Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

small cell foundation

97K views 429 replies 36 participants last post by  deknow 
#1 ·
#348 ·
So is this something you will be testing for...
Is _what_ something I will be testing for?

It's very easy to paint the commercial crowd with a broad brush and assume their honey is not on par with 'your' honey.
I've never painted the commercial crowd with a broad brush. Just like any population, there are good guys and bad guys. We know that some use unimaginable "shop towel" treatments, some feed HFCS with honey supers on, some sell adulterated honey to other beekeepers to sell as their own, some sell "pure honey" that is only 70% honey.

There are good hotels and bad hotels. Some hotels are listed in guides that tell you which is which. Just because a hotel isn't in one (or any) of those guides doesn't mean that it is a bad hotel...and it is hard to imagine that anyone would consider the AAA travel guide as denigrating every hotel that it does not list. They have their standards and their procedures they use to assure quality, and I have mine. Such results are not measured by those excluded from the criteria, but by the consistent quality displayed by what does fit the criteria.

If one believes that the microbial symbionts that the bees rely on should remain as undamaged as possible (for long term practical reasons), why should one not buy honey that is produced with that as an outcome of the beekeepers practice? Certainly no one disputes the added value of produce that is cultivated in a way that preserves the soil.

deknow
 
#343 ·
"No Question". You see, from my perspective that's rather a bold statement.

Agreed, antibiotics change bee gut microfauna. Does it matter? Well the answer to that is less clear.

But the main thrust of my last few posts is not actually that. Internet knowledge exchange is both good, and bad. Over here I am surrounded by new beeks, who think they have to know a whole lot of stuff, that they don't, and this can be an impediment to them learning, what they actually would be better off to know.

When they see my eye's start to glaze over after a few minutes of them lecturing me on something of no real value to them, they dismiss me as an old fart who must be pretty ignorant and lose interest in anything I might be able to help them with.

What I see as the best plan for a beginner is to forget overly academic sides of stuff, find someone who gets good results with bees, and copy them. AFTER they can keep bees, then they can pursue academia intelligently, being in a better position to judge it's value.
 
#345 ·
When they see my eye's start to glaze over after a few minutes of them lecturing me on something of no real value to them, they dismiss me as an old fart who must be pretty ignorant and lose interest in anything I might be able to help them with.

and unfortunately, that is often either inspired or reinforced by the dogma of some 'newer' or 'alternate' methodologies.

actually, inspired is far too soft. they are explicitly told so.

fab discussion, btw... from the comfort of my armchair. :)
 
#347 ·
i'm too new to know, but what kind of contaminants show up when honey is analyzed for herbicides and pesticides that may have come in from the environment, i.e. from nearby agriculture, vegatable and flower gardens, ect?
 
#354 ·
Isn't proof in the pudding, not theory land?

I am happy to supply samples of honey from my treated hives. If it can be shown how they are different from honey from non treated hives, THEN this stuff can be presnted like it's a fact. Till then, it's a theory, and shouldn't be presented as a fact, cos it isn't. My opinon? There would be sweet ** difference.
 
#358 ·
http://www.bee-hexagon.net/files/file/fileE/BeeProducts/ContaminationApidologie2006.pdf

found this one, gave it a quick once over.

not much contamination found in honey from the environment, mostly introduced by beekeeping practices, and mostly antibiotics.

this review concluded the organic acids were not a concern when used properly in regards to honey contamination.

but your point dean, i believe, is that there should be as much or more concern over alterations to the microflora in the bee gut.

my first thought about the analogy of soil conserving measures and bee microflora conserving measures, was that messing up the soil would seem to have potentially and vastly farther reaching consequences.

does altering bee gut microflora have any farther reaching consequences than (potentially) for the honey or the bee?

obviously you feel that they should be a significant concern, why?

are any investigators on track to provide us with the answers as to what these observations might mean from a practical sense?
 
#359 ·
From Merriam Webster: www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fermentation
Definition of FERMENTATION
1
a : a chemical change with effervescence
b : an enzymatically controlled anaerobic breakdown of an energy-rich compound (as a carbohydrate to carbon dioxide and alcohol or to an organic acid); broadly : an enzymatically controlled transformation of an organic compound
Medical Definition of FERMENTATION
1
: a chemical change with effervescence
2
: an enzymatically controlled anaerobic breakdown of an energy-rich compound (as a carbohydrate to carbon dioxide and alcohol or to an organic acid); broadly : an enzymatically controlled transformation of an organic compound
...not to mention that yeast (as used in making beer, wine, bread) is not a bacteria....it is a yeast!

Note that I don't have to "paraphrase" you to make it look like you said: "Fermentation (which implies by bacteria),..." because I can actually quote you.
 
#362 ·
Yes it's possible.

I'm a guy who prefers facts though, to inuendo. There MIGHT be a difference in some of the honeys, related to this issue. To my knowledge though none has ever been found. So, how much of a problem is it?

What I dislike though, is somebody trying to prove something to suit his purposes, that hasn't been proved.
 
#363 · (Edited)
colleen, yes i can accept that on principle. but it means a lot more if that hypothesis is tested and proven.

it is also just as possible that the beneficial qualities in honey could be enhanced if the altered microcrobial population resulted in a favorable outcome regarding those qualities.
 
#370 ·
colleen, yes i can accept that on principle. but it means a lot more if that hypothesis is tested and proven.

it is also just as possible that the beneficial qualities in honey could be enhanced if the altered microcrobial population resulted in a favorable result regarding those qualities.
Squarepeg, I can understand that, especially since you come across as a very analytical/science based person. You want something you can point at that is in black and white. Personally I find life is rarely that simple. To me, scientific studies are often biased toward what the researcher is trying to prove and many things worthy of investigation aren't investigated because there is no profit or not enough profit in it.

To me, sometimes we have to accept there are things better not meddled with and things that benefit more if MAN doesn't intervene. I can't prove it, but I accept it.

And yes, you are probably correct, if we could unlock it we could capitalize on it. Maybe engineer it to be better but we must remember that nature has a balance and with every gain there is a commensurate loss.
 
#364 ·
You see, wine beer cheese etc. is cultured, more accurately than fermented, in a controlled environment of laboratory hygiene.
Why is "cultured" more accurate than "fermented"?

http://winemakermag.com/stories/art...the-pros-and-cons-of-spontaneous-fermentation
This brings us to the second source — wild yeast. Many winemakers who make wine from fresh juice or grapes add no yeast at all. If you buy juice, the retailer may suggest you simply take it home and let it sit until it starts fermenting on its own. And within a day or so, it will begin to bubble. How does that happen?
http://www.exploratorium.edu/cooking/bread/recipe-sourdough.html
Out of yeast? Don’t worry: It’s not hard to find.

The feisty critters that make bread rise actually live all around us. In fact, the use of yeast in bread-making probably got its start accidentally, when “wild” yeast caused doughs meant for unleavened flatbreads to ferment.

To this day, many bakers still use “wild” yeast to make bread, especially in San Francisco, a city famous for its sourdough. To make sourdough, bakers use a “starter,” a piece of dough in which yeast is continually reproducing with the help of regular doses of flour from the baker. The yeast that gets the starter “started” usually comes from the air in the kitchen or bakery where the bread is made, but some starter recipes also use store-bought yeast.
 
#365 ·
Dean I see you've skipped the questions asked of you in the last few posts.

However, to indulge your cheese issue, culture is the word normally used and there are reasons for that. With your googling skills, I'm sure you will be able to find them.

Do you want to argue about cheese? If so, what does that really tell everybody about your being a "laid back type of guy". Seem pretty wound up, to me.

Or, to repeat yet again, what is the subject?
 
#368 ·
...best I can tell, the thread went from SC to treatment free here:
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?276421-small-cell-foundation&p=875327#post875327

...I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to who it came from.

What I would like (if I had a choice), is a conversation where others are not lying about what I've said or claimed, and that when someone posts something as 'fact', that they are willing to back it up, or admit that they made a mistake...it's not that difficult.

deknow
 
#369 ·
Well I checked out your link Dean, and as I suspected, surprise surprise, it was one of MY posts. Now how would I have known you'd try to blame the whole thing on me LOL :)
In fact, there was no problem at all with my post you linked and it certainly did not cause all the other crap you've brought up Dean.

What I would like (if I had a choice), is a conversation where others are not lying about what I've said or claimed, and that when someone posts something as 'fact', that they are willing to back it up, or admit that they made a mistake...it's not that difficult.

deknow
Agreed. Please go ahead.
 
#371 ·
i like that colleen, and with bees i have seen that proven out by how they would have been better off had i not meddled.

nothing wrong with adopting an approach based on a feeling or a philosophy.

there is room for both with beekeeping, but sometimes they are antagonistic, and this is an example.
 
#372 ·
Deknow - did I miss your PM on price and quantity of treatment free honey you could purchase from me? With you numbers I could calculate if the extra effort of treatment free is economical. Another gentleman that approached me about [purchasing TF honey has yet to put his money where his mouth is.

How did Mr. Lyon's honey taste(I bet good)? There is more to honey quality than what is not put in it.


Crazy forgettable Roland
 
#382 ·
Raising honey is like raising queens, everyone is positive that there's is the best. :) I guess I am no exception. Perhaps there is something different about the honey we raise because the ancestors of the bees producing it were exposed to something the hive was treated with months earlier but it dosent strike me as terribly likely and if it was surely someone would have posted a link proving that honey fron treatment free hives is in some way different. Personally I would prefer to just dumb this discussion down a bit to the basics of what interests people in the treatment free forum. If you are here because of concern about the altering of microbial populations in the bee gut because of what you are putting in the hive than Deans the guy you want to be listening to, what he says on this subject is no doubt true, how much of a threat it is to our industry is no doubt an open ended argument though. If you got interested in treatment free beekeeping because you want to insure that the honey you are consuming or selling is as free from contaminants as possible then I am simply making the point that there may be any number of ways to achieve that goal. Let's not forget that Varroa is the nastiest most tenacious challenge that Apis mellifera has ever had to contend with. I don't know what chemical changes varroa may cause in a hive but make no mistake about it, they are responsible for the demise of countless hives. One need never have to apologize for choosing to fight them. If you formulated your opinion of mite control based on how things were done 15 to 20 years ago you might consider looking at some of today's options and methods for IPM. The times they are a changin.
 
#387 ·
Let's not forget that Varroa is the nastiest most tenacious challenge that Apis mellifera has ever had to contend with. I don't know what chemical changes varroa may cause in a hive but make no mistake about it, they are responsible for the demise of countless hives. One need never have to apologize for choosing to fight them. If you formulated your opinion of mite control based on how things were done 15 to 20 years ago you might consider looking at some of today's options and methods for IPM. The times they are a changin.
jim, very good point. i don't think anyone has brought up the point so far as to what effect the pathogens that are vectored into the hive by varroa have on the 'normal' microflora in the hive.

short of collapse, there very well could be effects to the microflora on a smaller scale that are as bad or worse as the result of careful ipm practices. (back to the risk/benefit ratios of doing or not doing....)

the bees appear to be evolving, so must we.
 
#374 ·
(sorry dean, remember the caddy shack 'gopher'? :) and i admit, i made a mistake)

don't have a clue about cell size and fermentation, what are your thoughts?

with the posts coming in at light speed, did you have a chance to see #358?
 
#377 ·
I've made any point I'm going to make here...we cannot have any kind of productive discussion when thoughts are "clarified" (in ways only George Orwell would appreciate) and faulty "facts" are presented in ignorance. I stand by anything I've said in this thread, and ask that I be quoted rather than "clarified".

deknow
 
#379 ·
Likewise I'd appreciate not being falsely accused of lying.

Less "i thinks", "maybes", and "mights", should also be used when trying to prove something. All those words prove is that there is no proof. Annoys me and I am often tempted to draw attention to it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top