# Adees fined for unapproved chemical use



## sc-bee (May 10, 2005)

Just curious would that have also been a violation if the shop towels had FGMO and an essential oil on them?


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

http://www.mda.state.mn.us/newsreleases/2006news/12-05-2006a.htm 

a "random pesticide use inspection"....

I wonder what really triggered this... the use of oxalic acid or the "homemade" Apistan strips?

sc-bee,
Read the last paragraph... makes you wonder

[ January 05, 2007, 09:00 PM: Message edited by: Mike Gillmore ]


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

my impression is that if you sit in front of your hives and assume the yoga "lotus" position and meditate and try to "will" the mites away from your bee's, it's a violation of federal law because this is not an approved pesticide for use in the control of varroa

Dave


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

This was a correct application of law re non-label use of a pesticide. Oxalic acid in combination with fluvalinate sounds a bit unusual.

It would seem that many commercial operators take shortcuts.

Darrel Jones


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

>Just curious would that have also been a violation if the shop towels had FGMO and an essential oil on them?

I would say so. When using anything as a pesticide...that hasn't been approved as a pesticide, then it's unlawful...even powdered sugar for varroa control.uThat said, the whole idea of a home remedy enters the picture. In your own colonies, when the honey is for your consimption, you can use anything you want. Sell that honey, and you can be prosecuted.


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

>Just curious would that have also been a violation if the shop towels had FGMO and an essential oil on them?

I would say so. If you use anything as a pesticide, that hasn't been approved for use as a pesticide, you can be prosecuted. Even powdered sugar for varroa control could be deemed unlawful. That said, the whole idea of a home remedy enters the picture. You can use anything you want in your colonies, as long as the honey is for your own use. Sell that honey, and you can be prosecuted.


----------



## Ishi (Sep 27, 2005)

If my math is correct it will only take 93.333333333 hives at $150.00 a hive in Almonds to pay this fine.
Did they save enough hives using this method to make it worthwhile?


----------



## xC0000005 (Nov 17, 2004)

Michael Palmer - I wish I still had the handouts from a few months ago when the old state inspector spoke on labeled pesticide use. You are correct that any chemical used as a pesticide might constitute a violation, but there is a class of items (like soapy water) that are considered to be in a different category. Darn it, I'll have to look for the handouts now.


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

curious... just a few weeks ago I was setting in the state bee inspector office and he was having a phone conversation with someone about a minnesota bee keeper that evidently had come into texas... taggin onto someone else's permit. the state bee inspector was actively looking for the person-- he was giving the person on the other end of the phone the line 'next time I go looking, it will be with the sheriff in tow' line. I asked him directly what kind of problem's the beekeeper was having and he indicated the bee keeper in question had problem getting a permit to leave the state of minnesota because that had found contaminants in his honey. he had no information on exactly what the contaminats were, but he wanted to make doubly sure that the 'evil doer' hadn't brought any of his product down this way.


----------



## David Stewart (Jan 22, 2005)

I noticed in the article that the discovery was identified in June of 2006....June????? Wouldn't that have been while supers were on? Sheesh....It's publicity like this that makes the consumer smirk when we say our honey is safer than imported. 

Edit: I have sent the Adee's an e-mail with a link to this thread and invited them to come and comment of this issue

David

[ January 06, 2007, 11:24 AM: Message edited by: David Stewart ]


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>Did they save enough hives using this method to make it worthwhile?

Are you suggesting the fine was a slap on the wrist? Clearly, a $14,000 fine to Adee is a nuisance expense given the size of their operation. With somewhere around 70,000 hives going into almonds next month, I think it's safe to say that the fine itself won't cause any undue hardship for them. They are after all the biggest beekeeping operation in the world.

Will they look at this embarrassing event and token fine as the cost of doing business the American way? I'd like to think they're smarter and more honorable than that, especially considering the leading and influential role they play in the American beekeeping industry. They have considerable political influence and are in a position to set the standard for the rest of the industry and affect the direction of research and development in this country (see Gleanings in the latest BC). They should be raising the bar, not slipping underneath it. Fair or not, they should be held to a higher standard.


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

The $14,000 fine is chicken feed. The real damage is the bad publicity and lingering mistrust. Look at Tecumseh's post, they are probably marked. For the short term anyway, it will no longer be business as usual for them. Very, very costly.

Is there anyone here that would not think twice now before buying any of their honey? They will bounce back. But they have their hands full right now, I'm sure, with damage control.

Let's hope that the political influence they have will be exercised to turn this around and, in the end, be a positive for the industry

[ January 06, 2007, 07:57 AM: Message edited by: Mike Gillmore ]


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

I wouldn't recommend eating their honey. It's a good thing that they were caught. The violation would've been just as large had the towels contained only fluvalinate. How would you like some nice gentacin in your beef or a bit of powdered sugar in the special cocoa for your diabetic grandma. I have no problem with people eating, smoking and injecting their own bodies with whatever, but prefer organic foods regulated by USDA pure food laws for myself. I'm sure enough people are giving those inspectors a hard time without us piling it on.

[ January 06, 2007, 10:02 AM: Message edited by: Aspera ]


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

{The $14,000 fine is chicken feed.}

It's not even that. Adees run 6,000 hives, if they treated each hive with Apistan per directions/ regualtions the cost would have been $22,680 for a single treatment (2 strips/1.89/6000 hives). How many past treatments has he done b-4 enforcement and multiply to get the savings. I'll bet not one of the other numerous "commericial operators" who are doing this stops as a result. This pebble will not even make a ripple on the surface.

{the discovery was identified in June of 2006}

Good Point Dave, it would have been a violation to have Apistan strips on if that's the case.

{It would seem that many commercial operators take shortcuts.}

On most any large farming operation in the country that is squeezing out the middle sized farmers one by one. Farming for profit is less about good food and more about profit.

Boulas - cow anitbiotic mentioned from Canada discovery used for AFB
Maverik- used in liquid form on popsickle sticks and rags I think for V mites 
Calf Dust - I think for V-mites and/or SHB.
Cyanide-I'm not even sure what that was being used for, I assume some type of hive fumigation

I'm sure there's many we haven't heard of.

I guess in light of these chemicals we can wonder why OA/Fluvalinate are at the top of the list.

{a "random pesticide use inspection"....}
Mike your point is right on task.

{Let's hope that the political influence}
Not likely, this has all the earmarks of Adee being targeted (not by inspectors but someone with a personal or business interest). Someone turned this in and pushed some buttons to get this kind of result. I'm making the deduction, right or wrong reasons, there is something else going on behind the scenes we don't know about. There's as much politics as posioning going on here, neither is right.

I'm not defending Adee, I'm just tyring to make people look at what is likely really going on here. 

{They will bounce back.}

In a New York minute. Most of the American public has no idea (or seems to care) how many chemicals (and other contaminates) are injected, sprayed and fed into our food supply until someone gets hurts and then it blows over in a month. (Anyone had green onions, spinach or lettuce in the past month?) I was in Phoenix in November and saw the huge Ag Factories growing everything from Roses to strawberries to brocoli. I was amazed at how little farming went on and how much science. You wouldn't dare drink the irrigation water, touch the flowers or plants without gloves and no bib overalls in sight. I'm willing to bet much of it is done by illegal aliens who get paid less than minimum wage all in the name of cheap pretty food. This is not a story about Adee Honey, it's a story about farming in America today. So who's responsible, certainly Mr. Adee, All the bad farmers in Phoenix, as well as all of us who buy the food !


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Funny this thread came out now. The Adee's are featured on the cover of bee culture this month.

What are some hoping for by asking the adee's to come on line and comment. Do we expect a rebuttal? Outright denial? Do I want them the opportunity to suggest, defend, support, teach, educate, or expound on the fact they use the management practices they use? It was what is was. They got caught. They were fined. Thats the story.

I commend the Minnisota Agriculture department on following a lead, seeing the potential harm, and following through. I know other state agriculture inspectors, and bee inspector programs in particular, that turn a blind eye, and actually instruct inspectors to ignore this part of the inspection process. Don't want to make waves, etc. This is a huge problem within the commercial industry and what the adee's had in their hives is pale in comparision of what others use. I have seen it myself.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>Adees run 6,000 hives

Yer off by a factor of 10 Joel. Actually the article in the latest BC says they have 70,000 hives







The cost of a single Apistan treatment then becomes $264,200 not $22,680 but hey! Who's counting!

>Farming for profit is less about good food and more about profit.

Dead on with that statement Joel.

>Funny this thread came out now. The Adee's are featured on the cover of bee culture this month.

I was waiting for Bjorn to show up and whack me with his reality stick


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

{>Adees run 6,000 hives}

C'mon george, a slight miscalulation with a decimal point -  Keep the change!


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

George, I'd beat you with whatever I could get my hands on you no good, lowdown....


----------



## David Stewart (Jan 22, 2005)

Bjorn says- What are some hoping for by asking the adee's to come on line and comment

I reply- Because I bashed them about contaminating honey without thinking of other possibilities. MY response would be significantly different if they were treating nucs or splits only.....In all fairness, I shouldn't have jumped to the conclusions I did and posted without knowing the whole story. Sure- I could have just edited out my earlier comment and certainly I just provided them with an easy excuse that hopefully even a beginner could have come up with on their own. Either way, if I made a mistake by bashing without all the facts, I'm big enough to stand up and admit it.

David


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>that the discovery was identified in June of 2006....June????? Wouldn't that have been while supers were on?
>>Because I bashed them about contaminating honey without thinking 

do you know if the supers were on at the time? 



Why would we want to have Adee participate in conversation here?

[ January 06, 2007, 02:21 PM: Message edited by: Ian ]


----------



## Barry Digman (May 21, 2003)

"Most of the American public has no idea..."

I wonder how many actually know where their food was grown and then processed. Not many I think.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>George, I'd beat you with whatever I could get my hands on you no good, lowdown.... 

He likes me! He really likes me!


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

To follow up on Bjorns' comments about State Inspectors, New York Bee Laws don't say anything about the health or quality of the honey. New York Apiary Inspectors inspect hives, not hive products. This may change though. You never know.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

To follow up on Bjorns' comments about State Inspectors, New York Bee Laws don't say anything about the health or quality of the honey. New York Apiary Inspectors inspect hives, not hive products. This may change though. You never know.

[ January 06, 2007, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: sqkcrk ]


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

I would bet there are beekeepers who are using the registered treatment of fluvalinate more carelessly and irrisponsablely than Mr. Adee had. 

Not backing Mr. Adee, for his actions were illigal potentialy causing a publicity, reglitory, and food health and safty nighmare to the beekeeping community.

But I am hearing alot of condeming words here, and all the major IF in what he had done is not understood.
He was using fluvalinte, without governement approval. So through the brick at him, but was he actually doing any more harm than you or I when using fluvalinate? 
What concentration was he using, with what carrier? What was his treatment schedule, how long has he been doing this? 
I really doubt he would be mixing a concentration to kill his bees. Actually I would bet he was low balling the fluvalinate concentration as most tend to do when home brewing, 5%. I dont know anything about carriers, but assume, mixing for 70 000 hives as was mentioned here, he would be find something suitable and not harmful. 
These questions being the reasons why we need regulation and restrictions.
So many ifs, and we all here have blamed him for found unknown honey contamination. I suppose it is the most logical leap,..?

How many beekeepers using fluvalinate legally are missusing the stuff? I HAD a beekeeping neighbour who had been stuffing his hives with 10 strips of Apistan each treatment because he didnt recognize resistance. How many old farts, or even those youngings who leave their strips in all year? I think we all now of someone who had been doing so. Mainly because they didnt know better. How about all that un regulated "natural" or "food grade" stuff beekeepers are putting intheir hives? or how about those few who inisit on using the prohibited substances, ever so careful as they are,..!

Are we so quick to condem Mr. Adee becasue he was home brewing fluvalinate and Oxalic acid into his hives, or are we condeming him becasue he was doing an illigal action.

how many out there reading this post are doing the same thing?


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

Ian,

Very well said,

I think some keepers are throwing rocks in glass houses.

I wonder if we took the sales data of Apistan,Chech Mite+,Api life Var, Sucrocide,Apiguard and legal ect.. 
Compare that of the sales 5-10 years ago, I think you will have a huge gap that the data would show.
I think it will show how much of the bee commuite is useing other products.

Just my own thoughts on this, I'm not putting down anyone.

Keith Jarrett


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Ian,
What comdemnation are we seeing here? Who's comments, go beyond opinion which is normal for an open discussion, and has crossed the line into condeming? I see some views of the industry, some questions about the fines, and some very poor math by a few. But first someone states there are those "blasting" the adee's, and now someone is suggesting some are condeming them.

SO WHAT! Lets assume some had, although I see no such "condeming" or "blasting". Someone uses chemicals off label, gets caught, and pays a fine. Although personal attacks are off base on the forum, condeming the use, the practice, and the industry at large should not be problem in anyone's eye.

Its always societies fault that someone needed to rob that store. Its always someone else's fault that kid didn't make it. Its always someone elses fualt no matter what. Now your asking for empathy, sympathy, and understanding, by suggesting, and asking, who else among us are using these same type treatments. I don't have a guilty complex, you else out there does not?

The chemicals passed getting approval by using it in a manner listed by label. Nobody has any study, or any proof, that using the chemicals in a way adee's have done, does not exceed some standard or exceptable level for food safety. Nobody can say for sure that honey, and other damage could not happen.

I do not defend, make excuses, or pass it off becuase others are also guilty, or attack others who comment negatively on beekeepers who use these home brew treatments. It is bad for the industry, period.

Instead of asking "who else' is using chemicals in this manner, perhaps Ian, you could ask who amoung us are keeping bees successfully without the misuse of chemicals. Then you can do the adee's a favor by passing on a better way of doing things. Maybe even use the information yourself.

Any new law, any new food regulation, will come about not becuase the little beekeeper down the street. It will come about becuase of huge operations like this that peak the interest, and catch the eye of food industry people. I certainly do not want any more goverment regulations. But I agree, after seeing the abuses myself, and yes, even with supers being on while the treatments are being made, I would be very leery about taking a sample of honey from the next huge operator.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Keith, I hope your not comparing the use of regulated, tested, and approved treatments and somehow suggesting this on par with homemade brews and off label practice. And basing this on sales data to conclude some wrong doing by other beekeepers based on these figures.

Before you throw stones, can you show the gap you suggest? I know many fewer beekeepers around me not using the strips ona level they did years ago. But I would be interested in your data just the same. What do you see and have?

[ January 06, 2007, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: BjornBee ]


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--I think some keepers are throwing rocks in glass houses.

Not me! I can throw all the rocks I want. Been no treatments, zero, zippo for 7 years.


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

Bjornbee,

I'm not suggesting one draw a conclusion to anything, just merely a hypethetical.

What I can show you is about a one in ten, that use so called legal .

Futher more, I can't think of a more damaging LEGAL miticide than Apistan and Check mite, good luck with that comb.

Keith Jarrett

I like to use ..... but not sure if thats legal in Calif.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>I do not defend, make excuses, or pass it off becuase others are also guilty, or attack others who comment negatively on beekeepers who use these home brew treatments. It is bad for the industry, period.

Well put Bjorn.

This is no time for the Good Ole Boy's Club to come to the defense of Richard Adee. It's not really about who else might be doing something illegal but hasn't been caught (yet). It's about illegal pesticide use. Richard Adee, by his own admission, did it. I admire him for that. Still, the beekeeping profession has been besmirched (yet again) and while yeah, the general honey consuming public probably doesn't know and wouldn't really care if they did, that doesn't make it any better. This isn't the kind of publicity we need.

The fact that illegal pesticide use may be widespread doesn't make it right, excusable, ethical, or legal. We can discuss this matter based on the few facts we have available without resorting to character assassination or taking cheap shots.

That said, Adee really should have known better. He's a high-profile beekeeper and that makes him an obvious target for scrutiny. Not only is his the largest beekeeping operation in the world, but he's a past-president of the American Honey Producer's Association and a current executive commitee member. Talk about living in glass houses! What was he thinking?

Good can come of this situation, but not if we sweep it under the rug and pretend it didn't happen, and I'm sure that's what Richard Adee himself would say if he were here to comment. This situation is as much a commentary on the sad state of commercial beekeeping as it is about one man's stupid mistake.


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

>>Not me! I can throw all the rocks I want. Been no treatments, zero, zippo for 7 years. [Smile]

Well done, Joe! And, lucky you...you haven't got a bank mortgage hanging over your neck.


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

bjorn sezs:
I do not defend, make excuses, or pass it off becuase others are also guilty, or attack others who comment negatively on beekeepers who use these home brew treatments. It is bad for the industry, period.


tecumseh replies:
maybe yes, maybe no.... likely a scaling issue IMHO. I do suspect that in regards to what I would 'qualify' as my regular honey consumers that this will be seen as another plus in regards to purchasing my product.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>this will be seen as another plus in regards to purchasing my product.

At what price tecumseh? I'm not just talking about dollars in your pocket, at what price to the industry? You're assuming people will still want to buy your clean unpolluted honey. Some no doubt will, probably all you can produce, but at what price?

If the general consuming public comes to view honey as yet another agribusiness product, laced with chemicals, something that you should wash before eating or preferably, not eat at all, what happens to the honey market and the average price of honey? If honey nobody wants to buy is sitting on store shelves priced at 40 cents a pound, what are you going to be able to sell yours for?

A depressed honey market doesn't do anyone any good. It hurts commercial beekeepers the most but it impacts anyone who wants to sell their product no matter what the size of their operation. We can't really separate ourselves and our small scale operations from the rest of the beekeeping industry. We're all in this together.

What is interesting to speculate about is how this unfortunate situation could be turned into a good thing? Not just a good thing for a few of us, but a good thing for the beekeeping industry as a whole?


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

I am really not certain geoge what price might be incurred to 'save the industry'. matter of fact it appears to me that the bottlers that set honey on the shelf at the local grocery store with tags of origin from china, argentina, etc are pretty much calling the shots in regard to the basic economics of this industry. their own narrow economic interest quite evidently stands ahead of the industry that provides them with the product that allows them to make a living. just take a look at the national honey boards prices for domestic and foreign (imported) honey. notice how the two price trend lines sharply diverge. which can only lead me to believe that there are now not enough domestic producer for the bottlers to exploit, so they have now begun to exploit the producer from where ever in the world honey is now produced.

so the real question (at least in my small prospective) is just how long can the tail continue to wag the dog.

my assumption about 'my customers' is not based on assumptions at all. most of my regular honey customers (i.e. the consume some quantity of honey every day) have told me quite directly that the reason they don't buy store bought honey are two fold... taste/flavor and uncertainty about exactly what is in that bottle on the grocery store shelf.

so in regards to my prior comment... I would simply state that this kind of incident would make the comparison between my product and the product that sets on the grocery store shelf (which looks quite the same) appear different. 

on another level geoge it would be quite curious to discover how the 'free market' thinker on this board would remedy this problem.


----------



## albee (Nov 16, 2006)

I would like to know how often do inspectors check for homebrews? This is the first time that I have heard of it.

With this getting so much press I wonder how this is going to change things? Do you think the inspectors will be looking for more homebrews? Will people go back to approved treatments ? 

Last year I had a hard time getting Apiguard. I think I will order early this year!


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--Well done, Joe! And, lucky you...you haven't got a bank mortgage hanging over your neck.--(MP)

I often, hear commercial beekeepers respond in in that fashion.
I have a bank mortage
I have 1,000, 2,000 3,000 colonies!
I need to support a family

Well, in order to have 3,000 colonies, you also have 1 colony!
To have 100%, you also have 10%

There is no reason why commercial beekeepers cannot adopt a program involving 5 OR 10% of their operation to be organic beekeeping, varroa resistant breeding goal orientated. 

Is 5 OR 10% per year gonna bankrupt you or any other commercial beekeeper?

Imagine, that I have been hearing the mortgage excuse for 10 years now. What if that time was spent in an effort of improving 5 OR 10 % of your stock instead of delay tactics and excuses?


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

{and some very poor math by a few.}

I was only off by $200,000!!!! Give me a break!

I think this obviously would be a good general topic to get out of the Adee violation and discuss in general. An interesting cross section of positions. I think the concept that Adee tainted his honey is rediculous unless he was pouring the fluvalinate into the hives. I have direct knowledge of a large beekeeper (1200 hives) who ran apistan all summer in the 1996 era and had the honey tested consitently. Not only was no illegal level found but no trace was found in marketable honey. From a thread we ran this spring there doesn't seem there is a likelyhood of Cumophos making the pilgrimage to honey supers. I think there are other issues here we should get out, explore and get some education on. I know I have questions. I'll start another thread.

[ January 07, 2007, 10:25 AM: Message edited by: Joel ]


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

Having worked in very intensive, large scale agriculture, I will be the first person to point out that the legal, on label uses of many drugs and pesticides are not strict enough, but I would not use our rather lax laws as justification for the safety of off label pyrethrin usage, which is almost certainly worse than pouring oxalic in your backyard hive that barely produces enough honey for personal consumption. As an example, I would point to the currently legal use of ceftiofur in lactating cattle--no detectable milk residue, but it is probably used as a crutch for those with poor milk parlor equipment/sanitation/bedding. Or how about the largely legal spraying of acres of land with round-up? Our current food safety and environmental protection represent the barest modicum of business friendly consumer protection, not an oppressive regime of unscientific legislative nonsense. That fine barely touches their profit margin and probably sends a good message: Pure honey is important if you want to do business in North America.

[ January 07, 2007, 11:59 AM: Message edited by: Aspera ]


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

Also, I think Joe brings up some good points about our agricultural priorities and strange commitment to finding magic bullet pesticide solutions.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>so in regards to my prior comment... I would simply state that this kind of incident would make the comparison between my product and the product that sets on the grocery store shelf (which looks quite the same) appear different.

Quite so Tecumseh. What little (very little) honey I've managed to produce this last two years that I sold, I sold for a price considerably above the "going rate" for honey, capitalizing on the (perhaps mistaken) impression that my honey was somehow better than what you can buy in stores. It certainly *tastes* better, and I happen to believe it IS better.

However, while I can profit by saying "Look Ma, no chemicals!" I have to wonder what the impact will be for the American beekeeping industry to totally lose credibility, which could happen. What then?


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--However, while I can profit by saying "Look Ma, no chemicals!" I have to wonder what the impact will be for the American beekeeping industry to totally lose credibility,--(GF)

Frankly, I dont even tell Ma that I am chemical free anymore.









And have mitigated the force behind the degree in which I even mention this and the success I am having with out using chemicals on these lists.

That I have not a very large mortgage hanging over my neck in no way negates the fact that I have taken 6 years taken to achieve this goal thru regression and strict assessments of ferals. The mere mention that I use no treatments is often brushed aside as something I easily achieved due to the lack of a mortgage or financial commitment. 

If commercial breeders and honey producers are to make this claim as a prerequisite for successful breeding of good resistant stock. Then is it logical to conclude by this suggestion that the best queen stock will be found in the smaller operations due to this burden of bank mortgage not hanging over our necks? And the burden of mortgage preventing the breeding of resistant stock in comercial opperations?

[ January 07, 2007, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: Pcolar ]


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

I wonder how many beekeepers in this country who comment on Mr.Adees actions, have their tounge in their cheek,...


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

The Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) recently concluded an enforcement action against for illegal use of pesticides within bee colonies to control Varroa mites and for making a false statement to MDA inspectors.

When beekeepers attempt to defend another beekeepers criminal actions, is it an attempt in some way to justify in their own minds the things they themselves may be engageing in?


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--Are we so quick to condem Mr. Adee becasue he was home brewing fluvalinate and Oxalic acid into his hives, or are we condeming him becasue he was doing an illigal action.--

Laws are meant to protect. As a licensed and trained pesticide applicator for PA, I follow the law. 

Then he proceeded to cover up by lying to investigators which is another offence. 

Mr, Adee as a law breaker deserves everything hes got coming. Im not allowed to break USDA pesticide laws, why should others be allowed?


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

Well, I'm going to try to put a different spin on this topic.

If we look at ourself's and what business model we would take in this market, one would have to have their brain examined to produce honey.

I'm not saying it's not a nice by-product but you would be insaine to try to make a living at it.
That why we have found beekeepers cutting cost's any way they can.
Most honey houses would never pass a health inspection.
If the plublic saw, "harvest to the bottle" they would never eat honey again.
I think we should look at the hole picture here and not a couple of snap shots.

How did we get ourself's (industry) in this place where most are barely getting by.

Here's a little what I do, 90% of my income is made by May 1. 

An almond grower called me last night, one who dropped me because of price last year (150.00), he asked do you have bees? Yes, I do, but not for you.
I told him, if you want the cheapest bees (price & quality) you have the wrong number.

I don't give my services away, but most beekeepers do. Until that changes, this industry won't either.

Keith Jarrett


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

george ferguson sezs:
It certainly *tastes* better, and I happen to believe it IS better.

tecumseh replies:
and if the customer thinks way also then your product has been properly differentiated from the competitions. they may be packaged in the same bottle, look the same... yet the customer distinguishes a difference.

but I do understand your concerns about industry image and consumer confidence building.

my question is: is anyone surprised that this kind of incident would finally come to light?


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--How did we get ourself's (industry) in this place where most are barely getting by.-(KJ)

When I first read the above, my initial interpretation was that you were referring to the bees. Which I now know I wrongly assumed you identified as the root of the problem. 

Yes, How did we get our bees in such a miserable state of existence that the funds and time needed to keep them alive is causing financial burden to the beekeeper?

Im sure that every commercial beekeeper has a different success rate. But it sure was interesting on a tour of commercial outfits in the eastern part of the state to note the occasional high end sports car and even I believe a Lamborghini that was said by the commercial beekeeper to be purchased from beekeeping proceeds. 

I think throwing more money at the problem will not solve it as there is a lackadaisical attitude that prevails in community for breeding a more resistant bee essential to solve the problem.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--my question is: is anyone surprised that this kind of incident would finally come to light?--(T)

Not at all surprised!

This advice on how to make illegal treatments are made on these beekeeping lists all the time!!!!! And aggressively defended!!!!

Then when a person licensed and trained for pesticide application mentions that it is illegal to use unregesterd pesticides. Then he is usually bombarded with a bunch of propaganda from list members that "the concoctions are legal because the laws apply to registered pesticides only".

The people on these lists that recommend these concoctions are partly to blame for the attitude that prevails.


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

Joe,

I have my applictors license, it alows me to buy catagory "one" material, other than taking an hour out of my day once a year, it does'nt do alot.

The attitude towards "mite-chemical free"
well, we live in the free market place lets see what prevails.

Most free market economy's work these problems out.

BTW, I like 930 carrera

Keith Jarrett


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>themselves may be engageing in?
>>not allowed to break USDA pesticide laws, why should others be allowed?


No Mr. Waggle the Oxalic Acid I treated with last spring is registered as a hive treatment in Canada.

As far as I know, its not registered in the US.

Does your law-abiding principles follow the same logic with the rest of the un-registered treatments down there? Remember, in the US unregistered OA treatments hold the same weight as unregistered Maverick (concentrated fluvalinate). Yet all this wink wink, nudge nudge going on in this industry, seem toto figure out that its okay to use unregistered oxalic, but not okay to use unregistered fluvalinate. Pretty easy decision, right? Other countries have accepted OA as a registered alternative, and it is organic, right. Well your state department tells you different, and thats the law. So why is such a surprise when beekeepers make the same link with other unregistered treatments? This case, where a 10% diluted form of the fluvalinate insecticide had been registered and approved by the government for unprescribed beekeeper usage. 

Lets as an industry focus on the whole problem, and not bits and pieces of it,
Im not trying to defend his criminal actions, just trying to point out a problem here


----------



## kensfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

W/ all the OA studies in other countries.. and the safety in the history of use. 

Why has the U.S. not approved OA.. but instead provides emergency status to a host of other chemicals.. does it all come down to "big business" chemical companies.. and the profit they can make?


----------



## BerkeyDavid (Jan 29, 2004)

> does it all come down to "big business" chemical companies.. and the profit they can make?


Of course!

What if they gave a war and nobody profited?


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--Does your law-abiding principles follow the same logic with the rest of the un-registered treatments down there?-- (Ian)

Ian, I use absolutely NO treatments of any kind for pests and disease in my colonies. 

I agree with what you have said in your letter. IMO, it is a mess down here with rampant use of unregistered treatments in bee hives. Remember, I often post replies here on this list warning about the use of unregistered pesticides like sumac, nicotine, oils and acids, only to get beaten down by the outspoken supporters of pesticide misuse (concerning the USA law here). 

Its only expected that due to the plethora of recommendations that occur every day on these lists to use unregistered concoctions in honeybee colonies, that beekeepers believe it is legal. 

--Lets as an industry focus on the whole problem, and not bits and pieces of it,--(Ian)

What may I ask is the whole problem then?


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--W/ all the OA studies in other countries.. and the safety in the history of use.--(KF)

OK, (USA beekeepers), what are the safety precautions to be taken when using OA in colonies?

--does it all come down to "big business" chemical companies.. and the profit they can make?--(KF)

Oh, I'm sure they can find a way to profit.









Remember that the exemptions for some of the dangerous pesticides were demanded by beekeepers. Beekeepers wanting the hard treatments rather than the soft.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Reading through this thread, I was all set to point out that OA is just as illegal in US bee hives as the unregistered application method of fluvalinate. Then I found that Ian had already pointed that out.

I think that's an important concept to remember in all of this: OA might be "safe," or it might not, but it's still not registered for use in US hives. What if, at some future point, high levels of oxalic acid are linked to some health problems?

As far as "tainted" honey, I'm pretty certain that the honey my bees produce has some trace amounts of pesticides in it. I live in an agricultural area. Virtually every soybean field gets sprayed at least once with pesticide, and my bees work soybeans. Ditches, CRP, alfalfa, even some corn, all get sprayed with pesticides. With so much pesticide drifting around, the honey is bound to contain trace amounts.

One thing I guess I missed in reading the release and this thread -- when did Richard Adee lie to investigators? According to the release from the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, "The owner and operator [Richard Adee] of Adee Honey Farms told MDA investigators he was aware that the pesticides he used were illegal and not for use in bee hives."


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--when did Richard Adee lie to investigators?--

"Adee Honey Farms paid a $14,000 settlement penalty to the MDA for illegal use of pesticides within bee colonies to control Varroa mites (((and for making a false statement to MDA inspectors.)))" 

http://www.beesource.com/news/article/adeefined.htm


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Ah, yes. I missed that. Good catch, Joe!

I wonder if that "false statement" came after the shop towels were found in the hives, or was made on a form for entering the state with bees?


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Sorry Bjornbee, I missed your post

>>What comdemnation are we seeing here? Who's comments, go beyond opinion which is normal for an open discussion, and has crossed the line into condeming

Falsely accusing a beekeeper of producing contaminated honey is in my mind is probably the worst form of condemnation a beekeeper can get.


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

Keith said, "Well, I'm going to try to put a different spin on this topic..."

He did and it's an accurate picture of the typical commercial operation in the US today. And with the exception of a few short lived blips, it's been that way forever.

A sideliner or hobbyist just can't understand the pressures a commercial beekeeper faces. And just how tough it is too work so hard, so long and hopefully stay just out of poverty. It's easy to look at a big operator and think that with economy of scale, the big operator has a huge advantage. Actually, with such thin and unreliable profit margins, more hives often mean a quicker bankruptcy.

I don't know what Adee's motivation for using those treatments were. Here's another possibility not mentioned: Maybe he was trying to keep his hives alive and maintain a quality product by NOT using the next legal step in poisons - Checkmite! I'll bet there are more than just a few beekeepers who would find themselves outside the law for the same motivation.

We are a nation of law breakers when it comes to self. Our driving habits condemn us all. :>)

Away from Adee. Time for a little rant :>)

Kirk Webster, in the last few ABJ's, has described why commercial beekeeping has failed in the US. Check it out. Of all the segments of agriculture, beekeepers should have been the first to give a warning. But when confronted with the same kind of problems, went down the same pathway following the rest of agriculture by about 20 years.

And it's a sad comment about our industry when relatively safe, proven, cheap, non-contaminating mite treatments have been legally available for decades in other countries and are just now being recognized, but illegal in the US.

It's a strange situation when we will import and consume honey from places like Canada where soft organic treatments are approved. But are legally forced to use poisons far worse and can't use those same soft treatments in our own hives! My state mails me EPA exemption after exemption for the hard treatments.

It's far past the time when beekeepers need to clean up their act in the production, collection, and processing end of the business. Honey is not a magic liquid. It's a food product and should be treated as such from start to finish.

What's wrong with this picture? American beekeepers cry pure, pure. They demand imports be tested. But won't pony up for a rigorous standard or product testing of their own honey even when standards and testing are promoted by the Honey Board. And we will import that tested, clean foreign honey, but they ban the importation of our untested, dirty? honey into their own countries.

Shouldn't we demand more from ourselves and our government? 

Well, end of rant! I've got to go outside and work on my truck in the cold, windy weather. And if I keep typing, I'll be walking rather than riding.

Regards
Dennis


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

The reason why OA has been registered here in Canada is because the beekeepers of this country paid for the expense to register it. Industry had no motovation to bring this product to the indusrty, for understandable reasons.
We the beekeepers have to start directing ourselves into the future, because it is so easy to follow.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--A sideliner or hobbyist just can't understand the pressures a commercial beekeeper faces. And just how tough it is too work so hard, so long and hopefully stay just out of poverty.--(DM)

I hear you, and agree with you! But the same can be said about MANY professions! 

Strange that commercial beekeepers complaining on how tough it is and how little they make, continue in the profession. 

My work is also high pressure and I make very little keeping my head just above poverty, but I still continue to work long hard hours to stay out of poverty, something a comercial beekeeper would not understand.


----------



## Hobie (Jun 1, 2006)

Maybe I'm biased, but I wouldn't think twice about selling my honey ("food") if I used powdered sugar ("food") to treat for varroa mites. I would think MANY times if I used any chemical or pesticide.


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

kiech sezs:
As far as "tainted" honey, I'm pretty certain that the honey my bees produce has some trace amounts of pesticides in it. I live in an agricultural area.

tecumseh expands on that thought:
in has been known for quite some time that the honeybee and honey are excellent environmental monitors. which is to say that just about every form of air, water and soil borne contamination ends up in the wax, honey and the bees. 

Ians adds:
We the beekeepers have to start directing ourselves into the future, because it is so easy to follow.

tecumseh mutters:
allmen.


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

Pcolar wrote,
What may I ask is the "whole problem then"

Hi Joe, the "purity of honey" my thoughts on this are,

What about the keepers that puts on rat (droppings) infested old honey supers? Ecoli comes to mind.

What about the keepers with flies, rusted extractors equipment ect... in the honey house.

And I like the powers style super which the whole super fits in the extractor, I guess the black widows spiders are for protein.

What about the keeper that doesn't cover a load of honey on the truck, let the dust and everthing else stick to it.

I'm not sticking up for MR. Adee , but there is a whole cateloge of problems here.

Your friend Randy, has seen my shop and extracting system (cowen auto- load) four 1500 gal SS holding tanks, 80 feet of drain for fast clean up.
I'm not perfect, but there are a list of non-compliant issues concerning honey.

Keith Jarrett


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

The poll I indicated I'd do is completed, the results are pretty clear, my opinions maybe less so.
The issue of unapproved treatments is a hotbutton for a very few, even among educated beekeepers. Clearly the majority of beekepers responding have used unapproved treatements (especially treatments like OA) and in most cases place no more concern on them than on organic beekeeping when used in a responsible manner.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Pcolar wrote,
What may I ask is the "whole problem then"

--Hi Joe, the "purity of honey" my thoughts on this are,-(KJ)


Good points you make.
But you list only cleanliness in food handling issues.

Isnt the problem of honeybees in a miserable state of existence that beekeepers need to resort to using chemical concoctions to keep them alive considered part of the problem?

Maybe all our problems are the "whole problem"!


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

Holy Smokes! A lot of material here. Where to start? I guess I'll just jump in!

>Shouldn't we demand more from ourselves and our government?

Well yah, but for obvious reasons, I hold the government largely responsible for the current situation. It's fun to blame the beekeepers, they're an easy target and since many of them are guilty of illegal practices, they're not going to complain, but shouldn't the USDA bee research laboratories be taking the lead on this problem? Fostering advanced research? Taking a fresh look at the problem? Promoting sustainable practices? Breeding better bees? How about labeling powdered sugar for use in beehives! Hehe... that'll be the day









>Remember, I often post replies here on this list warning about the use of unregistered pesticides like sumac, nicotine, oils and acids, only to get beaten down by the outspoken supporters of pesticide misuse (concerning the USA law here).

Joe, I'll let you have the moral high-ground here. Hopefully you won't forsake it- I'm sure you won't, and hopefully you'll have more company as time goes by but for the most part, the rest of the American beekeeping industry won't be joining you any time soon, even if they wanted to, which they probably don't. Maybe some of the sideliners with less to lose and hobbyists with nothing to lose will try to follow your path, but the big commercial businesses don't stand a chance of going treatment-free. Ain't gonna happen, not in this lifetime. This is not my personal preference and I'm not defending it, it's just reality as I see it.

Beekeepers use unapproved and/or illegal treatments either because the legal treatments aren't working, or because they are worse than doing nothing at all. Beekeepers don't do it because they like being criminals.

So, given that commercial beekeeping is for the near future at least dependent upon chemical treatments, whose responsibility is it to come up with safe, legal treatments? The beekeepers themselves? Well, they're trying. They're trying everything under the sun to kill mites and keep their bees alive, and running the risk of being caught and fined in the process. If the USDA doesn't want beekeepers experimenting on their own then they darned well ought to get busy and start doing some real research. Or would they just rather let the beekeepers do the research for them and let the states fine the occasional schmuck a few thousand to fund their bee inspection programs?

>Remember that the exemptions for some of the dangerous pesticides were demanded by beekeepers. Beekeepers wanting the hard treatments rather than the soft.

Poppycock! Beekeepers don't want hard treatments, they just want something that works. They demand and the USDA delivers! Beekeepers demand something, anything, to kill mites and keep their bees alive so they can stay in business and the USDA delivers something that creates resistant mites, pollutes their combs, taints their honey, and sterilizes their queens. Lord knows what it does to the beekeepers themselves.

Gee thanks USDA, got anything for tracheal mites?

>Strange that commercial beekeepers complaining on how tough it is and how little they make, continue in the profession.

The number of beekeepers and the total number of hives in this country has been steadily declining since the late 1940's. In 1980, there were about 4.15 million colonies in the US. Today there's somewhere around 2.4 million. Clearly, numbers aren't the whole story but in any case, I don't think people are flocking to the business.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>The reason why OA has been registered here in Canada is because the beekeepers of this country paid for the expense to register it. 

Can we do that here? What entity would own the certification? Currently here, unless there is a profit to be made, nothing gets certified.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--Poppycock! Beekeepers don't want hard treatments, they just want something that works.--GF

Ahh, checkmite ring a bell? Beekeepers demanded it be approved for use!

George, you are a bit boisterous for one of two years experience beekeeping, keep us updated on your success. 

Poppycock right back at ya man


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

>Poppycock!

Thanks George! Good post!


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

>Poppycock!

--Thanks George! Good post!--

sounds like another one of your treatment recommendations.
Poppycock patties for mite control!


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--Gee thanks USDA, got anything for tracheal mites?--

TM are not a problem only for me, seems good selective practices solve that problem for me.


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

George wrote, 

HOLY SMOKES, poppycock & flocking

Hey George, I was in tears laughing at your terminology,

agree whole heatedly with your post

Keith Jarrett


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

George wrote, 

HOLY SMOKES, poppycock & flocking

Hey George, I was in tears laughing at your terminology,

agree whole heartedly with your post

Keith Jarrett


----------



## Panhandle Bee man (Oct 22, 2003)

The ABF bought reams of testing data from the Canadians on oxalic acid, and is the process of getting it certified. However once it is approved the ABF will "own" oxalic acid. It will still be illegal to to mix your own solution and use it. The ABF plans on marketing a premixed solution for dribbleing into hives, and they only legal way to use it will be to buy it from either the ABF, or one their licensed dealers.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

Phew... I thought I was going to get a thrashing. Wait! Bjorn ain't showed up yet









Joe, thanks for taking it in the spirit in which it was intended!

>Ahh, checkmite ring a bell? Beekeepers demanded it be approved for use!

Oh Ayuh, Checkmite was what I had in mind. Right there is proof that beekeepers don't know what's good for them and further proof that the USDA doesn't know either...

Boisterous? You should see me when I get excited!

> agree whole heatedly with your post

Heatedly eh? Good! Maybe if enough people get heated enough, something good will happen. I'd like to be there.

Night all.


----------



## Barry Digman (May 21, 2003)

Just curious. 

How many beekeepers, whether mega-operators or hobbyists, would be willing to provide a listing of all the chemicals/treatments that they use in their hives on the label of their honey?

The discussion regarding "unapproved" chems centers on the producer and economics. Perhaps the consumer should be provided full disclosure so that they could be the ones to make the decision as to what they want and don't want in their honey, regardless of whether the USDA approves of it or not.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

BTW have grease patties been approved by the FDA and the EPA for control of tracheal mites? If they were certified, who owns that? If not, then is everyone who used grease patties in violation of the pesticide laws and at risk of being fined?


----------



## sierrabees (Jul 7, 2006)

We live in a country where people ignore laws which they consider unreasonable. Because we know we will ignore such laws we permit our lawmakers to pass anything they please with little or no reprocussions. Consider a situation where the leader of the nation is caught breaking the laws agains perjury and the following public opinion pole concludes that it is ok because any man would lie in such a situation. As long as we persist in being a nation of hypocrites, we will have laws we can't follow, a government that can't enforce them, and regulation with no logical direction.

While we are looking at blame for the lack of logic in pesticide regulation we need to look at ourselves real hard.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--Joe, thanks for taking it in the spirit in which it was intended!--(GF)

Although it was an entertaining post, facts were lacking. 
For instance you have the commercial beekeeping declining in 1940, and my references show it growing after world war I and by 1957 Anderson (1969) estimated that 1,200 professional beekeepers operated 1,440,000 colonies in the United States. By that time, hobbyists had a few colonies, the part-time beekeepers kept from 25 to 300 colonies, and the commercial beekeeper had up to several thousand colonies. Some U.S. beekeepers have owned as many as 30,000 colonies.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--BTW have grease patties been approved by the FDA and the EPA for control of tracheal mites? If they were certified, who owns that? If not, then is everyone who used grease patties in violation of the pesticide laws and at risk of being fined?--MB)


"According to pesticide regulations, now found as Title 7 of the U.S. Code, any chemical that is intended to control pests is by default a pesticide. Dr. Malcolm T. Sanford article"

I cant find the reference, but I think in 1997 the fellow selling a mite control (I believe it may have been called mite be gone, not sure) was fined for advertising for sale and distribution a non registered pesticide in the magazine bee culture. 
This is on the web if you can manage to search it out please post.

A bee supply company not sure which, was told to stop selling sumac for control as it is unregistered for use as a pesticide also.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--I cant find the reference, but I think in 1997 the fellow selling a mite control--(JW)

Here it is: 

http://www.honeycouncil.ca/users/Folder.asp?FolderID=4753&NewsID=505


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

>>Poppycock!

--Thanks George! Good post!--

>>sounds like another one of your treatment recommendations.
Poppycock patties for mite control!

Peace, Brother


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>Although it was an entertaining post, facts were lacking.

While I didn't intend it to be entertaining, I didn't want it to be a chore to read either. As for lacking facts, if I'd given it more thought I'd have left facts out altogether and kept it to pure opinion, which really can't be disputed, only disagreed with! Since you disagreed with the few facts I included, let me defend them!

I don't know about hive numbers at the end of World War I, I'd expect they did rise, dramatically, until they started dropping









I was referring to honey production and colony records I dug up from the USDA. Now I am referring to the chart shown on page 812 of The Hive and the Honey Bee which substantiates what I said initially. It shows honey bee colony numbers from 1945 to 1983. According to this chart, colony numbers hit a high of nearly 6 million around 1947 and steadily declined to a low of around 4.1 million hives in 1978. Currently I believe there are around 2.4 million hives in this country so while there have been minor fluctuations, I'd call that a "steady decline since the late 1940's to today" or whatever it is I said.

But it's a moot point and not really relevant to the discussion. I only brought it up to counter what you appeared to be suggesting- that if big beekeeping was so financially unrewarding, why weren't more big operators dropping out? I suggest they have been. But I don't want to argue *that* point either Joe. This isn't about whether beekeeping is or can be a profitable business. It's about the use of illegal treatments, what they mean to the American beekeeping industry, and what ought to be done about it. If you want to take on the economic realities of big beekeeping, start another thread! I'd suggest just one or 2 hotly contested threads at one time however. Don't want to burn out you know


----------



## Doorman (Nov 27, 2006)

"But it's a moot point and not really relevant to the discussion. I only brought it up to counter what you appeared to be suggesting- that if big beekeeping was so financially unrewarding, why weren't more big operators dropping out?"
Commercial beekeepers,farmers,contractors. All suffer from the same personality disorder, terminal optimistic pessimism or TOP. example: This business just isnt what it used to be, theres no future in this business. Next season (job) will be better. 

Ask the farmer who won the lottery " You gonna retire now?" Nope guess i'll just keep farmin till its gone.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>Or would they just rather let the beekeepers do the research for them and let the states fine the occasional schmuck a few thousand to fund their bee inspection programs










>>approved the ABF will "own" oxalic acid. It will still be illegal to to mix your own solution and use it


I dont understand what your meaning. As I am told, Oxalic Acid breaks down with in months of mixing it in the carrier HFCS, or sugar surip. Refrigeration slows the decomposing process down.

Our country has approved the use of Oxalic Acid, We bought alot of the trial data and so on from Europe, to speed up the registration process, and to provide some historical references to further studdy on the treatment. Ever so evolving. 
Selling a pre mix soulution is just a money grab. Its just a measured amount of FoodGrade Oxalic, supplied form the bee supply out let store, mixed with surip. 
Sound like they are trying to over regulate it.,?


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

Does anyone else hear an echo in here?









(we all do this from time to time, you can hit the edit and delet 2 of the postings shortening them to just the title, Welcome to beesource!)

{Commercial beekeepers,farmers,contractors. All suffer from the same personality disorder, terminal optimistic pessimism or TOP. example: This business just isnt what it used to be, theres no future in this business. Next season (job) will be better.} 

Spoken like a good Luthern farmer, someone who has a clear vision of what farming is all about and why situations like these arise.

[ January 09, 2007, 07:13 PM: Message edited by: Joel ]


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Joel,
I thought doorman made a point well worth repeating.









Remember noe Joel how we all stumbled on our first few posts, once doorman gets his beesource feet hell be ok.


----------



## Oldbee (Sep 25, 2006)

But it's only moot, moot moot moot etc.  Doorman, you only need to tap Add Reply once and RELAX for about 30 minutes.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I'd like to bring this back to the Adee situation and the "bad publicity" involved in this event.

I doubt most people know about Adee Honey Farms getting caught. If I were in Richard Adee's shoes, I wouldn't be much worried about it.

As far as I've seen, the story didn't get much if any play around here. It received a brief mention, buried in another article, in the Minneapolis Star Tribune. It never appeared in the closest South Dakota papers. And even around here -- unless you buy directly from Adee Honey Farms -- Adee doesn't market honey under the "Adee Honey Farms" name.

So some beekeepers care, but does anyone else really even know about this event? I doubt it. I've asked some people I know around here if they've even heard about, and, to a person, not a one of them had heard the report, and no one seemed concerned about it when they read the release from the Minnesota Department of Agriculture.


----------

