# Do bees move eggs into queen cells?



## BEES4U (Oct 10, 2007)

This topic has come up for discussion many times amongst bee keepers.
:scratch:What are your thoughts?
Ernie


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

No, they reconfigure the cell to be able to raise a new queen.

Many years ago I read an article that I found noted in the IBRA book on beekeeping books from the first known until now. I forget the real title. Dr. Eva Crane compiled it.

The article was from some eastern european country. The author maintained that a queen was introduced into a hive in a cage, but was not released. And yet there were eggs being laid. The author maintained that the bees were taking the eggs from the caged queen and depositing them in the cells. So far as I know this has never been verified or recreated in the lab.


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

BEES4U said:


> This topic has come up for discussion many times amongst bee keepers.
> :scratch:What are your thoughts?
> Ernie


Every year in some of my cell builders, I find queen cups just above the excluder with eggs...the queen has been below the excluder for 9 days. Where did they come from...I suppose they could be laying worker eggs.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Yes....


----------



## Dan Williamson (Apr 6, 2004)

I believe they are capable of moving eggs and I believe they do it on occasion.


----------



## Eaglerock (Jul 8, 2008)

Mark I disagree. I believe they can and do move them.

Quote: In order to prove the theory that during swarming bees move eggs into bell cells a simple experiment can be made. A frame is prepared as on image 1. It is marked and put in the middle of a chosen hive’s brood. In a few days bees will reshape queen cell cups into bell shaped cells (image 2) which we will name artificial bells (unlike natural bells which bees built by their own) or tear them down (image 4). Meanwhile, the queen will lay eggs on the comb of the frame. Inspecting the artificial bells we will determine that there are no eggs inside. The frame is then put into another hive body (the second or third above) and separated with queen excluder or two queen system board. After several days, (if there is swarming urge in the colony) bells will become queen cells. The conclusion is simple - the bees had moved chosen eggs into the bells.

http://www.pcela.co.yu/bell_shaped_cells1.htm


----------



## Bizzybee (Jan 29, 2006)

I have pulled queens from hives and know for a fact that cells were empty when the queen left, only to find eggs present in the the cells the next day.

I have stood in the yard over a hive grafting larva before. Have bees all over the frame while I was grafting and on more than one occasion have nurse bees notice the larva on my tool as I lifted it out. Reach out and snatch the larva off of my tool and place it back in the cell. Grrrrrr they got a peck on the head for that! :no:


----------



## BEES4U (Oct 10, 2007)

*Reach out and snatch the larva off of my tool and place it back in the cell.*

Well, thats a new one!
Ernie


----------



## BEES4U (Oct 10, 2007)

*Mark I disagree. I believe they can and do move them.*

:thumbsup:And the answer is Eagelrock's posting!
Good searching!
Regards,
Ernie


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

I, too, have seen queen cells above an excluder that contained developing queen pupae....obviously not a result of a laying worker. I'm convinced....they move them.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

The answer was yes.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

why is it obviously not the result of a laying worker? one would think that if bees moved eggs that someone would have filmed it in the act. i have seen film of workers laying in queen cups, fwiw.

deknow


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

deknow said:


> why is it obviously not the result of a laying worker?


Because it would not have developed into a queen pupa. It could only have formed a drone pupa....the differences are obvious.



deknow said:


> one would think that if bees moved eggs that someone would have filmed it in the act.


It'd almost just have to be a lucky shot, don't you think?



deknow said:


> i have seen film of workers laying in queen cups, fwiw.


Yeah, but I'm betting they didn't develop into a queen pupae.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

i might just take that bet:

http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/bsmay1991.htm

...this is pretty well known, and documented in the above by dr. erikson.

deknow



> Of the 18 colonies of LUS tested for thelytoky, 55.6% reared worker brood from the eggs of laying workers, and 50% reared queens.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

An interesting article, deknow. All the same, the hives where I've seen queen pupae develop above the excluder were queenright. Generally these were colonies that were preparing to swarm. No other brood above the excluder. In these hives the liklihood of laying workers exhibiting thelytoky is remote, in my opinion.
I remain convinced that workers move eggs/larvae. Do you disagree?


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

well, much of the literature suggests that laying workers are quite common, even in queenright colonies.

the observations cited here do not preclude eggs being moved by workers, or laying workers producing the queen-cell eggs.

the absence of documentation (even observation, never mind film/photo) of workers moving eggs from one cell to another is suspicious....we've counted the number of times a day brood are fed by nurse bees...but never seen a worker move an egg?

since we have documentation of laying workers laying eggs that develop into diploid females (and even fertile queens), i think it's safe to assume that this does happen sometimes.

the absence of evidence (not having seen a worker move an egg) is not proof that this does not happen....but you would think someone would have actually documented this by now.

i can't speak as to what did or did not happen in a specific case...but if workers do move eggs, we should be able to see it. we do know that workers lay viable, diploid, female eggs at least some of the time....and this appears to be more common when the queen is separated from the brood with an excluder.

http://www.dave-cushman.net/bee/workerpolicing.html


> When populations are large and the nest is physically widespread, the distribution of pheromones reduces at the outer edges, simply because of distance from the queen and brood as well as the larger area of the outer periphery of the nest. this gives rise to a condition of reduced suppression of ovary production, but not as severe as in the queenless case. It does give rise to an increase in worker laid eggs, but the numbers of drones arising from them is a very small fraction of those that are laid. 'Worker policing' is the mechanism that causes adult workers to eat 'worker laid' eggs, which are identified by other workers. [5]


if one are going to state that workers move eggs, one must be able to see this happening at some point.

deknow


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

deknow said:


> since we have documentation of laying workers laying eggs that develop into diploid females (and even fertile queens), i think it's safe to assume that this does happen sometimes.


And, apparently, quite common in Lusby's bees.


deknow said:


> the absence of evidence (not having seen a worker move an egg) is not proof that this does not happen....but you would think someone would have actually documented this by now.


I suspect that there are many behaviors within a bee colony that have yet to be documented. I wouldn't want to hang my hat on that alone.



deknow said:


> if one are going to state that workers move eggs, one must be able to see this happening at some point.


I won't argue with that except I think I'd replace the word 'must' with 'should'.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

i agree that there is a lot that we cannot (and may never) "see" or observe in a honeybee colony. the moving of eggs by workers, however, is something that people have been talking about and looking for for a very long time. there could be some "heizenburg uncertainty principle" at work here (ie, bees won't move eggs when either visible light, or red light is in use), but i think not.

the moving of eggs is too much of an observable phenomenon to simply brush off the fact that it has never been witnessed by an astute observer, nor documented.

you can assume whatever you want...but at this point, claiming that the workers are moving the eggs is jumping to conclusions at best.

deknow


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

deknow said:


> you can assume whatever you want...but at this point, claiming that the workers are moving the eggs is jumping to conclusions at best.


Now....is that a 'fact' or your opinion?


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

uhhh, there are 2 ways that eggs can get into queencells if the queen doesn't have access to the cell. the egg can be moved in by a worker (or, i suppose a drone), or it can be laid in the cell by a worker.

given that workers (even in queenright hives) are documented to lay eggs, and even documented to lay eggs in queencells...and given that no one has ever (to my knowledge) documented workers (or drones) moving eggs...then, it is a fact that it is jumping to conclusions to assume the workers moved the eggs. ...doesn't mean it's absolutely not happening, but it would certainly be jumping to conclusions.

deknow


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

My point was that there's, in my opinion, often a difference between forming an opinion without absolute, irrefutable facts and jumping to conclusions. It was only a question of semantics, on my part. And its clear, again in my opinion, that we differ on that definition.
Anyway, I'm not going to beat this dead horse any longer except to say that there's room for disagreement........in my opinion.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

beemandan said:


> I, too, have seen queen cells above an excluder that contained developing queen pupae....obviously not a result of a laying worker. I'm convinced....they move them.


So I guess the concensus is that I'm wrong.  That never happened before. Explain this to me. What circumstances in nature would make them do this?


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

sqkcrk said:


> So I guess the concensus is that I'm wrong.  That never happened before. Explain this to me. What circumstances in nature would make them do this?


that one is easy....whenever an observer blinks, or has to change video tapes, the worker bees know to create a diversion, and one of them sneaks the egg from a worker cell to a queen cell.

what we need is a honeybee observer hooked up to the "keep yer eyes open with a toothpick" apparatus from clockwork orange.

deknow


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

I believe that I once saw a bee that came up over the edge of a frame and grabbed a varroa mite in it's mouth and went back down into the hive. I only saw it once.

I would think that if bees move eggs, that someone would have observed bees w/ eggs in their mouths.  Perhaps von Frisch?


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

sqkcrk said:


> What circumstances in nature would make them do this?


In my case, the only times I've seen it was when a colony was preparing to swarm. They were only queen cells. No worker or drone cells. Some instinct to produce queen cells? Beats me. Most likely.....my imagination.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

sqkcrk said:


> I would think that if bees move eggs, that someone would have observed bees w/ eggs in their mouths.  Perhaps von Frisch?


i think you mean huber....at least he could resist the urge to blink...but perhaps the workers can't move the eggs _unless_ the observer blinks 

deknow


----------



## Bizzybee (Jan 29, 2006)

Then give this a try...............

Set up a hive, whatever size fits our fancy, fill it with bees. Brood if you like but NO eggs or young larva.

If your conclusion is correct, then the odds of having a laying worker producing a viable laying queen should be tremendous. The natural tendency of the hive to survive should produce the queen in short notice. No cell cups needed they simply need to produce a single egg that can be raised as a queen.

I don't need to jump to any conclusion as to what will happen to your hive. But you can form your own opinion at the conclusion of your test. You may have to do it a few times to be sure though. Don't forget your camera and DVR. 

Good luck!


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

errr, how is this experiment you propose different from the one that i cited earlier?

deknow


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

I know I said I'd leave this dead horse....but....this is kind of a different topic. 
Why do my queenless hives always seem to fail? In Dee Lusby's case over 50% of the queenless hives produced fertilized eggs. I suppose that it might be that with my queenless hives that do produce fertilized eggs, I just never seem to catch in their queenless state. It'd be hard for me to believe but I like to think I'm open minded......I'm really going to have to ponder this a bit.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

deknow said:


> i think you mean huber....at least he could resist the urge to blink...but perhaps the workers can't move the eggs _unless_ the observer blinks
> 
> deknow


I though Frisch was the blind one. Did I get that wrong too? Maybe my powers of observation and recall are impaired.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

beemandan said:


> I know I said I'd leave this dead horse....but....this is kind of a different topic.
> Why do my queenless hives always seem to fail? In Dee Lusby's case over 50% of the queenless hives produced fertilized eggs. I suppose that it might be that with my queenless hives that do produce fertilized eggs, I just never seem to catch in their queenless state. It'd be hard for me to believe but I like to think I'm open minded......I'm really going to have to ponder this a bit.


Maybe you need more AHB stock in your gene pool.

By fail I assume you mean die eventually. I have had many a queenless or drone layer colony that made a good crop of honey. And when I do find this to be true, I don't feel bad when I take all of the honey that is in the hive.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

sqkcrk said:


> Maybe you need more AHB stock in your gene pool.


Yeah, I am aware of Dee's genetics.



sqkcrk said:


> By fail I assume you mean die eventually.


In my case its rarely an 'eventual' event. Between shb and wax moths my queenless hives seem to collapse pretty quickly.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

beemandan said:


> Yeah, I am aware of Dee's genetics.
> 
> 
> In my case its rarely an 'eventual' event. Between shb and wax moths my queenless hives seem to collapse pretty quickly.


I would prescribe more beekeeping.  But what do I know. I don't have a problem w/ shb.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

sqkcrk said:


> I would prescribe more beekeeping.


Yes, of course. Although even with that, I'm sure I'll never be in your league.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

beemandan said:


> Yes, of course. Although even with that, I'm sure I'll never be in your league.


 Why thank you Dan.  

What I meant was perhaps getting into your hive(s) more often. Just an idea.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

sqkcrk said:


> Why thank you Dan.
> 
> What I meant was perhaps getting into your hive(s) more often. Just an idea.


You're welcome Mark. It was a bit of a backhanded compliment. One of my numerous weaknesses is that I respond to condescension with sarcasm. I'm glad to hear that you didn't intend it that way.

Obviously if I could get into them often enough I could surely head off their collapse. Having said that I've discovered that a queenless hive at the wrong time of year will attract a boatload of beetles in a very short time. I've seen a hive succumb to shb, that on an inspection only two weeks earlier was queenright and robust. The presence of shb has changed my beekeeping considerably.

Its good that they aren't a problem for you.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Queens get through excluders. I think that's a more likely explanation for queen cells in the supers. Huber's assistant watched bees for a very long time trying to observe any moving eggs and they never did. I've watched them for hours in my observation hive and never seen them move an egg. Does that prove they don't? Of course not, but neither does finding some above the excluder prove that they do. I don't think the bees have any way to glue the egg back into the cell correctly if they did move it. It would be more likely that they move larvae than that they move eggs. At least they wouldn't have to glue the egg to the bottom.


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

beemandan said:


> I, too, have seen queen cells above an excluder that contained developing queen pupae....obviously not a result of a laying worker. I'm convinced....they move them.


That's interesting. AS I say, I see the eggs above the excluder every year. I've never allowed the cups/egg to mature, as I figure they'd interfere with my cell builder's success.

Have you seen these queen cells go to maturity, or did you open and look at the pupa? I'm sure you've seen a laying worker colony try to raise queen cells. When you open them, they are obviously not queens.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Michael Palmer said:


> I'm sure you've seen a laying worker colony try to raise queen cells. When you open them, they are obviously not queens.


At this point I'm even second guessing myself. A week ago I'd have sworn on a stack of bibles. Having followed and contributed to this thread, I now regret that I didn't make notes when I observed.

My memory is of swarm cells above the excluder. There were swarm cells below as well. I didn't want the above cells to emerge, so I cut and inspected them. They were far enough along that the eyes appeared to be in the proportion appropriate for diploid pupae....this is the way I remember it. At least on two occasions. 

Having said all of that I would no longer swear under oath.


----------

