>> 1.) legislation and enforcement against maintaining susceptible strains, 
>> unenforceable but not a bad idea. Just for the sake of discussion exactly 
>> how would a bee inspector tell...

Good question.  Unenforceability in legislation has never stopped lawmakers 
before, though.  As I said, like much bee legislation, any such effort is 
likely to do more harm than good.

Rather than actual legislation, the most likley way something along this 
line could happen is private pressure (internal 'laws') from consumers, 
buyers and their liability insurance companies forcing honey producers to 
eliminate all chemical treatments from their operations by using 
increasingly stringent testing.

This reality is already creeping up on us, and I have been warning this one 
for almost a decade now.  The US is actually one of the more backward 
countries in terms of stringent regulation and consumer consciousness.  I 
saw first evidence of the trend towards more transparency and accountability 
when Barkman (I think) mentioned at an ABF session that Wal-Mart was 
requiring bacterial counts and certifications.  They were also having to 
refuse drums with gravel in the bottom (oh?).

More recently, the requirements on honey drums have been drastically 
tightened, eliminating most used drums from circulation.

I can recall when a part per million was something we did not worry about. 
Now it is parts per billion, and parts per trillion is coming.

> I think our queens today have many desirable traits which were not 
> selected for 30 years ago but in my opinion *at the cost* of certain 
> traits which are important to the livelihood of the commercial beekeeper.

I suspect you are right, and hopefully, you will detail the most obvious 
ones for us.

On the other hand, I am definitely seeing bees which are more disease and 
mite resistant in the past few years.  It has not taken much of an increase 
in these qualities to reduce susceptibilty in the population.  In fact, I am 
thinking that it is not so much an increase in resistance I am seeing, but 
rather an elimination of the most susceptible.

Nonetheless, I still see many bees which would not last long without a 
constant application of chemicals in my recent travels. (opening 244 hives 
in 12 commercial outfits in a little over a week).

> The perfect bee which fits all beekeepers needs and will produce in all 
> areas of the world does not exist in my opinion and never will.

Any more than the perfect car or truck.  The idea is actually ridiculous, if 
we give it any real thought.

Of course, there is the Swiss Army Knife approach.  Could we do that?

> "taking the battle to the enemy-the  queen producers" is a bit harsh. I 
> will say why.

That was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but in part it is true.  Their goals are not 
the same as ours.  If they did a really great job to our standards only, it 
would cut into their business.  This is another subject entirely, and one 
that is not apparent to most who are hooked on consuming and take a consumer 
society for granted.

> 1. researchers are a small group of people which for the most part do not 
> greatly influence the beekeepers which produce the queens used in the U.S.

That is the truth, but should not be.  There must be a two-way partnership 
between the groups, because one is doing the production, and the other has 
the tools to do necessary analysis.

Queen production and queen breeding are two very different things, and 
unfortunately, those who concentrate on production do not always make use of 
the science that could make a large difference in the quality of the output.

> The commercial beekeeping industry which by far supports queen producers 
> (buys the Lions share of the queens) first of all DEMANDS certain 
> qualities in the queens it buys.

Of course, but they very often get qualities they do not want, and do not 
get other good qualities they could have included for free.  Just because 
the consumers are satisfied does not mean they are aware of what they could 
have if the producers applied a bit more science.  Historically, most 
companies have always been reluctant to introduce superior new products that 
might cut into their existing market and challenge their existing profits. 
It has often taken an upstart to introduce real change.

> Sure queen producers may offer a few *fad* queens but all the major queen 
> producers such as Wooten's, heitkams or Wilbanks understand the bee 
> commercial beeks want. Each of these queen producers selects breeder 
> queens from thousands of colonies. This method of breeder queen selection 
> has a proven track record dating back over a 100 years.  The method works!

Sure, a Model T works, too, but it will not take you to the Moon.

We have new technology to understand things today in  ways that previous 
generations hardly imagined.  I have had the chance to sit in on sessions 
where young scientists and grad students get to strut their stuff.  What 
they do is astounding.  There are big changes coming.  Dinosaurs, look out!

> The beekeeper which keeps bees for a living could care less about many 
> traits certain *researchers* feel are important.

It is always possible to find extremes in any group, then flog the whole 
group with that example, but that is not fair.  You and I both know that 
there are some researchers who have made a huge positive differences, and to 
the extent that the industry has listened and communicated, it has moved 
ahead.

> There is a demand for queens which are as Allen speaks of but in my 
> opinion the demand for daughters from those breeder queens which stand out 
> among thousands of hives in greater at least in U.S. commercial circles.

These ideas are not mutually exclusive.  It takes time for new qualities to 
propagate through the populations, and for new ideas to penetrate the 
consciousness of beekeepers.

> I basically agree with the things Allen said and only trying to explain 
> from my experience why the queen producers seem reluctant to embrace what 
> Allen proposes. *if* the demand for those queens was greater than for the 
> type we now prefer and there was little demand for the daughters of the 
> breeder queens selected from the best of thousands of hives then the queen 
> producers would change quickly.

Again, these ideas are not in conflict.  It is not an either/or choice.

FWIW, I like the idea of breeding from the best in thousands of hives and 
have considered getting my friends who run tens of thousands of hives to all 
pick their best ten hives and drop them of in a breeder yard, then select 
and raise queens from that group for distribution.

I know that would work. However, I also know that is not the optimal method 
since there are so many bee strains involved, and I do not have the know-how 
to deal with that, if anyone does.   Maybe if a single breeder does that 
from within his/her own customers, it would be better, but open mating all 
over the country introduces jokers into the deck.

> A poor bunch of queens can cause the commercial beekeeper dearly! Such as 
> the 2007 NWC.

Commercial beekeeping is a probability game.  Those who swing for the fence 
strike out most often.  Mixing methphors, as you suggest, never put all your 
money on one horse (queen supplier).

Most people dip a toe in first, and never dive into unknown waters. 

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