Ingredients
□ 1¾ cups all-purpose flour
□ ½ cup whole wheat or graham flour
□ 1 tsp baking powder
□ ¼ tsp baking soda
□ ¼ tsp salt
□ ¼ cup (½ stick) butter or margarine, melted
□ ⅓ cup honey
□ 1 tsp vanilla extract
□ 1 egg yolk, lightly beaten
□ ¼ cup nonfat milk
□ 1 (8 oz) package Neufchatel or reduced-fat cream cheese
□ ¼ cup honey
□ 3 cups assorted sliced or whole fresh fruits
□ Toasted coconut or granola
□ Optional honey or chocolate syrup

Crust Directions
Step 1
Preheat oven to 375°F.

Step 2
In a large bowl, combine flours, baking powder, baking soda and salt. Mix well.

Step 3
In a small bowl, mix together melted butter, honey and vanilla. Stir into the flour mixture.

Step 4
Stir in egg yolk and milk.

Step 5
Form into a ball with hands.

Step 6
Place on a lightly greased pizza pan or baking sheet.

Step 7
With floured hands, press dough to form a 12-inch circle.

Step 8
Bake at 375°F for 12 to 15 minutes or until golden brown.

Step 9
Remove from pan. Cool on wire rack.

Topping Directions
In a small bowl, combine Neufchatel cheese and honey. Mix until well blended.

Serving Directions
Step 1
Spread topping onto crust to within ½ inch of edge.

Step 2
Arrange fruit over top.

Step 3
Sprinkle with toasted coconut and drizzle with honey, if desired.

Fig. 1. A 3D model of CPI (Intelligent Collector of Propolis) (Breyer, 2016)
Notes: A – case for stacking the collector; B – Intelligent Collector of Propolis; C – insert board for closing the hole in the case

Propolis is a sticky resinous substance collected from the buds, leaves and stems of wild plants and processed by bees, which has bactericidal properties and is used by bees to seal cracks in a hive, polish walls of wax cells and embalm corpses of enemies (mice, reptiles, etc.) (DSTU 4662, 2006). The sources of propolis are plants from which honey bees collect resin. However, not all plants that secrete resin are sources of propolis. The physical properties of plant resin, accessibility to bees, and anatomical features of a honey bee exoskeleton underlie the hypothesis of plant selection for propolis collection (Langenheim, 2003; Salatino and Salatino, M. L. F., 2017). In the mild climate zone Ukraine belongs to, honey bees collect plant resins mainly from Populus nigra L., Populus tremula L. and Betula pubescens L., which determines chemical and physical properties of the yield. Subsequently, bees bring plant resins to the nest and use them to seal cracks or to build their structures (Isidorov et al., 2016; Przybyłek and Karpiński, 2019).

Using the bees’ instincts to seal cracks in the nest, protect the nest from pests and the need to maintain the microclimate of the bee nest at the proper level, beekeepers collect propolis in industrial volumes mainly in two ways. The first one is to modify walls of hives and use collectors, and the second is to place nets (grids) over the honey bee nest (Breyer, 2016; Tsagkarakis et al., 2017).

Fig. 2. Green propolis obtained in Brazil (photo by the author, 2022)

In countries with a tropical climate, where the outside temperature resembles the microclimate of the bee nest, propolis collectors are placed on holes in the outer walls of hives (Fig. 1, 2).

Placement of this type of collector implies that products (honey, pollen) will not be taken from bee families. The presence of food in the nest helps to increase productivity of the bee family. Another important technological aspect is that propolis apiaries migrate to areas rich in plant sources of propolis. It should be noted that such a method as moving to propolis sources is not used in mild climate zones.

Today, according to the state register, there are 54,406 beekeeping households in Ukraine with 2,579,453 bee colonies. Since registration is voluntary, these figures are not final. There are two ways to collect propolis in Ukraine: the first is to clean the nest elements (frames, parts of the hive, etc.) with a beekeeper’s chisel; the second is to place elastic nets or plastic grids over the honey bee nest in the hives. The first method mentioned of extracting propolis is unproductive and outdated and yields in a small amount of propolis, which is mainly contaminated with wood splinters and parts of bee bodies. Such propolis is used for personal and technical needs. The second method, which uses special collection equipment, such as elastic nets and plastic grids, is more productive for big apiaries. At the same time, obtaining 300-500 nets or grids covered with propolis on a farm requires their cleaning. The lack of equipment to automate the process of nets or grids cleaning of propolis and the use of manual labor lead to higher product prices, lower quality and unprofitable production. The use of manual labor to clean propolis may be accompanied by a violation of sanitary and hygienic conditions due to the human factor.

Fig. 3. Experimental 3D model of a device for collecting propolis.
Notes: 1 – a set of gears; 2 – lower and upper pair of shafts, protrusions of which fit one-to-one; 3 – an electric motor; 4 – a hole for inserting nets with propolis; 5 – an outlet; 6 – an electric cable; 7 – a switch; 8 – a protective chamber; 9 – a power cable compartment; 10 – a metal frame

As part of our dissertation research on “Scientific and technical support of the process and equipment for propolis production” at the National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine in 2020-2023, we designed, manufactured and tested a device for cleaning propolis-coated elastic nets (Fig. 3).

Manufacture of the device and its introduction into production help to fill in gaps in the technology of obtaining high quality propolis.

To extract propolis using the device, beekeepers follow the sequence of actions:

• place elastic nets in hives to collect propolis (it is recommended to use nets made of ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA));
• place nets on the upper bars of frames after they are cleaned of wax residues and existing propolis;
• inspect bee colonies as is customary on the farm;
• after the bees cover nets with propolis, shift them so that an entire net is covered with propolis (approximately 20-30 calendar days, depending on availability of the plant base and propensity of the bee family to accumulate propolis);
• collect nets from bee colonies and roll for easy transportation and further cooling (Fig. 4, B);
• for high-quality cleaning of nets with propolis using the device, it is enough to cool nets at a temperature of +5°C for 60-90 minutes, depending on the type of propolis;
• insert the cooled nets into the cleaning device (Access the author’s accounts YouTube channel: https://youtu.be/QktpMJc-0hY?si=MOMb8R6w7LrkgJ2C).

Fig. 4. Propolis obtained at Ukrainian beekeeping farms using the new technology (photo by the author, 2021) Notes: Right – propolis purified from elastic nets using the device; Left – elastic nets covered with propolis obtained from beekeeping farms in Ukraine

After the cleaning is completed, nets are returned to the bee colonies, if necessary, and the obtained propolis is packed and stored for further use.

Nets in the device are cleaned mechanically. One net can be cleaned with the device 100 or more times without visible mechanical damage. The specially designed shafts of the device are pulled into the net and simultaneously bend it in a wave-like manner. During this bending, the propolis is shed in the lower tray. For comfortable work of the operator, the room temperature can be +20-22°C. In countries with tropical climates, it is possible to place the net cleaning device in honeycomb storages, where the temperature is always kept low, which will provide additional savings on room cooling. The propolis harvesting device can be used by beekeepers to clean 227 nets in one working day (eight hours). The developed device has been patented: patent No. 139736 “Device for collecting propolis” (UA). Details of the development and operation of the device were presented at the 47th Apimondia Congress (Istanbul) (PP-177).

For more detailed information on the operation of the device for cleaning nets from propolis and other research papers of the author, please use the link by QR code (Access the author’s account in the scientific social network ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Roman-Dvykaliuk).

Dvykaliuk Roman, Chairman of the Board of BeesAgro Controlled Pollination Association; PhD candidate of the National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine; Kyiv, Ukraine.
E-mail: Roman.Dvykaliuk@delta-sport.kiev.ua

References
DSTU 4662:2006 “Propolis (Bee Glue). Specifications” (2007). Kyiv: State Standards of Ukraine
Salatino, A., & Salatino, M. L. F. (2017). Why do honeybees exploit so few plant species as propolis sources. MOJ Food Processing & Technology, 4(5), 158–160. https://doi.org/10.15406/mojfpt.2017.04.00107
Langenheim, J. H., 2003. Plant Resins: Chemistry, Evolution, Ecology, and Ethnobotany. Timber Press., Portland,OR, USA.
Isidorov, V. A., Bakier, S., Pirożnikow, E., Zambrzycka, M., Swiecicka, I. Selective behaviour of honeybees in acquiring European propolis plant precursors. Journal of chemical ecology. 2016. Vol. 42(6), Р. 475–485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-016-0708-9
Przybyłek, I., & Karpiński, T. M. (2019). Antibacterial properties of propolis. Molecules, 24(11), 2047. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules24112047
Breyer, H. F. E., Breyer, E. D. H., & Cella, I. (2016). Produção e beneficiamento da própolis [Production and processing of propolis]. Boletim Didático, 1, 30. https://publicacoes.epagri.sc.gov.br/BD/article/view/405 [in Portuguese] Tsagkarakis, A. E., Katsikogianni, T., Gardikis, K., Katsenios, I., Spanidi, E., & Balotis, G. N. (2017). Comparison of Traps Collecting Propolis by Honey Bees. Advances in Entomology, 5(02), 68. 5. https://doi.org/10.4236/ae.2017.52006
Device for collecting propolis [Prystrii dlia zboru propolisu]: pat. 139736 Ukraine. № u 201910696; decl. 29.10.2019. publ. 10.01.2020. Bul. № 1. (in Ukrainian)

Laidlaw Bee Facility

Named after the “father of honey bee genetics” Dr. Harry H. Laidlaw Jr., the Bee Research Facility is a part of a larger, as I like to refer to it, Bee Complex located only a few miles away off of Central UC Davis Campus (West of Route 113 for those who might be familiar with the area). The Bee Complex is composed of the Bee Facility, UC Davis Bee Haven garden, a number of smaller research plots, several ancillary buildings for storage and most recently, a set of mobile trailers housing the Davis USDA Bee Lab. But as you know, it is the people that really make the program, and our program at UC Davis is a home to a number of researchers and extension specialists contributing to bettering bee health. This series aims to showcase all of the great work being done by the UC Davis Bee Program teams. But first, a little bit about our history!

The Bee Facility Apiary

While you have likely heard of the Bee Program at UC Davis, you probably don’t know that its impressive history began long before many of us reading this issue of Bee Culture were even born. It is my pleasure to take you on a brief journey of the establishment of the UC Bee Program, as it has been shared with me by the late Robbin Thorp and Eric Mussen (to read a more detailed history written by Kathy Keatley Garvey, please visit https://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=39191). Lastly, I will briefly introduce you to the current faculty members and their respective research and education programs, which we will expand on in the upcoming 2024 issues of Bee Culture. Many well-known and well-respected researchers and educators have conducted seminal works while at UC Davis. They helped make the UC Davis Bee Program what it is today and my current colleagues and I are eager to carry that legacy into the future. My hope is that you will enjoy reading this series as much as we are enjoying writing it for you.

The People: Early 1900s to Early 2010s
Let me take you back to the early 1900s (yes, I just said that, and yes it makes me feel old as well!), when George Haymaker Vansell (1892-1954) was a student at UC Davis. His interest in insect science led him to become the first instructor to teach an Entomology and Apiculture course at UC Davis from 1920 to 1931, highlighting the need for formal Entomology education. He was titled an Instructor in Entomology while also holding a position as a USDA employee at the Davis Experiment Station. Vansell was particularly interested in the field of plant-insect interactions, and has published a number of bulletins concerning honey bee forage. As avid beekeepers, most of you have probably heard at some point that honey bee colonies can suffer poisoning when foraging on California Buckeye (Aesculus californica). Vansell’s interest in this phenomenon resulted in several publications in which he discusses the symptoms of buckeye poisoning, and together with his colleagues, offers possible solutions for reducing damage to colonies. His work suggests that adult worker bees were usually not detrimentally affected; therefore, creating small colony units containing only adult workers and one frame of brood can lead to production of buckeye honey while simultaneously preserving some of the colony work force if the honey is extracted in a timely manner. Vansell and Todd also suggest that Italian x Carniolan hybrids faired a bit better during the production of the buckeye honey as compared to Italian x Caucasian hybrid colonies, but neither had successful recovery. Interestingly, throughout these research articles there is regular mention of the bears destroying colonies in the Sierra Nevada foothills, much like the beekeepers today still have to deal with these intruders. Prior to his sudden passing in 1954, Vansell had also completed research on fruit tree and seed crops pollination. A scholarship established in his honor has helped support many bee students in their fervent effort to advance the field of apiculture.

Around the same time period, Frank Edward Todd (1895-1969) served as the USDA apiculture research branch head at the USDA Pacific States Bee Culture Laboratory at UC Davis (1931-1942). He collaborated closely with Vansell on projects dealing with honey bee poisonous plants, and has advanced pollination of many crops including seed alfalfa, cantaloupes and tangerines. Perhaps most notably, he has reported observations of honey bee nectar collection on alfalfa and the, now well known, tripping mechanism of the alfalfa flower during attempted foraging by honey bees. While affiliated with the UC Davis Bee Biology Program, he modified the dead bee trap originally designed by Norman Gary, which is known as the “Todd Dead Bee Trap”, and has been used in research on effects of various chemicals on bee mortality. Another USDA apiculturist worth mentioning was Edward Lloyd Sechrist (1873-1953). While working in the USDA Office of Bee Culture, he collaborated with researchers at UC Davis Bee lab on several projects that have included honey gathering and daily colony weight changes due to nectar collection. His most notable contribution to the field of apiculture is the proposition for United States standards for honey in 1927.

You probably noticed that the first researchers conducting honey bee and pollination research at UC Davis were actually most directly associated with USDA. However, in 1931, UC Davis hired John Edward Eckert (1895-1975) as a Professor of Entomology and Apiculture, who also served as the Department Chairman from 1934 to 1946. Eckert is well known for studying the flight range of honey bees and he reported extensive observations on this topic including the observation that honey bees prefer to stay close to the apiary in search of forage, but will fly up to 8.5 miles to the food source if necessary. Honey bee resource constancy was also noted by him. Eckert (affectionately called Eck by his peers and stakeholders) was well respected among beekeepers as he supported their efforts to protect colonies from pesticides, and has completed research on potentially harmful pesticide effects on colonies. He is also credited with pioneering antibiotic use in honey bee colonies for management of bacterial diseases, and spent time in Australia and Europe researching various ectoparasitic mites on honey bees including Tracheal mites (Acarapis woodi). Very apropos to this article, Eckert spent decades as the editor of the California column in Gleanings in Bee Culture. Among his many extension publications is the first edition of the Beekeeping in California, Circular 100 from 1936, which has been updated over the years and is still used by many.

As mentioned before, the facility that is still being used by the Bee Program faculty, has been named in honor of Harry Hyde Laidlaw, Jr. (1907-2003) who joined UC Davis as a Professor of Apiculture in 1947. Laidlaw’s research studying mutations leading to differences in eye color, pigment-free blind drones, differences in wing length, hairlessness and resulting identification of underlying molecular and biochemical pathways, have earned him an unofficial title of “The Father of Honey Bee Genetics”. Arguably most impactful applied technology development, however, was the development of the first functional instrument for insemination of queen honey bees. This was made possible by Laidlaw’s study of the queen morphology, and subsequent realization that the only way the queen can be successfully instrumentally inseminated is if the valve-fold is held away from the median oviduct opening. His discovery has provided the means for successful bee breeding and has revolutionized the beekeeping industry. Northern California bee breeders still speak very fondly of Laidlaw. Speaking to his aptitude for innovation and leadership was his selection as the first Dean for Research in the College of Agriculture at UC Davis. He published several seminal queen rearing and bee breeding books, including my personal favorite Queen Rearing and Bee Breeding, written in collaboration with Robert Page, another alumni of our Bee Program. Lastly, in addition to the Bee Biology Facility being named after him, the Laidlaw family established an endowment in his name and in support of student research.

Robbin Thorp, Norm Gary, Larry Connor at the Bee Facility in February 2016

Fifteen years later, Norman E. Gary joined UC Davis as a Professor of Apiculture with special interest in studying honey bee foraging behavior and mating behavior of queens and drones. He was the first to identify queen mating pheromones, and to observe and describe aerial mating of queens and drones. During the medfly eradication efforts by California Department of Food and Agriculture, Gary began studying the impact of pesticide applications on honey bee health, which led to his design of the dead bee trap, later modified by Todd. Gary is also well known for his contributions to the film industry as he has been an adviser on sets of movies such as “Fried Green Tomatoes”, “My Girl” and “Candyman”, earning him the nickname “The Bee Wrangler”. He even has his own IMDb page. Gary has been retired since 1994, but he still occasionally visits the Bee Facility and even borrows bee colonies for small behavioral experiments. Much like his contemporaries Robbin Thorp and Eric Mussen were not, Gary is not very good at being “retired”, and has since published another one of my favorite book recommendations Honey Bee Hobbyist: The Care and Keeping of Bees (I have been lucky enough to have him sign my copy!).

Joining forces with Laidlaw and Gary, Ward Stanger (1913-2000), an extension apiculturist quickly became a champion for the beekeeping industry. In the late 1960s and early 1970s he published extension works discussing the beekeeping industry in California, and comparing the bee breeding and queen rearing efforts in Northern California versus southeastern Gulf States. Stanger understood the value of optimal nutrition to bee health and need for pesticide protection, readily urging the U.S. government to allow for forage access and stricter pesticide regulations. He has also published recommendations for supplemental feeding of colonies to increase their productivity, and a manual on how to remove honey bees from structures.

Christine Peng and Elina L. Niño, January 2020

In 1975, Christine Y. S. Peng joined the Entomology Department as the Professor of Apiculture specializing in insect physiology. I am sure that at this point many, if not all of you, are aware that antibiotics for management of honey bee bacterial diseases require a prescription from a veterinarian. But I bet you did not know that Peng was instrumental in selecting tylosin as a possible replacement antibiotic for oxytetracycline hydrochloride (Terramycin®) since Paenibacillus larvae started developing resistance to it. Peng has also made invaluable contributions in elucidating gamete physiology laying groundwork for successful cryopreservation of honey bee genetic material. Her research into honey bee nutritional needs has led to guidelines for seasonal feeding regimes, and her interest in parasitology has led her to explore varroa mite physiology and various management strategies.

I am pretty certain that Robert E. Page Jr. and his seminal works in honey bee genetics don’t need much of an introduction to the readers of Bee Culture. Page joined the Department of Entomology faculty in 1989 where he also served as the Department Chair. There is not enough space here to write about his many research accomplishments so I invite you to read some of the hundreds of scientific articles or the four books that he has published thus far. His published works report on fundamental discoveries in honey bee behavior particularly regulation of foraging behavior, population genetics and the evolution of complex social behavior. Despite all his achievements and accolades he remains a refreshingly approachable colleague. His passion for honey bees particularly shines through in one of his latest projects “The Art of the Bee” YouTube channel (https://www.youtube.com/@artofthebee).

Sue Cobey, March 2018

The Bee Program can’t really be talked about without mentioning the contributions of Susan Cobey who was at UC Davis from 2007 to 2012. Cobey is a giant in the field of honey bee breeding and has worked tirelessly for decades to maintain and improve quality honey bee stock in close collaboration with the Northern California Bee Breeders. As a young eager doctoral student just discovering my interest in honey bee queen mating physiology, I deeply valued the opportunity to take the world-renowned Instrumental Insemination (II) course with Cobey while she was still working at UC Davis. Principles of II and many tips and tricks shared with me by Cobey are something I now share with the students in our own II courses. Her sustained efforts to improve the bee stock in the U.S. have led to the establishment of the New World Carniolan Breeding Stock that can be purchased from Northern California bee breeders.

Back in 2014, I joined the Department of Entomology and Nematology at UC Davis as the Extension Apiculturist, and to my delight I was able to spend a significant amount of time in the company of two great pollinator researchers and educators: Robbin W. Thorp (1933-2019) and Eric C. Mussen (1944-2022).

Thorp (To read more about R. W. Thorp, visit: https://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=30459) joined UC Davis as a Professor of Apiculture in 1964 and his research interests were in pollination behavior of honey bees particularly in almond production. Later on, he shifted his focus to non-Apis bees with emphasis on bee systematics, bee conservation and pollination of vernal pool plants. Bumblebee conservation efforts have been in large part inspired by Thorp’s research and he is cited as the main catalyst for successful petition for listing rusty patch bumblebee as an endangered species. Even though he retired in 1994, Thorp continued to come to work at the Bee Facility every day and continued to work on several projects. I have to specifically recommend two books he co-authored in his retirement: Bumble Bees of North America: An Identification Guide and California Bees and Blooms, a Guide for Gardeners and Naturalists. I am forever grateful to him for his guidance and advice, and for not minding me asking him a million questions while he was patiently identifying drawers-full of pinned bees for dozens of student and postdoc projects.

Eric Mussen – Photo by Kathy Keatley Garvey

Similarly, I will forever harbor deep gratitude and appreciation for Eric C. Mussen (To read more about E. C. Mussen, visit: https://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=52399). He joined University of California Cooperative Extension in 1976 and quickly became a go-to person for the beekeeping industry in California. As he spent more time immersed within California beekeeping, many others such as government entities, non-profit organizations, commodity boards became reliant on him for scientific and practical information. In collaboration with other UC Davis bee researchers, he conducted applied studies immediately relevant for the contemporary beekeeping industry. Shortly before I came to the University, Mussen retired in 2014. I will always be grateful to him for introducing me to the California beekeeping community, for offering guidance, and persistent willingness to give advice while making sure I become fully integrated within the California beekeeping industry.

It was truly my great honor and privilege to learn directly from two great bee researchers and educators. There is absolutely no replacement for their innovation and ingenuity in tackling challenges plaguing bee health, and I only hope I can serve California stakeholders as well as they have. They are very missed!

The People: 2010s to Today
Currently, the Bee Program in the Department of Entomology and Nematology has three core faculty members charged with conducting research and formal and informal education on bee biology and health. Neal M. Williams joined the department in 2009 where he continues working on wild bee biology, native bee conservation and pollination biology. He is devoted to developing supplemental forage mixes to enhance nutrition of all bees in agricultural landscapes of California, as well as modeling potential risks and benefits to bees within California lands. Brian R. Johnson joined the department in 2012 with a strong background in bee behavior. At UC Davis, he continues to study the genetic basis of bee behavior, bee defenses, impact of number of stressors on bee health, spread of Apis mellifera scuttelata hybrids within California, and occasionally conducts projects involving other insects. Most recently, he has published a book Honey Bee Biology which is bound to become a staple reading for beekeepers and researchers alike, and his second book should be coming out soon, so keep an eye out for it. I joined the department as an extension apiculturist in 2014, and learned quickly that I still have much more to learn. California beekeeping is not for the faint of heart and I am really grateful for the super supportive California beekeepers whose backing has allowed me to develop my research and extension program to an advanced level. My team and I conduct research that is directly applicable to beekeepers, including varroa mite management, improved nutrition and enhanced crop pollination. Extension activities are done by all members of my team and they range from offering beekeeping courses and giving club presentations through the California Master Beekeeper Program, all the way to offering technical services such as bee testing and colony inspections through newly established UC Davis Bee Health Hub. Several other of our UC Davis colleagues conduct bee research and we often collaborate with Rachel Vannette and Santiago Ramirez, as well as the two new USDA Bee Researchers Arathi Seshadri and Julia Fine.

Thank you for letting me take you on this short, yet (you hopefully agree) impressive journey through the history of UC Davis Bee Program. Make sure you stay tuned for the next articles in this UC Davis series, and with the upcoming start of pollination season it seems only appropriate to continue with an article delving deeper into some of the bee health and crop pollination research being done in the E. L. Niño Bee Lab. “See you” next month!

Mrs. Root in her teens

Mrs. Susan Hall Root
By: Nina Bagley

Susan Hall was born in 1841 in Ely, Cambridgeshire, England. Her parents were Daniel and Mary Hall, both born in England. They had three children: Robert born in 1838, Susan born in 1841 and, after immigrating to America in 1848, Mary born in 1850. During 1815 and 1837, Ely was in general depression, an agricultural community with no work to be found. The townspeople had terrible living conditions and Ely laborers could no longer maintain themselves. The city of Ely’s population was growing more rapidly than it was in the surrounding countryside. Infectious diseases plagued the countryside, then another Cholera outbreak began in England in 1848. There was a heavy death rate, increasing mortality between 1841 and 1848. This might be one of the reasons why Susan’s father decided to embark on a journey to America with his family for better opportunities.

In 1848, Liverpool, England was the most significant immigration port in the world. Traveling from Ely, Cambridgeshire to Liverpool was 250 miles. Once arriving at the port, families waited in lines, sometimes for days just to get on a ship to sail to America. The journey could take forty to ninety days (about three months) with unfavorable winds and harsh weather.

When this occurred, passengers would often run short of food. Bread, biscuits and potatoes were provided by the shipping companies. The food was terrible and, at times, spoiled.

This was not a cruise ship. Passengers had about two square feet of space. It was dirty, with extraordinarily little ventilation, not to mention lice and rodents. It was a long, wearying journey for a young girl of eight, not knowing what the future would bring, leaving her homeland for an unfamiliar land.

Susan’s father decided to farm and raise his family in Medina County, Ohio. In the new homeland, the family prospers and became community members, attending church and farming their land. As a young girl, Susan had no idea that she would grow up to be a driving force in one man’s life or that that man would become a part of history in Medina, Ohio, the place her father would choose to bring his family to have a better life.

As a young girl, Susan had a schoolmate named Sara Root who was very fond of Susan. Sara felt that her friend Susan would make a good wife for her brother. Sara’s brother Amos Ives Root was away for the Winter in Westville, Ohio, on the river, staying with a relative while attending high school. Sara wrote to her brother saying she had found one of the sweetest girls in all the world as a wife for him.

It was a little embarrassing for Amos I. Root when the two first met, knowing that this schoolmate of his sister knew what she had written to him. It was true love at first sight for both.

A.I. Root wrote: “Her honest simplicity and childlike innocence impressed me from the very first; and, as a matter of course, we two proceeded to get acquainted; and I, for my part, I fear, carried out the program so well that the dear sister was a good many times forgotten and ‘left out in the cold’” (Gleanings in Bee Culture, 1923, pg. 58).

Amos would walk miles to Susan’s family’s farm in unbearable weather to spend a few hours in her company. He called on her once in the middle of the week and every Sunday night! Both Amos and Susan were attending school at the time. When visiting in those early days, staying late was much the fashion. Susan would politely tell Amos that her father went to considerable expense so she could attend a particular school for girls. She could not participate in her studies if he stayed so late, and how important it was for her to get a good night’s sleep. Amos was reluctant to go home at the proper time. Finally, Susan said one evening: “Sir, it is time for you to go home.”

Amos was offended and declared that if he went home, he would go and never return. Susan said, “All right. If you refuse to listen to the dictates of good common sense, it will probably be better for both of us that you should go away and never come back” (Gleanings in Bee Culture, Jan. 1923).

Susan was petite with a kind spirit who knew exactly who she was and what she desired. Having their first lover’s quarrel, Amos left with his head up high and a stern look to teach her that he, Amos I. Root, was not to be dictated to in that manner!

It was a dark night, and he was walking quickly. His temper was getting the best of him and flaring up, which it had done most of his life. Amos started reflecting on how he acted and started to slow down a bit. It was the voice of reason or remembrance of his good mother’s teachings. This is what his mother said: “Old Fellow, is it not possible you are taking offense at the wise words of the best friend you have on earth, and that, instead of being offended, you should recognize her as the one whose price is far above rubies?” (Gleanings in Bee Culture, Jan. 1923.)

Amos crossed the bridge, realizing his mistake. He felt a cold chill all over him, and he turned around, walking calmly back to Mr. Hall’s farm as he hurried up to the house he had just left. Above the front door was Susan’s window to her room. He picked up a pebble and gently tossed it up against her window. And the window went flying up just as he expected! He was always quite sure of himself, so this is what Amos I. Root said: “‘Sue, I humbly beg pardon. You were right, and I was wrong. Will you forgive me?’ Susan responded, ‘All right. Good night.’ And down went the window!” (Gleanings, Jan. 1923).

Amos thought she would come downstairs and give him a kiss of reconciliation; Susan planned nothing of the kind! It was a turning point in his life. Amos finally proposed that the two should be engaged. But Susan insisted that they both were too young to be getting married; Amos was 17 and Susan was 15. Kindly, she told Amos that he did not have the vitality for marriage. A.I. Root was sickly and frail as a child and as a man was not strong. She wanted to postpone marraige for a few years because she was not ready for marriage and wanted to complete her schooling.

A.I. Root would go off and find his way in the big wide world for the next couple of years, making a name for himself, giving lectures and expanding his mind to innovative ideas. He never let the idea go, knowing the two would marry one day. After his lecture tours were over. He returned to his father’s small farm in the woods where he lived as a young man.

Susan’s father feared that Amos could not make a living. Amos would prove him wrong. A.I. Root took a course in watch-repairing and, at twenty-one, started a watch-repairing shop under the pretentious name of A.I. Root & Co. He then proceeded to call on his true love, Miss Susan Hall. Susan’s father was humbled, and he approved them of their marriage.

Mr. and Mrs. Root after they were married.

Three noteworthy events took place in 1861. Abraham Lincoln’s inauguration on March 4, 1861. The Civil War started on April 9, 1861. And, A.I. Root and Susan Hall were married on September 29, 1861. Amos was twenty-one and Susan was nineteen years old.

As the sun rose that Autumn morning after Mr. and Mrs. Root married, they started with horses and carriage on a honeymoon trip. The two were by themselves. Amos put out his hand to Sue as he called her, and she looked smilingly up into his face while he spoke, “Sue, the agreement between us two that we have just entered into is the most sacred and solemn step in our lives. Let us fully consider the new relations that rest on the shoulders of both of us, and may God help us to bear with each other and to bear with patience the new responsibilities that are going to rest on us two. May we two, through thick and thin, for better or for worse, cling to each other.” It was a boyish speech, but it was honest.

Mrs. Susan Hall Root would become his support, “wise counselor” and confidante throughout their marriage, including her husband’s business affairs. Mrs. Root’s hard work and excellent management of the home helped A.I. Root to meet his obligations when they were starting out as a young couple. They would build a homestead and live in Medina, Ohio.

A.I. Root would become a very influential man in many ways, especially in the world of bees. By 1885, the Root name was recognized around the world. Modest and simple in taste, Mrs. Root always avoided publicity, preferring the background of a beautiful home life she had with her husband and children.

Mrs. Root would spend the next sixty years being there for her husband while being an attentive wife and mother, giving birth to five children in twenty years: Ernest R. Root, 1862; Maud E. Root, 1865; Constance M. Root, 1872; Carrie B. Root, 1878; and, having her youngest child at forty-one, Huber Hall Root, 1883. The two would cling together for better or worse, just as they promised one another.

In August 1865, a swarm of bees passed over the A.I. Root & Co. One of the employees of Mr. Root asked jokingly what would you give me if I caught the swarm? Mr. Root replied, a dollar securely boxed. The young man brought A.I. Root the bees, securely boxed, and collected his dollar; the rest is history.

The Root Factory.

A.I. Root founded his bee company in 1869 in his hometown of Medina, Ohio to manufacture beehives and beekeeping equipment. The company was shipping four railroad freight cars of beekeeping equipment everyday, things were going well! A.I. Root was working sixteen-hour days, which sometimes made it difficult to be around him. He started the magazine Gleanings in Bee Culture on January 1, 1873. The first edition of A.I. Root’s book ABC and XYZ of Bee Culture was published in 1879.

Mr. Root constantly worked and expected everyone around him to work just as hard! But that was impossible because Mr. Root was continually working and doing the work of five men until he would exhaust himself to the point that he made himself ill.

Mr. Root would say: “Had I gone on as an evil and angry spirit prompted me to do and not turn back to apologize to my dear wife, Sue, there would have been no A.I. Root Co. There would have been no five dear children brought up in the fear of the Lord, and there would, in all probability, have been no A.I. Root now dictating these words” (Gleanings in Bee Culture, Jan.1923).

Mrs. Root’s children, at some point, all worked for the family business. She was a devoted mother and the most meticulous housekeeper; dust and dirt were her enemies!

Mrs. Root’s daughter Candice Root Boyden authored an article in Gleanings about her mother. The title was “Mother”: “Sweet and modest as the violet of her nature England. Mother always kept herself in the background; only her husband and children, no matter how much credit they had accomplished, should go to her” (Gleanings in Bee Culture, Jan. 1, 1922).

Candice remembered how, as a small child, her mother spent most of her time in the kitchen preparing delicious, healthy foods for the family. Mrs. Root would spend many hours standing over a walnut table with drop leaves while she prepared the family meals. At the end of the table was a shallow drawer to put spoons, cutlery, and other kitchen items. But Mrs. Root would use the drawer for more important things. Neatly filled with toys, the drawer’s contents revealed her love and understanding of a child’s nature.

Mr. and Mrs. Root having a picnic.

The toys were not store-bought, as her daughter would say they were “Treasures, queer bits of metal and wood, an old steel puzzle made by Father, rubber balls, balls of string, little wooden boxes and a little shallow bowl carved from black walnut. But unselfishness, Mother’s dominant characteristic, is revealed in the fact that the drawer, within my recollection, never held anything to help Mother in her work and save her steps.” (Gleanings in Bee Culture, Jan. 1, 1922).

At the time, kitchens were compact, with all their cooking utensils and drawers close by to save the women steps in the kitchen. Mrs. Root was okay with the drawer, which was full of toys for the children. And she did not mind walking back and forth to the big pantry each time she needed something out of it. Mrs. Root often had very severe attacks of pleurisy throughout her life, weakening her heart. She was not a robust woman and sometimes did not have the energy to run around after the children, so the drawer kept their little hands busy and close to their mother.

Mrs. Root would fill a bowl with water and place it on the floor so the children could sail their boats. In the Winter, she would warm the water so their little hands would not get cold. She loved children and had a nurturing way with them.

Mrs. Root did not have the opportunity to attend college, but she took immense pleasure in her children and grandchildren attending college.

Mr. and Mrs. Root would not accompany their family to hotel dinners. They would not go to formal dinners or parties in their honor, but they loved simple picnics in the parks with family around them.

In 1901, A.I. Root built a cabin in the northern part of the Michigan woods and went there to live with his wife. In the forty years of married life, they would finally work side by side, enjoying each other’s companionship.

A.I. Root did not like wintry weather; the cold bothered him. So, a few years after they built their Michigan cabin, they would make another cabin in Florida, where they spent their Winters. Mrs. Root did not like calling it a cabin, so she called it their cottage.

The Roots in their 70s.

The fare from Cleveland, Ohio to Bradenton, Florida was $57.15 a tourist for a round-trip ticket for the Winter. The Roots loved going to their Florida cottage, but Mrs. Root was always overwhelmed with grief to leave all her children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren every Winter.

In the early 1900s, they would spend their Summers in Michigan and Winters in Florida.

The Root Men: J.T. Calvert, Huber, Allen and Ernest Root.

Their sons, Ernest and Huber, were involved in the business of the A.I. Root Company along with their daughter Maude’s husband J.T. Calvert who was the bookkeeper. Around 1900, Ernest took over as editor for Gleanings and kept the bee part of the company going while Huber, more of an inventor like his father, experimented with beeswax. Under Huber’s guidance, the Root company started making candles at the request of the Catholic Church. The local priest was looking for better quality beeswax for their candles and a wick that burned longer. A.I. Root’s sons were carrying the torch for their father so he never had to worry about money again and could devote his time to Mrs. Root, the Congregational Church, family, bees and gardening.

Huber started the candles for the Catholic Church.

Mrs. Root, being in her seventies, enjoyed being outdoors, working in her garden in Florida, and enjoyed spending time with her husband. She enjoyed picking vegetables from her garden and sharing them with her family and neighbors.

Her children felt their mother was the most perfect and unselfish of anyone they had ever known. Mrs. Root captured the hearts around her. She had enough love to go around and was happy when she could help those that were needy, lonely, widowed or fatherless.

Her tender heart cared for the neighbor’s chickens, cats and dogs and ensured they were all fed and cared for. And if Mrs. Root felt a horse was being mistreated, she would not stand for it. This most definitely caused her misery.

A.I. Root wrote: “May I be pardoned for saying that the dear little woman has most faithfully kept her part of the pledge year in and year out? Oh! What would I give if I could truthfully say, ‘I have done as well, or even approximately as well?’” (Gleanings in Bee Culture, 1917, pg. 297).

Mrs. Root suddenly passed away on the evening of Tuesday, November 29, 1921 in Bradenton, Florida, where she and her husband had maintained a cottage for several years. The Roots had just returned to Florida a few weeks before her death. She was feeling exceptionally well and was particularly happy to visit her good friend for many years, Mrs. Ed Nettleton of Medina, who also vacationed in Bradenton, Florida, for the Winter.

Although the family knew it was coming for some time, her life was swiftly ended; the family felt it was due to her arteries being weak from pleurisy attacks over the years.

Mr. and Mrs. Root with a grandchild.

Mrs. Root’s aged husband was too feeble and was advised not to make the long trip back home with the body of his long-time companion.

Mrs. Root’s funeral was held at the home of Ernest Root, her son, on Friday, December 2, 1921, at the old homestead. Mrs. Root was eighty years old. Mr. and Mrs. Root had their sixtieth wedding anniversary a few weeks before her death. She left behind her husband, five children, eleven grandchildren and four great-grandchildren. Mrs. Root was a Medina County, Ohio resident for over seventy years and a friend to all. Mrs. Root is buried in the Spring Grove Cemetery in Medina County, Ohio.

A few years later, Mr. Root caught pneumonia on his way home to Medina, Ohio from Bradenton, Florida. Being feeble, weak and bedridden for several days, the doctor was called, but Mr. Root, knowing it was time, looked at his son Ernest one last time, feeling at peace. He was ready to meet his maker and join his true love, Mrs. Susan Hall Root. A.I. Root took a deep breath and passed away on April 29, 1923, with his children by his side. A.I. Root is buried beside his wife in the Spring Grove Cemetery in Medina County, Ohio.

Ten to twenty percent of the people fleeing Europe in the 1800s did not survive. Not only did Mrs. Root survive, but she survived childbirth, raising five children, cooking and cleaning, washing and ironing in the mid-1800s, and tending to a husband who was constantly inventing and taking chances.

Mrs. Root’s children would have children, and their children would have children, and it has continued for five generations.

The A.I. Root Company is still in business today. The magazine is still being published but instead of Gleanings in Bee Culture it is called Bee Culture: The Magazine of American Beekeeping. Today, A.I. Root is the largest supplier of liturgical candles for Catholic churches. A hundred and fifty-four years later, Brad Root continues the family tradition like his father and grandfathers before him. He is the fifth generation of the Root family. So, the next time you light a Root Candle, think of Mrs. Susan Hall Root who was a friend to all.

I agree with A.I. Root that there would be no A.I. Root Co. if not for a tenacious young girl, Susan Hall Root!

“There is a great woman behind every great man.”

Nina Bagley
Ohio Queen Bee
Columbus, Ohio

Click Here if you listened. We’d love to know what you think. There is even a spot for feedback!

Read along below!

For the Love of Bees

Some of the ways backyard beekeepers benefit commercial operations and vice-versa
By: Ross Conrad

The beekeeping community is generally divided into two primary categories. There are commercial entrepreneurs and small-scale part-time backyard beekeeping enthusiasts. Commercial operators can be further broken down into full-time and part-time sideliners. It turns out that while all these groups all tend to have very different underlying motivations, they all share many similar types of knowledge and practices, and mutually support one another.

The Australian beekeepers studied rely heavily on meetings, events and conferences to keep up on the latest research. However, while knowledgeable speakers are valued, a lot of information exchanges take place between programs, out in the hallways where beekeepers share ideas and management practices.

The similarities among these different groups and how they interact with each other is the subject of a 2023 paper authored by Kirsten Martinus, associate professor of the School of Social Sciences at the University of Western Australia. The paper titled, ‘It’s a love interest’—Enthusiasts and regional industry cultures of practice, explores some of the similarities, differences and relationships between commercial and backyard beekeepers. While this study focused on a specific region of beekeepers in Western Australia, the information documented can be of benefit to beekeepers the world over due to the universality of the issues beekeepers face globally.

Dr. Martinus’ work suggests that commercial beekeepers and backyard honey bee enthusiasts both stand to benefit by cooperating and working together to share knowledge and information. As Dr. Martinus notes, “the findings point to the importance of informal non-firm actors in place-specific problem solving through a culture of exchange and mutual endeavor. This suggests that developing a regional industry culture of practice and entrepreneurship may support collaborations between hobbyists or enthusiasts and local business counterparts, which in turn will enhance regional competitiveness, identity and placemaking.” To put it simply, backyard beekeepers and commercial beekeepers can, and often do, support and benefit one another.

The Australian beekeepers studied shared a sense of local beekeeping tradition and long-time commitment, given that the majority use the Langstroth hive as opposed to alternative hive designs. For commercial operators, this was partly because other methods are not seen as commercially viable, due to the large capital investment in equipment required to change. It is also because some hive designs were not seen as authentic, as in the case of the Flow Hive.

Whether it’s a few hives in the backyard or thousands, beekeepers of all sizes love their bees.

Although much of the technology and management used in beekeeping is similar globally, this study acknowledges the importance of generalized regional variations depending on local weather, climate and whether colonies are located in urban, farmland or rural settings. ‘It’s a love interest’ notes that beekeeping “is an activity that requires both scientific and practical knowledge on bee behaviors, husbandry and hive care, as well as knowledge that is deeply embedded in ‘place’ such as weather, flowering times and places, and state and local laws around bee management and ownership.”

Commercial beekeepers are widely understood to be “regional assets” or “resources” that can help local beekeeping groups and shape new industry paths. Meanwhile backyard beekeepers have the luxury of being able to experiment and explore novel beekeeping techniques since their apicultural activities are decoupled from their livelihoods. The lines between commercial and backyard beekeepers often gets blurred however, such as when commercial operators retire and transition to part-time, when professionals mentor backyard beekeepers, and when commercial beekeepers receive fresh insights through informal exchanges with part-time enthusiasts.

A relatively low conversion rate from backyard to commercial beekeeper was observed. A backyard beekeeper’s commercial transition depends not only on “innovation but on willingness to upscale operations after acquiring skills and knowledge.” Some of the greatest barriers to commercializing a backyard operation are related to finances, liability and beekeeping competence. My own observation is that many commercial beekeepers get their start working for a commercial beekeeping operation. This allows them to get paid while they build the skill level they need to be successful on their own.

We beekeepers are free to practice an ever growing array of different types of beekeeping management with hives of various styles, different types of bees, and hard chemical, soft chemical or non-chemical treatment options just to name a few. We also adopt a wide variety of underlying motivations for engaging in beekeeping activities. Backyard beekeepers may enjoy the intellectual, educational and social aspects of beekeeping, while others may simply be looking to provide pollination for their gardens. Commercial beekeepers are primarily concerned with earning a living, managing colonies efficiently and reducing the physicality of their bee work. They were found to primarily work collaboratively on issues that address profitability and business viability.

The study found that the “novel and diverse local and technical know-how, personal experience, scientific and technical skills and occupational backgrounds, and social and work networks” that backyard beekeepers bring to their craft may offer commercial beekeepers an “external and complementary knowledge source”. The value of this contribution to the industry however, is not widely recognized. As one operator is quoted as saying, those in commercial beekeeping “think hobbyists don’t know anything, and hobbyists know they don’t want to do it on a big scale.”

The backyard beekeeping enthusiast plays an important role in improving community and social acceptance of beekeeping and helping to raise awareness of the importance of bee decline. They are more likely to get involved in honey bee related activities within their communities and this improves the industry’s profile overall by increasing social awareness of the industry and the plight of the bees. Their community engagement helps to strengthen society’s connection to beekeeping and the environment. This in turn can also help change local policies and laws that relate to beekeeping activities.

Dr. Martinus found that backyard beekeepers are generally less knowledgeable about bees and beekeeping than commercial operators, which may be why they are more willing to spend more time seeking and sharing knowledge. While backyard beekeepers tend to be quick to share know-how and experiences, commercial operators were found to generally be more protective of industry secrets and information.

Historically, a beekeepers commitment and profitability have been judged by asking questions like “How many hives do you run?” and “How long have you been keeping bees?” In the age of varroa and neonicotinoid pesticides, a new question is often used to quickly evaluate ones seriousness as a beekeeper: “What percentage of your colonies did you lose this Winter/year?”

Enthusiasts viewed the sharing of ideas and experiences as a way to enhance the beekeeping community. This process is facilitated through formal activities such as bee club and association meetings, classes and workshops and informally through mentorships. All this is in addition to more open access forms of accessing information through blogs, extension service and scientific websites, association or government newsletters and beekeeping journals and periodicals.

The primary focus of backyard beekeepers on basic beekeeping information makes sense given the steep learning curve necessary to get up to speed in bee culture. Less experienced beekeepers tend to be highly dependent on the knowledge of seasoned beekeepers and often adopt a “belief in the person”. The study notes that most enthusiasts felt “they received more information than they passed on, and that information was ‘unlocked’ through a gradual process of increased community status and credibility as they gained knowledge, experience and skill.” This process also impacts how a beekeeper is viewed within the wider beekeeping social network ‘because everyone knows everyone’.

All too often we beekeepers can be judgmental and seek to establish an ego driven pecking order and try to improve our status amongst our peers. A quick and dirty method many of the Australian beekeepers studied used to evaluate another’s commitment and profitability as a beekeeper is by assessing the number of years keeping bees (part-time) or the number of hives one manages (commercial). Of course, the use of such proxies to judge another’s seriousness as a beekeeper is fraught with error and can often be wildly mistaken, but they are commonly used nonetheless.

While keeping bees typically is an isolated activity, learning how to keep bees has a strong social component. This study documented the beekeeping community’s openness and willingness to share management techniques and has built into its ecosystem various opportunities for enthusiast-professional interactions at meetings, conferences and events, all of which serve to strengthen the overall beekeeping community. According to Dr. Martinus, “…hobbyists can be conceived as ‘apprentices’ engaged in legitimate peripheral participation where learning and mastery occurs through participation” in beekeeping. Furthermore, “…interactions between individuals produce a shared identity, related to both individual skill acquisition and an individuals’ existence within a certain context of and having competencies within the group.” Additionally, “…learning of practice then does not always occur in the same locality or in organized forms (e.g. work teams), but also informally through shared experience, passion or expertise and can occur across space and may include professionals, semi-professionals and hobbyists.”

The sharing of beekeeping information and techniques is facilitated by the fact that we are all working with the same insects and have a similar base of knowledge. There is a wide network of both formal and informal opportunities where individuals can connect with each other, allowing beekeepers to share and obtain meaning through the active process of learning by tackling similar problems and issues. Knowledge sharing between non-commercial and commercial groups allows for the exchange of perspectives which can be critical to figuring out what will work in one’s specific situation.

Dr. Martinus summarizes her work this way: “This research has found extensive direct and indirect interactions between hobbyists and operators, which have enhanced the value of hobbyist activities and have become channels for industry and community appropriation. As firm external knowledge sources, hobbyists did not fit current understandings of how user innovators might support industry. This finding perhaps reflects the low-tech character of beekeeping, which allows hobbyists to engage in non-profit markets alongside commercial ones. Hobbyists were both market competitors forcing operators into niche markets focused on tourist, mono-floral, high-value honey and collaborators involved in adapting global scientific or practical knowledge to the Western Australian context given the commercial focus on small process or technical/mechanical changes to improve productivity. Hobbyist activities were also of wider societal benefit, lifting community science levels, counteracting climate change, and changing industry’s operational context by changing policy and shifting societal images of bees and beekeeping.”

According to Dr. Martinus, the results of her study can be used to strengthen the beekeeping community in a couple ways: First is through “Better support for interactions between hobbyists and industry … for example funding or in-kind support to grow mentoring or internship schemes. These appear critical in the transfer of practice between the groups; it also provides a source of low cost labor for industry, and encourages responsible beekeeping amongst new hobbyist beekeepers as a means to address biosecurity threats.”

The second way her findings can strengthen the beekeeping industry is through “more appropriate policy in local governments – local laws on domestic keeping of animals particularly in urban areas, does often not adequately address beekeeping. This would recognize the importance of hobbyist beekeepers in the community (and bees in the environment). Related to this – the enactment of laws around urban beekeeping is often ad hoc, as local officials often do not understand bee behaviors and may be inclined to take an overly-cautious approach towards bees in urban areas in dispute resolution.”

Despite the huge diversity in practices and motivations among beekeepers, we all are dealing with many of the same issues from how to handle swarms, deal with foraging dearths, diseases, pests, queen issues, honey harvesting, timing of nectar flows, pesticide poisoning, etc. Ultimately, we are all in the same boat. By valuing and capitalizing on our differences rather than judging or denigrating them, we stand to create a stronger, more resilient beekeeping industry. A valuable lesson that is applicable not only to our industry, but many other areas of our lives as well.

Click Here if you listened. We’d love to know what you think. There is even a spot for feedback!

Read along below!

A Conversation with Kim Flottum, Part 2

Retired, Longtime Bee Culture Magazine Editor
By: James E. Tew

Last Month
Bee Culture readers, last month, Kim told us the story of his early years as editor of this magazine. Editor Jerry, the current manager of Bee Culture, stopped the first interview just after Kim introduced Charlie Gibbons, who was the White House beekeeper during the Obama administration years. This article, A Conversation with Kim Flottum (Part 2) picks up at that point…

Kim: When Michelle Obama said she wanted a garden out back, one of the people that worked there said, “If you’re going to have a garden, you got to have bees and I know a beekeeper who works here.”

They went and tapped on Charlie’s shoulder and said, “We need a beehive for the White House organic garden.” The elected people who lived in the White House had a dog and Charlie put the beehive where you would expect it – on the ground. Every time the dog came out, he would go sniff the entrance. I don’t know if the dog ever got stung, but people thought it was probably not a good idea, so they made an eight foot tower to put the beehive on top of by the organic garden. When Charlie went to work bees, he had to climb a stepladder, but that was okay.

I wasn’t the only person that got invited there to work with the bees. Quite a few of the commercial and business beekeepers in the U.S. also got to come and visit and look and talk. That worked well.

Then not long after I started, three, four, five years, I got an article from a guy in England, and it was, How We Stop Swarms in England. The article was very British, very, very British. I liked it. The information was basic, but the presentation and how he used words wasn’t basic at all. I published it and I got to know the author. The author’s name was Peter. You met Peter when you were there.

Jim: I did. Peter Smith.

Kim: Then I got invited to my first National Honey Show in London. I was the speaker. The way the room was set up, all the chairs in the back, empty space right in front of the stage, the stage up above, and the speaker was over here on the right, a screen, standard lecture hall. I was looking at it because I was going to be next. “Where’s the steps? How steep are they? Where’s my talk? Everything’s set up.” Peter was what? Nine feet tall?

Jim: Yes, he was a tall man.

Kim: This big, tall guy (Peter Smith) comes over there and, in British English, he says, “How do you do?” I looked up at him and he says, “You published an article of mine, thank you very much.” Kathy and I got to know Peter. When the meeting was over, he drove us around a little bit of the part of town we were in. Over the years we got invited to his place and to his meeting several times.

At that meeting, Peter introduced me to Jeremy Burbidge who runs Northern Bee Books. Now, I had an international publisher contact. He published books and he published a bee magazine. We put our heads together and it turns out we were a lot more alike than not – in terms of being a publisher and what people thought. We got along really well. I got to spread Bee Culture’s influence pretty much across England and that worked. He got to spread UK beekeeping across the U.S. and that worked well. I got to go over there a bunch of times.

He lives way north in England, but he has a Summer house as far south as you can get and still be in England and not have wet feet. That’s how far south he lives. He lived less than a couple miles from… who was that monk in England?

Interviewer: Brother Adam?

Kim: Yes, Brother Adam – at Buckfast Abbey. You could almost see it (Buckfast Abbey) from his place. He was a little bit west of there, but it was that close.

Anyway, coming back to the U.S., I still was doing a fair amount of traveling and speaking. Almost all of this is because nobody else wanted it. I’m just one of the available ones to do this, so I guess I had nothing else to do.

Jim: You were the president during some dark times in the Ohio State Beekeepers Association with Africanized bees and predaceous mite introductions.

Kim: Thank you. I was. Africanized bees and mite introductions were bad.

Jim: It was a difficult time to be an officer in a bee group.

Kim: I had a good experience with a reporter asking about Africanized bees. The first Africanized bees in the U.S. were still very new when I got a call from a reporter at the New York Times about Africanized Killer Bees in the U.S. I had talked to this reporter before which is why she called me because I’m the only beekeeper she knew. We talked and I tried to calm her down, and I think I did a little bit. The story that came out wasn’t outright panic, but it was, “Oh my God, are we going to die? Are we going to die?” sort of thing.

A while later, she had a story in the New York Times about Charlie Gibbons, the White House’s beekeeper. By the way, this is how I met Charlie. I said, “I got to get ahold of her (the New York Times reporter).” I called her up and she said, “I can’t tell you that it’s the president.” I said, “You owe me a story,” so, she gave me Charlie’s name. That was it, just his name. No address. No phone number. I went to my subscription person, and I said, “Do we, by any chance, have a subscriber living in the Washington, DC, Maryland area, named Charlie Gibbons?”
She looked and she said, “Yes, we do.” I said, “Do we have a phone number?” My subscription person replied, “Yes, we do.” I called him up. He’d taken the day off to go to the doctor. I called up and suddenly I’m talking to the president’s beekeeper. How cool is that? That’s how I met the White House’s beekeeper who I discussed earlier.

Jim: You did that because of the Bee Culture subscription contact?

Kim: Yes.

Jim: The subscription address and phone number?

Kim: Yes. That got me in a lot of doors over the years. That got me in doors for two reasons. People were scared of what I would say in the magazine. I’m glad they didn’t know that I was more scared than they were. I would never say anything, and that procedure worked fairly well.

Secondly, beekeeping events started to wind down, in terms of the industry settling down over Africanized honey bees and Varroa mites. The conflict over the honey board eased but then adulterated honey became a prominent national issue. To this day, that adulterated honey challenge hasn’t gone away at all. I’m glad I’m not in the middle of that honey war because that’s not going to go away.

I saw an ad just this week selling honey for a dollar per pound in a 50-gallon barrel. I need to say it wasn’t U.S. honey. It was foreign honey. That’s what U.S. honey producers are up against right now and that’s not going to get any better with inflation and all the things being what they’re going to be.

All things considered, I got out of this editor position at just about the right time in terms of domestic problems, and in terms of international problems. Personal problems? I never had any. A couple beekeepers, occasionally, would confront me with an issue, but by the time I wound down at Root, I had things where I wanted the magazine to be. I had the staff and I had the resources. I’ve made a lot of contacts over the years. Jim, I bet you I could go get a bee writer in twenty different countries today to write an article.

If there’s something going on in Bulgaria, I know the guy and I can say, I established those contacts, and that meant, when you want to know something, who do you know, then call Kim. That worked well and still works to a large degree.

Jim: You routinely had large meetings in Medina featuring well-known beekeeping authorities.

Kim: Well, yes, we usually had a good crowd. We did an Ohio state meeting there and we had monthly meetings and we had two beeyards, and we had a lot going on in the Medina yard because John Root (the President of the Root Company then) supported it. John Root was the last beekeeping administrator at the Root Company. Everything that I did bees, he was behind 100%. He would say, “Do you need a little more?”

Yes. We had a lot of club members. They were from not just Medina, they were from Northeast Ohio, the whole corner of Ohio. One of them was a guy named Jeff Ott, who lived up in the Cleveland area or someplace. He got to know me. We talked and then a little bit later he asked, do you need any articles on anything here or maybe someplace else? Pretty soon he was writing routinely for me. He had a day job and a situation where he could take a week off and go to Mexico and see what was going on with the bees there. He went to Colorado. He went to Mexico. He did a lot of traveling that I couldn’t or didn’t want to do.

Then he got a job in Colorado. When he moved there, he still wrote for me but that tapered off because his job got busy. A couple years later, about three or four years ago, he came back to visit his family who still lives here. He came into my office, and he said, “This is what I’m doing. How would you like to do a podcast?” I just looked at him and I said, “Well, what’s a podcast?” Because I had no idea. He took the time and the energy and the resources and taught me the basics of producing a podcast. The podcasts are named Beekeeping Today podcast and Honey Bee Obscura.

We figured it out between the two of us. He knew mostly all the things you can’t see it, the microphones and the headsets and the wires. He knew all the electronic stuff, and what was being recorded, how to get it recorded and transcribed and on the web. He knew all of that. It helped that he is an excellent beekeeper. I knew the beekeepers. I wasn’t sure what a microphone was when I started this project. He got me familiar with that. Now, I’m capable electronically. That’s about it. Capable.

Jim: Yes. I agree with you on that.

Kim: Between the two of us put together, he knew how, and I knew who. This project has been a success. I saw this building and growing. The magazine was doing fine. It was time for me to retire from the Root Company.

At the time, I was over 70 and I needed to sit down. I spent a year looking for someone to replace me. I found three people with whom I was comfortable. They were sharp, intelligent, articulate and nonconfrontational. None of them would have caused a problem. Jerry Hayes was selected. I didn’t even get the offer out of my mouth before he said, “Yes, I want it. When can I start?” He’s the Bee Culture editor now.

He just stepped right in. He came in and spent a year with me at the company. I was able to show him about a third of what I know. Looking back, I missed so much stuff when telling him how to get this job done. He’s had to learn the hard way, but now he’s in charge. Once in a while, I’ll offer an article or a piece of advice or something, but now he’s in charge.

Figure 3. An acknowledgment of Kim’s bee industry successes.

Kim: So, I’m still involved in the podcast, but I no longer travel to meetings. I haven’t been on an airplane in three years, and that’s just fine with me. In fact, I won’t even drive to a meeting. I’ll do Zoom if people want. I’ve got probably 200 talks on the computer behind me, and I pick a subject. I’m good to go in most cases.

Now I’m here at home and I’m going through this lung thing that’s causing me a bunch of problems. The medical theory is that it’s going to go away. They’re going to fix it, and I’m going to be back to normal. I’m not a betting man, but here I am – betting.

Jim: [laughs] I’m sure you are.

Kim: No other choice.

Jim: How old a man are you, Kim?

Kim: 76. Time flies.

Jim: Well, that’s not old.

Kim: Okay? Why doesn’t it feel that way?

Jim: Kim, you’ve given a good overview, but you can’t just list everything that happened. How many years did you work for the Root Company?

Kim: I started in 1986 and I quit in 2020. That would be 34 years.

Jim: You did videos, you taught short courses, you developed a pollinator garden. In fact, you had a dynamic pollinator garden layout. You even developed a second magazine.

Figure 2. Jim Tew and Kim Flottum capturing footage for a video session of the Kim & Jim beekeeping video series.

Kim: Yes. You and I, all things considered, have been so far ahead of the electronic distribution of material in this industry than anybody I can think of. We did the Kim and Jim Show, and we did instructional videos. The one thing you’ve done that I haven’t done is initiate a YouTube channel. That’s the only thing I haven’t done. We’ve done everything else. We’ve written stories and we’ve written books. Kathy, my coworker, and wife, went to a bunch of national meetings doing the – what do you call it?

Jim: “Facebook Live.”

Kim: Facebook Live. Right. We went to meetings and talked to all the vendors and two years later, the vendors still came up, when they’d see me and say, “When you did that Facebook video at the Federation meeting, people still talk about that, so you made a splash.” It was because I had good people around me that knew more than I do and good people around me who wanted to help. We accomplished a lot in this industry that I say carefully, maybe now some of the people are beginning to catch up with.

Jim: Yes. You don’t stay ahead if you don’t keep racing. Even so, after a while, the race has to end.

Kim: What else did we do?

Jim: Well Kim, you and I had a car wreck on the way to a bee meeting.

Kim: Yes. We did. Almost a really bad one.

Figure 5. Jim Tew and Kim Flottum at one of many, many bee meetings.

Jim: Yes. We were going to an Ohio Farm Bureau Commodity meeting, as I recall and, at 65 mph, we got broadsided, you and me. Kim, we missed that meeting. (It was not our fault. Chuckles.)

Kim: We’ve had a lot of calamities together, but I clearly remember that one.

Jim: There’s just so many things. You’ve mentioned Kathy several times. She’s been an excellent coworker and a supportive wife for a long time for you. She should certainly be acknowledged in your successes. She was an integral part of the evolution of Bee Culture, too. You mentioned earlier that you started a second magazine, Beekeeping, Your First Three Years.

Kim: Yes, Kathy was fundamental to the magazine and to my career. That second magazine lasted, I want to say, five or six years. It hit during an economic downturn period that I had nothing to do with nor the industry had anything to do with. Unfortunately, it had to be dropped. If you have a copy hidden somewhere, keep it because there aren’t any more.

Jim: It was a useful magazine that was enjoyable to read. Kim, you published a lot of books for the Root Company, and you published books that you authored.

Kim: Yes, I have. If you had told me in 1965, I was going to publish a book – any book, it’d take me 20 minutes to get up off the floor from laughing. I began to see the value of having not a permanent voice, but a voice that had almost all the facts in a book. Not everything, because tomorrow something’s going to change, and next week something else’s going to change. Most of what’s in my book was true ten years ago and twenty years ago, and it’ll be true 20 years from now and that’s what I wanted to produce.

One of the times I was with Dr. Morse, (Dr. Roger Morse, Beekeeping Professor, Cornell University) he had a big office with a big desk. He sat on one side of the desk and there was a bookshelf behind him that went almost to the ceiling. We were sitting chatting and he turned around and said, “You need a new one, ABC.” The current edition, at the time, was like 11 years old. It hadn’t been revised in a while.

John Root and his predecessors, his father and his father’s brother had a schedule where they edited about a third of ABC every three years. They picked the oldest stuff and replaced it and left the rest of it alone. Well, I hadn’t been there three years yet, so Roger said, “Let’s do this.” Do what I asked? “Let’s rewrite this book.” He did 75% of it all new. I did maybe 20%. Then he pulled in a lot of people, and I pulled in some people. Roger did a lot, and we came out with a new ABC, that was a hit and a half, but the cover looked just like the old ones.

A few years later, Shim (Dr. H. Shimanuki, USDA ARS bee scientist) came to me and he said, “Are you ever going to do this book again?” I said, “No, you are.” He said, “I’ll be back in a month with a draft.” He was pretty much on time getting it back to me. I looked at the cover and I said, we are never, ever going to put this traditional cover on ABC again. I had a picture of a beekeeper, standing out by a beehive. This new version was to have that color picture, a shiny cover. That’s the only one ever and probably the only one that will ever have a color cover.

Jim: [laughs]

Kim: Dr. Keith Delaplane (bee scientist, the University of Georgia) oversaw the editing of the current ABC, and he got ABC where I wanted it to be. He is a good scientist and a good beekeeper. He has good people working for him. He edited the ABC I wanted. I didn’t want a science textbook and I didn’t want a how-to-stop swarming book. I added a bunch of stuff from people that nobody knows or knew then. I think the last edition of ABC was pretty good.

Jim: Right, that last book was a good publication. It looked good.

Figure 4. The cover of Kim’s popular beekeeping text, The Backyard Beekeeper 4th Edition

Kim: Then among the other books I wrote, was Backyard Beekeeper, modeled after several, but not a lot, like several books already out there. Early this past Summer, I finished the fifth edition of Backyard Beekeeper, that’ll be out in February 2024. Then, there was another one, The Honey Handbook, and that just focused on how to get as much honey out of a bee as you can. The last one I did was, Common Sense Natural Beekeeping, which was taking everything that’s good for the bee and getting rid of everything that wasn’t good for the bee. It turned out to be mostly natural, but not quite common-sense beekeeping.

Jim: I don’t know. There must be one, but I don’t know who else has had five-issue updates of the same beekeeping book. You know, a book that wasn’t like ABC or the Hive and the Honey Bee. That’s impressive, Kim.

Kim: Yes. Now, the Beekeeping Today and Honey Bee Obscura podcast projects have been entertaining for me. We presently have generous sponsors for the productions and Jeff does a great job editing the audio and posting the segments on the web. I’m enjoying working on them.

Jim: Kim, this review has truly been an educational process for me. There’s no practical way to compress all your decades into a couple of simple magazine articles, but we surely tried. I have enjoyed listening to your experiences. Thanks for your time and memories.

Dr. James E. Tew
Emeritus Faculty, Entomology
The Ohio State University
tewbee2@gmail.com

Co-Host, Honey Bee
Obscura Podcast
www.honeybeeobscura.com

Click Here if you listened. We’d love to know what you think. There is even a spot for feedback!

Read along below!

Found in Translation

An Interview with Dr. Hongmei Li-Byarlay
Associate Professor and Project Director for Pollinator Health, Central State University, Ohio
By: Jay Evans, USDA Beltsville Bee Lab

Where are you from originally?
*I was born in Tianjin, China, and came to the U.S. to study for my Ph.D. in 2002.

How did you get interested in science?
*When I was a sixth-grader, I talked to my uncle and told him that I want to be a scientist! Maybe because I had read so many books on the weird creatures in the deep ocean and stories of UFOs.

Where did you go to school and what did you study?
*I went to Tianjin Normal University for my Bachelor’s degree in Biology and Education (dual degree). My senior project was on the effects of metal contamination on bacteria in garlic roots. Then, I went to Nan Kai University for my Master’s degree in Zoology. I studied micro-moths in Northern China and discovered four new species.
In 2002, I went to Purdue University in Indiana for my Ph.D. in Entomology and studied genetics and physiology of fruit flies with Dr. Barry Pittendrigh and Larry Murdock. In 2010, I started my postdoc training with Dr. Gene Robinson at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, studying behavioral genetics of honey bees. In 2013, I studied epigenetics and aging of honey bees with Drs. David Tarpy at NCSU and Olav Rueppell at UNC-Greensboro.

How did you start your career after school?
*In 2017, I got an offer from Central State University as a new Assistant Professor of Entomology. CSU had just gained their new status as a 1890 Land Grant Institution with USDA. I was very excited to start my own lab.

Which hot topics are you studying now?
*I am studying 1) the molecular and physiological mechanisms underlying the social behavior and ageing of honey bees, such as grooming behavior, aggression and foraging behavior, 2) active breeding efforts for selection of mite-resistant bees by selecting mite-biting stocks and 3) landscape ecology of pollinators and flowers.

Where have you traveled in your studies of bees and what was most memorable?
*I have traveled to China, Germany, Canada, Puerto Rico and many different states in the U.S. The most striking memories were observing and doing experiments with Apis cerana in China, and my trip to Puerto Rico to see and feel the gentle AHBs in reality. I really enjoyed interacting with all the hives there.

What are the biggest challenges facing beekeepers moving forward?
*The desire to find new solutions for mite management is so high, and there are many new ideas. I just hope we all think of new solutions by integrating the sustainability of our hives and our environment.

What gives you hope? What are the best recent discoveries in bee science?
*The government, bee scientists, beekeepers and non-profit organizations are all working together to find the best ways to help our bees, which showed the most love and funding support from the community.
Three of the most interesting discoveries from our lab are:
1)A new publication on Single-cell dissection of aggression in honey bee colonies. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-023-02090-0. We are all so excited to use a new sequencing technology to help us to understand bees in a deeper way.
2)Our lab’s new pub about RNA methylation and discovery of long non-coding RNAs underlying bee aggression https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-023-09411-4
3)We showed that the mandibles (mouthparts) are different between high mite-biting honey bee workers and current commercial colonies. I am also working on a new manuscript to show the striking comparison of mouthparts between two different species of Apis, in hopes this sheds light on mite defenses. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2021.638308

Any advice for future scientists?
*Stay curious and ask questions!

What are your hobbies and other interests beyond bees and science?
*I like running, reading with my kids, hiking and camping in national parks, and meditation.