Thanks to Caroline van Issum for her generosity in translating this PermApiculture Manual, please visit her website: http://www.londonsbuzzing.co.uk

	The relationship between reserves and disease

Misguided theoretical conclusions:

	"Feeding bees on sugar is absolutely harmless."
	"It makes more business sense to feed bees on sugar."

Mistaken implementing practices:

Systematically harvesting the reserves of the defenceless hives, year on year.

Never allowing a colony to reach maturity, and instead stealing their reserves and forcing them to work strenuously.

Feeding the bees on sugar, as if it were a mandatory provision.

Discussion:

This is a topic that has been subject of very little consideration and this is due to the fact that people will shy away from any information that may show that the true culprit for the disappearance of the bees is in fact sugar that is so widely given to bees.

There is a reluctance to acknowledge that sugar is not harmless, that sugar is the cause of stress to the bees which opens the door to all kinds of bee illnesses. Sadly, the bees cannot stop their owners from perniciously bartering their sacred natural reserves for junk.

Our initial analysis starts with the misguided theoretical conclusion which considers that artificial feeding is not only innocuous but it is a "saving necessity" within the beekeeping practices.

If you have ever attended a conference on a beekeeping event dealing with the topic of feeding, and, even if you have not, please note that usually the speaker starts with the following introduction: "The best thing to feed the bees with is their own honey, but… "

Time him, if you wish, and you will notice that this is the only mention about feeding.

No further consideration will be given to the merits of the use of artificial products.

The talk will then usually focus on how to feed the bees with products such as sugar, levudex, sucrodex or any other sugar substitute product that it is being promoted at that particular time.

Alternatively, the talk will focus around how to procure sugar waste or sweet maker’s caramel waste, or factory rejected lollipops.

The following picture is an example of artificial food being fed back to the bees in exchange for their valuables callously stolen. :

Please note the poor state of this brood box (this is noticeable by the fact that the brood box is closest to the ground). It is empty.

There is not one single bee to be seen –not even in between the spaces of the combs-.

Please forgive me if you consider this photograph underhanded, but this is the sad reality. I have merely shown the facts to impress upon you how far the irrationality concerning treatment of the bees has gone.

It is important to have a clear understanding of the reasons why there is a close link between feeding reserves and diseases.

We must first have a full understanding of the meaning of "Organic Produce":

A product is said to be organic if, in its production chain, it has not been in contact with artificial products, thus preserving its quality as a natural product.

The word "natural" is to be underlined here.

In other words, a peach is said to be organic as long as it has not been contaminated with synthetic products during its production or marketing.

The question is: Can a sweet made from an organic peach and organic sugar with no other synthetic products be considered as an "organic peach sweet"? The law says yes, but let’s look at this in more detail:

In the same way that a photon plays a preponderant role in our perception of light, and the electrons within the atoms play a significant role in defining them, enzymes play a similar role in respect of living organisms.

This is the case because any process carried out by a living being is an enzymatic process.

Without enzymes, we would not be able to wink, breathe, walk or think – each class of enzyme being responsible for a certain function. In short, our bodies would cease to function if there were no enzymes.

Perhaps the most important fact to consider here is that without enzymes it would be impossible for our body to gather the structural information that comes from any food when eaten as it is found in nature: its raw state.

For example:

Let’s assume that the living body is the hardware (anything that can be touched on a computer) and the food is the software (everything that cannot be touched, such as the programs which make the computer work).

With this structural information, with the software (or the manual, if you prefer) every single cell will have the necessary information to behave as required and to ensure that everything works as it should, in a nutshell to be healthy.

Let’s think that one of the most important processes for us humans is the process of nutrition, without which it would be impossible for life to continue.

God, in his infinite wisdom, built nature in such a way that everything can be converted into nourishment and that it should contain enzymes that will enable it to be digested and become a nutrient.

For example hydrolase, which is the enzyme that makes a food digestible, is present in raw carbohydrates (such as herbs)

Raw protein (such as raw meat) contains the enzyme protease, which makes it digestible.

With fats (both animal and vegetable and provided only they are uncooked) it is the enzyme lipase which serves the same purpose as the substances mentioned above.

In effect, the enzymes are missing from cooked foods because they have been destroyed by heat.

Continuing with our software example, let’s think what would happen if we scratched or baked a software CD prior to its installation on a computer.

Let’s stop here for a moment and think about the difference between something that is nourishing and something that is comestible or edible.

There is a belief that the words nourishment and edible are synonyms. However, they are antonyms and thus opposing terms.

Let’s see:

Nourishment (or staple food) is everything that was created by God and that can be used to nourish living organisms.

Nourishment not only has nutrients (aminoacids, minerals, enzymes, oligoelements, etc.) but more importantly, it contains structural information and all elements that living individuals need to obtain the necessary negative entropy or negentropy in order to stay healthy and alive.

At this point, it is worth remembering that all systems have a tendency towards chaos (living organisms are systems). This is a universal law and it is called positive entropy, which is why living organisms need to acquire structural information that will enable them to return to order, that is to say to have negative entropy = LIFE, i.e. the opposite of total positive entropy = CORPSE, DEATH

In a nutshell, nourishment is any natural element that is offered by nature and that forms part of the trophic chain.

Plants, herbivores and their parasites, carnivores and their parasites, scavengers, insects and the decomposers that help maintain soil structure to promote the growth of plants which also rely on minerals… and so, it is at this level that the trophic chain starts again.

Comestibles, on the other hand, are edibles artificially created by man and industry.

In a nutshell and within our definition, a comestible is a product that comes from a marketing and production chain and which makes an unsuccessful attempt to nourish.

Hence the need to create the expression "junk food".

A comestible is something that does not exist in nature, it does not grow in the sun (there isn’t a place or a tree that grows fizzy water or sausages).

But let us also consider:

A comestible can also be natural nourishment that has been denatured by man through fire or heat (we are the only animal to cook our food) by means of boiling, frying or baking.

We are therefore killing the enzymes and thus destroying the much needed structural information that our cells need to keep healthy and stay alive (see the explanation regarding the scratched/baked CD).

Inside our body, it is precisely this comestible, be it in the form of natural nourishment destroyed by fire or a comestible artificially produced, which systematically destroys the enzymes.

The cells treat it as toxic or poisonous.

The scientific evidence behind this is that no sooner have comestibles (cooked foods) been eaten than there is leukocytosis, which is an increase in the production of leukocytes or white blood cells, an unequivocal sign that there is a toxic process taking place and which is forcing the white blood cells to travel though the veins in an attempt to remedy the situation.

The toxins and poisons of these comestibles create an imbalance, cause stress and weaken us, making us more vulnerable to diseases.

Note the overcrowded hospitals full of individuals affected by diseases which are related to these instances.

We invite you to consider whether it is advisable to eat something that does not go off simply because it is dead and has been converted into something plastic and lifeless, which, as such, brings death closer.

Remember the days when wine went off relatively quickly once uncorked and butter became rancid rapidly if it was not refrigerated? Please think about what is being introduced into these products now to make them last longer.

This is the reason why the organic peach sweet is not natural, because when it was being made, the peaches were boiled with the sugar and this denaturalises them irreversibly.

Despite the assurances given to the consumer certifying that the sugar and the peaches used to make this sweet were organic; the product that the consumers buy is not what they were actually hoping to get:

A natural product.

It is clear that the vast majority of consumers do not have this information (do not worry if you too did not have it: most doctors worldwide do not have this information either, which is the reason why world health is what it is now).

Nor are the vast majority of the world’s beekeepers aware of this.They sincerely believe that sugar is innocuous, given by the fact that they are fanatical consumers of this product.

As a result of this, we find that the only natural sweet on this planet is the sweet that is produced from flowers. It is the only sweet prepared without cooking and is made with the help of our friends the bees (another name for this product is honey)

Please note:

To produce sugar or glucose or Sucrodex or Levudex, etc., the industry needs to use sulphuric acid as well as extremely high temperatures that will destroy all types of vitamins and enzymes that were at one time present in the sugar cane juice or any other natural substance used at the beginning of this manufacturing process.

What do you suppose would happen when these chemical elements (sugar and any other substitute for natural nourishment plus the damaging sulphuric acid) go down the digestive tract of the poor honeybee that has been ROBBED of its natural reserved food by the beekeeper who now has to "feed" it with substances that are "cheaper"?

It is not very difficult to imagine: the same will happen to you when you ingest sugar, which is the reason why some doctors call it "The white killer".

Bees will also lack other elements to keep them healthy (the situation for bees is even worse because the beekeeper does not provide them with any other option).

Doors are left wide open and bees become vulnerable to all kinds of diseases such as American foulbrood, European foulbrood, etc. and of course the now well established Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) for which the cause remains as yet unknown.

Just look at how beekeepers in Spain, Belgium, Germany, the United States and many other places are now tired of asking their bee health authorities to explain to them, why the bees within their hives are dying like flies without so far getting any answers.

The answer is very simple and it is to be found inside the hives: it is the bees that are daughters, granddaughters, great-granddaughters of queens and bees raised for generations on sugar or some other synthetic substitute.

Why, in the history of Argentinean apiculture, were Don Jacinto Naveiro’s queens always considered to be of the highest quality?

BECAUSE HE USED TO FEED THEM SOLELY ON SEALED HONEYCOMB !

What kind of bee are we breeding now?

One which is dying in our hands, possibly hoping for the day that we let her keep her winter reserves that she worked so hard to collect during the previous season.

Would you know where this is most sharply observed?

In Formosa, Argentine.

This is where we arrived with our hives as we fled from the “technological package” of soybean and its infamous companion Glyphosate (sold as a herbicide without warning or prior notice and which, in actual fact, is a totalcide). The only living organisms that do not die from this exposure are, of course, genetically modified organisms (modified, of course, to resist such poison).

In Formosa, practically the only living bees are feral bees, those that live in the mountains and jump on you like tigers as soon as you approach them.

This is so because they are Africanised bees and because they are enjoying the same environment as that from which they originally came from. (Remember that South America was once attached to Africa which means that both continents have animals not found elsewhere.)

These mad bees (thank God) do not know what a feeder is which means that neither they nor their relatives have had the opportunity to taste the sic “exquisite sugar”.

They do not know what Sucrodex is. They have never heard of Levudex.

They do not know about any form of foulbrood.

Since the bees do not know how to read or write nor do they have access to the internet or speak English for that matter, they do not know about Colony Collapse Disorder or the losses suffered by their sisters who are at the mercy of a beekeeper.

These bees do not know either what is it like to succumb to the varroa mite, because feral bees know how to handle the situation and keep the mites under control.

Moreover, these bees do not use foundation frames - they are unaware of them and cannot procure them in nature –so they will build the cells within their combs to the sizes that THEY deem necessary (they do have some understanding of the subject), and they do not have any problem with the Housel Positioning as THEY devised this method roughly 50 million years before they were considered by the State of Florida

In addition, another piece of evidence should be considered and this is the strength at which feral bees breed and develop in wild colonies or hives, if one wants to call them this way. Their strength is favoured by the lack of intervention from beekeepers and their ever present feeders, KNOWING FULL WELL THAT FERAL SWARMS DO NOT HAVE VARROA.

I have not mentioned this before because I did not have the source to corroborate my view, but I recorded a podcast for a radio programme broadcasted by El Mundo Radio of Argentina on 17 May 2009 entitled “El campo y usted” (The countryside and you) where the notable and prestigious apicultural journalist Federico Petrera Jr., an experienced beekeeper with an undisputed track record and whose credentials in this field are impeccable, in which he categorically expressed that feral swarms do not have varroa.

The original podcast can be heard on http://www.apiculturaonline.com/mp3/17-05-09.mp3

In this programme Mr Petrera makes a comment in reply to a question asked by a fellow apicultural journalist, the agronomist Javier Folgar Bessone, to the veterinary doctor Matías Toledo from Apilab Argentina, where he mentioned that in Uruguayan hives there were multiple cases of Varroa destructor mite resistance to several treatments used, (meaning that there is cross-resistance to more than one active ingredient) due to the fact that bees with this built in resistance have travelled from Argentina over the bordering Uruguay river to Uruguay.

Now:

After this long, but necessary introduction, we are now in a position to discuss winter reserves, diseases and their interrelationship.

Taking into account that the best feeders in the world are a series of combs containing honey purposefully placed and sealed by the bees themselves: above their nest.

Taking into account the cost of artificial feeders and artificial food plus the time factor, labour, transport costs and the stress caused to the poor bees when feeding them in the winter months, this effort and time should be spent peacefully drinking coffee in front of the fire, instead of destroying hives.

Realising that the ultimate price to be paid is as a consequence of artificially feeding bees because the beekeeper is, in effect, initiating a process which involves diseases and the subsequent need for medication and treatments.

You will then cease to owning boxes with bees that have a cost and will start to own harvesting hives that will actually put money in YOUR pocket.

Note

I have added this comment as I had received many enquiries from individuals and questions from people on beekeeping forums who consider that given the conditions within their specific environment, the only alternative is to use sugar or other synthetic substitutes.

What needs to be avoided -and I say this with the greatest respect- is to harvest the minimum reserves that the bees have worked so hard for and that they justly deserve.

This is a time-honoured and ELEMENTAL law of beekeeping and which has long been forgotten. There is absolutely no way of having an economically sustainable beehive, if the hive is not allowed to mature with all its honey reserves, in the space where the BEES chose to store it.

This "sacrifice" need only be made for one season, following which a beekeeper will have a fully functional harvesting hive that respects the space needed for the bees’ reserves. The space, which is:

Untouchable.

Sacred.

Buenos Aires
Argentina
http://www.permapicultura.com
oscarperone@gmail.com