Sender: |
|
Date: |
Tue, 15 Nov 2011 18:17:20 +1300 |
Reply-To: |
|
Message-ID: |
<BEFC8194DE2B48669669BF9207967AF5@thebeegardens> |
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="us-ascii" |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
The point is, queen rearing as it is practiced today is a method for mass
production of queens from the same stock, which may or may not be a recipe
for getting the best sorts of colonies. I'm just saying.
PLB
======================================
I think that is exactly the point. I like to distinguish between queen
*rearing* and queen *breeding*. Without thousands of colonies, Brother
Adam's lifespan, and my own private island I think it is difficult enough to
manage the former, and have no illusions about the later. If I were guessing
about why queen *breeding* has so far failed to produce a marked improvement
in stock it is because, fundamentally, it isn't worth doing. Money talks,
beekeepers don't generate it, and so we get incremental change achieved by
amateurs. And I mean that in the nicest possible way!
But we're drifting into a different conversation. What could cause the
variation in egg weight, and could you explain or expand in this bit please?
> "...but in addition to egg size by genetic differences within a colony
assumed to be linked with differences in larvae attractiveness."
Dave
Otanewainuku, New Zealand.
***********************************************
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
Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm
|
|
|