I said:
"Viewing an issue, such as the movement of bees, from the perspective of 
not only whether it will be profitable today, but also whether this profit
will be enjoyed into the future seems farsighted, not unreasonable".

This is not an apology for the border being closed.  I just don't find it 
unreasonable to ask the question "is a practice sustainable or not". 

I can see plenty of ways in which the movement of bees (particularly in 
the realm of genetic material) could be an important part of a sustainable 
system.  I am somewhat perplexed that these arguemnts were not put 
forward.  A case could be made, for example, that moving bees from 
California to Alberta was pretty sustainable because this system made a 
lot of honey with a smaller material investment and with fewer inputs, not 
to mention that more families were able to make their living from 
beekeeping back then than now.  It's unfortunate that the argument goes 
straight to giving up and saying, "sustainability is essentially a slight-
of-hand that is used to undermine the legitemacy of beekeeping 
associations".

The science of sustainability is not in the state of decay and 
institutional constipation that the previous post suggests.  Some of the 
conclusions, when you do the work and make the calculations, have been 
counter-intuitive. The organic specialist I saw last week wanted to know 
if it took less non-renewable energy to grow lettuce out of season in the 
midwest (under plastic hoop houses) or to truck it in from the south. You 
might think that the rigid position of someone in organic agriculture 
might be "local is ALWAYS better energy-wise". Not so. His sincere and 
methodical study of the problem showed that shipping lettuce by truck 
takes less energy than his best attempts to grow them in hoop houses.  
Grow it in a heated greenhouses, he continues, and you might as well be 
eating gasoline.  Clearly there are many non-energy benefits to eating 
locally-produced lettuce out of season in the mid-west, but energy, he 
concludes, is not one of them.    

It is a shame that we can't have a similarily informed discussion on the 
sustainability of beekeeping practices.  

Allen says:
"Suggesting that beekeeping is not sustainable is defeatist IMO".

I have made the case that eating honey is a more sustainable proposition 
for Canadians than eating refined sugar from Cuba and Australia.  Asking 
for a critical discussion on the sustainability of our current practices 
is not meant to be defeatist its simply a way to engage, rather than 
sidestep, the issue that Ted began the thread with. 

Adony
 

-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and  other info ---