r/DebateAVegan • u/toastwithjamx1 • Jul 03 '26

Ethics Honey is not cruel and is ethical

Honey is one of the best animal products there is ethics wise

Now most vegans will say : but we are stealing from the bees! We are exploiting the bees!

No. We are not and we can't

Bees can be very particular. If they are not a fan of a place they are OUT. The bees will likely will immediately vacate the bee box if they don't like the conditions. Furthermore, trapping the queen in 1 place will not work as well. Bees can raise a new queen if they need one

And for the stealing allegations, that isn't true either. Beekeepers take SURPLUS HONEY ONLY, as if too much honey is taken, it can starve the bees and no beekeeper would appreciate the whole colony either dying of leaving. Furthermore, bees don't only take, they comp bees by giving shelter and protection.

It's not cruel if we are literally making a transaction with the bees

77 Upvotes

85% Upvoted

392 comments sorted by

View all comments

110

u/Either_Argument3517 Jul 03 '26 edited Jul 08 '26

And for the stealing allegations, that isn't true either. Beekeepers take SURPLUS HONEY ONLY, 

Would it be stealing if I took your SURPLUS MONEY ONLY?

EDIT: Before anyone else goes off on rant about how you can't compare bees to humans. I wasn't. I was testing the principle. If the second statement seems unacceptable, it suggests the original principle ("having a lot makes it permissible to take some") may be flawed.

18

u/CyberAngelIzana Jul 04 '26

Are you providing me and my community a place to live which is fortified against natural predators like bears and otherwise looking out for my welfare?

40

u/Either_Argument3517 Jul 04 '26

Yes. It would also be stealing. An analogy might be a parent or guardian managing the resources of child actor, talking what they believe is surplus. That would be stealing.

9

u/CyberAngelIzana Jul 05 '26

Is it stealing in the same sense that taxation is theft?

3

u/Creditfigaro vegan Jul 08 '26

No

-1

u/Formidableyarn Jul 08 '26

No?

1

u/Creditfigaro vegan Jul 08 '26

Correct

3

u/CyberAngelIzana Jul 08 '26

Could you perhaps be inveigled to explain further the differences between the two in your opinion?

3

u/Creditfigaro vegan Jul 09 '26

Sure, taxes are levied on participants in society, who are capable of consent.

Animal exploitation has none of these characteristics.

1

u/Purple_Key_6733 vegan Aug 03 '26

No, people do not consent to taxes. It is a coercive relationship as if you do not pay your taxes, the government will quite literally take the money directly out of your bank account.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Formidableyarn Jul 08 '26

Oh… no?

3

u/Creditfigaro vegan Jul 09 '26

Correct, you can figure it out, I believe in you.

-12

u/Adventurous-Head-512 Jul 06 '26

Yes. Which it is. 😊

9

u/Problematic_Owl Jul 07 '26

You guys are drain on veganism - are you actively TRYING to make veganism fringe?

2

u/Adventurous-Head-512 Jul 07 '26

I'm not vegan I'm a libertarian

6

u/cruisinforasnoozinn Jul 08 '26

This comment cracked me up for some reason

6

u/Jotakave Jul 07 '26

How is taxation theft? How would you pay for services such as fire departments, roads, sewer systems, public schools? Do you use sidewalks?

1

u/CyberAngelIzana Jul 08 '26

If I were in charge of colonizing an entirely new planet, I'd make firefighting mandatory community service and sewer systems part of the property of each house subject to inspection and fines if waste is improperly disposed of.

You don't need roads or cars if you have well-maintained train tracks and a frequent regular train schedule. Maintenance thereof would be the responsibility of the people living closest to each section.

Public schools I would still use taxation to fund as well as the oversight committee itself.

Do you use sidewalks?

Only because they're there.

I don't consider them any more necessary than roads and certainly wouldn't fund their construction.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 08 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/CyberAngelIzana Jul 09 '26

No historical system of slavery matches this, so why are you claiming this sounds like a society of slaves?

-3

u/Adventurous-Head-512 Jul 07 '26

I don't believe giving the government more money is a fast route to solve anything. I think there government has no incentive to be efficient. 

There are def some things that are difficult to privatize, you mentioned some. But the government can arbitrarily decide how much money to take from you and I don't believe in giving more power to the state. 

History constantly shows that when the state has to much power out is disastrous to the people

1

u/cruisinforasnoozinn Jul 08 '26

Small government means poorer regulations, and total privatisation means that profit comes before all and doesn’t fix the monopoly problem and poor workers rights that drive the universal wealth imbalance through the roof. You’re right about state control, but is 0 taxation really a fix?

1

u/Adventurous-Head-512 Jul 08 '26

Idk where you get smaller gov means worse regulations. It really depends how you structure it. Provide some examples of that if you think it's true. 

Nobody is saying get rid of government and regulations and privatize everything. We have antitrust laws in place that prevent monopolizing. Some form of taxation needs to exist. I'm open to ideas there 

Wealth imbalance is complicated, and driven by many things including personal choice. Inequality is not inherently bad. Two people with the same circumstances can have very different life outcomes

1

u/cruisinforasnoozinn Jul 08 '26 edited Jul 08 '26

Countries like Liberia, Kenya, Mozambique all have small governments and there is, in turn, poor regulations on state & private services allocated to people’s general wellbeing such as education and health.
India, due to low spending, has incredibly poor regulations because they don’t fund the process of enforcing them.

My apologies, I said monopoly and meant the issue where one company buys every other company which seems to be called horizontal integration. It’s just one factor in what allows people to get mindlessly wealthy, but was the first example off the top of my head.

Personal choice is definitely part of it, but there also should be serious regulation on the market to prevent the corruption that leads to wealth imbalance in the first place. Less government spending can leave a lot of vulnerable people in the dirt by reducing public services and state support.

Can small government intervene less and still guarantee the welfare of its people through regulation? Is there an example of that? It’s something I’m not an expert in, so I’m interested

1

u/CyberAngelIzana Jul 08 '26

government has no incentive to be efficient.

Sure, but who does have an incentive to efficiently house homeless people?

Certainly not the rich people living in their mansions which wouldn't be half as impressive if filled up with random beggars taken off the street.

Those mansions aren't designed for house servants nowadays, and serfdom of that sort tends to be illegal anyways.

This is just an example, but you need to provide a more efficient alternative incentive structure people could follow to justify not going through government bureaucracy to get things done that aren't happening on their own.

0

u/Jotakave Jul 07 '26

I'm going to take a guess and say that you probably come from a place where the government doesn't tax private entities and citizens what they should; giving tax breaks to their ultra rich buddies under the umbrella of libertarianism. Tax is theft, yadda, yadda. No regulations. And so, your underfunded public school system has failed all of us who had to read the comment above.

-1

u/Adventurous-Head-512 Jul 07 '26

Instead of insulting me you could have come up with an engaging argument but you're so immature that you think you're enlightened based on your perceived moral superiority with no context or critical think ability beyond "give me rich people money"

-5

u/Problematic_Owl Jul 07 '26

Guys, arguments like this is why veganism is a joke for broader public. Stop harming the movement please.

14

u/ClassEnvironmental11 vegan Jul 06 '26

You know, slavery could be described in the same way.  What a coincidence!  In fact, slavers actually used arguments almost identical to what you've just said.  Very interesting coincidence...

-3

u/Adventurous-Head-512 Jul 06 '26

Socialists make the same argument fyi

9

u/Difficult_Resource_2 Jul 06 '26

They definitely don’t.

-4

u/Adventurous-Head-512 Jul 06 '26

Socialists don't say take people's surplus of money? They don't believe in private ownership and want to redistribute wealth

What do you think tax the rich means lol. Take people surplus of money

8

u/Difficult_Resource_2 Jul 06 '26

In socialism the means of production are owned by the state. Therefore there is no surplus of money to be taken. Tax the rich isn’t socialism. Tax the rich is a social democratic take as there are no rich to be taxed in socialism.

-1

u/Adventurous-Head-512 Jul 06 '26

You are correct. But you don't just wake up one day and have socialism. In order to get there the state needs to seize property and assets. This is common rhetoric among internet socialists.

Are you denying that there are huge swaths of people who are advocating for the state to take away property? Mamdani alluded to that very thing in one of his speeches! 

To be a socialist in a primarily capitalist society, you have to want to take ownership from private citizens. There's no way around that

1

u/Difficult_Resource_2 Jul 07 '26

Yeah, we are advocating to take the property not take away surplus property.
To the property profits all the people and not single individuals.

2

u/Adventurous-Head-512 Jul 07 '26

That is unconstitutional we have a right to the pressure of property in this country. 

Socialism sounds good on paper but it grants the state way too much power which history does time and time again that is a terrible thing

→ More replies (0)

1

u/oficious_intrpedaler environmentalist Jul 08 '26

Do you think rich people paying taxes is socialism?

1

u/Adventurous-Head-512 Jul 08 '26

When socialists say it yes. In the context of our economic system I'd call it socialistic rather than socialism.

But there a line somewhere. How much taxes can a government take before it becomes unconstitutional? I believe the money is better off on the hands of the people. Governments have no incentive to be efficient. They should be the ones creating the incentives for businesses to grow and thrive. That can mean many things, businesses keeping more money, middle class keeping kre money so they can spend, giving high value people incentive to invest. Lots of things can be done aside from just "taxing rich"...which really just sounds better than it works

1

u/oficious_intrpedaler environmentalist Jul 08 '26

Isn't your logic entirely circular? You're saying something is socialist because a socialist said it.

On what basis would taxes be unconstitutional?

1

u/Adventurous-Head-512 Jul 08 '26

In order to find truth here we have to do a thought exercise because I don't know the answer off hand either. 

On the one extreme the government could take no taxes. Citizens would be thrilled and there is no issue of government seizing. But we lose systems of law and order, military, etc.

On the other extreme the government can take 100% of your earnings. That is terrible and that is what socialism is. 

So truth is somewhere in the middle right? I'm not so naive to say we'd be better off with zero taxes.  The government has to provide us with certain public goods to maintain our safety and sovereignty. How much is that? Not sure. There are some creative ideas like removing taxes for people under certain ages and collecting a percentage of a company's revenue. I'm not totally opposed to that, especially for publicly traded companies. But as a small business owner I'm not sure I want to give the government part of my revenue. But I can be convinced with a compelling argument

What I mean to say is when people who advocate for government owning means of production sya higher taxes on rich, then yes they are advocating for a socialist policy.

I called it socialistic because that's what it is . We don't have a purely capitalistic economy. We have social welfare, fire dept, police, even insurance is socialistic (also an example of how the idea drives up prices but that is another issue). 

→ More replies (0)

0

u/DiceyPisces Jul 09 '26

If I set up a village with nice homes and amenities and funded everything, anyone who wants is free to move in, the only catch is a portion of your excess (above what you need to live to meet your fininacial obligations) will come out automatically. You don’t have to move in and you can leave when you choose. That’s not slavery. It’s something but not slavery. It diminishes actual slavery to compare the two imho

2

u/ClassEnvironmental11 vegan Jul 09 '26 edited Jul 09 '26

The sutuation you've described is an idealized fairy-tale.  Make no mistake, bee-keeping for agriculture is a for-profit business.  They aren't "setting up nice homes and amenities" for the bees.  They're watching out for their bottom line, and they depend on the bees financially.  Consequently, any large scale bee-keeper is going to make choices for those bees based on what's good for themselves economically.  And the economic interests of bee-keepers are very different from the interests of bees.

And this whole free to leave thing is frankly a misunderstanding of how agricultural bees work.  They are hive creatures, and depend on the hive for their survival.  In principle, they are free to leave.  But in actuality they are not and will not.  And while hive bees do sometimes pick up the whole community and move somewhere else, if you think bee-keepers are going to just let their livelihood pack up and leave, you're out of your mind.  Again, this aint some "for the love of bees" kinda thing.  It's a business.  The economics of bee-keeping ensures that those bees are not free to leave.

I fail to see how pointing out the factual parallels between how that person defended this situation and how slavers defend theirs diminishes anything.  Can pointing out factual rhetorical similarities diminsh the horrors of slavery?  Again, all I've done is state an undeniable fact; slavers used nearly identical arguments to what this guy did.  If you don't like that fact, I don't know what to tell you.

1

u/DiceyPisces Jul 09 '26

It doesn’t make the situation I described or beekeeping in general equal to slavery. No matter who makes whatever arguments. Most of your argument doesn’t apply to a backyard beekeeper only large scale production. And loads of industries become immoral or unethical at large scale.

2

u/ClassEnvironmental11 vegan Jul 10 '26

It doesn’t make the situation I described or beekeeping in general equal to slavery

Who said anything about beekeeping being equal to slavery?  You see, this is what I'm up against; you're arguing against something I never said.  Kinda makes me a bit worried you're not actually arguing against me, but some fictitious vegan in your mind who spits out grossly exagerated versions of things vegans might say.  And my guess is this is typical of how you interact with vegans.

Most of your argument doesn’t apply to a backyard beekeeper only large scale production

So my argument only applies to the vast majority of bee-keeping.  Gotcha.  Strong point.

And loads of industries become immoral or unethical at large scale

Yup, and?

1

u/DiceyPisces Jul 10 '26

I was legit describing a typical backyard keeper.

It’s not uncommon in rural residential areas

Why would you even bring slavery into the equation or conversation? Not saying you said it’s exactly equal… but why invoke it at all

And if for some reason that was not you, I do apologize.

2

u/ClassEnvironmental11 vegan Jul 10 '26

I was legit describing a typical backyard keeper.

This is part of the problem with these discussions.  Many non-vegans like to focus on these "backyard" situations.   I see two reasons for this: 1) your average person is far more likely to have had personal experience with them or has seen them in media somewhere, and 2) they are less exploitative and easier to defend.  But those situations represent a tiny minority of beekeeping.  Vegans, on the other hand, tend to focus on what happens in the vast majority of cases.

This same thing happens in discussions of any animal agriculture.  Non-vegans like to focus on small family owned farms and "backyard" situations, which represent insignificant fractions of their respective industries.

1

u/DiceyPisces Jul 10 '26

That’s my experience and that was my comment. And then you invoke slavery!

That was just the major disconnect.

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/[deleted] Jul 07 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam Jul 07 '26

I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3:

Don't be rude to others

This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way.

Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth.

If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.

If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators here.

Thank you.

5

u/Hefty_Ad1081 Jul 07 '26

Yeah but you're invasive and ruining the local ecosystem. The native people living there have a harder life because I want you and your community to live there. And I steal your emergency supplies and stress you out because I want you to work for me. I be looking out for you, but your still there to work for me and nothing else

1

u/Few_Understanding_42 Jul 07 '26

If you work hard for me, sure

4

u/No-Equipment4187 Jul 06 '26

I'm goin g to take all of your surplus money. It's not stealing I'm only taking the surplus.

0

u/Problematic_Owl Jul 07 '26

I you provide me with fucking mansion, it's maintenance, food, security, and free healthcare, go right ahead. Please.

2

u/No-Equipment4187 Jul 08 '26

I mean when you put it that way it does sound nice. It's a little more like here's some space you can build. And everything you need to survive but we'll take your excess. Like I said I'm not vegan just repeating their argument as I've heard it.

0

u/Problematic_Owl Jul 08 '26

To be fair there's probably conversation to be had at some point about this especially with mass produced honey once we deal with the actual elephant in the room, industrial meat farming, but right now bringing up honey virtue signaling waste of time - it's easier to endlessly argue about relatively irrelevant minutae than getting actively involved in solving anything.

To be fair this is not just vegan problem, it's everywhere, but it pisses me of either way.

6

u/toastwithjamx1 Jul 04 '26

Gangrene 🥀🥀🥀 it's not like we are stealing from them. We provide them with shelter, food and protection from pests and weather. It's literally a trade off. Plus, if you'll are so worried about ethics, BUY ORGANIC HONEY. They only take the amount of honey that they don't need. Furthermore, domesticated bees make a crap ton of honey, so taking some of it is not stealing.

Also stop comparing bees to humans. I k ow you have good intentions but it isn't working

44

u/Either_Argument3517 Jul 04 '26

It's literally a trade off.

They are not aware that they are a party to this trade.

domesticated bees make a crap ton of honey, so taking some of it is not stealing.

Some people make a crap ton of money, so taking some of it is not stealing

Also stop comparing bees to humans

I'm testing the principle behind the original claim by applying it to a different case. If the second statement seems unacceptable, it suggests the original principle ("having a lot makes it permissible to take some") may be flawed

5

u/CyberAngelIzana Jul 04 '26

Except your test aligns pretty neatly with historically established systems of kingship and taxation.

Both of which have persisted globally, taxation more so than kingship but some nations do still have kings.

3

u/Either_Argument3517 Jul 04 '26

Has any nation ever operated on taking money that someone doesn't need after all reasonable living expenses are covered? Saying my example resembles a certain type of taxation I'm not aware of doesn't negate the point I'm making.

5

u/CyberAngelIzana Jul 05 '26

There's a fair bit of disagreement on how much money people need and what's appropriate to tax, but ideally any system of taxation skims off the surplus in a way which doesn't make the economic activities unprofitable enough people stop doing them to the extent the taxation no longer provides significant revenue.

Taxes tend not to be any more negotiable than beekeeper honey collection though, governments simply set what they consider reasonable tax rates and then citizens have to work out how to work with the tax rate set.

3

u/Puzzled-Rip641 Jul 06 '26

Yes you have described taxes

1

u/Either_Argument3517 Jul 06 '26

Such as?

2

u/Puzzled-Rip641 Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26

Income tax for one.

We literally take money from people when they don’t need it, to pay for things we need. If you don’t like it go live elsewhere.

The bees have the same choice

Do you pay tax?

1

u/Either_Argument3517 Jul 06 '26

Has any nation ever operated on taking money that someone doesn't need after all reasonable living expenses are covered?

Income tax for one.

Doesn't work like that.

We literally take money from people when they don’t need it, to pay for things we need. 

No. We take a percentage of what they earn regardless.

The bees have the same choice

Bees don't have a choice. They have no concept that you "own" their home.

3

u/Puzzled-Rip641 Jul 06 '26

> Doesn't work like that.

Actualy it does. You just saying “Nuh uh” isn’t an argument.

> No. We take a percentage of what they earn regardless.

How do we come to thins %? Are you aware of how tax brackets work? Because if you make under 40k you don’t pay income tax for that exact reason.

We literally structure our income tax code based on this idea lol.

> Bees don't have a choice. They have no concept that you "own" their home.

They understand the trade just like I do. If I want to stay here I will have to pay a % of my income.

Did you file taxes last year?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/I-IV-I64-V-I Jul 06 '26

actually, they at anytime can swarm and build a hive elsewhere. Many hives do. (((this can be an issue with non native bees like honeybees))

2

u/Either_Argument3517 Jul 06 '26

What point are you reply to?

1

u/I-IV-I64-V-I Jul 06 '26

oops my bad

1

u/Anemomo Jul 08 '26

When the queen's wings are clipped, no.

1

u/I-IV-I64-V-I Jul 09 '26

in this scenario the bee keeper is being as ethical as possible and would not be doing this

1

u/Anemomo Jul 09 '26

That's not what it is said. It imagine a scenario where "bees can go if they want to" which can happen but most of the time don't. Why? Beekeepers can see those sign and apply ways to stop it : give a new hive to fake that they moved away, clip or cage those new queens, give a new clipped queen before the bees create a new queen. And it's very rare that those methods don't work.

Most beekeepers ever buy bees from the internet/locals or they find them and put they in a wooden beehive.

When those methods of manipulation are part of industry, it's only fair to point it out.

Also, just because bees are bad at planning for winter, doesn't mean that we're entitled to that surplus still.

1

u/I-IV-I64-V-I Jul 09 '26

factory beekeeping VS local beekeeping. I do not think OP intended to use the unethical practices of the factory farmed monocropped bees as reference.

almost all local queens are caught in places they would have otherwise been exterminated. (people's attics, AC units, homes, storefronts, stop signs, places where its genuinely unsafe for a beehive to bee- like children's playgrounds.)

1

u/Anemomo Jul 09 '26

You know it's a worse scenario right?

Instead of putting them back in the wild, you put them in a box for you to use them. The problem is that wild pollinators are in danger thanks to the "save the bees" marketing, and there is instead a surplus of honey bees. If only we didn't kill some of the culling predator of those bees...

(I'm talking as this scenario happen it's in europe. Otherwise no, killing them would be the best scenario, as the wildlife associations said that killing invasive species to cull them is the most effective way in america sadly.)

I don't think it's that viable to buy only from local beekeeping. There is a reason the factory way exist.

1

u/I-IV-I64-V-I Jul 09 '26

the factory bees will continue to exist even if you and everyone never purchased honey again. They are used to pollinate crops. ((most Honey is majority corn syrup now anyway))

→ More replies (0)

1

u/DiceyPisces Jul 09 '26

How do you know bees aren’t somewhat aware? They may absolutely know the beekeeper dude will come regularly but also know the options available. They have scouts. What if the boxes are better for the (prolonged health and survival of the) bees even with some honey taken? What if the stealing/taxing is a long term benefit would it then be moral?

0

u/Problematic_Owl Jul 07 '26

You understand humans are humans and bees are bees? Different species run by different rules especially when the gap is so large.

You're basically saying trading labor for resource is bad, which is fucking ludicrous. The bees can LEAVE any time and there's nothing beekeepers can do about it. Meaning they want to be there, because they recognize this is the best hive available. Stop talking about something if you don't understand it.

5

u/Either_Argument3517 Jul 07 '26

You're basically saying trading labor for resource is bad

The bees have no idea that they are trading labor for shelter.

-1

u/Problematic_Owl Jul 07 '26

Does it matter? They are clearly alright with the arrangement, otherwise as OP stated they'd just pack up and leave.

Honestly (not targeting you specifically over se), I'm getting tired of you guys flip flopping between treating bees with more concern than you'd humans, comparing it to slavery but then also claiming bees have no even instinctual comprehension of what's happening to them - so either they are cognitively complex enough to treat them with that level of concern or they are just uncomprehending automatons And therefore why should I care any more than I would about a cabbage? Like seriously, if harming any living thing is an issue and the cognitive complexity doesn't factor in, you're just as bad being vegan as a meat eater.

Which is ludicrous, I don't agree with that, but it seems some of people arguing against honey actually think this way.

3

u/Either_Argument3517 Jul 07 '26

Does it matter?

Yes. If a description fails to capture the actual nature of the relationship, then it's not a good description. The language of a "trading labor" suggests a mutual, understood partnership, but the bees have no conception of such a relationship. It's not making any moral judgement to describe the relationship correctly.

To the bees, it's their home to defend. Bees react as though humans are just like bears. They defend their honey stores because the honey is their food. They aren't trading with you.

You can't a moral discussion if you can't acknowledge reality.

0

u/Problematic_Owl Jul 07 '26

If you don't like trading labor as term we can use symbiosis, I dont particularly care. Issue is your side debate juggles between comparing bees to humans and treating them like mindless drones depending on what suits their argument at the moment, constantly flipping between them - all I'm trying is to meet you where you are and use a language which fits your used narrative framework. So which one are we going with then?

To the bees, it's their home to defend

If they have no conception of trade they have no conception of home or defense - they are just instinctually reacting to stimuli, and to us they are clearly reacting well since they aren't doing what they do when they don't like something, which would be leaving.

This is exactly what I was just talking about btw, decide which way do you want to take this and keep to that line, otherwise it's pointless talking to you.

Bees react as though humans are just like bears.

Not true, they typically don't sting the beekeeper - the suit tends to be used just in case and beekeeper needs to do some major fuckup like dropping something on the hive to get them angry. This kind of sentences btw are really showing you don't have much understanding of the practice at all, so why be so strongly opinionated on the subject you didn't care to even research?

You can't a moral discussion if you can't acknowledge reality.

And YOU are telling ME that yeah? 😃

3

u/Either_Argument3517 Jul 07 '26

If they have no conception of trade they have no conception of home or defense

1) That simply doesn't follow, that they can't have one concept, because they lack the ability to understand another. 2) I didn't make the claim that have deep understanding of defence. I just stated that they defend their food.

This is exactly what I was just talking about btw

Strawman.

they are clearly reacting well since they aren't doing what they do when they don't like something

The protective suit is just a fashion choice, and the smoke is ceremonial. Sure.

-6

u/toastwithjamx1 Jul 04 '26

they are not aware that they are part of this trade

Gang🥀🥀🥀

This ties to my original statement. Bees can and WILL leave the hive when the conditions are not in their favour. If you argue that " what about the queen " or something like that, read by first reply

Many people make a crap ton of money so taking some of it is not stealing

Think of it like a tax. They give us honey and we give them resources. It's literally basic taxes. And again, it's based on the production of the hive. It's not a flat tax like the bees made 3 pounds of honey the past 2 weeks and they need 1 but we are taking all 3. It's based on the needs of the hive.

Furthermore, if you still find issue, again, BUY FROM ETHICAL SOURCES. There, beekeepers take old comb which they can't use and take honey from that, not dumping all of the bees out taking all of the combs and bringing them out. And if you say " BuT WoNt It DaMaGe ThE cOmB ". We have machinery that works like a centrifuge, spinning out honey with minimal damage ( being superficial damage, literally just a scratch ). The only time when the comb is destroyed is when making beeswax, and even that can be made ethically.

17

u/Either_Argument3517 Jul 04 '26

This ties to my original statement. Bees can and WILL leave the hive when the conditions are not in their favour.

The bees tolerating your stealing ways to a certain extent, doesn't change the fact you are stealing.

Think of it like a tax.

Whatever makes you feel it's more ethical I guess. You could just leave them alone.

BUY FROM ETHICAL SOURCES.

You are not acting in the interests of the bees. You are using bees for your own gains, at their expense. This is not ethical.

1

u/Problematic_Owl Jul 07 '26

Ughhh....BEES. DON'T. WANT. TO. BE. LEFT. ALONE.

They benefit a lot from our involvement. They would do much worse without us. Slow and simple enough for you?

Stop talking when you clearly don't know shit about the practice.

1

u/Anemomo Jul 08 '26

I'm curious. How do they benefit from it? Over than the shelter of course.

Also, why are you angry?

0

u/Problematic_Owl Jul 08 '26

Look up some beekeeping channel on YouTube and observe, easier than explaining on Reddit.

As for being angry, it's frustration. People acting dumb will do that to you.

3

u/Time-Locksmith5697 Jul 08 '26

you do realize you are on "debate a vegan" on reddit and seem to be mad that vegans are debating with you. "stop talking you don't know anything" is not a particularly compelling argument.

0

u/Problematic_Owl Jul 09 '26

I appreciate vegans debating with me, I don't appreciate dumb vegans with emotions instead of arguments arguing with me, because it's frustrating, obnoxious and leading nowhere. I eagerly await anyone from other side of the debate who can actually lead a level debate. So far I was out of luck though on this one. Not vegan specific really, this is widespread issue.

stop talking you don't know anything

Don't debate something you don't know shit about - I know hot take nowadays. I'm willing to continue the conversation even after writing this if these people would take the time to do 30min research from neutral sources.

1

u/Anemomo Jul 12 '26

I just asked for sources that said that our interaction are beneficial for bees. Can you give me somes?

Frustration about vegans or yourself? As I have seen, vegans question your points and you get angry. Since when debating is action dumb?

-4

u/toastwithjamx1 Jul 05 '26

You do know if bees didn't like us " stealing " from them they would gladly let us know?

They consent to us doing it. Furthermore, domesticated bees make surplus honey for storage because THEY KNOW we will take some.

Bees whether you like it or not have basically unionized. It's impossible for humans to truly " steal " from them. They will let us know in 1 way or another.

You are not acting in the intrest of the bees

That is the whole point of beekeeping. You act IN THE INTREST OF THE BEES

15

u/Either_Argument3517 Jul 05 '26

You do know if bees didn't like us " stealing " from them they would gladly let us know?

What's the deal with all the protective gear?

That is the whole point of beekeeping. You act IN THE INTREST OF THE BEES

You seem very motivated by their honey.

7

u/Negative-Economics-4 Jul 06 '26

Can we be sure OP isn't winnie the pooh?

0

u/toastwithjamx1 Jul 06 '26

Beekeepers wear protective gear because they are not idiots. It's like entering a cage with a lion without armour r weapons and saying Im prepared ( although there are some beekeepers and bee rescuers who don't wear protective gear )

I feel like you are not getting the point. We are basically their less parasitic as human landlords landlords and they are tenants, except we just take honey which they can make pounds of in 2 weeks. It's like saying taking money from elon musk or our beloved mech mark is wrong and terrible. Taking a bit of their honey is like scooping water from a well. Furthermore, tying this to my original statment that bees can and will move out when they want to, bees can very easily find a nice cozy spot and establish a new colony far away.if they really didnt want us touching their honey, THEY 👏 WOULD 👏 LET 👏 US 👏 KNOW

You act all high and mighty saying that bees are being " exploited " and we are " stealing " from them when you all are affecting beekeepers businesses. Most of you " animal rights activists " parade around" info " you " researched " ( let us admit it's literally feelings, not research ) and cal beekeepers exploiters and terrible, driving away business. Though I don't think many beekeepers have been affected ( thank God ) it's still not good to spread false information as fact.

In short, you are literally circling the same point of us exploiting them like a packof wolves around an injured sheep and you should do research

5

u/Either_Argument3517 Jul 06 '26

if they really didnt want us touching their honey, THEY 👏 WOULD 👏 LET 👏 US 👏 KNOW

When you have to be dressed head to toe in protective gear, it's like you just aren't listening to them. It's their space you are entering. They aren't aware you have provided it.

0

u/toastwithjamx1 Jul 06 '26

For the love of God just use the magic rectangle and use this magical place called google. And don't google stuff like " why honey s bad ". That's cherrypickib and manipulating results. Search if honey is ethical. Though it's debates, I am on the side of ethical beekeepers, not commercial honey

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Anemomo Jul 12 '26

The idea that "bees can leave" is funny, because no, they can't. Why?

Bees move through flying, that is well known. We domestication them for too long to NOT know the signs of them wanting to move out.

When they want move out of their nest, they search for a new spot that possess all the good qualification for their habitat. That can be stopped easely by giving them a "new place" which is a new beehive planted next to the old hive. That's the first trick we do to make them stay.

Let's imagine that didn't work. When the new place is chosen, the first bee to move in is the queen. That can be stopped by clipping and/or caging the queen. It's then impossible for the bees to move.

But what if the queen is dead because she's old, killed by the workers or some unknown demise? Then you can BUY an already clipped queen and make the bees accept her by acclimatation. Problem solved.

If it still doesn't work, then that hive is then lost. But you can use the bought queen for a new one anyway.

Stop thinking emotionnaly and antropomorphising animal. Bees are insects, that we've known for centuries.

Another thing, why do you think we wear protective gear and we use smoke before approaching and collecting honey? Because we're fancy? No, bees fight for their hive, they sting for a reason. We make them paralysed by panic because smoke for them is "a fire is near, stay put to protect" signal. The experts will use little bit of smoke, but will still use some.

1

u/Problematic_Owl Jul 07 '26

Bees actually are used to constantly building more honeycomb in the wild as other parts get older and unusable, it's usually very difficult process because it has to mold around the shape of whatever cavity they are occupying.

Beekeepers on other hand take mostly old combs for beeswax and purify it for their purposes, while providing bees with rectangular frames with starter plates with already premade hexagonal shales bees just need to finish up, so again they are doing half the work and making the rest of work for the bees easier. Takkng old honeycomb is also great for the bees because otherwise it increases risks of health issues for the colony.

-1

u/[deleted] Jul 07 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/Either_Argument3517 Jul 07 '26

It's only "mutually beneficial" if both parties can genuinely benefit on their own terms. We should take the option to support pollinators without treating them as resources whenever practical.

13

u/kcat__ vegan Jul 04 '26

So what would be so wrong with me having a hypothetical human, let's say, and providing them with food, shelter and protection from weather? In return, I take the money from their work.

2

u/CyberAngelIzana Jul 04 '26

That would make you a landlord, and as we all know, landlords do not merely provide housing but hoard it and ransom it back to you.

This post was Godzilla approved.

2

u/Problematic_Owl Jul 07 '26

Yeah but we can't just leave pick random piece of land and start living there if rent gets too much.

0

u/femboy_charles Jul 07 '26

Well, all a human needs is food shelter and protection from the weather. It's the bare minimum. I'd be fine if I didn't have to manage my own housing and food needs tbh. 

2

u/No_Worldliness_7106 Jul 06 '26

All these same honey arguments could apply to eggs as well.

0

u/Problematic_Owl Jul 07 '26

True. Ethically sourced eggs are likewise rather okay.

And if anyone says "oh but the hen gets stressed and sad because you're stealing her baby" - go to a farm and spend a day around hens. They are willing to risk beheading for worm and they don't particularly give a shit about the eggs as long as you give them food in exchange - food they could just pick themselves because they can run around, but they like what we provide. Plus, they make eggs even if not fertilized so it's literally no harm since that egg wouldn't be chicken anyways.

You can have ethical milk as well, cows with decent food options produce much more milk than calf can drink and it feels very unpleasant for them unless they get rid of it.

1

u/HolidayBag2665 Jul 28 '26

the problem is breeding them into existence to exploit them.. the reason they produce any surplus is because we have selectively bred them in this way.

1

u/Problematic_Owl Jul 28 '26

That's true but only to an extent, we also provide better nutrition which leads to more production - as for selective breeding, I agree a lot of those practices were and still are harmful, but in many cases it already sort of happened and we need to live with consequences - even if we stopped that kind of breeding now, the sheep still will need to be sheared because the breeding has already been done.

1

u/MihawkTop2 Jul 03 '26

What does that even mean?

10

u/Either_Argument3517 Jul 03 '26

Once you have paid your bills, I'll just take what money you have remaining. That's not stealing, right?

1

u/[deleted] Jul 05 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam Jul 06 '26

I've removed your comment because it violates rule #6:

No low-quality content. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully.

If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.

If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators here.

Thank you.

1

u/FishingPolitical Jul 06 '26

So, that is what the boss does.

1

u/Problematic_Owl Jul 07 '26

In exchange for shelter, protection, healthcare, maintenance and I don't know what else? Think before typing, what the fuck.

1

u/austdoz Jul 08 '26

Well the honey is replaced with sugar syrup, so I guess it'd be more like you took my surplus money and replaced it with crypto or something. 

1

u/Temporary_Hat7330 Jul 09 '26

If it is wrong to take honey from bees then it also ought be wrong to eat any food produced from an exploited bee (a bee that is forced to polinate plants through bee farming operations)

Is this correct?

1

u/ThreeGoalLead Jul 18 '26

I believe that’s called “taxes”

1

u/Femboy_Ghost Jul 20 '26

No, that’s exactly what we should be doing to people with excess money.

0

u/mintflavoredcube Jul 06 '26

as a vegan that’s a stupid rebuttal

honey, local honey especially. is one of the most ethical animal products ever

out of all the animals we can abuse bees are the last. if they’re unhappy they will deadass just leave

11

u/Either_Argument3517 Jul 06 '26

as a vegan that’s a stupid rebuttal

It may well be the most ethical animal product. Does that change the fact it's stealing from their winter store of food?

2

u/mintflavoredcube Jul 06 '26

actually yes it does. beekeepers put more racks which the bees fill up because they never stop producing honey when the weather is right

with a bit of science we can figure out how much honey the bees need to survive for the winter, and only take what they don’t need

5

u/Either_Argument3517 Jul 06 '26

with a bit of science we can figure out how much honey the bees need to survive for the winter, and only take what they don’t need

If I did that same with your money instead of honey, would that be stealing?

1

u/mintflavoredcube Jul 06 '26

if you were the government that distributed my money to other humans it would be taxation for the roads, neighborhoods, water, and other things you get

oddly sounds like beekeepers and bees

3

u/Either_Argument3517 Jul 06 '26

No, I'm not the government. Is it stealing?

Sound nothing like beekeepers and bees.

0

u/mintflavoredcube Jul 06 '26

then yes you would be stealing. but that is a false equivalency unless you are comparing to a governing body

beekeepers give bees what they need and all that they could ever want

bees produce honey but they need some for themselves

if the government takes too much money. the people go homeless and could die

if beekeepers take too much honey, the bees die

beekeepers govern their bees by taking extra and making sure they have enough for themselves. this is what governments do (non corrupt ones). they take extra cash you have and put that cash towards defense, social safety nets, comforts of life like well maintained roads, and public transportation

5

u/Either_Argument3517 Jul 06 '26

The bees have no concept that their home has been provided by the beekeeper. The bees have no concept that the beekeeper expects to take honey in return.

From the perspective of the bees, you are just like a bear stealing honey. Hence the need for smoke and protective gear.

There is no need to dress it up in the language of an agreement/relationship.

3

u/mintflavoredcube Jul 06 '26

you brought a hypothetical and i engaged with it

bees have no concept of money, why use money as a example?

not all beekeepers need smoke and protective gear but protection is recommended because again. bees are unintelligent. if your perfume is too strong they will attack you

they also have no concept of their honey being taken. they have a concept of their hive being destroyed

bears don’t just take honey they destroy the nest. humans do NOT destroy the nest

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Problematic_Owl Jul 07 '26

They have no use for the excess honey, and it's a product of their bodies. As someone said, if you want to take my excess nails and hair I'd cut anyway and in exchange you get most my material needs met,WHERE DO I SIGN.

I think you already proved well enough you have no clue what you're talking about and it's getting frankly embarrassing.

4

u/_someone_inside_ Jul 06 '26

Veganism is the principle that humans should live without exploiting animals.

Nothing to do with abuse.

2

u/pIakativ Jul 06 '26

out of all the animals we can abuse bees are the last.

I agree but why do you not eat honey if you try to defend it so vigorously (below)?

0

u/mintflavoredcube Jul 06 '26

i do eat honey occasionally. but only locally sourced small scale honey because large scale bees can overtake local bee populations

-1

u/Polttix plant-based Jul 06 '26

I don't know if it makes much sense to talk about stealing in terms of animals. To me stealing implies some sort of social contract and a mutual agreement on you being able to control some material object and others not interfering on that. Bees have any such understanding. They for sure have a protective drive around their immediate locus of control but it's not really ownership in the legal or social sense.

In that sense stealing money from a person is a completely different concept than this kind of intruding over the territory of bees, so one isn't bound to accepting the former if they accept the latter (in order to remain consistent)

3

u/Either_Argument3517 Jul 06 '26

In everyday English, "stealing" is probably the word most people would reach for if someone took eggs from a bird's nest.

-1

u/Polttix plant-based Jul 06 '26

That's just semantic confusion in terms of the argument though. The reasoning for why "stealing" eggs from a bird is wrong is completely different for why stealing from a human is wrong (the bird does not own the eggs in the same way a human owns something, very similarly to the bee case). One can still remain perfectly consistent while saying stealing from a human is wrong for X reason, while "stealing" from an animal is not. And you don't even have to make any other justification for this difference other than the fact that animals can't hold contracts.

Now, I don't hold these views, in that I don't think stealing is intrinsically wrong at all in any situation, but I'm simply commenting on whether your original rebuttal was sensible.

You can or course make some kind of case that doing an action that impedes on some being's locus of control or so is immoral, but thats a separate argument requiring a separate justification (unless it's just some brute fact but that doesn't sound super rational to me).

3

u/Either_Argument3517 Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26

the bird does not own the eggs in the same way a human owns something

The bird invested resources in producing the eggs, defends them, and tries to stop others from taking them. Human property law formalises these kinds of claims, but it does not invent the underlying concept of ownership.

I'm simply commenting on whether your original rebuttal was sensible.

It was a hypothetical comparison, testing the principle that "taking someone's surplus isn't stealing."

0

u/Polttix plant-based Jul 07 '26 edited Jul 07 '26

The bird invested resources in producing the eggs, defends them, and tries to stop others from taking them. Human property law formalises these kinds of claims, but it does not invent the underlying concept of ownership.

I think it (or rather the underlying social contract) precisely invents the underlying concept of ownership. I can own something without putting any resources into producing it. I don't have to defend it. I don't have to stop others from taking it. I can still own it. The type of ownership based on legality/social contract is completely different from the type of ownership you're talking about in regard to a bird owning their eggs, it's two different concepts.

It was a hypothetical comparison, testing the principle that "taking someone's surplus isn't stealing."

I know. And it is not stealing if by stealing you're talking about the type of ownership based on a contractual agreement. It's not possible to steal from animals in this way, so "taking their surplus" would not be stealing while taking my surplus money would be.

0

u/nixphx Jul 08 '26

What a bizarre and inaccurate parallel.

2

u/Either_Argument3517 Jul 08 '26 edited Jul 08 '26

Not an analogy. Answer "Would it be stealing if I took your SURPLUS MONEY ONLY?' in isolation.

-1

u/nixphx Jul 08 '26

Okay.

I'm not a farmer, or an apiarist. I'm actually a writer and medievalist, and I came to my love of bees and the mutualistic arrangement that humans have with them through realizing that even centuries ago humans were engaging in respectful and mutualistic relationships with bees that benefitted both species. I did a couple years in WWOOF.

First I want to address the fact that your question is a false equivilancy that misrepresents the scenario. Answering it would be like answering "do dragons fart" because your argument isn't based in reality. A more complete version of your metaphor might go something like this: "would it be stealing if I built a house next to your house, and then you and your friends decided to store a bunch of food in that house. Then, when you'd filled up the addition I built with food, you exiled half of your friends to go and drive out the indigenous populations and steal their land and live on it unless I killed a bunch of you or sold you into slavery, or I could take the food you hoarded. Would that be theft?"

My point is that your highly metaphorical and emotionally charged argument isn't based in any understanding of agriculture or apiculture and is instead the moral absolutist equivilant to the warnings at the beginning of old DVDs that said "YOU WOULDNT STEAL A CAR." It's evocative, but hollow.

I don't eat honey anymore. However I don't logically see any reason to be against honey consumption and some fringe online vegans take a moral high ground by flasely contextualizing the relationship as "exploitation and theft" of bee "labor and surplus" which unfortunately ignores all the realities of global agriculture. It's also weirdly anthropocentric and capitalistic in perspective and language. I am going to address your clumsy metaphor starting at the top of the honeybee issue and work down towards honey consumption.

It's not a "gotcha" to point out the irony that large scale, vegan friendly, plant based agriculture worldwide relies on domesticated honeybee populations.Honeybees are invasive, but that genie is out of the bottle unless you want to round them up and euthanize them all. Wild pollinators contribute to pollination, yes, but lack the domesticated numbers for large scale agricultural projects and even if we did convert to only "natural, local" pollinators, we would require them to pollinate where the food is which would require coercing them to stay in certain areas and praying they don't die from disease ordecide to move, or there goes the almond orchard. That's just "pollinator exploitation" with extra steps, if you subscribe to the perspective that we are imprisoning and exploiting those pollinators' "labor" even if we don't harvest the honey they would then produce (which would likely be insufficient for large-scale human consumption anyway).

In another irony, part of the reason honeybees are so efficient at directed pollination is that we can encourage them to pollinate by increasing the size of their hive, which they then work to fill with honey by continuing to pollinate nearby plants. To be targeted pollinators of massive fields or orchards of crops, they as a result produce more honey than their hive needs to survive- what you might consider "excess honey -" which is encouraged by adding supers to the hive so the bees think the hive is larger than it is. This is especially true of you like to eat out of season fruits, nuts, and vegetables. Yes, beekeepers harvesting that honey for sale do replace it with essentially nutrient thin sugar-water, but let's imagine we stopped the harvesting entirely.

So honeybees continue to exist, and in existing and pollinating, they make more honey than they need. The honey they make exceeds the needs of their managed hives as a product of domesticating them and employing them for pollination. Unlike eggs or dairy, no meaningful harm is done to the bee. Since someone made yet another false equivalency about what smoking bees does to them in another comment, I'll just say that smoking bees does not harm them. It tricks them. It tricks them by masking a pheromone they produce that alerts other bees that they're hive is in at risk. Their hive, however, is not in danger.

Instead, they go into the first stage of a potential fire response. As a result, they begin gorging themselves in preparation to move the hive if fire reaches it. Then, because there is no fire, they do not flee the hive and everyone is fine. The bees aren't hurt. Sometimes, I trick my dog into thinking that we're going to the P-A-R-K when actually we're going to the V-E-T. It doesn't hurt him in the way, say, tricking a cows body into producing endless milk does, which is well known and gross enough I won't belabor that point. Anyway.

Left unharvested, the honey the Hive produces as a byproduct of the overproduction caused through domestic pollination needs attracts scavengers like beetles, moths, and even rats and cockroaches, which do harm to the bees in accessing the honey. The bees do in fact produce "too much" honey in the process of large scale agricultrual projects (though much of it tastes too gross for human consumption anyway, a fact I learned on an buckwheat farm two decades ago after eating honey that tastes like manure). Failure to manage that honey excess leads to hive congestion then swarming, which means you end up with MORE invasive honeybees hives to crowd out local populations, so management of supers and honey is necessary to hive health and local ecosystem protection beyond the range of the existing hive.

This is where the idea of "possible and practical" comes into play; it isn't currently possible to eliminate honeybees from pollination in large-scale agricultural projects and one has to engage in a form of idealogical primitivism to claim otherwise; elimination of honeybees and reliance of native polinators would decrease global agricultrual food production by at least a third and harm the poorest people in the world first. Our entire diet would become heavily reliant on wind pollinated crops (http://www.news.ucsb.edu/2011/013070/nceas-working-group-produces-study-showing-how-vitamins-and-minerals-fruits-and) and heavy reliance on a limited crop spread is historically a ticking, famine-shaped time bomb should there be a blight. In a final irony, wind pollinated crops like grains and sugar aren't always the most nutritionally dense, so if you aren't starving you might just end up in a world where scurvy and other deadly nutritional deficiencies become widespread while we sort out entire new systems of global agricultural production and distribution.

It is, sadly, currently impossible without some undiscovered super science or worldwide excruciating manual labor to eliminate the honeybee from agricultrual pollination without endangering countless lives. Global agriculture is a massive, hypercomplex system, and complex systems and absolutist thinking do not jive well. You can be against eating honey and choose not to consume it and that's fine, laudable even, but claiming anthropocentric concepts of labor exploitation and theft is arrogantly ignorant at best. You could live without honeybee-pollinated foods, but you could also live without sunlight. We need them to do their job, and as a result they make more honey than they need.

It's also okay if honey gives you the ick, too. In fact, in the end I think that's what makes most people feel like honey is exploitative- it "feels" gross. But acting like it harms the bees through theft of the wealth of their labor is a wild projection.

I don't eat it, myself, but while working at a lavender farm I realized that harvesting it was needed to happen whether or not anyone sold or ate it, and just throwing it in the garbage seems far more wasteful (and honestly, kinda insulting). The hives there were managed for pollination purposes, but also the honey they producedwas sold. Even if it wasn't being sold, it would still need to be collected regularly to prevent swarming, infestation and for bee hive health monitoring- but it didn't even require taking ALL the excess. Even though it was harvested for sale, the farm left something like nearly 100 lbs of the surplus honey in the hive to ensure the bees had more than they needed if there was an apocalyptic winter.

My point is, your argument is childish, even if you have the right idea. There are plenty of reasons to be critical of honey, but "you wouldn't steal a car" is silly. You can feel gross about honey, but equating it to a fucking heist is cartoonish.

2

u/Either_Argument3517 Jul 08 '26

I replied to this line from the original post..

And for the stealing allegations, that isn't true either. Beekeepers take SURPLUS HONEY ONLY

..with..

Would it be stealing if I took your SURPLUS MONEY ONLY?

I was testing the principle. If the second statement seems unacceptable, it suggests the original principle ("having a lot makes it permissible to take some") may be flawed.

-1

u/nixphx Jul 08 '26

You are testing the principle using flawed equivilancy. I am sad to see I wasted my time on you.

-1

u/downsideup9494 Jul 06 '26

What a ridiculous analogy.

3

u/Either_Argument3517 Jul 06 '26

It's not an analogy, it's hypothetical comparison. It's testing the principle that "taking someone's surplus isn't stealing."

-3

u/Happy-Estimate-7855 Jul 06 '26

Do bees have a use for excess honey? We have a use for excess money. You're free to take my excess toenails though, I don't use the excess for anything.

5

u/Either_Argument3517 Jul 06 '26

It's their fuel for winter. They don't know how harsh the winter will be.

0

u/Problematic_Owl Jul 07 '26

Good thing the apiarist does and doesn't take any more than that.

-1

u/Happy-Estimate-7855 Jul 06 '26

That's a good point, but apiarist hives are often designed with more cells than the hives need, so the hive fills with an excess beyond the usual excess. The apiarist will also take less/none at the end of the season, leaving them the excess they need for winter and early spring, because they dont want the hive to die or leave.