Trevo said:
"I asked (Dr. Harry Laidlaw) if it was better to have queens mate in the
open in an isolated situation instead of Instrumental Insemination as only
the stronger drones would mate whereas in II you just pick drones to collect
semen from."

While acknowledging that the gene content of all drones of a given queen is
identical, barring mutations,  I still wonder if the vitality of the drone
is of consequence to the vitality of the semen and if this might in turn
relate in some mysterious way to the vitality and/or the fecundity of the
queen.  I can't think of any way this could be scientifically studied much
less proven.  I suppose it is something to be relegated to the purely
intuitive aspect of beekeeping.
     There is a book which is a collection of lectures on the topic of bees
by the late19th and early 20th century occult spiritualist philosopher,
Rudolf Steiner.   In it he talks at length about his, what he would call,
scientific approach to spiritual reality.  He apparently had a group of
followers who were serious bee keepers, and I gather he himself was quite
interested in the topic.  At any rate, he seemed quite concerned, even in
those early days, that instrumental insemination would prove to be the
downfall of beekeeping as we know it.  He even gave a time table for it's
demise.  I think it was supposed to have already happened, but the point was
that there is a spiritual component to what goes on in nature, and that what
we observe on the physical level is entirely a reflection of this underlying
spiritual component.  He devoted his whole life to showing people how to
access this level of reality in nature through the development of
intuitional insight.  It was through this self acclaimed high level of
development of intuition (occult knowledge) that he claimed to be able to
see the fundamental error in instrumental insemination, and he encouraged
his scientifically oriented followers to examine this in both intuitive and
conventionally scientific ways.
     There are so many things that we just accept, because they provide
solutions or improvements that are obvious within the view of a relatively
limited aperture.   We too often fail to see the big picture or even
acknowledge that a picture larger than the one we see exists.  As humans it
is supposedly our unique ability to be conscious of ourselves in relation to
the world around us, and to make conscious decisions based on abstractions
of what we observe.  But as beekeepers if all we see is what will or will
not produce the greatest amount of honey for the least amount of effort and
resources,  then do we not run the risk of creating unforeseeable problems
down the road?
      The problem with the big picture as it relates to us humans is that it
is infinitely complex, and it is not possible through quantification and
data analysis to see where even something as relatively simple as
instrumental insemination will ultimately lead.  And this is true of a
number of modern beekeeping practices is it not?  You can say that this
practice is good and that practice is not good, but who can say what the
long range effect of closed mating practices will be?  Will it lead to a
super bee, or will it lead to more dependence on more extreme and invasive
practices, ultimately leading us to the collapse of beekeeping as we know
it?  Who can even say what the effect of using old tired drone semen on
queens that never soar the clear blue skies has on the overall vitality of a
colony of bees ?   I think we will have to rely as much on intuition as
science for the answers to many of these questions.

Waxing philosophical
Steve Noble
South Whidbey Island, Washington

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