>> The Bond method depends on luck as  much as on the traits necessary for 
>> survival.

> well, if luck weren't a major factor in every experiment or trial, there 
> would be no need to run more than on experimental subject to prove 
> something.  a well run trial could be done with one beehive, that would 
> return an idealized and repeatable result.  the bond method is no 
> different than any other selection criteria in this manner.

I think most of us see big differences.

Many selection criteria can be applied in greater or lesser degrees, are 
non-destructive, and also are measureable. Moreover, although the 
possibility of dimishing genetic diversity exists in any selection scheme 
carried to extremes, the likelihood of finding that the number of solutions 
is zero (extinction) is far less.

> let's not forget, that chance is part of the selection criteria that 
> nature actually does use,

Nobody is forgetting that fact.  Indeed, this is a major reason that people 
prefer to use other selection methods which reduce that element.

> The whole system is rigged in order to take chance into account.

What it is not rigged to overcome is the possibility of an event which is 
outside the normal parameters -- and to which no adaptation is possible --  
and which can result in extinction of the population, an extinction which 
minor intervention could easily mitigate and manage.

> The bond method, and the mechanisms bees use to pass on heritable traits 
> via genetics, are much better designed to account for chance than our 
> human designed methods.

The Bond method is only one of an arsenal of tools which can be used.  It 
has its place, and is especially successful when the survival 
characteristics sought are sufficiently present and distributed in the 
founding population, the n is large, and there is some admixture from 
outside.

Nevertheless, the Bond method can be a very expensive method in many cases, 
unless managed and mitigated with some judicious interventions, and early 
efforts often resulted in n=0.

As the presence of survival characteristics has been raised in the general 
population, largely through dissemination of stocks bred and imported 
through the efforts of various breeders and the USDA, along, probably, with 
the offspring of some ferals, the Bond method becomes more feasible and less 
risky, although it is still too expensive for many who rely on bees for 
income.

I recall speaking to John Kefuss and was very impressed by his success when 
most were failing, and I am assuming that some of the hardiness we are 
seeing now are the result of his early work.

I am not sure, however that in the early stages, he did not assist the bees 
somewhat to ensure maintenance of a sufficient population from which to 
proceed.

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