Well, it looks like this thread has, er, evolved. Forgive me for risking a push in yet a different direction, though I think it is in line with the original post.
I took the original attribution to relate to genetics at the molecular level (occupational hazard), but do see how it could be interpreted at the colony level, as was stated earlier on.
I'd like to observe that there seems to be an assumption that genetic alteration at the molecular level is always the result of mutation. That isn't so. Genes can also be "silenced" while remaining intact and the silencing can be transferred to offspring, at least to a limited extent. This is part of the field of epigenetics.
Yes, there is published, scientific, peer-reviewed information on hereditary epigenetics. Here is one overview, for those who enjoy such reading: http://genome.cshlp.org/content/20/1....full.pdf+html . It is interesting to note that honeybees are mentioned in the article, but not in relation to treatment with chemical compounds (nutrition instead). I do not know if any studies have been carried out on the ability of treatments to enact epigenetic change in honeybees. There is much that needs to be learned about this topic in general, so I wouldn't draw any foundational conclusions about all hereditary epigenetics quite yet.
Pete. New 2013, 12 hives, zone 6a
To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous.
The likely hood of hereditary epigenetic's was also discussed in another thread. Concerns that queens raised under swarm conditions had their DNA changed to produce bees that were more prone to swarming. It was a good thread some might like to read. I will look for it and post the link if I can find it.
Changing gene expression due to environmental exposure is not changing the actual DNA however. This is a big issue with GMO products as well. New DNA is inserted, but cannot be totally controlled where it will 'land' or what genes it will effect. (Turn on or off)Resulting in Some surprising unintended consequences. The DNA IS changed, but it is the unknown and undesired effect on subsequent gene expression that is the problem.
The more I read, the more I realize I don't know. Dang.
I am not about to read all 60 relys to see if someone has already asked my question, if they have please excuse me, but assuming there is a change is it always for worse or for better?
Last edited by Lauri; 08-17-2013 at 01:42 PM.
It's like if I said commercial beekeepers requeen once and even twice a year. That is something that does get said all the time and something commercial beeks are quite keen to quash. Am I not right?
No, seems to me you are cynical and untrusting. I believed what was said and took it to be true that someone said what it was said they said. You chose not to trust your fellow man.
Mark, if someone told you they used water instead of gasoline, you wouldn't believe it either. But you're not a treatment-free beekeeper. What people claim they say means nothing to you.
You are well versed in ripping people a new one for posting things that are obviously wrong.
It's like if somebody said commercial beekeepers requeen twice a year. That is something that does get said all the time and something commercial beeks are quite keen to quash. Am I right?
The Gold Standard for re-queening used to be once a year. Now, it’s twice a year"
I'd better start building more mating nucs for next year then...Thanks for the heads up Barry
Lauri, sqkcrk; What I was trying to determine was that if any change occurs, is the change capable of producing more varroa resistant bees or does it always produce a bee weaker, and more susceptible to varroa damage. If it is a craps shoot then I would think it is foolish to not wait and see what resistance the colony would show after treatment. Actually, it is my opinion that the probability of a treatment making a change is very low.
It also my opinion, and we all have one, is that all of this treatment/treatment free discourse is wasted. Each side is entrenched and has no intention of giving ground, therefore we should confine ourselves to giving to other beekeepers what advice we can about practical beekeeping. Ulitmately each person will make their own decision about how they will keep their bees, and if their bees prosper, they will get the credit for making the proper decision.
Commercials requeening twice a year? Who authorized the release of this information? It must have been Snowden.
"People will generally accept facts as truth only if the facts agree with what they already believe."- Andy Rooney