David Eyre wrote:
>...
>        Bees are like fish, 'they grow to the size of the pond'  Keep fish in a
>small pond, they stay small, keep bees in small hive they stay small.
>        The only reason for a 9 frame instead 10 is to make it easier for the
>keeper. I agree you need one frame less if you're a big operator. But even
>here I question the economics. More bees, more honey pure and simple.
 
Hiyo, Dave.  Sorry but I have to disagree. Having two more combs is not
going to get your queen to lay anymore than she already is, once you have
given them double brood chambers.  If she has moved up into the supers to
lay eggs, there are probably lots of empty cells further down, from which
bees have been emerging.
 
With ideal worker combs, even an exceptional queen could keep occupied with
7 - 8 frames' worth of comb area, so having 18 vs. 20 frames in the brood
area isn't going to change anything.
 
I don't keep my bees in a small pond, either.  They are all in 2 or three
deep brood nests by June.  At the same time, some of the locals keep their
queens restricted on 9 or ten combs, only, and get better crops than I do!
Location and the bees' genetic makeup certainly have a lot to do with it,
too.
 
In Britain some folks (BIBBA) have used a single brood chamber as a way to
screen potential breeding stock.  They look for queens which will produce a
compact brood nest on (for instance) 11 British Standard frames, and which
will not swarm readily.  They then keep them in singles, and add supers
over an excluder.  Colonies thus managed CAN and evidently often do
outproduce doublebrood stocks which are more prolific. If a sudden dearth
should occur, the big colonies are prone to food shortages.
 
THe idea is basically that a less prolific (while at least equally
productive) stocks require a minimum of attention and a minimum of
equipment, while still proving to be profitable.