Our Gene Pool

[Oldtimer]

Yes there have been, and probably are, queen breeders like that. Like I said, only a few are really working hard on this problem. Check out the work being done by the likes of Robert Russell, it may open wider horizons than that "book or two" you have read.

Only a true conservationist who will keep all his genetic material unselected and present with all their variations
for future generations

Exactly. The treatment free "let 'em die if they can't tolerate mites" brigade are doing the precise opposite to keeping all genetic material for future generations. In fact they are doing exactly what your books said not to do, selecting for one trait only and eliminating the rest. Long term this is the worst thing for the bee gene pool. Who knows, in future bees may be threatened with different problems, and the ability to adapt to changing threats, built into their genes over millenia, may have been lost due to the short sighted selecting for varroa resistance and varroa resistance alone, that many are doing now.

Some of the literature on treatment free says you have to let 80 to 90 percent of your bees die, breed from the survivors, and do the whole thing again, for maybe three or more years, before you get reasonable varroa resistance. Personally I'm not sure it works that way, but if that's what people are being told to do, it's a lot of genetic material being flushed down the toilet.

[Oldtimer]

So just to add something positive, about what I'm doing myself about this, I don't let any hives die. In my now 80 or so hives I have a wide gene pool that I have sourced from all over my country and am working with some commercial honey producers to get good stock.
Some hives are treated chemically, but if they don't need that they don't get it. But who knows what beneficial genes might be lurking in those bees who would have died of varroa if I let them.

I'm keeping those bees alive, and producing drones, so those genes will be gradually worked in to the other bees that need less treatment. The idea is to slowly reduce the treatment requirements of the entire population, but not actually lose any genetic material along the way.

Beekeepers who are "true conservationists" should adopt a similar approach.

Oh well that's my rant . But my country, for bees, is a closed genetic pool. And it's pretty much the same in the US. So genetic diversity and the preservation of it, in the face of threats like varroa, is one of my biggest concerns.

[rweakley]

From what I understand Russel who posts on here is doing queen breeding the right way. Take for example if a person orders like 50 queens from him. Russel makes sure that the 50 queens don't all come from the same queen mother, in fact I'm not sure, but it might be 50 queen mothers. He also has yards spread hither and yon to spread things out and even has an island he uses for complete isolation of the genes depending on what he is trying to accomplish. He also imports bees from around the world to add genetics to what he already has. Ok the russel Apiaries comercial is over you can now go back to your regularly scheduled program.
Rod

[Ted Kretschmann]

Before Varroa, we had 180 matriarchail lineages. After Varroa, we had around 36 left in the USA. That is quite a genetic bottleneck. So when Aussie Queens became available. We purchased around 1000 and scattered them through out the outfit. WHY? Because the Breeder queens were two years out of Europe. Thus they are the purest European bees we now have. Both the Carniolians and Italians I got were excellent. I think it was shooting ourselves in the foot when the border closed. Now I am after Kiwi stock, even if I have to go through Canada to get them. I also plan on more queens from Russell. Especially his off shore stock where several of the old lineages that were wiped out on the mainland still exist. Roger Morse said of the AHB, that Dilution was the Solution. That same statement can be said of many of our problems which may be more genetically based than we realize. TED

[Adam Foster Collins]

Oldtimer,

Your point about breeding only survivor stock - or stock that survives varroa - and letting the rest die is an interesting one, and one that might deserve its own thread.

But I wonder just how many people are truly doing that - letting their bees die. Sure there are those that practice that approach, but I think that there are more that don't.

Adam

[Lost Bee]

If your only worried about genetic variation and want more than ever before you could
take every type of honey bee and crossbreed them willy nilly. Crossbreeding as many
different races will create more variation than what you will ever know what to do
with. Inbreeding has the opposite effect. Of course this introgression of honey bees
would mean you would lose their original variation.

For example:

If you like black bees you could make a reciprocal cross of a russian bee honey bee
(Apis mellifera primorsky) with a carniolan bee (Apis mellifera carnica) and call the
lines created A1 and A2. I couldn't find the scientific russian honey bee name so
I made it up using the region where they come from.

Then you could also make a reciprocal cross of a english black bee (Apis mellifera mellifera)
with a caucasian honey bee (Apis mellifera caucasica) and call the lines now created
B1 and B2.

Reciprocal crosses for those who don't know is crossing one male from one group with a female
another from group and the doing the opposite with the other cross.

For this example:

Crossing a male russian honey bee with a female carniolan honey bee. Then crossing a male
carniolan honey bee with a female russian honey bee. These would be your first reciprocal
cross in this example. You would then have to do the same with the english black honey bee
and the caucasian honey bee.

This would give you 4 lines to breed from. Line A1, A2, B1 and B2. If you then placed these
4 lines in one apiary and let them cross naturally for a few generations with only natural selection
taking place you would have more types of black bees than probably anyone at this time. The
more hives per line the more variation you would have. I bet a few hives would be very good,
while other hives just normal and some hives worse than the original breeding stock.

Who knows what you would end up with after all of this? Maybe you could call your
super black honey bees (Apis mellifera nigra). I also made up that name.

You may need a kevlar bee suit as well to protect you from the wild (Aka Hot)
lines produced along the way to your holy grail of black honey bee quest.

Adding a yellow honey bees along the way would create even more variation.

Of all the honey bees that I know of the Buckfast probably has most variation
with all the bees used to create it.

Taken from wikipedia:

The Buckfast contains heritage from mainly A.m. ligurica (North Italian), A.m. mellifera (English),
A.m. mellifera (French), A.m. anatolica (Turkish) and A.m. cecropia (Greek). The Buckfast bee
of today also contains heritage from two African rare and docile African stocks A.m. sahariensis
and the A.m. monticola, but not the "Africanized" A.m. Scutellata.

Good Luck.

[deknow]

...this kind of crossing (cross anything with anything else to see what happens) was done by the USDA in the 1940s....note that this was before Dr. Kerr imported the african bees to Brazil (and before the USDA imported those genetics to the U.S. and distributed them to queen breeders). The result? Bees that were so hot that the researchers were wearing double layer bee suits and still couldn't handle the bees.

...but the idea that genetic diversity must be maintained at all costs is, I think, the wrong idea. Culling is at least as important as introducing new stock.

This was a discussion we had over several talks (and a pannel discussion) at the Northeast Treatment Free Beekeeping Conference this year....Kirsten Ebbersten was talking about _not_ breeding from your best queens, but breeding from all your queens in order to maintain diversity and a healthy population.

I didn't disagree with what she was saying at all...if one has a population of bees that one thinks is well adapted that one wants to maintain.

...but what if one's bees aren't well adapted? (if those posting here thought their bees were well adapted, they would not be looking to bring in new genetics to solve problems).

With bees (at least from a breeders perspective), inbreeding should be a relative non-issue. The first sign of inbreeding is diploid drones/spotty brood...anyone paying attention to their bees will notice this, and even if the cause is misinterpreted (mites, EHB, chalk, sac, etc) the ultimate solution is to requeen....i such a problem persists despite requeening, then different stock is called for.

I think I've posted here on this subject before....imagine a population of bees over a wide area that are truly feral and unmanaged. These bees are happily buzzing along...until there is a challenge....a very harsh winter (or 3 in a row), scant flow, wildfire, new disease/parasite on the scene, massive flooding, etc. Let's say 90-99% of the population is wiped out....what happens next?

There is a wide open niche for honeybees, with few to fill the role. Plenty of forage, plenty of nest sites.

What bees are left? Certainly there is the element of luck....but there are also genetic traits at play here. The bees that are left are either in isolated groups of survivor hives (due to shared genetics, a shared microclimate, or shared traits without being close genetically). These bees swarm...taking advantage of the available resources....these small pockets of bees are likely to become somewhat "inbred"...in the same way a "breeder" might inbreed on purpose in order to "fix" a trait...in this case, we may or may not know what the beneficial traits are..but likely many (if not most) of the survivors have some of these. ...whatever allowed these bees to survive gets fixed in the resulting population....due to "inbreeding", and ultimately, due to culling the stock that does not have these traits.

Now, as the bees repopulate the area, these "inbred" subgroups eventually come into contact with one another...."hybrid vigor" is the result, and useful traits are exchanged as these groups meet and are mixed.

Nothing about such a system preserves diversity to the extent that is being discussed here....bees (through their rather unique mating system) maintain genes by their nature...but a genetic combination that can't fend for itself throughout the season well enough to overwinter itself isn't worth much to me...and nature would never allow such a colony to produce drones or swarm the season following a winter that would have killed them. It's kind of like building a sales force and never firing the poor salespeople...even worse, having both your good and poor salespeople train new hires...your salesforce will never "get better" in such a system.

So

In a situation where you are not satisfied with the bees you have...where they are not "fit", propagating everything doesn't get you anywhere. Of course, everyone wants to simply buy a "magic queen" that will solve the problems...since they have never seen a "magic queen", they think it needs to be imported from somewhere else.

But, if you (or nature) wants a bee that is "fit" for a particular area/purpose, you've got to start with something and sort it out...it is not simply an additive process, you've got to get rid of the junk...nature does this brutally if left to her own devices.

Yes, this is a "genetic bottleneck"....it is how breeders of all animals and plants reach a goal....it is how nature has persisted all of this time....it is how changing environments are adapted to by all manner of living things.

Did you know that all housecats can be traced back to one female ancestor...one "Eve" cat? Can you imagine the news stories if we were watching this happen in realtime? "Cats are doomed" "Genetic bottleneck stifles genetic diversity" "Cats are an endangered species" ....yet cats are doing fine...both on their own and as human companions. This is despite a very tight genetic bottleneck...because culling is at least as important as introducing new stock.

So, in our panel discussion, Kerstin and I agreed that in a stable, well adapted population you definitely want to be breeding from everyone (walk away splits like Dee or the Mraz operation does). But, if you are looking to improve your stock, you can't simply keep all the genetics around...you've got to select somehow who you are going to breed from. There are all kinds of criteria one can use to select, but if the end goal is bees that can survive with minimal intervention, then you are quite close to a "natural model" if your selection criteria is "who survived the winter without much intervention".

deknow

[Lost Bee]

Deknow,

You said that "bees that were so hot that the researchers were wearing double layer
bee suits and still couldn't handle the bees."

Well I did mention: You may need a kevlar bee suit as well to protect you from the wild (Aka Hot)
lines produced along the way to your holy grail of black honey bee quest.


I just thought that this thread was about saving genetic material and
you sound like someone more into selective breeding when you say:

" but a genetic combination that can't fend for itself throughout the season
well enough to overwinter itself isn't worth much to me..."

and

I do emphasize you say "me" and "worth". This all sounds like selective breeding.
Especially your sale people example.

Would ordering 10 breeder queens from the best queen breeder in the world
make all of our problems go away? After which we could nuke all the other
bee hives and start all over.

I can't believe I said nuke the bee hives.

[deknow]

Deknow,

You said that "bees that were so hot that the researchers were wearing double layer
bee suits and still couldn't handle the bees."

Well I did mention: You may need a kevlar bee suit as well to protect you from the wild (Aka Hot)
lines produced along the way to your holy grail of black honey bee quest.

....forgive me if I misread your intent....I got the impression that you were referring to the hotness of the individual strains you were discussing...I'm talking about mixing strains in general, even those that are not considered "hot".

I just thought that this thread was about saving genetic material and
you sound like someone more into selective breeding weh you say:

well, the title of the thread is "our gene pool"...which is what I'm discussing.

" but a genetic combination that can't fend for itself throughout the season
well enough to overwinter itself isn't worth much to me..."

I do emphasize you say "me" and "worth". This all sounds
like selective breeding. Especially your sale people example.

errr, you can selectively quote all you want, but it doesn't change what I said:
"...and nature would never allow such a colony to produce drones or swarm the season following a winter that would have killed them"
...what do you think happens in nature if not "selective breeding" for the most fit?

Would ordering 10 breeder queens from the best queen breeder in the world
make all of our problems go away? After which we could nuke the hives and start all over.
I can't believ I said nuke the bee hives.

No, and I never suggested that. But a beekeeper that requeens all their hives with mated queens is essentially "nuking" their hives....at least as far as genetics are concerned.

deknow

[Lost Bee]

Deknow,

You didn't mention anything about "Eve".
Did you watch the video?

Actually "Natural Selection" and "Selective Breeding" are not the same thing.
With natural selection, mother nature helps the best make it to the next generation.
With selective breeding it's man deciding what he likes. And we know how man has
been spinning his own demise with extictions around the world. What's next on the
list?

Difference with natural and selective breeding is seen in the following link.

http://www.teacherweb.com/TX/CanyonV...sentation1.pdf

Oh well such is life.

[deknow]

...what kind.d of breeding is it if you feed and medicate.your stock that wouldn't otherwise survive so that you can breed them next year?

Deknow

[Lost Bee]

...what kind.d of breeding is it if you feed and medicate.your stock that wouldn't otherwise survive so that you can breed them next year?

Deknow

That kind of breeding would be going against natural selection for one thing. That would allow the
progressively weaker stock to live. I bet the bees in 1920 were better suited at surviving in the wild
then the "Wheelchair" bees we have now.

Selective breeding is like race car driving. All the drivers want is faster and better cars and sooner
or later they can't handle the speed and they all crash. Sound familiar? If some bee keepers would have
it their way they would want honey bees that hand load the honey into the trucks and make the call to
the suppliers as well.

:

[AstroBee]

Oldtimer,

Your point about breeding only survivor stock - or stock that survives varroa - and letting the rest die is an interesting one, and one that might deserve its own thread.

...snip
Adam

I read what Oldtimer wrote and believe he said basically the opposite. He advocated NOT "letting the rest die" and instead treating the weak ones for the purpose of keeping the genes alive with the ability to diversify the next generation.

[Adam Foster Collins]

I know that. But he was talking about the fact that people advocate doing it.

Adam

[beeG]

Bottlenecked species do not always survive the natural selection.
As for breeding weaker beings to save genetic material. Sometimes this must be done .
Cull breeding is great in developing goals, but is by no means a way to preserve genetic diversity. And too much cull breeding can cause great genetic loss.

I do believe man has prevented extinctions of many species in modern times .

[deknow]

...well bottlenecks are what happens when a population is unfit for its environment. Extinction is one possible outcome. I can't off the top of my head think of any way (other than changing the environment) that a population that is unfit for its environment can adapt other than a bottleneck of some degree. Certainly propping everything up so as not to lose genetic combinations that need to be propped up in order not to die isn't going to get us there...but you can change the environment....you can keep bees in an environment where they are medicated routinely (maybe 2 or 3 different antibiotics every year in addition to mite treatments), where any dearth or drop in population is remedied with feed magically appearing in the hive.
deknow

[beeG]

Your points are well noted and proven deknow but there is always more then one way to skin a cat, and if you are not flexable that cat may turn back around on you. I see the point from the other breeder which is keeping diversity. I know a genetic breeder who saved a mutation, which is now hardy but almost dead when he got a hold of it. Due to heavy inbreeding because it was a simple recesive trait and very expensive. Why cant your ideas and his ideas survive in tandom? I think what you do is importnat same as the other guy and maybe in the furture a cross of your ideas may be genius.

[deknow]

inbreeding does not cause mutation...it causes inbreeding depression, which is only a combination of already existing alleles, not the creation of new alleles.

the concepts of saving everything and culling the unfit are mutually exclusive....you can't do both at the same time.

there are ways to aproach this while minimizing losses....Mike Palmer shares a lot of information in this area...listen to him...his advice comes from experience and is well considered (and does not "preserve" weak genetics). ...but in some circumstances (like at the beginning of a breeding program) there is a lot to be said for actually letting things sort themselves out...we've had hives survive the winter that I never would have guessed would do so...and I've had "trophy" hives crash all the way. I don't claim it is fast or cheap...but there are plenty of fast and cheap options out there for those that want to go that route.

deknow

[Fusion_power]

Keeping susceptible bees alive by treating with chemicals slows down the natural process that should be occurring. The best thing we as beekeepers could do to manage varroa and tracheal mites is to ignore them and let the susceptible bees die. We don't have enough diversity here in the U.S. to make a difference so there isn't any real reason to keep treating bees except that it is the only way some beekeepers can see to make a profit. If you are still treating your bees, shame on you.

I would like to import some carefully selected strains of bees into the U.S. for breeding work. There is a wide range of genetics that could be useful under the right conditions. I would not advocate importing indiscriminately, that just opens the door to any and every disease and pest on the planet. Bees I would like to see imported include a couple of strains from Greece, some from Turkey, some from Anatolia, some from Egypt, and some from North Africa. We as beekeepers should be pushing our government for some more controlled imports.

If you are really worried about diversity in the bee population, then you should consider the effect of a limited population of queen breeders using a limited population of breeder queens. We are breeding from about 1/1000th of the bee population. That is 1000 to 1 inbreeding year after year. The cumulative effect is ongoing reduction of genetic diversity. We can import genetics till we are blue in the face but that won't help until we do something about the ongoing artificial bottleneck at the queen production level.

Sue Cobey used steady selection pressure to develop the NWC. There is a loss of diversity even with the methods she used but it was kept to a minimum by the methods used in the breeding work. If you are seriously interested in maintaining diversity in your bees, do some due diligence by studying selection methods that result in low but constant pressure to achieve a breeding goal.

DarJones

[AstroBee]

I’m certainly no geneticist, nor do I even claim to understand the intricacies of honey bee genetics, but the following scenario is plaguing my mind.

Let’s suppose that we have two strains of honey bee, let’s call them Strain X and Strain Y. Further, suppose we have two diseases, let’s call them Disease A and Disease B. We’re given that the untreated percent kill rate for Strain X when exposed to Disease A is 100% and that the untreated percent kill rate for Strain Y when exposed to Disease A is 1%. Similarly, the percent kill rate for Strain X when exposed to Disease B is 1% and that Strain Y when exposed to Disease B is 100%.

Clearly Strain X is highly susceptible to Disease A, but highly resilient to Disease B, and Strain Y is resilient to Disease A, but highly susceptible to Disease B.

So, the obvious, and very likely simplistic, scenario is as follows: both populations are exposed (without treatment) to Disease A first, resulting in a total loss of Strain X. What remains after this exposure is only Strain Y. Sometime later the remaining Strain Y is exposed to Disease B resulting in its total elimination, with the end result of total loss of honey bees. Now, if Strain X was treated during to Disease A the end result would be much different.

Not trying to take sides in this debate, but I’m curious as how the “no treatments ever crowd” responds to this simplistic scenario?