# Does "Large Cell" Beekeeping work?



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

Does "Large Cell" Beekeeping work? 
I have only used sc foundation but if there is proof that LC is better I might be willing to experiment. 

If there's no clear advantage I'll just stick with what I've been doing...


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Just in case meaning of the imagery is unclear, I found it with a search of "Stir the Pot."


----------



## AmericasBeekeeper (Jan 24, 2010)

LC works for me personally and the research hives. SC experts always attack Tom Seely but he is just one of dozens in several states and countries that found SC ineffective. The better question is how many small cell beekeepers do not use survivor or hygeinic stock, avoid poisoning bees unnecessarily, and do not starve them nutritionally, or stick them on trucks for most of the year as migrant workers.


----------



## HarryVanderpool (Apr 11, 2005)

I will have a 5.5% loss this winter about double of what I normally have.
All large cell.
And I did not have to join the beekeeping taliban in order to keep losses low.
I just DO MY JOB as a beekeeper to the best of my ability every day.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

bc, for what it is worth, and after three seasons using mann lake rite cell with a few foundationless mixed in, and zero treatments for mites:

2010 4 hives, no losses
2011 10 hives, no losses
2012 20 hives, 3 losses

the 2012 losses were one from afb, one from laying workers, and one from mites.

i attribute the one from mites to a poor queen, made by a weak nuc, that probably didn't mate well.
i would have tried to save it by requeening if i would have caught it in time.


----------



## AstroBee (Jan 3, 2003)

I've been doing LC for over 11 years, basically treatment free. The "basically" qualifier means the first year when I overwintered a single colony I used Apistan because the beginner book I read was all about treating bees and I didn't have enough confidence to "break the rules". That was the first and only time I used "hard" treatments in any of my colonies. I used Sucrocide one season on a few colonies and MAQS (Fall 2011) on only two of my 40 colonies. I've come to the conclusion that these treatments are simply not worth the effort and expense. I saw no advantages from these treated hives relative to those neighboring untreated LC hives. In fact, one of the two hives treated with MAQS was the only one that showed significant number of mites in the drone brood the following spring. BTW, I use the evil 5.4 Mann lake Rite-Cell foundation too. Granted, my locality has pretty mild winters, so I don't want to make my record appear applicable to other regions. I run good hygienic stock (mostly from Glenn), and yes, even some of the V*H that so many seem to hate here on beesource. My colonies are extremely productive, far above most that I encounter in the 3 local clubs that I attend. My colonies all carry SHB, which I also don't manage with no negative impact. BTW, I've had SHB for 11 years. I monitor for varroa through drone brood uncapping and the occasional sticky board. I do split all my production colonies each spring using cut-downs to break the brood cycle just prior to peak honey flow. I make a good number of queens each year to propagate the best of my best. 

So, yes it is doable (at least in my location) without harsh chems and SC. Has the pot been stirred enough yet?


----------



## Belewsboy (Jun 6, 2012)

if honey bees naturally form a smaller cell, why is most foundation designed to encourage larger cells? What is the advantage of larger cells?


----------



## Splatt (Jul 11, 2012)

Belewsboy said:


> if honey bees naturally form a smaller cell, why is most foundation designed to encourage larger cells? What is the advantage of larger cells?


The way I heard it, larger cells make larger bees, which is supposed to mean more nectar per load, hence increased honey production.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

Belewsboy said:


> if honey bees naturally form a smaller cell, why is most foundation designed to encourage larger cells? What is the advantage of larger cells?


yeah, there's some history behind it. apparantly the first ones to figure out how to make foundation thought it would be a good idea, and it stuck.


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

I am not so sure of that. I have one of the first foundation mills made, by Mr. Olm of Fond du Lac Wis., and it is not the size of modern foundation. Neither is my great grandfather's mill in the Museum in Cassville, Wis. I can try to find my records.

Crazy Roland


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

how cool is that roland. i don't really know the history, but it seems like that info has been posted somewhere on the forum. where's it at rader!?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Michael Bush and Dean Stiglitz (aka deknow) know this History. Dean has written of it on beesource in the past.


----------



## Beregondo (Jun 21, 2011)

BeeCurious, I think it depends on what you mean by "Does it work?"

While one hears isolated reports such as Harry's 5.5% loss last winter, and the exceptionally low loss rate squarepeg enjoys, with the national average loss rate at around 30%, and that almost all on large cell, I'd hardly call that "working".

I know of no peer reviewed scientific study being published to show that there is any advantage whatever in colony production or survivability due to large cell use.

Until such evidence exists, I'm playing it safe and sticking to small cell.:lookout:


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Does large cell work? Why yes, the larger your cell the more hives you can keep in it.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

squarepeg said:


> i don't really know the history, but it seems like that info has been posted somewhere on the forum.


The is an amazing amount of reference material on "brood cell size" available in _Point of View _section of Beesource. Most of it seems to be under the _Ed & Dee Lusby_ heading, but not necessarliy authored by the Lusbys.

Here is a quote from one written in 1931.


> About the beginning of the 20th century, several controversies arose which concerned the size of the honeybee and its dependability upon the size of the cell. The first of these concerned the effect of the age of the comb upon the size of its emerging bees. It is unquestionable that this had a great influence in bringing about the large cell controversy in France and Belgium. At about the same time, the problem of enlarging the bees became an important issue here in America and a long discussion concerning length of the honeybee probescis and its relation to pollination and honey production ensued. The following is a discussion of the above three controversies in the order given.


http://www.beesource.com/point-of-v...ce-of-cell-size/the-size-of-brood-comb-cells/


Once you open the link above, you should see on the left a wealth of other material on this subject. Enough to keep a person occupied for many days. :lookout:

_Note that in some cases, you have to go back to the links on the left to read the following sections of the same paper. If it looks like some of the document is missing, check the left side for more links._


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

They both work.


----------



## odfrank (May 13, 2002)

Beregondo;875489Until such evidence exists said:


> You are attributing higher levels of hive loss to only cell size differences. I used LC used successfully from 1970 -1995 until the mites came. Hives with LC re-used worked fine. In 2006 my bees started dieing from something else. I made SC hives. They die also. I rarely have a SC hive produce as much crop or live longer than a LC hive. If you read the ramblings of the founder of the small cell movement daily, she comes across as a wack job. I would no longer rely on her teachings than I would on that of Jim Jones, founder of the Peoples Temple. Several contributors on this thread are her disciples.


----------



## beeware10 (Jul 25, 2010)

If conventional cell size did not work there would be no bees in the us. better to be concerned with good beekeeping practices.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

i like michael bush's tag line:

"everything works it you let it"


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

As with Roland, I have an old Vandervort comb foundation mill, circa 1880's. The three different directions across ten cells measure: 54mm, 50mm, 50mm. Interesting that they didn't get all three equal.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

odfrank said:


> If you read the ramblings of the founder of the small cell movement daily, she comes across as a *wack job*.


Is this a technical term?  You made me laugh thank you.
No reflection on my part as to LC or SC. I just found it humorous that sometimes you just have to call it the way you see it.


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

This was very well written up in the bee journals between 1900 and 1920. The first foundation mills made ranged from 4.8 to 5.0. As beekeeping modernized, many well meaning inventors decided that larger foundation cells would produce larger bees which could carry more nectar and would therefore make more honey. They were right on part of that, larger foundation does indeed result in larger bees. Eventually, the bees adapted to the foundation and selective pressures resulted in genetic changes so the bees are bigger. If you try to put these genetically larger bees on small cell, you get the comb messes that most beekeepers wind up with when they try to convert to small cell.

Is there an advantage to large cell comb? None that I have found after 7 years of running both sizes. Do I have a preference? Yes, I marginally like the small cell foundation because my bees overwinter just a tad better. But I should caveat that by saying that I am running 31 mm frames with 11 frames per deep brood chamber. This affects both cluster size and honey storage so there are a lot of internal cluster dynamics that are different with my bees.

DarJones


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

dar, do you run 11 frames in both your large and small cell colonies?


----------



## HarryVanderpool (Apr 11, 2005)

squarepeg said:


> i like michael bush's tag line:
> 
> "everything works it you let it"


Yes; If you let your bees die, they die.


----------



## Beregondo (Jun 21, 2011)

odfrank said:


> You are attributing higher levels of hive loss to only cell size differences.


Nope, I'm not.
I am parodying a rather tired refrain that comes up so often in this cell size discussion. (As I think the OP probably is as well).
Someone invariably asserts they won't believe small cell works unless there's a paper that says so.
I think the folks who are doing well on small (or large, in the case of the parody) cell pretty much eliminate the need for such a paper.



odfrank said:


> If you read the ramblings of the founder of the small cell movement daily, she comes across as a wack job. I would no longer rely on her teachings than I would on that of Jim Jones, founder of the Peoples Temple. Several contributors on this thread are her disciples.


Ad hominem arguments seldom persuade.

I started using small cells before I ever heard of the lady you're speaking so poorly of.
I like them, for a number of reasons.
Just like some people like ugly boxes.
But I don't try to make people use them, anymore than the ugly box guy tries to make people use ugly boxes.

I think we take some stuff too stinkin' seriously sometimes!

I'm glad you're on the forum Ollie.
It's fun having you and stuff like "your" winter challenge around.
Plus, who else whips bee bee trees?


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

HarryVanderpool said:


> Yes; If you let your bees die, they die.


Actually I have seen for myself that this is not necessarily true. Some of the first beehives I ever saw had been left to die. After about 10 years they where anything but dead. they attacked in mass when we got about 10 feet from them. Can't say much more about them than that. But they definitely where not dead. I don't think they would have been AHB either. this was in the mid 70's in south east Kansas. I don't think the AHB had made it across the US border yet.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Barry said:


> The three different directions across ten cells measure: 54mm, 50mm, 50mm. Interesting that they didn't get all three equal.


Can you explain what the third direction is?


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Fusion_power said:


> Is there an advantage to large cell comb? None that I have found after 7 years of running both sizes. Do I have a preference? Yes, I marginally like the small cell foundation because my bees overwinter just a tad better.


Didn't you just say there is no difference?:scratch:


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Acebird said:


> Can you explain what the third direction is?


Have you ever looked at a compass? :scratch: There are *360 *degrees represented on a compass. Each of those is a _different _direction.









:lookout:


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

I believe that the three directions refered to are horizontal, vertical, and diagonal.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)




----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

interesting the the dimension varies along those axes.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Barry said:


>


Great, this is all we need, a lead in to a debate about housel positioning.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Which dimension was the one not the same? Barry? Just curious.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

I was just thinking about that. I'll double check, but my guess is it's the direction that is a right angle to the rollers. That is the only direction that could change as you turn the rollers. I know Dee would talk about the wax stretching as it went through the rollers and distorting that side of the cells, but I used a piece of paper. Perhaps there is that much 'play' in the gearing that accounts for this. There is no way I can measure the imprint on the actual rollers.


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

Barry said:


> There is no way I can measure the imprint on the actual rollers.


Could you "ink" the roller and use paper? Either running it through the rollers (cardboard?) or simply rubbing the paper down with a finger?


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Barry said:


> I know Dee would talk about the wax stretching as it went through the rollers and distorting that side of the cells, but I used a piece of paper. Perhaps there is that much 'play' in the gearing that accounts for this. There is no way I can measure the imprint on the actual rollers.


I asked the question because I assumed the "mill" was a round cylinder much the same as a rotary die. If this is the case the impression is dependent on the gearing and is usually smaller than the physical dimensions of the tool. Typically the tool rotates faster than the travel of the web so the impression comes out smaller in the direction of the web. If you want the impression to be equal to the web you take the gears out and rely on the friction of the bears to drive the roll. You would have to let the tool manufacturer know what your intentions are.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

BeeCurious said:


> Could you "ink" the roller and use paper? Either running it through the rollers (cardboard?) or simply rubbing the paper down with a finger?


Just roll the tool over a flat surface with a carbon copy between the tool and the flat surface. I would use a flat piece of sanded plywood so you don't damage the impressions. If you are looking for precision you measure it with a camera system. For beekeeping, just eyeball it with a scale.


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

Acebird said:


> you take the gears out and rely on the friction of the bears to drive the roll.


I don't understand. 



Acebird said:


> Just roll the tool over a flat surface with a carbon copy between the tool and the flat surface. I would use a flat piece of sanded plywood so you don't damage the impressions. If you are looking for precision you measure it with a camera system. For beekeeping, just eyeball it with a scale.


I don't think anyone is going to disassemble their foundation roller to take measurements.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

BeeCurious said:


> I don't understand.


show me what your machine looks like.





> I don't think anyone is going to disassemble their foundation roller to take measurements.


Well then just put a carbon copy over the roll and rock a board around the roll for a segment. How many impressions do you want to measure?


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

Perhaps you should read your posts Acebird. 

"bears"?


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Acebird said:


> show me what your machine looks like.


Like this Ace


----------



## HarryVanderpool (Apr 11, 2005)

What Ace meant was BEARERS.
Looking at Barry's mill; it does not have bearers.
Bearers are typically installed on such mills and rotary presses.
What you would see are narrow cylinders about 1/2" wide on each side of both die cylinders. They would be just slightly larger in diameter than the working cylinders to either prevent them from touching or to actually set the thickness.
Bearers are really good also for preventing bounce when the rolls are in operation.
I'm guesssing that instead of bearers, Barry's machine limits daylight height by elevator stops.
That is O.K. for this application, but in super-duper accurate applications, bearers are preferred because with stops you still have bearing play etc. When cylinder bearers meet and slightly loaded, the resulting nip is absolute.
Aren't you glad you picked on Ace?


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

> Aren't you glad you picked on Ace?


Acebird is incapable of correcting a post, it's nice to have someone explain what he intended to communicate.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

OK, here is my actual mill. And no, I won't be doing anything to it that requires disassembly.









http://www.beesource.com/imgs/barry/mill2.jpg


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

It's just as I thought, the 55mm across 10 (5.5 cell width) is measuring the direction that stretching can happen. So I think it's safe to say that 5.0 was the foundation size in the late 1800's.

http://www.beesource.com/imgs/barry/mill3.jpg


----------



## HarryVanderpool (Apr 11, 2005)

Barry said:


> OK, here is my actual mill.


SWWEEEEEEEEEET!!

How hot do you have to get the plastic before milling?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

What!!? Harry. U being funny?


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Barry said:


> OK, here is my actual mill. And no, I won't be doing anything to it that requires disassembly.


Nice Barry, now could I have a pic where I can see the tooling? Yes Harry, you got it bearers, but most people I know shorten it to bears. It doesn't matter if there are bearers or not if the rolls are geared then the gearing will determine if the resulting impression is larger or small that the physical size of the tooling in the direction of the web.
Now I can see it. this is a better pic for what we are discussing.
http://www.beesource.com/imgs/barry/mill3.jpg
no bearers here the top and bottom tool are mated together by the pattern of the hex. The oversize might be an attempt to handle slippage. I suspect the web grows in this application.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Great to here you speaking on something that IS your feild Ace. I have supreme confidence in your opinion on the matter!


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

So Ace, you're agreeing that the machining on the rolls are probably 5.0 all directions but the 5.5 one is due to the slippage/stretching?


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Barry said:


> So Ace, you're agreeing that the machining on the rolls are probably 5.0 all directions but the 5.5 one is due to the slippage/stretching?


It is either that or they had to fudge the spacing to line up with the gear pitch they had. My question to you is when you run stock through this machine what does the actual stock measure out? Is it possible that the foundation shrinks back (revealing stress) over time? Maybe that is the reason.
Looking at the product it doesn't look like you would stretch the foundation coming through the machine being as fragile as it is.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

When you mill wax sheets, the wax is very warm and pliable, not rigid and brittle.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Here is a gallery showing two different milling operations and tooling (Dee and Kirk).

https://picasaweb.google.com/Dean.Ramona/FoundationMakingAndMills

deknow


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

I've been told Dee and hubby actually made their own mill is that correct?


----------



## HarryVanderpool (Apr 11, 2005)

Acebird said:


> It doesn't matter if there are bearers or not if the rolls are geared then the gearing will determine if the resulting impression is larger or small that the physical size of the tooling in the direction of the web.


O.K. For those of you that were steamed because I attempted to help Ace save face; I am very sorry.
(Secret message to Ace): Engineerring is not an opinion type of thing. Just because a sentance is constructed properly does not establish fact.
Gears determine nip?
Ace, you are on your own from here out...


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Well your post educated me Harry, I didn't know that bears were bearers, thought it might be a typo for gears. Not sure if that's engineering slang or just Acebird slang!


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

from the Wiki for bearer.
Beam (structure) or bearer, a structural element. 
Which indicates anything that supports anything. Which could also include the specific structural element of a Bearing. To say a bearer bears it burden sounds about right to me. or at least I am perfectly capable of figuring out what someone meant.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Barry said:


> When you mill wax sheets, the wax is very warm and pliable, not rigid and brittle.



For over a year I process pizza dough through a pair of rollers much like this mill works. The sheet constantly came out curved. I cannot say I know the mechanics behind why that happens. I always thought it was a small error in the parallel alignment of the rollers. Leaving one side of the sheet slightly thicker than the other. The curve was so pronounced that it actually cracked the dough on the outer edge.

I can't say how it happens but I would think the same thing is happening to the wax sheet.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Physics?


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> Physics?


That would explain it. Only physics I have studied where on my girlfriend.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Hmmm, tmi.

I bet it has something to do w/ changing something thick into something thinner by pressure. This can be seen to a lesser degree when rolling dough out on the counter w/ a rolling pin. I bet what you observed had something to do w/ two rollers. But I am a simpleminded person. A gift.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Oldtimer said:


> I've been told Dee and hubby actually made their own mill is that correct?


Not correct. They did mess around with a book style press made of fiberglass, but the roller type they've used for many years was made by another guy.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

OK. I was thinking wow! How would they have made such a thing!


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

It would be interesting to know how such things are made. What th process of making rollers made in such a way as to make beeswax foundation. The making of the rollers themselves. I would imagine making such a thing w/ great accuracy might be more difficult than making a Frederick Remington original cast figure. Does anyone know how they were originally made in the mid 1800s?


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Yes it wouldn't just be getting a round blank and stamping it either. As the cell impressions work their way around the roller, they have to join seemlessly with the first ones when they get all the way around.


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

Oldtimer said:


> Yes it wouldn't just be getting a round blank and stamping it either. As the cell impressions work their way around the roller, they have to join seemlessly with the first ones when they get all the way around.


I believe math may have been involved.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Oh yes I'm sure it's all very simple to those who know how.

But I'm just a simple ex beekeeper.  

No doubt someone who knows will come along and explain it & I'll be glad to admire the intracacies involved.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

I believe Roland could weigh in on this one. If I remember right, they're made on a lathe with special milling attachments. Cutting all the rhombuses would give me a nightmare.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Must be quite a setup on a lathe, specially if slightly raised cell walls are wanted.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

I don't see how a lathe would be involved. Look at yours Barry, don't they appear cast?


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

How much interest is there in people actually purchasing mills? I've gotten some emails from China from one manufacturer, still pricey.

I have an idea (that I won't share here, sorry) for an easy way to mass produce mills, but it would require some upfront investment that I'm not sure the market can support. If you could buy a mill for $500, would you spend the money?

deknow


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> I would imagine making such a thing w/ great accuracy might be more difficult than making a Frederick Remington original cast figure. Does anyone know how they were originally made in the mid 1800s?


There are two process that I know of for making rotary dies, CNC milling and EDM. These are specialized machines and very precise. Yes Oldtimer when you come around the other side it has to be a perfect match. This is the problem with the pitch dia of the gears.

one example:
http://www.midwayrotary.com/


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Oldtimer said:


> Must be quite a setup on a lathe, specially if slightly raised cell walls are wanted.


Definitively not done on a lathe.
How would you get the raised cell walls out of the tool when you are making the foundation.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

I heard a story from Kirk Webster that described an old machine he saw being used to make rollers at AI Root (it was something like the grandson of the guy that invented/built the machine still came in from time to time to make some, as no one else knew how to operate it...and he was an old guy!)...rather soft rollers, and a machine that chased the impression in...where the chasing tools were indexed to everything else (but I believe hammered by hand). I think there is a description in the old ABC volumes (should be able to find them on google books).

There is probably a bit of a slop factor available by chasing in a bit deeper (this isn't like cutting gears, it is more like slow motion, single point knurling).

deknow


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Acebird said:


> Definitively *not done on a lathe*.
> How would you get the raised cell walls out of the tool when you are making the foundation.


Read Barry's comment, _Engineer _Ace. 



Barry said:


> I believe Roland could weigh in on this one. If I remember right, they're made on a lathe with *special milling attachments*.


The workpiece is mounted on a lathe, but the workpiece only turns when needed to move to the next row of cells.

I am not saying that this is how it was don in the 1800s, but it certainly is viable these days. Inddeed, the CNC option you spoke of in another post could utilize this concept.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> I would imagine making such a thing w/ great accuracy might be more difficult than making a Frederick Remington original cast figure. Does anyone know how they were originally made in the mid 1800s?





Acebird said:


> There are two process that I know of for making rotary dies, CNC milling and EDM.


Come on! :no: Since you are quoting Mark, presumably you think you are responding to Mark's question. CNC and EDM most certainly *not available* when the first foundation rollers were developed.



For those not into machining, CNC is essentially computer controlled machining, and EDM is electronic discharge machining, similar in concept to using a big _spark _to etch metal. EDM also effectively needs a computer controller.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> I would imagine making such a thing w/ great accuracy might be more difficult than making a Frederick Remington original cast figure. Does anyone know how they were originally made in the mid 1800s?


I do not "know" how they how produced in the 1800s.

But, a foundation roller is not all that different from an engraved (or etched) cylinder used in a rotary letterpress or "steel engraving" printing process. I would "expect" that similar technologies in the 1800s could be used to produce both.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engraving

[Flame suit on] :lookout:


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

I'm not going to bother copying anything, but my 1888 edition of ABC of Beekeeping has all of the info, including an engraving of a machine to make rollers (probably the one I described) and details of different methods that were used in the early days. You should be able to find it on google books, its under the heading of "comb foundation"

deknow


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> I am not saying that this is how it was don in the 1800s, but it certainly is viable these days. Inddeed, the CNC option you spoke of in another post could utilize this concept.


Just so others don't get confused by your nonsense. You turn a work-piece in a lathe, you mill stock in a milling machine and you burn material in an EDM machine. Specialized CNC machines have the ability to mill and turn but if you are milling it is not a lathe operation.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

deknow said:


> How much interest is there in people actually purchasing mills? I've gotten some emails from China from one manufacturer, still pricey.
> 
> I have an idea (that I won't share here, sorry) for an easy way to mass produce mills, but it would require some upfront investment that I'm not sure the market can support. If you could buy a mill for $500, would you spend the money?
> 
> deknow


I have heard tell of mills like Barrys' being sent into Third World Countrys back in the 70s and 80s. I believe Root Inc carried them in their catalog. I bet there are a bunch of them out there if people could find them. Maybe Root still has some in their warehouse. Check w/ Kim Flottum.

Maybe Dadant has some.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Acebird said:


> Just so others don't get confused by your nonsense. You turn a work-piece in a lathe, you mill stock in a milling machine and you burn material in an EDM machine.


You must be right, Ace, I am just _imagining _the device below.









http://www.amazon.com/Separate-Motors-Distance-between-centers/dp/B008YGDARM

Do you see a headstock? Do you see a tailstock? Is it a lathe? Can you mill a workpiece mounted on the lathe? Of course! :lpf:
:digging:


However, I will concede that given an unlimited choice of tools, this is not the tool I would choose to produce foundation rollers.


----------



## AstroBee (Jan 3, 2003)

Geesh, what a total derailment of the thread.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Acebird said:


> Definitively not done on a lathe.
> How would you get the raised cell walls out of the tool when you are making the foundation.


Did you see raised cell walls on my machine?


----------



## Belewsboy (Jun 6, 2012)

CNC milling would require an indexer capable of rotating in 1/100 of a degree increments and the inside corners of the cells would have a radius relative to the diameter of the cutter (endmill)...obviously not available back then. My thoughts would be an embossing operation similar to knurling on a lathe.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Barry said:


> Did you see raised cell walls on my machine?


It does look like the rolls have a cell wall impression hexagonal too. Because the rolls are round the walls can't get to high without breaking them when the hex part of the tool comes out of mesh. Is the material between the rolls on the first pic paper or actually wax? I don't see any walls in the impression.
How does this machine compensate for stock thickness?


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Belewsboy said:


> My thoughts would be an embossing operation similar to knurling on a lathe.


If they could make the embossing tool for the tool they could make the embossing tool for wax.


----------



## Belewsboy (Jun 6, 2012)

Make one tool which would produce dozens of wax roll dies.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Acebird said:


> It does look like the rolls have a cell wall impression hexagonal too.


Nope, no cell walls.



> Is the material between the rolls on the first pic paper or actually wax?


Paper.



> How does this machine compensate for stock thickness?


The thumb screw at the bottom on each side.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> Does anyone know how they were originally made in the mid 1800s?


Its amazing what you can find in Beesource archives!  The following _partial _quote is from _ABC and XYZ of BEEKEEPING_, A.I. Root – published in *1891 *– Pages 62-72



> Mr. J. Mehring, of Frankinthal, Germany, if I am correct, seems to have been the original inventor. For nearly 20 years the matter seems to have slumbered, although different ones at different times, among whom was our friend Wagner, took it up, made some improvements, and dropped it again. The sheets made in both England and Germany had no side-walls, but simply indentations. Mr. Wagner added shallow side-walls, making it much more like natural comb. Until recently it was all* made with a pair of plates*; even yet the Given press is preferred by some (see elsewhere); but it did not require much wisdom to decide that such an article, if wanted in large quantities, should be rolled out by machinery.
> 
> In the latter part of 1875 I talked with a friend of mine who is quite an artist in the way of fine mechanical work and machinery, and told him what I thought was wanted. The result was that he made a machine that would roll out a continuous sheet, with very fair side-walls of wax, and superior to anything ever made. Indeed, so perfect was the workmanship of the rolls, that, even though fifteen years have passed, nothing yet has been constructed which fully equals the foundation from them. Mr. A. Washburn, the mechanic who did the work,* made the rolls by stamping* – an operation slow, laborious, and consequently expensive. This made the price of these machines from $100 to $125 apiece – a figure beyond the reach of the average bee-keeper, and even of most supply-dealers.
> 
> ...


If you want more, here is another related article:
http://books.google.com/books?id=VW...nepage&q="given press" foundation wax&f=false


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

I think I'll continue using small cell foundation... 

I'm just not convinced that LARGE CELL has any advantages.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>if honey bees naturally form a smaller cell, why is most foundation designed to encourage larger cells? What is the advantage of larger cells? 

http://www.bushfarms.com/beesnaturalcell.htm#baudoux1893

>>i like michael bush's tag line:
>>"everything works it you let it"
>Yes; If you let your bees die, they die. 

Odd. Mine did not die...


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Michael Bush said:


> >if honey bees naturally form a smaller cell, why is most foundation designed to encourage larger cells? What is the advantage of larger cells?
> 
> http://www.bushfarms.com/beesnaturalcell.htm#baudoux1893
> 
> ...


I think we can all agree that there are oddities with varroa that arent fully understood. I also think it is quite fair to state that there have been successes in being treatment free and also failures and that no one fully understands why that is.


----------



## Beregondo (Jun 21, 2011)

I also think wee can all agree that it is quite fair to state that there have been successes in using chemical and drug treatments and also failures and that no one fully understands why that is. 

Whether one treats, or whether one doesn't, some lose hives, and some don't.

It's almost as if everything works if you let it.


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

As Barry knows from the part I made him , there is a middle ground covered by both lathes and mills, where the work is indexed, or moved in conjunction with another axis. I often turn things like threads on my mill. 

That aside, the image I saw of Mr. Olm's machine was of a cylinder that could be indexed, and a set of knives above that where angled to cut the cell bottoms. 

It should also be noted that the material in the final product of Mr. Olm's mill is soft, and appears to be similar to Linotype material.

yes, I am collection pieces to cut a foundation mill to reproduce the size generated by the one my great Grandfather had(now in Cassville museum).
Crazy Roland


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

for those that have never seen a lathe cut threads check this out. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0q_q53wsyHU


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Roland said:


> I often turn things like threads on my mill.


Of course, a machine doesn't know what it is, for instance a shop smith. But the operations done in any machine are defined. If you are milling threads then it is a milling operation and if you are turning threads then it is a lathe operation. What is the difference? When you turn something the workpiece rotates into a stationary tool and when you mill something the tool moves and usually the workpiece is stationary or very very slowly indexing. It is not called turning when a milling cutter is removing the material. When you attach a grinding wheel to a lathe and remove material that way it is referred to as grinding not turning in a lathe.
You are not going to "turn" and embossed pattern in a lathe.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Acebird said:


> You are not going to "turn" and embossed pattern in a lathe.












This knurling operation, *embossing a pattern on the workpiece*, while *turning *on the *lathe *is just imaginary, apparently*.* 

The photo is from a _Dupont _course on "Basic Engine Lathe: Knurling on the Lathe (Online Course)". I guess Ace is correct, and _Dupont _is wrong. 


More on the image, and the course at this link:
http://ecom.training.dupont.com/BEL...)/en-US/ProductDetails_us/Basic-training.aspx

:digging:


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

That is done on a lathe, but it's not turning....it's knurling.....deforming, not cutting. You can also spin on a lathe, which is also not turning.


----------



## mac (May 1, 2005)

Large cell beekeeping does not work beekeepers do the work.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Beregondo said:


> It's almost as if everything works if you let it.


wish that were the case


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Deknow your are wasting your words ... He is a cut and paster and doesn't know much about machine tools.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Acebird said:


> He is a cut and paster and *doesn't know much about machine tools.*


OK, Ace, *Machine Tool Expert*, can you explain why you told us that that foundation rollers in the 1800s were made by *CNC *and/or *EDM *machines, which *did not exist* until the latter part of the 20th century?

Its there for all to see in your post #73, and reproduced below for your convenience. 



sqkcrk said:


> I would imagine making such a thing w/ great accuracy might be more difficult than making a Frederick Remington original cast figure. Does anyone know how they were originally made in the mid 1800s?





Acebird said:


> There are two process that I know of for making rotary dies, *CNC milling and EDM*. These are specialized machines and very precise. Yes Oldtimer when you come around the other side it has to be a perfect match. This is the problem with the pitch dia of the gears.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

deknow said:


> That is done on a lathe, but it's not turning....it's knurling.....deforming, not cutting. You can also spin on a lathe, which is also not turning.


You do lathework, Deknow?


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Yes, in my "previous life" I made top of the line, handmade orchestral flutes and piccolos. I designed/made tooling, jigs, etc, in addition to the handwork. Did some work in the medical device field as well....I'm very good with a lathe, not as much experience milling. Currently I have only a small Chinese lathe, but I'm very impressed with its performance, especially for the price.

deknow


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

This part refers to today Rader:


sqkcrk said:


> I would imagine making such a thing w/ great accuracy might be more difficult than making a Frederick Remington original cast figure.


So does this:



> There are two process that I know of for making rotary dies,


Is that any clearer for your pee brain?


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

deknow said:


> I'm very good with a lathe, not as much experience milling.
> deknow


Seems we have yet another thing in common. I inherited a lathe from my father in law, who had spent most of his life working as a "turner", for Rolls Royce, in Derbyshire, but he came to NZ to join his daughter in his retirement. He shipped over his lathe and other tools from his home workshop, watching him use it was beautiful. Anything lathe, he could make it. I tried to learn off him, but of course nothing I do can match his 40 years of experience.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Ace, the quotes you "pasted" into your response above were incomplete as posted in post #73. You seem to be having some difficulty, so I have reproduced post #73 exactly *as you wrote it*.











I repeat, why are you you quoting Mark's question about the *1800s *and respond with an answer that refers to _20th century_ technology? :scratch:




Acebird said:


> Is that any clearer for _your pee brain_?


Allow me to suggest that you are getting into *dangerous territory* by posting your opinion of another Beesource member's physical characteristics. Do you really want to get banned from Beesource, as you did in that other forum?

:ws:


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Rader, yer Sidetracking. Brian answers the questions he thinks he hears. People get after me for correcting peoples spelling, saying "You know what they meant. What does it matter how they spelled it." So, maybe we should just let this go and understand it as the way Brian addresses things, outside the Post.  lol


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

and today's winner of 'gotcha' is.........


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> Rader, yer Sidetracking. Brian answers the questions he thinks he hears. People get after me for correcting peoples spelling, saying "You know what they meant. What does it matter how they spelled it." So, maybe we should just let this go and understand it as the way Brian addresses things, outside the Post.  lol


Well, Mark, if you are saying Brian means something _other _than what he writes, my question is why doesn't he simply do some thinking first, and then _write what he really means_?


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

I don't think there is an active member of beesource that has never said something with complete authority and been obviously mistaken. With that said, no, I do not believe that Acebird was claiming that mills built in the 1800's were built with cnc machines and edm equipment (and the edm electrodes would likely be cnc machined). I don't think that he believes in some steampunk CNC treadle powered machine with an abacus to input the tool path.

deknow


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

> pee brain


:applause:


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

100% percent agree with dean. (whatever the heck he said......)


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

i gathered up a bunch of samples of natural comb today and measured it.

would this be a good thread to post pictures or would a new one be in order?


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

Does Steampunk Beekeeping work? 

Has anyone seen a Steampunk decorated hive?


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

squarepeg said:


> i gathered up a bunch of samples of natural comb today and measured it.
> 
> would this be a good thread to post pictures or would a new one be in order?


This thread was meant to be satirical...


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

oh, now i get it (takes me awhile sometimes )

new thread it is then.

but first i have to go to the dollar general and see if they a good milimeter ruler for the photos.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

deknow said:


> I do not believe that Acebird was claiming that mills built in the 1800's were built with cnc machines and edm equipment


Who would?:scratch:


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

BeeCurious said:


> This thread was meant to be satirical...


Best laid plans BC, best laid plans.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Well, Mark, if you are saying Brian means something _other _than what he writes, my question is why doesn't he simply do some thinking first, and then _write what he really means_?


I believe I understand from whence you come, but, you have expectations which Brian is not living up to. That is where you stray from the path of internal light and peace. You would be a happier person if you gave up your expectations and discontinued thinking you can talk to Brian about this.(sorry Brian) He has his own way of seeing things. Accept it.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> I believe I understand from whence you come, but, you have expectations which Brian is not living up to. That is where you stray from the path of internal light and peace. You would be a happier person if you gave up your expectations and discontinued thinking you can talk to Brian about this.(sorry Brian) He has his own way of seeing things. Accept it.


Hmm, you think I would be a "happier person" if I gave up my expectation that the words that Beesource members post here have some _real relationship_ to what they actually think? :scratch:

How can an _reasonable _discussion occur if the words used have no common meaning?  Or do we make a _special exception to reality _just for Acebird, and assume everything he posts is nonsense?


P.S. And, Mark, I do promise not to ask Ace _any _more questions about Machine Tool Technology.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Or do we make a _special exception to reality _just for Acebird, and assume everything he posts is nonsense?


Pretty much.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Well, I have serious doubts that Brian is _really _as dysfunctional as the picture painted by Mark above. And this post will deliberately have no annoying quotes, and no _animated _emoticons.

Ace, lets make a deal. For your part, you will take an extra moment to review and *think twice *about what you are writing before you click the _Post Reply_ button. And in return, I will hold back from dredging up conflicting/embarrassing past comments that you may have made.

Its not necessary for you to respond here for us to proceed with this arrangement, just simply avoid posting more "_Aceisms_", as _Barry _described them.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> I will hold back from dredging up conflicting/embarrassing past comments that you may have made.


:applause:


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Well, I have serious doubts that Brian is _really _as dysfunctional as the picture painted by Mark above. And this post will deliberately have no annoying quotes, and no _animated _emoticons.
> 
> Ace, lets make a deal. For your part, you will take an extra moment to review and *think twice *about what you are writing before you click the _Post Reply_ button. And in return, I will hold back from dredging up conflicting/embarrassing past comments that you may have made.
> 
> Its not necessary for you to respond here for us to proceed with this arrangement, just simply avoid posting more "_Aceisms_", as _Barry _described them.


I think you are making too much of this.


----------



## Beregondo (Jun 21, 2011)

I've found a very simple way of not being irritated by acist comments:

I block them.

I've found beesource a much more pleasant place, since I began using the blocking feature to avoid the comments of the few people whose comments I found to be irritating or abrasive


----------



## Beesknees01 (Dec 31, 2012)

I found second hand Silicone press for sale. I would like to make my own foundation. The seller told me it has few air bubbles!!! Will that be a problem for my bees? Thanks in advance


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

No.
Yer welcome.


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

Well... I'm not convinced that LARGE CELL beekeeping has any advantages over small cell.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

we don't know for sure.

i 'm guessing small cell might give some advantage, but it's not the only factor among many others all of which added together determine the final outcome.

many have found ways to successful off treatments with standard cell, and some have found small cell does not guarentee success off treatments.

i'll consider it if all else fails, which so far, it hasn't.


----------



## beekuk (Dec 31, 2008)

....http://www.futianbee.com/photo/pl208453-electric_beeswax_foundation_machine.jpg


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

mine continue to do well on the rite cell, but i did add a few foundationless frames this year and got some nice natural cell drawn. i'm also considering going to 11 frames in the brood chamber.


----------



## melliferal (Aug 30, 2010)

My bees did okay on "large cell". It seems to me it works, inasmuch as bees will draw it, store stuff in it, raise brood in it, and all that. Occasionally they die in it - I had a few winter chills or starve-outs over the years.

I've heard similar things about small cell.

One thing I have not heard too much about is the in-between cell; since it seems mostly to serve as a temporary stepping stone when training bees who are accustomed to the larger stuff to start using small cell, I don't think many people have done studies (formal or otherwise) about how this in-between stuff actually works as a full-time comb size in its own right. I'm a little curious about it, actually.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

the natural cells drawn on the foundationless frames are all different sizes, with the smallest (4.9 or so) just in the very middle of the broodnest.


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

squarepeg said:


> i like michael bush's tag line:
> 
> "everything works it you let it"


What does this mean? To me, it sounds like it means we should only harvest honey from wild hives in Europe . . . ? Obviously, that's not what we're about here, so my question - what does it mean?


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

shinbone said:


> What does this mean?


Its a *Cheap Trick*!  :lookout: 

everything works if you let it

k:


.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

hopefully mb will give his own interpretation to you shinbone.

it's been a while since i made that post, but i think what was going through my head at the time was that it appears that folks are generally being successful with bees while using a wide variety of methods. roland made a good comment recently that the bees will eventually adapt to the beekeeper. my opinion is that bees are pretty good at adapting to a variety of situations, and i have learned that they seem to do better if i stay out of their way as much as possible. that said i am keeping bees for a purpose and don't feel guilty about intervening as needed, but i'm sure i was guilty of messing around with them too much in the beginning. the learning curve for me involved avoiding not setting them back any more than necessary by my intervention.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>>"everything works it you let it"
>What does this mean? 

The Tao is the flow of the universe. Everything in the universe has a flow to it. Fighting that is a lot of work and seldom very effective. Getting into the flow is usually much more effective. "The master accomplishes more and more by doing less and less until finally he accomplishes everything by doing nothing"--Laozi, Tao Te Ching.

Or Brother Adam's slightly different angle:
"Perfection in beekeeping is not found in a multiplicity of appliances, but in simplicity and the elimination of everything not absolutely essential" --Brother Adam

In the context of natural cell size, if you let the bees build what they want and need they will take care of things. If you trick them into building something you think they want and need things often go badly. 

"Everything works if you let it" --Rick Nielsen of Cheap Trick (from the song and from a sign on a fix-it shop in the movie "Roadie")


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

Ancient Chinese masters. Beekeeping monks. '70's rock.

I've got so much to learn.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Ancient Chinese masters. Beekeeping monks. '70's rock.

Just giving credit where it is due...


----------



## melliferal (Aug 30, 2010)

Well, meh. I don't put much automatic stock in ancient Chinese masters and their musings about the Force, I'm afraid. 

But, Laozi gets a pass from me on this concept just because it's so widely-known and intuitive. it _is_ simple logic: the more complicated you make a system, the more likely it is to fail - simply because there are so many more things in it which can do the failing. Every new number you add to the equation ups the chance that everything won't all add up the same way by the end. So you like to add as few as possible.

Or, as the very not-so-ancient civil engineer Alfred Holt explained in 1877 (though discussing ship design), "It is found that anything that can go wrong at sea generally does go wrong sooner or later...sufficient stress can hardly be laid on the advantages of simplicity."

A bit more recent is Kelly Johnson of Lockheed, who seems to have been the first to write "_Keep it simple, stupid!_"


----------



## rwurster (Oct 30, 2010)

I was given several boxes of large cell foundation from another beekeeper. It works great as starter strips in foundationless frames.


----------



## AstroBee (Jan 3, 2003)

Michael Bush said:


> If you trick them into building something you think they want and need things often go badly.


Not quite sure I agree with that statement. I've been keeping bees more than a few years, and I can say with equal certainty that none of my loses resulted from me tricking bee to build comb off foundation. I will certainly admit to early on having bad beekeeping skills, inability to identify and make corrective actions at the appropriate times, and a bunch of other less than perfect beekeeping, but loses due foundation choice, no. It may have worked wonders for you, but to suggest that things will go badly otherwise is (I believe) an overstatement.

Does "Large Cell" Beekeeping work? Yes. At least for me in my yards, in my location, with my bees, and using my practices.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

My quotes are very eclectic.

“Use only that which works, and take it from any place you can find it.” 
― Bruce Lee

I'm as likely to quote Robert Heinlein or Helen Keller or Thomas Jefferson or Sun Tzu. Truth is truth regardless of its source. The Tao Te Ching is not about something completely mystical. It's about the basis of how everything works. It's about many paradoxes presented so you can see past them to the truth. We often go with our first reaction to something and it accomplishes the opposite of what we wanted because we didn't look past it to the unintended consequences. Laozi points out many of these fallacies. I would assume that ancient books that made it this far into the present did so because they were full of wisdom...

As far as simpleness:
"It is not a daily increase, but a daily decrease. Hack away at the inessentials.” 
― Bruce Lee


----------



## Paul McCarty (Mar 30, 2011)

I agree with RWurster.


----------



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

Must be winter.

If you were to mill a flat sheet, roll it up and cast into the negative you would have two shortened diagonal legs and the original top and bottom lengths. 

Having the opposite sides of a rolled foundation sheet mis matched as a result of out of alignment gears would drive the machinist crazy and not bother the bees at all.

Warped cells are the norm. I am going against small cells and large cells and starting the warped cell movement !


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Does large cell beekeeping work?
Every bit as well as small cell, in my experience.....actually better. I've tried both. Again...just my experience.


----------



## Lauri (Feb 1, 2012)

Rite cell is my favorite for ease of assembly and reliably built cell size. If you are unsure, why not try something like this? A partial sheet. They can build worker cell in the center and what ever they want on the sides. 










Glue in a piece of skewer to lock foundation in the center until they start working it and give the bees a guide to draw out foundationless part. Assembly if these modified frames is quick and easy.Something that needs to be considered if you have to build hundreds at a time.










Here's how they draw it out. This is obviously a frame housing a cut out, but you can see how they work it. 










Same frame after they've worked it:









This is what I get with my deep frames. Too big to go foundationless, I hate wires and thin foundation. 
I cut my rite cell with my miter saw so I use 2/3 for deep standard frames and the small 1/3 piece fits my half deep frames for mating nucs perfectly. *Stretched my foundation costs efficiently.* That's the main reason I am doing it this way this year. I hate the cost, but love the reliable results of rite cell and it's stability in a deep frame.

In three years, I've seen no evidence small cell or screened bottom boards have any effect on mite loads. I'm in a Northern climate with Carnie Hybrids. 

Correctly timed brood breaks are you best bet in my opinion. Correctly timed means there is No capped brood in the hive for a long enough period of time for the colony to exhibit grooming behavior. Placing a virgin or capped cell in the hive may not give the hive enough time to naturally reduce mite load. But that is another thread. (But I'll give you a hint: There is probably a reason Michael Bush likes walk away nucs)


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Lauri, what sized cells are rite cell?


----------



## Paul McCarty (Mar 30, 2011)

Very nice lauri!


----------



## Lauri (Feb 1, 2012)

beemandan said:


> Lauri, what sized cells are rite cell?


5.4 

Although once they start drawing it out, the can make what ever size they want. 5.4 isn't set in stone but it's a good starting point.


----------



## melliferal (Aug 30, 2010)

I reckon it's only a matter of time before Rite Cell is offered in small cell size.


----------



## Lauri (Feb 1, 2012)

Here's a recent thread about black rite cell, with more photos. (Please note: I do not work for or have any association with Mann Lake, other than they take my money quite well. I only mention their products because they have worked well for me.)

http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...r-Plasticell-foundation&p=1026875#post1026875


----------



## Lauri (Feb 1, 2012)

melliferal said:


> I reckon it's only a matter of time before Rite Cell is offered in small cell size.


You would think so, but you would also think JZBZ would make a good roller cage to fit their cell cups too


----------



## melliferal (Aug 30, 2010)

Michael Bush said:


> My quotes are very eclectic.
> 
> “Use only that which works, and take it from any place you can find it.”
> ― Bruce Lee
> ...


Antoine de Saint Exupéry tells us that "perfection is achieved not when there is nothing else to add, but nothing left to take away".

My favorite would be William of Occam's version, "Frustra fit per plura, quod potest fieri per pauciora" - to wit: it's useless to use more for what can be done with less; which subsequently became a very central tenet in scientific thinking sometimes called "Occam's razor".


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

I have another explanation for :

"everything works it you let it"

With NO DISRESPECT intended twords MB, just a fairwarning, it mean he has not had CCD yet, I may be crazy , but I predict that willo change after CCD.

Crazy Roland


----------



## melliferal (Aug 30, 2010)

Lauri said:


> You would think so, but you would also think JZBZ would make a good roller cage to fit their cell cups too


Good point!

Although to be fair, JZBZ has stayed the same for a long time. ML is currently doing things with its Rite Cell - there was a time just a few years ago when it didn't come in black, for instance. And I believe it was 2012 that they came out with their nice all-plastic Rite Cell frames, but I believe said frames were only available initially in deep size - whereas my 2013 catalog has deep and medium. 

I _hope_ they eventually offer rite cell in small-cell size; rite cell is my favorite foundation and I wouldn't mind playing a bit with small cell just for the heck of it.


----------



## Lauri (Feb 1, 2012)

Roland said:


> I have another explanation for :
> 
> "everything works it you let it"
> 
> ...


That would depend on if his hives are insured and he WANTS to get out of beekeeping


----------



## melliferal (Aug 30, 2010)

Roland said:


> With NO DISRESPECT intended twords MB, just a fairwarning, it mean he has not had CCD yet, I may be crazy , but I predict that willo change after CCD.


Might not mean anything; since I started in 2005 I had always kept my bees in "large cell" (at that time it was just normal foundation) and I lost hives for several reasons over that time but none of them was a case of CCD. However, I know that large cell isn't the thing that stopped me from getting CCD.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

roland, how did your management practices change after ccd?


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

"Why do you want to climb Mt.Everest"? 

"Because it is there." --George Mallory


----------



## melliferal (Aug 30, 2010)

It's worth noting that the first person to actually reach the summit of Everest was a beekeeper.

Coincidence? I think not.


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

> I think not.


There is a LOT of wisdom in those three words, though maybe not the wisdom you expect.

The underlying question of this discussion revolves around which cell size is best for beekeeping. I used large cell for 30 years and small cell since 2005. In my opinion, either one works effectively for beekeeping, but there are small advantages to small cell in treatment free beekeeping. If I were on the treatment bandwagon, large cell would be fine. Since I am treatment free and since I use 11 frame broodnests, I feel that small cell gives a spring buildup advantage as well as a very slight advantage against varroa mites.


----------



## melliferal (Aug 30, 2010)

Fusion_power said:


> There is a LOT of wisdom in those three words, though maybe not the wisdom you expect.



Nice - indirect, but not too constructive. Nice to meet you too, whoever you are.

"Large cell" and small cell both work. Claims that any one is intrinsically better than another are so far exclusively anecdotal, with plenty of claims supporting situational success in each but nothing that exclusively supports one over the other in general. The actual evidence says merely that bees will use either and will typically thrive if properly cared for otherwise.

If you're already using small-cell, I can think of no compelling reason to switch to "large cell" outside of leisurely experimentation. If you're already using "large cell", same.


----------



## rhaldridge (Dec 17, 2012)

Lauri said:


> This is what I get with my deep frames. Too big to go foundationless, )


Lauri, what does this mean?


----------



## Lauri (Feb 1, 2012)

Beautiful, but deep frames with no support are a disaster waiting to happen










This comb would be fine if I never touched it for a year. (Give it time to toughin up) Not possible to do when you get into your hives on a regular basis.










I tried several things to support comb without foundation...This was not the result I was looking for however. This _could_ be a good way to support comb in a deep frame. I admit, I did not fiddle with it for too long and the bees that drew it out on were recently purchased Italians out of Ca. , not the Carni hybrids I have now. Don't be aftaid to try it for yourself, You may get better results.










You could do this too, without the cell bar, if you have time to fiddle. You'll probably get natural large cell on top filled with honey..worker cell on the bottom half of frame. There was no flow on when I used this frame. Hopefully next year I'll have a photo of how they drew it out.










Casualties of a deep foundationless frame with no support










Here's what I did with the honey that fell out of the deep frame above. Made a few feed frames for mini mating nucs.










Heres a photo to remind new beekeepwers what the natural layout of a well fed broodnest frame looks like.


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

Lauri - that last photo is beautiful.


----------



## Lauri (Feb 1, 2012)

Thank you sir, just trying to help.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Lauri said:


> This comb would be fine if I never touched it for a year. (Give it time to toughin up) Not possible to do when you get into your hives on a regular basis.


So don't go in them. "Everything works if you let it"


----------



## KevinR (Apr 30, 2010)

Acebird said:


> So don't go in them. "Everything works if you let it"


*sigh*


----------



## KevinR (Apr 30, 2010)

melliferal said:


> I reckon it's only a matter of time before Rite Cell is offered in small cell size.


I talked to Mann Lake last week or so... They stated that they had no intentions of making small cell at this time..... I guess they need more people asking about it..


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

i also had the comb break out of a couple of deep foundationless frames before it was connected well enough on the sides. i now run a couple of horizontal wires and that seems to have solved the problem.


----------



## melliferal (Aug 30, 2010)

KevinR said:


> I talked to Mann Lake last week or so... They stated that they had no intentions of making small cell at this time..... I guess they need more people asking about it..


Ah, now that's a shame. They already sell wax small-cell; perhaps not enough people are buying it yet to make them interested in going plastic with it - though I think they've only been selling it for a couple of years. Too bad, anyway.


----------



## AstroBee (Jan 3, 2003)

squarepeg said:


> roland, how did your management practices change after ccd?


He's not telling. Ancient Chinese secret.


----------



## AstroBee (Jan 3, 2003)

Lauri said:


> You would think so, but you would also think JZBZ would make a good roller cage to fit their cell cups too


You probably already know this, but you can use the California mini cages with the JZBZ cell cups. Unless they are monster cells, most can be fitted into the CA mini cages.


----------



## rhaldridge (Dec 17, 2012)

Lauri, I thought maybe you were saying your operation was too big for foundationless.

I didn't have any comb collapse trouble among my few hives, and it got pretty hot here along the Gulf last summer. All deeps










I do run a couple strands of heavy monofilament through each frame, and my comb guides have a lot of attachment area..

This is newly built comb, very soft.


----------



## KevinR (Apr 30, 2010)

I believe that Jim Paysen of JZsBZs is in his 80s or 90s... I'm just happy that he's still making cell cups.. *grins*

And I imaging that Roland just makes more bees each year to account for the ones that croak off.. I'd imaging that it's now a common practice of everyone in the bee world... plan on a x% loss, so you make a y% increase the year before..


----------



## Lauri (Feb 1, 2012)

rhaldridge said:


> I didn't have any comb collapse trouble among my few hives, and it got pretty hot here along the Gulf last summer. All deeps


I actually didn't have trouble when it was hot, it was when it got cold the comb got incredibly brittle.. on the outside edges of the hive or in storage.

Your frame of comb looks great though Good enough to eat


----------



## Lauri (Feb 1, 2012)

I use the roller cages with JZBZ in the incubator..but not in the hive on the frames. JZBZ just sits on top. And yes, a strong newly hatched virgin CAN push her way out the top.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

Lauri said:


> Beautiful, but deep frames with no support are a disaster waiting to happen


Standard practice in the areas of Latin America where I worked was to drive a long nail (16d finish) or thread a bamboo sliver hanging straight down into the center of the top bar in both Langs and Top Bar hives. Especially important on Top Bar. In tropic sun, the wax pulls off the bar and collapses, the nail or bamboo anchor point really helps those combs stay put.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

I don’t remember the precise details but posted them several years ago…when they were fresher in my memory.
As part of the UGA small cell study they collected samples of brood comb from about 150 removals. Some were long established nests and some more recent. They measured the cell size of the worker cells in these ‘feral’ colonies. The result….one single sample had some 4.9mm cells. If it makes anyone feel any better they had about the same result for 5.4. The average cell size was 5.1.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>The average cell size was 5.1. 

Quite a bit smaller than 5.4mm...

>it mean he has not had CCD yet, I may be crazy , but I predict that willo change after CCD.

So far I've not had CCD nor AFB nor EFB nor sacbrood. I've been looking for most of those for 40 years now... The only thing that really changed my beekeeping in that time was Varroa and gravity...


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Michael Bush said:


> Quite a bit smaller than 5.4mm...


And a bit bigger than 4.9. I've often asked myself 'which is better, asking a bee to produce brood in a cell that is unnaturally small or one that is unnaturally large?'


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>And a bit bigger than 4.9. I've often asked myself 'which is better, asking a bee to produce brood in a cell that is unnaturally small or one that is unnaturally large?' 

Why do either?


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

beemandan said:


> 'which is better, asking a bee to produce brood in a cell that is unnaturally small or one that is unnaturally large?'


Probably whichever one works best for the beekeeper.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Michael Bush said:


> Why do either?


I'd buy into the foundationless idea if it weren't for the introduction of varroa. In the foundationless hives I ran a few years ago the bees produced a substantially greater number of drone cells and ultimately many more drones than I observed in my foundation hives. The fact that varroa are drawn to and reproduce much more efficiently in drone brood was proven out in my case as all ten that I started collapsed their first season with excessively high mite loads. 
Now...if it were 1970, I'd say yes to foundationless.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Cell size is not necessarily a foundation/no foundation issue. Foundation is available in a variety of different cell widths:



> *Chart of Cell Sizes of Natural Comb and Common Foundation*
> 
> 
> Natural worker comb4.6 mm to 5.1 mmLusby4.8 to 4.9 mm average 4.83 mmDadant 4.9mm Small Cell4.9 mmHoney Super Cell4.9 mmWax dipped PermaComb4.9 mmMann Lake PF100 & PF1204.94 mm19th century foundation5.05 mmPermaComb5.05 mmDadant 5.1mm Small Cell5.1 mmPierco foundation5.2 mmPierco deep frames5.25 mmPierco medium frames5.35 mmRiteCell5.4 mmStandard worker foundation5.4 to 5.5mm7/115.6 mmHSC Medium Frames6.0 mmDrone6.4 to 6.6 mm
> ...


----------



## rhaldridge (Dec 17, 2012)

beemandan said:


> Ihe fact that varroa are drawn to and reproduce much more efficiently in drone brood was proven out in my case as all ten that I started collapsed their first season with excessively high mite loads.
> Now...if it were 1970, I'd say yes to foundationless.


Well, all of my hives are foundationless, and none of them collapsed their first season-- at least not yet, and in late September I did sugar rolls. None had mites anywhere near the treatment threshold.

But I expect some will later, since they are also untreated.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

rhaldridge said:


> Well, all of my hives are foundationless, and none of them collapsed their first season-- at least not yet


I hope it works for you Ray.


----------



## Paul McCarty (Mar 30, 2011)

Mine are doing OK on foundationless. I have one currently in it's 4th season and kicking butt. I had a hive of cordovans succumb to mites in their second, but so far out of my 25 hives, that all I have had. Don't know if it's the bees, the comb, or what I am doing, but don't want to mess around with it since it seems to be working. I only really run the foundationless in the broodnest, the rest is Rite-Cell.

Hope you have the same results Ray.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

rhaldridge said:


> Well, all of my hives are foundationless, and none of them collapsed their first season--


Amazing how two beekeepers got completely different results. There must be other factors affecting varroa or the collapse.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

i think we're talking about the comb collapsing on foundationless frames. mine didn't collapse, but tore loose from the top bar when i flipped the frame over during inspection. the horizontal wires stopped that.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

beemandan said:


> in my case as all ten that I started collapsed their first season with excessively high mite loads.


Nope. Post referencing previous post.


----------



## Paul McCarty (Mar 30, 2011)

Definitely more than one factor at play.


----------



## rweakley (Jul 2, 2004)

squarepeg said:


> i think we're talking about the comb collapsing on foundationless frames. mine didn't collapse, but tore loose from the top bar when i flipped the frame over during inspection. the horizontal wires stopped that.


Then stop flipping them over . I've learned with my foundationless that you rotate them to see the other side, not flip. An old Brood comb you can treat about like foundation, but the new stuff kid gloves.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Paul McCarty said:


> Definitely more than one factor at play.


I won't argue with that.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

duh...., why didn't i think of that? thanks rod!


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

sorry ace, i missed that.


----------



## rweakley (Jul 2, 2004)

beemandan said:


> I won't argue with that. For the life of me I cannot understand what foundationless does that would cause a reduction in varroa.


For the sake of argument let's assume that foundationless bees (multiple generations of comb down the road) will make a little bit smaller comb than bees on 5.4 foundation. Along with that assumption let's allow that bees raised in 5.1 or 4.9 cells actually hatch out faster than bees on 5.4. According to what I have seen quoted it's 1 day less pre capping and 1 day less capped. This means less time for the varroa to reproduce.

That all having been said: I don't care if it fixes varroa or not. I'm foundationless because it's cheaper and I believe the bees draw it out faster than foundation. My bees get no hard treatments and only an oxalic vaporization every 2 or 3 years if I see a need for it. I don't worry about varroa, I don't lose hives to anything other than too late of a split with too few resources (honey/pollen) and they starve. I do throw a sticky board in from time to time to check the numbers and they are never more than 15 or so for 24 hours.


----------



## rhaldridge (Dec 17, 2012)

Thanks Paul and Dan

I don't believe they will all survive, because I think conditions are a little tough here in FL, from the mite and SHB point of view. It never gets cold enough to give the colony a break. Plus, the bees are nothing special, though I did start with a local nuc, made a split with a BeeWeaver queen, and caught a swarm. I just hope enough make it to the spring flows that I can make some increase and avoid buying more bees. I attribute the fact that I haven't lost any colonies yet to pure unadulterated beginners luck.

squarepeg, I decided to treat the frames like top bars and never flip them up sideways. It was an easy habit for me to learn, since I've never had foundation, except in the nucs I bought.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

rweakley said:


> Along with that assumption let's allow that bees raised in 5.1 or 4.9 cells actually hatch out faster than bees on 5.4. According to what I have seen quoted it's 1 day less pre capping and 1 day less capped. This means less time for the varroa to reproduce.


I wasn’t quick enough was I? I removed the second sentence of my post about thirty seconds after posting….but you caught it all the same. The reason I removed it was to avoid the age old, multigazillion debates about the same topic.
I will only say that…in Huber’s time (late 18[SUP]th[/SUP] century) he observed the time for a worker to emerge as 21 days from the time the egg was laid. This was in the days before foundation…so it was foundationless. This is the same gestation time as workers today on conventional foundation. Add to that the overabundance of drone cells and brood. I just don’t see any way it lowers the mite load.
Having said that…I do see how it might save a beekeeper a few bucks.


----------



## rhaldridge (Dec 17, 2012)

rats. dupe post.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

rhaldridge said:


> I don't believe they will all survive, because I think conditions are a little tough here in FL, from the mite and SHB point of view.


It is so different wherever you go. I hear northern beekeepers lamenting about the challenges to their bees of a long cold winter. Then the southern beekeepers complain about a lack of a winter brood break.
No easy way out...no matter where they are....for the bees.


----------



## rhaldridge (Dec 17, 2012)

beemandan said:


> It is so different wherever you go. I hear northern beekeepers lamenting about the challenges to their bees of a long cold winter. Then the southern beekeepers complain about a lack of a winter brood break.
> No easy way out...no matter where they are....for the bees.


True. I have one hive up in northern NY that I'm pretty sure won't make it. It had a deep and 2 mediums on it, and the mediums weren't completely full. So, probably going to starve out. But they are Carrniolans, so I have some faint hope. The other hive I had up there was Italian, and they definitely didn't have enough stores to make it, so I hauled them back to FL to winter and build up. So I guess I'm a migratory beekeeper, in a tiny way.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

If they are at risk of starving could they not be fed?


----------



## Paul McCarty (Mar 30, 2011)

Cheaper - that is really why I do what I do. I cannot afford foundation, or constant treatments, or buying queens all the time, or special stuff. Not only that, but it gives other people less control over what I do. This should not be something that is only affordable by those with lot's of extra money. It is expensive enough as it is. The natural is also a good thing too.

Wait - looks like I posted this way too slow. oops. Wait - where's the post I replied to?

OK - now you guys know. I am cheap.


----------



## melliferal (Aug 30, 2010)

beemandan said:


> …in Huber’s time (late 18[SUP]th[/SUP] century) he observed the time for a worker to emerge as 21 days from the time the egg was laid. This was in the days before foundation…so it was foundationless. This is the same gestation time as workers today on conventional foundation.


So if the reports that bees raised in small-cell or foundationless spend as much as two days less in the comb are accurate, that means they're also spending two days less even than they spent in foundationless comb in the 1700's. This is a curious discrepancy.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

beemandan said:


> I will only say that…in Huber’s time (late 18[SUP]th[/SUP] century) he observed the time for a worker to emerge as 21 days from the time the egg was laid. This was in the days before foundation…so it was foundationless.


Perhaps Huber said 21 days in a different passage, but in this one, he says 20 days:



> "The worm of workers passes three days in the egg, five in the vermicular state, and then the bees close up its cell with a wax covering. The worm now begins spinning its cocoon, in which operation thirty-six hours are consumed. In three days, it changes to a nymph, and passes six days in this form. It is only on the _*twentieth *_day of its existence, counting from the moment the egg is laid, that it attains the fly state."
> François Huber 4 September 1791.
> ​http://www.bushfarms.com/beesnaturalcell.htm


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Since the first day is no time elapsed and the 20th day is 19 days elapsed it would seem Huber was saying 19 days... but then if you add up all the days he enumerates, it comes to 18 1/2 days... so in Huber's time, Huber came up with 18 1/2 days not 21 days.


----------



## melliferal (Aug 30, 2010)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Perhaps Huber said 21 days in a different passage, but in this one, he says 20 days:


In his 1823 book _The Honey Bee_, Edward Bevan writes,



> The working bee nymph spins its cocoon in thirty-six hours. After passing about three days in this state of preparation for a new existence, it gradually undergoes so great a change as not to wear a vestige of its previous form, but becomes armed with a firmer mail, and with scales of a dark brown hue. On its belly six rings become distinguishable, which by slipping one over another enables the bee to shorten its body whenever it has occasion to do so. When it has reached the twenty-first day of its existence, counting from the moment the egg is laid, it comes forth a perfect winged insect.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Michael Bush said:


> would seem Huber was saying 19 days...


Huber was a semi bright fellow....I'm sure he said what he intended.


----------



## max2 (Dec 24, 2009)

melliferal said:


> It's worth noting that the first person to actually reach the summit of Everest was a beekeeper.
> 
> Coincidence? I think not.


Tensing was a beekeeper? Learn something every day. Where is this quoted?


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Perhaps Huber said 21 days in a different passage, but in this one, he says 20 days:


No...you're right Rader...it was Bevan that said 21 and Huber said 20....and I ought to know better as I started a thread on just this subject some time back.
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?272241-cell-size-vs-incubation-time


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

melliferal said:


> This is a curious discrepancy.


Any number of reasons. One is that those shorter observation times were recorded with Africanized bees. I believe they have a shorter incubation time. Another possibility is that 4.9 is so unnaturally small that the developing bees must emerge prematurely as a result. 
Another is that Bevan and Huber were both wrong and the current observers are right.
I'm sure there are other possibilities.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Huber was a semi bright fellow....I'm sure he said what he intended. 

I'm sure he did. However what he said was on the 20th day. How many days have elapsed on the 20th day.

I run into this all the time in programming, counting rafters for a house or counting days for queen rearing. You start at 0 and you call it the first day. How many days have elapsed on the 1st day? None. How many have elapsed on the 20th day? 19. If I put chicken eggs in an incubator when will they hatch? On the 22nd day when 21 days have elapsed. In other words if today is the 1st, they will hatch on the 22nd, 21 days later. Add up the amounts Huber details in hours and you get 18 1/2 days.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Michael Bush said:


> >Huber was a semi bright fellow....I'm sure he said what he intended.
> 
> I'm sure he did. However what he said was on the 20th day. How many days have elapsed on the 20th day.
> 
> I run into this all the time in programming, counting rafters for a house or counting days for queen rearing. You start at 0 and you call it the first day. How many days have elapsed on the 1st day? None. How many have elapsed on the 20th day? 19. If I put chicken eggs in an incubator when will they hatch? On the 22nd day when 21 days have elapsed. In other words if today is the 1st, they will hatch on the 22nd, 21 days later. Add up the amounts Huber details in hours and you get 18 1/2 days.


I agree. I keep running into this trying to explain when queen cells are expected to hatch. Perhaps your right, quit talking about days and start talking about hours.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Michael,
In small cell, do you get emergence earlier? Say, the 18th or 19th day? If yes, what accounts for that?


----------



## melliferal (Aug 30, 2010)

Michael Bush said:


> I run into this all the time in programming, counting rafters for a house or counting days for queen rearing. You start at 0 and you call it the first day. How many days have elapsed on the 1st day? None.


Well no; yes, starting at hour zero you're in the first day - but it continues to be the first day up until 24 hours have elapsed. Hour 25 begins the second day - which remains the second day for 24 hours. So while you can say "the 21st day" does not necessarily mean 21 whole days have elapsed, anything that happens during the 21st day still took longer than 20 whole days to happen.

But this hardly matters to the fact of the inconsistency of days; if Bevan meant "20 whole days and several more hours" when he said "21 days", it's still consistent with modern observation of bees emerging from typical 5.4 foundation cells in "21 days" (i.e., 20 whole days and several more hours), and inconsistent with small-cell observations of only 19 days (i.e., 18 whole days and several more hours).


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Regardless of how days are counted today, to interpret the older writings such as Huber, we need to understand what _he_ originally meant by his words.


----------



## rweakley (Jul 2, 2004)

Michael Bush said:


> Since the first day is no time elapsed and the 20th day is 19 days elapsed it would seem Huber was saying 19 days... but then if you add up all the days he enumerates, it comes to 18 1/2 days... so in Huber's time, Huber came up with 18 1/2 days not 21 days.


 Thank you Michael. I was going to respond" I'll see your Huber and raise you a Michael Bush", but figured you'd see this and comment.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

emergence time small vs. large cell would be easy enough to measure. hives would need to be in the same location to control for temperature. even if there is a difference, any effect on mite population would remain an extrapolated inference. my belief is that having clean comb is just as if not more important. jmho.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

squarepeg said:


> my belief is that having clean comb is just as if not more important. jmho.


This, to me, is the single most significant positive to going foundationless.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>In small cell, do you get emergence earlier? Say, the 18th or 19th day?

Yes.

>If yes, what accounts for that? 

I can only speculate. But the only difference is cell size. I assume when the larvae mature filling the cell with their body is a trigger somewhere along the line. But then they get capped a day sooner and that may play into it as well.

>Regardless of how days are counted today, to interpret the older writings such as Huber, we need to understand what he originally meant by his words. 

It's not difficult. He specified each stage in hours. You can add up the hours and you get 18 1/2 days.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Michael Bush said:


> so in Huber's time, Huber came up with 18 1/2 days not 21 days.


And when Bevan said 21 days he really meant 19 1/2? And then...mysteriously, with the advent of foundation everyone started measuring using a different method that, coincidentally, came to 21 days?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Give me a number between 18 and 22 days and I'll bet I can make some worker brood emerge in that many days. 18 will require small cell and slightly more than 93 F. 22 days will require slightly less than 93 F. Any experiment in an observation hive where the bees have more trouble regulating the temperature could change depending on the ambient temperature. I discovered the shorter cycle on 4.95mm (at the time I was just measuring from capping to emergence and it was a day shorter) when I got my observation hive and I was just doing the observation and documentation for fun with no expectation of a shorter cycle. I expected the typical 21 days, but instead they were capped a day early and emerged two days early. I was quite shocked and mentioned it (on the forums) to Dee Lusby, who seemed very matter of fact about it. She had never mentioned it before that I had seen. 

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?206195-Early-Emergence


After some more observations I posted this:

http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...st-Capping-times-for-small-cell-bees-(4-95mm)

Unfortunately I've still not found the time to do this again in exact hours side by side with large cell. Some people over the years have repeated it and reported similar results. Here is one of them.

http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...e-Natural-History-of-Bees&p=199204#post199204

No one has done the experiement and posted contrary results that I know of since that time.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

MB...I have no doubt about the results of your experiment on small cell worker development. 
I'm simply pointing out that, in my opinion, it isn't natural.
From Huber's time on foundationless until today the shortest time I've seen recorded as normal by any reputable scientist was Huber's 20 days. 21 being more common. This supports my contention that 4.9mm cell size is generally not normal for EHB and neither is the resultant, reduced incubation time.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

...


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

A post from this thread was recently quoted so I thought I'd give this a BUMP. 

So, how's it going for those who are sipping the Large Cell Kool-Aid?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

I don't drink sugar sweetened drinks anymore. Neither should you.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

BeeCurious said:


> I have only used sc foundation but if there is proof that LC is better I might be willing to experiment.


Have you done the experiment yet?

If so something you will notice is the ease with which bees draw LC comb foundation, without messing it up, wherever in the hive it is. Say goodbye to the dramas od trying to get bees to properly draw SC foundation.


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

Oldtimer said:


> Have you done the experiment yet?
> 
> If so something you will notice is the ease with which bees draw LC comb foundation, without messing it up, wherever in the hive it is. Say goodbye to the dramas od trying to get bees to properly draw SC foundation.


I have always had SC and have had a minimum of misdrawn comb...


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

How is minimum defined? Can you have it properly drawn if you dump a box of foundation on as the 4th box for honey storage?

Have you done the experiment yet?

I have LC and have a minimum of misdrawn comb  They make drone comb as they need, all other foundation is drawn perfectly, first time, every time, wherever in the hive, whatever the season. Almost as if they are fine with it.


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

Honey supers is another thing, and not one that concerns me... 

No, I haven't experimented with Large Cell Beekeeping but I know that some claim that it works...


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Well honey supers do concern me. 

When I was small cell the fiddliness of having to get everything drawn central broodnest was insanely time consuming and also impossible as when bees need supering they need supering, whether I had drawn comb or not. The alternative is to put LC on the supers but then have to have 2 different bunches of comb in storage and use, which is also wasteful of time and inefficient. And I didn't know how bad it all would be till I tried it.

From that perspective LC beekeeping works a whole lot better. However if someone is small cell, has always been small cell, and has developed systems they can probably live with it, but also, not having experienced the ease of LC beekeeping, may not know what they are missing.

Be interesting for someone like yourself BeeCurious to do the experiment, see what you think.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

So to the original question does LC beekeeping "work".

The answer may be found when purchasing honey in a supermarket. Almost without exception it will be made by bees in a LC hive. Thus it would appear LC beekeeping can "work".

When SC beekeeping can "work", we will no doubt see the evidence of that in the supermarket. Especially if it can "work better" then we'll see a lot of evidence in the supermarket.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Oldtimer said:


> When SC beekeeping can "work", we will no doubt see the evidence of that in the supermarket.


Oh I very much doubt that. The "supermarket" is very much corporate America and they could give a rats ass about the planet.

I personally have not gone to small cell because three hives won't make a difference but I fully understand the head bashing that it would require to do it. Beekeeping is pretty much a click and if you want to know what that is start a hive.


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds (Apr 15, 2012)

I think the real question is, does small cell actually work. While it could help it is not a cure all. 

If it really was the silver bullet the unprofitable beekeeping movement makes it out to be don't you think a commercial operation would have adapted it and saved thousands.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Tennessee's Bees LLC said:


> I think the real question is, does small cell actually work. While it could help it is not a cure all.
> 
> If it really was the silver bullet the unprofitable beekeeping movement makes it out to be don't you think a commercial operation would have adapted it and saved thousands.


I do know some commercials were experimenting with it a number of years ago just as many were experimenting with screened bottom boards. I think it's safe to say that if there discernable advantages to either that many operations would have gone all in pretty quickly.


----------



## Flyer Jim (Apr 22, 2004)

jim lyon said:


> I do know some commercials were experimenting with it a number of years ago just as many were experimenting with screened bottom boards. I think it's safe to say that if there discernable advantages to either that many operations would have gone all in pretty quickly.



And there you have it. :applause::thumbsup:


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

jim lyon said:


> I think it's safe to say that if there discernable advantages to either that many operations would have gone all in pretty quickly.


Only if the advantages equated to money in a short period of time. Any other advantage say for the planet or the bees would be of no concern.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

If the goal is profitable, continual beekeeping then the success rate in $$$ with Large Cell would absolutely crush small cell so exponentially you couldn't see the "slice" color on a pie chart. If your goal is to enjoy a hobby in the back yard then yes large cell success would still crush small cell so much I seriously doubt you could see the color slice on a pie chart of total hobby beekeepers. Of course it impacts mite populations just due to the breeding habits of the mites indicates it would. As part of a total TF goaled program it may have valid applications. The issue is perspective as to how much value and that is clear by the beekeepers who vote for equipment with their $$$. Clearly millions of beekeepers think the advantages don't outweigh the disadvantages. Saving the planet, does anyone believe small cell is saving the planet??? Does anything made of plastic help save the planet?


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Acebird said:


> Only if the advantages equated to money in a short period of time. Any other advantage say for the planet or the bees would be of no concern.


What kind of "advantage for the bees" is one that would not be embraced by most commercial beekeepers?:s


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> What kind of "advantage for the bees" is one that would not be embraced by most commercial beekeepers?:s


The time and cost it would take to get bees to produce without the use of chemicals.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

"Without the use of chemicals" Ace??? :scratch:


All the bees would be _DEAD _ without the chemicals C6H12O6, O2, H2O, N2, etc! :lpf:





... us too ...


----------



## rwurster (Oct 30, 2010)

Look guys, small cell works, i have some in my brood chambers. Large cell works, the commercial near me uses it exclusively as do I in (when i have it) as starter strips and in honey supers. Natural cell works, it is the most prevalent in all my hives. It all works  Does it control this, does it stop that, smaller bees, larger bees, honey yields... Our seasons must be slowing down if we're rehashing this one so early in the year, I always count on the first killing frost of the year for beesource to really start hopping :lpf:


----------

