> I don't really think so with today's factory farming

I have a hard time understanding what you are saying.   Are you saying that 
beekeepers are running factory farms, or operating on property owned by 
factory farms, and how does that affect things we are discussing?

> and too many just doing for queens
I cannot parse this.   What does, "doing for queens", mean?  Perhaps this is 
a regional term?

>and/or one particular trait.

You may be right about some breeding for one particular trait but I suspect 
that they are not likely eliminating many others, or particularly focused, 
As a result they are likely propagating bees that have done well for them 
and their customers.  Seeing as the bulk of sales are to beekeepers who buy 
large numbers of queens and compare stock constantly -- and are quite 
critical -- I should think that anyone who is thriving in the queen business 
must be supplying stock that is well appreciated by the customers and 
consists of well-adapted and robust bees.

> And this to me has been going on more and more since mid to late 1980s 
> fwiw IMPOV,

I am not sure exactly what you mean.

> Yes, but do they actually, for if they do then why the large volume of 
> factory farmed queens to commercial beekeepers

I wonder what you mean by factory farmed queens.  Are you suggesting that 
the techniques used by large queen producers are different somehow from the 
techniques you use?  If so, in what way?

> and/or them raising queens with such artificialness to not be long term 
> doable?

I can't figure out what you mean.  What is going to happen in the long term 
to make the "raising queens with such artificialness " not "doable".

> For it was certainly written long ago the problems queens would have with 
> coumaphos and fluvalinate and bees in general as contaminates built up

That is no secret, and these chemicals affect both queens and drones.  Their 
presence in hives is well documented.  Is it greater in the hives of queen 
breeders?  From attending meetings of breeders I know they are well aware of 
the risks and are doing whatever they can to mitigate the situation.

> and I am not even talking the artificial feeds they are doing

I am not clear on what constitutes an "artificial feed".  Could you be more 
specific?  And also explain exactly what these "artificial feeds" are proven 
do to the bees?

> also yet, nor movement and intense mongrelization that tears apart 
> genetics again IMPOV

Movement and intense mongrelization.    Hmmm.  Are these related somehow? 
And what distinguishes "intense mongrelization" from simple mongrelization? 
Where is the boundary, and if there is mongrelization, then are we to assume 
that there are purebred bees?

> You can move bees to a point, but up and down the ladder

"The ladder"?  Is that a metaphor?

> and perhaps one long haul a year for short term, but not constantly!!!!

That sounds like a reference to migratory beekeeping, but I can't figure out 
the part about the ladder.

> and more regional kept the better.

"regional kept" means nothing to me.

I know you have some very interesting ideas.  We have discussed them at 
length in the past, and you and wrote some very clear and understandable 
articles detailing your thoughts and experiences, but I am having a great 
deal of trouble understanding your recent posts, as have others to whom I 
have spoken.

I hope you can clarify the ideas above.

Thanks in advance.

allen
---
Discovery consists in seeing what everyone else has seen and thinking what 
no one else has thought.
Albert Szent-Gyorgi  , 1937 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine 

****************************************************
* General Information About BEE-L is available at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm   *
****************************************************