Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hello All

This post is a follow up on the thread "Quality Queen Cells With Small Nuc as Starter?" https://www.beesource.com/forums/sh...all-Nuc-as-Cell-Starter&p=1816733#post1816733

In that discussion, reference was made to the high quality of swarm cell queens. That got me wondering about the practicality of inducing swarming behavior in order to get some good queen cells...and I came across this publication

http://www.nationalbeeunit.com/index.cfm?pageid=167

After the above link directs you to an index, click on this "Best Practice Guideline No. 10 - Bee Improvement (created July 2012)"

In page 2 of the downloaded PDF, we read that:

Or those who use Jenter, Miller and other similar systems and
who only want a few queen cells can manage colonies to produce
queen cells which can be harvested and put in to queen-less
nuclei. This can be done by:

Inducing swarm cells:
A selected stock is built up onto a
double brood box. When inducement is
required the brood is divided so
that the sealed brood is in one of the
brood boxes and the unsealed in the
other. The queen is left with the
unsealed brood and a queen excluder
is placed between the two brood boxes.
Swarm cells will be built. It helps if
super storage space is limited.
Remember that if you do not remove or
cull the existing queen before the
queen cells are sealed the colony will
want to swarm.

Thoughts anyone? Could this be a practical way of producing some really high quality queens? Obviously we would have to monitor closely in order to prevent actual swarming!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,448 Posts
That publication goes on to talk about a method for the creation of Supersedure Cells, which has the advantage of not having the accompanying danger of swarming. How can Supersedure Cells be of any less 'high quality' than Swarm Cells ?

BeeBase used to have a link to Wilkinson & Brown's classic paper - but it seems to have disappeared - here's a link:
https://belfastbees.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/rearing_queen_honeybees.pdf
LJ

PS - for this method you can graft, OR use a comb with the right age of larvae.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,135 Posts
I would call that a vertical split, not a swarm cell.

What I do not get is; "I removed the swarm cells." Then describe the plans to make splits. It is like rounding third and going back to first to make a new start.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
That publication goes on to talk about a method for the creation of Supersedure Cells, which has the advantage of not having the accompanying danger of swarming. How can Supersedure Cells be of any less 'high quality' than Swarm Cells ?

BeeBase used to have a link to Wilkinson & Brown's classic paper - but it seems to have disappeared - here's a link:
https://belfastbees.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/rearing_queen_honeybees.pdf
LJ

PS - for this method you can graft, OR use a comb with the right age of larvae.
Little John, up until a week ago I would have heartily agreed with the idea that supercedure cells would be just as good. But, apparently, the cells induced by the supposed "supersedure method" mentioned in that paper are actually more similar emergency cells...see post #45 of the afore mentioned thread, in which I get educated that, despite their similar appearance to emergency cells, supersedure cells have an egg laid in them AFTER they are constructed on the face of the comb.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,448 Posts
Little John, up until a week ago I would have heartily agreed with the idea that supercedure cells would be just as good. But, apparently, the cells induced by the supposed "supersedure method" mentioned in that paper are actually more similar emergency cells...see post #45 of the afore mentioned thread, in which I get educated that, despite their similar appearance to emergency cells, supersedure cells have an egg laid in them AFTER they are constructed on the face of the comb.
I may be learning something here...RE the quote

"Similarly, supersedure queens (produced when a queen is failing but still present and laying) are presumably also laid by queens in queen cups [53] and so should not undergo significant selection by workers."

I had always had the impression that supercedure cells were remodeled worker cells, just like an emergency cell. Is that not the case?
Thanks for the link - I now see more clearly the issue. (I've included that quote for anyone who may just be starting to read about this ...)

I'm not sure how much of this theory I buy into - seems to me there are too many 'holes' in it. For instance, "... supersedure queens [...] are presumably also laid by queens in queen cups.".

"Presumably" being a key word here - I wonder - do queens actually lay in any kind of pre-existing queen cup ? I doubt this, because of the size of those cups which, if a queen behaves true to her usual form, will then contain a drone egg. I think it far more likely that it's the workers who place an egg into any cell of that diameter, which would then in turn suggest that workers might be making a selection between eggs (if indeed they are able to do this) during that process.

But - I have more questions here than possible answers ... for example: do the larvae in supersedure cells always commence their life as a larva, or could they also be started with just an egg installed ? Are workers able to distinguish between genetic strains equally at both egg and larval stages ? (I doubt that)

Moving on ...

Over the last hundred years or so it has become 'the norm' to view q/cells as being of 3 types: Swarm, Emergency and Supersedure, but this hasn't always been the case. At one time there were considered to be 2 types: those which are purpose-built beforehand (Swarm cells), and those which are modified from pre-existing cells (Emergency and (?)Supersedure) - and that was considered to be the only difference of significance. Personally, I have a lot of sympathy for this latter view - with the conditions of the hive during q/cell construction being a far more important consideration than the details of their construction method - or indeed whether or not any genetic selection is taking place.
'best,
LJ
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,448 Posts
A thought which has just crossed my mind is that - although there are no hard and fast rules here - Swarm cells tend to be built on the lower edges of combs ... where it is cooler during the period when swarming usually occurs.

Whereas supersedure events can occur at inopportune moments throughout the season, when thermal stability could become a troublesome issue - therefore the cells are started on the face of a comb where they will be deep within the heart of a brood-nest, with it's inherent thermal stability.

So maybe swarm cells and supersedure cells are (in principle) exactly the same - their position on the comb only differs because of their thermal needs, and their numbers only differ because of the functions they are expected to fulfill (colony self-sustainability vs. colony multi-replication).

Well - it's a theory :) - a PhD for somebody there, perhaps ?
LJ
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,135 Posts
Those that I choose to call superceder are what I would view as a little bit hidden from the queen. On the other edge and laid in a normal patch of worker brood.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,492 Posts
I don’t know much about queen rearing, having never done any, but swarm cells are so much bigger than grafted or even supersedure and emergency cells. All honey bees swarm, so why the worry about using swarm cells?
 

·
Registered
5 ,8 ,10 frame, and long Lang
Joined
·
2,768 Posts
I don’t know much about queen rearing, having never done any, but swarm cells are so much bigger than grafted or even supersedure and emergency cells. All honey bees swarm, so why the worry about using swarm cells?
The worry by those who have shifted, is that the hive swarming if always used for increase tend over time to genetically move you "toward" swarmy bees.

However if you force swarming you can mitigate this some what.

the other school of thought is the the bees know better which "egg or Larvae"is going to be a good/better queen, so the Grafting is a random shot with a human picked larvae and therefore less likely to be in the royal line.

As you go up the math scale to 100s of hives grafting solves the need for many queens. Hence it is used to solve that issue.

IMO supercedure cells are Laid in by the queen so she if she can,, decides on the eggs used. Emergency cells are larvae picked by the workers, if they can differentiate, and graftes are picked by the person who wants to fill cups.

I have seen some discussion that E cells are through backs to older patra lines,, conceptually "opps that queen is failing let's go back to something that worked, instead of forward".
where swarm cells are current patra lines, "we are doing great let's make more of this current line". of course this is instinct in bees , not reason but has the same effect.

Bigger cells, is hive strength, weak hives do not reproduce, so the grafting model currently has the "starter" hive be a lot like a hive ready to swarm, lot of bees, flow real or created, lots of pollen real or created, only real difference is the queen less part, usually the starter is hopelessly queen less to "use" the E cell instinct.

IMO a swarm or a swarm cell is a great way to "start" and go to maybe 20 ish hives then some gentic thought is needed, to get a more planned expansion.
Order 10 queen do splits, graft from the best etc.

GG

I at different times use them all so i am not 100% of any type.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,448 Posts
I don’t know much about queen rearing, having never done any, but swarm cells are so much bigger than grafted or even supersedure and emergency cells. All honey bees swarm, so why the worry about using swarm cells?
They look bigger because they're fully exposed, whereas with grafted and emergency cells, somewhere around 1/4 to 1/3 of the cell is hidden from view. The same is true of those supersedure cells which are formed from an existing cell and it's lava.

IMO supercedure cells are Laid in by the queen so she if she can,, decides on the eggs used.
How does the Queen 'decide' which egg to use ? They come out randomly (well, near enough randomly) - the only decision made is whether to fertilise that egg or not - which appears to be a reflex action triggered by her hind legs.
The bits of the queen that are involved in laying are at the opposite end of the creature from her brain and sensory equipment. :)
LJ
 

·
Registered
5 ,8 ,10 frame, and long Lang
Joined
·
2,768 Posts
They look bigger because they're fully exposed, whereas with grafted and emergency cells, somewhere around 1/4 to 1/3 of the cell is hidden from view. The same is true of those supersedure cells which are formed from an existing cell and it's lava.



How does the Queen 'decide' which egg to use ? They come out randomly (well, near enough randomly) - the only decision made is whether to fertilise that egg or not - which appears to be a reflex action triggered by her hind legs.
The bits of the queen that are involved in laying are at the opposite end of the creature from her brain and sensory equipment. :)
LJ
Ok LJ you can believe it is random, I choose to believe it is not.
She decides to make a drone or a female
she or the bees decide to make a winter bee, could be the food mix...
I have seen some dialogue around some "forage" type bees being created for the flow similar to the Winter bee. optimized for nectar collection.
So Some selection is obvious, where it ends is the only thing to debate.

IMO the "choice" for the next queen to keep the swarm or parent hive going is NOT random. too important to be random.
with bees I think there is less randomness, that others do.
I tend to be an intuitive analytical,, so it just the way I process things.

How on the which egg, the "non-queen" eggs go in the worker cell, then when the Queen egg is coming next she puts it in a cup. Somewhat like my run to the bathroom in the morning, I know what is about to come out and which bowl/cup it should go in. :)
If there is no need for a Q cup to have an egg, then it goes in a worker cell. These can later be used for E cells if needed. So IMO both the bees and the Queen "Know" the better eggs/larvae to use. (royal lines some call it)

Also IMO continuous generations of "human" selected larvae is some of the reason we are facing "bee problems"
Most of the Queens in the USA today have NOT been picked by the bees, And in Some cases the drones have not competed for the right to mate either, So does this have an impact on the Species, IMO yes, Many do not think so. Queens do not have 500-2000 daughters in Nature. In Agriculture settings they do.

No different than harvesting 1000 eggs from a human female and having 1000 daughters from 1 person.
do that for 500 years to 20 generations and you may or may not affect the species.

Humans have the innate concept "they" know what is best for bees for example. I personally do not subscribe to this thought process.

How I do Not know exactly, That it happens I have no doubt.

GG
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,971 Posts
Humans have the innate concept "they" know what is best for bees for example. I personally do not subscribe to this thought process.
but they may know what is best for the human....and that's whats beekeeping is about, human needs/wants.. whats best for the bees would likely be to be left in their native range in the trees

she or the bees decide to make a winter bee, could be the food mix...
nope, lack of brood rearing means they don't feed out their Vitellogenin stores.

Also IMO continuous generations of "human" selected larvae is some of the reason we are facing "bee problems"
perhaps... but such is the way of domestic live stock, and we have been keeping bees on an industrially scale, selective breeding, and importing "better" bees for 3,000 +years
what changed? oh ya, mites!
IMO the "choice" for the next queen to keep the swarm or parent hive going is NOT random
everything we have seen is grafting/ swam queens are random (like most things in nature) and E-queen are less so, with 40% of them haveing a drone father whos off spring isn't present in the work force
 

·
Registered
5 ,8 ,10 frame, and long Lang
Joined
·
2,768 Posts
but they may know what is best for the human....and that's whats beekeeping is about, human needs/wants.. whats best for the bees would likely be to be left in their native range in the trees


nope, lack of brood rearing means they don't feed out their Vitellogenin stores.

perhaps... but such is the way of domestic live stock, and we have been keeping bees on an industrially scale, selective breeding, and importing "better" bees for 3,000 +years
what changed? oh ya, mites!
everything we have seen is grafting/ swam queens are random (like most things in nature) and E-queen are less so, with 40% of them haveing a drone father whos off spring isn't present in the work force
we all have opinions MSL
We will need to agree to disagree.
I do respect yours

GG

so are the bees really better in the 70's I had almost Zero winter loss, very little supercedure of same year Queens, that is only 45 years ago

"what has changed the mites", and grafting, and chemicals, and transporting bees, and GMO, and communication transmissions, etc. maybe the gene pool has shrunk to the point of the pests taking out the "man created" bee.
in time more will be discovered.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,448 Posts
Ok LJ you can believe it is random, I choose to believe it is not.
It's not about belief - some things have been investigated and are known about.

To make a new queen requires a fertilised egg - that entails 2 components: the ovum and the sperm. The sperm has been acquired from multiple matings and will have become randomly mixed within the queen's spermathecae. The mixing isn't 100% complete - it has been found that some 6% remains as 'clumps' - which is why I said "near-enough random".
Source: Sperm usage in honey bees (1998)
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s002650050436 and:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4601449?seq=1

The abstract reads:
Sperm usage was investigated in a naturally mated honey bee queen. We collected worker progeny arising from eggs that were laid sequentially during three sampling periods. Paternity was determined by analysis of three polymorphic microsatellite loci, leading to the conclusion that the queen had mated with seven males. Direct analysis of the sperm from the spermatheca revealed no evidence that sperm from additional males was present inside the spermatheca. Frequencies of different subfamilies differed significantly and ranged from 3.8% to 27.3%. In the short term, the frequencies of subfamilies among the eggs laid did not change over time. The frequency of eggs of a particular subfamily was statistically independent of the previous egg's subfamily. Thus, there is no evidence for non-random finescale sperm usage, and we estimate the effect of sperm clumping to be less than 6%. We conclude that the sperm is mixed completely inside the queen's spermatheca. Our results suggest that taking brood samples from comb cells next to each other is a statistically correct way of independent sampling of subfamilies at a given time in honey bee colonies. Furthermore, any bias in subfamily frequencies in offspring queens due to sperm usage can be excluded. However, the analyses of progeny samples taken 12 months apart do not allow us to exclude moderate fluctuations of subfamily frequencies in the long-term.
LJ
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,971 Posts
We will need to agree to disagree.
that is fine, great even
no one learns anything in a echo chamber!!!
we were grafting 45 years ago and the pestisides were worce for the been then they are now, and studys show our bees are more genetically deverce then the base stocks in the native ranges they came from

The pests wiped out the wild/feral bees as well so I don't think its a "man" thing...

and then there are all the CCD events
https://ento.psu.edu/pollinators/publications/underwood
Large-scale losses are not new to the beekeeping industry (Table 1). Many of the
symptoms similar to those expressed by CCD-affected colonies have been described before.
Like today, in the past, the cause for the colony collapse has not been ascertained with certainty,
although speculations as to the cause(s) are plentiful. In this paper we briefly review the past
history of colony collapses that are reminiscent of the present situation.
The first published record of this disorder appeared in 1869. An anonymous author
reported loss of bees which left behind hives with plenty of honey. It was speculated that the
death was due to a lack of pollen, poisonous honey, or a hot summer [4]. Subsequently, Aikin
[5] described losses in Colorado in 1891 and 1896 where large clusters disappeared or dwindled
to tiny clusters with queens in May, hence the name “May disease”. Investigations at the time
identified various fungi with these collapses. Burnside [6] was able to isolate, culture, and
reproduce symptoms very similar to CCD with a strain of Aspergillus fungi.
Stonebrood, caused by the fungus Aspergillus flavus, affects both immature and adult
bees. Infected larvae turn into solid, hard mummies that are not easily removed by the bees [7,
8]. Stonebrood-infected adults fly or crawl a considerable distance from colonies before dying
[6]. Superficially, the adults appear normal [6]. It is believed that stonebrood is spread through
the sharing of infected combs [9], as the fungus has been isolated on combs [10]. In addition,
Giauffret [11] believed that disruption of the intestinal flora of bees due to antibiotic use may
allow the fungus to spread. It is yet to be determined if the losses that are being seen today will,
like with stonebrood, appear suddenly and then disappear [12].
In three epidemics between 1905 and 1919, 90% of the honey bee colonies on the Island
of Wight in the United Kingdom died [13, 14]. Bees afflicted with this disorder could not fly,
but crawled from the entrance [15, 16]. Researchers disagreed as to the cause of this affliction.
Some concluded that the losses were due to acarine disease or the honey bee tracheal mite,
Acarapis woodi [13]. Others believed that starvation was the cause of the losses [14, 17]; while
still others thought Nosema disease caused the high losses [18]. Some affected beekeepers over
the years have blamed their losses on the so-called “Isle of Wight disease” whenever they could
not find another cause [14]. Bullamore [17] noted that genetics likely played a role and
emphasized the need to dispose of colonies after a maximum of 3 years.
In the Stawell district of Australia in 1910, 59% of colonies were lost and many more
were severely weakened [19]. Beuhne [19] noted that colonies that did not have their honey
3
extracted and that were allowed to gather honey late in the season did especially poorly. He
concluded that honey made from Eucalyptus leucoxylon was too high in moisture, presumably
fermented, and so was not suitable for consumption by the bees [19]. The author also mentioned
that reliable accounts of severe losses from as far back as 1872 have been noted “at intervals of
some years” [19].
Instances of large-scale losses were also reported in 1915 in Portland, Oregon [15] and
from Florida to California in that same year [20], but these losses were not well documented. In
1917, widespread losses were reported in New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Canada [21]. This
time, an overabundance of pollen was blamed and bees were found dead in front of the hives.
Root and Root [15] noted that this “disappearing disease” disappears within a short time without
treatment.
In the 1960’s, many reports of losses were published. In Texas and Louisiana, bees
disappeared in the fall and winter [20]. In the Rio Grande River region of Texas in particular, the
losses occurred after a period of unseasonable cold followed by 2 weeks of rain [22]. In
Louisiana, bees were tested and found to be free of nosema disease, septicemia, honey bee
tracheal mites, external parasites, and paralysis virus [23]. Roberge [24] noted that the bees had
suddenly stopped clustering and believed the problem was genetic. Bees were also lost in
California [25]. The remaining bees in the dwindled colonies appeared healthy and had plenty of
food stores.
In Australia, losses were high in 1975 [26]. Termed “disappearing syndrome”, losses
seemed to be due to dampness, poor nutrition, and stress [23]. Olley [26] noted that the
syndrome could be transmitted between closely adjacent colonies through robbing and suggested
that a virus was the cause. At about the same time, losses were reported in Mexico [27]. The
losses in Mexico, called “disappearing disease”, were blamed on the environment, as research
ruled out genetic factors [28]. In addition, paralysis virus and cold weather did not play a role
[27]. Many factors, such as diseases, poor nutrition, and genetics, could have worked together to
cause this syndrome [28]. An extensive survey conducted in 1975 indicated that the disorder
could be found in 27 states [29]. Witherell [30] ruled out poisonous pollen, poisonous nectar,
pesticide poisoning, and diseases caused by microorganisms, including viruses, as possible
causes.
In the late 1970’s, losses occurred in winter and spring in Florida [31]. Pathogens, food
or lack of it, weather, genetics, and management were all suspected causes. Studies of the effects
of protein sources on bee longevity and brood rearing showed that inadequate pollen substitutes
could cause bee loss [32]. Losses also occurred in Seattle, Washington, where bees failed to
cluster and were observed flying on a very cold day [33]. Losses in Texas at the time were not
due to nosema disease or septicemia [22].
In the mid-1990’s, losses again became evident in the northeastern United States [34].
Research showed that bee mortality could be reduced when Apistan, Terramycin extender
patties, and Fumidil-B were used, but that menthol and grease patties did not prevent loss. This
suggests that good nutrition and pest control may keep bees healthy and enable them to resist this
malady and that honey bee tracheal mites did not likely contribute to the losses.
During the winters of 1998-1999 and 1999-2000, heavy losses were reported in France.
Research showed that known honey bee diseases were present, alone or in combination with
each other, in 76% of the effected apiaries [35]. There were no combinations of diseases that
were more likely than the others, so the main suspects became colony mismanagement, nutrient
4
deficiencies, and chemicals in the environment. Then, as now, the cause of the losses was
generally unknown
I honesty don't think bees are less fit now then 45 years ago.. there was golden window between the development of antibiotics and the arrival of TM, followed by Varroa and NC.. out side of that windo, well there were problems, lots of AFB, etc
waive a magic wand and remove varroa and I would guess 80% of our problems or more dissaper..
for what ever reason people want to blame what they can't contoral (cell phone towers, etc), not what they are failing to controal (mites)
 

·
Registered
5 ,8 ,10 frame, and long Lang
Joined
·
2,768 Posts
It's not about belief - some things have been investigated and are known about.

To make a new queen requires a fertilised egg - that entails 2 components: the ovum and the sperm. The sperm has been acquired from multiple matings and will have become randomly mixed within the queen's spermathecae. The mixing isn't 100% complete - it has been found that some 6% remains as 'clumps' - which is why I said "near-enough random".
Source: Sperm usage in honey bees (1998)
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s002650050436 and:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4601449?seq=1

The abstract reads:

LJ
Again we know what we know and I do not assume we know all
No evidence for non random,,, Bias in Subfamily.....do not allow us to exclude fluxations.
So what if in 5 year these is evidence.....
Man at one point believed the earth was flat , and I recall we in this country burned a few "Witches"at the stake.
what is believed one day may change..... has happened. today we have what we have.

GG
 

·
Registered
5 ,8 ,10 frame, and long Lang
Joined
·
2,768 Posts
that is fine, great even
no one learns anything in a echo chamber!!!
we were grafting 45 years ago and the pestisides were worce for the been then they are now, and studys show our bees are more genetically deverce then the base stocks in the native ranges they came from

The pests wiped out the wild/feral bees as well so I don't think its a "man" thing...

and then there are all the CCD events
https://ento.psu.edu/pollinators/publications/underwood


I honesty don't think bees are less fit now then 45 years ago.. there was golden window between the development of antibiotics and the arrival of TM, followed by Varroa and NC.. out side of that windo, well there were problems, lots of AFB, etc
waive a magic wand and remove varroa and I would guess 80% of our problems or more dissaper..
for what ever reason people want to blame what they can't contoral (cell phone towers, etc), not what they are failing to controal (mites)
I'm fine with discussion.
As far as the "feral , wild" they are escaped domestic, as there were no honey bees here when the Americas were discovered.
I do think they are less fit so we can discuss if you wish, we seem to each have different opinions.
I would agree the Varroa and the 7-9 virus they vector have been the root of many current issues.

the end of your paste is :
Then, as now, the cause of the losses was generally unknown

at some point we may know or not.

"good nutrition and pest control can keep bees healthy"
People have a similar challenges, One would think with all the things we have learned we would be more healthy today that 50 years ago, yet new things are cropping up. I asked both my parents if anyone in their school had ADHD or ADD, they recall Zero, In my school was 1, In my kids school 3 or 4 per class. Child hood cancer is the same story, So unless one contends these kids were hidden away, we as a planet seem to be have more issues .

Ok I may buy that today for the day we have more bee genetic diversity, than in the past, But IMO if humans were wiped out by COVID or something, In a year or 3 with out the meds and splitting and such the bees would dwindle to a very few. They are propped up by humans, not a bad thing or a good thing but a fact. If every one left their bees untouched for 3 years, I think we would see like 90% loss. I found in my youth more than a couple sheds with hives stored the bees found and were going fine, some for many years. did some bee tracking.

I still am of the opinion there is more going on that we have yet to discover.
Did we not believe the Varroa fed on One thing and now know it to be an other thing.

we will all carry on

GG
 

·
Registered
5 ,8 ,10 frame, and long Lang
Joined
·
2,768 Posts
so some addition info.

Some read all they can in a year and "Are Ok I know the bees" unknowingly ignorant Most of us start here
Some read nada and just do what they were told or have been doing, or have seen. Mimic ers get many by to get what they need.

I in 45 years of bee keeping have not wrote down any thing, my dad with 30 years same , grand dad had bees for 50 years he wrote nothing down as well.
Take A.I Root from the late 1860s he wrote a bunch of things down, did he write everything he knew ?? we do not know.

So of the folks that wrote, if we assume they wrote most of their knowledge, we still may have incomplete individual, knowledge.
Now as GregV brings to us there are Russian, Ukrainian , Polish, German type writings and learnings as well.

Even If I could read every thing and in every language, I KNOW it would not be everything discovered by humans about honey bees, IE Incomplete.
As well I do not believe even now we know every thing, So IMO I may know 10% about bees, of the "Known" writings, which are incomplete and there is the yet to be discovered stuff.

So I come here with what little I know, Do not mean to confuse any one.
I do not have anything to gain by arguing or being correct. I only seek to fill in some knowledge before my time is up.

We find maps of the world when it was thought by the best minds to be flat. accepted fact for the day.
To me that is enough to understand that at any point in time we as a race may not understand, only think we do.

I do wish I had a couple more lifetimes to learn more, but Alas is is not meant to be.

GG
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,492 Posts
They look bigger because they're fully exposed, whereas with grafted and emergency cells, somewhere around 1/4 to 1/3 of the cell is hidden from view. The same is true of those supersedure cells which are formed from an existing cell and it's lava.

True, I didn’t think of that; another “duh” moment for me :eek:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,492 Posts
The worry by those who have shifted, is that the hive swarming if always used for increase tend over time to genetically move you "toward" swarmy bees.

However if you force swarming you can mitigate this some what.

the other school of thought is the the bees know better which "egg or Larvae"is going to be a good/better queen, so the Grafting is a random shot with a human picked larvae and therefore less likely to be in the royal line.

As you go up the math scale to 100s of hives grafting solves the need for many queens. Hence it is used to solve that issue.

IMO supercedure cells are Laid in by the queen so she if she can,, decides on the eggs used. Emergency cells are larvae picked by the workers, if they can differentiate, and graftes are picked by the person who wants to fill cups.

I have seen some discussion that E cells are through backs to older patra lines,, conceptually "opps that queen is failing let's go back to something that worked, instead of forward".
where swarm cells are current patra lines, "we are doing great let's make more of this current line". of course this is instinct in bees , not reason but has the same effect.

Bigger cells, is hive strength, weak hives do not reproduce, so the grafting model currently has the "starter" hive be a lot like a hive ready to swarm, lot of bees, flow real or created, lots of pollen real or created, only real difference is the queen less part, usually the starter is hopelessly queen less to "use" the E cell instinct.

IMO a swarm or a swarm cell is a great way to "start" and go to maybe 20 ish hives then some gentic thought is needed, to get a more planned expansion.
Order 10 queen do splits, graft from the best etc.

GG

I at different times use them all so i am not 100% of any type.
Thanks GG
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top