Better Bees?

I recently asked our group if anyone thought that better bees have
been produced. I deliberately did not mention any criteria for the
simple reason that criteria would differ for different breeders. Some
may want honey producers, some would want pollinators, etc. I think a
real improvement would be something most people would recognize and
agree upon.

Naturally, I have opinions of my own which are based partly on
experience of 25 years with bees and partly on extensive reading. I
work at Cornell University and have access to the Mann Library, one
of the most complete Agricultural Libraries in the world.

What I have found in the many discussions on bee improvement is two
questionable concepts. First, "Bees left to themselves will improve."
Natural selection obviously occurs with bees, but it can only happen
in isolation and over many decades (maybe centuries). But what
changes occur relate to survivability, not suitability for human use.

Humans have altered many plants and animals, so: "it is logical to
assume that honeybees can be altered through selection." This is the
second non-sequitir. Just because corn and cows have been radically
changed by human intervention, that doesn't mean all species can be
changed by us.

There are two main examples of good and bad bees: the so-called
European and the so-called African. I used to think that the
difference between these type could be attributed to human influence.
European bees became manageable through selection by beekeepers and
the African became hostile in order to survive in the jungle.

The latter is doubtless true, but the former may not. It may be the
manageable nature of the European honeybee that made beekeeping
possible, instead of the reverse. But aside from maintaining certain
qualities, I am not sure we have altered the bees in a significant
way.

And it is not for lack of trying, to be sure. The situation is
complicated by honeybees promiscuous breeding habits, but may be
related more to a lack of sufficient variability. In order to be
changed, a species must be plastic. Some species are more fruitful
than others in this regard.

Of course, this is all changing with gene splicing. Plants and
animals can be produced that have qualities that they would never
have gotten through *any* breeding program. We have seen potatoes
producing insecticides in their skin and vats of bacteria producing
human insulin.

Do we want a gene-spliced honeybee? Many would say that this would be
of natural beekeeping. I am afraid, however, that we may have already
experienced that death. The standards for "Organic Honey" already
prohibit many practices which beekeepers consider routine, like
fumigating combs, using terramycin and miticides.

At one time I thought that gene-splicing was just another Pandora's
box, like nuclear power. But like it or not, it is already
widespread. It is a tool people are using to alter nature, for better
or worse. Many people point to the worse and forget the better.

Without selective breeding of plants and animals, we would still have
corn with two inch gray cobs and meat as tasty as leather. Without
modern medicine, most of us would be dead, having died in before the
age of five.

I think that bees will survive in the wild, on their own. There may
be only African bees at some point. I am not concerned about the
survival of bees *as much* as the survival of beekeeping. Having
African bees in our hives might get rid of the mites, but it would
also get rid of the fun.


(The opinions in this discussion are my own and are not intended to
reflect Cornell University in any way).
Peter Borst

[log in to unmask]

http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/plb6/