutting bees, and bumblebees. The Standard was developed in partnership with representatives from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), the Canadian Honey Council (CHC) – on behalf of provincial beekeeping and honey producer associations – provincial apiarists, and the Canadian Association of Professional Apiculturists (CAPA).

The objective of a National Standard is to provide a consistent, country-wide approach to the implementation of biosecurity practices for both small- and large-scale operations. The development of farm-level biosecurity standards is a national initiative within and across agriculture industries, including both animals and plants. Beekeeping was identified as a priority sector for the development of a* voluntary* farm-level biosecurity Standard.


----------



## BMAC (Jun 23, 2009)

Ian Fair enough. Unfortunately we do see real changes in regulations equally ridiculous as what the above hints towards. I guess that's why its concerning.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

BMAC said:


> Ian Fair enough. Unfortunately we do see real changes in regulations equally ridiculous as what the above hints towards. I guess that's why its concerning.


Does the US not have a state or national regulatory standard which they use to register US production facilities ? Are you also concerned about that? 
If given a choice, would you buy your food from a processing facility that falls under all the national inspection criteria or would you buy from a processing facility unknown to you which doesn't ?


----------



## Dominic (Jul 12, 2013)

It's voluntary, but I wouldn't be surprised to start seeing big packers demand it of their clients, or pay them less for their honey if they don't. While I don't expect the government to make it mandatory, I can certainly see big resellers doing so.

As for the water, I'm pretty sure all they want you to do is make fresh water available in every apiary. Sure, you can't control where the bees go to drink, but if you put a clean water source close to the hives, then you are doing pretty much all there is to do about it.

Keeping records on an apiary level is just good practices anyways. I also consider it a selling point: I can look at the batch number on my bottle of honey and tell the customer in what kind of environment that honey was made. Of course, I run a rather small operation, but I consider it such a great selling point that I intend to maintain it even as I grow. "This, my friend, is not just any kind of honey. It's not a clover honey, and it's not a summer honey. This, my friend, is the golden treasure of SAINTE-SCHOLASTIQUE (or whichever town the apiary is in)!" Maybe it's just an impression I give myself, but I think that my clients appreciate this more than "this is a honey made of, mostly, clover nectar and an undetermined number of other unknown plants". Next year the pollen content analysis will be made available as well. I'm gonna keep using clover as an example for the sake of simplicity, but this would also allow one to sell two jars of clover honey to the same person, perhaps even in a bundle with a premium. Why? Because honey with 60% clover honey and 30% mustard honey will not taste the same as honey with 60% clover honey and 30% buckwheat honey. I don't think that honey should be reduced to its main source. Mixtures are not the result of simply the most important ingredient, those other ingredients should not be viewed as merely "contaminants" lowering the "purity" of the monofloral honey.

I'm going a bit off-topic, but all this to say that maintaining records and batches distinct between one's apiaries allows for marketing possibilities that doing a single big blend does not, and that traceability is not just paperwork but also a selling point.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Does the US not have a state or national regulatory standard which they use to register US production facilities ? Are you also concerned about that? 

Yes, I'm concerned.

>If given a choice, would you buy your food from a processing facility that falls under all the national inspection criteria or would you buy from a processing facility unknown to you which doesn't ? 

One which does not. I have yet to hear of an small unknown processing plant having any kind of issues or recalls. I hear everyday or USDA inspected facilities recalling billions of pounds of hamburger or millions or jars of peanut butter...

The more we regulate the less small producers there are (because it becomes financially impossible) and the bigger the problems are when they occur. If we keep consolidating and merging food companies there will soon be a single point of failure.


----------



## Colino (May 28, 2013)

Ian said:


> Sheri, I have been through the bio security program, there is *NO* recommendation for detailed record keeping on individual hives. The requirements falls through CFIA to document treatments, which I usually do on a spread sheet on a per yard/operation basis, much as what you guys will be doing to satisfy your own facility registration. There is no mandatory government enforcement, everything to do with facility registration is voluntary but most all honey packers require a registration number. The government is working with producers to help bring honey houses up to a national standard. I imagine its the same in the US


Here is the part about record keeping, it all sounds like stuff we already do anyway but maybe this is because these suggestions were written with the contributions of 600 Canadian commercial beekeepers. (The copy/paste did not justify the text very well but you can still understand it.)
*Record Keeping
*
A good method for tracking introductions (including splits) and recording treatments administered upon introduction is to use a colour-coding system or marking the hive lid.

Copies of records, including invoices, hive identification systems, and permits for imported bees should be kept for at least one year to enable traceback.

1. Purchases are clearly identified on receipt by lot number(s) and the following information is recordedfor each lot:
a. date received;
b. name, address, and telephone number of supplier;
c. number of queens, nuclei, package bees, or colonies;
d.disease status if known (according to health-inspection certificate or supplierdeclaration/accompanying test results);
e.date of inspection by originating authority;
f. selling permit number (if applicable); and
g. treatments given prior to shipment and when, if known.
2. If re-queening, hiving a swarm, or equalizing, splitting, or uniting colonies with own stock, record
a. parent colony;
b. queen source;
c. date introduced, split, or united;
d. observed desirable traits;
f.e.disease history or status (test results); and
g.treatments given prior to introduction and when (if known).
For all introductions, record
a. the apiary and hive within which the bees are placed. Hives should have a unique identifier (e.g. acode);
b. treatments given post shipment; and
c. health assessments (observations and/or test results). (See section 1.4.)


----------



## BMAC (Jun 23, 2009)

Ian said:


> Does the US not have a state or national regulatory standard which they use to register US production facilities ? Are you also concerned about that?
> If given a choice, would you buy your food from a processing facility that falls under all the national inspection criteria or would you buy from a processing facility unknown to you which doesn't ?


It concerns me very much about the national regulations in this country. I have choices. For instance I buy raw milk from Amish neighbors because they are certified organic and I know its the BEST milk I can provide for my family and they are local (another strong belief of mine). So with that stated I like to KNOW where my food comes from and suggest everyone takes a bit more active concern in where their food comes from as well and stop relying on the government to take care of us.

I understand why very large food producers have regulations as some are less than desireable. However its this one fits all legislation that does no one any good except for governments in means of taxation.


----------



## Dominic (Jul 12, 2013)

The big recalls get the media attention, that doesn't mean the small people don't have problems. I don't know about where you live, but I NEVER hear of salubrity issues of restaurants in the papers here. Yet, if I go on the internet, the government publishes a list of all infractions and there are quite a few people on it, almost all small businesses.

Which means that when the small guys do bad things, and put people's health at risk, it's much harder to trace it back to them and warn the other customers.

I think it's great that we have small businesses, and we should hope to have more, however that's not really an attitude I can agree with. Small does not make perfect.


----------



## grozzie2 (Jun 3, 2011)

My understanding of what's happening based on conversations with local folks involved in the process, is it's all about providing traceability. In the case of the small producer that bottles their own honey, identifying the source farm on the label is good enough. For farm gate sales, the fact it's purchased directly from the producer provides all the traceability that is required.

Where things change a bit, is folks selling in bulk to packers, who in turn put their own label on the bottles, ie Beemaid and Billy Bee as examples we see on the shelf here all the time. It says 'Product of Canada' on the packaging, nothing more. Those are the folks that need to provide some form of traceability back to source for the event of recall. It boils down to this, if a bottle comes off the shelf and tests positive for a contamination of some type, then ALL of the product comes off the shelf, unless a system is in place to provide traceability back to the source of that contamination. With that in place, only product that has passed thru or originated from the source of contamination will be affected by a recall.

As far as providing some framework for standardization, that too benefits the producer. If all packers have a different system, then once the producer has implemented a system, they are essentially locked into only one packer for sales. With a framework for the system blessed by the governing body (note the difference between designed by, and blessed by), then the playing field remains level, and a producer has the option to sell to any of the packers that ultimately require traceability paperwork to accept bulk product.

Me thinks the conspiracy folks may be reading far to much into this. High profile large scale recalls have forced the issue into corners of the food production industry where traceability was not really considered in the past. As times change, it becomes more and more important. As in any business over time, some will adapt, and thrive, others will not adapt, and possibly perish in the process.

My understanding is, the framework comes from industry, and ultimately gets blessed by the bureaucrats. It's not coming from the bureaucrats, and being forced on industry. My understanding could be wrong, there's lots of conflicting information around.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Small and large producers need to follow the same production practices. Is it alright to allow the small producer the use of PVC pipe which moves his honey? Honey house registration keeps everyone on the same standard. 

As far as I understand , the US follows the same regulatory processes as Canada, other than Canada being voluntary. I think the US is also


----------



## JClark (Apr 29, 2012)

Ian said:


> If given a choice, would you buy your food from a processing facility that falls under all the national inspection criteria or would you buy from a processing facility unknown to you which doesn't ?


I buy all my meat from a local farmer who has had to fight hard for the right to sell locally w/out meeting onerous national "standards". He actually invited the USDA to run cultures and tests that proved a local, open air, on farm processing station was far more hygenic then the standard meat packing plant w/ all the stringent requirements (specifically in terms of Salmonella and E. coli cultures). For whole discourses on this look up some of Joel Salatin's works.

So the short answer is yes. Then again, I grow all my own veggies too because I don't trust the current food production model. Off topic, I know.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>My understanding is, the framework comes from industry, and ultimately gets blessed by the bureaucrats. It's not coming from the bureaucrats, and being forced on industry. My understanding could be wrong, there's lots of conflicting information around.[<<

That is correct


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Jclark, you obviously know your supplier. Would you be as trusting if that product came from a large corporate operation whom did not fall under facility inspection? 

If your a small operator selling to neighbour then you can see what's going on, but for him to sell to me, hundreds of miles away, all the small trustworthy feeling gets lost


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>The big recalls get the media attention, that doesn't mean the small people don't have problems. I don't know about where you live, but I NEVER hear of salubrity issues of restaurants in the papers here. Yet, if I go on the internet, the government publishes a list of all infractions and there are quite a few people on it, almost all small businesses.

I knew that was coming. I'm not saying the standards of what is expected as far as handling shouldn't be the same, it's all the paperwork and certification that becomes an inordinate burden on the small guy. But the other issue is one of scale. How many bad food servings total come from small businesses vs large businesses? I think you'll find it large businesses that are the issue.

>Which means that when the small guys do bad things, and put people's health at risk, it's much harder to trace it back to them and warn the other customers.

I don't see why. Simply requiring their contact info on the food product makes it quite easy to track back to them. And if they don't you prosecute. But that doesn’t mean you have to require a lot of certification and paperwork.

>I think it's great that we have small businesses, and we should hope to have more, however that's not really an attitude I can agree with. Small does not make perfect. 

No, it doesn't, but it makes many small points of possible failure with the scope of the failure quite small, rather than only a few extremely large points of possible failure with the scope of any failure huge. In my experience small does make better. A small business is usually operated by people who cares more about what they are doing than a worker at a large corporation who has no stake in the outcome that they can see.


----------



## BMAC (Jun 23, 2009)

Ian said:


> Is it alright to allow the small producer the use of PVC pipe which moves his honey? Honey house registration keeps everyone on the same standard.


 Don't take this as me being an adovcate of PVC because I am NOT. However if PVC is an acceptable way to move our water thru our homes why would it NOT be acceptable way to move honey from pumps to tanks?


----------



## JClark (Apr 29, 2012)

Dominic said:


> It's voluntary, but I wouldn't be surprised to start seeing big packers demand it of their clients, or pay them less for their honey if they don't. While I don't expect the government to make it mandatory, I can certainly see big resellers doing so.


Here regulations are more for protecting the interests of the lobbyists pushing them (large producers) than about "quality" or "health".



Dominic said:


> I'm going a bit off-topic, but all this to say that maintaining records and batches distinct between one's apiaries allows for marketing possibilities that doing a single big blend does not, and that traceability is not just paperwork but also a selling point.


Good point. A good producer should already be doing this. Voluntary is good but that has led to mandatory in the past as big business pushes officials to make it so as a way to stifle competition--all in the name of "protecting the little guy".


----------



## BMAC (Jun 23, 2009)

Michael Bush said:


> >
> 
> I knew that was coming. I'm not saying the standards of what is expected as far as handling shouldn't be the same, it's all the paperwork and certification that becomes an inordinate burden on the small guy. But the other issue is one of scale. How many bad food servings total come from small businesses vs large businesses? I think you'll find it large businesses that are the issue.


This is correct. Many case studies in my Food Sanitation Course revolved around cafeteria like settings. Where litterally 100s or 1000s of meals where being sold daily. Those are the ones that caused cross contamination with salmonella running rampant due to leaving food out too long and improper handling of cooked and raw foods. It's always the "mega" industries that cause the headlines.


----------



## JClark (Apr 29, 2012)

Ian said:


> Jclark, you obviously know your supplier. Would you be as trusting if that product came from a large corporate operation whom did not fall under facility inspection?
> 
> If your a small operator selling to neighbour then you can see what's going on, but for him to sell to me, hundreds of miles away, all the small trustworthy feeling gets lost


I'd agree completely w/ that. Under a system that sorces things from all over the place a regulatory process can do more good than harm. However, if we were not promoting such a system and all things were local again a lot of this would be a moot point.


----------



## JClark (Apr 29, 2012)

Michael Bush said:


> No, it doesn't, but it makes many small points of possible failure with the scope of the failure quite small, rather than only a few extremely large points of possible failure with the scope of any failure huge. In my experience small does make better. A small business is usually operated by people who cares more about what they are doing than a worker at a large corporation who has no stake in the outcome that they can see.


Expressed my main point better than I could.


----------



## BMAC (Jun 23, 2009)

I agree with JClark. There is a major issue when I walk into a Supermarket and pick up a strip steak and it has an ingredients listing on the package. Know your farmers and care more personally about the food you consume.


----------



## Dominic (Jul 12, 2013)

Michael Bush said:


> >The big recalls get the media attention, that doesn't mean the small people don't have problems. I don't know about where you live, but I NEVER hear of salubrity issues of restaurants in the papers here. Yet, if I go on the internet, the government publishes a list of all infractions and there are quite a few people on it, almost all small businesses.
> 
> I knew that was coming. I'm not saying the standards of what is expected as far as handling shouldn't be the same, it's all the paperwork and certification that becomes an inordinate burden on the small guy. But the other issue is one of scale. How many bad food servings total come from small businesses vs large businesses? I think you'll find it large businesses that are the issue.
> 
> ...


I mostly agree with you, but I think that we should consider the ratios too, not just the raw numbers. If someone finds a screw in a box of cereals, odds are that whole batch will get recalled. Odds are also that this batch is huge. Odds also are that the number of screws to be found in this batch represent a fraction of a percent of the items marketed. Also, even small businesses have workers who care as little as many workers in large corporations.

As for tracing it back, it's because of the number of people involved. If the health agency has a sample of 10000 people getting sick at about the same time, with the same symptoms, it's much easier to trace back than finding the common denominator between them than with a sample of, say, 20 people, some of which may have been poisoned by different operations.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

I think we are all reading the same book, just on different pages.


----------



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

I don't know anyone who would be in support of unhygienic practices but it is often a matter of scale. What is reasonable for a large producer runs into another realm when applied to a small beekeeper who happens to bottle his own honey to sell at the farmer's market or out his own backdoor. As Mr Bush points out so well, bigger isn't necessarily better. Often the opposite is true. Many hobbyists and sideliners simply can't afford a commercial kitchen and the "quality standards" that are simple for a big packer would drive many small keepers out. As would onerous reporting requirements, which while they may be voluntary now, might be mandatory at some point. Big industry is often in favor of regulations that are standard practice to them but unreasonable to smaller operators. Is it a coincidence it tends to whittle away the competition? 

Our honey is well inspected by the packers who purchase it. They look closely at cleanliness as the honey comes in. They do tests for pesticide levels and bacteria counts. Our honey is certified clean and pure and we get reward checks from some of the packers as an incentive to "keep up the good work". And yet our honey house would not pass the quality standards as required by the USDA, who are confused amongst themselves as to who even qualifies as needing to meet those standards.
And btw, most (all?) of these big packers buy honey from overseas, from facilities that _never_ see an inspection. 

As an aside, it would be interesting to do a study on how many mandatory regulations started out as voluntary. It is always a good idea to keep an eye out on potential regulations that will effect the bottom line all down the road. It is smart business planning, not conspiracy theory (or do I need to acquire a tin foil hat?)
Sheri


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

BMAC said:


> Don't take this as me being an adovcate of PVC because I am NOT. However if PVC is an acceptable way to move our water thru our homes why would it NOT be acceptable way to move honey from pumps to tanks?


I said PVC, where as I mean ABS. I meant the sewer piping, not water piping. 
How many producers still use ABS?  When that packer buys the producers honey, how can he be certain that production practices are up to standard? All these questions are the reason why these regulatory systems are created. I'm as "keep the government out of my affairs" as most posting to this topic, but I also believe there is a place for government, and this example we have going here is exactly how regulatory process should be run. Industry demands, producers work to satisfy the demands, government creates the regulatory standards which fits the demands.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

JohnK and Sheri said:


> I don't know anyone who would be in support of unhygienic practices but it is often a matter of scale. ...
> And yet our honey house would not pass the quality standards as required by the USDA,


Sheri what is it about your honey house that would not meet the USDA standards?


----------



## Allen Martens (Jan 13, 2007)

First off, let me say I'm registered with this program. Why? Because as I see it the writing is on the wall that this is moving from voluntary to mandatory. If not mandatory, the buyers will demand it. Might as well be proactive.

As far as I'm concerned much of the document is overreach and many of the "best practices" are debatable. Way beyond bio-security. 

Why is it industry driven IMO?

1. Perceived competitive advantage for the producer, packers and exporters.
2. Force the little guy out.
3. Some people love paper work. 

My 2 cents. (which rounds to 0 in Canada now).


----------



## BMAC (Jun 23, 2009)

Ian said:


> I said PVC, where as I mean ABS. I meant the sewer piping, not water piping.
> How many producers still use ABS? When that packer buys the producers honey, how can he be certain that production practices are up to standard? All these questions are the reason why these regulatory systems are created. I'm as "keep the government out of my affairs" as most posting to this topic, but I also believe there is a place for government, and this example we have going here is exactly how regulatory process should be run. Industry demands, producers work to satisfy the demands, government creates the regulatory standards which fits the demands.


I see what you mean and the problem with it. I'm not sure how many producers use sewer piping. I wish it was the case that government regulations are solely based off of industry demands. Unfortunately that's not the case 100% of the time. I can give multiple examples here but I am afraid of Sheri deleting my post for being off topic so I will not, but I will say this: You don't have to look far into our political system to see what I am talking about.

This also goes back to my original post of one fit all regulations DON'T work. A guy maintaining 12 hives maybe selling honey and never using pumps, drums, spinners, or anything else. 

Should we put into the regulation that said beekeeper is only allowed to use brand new pantyhose for his crush and strain method? Should we make these home made honey extracting contraptions from bicycle wheels and plastic trash cans illegal?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>When that packer buys the producers honey, how can he be certain that production practices are up to standard? 

They can't.

>All these questions are the reason why these regulatory systems are created.

Yes, but they do little to nothing to fix anything. Let's take the typical situation right now as far as packers. I extract in my kitchen. In Nebraska, that's fine if I sell as a farmer direct to my consumer. But if I want to sell in a grocery store or other retail outlet other than a farmer's market, I have to have a certified honey house. So let's say, instead, since a certified honey house is beyond my finances, I sell it to a packer (at wholesale of course). HE has a certified honey house, in which my honey was NOT extracted or processed other than him bottling it. But he meets the requirements. He does not inspect my facility (where the honey was extracted), the health dept doesn't inspect my facility. They inspect HIS facility. Now I'm not saying I want to be inspected (it would be impractical) but the point is why is it considered "safer" because he touched it in a certified facility? It's still the same honey, but now it can be sold at retail outlets... This is typical of how regulation works... it just helps the big guy get bigger and keeps the little guy from participating while doing absolutely nothing to insure the safety or health of anything at all. I know the THEORY is to be proactive, but in the end the only practical thing is to forget the certifications and simply hold people accountable.


----------



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

Ian said:


> Sheri what is it about your honey house that would not meet the USDA standards?


We do not have floor drains, we do not have hose-able walls and ceilings, we do not have double door entries, we use PVC piping (not sure if this is required), and probably a few other details I am forgetting.
My point was that while we might not pass inspection, our honey is clean, while the majority of the honey imported is not inspected, so who knows? So much for regulations, they often do little to solve the "problem" but create different ones. The road to over regulation is paved with good intentions and unintended consequences.
Sheri


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

BMAC said:


> Should we put into the regulation that said beekeeper is only allowed to use brand new pantyhose for his crush and strain method? Should we make these home made honey extracting contraptions from bicycle wheels and plastic trash cans illegal?


yes, if it creats a hazard. If the bicycle wheel trash can extractor meets all the standards, then there is no issue, right? Most of this is common sense. If the bicycle wheel trash can extractor is greasy, and galvanized and cant be washed properly, would you want to eat honey out of it? Probably not. I also dont know many people who would want to eat honey strained from used panty hose...
like I said common sense.

Like I said earlier, I'm not a supporter of over reaching government regulation. All I have to say is BSE and the resulting tractability system...



Michael Bush said:


> >When that packer buys the producers honey, how can he be certain that production practices are up to standard?
> 
> They can't.
> 
> ...


Micheal, in the program any honey coming into the establishment is identified as such, I agree what you are saying but this is not what its about. Your starting to get into the packing and grading aspect of it all, which is much more strict here, This issue is strictly registration of the honey house facility. All requirements fall under typical best management practices, the same ones you would use extracting in your kitchen. Infact, if you wanted to register your kitchen with CFIA as your processing facility, they would as long as you met all the criteria. Clean, SS or food grade equipment, food grade buckets and strainers, proper cleaning practices, medications (where as you use none). Most beekeeper complain about the paperwork, which basically proves all the actions are being done.


----------



## BMAC (Jun 23, 2009)

Ian said:


> yes, if it creats a hazard. If the bicycle wheel trash can extractor meets all the standards, then there is no issue, right? Most of this is common sense. If the bicycle wheel trash can extractor is greasy, and galvanized and cant be washed properly, would you want to eat honey out of it? Probably not. I also dont know many people who would want to eat honey strained from used panty hose...
> like I said common sense.


It is common sense. So if its common sense then why would we involve the government regulations. They take all common sense out of it.

I have joked with new beeks about flavoring their honey with used pantyhose.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

JohnK and Sheri said:


> My point was that while we might not pass inspection, our honey is clean,


Sheri, Im sure you still wash your floor, right? It just takes more time than if you had drains. Walk through the process, at the end, you will understand what I mean. Its all common sense. Im sure your facility is well within the range of registration. 
If all of this talk " I produce good honey who needs inspection" talk is ture, then why would there be any trouble filling out four forms and get the stamp of approval? The process addresses risks within the operation to the product and helps the producer address them. If the producer is not willing to address the issues, then registration is not going to work for the producer. Registration is not a money issue, except for the guy who has all galvanized equipment and extracts on a dirt floor drafty old shed...


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

BMAC said:


> It is common sense. So if its common sense then why would we involve the government regulations. T


how many people actually follow common sense..? Now have someone prove their actions against common sense, see how far we get


----------



## BMAC (Jun 23, 2009)

true. Most likely more of an issue with larger groups using the old galvanized stuff and brass vane pumps. 

Just for the record my place has been inspected and approved by NYS Dept of Ag and Markets and we have our little license authority from the state of NY for our operation. All common sense stuff they looked for and they love that I put in SS shelves,tables, etc... Apparently NOT a requirement.

What really concerns me is any new regulations that are NOT thoroughly reviewed. Most the time what we see is 2 pages of what makes sense (aka common sense) and 500 more pages of other crap they throw in the new regulation, that they otherwise cant get passed on its own because is NOT common sense.


----------



## grozzie2 (Jun 3, 2011)

BMAC said:


> A guy maintaining 12 hives maybe selling honey and never using pumps, drums, spinners, or anything else.


That would be me. But I'm not blind, and I can see the writing on the wall. Just as an example, folks selling jams etc in the local farm markets now require batch codes on the labels, etc. Like it or not, that's the direction food production is going, and those of us in the small minority of folks that are aware of the production chain, aren't going to stop the steam roller being driven by joe/jane consumer who live in the big city, and firmly believe that steaks grow on styrofoam plates somewhere in the back of the grocery store.

We dont have regulations now, but there are standards coming down the pipe, and those standards are being endorsed by the national and the provincial association bodies. Aside from farm gate sales, it is going to be inevitable, food processing and handling standards will be enforced for products destined to retail sale. As my wife is often fond of saying, one can choose to be part of the steam roller, or one can choose to be the road. I choose not to be a rock on the road when that roller comes thru.

I've dealt with standards in aviation for 30+ years, I know somewhat how they work. With regards to the above mentioned pumps, drums, spinners etc, just because they are mentioned, doesn't mean you have to have them. What it means, is if you have them, they must be up to snuff. That includes how they are installed, and just as important, how they are maintained and operated with regards to cleanliness etc. Here in BC, we have FoodSafe guidelines that define those things, and they are not hard to follow. For a honey house, it will mean writing manuals that detail the correct procedures for operating and cleaning, appropriate to the equipment you have. There should be no reason one cannot write the manual to detail extracting directly into food grade buckets, provided the environment meets sanitary standards for the handling of food products. Gravity is still the worlds cheapest pump. This is one of the reasons in other threads, I've been asking about the slit uncappers. In theory, they should provide a method of uncapping that sidesteps the need for spinners and pumps.

We bought a new place last summer, and it does include a building which is suitable for using as a honey house. We've only got 10 hives out back right now, but expect that to move up to 20 over the next year or two. We are trying to pay attention to the direction this industry is moving, and at the same time, be somewhat selective in purchasing of our equipment. In the long run, it's likely not worth the effort to do a certified honey house for just 20 hives, but, we may do it anyways. What that will open the door to, is for us to offer a service to all those other folks with 10 or so hives, that do want to reach out to the retail market. Bring your supers to our place, and we can extract the honey, then bottle it. The bottles leave here with a tamper proof seal on the lid, and a small label identifying the processing facility, leaving plenty of space left for your own farm label. In the long run, it wont be much more expensive for us to 'do it right on the first go around' than to do a mickey mouse setup, and it will open doors for us down the road. For now, I'm just being careful with regards to what equipment we buy, and doing a fair amount of research into what is, and is not possible. If we have the right equipment, then at some point in the future, we are only operating manuals and an inspection away from certification. If we buy the wrong stuff, or do a poor installation, then the path to certified means essentially starting over.

I've read Ian's draft of his honey house manual that he has on his website. It's a good start. I've been writing / editing operations manuals for aviation for 30 years, I've got a pretty good feel for what is involved, and it's not really onerous. It's more about tailoring the procedures to your own environment, in a way that meets with regulations / standards, then getting the bureaucrat to give it the stamp of approval. When we write a manual for an operation with a couple of floatplanes, the same rules apply as would apply to an operation with hundreds of large jets, but most of them become irrelavent due to the type of equipment in use. I see the same thing with a honey house. The important thing is to document what you have, and how it's to be used in a fashion appropriate for handling food going into the distribution chain, then once that manual is written, run your operation as it says in the manual.

Again, I am differentiating completely between retail sales, and farm gate sales. The regulations around here are such, one can sell just about anything from the farm gate. But, if you want that bottle of honey to sit on the shelf of a health food store for some ridiculous price point, it's going to need a chain of blame set of paperwork behind it, and that paperwork is what will ultimately justify the ridiculous shelf price.

I think for most folks, it's a personal decision, you can be part of the steamroller, or part of the road, take your pick. But, the larger population in general comprises the steamroller, and they dont really care much about us small folks, they just want to know who to blame if they get sick, and they want that answer instantly available. Wether it's right, wrong, good thing or bad thing doesn't really matter. It is what it is, and that's the route our society is headed, wether we like it or not.

Around here, chickens are a really good example of where we are headed. Lots of folks raise chickens on a small scale, 50 or so at a time. When we buy one from a local farmer, every one of then has a sticker on the bag, from the certified facility that did the butchering. You cannot sell a chicken if it wasn't slaughtered at an inspected facility. It hasn't arrived yet for honey, but, the only question left unanswered is when, not if that will come to pass.


----------



## BMAC (Jun 23, 2009)

So maybe we need to get a jump on the NEW bee business of USDA (or Canadian equivilance) Certified Custom Extracting Honey Facility that's properly inspected upon receipt of honey, along with extraction of honey by appropriate organization. Properly setup could make a fortune to custom extract honey for say $1.50 per lbs so the local beekeeper can sell their honey at the market place.


----------



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

A little off topic but a gem of a read from 1995, one beekeeper's opinion on regulation. From Beesource's own "point of view" 
http://www.beesource.com/point-of-view/andy-nachbaur/regulations-licenses/


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Grozzie2, yup yup yup . Very good post.

>>The important thing is to document what you have, and how it's to be used in a fashion appropriate for handling food going into the distribution chain, then once that manual is written, run your operation as it says in the manual.<<

Thats exactly what it is. It requires a bit of time to plan and document but it helps identify issues and helps create plan to address these issues.


----------



## WBVC (Apr 25, 2013)

I am in Canada and have but a few hives. I was "advised" to register my hives with the government as that is what the legislation requires. 

If I chose not to nothing would happen if no one put in a complaint about the hives or I did not sell product or bees.

Having registered the hives I can have the Ministry lab check for disease and, should it wish, ask a government hive inspector check my hives.

I have no idea what one does as a few hives dead out and others are split

Canada is a big country with lots of regulations



Redbug said:


> I really do not see how something like that can be implemented. Canada is such a large country and very diverse. And has more remote areas than the Lower USA. How is someone to know if you have hives somewhere in the woods if a person does not divulge it? I think most Canadians are very independant minded in a wild land. I can see about registering cars, etc., that's different. But bees do not affect anyone especially in a negative way. And there might be less people with beehives if it becomes regulated.


----------



## WBVC (Apr 25, 2013)

So unfortunate governments and associations can legislate for and regulate for common sense and honesty...it would make things much easier


----------



## Dominic (Jul 12, 2013)

Michael Bush said:


> >When that packer buys the producers honey, how can he be certain that production practices are up to standard?
> 
> They can't.
> 
> ...


Here, we can make produce in our kitchens, but max 100 kg/month and we can only sell directly to clients, not to packers or retailers.


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

Because our family also packed about 2-3 million pounds of honey a year, since the 60's, our extracting room was(and is) inspected by the processing plant inspector. We have(since the 60's) epoxy floors, wash down walls, covered lights, floor drains, and flying insect control. 

My point? Your situation could be worse. 

On the other hand, why should we have to pay to attain this higher standard, when others, particularly overseas, do not.

Crazy Roland


----------



## irwin harlton (Jan 7, 2005)

Come 2015, ALL food producers, food importers and exporters will require a license from CFIA,to produce,import and export any type of food.The writing has been on the wall for some time and it will only get worse...more gov't in your business and more paperwork.On the other hand I guess they want to keep track of things and I can see why.Several large producers in Canada have been inspected, more like visited by FDA,they were registered with FDA , and FDA was more interested in establishing that the honey they were exporting was pure Canadian honey and not Chinese. Big Brother doesn't stop at the border


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Roland said:


> Because our family also packed about 2-3 million pounds of honey a year,
> 
> Crazy Roland


Wow ,
What's your honey label name ?


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

Ian, I sent a PM.

Roland Diehnelt


----------



## LizardKing (Feb 12, 2014)

irwin harlton said:


> Come 2015, ALL food producers, food importers and exporters will require a license from CFIA,to produce,import and export any type of food.The writing has been on the wall for some time and it will only get worse...more gov't in your business and more paperwork.On the other hand I guess they want to keep track of things and I can see why.Several large producers in Canada have been inspected, more like visited by FDA,they were registered with FDA , and FDA was more interested in establishing that the honey they were exporting was pure Canadian honey and not Chinese. Big Brother doesn't stop at the border


Are you sure?
I am pretty certain that the stuff coming in from China is NOT inspected even slightly.
They also have very little pesky environmental laws 
to cost manufacturers money.
China has been repeatedly caught putting outright poisins in food that have killed people and animals.

One of the nice things about beekeeping is the fact that most beekeepers are not large
commercial operations.
Like farming, don't let your government turn it into a endeavor for huge corporations only.


----------



## irwin harlton (Jan 7, 2005)

Sure of what?, ain't nothing sure in this world but death and taxes,....definitely be more inspection of food, and its production in the world.We all know about China and its problems.We don't know whats killing bees and if its even harming us, cause we eat relatively the same or from the same earth......so it probably is.Humans are the worst polluters.Commercial beekeepers keep most of the bees,used to be very hard to make a good living in this business,hence the numbers game.This crazy business will no doubt in the not to distant future return to slim profit margins .Being a eternal optimist, this business has certainly entered its golden age and its certainly interesting , weather its a struggle to keep em alive or increase the profit margin


----------



## LizardKing (Feb 12, 2014)

irwin harlton said:


> Sure of what?


Sure that Big Brother doesn't stop at the border.
I would insist that honey from China be inspected as closely as domestic honey otherwise it is
giving a foreign country a better deal than you own citizens and esp. in light
of the known abuses and adulterated product that comes from China.
While most of the bees are owned by commercial guys there are far more non-commercial
beekeepers and I have always enjoyed the honey from small local producers.
I like quality and the fact that I am buying a natural food product from my location
produced by a person and not a corporation
Stopping the imports from places like China would certainly help domestic producers.
Please note that I am NOT against commercial beekeepers but against beekeeping becoming an activity
reserved for only the huge corporations.
If it does I will continue to put honey at my family's table from my own two hives no matter how 
illegal the government makes such activity.
As for humans being the worse polluters I would also have to point out the fact that China
condones pollution at levels not tolerated in the West for a long, long, time.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

LizardKing said:


> If it does I will continue to put honey at my family's table from my own two hives no matter how
> illegal the government makes such activity.


why would that be illegal?


----------



## Redbug (Feb 8, 2014)

Everything I have read points out that most imported honey has been adulterated with corn syrup or other fillers. The problem is not with Canada's honey. The problem is mainly with imported honey. Walmart or whoever is like Walmart in Canada sells it because they can get it cheaper and people buy it because it is cheaper. Consumers don't know any better. 

There needs to be a campaign telling consumers to buy locally produced honey. Just like a campaign down here for US caught shrimp vs shrimp raised in Thailand, China or Vietnam. Overseas shrimp are raised in polluted water with lots of antibiotics.

Maybe one angle on tracking individual hives would be a good advertising ploy showing how pure your honey is. But that same set of rules needs to be applied to imports. Or else the imports should be stopped. You can't have one set of tight standards and no standards for cheap adulterated imports.


----------

