In article <002e01c28409$5d9ae6c0$41ac58d8@BusyBeeAcres>, Bob Harrison
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>I had to chuckle at the above. Maybe Murray has bought stock in the
>polystyrene hive industry?

Not quite Bob, but nearly. I have taken a holding in a mould (actually
two), to get things made just the way I want them for my operation. This
is a considerable expense as it is a specialised tool with moving parts.
I MAY decide to recoup some of this cost by selling units on to others.

>
>The simple truth is bees hoard nectar in a honey flow and are only limited
>by colony size and storage space. I would have to run a few tests myself or
>see the results of tests run before I would buy into the idea that bees in
>polystyrene hives out produce  bees in wood hives by any significant amount
>with all other factors being equal year after year.

On a simple colony basis the difference will not be large. However, as
the original post a 'kind person' <G> dragged over from s.a.b.
highlighted, it very much depends on how you measure it. I like to look
at it from the point of view of how much effort has gone into it, and
one crucial cost factor is the number of hives we put into winter and
feed. Thus I try to draw a line back to what I view as the start of the
beekeepers year, autumn (fall). So I base my calcs on autumn count for
establishing what type of hive does best.

It may be that, in your circumstances, there is little advantage. In
mine it is fairly conclusive that there is a benefit, and that benefit
is primarily the over wintering and rate of recovery from splitting.

In wood I sometimes have difficulty keeping the numbers up, if all in
polystyrene I will have difficulty keeping the numbers down. (Perhaps
the first part needs some clarification. It is easy to keep the numbers
up in wood, but the hard trick is to keep them up AND get a full honey
crop, all this with only 12 weeks from emergence from winter to the peak
summer honey flow.)

> I will keep a open mind
>and await further information.

Of course. I would expect no more than that as it is the correct
approach.

--
Murray McGregor