>Using this fact in the "my honey is better than your
>honey" argument is again very wrong.

Respectfully, I think that was not the point of the
discussion. The initial statement which generated the
debate (which remained civilized and polite, I
think)was "you have not yet convinced me that
sugar-based honey is definably different from
other-based honey".

However, I do think there are different qualities in
honeys market. When I came to the list, P. Borst wrote
that pointing out others weakness (contamination with
pesticides, use of miticides,etc) was not a good
strategy for the beekeepers community. And I made this
assertion mine, so I believe in highlighting higher
standards for honeys. Limiting sugar syrup content in
honey is one of good practice that preserve honey
quality and credit (sorry, I find hard to find my
words this morning).


>My point is if the keeper of these bees never fed
>them sugar can he/she still claim 100%.  I seriously
>think not.

It is always the same rhetoric. Of cours, absolute is
unachievable. But it is not a justification for lower
practices. No, you can not guarantee absolute, but you
can guarantee best practices. A doctor never
guarantees
you will recover. He guarantees he will follow
state-of-the-art methods to make you recover. Same
thing with almost professionnals: they rarely
guarantee results. They guarantee methods, experience
and tools to try to achieve objectives. Something like
"the best practice available".

> Feeding sugar, too keep bees alive in a dearth,
>getting them started in Spring, or to draw some comb
>is not a bad practice and should not be constantly
>challenged as poor beekeeping.

I agree, one can use sugar syrup. In the North, I
would say we have to. But one should have practice to
make honey as per legal definition, namely from
nectar.


> If a small amount of this "man made" honey gets into
> the beekeeper's final product it would have to be a
> such a trace amount, probably equivalent to the
> garbage can bees, that even discussing it is
> ridiculous.

Respectfully, it seems to me this assertion should be
demonstrated. 1% saccharose content, in my fields of
practice, is not considered as trace. In ppb, in ppt,
yes, it may be considered as trace. Moreover, when
measuring saccharose, you do not take into account
saccharose that has been broken down into fructose and
glucose (assumed to be honey then... but not from
nectar which is inconsitant with the legal
deifinition)

> Lets get back to good bee and beekeeping
discussions.

I still think this is a valuable matter of discussion
for beekeeping, although I may be young, although I
will stop my posts on the subject to get reasonnable.


>We nicknamed his product "Husky Honey", which took a
>blue ribbon at the State Ag show.  My point here is
>that even remote locations have potential for bees
>frequenting areas that we would not want to share
>with consumers.

I understand this anecdote can shock our minds. But
honey is a natural products and yes bees take elements
in ponds, wells where organic matter is transformed
and who knows where the carbon in our honey is coming
from ? And so what ? You also eat salads which grew in
compost. Bees find there minerals, salt and so on
where they can. Fine. But it remains anecdotes are no
excuse to lower practices.

Respectueusement,

Hervé



___________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français !
Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and  other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::