Author Topic: new hive and small cell foundation? (Read 7842 times)

drbryanj · « **on:** March 23, 2007, 09:45:42 am »

I am starting a new hive this spring. I have a nuc on order to arrive the first weekend in May. I was thinking of starting with small cell foundation. Should I use full sheets of foundation or starter strips? Will the larger bees from the nuc have a problem with the smaller cells. Do I need to regress the hive? Help!!

Understudy · « **Reply #1 on:** March 23, 2007, 10:43:29 am »

The hive will have to regress. You can do either strips or foundation.

Sincerely,
Brendhan

Michael Bush · « **Reply #2 on:** March 24, 2007, 12:51:06 pm »

>Should I use full sheets of foundation or starter strips?

Use whichever you feel most comfortable with.

> Will the larger bees from the nuc have a problem with the smaller cells.

They will be better off with the smaller cells. They may not draw them perfectly the first try.

> Do I need to regress the hive?

To regress you just give them small cell (or starter strips) and when they have drawn it and raised brood on it, you feed in more to get a second "generation" of comb from them. Once you have 4.9mm or smaller at the core of the brood nest you are regressed. You can't regress them BEFORE you give them small cell, since that's how you regress them.

Eve Sylvia · « **Reply #3 on:** March 30, 2007, 02:38:08 pm »

Interesting, if you start with a strip of small cells, they will continue to build small? Geometry? Do we know if hatching earlier causes any infirmities to the bees as it squeezes out the mites? I've heard not, but I have a suspicion of manipulation, think it got us into the trouble we are in.

Understudy · « **Reply #4 on:** March 30, 2007, 02:41:09 pm »

Quote from: Eve Sylvia on March 30, 2007, 02:38:08 pm

Interesting, if you start with a strip of small cells, they will continue to build small? Geometry? Do we know if hatching earlier causes any infirmities to the bees as it squeezes out the mites? I've heard not, but I have a suspicion of manipulation, think it got us into the trouble we are in.

Wow, she is new and post frequently. Very nice.

Let me introduce you now to Finsky. Our highly succesful Finnish Beekeeper. He has a few threads you might like.

http://forum.beemaster.com/index.php?topic=8431.0

Sincerely,
Brendhan

Mici · « **Reply #5 on:** March 30, 2007, 02:42:27 pm »

Quote from: Understudy on March 30, 2007, 02:41:09 pm

He has a few threads you might like.

http://forum.beemaster.com/index.php?topic=8431.0

Sincerely,
Brendhan

sarcasm? :-D

Understudy · « **Reply #6 on:** March 30, 2007, 02:45:47 pm »

Quote from: Mici on March 30, 2007, 02:42:27 pm

Quote from: Understudy on March 30, 2007, 02:41:09 pm
He has a few threads you might like.

http://forum.beemaster.com/index.php?topic=8431.0

Sincerely,
Brendhan

sarcasm? :-D

Not at all. If nothing else I have a high respect for Finsky. I love his passion and ablity to debate. I even like his sometimes course sense of humor. Although it may not be for the faint of heart. Remember with Finsky it isn't personal. The man makes more money with his beekeeping hobby than I make working for living. He is doing something right.

Sincerely,
Brendhan

KONASDAD · « **Reply #7 on:** March 30, 2007, 03:33:41 pm »

Quote from: Eve Sylvia on March 30, 2007, 02:38:08 pm

Interesting, if you start with a strip of small cells, they will continue to build small? Geometry? Do we know if hatching earlier causes any infirmities to the bees as it squeezes out the mites? I've heard not, but I have a suspicion of manipulation, think it got us into the trouble we are in.

The thinking goes that small cell is equivalent in size to "natural cell" and therefore is what would be made in nature by the bees. Therefore, it would fit perfectly into your "let bees be bees" philosophy. When they swarmed and you didn't catch them, they would be more prepared for their new feral lifestyle. Better able to combat natures realities. Technically, not a manipulation. The foundation most people are using is a manipulation. If you beleive this idea. Many on this site do and have great success. This months ABJ advises small cell is yet to be tested and proven to help w/ varoa, as Finsky ardently argues. And so it goes.......

Jerrymac · « **Reply #8 on:** March 30, 2007, 03:40:31 pm »

Quote from: Eve Sylvia on March 30, 2007, 02:38:08 pm

Interesting, if you start with a strip of small cells, they will continue to build small? Geometry?

If you have bees from a large cell hive, they probably, most likely, will not maintain the small cell size from a small cell starter strip. It is after a regression period that they are able to consistently build small cell.

Quote from: Eve Sylvia on March 30, 2007, 02:38:08 pm

Do we know if hatching earlier causes any infirmities to the bees as it squeezes out the mites? I've heard not, but I have a suspicion of manipulation, think it got us into the trouble we are in.

Why would something natural to the bees be a problem? If you let the bees build their own cells they will build smaller than what is considered normal. I have captured many feral colonies from walls of structures and all of them have small cells in the brood nest area. This is what the bees built with out any guides or foundation. Yes they do build larger cell sizes for drones and honey storage.

Kathyp · « **Reply #9 on:** March 30, 2007, 04:12:30 pm »

i'm with finskey.

there is not harm in small cell, and strips to start will certainly save money. my problem is that people are counting on an unproven method of varroa control. that is dangerous to all of us. an inexperienced person will not know that they are in trouble with this method of mite control until it is to late to save their hive.

there are proven methods of mite control. some of them even (more) natural. if you choose not to use them and you lose your hive to mites, i'm not sure tears should be shed over it.

Jerrymac · « **Reply #10 on:** March 30, 2007, 05:30:13 pm »

I flipped a car at over 55 mph and didn't get one scratch. I was not wearing my seatbelt and the car was not equipped with air bags. All scientific studies would have you believe I am dead.

tillie · « **Reply #11 on:** March 30, 2007, 05:38:26 pm »

I certainly am glad you are not (dead), Jerrymac - you make great contributions here as I imagine you do elsewhere in your life -

but that aside, I always think about the Sierra Club who when they first came out with their positions on the environment were looked at as crazy, communistic, etc. Now many people of all walks of life and thought belong to the Sierra Club or espouse their beliefs in our responsibility to protect the environment a la Silent Spring....so sometimes the people who are the wisest are seen as out on a limb at first.

Linda T

Understudy · « **Reply #12 on:** March 30, 2007, 05:46:35 pm »

Quote from: Jerrymac on March 30, 2007, 05:30:13 pm

I flipped a car at over 55 mph and didn't get one scratch. I was not wearing my seatbelt and the car was not equipped with air bags. All scientific studies would have you believe I am dead.

I knew it. There is a ghost in the machine. Someone call a priest we need an exorcism on the beemaster.com server.

What I don't understand is why a ghost would want to claim Lubbock, TX as home.

:lol:

Sincerely,
Brendhan

Kathyp · « **Reply #13 on:** March 30, 2007, 05:47:08 pm »

hey...the sierra club started out great. i was a member for years. then they kind of went off the deep end and got political. that was the end of my membership. i like to look at trees, but hugging them is way to much. :-)

jerrymac, science and it's studies are not alway correct. witness the great global warming fiasco. however, in the absence of proof it is foolish to embrace as your only source, the anecdotal observations of others. they may be right for their situation, but if their observations can not be consistent recreated by the rest of us, we would be risk our investment by following their lead because it "feels good".

Understudy · « **Reply #14 on:** March 30, 2007, 05:50:10 pm »

Quote from: kathyp on March 30, 2007, 05:47:08 pm

hey...the sierra club started out great. i was a member for years. then they kind of went off the deep end and got political. that was the end of my membership. i like to look at trees, but hugging them is way to much. :-)

jerrymac, science and it's studies are not alway correct. witness the great global warming fiasco. however, in the absence of proof it is foolish to embrace as your only source, the anecdotal observations of others. they may be right for their situation, but if their observations can not be consistent recreated by the rest of us, we would be risk our investment by following their lead because it "feels good".

Good science always makes room for exceptions and alternatives. The problem is when people expect science to be exact like a mathmatical formula. Gravity exists but we still managed to get to the moon.

Sincerely,
Brendhan

Mici · « **Reply #15 on:** March 30, 2007, 06:32:32 pm »

well, what can i say, everyone should be at leasst as sceptic as i am. i mean, although i may appear like a strong believer in 4,9mm or starter strips, i am not, at least until i try it, which i certanly am going to. BUT i will surelly test at least one hive with other treatment methods. to rephrase it, if you're naive you're done beekeeping! oh, also if you lack curiosity you're not in a much better situation.

that's my view at the whole thing.

Jerrymac · « **Reply #16 on:** March 30, 2007, 06:48:12 pm »

There are these people that do all of this stuff, write papers on it, publish books on it, and everyone believes what they say, after all, why would they lie? The thing is that scientific studies cost money. Then you start that whole thing of where the money comes from and who lobbies what group to get funds to do this or that and such another something or some other such thing. Now the drug companies prosper when you have to dump drugs into a hive. No one makes money off of nothing going into a hive so what does this tell us? No one is interested in finding out that all this stuff isn't needed. Money makes liars out of a lot of people.

Now to make all this treatment stuff work the way it is suppose to work one has to do it right. Certain things need to be done at certain times, or you mess up and lose your bees. Small Cell has to be done right or you lose your bees. The only difference I see is that Small cell takes less work and you don't have to dump all that money on all the treatment stuff.

Now what has the Small Cell folks got to gain by telling you something that would cause you to lose your hives? No one is making money from you if you do it their way. There are many small/natural cell folks all around the country that have kept bees with out the use of chemicals. (And some large cell beeks have done it with no chemicals) They have done it for years.

Kathyp · « **Reply #17 on:** March 30, 2007, 07:03:41 pm »

Quote

No one makes money off of nothing going into a hive

not so. the people who sell bees make lots of money. looked at the cost of a package this year?

you are correct. all research needs to be looked at to see if there is an agenda. in this case, there are many beekeepers who are looking for the best way to fight varroa. it is their living and their love. so far, no one....not one of the universities, or beekeepers, or beekeeping groups, have been able to show that small cell is the answer to varroa.

so far, the official research has not been long term. that's what we need. one or two large, long term studies done in different parts of the country and in a controlled way.

i'm not against small cell (i say again!! :-) ) . i am against giving people the impression that this is the answer to 'natural' beekeeping. disappointment is the fastest way to discourage people from getting into this hobby, and we may be the best hope for the continuation of beekeeping in the near future.

BTW...there are some good articles in the new ABJ. have not finished it yet but looks like there is some good info in there.

Brian D. Bray · « **Reply #18 on:** March 30, 2007, 08:52:38 pm »

Small cell in and off itself is not the answer. IMO there is no single magic cure for Varroa. However, a multi-use approach will. SBBs, Proper ventilation, Small cell, Sugar Shakes, all are part of the overall treatment to keep Varroa undercontrol to a point the bees can adapt to the threat on their own.
Using chemicals as a silver bullet has proven fruitless--after a few seasons the mites become tolorent of the chemical and it no longer works. Then there is the adverse effect that the chemicals might induce on the hive. Use of a multitude of natural methods will work and actually be less intensive or hazards on both the beekeeper and the bees.

Michael Bush · « **Reply #19 on:** March 30, 2007, 09:11:54 pm »

>Interesting, if you start with a strip of small cells, they will continue to build small?

You can start with a strip of large cell, small cell or blank wax. The end results are the same.

>Do we know if hatching earlier causes any infirmities to the bees as it squeezes out the mites?

Since the bees build whatever they want, how is it going to harm the bees?

> I've heard not, but I have a suspicion of manipulation, think it got us into the trouble we are in.

But it's not manipulation.

http://www.bushfarms.com/beesnaturalcell.htm

As far as studies, I'd say most scientific studies are not badly done. The problem is the broad conclusions that are drawn from either small statistically irrelevant studies or the tendency for statistics to be skewed in ways that were not anticipated.

I'll give an illustration in a different realm. Let's say I do an experiment on how best to start my old car (that still has a carborator). After many experiments (on a nice 70 degree day in the early summer) I conclude that pumping the gas pedal twice and then turning the key will start it in the least amount of time. I share this with everyone and the assumption is made, based on this study, than any more or less will never be as effective as twice. So that winter, when it's -33 F, I try that method and never do succeed at starting my car because I insist that twice is exactly the right number of times to pump it. Of course, I did not take into account the outside temperature with that experiment.

Drawing broad conclusions on narrow studies is the cause of many "mistakes" in research.