> What type of treatment would be required to safely use a galvanized
> extractor (assuming no rust)?

AFAIK, there is no risk associated with using galvanized extractors as long as you store them away from water and high humidity, and/or clean them properly before and after use. Many people have used galvanized tanks for water and other food purposes over the past century and not suffered for it. Somehow, now, people think they are dangerous.

The only possible danger I can see is if you were to allow moisture to accumulate in the machine and the honey turned to mead, then vinegar and the acid etched off a lot of zinc, then you were to use that machine without washing it.

Assuming the tub is clean to start, the first honey to hit the sides sticks to the metal, and stays there until you wash the machine -- in my experience anyhow. The rest of the honey -- the honey you get out of the drain -- runs down over that original honey coating and never contacts the sheet metal.

As far as I know the main thing about stainless steel (SS) is that is pretty well idiot proof. You can store SS equipment in moisture and abuse it, and nothing will come of that. ... And SS is also pretty.

As for the iron reel in old galvanized extractors (and lots of SS ones too), assuming the reel is washed clean before use and not allowed to rust much, there is no danger from that, Rust is edible AFAIK, and iron is harmless, too in small amounts, although significant amounts of either will flavour and/or colour the honey. No reasonably clean operator is ever going to get that amount of rust and iron into honey, since a clean reel -- even one with a little rust -- gets coated and sealed with honey the first time a load is spun.

Probably the biggest risk in extractors is in the lead solder (recent work suggests that there is no tolerance for any lead in human diets) that was used in both galvanized and SS extractors until quite recently, but, again, the solder gets coated with honey and is buried in honey down in the cracks until the machine is washed. Just don't drink the washdown water and you should be just fine. (I can just imagine some mead makers sweating, now).

Personally I would not hesitate to use a galvanized extractor, just the way it is. I did -- for many years, and I'll bet that half this list, or more, is using one, or has used one recently.

As for epoxy coatings, etc., they chip, flake and scratch, look awful, and wind up getting into the honey. You're better off just cleaning the old machine and using it the way it is. Nobody has ever proven that there is any risk -- again, AFAIK.

allen
http://www.honeybeeworld.com 

Standard disclaimer: No guarantees. What do I know?

> I do not understand why Canada does not utilize their own high class
> breeders...

They do, and many find the local supply sufficient. The problem is that many do not, for a variety of very good and valid reasons. Read on...

> If beekeepers were to learn to breed their own queens they would
> become better beekeepers on many levels.

That's true, but many who are excellent at queen raising still decide they need to buy a few thousand queens from elsewhere, or get packages for replacement or increase *at the drop of a hat*, due to changing circumstances. Business beekeepers need maximum ability to respond quickly to constantly changing circumstances.

Here is our experience. After proving we could improve our stock and be self-sufficient (at least in the short run over the few years we tried it), plus produce queens for sale, we decided one year that we needed to buy commercial packages and queens in quantity to expand suddenly to meet the demands of local seed growers. What we were able to buy was not nearly up to the standard of our own bees, but the price was right, and they could be had on relatively short notice (compared to slowly building up) -- and it made us money.

While we were doing okay with the smaller operation, we were subject to much greater risk, and had much lower income. Looking back, it is clear that our decision was a good one, and making that decision allowed us to retire early, vs. the likelihood that we might never have gotten to where we could afford retirement. An available (but limited and unnecessarily costly) supply of bulk bees was the key.

It is hard to explain some of these factors to many hobby or sideline beekeepers, but for those of us who make bees our business, and cannot afford to miss opportunities or take chances on supply, the need for open trade is obvious. In a country like Canada, with many millions of acres of good forage that have scarcely a honey bee to be seen, anything that impedes growth of the industry by making the job more difficult and/or risky needs to be confronted.

To answer your first question, we do, but they are too few, and make to little money after working too hard, especially when there are others, much better situated -- by climate and markets -- to breed and produce queens and packages much more efficiently.

Most of us in Canada are in honey making country, not good queen rearing country.

allen

> Self sufficient I think can be a good thing, I
> myself do not want SHB to make it to Alaska and if beekeepers up here
> were more self sufficient in the past we probably would never had
> gotten Varroa. It's to late for Varroa but we still have time to
> prevent SHB from entering.

In Alaska, I doubt that any of that really matters, since I'm assuming that beekeeping is pretty small scale, and there are no livelihoods at stake.

Where beekeeping is a business, varroa and SHB are just minor problems to deal with, and less threatening than being cut off from economically important supplies.

Self-sufficiency is a concept that went out with subsistence farming. Self-sufficiency sounds romantic, but it often means deprivation. We are now interdependent with, and competing with, the world. Usually the advantages outweigh the downsides, and the result is an elevated standard of living that allows us time for hobbies, and time to dream about that perfect world where we would be totally self-reliant.

All in a day's work.

allen

>> The strong colonies lost enough strength to make a nuc...that's $60.

> ...aren't you counting the impact twice here?

Not really.

In our experience, we, too, found that moving, with attendant potential loss of brood, and the monoculture characteristic of the pollination areas, and overcrowding necessary to get good seed set,

1.) weakened our bees,

2.) produced less honey,

3.) left the brood chambers emptier than if they had been on a good flow.

Moreover,

4.) we lost more hives in winter.

> Same question as above. You now appear to be counting the same
> impact 3 times.

How do you figure that?

1.) One super less surplus honey,
2.) no nucs,
3.) a need to feed the hives up in fall due to empty brood chambers, and
4.) subsequent winter loss,
are four separate losses -- albeit arising from the same cause.

>> So, for a $35 pollination fee, I could lose more than $100 in income.
>> Hardly a minor compromise, wouldn't you say?
> >
> > I'm not sure I agree with your bookkeeping methodology,

I do.

All beekeeping (not bookkeeping, tho') is local, and there are pollination jobs that build hives up, and some that wear them out. If you are lucky enough to be paid to take your hives to sites where they thrive, many of us envy you.

As far back as the mid-nineties, Andy was saying (in regards alfalfa, but also other crops in other messages) that "Using honeybees for Alfalfa seed pollination is " good farming practice, but is a BAD beekeeping practice. Real beekeepers pollinate alfalfa for the cash flow, bee locations, and bad judgment."

See http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9605D&L=bee-l&P=R3972

When we pollinated canola, we got over $100 for our pollination, and we needed it to justify the wear on our bees. Now the same job is paying as much as $150, and there is no huge line of beekeepers waiting to sign contracts. some who are pollinating now plan to stay home next year.

Mike's accounting is sound. (Divide my numbers by 1.3008 to get US dollars. (A few minutes ago, at least).

allen
http://www.honeybeeworld.com 

PS How do people like the changes to the BEE-L page (below)? Write me, not the list with comments.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L  for rules, FAQ and other info ---

It is 60 plus degrees here today. So I remembered some light hives at over the hill at Boys Town. Filled some 2 gallon pails & went for a drive.

I started to remove an empty pail & looked down to see the bees hauling pollen. 3 different colors no less. So I got a little snoopy & sure enough the bees are sitting on brood. November 16th & the knot heads are brooding up.

Monday I was going to order some winter covers. Probably need to order a load of corn syrup instead.

#1 son has been installing winter covers between pheasant hunting & what not. The pheasants I cleaned yesterday are starting to show some fat build up. Unlike the past few weeks there was none to be found. Still might have some winter some day I guess.

I have had a lot of calls from people looking for white honey. Seems retail honey sales are not hurting one bit. The two or three stores I check weekly have holes in the shelf from time to time. Every store manager I talk with all seem surprised as to the price of honey & how well it still moves.

Allen do you show pictures of all the cold & snow so every one feels sorry for you???? If so don't tell everyone your headed to Mexico. It won't work. ( He He He, just a joke, have a nice trip. you have earned it. ) PS and don't drink the water....

Thanks.  Actually, I did drink the water, in the Baja, and never had any trouble.  That was a few years back, when I was young and reckless.  Actually, though, they have RO plants in all the towns and you just pull up and fill your containers. It's better than some towns in rural Alberta, until a few years ago.  I also drank from a spring along the road that everyone else was using, in a remote are, BUT, I'd be a whole lot more careful near a town or on the mainland.

As for water quality, we got a bit smug a while back here in Canada and had people die from contaminated water in Walkerton, Ontario, and some very sick in Prince Albert, (I think) Saskatchewan.  Since then, we've gotten more careful about monitoring and auditing records relating to public water supplies, but you never know...

J.E.
Victoria, Australia

Drugs and chemicals are not just a problem for Argentine and Chinese honey, although these exporting nations are the ones being caught and publicized, for reasons that are not necessarily health-related.  Trace amounts of all sorts of things are showing up everywhere, in all foods, including honey.  In isolated cases, traces of chemicals have been found and quietly apprehended in North American produced honey, too, (gasp!) and I am sure, in honey produced in every country.  It's just a matter of looking close enough.  Powerful, cheap, new detection methods have made very intensive inspection possible, and politics makes it mandatory when either consumer or producer pressure comes to bear.

The problem is one of perception for the regulators.  Regulating agencies in Western-style democracies  are politically sensitive.  They must appear to be effective, and on the job at all times, and keep local suppliers in line, but not step on too many toes.  They don't want to cause an uproar, but they want to put the local producers on notice. Watchdogs have to growl and bark and look aggressive, while not mauling the family or close neighbours. 

Regulating agencies have to be seen to be looking for trouble.   As long as nothing bad happens, they can claim to be successful, but, just in case something happens -- and it surely will in the fullness of time -- they also have to seem to be proactive.  There are real problems waiting to be discovered, and the agencies have to tackle someone in a while to keep credible and to keep the local producers on their toes.  They have two choices:

1. They can find problems that are easily solvable and where the problem is caused by distant forces, or
2. They can find local problems that are difficult to solve, politically sensitive, and which involve nearby (voting) businesses. 

You can easily guess which problems they will highlight and which will be dealt with quietly, if they have a choice.

Due to Chinese and Argentine production and marketing methods, and questions about the reliability (honesty) of their records of origin, it is not easy to trace batch and origin on their products.  If it were, a few batches would be seized, the rest screened carefully, and business could go on.  However, these exporters are also unpopular with the beekeepers in importing countries due to their price cutting tactics, and have therefore become subject to more careful scrutiny due to pressure on regulators to look very closely.

Nonetheless,  the simple fact is that contaminants are cropping up all over.  Detection methods are getting ridiculously subtle, to the point where even a stray molecule in a sample can be seen.  There is often no way to know how much, if any, of many manufactured or natural substances can be harmful, so even parts per billion, but, once detected, even the most minute amounts are a cause of concern and become political. Once we know about them, how can we ignore them, although, apparently they have been there for years and no ill effects have been traced to them?

A decade and a half ago back, CFIA, or its predecessor saw this problem coming, and started promoting a new paradigm in food production and processing, HACCP  ( US site ).  The principle behind HACCP is to take the emphasis off detection of contamination after the fact, and put it onto prevention and record keeping.  It's a pretty simple concept, but the implementation -- in true governmental fashion involved a whole lot of paperwork and expense.

At the time, I thought HACCP and the attending expense and complications were premature, and I helped our industry fight it off for a decade.  I think that saved us a lot of problems and cost when we could ill afford it, but now things are different.  Not only have detection methods and expectations improved, but 9/11 changed forever the notion that we can trust people in distant (or nearby) locations to ensure that our food is pure and safe.  The time has come now that every food producer needs to have a plan in place to anticipate and prevent possible contamination, and careful records to prove that he is doing so -- or suffer the consequences.  Argentina and China are good examples of what can happen if you have some contamination problems and can't credibly trace each batch of food back to its origin

What will happen?  Well I don't have a crystal ball, but there are some indicators that can help predict possibilities.  Here are some guesses.

• Beekeepers in developed countries will increase production and drive honey prices back down to where some drop by the wayside.

• China and Argentina will get their accounting straight and get back into the market.  Prices will drop precipitously.

• Occasional batches of honey from all countries will be found to have contaminants and that honey will be condemned.  If the parties involved have good manufacturing practices and records, and can establish exactly which batch(es) are bad, the damage to the beekeeper, packer and the country's reputation will stop there.  Regulators and industry will pat themselves on the back for being so smart.

• Beekeepers and plants with HACCP or HACCP-like procedures will get off easy.  Those with poor or no accounting will be hit hard and go out of business.

• Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) will be set for common chemicals and regulators will ignore anything below that level.  Politics will have a big part in what chemicals are set at what level, and contamination -- even at vanishingly low levels --  will continue to be used as non-tariff barriers.

• Beekeepers and plants with good record keeping, and good manufacturing practices, will be rewarded by higher prices, more ready markets, lower risk, and better access to financing.

• Inspection of operations and records will become voluntary and privatized.  A high rating will be absolutely essential to selling product.  buyers will routinely demand certificates and affidavits with each load, and proof of product liability insurance from suppliers.

• Used (non-reconditioned) drums will be frowned upon, and accepted only by marginal, second string buyers.

• Already Wal-Mart and other buyers are demanding lab analysis reports from packers in the USA.  It is only a matter of time until they demand HACCP or equivalent certification from producer on up.

Allen's
Links
of the Day

Allen's
Links
of the Day

Beemaster.com & John Clayton's 2002 Hobbyist Beekeeping Course
"Detailed Entry Level beekeeping for everyone. Education Beyond the Classroom".