# best queen



## maverick (Oct 5, 2005)

hello all: 
I am looking for some input from fellow beekeeper on what type of queens I should give a try for next season, and where do you guys buy em in the U.S.
I have used best queens All-American and Buckfast queens. I had great success with All-American with bountiful honey crops.

thanks


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

I use b weaver all american exclusively, and they work fine by tecumseh standards. It would be interesting from your point of view to get the input of other southern California (which Mrs tecumseh informs me is on an entirely different planet that her northern California) beekeepers.

just for the olde data bank how was your experience with the Buckfast queens?


----------



## maverick (Oct 5, 2005)

buckfast were great. queens are an amazing egg factory with nice full patterns and extremely friendly bees, however when it came to honey I liked the all american. they were by far heavier producers. I bought have bought from both R weaver & b weaver both are good guys.


----------



## Ishi (Sep 27, 2005)

Try one of Purvis Brothers Gold Line. I put 5 Queens in 5 Frame nuc on 5/12 and removed 2 med supers if starthistle honey in late Aug. They are in 2 deep brood boxes now with the top one full of honey for the winter.
Order now he is filling up fast.


Dann Purvis 
706-781-3128


----------



## TwT (Aug 5, 2004)

I bought 6 packages that had Kona italian queens this past spring and got right at 30 gallons from 4 of the hives, the other 2 hive's drifted and fell behind from the start because I didn't see what was going on ( rookie mistake on my part), but I have heard people say Kona bee's have a problem with chalk brood but I never had that problem with these queens, going to try a few more next spring. Also going to try some purvis brothers gold line but will probably wait for his fall queens to requeen some of my older queens.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

Ummm....no offense intended, but are you guys being paid or what. I buy $75 dollar queens and will freely admit that the difference between the best and the worst queen is only 20% or so. I would just like to add that (to my knowledge) neither the weavers nor their confederates at Kona are actually selectively breeding queens but rather using other peoples genetics. I don't mean to take anything away from these excellent breeders but, come on, how different are their selection techniques from your local extension agent's.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

I would think that queens raised by the individual beekeeper would be the best queens available. Both from a personal satisfaction point, and also from being able to persoanlly select and perpetuate a bee line that is local and climatized for the area.

Second place would be from Bjorn Apiaries. I do not know if its true but some say I may be slightly biased in my opinion.

I actual do buy from various breeders to try different lines of bees. I favor Russians, NWC, and SMR bred bees. I was going to order some purvis last year, but all I heard on beesource was delays in shipping and perhaps a family squabble of some sort was effecting production and customer service.

As for Kona, I believe they advertise mite free bees, being from Hawwaii and all. I can't speak for all locations, as I am sure some are isolated to the point that mites may have minimal pressure. But for most beekeepers, getting mite free bees raised in an area that they are not selected and bred to handle mites is not a good way to start with bees. Your bees will come into contact with mites. I would rather deal and buy from a breeder who is actively breeding and selecting for bees to deal with the mite issue.

There are alot of smaller and local breeders out there that are not on the radar screen of most beekeepers. Some have excellent stock, and some are actually ahead of the mainstream breeders in providing a better line/stock of queens. If I was buying from the bigger outfits I would determine who is just selling mass quanities of bees, and which are trying to provide a quality bee. And even though they may charge more, sometimes the extra effort and the associated cost is worth it to recieve a better bee.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I'd say the more local the queen or the more similar to your climate she's from, the better off you'll be. Raising your own isn't that hard and they will tend to breed with locals.

But, if you're buying and you're in a cold climate I'd go for the carniolans myself.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

I'm about to enter my first winter with Russian stock and am fairly excited to see how they fair. I'm hoping that the Russians will have even better overwintering characteristics than the Carnies. Plus the USDA is claiming that they are tracheal mites resistant. Sometimes I wonder if many of the problems that we blame on varroa aren't actually related to trach mites. Should be fun to see how they compare to un-mentholated buckfasts


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

Bjorn,

Given Micheal's suggestion and your location, maybe I should try Bjorn Apiaries stock! How do they perform on heavy goldenrod flows?


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

somebody adds:
I buy $75 dollar queens 

tecumseh replies:
speaks volume to me...


----------



## TwT (Aug 5, 2004)

Aspera, ( no offence taken) This is my first year keeping bee's and the 3 packages I bought had Kona Queens, the way I read his message was he was looking for good honey producing bee's not mite resistant bee's (which everyone wish they had both traits in 1 breed) so all I have heard is that most will not get honey from a package thier first year and all I was telling him is that if he never tried the kona bee's he might give them a try because of the harvest i got my first year. just wanted to tell my side and the way i was understading his question. oh and I also have 3 hive's i got from removals. total 6 hives for this first year rookie, now if I can get them through the winter' I'll be a 2nd year rookie next year  And im not being paid but wish I was.

[ October 18, 2005, 09:33 AM: Message edited by: TwT ]


----------



## Ishi (Sep 27, 2005)

I am not being paid either. I also have a Russian/Russian and a Russian/SMR fron Glenn Apiary at $75.00 + $30.00 Shipping each which produced 2 med supers of honey also, But a $14.00 Previs queen is a better buy if you are not planning on raising some queens. Even if you are there drones should help your stock.


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

ishi sezs:
I am not being paid either.

tecumseh sezs:
ishi??? now isn't that a famous west coast native american's name??? 

and my point is that anyone who would pay $75 for a queen with absolutely no past performance certainly conforms to the old addage... a fool and his money...


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Glenn apiaries sells tested breeders for $250 and untested breeders for $75 Both are from the same stock and same graft, the difference is that one has been evaluated with verified brood pattern, etc. The $75 queen is verified layer, but has not been monitored for three months. One is guaranteed and the other is not. Both have been artificially inseminated. For the small breeder, the 75 dollar queen is a good deal and I have had great success using them. I pay for genetics and quality of the operation. 

The difference in cost should be associated in mating, selection of breed, and other factors that go into buying queens for breeding purposes. It should not be associated with honey production. Of course this is the end-result measure for some, and with that in mind, it needs to be measured with something more than two from here, and two from there type conclusions. Sure you can say one line produced better than the next, and even hives placed next to each other from the same breeder will produce drastic different results. Alot of variable go into why one hive performed one way, and the next hive did something else. Thats true whether you look at hives from two suppliers, or hives all supplied from the same place.

To place a $12 queen next to a $75 queen and judge them on honey is not the point. Will you get 5 times more honey because you paid five time more for the queen? No. Like ishi eluded to, you would only buy a breeder for $75 if your breeding bees. Sometimes "mutts" produce better than anything else, but when your evaluating, breeding, marketing, selecting, etc, you sometimes want a pure breeder. Then you pay a little more for a breeder queen.


----------



## BerkeyDavid (Jan 29, 2004)

Since I have touted my Kona Carni queen in the past I want to comment in this thread.

I requeened a failed laying worker hive last sept. with a kona queen. Very happy with the service and she came through winter in great shape. The hive outstripped my two other langs the first harvest this year. In July I harvested 3 mediums off that one, got a total of 3 mediums off the other 2 Langs (italians from Wilbanks packages - 2 years old). Then in Sept. when I went to harvest, the Konas had shut down. And they had run the brood nest right up the middle of the stack into the 5th medium. 
I got less than one super off the Kona. The other 2 Italian packages produced 5 mediums total. 

Now my early harvest was all sweet clover. Then I had some other stuff later in the year. But once the sweet clover shut off the Konas had trouble moving to other sources and missed the continuing white dutch and the fall stuff.

When I checked last week, they still hadn't stored much. The hive is the lightest of all (I have a split and a nuc that have put more away in Sept. than the Kona!)

And more disturbingly, there were 2 queen cells, capped. 

Of course there are lots of things that can affect a hive, and genetics is only one thing. And I am still a newbee.

But the main point, I think, is that you really do need to get queens that are appropriate for your geographic area. And the best way to do that is to raise your own.

Also, when comparing queens, it is a good idea to have some baseline to compare to. It is hard to make a judgment if you have nothing to compare it to.

If I needed a queen right now I wouldn't hesitate to get a Kona Carni. Also if I had a single source flow that made my year, that would be a perfect bee. They overwinter in small clusters and build up very fast. The issues I have from my limited experience is that they shut down early and don't start up again, and there have been a lot of supercedure cells, every time I check the hive. Of course this could be a result of something else, even bad beekeeping by me. But the mite counts are not significant and lots of room in the hive.

Hope this helps.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

David,

I have had similar experiences with a very large, reputable Carnie breeder. I would also add that rapid changes in local climates, floral economies and disease prevelence make my bee breeding goals rather elusive. I think all of us are breeding the ideal bee for last year's season, location, disease, etc. As for foolish expenditures of money....some of us like expensive cars and $3.00 gas. I'm into good beer and microscale bee breeding. Foolish maybe, unhappy with my decision, no.


----------



## BerkeyDavid (Jan 29, 2004)

Aspera
Please keep us posted on your experience with the Russians. I am sure it will be interesting!


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

well it does seem like there is a bit of apple and oranges comparisons going on in a pretty fast and loose kind of way....

I would hope no one would expect to pay the same amount for a ai'ed queen as for an open mated queen. This forum is certainly broand enough (both in terms of geography and experience) to keep everyone well informed of the plus's and minus's of the afore mentioned decision.

It seems evident to tecumseh that if you acquire a queen for honey production or pollination then the evaluation criterion is quite different from the criterion for evaluating queen mothers. In acquiring either it seems to me that the old business addage 'you get what you pay for' likely applies.


----------



## Robert Hawkins (May 27, 2005)

Has anyone here ever had an AI'd queen make it through a second year?

Oh, and

<And the best way to do that is to raise your own.>

Amen. If you buy a queen from Hawaii, you can't bee surprised when she shuts down at 75 degrees.

Hawk


----------



## TwT (Aug 5, 2004)

I would have to dissagree with that Robert, its been in the high 40's to low 50's (temp) at night here for about 4 weeks and highs in the days from 60's to the 70's here and my kona's are going strong, they are working goldenrod hard, so that statement is not always true. if the queen's from warm temp's had alot to do with when a queen shuts down then the northern guys should never buy from a southern queen raiser's. I'm not saying it doesn't happen but it hasn't happened to my Kona's. the bee's from hawaii were imported from the states years ago and they import semen to AI some of there queens ( tring to keep up the the desease free group I guest)they say there bee's are tracheal mite resistant, but I'm no bee expert so everything I typed might be foolish but thats just how I see it. just my 2 cents


----------



## WG Bee Farm (Jan 29, 2005)

Robert 
In the last 3 years I have had several of my II breeders overwinter from one year to the next.
Usually it has been the SMR Carn.'s from Glenn Apiaries but the last two years I have had the SMR Minn. Hyg. II's overwinter. I have used the previous years breeders as drone mothers and it has worked out very well.
Frank Wyatt
WG Bee Farm
Eden, NC


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

I think that the AI queens don't last as long, but they can go 2 years if you keep them in a nuc or small hive. A friend of mine stated that he feels these queens are lucky if they make it 12 months. Maybe it "depends".


----------



## rainesridgefarm (Sep 4, 2001)

there is also one thing you all missed on any queens from the the islands. If they are free of mites they are not using the chemicals to control them. It has been proven that those same chemicals are the ones that are making Drones sterile and queens ovaries underdeveloped. You are still getting good genetic stock from the Hawaii queen breeders. I do agree if you can raise your own and build a hive to the point of making the honey flow that is the way to go.

Phillip


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

Those Hawaiin queens have not had the opportunity to build genetic characteristics that come from exposure to mite and disease. The Cordovan Italians (which are an intergral part of our stock) are exceptional brood producers, good honey producers and seem to be able to oulay many of the problems they come into. They are gentle to a fault. Their strength is also their weakness in that they don't stop laying and need heavy stores to survive winter. Potentially a good stock for southern beekeepers who plan to treat. I don't consider there abscene of exposure to disease, other than the breeding issues mentioned, to be an advantage.


----------



## Sundance (Sep 9, 2004)

What is the reason for AI's not lasting as long?? Does not seem logical.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

How could natural possibly be better?


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

sundance ask:
What is the reason for AI's not lasting as long?? Does not seem logical.

tecumseh replies:
well the evidence for a long time has suggested that the life span of an AI queen is limited. I am not certain if anyone has ever figured out why. If you have some exposure to other AI regime in domesticated animals or exotics one of the common problems is sperm viability. Other have suggested that it is the number of times that the queen mates that limits an AI queen.


----------



## rainesridgefarm (Sep 4, 2001)

Part of the reason some queens do not last as long for AI is the carbon dioxide they use to put them under. The effects are somewhat unknown but they do know it ages the queen by weeks and months in the process. So if they are overdosed they may age faster then open mated and no exposure to the gas.


----------



## Robert Hawkins (May 27, 2005)

Mr's Tate and Wyatt, thanks for the answers. Your opinions are respected. If the AI problem is just an anesthetic, I consider it a solvable problem. Maybe that's why two of you have seen it different. If I want to keep my Italians being Italian, I really should AA/II and avoid the "promiscuous" approach.

But if that cuts her life span in half or worse, I need to think up something else. On the other hand My prime bred queen this year didn't come back from a mating flight so what's worse?

And I apologize if it looked like I was attacking Hawaii. I think we should all raise our own queens. I could just as easily have said TX. [Somebody's gonna send a hitman after me.]

Hawk


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

the hawk adds:
And I apologize if it looked like I was attacking Hawaii. I think we should all raise our own queens. I could just as easily have said TX. [Somebody's gonna send a hitman after me.

tecumseh replies:
your statement although becoming more and more difficult by the year is an idea that I whole heartly endorse. I suggest that every small scale beekeeper develope a technique for raising a few queens. A warning should be attached to this idea in that any number of past and current 'problems' have been created via inbreeding (intended or accidental).


----------



## tarheit (Mar 26, 2003)

tecumseh replies:
well the evidence for a long time has suggested that the life span of an AI queen is limited. I am not certain if anyone has ever figured out why.

Actually there is no reason why AI queens should be any less productive than open mated queens. AI queens got a bad reputation early on because the technique, care and handling of the queens was poor. (Banking queens too long, waiting too long to inseminate queens, poor care after insemination, etc.). More recent work and studies have shown that AI queens are just as productive, and retain as much sperm as open mated queens.

Sue Cobey had a list of 6+ studies on the topic and only one of the studies showed AI queens to be inferior, but when you compaired the handling of the queen (age at insemination, amount of time banked, etc.) it was obvious why. (I don't have the list on hand. I can check the book we received in class, but I think it was only on a slide during lecture. I can ask her if anyone is interested).

I don't believe the CO2 has much to do with a shortened life, at least when done properly (given the results of the studies done). When first learning the technique queens may be under for a fairly long time (maybe 10 minutes or more), but with practice it should not be more than a minute. I don't know if any study was done on just the effects of CO2 alone, but it could be done simply by using CO2 on random half of open mated queens.

Hawkings: I do agree with you. I am really surprised more beekeepers from hobbiest to commercial don't raise their own queens. Grafting is a fairly simple skill, and given you have enought bees to ensure a good drone population it's fairly simple to run a few nucs to produce a few queens thoughout the season. 

-Tim


----------



## Robert Hawkins (May 27, 2005)

Tim you gave a great arguement for AI queens not being less productive than open mated. That wasn't in question. We were questioning the life span. And you said it's not CO2. You didn't state that AI live just as long as Open mated. Or give an opinion why they don't. Was that intentional? Or did you mean to help more?

Looks like it doesn't require a whole lot of hives to have enough drones to saturate the area.

Hawk


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

tarheit sezs:
Grafting is a fairly simple skill, and given you have enought bees to ensure a good drone population it's fairly simple to run a few nucs to produce a few queens thoughout the season. 

tecumseh replies:
with proper timing it would seem that the simplist idea is to create a situation where the bees are forced to generate a new queen via the genetic material that you provide, ie a natural cell from a selected queen mother's larvae. no grafting required. although your point is well made that grafting ain't rocket science. and thanks for the update on the information on AI. good stuff. like hawk I would be interested to hear what you know about the realitive life span of AI queens.

thanks for sharing...


----------



## tarheit (Mar 26, 2003)

Sorry, didn't mean to confuse the issue. I should have also said their productive live spans are the same (injury and disease aside). By productive life span I mean the period of time they are still capable of laying fertile eggs (at least a resonable percentage of the time). I don't think anyone has bothered nursing a hive/queen along after she becomes purely a drone layer just to see how long she really can live. For any practicle purpose it really doesn't matter then.

The limiting factor for queens (AI or naturally mated), seems to be the amount of sperm they have versus how many eggs they lay. Queens that head large hives simply tend to run out more quickly than those that run small hives. I have been told of queen breeders in euoupe that keep AI queens for 5 years by maintaining them in nucs. Sue Cobey says she gets about 18 months out of both AI and NM when heading productive, full size colonies.

-Tim


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

I'm told that it is also possible to re-inseminate II queens as well. hardly seems worth the trouble though unless you have some pretty amazing genetics.


----------



## Robert Hawkins (May 27, 2005)

I ain't goin for it. Didn't queens used to lay for 4-5 years in the old days?

What happened?

Hawk


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

good question hawk... my take is that we push the queens a bit harder and longer plus all the additional problems that were not present years back. in addition, I always had the impression that the 4 to 5 year life span the old bee keepers brag about was likely the exception and not the mean. kinda like gamblers that always tell you how much they won in Vegas, but never tell you how much they loose.

but an AI queen that performs for less than 2 years would only represent value to me if I really needed to be absolutely certain about both sides of the pedigree. 

I can hardly see how AI might ever be appropriate for the small beekeeper and would seem to be impossible for any significant size of queen rearing operation. it would seem to be an appropriate tool for anyone doing a rigid inbreeding program.


----------



## Robert Hawkins (May 27, 2005)

You could use it to stop inbreeding. I could call fb for sperm instead of shipping queens. Stop all the inbreeding probs.

Hawk


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I often have queens that are productive for three years or more.

I think the early failure of queens is realated to the chemicals.

This is of course the exception, but Jay Smith (famous queen rearer) in his book "Better Queens" on page 18 says "In Indiana we had a queen we named Alice which lived to the ripe old age of eight years and two months and did excellent work in her seventh year. There can be no doubt about the authenticity of this statment. We sold her to John Chapel of Oakland City, Indiana, and she we the only queen in his yard with wings clipped. This, however is a rare exception. At the time I was experimenting with artificual combs with wooden cells in which the queen laid."


----------



## tarheit (Mar 26, 2003)

I think you are right, tecumseh. AI really isn't a tool suited for the small beekeeper just raising a few queens for himself. The queens are expensive, and the equipment and training is even more so. Simply buying a few queens from different stock each year should be enough to maintain diversity. Of course that is the trick, I'd guess that if ordered 5 queens from one of the big producers who ships 1000's of queens each week, it's quite likely they all were grafted from the same mother and mated in the same yard. Though if their mother was an AI queen mated to drones from multiple hives it would help reduce the inbreeding, though perhaps not as much as multiple mothers.

From what I remember, there was a lot of variation in the number of sperm a queen had for both NM and AI. (I'm assuming this was from a pool of queens that was considered well mated and not those obviously so poor they will fail in a few weeks or months. I also didn't see what the distribution of the samples were, which I think would be interesting) Still, it only stands to reason with an average of 2 years, there are many that may last 3 years or more and those whose productive life is much less. I suspect many of these lesser queens are forgotten in failed introductions, superceedures, etc. Plus I wonder how many of those old 3+ year old queen stories were of unmarked queens with on way of telling if they had been superceeded.

Still, I think Michael is right as well. Chemicals and pesticides of modern beekeeping and agriculture certainly have an impact. (some packages are even labeled little or no queen loss). While cemicals have been used in and around the hive for a very long time, only in more recent years have we dumped so many toxin in the hive and on the fields where they forage.

Then there is how commerically raised queens are produced. I've been told (by Sue) that NM queens allowed to mate and lay for 1-2 weeks before shipping are better queens, but most operations need to ship queens the day they start laying. I understand they must do this to meet demand and keep costs down. They would need far more equipment and bees to run larger mating nucs on a slower schedule, and would anyone be willing to pay twice the going rate for a NM queen?

I wish I could quote the studies and actual numbers instead of going just from memory from class. I have yet to read though the stack of books and other literature on queens I've collected this summer because the bees wouldn't allow me the time. But winter is quickly closing in and I'll have plenty of time to read and ponder the topic.

-Tim

[ October 25, 2005, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: tarheit ]


----------



## eaglesbee (May 3, 2004)

I my self have had good results with the minnisota hygenic queens there in the middele for gentelnes and i have not yet treated them for 2 years now i move me bee to the almonds and have small losses 
depending on how you would like to manag your hive depens on the queen that is best for you


----------



## Heavenly Honey (Dec 1, 2004)

I am inn Alaska and need to get more training on bee management. I run only about 30 hives but with Alaska conditions it is imperative that all be done the best possible. Any help on classes in the lower 48 would be appreciated.


----------



## Morris (Oct 12, 2004)

Purvis Brothers, absolutely. Very fast buildup, and one of my lowest mite counts. There is a very good reason they sell out so quickly.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

No one has mentioned Sue Cobey's New World Carnolians (NWCs). 
If you haven't tried them, you should. They 
just keep getting even better every year.

Very efficient utilizers of resources, quick
to reduce laying when resources stop coming in,
*VERY* scary small winter clusters, but
in spring, toss a pollen patty in, and slap a
feeder on, and *stand back quickly*!









They build up so fast that one needs no
nuc boxes - splits (if fed) will overflow 
single mediums faster than you might think.

Much depends on your local environment, but
for me, NWCs are the sports cars of bees.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

Jim,

I just tried a pair of NWC this year but introduced them in June. Anywho, the clusters are VERY small with more pollen than honey it seems, and they are slow to take syrup. My russian hybrids have clusters 3-4 times the NWC size. Is this normal?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I haven't had NWCs (that I know of) but I've had Carni's and the ferals that are that small. It's normal for them. They use very little stores overwinter and build up again in the spring.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Aspera, I am guessing you have been feeding them at the hive.

This year, the nectar stopped in both July and Aug. If you introduced in June, they probably had a hard time building up. They may of been working, but with much more pollen than honey. Some bees as long as they are bringing in something, will ignore feeders.

Two things could of been done. One was to swap frames of honey over from the other hive. Or two, feed away from the colony and let the bees go out and bring it in. This simulates a flow, and will enhance brood rearing.

Both NWC and russians will have smaller clusters than the typical italian. The one thing we did have here is a great fall flow. Most hives raised a good amount of brood without feeding. With that in mind, try to see if the queen could of been pollen bound, starved from lack of honey, or perhaps is just a weak/inferior queen. If the colony was weak in September, and even though they had a good fall flow, they can not raise more brood than the nighttime temperature allows, dependent of numbers of bees. Its probably to late to do much now, but at least wax moth season is over and if you lose the hive, the comb will at least be salvageable.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

Bjorn,

Thanks a bunch. Your post described my season perfectly. Maybe I'll just shake them out and do an extra split next year. Some of that pollen could be frozen for spring feeding. I didn't intend to get that late a start, but I got some DOA queens the first time I ordered.


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

tarheit first sezs:
Then there is how commerically raised queens are produced. I've been told (by Sue) that NM queens allowed to mate and lay for 1-2 weeks before shipping are better queens, but most operations need to ship queens the day they start laying. I understand they must do this to meet demand and keep costs down. They would need far more equipment and bees to run larger mating nucs on a slower schedule, and would anyone be willing to pay twice the going rate for a NM queen?

tecumseh replies:
a good bit of this scheduling has a great deal to do with the size of nuc in which you place the queen cell. queen breeders in the south use to use a lot of baby nuc and the area that the queen could lay into was very limited. now with the arrival of the small hive beetle I suspect many queen breeders will be moving towards 3 to 5 frame nucs, so pulling the queen quickly is likely not to be quite so urgent. As to whether they are better queens likely revolves around the fact that a goodly number of young queens will lay only a fairly small brood patch and then they just stop laying altogether.

and then tarheit sezs: 
I wish I could quote the studies and actual numbers instead of going just from memory from class. I have yet to read though the stack of books and other literature on queens I've collected this summer because the bees wouldn't allow me the time. But winter is quickly closing in and I'll have plenty of time to read and ponder the topic.

tecumseh replies:
I can identify quite completely....


----------



## maverick (Oct 5, 2005)

hi all.
thanks to all that participates your responses were wonderful. this is amazing, when I posted my question I never expected this much input. I know the diverse responses will eventually not only help me, but others. I can't wait for spring


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

BTW folks, there are no $75 queens from Glenn for next year. $100 is the starting price.


----------



## tarheit (Mar 26, 2003)

Doesn't supprise me any. $100 is still a great price given the time and expense of AI. Add to that the effort made to maintain a genetic line and the fact that you can't spread the cost over thousands of queens as you would with NM queens, then $100 is a great bargain. Most I've seen are in the $250-$800 range.

-Tim


----------

