BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"James C. Bach" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
Sun, 16 Mar 1997 19:50:22 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (217 lines)
Walter Peterson a long time beekeeper in Spokane, Washington asked me if
I’d put the following discussion out for you to comment on.  He has been
considering this issue for quite awhile and in a recent letter ask me
for my ideas.  I suggested that we put it out for discussion.  Walt may
be reached in care of:   [log in to unmask]  or it you find that difficult you
may email me at [log in to unmask]  and I will forward your thoughts
to him.  Walt may also be reached at 509-926-1188.  Please do not resend
the document with your answers.  That takes up tooooo much space.  Thank
you.
 
Walt asks:
 
Do worker bees of a hopelessly queenless colony ever steal a fertile egg
from a queen-right colony?
 
I got my first colony of bees in 1933 or 1934 when I was a freshman or
sophomore in high school, and except for three years during World War
II, have kept them continuously ever since.  During these 60+ years, I
have occasionally heard or read of reports of beekeepers who feel they
had hopelessly queenless colonies only to discover, at a later date,
that the colony had a queen or usually a single (I don’t recall hearing
of a multiple) mature queen cell.  The reports are anecdotal in nature
and usually second or third-hand or rumor-quality reports.
 
Let’s explore this behavior and the kind of questions that need to be
answered before we can arrive at an answer to the above question.
 
It has been over six months since TWA Flight 800 fell out of the sky. 
Even today, investigators have not explained “why.”  They point out the
difficulty in ruling out structural failure, pilot error, explosion,
ground-to-air millile, collision or other causes because they do not
have evidence to establish the cause or to rule out other possible
causes.  They do seem to agree that some causes are more probable than
others.
 
Let’s review the evidence.  First, most beekeepers are familiar with
laying workers.  They occur when there is no queen in the hive, and some
(usually several) worker bees take over the queen’s function and
commence laying eggs which all hatch into drones, because they are not
fertilized.
 
I suspect that this usually occurs in connection with a supersedure or
swarming.  My scenario is, when queen cells are built, the first virgin
to emerge destroys the other cells and then is lost or destroyed on her
orientation flight or subsequent mating flight.  She may get lost and
reenter the wrong hive, be destroyed in trying to enter the wrong hive,
or be captured by a frog, toad, praying mantis or by a bird.  I’m
certain some beekeepers have destroyed supersedure cells, mistaking them
for swarm cells; I have.
 
On the possibility of virgins getting lost on their orientation or
mating flights, we know that this does occur and the queen breeders
arrange their mating nucs in differing patterns - square, round, facing
different directions, different colors, old tires, boxes or bushes in
different spots - all in an effort to help the returning virgin identify
her nucleus.
 
Before we progress too far, I think it important to decide if we feel
honey bees posses the intelligence and problem-solving ability to
recognize both their hopelessly queenless condition and the remedy of
stealing a fertile egg.  I’ll concede their recognition ot their
queenless condition which even the beekeeper can identify by the hum of
a queenless colony.  I’ll recognize learing ability as applied to their
behavior as when they learn to navigate a maze-type trap and gain access
to stored honey.
 
My problem is with problem-solving intelligence.  Can bees recognize the
difference and the consequences of eggs from laying workers that hatch
into drones and a stolen fertile egg that can hatch and be nurtured into
a queen that will perpetuate the colony?  Do they comprehend the
difference between fertile and infertile eggs?  I think the majority of
knowledgeable people studying bee behavior agree that they do not
possess this kind of problem-solving intelligence.
 
Let’s assume for a moment that they do arrive at the solution of
stealing a fertile egg.  I have never heard reports of their stealing
two or more fertile eggs.  Why?  Is the colony so well organized that
only one volunteer is sent forth, and only if she doesn’t successfully
return is a second sent forth to steal another egg?
 
Are the individual thieves possessed of such problem-solving
intelligence as to gorge themselves with honey or nectar that they might
pass the guards of the victim colony unchallenged?  Why isn’t there two,
ten or even a hundred stolen eggs in a queenless hive?  And if this is a
behavior or intelligence that bees possess, why is there ever a
hopelessly queenless colony?
 
What means of communication does a hopelessly queenless colony have that
permits them to communicate the instructions to only one bee at a time
to perform this colony-saving act?  Let’s examine the only “one” egg
phenomenon.
 
In the July 1996 Bee Culture, Dr. Richard Taylor writes in his Bee Talk
column about an incident in which he believes one colony “stole”  an egg
from a queen-right colony.  He reports that he installed packages on
April 22, and about a month later revisited the apiary and found a weak
colony with no brood and no queen, but one nice, long, capped, queen
cell.  He didn’t notice if the queen was dead in her cage.  He then
state, and I quote:  “Certainly the queen I introduced with the package
did not emerge from her cage, lay one egg, and then disappear.”
 
I submit that it is far more likely that the queen disappeared after her
first reporductive effort that on her second, tenth, hundredth, ten
thousandth, or possibly all other subsequent reproductive egg-laying
efforts.
 
I’m a farm boy myself and recall that it was the cow’s first calf, the
mare’s firs foal, the sow’s firs litter and the nanny’s first kid that
raised concern, and we visited the pregnant females every half hour or
so as they drew near the big event.  I recall the pullets that became
egg-bound and couldn’t pass an egg.  How long would a queen that
suffered damage in the first egg-laying attempt be tolerated by her
colony?  I’m not as “certain” as Dr. Taylor that the queen didn’t lay
one egg and disappear.  Could she have been imperfect to begin with? 
Damaged in the caging perhaps?
 
I have heard of one beekeeper who accidentally clipped off a queen’s leg
whentrying to clip her wings.  She was superseded in short order.  Are
all introduced queens that are not accepted, “not accepted” as we
ordinarily believe, or might not one in 10,000 or even 100,000 have been
damaged in such a manner that she was destroyed?  Might the bees have
allowed her to lay one egg before destroying her?
 
Let’s look at the queen-rearing industry again for just a moment.  I
understand that queen breeders examine their mating nucs 10 to 12 days
after emergence of the queen.  If the queen is laying, she is caged to
be sold.  If she is not, her head is pinched off and another mature cell
given to the nuc, as to those nucs that had a harvestable queen.
 
Wy is the head pinched off of the non-laying queens?    It is because
the breeders have discovered that there is usually a reason why these
queens haven’t started to lay, that they usuall don’t make good queens,
and that it is not worthwile to try to utilize her.  Might one of these
queens be shipped accidentally or in an emergency to fill an order and
after laying one egg be destroyed?  Certainly not often, but possibly as
often as reports of eggs being stolen from a queen-right colony are
reported.
 
Next Dr. Taylor explores the possibility that a laying worker might
somehow lay a fertilized egg.  This he finds “even harder to believe. 
It violates the most basic principle of bee biology, and besides, if
that were possible, why would we ever get laying worker colonies?
 
Wy does this violate basic principles of bee biology any more than it
violates basic principles of bee behavior?  Why is it any more difficult
to believe than the stolen egg theory?  Why is it, in these days of gene
splitting and grafting, or the thought of gene, chromosome or cell
splitting, fusion, or a combination of these in such a manner as to
create a fertile egg, so difficult to believe?  If it can be done on
purpose, might it occur by accident?
 
I understand that the late Dr. Otto Mackenson of the USDA uncovered the
fact that once in a great while the egg of a laying worker will develop
into a queen.  I haven’t been able to locate any article by Dr.
Mackenson on this observation and would appreciate being pointed in the
right direction.
 
Let’s examine the situation where a laying queen is found in a colony
that was previously hopelessly queenless.  Is it possible that this
colony emits a sound, other than the loud one we recognize when we
remove the lid from such a colony, and that this sound is one beyond the
range of human auditory perception, but is something that a virgin on
her orientation or mating flight might recognize and lock into when
returning from a flight?
 
Might this queen be welcome in such a colony?  Or possibly be permitted
to lay one egg before being destroyed?  I hear some sharp-eyed critic
say that if a virgin or newly mated queen doesn’t return to her parent
hive, then that colony becomes hopelessly queenless.  Tain’t necessarily
so.  I have several times removed the outside brood frame, checking for
swarm cells, found three or four which I destroyed, found the queen,
found no other queen cells, and determined that I had destroyed
supersedure cells and not swarm cells.
 
In every case, the supersedure cells were built in response to a failing
queen, not a failed queen, and the failing queen was able to resupply
the supersedure cells.  Should thos first supersedure cells have
matured, the first to emerge would have probably detsroyed all her
sisters, but not her mother.  Most frequently the new virgin mates and
shares egg laying duties with her mother for a week or two, then ends up
missing.  So, could the misdirected queens have re-queened an otherwise
hopelessly queenless colony?
 
Remember that we are searching for clues to an event that may happen
only once in several hundred thousands of supersedures, swarms, queens
used for re-queening or used in new colonies.  We don’t have all the
necessary evidence, so we have to resort to reason to determine what is
most reasonable.  I know I have reached way out for some of these
possible explanation.  Are they more unbelievable than the stealing a
fertile egg theory?  I don’t think so; perhaps there are other
possibilities.
 
Have you experienced an occasion when you felt that an egg was stolen
from a queen-right colony?  What were the circumstances?  When was the
situation discovered?  What was the age of the brood at the time?  How
many days previous to the discovery were you positive the colony was
queen right?  Was there a brood nest comparable in size to the brood
nests of other colonies?  Were all empty cells filled with eggs?  Could
the queen have been failing?  Were there other colonies nearby that may
have superseded and provided the young queen that entered the colony
that somehow acquired a new cell or queen?  What do you think most
likely happened in those cases where beekeepers claim a queenless colony
stole a fertile egg?
 
I would appreciate hearing from you in care of:  [log in to unmask]     Thank
you.
 
Walter L. Peterson
6603 S. Conklin
Greenacres, WA 99016
 
509-926-1188
 
 
 
Wrkreggs.doc

ATOM RSS1 RSS2