Author Topic: supersedure cells (Read 6952 times)

charliesnike · « **on:** November 23, 2014, 02:14:58 pm »

well this has not been an issue for me this year...yet. I have been saying that it is a common issue in many threads. it would seem inordinately common, for queens that are not really that old and should not be failing. so is it to be a breeder that's raising faulty product, all these beekeepers that don't know how to raise bees, what is the real issue. wow I know situations can vary from area to area, just seems all too common of a thing.

Culley · « **Reply #1 on:** November 23, 2014, 10:56:47 pm »

Not an issue I've had much experience of. I don't buy queens though.

Sometimes a hive will supersede or go queenless in early spring. Good time of year for it to happen.

GSF · « **Reply #2 on:** November 24, 2014, 08:35:00 am »

I've only got two summers under my beekeeping belt. There's swarm cells, supersedure cells, and emergency cups. From what I'm hearing swarm cells are more desireable because it's more of a planned event, therefore more preparations on the bees part.

This last summer I made several splits, caught several swarms, and bought 4 packages. I had a big problem with the queens being replaced. I found a couple of them on the ground around the hives. I'm hoping as time passes the hives will have more things under control since there should be less disruption.

Michael Bush · « **Reply #3 on:** November 24, 2014, 11:37:11 am »

>it would seem inordinately common, for queens that are not really that old and should not be failing.

I heard Nancy Ostiguy in a Kansas Honey Producer's meeting in 2004 say she thinks the average queen gets superseded three times a year now.

OldMech · « **Reply #4 on:** November 24, 2014, 04:56:14 pm »

Quote from: Michael Bush on November 24, 2014, 11:37:11 am

>it would seem inordinately common, for queens that are not really that old and should not be failing.

I heard Nancy Ostiguy in a Kansas Honey Producer's meeting in 2004 say she thinks the average queen gets superseded three times a year now.

wow.. seriously? Did she give any reason or hypothesis for such a statement?
I have package queens superseded almost as a gurantee, after that I have less problems with my queens.. Certainly less than three times a year.. I replaced two queens four years old this year. they are now in Nucs for the winter, and did quite well building up those nucs. I have several queens three years old, to BE four in the spring, most of the rest are all wintering their first year.
Queens raised here were not superseded. Mike Haney's queensn (Ridgetop Apiaries) were not superseded. The queens in the nucs I bought were not superseded. The queens in the packages I bought were superseded, ALL but one of the ten I bought..
I purchased ten packages to test their ability to overwinter, but that test is now somewhat adulterated because most have locally bred queens in them now..

I'd be really interested in why she thinks, or her queens ARE superseding so often? Contaminants in the hive?

Michael Bush · « **Reply #5 on:** November 24, 2014, 05:53:58 pm »

>wow.. seriously? Did she give any reason or hypothesis for such a statement?

Her hypothesis was the contamination of the foundation and wax by fluvalinate, cumaphos and amitraz.

Eric Bosworth · « **Reply #6 on:** November 24, 2014, 07:48:44 pm »

Quote from: Michael Bush on November 24, 2014, 05:53:58 pm

>wow.. seriously? Did she give any reason or hypothesis for such a statement?

Her hypothesis was the contamination of the foundation and wax by fluvalinate, cumaphos and amitraz.

Simple solution... You probably heard of foundationless without using chemistry... Must be she hasn't... Or perhaps she is the better life through chemistry

OldMech · « **Reply #7 on:** November 25, 2014, 09:10:55 am »

Quote from: Michael Bush on November 24, 2014, 05:53:58 pm

>wow.. seriously? Did she give any reason or hypothesis for such a statement?

Her hypothesis was the contamination of the foundation and wax by fluvalinate, cumaphos and amitraz.

Ahh... OK.. I don't use any of those things, and most of my frames are foundation-less.. I do occasionally bleach my frames, but thats the extent of chems.. Might be why I have not seen more supersedure...

Michael Bush · « **Reply #8 on:** November 25, 2014, 09:19:18 am »

>Simple solution... You probably heard of foundationless without using chemistry... Must be she hasn't... Or perhaps she is the better life through chemistry

I'm sure she has heard of it by now. But she's a scientist and is studying the problem, not trying to solve it personally...

OldMech · « **Reply #9 on:** November 25, 2014, 09:21:18 am »

Eric Bosworth · « **Reply #10 on:** November 25, 2014, 12:53:10 pm »

Quote from: Michael Bush on November 25, 2014, 09:19:18 am

But she's a scientist and is studying the problem, not trying to solve it personally...

Obviously... Does she actually have her own bees that she is trying to keep alive? Or perhaps trying to kill off... I do have to question the logic of somebody who would study the problem and make a diagnosis like that but not take the obvious step to fix it... It reminds me of something that happened last year when I was skiing. I am on the ski patrol and somebody came into the patrol room with cold feet... he took his boots off at the chairlift and walked to the patrol room from the chair in his socks. It was 9 degrees. After we warmed his feet up and he left my friend looked at me and said "Ya no... We can't fix stupid... We can diagnose it but we just can't fix it..."

AR Beekeeper · « **Reply #11 on:** November 25, 2014, 05:44:40 pm »

I would lean more toward the queens having virus infections. Queen supersedure in packages can also be because of adult to larvae population imbalance.

Michael Bush · « **Reply #12 on:** November 25, 2014, 05:52:19 pm »

Dr. Ostiguy has a phd, yes. She does have bees, at least at the college, and she is very involved and concerned about issues with the fast turnover of queens and the contamination in the comb, CCD etc. I have the utmost respect for her. Penn state is very involved in these issues.

Eric Bosworth · « **Reply #13 on:** November 25, 2014, 11:10:30 pm »

Quote from: Michael Bush on November 25, 2014, 05:52:19 pm

Dr. Ostiguy has a phd, yes. She does have bees, at least at the college, and she is very involved and concerned about issues with the fast turnover of queens and the contamination in the comb, CCD etc. I have the utmost respect for her. Penn state is very involved in these issues.

If she has her Queens superseded on a monthly basis and she has a theory as to why then why isn't she trying the obvious test to her theory?
That said, perhaps I am just inexperienced but I am convinced that CCD is just a politically correct term for pesticides... Be it either outside the hive or inside the hive "treating" the bees.

Eric Bosworth · « **Reply #14 on:** November 25, 2014, 11:11:59 pm »

PhD = piled high and deep.

GSF · « **Reply #15 on:** November 26, 2014, 08:28:12 am »

post hole diggers

Michael Bush · « **Reply #16 on:** November 26, 2014, 08:35:55 am »

>If she has her Queens superseded on a monthly basis and she has a theory as to why then why isn't she trying the obvious test to her theory?

No, she did not say her queens were superseded on a monthly basis. She said based on the data she had collected she believed the average queen in the US was being superseded three times a year. She did not say anything about "her" queens. Why all the antagonism towards someone you've never met?

Eric Bosworth · « **Reply #17 on:** November 26, 2014, 08:42:10 am »

Because you made it sound like her Queens were being replaced regularly. Sorry I didn't have all the info. But that said it still seems she would push foundationless if she believes that chemical treatment/contamination is the cause.

Michael Bush · « **Reply #18 on:** November 26, 2014, 09:53:39 am »

She wasn't pushing anything other than pointing out the accumulating contamination in the wax and warning that we need to change the direction beekeeping is taking in order to fix that. I reported exactly what she said: "...thinks the average queen gets superseded three times a year now." which is not about her queens. It's about "the average queen." Interestingly she was interrupted by a question from the audience. A man pointed out that all those chemicals didn't work anymore anyway, and he wanted to know what the new chemical was going to be so he could use that... She was speechless for a minute... He obviously didn't get it.

Eric Bosworth · « **Reply #19 on:** November 26, 2014, 10:56:53 pm »

Then I apologize. In that case I would really have to wonder about the guy asking the question...

buzzbee · « **Reply #20 on:** November 27, 2014, 07:59:52 am »

Foundationless does not mean chemical free. It may not be added by the beekeeper,but the bees bring it into the hive. Contaminants gather in the pollen and even on the bees feet when crawling wherever they land. Bees transport water from unknown sources back to the hive for cooling and honey dilution.
The wax is a great medium for absorption of everything that comes in contact with it.
We as beekeepers try to keep our combs. In nature ,waxmoths and other creatures will often recycle these combs in the natural cycle of things.Every year we keep the combs,the more crap they can absorb.
Take note I am not condemning foundationless in any way, just be aware. :)

jayj200 · « **Reply #21 on:** November 27, 2014, 10:14:40 am »

Quote from: GSF on November 26, 2014, 08:28:12 am

post hole diggers

wonder if she back fills the holes

GSF · « **Reply #22 on:** November 27, 2014, 04:13:00 pm »

At the Alabama Beekeepers Association annual meeting they mentioned something along those lines. They said that contrary to popular beliefs that wasn't the case. Someone had completed a study where a group rotated the frames out and a group that didn't touch them. The group that rotated the frames (by removing two from the middle and moving the rest inward then placing the new frames on the outside) The group that did this had a higher loss than the ones who didn't. They also said the groups that rotated had a higher contamination level that the ones who left them in there. They concluded that the old black looking comb was probably coated with a thin layer of propolis keeping the pupa sealed from any possible contaminates.

I can't say if this was a scientific study but it left me with the impression it was. One day I will have had bees long enough to comment on dark comb :-D

buzzbee · « **Reply #23 on:** November 27, 2014, 07:33:11 pm »

Propolised combs do factor in. The Bee Informed Partnership came across this in their survets too. I guess my point was that going foundationless will not automatically negate the chemicals in the wax. It may lower the original threshold, but ultimately whayever the bee visits likely comes home with it.

Eric Bosworth · « **Reply #24 on:** November 30, 2014, 11:44:56 am »

Quote from: buzzbee on November 27, 2014, 07:33:11 pm

Propolised combs do factor in. The Bee Informed Partnership came across this in their survets too. I guess my point was that going foundationless will not automatically negate the chemicals in the wax. It may lower the original threshold, but ultimately whayever the bee visits likely comes home with it.

This is true. I happen to live where pesticides are not widely used. So there isn't that much contamination that they bring in themselves.

OldMech · « **Reply #25 on:** December 01, 2014, 10:22:32 am »

GSF I'd really like to see some research I can read on this, because it is quite a slap in the face to EVERYTHING I have read in the last 10 years..

As I understand it, BEEKEEPERS add as much poisons to their hives as the environment. Rotating the comb is to prevent the combination of chemicals from building up. It is the combination that causes the problems, rather than the minute amounts of individual toxins the bees bring back.

GSF · « **Reply #26 on:** December 01, 2014, 11:21:49 am »

OldMech, now that you metion it, they said the highest amount of contamination was from beekeeper's treatment. My thinking was like yours when I first heard it. I haven't a clue as to which direction to point you in for the research. I'll try to find out though.