# Ecological Beekeeping Symposium 3/10 in Santa Rosa, CA



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

---I wanted to let everyone know about this Ecology Beekeeping Symposium thats taking place March 10, 2007,,, 
Randy has been working on using powdered sugar in a commercial way and has his dustings down to 8 seconds a hive.---(J)

Umm, this is not ecological beekeeping. Wouldnt the above be one of the many interpretations of "organic beekeeping"?

Why are they calling this an "Ecological Beekeeping Symposium" when ecological beekeeping means the keeping bees without any treatments?

This is how the term was originally defined here:

http://www.thiele-und-thiele-consult.de/cert_us.html

Make sure to relay my protest to my friend Randy, he would only expect that I do so.


----------



## 2rubes (Apr 28, 2005)

Sorry


----------



## 2rubes (Apr 28, 2005)

Oops, my letter went out with just the first word, here's the rest.....
Sorry, I had no idea that ecological meant totally organic. I just glanced at the site you referenced and I see it now below your name. I'll read it later. I had never seen it before. I know using powdered sugar on bees on the Organic link on Yahoo is a big taboo. I felt the word ecological would mean working with nature and using harmless substances. I have a registered organic farm, where I can used all sorts of home grown treatments and still be considered organic.
The 'ecological' came from me, not Randy, unless he used my type. I do the submissions for the local newspaper and he will pull from that for the newsletter.
So Joe, what would you call it? It's not really considered organic either. With all the die outs, bees are really becoming quite a commodity, I'm not willing to let our girls just die. I'm hoping to convert over to small cell, but in the mean time, cleaning them up with powdered sugar is easy and safe and has proven results if you keep at it. I just want to save bees.
Thanks for referring the websites.
Janet


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--Sorry, I had no idea that ecological meant totally organic.--(J)

First, I love your concern and efforts in promoting clean and sustainable beekeeping. Keep up the good work!!! 

Actually, more people tend to associate powder sugar and other such soft treatments with organic beekeeping. So NO treatments would actually tend to be associated more with a higher from of treatment beekeeping and probably not identified with organic beekeeping which proposed rules allow organic type treatments. 

--I know using powdered sugar on bees on the Organic link on Yahoo is a big taboo.--(J)

That is true, BUT most beekeepers DO tend to associate soft treatments with Organic Beekeeping due to the proposed regulations and such, to stuff naturally found in honey or soft treatments etc. 

--I felt the word ecological would mean working with nature and using harmless substances.--(J) 

ecological - derived from ecology the relationship between organisms and their environment. Would mean the keeping and breeding of bees on a system of beekeeping by supporting a harmonical development of the bee-colony during the year and its natural way of living. Bees in its natural way of living, OR natural ecology do not use treatments for varroa control, instead relying on its own defenses for this task, therefore treatments not part of ecological beekeeping.

--So Joe, what would you call it? It's not really considered organic either.--(J)

I would call it Biological Beekeeping, which defines it as separate from organic. And it does fit your statement working with nature and using harmless substances Biological Beekeeping would IMO fit better. Biology meaning from living organisms. That powder sugar is made from a natural organism such as cane or beet plants. And the name does suggest a clean from of beekeeping.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

"Ecology" is the study of organisms and how they interact with one another and with their environment (including abiotic elements).

"Ecological beekeeping," then, should look at the ways in which bees interact with their environment.

Chemicals -- including synthetic or man-made chemicals -- are now part of the ecosystem, so "ecological beekeeping" includes those, right?

I'm not sure the term "ecological" really designates what those who coined the term "ecological beekeeping" intend. Perhaps "environmentalist beekeeping" would be closer? Or "conservation beekeeping?" Maybe "let-nature-take-its-course beekeeping" or "natural beekeeping?"


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--Chemicals -- including synthetic or man-made chemicals -- are now part of the ecosystem, so "ecological beekeeping" includes those, right?--(K)

In the ecology of the honeybee, bees may come in contact with contaminates, BUT do not specifically forage for these chemicals to take back to the hive to use as varroa control. And therefore to use such treatments for varroa control is not part of ecological beekeeping.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

"In the ecology of the honeybee, bees may come in contact with contaminates, BUT do not specifically forage for these chemicals to take back to the hive to use as varroa control." -Pcolar

Sure, but "ecology" doesn't deal only with the environment the way "nature intended it." Ecology deals with the interactions among organisms and with their environment (including abiotic and synthetic elements). Bees don't forage for Varroa mites, either, as far as I know, yet they interact with them.

A field of corn is an ecosystem -- and the study of that corn field is still ecology. Monoculture that it may be, loaded with synthetic chemicals, unable to persist over time without human intervention, it's still "ecological."

Why not consider some other term? Maybe "nothing-but-what-the-bees-do-for-themselves beekeeping?"


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Because bees in their natural environment do not interact with chemicals by gathering them specifically for use as varroa control. This then does not support their use in Ecological Beekeeping.

[ February 14, 2007, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: Pcolar ]


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> Why are they calling this an "Ecological 
> Beekeeping Symposium" 

They aren't. They called it an _*"Ecology*
Beekeeping Symposium"_, a perfectly good
name for any "kinder, gentler approach".

Regardless, ""Ecological Beekeeping" is another of
those vague and meaningless, but positive-sounding
feel-good terms that is often tossed about when
folks want to wrap dogma unsupported by science
up so it looks pretty, rather than merely speculative. 
Just like "Biological Beekeeping".

The mere registration of the domain 
"ecologicalbeekeeping.com" does not bestow any
authority over how others might use the term
"ecological beekeeping". In fact, I'm tempted
to register "Ecologicalbeekeeping.org" myself,
just for fun. Imagine how much fun I could have!









Now "Organic" is a word that is defined by the
USDA in the USA, so one must take care to 
follow the guidelines (which are still subject to 
significant interpretation) if one wishes to use
that term on one's honey, or risk fines from the
feds.

What I'm interested in is how Randy can treat
a hive with powdered sugar in 8 seconds.
That sounds way kewl.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Jim,

You write me PMs asking me not to challenge your posts, then you break the truce you yourself requested. OK, your truce is OFF alls fair game again.


----------



## 2rubes (Apr 28, 2005)

Thanks everyone. We are all worried about the same thing, raising clean bees and clean food with little or no contamination to the bees, to us and the environment. 
Randy's article on powdered sugar and drone managment is going to be awesome. I think it will be the April article and we should be dusting as soon as we can open hives this spring (before April). I was able to bring hives back from huge infestations by starting early in the spring and dusting every few weeks and then last year, the mite load was much lower. Randy had me write down all of my powdered sugar dates and mite counts and I was able to make a chart which was amazing. I'll try and put that on our website. I'm going to send him this post (again) and let him answer if he can so people can get started on his techniques. He's giving previews, he is letting me give previews (but not publish or make copies). I know he will demostrate at the 'Symposium'. 
I sure learned a lot about the words ecology and ecological. 
Janet


----------



## Randy Oliver (Nov 27, 2006)

Hi All,
I rarely venture onto Beesource. Too much chaff to sift through. This thread was brought to my attention. 

Something that you may wish to keep in mind is that while those of you with time on your hands argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, 99% of the bees are managed by beekeepers who don't have time for such ethereal trivia. I commend the organic beekeeping model. However, in reality, it will only make an impact in the same way that organic agriculture has progressed. Not by finger wagging, but by demonstrating that it is economically sound. I'm working on the latter.

Please keep up the organic work, but lay off the finger wagging. You only alienate the majority. Instead, act as a model, and when you achieve success in dealing with varroa, helpfully offer it up to the industry in general.

I will be happy to share information I've learned, and techniques I've developed for anyone to use as they wish. I'm not going to tell you what you should or shouldn't do. I personally choose to effect change by example. If I can run a profitable bee business without resorting to deleterious chemicals, my success will speak for itself. If I can't, then I'm in no position to criticize others.

I'm off to move bees into almonds this morning. I will try to post a preview of the "8-second" powdered sugar dusting method I've developed this evening.

Randy Oliver


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

"Because bees in their natural environment do not interact with chemicals. . . ." -Pcolar

But bees in their "natural environment" live in Langstroth hives? 

Bees in their "natural environment" are disturbed by humans regularly?

Bees in their "natural environment" are manipulated so they are less likely to swarm?

Bees in their "natural environment" live in North America?

How far do we go?

As bees live today, they interact with chemical in their environment. "Ecology" says nothing about that environment being pristine, or without human influence, or even free of synthetic chemicals.

"However, in reality, it will only make an impact in the same way that organic agriculture has progressed. Not by finger wagging, but by demonstrating that it is economically sound." -Randy Oliver

True, "organic agriculture" may be economically sound, but reverting completely won't feed the world. As humans, we seem to past the carrying capacity of such ideals -- we've stretched that carrying capacity by relying on technology to produce more food and distribute that food to more locations.

The argument can be made that such a reliance on technology to produce food is "unnatural," but most of us won't be the volunteers to starve to death if we try to revert.

Having said that, I commend those of you seeking to keep bees entirely free of chemicals. I think it's a worthwhile venture -- and is likely just as economically sound as organic agriculture.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> You write me PMs asking me not to challenge 
> your posts,

Dunno what's causing the hallucinations, but
can I please try some of whatever you are on?

Seriously, I enjoy nothing more than people who
challenge assumptions and conclusions, as this
is what makes for a good discussion. To date,
your contributions have not been very challenging,
either intellectually or rhetorically.

> then you break the truce you yourself requested.

Come now, no one is going to believe that you 
would agree to such a request, any more that
anyone is going to believe that I would make
such a request!

So go ahead - please DO "challenge" me - explain 
to us all what right you have to jump all over
"2rubes" for a perceived misuse of the term 
"Ecology Beekeeping" or "Ecological Beekeeping".

Have you a trademark? 
A service mark?
None of the above, correct?

So why such a presumptuous reaction to a simple
announcement of a meeting that many would find 
educational?

But please, pretty please send me some of whatever
you are taking, as it must be very good stuff.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> 99% of the bees are managed by beekeepers who 
> don't have time for such ethereal trivia.

Gee Randy, methinks thou doth protest too much,
as you apparently had the time to contribute
your post dismissive of BeeSource to BOTH 
BeeSource and Bee-L.

Keep it up, and we'll have to award you the
"Bob Harrison Memorial Trophy", awarded for
making repeated self-serving complaints about 
being "too busy to read or post" in large 
numbers of posts.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Ecological Beekeeping - The keeping of honeybees under a system of harmonious relationship between the honeybee, beekeeper and the environment, by using beekeeping methodry that promotes the healthy development of the honeybee colony and its natural way of living together with the needs of the beekeeper. The use of treatments for disease and pests are not permitted in Ecological Beekeeping.

Ecological Beekeeping

http://www.thiele-und-thiele-consult.de/cert_us.html

[ February 15, 2007, 07:00 PM: Message edited by: Pcolar ]


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

Ecological Beekeeping: The keeping of bees in
a manner that does no harm to the environment.

See, any number can play!


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

That's acceptable Jim!

Good work!


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

". . . promotes the healthy development of the honeybee colony and its natural way of living together with the needs of the beekeeper." -Pcolar

"Promotes" is different than "requires." The "needs of the beekeeper" may include using synthetic chemicals to keep colonies from dying, depending on the beekeeper's perspective.

"The use of treatments for disease and pests are not permitted in Ecological Beekeeping." -Pcolar

Only because someone has chosen to limit "Ecological Beekeeping" in that manner. "Ecology" or "ecological," by definition, does not preclude use of synthetic chemicals.

Remember, "ecology" is the study of organisms' interactions with one another and with their environment (including abiotic elements). Humans are as much a part of the ecosystem as any other organism, and the materials we produce ("synthetic") aren't really any different than the materials that other organisms produce (honey, for instance?).

Also, "no treatments" has spawned debates before, but do you really mean "no treatments?" Is drone trapping a treatment? Breaking the brood cycle? What about manipulating hives to reduce the chances of swarming? Manipulating the hives to produce greater surplus stores of honey? Smoking a hive to make it easier to work?

I'm not sure why or how the term "ecological" keeps getting drawn into the mix, when it really doesn't describe what's intended. Personally, "steward beekeeping" seems like a much better term.


----------



## Nick Noyes (Apr 28, 2005)

So I should probably just go to mapquest to find out were Santa Rosa is. 
I often wonder how a post goes from telling people about a seminar on how to kill mites without harmful chemicals, some how turns into an arguement about the definition of a word that doesn't really matter? 
Maybe we should have an argueing forum.


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

Jim wrote, "Bob Harrison memorial trophy"


Hey Jim, I made up 500 hives BEFORE the almonds, ran two thousand plus in the almonds( by-my-self). Also have a heavy equipment constuction rental, and real estate rental business.

How can I get one of those awards ?

P.S I have to go now, I have a BUSINESS to run.

Keith


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

You seem to starting on the right track to one, Keith!


----------



## Dan Williamson (Apr 6, 2004)

Janet... 

I have to say... that in the face of nit-picking and a clear attempt to discredit your program... and/or to make you look stupid, You kept a good attitude and acted with class.

Wish there were more people here of your caliber. I wish I could be that nice.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I'm guilty of as much of the nit-picking as anyone on this thread. My intention was not to discredit the program, and, please notice, I offered a number of suggestions for other terms that might be more applicable to either the symposium or to any other group with interests along these lines.

I make no claims to any of the terms I offered as suggestions. If you'd like to use any of them Janet (or anyone else), feel free to do so on my account. By the way, I think "steward beekeeping" has a nice ring to it and fits what you're attempting to do.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

{I rarely venture onto Beesource. Too much chaff to sift through. This thread was brought to my attention.} 

{99% of the bees are managed by beekeepers who don't have time for such ethereal trivia.}

Sounds like a pretty self important perspective of course posted without a stitch of acutal research mentioned to support it. That must be a pretty high white horse that these degrading comments were made from. Thanks Randy we look forward to you "teaching us by example"! Incidentally, aren't those 99% the ones suffering major hive losses right now!!! May I suggest a little more chaff might help! Bjorns post "Body Protein and CCD" was ground breaking. I bet the powdered sugar plan will be a big hit and a help for them right now!

{Please keep up the organic work, but lay off the finger wagging.}

You mean finger wagging like telling 5000 beesource members their arguments are ethereal trivia and we are part of some implied un-important minority!

{You only alienate the majority}
In a single post!!! The irony here is hilarious, I'd attend this class just for the comedy relief!

{I'm off to move bees into almonds this morning. I will try to post a preview of the "8-second" powdered sugar dusting method I've developed this evening}

You can Imagine the entire 5000 member minority here spewing ethereal trivia will be waiting with baited breath for this gound breaking, industry saving "organic" technique developed by someone so far above us he only visits here when his minions report to him! Of course you could save a considerable amount of time by accepting the fact that we peasants can read and are able to visit Bee-L and just post your ethereal, uh, I mean important information there, thus limiting the "chaff" on Beesource!

{Parts of the proceeds are going to Randy so he can continue his work with powdered sugar.}

Randy have you posted this insult here to truly help or because it serves your best interest by increasing attendance thus the income potential and ego-satisfaction?? I would think those keeping 99% of the bees would be pouring support into this important work and our additions would be un-necessary so I'll assume the intention was stictly alturistic. I see from Bee-l you actually sacriviced a whole hive to this in depth experiment? I sacrificed 25 hives over the last 2 years working on survivor stock which received no treatments and guess what, my hands not out!

Let's see now, where were we, oh yea, who had that link with research about angels on a pinhead! (talk about irony) 

[ February 16, 2007, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: Joel ]


----------



## 2rubes (Apr 28, 2005)

Thanks, oh blush and all that, and sorry about all the huff. My bad, I should have known better, Randy can be impatient at times. I wrote to Randy with this link, imploring him to release some of his data. Its so important to get this information out, he has such great ideas. I didn't think to tell him to go to the end of the post or disregard all of the word semantics. Anyways, hes a great guy and he will do anything to promote agriculture. He did talk about funding at our last meeting, hes doing so much, but it was my idea to post the information.
Just to clear the air, Randy didnt ask Katia at Beekind for any funds. Katia and I were talking about the program he just gave. I did mention how he needed funds if wants to keep at it, he has to sacrifice hives for controls and thats costly. . It was Katias idea to offer him part of the proceeds, and she had already invited him to be a speaker. She said the idea of the symposium was to raise money for Friendly Beekeeping. 
So back to beekeeping. Randy called me this morning, my email was down and hes been trying to send me his articles. He talked with Joe Graham, who agreed any information should be released immediately for the good of beekeeping (YEAH!) and told me I can say anything and put up some of his stuff. I got my email going, but hes already gone. He works into the night; I get up early and start, so Ill most likely have it in the morning. 
I need to get back to work, but the powdered sugar in 8 seconds; he made a frame with 1/8 mesh screen that fits on top of the hive. He taped a measuring cup to the end of a bee brush. He puts the powdered sugar in a 5 gallon white pail with a lid and he does both supers (does not split or dust supers separately) at the same time. Ill put the picture up tomorrow. My mite figures showed such a major drop without splitting when I was first dusting and my counts were high. I didnt start splitting my brood supers until after September for various reasons. The, he takes off the top of the hive, puts the screen over the top of the frames, uses the brush over the mesh, takes off the screen, brushes again to knock the sugar between the frames, puts the top back on, and hes done. 
And my chart that I talked about with our mite counts, its posted here http://countryrubes.com/informationpage3/picturesmisc.html
You have to push the button under the statement, I could not figure out how to put a graft up unless I did it that way.
And, Santa Rosa, about 1-1/2 north of San Francisco and Oakland, California. Beautiful wine country. Hope you can make it.
Sincerely,
Janet


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

{Anyways, hes a great guy and he will do anything to promote agriculture.}

No huff Janet. No reflection on you. I have read his posts here and on Bee-L with interest and will continue to do so. Some of his points are well thought out and on point. That doesn't give him license to call anyone's posts chaff or ethereal trivia. He's welcome to post his opinion here but expect feedback! 
For the record, we have extensive posts here on beesource regarding powdered sugar dusting and if you check DaveW posts you'll find he's already done the research and posted numbers and mite counts like you won't believe.( I know most of us don't!) If Randy got over hismself for a minute he could save a great deal of time referencing the work on dusting already posted here.

We appreciate any information you have to share, the so called chaff here usually leads to some pretty profound answers. Keep posting!! 

[ February 16, 2007, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: Joel ]


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--Please keep up the organic work, but lay off the finger wagging--(Randy)

If you read what I wrote, I was ONLY advising that sugar powder treatments are NOT permitted under the guidelines of ecological beekeeping, and that it would be better placed one of the MANY interpretations of organic beekeeping (pick one). My intention was not to discredit your program. I said nothing bad about your sugar dusting, only that it should NOT be classified under Ecological Beekeeping. 

Ecological Beekeeping, also known as Biodynamic Beekeeping is at the pinnacle of organic beekeeping, it is EXTREEM ORGANIC! Treatments are NOT permitted to be used at any level. Michael Weiler the author of Bees and Honey, From Flower to Jar helped to develop guidelines for approaches to ecological beekeeping and these approaches include specific rules such as queen rearing by swarm impulse only, no clipping wings, NO treatments, and the keeping of bees in dwellings that shall predominantly consist of natural materials etc,,,. 

Gunther Hauk, Biodynamic Beekeeper and author of Toward Saving the Honeybee describes the honeybee as a sick patient who has been trying for years to signal to us the deep crises of its diminishing life forces and its increasing inability to resonate with the environment.. Gunther explains "During the twentieth century, beekeeping methods were perfected that aimed for optimal honey harvest with minimal investment and work. Measures that merely consider our own comfort and calculate our economic situation, while neglecting the honeybees' own instinctual wisdom, have ruined the health of the honeybee. The way we raise queens, prevent swarming, manipulate the brood nest, feed sugar and pollen substitutes, manipulate the drone population, give plastic foundations or denatured wax, all these practices have added up to weaken the bee to the point that it does not have the integral health or the immune system to ward off predators.

So I am not against sugar dusting, and make no mistake about it, I wag no fingers at anyone. All I am saying, is that it should not be classified under Ecological Beekeeping. 

I have seen in the past few years a redefining of many terms so that they mean treatments are allowed. Many organic beekeepers have voluntarily abandoned the use of some of these terms because the words no longer describe their style of clean beekeeping.

Instead of redefining, lowering the bar and watering down terms to meet our goals. Why not for a change, keep the bars where they are and put forth a little (as Gunther Hauk said) investment and work and work for the right to use the terms and actually earn the badge for a change!


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

Sorry Joe, but I can't resist such juicy bait.

> I was ONLY advising that sugar powder treatments 
> are NOT permitted under the guidelines of 
> ecological beekeeping

...in the opinion of a tiny minority of folks,
who have a negligible impact on the group
consensus, and no impact at all on the actual
definitions of practical terms like "Organic".
(The term "ecological beekeeping" has no meaning
at all, and is open to any interpretation one
might assign it.)

> Gunther Hauk, Biodynamic Beekeeper and...

...far fringe thinker, who spouts stuff like:

> "_the deep crises of its diminishing life_
> _forces and its increasing inability to_
> _resonate with the environment._"

...which means whatever the heck he wants it to
mean, as it is so vague as to defy any interpretation
at all.


> "_beekeeping methods were perfected that aimed_ 
> _for optimal honey harvest with minimal_
> _investment and work..._"

Yep, and hasn't it been grand! 
Modern beekeeping as we know it - bees that
survive to pollinate another spring, honey
crops that can put kids through college, and
even earn a decent living for the beekeeper.

> "_while neglecting the honeybees' own _
> _instinctual wisdom..._"

Uh, this is the same bug that will gather road
tar and use it as propolis, and will gather
sawdust, and try to use it as pollen. 
"Instinctual wisdom", indeed!

> "_have ruined the health of the honeybee_"

Gee, most folks blame the invasive pests and
diseases brought over by all that world trade
we've been indulging in for the past few
decades.

> "..._The way we raise queens..._"

What, is it cheating to raise more than one
queen per hive? Has Gunter ever seen
Russian bees? They seem to keep a supercedure
cell or two on hand at all times. 

> "..._prevent swarming_..."

Ha! As if anyone has ever really prevented 
swarming, no matter what they tried.

> "..._manipulate the brood nest_..."

Yep, makes for a larger, and thereby more
robust colony.

> "..._feed sugar and pollen_..."

Sure do, 'cause the bees might starve otherwise

> "..._substitutes_..."

OK, pollen substitutes suck, I'll agree, but
it is still protein.

> "..._manipulate the drone population_..."

Uh, how? OK, maybe some folks are too strict
about replacing comb with too many drone cells,
but research has shown that too few drones
is bad for a colony, and results in lower
production.

> "..._give plastic foundations_..."

Yep, and the bees don't seem to care.

> "..._or denatured wax_..."

OK, now we are into *fantasy land*... what
application would "denatured" wax have in
beekeeping? It is a SOLVENT, for Pete's Sake!
I wouldn't even use that stuff on my surfboard!

> "..._all these practices have added up to weaken_"
> _the bee to the point that it does not have_
> _the integral health or the immune system to_
> _ward off predators._"

Huh? Predators? Like birds? 
Has Gunter ever even read the massive tome
"_Honey Bee Pests, Predators, and Diseases_",
the book that gets depressingly thicker with
each new edition? Perhaps he means "parasites".
Well, Apis Mellifera handles all of its *natural*
parasites quite well, thank you. Its just the
ones that jumped species and oceans that have 
been giving it problems, and no amount of return
to some mythical "natural" state is going to help 
bees deal with a NEW parasite, is it?

The sort of new-age mumbo-jumbo spouted by
Gunter is exactly what encourages new beekeepers 
to avoid prudent practices that will keep their 
hives alive under the current scourges to which 
they are subjected, and worse yet, gives them
a false sense of security, so they don't even
monitor their hives for diseases or pests, and 
results in beekeepers giving up after a few
seasons in disgust over losing hives on a
regular basis. Just what we need - MORE people
giving up the craft.

But it does sell books and seminars (Gunter's
main stock in trade) to the same sort of gullible 
folks that bought books written by Tom Peters and
Tony Robbins back before they were discredited.

> I have seen in the past few years a redefining
> of many terms 

...and the creation of many new *meaningless*
terms like "biodynamic beekeeping" and
"ecological beekeeping"!









> so that they mean treatments are allowed. 

No one tells you that you MUST treat your bees,
any more than anyone would force you to take
medicine, or wear eyeglasses. Please don't
presume to tell others that they should not take
advantage of every possible tool that helps to 
keep their bees alive.

> Many organic beekeepers 

The term "Organic" is defined solely by the USDA
in the USA, so please refrain from attempting to
hijack the term. Putting the term "Organic" on
honey without following the USDA guidelines is
an actual criminal offense under the law as it
stands.

> have voluntarily abandoned the use of some of 
> these terms because the words no longer describe
> their style of clean beekeeping.

Ah, yes - "clean". The holier-than-thou approach
to beekeeping. OK, now I see your primary concern.
Its all about bragging rights.
Sad.

OK, you are "clean", and we are all dirty, dirty
beekeepers who should hang our heads in shame.
Fine.

[ February 16, 2007, 09:19 PM: Message edited by: Jim Fischer ]


----------



## HarryVanderpool (Apr 11, 2005)

Thank you once again, Mr. Fischer for pointing out the vast divide between the theoretical, and boots on the ground reality.
Once again, I appreciate in you what once was termed "common sence", but unfortunatly is not common at all these days.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

I see quite a lengthy post up there. Hope you enjoyed the rant Jim, but I have to tell you that I never really bother reading most of your responses as most are the epitome assanineiddity.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

Joe, Jim makes many good points. Too not read an oposing view and respond to the points discredits your position. A great deal of valuable information comes out of these animated debates Since you belive in your position and are confident in your experiance by all means respond his points and give us the benefit of the results. 

Biodynamics is a buzz word being tested in many farming operations in our (NYC) market system. I too get excited when I hear about this. The problem lies in that biodynamics are based on the fallacy animals kept in an un-natural population with un-natural stresses can survive using natural concepted managment techniques. As I've mentioned before we have a couple million years of "natural research" that show most speicies can't survive in a natural population scenerio since 99% of all known species are extinct. Certainly Gunther Hauk makes more money on ideas than on bees. The fact some consider his work new age gobbledy **** does not mean it has no value. I think there are concepts, ideals and practices to be gleened and refined for use.

There is a grass roots movement going on worldwide that is recognizing we need to change the way we do things. Joe's ideas, although not always accurate, not viable on a commerical scale today, still disply his intentions, ideals, experiance or opinions are made with positive intention and I see no personal gain for him since he seems to be very satisfied with his methods and is willing to share.

Positive change comes when we look at Joe's extreme vs the other extreme and work towards that middle ground.

I would like to hear more of the basis for Joe's opinions (ie how does he determine plastic foundation is harmful to bees?) which gives everyone a better basis for determining creditability of each position.

[ February 17, 2007, 12:19 PM: Message edited by: Joel ]


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--Joe, Jim makes many good points.(Joel)

NO, everyting is taken out of context, for what the origonal intent was ment.

--I would like to hear more of the basis for Joe's opinions (ie how does he determine plastic foundation is harmful to bees?) which gives everyone a better basis for determining creditability of each position.--(Joel)

Hello Joel!

This is a wonderful idea! But frankly, it is impossible to achieve on this list with the trollers waiting to disrupt.

I have been having success with feral bees on small cell over the past 5 years and talking about it all along. And I must admit, Im burnt out, and have been trying to avoid the useless debates from those that have never even tried small cell or ecological beekeeping and have argued against it for many years. Instead, I find much more enjoyment directing my efforts to discussing ferals and helping beekeepers with similar thinking which is where my love for beekeeping is. 

We have even witnessed on this list an escalation into racial bigotry as a tool of harassment to which I was highly disgusted with. What next?,,, drive by shootings? So nowadays, I actually find myself blacklisting those having dissimilar views and highly argumentative nature so I can better focus to help to those working in succeeding with small cell and organic beekeeping. Those with similar thinking can count on having exclusive priority for queens and assistance from me. Some have already been notified that I have given them top priority when queens are ready if they what any. Others of dissimilar views can go else ware. I will say that I have turned a few requests for queens already from blacklisted persons. 

Im afraid to bring up any topics or observations on such things as ferals due to the hostility towards this type of discussion. A topic I wanted very badly to discuss but was holding back was my observation last year of extreme robbing events. Bees were seen testing nucs, testing small colonies, and first arrivers when extracting or working on hives. When beelined, I discovered to my amazement that about 90% of the robbing was coming from ferals located in woodlands surrounding my home, that I had no idea existed in these numbers so close to my ridge apiary. Could the recovery of the ferals be involving the return of competitive traits that were long bred out of ferals with the tremendous influx of pampered domestic bees from the south? This suggests that the feral survivors were those with minimal domestic influence and having highly competitive traits still remaining. The possibility exists, that if I do not work to retain competitiveness in my bees, I will be over run by the competitive ferals rebounding in my area. So far, my feral colonies are defending well against robbing without the need to reduce any entrances, but seem not to be engaging in this extreme robbing type behavior. So may questions still unanswered here. 

I am seeing a trend develop towards pulling back to help our own happening now on these lists. This was recently commented on Bee-L about the small cell beekeepers remaining rather quiet on the list lately. And the reason is due to burn out, and probably to better focus on those wanting the help. 

So in short, Im tired of the crap and am highly in favor of blacklisting and letting those folks find the way of their choosing, in favor of the diverting of assistance to those with like minds to help the movement succeed from within. Im bound to get hell for promoting blacklisting, but burn out will do that to a person.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--Joe, Jim makes many good points.(Joel) 

Second thought. Keep it short and pick 3 good points Jim makes. As long as the trollers stay out of the conversation, I will respond.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

Stop! Pay Troll!


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

I don't even know what I am. (easy boys...  ) I could be a "chaffiest" (defined as one who produces "chaff") I could be a troll (definition truly unknown to me), I could be a blacklistee (defined as one who is blacklisted).  

I'm not on that list am I? (I'll show you mine, if you show me yours..







)


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

And who keeps inviting these so called Bee-L types who stop by on a whim and insult the forum and members? I do not visit Bee-L for a reason. Maybe someone can openly invite me to Bee-L, so I can drop by and insult someone....(Not that I would....I'm better than that! At least in my world..  )


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Jim and Bjorn, this is no place for humor, so cut the crap out.









--I'm not on that list am I? (I'll show you mine, if you show me yours..(BJorn)

You are one of my favorites! Ive been following, and I like the stuff youve been writing! But there's alsways room for one more.









Bjorn, Did you make the conference?
I couldn;t make it.

My fathering laws up there. He'll be the 6 foot 6 guy raising hell about Roundup killing bees.







He hates that stuff! I already gave Dennis a heads up.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Which conference are you talking about Joe?


----------



## newbee 101 (May 26, 2004)

"This is a wonderful idea! But frankly, it is impossible to achieve on this list with the trollers waiting to disrupt." 
How did that song go? Paranoia, will destroy ya!
That have medication for that now.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>this is no place for humor

Oh! I was just about to jump in. Let me go read some Bee-L and I'll be back, serious, and composed...


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> this is no place for humor

Well, the thread started out as a simple meeting
announcement for a meeting that might have been
of great interest to many, so at that point, 
I would have agreed.

But someone presumed to beat the person who 
started the thread around the head and shoulders, 
"correcting" the terminology used, thus inserting
themselves (plus massive amounts of ego, significant arrogance, and so on) into the 
situation, and turned it into a *free for all*. _That someone was 

But yes, I agree - you have provided more than
enough laughs in this thread, so George, Joel, 
newbee, and I should stick to being straight men._


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

Hey, wait a second, Joe:

First you said:

"_I have to tell you that I never really bother
reading most of your responses [obscenity-laden
insult removed]..."_

*Then* you said:

"_NO, everyting is taken out of context, for 
what the origonal intent was ment_."

No points for spelling at all, but how the heck
would you know if anything was taken out of
context, if we are to believe your posturing and
posing about not _reading_ any of it?

It seems you lack the short-term memory to be
able to fool anyone with your histrionics.

And *nothing* was taken out of context. 
Nealy every word was reproduced, word for word,
phrases were not broken up, order was not changed
and all of it was commented upon.


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

Jim wrote,

so George,Joel,newbee, and I should stick to being straight men.

Now Jim, I was still hoping to get nominated for the "Bob Harrison memorial trophy" ???

Keith


----------



## newbee 101 (May 26, 2004)

One more, before I go straight..
"I actually find myself blacklisting those having dissimilar views and highly argumentative nature so I can better focus to help to those working in succeeding with small cell and organic beekeeping."
A new term in beekeeping : McCarbeeism

[ February 17, 2007, 09:41 PM: Message edited by: newbee 101 ]


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> blacklisting those having dissimilar views

That's a mind that is not just closed, it is
condemned - for structural weakness.

> so I can better focus to help to those working 
> in succeeding with small cell and organic 
> beekeeping.

Don't use critical thinking, just drink the
Kool-Aide, eh?

...and what do small cell and organic have to
do with each other, since you mentioned it?


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Define blacklist.


----------



## newbee 101 (May 26, 2004)

blacklisting:
The term blacklisting is generally used in a pejorative context, as it implies that someone has been prevented from having legitimate access to something due to the whims or judgments of another.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

But don't we do that everyday in way or another? We use "do not call" telephone lists, blockers on our televisions and computors, we have business associations that limit competition, and we even have a "ignore file" here on beesource. Many on this forum support Bee-L, including some of the ones who now openly say that Joe is wrong for his thoughts. To even support a site such as that is hypocritical in nature.

I would say Joe has every right to limit his intellectual expression and ideas to the bounds that he see's fit. To say he wants to carry on conversations with a group or individual he thinks may benefit from is something we all do in one way or another. Most just don't express the thoughts as Joe did.

As for business, a business relationaship is a two way street. I am not federally funded and I am privately owned. Any business I conduct must be good for the my business as well as for the customer. I reserve my right to sell to who I feel is good for my business for a host of reasons. Yes, there are laws against open trade for things like race, etc. But just as I ask myself when I get into deeply debated discussions and ask myself "I wonder if that person would ever buy from me?", I must also ask myself after recieving some other persons comments, "Do I really want my product in that persons hands, and will I get an honest feedback?.

Many here support E-bay. Some don't. Many sellers do not want to deal with "problem children". It is openly stated on many sites that if you have a negative rating below a certain level, or have less than a certain number rating, than your bid will not be taken. We see it in one form or another all the time. And I don't see a big uproar about these other examples.

Do you rate a company or business on image, character, presentation, percieved problems, and other factors when selecting a company to deal with? Sure. The fact is, many business' do also.

Now is this all wrong? I'm not sure. I could argue on one side or the other. But we do see it all the time. And it is common in one form or another. It is very uncommon to see a company with the motto "We sell to anyone with the green"....But I see it very common to read "we reserve the right, to limit, reject, deny,......."

Hope all my examples are clear. I don't add this to express a view one way or the other. I do think this conversation is interesting, and would like to hear what others think. 

Thank you.


----------



## newbee 101 (May 26, 2004)

"I would say Joe has every right to limit his intellectual expression and ideas to the bounds that he see's fit."
Of course he does, just don't insult others in the process.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

newbee,

I think my comment was really based on the whole "blacklist" thing, and the response joe recieved. This one selected comment was not dealing with "how" joe made the comments, but from the blacklist angle. 

I could care less who was insulted. I even made fun of this thread earlier when I was labled a "Chaffiest", a "trollite", among other things.(as previously noted)

Instead of looking at the actual words, look at the spirit of the comment.


----------



## Barry Digman (May 21, 2003)

"I do think this conversation is interesting, and would like to hear what others think."

My father, from the hills of Appalachia, states that "I never met a man I disliked so much that I wouldn't take his money...".


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--That's a mind that is not just closed, it is
condemned - for structural weakness.--(??)

Not so. Blacklisting A list of persons or organizations that have incurred disapproval or suspicion or are to be boycotted or otherwise penalized. Blacklisting is done to strengthen structure by allowing you to focus efforts, not weaken.

Blacklisting is done all the time. Look at Bee-L, and how they protect their interests with blacklisting. Many small cell beekeepers have quit posting in favor of lurking due to the Bee-L blacklist. If you are a supporter of small cell, and you bring up any topic on how your bees are doing. The information WILL be discredited by the members simply because of your small cell supporter, and hostile replies and insults ensue. I wont talk small cell much outside of organicbeekepers for this reason. People know where to go if they need this information.

Even my friend from Wyoming, IMO decent and highly independent thinker, talking his own experiences with small cell often gets insulted on Bee-L. Maybe he isnt bothered by them. but least I see many responses as insulting or belittling in nature.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

---"correcting" the terminology used, thus inserting
themselves (plus massive amounts of ego, significant arrogance, and so on) into the 
situation, and turned it into a free for all. _That someone was--(Jim)

Well, terminology is corrected all the time here. 
All terms beekeeping have been redefined to mean what ever it is they choose. I am simply standing ground to protect a single term that is previously defined in the EU as to its intended meaning. 

Randy Oliver seemed to understand my intent, and was not offended as far as I know. BUT it seems as always on this list, discussions take on a life of their own._


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--Which conference are you talking about Joe?--(B)

In Beaver. How you spell it 'Manacka'?


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Joe,
I want to attend a western Pa. beekeeping conference soon. Just too tied down now. Its amazing how full a schedule gets when you want to keep a box of bees.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--Of course he does, just don't insult others in the process.(Newbee101)

OK newbee, where is it insulting to give an opinion to someone that powder dusting is NOT accepted practice in Ecological Beekeeping as previously defined in the EU??????????

I can say in return, YOU are insulting me by characterizing my comments as insulting when they are not.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Joel,

You stated that Jim made some very good points. Still waitng for you to produce 3 of them. Are you having that much dificulty finding at least 3?


----------



## newbee 101 (May 26, 2004)

"I see quite a lengthy post up there. Hope you enjoyed the rant Jim, but I have to tell you that I never really bother reading most of your responses as most are the epitome assanineiddity."
You insulted JIM, for questioning your methods and terminology.

"I can say in return, YOU are insulting me by characterizing my comments as insulting when they are not."
I think you jumped the gun on that one.
The world according to Joe Waggle


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

In the world according to Jim Fisher and someone that hides behind the alias newbee101, methods and terminologies and morality patrol seem to be skewed in all sorts of ways to give a bias to; distort the actual intent and meanings. 

The statement meant nothing because assanineiddity is not a word, and I challenge you to prove it!









By the way,
Since your mention insults.

Where were you (the moral police). When the aforementioned proceeded to make bigotry racial remarks towards Michael Bushes heritage on another thread? 

I can tell you, being related by marriage to Midwestern Indians, I was absolutely sickened by this pubic display of racial discrimination towards these people. I deeply regret that I did not speak up in support of Michael Bush, in favor of hoping the bigotry would fizzle out on its own. I am very proud of those that did have the guts to speak up for what is right! As someone stated, true colors revealed, and I am forever wary. 

A bit of advice might be to adjust priorities to what is really important when distributing moral judgment on others, instead of focusing on misdemeanors.


----------



## newbee 101 (May 26, 2004)

"Where were you (the moral police). When the aforementioned proceeded to make bigotry racial remarks towards Michael Bushes heritage on another thread?"
I dont read every post, only the ones that interst me. If I read it, I would have responded.
Racial bigotry has no place here. Difference of opinion does. I have no problem with YOUR ideas, just the way you respond to others. I am far from the "moral police". 

[ February 18, 2007, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: newbee 101 ]


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--I have no problem with YOUR ideas, just the way you respond to others. I am far from the "moral police".--(NB)

I do not respond to others in an insulting manner, just one or two folks that insult me.







Remember that things you are not aware of such the occasional threat or insulting remark from a certain list member, a few emails that appear in my inbox tend to add up. Harassment is harassment no matter how you get it. And bigotry remarks toward anothers nationality are not tolerated or forgotten by me, there is no acceptance for that kind of behavior with me. So the occasional venting by me towards those insulting myself or others is certainly justified. By far most responses from me are in a kind manner. But if someone throws insults towards me in my inbox or on the list, sometimes a not so kind response is warranted. 

IMO, List Members should try not be so naive, they should sit back and use the brain that God gave them and observe some of the discussions, and who is the cause of escalation into insults. I have had several heated discussions with Kieck, Michael Bush and beejorn for example, and although some were intense debate, I cannot ever recall and escalation into fights, bigotry or insulting remarks. These debates with these folks were Gentlemen like, and highly informative for myself included.

It seems that most threads that escalate into insults always seem to involve a scientist. Is it simply a coincidence that a scientist was involved in many escalations with others and Michael Bush for example that escalated into racial insults? But as it stands here on these lists, people tend to follow like ducks in a row, and cheering things on instead of thinking for themselves.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> Look at Bee-L, and how they protect their 
> interests with blacklisting. 

What could "their interests" possibly be?
Such a diverse group shares very little in
the way of "interests", and the discussion
goes all over the map as a result.

> Many small cell beekeepers have quit posting 
> in favor of lurking due to the Bee-L blacklist.

There's no "blacklist", there's just a need to
draft a coherent and reasonably well-written post.

> If you are a supporter of small cell, and you 
> bring up any topic on how your bees are doing. 
> The information WILL be discredited by the 
> members simply because of your small cell 
> supporter, and hostile replies and insults 
> ensue.

The replies may _seem_ "hostile", but they
are simply asking reasonable questions, and some
of the questions are both pointed and tough.
Difficult questions that might make you squirm
are not "hostile", they are merely difficult.
There is a difference between being "hard on the
ideas" and "hard on the people". Recognizing the
difference is crucial to exchanging ideas without
tears or hurt feelings.

As far as the "insults" go, Bee-L enforces a
much tougher standard of behavior than BeeSource,
and simply does not tolerate personal attacks at
all, so you can't really accuse anyone of being
overtly "insulting". While you may find the
questions and replies "insulting", this taking
personal affront at what is merely a tough 
question to answer is... unreasonable.

Here's an idea... write something you'd like
to post to Bee-L, send it to me, and I'll edit
it, without changing meaning into a form that
will allow it to be "approved", and send it back
to you. You can then post it, and be amazed at
the proof that you are *NOT* "blacklisted".

Do the same with any replies you might wish to
offer to any responses, and you will be amazed
to realize that nothing stands between you and
Bee-L, except the same unfortunate choices of 
words that generates so much heat and smoke
for you here on BeeSource.

And yeah, it is easier if you huddle around your
own private campfire with only those who are
like-minded, but this condemns both you and your
ideas to the swamp of an obscure "Yahoo Groups"
group, something that you clearly agree is not
an acceptable fate for you or your ideas. So,
if you want to venture beyond your own "tribe",
you are going to have to face some questions,
some challenges, and some difficult-to-answer
rebuttals from people who might *not*
agree with everything you say.

Just like the real world!


----------



## stangardener (Mar 8, 2005)

i'm going to bring up some unscientific thoughts on small cell beekeeping. for one new to the industry sc/natural cell is as good as any other cell. the industry is not in good shape as it is so what's it hurt? if it's true humans manipulated bees from smaller to larger i want the original. i don't believe humans in less than a hundred years improved the bees hardiness by making them bigger. i trust the bees over millions of years to have developed a size to survive by. people manipulated horses to run fast over a relatively short even track. some people like thorough bred horses i like mustangs or even donkeys. the first might be faster in the short run but i like the staying power-hardiness of the latter. this reminds me of when people say "why do we have to be certified NOT to use chemicals, shouldn't you be certified TO use chemicals"? 
shouldn't the burden of proof that larger than normal bees are healthier over the long run be the responsability of those who changed it?


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> shouldn't the burden of proof that larger than 
> normal bees are healthier over the long run be 
> the responsability of those who changed it?

The question above makes a faulty assumption,
that the size of bees has somehow changed.

The problem here is that even if one presumes
that that bees were generally smaller "back then",
it is very hard to explain how the bees in Mexico
and South America *ALSO* got larger due to
changes in foundation made (and sold) only in the
USA.

In Central and South America, foundation has 
traditionally been an extra-cost item beyond the 
budget of nearly all beekeepers who tended to
operate at a subsistence level. So how did 
*their* bees get larger? And what about
elsewhere, on other continents? How did *their*
bees also get larger?

It makes no sense at all, so while it apparently
is true that there was some mucking about with
the size of foundation at AI Root and Dadant
nearly 100 years ago, if this created larger
bees, there would be much smaller bees elsewhere
(never subjected to such manipulation) with which 
to contrast them.

So, to rephrase the question: 

_shouldn't the burden of proof that bees *smaller*
than today's existed be upon those who make this 
extraordinary claim?_

or:

_shouldn't the burden of at least explaining
a *mechanism* for the planet-wide "upsizing"
of bees be upon those who want to call smaller
bees "natural"?_

So, 'splain it to us, 'cause everyone who has
thought about it in terms of the entire planet
is stumped. Howcome there aren't any bees that
stayed "natural sized", not anywhere, not even
in places where foundation has never been
popular?


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Hello stangardener! 

I agree with your letter! Also admire your bravery in speaking up with the hostiles lurking. 

--shouldn't the burden of proof that larger than normal bees are healthier over the long run be the responsability of those who changed it?--(SG)

Yes it should!

This season, I hope to get more close up pictures of the brood production and queen performance exhibited in my small cell colonies to show people on the lists. Over the past 6 years on small cell, colony performance has improved remarkably, especially during the last 3 years. Last season the level of performance in most of my colonies and the strength in population exceeded my expectations, and also that of any commercially produced domestic large cell bees that I have kept (which all tended to die out within 2 years) since the crashes from mites during 95-96. And this was achieved without using pesticides, antibiotics, sticky boards, mite counting, nutritional feeding or any mite control what so ever, including drone culling, which I also do NOT do. So I will be looking closely at this performance next season, as things are moving fast in this area for my bees. And will make extra effort to document this performance.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

Dodge and weave, duck and dance Joe, but you
have turned this thread (which started as 
a simple meeting announcement) into a forum
for the venting of your spleen against all
and sundry, Joe Waggle against a large number
of people who have offered nothing but reasonable
points and responsible discussion.

How can so many different people be so wrong, so
"hostile", with only you being correct?

And what did _anyone_ ever do to deserve such
vicious abuse and anger from you?


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

Is it just me or are all having a serious bout with cabin fever?? 

Joe, I would appreciate you responding to each of Jim's points, agree or disagree, as only you can in your opinion, experiance and with intellegent debate. It's not for me to choose points. If you choose not to, or to only respond to folks in agreement the value of your knowledge and opinion then will go unappreciated and not respected. You have stong opinions formed from personal experiance and research as well as intuition and non-scientific trials in your own operation which are unique. Stand on those principles and debate issues, be willing to understand you and Jim, or I or anyone else are not required to agree. Accept folks for who they are and what they are to this post. In everything we do Jim will the one on this post who will be challenging each of us to consider what we are doing from a pragmatic scientific position which helps us not be victims of the wagon loads of snake oil we've been exposed to over the years and is yet to come. 

I add to what I can here from my experiance. I'm ignorant about small cell, sugar dusting, advanced queen breeding and rearing, OA trickling etc. etc. despite a pretty large amount of reading. I hear natural cell Jim makes a good point about the fact in nature cell size varies greatly as do the bees? I have wondered about the impact of the thermo-dynamics and communications impact of plastic foundation especially in winter cluster yet as Jim states, bees do fine it. 

Don't like his style, Jim is Jim, Joe is Joe. Debate his points not his personality, or don't.


----------



## empilolo (Oct 7, 2006)

Jim Fischer wrote



> It makes no sense at all, so while it apparently is true that there was some mucking about with the size of foundation at AI Root and Dadant nearly 100 years ago, if this created larger bees, there would be much smaller bees elsewhere (never subjected to such manipulation) with which to contrast them.


Sorry Jim, there are. Almost a complete continent full of Apis mellifera (scutellata and adansonii), an area quite surpassing North America in size as far as I know. Yes, these bees are smaller in size, they are healthy without any form of treatment as far as I can discern, they build nothing but small cell and NEVER have been subjected to such manipulation. They are also very very close relatives to your bees (something like a Holstein to a Hereford cattle).


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--How can so many different people be so wrong, so
"hostile", with only you being correct?--(J)

I am only referring to Jim Fischer with I say hostilities. Many are correct, I was out of line. 

--but you have turned this thread (which started as a simple meeting announcement) into a forum for the venting of your spleen against all and sundry,--(Fisher)

Oh poor Jim, the innocent bystander. threads on these lists never say on topic. You contributed to this thread also and kept it going with rude remarks.

Unlike yourself, I did not exceeded what is acceptable discussion with bigotry and insulting remarks an ethnic group, and constant badgering and trolling type tactics. You prove time and time again, you cannot let ANY thread you disagree with go and commented on and fade away without you having to preach your almighty scientific opinion on everything, and sometimes go as far as resorting to bigotry to bolster your point.

As exampled one again, I posted a rather subdued letter to Stan gardener so as not to reply to your post hoping things might diffuse. BUT as you typically do, you interject yourself and make a rude post trying to insight escalation once again. 

I have posted my intent to show how my bees are doing with pics.
I challenge Jim Fischer to do the same. You surly have the time, since your spend so much of it on the lists. 

I know you love rumors, I as a rule dont contribute to them. But I will say that those spreading them have said they dont understand why you seem to know so much on these lists, and yet keep your bees in such a miserable condition. I tell them, I dont have an answer for that. Do you Jim?

Im walking my talk, and challenge you do the same. Lets see them bees, lets see pics of their performance this upcoming season, surly your expertise on these lists is reflected in your colonies performance? Better yet, Ill agree to let you use all the treatments and crutches you wish, and compare to my bees that use no such things.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Thanks Stangardner and Empilolo!

For the attempt to turn the thread back to productive discussion. Lets see if it sticks.

Best Wishes


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

{Im walking my talk,}

Of course this is a good thing as are pictures. However for someone trying to swim through the numerous natural approaches being used successfully by folks with 10, 20, 50 hives, distill them down to their essence and apply them successfully to a larger operation I need to see the reasoning and support, anecdotal or scientific, behind yours (and others) successes.

Joe, why don't you take a look at Dennis, Dee and MBs' websites and do your own so I can just drop in and steal your ideas at will?


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> Almost a complete continent full of 
> Apis mellifera (scutellata and adansonii)

No one was talking about scuts or adansonii,
which are clearly different species from the
bees that have been claimed to have been 
"upsized". Certainly no one doubts that
adansonii is much smaller than other bees.

> They are also very very close relatives 
> to your bees

While they are "close" they are not the bees
that were claimed to be "upsized", so the
questions still stand, to wit - "Please explain 
to us all how bees in Central and South America
somehow were made larger by activities taking
place several thousand miles North."


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> I am only referring to Jim Fischer with I say 
> hostilities. 

Yes, you seem to have developed the habit of
saying hostile things to me. I have no idea
why, as we've never met, and merely have different
views of some things, which I contrast and explain
with care, and you respond to with... hostilities.

> Many are correct, I was out of line. 

OK, we will accept you apology and leave it there.

> Unlike yourself, I did not exceeded what is 
> acceptable discussion...

Ooops, there you go again, Joe!
Yes, you HAVE gone far beyond what is acceptable.
Several people have pointed this out to you so
far.

You still have not apologized to Janet, who
merely announced a very interesting meeting
that I wish I had time and budget to attend.

Can't you at least be civil to a lady?


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--Joe, I would appreciate you responding to each of Jim's points, agree or disagree, --Joel

Na, there must be a zillion. Pick the three best and I will respond. Keep to what is important and discussion will go forward. Respectfully, Im not here for no **** one sided interrogation, just a nice discussion.









--hear natural cell Jim makes a good point about the fact in nature cell size varies greatly as do the bees?--(Joel)

This is NOT my experience!
Cell sizes do vary somewhat, BUT remember most of the brood is reared in the core of the nest, which are cells that tend to be remarkably uniform cell size, so the majority of the bees will be mostly uniform in sizing. This is my observation in large mature feral colonies, which I hold as the model of what bees want and what should be. I cannot account for different observations made by those looking at bees and comb in beeboxes.

Yes cell size varies, and a good point. But in my experience cell sizes do not vary greatly, and THIS is the key point. Of course there may be minority of cells found to be larger sizes and a minority found to be smaller, and this is what proponents use for evidence. 

From my observations with ferals, the MAJORITY of cells vary within two sizes ei: maybe 4.9 to 5.1 and almost always maintaining a very uniform cell size in the core broodnest area (generally the smallest). The reason why I recommended that one maintain a single small cell size. Is because beekeeping practices require frames be manipulated around, and it is important to maintain a minimum and uniform cell size at the core of the nest for colony health. And as the queen in domestic beekeeping is sometimes using most combs for rearing brood, then MOST of the comb in the boxes is therefore identified as the core of the nest and must be a uniform and small cell size generally found in the core. Recent references on cell size range about 2 sizes, Dadant 1946 5.06-5.20 mm Messenge, Goncalves 1985 5.07-5.11 mm But of course there is always an exception to be found, that is if you want to win a debate based on exceptions. 

1 question answered, 2 left.









--I have wondered about the impact of the thermo-dynamics and communications impact of plastic foundation especially in winter cluster yet as Jim states, bees do fine it.--Joel

If Jim states it, why wonder then?









But if you want a second opinion from a northern beekeeper. There is concern about plastic frames and AFB. In the past, AFB infected colonies would simply be burned. But with a high amount of plastic in the colony, burning for foulbrood may no longer be an option due to environmental regulations. (Dyce Lab Cornell) 

I believe it was Bertrand wrote that that holes in comb are necessary for better communication. Better wintering of bees with comb holes was also stated by Langstroth. Plastic foundation might hinder the bees natural urge in wanting to create these holes where and when needed. 

In my feral bee recoveries, I have also noticed an interesting propensity for feral bees to create several of these holes in comb and build generally one, but sometimes two queen cells in each of them. The benefit here is that the cells seemed to be built directly vertically hanging instead of a horizontal cell base that is bent downward to avoid the adjoining comb as often seen on the sides of standard domestic beekeeping frames. The theory here is that the vertical hanging cell placed in these holes is not restricted by bee space, or bent and forced to fit, thus having a potential benefit in producing a better queen (a major reason why commercial breeders place cells vertical).

Also, feral comb sheets can be quite large, and the position of these queen cells in these holes near the center of the nest, is also advantageous towards earlier and later queen rearing due to the added protection given. As opposed to cells out at the edges which are less defended and may be abandoned during cold weather, and may either kill or produce an inferior queen. So as a natural urge to build such holes, I let the bees make as many as they want, and natural comb and wax foundation allow for this natural urge, plastic will prevent it.

Also, considering you are a northern beekeeper, research has found that colonies having comb holes consumed just 79% of the food compared to control groups. The also found that less bees died in the hives with these holes. Researchers did note however that the difference in dead bees was found to be inessential, but IMO this may still be a benefit in wintering bees in extreme northern climates because every little bit helps. They also noted that moistness was 2 times higher in control groups. They conclude that holes in combs are likely to make better conditions for bees to pass cold winters.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Hey all, sorry to interrupt,
time for another commercial break

--You still have not apologized to Janet, .--Fisher.

Nothing to apologize for. I just advised that Ecological Beekeeping as previously defined In the EU dose not include the use of treatments. 

Edited.. I believe I did mention to Janet I am in total support of what she is doing, and think her efforts towards teaching others and promoting clean beekeeping practices are wonderful. I just have that one teeny weeney disagreement.









Now that you mention it, you still havent apologized to Michael Bush and the Native Americans your bigotry and racial remarks towads those peoples. 

We return to our regularly scheduled discussion.

[ February 19, 2007, 08:22 PM: Message edited by: Pcolar ]


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

Joe, I'm going to let the moderators deal with
you, as you are now so completely out-of-control,
you are launching more personal attacks than
have ever been seen on BeeSource since it was
first started.

As for Mike, he does not need the likes of you
to "defend" him from anyone. I am sure that he
would rather that you did not use him as a straw
man in your continued pattern of unprovoked 
personal attacks against me. (If he thinks he
needs anything from anyone, he can speak for
himself, and he writes much more coherently than
you have ever been able to, so we will actually
understand him.)

As for your comments about bigoty and racial
remarks, all I can say is that you clearly
need to check whatever medication you are on,
and tell me what it is, so I can go get some.
Must be good stuff!


----------

