On 6/01/2015 8:58 PM, Peter Edwards wrote:
and the other Peter contributed
>> Most domesticated species show evidence of a bottleneck following domestication. For example, crop plants such as maize, oats, rice and soybeans have lost 30– 90% of the genetic variation of their progenitors. Chickens, rabbits and silk moths have lost 50–60% of the genetic variation of their progenitors.
> But chickens, rabbits and silk moths are not suffering 30-50% losses as far as I know.

You may have noticed that they are fed and housed by us.  So it could be 
said that they have gained the whole human genome.  In the case of bees, 
all we have done is give them a "tree " hollow, so nothing new there, 
except it can expand and contract.  The only really new thing is we cart 
them around the countryside, for both good and ill.
>
>
> Does more genetic diversity suggest a reduction in those genes that really matter, i.e. the ones associated with locally adapted bees, and an increase in exotic genes that may not serve the bees well in that local environment?

How does locally adapted apply to migratory beekeeping?
>
> Given that swarms normally fly no more than a quarter of a mile and drones up to 14 miles then under natural conditions, i.e. without man's intervention, are genetic pools not likely to remain 'local'?  Seems to me that it is both conceited and foolish to interfere with something that has worked so well for countless thousands of years.

So how does a migratory industry not interfere?

Geoff Manning

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html