Recently, I created my new web page devoted to the Bee-O-Pac system:
Nice photos, but your first sentence is inaccurate -
they DON'T fit in a standard 6 5/8ths (medium) super.
The "top bars" are too thin, so when placed in
a super, the plastic "frame" extends below the
bottom of the super. Of course, there is not
room for this in a hive, so it jams up against
the top bars in the super directly below.
If you shim the rabbets in your Bee-O-Pac supers,
you might be able to make them actually fit.
To prove my statement I've just placed additional photo on my web-page. Maybe your supers are not standard?
[size="1"][ January 13, 2007, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: Boris ][/size]
Have they changed the width of the "top bar" so
that it is now "thicker"? Perhaps they did, but
a set of the the first batch was assembled and
then carried around to each and every dealer
present at EAS 2004 (in PA) to try and find any
supers where they would fit without protruding
out the bottom of the super, and none of Dadant,
Kelley, Mann Lake, Betterbee, Rossman, or
Brushy Mountain's supers were compatible with
Do yours protrude? As luck would have it, your photo hides the problem I described if it still
They made a few changes after the first year so the frames fit a better now.
Brushy Mtn Bee Farm
Very helpful, thanks. How does this system compare in cost to other?
[size="1"][ January 18, 2007, 07:52 PM: Message edited by: n1st ][/size]
> How does this system compare in cost to other?
Compared to Ross Rounds, they are almost as
flagrantly cost-inefficient as buying a Ross
Round super and then throwing it away after
With Ross Rounds, one invests in the plastic
"frames", which last literally forever. I
bought my initial inventory from a retiring
beekeeper. They aren't cheap, but one can
amortize the cost over as many seasons of
production as one wishes. Only some thin
surplus foundation and rings/lids are
"expensed" against each year's crop.
With the Bee-O-Pac, one must expense the
entire cost of a set of Bee-O-Pac frames
against each years crop. This is a serious
cost difference, so serious, that Bee-O-Pac
starts to look like a wanna-be "business
partner" rather than an equipment supplier.
Yes, the initial cost is lower with Bee-O-Pac,
but when you get your first crop, you'll find
that not all the little "Pacs" will be filled,
and you can end up with waste. When you
break apart the things, you must throw away
the unfilled "Pacs". This makes the cost of
Bee-O-Pac even higher, as a percentage of the
filled "Pacs" that can be sold.
With Ross Rounds, all one "wastes" is about
1/4 sheet of thin surplus foundation per
unfilled section. The rings can be reused,
and the plastic covers are only used to
cover finished rounds.
Why is "waste" an issue? Well, comb honey is
a spring thing for most beekeepers. Forget about
trying to get multiple crops of comb honey
from your bees. I've tried. [img]smile.gif[/img] One is advised
to provision more comb honey supers than one thinks
the bees can fill, as one would hate to have a
strong bloom, and have a limited crop limited by
available supers. So, one makes a small wager
with Ross Rounds, but makes a large wager with
the Bee-O-Pac, as re-use of Bee-O-Pac is
impossible at any but the "entire frame" level.
Another problem with the Bee-O-Pac is that
there is no wax associated with the product,
so the bees have a harder time drawing out
comb. (The Hogg cassette also lacks wax, or
at least did in the initial product offering.)
The problem with this can be clearly illustrated
to anyone who inserts a sheet of the colored
foundation (sold to make those tacky "rolled"
candles) into a frame. The bees really do
"draw out" the wax rather than attaching wax
to the foundation, and the colored wax of the
foundation makes this visible to the beekeeper,
showing the advantage of wax foundation or
waxed plastic foundation.
Another (minor) issue with the Bee-O-Pac is
the flimsy nature of the plastic itself. When
snapped together and placed into a super, there
are gaps between the two halves, and the bees
often spend a great deal of time propolizing
these gaps, some bees will wander into the
gaps, become trapped and die, and so on. The
end result is "messy" as compared to the
Ross Rounds, and with comb honey, one wants
a very very very good-looking result. Some
beekeepers will use scotch tape to close the
gaps, but the bees like to chew on the tape.
I have never used Bee-O-Pack but have seen it and it looks like to much work for me and what I saw was a nice super drawn out verry good with lite honey and looked much nicer than posted here but the frame that was displayed at our Fair was sticky with lots of burr comb and propolis, them there is the cost.
I do have one in front of me that the guy gave me and it is to nice looking to eat, and it is 2 years old.
I have RRs but I think the most cost efficent way to do comb honey is CUT COMB.
That is my 2 cents as I am not a BIG comb honey fan (not a good seller for me) but we do sell a lot of comb honey at the Fair every year.
Ed, KA9CTT profanity is IGNORANCE made audible
you can`t fix stupid not even with duct tape
[size="1"][ January 19, 2007, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: Boris ][/size]
"How does this system compare in cost to other?"
Betterbee prices and calculation:
1.BEE-O-PAC Frames With Lids (Box of 8) - $49.95;
BEE-O-PAC Frames With Lids Box of 24 - $139.95
2. "From each completed super, you will harvest up to 128 four ounce comb honeys. Suggested retail for each comb honey is $3.00. Yes, that is almost $374 per super."
Thank you for the for the detailed cost comparison. Can someone comment on the difficulty of set up, maintenance, and harvest? BOP looks very simple. My perspective... I have not used wax foundation, only plactic foundation.
[size="1"][ January 20, 2007, 08:55 AM: Message edited by: n1st ][/size]
"Compared to Ross Rounds, they are almost as
flagrantly cost-inefficient as buying a Ross
Round super and then throwing it away after
Your comparison cost is completely incorrect, because for the Ross Roud system you have to buy Ross Round Covers - one on top and one on the bottom. In your comparison covers are FREE. But they cost a lot of money.
Cost comparison without real calculation is a very bad idea...
However for the Bee-O-Pac system you do not have to buy anything else!
[size="1"][ January 20, 2007, 10:25 AM: Message edited by: Boris ][/size]
If you want "simple" the Hogg cassettes are clearly
the simplest, in that they come pre-assembled and
ready to slide into a super.
If one is careful, the Bee-O-Pacs are simple to
assemble, but deforming the little "bumps" to
seal the two halves together can be more of
a problem than one expects, leading to the use
of tape, staples, and foul language.
Ross Rounds are more difficult to assemble than
Bee-O-Pac or the Hogg cassettes, but the
"difficulty" is overcome if one is shown how to
assemble them by an experienced producer of Ross
Rounds. The good news is that they are nearly
bullet-proof, and can take a lot more banging
around, dropping to the floor, and rough handling
than either of the other two comb honey products.
> "BEE-O-PAC Frames With Lids (Box of 8) - $49.95
> From each completed super, you will harvest up
> to 128 four ounce comb honeys. Suggested retail
> for each comb honey is $3.00. Yes, that is
> almost $374 per super."
Yeah, "up to". [img]smile.gif[/img] But this sort of
speculative math that assumes 100% success
rather than a more reasonable return has caused
beekeepers to calculate comfortable profits, yet
live a hand-to-mouth existence for centuries.
you still did not confirm your previous statement: "Compared to Ross Rounds, they are almost as flagrantly cost-inefficient as buying a Ross Round super and then throwing it away after
Where is your real calculation?
[size="1"][ January 20, 2007, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: Boris ][/size]
Boris, you can look at the prices, add up the
larger up-front investment for Ross Rounds,
and then amortize that up-front investment
over whatever number of seasons you wish just
as easily as I, or anyone else.
You can also compare the costs inherent in a
more realistic situation, where multiple
supers are provisioned on a hive, and not all
sections of all supers are filled. With the
Bee-O-Pac, one cann reuse anything smaller than
a "frame", where with the Ross-Rounds, one can
reuse everything except the foundation if the
bees don't fill all the sections.
But don't argue with me, do the math!
That's why there is an international market
for Ross Round sections, and there isn't enough
of the Bee-O-Pac or Hogg cassettes to even make
up a single shipment to a distributor, as the
Bee-O-Pac and Hogg products are sold to hobby
beekeepers, who value what is sold as "ease of
use" over profitability.
As for the Ross Round covers, they are not free,
but they are never wasted, either. With the
Bee-O-Pac, the covers are included with the
"frames", and one cannot buy frames without
covers, so any sections not filled must be
counted as "waste" except for the special case
where an entire Bee-O-Pac "frame" is left
untouched by the bees.
My calculation for the Bee-O-Pac system.
$49.95 : 8 (frames): 16 (units per frame)= 0.39 cents per unit
Label cost $27.95 : 400 = 0.07 cents per label.
Total cost per unit 0.39 + 0.07=0.46 cents
Now your turn Jim.
As I said, do the math yourself.
Every beekeeper should do his own math.
But your math assumes 100% perfection in
filling every "unit", which is a very
optimistic assumption, moreso for a
product made of 100% plastic, not even
I have to agree with you Jim, $50.00 is way way way over priced for a little bit of plastic that cannot be reused.
I tried these on 3 different flows in 3 states and couldn't make them work better than ross rounds or the hogg. We got some filled but it took a lot of labor and cost the hive some honey. I like the idea it just needed some tweaking to make it work. The ones I had did not fit in a 6 5/8 box. That was the summer of 2005 have they been changed since?