> Nature, which, in these discussions, always seems to be the way we should 
> go, does breed for specific traits so bees or any species can handle local 
> conditions.

That is true and unless man interferes, either a species adapts or 
disappears in any specific locale.

> You might say that nature tends to make less diversity in a local area 
> than man. Just look at the distribution of different types of animals and 
> insects in specific climate zones.

In the past weeks, I have visited and looked at bees in a dozen large 
outfits scattered around my region.  Each and every one has a mixture of bee 
breeds, some of which are strikingly different.

Bees in a single operation (and sometimes a single yard) often run the gamut 
from bees which have a reputation for being able to resist AFB and brood 
diseases, both types of mites and harsh winters, to strains which have a 
reputation for catching every passing pest and disease and eating up their 
winter stores early -- but also making large populations and crops and 
looking pretty.

In addition, I am told, the mix of strains often changes annually, depending 
on which queens are available when, the price, and the latest fad.

In commercial beekeeping, there is a lot of monkey see, monkey do.

> Diversity is here because of not in spite of beekeepers.

And that like many things we observe has its good side and its bad side.

Diversity, like Mom's Apple Pie is Good, we are told.  Lack of diversity, we 
are reminded often, is Evil.

However, diversity in extremes guarantees the maintenance of susceptibility 
to common diseases and pests in the population and *necessitates* the use of 
chemicals (also Evil) in any commercially viable farming environment.

For those of us who suspect and suggest that breeding and genetic selection 
is the only way off the chemical treadmill, it becomes obvious that this 
approach can only work several ways:

1.) legislation and enforcement against maintaining susceptible strains,

2.) missionary work creating consumer demand for resistance/tolerance on a 
continuing and persistent basis, or

3.) the incorporation over time of the desirable traits into all stock being 
distributed through cooperation and education of breeders and the consequent 
raising the background level of resistance/tolerance in all populations 
(thus lowering the frequency and degree of susceptibility in the general bee 
population)

Number one is not going to work.  I hope I do not have to explain why.  We 
have seen the results of unpopular legislation and enforcement in  the past.

Number two is slow, but over time will result in number three.

Number three -- accompanied by number two -- is the most promising route, 
and also a method most likely to preserve the essential diversity necessary 
to be able to respond to future challenges.

I think that this has been recognized by the most forward-thinking of our 
bee researchers and they are taking the battle to the enemy -- the queen 
producers in an attempt to skew the populations towards lower chemical 
dependence while maintaining the wide range of choice that beekeepers 
demand. 

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