Hello Barry,
 I just don't like the idea that for me to maintain a
> certain characteristic in my bees I have to continue to buy a queen from
> someone.

Dr Harbo says the SMR trait passes to the bees and remains. I will report
back in a couple years. We are using remote mating areas in our project for
now.

 Personally I'd rather work with my local material and do selective
> breeding for traits I see naturally occurring.

The Baton Rouge bee lab site explains the SMR selection process. Myself and
most  queen breeders could select for the SMR trait ourselves but a huge
amount of time is involved.

> If people are still finding these 'old' colonies that have been on their
> own, does this not show us that if given the chance, bees will fight and
> adjust to what works naturally?

All bees won't (in my opinion) BUT a very very small percentage has shown
able to survive. The hive I used for my drones for the first round of SMR
queens was the colony I removed last spring from a old building. They were
said to have been in the building four years untreated. I have no way of
knowing for sure as swarms prefer old deadouts and abandoned former hives.
As I posted earlier on Bee-l I had to add honey in frames for the hive to
survive last winter. They were still alive but were not able to produce
honey for last winter. Mite load was low but they didn't grow and expand.

It seems to me that there is enough progress  made by these bees toward
survivorship that we ought to be taking time to  study these bees and try to
understand why this is.

SMR is the result of the study of many of these hives.

 Is it how they breed in  an uncontrolled environment?

I don't understand the question. All breeding is the same except for
instrumental insemination. Dr Harbo has made progress with SMR mainly
because of the use of II. Brother Adam had his best sucess when he started
using II. Knowing the drone linege is a big plus in bee breeding.

> Is it due to physical changes such as cell  size?

Dee says herself cell size is only a third of the system. I have always been
of the opinion you would have to go smaller to the size varroa couldn't
reproduce in  for cell size to be the total solution. I brought this opinion
up in the first discussion two springs ago and still have the same opinion.

> >> Why do we always look to some other place or some other
> >> breeder for "better" queens? Is there something wrong with the ones our
> >> own  bees raise? I think not.

I use queen cells at times from very strong hives which are about to swarm
and have had reasonable luck but the queens which are grafted, started in
starter hives and put in finnisher hives are far superior in my opinion.
Larvae not the right age does not make the perfect queen.  Large queen cells
is a good indicator but still one has no way of knowing if the right age
larvae was used by the bees without grafting.
Bob wrote:
> > It is a long proven fact bees tend to raise queens from to old a larvae
and
> > when eggs are given to large starter colonies by queen breeders the
queens  are larger and better performers.
Barry wrote:
> So are you saying that we can propagate better bees in a better way than
> they can do for themselves?
In my opinion yes. By grafting yourself you asure the right age larvae was
used, By using a stater hive you make sure enough bees of the right age are
used to start the cells and finnally you make sure the right type hive
finnishes the cells. I realize not every beekeeper wants to tackle grafting
queens. Not a easy job. The reference to *large* is only something we notice
when everything in queen rearing goes right. When things go wrong the queen
cells and queens tend to be smaller than normal for the strain of bee you
are working with. Perhaps I should have left the word *larger* out but
*better performers* is true. About a thousand queens were raised from grated
stock in Texas last spring. The above are observations from the process.

> What are circumstances surrounding these bees that tend to raise 'bad'
> queens?

1. queen cells raised form to old larvae produce inferior queens. Documented
in most bee books.
2. queens raised by older worker bees instead of the right age nurse bees.
Also cells tended by not enough nurse bees. Also documented in "Hive and the
Honey Bee" and numerous other bee books. And also  queen rearing books of
which I own several.

 Can I read some of these proven facts somewhere? I'm sure you have
> done more reading than I as I can't readily recall such reports.

The above are standard text in most bee books. I have never had a beekeeper
argue otherwise about the 2 above statements. Maybe I am about to?

> I know  hearing from other beekeepers that there are more than just a few
>that have  gone completely away from buying queens to letting their own
>bees raise the  queens. If I remember right, John Iannuzzi mentioned here
on >the list that  he has been doing this for over 35 years.>

If letting his bees simply raise their own queens works for Jannuzzi then
more power to him. I know of two commercial beekeepers which use Jannuzzi's
method. One had a average of 26 pounds last year and the other had a 30 plus
average. Most beekeepers would not believe my averages so I won't post them.
Excellent queens do not cost. They pay in the long run !(also in most bee
books!)
Sincerely,
Bob Harrison
Odessa, Missouri