Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 62
  1. #21
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Milford, MI
    Posts
    328

    Post

    Bjorn,

    Since your so resistant to methods that haven't been "proven", share with us the proven method that is working for you. I don't understand why your so abrasive, obviously your very passionate in your beliefs, but you have yet to share with us what they are.

    It never occured to me that I would have to catalog all the literature I've read, and make reference to them in order to voice my opinion. I'm still searching for the reference to back up my 3-5 day earlier emergence, but in the mean time I have seen previous posts that personally claim 2-3 days. Are the extra two days that far fetched?


  2. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    lewisberry, Pa, usa
    Posts
    6,081

    Post

    Phoenix,
    I normally do not ask for "references" on stated facts. I do not take the time myself to do so as it it time consuming, and not in my own interest. (Most of what I reference is cataloged in my head. I have most studies, or publications in access, if needed.) But when a "new" data point is clearly made, and as of this time, nobody else seems to of seen, read or heard of a 3-5 day period, then yes, I think backing up the claim of "studies", you yourself mention, is not too much to ask. I want to see the references.

    And yes, 1-2 days is within most observations. Perhaps not "proven", but much in beekeeping is not at this time. 3-5 days is a stretch. Its not a moot point. Thats is more than a little stretch.

    I have seen these type of "stretches" made time and time agian. Again, whether with russians, FGMO, small-cell, or any other item. I think accusations, observations, and those making claims, should be held accountable, for claims made.

    As for my own successes or what is working. Well, what do you want to see? As an inspector for the state, and being involved with many ongoing studies, the number of successfull beekeepers are many. Some with breeding of survivor lines. Some with chemical, both hard and soft. Some with success with requeening every year, in conjunction of breaking the brood cycle at critical periods of time. Some operators have collected many feral hives and have not treated in years. Some hives I inspect have not seen chemicals, or any other treatment in years (3-5+), and are surviving and productive. Sugar shakes confirm mites are present, just not effecting overall health. Some do suagar shakes on the bees, or knockdown (bee shakes) procedures. I have seen successes across the board in a good number of hives. Thats why I think much is to be said of genetics. This is helping many beekeepers who are trying many items. Having beekeepers use good mangaement practices, staying on top of problems, requeening, and so on, has alot to do with it. I think its natural for someone who had committed to something like smallcell, or FGMO, to say that what is working for them is the answer. But the truth is there are many beekeepers using a host of items, and are successfull also.
    Requeening every year pays for itself in increased honey yeilds and less swarming. I have seen beekeepers use this practice to combat the mites and have no problems at all.

    I myself have 300 hives with no treatments. 50 russians on SBB and no chems. Many ferals collected and not treated. (100 additional hives that were treated, this due to contract commitments and pollination. You could call it insurance.) I grafted from selected non chemical hives, and these seem to be doing great. I could go on and on. But I know you have seen many of the items I mention. Let me know if you do not know something about an item that may interest you.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    lewisberry, Pa, usa
    Posts
    6,081

    Post

    Please be advised that I have edited a previous comment that has been deemed not "civil". This request has been made by beesource. I hope everyone now can have a good day. Thank you for your time.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    The Scenic Flint Hills , KS
    Posts
    5,159

    Post

    >Sorry for any pain and suffering, or mental anguish you may have encountered.

    You should be. I nearly bust a gut laughing, I may never be the same. My only anguish is that you are not allowed to let it ALL hang out.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    1,649
    >I know little about small cell comb and its effect on Varroa control.. Could someone enlighten me?

    Hi Lynn:
    Did you get all that? Welcome to internet beekeeping where everyone has an opinion.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Danbury,Ct. USA
    Posts
    1,966

    Post

    I actually read all that at once. Thanks for the entertainment.
    Bjorn,
    Have you heard much about the use of O/A in Pa. I saw your bees at EAS. They looked healthy.

    Dickm

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    lewisberry, Pa, usa
    Posts
    6,081

    Post

    dickm,
    Thanks. The head of all that (bees) was Dennis VanEngelsdorf, who is the acting state apiarist, and does alot of research with the Penn State Ag. extensions. I had some hands on the behind the scenes preparation, but can't claim too much. If you liked the PMS, or AFB hives, they were mine. Collected those while inspecting. That was the worst case of AFB I had ever seen. I was not at EAS due to family commitments.

    Pa. did alot of testing with O/A this year. Mite collecting/monitoring/ and results are still ongoing. I'll be requesting some of the data towards the end of the month. Right now, it seems very effective and the results thus far have been positive.

  8. #28

    Post

    Lynn

    This is phillip

    Welcome to the besource forum. Lots of passion on this forum and like the old saying goes ask 10 beekeepers get 10 answers.


  9. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    1,649

    Cool

    >ask 10 beekeepers get 10 answers.

    That statement right there is wrong.... Ask 10 beekeepers and you'll get at least 15 different answers.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Milford, MI
    Posts
    328

    Post

    Don't make any claims that you can't back up Mr. Allen, show me the studies. I've seen proof of only 12, if you say 15 I wan't to see it, that is more than a little stretch. LOL

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    lewisberry, Pa, usa
    Posts
    6,081

    Wink

    Phoenix,
    I had thought you forgot about the "missing" data and studies you so eagerly mentioned earlier. Thanks for the reminder. I'm sure I am not the only one waiting.

    If you can't find the study, you can just say so. Call it an honest mistake. I'll understand if you never deliver, and I'll even understand if no apoligy is forthcoming.

    I'm glad you are eager to keep this in the headlines and the topic going. I didn't want to seem as going too far with it myself.

    Keep looking......

  12. #32
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Milford, MI
    Posts
    328

    Post

    I haven't forgot, though I have searched to no avail. I obviously read somewhere about small cell and the shortened maturity rate, but I can't find any of the info, even to say 1-3 days earlier. But that's ok, the claims of even two days earlier are enough for me. I'm so sorry oh Grand Potentate, that I can't find the data to back up my reference.

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    1,649

    Post

    >the claims of even two days earlier are enough for me

    A development time of 18 days will prevent most mites from maturing in worker cells. As I recall from a chart in Keith Delaplane’s book ‘Mites of the Honey Bee’ there’d be only enough time for one mite offspring to mature in worker cells as opposed to 3 or 4 at 21 days.

    I’m still looking for the study to back up my earlier remarks about the number of beekeeper opinions. However, anecdotal evidence should be convincing enough, I think.


    [This message has been edited by Dick Allen (edited November 19, 2004).]

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Nehawka, Nebraska USA
    Posts
    43,481

    Post

    The only claims I've heard are my own observations on 4.95mm of 1 day shorter pre and 1 day shorter post capping times (19 days from egg to emergence) and Dee's observation that on 4.85mm it's one day shorter than that (18 days from egg to emergence). I haven't seen (but that doesn't mean they aren't out there) any claims of less than that.

    I was pretty skeptical of any shorter times at all until I measured it myself. My first observation was just post capping times being one day shorter. Later I measured it from the egg to capping and then from capping to emergence and found the other day in pre capping time.

    I only have my own observations of beekeepers views. While I can't put a definitive number on it, I think it is definitely more views than beekeepers.

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    McMinnville, TN, USA
    Posts
    716

    Post

    I have been doing natural cell size by making my own frames with pointed top bars rubbed with wax. I have seen 4.6 size cells being used to raise workers in. If 5.4 gives 21 days, 4.9/4.95 gives 19 days(given by MB), and 4.85 gives 18 days(by the Dee) how much more time could be cut off going down to smaller sizes. I measured each of those 4.6 cells(measured by counting 10 cells), which I know is hard to get it acurate, and measured 2 of those 10 at 4.5mm being used for worker brood. Just food for thought not saying these sizes will get you to that 5 days shorter time but they should be shorter time than 4.85.

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Guatemala
    Posts
    243

    Post

    You guys out there all have great opinions and have done interesting observations on the small cell size issue, as well as other "back to basics" topics. Thanks for sharing it all.

    What still puzzles me a bit is this:
    I have big-size-cell bees in all of my colonies, because so far I´ve used regular commercial foundation.

    Since I have no access to small cell foundation, I will simply let the bees build naturally guided by a plain starter strip. I do want combs to be as straight as possible for uncapping purposes.

    Will this new comb be small size ? Big bees building small cells ? It doesn´t sound right. I am inclined to think that big bees, if left to their "free choice", will gradually build smaller cells until they arrive at their genetically natural size. Is this what regressing the bees is all about ? Why is there hives losses in the regression process ?

    Please help me understand the regression term and how to go about it.

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Nehawka, Nebraska USA
    Posts
    43,481

    Post

    >Since I have no access to small cell foundation, I will simply let the bees build naturally guided by a plain starter strip.

    That will work.

    > I do want combs to be as straight as possible for uncapping purposes.

    Combs aren't straight even with foundation. But they work ok. Here's a picture of a foundtionless frame ready to extract:
    http://incolor.inetnebr.com/bush/ima...nlessDrawn.JPG

    >Will this new comb be small size ?

    It depends on where they build it, when they build it and the size of the bees building it.

    Typically large cell bees in the spring building brood comb will build it about 5.1mm After they are have house bees that were raised on 5.1mm those bees will build it in the spring and late summer about 4.9mm and those bees will sometimes build all the way down to 4.6mm. But the same large bees during the flow will build brood about 5.2mm most of the time instead of 5.1mm.

    > Big bees building small cells ? It doesn´t sound right. I am inclined to think that big bees, if left to their "free choice", will gradually build smaller cells until they arrive at their genetically natural size.

    Basically yes. But they don't tend to cull out the old large combs, so you have to do that for them.

    >Is this what regressing the bees is all about ? Why is there hives losses in the regression process ?

    Some people in order to speed the process do complete shakedowns. In other words they shake all the bees into a hive with small cell foundation and an excluder on the bottom to keep them from absconding. After they have built up and have brood from the 5.1mm intermediate size comb that the large bees draw, they are shaken down again. All these shakedowns are very stressful.

    >Please help me understand the regression term and how to go about it.

    If you search on regression and if you read the material in the Biological form, you'll find a lot of differnt methods that people have used.

    If you want the method from the person who came up with it, that would be Dee Lusby's method.

    Here is her writing on the subject:
    http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/index.htm



  18. #38
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Milford, MI
    Posts
    328

    Post

    Guatabee,

    Take a measurement across ten cells of your foundation and let us know what size you have.

    Somehow the bees construct cells in relation to their body size. The foundation provides a uniform pattern but the cells will still vary in size to some degree. Without a guide such as foundation you will achieve a much greater degree of variation. With that variation you will see a great deal of diversity in size of bees in your colony, which is thought, by some, to be an advantage to your hives.

    As we get a hive full of natural size comb built by the first generation will will get a small percentage of smaller size cells, out of those cells will arise smaller bees, thus the next generation will do the same. By culling the frames of larger cells we can gradually regress the size of bees in the colony.

    I have not seen claims of losses due to the regression process.

    Do a search for regression or retrogression and you will find more discussions on this topic, one of which I started in order to get more clarification myself.

    ------------------
    Phoenix
    http://beeholder.blogspot.com/

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Nehawka, Nebraska USA
    Posts
    43,481

    Post

    >I have not seen claims of losses due to the regression process.

    I have seen very high numbers claimed for losses during regression. These were by Dee Lusby and other proponents. This is doing complete shake downs. I have not taken such a drastic view of how to get there and have had no real losses from regression. Just the occasional normal weak hive as when not regressed.

  20. #40
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Milford, MI
    Posts
    328

    Post

    Has she said what the mortality was due to?

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Ads