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:
randy oliver <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 6 Mar 2017 11:56:10 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (28 lines)
Interesting thread, as I've spent considerable time analyzing and
discussing Seeley's raw data with him, in attempting to get my varroa model
to duplicate his mite counts (a recent improvement is now helping).  Of
interest is just how little brood the cavity-restricted colonies maintained
(apparently due to being crowded by honey).

Aussie beekeepers have long used single brood chambers with an excluder,
but this completely negates Seeley's findings of providing only a single
deep for the season.  And yes, even the best queen queens typically fill
only the equivalent of 6 deep frames 70% covered with brood.

As pointed out by Dr. Herman Pontzer,  life is essentially a game of
turning energy into kids.   We beekeepers tweak the bees' game by getting
them to turn that energy into harvestable honey rather than into kids.  By
restricting the bees to only a single deep, they quickly crowd the cavity,
and then for the rest of the season swarm again and again, turning excess
energy into kids rather than honey.  This also appears to incidentally set
back varroa.
--
Randy Oliver
Grass Valley, CA
www.ScientificBeekeeping.com

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

ATOM RSS1 RSS2