# AI breeding



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

I'm not going to outright disagree with you Bill and I admit that instrumental insemination is a valuable bee breeding tool, but I will suggest that all too often our attempts to "improve on nature" are not without downsides, and usually unforseen (and serious) downsides at that. Hand in hand with higher yielding corn goes heavier use of chemical fertilizers, soil depletion, ground water contamination, etc. I'm not convinced the tradeoffs are worth it.

I do support AI (or as some prefer, II) programs, but more for the research aspects than the practical insemination of everyone's queens. I do not see II as the answer to all our prayers! It is unreasonable to assume that instrumentally inseminated queens are going to be "the answer" to problems facing the beekeeping today- especially given that bees know how to raise their own queens, and those queens know how to get knocked up, and they do so regularly. You might suggest that the ability to raise their own queens is something that could be bred out of bees. I would suggest that would be a very bad idea









This should be a good thread.


----------



## Bill Ruble (Jan 2, 2006)

George, I can agree with nearly all you say. I agree that AI is not "THE answer" to our prayers. However, it is a tool that can help us get to where we want.

As to the example of corn. It is true that more furtilizer is spray and things of that nature are needed. I do not like it anymore than anyone else believe me. In fact, I try not to do itl However, I can remember back in the 60's they were saying that the world would run out of food by the year 2000 becouse of the population. If it were not for the improved faming methods (all of them play a part, no one will work alone) where would we be now?

I was a farm manager for an interprise a few years ago and had some people on the staff that did not want to use any pesticides on a crop we had. I did not want to either, but in that particular case, it was either use it or loose it. They did not agree, so I split the crop in two and said I would eat the part that was sprayed, they could eat the other. Long story short, there was no other. Just a small example of we do what we have to do.
Bill


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

I feel that II is the best way to improve the genetics of any animal population. Open breeding is probably the way to make the best production queens.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>where would we be now?

Perhaps with more but smaller farms practicing truly sane and sustainable agriculture? I don't think less farms but bigger ones is the answer. The farming situation in this country is untenable, and getting worse. Farms are folding up. Soil is disappearing. Ground water is disappearing, and much of what is left is getting polluted with salt and other junk from runnoff. The energy bill to sustain our current farming practices is staggering. If we keep going in the direction we're headed, is this situation going to get any better? I don't think so.

As for the worlds population starving to death, isn't that happening now in many nations around the world, including the US? Globally we are probably not producing enough food, but here in this country, we *pay* farmers not to grow stuff. What's up with that? Then we ship a bunch of surplus corn off to a country where the people have never seen corn, don't know how to eat it, can't digest it, and don't like it. What's up with that? Or, we ship rice to some starving nation only to have it rot on the docks or get stolen by black market entrepreneurs who sell it to the highest bidder? What's up with that?

But hey... I'm beginning to rant and you are not entirely unsympathetic to my particular concerns, and this forum is afterall about beekeeping, not agribusiness and Malthus and whether he was right about his population theories. But that said, beekeeping IS agriculture and agriculture IS business so it behooves us to keep in mind the current state of agricultural in this country and around the world and the practices that are and are NOT working, and the reasoning and mindset that got us here.

If that same mindset and is to be applied to moving Beekeeping into the future, then I don't want any part of it. Chemicals, genetic engineering, and higher yields at the expense of higher energy consumption and lower quality, these are not things I wish for. I don't want any part of it

Now. Got that out of the way. Let's talk about instrumental insemination!


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

i'm with george....

for anyone wanting to get a glimpse of the dark side of petro based agriculture read wendell barry (sp?). I do suspect that some of my 'bad attitude' about agri- business (now why did they take the culture out of that word) was the revelation here (many years ago) that some science types would twist their data analysis to comply with the needs of the institutions (fertilizer biz-ness) paying for their research.


----------



## BerkeyDavid (Jan 29, 2004)

Bill
I agree with you. I just finished rereading the genetics section of Queen rearing and Bee Breeding by Laidlaw and Page.

It is absolutely essential that we use II to select for traits.

My ancestors were able to breed some very fine Jersey milk cows and fine hogs. THey were in that business about 100 years ago. 
There is nothing "dark side" about taking your best producer and crossing it with another.

But you can't stick your prize queen in a pasture with your prize drone and get what you want!

I also agree with Aspera, the II queens are best for making production queens rather than as producers themselves.

We need to support those like tarheit and others who are doing the II work. We need to be dedicated to the improvement of the honey bee.

It is not dark side. Those working in agriculture have been doing it since before recorded history. 

I'll wager that our existing honeybees, Italians, Carnolians, German Black bees, whatever, have all been influenced by selection used by beekeepers over the last 2000 years or more.

[this is a belief, not a theory or hypothesis, since it most likely cannot be proven  ]


----------



## Chef Isaac (Jul 26, 2004)

This debate is just like the debate that has gone on forever about genetically modified foods (GMO---o is for orginisms).

What happened is that at first, people said that GMO's were the answer to growing populations not only in USA but also in China for example. That put a lot of farmers out of business including my family and extended family.

Than a shift happened which was and still is REALLY cool.

You go to the market and buy GMO's... say a tomato for example. BUT... you now have the options of buying organic and small farmed products. 

It is just like this debate. Great...AI programs will solve some problems. However.. if we support the AI programs enough, there is going to be a niche market for.. lets say open mated queens or another term is feral queens.

Now.. I am not debating about GMO's. That is a subject that has been beat to death and I have no interest in it at this time as I studied it so much in Culinary School and have come to the above conclusion.


----------



## Chef Isaac (Jul 26, 2004)

No offense Bill but Corn is not corn. AS we know corn now... it is a GMO item.

Talk with ANY and I mean ANY chef and they will tell you that the flavor is in organic small farmed items and NOT in GMOs. Take the tomato for example. do you know WHY they all fit into a nice box, row by row...shiney red color with perfect shape? BECAUSE THEY ARE GENETICALLY MODIFIED. BUT... where is the flavor.... where Bill? it is in the organic tomato... the airloom seeds my friend...

to me.. this is the same comcept.

LEts NOT even talk about chickens. That is why chefs are paying small farmers to produce organic chickens with NO HORMONES. that is why I will pay $5 more a dozen for organic eggs and that customers like yourself will pay $35 for a dish made with organic chicken.


----------



## Chef Isaac (Jul 26, 2004)

yeah... lets go ahead an genetically modify strawberries again. JUST LIKE WE DID. why? so the little darn strawberry beatle stoped eating it. now what happeend... another bug is eating strawberries. 

what should we do now bill? Modify the [email protected] thing again?


----------



## Chef Isaac (Jul 26, 2004)

George: I need some "calm me down" pills.


----------



## Chef Isaac (Jul 26, 2004)

Berkey: There IS A DARK SIDE TO IT ALL. Let me make a stand right here and right now.

I think AI can be a tool. However ,as most Americans are, it must be used in the right way. I need not say anything more than the word cloning. That was a big screw up wasent it. 

I ask the question... why take something of nature and screw with it to fit the needs of higher production which leads to more money? Why? What happeend with planing the game? My father once said that farming is a gamble. Some years...great..some years ok.. some years bad. 

See... if we use AI to say... eilimate Varroa... great. no problems... until maybe next year when another "bug" or when the mite adapts to that GM bee. Than what... oh wait... we call those people who GM bees using AI and ask them for the F1034fckII type bee. 

SORRY ALL FOR THESE POSTS. I HAVE ALWAYS HAD A PROBLEM WITH PEOPLE SUPPORTING GMOS WITHOUT DOING RESEARCH AND UNDERSTANDING THE OTHER SIDE.

I MEAN NOT TO OFFEND ANYONE BY MY OPINIONS.


----------



## Chef Isaac (Jul 26, 2004)

And than someday someone is going to say

"hey..who needs the people in the white funny alien outfits to keep bees and get honey?? Let just GM all plants so we can just pinch the honey out from the plant"

There goes beekeepers.

Or wait.. how about Almonds... yeah.... big bucks in pollination now right? Wait... what happenes if we can GM the almond trees so they self populate (or some other crap) and we wont need bees."

Good idea isnt it???!!!


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

good to see chef issac on such a tear... but it should be clear to you chef that some folks don't really care if a tomato don't taste like a tomato. as long as 'a tomato' looks kind of like a tomato and it is dirt cheap they happy little cogs. I suspect these are the same folks that watch reality tv (now explain to me exactly where the reality is in that?).


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>George: I need some "calm me down" pills.

Out of pills Chef but I've got some suppositories you can try. Might help. Better yet, just take a few deep breaths, cut back on the coffee, pet the kitty. In a while you'll be feeling positively serene...


----------



## BerkeyDavid (Jan 29, 2004)

At the risk of sending Chef into relapse, let me just say that I perceive a huge difference in II and genetic engineering.

Selective breeding has been around for thousands of years.

the modification of genetic material has not. I personally believe in and try to practice organic gardening and treatment of my bees.

I simply don't see how II will cause the apocalypse.

Practically speaking we are just talking II for breeder queens. It is not practical nor economical to engage in II for production queens.

So why not use II to help? It is just good husbandry in my opinion.


----------



## Chef Isaac (Jul 26, 2004)

David:

my friend.... GMOs have been around for such a long time as well. 

I also agree what II will not cause the apocalypse. But that is what they said about GM vegetables. "Oh, we will only do this to this vegetable this time and than we will stop". Never stopped my friend.. never.

Of course, I am not against GMOs. Like stated above, it has opened up a great niche market in several ways. Just like how local honey is so great versus walmart honey. 

Tech: I disagree. Apply the same to honey. So basically your saying no one really cares if the honey is processed or not or local or not. Isnt all honey the same anyway?? 

This is where, IN MY HUMBLE OPINION.... this seperates the classes of people. Great... eat that tomato that has no flavor and is produced on a farm that ran small farmers out of the business or eat that airloom tomatoe that came from seeds dating back 2000 years ago. 

Night and day my friend... or shall I say local honey versus walmart honey. 

Anyway... back to the issue.

I do not think AI is going to hurt. But what I am affraid of is that it will create...or has the potential to create more harm than good. And if you do not beleieve me... look at my post above on straberries.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

Chef, glad to see your heart rate back to normal.

I'm basically on your side on this.

People were selectively breeding queens long before instrumental insemination came along. II/AI has the potential for being a very valuable tool, but I have issues with it's routine use outside of the laboratory.

Michael Bush has suggested in another thread that by instrumentally inseminating breeder queens, we could be inadvertantly selecting queens that don't have what it takes to successfully open mate and wouldn't, if left to their own devices, get successfully mated naturally. This would be bad and could lead to queens that NEED to be instrumentally inseminated. Natural mating naturally selects for continued breeding those queens that have what it takes to get successfully mated uh.. naturally. Sounds a bit circular but I believe it's a valid argument.

Of course, it's just as likely that a superior queen with all the right qualities would get hit by a car or picked off by a bird on her nuptual flight, so luck plays a part, of course.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>This would be bad and could lead to queens that NEED to be instrumentally inseminated.

This is already a problem with some horse breeds. It could make the AHB problem even worse. They already have a breeding advantage.


----------



## Bill Ruble (Jan 2, 2006)

First, I never said anything about GMO's. Are you sure you understand the difference between GMO's and AI or II as it is called here?

By the way. the corn I raise is ALL self polinating. I don't want any GMO anything myself. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater!!
Bill


----------



## Chef Isaac (Jul 26, 2004)

Bill:

No offense, but with ALL of the studies that came from UC Davis and UC Santacruz, there is no one riasing what was the true corn. 

The true corn, before it was GM was like the corn the feed to cattle but a lot smaller. I can almost guarentee that everyone supports GMO's one way or another. Case in point: Grocery Shopping. What kind of chickens came from the eggs that you eat? 

Yes, I do understand the difference between GMO and AI but the real question is Do you see the simularaties (sp?)?

LEts break it down.... GM: to take something that wasent or cant and make it something else or an "inproved" version. 

AI: to take something that is and make it something that might not of been. For example, taking a virgin queen and "helping her out" by pumping certain drone sperm into her.


----------



## Bill Ruble (Jan 2, 2006)

Here is my understanding of GMO. Verses AI

GMO. Genetically Modifying an organizum by adding or deleting genes of another biological organizum. Such as adding a gene from say a clover to alafafa. In nature, it can't happen.

On the other hand, AI is simply using what is already in the organisum (the honeybee in this care) and crossing it with another honeybee hoping to find the right combination of genes (that are already in the organizm) to help control mites or other reasons. It can happen naturally and it does. We simply speed up the process simply by finding the right combinations.

Many people I know think that sweet corn hybred seed can't be saved because it will not be corn. that is pure hogwash. I have done it many many times. GMO's on the other hand does change the corn or whatever it is into something that I do not think is safe.

My son is am Iris breeder. He cross polinates different colors to develop new combination. Again, it is not adding anything from another organizum.

I agree wholehartedly with you on the GMO's


Bill


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

The lines between organic and GMO are not entirely distinct. For decades before recombinent DNA technology, people used cloning (roses, apples, citrus) chemical mutagenesis and radiation to create and propagate new mutations. Many decades before that, people practiced 'wide crossing' in which closely related members of the same genus were crossed, creating unnatural hybrids (wheat, mules). If you want to be really strict about what you eat then you should go for heiloom varieties.


----------



## Bill Ruble (Jan 2, 2006)

It is so true that they used different things to cause mutations. That is still done by small hobbyest who try to develop new types. 

When my kids were still home, we used to do lots of breeding with pigeons and they learned about genetics form small children. It is a fascinating study espcially if you try to actually use what you learn about it.


----------



## Bill Ruble (Jan 2, 2006)

We used several different kinds of heiloom corn varieties to cross breed and come up with some very pretty colors in corn kernels. One thing good about doing cross breeding is that you do have to maintain the pure lines or you loose the gene pool. That is something people who are against AI or crossbreeding often forget.

We actually kept many kinds of very old indian corns in a pure state but did occationaly outcross for experiements. In order to keep them pure, we had to hand pollinate them. Excuse me, it would be the same as AI in bees seems to me.


----------



## Chef Isaac (Jul 26, 2004)

Before I go crazy, I am sjust going to shut up


----------



## BerkeyDavid (Jan 29, 2004)

Bill it sounds like you have been doing it like many people have done for thousands of years. That is what I am talking about.

I would make the distinction like this:

If you are going to chemically or physically modify the genetic material, that would be different than breeding, where you just take the sperm or the egg, as generated by the animal, insect or plant, without impugning the integrity of the cell wall.

It is when you cut into the cell wall that you are breaching the integrity of the genetic material.

Chef I understand it can be emotional. There can be irresponsible breeders, and sometimes the results are not positive. My friend is going to breed is trotter to Pegasus Spur, an unknown sire at stud in Ohio. We are hopeful the foal will be a good one. But we don't know for sure.

If it turns out to be a bad foal, then so be it. But he carefully looked at the blood lines and tried to make sure he was being responsible.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

AI is here to stay. My concerns are that as we use AI and closed population breeding programs to select certain traits that we deem important we may just as easily breed out traits that we don't recognize as important. As the gene pool narrows we could find ourselves facing an unrealized parasite for which we once had naturally selected defenses but have inadvertantly bred out.
In 1970 15% of the US corn crop was lost to the southern leaf blight. A single strain of hybrid corn was susceptible and accounted for those losses. Today fewer hybrid strains make up the majority of corn planted in the US. The potential for a food chain catastrophe is already in place as a result of that loss of genetic diversity.
A similar loss of genetic diversity is possible in the near future for Apis mellifera as we aggressively select for a few traits we deem important.

Sorry....I'm off my soapbox now.

[ January 17, 2006, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: beemandan ]


----------



## bjerm2 (Jun 9, 2004)

Ah we are now talking about my 'stuff'!  

Sorry Chef Isaac, hope you have calmed down. 

AI needs to be used especially with the African Bee situation. If we can responsibly breed bees with AI why not? I use it to make breeder queens from last years good queens. They have passed the winter test, mite, stinging, honey, etc. I then Inseminate a daughter with a drone from one of those good hives. The apiaries are loaded with drones and I then raise queens from the AI queen. The daughters are then allowed to open mate. So far I have had good luck with this type of breading operation. I think others might benefit from using something like this in their outfit.

Dan


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

Beemandan,

Your point on genetic diversity is valid, and similar observations have been made with many other crops, such sunflowers and rust disease. II is not the same thing reducing genetic diversity. In fact, II can be used as a valuable tool to preserve populations of rare organisms.


----------



## Bill Ruble (Jan 2, 2006)

I agree with Beemandan and also with Aspera. It all depends on how II is done. I also agree with MB about breeding with II until they are not able to mate on there own. All these things have merit, but in the right hands with people who are aware of these pitfalls, it can be used to actually counteract these vrey things.

I just got home from a bee class. I am amazed that people who bought Italians years ago think they still have italians. It is pure nonsence. I did not speak up about it because I don't want to make the teacher look bad to the new beekeepers, but without a good breeding program, they just mate with whatever and who knows what thye are after a few years.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

> just got home from a bee class. I am amazed that people who bought Italians years ago think they still have italians. It is pure nonsence.

It's pure nonsense to think they had Italians in the first place. They just had "yellow" bees.


----------



## briancady413 (Dec 8, 2003)

I'm with Bill Ruble on this one.
The big problem with GMOs is who's doing it - big corporations, only, have the needed capital.
With II - Instrumental Insemnation, almost any home beekeeper can do it, so the breeding could be done by people without huge financial axes to grind.
On the other hand, Micheal Bush has a good point about breeding out the ability to self-reproduce, as I understand has happened with commercial turkeys, which are too mishapen to mate naturally.

[ February 18, 2006, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: briancady413 ]


----------



## divebee (Mar 15, 2006)

What if there were larger breeders doing the big work and a place that leased out breeder queens or sold the drone stuff or drones for that matter, or mailed eggs to be grafted later, and advised on genetics and even tracked this for you and all this to produce queens on say half of your hives, while your other hives were allowed to open mate. I'm sure someone may have put some thought into something like this? Over some years the AHB effect may be swamped out by these efforts..?? Im not sure, just starting to think about this stuff..


----------

