>>> And if they cannot produce enough to support themselves, then 
to  supplement them with artificial feed is to select for inferior  bees. <<<

I doubt any selection is actually occurring.  This is because "thriftiness" is very weakly selected, and many other (and opposing traits) are more strongly selected.  Careless swarming (as a trait) will flood the population with opposing genetic impulses.

Thriftiness is weakly selected because the storage and consumption of surplus by the hive is subject to all sorts of contingent factors -- weather, comb building, month of establishment, swarming, etc.  One could have a genotype that is 95% of the way to "thrifty" but lose the type and all the selective impulse in a Varroa outbreak.

Thriftiness implies smaller colonies entering the dearth, and winter.  How is that trait distinguished from failure to thrive?

The weak selection represents the fundamental error of "Bond" style breeding -- if the selection is general for simultaneous multiple traits -- you are actually not shifting the genome at all.  Breeding for all at once, is the same as breeding for nothing at all.

Bees have enormous evolutionary inertia to return the normative genotype.  The inertia serves them well -- as flowers evolve towards the bees requirements, rather than having the bees chase and specialize on the flower - in terms of sugar chemistry, concentration, throat and tongue length, and weight of banner and keel triggers in the flower engineering.  The bees make up for the inertia with a "portmanteau" strategy -- throwing colony scale variation into the mix with multiple outcrossed fathers.

In the specific Bush case -- his prescription (small cell foundationless comb) implies a genotype that is optimized for comb construction to the detriment of honey storage.   His prescription (don't feed evil white-corporate-death powder) implies a genotype that is optimized for honey storage to the detriment of consumption for comb.   The result of conflicting, push me- pull you impulses is no movement at all.

I've seen this conflict at work in my own treatment-free foundation free splits (which I run as a continuing experiment), the build up of comb robs the nest of any summer surplus. 

The enthusiasm for Bush is a sociological phenomenon, and as such is more interesting than the proscripts themselves.  The sturdy resilience of the system is driven by multiple levels on arcane and gnostic advice.  This onion like system  implies there is always another step ahead of the practitioner -- and the failure to complete that step excuses the failure of the hive to thrive.   Most recently Bush has written a manifesto that states "Belief" is the most important factor for success in treatment-free beekeeping.  The skeptical need not apply, as their belief in the ethos is insufficient.   Fortunately, this manifesto was broadly criticized for its circular claims.

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