Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Sat, 30 Oct 2004 07:49:18 -0600 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
> Because I can only go by the results, I wonder why here...below the
> 45th..that I have no problems wintering either the nucs on top, or the
> colony below. I believe your recording of temperatures, and am trying
> to understand the differences Allen D and I have found. I have no
> greater loss in colonies with or without nuc boxes on their inners. I
> wonder if it could be the 3/8" dead air space I have between the
> bottom colony's inner cover, and the nuc's bottom board.
Well, the farther north you go, the longer winter is, and the longer the
winter nights are. Thus stresses that may add up to 'break the camel's
back' in the North, may not get quite to that threshold in areas south of
here.
The other thing is that I am considering the number and quality of the
surviving lower colonies compared to those colonies that are not burdened by
a nuc, and properly protected with top insulation.
I am not saying all colonies set up with top nucs die all the time.
Sometimes they do OK here. What I am saying is that, over time, we have had
wrecks doing things that way, and seen little advantage when the system does
work. I also found that spring work on such arrangement can be difficult
and confusing for both the beekeeper and the bees, especially when the the
bees are flying.
allen
A Beekeeper's Diary: http://www.honeybeeworld.com/diary/
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
|
|
|