> the ones you've mentioned here had a decided
> commercial interest in getting all those poor
> backwards folks converted over to the modern way
> of doing things. And I bet those folks were
> prepared to sell a few more things their converts
> couldn't live without than just Bee-Quick :>)
Now you are being insulting, you ill-informed *******.
The effort in Iran is funded by many agricultural
assistance groups attempting to build a
self-sufficient industry in Iran, so no one is
getting rich at all. I'm also tossing in - the
deal is that the first few thousand bottles of
Bee-Quick are gratis, and even the shipping will
be handled by an aid group, so it is a 100%
no-cash deal.
As elsewhere, late season harvesting can be
a painful experience, as the bees get defensive,
so the idea here is to reduce the need for
bee suits, which are another expense that all
concerned wish to avoid, hence an interest in
the product.
> just what has been your experience with natural
> comb versus foundation based comb.
I tried empty frames in brood chambers on and off
for years, and I saw no big difference in speed,
but I DID see more irregular comb when no
foundation was provided. Regardless, for honey
production, so-called "natural comb" is a burden
that
massively reduces crops of harvestable
honey, a point which should be obvious to even the
casual observer.
> I'd still like to know how you can do it when
> the big boys can't.
I am a big enough boy to buy directly from the
mill, no big feat given than the mill is owned
by a buddy who likes his all-you-can-eat free
honey.
> an active imagination fueled by a combative
> spirit?
Sorry if you read my writing that way - I am
simply poking fun at (and holes
in)
your fantastic claims about TBHs having some
sort of advantages over any other sort of
box for bees, and foundation being "bad" rather
than "good".
Its a BOX, get over yourself! The bees
don't care what sort of box they are put into!
> It's about bees drawing out comb their way
> versus making them drawn it out the foundation
> way.
Pseudo-mystical new-age mumbo-jumbo. If you want
to rant against foundation, you have an entire
planet full of beekeepers to argue against,
not just me.
> I never said tbhs were "more productive".
> But I said they could be more profitable.
I can't see much profit in an operation where
the bees must draw out each comb on every
flow. Where I come from, we call that "comb
honey", we use Ross Rounds, and it goes for
a serious premium over extracted honey.
You are trying to produce extracted honey
with costs that are as high as a comb honey
producer!
> because it's obvious you simply don't have any
> natural comb experience.
Not true... I did not like what I got when leaving
the bees to their own devices. Foundation gives
me (and the overwhelming majority of beekeepers)
more predictable results, which is why its use
is so popular, even if the alternative is "free".
> And certainly not even any small cell experience.
Ah, no... I just
fund studies so that
those more qualified than I can do the actual
work, and thereby instruct me without my wasting
my time.
Look, if you are right, the world will beat a
path to your door, and throw themselves at
your feet. Don't hold your breath, because I
see the exact opposite trend in places where
TBH and other "primitive" methods have been
replaced by "modern" methods, and created an
EXPORT CASH CROP where before, there was only
subsistence beekeeping.
So, do what you want, but realize that getting
rid of "traditional" mindsets can make the
difference between grinding poverty and a little
actual folding money for folks who have very
little folding money.