Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 210111213 LastLast
Results 221 to 240 of 260
  1. #221
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Auckland,Auckland,New Zealand
    Posts
    5,999

    Default Re: Does treating a "Treatment Free" queen really destroy her genetics?

    Quote Originally Posted by mike bispham View Post
    But I'm not sure where you're going with this. Do you have an ethical objection to people removing feral swarms? (That seems perfectly reasonable btw - but I think I can make a case, in my situation, for the ends justifying the means - if you think I should
    No there's no ethical objection, just examining your theories on how you think you are improving anything.

    Also, I can tell by how fast you posted, that you would not have seen additional stuff I put in my last post as an edit. Check it out, see what you think.
    44 years, been commercial, outfits up to 4000 hives, now 120 hives and 200 nucs as a hobby, selling bees. T (mostly).

  2. #222
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    jackson county, alabama, usa
    Posts
    4,576

    Default Re: Does treating a "Treatment Free" queen really destroy her genetics?

    what i have is essentially 17 years into mike's 'experiment', i.e. the end result of successive generations of bees that have not been treated which through both natural and artificial winnowing appear to be demonstrating the ability to thrive and be productive off treatments.

    but i don't have any grand illusions that i have some kind of superbee, and i realize that all it would take is a very virulent virus to come along to cause mass casualties. there are reports on the forum of just that happening to folks, reports of losing all or most colonies after some years of being off treatments.

    since the bee's natural resistance to viruses and other pathogens is mediated through their immune system, and since the effectiveness of their immune system is dependent on nutrition, i think that there should be more focus on bee diet.

    i think that one should consider how plentiful and diversified the forage available to their bees is, consider the drawbacks of too much (or too little) supplemental feeding, and make sure that the bees at least have what they need for their natural immunity to be working optimally.

    i'm not sure how this could be achieved on the practical level, short of analyzing pollen samples, but it might explain in part why there are pockets of bees that are doing better than others off treatments.
    journaling the growth of a treatment free apiary started in 2010. 20+/- hives

  3. #223
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Cookeville, TN, USA
    Posts
    4,098

    Default Re: Does treating a "Treatment Free" queen really destroy her genetics?

    No matter what you do to preserve or improve genetics in your home apiary your queens fly out and mate with a drone population which you have little or no control over - as do your drones for that matter. The good news is that they have All survived for decades while dealing with mites - and anecdotal reports are that the overall situation may be improving.

    I suspect that everyone who has some bees which live, and others which die, contributes a bit toward bees adapting to life in the modern world.
    Since '09-25H-T-Z6b

  4. #224
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Fort Walton Beach, Florida
    Posts
    1,256

    Default Re: Does treating a "Treatment Free" queen really destroy her genetics?

    Quote Originally Posted by squarepeg View Post
    since the bee's natural resistance to viruses and other pathogens is mediated through their immune system, and since the effectiveness of their immune system is dependent on nutrition, i think that there should be more focus on bee diet.
    From my research I think this is really an underestimated aspect of successful treatment-free beekeeping, along with the importance of hive microbiota.

    Maybe genetics is an overestimated component of success, given the complexity and unavoidable out-crossing of bee breeding. This seems especially likely with small-timers who are working with a fairly small number of hives.

    Partly this idea appeals to me because it's a very optimistic one. If it's right, then you can succeed without super bees, if your cultural practices are good enough.

  5. #225
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina
    Posts
    2,747

    Default Re: Does treating a "Treatment Free" queen really destroy her genetics?

    Quote Originally Posted by squarepeg View Post
    what i have is essentially 17 years into mike's 'experiment'
    You went "treatment free" while collecting wild swarms, starting in 1996?

    Impressive considering they were first introduced into the US in 1987 (at least parts, FL namely, and took up to 3 years to hit some parts of the continental US). Kudos for having the forethought.

  6. #226
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina
    Posts
    2,747

    Default Re: Does treating a "Treatment Free" queen really destroy her genetics?

    Quote Originally Posted by David LaFerney View Post
    your queens fly out and mate with a drone population . . . as do your drones for that matter.
    I wasn't aware homosexuality was rampant in the honey bee . . .

  7. #227
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina
    Posts
    2,747

    Default Re: Does treating a "Treatment Free" queen really destroy her genetics?

    Quote Originally Posted by rhaldridge View Post
    you can succeed without super bees, if your cultural practices are good enough.
    Harry Laidlaw has said that management practices will always have a greater impact on your bees than breeding attempts ever will. Whether you think that applies to breeding resistant stocks, who knows.

  8. #228
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    jackson county, alabama, usa
    Posts
    4,576

    Default Re: Does treating a "Treatment Free" queen really destroy her genetics?

    Quote Originally Posted by Specialkayme View Post
    You went "treatment free" while collecting wild swarms, starting in 1996?

    Impressive considering they were first introduced into the US in 1987 (at least parts, FL namely, and took up to 3 years to hit some parts of the continental US). Kudos for having the forethought.
    it was a friend of mine (and my bee supplier) and his father that went out into the woods and cut down a half dozen bee trees to start their bee operation back in the mid-nineties. and yes, this was right in the middle of when yards were collapsing from varroa.

    this is only my third season with them, having started with nucs and queens from my friend. the seventeen years refers to their lineage off treatments.

    it's unknown how long these colonies had been surviving vs. whether or not they were just new swarms in the trees. the consensus is that the ferals here weren't completely wiped out, and have been and continue to provide drones for those of us rearing queens.

    the oldtimers talk about the 'wild' bees around here as being 'german black' bees, which may have some a.m.m. lineage. they had a reputation for being aggressive but good honey producers, and i believe this strain exhibits some resistance to mites.

    my bees do tend to be a little on the dark side in terms of their coloration.
    journaling the growth of a treatment free apiary started in 2010. 20+/- hives

  9. #229
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Rader, Greene County, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    6,191

    Default Re: Does treating a "Treatment Free" queen really destroy her genetics?

    > I wasn't aware homosexuality was rampant in the honey bee . . .

    One of our esteemed members appears to be an expert on bee sexuality and has some comments ....

    > Boy bee foragers?
    Quote Originally Posted by Acebird View Post
    A bad boy can be a female.




    (read in context by clicking the blue arrow in the quote box)
    Last edited by Rader Sidetrack; 08-25-2013 at 12:43 PM.
    Graham
    USDA Zone 7A Elevation 1400 ft

  10. #230
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts
    1,316

    Default Re: Does treating a "Treatment Free" queen really destroy her genetics?

    Quote Originally Posted by mike bispham View Post



    In the second place, nothing other than the result of a single roll of the vast dice that is the population is lost. All the genes that made up that (unfit) individual are still contained

    And of course, unless steps are taken to prevent it, the same goes for the immediate apiary bees - making increase from bees that need treating just makes more bees that need treating.

    For these reasons their preservation runs counter to the most fundamental principle of (population) husbandry.

    To summarise; not only does treating not maintain genetic diversity, it seriously corrodes it.



    Mike (UK)
    This post makes complete sense....it takes many generations to breed in,or out, genetic characteristics. Those displaying desirable characteristics can still carry the undesirable ones....these will not show up unless they end up as dominant or up regegulated. By "helping" put through bees with undesirable characteristics we are helping to keep that undesirable gene pool active. ( a very crude explanation of a complex topic)

    Having said that one usually is looking at many characteristics when choosing breeding stock. The question becomes which are more important to the breeder? Is mite resistance more important than honey production, demeanour, brood expansion etc.

    I am very new to bees but in the short time I have been following bee converstions it seems that there are common pressures in both the commercial and back yard bee world. Brood expansion (with survival), honey production and demeanour seem on the top. For the first two feeding seems to be the "artificial" tool that is used to shore up weakness or push nature to the limits. With thriving populous colonies whose natural swarming instincts are then managed as another "artificial" tool mites, and other wellness issues, become a limiting factor in maintaining the desired level of growth and production. Treatments, and management manipulation, are then brought into play to try and diminish the effect parasitism and stress related illness.

    To me this seems no different than the issues that arise with any husbandry practices that place production and selection of a few desired commercial traits above all else.

    Managed husbandry has very different success markers than does natural selection. Natural selection selects for those that can survive as individuals and as a population....one system cares about how much can be derived from something and the other selects for survivability. With manipulation for the former the traits for survivability are often overlooked.

    With the "manipulated" stock that it seems most are staring with now it seems it is possible to select for survivability and production but the journey may be slower than most commercial beekeepers can tolerate.

    What is great about this forum is we see both sides of this debate.

    Lauri seems to be fortunate in having had access to a genetic line that may have already been influenced by natural selection in her geographical location and in having the time to work with that line without the pressures of immediate $$ production. Hopefully there are many more out t here doing the same thing.

    My 2 cents...hope I didn't offend too many folks.

  11. #231
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Canterbry, UK
    Posts
    1,656

    Default Re: Does treating a "Treatment Free" queen really destroy her genetics?

    Quote Originally Posted by Specialkayme View Post
    Starting with the understanding that more variety, more points of difference creates greater diversity, allowing colonies to die decreases diversity. Those genetics are not able to pass on to the next generation, meaning the next generation is less diverse.
    As I explain above, it doesn't decrease _genetic_ diversity, since all the genes that were terminated live on in the population. It removes that one combination that didn't work well in the present environment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Specialkayme View Post
    If you start off with 10 colonies, and 5 of them contain "bad" genetics, so you either kill them or let them die, then repopulate their "space" with 5 splits off the remaining 5 hives, thus making 10 colonies again, those 10 colonies will have half as much diversity as the 10 colonies you started with.
    You could easily think that but it doesn't work that way. Lets try an analogy: take a finite set of house-making components, say 1000. You have 10 different sorts of bricks, 15 different roof tiles, 8 different curtain colours in 4 different fabrics 5 different sorts of light fittings, and so on. These are the essential components, and the diversity has a figure - 1000.

    You can combine these in millions of different ways - and you build a town of say 10,000 houses. Each is different, unique.

    Now one burns one down because a particular type of light fitting turned out to be faulty, and was tfitted too close to particualr type of curtain that was inflammable. Everything burned to bits.

    What has been lost? One set of all the components used in that one house. Many other houses however still stand, still containing all the same components (though not in the same combination). The number of elements in existence is still 1000.

    There has been no loss in diversity of components.

    There has been a loss of one combination - that didn't work well.

    And the wise thing to do is _not copy that combination again_

    Of course with houses you can re-engineer - fix them by changing the light fittings and curtains.

    With bees you can't. But you can stop more of that bad combination being made. And that is what nature does. No cost - it will be replaced with one likely better.

    Quote Originally Posted by Specialkayme View Post
    Just because the genetics are bad, and the removal of them is better for the future generations, that doesn't mean doing so makes things more diverse.
    IFF... removal of them sets the stage for the flourishing of local bees, rather than their ongoing suppression, then the genetic diversity that is found in different races - even local races - will tend to be preserved. That is infinitely preferable to the preservation of one unfit combination, let alone its multiplication.

    Mike (UK)
    Last edited by mike bispham; 08-26-2013 at 02:05 AM.
    Anti-husbandry: Medication + Reproduction = Continuing Sickness
    http://www.suttonjoinery.co.uk/CCD/

  12. #232
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts
    1,316

    Default Re: Does treating a "Treatment Free" queen really destroy her genetics?

    Quote Originally Posted by deknow View Post
    Given this statement:



    .what do members of beesource think?





    deknow
    I think much of this thread has been fuelled by those that do not have a sound understanding of genetic science.

    But...if through this thread some myths can be dispelled and some better understanding can be developed it is a good thread.

    Basic punet square genetics, gene regulation, gene modulation..viral or otherwise...will affect any breeding outcomes..individual and population survival...

    In the moment will treatments we are discussing have the potential to be anything more than act as a crutch for bees that could not live without it, allowing them to produce for the moment and continue a population that remains dependant on that crutch...no. They will not be directly changing the physical genetic make up of the treated Queen.

  13. #233
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina
    Posts
    2,747

    Default Re: Does treating a "Treatment Free" queen really destroy her genetics?

    Quote Originally Posted by mike bispham View Post
    As I explain above, it doesn't decrease _genetic_ diversity, since all the genes that were terminated live on in the population. It removes that one combination that didn't work well in the present environment.
    This is what I don't understand behind what you are trying to express.

    I would agree with you if bee genetics were as simple as every bee containing 10 different genes, but each one expresses it differently, i.e. in a different combination. Some combinations are winners, others are losers, so by eliminating the losers you aren't eliminating genes from the pool. Because the survivors still have the same 10 genes, but in different combinations. At least, this is what I think you are trying to explain.

    But that's not how bee genetics work. The bees in colony one (or actually, some of them, as many bees inside a colony have different fathers, and different genes) might have genes A-G (extremely simplified here). Colony two might have genes A-C & H-K. Now, genes D-G are only expressed in colony 1, and genes H-K are only expressed in colony 2. Letting one of those colonies die (doesn't matter which one) removes certain genes from the gene pool. By definition, the gene pool is less diverse at the end of this than at the beginning, and allowing it to not happen would increase genetic diversity, not decrease it. Colonies 1 and 2 don't contain the same genetic material but in different combinations. They contain some of the same genetic material (or genes) in different combinations along with other genes entirely. That's what I'm confused about what you are saying. That covers my 'diversity' question.

    To take it one step further now, based on my (probably too) simplified explanation above, lets say that gene D is recessive and F is dominant. Now lets say that gene D contains something that shows mite resistance. If the colony has genes D-F, that colony will not show mite resistance, as F will dominate over D. Now you let Colony 1 die out, because it wasn't a winner, and you removed gene D from the pool. If you instead treated to keep them alive, then let them re-mate with the pool, it's possible that colony 1 will create an offspring that contains genes A-D & G-I. But you would have lost this combination possibility if you let colony 1 die when it failed to show resistance, because you reduced the mating pool.

    Real bee matings is extremely more complex, for obvious reasons. Multiple matings and uncontrolled mating yards make this more complicated to the n'th degree. I'm just using this example as a discussion point.

    Quote Originally Posted by mike bispham View Post
    There has been no loss in diversity of components.

    There has been a loss of one combination - that didn't work well.
    I agree with your analogy. But what if every house that has a lightbulb of 60 watts burned to bits. While every other "component" is available, 60 watt light bulbs are now not available anywhere. Why? Because you saw smoke and let it burn, thinking it was not a viable set of combinations. But that's a big assumption. But bridging it to bees, you assume that every "component" is available in the environment, even if one colony dies out. I'm assuming that there is a set of criteria, at least theoretically, that letting one set of genes die out COULD remove it entirely from YOUR mating pool. It is theoretically possible.

    But to get to the main point, it was originally stated that:
    Quote Originally Posted by deknow View Post
    Treatments reduce the diversity of these populations.
    To which my question was:
    Quote Originally Posted by Specialkayme View Post
    I don't understand how treatments reduce the diversity of bees.
    To which you responded (after considerable back and forth):
    Quote Originally Posted by mike bispham View Post
    The number of elements in existence is still 1000. There has been no loss in diversity . . .
    We aren't talking about loss in diversity from letting one hive die or one house burn down. We are talking about actually INCREASING genetic diversity by letting one hive die or one house burn down. To which I don't understand how that is possible.

    Using your analogy above, I would agree that AT BEST, you don't reduce or increase the diversity of houses, just eliminate one combination that didn't work. I would still argue that AT BEST you would maintain the status quo, and AT WORST you could remove a component from future selection. But still, if you saw the house was burning, and you put it out before it destroyed the house, and only charred one room. Maybe the house will burn down later. Who knows. But how does putting out that fire DECREASE the diversity of the houses? By putting out the fire AT BEST it maintains the diversity of the houses to the same level it was before the fire broke out. AT WORST it increases the diversity of the houses, as theoretically one component could have only been in that house and would have been completely removed by letting it burn down.

    I hope that explains my point of conversation.

  14. #234
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Fort Walton Beach, Florida
    Posts
    1,256

    Default Re: Does treating a "Treatment Free" queen really destroy her genetics?

    Quote Originally Posted by Specialkayme View Post

    We aren't talking about loss in diversity from letting one hive die or one house burn down. We are talking about actually INCREASING genetic diversity by letting one hive die or one house burn down. To which I don't understand how that is possible.
    .
    I don't understand the concern about genetic bottlenecking, unless your bees are on an offshore island, or all your queens are artificially inseminated. How is it possible to prevent the influx of novel genetic material?

    But like you I don't understand how diversity is increased by pursuing the Bond method. I think genetic diversity is not an element that the average beekeeper has any definitive control over.

  15. #235
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Canterbry, UK
    Posts
    1,656

    Default Re: Does treating a "Treatment Free" queen really destroy her genetics?

    Quote Originally Posted by Oldtimer View Post
    Ok quite a thoughtful answer although I don't think I quite phrased my question properly. The initial claim was the (assumed) feral survivors are under threat from the influence of treaters. If you move them to your hives, they are still subject to the influence of treaters, regardless of your management, because your management is really just bond. So how does that change anything?
    It isn't 'just bond'. (As I understand it that would mean just (let) 'live and let die'.) I actively raise new stocks from what I consider to my best - at a much faster rate than wild bees would do. So I'm multiplying the desirable genes much faster than they would. Furthermore by bringing them together I'm giving the offspring queens access to a larger proportion of resistance-carrying drones that would likely have been the case.

    I'm carrying out a breeding program designed to raise resistance to an objectionable quality more rapidly than nature would do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oldtimer View Post
    Agreed that selling resistant queens will help spread resistant bees, but the question was not what will you do after you get resistance, more how will you get that resistance in the first place any better than the feral hives would have if left alone?
    As above. Normal breeding toward desirable traits and qualities: source stock exhibiting those traits and qualities, assay and assess, make offspring from the best, repeat. As often as possible.

    Mike (UK)
    Last edited by mike bispham; 08-26-2013 at 03:06 AM.
    Anti-husbandry: Medication + Reproduction = Continuing Sickness
    http://www.suttonjoinery.co.uk/CCD/

  16. #236
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Canterbry, UK
    Posts
    1,656

    Default Re: Does treating a "Treatment Free" queen really destroy her genetics?

    Quote Originally Posted by David LaFerney View Post
    No matter what you do to preserve or improve genetics in your home apiary your queens fly out and mate with a drone population which you have little or no control over - as do your drones for that matter. The good news is that they have All survived for decades while dealing with mites - and anecdotal reports are that the overall situation may be improving.
    Hello David,

    As we discussed earlier (though I confess I couldn't really pin down the point in the lietrature) - not all patrilines need to be 'resistant'. there are different forms of resistances, and just some patrilines carrying some forms can amount to a sufficient level of behaviours to allow effective mite control.

    On top of that: something all open mating bee breeders have always done is keep large drone populations from their best queens in and around their apiaries in order to swing drone input their way.

    So while you don't have total control, you do have some, and this is perfectly sufficient, given enough attention.

    A couple of sound sources: R.A.B. Manley, Honey Farming, first page of Chapter V; Friedrich Ruttner, Breeding Techniques and the Selection for Breeding of the Honeybee, pages 41 and 87.

    Mike (UK)
    Anti-husbandry: Medication + Reproduction = Continuing Sickness
    http://www.suttonjoinery.co.uk/CCD/

  17. #237
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Auckland,Auckland,New Zealand
    Posts
    5,999

    Default Re: Does treating a "Treatment Free" queen really destroy her genetics?

    Quote Originally Posted by mike bispham View Post
    As we discussed earlier (though I confess I couldn't really pin down the point in the lietrature) - not all patrilines need to be 'resistant'. there are different forms of resistances, and just some patrilines carrying some forms can amount to a sufficient level of behaviours to allow effective mite control.
    Yes, I haven't been able to find anything to confirm that either.
    44 years, been commercial, outfits up to 4000 hives, now 120 hives and 200 nucs as a hobby, selling bees. T (mostly).

  18. #238
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Canterbry, UK
    Posts
    1,656

    Default Re: Does treating a "Treatment Free" queen really destroy her genetics?

    Quote Originally Posted by WBVC View Post

    Having said that one usually is looking at many characteristics when choosing breeding stock. The question becomes which are more important to the breeder? Is mite resistance more important than honey production, demeanour, brood expansion etc.
    [...]
    Managed husbandry has very different success markers than does natural selection. Natural selection selects for those that can survive as individuals and as a population....one system cares about how much can be derived from something and the other selects for survivability. With manipulation for the former the traits for survivability are often overlooked.
    Many thanks for a fresh perspective and a balanced view WBVC. I think you hit several nails square on the head.

    I think one of the things those of us who argue for survivability to be raised in the breeding evaluations are concerned about is that the competitive nature of raw commerce has driven modern commercial beekeeping to a self-destructive level. It focuses on maintaining productivity above all else, and is quite at home with any method that achieves that, regardless of outside impact. It is (I'm deliberately talking about the industry here, not present company) selfish - self interested.

    And so it produces bees that perform best in an environment that includes any sort of manipulation or substance input as long as the economic case is sound. And I think that needs regulating as it is harmful to the interests of future generations - of bees and of beekeepers, and of humanity and generation unborn. Raw competitive commerce has its merits, but it has a long record of destroying resources that arguably ought to be regarded as common property.

    And the present breeding criteria have a wider impact than the industry itself. Due to the open breeding nature, these self-interested actions impact on other beekeepers and on wild bees - which again impacts on other beekeepers.

    The feeling from where I stand is: the future of the bee species is not the property of a narrow interest group, but (if the property of anyone at all) belongs to humankind, now and in the future. I don't know how many people here will want to argue with that point of view (though I'm pretty sure some will).

    I think what we are arguing about just now is what is best for bees (and thus for humanity now and in the future) - and what is possible. Specifically, whether the sorts of husbandry I'm advocating, and practising myself result overall in harm toward the species via a reduction in genetic diversity.

    That seems to be the charge; and it seems to be a counter to my own charge; that widespread treating is corrosive of genetic diversity.

    Quote Originally Posted by WBVC View Post
    What is great about this forum is we see both sides of this debate.

    My 2 cents...hope I didn't offend too many folks.
    I think each perspective in some sense offends the other, and the participants are very bound up in their investments - I know I am. But we can't let that stop the conversation. I think the important thing is to winkle out the facts, and this present conversation matters. Is protection of genetic diversity a valid argument for treating?

    If so, is that a generalised conclusion, or would it only apply in certain circumstances - and if so, which.

    Mike (UK)
    Anti-husbandry: Medication + Reproduction = Continuing Sickness
    http://www.suttonjoinery.co.uk/CCD/

  19. #239
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Canterbry, UK
    Posts
    1,656

    Default Re: Does treating a "Treatment Free" queen really destroy her genetics?

    Quote Originally Posted by Specialkayme View Post
    But to get to the main point, it was originally stated that:

    To which my question was:
    (treaments reduce the diversity of these populations)

    To which you responded (after considerable back and forth):

    (The number of elements in existence is still 1000. There has been no loss in diversity . . .)

    We aren't talking about loss in diversity from letting one hive die or one house burn down. We are talking about actually INCREASING genetic diversity by letting one hive die or one house burn down. To which I don't understand how that is possible.
    First, I think we have to break down 'diversity' a bit.

    Acknowleging the oversimplifications; lets identify:

    a) genetic diversity, in terms of raw gene numbers within the species, and carried within each population.

    b) a diversity of local strains, each adapted to locality - climate, habitat.

    (Now we must again acknowlege that 'local' means an infinite number of things simultaniously - lets restrict our discussion to continental local, climate local, and breeding pool local)

    Speaking sloppily; the 'breeding-pool' local strains will have 'discovered', and will express, those particular genes, gene-sets, alelles, that supply best health and productivity (available energy converted to offspring) in that immediate vicinity at that time - given that parasite and micropredatory environment. A replacement number of offspring of the local population will be able to survive to reproduction age, and as normal those _best able_ to thrive will supply _the greater number_ of offspring in each generation, keeping the population attuned to its total environment/healthy.

    Genetic diversity is best preserved by allowing that process to play out in all the different breeding pools and the wider 'localities'. All sorts of bees, able to live in all sorts of places, can do so.

    Agreed?

    If so: the answer to your question is found in the question: how do we preserve that state of affairs?

    Do we:

    1) adapt widespread treatments that spread treatment-dependency into wild populations, suppressing their numbers and their natural adaptation process, or,

    2) allow the process to play out so that as much as possible locally adapted wild/feral bees everywhere become all but immune to the effects of varroa, and return to the pre-epidemic semi-natural state?

    Quote Originally Posted by Specialkayme View Post
    Using your analogy above, I would agree that AT BEST, you don't reduce or increase the diversity of houses, just eliminate one combination that didn't work. I would still argue that AT BEST you would maintain the status quo, and AT WORST you could remove a component from future selection.
    That would only be the case if no other houses held that component to be copied. What are the chances? (say largest-choice item is 16 options of window patterns: 10,000 houses.... 1:625. Against.

    And this: that window pattern can be restored through contact with other towns. Every town in the whole world has the same elements...

    I'm not saying there are no arguments at all against maintaining local adaptivity by carefully preserving local stocks while resistance is bred in - and allowed to breed itself in. But that must happen. Simply having everyone treating and doing nothing else just prevents it happening. Saying 'we must treat to preserve diversity' is an oversimplification that inverts the realities, and supplies a handy narrative that justifies carrying on as usual.

    Quote Originally Posted by Specialkayme View Post
    But still, if you saw the house was burning, and you put it out before it destroyed the house, and only charred one room. Maybe the house will burn down later. Who knows. But how does putting out that fire DECREASE the diversity of the houses?
    One could think of many ways. By failing to create sufficient alarm in the local press and at oversight level, for example, about the faulty light fitting... more houses burn.
    There are consequences to putting out the fire, just as there are consequences to not putting it out.

    Lets try something new - Reductio ad absurdum. Your argument seems to me to lead to a position where we must always keep all bees alive alive as long as we can, and encourage all of them to reproduce, in order to maintain local (breeding-pool level) diversity.

    Have I got that right?

    Mike (UK)

    PS Has anyone else noticed that Deknow was talking about microbe diversity?
    Anti-husbandry: Medication + Reproduction = Continuing Sickness
    http://www.suttonjoinery.co.uk/CCD/

  20. #240
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Reno, NV
    Posts
    3,012

    Default Re: Does treating a "Treatment Free" queen really destroy her genetics?

    two actual situation I know of that relate to this "What is a suitable variability" issue.

    1. this was an actually study that required years to conduct. The question was. how many unrelated pairs of humans would have been required to successfully migrate to the Americas?
    The answer was 67 or 134 unrelated individuals.

    2. The relatively recent importation of the Serama from Malaysia. 137 unrelated pairs where imported. the number one issue in the breeding of Seramas today is lack of genetic diversity or symptoms of inbreeding. Cross breeding with bantams is under way in order to boost the gene pool.

    The analogy to building a house and having a hand full of options does not work. not only is a hand full of options even if you are making thousands of choices not nearly enough. but you are limited to choices of light fixtures that will all short and burn down your house. There is no good choice.

    In addition it is not a matter of how many options are out here among suppliers. it s the choices you have in your apiary. You are not building new colonies from the selection the world offers you are building them from the tiny corner hardware store that is your bee yard. The issue is you think that is a first rate hardware store. most think it does not offer nearly enough options. Real world condition of the Honey Bee indicates the latter is correct.
    Stand for what you believe, even if you stand alone.

Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 210111213 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Ads