BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Eric Brown <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 13 Aug 2007 09:27:40 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (44 lines)
>>>in either case, the bees will push towards 15% (more or less) drones in
>>the hive...
>>
>>Is there any real evidence of this?
>
>Seeley writes:
>
>> 17 ± 3% of the comb area of natural nests of honey bees is devoted to
>drone comb (Seeley and Morse, 1976), the hives with drone comb were 
equipped
>with 20% drone comb, hence a normal supply.

Peter, thanks for the reference.  I wouldn't dispute that fact at all, but 
the problem I have with the initial statement above has to do with the 
details.  Saying a broodnest in the wild normally has ~17% drone comb 
isn't the same as saying a hive somehow recognizes the percentage of 
drones (particularly as opposed to the amount of drone comb or drone 
brood) and thereby determines whether the next foundationless frame 
interspersed into the brood chamber will be drawn as worker or as drone 
comb.

The clearest way to demonstrate this point is that if you take a nuc 
comprised of two standard size frames and enlarge it to 3 frames by adding 
a foundationless frame -- even if you first eliminate every last drone in 
that nuc -- that 3rd frame will likely be drawn into nearly perfect worker 
comb.

Similarly, if you took a hive with 6+ frames of pure worker comb and added 
an empty frame -- even if the hive already consisted of 17%+ drones 
(raised in cmobs that weren't or weren't any longer in that hive) -- 
wouldn't the bees draw that next frame to drone comb?

So I'm not really disputing the 15%/17% figures.  What I'd dispute is how 
uniformly those figures can be applied.  The devil is in the details.  Is 
it really appropriate to dismiss all the limitations on how that 17% 
figure is applied?  I would also dispute how strictly the 17% figure is 
tied to the number of hatched out drones (and therefore independent of the 
amount of drone comb, drone brood, proportion of drone eggs laid, etc.)

******************************************************
* Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at:          *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm  *
******************************************************

ATOM RSS1 RSS2