>> The big difference above is Dee is totally open about her methods
which allows for criticism.

I don't know that her methods are criticized.  I think the criticism
revolves more around her denigration of other methods and her advocacy
of panaceas for complex problems -- and her fixation on 4.9mm cell size
in spite of all evidence of its unimportance.  Many see her as a Pied
Piper, leading the inexperienced and gullible off to frustration,
needless effort, and disappointment.

Personally, I appreciate her methods and way of doing things -- for her,
not me -- and even wrote a series of articles in a popular US bee
magazine on the topic.  Looking back, I think I could have been much
more critical, but wrote a simple, direct report of an interesting and
unique and idiosyncratic operation, without comment other than that
there seemed to be no mite or disease problems and that this was
something we all would like to see.

My opinion, however, is the same as those of neighbours of Lusbys I met
at the time I first went to Tucson to see Lusbys.  I met the neighbours
at a convention and wondering about the planned visit, and asked the
neighbour what to expect.  The answer was that Lusbys had "their own way
of doing things and it may work for them, but I don't think it would
work for us".  I asked what sort of people Lusbys were and was told the
were "good people".  I found that to be true and have not changed my mind.

 > Is that so? As far as I know, she has never acknowledged that they
are dealing with 99% pure African stock down there.

As for "99%", well, I don't know how we can put a number on it, but it
is reported that the degree of Africanization is the area is high,
especially in Tucson area hives which are not requeened with EHB stock
regularly.

Dee, totally open?  Well, yes, except on that matter and the politics
around it (there is a quite a story there) and on several crucial
questions, which have not been answered or discussed publicly --
AFAIK.   Other than the Africanization question, these tow questions are
most important questions to anyone considering imitating her for any
other purpose than for fun and entertainment.

We've been around and around the question of whether what Dee advocates
would work for those aspiring to make a business of beekeeping many
times, and the one thing we have not seen one from Dee is a business
model.  IMO, the reason that detail has not been disclosed is that Dee
knows that her model is not self-financing and _does not work_ and it
fails badly compared to the alternative models.  So she just does not
respond when asked, and/or changes the subject.

Anyone planning to build a business needs to see if his.her chosen plan
works.  Whether Dee's methods work for _hobbyists_ and amateurs is
really not a question since _anything_ works for a hobbyist, as the goal
is pass time and spend money.  Spending, not making money expectation.
I should know, I'm a hobbyist these days, and meeting that expectation
(losing money) due to trying some of the popular hobby ideas going around.

For a hobby and playing, anything works -- any hive, any bee strain, any
magic potion, even doing nothing -- as long as the goal is not to
maximize income from bees in the most reliable, efficient and least
risky manner, or to build a business from the income coming from the bees.

A problem in discussing matters like this is that it seems we cannot
agree either on what criteria to use to identify a "Commercial beekeeper".

Some may say that anyone who gains significant income from beekeeping,
regardless of making or losing money, is a commercial beekeeper, and I
suppose that in the strictest sense this may be true.

However, I think that most of us with any business understanding would
expect that in order to meet the definition of a truly commercial
operation, the operation should be _self-sustaining as a business over
time, and provide a return to capital as well as paying labour and
covering expenses_.

In other words, a commercial bee operation by itself should be able to
maintain itself without outside income, should throw off a little
profit, and be able to grow -- not consume its capital or depend on
external capital and free labour, whether that of the owner or of
others. Whether that business is the sole source of income for the owner
is immaterial, as long as it is profitable on its own over time, as
defined above.

Consider for example"

Beekeeper A is a beekeeper who built up from nothing to a large outfit
financed only by the earnings of the bee business and which produces
large volumes of honey for sale and pollination services to boot.
Beekeeper A now has property and equipment mostly paid for and is
raising a family, mostly on the earnings of the business, which makes a
good return most years (Sometimes not) and on average over a span of time.

Beekeeper B is backed by a family trust fund and fortunate enough to
have made immense capital gains on inherited real estate, inhered a
functioning commercial bee operation, and now runs a small operation
with a low output of honey and provides no pollination services?

Are they in the same league?  Are they both legitimately considered
"commercial beekeepers"?  Or is the latter a super-hobbyist with
commercial pretensions?  I would say the latter.

In the real world, in the past decades, I think many surviving
beekeepers have made part of their return from capital gains, simply due
to inflation over that period and encroachment of cities, but where it
is the primary source of funding, and the return from actual operation
is barely sufficient to cover expenses -- and there is no return to
labour and capital, we have an unsustainable business.

I think that a basic understanding of these business realities are
essential for those intending to make beekeeping a business and to be
certain to follow the examples beekeepers who are actually earning
enough money to to grow their business, rather than blindly assuming
that just because a beekeeper has bees and can keep them alive, and has
money and a nice place and lots of stuff, that this is a sustainable model.

I started with very little and built up.  At first, I was gullible and
believed the wrong people.  It seems most of us do, since these seem to
be the ones who pop up to mentor newcomers and write fanciful bee
books.  Along the way, I learned the hard way that things are not always
what they seem.

That is not to say that I did not have help along the way.  I doubt that
you can make it in commercial beekeeping without help and a lot of
luck.  The best help for an aspiring commercial beekeeper comes from
associating with commercial beekeepers, not hobbyists, and regardless of
what some say about how secretive commercial beekeepers can be, in my
experience they are very helpful if you have the right attitude and give
in return.  (There are some notable exceptions, but they are not the rule).

There are two things which have never been disclosed in the Lusby story
AFAIK, regardless of how often the questions have been asked, and the
answers bear strongly on judging "success" and deciding if the operation
is viably "commercial".

The first is, "what kind of yield does Dee achieve on average?"

The second is. "what has been her major source of funds to support the
beekeeping operation -- beekeeping itself, or extraordinary income
(capital gains) and outside money?"

I am not questioning her ability as a beekeeper, or her sincerity, but I
think if her followers had the whole picture, they might see things a
little differently.  I know I do.  I took the time to go twice and see
for myself, to ask the right questions, and to learn the facts.

The answers are important to those who hope to make sufficient money
from bees to pay for their beekeeping, and provide enough to grow their
operation from within and have no outside funding sources. You only live
once and time is too short to make mistakes following the wrong
example.  Just sayin'

Of course it would be rude to ask these questions of a private person,
and I would not do that.  However, Dee has made herself a public person
and is publicly claiming to be an example of a successful commercial
beekeeper -- and people are believing her.

So, I'll ask again: How about it Dee?  How about some numbers?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

HTML clipboard /Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who
find it.
  —André Gide
/

             ***********************************************
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