Does "Large Cell" Beekeeping work?

[Daniel Y]

If you read the ramblings of the founder of the small cell movement daily, she comes across as a wack job.

Is this a technical term? You made me laugh thank you.
No reflection on my part as to LC or SC. I just found it humorous that sometimes you just have to call it the way you see it.

[Fusion_power]

This was very well written up in the bee journals between 1900 and 1920. The first foundation mills made ranged from 4.8 to 5.0. As beekeeping modernized, many well meaning inventors decided that larger foundation cells would produce larger bees which could carry more nectar and would therefore make more honey. They were right on part of that, larger foundation does indeed result in larger bees. Eventually, the bees adapted to the foundation and selective pressures resulted in genetic changes so the bees are bigger. If you try to put these genetically larger bees on small cell, you get the comb messes that most beekeepers wind up with when they try to convert to small cell.

Is there an advantage to large cell comb? None that I have found after 7 years of running both sizes. Do I have a preference? Yes, I marginally like the small cell foundation because my bees overwinter just a tad better. But I should caveat that by saying that I am running 31 mm frames with 11 frames per deep brood chamber. This affects both cluster size and honey storage so there are a lot of internal cluster dynamics that are different with my bees.

DarJones

[squarepeg]

dar, do you run 11 frames in both your large and small cell colonies?

[HarryVanderpool]

i like michael bush's tag line:

"everything works it you let it"

Yes; If you let your bees die, they die.

[Beregondo]

You are attributing higher levels of hive loss to only cell size differences.

Nope, I'm not.
I am parodying a rather tired refrain that comes up so often in this cell size discussion. (As I think the OP probably is as well).
Someone invariably asserts they won't believe small cell works unless there's a paper that says so.
I think the folks who are doing well on small (or large, in the case of the parody) cell pretty much eliminate the need for such a paper.

If you read the ramblings of the founder of the small cell movement daily, she comes across as a wack job. I would no longer rely on her teachings than I would on that of Jim Jones, founder of the Peoples Temple. Several contributors on this thread are her disciples.

Ad hominem arguments seldom persuade.

I started using small cells before I ever heard of the lady you're speaking so poorly of.
I like them, for a number of reasons.
Just like some people like ugly boxes.
But I don't try to make people use them, anymore than the ugly box guy tries to make people use ugly boxes.

I think we take some stuff too stinkin' seriously sometimes!

I'm glad you're on the forum Ollie.
It's fun having you and stuff like "your" winter challenge around.
Plus, who else whips bee bee trees?

[Daniel Y]

Yes; If you let your bees die, they die.

Actually I have seen for myself that this is not necessarily true. Some of the first beehives I ever saw had been left to die. After about 10 years they where anything but dead. they attacked in mass when we got about 10 feet from them. Can't say much more about them than that. But they definitely where not dead. I don't think they would have been AHB either. this was in the mid 70's in south east Kansas. I don't think the AHB had made it across the US border yet.

[Acebird]

The three different directions across ten cells measure: 54mm, 50mm, 50mm. Interesting that they didn't get all three equal.

Can you explain what the third direction is?

[Acebird]

Is there an advantage to large cell comb? None that I have found after 7 years of running both sizes. Do I have a preference? Yes, I marginally like the small cell foundation because my bees overwinter just a tad better.

Didn't you just say there is no difference?

[Rader Sidetrack]

Can you explain what the third direction is?

Have you ever looked at a compass? There are 360 degrees represented on a compass. Each of those is a different direction.

[sqkcrk]

I believe that the three directions refered to are horizontal, vertical, and diagonal.

[Barry]

[squarepeg]

interesting the the dimension varies along those axes.

[jim lyon]

Great, this is all we need, a lead in to a debate about housel positioning.

[sqkcrk]

Which dimension was the one not the same? Barry? Just curious.

[Barry]

I was just thinking about that. I'll double check, but my guess is it's the direction that is a right angle to the rollers. That is the only direction that could change as you turn the rollers. I know Dee would talk about the wax stretching as it went through the rollers and distorting that side of the cells, but I used a piece of paper. Perhaps there is that much 'play' in the gearing that accounts for this. There is no way I can measure the imprint on the actual rollers.

[BeeCurious]

There is no way I can measure the imprint on the actual rollers.

Could you "ink" the roller and use paper? Either running it through the rollers (cardboard?) or simply rubbing the paper down with a finger?

[Acebird]

I know Dee would talk about the wax stretching as it went through the rollers and distorting that side of the cells, but I used a piece of paper. Perhaps there is that much 'play' in the gearing that accounts for this. There is no way I can measure the imprint on the actual rollers.

I asked the question because I assumed the "mill" was a round cylinder much the same as a rotary die. If this is the case the impression is dependent on the gearing and is usually smaller than the physical dimensions of the tool. Typically the tool rotates faster than the travel of the web so the impression comes out smaller in the direction of the web. If you want the impression to be equal to the web you take the gears out and rely on the friction of the bears to drive the roll. You would have to let the tool manufacturer know what your intentions are.

[Acebird]

Could you "ink" the roller and use paper? Either running it through the rollers (cardboard?) or simply rubbing the paper down with a finger?

Just roll the tool over a flat surface with a carbon copy between the tool and the flat surface. I would use a flat piece of sanded plywood so you don't damage the impressions. If you are looking for precision you measure it with a camera system. For beekeeping, just eyeball it with a scale.

[BeeCurious]

you take the gears out and rely on the friction of the bears to drive the roll.

I don't understand.

Just roll the tool over a flat surface with a carbon copy between the tool and the flat surface. I would use a flat piece of sanded plywood so you don't damage the impressions. If you are looking for precision you measure it with a camera system. For beekeeping, just eyeball it with a scale.

I don't think anyone is going to disassemble their foundation roller to take measurements.

[Acebird]

I don't understand.

show me what your machine looks like.

I don't think anyone is going to disassemble their foundation roller to take measurements.

Well then just put a carbon copy over the roll and rock a board around the roll for a segment. How many impressions do you want to measure?