Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner

Natural Cell Size Experiment

12K views 53 replies 14 participants last post by  Oldtimer 
#1 ·
#52 ·
If I put 4.9 foundation in my hives will I get 4.9 cells?
If the bees are small enough to build them and the time is right, yes.

If I put no foundation in my hive will I get 4.9 cells?
I guarantee you'll get at least one, if you can find it. If you read the very first post of this thread, you'll notice that given the opportunity to build on a foundationless frame, my regressed bees will build cells between 4.9mm and 5.2mm. This will be slightly different for each location, but in general, bees will build a range of cell sizes and that range will be generally smaller than the standard sizes available in foundation.

Third question, which method will make the regression faster?
If you use foundation, it will probably be faster. However, that's the only method I've done myself, so that's the only one I really know about.
 
#34 ·
Reading all those threads about "natural" , "foundationless", or "small cell," beekeeping methods with open mind and positive unorthodox attitude one must conclude that:

Bees will build "natural" workers comb anything between perhaps starting at 4,6mm most likely 4.9mm and 5.2 mm if allowed. Talking about workers cells not drone cells here.

Anybody agrees?

The beekeeping industry in USA pushed for larger cells resulting in larger "better" bees in the last 100+ years.

Any arguments about this?

So there is no question that bees were pushed to build and use cells of 5.4mm or more is it?

Considering how old the bees are here on the planet earth 100 years is a really minuscule period of time, yet they were pushed to use cells about 10% + larger than the ones they built for countless MILLIONS of years.

What impact did it have on the rather miserable worldwide bee situation is a subject to discussion, obviously there is more to general bee demise than the cell size imposed on them comes in the whole equasion.

However the fact that many successful and widely respected beekeepers (example Michael Bush and others) claim small cells solved most of their beekeeping problems, can not be ignored.

I am an open minded person so I like to challenge orthodox ways of doing things not only in beekeeping but other venues too.

Another widely accepted fact is that the bees form the nest cluster in a "sphere" shape and fashion, meaning round to oval.

Many other and older beekeeping traditions acknowledges that fact (Warre, Japanese hive etc.) using square box perhaps not ideal but likely better than rectangular.

Why do we use a rectangular box for a beehive in US? Barring all different opinions as to cubic nest size etc ?

Narrowing the original Langs hive to 8 frame deeps, or 5 frames nucs makes it even worse and ridiculous.

There are companies pushing "Garden hive setup" comprising stacking up several 5 frame deep supers for a full blown setup. Hard to imagine besides beekeeping merits how they prevent this narrow and tall thing to fall over in a slightest breeze without support. LOL
 
#37 ·
Bees will build "natural" workers comb anything between perhaps starting at 4,6mm most likely 4.9mm and 5.2 mm if allowed. Talking about workers cells not drone cells here.

Anybody agrees?
Depends where you are on the planet and what bees you have. Over here, it's about 5.3.


The beekeeping industry in USA pushed for larger cells resulting in larger "better" bees in the last 100+ years.

Any arguments about this?
Yes. As previously stated it wasn't pushed. Beekeepers wanted larger cells because they believed, probably correctly at the time, that it would get them more honey. No conspiracy theory, sorry.

many successful and widely respected beekeepers (example Michael Bush and others) ..........

Narrowing the original Langs hive to 8 frame deeps, or 5 frames nucs makes it even worse and ridiculous.
Michael Bush uses 8 frame supers.

Why do we use a rectangular box for a beehive in US? Barring all different opinions as to cubic nest size etc ?
Several reasons, i'll give you 3. Farming is not about being totally natural, it's about productivity. How natural is it to keep cows in a barn? It's not natural, but it's productive. Commercial beekeeping is also about productivity both in terms of what the bees can do, and the beekeeper can do. The dimensions of a lang are a compromise between what the bees like and what suits the beekeeper. Hobby beekeepers make their living from something other than their bees so need not be concerned with productivity, they can use a more natural design if they wish, no issues from me with that. But of course, what's natural? Anything a bee will live in really.
Secondly, bees left to their own devices do not build a perfect sphere. It will normally be longer in the direction the combs run, than wide. Like a lang.
Thirdly the length of a lang frame is a good length, that suits the bees, in a strong 2 brood box colony with queen laying fully, the type of colony we want, to produce a good harvest. 12 frames wide would probably work even better. But hey, how many of those would you want to lift around every day. It's a compromise. As a matter of interest I believe Brother Adam designed such a super, from memory, it was a mammoth 20 inches square. But he had teams of monks to help with the labor.

I know not all that will suit some of the other views expressed, I guess my mind has been polluted from actually having kept bees for more than a few months. ;)
 
#38 ·
I have had ten hives with that size for honey super since I visited Brother Adam in 1978. The brood chambers fit 11 1/4" deep frames. That size honey super weighs about 50 lbs full. Brother Adam tried many sizes of hives and concluded that that square size was the best. The six hives on this little trailer produced about 1100 lbs. as shown.

 
#36 ·
I've done 2 cut-outs now and it's 50/50. One was in a bannister that was about 4" thick and about 3' square and they've been there for a long time (so my father said. . . 10+ years) and looking at the comb it had been there for a good long while. Now it could be debated that it may not be the original hive, but there was no signs of pests other than mites. The second cut-out was in a eve of a roof and that was much more square. However this hive was a new one. There was one there in years past because I could see the old comb that had been eaten through by wax moths and the like. I didn't even fill 2 deep frames w/ the comb from this new hive. They're now in a 5 frame nuc but frame # 5 isn't fully drawn out yet. So they may prefer to cluster in a circle shape, however in my VERY LIMITED experience they make due with whatever they have.
 
#40 ·
Yes. Read Beekeeping at Buckfast Abbey. He like one brood chamber rather than a double. He liked deeper frames to give the queen lots of room to lay. He chose the medium depth super for it's final weight, I guess. He thought the 12 frame width was right for wintering in his difficult climate.
 
#46 ·
Yes, the medium depth boxes full weigh about 50 lbs. I have twice drawn out the 11 1/4" frames as a honey super and they probably weigh full of honey around 100lbs. Here are three pictures of that experiment. The honey super to the right of employees' elbow, a full frame and an uncapped frame. They are very fragile in the extractor because of their size even wired two directions. Also the honey was excessively thick.

http://s156.photobucket.com/albums/t7/odfrank/2009/
 
#43 ·
pascopol, several point you make I question.
1. where do you come by the information that a cluster is round or that bees want it to be?
2. assuming that you are correct on number one. Why do you consider anything less than 10 frames to small to get that round shape to the cluster. For example I can place a baseball in a shoebox with plenty of room to spare. In addition I have seen comments a couple of times that a 10 frame box may be to large due to the issue of bees using the #1 and #10 frames. On what information do you make the claim that 10 frame is the right size while 8 frame is ridiculous?
3. I am not sure I have heard of anyone using 5 frame nucs as permanent hives. they have a purpose and have been designed to suit that purpose. It is not comparing apples to apples in the case of nucs.

I am very interested in this cluster size and shape issue just not clear on how you come up with the minimum requirements for an average cluster. Or why it is claimed it should be round at all.

I am also a little confused as to just how a colony rotates from the edges of a cluster to the center when individual layers of bees are separated by sheets of comb. The only way I imagine it happening is that each sheet of bees works this rotation out in that particular layer. still if you imagine a ball cut into slices at least a couple of those slices will be like the end of the potato. there is no center to move to in that case.

Further thought is if you are in fact correct on all the above. would not a round shape to the hive be more suitable? maybe not a ball shape but a tall cylinder with the outer frames very short and each successive frame being a bit longer.
 
#45 ·
I am also a little confused as to just how a colony rotates from the edges of a cluster to the center when individual layers of bees are separated by sheets of comb.
I think they move toward the center not to the center. In other words to a point warmer in the cluster. It might actually be more sideways. The space between the foundation wall can almost be 2 inches. You could pack a lot of bees in a 2 inch space.
 
#50 ·
pascopol;722401There is a reason(s) why some outstanding beekeepers of the past Brother Adam included used square hive. In case of Brother Adam built 20 inch square super cause he had free labor available. He would probably settled with smaller size hive closer to Rev Warre size if he had to lift supers himself. But he proved his point of superior productivity using square hive said:
If beekeepers would add beveled cleats to all of their hives they would not have to whine so much about their weight. The reason a hive with only handholds is so hard to lift is that only your finger tips are carrying the weight. I locate my cleats flush with their bottom aligned with the top of the handhold.When one has a beveled cleat to grab with 1+" of your finger tip into the handhold, and able to squeeze it with your palm, a box is much easier to handle. Note in the pictures that my square hives have a beveled cleat all the way around.
 
#51 ·
Yes I do know about the winebox.

I've even been known to use apple crates myself.

However the hive is not designed just because he thought no further than the shape of the winebox. It's about ergonomics, the winebox was built that shape because of handling, and something around the same size and shape suits the beekeeper as well, for the same reason. Commercial folks anyway, have to have something that suits the bees, but also that they can handle. So there's a compromise solution between the two.

You are correct about the handles making boxes easier to lift. But again it's about compromise. Commercial beekeepers need to have something that can be stored economically, and also fit snugly together on the truck. Also when working a hive if I have to take several boxes off, I'll put some them on their end on the ground to keep them clean, and keep the bees safe. But if there's a cleat, you can't do that.

I like your hive design though Odfrank and have followed your honey crops over the years. :) Also, did you actually weigh that super of honey? My suspicion is the full weight of it, honey, box, and all, would have been around 130 lb's, or more. I wouldn't want to be handling truckloads of them!
 
#53 ·
Also when working a hive if I have to take several boxes off, I'll put some them on their end on the ground to keep them clean, and keep the bees safe. But if there's a cleat, you can't do that.My suspicion is the full weight of it, honey, box, and all, would have been around 130 lb's, or more. I wouldn't want to be handling truckloads of them!
I stand my cleated supers on the ground all the time. They lean a bit, no problem.
I doubt my 12 frame jumbos weigh as much as a double lang. I will try to weigh them empty.
 
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