Hi Allen

> > This gives poor control, many queens raised under this method will
> > have been the oldest possible larvae that could be converted.
>
> I have often heard this said, but never seen *any* proof.

I cannot give you the detailed references, but I based my assumption on the
variation in quality of royal jelly fed to the larvae ,of different caste,
at different ages of development (almost hourly variation). I also know from
the timing of emergence that some queencells must have been raised from
larva at least three days old.

Also the number of ovioles that develop in a mature queen (which is linked
to the varying larval diet) and hence the potential longevity of laying life
of the queen.

On top of this... It is often reported that queens under US and Canadian
conditions, queens are only good for a single season of laying.

By putting these things together, I conclude that queens produced by
splitting (that are not replaced by supercedure at a later date) are of
poorer quality than those that would have resulted from larvae fed
appropriately from the dissolving of the eggshell.

> I suspect that the variety of bee (and/or locale) may have a huge
influence
> on how well this technique works,

This may also be part of the equation, but I think that it will only widen
the variation within the results rather than being the entire story.

> We seldom have observed any deficiencies in the queens we obtained by this
> method either, and the queens seemed to perform -- as far as we could
see --
> as well as purchased queens or queens obtained by much more laborious or
> expensive methods.

I could be rude here and make jibes about the quality of commercially reared
queens on the American continent, but I am not trying to score points when I
say that perhaps you should be looking at the quality control in US queen
rearing so that your yardstick is better calibrated :-)

> Much 'bee lore' is
> often found to be false or only partially true.

I agree, all the more reason why these discussions on Bee-L and other lists
are so useful, I wish more of the academics and research community would
make the effort to contribute to these lists, so that we can dispel some of
the myths.

The differences between commercial beekeepers and hobby beekeepers are often
raised, but to my mind their aims are similar... Maximum yield from minimum
labour and effective use of capital. There are some hobby beekeepers  (like
me) that like to explore the fringes of the craft. The commercial operation
may be able to cover loss of quality, and to some extent lesser productivity
per hive, by an increase in numbers of colonies.


Best Regards & 73s, Dave Cushman... G8MZY
Beekeeping & Bee Breeding Website
Email: [log in to unmask] or  [log in to unmask]
http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman & http://www.dave-cushman.net

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