# Bee-O-Pac



## Jeff (Jun 18, 2004)

Michael,

I just got a 1 super Bee-O-Pac kit and was wondering if you had used this before. It seems like a good idea but my concern is will the bees draw it?

Should I try to coat the frames with wax...if so can you walk me through that.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

If you crowd them into the supers, as you have to with any comb honey cassette system, yes. If you don't, then probably not. You don't need to coat them with wax.

We are talking about Bee-O-Pac right? Comb honey cassetes? Not PermaComb, fully drawn plastic comb?

The thing to find out is when the flow is in your area. Two weeks before, do a cut down split. If you miss it and see that the flow is there already and you haven't, then do a cut down split. The cut down part is where you reduce the hive to just one box of capped brood and a the supers. The open brood and all the honey go to the split. The field bees go back to the old hive and it is overflowing with the same number of bees in much less space. If you want to leave the old hive queenless, then leave them one frame with some eggs to raise a queen. If you want to requeen one of the splits, then requeen the old hive (the cut down).


----------



## Jeff (Jun 18, 2004)

Right the Bee-O-Pac cassettes. The reason I asked was because I have experienced a problem with the bees and drawing comb on plain plastic foundation. The bee-O-Pac people say and show on their web site these really nice symetrical drawn cassettes. Just wondered if they had tricks to get that.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Yes. The trick is lots of bees and not much space and a good nectar flow.

It's the same for Ross Rounds, Hogg half combs, or plain old section honey.


----------



## forestbee (Sep 11, 2003)

I am planing to use Bee-O-Pac for the first time this year, here is what I am planing to do.

- Select a very strong double broad boxes hive.
- Two weeks before the main flow I will make a Demaree with the Bee-O-Pac super in the middle of the two broad boxes.
- Just before the flow I will put an escape under the top broad box then will take it (should be almost empty anyway) and put it on top of another hive.
- Check for queen cells once a week.

Few things to keep in mind:
- Never use queen excluder.
- Never use upper entrance.

Regards,


----------



## Jeff (Jun 18, 2004)

What about the Miller method except revising it to use 2 deep brood boxes and no excluder?

I know this is not "exactley" how Miller is perfomed with 2 deeps. I think the just of it is to keep the honey on top to keep them moving up?

What do you all think?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Usually when I hear the "Miller method" it's in regard to queen rearing. What do you mean by the Miller method here?


----------



## Jeff (Jun 18, 2004)

This was in a book I read. It refers to a method that does 1.) hive reversal, 2.) taking all bees and brood out of deep #2 putting it into deep #1, and the honey in deep #2, 3.) putting your meduim super with sectioned comb i.e. ross rounds, cassettes, 4.) when super #1 is 3/4 full add super #2 under super #1, 5.) etc... until flow runs out.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

Compressing the bees is a basic requirement when
trying to get comb honey from any hive.

Under-supering (putting new supers under existing
supers) has been shown to be no different from
over-supering (putting new supers atop existing
supers) in terms of harvested crop amount or
time to cap off the crop.

Adding new supers of foundation for comb honey
only when prior supers have been partly drawn
is a practice that simply does not "scale up"
well to a larger operation, but may or may not
provide a tangible advantage. (Lloyd? Any personal
views on this?) Offhand, I'd guess it is yet
another way to waste time without gaining
any tangible advantage, but I don't recall ever
hearing of any analysis of this.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Usually a cut-down is when you remove all the open brood and all the honey and one of the deep boxes (mabye I should say IN one of the deep boxes) and move them to another place. This crowds all the returning foragers up into the supers. I'm with Jim, I don't see the advantage to just juggling them around. The point is to crowd them up.

Of course this assumes you have deeps for your brood, which I don't. But the concept is the same regardless. You crowd the bees up into the supers.


----------



## Grant (Jun 12, 2004)

The Killions of Illinois ran a very successful comb honey business, and when you read the book by Carl Killion, it isn't long before you realize how labor-intensive their methods were, particularly to reduce swarming. I don't know how they had enough time in the day to do all they had to do.

In the latest American Bee Journal, February 2005, John Hogg has revised an earlier idea. It's excellent. His method, while not the only way to produce comb honey, reduces the labor requirements, prevents swarming, and establishes a strong hive with two queens that will really pack in the honey. 

And in good beekeeping fashion, where there is always more than one correct opinion on several matters, John offers three variations from which to choose the one that suits you best.

gfcg731


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> His method, while not the only way to produce 
> comb honey, reduces the labor requirements, 
> prevents swarming, and establishes a strong hive 
> with two queens that will really pack in the 
> honey.

Aggggh!!!! Two-queen hives?
They REDUCE labor?
Howso, exactly?









And "prevents swarming"? Come on, admit it.
Swarming is the bees' REPRODUCTIVE impulse, and
cannot be "prevented". One can make life
easier on a comb-honey colony by adding a
group of comb supers at once rather than adding
them one at a time, so that one's crowding
exercise does not drive them to swarm,
but I always set up a bait hive or two near
my comb honey colonies "just in case".

Nothing will "prevent" swarming except splitting
every colony every year, and even that is not
a 100% certain solution.

Anyone who wants to claim to have "prevented"
swarming needs to wear a tin-foil hat, so the
rest of us will know who they are!


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I've run a few two queen hives. It's easier to run three or four regular hives.









And one thing a two queen hive does NOT do is cut down on swarming.

Maybe it's a modified version of the Snelgrove method which gives sort of a two queen hive and is supposed to cut down on swarming.


----------



## Grant (Jun 12, 2004)

Hey Jim, I'm a 7 and 3/8 but the foil is somewhat flexible so I'll wear my hat without too much problem. We've finally had some sunny days here in MO so wear your sun glasses because I'm going to be reflecting the light!

But on a more serious note, I don't do spring splits any more. Queen quality was too variable. Delivery dates were unreliable. Weather is always a fickle factor. And I still had a few hives swarm.

Recently I've used Walt Wright's "Nectar Management" system, what was once what he called "checkerboarding," with exceptional success in preventing swarms. It's what works for me.

As for the two queen system, I've not tried it as John Hogg outlines it specifically for comb honey. I've used it otherwise without any increase in swarming, and when I consolidate the brood nest, one of the queens will prevail. John Hogg also wrote about this in ABJ many years ago.

With respect to comb honey, I just passed along John's advice on two queens. My hunch is that when the hive is combined to form the two queen hive, the honey flow is going full force and the bees have directed their energies to gathering nectar rather than focusing on swarming. Walt Wright also has an angle on getting the bees past their natural urge to swarm.

At least, that's the theory. But go ahead and read John's latest article and respond to it. I'd love to hear what you think, as I always do. You bring a unique perspective to keeping bees which I deeply respect--and I mean that statement with great sincerity. 

And as for saving labor, go back and read Killion's book. He advocates cutting out queen cells after making the colony queenless. I find that laborious, especially when you have to be so careful not to miss any during the break in the brood cycle. IMHO John Hogg offers a better method.

Grant


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> Recently I've used Walt Wright's "Nectar 
> Management" system, what was once what he 
> called "checkerboarding," with exceptional 
> success in preventing swarms. It's what works 
> for me.

I've not tried it myself, but I have yet to hear
anyone contradict Walt. Moving some frames
around is MUCH less work than other approaches,
so even if it is no more successful than other
approaches, it "scales" better, and to me,
"scalable" is where most of this stuff tends
to be lacking.

I guess I should take a dozen hives and give it
a shot.


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 1, 2004)

Up until now, I have refrained from comment on Bee-O-Pac. However, since I was specifically invited in, I am going to break my silence.

Simply, Bee-O-Pac was not introduced to help you produce comb honey. It was introduced to take your money, pure and simple. Compared to other methods, including our own, there is no advantage to producing comb honey with Bee-O-Pac. If you want to try it, fine. But it will not be less expensive than alternatives (including, but not limited to our method), less messy, or even more appealing to consumers. 

As you might expect, I know a fair number of commercial producers of comb honey in the US and Canada. None use Bee-O-Pac (or Hogg Halfcomb). In itself, that is astounding. NONE, in this context, is a very big number. But there is a reason; it is because one cannot expect to consistently make a crop at a reasonable cost. Consistently means year in and year out, good flows and not-so-good flows. Reasonable cost means number of SALEABLE sections divided by the total cost.

And I have tried both products.

But enough of that. Some observations and answers to questions:

1.	Jim is correct. Put all your supers on at once. I put three on each hive, then move supers from those that do not do well to those who need them. In any given year in any given yard, some will finish five supers, some none or only one. I seem to always average between 2 and 3 supers per hive.

2.	If a commercial beekeeper wanted to produce comb honey for the first time, she would ask someone who has been successful at producing on a commercial level. (Among other things, that means making money at it.) Hobbyists should do the same. Has John Hogg ever produced 100 supers in a year? I dont think so. Is there anything making him an expert other than the fact that he writes articles? (I know John, and he is a fine person. But I dont think he is an expert at the production of comb honey.)

Eugene Killion, author of the existing edition of Honey in the Comb is also a fine person. He is the son of Carl Killion, but unlike his father he did not choose to make his living producing comb honey. Persons interested in learning how Carl produced comb honey should buy his book of the same title. Ive never seen it on eBay, but as of this morning there are five copies available by going to www.abebooks.com. Search for books by Carl Killion.

As described by Gene Killion, production of comb honey is so labor intensive as to be prohibitive. This is because each hive is subjected to several manipulations. But his fathers book limits many of the manipulations to troublesome hives that show signs of preparing to swarm. This is a huge difference. But decide for yourselves, compare the two books.

3.	To successfully produce comb honey a beekeeper must make it desirable for the bees to draw comb while not inducing them to swarm. This requires a queen that has not been overwintered, a restriction on the number of drawn frames, plenty of room for the bees to draw comb and foundation. Ill comment on each.

4.	It has been demonstrated time and again that bees with an over wintered queen are much more likely to swarm than those with a current year queen. One three year controlled experiment demonstrated that 60% of hives with an overwintered queen would swarm, compared to only 10% of those with a current year queen. 100% OF COMMERCIAL PRODUCERS OF COMB HONEY USE ONLY CURRENT YEAR QUEENS IN THEIR HIVES.

5.	Drawing comb takes a lot of energy. Energy that could, instead, be used for gathering nectar and pollen. All animals, including bees, are programmed to accomplish their tasks using as little energy as possible. If a beekeeper gives bees drawn comb in excess of that needed for brood (about 5-6 deep frames), the bees will fill that with nectar before drawing more comb. If a beekeeper tries to put comb honey supers above two deeps that means that the bees will store 60-70 pounds of honey before starting to draw the comb honey foundation. In many parts of the US, the flow will not support more than 60-70 pounds of honey so the comb honey supers will be poorly drawn or not drawn at all.

6.	As said above, put all your comb honey supers on at once. Time and again studies have shown that bees will collect and store more total honey if they sense empty space beyond where they are working. If you give them three supers at once, they will produce more than if you give them only one super and add more as needed.

Commercial producers of comb honey will always say it is not very difficult. What they mean is I have a set of procedures that will almost always result in success, almost regardless of the strength of the flow. Assuming you dont have a commercial producer in your area that you can hang around with, start out with one of the two proven methods (cut comb or Ross Rounds), use the procedures described above for at least three years. Once you are satisfied that you have some expertise, try one of the other methods if you are so inclined.

If you start with one of the other methods, you are LIKELY to fail or not do well and get discouraged. That is not good for you, for beekeeping, or for our precious honey bees that are in your care.

For those of you who got this far, I hope I have helped.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

Give 'em heck, Lloyd!









Just to clarify, here's the deal with Hogg, Bee-O-Pac,
et al from my point of view.

They are "cheaper" in terms of up-front cost,
but one has to look at 2nd year costs, 3rd
year costs, and so on. One INVESTS in Lloyd's
gear, and can reuse it year after year, buying
only the rings and foundation to "load" the
supers, and only using the plastic covers for
rounds that are "saleable".

With the others, you have a very high "waste"
cost, as they force you to buy a "complete"
package every year that allows no re-use of
components. When you look at actual completed
saleable sections, and subtract what you paid
for Hogg or Bee-O-Pac, you find that you have
a "business partner", taking a serious chunk
of your profits.

Lloyd is happy to sell starter kits at massive
discounts, and to sell you only what you need. 

He also provides "tech support" to even random
bozos like me, so he'll help anyone.









(I got a bunch of Ross Round gear when I bought
out a retiring beekeeper, and Lloyd spent several
hours writing e-mails to help me to realize that
what I had inherited was a bogus set-up, doomed
to be propolized to death (this fellow had mounted
each Ross Round frame in a wooden frame and was
trying to use them in a standard medium super...)

So, the moral of the story is to work out your
LIFE-CYCLE cost, not just your first-year's costs.
The lifespan of Ross-Round plastic is at least
a decade, if not more, and has a decent resale
value regardless of age. The other stuff is
"disposable", in that it either gets filled up,
or becomes instant trash, by design.

You see, comb honey is a bit of a gamble in my
view. There is no way to predict a flow, so
I have several floor-to-ceiling stacks of
Ross-Round supers all loaded up and ready to go.
The only way I can be sure to maximize the
harvest of comb honey is to stack a goodly number
of supers per hive (like 4 or 5), knowing full
well that not all the sections will be filled
every spring.

So I like the re-use aspect, which means that I 
am really only risking some foundation and a
few rings on sections that are partly drawn or
unfilled. Rings from untouched sections can
be easily re-used.


----------



## BubbaBob (Jan 18, 2005)

What would the 1st year cost, and ongoing annual cost, for converting shallows to Ross Rounds? I find myself with about 200 shallows I don't have a use for when I bought out a 100 hive operation this week. I only use mediums for producing extracted honey so far, and since I have these shallows anyway...it's either trash them, sell them, or try ross rounds.

BubbaBob


----------



## Jeff (Jun 18, 2004)

Lloyd,

First thanks for your expert insight. I really didn't expect to get response from someone of your caliber. I do appreciate it.

I am a novice...that's evident, and I was doing this for the sake of expanding my beekeeping education, and I think I have a small market for it here. I did buy both the cassettes (Bee-O-Pac) and your product Ross rounds, I wanted to see which worked the best. 

What I didn't expect was to have to "force" my bees to use it. I just wanted to go on my merry way as I do with frames of wax foundation and after all this discussion I think I made this a lot simpler than it really is. 

I don't mean to imply I shutter at having to work, or be a beekeeper vs a beehaver but, cut comb/chunk appears to be more natural for my bees. As you said "they will use more energy drawing sectioned comb". Also, with cut comb 
1.) I don't have any special handling of the bees to "force" them to use the equipment 
2.)I don't make my living doing this so I have no problem taking the time to cut the comb 
3.) last but not least...cut comb is considerably less expensive.

Although you make it sound a bit simpler than all the "near swarming" methods, I think you all have talked me out of the sectioned comb honey production??? On a small scale I'm not sure its worth it.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Cut comb is far simpler and tastes just as good.


----------



## Grant (Jun 12, 2004)

Likewise, I too, say "thanks, Lloyd." No need to have waited so long to weigh in.

It's been an interesing evolution of thought from what I thought was the original question about getting those bees up into those confined areas without inviting them to swarm. This seems to be a universal challenge irrespective of your choice of cassette.

I confess I still sell the bulk of my comb honey in those little wooden boxes from Kelley (ala Killion) because it's what sells around here. Nobody ever accused a S.E. Missourian of being progressively minded. Laborious, yes. And cute, yes, "why, they remind me of dad's operation when I was a kid."

My second best comb seller is chunk honey is a pint jar of extracted honey, followed by a distant third by cut comb in a clam shell plastic box. Both of these come from shallow frames with unwired foundation.

I have greately enjoyed the conversation and articles, the insights and the advice. 

Grant


----------



## Jeff (Jun 18, 2004)

Well I just got my first experience of the Bee-O-Pac equipment. Its construction reminds me of an old toy from my era called "vac-u-form". Except that the old "vac-u-form" was 4 times the strength plastic as "Bee-O-Pac". Very flimsy, not well made, not good quality control as I have had to have some frames replaced - twice. The method which you put the 2 frame halves together is terrible. Come on people...smashing a little plastic bump through a hole is not an engineering masterpiece, and it really wouldn't be so bad but, IT DOESN"T WORK 80% OF THE TIME!

Then, if you get to the point of finishing the assembly witout pulling all your hair out...try to get 8 frames in the super. Wouldn't fit for me - just 7!

Needless to say I am not a bit impressed with this equipment. I didn't even go into the cost side of this...I'm not going there.

Thanks everyone for letting me vent...gee and I haven't even gotten them on a hive yet. Wow I can't wait for that!

As a gift from me to Beeosphere. You need to provide the following warning with your product:

Warning...have your friends/family leave the house before attempting assembly of this product. The frustration level generated while assembling this product could be fatal to standers-by.


----------



## GaSteve (Apr 28, 2004)

>Simply, Bee-O-Pac was not introduced to help you produce comb honey. It was introduced to take your money, pure and simple.

Sounds like Lloyd hit the nail on the head.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I don't think you're all being that fair to Bee-O-Sphere. The IDEA was to have a package for comb honey that would fit a standard medium super and the bees would put the comb in the container. That's not a bad idea. I think it remains to be seen if it will work well in the long run.

Maybe in the long run they will improve it and/or the beekeepers will figure out the ins and outs of using it.

To be fair, I've heard a lot of complaints about every cassette system including Ross Rounds. People will say, they can't get the bees to fill them in. But in the end getting the bees to fill any kind of comb honey cassette system requires a certain kind of managment regardless of the method otherwise.

Certainly Ross Rounds are a proven entity, at least to the people who are sucessfully raising comb honey in them. The people who used to raise section honey have almost all converted to Ross Rounds because it eliminated many of the problems of the section honey system.


----------



## Jeff (Jun 18, 2004)

Michael,

I'm not complaining how the product works with the bees, or the "idea". On the contrary, I think the idea is great!

My complaint, or, maybe better put, my personal observations are about the poor construction, manufacturing, and quality control of the Bee-O-Pac product. All the above in relation to the price they charge.

To Michael's point and in all fairness to Beeosphere, I can not attest to the performace of them yet as I have not put them on the hive. 

But, I can tell you regardless of how well or poor they perform this spring...I will not buy anymore unless Beeosphere has a complete 180 degree turn-around for the better, in their design and manufacture of this product.


----------



## east_stingray (Feb 8, 2005)

Jeff- keep in mind that this is a new product and starting up the manufacturing of a new product is always expensive. As their production methods improve, there's no reason to think the price will go anywhere but down. That being said, I've never done comb honey before and I don't know much about it. I'm just making a capitalistic observation.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> To be fair, I've heard a lot of complaints about 
> every cassette system including Ross Rounds. 
> People will say, they can't get the bees to fill 
> them in. But in the end getting the bees to fill 
> any kind of comb honey cassette system requires 
> a certain kind of managment regardless of the 
> method otherwise.

I'll go further, and say that the same exact
management practices would apply equally to any
"system", including the old wooden sections or
even thin surplus in frames. In fact, not being
able to get bees to both draw comb and fill
it with honey in "full supers" of any type is
a sign of a beekeeper who needs to read and
learn more.

If you think about it, the only extra step
is the drawing of new comb every time, so
the same management practices used for comb
production can also enhance one's harvestable
yield of extracted honey, even when drawn comb
is supered. Not giving the bees any comb to
draw at all is a "risky move", so if I went
through all the same steps, I'd want something
to keep all those crowded young bees busy at
a task that keeps them crowded - like drawing
out a super of foundation.

Making comb honey is a little complex in
the beeyard than making extracted honey, but
it is much less work in the honey house, and
is worth the "extra" trouble when the dollars
are counted. Extracted honey prices rise and
fall whenever someone in a country far away
produces more or less honey, but comb honey
prices are both much higher and more stable
year after year.


----------



## ikeepbees (Mar 8, 2003)

Jim said:

"I've not tried it myself, but I have yet to hear
anyone contradict Walt. Moving some frames
around is MUCH less work than other approaches,
so even if it is no more successful than other
approaches, it "scales" better, and to me,
"scalable" is where most of this stuff tends
to be lacking.

I guess I should take a dozen hives and give it
a shot."

Jim,

I hope you do decide to give Walt's nectar management method a try next year - I think you will find that it is the most succesful method of swarm prevention that you have tried. I say this because I have found that it results in larger populations than other methods with a minimum of labor, and once I fine tuned his method to my area swarms stopped happening. I encourage you to contact Walt and get his manuscript - it is good reading, and once you have fine tuned his methods to your area you may change your mind about splitting being the only way to prevent swarming.

I ordered my tin foil hat today.


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 1, 2004)

Mike Bush makes a good point relative to Bee-O-Pac being a new product. In fact, that is why I bought and tried two packages. I wanted to see if the use of Vacuum Forming would produce an acceptable product. 

Potentially, the Bee-O-Pac advantages were (1) Vacuum Forming is much less expensive than Injection Molding (how Ross Round equipment is made), so the cost to the beekeeper and consumer might be much less (2) in certain markets (such as restaurants or any kind of food service) a four-ounce package would be preferred and (3) it uses a standard size super.

Now, 'in the old days', the major dealers in beekeeping equipment were all beekeepers and they would not put their name behind a new product unless it clearly filled a niche or was superior to existing products. In fact, Ross Rounds went through H... to get in the Dadant and Kelley catalogs. Our product had to first have multiyear trials by established beekeepers before they would carry it.

In the case of Bee-O-Pac, the persons manufacturing it are not serious beekeepers, if they are beekeepers at all. Instead, they are marketing gurus. We now know that it was widely advertised and promoted before there was any acceptance of the product as being superior or even acceptable. (Much was made of an endorsement by a Canadian university. I have since been told that that endorsement was unintended and was embarrasing.) It is clear that the product has serious design faults.

Just several weeks ago an American dealer reported to me privately that he expected the product to last 2-3 years and then disappear. When I asked him why he carried it in his catalog he replied "we have to take sales any way we can get them'. 'We carry several products that we don't necessarily endorse as being a good idea for beekeepers, and this is one." In my opinion, a sad commentary.

My guess...a vacuum formed product is not suitable for production of section comb honey as correction of the design difficulties would mean the product would be far too expensive compared to alternatives.


----------



## east_stingray (Feb 8, 2005)

can anyone link me to walt's nectar management?


----------



## ikeepbees (Mar 8, 2003)

east_stingray,

Walt is not a computer person, so no link. You can contact him at Walt Wright, P.O. Box 10, Elkton, TN 38455


----------



## Jeff (Jun 18, 2004)

Lloyd,

Once again thanks for the insite...very good.

I too read the endorsement and other articles that I now know as "advertising" and not true research...hereto...I bought the product. 

>Just several weeks ago an American dealer >reported to me privately that he expected the >product to last 2-3 years and then disappear. >When I asked him why he carried it in his >catalog he replied "we have to take sales any >way we can get them'. 'We carry several products >that we don't necessarily endorse as being a >good idea for beekeepers, and this is one." In >my opinion, a sad commentary.

That disturbs me in the respect that it implies the retailer(s) know this is not a good product but are mearly driven by sales instead of sales and service. Shame on me this time...not the next time!


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> That disturbs me in the respect that it implies 
> the retailer(s) know this is not a good product 
> but are mearly driven by sales instead of sales 
> and service. Shame on me this time...not the next 
> time!

Hold on now... I know all the major dealers, and I
can confirm that they DO care about what goes in
their product lines, and they DO test and use the
products on their own bees. I think that the
caveats about Bee-O-Pack were more than adequately
handled by the major dealers, in fact, Fred Rossman
had a super of Bee-O-Pac sitting on his table at
EAS, and would engage in conversation with people
asking about it by starting out with "I have not
yet tried it myself...", and then he would show
the beekeepers how the Bee-O-Pac frames were
slightly taller than a standard medium super,
and advise them to add a shim when using them.

Yes, there is much more "market pull" at work
than there might have been several decades ago.
These days, "push" alone will not sell a product,
one must create "pull", where the buyer demands
the product. Bee-O-Sphere was very good at
focusing on a weak point in the other comb
systems - initial cost. "Cheaper" is a big
point to beekeepers, who have a near-universal
aversion to spending 8 cents when they can
spend 3 hours and do a half-sassed job of it for
5 cents.

But as I pointed out in a prior message, you
get what you pay for, and "cheaper" is often
very poor economy over the longer term.

There are LOTS of beekeeping products out
there that simply are not carried in the 
major catalogs. Why? Because many of them 
were found by the dealers to not do what they 
were claimed to do.


----------



## Jeff (Jun 18, 2004)

Hey I didn't say it my friend....your mentor up there did. I'm just telling you it ain't happen'n here twice! Regardless of YOUR trust in the dealer group!


----------



## east_stingray (Feb 8, 2005)

How do you take the Bee-O-Pac super off to inspect under it? The andrew guy I talked to acted like you shouldn't touch it until harvest or all the little sections would fall out. Also, can someone give me some more specifics on using shims? Won't they use the space as an entrance?


----------



## Hillbillynursery (Nov 13, 2003)

That is the idea to give the bees an upper entrance.


----------



## BubbaBob (Jan 18, 2005)

<< "Cheaper" is a big
point to beekeepers, who have a near-universal
aversion to spending 8 cents when they can
spend 3 hours and do a half-sassed job of it for
5 cents.

But as I pointed out in a prior message, you
get what you pay for, and "cheaper" is often
very poor economy over the longer term.>>

The most expensive purchases I have ever made were the "cheap" ones. I'm all for inexpensive, but avoid "cheap" like the plague...

I've never used cassetts, and had no intention of trying them now until I bought out the guy last week. I use only medium supers and now all of a sudden I have well over 200 shallows. I will probably convert some shallows and try 10-20 hives with cassett combs production, but it will be Ross Rounds ONLY if I do.


----------



## east_stingray (Feb 8, 2005)

Hey, I use exclusively shallows, so if you get bored trying to convert them, give me a call and I'll road trip to see your operation. My spring break's coming up, you know, and I'm not afraid to get out and help you work. I bet two beekeepers can have more fun than two cats with a paper grocery store bag.


----------

