Raising Bigger Queens. With thanks to the Apiarist

[JamezF]

suggesting? thinking out loud, by what I can see from a quick look at the article, he doesn't say much about bigger being better, in fat at one point he sdays that small queen are as good, he talks more about fecundity and egg laying capabilities rather than size

Perhaps in one of the other articles in the series, he talks about larger queens being produced from larger eggs and the larger queens being more fecund because there is more space in their abdomen for storing sperm and producing eggs.

James

 

[jarmo henttu]

Perhaps in one of the other articles in the series, he talks about larger queens being produced from larger eggs and the larger queens being more fecund because there is more space in their abdomen for storing sperm and producing eggs.

James

James. Do you think that you do not have now big enough queens?

All reared qurens are crafted. Do you think that sold queen are small and they should be bigger?

 

[BeeKeyPlayer]

I read these four posts when they appeared. Then I read them again more recently. Then I made notes summarising the main points of each.

In addition to the main thrust of the articles, there's also a lot of general info about queen rearing which was a useful refresher. But when Esther (my wife) heard about the queen laying larger eggs, she said, How on earth can any creature do that?

David Evans sums up the maternal effect in one sentence:

'The queen lays larger eggs in queen cells than she lays in worker cells and these develop into larger and heavier queens which, in turn, pass on these desirable traits to their progeny (both workers and queens).'

This is not something he has made up. Anyone who is interested can read the articles and the scientific papers for themselves and make up their own mind about it. I don't think we've anything to lose by engaging with this if we're interested.

And there are some interesting ideas about how a queen might lay larger eggs at certain times, both in David's posts and in some of the comments.

 

[jarmo henttu]

I read these four posts when they appeared. Then I read them again more recently. Then I made notes summarising the main points of each.

In addition to the main thrust of the articles, there's also a lot of general info about queen rearing which was a useful refresher. But when Esther (my wife) heard about the queen laying larger eggs, she said, How on earth can any creature do that?

David Evans sums up the maternal effect in one sentence:

'The queen lays larger eggs in queen cells than she lays in worker cells and these develop into larger and heavier queens which, in turn, pass on these desirable traits to their progeny (both workers and queens).'

This is not something he has made up. Anyone who is interested can read the articles and the scientific papers for themselves and make up their own mind about it. I don't think we've anything to lose by engaging with this if we're interested.

And there are some interesting ideas about how a queen might lay larger eggs at certain times, both in David's posts and in some of the comments.

A queen lays 2000 eggs a day and then it gets into maind to lay ten 13% bigger eggs

 

[BeeKeyPlayer]

A queen lays 2000 eggs a day and then it gets into maind to lay ten 13% bigger eggs

That's what my wife said.

 

[JamezF]

James. Do you think that you do not have now big enough queens?

All reared qurens are crafted. Do you think that sold queen are small and they should be bigger?

What has any of that got to do with the reality of queens laying larger eggs in larger cells that in turn develop into larger queens?

Or are you not very subtly trying to build a straw man because you've realised that it could be true?

James

 

[JamezF]

A queen lays 2000 eggs a day and then it gets into maind to lay ten 13% bigger eggs

She doesn't "get into mind" at all. No more than she "gets into mind" to not fertilise an egg that she's laying in a cell that is slightly larger than a normal worker cell.

In fact, there's a nice example. If it is possible for a queen to react to the size of a cell by fertilising or not fertilising the egg laid in it (a process that is fairly well understood, albeit still quite astonishing), why should it not be possible to lay a slightly larger egg in a queen cell that is a little larger than usual?

James

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

the reality of queens laying larger eggs in larger cells

in that case why doesn't the queen lay fertilised eggs in comb made larger for drones or on drone foundation?

 

[JamezF]

in that case why doesn't the queen lay fertilised eggs in comb made larger for drones or on drone foundation?

Who knows? Perhaps because they're horizontal?

James

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

jenter cages and the likes aren't

 

[JamezF]

jenter cages and the likes aren't

Perhaps the biological decision-making is more complex then. Say

< 5.5mm = fertilised egg
>= 5.5mm and < 7mm = unfertilised egg
> 7mm and < 9mm = fertiised egg
>= 9mm = large fertilised egg

(I'm guessing at 9mm because I can't recall the actual number. It might be 9.5mm or something.)

But this is all a bit silly. Arguing that something can't happen because you don't believe it can in the face of research showing that it does is ridiculous. If you're that certain, find and read the paper(s) and then demonstrate how they're flawed.

James

 

[jarmo henttu]

She doesn't "get into mind" at all. No more than she "gets into mind" to not fertilise an egg that she's laying in a cell that is slightly larger than a normal worker cell.

In fact, there's a nice example. If it is possible for a queen to react to the size of a cell by fertilising or not fertilising the egg laid in it (a process that is fairly well understood, albeit still quite astonishing), why should it not be possible to lay a slightly larger egg in a queen cell that is a little larger than usual?

James

How much it makes drone eggs with that method... in fact, as you say

Not fertilizing --) drone in the worker cell

I do not believe you

 

[JamezF]

I do not believe you

Then your reasoning is clouded. Whether you believe me or not isn't remotely relevant. Believe the research or show where it is wrong.

James

 

[jarmo henttu]

Then your reasoning is clouded. Whether you believe me or not isn't remotely relevant. Believe the research or show where it is wrong.

James

I am master of science in biology and I have nursed many strains of bees.

I do not need to convince you, are you wrong or not.

The issue, what we are now handling, where we need this kind knowledge. Englishmen want nurse their miracle original black mongrels.

Russians have too " pure black bees", but DNA studies show that "Pure" stocks have 30% other race genes.

In last years I found that Buckfast queens were too good layers. My back cannot stand such honey towers.
And then after 2 generation they we not any more Buckfasts. They became Mongrel Italians.

Why to debate about royal eggs' weigh or limits of laying. Nothing practical value.
Only blood pressure rises.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

But this is all a bit silly. Arguing that something can't happen because you don't believe it can in the face of research showing that it does is ridiculous. If you're that certain, find and read the paper(s) and then demonstrate how they're flawed.

have you done that then? No need to chuck insults around just because someone has dared question the writings of the apiarist who some hold in such great thrall. I thought the whole purpose of discussion was to probe and iron out any doubts. Or are we all supposed to take it as gospel just because you say we should?

 

[JamezF]

have you done that then? No need to chuck insults around just because someone has dared question the writings of the apiarist who some hold in such great thrall. I thought the whole purpose of discussion was to probe and iron out any doubts. Or are we all supposed to take it as gospel just because you say we should?

Apologies if you have assumed that my last paragraph was targeted at you. It was intended to be a broader response to save me having to start another post. I had a feeling that it might have been the wrong choice at the time.

Yes, I have read the papers. At least, the Yu and Wei ones that are specifically related to the egg size vs. cell size question because I had no idea that egg size could vary beyond the natural variance you'd see anyhow. One possible criticism I have is that the Wei paper assumes that the behaviour with plastic cups will be the same as with a natural queen cell, but as Yu appears to have started with natural queen cells then it's most likely a fairly weak criticism. Another is that Wei appears to have assumed that only measuring the number of ovarioles in the right ovary provides an adequate representation of the number of ovarioles overall. That may be justified in his references, which I haven't read. Or it may be something considered so obvious to anyone working in a field where the paper might be of interest that it didn't seem worth mentioning. Or, indeed, it may have been something assumed that shouldn't have been.

I fail to see what the content of the papers has to do with David Evans at all. He didn't do the research. All he's doing is summarising it and suggesting what it might mean to beekeepers generally and how it might be used. He's utterly irrelevant to the question of the validity of the science.

And no, I'm not for a moment saying that you should take the science as gospel because I say you should. I'm saying that someone has done the work, come up with results that are highly unlikely to have occurred by chance, written it all up and provided access to all their data, and therefore there's good reason to believe them unless it's possible to demonstrate how the research was flawed.

James

 

[JamezF]

I am master of science in biology and I have nursed many strains of bees.

But earlier in this thread you said:

But this saga, how to get bigger eggs and bigger queens , it is not true.

It is in genes how big queens you get.

which looks like it is not the case based on published research, and

How the queen can make bigger eggs for the queen cell cap?

Suggesting that you didn't know they could (until you searched for it in google).

So what are we to understand from your attempt at brow-beating with your claimed qualifications?

James

 

[Erichalfbee]

So what are we to understand from your attempt at brow-beating with your claimed qualifications?

I don’t think Finny is brow beating. His English has always been pretty abrupt and direct.

 

[mbc]

The idea that successive generations of grafted queens could get smaller is quite scary, thankfully it doesn't appear to be particularly true on a practical level.

 

[jarmo henttu]

The idea that successive generations of grafted queens could get smaller is quite scary, thankfully it doesn't appear to be particularly true on a practical level.

Yes, three levels in beekeeping, practical and theoretical and scientic.

Nothing have shown that honeybees are becoming bigger or smaller. At least combs are same size.

Beekeepers do not even know, how much workers weigh or how many bees are in a swarm kilo.

What I know beekeeping countries, Australians do practical science which serve honey production.