It's not my idea, I know it as the Ben Harden method and it may be called other things. The first time I tried it I counted 12 queen cells that had been created. I simply moved all frames with open larvae above the QE and made sure she was in the box below the QE. No need to crowd nurse bees into the upper box, the open brood brought plenty of nurse bees up there. No need to "guess" and "imagine" what "might" happen. If you want a quick read on the method, it's here: http://www.dave-cushman.net/bee/benhardenmethod.htmlof course whether dr buzz idea would work or not would be somewhat to highly associated with the number of cells you were trying to rear. I would guess for a small number of cells (one or two) you MIGHT get some results. beyond one or two I myself would not expect any significant returns using this process. experience of course is the primary driver in bee keeping so if you give that idea a try tell us how it goes.
Oh, just naturally drawn cells, I've never grafted.In your case were the 12 cells grafted or simply naturally drawn cells?
You might be thinking of that Mel Disselkoen guy. He talks about using your hive tool to cut the bottom cell wall down to the mid rib....He also talks about how he puts a .22 (I think) bullet casing over whichever young larvae he wants to be developed into being a queen, like one out of every three larvae, and sprinkles wheat flour over the frame. The flour gums up the larvae and the nurse bees can't care for it and remove it. He removes the shell casing, of course, so that larvae can be fed. The purpose of all of that is to control how many larvae get fed all the extra RJ without forcing the bees to waste resources raising queens so close together that you have to kill one to get to another.someone on this forum (old memory chip is defective.. can't recall just who at this time) did something on nicking or notching places they wanted the natural queen cells to be built. this added feature might be useful if anyone was using the method you describe.
No, I have never tried to raise 100 queens using the Ben Harden method. And you are right that commercial queen raising operations may not find the Ben Harden method useful. But then again, commercial queen raisers aren't on message boards asking for advice on raising queens. The OP asked about Cloake board designs, and I gave him pointers on a much simpler method than all of the steps required for the Cloake method.I might guess you have never really tried to do this?
I've been playing with some different queen rearing things just to make observations and learn something, and I wanted to come back to this and ask: Why? I never asked why you don't think the Harden method would result in more than one or two queen cells. Is it because you doubt that a QE alone can convince them that they are queenless?I would guess for a small number of cells (one or two) you MIGHT get some results. beyond one or two I myself would not expect any significant returns using this process.
I have no idea, that might very well be. Hopefully he'll re-visit the thread and explain it. He had said that there were "any number of sound reasons" why a QE alone wouldn't work, and I never asked him what they were. In any case, by the time I take apart my colony and go through every frame looking for the queen and pulling all of the eggs/larvae into the upper box, I figured it wasn't any extra work at that point to go ahead and put in a home made Cloake board, so I basically made one by screwing 3 strips of wood on 3 sides of a QE and put the second box on top of that. Then after letting all the nuse bees pass up through the QE like normal with the Harden method) I simply slid a board into the slot on the QE made by the strips, instant Cloake board. I think I have another day or two before I pull the slide out and check for Q-cells, but I'm curious if the slide on the QE creates more "queenlessness" than just the QE alone.Dr. Buzz, Tec is accustomed to raising hundreds of queens weekly. 1 or 2 to him may mean 10 or 20.
Yep, you and me both. But it's amazing what you can learn when you try stuff that "can't be done," even if it doesn't actually turn out to be practical at the moment.my preferred route (and I suspect this is an attribute that Iddee and I share somewhat) is I don't tend to invent (or reinvent) something complex when something very simple works exceptionally well.