From: "deelusbybeekeeper" <deelusbybeekeeper@excelonline.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 21:53:00 -0800
To: <BiologicalBeekeeping@egroups.com>
Subject: Re: cell size in supers

Hi to all on Biological Beekeeping at egroups:

BINGO!

> On 10 Jan 2001, at 19:45, Lucinda Sewell wrote:
>
> > Dee, is there any difference extracting small comb? I know you've
> > answered
> > this for me before...but good to archive/ share with others.

To which David Eyre replied:
>
> I'm not Dee, but can answer this one. When I was a boy we always
> used a larger cell for honey supers, I assume it was drone. Now I
> have recently returned to the old ways and the results are quite
> remarkable.
> We now use drone foundation in the shallows, it started as an
> exercise to trap Varroa (which worked) but the extraction time was
> 'considerably' faster. I would suspect it has to do with surface area
> (of the holes) and the viscosity, but the frames came out dryer as
> well. The amount of post extraction drip was also noticeable.
> So, in this case larger is better, if only to speed up extracting!!..

My additional comments:

The larger cell foundation was to be for the honey supers. That is quite
right. Not only does it extract faster and better, but on northern main
flows, the bigger the cell bases, the less wax is needed for the walls on a
sheet of foundation. Then for every pound of wax not having to be drawnout,
you gain a greater amount of honey. You can also with a strong colony or
piggypacked colony (double queens) then stackem high and let the bees race
drawing the combs for more supers drawn out and thus greater volume of honey
produced, but for brood combs, even at the end of the experiments in 1965
published with Apimondia, it was still recommended for brood to have the
bees on their natural sizing.

We all know that there are two ranges of cells in a colony. It would seem we
need better management of the combs we use and instruction on how. But where
is it today? Who is teaching how to drawout proper sized brood combs and
when to do it? Further, who is teaching proper use of honey combs, and when
and how to do it?

The reason we stoped with 4.9 and went no smaller, going down in steps these
18 years is to do only what is necessary and required to get problems under
control. Our first regression at 5.0 - 5.1 just won't work. The bees lived
like we have said often, but the secondary diseases would eat our socks off
during bad years and various chemicals are a road to ruin (besides hurting
the profit margin). We stopped with a 1/10th further reduction at 4.9
because that is where our problems stopped.

The bees go smaller, they can, the bees want a little larger, they can, from
use of 4.9 sizing. But it is a 4.9 sizing with limited cell walls to allow
for it.

With our thick desert honeys, we do not want to be smaller than 4.9. We are
geared to 200 rpm with our extractors now (Tangital, reverseable type).

Great reply David! Way to go!

Now, why don't sellers of comb give instruction on its usage for way the
various sizes were designed?
Wasn't 7/11 and 706, and 700 originally designed for cut comb honey to keep
the pollen out, by being mid-way between worker and drone size. Kelly still
says so in their catalogue, the reasoning.
Look how much bigger we are above that today. Amazing! simply amazing!

Very best regards to David and all (you too John)

Dee A. Lusby
Tucson, Arizona
USA