I have been reading, and in some cases rereading, all the comments on
emergency queens.  I really don't have anything new to add but some
questions.  I guess I am missing something here but where is the connection
between a poor, weak, queen and genetic inferiority?  For the sake of
argument we will say an emergency queen is poor because of the way she was
raised, however she still manages to successfully mate and begin laying
fertilized eggs. How would the offspring from these eggs differ had she been
well nourished?  In other words, if we took one of those fertilized eggs and
raised it under optimal conditions wouldn't a good queen result?  If the
answer is yes, then I would think that a poor emergency queen could be
superceded resulting in a good queen.  If the answer is no, then why not?
Are we saying that poor nutrition causes a genetic mutation?  I can see that
possibly by the time the supercedure queen is being raised there may not be
enough young nurse bees left to do a proper job which may result in another
poor queen, but this is not because of genetics.  I would also think that a
poorly raised queen may never successfully mate thus rendering the colony
queenless.

One of the first recommendations for a new beekeeper is to start two
colonies.  There are a number of reasons for this but one was if something
happened to one of your queens you would have a source (eggs) to keep that
colony going and allow the bees to raise a new one.  This may be just
folklore but I think it is done successfully enough times to be true.

I guess I am having trouble accepting the fact that all emergency queens are
bad just because they are emergency queens. I have split a number of strong
colonies over the years with good results. FWIW, I am also seeing a lot of
newly purchased queens being superceded after they have been accepted and
are laying well.  I really can't explain that one.

Ron Bogansky
Kutztown, (eastern) PA, USA