(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