Derek Steed said:

> Your comb marking method is ingenious but I donīt really see the point.

I may well be using "too strict" a scheme, but I wanted some form of
schedule, and had a choice between "2 frames of 10" (a 5-year cycle),
or "1 frame of 10" (a 10-year cycle). Ten years seemed "too long" if
I wanted to avoid contamination problems.

My rotation scheme was based upon the assumption that ANY miticide
will leave residues, a point that I feel has since been proven beyond
all doubt for Apistan and Check-Mite.  In the case of Check-Mite, it
now appears that even a 5-year cycle would not be good enough, but I
refuse to use Check-Mite.

> 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.

All true statements.

Another reason I rotate comb is for other "sanitary" reasons.  Let's
assume that the odds are 1 in 50 for any one hive to have a very
low-level foulbrood problem.  If this is true, then I am certain to
have foulbrood and/or spores in at least one colony.  But which one?

In any one year, I have a 1 in 5 chance of removing a frame with
foulbrood spores.  If I did not rotate old comb on a strict schedule,
my chances would be much less, since I would be removing comb at
"random", and some hives would not have any comb removed in some years.

Another bonus is that the fact that the wax is not so old means that
it is much less costly to process into an acceptable-looking bar of wax.

                jim (Who rotates comb on a 5-year cycle,
                 and changes his oil every 3,000 miles
                 under the same rationale.)

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