An important article from In Context.
I've always wondered why I felt uncomfortable teaching. Maybe the answer lies partially in this article.
Showing posts with label sustainable living. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sustainable living. Show all posts
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Ecological Implications Concerning Property
The following essay was written by a student of mine, Benjamin Scott. I thought it interesting. If you have any comments or criticisms about this essay, post them here and I will forward them to Ben for his response.
The ecological implications concerning John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, specifically. Chapter Five on Property, manifest in three of Locke’s explications, principally: Preservation, Property and Labour, Use and Value.
The line of reasoning Locke asserts concerning preservation is essentially the following: Man must ethically preserve himself, but to preserve himself he must labour - therefore, man must labour. Locke first expounds on the duty of preservation, stating, “Every one […] is bound to preserve himself […] [and] as much as he can, preserve the rest of mankind” (Locke 9). This duty is bound to the individual by the law of nature, which wills that “the peace and preservation of all mankind, the execution of the law of nature is, in that state, put into every man’s hands” (9). The individual is bound to this the intrinsic duty, the act of preserving oneself and one’s community, that he may keep in harmony with the law of nature.
The individual actualizes the responsibility of preservation by the procurement of property, for “the earth, and all that is therein, is given to men for the support and comfort of their being” (18). The way in which the individual acquires property is through labour, which “gave a right of property” (27). The action of labour, Locke purports, is intrinsic to the human condition (22). It follows that obtaining property is a necessary action, for to do otherwise would be contrary to the aforementioned law of preservation. Therefore, the gathering of property is, within reason, an essential principle of human nature. It is at this point in Locke’s exposition that certain ecological implications become quite clear.
The first of these implications deals with the way in which the property itself is treated. Locke affirms that “the intrinsic value of things […] depends only on their usefulness to the life of man” (23). The use of an object is then treated only as an economic resource - this is shown by his idea of waste, which is, “land that is left wholly to nature, that hath no improvement of pasturage, tillage, or planting” (26). Furthermore, Nature and earth, on their own, “Furnished only the almost worthless materials, as in themselves” (27), and that without labour, land would “scarcely be worth anything” (26). When one ceases to view land as nothing other than that which should be improved upon, then any land that has been left untouched would then seem quite insignificant. This outlook is extremely narrow insofar as it does not encapsulate cultural, spiritual, and ecological value the land holds.
It is from this interpretation of property that Locke stumbles into the fallacy of the unlimited resource. His mistake in reasoning is evident in his rule of propriety, which states, “every man should have as much as he could make use of,” and that this rule “would hold still in the world, without straitening any body” (23). It is obvious that Locke did not consider population inflation in his conception of property rights. This fallacy is furthered in the discussion of individual relations concerning property:
The propagation of this fallacy in the dealings of property justified the rapid destruction of a majority of earth’s essential elements by the simple act of unfettered agricultural, and later, industrial development. Such infantile reasoning is undoubtedly due to the historical context in which Locke lived - the industrial revolution had yet to take place, and population inflation had not yet occurred at the rapid pace as paramount in the 19th and 20th centuries. Locke may have believed that “nothing was made by God for man to spoil or destroy” (21), but by defining nature as a resource and asserting the individual’s right to expand property, he seems to have unintentionally created an ethical paradox.
The ecological implications concerning John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, specifically. Chapter Five on Property, manifest in three of Locke’s explications, principally: Preservation, Property and Labour, Use and Value.
The line of reasoning Locke asserts concerning preservation is essentially the following: Man must ethically preserve himself, but to preserve himself he must labour - therefore, man must labour. Locke first expounds on the duty of preservation, stating, “Every one […] is bound to preserve himself […] [and] as much as he can, preserve the rest of mankind” (Locke 9). This duty is bound to the individual by the law of nature, which wills that “the peace and preservation of all mankind, the execution of the law of nature is, in that state, put into every man’s hands” (9). The individual is bound to this the intrinsic duty, the act of preserving oneself and one’s community, that he may keep in harmony with the law of nature.
The individual actualizes the responsibility of preservation by the procurement of property, for “the earth, and all that is therein, is given to men for the support and comfort of their being” (18). The way in which the individual acquires property is through labour, which “gave a right of property” (27). The action of labour, Locke purports, is intrinsic to the human condition (22). It follows that obtaining property is a necessary action, for to do otherwise would be contrary to the aforementioned law of preservation. Therefore, the gathering of property is, within reason, an essential principle of human nature. It is at this point in Locke’s exposition that certain ecological implications become quite clear.
The first of these implications deals with the way in which the property itself is treated. Locke affirms that “the intrinsic value of things […] depends only on their usefulness to the life of man” (23). The use of an object is then treated only as an economic resource - this is shown by his idea of waste, which is, “land that is left wholly to nature, that hath no improvement of pasturage, tillage, or planting” (26). Furthermore, Nature and earth, on their own, “Furnished only the almost worthless materials, as in themselves” (27), and that without labour, land would “scarcely be worth anything” (26). When one ceases to view land as nothing other than that which should be improved upon, then any land that has been left untouched would then seem quite insignificant. This outlook is extremely narrow insofar as it does not encapsulate cultural, spiritual, and ecological value the land holds.
It is from this interpretation of property that Locke stumbles into the fallacy of the unlimited resource. His mistake in reasoning is evident in his rule of propriety, which states, “every man should have as much as he could make use of,” and that this rule “would hold still in the world, without straitening any body” (23). It is obvious that Locke did not consider population inflation in his conception of property rights. This fallacy is furthered in the discussion of individual relations concerning property:
The measure of property nature has well set by the extent of men’s labour and the conveniences of life: no man’s labour could subdue, or appropriate all; nor could his enjoyment consume more than a small part; so that it was impossible for any man, this way, to intrench upon the right of another, or acquire to himself a property, to the prejudice of his neighbour, who would still have room for as good, and as large a possession (after thither had taken out his) as before it was appropriated. (22)
The propagation of this fallacy in the dealings of property justified the rapid destruction of a majority of earth’s essential elements by the simple act of unfettered agricultural, and later, industrial development. Such infantile reasoning is undoubtedly due to the historical context in which Locke lived - the industrial revolution had yet to take place, and population inflation had not yet occurred at the rapid pace as paramount in the 19th and 20th centuries. Locke may have believed that “nothing was made by God for man to spoil or destroy” (21), but by defining nature as a resource and asserting the individual’s right to expand property, he seems to have unintentionally created an ethical paradox.
Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. Ed. C. B. Macpherson. Indianapolis, Indiana:
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
EarthNotes
I just discovered a blog named EarthNotes at Winona 360 that might be of interest to some of the readers of Canaries in a Coal Mine, especially those concerned with sustainability. I've copied its description below:
I know a few of those writing for the blog and look forward to reading it in the coming weeks.
.
From renewable energy policy to the poetry of food, EarthNotes takes a varied look at the pursuit of a sustainable globe. Co-authored by faculty of Winona State University and community experts, EarthNotes is an interactive exploration of one of the most high-stakes issues of our time
I know a few of those writing for the blog and look forward to reading it in the coming weeks.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Bees In An Iron Cage? Part-V- Movements Against Rationalization
Weber suggested that the rationalization of Western society would not necessarily go unanswered nor without criticism:
No one knows who will live in this cage in the future, or whether at the end of this tremendous development entirely new prophets will arise, or there will be a great rebirth of old ideas and ideals, or, if neither, mechanized petrification, embellished with a sort of convulsive self-importance. (Weber 1930:182)
In the present day beekeeping world, there are also voices who have questioned the trends of rationalized apiculture and have either resusitated old ideas and ideals, or attempted to re-rationalize beekeeping with honey bee health (over economic profit) as the bottom line.
Barefoot Beekeeping
British beekeeper, Phil Chandler, has become a leading activist questioning the ongoing rationalization of apicultural. Through his Sustainable Beekeeping website, his own top bar hive beekeeping manual, and protest activities against agricultural pesticide use, Chandler has developed a holistic approach in honey bee management. As far as rationalized beekeeping, Chandler has suggested:
Other beekeepers, like those who keep Warre hives, take an even less interventionist approach. To the non-beekeeping eye, Warre hives look just like the typical Langstroth hive popular in the U.S. However, they are constructed and managed very differently:
__________
Weber, Max (1930) The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Translated by Talcott Parsons. London: Unwin.
No one knows who will live in this cage in the future, or whether at the end of this tremendous development entirely new prophets will arise, or there will be a great rebirth of old ideas and ideals, or, if neither, mechanized petrification, embellished with a sort of convulsive self-importance. (Weber 1930:182)
In the present day beekeeping world, there are also voices who have questioned the trends of rationalized apiculture and have either resusitated old ideas and ideals, or attempted to re-rationalize beekeeping with honey bee health (over economic profit) as the bottom line.
Barefoot Beekeeping
British beekeeper, Phil Chandler, has become a leading activist questioning the ongoing rationalization of apicultural. Through his Sustainable Beekeeping website, his own top bar hive beekeeping manual, and protest activities against agricultural pesticide use, Chandler has developed a holistic approach in honey bee management. As far as rationalized beekeeping, Chandler has suggested:
- ...that honey bee survival depends on apicultural becoming a cottage industry again where each individual beekeeper maintains a few hives that simply provide for his/her own needs and those of the local community. Large factory beekeeping, and migratory outfits are unsustainable.
- ... that beekeeping techniques become less invasive and disruptive to the honey bees. Chandler is a big supporter of top bar hives which allow honey bees to build comb according to their own needs, as well as providing less disruptive inspections and honey harvesting by the beekeeper.
- ... that beekeepers put the survival of bees ahead of their own economic interests. For example, Chandler suggests that beekeepers make their primary honey harvest in the spring from the honey that is left over in the hive after winter. Honey is produced by bees as a winter food, and to harvest it in the fall may leave the bees without enough to survive. Chandler sees feeding bees sugar syrup, fondant or high fructose corn syrup in the fall, to make up for the beekeeper's harvest, as exploitative and not sustainable.
Other beekeepers, like those who keep Warre hives, take an even less interventionist approach. To the non-beekeeping eye, Warre hives look just like the typical Langstroth hive popular in the U.S. However, they are constructed and managed very differently:
- The boxes do not contain movable frames, just bars across the top. The bees are allowed to build comb as straight or as wobbly as they so choose. Comb construction is left to the bees. (Note: the lack of movable frames makes this hive technically illegal everywhere in the United States.)
- The beekeeper never inspects inside the Warre hive. The only manipulation done is to add boxes to the bottom of the hive when necessary. The beekeeper monitors the health of the hive by watching bee behavior at the entrance. Warre advocates argue that in-hive inspections stress bees by disrupting their ability to maintain proper hive temperature.
__________
Weber, Max (1930) The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Translated by Talcott Parsons. London: Unwin.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Bees In An Iron Cage? Part II- Formal Rationalization
One stream of my current research in environmental sociology is the examination of the formal rationalization of bee management and its possible effects on the health and ongoing sustainability of the honey bee population. This stream of research is informed by the thought of Max Weber, 19th century social scientist and German jurist, as well as the work of Raymond Murphy, who has adapted Weber's ideas for his own work in environmental sociology.
My research uses Weber's concept of formal rationalization. (Weber 1968:85-6).The concept refers to action guided by calculability, efficiency, predictability, technological manipulation of the biophysical sphere and human control oriented toward the goal of producing a surplus or increase in goods or profit. (cf Ritzer 2007) Weber found such action the basis of the modern bureaucracy.
Weber argued that the increasing formal rationalization of modern society would inevitably lead to irrationalities, unforeseen consequences that actually contradict the ongoing rationality of the rest of society. Weber was concerned that the growth of bureaucratic organizations, techniques and actions characterized by formal rationality would place human beings in a situation that robbed individuals of many of the qualities (e.g. creativity, mercy) that made them human. In Weber's terms, formal rationalization would place people in iron cages, enclosing them with bars made of bureacratic rules and techniques which would keep them from full human potential.
Sociologist Raymond Murphy has applied Weber's ideas to issues of the environment and sustainability. Murphy contends that formal rationality does not simply produce irrationalities that harm human beings directly, but also irrationalities that do harm to the ecosystem as well. Underlying formal rationalization are two assumptions: [1] that nature exists for the purpose of fullfilling human needs and wants, and [2] that nature is totally plastic allowing human beings to manipulate nature in any fashion that benefits us, without any serious negative consequences. It is these two assumptions of formal rationality that produce the irrationalities detrimental to the biophysical realm. To quote Murphy (2002:81),
The biophysical environment finds itself in an iron cage where its own self-regulating processes are interfered with.
Over the last 150 years apicultural has become increasingly rationalized to the detriment of the honey bee in many ways. The goal of beekeeping has always focused on either increasing honey production or increasing the pollination of some of the food crops human beings consume. The long-term survival of honey bees as a species takes " a back seat" to these "primary" goals. (As one 1970s beekeeping manual reminds the budding apiculturalist: "Honey is Money".) The attitude has been that honey bees exist simply for the benefit of human beings.
The rationalized means toward these goals follow the bureaucratic ethos of efficiency, and cost-effectiveness especially for the commercial beekeeper. The technology, and management techiques developed over the last century and a half are often concerned with the beekeepers' convenience and profit, and only secondarily with the sustainability of the honey bee. But what is efficient and cost-effective for the beekeeper may not healthy or sustainable for the honey bee. In a sense, these rationalized management techniques place the honey bee in an iron cage where the bee cannot live healthy within its own biophysical environment.
___________________________
References
Murphy, Raymond. 2002. "Ecological Materialism and the Sociology of Max Weber." Sociological Theory and the Environment. Edited by Riley E. Dunlap, Frederick H. Buttel, Peter Dickens, and August Gijswijt. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
Ritzer, George. 2007. The McDonaldization of Society 5. New York: Pine Forge.
Weber, Max. 1968. Economy and Society- An Outline of Interpretative Sociology. Edited by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich. Volume I. New York: Bedminster.
My research uses Weber's concept of formal rationalization. (Weber 1968:85-6).The concept refers to action guided by calculability, efficiency, predictability, technological manipulation of the biophysical sphere and human control oriented toward the goal of producing a surplus or increase in goods or profit. (cf Ritzer 2007) Weber found such action the basis of the modern bureaucracy.
Weber argued that the increasing formal rationalization of modern society would inevitably lead to irrationalities, unforeseen consequences that actually contradict the ongoing rationality of the rest of society. Weber was concerned that the growth of bureaucratic organizations, techniques and actions characterized by formal rationality would place human beings in a situation that robbed individuals of many of the qualities (e.g. creativity, mercy) that made them human. In Weber's terms, formal rationalization would place people in iron cages, enclosing them with bars made of bureacratic rules and techniques which would keep them from full human potential.
Sociologist Raymond Murphy has applied Weber's ideas to issues of the environment and sustainability. Murphy contends that formal rationality does not simply produce irrationalities that harm human beings directly, but also irrationalities that do harm to the ecosystem as well. Underlying formal rationalization are two assumptions: [1] that nature exists for the purpose of fullfilling human needs and wants, and [2] that nature is totally plastic allowing human beings to manipulate nature in any fashion that benefits us, without any serious negative consequences. It is these two assumptions of formal rationality that produce the irrationalities detrimental to the biophysical realm. To quote Murphy (2002:81),
Machines and technology in general, are the means by which humans manipulate the processes of nature in the course of their purposive action, often disrupting self-regulating mechanisms nature has constructed, thereby unleashing unexpected processes of nature. Machines do not imply nature mastered. Their development can, if it disrupts the ecological equilibrium constructed by nature, lead to the iron cage (italics are mine) of a degraded ecosystem incapable of sustaining human society.
The biophysical environment finds itself in an iron cage where its own self-regulating processes are interfered with.
Over the last 150 years apicultural has become increasingly rationalized to the detriment of the honey bee in many ways. The goal of beekeeping has always focused on either increasing honey production or increasing the pollination of some of the food crops human beings consume. The long-term survival of honey bees as a species takes " a back seat" to these "primary" goals. (As one 1970s beekeeping manual reminds the budding apiculturalist: "Honey is Money".) The attitude has been that honey bees exist simply for the benefit of human beings.
The rationalized means toward these goals follow the bureaucratic ethos of efficiency, and cost-effectiveness especially for the commercial beekeeper. The technology, and management techiques developed over the last century and a half are often concerned with the beekeepers' convenience and profit, and only secondarily with the sustainability of the honey bee. But what is efficient and cost-effective for the beekeeper may not healthy or sustainable for the honey bee. In a sense, these rationalized management techniques place the honey bee in an iron cage where the bee cannot live healthy within its own biophysical environment.
___________________________
References
Murphy, Raymond. 2002. "Ecological Materialism and the Sociology of Max Weber." Sociological Theory and the Environment. Edited by Riley E. Dunlap, Frederick H. Buttel, Peter Dickens, and August Gijswijt. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
Ritzer, George. 2007. The McDonaldization of Society 5. New York: Pine Forge.
Weber, Max. 1968. Economy and Society- An Outline of Interpretative Sociology. Edited by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich. Volume I. New York: Bedminster.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Year 2, Week 2: Taking Out the Queen Cages
Yesterday, morning I did my first short inspection of the year, primarily for the purpose of removing the queen cages from Plan Bee, and Lib-BEE-taria. The weather was excellent, in the upper 60s, with little or no wind. The bees have been bringing in pollen for the last week from an assortment of trees finally blooming. This had to be the first Saturday of 2009 that actually felt like spring.
I opened Plan Bee first. The bees were drawing comb on 4 bars already and were very calm as I removed one of the bars to inspect it. I removed the empty queen cage and closed the hive up. I was very happy with what I saw.
Lib-BEE-taria, the new Langstroth, seemed also to be doing well. The bees were working on two already drawn frames and drawing comb on parts of adjacent plastic frames. Yes, I know, plastic frames! Not very sustainable of me but something I felt I needed to do. I just had too many problems with cross comb last year and felt I needed to get the hang of beekeeping before I'd return to the challenges of foundationless frames. I did include some foundationless frames in this hive that had fairly "straight" comb. Anyway, these Carniolans don't seem to mind plastic frames, though, as a precaution, I did brush on an extra coat of beeswax on each to make them more "enticing".
I have noticed that I am second guessing myself and being overly cautious during inspections this year, possibly because of the dying of last year's colonies. I do not know whether this is good or bad.
I opened Plan Bee first. The bees were drawing comb on 4 bars already and were very calm as I removed one of the bars to inspect it. I removed the empty queen cage and closed the hive up. I was very happy with what I saw.
Lib-BEE-taria, the new Langstroth, seemed also to be doing well. The bees were working on two already drawn frames and drawing comb on parts of adjacent plastic frames. Yes, I know, plastic frames! Not very sustainable of me but something I felt I needed to do. I just had too many problems with cross comb last year and felt I needed to get the hang of beekeeping before I'd return to the challenges of foundationless frames. I did include some foundationless frames in this hive that had fairly "straight" comb. Anyway, these Carniolans don't seem to mind plastic frames, though, as a precaution, I did brush on an extra coat of beeswax on each to make them more "enticing".
I have noticed that I am second guessing myself and being overly cautious during inspections this year, possibly because of the dying of last year's colonies. I do not know whether this is good or bad.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Top Bar Hives and Sustainable Beekeeping
Last night, I began preparing for my 10 minute presentation for the Knowledge Acknowledged series. I will be speaking about top bar hives and sustainable beekeeping. The following are my notes for this talk. Even though no references are provided with these notes, I recognize that very little of what I will say is of my own creation. Much of what I will say comes from the ideas of Phil Chandler and all the great people who participate at biobees.com, as well as the information I've read at Michael Bush's website. Thanks all.
One of my chief concerns when I took up "bee having" last year was how to do it sustainably. When I speak of sustainability, I'm not speaking only about my own bees but all bees. Bees and humanity are currently involved in an enduring conflict. Bees produce products and do services we want. Yet many of the bee management techniques we use in the name of efficiency and productivity stress the bees. How do we gain these benefits without placing honeybees on a "production treadmill" that hurts them in the long-term?
One sustainable approach I've been exploring is the use of top bar hives. Top bar hives have their origins in ancient Greece and are now primarily associated with development projects found mostly in Africa.
The chief differences between top bar hives and the box hives most people associate with managed beekeeping are:
* Bees build comb on bars rather in frames surrounding beeswax foundation.
* The beekeeper guides the bees in expanding their colony horizontally rather than vertically as in box hives
A top bar hive looks simply like a long trough with 35 mm bars suspended across the top of it. (Kenyan beekeepers have nicknamed the hive: Honey Cow) The bees draw comb down the middle of each bar using either a wax starter strip or a beeswax covered popsicle stick as a guide on where to start. As the bees fill the bars, the beekeeper expands the colony area by moving movable walls (called follower boards) out and adding more empty bars. You harvest capped honey by simply pulling out the bars when ready.
Top bar hives offer some advantages over the regular box hives:
1. They are significantly cheaper and easier to manufacture than the entire set-up needed to start a box hive colony. When you add up all that's needed for a box hive, you could spend as much as $300. Material-wise, our first top bar hive cost us $80. This might've been significantly less had Monta and I done what others have done, built the hive using found, and recycled materials. You can make a fine hive from an old bureau draw, pieces of an old pallet, or even a large clay pot. One individual I know has weaved together old stalks from last year's sunflower plants, allowing the bees to fill in any gaps with propolis. Another person has made hives from papercrete. As long as each comb in the colony can be removed individually, these hives are completely legal in the U.S.
2. Except for the width of the top bar which must be 35mm wide, there are no other crucial measurements to follow.
3. Bees are easier to work with in a top bar hive. They behave less defensively, primarily because you only disrupt the brood nest one bar at a time. With boxes, you not only examine the bees frame by frame but also separate boxes, stressing the whole colony in the process.Many beekeepers I know work their top bar hives without protective clothing or a smoker
4. Bees build cells to whatever size suits their needs, not according to the dimensions demanded by the foundation the beekeeper uses. This may also eliminate another possible stressor.
The beekeeper considering top bar hives should recognize that there are some distinct disadvantages as well.
1. Because top bars are often built from found, recycled objects, there is no uniformity in bar length or comb depth from top bar hive to top bar hive. This means that bars may not be interchangable between these hives.
2. A comb filled with capped honey in a top bar is fragile and cannot be extracted in an extractor. The beekeeper is left with either cutting honeycomb into squares, or using a crush or strain system which may not be efficient for larger honey producers.
3. Because the frameless comb is fragile, the transporting of top bar hives is very difficult and dangerous for the colony. Migratory beekeeping would not be very easy with top bar hives.
4. Hives tend to produce more beeswax and less honey, which is not really a problem if you are an encaustic painter.
5. Winter preparation of the hive is a bit more involved for a top bar hive compared with a box hive.
6. I have personally found feeding a top bar hive during dearth a little more difficult than a box hive.
7. There is little face-to-face mentoring available for the beginner. I have depended on websites and internet forums for support and help.
One of my chief concerns when I took up "bee having" last year was how to do it sustainably. When I speak of sustainability, I'm not speaking only about my own bees but all bees. Bees and humanity are currently involved in an enduring conflict. Bees produce products and do services we want. Yet many of the bee management techniques we use in the name of efficiency and productivity stress the bees. How do we gain these benefits without placing honeybees on a "production treadmill" that hurts them in the long-term?
One sustainable approach I've been exploring is the use of top bar hives. Top bar hives have their origins in ancient Greece and are now primarily associated with development projects found mostly in Africa.
The chief differences between top bar hives and the box hives most people associate with managed beekeeping are:
* Bees build comb on bars rather in frames surrounding beeswax foundation.
* The beekeeper guides the bees in expanding their colony horizontally rather than vertically as in box hives
A top bar hive looks simply like a long trough with 35 mm bars suspended across the top of it. (Kenyan beekeepers have nicknamed the hive: Honey Cow) The bees draw comb down the middle of each bar using either a wax starter strip or a beeswax covered popsicle stick as a guide on where to start. As the bees fill the bars, the beekeeper expands the colony area by moving movable walls (called follower boards) out and adding more empty bars. You harvest capped honey by simply pulling out the bars when ready.
Top bar hives offer some advantages over the regular box hives:
1. They are significantly cheaper and easier to manufacture than the entire set-up needed to start a box hive colony. When you add up all that's needed for a box hive, you could spend as much as $300. Material-wise, our first top bar hive cost us $80. This might've been significantly less had Monta and I done what others have done, built the hive using found, and recycled materials. You can make a fine hive from an old bureau draw, pieces of an old pallet, or even a large clay pot. One individual I know has weaved together old stalks from last year's sunflower plants, allowing the bees to fill in any gaps with propolis. Another person has made hives from papercrete. As long as each comb in the colony can be removed individually, these hives are completely legal in the U.S.
2. Except for the width of the top bar which must be 35mm wide, there are no other crucial measurements to follow.
3. Bees are easier to work with in a top bar hive. They behave less defensively, primarily because you only disrupt the brood nest one bar at a time. With boxes, you not only examine the bees frame by frame but also separate boxes, stressing the whole colony in the process.Many beekeepers I know work their top bar hives without protective clothing or a smoker
4. Bees build cells to whatever size suits their needs, not according to the dimensions demanded by the foundation the beekeeper uses. This may also eliminate another possible stressor.
The beekeeper considering top bar hives should recognize that there are some distinct disadvantages as well.
1. Because top bars are often built from found, recycled objects, there is no uniformity in bar length or comb depth from top bar hive to top bar hive. This means that bars may not be interchangable between these hives.
2. A comb filled with capped honey in a top bar is fragile and cannot be extracted in an extractor. The beekeeper is left with either cutting honeycomb into squares, or using a crush or strain system which may not be efficient for larger honey producers.
3. Because the frameless comb is fragile, the transporting of top bar hives is very difficult and dangerous for the colony. Migratory beekeeping would not be very easy with top bar hives.
4. Hives tend to produce more beeswax and less honey, which is not really a problem if you are an encaustic painter.
5. Winter preparation of the hive is a bit more involved for a top bar hive compared with a box hive.
6. I have personally found feeding a top bar hive during dearth a little more difficult than a box hive.
7. There is little face-to-face mentoring available for the beginner. I have depended on websites and internet forums for support and help.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Lake No-Bee-Gone Goes Solar
I just received my Sunjet 150- Solar Powered Pump in the mail today, already to be installed in Beelandia's pond, Lake No-Bee-Gone. Besides being more sustainable, it will eliminate the sight of that ugly extension cord in the apiary. I don't know how the bees felt about it but this orange cord was always getting in my way.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
An E-mail to Kwik Trip
It's been an unseasonably warm day today and my bees have out. It seems they have created some inconvenience at a local convenience store down the block. This store has resorted to setting out traps that now are filled with dozens of drowned bees. I have just sent this message to the Kwik Trip Corporation.
As you surely know, honeybees are beneficial insects that not only produce honey but also pollinate plants and vegetables that feed us and those animals we depend on for meat. As you might also know from various media stories, there are many environmental threats that have led to a drastic decline in the honeybee population. We all must be doing something to stop this decline and this is the reason I am writing to you. I went to a local Kwik Trip tonight on Broadway and Baker in Winona MN and discovered that insect traps had been set out near the waste baskets at this Kwik Trip. In these traps were dozens of honeybees (I am a beekeeper, I can distinguish honeybees from other species of insects). While I do appreciate the fact that Kwik Trip was using a technique that doesn't spread pesticides, I still am concerned about the killing of a truly beneficial insect that, when away from its hive, is very unlikely to sting anyone. Is it possible that we might discover some other way to make your customers and employees feel protected without killing these insects?
As you surely know, honeybees are beneficial insects that not only produce honey but also pollinate plants and vegetables that feed us and those animals we depend on for meat. As you might also know from various media stories, there are many environmental threats that have led to a drastic decline in the honeybee population. We all must be doing something to stop this decline and this is the reason I am writing to you. I went to a local Kwik Trip tonight on Broadway and Baker in Winona MN and discovered that insect traps had been set out near the waste baskets at this Kwik Trip. In these traps were dozens of honeybees (I am a beekeeper, I can distinguish honeybees from other species of insects). While I do appreciate the fact that Kwik Trip was using a technique that doesn't spread pesticides, I still am concerned about the killing of a truly beneficial insect that, when away from its hive, is very unlikely to sting anyone. Is it possible that we might discover some other way to make your customers and employees feel protected without killing these insects?
Monday, July 28, 2008
Week 13: Cranky Bees
This week's inspection was split between two days, as rain suddenly interrupted Sunday's inspection. Monday was a hot, muggy day, unlike much of the weather we've had all summer here in southeast Minnesota. The bees are foraging in great numbers and seem a bit defensive. I've been chased by a number of guard bees recently. As a local beekeeper told me at the Farmer's Market Saturday, "The bees must be up to something."
When we (Monta, Tristan (an interested 10 year old relative) and I) opened up Bee Glad... on Sunday, I was quite surprised. The top box, which was on the bottom of the hive last week and was essentially empty, was now heavy with uncapped honey. They had practically filled the top box in a week! The middle and bottom boxes indicated the same busy activity. The queen is still laying, there was some capped brood, and plenty of honey was brought into the hive.
While Tristan and I did not get stung during the inspection, Monta did, right near her left eye. Monta was not wearing a veil like Tristan and I, and the bees exploited that weak spot in our defense to attack... Of course, if you know Monta at all, you also know that she was right back out there after removing the sting and inspecting the wound. The eye was a little puffy this morning but nothing too bad.
I left a sticky board under the screen to get a mite check on Bee Glad... and then the rains came. I was a bit concerned about mites, having found one drone outside the hive with mite right on him.
This morning I inspected Metpropolis, the top bar hive. The weather was sunny, hot and very little breeze.
Metpropolis has turned into a big, thriving hive with a good queen and foragers bringing in much honey. I found one drawn bar filled with capped drone brood which I inspected and found a few larvae with mites. I disposed of the capped brood and placed in another bar. I will take a mite count on Metpropolis immediately.
We will see what the mite counts are in the next few days and then figure out a sustainable strategy for dealing with them.
When we (Monta, Tristan (an interested 10 year old relative) and I) opened up Bee Glad... on Sunday, I was quite surprised. The top box, which was on the bottom of the hive last week and was essentially empty, was now heavy with uncapped honey. They had practically filled the top box in a week! The middle and bottom boxes indicated the same busy activity. The queen is still laying, there was some capped brood, and plenty of honey was brought into the hive.
While Tristan and I did not get stung during the inspection, Monta did, right near her left eye. Monta was not wearing a veil like Tristan and I, and the bees exploited that weak spot in our defense to attack... Of course, if you know Monta at all, you also know that she was right back out there after removing the sting and inspecting the wound. The eye was a little puffy this morning but nothing too bad.
I left a sticky board under the screen to get a mite check on Bee Glad... and then the rains came. I was a bit concerned about mites, having found one drone outside the hive with mite right on him.
This morning I inspected Metpropolis, the top bar hive. The weather was sunny, hot and very little breeze.
Metpropolis has turned into a big, thriving hive with a good queen and foragers bringing in much honey. I found one drawn bar filled with capped drone brood which I inspected and found a few larvae with mites. I disposed of the capped brood and placed in another bar. I will take a mite count on Metpropolis immediately.
We will see what the mite counts are in the next few days and then figure out a sustainable strategy for dealing with them.
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Clarifying Issues: Part III, An Example
My experience beekeeping is minimal, however, I have raised tropical fish off and on pretty much my whole life. One of the keys in the successful husbandry of "domesticated" fish is the creation of an aquatic environment where aerobic bacteria can thrive. Aerobic bacteria feed on fish waste and turn it into harmless compounds. The difficulty for any aquarist is that aerobic bacteria need some waste in which to grow and multiply in the first place but placing too much waste into a tank initially may overwhelm the system and may only produce nasty, smelly, and deadly anaerobic bacteria which will kill the fish and the aerobic bacteria as well. Setting up a tank at the beginning is an art I've found. It demands slowly raising the fish population in a tank so as not to overwhelm the environment with too much fish waste, providing a great deal of surface area in the tank (thus the gravel) on which aerobic bacteria can grow, and assuring that enough oxygen dissolves in the water through its constant circulation.
In the natural world, the production of aerobic bacteria is usually not a problem unless chemicals are introduced into the water that kill off aerobic bacteria. (Some aquarists are quite familiar with the havoc medicines can cause in their tank once their fish have been "cured"; the biological balance was destroyed since the same medicine that killed the fish's disease also killed the aerobic bacteria.) In the artificial world of an aquarium, the aquarists resorts to various mechanical "treatments" to assure that aerobic bacteria can thrive in the closed environment. They circulate the water, provide more surface area for bacteria, and syphoning/replacing 25% of the water each week so that aerobic bacteria aren't overwhelmed by too much waste. These techniques are hardly natural in any sense of the term but they do try to work with natural biological systems without the use of chemicals.
I am pondering what all this means for my beekeeping. How much of this type of thinking is transferable? What type of aquarium management might we call this? The fish may not survive in an artificial unnatural environment without such non-chemical management. Isn't their dependency on the aquarist, therefore, interfering with their genetic adaptability? Will my Italian bees of California origin be able to survive the artificial unnatural environment of Winona Minnesota without the beekeeper working with the biological systems as well? Or is the problem in both cases trying to keep creatures in environments where they shouldn't be?
In the natural world, the production of aerobic bacteria is usually not a problem unless chemicals are introduced into the water that kill off aerobic bacteria. (Some aquarists are quite familiar with the havoc medicines can cause in their tank once their fish have been "cured"; the biological balance was destroyed since the same medicine that killed the fish's disease also killed the aerobic bacteria.) In the artificial world of an aquarium, the aquarists resorts to various mechanical "treatments" to assure that aerobic bacteria can thrive in the closed environment. They circulate the water, provide more surface area for bacteria, and syphoning/replacing 25% of the water each week so that aerobic bacteria aren't overwhelmed by too much waste. These techniques are hardly natural in any sense of the term but they do try to work with natural biological systems without the use of chemicals.
I am pondering what all this means for my beekeeping. How much of this type of thinking is transferable? What type of aquarium management might we call this? The fish may not survive in an artificial unnatural environment without such non-chemical management. Isn't their dependency on the aquarist, therefore, interfering with their genetic adaptability? Will my Italian bees of California origin be able to survive the artificial unnatural environment of Winona Minnesota without the beekeeper working with the biological systems as well? Or is the problem in both cases trying to keep creatures in environments where they shouldn't be?
Friday, July 4, 2008
Clarifying Issues: Part II
After reading my last post, I could see that it might easily be misinterpreted. I need to make something very clear: I have not given up on using organic and natural apicultural methods. If I can, I use the most "natural"/"organic" management methods available. So for example, I use foundationless frames in the Langstroth and, of course, simple top bars in Metpropolis, leaving cell size up to the bees. My varroa testing and management includes a screened bottom board, two drone brood frames, and periodic powdered sugar dusting. The bees water in a little planted pond kept balanced and mosquisto-less with white clouds and koi. Pesticides, herbicides, and synthetic fertilizers are not used in the Forest of Beelandia, nor on the rest of our property. The grass (and weeds) are even mowed with an old-fashion push mower.
That being said, the foraging environment of Beelandia's bees is not over healthy I suppose. Within a two mile flying radius, the bees experience (a) the Mississippi River and all its pollutants, (b) two or three factories, (c) the West Side Public pool, (d) a golf course, (e) 4 bars :-), (f) a Brach's Candy factory, (g) the busy traffic of three main streets, and (h) the countless small gardens of neighbors who use both chemical and organic techniques in soil mixed with generations of lead paint and who knows what else. Add to this, the fact that the bees I've installed were produced in California and are not adapted to Minnesota winters, and I have a collection of interacting variables that can't help but stress the bees, making them more susceptable to an array of pests and diseases. In an environment like this, must I be infrequently prepared to set aside my "natural" apicultural management ideals when the bees are sick or plague by parasites? Or, must I just admit that sustainable beekeeping is impossible where I live? Only time can answer this.
That being said, the foraging environment of Beelandia's bees is not over healthy I suppose. Within a two mile flying radius, the bees experience (a) the Mississippi River and all its pollutants, (b) two or three factories, (c) the West Side Public pool, (d) a golf course, (e) 4 bars :-), (f) a Brach's Candy factory, (g) the busy traffic of three main streets, and (h) the countless small gardens of neighbors who use both chemical and organic techniques in soil mixed with generations of lead paint and who knows what else. Add to this, the fact that the bees I've installed were produced in California and are not adapted to Minnesota winters, and I have a collection of interacting variables that can't help but stress the bees, making them more susceptable to an array of pests and diseases. In an environment like this, must I be infrequently prepared to set aside my "natural" apicultural management ideals when the bees are sick or plague by parasites? Or, must I just admit that sustainable beekeeping is impossible where I live? Only time can answer this.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Clarifying the Issues
This week on the Organic Beekeeping List, a heated discussion developed between a more conventional beekeeper, Jim Fischer, and members of this "no chemical" beekeeping list. The debate centered around the efficacy of Dee Lusby's "no dope" approach in saving hives from the threat of CCD. Fischer, a devotee of "scientism", claims that a good portion of Lusby's bees succumbed to CCD like symptoms this spring, and that she has hid this fact from her own "true believers" on the email list. I'm a new beekeeper, still learning, still critically digesting the vast amounts of beekeeping information available, so I will not presume to weigh in on the issues. However, this discussion was important for me in that it helped me clarify a few issues about my own apicultural "philosophy" and the importance of fairness, honesty, and compassion.
Firstly, the debate only highlighted for me why I call myself a sustainable beekeeper and not organic or natural, since my chief concern has always been the long-term survivability of bees and not being right, or ideologically "orthodox". If something doesn't work apiculturally in my locale in the long-term, I have to be willing to critically question my approach, whether it be a chemical treatment, or a method of "organic" orthodoxy. I have to be willing to even give up beekeeping if I find that I serve as a detriment to the bees. I know this might mean admitting I'm wrong, or ignorant, or, worse yet, incompetent, but my objective is not to be right; my objective is to sustain bees in the long-term. I need honesty and humility to be a sustainable beekeeper, remembering "I Could Be Wrong!"
Secondly, the debate showed me the need for compassion. When a beekeeper loses his/her bees, no matter what methods s/he uses, I hope we might all show some empathy for the loss and not glee. Before you organic beekeepers think I am only wagging my finger at Mr. Fischer, you might consider why he got such a kick at rubbing your face into Dee's losses. Isn't there often a certain self-righteous glee taken on this list when reports of conventional beekeepers' losses appear on the 'net? Most beekeepers I know are looking into the "glass darkly". We are all sorting through a complex array of interacting factors that impact our bees. No one has all the answers, and while I may not agree with other beekeepers' choices, I do not rejoice anytime a hive dies.
I do not rejoice in writing this. I feel very presumptious and hypocritical.
Firstly, the debate only highlighted for me why I call myself a sustainable beekeeper and not organic or natural, since my chief concern has always been the long-term survivability of bees and not being right, or ideologically "orthodox". If something doesn't work apiculturally in my locale in the long-term, I have to be willing to critically question my approach, whether it be a chemical treatment, or a method of "organic" orthodoxy. I have to be willing to even give up beekeeping if I find that I serve as a detriment to the bees. I know this might mean admitting I'm wrong, or ignorant, or, worse yet, incompetent, but my objective is not to be right; my objective is to sustain bees in the long-term. I need honesty and humility to be a sustainable beekeeper, remembering "I Could Be Wrong!"
Secondly, the debate showed me the need for compassion. When a beekeeper loses his/her bees, no matter what methods s/he uses, I hope we might all show some empathy for the loss and not glee. Before you organic beekeepers think I am only wagging my finger at Mr. Fischer, you might consider why he got such a kick at rubbing your face into Dee's losses. Isn't there often a certain self-righteous glee taken on this list when reports of conventional beekeepers' losses appear on the 'net? Most beekeepers I know are looking into the "glass darkly". We are all sorting through a complex array of interacting factors that impact our bees. No one has all the answers, and while I may not agree with other beekeepers' choices, I do not rejoice anytime a hive dies.
I do not rejoice in writing this. I feel very presumptious and hypocritical.
Monday, May 12, 2008
The Less than Perfect Third Inspection
Just about the time I was getting cocky about this beekeeping activity, the bees, gravity, and an uninvited guest taught me better.
My first mistake today was probably not waiting an hour or two before opening my hives, I guess. It has been unseasonably chilly for May, even in Minnesota, but I still decided to open the hives at 10:45 this morning. It was sunny and in the 50s, some foragers were out, and I had other things that needed doing so I went ahead with my inspection. In doing this, I broke my number 1 rule of sustainable beekeeping: Do things to the hive according to the bees requirements, not the beekeepers! My second major mistake was opening up the hives when I wasn't fully there mentally. I'd been working on an assessment report earlier in the morning and was still "stewing over" that process.
I opened the top bar hive, Metpropolis first and began a battle with some cross comb. Overall, I handled that pretty well, and the bees were fairly cooperative. I am beginning to understand the benefits of the top bar hive. The bees seem calmer and less disturbed by my observations and small manipulations. However, I experienced one surprise. There on the corner of one comb, quietly resting, was a wasp!!!! It seems that the bees and I discovered the intruder at just about the same time. They began attacking the intruder about the same time I tried to flick the creature off with my pocket knife. The creature disappeared ( I think out of the hive!?!) with some bees hanging on to it.
Overall, except for the cross-comb problem and the uninvited guest, Metpropolis looks to be doing very well. I did not see the queen but I did see capped brood, and larvae. I added three new bars to the top bar and closed it up.
My time with Bee Glad..., the Langstroth went less well, though, like Metpropolis, the hive seems well. I even saw the queen busily at work, but I did have some difficulties getting the inspection done. I had some difficulty separating some frames and a piece of comb on one frame fell to the ground as I took it out and inspected it. ...yes, a real mess, though, I am happy to report that all adult bees escaped alive! The small section of comb contained some capped brood and larvae of different ages which were lost. I had to close the hive up after this. They were not in a very good mood because of my clumsiness (My sting index went up by 4!)
Overall, Bee Glad... is also healthy, drawing comb, and raising brood. I will need to put a box on top of that hive soon.
My first mistake today was probably not waiting an hour or two before opening my hives, I guess. It has been unseasonably chilly for May, even in Minnesota, but I still decided to open the hives at 10:45 this morning. It was sunny and in the 50s, some foragers were out, and I had other things that needed doing so I went ahead with my inspection. In doing this, I broke my number 1 rule of sustainable beekeeping: Do things to the hive according to the bees requirements, not the beekeepers! My second major mistake was opening up the hives when I wasn't fully there mentally. I'd been working on an assessment report earlier in the morning and was still "stewing over" that process.
I opened the top bar hive, Metpropolis first and began a battle with some cross comb. Overall, I handled that pretty well, and the bees were fairly cooperative. I am beginning to understand the benefits of the top bar hive. The bees seem calmer and less disturbed by my observations and small manipulations. However, I experienced one surprise. There on the corner of one comb, quietly resting, was a wasp!!!! It seems that the bees and I discovered the intruder at just about the same time. They began attacking the intruder about the same time I tried to flick the creature off with my pocket knife. The creature disappeared ( I think out of the hive!?!) with some bees hanging on to it.
Overall, except for the cross-comb problem and the uninvited guest, Metpropolis looks to be doing very well. I did not see the queen but I did see capped brood, and larvae. I added three new bars to the top bar and closed it up.
My time with Bee Glad..., the Langstroth went less well, though, like Metpropolis, the hive seems well. I even saw the queen busily at work, but I did have some difficulties getting the inspection done. I had some difficulty separating some frames and a piece of comb on one frame fell to the ground as I took it out and inspected it. ...yes, a real mess, though, I am happy to report that all adult bees escaped alive! The small section of comb contained some capped brood and larvae of different ages which were lost. I had to close the hive up after this. They were not in a very good mood because of my clumsiness (My sting index went up by 4!)
Overall, Bee Glad... is also healthy, drawing comb, and raising brood. I will need to put a box on top of that hive soon.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Bee Activism
Suppose you had the revolution you are talking and dreaming about. Suppose your side had won, and you had the kind of society that you wanted. How would you live, you personally, in that society? Start living that way now!-- Paul Goodman, sociologist.
I've been monitoring various beekeeping lists and forums over the last few months as CCD continues to ravage bees all over the country. Recently, on one of these lists, some individuals called for "bee activists" to rise up out of the midst of the beekeeping community and lobby and fight for more public awareness, government funding and scientific research to find answers to the current "bee" crisis. It might seem presumptuous for a person like me to weigh in on this issue. I've read much about bees, spoken with beekeepers, monitored all these internet forums but, as of yet, have not practiced beekeeping myself. But I am also a student of social/political movements and the sociology of science and these areas are as much involved in the question of how to approach "bee activism" as the actual husbandry of bees is.
Recently on Bee-l, a poster mocked the users of small cell foundation for ignoring current scientific research that finds small cells as having no significant effect on controlling varroa mites and/or the resulting virus that weakens and kills bees. The poster compared small cell supporters to followers of a "religious cult" who continue to hold on to their beliefs even in the face of scientific evidence. I won't go into the difficulty methodologically of using one or two experiments for drawing definite conclusions or the whole question of how scientific change actually occurs. (I'll leave the reader to read the works of Geiryn, Kuhn, or Feierabend.) My issue here is with the total inconsistency of such a poster, for "small cell" beekeepers are not the only people in the beekeeping world who tend to ignore scientific research. Large-scale commercial beekeepers do this all the time but in the name of short-term profit, labor saving efficiencies, and the "realities of the market". When a commercial firm says, "I know my use of chemicals is creating a stronger, resistant mite, but I won't survive unless I use chemicals", they are also ignoring, in a very pragmatic fashion, scientific research as well. And if I was a commercial beekeeper, who must support a family and pay debts, I suppose I would argue the very same thing!
It seems to me that Phil Chandler is correct. Given the above "reality" for commercial beekeepers, the survival of honey bees as a species cannot simply depend on commercial beekeepers, and government funding for scientific research focused on keeping "factory" beekeeping afloat. Bee survival may also depend on getting more and more individuals to approach beekeeping as a "cottage industry" where labor-intensive, "inefficient", sustainable husbandry is possible. It is modeling and "evangelizing" this idea that might sustain the honey bee.
A "bee" social movement approached this way doesn't need the resources of the full-time professional lobbyist but of sideline and hobby beekeepers maintaining colonies, and having their activities visible enough so that other potential backyard beekeepers might join this "crusade" to save the bee. You do not need (or want) everyone in a community to beekeep, just a small critical mass of individuals who provide bees with an environment where these insects have a better chance of surviving and adapting. Perhaps these local beekeepers could even form a "Queen Rearing Cooperative" to lessen the ill effects of any inbreeding as well.
A colleague and friend of mine recently attended Dr. Marla Spivak's beekeeping extension course at the University of Minnesota. Spivak has 30 or so hives right there on the St. Paul campus where they are legal, but across the river in Minneapolis, these hives would be in violation of city ordinances. According to my friend, the illegality of beekeeping in Minneapolis didn't keep Spivak from urging that city's residents to keep hives there as well. It seems to Spivak that the keeping of even a few hives is a small but important step toward honey bee survival, and if this means violating the law, so be it. This type of apicultural, civil disobedience intrigues and inspires me.
I've been monitoring various beekeeping lists and forums over the last few months as CCD continues to ravage bees all over the country. Recently, on one of these lists, some individuals called for "bee activists" to rise up out of the midst of the beekeeping community and lobby and fight for more public awareness, government funding and scientific research to find answers to the current "bee" crisis. It might seem presumptuous for a person like me to weigh in on this issue. I've read much about bees, spoken with beekeepers, monitored all these internet forums but, as of yet, have not practiced beekeeping myself. But I am also a student of social/political movements and the sociology of science and these areas are as much involved in the question of how to approach "bee activism" as the actual husbandry of bees is.
Recently on Bee-l, a poster mocked the users of small cell foundation for ignoring current scientific research that finds small cells as having no significant effect on controlling varroa mites and/or the resulting virus that weakens and kills bees. The poster compared small cell supporters to followers of a "religious cult" who continue to hold on to their beliefs even in the face of scientific evidence. I won't go into the difficulty methodologically of using one or two experiments for drawing definite conclusions or the whole question of how scientific change actually occurs. (I'll leave the reader to read the works of Geiryn, Kuhn, or Feierabend.) My issue here is with the total inconsistency of such a poster, for "small cell" beekeepers are not the only people in the beekeeping world who tend to ignore scientific research. Large-scale commercial beekeepers do this all the time but in the name of short-term profit, labor saving efficiencies, and the "realities of the market". When a commercial firm says, "I know my use of chemicals is creating a stronger, resistant mite, but I won't survive unless I use chemicals", they are also ignoring, in a very pragmatic fashion, scientific research as well. And if I was a commercial beekeeper, who must support a family and pay debts, I suppose I would argue the very same thing!
It seems to me that Phil Chandler is correct. Given the above "reality" for commercial beekeepers, the survival of honey bees as a species cannot simply depend on commercial beekeepers, and government funding for scientific research focused on keeping "factory" beekeeping afloat. Bee survival may also depend on getting more and more individuals to approach beekeeping as a "cottage industry" where labor-intensive, "inefficient", sustainable husbandry is possible. It is modeling and "evangelizing" this idea that might sustain the honey bee.
A "bee" social movement approached this way doesn't need the resources of the full-time professional lobbyist but of sideline and hobby beekeepers maintaining colonies, and having their activities visible enough so that other potential backyard beekeepers might join this "crusade" to save the bee. You do not need (or want) everyone in a community to beekeep, just a small critical mass of individuals who provide bees with an environment where these insects have a better chance of surviving and adapting. Perhaps these local beekeepers could even form a "Queen Rearing Cooperative" to lessen the ill effects of any inbreeding as well.
A colleague and friend of mine recently attended Dr. Marla Spivak's beekeeping extension course at the University of Minnesota. Spivak has 30 or so hives right there on the St. Paul campus where they are legal, but across the river in Minneapolis, these hives would be in violation of city ordinances. According to my friend, the illegality of beekeeping in Minneapolis didn't keep Spivak from urging that city's residents to keep hives there as well. It seems to Spivak that the keeping of even a few hives is a small but important step toward honey bee survival, and if this means violating the law, so be it. This type of apicultural, civil disobedience intrigues and inspires me.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Ishmael: Threat or Challenge?
The following is an email I sent this afternoon to my Global Issues students concerning their reactions to Daniel Quinn's book Ishmael. I am sharing this email here because I think it relates to sustainable beekeeping.
I felt alot of defensiveness in class today. To stem this off, I would ask you to look at Ishmael, not as a threat, but as a challenge. Use the "flying machine" story as an example. When human beings "discovered" the laws of gravity and aerodynamics they didn't say, "Oh, I won't believe it because I want to fly" nor "Those laws don't apply to us human beings." To do that, would've meant the continued crashing of air-machines by their inventors. Instead, what was said was, "Given these laws, how can we produce a flying machine?" Now apply that to what Ishmael says about the world hunger problem! If what Ishmael says about the relationship between population and food supply is true (and the evidence seems to indicate it is), how can we create a long-term sustainable solution to world hunger? (This is not a question social darwinists ask!) Ignoring the relationship between population and food supply will only produce an eventual crash, sooner or later. Saying the law doesn't apply to humans will only lead to this crash.
Remember, learning can sometimes be uncomfortable, since it demands examining and possibly breaking those secure comfortable cognitive boxes we place reality into (including God). Also, you don't have to believe Ishmael but you do have to understand his argument accurately without 'knee-jerk" dismissals.
I felt alot of defensiveness in class today. To stem this off, I would ask you to look at Ishmael, not as a threat, but as a challenge. Use the "flying machine" story as an example. When human beings "discovered" the laws of gravity and aerodynamics they didn't say, "Oh, I won't believe it because I want to fly" nor "Those laws don't apply to us human beings." To do that, would've meant the continued crashing of air-machines by their inventors. Instead, what was said was, "Given these laws, how can we produce a flying machine?" Now apply that to what Ishmael says about the world hunger problem! If what Ishmael says about the relationship between population and food supply is true (and the evidence seems to indicate it is), how can we create a long-term sustainable solution to world hunger? (This is not a question social darwinists ask!) Ignoring the relationship between population and food supply will only produce an eventual crash, sooner or later. Saying the law doesn't apply to humans will only lead to this crash.
Remember, learning can sometimes be uncomfortable, since it demands examining and possibly breaking those secure comfortable cognitive boxes we place reality into (including God). Also, you don't have to believe Ishmael but you do have to understand his argument accurately without 'knee-jerk" dismissals.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Interesting Developments
I was at a farewell get-together in Fountain City last Friday and discovered an important and interesting fact: one of the administrators at my university has also been exploring beekeeping and pondering the placement of hives on campus. My university was once a county "poor farm" and still has remnants of an old orchard. This administrator has thought of "reagriculturalizing" (in a sustainable fashion) some of these areas on campus and bees are in his plan. He has signed up for the U of M's extension course and is also collecting some equipment, atleast to place on his own farm. We have begun talking about our own plans and how to work together on it. More on this later.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Organic Beekeeping?
A couple of months ago, I wrote a short piece on my thoughts concerning the terms: natural, organic and sustainable. Since that time I've explored what these words mean in the world of beekeeping and was surprised to find that they are such "contested concepts". Not only is there disagreement over what the concepts mean in the beekeeping world but it seems like there is something else at stake as well, the right to use the term as a rhetorical weapon and the right to call oneself an organic beekeeper.
Ross Conrad, in his book Natural Beekeeping, distinguishes between those beekeepers who espouse a liberal definition of organic to those who use the term much more conservatively. (p 38-9) The liberals would argue that an organic beekeeper is simply one who manages her/his hives without synthetic chemicals or antibiotics. The question of where one's bees forage would not be used to define whether one is an "organic beekeeper" or not. Conservatives, on the other hand,want the term organic applied to a much more "exclusive club" of beekeepers: those who not only manage their bees without synthetic chemicals or antibiotics but do not let their bees forage in areas where these chemicals are used. (Quite a difficult task!)
I have found recently that this is not the only front where beekeepers battle over the use of these concepts. There are some (like the leadership of the Organic Beekeeper email list) who apply organic only to those bees that are managed without any chemical interventions whether it be "hard" chemicals (e.g. antibiotics) or "soft" alternatives (e.g. essential oils). These beekeepers are opposed by others who believe that the use of chemicals in itself does not preclude a beekeeper from the label "organic" if the chemicals used are themselves organic as with essential oils.
The debates over these concepts in the beekeeping world fascinate me and lead me to ask a whole set of other questions concerning the capital used in fighting these battles. This seems to be one direction my ethnographic research will take.
Ross Conrad, in his book Natural Beekeeping, distinguishes between those beekeepers who espouse a liberal definition of organic to those who use the term much more conservatively. (p 38-9) The liberals would argue that an organic beekeeper is simply one who manages her/his hives without synthetic chemicals or antibiotics. The question of where one's bees forage would not be used to define whether one is an "organic beekeeper" or not. Conservatives, on the other hand,want the term organic applied to a much more "exclusive club" of beekeepers: those who not only manage their bees without synthetic chemicals or antibiotics but do not let their bees forage in areas where these chemicals are used. (Quite a difficult task!)
I have found recently that this is not the only front where beekeepers battle over the use of these concepts. There are some (like the leadership of the Organic Beekeeper email list) who apply organic only to those bees that are managed without any chemical interventions whether it be "hard" chemicals (e.g. antibiotics) or "soft" alternatives (e.g. essential oils). These beekeepers are opposed by others who believe that the use of chemicals in itself does not preclude a beekeeper from the label "organic" if the chemicals used are themselves organic as with essential oils.
The debates over these concepts in the beekeeping world fascinate me and lead me to ask a whole set of other questions concerning the capital used in fighting these battles. This seems to be one direction my ethnographic research will take.
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Game Plan Revisited
One of the reasons I created this blog was to brainstorm on how I might begin beekeeping in a way consistent with a sustainable lifestyle. As I research and dialogue with other beekeepers on the internet and in my real life, I have to be willing to change my direction or plans. A good plan is always flexible, adapted to new knowledge about your environment and yourself. For this reason, I am thinking about changing my earlier "game plan".
Gerry at "Global Swarming" suggested a day or so ago that I consider starting out with a Top Bar Hive. I had been reluctant to do this since I had assumed that TBHs were a difficult way to begin beekeeping . But I considered what Gerry told me and about her experiences and am seriously reconsidering the direction I'm going.
I read Phil Chandler's The Barefoot Beekeeper last night and it makes a strong argument for beginning with TBHs for someone in my situation. Firstly, I can't lift alot of weight anymore (Doctor's orders) and that would not be as necessary with a top bar hive. Secondly, a beekeeper using a top bar hive interferes in the life of the colony much less and allows the bees much more leeway to create comb to their own specification and needs. I see this as a key to sustainability. I believe that the bees know best. Lastly, I am fortunate to have a life partner who has also worked as a carpenter who can easily make a hive from Chandler's plans, so my initial costs will be much less. One problem with TBHs, though, is that I really will have no support locally.
So where do I go from here?
Gerry at "Global Swarming" suggested a day or so ago that I consider starting out with a Top Bar Hive. I had been reluctant to do this since I had assumed that TBHs were a difficult way to begin beekeeping . But I considered what Gerry told me and about her experiences and am seriously reconsidering the direction I'm going.
I read Phil Chandler's The Barefoot Beekeeper last night and it makes a strong argument for beginning with TBHs for someone in my situation. Firstly, I can't lift alot of weight anymore (Doctor's orders) and that would not be as necessary with a top bar hive. Secondly, a beekeeper using a top bar hive interferes in the life of the colony much less and allows the bees much more leeway to create comb to their own specification and needs. I see this as a key to sustainability. I believe that the bees know best. Lastly, I am fortunate to have a life partner who has also worked as a carpenter who can easily make a hive from Chandler's plans, so my initial costs will be much less. One problem with TBHs, though, is that I really will have no support locally.
So where do I go from here?
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Natural, Organic or Sustainable?
I always tell my students (and my family, I guess) that the meaning of a word is in the differences it draws between similarly related concepts.( The word "river" is meaningless if it applied to all bodies of water.) With that in mind I've been thinking about these words: natural, organic, and sustainable. What do they mean? How do they differ? How are they all related to beekeeping?
I tend to steer away from the word "natural" in most contexts since it has connotations that I think are just false. When people speak of an object being "natural", it is often used in opposition to "human-made". A "natural" object is something human beings weren't involved in creating; the object was created by "nature". The danger here is that it implies that human beings are outside of "nature", that the creations of people, like "culture", "technology" and "social structures", are the result of forces unrelated to the "nature" of being human. While many of the creations of human beings are detrimental to the community of life as a whole, they are still part of "nature", since they are the result of "natural" human qualities.
I like the words "organic" and "sustainable" better, though I think they refer to different types of phenomena. In reference to beekeeping, "sustainable" refers to your goal: to keep healthy bees that live in balance within the whole community of life. "Organic" refers to the means: to maintain the bees using only the those methods that do not contradict the laws governing the community of life (e.g. 'natural' selection is one such law). The dilemma is, have we produced so much destruction in this community that we've made some types of "non-organic" intervention necessary in order to sustain bees in the long-term? Or does this latter approach, with all its inherent hubris, just compound the problem even more?
I tend to steer away from the word "natural" in most contexts since it has connotations that I think are just false. When people speak of an object being "natural", it is often used in opposition to "human-made". A "natural" object is something human beings weren't involved in creating; the object was created by "nature". The danger here is that it implies that human beings are outside of "nature", that the creations of people, like "culture", "technology" and "social structures", are the result of forces unrelated to the "nature" of being human. While many of the creations of human beings are detrimental to the community of life as a whole, they are still part of "nature", since they are the result of "natural" human qualities.
I like the words "organic" and "sustainable" better, though I think they refer to different types of phenomena. In reference to beekeeping, "sustainable" refers to your goal: to keep healthy bees that live in balance within the whole community of life. "Organic" refers to the means: to maintain the bees using only the those methods that do not contradict the laws governing the community of life (e.g. 'natural' selection is one such law). The dilemma is, have we produced so much destruction in this community that we've made some types of "non-organic" intervention necessary in order to sustain bees in the long-term? Or does this latter approach, with all its inherent hubris, just compound the problem even more?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)