Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Nehawka, Nebraska USA
    Posts
    46,584

    Post

    FYI

    This is still just in days or half days (I am constructing an experiment for the spring to try to measure this in hours and on more cells and on both large and small cells and both workers and drones).

    The queen in my observation hive layed these eggs on morning of Monday the 15th of December. They were capped by the morning of Tuesday the 23st of December (8 days). The first of these emerged by the morning of Saturday January the 3rd and the last by Saturday night Januray the 3rd. This is a post capping time of 11 to 11 1/2 days. This is a total time from egg to emerged bee of 19 to 19 1/2 days as opposed to the "norm" for large bees of 21 days.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    The Scenic Flint Hills , KS
    Posts
    5,159

    Post

    Was this on the wax coated Permacomb?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Nehawka, Nebraska USA
    Posts
    46,584

    Post

    Yes. Wax coated PermaComb. 4.95mm cells.

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

    Post

    Do you have any plans on tracking non-waxed PC times?

    I am curious if they remove any of the wax you apply.

    [This message has been edited by BULLSEYE BILL (edited January 04, 2004).]

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Nehawka, Nebraska USA
    Posts
    46,584

    Post

    I watch them a lot in the observation hive and have never noticed them trying to remove any of the wax, but then I suppose polishing a cell is hard to tell from that, but from the day after I put them on it, the queen started laying and they started raising brood in it. When I go through the hive in the spring, I will try to measure inside diameters again.

    I had no plans on measuring times on plain PermaComb.

    My experiment in the spring is a frame that is a box divided into four sections with a piece of plastic excluder cut to fit and held on with thumb tacks. The fours sections have: 4.9mm foundation 5.45mm foundation, 5.9mm foundation and 6.6mm foundation.

    I was going to put this in the brood area of a small cell hive and let them draw the comb. Then, if it has honey in it, put it outside and let them rob it back out. Then confine the queen to one area at a time for an hour at a time and see if she will lay enough in that hour for the experiment.

    Hopefully I'll get small cell worker, large cell worker, small cell drone and large cell drone to measure.

    By having them all in the same hive with eggs from the same queen, layed within hours of each other I hope to eliminate a lot of variables that might change from hive to hive.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    The Scenic Flint Hills , KS
    Posts
    5,159

    Lightbulb

    Oh,ok, I thought you were going to measure the time on your OB hive. I see where you are going now, good luck.

    Hopefully, if I get old and retired, I'll be able to do experiments like that too.

  7. #7
    BILLY BOB Guest

    Post

    I find this intresting Michael. I have had several researchers tell me that 4.9mm doesn't realy work and what test that have been done were on Africanised bees. The fact that the bees did so well was because of the shorter time the brood spent in the cell. ie less than 21 days.

    I was going to try and do some experements this summer with 4.9 to see if the smaller cell would make the brood have a shorter time in the cells. I will keep eveyone posted on what I find with my observations.

    What type of queen do you have in your observation hive?

    BB

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Casper, Wy, USA
    Posts
    806

    Post

    Hi Guys,

    I've run all kinds of bees on small cell and they do equally well.

    Obviously those researchers need to get out of the class room. I only know of one small cell beekeeper who could have Afro bees. The rest are running ever other kind of bee.

    And it's obvious that they didn't read much of what is written by those with small cell experience. I have posted my results on all the major lists. Several articles detailing my experience, along with half a dozen other small cell beekeepers, have been published in Europe.

    The idea that afro bee genetics are the main factor seen with small cell beekeeping has been disproved by bee researchers in Tuscon. Their own research shows that when feral afro bees are placed in a standard hive, they fare no better with mites than the Euro bees.

    Like much of the acumulated 'wisdom' purported by many researchers, real substance and experience are lacking.

    Mentoring insures that much of what percieved as scientific is just often repeated speculation. I wonder who started this 'scientific rumor'. It must have been the big rooster because all the chickens are clucking it. Where are the studies? Where's the research?

    A study was conducted in New Zealand. The study was severly flawed. It lasted less than a season. And it focused on short term mite reproduction rather than on the long term difference in bee behavior. The small cell size changes the behavior of the bee, not the mating behavior of the mite!

    Somehow they got the size of the cell right but missed everthing else that has been written by small cell. But at least they actually did something which is far better than just repeating the latest bee gossip!

    This 'theory' about afro bees was first speculated about 5 years ago when the Lusby's untreated bees were tested for mites. Few varroa mites were found and no tracheal mites were found.

    I think these researchers should be figuring out the why's for themselves, rather than repeating old lab coat tales. :> ) And it appears that much of the cutting edge thinking concerning beekeeping is by-passing many in the research institutions.


    End of Todays Rant :> )))
    Dennis Murrell


    [This message has been edited by BWrangler (edited January 06, 2004).]

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Nehawka, Nebraska USA
    Posts
    46,584

    Post

    >I find this intresting Michael. I have had several researchers tell me that 4.9mm doesn't realy work and what test that have been done were on Africanised bees. The fact that the bees did so well was because of the shorter time the brood spent in the cell. ie less than 21 days.

    All the research I've seen measuring the capping and post capping times and it's effect on mites was done on AHB. What surprises me is that they noted a difference in capping and post capping times based on cell size in AHB and never considered that it might also work that way on EHB.

    >I was going to try and do some experements this summer with 4.9 to see if the smaller cell would make the brood have a shorter time in the cells. I will keep eveyone posted on what I find with my observations.

    Good! I'd like to see what others get. I built a frame with a queen exluder on the front and a wall on the back so I can restrict the queen to each of four sections, sort of like a Jenter box, so I can know the age of the eggs exactly. I have a section each of 4.9mm 5.45mm 5.9mm and 6.6mm. I made the 5.9mm by warming and stretching some 7/11 from Brushy Mt. I'm hoping to get some small cell worker, large cell worker, small cell drone, and large cell drone.

    >What type of queen do you have in your observation hive?

    I started with a Carniolan. The emergence times were early with those also. This one is her daughter, but looks more Russian.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Nehawka, Nebraska USA
    Posts
    46,584

    Post

    >And it's obvious that they didn't read much of what is written by those with small cell experience. I have posted my results on all the major lists. Several articles detailing my experience, along with half a dozen other small cell beekeepers, have been published in Europe.

    I discussed it with several bee scienists at Beetopia and none had bothered to understand the concept of regression. Some had never heard of small cell. None had any understanding of the concept. They all would quote that research had been done to let the EHB build whatever size comb they want and the size was about 5.15mm and the spacing on the comb was about 35mm. When I pointed out my experiences they obviously had never considered what would happen on the next generation. When I pointed out the assumptions that have been made they seemed curious, but still not that interested.

    >The idea that afro bee genetics are the main factor seen with small cell beekeeping has been disproved by bee researchers in Tuscon. Their own research shows that when feral afro bees are placed in a standard hive, they fare no better with mites than the Euro bees.

    And, in fact, they have measured the capping and post capping times on AHB with small and large cell and found that difference was the cause of them faring no better. And yet, despite the fact that cell size changes capping and post capping times for AHB, they seem to not even consider it would do the same with EHB. I think it is because the researchers still accept that the natural cell size of a EHB is about 5.15mm because they tried letting them build what they want and that is what they built. When I suggest that feral bees build smaller cells and that smaller celled bees have shorter capping times etc. I am told that they must be Africanized. They are stuck on the idea that the natural size of an EHB has already been established by research. The concept of regression has not occured to anyone.

    >A study was conducted in New Zealand. The study was severly flawed. It lasted less than a season. And it focused on short term mite reproduction rather than on the long term difference in bee behavior. The small cell size changes the behavior of the bee, not the mating behavior of the mite!
    >Somehow they got the size of the cell right but missed everthing else that has been written by small cell. But at least they actually did something which is far better than just repeating the latest bee gossip!

    Actually in that study, they HAD some 4.9mm foundation, but threw out the results because it was misdrawn by the bees. (Big surprise to those of us who have watched regression, he says sarcasticly) Why throw out the only size that has been purported to have helped?

    From the study, I quote "Frame of 4.9mm sized cells inconsistently drawn out. This frame
    was not used in the trial, as there were no suitably drawn sections"

    Then they say: "The inability of the New Zealand bees to draw out small cells evenly was expected. This is because they are predominantly kept on 5.4 foundation.
    In order to draw the cells out to the same width, a gradual step-down process from 5.4 to 4.7 would have been required, taking maybe a couple of seasons."

    Well, if doing the experiment correctly takes a couple of seasons, shouldn't you do that?

    I wasn't impressed.

    Here is the study:
    http://www.bee-l.com/biobeefiles/pav/scstudy.htm

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Utica, NY
    Posts
    10,010

    Default Re: Capping and Post Capping times for small cell bees (4.95mm)

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Bush View Post
    Well, if doing the experiment correctly takes a couple of seasons, shouldn't you do that?
    He, he, not if you don't have funding.
    Brian Cardinal
    Zone 5a, Practicing non-intervention beekeeping

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Rader, Greene County, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    6,576

    Default Re: Capping and Post Capping times for small cell bees (4.95mm)

    For those wondering why Ace has resurrected a nearly 10 year old thread, its because Michael Bush referenced this thread in another current thread, post #226:

    http://www.beesource.com/forums/show...an#post1031250
    Graham
    USDA Zone 7A Elevation 1400 ft

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