# RA Queen Selection



## NDnewbeek (Jul 4, 2008)

*Re: R. Russell queens*



Diogenes said:


> *Hybrid 410: A cross from wild bees found in the Northwest Territory, wild bees found in Alaska, and the Moonbeams.* These bees are very hearty and perform better on screened bottom boards than other strains. They have also shown to be more apt to build downward when given the space to do so, which is very helpful for those that are drawing foundationless combs, regressing bees, or running top-bar hives.​


What is the procedure for testing these traits? Is it reasonable to believe that any queen designated as 'Hybrid 410' is really going to produce bees that:

1. Perform better than other bees on screened bottom boards (in order to establish this - you would have to run side-by-side hives of 410's and all other strains over several seasons over screened bottoms; the 410's would have to consistently perform better). Not saying it isn't true, just curious as to how long 410 breeding has been going on and what the results of the above experiment were.

2. Are 'more apt to build downward when given space to do so'. How is this even quantified and measured? Again, what are the testing procedures - rows of TBH's with different strains next to the 410's. How does one quantify straightness among bee combs? I mean, it is either straight or it isn't, right? I don't have 410's in my TBH's and my bees seem to get it right just about every time. 

Russell's produces upwards of 25 different strains of queens - each with a unique set of 'gifts' that are apparently engineered to be perfectly suited to every environment on earth. Russell's claims that Dr. Russell is in charge of breeding programs located all over the country which is why they can produce all these different queens. The BEST queen producers produce no more than 2 or 3 strains of bees, as careful management of genetics is work and time intensive. Am I the only one who thinks that sounds just a little bit fishy?

Mike


----------



## Diogenes (Jul 3, 2012)

*Re: R. Russell queens*



NDnewbeek said:


> What is the procedure for testing these traits? Is it reasonable to believe that any queen designated as 'Hybrid 410' is really going to produce bees that:
> 
> 1. Perform better than other bees on screened bottom boards (in order to establish this - you would have to run side-by-side hives of 410's and all other strains over several seasons over screened bottoms; the 410's would have to consistently perform better). Not saying it isn't true, just curious as to how long 410 breeding has been going on and what the results of the above experiment were.
> 
> ...


If Doc Russell claimed to do all that selection work by himself and he was only shipping a couple hundred queens a week, then I wouldn't say the claims pass the "smell test". There seems to be a small army of botanists and students employed by Russell Apiaries, and Doc Russell is directing the work, not doing it.

Still, those are excellent questions.

When I posted a question asking how Russell Apiaries selects for foraging distance, >-- link to question: --< the answer was quickly forthcoming, and was kinda opposite and far easier than I was imagining.

If you are interested in how those selections were made. Ask.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

*Re: R. Russell queens*

Diogenes: You seem quite knowledgable about the Russell operation. How so?


----------



## NDnewbeek (Jul 4, 2008)

*Re: R. Russell queens*



Diogenes said:


> There seems to be a small army of botanists and students employed by Russell Apiaries, and Doc Russell is directing the work, not doing it.


Ok - so who are they? What are their qualifications? I went to graduate school. I know some who graduated with advanced degrees in my cohort who I wouldn't let make a ham sandwich. 

Plus, Russell Apiaries is selling all of these queens on the reputation of Russell, not 'botanists and students'. When people buy a queen from Russell, do they not think that it is a queen he produced? With over 20-some different queen operations apparently all over the country, each making some different 'flavor' of queen - and the bulk of queen raising occurring from February through July (depending upon where you are), just how much directing does this army of queen producers really receive from Doc Russell?

For that matter, who is running his experiments? Are these the same people grafting his queens? Do they understand research design?

I find that the claims the business makes about the queens the operation produces to be nothing short of fantastic. How on earth can you claim that your bees pull straighter comb than someone else's?! Does he know the gene that the 'straight comb' allele occurs on?! If he does, he needs to share it with the scientific community! 

I am not trying to be difficult, and I have held on to these questions for some time - but the more I hear about his operation the more I want to say, 'Shenanigans!'





Diogenes said:


> When I posted a question asking how Russell Apiaries selects for foraging distance, >-- link to question: http://russellapiaries.webs.com/apps/forums/topics/show/7906722-foraging-distance- --< the answer was quickly forthcoming, and was kinda opposite and far easier than I was imagining.
> 
> If you are interested in how those selections were made. Ask.


So what was the answer? I can't view it because I am not a site member. I don't want to become a site member because membership numbers are used (in part) for attracting advertising. I am not willing to support his business in this way. I would like to see the response to these questions though.

It took Mendel literally tens of thousands of generations breeding pea plants (which are self-fertilizing, have relatively small genomes, have a diploid mating system and have short generation times) for him to start to unravel inheritance patterns. 

Russell seems to have worked out everything for bees (which are more complex, have a haplo/diploid system and much longer generation times) in just a few years. My guess is that his bees are, in reality, no better or worse than anyone else's on average. I suspect that his real talent is in marketing.

As I said, "Shenanigans".

Mike


----------



## Beetrucker74 (Oct 10, 2010)

*Re: R. Russell queens*

You do know that Russell's Apiaries have been breeding queens for about 70 years? And you are right queens are bought on the Russell's Reputation. Russell is not a first name it is a family name.


----------



## Diogenes (Jul 3, 2012)

*Re: R. Russell queens*



jim lyon said:


> Diogenes: You seem quite knowledgable about the Russell operation. How so?



Customer who did a bit of research.  (Some time on their forums)





NDnewbeek said:


> .....<snip>.... I don't want to become a site member because membership numbers are used (in part) for attracting advertising. I am not willing to support his business in this way. ....<snip>....


Erm, pardon me for pointing-out the obvious (I am sometimes referred to as Master of the obvious), yet methinks you are confusing BeeSource.com and RussellApiaries.com.

If you look really, really hard, you might see which one is accepting the advert dinero!!


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

*Re: R. Russell queens*

Diogenes, do not continue to post links to Russell's site that first require one to become a member to read.


----------



## NDnewbeek (Jul 4, 2008)

*Re: R. Russell queens*



Beetrucker74 said:


> You do know that Russell's Apiaries have been breeding queens for about 70 years?


Ok, so where is the evidence that granddad Russell was conducting all of this research on all of these strains of queens and laid the foundation for making these claims? Did grandad Russell also have a Ph.D? Or was he just a guy (like you or me) who just started breeding queens and selling them because he liked it and had a knack for it?

Being around for a long time does not automatically confer the kind of scientific validity necessary to make the claim that your bees draw straighter comb than other bees.

I know first hand what valid scientific research costs. For the Russell operation to be conducting valid research on all of these strains (even just to maintain the basic ones) would cost millions of dollars. The operation would need to be one of the biggest genetics labs in the country. 

Is it? I have never heard of it until just last year.

But here is the point. I originally asked how it is possible to make these incredible claims about bees. What are the testing and selecting procedures? How many trials are done before they make the claims? Why aren't they publishing the results in scientific journals (afterall, he is a Ph.D., the claims are certainly cutting-edge science and Doc Russell should be well familiar with the publication process), etc.

In response to these questions, we get links to sites we can't read and then we (and BeeSource) get attacked. I don't think that my skepticism is unreasonable. The Russell operation makes claims about the queens it raises that sound simply too good to be true (eg. For 'moonbeams': "_These eager girls tend to be the first out of the hive in the morning and the last to return (usually in the dark, hence the name). They build up fairly early in the spring compared to Carniolans and much earlier than Russians. They winter in nice clusters without overloading the brood chambers with honey, and they have a very low swarm rate. _ " 

There are claims to at least FIVE characteristics in that description. To validly assert these claims with actual evidence would require at least five separate, INDEPENDENT studies, replicated over time. Additionally, no single gene (likely) codes for any one of these traits. They are almost certainly polygenetically inherited or influenced by the compliments of other genes. Where is the evidence that these studies have happened?

Some of these characteristics have as much inherent population variation as human eye color. Imagine being able to genetically determine eye color. Imagine if you could what HUGE news that would be. Until someone (Russell, his 'botanists or students', forum member, etc.) can provide clear, direct and detailed answers to these questions, I am going to remain skeptical about the validity of the claims the Russell operation makes about its bees.

Mike


----------



## NDnewbeek (Jul 4, 2008)

*Re: R. Russell queens*



Diogenes said:


> Erm, pardon me for pointing-out the obvious (I am sometimes referred to as Master of the obvious), yet methinks you are confusing BeeSource.com and RussellApiaries.com.


That isn't to say the the Russell forum doesn't intend to go in that direction, does it?


----------



## Greg Lowe (Feb 3, 2012)

*Re: R. Russell queens*



NDnewbeek said:


> The Russell operation makes claims about the queens it raises that sound simply too good to be true (eg. For 'moonbeams': "_These eager girls tend to be the first out of the hive in the morning and the last to return (usually in the dark, hence the name). They build up fairly early in the spring compared to Carniolans and much earlier than Russians. They winter in nice clusters without overloading the brood chambers with honey, and they have a very low swarm rate. _ "
> 
> There are claims to at least FIVE characteristics in that description. To validly assert these claims with actual evidence would require at least five separate, INDEPENDENT studies, replicated over time.


Have you ever watched bees? Do you have any idea which is your best hive? Can you make this determination about your bees without an INDEPENDENT study replicated over time? I can tell you which is my best hive, which one builds up better than the others, which one seems to forage earlier than the others, etc. I'd be glad to share my methods. I go out early in the morning with a cup of coffee and sit down on a cinder block (methodology is consistent). Then I notice that the second hive from the end has a lot more bees coming and going. From that I can conclude that this hive forages earlier than my others. I can repeat this process for evaluating the brood chambers in February and March. All I have to do to do this is have them similar strength going into winter, then see which one has more capped brood, eggs and larvae in early spring. The one that does, I can conclude builds up faster. But I never went to Graduate School, so I don't know as much about science as others. lol


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

*Re: R. Russell queens*

Mike makes some very valid points and he dosent even address what I have always felt is the biggest challenge to quality control in any queen breeding operation. In the final analysis you can only have any degree of control in the lineage of your breeder queen and not the totally random open mating process with a drone pool in which you may be able to "stack the deck" but ultimately nature dictates you cannot have total control. It all seems a bit far-fetched for me to accept that there can be quality control with all these acclimation programs across the country particularly with the 4000 queens a week numbers that we are hearing claims of. Where are all these locations and why does everything about them seem clouded in secrecy?


----------



## Diogenes (Jul 3, 2012)

*Re: R. Russell queens*



Barry said:


> Diogenes, do not continue to post links to Russell's site that first require one to become a member to read.



I was unaware of those restrictions on the Russell Apiaries Queen Selection Forum. To avoid offending any sensibilities, I'll avoid posting links to the Russell Apiaries forums. And I won't post the Russell Apiaries Forum information here at BeeSource either. Between the two I just might keep the hob-nailed boots offa my posts.




NDnewbeek said:


> ....<Snip - Many good questions>.... Why aren't they publishing the results in scientific journals (afterall, he is a Ph.D., the claims are certainly cutting-edge science and Doc Russell should be well familiar with the publication process), etc.....<Snip>....


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.

The rest of your points, while thoughtful, I cannot answer for RA. You have the choice to seek those answers, or remain comfortably ensconced in your skeptical ignorance. 




NDnewbeek said:


> That isn't to say the the Russell forum doesn't intend to go in that direction, does it?


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


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????? :lpf:




jim lyon said:


> ....<Snip>....In the final analysis you can only have any degree of control in the lineage of your breeder queen and not the totally random open mating process with a drone pool in which you may be able to "stack the deck" but ultimately nature dictates you cannot have total control. ....<Snip>.... Where are all these locations and why does everything about them seem clouded in secrecy?


Doc Russell has posted some interesting techniques on how he has used geography to stack the deck overwhelmingly in his favor. In the interests of keeping the hob-nailed-boots at bay, I'll not post a link nor the content. You'll have to find it yourself.

Now, "clouded in secrecy" is a bit dramatic. I haven't seen much about York or Glen or Dadant locations published here on BeeSource either. Clouded in secrecy? I never looked for it? Or just no one ever asked or answered?




Greg Lowe said:


> Have you ever watched bees? Do you have any idea which is your best hive? Can you make this determination about your bees without an INDEPENDENT study replicated over time? ....<snip>.... lol


Exactly!!!!

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.

I really don't have any more to contribute to this thread. You can seek your answers. You can be comfortable in your set opinions. You can be as skeptical as makes you happy.

Your choice.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

*Re: R. Russell queens*



Diogenes said:


> 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.


Anyone who has done the work required to earn a doctorate has my utmost respect however you choose to use it. It is far beyond what I am academically capable of. Having never seen any of this background posted, I have always been curious as to where he earned his degree and what type of research he did his dissertation on. Isnt that sort of thing usually somewhere in the public domain. Anyone?


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

*Re: R. Russell queens*

Mike (NDnewbeek),

I have attempted to remain quiet in this thread in the past few weeks. I feel I made my point in the first few pages, and I had little else to say if you disagreed with my points. I was also attempted to avoid anyone saying I was "berating" the dissatisfied customer, as it was never my intention. But, your posts do make me raise an eyebrow or two.

Do you not think you are putting RA on a bit of a pedestal? And then criticizing them for being there? A healthy level of criticism is good for everyone, but you claim his methods are flawed (or potentially flawed) without knowing what his methods are. You are given the opportunity to go to his site, ask the questions that you want directly to the source (Doc and his employees) and yet instead you choose not to, you choose to remain on this site and complain that his methods are probably flawed. Doesn't that sound unfair and odd?

I understand that you are looking for research papers, articles, long winded verbiage describing his mating methods, where they are located, how involved he is in them, the names of his employees, their credentials, and possibly even personal visits to see his operations. All that for a $30-50 queen? If the company spent the time to satisfy your inquiries the way you wanted them solved, and they repeated that for every potential customer, they would go bankrupt in a matter of days. The same would be true for any queen breeding operation. Every month I read the current edition of Bee Culture and ABJ, and I don't read in-depth articles about Kona, Zia, Hardeman, Rossman, or any of the other breeders you mentioned that detail how their selection processes are done, or how their mating yards are set up, or who their employees are, what their credentials are, ect. I likewise don't read scholarly articles written by the same. Why would Russells be any different? 

But fine, lets say you are right, and Russells has a duty to you to write these articles, reports, publish these studies, let you know about the intricate workings of his operations. Then, as a scientifically minded graduate student, your duty would be to take all the information, piece the data together, and make an unbiased judgment of the facts. 



NDnewbeek said:


> As I said, "Shenanigans".


It would appear that your mind has already been made up, before you even saw the data. The decider is no longer unbiased. Not a good scientist. Not a good masters (I assume that's what you got) graduate. 

Once an individual has made up his mind, in either direction, before seeing the information, even when he/she has been given the opportunity to read the data and ask the questions he/she has, yet they choose not to do so, it is nearly impossible to convince you the other way. Your decision has already been made. No information, good or bad, will change that. The remainder of this conversation is pointless.

Just my two cents. Nothing to actually do with RA's techniques.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

*Re: R. Russell queens*



Diogenes said:


> Between the two I just might keep the hob-nailed boots offa my posts.


If you don't like the way the forum is run, please go and find one you do. In the meantime, I ask that all links posted in the forums go directly to the information being discussed. Otherwise, you are wasting everyone else's time.


----------



## julysun (Apr 25, 2012)

*Re: R. Russell queens*

Breezly, I'l vote with you. The best place , cheapest, most efficient, where fraud has occurred {payment made, no product delivered) is the Small Claims Court in you area. :lookout:


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

*Re: R. Russell queens*

I have no animosity towards Mr. Russell whatsoever we are of similar age, and beekeeping experience and our families have both been in the beekeeping business for a similar time. Robert is obviously very knowledgable about all things involved in breeding queens and I have learned from many of his posts. My intent is not to pile on someone who has been having difficulties in his business, anyone who has done this long enough has had their moments as well. I am trying to give him the benefit of the doubt and hope that he is able to get things back on track for everyones sake. Given the fact that genetic bee research is a tenet of his business I do think that his credentials are pertinent subject matter though. I read lots of publications by the leading researchers in the industry, names like Connor, Spivak, Cobey, Ellis, Mussen and Pettis just to name some of the most visible leaders in honeybee research. For me to wonder aloud about where he might fit into the bee research picture in the US isnt really a tough question at all, actually its a question easily answered. Were I to somehow earn that title (allow me to dream for a moment) I would be touting it on my signature instead of the silly stuff that I currently put in there. I have no reason to think that he isnt a Dr. nor do I think its an affront to ask.


----------



## Beezly (Jun 25, 2011)

*Re: R. Russell queens*

I agree Jim, it is not an affront to ask for his accreditations. 
Barry, what does post #10 have to do with this topic? Inflammatory at best, yet my post is deleted :scratch:


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

*Re: R. Russell queens*

I don't see #10 as inflammatory . . . maybe I'm reading it wrong though.


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

*Re: R. Russell queens*

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/dataframe.aspx?start=AccSearch.aspx&navstart=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 (Dec 28, 1999)

*Re: R. Russell queens*

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 (Jun 25, 2011)

*Re: R. Russell queens*

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 (Jul 4, 2008)

*Re: R. Russell queens*



Diogenes said:


> 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.





Diogenes said:


> 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.




Diogenes said:


> 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????? :lpf:


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.




Diogenes said:


> 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.




Diogenes said:


> _*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 (Jul 3, 2012)

*Re: R. Russell queens*



NDnewbeek said:


> ....<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..... :lpf:




NDnewbeek said:


> 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.




NDnewbeek said:


> 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". 




NDnewbeek said:


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


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




NDnewbeek said:


> 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.




NDnewbeek said:


> 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??)



NDnewbeek said:


> ....<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 (Jul 3, 2012)

*Re: R. Russell queens*

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



NDnewbeek said:


> .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. 




NDnewbeek said:


> ....<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 (Jan 14, 2011)

*Re: R. Russell queens*

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 (Sep 4, 2005)

*Re: R. Russell queens*



hystad said:


> 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.



hystad said:


> 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 (Feb 19, 2006)

*Re: R. Russell queens*



hystad said:


> 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/sho...and-Latshaws-breeders&highlight=Glenn+breeder


----------



## baldwinbees (Mar 2, 2010)

*Re: R. Russell queens*

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 (Sep 4, 2005)

*Re: R. Russell queens*



baldwinbees said:


> 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.



baldwinbees said:


> 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.



baldwinbees said:


> 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 (Jul 17, 2008)

*Re: R. Russell queens*

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 (Feb 19, 2006)

*Re: R. Russell queens*

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 (Dec 28, 1999)

*Re: R. Russell queens*



Specialkayme said:


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


So which is it, best or worst?


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

*Re: R. Russell queens*



Barry said:


> 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 (Dec 28, 1999)

*Re: R. Russell queens*

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 (Sep 4, 2005)

*Re: R. Russell queens*

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 (Dec 5, 2005)

*Re: R. Russell queens*

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:


beemandan said:


> 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 (Dec 28, 1999)

*Re: R. Russell queens*

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 (Dec 28, 1999)

*Re: R. Russell queens*



Specialkayme said:


> 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.


:scratch: 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. :scratch:


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

*Re: R. Russell queens*



Barry said:


> I suggest you let people say what they want to


Your suggestion will be taken as such . . . only a suggestion. 

As a general rule, I have no problem with the free flow of ideas and communications. I do, however, expect accusations of mis-dealings to be verified before made. 



Barry said:


> and not act like the arbiter of truth when you yourself don't know.


Might I recommend that the moderator do so moderate himself when referring to its members.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

*Re: R. Russell queens*



Barry said:


> I'll keep scratching my head. :scratch:


I would expect nothing less from you Barry.


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

*Re: R. Russell queens*



Barry said:


> but jump on anyone that would say he is not a "Dr."


Incorrect statement.

I jump on (one) individual that made an accusation that he holds an honorary degree instead of a PhD. There is no basis for such a statement. I have no problem if you want to say you believe he might not be a doctor. I could care less. Let's leave defamatory statements out of this. 

I do call him Dr., as well as Doc. As with "Doc" sometimes it's a nickname. Sometimes it's a result of a degree. Not always is that degree a PhD. I received a juris doctorate. It's a doctorate, but not a PhD. You shouldn't call me a doctor, Dr., or Doc, but if you want to there isn't anything misleading about it, as I do have a doctorate. Just not the PhD that most people (incorrectly) refer it to.As you are not putting "MD" behind my name, referring to myself as a PhD holder, or anything of the like, it would not be misleading. The same is true for Doc Russell.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

*Re: R. Russell queens*

Earning a doctorate in Entomology is a pretty big deal. As I understand it, (academics correct me if I am wrong) it involves a tremendous amount of study culminated by publishing a unique peer reviewed study that when accepted confers on you the title of Dr. It dosent make you a better bee breeder but it at least says that you have done a great deal of formal study to get to that point. Mr. Russell's personal information here on Beesource notes 3 generations of entomologists and talks about a Russell foundation for genetic research, it dosent however refer to him anywhere as a Dr. Read into that what you will. On the other hand going by the name Barry or even Jim for that matter, really dosent infer much of anything except our parents preferences for the naming of their children.


----------



## TWall (May 19, 2010)

*Re: R. Russell queens*

Jim,

Earning a Doctorate of Philosophy, PhD, is a little more involved. There are lots of variables. Essentially, one conducts a research project on a very narrow, specific topics of novel, new research. You work with an advisor and advisory committee to develop this project. These people are experts in their fields. After coming up with a hypothesis to test, research trials are developed and run, data is collected and analyzed. This is all then written up in a dissertation. The PhD candidate then defends their dissertation before their advisory committee. For a well thought out dissertation this can be an enjoyable discussion of the results. If there are problems or holes it can be less than enjoyable. In the worse case scenario the candidate does not defend their dissertation and are not awarded their doctorate.

I am not a PhD. However, I do go through the academic 'minor league' and have a thesis-based MS from the University of Florida.

I have no idea what Robert Russell's training is. I did find his posts informative and he to be kind and helpful to a new beekeeper. Kind of like you Jim!

Tom


----------



## baldwinbees (Mar 2, 2010)

the honorary part was a repeat from the thread where I found out his apiary was quarentined&thought it best to let it be known rather than possibly spread FOULBROOD.At that time I didn't know that he had apiaries worldwide.It is strange that all shipments seem to originate from Miss.?Anyways,in that thread,I believe,it was stated that his 'title' was honorary due to how much he did for beekeepers.That was back when he still posted&he never denied it.Felt it safe to assume it was true.
Where do the drones come from for the AI?Either way,how do u keep a genepool from becoming tainted unless the drones were from the same genepool& my understanding is she won't breed with them,so why 'make'her


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

*Re: R. Russell queens*

Tom: Thanks, and thanks also for the instructional on the doctoral process. I will agree that I found Mr. Russell generally a helpful and informative poster.


----------



## Riskybizz (Mar 12, 2010)

*Re: R. Russell queens*

I have enjoyed reading thousands of posts here for a couple of years now. I very much enjoyed reading the posts by Robert Russell who is obviously very knowledgeable concerning beekeeping and queen breeding. Its quite apparent that there are some serious issues with his businees that need correcting. Its unfortunate however that all this dirty laundry has to be aired out in a public forum such as this inteneded for educational purposes. I am inpressed though from post like those by Jim Lyon, who refrains from personal, judgemental attacks. Jim your obviously quite professional, honest and open minded. Thanx for your posts.


----------

