# Epigenetics, Lamarckism, Mendelism, oh my!



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

http://www.abfnet.org/associations/10537/files/Randy Oliver_PBQBS.mp3

Perhaps someone will be willing to offer some views in _this_ forum.


----------



## Scrapfe (Jul 25, 2008)

Barry said:


> 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?”


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Barry said:


> 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.


I would love to, but I am ignorant on the subject.

Mendelism probably refers to Gregor Mendelson? Still don't know enuf to intelligently discuss anything, sorry.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Gregor Mendel. Perhaps you were thinking about the composer Felix Mendelssohn.


----------



## psfred (Jul 16, 2011)

What would there be to discuss?

We know how genetics works, it's not a mystery.

Peter


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Solomon Parker said:


> Gregor Mendel. Perhaps you were thinking about the composer Felix Mendelssohn.


You have more college than I. Who is the Father of Genetics?

What is Barry refering to, Solomon, when he refers to Mendelism?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

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.


----------



## Scrapfe (Jul 25, 2008)

sqkcrk said:


> ... What is Barry referring to... when he refers to Mendelism?


I don't know enough about the comparisons between these three theories to be dangerous. But from the little heart to heart talk I had with Webster at 2:00 PM today, 

Epigenist (I think) refers more TOWARDS the creationism side of genetics or where something (like a trait) did not exist before in nature but now it exists, perhaps in response to some outside force like the environment???? 

Lamarckism (I think) is a school of genetics that on the fringes would seem to suggest that if you keep cutting the left foot off every baby born, that soon every baby born would come into this world minus his left foot. Notice I said on the fringes. 

Mendelism (I think) is the old new school of genetics that came into vogue around 1900 and that we all grew up with in middle school. Mendelism is concerned with genes, chromosomes, pea vines, and all that other sexy stuff.


----------



## Mr. C (Oct 27, 2011)

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.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Have we forgotten to include spontaneous generation in the discussion?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Solomon Parker said:


> Gregor Mendel. Perhaps you were thinking about the composer Felix Mendelssohn.


Is this you being funny? Not appreciated.

Please don't advise migratory beekeepers to buy queens from migratory queen rearers, we already know where to get queens from. Thank you.

I really don't see what traits a migratory queen rearer would find expressed in his queens by moving his queen rearing operation.

By the way, I do know someone who moves his queen rearing operation 800 miles, twice a year.


----------



## David LaFerney (Jan 14, 2009)

psfred said:


> What would there be to discuss?
> 
> We know how genetics works, it's not a mystery.
> 
> Peter


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.


----------



## Mr. C (Oct 27, 2011)

Was it moving the queen rearing or simply rearing queens from stock that was moved in the operation?


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

sqkcrk said:


> 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.



sqkcrk said:


> 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:


----------



## Scrapfe (Jul 25, 2008)

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.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Solomon Parker said:


> 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.


----------



## beyondthesidewalks (Dec 1, 2007)

David LaFerney said:


> 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.


But are we northern Europeans genetically destined to be be taller or could we with a few successive generations of malnutrition revert to those small suits of armor in the castles I like to visit? I don't buy that we are taller because of genetics if nutrition and prenatal/natal care are the causes.

On the thought that we could pass on traits that we aquired, this was a huge part of Darwin's theory of evolution. He was cautioned to quiet it down some by his contemporaries and hated that. In fact, if we really looked at most of what he said we might not put so much stock in the theory of evolution which is taught as if it were a law to our children. The whole argument about aquired traits was put to bed by a fellow who cut the tails off of successive generations of mice. Try as he might, he could generate a naturally occuring tail-less mouse.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

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.


----------



## Lauri (Feb 1, 2012)

Great audio. 
I'd like to buy that man another espresso and see what else he knows


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

My money is on the Austrian Beekeeper, Gregor Johann Mendel. His theories seem to best predict the outcomes we observe. Until I observe otherwise, I will stick with him.

Crazy Roland


----------



## Luterra (Sep 7, 2011)

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


----------



## AstroBee (Jan 3, 2003)

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.


----------



## beyondthesidewalks (Dec 1, 2007)

Luterra said:


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


Glad you did.


----------



## beyondthesidewalks (Dec 1, 2007)

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.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

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.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

beyond, wouldn't productivity presume a certain level of low mite and virus levels?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Randy Oliver's website can be found at ScientificBeekeeping.com. It could be informative on what Randy Oliver does and is all about.


----------



## Lauri (Feb 1, 2012)

Your posts about genetics have been factual and interesting. Many of you seem to know your Biology well. 
I know just enough to be a bit dangerous.
Thank you for taking the time to explain some of the terminology. 
I had been thinking about eventually buying the equipment for Insemination to produce earlier Northern queens. Still on the fence about that. 

Lauri
http://www.itsmysite.com/laurimilleragricultural/

http://itsmysite.com/laurimillerpainthorses/


----------



## Mr. C (Oct 27, 2011)

I can say I'm not as doom and gloom about GMOs but...
Genetic engineering is a shortcut.

All shortcuts have a cost.


----------



## Lauri (Feb 1, 2012)

Well said. 
It's the unknown, unintended consequences I think about. Or instability of the subsequent generations.


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

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


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

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.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

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.


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

sqkcrk said:


> 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


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

I understand your feelings somewhat. We who treat feel similarly from some comments made by those who don't. Generall,y there seems to be an attitude, seen by those who do treat, of those who don't treat, that those who don't treat use The James Bond Method and do so because they think they are more altruistically correct. 

I don't know how many treatment free beekeepers know how to keep bees and keep them alive. It appears as though there are more and more who do, w/ verying degrees of success at keeping bees alive for years. This is good.

It almost seems like a "Religion" vs "Science" sort of debate or attitude between TreatmentFree and nonTreatmentFree beekeepers.

I do believe that Randy Oliver doesn't begrudge treatmentfree beekeepers their existence. Maybe I will find out.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

I dont talk down the treatment free folks at all. I have said before I am always interested in hearing about their experiences both good and bad, as they are running experiments that I cant afford to. I rarely hear much, though, that I feel applies directly to a migratory operation. I always feel that the great unknown is how many treatment free folks fail and then just drop out of beekeeping or else feel ashamed to share their failures on a public forum. I enjoy all of Randy's articles because I feel that he is perhaps the only commercial beekeeper who has the background to properly run large scale experiments yet is still at the same time making his living from beekeeping.


----------



## beyondthesidewalks (Dec 1, 2007)

sqkcrk said:


> beyond, wouldn't productivity presume a certain level of low mite and virus levels?


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.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Texas is where I go to get away from winter.


----------



## beyondthesidewalks (Dec 1, 2007)

StevenG said:


> 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.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

I think you said it well. 

People who don't treat are looking for a sustainable solution. People who do treat are doing so because of desperation. They can't like paying for those chemicals and the time required to administer them. I would think that most people realize that treating is a short term fix with increasing costs as time goes on. They may not recognize that treating is not sustainable in the long run but they should realize that the cost of doing so will go up never go down.


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

beyondthesidewalks said:


> The second sentence not so much. Most breeders treat. ..."
> 
> That's the catch, isn't it? "Most..." but not all. Personally I purchase my bees and queens from breeders who do not treat. They are out there.
> 
> ...


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Mendelian genetics: Inheritance of traits that are coded in the DNA. 

This is what most people understand about genetics. But not everyone understands how it can be effected. See comments on Epigenetics.

Lamarckism: Disproven 18-century theory that acquired traits are passed on. 

This one has been disproven and falls in the category that flies are produced from rotting meat etc.

Epigenetics: The emerging science of how modifications to DNA affect its expression.

This one is probably the least understood and least accounted for factor in breeding. I see it works in two ways.
1. science can now directly alter DNA. This is a topic for a complete forum of it's own.

2. The environment can and will alter the "Expression" of genetic traits. For example if a person genetically has blond hair. Btu they also have a disease that causes them to grow no hair. Are they blond or bald? Genetically they are blond, environmental factors effecting the expression of that trait results in baldness.

This is important to understand because breeders could very well be making cross breeds or breeding certain traits that the environment is stifling.

Hygienic behavior could for example keep to many bees from foraging to the point that the colony does not have adequate stores for example. The net environmental impact woudl be starvation. Just an example. Even though hygienic behavior in itself is a desirable trait. The side effect is not.

Selecting from survivor stock has a huge benefit in just going around all of this expression influencing stuff. It pretty much guarantees that all traits expressed have no fatal weaknesses to environmental factors.

Cross breeding or bringing in new stock. It is well known that cross breeding causes a hybrid vigor for at least the first few generations. This could be why some breeders notice their bees seem to do better when cross bred rather than line bred. The problem with hybrid vigor is that Hybrids do not breed true.

So you cross colony A with Colony B and get a Queen that produces Colony C. But any queens produced from her are either like those from Colony A or B not like Colony C. 

Line breeding (inbreeding) costs in Vigor (Health, strength whatever you want to call it) but it serves to set traits and get rid of that tendency for the next generation to revert back to the original parents.

In a simplified explanation what you would want to do is produce many colonies that are a cross between A and B . then place them where they are isolated and all they have to breed with is each other. Leave them to do so for several generations and then once again cross those colonies with new colonies with desired traits.

Survivor stock to survivor stock cross. Both colonies coming from different programs. Isolate the colonies that result from the cross to set the traits acquired and then once again cross them back to the parent colonies. again isolate them etc. etc. etc.

In this way you can or hopefully will, pass on the entire genetic traits of the parent colonies to the offspring, eventually. In a nut shell the offspring tend to want to shed the traits of their parents. it has to be forced on them by line breeding. Not exactly accurate but a good mental picture to have when trying to understand how cross breeding will effect future generations.

Also. if this breeding back to the parents is not continued. future generations will eventually shed all genetic traits that have been bred for. It is the same process that happens in Hybridization only slower. This is why I believe the answer for bees is to leave them alone. Bees have survived for hundreds of thousands of years. Man has put them in jeopardy. I believe one answer for the bees is that interference by man in their breeding stops. let them revert back to a genetic pool that survives. If that pool still exists.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

StevenG said:


> Having said that, I have nothing but admiration and respect for the commercial beekeepers these days. I have learned much from them, and will continue to do so. One day they too will be "treatment free". I don't know how, or when, but I am confident it will happen. Probably for economic reasons.


The likelihood is that they will give up beekeeping rather than switch over and someone like yourself that has succeeded in a treatment free regiment from the start will fill in the gap. The cost to turning around is simply prohibitive.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

In time this may not be so, Acebird.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> In time this may not be so, Acebird.


That it would be cost prohibitive? You pretty much have to replace all your bee equipment minus your machinery. I can't see an established business surviving that move.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Acebird said:


> That it would be cost prohibitive? You pretty much have to replace all your bee equipment minus your machinery. I can't see an established business surviving that move.


That is assuming that all treatments permanently taint comb. This is not true of the newer softer treatment options out there. If one replaces even 10% of your comb annually chemical residues should lessen each year. On a personal note, I find myself starting to miss Acebird's posts when he dosent post for a few days. He likes to spice things up and illicit responses and that is fine, I am just a bit more selective about when I take the bait. To use Mark's analogy: he has been in the "herd" a year now and all things considered he makes conversation on here a lot more interesting.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Lack of imagination, maybe? One adapts to many things during the life of a business. It is also quite possible that one would not need to replace everything. I think you tend to see the worst case scenerio quite often. Maybe for effect sake. Things are hardly ever as bad as one may imagine.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

To add a Randy Oliver example to the "replace all equipment" equation. He sells half of his hives every year. So, comb replacement can occur rather quickly, if one is set up for it.


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

Actually Ace, I am quite confident today's commercials will make the transition. After all, they too are Survivors! Look at all they have survived to stay in business. They have wisdom, determination, and fortitude. They have adapted, and they will again. It is the hobbiests and armchair beekeepers that come and go like a revolving door. A few of us learn and stick around, true. And some of us will rise to the rank of commercial. But the commercials will make the transition, because they know at some point they have to.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## adamf (Jan 28, 2006)

Scrapfe said:


> I don't know enough about the comparisons between
> these three theories to be dangerous. But from the little heart to heart
> talk I had with Webster at 2:00 PM today,
> 
> ...


Darwin and Lamarck both proposed the concept that an organism could inherit
acquired traits from it's parent. More subtly, perhaps, but basically
that.

The Evolutionary school that followed on the heels of Darwin, highlighting
R.A. Fisher, were heavily into statistics and math, and they believed that
the only way a trait could be inherited was from it's parents through
chance. If there was to be a change in the heredity, not up to chance, it
would be caused by a mutation (that happens). These guys were named the
Neo-Darwinists. After DNA was physically described in the mid-1950s, it
seemed as though the Neo-Darwinists were right: all heredity was determined
by the DNA template that coded for downstream protein creation and use in
cells and cell function. Simply, you get a template and it codes for your
makeup and if you can deal with the environment with that code's output,
you're fit-- you can pass this fitness on to future offspring.

This goes along with Mendelian Genetics where there's a re-assortment of
factors in each new organism and the resulting combination has the chance
to be fit or not. Mendelian Genetics is based on the concept of alleles:
parts of units that when put together, make up a gene--a functioning coder
from the DNA. The classic Mendelian theory uses two alleles to show how
there's recombination in offspring and in future generations based on the
ratio of recurring alleles. Mendelian Genetics is simple and doesn't
cover many situations, but it provides a basic insight into how parents can
produce offspring different then them, but with the capacity to produce
similar AND different grandchildren.

Epigenetics takes the concept of the DNA as the sole template, and modifies
it: it states that based on environmental conditions, some of the cell's
functioning could cause the DNA Template to act differently, due to
current conditions, and code for different results. However, if the genomic
DNA is altered, this would then have to trickle down to the organism's
reproductive cells and the "alteration" would need to be incorporated into 
gametes for the "changes based on environment" to be passed on. It is
complicated. Yet there's great research being done. The interesting point
is that this idea competes with the Neo-Darwinist's idea and echoes more
the original ideas of Darwin and Lamark. We'll learn much more about how all
this works with time, of course.

Basically, the more we learn, the more we realize how complex the systems
are and how our assumptions are very blunt and inflexible, initially.

Adam Finkelstein
www.vpqueenbees.com


----------



## adamf (Jan 28, 2006)

beyondthesidewalks said:


> On the thought that we could pass on traits that we aquired, this was a huge part of Darwin's theory of evolution. He was cautioned to quiet it down some by his contemporaries and hated that. In fact, if we really looked at most of what he said we might not put so much stock in the theory of evolution which is taught as if it were a law to our children. The whole argument about aquired traits was put to bed by a fellow who cut the tails off of successive generations of mice. Try as he might, he could generate a naturally occuring tail-less mouse.


Yes indeed! Darwin had some great ideas and great big holes in "The Origin of Species" Honey Bees were actually one of his larger problem organisms! The Neo-Darwinists of the 20th Century drove the current evolutionary dogma, based on Darwin, with their empirical data, and until fairly recently, they were 100% accurate.


Adam Finkelstein
www.vpqueenbees.com


----------



## adamf (Jan 28, 2006)

Luterra said:


> Let's apply this to bees.
> I'm a molecular biologist by training, beekeeper by hobby, and I can't resist chiming in when epigenetics appears in the discussion.
> Mark


Thank you, Mark--great, lucid summary.

Adam Finkelstein
www.vpqueenbees.com


----------



## adamf (Jan 28, 2006)

beyondthesidewalks said:


> 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


----------



## adamf (Jan 28, 2006)

Michael Bush said:


> 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


----------



## adamf (Jan 28, 2006)

Daniel Y said:


> Also. if this breeding back to the parents is not continued. future generations will eventually shed all genetic traits that have been bred for. It is the same process that happens in Hybridization only slower. This is why I believe the answer for bees is to leave them alone. Bees have survived for hundreds of thousands of years. Man has put them in jeopardy. I believe one answer for the bees is that interference by man in their breeding stops. let them revert back to a genetic pool that survives. If that pool still exists.


Honey Bees in the USA are more domesticated then wild--if you're suggesting that selection stops, then you'd also be sugesting that beekeeping stop?
Keeping bees that are completely feral, without any selection from man, would be keeping African Bees basically.

No thanks. With thoughtful selection, the plucky honey bee can do well by us and vice-versa. Habitat destruction, and myopic agricultural practices based on GREED, without any ecological forsight, choosen at the expense of natural pollinators, is what should be curtailed.
That would be my vote.


Adam Finkelstein
www.vpqueenbees.com


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

How do you see curtailing happening? How do we identify greed?


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

As these three pertain to beekeeping, I see some differences.

First, I think most beekeepers presume all traits are contolled by Mendelian genetics. These are those simplified traits that have distinct alleles, and the alleles directly and simply influence traits. Like Michael Bush already posted here, genetics are rarely as simple as this system suggests. Mendelian genetics are important, and understanding that certain traits are heritable and coded in DNA is vital to breeding programs.

If Mendelian genetics did not work in honey bees, selection for breeding purposes would be pointless and fruitless.

Lamarckian theory, like others have pointed out, states that modifications to an individual organism are also heritable. These changes are not coded genetically, but are made environmentally. Although this hypothesis has been discredited, and although most people scoff at it by definition now, some of its tenets persist. I can think of one that persists in beekeeping right off the top of my head: cell size. I see requests and searches for "small cell" packages and nucs and queens frequently. Clearly the size of the bees and the size of the cells is influenced by the environment, and likely does not have as much basis in genetics and DNA as people might like to believe. Sizes of bees can be influenced externally to some extent, but not outside of a range, and the idea that bees small-cell bees are needed to produce small-cell bees (or large-cell bees are needed to produce large-cell bees) is really based on Lamarckism.

Epigenetics considers external influences on expression of traits. My understanding of epigenetics is not the greatest, but, as I understand them, they factor in traits that may be coded genetically but may not be expressed until and external influence triggers expression of those traits. Hygienic behavior in honey bees, in part, may be controlled epigenetically.

Traits expressed epigenetically may be very difficult to select in breeding programs. Without the factors that turn those genes on, selection of those traits could be almost impossible.


----------



## adamf (Jan 28, 2006)

sqkcrk said:


> How do you see curtailing happening? How do we identify greed?


Ooops being too general. How about if we make sure that the production of Arthropod pesticides go through a more rigorous testing process where
honey bees are used AND the resulting data heeded? We can make enough noise to curtail the shoddy testing of Arthropod pesticides, don't you think?

Adam Finkelstein
www.vpqueenbees.com


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

I'm not sure. Maybe.


----------



## Scrapfe (Jul 25, 2008)

Acebird said:


> 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.  

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:


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Scrapfe said:


> 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:


Why does Freud seem to get blamed for mental slips?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Scrapfe said:


> The only way we can truly let nature take its course is by ...


dropping dead or never being born. One cannot be apart from Nature. We live in the World. Not being a part of Nature, not part of a Natural System is ludicrous thinking.

You seem to be expressing the Margaret Meade Effect. The observer influences that which is being observed. How can we not?

I also believe a "suite" is a set of rooms at a Hotel and a "suit" is something you were, the plural of which is "suits". This sorta thing cracks me up. Not laughing at you.


----------



## Scrapfe (Jul 25, 2008)

sqkcrk said:


> ... One cannot be apart from Nature.


You and I agree.


sqkcrk said:


> ... a "suit" is something you were, the plural of which is "suits"...


sqkcrk, were do you were your suit? LOL


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

LOL!! "were"? Were ever I go. I never take it auf, but I cover it up. lol


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>It essentially agrees with my point that culling is your most effective tool.

It is not only your most effective tool. As a breeder it is your ONLY tool. You can only breed things out. You cannot invent genetic material. And unless you're doing GMO you are limited to the genetic material that the species already has.


----------



## psfred (Jul 16, 2011)

A "freudian slip" is the in-advertant disclosure of something intended to be kept secret -- it's the id sneaking things past the "censor" in the Ego, or something like that.

As in when someone calls his wife by his misstress' name....

Michael is exactly correct -- breeding means selecting, either in a positive or negative way, traits one want's to keep in an organism. 

Unfortunately, the popular culture seems to believe we are not longer part of the natural world. The result is, of course, shortsighted destruction of habitat and "mining" for crops with no congnizance that WE are part of that ecosystem, and once it's a desert of bare rock and mineral soils, WE won't have anything to eat....

I was trained as a research PhD, and I have serious reservations about GMO crops, in particular modifications to allow the use of vast amounts of pesticides. At some point we will poison everything at the current rate of pesticide use, and all for a system to put people out of work.

Peter


----------



## Scrapfe (Jul 25, 2008)

psfred said:


> A "freudian slip" is the in-advertant disclosure of something intended to be kept secret…


Yes, I know that but I was trying to give the poster I replied to the benefit of the doubt because I didn’t want to accuse him unfairly of harboring “genocidal” tendencies. You must admit that his anicedants are vague.



psfred said:


> … Unfortunately, the popular culture seems to believe we are not longer part of the natural world…


We agree, I THINK? What is you definition of “popular culture”?


----------

