AMM 99% pure against what?

[jenkinsbrynmair]

Don't let Jenkins upset you.....that is what he wants to do.

I was wondering when this odious little character would crawl out from under the stone again, must be trolling season.

I think this must be a pot/kettle moment as far as aiming to wind up goes. Perfect post for her - AMM and JBM to have a shot at simultaneously.

 

[For want of a better word]

that's an excellent point! I had heard that a male chimpanzee was 99% (you say 96%) identical to a male human

BUT the human genome is somewhat very much larger than a honeybees............................ a few million + base pairs?

Diolch!

 

[Finman]

.
Purity of DNA sounds like inbreeding. To avoid inbreeding and support genetic variety "pure" goal is not a good idea.

If you guys look Real breeding programs, the are many strains on the project and they are separated.

Breeding programs do not look the whole genome. They try to develop certain features in the stock.

Hygienic bee project in Australia and in Tasmania is a good example how it has done.

Russian bee breeding project in USA is second example . Russian bee has arrange habits and 20 years breeding has not changed them.

 

[Finman]

.
But then, the results of the huge projects are not what they promise. In real life there are much humbug advertising. Business first, you know.

 

[Finman]

that's an excellent point! I had heard that a male chimpanzee was 99% (you say 96%) identical to a male human

BUT the human genome is somewhat very much larger than a honeybees............................ a few million + base pairs?

Diolch!

That really helps bee breeding

 

[mbc]

Didn't someone do some DNA tests on remains of bees from Viking times found in York?

Yes this rings a bell, natural history museum if memory serves correctly,
Edit : a quick google found this;
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id...AAQAQ#v=onepage&q=viking bees in york&f=false

 

[Murox]

Yes this rings a bell, natural history museum if memory serves correctly,
Edit : a quick google found this;
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id...AAQAQ#v=onepage&q=viking bees in york&f=false

A read through the link and thinking about Finman's comment regarding Russian breeding raises some interesting questions/thoughts about how the bee maintains its "racial" purity/ traits/ local adaptions/ etc.

 

[DaveG23]

The concept of a sub-species isn't really something that can be quantified by a percentage DNA analysis even though some studies try to do just this.

When Carl Linnaeus classified Amm in 1758 he had no concept of DNA, or the DNA purity of a sub-species. He just noted some morphological characteristics of honey bees around him in northern Europe (Germany perhaps?) and gave them a name. He didn't give bees in general too much thought as he was too busy classifying anything else he could get his hands on.

So a subspecies is more an opinion rather than something that is set in stone. While there are clear obvious morphological differences between bees from different areas e.g bees from Italy tend to be more yellow in color etc. these are still only someones opinion of what should form a subspecies. At the end of the day all the bees we as beekeepers are concerned with are the same species. This means that even the DNA from different bee sub-species is going to be at least around 99% identical. If you doubt this then consider that your own DNA is 96% identical with that of a chimp - an animal from a different species.

So determination of DNA purity in the sense of your original question means test a load of bees that look like Amm is supposed to look to determine what a pure sample is and find common DNA markers. Then use these markers to see if further bees you test fit this profile. As you imply this then can only give you a purity related to those bees originally tested.

As bee sub-species were only ever based on visual assessment then by the strictest definition if a bee looks like an Amm type bee and ticks all the appropriate morphological requirements then it is Amm.

These three points are often valid at the 'species' level. Biologists have a rather embarrassing secret they dont like to admit, their basic currency, the species, has no consistent definition that cant be broken, although on the flip side the fact that its nigh on impossible to find a workable definition of a species is exactly what you would expect through the theory of evolution.

 

[For want of a better word]

These three points are often valid at the 'species' level. Biologists have a rather embarrassing secret they dont like to admit, their basic currency, the species, has no consistent definition that cant be broken, although on the flip side the fact that its nigh on impossible to find a workable definition of a species is exactly what you would expect through the theory of evolution.

Physicists cracked it eons ago...

The Universe is in a constant state of entropy!

Nos da

 

[DaveG23]

Physicists cracked it eons ago...

The Universe is in a constant state of entropy!

Nos da

That about sums it up. Biology is best describe bu chemistry, chemistry by Physics. Shame I studied Biology!

 

[Murox]

Originally Posted by DaveG23 "These three points are often valid at the 'species' level. Biologists have a rather embarrassing secret they dont like to admit, their basic currency, the species, has no consistent definition that cant be broken, although on the flip side the fact that its nigh on impossible to find a workable definition of a species is exactly what you would expect through the theory of evolution.
Originally Posted by Cheers
Physicists cracked it eons ago... The Universe is in a constant state of entropy!

Darwin suggested a species is a population of organisms that interbreeds and has fertile offspring; and that living organisms have descended with modifications from species that lived before them. Natural selection explains how this evolution happened. The dark european bee and others evolved to cope with their local environment thousands of years ago, its not unreasonable to make the assumption that they will continue to evolve in the future. The adaptions they made, and will continue to make must also be influenced by a diverse genetic mix, since they did not evolve in isolation completely; neither can they remain static genetically in the future.---suggesting entropy?

 

[DaveG23]

Originally Posted by DaveG23 "These three points are often valid at the 'species' level. Biologists have a rather embarrassing secret they dont like to admit, their basic currency, the species, has no consistent definition that cant be broken, although on the flip side the fact that its nigh on impossible to find a workable definition of a species is exactly what you would expect through the theory of evolution.
Originally Posted by Cheers
Physicists cracked it eons ago... The Universe is in a constant state of entropy!

Darwin suggested a species is a population of organisms that interbreeds and has fertile offspring; and that living organisms have descended with modifications from species that lived before them. Natural selection explains how this evolution happened. The dark european bee and others evolved to cope with their local environment thousands of years ago, its not unreasonable to make the assumption that they will continue to evolve in the future. The adaptions they made, and will continue to make must also be influenced by a diverse genetic mix, since they did not evolve in isolation completely; neither can they remain static genetically in the future.---suggesting entropy?

That point sums up a really interesting fact, species are not 'consistent' over time. How do we define a species when we also consider a time axis? At some point we Biologists draw a new line and say its a different species, but in reality its an arbitrary decision based on when in time we view them.

 

[DaveG23]

Hi B+

the 'native' AMM Queens being referred to as being 99+% pure were all Open Mated, it was most definitely not an Isolated Mating Station, I think you're absolutely right about what you say (and have said in other Posts) about II, I'm not aware of anyone here in Ireland that is doing II and providing their Queens for sale (although I think there is a group far south that may be starting / doing it amongst themselves).

The speaker (which I don't want to mention) is well known here (especially in 'native' bee circles) and I have only heard excellent things about his character - so I don't believe there was any intention to mislead: In fact I would go a little bit further, in that I don't believe the Very Vast Majority of those (here in Ireland at least) that promote the local 'native' AMM are trying to mislead, the more I learn about all this, I think they are just mis or ill informed.

I would love to get into II, but that's definitely a few years away!

There was someone claiming to do artificial insemination in Mayo, think he was called blackbeeman, the website no lober works but still advertises on done deal occasionally, used to sell queens.

 

[Finman]

That about sums it up. Biology is best describe bu chemistry, chemistry by Physics. Shame I studied Biology!

IT is not easy to be biologist on this forum.
.

 

[TooBee...]

There was someone claiming to do artificial insemination in Mayo, think he was called blackbeeman, the website no lober works but still advertises on done deal occasionally, used to sell queens.

Thanks for the heads up on that.

donedeal.ie you learn something new everyday!

 

[Murox]

IT is not easy to be biologist on this forum.
.

I reckon we all should have studied entomology !

I think the whole point (for me anyway) is that no species or population remains totally static. Change is inevitable, growth, development, and modification are all entirely compatible with the notion of conservation and Darwins Theory. Natural selection with bees might go something like : (1)more bees are produced than can survive because of limited resources etc. (2)bees struggle for the necessities of life; there is competition for resources. (3)individual colonies within the bee population vary in their traits; some of these traits are passed on to offspring. (4)some variants are better adapted to survive and reproduce under local conditions than others. (5)better-adapted colonies are more likely to survive and reproduce, thereby passing on more copies of their genes to future generations. (6)those that are best adapted, survive; others become extinct and/or are selected out through human intervention.

Happy World Animal Day !!

 

[Finman]

I reckon we all should have studied entomology !

I think the whole point (for me anyway) is that no species or population remains totally static. Change is inevitable, growth, development, and modification are all entirely compatible with the notion of conservation and Darwins Theory. Natural selection with bees might go something like : (1)more bees are produced than can survive because of limited resources etc. (2)bees struggle for the necessities of life; there is competition for resources. (3)individual colonies within the bee population vary in their traits; some of these traits are passed on to offspring. (4)some variants are better adapted to survive and reproduce under local conditions than others. (5)better-adapted colonies are more likely to survive and reproduce, thereby passing on more copies of their genes to future generations. (6)those that are best adapted, survive; others become extinct and/or are selected out through human intervention.

Happy World Animal Day !!

Beekeeping has not much to do with Darwin.

Beekeepers duty is to select such bee stocks which stand local climate.


Study beekeeping or entomology, all the same.

 

[Murox]

I totally agree Finman. Its too much theory anyway. Doing has always been more interesting than theorising. I have always believed in keeping bees for local climate So glad there are serious bee breeders out there.

 

[Beefriendly]

I totally agree Finman. Its too much theory anyway. Doing has always been more interesting than theorising. I have always believed in keeping bees for local climate So glad there are serious bee breeders out there.

Murox, this point always puzzles me. How can they be adapted for a local climate when they live their life cosied up in warm hives with insulation for the winter and fed as and when required. This is molly coddyling, not survival nor adaption to a "local" climate.

 

[For want of a better word]

Murox, this point always puzzles me. How can they be adapted for a local climate when they live their life cosied up in warm hives with insulation for the winter and fed as and when required. This is molly coddyling, not survival nor adaption to a "local" climate.

I wonder how much adaptation to the local forage... the constant mist mizzel and wind, hot sun drought lack of pollen ... there is.

Some colonies and bee types thrive others curl up and dwindle away.

Survival of the fittest... with beekeepers interference... maybe???

Chons da