Dr.P Stoffen queens

[Jimmy]

Begs the question why all the breeders advertise them as "breeder queens". Care to explain why they do that and not use "the correct nomenclature"??

Good question Mr Wuhan Flue!!!!

 

[B+.]

Begs the question why all the breeders advertise them as "breeder queens". Care to explain why they do that and not use "the correct nomenclature"??

Quite simply, it is dumbed down. It is imprecise though. That is why I explained the correct nomenclature earlier. As you can see, in a chart consisting only of queens, you have to have a way of identifying the use being made of a particular queen and it's position in the hierarchy.
Since this is the queen breeding forum, it is appropriate to use the correct breeding nomenclature.

 

[Beefriendly]

Quite simply, it is dumbed down. It is imprecise though. .

It might not have dawned on you, but most of us practical beekeepers are not really interested in your "correct" nomencular. Nor are we interested in your determination to self enforce it. When you and your breeding group are ready to actually sell your "amazing" queens ...please let us know.
Then you can call them anything you want.

 

[B+.]

It might not have dawned on you, but most of us practical beekeepers are not really interested in your "correct" nomencular. Nor are we interested in your determination to self enforce it. When you and your breeding group are ready to actually sell your "amazing" queens ...please let us know.
Then you can call them anything you want.

So be it...but there are others who aren't so stuck in their ways

 

[B+.]

Breeder queens are simply what I call the station/Island mated queens that I use to breed all my F1 open mated stock queens from. <snip>

To satisfy my curiosity, would you still consider your open mated queens "Buckfasts"?

 

[Ian123]

To satisfy my curiosity, would you still consider your open mated queens "Buckfasts"?

I consider mine Buckfast F1

 

[Beefriendly]

To satisfy my curiosity, would you still consider your open mated queens "Buckfasts"?

Yes....any queens generated from station/island mated Buckfast queens are still Buckfast, their offspring (drones excepted) however are not.
It,s the next generation where the manure hits the fan.

 

[B+.]

I consider mine Buckfast F1

Indeed they are...but would you consider using one as a 2a dam (to produce daughter queens from)?
Let me give you an example of what I'm trying to get at. If I open mated one of my carnica, the haploid drones would be 100% carnica - sons of the queen, but without genetic input from drones produced by any other queen. A 1a daughter is also 100% carnica - but once open mated, the workers she lays are 50% carnica on average. The diploid females (queens and workers), become progressively more mixed each generation (unless they happened to mate with carnica drones). That is why I recommend open mated daughters primarily as production queens but also as drone mothers. This is how superior genes can be transferred to colonies that are nasty stinging mongrels. I would never use one to produce 1a virgin queens and I wouldn't use successive generations at all. I would always re-queen them.
This is why it is useful to use the reference on an ancestry diagram to indicate which queen we're talking about

 

[B+.]

Yes....any queens generated from station/island mated Buckfast queens are still Buckfast, their offspring however are not.
It,s the next generation where the manure hits the fan.

Their drones are. It's the diploid castes that are not

 

[B+.]

I would be very interested in the experiences of anyone that has purchased these German queens. Thanks in advance.

Returning to the OP's question.
I tried them for a couple of years (many years ago). I even did a parallel test of 3 groups side by side in the same apiary.
Group 1 contained sister queens from Peter Stoffen
Group 2 contained carnica from Torfhaus mountain mating station
Group 3 contained carnica from Neuwerk island mating station.

Groups 2 & 3 were pretty consistent with other members in the group but group 3 was superior in docility.
Group 1 was inconsistent. The majority were similar in production to the carnica but one outshone them all - until it swarmed. The honey production from that one colony was almost double that of any other colony in the test. However, this made it troublesome because I had to devote far more time to managing it. Eventually, and perhaps predictably, I missed a cell and it swarmed. They were quite docile bees though. I you want a massive population, these are the bees for you - but it does have management implications.

 

[B+.]

a tested queen represents a years work for a breeder/tester so it makes sense that they are more expensive than ordinary queens. It is strange that so many people seem to want them as they have neither the knowledge/means to use them in a breeding programme. In any case, you will learn far more about a queens capabilities if you test them yourself than you would by buying a tested queen.

There seems to be a perception that breeders develop and test queens to sell to beekeepers.
The truth is, unsurprisingly, that the best queens are always/only kept for further breeding work and those that don't make the grade are offered for sale.
Think about it. Why would a breeder sell his best stock and leave himself with inferior queens?
Another thing I've seen is queens being sold as "breeder" queens without any record of their ancestry, or what to expect from the line. I've seen queens being sold as "breeding" stock with nothing more than white stickers on the cage to denote what the 1a queen was mated with.

You might ask why am I telling you this? It's so you won't be taken advantage of. A reputable breeder will be able to provide you with a full ancestry chart and performance/breeding values for each queen on the chart. If he/she can't/won't do that...walk away!