Queen cell size

[fatshark]

I've not seen this discussed before and wonder what others think …

We ran a queen rearing practical course on Saturday, with about 8 people doing grafting for the first time. The lighting wasn't great and some were struggling to see suitable sized larvae. In parallel an experienced colleague grafted from a 'sister' frame from the same colony.

My expectation would be that the experienced grafter would choose smaller larvae, whereas the beginners were more likely to choose ones that were a bit too big. The two cell bars went into different "Ben Harden" cell raisers.

I checked the cells again this evening. Take was better by the experienced grafter (~80+% of 18). However, the beginners did reassuring well (~50% of 18). However, all the drawn out cells by the experienced grafter were appreciably shorter. All the cells I looked at were pretty well charged with Royal Jelly, but (again) the lighting wasn't good enough to check the larvae size.

After all that … is cell size an indication of the age of grafted larvae? Could you use this an an indication to choose the youngest larvae which should end up the best fed?

I don't think it's anything to do with too few bees in the box with the higher take. Both are pretty busy.

[mbc]

struggling to see suitable sized larvae.

I always think I've picked larvae that are too old if I can see them clearly.
The differing cell sizes could be down to the cell raisers rather than age of larvae. If you have a bar of queen cells its fairly self evident which ones, if any, should be culled- they will differ from the norm. I usually cull if cells are smaller than their neighbours or look malformed in any way, some breeders "candle" their cells but I've not learnt the trick.

[Jon]

I would agree with MBC. The difference is probably something to do with the cell raiser colony rather than the size of the larva selected.

[fatshark]

OK, I'll check them every day and see if there's a difference in when they're sealed.

Although it's not 'candling' a commercial friend of mine always uses JzBz cups. By holding near to emerging cells against the light he can tell - through the semi-translucent base of the cup - which have ample jelly left. Those that don't he discards, reasoning that they haven't been well fed.

[prakel]

Joe Latshaw makes some worthwhile observations on larvae size in his pdf 'Queen Rearing Basics' (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CC8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Flatshawapiaries.com%2Fuploads%2Fq ueen-rearing-basics.pdf&ei=Q0FxU-_HAsaEOLOEgYAI&usg=AFQjCNFWGiUfLn0svW5jS9SsCp63TKARlA&sig2=OETcopyoMgPbgwyVTn3QoA&bvm=bv.66330100,d.ZWU)I reckon that this is one of those should-read documents for anyone starting raising queens of their own.

[prakel]

Although it's not 'candling' a commercial friend of mine always uses JzBz cups. By holding near to emerging cells against the light he can tell - through the semi-translucent base of the cup - which have ample jelly left. Those that don't he discards, reasoning that they haven't been well fed.

There's a theory which I've come across somewhere in the past that not removing the cell after emergence helps to stabilise the colony while the virgin is waiting to mate by allowing the remains of the jelly to be fed back into the colony. No, I don't have any references to research on the subject, it's just 'stuff' that I've heard mentioned but I suppose that if there is anything in the idea then the more jelly left in the vacated cell the better.

[fatshark]

Thanks prakel … I see that Latshaw makes a similar case as my bee farmer friend re. amount of jelly left.

Re. stabilising the colony … not heard that one. When using mini-nucs I always remove the vacated cell the day after emergence (just so it doesn't get all jammed up) - they've usually been cleaned out by then though.

[prakel]

It's not something I'd give a great deal of credence to but I am a bit of an anorak when it comes to these off the wall ideas -you never know when they'll start tying in with other things. Personally I tend to leave the cell initially but that's simply because it's just a bit of wax mounted on a small stick, hardly a priority.

[fatshark]

Thought I should close this thread off by reporting the final size of the sealed cells. mbc was spot on … the cell raiser that started making smaller cells carried on the same way. The final cell size was extremely small, maybe 1cm beyond the end of the JzBz cup. The take was great, actually 16/18, but they all look like scrub cells. In comparison, the other cell raiser generated 'standard' sized sealed cells.

[Jon]

You can often get a decent sized queen out of an average looking cell.
I have just bought an incubator and I guess you can let the virgins emerge and then make the judgement whether to discard a small queen as opposed to judging just on cell size alone.

[Mellifera Crofter]

... you can let the virgins emerge and then make the judgement whether to discard a small queen ..
Does queen size really matter, Jon? Is it an indication of how she might perform?
Kitta

[Jon]

I don't worry much about the size of the queen unless it is really tiny. A poor cell can produce a queen no bigger than a worker.
There is a perception though that big is better and if you sell queens people are likely to complain if they are smallish.

[Kate Atchley]

Very interesting thread. Thanks.

Q1: Came online to ask about queen cell size when choosing them from Q rearing frame. What exactly is regarded as "standard size" for instance? Do those of you who rear lots of queens routinely discard those you think are too small and, if so, what size are they? They look so different from natural cells where much of the depth is beneath the drawn comb so it can be hard to compare.

Q2: I was away for a few days and a fellow beekeeper forgot to remove the slide from the Cloake board I'd left in place while cells were being accepted. The resulting 'take' and queen cell sizes look fairly good but do others have experience of whether is really makes a difference to the Q cells/feeding if the slide is removed, as is recommended?

[Jon]

If you have enough nurse bees and the nutrition is good the cells will likely be ok but they may well have been better in a queenright situation.
I am using a queenless starter colony at the moment and I move them to a queen right setup 24-48 hours later. Sometimes I don't get around to moving the cells and they are capped in the starter colony and these cells have been fine.
It is a strong starter unit though, A Paynes nuc with 6 frames in the bottom part and 5 frames of bees plus the frame of grafts in the top so it is a full 11 frame colony.

[fatshark]

I've spent the last two days in front of an observation hive with a small dark queen in it. I lost count of the number of people who said something like "She's a lot smaller than I expected". Admittedly these weren't beekeepers making the comments. Although it wasn't clear on the frame I chose to display, she had laid a fantastic wall to wall slab of brood on other frames in the box and looked like a very good queen. In comparison to some queens she was small, so I don't think that size is a good indication of quality.

[HJBee]

Is there a greater risk of her getting through an excluder if she is petit?

[Jon]

I have never seen queens pass through an excluder - even very small ones.
Reading some of the online bee forums you would think queens got through the excluder on a regular basis but it is much more likely to be operator error imho.
A small queen can lay up an entire brood box no problem if she has mated well.
The problem is that even the most raw beginner who knows nothing of queens or queen rearing is likely to make some comment about size even if the queen is actually a good one.

[Trog]

Beginner at meeting a fortnight ago commented the queen was smaller than he'd expected but I don't think that was a value judgement, more that he was surprised she wasn't several times larger than a worker - as with some bumble bees.

We did have one queen who got through an old fashioned wire QX when she was young. We called her Twiggy and put a different QX on!

[Jon]

Those wire excluders can get slightly deformed so she may have found a gap where two of the wires had been pushed just a fraction further apart.

Showing your age Trog calling her Twiggy. :D
Safer to call her Kate Moss!

Anyone one who knows who Twiggy is is probably over 50 like me.

[HJBee]

Don't be to hard on Trig or yourself - I know who twiggy is and I'm not 50, she currently has a lucrative deal with M&S (but I knew who she was before that).

[Kate Atchley]

Joe Latshaw makes some worthwhile observations on larvae size in his pdf 'Queen Rearing Basics' (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CC8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Flatshawapiaries.com%2Fuploads%2Fq ueen-rearing-basics.pdf&ei=Q0FxU-_HAsaEOLOEgYAI&usg=AFQjCNFWGiUfLn0svW5jS9SsCp63TKARlA&sig2=OETcopyoMgPbgwyVTn3QoA&bvm=bv.66330100,d.ZWU)I reckon that this is one of those should-read documents for anyone starting raising queens of their own.

Thanks for pointing us to this doc Prakel. I hadn't come across it and Joe Latshaw includes a pic showing the plastic cup full at the base of the queen cell. I hadn't focussed on this before but ... well of course! Will also try candling natural cells (which I do routinely when incubating hens' eggs).

In this pic showing the filled cup beneath the pupae, the wax cell extends down about 2.5 times the depth of the visible part of the plastic cup - i.e. total length is about 3.5 x plastic cup depth or 2cm. Would others regard this as roughly 'standard'? It's smaller than many I've reared and some have been smaller.

Hoping to achieve good mating this year as we've had some good spells of fine weather here in the west.

[prakel]

Manley's thoughts taken from 'Honey Farming' with reference to his own queen right system.


There is one point I'd like to make while dealing with using queen-right colonies in this way. It will often be found that the cells built appear rather small beside those constructed by swarming colonies or by artificial swarms as described below. I think this is caused by the established queen-right cell-building colonies not being in the state that favours heavy secretion of wax, whereas swarms or bees about to swarm, are. The cells look small because they are less massively constructed, and may appear quite diminutive when compared to those built by swarming bees or by artificial swarms made queenless, but virgins from them are usually as good as can be desired. It is not the size of the cell or it's external appearance that matters, but the amount of royal jelly consumed by it's occupant. There are few things more misleading than cell size as a means of judging what sort of queen may be expected to emerge.

[fatshark]

Good find Prakel … yet again Manley comes up with the goods.

[Kate Atchley]

... and the book sits on the shelf beside me! Thanks. I'll take it with me to Colonsay as bedtime reading: off to spend a weekend with Mr Black Bee who hopes soon to provide us with Amm stock for the Ardnamurchan breeding apiary.

[prakel]

Larry Connor's view on the subject of queen size and cell evaluation:

Size Matters. How important is the size of the Queen?

http://www.wicwas.com/sites/default/files/articles/Bee_Culture/BC2008-08.pdf

A worthwhile read for anyone interested in the subject.