[crofter]

In a discussion about breeding swarminess it came up that several respected authorities felt that a queen resulting from a swarm cell was the ultimate. Terry Combs and Bob Binnie's name came up.

I made this comment that was off topic of swarminess but maybe connected or interesting;

I think that if you set a breeder queen up in the same circumstance; eggs laid while the queen has been curtailed from high number production produces heavier eggs. Crowded nurse bees that have been feeding large numbers from well stocked frames of nectar and honey then suddenly presented with limited numbers of larvae from those selected eggs at the youngest age with no opportunity to raise older larvae and you will have presented conditions matching or exceeding swarm cells.

That has been kicked around here before and Bernhard Huevel uses that method to set the scene for his queens. Unless hi is BS'ing about the recorded weights and the ovariole counts and the subsequent sperm stored, it appears that his queens outdo similar parameters of judging queen potential.

No how many of us even come close to achieving such a level of preparation; under a bit slap dash conditions I dont doubt that swarm queens are predictable better than a lot of back yard producers and perhaps the larger queen producers. I see literature and pictures recommending the use of 2 day old larvae because it works and is easier to graft so probably lots of other quality selection targets have been a bit out of the ten ring as well.

It would be intersting to hear Bernhard Huevel and Terry Combs discuss it and to rate their respective queens abilities.

I have since been sent these links suggesting that the superiority of swarm induced queens has good support in fact. Queens do lay heavier eggs in larger cells producing a queen with higher potental.

There are links to experiments that queens can be induced to lay larger eggs by interrupting their laying for a period of time and that presenting them to queenless nurse bees with no alternates, that they will be fed as queens from close to the moment of hatch. Larger queens with greater potential can be produced but I did not see direct comparison to actually swarm induced queens.

I grafted queens last summer that appear very satisfactory but since I did not do any of the enhancing that Huevel describes, it is hard to say how much potential I sacrificed.
Links below, thanks to msl research

https://air.unimi.it/retrieve/handle/2434/870840/1876648/abstract%20ASPA%20cupolini.pdf

and

DEFINE_ME

 

[Litsinger]

Good stuff, Frank. Thank you for posting.

It seems that epigenetic factors keep coming up in newer scholarship. While talking with Kirk Webster a few weeks ago, he related the sense from conversations he has had with Dr. James Frazier, that relate the sense that (and I'm paraphrasing), '... we've only touched the tip of the iceberg related to the understanding of environmental and functional factors that impact gene regulation.'

This bit from the 'Cell' article conclusion seems to suggest that we might find more as we study more:

'We now recognize, however, that the epigenetically differentiated worker and queen developmental pathways are sensitive to the early larval environment, and our data also indicate a sensitivity to the in ovo environment. This adds a new perspective on colony function and indicates that the queen has a more active role in the production of the next generation of queens than has been previously recognized. It will be important to assess whether similar maternal effects are at play also in other social eusocial insects.'

That said, MSL has also posted good practical research funded by SARE that seem to suggest that there are a lot of good ways to get to 'good enough' queens that give the beekeeper more control over the process:

48-Hour Queen Project

Testing Queen Rearing Methods in the Northeast High quality queens are critical for healthy hives. And for beekeepers who live in northern climates like Massachusetts, there is evidence that northern-adapted queens are better for winter survival. If northern beekeepers raised their own queens...

ag.umass.edu

 

[crofter]

I thought it of value to weigh the difference between the ultimate and what is said to be good enough queens. I think in most scenarios and certainly with my management there are so many avenues of less than perfect conditions that it would be hard to appreciate what improvement a so called perfect queen could contribute. Certainly we can eliminate definite under performers.

It is good to know though which practices in queen rearing pay the most dividends. The low hanging fruit so to speak. It would not be hard for instance to cage the queen or separate her onto bare foundation so she could not lay until a bit of comb was drawn. That could also give us very close knowledge of age of larva to graft. Covering those two points then placing them into surroundings of crowed nurse bees recently deprived of their charges and with lavish food supplies should give us queens far above emergency cells of simple splitting.

 

[msl]

Covering those two points then placing them into surroundings of crowed nurse bees recently deprived of their charges and with lavish food supplies should give us queens far above emergency cells of simple splitting.

that would be my view as well, but the resent data trend doesn't support it !
here is the follow up study to the link russ posted

Final report for FNE20-964 - SARE Grant Management System

projects.sare.org

Coming out on par with commercial queens

we know form Hatch etal (1999) (PDF) Worker regulation of emergency queen rearing in honey bee colonies and the resultant variation in queen quality
and

Tarpy Etal (2015)https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/web.s.../tarpy_et_al_2016_insectes_sociaux-xguqri.pdf
that when left alone to their own devices the bees cull cells, and the cells that are culled would have produced poorer quality queens. So between that and queen on queen combat it seems that the better queens take over the hive, this is why the small walk aways are said to produce better queens then dequeening a hive and breaking it in to nucs after cells are drawn.

The Mraz operation in VT comes to mind... going on 90 years now, 3/4 generation beekeepers running about 1,200 hives... and they almost entirely used walk aways and swarm cells !!

The Mraz management didn't involve handling frames. He believed it took too long to pull frames and inspect comb. Basic broodnest setup was super/deep/super. Colonies were reversed in the spring. Comb wasn't examined. If queen cells were present, they were sliced off the bottom bars but nothing was done about swarm cells up in the brood chamber...this is how I saw it when his son was managing the bees. At one time, if Charlie found a colony with swarm cells started, he would slide a swarm board between the brood boxes. 4 days later he would remove the box without eggs (has cells) to a new stand. Colonies were supered as needed. Very little requeening is done now, as far as I can tell. I know Charlie raised queens. He had mating yards in the Adirondacks. Anyone know Roberta Glatz? She helped Charlie catch queens. You might meet her at an EAS meeting. None raised now...at least not by grafting into cell builders and running mating nucs. Honey was harvested, and any colonies low on winter feed were given extra supers of honey. Same today. They don't believe in feeding sugar. I will say, that there was a year back in the 60s when Charlie brought light colonies to a central yard and fed. some years they have significant starvation. They insulate inner cover for winter...bags of insulation. I think no upper entrance and a 1/2" mesh mouse guard. Covers are tied down. No wrapping.

As far as raising new queens (stock)...When reversing, strong colonies are called breeders. A deep of brood comb is added to the top of the hive. Queens move up and fill that box with brood and honey. These are split off, and become one, or if very strong, two splits. They are allowed to raise their own queens. The belief is that by making walk away splits from each strong colony, the genetics of each of those strong colonies won't be lost, but will contribute to the genetic diversity of the operation.

here is what Charles had to say in 1966 (after 35+ years in the biz)

While it is possible to control swarming by selecting and in-breeding non-swarming queens as a rule do not produce honey. Such queens usually do not swarm only because of degeneration, they do not become strong enough to swarm. It is not due to the elimination of the swarming characteristic. Bees that do not swarm are of no value if they do not produce a honey crop.
We find it impossible to buy queens with the qualities we need in our environment, we are forced to raise our own queens. A honey producer normally does not have time to raise queens and such operations must be developed that will not interfere with normal operations for honey production or reduce the honey crop. We do not requiem normal colonies, but let each colony requiem itself. We produce queens by divisions early in the spring only to replace losses from wintering or failure of queens. With our present strain of bees, we find that we need to raise only 1/3 or ¼ the number of colonies we have in the apiary to replace losses each season. When we divide, we pick the colonies that were the best producers the season before. We winter our colonies in 21/2 or more brood chambers so that even in early spring the colonies are strong and divisions of good strength can be easily made with one full hive body containing plenty of bees, honey and sealed brood and enough eggs to produce cells. This division, without the queen, is placed on top of the parent colony above a solid cover with an entrance. This saves the need of extra covers and bottom boards. We do not graft, but just let the bees produce their own cells, and do not look at them again until a month later with queens will be laying. After the queens are laying, the nucleus and queen can be moved anywhere needed for requiring or replacement. We find queens produced in this manner are equal to those produced by any other system. By letting each division raise its own queen, we reproduce only one daughter from each mother queen. This helps greatly to prevent in-breeding and prevent losing our basic stock of breeding queens. We endeavor to keep a broad genetic foundation by maintaining as many queens as possible, not directly related to each other. Each year as we find good queens from other sources, these are introduced to add new blood as it becomes necessary. In this way we have been able to maintain our basic strain of vigorous queens over a long period of time. Over the years, our basic strain has adapted itself to our conditions and environment.

he presents a very different view on swarming and E queens then is generally given these days, but it seems to have worked very well for him, suggesting the queens were "good enough"

 

[crofter]

that would be my view as well, but the resent data trend doesn't support it !
here is the follow up study to the link russ posted

<Snip

he presents a very different view on swarming and E queens then is generally given these days, but it seems to have worked very well for him, suggesting the queens were "good enough"

Just when a fellow thinks he has something figured out, along comes some more like this, "it all depends"!

 

[johno]

I believe charles Mraz was also of the opinion that the queens alone did not pass on the characteristics of the hive as much was determined by the workers of that hive which is why he felt that splitting hives and allowing them to re queen themselves also carried along the workers of that strain. I also saw a study where poorly performing queens were swopped with good performing queens and in those hives the good performers became poor performers and the poor performers became good performers. So every thing does not appear to be cut and dried.

 

[Litsinger]

... but it seems to have worked very well for him, suggesting the queens were "good enough"

Good information, MSL. It is interesting to me (in this context) that Kirk Webster is a proud disciple of Charles Mraz and yet relies almost exclusively on grafting to produce queens. Yet another reminder that while swam (and maybe supercedure) cells may make the best queens, they likely do not meet the needs of those who need to be able to produce at quantity- so it becomes a classic quality versus volume trade-off, with the understanding (as already addressed) that grafted queens are likely 'good enough' for most situations.

 

[Litsinger]

I also saw a study where poorly performing queens were swopped with good performing queens and in those hives the good performers became poor performers and the poor performers became good performers.

Johno:

Thanks for the post- good information. I have heard this study referred to a few times but have never been able to come across it. You wouldn't happen to have the reference would you?

 

[msl]

You wouldn't happen to have the reference would you?

Is the Brood Pattern within a Honey Bee Colony a Reliable Indicator of Queen Quality?

Failure of the queen is often identified as a leading cause of honey bee colony mortality. However, the factors that can contribute to “queen failure” are poorly defined and often misunderstood. We studied one specific sign attributed ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Yet another reminder that while swam (and maybe supercedure) cells may make the best queens, they likely do not meet the needs of those who need to be able to produce at quantity- so it becomes a classic quality versus volume trade-off, with the understanding (as already addressed) that grafted queens are likely 'good enough' for most situations.

Despite people (brother adam,etc)saying swarm queens should be best because of XYZ... its interesting that I can't really find studies with empirical evidence on swarm queen quality vs grafted queen quality...
there are a few with "natural" queens vs grafted showing grafted is better... but nothing was said about how the "natural" ones we produced...

 

[Litsinger]

Thanks for posting the research, MSL. A couple of things that stood out to me:

'Every colony phenotype is a result of both environment and genetics: how a queen’s offspring interacts with the environment, which includes nutrition, pesticides, pathogens, and beekeeper management practices.'

'An important lesson from this study was that it was difficult to find queens with poor brood patterns without signs of brood disease. If queen failure is a leading cause of colony loss, then other symptoms besides poor brood patterns are likely to be more relevant.'

 

[GregB]

So now, grafted queens are no longer in vogue?
Good thing I haven't bothered.


To be honest, I got tired of the minis this season - the bees absconded and I did not have the time to be running after them.
I have no single queen on hand now from a mini nuc project; it was largely a wasted effort.

The traditional splits around standard equipment carried me this summer.
If one needs no more than 5-10 queens (like myself) the over-engineered ways may not be worth it.

 

[Amibusiness]

Agree with Greg. Minies are good if you are catching more than 300 queens per year, multiple frame splits are good if you are a back yarder making nucs to overwinter. If you are in between sort out what you like for you and your bees

 

[Litsinger]

In the January 2021 ABJ, a question is posed to Dr. Jamie Ellis (attached) in his standing 'The Classroom' article which is titled 'Queens Lay Queen Eggs?'

The questioner references a 2019 paper entitled 'A Maternal Effect on Queen Production in Honeybees' which concludes:

Queens laid significantly bigger eggs in the larger queen cells than in the worker cells.

Gene expression analyses identified several significantly differentially expressed genes between newly emerged queens from QE and those from the other groups. These included a disproportionate number of genes involved in hormonal signaling, body development, and immune pathways, which are key traits differing between queens and workers. That egg size influences emerging queen morphology and physiology and that queens lay larger eggs in queen cells demonstrate both a maternal effect on the expression of the queen phenotype and a more active role for the queen in gyne production than has been realized previously.

They do however also note the following:

We do not here propose that there is a special class of queen-destined eggs. The distribution of egg masses sampled from queen and worker cells was continuous, normal, and unimodal. Rather, we propose that fecund queens at any one time have more than one egg ready for laying and that queens may lay the largest available egg in queen cells.

 

[GregB]

Truly, my desired project for the summer of 2021 was to be able to artificially create a colony pre-swarming status at-will and harvest natural swarm queens that way.
But due to large losses and unpredictable swarm trapping outcomes I ditched that project.

Hopefully the summer of 2022 will be a better one for me.
If so, I still want to test out the at-will natural swarm queen generation and harvest.
Smallish foam hive with a very crowed colony on a back porch is the way I want to try this.

 

[crofter]

There are certainly lots of ways to set the stage for the production of queen cells. Quality very close to swarm cells can be achieved and some people claim with really detail focus preparations to be able to routinely produce queens that measure up by common determinations seem to be superior to the average queen the bees produce by swarming.

For practical purposes I doubt most bekeepers would be able to tell whether their queens had 150,000 active ovarioles or 180,000. or could live to 5 years old.

You dont need 80,000 bees to make a dozen queens. There are threads on crowding a nuc sized box to get the same population intensity and raise a dozen queens. At the 4 day mark you could put in another dozen grafts.

I have used both Cloake board and Snelgrove board but lots of methods with no special equipment. Lots more interesting than extracting and bottling honey.

 

[Litsinger]

... grafts

I think the key take-away from the study is that:

Eggs laid in queen cells (QE) were 13.26% heavier (157.51 ± 12.37 versus 138.93 ± 10.90, mean ± SD, μg) and 2.43% longer (1.56 ± 0.04 versus 1.52 ± 0.05, mean ± SD, mm) and 4.18% thicker (0.374 ± 0.010 versus 0.359 ± 0.013, mean ± SD, mm) than eggs laid in worker cells (WE).

Adult queens from QE were heaviest in all five colonies, and queens from QE were significantly heavier than queens from WE (258.65 ± 22.82 versus 234.50 ± 36.00, mean ± SD, mg) in three colonies out of five.

This suggests that the gene expression differences between adult queen from QE and WE are reflective of variation in the caste development process. Our DEGs contained a disproportionately large number of genes such as juvenile hormone methyltransferase, abaecin, and hexamerin genes involved in hormone synthesis, ovary development, cuticle development, and immune functions.

 

[GregB]

I think the key take-away from the study is that:

Eggs laid in queen cells (QE) were 13.26% heavier (157.51 ± 12.37 versus 138.93 ± 10.90, mean ± SD, μg) and 2.43% longer (1.56 ± 0.04 versus 1.52 ± 0.05, mean ± SD, mm) and 4.18% thicker (0.374 ± 0.010 versus 0.359 ± 0.013, mean ± SD, mm) than eggs laid in worker cells (WE).

Adult queens from QE were heaviest in all five colonies, and queens from QE were significantly heavier than queens from WE (258.65 ± 22.82 versus 234.50 ± 36.00, mean ± SD, mg) in three colonies out of five.....

And it also says:

...............queens reared from transplanted worker larvae are smaller and have less well-developed reproductive systems.....

Where grafting == transplanted worker larvae.

 

[Litsinger]

Where grafting == transplanted worker larvae.

Right- while it is a single study, it seems to suggest that eggs laid in queen cells are morphologically and genetically distinct from those to eggs laid in worker cells, lending a bit of credence to the assertion by some that swarm cells make for the best queens, all other things being equal.

 

[GregB]

Right- while it is a single study, it seems to suggest that eggs laid in queen cells are morphologically and genetically distinct from those to eggs laid in worker cells, lending a bit of credence to the assertion by some that swarm cells make for the best queens, all other things being equal.

And to continue the same logic - the invested queen sellers should (logically!!) advocate for the grafted queens to be equal enough of the natural swarm queens.
It only makes sense they should.
I don't know for a fact - just a theory.
Of course, queen grafting scales up much better - that is given and good for production.

 

[crofter]

Right- while it is a single study, it seems to suggest that eggs laid in queen cells are morphologically and genetically distinct from those to eggs laid in worker cells, lending a bit of credence to the assertion by some that swarm cells make for the best queens, all other things being equal.

Would it merely be the size of the cell that the queen was presented with that made the difference, or that she had to assume a totally different position. What is different in the conditions leading up to a swarm situation that might have induced a difference in the queens eggs. I have read that preventing a queen from laying for a short period of time will result in the ensuing eggs being larger. Perhaps in the leadup to a queen laying in such cups she has had her diet changed (like as in preparing to fly with a swarm) or had her laying cut back. Just thinking about intentionality on the queens part or whether purely external circumstances were responsible for the discrepancies of egg properties.

Bernhard Heuvel is a German queen producer of some reputation who claims his method of handling the queen preparatory to laying the hatching eggs for grafting produces queens with weights, ovariole counts and volume of sperm stored that exceeds the norm for swarm produced queens.

Perhaps as Greg suggests some of that information could be motivated. I doubt that the majority of mass produced queens exceed the quality of the median abilities of swarm cell queens but I am curious as to whether someone motivated by quality like some of the breeder queen producers could stage conditions to raise measurably superior queens by grafting.

I doubt the average beekeeper would have stout enough controls to even measure or appreciate the difference between swarm queens and grafted queens by a well informed and motivated queen producer.

As has been said there is no comparison in the ease of producing large numbers of queens from selected genetics via grafting compared to trying to get them laid in natural cells by the swarm stimulus. To how many people would any such superiority even be appreciable?