Ron Bogansky wrote:
 
> ... But for this spring purchasing queens for early splits
> may be a problem.  I posted last fall about a study done by Penn State
> showing that a large number of commercial queens are to put it
> bluntly, "poor".   They have reported this back to the breeders but
> who knows what will happen.
 
Yes this is true, there have been documented cases of "poor queens" from
more than one, perhaps many producers.  Furthermore, a common cry
industry wide is that queens just aren't what they used to be and
supersedure seems to happen more often that in years gone by.  A full
day was spent on this topic at ABF in Colorado Springs (I did not attend
and welcome comments from anyone who did).  Queen producers are aware of
the problem and are working very hard to address a problem for which
they currently do not have the answers.
 
The study out of Penn State, published by Marianne Frasier, did not name
specific problem producers (although they did report back to producers
whose queens did not perform well in the studies).  It was not an intent
of the study to "black ball" particular producers and their names were
kept STRCITLY confidential, even in private converstaions.  It was hoped
that informing producers if their queens did not perform well would help
them address the problems and produce better queens.  In subsequent
studies it was found that some of the "poor" queens improved and some of
the better queens in the initial study performed to a lesser degree,
which may be interpreted as sampling variation.  The intent was not to
determine that Producer X has a good product and Producer Y grows
inferior queens, the intent was to determine why "inferior queens" are
reported more commonly.
 
The study was inconclusive as far as determining the cause of the poor
queens.  Suspect causes included trachael mites, nosema, poor mating,
residual effects of miticides, lack of genetic diversity and perhaps
others which don't come to mind as I write this without any texts in
front of me.  Reader beware, Aaron's writing from memory here!
 
Trachael mites: the queen herself could have had trachael mites, hence
causing poor performance.  The drones with which the queens mated could
have had trachael mites.  Undetermined, yet to be answered: might
trachael mites impact sperm production, egg production, queen acceptance
or have other causal effects?
 
Nosema: not something new, perhaps the "forgotten" culprit, certainly a
commonly overlooked culprit, easily identifiable and treatable if the
beekeeper is willing to spend the money and take the time.  Possibly a
reason why the same producer's queens performed differently in
subsequent studies.
 
Poor mating: We've touched on this in the past few days.  Were there
enough drones in the queen production area?  Was the weather agreeable
when the queen was making her nuptial flights?  Were the drones healthy
or might their sperm production have been below par for some reasons?
 
Residual effects of miticides: Might the chemicals we've been putting
into our hives be having an unforseen long term, cumulative effect that
had not been anticipated in the EPA approval process?  Could the
"authorities" have overlooked something?  Nahhhhh! Couldn't happen!
Could it?
 
Lack of genetic diversity: Roger Morse has long been touting this
possibility.  It has been illegal to import genetic material into the US
since 1928!  It may be that the law meant to protect us is actually
biting us in the beehind!  Naaahhhhhh!  Couldn't happen!  Could it?
 
Other factors which don't come to mind:  Not only my pea brain, but the
superior university supported brains doing the study!  Might there be
other unknown factors which haven't come to anyone's mind?  Well, who
knows?  They haven't come to mind!  Might it be that "poor queens" isn't
a new problem?  Perhaps these problems have been with beekeepers for
longer than we've known?  Comments Andy?  Perhaps supersedure is more
common than credited?  Good reason to mark your queens.  Have queens
indeed gotten worse or have beekeepers become more observant?
 
I personally suspect (reader beware, Aaron's speculating here!) that
the most likly culprit (if indeed this is a new problem) are trachael
mites and mite treatments.  Note I've avoided discussion of Varroa mites
here - varroa mites simply ARE NOT interested in queens.  However,
trachael mites will infest queens and miticides, regardless of their
nature, will impact the queen's environment.  As a systems programmer
problem solving begins with asking, "What's changed?".  To me, the most
obvious change in a hive environment within the past decade has been
mites and treatments, hence the most likely area to look for answers.
 
In the meantime the best that a small operation can do is to address
the other suspects.  Treat for diseases (AFB and nosema) to keep your
bees as healthy as you are able.  Keep young, healthy queens in your
hives.  If you're raising your own, learn as best as you can how it's
properly done, start with healthy, free from disease bees, make sure
your cell builders have ample pollen to nourish your grafts, make sure
there are plenty of drones, maximize genetic diversity, realize it's
more than dumb luck, and again, if the task of raising your own starts
to seem daunting, find good reputable producers (more than one for
diversity sake) and buy 'em.
 
Aaron Morris - thinking good queens don't just happen!