Your comb marking method is ingenious but I don´t really see the point.A
brood comb can be quite new but "ruined" by the bees by excessive drone
cells / large holes / not sufficiently built out / off centre / mildewy
/pollen clogged etc.,etc.Conversly, a fairly old brood comb may have been on
the outer edge of the broodbox and mainly used for honey, if not mildewy it
may last some time.I´m trying to say that the condition of the comb is more
important than it´s age.The oldtimers claimed that bees winter better on old
brood comb.
The only exception I see is where, say ,Coumaphos has been used and is in
the wax.Only wax replacement can really get rid of unwanted Coumaphos, even
then some may have reached the supers.I know that nosema spores can be on
old comb but this is a special case, either my bees have ( had ) nosema, in
which case I may well replace comb or they haven´t. Dysentry-contaminated
comb obviously has to go.
On empty brood comb I always do the translucency test.If you can´t see the
shadow, thro the comb, of your hand against the sun, reject the comb;this
will limit the amount of brood-rearing a comb undergoes.
I don´t see the point of routinely replacing wax in supers except to get rid
of pollen-contaminated comb. If a queen excluder is used ( and works ) why
would the super comb age? Clean super comb is seldom damaged by wax moth at
our temperatures.
These comments do not apply to foul brood contaminated comb.
Regards, Derek Steed

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and  other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::