> The idea that there is always only one queen is erroneous.
>
> As far as workers raising queens, I have never heard that this is a
> good thing, but we don't want supersedure in our hives in any case.
> Now, I have been in beekeeping long enough to know that supersedure
> queens can be excellent in terms of vigor and longevity, but in a
> breeding program where you are trying to control the type of bee you
> maintain (hygienic or whatever) they are a pain in the ass.

You hit the nail on the head here and there is the crux of the debate.

* Some (most) beekeepers want bees they can just keep the old way, with
limited visits a year, simple operations, and rugged bees that care for
themselves. They want non-patented bees that can move into empty hives and
which can beat off disease.  In this scenario, maximum honey production is
not the primary concern, since -- if the expenses are lower -- less honey is
needed to finance and maintain the operation than in a highly managed
operation.  Moreover, since chemicals are not required, the demand should
theoretically be better for their honey, and premium prices attained.  This
group considers any bee that is prolific and takes care of itself, but which
can be managed and produce a decent harvest to be a godsend.

* Others want bees that can be highly tuned for special purposes and which
can support a bee breeding program, a technically developed, proprietary and
exclusive queen rearing industry, plus industry meetings on all levels --
and highly equipped government labs with lots of specialists.  Such bees
*must* be tinkered with constantly and treated for diseases and protected
from the neighbouring (more successful feral) bees, etc.  They *must*
produce exceptional output of bee products and require manufactured and
licensed products to support all the people in the chain. This group
considers any bee that is too prolific and uncontrollable to be a threat and
a nuisance.


* The latter group has IMO, dominated beekeeping media, thought, research
and breeding over the past century.

* There are things to be said for either approach, but we are in a new
century and millennium with an information flow that has escaped, for a
short while at least, the control of the monied interests. Consumers are
reconsidering their dependencies and shifting allegiance solely on the basis
of what has merit to them personally, rather than what supports the
information hierarchy.  Rather than only receiving information that supports
a system which generates revenue for media and manufacturers and
researchers, as in the past, we now can get information that makes a profit
for no one but us.  This leaves a lot of people out in the cold.  What
Wal-Mart and Home Depot did to small stores and layers of distributors and
wholesalers, the internet is doing to the information business, including
manufacturers, magazines, universities and researchers.

Information is on the loose and traditional interests are running like hell
to try to figure out how they can get back on the (gravy) train.

Personally, I don't know where I stand on this, but it sure is fun to watch.

allen