# Grafted queens - overrated?



## Frgrasso (Dec 18, 2014)

IMO , I think a queen is a queen however 
She was made , I think how well she is mated
Determines the performance of the queen


----------



## rookie2531 (Jul 28, 2014)

I don't know about quality of how she is made, but when I graft, I like the ease of being able to move that cell. Unlike walk-away when there are some too close together and directly on the other side.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

asd said:


> I use the standard method of making queens using a starter/finisher hive and grafting. However yesterday I've noticed how well fed are the queen larvae started by a small 2 standard frame mating nuc.
> 
> So I wonder: Aren't we a bit too scientific on these methods that we're using? Do we really make good queens using the grafting method instead of making simple splits?
> 
> I mention that I have never made other queens but from grafting. I'm pleased with the quality so far but still the questions remains. Does it really pay all the effort? Have anyone seen differences in quality of the queens using both methods? I have read about Alley giving the queen cells to small nuclei in the past.


First of all I don't think there is any very scientific about manually moving a larvae into a queenless cell builder but yes, good queens can be produced either way however it's not just a question of queen quality. Grafting allows you to select for certain traits from a select breeder instead of just what is available in any given hive. The biggest advantages though are that installing a "ripe" cell in a nuc speeds the whole process up by nearly 2 weeks and assures that each split does in fact have a viable cell. This time may well be the difference in getting a hive of large enough size in time to get a surplus of honey in the same year.


----------



## David LaFerney (Jan 14, 2009)

When you do a split the queenless half is the cell builder. If it all goes well after tying up that hive for a month you get 1 queen. When you rear queens you use the cell builder for 10 days and potentially get dozens of queens. Queen rearing is a much more economical use of resources.

If it wasn't for queen rearing the cost of purchased queens would be astronomical.


----------



## Tenbears (May 15, 2012)

I too believe a queen is a queen. With the exception of queens, created in emergency situations where the only available larva is 3 or 4 days old, I believe those queens tend to be short lived and poor producers. 
As for grafting, it has advantages for producing great numbers of queens with consistent genetics. making consolidating desired traits more reliable. Combine that with artificial insemination and you can accurately guarantee the product you deliver.


----------



## snapper1d (Apr 8, 2011)

When you get old and the arthritis starts and you get fumble fingered and cant graft anymore then emergency queens and cut out queen cells become the easier way.Removing a queen and after a week removing all the queen cells to make them hopelessly queenless and then inserting a frame with eggs from a good queen they will start on the first larvae hatched and you can avoid getting those from 3 or 4 day old larvae.


----------



## WBVC (Apr 25, 2013)

Honestly whether you graft or split it takes the same length of time to get a Queen up and running. The difference between graft and split is where that time is spent.

I tried grafting this year. I think the biggest advantage to grafting is it permits one to get a lot of Queen cells from one selected Queen in the period of one Queen raising cycle. Great for those doing intensive selective breeding and for those selling large numbers of Queens.

Regarding selective breeding...it is really a myth as controlling the genes on one side of the equation only doesn't really cut it.




jim lyon said:


> First of all I don't think there is any very scientific about manually moving a larvae into a queenless cell builder but yes, good queens can be produced either way however it's not just a question of queen quality. Grafting allows you to select for certain traits from a select breeder instead of just what is available in any given hive. The biggest advantages though are that installing a "ripe" cell in a nuc speeds the whole process up by nearly 2 weeks and assures that each split does in fact have a viable cell. This time may well be the difference in getting a hive of large enough size in time to get a surplus of honey in the same year.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

WBVC said:


> Honestly whether you graft or split it takes the same length of time to get a Queen up and running. The difference between graft and split is where that time is spent.


Certainly from a gestational standpoint you are correct but from an operational standpoint it depends on your perspective. I can select breeders and as many exceptional hives as I need to get all the cells I need "in the pipeline" ahead of a large nucing operation. Quite often the bees Im going to make splits from benefit greatly from the additional week and half of growth and egg laying or as often is my case, they may be sitting over a thousand miles away awaiting release while I'm grafting the cells for them.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

WBVC said:


> Regarding selective breeding...it is really a myth as controlling the genes on one side of the equation only doesn't really cut it.


This may well be true but given your "druthers" wouldnt you rather graft from an exceptional hive or at least one that exhibits some exceptional traits?


----------



## AstroBee (Jan 3, 2003)

asd said:


> So I wonder: Aren't we a bit too scientific on these methods that we're using? Do we really make good queens using the grafting method instead of making simple splits?


There's nothing magical about grafting at all, nor is it too scientific. Its simply a mechanical procedure that makes setup and disposition of cells more efficient. The quality of queens from grafting, splits, Jenter, are all about the same. If I had to rank them in terms of quality of the queen, I would order them as Jenter, grafting, splits (best to worst), but this is splitting hairs. I recall Oldtimer posting a technique that involved cutting comb. I would rank this equal with Jenter since larvae are not disturbed in the process. Splits may suffer slightly if bees are forced to deal with really old comb. At least to me, the magic is in the cell builder. Great cell builders make great queens, of course assuming all else equal. One could argue that the "best" queens come from those built following a swarm response, which is what great cell builders attempt to emulate. However, very few breeders would risk inducing a swarm response from their prized breeder queen.


----------



## grozzie2 (Jun 3, 2011)

WBVC said:


> Honestly whether you graft or split it takes the same length of time to get a Queen up and running. The difference between graft and split is where that time is spent.


If you are doing one or two rounds, then I agree. But, where the savings starts, is when you re-run the equipment for round 3. Using my own example, one cell builder colony, and two small groups of mating nucs. I started with the first graft, then they went as ripe cells into half the mating nucs. I started the second round, and they went in as ripe cells two weeks later. When I did my third round, the mating nucs from round 1 were re-used.

The time and resource savings starts to show itself when you have operations running in parallel. Queens in group 1 sitting in the nuc getting mated / started, while cells for group 3 are in the builder getting built. When the cells are ready for group 3, the queens from group 1 get caged up, and the cells go in. The time efficiency of overlapped operations doesn't show up, until you get into re-using the nucs, so the builder and the nuc are both doing their part of the process in parallel. In my case, since I was using a cloak board setup, and the same hive was the starter and the finisher for the cells, a two week schedule worked out well for me. But, if I was using separate starter and finisher, I could get more overlap by operating on a shorter time between grafts, with more sets of mating nucs. Then it's possible to have one set in the starter, another in the finisher, while yet another is in the mating nucs. That's a 3 way overlap instead of a 2 way as I was using.

The time for each individual queen doesn't change, but, the number of queens that you can produce with a given amount of equipment and time does, and that savings starts to show once you get all the operations happening in parallel.


----------



## asd (Jun 10, 2015)

Thanks guys for all the replies. It helps to get boosted with other experiences.


----------



## Tenbears (May 15, 2012)

snapper1d said:


> When you get old and the arthritis starts and you get fumble fingered and cant graft anymore then emergency queens and cut out queen cells become the easier way.Removing a queen and after a week removing all the queen cells to make them hopelessly queenless and then inserting a frame with eggs from a good queen they will start on the first larvae hatched and you can avoid getting those from 3 or 4 day old larvae.


How long do I have before that happens? I m knocking on 70 now. if I can just hold out for another 15 years I'll be good ta go.


----------



## snapper1d (Apr 8, 2011)

You are darn lucky not to be starting to fall apart at that age.I am 65 and its been whipping me for years now.


----------



## David LaFerney (Jan 14, 2009)

WBVC said:


> Regarding selective breeding...it is really a myth as controlling the genes on one side of the equation only doesn't really cut it.


Respectfully - you are wrong about that. I used to aggressively requeen foul tempered hives with queens raised from gentle hives, and it did not take long before my apiary was filled with gentle bees. Only anecdotal I know, but I'm sure convinced that it's doable.


----------



## Little-John (Jun 18, 2015)

"A queen is a queen" - oh dear me ...

Last year I thought it might be quite a good idea to breed native AMM, and so imported a couple of breeder queens from one of the well-known beekeepers of AMM in Ireland. My choice of supplier was influenced by this beekeeper having a high profile: one who gives talks on breeding and the raising of queens and so forth, and is considered by many as being an expert in this field. Unlike myself, this guy grafts and then mates virgins in tiny Apideas - in large numbers.

The queens duly arrived ok and over-wintered without problems - but - both were immediately superceded within a month of drones becoming available this spring. 

I'm now wondering how many other queen breeders are likewise living under the delusion that they are producing high-quality queens, and never think to make enquiries of their customers in order to discover how their queens have actually performed a year or two down the line ?

All of the various queen raising 'systems' I hear discussed at length are geared towards either increased numbers of queens, or the ease of producing them - or both. A low unit production price and effort (and therefore high profits) always seems to be the focus - but never do I hear any emphasis on the *quality* of those queens being produced. That always seems to be assumed, and breeders appear to consider that their job ends when the queen is put in the post, and are content to remain blissfully unaware of what happens afterwards.

There's only one way for breeders to discover that - and that is to ask your customers - but do they ? Do you ?

LJ


----------



## Tenbears (May 15, 2012)

snapper1d said:


> You are darn lucky not to be starting to fall apart at that age.I am 65 and its been whipping me for years now.


 Go not ye quietly into this thy good night. Rage, Rage against the dying of the light! Learn it, like it, Live by it! 

I hunted elk in Idaho last fall with guys in their 40s and 50s Stayed with them stride for stride.. Was not about to let them Smarty Alek kids show me up. Mind you I walked 2 miles with a pack that weighed 50 pounds all summer. Keeping up with that pup of mine was the chore on my walks. I even did my share packing the game off the mountain. I did however keep the Bengay hidden.


----------



## snapper1d (Apr 8, 2011)

David LaFerney said:


> Respectfully - you are wrong about that. I used to aggressively requeen foul tempered hives with queens raised from gentle hives, and it did not take long before my apiary was filled with gentle bees. Only anecdotal I know, but I'm sure convinced that it's doable.


I do the same as you David.Some of the swarms I get are ill tempered and I requeen from my best and gentlest bees.I also use drone comb in some of the gentlest to help flood the area with drones.I did get a swarm this spring that has the gentlest bees I have seen.Never have I ever seen one like this in 35 years.Extremely productive also.If they continue like this this one will be my queen breeder next year.


----------



## AstroBee (Jan 3, 2003)

Little-John said:


> "A queen is a queen"


Not sure anyone said, or even implied, such a statement. If that's what you've taken away from this discussion, then I think you've misinterpreted the responses. 



Little-John said:


> All of the various queen raising 'systems' I hear discussed at length are geared towards either increased numbers of queens, or the ease of producing them - or both. A low unit production price and effort (and therefore high profits) always seems to be the focus - but never do I hear any emphasis on the *quality* of those queens being produced. That always seems to be assumed, and breeders appear to consider that their job ends when the queen is put in the post, and are content to remain blissfully unaware of what happens afterwards.


Where is it that you hear all this discussion about "low unit production price and effort"? This is a serious question, as I rarely hear that kind of talk on this forum. If anything, I hear more of the opposite, since most contributors are raising queens for their own use. Perhaps you would share with us how you raise quality queens?


----------



## dleemc1 (Dec 31, 2012)

no they don`t!!!! and you are right


Little-John said:


> "A queen is a queen" - oh dear me ...
> 
> Last year I thought it might be quite a good idea to breed native AMM, and so imported a couple of breeder queens from one of the well-known beekeepers of AMM in Ireland. My choice of supplier was influenced by this beekeeper having a high profile: one who gives talks on breeding and the raising of queens and so forth, and is considered by many as being an expert in this field. Unlike myself, this guy grafts and then mates virgins in tiny Apideas - in large numbers.
> 
> ...


----------



## asd (Jun 10, 2015)

I'm trying the simplest possible method (maybe): I have a 3 stories good hive full of bees and I've just put an inverted cover with entrance between the 2 brood boxes(the queen is probably in the second box). Theoretically I should be able to cut QC's after 10 days - a sort of cloacke variation. I'll put an excluder after 2-3 days instead of the cover. In practice I noticed that queen less hives are not that eager to make queen cells so it may take a little longer.

Up until now I did 3-4 grafting rounds and only got around 8 mated queens out of 15 nucs.

What are you guys doing when after 2 weeks you don't see eggs and on the same day you have a set of ripen QC's at hand? Give them the cell? Give them a frame of brood and wait another week? What's the best option?

I know that in order to get good acceptance of cells nucs need feeding but I'd rather not. I'm trying to avoid feeding as much as possible as it is a time/nerve consuming process.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

You can get poorly fed queens by almost any method. You can get well fed queens by almost any method. The poorly fed ones will never be good queens. The well fed ones will most likely be excellent queens. It's not whether they are grafted or not, it's whether they are well fed or not...


----------



## kilocharlie (Dec 27, 2010)

+1, Mr. Bush, (post #23)

+1 Jim Lyon, (post #4)

Michael Palmer says, "It's all about the Royal Jelly, baby!"

Grafted queens, done right, are almost indistinguishable from non-grafted queens. Well-raised and well-mated queens with poor genetics out perform poorly-raised and poorly-mated queens with good genetics just about every time. But is sure gets nice when the genetics are good, too!

Your score should come up if you FEED YOUR DRONE COLONIES pollen patties, and keep them as long into the season as you can afford. This way, any supercedure queens can get well-mated, too.


----------



## kilocharlie (Dec 27, 2010)

WBVC said:


> ...Regarding selective breeding...it is really a myth as controlling the genes on one side of the equation only doesn't really cut it.


By selecting larvae from queens whose colony exhibits gentleness, excellent buildup timing to your locale, top-notch honey production, travel tolerance, mite tolerance, etc...all the desirable qualities, AND AGGRESSIVELY KILLING DRONES FROM COLONIES WITH UNDESIRABLE TRAITS while re-queening them, and mating in a well-isolated area with good drone flooding, you still do not have true "control" of the matings, but your probability of progress toward a genetic goal should go way up.

1) Make lots of equipment.
2) Increase your apiary. Purchase the best queen stock you can get.
3) Seek an area for mating queens that is isolated from feral bees and from other beekeepers.
4) Be very brave and kill all the drones with undesirable traits, and re-queen them with excellent queen stock. Yes, this hurts, but do it and see what happens!!!
5) Feed pollen substitute and syrup to the colonies being used for *desirable* drone stock every 4 days during queen rearing season.

These simple 5 steps will go a long way toward stock improvement without I.I.


----------

