2 ms·
> The target audience of this device is the amateur, backyard keeper, aspiring, or with little beekeeping experience. To them, the appeal of this device is imme
by aric 12y ago
> The target audience of this device is the amateur, backyard keeper, aspiring, or with little beekeeping experience. To them, the appeal of this device is immediate: honey without work.
I'd like to do some beekeeping. This device piques my interest not because it's "honey without work" but because it's honey with possibly less work and less killing. Even if it's honey with more work but less disturbance of bees, I'd be interested. Traditional harvesting of honey is one way. That's not to say it's the proper way. That's not to say new ways like Flow are good either. You might be right. However, new ways are worth exploring.
> Comb on the other hand, is an epidermis for bees. It has it's own biota, a bacterial/fungal/viral ecosystem that provides a living layer on which the bees work and live. When given plastic, bees will cover it in comb and propolis like they will with wood or rock. They never put their honey in anything but comb. The Flow device replaces much of the natural foundation of a bees honey store system, with more plastic.
How is anything in the human-driven beekeeping process natural either: cut wood, wire, frames, boxes, glass, disrupting, crushing? I avoid certain types of plastics but it doesn't seem that invasive here. Bees appear to be making most of the comb like usual: http://www.honeyflow.com/gallery/p/23 http://www.honeyflow.com/gallery/p/23 Unless I'm misunderstanding the few images they have, Flow appears as unnatural as other common, unnatural methods, and less destructive. According to the FAQ: [There is no reason why you cant have traditional wax combs and honey Flow™ frames in the same hive, this allows you to have honey on tap and honeycomb/wax from the one hive.]
You might be right about it as a whole. I appreciate your words. Its utility remains to be seen.
- tehchromic 12y agoTo answer your question, wood is the most natural foundation for honey bees. They generally live in wood, and cutting it does't alter it materially. They also live in stone. As organic beekeepers, myself and many others reject the use of wire, plastic, glass, and anything except wood in the hive. Most of the equipment in the modern commercial beekeeping stack, which is also sold to the backyard keeper, is invented to sell you more stuff, and no good for beekeeping. I disagree about the less work and less destructive point, and that's the main point I was making. I think this machine will cause more work, in the form of maintenance. I think it will cause you to open your hive more, and will require regular washing and cleaning to work. Lastly, about killing bees and destroying their home, the common Langstroth hive is a pretty poor tool for working with bees and avoiding crushing them. It is heavy and frames are clumsy. However, it is possible to work Lang's gently, so that very, very few bees are crushed. That includes comb removal and extraction. An experienced keeper (outside of the commercial industry where automation and machinery crushes bees like nuts), doesn't crush many bees. Even better, there are hive designs much older than the Lang, that are even easier to work. I use a design based on a Christ hive, which is light and easy to work. I just never crush bees, even during harvest. So my point is that, while I do think technology and beekeeping go hand in hand, I prefer tech that makes things simpler, rather than more complicated. I think this gadget is a gimmick and would be difficult to use in the real world. That's my two cents, as an experienced beekeeper. Cheers!
- aric 12y agoThanks for the follow-up. It's good to know. Cheers, and keep on (organically) keeping!