Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner

Epigenetics, Lamarckism, Mendelism, oh my!

14K views 67 replies 19 participants last post by  Scrapfe 
#1 ·
Is it possible for us to discuss these "ics" and "isms" as they relate to beekeeping? I'd like to know the differing viewpoints and the implications to our beekeeping. A post by Adam Finkelstein prompted this thread.
 
#3 ·
Is it possible for us to discuss these "ics" and "isms" as they relate to beekeeping? ...
IMHO the question before us is, or at least the question should be, “Are we all adult enough here that we won’t need a virtual sling for our bruised and battered noses once our pet theories and long held cherished beliefs gets refuted in too factual of a way?”
 
#13 ·
Except epigenetics doesn't work the same at all. It has more to do with changes in gene expression caused by environment. For example improvements in nutrition and natal/prenatal care have caused humans to become inherit-ably taller/larger in just a few generations. Not long ago Americans were the tallest people in the world on average, but now the Northern European people are (I think) - without any genetic changes.
 
#8 ·
Solomon,
Maybe you didn't get any replys to your Thread because there aren't very many TreatmentFree beekeepers who know enough to respond or not enough of them wanted to read what Randy Oliver wrote and what you presented and then get into a discussion about it.

I look into the Thread, didn't bother to read Randy Oliver's epistel or much of what you presented because I didn't think I should Post my opinions since I treat, but mostly because I don't know enough.
 
#15 ·
didn't bother to read Randy Oliver's epistel
The funny thing is the sheer number of people who don't even take the time to click the link and discover that it is actually audio. :applause: It's amazing that a text based forum would have such an aversion to reading even when reading is not necessary.

Is this you being funny?
No, always serious as you have been informed. Sorry, I guess you're still mad at me. Just trying to help.:gh:
 
#17 · (Edited)
The funny thing is the sheer number of people who don't even take the time to click the link and discover that it is actually audio. :applause: It's amazing that a text based forum would have such an aversion to reading even when reading is not necessary.

No, always serious as you have been informed. Sorry, I guess you're still mad at me. Just trying to help.:gh:
Well, excuse me for not living up to your expectations. Perhaps you should havce mentioned that it was audio.

Just trying to help? Seemed like a dig to me.

Yeah, sometimes it takes me a while to get over something. I am petty that way.

Okay, I listened to his talk. So, what's your thing w/ Randy Oliver? If you have questions for him he can be reached thru bee-L. Or his website, I imagine. My buddy Peter Loring Borst knows him well and speaks to him often. Maybe you would like to talk to him.

Thanks for Posting the audio link. I'll have to listen to it again. I liked what he said about swarms not being the offspring of a colony, but the parent of what is left behind. I never thought of it that way.

I liked his queen selection process too. Too bad my eyes aren't any better.
 
#10 ·
I guess I'll bite on this one.
Mendelism
Start with the easiest one, I'm not teachign a class here so just the jist of each. Gregor Mendel did a bunch of studies on inheritance ( a lot with pea plants) to try and figure out how traits where passed down from parent to offspring. I came up with a couple of rules based on observation. Basically he said that each individual has two copies of each gene (called them factors) from their parents. These copies could be different forms (called them alleles think brown hair or blonde hair, both copies of a gene for hair color). One version would be dominant and cover up the recessive (if you had a brown and blonde gene the brown gene might cover up the blonde). During gamete (sex cells sperm/egg, pollen/ova, etc) formation these alleles would split apart and one copy would go to each gamete, independent of the others. This is what we would term as "normal" inheritance type.

So basically you have two copies of every gene and your kids get one of those copies so they have half of your genes and half of your spouses.
Of course we've known for some time now that he got lucky with the traits he chose and it's usually/often more complicated than that. Traits are inherited together sometimes if on the same chromosome, there's different types of dominance, and traits are affected by more than one gene etc, etc.

Lemarckism - Sooo a formerly debunked method of inheritance that is gaining crede with newer molecular genetics. Basically Lemarck said that as you lived your life you adapted and changed and those changes that occurred could be inherited. So if you lived in the far north and you needed to stay warm you got fatter or hairier or whatever. Your kids would then be fatter or hairier etc. He was debunked originally because there were lots of holes in the theory, if you lost an arm would your kid be born without an arm etc?

Epigenetics - toughest one to understand so I'll do by best. Think of your body as a whole and all of the types of cells that you have. Each of those cells has the same DNA (that's why the cops can ID you off a blood stain, hair folicle, skin, or whatever they find), but all the cells are different. Each cell in your body has the code for every possible protein that you need to make, the difference between each cell is which ones they actually make. In a muscle cell the genes for actin and myosin are turned on (that's the proteins your muscles are made of), in your pancrease the gene for insulin is on. You muscle cell has that gene, but it's not using it. Turning genes on and off is a complicated process, the DNA needs to be opened up, and a bunch of primers and regulatory proteins added etc. It is possible to change both whether or not a particular gene is turned on, or how fast it is working (Think type II diabetics, they have the gene for insulin, but arn't making enough of it). Epigenetics is environmental factors (hormone levels, temperature, diet, the whole nine yards) effect on the regulation of genes. We do this all the time, we eat a sugary snack, sugar enters our bloodstream is detected, our pancrease makes more insulin. That's the upregulation of a gene. What is new in the field is that we are starting to realize that sometimes these chagnes are semipermanent and sometimes also inheritable. Not all epigentics is inheritable, but we are learning that some is and quite frankly its pretty fascinating/scary to think about.
 
#16 ·
Not sure what this has to do with queen bee breeding in the north versus the south, or what if anything it has to do with migratory beekeeping, or even treatment free beekeeping. I'll leave it up to you to create a link out of whole cloth.

The only trait that I am aware of that can be called an Epigenetic trait is (IMHO) not an Epigenetic or any other inherited trait. The trait I am speaking of is the dormant or rest period wheat seeds need before germination can begin. Dr. Norman Borlaug discovered that if he moved his newly harvested wheat seed up or down in elevation or back and forth in latitude he could "TRICK" the young seed into “thinking” that a new growing season had begun and the just harvested wheat seeds would germinate, sprout, and grow without the dormant period formally associated with wheat cultivation. This not only sped up Borlaug's wheat breeding program, it also led to double cropping Mexican wheat. But if you can hypnotize a wheat seed into violating its basic genetic code is this trait really a result of gene expression??? I don't think so.
 
#19 ·
Similar to one of the arguments against Ellen White, the 'prophet' of Seventh-Day Adventists. She claimed problems for daughters of women who wore corsets.

I see a better application toward children of parents with bad eating habits or environmental stressors. The genes are not necessarily changed, it's the expression of the genes.

Bees pass vast amounts of information through the use of pheromones and other chemicals. The theory surrounding 'heater bees' is supposed to involve the temperature of the broodnest during the larvae stage. The best example is the queen vs. worker naturally. They are genetically identical, but as Mr. Oliver says, under a microscope, they could be mistaken for different species.
 
#22 ·
Let's apply this to bees.

Mendelian genetics: Inheritance of traits that are coded in the DNA. These can be simple things like color, or complex attributes like hygienic behavior or gentleness. Most traits are influenced by more than one gene, and many genes influence multiple traits.

Lamarckism: Disproven 18-century theory that acquired traits are passed on. A queen with clipped wings does not produce bees with clipped wings.

Epigenetics: The emerging science of how modifications to DNA affect its expression, and how these modifications can sometimes be inherited. Epigenetics explains why feeding royal jelly triggers queen development: the chemical stimulus activates particular genes and turns off others to change the developmental pathway.

In most multicellular organisms including humans and bees, DNA is wrapped around proteins called histones. In response to external stimuli, these histones can be chemically modified to enhance or repress transcription of the associated DNA. Histone modifications can be self-perpetuating. For example, if a histone is acetylated (which tends to increase gene expression), very often when the cell divides the new histone will also be acetylated. When these changes persist across generations, epigenetic traits (i.e. observed differences between individuals due to changes in gene expression rather than changes in the DNA sequence itself) can be heritable.

Epigenetic traits are unstable; in some individuals the histone modification will be undone by chance or in response to a new stimulus, and the trait will disappear. Thus if a desirable trait such as hygienic behavior is epigenetic in origin, it may not be observed reliably in daughter queens.

Epigenetics can also explain why traits vary between localities and microclimates. Let's say a queen breeder in Alabama identifies a true genetic mutation (change in the DNA) leading to hygienic behavior, but that mutation affects a gene that is only active in hot, humid conditions. In this case the daughter queens will be reliably hygienic in southern states but not in the Pacific Northwest.

I'm a molecular biologist by training, beekeeper by hobby, and I can't resist chiming in when epigenetics appears in the discussion.

Mark
 
#23 ·
I simply don't have the background to discuss these topics, but I did listen to the entire audio clip. A few things that caught my attention were:

1) Regarding queen breeders: Bring in VSH, it will save you years in your selection process
2) His #1 selection trait is production
3) He exercises an extremely harsh selection process - if you don't meet production levels you get killed
4) If a colony meets production targets, then low mite levels and virus levels are the next selection criteria he applies.

BTW, I did my best to capture these as they were spoken.
 
#25 ·
There have been other threads along breeding discussion in the past. The breeder has three basic tools at his disposal. They would be crossbreeding, inbreeding/line breeding, which are different but closely related, and culling. I have been fascinated with breeding lines most of my life. It's been a hallmark in my family over generations. The principles are the same no matter what you are breeding whether it be cattle, as is the case in my family, sheep or bees. In the case of bees and targeting the selection criteria above you would take a highly productive line and cross with with a known VSH line. Then you'd select offspring for the criteria you desire, in this case productivity first followed by mite and virus levels. Once you have several crosses that are productive and have low mite and virus levels you start line breeding and maybe inbreeding these crosses continually selecting for your criteria. All those that don't meet the criteria are culled. Without what would seem like brutal culling, you will not have much of a successful breeding program. An example of how this can set you back is obvious in many of the more popular breeds of sheep. Sheep breeders have been assisting sheep with lambing for millenia. By not culling the ewe with birthing problems they have, in fact, selected for sheep that would have birthing problems. Today those breeds of sheep almost always need human assistance while lambing. You cannot let your emotions rule your breeding decisions. You must cull with a heavy hand as culling is probably your most powerful tool.

In a previous thread I posted about the need for culling of this level and created quite a stir. Folks were worried that someone like me could have the one sport that could survive mites and viruses and would kill it because I didn't know what I was doing and didn't have a degree in biology. This was the stuff that people with PHDs and professionals should be controlling, not the likes of me. Fact is that it will probably be a smaller bee breeder that will come up with the solution but probably for his locale only. By catcing feral swarms, splitting and breeding them, selecting those that meet his criteria, someone out there will breed a super bee. It's probably going to take several of us doing it to have success.

My take on the breeding criteria is a little different. I would start by selecting for the traits of low mite and virus levels first(survivability), ignoring productivity. Those are the least available and obvious traits. We have many productive lines of bees. My attack would be select for the hard to find traits first. Once you have them crossing and selecting with a productive line is a relatively easy process.

At my place this is pretty much what I do. I keep the bees that survive and accept lower production levels. My goal is to have bees that don't just survive but eventually thrive. First I have to have bees that survive then I can select for production levels.
 
#54 ·
My take on the breeding criteria is a little different. I would start by selecting for the traits of low mite and virus levels first(survivability), ignoring productivity. Those are the least available and obvious traits. We have many productive lines of bees. My attack would be select for the hard to find traits first. Once you have them crossing and selecting with a productive line is a relatively easy process.

At my place this is pretty much what I do. I keep the bees that survive and accept lower production levels. My goal is to have bees that don't just survive but eventually thrive. First I have to have bees that survive then I can select for production levels.
Sounds good. One doesn't have to select in order though--you can select for mite/virus tolerance and good production simultaneously.
One needs a good sized population to select from, and good records.

Adam Finkelstein
www.vpqueenbees.com
 
#26 ·
Reality is that genetics is more complicated than any model we have can explain. On the other hand some of the models have been useful for the purpose of breeding out traits that were previously hidden and the idea of how to breed them out was a mystery. The first model that was useful for this purpose was from Gregor Mendel. It was, as all models of reality are, oversimplified, but that is also what made it useful.

"All models are wrong, but some are useful" --George E.P. Box

"One does not divine the ways of nature, it lays out methods that confound our science, and it is only by studying it carefully that we may succeed in unveiling some of its mysteries."--Francis Huber, New Observations on Bees Volume II

Mendel's model was that every trait has pairs of genes that have the potential to cause that trait and that some of those are dominant and some are recessive. If two recessive genes match up you get that trait, but if a recessive matches up with a dominant trait, you get the dominant trait. The mystery, for centuries of selective breeding, had been that traits that the parents did not have kept showing up again. Once the concept was understood, then you could take a black bull and cross it with red cows and if you get a mixture of red and black, you know the bull carries the recessive trait for red. But if they all come out black, he does not. You use a red bull on all your black cows and if they have nothing but black calves, you know they don't carry the recessive trait, but if they have red calves half the time, they do have the red trait. So now I can breed the black bull with two black genes (homozygous) with cows that have the two black genes and I will always get, not only black offspring, but homozygous offspring who do not carry the recessive trait. But you can see the recessive is much easier to breed for because you know the dominant trait isn't there because the animal already displays the recessive trait. So white chickens, for example are easy to breed for, while consistently black ones are difficult.

The problem with this model, is it does not prove out 100% of the time. Take eye color in people. You have brown and blue eye genes. If two people with blue eyes have children what color will their eyes be? Usually blue. but occasionally green. Two heterozygous brown eyed people could have kids with blue or brown, but occasionally they will be green as well. It is trying to explain these "occasionally" issues that causes people to come up with new theories. One of the first extensions of Mendel's model was to realize that there were smaller pieces than genes involved. So we decided to call these alleles. Alleles make the puzzle a bit more complex as they can match up in more than just AA AB BA BB like two genes. There are more of them and the combinations increase. But the basic concept that the material is there and it has to match up and different matches cause different things is still similar to Mendel's model.

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's theory is being greatly oversimplified in this discussion and, I think, misrepresented. I think it would be more accurate to use the Giraffe (a favorite of his) as an illustration than cutting off tails. Lamarck's point was that he believed if an animal needed a trait and used a trait that over time that trait would be exaggerated. If you think about it you can see how one could come to that conclusion (even if it is wrong), especially if you're not going to believe in a creator. How does a duck get such useful feet? Or a beaver such a useful tail? But back to the standard Lamarckian example of the Giraffe. The theory is that an antelope kept straining to eat leaves off the trees. As this antelope stretched it's neck and reached as far as it could it's neck got slightly longer and more useful for reaching leaves. This need (not some mutilation) was passed on to its offspring whose neck was a bit more useful for the purpose that it was being used for and gradually this antelope developed into a Giraffe. This was driven by need. This is not that different from the Epigenetics which is also explained by need with the exception that Epigenetics is attempting to provide an explanatory model for the occurrence and is, perhaps, making less claims of permanency and less claims of something truly new happening genetically but rather a different expression of the same genes.

Of all of these only Mendel's model, with the addition of alleles, is terribly useful for breeding for one trait or another. But I think the real mistake is when we DO breed for one trait or another. Looking back over the history of pure breeds and where the go over time, there is usually some initial improvement in the breed when breeders are breeding for an overall healthy and useful animal. But the health and quality of the animals go down quickly when they start focusing on one or another trait. Many a pure breed of horse, cow or dog has been bred down from a very useful animal to one that has all sorts of inherent weaknesses. I don't think it takes a PHD in genetics to do good breeding. You breed from the best overall, instead of some particular trait. You pick from the ones that are thriving and producing because thriving and producing are not one trait. They are a combination of more traits than we can map or imagine.

"The records are carefully scanned, and that queen chosen which, all things considered, appears to be the best. The first point to be weighed is the amount of honey that has been stored. Other things being equal, the queen whose workers have shown themselves the best stores will have the preference. The matter of wintering will pretty much take care of itself, for a colony that has wintered poorly is not likely to do very heavy work in the harvest. The more a colony has done in the way of making preparations for swarming, the lower will be its standing. Generally, however, a colony that gives the largest number of sections is one that never dreamed of swarming.

"I am well aware that I will be told by some that I am choosing freak queens from which to rear; and that it would be much better to select a queen whose royal daughters showed uniform results only a little above the average. I don't know enough to know whether that is true or not, but I know that some excellent results have been obtained by breeders of other animals by breeding from sires or dams so exceptional in character that they might be called freaks. I know, too, that it is easier to decide which colony does best work than it is to decide which queen produces royal progeny the most nearly uniform in character. "--C.C. Miller, 50 years among the bees

I think the same applies to pests and diseases. If we breed from the ones that are thriving and not from the ones that have a particular trait, we will have better results in both the long run and the short run.
 
#55 ·
I think the same applies to pests and diseases. If we breed from the ones that are thriving and not from the ones that have a particular trait, we will have better results in both the long run and the short run.
That's gross selection. If one's population is large and diverse, one can't go wrong with it!


Adam Finkelstein
www.vpqueenbees.com
 
#38 ·
Not necessarily. I've had bees that produced a good load of honey but couldn't survive the winter, putting me on the treadmill of buying bees to watch them die. It's very possible, maybe even likely, that a less productive strain could survive the torments bees must endure these days.
 
#29 · (Edited)
#32 ·
For those of us not of a scientific bent, it seems like Mike Bush and Mark (sqkcrk) have focused on a rather successful model to follow, without understanding the mechanisms that make it work. In other words, breed (or split from) your best colonies. And one way to prevent inbreeding or deterioration of the quality of your bees is to regularly bring in queens from different commercial breeders. Seems like that would go a long way to maintaining the vitality of your colonies.
Regards,
Steven
 
#40 ·
In other words, breed (or split from) your best colonies. And one way to prevent inbreeding or deterioration of the quality of your bees is to regularly bring in queens from different commercial breeders.
I agree with the first sentence. It essentially agrees with my point that culling is your most effective tool. Keep breeding bad anything and all you will have is bad. Cull your bad stock and multiply the good.

The second sentence not so much. Most breeders treat. Mr. Oliver, who treats out of economic necessity, agrees that treating breeds poor bees and strong pests. If your goal is to breed a pest tolerant bee, the worst thing you can do is bring in breeding stock that have been treated or derived from treatment dependent operations. It is best to find other sources of bees that exist without treatments. Good examples of this are feral bees or other operations that don't treat. Inbreeding is a tool and not necessarily something to avoid. It is something to manage.

This doesn't have to become the argument of treatment free vs. treatment dependent. Commercial operations must treat to exist. Those who don't have to can deal without treatments and perhaps thrive. Maybe, someday, we will have bees that can coexist with moderm pests and commercial operations can join the bandwagon. Can't we all get along? It may all come down to luck. We just may have to get lucky to achieve this end. I'm OK with that but also believe that lucky people tend to make most of their own luck and then make the most of their luck.
 
#33 ·
I feel most comfortable when you don't know what your doing like myself to let nature determine the breeding. Seems like nature has made it complicated for nature's benefit. The problem with my plan is nature is being meddled with by others who don't believe like I do and interject their manipulations. No matter what I do everyone else is contributing to the local gene pool.
 
#61 · (Edited)
I feel most comfortable... to let nature determine the breeding... The problem... is nature is being meddled with by others who don't believe like I do... No matter what I do everyone else is contributing to the local gene pool.
Every time we hive a swarm of bees we are encroaching on Maw Nature's prerogatives. Every time you smoke a hive or pop the lid you are meddling with nature. You are meddling with nature by interrupting the hive's communications when you smoke the bees, and you are even interfering with nature by introducing light into the dark brood nest that bees need to fulfill their ethos. This is true even if you take no further action. Because by the time our eyes can focus on the inner cover, what WAS happening in the hive has changed to what is NOW happening in the hive and that may or may not be what was happening just minutes or even seconds before.

We like to think that not meddling in nature is being good stewards of nature, buy it just isn‘t so. The only way we can truly let nature take its course is by foraging for rotting carrion, or by raiding birds’ nests for baby rooks and robins’ eggs, by reaping wild cereal grasses with a sharp stone, by digging up eatable roots with a pointed stick, by turning over flat river rocks in a scramble for snackable crustaceans, or else by conking wooly mammoths on the noggin. BTW, all of the above must take place while wearing our birthday suites. I hereby deed my thin slice of nature to you or to anyone else who believes like you do and who will interact with mother nature in the above manner, and my birthday suite is so out of style that I think I‘ll pass on that as well. :D

But what exactly do you intend to do about, No matter what I do everyone else is contributing to the local gene pool. Is this a Freudian slip or what? :scratch:
 
#34 ·
I believe that Randy Oliver's expression of not really caring or needing to know how something works as long as it does is very accessable to me. Like me and my truck. (maybe not a good example). As long as it gets me where I want to go, do I NEED to know how it works?

This attitude of controling those things which one can control is simply practical, in my opinion. Varroa mites are something we can have impact on and nosema is still a mystery concerning its actual effects on honeybees, as Oliver mentions.

I have sent him a PM asking him about how he accounts for those who do not treat, but say that their bees survive many years. It will be interesting to me to see what he has to say.

I have met Mr. Oliver and know a handful of people who know him well. I find him quite accessible and willing to talk about bees and beekeeping. He really gets around. He will be here in NY at the Southern Adirondack Beekeepers Association Conference in Albany, NY at the end of April. Check eshpa.org for more info or links to SABA.
 
#35 ·
I have sent him a PM asking him about how he accounts for those who do not treat, but say that their bees survive many years. It will be interesting to me to see what he has to say.
Mark, I hope you get permission to share his reply here on the forum. I'd be interested in his reponse. While I appreciate all he does, his dismissal of those who do not treat yet have success is rather off-putting...or has been to this point anyway.
Kindest regards,
Steven
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top