Timescale to mate of virgin queens.

[prakel]

One problem with apideas/mini nucs is that the population dwindles from day 1.
After 5 weeks there are hardly enough bees left to incubate brood.
You sometimes find a queen in an apidea with a lack of bees which has mated yet has no brood.
You can tell by her size, gait and behaviour.
If you introduce these queens to a decent number of bees they often start laying.

Yes, I can see how that could be a problem demanding it's own management criteria.

[Black Comb]

Thanks.
That's answered a question for me from earlier in the year.
I had exactly this happen.

[Neils]

I do wonder what,if any, effect the pheromones from brood have on a new queen's willingness to start laying. I've had more than a few "I wonder" colonies where I've introduced a frame of eggs and the next week there's a laying queen.

It might not be pheromone induced if course, but I've seen it a few times now.

[Jon]

I know what you mean as I have been there done that as well.
But it may well be that the point of beekeeper exasperation by coincidence more or less coincides with the point where a queen starts to lay.
Open brood pheromone is known to delay the onset of laying workers.
Michael bush suggests that if you introduce a frame of open brood to a laying worker colony once a week they are likely to start drawing queen cells after 2 -3 weeks and at that point they can be requeened.

[prakel]

I do wonder what,if any, effect the pheromones from brood have on a new queen's willingness to start laying. I've had more than a few "I wonder" colonies where I've introduced a frame of eggs and the next week there's a laying queen.

It might not be pheromone induced if course, but I've seen it a few times now.

There's little doubt in my mind that stronger (in the sense of being well balanced) nuclei result in better queens than unbalanced units, although I have no data to prove my observations. This is often born out by queens which are produced in full size colonies. Off the top of my head I'm finding it hard to think of a strong well-found colony going to pieces because they failed to raise and mate a queen other than at the most unsuitable times of year.

In the past I often used to make 'walk away' splits and rarely had failures. Infact some of the queens which they raised were close to exceptional in one or more characteristics. This isn't to say that it always worked but the balance was in favour of success otherwise I wouldn't have continued to use the method. It was only the loss of production and sometimes the shortage of time in which to build up for winter resulting from the method which focussed my mind on raising cells and maintaining mating nucs.

This brings me around to one of the primary reasons for using mini nucs which I see mentioned -queens get mated quicker from them than they do from larger nucs/colonies. I'm not sure whether there has been detailed research on this subject but would welcome any links. Do queens mate quicker out of mini nucs? If so, what driving factor causes the earlier mating but fails to have any impact with regard to starting her laying? The first would appear to be an imperative need to get the queen mated sooner rather than later but to what end if she fails to start laying?

[Jon]

There's little doubt in my mind that stronger (in the sense of being well balanced) nuclei result in better queens than unbalanced units, although I have no data to prove my observations.

I'm not so sure.
I only have anecdotal evidence but two of my strongest colonies at the moment are headed by queens with mated in apideas last year and overwintered in their apideas. One spent 7 months in its apidea and the other 8.
As soon as they were taken from the apideas and given a decent amount of bees the egg laying just took off.

I know people who argue that all queens from apideas are sub standard. I totally disagree with that.
I have a queen which mated from an apidea going into her 4th winter now and she fills a national with 10 frames of brood every summer and has never tried to swarm.

If so, what driving factor causes the earlier mating but fails to have any impact with regard to starting her laying?

My guess would be the lack of bee population in both cases. if she has mated but the population is down to less than 100 bees, which happens quite often, there is no way they can generate the heat to maintain brood, let alone forage to feed the larvae.

Queens definitely mate more quickly from apideas in my experience although weather conditions trump most other factors.
The bees in the apidea seem desperate to push the queen out to mate.
You can see the bees harassing the queen to take a flight in this clip.
At about 50s you can see the workers driving her from the front of the apidea.
She returns at 1.38

[prakel]

I'm not so sure.
I only have anecdotal evidence but two of my strongest colonies at the moment are headed by queens with mated in apideas last year and overwintered in their apideas. One spent 7 months in its apidea and the other 8.
As soon as they were taken from the apideas and given a decent amount of bees the egg laying just took off.

I know people who argue that all queens from apideas are sub standard. I totally disagree with that.

Possibly my writing style is at fault here as you seem to think that I'm saying something very different to what I actually mean:

"in the sense of being well balanced"

was the definative point. A well balanced apidea would be no different in this context to a well balanced nuc consisting of five full size combs. I assume that you're not suggesting that you can't have a well balanced apidea?

[prakel]

My guess would be the lack of bee population in both cases. if she has mated but the population is down to less than 100 bees, which happens quite often, there is no way they can generate the heat to maintain brood, let alone forage to feed the larvae.

But is this in itself sufficient to totally suppress the urge of a newly mated queen to start laying eggs even if they're not going to survive to maturity? Or do we have some other factor as well playing a part?

I've no answers here but reckon it's worth throwing the questions out.

[prakel]

I do wonder what,if any, effect the pheromones from brood have on a new queen's willingness to start laying. I've had more than a few "I wonder" colonies where I've introduced a frame of eggs and the next week there's a laying queen.

It might not be pheromone induced if course, but I've seen it a few times now.

the interesting point with this and the Mike Bush observation which Jon mentions is that eggs and young brood are probably the most unnatural of all stimuli at the time of starting to lay, other than in pure queen right supercedure scenarios.

[Jon]

A well balanced apidea would be no different in this context to a well balanced nuc consisting of five full size combs. I assume that you're not suggesting that you can't have a well balanced apidea?

Sorry prakel, my mistake, I misunderstood, I thought you were saying that the colony size was important.
It is though quite hard to maintain a well balanced apidea with brood all stages, foragers and nurse bees.
This is probably what Roger Patterson is getting at when his makes his claim that they are not suitable for beginners.
I disagree with that but i can see where he is coming from as there are a lot of ways to mess up the management of an apidea.
I tinker with mine taking out frames of sealed brood from those which are over populated.