jose villa wrote:
> ...The commercial testing service that we have assisted in getting
> established (Backwoods Apiaries in Shelbyville, TN) is one way that
> breeders could get that information, but unfortunately few have shown
> interest.  We do not endorse, certify or guarantee the results of
> this small business, but we have a memorandum of understanding to
> assist him with information, quality control, etc.  This is not an
> agreement of exclusivity, so any one that shows interest in learning
> the process, establishing a similar commercial service, etc. will
> receive equal treatment.

At risk of stating the obvious, and further risk of making this a hobby
horse, the work has been done and it is now up to us  -- those who buy
queens from US producers (Hawaii is a US state) -- to ensure that our
suppliers use this service, or one that is comparable.

It is an economic fact that suppliers have no incentive to make any
improvements in stock beyond what their customers demand.  Granted, many
suppliers are professionals and as such strive for high standards, but
if we consumers vaue the work that has been done to help ensure we
receive the best, then we need to press our suppliers to *prove* that
they are making the effort.  Asking for reasonable assurances shouldn't
annoy those who have our best interests at heart.

Is it unreasonable to ask our suppliers to give us written assurances
that they are monitoring and managing tracheal tolerance in  their
stock?  I submit that it is not unreasonable at all.  At the ABF
convention, we were told how the large chains buying honey now demand
documentation from the packers showing that aerobic bacteria levels are
lower than a specific minimum along with other technical information to
protect them, and to protect the end user.  Smart packers comply quickly
and enthusiastically, and then use their compliance as a tool to secure
their relationships with suppliers and customers -- and to beat out
competition.

Large buyers can insist on standards because of their vast purchasing
clout, but maybe we underestimate our power as consumers, and the
influence that industry chatter can have. I think it is time that we ask
queen producers to provide buyers with at least some sort of spec
sheets, guaranteeing that their stock meets reasonable established
benchmarks.

This is not a new concept in many industries and I am sure that the best
producers are prepared, and would be glad to do so today if asked.   I
am also sure that, in time, the rest will follow.  Some may be unable to
do so or refuse, but they will lose customers, and that seems fair
enough to me; after all, unscrupulous or inattentive queen suppliers
ruin their customers slowly over time.

Maybe it is a little early to expect much, but in a year or two, if we
start now, with a gentle pressure coming from all sides, we may see some
producers realising that they can exploit these tests as a marketing
tool to differentiate their product from those of producers who have not
gone to the expense and trouble of getting with the program.

I thought I'd try the idea out, so when I saw my supplier, I asked him
straight out.  He seemed pleased to be asked, and happily assured me
that he has been proactive and began to use this TM testing service some
time back.  Of course he also indicated that there are some problems
with getting everything up and running right since it is fairly new and
imperfect.  He also has been working on HYG testing, and that too has
some quirks and limitations.  That verbal assurance is enough for me at
this point, although I expect to raise the bar a bit over time, and I
also want to see this in writing, maybe with some numbers.

Maybe those queen producers who make this effort for their customers can
then expect to ask a slightly higher price for their queens or expect to
be preferred suppliers.  Maybe they can get a marketing advantage out of
it.

I sure think they will.

allen
http://www.honeybeeworld.com