> I agree they are discussed but, as I recall, when the person who
> started this latest discussion on splits mentioned that he thought
> the splits produced inferior queens, he was asked for references.  So
> shouldn't I ask for references when the statement was made about
> shipping etc. affecting queens?

Okay, I see.

The thing is that there is no shortage of good information -- some of it
quantitative -- on the problems of raising, distributing. and introducing
mated queens, and anyone can find reams of info, including formal and
informal studies, with a little effort.  Moreover, the effects are obvious:
dead bees on arrival, rejection, supercedure...

On the other hand -- amazingly -- there is nothing quantative on the topic
of the quality of emergency queens, and no obvious bad effects from
emergency queens raised in season by good colonies.  Although many writers
mention the supposed selection of older larvae by bees, no one seems to have
done even so much as a survey to try to figure out how often it occurs, the
actual average age selected, and if these effects are true of all strains at
all times, or due to specific conditions.

Seems to me that the question is of prime importance.  Every beekeeper who
has more than a few hives, and more than a few years experience, has
emergency queens at some point or another for various reasons.

> Also, years ago it was a common practice here in Australia to "even up
> hives".  Those that were not doing well had brood added to them from
> hives that were going exceptionally well.  This is not done very
> often nowadays because of brood disease.

This is getting off the topic at hand, but worth some discussion.  It's
interesting.  Are brood diseases becoming a problem in Australia?  I know
that we have massive problems with chalkbrood in imported Australian stock.
We all wonder if any hygienic selection is used in Aus. and how AFB
resistant the stock is if not ever challenged by AFB.  Maybe you could
comment.

>> In the past decade alone, numerous magazine articles and Internet
>> discussions have discussed the problems that can arise..
>
> Yes but most are anecdotal.   Anecdotal is not science but it does
> make the good basis for a scientific experiment.

Back to the topic.  Seems to me that there are good studies on at least most
of those points. And, I cannot see what proof is needed when bees arrive
dead, die on introduction, are rejected by the bees, etc. etc.

On the other hand, the production of intercastes by emergency impulse is
more subtle.  Sure, we've all seen obviously inferior, small queens raised
by the emergency impulse in hives that are weak, starving, or out of season,
but I have seen many, many emergency queens raised by healthy, well-fed
hives at the peak of the season, and can say that I cannot recall seeing any
obvious duds in that situation, and have had very good results from the
hives headed by such queens.

Therefore, I am very curious.  Obviously, it is in the interests of those
who make their money by raising and selling queens (and advertise in
magazines) to study and promote use of those queens, and in the meantime
trash the queens that any beekeeper can raise, free of charge, in a matter
of minutes, with no waiting or phoning around or trips to the post office,
while demonstrting almost zero skill.  The only skill required in this
latter approach is to make sure the hive being split is strong and healthy,
and that there is a good flow underway in the spring.

> From my observations, the discussions always revolves around the
> queens and
> how bad or good they were.  I rarely see any discussion about the
> hives the queens are being introduced to or the conditions prevailing
> at the time of introduction.  Why is this?  Surely hive and climatic
> conditions would have an affect on acceptance and maybe supercedure.

I think we are barking up different trees, but I agree totally with all your
points, and appreciate your helping me make my point.  My only point is
this:

We both can see that there are many risks and considerable costs associated
with relying on purchased queens, since there are so many people of varying
abilities, including the purchasing beekeeper, in the process, and many
places for things to go wrong -- often without anyone knowing until a long
time after.  If everything goes right, in return for a lot of effort and
some expense, the beekeeper can expect (hope) to get a superior result.

On the other hand, a beekeeper can simply split and let the bees raise the
new queen and get average results with a small risk of failure.  I'd like to
see some studies about how to get the best results using this technique.
(Attention grad students)

You make many other important points, and maybe I'll write more on those
topics later, agreeing with you, but, for now, my main interest is
stimulating some respect for emergency queens and the good job they can do
for us.

allen
A Beekeeper's Diary: http://www.honeybeeworld.com/diary/

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and  other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::