Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
quoted-printable |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Wed, 13 Mar 2002 09:27:54 -0600 |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="us-ascii" |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Hello Peter, Blane and All,
Blane writes:
>This issue could be answered once and for all in one season
Peter wrote:
With all due respect, this is one of those things that will *never* be answered, for the simple fact that bees deal with things like queen excluders and bottom supering, and frame size, etc. differently *depending of honey flow conditions* which vary from one locale to another and vary from one year to another.
Like Peter I doubt the issue will ever be resolved once and for all.
Peter wrote:
By the way, I know two beekeepers in this area who have about 300 hives each. One uses queen excluders and doesn't
[ There is one difference between the two methods above. One beekeeper has to deal with brood in his supers and at times queen loss and the other does not.
[
A bigger issue with excluders is why is why ALL the worlds excluders are of a poor design. Let me explain.
In American bee equipment there is a bee space of about 5/16 above the frames but little or none below them as they hang in he hive body. When a beekeeper puts a wood frame excluder between two hive bodies , the space between the excluder and the frames above is about right; the space below is too deep, more than bee space. the wider spacing encourages the bees to build comb beneath he excluder.
When a metal excluder is used , the space below it is about right but the space above he metal excluder is incorrect and he bees fasten the excluder to the bottom of the frames.
Sincerely,
Bob Harrison
|
|
|