I don't know if I've posted to bee-l often enough to have established a
reputation.  If I have, I hope it will be obvious that I'm no supporter of
the "small cell movement."  The moderators will be doubly familiar with my
opposition to the small cell movement, having seen all the rejected posts
that they apparently -- with reasonable cause -- deemed too outspoken.  That
said, I think some things have been said lately in opposition to the
small-cellers that have gone too far.

But first, I want to agree wholeheartedly with P O Gustafson when he talked
about "the amazing talent by some of the participants to mix fact and
fiction into a stew so thick even the most determent opponent eventually
gives up from exhaustion."  When it comes to pet theories, I share what I
think is a similar sentiment: I don't mind hearing pet theories, but we
shouldn't be continually hit over the head, distracted, and side-tracked
with pet theories as if they were gospel!  Pet theories are fine so long as
they're treated as such, which means not forcing them into every discussion
on every conceivable subject, and it means meekly recognizing and accepting
the full burden of proof.

That said, I think it's misguided to split the organic movement into a
science-based organic movement and a faith-based organic movement.  To be
organic is to place the burden of proof on science, which in and of itself
has nothing to do with science.  I think it's nonsensical to speak of a
science-based organic movement.  If we're basing our management on the
latest science, how are we any different from conventional beekeepers?  On
the other hand, if we're organic, we believe science, however useful we may
find it, is an insufficient basis for management.  There's nothing
"irrational" about respecting scientific unknowns and limitations, not to
mention hidden agendas, financial forces that distort science, pressures
from academia to "publish or perish," etc.  Properly speaking, having an
overriding respect for these unknowns and limitations is what organic is all
about.

Along these same lines I'm leery of the arguments I've heard about
"reality," as in the realities of making a living or the realities of the
marketplace.  Reality is largely what we make of it.  None of us with the
time to engage in this internet discussion is struggling too hard to "make a
living," which is to say we could all afford to take fewer shortcuts if
there were good reason to do so.  It wouldn't be too far off -- even though
it would be foolish -- to say that the reality of the marketplace demands we
keep our production costs as low as possible.  That's just another way of
saying we must do things as cheaply as possible.  Are we really so hard off
that we can't afford any magnanimity?  The logic that leads us to produce
honey as cheaply as possible might as well lead us to forget honey
altogether and eat corn syrup.  I would hope that as beekeepers we would be
wise enough not to drift out into the ocean of the marketplace without any
means of navigating or steering.

I also want to second something Mike said, and that's that the best source
of genetics would be your best colonies, those that do best under your
management and your area.  This gets back to the discussion about breeding
bees to tolerate inferior feed.  If your management methods require feeding,
then breed for bees that do well on feed.  If you have bees or want to
select for bees that do well with less feeding, then feed less.  The bottom
line is we all have different bees, different conditions, different
proclivities and management objectives.  What does it matter how well my
bees tolerate feed that I'm not going to leave behind anyway?  The key point
is that each of us should have bees that work together with his conditions
and his objectives, etc.

Eric

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