BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Patrick Woryna <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 25 Feb 2021 01:34:46 +0100
Content-Type:
multipart/related
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (1384 bytes) , image.png (182 kB)
"Installing the package into a hive with one frame of open brood (Brood
treatment) resulted in 86.7% acceptance of the original queen, whereas the
BEP and Control treatments resulted in 53.3% and 33.3% acceptance,
respectively.(...)
To conclude, establishing new packages into hives with at least one frame
of open brood clearly helps to hedge against colonies wanting to reject the
queen immediately after installation"
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00218839.2020.1867336 (January
2021)

Interesting paper with application relevance. While I do not use packages,
I do artificial swarms, swarm removal and broodbreaks and I would think
similar rules apply there.
They also note that supersedure strongly correlated with a low
openbrood/worker ratio 21d prior.


Not discussed in the paper but as I like to speculate and theorize: as open
brood is an inhibitor to development of laying worker physiology I suspect
that is the underlying reason package bees treat those queens differently.
Maybe also this increase in % of laying workers is part of the triggers of
supersedure or queen rearing in general.

(https://doi.org/10.1080/0005772X.1929.11092804)
[image: image.png]

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


ATOM RSS1 RSS2