Robin Dartington stated:

> Let me say again that there is an economic reason as well as a moral
> principle - hobbyists who produce honey by methods that guarantee
> purity can get a 30% to 50% higher price for the small quantity they
> produce than some professional beekeepers get for their much larger crops.

The "feed" question?  Again?

OK, Once more, into the breech...

I'm not sure what "guarantee" of purity any hobby beekeeper can offer.

I'm not sure what "moral principle" might prevent one from
feeding a colony, but I do know that a well-known moral
principle behind feeding a starving colony - one of the
10 Commandments ("Thou Shalt Not Kill").  A starving colony
of bees can only be "the beekeeper's fault".  To not feed
would be to kill the bees.  Not much leeway, is there?
God was very clear on this point in nearly every religion's
basic teachings.

I've never been asked for any "guarantee" by any honey customer.
I agree that LOCAL honey and/or MONOFLORAL honey do command
a higher price at retail, but the only "natural" designation
with any meaning would be the formal "Organic" standards, far
beyond the reach of all but a few very isolated beekeepers.

We have addressed the transparent contempt for professional
beekeepers before, so I need not repeat myself and others.

I remain willing to place very large wagers on the actual
superior technical purity of the crops of randomly-selected
commercial beekeepers versus randomly-selected hobbyists, as
measured by the best equipment and methodologies available today.
I am neither a "commercial" beekeeper, nor do I sell my crop
in bulk, but I see what I see, and I know "professionalism"
when I see it.  Any takers?  I'll ante $1,000.00 US, and you
can raise, call, or fold.

> This is because 'guaranteed pure' local honey,

Exactly what sort of "guarantee" might one be able to make
when one lacks any actual testing equipment to verify that one's
honey contains nothing it should not?  Few hobby beekeepers even
bother to invest in a refractometer, a very basic tool. A hobby
beekeeper who keeps bees in a suburban area could have significant
amounts of various chemicals in his/her honey and pollen, simply
because different homeowners may use herbicides and pesticides at
random times, and the beekeeper has no way of knowing.  (Living
among farmers is an advantage, as they follow schedules, and are
happy to mention their plans in advance when they know that "it
might hurt the bees".  I even get calls when neighbors plan to
spread manure!)

> carrying the producers name on every jar,

Perhaps the UK is different, but here in the US, the "producer's
name" is required on the label by law in nearly all states.
If the honey is packed by a packer, then the packer's name is required.
While the producer's name on the jar offers the perception of better
accountability, this is not a "guarantee".  Most consumers don't know
who is a packer and who is a producer anyway.  The packers pick names
that give the impression they are producers (mostly involving the
misleading use of the term "farm"), further confusing matters.

> finds a market with the health-conscious who care about what they
> eat and mistrust anonymous blended brands identified only by the
> packer's label.

Again, this is the "local honey" perception factor.  If there is any
aura of "quality" that is implied by "local", that's good, but this
is "marketing" rather than "science" or "beekeeping".  It clearly has
no correlation to the "quality" of the original crop or the "quality"
of the final product.

> Last year, all UK supermarket 'own brands' had to be dumped in
> landfill after antibiotics were found in the Chinese honey blended in.

Yeah, and to be honest, it was not because of any possible valid
tangible health risk to the consumer.  When you are down in the
"parts per billion" and "parts per trillion" range, no one eating
even a entire 5-gallon pail of honey would get anywhere near a
"dose" that might result in any detectable physiological reaction,
much less build "resistance" to antibiotics, the stock reason
given for the "concern".

There - I said it.  The Chinese Fire Drill over Chinese honey was
opportunistic and cynical protectionism masquerading as a "technical
barrier to trade".  There was NO valid health or safety issue in
regard to that honey.  None.  There was a level of residue at the
very edge of detection for something that should not be in food,
and everyone was well within their rights to reject the honey and
pull the honey from shelves, but it was nothing but "Realpolitik"
in the current variation of high-stakes international trade wars,
where everyone smiles and waves international agreements about while
they play exactly the same old self-serving games played ever since
the first ships sailed between the city-states of old.

It was also a shot across EVERYONE'S bow, not just the Chinese.

My question is "who's next?"  Your honey may be next to be "analyzed"
using these new highly sensitive technologies by someone who wants to
find some excuse to claim that it is "contaminated".  When and if it
is tested in this manner, you will find out that at the lower levels of
claimed contamination, the statistical analysis matters as much, if not
more, than the sensitivity of the equipment.  Any fair scientist would
say "there is a PROBABILITY of X % that the honey sample contains a
Y part-per-billion (or trillion) component of chemical Z".  That's why
statisticians speak of "degrees of confidence", and will rarely make
any flat or absolute statement.

> So beware when you hear it does not matter if a little sugar gets in,

No one has ever said that. What has been claimed is that ANY feeding
will "get sugar into the honey", which is a very misinformed claim.
An educated and skilled beekeeper CAN feed his bees without screwing
up his honey, and a beekeeper that leaves excessive honey stores on
over winter (as proposed by the so-called "natural" advocates is this
discussion) is CERTAIN to contaminate his honey crop with miticide residues.

Hmmmm... either a risk of contamination with sugar, or a certainty of
contamination with miticide. A easy choice when one thinks clearly.

> or antibiotics do not matter

Of course they matter - they can save colonies.
Who said otherwise?
Of course they must be used sparingly, and with care.
Who said otherwise?

> or unauthorised substances to kill mites are OK,

Who said that they were?

> that it is 'normal beekeeping practice'.

The number of straw-man arguments being offered is giving
this entire mailing list the odor of freshly-mown hay.

"Normal beekeeping practice" is to keep the bees alive!
That's why we call it "beeKEEPing".  While there are
some scenarios that make one choose between keeping the
bees alive and getting a honey crop that season, this
is a case-by-case problem which requires consideration
of specific circumstances.  Trying to create straw man
arguments about some actions being "natural" and others
being "unnatural" only confuses matters.  Trying to make
broad sweeping statements about actions that are very
specific in both intent and effect also only confuses matters.

> There's nothing unrealistic about protecting the reputation
> of honey by concentrating on 'progressive beekeeping,

The suggestions and clams that I take exception to above are
"regressive", rather than progressive.  They are also misleading.

> informed by science'

I'm not sure what is claimed to be "science" in the statements
made above, but I sure don't see any.

To get back to the core issue that seems to be (still!) on the
table (feeding sugar for overwintering and for spring motivation),
I defy anyone to present any actual science that implies that this
carries more risk to one's honey crop than leaving excessive
amounts of stores on the hive over winter, which are sure to become
contaminated with one's miticide of choice.

I went over this last week, here:
http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0304b&L=bee-l&F=&S=&P=10838
others also addressed it, in "Week 2 of April 2003":
http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?A1=ind0304b&L=bee-l&D=0

> and leaving behind some of the 'tricks-of-the trade'.

Why offer up general straw-man arguments and positions, and
then argue with them?  Why not address statements actually
made or specific practices in context?  This might lead to
a productive and informative discussion.

> Professional beekeepers use tiered hives because they move
> their bees. Most hobbyists don't - humping heavy boxes is
> not much fun - so you can use a modern hive like the
> Dartington Long Deep Hive

Well, I know what a "long hive" is - its not very "modern" -
the Russians have used them for a loooong time.  But I have
no idea what the "Dartington" variant of this hive design
might be.  Regardless, I would offer that lifting anything
that is "long and deep" sounds very difficult.  Since ANY
hive may need to be moved for one reason or another, one
wants a modular system of identical replaceable components,
such as using 100% Langstroth mediums, which are only 6 inches
deep, and can weigh, at most, perhaps 45 lbs for supers full
of honey, less for brood chambers.  A child of 10 can lift
a "brood box" this way.

> where the unrestricted size of the brood chamber leads to
> larger populations and gives me more honey than my National
> hives

I don't have any restrictions on my brood chamber size, either.
No one does!  Boxes are merely boxes.  One can stack them up as
one wishes. Best of all, with a modular approach, one can REVERSE
brood chambers in spring, as suggested by many experts, but I'm
still not really sure if these are experts in beekeeping, or
experts in physical fitness.  :)

Woodenware cannot really "do" anything itself. The beekeeper does
things.  The bees do things. The woodenware just sits there.
Advocates of one type of hive or another make me laugh, as bees
will adapt to anything you toss them into.  I think Allen Dick had
(perhaps still has?) a old toolbox that contained a thriving colony
for several seasons.

The only "problem" with woodenware is the lack of consistent bee
space among gear claimed to be "standard", meaning that a colony
made up from components made by multiple vendors is prone to
excessive bridge comb.  What is needed are actual industry
standards for woodenware so that equipment can be truly standard.
What is NOT needed is yet another incompatible style of hive,
much less one claimed to have magical properties.

But beekeepers like to play around with their table saws,
so we can expect more "new" hive designs every year.

                jim

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and  other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::