Foraging decisions of social animals occur in the context of social groups, and thus may be subject to considerations of not only an individual's nutritional state and nutrient input, but those of the social group in which they live. In eusocial insects, which live in colonies containing workers that forage for food that is mostly consumed by others, foraging decisions that reflect colony needs may also be considered at both the colony and individual level. If colony energy balance is perturbed, is the counteracting response occurring on the group level (a change in division of labor) or on the individual level (a change in individual foraging choices)? To address this, colony and individual level foraging behaviors were observed in two species of eusocial bees: the highly social honey bee Apis mellifera and the primitively eusocial bumble bee Bombus terrestris. After manipulations of protein (P) and carbohydrate (C) stores in colonies of both species, there were changes in multiple different behavioral responses including colony level (number of foragers, allocation to nectar and pollen foraging, nutrient mass foraged) and individual level (P and C concentration preference and loading during foraging). These results suggest both honey bee and bumble bee colonies balance nutrient needs through a combination of both colony level shifts in foraging allocation, as well as slight modulation of individual nutrient preferences. This study also uncovered colony level differences between the two bee species; honey bees balanced P intake while bumble bees balanced C intake. These patterns may reflect differences in life history traits such as perenniality and hoarding, traits that are developed in more highly social species. Overall, this study highlights the importance of considering both group and individual level behavioral responses in foraging decisions in social animals.

Summary: 1. To sustain the vital ecosystem service of pollination, new methodical developments are needed for research on the underlying factors of globally observed bee losses. In particular, robust laboratory methods for assessing adverse effects on honey bee brood are required. In addition, from a statistical point of view, the shared origin of test individuals must be considered when analysing ecotoxicological data.2. To improve honey bee in vitro rearing, we adopted a nongrafting method to collect honey bee larvae without direct manipulation. Linear mixed effects model to evaluate LD₅₀, larvae survival and prepupae weights integrated the colony background of larvae as a random factor into the statistical analyses. The novel rearing approach and appropriate statistical tools for data analyses are illustrated in an in vitro case study on acute oral dimethoate toxicity.3. We recommend our honey bee larvae collection approach for in vitro larvae‐rearing applications, because of (i) a mere 3% background mortality upon the prepupae stage, (ii) a high quantitative capacity and (iii) because of robustness of performance which are great benefits for standardization.4. The analyses indicate clear adverse effects of dimethoate by a significant survival reduction and prepupae weight reduction. For second instars, the acute 48‐h LD₅₀ was 1·67 μg dimethoate per larva.5. We conclude that both our larvae collection method and the applied statistical approaches will help to improve the quality of environmental risk assessment studies on honey bees, to secure honey bee pollination and to sustain biodiversity.