>> ...and declared them "welfare bees".
>
> Did you resort to feeding these type bees or did you let them prove
> themselves for local conditions by allowing them to feed themselves.

We were pretty well doing let-alone beekeeping in those years.  As I recall,
we did feed if we took too much honey, a dearth developed, and they were in
danger of starving.

> I feel if to develop a bee to survive local conditions and provide the
> beekeeper a crop a beekeeper can not enable poor genetics by feeding sugar
> syrup to them.

How do you "enable poor genetics by feeding sugar syrup to them"?  Is there
some sort of genetic trigger that is set off by a bag of sugar?

> Can not identify the best stock for local conditions if feeding them.

If "local conditions" include regular feedings, not feeding would be
illogical -- IMO.

> Nothing wrong with feeding colonies to survive but these colonies need to
> be separated from selected breeding stock so genetics is not polluted. In
> turn the stock that needed feeding should be requeened with the selected
> stock.

Maybe for an idealistic hobbyist living in a perfect world, but not in my
world, and not with my banker.

> Not knowing how you fed, treated, managed or bred these bees, I would
> think you could have selected for a bee that survived well and still would
> put honey on your table top for sales.

Of course I could have, and did at one point later, with better foundation
stock, but that was not the point I was making.  Actually I bought the stock
in question, then replaced it after it was not making me money and, frankly,
breeding from it would have been a waste of time.  To get a good result, it
is best to start with good materials.

allen

Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without
integrity is dangerous and dreadful.
            -- Samuel Johnson

-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and  other info ---