>It is also best to use an un-manipulated wild
>population, and for this population to be as large as possible.
>
>Does this include in your view, repealing the prohibition against
>non-movable frame hives?

This seems to be a peripheral issue. The wild population of which Allsopp is speaking is not in hives at 
all. The idea is that a large natural population is the best source of vigorous honey bees. Examples of 
this are Africa, South America, and the southern US. I think the success of beekeepers in the 
southern US can be attributed entirely to this factor. 

The question of what hive to use is irrelevant as far as I am concerned. If people want to use 
frameless hives, they can use top bar hives and retain the ability to examine the brood, make splits, 
remove honey etc. I see little advantage in the top bar hives except they're cheap. A hollow log is 
even cheaper but cannot be examined or managed. 

Modern beekeeping could be easily carried out using natural combs built in standard frames. These 
could be wired and starter strips could be employed. In this manner a hive could have the full range 
of cell size. But don't get me wrong. I don't think this is a factor or a goal worth pursuing. I think the 
key rests in the genetic make-up of the bee stock, not the type of equipment.

I have written about this extensively in the American Bee Journal. 

pb

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