> ...Bees in queenless colonies DO collect pollen - or at least they do in
> Alberta.  Because of the frequency of assertions to the contrary here I was
> beginning to question my memory.  I recall noticing many times that queenless
> colonies had a lot more FRESH pollen available than queen-right colonies.
>
> This spring when I went to unwrap my bees all of the live colonies
> seemed to be the same.  Essentially the same traffic levels and the
> same proportion of bees gathering pollen.  However two of the
> colonies were hopelessly queenless but the bees were quite
> industriously bring in pollen and storing it in what should have
> been the brood nest.

This is very true, and one reason a hive of bees that has been without a queen
for a period of time -- such as happens after dequeening or during introduction
of a new queen -- will rebound strongly and often overtake hives nearby that
have had queens all along.

There is a myth that queens lay huge numbers of eggs continuously and that a
queen that is capable of 2,000 eggs a day will lay that number continuously.
Our experience is that the egg laying goes up and down with the weather and
nutrition levels in the hive.  Queens will often quit laying for several days
during a rainy spell.  Moreover, the amount of brood will normally diminish
somewhat in strong hives as the season progresses after the initial spring
buildup.

This is one reason why I question the school of thought that claims that
absolutely the "best" possible queens are necessary in all cases.  In my
experience, steady output can match the performance of a superstar queen that
goes in fits and jerks.  The limit to how many eggs are hatched and raised is
often what the hive can feed and keep warm, not what the queen can lay.

There are only several short periods in the year here where the queen will lay
flat out, and when her output could limit hive growth.  The rest of the time
that is not the case.

allen