New queen Every Year = less swarm?

[nepenthes]

I know some people get new queens every year, and this is to keep swarming down, what do you guys think is it really worth it? I could see how it could work if you have less than 5 hives, but more than that it would just get costly. I know their are some methods of switching up the frames as well.

[Michael Bush]

>what do you guys think is it really worth it?

I have much better luck keeping the brood nest open and keeping the queens until they fail or they are superceded:

http://www.bushfarms.com/beesswarmcontrol.htm

Queen longevity:
From "Better Queens" page 18:
http://www.bushfarms.com/beesbetterqueens.htm#Queen%20Alice

    "In Indiana we had a queen we named Alice which lived to the ripe old age of eight years and two months and did excellent work in her seventh year. There can be no doubt about the authenticity of this statement. We sold her to John Chapel of Oakland City, Indiana, and she was the only queen in his yard with wings clipped. This, however is a rare exception. At the time I was experimenting with artificial combs with wooden cells in which the queen laid."--Jay Smith

I would point out that Jay says: "This, however is a rare exception."

I think three years has always been pretty typical of the useful life of a queen.

[Understudy]

I don't replace my queens unless I have a health issue or have lost a queen with no replacement.

I know others who replace them every three years.

Sincerely,
Brendhan

[NWIN Beekeeper]

I think there is a significant point that gets forgotten with requeen yearly.

When a hive swarms it has a new establishment year.
The second year is a build up year.
The third year is a new swarm year again. 

If you are looking for a hive with good honey production, you are shooting yourself in the foot by replacing the queen before she enters the build up year (the time of hording nectar and thereby producing honey).

I maybe wrong, but this is the natural cycle that I observe.

Jeff

[Finsky]

.
I have renewed queens every year 80-90%.
One year old queen is a good layer. When queen has second yield summer, it's ability to lay goes dow. Even good queens become ordinary. Sometimes not.

Changing queens every year do not prevent swarming but makes less swarming. 

New queens are allways surprise every year what they are.

I have found that if good queen does not swarm in first summer, it does often in second summer.

establishment year, build up year, a new swarm year   - I cannot se this in bee nursing. I put swarm it that condition direct after swarming that hive collect normally yield and continues like other hives.

It is quite sure that if you have swarmed queen in hive, you will get one or two swarms next year.

If swarm is small, it is not capable to swarm next year. Poor pastures make that many beekeepers never get swarms. When they have feeded with pollen patty hives, hives become stronger and start to swarm.

Big hives swarm first - that is difficult to accept.


.
.

[Brian D. Bray]

When requeening to prevent swarming the functional life of an otherwise good queen is terminated for not good reason.  the second year is the build up year.  But consider--a hive busy building comb will not swarm if they are kept building comb regardless of the age of the queen.  Stop providing comb building space and the hive will swarm--regardless of the age of the queen.  I'm with MB on this one.

[Apis629]

I have to disagree with Finsky here, I have had one of my queens for comming on 2 years and, she still has the best brood pattern of any of my hives.  Her hive is already in it's build-up and, upon last inspection, had a broodnest already spread out to 8 frames, with three of them filled completely top bar to bottom bar and side bar to side bar.  I only see it necessary to replace my queens if they show signs of disease, develop a poor brood pattern, or become too deffensive.  In most cases, I just let the bees establish their own superceadure queen if it comes to that.

[Finsky]

I have to disagree with Finsky here, I have had one of my queens for comming on 2 years and,

Please do, during my 45 years I have got my own experiences and these are not only mine  :lol:

I like to raise new queens and old may go  the eternity of queens.

[Scadsobees]

Of course then there are the commercially produced queens, those seem to need to be replaced more often since they decline quicker because of chemical usage.

(Disclaimer:  Rule of thumb, generalities, always plenty of exceptions)

[Finsky]

Of course then there are the commercially produced queens, those seem to need to be replaced more often since they decline quicker because of chemical usage.

That is taken from heaven. Not a bit true. Could you mention some chemicals you know in beekeping now and 15 years ago?

[Mici]

what about supercedure? i mean, why bother raising a new queen and stuff if bees are well aware when to change the queen? because you would most probably loose one years yield? and aren't superceeded queens the best?
what special methods do you use raising queens? i mean..i'd most probably just take a queen from a nuc/reserve hive or something...

[Michael Bush]

>>Of course then there are the commercially produced queens, those seem to need to be replaced more often since they decline quicker because of chemical usage.
>That is taken from heaven. Not a bit true.

Actually it's taken from a presentation by Dr. Nancy Ostiguy who teaches Entomology at Penn State.
http://www.ento.psu.edu/Personnel/Faculty/ostiguy.htm

She said she believes the average queen in the US now gets superceded three times a year and that the cause is the build up of fluvalinate and cumaphos in the wax.

This is consistent with reports I'm hearing more and more of failing queens.

> Could you mention some chemicals you know in beekeping now and 15 years ago?

Fluvalinate and cumaphos have been building up in the wax for some time and the amounts continue to increase every year.

[Kirk-o]

I don't like to be ROBOTICAL with my beekeeping the bees are pretty smart.I got through last year with no swarming four hives I started keeping a open brood nest.I decided I would requeen if the queen failed or was superceded if the queen was bad.
I like what Michael Bush says" everything works if you let it" I think if you re-queened to handle swarming it might not work out.
kirk-o

[Finsky]

what about supercedure? i mean, why bother raising a new queen and stuff if bees are well aware when to change the queen? aren't superceeded queens the best?


Selection is a key word in breeding. If bees keep their own queen, it is not selection by beekeeper.  I have left tens of supercedure queens and I  have not been satiefied?

why bother [/quote) Yeah! Why bother at all with bees. Just waste of time.

because you would most probably loose one years yield? and 

HOw that is possible? I  loose the year's yield if swarm escapes. It is only way to loose.

[/quote]what special methods do you use raising queens? i mean..i'd most probably just take a queen from a nuc/reserve hive or something...
[/quote]

If you notice that hive raise queen cells just change the larva from good hive if you have that one. Supercedure in often so late in my country that there is no time to raise queens in that hive from start. It takes 3 weeks that queen is ready to mate.


My aim is strong selection of queens and I keep selection in my hands. That is what I learned when I studied genetics in university. That is basic of whole bee breeding.

If you keep your queens 2-3 years, it is Ok. Nothing magic in it or in my system.

I have 20 hives and 20 mating nucs. I kill about 50% of new queens in mating nucs when I select best. You se that I select allready among new laying queens .  What a waste you say.  If you are going to get 200 lbs honey during 3-4 weeks, queens cannot be what ever.

Beekeepers like to do vain works and then avoid very necessary works. It is called hobby. :-D

.

.

[Mici]

finsky, by "the loss of one years yield" i was aiming at the bad queen, if the queen is no good, she will probably get superceeded to late, that's why the loss of a years yield. am i correct?

hehe finsky, nicely said about hobbyest:D so true. but, when you think of it! inventions are made by lazy people, a hardworking man would not invent the wheel, he'd simply carry the load :mrgreen:

[Finsky]

inventions are made by lazy people,

he he, but not in beekeeping. Everything is allready invented in beekeeping, you know.  Average yield is not rising. New inventions are unessential.

[Understudy]

inventions are made by lazy people,

he he, but not in beekeping. Everything is allready invented in beekeeping, you know.  Average yield is not rising. New inventions are unessential.

If we accepted that we would still be using skreps. :)

Sincerely,
Brendhan

[Finsky]

If we accepted that we would still be using skreps. :)

Top bar is not far from that . In this forum many like 100 years old habits.  8-)

I am considering to by insemination instruments. It would be interesting way to use time. I am 50% retired. I should have time to "control queen matings".  Insemination started about 60 years ago. There are many who do not accept it with bees and use unselected queens. I think that it is one mile stone  in modern beekeeping.

[Mici]

hey finsky. i just found out at least one thing remains to be "invented", and that is making suitable habitation for small arachnets to live in the hive. i just read about them (sorry, can't find any stuff in english) and somewhere in the world they call them "friends of the beekeper". they once lived a simbiotic life with bees but since man had put bees in such "well-made" hives, there are no cracks which would be suitable for them to live in. anyway, they are said to be the worst natural enemy of the varoe mites, although some say they can also over-run a hive. they are 4mm in lenght, if anyone wants i can fotographe the photo and post it.

[Michael Bush]

>suitable habitation for small arachnets to live in the hive

Psuedo scorpions maybe?