At what stage can I mark a new queen?

Beekeeping & Apiculture Forum

Help Support Beekeeping & Apiculture Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Tomo

House Bee
Joined
Aug 8, 2012
Messages
251
Reaction score
0
Location
Colchester
Hive Type
Commercial
Number of Hives
4
Hi,
I have a new home grown queen who is doing very well. At what stage am I OK to mark her as the colony is starting to increase. She has been laying for about 16 days. Thanks.
 
Hi,
I have a new home grown queen who is doing very well. At what stage am I OK to mark her as the colony is starting to increase. She has been laying for about 16 days. Thanks.

i mark when HM is surrounded only by her own bees so 6 weeks plus from laying but i should think breeders mark them as soon as they lay
 
QUOTE=ratcatcher;419423]as soon as I spot worker brood[/QUOTE]

:iagree:
Good policy for newbies. I do believe many commercial breeders do it the following spring. Less bees more time I guess.
 
Colony is not increasing yet.

If it is, please enlighten us.

As MM. He speaks with experience.
 
Doesn't brood count as part of the colony?

In the context of the thread, it is not too difficult to decide?

Even the OP used the term 'starting'. If it were BIAS that counted it actually might have started to increase quite a few days ago (but unlikely 16, of course). I doubt any number of eggs is going to make any difference to finding the queen, as seems to be the poster's concern.

I would normally consider the number of workers as the 'strength' of the colony. You do it differently to most, it seems?
 
I have a new home grown queen who is doing very well. At what stage am I OK to mark her...
Australian research found introductions were more successful if a queen was left in the mating hive 28 or 35 days after emerging. In ideal mating weather I'd take that as a reasonable minimum of her being established enough not to be bothered by disturbance. That would be when she's producing hormones in quantity and she should also be fat enough to spot more easily. Most of us don't have the pressure of commercial queen production so if she's taken two or three weeks to mate I'd add that on too. You will also be pretty sure by then she's laying well and has a cohort of healthy workers emerged..

However, if she's in that hive for the rest of the season, that is not being captured and moved, there's little advantage in searching hard for a queen even that early. Carry a pen and cage, if you spot her anyway, mark but don't worry if she's not marked until spring.
 
Thanks everyone for your helpful replies, even Rab who I see is still having his love affair with semantics....... yes by increase I meant "increasing soon". :icon_204-2:
 
Amazing how a time line can change ones views.

Not only the number of bees dying off, but also those that claim numbers are inclusive of all the brood in a colony (but , of course, no response from that claimant -I wonder why? Could it be a connection of both ends?).

Semantics, dates and thinking are all part of beekeeping on a forum such as this. There might be a lot out there thinking 'what a plonker' reading your post; they might be thinking what a load of plonkers replying if they all agree with such an untruth.

I often think that when I read the replies from certain members who continually spout rubbish as though they are knowledgeable and should be taken notice of. Beginners are led up the garden path by inaccuracies. Makes beekeeping seem so difficult when really itvix a simple affair.

So have you decided to follow MM's advice? Actually learning how to spot the queen would have been a far better thread, IMO. Now when was your datum point for comparison of numbers? Was it at A/S, time of introduction, time of starting to lay? All those comparisons will give different numbers, so different cross-over points. They are not important; MM's advice was pertinent. Time after starting to lay, nothing else.
 
Not only the number of bees dying off, but also those that claim numbers are inclusive of all the brood in a colony (but , of course, no response from that claimant -I wonder why? Could it be a connection of both ends?).

Not worth the effort, RAB, but since you're explicitly and somewhat condescendingly wondering why I didn't reply, I'll enlighten you.

Your inference that brood is not part of the colony seemed pretty ludicrous. My post was merely pointing out your slip.

Next post, however, you changed it to
I would normally consider the number of workers as the 'strength' of the colony. You do it differently to most, it seems?

Goalposts RAB. You set up a straw man. I never argued that brood was part of the strength of the colony. Only that it was part of the colony.

Read, mate. Read.
 
Point taken.

I will try to be even more precise for the pedants who dont just consider the precise context given in the thread.

Doubtless, if I had counted eggs, larvae and capped brood you would have come along and spouted 'not in context'. Can't win 'em all with some.

By the way, have you come down off the fence yet, as your response of 'dunno' must have been viewed as really useful addition to the thread?
 
Not at all.

It was a surprising slip, given that you are usually so very precise and pedantic - which is why I mentioned it at all.

I was never on the fence. I with you agree about the strength of the colony, and that that is the pertinent issue. My "Dunno" was part of the questions that followed, seeking to clarify your opinions on brood.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top