On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:38:53 -0700, Dee Lusby <[log in to unmask]> 
wrote:

>wonder why bees are
>artificially enlarged with oversized foundations, robbed of
>all stores and fed artificial feeds,bred within unnatural
>systems, and then medicated when they get sick, for nothing
>is natural about all of doing this

It seems like you missed my point completely.  The point is that any and all
agriculture is defined precisely by doing exactly the kinds of things you
rail against (and cannot be agriculture without): "artificially" 
enlarging, "artificial" feeds, "artificial" breeding, "artificial" medical 
attention, and countless comparable such things.  The point is that it's 
nonsensical to suggest an alternative beekeeping/agriculture free 
from "artificial" intervention/manipulation/management.  If there's 
no "artificial" intervention in your "natural system," then you're 
not "keeping" bees any more, but harvesting wild honey.  It's not just a 
pipedream; it's an oxymoron.

I asked before what your rationale was for differentiating between this or 
that manipulation or management procedure, calling one "natural" and 
casting an evil shadow over the other.  You seemed to recognize the point 
that all beeKEEPING is inherently (by definition) "artificial" when you 
said that "working with langs and even TBHs" is not really "natural," and, 
of course, it isn't.  You didn't, however, provide any rationale for 
differentiating between what we ought and ought not to do.  You did list 
several examples of what's natural, but we all know what's natural: 
sticking your hand in a tree hollow and tearing out a chunk of honey 
is "natural"; beekeeping isn't: box-shaped hives aren't natural, grafting 
isn't natural, bee yards with dozens of hives aren't natural, 
selected "breeder queens" aren't natural, moveable frames aren't natural, 
recycled wax isn't natural.  Instead of randomly vilifying management 
practices for being "unnatural", shouldn't we recognize that 
all "management" is inherently "unnatural", and go about promoting better 
management?

What I'm suggesting is that we should all stop saying, "do this because 
it's natural," and "don't do that because it's artificial," because that is 
tantamount to saying "beeKEEPING is bad," and that, we all agree, isn't 
what we want to say.  But it's not as if this "natural" crusade is just 
harmless nonsense.  It forms the basis for management decisions.  It 
influences and intimidates all sorts of beekeepers.  It influences 
customers.  It leads consumers to unfounded fear and unfounded trust.  And 
on the basis of what?

I should be careful here not to suggest that all beekeeping practices are 
equal.  That's not at all what I'm saying.  I'm on the "organic" fringe 
myself, and I'd make all sorts of arguments for "organic" practices.  It's 
only that asking the question "what's natural?" shouldn't determine all our 
beekeeping decisions.

It might be helpful to consider other veins of agriculture.  Apples 
are "artificially" grafted onto different rootstocks to keep the trees 
smaller.  They're pruned to encourage disproportionate fruit set.  Wheat 
has been bred for millenia to make the seed "unnaturally" big.  Chickens 
are manipulated into laying more eggs than they could ever hatch or 
mother.  Rice is grown in fields that are "artificially" flooded.  Pigs are 
fed whey.  Feed grains are ground smaller in mills.  I'm not arguing that 
these practices are good, or bad, or neutral -- only that knowing 
what's "natural" isn't sufficient to know whether they are good, bad, or 
neutral.  AND that trying to do so will surely lead us astray.  It's the 
over-simplifying, the irrational justifications, the haphazard vilifying of 
beekeeping practices, and the false assurances that I object to.

So I reject the blanket rejection and derision of all medications as
"doping," even while I use no medications myself.  I reject the utopian
claim that untreated hives are necessarily "healthier" than treated hives.
(To rephrase Peter's point, what about that untreated hive that's dead?)  I
reject the assumption that "artificial" practices must lead to things going
wrong.  ("Nature" does not and cannot tell us that sugar syrup is in any way
inferior feed to honey; that can only be proven or disproven by actual
evidence.  "Nature" likewise does not and cannot tell us if and how much
cell size matters; again, we must instead look to actual evidence.)  I
reject the blanket equating of "artificial" with "non-sustainable."  
I reject the assertion that, this side of the garden of Eden, we can "wear
shoes" that "create no blisters," as Dee put it.  If we reject that kind of 
utopianism, we should reject the conclusions that proceed from and are 
founded on those assumptions.

I think Dee's argument for "small cell" rests on and collapses with these 
faulty assumptions.  This isn't to say that "small cell" doesn't accomplish 
anything, only that Dee's argument for it is very unconvincing and 
potentially very misleading.

Eric

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