First, Second, Third year colony

[FordGuy]

someone mentioned that a first year colony has wax making ability, second year still has some wax making ability, and a third year colony has to wait on a flow to make wax. Not gonna mention who the someone was b/c I don't want ego and or bee politics to come into play. Anyway...

I'm gonna ask questions about this b/c it sounds unsupportable - how do you know if you have a first, second or third? What if a hive swarms every year, and is found queenless a time or two, yet seems to build up somewhat well in term sof bee numbers, and this occurrs over a three year period? what do you have a first, second, or third year hive? seems like the only kind of hive this would apply to was one that swarmed three years ago, and built up on the same queen?

kind of reminds me of my daddy's hammer, that has had the handle replaced, and a new head, is it still my daddy's hammer, kind of argument.

[size="1"][ February 13, 2007, 09:14 PM: Message edited by: FordGuy ][/size]

[MountainCamp]

The workers only last about 6 weeks when working flows, and longer when not active.

The only bee that is going to see two working seasons would be the queen. Since, she is not the one making wax, I don't see the difference in wax making capability in a hive regardsless of the age.

It is the young bees that produce wax, since there are always young bees being produced, except for certain times of the year, there can always be waxed produced. This is of course if the needed energy to produce the wax is present and available.

[Michael Bush]

>how do you know if you have a first, second or third?

It's not my theory, but let's try it another way. Whether it's capabilities or need, a first year colony has brand new comb with less tarsal pheromones in it and probably not as much stores and comb as they would like. A second year colony is still trying to get established (build enough comb, raise enough brood, put away enough stores). A third year colony has all of that. In this case we are talking about a colony that started from a swarm or an artificial swarm and has to build everything. Obviously if you started a colony this year with lots of old comb and lots of bees, next Spring they won't know if they are a two year colony or not. They will have all the things a three year colony would have.

[MountainCamp]

Now, lets touch on the my Daddy’s Hammer –

I guess since the workers are the handle and they are continually replaced – and the queen is the head and she MAY live from a few weeks if she is of poor quality, or a few years if she is of good quality, there is no such thing as a survivor hive.

From my perspective, if a colony of bees continually occupies a space, they re-queen themselves, keeping the linage going, then they are that old.

[BjornBee]

From another angle....

A two year colony (queen's age if thats the guage in aging a colony) has a better chance of swarming than a first year hive. A third year queen has a better chance at swarming, than a second year queen.
*It should be noted that supercedure of an old queen, may induce swarmimg if done at the right time of the year.

Point is, an older colony has a better swarm rate than a younger hive. And it should be noted that a swarm produces perfect comb at unbelievable rates.

I had tried to rationalize the comment about the second year wax rate, third year wax rate, etc. Only thing in my mind would be if the reasoning was somehow based on an older hive not needed wax (builders) due to all the room taken already in the hive. And so it could be said that less and lesser bees would be pulled for this duty of making wax. Except for the bees capping brood, etc. But this should be explained in terms of a short period based on a cycle or two of bees, and certainly not in the broad frame of "years". The bees in the current brood cycle would be more than able to produce wax if the need arose due to frame swap or damage. If the need was there, they would adapt in a short term and do whats needed.

[Jim Fischer]

> someone mentioned that a first year colony has
> wax making ability...

I also challenged that highly creative and
innovative view of bee biology here
http://www.beesource.com/cgi-bin/ubb...439;p=2#000026
and got no reply.

> first year colony has brand new comb with
> less tarsal pheromones in it

Doesn't this assume that tarsal pheromone is
somehow "building up in the comb", and is not
a volatile substance that will outgas within
days? I've never seen a pheromone that wasn't
highly volatile, and thereby, very temporary.

> and probably not as much stores and comb
> as they would like.

Well, stores are not going to be much of a clue,
as colonies can eat themselves out of house and
home in some winters (and, more to the point,
early springs). Comb is also not going to be
much of a clue, given the simple case of a
mouse nest damaging a large fraction of the
comb, and forcing the bees to draw new comb.

I'd sure like to hear what was meant, as if
there is some general rule of thumb on this
issue that has escaped attention, the implications
for replacing old brood frames with foundation
(something that everyone will someday learn to do
on a regular basis as a first defense against
brood disease) are significant.

> an older colony has a better swarm rate than
> a younger hive.

But that's purely a function of "queen age", not
"colony age". (And the tendency to swarm or
supersede is made worse when folks use swarms and
supersedure cells as their source of new queens,
because it tends to assure that these undesirable
traits are emphasized.)

Maybe we can get some clarification, but as it
was written, the original statement seemed to be
100% fact-free. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[BjornBee]

[img]smile.gif[/img]

One of those day.....

[size="1"][ February 15, 2007, 06:45 AM: Message edited by: BjornBee ][/size]

[suprstakr]

Bjorn . I'm new and learn fast . Now when I see that post I go to the next.

[BjornBee]

suprstakr,
I take it you were able to read my first "unedited' version before I changed it...

[Michael Bush]

>Doesn't this assume that tarsal pheromone is
somehow "building up in the comb", and is not
a volatile substance that will outgas within
days? I've never seen a pheromone that wasn't
highly volatile, and thereby, very temporary.

Something about old comb smells different to bees and has an effect on them or they would not be looking for it when they swarm. I have no idea how long tarsal pheromone will last, or how much it accumulates. I'm not even saying they CAN know how established they are. I'm merely speculating on how a colony MIGHT know how established it is.