You may want to consider a deep and a medium depth super for the brood
chamber.
After I did an analysis (published the results in ABJ beginning of the
year), I decided to switch to deeps and medium depth supers. For
overwintering (I'm in Lexington, SC) I use a deep and one medium which was
also OK when in lived in Winston-Salem, NC. Actually, this seems to have
been more than enough honey for this area.
Initially, I was thinking about standardizing on all medium depth equipment.
However, I had a lot of deeps so I decided to standardize on one deep and
one medium for the brood chamber. I do not use queen excluders with the
idea of letting the queen expand her brood nest to the max. size in the
spring which results in any swarming tending to be late in the honey flow
(provided I added plenty of supers). The two, plenty of supers and max
expansion of the brood nest prior to the honey flow, means that the brood
nest does not get congested as soon.
----------
>From: Allen Dick
>To: Multiple recipients of list BEE-L
>Subject: Pollination & Ideal Brood chamber size
>Date: Saturday, December 09, 1995 10:30AM
>
>Return-Path: <@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM:[log in to unmask]>
>Received: from ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM by msgate.ColumbiaSC.ATTGIS.COM id
> <[log in to unmask]>; Sat, 09 Dec 95 12:37:54 edt
>Received: by ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM; 9 Dec 95 12:39:02 EST
>Received: from ncrgw1.UUCP (ncrgw1@localhost) by ncrhub5.attgis.com
> (8.7.3/8.7.3) with UUCP id MAA18044 for
> msgate.columbiasc.attgis.com!davem; Sat, 9 Dec 1995 12:38:05 -0500
(EST)
>Received: by ncrgw1.ATTGIS.COM; 9 Dec 95 12:37:48 EST
>Received: from CNSIBM.ALBANY.EDU by CNSIBM.ALBANY.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
with
> BSMTP id 9511; Sat, 09 Dec 95 12:30:15 EST
>Received: from CNSIBM.ALBANY.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@ALBNYVM1) by
> CNSIBM.ALBANY.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 3333; Sat, 9 Dec
1995
> 12:30:11 -0500
>Received: from CNSIBM.ALBANY.EDU by CNSIBM.ALBANY.EDU (LISTSERV release
1.8b)
> with NJE id 4252 for [log in to unmask]; Sat, 9 Dec 1995 12:30:06
> -0500
>Received: from ALBNYVM1 (NJE origin SMTP@ALBNYVM1) by CNSIBM.ALBANY.EDU
(LMail
> V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 3329; Sat, 9 Dec 1995 12:30:05 -0500
>Received: from cuugnet.cuug.ab.ca by CNSIBM.ALBANY.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
with
> TCP; Sat, 09 Dec 95 12:29:59 EST
>Received: from dialin3.internode.net by cuugnet.cuug.ab.ca (AIX 4.1/UCB
> 5.64/4.03-CUUG-02) id AA28944; Sat, 9 Dec 1995 10:28:59 -0700
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
>Priority: normal
>X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.23)
>Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 10:30:22 +0700
>Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
>Sender: Discussion of Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
>Comments: Authenticated sender is <dicka@[204.50.6.4]>
>From: Allen Dick <[log in to unmask]>
>Organization: The Beekeepers
>Subject: Pollination & Ideal Brood chamber size
>To: Multiple recipients of list BEE-L <[log in to unmask]>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
>Boy!
>
>Am I glad I followed instinct and decided to put this to the list
>instead of staying with private email.
>
>Thanks for jumping in Mark!
>
>My last personal experience with bees in California was in 1986 and
>I guess a lot has changed.
>
>I remember now that Kevin Ward (from California) was up here last
>month and mentioned that he was using single broods and that he felt
>that he was able to treat better - and cheaper - for mites and that
>it didn't seem to affect his ability to get good buildup.
>
>I though it a little peculiar and I didn't realise that this is a
>general change in California.
>
>I wonder how this affects the standards for pollinating hives?
>
>I know our pollination standards up here specify two brood chambers.
>
>> I am in the same area as the original poster (SF, Calif.), and have had
>> what appears to be a varroa related change in bee behavior. I also run
>> doubles, but almost all of my hives have filled the second story
completely
>> full of honey in spite of ample supering. They never did this before the
>> mites got here. As a result it has become quite time consuming and rather
>> hit or miss treating for varroa. I have had quite a few hives which did
not
>> get the strips into the brood and as a result died or had to be retreated
>> in a weakened state. All of the big commercial beekeepers that I talked
to
>> at the CA state convention are using single story brood chambers, and
claim
>> not to notice any reduction in yields in Calif. I have therefore decided
to
>> go to single stories and have inserted the excluders after chasing the
>> queens down.
>
><etc>
>
>I'd also like to use this a springboard to (re)open discussion on ideal
brood
>chamber size:
>
>I've run single broods here in Alberta, Canada a number of times for
>different reasons:
>
>1. Comb honey production on a large scale *
>2. Experimenting with extracted production in single broods.
>
>In both cases, I found that wintering was less successful - unless
>the hives were restored to doubles as soon as the main flow was over
>and preferably sooner. I also found that the singles did not produce
>as much extracted honey or do as well generally. This in spite of
>reports to the contrary from Saskatchewan.
>
>This latter effect *may* have been due to shortage of feed and/or
>neglect during buildup. Singles tend to starve - or suffer from
>feed shortage - really quickly.
>
>I guess one must keep a super on with some feed in it when possible
>- or a top feeder. Of course in theis latter case, they will plug
>up in a jiffy, so the super sounds smarter. Not only do they starve
>faster, but they will plug up faster too.
>
>I'm used to doubles and they hold more feed and have more room for
>feeders. They are also more tolerant of warped combs and other forms
>of neglect.
>
>My singles for comb production were usually made up by taking all the
>brood from a double hive and placing it in a single. The books are
>right. All the brood most queens can make will fit into a standard
>box with room for a comb or more of feed.
>
>A factor in my use of singles is that - possibly - some combs were
>less than perfect in some hives and the area for brood rearing
>*might* have been inadequate - I don't think so. Additionally some
>had 9 frame spacers - leaving even less comb area, but allowing
>more tolerance for warpage.
>
>I have never been able to see any difference in survival, buildup,
>etc between 8 and 9 frame spacing.
>
>However, my observation was that - left to themselves - the queens
>did not utilise the entire nest in singles in the spring, but tended
>to leave the outside combs.
>
>I asked Kevin if he had to spread brood in singles. He said never.
>The bees spread out just fine in California.
>
>I heard years ago that the shape of the brood nest tends to follow
>the magnetic lines of force; at the equator (where the lines are
>horizontal) the brood nest tends to expand horizontally. In the
>North and South, where the lines are more vertical and re-entering
>the magnetic poles, the brood nest tends to be more vertical.
>
>I wonder if that is true? It was a factor in the design of the
>Kenyan hive, as I recall.
>
>I feel that up here at least, the queen does not like to spread out
>as much as go up and down. In July the queen will sometimes go wall to
wall,
>so perhaps it is a function of temperature and flow conditions too.
>
>At any rate, I'd much rather use singles, but have had problems. I
>feel that doubles are too roomy for good honey production, but
>necessary for good buildup, wintering outdoors, and require much less
>management.
>
>I remember reading in a journal years ago that a fellow in the
>central states (USA) said that the last big crop he had was the year
>before he switches to 10 frame brood chambers from (narrower) 8
>frame broods. I always wondered about that.
>
>I leave frame feeders in one side of each of my standard Langstroth
>double broods and seldom have them filled with comb unless I am slow
>supering. I use an excluder above the second brood.
>
>As varroa approaches us here, we need to start to (re)think a few
>things and maybe give smaller BC's a try - for purposes of mite
>control, if nothing else.
>
>Those mites are making beekeepers out of us!
>
>Forgive my rambling, everyone and if you have some thoughts - and
>hopefully experience - in the above , I'd love to hear about it.
>
>TIA
>
>Allen
>
>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
>* PS I am selling about 500 beautiful pine dovetailed Ross Round
>supers for a good price because I am (after 15+ years) cutting back my
>comb honey production. Email me if you are interested.
>
>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>* And - to keep going well after the end - What are your thoughts on
>advertising on the list?
>
>I have been planning some additional lists to take some burden of
>this one. One I have in mind would be nothing but ads (free) for buy
>and sell.
>
>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
>* PLEASE!!! - Newbies and Oldbees - Respond on these last items *to
>me and only me*.
>
>And please look at the header *before* you send.
>
>While on the subject; please let's make sure we don't post ANYTHING
>to the list unless it is potentially of interest to the 400+ people on
>the list, or unless there is no other way to reach the target audience -
> and the matter relates to bees in some way.
>
>We periodically get babble going where a few people start some small
>talk and post every comment to all the members rather than going off-list.
>
>This always results in people leaving the list.
>
>We need good posts on matters relating to bees, job offers, meetings etc.
>
>I wonder about other ads, seeing as this is a worldwide list.
>
>Comments on thede non-bee matters to me personally. Will summarise.
>Regards
>
>Allen
>
>W. Allen Dick, Beekeeper VE6CFK
>RR#1, Swalwell, Alberta Canada T0M 1Y0 Internet:[log in to unmask]
>Honey. Bees, Art, & Futures <http://www.cuug.ab.ca:8001/~dicka>
>
|
