The Story of Mary.

February 2012

Several years ago, I had a phone call from Mary. Mary is your typical hobbyist beekeeper with a couple years of experience. She has her single hive in the backyard. And she is frustrated.

Mary told me in the conversation that two years ago, she had bought a package of bees when she first started out. They seemed to thrive all summer but then fizzled out. The following year, she bought a nuc in attempts to have better success. But unfortunately, they also died over the winter. She explained that keeping bees was harder than she thought and if beekeeping meant buying bees every year, she was considering not being a beekeeper much longer.

Since I know Mary personally, I knew some things about her. So this was my reply…. “Mary, let me ask you, did you enjoy sitting on the back porch all summer long sipping tea in the evening watching the bees come and go?” Her reply, “Yes, I did”. I asked “Did your grandchildren enjoy coming over and seeing your bees? Were they amazed at the many wonders of what bees offer?” Her reply was “Yes, they were“. I asked Mary if she had gotten any honey from the hive? “Well. I did take a couple frames of honey that I really enjoyed”, was her answer.

I went on to explain that no matter the hobby, whether bowling, showing dogs, owning a horse, or boating, that there are costs involved. I reminder her that most hobbies cost something, and most hobbies were costlier than 90 dollars per year. Name one hobby that you can do annually that give as much benefits as beekeeping for 90 dollars per year? I asked her to consider her enjoyment for the entire summer as she was proud of her beehive, was helping the environment, and even got a few pounds of honey for her efforts. I explained that most who keep bees, are probably like gardeners or folks who keep chickens. I had chickens previously and keep a garden almost every year. If I tallied up the time, chicken feed, and costs of keeping a few chickens, and applied that to the amount of eggs I had gotten, the cost of the eggs would amount to at least three times the cost of eggs I could purchase at market. But most who keep chickens do it for other reasons. They love the sustainability of producing your own if even more costly, the enjoyment, and the concept of keeping their own chickens. And the same could be said of gardening. How many actually save money when factoring costs, labor, and time, for the produce they actually get? For most, they garden because they love the outdoors. They love something deep inside beyond counting how many tomatoes they get and if it paid off or not.

Beekeeping is much like that. People keep bees, and especially for hobbyists, for reasons of helping the environment, for the enjoyment, and connecting with nature. They do it for reasons other than just worrying if they got enough honey to cover their expenses.

Sure, there are many problems in the bees industry. Bee colonies can die for a multitude of reasons. But we need beekeepers to press forward. We need folks to understand their contributions to the environment. We need beekeepers to know that there are many reasons to keep bees beyond worrying about buying a colony to replace a dead-out every year. I think many, like myself, would keep bees even if they knew ahead of time they were going to lose their hive every season.

Could we do better for the bees and lessen the annual hive kill? You bet! It would foolish for anyone to think they did everything they could. That somehow they did everything correct. That they were the best they could be. There are too many influences right now effecting bees to even know sometimes what killed the bees. Disease (bacterial and viral), genetics, chemicals and pesticides, and a host of other things could be at play. Sometimes we just lose hives for no known reason.

I can’t state why Mary had her bees die for two years in a row. But we can pick ourselves up, learn from our mistakes, improve what we can, and move forward. We can appreciate what we do get from the bees, and what they teach us. The enjoyment, the local pollination, the honey, and teaching the next generation a small part of nature all are part of that beekeeping experience. It certainly is worth the cost of a package every year for me. And if you get bees through this coming year, consider that as nothing more than a bonus. Other things besides annual costs are more important than that one factor when considering whether you should keep bees.

Beekeeping has seen a huge growth spurt in the past few years with many beekeeping clubs at least tripling in members. Not because beekeeping has been touted as an “easy” hobby. Not due to the fact that beekeeping guarantees a massive honey crop every year. And not because it is promoted a “cheap” hobby with no expenses. Many recent new beekeepers got involved with beekeeping due the news headlines of massive colony deaths associated with “Colony Collapse Disorder”, known as CCD. Many got involved in beekeeping as they found out the honey bee is in trouble. They wanted to help. They wanted to get involved. They understood the benefits of beekeeping, and what bees do for us.

Those problems did not go away. We still have some issues in beekeeping. We need beekeepers to be active, supportive, and willing to improve things moving forward. The bees still need you. And even when your bees die, you can be an advocate, a voice,…..for the bees.

I hope beekeepers today are keeping bees for the right reasons. I hope they enjoy beekeeping beyond worrying about the cost of the hobby. That conversation mentioned earlier with Mary happened three years ago. Mary lost another hive, and has had one successfully over-winter. But I think regardless of what happens moving forward, Mary will always have bees. She knows that beekeeping runs a bit deeper than what she had originally thought.

Who really suppresses honey market prices?

January 2012

I was recently at Wal-Mart. Yeah, I know some of you instantaneously will label me as some anti-American consumer, siding with the Chinese, and probably rolled your eyes. Yeah, I stop in occasionally. Not afraid to say that I do. And I do not stop in and say I don't, like many others.

I cruised down the aisle with honey. I was curious since I really have not looked at honey on commercial shelves for awhile. Yet, on forums, at bee clubs, and other conversations where beekeepers gather, it seems foreign honey is a topic of discussion.

Local honey as you might expect was not found. I did find a varied offering. More than I had expected. One 2 lb jar was from Suebee. Priced at $5.98 In somewhat hard to read lettering, was "Product of USA".

Another brand was Thrifty Bee packed by Golden Heritage Foods. The 2 pound bottle cost $5.69 The label read "Product of Argentina, India, and Uruguay".

The third was Wal-Mart brand labeled "Great Value" and stated that is was bottled for Wal-Mart and a product of the USA. It was a three pound bottle costing $8.32

So the three offerings were:

SueBee (USA honey) at $2.99 per pound

Thrifty Bee (Foreign Honey) at 2.84 per pound

Great Value (USA Honey) $2.77 per pound.

How do they do it? Who sells USA honey for less than three dollars per pound? Assuming Wal-Mart also makes a profit on the sale, factoring in the price of the jar, label, transportation costs, taxes, and a host of other overhead, what are they buying honey at per pound?

Should we blame foreign honey? Should we make claims that China has dumped so much honey that our domestic produced honey is far less than what it could be? Hard to make these claims when one of the brands of honey was less than the Thrifty Bee brand of foreign honey. Is there a need to sell made in USA products less than imported honey?

There seems to be much to do about honey standards in the states right now. Assuming this is not about taxes and profits for the government and the likes of the National Honey Board, which is like suggesting the sun does not come up every day, I don't see how this will help beekeepers here in the USA. Up to 70% of the honey consumed in this country is imported. The honey industry fat cats would like you to believe that this imported honey is suppressing honey prices here and have sold this assumption to many beekeepers.

And hobbyist beekeepers and the vast majority of consumers suggest this foreign honey is less than healthy due to being processed, with beneficial enzymes being killed and nutritious compounds filtered out. Nice claim, but hardly truthful. Most imported foreign honey is used in the food industry. From cereal to baked goods. You really think that honey retains much of it's healthy benefits when it is being used in processed foods? It is a sugar source. A high carb ingredient. And a reasoning for false advertising by suggesting some product is healthy but for the idea that it contains minuscule amounts of honey. Big food industry is outright using the purity and image of honey, taking advantage of the consumers confidence that honey is healthy and pure.

For the foreign honey that does make it as Grade A, and bottled for sale to consumers, it is hard to gripe about prices when domestic honey is being sold for less than the imported honey. But who is making money on honey sold at very low prices? Beekeepers, packers, retailers? Or does the honey industry really only care about taxes on each and every pound sold as seen with the honey board? I have never cared about the honey board since they make money on imported honey, and do little to support beekeepers in this country. I support local agriculture, local farming, and local beekeeping. I try to get consumers to buy local honey from local beekeepers. Too bad the bee industry, the honey industry, and others, care little about that.

And will a new honey standard aimed at stopping honey imports mislabeled as something other than honey, really make a difference? I think this really comes down to missed taxes collected by the government and the honey board since honey imported something other than honey, is not taxed. So they add 10% sugar syrup and call it something else. And boy, folks get excited when their taxes are not being collected. Hard to get excited backing large packers and commercial operations when they are already under cutting foreign honey themselves, while claiming that foreign honey is suppressing honey prices. Why is domestic honey being sold for less than foreign honey on supermarket shelves? There has to be more to the story, other than what is being fed to the bee community.

Most hobbyist and local beekeepers I know sell honey for twice the price as what those huge producers are charging. Local honey is all the rage. Most consumers if given the chance would buy local honey over supermarket honey. I just hope beekeepers produce more local honey. Every time a consumer can't find local honey, it gives Wal-Mart the chance to sell foreign honey. Or better yet, domestic honey for less cost than even foreign honey, which in turns suppresses honey prices for all beekeepers, even the hobbyists.

So don't get all teary eyed next time someone writes an article about the poor commercial beekeeper not making ends meet, and losing out to the foreign market. That is not who you should be worried about. It seems the commercial guys undercut the hobbyists by far more than what foreign honey undercuts the mass produced domestic honey. I bet many beekeepers would do much better if they only had to compete with foreign honey. That is easy to do. I sell at double the price of foreign honey. But is seems the large producers of domestic honey just do not get it. They sell for pennies on the dollar, and are even selling on the supermarket shelves for less than the foreign brands.

Who educates the public to the benefits of local honey? Who demands the most for their product? And who sells their honey for twice the cost of both foreign honey and commercial producers? The hobbyist beekeeper!

Who does not promote local honey? Who cares little about the benefits of raw honey? And who constantly suppresses honey prices? All those that have their hands in the honey industry cookie jar. That would be commercial beekeepers, packers, importers, even the honey board. All doing their part to import, package, market, and sell at discount prices. And then many complain that foreign honey is to blame. The only folks that should be complaining are the hobbyists. They are the one's getting screwed!

Honey produced in these times, selling at less than 3 dollars per pound on retail shelves. What a shame it says about the bee industry.

Bugs on the Windshield

July 2011

Sometimes a conversation deals with some random topic that you seemingly have discussed a dozen times before, gives a small piece of dialog that just sticks in your mind. I recently had one of these conversations with a group of beekeepers concerning bees, pesticides, and the environment. And sometimes the proof of what is happening around you presents itself in such simple terms, that it’s better than million dollar research studies.

I was fortunate one day to be talking to fellow beekeeper Jim Shindler from York. In discussing the lack of Monarch butterflies this year, and the loss of 50% of my bat nursery last summer, he made the observation that you just don’t see insects like you once did. My initial reaction was to think “What? All we ever hear about is this pest or that pest seemingly destroying everything around us”. To hear what seems like half the commercials on the radio, you would think we are at war with bugs all across the planet. Spray this, eliminate that, protect yourself from this danger, etc.

But Jim brought back one of my fond childhood memories, going on family outings. He mentioned that bugs seemingly are far less than years ago, and was indicated by windshield counts. Windshield counts? As I remembered back to the time I was a child, I quickly realized that this simply observation was brilliant.

I remember as a kid, riding in the car late at night coming back from a distant relatives house, or some family function. And I can still see today, the covering of the windshield by insects as they seemingly were drawn to the headlights of the car. It was not uncommon at that time, to actually have the need to clean your windshield as you filled up at the roadside gas station. This really got me thinking.

So the last several days, I have traveled several roadways at night. And while I do have the occasional bug splatter on the windshield, it was not even enough to make me think twice about cleaning off the window as I recall in the memories of my childhood. Thinking perhaps the road was not an “insect” friendly stretch of road, I also made it a point to take the river routes along the Susquehanna river.

I also asked several dozen people when was the last time they actually pulled over and cleaned their windshield. Nobody could remember when the last time that happened. But they all could remember the memories of such ordeals years ago.

So what changed? Are the cars so air dynamic that the bugs just miss the windshield altogether with the cars of today? Are the headlights dimmer and not attracting as many bugs? I know I am blinded often with what seems bright lights most nights. I wish I had that 71 Pontiac Satellite I drove as a teenager. I know that car got plastered to the point I could not see out the windshield at times. And I guessing my Jeep isn’t that much more air dynamic.

There certainly is a huge die off of bats across Pennsylvania in the past several years. Is it due to a limited food supply as insects are less today as years ago? Has the makeup of insect populations changed? And while I can not speak of my experiences with frogs and other insect eating creatures, it does seem like many others are ringing the bell. Maybe the honeybees the past 5 years, and what we call “Colony Collapse Disorder” is a wider problem than just what we see with bees.

When some report comes out, or someone prints an article, many are skeptical of anything they can not themselves touch, feel, smell, taste or experience. Maybe information on such items as the damage of the environment and the impacts to insects such as honeybees would be better served with just some down to earth memories and how things seemingly change in front of our eyes, without us even realizing it.

I never really thought about dead bugs on my windshield. I bet you didn’t either. But I will from now on. Those childhood memories are not fake. I fondly remember as a child sitting up late at night watching the headlights and seeing all the stars, the bugs, and whatever else you could see. I just hope that my kids have the simple pleasures of such experiences as bugs being splattered on the windshield. Or at least I hope they will always have the opportunity, and for their children.

Mike Thomas - Bjorn Apiaries

Beekeepers Being Squeezed to Death in Pennsylvania

June 2011

In the July 2011 edition of Bee Culture, page 7, entitled "Pests or Beneficial", there is an article concerning Plymouth Township in Montgomery county deciding whether honey bees are beneficial or not. And whether they fall under the "?Elimination of arborages" clause of the local ordinance.

While I applaud the local beekeepers in their attempt and hopeful success in getting the township to make the final decision of not including managed honey bees with the same catch all ordinance designed to eliminate rodents and pests on premises, there is a point that should not be overlooked. The final paragraph states "The only requirement (for the township) is to register with the township by obtaining a $25 permit: just as dog owners would need to do".

This same question of townships imposing permit fees first reared its ugly head several years ago with a township outside Gettysburg. My question then, is the same I ask now. Since beekeepers are required to register and pay a fee with the Pennsylvania state agriculture department, is not charging the same fees on a township level, double jeopardy to some degree?

Do we further need to register our cars, after paying the state, with another fee by the county? By the township? Or any other entity? The state has full registration authority for not just cars, but for agriculture license and permits.

So where will this stop? Will I need to whip out another check for the county or township after I pay the agriculture department for my food safety license for my honey house? And why are they picking on registered beekeepers without also making backyard gardeners pay "agriculture" license and fees as farms are required?

How can a state that charges fees already by state law, and that has full authority for such permit fees on a state level, also allow beekeepers to be further forced to pay fees to other authorities? Is this even legal? If Plymouth township wants a list of beekeepers in their township they can easily do that by calling the state. It would save township the cost of such permit processes, and save the beekeeper another fee. But follow the dollar as they say! What oversight can justify local townships justifying registrations fees? Do townships have "beekeeper" as one of the hats that the enforcement officers wear?

The sad fact is I tried to garner support through the state apiarist office several years ago. This was supposed to be brought up at the state agriculture bi-annual legal meeting where such issues are discussed. But more important things like CCD no doubt took priority. And the "I'll get back to you" reply that was given, was nothing more than the customary lip service response that we are so accustomed of getting from the state these days.

Just as the restrictive banning of beekeeping in Hollidaysburg (Pa.) a few years back, I see no concerted effort to take these issues on with full force. The state association has no committee, no legal defense fund, no solid support from the legislature in this state. There is no concerted effort between other entities in the department of agriculture, higher education programs, and the beekeeping community on these issues. Each local beekeeping association is left to their own to do what they can. This is a shame. And I for one would like to see PennApic make the steps necessary to have in place a plan of action and a legislative committee that actually gets more accomplished than feeding a few politicians once a year at some event called "Cornucopia".

This is the type of excessive tyranny that we should stand against. This is the second township within Pennsylvania to impose local permit fees. And if nothing is done, your township may be next.

Mike Thomas - Bjorn Apiaries

Who benefits from mites?

May 2011 

Once upon a time, beekeeping was very easy. AFB was the major disease, honey production average higher yields, and if you lost 10% of your hives over winter, that was consider devastating. Oh, those were the days, or so I‘m told. Personally, I’m not sure if I am lucky to not have experienced those days, or sorry not to have started beekeeping many years earlier.

In a recent association presentation, it was mentioned that one country (Kenya if I remember correctly) had bees develop mite resistant bees after 7 years. The beekeepers were forced to breed bees from survivors and build upon the bees resistance. They had no choice as chemical treatment were impossible, due to economical reasons. Did their localized bees have some magical traits far different than what we use in the states? Hard to say. But the fact that they had devastating losses, did show that the initial impact of the introduction of varroa mites were as devastating as it was when mites were first introduced into the states.

Nearly 25 years after the introduction of varroa mites into the states, we are still battling yearly losses directly attributed to varroa mites. A follow up broad based hygienic test ten years after the initial test were conducted did show an improvement of the overall resistant and hygienic quality of production queens. But it was far less than what is needed. The improvement was probably due to breeding efforts and nature’s ability to kill off the weakest genetics every year, regardless of how much care and treatments some beekeepers use in attempts to save every hive, whether worthy or not.

But what factors are not allowing our bees to become better resistant? Several things come to mind. One, the importation of genetics of bees from areas not affected by varroa mites. Large numbers of queens from Hawaii used for commercial splits and preparation for almond pollination units, as well as the recent importation of packages from Australia no doubt help weaken the genetic pool, by adding bees never exposed to mites, and having no resistance.

Do we have beekeepers, breeders and other folks trying to develop resistant bees? Yes, a small pocket of effort here, and another pocket there. But from an nationwide industry viewpoint, no real money or effort is forthcoming. Why is that?

First, imagine tomorrow an announcement coming out that all mites have mysteriously died over night from some cosmic event. Bee labs would lose their justification for much of their funding. University entomologist may well have their staff cut. Half the stuff sold in bee industry magazines to beekeepers would not be needed. The package industry would lose much of the orders as beekeeper went back to a simpler way of just making up that 10% yearly loss by splitting or catching the occasional swarm. Any perceived bee shortage would end, and prices for pollination would fall by at least half, and may go back to the 50 dollar level.

But reality is, everyone benefits from perpetuation of a problem, except perhaps the hobbyist beekeeper. And if mites were no longer a problem, funding, high pollination prices, and much of the bee industry as seen by money being spent, would not be needed. Treatments, specialized equipment such as IPM boards, videos, half of the book filler, and everything across the board would be deemed useless.

Thank goodness for these folks that CCD came along when it did. Mites have been placed on the back burner for many. The CCD rock still has a few nickels left to squeeze out. Like the psychiatrist that would lose a client the day they ever deemed them “cured”, are we just in a constant perpetuation of problems, used more for lining pockets, then actually focused on solving problems?

I think beekeepers need to stop waiting for others to solve your problems, such as resistance. We have the ability to make the necessary improvements in our stock. It just takes an understanding and the willingness to do more than just chemically treat bees, pray they make it through winter, then buy more packages every spring.

If you look at a bee map of where the different lines of bees originated, they were separated by mountain ranges, environmental conditions, and climate zones. Nature did that all by itself. So why are not more working to promote localized, acclimatized, and survivor stock better suited for their own area? Probably because of no real leadership from higher powers in the industry. Of course, some of these folks are the one’s most benefiting from mite problems to begin with.

Beekeepers need to start working together in their own local associations, and build upon the genetic pool already available. For those that already raise their own queens, or deal with breeders working a survivor or acclimatize bee breeding program, huge benefits can be seen.

It’s time we get off the chemical treatment bandwagon, and start to build an industry where we do not need to rely on mass produced packages from areas far different then what climates we expect our bees to survive.

Without the package industry many new beekeepers would never get bees as the shortage is widespread every year. So the package industry is a necessity for many beekeepers. But we should also take the standard beginners bee class held by most associations, and follow it up with a second class focused on giving beekeepers the tools and knowledge to never again buy packages after their first year.

Mike Thomas - Bjorn Apiaries

The Lost Art of Location.

April 2011

I'm sure many people have seen video of the great caribou migrations across the plains as they move from one area to another, timing everything from their mating, to birth of their young, based on resources of food and environmental factors. Monarch butterflies fly thousands of miles between summer and winter locations. Even most Indian tribes years ago, moved between camp locations based on seasonal advantages of food resources and other factors.

Insects that may not migrate between seasonal locations such as the monarch butterfly, still seek out, congregate, mate, and thrive in locations that give them the best chances of survival. This may be due to a particular plant source they prefer, water sources, nesting availability, and many other factors.

I have been keeping mason bees for a number of years. Mason bees, even though they will nest in groups, are solitary bees. And one thing that masons have shown me, is their willingness to move and abandon a location they deem as unsuitable. Maybe due to a lack of quality pollen, or a location with too much chemical pressure. For whatever reason, some locations perpetuate and thrive, while others are abandoned after only a year or two.

Honey bees I'm sure, if never managed by beekeepers, would have a certain pattern if we could magically plot each location on a map. Some areas, would have many colonies per square mile based on available nectar and resources, while others would be far less. Some of this may have to do with abundant nesting location, a favorable over wintering location like the south side of mountains compared to the north, and many other factors. Every plant, insect, and animal on earth display these patterns resulting from the advantages and disadvantages that nature presents.

So why do so many beekeepers expect a beehive to thrive in every location for the mere fact that it just happens to be where one lives? Certainly even mankind has changed from the days of traveling with the herds, to building towns near resources such as waterways, to now building where the jobs and other opportunities present themselves. No need for a location near a water way, or a place where fertile land exists. For many of us, we have the clean water piped in, or expect others to grow our food in places much better than what our backyards offer. But do we want this "artificial" system for the bees?

Honey bees, and especially those managed by beekeepers, are limited to the resources within a two mile radius. Everything they need to exist, is within this area. They do not migrate, they do not move. They either succeed or fail based on the pollen, nectar, and health of the environment of that two mile circle. Some locations can support a few hives, while other locations may support more based on abundant resources. Bees only "migrate" from a standpoint that they swarm and move from one area to another. But the colony, except in cases of absconding, remains in this one location and either survives or dies.

So what about your location? Do you have locations based on a wide variety of nectar and pollen producing plants? Do they have a location relatively free from the many dangers of chemical and pesticide issues? Do you keep too many hives for the resources available?

Most old bee books mention something of location. Also how beekeepers would move bees to nectar sources throughout the season. And no, it was not a thousand mile move to work on a single nectar source like almonds. Many beekeepers simply moved them 10-20 miles to take advantage of localized conditions and nectar flows. There was also mention in these books about scouting for good bee locations. There seemed to be more to it than what many of the beekeepers consider today. Which many times is deciding by nothing more than which side of the yard to keep the bees.

We know that some pollen and nectar sources are not good for bees. Some pollens are far less nutritious than what bees require for good health. And some nectars are even considered poisonous to bees. No doubt in nature bees would be far less successful in these areas. Some areas like in deep woods, void of meadows and roadside weed varieties, see few colonies. In deep wooded areas, after the trees flower in the spring, the bees have little else to sustain themselves the rest of the year.

I see some yards survive at a great rate almost every year. While other yards have high over wintering losses year after year. I can not control the chemicals within the two mile radius of my bee yards. And I don't have the time to replant a more favorable floribunda. But I can move my hives and give much more consideration as to where I keep bees.

For me, I know my success in years to come will be based on better locations. Not putting all my eggs (beehives) in large baskets (apiaries) that are a all or nothing proposition. Good sites selected on knowing what the bees need, coupled with smaller yards, are keys for me. This will also help with disease transfer and not experiencing some of the maladies beekeepers are experiencing.

Beekeeping today, just as it was years ago, comes down to location, location, location, as the saying goes. But today, it may be more important than ever. And maybe we can all have healthier bees by starting out with what they did years ago, by selecting a good bee yard with the bees in mind.

Mike Thomas - Bjorn Apiaries

Beekeeping 20 Years from now.....

March 2011

If you had a crystal ball and could see the future, what do you think you would see in the future for beekeeping?

Would twenty years from now mean that CCD was solved and was only a bad memory of the past? Would chemical use be drastically cut as people actually came to their senses and realized the environmental damages incurred from manicured lawns and farming practices that used chemicals as their base of control and production? Would beekeeping return to a normalcy of losing just an occasional hive, instead of entire operations in just a few weeks? Do you think 20 years would result in an improvement or a continuation of the present problems effecting the honey bee? Do you think that light at the end of the tunnel would have been seen brightening or was it just as dark for many as it is today?

I'm not betting on any brightening of the light any time soon. A recent glance at just the front section of the February 5, 2011 Lancaster Farming newspaper, revealed these headlines?.

* Front page "Cutting Through the 'Confusion' About Chemicals in Food" (Seems experts see the world starving and the only way to feed the starving masses is to educate the public that chemicals are the best means for increased production, and that they should accept chemicals in their food supply)

* Pg, A9 "Biotech Alfalfa Deregulation Should Be Applauded". (Get ready for Round-up Ready alfalfa to a field next to you. And you think corn and soybeans were bad.)

* Pg. A10 "Researchers Find Way to Control 'Superweeds". (Seems there are about 14 "superweeds" now resistant to  Roundup. And what is the solution being looked at? Mixing Roundup  with 2,4-D and other chemicals to produce a more toxic product to be used on the food crops. Isn't it nice to know a growth hormone will be also now in the alfalfa fields as mentioned above)

* Pg. A22 "USDA Will Allow Planting of Modified Alfalfa". (No need to rehash this except pointing out that it is Chemical companies, university agriculture departments, and the USDA all working in conjunction to bring about these changes)

* Pg. A32 "Experts Say Insecticides Can Save Ash Trees" (Like the gypsy moth and black fly aerial spray programs, get ready for the same in attempts to control the Emerald Ash Borer.)

A recent conversation with two apple growers from Adams County, Pennsylvania, had these comments "Mike, you think it's bad now, wait till farmers (apple growers) start using the suggested chemical treatments for the stink bug. This stuff is going to kill off all the beneficial insects, triple my annual cost for chemicals, and put me in a position of thinking whether producing apples is even worth it".

Another recent conversation with a state official concerning "No-till Farming" and the increased use of chemicals, (See the "No-till Farming" article posted on last years Bee Ramblings page) had this comment. "The cleanup of the Chesapeake bay, and the effort to improve the tourist opportunities and the fishing industry (to include oysters) is where the money is. This effort is what is funding committees, research departments, and other programs at this time. Yes, there is a trade off, and hopefully down the road we can address some of these other issues as well." For me, that means....follow the money! Milk the Chesapeake bay cleanup for every nickel, and then it's off to the next "problem", whatever that is that will bring in the most money. Sickening isn't it? People know that "no-till" is harmful. But that is small change with other bigger issues at play.

We are four years into CCD. We are four years into congressional hearings, bee campaigns, meetings with EPA officials, and media exposure calling attention to honey bees deaths on levels never seen before. And yet not one chemical ban, not one change in farming practices, and nothing to suggest that things will improve. (The bee research and industry has resorted to selling feed with increased this or that, or calling for you to buy something. Like that will really improve things...Not! Snake-oil days are long past.) And it's just not honey bees. Reports of butterfly, bats, frogs, and other beneficial insect declines have also been noted. Myself, I lost half my bat nursery this past summer. State officials had no explanation other than to note that bat deaths are being reported elsewhere also.

I think there is a increased effort to fast-track our food supply as fast as possible to crops requiring no pollination at all from insects, including honey bees. I have read that a new almond tree may be commercially viable in years to come that would require no pollination. So the real power players today setting the model for the future include chemicals, crops with no pollination requirements, and no need for bees in the future.

Now some will automatically ask, "But where will that leave beekeepers"? And what does that say or suggest about the larger environment as a whole? Good questions. But it's not hard to imagine. Beekeeping to me will be relegated to the far reaches and isolated corners where chemicals may be less and the bees could still thrive. There will be a huge decrease in backyard and urban beekeepers as it will be almost impossible to keep hives alive. And there will be the death of the commercial migratory bee industry. 95% of our honey will be imported. And beekeeping will go the way of the ham radio and bag phone. Not due to better technology and advancements, but due to the destruction of much of the environment in providing higher yields and finding the easy way to fend off insects and weeds. It's just easier to kill off all insects, especially when honey bees are no longer needed.

I'm not throwing in the towel. I'm not quitting. But I would like to think we as beekeepers could brighten that light for others to see. The task is huge. The effort would need to be tremendous. But I would rather do everything we can, and go down fighting rather than give up. And sitting back waiting for others, or thinking beekeeping will not come to what I have suggested, will only find one end result. That being what I suggested. The bee industry destruction snowball is already gaining steam rolling down the hill. And if we sit back long enough, we will eventually see the end results. And I don't think it will be something good for future generations.

Mike Thomas - Bjorn Apiaries

Tired of the "Organic" Crap in Beekeeping

February 2011

It does not take long to find beekeepers who are insistent on using some modified or convoluted meaning of the term "organic". And I am always amazed at the length that some take in the reasoning and rationalizations used to label one's honey special or different than the next beekeeper.

Some suggest they have honey obtained by "organic methods". Really? What does that mean? If a standard of what it takes to be called certified organic is not being achieved, where does that line in reality rest? 99% of the standard? 50% of the standard? Or nothing but what a normal beekeeper does, with the exception of less use of one chemical compared to the next beekeeper?

Some suggest if some compound is found in nature, then dumping in some massive concentrate as a mite control justifies it still being called "organic". Like the miniscule amounts of acid from ants could really be called organic or even natural, when compared to what beekeepers are hitting their bees with in the treatments on the market.

I once attended a session held by one of the organic licensing authorities for the state of Pennsylvania. They spoke of what it would take to be certified as a organic beekeeper here in Pennsylvania. One of the requirements was a land-use study to include the chemical use of all landowners in a two mile radius of every apiary. This requirements alone made it impossible to be certified organic.

But for new beekeepers, the questions continue as they somehow think there are many organic beekeepers out there somewhere. After seeing an advertisement for the "Yahoo organic bee group" mentioning 3700 members, two different beekeepers asked me if there really was 3700 organic beekeepers, and how does one get certified? After I stopped laughing, I went on to inform them that this was just the number of members to a online forum, and meant little else.

For a country that imports 70% of the honey it consumes, why is there a need to use "organic" in selling honey or describing a management approach, when no certification has been achieved? Is this being honest with the consumer who expects that certain requirements have been met? Are beekeepers opening themselves up to litigation by such claims and use of the word "organic". Beekeepers will never know without testing exactly what is in their honey. So why make innuendos, half truths, and use questionable marketing.

No local beekeeper should have a problem selling their honey. Local honey is in huge demand. If you sell "local honey", meaning it was your bees or someone close by, "natural honey" meaning your bees made it, "raw honey" meaning no fine filtering or high heat used, or "pure honey" meaning no additives, you should have no problem selling your honey as a premium product.

I am not a fan of the organic certification process. And I question products from other countries with less control than what is perceived or marketed. Time and time again, circumstances arise and show clearly that products are not as clean as what the requirements suggest. I think for much of the entire process, it is motivated by profit, and means little as to the actual quality of product being produced. But consumers want to buy special labeled products, producers want to charge more, and the whole process is sometimes questionable. Why would anyone buy a product that has been shipped half-way around the world (like that's good for the planet) to pay for higher priced goods from producers you have no chance of contacting or questioning about their operation?

I prefer locally produced produce, from farmers and producers that I can meet, ask questions, and are part of my local agriculture community. If they are certified organic, good for them. I think the varied goods being produced is good for the consumer.

I find it ironic how many folks buy organic this or that, in some self-justification that they are helping the earth by buying from vendors that use organic ingredients in their products. Using 10 organic ingredients that were flown in from 10 different countries to achieve some special marketing of a product is absurd. Who's kidding who? Are you buying that organic soap bar because it contain organic shea butter and it makes a good bar of soap, or are you focused on the idea that it contains organic products. Because if it's because of the organic products, perhaps you should consider the damage to the planet by flying in these ingredients and products so you can get a warm fuzzy feeling while doling out three times the price. Maybe that warm fuzzy feeling is really the fumes from the plane, train, and trucking industry to get ingredients from far off lands. I am not a tree hugging freak. But I do see the irony of those who buy products based on a label and ignorant to the larger story and damage that they cause. How can anyone be impressed with any product that requires tens of thousands of miles of transportation for the ingredients it used in the making of the product?

I think that beekeepers should stay clear of false advertising and suggestions of being "organic" in whatever form it may be used. Beekeepers know that bees forage far and wide, and will drag in stuff from down the street. What the beekeeper does or claims, is a small part of the story.

Honey bees produce one of the "greenest" list of single source natural raw products that can be produced. Honey bees eat, live, die, and require nothing outside a two mile radius of their home. They do not require anything to be flown in from around the world. Maybe we should take a cue from the honey bee, and quit running around buying organic products from around the world, while thinking we are doing something good by being ripped off by products labeled in some far off distant land. Local source products, produced from the hive or the local farmer, whether organic or not, is where my money goes.

Mike Thomas - Bjorn Apiaries

When The Goodwill of the People is Abused

January 2011

It seems many people are jumping on the “save the bees” bandwagon over the past several years. And while there are many good programs and sincere bee lovers out there, does anyone really notice the number of folks that balance on the edge of taking advantage of the good hearted nature of others? The following are some examples.

I recently had a chat with a fellow beekeeper from New York. One of the things that she mentioned was the large number of festivals, fairs, and markets she attended this past year. She pointed out that at a majority of these events, she had seen a vendor selling t-shirts with various sayings such as “Save the Bees” or “Help the Bees”. Seeing this individual more than a few times, she struck up a conversation with the vendor about his business. In the conversation that followed, it was divulged that this vendor was not a beekeeper. She asked if any of the proceeds were going to bees or research. The answer basically came back “I’m selling T-shirts. That’s it. I’m not claiming to do anything else but sell T-shirts”.

One has to wonder how handing over 25 dollars to a guy selling t-shirts is helping the bees. Maybe having hundreds of folks running around wearing “save the bees” t-shirts may have someone ask a question or two. But I think there are better ways of educating the public than buying from vendors that stick the money in their pockets at the end of the day.

While I acknowledge and support free business across the board, it does rub me there are so many people willing to act like they are coming to the honeybee’s rescue, only when there is a dollar to be made. But this small example of profiting from the goodwill of concerned people willing to help the bees, is but a small tip of the iceberg.

In one city, promotion of a “Community Sustainable Apiary” is marketed as a “not for profit” business. I made the mistake of thinking they were a nonprofit organization. I searched their website for board members, individual contact information, bylaws, or anything else that would indicate a nonprofit organization. Only after sending an email was I informed that they were a “not for profit” business, and not a registered nonprofit organization. I’m not even sure what a “not for profit” business is exactly.

In another city, one person is asking for “gifts” and donations so they can “help” the environment by placing more bees in the community. For certain monetary gifts or a donations, you can choose from a variety of bee equipment packages with over inflated priced equipment. I find begging for donations and preying on the good will of the community that is trying to help the bees after hearing of all the industry problems……is a problem. Seeking donations with sly promotional tactics and half-truths, so you can increase your hive numbers, by suggesting this is beneficial to the environment, is appalling!

I think bee associations asking for donations from the community to have hive giveaway programs to get more youth into beekeeping, and other programs at expanding the bee industry, is a good thing. Individual businesses or bee associations collecting solicited donations to build their own hive numbers is a step “over the line” in my opinion.

There are a number of book promotions, movies, and calendars all “helping the bees”. Problem is, in some cases, nobody is seeing much in the way of actual donations to the organizations that were promised a percentage. One particular product has been promoted now for two years. And yet two years of selling this product, not one dollar has been forwarded to the national bee association for the research foundation that was to be set up with this money. One of the bee associations I am a member of, has been selling this product now for two years. It has made plenty of money for the association, but again, something just does not add up. Does anyone care?

Don’t get me wrong. There are many good individuals and businesses that have stepped up to the plate to help the bee industry. But when people start coming out of the woodwork, to attach themselves to the latest environmental issue, you sometimes get the not so good also. Some are here to help “save the bees” only until they move on to the next movie project or hot button environmental issue. There is a group of these people that see the problems in the bee industry over the past several years as nothing more than an opportunity to make a quick buck. And the public, which really knew little of beekeeping or the organizational structure of our industry, is easily taken by money hungry rip-off artists. Their willingness to contribute and donate to what they think is the bee industry efforts to save the honey bees, is many times nothing more than putting money in individual’s pockets.

But lets not just blame the non-beekeepers. There seems to be a growing fad within the bee industry that borders on tacky practices. More than one beekeeper, and one bee association, now openly solicits for the public to “sponsor” their bee hives through donations, while selling the concept that this is a good way to help the bees. I personally think masking having other people pay to build your business while selling it as a concept of “saving the bees” is very questionable. Bee associations should be in business of educating the public while expanding the numbers of beekeepers in their area. It should not be about soliciting the public to help save the bees while collecting money to pay for beehives and expanding individual hive counts.

Yes, I believe in “buyer beware”. But I also believe the buyer will also look down upon an industry that will no doubt look bad as more of the public becomes informed. The bee industry may suffer. The goodwill of the public to be fooled will only last so long. And if the bee industry does not care, then don’t expect the public to be there the next time we need their help. There may not be anyone willing to help….except the folks lining up to make a buck off the situation. In the end, maybe no laws are being broken. And maybe nothing can be done against those taking advantage of others. But we can at least make a small difference if the bee industry would educate itself to these unscrupulous individuals. The bee industry’s public image is worth protecting. And you can’t expect much from others when beekeepers and bee associations are doing some questionable “saving the bees” programs themselves.

Mike Thomas - Bjorn Apiaries

The REAL Bee Industry

January 2011

I had an interesting dialog on a forum recently about "The Bee Industry". In this particular discussion, I had used the term "industry" in my attempts to explain why I thought a beekeeper's actions might be detrimental to the publics perception and overall impact of the bee industry. Another beekeeper commented that he was just a "Hobbyist" and he eluded to the fact that he was not part of the "Bee Industry".

In a recent article in Bee Culture, entitled "Everything Changes", December 2010, page 31, Dr. James E. Tew states "Over time, I sense that increasingly our industry has subdivided itself into three groups: Academic beekeeping, hobby beekeeping, and commercial beekeeping. Each of these groups has their own agendas and goals and is semi-autonomous".

I think Mr. Tew has hit upon an issue that many beekeepers have already realized. And while all three groups are needed, not all three work together or fulfill the needs of the other groups. While each group may support the other in varied and vague ways, many times one, if not all three, feel they are the odd man out.

No doubt when talking about funding and support, the industry for those doling out the dollars, it goes to research first, commercial support in one way or another second, and the hobbyist is last, if not nonexistent. In fact, the hobbyist group is left supporting themselves while many times partial funding the other groups with membership dues and donations.

I look at two of my local county groups I belong too. Not one commercial beekeeper in the group. I look at the beekeepers set up at the farmers market, the beekeepers who speak at the schools, and who answers the call for public assistance with bee situations. I look at who are the bee mentors in the community. I look at who interacts with the community answering questions and who has the most impact on public perception. And it always comes back to one group of beekeepers. The hobbyist!

So why does the hobbyist beekeepers circumvent their impact in being the "Industry" in the public's eye? The children at the schools, the visitors at state parks, the folks at the farmers market, and those on the streets of towns all over the country, all see hobbyists beekeepers as the industry. They are the beekeepers they know. These hobbyist beekeepers are who they ask questions. To the vast majority of the public, those beekeepers they come in contact as beekeepers, ARE the industry.

But I continue to hear "Oh, I'm just a hobbyist!" Yeah, you may be. And you should be proud of it. Hobbyist beekeepers touch the lives and form opinions of what beekeeping is all about in many more lives than the other two groups combined. Hobbyists may not get the funding or the accolades the academic and commercial guys receive. But they touch many more lives and impact public perception a hundred times over than that of these two groups. Just ask the kids at the local school, those at the farmers market, or those at the gardening club.

I don't know who James E. Tew is personally. I have never actually met him. I have never spoke to him. I did hear him speak once. And I do read his articles in Bee Culture. But beyond that, I have no clue what actions, conversations, or observations he has seen in his corner of the bee world. But his assessment that there are three groups of the bee industry is right on the mark. I am glad he acknowledges that there are three actual parts, with one being the hobbyists. I am also grateful he does not sugar coat it or somehow diminish the fact that each group has their own agenda and goals. I think many hobbyists see this obvious separation. And I think many hobbyists feel their needs are not being met. Especially when some organizations they belong too, are headed or controlled by larger commercial beekeepers or academia types who as Mr. Tew indicated, "have their own agenda and goals".

Hobbyists need to hold their heads up high. They need to recognize that their numbers are 98% of all beekeepers in the country. They need to see that it is their efforts in the communities that touch people's perceptions and understanding of the bee industry. They need to be proud of the contributions and their willingness to be active in their communities. After all, they are the INDUSTRY! Just ask anyone not a beekeeper. They will tell you. Don't ask a commercial guy, the state apiarist, or the bee extension folks at the state university. Hobbyists have listened to them tell you that they are the industry for far too long. And we have left control of the bee associations to these folks because they have been around the longest, are the most vocal, or because of some sense of entitlement.

The recent influx of new beekeepers are more educated, younger, and are more conscience of the environment. I see bee associations doing so much more in the communities compared to the past. And I see some dynamic people and potential leaders waiting in the wings. I hope they bring forth a sense of "Industry". Or at least a bigger part than what some would have you believe. Leaders in any organization need not be the most experienced. They just need to be good leaders, among other things. You can always find someone to talk at a bee club. So lets start realizing that the hobbyists are the real contributors to the industry, and let the other two groups figure out who is second. It's time hobbyists beekeepers quit letting themselves be relegated to a third place mentality. It's not just something you deserve....it's something you earned!

Mike Thomas - Bjorn Apiaries