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.
Showing posts with label commercial beekeeping. Show all posts
Showing posts with label commercial beekeeping. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
