Hello Bob -

> Feral bees are prized for their rarity.
> FACT : A very low percent of feral bess have survived the mites. Those feral
> bees many report seeing are most likely swarms from our hives. If they come
> from treated hives they could last two years. Plus there is no way of
> knowing all the hives in a given area. New beekeepers buy packages through
> the mail and start with bees every year.

I agree here with what you are saying. I'm talking mainly about those
colonies that people pick up from places that are known to be old
established hives. I guess I used poor verbiage and should have used feral
instead of swarms. But even a first or second year swarm is that much more
adjusted to the local make up/gene pool than a newly purchased queen from
who knows where. I just don't like the idea that for me to maintain a
certain characteristic in my bees I have to continue to buy a queen from
someone. If I stop, so does that characteristic so I feel like I'm on the
dole. Personally I'd rather work with my local material and do selective
breeding for traits I see naturally occurring.

If people are still finding these 'old' colonies that have been on their
own, does this not show us that if given the chance, bees will fight and
adjust to what works naturally? It seems to me that there is enough progress
made by these bees toward survivorship that we ought to be taking time to
study these bees and try to understand why this is. Is it how they breed in
an uncontrolled environment? Is it due to physical changes such as cell
size? Etc, etc.

>> Why do we always look to some other place or some other
>> breeder for "better" queens? Is there something wrong with the ones our
>> own  bees raise? I think not.
>
> It is a long proven fact bees tend to raise queens from to old a larvae and
> when eggs are given to large starter colonies by queen breeders the queens
> are larger and better performers.

So are you saying that we can propagate better bees in a better way than
they can do for themselves? I guess it depends on what we consider 'better
performers'. Size of queens(larger in this case) has no proven advantage
that I'm aware of. Good performance has to be weighed against all the
negative aspects. Can't have one without the other.

What are circumstances surrounding these bees that tend to raise 'bad'
queens? Can I read some of these proven facts somewhere? I'm sure you have
done more reading than I as I can't readily recall such reports. I know
hearing from other beekeepers that there are more than just a few that have
gone completely away from buying queens to letting their own bees raise the
queens. If I remember right, John Iannuzzi mentioned here on the list that
he has been doing this for over 35 years.

Regards,
Barry