Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Sat, 11 Aug 2018 07:13:17 -0700 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
> it seems like the practice of replacing queens on a yearly bases goes
back some and maybe even over 100 years.
Not surprising. Humans haven't gotten any smarter since then, nor better
at making observations. It seems that we're wasting a great deal of time
in confirming some well-known facts:
- That beekeepers have long known that the best queens, independent of
genetics, are those raised from very young larvae, and very well fed and
mated.
- Even then, perhaps 25% will be at the lower end of the bell curve for
performance, and
- A percentage will fail early in the season.
- That queens are generally most productive in their first season, and
- A large percentage may perform well through the honey flow of their
second season, at which point they typically start to run short on stored
sperm and are superseded.
- Queens well-mated late in the season and prevented from laying many
eggs, will perform like young queens the next season.
There is absolutely nothing new about the above observations
--
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
|
|
|