From: "Allen Dick" <[log in to unmask]>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture.beekeeping
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 6:35 AM
Subject: Queen Bee Standards


> >Seems to me that a large organisation already in place like
> >Sue Bee, ABF or AHPA could pick up the ball on this and establish
> >a standard, then licence the use of marks for the nominal  cost of
> >>administering and policing the standards.
>
> >I'm thinking that we need a standard endorsed by a national,
> >continental, or world body.  This applies not only to woodenware,
> >but also things like 'hygienic' queens.
>
> Yeah, I know a "hygenic queen"...  he will come and clean
> your house every week at reasonable prices!  :)

Hygienic behaviour will become much more important in the next few years as
fewer and fewer chemicals and drugs will be available and effective against
our multitude of bee health problems.  Bee breeding has the potential to
reduce these major threats to minor status.  If bee breeding is to replace
drugs, then it must be quality controlled and certified, just as drugs and
chemicals are now.

The problem is that bee breeeding costs money and effort and the product of
that that money and effort must be able to be verified and rewarded.  It
happens that 'hygienic' is much cheaper and easier to achieve in advertising
than in the beehive.  Although many, if not most bee breeders, are honest,
educated, and try to give good value, queen raisers have no strong incentive
to conform hygienic or SMR standards in bees they label 'hygienic' or 'SMR'
unless they are tested peridically by an independant organisation -- and
potentially subject to sanctions or public embarrassment.

As I have pointed out publicly, we spend well over $10 per year per hive
treating and inspecting to suppress AFB, EFB, mites, etc.   Some things like
chalkbrood and sacbrood and viruses, we cannot treat, yet they have a hand
in our pocket.  That means that I could very happily spend =at least= $10
more per queen for bees that are immune to these scourges.  BUT I wouldn't
do that, and neither would any astute commercial beekeeper -- pay double the
price -- unless I had strong evidence that the queens were produced under
strict quality control and testing.

We need assurance of consistency if we are to depend entirely on these
characteristics.  Any variation and subsequent failure could be very costly.
Without a high level of conformance to standards failure rates could be high
resulting in loss of bees, loss of crop, extra work, remedial chemical or
radiation treatment, and even destruction of hive parts.   Without
independant testing, I could not reasonably count on these traits being
there consisently enough to rely on them and would not pay the premium.

We see regulation and certification in many analagous areas.  Only certain
varieties of wheat may be grown in Western Canada.  Commercial seed growers
must meet standards and submit to testing and certification.  We are no
different.  If we want to ensure that all areas are filled with bees that
are relatively unaffected by the mentioned diseases and pests, we must have
a way of proving conformance on the queen market.

For those beekeepers who oppose any form of regulation, need I mention that
the drugs we use are produced to strict standards under inspection and
quality control testing?  Why not their potential replacements?  Independent
testing and certification marks keep everyone honest.  Independent testing
ensures that those who do a good job of breeding consistent queens with the
advertised traits get rewarded.  Independent testing discourages phonies.

In short, without independant testing and an official  'seal of approval'
to certify and reward high performance queens, we will never get off the
chemical treadmill.  That is because without convincing independant testing
1.) no one will have faith in the product and 3.) no one will make the
strong effort necessary to meet the high level of consistency and
performance necessary to wean the industry from cheap, effective, and, yes,
standardised chemicals.

--
allen

http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/
---
I went to the hardware store and bought some used paint. It was in the shape
of a house. I also bought some batteries, but they weren't included. So I
had
to buy them again. -- Steven Wright