what is a SC queen anyway?

[Barry]

Hi all

Pulling some stuff out of the archives for discussion. Michael Bush wrote:

<<I'm sold out of the feral queens for the year. I hope to have some more in June of 2005.>>

<<What is the opinion, especially Dee's opinion, on the market value of a small cell, clean, feral suvivor stock, laying queen.>>

Michael, in your first comment you just say feral queen, but in an earlier post you include SC in the description of the queen. What exactly are people getting from a "SC" queen that they won't get from any other queen? Attaching SC to a queen is a significant label that I hope we can make clear as to its meaning.

Regards,
Barry

[Michael Bush]

I wish I was clear what it means myself. http://www.beesource.com/ubb/smile.gif

But to me it means that the queen was raised by small cell bees. In this case small cell survivor bees.

Since I've had "normal", oversized queens lay quite well in small cell comb, I'm not sure how important it is that the queen was raised by small cell bees, but it may be more help that the queen is from stock that has been building small cell and proven that they are willing to do so.

I say that what they are (small cell queens), simply because it IS what they are. I don't know for sure how important it is, but if it's important to the buyer, I think they should know.

[Barry]

> I don't know for sure how important it is, but if it's important to the
> buyer, I think they should know.

Michael -

I appreciate your honesty and openness about the issue. I am just concerned about the beekeeper who buys "sc queens" thinking they are getting something more or better in the queen. Perhaps they are, but not in the way they may think. AFAIK, there is no proven correlation between queens raised on sc comb being able to pass on some genetics to her offspring that would enable them to construct sc comb better than any other queen's offspring. If in fact cell size in comb building is the result of "short term memory" then it would reason that there are other factors at play in comb construction. This is still a mystery to me and one where there is no one way in getting there.

When I look at the benefits of sc, one should be able to get the largest demands (sales) from beekeepers in supplying sc comb. That, by far, is the most valuable item and the hardest to achieve. You could probably sell a deep comb of sc comb on ebay for $25 a pop.

Regards,
Barry

[This message has been edited by Barry (edited December 12, 2004).]

[Michael Bush]

I agree, the hard part is really just getting small cell comb to start off. The large cell (LC) queens are willing to lay in small cell (SC) and the LC bees are willing to use SC comb.

But so far I haven't had a lot of interest in wax coated PermaComb and it's a more durable version of the same thing.

But then you can sell a rusted out bee smoker as an antique on EBay for $50. http://www.beesource.com/ubb/wink.gif

[wayacoyote]

Michael,

First, I would love to buy some SC comb. Thus the reason I am looking for SC keepers within my state. Alabama doesn't allow the importation of "honey comb". Secondly, I have toiled over the idea of wax-coating PermaComb, but I don't have the wax to do it. I was close to offering to pay you for such. There Is a need by those of us who don't have the experience in getting bees to draw out any size comb well, much less in regressing. I am down to 2 hives, one being a LC hive. My SC is very weak. I am afraid that I'll loose it, in which case I can just move the LC bees onto it. But I would still be interested in 20 coated frames of PC if I could afford them. (and if there isn't any reservations by my apiarist over their source.)

WayaCoyote (wayacoyote@hotmail.com)

[Michael Bush]

>Alabama doesn't allow the importation of "honey comb".

If they allow you to import wax foundation and they allow you to import wax coated plastic foundation, then I don't see what would be wrong with new wax coated PermaComb. It's the same thing from the point of view that it is plastic with beeswax on it.

[clintonbemrose]

Since I've had "normal", oversized queens lay quite well in small cell comb, I'm not sure how important it is that the queen was raised by small cell bees, but it may be more help that the queen is from stock that has been building small cell and proven that they are willing to do so.

I was having trouble getting the bees that I had regressed to pull 4.9 foundation consistantly so in May of 2004 I started raising queens only from the hives I had already regressed down.
This gave me a queen that was only a little smaller but all of the bees coming comming from this queen seem to not pull foundation at 4.9mm or smaller (down to about 4.5mm). Even the drowne comb was slightly smaller.
This has happened on 50 hives that I have tried this on and I'll try on another 100 next year.
Clint


------------------
Clinton Bemrose
just South of Lansing Michigan
Beekeeping sence 1964

[Michael Bush]

I'm not trying to nitpick, but I'm not clear what "the bees coming comming from this queen seem to NOT (emphasis mine) pull foundation at 4.9mm or smaller (down to about 4.5mm). Even the drowne (sic) comb was slightly smaller."

Since you say the drone comb was slightly smaller I assume you are saying that the worker comb was smaller? The "not" in the sentence above seems to contradict that, so I'm not exactly sure what you meant.

If you mean that bees with a small cell queen made 4.9mm better that is a significant observation. So far, I just started having a lot of small cell queens, so I'll see how they do next year.

[clintonbemrose]

Since you say the drone comb was slightly smaller I assume you are saying that the worker comb was smaller? The "not" in the sentence above seems to contradict that, so I'm not exactly sure what you meant.

If you mean that bees with a small cell queen made 4.9mm better that is a significant observation. So far, I just started having a lot of small cell queens, so I'll see how they do next year.

The not was a typo and should not be there
The hives given the smaller queens were clearly the better hives in 3 locations. The bees were smaller, darker colored and more in the hives as far as populations. These bees are slightly more aggresive but still I have seen hives much worse. Next year I will use a different queen and drone hive to see if the agressiveness changes.
Sorry for the typo that I missed.
Clint

------------------
Clinton Bemrose
just South of Lansing Michigan
Beekeeping sence 1964

[wayacoyote]

Michael,
I was on the same thought line regarding the importation of coated PC. Are you still considering selling the stuff? And if so, what would you charge? I hadn't asked earlier because you seem so busy, if with nothing else, just in answering people's questions. But I think that there would be a small demand just from looking at all the posts of hobbiests like me who are looking to regress and can't tolerate the idea of loosing the few hives we have in the attempt.

WayaCoyote
("There are no stupid questions, only stupid people.")

[Michael Bush]

>Sorry for the typo that I missed. Clint

I just wanted to clarify to make sure I understood you.

>But I think that there would be a small demand just from looking at all the posts of hobbiests like me who are looking to regress and can't tolerate the idea of loosing the few hives we have in the attempt.

I was trying to find out if it was worth me spending the money to automate the process. I injured my elbow and it hurts when I shake the wax out of the PermaComb by hand, so I pretty much need to automate the proccess to be worth selling them.

[clintonbemrose]

Thanks for catching my mistake
Clint

------------------
Clinton Bemrose
just South of Lansing Michigan
Beekeeping sence 1964

[naturebee]

Hi All,

Good questions Barry! Let me start off by saying that I have ‘yet to find’ someone that is said to have small cell packages that are IMO truly “small cell”. This doesn’t go over well with the small cell folks, but I do find that even in the packages I got from the most well known small cell package bee supplier were not as small as my 4.9 bees and needed one more step in regression. IMO, the rush to establish the business here can go either way, there are no set rules for quality control in this area. IMO, failure or success depending on if standards such as that typically found in selection of traits or bee breeding program can be decided on and established in the small cell community.

You mention what is a small cell queen? IMO, it would be any queen that is produced from small cell queens that were bred from totally regressed colonies, 2 generations would be even better, plus natural Q cells constructed by the bees. A verification of worker cell size would be necessary IMO and records kept as a mater of good record keeping as any good breeder would do keeping records of desired traits.

There is evidence of Size-related Mating Preferences in Honey Bee Drones in the link below. Although not substantial, I believe that mating under natural conditions allows assortative mating to dominate. This along with drones of fit colonies out competing the weaker may enhance this assortative mating.

Size-related Mating Preferences in Honey Bee Drones on norlands http://f2.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/4OLNQfb1XI5CPnaXNJGXLEs_sT0MsvGT7Y_brspH1DSqnvazY4 aFJZo6spe
9ew78wNIlGRgutAxeyTdAmScuA2gogkN-pT8/Size-related%20Mating%20Preferences.mht


Male fitness of honeybee colonies http://www.biologie.uni-halle.de/zool/mol_ecol/KNSCH2003.pdf

[This message has been edited by Admin (edited December 27, 2004).]

[Barry]

Joe -

The problem I see with all this, boils down to one key element that few, if any, will ever be able to attain. I refer you to a post Dee made to the BioBee List earlier this year.
http://www.bee-l.com/bioarchive/jan2004/msg2.htm

"Many times I have spoken about subfamily uniform sizing and you are regressed when the subfamilies are all uniformly small and you control your area or sphere of influence.

<snip>

Now saying that, few are in a position to even be able to do it, that is control terriroty of large scale, especially with other beekeepers around. So I guess we are lucky where we keep our bees."

If you buy into, or accept this "sphere of influence" as critical for SC or natural beekeeping and breeding, then you better pack your bags and move to Southern Arizona. I see this whole issue with selling SC bees and queens becoming a nightmare as there is no target to shoot at. When one reads the detailed and ridged instructions some say have to be followed in order to achieve survivable bees, it becomes an impossible task.

I went down this road years ago but realized I would never reach perfection and, as it turns out, I didn't need to reach perfection. I have been able to keep bees "without the use of drugs, chemicals, essential oils, FGMO, acids, fungicides, bacterial/viral inhibitants, micro-organism stimuli, and artificial feeds" in spite of it. It's been very liberating to get out from under the "program" and proceed with my own eyes. I see some of the things Dennis has done that indicates any queen will work on SC comb. You see, there are others who are trying different approaches and finding what the results are. This is not part of, or an option for the "original" SC theory so the same ideas must be strictly adhered to.

Have at it, but I'll stick to my simple beekeeping, without all the timed matings and sphere of influences, using my mongrel bees. If you are a non-commercial beekeeper like myself, you will NEVER attain this needed "sphere of influence" and if you are a commercial beekeeper, I can't see how you could ever afford to take the kind of hit financially that the Lusby's took to rework an entire outfit.

Regards,
Barry

[naturebee]

Hi Barry & All,

I agree with Dees comment. There needs to be a ‘dominating sphere of influence’. But IMO, to dominate the sphere, all one needs to do is obtain a ‘majority of mating to the small side’. A dominating sphere of influence may be defended as 51% or better successful mating to the small side. Influence will be achieved at 51% and the level of success and domination increasing from there.

IMO, you need not be isolated to obtain a high degree of dominance. You do however need to start by:

1 ~ having your bees regressed.

One or more of these:
1 ~ sufficient number of small cell colonies for substantial drone population and genetics.
2 ~ a viable feral population.

An appreciable distance from other large cell apiaries will help.

I don’t believe the ‘number of drones’ as the only factor to be considered in the ‘small cell sphere of influence. Nor do I believe that total domination or isolation is absolutely necessary to succeed with small cell. So far it has been assumed that the number of drones rather than their individual mating success was most significant for colony male success (Baudry et al., 1998), but this belief is being disproved by recent research. IMO, there are actually 2 spheres of influence in varying degree large and small, each wanting to stay separate. In a citation by J. Coelho and O. Taylor, Jr, it was found that drones tended to mate assortatively to a high degree (larger drones mated with large queens and smaller drones mated with small queens). The drone's first two pairs of legs grasp the queens abdomen dorsally, while the last pair of legs grasp it laterally and ventrally (Gary and Marston, 1971). Large drones may have difficulty grasping the smaller queens properly in order to copulate successfully, or they may not have received the proper tactile stimuli for copulation to be elicited. ‘Size matching’ could occur through cues for mounting position. If drones use alignment cues from the anterior portion of the queen, small drones could be too far forward on the queen abdomen and the large drones too far back for copulation to be completed. No matter what proximate factors account for assortative mating by drones, this mating pattern could have powerful ecological and evolutionary consequences. (J. Coelho and O. Taylor, Jr,)

IMO, isolation or abundant drone population is not necessary to achieve a dominating small cell sphere of influence. In a study by scientists in Germany, it was determined that Drones of a ‘fit’ colony, such as colonies not ill from contaminate usage and that of healthy feral and small cell contaminate free populations (T+T Consultants and science publicists), not only had a higher probability to mate with a queen but also the number of offspring sired in the mated queen was higher than that of its competitors, as the overall male fitness of a colony is the product of its mating success. The drone of ‘fit’ colonies out-competed males from other colonies in mating, but also were more successful in post-mating competition. The fit colonies produced drones with a higher reproductive success than those of the other, less successful colonies. (F. Kraus, P. Neumann, H. Scharpenberg, J. Van Praagh, R. Moritz)


I have some limited isolation where my bees are to the East where a viable population of feral bees may exist, there are large cell beekeepers around me within 5 miles each direction, probably out numbering my small cell colonies by at least 2 to 1. My best small cell success in in a more isolated yard, but I am still achieving very good out-mating, suggesting a high degree of mating amongst populations of bees other than my own. “I believe I have been able to regress, stabilize and succeed with the help assortative mating with the better genetics from the fit feral population, and other small cell colonies, which I believe are out-competing the unfit large cell colonies in my area.