Cam writes:
> I believe it's a total crap-shoot. I've purchased queens from several sources over the last 5 years.

Debbie Delaney:
> A recent study by vanEngelsdorp et al. (2008) reports the survey results from 305 beekeeping operations in the US, accounting for 13.3% of managed honey bee colonies nationwide. The primary perceived problem for beekeepers was 'poor queens' (31%). Determining the factors that result in low-quality queens is therefore of fundamental importance for improving colony productivity and fitness. -- 2010 Apidologie

Dave Tarpy:
> There is more variation in queen reproductive potential within operations than there is among them; thus, efforts aimed at improving overall queen quality would be better suited at culling low- quality queens within an operation rather than implementing a systematic management change. In other words, if the goal of the queen-rearing industry is to increase the average quality of queens, then it would likely be more effective to remove the low end. -- 2012 Journal of Economic Entomology

Pete:
Supersedure of queens is a very serious problem, especially if one is attempting to maintain some sort of genetically selected stock. Back in the day, when I raised queens by the thousands, I used to regard a supersedure queen as the best queen you could get, since the bees raised it "their way." But if you have shelled out 20 to 25 bucks for a mite resistant queen, you want to get more than a few months out of her. This is especially true given the fact that even the developers of the VSH lines acknowledge the trait is reduced by half when outcrossed with non-VSH bees. 

The complaint of premature supersedure, however, is not new. What makes it exceedingly difficult to determine the cause is that queens are introduced into a wide range of environmental conditions. You have to take this into consideration; the success or failure of the introduction may hinge entirely upon circumstances beyond the operators' control. Further, the goal of queen introduction varies, so success may have different meanings to different operators.

Some keepers buy queens only to make increase, so if a new colony is successfully formed, then they got what they wanted. Others want uniformity of stock, so it the queen is lost right away, it's a flop. If the goal is to replace a failing queen with a better one, and the queen is accepted without a hitch, that would be a plus. If you pay twenty five dollars for a "mite resistant queen", and the colony dies that fall from mites, you threw the money away.

Anyone who read my articles on bee breeding in the ABJ will know I am skeptical of what can be achieved via breeding of bees. My friend Tom Glenn, on the other hand, states that many large producers no longer treat for mites having adopted the VSH lines. The same claim is made for Russian Bees and the Weaver strain. I have yet to see that play out in my own apiary. 

My experience is about the same as most: colonies are overrun by mites in two or three years, and the losses have to be made up by divides or nucs. Once again, environmental factors may be the most significant and also the least susceptible to control. 

There is an old saying that companies realize that 50% of what they spend on advertising is completely wasted. They just don't know which 50% so they keep on doing what they do. Beekeeping may be the same; a lot of what we do is no doubt wasteful or wrong, but we are not sure what, so we are reluctant to change too much at once.

PLB
 

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

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm