BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Bill Truesdell <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 3 Dec 2003 09:30:56 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (41 lines)
Tim Townsend wrote:

> I would like to comment here that if you are feeding to draw,  that's
> fine, but make sure you don't extract that honey, there has been enough
> adulteration of honey without it being done in the name of drawing
> foundation.


Strictly speaking, this is not adulteration. It may be unnatural and
unethical to sell the honey as natural but it is honey. Bees do not care
where they get the nectar. They process it into honey, in this case it
is corn syrup, hcfs or cane sugar honey. It is still honey.

Adulterated honey is honey which has had other sweeteners added to
stretch the honey.

a·dul·ter·ate    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (-dlt-rt)
tr.v. a·dul·ter·at·ed, a·dul·ter·at·ing, a·dul·ter·ates

     To make impure by adding extraneous, improper, or inferior ingredients.


You could stretch it and say it is adulterated nectar but not
adulterated honey. Then you are really in trouble, since, if you feed,
bees tend to move stores around, so if one gram of that feed made it
into a super, it would make the honey adulterated. But that is a sophism.

soph·ism    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (sfzm)
n.

    1. A plausible but fallacious argument.
    2. Deceptive or fallacious argumentation.


Bill Truesdell
Bath, Maine

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2