Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 29 of 29
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    crown point, NY, USA
    Posts
    971

    Post

    Question: Clay in particular. Do you have any double screens for this is what they were originally designed to do

    reply:

    As a matter of fact Dee I have lots of double screen boards. However when I shook down I gave brood to other colonies. Then when I shook those hives down I put the brood on top of the honey supers of the regressed ones. Similar to demaree. I then cut the cells in a few days. The bees emerged and the bees filled the combs with honey and just worked them out that way. Kind of like working culled transition combs out also.

    Clay

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, United States
    Posts
    397

    Post

    Clay wrote:
    As a matter of fact Dee I have lots of double screen boards. However when I shook down I gave brood to other colonies. Then when I shook those hives down I put the brood on top of the honey supers of the regressed ones. Similar to demaree. I then cut the cells in a few days. The bees emerged and the bees filled the combs with honey and just worked them out that way. Kind of like working culled transition combs out also.

    Reply:
    Well, this is sure a great solution for where to put the combs and working them. Congradulations!

    But Jorge has but one hive, but something to remember for when he gets more.

    Regards,

    Dee A. Lusby


  3. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Brunswick, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    185

    Post

    QUESTION??????
    Im getting two packages of bees in about a month , Can't I switch over to 4.9 at the time of hiving the packages. It seems it would be the most easiest way. Any comments on this . and is the 4.9 really benifical as everyone says. If so i will buy and set up and give it a try. Thanks for replys
    Walt

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Nehawka, Nebraska USA
    Posts
    43,419

    Post

    I don't know how much you've read, but here's the short version of how it works and what I would do.

    Yes, it will save you one shakedown putting them on 4.9mm from the start. The benefits don't come until you do another shakedown and put them on 4.9mm again. The abnormally large bees that the bee industry rasies on abnormally large foundation (standard 5.4mm foundation) can't build a normal sized 4.9mm cell because they are too large. From my experience they will build about 5.15mm. But the next generation will probably build 4.9mm or at least the one after that. You can't expect to control mites until you reach 4.9mm.

    The easy way is start a package on 4.9mm. Always add 4.9mm foundation. Try to make sure the comb in the brood nest is 4.9mm. At first it will be closer to 5.15mm or 5.2mm but keep puting 4.9mm in the brood nest until it is drawn as 4.9mm. You check this by measuring across 10 cells. Meanwhile use FMGO or some other clean method of mite control until you have a brood nest of 4.9mm.

    The more stressful, but quicker way is to wait until you have a lot of 5.15mm bees and do a shakedown. Basically you shake or brush them off all the combs into an empty box of foundation. See the POV for Ed and Dee Lusby for details on a shakdown.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    lewisberry, Pa, usa
    Posts
    6,081

    Post

    I am completely new to the idea of regression and using smaller cell size foundation. My question concerns the idea that brood cells are naturally sized down as a layer is left behind after each brood cycle. Does anyone know how many brood cycles it takes to reach smaller levels that are being discussed here? Is there a natural sizing down of hives where perhaps older established hives/foundation would be a waste of funds in doing the regression compared to starting new hives with the smaller foundation? Where would I go to read more about the effects of regression and small cell hives? Thank you.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Nehawka, Nebraska USA
    Posts
    43,419

    Post

    Where would I go to read more about the effects of regression and small cell hives? Thank you.

    Here is some research on small cell and how it affects Varroa. http://www.funpecrp.com.br/gmr/year2..._full_text.htm

    Here is the Lusbys' info on small cell and regression. http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/index.htm

    >My question concerns the idea that brood cells are naturally sized down as a layer is left behind after each brood cycle. Does anyone know how many brood cycles it takes to reach smaller levels that are being discussed here?

    It is true that cocoons will gradually regress, but it would take a lot of generations to regress from 5.4mm to 4.9mm. I don't know the exact number. If I have the time this year, I hope to answer some of those questions with my own measurments.

    >Is there a natural sizing down of hives where perhaps older established hives/foundation would be a waste of funds in doing the regression compared to starting new hives with the smaller foundation?

    My guess is that replacing the old comb with 4.9mm comb would be worthwhile for several reasons. First, you don't know how regressed the hive is unless you measure the insides of many cells with enough accuracy to know if they are small cell. The normal "across ten cells" method won't give you the answer. Second, if the comb is old enough to have regressed that far, it also has been torn down and rebuilt with too much drone comb which will counteract some of the gains from the small cell. If indeed it is regressed from the the cocoons in the cells, then it should only take one regression to get totally regressed. I would probably just keep swapping 4.9mm foundation over time a few frames at a time into the brood nests until it's all replaced and then pull some and see what size it is.

    If you just want to know where the bees are, put some 4.9mm foundation into the middle of the brood nest and measure what they draw. If it's 4.9mm then they were regressed at least to 5.15mm or so. But according to Ed and Dee Lusby's work this is not enough to solve your mite problems. 4.9mm is minimum to resolve the problems.

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

    Post

    Thank-you. Follow-up question. If your starting out or regressing to 4.9, and from there the cells are being downsized futher with the lining from brood cycles, at what point is there too much regression? Would you hypothetically have to change your brood comb more often over the years. I have not experienced major or uncontrollable mite infestation and have read alot on FGMO. I was considering FGMO and now I am reading that small cell brood foundation can help/eliminate?? mite problems? Is there side benefits to FGMO besides v-mites such as trachia mites, etc. where perhaps FGMO and regression might be overkill compared to cost/time/effort?
    Make that follow-up question(s).
    Thank you.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Nehawka, Nebraska USA
    Posts
    43,419

    Post

    I have not personally been able to observe this because I've only started down this road, but I have heard that people have observed that when the cells reach the level that the bees percieve as too small they will chew out the old coccons to make the cell the right size again. But if you cull out brood comb that is more than 10% drone, you will probably not have it in for long enough for this to happen.

    The natural size of a brood cell is actually 4.7 to 4.9 or so. It takes a while for the 4.9mm to get so full of cocoons to be as small as 4.7mm but the bees sometimes make brood cells that small naturally. If you give them 4.9mm foundation they still have .2mm to fill with cocoons before they reach the bottom of what they will naturally accept before they start chewing it back out to get some size back.

    4.9mm is NOT at the small end of what bees naturally build for brood cells, it is at the large end of the scale.


  9. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, United States
    Posts
    397

    Post

    Michael Bush wrote:
    It is true that cocoons will gradually regress, but it would take a lot of generations to regress from 5.4mm to 4.9mm. I don't know the exact number. If I have the time this year, I hope to answer some of those questions with my own measurments.

    Reply:
    While our domesticated honeybees do regress artificially enlarged combs by leaving cocoons, this is not the case with natural sized combs that the bees keep relatively free of cocoons as there is no real need to have them.

    The natural spectrum for most natural combs world wide for worker brood is low end near Equator 4.6, the 4.7, 4.8 - 4.9 - then 5.0, 5.1 and 8,000-10,000 feet up in high transalvanian plateau of Europe 5.2

    4.8 - 4.9 are in the center range. We use and advocate 4.9mm top tolerance which means no bigger! With low use advocated 4.8 with 4.84 to 4.85 being average really needed and is why we mill our own foundation hot so wax shrinks somewhat with out 4.9 mill which is actually tooled in metal 4.88 and with newer one slightly smaller plastic coated in middle to lower 4.8 range. This gives beekeepers flexibility in hand milling their own beeswax.

    Regards,

    Dee A.Lusby (p.s. Wedmore did most of the better writing on cocoons and their removal by honeybees early on pre-WW2).


Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

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