Mated queen, but no eggs

[Mrs Shoot]

Collected a prime swarm on Monday 2nd June 2014. They have been drawing out frames since their arrival and have some stores. Spotted the queen today Tuesday 10th June, so know she is there, but there are no eggs at all. I would have expected her to have started laying by now (judging by other swarms collected after this one, and laying).

Is there a chance she will lay? Or has she failed.

Options

Add a frame of eggs and see if superseding cells are formed?

Dispatch her and unit bees with another hive (have a cast with a nice virgin they could bolster)?

Just give her some time?

 

[beeno]

Hi Mrs. Shoot,
Most obvious thing would be that it was not a prime swarm, but a cast after all. I would give her 14 days.

 

[Tom Bick]

As above as some cast swarms can be very big. I don’t think a frame of eggs/brood would do any harm, but chances are she will get going before long.

 

[oliver90owner]

Yes, can you be certain it was not the first swarm with a virgin from a colony which had previously lost a clipped queen on its first attempt at swarming (so the bees returned for another week)?

RAB

 

[drstitson]

by definition a prime swarm should be led by a queen who is laying well and should get on with the job fairly promptly after rehoming.

this is obviously a cast. hopefully you don't have a QE left under the brood box.

BTW how big was the swarm?

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

by definition a prime swarm should be led by a queen who is laying

That's the problem - people insist on using the size of the swarm as an indicator of whether it is a 'prime' or a 'cast' IMHO until you have evidenced the queen laying on swarm capture or have witnessed swarm leaving a hive and you are 100% certain it is led by a laying queen - a swarm is just a swarm

 

[Mrs Shoot]

Should have said, we found the queen the day we collected the swarm, and she was a mated queen. It wasn't from one of our hives, so didn't witness where the swarm came from.
We have put a frame in with some eggs to see if they make any supersedure cells. She doesn't seem as spritley as I have witnessed other queens to be, but can only judge on my small amount of experience. Just wondered if the swarming process took to much out of her.

 

[user 6228]

That's the problem - people insist on using the size of the swarm as an indicator of whether it is a 'prime' or a 'cast' IMHO until you have evidenced the queen laying on swarm capture or have witnessed swarm leaving a hive and you are 100% certain it is led by a laying queen - a swarm is just a swarm

Even the first swarm from a hive may not be with original queen 100% of the time. But then little is 100% certain with bees.

 

[Travelator]

Should have said, we found the queen the day we collected the swarm, and she was a mated queen. It wasn't from one of our hives, so didn't witness where the swarm came from.

I can't understand why you're so confident that the queen is mated - is it because she's marked? (If so, there would still be the possibility that someone had marked a virgin queen, although that's not standard procedure)

 

[Tom Bick]

Should have said, we found the queen the day we collected the swarm, and she was a mated queen. It wasn't from one of our hives, so didn't witness where the swarm came from.
We have put a frame in with some eggs to see if they make any supersedure cells. She doesn't seem as spritley as I have witnessed other queens to be, but can only judge on my small amount of experience. Just wondered if the swarming process took to much out of her.

Test frame is a good thing to do and no harm in it. We should not rule out damage to the queen during swarm collection.

 

[oliver90owner]

If I was certain she was a mated queen and there were no eggs by now, I would be changing her very shortly.

Different, maybe, if a virgin. But any new queen may bring in new genes.

Some always requeen as a routine in these circumstances, mated or virgin.