# Why so much price difference between Glenn apiaries and Latshaws breeders?



## Mosherd1 (Apr 17, 2011)

Why so much of a price difference between Glenn apiaries and Latshaws breeders? It is almost a $400 difference. Does Joe do extra or stricter culling of his breeders?


----------



## TwinkieBee (Feb 21, 2011)

The difference is in the type of operation. I get asked this same question quite often. Most people just do not realise the difference. Tom is a producer (rears queens and drones from breeders purchased from others) and Joe is a breeder (tests, studies, selects, develops lines to provide to producers). The two are very different. Joe examines, tests, and selects colonies and stocks and uses insemenation to control the crossing to develop HIS lines. Tom uses insemenation to produce queens that are mated under a controlled environment, but does not develop the lines himself. His stocks come from the usda. Another way to look at it is, Tom would use the breeders that Joe produces to produce queens and sperm from those lines to Insemenate daughters of them to sell to others. 

I see the same question at least once a week. Why are Russell, Latshaw, Cobey, and Spivak breeders so expensive when Glenn sells breeders for so much less? The answer is that the breeders from Glenn are daughters of the breeders from the developer. Which is the usda. The developers have the expense and effort of all that goes into creating each stock and those stocks are usually not backbred from a small number of lineages.


----------



## Mosherd1 (Apr 17, 2011)

That makes alot of sense, I figured that there must be a difference, I just was not sure what it was. Thanks,


----------



## adamf (Jan 28, 2006)

TwinkieBee said:


> The difference is in the type of operation. I get asked this same question quite often. Most people just do not realise the difference. Tom is a producer (rears queens and drones from breeders purchased from others) and Joe is a breeder (tests, studies, selects, develops lines to provide to producers). The two are very different. Joe examines, tests, and selects colonies and stocks and uses insemenation to control the crossing to develop HIS lines. Tom uses insemenation to produce queens that are mated under a controlled environment, but does not develop the lines himself. His stocks come from the usda. Another way to look at it is, Tom would use the breeders that Joe produces to produce queens and sperm from those lines to Insemenate daughters of them to sell to others.
> 
> I see the same question at least once a week. Why are Russell, Latshaw, Cobey, and Spivak breeders so expensive when Glenn sells breeders for so much less? The answer is that the breeders from Glenn are daughters of the breeders from the developer. Which is the usda. The developers have the expense and effort of all that goes into creating each stock and those stocks are usually not backbred from a small number of lineages.


I would beg to differ. Tom Glenn has been breeding bees for quite some time. He selects, and has a breeding program. He has a some great offerings and he had some very nice lines *before* he entered into the CRADA with the USDA. If you asked anyone at the USDA Baton Rouge if Tom Glenn is a bee breeder, they'd say "yes". He produces very nice stock for a great price. He and his wife Suki are always a pleasure to work with. 

Marla Spivak doesn't sell bees. She's an Academic Researcher. Obtaining stock from some of the others can be reasonable and cost effective.
Maybe stock from Glenn Apiaries is reasonablly priced becasue they're reasonable folks? 

Adam Finkelstein
www.vpqueenbees.com


----------



## TwinkieBee (Feb 21, 2011)

They are very nice folks. I never said otherwise, nor did I say that there was anything wring with that type of operation. I just explained the difference between the types of operations so the question would be answered. Glenn produces queens from stocks developed by the usda. His website says that and he will tell you that as well. 

Marla developed the MN Hygienic line from which breeders could be purchased at a range of prices depending on the intended use, volume, and cooperative research. The prices were from $450-$2,000. 

Weaver breeders are from $2,500-$5,000 and could require a royalty fee for any daughters produced from them.

Russell breeders are from $100-$4,200 depending on breed, volume, cooperative research, and depth of crossings.

Sure Tom and Suki are reasonable people. Are you saying that just because the developers have a greater expense to cover that they aren't "reasonable"?


----------



## adamf (Jan 28, 2006)

TwinkieBee said:


> They are very nice folks. I never said otherwise,
> nor did I say that there was anything wring with that type of operation. I
> just explained the difference between the types of operations so the
> question would be answered. Glenn produces queens from stocks developed by
> the usda. His website says that and he will tell you that as well.


Okay--I'd consider Tom Glenn a bee breeder the same as any of the other
"official breeders" you mention. Tom selects, tests and uses performance
evaluations in his stocks. He has selected from the USDA stock and his
offerings are very good. Stating that he only *propagates* stock from the
USDA is inaccurate. His Carniolan line is a good example. Was that from
the USDA? No. Did he add VSH traits to it so that it became more mite
tolerant? Yes. That's improving the stock; that's bee breeding.




> Marla developed the MN Hygienic line from which breeders could be purchased
> at a range of prices depending on the intended use, volume, and cooperative
> research. The prices were from $450-$2,000.


I didn't know this--I thought she cooperated with MN rearers. 



> Weaver breeders are from $2,500-$5,000 and could require a royalty
> fee for any daughters produced from them.
> 
> Russell breeders are from $100-$4,200 depending on breed, volume,
> cooperative research, and depth of crossings.


Wow. Those are some high prices--I hope they are worth it. 
How did you get those prices? They don't advertise those.



> Sure Tom and Suki are reasonable people. Are you saying that just because
> the developers have a greater expense to cover that they aren't
> "reasonable"?


Well yes and no. If beekeepers are paying this much for "breeder queens"
and then they're complaining about lack of diversity, which is what I have
read and heard on here, maybe they should question the value of their
purchases?

I find that your stating that Tom Glenn doesn't _develop stock_, is
concerning. How is his breeding program different then the other folks you
mention? In fact, how rigorous are breeders in general? What performance
benchmarks do they promise, that Tom Glenn doesn't promise? 

Because something is marketed at a specific monetary value does not mean
it has greater merit then something marketed at a lower monetary value.

Have you tried all these breeder queens in trials and determined that the 
$4200.00 one is roughly 42 times better then a Tom Glenn Breeder? 
I know some pretty large commercial operators that use some of the breeders
you mention, as well as Tom Glenn. None of them have said that one was
better then the other. How then is the higher price justified?

Maybe people are paying too much for breeder queens?

Adam Finkelstein
www.vpqueenbees.com


----------



## TwinkieBee (Feb 21, 2011)

Wow. Thats a really bad attitude. You miss quoted me several times. I am not going to play spitballs with you. I just answered the question. 

The prices are not some number that they pull out of the air. It comes from the investment that they put into development. Of course they do not advertise the prices. When you pull up at the local mcdonalds do you see the cost of a franchise on the menu? They only talk pricing of serious stock developments with people who are serious about continuing their work and upholding the quality of the stock that they have worked so hard to preserve or develop. Do you not have two lines that you developed? From what stock did they originate? What stocks have you added in along the way? How many colonies were in the selection pools each year? How much did you spend to get them to become what they are today? Did you lose hundreds or thousands of hives to stick to your goals of developing resistance within the stocks that have also been selected for honey and bee production for more than a hundred years? Or did you buy some SMR/VSH breeders from someone else, produce daughters and select from the colonies that they produce? Did you keep hives in every climate of the country, spending your life flying from state to state to work with the dozens of commercial beekeepers that use your queens to continue the selection in each climate? It is not hard to run up the tab when you strive to produce better bees without importing. 

The usda has spent millions developing the stocks that Glenn sells. And before you start miss quoting me again. That is not saying anything bad about Glenn. Its saying something good about them.

"Under a cooperative research and development agreement that ended last year, ARS provided the SMR trait to Glenn Apiaries, a commercial queen honey bee producer in Fallbrook, California. Under the agreement, Glenn Apiaries propagated and sold pure SMR breeder queens to other U.S. breeders and to beekeepers who wish to insert mite resistance into their bee populations."
Source: John Harbro, USDA ARS web site.

If you buy a new car and pay $28,000 for it, does that mean that you should be able to buy the plans and a robotic factory that is set up to reproduce that car a thousand times for the same price?

You dont have to answer any of these questions. I am not going to argue with you about it any more. I was just answering the question. Not looking to spar over taking things out of context.


----------



## adamf (Jan 28, 2006)

TwinkieBee said:


> Wow. Thats a really bad attitude. You miss quoted
> me several times. I am not going to play spitballs with you. I just
> answered the question.


What you write above is an _Ad hominem_ argument. Here's the definition
from Wikipedia:

"An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for
argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by
pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting
it. Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy."

These are normal internet forum posts: if a poster makes claims or states
information that is questioned by another, they should support their
claims/points of view with evidence and facts, to be credible.

Your post is framed as though you content is accurate. I do not feel that
it is and I gave information, evidence and examples to back my position up. 



> The prices are not some number that they pull out of the air. It comes from
> the investment that they put into development. Of course they do not
> advertise the prices.


Okay, fair enough. However, you didn't provide this information in your
original statement--that would have made your post much more credible.



> They only talk pricing of serious stock developments with people who are serious about continuing their work and upholding the quality of the stock that they have worked so hard to preserve or develop.


What does this mean, exactly? I'd like this to be clear. Others here, as
well as me, would like like to know what criteria is necessary to be one of
your "elite" clientele. Maybe then, you'd have a greater interest in
breeder queens?



> Do you not have two lines that you developed? From
> what stock did they originate? What stocks have you added in along the way?
> How many colonies were in the selection pools each year? How much did you
> spend to get them to become what they are today? Did you lose hundreds or
> ...


Interesting quote above--it makes your intent and frame of reference clear.
Yes, I have invested uncountable hours and dollars, blood, sweat, tears,
drive and love into my breeding program-- I empathize with anyone who is
living the same life. However, and this is a huge *however,* one of my
major motivational forces is compassion for the other beekeeper: I want
them to succeed. My work can not be valued financially. If I was breeding
bees for financial compensation, I'd need to be charging the huge amounts
you state per breeder or group of breeders. I do not perceive of my work
that way--I ask for a price that covers my expenses and some time: I sacrifice
the development compensation your operation factors in. Why? 
Because I think that way and I can.

My point with the original follow-up to your "explanation" of the price
difference between Glenn Apiaries and Latshaw Breeders, is just that.
"Price" does not dictate quality, nor compensate for development time.
We do not live in a one-to-one world where simple rules apply to every
situation. If your statement above is Russell Apiaries philosophy, so be
it. I have no problem with it nor do others--people have only good things
to say about what your operation produces. Stating why a competitor (Glenn Apiaries) 
charges less then you for a similar product (we have no evidence thus far that
a breeder queen from you costing roughly 42 times as much as a breeder 
queen from Glenn Apiaries reflects the time, energy, effort and love you put
into developing it) is misleading to people who don't know the business. 
As a consumer, I'd be much more accepting of your high breeder queen prices 
if you advertised them and explained why they were so high, and left the 
choice to me, as a consumer, to buy your's or another breeder's stock.



> The usda has spent millions developing the stocks that Glenn sells. And
> before you start miss quoting me again. That is not saying anything bad
> about Glenn. Its saying something good about them.
> 
> ...


Ahh the _ad hominem _attack again. 
My point was to show how your framing of the
initial argument, stating that Glenn Apiaries sells stock for much less
then "official breeders" because he's not really breeding, was a poor
argument. I'll reiterate: Tom Glenn takes material from the USDA and
selects from it. How is that any different then what you do? I get breeding
material from the USDA. Other breeders do too--the USDA does not solely supply
Glenn Apiaries. They are very reasonable to deal with. Why is this such an issue for you?



> You dont have to answer any of these questions. I am not going to argue
> with you about it any more. I was just answering the question. Not looking
> to spar over taking things out of context.


I followed-up your post explaining the price difference in breeder queens
as discussion allows: *I have a different take on the answer then you do.*
Does that make either of us more or less accurate? No it does not. However,
it makes the readers on this forum much more free to decide what their
perceptions will be regarding the issue. That is my goal. 

Adam Finkelstein
www.vpqueenbees.com


----------



## theriverhawk (Jun 5, 2009)

> However, it makes the readers on this forum much more free to decide what their
> perceptions will be regarding the issue. That is my goal.


You succeeded. My perception is that you were just looking for a silly argument...and continued it with every post.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Another_ ad hominem _attack.


----------



## theriverhawk (Jun 5, 2009)

Haha!!


----------



## gennetika (Aug 31, 2010)

TwinkieBee said:


> The difference is in the type of operation.


Twinkiebee,

I have a very simple question for you, wich perhaps migth not have a very simple answer, but in the end it's as simple as that.
if i buy a $2000 queen or a $4000, will i get a better stock for my queen rearing operation, than if i buy a $100 queen?
What are the benefits of such a monetary diference for an ignorant queen producer as myself?
omar


----------



## rrussell6870 (May 14, 2009)

I can answer that... and hopefully put an end to this twisting of words...

The cost of the more expensive breeders is not about how great they are... its about how hard they are to produce... take mountain grey Caucasian for instance... unless you want to fly overseas after going through several years of red tape to get aproval to import, you are only going to find a purely mated Caucasian that is suitable to breed from in one place... they are not expensive because of supply and demand either... they are expensive because I have invested nearly $200k in preserving the stock so that the US would not lose a great bee... after all that I have put into that program, I am not going to give them away freely so that history could repeat itself and have a bunch of guys out there selling carniolans (or Russians now) as Caucasians and ruin the public opinion of the breed...

Furthermore, the cost of the master breeders is not for just a queen... I wouldn't sell someone a breeder queen and then say that every queen that they produce is that type of queen from then on... there is a whole lot more to it than that... they will need several lines from within the same strain just to produce drones, requeen all surrounding stocks, and they must learn the and follow the proper selection criteria to maintain that stock... this means that they will have a long term visitor... ME... after they have the program down pat and I feel comfortable with their policies, I am able to fully promote to my clientele as qualified breeders providing that stock... 

I have customers that want me to create breeders from a mix of stocks from several operations in different parts of the US... That requires many generations of selecting from daughters after ii and continuing to ii daughters to other drones over and over again... that takes a heck of a lot of work and experience... what would you charge for that?

Adamf called Tom a competitor... that concerns me... in this industry there should be no competition... if you are having to compete, there is something terribly wrong... we are all friends and colleagues... its the competitive attitude that grows into the turmoil that ruins an industry... if you care about the beekeepers and bees alike, you must get past that mindset and see others that provide the products that you do as more than just someone that's taking another slice of the pie...

And so we are clear... with the above mentioned details as well as a few others not mentioned excluded... my breeder queens are less expensive than Tom's and Adamf's... so I'm extremely confused as to what is gained by attacking Jackie about "high prices"... I sell many breeders each season for $30-$50 just to encourage people to try their hand at queen rearing... my standard prices are $100, $120, and $150 depending upon the breed and availability... in fact, there are a few threads on this site where people are discussing their breeder queens that they purchased for $40... 

This whole "argument" is foolish and distasteful... I am chiming in because I believe that the facts have been twisted... like Jackie, I will get out of the pig-pen and let the readers feel sorry that they have yet again wasted their time reading a thread of aggression that started with a simple question and a simple answer... keep in mind that most beekeepers are gentle folk that enjoy relaxing and reading threads that help them to better their beekeeping endeavors... newbies that read threads like this may find it as distasteful as most of us longtime guys do and that spoils the helpful learning experience that they turned to the site to begin with... this is why I have not been here much lately... I enjoy beekeeping and love to talk bees... is this thread either of those? Not at all...


----------



## Mosherd1 (Apr 17, 2011)

I did not realize this would have become such a heated debate when i began this thread. I was hoping for a discussion on different methods of developingobtaining stock which results in different costs. As russell said, with obtaining stock from over seas, the follow-up to ensure the breeding is continuing after the sale and the thousands of colonies that must be selected over decades, that definitely makes sense for charging more than $100 for a queen. Of course i applaud every breeders efforts to improve beekeeping througg stronger stock


----------



## Mosherd1 (Apr 17, 2011)

Also if i may add that i have purhased a vsh breeder fom glenn apiaries last year and have been very happy with the stock and their customer service


----------



## WilliamsHoneyBees (Feb 17, 2010)

rrussell6870 said:


> I sell many breeders each season for $30-$50 just to encourage people to try their hand at queen rearing... my standard prices are $100, $120, and $150 depending upon the breed and availability... in fact, there are a few threads on this site where people are discussing their breeder queens that they purchased for $40...


A russell breeder queen for $40? Just let me know where to send the check!!!


----------



## Broke-T (Jul 9, 2008)

I buy several II breeders each year. I have purchased from Glenn, VP Queens and this year from Dr. Harbo. Up to a point, you get what you pay for. If you want a breeder of known lineage you need II. That puts you to $100.00 min. 

The first problem here is you have a II queen that is 3 to 4 weeks old and the only thing you know about her is she is laying at the moment and her pedigree. She may have the traits you desire and she may not.

The next step up is a tested breeder. The Harbo breeders have been overwintered and tested for the VSH trait. Those that pass go up in value a great deal as you can imagine.

As to the original question of Glenn vs Latshaw they are both selling young unproven II queens. I personally don't see $500 worth of value in an unproven breeder but I know commercial operations that buy 20 to 30 per year from Joe, so they must.

Johnny


----------



## adamf (Jan 28, 2006)

rrussell6870 said:


> I can answer that... and hopefully put an end to
> this twisting of words...





rrussell6870 said:


> This whole "argument" is foolish and
> distasteful... I am chiming in because
> I believe that the facts have been twisted... like Jackie, I will get out
> of the pig-pen and let the readers feel sorry that they have yet again
> ...


The trend continues. We have two quotes above from rrussell6870 that employ _Ad
hominem_ arguments. These two especially exemplify the *Halo
effect*: 

"Ad hominem arguments work via the halo effect, a human
cognitive bias in which the perception of one trait is influenced by the
perception of an unrelated trait, e.g. treating an attractive person as
more intelligent or more honest. People tend to see others as tending to
all good or tending to all bad. Thus, if you can attribute a bad trait to
your opponent, others will tend to doubt the quality of their arguments,
even if the bad trait is irrelevant to the arguments." (from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem).

That sounds about right. 

Let's get real here: I originally responded to a statement made by
TwinkieBee/Jackie. She stated, and I quote:



TwinkieBee said:


> The difference is in the type of operation. I get
> asked this same question quite often. Most people just do not realize the
> difference. Tom is a producer (rears queens and drones from breeders
> purchased from others) and Joe is a breeder (tests, studies, selects,
> ...


I disagreed and stated that Tom Glenn is indeed selecting stock he acquires
from the USDA and elsewhere. He is breeding, not just propagating. This
directly contradicts Twinkiebee/Jackie's argument. If you have received
stock from Tom Glenn and used it, you know it performs quite well. I get
stock from him and from the USDA. Tom has some stock that he's developed
that the USDA does not have. Does that illustrate that Tom Glenn is
breeding and is therefore a breeder, and not a producer as
Twinkiebee/Jackie states? Yes. It does.

There was a digression about how breeders who actually breed are justified
in charging 10-42 times as much for breeder queens, from TwinkieBee/Jackie.
I stated that other breeders spend time, effort and money in developing
breeding stock and that they might not feel justified, nor care to charge
so much for breeder queens. $4200.00 for a breeder queen? 

Russell arrives in the nick of time to save the day: 



rrussell6870 said:


> The cost of the more expensive breeders
> is not about how great they are... its about how hard they are to
> produce... take mountain grey Caucasian for instance... unless you
> want to fly overseas after going through several years of red tape
> ...


.

He then says:



rrussell6870 said:


> I have customers that want me to create breeders from a mix of stocks from
> several operations in different parts of the US... That requires many
> generations of selecting from daughters after ii and continuing to ii
> daughters to other drones over and over again... that takes a heck of a lot
> of work and experience... what would you charge for that?


.

That depends, of course--the issue isn't how much you spend on R&D, it is
that you're saying that because you spend money/time/effort on breeding,
you have to recoup your costs--and nobody has a problem with that.
The issue was, initially, that breeders can offer fairly reasonable
breeding stock for others to use, by charging a reasonable price. What
happened in this argument was you're breeding program was used as an
example of why your breeder queens cost more (It was actually Joe
Latshaw's breeder queens) then Tom Glenn's breeder queens. The comparison
of your $4200.00 breeder queen to Tom Glenn's was made and the price
difference was justified by saying you/Joe Latshaw have a breeding program and Tom Glenn
doesn't--and that is incorrect. 


Oh, now he really saves the day:



rrussell6870 said:


> And so we are clear... with the above mentioned details as well as a few
> others not mentioned excluded... my breeder queens are less expensive than
> Tom's and Adamf's... so I'm extremely confused as to what is gained by
> attacking Jackie about "high prices"... I sell many breeders each season
> ...


Is arguing fairly "attacking"? Robert, you're employing _Ad
hominem_ arguments again. Jackie stated in her post 
that you charge as much as $4200.00 for breeder queens. 
That's quite different than what you're saying above. 



rrussell6870 said:


> I believe that the facts have been twisted... like Jackie, I will get out
> of the pig-pen and let the readers feel sorry that they have yet again
> wasted their time reading a thread of aggression that started with a simple
> question and a simple answer... keep in mind that most beekeepers are
> ...


See again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Basically TwinkieBee/Jackie was called out about statements she made. You appeared and
defended her. Your defense utilized quite a large amount of argumentation
that does not really address the facts. If you want to post, post. If you
don't don't. If you want to read posts, read 'em. If you don't, don't. 

Give beesource users credit. They don't have to read material here if they
don't want to. 

Adam Finkelstein
www.vpqueenbees.com


----------



## rrussell6870 (May 14, 2009)

adamf said:


> Russell arrives in the nick of time to save the day:





adamf said:


> Oh, now he really saves the day:



Jackie is quite capable of standing her own ground... she is a second generation beekeeper who knows bees very well and manages over 100 hives and a household while still finding time to work with us each season... 

*But NO ONE should have to be "saved" from a conversation... *

I sincerely hope the best for you and your operation... and I hope that you will truly consider what I am trying to express to you here...


----------



## valleyman (Nov 24, 2009)

Adam,
After reading this thread again I decided to google Ad Hominem, and I am sorry to say that from the _definitions _of Ad Hominem is not what you are trying to make it out to be, but it is what you are doing, *attacking *an individual or persons! That's just my $.02 worth.


----------



## hystad (Jan 14, 2011)

Threads like this are distasteful but can still be very informative. I now know of a breeder that I won't be using.


----------



## Friday (Oct 27, 2009)

Lol. Well said, hystad. I will continue to buy Mr. Russell's superb stock.


----------



## adamf (Jan 28, 2006)

valleyman said:


> Adam,
> After reading this thread again I decided to google Ad Hominem, and I am sorry to say that from the _definitions _of Ad Hominem is not what you are trying to make it out to be, but it is what you are doing, *attacking *an individual or persons! That's just my $.02 worth.


Please go back and read the initial post that I replied to and what I wrote. It is fairly clear. The reply-point is *clouded* to avoid addressing the issue I brought up. The *clouding *is quite effective. The issue was not addressed. 

Adam Finkelstein
www.vpqueenbees.com


----------



## adamf (Jan 28, 2006)

hystad said:


> Threads like this are distasteful but can still be very informative. I now know of a breeder that I won't be using.


Suit yourself  Our breeding stock is based on how it performs, not on how people in our operation write beesource posts!

  

Adam Finkelstien
www.vpqueenbees.com


----------



## SPRUCE BEE (Mar 14, 2009)

"Based on performance" the production queens I purchased from Russell Apiaries last year are the "best performers" I have purchased over the 20 plus years I have been in beekeeping. I will continue to to patonize them until a better bee comes along. The biggest concern I have about the bee breeding industry is how few sources of breeder queens are available. When you look at say Tom's website and see how many others are using his queens for breeders you're pretty much buying the same genetics across the country. We all need to participate & work together to diversify and broaden the genetic base.

Bob Hazen
Willapa Hills Honey Farm
Naselle, Washington


----------



## valleyman (Nov 24, 2009)

SPRUCE BEE; When you look at say Tom's website and see how many others are using his queens for breeders you're pretty much buying the same genetics across the country. We all need to participate & work together to diversify and broaden the genetic base.
Bob Hazen
Willapa Hills Honey Farm
Naselle said:


> I'm not about to badmouth any breeder. I believe that Russell has said that we are all in this together, and as spruce bee said in the above quote working together is the best way. I don't think that anyone has a super bee genetic or is the very best at anything for an extended period of time. If you the breeders would communicate more and coorperate more maybe we would be better off. Russell has offered this in his posts. I don't know him or Jackie personally so I can't say with any level of certainty that he is good at his word but it sounds good and I can't see where it would hurt to try. It sure might help the bees. I never seen anything demeaning in the least in Twinkie/Jackies post toward any other breeder. I guess it's just in the way you percieve it. To all their opinion. This is mine.


----------



## hystad (Jan 14, 2011)

adamf said:


> Suit yourself  Our breeding stock is based on how it performs, not on how people in our operation write beesource posts!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't trust businesses (no matter what type) that don't have good natured people working for them. It doesn't matter how good the food is if the waiter spits in it I don't want to eat it. In something as sensitive as queen bees that are shipped across the country its necessary to have faith in your supplier. If I have doubts about a person's personality I am also going to have doubts that that person is going to make the situation right if a queen arrives dead or damaged. Unfortunately the world is not full good natured people and I have to pick and choose where I do business. I'm sure many other people feel the same.

In a public forum full of potential customers it seems like it would best suit a company if its representatives acted in a professional way. Especially if those same people included the company's website address in evey post. If you look to right you will see many companies that pay to advertise there services on beesource. 

Tom Hystad


----------



## adamf (Jan 28, 2006)

hystad said:


> I don't trust businesses (no matter what type) that don't have good natured people working for them. It doesn't matter how good the food is if the waiter spits in it I don't want to eat it. In something as sensitive as queen bees that are shipped across the country its necessary to have faith in your supplier. If I have doubts about a person's personality I am also going to have doubts that that person is going to make the situation right if a queen arrives dead or damaged. Unfortunately the world is not full good natured people and I have to pick and choose where I do business. I'm sure many other people feel the same.
> 
> In a public forum full of potential customers it seems like it would best suit a company if its representatives acted in a professional way. Especially if those same people included the company's website address in evey post. If you look to right you will see many companies that pay to advertise there services on beesource.
> 
> Tom Hystad


I don't post on beesource to get customers. I post on beesource to share what I know and exchange information. 

There were smilies in the post you're quoting above. Example: "    " It was meant to be funny. I regret that you and other's didn't find it so.

I try to provide the best for my customers and respect them. So far, we've had very few complaints and we've resolved them. We have a great raport with many beekeepers and we enjoy working with them. 

I tried to point out some information in this thread that was not accurate. That was my intention. I wanted to provide another point of view since sometimes the manupulation of information in posts can become overwhelming. 


I hope your Spring is coming in well! It is here!

Adam Finkelstein
www.vpqueenbees.com


----------



## ginn68 (Apr 14, 2010)

Dang...Why does it always have to be a battle ground. A lot of good information on the basis of breeder pricing, but why waste band width in creating arguments. I view bee keeper as a form of Leadership. Leaders (hobby guys, side liners, commerical) all need to help in move the ship towards BETTER bee keeping and a understanding of helping one another. Stand alone empires do not stand the test of time. My main point is "Lets all get along"...

Have a great weekend.


----------



## habutti (Apr 20, 2008)

Not sure what all the friction here is all about. I read this thread where Jackie made a qualified statement about Tom & Suki Glenn that they are breeder queen producer and not actually breeders of breeder queens (paraphrasing here). Adam did not agree with that and shared information as to why he disagreed, and supported that with examples that makes Glenn Apiaries a breeder like Robert and any other out there. Where is the attack?
Well the attack came towards the end against Adam, in my opinion.
I know of all the breeders mentioned in this post. I know Dr Latshaw personally, as well as Tom & Suki. All the others "I know of them". Maybe I have bark for skin, but all I saw was a difference of opinion, not an attack. If any Glenn Apiaries was under attack by placing them in a category that to the opinion of many, they don't belong.
It is like why my honey is $10 per pound and yours $5? Honey in a bottle is honey in a bottle, or is it? Is Dr Latshaw an unreasonable person for pricing his queens the way he do? Heck no. Is Adam a more reasonable person for pricing his breeder queens the way he does? Absolutely not.

I do believe however that Glenn Apiaries is a breeder in the ranks of all the others. You really don't have to spend $250k to be ranked as one; that is not a requirement.

Let's just leave this post alone and move on to share some knowledge by collaboration. I believe pricing is one of those "mind your own business" topics ans should just be left alone.

Chas


----------



## hystad (Jan 14, 2011)

I believe Adam made the first attack with the whole reasonable folks comment in post 4 putting others on the defensive. Saying ad homiem over and over just sounded funny to me. I wouldn't have said anything if it weren't for the save the day comments in post 18. People should communicate the same way on these forums as they would if they were talking face to face. People are always more polite when there is a chance of getting punched in the mouth.

Adding a  or a  or a lol does not make something funny. Just like saying "no offence" before something offensive does not make that statement unoffensive. 



adamf said:


> I don't post on beesource to get customers. I post on beesource to share what I know and exchange information.


If this statement were true why does he have an add up in the for sale forum for his breeder queens?


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

hystad said:


> People should communicate the same way on these forums as they would if they were talking face to face. People are always more polite when there is a chance of getting punched in the mouth.


And yet you make this character judgment about Adam after having first said "I now know of a breeder that I won't be using.":

"I don't trust businesses (no matter what type) that don't have good natured people working for them. It doesn't matter how good the food is if the waiter spits in it I don't want to eat it. In something as sensitive as queen bees that are shipped across the country its necessary to have faith in your supplier. If I have doubts about a person's personality I am also going to have doubts that that person is going to make the situation right if a queen arrives dead or damaged. Unfortunately the world is not full good natured people and I have to pick and choose where I do business. I'm sure many other people feel the same."

Once again, it shows that one cannot question or disagree with comments made by a certain someone without it being turned around as "badmouthing". Turning this into a "praise my favorite breeder" does nothing to address Adam's initial objection to the statement by Twinkiebee that Glenn is not a breeder, but a "producer."

:ws:


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Well said Barry. By all accounts Adam seems to be running a very innovative breeding program and goes about it without a lot of fanfare. I have never before heard the line of thought that advertising would somehow be an indication of a poor quality product.


----------



## hystad (Jan 14, 2011)

Barry you got me on the first point. I showed hostility when I shouldn't have. Adam I am sorry for that. Barry on your second point: How did I praise my favorite breeder? I was pretty negative in all of my posts and don't see how I praised anybody. I agree with Adam concerning Glenn so there was no point in me arguing about it. I plan on buying a pol-line breeder from them this year. It seems as though you are making this about one side against another. 

Jim I never said that Adam had a poor product or a didn't have a very innovative breeding program. What I said was it doesn't matter how good the product is if the seller has a bad attitude I won't buy from them. Because he sells and advertises his product on this forum he should be professional is his posts. In my line of work I have to be professional in everything that I do. Maybe I'm holding professional beekeepers to a standard that I shouldn't be. I have learned alot from your posts and respect you but I think you got me wrong.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Hystad: Fair enough. I wish there were more posts like yours on here.


----------

