[cristianNiculae]

I had a queen less hive(cu tdown split), I gave it a cell, the cell hatched but when I checked for eggs when the time came there were none. Then I gave it a frame of open brood and they started queen cells on it.
My conclusion was that they had no queen so I should give them a mated queen from one of my mating nucs. I put her in a cage and released her after 24 hours. The bees were very enthusiastic when I put the cage in.
Today I checked the hive and first thing I see is a virgin. ****. My good queen is dead... and she was probably my biggest queen.
OK

For now I divided the hive in two as they are aggressive and want to get rid of this feature. The hive without a queen received a cell. The other has the virgin I found. I also marked her.

Is it possible that a hive containing a virgin queen to start queen cells knowing they have one? This is weird to me.



At the same time I had another hive in the exact same situation and they received the mated queen - she already started to lay in her new home.

 

[EricKlaus]

To me, it sounds like you released the mated queen from the cage too soon. I think they were "enthusiastic" because they saw her as an invader and were trying to kill her. I've always heard minimum of 3 to 4 days in the cage for the colony to accept a new queen.

 

[Tenbears]

It is common for a hive that has a virgin queen, or even a newly mated queen to build queen cells if given a frame of brood containing eggs.

Even though there is a queen present within the hive the house bees think she is failing because there is insufficient egg laying. they usually tear them down if the reigning queen ramps up in time. this is the reason why I do not add brood to a hive that I know has a queen present be she virgin or bred.

 

[drlonzo]

It is fact that if a colony is left queenless and starts a queencell on their own, even IF you put a good known laying queen into the hive, they will continue to nurture that queen cell and allow it to hatch. Many don't understand this little tid bit, but it is the same way when the hive decides to supersede their queen. She lays and egg, they determine that there's a problem with her, they decide to supersede, and then they keep the OLD queen away from the new queen cell. They will not allow her to pull it down. Sometimes prior to the point of it hatching they will kill off the old queen to make room for the new, sometimes they will allow the virgin to kill off the queen.

 

[burns375]

yes what 10 bears said. Its not just queen pheromon, but brood pheromonealso. They will start cells with a virgin or new queen present, however good chance the cells are torn down just before or once capped.

 

[cristianNiculae]

Thanks a lot for all the explanations.

 

[Tenbears]

It is fact that if a colony is left queenless and starts a queencell on their own, even IF you put a good known laying queen into the hive, they will continue to nurture that queen cell and allow it to hatch. Many don't understand this little tid bit, but it is the same way when the hive decides to supersede their queen. She lays and egg, they determine that there's a problem with her, they decide to supersede, and then they keep the OLD queen away from the new queen cell. They will not allow her to pull it down. Sometimes prior to the point of it hatching they will kill off the old queen to make room for the new, sometimes they will allow the virgin to kill off the queen.

It is Not a FACT! and exactly why this post was started http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?298902-Where-are-you-on-the-tree-of-knowledge.

Most frequently your information is reasonable, and it is apparent you study beekeeping with zeal. But none of what you posted this time is FACT. In my years of beekeeping I have seen many queen cells torn because the present queen began to meet the expectations of the house bees. and I can assure you many other experienced beekeepers will tell you the same.

 

[cristianNiculae]

Nice thread.
I am in the same category .
Anyway I attribute everything I achieve to God. It's safer that way, believe me. I'm very aware that I can loose everything(bees, family, life etc.) over night. We are dust but a valuable dust in the hands of God.

 

[Riverderwent]

Nice thread.
I am in the same category .
Anyway I attribute everything I achieve to God. It's safer that way, believe me. I'm very aware that I can loose everything(bees, family, life etc.) over night. We are dust but a valuable dust in the hands of God.

Timisoara, December 16, 1989. Cheers.

 

[cristianNiculae]

Timisoara... yes... probably the last burst of truth in our people.

 

[Joseph Clemens]

Yes, it is true that some hives will start queen cells with a recently mated queen present, and continue raising some of them to maturity. Though many more colonies, with only a virgin queen present, will continue making multiple "queen cell cups", more than they would otherwise produce, and new beekeepers are notorious for assuming queen cell cups are actual queen cells, when they are not, and may never become, so.

For example: one summer, a few years ago, I maintained a small, 5-frame queen bank, with about five caged virgins and five caged mated/laying queens. I kept this colony viable by adding frames of brood, without bees. After a few months, they raised themselves a queen, who, curiously did not bother the caged queens (quite unusual), but went about her business as though they weren't there - becoming mated and got busy laying, doing a very nice job. I soon moved her to another hive, where she continued her good work - hopefully reducing any chances the banked queens would not continue being properly cared for. This "queen bank" was just as an experiment, to see how queens responded to being banked.