Randy Oliver, Queen Breeding, explanation for Treatment-Free Successes and Failures?

[sqkcrk]

I'd be happy for folks to hear losses are at historic lows though, people have just been presenting figures showing that is not the case.)

I can say that for my operation it is true, dieback is historically low. The same is true for another 800 hive operation and another 1,000 colony operation and more of which I know. But, for definitive data we will have to wait for reports from the Apiary Inspectors of America Annual Report.

[Solomon Parker]

Please remember which forum this is. Advocating treatments is forbidden as is disparaging commercial beekeepers.

[sqkcrk]

I keep forgetting about that PM function. Hitting Reply is too easy. Tracking again.

[adamf]

Before folks jump into Lamarkism and epigenetics, I think we should be clear on something. Epigenetics does change the expression of genes in the genome, but it does so not across the organism, but in a cell or cell line.

Yes, that's correct. However, I posted my response to this:

"Epigenetics more important than genetics. It's how the genes are expressed.
Queens and workers wildly different, but genetically identical. What your grandparents experienced affects your expression of genes.
If a parent colony is exposed to a parasite, the next generation is better
prepared for it."

That sounded Lamarkian. I commented.
Adam
www.vpqueenbees.com

[adamf]

It is. Because of new technology and research in cellular biology - and statistical meta-research. It is no longer crackpot country. The difference is that now the mechanism is understood (kinda).

The more research that's used to elucidate the underlying methods involved in molecular biological functioning in organisms, the more complex things become. So far, we understand how little we understand!

Adam Finkelstein
www.vpqueenbees.ocm

[Michael Bush]

>>"...If a parent colony is exposed to a parasite, the next generation is better
prepared for it."

>That sounded Lamarkian.

It sounds VERY Lamarkian. But it's ok. They gave it a new name...

[sqkcrk]

Am I missing something? (duh!!,stupid question) But, isn't that statement, "If a parent colony...", aort of inherently intuitive? If the previous generation survives something, isn't it entirely likely that the next generation will be prepared, to a degree, to survive the same thing? Aren't the survivor genes passed down to the offspring?

I'm not a genetisist, I just think I understand what I probably don't.

[Solomon Parker]

If the previous generation survives something, isn't it entirely likely that the next generation will be prepared, to a degree, to survive the same thing? Aren't the survivor genes passed down to the offspring?

Survivor genes are what the parents already have. They don't gain them by surviving. They have them because they survived and that's what we call them now. It's how things like MRSA (Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus) got to be prevalent. Originally, they just had Staphylococcus Aureus and they treated it with methicilin. For the most part, only resistant staph survived. The rest were extinct. Now what's left has a lot of trouble being killed because there's nothing to kill it with.

Here's a Lamarckian anecdote. After generations of people wearing shoes that were too tight, my friend Thomas was born with only four toes on each foot.

But seriously, Lamarck's ideas pertain to things like giraffes stretching their necks and over time their necks get longer. It's an entirely different concept to epigenetics where the genes are already there, they are just expressed differently.

[adamf]

Am I missing something? (duh!!,stupid question) But, isn't that statement, "If a parent colony...", aort of inherently intuitive? If the previous generation survives something, isn't it entirely likely that the next generation will be prepared, to a degree, to survive the same thing? Aren't the survivor genes passed down to the offspring? I'm not a genetisist, I just think I understand what I probably don't.

Well yes, you're describing "fitness" via natural selection and basic Mendelian heredity. The basic premise is that parents have the genetic potential to
provide genetic possibilities to their offspring. The way in which the genetic information combines and is then expressed is the offspring's genotype. Neo-Darwinists believe that it was all in the genetic code and that the only adaptation to environment was by chance or by mutation. Otherwise the combination wasn't "fit" and the offspring was not competitive.

Lamark and to some extent Darwin himself, believed that there was some interplay between the environment and the potential hereditary handoff to the offspring. With the Neo-Darwinist movement of the early 20th Century leading up to the discovery of DNA and subsequent understanding of how DNA works, there was no other interpretation: you got what you got and if it wasn't a good combination, too bad. A few random changes and maybe, just maybe, you'd have a better combination.

With Epigenetics, there is understanding that there are processes beyond the template DNA that can occur in the organism that can influence the template DNA to express a different result then what is hard-coded. (All protein production here). The Neo-Darwinist's blockade of anything other then DNA's basic genomic template ended with Epigenetics. We know now that there is SO MUCH going on so quickly at a molecular level that we know we don't have too much of a handle on the mechanisms. We do know that there can be environmental stimulus that can cause the protein making mechanisms in the cell to influence the expression of the basic coding template DNA that is inherently different then the original coding DNA's output. That's a gross oversimplification of Epigenetics. However, this does not necessarily mean that resulting "adaptations" in organisms will be heritable or significant. Lamark and Darwin stated that the organism could adapt to environmental stimulus and pass along these adaptations to it's offspring.

The bottom line in animal husbandry, is still selection. Pick the most suitable ones. Breed from them. This technique has been working for a long
time.


For background reading:

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/epigeneticInheritance.php

www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2009/03/lamarck-didnt-say-it-darwin-did/


Adam Finkelstein
www.vpqueenbees.com

[adamf]

I listened to the talk again and took notes this time. Boy he talks fast. I'm glad I am not a student of his trying to take notes in a College class. So here are some of the things I wrote down and thoughts I had while doing so.

Regarding sqkcrk's summary and the "explanation for Treatment-Free Successes and Failure" from Mr. Randy Oliver, in the context of epigenetics,
using the principle of Occam's Razor , we can assume that the most genetically suitable queens survive when there is no treatment to mask the negative effects of pathogens.

The underlying method is moot for now: breeders practicing selection for fitness (read healthy, productive bees) using only the population's best genetic combinations, will come up with some queens that will be desirable.

Performing selection in this scenario is what will make the outcome succeed. People are doing this now.

Adam Finkelstein
www.vpqueenbees.com