supersedure of queens mated from mini nucs

[Jon]

In the March 2014 edition of BBKA News there is an article written by a Rudy Repka, "Small
scale Queen Rearing", page 81:

He claims that queens mated in mini-nucs are often superseded later in the same season.

If he is finding that he is doing something seriously wrong.
The main reason for queens from mini nucs getting superseded is when they are removed too soon.
Ideally they should be allowed to lay for about 3 weeks before removal.
I posted a link in an earlier thread about Australian research from Rhodes and Denney which found that queens should preferably be at least 35 days old

[Rosie]

I usually take mine out after a decent number of pupae are sealed so that I know the queen is laying a good pattern of worker brood. It's probably not quite as long as Jon's 3 weeks but I haven't noticed a problem.

[mbc]

Take the Aussie results with a pinch of salt for our conditions, as all their literature states pretty categorically that the new queens should have layed a comb or two of brood by the time they are first checked about a fortnight after the cells were put out. Unfortunately this has not concurred with my observations here, where, apart from brief windows of high pressure when our bees do sometimes follow timetables from New World beekeeping books, virgins take much longer to mate.
Also, in my experience, queens mated in mini nucs are more likely to be superceded in their first few months than queens mated in full size nucs or colonies. There are various reasons for this IMO, one being that queens mated on full size equipment quite often dont get taken out and introduced elsewhere at all, but for me, there is a difference in the quality of the mating sometimes. It is noticeable that queens in mini nucs will often get going before contemporary queens in larger units, and I think this is obviously down to being under severe pressure to get their virgin mated quickly to have any hope of being viable. This is not to say queens mated in mini nucs will always be inferior, or that mini nucs arent the most economic choice of mating unit, just that IMO, under certain circumstances, a greater proportion of queens mated (hastily) in mini nucs will turn out to be inadequately mated and therefore more likely to be superceded.

[Jon]

I had a queen superseded last August which had mated from an Apidea but it was in its 4th year!

Steve, I find the average mating time for a queen is about 16 days so if you leave the queen in the apidea another couple of weeks you are not far off the recommended time.
There was a fortnight in July last year where eggs were being seen 8 days after the queens emerged. I remember one evening in the queen rearing group that we found about 25 apideas with fresh eggs and the queens were all less than 10 days from emergence.
I still have 3 or 4 colonies headed by queens which mated from apideas in June 2012 and it rained solid all that month. I still can't imagine when they found a blink of good weather to fly and mate. Probably apiary vicinity mating as I get a lot of that.
Marked and clipped so definitely not superseded although you never know what might appear on the first inspection.

[prakel]

...but for me, there is a difference in the quality of the mating sometimes. It is noticeable that queens in mini nucs will often get going before contemporary queens in larger units, and I think this is obviously down to being under severe pressure to get their virgin mated quickly to have any hope of being viable.

Have you noticed any difference in mating times between queens mated from established mini nucs with brood left by a previous queen and those recently made up ones without brood?

Just speculation here (as I don't use the super small boxes) but I wonder if the overall condition of the colony is an issue. I often cringe when I see advice to make up 'weak' nucs for queen mating (far more common than you might imagine), I don't normally comment because I don't want to come across as a total pedant splitting hairs between 'small' and 'weak' but I do wonder if there's often a breakdown in understanding with regards to this terminology. To me, a mating nuc, of whatever size, should be as close to a prosperous colony in minature as I can artificially replicate (which is one of the reasons that I like a minimum of three frames in a nuc).

[mbc]

Have you noticed any difference in mating times between queens mated from established mini nucs with brood left by a previous queen and those recently made up ones without brood?

Just speculation here (as I don't use the super small boxes) but I wonder if the overall condition of the colony is an issue. I often cringe when I see advice to make up 'weak' nucs for queen mating (far more common than you might imagine), I don't normally comment because I don't want to come across as a total pedant splitting hairs between 'small' and 'weak' but I do wonder if there's often a breakdown in understanding with regards to this terminology. To me, a mating nuc, of whatever size, should be as close to a prosperous colony in minature as I can artificially replicate (which is one of the reasons that I like a minimum of three frames in a nuc).

I have prakel, to me it seems to be a sliding scale of effect of mating pressure, from the newly set up apideas being quickest, up to full size colonies taking the longest. Mini nucs on their second round, once they have some brood, seem to be in between.
I wouldnt swear to it mind, once you have an idea of how things might be effected, it is very easy to observe things which seem to fit the theory*. I would agree trying to get mating units as close to a prosperous colony as possible is common sense, though it would be handy to have faster mating there has to be a downside into panicking them into mating early.

* in an ideal world, rigorous record keeping, large enough sample size and suitable controls set up could clinch a theory like this. In the real world, something has to give and it remains an educated guess.

[Jon]

there has to be a downside into panicking them into mating early.

I would call that an unproven theory mbc.
They do seem to mate in a shorter time from mini nucs but whether that is 'panic' or for some other reason, who knows.
I honestly have not seen any drop in quality of queens mated from mini nucs compared to queens mated from nucs or colonies.

[mbc]

I would call that an unproven theory mbc.

I would agree Jon, but dont get me wrong, I believe mini nucs can produce the very best of queens, just that, as with everything it seems in nature, success or otherwise can be graphically displayed as a bell curve, and simply put, my theory is that 'panicking' them into mating earlier than they would do in normal circumstances pushes that bell curve a nudge towards inadequate mating.

[fatshark]

There was some discussion about this last year if I remember … I think gavin suggested that the presence of sealed (?) brood might - for whatever reason - delay mating flights. Two or three years ago I kept mini-nucs going throughout the season and wasn't aware of differences in the speed with which the queen mated - comparing the first round (no brood) and subsequent ones (usually ranging from some remaining brood to packed double-deckers). I suspect the weather is a far greater influence. What I've not done is a side-by-side comparison of mini-nucs +/- brood. What we've probably all done is mini-nucs vs. 3-5 frame nucs, the consensus being that the former are routinely faster. Due to work and holiday commitments I'm expecting to use 3 frame nucs quite a bit more this season - simply because they require less maintenance. If I get the chance/remember I might try parallel boxes with and without brood to see if it makes any difference. This will be gut-feeling and arm waving ... scientifically it will be insignificant. I don't get enough queens mated a season to do this properly.

[Adam]

From my experience of mini-nucs, my plywood mini-nucs which are larger; 'normal' nucs and full hives, mating times of mini-nucs are quickest - the sliding scale, suggested above, dependent on size is about right.

However, in most cases it's just a matter of waiting for the weather to be suitable for the nuptuals.

I don't make the connection with mini-nuc queens being superceded quickly. Although if the mini-nuc is under stress then nosema may play a part - maybe the author of the article has stressy bees?

My biggest concern with mini-nucs is absconding - and that would be the reason why I might chose something bigger.

[Adam]

The other comment about the article is the title. For small scale I was expecting the miller method or something similar. It's not really small scale with grafts and such-like is it? I would think that small scale is 4 or 5 queens which would cover most people's requirements.

[Poly Hive]

FWIW my findings are quite different. From several hundred queens raised in Kirchain units the absconding is not common and as for supercedure, well when I was running those numbers I was using AMM and quite a few superceeded on the heather so whether that was connected with their mating accommodation or not I cannot tell.

PH