> Thanks Bob & Dick for driving my point home about Better Queens. Those
> queens developed from the get go from an egg are better than those
> developed
> from a larva even apparently only a few hours old...
I think most of us understand that there are many subtle factors to consider
in trying to raise the ideal queen, and I think we all have read the words
of many well-respected scientists and beekeepers about the importance of
using high quality queens, but this discussion arose out of the question of
how good emergency queens are compared to commercial or home-raised queens,
so -- without meaning to interrupt the thread -- I would like to return to
the original question and its implications under this new subject line: "How
Good is Good Enough?"
-----
Of course, if the cost in time effort and money were the same, we all would
take a perfect queen over a lesser queen every time, but, usually the cost
is not the same, and we must decide how much we can invest before the extra
costs exceed the extra expected returns.
Would we pay $100 per queen for a queen that is 10% better than a $20 queen?
Would we pay $20 for a queen that is 10% better than a free queen? That
depends, I suppose.
Some would pay any amount for perfection, just to have perfection, but
others want a return for every dollar they spend, so they expect $80 more
back from a $100 queen than from a $20 queen, or $20 more back from a $20
queen than from a free queen, and, considering the risks of loss or weather,
and the fact that they don't risk money just to break even, they would add a
risk premium of at least 20%, making that $96 in the first instance and $24
in the second.
Moreover, I think that most of us realise that a lot of the supposed extra
capacity of a super queen can be totally wasted in the real world. For me,
in the real world, the best possible queen is not the one with the most
ovarioles, but rather the one that causes me the least trouble and makes me
the most money back for what I risk, and that is very often an average
queen, and older queen, or an emergency queen.
I realise that some will immediately jump in and say that if you are raising
queens that it is just as easy, or almost as easy to raise perfect queens as
to raise scrub queens. I concur that this is often true, but I have seen a
lot of pretty poor stuff from suppliers who are doing their best and have to
say that if you have to supply in season and using hired help, etc., the
odds are against making the grade all the time.
Moreover, that argument assumes that we are actually going to raise or buy a
queens and not let the old queen go one more year or let the bees requeen
themselves. I agree that if you are grafting or buying a queen, then you
might as well do it right, since it is not much harder to do so, but I am
saying, "Forget grafting, and unnecessary replacing unless you are sure it
is worth the effort, and that will depend on your area and on honey prices".
In my experience, in my area, there are only short periods where a queen
gets to perform flat-out. The rest of the time, queens are constrained by
feed, the number bees available to raise brood, the weather, etc.; they are
throttled back and running under capacity. Maybe the hot queen gets a bit
ahead for a few weeks, but the slower queen may match her in the long run.
IMO, at current honey prices, 'good enough' is a lower standard than it was
when honey was two or three times the price.
As I see it, anyhow.
allen
Opinions are not facts...
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
|
