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:
huestis' <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 15 Jul 2002 08:21:23 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (83 lines)
Hi All,

James wrote:

> No, in fact, the opposite is true.  The early equipment must have
> been designed for the bees of the day.

All I can tell you is that 4.9 bees do respect the space of 10 frame
langstroth equipment (I'm talking frame spacing of the Hoffman type and
vertical spacing). Some US equi[ment my now have poor spacing I haven't
measured all the various manufacturers. Yet in my 4.9 colonies the bees even
with a bit smaller body sizing still obey the spacing. But 11 frame COULD be
used.

James also wrote:

> It has to do with the claimed mechanism for mite suppression,
> which, to paraphrase, has been said to be reduction of "excess
> room" in the cells, leaving a space that allows mite entry, but not
> reproduction.

James in my post I was taking about the distance of midrib to midrib of
combs NOT cells. I was asking what the spacing of the above would have to do
with natural mite suppression (I should clarify the point)?

> a)  Are people seeing the impact of cell size on
>     mites, or are they seeing nothing more than
>     the effect of "taking one's losses", to end up
>     with a "mite-resistant survivor bee" in the process
>     of "regressing" their bees, and giving credit to
>     the foundation?

This is my early conclusions: About 80% is due to cell size and  about 20%
to resistance. I should explain this a bit more however. The losses seem to
be due to a lack of good 4.9 brood combs the first season. Giving a high
over all loss which one could mistake as the loss of nonresistant stock.
When in actuality one doesn't have comb #'s of 4.9 to control varroa well
enough.

To test this, one could give 4.9mm bees and 5.4mm
>      bees no foundation at all (or plain wax starter strips)
>      for several generations, and watch what happens, but
>      this would take years.

Yes James. We don't have years. Which is the reason for the high initial
loss of bees when coverting to 4.9 due to lack of combs as one does have to
start with nothing the first season. The bees don't draw 4.9 brood combs all
season! Only till the honey flow then you get 4.9 honey combs of which there
is a difference.

>         How could the two sizes of bees:
>
>         1) Use the same "yardstick" for dealing
>             with openings and deciding to propolize,
>             leave alone, or fill with comb

They don't use one.

>         2) Yet somehow use different "yardsticks"
>             when making cells?

Easy. Bees use two separate sizes in a colony. I believe over the years the
beekeeper seems to think that due to movable combs they can just put any
frame where they like. There is a honey comb and a brood comb and really
shouldn't be interchanged. I believe Phillips talks about this in his book.
and others.

> with "bee space" and see (more) propolis around frame lugs
> makes me wonder what is going on here.

I don't see this. It remains the same. Many using 4.9 are using caucasian
bees which just use more it has more to due with race than anything else.

> These are very small differences, and if one could test 4.9mm
> against 5.0mm to narrow down the reason why 5.0mm fails
> where 4.9mm works, one would go a long way towards
> proving that "size does matter".

5.0 doesn't really fail it still does the job but honey production wasn't
what it should be.

Clay

ATOM RSS1 RSS2