# Replacing queens



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

On another thread, someone had commented along the lines ?I don?t know why anyone would squish a perfectly good queen. I offer the following reasons?

*First year queens have a better survival rate. Each additional year, adds a multiplying effect to the chances of winter kill. If a queen needs replacing, in summer or the warm season, the bees just supercede. The chances of this happening over the wintertime is small the first year. But with each additional season, the chances of the queen needing replaced increases. If this queen fails over winter, the hive may result in a dead hive. So the more chances the queen needs replaced with each continuing year, the better the chances the hive will die.

*A first year queen produces more queen pheromones. An older queen produces less. The less a queen produces, the more chances for supercede and swarming. Most think that supercede and swarming are completely separate issues, and they can be. But they are also combined in circumstance, especially at honey season. A hive can be booming, with a great queen, and a great pattern. But this older, and yet very productive queen, if older with failing pheromones, can be a source for swarming. Many think of replacing queens for obvious reasons, like failing patterns, etc., but how many associate swarming with a great looking queen, but perhaps an older queen with failing (decreasing) pheromones.

* A new queen on average will produce more brood. This has two main impacts. Build up in the spring, resulting in a higher honey crop. And larger clusters going into winter.

I know there is a lot of gray area in any discussion such as this. Someone always has a three, four or even five year queen that is doing great. Any discussion such as this deals with averages. For the hobbies with a couple hives, the averages may not be important.

Knowing that newer queens swarm less, and study after study shows that they have a higher over wintering rate, makes it something to consider.

Did that swarm leave and cause a lower honey yield for no other reason than a failing ?older? queen? Did that hive die because the queen just could not survive another season, no matter what the winter prep and treatment?

I highly recommend reading ?SWARMING - Biology, Prevention, Control, and Collecting. ISBN 0-936028-09-2 I offer the book as a great source. I know its hard for me to suggest killing good queens, when I am a producer of queens. So read the book yourself.


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

I agree with most of your thoughts, but have a couple to offer in regards to hanging onto those old queens.

First: it is a good idea to hang onto older, still productive queens until your new queen is settled in.

Second: you could use these older, still productive queens to make lots of brood that you could use to boost a weaker hive with, or to boost those new splits. 

It doesn't require alot of resouces to hold onto some of these older, still productive queens. And it could be a win-win situation for the beekeep willing to do so. Just some of my thoughts on good reasons to keep some of these "replaced" queens.


----------



## JBJ (Jan 27, 2005)

"I know its hard for me to suggest killing good queens, when I am a producer of queens." 
BjornBee

Surely you jest! Spoken like a true supplier.

Don't get me wrong, I am big fan of snuffing poor, marginal, average, overworked, or failing queens, however I always keep my top performers around as long as possible, exspecially if they are healthy enough to thrive and produce drones. I do prefer a late season/summer mated queen in all of my production and pollination colonies. A nice young queen to produce and support the winter cluster, and then produce a peak population for the spring early and summer flows. After that, if she is not incredible or there are any signs of PMS then she is fair game. After a year on a queen I skim off the top performers for further analysis and propagation. Sometimes these girls reach three years, but that is extremely rare in a demanding commercial environment where these girls actually have to work for a living. The sheer mechanics of keeping large numbers of colonies up require the input of lots of fresh queens at regular intervals. I suppose I am overstating the obvious, for that I apologize.
JBJ


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

JBJ, "Surely you jest! Spoken like a true supplier."

No not really. I am a supplier, that parts true. I am not jesting however. Very serious as a matter of fact. I am skeptical of marketing, fluff, and over stating opinion and facts for personal agenda's. Way too much goes on in much of the world of business. I am very leery of personal perception and how people see not just my words, but actions as well.

If you have ever dealt with me, you would clearly understand that selling is not my main priority. I must of talked at least 25 people out of buying from me this year. Many were people who called about queen purchases, and after speaking with them, I found out that thier hives had swarmed within the past two weeks. Since they could not see eggs, they thought getting another queen would be best. I could of easily taken the order and said its not my problem any longer. But I did not. Not sure if a "true supplier" would of done the same.

Personal evaluation of queens, sticking to a business plan, and comparing cost and return is something every business should do. I am just trying to have others see that just becuase you have a good queen(laying, good pattern, good numbers), other circumstances that are not always connected, such as winter survival(older the queen, the higher chance of winter failure) and swarming (older queen produce less pheromones and thus supercedure and swarming) are connected in ways that do effect outcome (winter kill and less honey due to untimely swarming), or at least should be considered when thinking of requeening.

As an additional note, I personally see about a one in four failure (25%) to achieve queenright status after swarming. Queens not mating, queens killed on mating flight, etc. So the less swarming, the better the chances for queenright hives, with less failures, less drone laying, and less labor and lost production.

My intent of this thread was to go a little deeper so some could see that even if you have a good queen, and she has a great pattern, lots of brood, etc., that other postives can be achieved by requeening.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

Wow. 
Its come to this.
Someone has to suggest "requeening" as a good idea,
and gets an argument/rebuttal.

> I always keep my top performers around as 
> long as possible

So, the queens that lay the most eggs per 
month are kept the longest? How's that gonna work?
A "top performer" is going to wear out _sooner_.


----------



## iddee (Jun 21, 2005)

Another 6 of one and a half dozen of the other argument.
I don't see anyone disagreeing with requeening. The discussion is only about what to do with the replaced queen. Keep her or kill her. Now, let's discuss the real question, please.
After requeening, do you imediately kill the old queen, or do you set her up in a nuc to see if the new queen is accepted before killing her.
Maybe you even start a new hive with her and either combine it with a weak hive in the fall. 
Or even build another full hive with her, to be overwintered on its own.


----------



## sierrabees (Jul 7, 2006)

<A "top performer" is going to wear out sooner.>

I don't agree with this Jim. Top performance during the first year is probably most related to genetics of the queen. After year one, it is more related to success during the mating flight. The weather during that critical week, the number of available drones, the fertility of the drones she mates with, and other variables not related to the queen herself come into play. If she survives to year three and her production has dropped off, she still may be able to lay enough eggs to breed daughters with some of the genetics that gave her the first years production before the bees decide to replace her.

We have some old guys here that have worked like mules since they were kids, and in their 80's and 90's are still splitting their own firewood, keeping their yard up, and climbing on the roof to clean the chimney for their neighbors. We have a lot of others that have fed at the public trough most of their live who are passing away in their 40's and 50's. Go figure!


----------



## honeyman46408 (Feb 14, 2003)

Well as we all know not every hive is the same.

I had one that came through winter real weak (brood about the size of a golf ball) I added a frame of brood and it didnt build so I "requened" and added another frame of brood and the hive limped along all summer and I hope it is strong enough to make the winter.

When I removed the old queen (not wanting to kill her) I had another hive with laying workers so I shook out the hive put the "old queen" in and they accepted her BUT after 2 weeks NO brood. dtherr weeks later as I started to take the boxes to add to other hives, another look reviled 4 frames of brood and that hive made a super of honey!

So I HATE TO KILL A QUEEN


----------



## JBJ (Jan 27, 2005)

Jim, I think perhaps I did not make my point clearly. Top performers out of about 600 to 700 colonies represent potential survivor stock that I may want to graft from. For me it would be silly to squish a queen that has met all my performance criteria and is still producing healthy thriving colony. I would rather make a few thousand grafts of her while the getting is still good. We are talking about the best 1-5% when I say top performers. I realize she will run out of "bullets" sooner or later so I like to graft while the "gettin is good". I have found that over the last 10 years daughters of particular queens selected in this way tend to exhibit a high degree of genetic relatedness and similar performance. 

My point was not to argue against requeening at all. Just that sometimes it would be behooving to spare the top performers to propagate from. To not regularly requeen most of your operation would be a fool's folly.

I was also just having a little fun with Bjorn's quote about not wanting to kill good queens. He has really made a good point about the cost benefit analysis of regular requeening. It pays in the long run. Further I have already apologized for overstating the obvious. 

One of the things I strongly advocate is requeening in the fall or late summer. This helps with over wintering and does not disrupt the colony during the spring buildup.
JBJ


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

bjorn sezs:
I know there is a lot of gray area in any discussion such as this. Someone always has a three, four or even five year queen that is doing great.

tecumseh ask:
don't you always suspect that this type of queen is neither clipped or painted and that really the beekeeper in question really does not know exactly how old the reining monarch really is????

as far as positive in regards to this question I have suspected (speculated) that new queens and their hives tend to tolerate varroa mites at higher levels...

peggyjam brings up an interesting point or so... which could easily be accomplished by running a 'typical' two queen system with an excluder.


----------



## sierrabees (Jul 7, 2006)

<peggyjam brings up an interesting point or so... which could easily be accomplished by running a 'typical' two queen system with an excluder.>

I do this frequently. Usually one of the two queens dissapears within a couple of months and some last longer. It isn't always the old queen that I lose but I would say nearly half the time they keep the old girl and get rid of the new one. When this happens I just figure the bees know best.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

I have commented about bees lifespan and has it been shortened as compared to years ago. Specially when thinking of all the treatments (acids, etc.). I had been thinking of some tests with field bees and did not really think of queens. but with the tower system two queen hives discussed previously, this may give some opportunity to test lifespan on older queens. It seems that studies are hard to find on lifespan on bees in general. These two queen tower systems may have some additional use and study capabilities.


----------



## JBJ (Jan 27, 2005)

tecumseh ask:
"don't you always suspect that this type of queen is neither clipped or painted and that really the beekeeper in question really does not know exactly how old the reining monarch really is????"

We mark all of our queens for personal use. It is the only way to be sure whom you are grafting off of.
JBJ


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

Let me add another twist to this conversation. Longevity and supercedure. The talk at bee meetings that i've been to and lectured at over the last year is...queens are only living a year or a year and a half. Old timers like the Mraz family have documented that their queens lived 3 - 5 years, and maintained strong colonies. I believe it, as they have the records with marked queens. So, if we requeen by the calendar...at one or two year intervals, are we selecting out the trait for longevity. And, what about supercedure. That is one of the bees way of requeening their colony...the other being swarming. I think that sucessful supercedure is an important trait. Again...by requeening by the calendar, are we selecting out the trait for successful requeening by supercedure. Are you replacing successful supercedure queens with a supposed better strain? Will that enhanse the trait for requeening by swarming?


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Mp, first I think one needs to define the population of beekeepers who you ask these questions.

I think the average beekeeper does not have drone yards, has large populations of colonies to seriously evaluate number sufficient to select from a large criteria, and for the most part, does not graft, and mate on a serious level.

On the other hand, most breeders are probably putting most efforts in the survivability selections, with hygienic traits and other criteria being far more important at this time, rather than worrying about supercedure traits and longevity.

Personal studies of old time data of beekeepers who collected feral bees years ago, has shed some light for me. In tracking bees, they would note where the bee trees were. Since most bee lining was done later in the summer, when bees had little to work, except the feeders provided, they would not attempt to cut out the feral bees too late in the year. They would wait till the following spring.

I have good evidence, by some rather detailed records, that for every 10 colonies marked, 4 or 5 were alive the following spring. I think mother nature culls on a pretty heavy scale when bees are left to natural habitat. But once a tree was found, and even if the bees were killed over winter, the same nesting sites were almost garanteed to be occupied by the end of that years swarm season. I also think that bees are programmed to swarm much more than we think. I have books that suggest that a healthy hive will on average swarm at least two times per year.

Given all this, I really question what all the big deal is about longevity in bees. Young queens have a distinct advantage over older queens. And this has been backed by mother nature herself by allowing bees to swarm on a higher level than we like, but also culls out the weaker strains much more than we are willing.

Did you ever think that perhaps we are hurting the bees by artificially keeping bees around much longer than dictated by nature? I highly doubt that in nature, a queen would last three to five years. I have no desire to waste my time breeding for this trait, as I do not think it exists, and only harms the natural flow of what should be.


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

Bjorn,

I have to disagree with you. Longevity of queens is a desirable trait because it is one of the ways we can track non-swarming traits. I have seen a 3 year old queen in my hives in the past. They don't make it past the third season here in the south, but they do sometimes make it for 3 years.

Unfortunately, this is tied up with several other traits. For example, the queens longevity is directly and inversely associated with the number of eggs she lays. More eggs = shorter productive life. Also, as the queen ages, she produces less pheromones which eventually triggers supercedure. I want a queen that produces pheromones as long as possible because it delays supercedure which can at times result in swarms. I've had fall swarms when a colony started supercedure, then goldenrod bloomed and the colony decided to swarm instead.

Darrel Jones


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Fusion,
There is no doubt that beekeepers have kept queens for 3 to five years in the past. I can also show you study after study that shows.....

1)Younger queen lay more eggs. 
2)Younger queens swarm less
3)Young queens supercede less.
4)Young queen overwinter at a higher rate.

There are associated benefits to these four main points and some additional lesser points. An example would be: A higher egg rate possibly allowing more bees to be on hand to handle the ebb and flow of colony loss as mites and deseases peak and valley.

Can you please list the benefits of long term benefits of having or desiring to keep queens around 3 to 5 years? (Perhaps beyond isolating and keeping a particular breeder for extended use, for which I do.) I am talking general beekeeping.

When I say I don't beleive the in a "longevity" trait, I will say that you can select for long surviving queens. I am also saying, it is not a trait selected in nature for beneficial use. And therefore I do not think it is one worth considering when the upfront benefits of new, younger queens are apparent, and when nature itself takes full advantage of these known benefits listed above.

In several hundred years of breeding (documentation), I have never heard of a bee advertised or commented about, that some successful trait has been isolated to have a queen non-swarming. In any old book, they talk about selecting for this trait, but yet never was able to produce much in the way of a successful swarm resistant queen, without intensive and invasive action of swarm prevention. Clipping, expanding brood chambers, isolating the queen, and other aspects were always mentioned. Show me an article, a advertisement, or reference that bees can be bred for non-swarming, and then perhaps we can "list" this as a trait. Up till now I see it along the lines of urban legend and slick marketing. left to thier own devices, bees will swarm regularly, thus a non beneficial trait. 

So for me, keeping a bunch of old queens around to "track" a non swarming trait, is useless and not practical. I do not plan on having 3 to 5 year old queens around in my production hives. The negatives far outwiegh the positives. 

Mraz and others have good records of keeping queens a long time. From a practical sense, for the average beekeeper, tell me what the benefits of keeping a queen 3 to 5 years were?

I can show you the details and advantages of young queen, and much of this information mentioned and detailed at the same time frame that others were keeping records showing they had queens of longer than normal timeframes. (of course using artificial means and controls) What did they want, to save buying a new queen? To save having to propogate one more queen? What were these benefits that overcame the industry conclusion that younger queens produce more and survive better?

I think these same benefits of younger queens are now more important than ever, with the mites, SHB, and associated deseases. Younger, more productive queens are one line in the battle of keeping strong hives.

I agree with all the details in your second paragraph. Egg rate, pheromones, etc. I just use the details to understand the benefits of young queens, and you use the details for another matter. I don't see this as a disagreement, but a difference in opinion. When you say "as long as possible", you never know this without having quuens run out. Something I do everything in my power to not happen.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>On the other hand, most breeders are probably putting most efforts in the survivability selections, with hygienic traits and other criteria being far more important at this time, rather than worrying about supercedure traits and longevity.

Do you really think so Bjorn? I'd like to think so, but I think, if the major queen breeders are now so engaged, that it's a new approach for them. The commercial beekeepers that buy thousands of queens each year pretty much drive the breeding and research programs. Are they clamoring for hygenic varroa-tolerant and tracheal mite resistant bees, or would they just rather use chemicals to solve their problems? If the big operators really cared, I think we'd have seen more progress in the development of survivability traits than appears to be the case.

I'm sure that most recreational/hobbyist and many small-scale beekeepers have asked for queens with stronger built-in survivability traits and tolerance or resistance to the common pests and diseases, but these people just don't buy enough queens to be much of a market force. The industrty as a whole seems more concerned with the development of better chemical treatments than it does with producing genetically superior bees.

At least that's the way it looks from here.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

George, you got me there!  

I think my statement was more along the lines that "if" they were selecting for desirable triats, that hygienic, mite tolerance, etc,. would be way ahead of worrying about queen longevity. No doubt, I agree that way too many bee producers are mass quantity producers(and little more), and more emphasis in desirable traits in breeding is needed. (Although i did throw in that life-saving catch all wild card, "probably") So some doubt and vast leeway should be given my comments, as to thier actual meaning.. 

[ December 30, 2006, 06:51 AM: Message edited by: BjornBee ]


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>I think my statement was more along the lines that "if" they were selecting for desirable triats, that hygienic, mite tolerance, etc,. would be way ahead of worrying about queen longevity.

A face-save, and a beauty! And for the record, I agree. Longevity in and of itself would be low on their list of breeding priorities as that would be alot like shooting themselves in the foot eh? At least I'm sure that's how they'd look at it. I'm sure they'd rather sell a million queens a year than a million queens every 3 years.

Them again, I think longevity would follow naturally from the production of healthier, more hygenic bees. Perhaps this is a good reason why commercial queen producers, whose success is measured in numbers of queens sold, shouldn't be left in charge of their own breeding programs! What's good for the beekeeping industry isn't necessarily what's good for the queen breeders!

Whoa. Radical thought


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

Bjorn,

Read "Breeding The Honeybee" by Brother Adam. Read it twice if you have to. He selected for non-swarming and was highly successful. I used Buckfast bees for several years because they had a marked non-swarming tendency. This is no longer true of the Buckfast bees from Texas. Some of the Buckfast from Canada still carry this trait.

I make no argument at all about keeping old queens in production hives. That would be stupid. But I do make an argument about identifying the best colonies and then determining how long the queens can maintain production. A queen that can maintain a strong colony for two full years and produce a honey crop and does not tend to swarm is very desirable to me. This is just plain old horse sense to breed from the best.

There is one negative to this. Older queens don't tend to produce the best daughter queens. This is tied directly to the age of the queen mother. Its also something that can be worked around over time.

I might just have to start calling you an ostrich. You still think if you ignore a problem it will go away. I know from experience that a problem ignored just gets WORSE. Don't take this personal, just converse about it!!!

Darrel Jones


----------



## sierrabees (Jul 7, 2006)

I think there is a healthy ballance in the queen breeding as it occurs. The big breeders are small in number but they meet the imediate needs of the industry. There a are many more of us small timers out here, each spending more time and effort on each individual selection and working toward meeting the long term needs of the industry. The more people you have working on a problem the more different solutions will be tried and the more quickly the best solutions will surface. Meanwhile, a handfull of large breeding opperations can service a relatively small number of large beekeepers who are meeting the needs of the much larger agricultural community.

desease resistance and longevity are directly related, queen laying rate and longivity are inversely related. The little guy has more time to concentrate on both of these factors while the large commercial breeder needs to concentrate more on the production capacity.

Look at what is happening to the human population. We are achieving great longevity, but on an economic scale this creates huge problems. Ballance is what is needed and the natural differances between the small and large queen breeders will provide that.


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

It's taken me awhile to get back to this question of replacing queens/longevity and supercedure. Been off in the mountains, skiing.

I never replace queens by the calendar, just because they are 1 or 2 or whatever years old. I used to. Regularly. And, many times have seen the new queen be junk.

You said, and I agree with...

I can also show you study after study that shows.....

1)Younger queen lay more eggs.
4)Young queen overwinter at a higher rate.

Obviously true. But is number of eggs laid in a day the whole ball of wax? Does chalk and low brood viability enter into the equation? I have 3 year old queens that perform well, and winter well, even in northern Vermont. They produce an average or better crop, and come through the winter with a strong colony. That's a trait I want to keep in my mix. They don't show any chalk, another desirable trait. I can't say that about every queen I raise.

Also...
2)Younger queens swarm less
Again true...overall. But, does that mean all colonies with older queens will swarm? I think not. And how will we determing which will and which will not. I have to agree with fusion_power. While no one has or will come up with a non-swarming bee, colonies can be selected for a reduced tendency to swarm. How will that happen if we kill every queen when only one or two years old...just because some of them will swarm? Rather, I keep those not showing the swarming impulse, and requeen those that don't respond to swarm control management. Why would I requeen every colony, when only a few are going to swarm no matter what I do? I can show you strong productive colonies with 2 or 3 year old queens that never try to swarm, while colonies with 1 year old queens will. Should I requeen the former because the later group is swarmy? I would rather requeen the 1 year old swarmy queens with queens produced from the first group.

And...
3)Young queens supercede less.
What is wrong with supercedure? Is successful supercedure equated with colony failure? I think not. I think successful supercedure is a good thing. And, I believe that successful supercedure can be selected for, as can a reduced tendency to swarm. Example...

Years ago, 1988, before I stopped requeening everything, all the time...I did a little test. I requeened 100 colonies. During the process, I found that 7% of the parent colonies had multiple queens. This to me, is an indication of successful supercedure. After 15 years of allowing successful supersedure colonies to keep their queens, I did this same test. Of 51 colonies, 17, or 30%, had multiple queens. Many of these supercedure colonies will go on to be top producers in my apiaries. Why would I want to cull them? They're showing a valuable, positive trait. I just went through my queen records, back to 1999. Almost 15% of my colonies have not been requeened by me in that time. Yet, they continue to thrive, not be chalky, and produce an average or better honey crop. Requeening is costly. Especially of labor. Of course, timely requeening pays...if the queen you are using is better than the one you are replacing. Is that always the case? 

So, to answer your questions...

You asked...
Can you please list the benefits of long term benefits of having or desiring to keep queens around 3 to 5 years? 

Because of the above. The selection of queens that do show a reduced tendency to swarm and an increased tendency to successfully supercede.

You said...
When I say I don't beleive the in a "longevity" trait, I will say that you can select for long surviving queens. I am also saying, it is not a trait selected in nature for beneficial use. And therefore I do not think it is one worth considering

And yet we continually select for colonies that will produce twice or thrice or four times the honey needed for winter survival. Is that "natural" selection?

You say...
In several hundred years of breeding (documentation), I have never heard of a bee advertised or commented about, that some successful trait has been isolated to have a queen non-swarming.

And yet, Bro Adam has shown that a reduced tendency to swarm can be selected for. Doubt that? Run Italian and Carniolan and Russian colonies, side by side. The second year, the Russians will be swarmiest, the Carniolans next, and the Italians will have the lowest tendency to swarm. As AI Root said, his Caucasian bees will swarm at the drop of a hat. Tendency to swarm is certainly genetic.

You asked...
From a practical sense, for the average beekeeper, tell me what the benefits of keeping a queen 3 to 5 years were?

None...if they are buying replacement queens that haven't been selected for what I am talking about. Which is exactly why we need more queen breeders to include these traits in their selection.

Let me clarify something. I do requeen. I don't leave tattered, 3-5 year old "Shakey Jake" queens in my apiaries just because. If they are poor queens, they get replaced. It's just that, I don't replace every queen according to age, but rather by performance.

I requeen all colonies in the spring that didn't winter well...for whatever reasons...using nucs that I overwinter. Kill old queen, give nuc.

I then allow the rest to build up, performing swarm control...reversing, supering, and cutting swarm cells...bet I get called on this one. If I have time, I requeen colonies that don't respond to simple swarm control manipulation.

About mid-July, non-productive colonies are split up into 4 frame nucs, and given queens from my mating nucs. These are overwintered and used for requeening, replacement, and increase.

The colony split up is allowed to build with old queen and field bees in 1 box until she has re-established a broodnest (I remove all brood when I split up these colonies)and is requeened with the last round of queens from the mating nucs Many build back into a two story colony by the fall flow.

Let me say, I no longer make splits in the spring. I allow my colonies to build up and make powerful, honey producing units.

Bjorn, I'm not trying to argue or disagree. I'm only trying to show that there are alternative management methods. Perhaps this works in my apiaries, because of my location. The bees (queens) have a long winter rest, and perhaps that helps them be productive longer...I don't really know. It's just that I manage my queens by performance, and not by the calendar. I consistantly make the biggest crop, and highest average...among the commercial beekeepers... in the state, even though I don't have the largest apiary. So, for me, my management works.

I hope you understand why I say what I do. I am in no way trying to argue with you, or to say you are wrong. What works for you, works for you. It's just that, there are more ways to skin the proverbial cat than one.
Mike


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Mike,
heck, I don't even requeen all my hives on a regular basis. Thats not the point. The point is to see the advantages and disadvantages of both sides, with associated costs, associated benefits, and impacts of making management choices, one way or the other.

I think the lines are blurred due to one outlook for breeding efforts, and another based on the average beekeeper, who keeps bees for honey production, etc,. Obviously ("some-few-none"...just trying to keep george happy..I'll let him fill in the proper choice) queen breeders keep queens around a bit longer for evaluation and selection criteria. I think from the start, a line distinguishing the need for queen producers to select for desirable traits, and a second discussion involving the average beekeeper, and thus how requeening has postive impacts or negative overtones by not controlling genetics and queen lifespan, would of cleared and refined this discussion.

Many times, I speak as if all beekeepers on this forum read my comments, with the overwhelming majority being queen non-breeders and thus would benefit from requeening. How often? One needs to make those choices based on many variables. For the average beekeepr wanting the best chance for winter survival, the better chance of higher yields, requeening, is a subject that gets little fanfare.

For the breeders, this discussion takes on a more different direction. I also think this discussion has flowed back and forth between swarming, and a queens longevity/lifespan. Connected in some ways, and seperate in others.

To me this discussion is a revolving ball of mass. I just hope someone is getting something good out of it.


----------



## cmq (Aug 12, 2003)

> Older queens don't tend to produce the best daughter queens. This is tied directly to the age of the queen mother.<

Interesting statement, & dont get me wrong I'm not arguing one way or the other BUT would like to know where this is documented?


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

Bjorn, of course I have to agree with what you just said. 


You say...
I just hope someone is getting something good out of it.

And I hope that average beekeepers will understand that if they aren't getting the results they need from the queens they buy...often from the same breeder year after year...that there there is another path, and that some breeders are working on the problems that we all face, and not just cranking out volume queens.
Mike


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>I just hope someone is getting something good out of it.

I'm hanging on every word









I've never met either of you guys, but I hope someday to make your acquaintances. Bjorn, you I sort of know from your always-thoughtful and sometimes ludicrous (woops!) contributions here on Beesource. I've been reading your material for several years. I've been reading Mike's material for not so long, but Tony Jadczak who I greatly respect, speaks very highly of Mike and his operation and his honey production here in the Northeast is legendary.

It's a pleasure to watch you guys and everyone here exchange ideas, opinions, and perspectives. How else are neophytes like myself going to learn?

George-


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

Right George. Neophyte...with 3082 posts on Bee Source. 
Mike


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

Beesurv,

See Beekeeping at Buckfast Abbey in the section about queen rearing. Brother Adam noted a significant reduction in performance of queens produced from older mothers. His conclusion was that the eggs of older queens lacked essential nourishment during production in the queens body.

Darrel Jones


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>Right George. Neophyte...with 3082 posts on Bee Source. 

Ok OK, so I'm a prolific neophyte


----------

