# New hives



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Also, I think it would be great if someone came up with plastic 4.9mm foundation so that you could just scrape off sub-par comb


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

That's what I would do. I'd start them on 4.9mm but don't count on it for mite resistance until you have regressed them down so they are acutally building 4.9mm. They won't the first regression (which is what this will be). Personally I'd use the FGMO fog until you get that far. I also wish there was some plastic that had 1/4" deep or more cells so the queen would start laying right away in it and you could cut it back down to 1/4" if the bees messed it up too much. But I don't think they would mess it up too much if it's correct for the first 1/4".


----------



## Clayton (Dec 8, 2000)

Hi,

I think it would be great if someone came up with plastic 4.9mm foundation so that you could just scrape off sub-par comb

reply:

I'm fairly certain there shall be plastic 4.9 foundation available. It will be in the 2003 catalog from Dadant. Don't know the pricing. Will have to wait and see. I believe the ink's dry on the contract for its production last I heard.

Clay


----------



## Dee A. Lusby (Oct 4, 2000)

Michael Bush wrote:
I also wish there was some plastic that had 1/4" deep or more cells so the queen would start laying right away in it and you could cut it back down to 1/4" if the bees messed it up too much. But I don't think they would mess it up too much if it's correct for the first 1/4".

Reply:
I personally think the bees would do better with no cell walls and you'd also gain greater variance too, both for first regression, and second regression, allowing the bees to adapt better.

Regards,

Dee


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

Dee wrote;
I personally think the bees would do better with no cell walls and you'd also gain greater variance too, both for first regression, and second regression, allowing the bees to adapt better.

Regards,

Dee

Could you please explane what you mean in this statement? Especially no cell walls and variance?
Thanks, Bill


----------



## Hook (Jun 2, 2002)

No cell walls. Thats what I intend on doing. I am using starter strips, on the first 3 boxes of regession. I plan on labeling them r1, r2,r3. I think by the 3rd generation, they should be very close to being able to draw out 4.9. But then again, there are probably alot of other factors that will come into play too. But that is my plan. Also, by doing the labeling, I figure I can reuse the 3 boxes for future regression. That will save time, and bee effort. I guess theoretically it is planning ahead, but only God knows what will happen.


------------------
Dale Richards
Dal-Col Apiaries
Drums, PA


----------



## Clayton (Dec 8, 2000)

Hi Bill,


I personally think the bees would do better with no cell walls and you'd also gain greater variance too, both for first regression, and second regression, allowing the bees to adapt better.
Regards,

Dee

Could you please explane what you mean in this statement? Especially no cell walls and variance?

reply:

First of all you must be familiar with making foundation to some degree. My thoughts and Dee's differ here a little as pertains to cell wall. The foundation that those of us that hand mill our foundation has no to little cell wall, as does the commercial foundation available. Now Dee when she makes her foundation makes the thickness thinner to lessen the cell wall. I on the other hand mill the foundation thick so that as it goes through the mill I get maximum cell impression and wall. Also I should point out that milling the foundation at higher temps cause some shrinkage to the cell size. So running the foundation through real hot in the 4.9mm mill you can get cells that are 4.8 (even smaller if desired). The opposite "can occurs" in high speed modern, where the cell is streched mills. Ok. Now in a colony of bees the workers break out into three subcastes. Small, medium, and large. Now when Dee says 4.9 is top tolerance she means that the large caste of bees is from the 4.9mm cells. The bees from medium are from 4.85, and small from 4.8mm for example. Now with out the cell walls the bees can regress to the smallest subcaste without having to rework the wall or simply go to the largest caste. Now for why I like the cell wall. In some cases it is good not to have the cell wall especially with already regressed bees. But I have found that without enough cell wall that some colonies are quite capable of chewing the cell pattern down on the foundation and rework to the same they came off. Also it I feel it helps them key in to the smallest sizing that they can jump while in the state of regressing. It is rather a double edged sword here. I think the cell wall brings the bees down faster. But you "could" lose some natural variance as some will go smaller. Making my own foundation I can mill hot and get 4.85 with cell wall already incorperating a bit of the variation into the foundation as the bees can go to 4.9 or the 4.85 if they want.

Clay


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

Thanks, Clay. I do not plan to make my own foundation, but your explanation is well noted, thanks again. If there were a commercial 4.9 plastic foundation with cell walls 1/4" deep, wouldn't the bees want to draw the already started cell out the size it is? Another observation of mine comes to mind; when I was melting down some old comb I noticed how thick the cocoons were and remembered reading somewhere that a cell gets smaller as it gets older because the old cocoon is never removed and it is added to every generation. Isn't this a natural regression? The particular colony that I was melting wax from was queenless and full of laying workers who all looked like queens, another observation of mine that I have not heard mentioned before. One of those things that make you go 'humm...'
Bill


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

I've had cacoons so thick that when I melted the wax, only half the volume was wax, this from a mite killed colony.


----------



## Clayton (Dec 8, 2000)

Hi Bill,

If there were a commercial 4.9 plastic foundation with cell walls 1/4" deep, wouldn't the bees want to draw the already started cell out the size it is? 

reply:

Some would. But I'd sooner bet that many would flair the cell out above the wall and do there own thing. So it is similar to what I posted before some it would work, other times it will be a disadvantage. With that said it makes more sense for the commercial manufacturers to produce just with the normal cell wall.

when I was melting down some old comb I noticed how thick the cocoons were and remembered reading somewhere that a cell gets smaller as it gets older because the old cocoon is never removed and it is added to every generation. Isn't this a natural regression? 

reply:

To a degree. But bees do chew out these cocoons and maintain it where they like it. I think Dave Cushman has some cross pics of where bees chewed out the cocoons on his site.(but my memory isn't to sure as it was awhile ago when I saw these).

As for the plastic foundation from Dadant I will see if Barry has any pics of it he could post here.

Clay


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Hi all -
http://www.bee-l.com/biobeefiles/4.9plastic/index.htm 

-Barry


----------



## Clayton (Dec 8, 2000)

Hi all,

I believe the foundation here is unwaxed. I do not know if Dadant will offer it waxed or unwaxed. Either way one can wax it them selves. 

Clay


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Here are my reasons for wanting it 1/4" deep. I've watched in my observation hive, and when the cells get about that deep the queen will lay in them. Then the workers finish out the cell as they feed the larvae. 

I think if it was deep enough for the queen to be able to lay in them right away. This would jump start a colony. The workers would just finish them. I don't think they would rework them after there is a larva in them. 

I also think the cell size would be more consistent, which seems to be a goal of many of the 4.9mm proponents. 

Also, the wax moths would have a harder time because they like to run as deep inside as they can and their tunnels would be closer to the surface and easier to remove.


----------



## Dee A. Lusby (Oct 4, 2000)

Hi all

Bill wrote:
Another observation of mine comes to mind; when I was melting down some old comb I noticed how thick the cocoons were and remembered reading somewhere that a cell gets smaller as it gets older because the old cocoon is never removed and it is added to every generation. Isn't this a natural regression? 

Reply:
Yes and no! Yes, in a way because bees on enlarged combs use the cocoons in tandem to make enlarged combs smaller in diameter over time.

However bees on a natural system with small cell very seldom let cocoons buildup.

A good old reference for this would be EB Wedmore in his 'Manual of Beekeeping' para 343 where the author writes:

"The author has examined and measured worker and drone combs in frames which have been in use for 7 to 18 years without having received attention other then that given by the bees, and has failed to find side walls of worker cells thickened by more then three thousandths of an inch, a negligible increase. He has particulars of an apiary whre no frames have been touched for 21 years and the bees produced are still of normal size. Drone cells have somewhat thicker walls, but they also are not allowed to become too thick"

Also Dr Jaycox earlier known in New Mexico, USA used to write similarly.

I myself see no thickening in small cell foundation we have had in use now for our colonies now going on 7 years this year 2003.

Regards,

Dee A. Lusby


----------



## Dee A. Lusby (Oct 4, 2000)

Hi all

Clayton wrote:
With that said it makes more sense for the commercial manufacturers to produce just with the normal cell wall.

Reply:
Bearing this in mind and the fact that we have many different manufacturers with differing perceptions, "what do you visualize as a normal cell wall?"

1. Thickness (as it varies and has ramifacations)
2. Height (as this too varies and had ramifacations some of which have already been alluded to here in writing but perhaps needs more explantion.)

Regards,

Dee A. Lusby


----------

