# Queen Introduction and pheromones.



## Little-John (Jun 18, 2015)

Like most people, I introduce my own queens into nucs as mature queen cells - but from time to time I inject new blood into the apiary in the form of a purchased mated queen, the latest of which recently arrived from Hungary. As such queens are financially expensive, I introduce them by Direct Release, having observed their acceptance by workers through a perspex introduction board (http://www.dave-cushman.net/bee/knighttaberdews.html) for several days, rather than using 'fondant timed-release', which I've always considered something of a lottery.

And so I made up a small nuc as usual with mongrel workers from what was, at one time, a Buckfast strain, only to be surprised at the amount of displayed aggression: a huge hedgehog immediately developed over the cage, to such an extent that I became concerned that the queen might become over-heated, and so 'un-velcroed' the nurse bees, and removed it. I tried introducing again next morning, and the response was better, but still not great.
It was a full 4 days later when I judged that acceptance was adequate, but still left Direct Release until the next day, as an insurance. But - as soon as the queen was released, she was immediately subjected to balling by a dozen or so workers. A good puff of smoke broke-up that ball and the queen was recovered and returned to her cage.

On the basis that 'enough of that was quite enough', a new nuc was created using bees from a Galtee (AMM) strain I'd planned on converting the apiary over to - but - although fine at nuc size, this strain had become far too defensive when full-sized. But unlike the 'at-one-time-Buckfast' strain, these bees did stay calmly on the comb when inspected - so were judged a better prospect.

And so they were. No hedgehog - just a dozen or twenty bees covering the cage, very pleased to see a queen. And when I moved a barbeque skewer over the cage, they just lifted their legs calmly - with no hint of velcro attachment. As they say "it was like chalk and cheese".

One explanation for this difference can be found on Randy Oliver's site:
http://scientificbeekeeping.com/the-primer-pheromones-part-4-reproduction-and-survival/ ... in which he writes:



> ... there is a genetic component involved in worker recognition of the individual components [of Queen Pheromone]. Some strains of bees do not recognize the queen if certain components are not present in the right amount!
> 
> *This finding makes me wonder if that is why it is difficult to introduce queens of some strains into unrelated colonies*, and whether this might be related to the substantial amount of rapid supersedures sometimes observed after introducing purchased queens. If you are introducing queens of a different stock than the recipient colony, the workers simply may not recognize her pheromonal signals as being “right”!


Never a truer word spoken ...

LJ


----------



## gnor (Jun 3, 2015)

Good post. I just went through something similar with a couple of nucs that were made up in a hurry. I don't think I have many feral bees in my area, so I will be buying a couple of queens a year for a while. I will be making up a couple of introduction boards before that happens.
Randy Oliver is a one I trust. His info is either sourced in a scientific paper, or he's run an experiment himself.


----------



## WillH (Jun 25, 2010)

Little-John said:


> . As such queens are financially expensive, I introduce them by Direct Release, having observed their acceptance by workers through a perspex introduction board (http://www.dave-cushman.net/bee/knighttaberdews.html) for several days, rather than using 'fondant timed-release', which I've always considered something of a lottery.


If properly done timed release is not a lottery. I always use this method, and have had success most of the time. Just keep the candy end closed for a couple of days if the hive is very big. Leaving queen on top of a frame is not a good idea. In cold weather, bees will abandon her to join the cluster below, and queen will be all alone in a cage. If you place the queen cage between brood frames, she will be well cared for by the bees and her pheromones spread faster throughout the hive.


----------



## Little-John (Jun 18, 2015)

WillH said:


> If properly done timed release is not a lottery. .


How can you say that - after what I've just written ? If I'd trusted to fondant release I'd have a dead queen on my hands right now.
This is the ONLY method of queen introduction I know of which has a widely reported 100% success rate. That's why - many years ago - I initially chose to adopt this method, and why I continue to use it with purchased queens.

When you can achieve a consistent 100% success rate with timed release, then I will agree with you - but not until then.

LJ


----------



## HarryVanderpool (Apr 11, 2005)

Little-John said:


> When you can achieve a consistent 100% success rate with timed release, then I will agree with you - but not until then.
> 
> LJ


Then you agree with me.
I have a consistent 98% acceptance rate annually, and blame the 2% on my stupid mistakes, NOT the queen or procedures.


----------



## WillH (Jun 25, 2010)

Little-John said:


> When you can achieve a consistent 100% success rate with timed release, then I will agree with you - but not until then.
> 
> LJ


In beekeeping, nothing is 100%


----------



## Little-John (Jun 18, 2015)

HarryVanderpool said:


> Then you agree with me.
> I have a consistent 98% acceptance rate annually, and blame the 2% on my stupid mistakes, NOT the queen or procedures.


Wow - this forum appears to be blessed with several experts in queen introduction - maybe you should drop Randy a line and tell him that he doesn't know what he's talking about - reported difficulties in queen introduction have nothing whatsoever to do with pheromonal incompatibility, but only incompetent beekeepers.

It's strange how changing the bees instantly sorted my problem out though - but no doubt you have an explanation for this ....

LJ


----------



## aunt betty (May 4, 2015)

Interesting. Don't just toss a Carnolian queen into a band of Russian thugs or Italian etc. 
Makes sense and thanks for sharing how you intro a valued queen and see if it is safe first. (thumbs up)


----------



## Slow Drone (Apr 19, 2014)

Little-John said:


> Wow - this forum appears to be blessed with several experts in queen introduction - maybe you should drop Randy a line and tell him that he doesn't know what he's talking about - reported difficulties in queen introduction have nothing whatsoever to do with pheromonal incompatibility, but only incompetent beekeepers.
> 
> It's strange how changing the bees instantly sorted my problem out though - but no doubt you have an explanation for this ....
> 
> LJ


Yes there are alot of experts on Beesource Harry Vanderpool being one. What's Randy have to do with anything the method of intro you are using is from Dave Cushman. Maybe that's the problem you've gotten Randy and Dave mixed up. You may need to reread Randy's material again I think you have misread something.


----------



## zhiv9 (Aug 3, 2012)

HarryVanderpool said:


> Then you agree with me.
> I have a consistent 98% acceptance rate annually, and blame the 2% on my stupid mistakes, NOT the queen or procedures.



This has been my experience as well. I can generally attribute my failures to an undetected queen cell or virgin queen.


----------



## zhiv9 (Aug 3, 2012)

LJ as much as I haven't experienced the issue that you described, it sounds remarkable similar to Robbin's experience with an AI breeder queen which also seemed to be pheromone related:

http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...-Expensive-Breeder-queen-introduction-problem

The bulk of my stock is local Ontario stock, generally more Carniolan in behavior than Italian, but definitely mutts. Perhaps with more pure subspecies that have been geographically isolated for a longer period of time pheromone differences are a bigger deal.


----------



## joens (Apr 24, 2003)

Little-John said:


> Wow - this forum appears to be blessed with several experts in queen introduction -LJ



HarryVanderpool knows what he is talking about. especially when it comes to Queen introductions.


----------



## Little-John (Jun 18, 2015)

.
Here is part of a screen grab from the British Bee Keepers Association fact sheet on queen introduction.










Again, we see this same reference being made to difficulties which may be encountered when introducing bees from different races. This caution is raised time and time again throughout much of the beekeeping literature, and yet here we have two people who are saying that such introductions are not a lottery, but a breeze. One is even claiming a near enough 100% success rate. 

Again, I invite anyone to give an explanation for the extreme aggression seen with one strain, and yet immediate acceptance with a different strain of bee. The size of the nuc was the same; the box used was identical; the weather conditions were pretty-much the same; and the two introductions took place within a few days of each other. The only identifiable difference lay with the bees being used.

So - apart from pheromonal differences - what could possibly be the reason ?

I await a plausible explanation from anyone ...

LJ


----------



## gnor (Jun 3, 2015)

I find it hilarious that LJ reports an experience he has had with queen introduction and ventures a conclusion, and all of a sudden everyone is defending their own methods to the death. I, for one, am grateful that there are many ways to do the same thing, because, while something may work 98% of the time, it's nice to have a plan B for that 2% when we don't understand what went wrong.
Randy Oliver also writes about "The Beekeeping Taliban" for a good reason.


----------



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

maybe some of you guys missed post#5 ?

if you don't know it (post 5) already you soon will. and sometimes plan B fails as well. 
Beekeeping Taliban?? don't make me laugh!


----------



## gnor (Jun 3, 2015)

> Beekeeping Taliban?? don't make me laugh!


http://scientificbeekeeping.com/the-rules-for-successful-beekeeping/
Beekeeper Taliban, just for you, Clyde.
You are right that sometimes plan B fails as well, so we need as many plans as possible in our cupboard. LJ's original post was about the difficulty of introducing queens from genetically diverse lines, and rather than discussing this, everybody went off on how their methods were best, and went all nit-picky. Randy Oliver was right about the BK Taliban.


----------



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

gnor said:


> http://scientificbeekeeping.com/the-rules-for-successful-beekeeping/
> Beekeeper Taliban, just for you, Clyde.
> You are right that sometimes plan B fails as well, so we need as many plans as possible in our cupboard. LJ's original post was about the difficulty of introducing queens from genetically diverse lines, and rather than discussing this, everybody went off on how their methods were best, and went all nit-picky. Randy Oliver was right about the BK Taliban.


I have read Oliver's work but thank you.
Did you happen to catch this statement from him?
"The best way to learn beekeeping is to work with an experienced mentor who has successfully kept bees in your area for many years."
How many mentors meet the experience level of Oliver's statement. The way I see it, very few.

Is LJ the Taliban that you mention and which made me crack-up? Appears so to me reading the following from him:

"How can you say that - after what I've just written ? If I'd trusted to fondant release I'd have a dead queen on my hands right now.
This is the ONLY method of queen introduction I know of which has a widely reported 100% success rate. That's why - many years ago - I initially chose to adopt this method, and why I continue to use it with purchased queens.

When you can achieve a consistent 100% success rate with timed release, then I will agree with you - but not until then.

LJ "


----------



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

here is the link to the BBKA Queen Introduction leaflet.
cherry picking of information will support any view you care to advance!
http://www.bbka.org.uk/files/library/queen_introduction_b9_1306864750.pdf

personally I have found some full sized colonies diffucult to re queen and make up nucs with the desired queens and then combine later. if the bees in the colony to be requeened are queenless for a few hours and still aggressively mob the new queen in the cage on the top bars I make a nuc and use the most docile bees in the yard to make the nucs. simple as that. The "why" is for real scientists to explore. Many beekeepers I know do this if they sense a acceptance issue. 
And look at this from the BBKA "If re-queening has to be undertaken in the middle of the year it is much safer to
establish the new queen in a small nucleus colony first."
Queen introduction experts!


----------



## Little-John (Jun 18, 2015)

Slow Drone said:


> Yes there are alot of experts on Beesource Harry Vanderpool being one. What's Randy have to do with anything the method of intro you are using is from Dave Cushman. Maybe that's the problem you've gotten Randy and Dave mixed up. You may need to reread Randy's material again I think you have misread something.


Well - I think someone's misread something ... 

Randy has written to me, saying:


> It was an excellent example of how bees judge others with dissimilar odor
> as being invaders, even if they are a queen. I'm not sure how much
> difference was due to a different mix of the 10 or so pheromones in Queen
> Pheromone, or due to the cuticular hydrocarbons of the different stocks.
> ...


So - that answers one question I had - "if it's not pheromonal differences - what other explanation could there be ?" - and it seems that differences in cuticular hydrocarbons could cause the same reaction. Ok. But the story remains the same - that genetic differences DO cause problems in queen introduction. At least that's the opinion held by many people, although not shared by some here.

With regard to timed release - how can this not be a lottery ? A lottery is a system in which you make your play and from then on have no control whatsoever over the outcome of that play. This is precisely what happens when you decide to allow bees access to the fondant. You have made your play. Ok - so you've used your best judgement as to when to give them access, but the queen will be released at some unknown time in the future - maybe when you're watching TV or in bed - but not while you are observing the release.

In contrast, with an introduction board and direct release, the beekeeper can, a) make continuous observations until it appears that acceptance has reached a satisfactory level and, b) directly release the queen so that if there should be any problems (such as happened in my case), the queen can be recovered and a second attempt made.

Now - don't get me wrong - I wouldn't use this Introduction Board/ Direct Release system for all queen introductions. That would be far too time consuming, and indeed unnecessary - for the majority of introductions do proceed without a hitch.

What I am sayng is that when your queen is extremely valuable, then a method such as this can be mighty useful. There hasn't been even a single report of failure and so the only conclusion I can draw from this is that this system has - certainly at the time of writing - a 100% success rate.

I'm not bragging about this - I didn't invent the system: it has nothing whatsoever to do with me - I have merely chosen to use it. And I chose it *because* it had a reported 100% success rate. And I have also had 100% success with it. 

And so I though it might be worth posting about this, so that others might also benefit. My motive for posting was that of generosity, not of bragging about how clever I have been.

However, my post has been met with warnings that it's use is unwise, and that it offers nothing that timed release cannot provide ... in the hands of a competent beekeeper, of course.

But perhaps we're not all as competent as others - perhaps some of use actually need to use a system which gives us a second chance if and when we screw-up.

LJ


----------



## Little-John (Jun 18, 2015)

. sorry - sticky keyboard


----------



## Little-John (Jun 18, 2015)

clyderoad said:


> here is the link to the BBKA Queen Introduction leaflet.
> cherry picking of information will support any view you care to advance!
> http://www.bbka.org.uk/files/library/queen_introduction_b9_1306864750.pdf
> 
> ...


I don't understand your attempt to discredit what I have written. At no time was a full-sized colony used. In both cases it was a small-sized nuc.

The reference being made to genetic differences was given as it was the only comment of relevance to this post within the BBKA leaflet.. I'm sorry to see that you see relevance as being 'cherry-picking'.

LJ


----------



## Little-John (Jun 18, 2015)

clyderoad;1306518Is said:


> is LJ the Taliban that you mention and which made me crack-up?
> * Appears so to me * reading the following from him:


An oxymoronic comment.

The Taliban is a *group* of people who deny disserting thoughts, beliefs etc. of individuals, by a process of group intimidation. bullying etc. The keyword is *GROUP* - 'the taliban' being a reference to unpleasant group dynamics. 

So - an individual holding a dissenting viewpoint - no matter how passionate or radical - cannot legitimately be described using that term.

LJ


----------



## kilocharlie (Dec 27, 2010)

LJ - Thank you for posting the Dave Cushman article about the Knight / Taber / Dews queen intro scheme. It shares in common with the Laidlaw queen introduction the aspect that the beekeeper is the one who releases the queen.

Dr. Harry Laidlaw's queen introduction cage has no candy release hole. It is a well-designed push-in cage. It may well serve your purpose, for a valuable queen of a very different stock.

A rectangle of wood is constructed of 3/4" x 7/8" stock. The 7/8" side is the height of the rectangle. The inside dimension can be as large as 5" x 7", but may be adjusted somewhat to make a group of them stack nicely into, say, a Miller-type hive top feeder for storage.

When it is glued up and dried, a 1" strip of sheet metal is bent and cut to fit around the inside perimeter of the rectangle. It protrudes down below the wood 3/8" on one side and nailed or stapled in place. #8 hardware cloth is stapled to the other side of the rectangle, the top face, if you will call it that.

A section of very flat comb with hatching brood, a small amount of pollen "bee bread", and some open honey is selected. All the resident bees are brushed off. The comb is taken elsewhere, such as inside a small tent, so you can't lose your expensive queen. The *mated* queen (It is not intended to work for virgin queens!) to be introduced is placed on the comb and covered with the intro cage. The sheetmetal strip, which is oriented vertically to the comb, is pushed into the comb until the bottom face of the wooden rectangle sits flush against the comb.

Under the cage, the queen is quite protected from aggressive behavior b the resident bees, and she has brood hatching all about her, the young bees accepting her as "Momma", and leaving cells that are soon readied for her to lay eggs into.

When she has been laying eggs, her pheromone level increases, as do other of her queen substances. This promotes acceptance, and also the presence of open brood suppresses laying workers from developing. 

The aggressive behavior eventually wears down, as older workers pass away, and younger workers emerge, but most often the queen is accepted long before this. Just the increase in her pheromone level is usually enough to bring about acceptance by the resident bees.

The beekeeper sees the attack "balling" behavior has ceased, and that resident workers are actively attending the queen through the screen, he releases the queen from under the cage, not before this.

I really like the "Observer Window" aspect of the Knight / et al cage, and it makes me think of a possible improvement upon the Laidlaw cage or rather both designs.

If one could make a whole frame queen introduction cage, 1) no cells are damaged by the sheet metal strip 2) far more comb is available for the queen to lay her eggs 3) still more baby bees may hatch under the cage and accept the introduced queen, helping to convince even the most recalcitrant bees to accept her.

If this could be done successfully in a horizontal orientation above the other frames, where some form of glass or other clear lid could be positioned for the beekeeper to observe from the outside, the determination of acceptance / continuing rejection could be accomplished without disturbing the hive, and perhaps very importantly, the queen.

Possibly even an old "Leaf frame" type of observation box set could be upon the resident colony and the new queen introduced in a normal, vertically-oriented such comb as described above.

I do foresee the possibility of very, very close to 100% acceptance of introduced queens (into queenless colonies!), as long as the new queens are healthy and well-mated, using such a scheme.

Similar to this is the idea of letting a small nuc' primed with emerging brood accept her, then newspaper-combining, or using a double screen board to combine it with the larger, queenless colony later. I really do like the idea of an observation window though. The beekeeper sets the hive up for the introduction, then keeps his blasted hands off for 10 days and lets the setup do it's magic. The observation window eliminates his temptation to interfere, peeking without touching.


----------

