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:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 23 Jul 2001 13:22:47 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (43 lines)
> Old dark combs in those days were valued by beekeepers because it was said
> bees did better.   Dee used old dark combs to size down at first with
> success.  Proving old dark combs DO produce smaller bees.  Many *old timers*
> think our researchers wanting us to recycle comb every five years to be a
> waste of time and money and the bees simply to better on old comb.

The other arguments for melting old comb are:

* to avoid build-up of chemicals from the environment.  This is an interesting
matter on which I have not heard definitive information.  Are there chemicals in
the combs after a few years, and is new comb better in this regard?

* To eliminate disease reservoirs in hives.  Recently, due to an SAFB problem ,
a neighbouring beekeeper had reason to have his brood combs irradiated.  From
the reports I have heard  (strictly anecdotal), brood patterns on those combs
were amazingly even.  In the experiments Adony and I did installing packages on
new comb, I understand there was lower incidence of chalkbrood in hives with all
new comb, but that effect went away as the season progressed, possibly due to
the fact that the hives had some older comb added.  Not sure.  I tend to think
that the answer is to breed bees that can withstand disease, rather than trying
to prevent all exposure to the agents.

> I am only saying what their opinion was (and in many cases still is).
> One day in the early 1980's I came to the conclusion the worlds foundation
> was the wrong size (5.4mm).

Whether that is wrong or not, it is indisputably larger than most bees like to
build on their own.

There was a question here recently about the relative merits of various plastic
foundations.  I got some from the shed and measured.  Pierco gives 40 cells at
8-1/4" and Permadent at 8-9/16".  Consulting the chart at
http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Misc/CellCount.htm, I get 5.2mm for Pierco and
a bit over 5.4mm for Permadent.

I consider the former to be ideal, and the latter to be overly large, but I have
no idea what is right or wrong in foundation since foundation is entirely
unnatural to the bees.

allen

http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Diary/

ATOM RSS1 RSS2