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:
huestis' <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 15 Mar 2003 01:22:39 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (92 lines)
Hi Allen,


> I think that it has been clearly established by numerous worldwide
> surveys by a number of very well-respected researchers that different
> races of bees observed in the wild have differing average 'natural comb
> sizing'.  There is natural variability in each race, so the size ranges
> sometimes overlap.

Of course. There is different ranges and they all fluctuate from race to
race due to location, elevation.


----Moreover, all bees, left to themselves will build
> cells in a typical wild nest that range in size, and in shape.

No problem with that statement.  But will add that these cells will vary in
function.  Within a colony will will be brood cells, pollen cells, transtion
cells, honey storage cells, all of different sizing, with some overlapping
in function. Not to mention that each will be drawn at different times of
season based on what is happening for example , spring brood up period, from
flow to flow, all based on the need at the time. So from the beekeepers
point of veiw there will be different windows  where the bees will draw
different types of cells.

> 4.8 - 4.9 mm is not in the range of sizes that carniolan bees will
> naturally build, given any choice, from my understanding.  If 4.8 - 4.9
> is in the range at all, it is at the extreme low end, or even an
> outlier.  From all reports, that size is clearly 'unnatural' for
> carniolans  -- and using foundation is not natural either.

Allen, I'm just a simple beekeeper. The girls built 4.8 to 4.9mm brood
cells. It is my POV here but I will suggest that maybe it is not race so
much that determines the cell size but climate, including, elevation,
latitude, longitute, weather, terrain, ect. But I'm not saying that race
doesn't factor in however. Now you have seen the foundation produced by
Lusby's, Yes?  And you know it has no cell walls, Yes? I would suggest that
no bee will draw this foundation out properly unless is is well within there
range of cell sizing. Now you make no distiction of what type of cells we
are discussing here? If you we talking carniolan honey storage cells,I'd
agree.  I find they range from 5.2 to 5.5mm.  If brood cells 4.85 to 5.05
(this later figure is why I stated earlier that this maybe top tolerance
here in the north).  Pollen cells are the smallest ( if in broodnest).

Ouch!  Although it is interesting to see what bees can be forced to do
> and still survive, there are much cheaper and more natural ways to deal
> with the mites, as the Primorsky project and subsequent selection has
> shown.

But Allen, I keep carniolan type bees. In the US we have all type of bees
from african stocks to now primorski bees, we have enough types of bees.  I
rather think there is no better bee than waht you have to work with. As for
forcing bees, no force on earth can make them draw a specific cell size
unless they are inclined to do so.  There are those colonies that refuse but
In my experience they are very few and often a timing thing.  As for $$$ and
I'm not rich. I would not have gone down this path if money was more
important to me than the survival of the honeybee. As for losses it was
anticipated from the get go to have 90% losses.  High loss is consistent
for all using small cell methods as proposed by the Lusby's. This occurs for
the first 3-4 years.  Then there are those now swingigng the other way.


stands to reason, though, that a cell size closer to the
> middle of the range of sizes observed in wild EHB colonies -- 5.1 -5.4
> mm.  would be better for most of that population -- for most purposes --
> than cells at either end of the range.  Pierco is bang in the middle of
> the range, so I would not be surprised to see a difference if we tried
> to isolate one.

Allen 95% of all my colonies were on pierco before regressing to 4.8 to 4.9
cell sizing ( a task that will be completed this year). I at one time looked
from the same POV as you are making now.  But this may not be the case. But
it is not my objestive to have anyone to go this route unles it is something
they wish to pursue as it is a large commitment. Will let everyone know how
things progress or lack thereof as will others from time to time. Best
wishes to all in what ever method they chose to save there colonies.  Allen
you should check out some of the specialized groups such as organic or bio
bee from time to time to see what is up. I usually try to stay quite till
something significant needs saying.  If any studies come my way will send
them this way.

regards,

Clay- its late here and half asleep hope I didn't ramble too much


-

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and  other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

ATOM RSS1 RSS2