> A good point and I doubt there are many whose livelihoods depend on
> pollination contracts would run 9 in the brood chambers. But I think
> the advantages of 9 frames for a hobbyist outweigh the disadvantages. I
> would also question you assertion that a 10% reduction in comb area in
> the brood nest equates to a 10% reduction in brood area. Sometimes
> arithmetic is not so simple.

Interesting discussion.  I think you are right about the math not being
simple.  A hive of bees seems to me to be a self-optimizing system.

We randomly run both 10 and 9 frame spacing in our brood chambers and have
for many years.  We inherited some nine frame spaced hives and never
changed them over to ten.  We have never been able to notice any difference
in hive strength or wintering success between the two systems.

Fundamentally, bees do not actually need our hives or care about our
dimensions.  I'm told they did just fine for millennia without them.  These
days people take the dimensions and restrictions of manufactured hives and
foundation for granted -- almost like gospel, but standard spacing between
frames was one of those things that was decided back when moveable frame
hives came in to existence a century ago.

At that time, people were not as unanimous about such things as they are
today.  There were many types of bees kept in different environments and
methods, and the design decisions that were made by each manufacturer were
based on his local observations, logic, public beliefs and desires of the
time, and (often) a measure of speculation and marketing hype.

Each manufacturer had to decide on the spacing between frames, the ideal
size of cells in foundation, the designs, volumes and shapes of the boxes
and frames -- and the dimensions necessary to achieve those volumes.
Entrance size and orientation and excluder wire spacing were also things
that had to be established.

Selling equipment is a manufacturers goal.  To the extent that the
requirements behind this goal coincide with the needs of bees and
beekeepers, the modern hive is a success for manufacturers, beekeepers, and
bees.  Nonetheless we must remember that a manufacturer does not wish to
sell 10% fewer frames or 10% less foundation, so closer spacing and more
frames is a good thing for him.

For convenience and simplicity, a one-size-fits-all approach has been used
in hives, mating nucs being an exception, but different manufacturers
came to very different conclusions and designed very different hives.  Over
time there has been a convergence towards a standard, but there are still
incompatibilities between suppliers.

When we consider our hives, we must remember that some of the original
assumptions may have been wrong, circumstances have changed, and that there
is certainly nothing wrong with taking another look at every aspect of hive
design and use in light of this knowledge and in consideration of what our
own bees show us when we work with them.  There is no reason to believe
that our standard hive is anything other than a compromise -- and maybe a
poor one in our personal situation.

Keeping that in mind, another important thing to remember is that in a one-
size-fits-all approach, the tendency is to be on the generous side with
some dimensions and too small in others.  Each choice depends on whether
being too generous or too skimpy with that particular parameter would have
the more undesirable effect.  Since everything is a compromise, the concern
is that the hive must work in all circumstances and that is more important
to a manufacturer than it's being ideal in any particular application or
circumstance.

Examples:

Excluders: Too wide a spacing and they won't exclude.  Too narrow and bees
cannot get through.  Bees vary in size.  Hmmmm.

Entrances: Too small and the hive overheats.  Too large has fewer obvious
problems.  Universally, entrances are made on the generous side.

Foundation: Too small and many bees won't accept it.  Bees that do will be
smaller.  Small cells pack more bees in less space.  That can be a good or
bad depending on circumstances and the beliefs of the people involved.  Too
large and the cluster density drops.  Bees become marginally larger.  Too
large and worker comb becomes confused with drone comb.  Etc.

Frame spacing: Bees naturally vary comb spacing.  In man-made hives, if the
combs are too close, brood often cannot be raised in all cells and flatness
of the central foundation becomes critical.  Closer spacing sells more
equipment more often.  If the combs are spaced wider, then the flatness of
the brood combs is less critical, bees have more room between combs, older,
warped combs are not a problem, fewer frames are required, there is less
handling, ventilation may be improved, but a given cluster can cover fewer
combs.  As I recall, Dadant chose a wider spacing than Root.  Root's
spacing is what most call ten frame spacing.  Dadant was closer to what we
call nine.  As I recall, anyhow.

I could go on, but I think this points out that modern manufactured hives
are strictly an artificial construct for the convenience of humans.  Left
to their own, bees will often build hives with curved combs.  Comb spacing
will vary.  Cells will also vary in size.  And they will do just fine.

Although the hives we use may actually be ideal for some bees under some
circumstances, they are not necessarily what the bees would choose in all
cases nor are they 'right' or 'wrong'.

I don't think comb spacing -- within reasonable limits -- is very critical.

allen

allen

http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/