My marketing off my website that you refer too is targeted on keeping treatments and beekeeper applied chemicals out of the hive. Yes, if you want, HFCS is a chemical. not one that I use while supers are on the hive.
ok, so we agree that HFCS is a chemical...even if one is going to call refined sugar "natural" or "not a chemical".
so your claim that "...we do not use chemicals in our hives" is an outright misstatement of fact directed at your honey customers.
As for your point, lets broaden it to include your hives also. NO hive is chemical free. No bees go out and collect nectar without chemicals being brought back to the hive. I know, I have tested my own hives. If you want to harp of HFCS, then I hope you are also open and honest with your clients as to YOUR chemicals in YOUR hive.
i'm very open and honest to customers, curious non-customers, new beekeepers, health food store owners, market managers, and anyone else that will listen.
this is precisely why we chose the term "treatment free" not "chemical free". our environment is polluted with chemicals...some of them are very bad to be around. the highest levels of pesticides found in beehives are beekeeper applied. we don't use treatments at all, and we barely use foundation (and yes, even foundationless comb has chemicals in it).
from talking to the labs, it seems that HFCS isn't detectable under 5%.
remember, 5% is 50,000ppm?
My marketing, is directed at the fact that consumers want the best chemical free product they can get. Knowing that I use NO beekeeper applied chemicals, and have the testing to back that up, and feed only in winter when sugar or HFCS is use only for emergency conditions, and does not end up in the honey produced later in the season...I see this as nitpicking at best.
testing for contamination (especially if undetectable if under 5%) says nothing about what chemicals you use. saying that you feed HFCS says that you do use chemicals...and stating on your website that "we do not use chemicals in our hives" is clearly untrure.
I walk the walk and talk the talk.
yes, you walk the walk of putting HFCS in your hives (which you agree is a chemical), and talk the talk that you do not use chemcials in your hives......it takes reading a beekeeping forum (and pointing out the contradictions of your claims) to drag out of you that you do not use chemicals on your hives while there are honey supers on.
sorry, that is not walking the walk and talking the talk.
I wonder if you do. Have you had your hives and honey tested?
i have not...but i'm also not worried about the things i put in the hive getting into the honey...because nothing (but bees, wood glue, the occasional piece of string to tie in a comb, and occassional honey) gets put in our hives. we are planning on some tests, but are saving the requisite $$$ to test a number of our own wax and honey along with some that are treated so that we have more than one data point to look at....as we agree that things will be found in any hive (treated or not), we need to look at the levels found in treated vs untreated hives.
Do you openly and honestly state to your customers that NO honey is pure?
yes, i do.
Cause unless you do, then you have no right to point fingers.
the finger pointing has been coming from your end of cyberspace....as i said before, it would be more helpful for all this discussion to be more specific as to who has been claiming what that you don't agree with.
I'd like to see your honey label, your website, and hear what you suggest to people.
are you implying that i'm not upfront enough with my thoughts and recommendations? i'm pretty vocal here, on beesource, on bee-l, and on the organic list....and i took the time to write a book on the very subject you are asking about (it's probably the least expensive beekeeping book available). if you want to know what i suggest to people, you can find out for free online (on any of the forums), or you can pay Amazon the $10 to buy our book. i'm not sure how i could do more to express my opinions and to make my suggestions more available.
This conversation was about scare tactics and advice given to beekeepers in regards to having them worry about minuscule amount of some chemical in feed, possible necessary to keep hives alive.
...and again, you have lumped all negative comments about artifical feeds together as "scare tactics" without citing a single one.
As for the detrimental facts you state about HFCS or sugar, I never said you should feed it all year long. I am referencing, and have done so a couple times now, the idea that beekeepers are questioning feeding bees sugar or hfcs in attempts to keep their hives alive.
...and none of the "detrimental facts" that i listed are dependent on feeding year round. most commercial (and smart non-commercial) beekeepers i know are well aware that there is nothing to be gained by trying to keep all colonies alive all winter by feeding...this is why they combine colonies, or even blow the bees out of weak colonies in early winter (before the bees die and mold in the comb). the desire to keep all of one's bees alive is a large part of the bad breeding that has led to poor state of genetics. culling is important, and not being able to feed oneself is a good reason to be culled (in many if not most circumstances).
...a fact that you youself said is a necessity sometimes. Of course honey is best and contains beneficial microbs, etc. But that is all lost is you have no honey to feed, and then also get bombarded with the idea that feeding is a no-no, resulting in dead hives.
traditional beekeeping bombards the new beekeeper with methods that lead to necessary feeding virtually every year. if feeding was stressed as an emergency measure for unusual circumstances we would be having a very different discussion.
Are you going to suggest that the millions of hives saved by feeding HFCS and sugar would of been better of served by not feeding, because the very food that saved the hives, lack what honey has? Sounds like nonsense to me.
those fed HFCS after their sufficent honey stores were removed (or management prevented them from producing these stores in the first place) would have been better off with their honey. as for those that were unable to provide for themselves should not be propped up....their own survival is irrelevant, the population as a whole would be better off without them.
I think that ranks right up there with the idea that it is better to euthanize animals rather than have them by enslaved by pet owners who provide the basics for survival, such as a warm house and enough food to exist, but lack giving animals the freedom to roam as some suggest they should do as in the wild.
this is a false analogy. bees are not puppies, and they need to be able to fend for themselves....feral bees that fend for themselves are the best resource for beekeepers as a resivour of genetics. for most dog owners, the genetics of feral dogs don't offer much that they want...with bees it's different.
Sorry guys. I'm telling new beekeepers to feed, feed, feed. And if that means HFCS and sugar, then so be it. Even if that means the food source has less of the nutrients than honey. HFCS and sugar is safe and has been used for years to stop starvation. It's better than dead hives.
there is much more wrong with sugar/hfcs than lacking some nutrients...but i've already pointed that you, and you don't seem to want to hear it.
And please don't quote over egotistical old dead guys who seem to be idolized by the mere fact they were envious of others, and was judgemental in his views of others. I find that appalling and sickening.
given that the vast majority of your hives are virtually unchanged from langstroths design, he must have had something on the ball!