What century are you in? Most commerce is internet based.
Pete, I much appreciate your "clarification" of your position, most of the readers were as confused as I was judging from offlines.
My comments about Dougs stuff was in no way reflective of his work, but of your usage in the timeline. I understood you to use his reference to color as one of the criteria of breeders, when his work is way to recent to have any bearing. The same with your comment on Internet commerce. The old Pellet reference was interesting, given his time, color was a major player in their knowledge of genetics, since then much has changed.
I am disappointed in your attempt to paint me as disrespectful of either of them. Dr Sommervilles's work on nutrition is top notch. Not seen his work on selecting breeder stock, it may well have some bearing on the future, right now its fresh and fairly irrelevant in the last 30 years worth of queen production, which was my point and my ONLY point.
While the net may be the future, if you have any illusion that internet advertising is relevant to how breeders are selected, it is you my friend that are way off. Our current breeders and commercial beeks which make up 90% of the bees used, are not using Google to pick their suppliers. The majority of them have had standing orders for years, dateing back prior to the net being the commerce of choice.
I would politely proffer also that internet bee shoppers are the type to pick by color alone.
This started with an assertion that breeders pick by color. I tried to entertain it, but the reality is one who would make that claim has been out of circulation way to long.
Is color involved? Dang straight. Its it a criteria? Probably dam close to dead last. What some seem to not understand is how commercial guys pick, they simply isolate traits, pick the ones they want. Performance, some brood, some honey, some wintering, gentleness and of late some are using mite traits. and last resort color. When you buy a car, you decide type, then pick color last. As do breeders when its narrowed down to say 10 finalist, some would use the pretty ones to break the tie. I would daresay not a single one uses color as a selection criteria, and to assert otherwise without a name is just envious babble. If the main breeder of cordovans which is by its nature a color trait, sort by performance first, and 100% formost. For the record that same guy has been president of the CQBA, so I would say he's on top his game.
The same IMO as the claim we are now left with weak genetics that fail at a moments notice of stress. I think our stock is great, I strongly suspect that PPB and a lot if influx of internet shoppers looking for a scapegoat has more to do with that statement than any sort of reality. You yourself have been complaining about them "yellow bees" with zero substance. No mention of comparisions, weather, or why you didn’t like them, let alone numbers on production of Honey mite loads or number of spits. Just dishearting and disparaging comments without any follow up information. Personally myself, I have had great yellow queens, as well as the prettiest red ones and black ones, and my fair share of the same that were horrible.
I myself have never been shallow enough to blame the color for poor performance. It seems to me that the type of beekeeper that blames color is the same type that bought by color, but Just my opinion.
Sue Colby and Tarpys point on why bees are behind is right on target, I myself have made that point here several times in the last years. Lack of standards amongst beekeepers is a major issue. The only ones doing unbiased test are then shot down by the losers. WE would benefit from a standards group that was sharp enough to do season to season head to head test like the other AG industries.
***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
|
