RA Queen Selection

[Fusion_power]

It is tough for me to make an effective post about this topic. I will state that RR has been the topic of some rather revealing and controversial threads in the past. I have posted and seen his replies to some of my comments. It is obvious that he knows a great deal about bees. It is not obvious that he knows a great deal about genetics, though he may.

To illustrate, I grow and sell tomato plants. I have seed for about 500 varieties with diverse traits. I could easily tell you about the biggest tomatoes I grow, the best tasting tomatoes, the rainbow of different colors, etc. But, even though I am far beyond an amateur, I am not so well versed in tomato genetics. Before anyone goes off on a tangent, here are a few links that show a smattering of the traits currently documented.
http://tgrc.ucdavis.edu/
http://tgrc.ucdavis.edu/Data/Acc/Genes.aspx
http://tgrc.ucdavis.edu/Data/Acc/dat...start=nav.html
I can easily discuss the reasons why a tomato homozygous for the B-og^c gene expresses high crimson phenotype. I could talk about the sucr gene which results in sucrose accumulation in tomatoes as compared to starch vs simple sugars such as fructose. But these bits of knowledge do NOT make me an expert on tomato genetics. For similar reasons, I am not an expert on honeybee genetics.

Being a good bee breeder does not necessarily mean one has to be a bee geneticist. A bee breeder watches his bees and observes a trait or set of traits that are favorable then propagates those traits. This has little to do with genetics and everything to do with being diligent and observant. You will find this in Brother Adam's writings. He was not a honeybee geneticist, but he was a most diligent and observant beekeeper and honeybee breeder. It would bear asking if RR is such a diligent and observant beekeeper. The best way to find out would be to ask for pedigrees on his breeding stock. Brother Adam had pedigrees going back to 1920.

[Barry]

I get flippin' tired of trying to please everyone on their particular point of view and what gets moved/cut/edited. There are those that have a post get moved/cut/edited and simply go with the flow, assume I have a reason for what I do, and move on. Then there are those that complain about everything if it isn't exactly fair in their eyes.

NOTE: It's never totally fair!!

I try to get a thread back on track and then the discussion goes into how bad a job I did, how I play favorites, etc., etc. I get to the point sometimes where I just say "tough bundles!" I'm not perfect, I have many flaws (just ask my wife and kids) and if you hang around here long enough, I'm bound to "step on your toes." Pardon me if I do, unless your goal is to intentionally get stepped on. Some people want surgical precision applied to moderation. Sorry, I just don't have that kind of time. This thread came from another thread that got off topic for the forum it was in. Trying to clean up a thread after it is 6, 7, or 8 posts down the wrong road is rarely going to be clean and painless.

Instead of bringing specific concerns or issues one has with moderation to me in private, some members feel the way to address it is to say it in the thread and further get the discussion OFF TOPIC.

I need a glass of iced tea.

BTW, this thread is no longer in Consumer Reports. Please keep the discussion focused on Russell's breeding traits/genetics. If you have PERSONAL experience with his business you want to share, do it in the CR thread.

[Beezly]

Justin, inflammatory wrong word. Feel its leading since it has not happened.
Barry, 10-4. well said.
As for russells genetics, they are what brought all of us to order from him. I am pleased so far, queens healthy.
Good luck, should you be able to aquire them also.
mike

[NDnewbeek]

Ah, you are confusing University PhDs who live off the tax dollars taken from productive folks with those who have earned a PhD and who work in the private sector.

I would expect the university PhD to publish his/her results. After all, some of the money taken from me and you (assuming you pay taxes) helped pay for that research. On the other hand I have no justification for making such demands of Doctor Russell and his company's research. As far as I know, Dr. Russell is not living off of taxpayer money.

Wow - nice. Offensive and laced with personal invective. I assume that you are excluding all of the Ph.D.'s living off of tax dollars who develop new medical treatments, design new weaponry for the military, developed the internet, create new pharmaceuticals, etc. Every one of those industries are supported at least in part by tax dollars (I am sure that there are more).

Additionally, MOST Ph.D.s publish -whether in the public or private sector. The man in your own quote line (Milton Friedman) published prolifically during his career which included both public and private support. So does his student Thomas Sowell.

It is curious to me why Russell does not. It is also curious to me why no one can tell me where he received his Ph.D. from.

And you could then resign in protest of the RA forum operator "monetizing" the forum resources should that ever happen.

But they would have already profited from my joining.

Actually, that does beg the question. If you are so adamantly against a forum operator monetizing the forum membership numbers and forum traffic numbers for gain in the form of advertising revenue.....

WHY ARE YOU STILL HERE ON BEESOURCE?????

Your assumption that I am "adamantly against a forum operator...etc. etc.". I am not. I am simply not willing to assist the Russell site because I have concerns about their business ethics. I haven't seen any reason to harbor these concerns about BeeSource.

Doc Russell has posted some interesting techniques on how he has used geography to stack the deck overwhelmingly in his favor.

Where? His own forum - where dissent and questions are discouraged?

But here again is the point - People have asked reasonable questions. Others get on, can not answer them and instead rail about how awesome Russell Apiaries is and how you can go find the answers yourself.

Other queen breeders:
1. Do not make the kinds of claims about their bees that Russell does
2. Generally then don't have the delivery and service issues that he has.

That is likely why they come under less scrutiny.

If we had to rely on PhDs to do any or all selection and breeding, we'd have been screwed in so many ways. Farmers through the ages selected for better milk production and got excellent results. When the PhDs got involved, suddenly we have Bovine Growth Hormone as a substitute for good genetics in the milk production equation. I prefer the old farmer's method, but that's my opinion.

Wow again. Another offensive, blanket statement directed at a group of fellow citizens. I am asking honest questions and making sincere observations - look who really appears to be comfortable in their set opinions (at least as they pertain to Ph.D.'s)!

But, I am done with this thread now as well. It is becoming clear that even those here who know the Russell operation best are not able to adequately answer these questions. That alone should give people pause.

Mike

[Diogenes]

....<snip>.... I know some who graduated with advanced degrees in my cohort who I wouldn't let make a ham sandwich. ....<snip>....

Oh my where to begin.....

Wow - nice. Offensive and laced with personal invective. I assume that you are excluding all of the Ph.D.'s living off of tax dollars who develop new medical treatments, design new weaponry for the military, developed the internet, create new pharmaceuticals, etc. Every one of those industries are supported at least in part by tax dollars (I am sure that there are more).
....<snipped distractions>.....

My point, which I think somehow got missed, was that a PhD in the private sector is under no OBLIGATION to publish. Unlike the public sector.

I agree that MANY private sector PhDs will publish results of their research and so forth. Not all of them. I cannot answer for why Doc Russell does not. And I'm not that interested in asking him a question like that.

But they would have already profited from my joining.

Your assumption that I am "adamantly against a forum operator...etc. etc.". I am not. I am simply not willing to assist the Russell site because I have concerns about their business ethics. I haven't seen any reason to harbor these concerns about BeeSource.

Kinda like the guy who dropped his keys on one side of the street and was looking for them on the other side because "the light is better over here".

Where? His own forum - where dissent and questions are discouraged?

Ummm..... Have you looked closely at THIS thread???

But here again is the point - People have asked reasonable questions. Others get on, can not answer them and instead rail about how awesome Russell Apiaries is and how you can go find the answers yourself.

Well now, I did try to post some links. Somehow, through no action of my own, they got disappeared. Due to this sites terms and conditions, I'm not real comfortable copying stuff from the RA forum to the BeeSource forum without prior permission from RA. So to avoid issues, I'm not going to.

If that makes life difficult for you. Well, tough bananas.

Wow again. Another offensive, blanket statement directed at a group of fellow citizens. I am asking honest questions and making sincere observations - look who really appears to be comfortable in their set opinions (at least as they pertain to Ph.D.'s)! ....<snip....

I just cannot resist: (and as you may have noticed I do agree with you, yet now you choose to take offense??)

....<snip>.... I know some who graduated with advanced degrees in my cohort who I wouldn't let make a ham sandwich. ....<snip>....

'nuff said

[Diogenes]

OK, maybe it wasn't really " 'nuff said". (I was laughing too hard and stopped to soon)

.It is also curious to me why no one can tell me where he received his Ph.D. from.

Everyone seems to be riding that hobby horse now, so ask Doc Russell already.

....<snippity-snip>.... It is becoming clear that even those here who know the Russell operation best are not able to adequately answer these questions. That alone should give people pause.

I do not believe I've ever claimed to know all that much about the Russell Apiaries operation. My inadequacies (of which we do not have time to cover) should give you reason to get real dramatic and "pause" if and only if I were an employee or affiliate with Russell Apiaries. I am not. So methinks you are overreacting a smidgin.

However, if you cannot find it within you to go to the source to get your questions answered to your satisfaction (given the stated inadequacies of those who cannot answer your questions), just who is really to blame?

[hystad]

I think everyone should just take a few deep breaths. Being out with the bees is a way for me to unwind. Talking bees should bee fun and we shouldn't get so worked up. Life is not fair. It is also too short. Nobody is perfect. Build a bridge. Find your happy place.

Back to selection:

Jim Lyon: (Connor, Spivak, Cobey, Ellis, Mussen and Pettis) I know of some of these people. Don't most or all work for universities. Because of that they are required to write research papers.

On geography: I think Doc mentioned on one of his posts on here (though it could have been on his site) that he has islands set up for total isolation. I could also see a good isolation yard in an oasis in the desert. Other than those 2 I dont think you will ever get 100% isolation. Can anyone think of another instance?

On foraging distance: I followed the link that diogenes posted earlier concerning foraging distance. It describes a pretty good way to test hives by putting different colored chalk on the bottom boards of hives and watching containers of open feed at further and further distances. I'm sure there are alot of other simple tests such as this that no one thinks about because they have never had to do it.

Mike: I don't have a degree in genetics but I do have some experience in other closely related fields (lol). It is very easy to produce human offspring with blue eyes. I have in fact done it twice and all it envolves is a blue eyed man, a blue eyed woman, some wine and some Barry White. The same can be done with any trait in bees. A perfect example is the recessive trait for cordovan color. Like what Fusion Power said you don't have to know genetics to alter them.

Tom Hystad

[Specialkayme]

Other than those 2 I dont think you will ever get 100% isolation. Can anyone think of another instance?

Almost identical to an island, but taking a boat 5 miles off shore would work also. Or further, if you are that concerned with total isolation.

I don't have a degree in genetics but I do have some experience in other closely related fields (lol). It is very easy to produce human offspring with blue eyes. I have in fact done it twice and all it envolves is a blue eyed man, a blue eyed woman, some wine and some Barry White. The same can be done with any trait in bees.

You just made my day Tom

[jim lyon]

Jim Lyon: (Connor, Spivak, Cobey, Ellis, Mussen and Pettis) I know of some of these people. Don't most or all work for universities. Because of that they are required to write research papers.

Mike: I don't have a degree in genetics but I do have some experience in other closely related fields (lol). It is very easy to produce human offspring with blue eyes. I have in fact done it twice and all it envolves is a blue eyed man, a blue eyed woman, some wine and some Barry White. The same can be done with any trait in bees. A perfect example is the recessive trait for cordovan color. Like what Fusion Power said you don't have to know genetics to alter them.

Tom Hystad

Nice post Tom. I pretty think you are on the mark here I enjoy someone who can make their post and lighten things up at the same time. The idea of whether there should be a differentiation between bee breeders and queen raisers as relates to genetics is clearly an issue that Mr. Russell is quite passionate about.
http://www.beesource.com/forums/show...=Glenn+breeder

[baldwinbees]

OK all this talk about genetics has raised some ????
1.the sunkist queen does something special,so I graft off it.thats 15 or 30,how do you graft 100's a day off 1 queen?If you graft off her daughters then the traits have been degraded unless he inseminates.
2.where is this research foundation that does this genetic research located??nobody seems to know
3.not a question,but an answer....russell was given the' doc'part as an honorary title ...not as a degree earned

[Specialkayme]

1.the sunkist queen does something special,so I graft off it.thats 15 or 30,how do you graft 100's a day off 1 queen?If you graft off her daughters then the traits have been degraded unless he inseminates.

He has several different breeder queens, with several different genetic lines. He introduces new genetics each year to make sure he is not degrading the genetics. And yes, he does inseminate.

2.where is this research foundation that does this genetic research located??

http://russellresearch.webs.com/
I know he is involved in others, but I don't know their name.
If you wanted a physical office address, I don't know that. I don't really see how that has any bearing on the quality of his queens, or his selection methods though.

3.not a question,but an answer....russell was given the' doc'part as an honorary title ...not as a degree earned

Please. Speculation and conjecture at best. At worst defamatory and insulting.

[josethayil]

Was watching this thread for some time.

From what I have heard from people Dr. Russell produces some great quality queens with specific traits for each line. People who buy them are more than happy with their performance. Thats all that basically maters to me. I would not expect anyone to give out too much of their trade secrets and research info. (I wouldnt if I am running a business).

Let him do what he is doing well and lets hope he keeps producing these excellent queens for a long time instead of complaining and whining at each and everything.

[jim lyon]

I think it is worthwhile to point out that what Barry is trying to accomplish with splitting off part of the Russell thread into the Queen and Bee Breeding section is to keep the consumer complaints in the other section and leave this discussion to what we do and don't know about his genetic breeding program. In that context I think respectful comments about his formal genetic training and anything else we may or may not know about the development and genetic background of the lines he is selling are not out of line. Let's face it, claims about superior genetics are easily made but unless it is well documented public research such as Dr. Spivak's Minnesota hygienic line or Dr. Cobey's NWC line it is virtually impossible for anyone to ascertain what represents genetic uniqueness.

[Barry]

Speculation and conjecture at best. At worst defamatory and insulting.

So which is it, best or worst?

[Specialkayme]

So which is it, best or worst?

Since speculation, conjecture, defamation, and insults all bring us to the same end point, I don't really care if it's best or worst. I'll let you pick.

[Barry]

That point being, you don't know. I'll go on record that I don't know either, so I can't go telling someone else they're right or wrong in their statement. I guess the "Dr." will remain an elusive title unless someone, e.i. Robert, decides to give the facts.

[Specialkayme]

I'll give it to you barry, you can nit pick the crud out of anything.

But I guess you are right. Only Dr. Russell can give us documentation on his title. Until then it's all speculation.

But then again so is your name Barry, unless you would like to provide me a copy of your Birth Certificate and Driver's License. Until I can verify that (and I will not take your word for it) it's all just speculation and conjecture. I can't call you a liar, but I can't say you are telling the truth.

And yes. I do consider this post as much of a waste of time as yours, as well as a waste of time discussing the topic of Doc's pedigree without any information (good or bad). I'll concede that I can not call him a "Doctor of Entemology" without any verification on the subject if you can concede that you can't call him a "fake Doctor" holding an "honorary Degree" without any verification on the subject. As both are as equally misleading.

[beemandan]

Interesting that that question of Mr. Russell’s credentials comes up.
He had posted a description of a shb ‘trial’, the data and his interpretation of them. To make a long story short, the trial design was something a high school student might dream up and Russell’s interpretation of the results was much the same.
After that I doubted if he had a PhD from any accredited school.
Later in a thread where he was actively posting I wrote:

Dr Russell? I know your father was an entomologist but I wasn’t aware that you had your PhD. Am I mistaken?

He did not reply.

[Barry]

SKM, I haven't called him anything but his name, Robert. He doesn't, nor ever has, referred to himself as "Dr. Russell" either. Somehow "Dr." got started by another person sometime after he had been here posting. It remains a point of interest to many. One that would be easy to confirm or deny but neither is forthcoming. So until it is, I suggest you let people say what they want to and not act like the arbiter of truth when you yourself don't know.

[Barry]

I'll concede that I can not call him a "Doctor of Entemology" without any verification on the subject if you can concede that you can't call him a "fake Doctor" holding an "honorary Degree" without any verification on the subject. As both are as equally misleading.

But you do call him "Dr."! I've never made a stink about it either. Lot's of people call him "Dr. Russell." You're given the freedom to do that (even though you admit you don't know for sure that he is) but jump on anyone that would say he is not a "Dr." I'll keep scratching my head.