# Lazy Beekeeping idea #6 No chemicals/no artificial feed



## RAlex (Aug 18, 2001)

I carry my fishing pole and tackle in my truck with bee veil/smoker and other necessary stuff. More than once I have left the house to work bees and came home with supper


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

RAlex-Multiple, competing addictions, Now why didn't I think of that!


----------



## FordGuy (Jul 10, 2005)

certan? OK, we'll give you that one....But Mr. Bush, you are on fire man, ON FIRE I SAY! Keep it up....I halfway expect you to say "and stop cleaning between your toes. saves time and headaches."


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>"and stop cleaning between your toes. saves time and headaches."

Er.. that's cleaning between your boxes, Lazy Beekeeping #10









>Multiple, competing addictions, Now why didn't I think of that! 

Wax moth larvae make great fishing bait Joel..

Clearly, attaining this particular Lazy Beekeeping idea is crucial, but it also involves a lot... I mean, Not Doing chemicals means D0 Doing a lot of other things. I don't think that came out right..

George-


----------



## swarm_trapper (Jun 19, 2003)

So MB do you do any feeding in the spring to stimulate them? Nick


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I've found pollen stimulates them more than syrup.

I'd rather just leave them honey. I do feed them if they are light because brood rearing can lead to starvation in the early spring. I actually usually end up using 2:1 syrup in the spring so it won't spoil so easily or 1:2 so it will stimulate them better. I usually don't mess with 1:1.

G.M. Doolittle, who always had record crops of honey, didn't believe in feeding to stimulate. He would save honey back and give them some in the spring so they would feel prosperous enough to start rearing brood. I generally just use the honey from dead outs or the really small clusters that hardly touched their stores to do that in the spring. Of course I have less of them now that the mice can't get in, so I might have to start saving some back.







The problem is where to keep it. I'd need to make it mouse and bee proof and that's always difficult.

I keep trying to find better ways to feed them, but frankly I don't like any of them.







The Rapid feeder is my favorite, but it's expensive. Probably a mason jar with holes over the inner cover (or better yet an inner cover with a screened mason jar hole) is cheap and leads to the least robbing and headaches, but that's still work. I've done open feeding. Sometimes it works well, sometimes it sets off a frenzy.

Open DRY pollen in a hive with a lid to keep the rain off, seems to help with stimulation and giving them some early pollen. Once the trees start blooming they stop using it.

This year, I'm taking Jim Fischer's advice and putting patties on really early. Actually, since I saw brood in my observation hive that was layed back at the end of Novemeber and was obvious by the 3rd of December, I put them on the heated nucs two weeks ago.


----------



## swarm_trapper (Jun 19, 2003)

are you putting the pollen patties on your hives that outdoors right now that would seem really early. also do you think that bees go eat more corn sryup than if they had honey in there hive? 

We Do not take any honey outof the brood nest but we still put 2gal of sryup on the hives and will probably need some more in the early spring.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>are you putting the pollen patties on your hives that outdoors right now that would seem really early.

Yes it does. But the nucs are actually heated and the observation hive is rearing brood, so I thought maybe they would.

>also do you think that bees go eat more corn sryup than if they had honey in there hive? 

That would depend on the time of year, how warm it is, how full the hive is and the current goal of the hive. But usually they will take anything with sugar in it. In my experience, they will take Honey with more enthusiasm than liquid syrup and sugar syrup with more enthusiasm than corn syrup and any liquid syrup with more enthusiasm than crystalized sugar.

>We Do not take any honey outof the brood nest but we still put 2gal of sryup on the hives and will probably need some more in the early spring. 

If they need it I'd feed them.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> In my experience, they will take Honey with 
> more enthusiasm than liquid syrup and sugar 
> syrup with more enthusiasm than corn syrup and 
> any liquid syrup with more enthusiasm than 
> crystalized sugar.

OK, let's test this statement with some simple
facts about bees, and some minimal logic:

</font>
Honey must be diluted before it can be
utilized as food by bees.</font>
Crystallized honey must be both converted
from a semi-solid to a liquid and diluted
before it can be utilized as food by bees.</font>
Sugar syrup can be made up with different
dilution rates, everything from "nectar strength"
(ready to eat) to "same as HFCS-55" or even
larger sugar/water ratios.</font>
HFCS, when properly prepared (adding at least
15% water to HFCS-55 for fall feeding, and 20%-25%
water for spring) offers the same options as
sugar syrup in regard to flexibility.</font>
What can we conclude? That Mike's bees
somehow "prefer" a food source that requires
more work to utilize? No, that would be
silly.

The conclusion has to be that multiple types
of feed have never been offered by Mike to
the same colony at the same time, and the
rates of consumption compared in a "bake-off".

There's been a bunch to formal studies on this
(in Canada), and there is simply no difference
at all between the various options available for
"overwintering" bees (HFCS-55, Cane Sugar syrup,
Beet Sugar syrup, and honey).

So, while it is true that crystallization of ANY
food source will make it less attractive to bees,
adding even 10% water to HFCS will keep it from
granulating for at least a full season under
non-climate-controlled conditions, so the
problems experienced with HFCS by hobby
beekeepers are simply due to a lack of familiarity
with "the basics" of how to store and handle
HFCS.

So, which feed choice introduces the risk of
crystallization to a fairly competent and
reasonably well-read beekeeper? Only honey.

And which one costs the most? Only honey, by
at least "triple".

And which one is the one that can inoculate
a colony with diseases from another colony
in the case that frames are swapped around to
"spread the wealth"? Only honey.

But, it clearly is the one approach that allows
you to avoid some work, so it truly *IS*the
_"Lazy Beekeeper's Way"_.

Lord protect us all from lazy beekeepers.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Honey must be diluted before it can be
utilized as food by bees.

And syrup must be evaporated before it can be stores and takes more trips to move the same number of calories of food. And honey is a more appealing smell and is easier to recruit others to come get it.

>Crystallized honey must be both converted
from a semi-solid to a liquid and diluted
before it can be utilized as food by bees.

Or even moved.

>What can we conclude? That Mike's bees
somehow "prefer" a food source that requires
more work to utilize? No, that would be
silly.

So your conclusions based on what you PRESUME the bees will prefer based on what you BELIEVE they are looking for, hold more weight than my observations on what they DID prefer? If you have a contrary observation, feel free to share it.

Personally I've had a lot of theories about bees and what they would prefer. The bees usually disproved them.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> And syrup must be evaporated before it can be 
> stores

You can make any ratio sugar/water or HFCS/water
you'd like. Its not easy to mix, but with
power tools, it certainly can be done. For
spring feeding applications, much of the (thin) 
syrup would be directly consumed. For fall, one 
wants a much thicker syrup, easier to obtain by
diluting HFCS than by trying to mix sugar with 
water, but to each his own. 

> And honey is a more appealing smell 

To humans, perhaps.

> and is easier to recruit others to come get it.

I wish you could help me then, as I have
consistently failed since the 1990s to
reliably "attract" bees to a feeder with any
combination of honey, warmed wax, honey-b-healthy,
essential oils, etc.

A reliable method of attracting bees with
ANYTHING, one that would work consistently
from spring to fall, would be a big enhancement
in "bee-lining technology".

The most recent failure was at the TN state
beekeeper meeting last October. Two feeders
were set up for 48 hours before the workshop,
and 8 hives were no more than 75 yards away.
As usual, a petri dish of pure honey was
placed on each feeding station "just in case".
No customers after 48 hours, even though there
was little or no forage available, and the
flight conditions were excellent.

We ended up capturing bees as they left the
hive just to get enough bee-lining boxes
pre-loaded with bees for the workshop
participants, which meant that less than 100%
of the bees captured were actual foragers.
Many were novice fliers, proving their
inexperience by orienting to the bee-lining
box once released.

> So your conclusions based on what you PRESUME 
> the bees will prefer

No, the actual data shows that the bees have
"no preference" in terms of early spring
colony expansion and strength or survival rate.

My conclusions are that whatever is easiest
and cheapest and *SAFEST* to feed is what
one should use, a refutation of *YOUR*
presumptions about what specific hives of bees
might have preferred at one time or another, as
best you can recall, not that you measured
anything or took any notes, of course.









> If you have a contrary observation, feel free 
> to share it.

Of course I have contrary observations, all it
took was putting multiple "frame feeders" in
a hive, and tracking the amount taken from
each every few days. Better than that, you
can refer to the Canadian studies I mentioned.
(As I recall, there were at least 3 different
ones, all prompted by concerns over the use
of beet sugar in overwintering.)

> Personally I've had a lot of theories about 
> bees and what they would prefer. The bees 
> usually disproved them.

Sorry to hear that.
Better luck this spring.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>> And honey is a more appealing smell 
>To humans, perhaps.

In my experience it is to bees.

>>and is easier to recruit others to come get it.
>I wish you could help me then, as I have
consistently failed since the 1990s to
reliably "attract" bees to a feeder with any
combination of honey, warmed wax, honey-b-healthy,
essential oils, etc.

I'd have to admit I've found the bees in a frenzy over the HBH even in preference to honey. But then your bees seem to be quite different than mine.

>A reliable method of attracting bees with
ANYTHING, one that would work consistently
from spring to fall, would be a big enhancement
in "bee-lining technology".

I suppose you've read the Foxfire recipe.  I haven't tried it. Maybe you should put out some nasty water or, even better, some chlorinated water. Bees always seem to find the swimming pools and the runoff from the feedlot.

> So your conclusions based on what you PRESUME 
> the bees will prefer
>No, the actual data shows that the bees have
"no preference" in terms of early spring
colony expansion and strength or survival rate.

You already told me they prefer syrup. Now you say they have "no Preference". Which is it?

I'm not sure what you mean by "the actual data" nor am I sure an experiment with your bees (since they can't find syrup, HBH or honey) would help, but I've had syrup and honey out and have observed their preference.

>My conclusions are that whatever is easiest
and cheapest and SAFEST to feed is what
one should use, a refutation of YOUR
presumptions about what specific hives of bees
might have preferred at one time or another, as
best you can recall, not that you measured
anything or took any notes, of course. 

How is it that you can say you "refute" something I observed by something you have not observed or even tried?

It's not too hard to put out some honey and syrup and watch where the bees go. It would be difficult to actually count each bee, but it also seems totally unnecessary. Of course it's easy enough to just see which container empties first. And dramatic differences do not require detailed measurements to assess.

>Of course I have contrary observations, all it
took was putting multiple "frame feeders" in
a hive, and tracking the amount taken from
each every few days.

Which, I am assuming, you did? If you saw different results, then I'd say it's quite possible that the preferred food would depend on the what the bees were currently trying to do. Putting away stores, or feeding brood or just looking for food. I've only done this experiment with multiple food types. I haven't done a detailed experiment that included the season, the current activities of the hive AND multiple food types available. Have you?

I said: "In my experience, they will take Honey with more enthusiasm..."

It seems that the polite and proper response to that, if you have contrary observations, would be "In my experience they have no preference" or whatever your observations are. Even a little detail of any experiment you have done. And certainly references to studies are nice.

You seem to presume that others are not entitled to share what they have observed if it disagrees with what you have either read or observed. I've learned that a lot of my initial observations on things in beekeeping were not entirely correct, but also not wrong, but instead were in a narrow frame of reference at a particular time of year or a particular state in a hive. Quite often by hearing other's observations I do learn that these things are not contradictions, just complications.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> You already told me they prefer syrup. 
> Now you say they have "no Preference". 
> Which is it?

I thought I was clear enough to be understood,
that for OVERWINTERING, there's *no difference*
in terms of the bees' preference, but there
are multiple advantages (as listed) to NOT
trying to overwinter on honey.

In *Spring*, honey is clearly *not* preferred
over anything thinner, as can be seen by feeding
syrup to a colony that still has more-than
adequate honey stores. Regardless of the use of
HFCS or sugar syrup, the bees "take" the syrup rapidly. 

If they "preferred" honey, they wouldn't touch
the syrup, but would instead utilize the stored
honey.

They don't, so they don't.

> I'm not sure what you mean by "the actual data"

The data from the Canadian studies I mentioned.

> How is it that you can say you "refute"

Because the statement proposes that bees
somehow care how they get their carbohydrates,
a position that is refuted by every hive onto
which a feeder is slapped in early spring, and
by every early flower that blooms before the
bees run out of stored honey. If the bees
"preferred honey", feeders would be ignored,
and early flowers would also be ignored.

> It seems that the polite and proper response 
> to that, if you have contrary observations, 
> would be "In my experience they have no 
> preference" or whatever your observations are.

OK, I'll play along:

In my experience, and in yours, if you stop
and think about it, statements that bees
"prefer" honey are laughable examples of
wishful thinking and anthropomorphism that
come close to denying the entire body of
what we call "science" as applied to bees,
not to mention common sense. Further, this
issue is of great interest to many beekeepers,
such great interest that it has been
studied to *DEATH* as applied to
overwintering (where the only difference
found was the usual risks inherent in
"feeding honey" associated with things like
spreading AFB between colonies by swapping
frames around), and spring feeding, where
honey was the LAST food source exploited by
bees who were given a choice.

> You seem to presume that others are not 
> entitled to share what they have observed 
> if it disagrees with what you have either 
> read or observed.

No, I am simply sharing my own views and
observations. If it causes you any discomfort
or embarrassment, don't blame me. Its not a
"flame", its just an insightful and well-reasoned
argument that is both difficult to argue with, and
directly contradicts your over-simplified flat
statement about a set of "decisions" that come
in at least 3 very different seasonal contexts.

Note that I objected ONLY to your flat statement,
not your observations, unusual though they are.


----------



## shoefly (Jul 9, 2004)

Anthropomorphism here anthropromorphism there.....
Don't you think that bees prefer the sugar syrup in the spring because it offers more variety? Variety is always good. Honey all winter long I'd be sick of it as well. For a bee, honey may compare with saurkraut.It keeps well without spoiling but is hard to digest. The stench in those bee hives must be awful after a winter on the same diet. If only we could smell it like a bee we would surely know. 
I don't care how much science you throw at this anthromorphic comparison we won't find out if bees like honey more than we like saurkraut.


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

I would think it would make sense that the bee's would gather supplies from outside the hive when they are available rather than consume their own stores.
It would be a very poor survival strategy to consume all your stores and then hope new food supplies would be available

Dave

[ December 21, 2005, 08:01 PM: Message edited by: drobbins ]


----------



## shoefly (Jul 9, 2004)

Anthropomorphism here anthropromorphism there.....
Don't you think that bees prefer the sugar syrup in the spring because it offers more variety? Variety is always good. Honey all winter long I'd be sick of it as well. For a bee, honey may compare with saurkraut.It keeps well without spoiling but is hard to digest. The stench in those bee hives must be awful after a winter on the same diet. If only we could smell it like a bee we would surely know. 
I don't care how much science you throw at this anthromorphic comparison we won't find out if bees like honey more than we like saurkraut.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> more than we like saurkraut

What, you mean you actually EAT that stuff?









I'm German, so I should let you in on a secret.
During WWII, Nazi propaganda gave the impression
that Germans liked sauerkraut, just to intimidate
the Allies. Any group of people that could stand
such noxious stuff would clearly be too tough to
beat.

Knackwurst, Bratwurst, and all the other
"wurst" dining experiences you can imagine 
were nothing but disinformation.

Well, at least the French bought it...


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>Any group of people that could stand such noxious stuff would clearly be too tough to beat.

Hm.. Kim Chee... very popular in southeast asia.. and we all know how well we've faired over there! I love it myself, especially the really spicy stuff. It's gotta be good for you


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Note that I objected ONLY to your flat statement,

My "flat statement" was prefaced as "In my experience". I would not call that a flat statement, but rather a personal observation. If I had said "Bees prefer honey." That would have been a flat statement and wide open for you to disagree with since you, obviously, do not believe that.


----------



## Blue.eyed.Wolf (Oct 3, 2005)

Fisher is absolutly right!


Saurkraut is nasty!


As for the honey/sugar/HFCS (whatever that is), clueless here. I'm gonna wait to see whos left standing after this blood bath.


----------



## ikeepbees (Mar 8, 2003)

> For fall, one wants a much thicker syrup, easier to obtain by diluting HFCS than by trying to mix sugar with water, but to each his own.


In an interesting article on feeding in the November 2005 Bee Culture, Walt Wright offers some ideas on why one may want a much thinner syrup for Fall.

[ December 22, 2005, 10:46 PM: Message edited by: ikeepbees ]


----------



## sugar bandit #2 (Oct 4, 2003)

In my opinion, my bees prefer their honey with a twist of lime served @ 78.5 degrees.


----------



## TRC (Nov 22, 2005)

Hi Michael,

Going back to the post that you started this thread with.

Once again, I'm a newbee with no bees until spring, and reading everything I can get my eyes on. At the birth of my interest, someone told me that asking 5 beekeepers about almost anything would yield 7 opinions. It's certainly proved out on this message board. The silver lining is that the bees must be working around our mistakes. That gives me hope.

So back to that first post: Imagine the robot from "Lost in Space" waving his dryer hose arms and saying "Danger! Does not compute!" That's me.

So much of what I have read concerns dealing with mites, moths, beetles, and other nasty rascals. I might be misreading, but your post seems to advise doing nothing about that. How should I digest that advice?
</font>
Expect things to be OK by doing nothing.</font>
Accept some loss, balanced out by saving money and labor.</font>
Accept the loss and know that I might be breeding better bees.</font>
No disrespect intended at all. Just trying to learn.

Thanks in advance.
Tom


----------



## TRC (Nov 22, 2005)

P.S.

Saurkraut is not nasty. It's just not "ready to eat". Drain it. Soak in cold water. Drain again. Now it's ready for your brat or Polish or rueben. Mmmmm.

Best,
Tom


----------



## wayacoyote (Nov 3, 2003)

Sugar Bandit,
Would that be shaken or stirred?

I'm curious if any studies have been done on the nutritional value of the various diets mentioned above? Regardless of what is "prefered", I would be interested in knowing what was healthiest, (AFB aside). You see, I have a hankering for a pizza and a half-gallon of soda pop per day. but somethings have pursuaded me to think that might not be the healthiest for me...

Waya


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>So much of what I have read concerns dealing with mites, moths, beetles, and other nasty rascals. I might be misreading, but your post seems to advise doing nothing about that. How should I digest that advice?

If you put bees on typical foundation (5.4mm cells) in typical hives and do nothing the Varroa will probably kill them sometime during the first two years. I've never had to deal with SHB, but where you are (in the North) it usually isn't any more problem than the wax moths and they are really a problem unless you have a weak and struggling hive.

If, on the other hand, you let the bees build their own comb and keep an eye on the mites until you get them back to normal size (4.9mm or smaller), they will handle the Varroa mites just fine. If you have bees with any survival abilities they will handle the Tracheal mites just fine. I haven't used anything for AFB since 1976 and never (since 1974) for Nosema.

I always recommend you monitor the Varroa mites with either a tray under a SBB and/or an occasional sugar roll and/or uncapping some capped drone brood now and then. If the Varroa are taking over (as evidenced by skyrocketing numbers of mites dropping or found in drone brood or found in a sugar roll) then I would consider what you intend to do. But if you let the bees build natural comb I think you'll find they will generally stay under control. If you use standard foundation you'll find they Varroa will quickly devastate a hive.

Varroa are the most likely cause of your bees dying. You need to monitor the Varroa no matter what else you decide to do or not do. Otherwise you'll never know if it's working or not. Since the "mainstream" methods have been failing for some time now, just using some commercially available chemical "just in case" is not enough. You need to monitor to know if what you are doing (or not doing) is working or failing.

As far as numbers, I don't look for a magic number of varroa mites. I look for a suddenly rising number of mites falling.


----------



## TRC (Nov 22, 2005)

Hi Michael,

Thanks, and here come more newbee questions:

>"If you put bees on typical foundation (5.4mm cells) in typical hives and do nothing the Varroa will probably kill them sometime during the first two years."

Ok. For my first shot at this should I look for small cell foundation, go with no foundation, or start with 5.4 and then wean them into making their own from scratch?

I plan to start with 3# packages. Dropping the girls into empty frames would make me feel like a poor landlord. I could get over it if that's the right thing to do.

If <4.9 is better, why hasn't it become a standard foundation? Or has it? Off to look at catalogs again.

Thanks for your patience.

Best,
Tom


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Ok. For my first shot at this should I look for small cell foundation, go with no foundation, or start with 5.4 and then wean them into making their own from scratch?

If what you want to end up with is bees on natural sized cell, then starting with 5.4mm would be the worst thing you could do. It will, quite simply, put you one full step behind. You already have them on no comb (shaken swarm) so give them a chance to build what they want or give them some small cell foundation. Getting them OFF of large cell is the only complicated thing about it and you already have them OFF any kind of cells.

Some kind of comb guide is necessary. This can be a drawn brood comb on each side. A capped honey comb on each side. A triangular shaped top bar. A wooden starter strip. A wax starter strip. An embossed starter strip. Or some kind of foundation, in this case small cell.

>I plan to start with 3# packages. Dropping the girls into empty frames would make me feel like a poor landlord. I could get over it if that's the right thing to do.

Empty frames will not work. Some kind of comb guide is necessary. Empty frames only work when you have some drawn comb on each side to act as a comb guide. Otherwise you'll need starter strips or a triangular top bar.

Here's what happens with empty frames:

http://www.beesource.com/pov/simon/comb.jpg

See my web site for some pictures of foundationless frames, some dating back to Langstroths original patent. Also see http://charlesmartinsimon.com/stinging-insects.htm and look at the "Unfoundation" links.
Like this one: http://charlesmartinsimon.com/pictures.htm

>If <4.9 is better, why hasn't it become a standard foundation?

Because not enough people have decided to use it and the bee suppliers keep telling people it should be used by experienced beekeepers. That's part of what brought me here. I had over twenty five years of experience but no idea how that was supposed to help me use small cell foundation. So I serached for "4.9mm cells" and "small cell" on the internet and that led me here. I still don't understand the warning other than the concept that it takes one or two turnovers before you've got small enough bees to draw 4.9mm comb well and you might lose them to mites before that and blame the beekeeping supplier for your losses. That's just my guess. But it takes no particular skill outside of those commonly used for beekeeping to use 4.9mm instead of 5.4mm.

>Off to look at catalogs again.

4.9mm is available from Brushy Mt and Dadant & Sons.


----------



## TRC (Nov 22, 2005)

Hi Michael,

I don't think Dadant carries 4.9 anymore. It's not in their catalog.

Brushy Mtn does have it, but at more than a buck per sheet. (ouch)I don't have their paper catalog and found it online:
http://www.beeequipment.com/products.asp?cat=6&pg=2 

I don't see dimensions. Do you suppose that one sheet is good for one deep frame?

Also, they say about the small cell foundation:
" We recommend this only to experienced beekeepers."

That's a little scary, as my experience level is zero. What's the reason for that advice, do you think?

Best,
Tom


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

"What's the reason for that advice?"

well, my team just lost the big game and I'm feeling a little cynical
how bout this

"there's a lot O money to be made selling chemicals to rookies"  

No, seriously, most folks figure the bee supply houses don't want beginers to use it and assume the problem is taken care of, then have there bee's die and try to blame them cause it didn't work.
I'm a rookie who just tried converting to SC this year
in my first attempt I gave em a frame of SC foundation
it didn't go well, they reworked it and drew a lot of funny shaped comb.
I think it was to big a leap for them from regular foundation to SC
next I cut a sheet of SC foundation into 3/4" strips and put it in frames like this 

http://www.drobbins.net/bee's/window/Dsc00781.jpg

the bee's drew it out great
it wasn't 4.9 mm, it was more like 5.1
the theory is that this spring when I give em some more frames like that they'll draw it 4.9
it's kindof a stepdown process
plus it's way cheaper than whole sheets of foundation









BTW, the stuff BM sells fits deep frames

Dave


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>I don't think Dadant carries 4.9 anymore. It's not in their catalog.

Dadant makes it and Dadant carries it. I've just heard they are now going to offer 5.1mm and 4.9mm in crimp wired also. The 5.1mm would be perfect for the first regression so you don't have to put up with the funky modified 4.9 cells they build.

>Brushy Mtn does have it, but at more than a buck per sheet.

Yes it is. It is that price from Dadant as well. Unwired. I haven't seen the price on the wired.

>I don't see dimensions. Do you suppose that one sheet is good for one deep frame?

They are for deep frames. I cut them in half and leave a 1" gap at the bottom with the mediums.

You can always use a starter strip. Just cut the foundation into 3/4" wide strips. Or you can make comb guides and nail onto the top bars or you can cut a bevel on a top bar before you assemble it. These will save you on foundation and still get natural comb.

>Also, they say about the small cell foundation:
" We recommend this only to experienced beekeepers."

Yes. I know.

>That's a little scary, as my experience level is zero. What's the reason for that advice, do you think?

I speculate they are afraid you'll buy it, do nothing else for the mites and loose your bees. They don't want to explain regression, which is simply that the bees can't get back to normal size in one jump, it takes at least two or three. And you don't have enough protection to reliably keep them alive without treatments until you hit at least two.

If you want to buy the crimp wire or the 5.1mm try calling Dadant.


----------



## TRC (Nov 22, 2005)

>Dadant makes it and Dadant carries it.

Ok. I'm pretty good at missing things right under my nose. Darned if I can find 4.9 in my 2005 "Wholesale beekeeping catalog" . I did find it in the catalog.

Here's the plan so far. I start my package in the spring on 4.9mm and medicate with something while the bees regress. The first generation won't do a very good job, but the next will do better and so on.

As they move in the direction of natural cell size, do I take the old drawn comb away from them? 
Thanks.

Best,
Tom
Disclaimer: If any of the above sounded like I know what I'm talking about, it was dumb luck.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I try to move the larger comb to the outside edges of the brood nest and keep the smaller in the center. Whenever I find the larger with no brood in it I'll pull it out. If have enough 4.9mm drawn comb you could scrap the 5.1mm. But as long as you DON'T have enough 4.9mm drawn comb, you can just reuse the 5.1mm to regress some other hive and save them having to draw it.


----------



## daknoodle (Dec 8, 2005)

For the other newbees out there, don't worry you aren't alone on the small cell for newbees idea. 

(hmmm, thats a good topic, Small Cell for Newbees)

I'm starting out for the first time this spring with a 3# package and thanks to Drobbins' and MB's help I'm going to be using SC starter strips. I'm also building a long hive so I can do horizontal beekeeping instead of vertical (yes I'm young, but I'd still like to keep my back). If you want to see an example of the one I'm building check out Drobbins' site. I'm taking most of what he did and doing the same (somthing about imitation and flattery, right Drobbins? lol)

Hope this gives other newbees who want to start out right some confiedence that they are not alone. and as far as the "warmings" from the suppliers, I always like a good challenge...









Doug

[ January 08, 2006, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: daknoodle ]


----------



## TRC (Nov 22, 2005)

Michael,

By that do you mean that I should try to start with 5.1, or use 4.9 and the first attempt by the bees will be about 5.1?

dak,

Horizontal. Yikes. Information overload. Everything I've read so far has brood on the bottom. I'd better stick with that for now and hang on to my sanity. It still sounds interesting though. Where is the web site that you mentioned?

It's somewhat comforting to know that I still have about 3 months of learning until the bees arrive. If I had to deal with them right now I'd probably end up with a few pounds of dead bugs









Best,
Tom

Best,
Tom


----------



## daknoodle (Dec 8, 2005)

Tom,

Its really not that much different, just another direction









Here is Drobbins' website http://www.drobbins.net/bee's/lh/lh.html

I'd recommend doing it only if you have some wood working experience or if you have a friend or someone who can do it for you. You really can't purchase much pre-made for a long hive except maybe your frames.

I personally don't like how MB has them close to the ground (no offence MB...







) Drobbins made some legs for them so they stand up I think near your waist.

And I agree with you on the 3 months worth of a learning curve. I've been lucky to inherit a bunch of equipment from my fiance's grandfather. I don't know what I'd do if I did not already have all that I'm getting.

And about the 4.9 or 5.1 question. From everything I've learned, if you are starting out with a package, just go straight to 4.9. And then once they are filled start putting in empty frames between two fully filled ones.

Doug


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

there's a tradeoff between how high you sit them off the ground
if they make a lot of honey, those boxes stack up pretty high
they're heavy
you gotta lift em
the higher the hive is off the ground the higher you gotta reach
on the other hand getting it off the ground gets it away from pests
there're no simple answers are there?








the picture of mine is before I took posthole diggers and sunk em in the ground
they're still about a foot of the ground
I wanted my chickens to be able to get under em to eat the varroa as they fall out  

Dave

[ January 08, 2006, 04:58 PM: Message edited by: drobbins ]


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>By that do you mean that I should try to start with 5.1, or use 4.9 and the first attempt by the bees will be about 5.1?

The first attempt by the bees will be about 5.1mm. Dadant is now selling 5.1mm foundation if you want to go that route. I think it's wired and deep. I don't want deeps so that doesn't work for me.

I like the foundationless the best and starter strips next. After all, if making the bees be 5.4mm is a bad idea why would making them be anything other than what they want be a good idea?

But 4.9mm seems to prove to be closer to what they want anyway, than 5.4mm.

>Horizontal. Yikes. Information overload. Everything I've read so far has brood on the bottom. I'd better stick with that for now and hang on to my sanity. It still sounds interesting though.

Never have to lift a box if you harvest regularly. Or only have to lift supers to harvest if you keep the brood nest behind the supers. When the bees move into a tree they start with the brood at the top. Maybe when we run vertical hives we should try that.









>Where is the web site that you mentioned?

Mine has some horizontal hives, foundationless frames etc.

www.bushfarms.com

>It's somewhat comforting to know that I still have about 3 months of learning until the bees arrive. If I had to deal with them right now I'd probably end up with a few pounds of dead bugs 

Just remember Hippocrates oath. First, do no harm. If your not sure what to do, leave them alone until you figure it out. Just don't let them starve.

>those boxes stack up pretty high they're heavy
you gotta lift em the higher the hive is off the ground the higher you gotta reach on

Exactly why I put mine close to the ground. The other is they blow over less close to the ground.

> the other hand getting it off the ground gets it away from pests

Getting the ENTRANCE off the ground gets them away from pests.

> there're no simple answers are there?

Sure there is. Put them close to the ground, but put the entrace at the top. You CAN have your cake and eat it too.


----------



## TRC (Nov 22, 2005)

Thanks guys. This is really interesting stuff.

At the risk of wandering way off the topic:
Here is one of Michael's images of a foundationless frame. The bees have attached the comb to top, bottom, and sides. And here is a Kenya top bar comb. I assume that you didn't have to cut it away from the hive body. Why? Also, how do you extract from the Kenya, which looks to me like a frameless frame? Crush and drain?

Best,
Tom


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

>Put them close to the ground

it's all about the chickens Michael
they're my secret weapons for the varroa









Dave


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>At the risk of wandering way off the topic:
Here is one of Michael's images of a foundationless frame. The bees have attached the comb to top, bottom, and sides. And here is a Kenya top bar comb. I assume that you didn't have to cut it away from the hive body. Why? 

They want to be able to walk around the end and bottom of the comb. The frame provides that space away from the wall. Since they don't need two paths that close they usually fill it up to frame. The bees will leave that same beespace (1/4" to 3/8") around the comb.

>Also, how do you extract from the Kenya, which looks to me like a frameless frame? Crush and drain?

I usually cut it for comb honey, but I crush and strain the odds and ends. I could crush it all, but I like comb honey and I sell it for a premium. I do extract the foundationless frames. I have not tried to extract top bar combs.


----------



## TRC (Nov 22, 2005)

>"They want to be able to walk around the end and bottom of the comb. The frame provides that space away from the wall."

Ah. That makes perfect sense. Thanks.

One more? I've read that a new queen can change the character of a hive in matters such as agression and hygene. What about cell size? Would regression be faster if I replaced a VC (Varroa Cell) queen with a SC queen?

Best,
Tom


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>One more? I've read that a new queen can change the character of a hive in matters such as agression and hygene. What about cell size? Would regression be faster if I replaced a VC (Varroa Cell) queen with a SC queen?

I've heard some small cell people say that. I haven't observed it, but I wasn't paying close enough attention. I was taking careful measurments when I started regressing. By the time I was raising small cell queens, most of my bees were already mostly regressed and I wasn't taking such careful measurements. But the large cell queens are quite happy to lay in small cells. I don't know how her size affects the bees wanting to build a certain size cell, but my feeling is that it's related to the bee's body size and not the queen's.


----------



## Walts-son-in-law (Mar 26, 2005)

Ignore me.


----------

