Man made v natural breeding and selection

Beekeeping & Apiculture Forum

Help Support Beekeeping & Apiculture Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Medication against varroa sets up a form of genetic addiction.

Discuss from the point of view of:
a) a breeder,
b) a wild honeybee

It's certainly a much less significant intervention in natural selection than slaughtering all the local wasp colonies
 
It's certainly a much less significant intervention in natural selection than slaughtering all the local wasp colonies

There are years, when I do not have wasps at all in south east Finland. But it is not long way to Russia. Only 50 km. Same with bumbblebees.

Disappearing addiction...
 
Genetic addiction is not a thing. Discussion over.
I beg to differ. It may be a novel coinage, but that doesn't mean there is no truth behind it.

How would you describe, in just one or two words, the reality that medicating and then breeding from a population tends to perpetuate the need to medicate?
 
I beg to differ. It may be a novel coinage, but that doesn't mean there is no truth behind it.

How would you describe, in just one or two words, the reality that medicating and then breeding from a population tends to perpetuate the need to medicate?
If I was sitting opposite you in a pub for example my two words would be “Psuedoscientific bollocks”, or perhaps if I had only just met you I might be slightly more polite and say in three words “thats your opinion”.
A more wordy response might be something like “the relationship between practical and empirical science is seldom comfortable; but there is mostly a broad consensus within practical contexts that there should be informed evidence, but there appears to be little agreement about what that means in practice,” when I had time to think and be really polite. Of course that is also just my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Genetic Addiction ?

What is that? Diseases and pests are not addictions...
I have made a reply to Boston Bees
Genetic Addiction ?

What is that? Diseases and pests are not addictions...
I ha
If I was sitting opposite you in a pub for example my two words would be “Psuedoscientific bollocks”, or perhaps if I had only just met you I might be slightly more polite and say in three words “thats your opinion”.
A more wordy response might be something like “the relationship between practical and empirical science is seldom comfortable; but there is mostly a broad consensus within practical contexts that there should be informed evidence, but there appears to be little agreement about what that means in practice,” when I had time to think and be really polite. Of course that is also just my opinion.

So you are saying that in an open mating population systematic medication does nothing to slow adaptation?
 
At least I have bees when I breed and medicate.
And I have bees and don't medicate - or fiddle about on their behalf in terms of varroa. My bees have naturally adapted to the fact of varroa.
 
Anyone can come up with new phrases by combining a new sequence of words. In your case the phrase is meaningless from any normal scientific definition, but designed to grab attention. What you might be trying unsuccessfully to describe could be the environmental influence on gene expression, but you need to read up on genotype verses phenotype

Also most people believe that truly wild honey bees are as rare as unicorn excrement. In your case in Kent, plenty of beekeepers, bee farmers and those migrating in for fruit pollination to top up the 'wild' bee population

Please can you provide evidence to support the claim that that medicating and then breeding from a population tends to perpetuate the need to medicate?
 
Of course we should only use natural selection.
We then stop using chickens (bred to fatten up quickly), cows (bred for milk yields), pigs (bred for lean meat and size), horses (bred to win races), dogs (bred from wolves ,sheep (bred for meat) cats etc.

And then there are grains and rices and apples and plums and etc.

Man has bred almost every living thing largely to eat.
To suggest bees should be an exception is risible.
 
I have experiences about breeding during last 30 years, that my 20 hives apiary is too small to actual breeding. Trials have ended to inbreeding in 5 years.

If I have has Buckfast bees, their genes have been vanished in 3 years. Their genome is not buckfast.

Even if I could get mite resistant queens all 20, do I have them any more after 3 or 5 years.
 
Last edited:
I have experincies about breeding during last 30 years, that my 20 hives apiary is too small to actual breeding. Trials have ended to inbreeding in 5 years.

If I have has Buckfast bees, their genes have been vanished in 3 years. Their genome is not buckfast.

How do you reach a noticeable level of inbreeding in 5 tears with an open mated population when you regularly buy in bees from elsewhere?
 
Question. When you reach a point of being utterly bored of the treatment vs non-treatment debate, are you tired of beekeeping?
 
Question. When you reach a point of being utterly bored of the treatment vs non-treatment debate, are you tired of beekeeping?
Yes I am bored of the debate.
My advice is do your own thing and keep quiet.
 
How do you reach a noticeable level of inbreeding in 5 tears with an open mated population when you regularly buy in bees from elsewhere?
It was before I started to buy regularly queens.

One year I asked from a breeder an old good queen for breeding. Next spring it died in nosema. I had taken 10 daughters from that mother queen. So you see, that the half apiary's genepool can colapse in one year, and those queen deliver drones to next generation to the whole apiary.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top