One speaks of using drones in the local area to mate with the newly
emerged queens.  Here in southern/central Texas, that is no longer a
viable method.  We now have feral colonies of the 'Aficanized' bee and
knowing that the Africanized drones fly faster than the European drones,
we really run the risk of Africanizing our hives.  In remote areas that
might not be a problem, but in the more populus areas that can really
have a negative effect on the local community and on the reputation of
bee keepers in general.  Known genetic backgrounds of the queens we use
for requeening is just about requisit in this area now.  As I drive some
state roads between Houston, Texas and Austin, I see bait hives put up by
the roads in an effort to track the progress of the 'African' variety.
MIKE    [log in to unmask]
 
 
On Sat, 27 May 1995, Allen Dick wrote:
 
> On Fri, 26 May 1995, tom Taylor wrote:
>
> Hi Tom!
>
> <selected quotes follow>
> > Here is the flaw.  When the queen dies in a colony a number of emergency
> > queen cells are initiated.  The age of the larvae that are pressed into
> > service are anywhere from a few hours old to possibly 60 or so hours old.
> > While older larvae will develop into queens it is generaly reconized that
> > the older the larvae the more inferior the queen.  Left to their own
> > devices the  most advanced larvae will hatch first.
>
> It seems the total development time (from the time of egg laying) on
> queens - whether started from the oldest possible or the youngest larvae
> are the same - give or take very little.
>
> I had thought (reasoned) that the intercastes that develop from the older
> larvae *should* be slower (more like the time required for a worker).  If
> that were the case, then things would even out, but when we graft, we find
> that the cells from older larvae do, in fact, usually emerge first.
>
> There is some variation in development time between queens that we
> attribute to genetics or position in the hive/incubator and resulting slight
> temperature differences.  This is more obvious that any effects due to
> intercasting.
>
> > Now the first to hatch
> > (inferior) queen will run around and destroy all of her siblings who are
> > younger, some of which would have developed into very good queens.  This
> > "not so good" queen will go through the mating phase and return to her hive
> > and will likely soon fail in her duties.  As a last desperate act she will
> > lay an egg or two in existing queen cell cups in the colony.
>
> I assume that supercedure will take place without the colony necessarily
> going through a queenless phase in most cases, but that in the meantime
> the colony may not reach its potential and that the danger of drone layers
> developing without replacement queens being raised exists.
>
> We've noticed a marked drop in drone layers since we began raising our
> own cells using grafting.  For a few years we tried the 'split em in half
> and let them raise cells method' and found that the hives were not doing
> as well in spite of queens that looked okay.
>
> > You can come to the rescue!  When you see an emergency cell situation you
> > can choose one or preferably two of the very youngest cells to keep and
> > destroy the older ones.  In this way you can insure that the queen that
> > hatches has been initiated from a very young larvae.
> >
> > You can take advantage of this whole idea when making nucs in the spring.
> > Instead of raising your own queens let the bees do it. Just prune out the
> > oldest cells on about the 5th day after you set the nuc up.  Granted, this
> > proceedure will result in a 10 day delay in the development of the nuc,
> > but you will not have to dance through the hoops of raising your own queen
> > cells,
>
> This 10 day delay (can be less, but can be 20 days if bad weather hits) is
> overrated IMHO.  Unless you direct release a mated queen, there is an
> (unpredictable) introduction time of up to a week with mated queens.
>
> I'd like some debate on this, but I think caged mated queens are often
> overrated in comparison to cells.  Of course, introducing laying mated
> queens from a nuc together with with some combs with their brood is a
> different matter, and much superior to either of the previously mentioned
> alternatives from a time loss and from a acceptance rate perspective.
>
> Where direct release is possible, mated queens have the advantage.
>
> However, We have had a few caged queens that were still found in cages
> weeks later -- in spite of all the candy being eaten out.  Last year we
> bought some offshore queens and the candy was too hard.  In spite of nail
> holes, some took weeks to get released.
>
> Nothing is simpler than popping a ripe cell (or two) into a colony that
> needs a queen.  There is no need to find and remove competing cells and
> cceptance is pretty certain. Usually on the 11th day there will be eggs.
>
> BTW, that Genter grafting thing never did work for us.  Hand grafting
> from normal combs is much simpler than trying to make that silly thing
> work.  Bulletin: Anyone who wants a real deal on a Genter grafting kit, drop
> me an email.
>
> The only problem with hand grafting is finding appropriate larve some days
> - especially 4 days after a rain or sudden weather change. Many confine
> the queen to one or two combs, or an area on one comb - as Adam is setting
> up to do.  However we rotate breeders constantly, and therefore find
> it simpler to just take the luck of the draw.
>
> > and you certaily won't propigate great gobs of queens with
> > unrecognised inferior characteristics.  I think may of us have done this in
> > our "super queen" breeding programs.
>
> Well, I shudder when people use one breeder for thousands of queens and
> use them in their own outfit, especially when they plan to winter them.
> We delibertely rotate through a succession of queens and avoid inbreeding
> as much as possible, seeing as we have no illusions about being smart and
> dedicated enough at this stage to manage such a powerful influence.
>
> > -not quite at the end of the earth, but if I get onto my roof I can see it
> > from here! ;-)
>
> Oh, come on Tom!  You know you can't see Swalwell from there.
>
> Allen
>
> W. Allen Dick, Beekeeper                        VE6CFK
> Rural Route One   Swalwell   Alberta   Canada  T0M 1Y0
> Email:   [log in to unmask]    or   [log in to unmask]
> Futures, Art & Honey:http://www.cuug.ab.ca:8001/~dicka
>