# small cell bees



## BerkeyDavid (Jan 29, 2004)

Hi Jay
I am not a small cell beekeeper, although I would like to be and have been thinking about whether I want to try to regress my langs using small cell foundation or simply natural cell. 

However I have had a couple years experience with Top Bar Hives.

I question the premise that small cell bees will do better than other bees in a top bar frame.

The bees will draw "natural" cell size comb in a top bar hive. Some of that will be small cell, especially in the brood nest.

It seems to me that if you went to the expense to buy small cell bees you would be better off putting them in a Lang.

I would think that Top Bar Bees would more readily accept small cell foundation for this reason.

I wonder if anyone has ever tried to regress a split off a top bar hive to small cell foundation, and if so if it worked any easier?

It would be very interesting to see what natural cell size that small cell bees build in a top bar hive and compare that to what size cells "non-regressed" bees draw in a top bar.


----------



## Saluda Ranger (Nov 26, 2005)

Thanks. I realize now looking back through the back logs of this forum that many people before me have asked similiar questions. 

This website bleow is full of great info!


Small Cell Beekeeping

[ November 26, 2005, 09:51 AM: Message edited by: Saluda Ranger ]


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

If you can get some small cell bees, do it. If not, then just keep feeding bars into the center of the brood nest until you GET small cell bees.


----------



## limulus (Feb 10, 2004)

I have four TBHs. They draw small cells in the broodnest in the spring, larger cells in the summer. The draw huge cells in the storage areas, and sometimes smaller cells in the storage areas. The cells at the tops of the bars are large, then get smaller as the comb progresses, but there are often large cells at the bottom. It seems to me to be a mistake to interfere and try to force or control what they build. I do place empty bars in the brood nest area in the spring, and these get drawn out "small" for the most part, but there is allways lots of variation. When I just look at the bees, there is a lot of variation in bee size as well, but most seem to be small. It seems that as the hive matures more brood gets raised in smaller cells. When I make a split from a TBH they do seem to draw on average, in the brood nest, smaller cells than those that were started from package bees.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

There is one reason to interfere and that's because you start with artificially large bees.


----------



## limulus (Feb 10, 2004)

"There is one reason to interfere and that's because you start with artificially large bees."

Ok, you got me there. What I meant was once the TBH is established and the bees are happily doing their own thing (and maybe the first few combs they built the first year have been rotated out of the brood nest area) then further intervention, other than harvesting







and rotating a few fresh bars into the broodnest in the spring seems like work and interference. I have never tried regressing in a Lang' and it does seem like a lot of work. In a TBH or a no foundation Lang' hive it seems like the bees will do what needs to be done.


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

>>"There is one reason to interfere and that's because you start with artificially large bees."

>Ok, you got me there. 

Maybe not! Just how does one get artificially large bees? It's not enough just to say they are 'artificially' large. A great experiment is to set up both large and small cell sized hives and measure a few thousand bees thoughout the season. It's lots of work but the bee size comparison can be very interesting. You can see what I observed when doing this at:

http://bwrangler.litarium.com/seasonal-bee-size/ 

If you get the same results I did, you might have to wonder about the concept of 'artificially large' bees. 

And after observing the natural structure and size of bees/comb that's readily apparent in a tbh, why would anyone want to take two steps backward toward the small cell size/regression only concept? It greatly complicates beekeeping and can be very expensive.

I've taken regressed small cell bees and put them back on clean large cell sized comb. These un-regressed bees had all the same attributes as their small cell only sisters, except for varroa tolerance. Most of the characteristics attributed to small cell bees actually comes from the clean broodnest comb and has nothing to do with cell size. Check out my unregressed bees at:

http://bwrangler.litarium.com/un-regressed-bees/ 

It's also interesting, to read for yourself, just what were the cell sizes before foundation came on the scene. I've posted a few pages from an earlier edition of the ABC and ZYZ. They detail A.I. Roots experiements with natural comb/cell size when arriving at a foundation size. And they also detail the measurements and enlargement ideas from Europe. Cross reference the 4.83 from Roots measurements into the table at the bottom of the second page. Large cell foundation isn't so 'large ' as one might think. See:

http://bwrangler.litarium.com/a-i-root-and-cell-size/

It also interesting to note, that in most of the natural comb I've measured, the bees constructed almost, almost exactly the same amount of 5.2mm to 5.4mm comb, as they did 5.2mm and smaller. 

Using small cell foundation,in standard equipment, might be a necessary evil until something better comes along. And I think that 'something' better will be based on what we are doing with our tbhs.

Regards
Dennis


----------



## BerkeyDavid (Jan 29, 2004)

Thanks Dennis, you rock! This is exactly what I was wondering...


----------



## Finman (Nov 5, 2004)

http://www.bee-l.com/biobeefiles/pav/scstudy.htm 
New Zeland: "Smaller honeybee cells neither reduce the reproductive success or the amount
of cells infested by the Varroa destructor mite, according to a New Zealand
study."


----------



## BerkeyDavid (Jan 29, 2004)

Thanks for the post Finman. The shocking conclusion:

However,
even if the results from the foundation size had been more reliable, these
results suggest cells smaller than 5.4mm may actually increase infestation. 

They did not use regressed bees. They admitted that the small cell foundation was drawn out unevenly. Yet they measured actual cell size and found no difference. ANd they found more mites in the small cell foundation.

It would be interesting to see them do the same experiment with regressed bees.

Not sure what to make of it...


----------



## Jerry Simmons (Nov 19, 2005)

Just throwing some small cell comb helter-skelter into a bee hive for one month is not going to provide the results that small cell colonies produce. If you read how the small cell Beeks do the whole thing and then re-read the article, you would know it is nowhere close to what actually happens.

[ December 04, 2005, 09:48 PM: Message edited by: B Wrangler ]


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

The NZ study isn't a bad test to study the effect small cell size has on the mite behavior. But it's been my experience that cell size has more to do with bee behavior. And it's how cell size affects the bees behavior that allows for mite tolerance.

My bees, when on small cell sized comb, can effectively detect and remove mite infected pupa. They also learn to destroy the mites themselves with well over 90% of all the natural mite fall showing bee damaged mites. And the damage is so severe and obvious that a magnify lens isn't need to observe it. They kill them!

I've counted a bazillion mites, on mite trays, since 1996. The normal natural mite fall trend, on large cell was something like this. Early spring 0 to 3 mites/day. Early summer 3 to 10 mites/day. Mid summer 10 to 50 mites/day. Late summer 15 to 100 mites/day. Late fall 30 to 100s of mites/day.

After the first season on small cell, mite fall stabilized at 1 to 4 mites/week without any seasonal increase. Yes WEEK!

And that's inspite of the fact that my few hives of bees are surrounding by about 5000 migratory hives. All of these hives are situated on less than 10000 acreas of alfalfa. And 500 of them are within 2 miles of my test apiary. These commercial hives have collapsed twice from varroa pressure, in spite of being treated. And they are on the verge of another collapse this year. My small cell and natural cell tbhs just keep on trucking with no need of any mite treatment since 1999. 

When I've placed some of the bees from my small cell hives onto larger comb, these bees needed mite treatment, by the end of the first season, to survive. Hence the oxalic evaporator and powdered sugar seen on my website, to treat my large cell experimental hives.

From a natural comb perspective, an observation that more varroa could be found in the small cell comb at certain times of the year, would actually assure their destruction at a time when the rest of the broodnest is backfilled with honey and broodnest cleasning begins in the small cell sized broodnest core.

Here's how my beekeeping has changed. Before small cell and then natural cell/tbhing which makes it much easier, I had a desk drawer full of mite research. I had a cabinet full of mite chemicals. I always had a pile of empty bee equipment. I order packages every spring to make up for winter losses. I reared queens for myself and others every year. And my honey production was slightly better than average for my area.

After small cell/natural cell. The mite research papers are gone and I don't waste my time reading any new mite research. That makes most bee magazines pretty thin in content. :>)No cabinet of chemicals. No empty bee equipment. No more queen rearing or ordering packages. And my honey production is more than twice what it was before. So, I've given two thirds of my hives away and all of my large cell stuff away!

Regards
Dennis

[ December 04, 2005, 10:02 PM: Message edited by: B Wrangler ]


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

Hi Dennis,

I've read your website end to end and followed many of your posts here
I've learned a lot and appreciate the effort you've put into sharing your knowledge
As a rookie (first year, just one hive) I'm trying to implement the principles you and other advocates of small/natural cell size beekeeping suggest
Next year I plan to expand to 8-10 hives and I'm trying to figure out how to proceed
As a rookie, the natural size cell seems a no brainer, it doesn't cost me anything (I save money on foundation), but I wonder about bee stock.
You have to admit, it appears like the small/natural cell advocates seem to have solved a terrible problem with an awfully simple solution, I'm curious if genetics plays some part in the solution 
What kind of bee's are you running?
I don't recall you talking about any big selective breeding process like the Lusby's went thru
I believe your website does mention trying different types of bee's and getting similar results
What are you thoughts on the relationship between different strains of bee's and cell size??

Thought?
Ideas?
Cunning insights?

Dave


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Dave,

>the natural size cell seems a no brainer, it doesn't cost me anything....

I'm going to assume you are expanding using top bar hives. I used small cell foundation in my Lang hives. And I don't have any experience with a natural broodnest structure in a Lang hive. I had actually planned to give this a test back in 1999. But built a tbh instead, which diverted me from that track :>)

>I don't recall you talking about any big selective breeding process like the Lusby's went thru...

I haven't written much about it, but I did regress my bees and over 75% of them died by the end of that first season. The remaining 'survivors' were very weak. The largest colony consisted of four frames of bees and a queen! The rest were closer to two frames of bees in size. 

I expanded using these bees. But most these bees proved to be very susceptible to para foulbrood. And I would have lost all my bees, small cell comb, etc. if I hadn't treated them with tetra and requeened with other stock. That's when I bought a few queens from just about every commercial queen producer including Strachan New World Carniolans, Glenn Russians and Carniolans and SMart, USDA Russian, Weaver Harbo, All American, Buckfast and Russian, Miska Italian and Carniolan, Bolling Caucasians, Minnesota Hygienic Italians and some Lusbee nucs.

They all tolerated mites when on small cell comb. But not all of them had the other qualitites I desire in my bees.

>What kind of bee's are you running...

New World Carniolan, Weaver Harbo, Buckfast and All American bees have formed the basis for my mutts. I simply select my best couple of hives and extensively split them into small nucs, allowing them to make and mate their own queens.

>What are your thoughts on the relationship between different strains of bee's and cell size...

Comb drawing behavior is genetically determined. The USDA has inbreed bees that can't drawn any comb at all. But when I've dissected broodnests from historically larger bees(New World Carniolans) and smaller bees(Lusbees and Russians), they have all constructed broodnests with the same kind of cell size distribution.

So, the relationship between bee strain and cell size is a non-issue for me. All of my bee selections are done on characteristics other than mite tolerance and cell size.

But since comb drawing/broodnest structure is genetically determined, improvements for specific conditions could be selected for. Maybe a bee could be found that tapers cell size faster than the average bee which would result in more small cell sized comb in a shorter vertical space. Such a bee could be better for beekeepers using a shallower tbh or for natural comb beekeepers in Lang hives if frames prove to be an impediment in the broodnest structure. Etc. 

>Thought...

A beekeeper with a dozen hives will get to know each one. So try a few different kinds of bees. And after a season, you will intuitively know colony is the best hive for you. Then work with that one. 

As a former small time queen rearer and large scale commercial beekeeper, I'll share a seldom mentioned fact about US bee races: there's almost as much variation within a selection as there is between selections. 

I've personally found that once I get a bee that suits my needs and attempt to get a better bee by incorporating another selection into the process, I always reget it. For every additional good trait incorporated, there will be a negative one which will take years to work out of an operation.

Regards
Dennis


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

Dennis

>>I'm going to assume you are expanding using top bar hives.

I've built a couple of topbar hives using ideas borrowed from you and others

http://www.drobbins.net/bee's/lh/lh.html

I hope to build 2 more by spring
I'm also gonna start a couple of langstroth hives, something like 4 of each
I'm just a hobbiest so it will be interesting to compare

I'm gonna purchase 3-4 packages of italians in the spring since they're locally available and then try to make a couple of splits which I'll start with some kind of "fancier" genetics (the elusive "super bee's")








That ought to get me going with a nice mix of "toy's" to play with 

Thanks for all the advice
Dave


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Neat hives, Dave. Thanks for the photos. Bee sure to let us know how they work for you. 

I think the ultimate bee hive is a long hive like yours that can be worked vertically.

Best Regards
Dennis


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

drobbins . . .

Looks like your a "good" beekeeper AND an "excellent" WOODWORKER.


----------



## Saluda Ranger (Nov 26, 2005)

Has anyone ever bought a nuc and transferred it into a TBH? I am sure you would have to build your TBh with specific dimensions to accomodate the nuc frames. Anyone have any comments or plans for such a thing? I am finding small cell packages for spring difficult to acquire at best. I amy be able to find a nuc however.

Thanks to Drobbins for the great photos. Your boxes are certainly beautiful. Good luck and thanks to all for the great conversation.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Has anyone ever bought a nuc and transferred it into a TBH? I am sure you would have to build your TBh with specific dimensions to accomodate the nuc frames.

Or build "swarm catching" frames to fit the top bar hive and cut the brood comb out of the nuc and put them in the frames.

http://www.beesource.com/plans/swarmframe.htm

>Anyone have any comments or plans for such a thing?

Most of my TBH are a long medium depth Langstroth hive and I can put medium frames in it. I would have to use medium swarm catching frames if I got a deep nuc, or find a way to just cut the bottom off of the frames.

> I am finding small cell packages for spring difficult to acquire at best.

I'm sure. The only two moderately commercial sized opereations were so overwelmed last year (and hit by bad weather) that many people were left dissapointed. You might talke to Fatbeeman from this site.


----------



## Saluda Ranger (Nov 26, 2005)

You are a wealth of information. Thank you so much.


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Jay,

>Has anyone ever bought a nuc and transferred it into a TBH? I am sure you would have to build your TBh with specific dimensions to accomodate the nuc frames. Anyone have any comments or plans for such a thing? 

My latest design has enough space beneath the top bar for deep frames. See: http://bwrangler.litarium.com/kenyan-top-bar-hive/

Barry Birkey has a tbh that will accomodate deep frames as well. When he transfered a split into his tbh, he just screwed the deep frame to the bottom of the top bar. See: http://www.beesource.com/eob/althive/birkey/index.htm

Regards
Dennis


----------



## Saluda Ranger (Nov 26, 2005)

These are very well thought out and drawn out plans. I am going to be in my garage this weekend working away on a TBH based on your deeper design. I like the way regular frames fit due to the less sloped sides. And it looks so easy to build- I think I can do it! Thanks for the inspiration. This beesource is such a great way to exchange ideas.
THANKS TO EVERYONE FOR HELPING ME GET MY BEE PROJECT GOING!

JAY


----------



## Finman (Nov 5, 2004)

Varroa has killed feral bees in New Zeland

http://www.beekeeping.com/articles/us/nz_bee_devastation.htm 

In 4 years feral bees have vahished when varroa arrived to Auckland.

Be carefull top bar - beekeepers. I have had varroa 20 years. No problem.

*************
Same has happened in USA, South Africa, in Finland ....


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

The feral bees here where I live, didn't get the memo.


----------



## Finman (Nov 5, 2004)

LOOK AT ARC-PROJECT 

http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/projects/projects.htm?ACCN_NO=407275

2004 Results: http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/projects/projects.htm?ACCN_NO=407275&showpars=true&fy=2004


How bees kill mites: http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/oct05/hive1005.htm


----------



## Sasha (Feb 22, 2005)

Finman
Be carefull top bar - beekeepers. I have had varroa 20 years. No problem.

How is that?Just throw some more chemicals on bees?For how long?Have you heared about mites developing resistance to chemical treatments?

Or do you thing it is a good thing for bees to develop evolutionary in a chemical (poison)dependent creatures,so we can gain some more honey ,profit.

Sasha


----------



## Joseph Clemens (Feb 12, 2005)

> The feral bees here where I live, didn't get the memo. [Smile]


Same here. Haven't really seen a lack of feral colonies. Started my colonies with captured feral bees. For at least the past 20 years there continue to be many feral colonies throughout my area.


----------



## PaulR (May 24, 2005)

I've only seen a few feral colonies where I live, but they are very viable and very strong.

I wanted to thank bwrangler for his work, everyone should read his website, he has a plethora of information. 
I've discovered ferals, in a tree, building 5.1mm - 5.4mm cells. Cell building is based on bee genetics. When we put small cell foundation into a hive we are artificially forcing the bees to adopt a size.


----------



## stangardener (Mar 8, 2005)

-When we put small cell foundation into a hive we are artificially forcing the bees to adopt a size.

small cell-4.9mm-isnt an unnatural size for bees. what is unnatural is "forcing" the bees to 
draw one size of cell exclusive of others.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I agree that ANY foundation is forcing the bees to adopt a particular size. 4.9mm is more natural than 5.4mm but it's still not natural. Naturally they will draw a wide variety of sizes. Some of those will be 4.9mm. In my observation, not much if any will be 5.4mm.


----------



## PaulR (May 24, 2005)

But if we were to refer to the scientific reason, it WOULD be genetic. No one would say that the apis cerana(41mm-44mm) should be placed on 49mm, they build according to their genetic predisposition, or the apis florea, apis dorsata, apis laboriosa, apis mellifera, et cetera. The apis mellifera scutellata builds 47mm-49mm, apis mellifera(European) 52mm-56mm. And we could argue there are no pure races in North America. However, thanks to cell measurements taken in native habitats by researchers from Brother Adam until present day, we've got a good idea of the size cell built by each race.

See the following article. 
http://www.beekeeping.com/articles/us/small_beekeeping/


----------



## stangardener (Mar 8, 2005)

-apis mellifera(European) 52mm-56mm

by nature (genetics) this is considered by some beeks "unnatural". instead this size would be by nurture (human manipulation). the idea is that the bees have to "regress" back to their natural size. this takes multiple cycles of brood building multiple cycles of smaller and smaller comb until a natural range is obtained.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>apis mellifera(European) 52mm-56mm

There have been plenty of measurments taken over the centuries. If you look in the POV section for Dee Lusby's writings she has references to many articles and discussions on the size of bees and comb and the concept of enlarging it. We have plenty of easy to find evidence that bees used to be smaller.

Find ABC & XYZ of Bee Culture books and look under Cell Size.

Heres some quotes from them:

ABC & AXY of Bee Culture 38th Edition Copyright 1980 page 134

If the average beekeeper were asked how many cells, worker and drone comb, there were to the inch, he would undoubtedly answer five and four, respectively. Indeed some text books on bees carry that ratio. Approximately it is correct, enough for the bees, particularly the queen. The dimensions must be exact or there is a protest. In 1876 when A.I. Root, the original author of this book, built his first roll comb foundation mill, he had the die faces cut for five worker cells to the inch. While the bees built beautiful combs from this foundation, and the queen laid in the cells, yet, if given a chance they appeared to prefer their own natural comb not built from comb foundation. Suspecting the reason, Mr. Root then began measuring up many pieces of natural comb when he discovered that the initial cells, five to the inch, from his first machine were slightly too small. The result of his measurements of natural comb showed slightly over 19 worker cells to four inches linear measurement, or 4.83 cells to one inch.

Roughly this same information is in the 1974 version of ABC and XYZ of Bee Culture on page 136; the 1945 version on page 125; the 1877 version, on page 147 says: The best specimens of true worker-comb, generally contain 5 cells within the space of an inch, and therefore this measure has been adopted for the comb foundation.

This is followed in all but the 1877 version, by the way, with a section on will larger cells develop a larger bee and info on Baudoux.s research.

So lets do the math:

Five cells to an inch, the standard size for foundation in the 1800s and the commonly accepted measurement from that era, is five cells to 25.4mm which is ten cells to 50.8mm. This is 4mm smaller than standard foundation is now. 

A.I. Root's measurement of 4.83 cells to an inch is 5.25mm which is 1.5mm smaller than standard foundation. Of course if you measure comb much youll find a lot of variance in cell size, which makes it very difficult to say exactly what size natural comb is. But I have measured (and photographed) 4.7mm comb from commercial Carniolans and I have photographs of comb from bees Pennsylvania that are 4.4mm. Typically there is a lot of variance with the core of the brood nest the smallest and the edges the largest. You can find a lot of comb from 4.8mm to 5.2mm with most of the 4.8mm in the center and the 4.9mm, 5.0mm and 5.1mm moving out from there and the 5.2mm at the very edges of the brood nest. There is also variation by how you space the frames, or variation on how THEY space the combs. 1 ½ (38mm) will result in larger cells than 1 3/8 (35mm) which will be larger than 1 ¼ (32mm). In naturally spaced comb the bees will sometimes crowd the combs down to 30mm in places with 32mm more common in just brood comb and 35mm more common where there is drone on the comb. So what is natural comb spacing? It is the same problem as saying what natural cell size is. It depends.

But in my observation, if you let them do what they want, for a couple of comb turnovers, you can find out what the range of these is and what the norm is. The norm was (and is) NOT the standard foundation size of 5.4mm cells and it is NOT the standard comb spacing of 35mm comb.

BTW Baudoux was doing experiments with sizes of foundation from 4.7mm up to 5.555mm. Even he, and he was obsessed with trying to make the bees larger, hadn't got up to 5.6mm yet at the time of those charts. So European Honey Bees were apparently building 4.7mm foundation into 4.7mm cells for him in the late 1800's and early 1900's.


----------



## oldgreyone (Apr 30, 2005)

>>They all tolerated mites when on small cell comb. But not all of them had the other qualitites I desire in my bees.

What qualities do you find desirable?

Do you think a standard set of qualities are needed for beekeepers or if each area should try to develop a bee that works best in their area?

Any hints on what to look for in selecting ideal bees for your local environment?


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Oldgreyone,

Everyone wants productive, gentle, disease resistant bees that overwinter great. And some even want them to be a specific color :>)

But I'm going to toss out something a little different. First, when selecting bees, a beekeeper must get to know the colonies specifically. And that can take some time. A season at least, and maybe more is required. With lots of hives, think thousands, mark them and watch them. If you have just a few, you will know each one as well as a man with several dogs knows his pets.

Through time, several colonies will begin to stand out. I find it easier and more realistic to keep some simple records and not get too involved with the 'numbers'. When focused on the numbers, it's just too easy to become myopic. Some other very unquantifiable but important characteristics can easily be lost when chasing the numbers. After all, it's going to be a relative and somewhat subjective comparison between your hives. After a time, you will know the best colonies that suit your needs. Breed from those. When you've repeated this process a few times, the knowing becomes very intuitive.

So, how would your bees stack up against all those other productive, gentle, disease resistant bees that overwinter great as advertised in the b mags? There's only one way to know and that's the same way as before. You've got to get to know them for yourself.

One fact that's easily forgotten is that all honeybees are more alike than different. It you ordered a hundred queens reared off the same breeder and mated in the same yard, and looked at a single characteristic, about 10% of them would be on one end of the spectrum. Another 10% would be at the opposite end of the spectrum. And the other 80% would be just about an average of the two. The bell shaped curve is very flat rather than narrowly peaked. And this is another good reason why it takes quite a few queens to properly assess a breeders stock.

Testing done by Farrar and others indicated that colony performance was more dependant on 'how'
replacement queens were raised, rather than on what kind of stock they were raised from. I suspect this is true of many other qualities as well.

Regards
Dennis

[ March 24, 2006, 09:06 PM: Message edited by: B Wrangler ]


----------



## RBar (Jun 22, 2005)

I just installed some Russians...one package in a Standard Lang, the other in a TBH...for comparison/fun. 
I had earlier installed two full sheets of wired, small cell (4.9) foundation trimed to the sides, and four 1/2 sheets, also trimed to the sides.
(The TBH was actually easier, I think.
However, it had not occured to me until I started to install them that one cannot install between the bars as in a LANG...duhhhh...it leaves the top open...
I made an extra top bar, sawed out a square slot just large enough to drop the queen cage into...
So, quick-fix, I dropped the queen cage in the slot after removing the plug, dumped the bees in the empty space one frame away from her, then shut it up. I reduced the entrance significantly at first, at least until a day or two after the queen is released.)
Second day, checked both for the queen's release, neither were released yet...many bees clustered around her, hanging in chains from her...no problem with them finding her.
Much comb already present, REGULAR, ON THE FOUNDATION, NORMAL PACKAGE BEES, APPARENTLY UNREGRESSED, APPEAR TO BE BUILDING PERFECT COMB ON THE SMALL CELL WITH NO PROBLEM...YET. If they keep this up, I will start having smaller bees in a month? Could it really be that easy? Did I miss something? Experienced TBH people: What do I need to watch out for?
Incidently, they seemed very much at home, and surprisingly calm. I poked a hole in the candy with a stick, too big of a hole and the queen bailed out immediately, into the TBH, thankfully.
Replaced the TB with the hole for the queen cage with a regular TB, no foundation. I think I will add foundation to all, it just works sooooo well. 
Last night, marked queen was not found...very disappointing. Looked at all frames once again and found her, but without the white marking...maybe just a flake...did the workers remove the marking? 
Do watch for attachments to the wall though, I suspect I got one too close to a side and I broke the edge before I realized it, being fresh new comb...I'm going to drop an old hacksaw blade in the empty side of the hive to have handy for a comb-release tool.
Oh well, so far so good with my first TBH...
'Sorry for the long post, but someone out there may find it helpful or interesting.

Roy


----------



## jdb5949 (Oct 13, 2004)

Rbar,
I don't have enough practical experience to answer your questions, but I do know that anything placed in the hive gets propolised quickly. How quickly depends on the strength of the hive. Your old hacksaw blade will not be "handy" in two weeks, in a full-sized hive.


----------



## RBar (Jun 22, 2005)

James, 
The empty blocked off rear section is where I'll keep the hacksaw blade...I HOPE that soon there is no place to keep it...means the hive is full!

Roy


----------



## Scot Mc Pherson (Oct 12, 2001)

James and RBar,
You can place your tools above the topbars under the cover.

James,
Your hives should have plenty of room in the Attic to hide just about anything except maybe a smoker.


----------



## RBar (Jun 22, 2005)

Thanks, Scott!
My roof is pretty shallow, but will still handle everything but the smoker, and I have almost stopped using that darn thing altogether...more trouble than it is worth.
Not sure why I ever used it...over time I have found myself pulling frames out for inspections, checking on the queen, etc., and forgetting to wear gloves or veil...haven't been stung yet.
With the TBH, I think I need it even less.
Scott, your earlier advice to me was the reason I tried the TBH this year; I appreciate the inspiration.

Roy
Roy


----------



## Scot Mc Pherson (Oct 12, 2001)

Which advice was that? I haven't been here in quite a while.


----------



## BerkeyDavid (Jan 29, 2004)

Yeah, where the heck have you been? Traveling around the country between Iowa and Florida?  

Yah gonna have any bees this year Scott?


----------



## RBar (Jun 22, 2005)

Scott,
I emailed you some pics a while back of the wild swarm I caught...and asked some questions about your TBHs after looking at your pics.
Did I hear somewhere that you moved up north?

Roy


----------



## Scot Mc Pherson (Oct 12, 2001)

David,
Yeah I got bees. A LOT of bees, I am a commercial operator now with first product to sell in 2007.

RBar,
I gave a lot of people advice over the years and I can't quite remember specifically what I advised you on.

I moved to Iowa from Florida last fall. Sold my bees there, bought lumber for 500 TBH hives, and am going to pick up the bees in 1 week in missori. I have been real busy. That's a lot of lumber don'tcha know.


----------

