Queens - judging signs of quality?

[Finman]

I think RAB illustrates perfectly the lifecycle of man, starting out as an infant and ending like an infant

Is RAB pregnant to himself?

If yes,..... I am interested

 

[beecology]

so, aside from the compulsory interruption, sniping and usual lack of any constructive input, thanks for those who replied in helpful fashion.

For what its worth (any other new beeks asking the same thing), when it comes to selecting which queen to choose (and lose) when uniting, I could have indeed united with both bees in situ and let the colonies sort it out for themselves, selecting the best queen naturally.

In this case, I chose for them and selected the youngest queen of the two (as the old queen swarmed and this was the only thing that really separated them).

Fingers crossed, the uniting works as intended.

 

[Vramin]

At a recent talk by Wally Shaw (technical advisor to the Welsh BKA) he said that there is growing evidence that the quality of a queen cannot be judged from her appearance. Small skinny queens have the same number of all he necessary parts and can perform just as well as big fat juicy ones. It is a human trait to think big is best, but Wally asserts that there is no basis for this bias. He did make it quite clear that this is his experience, and although he alluded to research no-one asked him to elaborate.

A number of other highly experienced beeks have also told me that some of their best, and long-lived, queens were small emergency queens. The number of nurse bees, availability of food, season etc. impacts on the quality of the queen of course, but big is not best by definition.

 

[Bosleeu]

I have also found that bigger is not necessarily better, and have had quite a few "scrub" queens I gave a chance do exceedingly well. I know this doesn't make your decision easier, I think I would go with the younger one like you if I had to choose, unless the older one is perfect.

It is actually very easy to figure out what you meant by the "virgin that started laying". It's a shame to see people being so petty about things like that. Makes them feel important to pick on others I suppose........

Anyway, would be great to hear how it turned out.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

 

[Hawklord]

I would think a queen that has been well fed as a larva would be larger than a scrub queen, indeed Ted Hooper states that a queen with poor genetics and reared properly will out strip a top quality queen that was poorly nurtured. The obvious advantages of a large queen are its inability to slip through a queen excluder and the ease with which it can be found.

 

[Bosleeu]

Agreed bigger queens are definitely easier to find. Queen excluders are as I understand it designed to be too small for the thorax of the queen, and there is normally a very small variation in thoracic size between queens, even though one may have a huge abdomen on her and the other one quite small.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

 

[beecology]

Agreed bigger queens are definitely easier to find. Queen excluders are as I understand it designed to be too small for the thorax of the queen, and there is normally a very small variation in thoracic size between queens, even though one may have a huge abdomen on her and the other one quite small.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

This is the kind of discussion that I began the thread for, constructive and more importantly, interesting

 

[Hawklord]

I had 2 supercedure queens that I pulled earlier this year that were bigger as virgins than any mated queens I've ever seen, I doubt they would fit through a queen excluder even before mating. Does thorax size depend on strain of bee.
I would have thought the best indicator of the queen would be the workers themselves.

 

[Finman]

..
If it does not matter, what queens are, why then professional queen rearers see so much pain to rear thousands of queens every year.

But most hobby beekeepers do not mind what queens they have in hives. Often they keep too old queens.

I discard a queen for outer appearance if it does not seem normal size. Its thorax and head may be almost same size as workers. Then I look carefully that queens leggs are OK. Legs have sometimes faults.

 

[Bosleeu]

..
If it does not matter, what queens are, why then professional queen rearers see so much pain to rear thousands of queens every year.

But most hobby beekeepers do not mind what queens they have in hives. Often they keep too old queens.

I discard a queen for outer appearance if it does not seem normal size. Its thorax and head may be almost same size as workers. Then I look carefully that queens leggs are OK. Legs have sometimes faults.

Agree with what you say, just meant that, as with other things in life, bigger is not ALWAYS better just because it's bigger. Genetics, rearing and mating, along with other things, all play a role.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

 

[Tom Bick]

Providing you are happy with the cell and the way the queen was raised I would go with the young queen. In my experience queens are at their best in the following year.

 

[Finman]

At a recent t

A number of other highly experienced beeks have also told me that some of their best, and long-lived, queens were small emergency queens. The number of nurse bees, availability of food, season etc. impacts on the quality of the queen of course, but big is not best by definition.

Bee races have different size of queens.
Then there are queens, which lay only one langstroth box and others which lay 2 boxes. And same size and race.