In article <[log in to unmask]>, Dee
Lusby <[log in to unmask]> writes
>I also know that a bush or shrub is not a very structural
>sound place for bees to normally build a set of combs,
>requiring much brace and burr comb to stabalize constantly
>shifting structure that becomes heavier as weight is added,
>and I feel it would be hard to get the bees to build stable
>angles, etc because of this constant stablilizing problem,
>what with winds and all.So because of this I visualize this
>structure as being differnet in my mind in needs.

The part of the bush it was attached to was a two inch thick horizontal
branch about four feet off the ground, in a bush at least 15 feet high,
in deep shelter in a forest. Never known it to be windy there or seen
these bushes in motion.

Probably happens in the depth of winter as these are evergreen plants,
with much birch around them which after they lose their leaves present
little obstacle to wind. However, this is a very strong and very old
bush and I would be very surprised if motion was a problem in July and
August when this swarm was there.

>
>I also know that to look at combs built and described to me
>2 feet in depth and up to 4 foot long, means the combs have
>been in place awhile.

If they are that big then the special comb this is founded on must be
present at a fair size. I notice Barry saying we need to see one of
these combs asap to support the theory. There should then be little
difficulty in getting a sample , say 6inches square to be sure it is not
simply an anomaly, from one of these.

>I cannot picture bees in slaphazzard comb building,
>but instead following a set pattern and position where at
>all possible. This following of pattern I have seen in the
>many cutouts we do and have done, preferring feral survival
>swarms to rebuild our outfit with, along survivors from our
>shakedown in the spring of 1997.

Perhaps your bees are neater in their habits than those we get over
here. I often see them not even straight, with crooks and bends in them,
and some very weird cell structures where a comb gradually turns a
corner. I assume they do this for strength, as a feral comb structure
consisting of only perfect flat and regular plates is not very strong.
Natural bridge comb toughens it up a lot, but never have I seen feral
combs of the size you describe without there being a lot of cross comb
and junk comb included.

This includes one single comb I extracted from a house roof that was
over 20 feet long. This one comb was relatively perfect, even though it
took a small curve in the middle and a curve back which altered its line
by an inch or two. All the other combs in this space were at an
assortment of alignments and all over the place. The only thing they had
in common was an orientation to the top.

Admittedly this is not the model you suggest, where you have a very firm
anchor point for the swarm, and then unrestricted development space all
round. Plus it must be in the open.

Best model of this I have seen was one we took out of the attic of a
stately home. Thus no doubt you will say this does not fit the model,
but it did have very large combs (some over 4 feet from top to bottom)
and a good number of them (at least 30). It probably had about 400lb of
honey too.

This is a still and secure environment with unrestricted space all
around. This was the nearest I have ever seen to a series of flat plate
combs, but even here it was far from perfect, and some whole combs were
drone. There was noticeable curvature to the combs at the outer edges,
due to their being wider there, and to correct this, in the middle there
were sometimes some partial combs to allow the flat plates to re-align.
The thickest combs in the honey storage areas (high up near the outer
edges) were nearly 4 inches thick). It was actually quite a complicated
structure.

Pity it was about four years ago and all has long since been rendered
down.
>
>Using same positioning within our colonies as the feral has
>solved much that has puzzled me over the years, in the
>manipulation of our frames and trying to draw new
>foundation into production combs for brood and honey, etc.

The speed with which it has apparently put your failing (or not
prospering) colonies right is quite staggering. Not much more than a
single brood cycle. However, if the odds of you having a perfect
arrangement are as others have stated (apparently this is mathematically
so), and assuming your less than happy colonies were actually a small
minority, then could it be some other entirely different factor at play.
Many (most?) of your perfectly good colonies must have also been on
jumbled combs. The speed of improvement implies to my mind that the
improving factor was already, at least partially, at play even before
the realignment took place. But then I am not in your environment nor am
I working with your bees so these observations may not have any
validity.

FWIW, we took one look at the feral up the pine tree yesterday and
decided that safety was much more important than knowledge in this case
and left it where it was, 60 feet up in the canopy of an ancient pine
forest. I will be back once more this week to take the bees back south
to their lowland wintering grounds, and if some more has blown down by
then I will see what they look like, but I aint climbing the tree.

I see these things often, and before the year is out I am bound to see a
few more. Hopefully more accessible.

I am minded to offer a cash reward for the first perfect Housel special
centre comb sent to me, so if you have any pieces of feral combs around,
minimum 6 inch square, with Y in the same alignment on both sides, let
me know.
--
Murray McGregor