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:
huestis' <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 14 Jul 2002 10:35:18 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (22 lines)
Hi all

> One interesting question I would have for those who have "regressed"
> their bees to a smaller size has to do with "bee space".  If 10%
> smaller bees result from regression, do these bees still respect
> the same bee space designed for 10% larger bees?

I like to think that it is todays bees that are 10% larger rather than the
reverse. But 4.9 bees do respect the bee space. But nine frames I don't
believe will work. 11 frame equipment could work also in langstroth equip.
but 10 works fine.

> b)  If they do respect the same bee space as larger bees, what
>     does this imply?

Not much. This size bee was desined for the equipment. Right?  The current
sized bee will fit 9 or 10 frames. 4.9 bees will work 10 or 11 frames.  I
don't see where spacing has much to do with cell size and mite supression.
Spacing has more to do with thermoregulation for over wintering.

Clay

ATOM RSS1 RSS2