Beemaster's International Beekeeping Forum

BEEKEEPING LEARNING CENTER => NATURAL & ORGANIC BEEKEEPING METHODS => Topic started by: Robo on October 08, 2008, 11:28:50 am

Title: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Robo on October 08, 2008, 11:28:50 am
I've long given up trying to convince those that insist sugar is not a chemical when they claim to be chemical-free but treat with powdered sugar.  My argument was more by definition and semantics, than that sugar was potentially harmful.   I guess it was just based on my personal frustration that people can not differentiate from good (organic acids) and bad (apistan, checkmite) chemicals, but rather lump everything (except powdered sugar ;) ) into the chemical bucket and all chemicals are bad.

But here is a real potential issue for those treating with sugar that I think you should be aware of.

Here is portion of an email that those treating with sugar might find interesting.  I have not done any investigating to validate anything claimed, nor am I trying to cause alarm.  Use your own judgment.

Quote
Dear Beekeeper,

I recently circulated a warning about possible Imidacloprid contamination in sugar beet, which many beekeepers feed to their bees. Since this has caused some discussion, I thought you may like to hear some facts that I discovered while checking the original story.

1. Imidacloprid is a neonicotinoid pesticide (i.e. similar in chemical structure to nicotine) now routinely used as a seed dressing on sugar beet - for up to two years in the UK, considerably longer in the USA and elsewhere.

2. Imidacloprid is a systemic insecticide, meaning that it permeates every cell of the plant, even if only used as a seed dressing. That means it WILL be present in the sugar, as processing does not affect it.

3. Imidacloprid is a powerful neurotoxin, lethal to bees in doses as small as five parts per billion, and has serious sub-lethal effects - including disorientation - at much lower doses. To put that in context, if you took ONE THOUSAND METRIC TONNES of 1:1 syrup made with beet sugar, and stirred in just ONE TEASPOONFUL of Imidacloprid, you would have a mixture capable of killing bees. Please read that last sentence again and think about it.

4. Imidacloprid is persistent in plant cells and in the soil (half-life in soil under aerobic conditions of up to 997 days), where it kills ALL insects - including beneficial ones - and it accumulates, season on season, until it reaches a 'stable' level, assumed by some authorities to be something like 10 parts per billion. It is also likely to contaminate ground water.

5. The US 'Environmental Protection Agency' has approved permitted levels of Imidacloprid in sugar beet of 0.05 parts per million - that is at least TEN TIMES the lethal dose for bees.

Do you still think it is safe to feed sugar beet syrup to your bees?



NOTES

1. The facts about Imidacloprid in this message have been checked by a microbiologist. Please read the attached report for more information about neonicotinoids.

2. You can read more about Imidacloprid here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imidacloprid

3. You can read the EPA's document on Imidacloprid here: http://www.epa.gov/EPA-PEST/1998/September/Day-18/p25085.htm



I did not receive the attached report referenced in NOTE 1.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: JP on October 08, 2008, 11:58:22 am
My .02 is anything really 100% organic anymore? Stuffs in our water, air, food, feed, our homes our cars, our cats our dogs.

All we can do is our best in an imperfect world.


...JP
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Cindi on October 10, 2008, 11:22:26 am
Rob, so much food for thought in this crazy world of ours.  That was a very interesting read.  I don't do powdered sugar treatments.  I perform oxalic acid vapourizing, twice a year, that's it!!!  That is the only chemicals that go into my colonies....period.  Sugar dusting is an ongoing introduction of "chemical" to colonies  :? :shock:  have a great day, Cindi
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: bmacior on October 10, 2008, 05:56:53 pm
Cindi, why do you consider powder sugar dusting chemical? :?  Is not p sugar finely ground sugar?
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Keith13 on October 10, 2008, 06:24:00 pm
I think some say sugar is a chemical because it is C6 H12 O6 (fructose)
They take it very literally
then again water is a chemical also H2O
So who knows :roll: Chemicals are in everybodies hives one way or the other there is no way to tell where your bees may go and get into

To each his, or her own

I dust w/ C6 H12 O6 therefore I guess I have chemicals in my hives, hopefully with out pesticides.

Keith
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: bmacior on October 10, 2008, 07:55:21 pm
I thought sugar was sucrose, which is what nectar mostly is.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: buzzbee on October 10, 2008, 10:16:47 pm
I've long given up trying to convince those that insist sugar is not a chemical when they claim to be chemical-free but treat with powdered sugar.  My argument was more by definition and semantics, than that sugar was potentially harmful.   I guess it was just based on my personal frustration that people can not differentiate from good (organic acids) and bad (apistan, checkmite) chemicals, but rather lump everything (except powdered sugar ;) ) into the chemical bucket and all chemicals are bad.

But here is a real potential issue for those treating with sugar that I think you should be aware of.

Here is portion of an email that those treating with sugar might find interesting.  I have not done any investigating to validate anything claimed, nor am I trying to cause alarm.  Use your own judgment.

Quote
Dear Beekeeper,

I recently circulated a warning about possible Imidacloprid contamination in sugar beet, which many beekeepers feed to their bees. Since this has caused some discussion, I thought you may like to hear some facts that I discovered while checking the original story.

1. Imidacloprid is a neonicotinoid pesticide (i.e. similar in chemical structure to nicotine) now routinely used as a seed dressing on sugar beet - for up to two years in the UK, considerably longer in the USA and elsewhere.

2. Imidacloprid is a systemic insecticide, meaning that it permeates every cell of the plant, even if only used as a seed dressing. That means it WILL be present in the sugar, as processing does not affect it.

3. Imidacloprid is a powerful neurotoxin, lethal to bees in doses as small as five parts per billion, and has serious sub-lethal effects - including disorientation - at much lower doses. To put that in context, if you took ONE THOUSAND METRIC TONNES of 1:1 syrup made with beet sugar, and stirred in just ONE TEASPOONFUL of Imidacloprid, you would have a mixture capable of killing bees. Please read that last sentence again and think about it.

4. Imidacloprid is persistent in plant cells and in the soil (half-life in soil under aerobic conditions of up to 997 days), where it kills ALL insects - including beneficial ones - and it accumulates, season on season, until it reaches a 'stable' level, assumed by some authorities to be something like 10 parts per billion. It is also likely to contaminate ground water.

5. The US 'Environmental Protection Agency' has approved permitted levels of Imidacloprid in sugar beet of 0.05 parts per million - that is at least TEN TIMES the lethal dose for bees.

Do you still think it is safe to feed sugar beet syrup to your bees?



NOTES

1. The facts about Imidacloprid in this message have been checked by a microbiologist. Please read the attached report for more information about neonicotinoids.

2. You can read more about Imidacloprid here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imidacloprid

3. You can read the EPA's document on Imidacloprid here: http://www.epa.gov/EPA-PEST/1998/September/Day-18/p25085.htm



I did not receive the attached report referenced in NOTE 1.
I think this is what Rob was referring too.And his point was,I think.when does one chemical (C6 H12 O6 (fructose)) become okay and another not be okay? With the contamination of the sugar beets maybe you are inadvertently dumping another chemical carried by the sugar.there seems to be so little pure things these days. Even the chemical H2O is contaminated in the pools by [Ne] 3s2 3p5(Chlorine) which means if the bees drag this back to the hive,you are technically no longer chemical free.  It is very hard to truly label honey organic if you can not certify that every thing a bee gathers is "Organic" by definition.
Such technicalities we must face every day! :roll:
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: charlescfry on October 11, 2008, 08:10:05 am
shouldn't we be mindful of "intent" here? if i willingly and knowingly pour treatments in to my hive or spray herbicides on my farm "just in case" - then there is some negligence on my part (or at least a lack of responsibility).

but as others have pointed out, how can anyone be sure of anything being contaminant-free anymore? sugar is as good an example as any... there MIGHT be a CHANCE it has a contaminant. there MIGHT be problems with the processing... it MIGHT be imported from a foreign country by a diesel-belching freighter and grown with the benefit of subwage labor and terrible processing. but fundamentally, sugar is a 'natural chemical.' it all comes down to how conscientious we are when buying and using the product.

most people here seem very thoughtful in their use of any treatments - bravo! we can only be examples to others. but we all need to find our own 'balance point' between idealist and pragmatist. we deal with this all the time on our farm, and at times it is a source of great pride, and at other times is seems like an excercise in futility. but at least we are trying!

good luck with however you care for your bees, and keep an open mind!
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Robo on October 11, 2008, 09:32:15 am
sugar is a 'natural chemical.'

Charles,  I agreed whole heartedly  with what you said.  Organic acids such as oxalic, formic, lactic, and acetic are also 'natural chemicals'.  My comment was more towards the hypocrisy of those who lump some "natural chemicals", like the organic acids, in with the synthetic miticides as  "chemicals" in a derogatory fashion.  I'm not sure if it is just being naive and the word "acid" makes it bad or what.  All I know is I stand a better chance of selling ice to an eskimo that convincing some of them :-D

We could all be happy if people wouldn't generically use "chemical" in a derogatory fashion,  but instead preceed it with 'hard or soft', 'synthetic', etc.  Because as someone correctly stated EVERYTHING is a chemical.

My intent of the note was not to start the whole good chemical / bad chemical debate again,  but to make people aware of the possible issues involved with white sugar.  Even if it is not a problem now,  this should surely open one's eyes that it WILL be a problem in the future if we keep progressing the way we are.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Cindi on October 11, 2008, 11:19:09 am
All these above comments to the post are self-explanatory.  People slam formic acid though, for an example.  But as mentioned, formic acid is found in many forms of vegetation, we cannot prevent "chemical's from coming into our hives.  Sugar is a chemical, as is water, and so on and so on.  And..continue on with care of your hives, find that comfort zone and be comfortable there.  There has been incredible debate on this forum about the good/bad chemical deals.  Have the most wonderful, awesome day, Cindi
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: bmacior on October 11, 2008, 01:43:48 pm
What I'm understanding then is everything is a chemical, which I agree everything can be broken down to its compounds.  Under that definition nectar that the bees gather is chemical.  So when one talks about keeping chemicals out of the hive, to me that means man made ones that would be harmful to the bees, and possibily man made medications.  One could argue that processed table sugar is chemical as it is highly refined.  What I don't understand is why it is okay to feed sugar syrup but bad to do powdered sugar treatments as powdered sugar is table sugar that has been ground to powder.  Or are those who are against powdered sugar not feeding their bees sugar syrup?
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Robo on October 11, 2008, 03:37:57 pm
What I don't understand is why it is okay to feed sugar syrup but bad to do powdered sugar treatments as powdered sugar is table sugar that has been ground to powder.  Or are those who are against powdered sugar not feeding their bees sugar syrup?

I don't think there is anyone advocating feeding sugar syrup but against powder sugar treating, per se.  Well maybe except me  :-\, Finsky and possibly Cindi.  But not because of the sugar itself, but more for the method.  I do feed sugar when necessary,  but I personally don't like powder sugar treating because I feel it is too much stress on the bees, especially when doing it every two weeks like some suggest.  My personal preference is once a year oxalic acid treatment, only when needed. 

There are those who are against anything being put into the hive, who would be opposed to powdered sugar and feeding sugar syrup.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Jessaboo on October 11, 2008, 05:31:24 pm
This is pretty fascinating and my own (limited) knowledge of imidacloprid leads me to believe it is certainly possible that this will be the case. 

I just "invested" in some organic powdered sugar at Trader Joe's just to be extra "sanitary," if you will.

I am more concerned about the fact that this indicates regular table sugar will also be affected - it is also made by the genetically engineered beets now - so feeding may be at issue. What else could you feed them besides their own honey?

- Jess



Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: buzzbee on October 11, 2008, 06:45:36 pm
I believe the what we are all looking for is the best way to treat mites without leaving residuals in the combs and killing few bees. many chemicals stay in the hive and contain things known to affect the nervous system of man(camophous). We just have to watch what were doing that may have long term bad effects.Powdered sugar is probably not one of those things.Small cell is safe.Sugar syrup is probably safe.Better than a dead colony. Finsky always treated with oxalic acid in mid winter when very little brood was present . He lost a few bees,but had very few mite problems with this method.
His argument for the most effective method for his treatment was that dead colonies produce zero honey.Who can argue that point.
 People saw him as crazy at times,but his whole philosophy was to keep a healthy colony to collect nectar in the very short time he had near the arctic circle.Hope we find the perfect treatment,but until then we have to use what works for us!
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Brian D. Bray on October 11, 2008, 08:54:20 pm
Quote
All I know is I stand a better chance of selling ice to an eskimo that convincing some of them

Best bet is to package it as an Igloo repair kit.

IMHO: Using natural occuring substances is still "natural" beekeeping in that we are not creating toxins to fight other toxins or parasites.
To me, "Chemical" means man made by manipulation of compounds.  Sugar is from a rendering. Albit different than bees render honey.  Cider vinegar is a rendered product whereas Cholorox is manufactured.  Rendering is a natural process, manufacturing is not.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: buzzbee on October 11, 2008, 09:04:48 pm
sugar is a 'natural chemical.'



My intent of the note was not to start the whole good chemical / bad chemical debate again,  but to make people aware of the possible issues involved with white sugar.  Even if it is not a problem now,  this should surely open one's eyes that it WILL be a problem in the future if we keep progressing the way we are.
Well put!!
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: dpence on October 12, 2008, 12:03:02 am
sugar is a 'natural chemical.'



My intent of the note was not to start the whole good chemical / bad chemical debate again,  but to make people aware of the possible issues involved with white sugar.  Even if it is not a problem now,  this should surely open one's eyes that it WILL be a problem in the future if we keep progressing the way we are.
Well put!!
I agree.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Cindi on October 12, 2008, 11:12:08 pm
Something has gone a little bit array here.  I feel that if one wants to use powdered sugar treatments, go for it, if one wants to use formic or oxalic acid, go for it, if you want to use other chemicals go for it.  Do what you feel works.

I do not believe that any chemicals such as coumophus (spelling) or fluvalinate should ever be used in the colonies, and there are a couple more, if I am not mistaken.   There can be long-term residue left in the colony and can also be found in wax and honey.  These type of chemicals are not to be used 45 days before the anticipated honeyflow.  Now that says something in itself, right there.  These, in my eyes, are the "bad chemicals". 

I only have to "bother" my colonies twice per year, if needed, once in the fall and once in the spring, and that is not with oxalic acid trickling, which can kill brood if it is present, but using the vapourizing method of the oxalic acid crystals, which can be done when brood is present, and DOES NOT kill brood.  Oxalic acid sugar syrup trickling can be very effective too.  I also stand behind the use of formic acid treatments within the colony.  I also have a little faith in the small cell factor, which evidently can be good for mite control, but that is not for me either.

Whatever methods you believe are good, go for it.  Powdered sugar treatments is far too time consuming for me to bother with.  I think the time frame is treating very frequently, and I just could not be bothered.  And yes, Rob was correct, I am an advocate for oxalic and formic acid treatments.  If there are high mite counts, something must be done, whatever you feel you have to do, otherwise face colony collapse, period....no ifs, ands or butts, the colony will collapse, if not that year, the following year.  I have been there with the loss of 10 colonies to mites, never going there again.  Just wanted to clear the air a little bit.  I feed sugar syrup to my bees, and there is nothing wrong in my eyes, to do that powdered sugar treatments either.  My part of this discussion is closed.  Have a wonderful and awesome day, Cindi
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Robo on October 23, 2008, 10:51:32 pm
report from Minnesota this week found corn syrup fed to honeybees contained eight parts per billion of neonicotinoids.


Found this on Apinews
http://www.injuryboard.com/national-news/Nicotine-Based-Pesticide-May-Explain-Bee-Colony-Collapse.aspx?googleid=249590
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Brian D. Bray on October 24, 2008, 12:20:48 am
report from Minnesota this week found corn syrup fed to honeybees contained eight parts per billion of neonicotinoids.


Found this on Apinews
http://www.injuryboard.com/national-news/Nicotine-Based-Pesticide-May-Explain-Bee-Colony-Collapse.aspx?googleid=249590

Makes good sense to me, most commercial grown corn in the USA is GMO.  Neonicotinoids are in a majority GMO plants.
This also coincides with the Commercial Beekeepers who prefer to feed HFC syrup due to its low cost as experiencing the largest CCD losses.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: BjornBee on October 24, 2008, 09:00:48 am
MaryAnn Frazier from Penn State has tested a couple hundred samples of CCD comb. No one particular neonicotinoid or other systemic pesticide was found in all samples. The highest non-beekeeper introduced chemical tested out in about 30% of the CCD samples. Neonicotinoids are not being found in levels to suggest "coincides".

What was found, was 100% of the samples tested for the chemicals in Apistan and Checkmite, and the off label brands of these same chemicals also used by many commercial beekeepers.

The thing with chems, is that many are tolerated by bees at somewhat low safe levels(not an endorsement). But when you mix these same somewhat non-impacting chemicals in the hive, they have a far higher multiplication factor making them deadly. On a scale of 1 to 10, if you take two chemicals rated as 1 (1 being the lowest impacting chems on the scale), then the combination of these chems often does not add up to a 2. When mixing chems, 1 plus 1 often results in 5, 8, or even 10 (being the deadliest).

What was found in all CCD hives, was an average of (If I remember) 7 or 8 different chems, with the highest being in the high twenties. But remember, only two chems were found in EVERY sample. Both being beekeeper approved chems and used off-brand by many at levels far exceeding anything in a couple of strips.

It's the power and damage of having multiple chems feeding off each other.

Keeping all chems out of the hives is best. I don't use sugar treatments. But feel they are one of the safest soft treatments out there.

I personally do not use any acid treatments. Many I see use them late in the year after the fall brood cycle is complete, and mites have already done their damage. My personal opinion is that there is a fine line between enough acid to kill a mite, and NOT harm a bee. That's why using these acid treatments prior to the fall flow should be encouraged, if used. That way, you knock the mites down prior to the fall brood cycle so that you have healthy bees unaffected by both mites and acid treatments. (This of course does not acount for the queen's health)

Keeping beekeeper induced chemicals out of the hive, rotating out comb (to keep chemical buildup from whatever the source), and other approaches will keep many from ever having problems with CCD. (I'll add...IF this is CCD). Which by the way is what most commercial guys do not do.

Not sure if I'm convinced about worrying about chems in sugar. More concerned about the average homeowner and the hundreds of products they can buy at the local hardware store.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Michael Bush on October 24, 2008, 08:51:32 pm
>More concerned about the average homeowner and the hundreds of products they can buy at the local hardware store.

Definitely.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: mgmoore7 on February 16, 2009, 11:35:35 am
My .02 is anything really 100% organic anymore? Stuffs in our water, air, food, feed, our homes our cars, our cats our dogs.

All we can do is our best in an imperfect world.


...JP

This is an excellent point.  My wife and I attempt to eat as "natural" as possible by eliminating boxed & preprepared foods, growing our own vegetables, etc.  We mill our own wheat, make our foods from scratch, etc.  We are very weird when compared to most of the US.  But with all of that, there is still much that we don't have any control over so we just have to do what we can with what is in our control. 

The reason we got into to beekeeping was for this exact reason.  Virtually all of our bread products and alot of our sugar needs are replaced with honey.  We wanted to have unprocesssed and "organic" honey rather than not knowing what process was used.  Even with this, while I believe we are much better than buying the honey, what we are doing still doesn't completely fullfill our hope.  We can't control the pesticides used on plants, what the water is contaminated with and what process the sugar for the sugar water went through.....
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: doak on February 19, 2009, 11:24:38 pm
Granulated, pure cane sugar.
Run it through the blender. Presto. powdered sugar.
pure. :roll: :)doak
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Bee Happy on April 22, 2009, 10:45:30 pm
Here is portion of an email that those treating with sugar might find interesting.  I have not done any investigating to validate anything claimed, nor am I trying to cause alarm.  Use your own judgment.

Quote
Dear Beekeeper,

I recently circulated a warning about possible Imidacloprid contamination in sugar beet, which many beekeepers feed to their bees. Since this has caused some discussion, I thought you may like to hear some facts that I discovered while checking the original story.



lots of white sugar comes with the label "pure cane"  sugar cane is a grass - of sorts. (incidentally- the process of refining sugar is a handful of steps using some very harmless sounding minerals [chalk] to separate the - not white-  sugar from the rest - molasses cane bits - etc.) my (personal) objection as to eating white sugar is that (as opposed to crystallized cane juice) it is nutritionally bankrupt for humans where the organic stuff has extra bits in it that are probably helpful for people digesting the sugar. if you google sugar refining there's a step by step if you're interested.
I have to wonder as a result why sugar dusting for mites is such a big deal to organophiles

2: scary chemical: dihydrogen monoxide. (for fun) Look it up and consider how long it takes you to feel silly.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: dragonfly on May 01, 2009, 10:17:45 pm
Hmmm. I was planning to start powdered sugar dusting treatments this summer. I wonder if there would be a significant difference if you used organic sugar? I would certainly think so, but I'll see if I can find any info on it.
Thanks for the heads up. I never really thought about that.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: mgmoore7 on May 01, 2009, 10:24:00 pm
I am far more worried about the pesticides on the flowers my bees are visiting than the sugar I dust with occasionally.  Clearly, the worst of the two in my example, we have little to no control over. 
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: giant pumpkin peep on August 24, 2009, 09:32:23 pm
Honestly....suger is a heck of a lot better than apistana dn other chemicals. If it harmed bees people wouldn't use it. Mite can't become resistant to it unless the evolve to have feet the can stink on to bee no matter what is thrown at them. I think that take longer than becoming resistant to chems.

just my 2 cents
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Robo on August 24, 2009, 10:50:20 pm
Honestly....suger is a heck of a lot better than apistana dn other chemicals.
I don't think anyone here would disagree with you on that.  The point of my post was for those that think treating with sugar is not treating with a chemical.  Some folks want to be black and white on chemicals and make "chemicals" out to be a bad thing, when in reality there is a wide variety of chemicals all with different levels of toxicity.

Quote
If it harmed bees people wouldn't use it.
Boy, that is putting a lot of faith into "man knows best".  From a recent conference, I understand a Swedish? scientist has just discovered that feeding sugar kills at least 2 of the microbes living in the bee gut.  Does that harm the bee?  I don't know,  but I can guess it doesn't help them.

Quote
Mite can't become resistant to it unless the evolve to have feet the can stink on to bee no matter what is thrown at them.
Isn't that the whole principle behind evolution?  The ones with better grip survive and mate with other "better grippers" and after a few generations we only have mites with kung-fu grip (Sorry couldn't help reverting back to my childhood with GI Joe...)

Quote
I think that take longer than becoming resistant to chems.
Why?

Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: giant pumpkin peep on August 24, 2009, 11:14:45 pm
Quote
Why?

because with the miticides on the market the mites that arn't affected live and breed. It has been shown that powdered suger is the zize of voarroa(wrong spelling) mites legs. Therefor the mite would have to form a better grip. Not just survive repetitive mite treatments.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: homer on August 28, 2009, 10:09:11 pm
Quote
Why?

because with the miticides on the market the mites that arn't affected live and breed. It has been shown that powdered suger is the zize of voarroa(wrong spelling) mites legs. Therefor the mite would have to form a better grip. Not just survive repetitive mite treatments.

Yes, but the mites wouldn't have the issue of surviving treatments because the sugar doesn't harm them, it just makes them fall off and lose their grip.  Seriously.. how heavy of a blast of sugar do you need to put on the bees so that you can be sure that every spot of every bee that a mite may live is covered enough that the mites will fall off.  And say that Mite were a stubborn Mite and decided to just hang on for dear life till all the sugar was gone so that his tiny little feet didn't get slippery with sugar?  And then he were to tell all his buddies to do the same thing.  There are a ton of mite treatment methods and I can dare guess that everyone you talk to will swear by one or two methods and hate the rest of them.  Just do what works for you. 
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Michael Bush on August 29, 2009, 11:43:09 am
The other problem with powdered sugar (besides the shift in pH and the brood that dies from drying out with the starch) is that bees who cannot take care of the Varroa continue to breed and those genes stay in the gene pool.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Jim134 on August 29, 2009, 12:31:15 pm
The other problem with powdered sugar (besides the shift in pH and the brood that dies from drying out with the starch) is that bees who cannot take care of the Varroa continue to breed and those genes stay in the gene pool.


   Not all powdered sugar has starch just my $.02




      BEE HAPPY Jim 134  :)
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: deknow on August 29, 2009, 12:53:54 pm
a few thoughts:

1.  unnatural concentrations of "natural substances" are...unnatural, certainly unnatural in the beehive.  ie, cocaine is a natural substance that is harmless/mild in it's natural concentration (i've had tea made from raw leaves...about as stimulating as a cup of coffee), but becomes problematic when concentrated.  where in nature does thyme oil occur in anything within orders of magnitude of what is used in the beehive?  how "safe" is essential oil of poison ivy?...a lot less safe than poison ivy is!

2. likewise, misplaced natural substances are unnatural.  you have acid in your stomach that you wouldn't want to wash your face with.

3. sugar (feeding or dusting) has some real implications.  first of all, as michael bush has pointed out many times, the ph of sugar is more conducive to growing AFB and many other diseases than that of honey.  secondly, some of the research out of sweden has recently shown that feeding sugar over the winter kills 4 novel (occuring no where else on the planet) strains of bacillus that live in the honeystomach of the honeybee, and doubtless have all manner of other effects on the thousands and thousands of strains of microbes that live in the hive, and make it a hospitable environment for honeybees.

i repeat my request for volunteers.  if you think your sugar feed doesn't get into your honey, why shouldn't feed syrup be dyed with food coloring to make sure?

deknow
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Michael Bush on August 29, 2009, 03:28:36 pm
Try making powdered sugar from regular sugar in the blender and put that in with some brood.  They will still die, starch or not, as the sugar will dry them out either way.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Beekissed on February 20, 2010, 03:05:38 pm
Due to all the controversy over treating for varroas and feeding sugar syrup, wouldn't it make more sense to let the bees dependent on these methods for survival just die off and retain the bees that are hardy and mite resistant.  I know this would take some time and one would suffer losses, but wouldn't it be worth the effort in the long run if one were wanting to go all natural in their beekeeping efforts? 

Like, letting the bees keep their honey stores and only harvest in the spring, drawing from winters leftovers?  Or letting bees build their own brood combs, thus decreasing the amount of varroa that survive? 

Just supposing......   :idunno:
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Ollie on February 28, 2010, 12:46:41 am
Quote
Like, letting the bees keep their honey stores and only harvest in the spring, drawing from winters leftovers?  Or letting bees build their own brood combs, thus decreasing the amount of varroa that survive? 

Just supposing......   :idunno:


So what do you do?
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Michael Bush on February 28, 2010, 12:59:55 am
It's difficult to harvest in the spring.  The honey is usually crystallized.  Also the bees gauge how much brood to rear by how much stores they have.  If you change that equation you may leave them starving at the time they are most likely to starve, early spring.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: doak on February 28, 2010, 12:14:57 pm
So for those who  have real tight thing on chemicals, I would say find another hobby, side line or what not.
How do you know what the bees bring into the hive? The best you can do is nothing, as for as chemicals go, and hope for the best.
Breed for hygienic behavior and let the bees build their own comb. That way you will not be buying foundation that you don't know the source of the wax.

We have became a people who want what we want and we want it now. Not gonna happen.  :)doak
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: luvin honey on March 21, 2010, 12:25:46 am
i repeat my request for volunteers.  if you think your sugar feed doesn't get into your honey, why shouldn't feed syrup be dyed with food coloring to make sure?
That would be a very interesting study. I am more interested, though, in what sugar feeding does to the bees. I cannot find a single redeeming quality in sugar for humans, so it's even harder to imagine there would be any for the bees. And, yes, I fed them a LOT of sugar last year. I was thrilled to see that my surviving hive has honey for this cold spring...
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: luvin honey on March 21, 2010, 12:28:45 am
So for those who  have real tight thing on chemicals, I would say find another hobby, side line or what not.
Huh? And here I thought this forum had a pile of beeks not using "chemicals."

I think we all understand that the world is full of junk. I still love being a beekeeper! I know the girls can bring in crap from anywhere, but I feel good to not be adding to the load of chemicals in the hive.

'Sides, if more and more beeks don't treat, and more and more farmers don't spray, the world starts getting cleaned up 1 tiny bit at a time. It's working so far in my life :)
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Tucker1 on March 31, 2010, 12:13:27 pm
I just wanted to say thanks for the well written posting, as well as the followup comments and remarks. They certainly give pause for thought. Right now, I'm scratching my head trying to figure out how to best utilize the information provided. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts and beliefs. Time for a little pondering...

Regards,
Tucker1
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Jim134 on March 31, 2010, 10:31:32 pm

Huh? And here I thought this forum had a pile of beeks not using "chemicals."


 Don't think you may hurt your head LOL




  BEE HAPPY Jim 134  :)
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: kbfarms on May 02, 2010, 09:16:27 pm
When I have to feed, I ensure that I feed sugar cane sugar, not beet sugar, just my personal preference.  Has any testing been performed on the sugar cane sugar? 
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: woodchopper on July 12, 2010, 05:49:44 pm
When I have to feed, I ensure that I feed sugar cane sugar, not beet sugar, just my personal preference.  Has any testing been performed on the sugar cane sugar ??
I was wondering when someone was going to ask this. :-D Too many variables to say everyone does the following the same"
 1} Same kind of sugar. Not all sugar is refined the same or the same type. I wonder if there is a difference between cane and beet sugar?
 2] Length of feeding. I fed for 2 1/2 weeks this Spring. Please don't lump me in with the beeks who feed for 2 months.
 3] Different dusting methods. I dust from the bottom with a bellows duster only on hot days and I leave my slatted racks in place. I use organic cane sugar ground up in a blender. Because of the slatted racks only a small percentage of sugar dust makes it up to the top 2/3's of the brood chamber. Don't lump me with the beeks who remove all the honey supers and apply the sugar to the top bars. Not saying my way is better than anyone else but clearly we all do things a little differently. If you change two,three,or four variables in an equation is it unreasonable to think you might get a different answer ?
 I wonder why this study didn't include sugar cane to see if it was just as bad ?
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: harvey on July 12, 2010, 06:50:42 pm
Do to this posting and others, I decided this year to not feed at all,  I don't want the bees to starve however I am trying foundationless frames, (So far so good) so not feeding and possibly not contaminating would go hand in hand?  Maybe I will also end up with healthier bees?  This is just my penny,  I don't have the expierence yet to give you two cents worth.  I realize others with much more experience have probably already gone down this road and I agree finding a happy medium somewhere is the right thing,  I continuously learn from all of you here but am trying very hard to create a hive I can sell to Bjorn for 50000 dollars!     
    I can say that by not feeding the bees I have hived this year, swarms from the woods, not others hives, are not building up as fast or drawing as much comb as I thought they would.  They all are drawing nice white comb.  They have good brood patterns and I have not seen any issues with mites yet.  I believe due to them all being first year hives.  I know that I could have had a lot more comb by now if I had fed and probably would see much more in surplus honey.  I am opting this year to just get through the winter with what hives will.  If I get surplus honey great though as it is the reason I have wanted bees to begin with.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: woodchopper on July 18, 2010, 09:07:19 pm
When I have to feed, I ensure that I feed sugar cane sugar, not beet sugar, just my personal preference.  Has any testing been performed on the sugar cane sugar? 
Can anyone here answer kbfarms question ?
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: woodchopper on July 18, 2010, 09:23:07 pm


3. sugar (feeding or dusting) has some real implications.  first of all, as michael bush has pointed out many times, the ph of sugar is more conducive to growing AFB and many other diseases than that of honey.  secondly, some of the research out of sweden has recently shown that feeding sugar over the winter kills 4 novel (occuring no where else on the planet) strains of bacillus that live in the honeystomach of the honeybee, and doubtless have all manner of other effects on the thousands and thousands of strains of microbes that live in the hive, and make it a hospitable environment for honeybees.

i repeat my request for volunteers.  if you think your sugar feed doesn't get into your honey, why shouldn't feed syrup be dyed with food coloring to make sure?

deknow
Did the Swedish scientist use only sugar from sugar beets or sugar cane as well ? I also wonder if the sugar sold in American comes from different countries than the sugar sold in Sweden ?
 I live in the So. Shore of Boston and I'll be a volunteer for you. I'll willingly dye my sugar feed in one of my hives and let you take pictures or inspect that hive 3 or 4 weeks after I feed and again right before I pull my honey supers.
 I only fed a few quarts to my new packages this year so I probably don't feed enough to qualify as a potential volunteer. Let me know what you think though.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: caticind on July 26, 2010, 04:15:38 pm
Did the Swedish scientist use only sugar from sugar beets or sugar cane as well ? I also wonder if the sugar sold in American comes from different countries than the sugar sold in Sweden?

I lived in Sweden for a few years, so I can answer.  The sugar supply in Sweden is mostly derived from sugar beets, whereas in the US it usually comes from sugar cane.  So no, the odds are good this test did not address differences between Swedish sugar and American sugar.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: woodchopper on July 26, 2010, 06:25:13 pm
Did the Swedish scientist use only sugar from sugar beets or sugar cane as well ? I also wonder if the sugar sold in American comes from different countries than the sugar sold in Sweden?

I lived in Sweden for a few years, so I can answer.  The sugar supply in Sweden is mostly derived from sugar beets, whereas in the US it usually comes from sugar cane.  So no, the odds are good this test did not address differences between Swedish sugar and American sugar.
Thanks for the clarification. I figured that was the case but wondered why anyone would use the Swedish study to condemn ALL treating or feeding with sugar when the study obviously only used sugar from sugar beets. 
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: deknow on July 26, 2010, 09:38:59 pm
as far as i know, regardless of source (cane or beet), refined sugar is (the "chemical") sucrose.  certainly cane sugar and beet sugar are more simlar to one another than either one is to honey.

the best i can tell, either sugar is 99.9% sucrose...a gallon of water (8lbs) that is 99.9% pure contains about .13oz of "impurity".

so, is there better data to describe the difference?  what is in the 0.02oz/lb impurity that makes a difference?  about 1/2gram per lb?

deknow
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: woodchopper on July 27, 2010, 10:28:59 pm
as far as i know, regardless of source (cane or beet), refined sugar is (the "chemical") sucrose.  certainly cane sugar and beet sugar are more simlar to one another than either one is to honey.

the best i can tell, either sugar is 99.9% sucrose...a gallon of water (8lbs) that is 99.9% pure contains about .13oz of "impurity".

so, is there better data to describe the difference?  what is in the 0.02oz/lb impurity that makes a difference?  about 1/2gram per lb?

deknow
Yes they are very similar but without question not the same. Beet and cane sugar grown in different countries are subject to different growing techniques [pesticides] and refining processes. Sugar from one side of the world very well might have differences in the .13oz of" impurity" you speak of. 
 The Swedish study would have giving themselves better creditability with the US beeks that worry about this had they tested both kinds of sugars to rule out any questions.
 I personally worry more about the person down the street using Round Up on their driveway than the tiny amount of sugar I feed my girls each year. Your mileage may vary.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Acebird on December 05, 2010, 03:28:57 pm
Quote
Due to all the controversy over treating for varroas and feeding sugar syrup, wouldn't it make more sense to let the bees dependent on these methods for survival just die off and retain the bees that are hardy and mite resistant.  I know this would take some time and one would suffer losses, but wouldn't it be worth the effort in the long run if one were wanting to go all natural in their beekeeping efforts? 

Bingo! Obviously not for the commercial bee keeper but for us this is the attitude we have adopted.  We got bees to pollinate our gardens which for the most part should not have many toxins present.  At least that is what we are hoping.  With Monsanto trying to make the backyard garden illegal it is virtually impossible to raise organic bees without netting a 2 mile radius farm and controlling what enters.  But if you leave nature to nature survival of the fittest should prevail.  I think efforts should be made on explaining why mites and disease have become such a problem today.  What has man done to cause the problem and then how can we get man to stop doing it?
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Kathyp on December 05, 2010, 04:27:12 pm
Quote
why mites and disease have become such a problem today.  What has man done to cause the problem and then how can we get man to stop doing it?

why do you assume that man has cause this?  disease and parasite exist in nature apart from man.  nature is a cruel thing.  death and disease and constant.

now...i do think that saving those of a species that are weak and breeding that weakness in, is not good.  on the other hand, when we choose to keep a thing, we have responsibility to care for that thing.  i do not think it is an all or nothing proposition.  it is a matter of common sense.

if you do not want to care for what you keep, leave in nature and nature will determine it's survival.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Acebird on December 06, 2010, 09:41:45 am
Quote
why mites and disease have become such a problem today.  What has man done to cause the problem and then how can we get man to stop doing it?

why do you assume that man has cause this?  disease and parasite exist in nature apart from man.  nature is a cruel thing.  death and disease and constant.

now...i do think that saving those of a species that are weak and breeding that weakness in, is not good.  on the other hand, when we choose to keep a thing, we have responsibility to care for that thing.  i do not think it is an all or nothing proposition.  it is a matter of common sense.

if you do not want to care for what you keep, leave in nature and nature will determine it's survival.

"we have responsibility  to care for that thing"

Is that just an excuse for us intervening into their world for our benefit?  In most cases everything in nature has a beter chance of survival without man.  Man is the most distructive species on earth.  I can't think of one problem that exist in the world that wasn't caused by man himself.




Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Kathyp on December 06, 2010, 09:58:01 am
Quote
Is that just an excuse for us intervening into their world for our benefit?  In most cases everything in nature has a beter chance of survival without man.  Man is the most distructive species on earth.  I can't think of one problem that exist in the world that wasn't caused by man himself.

that's quite an accomplishment.  you managed to make a statement that is entirely false. 
since we are in a beekeeping section, i'll stick to the beekeeping portion of your statement.

Quote
Is that just an excuse for us intervening into their world for our benefit?

yes.  assuming you believe your above statement, you should not be keeping bees.  it would not be for their benefit.  since you choose to keep them, it must be for your benefit.  if this is true, you are responsible for caring for them.

it is the same with anything we have.  dogs, cats, horses.  i happen to have horses.  if they were in the wild, they would not be immunized, have their feet tended to, or be wormed.  because i keep them, i care for them.  because i care for them, they have every chance of living into their late 20's or early 30's with good health.  that would be a very rare thing in the wild. 

would you apply to evil man the same "survival of the fittest" theory that you apply to your livestock?  that we should not feed, provide clean water, immunize, etc. those who are in need?  we could seriously reduce evil man by simply refusing to care for those who can not/will not care for themselves.  how about defective or ill children in 1st world societies.  what a drain on resources!   oops...got off the bee thing....sorry.  just that the last was an interesting thought.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Bee Happy on December 06, 2010, 03:40:45 pm
With Monsanto trying to make the backyard garden illegal

huh?
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: GoatLady on December 10, 2010, 09:28:25 am
First let me say that I am a Newbee.
Today, my biggest question is what to feed my first bees coming from BeeWeaver the first week of April 2011?
If possible, I would not like to start out on the wrong foot by depending on sugar water. I have no clue if there will be enough blooms at that time (on the desert) to sustain them.
Thank you for your more experienced replies!
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Robo on December 10, 2010, 09:44:23 am
Unless you are buying a nuc that comes with drawn comb and stores,  sugar syrup is your best bet.  If your getting a package, it will come with syrup,  and you want them to build comb as quick as possible so the queen can start laying.  Your hive will be in decline for the first month until brood starts hatching.  You will really be setting them back if you expect them to collect nectar to build wax and feed brood on their own.  The faster you can get them build up, the better off they will be and the quicker you can get off of sugar if that is your goal.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Bee-Bop on December 10, 2010, 07:13:23 pm
I agree with Robo;

Feed, Feed, Feed, those new bees, when nature starts producing enough nectar and pollen, they will stop taking your sugar syrup !

Bee-Bop

Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Michael Bush on December 10, 2010, 09:56:56 pm
I've been feeding cane and beet sugar to bees for 36 years and see no difference.  The bees don't seem to see one either.  Now unrefined or partially refined it may make a lot of difference for all I know, but pure white sugar doesn't seem to matter.
http://www.beesource.com/resources/usda/supplemental-feeding-of-honey-bee-colonies/ (http://www.beesource.com/resources/usda/supplemental-feeding-of-honey-bee-colonies/)
http://www.beesource.com/resources/usda/considerations-in-selecting-sugars-for-feeding-to-honey-bees/ (http://www.beesource.com/resources/usda/considerations-in-selecting-sugars-for-feeding-to-honey-bees/)
http://www.bushfarms.com/beesfeeding.htm#kindofsugar (http://www.bushfarms.com/beesfeeding.htm#kindofsugar)

Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: David McLeod on December 11, 2010, 11:52:02 am
Quote
Is that just an excuse for us intervening into their world for our benefit?  In most cases everything in nature has a beter chance of survival without man.  Man is the most distructive species on earth.  I can't think of one problem that exist in the world that wasn't caused by man himself.

Wow, I haven't seen a statement more full of self loathing than this. If this really is the case then the answer is obvious. Or is only the enlightened pantheists get to decide how to apply that answer. I can't believe the twisted logic and mentality of some people.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Acebird on December 15, 2010, 03:22:09 pm
With Monsanto trying to make the backyard garden illegal

huh?

sorry it took awhile.

http://www.ufo-blogger.com/2010/08/us-senate-bill-s510-allows-raiding-your.html (http://www.ufo-blogger.com/2010/08/us-senate-bill-s510-allows-raiding-your.html)
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Bee Happy on December 15, 2010, 04:04:53 pm
With Monsanto trying to make the backyard garden illegal

huh?

sorry it took awhile.

http://www.ufo-blogger.com/2010/08/us-senate-bill-s510-allows-raiding-your.html (http://www.ufo-blogger.com/2010/08/us-senate-bill-s510-allows-raiding-your.html)

I searched it after you mentioned it (sorry to stray off topic - I'll make it up) I havent seen the final final result of this bill, but if it is what the blogs are saying it's unconstitutional.
- No I guess I won't actually do that much to go back on topic - sugar is a chemical (compound) - but so is honey - I guess then it boils down to who it's good for and who the chemist is.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: T Beek on December 18, 2010, 03:29:04 pm
Hang in there Acebird, you've got plenty of company around here. 

Remember; flies will land on dung as likely as they'll land on pie.

This is a great posting, glad it got re-awakened.

thomas
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Kathyp on December 18, 2010, 04:28:21 pm
unfortunately for the education of the public, the whole  Monsanto thing is a red herring.  it is the goal of "progressives" to have government control.  we have an excellent example of the goal in Venezuela.  if you look at what Chavez has done and look at what our government is doing, the behaviors are the same.  our government has just been a Little more subtle about it and has not been able to implement changes to the same degree.  there is a reason the Chavez is openly embraced by so many on the far left.  he is doing quickly what they are forced to do slowly.

do not be distracted by the Monsanto argument.  it is the government which sets and implements the policy.  our government is doing the same through agencies like FCC, FDA, EPA etc.  they operate even outside the controls that a more conservative congress could apply.  they are unaccountable and unstoppable as long as they have the backing of the leadership.,\
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: T Beek on December 18, 2010, 04:54:48 pm
In RE: per kathyP opinion; "it is the goal of "progressives" to have government control." 

Perhaps as a balance to the corporate control we have now. 

May the ghost of Bob LaFolette be with you.

thomas
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Kathyp on December 18, 2010, 05:12:54 pm
sorry, no.  it is their goal to have big government and control.  that does not mean that they will not co-opt corporations toward their goal...

you really need to pay more attention.  the "big corporation" argument is their excuse, and in fact a long used Marxist excuse, for government control.
many people like you, have bought the argument and the whole class warfare thing.  it is what gives government the leeway to do as they  now do.

you should go back and read all of the speeches and papers that preceded each communist revolution, and even the French revolution. the French revolution is often compared to ours, only having gone wrong.  it really was not.  it was a class warfare revolution and written in modern language, some of the arguments for it were very Karl Marx.  read what Chavez said before he was "elected".  you are just parroting what was said.  time to do your own research.

in a capitalist/market economy, which we really no longer have, the corporation is controlled by the market.  you don't like something, you don't buy it or invest in it, and it ceases to exist.  in our current system, the corporation is regulated and supported by the government.  you don't like the corporation, you don't' buy or invest, and the government steps in and supports. (GM, airlines, etc.) the government, not the consumer, chooses who lives and dies.
the government and the corporation become one.  the government controls.  same thing is happening with farm subsidies, especially the ethanol crap.
the  corporation in a market based economy is not evil.  if it produces a good product, it does well and hires people and  pays taxes.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1729156220101217 (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1729156220101217)
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: T Beek on December 18, 2010, 05:51:13 pm
Sorry kathyP, but your kinda sounding like Glenn Beck, he likes to self-pro-claim his opinions as "the word" cherry-picking and distorting history to fit into his own point of view too.

Its very important to listen to all sides on these issues.  Why is that so hard for so many?  I have my theories. Just labeling people as this or that is a disconnect and serves no purpose but division (and who does that serve? One guess)

Simply belittling others is easy when you're not facing them and has the oposite effect of inviting debate (the bully's usually win) something that already happens way too much around this forum.

thomas
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Acebird on December 18, 2010, 05:59:39 pm
Quote
in our current system, the corporation is regulated and supported by the government.  you don't like the corporation, you don't' buy or invest, and the government steps in and supports. (GM, airlines, etc.) the government, not the consumer, chooses who lives and dies.

Oh boy ... :-x

There are two ways to get back to a pure capitalistic system.  Stop the influence of the corporation on our government or by revolution (change the government in an extreme way).  Nobody wants the latter because of the hardships that will be endured.  But the threat may be all that is needed.

Raise your own bees and grow your own food and Monsanto can stick it.  Trust me this scares the heck out of them no matter how much support they get from the government.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: T Beek on December 18, 2010, 06:02:19 pm
ditto to that.  Now, can we get back to topic? :-D

thomas
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Kathyp on December 18, 2010, 06:04:11 pm
true acebird.  self sufficiency negates much control....no matter where it comes from

T Beek, i have no idea why you would feel like you were being belittled, but when i hear "big corporation" as an explanation of what is happening, i  know that you have either embraced the class warfare of Marxism, or you have not studied your history.  if you prefer Marxist ideology, fair enough.  if you have not educated yourself, there is no excuse.

if my suggestion bothers you, ignore it.  if you feel i am a bully toward you, block me.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: T Beek on December 18, 2010, 06:17:54 pm
kathyP says; "if you have not educated yourself there's no excuse."

Tell me how that's not offensive, condescending and nothing but a your own pre-concieved notion/opinion expressed because you happen to disagree with someone elses viewpoint?

Is it why you're on this thread?  You don't seem to agree with many of the concepts of Natural Beekeeping as shown by your posts.

thomas
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Kathyp on December 18, 2010, 07:24:30 pm
Not so.  I pretty much practice it.  I don’t embrace it as a religion.   Some seem to and attack those who don’t.
And I say...if you have not bothered to study history there is no excuse.  As I also said if you embrace marxism...fair enough.  This is not a judgement on your position. You have not said whether y
you are a follower of marks.
I can not own what you choose to let offend you.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: T Beek on December 19, 2010, 06:09:41 am
More assumptions and degrading from you :roll:.  You may "pretty much practice" it but your also pretty quick to disclaim the same (see your posts on this thread).  Do you read what you say to some people?  Particularly those you "assume" are marxists or haven't studied history. 

WHo made you the marxist hunter anyway?  Would you say what you have if you were sitting in front of them/us/me?  That should be the question before the send button is pushed (by anyone).

We're all people out here kathyp and we all deserve respect even if we don't have 9k posts.  Opinion differences are just that.

Just because something is read, said or believed (by you or anyone else) doesnt always make it true. And don't you think self-rhightousness is really kinda thick?

thomas
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Acebird on December 19, 2010, 09:54:29 am
Does it really matter if you read your history anyway?  It gets repeated over and over again so why bother reading it.  To me it is a waste of time.

All I know is organic practices will increase the quality of life in the long run and inorganic practices will not.  We just watched a movie last night  "dirt, the movie".  It is not a big seller because it is a documentary.  However if you are in to history this is one case that has been repeated but on a much larger scale.

If you take the time to research you cannot deny what is happening.  Whether sugar is a chemical or not it is not a natural food for bees because of the way it is delivered.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: T Beek on December 19, 2010, 10:09:55 am
Excellent doc is "dirt"  another is "Flow" (about the planets dwindling water supplies and how water rights are being bought up by the wealthy in some of the poorest countries) or "gasland" or "blue gold" (another one about water).

History is one thing but serving up ideology disguised as history and then calling any other viewpoint wrong is simply rude.
These forums work best when they invite debate and thoughtful opinion, not shut it down.

thomas

PS; Ruth Stout; an advocate for working smart, not hard, bless her heart.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: luvin honey on December 28, 2010, 07:14:18 pm
Is that just an excuse for us intervening into their world for our benefit?  In most cases everything in nature has a beter chance of survival without man.  Man is the most distructive species on earth.  I can't think of one problem that exist in the world that wasn't caused by man himself.
How about death?

Perhaps "man" causes a lot of problems, but not all of them. As for being a "husband" as in husbandry, if we have animals I believe we are duty bound to do our best to care for them. My chickens that are inside for winter need me to feed and water them, to clean their barn room--that's not an excuse to intervene. It's just reality.

As for bees, the very act of being a beekeeper has put you into the "intervention" category. If you believe bees survive best in nature, let them be. In fact, it's rather unnatural for us in North America to have honeybees at all, as I do not believe they are native here. But, this may just be arguing. There's obviously quite a continuum of hands on and hands offness for having bees.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Acebird on December 28, 2010, 07:45:24 pm
Quote
How about death?


If it weren't for Eve giving Adam that bad apple man would have lived forever.  ;)
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Rosalind on January 01, 2011, 06:41:04 pm

Isn't that the whole principle behind evolution?  The ones with better grip survive and mate with other "better grippers" and after a few generations we only have mites with kung-fu grip (Sorry couldn't help reverting back to my childhood with GI Joe...)

Quote
I think that take longer than becoming resistant to chems.
Why?



I know this is an older post, but I certainly think that it takes longer to develop resistance to physical removal than chemical resistance. That has been the case with viruses, bacteria, protozoans and other insects, as well as cancer cells, so I see no reason that Varroa mites would be very different. The receptors to which the chemicals bind require very few mutations to change shape sufficiently to become resistant; in many cases, a pumping mechanism is adapted from other efflux pump gene replicates that is capable of pumping out many toxic chemicals. However, the mutations required to modify appendages and skeletal formation are fairly rare--additional "fingers" requires modification of genes whose function is critical to the organism, so critters with mutations in those genes don't often live to reproduce. Thicker chitin would also mean poorer oxygen diffusion through longer spiracles, and suffocate the critter, so they aren't apt to grow a thicker hide, which is why diatomaceous earth is still a good broad-spectrum insecticide (I use it in my barn, well away from bees).

Receptor chemistry is actually quite flexible. In the olden days (OK, when I was an undergrad...), biochemistry students learned that it was all locks and keys and everything had to fit perfectly, but now we know that is definitely not the case, that receptors are very floppy indeed, and most all the dreaded Chemicals work by a receptor-ligand-antagonist type of arrangement that is dead easy to work around in a few generations.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Bee Happy on January 02, 2011, 11:36:57 pm

As for bees, the very act of being a beekeeper has put you into the "intervention" category. If you believe bees survive best in nature, let them be.

I just find robbing them much easier on both of us if I can trick them into putting their honey in easily stolen frames.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: T Beek on January 03, 2011, 07:53:53 am
As I've read and said many times before;  Keeping bees implies "keeping them alive" and its pretty hard to keep them alive without diligent study and observation, which includes "at least" some minimal internal inspection (and lots of reading :-D). 

One (or many) can argue back and forth forever on exactly how much or often.  With "sustainable" beekeeping an open mind is required, as the only permenant is change.

For now, there are few substitutes for just leaving bees enough honey to survive winters, and whether one agrees or not, sugar remains as one that WILL keep your bees alive.

thomas
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: BjornBee on January 03, 2011, 09:46:50 am
For now, there are few substitutes for just leaving bees enough honey to survive winters, and whether one agrees or not, sugar remains as one that WILL keep your bees alive.
thomas

And there lies the problem.

In nature, bees would thrive in areas with vast nectar varieties, coupled with several flows lasting a good part of the year.

However, beekeepers keep bees where they live, and some parts of the country just does not produce well timed flows for stimulating fall brood, as well as other aspects for a colony to thrive. (ie. little spring buildup prior to flow, etc.) And in some areas, if the beekeeper ever wanted honey (And I suspect many do), you may not get any due to lack of flow and excess honey production. This idea that one should never feed artificial feeds is many times at odds with keeping bees alive and actually producing a honey crop.

So what one hears, is beekeepers taking this "I'm not feeding my bees anything but their own honey" which is an empty promise to the bees since the beekeeper does not have any to feed anyways.

January 2011 ABJ page 16, advertisement for the "4th organic beekeepers chemical free conference" includes in their advertisement the wording "Getting off the artificial feeds" as one of their topics and goals. Yes, it's nice to think you can always leave enough honey for bees to survive, but that is not always the case. And for many beekeepers, especially for those starting out, it's a pipe dream shoved their way, oftentimes resulting in death of a colony by some line drawn in the sand.

Beekeepers may want to assess their location, flow, and other aspects of keeping bees before assuming because a bunch of others suggest or promote not feeding your bees (or feeding with something you don't have) that this would be a good thing.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Acebird on January 03, 2011, 10:49:35 am
Quote
However, beekeepers keep bees where they live, and some parts of the country just does not produce well timed flows for stimulating fall brood

That is why we invested $500 in wild flower seeds and better than $900 in compost to establish a field and vegetable garden over the waste land that the sign people left us before we ever got our first colony of bees.  There are also 6 other gardens with a host of flowers that bloom in succession.  You don’t what to know how many backbreaking hours were required to establish these tasks.  That is probably more than most people would do to “take care” of their bees.


http://i697.photobucket.com/albums/vv333/acebird1/Garden/Picture508.jpg (http://i697.photobucket.com/albums/vv333/acebird1/Garden/Picture508.jpg)

http://i697.photobucket.com/albums/vv333/acebird1/Garden/Wild006.jpg (http://i697.photobucket.com/albums/vv333/acebird1/Garden/Wild006.jpg)

http://i697.photobucket.com/albums/vv333/acebird1/Garden/Wild010.jpg (http://i697.photobucket.com/albums/vv333/acebird1/Garden/Wild010.jpg)

http://i697.photobucket.com/albums/vv333/acebird1/Garden/Picture539.jpg (http://i697.photobucket.com/albums/vv333/acebird1/Garden/Picture539.jpg)


Quote
So what one hears, is beekeepers taking this "I'm not feeding my bees anything but their own honey" which is an empty promise to the bees since the beekeeper does not have any to feed anyways.

Why would assume that?  We have plenty of honey to feed our bees.  If you are nice I will let you borrow some.

Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: deknow on January 03, 2011, 10:58:22 am
Keeping bees implies "keeping them alive" and its pretty hard to keep them alive without diligent study and observation, which includes "at least" some minimal internal inspection
i'm willing to bet that on balance, most first year beekeepers do the bees more harm than good when they inspect the hive.

Quote
For now, there are few substitutes for just leaving bees enough honey to survive winters, and whether one agrees or not, sugar remains as one that WILL keep your bees alive.
lots of bees that are fed (even ones that are fed properly) die.  don't assume that feeding sugar (or honey for that matter) "keeps bees alive"...it can, but it doesn't necessarily.

deknow
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Robo on January 03, 2011, 11:08:38 am

That is why we invested $500 in wild flower seeds and better than $900 in compost to establish a field and vegetable garden over the waste land that the sign people left us before we ever got our first colony of bees.  There are also 6 other gardens with a host of flowers that bloom in succession.  You don’t what to know how many backbreaking hours were required to establish these tasks.  That is probably more than most people would do to “take care” of their bees.

That is all well and good, but I hope you have a plan B when we hit a few drought years.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Scadsobees on January 03, 2011, 11:10:18 am
Don't assume that a few acres of flowers that you plant will necessarily do anything to keep the bees alive either.  It may help a little, but bees need many many acres or a lot of trees.

And a vegetable garden, while it may benefit from the bees, is worthless to the bees unless you plant all brassica family plants and let them go to flower, or all sunflowers.

a hot month without rain will make all that completely worthless and the hives empty.  At that point, in that year, it's either feed them or let all the hard work with genetics and breeding go to waste.  You can be a purist and hope that a few survive, or you can protect them and keep what good you have already.

Then there's always the question of how much to take when.  I usually harvest in the beginning of August, that leaves 2.5 months for them to collect.  Some years they'll put a ton away after that, last year they did squat, so I had to feed sugar.  Sure is hard predicting the future, especially after a perfect sunny, wet enough summer.  If I collect the honey too soon I'll have packed hives swarming by the end of august some years, some years not. 
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Acebird on January 03, 2011, 11:13:05 am
Quote
i'm willing to bet that on balance, most first year beekeepers do the bees more harm than good when they inspect the hive.

That's it.  You've convinced me to give up right now.  I  will just buy the hive and hire you to come look at my bees say once a week.  Is that frequent enough?   What did you say your rate was?  I need to factor that in for next years budget. :-D :-D
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Acebird on January 03, 2011, 11:43:27 am
Quote
but I hope you have a plan B when we hit a few drought years.

Drought?  Drought here is when you have to set the point down another 10 ft ( go from 15 ft to 25 ft).

Quote
And a vegetable garden, while it may benefit from the bees, is worthless to the bees unless you plant all brassica family plants and let them go to flower, or all sunflowers.

They worked the broccoli clear into November this year.  Sun flowers, black eyed susans, and a host of other flowering plants I don't know the name of.  Ask my wife.

Quote
Don't assume that a few acres of flowers that you plant will necessarily do anything to keep the bees alive either.  It may help a little, but bees need many many acres or a lot of trees.

There are still 4 acres of trees left on this commercial property and a raging creek.  The bees have plenty without our help, we just don't want them to go to parts unknown, especially the apple orchards and golf courses near by.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: deknow on January 03, 2011, 12:05:52 pm
...you are greatly overestimating the impact a few acres has on bee forage.

deknow
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: T Beek on January 03, 2011, 12:23:02 pm
Experinced forager bees may (will?) pretty much ignore planted plots of wildflowers and will often lead those less experinced foragers miles away.  We can "help" (them or us?) with local plantings but that's all, as they decide where to go and what to bring back to the hive.  

The only exception "I've" found around here is with Mexican Bamboo.  They love the stuff and since its the last plant with any flowers, our patches of it are always loaded with bees in the Fall.  Its our last flow of the year and I've  been telling beeks to plant it around their property for years.  I've recently heard there is a variety that blooms in the Spring, I gotta get me some of that.

thomas
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Acebird on January 03, 2011, 12:25:17 pm
Quote
...you are greatly overestimating the impact a few acres has on bee forage.

I was hoping you were going to say that.

When you do your next research project I would like you to find (maybe others would too) out how many flowering plants per acre is required to sustain 1000 bees.

Once you find out this number we can calculate how many hives we can have in a bee yard before competitions creates starvation or exhaustion in the bees because they have to burn up more energy flying to a food source than what they can bring back.

One more question:  If I mow down the gardens and burn the woods will it help or hinder my bees?
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Acebird on January 03, 2011, 12:32:39 pm
Quote
The only exception "I've" found around here is with Mexican Bamboo.

For zone 4 Borage is a bee magnet.  I would say broccoli is a good second.  Actually, these gardens, wild and cultivated is a good way to get over your fears of bees because the bees will be all around you wearing no protection at all.  When you brush through they just jump off buzz around and return almost instantly when you go by.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: deknow on January 03, 2011, 12:37:23 pm
Quote
...you are greatly overestimating the impact a few acres has on bee forage.

I was hoping you were going to say that.

When you do your next research project....

i've been more than patient and helpful here.  go do your own research.  if your tactic here is to make questionable statements for others to critique and correct you, it gets tired fast, and it fills the the forum with a bunch of posts full of untrue statements and assumptions that are confusing for other new beekeepers.

go spend some of your own time.  you seem to have plenty of time to post here, your time would be better served by reading a few books, and searching the archives (here and elsewhere) for the answers to some of your questions.  ...this isn't to say that you have to spend any money....there are lots of good beekeeping books (older ones) online, and your local library can get anything via interlibrary loan.

deknow
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Acebird on January 03, 2011, 12:40:16 pm
Quote
Experinced forager bees may (will?) pretty much ignore planted plots of wildflowers and will often lead those less experinced foragers miles away.  We can "help" (them or us?) with local plantings but that's all, as they decide where to go and what to bring back to the hive.


Yeah, and they are not idiots either.  If there is a closer source of nectar the word gets back to the hive and the garden and the bees win.  The forger that ignores the source close by will not last as long as the one that brings back the most nectar.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Acebird on January 03, 2011, 12:46:27 pm
Quote
and it fills the the forum with a bunch of posts full of untrue statements and assumptions that are confusing for other new beekeepers.

That is the one common denominator about bee keeping in general, whether it is a book, a forum or a local club.  Go figure.

Thank you for the time you have spent by the way.  I appreciate it.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: deknow on January 03, 2011, 12:48:49 pm
Yeah, and they are not idiots either.  If there is a closer source of nectar the word gets back to the hive and the garden and the bees win.  The forger that ignores the source close by will not last as long as the one that brings back the most nectar.

wrong again.  please stop and do some reading.

deknow
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: deknow on January 03, 2011, 12:57:53 pm
Quote
and it fills the the forum with a bunch of posts full of untrue statements and assumptions that are confusing for other new beekeepers.

That is the one common denominator about bee keeping in general, whether it is a book, a forum or a local club.  Go figure.

...the difference here is that you know you don't know what you are talking about.  you seem to be willfully spreading your ignorance in order to draw information out of those that have more knowledge and experience than you.  it is a manipulative tactic, and it especially frustrating coming from someone that states outright that they don't want to read any books.

i'm happy to tutor you for a price...i'm basing my price on the fact that you spent $900 on compost.

deknow
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: T Beek on January 03, 2011, 01:15:46 pm
Yeah, and they are not idiots either.  If there is a closer source of nectar the word gets back to the hive and the garden and the bees win.  The forger that ignores the source close by will not last as long as the one that brings back the most nectar.

wrong again.  please stop and do some reading.

deknow

DITTO THAT!
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Acebird on January 03, 2011, 01:18:46 pm
Quote
i'm basing my price on the fact that you spent $900 on compost.

Is it cheaper in Mass?  I wished I knew that.  What do they get for a yard of compost delivered.  We needed 60 yards in a hurry.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: T Beek on January 03, 2011, 01:21:45 pm
mEXICAN bAMBOO DOES FINE IN ZONE 2 (two)

THOMAS

 :oops: that darn cap button is stuck again
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: deknow on January 03, 2011, 01:28:43 pm
errrr....you needed $900 in compost in a hurry to "care for your bees"?  10 hours of reading on your part would do your bees much more good than the compost you spread.

deknow
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Scadsobees on January 03, 2011, 02:02:08 pm

Quote
And a vegetable garden, while it may benefit from the bees, is worthless to the bees unless you plant all brassica family plants and let them go to flower, or all sunflowers.

They worked the broccoli clear into November this year.  Sun flowers, black eyed susans, and a host of other flowering plants I don't know the name of.  Ask my wife.

Quote
Don't assume that a few acres of flowers that you plant will necessarily do anything to keep the bees alive either.  It may help a little, but bees need many many acres or a lot of trees.

There are still 4 acres of trees left on this commercial property and a raging creek.  The bees have plenty without our help, we just don't want them to go to parts unknown, especially the apple orchards and golf courses near by.

Yup, broccoli is a brassica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brassica)family plant.  But 1 long row of flowering broccoli will net you a frame of honey, or two.  That is why I mentioned the whole garden full.  I repeat: most gardens (especially cucurbits, tomatoes, corn, any veggie that is picked before flowering) are worthless for bees.  But worthwhile for people.

I don't recall ever seeing any bees on my shasta daisies.  I guess they have more better pickin's elsewhere.

If you think that your few acres will support much in the way of bees, and that it will keep the bees from going to the orchards and the golf course, you are mistaken.  Draw a circle on a map a half mile around your hives, and that is where your bees are.  Maybe even further.  If the golf course and orchard are in that line, there your bees are also.

Rick
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: T Beek on January 03, 2011, 02:10:16 pm
 :-DHow far are you willing to travel for compost?  Got some A-1 stuff here, and I'll give it up free, since I got plenty.

thomas
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Acebird on January 03, 2011, 03:31:25 pm
Quote
But 1 long row of flowering broccoli will net you a frame of honey, or two.


Ooh I like these numbers.  That means I could fill up my whole hive with one acre of broccoli alone.

I am almost safe with the 1/2 mi. figure.  I like that too.  Got any more good tidbits, I'm still listening?
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Acebird on January 03, 2011, 03:36:40 pm
Quote
you needed $900 in compost in a hurry to "care for your bees

We needed it to establish a vegetable garden and some for the others gardens as well.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Scadsobees on January 03, 2011, 03:51:36 pm
Quote
But 1 long row of flowering broccoli will net you a frame of honey, or two.


Ooh I like these numbers.  That means I could fill up my whole hive with one acre of broccoli alone.

I am almost safe with the 1/2 mi. figure.  I like that too.  Got any more good tidbits, I'm still listening?

That is a lot of broccoli ;).  You can also fill up a hive with a few acres of buckwheat or goldenrod too...weather permitting!!

The 1/2 mile is conservative...if it is a dry year, they go as far as they need to.  Not so safe then with a well watered golf course just right there... ;)

The whole theme here is weather weather weather.  If you get a drought and see the empty hives, you'll be tempted to break out the sugar.... 

If you want more than a few hives and want some hive increase, it sure is simple to feed them a bunch of syrup for a big buildup.  To just dismiss sugar, another tool in the beekeeping toolbox, is imho, very ignorant.  Give it a few years, then make up your mind.

BTW, if you mow down the gardens and burn the woods, it would hinder the bees a little bit.  Mostly from the smoke  ;). But they are good at flying, and love the flowers in the highway median and along side of the highway (which I think I saw in your pictures). 
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Acebird on January 03, 2011, 04:16:46 pm
Drought is the least of our concerns, floods maybe, but not drought.  The reason why we have so many good golf courses here is because you don't have to irrigate.  There aren't too many places in the country where that is true.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: rdy-b on January 03, 2011, 06:22:36 pm
Don't assume that a few acres of flowers that you plant will necessarily do anything to keep the bees alive either.  It may help a little, but bees need many many acres or a lot of trees.
And a vegetable garden, while it may benefit from the bees, is worthless to the bees unless you plant all brassica family plants and let them go to flower, or all sunflowers.

a hot month without rain will make all that completely worthless and the hives empty.  At that point, in that year, it's either feed them or let all the hard work with genetics and breeding go to waste.  You can be a purist and hope that a few survive, or you can protect them and keep what good you have already.

Then there's always the question of how much to take when.  I usually harvest in the beginning of August, that leaves 2.5 months for them to collect.  Some years they'll put a ton away after that, last year they did squat, so I had to feed sugar.  Sure is hard predicting the future, especially after a perfect sunny, wet enough summer.  If I collect the honey too soon I'll have packed hives swarming by the end of august some years, some years not. 
  this hits the nail right on the head-RDY-B
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Acebird on January 03, 2011, 07:50:29 pm
Quote
Then there's always the question of how much to take when. I usually harvest in the beginning of August, that leaves 2.5 months for them to collect. Some years they'll put a ton away after that, last year they did squat, so I had to feed sugar. Sure is hard predicting the future, especially after a perfect sunny, wet enough summer. If I collect the honey too soon I'll have packed hives swarming by the end of august some years, some years not.



I would love to see this as a separate topic and get everyone’s views on the subject.

We took the two supers off at the end of the season and left the two deeps as the hive’s stores.  The first hive that we had never produced any honey in the top supers so all we did is take them off and add the feeder.

We were told that the two bottom deeps were all the bees needed to survive the winter.  Based on the last years dead hive this is true.  Honey stores were not a problem.

What is your experience?

Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: hardwood on January 03, 2011, 08:05:54 pm
Acebird, use the search function and you'll find that this topic has been discussed many times.

Scott
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Scadsobees on January 03, 2011, 11:27:09 pm
We were told that the two bottom deeps were all the bees needed to survive the winter.  Based on the last years dead hive this is true.  Honey stores were not a problem.

What is your experience?

True -- IF you take off those supers in the first part of august.  AND if you get a good fall flow.

False -- if you take off those supers after august OR if you dont' get a good fall flow.

That's my point...every year is different.  This year the fall flow was shockingly low, despite having a wet enough summer, well producing summer.  But I've had other summers where by the end of august those two deeps(or 1 deep) are stuffed full past capacity.

It is much simpler and easier to mix up a few gallons of 1:1 or 2:1 in September and have them suck that down and still have time to cure it than it is to mess around with putting honey on there.  And still be healthy going into winter.

I'll also give them a few scoops of crystallized honey during the winter if they seem to be getting low.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Acebird on January 04, 2011, 10:31:10 am
Quote
False -- if you take off those supers after august OR if you dont' get a good fall flow.

I can't comprehend this logic.  If the supers are crammed to the hilt in October why would the deeps be empty?  Are you saying take the supers off in August and prepare for winter.  That makes no sense at all up here.  Nobody prepares for winter up here in August.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: T Beek on January 04, 2011, 11:35:52 am
August is a "great" time to prepare for winter, if not sooner, your job is to have them strong with "plenty" (more is better than less) of stores.  Kinda hard to start making sure of that in October, so August does present Northern beeks with some judgement based decision making in preparation for the season to come.  

In contrast I'll purchase all my gardens seeds in January in "preparation" for the season to come :-D.  

thomas

I'll also have all my winter firewood stacked up and under cover by August, my own little tradition.

This thread is getting very long and distorted some from the original post doncha think? :)
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Scadsobees on January 04, 2011, 11:44:41 am
Quote
False -- if you take off those supers after august OR if you dont' get a good fall flow.

I can't comprehend this logic.  If the supers are crammed to the hilt in October why would the deeps be empty?  Are you saying take the supers off in August and prepare for winter.  That makes no sense at all up here.  Nobody prepares for winter up here in August.

The bees store honey from top down.  So in October, yes, the supers could be full, but you might only have 20 lbs of honey in your top deep and your bottom deep be empty.  You do need to prepare for winter in August, unless you want to feed them.  I don't like to feed if I can help it, sugar gets expensive, and I hate to feed back honey after I did all that work of extracting.

August is the best time to prepare for winter when it comes to bees.  October is too late.  ESPECIALLY up there.

Some places do have great fall flows.  But I don't get much here.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Acebird on January 04, 2011, 12:35:47 pm
Quote
The bees store honey from top down.  So in October, yes, the supers could be full, but you might only have 20 lbs of honey in your top deep and your bottom deep be empty.

Well it is going to be an interesting Spring...

We forced the bees to do the opposite.  We added supers only after the one below was full.  Both seasons we had a hard time getting them to go into the super to begin with.  Someone told us to remove the queen extruder and so we did.  That made a huge difference.  When we took the supers off in October there was no brood in them, just honey.

What is going to happen if you remove the supers in August and the deeps are crammed full?  Doesn't that force them to swarm?
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: T Beek on January 04, 2011, 12:46:48 pm
go back a few posts on this thread to Scadsobees advise, review, save for future, review again:-D

thomas
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Scadsobees on January 04, 2011, 02:17:05 pm

We forced the bees to do the opposite.  We added supers only after the one below was full.  Both seasons we had a hard time getting them to go into the super to begin with.  Someone told us to remove the queen extruder and so we did.  That made a huge difference.  When we took the supers off in October there was no brood in them, just honey.

What is going to happen if you remove the supers in August and the deeps are crammed full?  Doesn't that force them to swarm?

You can add supers to the top, in fact you want to unless you have foundation, then you want the frames drawn properly before adding another.  But the difference is in the spring and summer they are revving up, while later summer they are revving down.

Everybody's flow is different.  That is my experience, although it sounds similar to yours. If the fall flow is really great, throw a super or two on.  At least at that point you'll know you have at least one deep of honey.  And yes, they can swarm then, but you can rest assured the hive is going into the winter with a strong new queen :-D
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Acebird on January 05, 2011, 08:10:13 pm
http://forum.beemaster.com/index.php/topic,31005.new.html#new (http://forum.beemaster.com/index.php/topic,31005.new.html#new)

This guy (book) says take the honey in the fall.  Look at the chart.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: AllenF on January 05, 2011, 08:34:02 pm
That guy is in BC also.   Every bodies flow is different.  Here in North Georgia our main flow is over by July (Harvest then) with a little flow (goldenrod) right before frost kills everything for the bees to get a little stores for winter.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: T Beek on January 05, 2011, 08:54:13 pm
I'm still gonna leave em plenty and take mine in the Spring, it works for me.

thomas
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: fat/beeman on January 07, 2011, 06:03:30 pm
hello
lot of reading on sugar here got me confused.if you have flower in your yard that produces a sugar nectar that bees collect is that a chemical.let say I feed EO of lavender in sugar water is that a chemical,but lets say the bees collect it from same plant what's the difference? bottom line at the end of yr who's hives are alive? yes you can raise bees with no intervention but only in small cases.
Don
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: T Beek on January 08, 2011, 08:45:29 am
I guess the diference lies in the substance and how much humans have messed with it when compared to naturally collected nectur, In other words, sugar, even refined white sugar is still pretty basic, while fumagilin-B, for example, is not.

thomas
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Acebird on January 08, 2011, 10:01:15 am
Quote
sugar, even refined white sugar is still pretty basic,

So is corn syrup, so is beet syrup or any other sugar derived from a plant.  What have they done to the plant, how it is grown, where it is grown and then what did they do to it in the processes that follow.  All pretty basic but not the nectar that bees normally collect.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Robo on January 08, 2011, 10:03:28 am
The original intent of this post was more on semantics, than actual treatment with chemicals.   The point being that everything is a chemical.  Yes there are bad chemicals, like a lot of the synthetic commercially available treatments, and there are potentially less harmful chemicals like the organic acids, essential oils, sugar, etc.

Yes everyone can have their own opinions of how bad or good a given "chemical" is, and can draw their own line in the sand as far as their practices.   My point is, if you are applying anything to your hive,  please don't say you are "chemical-free" :evil:
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Jim134 on January 08, 2011, 10:21:27 am
The original intent of this post was more on semantics, than actual treatment with chemicals.   The point being that everything is a chemical.  Yes there are bad chemicals, like a lot of the synthetic commercially available treatments, and there are potentially less harmful chemicals like the organic acids, essential oils, sugar, etc.

Yes everyone can have thereir own opinions of how bad or good a given "chemical" is, and can draw their own line in the sand as far as their practices.   My point is, if you are applying anything to your hive,  please don't say you are "chemical-free" :evil:

Robo  :? Do you use a smoker or use sugar, pollen supplement or Bee-Go, bee quick :?

    BEE HAPPY Jim 134  :)
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Robo on January 08, 2011, 10:28:09 am
Robo  :? Do you use a smoker or use sugar, pollen supplement or Bee-Go, bee quick :?

Yes I do,  but I don't claim the be chemical-free either :-P
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Acebird on January 08, 2011, 11:43:23 am
OK, Let me say that I have made up my mind that sugar is a chemical.  If it is a chemical and I treat my bees with it have I broken the rules of "Natural and Organic Bee Keeping Methods?"  Have I not broken the rules if it is not considered a chemical treatment?
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: deknow on January 08, 2011, 12:12:00 pm
...what "rules" are you trying to adhere to?
deknow
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Acebird on January 08, 2011, 12:21:05 pm
...what "rules" are you trying to adhere to?
deknow

The catagory that these topics are put under.

Natural and Organic Bee Keeping Methods
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: deknow on January 08, 2011, 12:24:27 pm
ok, very good, you have posted the title of the category.

now, what rules are you referring to?

deknow
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: wd on January 08, 2011, 12:53:07 pm
hello
lot of reading on sugar here got me confused.if you have flower in your yard that produces a sugar nectar that bees collect is that a chemical.let say I feed EO of lavender in sugar water is that a chemical,but lets say the bees collect it from same plant what's the difference? bottom line at the end of yr who's hives are alive? yes you can raise bees with no intervention but only in small cases.
Don

 The only difference I see is Once man processes it, it's then considered man made / artificial / synthetic, etc. Though I'm one that leans towards the belief theres a higher success rate with the help of our man made substance.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: deknow on January 08, 2011, 12:56:04 pm
The only difference I see is Once man processes it, it's then considered man made / artificial / synthetic, etc. Though I'm one that leans towards the belief theres a higher success rate with the help of our man made substance.
...if that's the only difference, why bother with honey?  put sugar syrup or hfcs on your pancakes and in your tea.

deknow
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Robo on January 08, 2011, 12:57:03 pm
As far as I know there is no accepted standard for "organic" beekeeping, so you can make your own "rules" and call your methods whatever you want.   As far as this particular forum,  I would say any treatment other than the synthetic chemicals is probably fair game for discussion.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: T Beek on January 08, 2011, 01:04:49 pm
As far as I know there is no accepted standard for "organic" beekeeping, so you can make your own "rules" and call your methods whatever you want.   As far as this particular forum,  I would say any treatment other than the synthetic chemicals is probably fair game for discussion.

Agreed.  Thanks Robo, you are the man.  I'm not aware of any existing "rule" book either :-D  Hey,,,,didn't you start this thread??? ;)

thomas
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: wd on January 08, 2011, 01:13:49 pm
The only difference I see is Once man processes it, it's then considered man made / artificial / synthetic, etc. Though I'm one that leans towards the belief theres a higher success rate with the help of our man made substance.
...if that's the only difference, why bother with honey?  put sugar syrup or hfcs on your pancakes and in your tea.

deknow

Obviously, Man doesn't make honey
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Scadsobees on January 08, 2011, 01:31:45 pm
OK, Let me say that I have made up my mind that sugar is a chemical.  If it is a chemical and I treat my bees with it have I broken the rules of "Natural and Organic Bee Keeping Methods?"  Have I not broken the rules if it is not considered a chemical treatment?

 :lau:  Sucrose or fructose or glucose sugars?  Did you let the bees know to stay away from those too?

If you have your hives near a highway or golfcourse you are breaking a much bigger organic rule than a sugar one.

The rules are all arbitrary anyway.   Some people follow standards for a reason.  Others just like to do it because it makes them feel special.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Acebird on January 08, 2011, 02:02:53 pm
Quote
As far as I know there is no accepted standard for "organic" beekeeping,


Well that mean this whole forum is a bust, no such thing as Natural and Organic? :?

I think I have seen Organically labeled Honey in the store.  Normally you can't label something Organic unless it is certified.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Robo on January 08, 2011, 02:57:05 pm
Quote
As far as I know there is no accepted standard for "organic" beekeeping,


Well that mean this whole forum is a bust, no such thing as Natural and Organic? :?

If only there where some truth to your logic.

We don't have an accepted standard for pompous forum members either,  but we sure do get our share  :piano:
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: rdy-b on January 08, 2011, 03:03:07 pm
Quote
As far as I know there is no accepted standard for "organic" beekeeping,


Well that mean this whole forum is a bust, no such thing as Natural and Organic? :?

I think I have seen Organically labeled Honey in the store.  Normally you can't label something Organic unless it is certified.
 there is a registration(dont confuse reg with cert) process for the small producer -certification is a costly endeavor
 for the small producer-there are standards that have to be meet and of course compliance-
  if you dig deep enough you will find the appropriate channels for this-reg cost is pro rated to sales
per year-not to excede $5000 in sales --so dont sell over $5000 -dosent mean the oeration cant excede $5000
 just not for organic sales -this gives you the legal right to use the O word-in your operation--RDY-B
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Bee Happy on January 08, 2011, 04:33:19 pm
...Maybe I'll just label my honey with a different "O" word in modest print.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Acebird on January 08, 2011, 04:34:46 pm
Quote
just not for organic sales


Well I guess what I am driving at is there or is there not a clasification for Organic honey?  If there is then there must also be some kind of standard or method of producing it that alow it to be called Organic.

Quote
-certification is a costly endeavor
 for the small producer-there are standards that have to be meet and of course compliance-

You are speaking of honey now right?
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Scadsobees on January 08, 2011, 04:41:36 pm
...Maybe I'll just label my honey with a different "O" word in modest print.
:-D
No really mr agricultural agent, when the "s" and the "m" get blurred together it looks like an "N"!!!

They have "better than sex" chocolate and cake, why not honey!!

From what I've heard, the organic qualification requires to you to be x number of miles from any area where chemicals being sprayed.  Because that's where your bees will be collecting.  Considering that we all live near highways, golfcourses, and agricultural areas, not to mention yards, its a pipe dream anyway.  And really moot, because most of those chemicals don't get into the honey anyway, at least not enough to cause any problems.

Better to try to buy and eat from local grown sources and just forget the whole organic thing.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: deknow on January 08, 2011, 04:48:27 pm
there are many standards that come into play under many circumstances....which is why i keep asking you "which rules" you are asking about.  there is no such thing as "the rules".

the most up to date information on the organic standards in the U.S. will probably be presented at the upcoming organic beekeeping conference in arizona....the next up to date information is probably the talk at last years conference.
USDA Organic Standards: Arthur Harvey and Stan Hildebrand (http://www.vimeo.com/10211570)

deknow
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Robo on January 08, 2011, 04:55:18 pm
The last I looked at the draft, admitting it as a few years ago, I thought it was a joke.   The 'O' word has become all about the $$$.

You could treat your bees with Terramycin and menthol, and protect comb with burning sulfur,  but you can't feed sugar to prevent starvation or use plastic frames or foundation.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: T Beek on January 08, 2011, 05:04:29 pm
"organic" became meaningless once our government got involved.  After many hard years of working for "standards" the entire field was taken over by the big boys.  I could show you all some scars...........but don't regret the experience.

thomas
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: rdy-b on January 08, 2011, 05:35:13 pm
The last I looked at the draft, admitting it as a few years ago, I thought it was a joke.   The 'O' word has become all about the $$$.

You could treat your bees with Terramycin and menthol, and protect comb with burning sulfur,  but you can't feed sugar to prevent starvation or use plastic frames or foundation.
I. Organic Apiculture Standard:

ß 205.2 Definitions.

Apiculture. The management and production of honey bees and queens and their products including but not limited to honey, beeswax, pollen, royal jelly, propolis, and bee venom.

Forage zone. Land surrounding bee colonies which provides bees with water, nectar, honeydew, pollen, and propolis.

ß 205.240 Apiculture practice standard.

(a) Products from an apiculture operation that are to be sold, labeled, or represented as organic must be from hives which have been under continuous organic management for no less than 270 days prior to the removal of the products from the hive. If a prohibited material has been used in or on the hive prior to the 270 day transition, the producer must replace the hiveís foundation with foundation made from organic wax and remove those products to be sold as organic, prior to the start of the transition period.

(b) a producer of organic apiculture products must develop an organic apiculture plan in accordance with the provisions in ß 205.201. In addition, the organic apiculture plan must:

(1) Contain a map of the forage zone which shows the location of the hives, the location of organic and wild land, and the location of all non-organic areas;

(2) Describe the quantity of organic and/or wild forage to be provided per colony, including the type or types of forage, approximate bloom period, forage density, competing species density, honeybee colony density, colony health, colony strength, topography, and climatic conditions;

(3) Describe the water sources available in the forage zone;

(4) List all sanitary landfills, incinerators, sewage treatment facilities, power plants, golf courses, towns or cities, land to which prohibited materials are applied, and all other sources of potential contamination located in the forage zone; and

(5) For split operations, list and describe the management practices used to prevent commingling and contamination, including measures to prevent commingling resulting from bee drift and robbing.

(c) a producer of organic apiculture products must maintain records in accordance with ß 205.103 and ß 205.236(c).

(d) The producer must maintain hives on land that is managed in accordance with the provisions in ß 205.202 through 205.206 or ß 205.207.

(e) The producer must provide bees with forage that is managed in accordance with the provisions in ß 205.202 through 205.206 or ß 205.207.

(f) The producer of an organic apiculture operation may:

(1) Allow bees from their operation to forage on non-organically managed land when
adequate forage from organically managed land and/or land that is managed in
accordance with ß 205.207, as defined by the operationís organic apiculture plan, has
been provided; and

(2) Provide supplemental feed from organic honey, organic sugar syrup, and/or pollen
substitutes and supplements that are allowed under 205.603, Except, That, the producer
must not provide organic sugar syrup less than 30 days prior to the harvest of honey to be
sold, labeled, or represented as organic.

(g) The producer of an organic apiculture operation must not:

(1) Maintain colonies in an area where land to which prohibited materials, as listed in ß 205.105, are applied, or where another source of contamination is located less than 4 miles (6.4 kilometers) from the apiary, as described in the operation’s organic apiculture plan.

(h) Approved hive construction materials.

(1) Hives must be made of natural materials, including wood and metal.

(2) Outside hive surfaces may be painted with non-lead based paints.

(3) Plastic foundation may be used if dipped in organic beeswax and mounted in a wooden frame.

(i) The producer must establish and maintain preventive health care practices, including:

(1) Selection of bee stocks, hive densities, and colony locations appropriate to site-
specific conditions and resistant to prevalent diseases and pests;

(2) Introduction of replacement bees which are from organic sources or from non-organic
sources, Provided, That the replacement bees are managed organically for at least 60
days prior to the removal of organic apiculture products from the hive;

(3) Maintenance of adequate supplies of honey and pollen in the hive, including leaving
hives with reserves of honey and pollen sufficient for the colony to survive the dormancy
period;

(4) Use of foundation wax not contaminated with diseases or pests;

(5) Destruction of equipment and bees contaminated with disease or pests;

(6) Use of management methods or modified equipment to control pests and diseases;

(7) Use of therapeutic applications of non-synthetic materials to control pests, parasites, and diseases, Provided, That such materials are not prohibited under ß 205.604; and

(8) Use of therapeutic applications of synthetic materials, Provided, That such materials are allowed under ß 205.603.

(j) The producer must not:

(1) Accept the presence of pests, parasites, or disease without initiating efforts to restore
the health of the colony;

(2) Use synthetic materials not listed as allowed under ß 205.603;

(3) Use non-synthetic materials prohibited under ß 205.604;

(4) Use lumber treated with synthetic materials not listed as allowed under ß 205.603 or non-synthetic materials prohibited under ß 205.604 for hive construction materials;

(5) Use synthetic materials or non-synthetic materials prohibited under ß 205.604 in bee smokers;

(6) Annually destroy bee colonies following honey flows;

(7) Rotate hives between organic and non-organic management; or

(8) Sell apiculture products as organic if they contain a residue of a prohibited material greater than 5 percent of the Environmental Protection Agencyís tolerance for the specific material, pursuant to ß 205.671.

III. Amendments to the National List:

The NOSB Apiculture Task Force gathered information on materials currently used by apiculture operations and materials currently allowed by certifying agents. The Task Force proposes that the following materials be reviewed for possible inclusion on the National List, ß 205.603.

The Task Force is not endorsing any of the materials listed below, and is not recommending the approval of any particular material listed. We recommend that the materials listed be reviewed on a high priority basis, due to the fact that many of the materials are currently being used by organic apiculture operations. Without a clear list of allowed apiculture materials, it will be impossible for the apiculture standard to be implemented.

The Task Force recommends that new subsections be created in ß 205.603 and ß 205.604 to specifically list synthetic substances allowed for use by organic apiculture operations and non-synthetic substances prohibited for use.

The current materials review process requires that a petition be submitted for each material being requested for review. The Task Force recommends that the NOSB submit the materials listed below for review, and direct the NOP to prioritize their review. The Task Force points out that a similar “blanket” list process was used when crop and handling standards were first developed. The Task Force further points out that this situation will occur when standards are written for any new sector of the organic industry. Procedures to address the review of materials for new sectors should be developed by the NOSB Materials Committee.

In the table below, the name of the material appears in the first column. The S/N code in the second column stands for synthetic/natural. The third column contains information and notes on how and why the material is used. The information in this column may be helpful to construct annotations on use of the material.

Acetic acid   S   For apicultural use to disinfect empty combs which have been exposed to European foulbrood, Nosema, or the protozoan-caused Amoeba Disease.
Carbon dioxide   S   For apicultural use to control wax moth.
Essential oils   N   For apicultural use to control tracheal mites including: menthol, cinnamon, eucalyptus, spearmint, wintergreen, thyme, and camphor. These materials may be used after the last honey harvest of the season and must be discontinued 30 days before the addition of honey supers.
Folic acid   S   For apicultural use to control Varroa mites. This material may be used after the last honey harvest of the season and must be discontinued 30 days before the addition of honey supers.
Formic acid   S   For apicultural use to control Varroa mites.
Lactic acid   N S   For apicultural use to control Varroa mites. This material may be used after the last honey harvest of the season and must be discontinued 30 days before the addition of honey supers.
Oxytetracyline
(Terramycin)   S   For apicultural use. Only for treatment of American foulbrood (AFB) in apiaries in which the
disease has been diagnosed; beekeepers may not make routine, prophylactic applications of oxytetracyline in apiaries in which there has been no confirmation of the presence of AFB.
(Note: Included for discussion purposes because oxytetracycline calcium complex is on the National List for crop production. Although terramycin is commonly used to control bee diseases, no antibiotics are allowed for other types of organic livestock. If allowed, an extended withdrawal period or re-transition of the hive should be considered prior to collection of organic apiculture products.)

Vegetable shortening   N   For apicultural use to control tracheal mites. This material may be used after the last honey
harvest of the season and must be discontinued 30 days before the addition of honey supers.
(Note: Some certifiers have allowed vegetable shortening mixed with sugar to form a patty. It is included here for review, but may not need to appear on the list, since it is a natural material, and may be used by definition. Since it ends up being eaten by the bees, it is assumed that the shortening would have to be from organic sources. If the shortening is used as an excipient, the Task Force is unclear as to whether the shortening must be organic or if it must appear on the list.)

IV. Handling Standards for Organic Apiculture Products:

The Task Force had extensive discussion on the topic of apiculture handling standards without reaching a resolution. Recognizing the complexity this topic, and our desire to move the standards forward, we recommend that, for the present time, the standards deal only with production of apiculture products.

The Task Force recommends that the NOSB Processing Committee address the issue of organic “raw” honey vs. organic processed honey as the Committee develops standards and/or criteria for allowed processing technologies.

Attached as Addendum I are “Definitions of Honey and Honey Products” approved by the National Honey Board June 15, 1996. The Task Force refers the list of definitions to the Processing Committee.

The Task Force recommends that the draft language contained below be referred to the Processing Committee for further consideration. Most of the requirements below are already covered by the handling section of the rule, and were deemed by the Task Force to be redundant. The Task Force recommends that the Processing Committee use the language below to develop a recommendation for standards which are unique to the handling of organic apiculture products.

ß 205.273 Handling organic apiculture products.

(a) a handler of organic apiculture products must develop an organic handling plan in accordance with the provisions in ß 205.201.

(b) a handler of organic apiculture products must maintain records in accordance with ß 205.103.

(c) An operation which handles organic apiculture products must implement Good Manufacturing Practices and be in compliance with all handling requirements of ß 205.270 through ß 205.272.

(d) Primary handlers of organic apiculture products must not:

(1) Add water to honey to decrease the honeyís viscosity;

(2) Use fine mesh filters or diatomaceous earth to separate seed crystals from honey;

(3) Use high pressure honey filtration;

(4) Heat or handle organic apiculture products using kerosene heaters or any heating
system which introduces petroleum fumes into the room; or

(5) Control stray bees or other insects using synthetic insecticides, repellants, or
fumigants, unless such materials are allowed under ß 205.605.

V. Acknowledgements:

Members of the NOSB Apiculture Task Force were Kim Burton, NOSB, Dave Carter, NOSB, Lynn Coody, Organic Agsystems, Harriet Behar, Independent Organic Inspectors Association, Doug McGinnis, Tropical Blossom Honey, Mike Ingalls, Pure Foods, Inc., and Garnett Puett, organic beekeeper. Thank you.

Advisors to the Task Force were Dr. Joerg Schmidt-Bailey, U of IL, Dr. Eric Mussen, UC-Davis, Dr. Michael Burgett, Oregon State, Dr. Malcolm Sanford, U of FL, Dr. Tanya Pankiw, Texas a&M, Gene Brandi, National Honey Board, Arthur Harvey, beekeeper, Dan Weaver, beekeeper, W.C. Blaiklock, MOFGA, and John and Merrill Clark, Roseland Organic Farm. Thank you.

The Task Force was ably assisted by Mark Keating of the USDAís National Organic Program.

Respectfully Submitted,

James a. Riddle
Chair, NOSB Apiculture Task Force

————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Addendum I: Definition of Honey and Honey Products

Approved by the National Honey Board June 15, 1996

PART a: HONEY

I. Definition

Honey is the substance made when the nectar and sweet deposits from plants are gathered, modified and stored in the honeycomb by honey bees.

The definition of honey stipulates a pure product that does not allow for the addition of any other substance. This includes, but is not limited to, water or other sweeteners.

II. Typical Composition

As a natural product, the composition of honey is highly variable.

Average   Range   StandardDeviation
Fructose/Glucose Ratio   1.23   0.76 – 1.86   0.126
Fructose, %   38.38   30.91 – 44.26   1.77
Glucose, %   30.31   22.89 – 40.75   3.04
Minerals (Ash), %   0.169   0.020 – 1.028   0.15
Moisture, %   17.2   13.4 – 22.9   1.46
Reducing Sugars, %   76.75   61.39 – 83.72   2.76
Sucrose, %   1.31   0.25 – 7.57   0.87
PH   3.91   3.42 – 6.10   —
Total Acidity, meq/kg.   29.12   8.68 – 59.49   10.33
True Protein, mg/100g.   168.6   57.7 – 567   70.9
References

F:G ratio, Fructose, Glucose, Sucrose: White, J. W. Jr.
Detection of Honey Adulteration by Carbohydrate Analysis, Jour. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem. 63 (1) 11-18. 1980.

Reducing Sugars and pH: Calculated from data in White, J. W., Jr. et al.
Composition of American Honeys. Tech. Bull. 1261, Agricultural Research Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 1962.

Protein: White, J. W. Jr., and Rudyj, O. N.
The Protein Content of Honey. Jour. Apicul. Res., 17 (4) 234-238. 1978.
Moisture, Total Acidity, and Minerals: White, J. W., Jr. , et al.
Composition of American Honeys. Tech. Bull. 1261, Agricultural Research Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington D.C. 1962

III. Types of Honey

Comb honey: Honey presented in its original comb or portions thereof.

Extracted honey: Honey removed from the comb and presented in several forms, as defined in the United States Department of Agriculture Standards for Grades: (1) liquid, (2) crystallized or granulated, or (3) partially crystallized. This is commonly known, and referred throughout the document, as “honey.”

IV. Designation of Honey Sources – the source of honey determines many of the attributes of honey, e.g., aroma, flavor, color and composition.

Floral: Indicates the primary flowers from which bees gathered nectar to produce the honey.

Non-Floral: Indicates primary sources other than flowers such as extra-floral nectaries and honeydew.

Geographic Origin: The name of an area of production (state, region) may be included, provided the honey has been produced entirely within that area. Blends containing honey of foreign origin must be labeled to indicate their origin(s), in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

V. Forms of Honey

1. Blended Honey: a homogeneous mixture of two or more honeys differing in floral source, color, flavor, density or geographic origin.

2. Churned Honey: See whipped honey.

3. Cremed Honey: See whipped honey

4. Crystallized Honey: Honey in which part of the natural glucose content has spontaneously crystallized from solution as the monohydrate. Also called “Granulated Honey.”

5. Filtered Honey: Honey processed by filtration to remove extraneous solids and pollen grains.

6. Honey Fondant: See whipped honey.

7. Organic Honey: Honey produced, processed, and packaged in accordance with State and Federal regulations on honey and organic products, and certified by a State Department of Agriculture or an independent organic farming certification organization.

8. Raw Honey: Honey as it exists in the beehive or as obtained by extraction, settling or straining without adding heat.

8a. Commercially Raw Honey: Honey as obtained by minimum processing. This product is often labeled as raw honey.

Notes: 1) Storage or exposure to either ambient (environmental) or applied (deliberately added) heat influences the character of honey. 2) Enzymatic activity, antimicrobial properties, microbial quality, color and chemical composition are all influenced by heat and storage. 3) There are an infinite number of time and temperature combinations that will affect the raw state of honey. 4) The definition of “minimum” processing can be set by purchasing standards.

9. Spun® Honey: See whipped honey.

10. Strained Honey: Honey which has been passed through a mesh material to remove particulate material (pieces of wax, propolis, other defects) without removing pollen.

11. Whipped Honey: Honey processed, by controlled crystallization, to a smooth spreadable consistency. Also called “Cremed Honey,” “Spun® Honey,” “Whipped Honey,” “Churned Honey,” “Candied Honey” or “Honey Fondant.”

VI. Grading

Current U.S. Standards for Grades of Extracted Honey and Comb Honey (CFR Title 7, Part 52, sections 1391-1405) are herein incorporated by reference. The grading of extracted honey includes factors such as color, clarity, absence of defects, moisture, flavor and aroma.

VII. Methods of Analysis

The official methods of analysis for honey of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists International are herein incorporated by reference (AOAC 1995, 16th edition, section 44.4).

PART B: HONEY PRODUCTS

Honey products do not meet the compositional criteria for honey; but are products consisting in whole or in part of honey.

Imitation or artificial honey is a mixture of sweeteners, colored and flavored to resemble honey. This product does not meet the definition of honey or honey products. As such, it is inappropriate to include the word honey on the label of such a product.

This is a partial and constantly growing list intended to standardize the vocabulary used in the honey trade.

1. Deionized Honey: a honey product where honey has been processed to remove selected ions.

2. Deproteinized Honey: a honey product from which protein has been removed, from the honey, by appropriate processing.

3. Dried Honey: Honey which has been dehydrated and in which edible drying aids and processing adjuncts may be included to facilitate processing and improve product stability. Dried honey comes in various particle sizes.

4. Honey Extract: Any product formed by removing selected components from honey. The nature of the component (flavor, color, etc.) determines the type of extract. See natural honey flavor.

5. Honey Spread: a variety of edible, extremely viscous honey products made from honey or creamed honey. Honey spread is sometimes blended with other ingredients (such as: fruits, nuts, flavors, spices or margarine but excluding refined sweeteners).

6. Natural Honey Flavor: a substance obtained (often by extraction) only from honey that contains the flavor constituents of honey.

7. Ultrafiltered Honey: Honey from which all materials not passing a specified submicron membrane pore size have been removed. Materials removed include most proteins, enzymes and polypeptides. Evaporation required in the processing may also remove some volatile flavor and aroma constituents.

© 2009 Beesource.com | All Rights Reserved | Chicago, Illinois | Advertise with us | Site Updates | Disclaimer | About Beesource
Search engine optimization provided by Headstand Media a Chicago Web Design Company
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Acebird on January 08, 2011, 05:49:52 pm
Quote
Better to try to buy and eat from local grown sources and just forget the whole organic thing

Buying locally grown products is a good choice where possible but buying organically grown products that are locally grown is by far better.  When the operation becomes large you absolutely need regulation and with that come $$$ for the certification.  What would you think if a pharmacy could substitute drugs that were not approved by the FDA?

Deknow, I am 20 min. into that video and loving it.  Everything they had said is true so why are you giving me such a hard time about standards?  I am going to watch the rest of it.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Acebird on January 08, 2011, 06:08:39 pm
Quote
I. Organic Apiculture Standard:

You da man rdy-b ;)
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: deknow on January 08, 2011, 06:30:36 pm
...you do know that this is a _proposed_ standard, is not actually any kind of regulation.  some certifiers use this as a basis, others use state standards, others use european, and others use no discernable standards.

of course the dynamic of the relationship is that you hire a certifier to certify you.  in such a relationship, there is a lot of motivation on the part of the certifier to find some way to certify the client....the client that you get certified this year is most likely to stay with the certifier year after year.  there is little motivation for a certifier to be overly critical.  if/when the standard actually passes, things may change.  for the time being, bees are now considered 'livestock' and all livestock rules apply (wrt organic standards).

deknow
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: rdy-b on January 08, 2011, 06:36:32 pm
...you do know that this is a _proposed_ standard, is not actually any kind of regulation.  some certifiers use this as a basis, others use state standards, others use european, and others use no discernable standards.

of course the dynamic of the relationship is that you hire a certifier to certify you.  in such a relationship, there is a lot of motivation on the part of the certifier to find some way to certify the client...the client that you get certified this year is most likely to stay with the certifier year after year.  there is little motivation for a certifier to be overly critical.  if/when the standard actually passes, things may change.  for the time being, bees are now considered 'livestock' and all livestock rules apply (wrt organic standards).

de-know

  these standards will get you registration--but the certifying agencies all have a much more rigid
  set of standards and the paper work is alot more extensive-there is a up dadte version of these standards
but it may not have been endorced into the FINAL RULE -RDY-B
http://www.beyondpesticides.org/organicfood/action/fall2010/nosb-apiculture-102710.pdf (http://www.beyondpesticides.org/organicfood/action/fall2010/nosb-apiculture-102710.pdf)
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Bee Happy on January 08, 2011, 07:57:10 pm
to ruin anything - add bureaucrats.
 
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Robo on January 08, 2011, 08:07:22 pm
Here is the QAI one that I was referring to:

Quote
Organic Honey Standards
An example from Quality Assurance International

6.7. HONEY STANDARDS
6.7.1. Bee-Stock Sources

While pedigree of the bees is not crucial to organic honey production, their handling in a manner that prevents contamination of future organic honey crops with residual honey or bee feed from non-compliant sources is crucial.

6.7.1.1. Acceptable sources of bees include:

    * Colonies in existing organic hives;
    * Colonies confined to brood chambers only covered by a queen excluder;
    * Divided colonies from conventional hives on brood combs only;
    * Package bee colonies;
    * Nucleus colony ("nucs");
    * Captured wild or migratory swarms on brood comb only.

The use of colonies that have combs containing existing honey produced from nectar collected from non-complying foraging areas is prohibited.

6.7.2. Principal Feed Source Areas

Organic honey must be produced by naturally foraging colonies that are located at least 2 miles distant, in straight-line flight, from any pollution source which could cause the honey to become contaminated by, or as a result of, returning foraging bees (e.g. synthetic-chemical sprayed agriculture, industrial centers, urban centers, etc.).

A detailed map of all forage areas is required from all applicants.

6.7.3. Feed Supplements

Each bee-keeper is required to have a supplemental feeding plan, if starvation is imminent. This would include planning for sources of honey, sugar, syrup, fruit concentrate or other food source for non-flow periods.

If the hives are moved to non-compliant nectar and pollen sources, any organic honey must be removed before the hives are moved. In addition, the first honey extracted after the re-entry period back to the compliant apiary location must be treated as conventional honey.

The use of non-compliant feed supplements during honey flow is prohibited.

6.7.4. Health-Care Practices

Bottom boards may be scraped routinely to remove accumulations of wax and other debris that serve as food and shelter for wax moths.

Colonies infected with American Foulbrood must be destroyed.

Beekeepers are allowed to use the antibiotic oxytetracycline (terramycin) as a preventive measure against the spread of American Foulbrood into colonies. Antibiotic applications may be made only after the end of honey production, and must be terminated 30 days prior to the start of new organic honey production.

Menthol is allowed for control of Tracheal Mites (Acarapis Woodi).

Folic acid, formic acid, and lactic acid are allowed for the control of Varroa Mites with the following restrictions:

    * Folic acid may be used after the end of the season's honey production. Its use must be discontinued 30 days before the addition of honey supers. The need for folic acid must be documented and approval obtained from QAI prior to its use;
    * Formic acid has not been approved by the EPA for use against mites in the U.S. The need for formic acid must be documented and approval obtained from QAI prior to its use;
    * Lactic acid may be used after the end of the season's honey production. Its use must be discontinued 30 days before the addition of honey supers. The need for lactic acid must be documented and approval obtained from QAI prior to its use.

6.7.4.1. The following practices are prohibited:

    * Use of sugar syrup, or oil (shortening) based extender patties for administering antibiotics for American Foulbrood control;
    * Use of synthetically compounded materials for health care.

6.7.5. Hives & Apiary Yard Locations:

    * Apiary "yards" should be located near abundant, forageable pollen and nectar crops; yards should be located in areas of low ant activity;
    * Hives (if paintable) should be painted with non-toxic paint and in a suitable color for the climatic conditions;
    * Comb foundations are to be made of pure beeswax, and frames are to be made from wood. Plastic frames, foundations or combs are prohibited;
    * Additional supers (boxes of production combs above the brood chambers) are encouraged for successful colonies;
    * Each individual hive must have a numbered I.D. code that relates to the bottom board, brood chamber boxes, queen excluder (if used), honey supers, and cover(s);
    * Use of wet comb (extracted, but wet with honey) from conventional hives is prohibited.

6.7.6. Harvesting

6.7.6.1. Accepted methods for removing bees from the honey supers during harvesting include:

    * Bee escapes with a natural smoke agitant;
    * Bee brush and transfer boxes;
    * Forced-air bee blower.

The use of "fume boards" with non-compliant or unregistered repellents of any kind during harvesting is prohibited. Examples of these prohibited products include butyric anhydride (Bee Go and Honey Robber) or benzaldehyde.

6.7.7. Extraction Facility

The extraction facility must adhere to all regulations for organic processing facilities.

6.7.7.1. Acceptable moth controls in storage include:

    * Burning sulfur;
    * Refrigeration or freezing.

Any honey heated to over 110 degrees F must not be labeled "raw" honey because of heat denaturing of enzymes.

The labeling of organic honey grade or color shall comply with USDA honey industry standards. Organic honey labeled by floral source must be produced solely from that single floral source and not blended with any other honey.

6.7.8. Record-Keeping

Yard records of all inputs must be maintained, including dates and amounts of materials applied. A detailed production log with an apiary yard location system must be maintained in an auditable format.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Acebird on January 08, 2011, 08:08:42 pm
I think it is all good.  Certainly a step in the right direction.  I think it is sad that the US is no longer a leader but more of a follower in the world arena.

None of these measures will affect the small beek any more than they affect the small farmer.  As the background voice in the video admitted, it is not about the quality of the honey it is about convincing your customers that what you are doing is right and good for the future.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: rdy-b on January 08, 2011, 08:31:45 pm
 yea there is a issue with the terymiycine-when comparing the standards
the standard that allows termiycine-also says burn foul-brood-the basic standard says no antibiotics-
 I would imagine the USDA standard would apply even though theQAI is accredited by USDA-one would sure find out for sure when renewal came up and they state terymiycine-on the synthitic substance page of the renwall-it would probably be revoked -i would think-RDY-B
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: T Beek on January 09, 2011, 10:39:28 am
I think it is all good.  Certainly a step in the right direction.  I think it is sad that the US is no longer a leader but more of a follower in the world arena.

None of these measures will affect the small beek any more than they affect the small farmer.  As the background voice in the video admitted, it is not about the quality of the honey it is about convincing your customers that what you are doing is right and good for the future.
I don't know, I think that sometimes all the regulations just give the Big Boys room to skirt the rules and squeeze the little guys out of business.  That said, its not as easy for the Big Boys to convince consummers as it is for the rest of us, as we "actually" tend to live in the communities we sell to :) Consummers know that Big Biz'z primary interests are profits, not neccessarily customer satisfaction.  Yet another reason to stay small and sustainable.  Works for me.

And it is too "all about quality" (maybe not for the greedy) particularly for the little guys. 

thomas

thomas
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: deknow on January 09, 2011, 11:33:58 am
As the background voice in the video admitted, it is not about the quality of the honey it is about convincing your customers that what you are doing is right and good for the future.
...when someone buys a jar of honey, they are buying FOOD, not intentions.  our customers certainly appreciate what we are doing, but they won't spend good money on something they don't want to feed their children.

if you go out and pay premium prices for an organic chicken (for instance), do you only care about what the farmer is trying to do, or do you care about the quality and purity of the food you are buying?

none of this is a "step in the right direction", as once there are standards established, they will be modified to allow the "factory" operations to play, just as happened with organic produce.

deknow

deknow
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: T Beek on January 09, 2011, 12:23:57 pm
That's hittin the nail on the head deknow :)

thomas
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Acebird on January 09, 2011, 01:09:45 pm
Quote
none of this is a "step in the right direction", as once there are standards established, they will be modified to allow the "factory" operations to play, just as happened with organic produce.

Wow, what twisted logic.  You feel it is a bad thing that the big (agriculture, not farmer) is now bending to the consumers wishes?  That “they” by the mere fact that “they” are now in it validates that Organics are better for you and the sustainability of future farming?  What is it that you want?  To live on a deserted island and hope that what “they” were doing will not affect you?  Or is it that you don’t feel confident that you can convince your customers that what you produce is still better than what they produce?  Please don’t tell me that you want a system of no competition.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: T Beek on January 09, 2011, 01:15:27 pm
I'm not convinced Big Ag does much bending at all.

thomas
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: deknow on January 09, 2011, 01:23:34 pm
again, your ignorance is showing.

it isn't the manufacturers that are bending to the standards, it is the standards that are bending to include the manufacturers.
http://ecomattersdaily.com/2009/07/usda-redefines-its-organic-label-to-mean-synthetic/ (http://ecomattersdaily.com/2009/07/usda-redefines-its-organic-label-to-mean-synthetic/)  ...is just one example.

this is obvious to anyone paying attention...which clearly you are not.

deknow
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Acebird on January 09, 2011, 02:07:08 pm
Quote
I'm not convinced Big Ag does much bending at all.

Make up your mind.  They are either taking an interest in Organics or they are not.

From what I see they are.  Before they were poo pooing it as unfounded claims.  Now not so much.  The ones you want to watch out for are the chemical companies and the GMO producers.  They stand to loose big time.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: rdy-b on January 09, 2011, 02:34:27 pm
Quote
...when someone buys a jar of honey, they are buying FOOD, not intentions.  our customers certainly appreciate what we are doing, but they won't spend good money on something they don't want to feed their children.




You have practical customers--In small business class they teach about *PERCEIVED VALUE*-as long as the customer believes what he is buying has merit or quality-they will buy it--you already now that you can change your label
and even raise your price on the same jar --and they will buy it --its not what they now -but they just need to justify the cost and feel good about it-RDY-B
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: T Beek on January 09, 2011, 02:47:38 pm
Quote
I'm not convinced Big Ag does much bending at all.

quote Acebird "Make up your mind." 
 :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :?

thomas

]
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Acebird on January 09, 2011, 03:00:44 pm
Deknow,

Quote
The ones you want to watch out for are the chemical companies and the GMO producers.


Pay attention.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: deknow on January 09, 2011, 03:08:36 pm
In small business class they teach about *PERCEIVED VALUE*-as long as the customer believes what he is buying has merit or quality-they will buy it-
did they teach about how customers who feel mislead after the sale are not likely to be repeat customers?  did they teach you that if you have the best product, and you educate your customers and speak to them honestly that they come back again and again?

deknow

Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: deknow on January 09, 2011, 03:13:09 pm
Deknow,

Quote
The ones you want to watch out for are the chemical companies and the GMO producers.


Pay attention.

...pay attention to what?  is it your implication that chemical companies have no interest in organic agriculture?  that chemicals aren't used in organic agriculture?

deknow
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: T Beek on January 09, 2011, 03:13:38 pm
 :chop:I give up........
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: deknow on January 09, 2011, 03:15:36 pm
...i leave this up to the mods to deal with....i'm doing something i've never done before, putting someone on my ignore list.

deknow
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: rdy-b on January 09, 2011, 05:29:59 pm
In small business class they teach about *PERCEIVED VALUE*-as long as the customer believes what he is buying has merit or quality-they will buy it-
did they teach about how customers who feel mislead after the sale are not likely to be repeat customers?  did they teach you that if you have the best product, and you educate your customers and speak to them honestly that they come back again and again?

de-know


 what i believe is that we are actually selling ourselves before the product and if people believe in what we do and
 our methods then we have a customer for life-and just so you now i did not take the course -but am reminded by the teachings from my competitor- :lol: wich took the course-and i think we are speaking of comon ground-and it is precived value-- 8-) RDY-B
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: luvin honey on January 10, 2011, 12:46:39 pm
I'm not convinced Big Ag does much bending at all.

thomas
Nor I. I think they use their power to bully Congress into making the rules possible for them to follow. But, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. It's still possible for a vendor to state "I'm certified organic, plus I do this, this and this," or possibly things that were originally in the organic mindset but have now been bastardized by Big Ag.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: T Beek on January 10, 2011, 01:08:26 pm
For many years I thought Being "Certified Organic" was going to be a great panacea for all. 

I've found It doesnt mean anything anymore, I won't use the term when describing my farm.

thomas
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Acebird on January 10, 2011, 01:10:25 pm
Quote
I think they use their power to bully Congress into making the rules possible for them to follow.

Well I have been saying all over these boards that money talks.  Do you ever expect that to change?  Not in any country under any form of government will that ever change.  But at least when it becomes written law you have something that they have to follow.  You can still produce what you have always produced except you will have a document that you can show your customers to prove yours is better.  Having a wide open free frall is not in your best interest.  Having them bastardizing the rule book is in your best interest.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: T Beek on January 10, 2011, 01:44:06 pm
Laws; generally speaking (and only my opinion), they serve to protect the wealthy and corporate elite. 

This, in and of itself is the primary purpose of Government; "to protect those who run and profit off the economy from the outrage of its injured citizens." 

The "profiteers" make $$ regardless of the economy.  That is historically true.

When the majority suffer, the wealthy do very well.  And NOW days with the mainstream media run completly by them, we're being told we should feel sorry for the rich, don't raise their taxes, it'll cost jobs....yeah right.  And the majority  (voters anyway) follows along like sheep as if its the gospel.

TREATING WITH SUGAR IS TREATING WITH A CHEMICAL, ALBIET, A "FAIRLY" BENIGN ONE, WHEN COMPARED WITH WHAT IS OUT THERE. :-D 

Lets' try and put some fun back into this forum.  All the attacks are getting tiresome and are one reason I rarely come around, except during the winter months. :)

thomas
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: luvin honey on January 10, 2011, 04:18:54 pm
Quote
I think they use their power to bully Congress into making the rules possible for them to follow.

Well I have been saying all over these boards that money talks.  Do you ever expect that to change?  Not in any country under any form of government will that ever change.  But at least when it becomes written law you have something that they have to follow.  You can still produce what you have always produced except you will have a document that you can show your customers to prove yours is better.  Having a wide open free frall is not in your best interest.  Having them bastardizing the rule book is in your best interest.
Acebird--money talking is nothing new under the sun. Are you trying to have a conversation here, or just inform us of all that you know?

As an organic grower, having Big Organic bastardize the guidelines is NOT in my best interest. It's what causes people to distrust organic and it wastes my time in even considering becoming certified organic.

No document is going to prove that mine is better. I grow organically now, and I will grow (obviously) organically if/when I become certified. The document will not create a better product, as my methods will never have changed. It will give some of my customers a sense of being able to trust my product, but those who know me already do.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: T Beek on January 10, 2011, 04:49:41 pm
Quote
I think they use their power to bully Congress into making the rules possible for them to follow.

Well I have been saying all over these boards that money talks.  Do you ever expect that to change?  Not in any country under any form of government will that ever change.  But at least when it becomes written law you have something that they have to follow.  You can still produce what you have always produced except you will have a document that you can show your customers to prove yours is better.  Having a wide open free frall is not in your best interest.  Having them bastardizing the rule book is in your best interest.
Acebird--money talking is nothing new under the sun. Are you trying to have a conversation here, or just inform us of all that you know?
 
As an organic grower, having Big Organic bastardize the guidelines is NOT in my best interest. It's what causes people to distrust organic and it wastes my time in even considering becoming certified organic.

No document is going to prove that mine is better. I grow organically now, and I will grow (obviously) organically if/when I become certified. The document will not create a better product, as my methods will never have changed. It will give some of my customers a sense of being able to trust my product, but those who know me already do.

X:X Hey luvin honey, you're alright!

thomas
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Acebird on January 10, 2011, 09:41:25 pm
 
Quote
it wastes my time in even considering becoming certified organic.


If you are not big, there is no point in becoming certified.
you admit that here:

Quote
It will give some of my customers a sense of being able to trust my product, but those who know me already do.

Unless you intend on getting big and then you are one of them anyway.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: luvin honey on January 11, 2011, 01:32:00 am
No, Acebird, I did not say it's a waste of time being certified. I said IF Big Ag fouls up the guidelines to suit themselves, THEN it would be a waste of time for me to become certified because the certification may be polluted to the point of meaninglessness.

And my becoming "big" (define that, would you?) has nothing to do with me becoming "them" anyway. Unless, of course, I become a monster Ag company and start lobbying in D.C. HIGHLY unlikely. If I became big, I would simply be serving more customers using the same methods I have always used.

Again, are you trying to have conversations here, or just argue?
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: luvin honey on January 11, 2011, 01:34:51 am
Quote
I'm not convinced Big Ag does much bending at all.

Make up your mind.  They are either taking an interest in Organics or they are not.
They are not mutually exclusive. They can take an interest in organic (since it is the only ag sector growing a LOT every single year) AND not want to bend to the regulations, but to help change the regulations to suit them so that they can continue Big Ag, only without as many chemicals.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Acebird on January 11, 2011, 09:24:52 am
Quote
THEN it would be a waste of time for me to become certified because the certification may be polluted to the point of meaninglessness.


I’m telling you it is a waste of time already.  The standards have already been relaxed.  “They” are already a part of the equation.  What you people don’t seem to grasp is how Organics came about.  The consumer educated himself as to what is a better food source.  The consumer is already on top of things because they are educated.  They already know what big Ag and big government is doing.  That is past tense.  Your customers are coming to you even if you are not the purest of Organic farmer because you are local and they trust you way more than they trust big Ag.  Nothing will change unless you want to compete with them.  Right now there is no competition.  Their customers are not your customers.  If they are then you are part of big Ag, like it or not.

I would much rather have big Ag producing food with a host of restrictions than what they have been producing in the past.  It will be better for all in the future.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: T Beek on January 11, 2011, 09:31:10 am
 :roll: :roll: :roll:
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: luvin honey on January 11, 2011, 09:37:08 am
"What you people don't seem to grasp"... Seriously?  :roll: First of all, organics "always was." Then it came back. Have you read the guidelines for certified organic vegetable production? Believe me, the guidelines are not meaningless. They talk about soil building, crop rotation, plant and animal diversity, composting, soil protection/erosion and much more. If the guidelines had no teeth, everyone and their brother would claim to be organic and certified. It's because it is such an intense and difficult process that many people haven't taken that step.

The only thing I agree with you on is that customers trust local. And sometimes that trust is misplaced. My fellow farmer's markets vendors claim to be organic all the time, then tell me about that one application of Sevin or Roundup. Hmmmm...

In MY particular situation, I belong to a larger CSA group. Once my sales reach a certain point, I must be certified to remain in the group. This membership allows my customers to get sizable health insurance rebates on their CSA shares. So while most of my farmer's market customers are happy based on a trust relationship, my CSA members will need me to get certified to maintain their rebates.

As for sugar in the hive, I guess beekeepers or beekeeping associations need to define their own organic standards and decide if that fits in there.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Acebird on January 11, 2011, 10:14:35 am
Quote
First of all, organics "always was."


Organics as a certification no, organics as a method of farming yes.

Quote
Have you read the guidelines for certified organic vegetable production? Believe me, the guidelines are not meaningless. They talk about soil building, crop rotation, plant and animal diversity, composting, soil protection/erosion and much more.


As I said the consumer is educated.

Quote
My fellow farmer's markets vendors claim to be organic all the time, then tell me about that one application of Sevin or Roundup. Hmmmm...

Is this allowed in certification?  How long does it take to get the news out when you can just blast him on a public forum?

Quote
In MY particular situation, I belong to a larger CSA group. Once my sales reach a certain point, I must be certified to remain in the group. This membership allows my customers to get sizable health insurance rebates on their CSA shares. So while most of my farmer's market customers are happy based on a trust relationship, my CSA members will need me to get certified to maintain their rebates.

 Well now you are solidifying my argument.  As you get big you need to be regulated so the playing field is equal or near equal.  That won’t change what the educated consumer thinks about being big.

Quote
As for sugar in the hive, I guess beekeepers or beekeeping associations need to define their own organic standards and decide if that fits in there.
Quote

Thank you very much.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Scadsobees on January 11, 2011, 11:01:08 am
This is all very funny!!

We're all arguing if treating with sugar counts as a chemical treatment!

Um...NEWSFLASH! HONEY IS a CHEMICAL!!

Chemical: a substance having a specific molecular composition, obtained by or used in a chemical process.

Yup...there is a process that the bees use to change sucrose into fructose.  Sucrose, fructose, glucose: all chemicals!  Not to mention all of the enzymes!

Soo...

Does feeding honey to the bees count as a chemical treatment? :roll:
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: AllenF on January 11, 2011, 11:04:26 am
A natural chemical treatment?
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: luvin honey on January 11, 2011, 11:05:42 am
My fellow market vendors are NOT certified. They are just saying they grow organic. That's the trusting relationship you refer to in local growers, but it's only as good as the person behind the words. I actually don't believe my fellow vendors are being dishonest. I believe they haven't read the guidelines for organic production.

Getting big and needing to be certified is probably more about not hurting the small farmers and not wasting time certifying people earning less than $5000/year in their operation. That's the cut-off--$5000/year. So, "big" is really a very relative term.

Actually, I give up. You are tilting at windmills that I can't even see and obviously not trying to hear what I am trying to say.


And scadsobees, you're right about chemicals. Water is a chemical. But I think we know that in a forum subgroup like this we are all thinking more of industrial chemicals. :)
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: fat/beeman on January 11, 2011, 11:06:37 am


 WOW :roll:
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Robo on January 11, 2011, 12:00:36 pm
DING, DING, DING,  We have a winner!   :piano:

This is all very funny!!

We're all arguing if treating with sugar counts as a chemical treatment!

Um...NEWSFLASH! HONEY IS a CHEMICAL!!

Chemical: a substance having a specific molecular composition, obtained by or used in a chemical process.

Yup...there is a process that the bees use to change sucrose into fructose.  Sucrose, fructose, glucose: all chemicals!  Not to mention all of the enzymes!

Soo...

Does feeding honey to the bees count as a chemical treatment? :roll:


My point is, if you are applying anything to your hive,  please don't say you are "chemical-free" :evil:
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Acebird on January 11, 2011, 03:22:57 pm
Winners and losers that's what this forum is all about?

The first reply should have ended this discussion but it didn't.

Quote
My .02 is anything really 100% organic anymore? Stuffs in our water, air, food, feed, our homes our cars, our cats our dogs.

All we can do is our best in an imperfect world.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Scadsobees on January 11, 2011, 04:08:56 pm
And scadsobees, you're right about chemicals. Water is a chemical. But I think we know that in a forum subgroup like this we are all thinking more of industrial chemicals. :)

Most of us  ;).  This is about sugar, which I think we agree isn't an industrial chemical.

When "organic" becomes about not applying "sugar" to a hive, that's where most people start jumping off that bandwagon.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: luvin honey on January 12, 2011, 01:02:57 am

(2) Provide supplemental feed from organic honey, organic sugar syrup, and/or pollen
substitutes and supplements that are allowed under 205.603, Except, That, the producer
must not provide organic sugar syrup less than 30 days prior to the harvest of honey to be
sold, labeled, or represented as organic.


Sounds like sugar is allowed, as long as it is organic. With organic vegetable production, it seeks to mimic nature as much as possible. I guess if I were to be a hard-core organic beek, I would ask if it's okay to pull so much honey on a consistent basis that I would need to feed the bees sugar syrup. Course, I'd have to be getting a pretty steep price for their honey to be able to afford to feed them organic sugar syrup!
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Acebird on January 12, 2011, 07:11:56 pm
Looking online I saw a price for Organic sugar @ 2.50 a pound and Organic honey @ 1.25 a pound.  It doesn't make sense to feed with those numbers.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: hardwood on January 12, 2011, 07:55:35 pm
Organic honey at $1.25/lb is highly suspect...buyer beware!

Scott
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Acebird on January 13, 2011, 10:51:44 am
http://www.swansonvitamins.com/YS016/ItemDetail?SourceCode=INTL406 (http://www.swansonvitamins.com/YS016/ItemDetail?SourceCode=INTL406)

Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: hardwood on January 13, 2011, 11:10:32 am
That actually works out to a little over $2/lb....that's still a very low price for retail.

Scotty
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: luvin honey on January 13, 2011, 01:50:52 pm
Yikes--that's crazy low! My friend has been getting at least $6/lb for her treatment-free, raw honey from last year, but it's definitely not organic.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: hardwood on January 13, 2011, 02:15:19 pm
It was pointed out to me that this is not organic honey...read the first review. I'm sure that it has been pasteurized as well taking all the benefit away.

Like I said...buyer beware.

Scott
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: T Beek on January 13, 2011, 02:16:58 pm
Must consider the source, and if none is if provided, I wouldn't buy it.  

I'd Like to know what is really in a jar of it though.

thomas
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Acebird on January 13, 2011, 02:43:47 pm
Quote
That actually works out to a little over $2/lb....

We put our honey is quart Ball jars and I weighed them to be 4.9 pounds net.  What is the conversion suppose to be?
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: rdy-b on January 13, 2011, 03:04:52 pm
That actually works out to a little over $2/lb....that's still a very low price for retail.

Scotty
  32 oz jar looks to me its 2lb-- so it $3 a pound any way you are right thats not organic - :) RDY-B
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: rdy-b on January 13, 2011, 03:08:14 pm
Quote
That actually works out to a little over $2/lb....

We put our honey is quart Ball jars and I weighed them to be 4.9 pounds net.  What is the conversion suppose to be?
better weigh that jar before you put honey in it -QUART jar holds LESS than 3 pounds of honey--about 46 oz
   RDY-B
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: hardwood on January 13, 2011, 04:00:57 pm
I agree RDY-B, the last time I weighed (and tared the jar) for our quart ball jars I got 2lbs-8oz.

Scott
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: Acebird on January 13, 2011, 04:20:35 pm
Ok I just checked a jar, you are right it is closer to 2 pounds.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: fat/beeman on January 13, 2011, 04:55:48 pm
now you see why I don't sell honey.

Don
 :-D :roll: :-X
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: rdy-b on January 13, 2011, 06:06:08 pm
QUART jar holds about 46 oz by weight -about 2 oz shy of 3lbs-48oz-most folks call them a 3lb jar
 conversion for honey is about 1.5 oz honey wt--to 1 oz liquid measure-RDY-B
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: woodchopper on January 29, 2011, 09:39:24 pm
now you see why I don't sell honey.

Don
 :-D :roll: :-X
Come over to the dark side Don. It's alot of fun.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: AllenF on January 29, 2011, 10:45:25 pm
He is smarter than that.  He knows where the money is.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: fat/beeman on January 31, 2011, 01:46:37 pm
thanks ==Allen

 :-D :-X
Don
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: woodchopper on January 31, 2011, 02:06:26 pm
Allen, my wife and I have seen FatBeeMan's operation in Lulu and know he's smarter than that. I was just kidding around.
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: gaucho10 on March 24, 2011, 02:29:10 pm
Ohhh Boy.........I'm sorry.....I have not been following this post for a long time and I did not get a chance to argue with anyone.  Missed out on all those political "comebacks"    Dammm!

As I was reading through the posts I started to loose interest as I was approaching the end.  Too much stuff...

Anywayssss...(Bless me father, for I have sinned.  I have offended /you/them with the following sins).

I just wanted to say that for the past three years I have violated other peoples ideas on beekeeping.  But, I like my ideas and I think that they work FOR ME.  Except for one stupid beekeeper mistake all my bees have survived the winters and I haven't had a problem with moisture or diseases.

          1.   Yes, sugar is a chemical.

          2.   Yes, I would use sugar if need be, in order to save a colony if I thought it's gene pool was worth saving.  When starting a
                new colony I think it is ok to feed sugar in order to develop the colony.  I don't believe using sugar when there is a chance
                that the bees might have a chance to adulterate the honey.  Don't forget that bees do move their food stores around.

          3.   Yes, I do extract ALL the honey at the end of the honey flow, except for honey in the brood chambers.

          4.   Yes, I do feed back honey to the bees during the winter if they happen  to reach the top frames in the hive.  I don't run a
                large operation so I don't mind going though the extraction process only to return their honey when necessary.  During the
                winter months the hive might contain honey frames on the outside but if the bees won't go to them, that's ok...I just feed
                them their own extracted honey.

          5.   Yes, I do mention to customers that my honey is organic.  But....I also explain to them that the honey is only as organic as
                the bees want to make it.  All my costumers smile, give me a laugh and understand.  They still want to buy my honey as
                opposed to "store-bought" honey.  They are happy, I am happy, my bees are happy.

gaucho10
Title: Re: For those who think treating with sugar is "Non-Chemical"
Post by: T Beek on March 24, 2011, 02:38:34 pm
 X:X X:X

Sorry that you missed all the excitment ;)

thomas