Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner

Does "Large Cell" Beekeeping work?

51K views 245 replies 40 participants last post by  rwurster 
#1 ·
Does "Large Cell" Beekeeping work?
I have only used sc foundation but if there is proof that LC is better I might be willing to experiment. ;)

If there's no clear advantage I'll just stick with what I've been doing... :)
 
#3 ·
LC works for me personally and the research hives. SC experts always attack Tom Seely but he is just one of dozens in several states and countries that found SC ineffective. The better question is how many small cell beekeepers do not use survivor or hygeinic stock, avoid poisoning bees unnecessarily, and do not starve them nutritionally, or stick them on trucks for most of the year as migrant workers.
 
#4 ·
I will have a 5.5% loss this winter about double of what I normally have.
All large cell.
And I did not have to join the beekeeping taliban in order to keep losses low.
I just DO MY JOB as a beekeeper to the best of my ability every day.
 
#5 ·
bc, for what it is worth, and after three seasons using mann lake rite cell with a few foundationless mixed in, and zero treatments for mites:

2010 4 hives, no losses
2011 10 hives, no losses
2012 20 hives, 3 losses

the 2012 losses were one from afb, one from laying workers, and one from mites.

i attribute the one from mites to a poor queen, made by a weak nuc, that probably didn't mate well.
i would have tried to save it by requeening if i would have caught it in time.
 
#6 · (Edited)
I've been doing LC for over 11 years, basically treatment free. The "basically" qualifier means the first year when I overwintered a single colony I used Apistan because the beginner book I read was all about treating bees and I didn't have enough confidence to "break the rules". That was the first and only time I used "hard" treatments in any of my colonies. I used Sucrocide one season on a few colonies and MAQS (Fall 2011) on only two of my 40 colonies. I've come to the conclusion that these treatments are simply not worth the effort and expense. I saw no advantages from these treated hives relative to those neighboring untreated LC hives. In fact, one of the two hives treated with MAQS was the only one that showed significant number of mites in the drone brood the following spring. BTW, I use the evil 5.4 Mann lake Rite-Cell foundation too. Granted, my locality has pretty mild winters, so I don't want to make my record appear applicable to other regions. I run good hygienic stock (mostly from Glenn), and yes, even some of the V*H that so many seem to hate here on beesource. My colonies are extremely productive, far above most that I encounter in the 3 local clubs that I attend. My colonies all carry SHB, which I also don't manage with no negative impact. BTW, I've had SHB for 11 years. I monitor for varroa through drone brood uncapping and the occasional sticky board. I do split all my production colonies each spring using cut-downs to break the brood cycle just prior to peak honey flow. I make a good number of queens each year to propagate the best of my best.

So, yes it is doable (at least in my location) without harsh chems and SC. Has the pot been stirred enough yet?
 
#10 ·
I am not so sure of that. I have one of the first foundation mills made, by Mr. Olm of Fond du Lac Wis., and it is not the size of modern foundation. Neither is my great grandfather's mill in the Museum in Cassville, Wis. I can try to find my records.

Crazy Roland
 
#15 · (Edited)
i don't really know the history, but it seems like that info has been posted somewhere on the forum.:)
The is an amazing amount of reference material on "brood cell size" available in Point of View section of Beesource. Most of it seems to be under the Ed & Dee Lusby heading, but not necessarliy authored by the Lusbys.

Here is a quote from one written in 1931.
About the beginning of the 20th century, several controversies arose which concerned the size of the honeybee and its dependability upon the size of the cell. The first of these concerned the effect of the age of the comb upon the size of its emerging bees. It is unquestionable that this had a great influence in bringing about the large cell controversy in France and Belgium. At about the same time, the problem of enlarging the bees became an important issue here in America and a long discussion concerning length of the honeybee probescis and its relation to pollination and honey production ensued. The following is a discussion of the above three controversies in the order given.
http://www.beesource.com/point-of-v...ce-of-cell-size/the-size-of-brood-comb-cells/


Once you open the link above, you should see on the left a wealth of other material on this subject. Enough to keep a person occupied for many days. :lookout:

Note that in some cases, you have to go back to the links on the left to read the following sections of the same paper. If it looks like some of the document is missing, check the left side for more links.
 
#13 · (Edited)
BeeCurious, I think it depends on what you mean by "Does it work?"

While one hears isolated reports such as Harry's 5.5% loss last winter, and the exceptionally low loss rate squarepeg enjoys, with the national average loss rate at around 30%, and that almost all on large cell, I'd hardly call that "working".

I know of no peer reviewed scientific study being published to show that there is any advantage whatever in colony production or survivability due to large cell use.

Until such evidence exists, I'm playing it safe and sticking to small cell.:lookout:
 
#17 ·
You are attributing higher levels of hive loss to only cell size differences. I used LC used successfully from 1970 -1995 until the mites came. Hives with LC re-used worked fine. In 2006 my bees started dieing from something else. I made SC hives. They die also. I rarely have a SC hive produce as much crop or live longer than a LC hive. 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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Flyer Jim
#21 ·
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.
 
#22 ·
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
 
#35 ·
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.
 
#43 ·
What Ace meant was BEARERS.
Looking at Barry's mill; it does not have bearers.
Bearers are typically installed on such mills and rotary presses.
What you would see are narrow cylinders about 1/2" wide on each side of both die cylinders. They would be just slightly larger in diameter than the working cylinders to either prevent them from touching or to actually set the thickness.
Bearers are really good also for preventing bounce when the rolls are in operation.
I'm guesssing that instead of bearers, Barry's machine limits daylight height by elevator stops.
That is O.K. for this application, but in super-duper accurate applications, bearers are preferred because with stops you still have bearing play etc. When cylinder bearers meet and slightly loaded, the resulting nip is absolute.
Aren't you glad you picked on Ace?
 
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