# General beekeeping > Queen raising >  Introduction of Virgin Queen into mini nuc

## chrisjhodges

There are lots of different methods of introducing a virgin to an apidea.
I normally wet the bees and drop her in the bottom but it's a bit stressful.
Smoking/ running in the front door are options.
What's the general consensus on the most reliable method when not introducing a cell.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## Jon

> I normally wet the bees and drop her in the bottom but it's a bit stressful.


This is the one works best for me. I got the tip from Mervyn E who has been doing this for years.

My experiences of 'running in' a virgin are that it has a poor success rate.
The virgin seems to be accepted and then disappears after a few days.

For introducing a queen to a full colony, the radical approach is to use smoke and forget about the cage.
I have only done this once so don't know what the success rate is.



Direct introduction of mated and virgin queens using smoke: a method that gives almost 100% acceptance when hives have been queenless for 2 days or more.

J Antonio Perez-Sato, Martin H. Kärcher,
William O H Hughes, Francis L W Ratnieks.

abstract



> We compared the acceptance of virgin and mated queens introduced into queenless hives using either artificial queen cells or direct introduction accompanied by smoke.  In Experiment 1, virgin queens aged 3-4 days were introduced into 5-frame hives than had been dequeened 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 days previously.  Acceptance increased significantly with the length of time a colony had been queenless, and direct introduction gave significantly greater success than artificial queen cells (between 31% and 100% acceptance vs. 8% to 92% for cell or direct introduction respectively, depending on the period of queenlessness).  In Experiment 2, virgin and mated queens were introduced into 2-frame observation hives that had been dequeened 1, 2, 3 and 4 days previously.  The probability of acceptance was significantly higher for mated queens than virgins, for direct introduction versus artificial queen cells, and for longer queenless periods.  Accordingly, the probability of a queen being balled by the workers declined significantly with the duration of the queenless period, and was significantly less for mated versus virgin queens.  Finally, in Experiment 3, we introduced mated queens into medium-sized hives (10 medium Langstroth frames) that had been queenless for 2 days using both the direct introduction and artificial cells.  All queens were accepted.

----------


## chrisjhodges

Thanks Jon
I think Willie B uses the run in with success though!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## Jon

Willy B and David D as well mostly introduce virgins in the apideas via cages although I do remember Willy B saying he runs them in sometimes.
I am pretty sure he is also an advocate of dumping in a wet scoop of bees.
Both of them use incubators and let the virgin emerge in a roller cage whereas I mostly introduce cells about 24 hours from emergence.

----------


## Rosie

I always introduce cells but there is a good argument for using virgins because you can cull any bad-uns before they are introduced.

----------


## Jon

Willy B marks his before introduction as well. I am tempted to go down that route as you do get the odd one with dodgy wings or which is far too small.

----------


## Rosie

You also get the odd queen cell that fails to emerge.

----------


## Jon

Those get replaced if the queens are not out within 48 hours but it does mean the bees are a bit too long in the apidea before it gets opened.
I don't do that 3 days queenless lark in a dark shed. They accept the cells fine a couple of hours after they are filled.

----------


## Pete L

> My experiences of 'running in' a virgin are that it has a poor success rate.
> The virgin seems to be accepted and then disappears after a few days.


That is all i do when making up fresh mini nucs with shook bees from different hives, leave them about two hours, then run in a freshly emerged virgin straight from the incubator, cannot say i have come across any of the disappearing problems that you have, Jon, i often just release newly emerged virgins direct into recently de queened mating nucs as well, no smoke or dipping them into anything, just let them walk out of the cage straight onto the comb with the bees and replace comb.

----------


## Adam

My trying the introduction of mated queens with no cage and smoke only worked 100% of the time last year - as a guess a dozen or so attempts. This was in mini-nucs as well as full-sized colonies. 

Running the odd virgin into a mini-nuc has not gone well for me - they tend to disappear a few days after introduction.

----------


## fatshark

Just to add something to this thread on keeping virgins after emergence and before introduction …
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0050150
indicates wooden cages, honey and attendants can achieve 100% survival for 7 days. They also report 80% acceptance to 5 frame nucs of 7 day old virgins by smoking the colony … however, critically, they only check 24 hours later.

----------


## Jon

Yep. the virgins are often ok for a day or two but seem to disappear within a week.

----------


## Little_John

Thought I'd revive this thread to ask those of you who use mating NUCs repeatedly - that is, having extracted the mated queen then introduce another virgin to the same box - whether you use fresh bees each time, or whether there's a way of re-using the same bees, say once or twice, without them rejecting the virgin - as my experience thus far has been limited to only using mating NUCs for one-off matings.

thanks,
LJ

----------


## fatshark

Absolutely. Use them 2-3 times in a season ... it's the only thing that makes the pain of filling the darn things in the first place worthwhile.

I take the Q out, leave them a few hours and then pop in a new QC. I even try and time my grafting to prevent the mini nucs getting overrun with bees, or remove a frame of brood as appropriate.

----------


## Jon

Same here fatshark although it is often only half an hour between queen out and new queen cell in.
You have to move frames about between apideas or provide more space.
An apidea with 3 frames of sealed brood is an absconding accident waiting to happen.
I find it far easier to work with queen cells than all the messing about running in virgin queens.

----------


## Little_John

Ok - so you guys use QC's ...

I was really wanting to use virgins, but can find very little advice 'out there' - seems that most people use QC's if they're into serious queen production.

Found one interesting paper:
http://www.sussex.ac.uk/lifesci/hugh...techniques.pdf 
in which they were using re-used and artiificial queen cells to introduce virgins, with good results: >90% acceptance.

The researchers concluded:
_[...] our results suggest that queen introduction via queen cells is a superior method for requeening queen mating hives. It is quicker and has a higher success rate than using cages. It also gives a higher overall success rate than using ripe queen cells, the normal method used in commercial queen rearing, because a significant proportion of the queen cells fail to emerge. Because artificial queen cells can be used, and can in fact be made by simple modifications to existing equipment such as queen cell protectors, the queen cell method is also practical._

But - dunno whether to stay with what works well for others, or have a go at using this artificial queen cell malarky.

Decisions, decisions ...

LJ

----------


## prakel

> I was really wanting to use virgins, but can find very little advice 'out there' - seems that most people use QC's if they're into serious queen production.


have you seen this one? 

*Comparing alternative methods of introducing virgin queens (Apis mellifera) into mating nucleus hives* by Juan Antonio Perez-Sato, Francis L.W. Ratnieks.

http://www.apidologie.org/articles/a...6/05/m6044.pdf

----------


## mbc

I introduce virgins in a jzbz cage  with a candy plug if I have to, this has proved more reliable than any running in/wetting technique for me.  Virgins can  be popped in at the same time as harvesting the mated queen with a fair degree of success with this method.  
I agree with Jon though, queencells are less hassle, and give a better return despite the odd one being a duff and not hatching without you knowing.

----------


## Little_John

Yes, thanks Prakel - that's the first of 3 papers by those authors covering this topic.
That one was 2005, The second was the 2006 paper I linked to, and the last in the series (afaik) was their 2007-8 'Direct Introduction with Smoke' paper - which was pretty poor science, in my view.




> I agree with Jon though, queencells are less hassle, and give a better return despite the odd one being a duff and not hatching without you knowing.


I think that kind of pragmatic approach is the one I'll be adopting, rather than trying to re-invent the wheel. :Smile: 

Which pretty-much confirms what those authors wrote in their 2007-8 paper:
"One possible reason why beekeepers normally use a method of queen introduction that is not the best method is that, for the most part, beekeeping is not based on using methods that have been carefully compared with alternatives in scientific experiments. Rather, *beekeeping is largely based on doing what experience has shown to work*."

I think "carefully compared" is a bit of a joke statement, but there you go ...  :Smile: 

LJ

----------


## Jon

How long do you think an apidea needs to be queenless to successfully introduce a virgin.
With a queen cell you can take the queen out and put a cell straight in. If you try this with a virgin they ball her.
Even using a cage they often kill the virgin in my experience.
I suspect the apidea needs to be queenless for at least a couple of days to get a better percentage success rate introducing virgins.

----------


## prakel

OK, something a little different taken from:

*The Behaviour of Bees and of Bee-keepers by H.J.Wadey. 1948.*



> Pulled VirginsThe title may puzzle some readers as it did the writer when he first encountered the term. Visions of frightened nuns being dragged around by cannibals, or of statues of female saints being torn from their niches by iconoclastic puritans soon fade when the simple explanation is given, The name is a not very happy description of a queen bee whose early experience of life has been a trifle abnormal, but it is shorter than any truly descriptive term that could easily be found.
> 
> A pulled virgin ia a young queen that emerged from her cell after it had been removed (hence "pulled") from the hive. She did not bite her way out of the cell into the rush and bustle of the hive life. She has never played hide-and-seek oflife and death over the combs with her sisters or flirted round the corner with her burly half-brothers. She has never taken a flight in the sunshine and memorised the position and general appearance of a hive. She probably crawled out of her cell into the gloomy and malodorous solitude of a matchbox, and made her first meal from a smear of honey found on the side of the box and this honey, strange though it's taste, she eagerly lapped up. She never saw a living creature for long hours, perhaps days of restless pacing up and down her narrow prison. Soft-hearted readers may now swallow the lump that was beginning to rise in their throats, brush away the tears of sympathy, and consider the virgin that was "pulled" and those that only pushed their own way out of the cell into the maelstrom of hideous hatred that is the common lot of the new-born queen. Her own mother would have stabbed her in the cradle. Her sisters would only have been thwarted by the ever watchful workers in their efforts to destroy her whilst a helpless white mummy-like creature. They would have squatted, tyrembling, trumpeting their defiance as they awaited her emergence from the cell. The human hand that removed the "ripe" cell probably saved her life, for in nature it is the lot of far more queens to be killed in battle than to reign.
> 
> What is the practical bee-keeper's interest in the pulled virgin? From his viewpoint has she anything that her naturally hatched sisters lack? Or is it that they have acquired some characteristics which she still lacks?
> 
> Young queens that have left their cells and spent a few days in the populous hive have something that the imprisoned queen has not acquired. It is sophistication -experience -a niche in the organised society of a colony, and possibly a distinctive hive odour. They may also, perhaps, have had a geography lesson and memorised the site of their hive.
> 
> The pulled virgin is very innocent and ignorant, although she has, of course, a full complement of instincts and full knowledge of how to exercise them, but she has never had a chance to do anything about it.
> ...


it does go on but that's enough for now  :Smile: 

In more recent times Ron Brown advocated the use of pulled virgins.

----------


## prakel

Carl Jurica, Ph.D,  in *'Practical Queen Production In the North'* states that he introduces the virgin under a push-in mesh cage at the time of removing the old queen so as to avoid a second visit. He states:




> This method works just about every time, making it very dependable and simple to do.


His primary mating hives hold 4 half length langstroth medium frames.

----------


## Little_John

> ... it does go on but that's enough for now


I bet Wadey taught English literature ....  :Smile: 





> Carl Jurica, Ph.D,  in *'Practical Queen Production In the North'* states that he introduces the virgin under a push-in mesh cage at the time of removing the old queen so as to avoid a second visit. He states:
> 
> *This method works just about every time, making it very dependable and simple to do.*


So - one bloke says that caging 'em is doomed to failure 50% of the time - yet another says "it works just about every time".

That's beekeeping as we know it ...  :Smile: 

LJ

----------


## prakel

> I bet Wadey taught English literature ....


Long term editor of Bee Craft and I believe, originally, a tailor. 

Seeley has referenced Wadey's extensive records of nest cut-outs which he undertook over a period of several years. 

A few years ago Wadey's grandson had a letter published in Bee Craft stating an intention to start beekeeping, I hope he succeeded...

----------


## prakel

Another overview, an article by Larry Connor which may be of interest:

*Variations on New Queens.

*http://www.wicwas.com/sites/default/...ABJ2010-10.pdf

----------


## Jon

With regard to direct introduction using smoke, (post 2 on this thread) I have a queen laying well but it is missing a foot so expendable.
I introduced her to a queenless single frame nuc 2 weeks ago after taking her from an apidea and the bees accepted her straight away and she laid a patch of eggs.
I have another 4 frame nuc from which I removed the queen about a week ago.
Yesterday I removed a few queen cells from it and took the foot deficient queen from her frame of bees in the other nuc and introduced her directly after smoking the hell out of it. She had a big patch of eggs laid when I checked this morning.
The queen would only have been 5 minutes between colonies.

----------


## madasafish

> With regard to direct introduction using smoke, (post 2 on this thread) I have a queen laying well but it is missing a foot so expendable.
> I introduced her to a queenless single frame nuc 2 weeks ago after taking her from an apidea and the bees accepted her straight away and she laid a patch of eggs.
> I have another 4 frame nuc from which I removed the queen about a week ago.
> Yesterday I removed a few queen cells from it and took the foot deficient queen from her frame of bees in the other nuc and introduced her directly after smoking the hell out of it. She had a big patch of eggs laid when I checked this morning.
> The queen would only have been 5 minutes between colonies.



I have done the same in full size hives: twice this year with total success..

----------


## prakel

At the risk of being shot for going off topic, there's some useful information in this Honey Show video regarding colony odour which does offer some food for thought even though the talk is nothing to do with introducing queens.

Ghosts in the Hive by Ricarda Kather

----------

