> Layne Westover wrote:
>
> >Just a short note on some of the comments of genetics being changed or
> affected
> >by what the bees eat.  I think that what was really meant by this statement
> is
> >that the way the genes are expressed--the expression of the genes--can be
> >affected by diet.  The genetics are not changed.  The DNA is not changed,
> but
> >how the genes express themselves can change depending on the dietary
> inputs.
> >I think this is what Dr. Stefan was meaning, and it is a logically valid
> point.
> >Better diets and nutrition and all animals and plants are better able to
> resist
> >diseases and stresses IMHO.
> >
> >Layne Westover
 
Hi Layne,
 
With my tongue firmly planted in my cheek, let me offer MHO.
 
I believe that this discussion has omitted some relevant theory on mutations
and natural selection. I won't particularly debate whether or not genetic
expression may be changed visa vi diet, although I don't believe that would be
born out even over time. However, diet is not generally considered a mutagin,
unless something that can alter DNA is ingested. In the event that a genetic
variation occurs that is negative, and of mortal significance, the individual,
and thus the genetic transfer would likely not survive. Fatal characteristics
are not usually selected for, they are selected against and will invariably be
carried in the minority of the population. It will not become, according to
theory, a "selected for", or dominant trait in following generations.
 
The only way that I can see diet changing genetic material or expression is
with an operation of an independent variable. For example, lets say that bees
that survive well on cane sugar, also have a genetic propensity to succumb to
mites under less environmental stress than other bees that survive only on
honey. The genetic weakness to fall victim to mites was already there, the
diet did not change that genetic expression. Only those that can survive on
cane sugar will survive, and if those are ALSO the ones with a weakness for
mites, that trait will survive with them. The genetic expression was not
changed, but the frequency of that expression will increase as an operation of
selecting for cane sugar metabolism. However, and this is the point that I
think some are trying to make, if the bee industry as a whole selects a single
method of beekeeping, then man may begin selecting for unknown traits in the
species. This would only hold true if apiculture begin representing the
majority of the bee species on the planet. If man selects for what he views as
a positive trait, he may inadvertently be selecting for another negative
trait. Nature would weed out these negative traits eventually, but if man
intervenes with massive and UNIVERSAL culture techniques, the genetic
representation would be unnaturally high. This man-made selection process
could theoretically lead to extinction of bees. As the theory, goes, however,
random selection will keep only those genetic pools that are capable and
adapted to surviving.
 
I would suggest, therefore, that we are in no danger of genetic extinction of
bees through our manipulation of feed. Why? Because beekeepers are a stubborn
and opinionated lot. I don't believe that we will ever see universal agreement
by apiculturists about what to feed and treat all cultured bees with. This is
a good thing. No single genetic trait will likely be selected for by
artificial environmental or nutritional sources selected by mankind, because
man will never reach total consensus on anything! Our obstinate advocacy of
our own individual experiences will save the bee from our unilateral
destruction! Hooray for the bee!
 
Our differences are our salvation. Diversity will prevail. Thanks to our
stubbornness, not every bee population is treated the same, and so they as a
species will remain diverse. If every bee were treated with the same
prophylactic antibiotic, we may see a disease strain resistant to that
antibiotic gain strength and wreak havoc. If every bee were fed on the same
diet, we may select for those that can survive on simple or complex sugars, or
some specific variable, and unintentionally select for another weakness that
would universally threaten the bee. These things will not happen.
 
I predict that bees will be around for a long time, and if they go by the way
of other extinct critters, it will likely be because of something more
universally changed in the environment than man can ever achieve through
apiculture techniques.
 
So rest easy, my apiculture friends. Our difference of opinions will save the
humble and wonderful bee. Natural and random conditions will prevail despite
our choice of myrtle oil or smoke; corn syrup, cane sugar, honey, molasses, or
grandma's best peach preserves. Go in peace, ye of differing sects of the Apis
mellifera religion. We are grateful for your particular beliefs, but yours
will not prevail over all others. That is our salvation.
 
Bee at Rest.
 
Steve
 
 
Steve Andison
<BR>Alaska Resource Economic Development (ARED)
<BR>(907) 790-2111
<BR>Fax: 907-790-1929
</BODY>
</HTML>