Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
Sender: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Sat, 18 May 2002 12:51:43 -0400 |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
D. Lusby writes:
>But effort will be kept by the majority to keep the overly
>man domesticated inbred lines that in Nature should have
>died years ago. Remember in Nature there is no such thing
>as a complex hybrid!
from Summary of Western Apiculture Society Meeting
August 15-18, 2001 at Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon
>Speakers at the convention spoke on topics of honeybee genetics. Dr.
>Steve Sheppard gave some excellent background information about the
>differences between natural selection (there are currently 26 know
>subspecies of honeybees worldwide) and artificial selection.
>Currently there are 43 commercial queen producers in the US, using
>603 breeder queens to produce almost 900,000 queens for commercial
>use/yr. The queens selected for breeding have desirable traits for
>beekeepers needs, not necessarily bee needs. This puts tremendous
>pressure towards inbreeding. Shotgun brood pattern is one of the
>best signs of an inbred queen.
>
>Dr. Sheppard advocates (1) that queen breeders maximize the
>diversity of their breeder queens using stock from East and West
>Coast as well as feral populations that have survived mites, (2)
>that beekeepers purchase queens from multiple queen breeders, and
>(3) that the US continues to monitor and support importation of
>queens from other countries.
Comment:
The experts warn of heavy inbreeding, much as Lusby does. But the
solution is not *further* isolation and selection, as she has
advocated. The genetic base has to be *broadened*, not narrowed.
Hybridization and inbreeding are two separate issues. Good traits are
essential, but so is diversity.
--
Peter Borst <[log in to unmask]>
|
|
|