# Sticky  Rearing queens for a small operation



## Ddawg

I'm in my 4th year of beekeeping and I am a small operation with 6 production hives and various nucs through out the year. In this early phase of my beekeeping I don't plan on growing more than around 10 hives plus nucs. 
I try to set a goal each year of starting to learn a new aspect of beekeeping. My first years have been focused on keeping the bees alive and nucs, with the specific goal of not purchasing packaged bees. 
I think I have become reasonably competent with making spring nucs from swarm cells and helping my bees survive. But the issue I tend to run into is that when I need a queen I don't have one or suppliers are out, and It is a pretty long process (and a little pricey) to get one. 
Also I have a few hives that have good traits and a few hives that have not so good traits (propolize the fool out of everything). 
So I have decided my project for this year is to start learning queen rearing on a small scale. 
My Primary focus on beekeeping is the production of Honey for sale and a fun learning experience for myself and my children.
What methods would you more experience beeks recommend for a beek with a small operation on a learning level?
I don't think I want to tackle grafting yet. 
I have done some reading on general queen rearing and I may be looking at this wrong, but I figured I would determine which method of raising queens first and focus my reading and research on that method.

Thanks For your help.

David


----------



## gfbees13

I am also a small operation beek. I would try the Miller Method. Beekeeping for Dummies tells you how to do it. But you might be able to find something online as well. But the Miller Method is the easiest way to raise a few queens.


----------



## FollowtheHoney

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-to-raise-a-queen-bee-with-the-miller-method.html


----------



## shinbone

I am another hobbyist with about a dozen hives hoping to raise my own queens this year. In other words, after doing some research I _think_ the following should work for a small-timer like me, but haven't implemented anything, yet . . .

I don't think grafting is hard to learn, and once you learn the technique, you have the best flexibility for choosing which queens you propagate from. In other words the benefits of grafting are well worth the small effort to learn it.

Grafting tools are cheap. Buy a couple of different styles, then practice by selecting and moving the proper aged larvae from one cell to another. Don't take any steps to make queens from these grafts, just successfully moving them to a nearby cell is the goal. There will be lots of larvae to practice on and no big deal if you make mistakes. There are two skills being learned, here: 1) choosing the correct-aged larvae to transfer; and then 2) the actual manipulations to do the transfer. You will know you got it when the bees start accepting a high percentage of those transferred larvae. At that point, moving on to working with larvae for actual queen rearing will be easy.

After doing some research, I plan on using a Cloake board for my small queen rearing operation:

http://www.thebeeyard.org/rearing-queens-via-the-cloake-board-method/






.


----------



## Vance G

mdasplitter.com or mel disselkoens book will teach you everything you need to know. It is perfect for what you are wanting to do and it works.


----------



## Michael Bush

> I would try the Miller Method. Beekeeping for Dummies tells you how to do it. But you might be able to find something online as well. But the Miller Method is the easiest way to raise a few queens.

The miller method:
http://www.bushfarms.com/beesmillermethod.htm

The hopkins method:
http://www.bushfarms.com/beeshopkinsmethod.htm

Better queens method:
http://www.bushfarms.com/beesbetterqueens.htm

A few good queens:
http://www.bushfarms.com/beesafewgoodqueens.htm


----------



## RayMarler

Grafting is the easy part, learn how to make up a good cell builder and good mating nucs. Here is a very good system by Joseph Clemens for raising queens, but it does use grafting, but can be modified to be non-grafting system.

http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...ing-using-the-Joseph-Clemens-Starter-Finisher

Just one of the many ways to raise queens without grafting...
Raising queen cells without grafting - Cut cell method
By OldTimer...

http://www.beesource.com/resources/...queen-cells-without-grafting-cut-cell-method/


----------



## grozzie2

Ddawg said:


> I don't think I want to tackle grafting yet.


I was at the same stage as you are, last summer. I was somewhat intimidated by the idea of grafting, and the need to build special frames etc. Then when I walked into local bee supply store, there it was, ready to go, complete, frame with bars etc. So I grabbed it 'for future use'.

As I discovered on my first attempt last summer, the grafting is the easy part. For my first attempt, I grafted 15 cups on a single bar, then put it into a queenless colony that was hopelessly queenless (or so I thought). They went to work on 8 of the 15, so for my first attempt, I thought that was pretty good, better than I expected. Here is what my bar looked like only 20 hours after putting it into the hive.



I wasn't really prepared to place 8 cells, so, I made up 4 nucs of 2 frames, then placed a couple cells into each. I did end up with 4 virgin queens in 4 nucs, and that's where I started to learn a few more of the 'not so obvious' issues of queen rearing, that apply no matter what method you use. My lessons were :-

a) We call them 'mating nucs', but if it's a dearth, the big colonies have a different name, they call them 'feeders'. Mating nuc can be robbed empty in an hour.

b) Grafting with the chinese tool was not at all difficult.

c) If you haven't thought it thru and planned in advance, making up mating nucs on the fly will burn up a LOT of resources, hence I only made 4. I actually tore down the queenless colony after they got the cells built, and used it to make up the mating nucs.

In this case, the whole exercise was essentially unplanned. I ended up with one split that didn't requeen themselves, totally broodless and hopelessly queenless, or so I thought, so I decided to experiment with a bar of grafts rather than shake out or combine. It was intended to be a learning experience more than a serious attempt at raising queens, just an experiment. When I got to the phase of tearing it down, I found eggs on one frame, but still couldn't find a queen in that colony.

Now that I'm over the 'fear of grafting', I have a completely different plan for the upcoming season. We are going to split all of our colonies as we come into the swarmy season, and all of those splits will get cells I've raised myself. It's much easier than I thought it would be, and just 'makes sense'. Using my own cells to queen the splits means I wont have to deal with the resource issues of making up mating nucs, and I can split on my schedule, not based on 'availability of queens'.


----------



## mgstei1

Vance G hit on it!! I just purchased and read Mels book over the WE and the Dolittle system with an excluder will be the way I go from here on. Just gotta get the timing down for my area. His way is great too and probably preferred but I always have a hard time finding the queen in a well built up colony. My 60 something year old eyes don't cut it. So the Dolittle system it is for me. A small time hobbiest or beginner with 1 good hive that wants increases cost free on bee purchases or queen purchases the OTS system is the way to go.


----------



## Vance G

I grumbled about the price of the book after I had already been using the method and the book seemed just a copy of the free on line material. I changed my mind on that. The book makes everything crystal clear for an old guy like me who likes paper books.



mgstei1 said:


> Vance G hit on it!! I just purchased and read Mels book over the WE and the Dolittle system with an excluder will be the way I go from here on. Just gotta get the timing down for my area. His way is great too and probably preferred but I always have a hard time finding the queen in a well built up colony. My 60 something year old eyes don't cut it. So the Dolittle system it is for me. A small time hobbiest or beginner with 1 good hive that wants increases cost free on bee purchases or queen purchases the OTS system is the way to go.


----------



## Stephenpbird

Ddawg said:


> I don't think I want to tackle grafting yet.


Once you try grafting you will probably say "Why didn't I try this earlier". It's one of those things that sounds intimidating, but is actually quite easy once you get the hang of it. I agree with shinbone. Give it a try. 

Oldtimers guide is very useful too.
http://www.beesource.com/resources/...queen-cells-without-grafting-cut-cell-method/


----------



## mgstei1

Vance G said:


> I grumbled about the price of the book after I had already been using the method and the book seemed just a copy of the free on line material. I changed my mind on that. The book makes everything crystal clear for an old guy like me who likes paper books.


I hear that!! The price after I read the book and took massive notes is way underpriced now. Lots of material and details with the OTS method. I picked my strongest hives this am and now gotta go back and study the timing for my parallel which is 29 and not 43 like Mels. The nectar flows are all different also as is the swarming timeline.
Now also, eyesight and finding the queen is no longer a hinder to produce queens so that alone to me paid for the book with lost time and aggravation.
PLUS, the brood breaks will eliminate the mites building up and wrecking the winter colonies. That's a plus that was kinda hidden in the real reason I bought the book which was to raise all the queens I needed for increases.


----------



## Ddawg

Thanks for all the Help and links! I figured the best thing to do for starters is order Mel's Book, so I Did. Regardless of what I do it looks like a wealth of good information. 
Thanks also to Michael Bush, the actual 'First' thing I did was read your website. 

David


----------



## deknow

I'm currently working on some other material, but you might find my notes and qutotes useful in underatanding some of the "why"'s.
http://beeuntoothers.com/queennotes.pdf


----------



## BeeAttitudes

The On The Spot (OTS) method is appealing to me as a newbie and I'll likely try it.

Here is another simple alternative for making queen cells ahead of time. Easier than grafting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y64cKn4rLNM


----------



## JSL

deknow said:


> http://beeuntoothers.com/queennotes.pdf


Typo... http:// works better for the link.

Dean, that is a really nice summary!


----------



## deknow

Thanks Joe, (both for the correction and for the kind words).

I've been thinking specifically about this thread, and here is what I would do....

1. Setup a few (maybe 3) Cloake Board hives in the most convenient yard, and rotate comb and check for cells appropriately.

2. Practice grafting and using the CB properly....you could graft one hive each day or all at once...there is little to lose here if you get off schedule.

3. Eventually you will have queen cells...any that aren't needed can be harvested for royal jelly.

4. For each split, I would move the parent colony (keep in the same yard), and put the queenless split at the old location . I would put 2 48 hour old cells in each split.

5. When cells should be ripe, check each split....use the second cell to place in a split with a failed cell, or place on a newly made up split.

You could have 48 hour cells (that travel well) every day, a constant supply of royal jelly, and the extra forgers in the splits will keep them fed.


----------



## Specialkayme

BeeAttitudes said:


> The On The Spot (OTS) method is appealing to me as a newbie and I'll likely try it.


Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't get what the advantage of the OTS method is. It basically involves forcing e-cells, which are generally the lowest quality of queens available. All at the expense of sacrificing a frame of brood. I can see how it would be appealing to the beginner, in theory, but if you can select the right age larvae on the OTS method (and destroy the rest of the brood on the frame), you can select the right age larvae and graft from it. If you take a frame of 3 day old larvae and the first time you try grafting you kill 80% of the larvae you try to graft, you're still shooting better than the OTS method. I don't know, just don't get it.

The rest of the MDA Splitter method may work well for others, but the timing of my flows are way off for it to work down here. Maples start blooming around Feb. 1. First grafts usually start around March 15 (at the earliest). Honey flow starts April 1. Dearth hits June 1. I can't take a hive, split it 3, 4 or 5 ways, get queens reared and colonies booming, then recombine them into one hive and take advantage of the honey flow in a 3 week (at best) time frame. But hey, maybe it works better elsewhere.


----------



## WBVC

Is all of this book so easy to follow? If so it must be great...as long as the well laid out info is correct



FollowtheHoney said:


> http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-to-raise-a-queen-bee-with-the-miller-method.html


----------



## WBVC

Are they the same person ...what is the book called? Thanks



Vance G said:


> mdasplitter.com or mel disselkoens book will teach you everything you need to know. It is perfect for what you are wanting to do and it works.


----------



## Adrian Quiney WI

Specialkayme, my experience has been that the bees will pick some of the OTS induced larva and ignore some of the others. If I find that the queen cells look small I scratch them and use bigger ones. Despite what the texts say about emergency queens I find that the OTS method produces healthy active queens that overwinter well and produce a crop of honey. As you point out conditions are different down there in North Carolina, but up here in early June a strong double deep hive does a nice job with those E cells. I believe the key is to perform the intervention just before natural swarming is about to occur.


----------



## deknow

I would suggest cutting the comb that had already been laid into....the directions (as posted above in the 'dummies' link) require the bees to do a bunch of things on your schedule....which will work fine under ideal conditions much of the time.

You can accomplish the same thing in one visit if you start with laid up comb rather than foundation.


----------



## MTN-Bees

Randy Oliver's- Scientific Beekeeping website has some good articles on small scale queen rearing. Some good winter reading material.


----------



## WBVC

Grozzie...you give me hope that is possible. As for you last year making a working cell starter/builder is intimidating. Will I be ruining potentially good production hives in a vain attempt
When do you feel your swarmy season is?
Will you split all hives prior to that and if so will you simply separate the two over wintered deeps and pull a cell in the one that seems be queenless ...if not what system are you considering?
Thanks


----------



## deknow

I haven't been posting on bee-l, but a couple of years ago we had a discussion on tips and tricks for queen rearing. The two that I remember as being most helpful were:

From randy oliver: put the frame you are going to graft from in the starter for a few hours...they will get nicely fed and be wet and easy to graft from.

From me: when I teach grafting, I have students first graft onto a glass microscope slide. It eliminates working inside the plastic cell, they can see and understand what they are doing better, and you can put it under a microscope and see it eating. This gives some practice and confidence. If I don't have a glass slide, a plate or plastic lid will do.

Everyone...if you d9nt have a grafting tool...order one and some cell cups next time you place an order with your supplier.


----------



## Specialkayme

Adrian Quiney WI said:


> Despite what the texts say about emergency queens I find that the OTS method produces healthy active queens that overwinter well and produce a crop of honey.


I just don't see how it's easier or more advantageous than grafting. 

The biggest issue people have with grafting isn't moving the larvae, it's knowing the right age larvae to graft. You have to do that with OTS anyway. So if you can identify the right larvae, why not just graft them? That way you save the rest of the frame of brood, rather than put powdered sugar in the cells to kill the rest.


----------



## Adrian Quiney WI

Specialkayme, with respect. I believe that you are mistaken in your thinking that you have to kill the rest of the larva with flour. That is not done. The bees finish the cells they want as workers, or as queens. 
Take a scan down this pdf to photos 5 and 6 you see the initiated queen cells together with their sealed woker sisters, no mention of flour. You want the rest of the frame of larva to survive to be the workers to support the new unit. 
http://www.mdasplitter.com/docs/IBA Keynote part 3.pdf


----------



## WBVC

I use plastic foundation. How feasible is to remove a Queen cell from that?
Is it death to the new queen if there is a small hole in the back of the removed cell?
Do most people doing ots type queen rearing use unwired wax foundation?


----------



## RayMarler

I've removed queen cells off of plastic foundation several times and each time was a great success. I carefully scraped them off with a hive too.. The small hole in the back I gently pinched closed, but the cells were within a day of emerging so I'm not so sure it would have mattered to pinch it closed or not. I've done it with freshly drawn never used for brood before, except this first time, and I've also done it on comb that had been used for brood a couple to three times previously. I found that the little bit more used comb was easier to cut the cell off of. I suspect that with comb that had been used for years may be harder to cut them off of, but I can't say from personal experience on that.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

I recommend to beginners the MDA splitter method with great results. Can't be easier with results that are repeatable and produces good queens.


----------



## Specialkayme

Adrian Quiney WI said:


> Specialkayme, with respect. I believe that you are mistaken in your thinking that you have to kill the rest of the larva with flour. That is not done.


I really don't think I am mistaken. Unless he evolved the OTS method further from 4 years ago. Which is possible.

Here are a few references to where I got my information and understanding from. Please feel free to let me know where I went wrong.



Michael Bush said:


> The bullet thing was .25 cal and you put them in ever other row and then every other cell and kill the larvae with flour.





Specialkayme said:


> Short answer: Read the MDA Splitter. It explains it.
> 
> Long answer: you put a .25 cal bullet in some cells of the proper age, shake flour in all the other cells (the one with the bullets in them don't get destroyed by flour), break the cell wall for the ones with the bullet in them, put them in a cell builder hive (or queenless hive) and you get queen cells.


You actually responded after that post, but didn't correct me.

Or you could read earlier versions of his book: http://www.mdasplitter.com/docs/IMN BOOKLET.pdf

Mel explains here http://www.mdasplitter.com/docs/OTS.pdf that the OTS method involves using the "TECHNIQUES AS OUTLINED IN THE I.M.N. SYSTEM OF QUEEN REARING (link above) TO DIRECT YOUR COLONIES TO REAR THEIR OWN, QUALITY QUEENS WITHOUT GRAFTING"

Within the I.M.N system, it says:



> After several experiments, I discovered that common
> wheat flour (the kind you use to bake or make a pollen supplement) will gum up the larvae making it
> impossible for the nurse bees to care for them. By covering every third cell with something to protect
> the larvae, such as bullets or cotton swabs, I could prepare a comb with larvae spaced just right. I can
> put 100 bullets on a comb in three minutes and then the shaking of the flour takes only 15 seconds.


From Chapter 3



> I use .257 cal. bullets placed in the cell to protect the larvae when flour is shaken over the comb to gum
> up and kill the other larvae (See Fig. 5).


From Chapter 5



> Now take the frame of larvae from the support colony and brush off the bees. Place the .257 cal. Bullets
> in every 3rd cell containing a larvae always leaving 2 cells between larvae including between the rows on
> the horizontal split frame insert. Flour is then shaken over the frame to gum up and kill the exposed
> larvae.


Also from chapter 5.

Where was I mistaken?


----------



## Michael Bush

>Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't get what the advantage of the OTS method is. 

Yes you are missing something.

>It basically involves forcing e-cells, which are generally the lowest quality of queens available.

I totally disagree. I get good quality emergency queens all the time.

http://www.bushfarms.com/beesafewgoodqueens.htm#emergency

The concept of OTS queen rearing comes down to this theory:
"The inferior queens caused by using the emergency method is because the bees cannot tear down the tough cells in the old combs lined with cocoons. The result is that the bees fill the worker cells with bee milk floating the larvae out the opening of the cells, then they build a little queen cell pointing downward. The larvae cannot eat the bee milk back in the bottom of the cells with the result that they are not well fed. However, if the colony is strong in bees, are well fed and have new combs, they can rear the best of queens. And please note-- they will never make such a blunder as choosing larvae too old."--Jay Smith, Better Queens

Moses Quinby agreed with that concept:
"I want new comb for brood, as cells can be worked over out of that, better than from old and tough. New comb must be carefully handled. If none but old comb is to be had, cut the cells down to one fourth inch in depth. The knife must be sharp to leave it smooth and not tear it."--Moses Quinby, Mysteries of Beekeeping Explained

You can raise poor queens by any method including emergency queens. You can raise good quality queens by any method including emergency queens.

Mel is trying to assure two things: One is that they can tear down the wall (which you did for them) and the second is that it is the correct age larvae (because you chose it) while not requiring the skill of grafting.


----------



## yem

I believe too that Mel suggest newer fresher comb for it to increase the success.


----------



## Adrian Quiney WI

SpecialKayme, I appreciate the discourse. I believe that it has been a progression. The earlier IMN method was a version of the "Case-Hopkins" method. 
As I understand the progression: He had the idea that instead of "flouring" the frame, and then turning the frame 90 degrees if he notched the bottom of the cell he might not have to turn it 90 degrees. I think the confusion may occur that when he said,
"TECHNIQUES AS OUTLINED IN THE I.M.N. SYSTEM OF QUEEN REARING (link above) TO DIRECT YOUR COLONIES TO REAR THEIR OWN, QUALITY QUEENS WITHOUT GRAFTING" I believe that he meant the technique of cutting the bottom of the cell wall, but did not mean the "flouring".
From the current printed book "OTS Queen Rearing" he says, on page 28
"Let's go back to the original hive on May 1st from which I removed the queen with two brood frames which leaves me six brood frames to notch. One week later, when the queen cells on those six brood frames are sealed, I assemble three, two-brood-frame starts and leave them in the same yard. I wait for one week so that the strong colony is the colony that does all the hard work raising the queen cells and sealing the brood".
The third sentence shows that the brood is not killed with flour after he notched the brood on May 1st it is left in the same hive. So from May 1 to May 8 the full energy of the hive is directed at finishing the queen cell and sealing the brood.
I think the current book lays out the method more clearly than the collections of pdf's did. What I like about the system is that each discrete two deep (20 frame) colony is used for increase at the time the bees in our region want to swarm. It is not entirely predictable, sometimes a colony will only put the swarm cells on fewer frames than what I wanted them to, and if that is the only colony you have in the system it can lead to an overy strong unit. However, I have worked around this, as I have expanded by doing several colonies at a time and balancing out as need be.
I hope this is helpful, I am passionate about this method, because starting bees with this method and then growing them on in Nucs with the online mentoring Michael Palmer has provided has turned me from a bee buyer to a bee seller.


----------



## Adrian Quiney WI

WBVC, I use Mann Lake PFs and don't try to cut off the cells any more, as I haven't had any success doing so.


----------



## Specialkayme

Michael Bush said:


> >It basically involves forcing e-cells, which are generally the lowest quality of queens available.
> 
> I totally disagree. I get good quality emergency queens all the time.


The question isn't whether you can get laying queens from the emergency methods, or if they will head a colony. The question is whether they are better quality queens than supersedure or swarm prep queens. The evidence indicates that they are not.

"After removal of the mother queens, the majority of cell
construction was initiated within 24 h in all eight colonies.
Additional queen cells were constructed for up to two days
after dequeening, but no further queen cells were started on
or after the third day"
Tarpy, Fletcher, _Worker regulation of emergency queen rearing in honey bee colonies and the resultant variation in queen quality._ Insectes soc. 46 (1999) 372-377, 373.

So bees will rear emergency queens from varied ages of larvae. They don't do it all at one time.

"The rearing process in the second experiment illustrates
that workers did not preferentially raise queens from
brood sources that yielded higher-quality queens, suggesting
that future queen quality may not be an important
factor during this stage of queen replacement."
Tarpy, Hatch & Fletcher, _The influence of queen age and quality during queen replacement in honeybee colonies_. Animal Benaviour, 2000, 59, 97-101, 100.

A study that shows that the bees often don't choose the highest quality queen from the youngest larvae, and instead choose for a quick requeening in an emergency situation. The theory being they are foregoing quality for speed, in the event there is an issue in raising the queen that would leave them queenless. The result of which produces lower quality queens. Which isn't an issue in the emergency scenario, because as long as they get a laying queen in place, they can always replace with supersedure to get a higher quality queen later.

" with queens raised from young worker larvae exhibiting
high reproductive potential and queens raised from
older worker larvae exhibiting lower reproductive potential.
We verify that low-quality queens are indeed produced from
older worker larvae, as measured morphometrically (e.g.,
body size) and by stored sperm counts. We also show, for the
first time, that low-quality queens mate with significantly
fewer males, which significantly influences the resultant
intracolony genetic diversity of the worker force of their
future colonies."
Tarpy, Keller, Caren & Delaney, _Experimentally induced variation in the physical reproductive potential and mating sucess in honey bee queens_, Insect. Soc., 2011 (having a hard time finding the right volume and page numbers, so instead here's the actual article: http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/entomology/apiculture/pdfs/Tarpy_et.al.2011b.pdf).

Again, showing that queens reared from older larvae produce lower quality queens.

There is another article (that I can't put my hands on right now) that studied queen fighting between sister queens, and who ended up winning. Statistically speaking, when two queens were released and later fought to the death, the older larvae reared queen typically won, as it's venom sac was more developed (as is typical in workers, more so than queens). The older larvae reared queens had a lower quality and reproductive potential, yet was the queen that survived more often than not.

So the evidence appears to contradict your anicdotal opinion that emergency queens are "good." Sure they can head a colony. But bees don't select 24h larvae only when induced under the emergency scenarios. They induce 24-72h larvae. The 72h larvae will emerge first, usually win in queen fights, and is of lower quality than the 24h larvae. Ergo, emergency queens are of lower quality than grafted queens that are from 24h larvae, all other factors considered equal.



Michael Bush said:


> The concept of OTS queen rearing comes down to this theory:
> "The inferior queens caused by using the emergency method is because the bees cannot tear down the tough cells in the old combs lined with cocoons."


I disagree with the theory, as it is not based on any form of evidence or reality.



Michael Bush said:


> -- they will never make such a blunder as choosing larvae too old."--Jay Smith, Better Queens


But what is "too old"? Is 72h "too old"? Because bees in studies will choose larvae that is 72h old to make queens out of. And 72h larvae produces inferior queens when compared to 24h larvae.

Yes, the bees will not select a larvae that is too old to be turned into a functional queen. But they often don't choose the best larvae to become the best queen. Instead, under the emergency situations, they choose older larvae to get queens faster, knowing they can be replaced with higher quality supersedure queens later on.


----------



## Specialkayme

Adrian Quiney WI said:


> "Let's go back to the original hive on May 1st from which I removed the queen with two brood frames which leaves me six brood frames to notch. One week later, when the queen cells on those six brood frames are sealed, I assemble three, two-brood-frame starts and leave them in the same yard. I wait for one week so that the strong colony is the colony that does all the hard work raising the queen cells and sealing the brood".
> The third sentence shows that the brood is not killed with flour after he notched the brood on May 1st it is left in the same hive.


I don't follow you there. That quote doesn't appear to indicate that he does, or does not, kill any larvae.


----------



## Specialkayme

Adrian Quiney WI said:


> I think the confusion may occur that when he said,
> "TECHNIQUES AS OUTLINED IN THE I.M.N. SYSTEM OF QUEEN REARING (link above) TO DIRECT YOUR COLONIES TO REAR THEIR OWN, QUALITY QUEENS WITHOUT GRAFTING"


Here's my confusion. It may be in terminology, it may be in the evolution of the system, I don't know:
1. Mel produces a "book" entitled "The I.M.N. System of Queen Rearing." The book describes the use of a bullet and flour to kill larvae. http://www.mdasplitter.com/docs/IMN BOOKLET.pdf Done in October, 2008
2. Mel produces a one sheet explanation of the "OTS System" where he explains it is done using the techniques in the I.M.N. System: http://www.mdasplitter.com/docs/OTS.pdf this was done some time in 2008. In which, he explains breaking the mid rib of the cells of young larvae, while also referring to the I.M.N. system.
3. Mel later produces a book where he expands on the OTS System (I don't know what time, I didn't read the book). Looking at what he produced previously, I don't understand why the OTS book would differ from #2 above, which would incorporate #1 above as well.

Granted, I didn't read #3.

So if Mel's methods evolved in #3 such that he is not using the techniques in #1, then #2 is wrong. Or, he evolved his system of OTS in #3 beyond what was explained in #2, but he chose to use the same terminology in #3 as he did in #2, incorporating the methods in #1.

Maybe he did this, I don't know. But I don't understand how you can say OTS = #2, then later change what you mean OTS to be, and say OTS = #3, but still hold out that OTS = #2. Clear as mud, right?

But hey, I can only work with the information in front of me.

Maybe OTS is kinda like the understanding of a higher power. Everyone can interpret it to mean what they want


----------



## clyderoad

It's easy to just try the procedure both ways and see what works best.
I don't eliminate any larvae and get good healthy queens.
Lots of beekeeping is hands on experience.


----------



## crofter

Specialkayme; I have been thinking about the age of larvae selected too. I used the Snelgrove board to induce bees to start queen cells and the author recommends pinching any cells that are capped by day 5 after setting them up. That would remove the possibility of having a _caste_ queen. That move could be used with any queen rearing process I think.

The fact that cells are started up to 3 days after removing the queens presence would not have to mean they selected 3 day old larvae. If the eggs were laid shortly before queen removal it would take roughly 3 days 6 hours for them to hatch, would it not. The first ones bees started cells on could be just hatched too and the time spread observed from first to last would be theoretically 3 days 6 hours with both extremes having been started on first day larvae.

Anyone feel free to correct me if I am wrong in my thinking as I do admit that aspect can be puzzling.


----------



## Specialkayme

crofter said:


> I used the Snelgrove board to induce bees to start queen cells and the author recommends pinching any cells that are capped by day 5 after setting them up. That would remove the possibility of having a _caste_ queen. That move could be used with any queen rearing process I think.


But in that situation, you are still selecting the age of the larvae that will be used. Only instead of doing it during grafting, you are doing it during capping (culling the oldest larvae). The mentality backed by proponents of emergency style queens is that the bees always know what's best, and will choose the best queen on their own. But the fact that you have to go back in and cull cells that are capped on day 5 kinda flys in the face of that assumption, does it not?

Sure it can be used, but the question is if you just let the bees do their thing, without interfering in that step, which queen would have hatched first? Would it be the _caste_ queen? Would the _caste_ queen be the best quality queen you could get?



crofter said:


> The fact that cells are started up to 3 days after removing the queens presence would not have to mean they selected 3 day old larvae.


There was a study done that showed the age of the larvae the bees will select. I can't find it now. But the evidence indicated in emergency situations they would choose larvae that is between 12h-72h old (counting age as post-hatching). They ignored larvae under 12h old (as that's the time period they only eat pure royal jelly anyway), preferred 12-24h larvae, but also selected 24-72h larvae (although to a much lesser quantity).

It is possible to say that if the bees start rearing queens 24-72h after removal of the queen, that in hour 1 they select a larvae that is 1 hour hold, and in hour 65 they select a larvae that is also 1 hour old. The other studies, however, indicate that they take a broad brush, and select larvae of multiple ages, rather than the youngest.


----------



## crofter

Someone would have to search it out but I think I have read something to the effect that bees may tear down some of the older cells once they see they have a number to select from. Yes in desperation they will even build a cell and cap a drone larvae.

When I went back in to check for capped cells I did not find any early capped ones. Strictly opinion but I think them selecting older cells if they have a choice of optimum ones would be a rare circumstance rather than a common one. 

I will use the Snelgrove board again this year but I think I will notch some frames selectively so I can have the cells distributed over more frames. I will see if they agree with my age selection or choose their own cells to tear down and start queen cells.


----------



## Specialkayme

crofter said:


> Someone would have to search it out but I think I have read something to the effect that bees may tear down some of the older cells once they see they have a number to select from.


You don't have to search far. It was the first article that I quoted to.



Specialkayme said:


> Tarpy, Hatch & Fletcher, _The influence of queen age and quality during queen replacement in honeybee colonies_. Animal Benaviour, 2000, 59, 97-101, 100.


53% of the cells built were later destroyed. And non-randomly. Meaning the older cells had a greater "destruction rate." But not 100% of the older cells were destroyed. 

"only 37.0% of the cells constructed around eggs 0-24h old were torn down, while more than half (61.1%) of the cells started around larvae 24-48 h old were torn down before the queens could emerge."
_Id._ at 374.

But leaving 38.9% of the cells constructed from 24-48 h larvae intact to emerge isn't a great selection rate.



crofter said:


> When I went back in to check for capped cells I did not find any early capped ones. Strictly opinion but I think them selecting older cells if they have a choice of optimum ones would be a rare circumstance rather than a common one.


Rear enough queens and you'll learn it isn't that rare. 

When actively selecting and grafting larvae, it isn't too common because you select the age of the larvae. Still, sometimes you miss and one gets capped a day early. If you do a walk away split, the results will be very different.


----------



## crofter

How do you decide, in appraising the resulting queens, that one was raised from a 24-48 hour cell rather than the apparently favored 12-24 hr? Undoubtedly there will be queens that turn out to be less than favorable but how many are so for reasons other than a stale dated larvae?


----------



## Specialkayme

crofter said:


> How do you decide, in appraising the resulting queens, that one was raised from a 24-48 hour cell rather than the apparently favored 12-24 hr?


You don't.

You don't look at a queen raised under an E-cell condition and determine that they were either raised from a 12-24h larvae or a 24-48h larvae. You look at the quality of e-cells overall when compared to other methods.

I give you the following:
Given: A queen raised from 36h larvae is, generally speaking, to be of lower quality than a queen raised of 12h larvae (as shown by the papered studies)
Given: Workers will destroy 61.1% of cells of larvae that are 24-48h old, and leave 38.9% of those older larvae to hatch.
Given: A 36h larvae developed into a queen will hatch before (all other things considered equal) a 12h larvae developed into a queen.
Given: The first queen to be released usually destroys her sisters that haven't developed yet.
Given: A queen reared from older larvae has a statistically greater chance of winning in a queen on queen fight (as shown by the papered studies)
Therefore: The queen reared from the older larvae has a greater chance of survival than the queen reared from the younger larvae.
Therefore: The queen reared from emergency stimuli has a greater chance of being of lower quality than a younger larvae queen.

Statistically speaking, not every queen that wins will be of the lower quality. But statistically speaking, the average queen that survives from the e-cell situation will be over a lower quality than the average queen that survives from a situation where only 12h old larvae has been reared (based upon selection from the grafting).

The better question isn't whether the e-cell queen is of lower quality. The better question is whether the reduction in quality is important enough that it justifies the need to graft as opposed to just doing walk away splits (or another method of e-queens). Considering that the work involved in grafting is very small, to me it is worth the work. Your assessment may be different.

But look at when bees are taking their time to select the right replacement queen: either swarm or supersedure queens. They don't do the broad brush selection of 0-72h old larvae. They only choose the youngest queens. Why? Because they can afford to take the time to get a quality queen. If the swarm/supersedure methods didn't produce noticeably superior queens to the bees, why wouldn't they just select a random assortment of 0-72h larvae to make swarm/supersedure queens from, and take their chances?

If you are looking for a date to go to prom, and you are looking in August, you've got time to be selective. Choose the best date. If you are looking for a date to go to prom and it's late April, you are more under the gun. You don't have time to be selective and you have to choose the quick date, maybe not the best looking one, but one that will get you into the prom. Doesn't mean you have to date her for life though. The bees use a very similar situation. E-cells are the late April prom dates. Choose an August prom date.


----------



## billabell

I think there was much more to Mel's OTS book/method than just raising queens. As I read it he focused on queens to get you started on "outbreeding mites", making more bees or honey to sell and overwintering nucs with a June/July queen to build your apiary. He didn't seem to be focused on breeding a super queen. 
Personally I think that most queens whether emergency, supersedure or grafted or whatever will suffice as long as you have enough bees (a *lot* of bees) in the box to feed them as larval. It is my understanding that workers get the same feed as queens for the first 3 days. 
I also like Oldtimer's method. The link is on this site under Resources - pretty cool.


----------



## apis maximus

*@SKM*,

Very nice, well put together post. Enjoyed it!
Summarizing the "givens" bellow, is an added bonus.



Specialkayme said:


> You don't.
> I give you the following:
> Given: A queen raised from 36h larvae is, generally speaking, to be of lower quality than a queen raised of 12h larvae (as shown by the papered studies)
> Given: Workers will destroy 61.1% of cells of larvae that are 24-48h old, and leave 38.9% of those older larvae to hatch.
> Given: A 36h larvae developed into a queen will hatch before (all other things considered equal) a 12h larvae developed into a queen.
> Given: The first queen to be released usually destroys her sisters that haven't developed yet.
> Given: A queen reared from older larvae has a statistically greater chance of winning in a queen on queen fight (as shown by the papered studies)
> Therefore: The queen reared from the older larvae has a greater chance of survival than the queen reared from the younger larvae.
> Therefore: The queen reared from emergency stimuli has a greater chance of being of lower quality than a younger larvae queen.
> 
> Statistically speaking, not every queen that wins will be of the lower quality. But statistically speaking, the average queen that survives from the e-cell situation will be over a lower quality than the average queen that survives from a situation where only 12h old larvae has been reared (based upon selection from the grafting).


Grafting or not, these variables are in play...all the time. I don't think anyone that raises or raised queens for a long time, by whichever method, would dispute the fact that, all things being equal, a queen resulting from a 12 hr larvae is much better than one raised from a 72 hr larvae. 

Yes, each one could end up "leading" a hive, laying and keeping the hive together so to speak. But that, does not speak to the idea of which one is better.

Biologically and physiologically speaking, the making of a queen has specific turning points that the bees seem to have mastered. Yes, we interfere and influence these complex feedback loops by whichever "method" we decide to use in "making" queens. Some are better than others. No revelation there.
Like it or not, those biological processes are a given. Axiomatic.

As an immediate practical application of these "givens"...at least in my view, is that if the "method" you employ will set in motion queen rearing of a wide age range, then, understand the risk of the "first one out, will likely kill the rest". 

Having some sort of cage to allow these cells to emerge into, would be one way of mitigating that.
Taking the cells out and placing them in your colony of choice, before the emerging takes place, would be another way.

And this would apply to grafting as well. I have seen folks learning to graft...but even some more experienced ones, picking larvae that clearly show large age differentiation. 

*SKM*, is right...the older larvae more than likely, will emerge first.


----------



## Michael Bush

>I disagree with the theory, as it is not based on any form of evidence or reality.

The reality has been observed as far back as Huber by many bee observers. The bees on old brood comb will float the larva to the mouth of the cell. If they have new comb or if the cell wall is broken they do not float the larva out.

"Larvae destined to become queens are floated to the mouth of the cell with pap.
It is probably for that purpose that the bees accumulate the pap behind them; and place them on this high bed; this is evidenced by the fact that this large bed of pap is not neces-sary for their food, for we still find it in the cell after the worm has descended into the pyramidal prolongation by which the workers terminate its abode.

"We may therefore know what larvae are destined, by the aspect of the cells occupied by them, even previous to their enlargement and their change into a pyramidal shape. From this observation it was easy to ascertain, at the end of twenty-four hours whether the bees had resolved to replace their queen. Among the great number of mysteries which surround this great trait of their instinct, there is one which I hoped to discover and which would appear to lead to the clearing of other points equally obscure."--Francis Huber, New Observations On Bees Chapter X, while describing the bees making emergency queens.

What the bees do varies greatly by the circumstances. Miller, Smith and others started with the assumption that bees would start with too old of a larvae. After decades of observation they concluded they were wrong. My problem with any research on the subject is that I think you can get whatever results you like if you set up the right circumstances. The qualtiy of emergency queens, as well as grafted quens, depends entirely on the circumstances. Not on some immovable "fact".

If age is your concern there is a very simple (even if somewhat tedious) solution. You come back four days after you made them queenless and destroy any capped queen cells.

I have always understood that Mel had two methods. OTS and IMN. I have never been under the impression that they were the same method.


----------



## Specialkayme

apis maximus said:


> Very nice, well put together post. Enjoyed it!


Much appreciated.



Michael Bush said:


> The reality has been observed as far back as Huber by many bee observers. The bees on old brood comb will float the larva to the mouth of the cell. If they have new comb or if the cell wall is broken they do not float the larva out.


But there is where you lose any empirical value. Nothing in your quote, or any other information I've read, indicates that bees floated to the edge of the cell of are worse quality than those that were not. Huber didn't even mention anything about quality of queens. Not a thing. 

In fact, floating a larvae to the edge of the cell would provide MORE royal jelly for them to feed off of, and would create a better fed larvae, all other things considered.



Michael Bush said:


> Miller, Smith and others started with the assumption that bees would start with too old of a larvae. After decades of observation they concluded they were wrong.


Alot of things have changed in our understanding of bees since Miller, Smith and Jay. This would be one of them.



Michael Bush said:


> My problem with any research on the subject is that I think you can get whatever results you like if you set up the right circumstances.


Some of the studies within the papers I referenced goes back to the 70's. Most occurred in the early 2000's. Many were replicated, and found the same results. Are you saying all of those studies were "flawwed", despite the fact that they were peer reviewed and replicated multiple times?



Michael Bush said:


> If age is your concern there is a very simple (even if somewhat tedious) solution. You come back four days after you made them queenless and destroy any capped queen cells.


But if the bees always choose the right age, you wouldn't need to do that, right Mike?



Michael Bush said:


> I have always understood that Mel had two methods. OTS and IMN. I have never been under the impression that they were the same method.


So here:
http://www.mdasplitter.com/docs/OTS.pdf
Where Mel says:
"ON‐THE‐SPOT QUEEN REARING UTILIZES SIMPLE TECHNIQUES AS OUTLINED IN THE I.M.N. SYSTEM OF QUEEN REARING"
Am I supposed to interpret that to mean OTS and IMN are not the same, or in anyway linked?

I'm not saying they are the same. I'm just using the information in front of me to determine what he's trying to say. Maybe he worded it incorrectly. Maybe my understanding is. But I don't think so.


----------



## crofter

I can see lots of advantages of grafting especially where you are selling queens or transporting cells. It is a whole lot easier logistically to have a nice separate, uniform neat package rather than queen cells attached to a frame of bees. Grafting gives flexibility in choice of eggs with very little damage to comb and is not very disruptive to the donor hive. I am sure it would be the way to go if you were raising queens where there is value to ultimate performance and photo sessions of process: Certainly Lauri's queen rearing has a lot of appeal that Mel's would not!

For my purposes it would be little problem to check and pinch cells that could have come from older larvae. I am no fan of walk away splits in many circumstances as that could lead to underfeeding issues that might well lead to somewhat compromised queens. I think it is easy to crowd and feed the nurse bees so that cells will be well fed from the get go. Maybe that has been tested. 

Maximum longevity and peak laying capacity of my queens will not likely ever be tested in my climate and I doubt that I will ever know whether 10% or whatever of their ovarioles are not developed. Is perfection sometimes the enemy of good?


----------



## WBVC

What does IMN stand for?


----------



## Vance G

International mating nuc is what it stands for. It seems that the instant authority so quick to be rude doesn't really understand who he is talking about. We are just talking, can't we be civil? Why is it so important for some people to feel they are the absolute authority?


----------



## Specialkayme

Who's being rude?


----------



## Vance G

I wonder.


----------



## Redneck

The great thing about beekeeping is the number of answers you will receive to your question, and maybe all of them are good. Now here goes another, go to Beeworks.com and order their DVD on queen rearing. They go through several ways of raising queens, then make up your own mind as to which you want to do. The DVD is of excellent quality. The Nicot system is a fool proof way of getting the correct age Larva. Just remember that raising good quality queens is only half the process. Having good quality drones is of equal importance to complete the equation. Good Luck.


----------



## crofter

I'm just being argumentative! Not everyone has to like Mel's cell notching or his other method of deselecting and spacing by dousing with powder. Interesting concepts though.

For the small number of cells I need, if the notching will help fix the cell locations where I choose, and breaking the cell walls guarantee uninterrupted feeding of the larvae, I will not be bothering with the multiple splitting and mite control portions of his method. I mix it up further by combining it with the Snelgrove board. My son has done something similar with the Cloake boards. I think we can really blurr the line between untimely, unprepared emergency cell queening and a contrived situation that is closer to supercedure conditions from the ensuing queens perspective.


----------



## Adrian Quiney WI

SpecialKayme, thanks for your response. I think the confusion is in the terminology. I think there would have been less confusion had he labelled the sheet you refer to in post #38 2. http://www.mdasplitter.com/docs/OTS.pdf as "notching" rather than the title he gives it which leads you to think there is flour involved.
I do have a seperate point. I know that science supports that in order to have the maximum number of ovarioles in a honeybee queen she needs to be fed royal jelly for the maximum length of time possible which means she should be grafted or transferred as soon as it is feasibly possible to do so. In a lecture I heard a speaker describe this in a metaphor: Suppose instead of putting a full size gas tank in a Chevy truck, the factory screws up and puts in the gas tank of a small sedan. The owner of the truck thinks he has a great chevy truck until it runs out of gas because the tank is too small. The point was that a queen raised in less than optimal conditions would run out of eggs sooner than one that was raised perfectly.
This may be true, but suppose you never drove the truck (the truck with the sedan's gas tank) far enough to run out of gas. It wouldn't make a difference. That is how I think it may be with bees. I accept, based upon the evidence I have seen, that some of the queens that are produced by MDA.splitter techniques may not have the maximum ovariole development. It makes sense. However, it is not a concern in the apiary. They overwinter, and then they produce honey. Liken it to humans: If you were developing a race of superhumans you probably wouldn't pick me, but I get to reproduce and add something to the gene pool. My kids are healthy and smart, thank goodness. 
I think John Lennon said it best, "All I am saying is give bees a chance". Oops, according to google he said "bees".


----------



## Michael Bush

>In fact, floating a larvae to the edge of the cell would provide MORE royal jelly for them to feed off of, and would create a better fed larvae, all other things considered.

Except that once the larva turns the corner it's all out of reach.

>>Miller, Smith and others started with the assumption that bees would start with too old of a larvae. After decades of observation they concluded they were wrong.
>Alot of things have changed in our understanding of bees since Miller, Smith and Jay. This would be one of them.

No, that was the understanding at the time. The really great beekeepers just eventually decided to reject it.

>Some of the studies within the papers I referenced goes back to the 70's. Most occurred in the early 2000's. Many were replicated, and found the same results. Are you saying all of those studies were "flawwed", despite the fact that they were peer reviewed and replicated multiple times?

I'm saying you can set up the right circumstances and get all sorts of results. I'm sure Miller and Smith and Quinby observed things under many different circumstances than the researchers.

>>If age is your concern there is a very simple (even if somewhat tedious) solution. You come back four days after you made them queenless and destroy any capped queen cells.
>But if the bees always choose the right age, you wouldn't need to do that, right Mike?

Which is why I don't.


----------



## BeeAttitudes

Here is a quote from Oldtimer on OTS queen rearing from a recent post on BeeSource. He discusses why an OTS queen typically turns out well and why emergency queens may not.



> Watched the video you posted Eduardo, yes that is probably the simplest way to get some queen cells. As to quality, notching the comb as he did can produce good quality cells. The reason is that if the bees have to use a comb like that to make queen cells, to get the cell in the downwards position, they have to float the larva out to the end of the cell on royal jelly, and then point the cell in the normal downwards position. But to feed, the larva has to stretch around the corner to get the jelly, and as a result these queens are often not so well nourished, and smaller. That is why you will often hear it said that emergency raised queens are not as good.
> 
> But notching the comb as he did, means the bees will choose a larva immediately above the notch, and build the queen cell straight down, because the cell below has been cut away. This can produce a well fed and high quality queen.


That discussion is located in post #20 here.......
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?305927-Raising-queens&highlight=queen+cell

I'm thinking Oldtimer knows from experience what he is talking about.

For the record, while OTS appeals to me, I know nothing of the procedure involving bullet cartridges, flour, or killing all other brood in the frame. It appears to me you "notch" the cells that have larva the age you want (or eggs if you choose) and a queenless hive will build queen cells where you've notched. Doesn't seem that difficult to notch only cells with the age larva or eggs you choose. And when I follow the OTS method, I don't lose my mind and have to take every statement ever made by the folks who figured it out as literal. Everyone misstates something once in a while or says something could have been worded better. And I may pick and choose what I like and modify as I please but I would still refer to it as OTS queen rearing if I didn't change anything drastic.

The video linked below shows what I refer to when I say "notch" the cells. Also, this is the video posted by Eduardo that Oldtimer is referencing in the quote above:


----------



## Specialkayme

Michael Bush said:


> Which is why I don't.


But if the bees always chose the right age, if you came back after four days there wouldn't be any capped queen cells.


----------



## Specialkayme

Michael Bush said:


> >In fact, floating a larvae to the edge of the cell would provide MORE royal jelly for them to feed off of, and would create a better fed larvae, all other things considered.
> 
> Except that once the larva turns the corner it's all out of reach.


Supersedure cells are often, but not always, made on the face of normal brood rearing combs. Why is it that the emergency queens have a problem "turning the corner" to feed from the larvae, but the supersedure queens don't seem to have that problem? 

Supersedure queens are amazing in quality.


----------



## Michael Bush

>But if the bees always chose the right age, if you came back after four days there wouldn't be any capped queen cells.

Sure there would. If they started with a just hatched larva it would be 4 days old when they start. 4 days later it would get capped. 4 days is just insurance. And even if you have some at three, I believe the bees will tear those down later on their own.

>Supersedure cells are often, but not always, made on the face of normal brood rearing combs. Why is it that the emergency queens have a problem "turning the corner" to feed from the larvae, but the supersedure queens don't seem to have that problem? 

They all have the same "problem" if it is a problem. It's not my theory, it's Jay Smith, Moses Quinby, Isaac Hopkins, Eugene Pratt , Joseph Brooks who have the theory that it's a problem. I don't think it really matters. The point is that IF you believe that is the issue you can do OTS (like Disselkon) or use new comb (like Quinby, Hopkins, Brooks, Pratt and Smith all of which made a point of using new comb so it can be torn down) or cut the edge of the comb (like Miller).

>Supersedure queens are amazing in quality.

Not always. Only if they are raised under good conditions. Swarm cells are pretty much guaranteed to be under the "best conditions" because those are the conditions that prompt swarming. Everything else (supersedure and emergency) is the luck of the draw.


----------



## Specialkayme

Michael Bush said:


> 4 days is just insurance.


Insurance against what? If the bees always choose the right age, you don't need insurance.



Michael Bush said:


> And even if you have some at three, I believe the bees will tear those down later on their own.


Only 61% of the time.



Michael Bush said:


> It's not my theory, it's Jay Smith, Moses Quinby, Isaac Hopkins, Eugene Pratt , Joseph Brooks who have the theory that it's a problem. I don't think it really matters.


For someone who doesn't think it matters, you sure are defending their position rather vigorously. 

But fair enough. Too bad they aren't around for me to discuss this with.



Michael Bush said:


> >Supersedure queens are amazing in quality.
> 
> Not always. Only if they are raised under good conditions. Swarm cells are pretty much guaranteed to be under the "best conditions" because those are the conditions that prompt swarming. Everything else (supersedure and emergency) is the luck of the draw.


I will agree that swarm cells are of the best quality, head and shoulders. I will not agree that everything else is luck of the draw. Supersedure cells are given specific attention from the bees and reared with the intention that they take over the hive. Emergency cells are an "oh sh*t, what do we do now!" response. I will agree that not all supersedure cells are created equal. But on average, the run of the mill supersedure queen will be of substantially greater quality than the run of the mill emergency queen.

If you disagree, so be it. But I think we'll have to chalk it up to an agreement to disagree.


----------



## deknow

I'm curious what grafted cells in a queenless starter are if they are not emergency cells.


----------



## apis maximus

deknow said:


> I'm curious what grafted cells in a queenless starter are if they are not emergency cells.


Might as well call it that if you're so inclined, if you think that the term would fit cups/cells with young larva placed/offered by the beekeeper...not started by the bees themselves.

Are you comparing a queen less starter, well provided with lots and lots of young nurse bees, by the beekeeper, with a colony that just lost a queen due to beekeeper error? 

Or to a colony that the queen "just" died of natural causes? As in no "preexisting" conditions that the bees might have/could have detected and maybe initiate a supersedure event?

The chances of that queen less starter cell, getting to tend to a 48Hr+ old larva, or even 72 hr old larva, are really small to non existent if the grafter on purpose placed only 12 hr old larvae. 

What emergency situation are we describing then? Emergency to the bees in the queen less starter...might be, but without the grafted cups provided by the beekeeper, that emergency becomes a fruitless, long and unfortunate wait.

No? Yes? or maybe?


----------



## AR Beekeeper

I would say that the conditions in a well prepared starter colony is more like the conditions in a colony preparing to swarm. I am assuming that heavy feeding and frames of sealed brood has been given to the colony 10 to 14 days before the date of queen removal/grafting and the boxes are packed with nurse age bees.

What I see in a supersedure of an overwintered colony that has just come through a spring flow, the conditions in the colony is as good or better than the conditions when a colony first prepares to swarm. The queen cells built are built on eggs and not larva, just as are swarm cells and the eggs are usually in queen cups and not worker cells. I would choose supersedure cells over emergency queen cells every time. All of the controlled studies have shown 1/3 of emergency cells are made with larva that are older than 24 hours. This makes a difference between having a queen that is OK or having a queen that is excellent.


----------



## lakebilly

Seems to me if grafting a certain age larvae needs to be tested that Old Timer, or Michael Palmers, or even a Jenter system method of containing the queen in a three frame containment cage & pulling a frame every 3rd or 4th day you would be able to test your suppositions about age of larvae as it pertains to quality QR. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7tinVIuBJ8 Michael Palmer "Queen Rearing in the Sustainable Apiary"[email protected] minute 30 shows queen containment & talks about his method. I watch & read a lot about it & this is the best vid I have seen. Being a small timer I expect to use these methods on a smaller scale.

I used the OTS last two years w/great results. I can't imagine an easier way to expand. I had 78 hives, lost 46! did a bunch of OTS splits, back to 56, went into this winter w/all splits booming populations & heavy w/stores. Made enough surplus to get me through till this year. @ last check (3 weeks ago) lost 5. Zero treatments, no sugar feeding as of yet, though I expect to make some of Lauri's feedblocks.

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?303881-Spring-Split-Last-light-or-Midday/page2 Post #22 Lauri. I like this & expect to try it w/OTS. I have a Jenter, & I hope to make my first attempt @ grafting. 

"Rearing queens for a small operation" 5 years devouring books & vids, Beesource, & Lauri's FB, got to try 4-5 ways until I get a rhythm. If I had to commit to one, it would be OTS. Glad I don't have to. good luck


----------



## Michael Bush

>Insurance against what? If the bees always choose the right age, you don't need insurance.

For those who are concerned about it. I don't need insurance. I don't tear down cells...

>For someone who doesn't think it matters, you sure are defending their position rather vigorously. 

I'm just presenting their rationale. Any one of them raised more queens than I have. I suspect if someone is wrong, it's more likely to be me than them. I will put more stock in the view of someone who raised thousands of queens a year over someone who did a few in a lab and then had their study peer reviewed.

And as Deknow pointed out, all grafted queens are emergency queens unless you are using a queenright started, which almost no one does.


----------



## apis maximus

Michael Bush said:


> And as Deknow pointed out, all grafted queens are emergency queens unless you are using a queenright started, which almost no one does.


C'mon Mr. Bush..."*all grafted queens are emergency queens unless you are using a queenright started"
*

It might come out as hair splitting on terms, definitions and such. But, really ?

A bunch of young nurse bees, crowded, manipulated, confined or not, fed and stimulated with syrup and pollen...vs. a colony that, for whatever reason lost its queen. As in quick, unexpected, and sudden queen disappearance. 
A bee colony that, at the time of EMERGENCY, has some very specific, well established feed back loops in place.

This colony, has way more sources and way more options to deal with the "emergency" that just popped up. That is when compared with the queen less cell starter.

And as such, it can and it does put in motion a few different responses. Yes, the motivation is the EMERGENCY that showed up, but the end result of their responses shows way more differences than what a queen less cell stater would show. No? 
From a vastly different age range in its bee population, vastly different feed back loops, chemical signals from possibly uncapped brood...and many other subtle but critical differences. None of which are present and available in a queen less cell starter set up by the beekeeper.

Maybe in a flying queen less cell starter set up on top of an existing colony via some methods of separation, some of these "signals" could or would "bleed" through. None of that in a closed, no fly queen less cell starter.

Am I wrong? If so, please be so kind and correct me.


----------



## Michael Bush

>It might come out as hair splitting on terms, definitions and such. But, really ?
>A bunch of young nurse bees, crowded, manipulated, confined or not, fed and stimulated with syrup and pollen...vs. a colony that, for whatever reason lost its queen. As in quick, unexpected, and sudden queen disappearance. 
A bee colony that, at the time of EMERGENCY, has some very specific, well established feed back loops in place.

In other words, it's the circumstances that determine the quality of the queen and not the emergency...


----------



## apis maximus

lakebilly said:


> I have only found many many ways that do not work!


*@lakebilly*,

Nice post. Good resources.

I quoted your "tagline" just because it epitomizes a specific mind set. A mind set that accepts failure as a teacher, but NOT in a defeatist way. A mind set that in the end...allows you to say, and correctly so : "*If I had to commit to one, it would be OTS. Glad I don't have to"*. Choices are good. Informed, well thought out choices, even more so.

You are correct, both, *Mr. Palmer* and *Oldtimer* employ methods that give great control, to the beekeeper that is, in setting up the breeder queen in very well designed arrangements. Confining the laying queen to a narrow, specific space, for a specific, bee keeper controlled time frame. 
Heck, *Mr. Palmer* writes the time to the minute on top of that frame he offers the queen to lay in. Not only that, but he instructs his help to make sure, good, brood comb is saved and kept for this important step. Talking about control and attention to detail...and the results, no doubt, are something to be proud of.

These types of setups, narrow the variation of that very, very young bee larva. Critical indeed when one needs very young larvae for grafting.


----------



## lakebilly

I think accepts failure as a "student" a stubbornly determined student is how I view myself.
Most appreciative to the well intended counsel of everyone here.

Pro 13:20
He that walketh with wise men shall be wise: but a companion of fools shall be destroyed.
Pro 4:7
Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
Pro 9:9
Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser: teach a just man, and he will increase in learning.
Pro 11:14
Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.
Pro 13:10
Only by pride cometh contention: but with the well advised is wisdom.


----------



## deknow

Great pains are taken to ensure cell starters are queenless. If you want an emergency response, you work with a queenless starter. If you want a swarming response you leave the queen in there. Either way you have provided a crowded and well provisioned situation. Why not leave the queen in the starter and let the grafts be 'swarm cells'? ....because over a wide range of circ8mstances, the emergency response is more reliable.

If I recall, wasn't the Mraz operation running on walk away splits for some time?

Certainly Dee hasn't grafted in years...and ive done hundreds of walk away splits with/for her. I can't say if the emergency queen produced lasted long, or was just a successful stepping stone to a proper queen.....or if the documented thylitokye in her bees influences the success....but most of the comb is old, and the splits overwhelmingly take...so it's hard for me to dismiss walk away splits as worthless.

It is about resources...one of my favorite ways to do a walk away is to move a hive during the day and/or within the same yard. Put a single well provisioned frame with food brood of all ages, pollen, adhering bees, and eggs along with empty drawn comb at the old location. This is now a tiny colony with no queen. There are nurse bees to cover all the brood, and a hugely diproportionate number of forgers and older bees returning to the original site...lots of income and a strong desire to make a queen.

This is not the same thing as taking a frame of brood and putting it in a dark corner of the apiary and hoping for a good queen.

It is about resources and circumstance. Most methods are designed to achieve good results even when conditions arent ideal. If you only need a few queens, you can do almost anything as long as you pick the right timing.


----------



## Specialkayme

Michael Bush said:


> I will put more stock in the view of someone who raised thousands of queens a year over someone who did a few in a lab and then had their study peer reviewed.


If you think all those authors did (not of one paper, mind you) was raise a few queens in a lab and had their study peer reviewed, I really don't know how to respond. Quite frankly, I find that disrespectful.

I'll take statistically relevant, peer reviewed and replicated scientific data gathered, reviewed, analyzed and replicated over several decades over the off hand comment of one (or half a dozen) individual's passing observations 8 days a week. You can marshal your views however you like.


----------



## deknow

...the firs study you cited (Worker regulation of emergency queen rearing in honey bee colonies and the resultant variation in queen quality) used 8 populous colonies in total. Perhaps you will quantify the number of colonies in the other studies so we can be confident that the studies you are claiming were more than raising a few queens in a lab. ....8 colonies is exactly that.


----------



## deknow

I'm reminded of a (perhaps) similar situation.

The literature states that your drone colonies should be surrounding your mating yards by a mile or so.

When we've discussed this on bee-l almost no one did that..everyone kept them in the same yard. The gross research clearly shows that this is not a good plan...but more detailed research (Loper with his radar system) showed that the queen doesn't tend to make it to a DCA if there are drones in the flyway.

The practical result is much more important than papers...and those making their living on the outcome have the most at stake.


----------



## Specialkayme

deknow said:


> ...the firs study you cited . . . used 8 populous colonies in total.


The value of the individual study doesn't come from one result. It's from replication and building of knowledge. A study of a _statistically relevant_ number of colonies, when repeated by multiple parties, creates something larger than the results obtained in one single study. 8 colonies were chosen because it was statistically relevant. A review of several other studies (which show the same results) will indicate a pattern to the number of colonies chosen.

Plus, these studies don't have $100k to throw down on colonies of bees to see what happens, or to pay the dozens of people it would take to observe the results.

But, the number of colonies doesn't really matter. It's the number of _queens_ reared. Right? The study you cited to, while it only involves the use of 8 colonies, studied the results of 217 queen cells, that resulted in 91 successfully hatched queens. I'd say that number is a bit higher than 8.



deknow said:


> Perhaps you will quantify the number of colonies in the other studies


I don't have the time to quantify every other study on the subject. But I did take 5 min and looked through a bunch of other studies that replicated the results, or obtained information that was determined of value to, or cited by, the article you gave. 

Divided by author and year

S. Hatch, D.R. Tarpy, and D.J.C. Fletcher (1999) - 8 Colonies
David C. Gilley · David R. Tarpy · Benjamin B. Land (2003) - 6 colonies
Fell, Morse (1984) - Unknown colonies - 268 queen cells
N. Châline, G. Arnold, C. Papin and F.L.W. Ratnieks (2003) - 2 colonies (studying genetics of 348 workers and 100 resulting queens)
Butler (1957) - 2 Colonies
Francis L.W. Ratnieks (1993) - 4 colonies
DAVID R. TARPY, SHANTI HATCH & DAVID J. C. FLETCHER (1999) - Unknown colonnies - 135 queen cells
Pettis (1994) - 42 colonies (I think)

That's based on 5 min of research. I don't have access to all of the papers. These are just the ones that in 5 min I was able to determine the colony numbers (or cell numbers).

Of the studies that we know both the number of colonies and the number of cells studied, we can estimate that the colonies studied produced, on average, 31 cells per colony. We know of 64 colonies studied in 6 studies cited above. Which means, on average, 1,984 cells were studied in those 6 studies (plus the two that we do know the cells studied, but don't know the number of colonies studied), making a total of (very roughly estimating) 2,387 queen cells studied, averaging at 298 queen cells studied per study.

Yes, a hand full of queens generated in one set of circumstances isn't much to shake a fist at. 2,387 reared in 8 studies (when literally dozens, if not hundreds of studies have been done on this) is information of value, especially when every one of those individual studies showed statistically relevant information.

Granted, a whole lot of this is estimation and speculation, but I don't have the $40 to drop on each article to read it through for your amusement. If you want to pay for it, have at it. I also don't have the 8 hours it would take to sort through another dozen articles spanning back 40+ years.


----------



## gfbees13

:shhhh:  opcorn:


----------



## apis maximus

deknow said:


> The literature states that your drone colonies should be surrounding your mating yards by a mile or so.
> 
> When we've discussed this on bee-l almost no one did that..everyone kept them in the same yard. The gross research clearly shows that this is not a good plan...but more detailed research (Loper with his radar system) showed that the queen doesn't tend to make it to a DCA if there are drones in the flyway.


*@deknow*,

Would you be so kind and start a new thread on this particular issue? I know, Bee-L...folks from here, can go and read for themselves. Is Bee-L the equivalent of the Delphi's Oracle of today, in the world of bee keeping? 
I see quite a few from this very forum, folks that if they don't get an answer at this level...they go up, so to speak...to where the modern "gods" of beekeeping might share their "wisdom".

But, why not bring a critical to understand topic, down from the "mountain" to the rest of us ? I truly think, it would make a very interesting thread.

I did see, did read and enjoyed all your interventions on Bee-L...and I see the rebel in you shaking the boat on that more "pretentious and sophisticated" platform called BEE-L. 
On a lot of topics. Making friends and influencing people along the way. But, really I'll give it to you. Very good stuff. I mean that. 

You are, at least in my humble opinion, a subject matter expert in today's bee "universe" of information. Folks like you, are known in today's world of information flow, as KOL (Key Opinion Leader)...and no, it's not just in Medicine.

So, what say you, regarding my suggestion?



deknow said:


> The practical result is much more important than papers...and those making their living on the outcome have the most at stake.


The practical result(s) are very important...papers that get started because of these results, or in spite of them, are also very important. There, fixed it for you 

Oh, and that deGrasse Tyson tag line...I don't know. I think I liked Joni Mitchell's Shadows and Light line you had before, much, much better. But, even there, she started the song with: "Every picture has its shadows"

Thanks and Peace!


----------



## gfbees13

It seems that if you really want to see beeks fight, just ask this question:


Ddawg said:


> What methods would you more experience beeks recommend for a beek with a small operation on a learning level?


 Step 1. Ask Question. Step 2. Sit back and watch. :lpf: opcorn:


----------



## Duncan151

gfbees13 said:


> :shhhh:  opcorn:


gfbees13, isn't that the truth! LOL Not just this thread, but most internet blogs and the human interaction via non human medium leads me to wonder if I should have been a psychology major instead of a science major?


----------



## apis maximus

gfbees13 said:


> It seems that if you really want to see beeks fight, just ask this question: Step 1. Ask Question. Step 2. Sit back and watch. :lpf: opcorn:


I hear you neighbor. Thing is, always, the devil is in the details. Cool and really important stuff happens at the edges. Always has.
But for the rest of us, looking for a clear cut...1,2,3 linear, clear explanation, we get dissapointed and the whole show, watched while getting some beer and pop corn, ends up looking like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9fI5M6_XVk

But even in this clip...in the beginning, all is white and all is bright...but only for a very, very short moment.


----------



## Flyer Jim

apis maximus said:


> *@deknow*,
> 
> Would you be so kind and start a new thread on this particular issue?
> Thanks and Peace!


 Yes, please.


----------



## Michael Bush

"It will be readily appreciated that in the course of many years and daily contact with bees, the professional bee-keeper will of necessity gain a knowledge and insight into the mysterious ways of the honeybee, usually denied to the scientist in the laboratory and the amateur in possession of a few colonies. Indeed, a limited practical experience will inevitably lead to views and conclusions, which are often completely at variance to the findings of a wide practical nature. The professional bee-keeper is at all times compelled to assess things realistically and to keep an open mind in regard to every problem he may be confronted with. He is also forced to base his methods of management on concrete results and must sharply differentiate between essentials and inessentials."--Beekeeping at Buckfast Abbey, Brother Adam


----------



## clyderoad

Michael Bush said:


> "It will be readily appreciated that in the course of many years and daily contact with bees, the professional bee-keeper will of necessity gain a knowledge and insight into the mysterious ways of the honeybee, usually denied to the scientist in the laboratory and the amateur in possession of a few colonies. Indeed, a limited practical experience will inevitably lead to views and conclusions, which are often completely at variance to the findings of a wide practical nature. The professional bee-keeper is at all times compelled to assess things realistically and to keep an open mind in regard to every problem he may be confronted with. He is also forced to base his methods of management on concrete results and must sharply differentiate between essentials and inessentials."--Beekeeping at Buckfast Abbey, Brother Adam


Nice find Bush! Nice!
The End.


----------



## deknow

Specialkayme said:


> ...Of the studies that we know both the number of colonies and the number of cells studied, we can estimate that the colonies studied produced, on average, 31 cells per colony. We know of 64 colonies studied in 6 studies cited above. Which means, on average, 1,984 cells were studied in those 6 studies (plus the two that we do know the cells studied, but don't know the number of colonies studied), making a total of (very roughly estimating) 2,387 queen cells studied, averaging at 298 queen cells studied per study.
> 
> Yes, a hand full of queens generated in one set of circumstances isn't much to shake a fist at. 2,387 reared in 8 studies (when literally dozens, if not hundreds of studies have been done on this) is information of value, especially when every one of those individual studies showed statistically relevant information.


Hold on a second....you are trying to make a case that these queens in these studies show an inferiority in emergency queens....but that is not the case.

Referring back to your post #36 http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...s-for-a-small-operation&p=1209040#post1209040 :
You used the first study (91 queens) to show:


> So bees will rear emergency queens from varied ages of larvae. They don't do it all at one time.


...but neglected to mention that all 89 of the measured queens were pretty much the same quality...these were emergency queens.

...the second study used grafted older larvae (larvae the bees didn't make queens out of)....again, not any data as to what happens with an emergency queen.

I really won't bother going on...it isn't worth my time. I'm not trying to diss you or these studies, but you are not drawing the straight line you claim to be drawing, and the experience of many (many) beekeepers is that excelent queens can be produced even with a walk away split.



> Granted, a whole lot of this is estimation and speculation, but I don't have the $40 to drop on each article to read it through for your amusement. If you want to pay for it, have at it. I also don't have the 8 hours it would take to sort through another dozen articles spanning back 40+ years.


It is you that has been making claims about what these articles indicate. Perhaps you would have a better idea what they said and be able to represent them better if you had read them.

Relying on peer review is stupid. I can show you a peer reviewed and published Tom Seeley study that calls measuring 10 cells in the middle of 1 side of the frame the 'mean' for the entire frame. Peer review does not make that true or correct on any level...and that's an easy one.


----------



## apis maximus

clyderoad said:


> Nice find Bush! Nice!
> The End.


The End of what? Not even close..watch this thing unfolding.

But really...why The End? Just because Mr. Bush found a very eloquent quote from Karl Kehrle? 
A quote that if read carefully, puts the amateur, wanna bee newbee on notice, that this stuff called beekeeping is really complicated, complex, and yes, mysterious to boot. Yes it is...but so what?
That this endeavor, takes "many years and daily contact with the bees"...that the professional bee-keeper on the other hand, out of necessity of course, somehow gets it right...and the "amateurs" and their conclusions "are often at variance....". 

They might be...but even Brother Adam had a beginning. 

Yes, an early and precocious one, but still a beginning, when, I am absolutely sure he did not know a queen pheromone from a queen stinger.

I am in no position to diminish this man's life work and achievements, or no one else s for that matter. But, why not, on the shoulders of all these pioneers and giants of beekeeping that so very often are brought into the discussion as the ultimate back-stopper and authority, why not come up with some personal thoughts and ideas? Why stop here?

I think the field is and was wide open...and like I mentioned before, at our best moment, as humans, we are very poor students. The bees, on the other hand, at their worst moments and times, are the best teachers. That will never change.


----------



## Eduardo Gomes

deknow said:


> Relying on peer review is stupid. I can show you a peer reviewed and published Tom Seeley study that calls measuring 10 cells in the middle of 1 side of the frame the 'mean' for the entire frame. Peer review does not make that true or correct on any level...and that's an easy one.


With respect, it does not seem reasonable to me to say to someone that is stupid rely on peer review because you (deknow) know a case in which peer review allegedly was not strict. How many tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of peer review are made each year? One or two, or even 10 peer review not strict is statistically relevant? Do you know any area of ​​human action without error? What do you propose instead of peer review?


----------



## Adrian Quiney WI

The circumstances that bees find themselves in here in the north if OTS queens are timed correctly:

There are plenty of larva to choose to make queens from including some that are made accessible by judicious use of a hive tool or knife.

The colony is populous and has stores.

The ambient temperatures are not chilling any brood.

It is at or very close to the time of natural swarming in the area.

The experiences of beekeepers who are using this method successfully (successfully for me means at least a state average crop for honey producing colonies, and a consistent overwintering rate) should not be denied. 


Science is an evolving progression of ideas that illuminate or confuse us. Over time theories are accepted, and then repudiated. I understand that scientific minds are questioning, but we do not need to be dismissive of each other. I have mixed views on discussions like this. The distances that separate us allow for interactions that, if face-to-face might never happen because they become hostile and confrontational. Noses might be bloodied. Yet, I learn more from some of these discussions in a few minutes than I could in a beekeepers meeting where convention dictates that most questions are polite and not coldly incisive. What I would request is that beekeepers keep an open mind because sometimes things work without being scientifically validated and OTS queen-rearing is one of them.


----------



## Specialkayme

deknow said:


> Hold on a second....you are trying to make a case that these queens in these studies show an inferiority in emergency queens....but that is not the case.


You misunderstand.

The studies do not show that emergency queens are inferior. I have never said they did.

The studies show a variety of information, but mainly two points that are relevant to our discussion:
1. When the bees show a sudden loss of queen, they will rear emergency cells from a wide range of aged larvae
2. Queens reared from older larvae show a decrease in "quality", namely amount of sperm that can be stored in the spermatheca, the number of drones mated with, the number of ovarioles (among other factors).

I was the one that made the connection. Not these articles.



deknow said:


> You used the first study (91 queens) to show:
> ...but neglected to mention that all 89 of the measured queens were pretty much the same quality...these were emergency queens.


I disagree Dean.

The study measures the quality of queens produced in emergency situations. Some were from Egg 0–24 h, Egg 24–48 h, Egg 48–72 h, Larva 0–24h, Larva 24–48 h. The results showed a wide variety of differentiation in size, spermatheca size, poison sac size, weight, and ovariole number. 

The study did not compare emergency reared queens to grafted ones. I never said it did. Again, I drew that conclusion.

But the better question is, why does it matter? that all the queens in the study were "emergency queens"? If anything, it showed you the wide variety of "quality" that can come from an emergency queen. Isn't that valuable in and of itself?



deknow said:


> I really won't bother going on...it isn't worth my time.


Then maybe you should apply yourself to areas that are worth your time, rather than telling me how you won't bother.

I can continue this discussion indefinitely. I've read the studies. I read most of them years ago. I came up with my own conclusions. You are welcome to do the same. Or not. I don't really care.



deknow said:


> you are not drawing the straight line you claim to be drawing


And what am I not drawing Dean? I'm using studies that have shown X, Y, and Z, and I'm making a connection between them to prove my belief of W. 

Would you prefer if I take a quote out of a 100 year old book that isn't exactly in the direct context of our discussion, that somewhat hints upon the notion that someone once maybe thought the other way around, and then we can all sit here and think about what that person really meant, but never really discuss it?



deknow said:


> and the experience of many (many) beekeepers is that excelent queens can be produced even with a walk away split.


Can be. Correct. 

Crappy queens can be made out of grafted cells. Can be.

The difference is, under optimal conditions, you know the age of the larvae that will be used to create the queen when grafted. In a walk away split, you do not. The evidence shows that 39% of the time a walk away split is done, a queen from an older larvae survives till hatching. How old? I don't know. Maybe 24h, so it wouldn't matter. Maybe 48, which could matter. Maybe 60, which would matter. But you don't know. And even under optimal conditions, it's still a possibility. Fairly high actually. And that older larvaed queen would hatch before the younger one, and have an advantage during a queen duel. So the odds are, an older one WILL be the winner.

And it should, if you think about the biological need to have an emergency queen. The bees need one now. So they get the fastest one they can get. Not the optimal one. But they don't need a perfect queen. They just need *A* queen. And A queen is what you get. But not *the* queen. 

You want to ignore the math, go ahead. I'm not forcing you to change your management strategies or your thinking. 



deknow said:


> It is you that has been making claims about what these articles indicate. Perhaps you would have a better idea what they said and be able to represent them better if you had read them.


Why try and belittle me? I'm reading articles that discuss topics and draw conclusions, and I'm trying to use that information to draw other conclusions. What's wrong with that?

If you disagree with the facts and articles I'm using, tell me another article that fits better. Take the time to find your own data, your own papers, your own statistics that disagree with mine. Do your own research. Disagree with the conclusions I'm drawing? Tell me the conclusion that should be drawn based on the facts and statistics we are discussing.

Maybe we would be better suited if you took a nap and could go calm down. Then maybe we can come back together and have a thoughtful conversation about facts to better both of our understandings of the situation, rather than you trying to tell me where I'm wrong without advancing the conversation, then telling me I don't know how to read.



deknow said:


> Relying on peer review is stupid.


Sorry Dean, but you actually lost a good amount of respect I had for you with this comment. 

Peer review isn't perfect. It probably isn't ideal. But it is a method of verification and validation. Not the only one. But to say it's "stupid" either shows a disrespect or a lack of understanding of the process involved.


----------



## CajunBee

Wow, lots of good info from folks who don't care, can't be bothered, or just too educated.


Ddawg, I can't help you cause I'm not educated enough, but there are several good reads on the subject of queen rearing. 
Pick a method you like and give it a go. You'll learn more that way than you would here.


----------



## squarepeg

for those of you notching, are you looking for eggs or just hatched larvae for the notch(es), and do you go back say a week later and cull any cells that are not at the notch(es)?


----------



## Adrian Quiney WI

So, perhaps a germane question would be at what level does the lack of development of spermatheca/ovariole development impact a queen such that her productivity is impeded enough such as to not allow her two productive years? Can it be predicted by age of larva at "emergency" initiation? 
Then knowing that. How often does it happen? Then how does that compare with the failure rate of introduced mass produced queens?
Rehashing a vehicle example: What does it matter if you have a range of 600 miles in your truck, if you are only ever going to go 150 before you fill up your tank?
So what I have learned is that generation of commercial beekeepers have been successful with walk-away splits, and anecdotal evidence presented by practitioners of OTS queen rearing is that there is not a high rates of queen failure. This leads me to believe that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that having queens with maximum ovariole and spermatheca development is not neccessary within one's apiaries.


----------



## Adrian Quiney WI

squarepeg, in reading Mel's writings his goal is that nurse bees have access to appropriate aged larva, as soon as they can. I see notched larva as insurance. I notch cells on 6 frames if I can find them - it has got easier with bifocals! When I come back a week later the first thing I do is idnetify the number of frames that have good looking (large well developed queen cells) on them. If they happen to be where I notched them great I use them and break down the others - leaving 2 cells per frame. If it happens that my notched cells look small compared to the others I kill my notched cells and leave the 2 best cells I can. I aim to get 3-4 splits per double deep colony. On split-up day it is like dealing cards. In goes the frame with the queen cell at position 3 of a 5 frame box, next I am looking to balance sealed brood and bees. I aim for about 2 completely filled sealed brood combs per nuc, adjusting as I go along, then next goes a honey frame and the balance of poorly filled frames gets doled out last. The honey frames go to postion 1 or 5. The entrances are reduced and the nucs are spread around the original site to disperse the foragers. With one apiary I have been leaving the bees at their home site and not moving them. Now that I have expanded to another site I have more options.
There are a couple of other points. I saw a study that said that when moved, a significant number of foragers are lost as bees have to learn all the nectar sources from scratch. I think that this is an argument for not moving the splits at first. 
I don't get hung up on the notching, the main point is a good cell and a brood break.


----------



## deknow

Adrian, you raise several good points...but I would back it up and point out that no one has (at least as far as I'm aware) actually done a side by side comparison between well provisioned (the way an experienced beekeeper would do things if they were looking for success) emergency queen and a "by the book" graft.

Without taking any special measures, it would be easy, in a study, demonstrate that 4 frame nucleus colonies don't overwinter well near the Canadian border....it's common sense. ..or at least it was until a few beeks up there decided to _try_ and make it work....and rely on it working. They did very different things than a researcher would do if they were doing a simple comparison of 4 frame nucs vs 20 frame hives for overwinter success. The researcher would do things consistently between the hive types that would be likely to show a difference in wintering.

The same is true about researchers looking at emergency queens....their " materials and methods" are designed to show a difference between each group. For a beekeeper, the materials and methods are "make this work regardless of my approach" ...and that can lead to very different results than "what's happens if I try this and document the result"? It's like the difference between journalism and activism.


----------



## Adrian Quiney WI

In getting back to the focus of the thread. If you have the space, and the time, try raising a few queens by whichever method interests you most. Raising queens is fun. Opening a nuc then seeing an active laying queen, and the eggs and larva she is producing is immensely satisfying. It is much more fun than making honey.


----------



## WBVC

I don't have many but am overwintering nucs in Canada just a short distance from the US border. So far have lost more full sized hives than nucs but the winter is far from done.



deknow said:


> Adrian, you raise several good points...but I would back it up and point out that no one has (at least as far as I'm aware) actually done a side by side comparison between well provisioned (the way an experienced beekeeper would do things if they were looking for success) emergency queen and a "by the book" graft.
> 
> Without taking any special measures, it would be easy, in a study, demonstrate that 4 frame nucleus colonies don't overwinter well near the Canadian border....it's common sense. ..or at least it was until a few beeks up there decided to _try_ and make it work....and rely on it working. They did very different things than a researcher would do if they were doing a simple comparison of 4 frame nucs vs 20 frame hives for overwinter success. The researcher would do things consistently between the hive types that would be likely to show a difference in wintering.
> 
> The same is true about researchers looking at emergency queens....their " materials and methods" are designed to show a difference between each group. For a beekeeper, the materials and methods are "make this work regardless of my approach" ...and that can lead to very different results than "what's happens if I try this and document the result"? It's like the difference between journalism and activism.


----------



## Specialkayme

Adrian Quiney WI said:


> So, perhaps a germane question would be at what level does the lack of development of spermatheca/ovariole development impact a queen such that her productivity is impeded enough such as to not allow her two productive years?


That's assuming that you can isolate the variable of "larvae age" to determine it's impact on "spermatheca/avariole development" to determine it's impact on longevity of the queen.

The first is fairly easy to determine. Finding a correlation between the first and the second is possible (and I believe has been done). Finding a correlation between the second and third is possible (and likely has been done, although I would hate to find a paper on the topic, only to be berated for bringing in more research). But to find one study, or experiment, or anecdotal evidence that links all three together is going to be difficult. 

Especially considering that some young larvae with fully developed spermatheca/avarioles won't live to be two years. Often because there are so many other variables at play, it's difficult if not impossible to isolate that exact cause and effect.

Which, in and of itself, may negate it's importance to most.



Adrian Quiney WI said:


> Rehashing a vehicle example: What does it matter if you have a range of 600 miles in your truck, if you are only ever going to go 150 before you fill up your tank?


The question then becomes, well, what did you pay for? And did you pay anything more than you would have to not have the range you thought you were getting?

It doesn't matter if your car has a range of 400 or 500 miles if you're only going to fill up the tank every 150 miles. But what if you paid an extra $5k to have that extra 300 mile range, in case you needed it, only to find out it isn't there when you do need it? Would it matter then? What if I told you that car you purchased and thought you had a range of 500 miles would, 15% of the time, run out of gas 75 miles after you filled it up, would it matter then?



Adrian Quiney WI said:


> and anecdotal evidence presented by practitioners of OTS queen rearing is that there is not a high rates of queen failure.


I'm sorry, but when did we determine this was true?

The queens reared by practitioners of OTS may be superseeded 80% of the time, and the beekeepers wouldn't know it. Maybe it's 2% of the time. I don't think anyone has presented information in this thread to give anyone other than a current OTS practitioner an idea as to what level of success rate, overwintering rate, queen longevity, laying rate, supersedure rate, or any other relevant criteria exists, or doesn't exist, for the OTS method.


----------



## Adrian Quiney WI

deknow thanks. My beekeeping is unconventional because of Beesource. I started and overwintered a TBH because Michael Bush said it could be done in the North. Local wisdom contended it wouldn't work. A donation of beekeeping equipment to start 4 hives from someone who came to Beesource just to give it away got me into Langstroths. My third year I had 4 out of 11 survive. I didn't medicate or count mites and still don't. I noted that the surviving 4 had all had a brood break, and suspected that may be the reason that they survived and the others didn't. Mel Disselkoen's method of increase has been my mainstay for increase. Michael Palmer's overwintering nuc principles help ensure they overwinter. Roland's Production method has meant I can produce honey. As far as I know there are no scientific studies backing any of my online mentors. I am not going to let it worry me, I value what science has to offer but critical thinking is what matters.


----------



## squarepeg

understood adrian, many thanks.


----------



## Eduardo Gomes

>Mel Disselkoen's method of increase has been my mainstay for increase.> I did not know OTS technique until a few weeks ago . Mr Oldtimer told me I could get good quality queens with this technique. I have much information about the technique that I took from the net. Will be used by me this year to produce some of my queens.

>Roland's Production method has meant I can produce honey.> Adrian I do not know this method. Can you give more details about it . Thank U.

Although much of the times I look for simple and pragmatic responses, the fact that this question has not been answered in a linear and quickly way was good, IMO. It was Randy Oliver who said in a radio interview that there are no simple answers in beekeeping. The bees are likely the society of more complex insects on earth. How could there be simple answers to solve problems in complex contexts? It has also been said that the beekeeper today must also have a scientist facet. The complex times we live, with lots of external variables (many of them to play against us) that influence the end result that require us to go to the field with a greater degree of uncertainty than desired. It seems to me that today's beekeepers need to be more tolerant and less susceptible to uncertainty levels. Although he do everything so that everything works out in the end.


----------



## squarepeg

i've had too few hives for too few years to make any definitive or quantitative observations. 

generally speaking though i don't much difference in the performance of queens regardless of whether they were started on the emergency principle, swarming, supercedure, or grafted. i've seen mostly good queens and an occasional dud with queens having been started under all of these scenarios. i tend to agree with michael's sentiments that timing in the season and having the right conditions in and out of the hive are the more important considerations. i have felt that differences in queens had mostly to do with how well the mating went.

with regard to walk away emergency queens in particular, i am leaving very robust donor colonies queenless during prime mating season, and so far i have not been disappointed with the queens they have produced. i haven't even bothered to inspect for cells a week after making them queenless, although i am tempted to try notching this year and cull down to the best two cells as adrian describes.


----------



## Adrian Quiney WI

Eduardo, I did write up Roland's method somewhere once I will see if I can find it later. I'll PM you the link when I do, if I feel ambitious I might write up the whole integrated scheme.


----------



## Specialkayme

I'd be interested in reading it as well, if you wouldn't mind sharing the link.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Adrian seems to reference _Roland _a lot, but this post offers a summary ....

http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...een-have&p=897122&highlight=roland#post897122


----------



## Specialkayme

deknow said:


> I would back it up and point out that no one has (at least as far as I'm aware) actually done a side by side comparison between well provisioned (the way an experienced beekeeper would do things if they were looking for success) emergency queen and a "by the book" graft.


Your comment got me curious, so I dug a little bit and found that this study actually did that:
EFFECTS OF THE AGE OF GRAFTED LARVAE
AND THE EFFECTS OF SUPPLEMENTAL FEEDING
ON SOME MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
OF IRANIAN QUEEN HONEY BEES
(Apis mellifera meda Skorikov, 1929)
A l i M a h b o b i , M o h a m m a d b a g h e r F a r s h i n e h - A d l ,
J e r z y W o y k e , S a e e d A b b a s i 
Journal of Apicultural Science, Vol 56, No. 1, 2012, Pg. 93-98.
http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/jas.2012.56.issue-1/v10289-012-0010-1/v10289-012-0010-1.xml

Granted it was of _Apis meliffera meda_, or the Iranian bee. Which may decrease it's value to you. It was also probably not done under the conditions you would like. But the study did conclude, among other things, that:



> Emergency queens are of lower quality
> than queens reared from larvae 1 day old,
> however they are of higher quality than
> queens reared from 3 day old larvae.


That was on pg. 96, Conclusion #3.

But I'll let you read the study, if you like, to draw your own conclusions.


----------



## deknow

I don't see any description of what was given to the bees to produce an "emergency queen". One would hope it was a frame with brood and eggs of all ages. They are very specific about the grafted larvae, but only an assumption that they are over a day old.

So I have a pretty good picture of what the grafting setup is, but I have no idea what went into the emergency queens, or under what conditions they are raised.


----------



## Adrian Quiney WI

I have resurrected the specific post I was thinking of over in the "Forum" 
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?265492-This-may-be-crazy-but


----------



## Specialkayme

deknow said:


> So I have a pretty good picture of what the grafting setup is, but I have no idea what went into the emergency queens, or under what conditions they are raised.


The article is fairly short, with only a half a page describing materials and methods. I would agree there isn't much information on what went into the emergency queens. I can only speculate that they assumed everyone know it to mean "yank the queen and see what happens." But I don't know that for certain. 

The lack of a description opens the article up to speculation and scrutiny, but I don't think their lack of a description of "emergency queen" invalidates the entirety of the results though. My opinion though. At worse it reduces it's conclusions to a starting point discussion. 

I can say that I have seen a study that compares grafted larvae with "emergency queens" that concludes that "emergency queens" are of lower quality than those reared from 1 or 2 day old larvae. I can not say that I have seen a study that compared grafted larvae with "emergency queens" and puts the results of quality as "comparable", as many here appear to indicate.


----------



## grozzie2

gfbees13 said:


> It seems that if you really want to see beeks fight, just ask this question: Step 1. Ask Question. Step 2. Sit back and watch. :lpf: opcorn:


Wowser, no kidding. Seems every time this subject comes up, we end up with pages and pages of stuff, it's more than enough to scare off anybody trying to raise a few on a small scale. Raising queens must be left to the high priests of beekeeping is the eventual impression. It's certainly the impression I got a few years ago, reading threads that went down this same path. So I'll comment on the relavent points a bit, just from my own experience and thoughts.

a) Selection of larvae, seems to be a big stumbling block for many. There are two general ways this happens. In the walk-away style of splitting, it's left up to the bees, plain and simple. In just about every other form of queen rearing, beekeeper makes the selection, so, all the pages of stuff about 'do they choose the right ones', become irrelavent. Beekeeper made the choice by presenting only the chosen larvae for the bees to work with. It really becomes a non issue. Queenless bees that have no other eggs or larvae to work with, will make cells using the larvae chosen by the beekeeper.

b) Building a starter hive. It can appear intimidating, and if you watch some of the videos, in particular those well done videos from Michael Palmer, there is a method, and it requires significant resources to build his style of starter. But put things in perspective, he's putting 48 grafts into a single hive, and expecting all of them to take, so he needs a LOT of bees and resources (pollen / honey) to get 48 grafts fed full of royal jelly. That's fine, if you have 48 nucs waiting to take the cells, most of us dont. So, on a smaller scale, do the math. If it takes 500 young house bees to feed one cell properly, then he needs 24,000 young house bees working on feeding that frame with 48 grafts, and he needs all the food in place for them to make that much jelly. BUT, if one is only doing a small handful, say half a dozen queens required, then to get the same level of royal jelly into 6 cups, only requires 3000 house bees. Suddenly, it's not daunting anymore, just about any reasonable strength hive can put 3000 house bees to work on a small handful of cells. I grafted a full bar, because I have no delusions I'm as good at it as Mr Palmer, and I'm thrilled with a 50% take rate on my bar of cells. The scale is completely different, and with only 6 or 8 cells to be fed, suddenly the starter is not such a big deal anymore. I cant emphasize enough, it's all about scale, ie how many cells are you producing at one time ? The OP mentions 6 colonies, so, 48 cells are absolutely NOT needed, half a dozen is plenty. Properly feeding 48 cells at a time, requires a carefully contrived colony with extra feed resources. Properly feeding 6 cells at a time, that' something every colony in the bee yard can do, and most will attempt it during the swarm season.

c) After the cells are ready, they have to go somewhere, and it's a subject that seems to get lost in the trivial details of selecting larvae and choosing methods of making cells. It doesn't matter how well you built the starter, and how perfectly you selected the larvae, if you have a full batch of 48 cells, and only 6 nucs to put them in for mating, then you've gone to a lot of wasted effort. There isn't much point to making a large batch of perfect cells if you only want / need a few, and even less reason if you only have resources to handle a few. Make as many as you need, a few extra 'just in case', but keep in mind, smaller numbers will give better fed cells, so dont overdo it. On my first attempt, I grafted 15 cups, and got 8 cells. I ended up putting 2 cells into each nuc because I only had 4 nucs to work with at that time. I can make a strong argument for 'I overdid it', but it was an experiment and I really did not know what to expect. Experiment was a success, because I learned a lot in the process, which was the main objective. When I graft my first round this upcoming spring, I'll have equipment lined up for 10 mating nucs. I'll still only graft one bar, and if I end up with 8 or 10 cells in nucs, I'll be happy. The wonderful thing about doing it this way, if my first bar of grafts doesn't have enough that took the next day, I can try again, graft another bar, and put it into the second slot on the graft frame to try get a few more. If I had hundreds of cells on the go in multiple starters, that'll surely mess up my schedule, but I dont. I can deal with one bar being a day out of sync from the other bar, not a big deal.

d) Timing. If you have a dedicated yard with 128 mating nucs, all of similar strength, then timing to place the cells may not be so important, but, the OP doesn't have that. Half a dozen colonies, needing / wanting a few fresh new queens. That pretty much tells us the mating nucs will be in the same yard as the full size colonies. Time your cells so you are placing them into the nucs while there is a flow happening, it accomplishes two of the main important points. First off, cells will be better fed initially, then after placing in the nucs, the large colonies will be busy working the flow. Place them during a dearth, and those larger colonies will find the nucs and start hollering 'free food' to all the rest of the colony. The smallish nucs dont stand a chance if the bigger colonies get a wiff of easy to steal food. I learned this lesson in the school of knocks.

A few years ago, when I first started with the bees, I'd read threads like this one, and eventually my eyes would go crossed over all the insignificant details folks were going on about, and mistaking for significant. Then I started watching the videos from the National Honey show, where Mr Palmer laid out his methods, with clear explanations as to WHY he does what he does. It took some pondering, and eventually I was able to figure out, it's all about scale. When I take those same concepts, but scale them down to my numbers, suddenly it all made sense, and, it's not hard.


----------



## Michael Bush

We have documentation that beekeepers have been doing walk away splits since at least 1568 (Nicol Jacobi of Sprottau Germany in his book _Gründlicher und nützlicher Unterricht von der Wartung der Bienen_ republished in 1660 as _Die rechte Bienen-Kunst_ in the 2nd book, 2nd part, 7th chapter he describes this). And it was still being practiced in 1774 (Adam Gottlob Schirach's Wald Bienensucht) and had been practiced in Italy since ancient times according to a "Mr. Monticelli" quoted in Huber (Vol II, Chapter X). We know successful beekeepers, Mraz being a vocal proponent, have used walk away splits successfully now for at least (that we have records for) since 450 years. If they were such an abject failure I think the practice would have been given up centuries ago. I do them every year. I try to time them so they do well and they almost always do well. When I was inexperienced and foolish enough to do them in a dearth they almost always did poorly.


----------



## crofter

Grozzie2; Post #111 seems like an interesting invitation to the school of queen rearing on a small scale! No promise of a superbee queen and no hype that one is necessary for average use.

I have no doubt that a system that covers to perfection every facet of queen rearing will give the lowest odds of substandard queens. That said, unless we have perfection at all other levels, I wonder if it is worth the effort to then seek perfection in one area where bees are doing an adequate job. Approaching perfection puts you deep into diminishing returns in most practical endeavors.


----------



## Specialkayme

And the understanding of the bee evolves Mr. Bush. Your practices should as well. 

Many of the dates that you put down, historically, man kind had a very basic and rudimentiary understanding of the honey bee and colony. Between 1568 and 2015, many discoveries that aid in the understanding of a honey bee colony have been made, such as understanding that queens are female, matings occur outside the hive, how the bees communicate, and the biology of the bee itself. Heck, they didn't even understand bee space or have moveable frame hives. If they had a better understanding of the biology of the queen, her pheromones or how/where/when she mates, or the importance of genetics, maybe they would have made different choices.

Just because they did it doesn't mean you need to.

In 1568 it was common to cut off a finger if you got a bad enough splinter. That worked well for them. Want to continue to do that as well? Medicine evolves. Science evolves. Beekeeping evolves. Evolve with it.


----------



## WBVC

But if you do achieve it it is a wonderful thing...well worth the effort&#55357;&#56841;



crofter said:


> Grozzie2; Post #111 seems like an interesting invitation to the school of queen rearing on a small scale! No promise of a superbee queen and no hype that one is necessary for average use.
> 
> I have no doubt that a system that covers to perfection every facet of queen rearing will give the lowest odds of substandard queens. That said, unless we have perfection at all other levels, I wonder if it is worth the effort to then seek perfection in one area where bees are doing an adequate job. Approaching perfection puts you deep into diminishing returns in most practical endeavors.


----------



## crofter

WBVC said:


> But if you do achieve it it is a wonderful thing...well worth the effort��


Nope; Just quibbling here, but whatever you do will not give perfection every time. You will only _slightly reduce_ the _already small_ number of less than subjectively perfect specimens.

"Perfection is the enemy of a good solution"


----------



## grozzie2

So I posted to this thread with our experiences of more or less ad-hoc queen rearing last summer. This year, we got a little more methodical, and planned in each step in advance. I decided to try a cloak board this time around, and Saturday was going to be graft day, so we set up the cell builder with the cloak board on Wednesday, it started as a typical double deep colony.

First step, make sure the queen is in the bottom box, and make sure a frame of open but well developed larvae in the top box, but no frames with eggs on them. This would ensure after I put the slide in, the top half would end up hopelessly queenless. I also pre-set some other frames in the top box. Near the center I placed 2 stores frames with plenty of pollen and nectar on them, with an empty undrawn new frame between them to act as a gap filler in the middle. I turned the bottom around, and closed up the entrance to the smallest hole in the reducer, didn't close it completely because a drone escape was necessary. Put the cloak board down, with the slide out, and the top box down above the cloak. Left it that way on Wednesday.

On Friday afternoon, I took a frame that was almost wall to wall of recently hatched larvae from another colony, put it in the gap where I had the empty frame initially, between the two stores frames and buttoned things up for the day. The goal with this step, bring lots of nurse bees up to work on feeding all that larvae. Saturday morning first thing the slide went into the cloak board to make the top half queenless, and at the same time that frame of open larvae came out, shook all the bees back down into the gap, then put the frame back in the hive it came from. The goal at this step, leave all the nurse bees producing jelly in the gap, but, no larvae left for them to feed. Around 1pm I grafted one bar of cups, then put that into the hole in the tob box of the builder, which was now packed with bees.

Opened it up early Sunday afternoon, and took this picture just before I pulled the slide out of the cloak board.



15 grafts, 13 of them took. I did struggle with the grafting initially, and it's likely not a co-incidence, the first two I put in cups, are the two that didn't take. After about a dozen false starts on various larvae, I finally got the hang of it again, and got a nice larvae into the rest of the cups, but I struggled on the first two. Looking carefully at the photo, some of the cups are almost overflowing with jelly.

Queenless start, with a queenright finisher, all on one stand, and I'm pretty happy with the way this batch of cells look. Last year only half my bar took, so I was expecting a similar result this time around. The next challenge, find enough bees to make a dozen mating nucs. I was planning for 6, and now I have more than a dozen. I can think of worse problems to have.


----------



## Buzzlightyear

Looks like you did awesome. What's the plan for the finisher?


----------



## grozzie2

Buzzlightyear said:


> Looks like you did awesome. What's the plan for the finisher?


Using a cloak board, so, just pulled out the slide and going to let them finish right where they are. Mating nucs early next week.


----------



## Ian

G, your last few post are right in the mark! Keep up the good work.


----------



## cristianNiculae

I'm really interested in a very simple way of raising queens and most of all natural way with the least interference on the human side.

How about letting the bees do the job and eventually helping them a bit by crowding and feeding?

I don't keep bad queens at all and also I'm not very sure which queen is the best so I would rather leave this to fate.

Everybody agrees the best time of the year to raise queens is the time when the bees do that so why not just use this advantage? Let the bees do the job for us. All I need to do is to regularly check for QC's and when the moment come just use those cells.

The work of checking is a must anyway; the only extra work is the cutting of the QC's.

P.S. I used grafting during the previous year so the reason to find a simpler method is not that I cannot graft.


----------



## Michael Bush

>How about letting the bees do the job and eventually helping them a bit by crowding and feeding?

The only issue is that they may not swarm on command. If you make them crowded (compress the hive by removing all unused boxes and possibly some of the boxes they are using and give those to another hive) AND queenless (catch the queen and put her in a nuc with a frame of brood and a frame of honey) then they will build queen cells "on command" and you're not going in every few days to see if you managed to convince them to swarm...


----------



## cristianNiculae

I think this is the easiest method for a small operation that will definitely produce good queens. Despite this, yesterday I used the cell starter method. The main flow has just started and I want to take advantage of that. No time to wait.


----------



## broodhead

Why don't you try the cloake board method using a four or five frame double hive body. Works well and not much to it, or you can force hives or splits to make a new queen. You may also start a cell builder finisher out of a five frame hive body or double nuc as you may call it. That too will work, really not rocket science just good timing is the key.


----------



## cristianNiculae

broodhead said:


> Why don't you try the cloake board method using a four or five frame double hive body. Works well and not much to it, or you can force hives or splits to make a new queen. You may also start a cell builder finisher out of a five frame hive body or double nuc as you may call it. That too will work, really not rocket science just good timing is the key.


Off topic:
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?312248-Open-starter-vs-closed

Sorry for posting here but I got no answer.


----------



## billabell

I think you answered your own question correctly in the edit, but I think you will know from their brood pattern w/o waiting for spring. I don't know your situation but if your worried about it just start another batch closed this time.


----------



## mcon672

Sorry, accidental post by my dog, please delete.


----------



## aunt betty

Walk away splits is where you'll end up unless you have lots of resources.


----------



## Velbert

Jenter Queen Rearing System 
Thought about giving a try as I get older those very small larvae are getting harder to see.

https://youtu.be/QFDFJHJsejg


----------



## rosebee

My queen and honey flow season in Alabama is very similar to yours in NC. I have not raised my own queens yet but have taken 1 class and attended one meeting at our annual state meeting. I am now reading Larry Conner's book and Michael Bush's book and trying to gain confidence as to which approach is best. I am very concerned with SHB infestation on my young colonies. How do you manage that in your area? SHB killed all my increase splits last year as I attempted to let them make their own queens.


----------



## Velbert

I still trying to figure out the SHB With out using any poison 

Jenter video placing wax in plug.

https://youtu.be/_93CLnsVBPM


----------



## tpope

Rosebee,
I had some small hive beetle problems in my split for increase into nucs. I will not use a pollen/protein patty again. It just gave the SHB a place to lay. I will feed sugar water instead of using a fully drawn comb of honey unless I add enough bees to cover and protect it.
I am also building nuc boxes for my half frames that I will use in my queen mating boxes. I intend to draw them on a nuc and when I am done raising my queens, I can just allow the bees to use them to overwinter on the combs.


----------



## Fourframe

acceptance problem. using Joseph Clemens method with JZB queen cells. lots of nurse bees lots of food, no queen or cells. They build wax comb all over the cell frame, and no signs of the larva. I placed emerging brood in every week that contains some larva . Can any one help


----------



## mgstei1

Sounds like you have a rogue queen still in there and stopping the cells.
take time and shake all the bees through a shaker box or excluder or remove all brood and brood frames and place a drawn comb in and come back in 2-3 days and check for eggs. You see single eggs in any cells shes there somewhere.


----------



## Fourframe

mgstei1 said:


> Sounds like you have a rogue queen still in there and stopping the cells.
> take time and shake all the bees through a shaker box or excluder or remove all brood and brood frames and place a drawn comb in and come back in 2-3 days and check for eggs. You see single eggs in any cells shes there somewhere.


Thanks, ill bee lookin for that queen, I could use her at this point. Putting some bare comb in might be a good way to locate her as well.


----------



## TinaBee

When is the best time to rear a Queen?, I've had some queen cells in my hive and thought , why not raise one yourself. Is it too late to start.?


----------



## Adrian Quiney WI

The best time in my area is June and July because swarm season is when bees naturally want to make queens. It can be done later, but if you intend the new queen to head a new colony there is less time for that colony to grow before winter - it can be done but requires more resources in the form of drawn comb, bees at start up, and feeding.


----------



## TinaBee

Thank you maybe I'll wait till next year then.


----------



## larrypeterson

If I May,

Last year my timing to graft was totally off because of Knee surgery. After a dismal failure (no I don't want to talk about it) I purchased some cells from Stan Moulton , The Honey Company, Provo, Utah. I was searching the You Tube videos on the subject of queen rearing and stumbled onto the UoG Honeybee research Center Video on "Grafting." They were using a 20X microscope to assist placing the young larva into the cell. I use a magnifier but I may have been missing the intricate skill of placement. I inquired about a source for a 20X microscope with the arm. The one they use costs in excess of $400.00 but he gave me a referral for one that is about $200.00. 

I thought this might be another "piece of the puzzle" to raise better queens. Thanx for tolerating me, LP


----------



## Ddawg

larrypeterson said:


> If I May,
> 
> Last year my timing to graft was totally off because of Knee surgery. After a dismal failure (no I don't want to talk about it) I purchased some cells from Stan Moulton , The Honey Company, Provo, Utah. I was searching the You Tube videos on the subject of queen rearing and stumbled onto the UoG Honeybee research Center Video on "Grafting." They were using a 20X microscope to assist placing the young larva into the cell. I use a magnifier but I may have been missing the intricate skill of placement. I inquired about a source for a 20X microscope with the arm. The one they use costs in excess of $400.00 but he gave me a referral for one that is about $200.00.
> 
> I thought this might be another "piece of the puzzle" to raise better queens. Thanx for tolerating me, LP


I bought a Jewelers headband magnifier from Harbor Freight for $5 that works way better than I ever would have thought..

http://www.harborfreight.com/magnifier-head-strap-with-lights-38896.html


----------



## Velbert

Seeing is not as easy for me.
Tried this Jenter queen rearing Last year
Works wonderfully 
You will not need all the magnifiers and microscope ect.

https://youtu.be/1EztKH7BC54

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=guP8C...qpNECFdsxTgod6MAP9DIHcmVsYXRlZEiel4T2h6W7ptQB
This another man doing the Jenter 

In foreign language but by watching you will know what is being done


----------



## tpope

Velbert, I know that you raise a good number of queens each year. Do you have any advice or suggestions that make it easier to use the Jenter system? Thanks.


----------



## Velbert

I cut the hanging hooks off so I can access it better I like taking it out of frame when getting out cells

Place in frame to get cells built(with out cover.

I have my breeder in a single 4 frame medium 1/2 length.when I place into breeder box I don't place cover on and she lays at will over night it has al ways layer good..
Usually the other 3 frames are packed and this frame is all she can lay in.


----------



## pgayle

Velbert said:


> Seeing is not as easy for me.
> Tried this Jenter queen rearing Last year
> Works wonderfully
> You will not need all the magnifiers and microscope ect.
> 
> https://youtu.be/1EztKH7BC54
> 
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=guP8C...qpNECFdsxTgod6MAP9DIHcmVsYXRlZEiel4T2h6W7ptQB
> This another man doing the Jenter
> 
> In foreign language but by watching you will know what is being done


Velbert, I may try that. I failed some grafts a few weeks ago, from the daughter of one of your 2006 Russians. I had trouble seeing, I kept poking holes through the [new] comb, etc. They did not start a single one. I recombined my starter with the main hive, and got some different glasses, etc, planning to try again. Sunday I found beautiful capped queen cells throughout, scattered over several brood frames. They looked too nice to be emergency cells. I think the queen and swarm had already left. I didn't have the equipment or time at the moment to do much other than split it three ways. 2 will get mated here in Adair county, and one in Tulsa county.


----------



## sebashtionh

We call them 'mating nucs', but if it's a dearth, the big colonies have a different name, they call them 'feeders'. i am sorry I am going to steal this...... this is awesome


----------



## Andhors

Michael, thank you for your mentorship at bushfarms.com. Could you comment on the time from becoming queen-less until a new queen would emerge? If the queen cells are capped for 16 days, how could they emerge in 3 days?

Here is a line from bushfarms.com “a few good queens” :

So if we make a hive queenless (do what you like about having new comb or not) nine days after making them queenless these will be mostly mature and capped and be three days from emerging.


----------



## Saltybee

They are not capped_ for_ 16 days. They are capped _at_ 16 days in the timeline, a timeline that starts at egg laying.

Confusing when looking at it from a split timeline, which is already beginning roughly at day 4.


----------



## TNTBEES

Queens , workers, and drones all start out the same. Eggs for three days, larvae for 6 days, and then comes the difference. Queen pupal state is 7 days, workers 12 days and drones 15 days. For a total from egg to emergence of 16 days for queens, 21 days for workers, and 24 days for drones. Queens are not capped for 16 days, nor are they capped at 16 days. They are capped at 9 days.


----------



## Andhors

Thanks!


----------



## Saltybee

TNTBEES said:


> They are capped at 9 days.


Thanks. Got a little tongue tied myself.


----------



## Andhors

I have some “queen” larvae in a queenless starter from a Nicot frame. Looks like some have been accepted. I have seen advice to move them to a queen right colony over an excluder. When should I do that? And why or why not leave them in the queenless starter? Thanks again.


----------



## Saltybee

Depends on your goals.
Want to reuse the starter? then move has a strong pull.
Want to keep your hives natural or not tie up your starter bees. Put over excluder.


----------



## Andhors

How long after the eggs hatched should I move the queen cells over the excluder? The larvae are 3 days old today.


----------



## Saltybee

Here is a discussion of what is essentially a vertical split with some good and bad results.; https://www.beesource.com/forums/sh...-hive-before-splitting-without-grafting/page2

I do not think it is a case of simply dropping in a cell, nor do I think the age is that crucial as long as they start. An introduction delayed until the bees are feeling a little queenless might help, but too long and they will start their own.

Ray Marler does his flyback splits by moving the queen back after a few days, I would call that a queenright raising.


----------



## Michael Bush

If you make them queeneless they typically start with a four day old (from the egg) larvae which will emerge 12 days later and be mated and laying about 2 weeks after that.


----------

