Glad to see a test published. This is an interesting and important topic,
and more work needs to be done. For many reasons, this is a tough topic to
get a handle on. There are so many potential confounding factors, and I
congratulate those who have made the attempt. Also my thanks to those who
stick to writing about bees and not the list, and concentrate on writing
good posts rather than stooping to second-guess the moderators or insult one
another. You all know who you are.
As for quotes, the following are indispensable, since I am addressing each
of these points, and cut the parts I am not using, and I would simply type
them or something similar.
You'll all note also, I hope, that I am using -- or attempting to use --
proper markings (>) to distinguish the quoted material from my own words, a
habit that many -- including some who rush to criticize others harshly --
might wish to adopt, if they want us to bother to read their messy and
jumbled ramblings. Using an email program properly and adhering to the
list's rules is really not all that tough, folks. Consider it a (pick one)
a.) IQ or b.) senility test. I do.
> * 40 colonies were tested in the same apiary.
A manageable and reasonable size. Being in the same apiary has its
advantages and disadvantages, but this is always a problem. Neither
approach is without its drawbacks..
> * 20 with cells 5.5mm measured in the broodnest. known as "Big cell
> group".
Yup. That is big, alright, and has little meaning to North American
beekeepers, since AFAIK, there is no 5.5 brood foundation available here.
5.4 is the largest I know about, and that is rare. 5.3 is common. In
Europe, however, I understand that very large sizes are more common.
> * 20 with cells 4.9mm measured in the broodnest.known as "Small cell
> group".
That *is* small, for most North American beekeepers.
> * All queens in the test apiary were sisters and mated in the same apiary.
This is an interesting part. The genetics will have a large bearing on the
results. Some bees are naturally larger than others, and some are more
inclined to carry large varroa loads.
> * Large cell group: An alcohol wash in Autumn during broodless period
> revealed 29% mites per 100 bees, the range was 3-64%.
> * Small cell group: An alcohol wash in Autumn during broodless period
> revealed 14% mites per 100 bees, the range was 3-26%.
An examination of the raw data would be interesting to determine the scatter
and the means.
> * Large cell group: The 3% colony in this group gave a very small crop
> and was also weaker in strength.
> * Small cell group: The 3% colony in in this group gave an average crop.
These, apparently, are individual colonies and we do not know why they are
at 3%. Each might have a different reason. In fact that is almost certain.
Brood interruption, drifting and other factors could contribute and also
affect the mite loads. Comparing them may not be meaningful. An
examination of the study and its data tables should help understand this
better.
> * Small cell group: Averaged about one box stronger at peak strength in
> the middle of summer than the large cell group.
The ratio of brood area (density) for the same number of cells between 4.9
and 5.5 is about 100:126 Without reading the study, I'm assuming that this
could be a big influence on build-up, depending on the initial colony size,
etc. In our own test a few years back, we found significant differences in
build-up rates between hives on 5.25 mm and those on larger (5.35 mm)
foundation.
> * Large cell group: Average honey crop was 79.2 lbs. range 17.6 - 125.4
> lbs.
> * Small cell group: Average honey crop was 98.1 lbs. range 50.7 - 136.6
> lbs. 24% bigger than the large cell group.
Again, I hink we tneed more info to comment intelligently.
> * Both groups were affected by chalkbrood. But anecdotal observation
> indicated that the large cell group was more affected.
Without having numbers, I can't know if this was a significant factor or
not, and how much more affected the large cell group was. From the fact
that it takes more space for large cell to raise similar amounts of brood,
it folows that chilling is more likely in that group, and chilling has been
related to fungal diseases, I believe.
> * There was no observation that small cell size had any negative effect on
> the performance of the bee colony.
That is good to know.
> Thanks to Prof. Stig Omholt, Dee and Ed Lusby, Dr.Eric Erickson, Staff at
> Dadant, Bee Culture Magizine, Raymond Cooper, Myron Kroph, Erik Osterlund,
> Hans-Otto Johnsen and others involved I may have missed.
Indeed. Thanks to those folks for doing this work. I'm hoping to see lots
more on this topic.
Of course, my personal position is with Dennis. Foundation is an
abomination to the bees, and strictly for the convenience of beekeepers. I
think we took a wrong turn 100 years back and the future lies in another
direction, but that is for another day -- or people can search the archives.
And lastly
-- begin quote --
.__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \
\__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/
/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \
\__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ a \__/ \__/ _ \__/ \__/
Joe Waggle ~ Derry, PA i r \__/ \ \ \__/ \
'Bees Gone Wild ........A p __ i s'... (((( )0= \__/
BiologicalBeekeeping.com __/ \__ e __ /_/ __/ \
\__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__ __/ \__ __/ \__/
/S \__/M \__/A \__/L \__/L \__/ \__/C \__/E \__/L \__/L \__/ \
\__/B \__/E \__/E \__/K \__/E \__/E \__/P \__/E \__/R \__/ \__/
-- end quote --
Hey, Joe! What's with the monster vanity sig line. The moderators have
been cutting you and some others a lot of slack. It is clogging the
archives. Less is more.
allen
(Cow manure makes allen crabby. I'm here to discuss bees. Why don't
we?...)
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info ---
|
