Hello Allen & All,

> In commercial beekeeping, there is a lot of monkey see, monkey do.

I think the above is very true in commercial beekeeping. Also formulas for
bathtub varroa treatments are passed around and like a *joke* each time its
told the *joke* or formula is changed a bit.

I do not do what the other beekeepers are doing. I started in beekeeping
with the Florida H. Bell outfit and have always embraced the H. Bell methods
of beekeeping. Those familiar with the Bell methods realize those methods
are for the most part different than all others.

The most common method which shocks beeks is bringing a semi load of bees
into a huge building and splitting the hives *inside*the building.

Another is requeening hives up to 4-5 times a year ( only currently done to
my knowledge only at a few large operations in China.)

Another is to use certain queens for honey production or pollination of
certain crops. (again only done in China to my knowledge).

Rumors of these methods are talked about  in commercial beekeeping circles.
I will for the first time on the net confirm the above were common methods
used.

Allen said:

> 1.) legislation and enforcement against maintaining susceptible strains,

unenforceable but not a bad idea. Just for the sake of discussion exactly 
how
would a bee inspector tell by looking at a queen in a hive if the race was
susceptible or not? Surely not by color or markings?


> 2.) missionary work creating consumer demand for resistance/tolerance on a
> continuing and persistent basis, or

Commercial beeks are only willing to pay so much higher for
resistance/tolerance queens. A fact which I have seen with those queen
lines. developing such lines has not returned even a profit for most which
have spent countless time developing those lines.

I used a huge percentage of my queens Midnights and Starlines ( never all)
years ago when available and felt those queens were worth the extra money
( many beeks did not especially with the Midnights as the Midnights when
superceded could be as nasty to work as AHB) but Dadant has said beekeepers
would stop buying when the difference between those queens and regular
productions queens ( a regular queen caged ) was a difference of over a few
dollars.

The Dadant program could be going today *if* beekeepers had supported the
program by buying enough queens.


> 3.) the incorporation over time of the desirable traits into all stock
> being distributed through cooperation and education of breeders and the
> consequent raising the background level of resistance/tolerance in all
> populations (thus lowering the frequency and degree of susceptibility in
> the general bee population)

I think our queens today have many desirable traits which were not selected
for 30 years ago but in my opinion *at the cost* of certain traits which are
important to the livelihood of the commercial beekeeper.

The perfect bee which fits all beekeepers needs and will produce in all
areas of the world does not exist in my opinion and never will.

I am a longtime admirer of Brother Adam and his work but was never impressed
*as a whole* looking back on the  many Buckfast queens I used.



In my opinion the Bell operation  was light years ahead of most
commercial operations. I was involved in Bell from the start to the end in
1998.

Allen said:
this has been recognized by the most forward-thinking of our
> bee researchers and they are taking the battle to the enemy -- the queen
> producers in an attempt to skew the populations towards lower chemical
> dependence while maintaining the wide range of choice that beekeepers
> demand.

I think saying:
"taking the battle to the enemy-the  queen producers" is a bit harsh. I will
say why.

1. researchers are a small group of people which for the most part do not
greatly influence the beekeepers which produce the queens used in the U.S.

The commercial beekeeping industry which by far supports queen producers (
buys the Lions share of the queens) first of all DEMANDS certain qualities
in the queens it buys.

Sure queen producers may offer a few *fad* queens but all the major queen
producers such as Wooten's, heitkams or Wilbanks understand the bee
commercial beeks want. Each of these queen producers selects breeder queens
from thousands of colonies.

This method of breeder queen selection has a proven track record dating back
over a 100 years.

The method works!

Buying expensive II breeder queens to raise queens from and send to the
commercial beekeepers can cost you your queen producing business. Many USDA
researchers never seem to understand what I am trying to say.

The large commercial beekeeper if smart will NEVER get all his queens/cells
from the same source.

*if* he/she gets a batch of crappy queens then the next year those beeks
will not buy again. When those beeks decide to try again they will buy only
a 100 or so to try. Slow to return.

Every large queen producer if reading knows the above is true. The beekeeper
which keeps bees for a living could care less about many traits certain
*researchers* feel are important.

There is a demand for queens which are as Allen speaks of but in my opinion
the demand for daughters from those breeder queens which stand out among
thousands of hives in greater at least in U.S. commercial circles.

I basically agree with the things Allen said and only trying to explain from
my experience why the queen producers seem reluctant to embrace what Allen
proposes. *if* the demand for those queens was greater than for the type we
now prefer and there was little demand for the daughters of the breeder
queens selected from the best of thousands of hives then the queen producers
would change quickly.

A poor bunch of queens can cause the commercial beekeeper dearly! Such as
the 2007 NWC.

bob

             ***********************************************
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

Access BEE-L directly at:
http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A0=BEE-L