> Jims answer was:  "Superior Marketing Rationale"!
>
> "By convincing beekeepers that they are "selecting" for some trait or
> other, bee producers (not to be confused with actual breeders, who really
> DO selection and crossbreeding in an organized manner to produce a small
> number of superior queens) give the (incorrect) impression that they are
> adding value to the product, but avoiding objective metrics that the
> beekeeper could use to evaluate the actual queens sold by the producer."
> (etc.)

I doubt any of us would disagree with this, and, in fact many of us have
said something similar here, over and over, and would endorse the entire
article as-is ... and say, "Amen!".

Something worth noting is that the mention of SMR in the piece in question
does not seem to relate to actual SMR or Harbo's work, but rather the posers
who use currently exciting names, acronmyms and hype for marketing stock
that does not measure up to what the scientists and industry can produce.
I, too, have ranted against buying bees that are less than what they could
be in an article written years ago, at
http://www.honeybeeworld.com/misc/hygienic.htm  In part the article says:
"If everyone insists on hygienic traits when breeding and buying queens,
within a few years diseases like AFB (including SAFB), chalkbrood and
sacbrood should be reduced to minor nuisances, but it will take co-operation
by all beekeepers.  Here is how everyone can help:  DON'T BUY QUEENS UNLESS
THE SUPPLIER CAN TELL YOU CONVINCINGLY HOW THEY STACK UP IN HYGIENIC TESTS.
Consider testing the queens you buy and let it be publicly known if the
queens do not measure up when fairly and honestly compared to others. DON'T
BREED QUEENS UNLESS THE PARENT STOCK IS PROVEN TO BE HYGIENIC.  Also, test
at least representative samples of the offspring periodically.  The genetics
of eggs queens lay vary over time.

FWIW, I felt I was pushing the envelope in making such a strong statement
then, but today it does not seem at all rash, and hygienic traits are all
the rage.  I hope it stays that way.

As for whether anyone should run out and buy SMR queens, although we have
said it here again and again over the years, we must point out that the SMR
lines Harbo developed -- or whatever they are calling them today -- were not
meant to be a commercial line of bees, but were a quick and dirty
experimental line developed to isolate and refine a specific effect (no
matter how it may have been misunderstood and no matter whatever word or
collection of letters is curently used to indicate it).  Harbo warned
everyone over and over that they were *not* meant to be used in production
hives or even necessarily for incorporation into breeders' lines.  The
process he used, rather than the bee, was the point, and a number of good,
honest breeders have used it to improve their stoc, but, as Jim has
observed, some have used "SMR" to hype their mongrel stock.

However, people being what they are, many immediately wanted the actual SMR
bees to breed into their stock so as to cut the development time down, and
were willing to ignore the fact that the SMR lines were -- other than in
this one particular regard -- lousy bees!  So, SMR lines were shared with
the industry, and the rest is history.

So, we have what was an experiment to develop a method to demonstrate and
isolate a specific effect turned into something else altogether.  And,
although the discovery that came from John's work was accidental and not
what he thought at first, it is still very valuable.  I hope he gets the
credit he deserves for providing us with another important piece of the
puzzle and the work he does for our industry.

allen

If at first you don't succeed, find out if the loser gets anything.
            -- Bill Lyon

-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and  other info ---