> > ... The hive goes into emergency mode and 3-4 dayslater you'll
> > find, but few take the time to look, sealed  queen cells.
>
> I have not seen sealed queen cells 3 or 4 days after sudden loss of a
> queen.  I have never knowingly checked a hive at that time
> after it became queenless.

Well, I have, and do -- many thousands of hives over the years.  One of
the techniques we use over and over is splitting a hive and then
checking four days later for eggs.  Sometimes it involves  using an
excluder, sometimes it involves making side-by-side splits.  Three days
later is too soon for an easy call, especially if it is overcast.  If we
can't see any eggs, we look for queen cells for a clue, and it is
amazing how often a queen cell is not apparent at the four day mark.
Maybe some queen rearing has started, but the cell is not yet in
evidence.

In our district -- contrary to what the first writer asserts -- we
almost never find sealed cells at four days.  When we do, I tend to
think they may have been underway when we did the split, since we try to
split about the time the bees are thinking they would like to divide,
and some hives are working at supercedure at any given time. It only
stands to reason that there might be times when our splitting coincides
with the bees spontaneous cell raising activities.

> >> It takes 3 days to hatching, so those sealed at 3 days after
> >> emergency only get a 6 day feeding, instead of 9 which is normal...

What can I say?

> My understanding has always been that the hive can turn any
> young worker larvae, ( less than three days old), into a queen.
> If the bees start to work on a larvae of that age, a sealed
> queen cell at 3-4 days after becoming queenless is quite possible...

True.  I have been prompted to read fairly extensively as a result of
these discussions, hoping to get to the truth of the matter without
resorting to actual experimentation.  I have reluctantly come to the
conclusion that the experts themselves are divided on the matter, since
they contradict each other -- much as we do.  This may be due to the
fact that bees and bee behaviour can vary quite a bit for reasons we do
not know, and the timing and location of observations can have quite an
impact on the results.

> I think the question (that David has addressed) is how
> important are those first three days as a larvae in
> queen development (assuming that 3 day old larvae may
> be raised into a queen).  David, it appears, feels
> that this is a critical time for the development of a
> commercially good queen.  He could very well be correct.
> Even if this early larval stage is critical to
> good queen development, there will be times that larvae will
> receive better care due to larger numbers of nurse bees,
> good or bad weather, honey flow etc.  and these may
> already have had everything they need to become a very
> good queen.

I repeat this because it is most astute and pivotal to the question.

Assuming the bees do start right away making a new queen (and I am here
to tell you they often appear to take several days to start -- in my
observations, at least), what is to say that they do not at all times
have some worker larvae that are fed better than others for just such an
eventuality and it is not those that are chosen?

We simply do not know.  I think what we really need is results from
research where known emergency queens raised under good conditions are
dissected and their degree of development and caste is measured.  I
suspect that such research exists and I had thought that by now, Larry
or some other person who has worked with these things intimately might
have jumped in and settled the matter once and for all.  I hope to get
around to doing a search through the IBRA one of these days if no one
can cite such studies.

So far, my take on the whole matter is that emergency queens work well
for some people in some locations for some purposes and may not measure
up in other places and circumstances.  Interestingly enough, that is
pretty much what we can say about breeder raised queens.  (We have
recent experience here in Alberta where my friends report having to
replace 1/3 or more of their store-boughten queens.  Knowing beekeepers,
I doubt that they have shared with me the full extent of their pain, and
I suspect the number to be greater in some cases).

I am still very open to good information on this, because I have tens of
thousands of dollars riding on having a correct answer, as do my
friends.  We're not so proud we won't be swayed by real evidence.

I appreciate the anecdotes and guesses, but if you folks out there on
the BEE-L have any *real* info, please don't hold back.

allen