Best format for mating virgin queens

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prakel

Although I've been a big advocate of the miniplus hives (and still like them a lot) I reckon that you're going the right way using standard frames for mating nucs but that's another thread!!

---

Here we go then.
I'm a fan of the mini plus hives for several reasons, primarily because they can be started on a cupful of bees, similarly to apideas and kielers, but then they can be easily reconfigured into viable overwintering units.
I do see the advantages of keeping everything on standard frame size, but robbing production colonies of strength to service the first round of grafts gives me the heebey geebies, perhaps I'd think differently if I didnt pay the mortgage from honey sales.

Apideas are scalable in the same way for overwintering. I still have 9 double or triple units.
If you want to rear hundreds of queens it is not feasible to do it using full size frames although that is probably the best option if you just need a few.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mbc

Here we go then.
I'm a fan of the mini plus hives for several reasons, primarily because they can be started on a cupful of bees, similarly to apideas and kielers, but then they can be easily reconfigured into viable overwintering units...

---

Checked some overwintering mating nucs on Friday. The bees in the 3 Apidea stacks (10 or 15 frames) had all died, one from starvation it seemed. The other 2 probably lost viable strength because queens had not been laying well in the Autumn ... not sure. Not the fault of the small Apidea mating hives probably .... but ... the bees in 3 MiniPlus hives – 2 of which were stacked as doubles and 1 a singleton – were all doing fine and flying in the sunshine.

I'll use some Paynes nucs this year – each with 2 or 3 frames and a fat Celotex dummy – as starters to be grown on into full-sized nucs once the queen is mated. They won't be replacing mating nucs. I agree with mbc: not happy to divert the numbers of bees required to mate all queens on full-sized frames when most of those queens are going to be popped into a cage for the post anyway.

Checked the keilers the other day still got 9
only 3 of them are singles I think
have to go back and check
Very cold snap coming in so it can change

For summer mating a mini nuc is fine
Liked Gwzzies polynuc conversion though I'm sure they would be useful

To start I'd best mention that my original quote, from another thread, which mbc used in the op was written with the thought in mind that the person it was specifically aimed at is planning on building up colony numbers with a view to going commercial -although he himself never mentioned this in the thread it has been stated by others more than once during recent months. No mention, at least so far, of engaging in commercial queen rearing. He could of course use smaller frames to get the queens mated (no doubt that will come before too long :) ) and then make splits but for now he's already started down the road of converting standard nucs into twin units which brings me to the present thread....

Yes, the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that standard frame nucs are the most efficient way to benefit from the fast egg laying days of a newly mated queen that's up to scratch. After a lot of comparisons it repeatedly strikes me how sisters from the same batch but housed on different size frames will manage to lay out their combs within the same general time frame this has even stood true when the larger dadant brood combs was used. Obviously there's a limit to the eggs produced in a given time so it seems to me that the difference is probably that those on smaller combs are being held back. I'm sure there'll be a lot of disagreement on this, of course!

The overall differnce in maximum comb area between a single mp box and a three frame BS deep isn't actually very great although the deeper BS has a decided advantage in depth (but a less ideal configuration); I've long been converting my own mp's to something approaching commercial depth although it isn't as nice a frame to manipulate as the standard mp shallow which falls close to Wedmore's 2:3 side bar/top bar ratio.

The reason that I think extra depth is an advantage is that it affords a better chance of there being stores above the brood -important in a location with a very dodgy start to August most years. I'm personally inclined to an even larger box to take 4 frames ( 5 may not be out of the question) which brings me to the stocking issue. Initially, there's got to be a cost carried by the production colonies but once up and running I see no reason why full comb units can't become longterm assets capable of producing their own increase just like our mp boxes have done over the years.

A possible downside is undoubtedly the possibility of overstocking the mating area which may well be an issue in some areas of Britain, there again, on a larger scale that may push the beekeeper to distribute the mating nucs over a larger area which if open mating is the order of the game may not actually be a bad thing although it adds time and running costs of course.

Just a few thoughts to get things going....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prakel

To start I'd best mention that my original quote, from another thread, which mbc used in the op was written with the thought in mind that the person it was specifically aimed at is planning on building up colony numbers with a view to going commercial -although he himself never mentioned this in the thread it has been stated by others more than once during recent months. No mention, at least so far, of engaging in commercial queen rearing. He could of course use smaller frames to get the queens mated (no doubt that will come before too long :) ) and then make splits but for now he's already started down the road of converting standard nucs into twin units which brings me to the present thread....

Yes, the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that standard frame nucs are the most efficient way to benefit from the fast egg laying days of a newly mated queen ....

... A possible downside is undoubtedly the possibility of overstocking the mating area which may well be an issue in some areas of Britain, there again, on a larger scale that may push the beekeeper to distribute the mating nucs over a larger area which if open mating is the order of the game may not actually be a bad thing although it adds time and running costs of course.

Just a few thoughts to get things going....

---

Thanks Prakel. Very interesting reflections, particularly about re the laying outcomes for similar young queens on different-sized frames. I'll be looking out for that. Certainly I've been impressed by the laying vigour of newly mated queens, given space and worker-bee support.

You don't mention mating times. It's suggested that the larger the unit/mating nuc, the slower the queen will be to come into lay. Is that your experience?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kate Atchley

You don't mention mating times. It's suggested that the larger the unit/mating nuc, the slower the queen will be to come into lay. Is that your experience?

---

I've asked mbc about this myself, in the past. It seems that as an average the smaller nucs do have the time edge although I really don't think there's actually much difference between an established miniplus and a BS nuc.*

But that early mating raises the question 'why?'. What good benefit to the well being of the queen creates a push to get her mated earlier than otherwise? Although of course, from a producer's point of view there may be an obvious advantage so far as having queens ready for regular shipment especially in areas with inconsistent weather patterns.

I'm certainly not closed to the potential benefits of any combination of equipment/method but I do know what I now like and feel comfortable with although it's taken me a long time to work through lots of other ideas first.

*it never occurred to me to check, when I set up our original mp boxes with loose bees, to see if there was a noticeable difference and as they're now self supporting all increase is made from pre-drawn comb.

I do believe there are occasions when mini nucs send their virgins out to mate earlier than a larger colony would, this is quite evident sometimes when cells of the same batch have gone to different types of mating hive. I still run 25 national boxes split in two with small entrances opposite sides, nowadays I tend to use them for making use of natural swarm cells I think are worthwhile saving that I come across when I'm out and about on the rounds, but sometimes they still get used for overspill to accommodate grafted cells. I wouldnt say smaller nucs invariably mate their virgins earlier as anybody who's raised good numbers of queens will recognise that when conditions are right almost all virgins of any age and from any type of mating unit will all get mated in a rush, these queens that mate at ideal times tend to be good ones too. This causes me quite a bit of anxiety especially when I read the practices of well respected queen producers from warmer climes who often report that they cull virgins after a while, normally three weeks from emerging, if they havent got mated. Well some of my best batches of cells and subsequent queens would have been entirely lost if I followed such practices.

I think its natural for a small broodless bunch of bees to be desperate to get a virgin mated whatever the weather to give them a hope of survival.

Interesting comment about making the most of a newly mated queens fecundity prakel, I'd have thought those from smaller units would soon catch up when their pheromones get up to speed upon introduction to a larger colony, but I suppose any delay costs some, as would the percentage lost during transfer.

As to the original op and Gwizzies(?) best route to quick expansion, I'd have thought building big colonies on multiple brood boxes and mating many queens in mini nucs before splitting the big colonies into nucs with the newly mated queens would provide more numbers quickly than splitting colonies early and mating queens in full size frame units. I suppose we all see merit in different methods.

I agree that small colonies can get queens laying quickly - a couple of days after a day of good weather and the queens starts to lay. However in a larger colony, is it the fact that a young queen mates just as quickly but doesn't lay right away? So could we consider that it takes longer for the newly-mated queen to develop enough 'mum' pheromone to go around a bigger colony before the workers treat her as such and she starts to lay?