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:
Allen Dick <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 26 Jul 1999 16:24:34 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (79 lines)
> I have been reading, and in some cases rereading, all the comments on
> emergency queens.

So have I. Over and over.  Great topic with many viewpoints.  Makes one think.

> 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?

That is what I assume and believe, but the question we must ask is this:

"Do queens all lay eggs that are of equal weight and quality, or do small weak
queens lay smaller, weaker eggs?"

If so, then we also need to ask this:

"Do superior queens that are on the verge of starvation lay inferior eggs?"

And we must remember that in advance of swarming bees tend to reduce the feed to
the queen, so:

"Are swarm queens therefore inferior?"

and

"If there are inferior eggs, do they result in inferior offspring even if the
larvae are well fed?"

I can see how it can be reasonably hypothesized that the offspring of poorly fed
mothers can be nutritionally deprived also, and that it is not necessary for the
genetics to be changed.  It's the old phenotype/genotype problem.  You would
think that such hypothetical malutrition effects would go away after a
generation or two...  wouldn't you?  The genetics shouldn't change.

> If the
> answer is yes, then I would think that a poor emergency queen could be
> superceded resulting in a good queen.

I think so too.

> If the answer is no, then why not?
> Are we saying that poor nutrition causes a genetic mutation?

If there is any truth to the assertations some have made, apparently on the
basis of observation, the explanation I gave above is the only credible argument
I can imagine at this point.

> 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.

Same here.

My thesis is that you can get good and bad queens by any method.  James Bach's
tale of woe in regards the Midnites sure struck home here.  I really hurt for
him when I read of his tribulations.

There were many sad beekeepers heavily out of pocket this spring due to failure
of many reputable suppliers to make queens that the bees would accept and keep,
and which would perform well.

I personally did a bit of each method and had
* bad losses in the mated queens purchased,
* moderate and unpredictable failures in the grafted cells we introduced and
* apparently good results from the emergency queens.

All the queens -- regardless of source -- took a week longer than usual to get
going.

Go figure...  As Pooh (an expert on bees) said, "You never can tell about bees".

allen

ATOM RSS1 RSS2