In the past, bee breeders and beekeepers have not been very interested in queen quality because existent material was considered adequate. The U.S. industry must now take a fresh look at the queen-producing sector. One way to begin is to see what other nations are doing.
The Canadians have been actively searching for sources of good queens and a number of countries are banging on their door. Both New Zealand and Australia are already in the running because they each have a well regulated industry which has been approved by the Canadian agricultural authorities.
Part and parcel of the interest shown by both countries is close attention to the quality of individual queens produced. The New Zealanders have developed an interesting competition among themselves to test queens.1 This is some of the first data concerning judging queen quality to be published in practical journals.
The information is not complete, because in this case, genetic makeup was not taken into consideration. However, the physiological quality of queens produced is just as vital as the genetics involved in a breeding program. The former is also the portion most under control of the queen producer.
Perhaps the most valuable part of the New Zealand competition, according to the newsletter, was that results were freely disclosed by contestants. In this way, it became more of a cooperative learning experience. The results of one contest were instructive. The figures were average values for two individuals. Final rank order was determined by the average reproductive index : ovariole number + (spermatheca volume x 270) + (sperm count x 40). This gives approximately equal weighting among the three numbers. Here are those established in one contest:
| Entrant | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| 355 | 354 | 332 | |
| 1.39 | 1.225 | 1.06 | |
| 8.58 | 8.59 | 6.25 | |
| nil | nil | negl. | |
| 1075 | 1028 | 868.6 |
These figures were compared to others as benchmarks:
| Characteristic Measured | World Maxima | New Zea. Maxima | Good Average |
| 405 | 376 | 300 | |
| 1.52 | 1.48 | 1.00 | |
| 11.8 | 9.86 | 5.0 | |
| 1286 | 1170 | 770 |
Final comments on the competition revealed that all queens entered were well mated and contained between six and seven million sperm per cubic millimeter. In addition, fumagillin was used to keep Nosema to very low levels. Again, all contestants disclosed their methods. They also used variations of the queenless starter\queenright finisher system, which were normal in most commercial operations. This was important because it showed that superior queens were not products of special methods developed for this particular competition.
The judgments above are not without their critics because the characteristics measured cannot yet be correlated with behavior. For example, what’s important to the beekeeper is the productivity of the queen’s offspring, not the number of her ovarioles. Although this is true, these characteristics are still significant because they show that physiologically the queen will be able to produce the number of workers necessary to maintain a quality colony. In addition, in the absence of specific genetic information on selected queens, these measurements provide all-important yardsticks to compare individuals.
The genetic quality part of producing quality queens is not being ignored in New Zealand. A plan is in the works.2 the result of pressure to import superior or alternative genetic material from elsewhere. This practice is considered an objectionable strategy by many in the industry who would prefer to upgrade existent stock. A steering committee has been formed and a financial structure is being set up to provide for limited, but transferable, shareholding among participants. Each shareholder will receive an instrumentally inseminated queen every year.
Initially, the proposed plan calls for 25 full shareholders, with provisions for smaller beekeepers to obtain a “share within a share.” The goal is to develop a closed population of current New Zealand stock which will be continually improved, similar to a current program being conducted in Australia. This is a difficult task for a number of reasons. More current information is now available on New Zealand honey bee breeding efforts.
The Western Australia Bee Breeding Programme has been in operation for a decade and advertises a productivity increase of at least 10 percent per year. It seems reasonable that the U.S. beekeeping industry could use some of the concepts presented above to increase both the quantity and quality of available queens. However, these actions will require a commitment by the individual beekeeper to support such a program and to purchase its products.
Perhaps the most asked questions in beekeeping are what kind of bees to use and from whom should they be purchased. It is difficult to adequately answer these because published standards are not available and few breeding programs exist, although the idea is getting more traction. In the absence of these, subjectivity prevails. Thus, it is always prudent and wise to ask for documentation supporting advertising claims by producers. This has become more important with introduction of exotic bee mites and the Africanized honey bee.
For the United States, it would seem that only some organization on the order of a stock center would be capable of a continuous selection program similar to the one now in place in New Zealand. One was proposed as far back as 1974, but the idea appears to have fizzled out. Any stock center must be supported philosophically and financially by U.S. beekeepers if it has any chance of succeeding. One current effort is that of the Russian Bee Breeding program, principally dedicated to keeping Varroa under control.
1 Buzzwords, New Zealand National Beekeepers Newsletter, October, 1990.
2 Buzzwords, New Zealand National Beekeepers Newsletter, August, 1990.
