If you rear queens, even from your best stock, they will eventually return (perhaps in one generation, perhaps in more) to the mean for the area. This may be good, or bad, depending on what that mean is. If they are aggressive but productive, you may consider this a worthwhile trade-off (although I wouldn't). If they are calm but not very productive, that may also be ok to you so long as you get enough honey for your needs and they don't sting your neighbours.
In breeding, you are looking to substantially raise the mean (i.e. the selection difference) in each generation and, over time, transfer that increased performance to the area through daughter queens. The way that Prof Ruttner described it is better:
"A performance that will not be inherited is without significance for the breeder. The essence of breeding is to
transmit a certified, above average performance of individual animals to the greatest number of descendants, undiminished and as far as possible enhanced".
Friedrich Ruttner, "Breeding Techniques and Selection for breeding of the Honeybee", p. 8
To me, this encapsulates exactly what breeding is about. It implies that you must assess your stock in order to determine which animals to breed from, exercise control over the pedigree to ensure the maximum possible transmission of valuable traits to the progeny (heritability) and produce as many offspring as possible from the most desirable stock. The argument that has been leveled against this is that too much selection can restrict the alleles present in a population, but, this could only happen if a very large number of daughter queens were introduced to an area (or, if that queen was disproportionately successful in transmitting her genes to the next generation). It would also assume that there was a very restricted number of queen lines available and that variation played no part. Neither of these is accurate: many thousands of queens are assessed each year in the BeeBreed programme. Also, each egg is slightly different from each other egg. Nature rarely stands still or repeats itself.
Ok. Now, I'm beginning to sound like Finman ;-) but you can see where I'm going with this.
More thoughts:
One of the courses I did many years ago looked at the way companies (or rather, the way individuals in charge of formulating strategy) approached problems.
A problem is defined as a gap between the "current state" and some desirable "future state"...whatever that might be.
Now, faced with a gap in performance you really only have four possible solutions
1. Accept the situation and do nothing about it. In other words, accept the current situation.
2. Attempt to influence the situation and narrow the gap so the future state is close to your desired state
3. Attempt to change the way you perceive the problem (often favoured by politicians)
4. Leave the situation (strategic exit from an undesirable situation is also an option worth considering sometimes)
Your own personal beliefs will shape the way you view each problem and how you choose to act.
My background is very much a systems-oriented one so I look at how a process works and try to make plans on how best to improve it. Other people may see it completely differently. I respect that. Its just not the way I'm built.
