Brian Fredericksen persisted:

> I think the one practice that makes little sense is the 
> interaction of fall/winter movements of bees, and the 
> amping up of the hives for almonds and the reality of mites. 

The almond growers would tend to disagree, as would the
beekeepers who pollinate almonds.  To comply with your
wishes, should they all close up shop, and walk away from
their livelihoods?  I'm sure once they listen to you, they
will all see the light, drop their hive tools, and go get
jobs as greeters at Mall-Wart.

> Instead many migratory beeks prefer an Italian strain which 
> likes to keep brooding when ever stimulated with feed. 

You clearly have no clue about what migratory beekeepers prefer.

> While there are many many different operations out there in 
> general I beleive its safe to say that 

...you haven't seen any of them, you haven't ridden with
any of them, and you don't know any migratory beekeepers
well enough to make any statements about them.

> If you wanted to keep your bees healthy Peter would you keep 
> them brooded up all winter? 

Funny you should mention that little point, as it evinces a
very basic misunderstanding of bee biology and behavior.
No matter what tricks you try, you can't keep a hive
"brooded up" all winter.  You can provide all the feed and
fresh pollen you want, the bees and queen still know about
the winter solstice, and obey the seasons.  You could move
the bees to the equator, and it would not help.

> What I am saying is in the varroa mite environment we all 
> operate in here in the USA, the migratory method of operation 
> *in general* does not make much sense if you're trying to keep 
> healthy bees and not be constantly replacing bees.  

Again, a lack of exposure to the very practices you condemn
is revealed.  Migratory beekeepers understand that their hives
need to be strong if they are to earn a decent fee for pollinating.
The beekeeper that shows up with weak hives does not get paid
full price, and does not get called back next year.

> The practices of migratory pollination do not fit with the 
> realities of the mite/bee world we live in. 

Once again, claims are being made and accusations tossed out
without even a basic understanding of the subject matter 
behind them.  The "reality" is that migratory beekeeping is
the only possible way to serve most crops, as one must flee
with one's bees in dark of night to avoid the spraying of
poison scheduled for dawn.  

To allow a change in the way the overwhelming majority of
bees are kept, one must change much more than the minds
of beekeepers.  One must understand that the beekeepers 
are very much the tail being wagged by the large dog of 
agriculture.  No one is about to change the way they grow
things for the convenience of mere beekeepers.

> I'm sorry Peter but I'm not going to pull out some literature 
> or fancy science study to back up my opinion because 

...there isn't any that backs up your opinion.

> The migratory segment and the sustainable/stationary/hobbyist 
> segment 

You once again present a false choice - migratory need not
be "unsustainable", no matter what contrived definition you
want to assign to the term.  Also, very few stationary beekeepers
could be called "sustainable", and almost no hobbyists.

The problem here is not the difference between migratory and
stationary, or sustainable and "unsustainable", it is merely
the difference between "large" and "smaller".  Larger beekeepers
would gladly adopt many of the practices you might advocate,
if only these practices would "scale up" to larger operations
without labor levels that bankrupt the operation.

> ...the effects of Feedlot Beekeeping 

A meaningless, but emotional nonsense phrase, pure disparagement,
and 100% fact-free.  Apologize.  You insult your fellow beekeepers,
when you could not survive even a week on the road with them.
"Feedlot" and "sustainable" are meaningless words, used with
no other intent than to hurt others without cause.  The terms 
are merely an expression of your rage, not a description
of the way anyone keeps bees.

> If commercial beekeping is so wonderful and sustainable Peter 
> why > then import bees for the first time in decades?  

Ah, you stumbled upon something interesting there - the imports.
The imports were FORCED upon the US by US membership in the WTO.

Meanwhile, the almond growers were expanding their acreage 
steadily.  There was no "bee shortage" as much as there was 
an "almond grove over-expansion".

I'm sure that the Almond growers thought that their problems were
going to be solved by these imports, just toss 'em in a box, and
haul 'em up to the almond groves.  It didn't work out that way.
Packages make lousy pollinators as compared to "overwintered"
colonies.  The almond growers' attempt to turn the beekeepers'
value-added into a commodity failed.  The value-added was still
required.

So, trying to position imported bees as some sort of desperate
measure taken by beekeepers who had no other choice is just
silly.  Beekeepers never had, and never will have the clout 
to make such things happen.

Yes, some beekeepers decided to give these imports a try,
and another source of bees, even at higher cost, might 
have seemed a good idea at the time, moreso because they
could be delivered "early".  But no one was desperate for
these imports.  The almond growers just thought that they
could force the price per hive down with "migrant labor". 

Another point - what forced beekeepers to adopt practices that
you would dismiss as "unsustainable"?  Most of them are approaches
intended to keep their hives alive in the face of all the 
exotic invasive diseases and pests that have appeared in the
US as a direct result of all this so-called "free trade" that
has been going on since the 1980s.  Agriculture in general has
faced the same problem to a lesser extent.

So, if you want a "bad guy" to blame, don't blame the poor
migratory beekeeper who was FORCED to do things that his
father or grandfather did not do by all these new invasives.
Blame the people that backed the WTO, NAFTA, and now, CAFTA.

> Most statistics paint a dismal picture of the indsutry. 

Which ones?  We'd like a list please, as the rest of us have
been dismayed by the lack of up-to-date statistics on the
industry.  But you don't know any, do you?  You're just
making stuff up again.

> Its a predictable and likely coming disaster really.

Funny, I think that "the end of beekeeping, film at 11"
has been announced about 5 times in the past 20 years.
Strange how we all just keep plugging away, isn't it?

> Just wait, the best is yet to come IMO,  the industry 
> and media cried wolf over a 5-10% loss over CCD. 

The statement above is about as ignorant of the facts
as could be.  Deny all you want, you are outnumbered
by guys who have first-hand experience.  You should
thank whatever God your might worship that you have
not been hit.

I thought that this was a mailing list for the INFORMED
discussion of beekeeping.  How could this possibly
be an INFORMED view?

******************************************************
* Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at:          *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm  *
******************************************************