# Natural Cell Size Experiment



## RiodeLobo (Oct 11, 2010)

The range was very interesting, however did you do an analysis to determine the average size?


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

How many would I have to measure?

I guess for me, the average doesn't really mean all that much. I now know for a fact that there is a range between 4.9 and 5.2. An average is in reality a number which may or may not even exist within the sample.

I have 4.9mm foundation and 4.95mm plastic frames. Both those are shown conclusively to be within my range of values. That's all I need to know. If the bees need anything else, they have foundationless frames.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Good experiment Sol. I'm actually going to do something like that once I've had bees on small cell for 2 years, let them build natural comb and see what they do.

However, your experiment lacks one thing. To truly let your bees "regress" back to the cell size they would prefer, you would need to do the exact opposite of what people do when regressing down. You would need to remove all sc foundation, let the bees breed in the larger cells they have built, and then see what sized cells the next generation build. As when bees regress down, they need several cell size stages to do it, it is likely the same, if letting them regress up.

The the next phase, once the bees have established a permanent cell size that may be larger than your sc foundation, would be to see how that affects varroa resistance, ie, are they as resistant as the others.

I'm planning on doing all these experiments myself, so I'll be following yours with interest, if you take it all the way.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Actually another interesting thing would be to see if there is any effect on the size of the honey harvest, once bees have the cell size THEY decided to build.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Oldtimer said:


> However, your experiment lacks one thing ... You would need to ... if you take it all the way.


This stuff has been done to death, and I don't plan to continue beating a dead horse. The results are going to be the same as they have always been. The bees build a range of cell sizes that are typically smaller than the standard foundations available to us. There is no need for further testing. There is no need to find some 'average'. It is irrelevant. It's a range, and it's smaller. That really is all there is to it. 

I trust Dee Lusby, I trust Michael Bush, I trust my own results. I'd like to get on with my beekeeping experience without getting mired in nit-picking issues that really don't matter. The more foundationless frames I pull, the more I expect them to cover a range of cell sizes that is slightly smaller than the standard foundation available. That's all I've ever seen, that's all I've ever heard of. This is not new technology, not to me, and not to others. It is what it is and looking at it for more decades than it has already been looked at will not change the results. Furthermore, cell size is only part of the puzzle, and I postulate that it is part of the puzzle that has already been solved. Not all agree, but I can't change that. It's literally arguing over tenths of millimeters. It's not worth it.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Surprised at the tone of your reply, and you completely misunderstand the intent, and genuine interest of what I said.

Sorry I posted.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

I apologize if my tone was offensive, it was not intended to be so. 

I really have seen all this before. It really has all been done before. Eight years ago, it was Michael Bush and Dennis What's-his-name and Dee Lusby and Barry Birkey.

My experiment was to see if using foundationless frames was a viable option. It appears to be. I have purchased some Kelley foundationless mediums which I plan to test next year.

Sorry if I misunderstood the interest in your post, I have a younger brother whose mouth often produces the words "you should..."


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Never mind. I've re read my post & can see how it could be interpreted the way you took it. I let my enthusiasm run away with me. Just that internet thing I guess.


----------



## rwurster (Oct 30, 2010)

I started out foundationless and that's all I've ever used. I have 10 frames of drawn comb in an empty deep that I was going to use in swarm traps in the spring. Whenever I get out to the apiary I'll measure a few samples of them for giggles. I only have an english units caliper so i'll have to do a conversion but it should still be accurate into the 10ths of a mm. We are going to get 4 inches of snow today so my trip won't be for another few days or so but I'll check it then if my memory doesn't fail me. Don't know if it matters that I have carnis (that have been making russian daughters for a while now) but they've always been foundationless from day 1. I doubt the results will be miraculous but now I'm interested to see the my own results


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Oldtimer said:


> To truly let your bees "regress" back to the cell size they would prefer, you would need to do the exact opposite of what people do when regressing down. You would need to remove all sc foundation, let the bees breed in the larger cells they have built, and then see what sized cells the next generation build.


Wouldn't you need to do this over several generations to see where they end up stabilizing? After each generation, take away the comb and require them to build new. Are we saying the same thing?


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Yes that's what I meant.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

I'll be interested in following your work.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Thanks. I'll basically be doing the same as I did with that other natural cell hive, but starting from sc bees. But this year is just about increasing my numbers of sc bees, I won't do the nc thing till next year.

Once it's under way I'll post pics and stuff. 

From a comb foundation only person, I'm now doing some nc in most hives, just to get more drones out there. Anyhow back to Sol, don't want to hijack his thread.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Sorry guys, my days with experimenting with cell size are over. I don't wanna be pulling perfectly good comb anymore. It's taken me eight years to get a goodly number of hives full of well drawn comb and now I wanna start breeding and producing nucs and honey. 

If I had posted these pics back in 2002, I would have been very popular. Alas, I was uncool before uncool was cool. I'm hoping for a mass exodus from packages to nucs. Then I can handle some business.


----------



## iwombat (Feb 3, 2009)

Sol, yes it's been done to death. Still, it's amazing how many people still don't quite believe it. I make a habit of taking measurements on cut-outs and the like. 5.1 is about the upper end around here, with the lower end being 4.7. Interestingly enough, I did some measurements in Hawaii this year on some top-bar hives and they ranged between 5.1 and 5.4. I thought this was pretty interesting, but didn't really know the history of the hives. So, it could be an issue of regression. It makes sense that size might be climate dependent though.

Food for thought.

Edit: Ok I just found a reference to Lusby's chart. Why have I never seen that before? Makes perfect sense.
(http://www.beesource.com/point-of-v...ta-on-the-influence-of-cell-size/climate-map/)


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

You've just answered your own question and explained why some people don't believe it.

In my own case, when I started reading beesource I saw posts from gurus, saying that the natural size for a cell is 4.9 mm. From my own experience in my own country, I knew this not to be true. So of course I was cautious about everything else the guru said too. If that happened to me, it must also have happened to others. That's why there are non believers. 

The first person on beesource to tell me that small cell and natural cell are not the same thing, was Barry. I already knew that, but had got the idea that everybody on beesource thought otherwise.

It's probably about providing full information.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

I realize people in the know are bored with this information. But I am not in the know.
Has anyone noticed a benefit to natural cell size? I do realize that it seems most people are going back to a 4.9mm cell but that could be influenced by being the most convenient while still being beneficial. Is natural comb worth it basically?


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

"Most people are going back to a 4.9mm cell"

Please qualify this statement. Are you saying most treatment free people?


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

No, it is just the majority of comments I read here. Seems to me that there was a trend toward larger cells that resulted in problems with Varrao mites. I have seen a lot of comments that people have large cell foundation setting on shelves and they no longer want to use it in favor of 4.9mm.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

I think you're reading into things. I would put the actual percent of beekeepers using SC under 10%. Call suppliers and ask them what percent of foundation they sell is SC.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Barry, You may very well be right. I realize that forums such as this tend to draw attention to only certain things. complaints about suppliers for example. 99 customers can be perfectly happy and never post a word. but the one unhappy one can cause a 15 page thread.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Daniel Y said:


> Seems to me that there was a trend toward larger cells that resulted in problems with Varrao mites.


Actually the problem with varroa mites is a result of the (likely inadvertant) introduction of an exotic parasite.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

"I realize that forums such as this tend to draw attention to only certain things. complaints about suppliers for example."

Or brand new beekeepers trying to tell experienced ones how to do things. Yep, it's all covered in forums like this.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

I've come to the conclusion that the cell size issue has come to be such a point of contention because of our scientifically minded culture. It's the same with some religious, political, and social issues. Scientific study is very very often simplified by making assumptions and removing variables so that the study can be based on just one or a couple variables and not all of them. It's those simplifying assumptions that really lead the science based in the natural world to useful conclusions and productive innovations. 

I am intimately familiar with these constructs as a civil engineer. I just finished a five page spreadsheet for the design of an aeration basin for a waste water treatment plant, and I'd dare to say 3-4 pages of that was based on assumptions made because actually testing for those parameters would be prohibitively expensive. In this type of engineering and especially with foundation engineering, factors of safety can be applied which smooths out the problems that may exist in the design due to simplifying assumptions.

As far as I know, there are no factors of safety in beekeeping (except maybe in the amount of honey one leaves for winter). I submit that in scientifically based beekeeping studies, the simplifying assumptions are what causes much of the strife between the treating and not-treating crowds. Yes, the studies show that small cell doesn't help, but again it comes to the simplifying assumptions. None of the studies tested under real world conditions, over the space of years like actual beekeepers keep bees. I hope Michael Bush will explain it because he can do it better than me.

One of the simplifying assumptions is that the number 4.9 means anything. It doesn't. It's just a number. It's an average. Averages are mathematical constructs, just like wind chill. They don't actually exist. They are a fabrication of mankind to make another simplifying assumption. 4.9 is useful for understanding the issue, to achieve a sense of perspective, but beyond that, it's useless. We all know for a fact naturally, bees build a range of cell sizes. So the idea of having a magic 4.9 number has very limited application. We choose not to make foundation rollers with a range of cell sizes, another simplifying assumption. I'm sure it's possible, but it would be a pain.

It's like when Oldtimer was doing his experiment and he found out that his foundation was 5.0mm and not 4.9mm. He was concerned because he seemed to feel that he wasn't reaching his goal of real small cell beekeeping. It was my position that it wasn't that big of a deal.

But here are the realities. Cell size isn't the only variable. Having exactly 4.9mm cells isn't the only answer. Dee said it was a combination of cell size, genetics, and management. Kirk Webster says that a collapse and recovery is necessary. http://www.kirkwebster.com/index.php/collapse-and-recovery-the-gateway-to-treatment-free-beekeeping A big part of it is raising your own queens. I have always said that you had to lose a bunch of bees and expand up from the survivors. I only wish I had more time to be intense about it. One of the overriding problems in my view is that most people don't seem willing to lose a hive if they can at all help it. They always want to help. They always want a simple solution.

But as has been proven, there are no simple answers. Treatment-free beekeeping is simple in concept (don't treat, expand from survivors) but truly understanding and implementing it is complex and difficult. Thus far, there are relatively few willing to do it. It's like I tell my tutoring students: "They don't pay you good money to do easy stuff."


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Solomon Parker said:


> I submit that in scientifically based beekeeping studies, the simplifying assumptions are what causes much of the strife between the treating and not-treating crowds.


I think you are oversimplifying it 
Much of the strife, as you refer to it, is a result of personal experience, in my opinion. 
Many folks, in my opinion, advise beginning beekeepers to go untreated without adding the following caveat:


Solomon Parker said:


> Kirk Webster says that a collapse and recovery is necessary.


Dennis (Bwrangler?) said much the same. 
This is my biggest concern. I get calls each season from new beekeepers whose hives have collapsed. I ask how they treated for mites. Sometimes I get a long silence. Sometimes I hear something to the effect 'I don't have mites, I'm using small cell'. And the next season, when I pass by their houses, I usually see empty hives or no hives at all. 
I believe there is a place for untreated hives. I've supported Dann Purvis and his queen breeding philosophy. I believe that, as Tom Seeley has suggested, untreated mites may become less virulent. But...from my experience, getting to a place that one can successfully keep bees without any treatments can be a painful trip.
And I only hope to warn those inexperienced beekeepers to be prepared for that pain, if they choose this path.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

You make some good points. For a number of years now, I have suggested two primary things to new beekeepers trying out Treatment-Free. 

First, don't get bees in the same year you decide to become a beekeeper. Stew in it over a winter and see if you're still interested. It gives you time to plan and accumulate equipment.

Secondly, don't start with one hive. Start with no less than five. 

This advice, if taken, does three things, it makes a larger investment and longer time to think about it, weeding out those who aren't serious and it gives a greater chance of at least one hive surviving the first winter.

Furthermore, from what I'm hearing from Michael Palmer and others there is a very high failure rate among packages and purchased queens. Newbees should invest in nucs alone. This seems quite a bit worse then when I started when I purchased 20 packages and after five years and no splitting, there were still five of them. From what I'm hearing, that can't be done now.

I started a thread a while back for newbees and quickly got chastised for being a downer because everyone was sharing their cautions. But it's the truth. You can't just 'not treat' and expect everything to come out okay. It is far more complex than that. Some failures are due to simple chance, but many are due to not being properly prepared, informed, and educated. I'd submit that success in beekeeping is never due to chance.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Hi Sol, for a guy who is done talking about cell size, your'e not doing a bad job! 
I have some comments


Solomon Parker said:


> Scientific study is very very often simplified by making assumptions and removing variables so that the study can be based on just one or a couple variables and not all of them. It's those simplifying assumptions that really lead the science based in the natural world to useful conclusions and productive innovations.


Very good comment and I see this type of oversimplification over and over. Most things bees have a myriad of cause and effect factors. Although I'm experimentingwith sc myself, I do get frustrated with some of the oversimplistic reasoning used in sc teachings. One such is often stated, that around a century ago people started converting to a large cell size. This coincided, 70 or whatever years later, with the arrival of varroa mites and widespread other diseases. The conclusion drawn is that the use of large cell is responsable. To me, it would make far more sense, to bring another variable into account, being that during the same time period we moved from bees that were largely stationary, to the widespread transportation all over the globe of products, including bees and bee products, and cut flowers, which I believe may be the vector how varroa got to my country.




Solomon Parker said:


> One of the simplifying assumptions is that the number 4.9 means anything. It doesn't. It's just a number. It's an average. Averages are mathematical constructs, just like wind chill. They don't actually exist. They are a fabrication of mankind to make another simplifying assumption. 4.9 is useful for understanding the issue, to achieve a sense of perspective, but beyond that, it's useless. We all know for a fact naturally, bees build a range of cell sizes. So the idea of having a magic 4.9 number has very limited application.


You may be right, and I hope you are. But the likes of Dee Lusby specifically state it must be 4.9 (or lower). In a lot of the literature this number is pretty much set in stone.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

I dont have any dog in the fight on cell size so it is interesting to sit back and watch the discussions and see what kind of evidence is collected and if there is obvious effort to avoid assumptions or arriving at preconceived conclusions.

I dont think that eliminating a big bunch of potential variables from your input is a scientific method of problem solving. It might get you quick answers and it could very conceivably beget the desired answer but that is not scientific method. I think it is the introduction as fact, matters which are accepted merely on faith or incomplete observations that make decisions drawn out. Failing to identify all contributing factors or jumping to conclusions about the significance of results makes for delays in solid answers.

People have come to faulty conclusions and state them very solemnly and defend vehemently some that are simply incorrect, though they still be a matter of common discussion. I could state that from long personal observation of their concurrence and unfailing predictability, it is definitely a fact that the waving of the tree branches causes the wind to blow. 

Repeatability in other locations, accounting for all controlling influences, impartial observation, complete documentation of every move; 100% record keeping. When that is the process I think a workable answer comes fairly quickly unless there are forces at play on the problem that are beyond our understanding.


----------



## rweakley (Jul 2, 2004)

I think the bottom line is that having smaller cells in the center of the brood nest where most of the bees are raised helps. If for no other reason than that the bees hatch out a little faster and 1 or more cycles of varroa breeding doesn't happen. I don't use foundation of any kind because I'm cheap. I don't see the need to invest about $1 more per frame when the bees are capable of doing it themselves. If this was the only benefit to being foundationless (natural cell) I'd do it.

Rod


----------



## delber (Dec 26, 2010)

rweakley said:


> I don't use foundation of any kind because I'm cheap. I don't see the need to invest about $1 more per frame when the bees are capable of doing it themselves. If this was the only benefit to being foundationless (natural cell) I'd do it.
> Rod


I couldn't agree more. When I started out I read all of the factors that have been discussed here also and (my wife wanting me to use "coupons" as she was / is into using) wanting to get more bang for my buck I also went for the more "natural" foundationless. Especially when MB said that in his experience the bees draw it faster than foundation. I do find it fascinating how the sizes of the bees vary so much in a single hive. Last night there were some bees (about 30 or so) that got stuck outside of the hive when it got dark / cold and they didn't make it back in. Well I went and got them and sought to warm them up and get them back in. It was very cool to see how they were all different sizes. From the same hive there were some that were very small almost to the point that I would have thought that they weren't HB's if I would have seen them on a flower or something. (not that bad, I'm exaggerating a bit) I'm not sure how things will end up, but It is a fun ride for sure!!! My wife is even getting into it a little which is a great blessing. The kids have been into it for a while. My wife laughs when we play / rough house and I'm a SHB and my daughter is a bee and son is a beekeeper. :lpf:


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

What happens when you use both? I use foundation because it was convenient and worked well on my second hive. After my first extraction using a gravity drain and heater fan I got it too hot and lost several frames to a collapse. Putting these frames between drawn frames worked perfectly. I don't see where foundation forces the bees to make cells large or small unless they want to. From what I see foundation is just more of a suggestion to the bees. They decide what to do with it.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

It's more than a suggestion. Bees start with the base they're given with foundation. From there, it can go several directions, but it always starts with the base.


----------



## pascopol (Apr 23, 2009)

Reading all those threads about "natural" , "foundationless", or "small cell," beekeeping methods with open mind and positive unorthodox attitude one must conclude that:

Bees will build "natural" workers comb anything between perhaps starting at 4,6mm most likely 4.9mm and 5.2 mm if allowed. Talking about workers cells not drone cells here.

Anybody agrees?

The beekeeping industry in USA pushed for larger cells resulting in larger "better" bees in the last 100+ years.

Any arguments about this?

So there is no question that bees were pushed to build and use cells of 5.4mm or more is it?

Considering how old the bees are here on the planet earth 100 years is a really minuscule period of time, yet they were pushed to use cells about 10% + larger than the ones they built for countless MILLIONS of years. 

What impact did it have on the rather miserable worldwide bee situation is a subject to discussion, obviously there is more to general bee demise than the cell size imposed on them comes in the whole equasion.

However the fact that many successful and widely respected beekeepers (example Michael Bush and others) claim small cells solved most of their beekeeping problems, can not be ignored.

I am an open minded person so I like to challenge orthodox ways of doing things not only in beekeeping but other venues too.

Another widely accepted fact is that the bees form the nest cluster in a "sphere" shape and fashion, meaning round to oval.

Many other and older beekeeping traditions acknowledges that fact (Warre, Japanese hive etc.) using square box perhaps not ideal but likely better than rectangular.

Why do we use a rectangular box for a beehive in US? Barring all different opinions as to cubic nest size etc ?

Narrowing the original Langs hive to 8 frame deeps, or 5 frames nucs makes it even worse and ridiculous.

There are companies pushing "Garden hive setup" comprising stacking up several 5 frame deep supers for a full blown setup. Hard to imagine besides beekeeping merits how they prevent this narrow and tall thing to fall over in a slightest breeze without support. LOL


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

I'd be willing to build a few 12 frame mediums for more square shaped hives, thoughts?


----------



## delber (Dec 26, 2010)

I've done 2 cut-outs now and it's 50/50. One was in a bannister that was about 4" thick and about 3' square and they've been there for a long time (so my father said. . . 10+ years) and looking at the comb it had been there for a good long while. Now it could be debated that it may not be the original hive, but there was no signs of pests other than mites. The second cut-out was in a eve of a roof and that was much more square. However this hive was a new one. There was one there in years past because I could see the old comb that had been eaten through by wax moths and the like. I didn't even fill 2 deep frames w/ the comb from this new hive. They're now in a 5 frame nuc but frame # 5 isn't fully drawn out yet. So they may prefer to cluster in a circle shape, however in my VERY LIMITED experience they make due with whatever they have.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

pascopol said:


> Bees will build "natural" workers comb anything between perhaps starting at 4,6mm most likely 4.9mm and 5.2 mm if allowed. Talking about workers cells not drone cells here.
> 
> Anybody agrees?


Depends where you are on the planet and what bees you have. Over here, it's about 5.3.




pascopol said:


> The beekeeping industry in USA pushed for larger cells resulting in larger "better" bees in the last 100+ years.
> 
> Any arguments about this?


Yes. As previously stated it wasn't pushed. Beekeepers wanted larger cells because they believed, probably correctly at the time, that it would get them more honey. No conspiracy theory, sorry.



pascopol said:


> many successful and widely respected beekeepers (example Michael Bush and others) ..........
> 
> Narrowing the original Langs hive to 8 frame deeps, or 5 frames nucs makes it even worse and ridiculous.


Michael Bush uses 8 frame supers.



pascopol said:


> Why do we use a rectangular box for a beehive in US? Barring all different opinions as to cubic nest size etc ?


 Several reasons, i'll give you 3. Farming is not about being totally natural, it's about productivity. How natural is it to keep cows in a barn? It's not natural, but it's productive. Commercial beekeeping is also about productivity both in terms of what the bees can do, and the beekeeper can do. The dimensions of a lang are a compromise between what the bees like and what suits the beekeeper. Hobby beekeepers make their living from something other than their bees so need not be concerned with productivity, they can use a more natural design if they wish, no issues from me with that. But of course, what's natural? Anything a bee will live in really.
Secondly, bees left to their own devices do not build a perfect sphere. It will normally be longer in the direction the combs run, than wide. Like a lang.
Thirdly the length of a lang frame is a good length, that suits the bees, in a strong 2 brood box colony with queen laying fully, the type of colony we want, to produce a good harvest. 12 frames wide would probably work even better. But hey, how many of those would you want to lift around every day. It's a compromise. As a matter of interest I believe Brother Adam designed such a super, from memory, it was a mammoth 20 inches square. But he had teams of monks to help with the labor.

I know not all that will suit some of the other views expressed, I guess my mind has been polluted from actually having kept bees for more than a few months.


----------



## odfrank (May 13, 2002)

Solomon Parker said:


> I'd be willing to build a few 12 frame mediums for more square shaped hives, thoughts?


I have had ten hives with that size for honey super since I visited Brother Adam in 1978. The brood chambers fit 11 1/4" deep frames. That size honey super weighs about 50 lbs full. Brother Adam tried many sizes of hives and concluded that that square size was the best. The six hives on this little trailer produced about 1100 lbs. as shown.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Did Brother Adam explain his reasoning?


----------



## odfrank (May 13, 2002)

Solomon Parker said:


> Did Brother Adam explain his reasoning?


Yes. Read Beekeeping at Buckfast Abbey. He like one brood chamber rather than a double. He liked deeper frames to give the queen lots of room to lay. He chose the medium depth super for it's final weight, I guess. He thought the 12 frame width was right for wintering in his difficult climate.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Odfrank, a 20 x 20 x 11 1/4 super would hold a heckuva lot more honey than 50 lb's. Are you talking about your 1/2 depth supers?


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Solomon Parker said:


> It's more than a suggestion.


If I put 4.9 foundation in my hives will I get 4.9 cells? If I put no foundation in my hive will I get 4.9 cells? Third question, which method will make the regression faster?


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

pascopol, several point you make I question.
1. where do you come by the information that a cluster is round or that bees want it to be?
2. assuming that you are correct on number one. Why do you consider anything less than 10 frames to small to get that round shape to the cluster. For example I can place a baseball in a shoebox with plenty of room to spare. In addition I have seen comments a couple of times that a 10 frame box may be to large due to the issue of bees using the #1 and #10 frames. On what information do you make the claim that 10 frame is the right size while 8 frame is ridiculous?
3. I am not sure I have heard of anyone using 5 frame nucs as permanent hives. they have a purpose and have been designed to suit that purpose. It is not comparing apples to apples in the case of nucs.

I am very interested in this cluster size and shape issue just not clear on how you come up with the minimum requirements for an average cluster. Or why it is claimed it should be round at all.

I am also a little confused as to just how a colony rotates from the edges of a cluster to the center when individual layers of bees are separated by sheets of comb. The only way I imagine it happening is that each sheet of bees works this rotation out in that particular layer. still if you imagine a ball cut into slices at least a couple of those slices will be like the end of the potato. there is no center to move to in that case. 

Further thought is if you are in fact correct on all the above. would not a round shape to the hive be more suitable? maybe not a ball shape but a tall cylinder with the outer frames very short and each successive frame being a bit longer.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

There are variations on the cylinder hive. There exists a hexagonal style hive mounted on a pole. It doesn't have movable frames though.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Daniel Y said:


> I am also a little confused as to just how a colony rotates from the edges of a cluster to the center when individual layers of bees are separated by sheets of comb.


 I think they move toward the center not to the center. In other words to a point warmer in the cluster. It might actually be more sideways. The space between the foundation wall can almost be 2 inches. You could pack a lot of bees in a 2 inch space.


----------



## odfrank (May 13, 2002)

Oldtimer said:


> Odfrank, a 20 x 20 x 11 1/4 super would hold a heckuva lot more honey than 50 lb's. Are you talking about your 1/2 depth supers?


Yes, the medium depth boxes full weigh about 50 lbs. I have twice drawn out the 11 1/4" frames as a honey super and they probably weigh full of honey around 100lbs. Here are three pictures of that experiment. The honey super to the right of employees' elbow, a full frame and an uncapped frame. They are very fragile in the extractor because of their size even wired two directions. Also the honey was excessively thick. 

http://s156.photobucket.com/albums/t7/odfrank/2009/


----------



## pascopol (Apr 23, 2009)

Oldtimer said:


> Depends where you are on the planet and what bees you have. Over here, it's about 5.3.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How rectangular hive is more "productive" than a square hive? Square hive would be easier and cheaper to make, important part of "productivity" or profitability argument.

Did Rev Langstroth designed his rectangular hive for commercial "productivity" sake or he just used the box he had actually available as is widely believed? 

If that was the case then rectangular Lang hive was not a "compromise" but pure accident.

There is a reason(s) why some outstanding beekeepers of the past Brother Adam included used square hive. In case of Brother Adam built 20 inch square super cause he had free labor available. He would probably settled with smaller size hive closer to Rev Warre size if he had to lift supers himself. But he proved his point of superior productivity using square hive, harvesting record amounts of honey.

Apparently bees liked his square hive.

The Lang hive did not gain much traction anywhere in the World besides English speaking countries. Even Great Brittain beeks stick with their "national' hive.

Should we assume that beekeepers around the World aren't smart enough not jumping on the Langs hive bandwagon?

Or beekeepers around the World having much longer beekeeping traditions than US beekeeping industry say "no thanks" to Lang hive for a reason(s).


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

pascopol said:


> Square hive would be easier and cheaper to make, important part of "productivity" or profitability argument.


How so?
As someone who's actually made a few hives I don't see how making a square one would be any easier or harder.



pascopol said:


> Did Rev Langstroth designed his rectangular hive for commercial "productivity" sake or he just used the box he had actually available as is widely believed?


Widely believed by who?
He and others spent many years designing the hive trying numerous prototypes along the way. He did not just pick up the nearest box he found and make it into a beehive.
Nor did Brother Adam.

But I'm not really interested in debating you over the langstroth vs whatever hive. A discussion of what bees do best in is interesting but this ones likely to go nowhere.


----------



## odfrank (May 13, 2002)

Oldtimer said:


> He did not just pick up the nearest box he found and make it into a beehive.


I had read years ago that he based his prototype on a winebox. Some wine boxes today fit medium frames perfectly, and others are very close. It depends on the variety of wine, because different types use different sizes of bottles. 

I have been catching some nice bait hives in my wine boxes.


----------



## odfrank (May 13, 2002)

pascopol;722401There is a reason(s) why some outstanding beekeepers of the past Brother Adam included used square hive. In case of Brother Adam built 20 inch square super cause he had free labor available. He would probably settled with smaller size hive closer to Rev Warre size if he had to lift supers himself. But he proved his point of superior productivity using square hive said:


> If beekeepers would add beveled cleats to all of their hives they would not have to whine so much about their weight. The reason a hive with only handholds is so hard to lift is that only your finger tips are carrying the weight. I locate my cleats flush with their bottom aligned with the top of the handhold.When one has a beveled cleat to grab with 1+" of your finger tip into the handhold, and able to squeeze it with your palm, a box is much easier to handle. Note in the pictures that my square hives have a beveled cleat all the way around.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Yes I do know about the winebox.

I've even been known to use apple crates myself.

However the hive is not designed just because he thought no further than the shape of the winebox. It's about ergonomics, the winebox was built that shape because of handling, and something around the same size and shape suits the beekeeper as well, for the same reason. Commercial folks anyway, have to have something that suits the bees, but also that they can handle. So there's a compromise solution between the two.

You are correct about the handles making boxes easier to lift. But again it's about compromise. Commercial beekeepers need to have something that can be stored economically, and also fit snugly together on the truck. Also when working a hive if I have to take several boxes off, I'll put some them on their end on the ground to keep them clean, and keep the bees safe. But if there's a cleat, you can't do that.

I like your hive design though Odfrank and have followed your honey crops over the years.  Also, did you actually weigh that super of honey? My suspicion is the full weight of it, honey, box, and all, would have been around 130 lb's, or more. I wouldn't want to be handling truckloads of them!


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Acebird said:


> If I put 4.9 foundation in my hives will I get 4.9 cells?


 If the bees are small enough to build them and the time is right, yes.



Acebird said:


> If I put no foundation in my hive will I get 4.9 cells?


I guarantee you'll get at least one, if you can find it. If you read the very first post of this thread, you'll notice that given the opportunity to build on a foundationless frame, my regressed bees will build cells between 4.9mm and 5.2mm. This will be slightly different for each location, but in general, bees will build a range of cell sizes and that range will be generally smaller than the standard sizes available in foundation.



Acebird said:


> Third question, which method will make the regression faster?


If you use foundation, it will probably be faster. However, that's the only method I've done myself, so that's the only one I really know about.


----------



## odfrank (May 13, 2002)

Oldtimer said:


> Also when working a hive if I have to take several boxes off, I'll put some them on their end on the ground to keep them clean, and keep the bees safe. But if there's a cleat, you can't do that.My suspicion is the full weight of it, honey, box, and all, would have been around 130 lb's, or more. I wouldn't want to be handling truckloads of them!


I stand my cleated supers on the ground all the time. They lean a bit, no problem.
I doubt my 12 frame jumbos weigh as much as a double lang. I will try to weigh them empty.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Weigh it full. Be interesting. Remember the honey you get out is not all the honey. Just a full standard lang can weigh more than 100 lb's


----------

