Hi to all on BEE-L
I wrote:
>This depends upon how you look on the situation Peter
relative to complex mongrel breeding coupled with usage of
artificially enlarged combs which add steps of regression
for downsizing into the scenario and retrogression for
reversing the layers of piled on breeding mixtures.
Peter now has written:
Questions:
1. What is "complex mongrel breeding"?
2. What is a "piled on breeding mixture"?
(these are not conventional terms)
3. Do you have a "true" type of honey bee?
4. Where did it come from?
Reply:
Well, in apiculture, complex mongrels may be obtained by
the participation of three or more races/strains of
honeybees or as some might say inter-race/strain hybrids.
This is normally done for better queen proliferation and/or
colony productivity.
My reference to using retrogression for reversing the
layers of piled on breeding mixtures is basicly the
reversal of either natural or artificial hybirdized
combinations of large or small caste races/strains of hot
or col-weather bees, resulting in the production of uniform
progeny within the framework of a full naturalized breeding
program, which will then result in each separation
achieved, breeding true to their own hor or cold-weather
characteristics and large or small caste delineations.
Now Peter, results can only be achieved by the use of
stress-breeding at either the beginning or the end of the
selected race/strain breeding cycles where no overlap
occurs, one projecter breeder-cycle to the other(s).
Artificial races/strains can then be created by mimicing
the natural races/strains where complex mongrelization has
taken place, to gain uniformity of characteristics then
necessary for the advancement of desirable traits i.e.
gentleness and production.
Peter, what exactly do you mean by "true" type of honey bee
in your mind? I know what it means to me.
-----------------------------------------
Peter wrote:
In normal beekeeping practice, and in nature, a hive with
laying workers is rare. Many beekeepers kill the colony by
dumping it out in the bushes.
Reply:
I can see why it would be rare if beekeepers are taught to
destroy what they do not know,and it is actually a very
good trait and a safety net for the colony for survival.
Sad just so sad, this practice.
Peter wrote:
I have seen the little drones produced by laying workers
and I doubt if they could ever mate with a queen.
Reply:
Even F. Ruttner wrote that it is of no sifnificance whether
drones come from queens or worker bees. The lattter can be
used for rearing drones in experiments and selection
programmes. Before him Shaskolsky in 1935 wrote the same
thing.
Sorry you have not tried to work with them. It is a good
way of getting drones out of season for early startup or
late queening programs.
As far as queens appearing in laying worker hives, this is
so rare that no one has ever seen it except you and Otto
Mackensen (excepting Cape Bees, of course). To invoke
laying workers as a *significant pathway* of heredity is
incorrect. You are resorting to a very complicated
explanation to back up your theory.
Reply:
Like I said up above, shaking bees into bushes does not
exactly help the situation, by being afraid of it and
therefore wanting to get rid of it, rather then working
with it.
Yes it is a significant pathway of much importance, more so
then many realize. But, it is not major over normal
breeding routes of natural progression and/or retrogressive
breeding.
Bee breeding should be a whole-bee concept and worked that
way. One does not throw away parts of it naturally found in
nature and then expect to have successful breeding programs
that are long-term. Current inbreeding programs with their
mounting problems should be testiment to this!!
Again best regards to you:
Dee A. Lusby
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com
|
