1. Adaptation through natural selection is the natural response of bee populations to environmental changes and the challenge of pests and diseases. The richness in biodiversity of races and ecotyp...

The Apis mellifera carnica subspecies of the honeybee has long been praised for its gentleness and good honey yield before systematic breeding efforts began in the early 20th century. However, before the introduction of modern techniques of genetic evaluation (best linear unbiased prediction, BLUP) and a computerized data management in the mid 1990s, genetic progress was slow. Here, the results of the official breeding value estimation in BeeBreed.eu are analyzed to characterize breeding progress and inbreeding. From about the year 2000 onward, the genetic progression accelerated and resulted in a considerable gain in honey yield and desirable properties without increased inbreeding coefficients. The prognostic quality of breeding values is demonstrated by a retrospective analysis. The success of A. m. carnica breeding shows the potential of BLUP-based breeding values and serves as an example for a large-scale breeding program.

Genomic selection has increased genetic gain in several livestock species, but due to the complicated genetics and reproduction biology not yet in honey bees. Recently, 2970 queens were genotyped to gather a reference population. For the application of genomic selection in honey bees, this study analyzes the accuracy and bias of pedigree-based and genomic breeding values for honey yield, three workability traits, and two traits for resistance against the parasite Varroa destructor. For breeding value estimation, we use a honey bee-specific model with maternal and direct effects, to account for the contributions of the workers and the queen of a colony to the phenotypes. We conducted a validation for the last generation and a five-fold cross-validation. In the validation for the last generation, the accuracy of pedigree-based estimated breeding values was 0.12 for honey yield, and ranged from 0.42 to 0.61 for the workability traits. The inclusion of genomic marker data improved these accuracies to 0.23 for honey yield, and a range from 0.44 to 0.65 for the workability traits. The inclusion of genomic data did not improve the accuracy of the disease-related traits. Traits with high heritability for maternal effects compared to the heritability for direct effects showed the most promising results. For all traits except the Varroa resistance traits, the bias with genomic methods was on a similar level compared to the bias with pedigree-based BLUP. The results show that genomic selection can successfully be applied to honey bees.

As usual in science, where one answer raises new questions, following our attempt to demystify the basic concept of honey bee breeding with our article The Basic Concept of Honey Bee Breeding Progr...

Estimating genetic parameters of quantitative traits is a prerequisite for animal breeding. In honeybees, the genetic variance separates into queen and worker effects. However, under data paucity, parameter estimations that account for this peculiarity often yield implausible results. Consequently, simplified models that attribute all genetic contributions to either the queen (queen model) or the workers (worker model) are often used to estimate variance components in honeybees. However, the causes for estimations with the complete model (colony model) to fail and the consequences of simplified models for variance estimates are little understood. We newly developed the necessary theory to compare parameter estimates that were achieved by the colony model with those of the queen and worker models. Furthermore, we performed computer simulations to quantify the influence of model choice, estimation algorithm, true genetic parameters, rates of controlled mating, apiary sizes, and phenotype data completeness on the success of genetic parameter estimations. We found that successful estimations with the colony model were only possible if at least some of the queens mated controlled on mating stations. In that case, estimates were largely unbiased if more than 20% of the colonies had phenotype records. The simplified queen and worker models proved more stable and yielded plausible parameter estimates for almost all settings. Results obtained from these models were unbiased when mating was uncontrolled, but with controlled mating, the simplified models consistently overestimated heritabilities. This study elucidates the requirements for variance component estimation in honeybees and provides the theoretical groundwork for simplified honeybee models.

Background: With the completion of a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) chip for honey bees, the technical basis of genomic selection is laid. However, for its application in practice, methods to estimate genomic breeding values need to be adapted to the specificities of the genetics and breeding infrastructure of this species. Drone-producing queens (DPQ) are used for mating control, and usually, they head non-phenotyped colonies that will be placed on mating stations. Breeding queens (BQ) head colonies that are intended to be phenotyped and used to produce new queens. Our aim was to evaluate different breeding program designs for the initiation of genomic selection in honey bees. Methods: Stochastic simulations were conducted to evaluate the quality of the estimated breeding values. We developed a variation of the genomic relationship matrix to include genotypes of DPQ and tested different sizes of the reference population. The results were used to estimate genetic gain in the initial selection cycle of a genomic breeding program. This program was run over six years, and different numbers of genotyped queens per year were considered. Resources could be allocated to increase the reference population, or to perform genomic preselection of BQ and/or DPQ. Results: Including the genotypes of 5000 phenotyped BQ increased the accuracy of predictions of breeding values by up to 173%, depending on the size of the reference population and the trait considered. To initiate a breeding program, genotyping a minimum number of 1000 queens per year is required. In this case, genetic gain was highest when genomic preselection of DPQ was coupled with the genotyping of 10–20% of the phenotyped BQ. For maximum genetic gain per used genotype, more than 2500 genotyped queens per year and preselection of all BQ and DPQ are required. Conclusions: This study shows that the first priority in a breeding program is to genotype phenotyped BQ to obtain a sufficiently large reference population, which allows successful genomic preselection of queens. To maximize genetic gain, DPQ should be preselected, and their genotypes included in the genomic relationship matrix. We suggest, that the developed methods for genomic prediction are suitable for implementation in genomic honey bee breeding programs.