I don't want to try to get into detail, but there might not be much to get
excited about here, whether 50 Breeder Queens for New Zealand or 800 for the
US.

I used to be ok with the maths involved, but no longer.  Nevertheless, the
more we learn about genetics it seems the more we understand that prior
assumptions need to be revised.  For example, not all that long ago there
was much being said that the bans on intermarriage between first cousins
cannot be scientifically supported as reducing genetic birth defects.

Likewise, there used to be a lot of worry about lack of genetic diversity
when animal populations were isolated by interstate highways, canals,
suburbs, etc.  The fear was that inbreeding would result in massive
infertility or genetic defects that would lead to a lack of survival
traits.  My understanding is that the newer thinking is that the dangers of
inbreeding as a result of such isolation have been considerably overstated.

Finally, in some circumstances, such as with food fish such as catfish,
tilapia, salmon, etc. the world population can be traced back to very few
ancestors and these animals have gone through many generations without
visible negative genetic effects.

I am certain there are several persons on this list that can add to our
understanding of whether it is reasonable to comment on whether 50, 800, or
any other number of breeder queens can be said to provide insufficient
genetic diversity.  I'd like to hear them.

Lloyd

-- 
Lloyd Spear
Owner Ross Rounds, Inc.
Manufacture of equipment for round comb honey sections,
Sundance Pollen Traps, and producer of Sundance custom labels.
Contact your dealer or www.RossRounds.com <http://www.rossrounds.com/>

******************************************************
* Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at:          *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm  *
******************************************************