Snelgrove II vs. Supersedure (?)

[boywonder]

Snelgrove II dilemma - thoughts on a postcard, please.

So, I have a 'green queen' (into her 3rd season), who has been continuing to lay well, with the colony becoming very strong. All things being equal, I might either expect supersedure later in the season, and, failing that would have planned to requeen, in order for the colony to go into the winter with a young queen.

Anyhow, last weekend, I saw sure signs of swarming preparations commencing, so decided to perform a Snelgrove II split - horizontally, and with the queen and the main body of the colony being moved c.a. 5m away for the first manipulation.

I'm going to do the second manipulation on Tuesday, at day 9, but took a sneak peek today - not least as I was curious, this being my first Snelgrove II.

The box on the original site has made the expected EQCs, and the other box has torn down to the nascent swarm cells (mostly in classic locations at the edge/bottom of the frame).

The green queen was present and laying, but - quel domage ! - I now have what are almost certainly supersedure cells. There are 2 only, in the middle of one frame, and have been made since I did the split.

So, what to do at Day 9 ??.... Take those down, and just move the queen back, as planned ? Or move the frame with the (probable) supersedure cells back across with her ?

My heart says the latter, especially as the fact that the foragers at the original location have gone into EQ mode is supposed to have switched off their swarming urge anyhow... But my head is telling me to be brutal and stick to plan A - in which case, as long as the queen is laying, they can make some more supersedure cells, should they choose. Hmmmmm. Advice, please.

 

[jeff33]

Put the cells in a nuc as an insurance and do the planned manipulation.

 

[drex]

Position of cells is no reliable indicator of the bees intent. The number of cells is, I believe, a bit more reliable.
Going through a colony yesterday there was a sealed, large QC , right in the middle of a comb, queen seen, eggs seen, no other queen cells. Fair bit of chalk brood in the colony.
I just left them to it, but if the signs were not so clear I would have banked the queen for security, and then left them to it. Let's see.

 

[boywonder]

Position of cells is no reliable indicator of the bees intent. The number of cells is, I believe, a bit more reliable.

Agreed

I just left them to it, but if the signs were not so clear I would have banked the queen for security, and then left them to it.

Also understand - but herein is my dilemma. As I'm mid manipulation, I can't just leave them to it. HM has to go back to the original box tomorrow. I can't 'bank' HER, as such... So it then is more a question of what to do with said cells. Options:
1) Bank the cells and move Queen as planned - per Jeff33
2) Take the cells back to the original box with the Queen (which I personally speculate is a low risk ??)
3) Tear the cells down and move Queen as planned
4) Move Queen, but leave cells in situ

So, 4) is out, as the technique breaks down, as the then queenless box might not be inclined to make EQCs. Also, if the cells are swarm cells, I may, I guess, lose bees to the first VQ if she casts ?? All very confusing/messy.

3) Is the default "hands over the ears" position, and ignores the impulses currently driving the bees - but will undoubtedly be OK

I think I'm between 1) and 2).... Jeff33 maybe sets out a good insurance policy. Really the issue possibly less about the success of the Snelgrove II (I have every faith) but maybe more about managing the probable supersedure.

Even in Jeff's approach, if they have decided to supersede, they will then just make brand new supersedure cells in the original box (in addition to the ones I've banked)... Which is wonderful if I want lots of Queens this year, but I'm not sure I do. Famous last words.

On balance, though, I think I will bank the cells.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

tear down the cells and stick to the plan

 

[Boston Bees]

As I'm mid manipulation, I can't just leave them to it. HM has to go back to the original box tomorrow.

Is there actually a need to do the final part of "Snelgrove II" in normal circumstances?

The queen is in the artificial swarm, with the queen cells torn down as you say. All fine.

The original hive has raised emergency cells to replace her. You can just select one of those emergency cells and let it emerge? Also all fine.

So I wouldn't say that you should feel duty bound to complete the Snelgrove II manipulation and return the queen to the original stand? That final bit of Wally Shaw's method feels like an unnecessary (and risky to the queen, if done wrong) faff.

You have an issue with the supercedure cell of course, but that is a separate decision that can be addressed as you would in any other hive.

 

[jeff33]

2 is defo not an option as you made a split because they wanted to swarm. If you put the queen and cells back in, the flyers may/will see that as another opportunity to swarm.

I suggested to bank the cells as your queen is 3 years old and still around which makes me think that she could potentially be a good one to have a few daughters of...although you are the only one that know her history.

Yes you are right, if you put the queen back and they want to swarm or supercede they will still make cells. At this stage I would personally go for Drex option of removing the queen and leaving them to it with 1 cell.

 

[jeff33]

Is there actually a need to do the final part of "Snelgrove II" in normal circumstances?

The original hive has raised emergency cells to replace her. You can just select one of those emergency cells and let it emerge? Also all fine.

Yes there is because your original hive has only older flyers. By the time an EQ emerge, mates and starts laying they will have passed their sell by date and may not able to look after the young brood.

 

[Boston Bees]

Yes there is because your original hive has only older flyers. By the time an EQ emerge, mates and starts laying they will have passed their sell by date and may not able to look after the young brood.

OK, I always leave a frame or two of brood in the original hive with nurse bees on it, which solves that problem, but I admit this probably breaks some other Wally Shaw rule

 

[drex]

Getting too complicated for my poor old brain, but what's wrong with banking the " supercedure " cell and then carry on as per Wally?
Earlier in season I decided to unite two colonies with poor buildup. Rather than kill the redundant queen I put her in a 3 frame nuc. With the reduced space she perked up, was transferred to. 6 frame nucs and yesterday into a full National. She is laying great guns. So given the right size box and adequate support staff she was not failing at all

 

[jeff33]

Getting too complicated for my poor old brain, but what's wrong with banking the " supercedure " cell and then carry on as per Wally?

I think that's what he has settled on.... after arguing with himself for a few hours by the look of things

 

[drex]

If you intend to be greedy and bank both supercedure cells, if possible to separate them I would only put one into each nuc, otherwise destroy one.

 

[boywonder]

Thanks both / all

 

[mikepetty]

I would normally swear by Snelgrove II (Wally Shaw), but this year it has let me down a few times, with the box with the Q carrying on with swarming preparations and actually going on to swarm on two occasions.



The issue as I see it that pretty much all the swarm-control techniques that split the colony, whatever name you use for the method and with the Q in this box or that, all rely on the flying bees from the box in the new location going back to the box in the original location and depleting the box in the new location of many of its bees. However, with the weather that we have had recently, the bees have not been going out foraging. So, the process of bleeding flying bees from one box to the other has not worked anywhere near as well as it should.