Man made v natural breeding and selection

[jenkinsbrynmair]

there - on the stairs

 

[Erichalfbee]

there - on the stairs

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

I got p!ssed on that square with the impressive towered building once!
It's down on the other side of the red light district.

Or so I believe

 

[Beesnaturally]

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?

Scientific definition? It's a straightforward consequence of Darwinism and natural selection for the fittest strains. Populations constantly react to their environment. That might be changes in climate, forage, indirect or direct human activity, or a new predator. Those individuals best adapted will reproduce successfully at a faster rate than those less able to.

Interference in that process will obstruct it. I thought most beekeepers were aware of that by now.

'Wild bees'? I think we ought to agree a definition before trying to explore that. 'Survivor bees' is often used to describe feral populations that are thriving without medication. I've personally known of many such colonies (as well as careful observation of chimney/soffit and tree hole bees I used to do cut-outs and multi year swarm collections from the same colonies).

 

[user 20297]

Scientific definition? It's a straightforward consequence of Darwinism and natural selection for the fittest strains. Populations tend to react to their environment. That might be chances in climate, forage, direct human interference, or a new predator. Those individuals best adapted will reproduce successfully at a faster rate than those less able to.

Interference in that process will obstruct it. I thought most beekeepers were aware of that by now.

'Wild bees'? I think we ought to agree a definition before trying to explore that. 'Survivor bees' is often used to describe feral populations that are thriving without medication. I've personally known of many such colonies (as well as careful observation of chimney/soffit and tree hole bees I used to do cut-outs and multi year swarm collections from the same colonies).

"Natural selection" is not linear and is acting on many features of an organism at the same time. By artificially supporting a colony of bees to survive, even though that colony may not be best suited to dealing with a particular stressor in its environment, you may also be maintaining many other desirable, genetic features.

 

[Beesnaturally]

Question. When you reach a point of being utterly bored of the treatment vs non-treatment debate, are you tired of beekeeping?

Probably not in most cases. But it might indicate you could stop reading and replying to threads entitled

"Man made v natural breeding and selection"

 

[Ian123]

How do you maintain natural selection in Kent. Every time your virgins fly off to a DCA they’ll encounter drones from unnaturally kept hives.

 

[Mint Bee]

populations do react to environmental stimulation, but the genome does not change. genetics will be switched on or off based on this stimulation to show visible phenotype. Take the stimulation away and the stimulated response will be switched off. The language you choose to use is non scientific.

Most beekeepers whether rightly or wrongly use treatments for their bees when needed rather than going through the decimation of absolute non treating that would occur for years when starting from scratch. You have previously been asked for evidence to support your claims. it was lacking in any detail. If its not suitable for peer review in even Bee Craft then why would any thinking beekeeper take you seriously.

you mentioned wild bees. most beekeepers recognise that survivor bees colony's are regularly repopulated from swarms rather than being a continuous colony. If you are not monitoring the bees in the tree or building 24/7/365 how can you ever prove a continuous bee occupancy. its a guess at best

As I replied to you the last time you were pushing pseudoscience - I'm glad my bees are not near yours. They sound like a vector for all sorts of bee disease.

 

[Ian123]

populations do react to environmental stimulation, but the genome does not change. genetics will be switched on or off based on this stimulation to show visible phenotype. Take the stimulation away and the stimulated response will be switched off. The language you choose to use is non scientific.

Most beekeepers whether rightly or wrongly use treatments for their bees when needed rather than going through the decimation of absolute non treating that would occur for years when starting from scratch. You have previously been asked for evidence to support your claims. it was lacking in any detail. If its not suitable for peer review in even Bee Craft then why would any thinking beekeeper take you seriously.

you mentioned wild bees. most beekeepers recognise that survivor bees colony's are regularly repopulated from swarms rather than being a continuous colony. If you are not monitoring the bees in the tree or building 24/7/365 how can you ever prove a continuous bee occupancy. its a guess at best

Come on don’t ruin his fun completely

 

[Boston Bees]

Probably not in most cases. But it might indicate you could stop reading and replying to threads entitled

"Man made v natural breeding and selection"

See anything in that title about varroa treatment? It's a small part of the video at most. It was you that attempted to hijack the thread by posing your "discuss" question. Personally I think a moderator should carve that question, and the responses, off to a new thread

 

[Mint Bee]

Come on don’t ruin his fun completely

deleted. not constructive

 

[Murox]

Scientific definition? It's a straightforward consequence of Darwinism and natural selection for the fittest strains. Populations tend to react to their environment. That might be chances in climate, forage, direct human interference, or a new predator. Those individuals best adapted will reproduce successfully at a faster rate than those less able to.

Interference in that process will obstruct it. I thought most beekeepers were aware of that by now.

'Wild bees'? I think we ought to agree a definition before trying to explore that. 'Survivor bees' is often used to describe feral populations that are thriving without medication. I've personally known of many such colonies (as well as careful observation of chimney/soffit and tree hole bees I used to do cut-outs and multi year swarm collections from the same colonies).

Of course you seem to have bypassed the growing body of evidence that bees (along with others) do in fact self medicate. Simone-Finstrom and Spivak demonstrated that honey bees (A. mellifera) increase resin collection after immune challenge with the fungal pathogen Ascosphaera apis - Resin has been shown to reduce parasite loads in bees. Have a read of Self-medication in insects: current evidence and future perspectives - Jessica Abbott (May 2014 Royal Entomological Society) interesting stuff which both supports and also contradicts some of your assertions.
Also this is interesting as well
Self-medication in insects: when altered behaviors of infected insects are a defense instead of a parasite manipulation
J C de Roode & Mark D Hunter
Abstract
Studies have demonstrated that medication behaviors by insects are much more common than previously thought. Bees, ants, flies, and butterflies can use a wide range of toxic and nutritional compounds to medicate themselves or their genetic kin. Medication occurs either in response to active infection (therapy) or high infection risk (prophylaxis), and can be used to increase resistance or tolerance to infection. While much progress has been made over the last few years, there are also key areas that require in-depth investigation. These include quantifying the costs of medication, especially at the colony level of social insects, and formulating theoretical models that can predict the role of infection risk in driving micro-evolutionary and macro-evolutionary patterns of animal medication behaviors.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier

 

[Beesnaturally]

populations do react to environmental stimulation, but the genome does not change. genetics will be switched on or off based on this stimulation to show visible phenotype. Take the stimulation away and the stimulated response will be switched off. The language you choose to use is non scientific.

I agree. But all the time the genes required to deal with the problem are advantaged in making their forward into the next generation, they remain in use. That of course is precisely what medicating disrupts.

Most beekeepers whether rightly or wrongly use treatments for their bees when needed rather than going through the decimation of absolute non treating that would occur for years when starting from scratch. You have previously been asked for evidence to support your claims. it was lacking in any detail. If its not suitable for peer review in even Bee Craft then why would any thinking beekeeper take you seriously.

My main evidence is my bees. They are as good as any other, and I never interfere with their natural reproductive process - I go out of my way to facilitate it. Apart from the traditional making new from best.

But of course I can't prove that I've never treated them. In that sense its not a scientific study, merely an anecdote.

you mentioned wild bees. most beekeepers recognise that survivor bees colony's are regularly repopulated from swarms rather than being a continuous colony. If you are not monitoring the bees in the tree or building 24/7/365 how can you ever prove a continuous bee occupancy. its a guess at best

Actually you mentioned wild bees first I don't know if I sound silly or careless - but this is a subject I've invested in heavily and of course taken a great deal of care to establish facts and rate accounts less reliable than facts. And, other than the fact that I've moved them, my bees are 'wild bees'. And of course I know when they die, and when they don't.

As I replied to you the last time you were pushing pseudoscience - I'm glad my bees are not near yours. They sound like a vector for all sorts of bee disease.

I don't think following longstanding husbandry practices that dovetail perfectly with the core principle of natural selection for the fittest strains can be characterised 'pseudo-science'.

Of course, on proximity, the feeling is understandable, and mutual. But that is neither reason for hostility, nor relevant to the question I asked.

 

[Beesnaturally]

Of course you seem to have bypassed the growing body of evidence that bees (along with others) do in fact self medicate. Simone-Finstrom and Spivak demonstrated that honey bees (A. mellifera) increase resin collection after immune challenge with the fungal pathogen Ascosphaera apis - Resin has been shown to reduce parasite loads in bees. Have a read of Self-medication in insects: current evidence and future perspectives - Jessica Abbott (May 2014 Royal Entomological Society) interesting stuff which both supports and also contradicts some of your assertions.
Also this is interesting as well
Self-medication in insects: when altered behaviors of infected insects are a defense instead of a parasite manipulation
J C de Roode & Mark D Hunter
Abstract
Studies have demonstrated that medication behaviors by insects are much more common than previously thought. Bees, ants, flies, and butterflies can use a wide range of toxic and nutritional compounds to medicate themselves or their genetic kin. Medication occurs either in response to active infection (therapy) or high infection risk (prophylaxis), and can be used to increase resistance or tolerance to infection. While much progress has been made over the last few years, there are also key areas that require in-depth investigation. These include quantifying the costs of medication, especially at the colony level of social insects, and formulating theoretical models that can predict the role of infection risk in driving micro-evolutionary and macro-evolutionary patterns of animal medication behaviors.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier

I can't disagree with any of that, and no, I hadn't seen it, thanks. Collecting and using propolis is of course a first class example. But I can't see how it bears on the discussion I invited. If you think any of it contradicts my assertion I'll be very interested to know why.

 

[Mint Bee]

 

[Murox]

I can't disagree with any of that, and no, I hadn't seen it, thanks. Collecting and using propolis is of course a first class example. But I can't see how it bears on the discussion I invited. If you think any of it contradicts my assertion I'll be very interested to know why.

Long live the fallacy of equivocation.

 

[Ian123]

How do you maintain natural selection in Kent. Every time your virgins fly off to a DCA they’ll encounter drones from unnaturally kept hives.

 

[Finman]

Of course you seem to have bypassed the growing body of evidence that bees (along with others) do in fact self medicate. Simone-Finstrom and Spivak demonstrated that honey bees (A. mellifera) increase resin collection after immune challenge with the fungal pathogen Ascosphaera apis - Resin has been shown to reduce parasite loads in bees. Have a read of Self-medication in insects: current evidence and future perspectives - Jessica Abbott (May 2014 Royal Entomological Society) interesting stuff which both supports and also contradicts some of your assertions.
Also this is interesting as well
Self-medication in insects: when altered behaviors of infected insects are a defense instead of a parasite manipulation
J C de Roode & Mark D Hunter
Abstract
Studies have demonstrated that medication behaviors by insects are much more common than previously thought. Bees, ants, flies, and butterflies can use a wide range of toxic and nutritional compounds to medicate themselves or their genetic kin. Medication occurs either in response to active infection (therapy) or high infection risk (prophylaxis), and can be used to increase resistance or tolerance to infection. While much progress has been made over the last few years, there are also key areas that require in-depth investigation. These include quantifying the costs of medication, especially at the colony level of social insects, and formulating theoretical models that can predict the role of infection risk in driving micro-evolutionary and macro-evolutionary patterns of animal medication behaviors.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier

To me that abstract text told nothing. To what the text is based? To huge vast examples of studies or what?

Micro-evolution and macro-evolution!!! Paterns

Such word game.

 

[Mint Bee]

As a scientist I look for data. Anecdotal evidence is just that. Interesting but not proven. Might work for someone else, in a different area, but might equally be a fluke. I'm sure we have had this conversation before. If I came across as hostile that was not my intension. maybe one of the zoom active associations would be interested in a presentation on your theories, unless of course you are already involved with the Westerham group?

https://westerham.kbka.org.uk/natural-beekeeping/
Someone will be around to correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the evidence coming from researchers working on varroa resistant bees suggested that there were big questions over the inheritable nature of this trait in future generations. if it turns out to be associated with recessive alleles then maintenance of varroa resistant bees is something that I believe beyond most beekeepers using open mated queens

 

[Finman]

"Man made v natural breeding and selection"

That is a question, which is suitable to every domesticated animal, plant, bacteria, fungus, fish and decorative plants.

Genemanipulation and patented breeds encluded.

In the picture genemanipulated patented Surfinia petunia. Made in Japan.