Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner

Huber's New Observations on the Natural History of Bees

16K views 84 replies 25 participants last post by  merops_apiaster 
#1 ·
I've been cleaning up the OCR (Optical Character Recognition) version from "The Hive and the Honey Bee Collection". I have an original (different edition than that one) but the binding is shot so I've been reading the online text one. Of course all the "s"s are "f"s and it's very difficult to make sense of it. Anyway, I found these excerpts interesting:

"The worm of workers passes three days in the egg, five in the vermicular state, and then the bees close up its cell with a wax covering. The worm-now begins spinniiig its cocoon, in whichoperation thirty-fix hours are consumed. In three days, it changes to a nymph, and passes six days in this form. It is only on the twentieth day of its existence, counting from the moment the egg is laid, that it attains the fly sate."

François Huber, 4 September 1791. From the 1806 edition of "New Observations on the Natural History of Bees" page 151

http://bees.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=bees;cc=bees;sid=59f245051efcbff8255002f160444e72;rgn=full%20text;idno=5017286;view=image;seq=0009

Isn't this a shorter capping time and shorter emergence time? Twenty days instead of the currently accepted 21? Wasn't Huber on natural sized comb? Eight hours shorter is adequate to stabilize varroa populations.

It's not difficult, of course, to verify shorter capping and post capping times on natural sized cells. But it is helpful, if you let them make their own, to measure it on various sizes since they will build from 5.1mm to 4.6mm and the times run from about 20 days for 5.1mm to 19 days on 4.95mm to 18 days on 4.6mm give or take some time depending on the temperatures and the strength of the hive. Cool weather and weak hives tend to lengthen the times.

And how about comb spacing?

"The leaf or book hive consists of twelve vertical frames or boxes, parallel to each other, and joined together the sides, should be twelve inches long, and the cross spars, nine or ten; the thickness of these spars an inch, and their breadth fifteen lines (one line = 1/12". 15 lines = 1 1/4" = 32mm). It is necessary that this last measure should be accurate"

http://www.convert-me.com/en/convert/length (If you want to see how much a line is put in 12 for lines and convert to see one inch. Then put in 15 lines and convert to see 1.25 inches and 31.75mm)

François Huber, 18. August 1789. From the 1806 edition of "New Observations on the Natural History of Bees" page 5.

http://bees.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=bees;cc=bees;sid=59f245051efcbff8255002f160444e72;rgn=full%20text;idno=5017286;view=image;seq=0009

Isn't the "accepted" number for natural comb for a European bee 35mm (1 3/8")? But Huber's observation is the same as what is currently accepted for AHB or Scutella which is 32mm. And consistent with my observations that it averages about 32mm and goes as small as 30mm:

http://incolor.inetnebr.com/bush/images/CombSpacing30.JPG

Obviously natural cell size has always been about 32mm spacing on combs and twenty days or less from egg to emergence. Or at least since 1806.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
Its been a well known fact since Langstroth's time that some races of bees build combs closer together. There is an article in the January 1977 Gleanings by Charles Koover on this subject. I've used 31 mm spacing now for 28 years. I much prefer 31 mm (just under 1 1/4 inches) to standard 1 3/8 inch frames but only in the broodnest, not in supers.

Its significant that the efforts of beekeepers for the last 150 years were devoted to larger cells and wider comb spacing. The bees don't use this naturally.

Fusion
 
#3 ·
Hi Guys,
Very interesting!

I don't think the bees have changed much since Huber's time. When given their own chance, they will construct brood comb in the same manner as they did back then.

An interesting experiment might be to take a naturally tapered brood comb, one that has the largest worker cells at the top and even smaller than small cell size at the bottom. And then compare the hatching time for worker larva in the different size cells on the same comb.

Regards
Dennis
 
#4 ·
> Isn't this a shorter capping time and shorter
> emergence time? Twenty days instead of the
> currently accepted 21?

You have to imagine a bell curve. The bulk of the
bees emerge on day 21, but some do emerge on day
20, if you mark observation hive glass, and keep
careful track of the hour each egg was laid, and
the date/hour of capping, and then emergence.

> It's not difficult, of course, to verify shorter
> capping and post capping times on natural sized
> cells.

Has anyone done this in a manner suitable for
publication yet?

> Obviously natural cell size has always been...

Let's not forget that Hubert was BLIND!!!
I, like many, enjoy his writings, but I'm not
going to assign much precision to the measurements
of an 18th Century BLIND MAN.
 
#5 ·
>Let's not forget that Hubert was BLIND!!!
I, like many, enjoy his writings, but I'm not
going to assign much precision to the measurements
of an 18th Century BLIND MAN.

I'm not certain if this is chronological snobbery-- that an 18th Century man isn't intelligent and therefore can't count days; or abled body snobbery-- that a wealthy, intelligent blind man with a singularly intelligent assistant can't think analytically, let alone count to 20.

That was the argument at the time too when they didn't want to believe that a queen mated in the air outside the hive and they didn't want to believe she only mated during one period for life and many other things contrary to the currently held opinions that he observed. They would point out that he was blind and simply laugh as if that was disproof enough of such foolishness. But most everything he came up with turned out to be consistent with what one can observe now and they were observations that no one had made at the time. All of his measurements have turned out to be very exact. With the exception, of course, that he can't count days and his comb spacing is too small. ;)

I agree that not all bees emerge in precisely the same amount of time. You become acutely aware of that when raising queens. Occasionally in hot weather some emerge on day 15. (potential disaster) Occasionally in cold weather they emerge on day 17. But they usually emerge on day 16.

Worker brood is similar, I'm sure. But I've seen most of the ones on 4.95mm cells (wax dipped PermaComb) emerge in 19. I'm sure, simply because of the weather and because of variations in natural cell size that one can observe shorter and longer times on natural cells (as Huber would have been). But I've consistently seen shorter times and apparently so did he (or, if you will, his assistant).
 
#6 ·
> I'm not certain if this is chronological snobbery-- that an 18th Century man
> isn't intelligent and therefore can't count days;

Please >>> READ <<< what I write before mounting your usual high-horse.
I mentioned his blindness and his century in regard to your unquestioning
acceptance of his "measurements" of cell sizes. Go to a museum and look
at what passed for a ruled scale in the late 1700s. Then tell me how accurate
their measurements could be.

> I agree that not all bees emerge in precisely the same amount of time.

I'm glad you agree with well-known fact, so I'll go back to the issue of capping
and emergence of smaller-celled bees. Where is the bell curve centered?
I'm sorry to be mean, but one must know the median!
 
#7 ·
>Please >>> READ <<< what I write before mounting your usual high-horse.

I did.

>I mentioned his blindness and his century in regard to your unquestioning
acceptance of his "measurements" of cell sizes.

Unquestioning? I come to the same conclusions by my own observations before quoting his. I would hardly call that unquestioning. This is simply showing independant confirmation of the observations of myself, Baudoux (which you can discount since it was a hundred years ago) and at least two of the posters above in this thread making at least five of us (Huber, Dennis, Fusion_power, Baudox and myself) confirming the same observations on comb spacing.

As to the "cell sizes" I mentioned no measurements of cell sizes nor did Huber. "Please >>> READ <<< what I write before mounting your usual high-horse." I did mention that natural comb is spaced smaller.

>Go to a museum and look
at what passed for a ruled scale in the late 1700s. Then tell me how accurate
their measurements could be.

We've been measuring things quite small, such as a grain (1/7000th of a pound) or 1/64th of an inch for centuries. And we aren't talking about measuring the width of a cell down to 1/10ths of a mm, we are talking about measuring the spacing of the comb down to one line (1/12th of an inch or 2mm). The other thing we were discussing was how many days which are much easier to measure than small distances.

>> I agree that not all bees emerge in precisely the same amount of time.

>I'm glad you agree with well-known fact

Interesting to be put down for simply agreeing with your "unquestioned acceptance" of a "well-known fact".

>, so I'll go back to the issue of capping
and emergence of smaller-celled bees. Where is the bell curve centered?

My measurements narrow the curve quite a bit on two counts. First they were in a observation hive in a house that stays about the same temperature all the time (@70 F) and second they were in wax coated PermaComb with a very consistent cell size of 4.95mm equivalent (meaning I take into account the difference in cell wall thickness).

The results are fairly consistently about 19 days. I'm sure if the cells were natural built and varied as the natural worker comb does, from 4.6mm to 5.1mm, there would be variation from that and then if the temperatures varied more it would vary more because of that. But under the controlled conditions I've been measuring them it's pretty consistent. I can't get it down to an hour without missing a lot of work to watch, but I check at least every eight hours and it came to 19 days even everytime I've tried it.

>I'm sorry to be mean...

Really? I have never gotten that impression.
 
#10 ·
That sums it up pretty well...

Nope, no one has apparently bothered to document
the claimed shorter capping times.

Yep, references of only historical interest
are trotted out to selectively support "points"
that remain very much in doubt due to a lack of
even minimal scientific rigor.

Is it any wonder that "small cell" remains
classified in most people's minds in the
same category with UFOs, astral projection,
mental telepathy, ESP, clairvoyance, spirit photography,
full-trance mediums, elekinetic movement, black
and/or white magic, pyramidology, the theory of
Atlantis, the Loch Ness Monster, spooks, spectres,
wraiths, geists and ghosts?

Too bad.
 
#11 ·
Five beekeepers in this conversation. Four have tried natural or small cell and ALL of them have observed closer spacing (which, by the way is mostly what this conversation is about) as do two now dead "historical" references (both of whom would be surprised not to be considered scientists) and one beekeeper, who has not measured it, compares it to UFO's and ghosts.

Yep. That sums it up pretty well.
 
#12 ·
> closer spacing (which, by the way is mostly what
> this conversation is about)

I could have sworn... yes, I just scrolled up
and re-read, the first part of the posting was
about Hubert (or Huber, if you prefer) as some
sort of "confirmation" of small-cell in some
way or another.

Oh, I'm so sorry, I forgot that asking pointed
questions tends to make everyone look up at the
ceiling and whistle, and then try to change the
subject.


I had no comment about the closer spacing at all.
I am confident that the technology of the late
1700s was equal to that measurement task, and
I am confident that any random person could
take the same measurements with sufficient
accuracy to draw valid conclusions with today's
tools.

> Five beekeepers in this conversation...

I was not aware that Science was a democratic
institution, where a random poll of readers of
the "biological beekeeping" message board
decided issues of fact.


While we are at it, isn't ALL beekeeping
"biological" by definition? I mean, I've
shown a few people my design for the
Robo-Bee 5000, but I don't even know of
anyone else even thinking about a mechanical
artificial intelligence driven autonomous
bee, let alone working on one.
 
#13 ·
>> closer spacing (which, by the way is mostly what
>> this conversation is about)

>I could have sworn... yes, I just scrolled up
and re-read, the first part of the posting was
about Hubert (or Huber, if you prefer) as some
sort of "confirmation" of small-cell in some
way or another.

I have heard him called Huber, Francis Huber, and
François Huber but never Hubert. Where did you get that?

The confirmation was of what is NATURAL width of comb and the emergence time on natural (as in no foundation) comb. Since no research has been done in recent times on ermergence times on NATURAL cell size I felt it was interesting that his observations agree with many of the small cell and natural sized cell people, yes. But you seem to think this conversation is about measuring cell size, which I did not talk about, nor did Huber.

>Oh, I'm so sorry, I forgot that asking pointed
questions tends to make everyone look up at the
ceiling and whistle, and then try to change the
subject.

You're the one trying to talk about cell size. What pointed question did you ask that I did not answer? Perhaps you think I'm avoiding your bell curve question? I believe I answered it, but I will elaborate if you couldn't get it the first time. There is no bell curve on emergence when:

1) the temperature is a practically perfect constant 70 degrees F.

2) the cell size is practially a perfect constant 4.95mm

3) the observations are made sometimes eight hours apart.

Every time I've done this I come up with an even 19 days. Certainly not more because it's the same time of day observation 19 days after seeing the queen lay that same egg, so it's possible that it's 8 hours SHORT of 19 days, but it's not longer than 19 days.

While I'm sure variaitions in natural cell size and variations in outdoor temperatures will cause more variation, Huber claims, and the eveidence would seem to support that Huber repeated all of his experiments many times.

>I had no comment about the closer spacing at all.
I am confident that the technology of the late
1700s was equal to that measurement task, and
I am confident that any random person could
take the same measurements with sufficient
accuracy to draw valid conclusions with today's
tools.

But that was the only measurement under discussion that would require a ruler and your reasons for questioning Hubers measurements are because 1) he is blind and 2) the measuring instrements of the 18th century were not accurate enough. The only other measurement under discussion was days and that hardly requires a ruler.

>> Five beekeepers in this conversation...

>I was not aware that Science was a democratic
institution, where a random poll of readers of
the "biological beekeeping" message board
decided issues of fact.

This is a forum. I believe the definition of a forum is, according to Webster:

"A public meeting place for open discussion"

I guess I was under the mistaken impression we were in a forum and we were free to share our observations. But if four of us have observed these things and a couple of old dead scientists have observed the same things, I don't see why you compare the idea to UFO's etc.

>While we are at it, isn't ALL beekeeping
"biological" by definition? I mean, I've
shown a few people my design for the
Robo-Bee 5000, but I don't even know of
anyone else even thinking about a mechanical
artificial intelligence driven autonomous
bee, let alone working on one.

I did not pick the name for this forum. I think all beekeeping is biological by definition. And gasoline is an organic chemical by definition. Obvously we all use words in different ways to communicate things in different contexts. You wouldn't think you'd study Benzene in "Organic" chemistry judging by it's use to describe chemical free farming, but of course we did.
 
#14 ·
>I was not aware that Science was a democratic
institution......

I would have to say that I that I love this statement, Literally. Now to convince the major scientific journals, readers' magazines, general public, and media at-large of this.


Sorry for the intrusion of off-topic on what is a good thread. but I really did like the comment. I wish I could take credit for it.

Waya
 
#15 ·
> I have heard him called Huber, Francis Huber, and
> François Huber but never Hubert. Where did you get that?

Not from you - spellings were very informal back
then, and it is unclear which spelling he
preferred, if he preferred one over the other.

> There is no bell curve on emergence...

If you don't have a bell curve, you don't have
enough data. Period.

>> I would have to say that I that I love this
>> statement, Literally.

Danke. Feel free to quote away at whim.
 
#16 ·
>> I have heard him called Huber, Francis Huber, and
>> François Huber but never Hubert. Where did you get that?

>Not from you - spellings were very informal back
then, and it is unclear which spelling he
preferred, if he preferred one over the other.

And again, I ask the question, where did you get that? I'm not doubting you but I would love to see a reference that calls him Hubert. Perhaps I've seen it and forgetten it, but it doesn't sound familiar.

>> There is no bell curve on emergence...

>If you don't have a bell curve, you don't have
enough data. Period.

That quote is quite out of context. I did not claim there is no bell curve on emergence. In fact on that subject I said:

>I agree that not all bees emerge in precisely the same amount of time...

The rest of the quote you truncated is:

> There is no bell curve on emergence *when*(emphasis added):

>1) the temperature is a practically perfect constant 70 degrees F.

>2) the cell size is practially a perfect constant 4.95mm

>3) the observations are made sometimes eight hours apart.

When you eliminate the principle factors that cause a spread in emergence times you don't have much of a curve left. Then when you only check every eight hours you can't pinpoint exactly when emergence occured, only that it occured BEFORE the time you found them emerged or emerging and after the last time you checked.

But all of them that I measured were no LONGER than 19 days. And no shorter than eight hours short of 19 days. Which leaves a possible spread of eight hours. That puts it between 486 and 448 hours. But all of them fell in that frame so I still don't have a curve, only the margin of error. It is possible some were earlier. I threw out a couple that were gone on day 18 because I simply thought it was possible they were chewed out and removed by the house bees. I would love to take several days off of work and watch constantly to pinpoint exactly how many hours to capping and emergence for a large number of cells, but I'm afraid I can't afford to. As nice as it would be to have a more specific set of numbers the fact that it is always early is sufficient for me.

I was not attempting at the time of these observations to write a scientific paper on the subject. As a matter of fact I wasn't even trying to prove anything. The first time it was just because I had just put the queen in the observation hive and wanted to measure emergence times for my own experience and enlightenment. I was expecting the textbook results. The first time I marked the cells the day they were capped and noted the time and then noted the days and time I saw them emerging 11 days later. I was surprised that this was a day earlier than I expected. This was repeated starting from seeing the queen lay the egg and they were capped early on day 8 and emerged on day 19. I was surprised. I had not heard any of the small cell camp mention this at the time and it seemed pretty significant to me where Varroa are concerned. I have mentioned it since and others have started to take note of it, but I was simply attempting to verify what I expected to be as the books say with capping between day 8 and 9 and emergence on day 21.
 
#17 ·
Most new comets are discovered by amateur astronomers, not by professionals a major observatories. Why? There are thousands upon thousands of amateur astronomers scanning the skies, while the pros at the big observatories are very narrowly focused on some specific area of research.

Anyone see the parallels here? I'm a complete newbee, but I'm not going to dismiss the observations of some long-time beekeepers just because they may not be "suitable for publication." Science may not be democratic, but the fact that Mr. Bush's results have been repeated by other beekeepers and appear to be consistent with historical observations warrants, at a minimum, further investigation.

For me, I'm excited about starting beekeeping, and one of the things I'm looking forward to is trying different things. I don't want a cookbook hobby where I just follow a checklist to get a particular result. I'll probably do that at first, to get my feet wet, and then... I want to play, I want to experiment, I want try many of the neat things I read about on these boards.

While I've seen some cool pictures taken by the Hubble telescope, what I'll never forget are the awesome summer nights watching the comet Hale-Bopp. The bee labs will produce some useful research, but I'll bet on the amateur beekeepers for finding things that make this hobby fun.
 
#18 ·
>your unquestioning acceptance of his "measurements"...

I had no expectation of what I found for comb spacing. When I built my first TBH back in 1975 or so, I spaced them 1 3/8" and the bees seemed willing to follow that for the most part. When I build another one several years ago I space the bars 1 1/2" thinking the bees would just follow the starter strips and space the combs 1 1/2" and they would be simpler to make. I was wrong. The bees spaced the combs 1 1/4" and ignored my starter strips. So I went to 1 1/4" bars. This worked until they got to the edge of the brood nest where they again ignored the starter strips and spaced them at LEAST 1 1/2" and sometimes more. So the spacing I arrived at was certainly not because of "unquestioning acceptance" of anything. It was entirely driven by the beees. Again, it was interesting to find Huber coming up with the same measuremnts. I did not come to those conclusions because anyone told me to. I expected the bees to be perfectly happy to space the combs 1 1/2" and naturally do them 1 3/8". But none of those things happened.

The other thing I did not expect was that the bees drew smaller cells when the combs were closer together. At 1 3/8" spacing most of the brood comb from unregressed bees was 5.1mm. At 1 1/4" spacing unregressed large cell bees drew some of the brood 4.7mm. Regressed bees at 1 1/4" spacing built a lot of the brood comb 4.6mm. At 1 3/8" I seldom see it that small, especially from unregressed bees and especially in those amounts.

None of these observations were what I expected.
 
#19 ·
Hi Guys,

For me, biologic beekeeping is fundamentally different than non-biologic beekeeping. The focus for biologic beekeeping is working WITH the bee rather than getting the bee to work with US.

A prime example of this difference can be found in a recent article by Sue Cobey in Bee Culture. This article describes the realities of double grafting which has been highly touted in the past. Beekeepers who double graft focus on only one aspect bee biology. They think they can do it better than the bees themselves do it and interfer with the natural process. They get larger queen cells but inferior queens.

A more biologic approach would be to understand the bee behaviors and then provide the best possible environment for those processes to occur. The results are always superior.

When I look at all the advancements in beekeeping since the Lang hive, almost all of them are concerned with the beekeeper and not the bee. As a consequence, most beekeepers are very well versed in bee management which is primarily focused on the beekeepers behavior :>)

Yet, they can be woefully deficient in understanding bee behavior itself. And that is particulary evident when any beekeeper thinks that the natural broodnest structure is irrelevant to bee behavior and health. It's a far stretch to think that the guts of the modern hive are even a close approximation to a natural broodnest for anyone who takes the time to examine one.

Maybe it can be summed up this way. A biologic beekeeper uses bee biology to justify his management and equipment choices. A non-biologic beekeeper uses his equipment to justify his understanding of bee behavior.

Regards
Dennis
Wondering how consistent comb observations, by numerous beekeepers, over a hundred years, can be discarded in the name of science and progress. Thinking maybe beekeeping science needs to get back to its roots.
 
#20 ·
I'd like to pin Fisher down. Jim, is it your view that 19 day emergence in 4.9mm cells is on par with UFO's and ghosts? That is to say, do you think it's ridiculous superstition? Or are you just saying that since you haven't seen a study that you respect on the matter, that you don't neccessarily tend to believe it or disbelieve it?

Reading most of your posts, I begin to think your aim here is just to try and goad others to support their claims by getting them worked up. That's all I can figure. Tell me again why you don't check it yourself and show these yahoos how it's supposed to be done? Don't say you don't have time--I read that thread on candle-feezing.
 
#23 ·
> I'd like to pin Fisher down.

There is no need to "pin me down", as I have
gone to great lengths to be clear in my
statements. Like Horton The Elephant, "I said
what I said, and I meant what I meant."

> is it your view that 19 day emergence in 4.9mm
> cells is on par with UFO's and ghosts?

My view of the phenomena itself is irrelevant.

My view of the work done so far to back up the
claims that such "shorter capping times" have any
impact on varroa infestation rates is that it
has been little better than the "research" done
on UFO's, et al.

> I begin to think your aim here is just to try
> and goad others to support their claims by
> getting them worked up.

No, my goal is to convince people that they are
capable of doing "publication-quality work", or
at least making it easier for a card-carrying
researcher to do the work by supplying some
existing "turn-key" small cell hives on loan.

If some people get all worked up, it is only
because they get defensive whenever someone dares
suggest that either sufficient proof does not yet
exist, and/or is required in a specific format
with which they have never attempted to comply.

> Tell me again why you don't check it yourself
> and show these yahoos how it's supposed to be
> done?

Like every other legitimate researcher on the
planet, I have no small-cell bees.

I also have no interest in investing the time to
"downsize" bees on pure speculation, mostly
because any results that would result from such
an approach would be dismissed by the small-cell
community as "due to my incorrect methods" in
the mechanics of the downsizing itself.

> Don't say you don't have time--I read that
> thread on candle-feezing.

I don't have the time. Educational efforts
(like the candle thread... or was it a "wick"?)
are part of the reason I don't have time.

Another reason is that it is spring, and I have
hives to work. Beekeeping is like shaving - if
you don't do it every day, you become a bum.


I honestly think that the only answer to getting
some results that are acceptable to all sides of
the "debate" is for a small-cell beekeeper to
loan hives to a researcher and/or participate in
the project, so that the hives to be studied can
be confirmed to meet the small-cell advocates'
definition of a "small-cell hive".

But no one seems to want to embrace this approach,
as it would force the issue, and result in data
that could not be rejected by the small-cell
community, if it turned out to be a less-than
glowing evaluation.

To summarize, no one wants to "put up", and we
certainly can't expect them to shut up.
 
#26 ·
>> My view of the phenomena itself is irrelevant.

> It may or may not be irrelevant but you could
> still answer the question.

OK, my (personal) view is that it needs looking at,
as the mechanism for limiting varroa reproduction
should be "easy to see", and "easy to verify".
Something simple like a dozen ob hives, each with
a small one-comb colony, like the ones Wyatt
Mangum runs, and some introduced varroa would be
sufficient, as capping times and varroa reproduction
rates are well-known for the usual case.

> Maybe you could give us a list of all the papers
> on beekeeping you've published.

Well, I put up the Bee Culture stuff here:
http://bee-quick.com/reprints
and I'll get around the rest when time becomes
available.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top