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:
allen dick <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
allen dick <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:28:28 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (99 lines)
>>  Am I correct in  reading this as referring to your operation, and that
>> you managed to keep bees alive, but did not get production?

> Allen this has been gone over with you and others in the past and I have
> said it several times.

Very true, and thank you for your patience in going over this once again.

We--even those who reject or question many of the ideas associated with
"small cell"--are quite familiar with the general concepts, but, as they
say, "The devil is in the details", so I'm hoping we can discuss some of the
details that cause people the most trouble, and which repeatedly get glossed
over, or omitted.  This might also be useful to those who have just come
onto the topic

> In talking first regression down of which we did to the 5.0mm - 5.1mm mode
> coming off of 5.4mm in the beginning it looks good and you say, looks
> great for the bees. But in actuality it is a red herring.

OK.  Personally, I found, with Adony's help, that even going to 5.25, if
that is what Pierco one-piece frames measure, made a difference, but, then
that is close to what our bees seem to want to build when they get free.

(Speaking aside, on another topic):  Also the same tests seemed to indicate
that using a dark foundation (even black plastic, instead of white) helped,
too, and I know you use very dark wax when you make foundation.

>  FWIW as far as I am concerned for by year 8 it was close to back the
> other way that made us want to redo, and of course we did.

What year was that?  1994?

> By year 8 we were back to 50% losses and requeening spring and fall and
> knew we had only a certain amount of time to think through and retool
> again for that 0.1mm to 0.2mm (zeros added to quote for clarity by Allen)
> change we did to try to get it right

That was the beginning of the final change down to your present size?  And
that current size is just under 4.9mm. (5.8 cells per inch or 31 cells per
sq in (on one side of a comb).

> ...realizing that things were complicated after studying all the various
> ways measuring combs had been changed for what we thought we originally

Now, are you talking about the confusion between a square decimetre and a
decimetre square?  Or, if not that, then which various ways, specifically?

> ...had besides learning more in foundation making for the good and the bad
> part of it.

You make great foundation.  Better than plastic, in many ways, IMO.

> Here suttleties meant a lot we found out. Course no one liked hearing that
> then, and then too we were told others might not agree with us fine
> tooling more.

Right.  I can understand that.

> But with that much work in, hard as it was, and going down to break even
> with intermediate size after 8 years.

You are referring to the 50% losses, I assume?

> We slip the sheet so to speak and just did it going then to 4.9mm and into
> the forbidden zone we were told to stay out of for top tolerance.........

> OK.  I'm wondering who was saying not to do that?

> From there on out we have come forward, though gates stopping at every
> turn we have tried to make FWIW.....

I understand that to mean that you are now able to maintain the numbers and
make a little honey?

> So Keep the question you asked confined to the first step
> down............and those we had working relationships with knowing also,
> the SAME wall would hit others LATER. But then of course treatments can
> stave that off!! like ho ho, sure, my?

OK.  Sometimes I have trouble understanding what your meaning is, but I take
this to mean that those reducing cell size and stopping short at 5.2 or 5.0,
are going to find that they have the same failures in a few years that you
had when you got to 5.0 (was it 5.0) and thought that you had the problem
licked--then found the problem reappeared?

One other question that everyone asks.  What role do you think that the ARS
documented Africanization of Tucson and area may have had on the optimal
size for your bees? Or was that a factor.  Seems to me you dispute their
observations.

I'm hoping that I am understanding you correctly and that you will clarify
any point where I misunderstand.

Thanks.

allen

-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and  other info ---

ATOM RSS1 RSS2