>The management change that is implied here is to stop transporting bees from state to state to pollinate. Is this realistic? ...

I don't know if it's realistic or not....but do you disagree?  In other forums, you've been known to say things like:

"But bottom line here is that the health of bees probably requires ideal forage and a reasonable amount of isolation from the mainstream of beekeeping."

Is this really any different from what Evans suggests?

Response:

I was asked this morning, off line, if I had changed my mind on the value of comb replacement. I really try to keep an open mind and absorb all ideas. The ideas of isolation, probiotics, comb replacement, propolis envelopes, etc. all have appeal. Whether they are capable of solving all or any problems is another story.

The chief problem is that most positive reports are largely anecdotal, and most scientific studies are too narrowly focused. Couple this with the general aim of beekeepers to produce a profit by any means possible, and you have a situation where it is difficult to make broad generalizations without grossly oversimplifying.

My take on comb replacement was that it was largely conjectural, and hadn't really been tried large scale. As far as isolation goes, I 'd love to study that but I am not isolated. Further, an isolated spot, like the Adirondacks, might be so poor for beekeeping as to invalidate the results. 

I hesitate to go too far with the "transporting bees state to state" thread because I don't want to be seen as endorsing anything that would restrict beekeepers from moving their hives about. However, a hundred years ago beekeeping was far more local and there are undoubtedly some excellent benefits from such a scenario.

Bee breeding, in my opinion, has been sorely misunderstood and grossly over-hyped. With supercedure rates at an all-time high, it makes little sense to buy fancy priced queens, except for breeder queens. I would buy locally in order to support local bee breeders, if for no other reason.

One of the key points in evolutionary biology is that organisms are tightly constrained. They can vary considerably *within very narrow parameters* and this differs greatly from species to species as well. Which means that you may be able to breed a dog to look like almost anything you like, but not to look like a cat. Least, I don't think so.

see: http://www.freakingnews.com/Pictures/1/Cat-or-Dog.jpg

PLB

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

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm