> Regarding cross-breeding ["interracial marriage"], the eminent monk
> has the following to add to Carnies:
> "I [Brother Adam] must mention one point here..."

While Brother Adam was a most fascinating and devoted beekeeper, and a good
read, I wonder, in the end, what we can learn from him.  I also wonder about
he sample sizes and analyses he used in reaching his conclusions.  The
scientists I talk to just shake their heads.

We know, or should know, from reading this list if not elsewhere, that all
beekeeping is local, and the guy just over the hill will see something
different from us, often as not, when working with bees.  Of course there
are many commonalities, too, but we cannot safely assume much.

We know, for example, that queens, from any breeder, when shipped to
different places, get different reviews from knowledgeable beekeepers in
each region, and we also know that if you pick up what seems to be a vicious
hive or apiary and move it to a new location in a distant -- or sometimes
even nearby --  area, it may prove to be very tractable.

The style in centuries past was to attempt to make general observations and
turn them into universal laws.  With the flood of revelation that has
occured in the past half-century, most of us are much less boldly convinced
of the absoluteness of anything, less likely to mistake simultaneity for
causality, and more likely to suspect that problems are more complex than
they appear on the surface.  We are more suspicious of religions and cults
and the thinking and catechisms that are central to such organisations.

While Brother Adam makes very interesting reading, I think that any
experienced and independant-thinking beekeeper will soon question his
conclusions on most every topic.  Moreover, if we examine the breeding of
the Buckfast bee, both during his lifetime and to the present, in light of
what we know now, we will find again that we have questions.  The old
beekeeping books are fun to read, but to my mind, many should be categorised
under, 'Religion' or 'Fiction'.

As for the observation in point, I doubt the bees we call 'carnies' now and
here are anything like the samples he experienced, and on which BA based his
conclusions.  Personally, I have all kinds of crosses between the many
strains of 'italians' we have had and the many strains of 'carnies' we have
had, and cannot say that we ever could find any basis for his observations.

That does not mean someone just over the hill from me will not agree with
him completely.

FWIW, I have very successful and large-scale friends who are Buckfast
believers, but, FWIW, they don't seem at all concerned about such crosses.
Back sliders?  Go figure.

allen
http://www.honeybeeworld.com

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and  other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::