Queen Pheromone and Robbing.

[little john]

Queen Pheromone and Robbing.

Or - what a difference a screen makes ... !

This post has two themes to it, based around the same photographs: one being to demonstrate the effectiveness of mesh anti-robbing screens for those who remain unconvinced about their use; and the other being to suggest that it may be either the absence of Queen Pheromone or a reduction in the level of hive odour which is detected by robber scouts as an indication of a weak or vulnerable colony unable to defend itself.

The first photograph shows the set-up I'm using to probe how colonies behave in the presence of pheromones from several queens.  To explain the context of doing this, I'm currently working on a procedure to raise multiple nucs over queen-right mother hives, which will result in as many as five different queen pheromones mixing within the same structure.  This is one of the rigs I'm using:




I've had to remove the stand in view of the height of the stack. So - in the lower box is a Q+ve colony with an open entrance to the right (out of shot). Above that, and separated from it by a double-screened board is a second Q+ve colony with open entrance to the left.  Above that are a pair of 5-frame nuc boxes, separated from the Q+ve colonies by a modified Morris Board, which has queen excluders and the provision for slides, similar to that of a divided Cloake Board.

I have three other hives configured in the same way, and which have been given frames of BIAS already containing one or more capped q/cells, provided by courtesy of a Clemens Q-ve colony.  These hives have not been subjected to any robbing, despite their entrances being left open and unprotected.







However, I am now attempting to raise q/cells (and thus Q+ve nucs) directly from donated BIAS combs - and in a worst-case situation, during a dearth - which of course requires a simulation of queenlessness by the insertion of slides to cover the Q/X's.  And this is what immediately results:




That is a serious outbreak of robbing, and as you can probably tell from the shadows, it started very early in the morning, and - in view of the absence of robbing at the other test hives - was completely unexpected.  In view of the possible damage, the experiment was abandoned, and re-started two days later with fresh BIAS combs and with anti-robbing screens now in place. The slides were inserted last night, and this was the situation which greeted me this morning:




and some 30 seconds later ...




As you can see, thanks to the anti-robbing mesh robber-bees are unable to enter the nuc box, and so are trying to gain access via any crack from the Morris Board upwards.  I expect this situation to continue all day, and it'll be interesting to see whether any attempts at robbing occur again tomorrow morning, after the slides are withdrawn and queen pheromone once again wafts upwards into the nuc boxes and out through their entrances.

LJ

(I've decided not to post this today, 9th Aug., until I see what tomorrow brings ...)

[little john]

Ok - this is the situation which greeted me at 9 a.m. today (Wed. 10th August), on a very overcast morning - as you can see, a whole lot of nothing is going on ...




And this is the worst any attempted robbing got, at around 10 a.m. - I can only assume that this is conditioned behaviour and that those few bees are using yesterday's coordinates and information.




And this is the situation at just after 1 p.m. - and those few bees might even be guards, as I've noticed they sometimes set up station outside of the mesh.




So - what does this 'back of a fag packet' experiment tell us ?  Well, when viewed together with the absence of robbing from the other hives (which were never made queenless by the use of slides), I think it strongly suggests that the absence of Queen Pheromone and/or a reduction in 'hive odour' may be implicated in the initiation of the robbing of nucs during their queenless phase, and would suggest that raising nucs over a queenright colony in order to provide that pheromone and/or 'hive odour' may be one possible solution.

Hope someone finds this useful.

LJ

[Colobee]

LJ,  you are awesome... I only contemplate such observations.

[Rurification]

LJ - This begs the question 'Does the nuc have to be OVER the other hive or can it be right next to it, sides touching?'

[Super interesting experiment, btw!]

[little john]

Over.  With either a Q/X or a mesh screen between them, so that the 'pong' from the Q+ve colony below wafts upwards into the nuc.  I guess the Nucs could be below the mother hive, but that would make manipulations (checking q/cells have been started etc) difficult.

I thought I'd post about this experiment before it's really run it's course, as many people seem to be having problems with nucs getting robbed out during condition of dearth - and starting nucs at such times can be very difficult unless you've got several yards.

Thanks for the positives, btw ... I'm getting on in years and I don't smoke or drink, and I don't do sex anymore (I think about it, but that's about all) ... so the bees are getting all my attention these days. 
A bloke has to have something to get out of bed for in the morning.
LJ

[texanbelchers]

Since the assumption is the "queen pheromone once again wafts upwards" I suspect it would have to be at least in the stack.  Under a queen-right hive may have enough circulation.  One can set two hives side by side and they each seem to know their own hive and robbers know which one is queen-less.

I get the gist and love the expressions.  However, I need to understand the abbreviations better.  It must be my dense Aggie brain.   

[CrazyTalk]

Since the assumption is the "queen pheromone once again wafts upwards" I suspect it would have to be at least in the stack.  Under a queen-right hive may have enough circulation.  One can set two hives side by side and they each seem to know their own hive and robbers know which one is queen-less.

I get the gist and love the expressions.  However, I need to understand the abbreviations better.  It must be my dense Aggie brain.   

I wonder if a horizontal setup would work - think a 4 foot or so box with a queenright colony in the middle, and nucs to the side, separated by screened boards.

[little john]

When I wrote about the pheromones wafting 'upwards', I was really talking about my own setup - as the advantage of the vertical format (as I see it) is that with bottom entrances to the mother hives, and with nuc entrances above them, there is then a natural convection (or chimney) effect which assists the flow of air which carries the odour with it.

Having said that, I would have thought a horizontal set-up as you describe would be well worth trying.  If you do - let us know how you get on.  I for one, would be very interested in your results.
LJ

[PhilK]

Interestin!

Why did you withdraw the slides again? Woudln't that make the nucs tear down the Q cells they started from the BIAS?

[little john]

Interestin!

Why did you withdraw the slides again? Woudln't that make the nucs tear down the Q cells they started from the BIAS?

You'd think so, wouldn't you ?  But bees being bees, they finish what they start ...

So - with the slide in, the girls start to draw emergency queen cells in something of a panic, and when the slide is withdrawn, they breathe a sigh of relief now that the emergency is over, and continue to draw those cells in supercedure mode.  That's pretty-much the basis behind many queen-cell raising methods, including that of the Cloake Board - devised by Harry Cloake from NZ.
LJ

[little john]

Well - bit of an update ...

Although I'm still seeing queenless nucs being bothered by prospective robbers, and queen-right nucs and queenless nucs over queen-right mother hives being ignored - an observation which caused me to assume without further enquiry that the pheromones concerned were volatile - it appears that they're not:  http://www.beemaster.com/forum/index.php?topic=49012.0 (last few posts)

So - now I'm stumped.  Ok - so it's not one of the Queen's Pheromones as they're not volatile - but there IS a difference between robbers behaviour towards Q+ve and Q-ve nucs, that's very obvious, but I have no idea at all what's causing this.  Bummer.

LJ

[jimineycricket]

           As a newbee, I read your posts with respect for your experience and insight, so I hesitate to venture advice.  However,  interested in your questions about queen pheromones.  You might check this reference:

"At the Hive Entrance" by H. Storch (which I have on a pdf) his first observation on page 19.  He says:
      " Agitated, worried bees run on the alighting board and in front of the hive. Their special buzz (groaning) is clearly audible. "
        Perhaps this will shed some light on your mystery.

[BeeMaster2]

LJ,
I really appreciate your experiment and posting the results. There is more going on in the queen right and queen less hives than just the queens pheromones. When the bees detect they are queen less, they become stressed and the other bees detect this. I am not sure if they put out a stress signal (which I strongly suspect from seeing how fast SHB's detect a hive that about to swarm or is queen less) or if there is a lack of pheromones that a stressed hive has. It seems that the queen right hives odors overcomes the odors of the stressed hives and protects them.
I have lost a lot of nucs (every four plex nuc that I have tried) to robbing in my yard and this looks like the perfect answer to the problem. I will modify my 4 plex to have a double screen bottom and place it over a strong hive.
Thanks again.
Jim

[tjc1]

Thanks, LJ - great experiment and report. Thanks for taking the time to share with us!

[little john]

Thanks for the positive words guys - appreciated.

Jimmy - thanks for the head's-up on that book.  I do in fact hold a copy, but due to ... well, 'prejudice' if I'm to be honest ... I never did get around to reading it (before now).


So - at the moment it looks as if there are 3 possibilities:

The first is that an odour of some kind (stress pheromone maybe ?) is wafting out of the hive, which is being detected by robber-scouts and that information is then being passed back.  That could explain why low-level robbing attempts are still made, even with a mesh anti-robbing screen in place.


The second possibility is that one or more robber-scouts are gaining entry and checking out the colony status first-hand. 
I've long considered that a kind of 'background robbing' takes place more-or-less continuously within an apiary, but which never manifests itself into a full-scale frenzy, as the dances of the robber-scouts are in competition with the dances of foraging scouts - so during a flow, the dances of the robbers are simply drowned out by sheer weight of numbers - but not so during a dearth.
I was delighted to read that Storch agrees with this 'background robbing' idea, which he calls 'latent robbing' - which is a much better term to use, as 'latent' means hidden, not yet developed or manifest - which describes the situation perfectly.

Now although I'd recommend that anti-robbing mesh screens be permanently placed in front of nucs - certainly that's going to be my policy from now on - these screens are unlikely to stop a robber-scout from gaining entry, as such scouts are not in the business of charging headlong towards the smell of the entrance - it's their job to sniff around and find a way in.  But - when the first dozen or so robbers in the first wave attack, they'll target the entrance and be unable to gain entry, and the potential robbing should then be held at those kind of numbers.  At least that's what I'm seeing with stand-alone Q-ve colonies at present - there's still the intention there to rob, but it never becomes fully developed.


There is a third possibility - that there could be a change in guard-bee behaviour, such as low morale resulting from the loss or lowering of one of the Queen's pheromones - this could then be interpreted as a sign that the colony is weak or vulnerable.

Who knows ?  I'm currently engaged in an email exchange with Randy Oliver on an unconnected matter, and in my next mail I'll ask whether he has any ideas to explain this one, and report back.

LJ

[little john]

Ok - so here are Randy's comments:

> In the context of robbing, I've noticed that queenright nucs and queenless
> nucs being raised over queenright hives (with a q/x between them) tend to
> be ignored by robbers, whereas robbers seem to specifically target
> stand-alone queenless nucs.

Interesting observation--I hadn't noticed.  I just don't see that much
robbing unless a colony collapses, or if I'm feeding syrup, or expose honey.

> I was wondering whether emitted odour
> (perhaps containing a pheromone) might be responsible ?  In the same vein
> - I've noticed that sometimes when removing a queen from a colony, panic
> sets-in within seconds, certainly within a minute - whereas at other times
> a queen can be removed for 20 minutes or so, and the colony doesn't appear
> to notice.

Could well be that robbers detect olfactory signs of colony stress; alarm
pheromone could well be one of them.  Small hive beetle also easily pick
out stressed colonies via olfaction.  Queens produce both primer
(slow-evaporating) and releaser (rapidly disappearing) pheromones. 

So there you go ...  seems the jury's still out on this one, although something stress-related does seem to be a prime candidate. 

LJ

[GSF]

whereas robbers seem to specifically target stand-alone queenless nucs

I've noticed this as well along with weak queenless colonies.