I hesitate to join this thread, since there is an undertone of hostility.
 That said, I strongly support all beekeepers who are promoting
mite-resistant bee stocks.  The only thing that bothers me about some
"organic" or "natural" beekeepers is their disparagement of others.

What is often missed in these discussions is the motivation and desired
outcome of the beekeeper.  Those with a day job or other income source can
keep bees for pleasure, and tolerate higher losses or poor production.

An often misused word is "sustainability."  To be sustainable, an
agricultural enterprise must generate a return on investment.  For the
hobbyist, that return may be the good feeling from seeing his roses bloom,
or from watching bees draw comb.  But there would be little chance of rose
growing being sustainable if there wasn't monetary profit involved by the
rose growers who supply the hobbyists.

I commend Don on his setting up an apiary with feral or cutout stock, and
for his success at beekeeping.  However, the question asked by Allen was
about return on investment.  Allen's definition of "yield" would be of
SURPLUS honey, not that left for the bees.  As far as I can tell by Don's
reply, he had zero surplus (not surprising with starting up a lot of late
colonies in a drought year).

From a sustainability point of view, one would need to look at Don's
operation from a "net income" perspective.  Don's labor in the cutouts and
transport thereof would be expenses charged at a reasonable rate for labor.
 His income would be from any excess in honey sales or bee sales above the
costs of operation (including labor).

Now I don't give a whit whether Don or Dee make a profit, and thus earn the
right to be considered sustainable.  But if they wish to suggest that their
methods are indeed sustainable, then there must be a net return on
investment, the evidence for which would be that they actually pay taxes on
their profits in at least some years (I understand that Don will not be
showing a profit so long as he is expanding the operation).

One need not run thousands of hives to show a profit or to earn the right
to be called "sustainable."  Many hobbyists and sideliners run in the
black.  That is sustainability.  Prior to varroa, you could sometimes pay
off your investment in bees and woodware in your first year.  That would
definitely be sustainable.

So the question, as I understand it, from those "conventional" beekeepers
who are vilified by the "organic" beekeepers, is whether there are actually
sustainable (meaning profitable) organic beekeeping enterprises out there.

Again, I am not criticizing the "natural" or "organic" beekeepers in any
way--they are doing a great service to beekeeping by experimenting with
methods for low-input beekeeping, which may well be adopted by conventional
beekeepers.  I know of a few beekeepers (generally running Russian stock)
who indeed run profitable businesses without chemical treatment of mites.
 But they are usually relatively "quiet" about it.  I'm sincerely curious
as to just how many profitable "treatment free" beekeeping operations there
are in North America north of the zones of Africanization.

--
Randy Oliver
Grass Valley, CA
www.ScientificBeekeeping.com

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm