# Queen mating



## Ribster (Nov 3, 2004)

I don't know about remating, but I've heard that artificial insemination doesn't put near enough "genetic material" in the queen for her to lay on that stockpile for long.

Would she remate later in life if she runs out (or gets close)?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>I see that a queen can breed very successfully with one artificial insemination. If the queen is inseminated what stops her from flying out to get to mate again before she egg lays?

I have no idea.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

Once a queen starts laying eggs, she will not mate again (I have no idea why). It has also been shown that a queen can be II'ed on more than one occasion, and that an open mated queen will retain something like 1/10 of the sperm the drones donate (ie, a queen artificially mated to 2 drones may be 'full' even though she can create only 2 subfamilies of workers).


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Once a queen starts laying eggs, she will not mate again (I have no idea why). 

Yes, but the question is, will an II queen go out and mate again BEFORE she starts laying.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

It seems unlikely. I suppose its possible, but I don't think anyone has ever written about it if it does happen. Most of the progeny from II hybrid queens look pretty homogeneous.


----------



## wayacoyote (Nov 3, 2003)

If she's restricted from doing so until she starts laying, then I would think the beek is safe. this could be done with a push-in queen cage that allows her to lay in a small area but prevents her escape.

Waya


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>Would she remate later in life if she runs out (or gets close)?

I think she'd be a prime candidate for supercedure at that point, if not well before that point was reached.

>Yes, but the question is, will an II queen go out and mate again BEFORE she starts laying.

Very interesting question. I wouldn't put it past her







As Aspera says, it's probably unlikey. Getting mated is a prime physiological directive. Getting WELL mated appears to be equally important given that some queens reportedly go out for a second mating flight, presumably because the first wasn't sufficient, but we don't know that.

If instrumentally inseminating a queen completely fullfils the mating directive, which it appears to do in most cases, then all is right with the world. However, it is reported that many II queens are inferior in one way or another to open-mated queens and the most common complaint I've heard is that they just poop out too soon and/or are subject to early supercedure. This implies they may not be getting a sufficient charge of semen to begin with. Does this suggest that an instrumentally insemintated queen might take a mating flight if given the opportunity? I dunno.

I've also heard many people say that they just don't make queens the way they used to, and this often refers to open-mated queens as well as instrumentally inseminated ones. With my limited experience, I can't say if they are, or aren't. This would be worth studying. There are studies showing that drones from heavily mite-infested hives have shorter flying times and less viable semen, or just plain less semen.

In either case, whether due to insufficient semen or other factors we don't understand, instrumentally inseminated queens are not always as good as the old fashioned, open-mated ones we used to read about. So I guess there's room for improvement, or at least, a need for a better understanding of the whole process.


----------



## Roundman (Feb 29, 2004)

Most usally all I.I Nuc are bee tight except for the entrance a small piece of queen excluder is placed over it to keep the queen in the nuc until she has layed for several days


----------



## tarheit (Mar 26, 2003)

>Will an II queen go out and mate again BEFORE she starts laying.

Yes, some will given an opportunity. It's important to confine her to the hive/nuc until she starts laying. Typically this is done by putting a queen excluder over the entrance.

>many people say that they just don't make queens the way they used to

I think much of this has to do with the care and handling of the queens both open mated and II (and probably more so with II queens.) 

With open mated queens it's better to let them lay for a week or more before shipping them, though with baby nucs and the pressure to make as many queens as quick as possible, queens are often shipped as soon as they lay one egg. It's also better if they aren't banked, which I know is done for production & scheduling reasons.

With II queens it's even more important to try and maintain more natural conditions. Inseminating at the right age and not banking the queen after insemination can make a difference too (or before for that matter). The more closely you can keep conditions closer to that of a good open mated queen the better the II queen will be. Typically though some banking is done, though it should be kept to a minimum. Banking in the hive the queen will be released into is good so that she can be released immediately after insemination. Sperm uptake is improved when she is allowed to run free on the comb for the 48 hour period after insemination.

With proper handling, II queens will be equal to or better than open mated queens as several studies have shown.

Poor drone populations, affects of chemicals in the hive, forcing early spring queen production, and other factors may have a part to play, but I think the emphasis put on producing as many queens as possible has resulted in practices that ultimately reduce the quality of the queen. I'm sure there is plenty we don't know, but there is a lot we do know that we are just ignoring. 

Of course I'm not sure we really want to know what leaving queens in nucs longer before shipping , larger mating nucs, and no (or minimal) banking would do to queen prices. On the other hand, there are several small producers that pretty much do this already at prices close to or less than the big producers and think there is enough income to make it worthwhile.

-Tim

[ January 13, 2006, 11:50 PM: Message edited by: tarheit ]


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>many people say that they just don't make queens the way they used to

I think it has much to do with the chemicals building up in the hive. ESPECIALLY Checkmite.


----------



## wayacoyote (Nov 3, 2003)

Our state apiarist in AL gave us a presentation on the effects of comophos build-up in a hive. It was shown that the effects on queen production and quality is dramatically effected at a surprising low contamination. If I remember correctly, one prescribed treatment will have a measurable effect. Two treatments will spell catastrophy for queen rearing.

Waya


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

I'm not doubting you Waya, but define "catastrophy" in the sense that you use it above. I don't need or want proof that the use of comophos is bad and that the buildup of residues of comophos (and other chemicals) in a hive can and does have long lasting deleterious effects on queen and colony health, I believe that. However, I usually reserve the word "catastrophy" for, you know, catastropies









I'm not sure I would use the word catastrophic to describe queens that just "ain't what they used to be". Maybe I should. The current situation, as bad as it may be, doesn't seem to be bad enough to cause beekeepers in general to do more than long for the good old days.

I dunno. I guess for me, these are the good old days and I just don't know what I'm missing. It's early in the morning and I didn't get much sleep. Maybe if you'd said "It's bad" I'd be asking "How bad is it?". So what's wrong with today's queens?

George-


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

George,

You asked, well, here is part of it.

1. The genetics are in many cases just about as random as feral bees. There is no excuse for a breeder putting no effort at all into selecting a good breeder. Case in point; How many breeders today put real effort into selecting for hygenic behavior? We know beyond a shadow of doubt that hygenic bees are better able to handle pests and diseases.

2. The effort to produce large numbers of queens in a short time period results in poor quality queens that are often superseded early. Critical stages in this include overstocking the cell starter colony and not having enough bees to properly nourish the cells in the cell finisher. Early in the season, these effects are magnified because the colony is still in build up mode when the breeder tries to push them into swarm mode or else forces a supersedure impulse to develop. Note that the supersedure method is much more effective as evidenced by the success of the Cloake system.

3. Lack of drones is a really big issue. If a breeder has 2000 queens to mate, he must have 20 times that many drones available. Unfortunately, the production of drones is heaviest just prior to swarming. Early spring and late fall are problems because the drones just aren't there.

4. Weather plays a part if the queen is prevented from mating. I've seen a fall queen that got in one mating flight before a cold front shut down all flying. She was superseded the next spring after laying a good brood pattern for less than 2 months.


The queen producer must sell queens to make a living. This puts on pressure to sell even marginal queens. All queens are not created equal. A large well developed queen that is fully mated may be the goal but many queens just don't measure up even in the mating nucs. A breeder has to be prepared to cull 10% or more of the queens he produces because they are undersize or don't lay a good pattern. I've only seen one breeder who was willing to do this consistently. Of course, his queens were the best available. He is too old to raise queens now.

Fusion


----------



## Ross (Apr 30, 2003)

Do you think being undersized is significant? I have some runty queens that seem to be very good layers.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Do you think being undersized is significant? I have some runty queens that seem to be very good layers.

I've seen some runty queens that laid well too. But I've also seem some that don't. I'm thinking size is a combination of three factors. Food, the size of the cell the bees built and genetics. If we keep picking the big ones, is it possible we'll just keep getting only large bees and not the natural diversity that was normal. Maybe we don't get normal sized bees anymore from this practice.

While we are on the subject here are the problems I see with some of what we currently do and don't breed for.

Survival seems unimportant. We should only breed tracheal mite resistant queens and we should all stop treating. This problem would have been solved within a year or two if we had not treated and queen breeders only sold TM resistant queens.

We can breed AFB resistance. This was done half a century or more ago but no one cared.

We keep breeding for less drones, which gives a mating advantage to the AHB.

We keep breeding for larger sized bees by picking the largest queens. That may not be the best in the long run.

Now we are into II queens. But what if we are breeding queens that don't have what it takes to mate well in the wild? This has been a problem with horses and cows. Do we want bees that are dependant on II to get bred? I'm not saying II GIVES them this trait, but II does not weed out bees that can't sucessfully mate in the wild. Open mating does.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

Fusion_power, thanks for your answers of PART of my question!

A number of the reasons you mention don't seem to be any more issues now that weren't also issues back in the "good old days" of queen rearing. In fact, number 2 "mass production" is about the only one that likely applies to our current situation, and then only to those queen breeders that are in fact mass producing queens with little attention to quality. There are still small operations where quality is important, and yet, even some of these queens apparently aren't up to par. I'm pretty sure that there were large queen producers in the old days and that did not cut corners. Mass production does not in and of itself result in lower quality queens, though the two often go hand in hand.

The other reasons you offer pretty much have always applied to queen rearing haven't they? Poor weather and having sufficient drone populations at certain times of the year have always been problems. As for lack of control over genetics, I maintain we've got more control NOW than they did before the days of instrumental insemination and it doesn't seem to be helping. Is it hurting?

You didn't address the effects of the use of chemicals on the quality of today's queens, which was the the emphasis of the previous 2 posts by Waya and Michael, and the primary motivation for my question. The assertion is that the use of certain acaricides results in the production of poorer quality queens. Do you have any opinions on this?


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

<This has been a problem with horses and cows.>

The racing thoroughbred must be a product of a stud's natural mating or else it may not be registered as such. The Jockey Club is very strict on this point. Frankly speaking, Standardbreds, which do allow AI, have had much more dramatic improvements in racing times and temperment than their thoroughbred cousins.
As for bees and cattle, the proposition here is not that every animal must be II'd but rather that that this technique be used to diseminate (literally) certain traits throughout a population. This is not different from the concept of grafting. No breeder that I am aware of advocates II/AI for production queens. Likewise, the general trend in the cattle industry is to breed highly fertile heifers AI, and resevere the use of bulls for older, harder to breed animals.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>The racing thoroughbred must be a product of a stud's natural mating or else it may not be registered as such. The Jockey Club is very strict on this point. 

Precisely. And that's so we don't end up with horses that incapable of breeding.

Luckily for me, the registry I'm in does allow AI, (with only about 40 approved stallions in the world it would not be very practical otherwise) but they still won't allow an ET (embryo transplant) on a mare that hasn't been able to carry a foal to term. They are, rightfully, concerned about reproducing animals artificially that cannot breed naturally.

I'm not saying II isn't a useful tool. I AM saying there are pitfalls.


----------



## bjerm2 (Jun 9, 2004)

She will defiantly not mate again if you clip her wings which is what I do to most of my queens. 

When AI is used the queen is put under with CO2 and that in its self will have her laying in a few days. 

Yes you can AI her again. The queen once she starts to lay will not mate again. She will die or be superseeded over time like any other queen. 

AI is used only to 'tighten' up on a specific gean and the queen can get replaced quickly, but by the time the bees try to do that, I have already raised her daughters. These daughters are now allowed to open mate for this year. Next year I start all over again. I do flood my area with my drones in the hopes that they will keep the trait going that I am breeding for. By allowing them to open mate I also slow down the inner breeding (I hope).
Dan


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I haven't actually done it, but why couldn't you mix sperm from several drones before IIing a queen? You could still select drones carefully to get the traits you desire, the additional numbers should increase the genetic diversity in the colony, yet II would reduce the chances of mating with drones of unknown genetics.


----------



## bjerm2 (Jun 9, 2004)

Your right but just because your 'mixing' the sperm does not mean that is what's happening. When your collecting it you have to take one drone at a time 

See http://www174.pair.com/birdland/Breeding/II.html 

You have to do that to each drone. As you take it up the pipelet your first drone sperm goes up making room for the next drone, etc. 
When a queen mates (up to 20 drones) each successive drone removes the other drones remains to mate with the queen. So in my estimation and $0.02 worth of ideas the first drone or the one before that one got very little sperm into the queen. True their is some but not the full 10 million each drone has. I allow the open mating just to keep some diversity.

Dan


----------



## cmq (Aug 12, 2003)

>>why couldn't you mix sperm from several drones before IIing a queen?

Thats exactly what you do in a closed population. Collect and mix sperm from a number of selected drone sources. The selection of the drone sources are just as, if not more important, than selection of the queen source. 
Care must be utilized in the mixing of the sperm dure to their fragile nature. (extremely long tails).


----------



## tarheit (Mar 26, 2003)

Effectively sperm is mixed when you do II. Typically 8-10 drones are required to gather enough sperm to inseminate 1 queen. And you could reasonably take take only half (or less) the available sperm from more drones and end up inseminating the queen with 20 or more different drones. Then in open mating or II, only about 10% of the sperm is actually stored by the queen for future use (typically around 4 to 6 million sperm if I remember the numbers correctly)

So to help maintain genetic diversity, you do end up selecting drones from multiple hives and mate them to one queen. Of course depending on the size and diversity of your population you still need to watch for signs of inbreeding both with II and open mating. The most telltale sign is probably percentage of brood viability wich is tied to the sex aletes. In small populations it can be a good idea to periodically bring in new known stock or semen.

Note, they have done actually mixing (centrifuging, washing, etc.) but the process ends up damaging a good percentage of the sperm giving less than desireble results. 

-Tim


----------



## Roundman (Feb 29, 2004)

Also When you II a queen with 8-10 select drones it enters the queen oviduc then it has to migrate into the spermatheca the most prolific of the little tadpoles will have the most % stored for futher use and they will be mixed. as in the case with AHB they say the are very prolific and even if a queen mates with 10 drones and 1 is AHB up to about 70% will be stored in the spermtheca from that one drone


----------



## chillardbee (May 26, 2005)

When queens are AIed they are exposed to carbon dioxide as a anisthetic. i'm not sure why but this stimulates the queen to lay eggs and once she does she very rarly will ever fly out again on a mating flight, the chances of a AIed queen of going on a mating flight are slim.

I don't think that a AIed queen would be used as much for a general queen (ei. requeening colonies and useing them for your honey producers) but rather because the mating is controlled that the queen can be used as a breeder, so you can also acheive the bee your breeding in less time. her daughters would then be open mated in a isolated yard or in the hives you requeen with cells.


----------

