I have been watching this thread with great interest. I am not a
talking head nor science minded beekeeper, but I enjoy experimenting
methods, although in my own small way.
Early this year I was watching a lecture from the National Honey show
and an ancillary story the speaker was discussing was package bees and
the starting size of the colony. They had discovered
thru trial and error that a 1.5 lb or 2 lb package would outperform a 3
lb package in the same apiary. The findings suggested that the bees in
the 1.5 and 2lb packages would "multitask" up to 6 different
duties, while the bees in the 3lb package would be "lazier" and would
single task. Apparently there is a "tipping point" on the size of the
colony which spurs the colony into action, or inaction as it were.
They also found that 1lb packages did not perform well at all. There
were too few bees to cover brood and gather pollen/nectar, so they
stagnated for a longer period.
The tipping point they found was the area between 1lb and 3lb package
sizes.
This intrigued me enough to see if I could duplicate this in my own
small way.
On April 29, I set up 2 (Palmer) double 4 over 4 hives. The bottom boxes
were empty and the upper boxes I installed 3 empty frames of comb and a
frame of honey. Between the frames I hung the queen cages. A pollen
patty was installed on top.
I purchased 2 packages and 2 extra queens. Each package was split into
the bottom empty double hive averaging 1.5lbs per box. The brood comb
boxes were placed over the bottom box of bees. 3 hole queen cages did
not come with candy, so I added my own. In the next hours, the bees had
climbed up to the comb and started to work on the queens. (btw...someone
in this thread mentioned package bees rejecting the queens that they did
not ship with. I can tell you this is not the case...these bees are
shaken from various hives all together and given a fresh new non laying
queen for transport. The hold no allegiance to her as she was never a
laying queen for them)
By the next day, the queens all had been released. I then installed 4
frames in the bottom box. I then proceeded to track their progress over
the course of Spring and Summer.
All the queens were accepted and started laying. Some faster than
others. After 4 weeks, 3 of the hives had expanded enough that I
transferred 3 of the 4 over 4 hives into a 10 frame boxes. The 4th hive
was behind and I installed into 5 over 5.
Two weeks later I installed 2 Supers on 2 of the 4 hives. The 4th hive
in the 5/5 box had caught up and was transferred to a 10 frame box with
a QE and super. One of the 10 frame boxes stagnated. It did not lose
its queen, but the queen was not producing eggs like she had at the
start....pattern became spotty.
By the end of July, I pulled 80lbs of honey from one hive, 55 from a
second hive and 40 from the third hive. The queen from the last hive
never rebounded and the bees never superceded her for whatever
reason...they were reduced to a single 5 frame box before I ended up
giving her the hive tool test and giving the colony a new laying queen.
I found my small experiment to be extremely successful even with the
failing queen. The three hives are currently slumbering in the cold
Wisconsin winter.
After my experiment, I did a little research on small packages and came
upon this experiment from Manitoba, CA in 1965.
/Thirty colonies were established on//
//April 29, 1965 at Brandon, Manitoba,//
//from package bees received by truck//
//from the United States. The size of//
//package was adjusted to 1, 1½, 2, 3//
//and 4 lbs. of bees for each colony.//
//
//It may be interesting to study//
//honey yields per pound of bees installed.//
//Under the conditions of this//
//study, these were 101.4 lbs., 96.8 lbs ..//
//91.9 lbs., 60.3 lbs. and 37.6 lbs. of//
//honey for the 1, 1½, 2, 3 and 4 lb.//
//packages respectively. These values//
//indicate that foraging propensity was//
//more intense or efficient in smaller//
//colonies. However, the 1 lb. colonies//
//installed in late April have insufficient//
//time for build-up to take full//
//advantage of early July nectar flows.//
//
//Earlier installation of the 1 lb. package//
//is extremely hazardous, particularly//
//on the prairies where the//
//weather in April is often cold, wet//
//and windy. The present data suggest//
//that an appropriate size of package//
//bees for installation in the latter half//
//of April appears to be the 1 ½ lb. and//
//2 lb. packages. Both of these sizes//
//are in use by prairie beekeepers, and//
//in this study, yield difference between//
//the 1 ½ and 2 lb. package size was not//
//significant.//
//
//The above yield per pound of bees//
//indicates that beekeepers using divided//
//3 lb. packages ( containing two//
//queens) can expect optimum yields//
//per net weight of bees purchased.//
//Further economies may be realized//
//from lower cost per package and reduced//
//transportation charges if//
//shipped by truck.//
//
//Conclusions//
//This preliminary study has provided//
//results of economic interest to//
//beekeepers of the Canadian prairies//
//and neighbouring northern states. It//
//has helped to describe the development//
//of various size package bees in//
//northern latitudes and supports the//
//general contention that the 1 ½ lb.//
//and 2 lb. package bees installed in//
//the latter half of April provide excellent//
//returns to the beekeeper.//
//
//Size of Package Bees and Honey Yields//
//by J. C. M. L'ARRIVEE1 and J. E. GEIGER//
//Research Branch, Experimental Farm//
//Canada Department of Agricuiture//
//Brandon, Manitoba//
//ABJ Feb 1966/
Regards,
Kevin
***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
|
