(Early-morning comments from an airport lobby)


> >I guess I wonder if it would make a difference at all... in the wild any
> given hive would presumably have a goal of swarming at least once, which
> would mean any given nest would requeen annually.  Keeping the same queen
> in the same nest multiple years would seem to be a sign of lower
> reproductive fitness.


I agree with Jeremy on this.  One of the differences between the A.m.m.
queens and the queens in areas with warmer summers is that the queens in
warmer areas may lay more eggs over the course of a season.  It appears to
me that the "age" of a queen may be determined more by the total number of
eggs that she's laid, rather than days since emergence.

With regard to Charlies' query, breeding from young queens does not
necessarily apply negative selection against long-lived queens.

In my California operation, my observations agree with the many who find
that queens typically give their peak performance in their first season and
second spring.  Although some continue well in their late second season,
most don't.

Re poor queen survivorship, Adam mentions increased exposure to acaricides,
which is very probable.  But one need also consider the increased
prevalence of viruses since the introduction of varroa.

Re Pete's opinion >I think that things can be done with bee breeding but
they require efforts like those of Brother Adam.

Over the years I've easily bred stocks for color, temperament, resistance
to AFB, and resistance to tracheal mite.  In each case all queens were open
mated, although I suspect that I flood the local environment with my
drones. I see little evidence that breeding for at least some traits
requires the degree of effort used by Brother Adam.

-- 
Randy Oliver
Grass Valley, CA
www.ScientificBeekeeping.com

             ***********************************************
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