the naked beekeeper
Field Bee
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2008
- Messages
- 739
- Reaction score
- 0
- Location
- S.E. Cornwall
- Hive Type
- National
- Number of Hives
- Enough
See attached
I was sent a copy of this but the item on morphormetry rang alarm bells. Can I assume this is a pro-AMM day? I am not anti-AMM but I am not going to try and raise them where I live and would be reluctant to sit through a day where every speaker extolls their virtues as it would not really be applicable to my situation (living in Buckfastland).
Well I'd better go then! Actually, I think I will - but may not pay much attention during the morphometry bit.
DanBee said:I received an email today with an invitation to a bee improvement meeting held over the border in Cornwall. I know one or two of the characters involved, and have a lot of respect for them and for what they are trying to achieve. However, I was dismayed to see that morphometry was prominent on the agenda. Why? Morphometry allows us to use physical characteristics to plot how genetically close a group of bee samples are to each other; morphometrical characteristics of the main strains are documented and clustering of plotted measurements indicates both 'purity' and compatibility. This would allow us to assess various locally-adapted stocks for their compatible inclusion in a breeding programme. However, in the UK it does not seem to be used for this purpose; rather it is used for determining whether a sample exhibits Amm characteristics or not. If we are to move towards selection based upon positive outcome, we must move away from the view that morphometry is a binary tool which relates to Amm-ness, and instead use it as a tool for determining compatible favourable breeding materials, thus we must open our eyes to the other corners of the morphometry plot
That's a what, not a whom. OK, so I didn't read every word but where's the "human face" of this organisation? Which beekeepers are running it?
disease free as far as possible and survives long enough to bring in a honey surplus. The assumption only a "near-native" can do this remains unconvincing
RoofTops;200766 The assumption only a "near-native" can do this remains unconvincing to me as plenty have bred good bees which are far removed from that standard. [/QUOTE said:No assumption at all RT.
On the contrary, there seems to be an assumption that native bees can't do this.
We just believe that it is just as possible to get good bees by breeding from a native strain as it is from other strains. So why look elsewhere?
Everyone has to be pragmatic and work with what is best for them.
In certain hotbeds of bee activity, mating is a mixed bag of mellifera allsorts!
As you say, so long as a local bee works well in your area, then I believe all beekeepers should work with those qualities and select to improve them.
Bringing in more genes only makes things harder in the long run and is un-sustainable.
Bringing in more genes only makes things harder in the long run and is un-sustainable.
Surely in the long term this importing of bees from all over the world (or at least it seems like that) is laying the country potentially more open to diseases and parasites.
the mophometry is not a binary tool used to test for 'AMM-ness.'
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you probably believe that 'we' are putting the cart before the horse and possibly discarding many good virtues of different bees and stocks, due to them not being AMM.
The reason we use morphometry is to test how closely within a strain we are working in order to maximise consistency in matings. Sure other bees have many good virtues. But we believe that you can select for and breed for all the virtues you need within native-type bees. It just needs observation and selection. To include 'the other corners' is needless, unncessary and moreover detrimental. It would just exacerbate mongrelisation = more unpredictable matings. How on earth could you maintain continuity with mongrels?
There's no need to look for and include foreign strains when we can select for and work with all the qualities we need within our own. And indeed, it would be to the detriment of the whole programme. You get some great mongrels and some horrid ones. Working within a strain evens that rule out a little more. Of course all results vary and selection is an ever-ongoing organic evolutionary process.
My point is that if we select on characteristics first, then use morphometry to indicate closely related individuals (i.e. compatible matings / true breeding) then we can improve based upon performance with morphometry giving the added benefit of predictable offspring and hence faster improvement.
If we start by discounting any bees which fall out of the Amm corner - however well suited they appear to be - then we are not breeding from the best, rather we are breediing to a pedigree aesthetic.
If you believe you can select for everything from within Amm, how are you going to ensure Acarine resistance, particularly against a background of increasingly soft or reducing Varroa treatments?
As I say, I don't think other strains of bee have any qualities, which are own either: do not have/cannot be be selected for/add anything needed.
On that basis alone, I don't believe we need to include other strains, but as I say, other reasons for not including them is that it makes the mated offspring much more unreliable (due to mongrelisation) and is also not sustainable.
As for disease, well that's something you don't know how resistant your bees are until you see it. For sure an IPM will help.
I can't do the fancy quote thing, but, what Amm characteristics are you thinking of? (to select against)Hmm, I'm trying to steer you away from painting yourself into a corner. You seem to have got inherently intertwined the two separate ideas of improving by selective breeding and the need (desire?) to select for Amm. You are right to say that disparate breeding partners will give unpredictable results, but you should entertain the possibility that a non-Amm aesthetic may show the best set of desired characteristics. You may face a much longer quest to improve from a lower baseline, and you may have to select against some of the Amm characteristics in order to produce a productive, healthy, thriving bee for your locality
By discarding anything that doesn't fit the Amm aesthetic from the outset, regardless of quality, I am reminded of the yokel being asked for directions, who leans over the gate and says "Well I wouldn't go there from here..."
What's your planned IPM regime for Acarine?
Enter your email address to join: