# Sticky  Ultimate queen quality Swarm Cell vs Grafting



## Litsinger

Good stuff, Frank. Thank you for posting.

It seems that epigenetic factors keep coming up in newer scholarship. While talking with Kirk Webster a few weeks ago, he related the sense from conversations he has had with Dr. James Frazier, that relate the sense that (and I'm paraphrasing), '... we've only touched the tip of the iceberg related to the understanding of environmental and functional factors that impact gene regulation.'

This bit from the 'Cell' article conclusion seems to suggest that we might find more as we study more:

_'We now recognize, however, that the epigenetically differentiated worker and queen developmental pathways are sensitive to the early larval environment, and our data also indicate a sensitivity to the in ovo environment. This adds a new perspective on colony function and indicates that the queen has a more active role in the production of the next generation of queens than has been previously recognized. It will be important to assess whether similar maternal effects are at play also in other social eusocial insects.'_

That said, MSL has also posted good practical research funded by SARE that seem to suggest that there are a lot of good ways to get to 'good enough' queens that give the beekeeper more control over the process:









48-Hour Queen Project


Testing Queen Rearing Methods in the Northeast High quality queens are critical for healthy hives. And for beekeepers who live in northern climates like Massachusetts, there is evidence that northern-adapted queens are better for winter survival. If northern beekeepers raised their own queens...




ag.umass.edu


----------



## crofter

I thought it of value to weigh the difference between the ultimate and what is said to be good enough queens. I think in most scenarios and certainly with my management there are so many avenues of less than perfect conditions that it would be hard to appreciate what improvement a so called perfect queen could contribute. Certainly we can eliminate definite under performers.

It is good to know though which practices in queen rearing pay the most dividends. The low hanging fruit so to speak. It would not be hard for instance to cage the queen or separate her onto bare foundation so she could not lay until a bit of comb was drawn. That could also give us very close knowledge of age of larva to graft. Covering those two points then placing them into surroundings of crowed nurse bees recently deprived of their charges and with lavish food supplies should give us queens far above emergency cells of simple splitting.


----------



## msl

crofter said:


> Covering those two points then placing them into surroundings of crowed nurse bees recently deprived of their charges and with lavish food supplies should give us queens far above emergency cells of simple splitting.


that would be my view as well, but the resent data trend doesn't support it !
here is the follow up study to the link russ posted





Final report for FNE20-964 - SARE Grant Management System







projects.sare.org




Coming out on par with commercial queens

we know form Hatch etal (1999) (PDF) Worker regulation of emergency queen rearing in honey bee colonies and the resultant variation in queen quality
and

Tarpy Etal (2015)https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/web.s.../tarpy_et_al_2016_insectes_sociaux-xguqri.pdf
that when left alone to their own devices the bees cull cells, and the cells that are culled would have produced poorer quality queens. So between that and queen on queen combat it seems that the better queens take over the hive, this is why the small walk aways are said to produce better queens then dequeening a hive and breaking it in to nucs after cells are drawn.

The Mraz operation in VT comes to mind... going on 90 years now, 3/4 generation beekeepers running about 1,200 hives... and they almost entirely used walk aways and swarm cells !!




Michael Palmer said:


> The Mraz management didn't involve handling frames. He believed it took too long to pull frames and inspect comb. Basic broodnest setup was super/deep/super. Colonies were reversed in the spring. Comb wasn't examined. If queen cells were present, they were sliced off the bottom bars but nothing was done about swarm cells up in the brood chamber...this is how I saw it when his son was managing the bees. At one time, if Charlie found a colony with swarm cells started, he would slide a swarm board between the brood boxes. 4 days later he would remove the box without eggs (has cells) to a new stand. Colonies were supered as needed. Very little requeening is done now, as far as I can tell. I know Charlie raised queens. He had mating yards in the Adirondacks. Anyone know Roberta Glatz? She helped Charlie catch queens. You might meet her at an EAS meeting. None raised now...at least not by grafting into cell builders and running mating nucs. Honey was harvested, and any colonies low on winter feed were given extra supers of honey. Same today. They don't believe in feeding sugar. I will say, that there was a year back in the 60s when Charlie brought light colonies to a central yard and fed. some years they have significant starvation. They insulate inner cover for winter...bags of insulation. I think no upper entrance and a 1/2" mesh mouse guard. Covers are tied down. No wrapping.
> 
> As far as raising new queens (stock)...When reversing, strong colonies are called breeders. A deep of brood comb is added to the top of the hive. Queens move up and fill that box with brood and honey. These are split off, and become one, or if very strong, two splits. They are allowed to raise their own queens. The belief is that by making walk away splits from each strong colony, the genetics of each of those strong colonies won't be lost, but will contribute to the genetic diversity of the operation.


here is what Charles had to say in 1966 (after 35+ years in the biz) 


> While it is possible to control swarming by selecting and in-breeding non-swarming queens as a rule do not produce honey. Such queens usually do not swarm only because of degeneration, they do not become strong enough to swarm. It is not due to the elimination of the swarming characteristic. Bees that do not swarm are of no value if they do not produce a honey crop.
> We find it impossible to buy queens with the qualities we need in our environment, we are forced to raise our own queens. A honey producer normally does not have time to raise queens and such operations must be developed that will not interfere with normal operations for honey production or reduce the honey crop. We do not requiem normal colonies, but let each colony requiem itself. We produce queens by divisions early in the spring only to replace losses from wintering or failure of queens. With our present strain of bees, we find that we need to raise only 1/3 or ¼ the number of colonies we have in the apiary to replace losses each season. When we divide, we pick the colonies that were the best producers the season before. We winter our colonies in 21/2 or more brood chambers so that even in early spring the colonies are strong and divisions of good strength can be easily made with one full hive body containing plenty of bees, honey and sealed brood and enough eggs to produce cells. This division, without the queen, is placed on top of the parent colony above a solid cover with an entrance. This saves the need of extra covers and bottom boards. We do not graft, but just let the bees produce their own cells, and do not look at them again until a month later with queens will be laying. After the queens are laying, the nucleus and queen can be moved anywhere needed for requiring or replacement. We find queens produced in this manner are equal to those produced by any other system. By letting each division raise its own queen, we reproduce only one daughter from each mother queen. This helps greatly to prevent in-breeding and prevent losing our basic stock of breeding queens. We endeavor to keep a broad genetic foundation by maintaining as many queens as possible, not directly related to each other. Each year as we find good queens from other sources, these are introduced to add new blood as it becomes necessary. In this way we have been able to maintain our basic strain of vigorous queens over a long period of time. Over the years, our basic strain has adapted itself to our conditions and environment.


he presents a very different view on swarming and E queens then is generally given these days, but it seems to have worked very well for him, suggesting the queens were "good enough"


----------



## crofter

msl said:


> that would be my view as well, but the resent data trend doesn't support it !
> here is the follow up study to the link russ posted
> 
> <Snip
> 
> he presents a very different view on swarming and E queens then is generally given these days, but it seems to have worked very well for him, suggesting the queens were "good enough"


Just when a fellow thinks he has something figured out, along comes some more like this, "it all depends"!


----------



## johno

I believe charles Mraz was also of the opinion that the queens alone did not pass on the characteristics of the hive as much was determined by the workers of that hive which is why he felt that splitting hives and allowing them to re queen themselves also carried along the workers of that strain. I also saw a study where poorly performing queens were swopped with good performing queens and in those hives the good performers became poor performers and the poor performers became good performers. So every thing does not appear to be cut and dried.


----------



## Litsinger

msl said:


> ... but it seems to have worked very well for him, suggesting the queens were "good enough"


Good information, MSL. It is interesting to me (in this context) that Kirk Webster is a proud disciple of Charles Mraz and yet relies almost exclusively on grafting to produce queens. Yet another reminder that while swam (and maybe supercedure) cells may make the best queens, they likely do not meet the needs of those who need to be able to produce at quantity- so it becomes a classic quality versus volume trade-off, with the understanding (as already addressed) that grafted queens are likely 'good enough' for most situations.


----------



## Litsinger

johno said:


> I also saw a study where poorly performing queens were swopped with good performing queens and in those hives the good performers became poor performers and the poor performers became good performers.


Johno: 

Thanks for the post- good information. I have heard this study referred to a few times but have never been able to come across it. You wouldn't happen to have the reference would you?


----------



## msl

Litsinger said:


> You wouldn't happen to have the reference would you?











Is the Brood Pattern within a Honey Bee Colony a Reliable Indicator of Queen Quality?


Failure of the queen is often identified as a leading cause of honey bee colony mortality. However, the factors that can contribute to “queen failure” are poorly defined and often misunderstood. We studied one specific sign attributed ...




www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov







Litsinger said:


> Yet another reminder that while swam (and maybe supercedure) cells may make the best queens, they likely do not meet the needs of those who need to be able to produce at quantity- so it becomes a classic quality versus volume trade-off, with the understanding (as already addressed) that grafted queens are likely 'good enough' for most situations.


Despite people (brother adam,etc)saying swarm queens should be best because of XYZ... its interesting that I can't really find studies with empirical evidence on swarm queen quality vs grafted queen quality... 
there are a few with "natural" queens vs grafted showing grafted is better... but nothing was said about how the "natural" ones we produced...


----------



## Litsinger

Thanks for posting the research, MSL. A couple of things that stood out to me:

_'Every colony phenotype is a result of both environment and genetics: how a queen’s offspring interacts with the environment, which includes nutrition, pesticides, pathogens, and beekeeper management practices.' 

'An important lesson from this study was that it was difficult to find queens with poor brood patterns without signs of brood disease. If queen failure is a leading cause of colony loss, then other symptoms besides poor brood patterns are likely to be more relevant.'_


----------



## GregB

So now, grafted queens are no longer in vogue?
Good thing I haven't bothered.


To be honest, I got tired of the minis this season - the bees absconded and I did not have the time to be running after them.
I have no single queen on hand now from a mini nuc project; it was largely a wasted effort.

The traditional splits around standard equipment carried me this summer.
If one needs no more than 5-10 queens (like myself) the over-engineered ways may not be worth it.


----------



## Amibusiness

Agree with Greg. Minies are good if you are catching more than 300 queens per year, multiple frame splits are good if you are a back yarder making nucs to overwinter. If you are in between sort out what you like for you and your bees


----------



## Litsinger

In the January 2021 ABJ, a question is posed to Dr. Jamie Ellis (attached) in his standing 'The Classroom' article which is titled _'Queens Lay Queen Eggs?'_

The questioner references a 2019 paper entitled '_A Maternal Effect on Queen Production in Honeybees_' which concludes:

_Queens laid significantly bigger eggs in the larger queen cells than in the worker cells. 

Gene expression analyses identified several significantly differentially expressed genes between newly emerged queens from QE and those from the other groups. These included a disproportionate number of genes involved in hormonal signaling, body development, and immune pathways, which are key traits differing between queens and workers. That egg size influences emerging queen morphology and physiology and that queens lay larger eggs in queen cells demonstrate both a maternal effect on the expression of the queen phenotype and a more active role for the queen in gyne production than has been realized previously._

They do however also note the following:

_We do not here propose that there is a special class of queen-destined eggs. The distribution of egg masses sampled from queen and worker cells was continuous, normal, and unimodal. Rather, we propose that fecund queens at any one time have more than one egg ready for laying and that queens may lay the largest available egg in queen cells. _


----------



## GregB

Truly, my desired project for the summer of 2021 was to be able to artificially create a colony pre-swarming status at-will and harvest natural swarm queens that way.
But due to large losses and unpredictable swarm trapping outcomes I ditched that project.

Hopefully the summer of 2022 will be a better one for me.
If so, I still want to test out the at-will natural swarm queen generation and harvest.
Smallish foam hive with a very crowed colony on a back porch is the way I want to try this.


----------



## crofter

There are certainly lots of ways to set the stage for the production of queen cells. Quality very close to swarm cells can be achieved and some people claim with really detail focus preparations to be able to routinely produce queens that measure up by common determinations seem to be superior to the _average _queen the bees produce by swarming.

For practical purposes I doubt most bekeepers would be able to tell whether their queens had 150,000 active ovarioles or 180,000. or could live to 5 years old.

You dont need 80,000 bees to make a dozen queens. There are threads on crowding a nuc sized box to get the same population intensity and raise a dozen queens. At the 4 day mark you could put in another dozen grafts. 

I have used both Cloake board and Snelgrove board but lots of methods with no special equipment. Lots more interesting than extracting and bottling honey.


----------



## Litsinger

crofter said:


> ... grafts


I think the key take-away from the study is that:

_Eggs laid in queen cells (QE) were 13.26% heavier (157.51 ± 12.37 versus 138.93 ± 10.90, mean ± SD, μg) and 2.43% longer (1.56 ± 0.04 versus 1.52 ± 0.05, mean ± SD, mm) and 4.18% thicker (0.374 ± 0.010 versus 0.359 ± 0.013, mean ± SD, mm) than eggs laid in worker cells (WE).

Adult queens from QE were heaviest in all five colonies, and queens from QE were significantly heavier than queens from WE (258.65 ± 22.82 versus 234.50 ± 36.00, mean ± SD, mg) in three colonies out of five.

This suggests that the gene expression differences between adult queen from QE and WE are reflective of variation in the caste development process. Our DEGs contained a disproportionately large number of genes such as juvenile hormone methyltransferase, abaecin, and hexamerin genes involved in hormone synthesis, ovary development, cuticle development, and immune functions._


----------



## GregB

Litsinger said:


> I think the key take-away from the study is that:
> 
> _Eggs laid in queen cells (QE) were 13.26% heavier (157.51 ± 12.37 versus 138.93 ± 10.90, mean ± SD, μg) and 2.43% longer (1.56 ± 0.04 versus 1.52 ± 0.05, mean ± SD, mm) and 4.18% thicker (0.374 ± 0.010 versus 0.359 ± 0.013, mean ± SD, mm) than eggs laid in worker cells (WE).
> 
> Adult queens from QE were heaviest in all five colonies, and queens from QE were significantly heavier than queens from WE (258.65 ± 22.82 versus 234.50 ± 36.00, mean ± SD, mg) in three colonies out of five....._


And it also says:


> ...............queens reared from transplanted worker larvae are smaller and have less well-developed reproductive systems.....


Where grafting == transplanted worker larvae.


----------



## Litsinger

GregV said:


> Where grafting == transplanted worker larvae.


Right- while it is a single study, it seems to suggest that eggs laid in queen cells are morphologically and genetically distinct from those to eggs laid in worker cells, lending a bit of credence to the assertion by some that swarm cells make for the best queens, all other things being equal.


----------



## GregB

Litsinger said:


> Right- while it is a single study, it seems to suggest that eggs laid in queen cells are morphologically and genetically distinct from those to eggs laid in worker cells, lending a bit of credence to the assertion by some that swarm cells make for the best queens, all other things being equal.


And to continue the same logic - the invested queen sellers should (logically!!) advocate for the grafted queens to be equal enough of the natural swarm queens.
It only makes sense they should.
I don't know for a fact - just a theory. 
Of course, queen grafting scales up much better - that is given and good for production.


----------



## crofter

Litsinger said:


> Right- while it is a single study, it seems to suggest that eggs laid in queen cells are morphologically and genetically distinct from those to eggs laid in worker cells, lending a bit of credence to the assertion by some that swarm cells make for the best queens, all other things being equal.


Would it merely be the size of the cell that the queen was presented with that made the difference, or that she had to assume a totally different position. What is different in the conditions leading up to a swarm situation that might have induced a difference in the queens eggs. I have read that preventing a queen from laying for a short period of time will result in the ensuing eggs being larger. Perhaps in the leadup to a queen laying in such cups she has had her diet changed (like as in preparing to fly with a swarm) or had her laying cut back. Just thinking about intentionality on the queens part or whether purely external circumstances were responsible for the discrepancies of egg properties.

Bernhard Heuvel is a German queen producer of some reputation who claims his method of handling the queen preparatory to laying the hatching eggs for grafting produces queens with weights, ovariole counts and volume of sperm stored that exceeds the norm for swarm produced queens.

Perhaps as Greg suggests some of that information could be motivated. I doubt that the majority of mass produced queens exceed the quality of the median abilities of swarm cell queens but I am curious as to whether someone motivated by quality like some of the breeder queen producers could stage conditions to raise measurably superior queens by grafting.

I doubt the average beekeeper would have stout enough controls to even measure or appreciate the difference between swarm queens and grafted queens by a well informed and motivated queen producer.

As has been said there is no comparison in the ease of producing large numbers of queens from selected genetics via grafting compared to trying to get them laid in natural cells by the swarm stimulus. To how many people would any such superiority even be appreciable?


----------



## Litsinger

crofter said:


> Just thinking about intentionality on the queens part or whether purely external circumstances were responsible for the discrepancies of egg properties.


Frank:

You might very well be right- the part that intrigues me about this study and the previous Tarpy study about colony-directed emergency queen rearing is the genetic differences between beekeeper versus colony-selected larvae.

While it is total speculation on my part, it is what makes me suggest (tongue-in-cheek) that the better beekeeper one becomes, the worse they do at TF... Are we missing out on unique genetic suitability factors when we choose what larvae becomes the genetic basis for our apiaries?


----------



## Gray Goose

Litsinger said:


> In the January 2021 ABJ, a question is posed to Dr. Jamie Ellis (attached) in his standing 'The Classroom' article which is titled _'Queens Lay Queen Eggs?'_
> 
> The questioner references a 2019 paper entitled '_A Maternal Effect on Queen Production in Honeybees_' which concludes:
> 
> _Queens laid significantly bigger eggs in the larger queen cells than in the worker cells.
> 
> Gene expression analyses identified several significantly differentially expressed genes between newly emerged queens from QE and those from the other groups. These included a disproportionate number of genes involved in hormonal signaling, body development, and immune pathways, which are key traits differing between queens and workers. That egg size influences emerging queen morphology and physiology and that queens lay larger eggs in queen cells demonstrate both a maternal effect on the expression of the queen phenotype and a more active role for the queen in gyne production than has been realized previously._
> 
> They do however also note the following:
> 
> _We do not here propose that there is a special class of queen-destined eggs. The distribution of egg masses sampled from queen and worker cells was continuous, normal, and unimodal. Rather, we propose that fecund queens at any one time have more than one egg ready for laying and that queens may lay the largest available egg in queen cells. _


Russ,
Interesting articles.
I have long been a proponent that Queen laying an egg in a QC cup would produce an egg that was fit to be a queen, and in a worker cell is an egg meant to be a worker.

MSL,, swarm queens have been "good enough" for 1000's of years, before Man started managing things.

And I do agree if 1500 queens are produced from 1 mother, it just is not natural.
I had 7 different "mothers" last year, also added 3 carnis in aug to see if they make the winter and will use them as well this spring for splits.

and regarding the splits Martz made, adding in that there are 800 different things living in bee hives per M Bush, the split also gives bacteria, comb, stores, brood, bee spit etc. could be the "environment" is as important as the egg/larvae in getting a colony up and running.

I somewhat crowd the bees and force a swarm, opposite to OSBN. rather pull the QCs capped but 5 -6 day old is ok as well, placed in a hive with lots of bees.

BTW E queens still allow the bees to pick one of these so call heavy eggs, would it not.

Interesting thread

GG


----------



## ursa_minor

Note that I am in way over my head but I find this thread very informative even if I sometimes need to re-read a few posts. But doesn't the queen pare down her laying prior to swarming anyway? So is it possible that this starts sooner than we think and happens before she starts laying in the queen cups? Bees seem to be very sensitive to changes within the hive, is it possible that the colony gives her signals they will swarm well before we realize?

I would not be surprised if she can lay a 'queen' egg at will she certainly has the ability to control many other aspects of egg laying.


----------



## GregB

Gray Goose said:


> and regarding the splits Martz made, adding in that there are 800 different things living in bee hives per M Bush, the split also gives bacteria, comb, stores, brood, bee spit etc. could be the "environment" is as important as the egg/larvae in getting a colony up and running.


This exact "split" thing is totally unnatural though (don't care what the TF gurus say about that bacteria and all  ... They really should know this "natural" stuff better, them gurus.)
Consider a traditional modern split is nothing but a human invented hack, very recently invented at that.

One and the only natural thing is a natural swarm (with no comb, no brood, no stores - nothing but what the bees can bring along).
A brood-less split is a kinda/sorta approximation of that.

So I would actually discount that fake "environment" as if it is important to get the colony up and running. Bees have been (re)creating their environments from zero as they see fit every time they swarm. For a very, very long time.

So, indeed, the traditional splitting somehow is ingrained so much right now that one forgets that the splitting is an unnatural hacking with not really understood side-affects. No one even looks at it from this perspective as if unimportant.

And thus, the subject of natural swarm queens also has this additional facet to it - which is these queens are created and raised in the naturally swarm preparing colony (vs. in a hack).


----------



## Gray Goose

GregV said:


> This exact "split" thing is totally unnatural though (don't care what the TF gurus say about that bacteria and all  ... They really should know this "natural" stuff better, them gurus.)
> Consider a traditional modern split is nothing but a human invented hack, very recently invented at that.
> 
> One and the only natural thing is a natural swarm (with no comb, no brood, no stores - nothing but what the bees can bring along). *right but most swarms do not make the first winter, Seley reported like a 90% loss, yes they leave with very little, and have poor success*
> A brood-less split is a kinda/sorta approximation of that.
> 
> So I would actually discount that fake "environment" as if it is important to get the colony up and running. Bees have been (re)creating their environments from zero as they see fit every time they swarm. For a very, very long time. *Skeps were split movable frame was split, again they try to recreate, not many make it*
> 
> So, indeed, the traditional splitting somehow is ingrained so much right now that one forgets that the splitting is an unnatural hacking with not really understood side-affects. No one even looks at it from this perspective.
> *So is a cooler, a lang hive a long hiv a KTB hive ,, etc.*
> 
> And thus, the subject of natural swarm queens also has this additional facet to it.


*comments in line

the bees cannot bring any thing , and yes it can be called "natural" however is it optimal?

GG*


----------



## Gray Goose

ursa_minor said:


> Note that I am in way over my head but I find this thread very informative even if I sometimes need to re-read a few posts. But doesn't the queen pare down her laying prior to swarming anyway? So is it possible that this starts sooner than we think and happens before she starts laying in the queen cups? Bees seem to be very sensitive to changes within the hive, is it possible that the colony gives her signals they will swarm well before we realize?
> 
> I would not be surprised if she can lay a 'queen' egg at will she certainly has the ability to control many other aspects of egg laying.


I force swarming a lot.
with sealed cells there is also open brood, I often get E cells in splits with mature QCs in them.
she slims to fly before swarming correct, she "Can" leave after the first cells are Sealed 8 + days.
so reduced laying to help with heavy eggs and then to fly, sure sounds like a plausible thing.

there is talk on Kirks site I think about "royal lines" lines more often used for queens than would be expected.

GG


----------



## GregB

Gray Goose said:


> *comments in line
> 
> the bees cannot bring any thing , and yes it can be called "natural" however is it optimal?
> 
> GG*


It absolutely is the optimal from the certain perspectives.
You can use the momentum to your advantage - dump 2-3 swarms together to have a super-productive hive, for example.

Also can do a reasonable manipulation still (nothing is wrong with feeding a late swarm, etc).
It is still a swarm, but no particular need to let it die either.

So the swarm queens maybe better NOT because the queen lays them into large cells.
It maybe better because of something related to the pre-swarming situation going on ?
Just speculating, obviously. 
Could be different queen feeding regiment? 
Pre-swarming pheromones?
But this could be of significance, but yet not talked about.

But for sure, a split is totally unnatural piece, however you slice and dice it.


----------



## crofter

I dont get too wrapped up about observing "naturalness" when we are fostering an exotic invasive insect.  Left to their own devices the state that they would likely descend to would not be very satisfying to OUR desired characteristics. It would be hard to merchandise Seeley like bees! We seem to be looking for the european honey bee to take on some of the Asian bees habits to enhance mite resistance yet maintain behavior and production characteristics that have been honed by man over long periods of time. Natural selection would not have brought the bees to present North American performance levels and I think that we are fooling ourselves to think otherwise. We may find it attractive to claim natural methods but we are for the most part trying to enhance characteristics that often would harm the bees for long term survival in natural conditions.

Is there not some kind of a paradox here. Would we really have an easier time getting to where we truly are trying to be, merely by reproducing only from Swarm cells?


----------



## Litsinger

crofter said:


> Would we really have an easier time getting to where we truly are trying to be, merely by reproducing only from Swarm cells?


I think it is safe to say it won't be easier to propagate strictly via swarm cells. The key question in my mind is where are we trying to get to, and are swarm cells indispensable (or at least significantly beneficial) to getting to the goal?

Again, if the objective is 'good enough' queens at scale to satisfy commercial objectives it seems grafting is clearly the best option.

If however one is a hobbiest or sideliner beekeeper looking to allow certain (and maybe poorly understood) mechanisms such as resistance express themselves at a population level, then colony-selected queens might be something to carefully consider.


----------



## GregB

crofter said:


> I dont get too wrapped up about observing "naturalness" ...........
> Is there not some kind of a paradox here. Would we really have an easier time getting to where we truly are trying to be, merely by reproducing only from Swarm cells?


No paradox.
Look wider.
Remember when the first electric car was invented? Looooong ago.
But then it was dumped as non-practical.
And now - we are back at it.

No need to go back to the skeps.
No need to chase the swarms and climb the trees either.
No need for all or nothing approach - all too common assumption.

Just the swarming behavior needs to be looked again, perhaps from a different angle.
Perhaps once understood better, certain desired features of it can be emulated - but just in the beneficial ways.


----------



## crofter

"Just the swarming behavior needs to be looked again, perhaps from a different angle.
Perhaps once understood better, certain desired features of it can be emulated - but just in the beneficial ways."

Agreed, but do not go into it with the professed assumption that "natural" per see denotes superior. Bigger is not automatically better. We have to play a long game which is very difficult when we cannot see far ahead with much clarity. Hard to plan ahead when there are conflicting objectives. We want relief from mites but not if it is at the expense of prolific breeding. Who is going to set the objectives? The caucasian bees brought en mass into Russia did not play well for example.

Anyways on the question of queen production from natural swarm cells vs grafting has to have many value points put on the scales. Both genetic diversity and selective bottlenecking can be much expedited by grafting. or instrumental insemination. Are the most desirable qualities in the big picture long range view held back or enhanced by the power of grafting. Leave the purely ideological ideas out of the equation. Define the target and the various parameters then try to coax out which process is the best tool going forward to achieve the objective.

Edit; Actually defining objectives and setting priorities in a matter like this is probably near and impossibility: Too many conflicting interests and short term expediencey rule out wiser ways. It makes for interesting conversation though! Wouldn't if be nice if............


----------



## Gray Goose

GregV said:


> No paradox.
> Look wider.
> Remember when the first electric car was invented? Looooong ago.
> But then it was dumped as non-practical.
> And now - we are back at it.
> 
> No need to go back to the skeps.
> No need to chase the swarms and climb the trees either.
> No need for all or nothing approach - all too common assumption.
> 
> Just the swarming behavior needs to be looked again, perhaps from a different angle.
> Perhaps once understood better, certain desired features of it can be emulated - but just in the beneficial ways.


----------



## Gray Goose

for some the "swarm cell" cannot fill the need, like they need 1000 Queens
for me so far it has been enough for the 10-15 a year I need.

agree the natural thing is a non starter for the Invasive species we now manage called honey bees. Natural would have us not have them in the US perhaps. So I am in the "livestock arena, and looking at optimal. First optimal for me , and my goals, then optimal for the bees to be available for Man into the future.

No sure my little sideliner gig will impact much in the scheme of things.

I do find it intriguing that one of my "gut feel " things now has some data and interest behind it.
that being a Queen making a queen is not the same as picking any ole larvae from a comb.
seems there is stuff coming out every year to make this keeping more interesting all the time.

GG


----------



## Litsinger

Gray Goose said:


> seems there is stuff coming out every year to make this keeping more interesting all the time.


I'm with you, GG. Like most things on this incredible planet of ours, things are never as simple as they seem on the surface- the more we collectively learn, the more we come to appreciate the incredibly complex, interrelated and nuanced processes at work in even the most pedestrian things- especially in the realm of biology.


----------



## crofter

Gray Goose said:


> for some the "swarm cell" cannot fill the need, like they need 1000 Queens
> for me so far it has been enough for the 10-15 a year I need.
> 
> agree the natural thing is a non starter for the Invasive species we now manage called honey bees. Natural would have us not have them in the US perhaps. So I am in the "livestock arena, and looking at optimal. First optimal for me , and my goals, then optimal for the bees to be available for Man into the future.
> 
> No sure my little sideliner gig will impact much in the scheme of things.
> 
> I do find it intriguing that one of my "gut feel " things now has some data and interest behind it.
> that being a Queen making a queen is not the same as picking any ole larvae from a comb.
> seems there is stuff coming out every year to make this keeping more interesting all the time.
> 
> GG


GG; Just to be a bit perverse ( a person has to exercise to keep in shape) the royalty factor may be over rated. Enabling royalty to select from "their own" has been of questionable value for humanity.  Not that that has anything to do with bees though!
I think there are other studies that did not support any benefit or did not find that there was much more than random selection going on. No I dont have book marked links so perhaps new findings are more relevant. In any case any improvements have to be continuously, both selected for and culled for to be maintained or brought to the top. According to R. Oliver, traits are not very predictably passed down and very difficult to maintain. msl had references to the need to both select for the desired change plus actively remove from the breeders (both sexes), all the ones NOT exhibiting the trait. With open breeding this is very difficult to establish. Trying to do it by inducing natural swarming of selected queens gets to be a logistical nightmare. At least that colors my impression of the practicality of affecting change in direction of bee genetics without using grafting. The idea of using swarm cells is noble but is it capable of rising above the background noise.

On a personal basis the answer lies in what gives satisfaction.


----------



## Gray Goose

crofter said:


> GG; Just to be a bit perverse ( a person has to exercise to keep in shape) the royalty factor may be over rated. Enabling royalty to select from "their own" has been of questionable value for humanity.  *Not that that has anything to do with bees though!*
> I think there are other studies that did not support *any benefit or did not find that there was much more than random selection* going on. No I dont have book marked links so perhaps new findings are more relevant. In any case any *improvements* have to be continuously, both selected for and culled for to be maintained or brought to the top. According to R. Oliver, traits are not very predictably passed down and very difficult to maintain. msl had references to the need to both select for the desired change plus actively remove from the breeders (both sexes), all the ones NOT exhibiting the trait. *With open breeding this is very difficult to establish*. Trying to do it by inducing natural swarming of selected queens gets to be a logistical nightmare. At least that colors my impression of the *practicality of affecting change in direction of bee genetics without using grafting*. *The idea of using swarm cells is noble but is it capable of rising above the background noise.
> 
> On a personal basis the answer lies in what gives satisfaction. totally agree*


interesting view.
as to the human reference, apples and oranges. we do not run out any more to die in the snow to cause our own ultraistic end.

the studies--- with random selection is IMO just what grafting does, 18-15 Patra lines, have been used for generations, I would presume the royal lines are in the background. we may be trying to optimize the non queen lines, we humans mistakenly assumed were the same....

improvement that WE want... an how is that working, brought us to CCD and maybe mites. for eons having enough stores to make it thru winter WAS the goal, now we want ours first, then they can eat cake (sugar)

open breeding has been "established" for 1000's of years thru at least 2 major Ice ages.

IMO with grafting we HAVE affected change, now how to undo it so the bees are healthy again

Again swarm cells were the main way for 1000's of years and it seemed to work fine.

How you start at the issue and your prospective will dictate the steps you take. To each their own, as long as there is some stock left in the wild to recover from our efforts, all should be well. Again my impact is really minimal, I've killed every hive I have had over the years, except the 40 or so out in the yards today. I now realize the places I have kept,, swarms were cast, unfortunately most of them were with puppy mill queens from packages. Now today most are swarm queens, so IMO I am starting to make headway, not sure if enough old growth trees are left to allow some selection and feraling. I am leaning toward, cutting down a big pine and making several bee gums and hanging them with chain, in large Oaks, while I am still on this planet.
IMO IF grafting is the problem, we cannot graft our way out of it.

a few folks on the edge of the Application Mountains using swarm queens only could tip the scales.
I'm sure Russ will let a few go now that he is reaching toward enlightenment.....Or his job will keep him too busy to stop all of them. 
we keep hearing of bees in wild areas, then we get them and in time they fizzle. Something is up we do not clearly understand. Again My Opinion.

Interesting thread, Makes the tree gum folks in Japan, and Europe maybe be the sane ones......

GG


----------



## crofter

It is hard to really say whether we are making progress or not. We can look at dips in the bees travails like mites or some of the present ails and wring our hands but our vision is so short we dont know what their trajectory really is. Like looking at a sewing machine running; with short time exposure snaps, we will get different views on whether the needle is up or down, moving or stationary.
Man has the audacity to think he can improve things! Amazing creature that! 
In any case conjecturing is entertaining us.

Some people take solace from the saying that "There is a divinity that shapes our ends, rough hew them as we will".

I will dummy up now lest we wind up in Tailgater


----------



## Litsinger

Gray Goose said:


> How you start at the issue and your prospective will dictate the steps you take.


And thankfully honey bees are remarkably resilient and adaptable- going back to the genesis of this thread we have three recent examples of folks explicitly breeding for resistance:

Kirk Webster- exclusively employing grafting with isolated mating and selecting predominantly for low mite population growth.

Cory Stevens- exclusively employing grafting with instrumental insemination and selecting predominantly for varroa sensitive hygiene.

Terry Combs- exclusively employing swarm cells with natural mating and selecting predominantly for survival.

All three are using decidedly different approaches with different aims and all three are finding success- so just a good reminder that (at least in beekeeping) there might be more than one way to the 'right' answer depending on what your specific situation and goals are.


----------



## Litsinger

Gray Goose said:


> I'm sure Russ will let a few go now that he is reaching toward enlightenment.....


Frankly, I am just trying to keep it between the ditches- as Plato famously attributed to Socrates:

_"I neither know nor think that I know."_


----------



## Gray Goose

Litsinger said:


> And thankfully honey bees are remarkably resilient and adaptable- going back to the genesis of this thread we have three recent examples of folks explicitly breeding for resistance:
> 
> Kirk Webster- exclusively employing grafting with isolated mating and selecting predominantly for low mite population growth.
> 
> Cory Stevens- exclusively employing grafting with instrumental insemination and selecting predominantly for varroa sensitive hygiene.
> 
> Terry Combs- exclusively employing swarm cells with natural mating and selecting predominantly for survival.
> 
> All three are using decidedly different approaches with different aims and all three are finding success- so just a good reminder that (at least in beekeeping) there might be more than one way to the 'right' answer depending on what your specific situation and goals are.


likely many ways
BUT say we are selecting for VSH, what gets lost or gained etc. IMO blocking out many features and focusing on only one can work for that one but at what cost and for how long. and put Kirks bees in my backyard and in 5 years none are left, so seems the "work" to maintain can be almost endless.

GG


----------



## Gray Goose

Litsinger said:


> Frankly, I am just trying to keep it between the ditches- as Plato famously attributed to Socrates:
> 
> _"I neither know nor think that I know."_


LOL
I let many go as I cannot watch every day.
I would think most of us have had swarms leave the hive.

GG


----------



## Litsinger

Gray Goose said:


> IMO blocking out many features and focusing on only one can work for that one but at what cost and for how long.


No argument from me, GG. I'm with you on this- I've decided (at least for now) to throw my lot in with the bees.


----------



## Gray Goose

Litsinger said:


> No argument from me, GG. I'm with you on this- I've decided (at least for now) to throw my lot in with the bees.


hmm sounds like analysis paralysis Ha Ha
I'll likely do both, been wanting to learn to graft.

GG


----------



## Litsinger

Gray Goose said:


> I'll likely do both, been wanting to learn to graft.


Sounds like a noble ambition to me- I'll be watching for you becoming the Midwest's premier queen breeder.


----------



## ursa_minor

crofter said:


> I doubt the average beekeeper would have stout enough controls to even measure or appreciate the difference between swarm queens and grafted queens by a well informed and motivated queen producer.
> 
> As has been said there is no comparison in the ease of producing large numbers of queens from selected genetics via grafting compared to trying to get them laid in natural cells by the swarm stimulus. To how many people would any such superiority even be appreciable?



You are right as to the average beekeeper not really noticing the difference unless of course it means that we get queens that do not live as long as they should and are superseded or fail in the first summer ( nucs or packages) from conditions that are not related to beekeeper mismanagement.

I wish the study comparing three types of queen cells had included natural swarm cells where the queen *chose* to lay her egg within a prepared cell. Comparing one grafting method to another without also including the method that the bees would choose for themselves is somehow, IMO, incomplete.


----------



## GregB

ursa_minor said:


> Comparing one grafting method to another without also including the method that the bees would choose for themselves is somehow, IMO, incomplete.


+1
Indeed, this is why I suggested the "swarming behavior study" - including the pheromone levels, etc.
You know, they did study the wintering colonies by inserting the thermo-sensors back when.
Today complete monitoring of the pre-swarming colony is very much possible.
Very much the quality of the swarm queens maybe a function of the special conditions of the pre-swarming colony.


----------



## crofter

What the bees would choose for themselves-------! You guessed it, _*all depends ! *_If it is an accident and the queen gets killed or damage, like by a bear or a tree falling or a beekeeper squishing her, it would be an emergency cell from a larvae (apparently averaging about 3 days old). If the queen was just going downhill in performance due to disease or age etc.or got a leg damaged etc., the workers would likely induce the old queen to lay in a supercedure cell and start feeding that from a bit younger larvae compared to an emergency cell. Generally considered second best scenario compared to a swarm cell. The swarm cell scenario needs no explanation but is considered to happen unhurriedly under bounteous conditions.

Grafted queen cells are susceptible to much human error influence. I have seen video promoting grafting that shows using larvae that are 2 days older than optimum. Larvae being mauled in the process. Chilled or dehydrated and exposed to the suns UV rays. Placed in ill prepared cell starters that are too underpopulated to feed thoroughly or control temperature and humidity.. After capping they can be damaged by rough handling and stress in incubators. Virgins should be fed their first meal within minutes of emerging. That can be missed. A whole litany of compounding errors but non that should take rocket scientist knowledge to avoid doing. If you can engineer the incubation of chicken eggs you can graft or raise queens by some of the other touchless methods.


----------



## Gray Goose

ursa_minor said:


> You are right as to the average beekeeper not really noticing the difference unless of course it means that we get queens that do not live as long as they should and are superseded or fail in the first summer ( nucs or packages) from conditions that are not related to beekeeper mismanagement.
> 
> I wish the study comparing three types of queen cells had included natural swarm cells where the queen *chose* to lay her egg within a prepared cell. Comparing one grafting method to another without also including the method that the bees would choose for themselves is somehow, IMO, incomplete.


well I could do a test and paper, I only need 3 of each............................

GG


----------



## GregB

GregB said:


> So now, grafted queens are no longer in vogue?
> Good thing I haven't bothered.


Sure enough.
Whew!

Thanks to @psm1212 posting under "Will pinching queen work?".

Here is rather a scientific conclusion that is notably upgrading the natural methods (emergency/swarm cells):


> *It appears that walk-away splits are as good as grafting methods for producing high quality queens.*





https://ag.umass.edu/sites/ag.umass.edu/files/pdf-doc-ppt/queen_factsheet-final_2.pdf



Though little known to the West, Russian prof. Kashkovskiy has long been saying the same (based on his own research as well as on the research of the others that he confirmed)
This guy:








42.3US $ |Kashkovsky v. " Housing and breeding honey bees Apis mellifera L."|Education & Teaching| - AliExpress


Smarter Shopping, Better Living! Aliexpress.com




www.aliexpress.com





According to Kashkovskiy, these conditions what really matters in the quality queen production:

1>Preservation of the integrity of the queen raising colony (!)
2>Usage of the strong colonies. (!)
3>Existence of the flow in nature.
4>Existence of the open brood.
5>Favorable weather (temperatures!).
6>Small number of the queen cells raised.

The #1 and #2 and #5 suggest that a single, strong colony is a better way to produce swarm/emergency queens vs. creating multiple smaller walk-away splits.


----------



## msl

*



It appears that walk-away splits are as good as grafting methods for producing high quality queens.

Click to expand...

*sort of, read the full story





Final report for FNE20-964 - SARE Grant Management System







projects.sare.org





it was very bee resource intensive.. great if you want to make 2 swarm control spits on an overwintered hive to get 1.3 queens.. and that' s great for a lot of beekeepers with 2-3 hives..


> Our team recorded complete results from 558 splits subjectable to our variables. 366 of these starts successfully reared laying queens. The overall successful mating percentage was 65.6%.


not so great if you have 20 hives and want to sell a bunc of queens

so ya they found you could re split again at 7weeks and produce another quality queen.. that means another 4 weeks to harvest... 11 weeks 2 queens, one nuc, vs 5 queens with cell building and a much smaller nuc

take home... if you have 1 over wintered hive you can make 1-2 queens for your self as good (quality, genetics is a side bar) as you can buy and still make a crop.

my concern is that this data stays in context and scope and dosn't become another john kefus just split what lived...

but lets not skip right over why the a northern queen rearing study was done in FL with nonstandard beekeeping equipment to get a $124k grant in tax payer money to teach queen rearing to 100 beekeepers... Teaching Generative Apiary Practices for Effective Beekeeping in the Northeast - SARE Grant Management System
that's $1,240 per seat to teach queen rearing..

I am a huge fan of their project and results, but when such results lead to such rewards, and little to no lang/foundation work was done... I raise the yellow flag

15k to make 558 spits and study them is like $26 a splits. reasonable..

$1240 per person to learn queen rearing, sounds like I need to hire me a grant writer


----------



## Litsinger

msl said:


> sort of, read the full story


And here is a good video outlining the results- you'll want to skip to about the 32 minute mark to get to the research itself:


----------



## GregB

According to prof. Kashkovskiy:

"Grafted queens are nothing more than emergency queens but placed into worse conditions".
He also underscores that the grafted mass produced queens are nothing other than advertised commercial product - but they are NOT better queens.

Source - 5:40 and on....


----------



## GregB

msl said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that walk-away splits are as good as grafting methods for producing high quality queens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *sort of, read the full story....


Which just boils down to the same - there is no clear and significant difference in the average queen quality produced by A or B method.
Still - the true swarm queens are not investigated (harder to do and thus the subject is avoided).

Now - the production differences are clearly there.
This is even beyond the point and no need to argue.
The *method's fitness for mass-production is better for grafting or similar methods (*this works well for the specific genetics dispersal if that is the goal*).*

But as far as the "better queens" - does not matter (especially for small-scale people).
Grafting may sound "sexy" at the moment - so much so that even people with 2-3 hives attempt to graft. 
They got their grafting gear and queen castles and mini-nucs - all of that to produce 5 queens? LOL


----------



## psm1212

Since the 2017 season, I have done Fly-Back splits in the spring for all of my colonies. This has ranged between 30 to 60 colonies. In 2017 and 2018, I grafted my own cells and placed them in the queenless split. Since 2019, I have allowed the queenless split to raise its own queen. The only intervention on my part is that I go in about a week after the split and knock down all but one or two cells to avoid virgins swarming. 

I have noticed no differences in the two methods by any metric objectively or subjectively measured. Survival, mating, production, etc. 

Just my completely unscientific and anecdotal experience. Since the latter method is easier, allows for a later start to my work in the spring, and involves less time and planning, I suppose I will continue in this manner. That being said, I really enjoy grafting.


----------



## crofter

GregB said:


> Which just boils down to the same - there is no clear and significant difference in the average queen quality produced by A or B method.
> Still - the true swarm queens are not investigated (harder to do and thus the subject is avoided).
> 
> Now - the production differences are clearly there.
> This is even beyond the point and no need to argue.
> The *method's fitness for mass-production is better for grafting or similar methods (*this works well for the specific genetics dispersal if that is the goal*).*
> 
> But as far as the "better queens" - does not matter (especially for small-scale people).
> Grafting may sound "sexy" at the moment - so much so that even people with 2-3 hives attempt to graft.
> They got their grafting gear and queen castles and mini-nucs - all of that to produce 5 queens? LOL


Greg, I resemble some of those remarks!  Besides, I had 6 hives and made 10 plus queens! So far they are all taking colonies through the winter.
Grafting is as much fun as a person can have with their pants on.

I dont have any delusions though, that they are functionally superior to queens I have produced in the past with Snelgrove separation which is not greatly different from fly back splits on well provisioned colonies.


----------



## GregB

crofter said:


> I dont have any delusions though,


Exactly.
Scale production needs - genetics dispersion goals - fun factor.
Sure, grafting (including the 48-hour variant of it) meets any and all of these goals.
No argument at all. 

Otherwise, I'd like to work towards what @Gray Goose is doing (managed swarm cells) for my own needs.
If I only need 5-10 queens I prefer them to be actually good specimens as individuals.
I'd rather bet on the bees for doing that, not on my shaky fingers and gradually degrading eyes and ever flip-flopping mind.


----------



## psm1212

I think I have always bought in to the notion that well-grafted queens in packed starters were probably superior, but the queens the splits made on their own were "good enough." I suppose I am rethinking all of that now.


----------



## GregB

psm1212 said:


> That being said, I really enjoy grafting.


Yep.
And I'd rather be tinkering with my non-standard equipment refinements (not the queens - especially, IF there is no worthwhile difference to bother with it).
All it is to it - to each his own.

But if you are into the queen distribution - you gotta make some money for your efforts.
Surely, your queens are the "best".


----------



## crofter

psm1212 said:


> I think I have always bought in to the notion that well-grafted queens in packed starters were probably superior, but the queens the splits made on their own were "good enough." I suppose I am rethinking all of that now.


Dont go rearranging many of you convictions just on the strength of a few reports with unknown motivations or control structure. As mentioned (I think) swarm cell queens and queens grafted with concerted "best practice" attention to all known details of queen cell quality were not assayed on the same "level playground"

I take it that there is not measurable, observed differences in qualities of differnt back yard hobbiest queens but, if the observation procedure is lacking in sophistication the results have limited investment value. Dont bet the farm. Don't let ones tendency to be anti commercial, anti scientific put a slant on conclusions. Be aware of confirmation bias! Your own as well as that of others; both can be at work on the same question.


----------



## msl

GregB said:


> Which just boils down to the same - there is no clear and significant difference in the average queen quality produced by A or B method.


looks like I was grumpy last night..
where I was trying to go, is while the end result of the right split recipe(flyback splits had higher return and queen weights) may be the same in queen quality (or close enuff for the person making there own) the cell quality isn't ... so while is a way to make a good single queen, its not a way to produce cells to place in other nucs... the whole concept here is how you spit matters..



GregB said:


> Grafted queens are nothing more than emergency queens but placed into worse conditions".
> He also underscores that the grafted mass produced queens are nothing other than advertised commercial product - but they are NOT better queens.


Its great anti big agg marketing that sells well with some beekeepers, but the results from the tarpy lab and the early start of this project say other wise



GregB said:


> If I only need 5-10 queens I prefer them to be actually good specimens as individuals.
> I'd rather bet on the bees for doing that.


for you, Sure !!
but its important to look at the "why" in this case and under stand what's happing...Intrinsic quality control
why do bees make so many E cells, because a bunch suck!!
They then active destroy 50-60% of the cells that would produce a lower quality queen( something they don't usually do with grafted cells, pointing to thier quality) then the queen(s) hatch and its a game of thrones with them vying for worker support, and its more the workers actions deciding who should win then one queen overpowering the other.



> young queens patrol queen cells to kill rival queens while they are vulnerable; workers aggress queens to prevent them from destroying queen cells; queens toot to inhibit worker aggression; workers immobilize queens to make them easy targets for rival queens;


 Gilley (2001) The Behavior of Honey Bees (Apis mellifera ligustica) during Queen Duels

what should not be inferred from the study is that E queen cells produces queens of the same quality as grafted. They don't.
But if you leave a big enough walk away split with enough cells to their own devices, the queen the bees chose will often be a good one.
the flip side is if you cut out those E cells out, or move a frame with a few cells and put them in a nuc, you lose the quality control culling, leaving it up to random chance instead of the bees choice, and in that case the odds are not in your favor.


----------



## GregB

msl said:


> what should not be inferred from the study is that E queen cells produces queens of the same quality as grafted. They don't.
> But if you leave a big enough walk away split with enough cells to their own devices, the queen the bees chose will often be a good one.
> the flip side is if you cut out those E cells out, or move a frame with a few cells and put them in a nuc, you lose the quality control culling, leaving it up to random chance instead of the bees choice, and in that case the odds are not in your favor.


Might as well.
But I don't care (and most small people should not either).
As far as I am concerned - let the science people to hash it out, but for now *they still argue*. 

This is of interest though - *managed swarm cell production*.


----------



## msl

GregB said:


> But I don't care (and most small people should not either).


well if splitting one way get much better quality results then another... its worth to know WHY so you can apply it



GregB said:


> This is of interest though - *managed swarm cell production*.


yep


msl said:


> if you recall I had PMed you some information on eastern European "swarm keeper" rigs you fit to the fount of a hive.. Still think that sort of thing, maby with a nuc stack. would fit in realy well with your program...


----------



## GregB

> if you recall I had PMed you some information on eastern European "swarm keeper" rigs you fit to the fount of a hive.. Still think that sort of thing, maby with a nuc stack. would fit in realy well with your program...


I simply want a small foam box on my porch - the swarm cell generator.
QX limited entry should do.
*Small frames!*
Push the swarm cells - split (with simply distributing the entire frames with cells without much monkeying - hence the small frames)
Repeat.

This or similar to it - pic of the frame/hive attached.


----------



## Gray Goose

msl said:


> But if you leave a big enough walk away split with enough cells to their own devices, the queen the bees chose will often be a good one.


important point as here you are getting the strongest of maybe 6-10 queens, unless one is way early.
a graft it is what it is.

"bees picking" is likely done by Pheromones, hopefully the best smelling one is really the best one.

I also Like supercedure Cells. If I find one I steal it, often in 10 days there is another.
1 at a time is very digestible, making 20 NUCs is a bit of a kerfuffle.

be nice to see about 20 queen grafters Square off and then weigh and test to outcome, then document each process.
I bet there is a bit of difference from best to worst.

agree with Frank , 1 test is not gospel.
nice to know in a pinch a walk away can be done, getting dark, about to rain, tired of getting stung. split and be done with it.

GG


----------



## Gray Goose

GregB said:


> I simply want a small foam box on my porch - the swarm cell generator.
> QX limited entry should do.
> *Small frames!*
> Push the swarm cells - split (with simply distributing the entire frames with cells without much monkeying - hence the small frames)
> Repeat.
> 
> This or similar to it - pic of the frame/hive attached.
> 
> View attachment 67572


5X5 Nuc can get you 2 or 3 in a few weeks.

use your little small frame NUCs to make more NUCs have a whole yard of them.

GG


----------



## Litsinger

Interesting research was recently referenced by the NC State Apiculture Program that made me think of this thread:

Q: _About how much bigger will a queen’s spermatheca be, by volume, if she is reared from an egg vs. reared from a two-day-old larva?_

A: _According to Jerzy Woyke (1971), the average spermathecal volume of a queen reared from the egg stage is 1.18 cubic millimeters, compared to 0.94 cubic millimeters for a queen reared from a two-day-old larva._

These results were lifted from _Correlations Between the Age at Which Honeybee Brood was Grafted, Characteristics of the Resultant Queens, and Results of Insemination_ and a few highlights are included below.

So at least according to this research the question may not be so much swarm cells versus grafted cells, but rather whether queens are reared from eggs or larvae.

That said, I am not sure how one would rear queens from eggs unless they employed one of the graftless methods.


----------



## GregB

Litsinger said:


> That said, *I am not sure how one would rear queens from eggs* unless they employed one of the graftless methods.


By learning to raise the queens from actual swarm cells - meaning learning how to create the pre-swarming status on demand and in managed environment.


----------



## Litsinger

GregB said:


> By learning to raise the queens from actual swarm cells - meaning learning how to create the pre-swarming status on demand and in managed environment.


FWIW, I agree with your logic, GregB. I was simply trying to make the distinction that grafting (at least in the vernacular that it is commonly employed) precludes the use of eggs, but that one could still likely manage to rear queen cells on a schedule and with the repeatability expected from grafting with one of the graftless methods that leads to eggs being laid in queen-destined cups.

Thus, the key consideration might not so much be whether we utilize swarm cells or grafting, but rather whether we use eggs or larvae as the basis for our queen rearing.


----------



## GregB

Litsinger said:


> one of the graftless methods that leads to *eggs being laid in queen-destined cups.*


True; a good point there.

Even then - these eggs in *queen-destined *cups are starting out presumed to be regular worker bees in the making - *initially*.

We already discussed in the past the difference/non-difference of these vs. the true queen-destined eggs placed into the true swarm cells.
I don't remember anymore the outcomes of those talks.


----------



## jtgoral

I have good experience with OTS and grafting to get my local mutts. This year I am going to do the *Hopkins *method. Have you tried this one?


----------



## Gray Goose

GregB said:


> Even then - these eggs in *queen-destined *cups are starting out presumed to be regular worker bees in the making - *initially*.


Disagree.
if an egg is laid in a queen cup, (one the bees make) I do not see how it is assumed to be a worker.
I could be convinced the bees assume it to be a queen.

this topic has some but little research.
some of the data suggests a "royal" Patra line, where the egg is "intended" to be a queen and "may" be different.
since the egg in queen cup is not easily replicated this "study" has not really had much traction.

As we all use some opinion, IMO the start to finish of an intended queen is not the same as a grafted or E queen.
here to add clarity I am referring to a Supercede or Swarm Queen.

GG


----------



## Gray Goose

Litsinger said:


> FWIW, I agree with your logic, GregB. I was simply trying to make the distinction that grafting (at least in the vernacular that it is commonly employed) precludes the use of eggs, but that one could still likely manage to rear queen cells on a schedule and with the repeatability expected from grafting with one of the graftless methods that leads to eggs being laid in queen-destined cups.
> 
> Thus, the key consideration might not so much be whether we utilize swarm cells or grafting, but rather whether we use eggs or larvae as the basis for our queen rearing.


do you mean the Jenter cups?

GG


----------



## Gray Goose

Litsinger said:


> FWIW, I agree with your logic, GregB. I was simply trying to make the distinction that grafting (at least in the vernacular that it is commonly employed) precludes the use of eggs, but that one could still likely manage to rear queen cells on a schedule and with the repeatability expected from grafting with one of the graftless methods that leads to eggs being laid in queen-destined cups.
> 
> Thus, the key consideration might not so much be whether we utilize swarm cells or grafting, but rather whether we use eggs or larvae as the basis for our queen rearing.


IMO using eggs in some sort of fashion, not bee innated, is the same as grafting.
Queen thinks it is a worker , humans change it to a queen, IE starter hive used.

IF we could get an egg laid in a "cup" of some sort then move it to a starter hive, the eggs get "queen treatment" for the entire Larval stage not just after it is moved to the queen cup as a 24 hr larvae for example. so it would seem 20% better for the extra day or day.5 is a help.

how much more help is the S queen?

GG


----------



## GregB

Gray Goose said:


> Disagree.


GG, I meant those *artificial queen-destined cups* Litsinger is referring to.

Pretty sure it is agreed that the eggs going into those are meant to be workers.

Like you, I am of opinion that the *natural queen-destined cups* contain eggs meant to be the queens. Thus the true natural swarm cells contain the real deal, not the second-guess substitution.

We had this discussion and research references about this not long ago.


----------



## Litsinger

GregB said:


> Pretty sure it is agreed that the eggs going into those are meant to be workers.


No argument from me guys- and you've hit the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned.

My only point is that 'grafting' by definition is larval transfer, whereas using something like the Jenter or Nicot System (or similar) would at least allow you the flexibility to start queen cells from eggs and thus possibly get results similar to what Woyke's research suggests.

Regardless, if there are cryptic queen lines as the Withrow and Tarpy research suggest there is really no method I know of that would allow you to rear queens on a production schedule that would be reliably produced from queen-destined eggs- but if there was it would definitely be something to invest in:









(PDF) Cryptic “royal” subfamilies in honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies


PDF | During emergency queen rearing, worker honey bees (Apis mellifera) select several otherwise worker-destined larvae to instead rear as candidates... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate




www.researchgate.net


----------



## GregB

Litsinger said:


> Regardless, if there are cryptic queen lines as the Withrow and Tarpy research suggest there is really *no method I know of that would allow you to rear queens on a production schedule that would be reliably produced from queen-destined eggs*- but if there was it would definitely be something to invest in:


Right.
For now this is a backyard-science research project.


----------



## Litsinger

Litsinger said:


> Regardless, if there are cryptic queen lines as the Withrow and Tarpy research suggest there is really no method I know of that would allow you to rear queens on a production schedule that would be reliably produced from queen-destined eggs...


I thought of this thread as I read some interesting research courtesy of @plantman:









Honey bees consider larval nutritional status rather than genetic relatedness when selecting larvae for emergency queen rearing


In honey bees and many other social insects, production of queens is a vital task, as colony fitness is dependent on queens. The factors considered by honey bee workers in selecting larvae to rear new queens during emergency queen rearing are poorly understood. ...




www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov





In it, they conclude that nutritional status is a very significant factor when bees choose what eggs to rear as queens in natural emergency cell preparation- but this distinction was conspicuously absent in grafted cells:

_There was no significant difference between the number of queens reared to pupation from deprived and non-deprived larvae, when larvae were grafted into queen cups (grafting method)...

As predicted, natural emergency queen rearing and larval grafting methods produced significantly different results. The natural queen rearing method (emergency queen rearing) showed a strong bias toward non-deprived larvae for queen rearing selection, whereas there was no significant difference in the number of queens reared from deprived and non-deprived larvae in the artificial grafting method. Like several previous studies50,52, our results support the notion that artificially grafting larvae into queen cells does not appear to be a test for selection, but rather a test for queen rearing maintenance of preselected larvae. The factors that bees use to select larvae for queen rearing and those used to maintain queen larvae may be very different. Likely, in the absence of a queen, the size, orientation and/or shape of queen cells provide a strong signal to nurse bees that larvae contained therein should be reared as queens (copiously provisioned with royal jelly)17. In our study, larval nutritional status was a significant factor in selection of larvae for emergency queen rearing under natural conditions, but not for artificially grafted larvae, which were placed inside artificial cups resembling the beginnings of natural queen cells._


----------



## msl

Litsinger said:


> when bees choose what eggs to rear as queens in natural emergency cell preparation-


arguably I would say beekeeper induced emergency cells are not natural and are a rarity in wild colonies in there natural environment....

more cell size stuff








Effect of queen cell size on morphometric characteristics of queen honey bees (Apis mellifera ligustica)


Rearing techniques are important to determine a successful honey bee production. Queen cell cup size may affect the acceptance rate of grafted larvae and queen’s size, which in turn may influence t...



www.tandfonline.com


----------



## Litsinger

msl said:


> arguably I would say beekeeper induced emergency cells are not natural and are a rarity in wild colonies in there natural environment....


No doubt- this discussion has focused on whether colony-selected eggs make for better queens.

This research seems to put a finer point on this by suggesting that the nurse bees did not make a significant distinction between varying nutritional states in a grafted setting- underscoring another potential advantage for natural cells.


----------



## jtgoral

Litsinger said:


> No doubt- this discussion has focused on whether colony-selected eggs make for better queens.
> 
> This research seems to put a finer point on this by suggesting that the nurse bees did not make a significant distinction between varying nutritional states in a grafted setting- underscoring another potential advantage for natural cells.


I would agree with


----------



## squarepeg

i dunno. 

my biggest problem over the years has been queen longevity. it may have something to do with the frugality trait that expresses itself among other ways in the form of shutting down drone rearing during our long summer dearth, thereby limiting ideal mating opportunities to around swarming season.

at any rate, i am going to take extra measures going forward following brother adam's lead to maximize conditions during the laying of daughter queen eggs and the feeding of the daughter queen larvae, as well as see to it there is an adequate supply of drone frames in all the hives.


----------



## jtgoral

squarepeg said:


> i dunno.
> 
> my biggest problem over the years has been queen longevity. ...


You have problem to overwinter your home grown queens?


----------



## Litsinger

jtgoral said:


> I would agree with...


 Great series- those videos have a lot of excellent content.


----------



## msl

Litsinger said:


> No doubt- this discussion has focused on whether colony-selected eggs make for better queens.


The colony doesn't select eggs, it selects larva the study posted in #77 Has a very big elephant in the room. It doesn't address quality.
while they say


> bees possess the ability to assess larval fitness and select the best larvae from which to raise queens.


 and they had every means of doing so, they took no (or shared no) data on the resulting queens,
A large red flag to me given there verbiage of
"natural" = putting a comb in a cell builder
and
artificial=placing grafted larva in a cell builder

that said, I don't see much surprises here
grafting triggers a better acceptance and more cells produced... kinda why its a thing
the bees choose cells with more jelly in them and bigger larva with in this case the deprived larva being smaller ... we see this in *Tofilski* 2004 Emergency queen rearing in honeybee colonies with brood of known age | Apidologie



> The queen cells were initiated around brood aged between 3 and 11 days; the average age of brood used to initiate queen cells was 5.9 ± 1.90 days (N = 131; Fig. 2A). Eggs were never observed inside queen cells. Queen cells from which queens emerged and those destroyed either before or after capping did not differ in the age of brood from which they were constructed (Mann-Whitney test: U = 1732, N1 = 52, N2 = 79, P = 0.123; Fig. 2A). Most of the queen cells (60.3%) were destroyed, 17.6% of them before capping and 42.7% after capping (Fig. 2C). The queen cells were destroyed between the 5th and 18th days of brood development, and the average age of brood at the time of queen cell destruction was 13.0 ± 3.48 days (N = 79; Fig. 2C). A


of note here is a large hole...


> We then counted the number of queens reared to pupation from the deprived and non-deprived areas of larvae in each colony and compared them by Chi-squared test87 using SPSS Statistics (2008) 16.0.


we see in tofilski above and studies listed in post #4


msl said:


> we know form Hatch etal (1999) (PDF) Worker regulation of emergency queen rearing in honey bee colonies and the resultant variation in queen quality
> and Tarpy Etal (2015)https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/web.s.../tarpy_et_al_2016_insectes_sociaux-xguqri.pdf
> that when left alone to their own devices the bees cull cells, and the cells that are culled would have produced poorer quality queens.


that 50%+ of the cells are torn down in emergency queen rearing and they tend to be the lower quality ones... this happens far less in grafting and swarming suggesting that given research has shown the larger cup produces better queens, and by extension cells the bees don't tear down, giving us there nod of approval

what does the science show us makes great queen?
limited egg laying on the mother, large cell cup, lots of food fed as early as possible after hatch... plenty of studies show this
swarming does all of this...
but so does modern grafting with a breeder in a small hive laying a comb a week

what doesn't do this is emergency queen rearing

its lucky the bees can over come this bad move beekeepers do... and if left alone a good queen often rises to the top ie cell isn't torwn down and she gets eunff worker support to win over the rivals. there can be only one

Correlation does not imply causation and given the whole "point" of the study seemed to be "bees know best", ie "bees possess the ability to assess larval fitness and select the best larvae from which to raise queens" the fact they present zero data to that end... is well... telling

**tossing down the gauntlet @ my well loved intellectual sparing partners*
I suggest a counter, that the data sets in this tread shows modern grafting over comes poor larva quality do to cell size increasing the avabulbe food


----------



## little_john

So what exactly is a Great or Ultimate Queen ?

What I'm hearing on this thread is a desire for larger queens, from the 'best' method of selection, more nutrition, and so forth. Why - because larger queens will hold more eggs, equals larger colonies, equals more honey ... ? A note of caution. Always breeding from the 'best' (meaning 'more') results in reduced diversity. There's always a price to be paid.

Take this extract from yesterday's BBC report:
_*








Climate change: Could centuries-old wheat help feed the planet?


Scientists are searching through a museum's wheat collection to find the crop of the future.



www.bbc.co.uk




*Modern wheat crops are struggling. The green revolution in the 1950s and 1960s led to farmers growing the varieties *that produced the most* grain. But this pursuit of producing the biggest harvests meant that other varieties were put aside - including crops able to cope with extremes - and the* diversity *of wheat *was reduced.*_

Humans select for *performance*, Nature selects for *survival.* There's a huge difference between cleverness and wisdom. Think on't ... 
LJ


----------



## drummerboy

We personally strive to resist the temptation to humanize our bees - or - to treat them like cattle. Breeding insects is not the same as breeding mammals. 

Personally, I believe humans have done more harm than good as it relates to the honeybee, particularly how we've turned them into an agricultural commodity to profit off of. How has that reality contributed to the issues bees and beekeepers face today? That topic would be a well deserved and timely conversation to have, but the resistance will be enormous.

TBH; I'm not entirely convinced that breeding insects for specific genetic qualities is even possible, or that such a thing as 'purity' (Italians, Russians, Carnis...etc...) exists anymore after decades of moving bees around the globe. The science is foggy at best and many mysteries remain.  Which forces me to consider that all 'western' honeybees are mutts, bred with localized tendencies that will always focus on 'their' survival despite human actions and interventions. 

Q; Have our interventions actually resulted in making the honeybee another 'dumb' animal to do with what we will? I sure don't know, but 'all who wander are not lost' - some are just seeking answers.

The 'best queens' are those raised by your own bees imho.


----------



## squarepeg

jtgoral said:


> You have problem to overwinter your home grown queens


no, it's not an overwintering thing. i experience more than acceptable queen failures throughout the year.

i haven't home grown (reared) any queens by grafting for quite a few years. life has given me other responsibilities and commitments that didn't allow for that. so all my queens for a number of seasons now were produced by the colonies left to their own devices, to include emergency queens produced following artificial swarm splits.

i'm guessing from the colony survival point of view, the bees get around this by issuing multiple swarms per year, as i have observed mine are capable of doing. they do respond well to swarm prevention however, which is a plus, but apparantly at the cost of queen longevity.

brother adam, who did not apply the scientific method, but rather relied on meticulous record keeping and field truthing, was convinced that even supercedure queens were inferior, (for his purposes, looking primarily at colony strength and productivity), and he would replace them immediately with grafted queens raised under what he considered optimal conditions.

if i were keeping bees for the sake of fun i would simply let it ride and catch swarms to replace losses. but as a sideliner who expects a reasonable return on investment of time and money, and given the extra work involved with cleaning up after lost colonies, as well as considering this local strain may show promise when it comes to the trait of mite resistance, i hope to gear up next spring with my queen rearing.

the goal is to improve queen longevity and have plenty of spare queens in reserve. in time, i would like to see to it that honey production colonies receive queens reared in the previous season and after the main build up, thereby letting the production colonies be headed by queens in their first full year of egg laying.

all that sounds good on paper, but i'll concede may be a bit ambitious for me given other life priorities and responsibilities. my prayer is for guidance and discernment to be a good steward with what i have been given.


----------



## jtgoral

msl said:


> ..
> 
> what doesn't do this is emergency queen rearing
> 
> ...


Like grafting, right?


----------



## Jack Grimshaw

Litsinger said:


> I thought of this thread as I read some interesting research courtesy of @plantman:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honey bees consider larval nutritional status rather than genetic relatedness when selecting larvae for emergency queen rearing
> 
> 
> In honey bees and many other social insects, production of queens is a vital task, as colony fitness is dependent on queens. The factors considered by honey bee workers in selecting larvae to rear new queens during emergency queen rearing are poorly understood. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In it, they conclude that nutritional status is a very significant factor when bees choose what eggs to rear as queens in natural emergency cell preparation- but this distinction was conspicuously absent in grafted cells:
> 
> _There was no significant difference between the number of queens reared to pupation from deprived and non-deprived larvae, when larvae were grafted into queen cups (grafting method)...
> 
> As predicted, natural emergency queen rearing and larval grafting methods produced significantly different results. The natural queen rearing method (emergency queen rearing) showed a strong bias toward non-deprived larvae for queen rearing selection, whereas there was no significant difference in the number of queens reared from deprived and non-deprived larvae in the artificial grafting method. Like several previous studies50,52, our results support the notion that artificially grafting larvae into queen cells does not appear to be a test for selection, but rather a test for queen rearing maintenance of preselected larvae. The factors that bees use to select larvae for queen rearing and those used to maintain queen larvae may be very different. Likely, in the absence of a queen, the size, orientation and/or shape of queen cells provide a strong signal to nurse bees that larvae contained therein should be reared as queens (copiously provisioned with royal jelly)17. In our study, larval nutritional status was a significant factor in selection of larvae for emergency queen rearing under natural conditions, but not for artificially grafted larvae, which were placed inside artificial cups resembling the beginnings of natural queen cells._


David Evans in last weeks blog gives his take on this same study by Sagili et al.
Hmmm........ thinking of spring!









Picking winners, part 2 - The Apiarist


Some larvae are nutritionally deprived and may produce sub-optimal queens. Grafting may miss the 'best' larvae the colony would select for emergency queens.




theapiarist.org


----------



## Litsinger

Jack Grimshaw said:


> David Evans in last weeks blog gives his take on this same study by Sagili et al.


Great article, Jack. Thanks for posting.



little_john said:


> Humans select for *performance*, Nature selects for *survival.*





drummerboy said:


> The 'best queens' are those raised by your own bees imho.


From the article above:

_Now, these traits favoured by the bees might not all benefit our beekeeping, but some of them should. Longevity, fecundity and disease resistance are likely to be evolutionarily favourable traits, and will also be useful for beekeepers.

Defensiveness and swarminess … er, not so much._



msl said:


> I suggest a counter, that the data sets in this tread shows modern grafting over comes poor larva quality do to cell size increasing the avabulbe food


Maybe so- but from the article:

_The recipient colony did not discriminate between the nutritionally deprived and non-deprived larvae when they were grafted, but they showed a marked preference for the non-deprived larvae in natural comb.

In addition, they reared significantly more queens from grafted larvae than they did from larvae in comb.

There are two results that are particularly striking.

Firstly, *more* queens were reared from grafted larvae than were reared following the transfer of a frame of larvae. The difference was significant, with almost twice as many queens being produced following grafting. It’s also worth noting that the bees only had 24 grafted larvae to choose from, compared to a much larger number of larvae on the transferred natural comb.

Secondly, the workers showed *no preference* between nutritionally deprived and non-deprived grafted larvae, but showed a strong preference for the well-fed larvae in natural comb._


----------



## Litsinger

msl said:


> The colony doesn't select eggs, it selects larva...


I used the term eggs rather purposefully as the question is whether colonies select queen-destined eggs when left to their own devices. The article above touches on this parenthetically:

_The best queens are produced from very young larvae (or even 3 day old eggs) that are then fed for an extended period with copious amounts of royal jelly in a strong hive full of nurse bees._


----------



## squarepeg

russ quotes:



Litsinger said:


> "_The best queens are produced from very young larvae (or even 3 day old eggs) that are then fed for an extended period with copious amounts of royal jelly in a strong hive full of nurse bees."_


if applied to grafting, it's selecting those just hatched larave having the most abundant amount of jelly in the cell.


----------



## squarepeg

crofter said:


> It is good to know though which practices in queen rearing pay the most dividends. The low hanging fruit so to speak. It would not be hard for instance to cage the queen or separate her onto bare foundation so she could not lay until a bit of comb was drawn. That could also give us very close knowledge of age of larva to graft. Covering those two points then placing them into surroundings of crowed nurse bees recently deprived of their charges and with lavish food supplies should give us queens far above emergency cells of simple splitting.


going back and rereading the thread from the beginning. very good point here frank.


----------



## Snarge

squarepeg said:


> russ quotes:
> 
> 
> 
> if applied to grafting, it's selecting those just hatched larave having the most abundant amount of jelly in the cell.


So, may it be summarized that, for those who choose not to requeen by the method of grafting, the very best quality queens~both for genetic recombination and survival~are swarm cell queens, chosen by their own colony of bees?


----------



## jtgoral

squarepeg said:


> russ quotes:
> 
> 
> 
> if applied to grafting, it's selecting those just hatched larave having the most abundant amount of jelly in the cell.


I think bees will add royal jelly after grafting so it is full of it before capping the queen cell.


----------



## squarepeg

Snarge said:


> So, may it be summarized that, for those who choose not to requeen by the method of grafting, the very best quality queens~both for genetic recombination and survival~are swarm cell queens, chosen by their own colony of bees?


yes, that's what the basic science from the papers offered here by other contributors suggests.


----------



## squarepeg

jtgoral said:


> I think bees will add royal jelly after grafting so it is full of it before capping the queen cell.


yes, but the topic under discussion here is queen quality may depend on factors present even before the egg is laid, and perhaps how it is fed prior to grafting.


----------



## drummerboy

Snarge said:


> So, may it be summarized that, for those who choose not to requeen by the method of grafting, the very best quality queens~both for genetic recombination and survival~are swarm cell queens, chosen by their own colony of bees?



Agreed; even if the swarms are 'artificially' created by the beekeeper.


----------



## Litsinger

Snarge said:


> So, may it be summarized that, for those who choose not to requeen by the method of grafting, the very best quality queens~both for genetic recombination and survival~are swarm cell queens, chosen by their own colony of bees?


I think so- this is not to say that grafting is 'bad', only that swarm cells in healthy colonies likely represent the best that nature has to offer - but also may not necessarily represent what is best for the beekeeper.

I became interested in this topic when I learned that Terry Combs only propagates via swarm cells.

But I think there may be an epigenetic aspect to this as well that may be of benefit in grafted applications too - for example from a Sam Comfort presentation:



Litsinger said:


> 2. At about the 37:40 mark, he discusses his thoughts on epigenetics and outlines how he always rears queens in a cell builder from the same family line.


----------



## msl

little_john said:


> ecause larger queens will hold more eggs, equals larger colonies, equals more honey ... ? A note of caution. Always breeding from the 'best' (meaning 'more') results in reduced diversity. There's always a price to be paid.


I don't disagree, but the intent is to focuses on queen quality as a separate from genetics . We see it in Tarpy's work and several generations ago as well
FP quoteing Taber in Breeding Super Bees


Fusion_power said:


> Quoting from the book:
> In the late 30's and early 40's the USDA Bee Culture Lab in Madison, Wisconsin started a program to determine which stocks available from queen breeders were best. Two-pound packages with queens were placed on combs on or about April 15. Brood production, population, and total honey production were monitored carefully. Some of these package colonies barely made winter stores, but a few did pretty well, producing 150 to 250 pounds above winter requirements. But one breeder consistently produced queens that developed colonies producing 250 to 450 pounds of honey over winter requirements.
> 
> Madison's Farrar, and other government beemen then spent time visiting and making observations of that particular queen breeder, and methodology developed in his queen-rearing operation. The conclusion was the stock was no better than available anywhere else. That's right! When we reared queens from that stock or from stock obtained from the poorly performing groups, we turned out very high-performance queens. So it wasn't the stock that was good -- it was the queen breeder. What stood out more than anything was his care and selection of each queen cell and queen every step of the way.
> 
> The basic information we got from that queen breeder was something we already knew -- to raise superior queens was mostly a matter of creating a superior environment. After all, there is no genetic difference between the workers and the larvae from which you graft your queens. Improve the environment. Improve the environment -- get that imprinted in your queen-rearing method every step of the way. Be sure there are always enough young bees and more than enough pollen and honey available. Always graft more cells than you will use or need so you can select only the best. Also, have more laying queens than you will use, and again -- select only the best.



swinging back around to queen destin eggs, I didn't see the lastest posted here.. the take home seems to be low quality queens produced by low quality methods are impacted in there ability to rear quality queens 








High-Quality Queens Produce High-Quality Offspring Queens


Maternal effects are a wise strategy for animals to adjust their offspring quality. Honey bee queens can adjust their investments in their female offspring to maximize the use of social resources, and these different investments may eventually lead to ...




www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov





worth noteing these guys hold the IP for the system to lay queen destine eggs when we review there works








that said its the same groups that did https://www.researchgate.net/public...aring_Young_Honey_Bee_Queens_Apis_mellifera_L
showing that limited egg production increases egg size (take home is swarming queens that have redused brood rearing lay bigger eggs in swarm cells )witch make me question the egg size difrance was do to laying volume


> Experiments were conducted from April to June 2021. A natural mated queen was controlled for eggs laying in queen cells for 12 h, and the queen was controlled and allowed to lay eggs in an empty worker comb for 12 h. After that, about 64 eggs were laid in queen cells (QE), and 128 eggs were laid in worker cells (WE).





drummerboy said:


> Agreed; even if the swarms are 'artificially' created by the beekeeper


no, as the mechanisms are very different... age of the larva, egg size, condition of the hive etc on the note of hive condition is worth to rewind a few pages to the SARE study and note that the reverce fly back split, (moving the queen, leavening a comb of larva with the forage force ) produced the best quality queens, suggesting to me that an abundance of fresh incoming pollen had an effect... I would have have put my money on leaving the queen and giving the larve the bulk of the nurse bees to come out on top


----------



## jtgoral

drummerboy said:


> Agreed; even if the swarms are 'artificially' created by the beekeeper.


Those are emergency impulse queens as I understand it.


----------



## squarepeg

crofter said:


> Would it merely be the size of the cell that the queen was presented with that made the difference, or that she had to assume a totally different position. What is different in the conditions leading up to a swarm situation that might have induced a difference in the queens eggs. I have read that preventing a queen from laying for a short period of time will result in the ensuing eggs being larger. Perhaps in the leadup to a queen laying in such cups she has had her diet changed (like as in preparing to fly with a swarm) or had her laying cut back. Just thinking about intentionality on the queens part or whether purely external circumstances were responsible for the discrepancies of egg properties.


this is a really good point frank



crofter said:


> Bernhard Heuvel is a German queen producer of some reputation who claims his method of handling the queen preparatory to laying the hatching eggs for grafting produces queens with weights, ovariole counts and volume of sperm stored that exceeds the norm for swarm produced queens.


and so is this.

michael palmer has shared with us the steps he takes with queen rearing that are in line with what brother adam found to be optimal. frank, do you happen to have a link to bernhard's work?


----------



## jtgoral

I have problem to copy the link "'YouTube@BernhardHeuvel/videos'" but one can search for it or remove backslash from https://www.youtube.com/\@BernhardHeuvel/videos

Well, I added a backslash and it works.


----------



## squarepeg

many thanks jt.


----------



## squarepeg

Litsinger said:


> I became interested in this topic when I learned that Terry Combs only propagates via swarm cells.


would like to know more about how he accomplishes this, does he detail it in his book?


----------



## squarepeg

interestingly, the two longest lived of my four hives were splits using swarm cells.


----------



## Litsinger

squarepeg said:


> would like to know more about how he accomplishes this, does he detail it in his book?





Litsinger said:


> As far as Terry's approach, here it is (quoted with his permission):


----------



## squarepeg

many thanks russ.


----------



## crofter

squarepeg said:


> this is a really good point frank
> 
> 
> 
> and so is this.
> 
> michael palmer has shared with us the steps he takes with queen rearing that are in line with what brother adam found to be optimal. frank, do you happen to have a link to bernhard's work?


Can't remember whether I followed a link to Huevel's explanation and data on emergent weights of his queens or whether I took it directly from some of his posts here on Beesource. Have seen some other mentions of methods to prevent a queen from laying for a period of time before exposing her to polished cells. She then lays Grade A Xtra Large. I built a cage out of excluder material that holds a single frame into which the queen can be introduced. Easy to get eggs of the known very youngest for grafting or to lay up virgin comb for Miller style queen cell production.

It would be interesting to do a strictly controlled and double blind comparison of results from queens produced from eggs so preconditioned, compared to average results from swarm induced cells. If you merely harvest all of the dozen or so swarm cells you remove possible benefit of the workers culling some and sister virgins effects. Lots of possible influences on outcomes. A lot of mediocre results with mass produced queens via grafting may have more to do with temperature and humidity excursions during shipping, than to the effects from grafting.


----------



## squarepeg

understood, and many thanks frank.


----------



## drummerboy

jtgoral said:


> Those are emergency impulse queens as I understand it.


Whether a colony swarms itself or the beekeeper creates one, are the end results not the same? Are they not all 'emergency impulse queens' that eventually hatch out if allowed? 

We all know that swarming is what bees 'want' to do to continue their species. That's why it remains one of the most requested topics with new beekeepers seeking answers. When beekeepers are able to anticipate this eventuality and act 'before' we even know (the bees always know) or see signs of swarming, we can 'keep' our bees home while also satisfying their instinct to reproduce....most of the time  as timing is everything and bees use a different method of keeping time than us humans.

When the queen is absent, whether by death, instinctual swarming or artificially/purposely removing/desroying her, creating an artificial swarm, the remaining worker bees will make 'high' queen cells...if....there are resources available (eggs, larva, workers and food) to do so.

Our current method; Kinda based on Doolittle's

A week or so 'before' swarm season begins, from strong over-wintered colonies (with at least 8 frames of brood), we remove (split) 2 brood frames with eggs, larva, food and some shook nurse bees in a 10 frame box for 24 hours, leaving the queen with the parent colony. After 24 hours we simply place this queenless 10 frame box back on the 'parent' colony, now separated by a QE. This procedure will entice 'more' nurse bees to rise above QE to care for the new queen cells that were made by the 2 brood frames, resulting in high quality queens to sell, trade etc... 

After 24 hours and a week above the QE, several queen cells will occupy those 2 brood frames, remove all but 2 of the best of them and place the 'new' colony in another spot and leave it for a month, feeding heavily until. 

Put a 'do not disturb' sign on it while waiting for the virgin (S) to return and begin laying. It should be noted that neither colony will be considered queenless by the bees (if queen was killed), as they both have the resources needed to make more queens. All we need to 'see' initially are the queen cells in the 'new' box. However, the parent/donor colony, now with a 30 day brood break (if queen is removed/killed), will make lots of honey, as they've got little to no brood to care for. With strong colonies we can conduct this system of making quality queens about once a week into mid-July.

Of course, everything is dependent on precise timing (keeping good records), the weather, pollen and nectar availability.


----------



## jtgoral

drummerboy said:


> Whether a colony swarms itself or the beekeeper creates one, are the end results not the same? Are they not all 'emergency impulse queens' that eventually hatch out if allowed?
> ...


In the first case queen cells are created before colony swarms (before queen leaves the hive, swarm impulse) in second after beekeeper intervention (, removed queen, emergency impulse). Am I wrong?


----------



## drummerboy

jtgoral said:


> In the first case queen cells are created before colony swarms (before queen leaves the hive, swarm impulse) in second after beekeeper intervention (, removed queen, emergency impulse). Am I wrong?


I agree, but I don't think its a 'right or wrong' thing. I mean, how do any of us know a colony is prepping to swarm in the days before we can 'see' evidence of swarming? We may not know, but we can still act based on what we do know if left to themselves. They will fly away, which only satisfies bee sellers.  

Do the 'left-behind' bees after a swarm 'know' half the population was gearing up to swarm and leave them without a queen? I sure don't know, but they are mostly nurse bees, and un-hatched brood and thus, have little to do other than caring for remaining brood, until cells ripen, hatch out and return to begin laying. 

I could be wrong (the pursuit of knowledge is riddled with pitfalls) - but - my understanding of this is that it is the 'older' bees, the ones 'leaving' with the swarm, that will focus on queen cell building 'before' swarming, not those left behind. Those workers that swarm 'make certain' that resources are available 'before' swarming.

Beekeepers tend to be the biggest threat to honeybee survival, queens are mangled or killed by us more often than we care to admit imho, making emergency cells more common imo. Anticipating the honeybees natural tendencies and 'directing' the necessary action remain the key to any successes we've had at our little operation. 

We are still learning. Thanks for this discussion!


----------



## GregB

GregB said:


> So now, grafted queens are no longer in vogue?
> Good thing I haven't bothered.
> 
> 
> To be honest, I got tired of the minis this season - the bees absconded and I did not have the time to be running after them.
> I have no single queen on hand now from a mini nuc project; it was largely a wasted effort.
> 
> The traditional splits around standard equipment carried me this summer.
> If one needs no more than 5-10 queens (like myself) the over-engineered ways may not be worth it.


Remember - this was the *2021 *season comment.

After regrouping in 2022 around my clean restarts - the minis (the *larger *minis - very important!!!!) - held their own very well.
So well they did - I am wintering 11 mini-units as we speak.


----------



## Litsinger

Mr. Terry Combs shared the following thought with me recently regarding the topic of this thread and I thought it was worth sharing (with his permission):

_There are the beginnings of research on the genetic components of caste differentiation in honey bees which are long overdue because beekeepers, and researchers, have assumed that queens arise from only environmental effects such as being fed a steady diet of royal jelly. Not so with other social insects, especially ants which can have not only queen, drone and worker castes but several, often bizarrely formed and highly specialized, castes of workers and soldiers. Ants, being meat and vegetable eaters, do not isolate larvae on a special diet of royal jelly to achieve this but rather, as researchers deduced a while back, there are genetic components that mark certain eggs as queens and eggs for the differentiation of various worker/soldier castes. If, as I am inclined to think, there are genetic components that are inherent to eggs laid specifically for generating queens (Swarm/supersedure cells) they are also connected directly to the bees evolutionary and adaptive processes. Thus, we are doing a great disservice, in conflict with their evolution, when we take worker eggs and have bees rear them into queens. It also explains the lack of quality and success with emergency queens reared from worker eggs. The ability of bees to rear queens in an emergency is a bit of a blessing and a curse. They only rear queens from worker larvae in an EMERGENCY under natural conditions. Otherwise, they only rear queens from eggs meant to be queens. Someday, researchers and beekeepers will realize that there are truly "royal eggs" that have a major purpose(s) in the lives of bees._


----------



## msl

Litsinger said:


> Someday, researchers and beekeepers will realize that there are truly "royal eggs" that have a major purpose(s) in the lives of bees.


perhaps, but what science or data does he present to support that viewpoint?
with out that he sound like just another TF beekeeper who "knows better" then the experts and the rest of the beekeepers... a story that plays out time and time again... (even I was one!!)



Litsinger said:


> If, as I am inclined to think, there are genetic components that are inherent to eggs laid specifically for generating queens (Swarm/supersedure cells) they are also connected directly to the bees evolutionary and adaptive processe


my understanding is supersedure cells are worker eggs layed in a worker cell that is then enlarged

swarm cells are eggs layed in a queen cup... usually when there is no more(or very little) space any were left to lay.. more on that in a bit



Litsinger said:


> They only rear queens from worker larvae in an EMERGENCY under natural conditions. Otherwise, they only rear queens from eggs meant to be queens.


but what if they dont?!!! Cryptic “royal” subfamilies in honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies




Litsinger said:


> It also explains the lack of quality and success with emergency queens reared from worker eggs.


but walk a way splits provided great results for many, for many years(centurys) ( the _Mraz_ operation comes to mind) I would say we have a fairly good handle on why E queens can be poor and it seems to stem from not leavening the bees eunff cells to "thin the heard" so to speak, as in when a walk away split (or a dequeend hive) is used as a cell builder and the cells are divided amoust nucs to recover for large losses and they are left with a few cells to chose from...

the "lack of quality and success with queens reared from worker eggs" doesn't seem to happen with proper grafting methods suggesting that (given the newer studies) there may be a small egg effect.... 
but what has been proven tiem and time again so far is its mostly how much food, how soon, and (arguably) what type


----------



## Gray Goose

Litsinger said:


> Otherwise, they only rear queens from eggs meant to be queens. Someday, researchers and beekeepers will realize that there are truly "royal eggs" that have a major purpose(s) in the lives of bees.


interesting find Russ
I have come to that same conclusion.
be interesting to see if/when they get time and funds to research this.
as you may be aware if it is not in a peer reviewed paper, it cannot be true to some folks.
you catch swarms and so do I , I find them to be the best queens.

nice to see others on the same trail.

GG


----------



## NUBE

There is no doubt that genetics plays a role in the differentiation between the Queen and worker castes, but it is pretty rigorously confirmed, at least by everything I’ve read or seen, that this is done through epigenetic manipulation. Even the current debate/evidence(?) regarding swarm cell eggs being slightly larger than a regularly laid fertilized egg placed in a worker cell is an epigenetic phenomenon, and the Queen can be manipulated into this condition by a breeder who has the inclination to take the time to do so. I’m unaware of any research performed, ever, that points to an actual genetic manipulation of a fertilized egg performed by a queen as she lays to differentiate a Queen egg from a worker egg. If there is such credible research out there, I’d love to see it.

I don’t see any reason why you wouldn’t use swarm cells to perform increases, so long as the colony swarming is one that you like the genetics of and wish to push those genetics out into your local environment. I simply wish that we, the beekeeping community at large, would stop making increases by taking the swarm cells of the first of our hives that will give them to us, regardless of what the characteristics of that colony has been and what it’s progeny colonies likely will be.

If a keeper only wishes to make modest increases, I don’t see anything wrong with pushing your best colonies into a swarm condition in order to split off of them. I’m just bothered by the idea of randomly accepting an increase of your apiary from whatever colony happens to be the first to go into swarm mode and then using your other, possibly better quality colonies to bolster the splits from the first colony to attempt to swarm on you. Seems like not too many years ago this was understood to be “poor” beekeeping.


----------



## Gray Goose

NUBE said:


> Seems like not too many years ago this was understood to be “poor” beekeeping.


can you flesh that out?
in what way.

The "healthy" hives swarm, the healthiest first.
and TOO many yeas ago it was only swarming that lead to increase, as in 100,000 years.

not trying to bee bilergerant, but it seems and old wives tale.
do you recall the author, or book this came from?

ya sure some bees are swarmy, but I see that as the 1 off not the norm.

GG


----------



## joebeewhisperer

This is gold! 

I was on my phone liking, saving quotes, then realizing I can't soak in everything in one sitting. Had to move to the laptop just to get a larger bite.


----------



## GregB

Gray Goose said:


> The "healthy" hives swarm, the healthiest first.


Not necessarily.

The bees that *want *to swarm first and are healthy enough to do it - will swarm first.

There are plenty of cases where the healthiest bees are not inclined to swarm until pushed hard into a corner.
Swarming is about genetics *primarily*, not about health.


----------



## Litsinger

A comment Dr. Seeley made in a recent ABJ continues to roll around in my mind:

_… there are countless elements of the lives of honey bees that remain mysterious. It’s hard to put a number on this, but I estimate that the fraction of the biology of the honey bee that anybody has examined carefully — enough that we have a good level of understanding — is less than 50%. The honey bee is an extremely complicated animal because worker bees are amazingly complex as individuals, and because a honey bee colony is a very complex social system. In other words, the honey bee presents us with high complexity at two levels of biological organization._


----------



## joebeewhisperer

squarepeg said:


> interestingly, the two longest lived of my four hives were splits using swarm cells.


I was thinking about my oldest queen. She was raised here in 2020, before I could successfully graft. At the time I was removing a queen, letting them make emergency cells, then snatching them up the day they emerged, before they killed one another. Don't know how she will do this coming year, but she's done everything expected of her to date.



Litsinger said:


> Thus, we are doing a great disservice, in conflict with their evolution, when we take worker eggs and have bees rear them into queens. It also explains the lack of quality and success with emergency queens reared from worker eggs.


While it is a fascinating theory, and may play out. I don't agree with his comparison to ants. If there is evidence that guard bees were born to be guard bees, I would like to see it. If there are guard bees which were born to be in uniform, and will take on this role at a certain age regardless of parameters/influences, then the comparison holds water. 

Also wouldn't say we have a lack of success making queens from worker eggs. Some of the major factors of queen success (based on my kindergarten understanding) are:

age of larvae when placed in service
abundance and quality of royal jelly
presence or absence of diseases in nurses, mother, father (and/or ability to suppress or cope with these)
adequate flying weather when mating
abundance of fertile drones within flying range
health of the receiving colony
I realize there are others, but a queen which, with some management, will lay 2-3 surplus seasons seems like "good enough" quality. If she fails to do this, I would submit there is likely a cause, and it may be on the list above (or others I've missed). 

If evidence exists that a "queen egg" has the potential to do 5-6 surplus seasons, then I might juice up a bunch of folks for the swarm. I personally have found little difference in the queens caught from my own swarms, or the queens they purposely left behind as replacements. A swarm can be counted on to produce comb and build up fast if given resources. They are wired for this. A swarm cell has been chosen as a potential replacement by little folks who know more about it than me. I've take their recommendation when I was doing splits that way. 

If I have a hive that swarms, I'll let them finish the process and trust them. For now, I'll do my best to provide the requirements in the list, pick my own frames for a new colony, and drop in a mated queen of my choice. It is a quick process with reasonably predictable outcomes that can be done on my schedule. 

This thread really got me today. And I like it.


----------



## crofter

joebeewhisperer said:


> I was thinking about my oldest queen. She was raised here in 2020, before I could successfully graft. At the time I was removing a queen, letting them make emergency cells, then snatching them up the day they emerged, before they killed one another. Don't know how she will do this coming year, but she's done everything expected of her to date.


Rather small sample size experiments.

As for natural or not factor, I could give a weighty comparison (which would be irrelevant in many ways), stating that nearly 100% of record setting milk cows were conceived by artificial insemination or embryo transfer, and never saw a bull in their lifetime. Such is the value of analogies or one off examples.

Bernhard Heuvel had quite an impressive tabulation of data on his queens and explained his methods: of course he *could* have been BS'ing and actually made those queens on his keyboard. I think not!


Would be interesting to graft a bunch from a queen and then have her colony swarm and do a well controlled study on the different resulting queens mated in the same drone field. Short of something like that the discussion is just entertainment.

The Grinch!


----------



## Litsinger

msl said:


> perhaps, but what science or data does he present to support that viewpoint?


I _think_ the point Terry is trying to make is that resident queen influence over subsequent reproductives is a fairly researched topic among eusocial insects, and that it might be reasonable to assume that similar mechanisms could be at work in apis mellifera (see attached).

But you certainly could be right- for me it is an interesting thought experiment that merits further study.


----------



## Litsinger

joebeewhisperer said:


> I would like to see it. If there are guard bees which were born to be in uniform, and will take on this role at a certain age regardless of parameters/influences, then the comparison holds water.


While I don't presume to speak for Terry, my understanding is that he is beginning the discussion by asking whether a queen has both the ability and the inclination to modify eggs prior to oviposition based on it's intended function. I'm not sure we're quite there yet, but the research does seem to be pointing in the direction of the queen having the ability to modify egg size, methylation and protein content based on perceived colony status:









A Maternal Effect on Queen Production in Honeybees


Wei et al. show that the in ovo environment in honeybees is a maternal effect on queen development. Honeybee queens selectively lay larger eggs in queen cells to be raised by workers as queens. Egg size influences both gene expression and the adult weight of the queen.



www.cell.com







View of Honeybee (Apis mellifera) Maternal Effect Causes Alternation of DNA Methylation Regulating Queen Development











High-Quality Queens Produce High-Quality Offspring Queens


Maternal effects are a wise strategy for animals to adjust their offspring quality. Honey bee queens can adjust their investments in their female offspring to maximize the use of social resources, and these different investments may eventually lead to ...




www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov







https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jeb.13589











The molecular basis of socially induced egg-size plasticity in honey bees


Reproduction involves the investment of resources into offspring. Although variation in reproductive effort often affects the number of offspring, adjustments of propagule size are also found in numerous species, including the Western honey bee, Apis ...




www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov


----------



## crofter

I think the supposition that intentionality is involved in the outcome is not strongly supported. The result could be as easily explained by numerous physical conditions affecting the queen and surroundings before and during oviposition. There is some question anyway about whether a larger egg leads to any functional superiority in the resulting queens performance. Is intentionality being given the nod here when other factors could be a simpler explanation. Remember the Law of Occam's Razor.

There is quite a parallel discussion going on in that other Bee Forum.


----------



## Litsinger

crofter said:


> I think the supposition that intentionality is involved in the outcome is not strongly supported.


The Han et al research above gives a fairly robust answer to this question in my humble opinion:

_These results elucidate how the social environment of the honey bee colony may be translated into a specific cellular process to adjust maternal investment into eggs.

In our first experiment, we found that egg size was negatively correlated to egg number produced. To test whether small egg size is merely a passive consequence of high egg-laying rate, we thus assessed egg size before and after a 2-week period of queen caging, which prevented queens from laying any eggs. None of the four caged queens significantly changed her egg size (F(1,38) = 0.02–1.8, all p>0.1). None of the four queens in an unmanipulated control group during the same time changed her egg size either (F(1,38) = 0.005–0.6, all p>0.4), and egg sizes were similar between the restricted and unrestricted groups overall.

To better understand how colony size influences queen egg-size regulation, the perceived but not the physical colony size of small colonies was extended. The queens in ‘small’ colonies, producing relatively large eggs, were paired via a double-screened tunnel with medium-sized hive boxes that either contained empty frames or a queenless, ‘medium’ colony. All three queens paired with a regular colony reduced the size of their eggs compared to their initial egg size (Q1: F(3,76) = 34.5, p<0.001; Q2: F(3,76) = 42.5, p<0.001; Q3: F(3,76) = 14.6, p<0.001; post-hoc tests indicated significant differences only between measurements before and after manipulation.

To compare the ovary proteome of queens producing large eggs with that of queens producing small eggs, we identified a total of 2022 proteins and compared their relative abundance. Among the 290 proteins that exhibited significant quantitative differences, significantly more proteins were more abundant (275) than less abundant (15) in large-egg-producing ovaries compared to small-egg-producing ovaries (χ2 = 233.1, p<0.001.

Across individuals from all treatment groups, Rho1 expression at the end of the experiment correlated almost perfectly with the produced egg size.

Here, we provide evidence that egg size – a quantitative measure of maternal provisioning – is actively adjusted by honey bee queens in response to social cues that relate to colony size. We also find that queens in smaller colonies have smaller ovaries, presumably because they produce fewer but larger eggs. We find that protein localization, cytoskeleton organization, and energy generation are key proteomic changes in the ovary that mediate the production of large eggs. Finally, we identify the cytoskeleton organizer Rho1 as a potentially important regulator of the active egg-size adjustment of honey bee queens.

… little evidence for a trade-off between egg size and number was found in a previous study of honey bee queens (Amiri et al., 2020). In contrast, a negative relation between egg size and number was found here, at least in the majority of comparisons between queens in small and large colonies. Queens in large colonies typically produce more eggs than queens in small colonies. Our finding that queens in large colonies have heavier ovaries indicates a physiological adaptation to satisfy the egg-laying demand in large colonies (Al-Khafaji et al., 2009). However, this result cannot explain why queens in smaller colonies produce larger eggs, why a temporary cessation of egg laying by queens in large colonies does not lead to an increase in egg size, and why queens decrease egg size upon their perception of being in a larger colony.

The vast majority (almost 95%) of differently abundant proteins are found at higher levels in ovaries that produce large eggs. Thus, the anatomically smaller ovaries are physiologically more active in several key processes than the larger ovaries that produce smaller eggs. The GO enrichment analysis indicates the prominence of two upregulated processes in large-egg-producing ovaries – ‘protein localization’ and ‘cytoskeletal regulation’ – while several energy metabolic processes are highlighted by the KEGG pathway analysis. These functional categories indicate that egg-size variation is not a simple increase of egg volume but reflects real differences in offspring provisioning, although the proteome of small and large eggs remains to be characterized (McDonough-Goldstein et al., 2021). Higher energy generation may be needed to produce more costly large eggs (Wheeler, 1996), and the cytoskeleton and protein localization processes are key to loading the eggs with nutrients in polytrophic ovaries (Shimada et al., 2011; Wilson et al., 2011). Several of the other GO terms, such as ‘multicellular organism development’ and ‘oocyte construction,’ are further plausible candidates to explain some of the observed variation in egg size._


----------



## crofter

Have we established a *large scale functional superiority of queens laid in queen cups* vs those grafted and fostered under known best conditions? So far I see a lot of guessing that one or the other MUST be better. Anecdotal and micro scale testimonials dont cut it.

There does seem to be a feeling that the typical queen today has lower life expectancy but there are many circumstances that could conceivably be responsible such as the proliferation of mite vectored diseases and the ongoing development of their variants. Not much question that huge monocultures and agricultural chemicals are suspect issues. Issues of interruption of lay and temperature and humidity excursions are know negative effects of the distribution of queens. 

Nationwide transportations of bees in huge volumes sure kicks the crap out of geographic isolation for disease limitation! In view of these many factors it seems a bit illogical to assume that grafting to produce queens is a likely prime cause of the many pronged difficulties the bees are facing today.

The truths of today become the fallacies of tomorrow. Seeking truth is not easy; it is elusive prey. Having _feelings_ about the outcome is one of the surest ways of spooking truth.

*Ultimate queen quality grafting vs swarm cells*. Lots of variables can sneak onto the scales such as matters of volume and cost but they are distractions from the stated issue.


----------



## Litsinger

crofter said:


> In view of these many factors it seems a bit illogical to assume that grafting to produce queens is a likely prime cause of the many pronged difficulties the bees are facing today.


While I am just one opinion, I'm not sure this is the central premise of this thread.

If I were to summarize the general thrust of the thread thus far, I would suggest it hangs on two basic questions:

1. All other things equal, are swarm cell queens better than grafted queens?

2. In natural swarm and supercedure events, does the resident queen contribute unique material in vivo to the 'queen destined' egg?

From these postulates, I'd say questions could emerge regarding whether the 'better' or 'different' queens would confer a fitness advantage, but I am not sure that there have been any suggestions that folks abandon grafting - just some suggestions that if your situation allows, swarm cell queens might be better given both some research and anecdotes that point in that general direction.


----------



## crofter

Certainly a persons local needs and constraints could favor one over the other. I dont know about the technical superiority, one over the other. not enough volume. I have only raised a dozen or so queens by grafting and most others by use of snelgrove board divisions. It would be laughable for me to claim any valued assessment of the relative merits.

I sense a degree of emotional attachment to the idea of intentional control rather than environmental physical issues being the prime effect. That would be a huge leap. Now if there was well established data showing clear functional superiority of swarm induced queens then I could see effort expended to look backwards to precisely identify all possible connection of cause and effect issues.

I sure like to dig deeply into physical events but admittedly more than a little reluctant to accept that which may require a leap of faith to explain.


----------



## crofter

Here is a clip from a post on Bee-L

THE RAISING OF NURSE CELLS IN THE OVUM, whereby the nurse cells also belong to the germ line and are often abortive sister cells of the oocyte, to whose volume increase they ultimately contribute. This type of alimentary egg growth, already known from coelenterates (COWDEN, 1964), is perhaps the most original, it is still found in the polytrophomeroistic insect follicles. There, towards the end of oogenesis, the contents of the nutrient compartment flow into the oocyte (ENGELS, 1966).—Engels

* In the last few moments while the egg is in the follicle, it is sponging up all the resources and expanding apace. 

Quantitatively, therefore, the performance of the nucleus itself plays only a very minor role in the growth of the egg cell. Similar conditions were found by BIER (1965) in Vespa vulgaris.— Engels

When normal egg laying in worker or drone cells the rate of fire is something like every 30 seconds. From the above and other similar, when laying rate is delayed, egg weight and measurements tend to increase. I suggest that the extra time to size up and position upside down to lay into a queen cup could easily account for larger eggs laid in that instance.


----------



## Litsinger

crofter said:


> I sure like to dig deeply into physical events but admittedly more than a little reluctant to accept that which may require a leap of faith to explain.


I don't think anyone is being asked to check their rational agency at the door.

What we have is the presentation of studies and anecdotes lending support for a range of Queen rearing approaches for folks to take or leave as they see fit.


----------



## crofter

I think that is being accomplished.


----------



## Gino45

crofter said:


> I think that is being accomplished


For me, this is all much ado about nothing that important. Yes, if I find a swarm or supersedure cell and have a place to use it, I will remove it and use it elsewhere. I'd prefer a supersedure queen.
I don't want to use swarm cells per se as I'm not about to wait for the bees to raise them. That's the time factor. Furthermore, I want bees that are slow to swarm. This is best achieved, IMO, by having young queens (no 2 or 3 year old queens for me) from a genetic chain that has proven to be low swarming. My Hawaiian raised 
"Italians" qualify.
Good queens can be achieved by good grafting or having a hive made queenless and then introducing the frame with eggs or young larvae (I have my methods...I like to use newly drawn comb for this). What matters is of course the genetics of the egg, its age when chosen as a queen, and how much food that young queen is given as a larvae.
Beyond that we are getting into the area of personal preference which in my mind, will not result in a significantly better quality of product, that is, a laying queen.
And I'll make some trouble here by stating that no way is a second or third, or in MB's case, a fourth year queen going to be more productive than a new queen. A new queen in my mind can include one raised previous summer or fall as a first year queen for the next honey season


----------



## msl

has anyone found an empirical study on the quality of swarm queens?


----------



## Litsinger

msl said:


> has anyone found an empirical study on the quality of swarm queens?


Here's a few recent bits of scholarship on the subject:









Effects of commercial queen rearing methods on queen fecundity and genome methylation - Apidologie


The queen and worker castes of the honey bee are very distinct phenotypes that result from different epigenomically regulated developmental programs. In commercial queen rearing, it is common to produce queens by transplanting worker larvae to queen cells to be raised as queens. Here, we...




link.springer.com










Ovipositor sources for queen-rearing of honey bee (Apis mellifera) revealed inheritable maternal effect on reared queen


Queen is arguably the most important member of a honey bee colony, and queen quality is crucial for honey bee colony growth and development. In this study, queens were reared with eggs laid in queen cells (QE), eggs laid in worker cells (WE) and 2-day old larvae in worker cells (L). Those phys...




www.researchsquare.com













Uncovering the Changing Gene Expression Profile of Honeybee (Apis mellifera) Worker Larvae Transplanted to Queen Cells


The reproductive division of labor, based on caste differentiation in social insects, is of great significance in evolution. Generally, a healthy bee colony consists of a queen and numerous workers and drones. Despite being genetically identical, the queen and workers exhibit striking...




www.frontiersin.org


----------



## jtgoral

Litsinger said:


> Here's a few recent bits of scholarship on the subject:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Effects of commercial queen rearing methods on queen fecundity and genome methylation - Apidologie
> 
> 
> The queen and worker castes of the honey bee are very distinct phenotypes that result from different epigenomically regulated developmental programs. In commercial queen rearing, it is common to produce queens by transplanting worker larvae to queen cells to be raised as queens. Here, we...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> link.springer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ovipositor sources for queen-rearing of honey bee (Apis mellifera) revealed inheritable maternal effect on reared queen
> 
> 
> Queen is arguably the most important member of a honey bee colony, and queen quality is crucial for honey bee colony growth and development. In this study, queens were reared with eggs laid in queen cells (QE), eggs laid in worker cells (WE) and 2-day old larvae in worker cells (L). Those phys...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.researchsquare.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncovering the Changing Gene Expression Profile of Honeybee (Apis mellifera) Worker Larvae Transplanted to Queen Cells
> 
> 
> The reproductive division of labor, based on caste differentiation in social insects, is of great significance in evolution. Generally, a healthy bee colony consists of a queen and numerous workers and drones. Despite being genetically identical, the queen and workers exhibit striking...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.frontiersin.org


In the third article I couldn't find anything about swarm cells larvae. Everything is about a worker larvae. So this article has no meaning in the context of the thread's subject. Am I missing something?


----------



## Litsinger

jtgoral said:


> In the third article I couldn't find anything about swarm cells larvae. Everything is about a worker larvae.


In my opinion the general thrust of the scholarship presented is that all things equal, swarm cells represent the best presentation of a colony's reproductive potential.

Additionally, among grafting methods (and presumably e-cells) the earlier the larvae (or egg) is reared as a queen, the better the end product.


----------



## jtgoral

Litsinger said:


> In my opinion the general thrust of the scholarship presented is that all things equal, swarm cells represent the best presentation of a colony's reproductive potential.
> 
> Additionally, among grafting methods (and presumably e-cells) the earlier the larvae (or egg) is reared as a queen, the better the end product.


I agree, but still I see no proof that swarm (impulse) cell queens are better than grafted or OTS or any other emergency impulse queens.


----------



## crofter

There are many areas of critical quality control between selection of grafting stock all the way through till a resulting queen commenses laying. Age of larvae selected is just a glaring example of how the operator may influence the outcome. Undoubtedly typical conditions in a colony at swarm time takes care of most all these issues.

I contend that these operator issues may be more affective of ultimate quality than the suggested differences from queens voluntary input or the workers ability to make choices due to kinship factors etc.

I suggest that a large expertly designed and executed trial would find very little if any measurable difference in outcomes.


----------



## crofter

jtgoral said:


> I agree, but still I see no proof that swarm (impulse) cell queens are better than grafted or OTS or any other emergency impulse queens.



I do see the possibility that an emergency queen replacement could be induced at a time when the most inauspicious conditions existed; On the other hand if someone were to remove the queen from a colony that was experiencing conditions typical preswarm, then the resulting queen could be undistinguishable from one that would have resulted a short time later after after a swarm.

It is all too easy to make comparisons of best to worst case scenarios and thus lead the jury.


----------



## Litsinger

crofter said:


> Age of larvae selected is just a glaring example of how the operator may influence the outcome.


Or use of eggs instead of larvae as the Chinese are proving adept at in the production of royal jelly.

I take no issue with the position that well-selected and well-provisioned grafted cells approach the quality of an appropriately provisioned swarm cell. 

My position is simply that swarm cells appear to represent the best possible reproductive potential, and if there are heritable, epigenetic and/or other factors that are as yet unknown, then the use of swarm cells might represent a good propagation technique for those whose operational goals and interests allow.


----------



## GregB

Litsinger said:


> the use of swarm cells might represent a good propagation technique for those whose operational goals and interests allow.


I feel I was able to push a breeder queen at least once into the pre-swarming status last summer - using a foam cooler.
Then collected a round of cells from that case.

How do I know - she became markedly small before I split away the cells and reduced the population.
Subsequently the queen grew larger again.
When running the back porch mini-nuc operation - the swarm cell manipulations and harvest become possible.


----------



## crofter

Litsinger said:


> Or use of eggs instead of larvae as the Chinese are proving adept at in the production of royal jelly.
> 
> I take no issue with the position that well-selected and well-provisioned grafted cells approach the quality of an appropriately provisioned swarm cell.
> 
> My position is simply that swarm cells appear to represent the best possible reproductive potential, and if there are heritable, epigenetic and/or other factors that are as yet unknown, then the use of swarm cells might represent a good propagation technique for those whose operational goals and interests allow.


We are not too far apart on this. I do note that there are a few conditional if's, appear's, might's etc. I do agree that a swarm or supercedure queen would have greater odds of superiority over the grafting product of a typical backyard neophyte.

I would bet that there are other influential issues besides grafting that are responsible for the qustionable quality of queens today. For certain the results will not be better than the genetics of the donor stock.


----------



## Litsinger

crofter said:


> I do note that there are a few conditional if's, appear's, might's etc.


In my humble opinion, until we move from hypothesis or theory to law, the scientific method would suggest that we not cling too tightly to our opinions nor state them as unequivocal fact, but rather allow them to be informed (and maybe challenged) by new discovery.

As Sir Francis Bacon famously opined, _The universe must not be narrowed down to the limit of our understanding, but our understanding must be stretched and enlarged to take in the image of the universe as it is discovered. _


----------



## crofter

We do have to stay open to new possibilities as they appear; not good though to build too high till the foundation is confirmed.


----------



## Litsinger

crofter said:


> We do have to stay open to new possibilities as they appear; not good though to build too high till the foundation is confirmed.


No argument here, Frank. This is why I suggested:



Litsinger said:


> ... the use of swarm cells might represent a good propagation technique for those whose operational goals and interests allow.


----------



## crofter

Litsinger said:


> No argument here, Frank. This is why I suggested:


Is that a sales tactic of getting me saying "yes"
I am not ready to accept that there is observable value due to discretionary inputs by queen or workers. Is that any more than a theoretical possibility?

It has been discussed before about the potential difference in quality of a cell induced by a Snelgrove separation in good circumstances, compared to that of a worker engineered supercedure event. Certainly strong feelings there, but again that is something that only field testing could validate. Similarities to the grafting vs Swarm queen question; not easy to get the personal convictions factor out of the picture.


----------



## Litsinger

crofter said:


> Is that a sales tactic of getting me saying "yes"


Funny. No sales pitch here. Your bees, your call.

I just like talking bees, and the intellectual stimulation beats watching TV.

Merry Christmas to you and your family.

Russ


----------



## joebeewhisperer

crofter said:


> Rather small sample size experiments.


I should write this in any comment I make. It is unlikely I will raise more than 200 queens in a season, and <100 is probably where I'm headed. This will not produce results from which I would likely boast as scientific conclusions in my lifetime. 

I just hang around here and glean stuff from folks with more experience and study on, ... well, all of it. 


Litsinger said:


> While I don't presume to speak for Terry, my understanding is that he is beginning the discussion by asking whether a queen has both the ability and the inclination to modify eggs prior to oviposition based on it's intended function. I'm not sure we're quite there yet, but the research does seem to be pointing in the direction of the queen having the ability to modify egg size, methylation and protein content based on perceived colony status:


A queen certainly has the ability to lay a drone or a worker at will. Stands to reason there could be more in her trick bag than this, particularly given the ant (also termite) connections. It certainly warrants study. 

I've seen 2 videos lately by fairly new beeks claiming their bees may have perished from higher phone frequencies. It's another "entirely possible" reason, but the other things I'm seeing in the videos point to more obvious answers. 

I may have gotten a little defensive when someone says, "We are using the wrong eggs, and that may explain our poor queens." - Both statements could be true, but it will take real evidence to convince me. Disclaimer: I dislike when YouTube suggests videos for me in the negative. I am unlikely to click on, "10 things you are doing wrong before breakfast". Even more concerning is when I see one of these with significant views. It's a sell to a different audience. 

Russ, I appreciate the time and thoughtfulness you put into this and all answers. Basically I'm counting on you and a few more folks to distill 1000s of pages of literature/research, process all the logic, and spoon-feed unassailable conclusions to me. Sort of beyond-a-shadow-of-doubt type stuff.


----------



## msl

Litsinger said:


> Here's a few recent bits of scholarship on the subject


That's all human raised queens..

many of us (including my self) are entering this conversation under the premise that the average virgin produced from a swarm cell is superior to the average virgin produced form a grafted cell.
however I can find little to no empirical data to support that, witch makes me question my views on the subject...

feels like some one should emerge a bunch of swarm cell virgins and place them in mating nucs (to rule out bees choosing a side and queen to queen combat efects) and send them to the tarpy lab




crofter said:


> I suggest that a large expertly designed and executed trial would find very little if any measurable difference in outcomes.


I dissagree
everything out there sujests yes, we can make better queens and yes we can empirically measure the difrance
here's a feeding sublment trial Experimental improvement of honey bee (Apis mellifera) queen quality through nutritional and hormonal supplementation - Apidologie









further more we have Tarpy's working showing yes what we measure translates in to in measurable hive performance

the threads question is what makes the ultimate queen, a question may be "does it have an economical effect" ie if I pay $10 for a queen produced X way do I get a ROI vs the cheaper Y way..


----------



## crofter

If I correctly understand the implications it supports that physical conditions will affect the qualities of a grafted queen; No contest there.
Augmentation with a richer diet and juvenile hormone can further enhance possible outcomes. This leaves me wondering how such a grafted and pampered queen would compare with a swarm cell queen from identical genetic material.


----------



## msl

crofter said:


> This leaves me wondering how such a grafted and pampered queen would compare with a swarm cell queen from identical genetic material.


or any grafted queen for that matter....
why cant a study on the quality of natural swarm queens be found... it vexs me 





GregB said:


> When running the back porch mini-nuc operation - the swarm cell manipulations and harvest become possible.


I have often thought paring these with a bunch of minis could be a low input way for a small guy


https://www.aliexpress.us/item/3256803854512336.html?spm=a2g0o.cart.0.0.7a3538dayPNt39&mp=1&gatewayAdapt=glo2usa&_randl_shipto=US


----------



## Outdoor N8

It is well studied, the effect of quantity and quality of colostrum on a new born calf; and that it translates to better health and quality of animal over it's lifetime. So if we were to compare that Apple (mammal) to an Orange (insect)...

How much feed does a queen consume daily to lay eggs 'all day'? What happens when nutrition input remains constant /high while output (egg laying) drops? I would wonder if that could be the reason the eggs become larger, she has more nutritional energy per egg. (one reason I'm considering a timing box)

After reading Tabor again this fall: it weighs heavily on my mind the nutrition of the new larvae, even if delinquent for the selected (grafted) queen for only one hour, the potential effect on the emerging queen.


----------



## GregB

msl said:


> I have often thought paring these with a bunch of minis could be a low input way for a small guy
> 
> 
> https://www.aliexpress.us/item/3256803854512336.html?spm=a2g0o.cart.0.0.7a3538dayPNt39&mp=1&gatewayAdapt=glo2usa&_randl_shipto=US


A possibility.
Easy to duct tape it to this interface:


----------



## GregB

GregB said:


> I feel I was able to push a breeder queen at least once into the pre-swarming status last summer - using a foam cooler.
> Then collected a round of cells from that case.


Btw, 8-10 framelet mini-nuc is plenty strong to produce good queen cells for small scale consumption (say 4-6 at a time).
We are not talking about little mating 3F things.
We are talking about something approaching 4-5F standard colony *packed with bees* and good microclimate afforded by the foam box.
The proverbial "strong hive" does not need to be a packed double-deep - far from it.
Like his thing (winter mode as pictured, but in summer it can be packed):


----------



## Charles Prestridge

I am like Joe. I am glad several are studying and trying to figure out all the scientific studies. My head hurts just thinking about all the great minds on the forum. 

I think queens are like us. Outward and inward traits/looks, that can be measured and quantified, do not always translate to success.


----------



## msl

finally!


> The mean weight of 116 swarm queens was 195·9 mg. For mated queens (68) the mean was 203 · 4 mg and the range 152 · 0 to 277 · 6 mg; for virgin queens (30) the mean was 185 · 0 mg and the range 154 ·1 to 226 · 5 mg





https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282714395_The_Seasonal_Cycle_of_Swarming_in_Honeybees



we don't know the production history of the mated swarm queens but its unlikely that most were produced by swarming , but its save to assume the virgins were from swarm cells, and they are not very impressive compared to what I usaly see






















I don't weight every batch, but when I do, I usually pinch sub 180mg and that's almost always sub 10%




> The weights of the queens were measured with an electronic balance after emergence. A total of 90 queens were divided into three weight groups which were; Heavy queens that were 200 mg or heavier (x¯ 5 207.63 6 0.95 mg), Medium queens between 185 and 199 mg (x¯ 5 193.47 6 0.96 mg), and Light queens lighter than 185 mg live weight (x¯ 5 175.00 6 0.62 mg). T





https://www.rostohar.nl/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Live-Weight-of-Queen-Honey-Bees-Apis-mellifera-L.-Predicts-Reproductive-Characteristics.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1KD3ku7ESDg6kjpZ12qPNQdU4oWNKWkSlwAwJW1E0uWVc2zCQ_Nnvc93M






> Bulgaria, Italy: Live weight (mg) of virgin queens: only queens
> less than eight hours old are used. During May-August period
> twenty to thirty virgin queens per reproduction apiary are
> studied twice for this parameter. The live weight should not
> be less than 190 mg
> 
> Live weight (mg) measurement of laying queens:
> ten randomly sampled queens that are laying on the day of
> sampling are examined twice during the same period (May-
> August). The live weight should not be less than 230 mg.













https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263682163_A_review_of_methods_used_in_some_European_countries_for_assessing_the_quality_of_honey_bee_queens_through_their_physical_characters_and_the_performance_of_their_colonies





> The weights of the queens were measured with an electronic balance after emergence. A total of 90 queens were divided into three weight groups which were; Heavy queens that were 200 mg or heavier (x¯ 5 207.63 6 0.95 mg), Medium queens between 185 and 199 mg (x¯ 5 193.47 6 0.96 mg), and Light queens lighter than 185 mg live weight (x¯ 5 175.00 6 0.62 mg). T





https://www.rostohar.nl/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Live-Weight-of-Queen-Honey-Bees-Apis-mellifera-L.-Predicts-Reproductive-Characteristics.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1KD3ku7ESDg6kjpZ12qPNQdU4oWNKWkSlwAwJW1E0uWVc2zCQ_Nnvc93M




however its likly not apples to apples



> In virgin queens, it decreases gradually from emergence until mating, with the most rapid loss during the first 36 h. Heavy queens decrease their weight more than moderate and lighter queens [52,58]. After mating, queens start to recover their weights to post-emergence levels [52,58,66]. This seems reasonable because the mating flight(s) requires a lighter body for adequate lift and flight duration, otherwise it can decrease her mating success [67]. After queen mating and the onset of oviposition, a queen’s Insects 2017, 8, 48 3 of 18 ovaries start to develop, significantly contributing to an increase in body weight [6





https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5492062/pdf/insects-08-00048.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3tKHh5hYyHzn9YkChtshLi11sFiDXKwiqcLueR9mWDNsGeoSyCUafHzec


----------



## Tigger19687

msl said:


> or any grafted queen for that matter....
> why cant a study on the quality of natural swarm queens be found... it vexs me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have often thought paring these with a bunch of minis could be a low input way for a small guy
> 
> 
> https://www.aliexpress.us/item/3256803854512336.html?spm=a2g0o.cart.0.0.7a3538dayPNt39&mp=1&gatewayAdapt=glo2usa&_randl_shipto=US


Slightly OT but did you see this on AliExpress..


https://m.aliexpress.us/item/2261799825523612.html?gps-id=platformRecommendH5&scm=1007.40000.317744.0&scm_id=1007.40000.317744.0&scm-url=1007.40000.317744.0&pvid=f39841b1-d659-4e06-8ac1-ced8ea839815&_t=gps-id:platformRecommendH5,scm-url:1007.40000.317744.0,pvid:f39841b1-d659-4e06-8ac1-ced8ea839815,tpp_buckets:668%232846%238111%23458&pdp_npi=2%40dis%21USD%21145.0%21145.0%21%21%21%21%21%40210323a616715352098122934efe50%2120000000118297961%21rec


----------



## Litsinger

msl said:


> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282714395_The_Seasonal_Cycle_of_Swarming_in_Honeybees


Cool study. The most obvious challenge being we're not given comparison weights for virgins produced by grafting from the same genetic pool.

I found these observations interesting (albeit outside the focus of our current discussion):

_Two swarms were found in which the queen carried a mating sign (remnants of male genitalia protruding from the end of the abdomen). This suggests that mating may occur while a swarm is in transit to its interim site, or that a virgin queen may leave a clustered swarm to mate.

Observations made at the end of the 1976 summer and in late spring of 1977 showed that a strong colony can cast a prime swarm with a virgin queen.

Our data suggest that a primary swarm may emerge with a virgin queen, or with a newly mated queen after her return from a mating flight but before she is capable of laying eggs. _


----------



## Litsinger

msl said:


> https://www.rostohar.nl/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Live-Weight-of-Queen-Honey-Bees-Apis-mellifera-L.-Predicts-Reproductive-Characteristics.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1KD3ku7ESDg6kjpZ12qPNQdU4oWNKWkSlwAwJW1E0uWVc2zCQ_Nnvc93M


Some interesting observations from this study:

_There are several species and subspecies of Apis mellifera in different geographical regions and great morphological and physiological variations among the races and ecotypes...

As the rearing conditions (age of the larvae, temperature, nutrition, strength of the cell builder etc) improved, the live weight and the quality of the queens increased regardless of the genetics of the breeder. It is clear that live weight of queens at emergence is a good criterion for determining queen quality. 

Even though all larvae were grafted from the same breeder colony, there might be a huge paternal genetic influence because queens mate multiply. Therefore the weight differences at emergence may be the result of genetic variance coming from drones, age of the larvae and differences in cell builder colonies (strength, number of nurse bees, number of queen cells etc.).

Performance and productivity of honeybee colonies can be increased by using heavier queens. _


----------



## Litsinger

msl said:


> https://www.researchgate.net/public...racters_and_the_performance_of_their_colonies


A couple tidbits from this research that I found interesting:

_According to Hatch et al. (1999) worker bees are actively involved in regulating production of new queens and preferentially rear queens starting from eggs. In artificial queen production (used in the other quoted studies) only uniform aged larvae are used, and thus pressure by the worker bees to select among differently aged developing queens is probably less accentuated. These differences in the rearing methods could explain the contrasting results.

It has been made obvious that the quality of a queen is neither a single attribute nor even a group of attributes. It is rather the collective result of several groups of attributes such as: a. the physiological and biological ones that have been influenced by the reproduction process (body size and wing length, weight, number of ovarioles, diameter of
spermatheca); b. the physiological and biological ones that have been influenced by the fertilisation process (empty oviducts, number of sperm in spermatheca, time of onset of oviposition, genetic variability of sperm); c. the behavioural/performance attributes of the queen which reflect the inherited traits by both, the queen and the drones with which she has mated, but have also been influenced by the environmental conditions (honey production, colony development, aggressiveness, swarming, hygienic behaviour, disease prevalence). Obviously common beekeeping practices can also affect the outcome. Nevertheless, the genetic origin of the queen as well as the genetic origin of the drones is the base line of the whole reproductive process of the reproductive female offspring (Bar-Cohen et al., 1978) and the means of expressing the performance characters._


----------



## Litsinger

msl said:


> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5492062/pdf/insects-08-00048.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3tKHh5hYyHzn9YkChtshLi11sFiDXKwiqcLueR9mWDNsGeoSyCUafHzec


These studies present several thought-provoking questions surrounding what constitutes queen quality?

The final observation from this study I think hits on the ethos of some of the general streams of thought many are contemplating:

_How does a potential shift to microbreeding affect queen quality and spread of disease? Currently, the majority of queens in the US are produced by relatively few commercial queen producers, which raises concerns about a lack of genetic diversity and the spread of certain diseases, particularly those that are transmitted vertically. There are currently many efforts to promote smaller-scale, localized production of queens (“microbreeding”) to address supply and favor locally adapted genotypes. However, there is little if any information about whether such efforts may help bolster genetic diversity, reduce disease prevalence or intensity, or otherwise have a positive effect on overall queen quality. Potentially, new metrics of queen quality that include disease resistance or immune measures are needed to guide breeding efforts._


----------



## crofter

I can see lots of advantages of queen production from dispersed small breeders, but they are not economically advantageous. Just to get a jump on the earliest production knocks the more northern states and Canada out of the race. Smaller operators may more easily find isolation to control mating and shorter distance shipping to the end user could eliminate shipping health issues. But how do you make it economically attractive when you lose so many of the efficiencies of scale. With some fair measure of isolation and control of mating and and organised selection process a good uniform product results but it soon returns to the mediocre when you move it away from its isolation. That is a very common tale. You can wring your hands about it but what else.
I think Ian Stettler is starting to do more of his own queen raising but in that climate you can raise next years queens or requeen but not have queens ready for early splits. It may be what has to be done but I dont think it is a working model yet. Economics has to propel it.


----------



## Gray Goose

GregB said:


> Not necessarily.
> 
> The bees that *want *to swarm first and are healthy enough to do it - will swarm first.
> 
> There are plenty of cases where the healthiest bees are not inclined to swarm until pushed hard into a corner.


ok Greg, can you flesh that out for me.
how do you know what they "Want" is there a study on that, or a special bee language that you hear what they want?

You could as easy say the devil made them do it.....

And Swarming is about genetics *primarily*, not about health. *I would disagree here*.

GG


----------



## Gray Goose

Litsinger said:


> The Han et al research above gives a fairly robust answer to this question in my humble opinion:
> 
> _These results elucidate how the social environment of the honey bee colony may be translated into a specific cellular process to adjust maternal investment into eggs.
> 
> In our first experiment, we found that egg size was negatively correlated to egg number produced. To test whether small egg size is merely a passive consequence of high egg-laying rate, we thus assessed egg size before and after a 2-week period of queen caging, which prevented queens from laying any eggs. None of the four caged queens significantly changed her egg size (F(1,38) = 0.02–1.8, all p>0.1). None of the four queens in an unmanipulated control group during the same time changed her egg size either (F(1,38) = 0.005–0.6, all p>0.4), and egg sizes were similar between the restricted and unrestricted groups overall.
> 
> To better understand how colony size influences queen egg-size regulation, the perceived but not the physical colony size of small colonies was extended. The queens in ‘small’ colonies, producing relatively large eggs, were paired via a double-screened tunnel with medium-sized hive boxes that either contained empty frames or a queenless, ‘medium’ colony. All three queens paired with a regular colony reduced the size of their eggs compared to their initial egg size (Q1: F(3,76) = 34.5, p<0.001; Q2: F(3,76) = 42.5, p<0.001; Q3: F(3,76) = 14.6, p<0.001; post-hoc tests indicated significant differences only between measurements before and after manipulation.
> 
> To compare the ovary proteome of queens producing large eggs with that of queens producing small eggs, we identified a total of 2022 proteins and compared their relative abundance. Among the 290 proteins that exhibited significant quantitative differences, significantly more proteins were more abundant (275) than less abundant (15) in large-egg-producing ovaries compared to small-egg-producing ovaries (χ2 = 233.1, p<0.001.
> 
> Across individuals from all treatment groups, Rho1 expression at the end of the experiment correlated almost perfectly with the produced egg size.
> 
> Here, we provide evidence that egg size – a quantitative measure of maternal provisioning – is actively adjusted by honey bee queens in response to social cues that relate to colony size. We also find that queens in smaller colonies have smaller ovaries, presumably because they produce fewer but larger eggs. We find that protein localization, cytoskeleton organization, and energy generation are key proteomic changes in the ovary that mediate the production of large eggs. Finally, we identify the cytoskeleton organizer Rho1 as a potentially important regulator of the active egg-size adjustment of honey bee queens.
> 
> … little evidence for a trade-off between egg size and number was found in a previous study of honey bee queens (Amiri et al., 2020). In contrast, a negative relation between egg size and number was found here, at least in the majority of comparisons between queens in small and large colonies. Queens in large colonies typically produce more eggs than queens in small colonies. Our finding that queens in large colonies have heavier ovaries indicates a physiological adaptation to satisfy the egg-laying demand in large colonies (Al-Khafaji et al., 2009). However, this result cannot explain why queens in smaller colonies produce larger eggs, why a temporary cessation of egg laying by queens in large colonies does not lead to an increase in egg size, and why queens decrease egg size upon their perception of being in a larger colony.
> 
> The vast majority (almost 95%) of differently abundant proteins are found at higher levels in ovaries that produce large eggs. Thus, the anatomically smaller ovaries are physiologically more active in several key processes than the larger ovaries that produce smaller eggs. The GO enrichment analysis indicates the prominence of two upregulated processes in large-egg-producing ovaries – ‘protein localization’ and ‘cytoskeletal regulation’ – while several energy metabolic processes are highlighted by the KEGG pathway analysis. These functional categories indicate that egg-size variation is not a simple increase of egg volume but reflects real differences in offspring provisioning, although the proteome of small and large eggs remains to be characterized (McDonough-Goldstein et al., 2021). Higher energy generation may be needed to produce more costly large eggs (Wheeler, 1996), and the cytoskeleton and protein localization processes are key to loading the eggs with nutrients in polytrophic ovaries (Shimada et al., 2011; Wilson et al., 2011). Several of the other GO terms, such as ‘multicellular organism development’ and ‘oocyte construction,’ are further plausible candidates to explain some of the observed variation in egg size._


so then My question is
"were the tests done on swarm queens or grafted queens and would it matter?
the mother queens I am speaking of.
so does the non up sized egg queen have the ability to also up size and egg? or is this ability lost when using a small/worker egg to make a queen.

GG


----------



## GregB

Gray Goose said:


> ok Greg, can you flesh that out for me.
> how do you know what they "Want" is there a study on that, or a special bee language that you hear what they want?
> 
> You could as easy say the devil made them do it.....
> 
> And Swarming is about genetics *primarily*, not about health. *I would disagree here*.
> 
> GG


Google - "what bee subspecies swarm more".
This is to make it very simple.

The results will readily tell you that *certain subspecies* (same as genetics) *are more prone to swarm* (same as "want to swarm"). This is compared to the others.

No one will even argue that the Africanized bees are about the most known swarmy subspecies out there.

Thus - the swarming is about genetics primarily, not about health (health is important but still is secondary).

It is Google that disagrees with you, not even I. 
Now you can argue that the Google results are wrong.
You can produce the results that "subspecies of bees don't affect their swarming" - that would support your point.


----------



## Gray Goose

joebeewhisperer said:


> A queen certainly has the ability to lay a drone or a worker at will. Stands to reason there could be more in her trick bag than this, particularly given the ant (also termite) connections. It certainly warrants study.


so she can do "boy or girl" what else can she do, I play in this sand box as well.



crofter said:


> I am not ready to accept that there is observable value due to discretionary inputs by queen or workers. Is that any more than a theoretical possibility?


since the workers feed her and can tear her cell down, I cannot play in this sand box.



msl said:


> many of us (including my self) are entering this conversation under the premise that the average virgin produced from a swarm cell is superior to the average virgin produced form a grafted cell.
> however I can find little to no empirical data to support that, witch makes me question my views on the subject...


weak but perhaps empirical, bees seemed to do fine before humans started grafting. 100 years of grafting, now we need to save the bees. I cannot see how random egg selection (grafting) can be better than bee selection (swarm or Supercedure) when 1 way has a million years of data and the other a couple hundred years.



crofter said:


> Augmentation with a richer diet and juvenile hormone can further enhance possible outcomes. This leaves me wondering how such a grafted and pampered queen would compare with* a swarm cell queen from identical genetic material.*


this can be a challenge as the queen has 2 alleles and the 18 drones have 2 alleles, hence there is a 1 in 72 chance of a genetic "twin" for a Identical genetic queen. one "could" increase it to 1 in 4 if you did AI with 1 drone, BUT then IMO the whole "swarm queen test" would be invalid, cuz no swarm in nature comes from an AI mother.
ANd IMO a grafted mother queen also cannot be used as she is "incomplete"

this may be a conundrum of which there is no valid way to prove anything.
a swarm queen captured, having swarm cells 10-30, would produce few genetic twins, and to prove the genetics is there a way with out affecting the queen? crush and look at DNA then how do you test. you would need a test using the poop or spit of the queen to determine the genetics. then let them run their life, and see if there is a difference.

I guess I'll ask god later on this one.

I stand , that I cannot believe that plucking random larvae, placing into cups "CAN" on average be better, that the bees picking either by which are fed or upsized eggs or not tearing down the cell. when the bees have a million year head start on picking abilities.

there is what I know
what I know ,, I do not know
and what I do not even know,, that I do not know.....
this falls in the last choice,,, I think...

I do think grafted or walk away split queens are "good enough" for Ag needs, My stance is they are not perfect. requeen every year with these grafted queens make a crop, next , it works.

GG


----------



## Gray Goose

crofter said:


> I can see lots of advantages of queen production from dispersed small breeders, but they are not economically advantageous. Just to get a jump on the earliest production knocks the more northern states and Canada out of the race. Smaller operators may more easily find isolation to control mating and shorter distance shipping to the end user could eliminate shipping health issues. But how do you make it economically attractive when you lose so many of the efficiencies of scale. With some fair measure of isolation and control of mating and and organised selection process a good uniform product results but it soon returns to the mediocre when you move it away from its isolation. That is a very common tale. You can wring your hands about it but what else.
> I think Ian Stettler is starting to do more of his own queen raising but in that climate you can raise next years queens or requeen but not have queens ready for early splits. It may be what has to be done but I dont think it is a working model yet. Economics has to propel it.


Frank
you have to agree, that raising snow owls in panama is also maybe not "economic"
with the season length and bees perhaps not even being able to live on their own in most of Canada, asking for an economically viable queen rearing operational model is really not going to happen.
overwintering NUCs with queens for next year is about as good as it may get.
Maybe some one can fly their bee line down to an island in the south, buy the air space, graft and queen rear there and in spring fly them back, but with the winters you have , the choices are very limited.

GG


----------



## Gray Goose

GregB said:


> Google - "what bee subspecies swarm more".
> This is to make it very simple.
> 
> The results will readily tell you that *certain subspecies* (same as genetics) *are more prone to swarm* (same as "want to swarm"). This is compared to the others.
> 
> No one will even argue that the Africanized bees are about the most known swarmy subspecies out there.
> 
> Thus - the swarming is about genetics primarily, not about health (health is important but still is secondary).
> 
> It is Google that disagrees with you, not even I.
> Now you can argue that the Google results are wrong.
> You can produce the results that "subspecies of bees don't affect their swarming" - that would support your point.


ha ha if "google says" is your defense" i choose not to continue.
I was hoping for an intellectual discussion, to while away the snowy days of winter.

GG


----------



## crofter

Gray Goose said:


> Frank
> you have to agree, that raising snow owls in panama is also maybe not "economic"
> with the season length and bees perhaps not even being able to live on their own in most of Canada, asking for an economically viable queen rearing operational model is really not going to happen.
> overwintering NUCs with queens for next year is about as good as it may get.
> Maybe some one can fly their bee line down to an island in the south, buy the air space, graft and queen rear there and in spring fly them back, but with the winters you have , the choices are very limited.
> 
> GG


I think something along this line is happening with the Saskatraz and a Queen breeder in Quebec has mating property I believe in a remote California location. He has some interesting thoughts on how to organise better transportation method as his work points to degradation of queens potential due to shipping temperature humidity and barometric pressure excursions. I have posted about him before but cant think of his name at the moment. Clyderoad has also posted about him.

Do this google and get some info on his operation 

largest queen producer in Quebec Desroches.


----------



## GregB

Gray Goose said:


> ha ha if "google says" is your defense" i choose not to continue.
> I was hoping for an intellectual discussion, to while away the snowy days of winter.
> 
> GG


As if you have done personally, and then published and peer reviewed the documentation that shows that *the "health" is primary, and the genetics is secondary on the swarming.*

That is your thesis statement.

Come on, GG - now show your homemade documentation then. 

Then we can do the "intellectual discussion".

Do stay away from Google.
I trust you will. LOL

Until then, the sources (easily produced by any search engine) tell me that there is direct connection between certain genetics and the swarming traits.

Now - of course we have mutts of very uncertain genetics (most US bees).
The genetical traits of the mutts are unpredictable - this is not even an argument subject.
It is simply impossible to tell which queen is more swarmy than some other queen until they are observed in compatible setups.

In case of mutts upon mutts upon mutts one has no discernable genetical basis to be going off.
All you can say then (pretty accurately too) - the strongest spring colonies are more likely to swarm as they are most likely to hit the wall first.

Let me tell this (which I often do) - all it takes is to review 3-4 basic beekeeping manuals from the old USSR sources (very reputable materials) - which all routinely outline the most swarmy Old World subspecies (Black Bees, Carnica and Yellow Caucasians) and the least swarm subspecies (Gray Caucasians). 
I would not be surprised this to be one of the test questions for the beekeeping students back then.

All the research and descriptions have been already done for us, @Gray Goose. 
Even if the US bees are mostly mutts and don't easily fit anywhere, this does not somehow cancel the solid research done while ago in more pristine environment.


----------



## joebeewhisperer

crofter said:


> I can see lots of advantages of queen production from dispersed small breeders, but they are not economically advantageous. Just to get a jump on the earliest production knocks the more northern states and Canada out of the race.


In TN, at 2K feet above sea level, adequate drones are not usually available until late April. Given that competing with FL is not feasible, I’ll likely do as you say, produce a small amount of locally adapted queens, later in the year. And try to do a good job with that task, at that level. 


Gray Goose said:


> this may be a conundrum of which there is no valid way to prove anything.


I wonder, particularly after reaching 1000 posts on here, if this doesn’t sum up most of what we (or at least I) do with bees. I’m now going to put a laugh emoji, but I’m thinking 🤔 the crying one might also apply. 😂


----------



## Gray Goose

crofter said:


> I think something along this line is happening with the Saskatraz and a Queen breeder in Quebec has mating property I believe in a remote California location. He has some interesting thoughts on how to organise better transportation method as his work points to degradation of queens potential due to shipping temperature humidity and barometric pressure excursions. I have posted about him before but cant think of his name at the moment. Clyderoad has also posted about him.
> 
> Do this google and get some info on his operation
> 
> largest queen producer in Quebec Desroches.


uses isolation of the far north, so why not copy this guy then?
last line of the article.
"I’ve been working with bees for 20 years, I have some mentors that have been working bees 50, 60 years, old guys, every year we discover new things.” 

this was the guy whose wife "smuggled" queen in that some po po ed.

GG


----------



## Tigger19687

Someone should try this small thing we're queen lays in all the cups, you take cups out and put on a bar queen rearing system.
Then do a study on if some cells where bigger eggs, how many are laid different because it's not grafting, it's the queen laying on her own.
Maybe then we can see if she lays some different?
I just picked this off amazooly 








Amazon.com: BEEXTM Plastic Queen Rearing System Beekeeping Grafting Kit Tool Cell Cups Hair Roller Cages Queen Catcher : Patio, Lawn & Garden


Buy BEEXTM Plastic Queen Rearing System Beekeeping Grafting Kit Tool Cell Cups Hair Roller Cages Queen Catcher: Beekeeping Supplies - Amazon.com ✓ FREE DELIVERY possible on eligible purchases



www.amazon.com


----------



## crofter

The original thrust was the ultimate difference in quality between grafted and from swarm cells. No question that grafting will scale up for mass production and swarming will not. On a small scale swarming can fill your needs but in some locations deliberate swarming has negative PR issues. This is very much my situation. 

If you take grafting as a challenge it can be an interesting thing to learn; there are lots of simpler ways of getting colony increase though that can get you very close to swarm queen functionality with a bit of attention to detail. 

I did similar with artificial insemination of my cows. Took the course, bought the nitrogen tank, watched the cows for heat signals and did the deed. Experimented with different semen after studying the bull catalogues etc. Aftr about 5 years when liquid nitrogen really jumped in price, I decided it would be much easier to just open the fence and let the cow thru to the neighbors red angus bull!

Without some broad and well controlled comparison of results by someone whose conclusions we would all respect, we are pretty much exercising our philosophically influenced hunches.


----------



## Litsinger

crofter said:


> I decided it would be much easier to just open the fence and let the cow thru to the neighbors red angus bull!


And avoids all the messiness of the shoulder-length gloves .


----------



## drummerboy

I'm still holding on to the belief that despite genetics, colonies that survive winter and are split (pick your method) early (mid April/mid May), and again in early July, offering 2 brood breaks in the process....."cause" evolutionary adaptations/changes that we humans are just now beginning to understand, effectively making such survivors and their stock 'localized' and somewhat different than their ancestors. Bees aren't humans, nor are they cattle. There's a lot we still don't know.

This method of splitting (we like 'artificial/preemptive' splits) results in less honey perhaps, but higher quality (localized) queens and bees imho. At an average of around $50.00 for a queen, a small operation could supply a number of (pick up only) queens to area/regional beekeepers for a small profit.

Do I have any research to back this belief up? No, just personal observation.  Thanks for this discussion!!


----------



## Gray Goose

drummerboy said:


> I'm still holding on to the belief that despite genetics, colonies that survive winter and are split (pick your method) early (mid April/mid May), and again in early July, offering 2 brood breaks in the process....."cause" evolutionary adaptations/changes that we humans are just now beginning to understand, effectively making such survivors and their stock 'localized' and somewhat different than their ancestors. Bees aren't humans, nor are they cattle. There's a lot we still don't know.
> 
> This method of splitting (we like 'artificial/preemptive' splits) results in less honey perhaps, but higher quality (localized) queens and bees imho. At an average of around $50.00 for a queen, a small operation could supply a number of (pick up only) queens to area/regional beekeepers for a small profit.
> 
> Do I have any research to back this belief up? No, just personal observation.  Thanks for this discussion!!


if there was "demand" I could make 5-10 extra queens a year.
I get the commercials need 100's perhaps 1000's but we need to start somewhere.

GG


----------



## msl

Gray Goose said:


> but we need to start somewhere.


we do, an army of "local micro breeders"



drummerboy said:


> At an average of around $50.00 for a queen, a small operation could supply a number of (pick up only) queens to area/regional beekeepers for a small profit.


sold 100+ mated queens in 2021 made in my single box system, heck of a profit from a single deep



Gray Goose said:


> if there was "demand" I could make 5-10 extra queens a year.


a few facebook posts and they beat a path to my door, to the point I was selling virgins as people were more then willing to snap them up and didn't want to wait. 15 or so virgins a batch, one batch a week, $15 each, people showing up and buying the whole batch in one or 2 transitions.. not a bad bit of $$ for the 1-2 hours a week it takes to keep the cell builder running. 

the situation we are in is caused by beekeepers, it needs to be fixed by beekepers

if the majorly of hobiest beekeepers handled there mites, and pulled a nuc or 2 per hive to overwinter, come spring craigs list would be full of $99 local/overwintered nucs 
at that point local adaption could become a thing


----------



## GregB

crofter said:


> On a small scale swarming can fill your needs but *in some locations deliberate swarming has negative PR issues*. This is very much my situation.


To be clear - you don't need to swarm your bees.
All you have to do - get them into the *pre-swarming status *so that the swarm cells are charged up.

The actual swarm never needs to be cast, no need for that hassle.

Here is a colony in pre-swarming status.
You cannot see it - but the entrance is blocked by a taped-on queen excluder.
It is really this simple.
I don't know why people are looking for complications. 
It is not that complicated, actually.


----------



## crofter

GregB said:


> To be clear - you don't need to swarm your bees.
> All you have to do - get them into the *pre-swarming status *so that the swarm cells are charged up.
> 
> The actual swarm never needs to be cast, no need for that hassle.
> 
> Here is a colony in pre-swarming status.
> You cannot see it - but the entrance is blocked by a taped-on queen excluder.
> It is really this simple.
> I don't know why people are looking for complications.
> It is not that complicated, actually.
> 
> View attachment 72264


No honey supers there to stack off to check for swarm cells! yes easy peasy! Means checking about once a week. If running two deep broods and three supers, it is a fair chore.


Too soon yet to see how eager to swarm will be my buckfast bees; that and running 10 frame Dadant as single broods hopefully will save my back.

Had hoped to do some grafting this past summer and share some of that buckfast blood with my friends but that visit by sacbrood ended any exchanges for most of the summer.

I grafted one row of cells before I discovered I had the virus on the go. I got one take out of 12 cups; a bit disappointing to say the least. In a way it was a bit of a plus to excuse myself that it was the virus, not me, but I should have been onto it sooner. Learned one good lesson about the importance of seeing newest larvae swimming in buttermilk. If they are not, something is wrong and no use even thinking about grafting.


----------



## GregB

crofter said:


> No honey supers there to stack off to check for swarm cells! yes easy peasy!


Why, exactly.

You have honey-side business.
And you have propagation-side business.
Does not matter how small you are, even if five hives.

Easy peasy it is.
Simple.
We've been discussing this for how long now?


----------



## crofter

GregB said:


> Why, exactly.
> 
> You have honey-side business.
> And you have propagation-side business.
> Does not matter how small you are, even if five hives.
> 
> Easy peasy it is.
> Simple.
> We've been discussing this for how long now?


So you take your breeder colonies to the brink of swarming and make splits with the resulting cells. Then put your "meat bees" to making honey and I suppose you could pull brood from them to prevent swarming and use such frames for mating nucs!

Put in those terms, it sounds like it could be a workable plan. I dont think you are all that enthused about honey production anyway.


----------



## Gray Goose

crofter said:


> So you take your breeder colonies to the brink of swarming and make splits with the resulting cells. Then put your "meat bees" to making honey and I suppose you could pull brood from them to prevent swarming and use such frames for mating nucs!
> 
> Put in those terms, it sounds like it could be a workable plan. I dont think you are all that enthused about honey production anyway.


or 3 frames of meat bees with 1 frame from the breeder with Q cells.
treat when the cell is capped, then when the queen starts laying but before any larvae are 5 days old.
clean start, increase from the breeder, meat bees used up.

GG


----------



## GregB

crofter said:


> So you take your breeder colonies to the brink of swarming and make splits with the resulting cells. Then put your "meat bees" to making honey and I suppose you could pull brood from them to prevent swarming and use such frames for mating nucs!
> 
> Put in those terms, it sounds like it could be a workable plan. I dont think you are all that enthused about honey production anyway.


All last summer I was making an experiment and sharing with it with you.
One of the points was - you do *NOT *need lots of bees for the small-scale propagation side.

Again, all this commercially influenced stuff pollutes the brains.
IMO all that needs to flushed down and away.
Let them do what they want with the grafting/starters/finishes/blah...

3-4 compact, foam hives will take care of your propagation needs.
It not about the volume of bees.
It is about *density *of the bees and the environment they provide - which the bees easily can in foam.

The biggest of my foam coolers is about *12 mini framelets** - that is 6 medium Lang frames - that is sufficient to grow several good queen cells to cover all your needs.

And so, you can syphon off 10-20% of your total bees into the propagation colonies
The rest 80-90% of the bees can work on your honey however you want to slice and dice them.

**mini framelets *

I feel people need to pay attention and evaluate these for themselves
the mini framelets indeed are the way to go in the mini nuc setup;
the regular frames are not what you want for small scale propagation to work
don't believe me? then fine - look at Sam Comfort and learn from him


----------



## msl

its a hard sell (how many years of me pokeing you did it take to get you to come around ? ) to get people to see that spricaly equipment dosn't cost, it pays dividends

standard foam mini costs $15 takes 1/10 the bees of a 2 frame deep to mate out a queen, the produce an ROI in there 1 round!!!
even with a 50% fail rate if you buy and stock 10 ($150) you just made 5 quees at $40 ($200) thats one queen for you (you had a 70% chance of getting a queen out of the 2f nuc worth of bees) and 4 to sell (or keep)

next round its all gravy

while we are on quality.. quality varies among batch's no mater how the cells are made (graft, E, Swarm, etc)
Tarpy EtAl (2012) puts it very well... the same message we get from Taber, the same message we get from Farr



> Queen "quality" significantly varied among commercial sources for physical characters but not for mating characters. These findings suggest that it may be more effective to improve overall queen reproductive potential by culling lower-quality queens rather than systematically altering current queen production practices.











Assessing the mating 'health' of commercial honey bee queens - PubMed


Honey bee queens mate with multiple males, which increases the total genetic diversity within colonies and has been shown to confer numerous benefits for colony health and productivity. Recent surveys of beekeepers have suggested that 'poor queens' are a top management concern, thus...




pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov





having more queens they you need allows you to be selective.. poor queens don't last long in production hives if you have a bunch of new ones and need a place to put them, but they do if its going to cost you $45, most people will "wait and see" 


When left to there own, the bees make many more queens then they need, and then "chose" the best, something more keepers should look at... both the bees and the science are telling us the same story, we should listen. 


as an example, I had hurd in passing some of the "craft" queen producers (a few thouand a year) are pinching around 25% of the queens that mate out to insure only a quality product gets out the door


----------



## crofter

If you have to wait till the queen mates and then assess her laying pattern etc., it certainly is going to add to the cost per queen shipped. This snip from the article @msl links to in previous post adds support to the notion of shipping events being a big part of the queen quality issues. 

"_This variability could originate from the drones the queens mate with or temperature extremes that queens are exposed to during shipment. The role of shipping temperature as a possible explanation for low sperm viability was explored. We documented that during shipment queens are exposed to temperature spikes (<8 and > 40°C) and these spikes can kill 50% or more of the sperm stored in queen spermathecae in live queens. Clearly low sperm viability is linked to colony performance and laboratory and field data provide evidence that temperature extremes are a potential causative factor." _


----------



## Arnie

I've skimmed through this thread and it is interesting. 
I don't have the education to read scientific studies, but I'm wondering if someone could, or has,test(ed) this on a practical level. 

My idea is to pick a good colony with a nice queen; graft maybe a half dozen queens and then push the colony to swarm. 
Take an equal number (if there are enough) of the swarm cells and establish new colonies with both types of queen. 

Then record how each group does. 
Pick some criteria to watch and record. Let's say: brood pattern, rate of spring buildup, honey production, queen supercedure rate, frugality, winter survival, longevity of the queen etc.

Then we could compare and contrast. 

If this has already been done, what were the results?
Who won the competition...grafted or swarm?


----------



## GregB

msl said:


> its a hard sell (how many years of me pokeing you did it take to get you to come around ? ) to get people to see that spricaly equipment dosn't cost, it pays dividends....
> 
> standard foam mini costs $15 takes 1/10 the bees of a 2 frame deep to mate out a queen, the produce an ROI in there 1 round!!!


True.  

But also true, none of these mattered until the bees stayed alive - so that was the #1 issue on hand.

And also, I came to realization - a major issue is about people clinging to their "standard frames" and "standard boxes".

Once you ditch that useless attachment - you are free to do what is more optimal to solve the problem on hand.
The problem on hand is to produce few queens cheaply, easily, and efficiently (NOT honey, NOT bees).
*Queens.*

Then the solution is to create energy efficient environment where a relatively small number of bees can do this (freeing rest of your apiary to do the other work).

A *cuboid volume* allowed by small framelets in *highly insolated envelope* does this very well.
This is not about mating nucs.
This is about full-blown colonies in mini format.


----------



## Gray Goose

Arnie said:


> I've skimmed through this thread and it is interesting.
> I don't have the education to read scientific studies, but I'm wondering if someone could, or has,test(ed) this on a practical level.
> 
> My idea is to pick a good colony with a nice queen; graft maybe a half dozen queens and then push the colony to swarm.
> Take an equal number (if there are enough) of the swarm cells and establish new colonies with both types of queen.
> 
> Then record how each group does.
> Pick some criteria to watch and record. Let's say: brood pattern, rate of spring buildup, honey production, queen supercedure rate, frugality, winter survival, longevity of the queen etc.
> 
> Then we could compare and contrast.
> 
> If this has already been done, what were the results?
> Who won the competition...grafted or swarm?


Arnie,
keep in mind the mother queen could have mated with 18 drones.
If you got 8 swarm queens and 8 grafted queens, there is a fair chance only 2 or 3 would be true sisters.
so you are then maybe comparing the different drone queen combinations, which with 18 drones can be 72 different combinations as the drone and queen have 2 Alleles.

If would take 100's if not 1000's of queens and a way to determine the exact Allele of each, with out affecting them, to even be comparing apples to apples.
then each queen you made, grafted or swarm, would mate with 15-30 drones and have 12 or so patra lines, so one could also say these matings would produce different patra lines in the hives tested.

the multiple drones with 2 alleles each is a conundrum that IMO would render most testing a test of patra lines mixes, rather than the queen.
Now in isolation we may have better results, but as each drone mates only once , what are we really comparing?
toss in a rainy week for mating and the whole thing is somewhat irrelevant.

GG


----------



## crofter

I would think though that at a hundred iterations by each method the drone randomness would be spread around enough that if there was much inherent difference between methods the trend would be apparent. Certainly you could not do 5 or 10 of each and call the observed results proof of concept. You do not have to flip a coin a thousand times to establish that the odds are 50/50


Someone schooled in the laws of probability could weight the possible variables and project the degree of error at any given number of pairs assessed. If no measurable trend materialized it could be assumed that there was no considerable benefit in one method over the other. 

It would take very close control of conditions to assure that some subtle influence had not slipped into the trial.

Russ, Gray Goose and myself would have to self disqualify.


----------



## Arnie

GG, thanks. 
So for someone like me with 20 hives it isn't going to matter if I graft, use swarm cells or just do walkway splits.
Got it. Makes sense. 

I do have the equipment for grafting just for fun when I retire. We'll see what happens.


----------



## Gray Goose

crofter said:


> I would think though that at a hundred iterations by each method the drone randomness would be spread around enough that if there was much inherent difference between methods the trend would be apparent. Certainly you could not do 5 or 10 of each and call the observed results proof of concept. You do not have to flip a coin a thousand times to establish that the odds are 50/50
> 
> 
> Someone schooled in the laws of probability could weight the possible variables and project the degree of error at any given number of pairs assessed. If no measurable trend materialized it could be assumed that there was no considerable benefit in one method over the other.
> 
> It would take very close control of conditions to assure that some subtle influence had not slipped into the trial.
> 
> Russ, Gray Goose and myself would have to self disqualify.


well if weighted probability IS the end results of the study would you buy it hook line and sinker.

and for me 4-6 generations would need to be done, 1 and done is a poor test, weather could thro the whole thing.
IE a swarm queen to a daughter swarm queen x6
VRS a grafted queen to a grafted queen x6
then all the drone would need to come from the same. IE swarms queens in the drone yard and grafted queens in the other drone yard.

I do have a 5-10 test, out of the last 35 queens I have purchased in packages and NUCs and in a queen cadge, only 3 made the first winter
80% of my swarm queens make the first winter. and most of them are from swarm mother queens.
swarms from package bees never yet made the winter. (they have the old queen) not surprised.

And I do make assumptions but not the one from your last statement. what's measured, by who, with what bias.
most of the last studies have had several things assumed constant, rare this is actually the case.

this would be a valid test but very hard to even out the variables.
I would help/partake, but who is going to fund a real study showing the puppy mill queens are really not that good?

really are now AG and many ways to do this and get a crop, the nitty gritty many do not care much about.

ok i'll get of the soap box now

Merry Christmas Frank

GG


----------



## Litsinger

crofter said:


> Russ, Gray Goose and myself would have to self disqualify.


I'm just glad I'm on the sidelines for once... it's a good discussion for the winter and a lot of good thoughts put forth from several different angles.


----------



## Gray Goose

Arnie said:


> GG, thanks.
> So for someone like me with 20 hives it isn't going to matter if I graft, use swarm cells or just do walkway splits.
> Got it. Makes sense.
> 
> I do have the equipment for grafting just for fun when I retire. We'll see what happens.


no every little thing matters.
good feed for the young queens.
use larvae from the best hives.
cull the poorest queens
mate when local drones are abundant, IE not have queens flying when someone drops off 100 hives in the orchard next door.
once a year get a good queen for divercity/drones, if you like her and she winters well, take a split from her the next year.

some sort of test/assay to determine the best and culls.

I started with 20ish hives and my queens are as good as many/most I buy.

try both,, graft from the best, if you open a hive and find Queen Cells dispatch the queens of the 2 poorest hives plug In a frame with a cell or 2 and in a slow methodical way upgrade the Apiary.
I read in an old book a quote I remember is:
"The Apiary succeeds or fails on the best 10% of your hives."

these are the mothers of your future hives.

good luck

GG


----------



## crofter

Gray Goose said:


> well if weighted probability IS the end results of the study would you buy it hook line and sinker.
> 
> and for me 4-6 generations would need to be done, 1 and done is a poor test, weather could thro the whole thing.
> IE a swarm queen to a daughter swarm queen x6
> VRS a grafted queen to a grafted queen x6
> then all the drone would need to come from the same. IE swarms queens in the drone yard and grafted queens in the other drone yard.
> 
> I do have a 5-10 test, out of the last 35 queens I have purchased in packages and NUCs and in a queen cadge, only 3 made the first winter
> 80% of my swarm queens make the first winter. and most of them are from swarm mother queens.
> swarms from package bees never yet made the winter. (they have the old queen) not surprised.
> 
> And I do make assumptions but not the one from your last statement. what's measured, by who, with what bias.
> most of the last studies have had several things assumed constant, rare this is actually the case.
> 
> this would be a valid test but very hard to even out the variables.
> I would help/partake, but who is going to fund a real study showing the puppy mill queens are really not that good?
> 
> really are now AG and many ways to do this and get a crop, the nitty gritty many do not care much about.
> 
> ok i'll get of the soap box now
> 
> Merry Christmas Frank
> 
> GG


Ah but the circumstances, and variables you describe are anything but a level playing field with every variable eliminated to the best of the abilities of a research team. words like weather variables and "puppy mill queens" are exactly what have to be eliminated from the picture. These are exactly the variables commonly part of the existing queen rearing picture.

That is not what is in question here; In strict conditions with all other variables removed: Are queens reared from the most expert, grafting process inferior to queens reared from swarm cells. Is there some essential element supplied by the queen in the swarming situation that makes that offspring superior? A superiority that could be qualified by any large numbers of comparisons where all incidental variables eliminated as much as humanly possible? 

I think we all know such a trial is unlikely to happen so the discussion is little more than entertainment. I think it a good exercise though to sharpen ones focus on what all variables can come into play in the field of practical beekeeping. It is all to easy to jump to conclusions without considering all the subtleties which can slip into (or evade) our conscious conclusions.


----------



## crofter

There is quite a bit of prep work leading up to grafting if you were attempting to produce bragging rights queens. If you are doing it on a regular basis it should be fairly well orchestrated and not much need of a pre flight check list. Lots of little details that could potentially make a difference. Missing a started cell in the starter colony could make it an outright failure.

It would be simpler to just keep a watch for swarm preps and act accordingly. Lots of other propagation methods too that if done when the colony is well populated and rich in resources yield very fine queens.


----------



## Arnie

Thanks again GG
I make splits from my best hives. Then split the best of those. 
I like your idea of replacing a poor queen with a frame with queen cells from a good hive. Haven't done that.

Little by little there are more strong, productive hives, fewer duds.
It's a process.


----------



## Gray Goose

crofter said:


> There is quite a bit of prep work leading up to grafting if you were attempting to produce bragging rights queens. If you are doing it on a regular basis it should be fairly well orchestrated and not much need of a pre flight check list. Lots of little details that could potentially make a difference. Missing a started cell in the starter colony could make it an outright failure.
> 
> It would be simpler to just keep a watch for swarm preps and act accordingly. Lots of other propagation methods too that if done when the colony is well populated and rich in resources yield very fine queens.


agree Frank with the above.
re: *reared from the most expert, grafting process* 
I was talking the "Average grafting person. against the average swarm prep hive.

Now if the expert was compared to the Expert swarm queens hive, just how would we find the expert swarm queen hive?? 

right what we can control is all we can control.

IMO we do well as humans, making queens, but I do not think long term we win as best.

GG


----------



## Gray Goose

Litsinger said:


> I'm just glad I'm on the sidelines for once... it's a good discussion for the winter and a lot of good thoughts put forth from several different angles.


----------



## crofter

Gray Goose said:


> agree Frank with the above.
> re: *reared from the most expert, grafting process*
> I was talking the "Average grafting person. against the average swarm prep hive.
> 
> Now if the expert was compared to the Expert swarm queens hive, just how would we find the expert swarm queen hive??
> 
> right what we can control is all we can control.
> 
> IMO we do well as humans, making queens, but I do not think long term we win as best.
> 
> GG


I thought the queen was assumed to be the quintessential expert; the result of eons of honed experience! I thought we were assuming a level playing field.


----------



## drummerboy

I consider the queen an essential egg laying tool that the 'collective of workers' decided which is best, if left to do so on their own. 

There's so much we don't know for certain about bees, but assumptions are normal for us humans, so we continue to assume or predict, often with deadly results. 

Try as we might we will never know as much about bees as bees know about bees. However, that doesn't mean we should stop trying


----------



## Litsinger

drummerboy said:


> Try as we might we will never know as much about bees as bees know about bees. However, that doesn't mean we should stop trying


Well said, my friend. 

Merry Christmas!


----------



## msl

GregB said:


> you do *NOT *need lots of bees for the small-scale propagation side.


about 400 per queen with no other hive jobs

warning, this is a set of VERY deep dives in to what it take to produce a queen 





Rearing queens in the laboratory with small groups of worker honey bees







mspace.lib.umanitoba.ca









Biological factors affecting the laboratory rearing of queen honey bees







mspace.lib.umanitoba.ca


----------



## Litsinger

Here is an interesting study outlining the importance of larval age in gene expression in caste development:









Extent and complexity of RNA processing in honey bee queen and worker caste development


The distinct honeybee (Apis mellifera) worker and queen castes have become a model for the study of genomic mechanisms of phenotypic plasticity. Here we performed a nanopore-based direct RNA sequencing with exceptionally long reads to compare the mRNA ...




www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov





From the experimental design:

_The mother queen was caged onto a plastic worker-cell frame developed by Pan et al. (2013) to lay eggs into worker cells for 6 h. Afterwards, half of these eggs were removed into commercial plastic queen cells to rear queens before hatching. Queen and worker larvae at 48 h (2 days), 96hrs (4 days) and 144 h (6 days) after hatching were harvested and were flash-frozen in liquid nitrogen. In the DRS experiment, for the 2 days queen larvae (2Q) or 2 days worker larvae (2W), larvae were very small, therefore we collected twenty 2days queen larvae and mixed them into one sample._

And some of the more salient observations:

_We identified 187, 357 and 364 uniquely expressed isoforms in queen or worker larvae at 2d, 4d, and 6d age, with more occurring in queens than workers. The number of uniquely expressed isoforms in queens reached a maximum at the 4d stage, whereas in workers it reached a maximum in the 6d sample. This could suggest that the queen developmental pathway diverges more quickly and at an early larval stage, whereas the developmental pathway of workers diverges slightly later. 

... here are isoforms which are likely to be involved in queen-worker differentiation that are uniquely expressed in queens or workers during their development.

This indicates that the formation of transcripts in honeybee development is more complex than previously known.

Therefore, increasing evidence revealed that the complex RNA processing may be a principal contributor to the phenotypic complexity (Gommans et al., 2008, 2010). The present study supports this hypothesis and showed a genome-wide different isoform expression in queen-worker differentiation, which was far more complex than the gene expression._


----------



## Outdoor N8

Any one else catch Jamie Ellis' answer in the Jan. ABJ, pg 26, "queen egg vs worker egg" question.

... "To bring everyone up to speed: There is now research evidence that suggests queens lay larger eggs into queen cells and these eggs lead to better queens than do eggs originally laid into worker cells." ...


----------



## crofter

Outdoor N8 said:


> Any one else catch Jamie Ellis' answer in the Jan. ABJ, pg 26, "queen egg vs worker egg" question.
> 
> ... "To bring everyone up to speed: There is now research evidence that suggests queens lay larger eggs into queen cells and these eggs lead to better queens than do eggs originally laid into worker cells." ...


Was there any conjecture about the why of the larger eggs! Delay in laying has measurable effect in this regard, compared to the rapid rate when a queen is filling frames of worker or drone brood. I have seen conjecture that the process of getting the queen to the cell and into the position to deposit an egg in that inverted position could be mechanically affective of the resulting size.

A competing thesis is that the queen intentionally chooses a different egg and/or gives it some special attention when it destined to be a queen.


----------



## ruthiesbees

here is the link A Maternal Effect on Queen Production in Honeybees

and the ABJ question The Classroom – December 2022 - American Bee Journal


----------



## Litsinger

ruthiesbees said:


> ABJ [in] question


Here is a link to the magazine excerpt:



Litsinger said:


> In the January 2021 ABJ, a question is posed to Dr. Jamie Ellis (attached) in his standing 'The Classroom' article which is titled _'Queens Lay Queen Eggs?'_


----------



## crofter

Reading the two articles linked show quite a few suggestions that queen intentionality may be a factor in the different outcomes but the experiment was not robust enough to rule out other causation for observed results.

Other experiments controlling hive and queen physical inputs prior to oviposition can definitely and predictably affect the _queenliness_ of resulting queens.


----------



## Litsinger

crofter said:


> Other experiments controlling hive and queen physical inputs prior to oviposition can definitely and predictably affect the _queenliness_ of resulting queens.





Litsinger said:


> In our first experiment, we found that egg size was negatively correlated to egg number produced. To test whether small egg size is merely a passive consequence of high egg-laying rate, we thus assessed egg size before and after a 2-week period of queen caging, which prevented queens from laying any eggs. None of the four caged queens significantly changed her egg size (F(1,38) = 0.02–1.8, all p>0.1). None of the four queens in an unmanipulated control group during the same time changed her egg size either (F(1,38) = 0.005–0.6, all p>0.4), and egg sizes were similar between the restricted and unrestricted groups overall.


----------



## crofter

Time frame may be of some importance. I have not seen exacting figures but have the feeling that only minutes delay between egg laying can make a difference compared to the 30 seconds or so between eggs when the queen is in high production mode.

Banking of a queen has never been considered as being conducive to excellence.


----------

