Honey Run Apiaries-A Beekeeper’s Blog

I have periodically given talks and even classes last year on raising your own queens. Inevitably someone will come up and ask questions and seek advice beginning with ‘I don’t want to compete with you, but I’d like to know how you do x’.  My response is always the same, ‘Please compete with me.  Raise a few queens for yourself, then for your neighbor, and sell as many as you care to produce. The industry needs it.’  It may be just the view I see, but the demand seems to only increase each year with few new producers entering the market, large or small.  In fact two large companies with a combined production of 75,000 queens retired this year according to Kim Flottum.   At the same time the number of hobbyist does seem to be growing.

I’ve also heard plenty of complaints about supercedure, queen size and other problems from those who have purchased mass produced queens.  I’m not saying all mass produced queens are bad, nor are all operations at fault.  I just hear the complaints and know the pressure of getting queens out on time, disease, stress, financial concerns, and residue from mite treatments can affect the queens in a real operation.   Many beekeepers want a queen at the lowest price possible, and they want it now.  Quality and cheap just don’t play well together . But this is a topic for another post.

So there is a good market out there, and there are beekeepers not happy with the queens they are getting.  They are looking for quality queens, the kind YOU can raise in small number at home.  It really isn’t that difficult to do, even on a very small scale. So I’d encourage you, if you have even the slightest interest, and even if you only intend to raise queens for yourself, to take advantage of the queen rearing classes given though the Ohio State Beekeepers Association or your own local or state association.

[I'm happy to see both the American Bee Journal and Bee Culture have several articles on queen rearing and breeding in the latest issues (March 2008).  Of particular interest to the beekeeper who hopes to make profit at it one day is Larry Connor's article 'Raising and Managing Your Own Queens and Drones' in ABJ where he outlines a plan to start a small scale operation, and 'Small-scale Queen Rearing' by Roy Hendrickson that is a practical article on a small Ohio operation.']

I’m sure most people receiving email from companies, sooner or later receive one with a legal disclaimer or warning on the end of dire legal consequences if you use or even look at the email in the wrong way.  They go something like the following (names have been changed):

Attention: This e-mail message, including any attachment(s) (collectively the "e-mail"), has been sent by ACME Drinking Water and Porta-John Recycling Co. and may contain PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.  If you are not the intended recipient, then please (i) do not read this e-mail, (ii) do not forward, print, copy or otherwise disseminate this e-mail, (iii) notify us of the error by a reply to this e-mail and (iv) delete this e-mail from your computer.  Thank you.

This has to be one of the most worthless legal statements ever written.  The first problem is that this statement  is almost always found at the end of the email, and is sure to be read only after reading the contents of the email (i).  Nearly anything I do to the email will break (ii), deleting it will copy it to the deleted folder (iv), replying (iii) will copy it to the sent folder, not to mention the multiple copies made since I check email from multiple computers and the copy that remains on the server and in the ISP’s backups.  And let us not forget the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, it requires that email be backed up in public companies.  I’m also not sure if one could legally be bound to such a statement without agreeing to it first or a method of opting out before breaching the statement is available (as is often done with software licenses).

Of course, none of the statement is valid unless ‘you are not the intended recipient’.  Of course, since the email came to my inbox, and is stamped at the top with my email address, the only logical conclusion is that it was intended for me.  Other than the address, I can’t possibly guess what the actual intent of the sender was.  Even if the email says ‘Dear Anne’ at the top (obviously not me), the sender may be forwarding a message they thought I may be interested in.  How could I guess the ‘intent’ was anything other than for me to receive the email?

Personally I find every email I receive with such a statement rather humorous and I’m really tempted to forward every one I receive to the media (after all, as the intended recipient I can use it as I see fit).  But if you do business with any company that uses such a statement thinking it gives them any security or expectation of privacy, I would be worried.

When the USDA gets involved of course.  The USDA has mandated that raw almonds grown in the US be pasteurized.  So by the common persons definition raw almonds aren’t.  At least they aren’t if they are grown in the US, the rule doesn’t apply to imported almonds.

Not to be outdone, Ohio is now considering making it illegal to label milk ‘rBHG free‘ or ‘artifical growth hormone-free’ using the argument that such labeling implies that the other stuff is bad and would be unfairly discriminating against those products originating from cows that aren’t enhanced (Lets ignore for a minute that the stuff is banned in Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and All 25 European Union countries.  I’m sure those countries just banned it for completely unjustified reasons - right, thats it).  So what is next?  Any other labeling that may imply another product isn’t as good?  ‘low-fat’, ’sugar-free’, ‘cholesterol free’, ‘GMO free’, etc.  All imply the product in question is better (and the product without the label is therefore inferior).  It’s a very short step from banning ‘hormone-free’ to banning these and others like ‘local’ or  ‘raw’ which many customers look for in the honey they buy.  

So much for truth in advertising.   (We need to apply these rules to political candidates and their ads.  You can say anything you want as long as it in no way implies that you are better in any way than anyone else.) 

Haagen-Dazs announced this month at the National Beekeeping Conference announce a ‘vigorous and ambitious’ program supporting honey bees, honey bee research, and a plan to generate awareness of the plight of the honey bee.  This includes a donation of $250,000 to fund sustainable pollination and CCD research.  Any guesses who received this money?  It certainly wasn’t OSU since they’ve closed the Rothenbuhler Bee Lab.   The money instead went to Penn State and UC Davis, both of which are still doing research and are increasing their research efforts in recent years.  UC Davis is also where Sue Cobey now works after leaving OSU.

I guess it isn’t completely fair to say the Ohio State University rejected the funding.  I’m sure they weren’t even considered a recipient for the funding since they had already dumped the beekeeping program at the main campus and have seriously downsized the program at the Wooster campus.  And why would any give OSU money to research an area they have no program?  But it does make it even more unfathomable that OSU has decimated their beekeeping program just as the honey bee has gained national attention from the media, legislature and even corporate America including significant monetary contributions to research.

Simply closing the bee lab in Columbus was apparently not enough for the Ohio State University.  The University has now decided to destroy the Historic Rothenbuler Lab located on the Ohio State University property in Columbus.

Dana Stahlman from the Ohio State Beekeepers Association is organizing a " Save the Building" project.  Dr Tew is checking to see if he can place the building near the bee lab in Wooster.   Meanwhile, a group of volunteers are organizing to remove the building from the OSU property to a location for safe keeping until a "New" home is found.

Funding is needed for this project and some clubs have already made their pledges.  The purpose of the building relocation in Wooster will be to house the OSBA Queen Project activities. 

Any monies donated and not used in the moving will be earmarked for the queen project from which we all benefit.  All donations should be sent to OSBA Treasurer, Bob Hooker,  100 Pyle Rd, Oberlin, OH  44074, email beekeeperbob17@hotmail.com,  ask Bob to "earmark" this for the bee lab relocation.

So we don’t have many answers yet when it comes to CCD.  We know several things it is not (cell phones, power towers, aliens…), and know a few things that may be a symptom or part of the cause (most notably IAPV and nosema).  But at the end, the only thing that we really know for certain is the name assigned to it, CCD, and that it has brought more media attention to beekeeping that I think we’ve ever seen before.

But what can we do to prevent CCD from making our hives disappear now?  The 10+ step lists published in newsletters and beekeeping magazines should leave most beekeepers asking ‘is that all?’.  In short it’s simply ‘Be a better beekeeper‘.  The slightly longer version is minimize stress, monitor and treat disease, re-queen frequently, and keep strong healthy hives.  Isn’t that what we were trying to do already?  Of course the bee-havers out there are probably staring at the list in disbelief wondering how they could possibly start doing even a 4th of what’s on the list.  I shouldn’t be to harsh.  These people make good regular customers for package bees.

The only thing possibly new is that given the possible connection with nosema, treatment for Nosema (with Fumadil-B) is considered important.  Personally I’ve never treated for it and have not had a problem with it.  The samples our bee inspector sent in to Beltsville found no nosema this past spring and I really don’t expect to see any difference this winter. So for now I’m taking my chances.  This is about the time it started being noticed last year and so far no disappearing bees here.

The official word is that the scope of the beekeeping research on the Columbus (Ohio State) campus at the Rothenbuhler Bee Laboratory has been ‘reduced’ for the present.  While the OSU Entomology administration recognizes the importance and contributions of the lab, restricted funding is a fact within university systems across the US.

From those I’ve talked to, that’s short for: the Lab is closed until we can find someone who can bring in the grants to fund the lab.   The sad fact is much of beekeeping research and breeding programs simply don’t bring in the big corporate grants because there isn’t a product at the end of the research that can be sold to millions of people, directly at least.  While the high-tech science brings in the dollars with it’s promise for new drugs and treatments down the road (and only a few hives are needed for that).  Much of the research wanted by beekeepers involves the labor intensive and sometimes tedious task of running 100’s of hives.  All to develop a bee that doesn’t need treatment or inexpensive treatments that only 10,000s of people will buy.

It’s disappointing, but really not surprising.  The bee scientist position at the lab has been vacant for several years and Sue Cobey who ran the NWC program at Ohio State left for the Laidlaw Bee Laboratory at the University of California at Davis.  Sue will be a great asset there, and I have a feeling the Lab may still have closed eventually even if she had stayed.  The days when the university will do research for the public good even if a particular program can’t generate the direct income are gone.  Even with bee research in spite of the fact we all benefit every time we eat an apple, almond, blueberry, pear, or 100 other fruits and vegetables.

Now, if you could train bees to play football, then you would have a nearly endless stream of money.  The average coach in the BCS conference has a 1.4 million dollar salary.  Couldn’t we take just 10% of that and hire someone to do real research.  A fraction of the profits from football would fund the entire research program.  Are our priorities in the right place?

It didn’t take long after CCD hit the all the media outlets for the first person to try and take advantage of the hype.  Early this year, before anyone even had any evidence to suspect anything more concrete than little green men, someone was advertising CCD proof bees in one of the beekeeping magazines.  Amazing claims when no one knew the cause or even how to test for it. 

Now, there are another couple holistic tools to cure CCD (or to keep you amused on a cold winter day in case the snake oil salesman is fresh out):

Orgonite (as advertised on a few online forums).  It transmutes any negative, destructive electromagnetic fields into positive, life supporting energetic fields.   Confused?  Me too.  According to orgonite.info you can make your own.  Just fill a mold (an old muffin pan will do) with one crystal (doesn’t appear to mater what type), any shards of metal you have handy and resin.  Let it harden and you have a hard block you can smash the nasty CCD bugs with.  No metal shards handy?  I’m sure some scrapings from some recalled toys will have enough lead in them to do the trick.

theccdsolution.com (As advertised in the American Bee Journal)  The Add reads:

"Get the CCD Solution NOW!  Why wait?  $99 intro kit treats 100 hives and 1.5 acres.  Guaranteed to improve your hives.  No poisons, No chemicals.  No toxins.  Explains CCD.  From GW Agriculture: the inventors of Ultra High Technology for Agriculture"

Now call me skeptical, but a small agriculture company that does nothing with bees (at least on their primary web site gwagriculture.com) knows what CCD is and the cure?  So I looked up theccdsolution.com  and it’s just a parking page, no information at all.  You would think if they were advertising the site they would have at least something on the page.   Try to find out much about the company and you will turn up little.  "Ultra High Technology for Agriculture" turns up 0 hits in google.  Searching the company name and their old name Agri-Synthesis (agrisynthesis.com which redirects to gwagriculture.com) doesn’t turn up much, but does turn up an article in Wine Business Monthly where the founder is interviewed and he claims "We can cure any insect, disease, yield or quality problem on any crop, anywhere." 

(My chemist friend from college would get a kick out of it too.  "Chemical Free", it’s a vacuum in a can!)

As I’m sure  most in the US already know, the Post Office recently raised the cost of a First Class stamp from 39 to 41 cents.  They also raised the cost of most of their other services significantly.  This especially affects priority and express mail which in turn affects the cost to ship honey and queens.  (To the extent I’m now taking a loss on shipping for all pre-paid queen orders I still can fill).  In addition, they now are also charging by the size of the package (similar to what UPS does).  So your larger light weight packages will cost more to send.

I do understand the cost of labor, benifits (especially health), and transportation have gone up significantly.  All major costs to the post office.  So I do understand their need to raise prices.  But when I receive a package from the Post Office, like the one pictured at the right,  that contains plastic envelopes for international shipments, I begin to wonder.  For some reason they felt the flexible and virtually indestructible envelopes needed extra padding via on of those air bags.  It’s obviously extra cost, labor, a bigger package, and completely unnecessary (and something they didn’t do before the price increase).  I think I just found where my 2 cents went!

Any other beekeeper out there sick and tired about hearing this ‘mysterious’ bee disease, CCD (Colony colapse disorder?).  The coverage has been overwhelming from national to local TV coverage (on every network including PBS), radio and newspapers down the small local papers.  And it seems to be increasing with attention from even the US congress.  The continuous stream of stories all saying the same thing with little or no new information is becoming unbearable.  Then there are the questions for everyone I meet and phone calls from reporters asking about the bees.

I don’t doubt CCD exists, someting with the same symptoms has been described as early as 1915 and in many different countries.  There are many beekeepers in the US that lost quite a few hives with symptoms matching CCD exactly.  Some of them have been virtually wiped out by it, and I understnd their loss. However, not all the bee losses this year were due to CCD.  Many were due to well known and explained reasons such as starvation, mites and other diseases.  It’s almost too easy just to blame the unknown than to really take a look at what is really happening in some of these hives.

CCD has been reported in Ohio, but from talking to many beekeepers thoughout the state, the state inspectors and my own observations, the majority of the 72% average loss in ohio was not due to CCD.  Rather it was ultimately due to weather.  The 2006 summer was poor for honey production and the following fall was no better.  This resulted in many hives that either did not have enough honey to survive the winter, or that simply did not have a strong population of young bees, or both.  This ment that hives either starved, or their population dwindled thought the winter until they were too small to sustain themselves though the bitter cold this past February. 

Looking back, the loss of bees this winter in Ohio shouldn’t have been a surprise.  I honestly expected a bad winter, with losses several times the normal level, but even that was underestimating the loss I did have.  Starting around June of 2006, hives did not build up as they normally would.  This really continued into fall and should have been a sign to all of us that we needed to do something.  Sadly most of us (including myself) didn’t do enough.  We treated for mite and feed sugar syrup so they would have enough for winter, but failed to reconize the lack of young bees in the hive.  I know hindesight is 20/20, but should I ever see these signs again I will be feeding pollen and pollen substitute to increase brood production in the fall.  Interestingly I just spoke to a beekeeper who use to know Don Cox, a longtime beekeeper whom everyone seems to know.  Don recommend feeding pollen in the fall because it boosted the strength of the hive going into winter.  That piece of advise may have saved many hives this past winter.  The one beekeeper I know of who did this lost 0% of his hives.  (Note: Doc Cox was instrumental in founding the Northwest Ohio Beekeepers Association and started the honey booth at the Allen County Fair.  He passed away just a few years ago and will be missed by those who know him.)

On the plus side, honey bees are finally getting a lot of attention.  I’m not sure it’s putting beekeeping in the best light with all the ‘doom and gloom’ talk, but at least it’s getting attention.  And more important it looks like it may be translating into dollars for research in beekeeping, something that is badly needed.  So I do welcome the attention.