What is happening to our queens

[Repwoc]

Doesn't help if you're working hard to form a pack of decent utility hard running foxhounds then someone comes along and chucks a poodle into the kennels

Weren't they both 'created' by man? Perhaps we should ban all dogs bred by man too.

 

[For want of a better word]

It seems that some people are against the very concept of selection. I don't see how they can be against controlled mating while, at the same time, talking about improvement. It doesn't make sense.

Very true
Improvement for some is to buy in something someone else says is good.
Simple selection of the best, controlling mating .... and improving their stock, seem far too complicated.
But if beekeepers in an area could work together we could all benefit..... then one goes and chucks in a cockerpoo as they have heard someone else saying it is good!


Vicious circle!

Chons da

 

[B+.]

Very true
Improvement for some is to buy in something someone else says is good.
Simple selection of the best, controlling mating .... and improving their stock, seem far too complicated.
But if beekeepers in an area could work together we could all benefit..... then one goes and chucks in a cockerpoo as they have heard someone else saying it is good!


Vicious circle!

Chons da

You'd have to really trust the word of someone to buy something solely on their word. Have you ever done that? I have. I bought 2 queens last year solely on the word of another breeder. You see, even though we have a reliable, consistent and comparable method of assessing stock (breeding values), it still comes down to knowing who you trust. Of course, I will test the queen (one wasn't accepted during introduction) but, this is after I bought them.

 

[Fusion_power]

I will test the queen (one wasn't accepted during introduction) but, this is after I bought them.

Is this a version of "Trust but verify"?

As beekeepers, we can do far more to produce quality queens than is shown with most bought in queens. I like Jay Smith's approach of quality at every step. This includes culling of any newly mated queens that don't measure up.

 

[B+.]

Is this a version of "Trust but verify"?

As beekeepers, we can do far more to produce quality queens than is shown with most bought in queens. I like Jay Smith's approach of quality at every step. This includes culling of any newly mated queens that don't measure up.

No. Not at all. I only meant that the performance test is part of the protocol we follow for every queen to gather the data upon which the breeding values rely. I trusted his recommendation to buy the queens even before I knew anything about the line (He's taught me a lot about breeding so I respect his opinion).

 

[Hebeegeebee]

Back to the original post - there are two apsects which might or might not have the same cause.

One is poor mating and queens being superceded or failing - this might usually happen in the year of mating. it might be caused by too few drones or it might just be because the weather was rubbish. Queens could start to lay drone brood in spring and be superceded.

The other is queens disappearing or just ceasing to lay. This is something I saw some 8 or 10 years ago in spring - a queen would be fine and then a week or two later there would be no open brood and the queen present or the queen would not be around at all; with no queencells bing produced.

Might this phenomenon be caused by nosema C or diseases caused by drones, weakened by varroa-vectored viruses, which had passed disease onto the queens? Both of these are 'new' problems for bees to deal with. I have not kept bees for long enough to know if the situation is different now that before varroa or nosema ceranae were amongst our stocks. Can anyone advise?

 

[citrus]

bit late to this party ....and just re-read this article

http://www.dave-cushman.net/bee/queenperformanceproblems.html
I guess from my point I am trying to identify things I should try this year as I went backwards last year and lost 3 colonies.......

So given I have only two overwintering colonies I plan to increase again (aim for at least 4 nuc's this season) to try and to cater for the 'failing queens' by just playing the percentage game so I at least end up with some increase this year.

I have the kit .....so no reason not to try it.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

Another reason I don't dip into Cushman's site as often as I used to - it's now just packed with Patterson's opinion
People have been banging on about this for years but the consensus is (by what I have heard and read) is that there is very little hard evidence of it.
Went to a 'workshop' on the subject a few years ago at the spring convention, the only thing I can remember about it was the speaker whittering on about hormones and his nephew going to college, coming back one day and was now his niece and a bunch of the usual 'Master' beekeepers holding their own little smug enclave in another corner and butting in with their opinions every other sentence on everything but the subject matter in hand.

 

[B+.]

Another reason I don't dip into Cushman's site as often as I used to - it's now just packed with Patterson's opinion
People have been banging on about this for years but the consensus is (by what I have heard and read) is that there is very little hard evidence of it.
Went to a 'workshop' on the subject a few years ago at the spring convention, the only thing I can remember about it was the speaker whittering on about hormones and his nephew going to college, coming back one day and was now his niece and a bunch of the usual 'Master' beekeepers holding their own little smug enclave in another corner and butting in with their opinions every other sentence on everything but the subject matter in hand.

I thought it was just me. It's good to see others have the same opinion.
Dave Cushmans website used to be a good source of unbiased, occasionally quite technical, information. Since his death, it's become a shadow of its former self - more a blog than a reference site.

 

[citrus]

Another reason I don't dip into Cushman's site as often as I used to - it's now just packed with Patterson's opinion
People have been banging on about this for years but the consensus is (by what I have heard and read) is that there is very little hard evidence of it.
Went to a 'workshop' on the subject a few years ago at the spring convention, the only thing I can remember about it was the speaker whittering on about hormones and his nephew going to college, coming back one day and was now his niece and a bunch of the usual 'Master' beekeepers holding their own little smug enclave in another corner and butting in with their opinions every other sentence on everything but the subject matter in hand.

TBH - I use this site a lot more ...and maybe I am just looking for excuses for my bad year in 2020 !

Anyway .... I should be wary of splits that start to fail - I think I left nuc's last year too long waiting on a queen to 'get into gear'

 

[Wilco]

I've got a few thoughts (not researched) on this topic. I'm a vet so have covered a little bit of genetics and reproduction including in production systems and a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. From this:

1. In cattle, the genes for milk production and fertility are linked (when you select for one, you are likely to select for the other). In cattle, selection for increased milk production is inversely linked to fertility. As we have selected for genes increasing milk output, fertility has declined. Could something similar be occurring with bees selected for increased production- whether this is in terms of queen laying prolificacy or increased individual nectar gathering capability/frugality?

2. In mammals, the number of eggs a female has in her ovaries is generally determined prior to birth; there are a finite number. Mammals are unlikely to get through their whole supply before they reach an age where they stop being reproductively active. Could bees have a similar setup where the queen has a finite number of eggs she could lay. However, as bees are more prolific and we continue to select for more prolific bees (i.e. more laid per day), then if there is a finite pool, we may reach the point where they just run out of eggs to lay at a younger age than they used to, hence reduced longevity?

3. Sub-lethal effects. When it comes to pesticides and other chemicals (and to be honest, anything that affects wildlife in general), a lot of attention is given to lethal effects, where actions or agents directly kill. However, a much greater and less considered issue is sub-lethal effects where a small amount of the substance is present; not enough to kill the animal but sufficient to reduce their fertility, affect their development or impair their ability to feed (this also occurs with larger animals when predators are around), potentially inducing epigenetic changes. Could sub-lethal effects be responsible for reducing longevity/health of queens?

Probably all completely off track but I have been wondering about this. Drones are still relevant in #1 and #3.

 

[Angry_Mob]

2) I believe a queen has an unlimited ability to produce eggs however if a queen is poorly mated or older the the greater chance is that she would run out of sperm; in which case they will continue to lay unfertilized eggs.

3) Jeff Pettis gave a lecture a few weeks ago for the UBKA; it was titled; Why are Queens Failing? One of the main themes was how chemicals; (particularly fungicides for some reason persist in wax and have a detrimental effect on the queen and the sperm production of the drones.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

Jeff Pettis gave a lecture a few weeks ago for the UBKA; it was titled; Why are Queens Failing? One of the main themes was how chemicals; (particularly fungicides for some reason persist in wax and have a detrimental effect on the queen and the sperm production of the drones.

But the common theme on all these talks has been theories, not fact

 

[masterBK]

In my limited experience I find there is often a correlation between queens failing and a several weeks of poor weather around the time they got mated. Supersedure queens that mate in late summer sometimes fail maybe a shortfall in drones at that time of year?

 

[Angry_Mob]

But the common theme on all these talks has been theories, not fact

Actually getting my wires crossed, it was the talk by Juliana Rangel. She has done different studies on this, one being: Exposure to pesticides during development negatively affects honey bee (Apis mellifera) drone sperm viability

Jeff's talk was the Impact of Pesticides on Bees which he mentioned the subject and its on Thursday 18th at 20:00 hes giving the lecture "Why are Queens Failing?" which seems very relevant to this thread. If anyone is interested you can register at this link: Welcome! You are invited to join a webinar: Why are Queens Failing?. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email about joining the webinar.

 

[beeno]

2) I believe a queen has an unlimited ability to produce eggs however if a queen is poorly mated or older the the greater chance is that she would run out of sperm; in which case they will continue to lay unfertilized eggs.

Nutrition and warmth amongst other things determines how many ovarioles develop within a queen and thus how fertile she is.

 

[Nige.Coll]

David r tarpy is worth catching, he does talks on problems with queens. Juliana Rangel has worked with him.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=david+r+tarpySome of his talks there.
He delivered a good talk for CBKA this week.

I don't seem to suffer with too many queen problems ( touch wood), they seem to last for the 2 or 3 years I keep them. Oldest one got to 5 nice queen just became very swarmy.
They seem to mate well enough as I flood the area with drones. I have apiaries over about 7 miles locally.
I do change comb regularly and I only use OA sublimation for varroa now.
Tried apivar a couple of years ago but the bees refused to rebuild the comb where the strips had been so that put me off it.

A guy to the south has a carniolan queen rearing program going.
To the east a beefarmer that believes the nastier the bees the more honey they make.
West mainly hobby beekeepers and a couple concentrating on local mongrels but they can't keep them alive long.
North is a beefarmer that keeps Buckfast but buys in queens.
Smack in the middle is me.
Plenty of one or two hive owners dotted around the area also.

 

[rook66]

Another reason I don't dip into Cushman's site as often as I used to - it's now just packed with Patterson's opinion
People have been banging on about this for years but the consensus is (by what I have heard and read) is that there is very little hard evidence of it.
Went to a 'workshop' on the subject a few years ago at the spring convention, the only thing I can remember about it was the speaker whittering on about hormones and his nephew going to college, coming back one day and was now his niece and a bunch of the usual 'Master' beekeepers holding their own little smug enclave in another corner and butting in with their opinions every other sentence on everything but the subject matter in hand.

He seems to have built himself a profile around this problem and got himself on the lecture circuit, I heard him speak/rant a couple of times, on one occasion he referred to beginners as mutton heads which brought a chuckle from a couple of his groupies.

 

[Beesnaturally]

I've only read as far as page 2, so somebody might have made this argument already.

Like all lifeforms bees need to be fitted to their environment. Those that are best fitted will thrive at the expense of those not.

In order to be well fitted to the environment, a selection process needs to happen in which the best fitted in each generation makes the next generation.

I'll say it again, this necessary to all life forms.

To the extent that this is prevented from happening, the health of the local population will decay.

Breeding (which requires a closed environment) can use this understanding to maintain health. This requires an acute ability on the part of the husbandryman to _recognise_ health.

Beekeepers cannot do this. They must trust that open competitive mating locates, on average, better than average drones, and allow the better than average hives to raise more than average numbers of drones.

And they must not interfere through their bees in any way that upsets the natural process.

This management style for local heath obviously conflicts with the desire to maximise crop.

And therein lies the problem. The multiple problems inserted by beekeepers into the local gene pool drag down health. The result is offspring failure.

Bees cannot be treated like pigs or dogs. They need competitive mating to locate health, and that needs a healthy gene pool, and competitive mating producing individuals that are well fitted to the local environment.

All this is simply a statement of the biological realities. It is true regardless of the fact that various poisons, or lack of minerals through poor forage opportunities may well be part of the problem too.

Offspring (queens) will fail in larger numbers to the extent that the basic health-seeking system is broken.

That understanding is the foundation of bee husbandry. If you want to bring in 'healthy' bees, or restrict the brood nest, or treat for varroa, you are part of the reason too many queens fail.

 

[rolande]

He seems to have built himself a profile around this problem and got himself on the lecture circuit, I heard him speak/rant a couple of times, on one occasion he referred to beginners as mutton heads which brought a chuckle from a couple of his groupies.

Remembering his condescending attitude back in the days of the *old* BBKA forum I'm not surprised to learn of your experience.

@Wilco, interesting post coming, as it does, from someone with a background in animal care that's based on science. Sometimes a fresh perspective can throw up useful questions. There is one problem with q.1&2 though because the person who's made the biggest fuss about the poor queens that he rears is a man who's eternal mantra has been to avoid 'prolific bees' which in his opinion is any colony that needs more than a single box national brood chamber.