George Imrie, THE Conventional Beekeeper

How do you not love George Imrie and his Pink Pages?  You have heard of the Pink Pages haven't you?  Some of the best conventional beekeeping advice in the known world of conventional beekeeping is there.  Check out George Imrie's Pink Pages for yourself.

Yes, for those of you who read my blog or who may actually even know me in person, I am not a conventional beekeeper.   I have nothing against conventional beekeepers.  Hey, whatever floats your boat I say. 

I know a lot of conventional beekeepers who love to tell me that my method and approach to beekeeping is "wrong" or even "bad".  Then again, I know a lot of non-conventional beekeepers who will do the same to conventional beekeepers.  Being judgmental knows no bounds and is limited to no single group.

Having just said that, I have the Pink Pages bookmarked and I read through them every so often to keep the information fresh in my head.  There is some fantastic knowledge stored there that a beekeeper would have to be crazy or just plain stupid to ignore.

George Imrie was a very scientific beekeeper.  He was an E.A.S. Master Beekeeper and that is saying something because the E.A.S. has some of the most extensive requirements for said certification that I have seen.

Reading his pages, you'll want to keep in mind that George was a very opinionated fella and he wrote confidently about his topic.  He says what he says and is unapologetic about it.  I personally find it refreshing, even when he might be saying something I disagree with.

Do Bees Do Things Scientifically? If they do, they do it Cool

I think all beekeepers get a little anthropomorphic when it comes to bees.  It sure does seem like they are doing things intentionally to let us know certain things at times.

It's interesting to talk about things bees do scientifically.  We measure cells and we weigh combs and we observe behaviors, recording and documenting for study later.

All of that is really just for us though.  The bees really don't care.  If we ever so carefully make sure the frames in our hives are spaced from each other to the exact millimeter to give the bees their "bee space" or if we have the frame in there crooked and off space as can be.  The bees don't care.  They draw wax and store pollen or nectar or whatever as they will.   Will they make brace comb to fill the too large space as we are warned?  Probably. They might.  They might not.

As often as I've looked inside bee hives,  I have yet to see bees whip out a tape measure when drawing comb.  I have never seen a supervisor bee yelling at the others that they made the cell too big or too small, while holding a set of blueprints and holding them out for all to see.

I have never seen bees using a microscope or a refractor to make sure the honey is OK before capping it off.

Bees don't do things scientifically, they just do them.  Most of what bees do, they know how to do from a genetic memory.  The knowledge of how to do certain things, when to do it, etc... they just know.  Yes, bees can learn new things, but a lot of what they already do, they already knew.

So, while I and so many others like to observe and measure and learn what the bees know, it's fine to be scientific about it.  The bees may not need science, but we do.  At the same point, sometimes we have to take the bees cue and just do it.

Relax and be amazed and transfixed and utterly caught up in the moment while we are looking in the hives or just sitting and watching them fly in and out of them.

I was talking on the phone last night with a friend of mine, a fellow beekeeper and cut out "artist" in Louisiana.  Both of us use science to get bees out of places and into hive boxes.  The better you understand bees, the better you can get the job done better, faster and with less damage to the bees and the structure you take them from.

But, our conversation wasn't focused on the science of what we do.  It was all about the cool factor of seeing what those bees did.  Had you listened in on us, you'd have thought you were hearing our inner twelve year olds coming out and fully appreciating just how cool those things we saw with those bees was.

Science was at the back of our minds.  Because first, we are beekeepers.  It is about the experience.  That rush you get when you stand in the center of a flying swarm cloud.  That sense of "awesome" when you stick your bare hand into a swarm on a branch to get the bees off and not get stung once.

That's just as much, if not more, beekeeping, as the scientific part of it.  If nothing else, the scientific part gives you even more appreciation and awe at the things these bees do.

Have you ever watched a bee emerge from her cell for the first time?  Cool.  Have you ever seen a bee drag something from the hive that looks to be way oversized for her and she stills manages to take flight and carry it away?  Way Cool.

Have you ever seen a cloud of bees flying in from one direction and then head straight for some particular point, like a hive entrance and the bees seem to magically just cover the whole box before slipping inside?  How frickin cool was that, huh?!!

There's more to bees than just science.  Bees are Cool.  Don't miss out on that part of it,   You just might be missing the most important part.

The Cell Size Discussion

Sometimes I see a great post on a social networking site and I want to reply but then the reply begins to take the form of a post.  That's not fair to the original poster, but I still want to help provide what information I am trying to share.

That happened again when reading a post about small cell foundation.

When it comes to organic practices, many people consider foundation-less top bars or frames to be the best choice as it allows the bees to decide what size cells to build and where to place the different sizes they build.

When it comes to beekeeping in general, the greatest compromise we ask the bees to make is to draw straight, parallel combs instead of the curvy, free form combs they would normally build on their own.  This eases our ability to inspect and harvest those combs.

Warre went to great lengths to point out how important those curvy, free form combs are in a bees nest to preserving an environment that is resistant to diseases and pests.  He insisted that through his observations, instances of foulbrood and other pest /disease problems increased in hives that kept the nest "open" using straight, parallel combs instead of "closed" allowing the curvy, free form natural design of bees.

Since Dee Lusby began talking about using small cell foundation in hives, people have begun considering that approach more as well. Michael Bush expands on that discussion as well.

Generally speaking, Foundation manufacturers increased cell sizes to get bigger bees and more honey per cell (5.4 mm).  Bigger bees, they presumed, are healthier and capable of bringing in more nectar and pollen.

There are studies which have shown though, that smaller cells in worker brood areas help keep mite populations low or absent as the mites need a certain amount of space.  They will almost always tend to look for the biggest cells which are also usually the drone cells.

On pre-fab foundation, for the most part, all cells imprinted are darn near the size of drone cells, thus giving mites more cells to choose from.

If a beekeeper wants to use foundation in their beekeeping plan, many who are concerned about the mite issue have followed Dee Lusby and others by putting small cell (4.9 mm) foundation in.  As Mike Bush notes, natural cell sizes in any given comb range from about 4.6 mm to about 5.1 mm on average.  Given that, the small cell foundation seems to fit right in to the natural size range.  However, again, these are all the cells imprinted on the sheet with no variation as a natural comb would have.

It has been noted by several people that bees raised on large cell foundation have a difficulty regressing back to small cells and that it will take ea few generations to get back to that point.  The beekeeper may need to help the process by removing large cells that the bees might draw on their own while adapting.

Waree's hive and horizontal top bar hives have that (removing combs from the hive) built in as part of their regular management.  Conventional beekeepers might consider adding that step as well instead of continuing to use the same combs over and over.  At least until the bees have regressed to the smaller cell sizes.

For the most part,  I think that small cell foundation is like a half-step measure made in an "Bee Wise" beekeeping plan for beekeepers who have decided that foundation will play a part in their beekeeping.  It seems to be an organic practice that works toward mite prevention and minimizing the pest presence.

Fact based discussion about bee colony deaths

I have seen quite a few scientific studies that give proof or at least make solid links between pesticides, especially neonicotinoids, to some bee deaths to be sure that it is one of the foremost problems of these beekeeping times.

Having said that,  I have seen more in the form of rhetoric and hyperbole to make rational people be very cautious when beginning such a discussion.

Much like politics and religion, the trueth about how big of a role toxic pesticides play in overall bee deaths is very highly politicized and polarized by those who have a "dog in the race" so to speak.  The pesticide manufacturers have been less than forthcoming and their own studies have been shown more than once to be flawed in favor of a "safe" result simply to get the EPA to approve of them.

The EPA has been shown in publicly released e-mails to be less than honest in how they handle the process of approving said pesticides.  There is no question that both the EPA and the manufacturers need to be questioned and viewed skeptically.

The problem is, even with the shoddy science that has been put forth by the companies, there has been an equal amount of shoddy science by those who have a political agenda against them.  They provide just enough data to get the easy believers riled up and spouting half truths or pure blathering rhetoric bandied about the news media.

This leads us in the middle who are seeking an objective, rational, fact based discussion with few choices in regard to getting real, trustworthy data.

There are scientists who point out that neonicotinoids are the safest group of pesticides to ever have been released.  They are far safer than the previous classes of pesticides that came before.

This may very well be true, but then again, when we want to talk about things that are deadly but "safer" we can have the same conversation talking about stabbing people with knives or shooting them with guns as compared to smothering people with pillows.

Sure, smothering people with pillows has far fewer accidental victims or collateral damage, but it is lethal all the same.

In these times, we also take into consideration what are called "necessary evils".  Things that no one admits to liking or wanting very much, but see no realistic, effective alternatives to.  The use of chemical toxic pesticides is often framed in such a way.  "We feel really bad that these have to be resorted to at all, but what else can we do to save our crops?"

The farmers want to maximize production and profit. Increasing crop yields by reducing pest damage is a big thing for them.  At the same time, many specific crops require or heavily depend on honeybee pollination or there won't be much of a crop to protect.  It is in the farmer's best interest to make sure beekeepers are satisfied with pesticide precautions.  A very fine line to walk indeed.

CCD is blamed for a great many bee colony deaths all around the world, especially in the continental U.S.  Pesticides have been identified as one of the many vectors that contribute to CCD.

Going back to the main point of this post though, where are we to get reliable, fact based information that we can trust has no agenda or motive to see it used to push a particular end?

Even university studies that have usually been trusted are called into question when it is learned that a primary funder of the study was none less than the pesticide manufacturer itself.  Universities need money.  Extensive research requires lots of expensive tools, well educated and disciplined researchers and the space to put all that together.

Pesticide manufacturers are desperate to find some sort of credibility to give a heavily media manipulated public.

It really is a difficult issue to sort out.

Add to that confusion a plethora of politically motivated activists who make every effort to use emotional manipulation and prevent a fact based discussion from happening.  They would rather give their followers a list of things they want them to know and repeat as forcefully as possible to drown out anything they don't want known.

But with all that going on, it's still not over.  The government itself created a monster in the past few years by paying beekeepers for losses much like they offer to pay farmers and ranchers for heavy losses during "catastrophes".  There are many unscrupulous people who will swear on their mother's grave their bees were victims of CCD in order to get that money, even when their still very alive mother is standing at the ready to drive them to the bank.  This throws the accuracy of reporting how many colonies are really affected by CCD out the window.

And yet, once in awhile, we do get bits and pieces that are generally accepted as facts that come out multiple ongoing studies.  We lean forward and and mutter to ourselves, happy as Renfield at an ant farm for every fact we can get.

We are desperate for fact based, rational discussion about bee colony deaths.  How much of CCD is really just bad beekeeping?  How deep of an impact, especially regarding sub-lethal quantities do pesticides really have?  Are there other vectors that have been overlooked or even maybe suppressed that we haven't heard about?

Now there are even reports that the impact of CCD is lessening, that it isn't having the hard impact on bee colony deaths that it had even a few short years ago.

Stay informed, always question, but be calm and reasonable about it.  Letting emotions dictate the discussion is almost always a recipe for disaster.  The more people we can get demanding fact based data from reputable sources and refuting junk science, the better off we will be in the long run.

My Hypotheis (Part 1) The "Bees to Hive Space" Ratio

Beekeepers are told all the time that a successful, prosperous, honeybee colony is one that is populous and healthy.  There's no real mystery in that.  The more bees there are to share the workload, the more the bees are able to regulate the conditions of the colony.

However, there is something I have been looking at more closely that relates to the ratio of bees to space in the hive.   It's pretty simple I think.  The bigger the space they inhabit and the fewer bees  due to a low population, the less able the bees are to regulate the hive as a whole.  It's a matter of distribution.  Fewer bees that have to cover more space makes the job more difficult.

The more spread out the bees are, the less able they are to successfully defend the hive against predators, pests and handle colony related health issues such as cleaning out combs and put into effect hygienic behaviors.

The ratio of bees per square inch in a hive is important I think.  Perhaps more important than most might give it credit for.

We know already, for example, that if there are too many bees per square inch, that bees will tend to overcrowd the space available and be inclined to swarm.  The fewer bees per square inch relative to space, the more likely the bees will be able to keep up maintenance and fall behind, allowing problems to build and eventually force the colony to become ill, dwindle, die or abscond.

Many beekeepers using larger hive bodies will sometimes address this issue by artificially stimulating egg laying in the colony with feeding certain things to bees.  Another way is to add two or more colonies together in a variety of a "combine" so that there are more bees to fill the space.  If the hive population becomes too high, artificial swarms and splits are created to reduce the hive populations.  Hive boxes themselves can be adapted by inserting "dummy boards" at the ends to make a smaller space for the bees within the larger box as well.

This is another reason I have come to prefer using 5 frame hive boxes as year round hives.  They are as large as a "natural" void space as a single and as the colony expands, it can be enlarged to meet the spacial demands to prevent swarming.  All the meanwhile, it makes the most of the bees per square inch ratio by allowing the bees to manage a space that, in my opinion thus far, is far easier for them to manage should they be a small, less populous colony.

Fall and Winter are times when certain types of honeybees will reduce their populations to conserve stores.  This leaves a large hive less well protected in the colder months when the bees are clustered and it is too cold for them to move about.

Large hives also seem less energy efficient in terms of regulating temperature in a hive, especially in Winter.  The heat the bees produce is often taken away from them by a "chimney" effect with heat being pulled away from the cluster in the center and rising up into the four corners that are empty.  This leaves the bees in the center and the food stores directly above and surrounding them colder and having to work harder.  Working harder eventually results in consuming stores more rapidly to sustain the effort of producing heat.

Many beekeepers prefer to use larger hive bodies because they are standardized, thus easier to buy and implement on existing hive systems.  Also because they allow the colony to expand into the space but requiring less maintenance by the beekeeper in terms of having to add more boxes more frequently.

Hive space management is something all beekeepers have to pay attention to, but keepers of smaller sized hive bodies have to pay closer attention and spend more time, more frequently, making sure the space is appropriate to the size or the anticipated size, of the colony.

Based on my observations and minor tests in hives thus far, I will continue to use my 5 frame boxes and horizontal top bar hives as they fit best into my apiary plans, taking into consideration the "bees to hive space" ratio.

Organic Beekeeping: Top Bar or Framed Hives?

You might see a lot of articles and books out there now talking about "Organic" beekeeping.

What, really, does "organic" mean?  Basically, it means using or applying principles normally related to living beings in non-living instances.

For example, organic farming, simplified, means to focus on the methods of growth, development and even security or self-defense, that a living plant in  a wild or feral (non-managed) situation might do.

I have used the term "Bee Wise" beekeeping to describe the same thing in relationship to bees and beekeeping.  Others have used the term "Natural" similarly.

Very frequently, when discussing organic beekeeping, the use of non-conventional hives are touted as being "organic" such as horizontal top bar hives or even vertical top bar hives such as Warre's People's hive.  The reason they are considered to be organic is because they are designed to mimic or simulate a natural void space that bees might choose to build a nest in of their own accord in the "wild"   These would be similar to a fallen log or a tree trunk in loose approximation.

Another reason they are considered "organic" besides sharing a somewhat similar volume and shape would be that combs are made freely to the bees determinations.  Comb is drawn and cells are sized as the bees determine, not as a beekeeper using wax or plastic foundation has determined.

Given that conventional Langstroth style hives focus on larger than "normal" void spaces inside the hive and that they more often than not use frames to shape comb and plastic or wax foundation to direct cell building, these are not typically considered to be "organic" hives.

But, can they be?

For example, if instead of using the standard 8 or 10 frame sized hive body, 5 frame "nuc" boxes were to be standardized upon, those would be very similar in volume to an "organic" hive.  Even the shape, though rectangular, would be considered to be more organic than the larger, square-ish hive bodies.

Also, even though using frames, one were to use foundation-less frames, that would allow the bees to control cell building entirely to their own specifications, though comb drawing itself would still be confined to the shape of the frame.

Warre's practice of "nadiring" boxes instead of "supering" them is considered to me more "organic" because it follows closely the bees natural instinct to start comb building at the top of the hive and to draw it down into the void space below.  This practice is also able to be accomplished using the "nuc" boxes.

In these ways, a Langstroth type hive could be used in "organic" beekeeping.  Yes, the idea of still using frames inside would relegate them to being a step down from the top bar hives, but practical beekeepers making the effort while needing the stability of frames for moving hives would have something they could make do with.

Of course, it has been said that raising resistant or hygienic queens from local stock is to be considered as "organic" as well because it follows the basis of Natural Selection to weed out the weak and propagate the strong. Raising queens in nucs is not unheard of.  Some might say it is one of the original uses of such boxes in a conventional system.

Organic hives depend on healthy, populous colonies inhabiting them that are both pest resistant and exhibit hygienic behaviors.  They also exhibit the ability to forage and store food in amounts to ensure Winter survival as well as conserve energy and resources when it is time to.

These are the desirable traits an "organic" or "Bee Wise" beekeeper wants to depend on instead of using any chemicals, hard or soft, in the hives.

It takes time, patience and educated work to get locally raised bees to that point.  A tremendous investment of time and effort is involved.

Can a conventional hive be successful using "organic" beekeeping methods?   I say that yes, it is possible, but it will require something different from the beekeeper than they might have originally anticipated going in to beekeeping with.

Things I want to learn more about over the next year

I have a handful of hypotheses that I want to explore over the next twelve months.  Along with a few friends, hopefully we'll gain some more insight into these curious bee related questions.

1) When honeybees build a nest inside a tree void, does the tree absorb the moisture created by condensation due to the heat the bees create and redistribute that moisture through the rest of the tree?

2) When honeybees build a nest in a tree void, does the presence of the bees promote and encourage beneficial aspects for the tree?  For example, does the application of propolis inside the void promote healing of any damage the tree may have sustained due to the void having been created?

3) Primary swarms are often the biggest to issue from the old nest and take the "old" queen with it.  Most of the bees in the primary swarm are also "old" bees.

My question...is a "prime Swarm" really a "colonizing" or "building"  swarm whose primary function is to build new nests out in the world, regardless of the survival of the bees in the swarm over the following season?

Do the bees in a Primary swarm "know" they are not so much building a nest for them, but for a next swarm? 

Do the scout bees in a Primary swarm look for a large void that does not already contain wax comb in it or only maybe a little?

4) Secondary and even tertiary swarms that leave a colony usually have a virgin queen and mix of old and younger bees.

Do the bees in a secondary swarm look primarily for a void that already has comb built in it? 

Are they more of an "occupying" swarm instead of a "building" swarm due to their typically lower numbers?

Do the bees in a secondary swarm "know" they are more of an "occupying" swarm rather than a "colonizing" swarm?

5) Ultimately, as bees take on specialized tasks within a colony among the three castes, do swarms also have a specialized purpose as a "super-organism" as well?

I am working on ways to test these out and I already have a few other local people who are interested in helping me investigate some of these questions.  With bees, there is always more to learn.

"Bee Wise" Beekeeping Management

Terminology sometimes, especially when used incorrectly, can become polarizing to discussion.  This takes away from the point of the discussion and keeps the talk going on about peripheral and even invented issues simply for the sake of politics.

The term "Natural Beekeeping" has become one of those polarizing terms.  The moment someone brings up the words "Natural Beekeeping" someone will be almost guaranteed to reply that it is impossible, it is nonsense, that it is irresponsible, etc.. purely on the basis that they automatically associate the words "Natural Beekeeping" with the idea of keeping bees in a hive and doing nothing more with the bees except to take honey from them during the year.

Those who know better are frustrated to explain that it means nothing of the sort but the discussion rarely gets that far because it has often become confused and contentious by that time.

I have recently begun talking to people about "Bee Wise" beekeeping in which beekeepers work as facilitators of the hive and focus on using the behaviors that bees are already doing to include their beekeeping practices in with them.  Work with the bees instead of interrupting them to do things in other words.

For those who realize this, I have just described what most people mean when they say "Natural Beekeeping".  Part of the problem is that beekeepers often use terminology incorrectly and they use different terms to describe similar things.

Some people hide behind the term "Natural" because they have a political agenda, like the PETA people who really are agents of chaos making every effort to get bees be "free" or "wild" in that a beekeeper is allowing them to do as they will and makes no effort to minimize swarming out into the area unchecked, etc..

They are not helping the people who are trying to be responsible beekeepers who simply want to use more facilitative methods instead of dictative methods.

First off, we all have to have the same understanding of the term "Natural".  For most of us, we understand this to mean things the bees do in a "non managed" state.  Bees doing things according to their "natural" instinct.

"Facilitative" practices are those that, using knowledge of natural bee biology and behavior, work by slipping the practice or hive manipulation into what the bees are already doing on their own or as close to that as possible.

"Dictative" practices are those in which the beekeeper determines what he or she wants to have happen in or with the hive and sets it in place, anticipating bees to accommodate the change rather than the change accommodating the bees.

Here is an example of "Bee Wise" beekeeping.  Naturally, honey bee colonies will swarm in Spring.  A conventional beekeeper might use an intrusive practice like checker-boarding to inhibit or impede the swarming instinct.

A "Bee Wise" beekeeper might instead place a number of bait hives set in various places surrounding their bee yard approximately 75 to 150 feet away in a radius.

Both beekeepers are taking responsible action to keep bees from swarming out into the neighborhood and possibly becoming a nuisance to other residents and property owners. The "Bee Wise" beekeeper is taking a non-intrusive approach which takes into account the natural process of swarming and lets the bees do what they "need" to do yet more than likely, or hopefully so if calculated correctly, will still end up in one of his or her hives regardless.

A practice that is partway between facilitative and dictative is the method of creating artificial swarms.  This takes advantage of what the bees naturally do by creating an artificial swarm by shaking bees from frames in a hive onto a sheet or board in front of an empty hive.  The new "swarm" will then most likely follow the sheet or board into the new hive and start up in there as if they have swarmed and selected it naturally.

Of course, in all three attempts, there is no guarantee to completely avoid or prevent swarming.  Each method has been observed to not work if the bees are determined to swarm.  However, each approach shows the effort of each beekeeper to make a responsible effort to prevent bees from swarming in a way that is consistent with their preferred approach to beekeeping.

The beekeeper that says they want to allow the bees to be free and go where they want to without even trying to prevent that either lives in the woods or other largely untenanted land or they are being irresponsible and not good ambassadors of urban beekeeping.

"Bee Wise" beekeeping is the approach I take and I can say it has worked very well for me all around.

Defining terms in beekeeping

There are words in beekeeping that have specific meaning.   Like every other niche area, beekeeping has it's own terms and "lingo".  Unfortunately, some folks have had the misfortune to not learn all the terms or to use them as if they are interchangeable.

Let's look at some beekeeping terms.

Nest- A nest is made up of the wax combs and everything bees put into the cells such as eggs, larvae, pollen, honey and more.

Hive- A hive is an enclosure inside which bees will build a nest.  Some nests are constructed outdoors or externally under a tree limb for example and thus have no actual "hive".  Technically a tree, a house wall, and a beekeepers boxes are all examples of Hives.

Super- A Super is a box on the stack of a hive which is placed on top or above the brood section.

Supering- Supering is the action of placing a box on the top of the hive stack. 

Under-Supering- Under-Supering is the action of placing a box below the other Supers but above the brood section in the hive stack.

Nadir- To Nadir is to place a box at the bottom of the hive stack.

Swarm-  A swarm is the collective of bees following a queen leaving a nest to go out and build a new nest in which to begin a new colony.  It is the process of propagating the species as a super-organism.

Abscond- When bees abscond, they all or most of them are leaving a hive or nest site because of a threat to the colony or face hive conditions that no longer safely allow a colony to inhabit it.

These seem to be some of the most misused and interchangeably used terms  I have seen used.  For a lot of people, they see no problem in using these terms non-specifically.  However, when we get to looking and working at beekeeping more scientifically, these terms and their specific meanings become more important to use correctly.

My Modified People's Hive

I mentioned using a modification of the Warre "People's Hive" before.  Like  I said,  I don't think of my modifications as being improvements on Warre's design, simply things that make it easier for me to use in the circumstances I work in.  I know that it deviates from Warre's reasons for design otherwise, but circumstances dictate certain things for me.

The things I need to consider is that I don't have time to hand make every piece of the hive.   I don't have the money to pay someone to custom make everything either.   I need the hives to be mobile without destroying combs, so frames are required.  I prefer combs be individually inspectable because there are things we face today that Warre did not have to contend with in his place and time.

So, what I have come up with is to use a Langstroth style 5 frame deep nuc box with frames.

I use a simple board bottom with a lip that provides 3/8" entrance when boxes are set upon it.  One of these boxes provides an volume of 18.27 liters in volume, very similar to both Warre's design and the minimum space required for a successful nest as found by Dr. Seely.  Using Warre management, two boxes are used for the brood space, thus providing a total of 36.54 liters in volume for bees.

I have been using this setup for the last three years and have had colonies successfully overwinter in this size space for the whole three years, so I can say that I am pretty confident that it is enough space to successfully locate bees in.

I make a custom quilt box using vinyl window screen on the bottom to allow bees to propolize and control air flow.  I have found that using wood shavings work best in my experience in the quilt box over sawdust, paper-shreddings and other fillers.

The bees seem not to chew the screen and the shavings seem to allow the moisture/condensation to be absorbed without clumping.  The clumping is a problem because once "clumped" the sawdust or paper will then not absorb the moisture very well and allow it to drip back down onto the bees.  They also seem to begin to mold rapidly once clumping has begun.

With the shavings, especially with a proper roof that allows air flow,  I have not yet had problems with condensation or mold.

The roof is similar to Warre's design, except rectangular to fit over the boxes.  I have begun to screen the openings in the sides to keep mice and insects from trying to find a home up there though.  The shavings in the quilt box seem to be something they like.  However, cedar wood shavings do very well in the quilt box to repel many insects.

The really nice thing about using this setup is that I can be versatile with it.  I can use the same boxes for bait hives.  Splitting these hives in Spring is very easy also as I use the "One for you and one for me" system. 

Perhaps the most important thing I have earned about using Warre's methods is  how necessary it is to add your new boxes to the bottom in the Spring.  The main reason is because this is when the bees will be able to draw the most comb to store all the honey in.

I use mostly foundation-less frames so the bees really need that Spring build up if you are going to get any kind of a honey crop.  Depending on how big the colony is in Spring will tell you how many boxes you should be able to add.  This is discussed in detail in his book, "Beekeeping For All".

Depending on how quickly they draw the comb in the first new boxes in Spring, you may be able to get one or two more boxes added to the stack before they can't/won't draw wax anymore.

I've had as many as five boxes on the stack at harvest time, Warre and others have claimed as many as seven boxes.  With these boxes being rectangular, they tend not to stack as high without resembling the leaning tower of Pisa in windy weather.   I will use garden fence posts on either side of the hive to help keep it from blowing over.

Nice features of using this hive is that the boxes are much lighter than full Lang boxes full of honey.  If you have a bad back, this goes a long way to making honey harvesting a lot more practical.

Also, because they don't have to hold as much weight in them, building these is no more complicated than a good, old fashioned butt joint assembly.  Just make sure to paint them really well because of the board ends being exposed to the elements.

I have been toying with the idea of making the boxes out of 2 by wood boards, but over the past three years,  I have discovered that due to the size of the boxes, the bees keep them much warmer with less labor than larger boxes.  I haven't even needed to use wraps on the nuc boxes where the 8 frame hives needed them in my opinion.

I think that bee populations fill out the smaller hives much better, allowing them to defend the hives and maintain them on their own better.  I have yet to find wax moths in one of these hives.   I have found some small hive beetle all trapped at the top, but never larvae in the combs.

As I mentioned earlier,  I need these to be mobile.  I use these hive boxes as part of my business where as a pest control professional,  I get calls to collect bee swarms and do live removals from buildings.   I use them to do trap-outs as well.  Once the bees decide to start drawing comb (trap-out) or I have to place cut out combs in the hive, the beauty of having full frames in the hives is un-beatable.

This is fast becoming my preferred hive over all others.  Even over htbh's and I love those too, mostly for how much fun they are.

Warre Misunderstood

Have you ever done a YouTube search for Warre Hives?  You don't find a whole lot, but there are some.

What seems to be very interesting to me is the people who are advertising a version of the Warre "People's Hive" (which is actually the proper name for the hive, not "Warre Hive") seem to get so much information about the hive itself and information about Warre and his beekeeping management so dreadfully wrong.

It's like they read his book "Beekeeping For All" only to get the hive plans and then went out on their own from there.

The folks who seem to try to sound most informed about the hive and management system give me the biggest chills down my spine because I have made a point to read the book cover to cover multiple times.  They seem to get wrong more than they get right.

I originally intended to name names in this post but thinking more calmly about it, that really accomplishes nothing but creating drama, artificial as it may be.

The real point of this post is to encourage people to actually read the whole book.  Become familiar with all of the content besides the hive plans.  There is a lot of very good information in that book and the hive and your management of it really depends on your understanding the points he makes throughout the entire book.

Trust me, if you skipped a section, you really missed something relevant to the management of this hive.

I see so many "modifications" by vendors to the hive which they are quite proud of to make it more like a Langstroth hive in it's functionality.  Abbe Warre is surely spinning in his grave to see this happen.  They refer to such modifications as "upgrades" and "improvements"  but if they had really read the book and understood it, they would realize that Warre had covered many of their "improvements" relative to his hive design and did not consider those types of modifications as "improvements" at all.

I have no problem with making modifications to the hive design.  I have made my own modifications in the plans I build my "People's Hives" from.  The difference is, I have reasons specific to my beekeeping conditions and situation that make those modifications worthwhile for me.  Not to think of them as "improvements" upon his design or method.  Simply, modifications.

Overall, I think that not enough due respect is given to the Warre method, hive and book that people are trying to capitalize on now. I don't think these are bad people or anything at all.  Just a bit ignorant and improperly educated about something they really should have a better understanding of before they go about trying to sell it to people.

What "No Treatment" beekeeping really means

I think there really needs to be a better understanding of the idea of "No Treatment" beekeeping.  This is very often associated with "Natural Beekeeping" because many proponents don't want to use pesticides or "intrusive" methods in bee hives.

"No Treatment" is directly related to breeding tolerance or behaviors for dealing with pests, diseases, etc... in honeybees.  This means instead of using man made treatments, the beekeeper is looking for the bees themselves to breed themselves into resistance to certain pests and diseases or behaviors that minimize or eliminate them.

This means controlled or uncontrolled exposure to the problem, thus "encouraging" natural selection to weed out the weak genetics in bees leaving only the resistant and hygienic bees to rebuild populations from.

In other words, you have to expect some colonies to die in order for the few survivors to be left and increase from.

The problem is, most "Natural Beekeeper" types don't fully get this, that they are leaving bee colonies to die out, on purpose.  They somehow have the idea that the bees will adapt and overcome with no deaths at all.

This is the kind of thing Dr. Marla Spivak has been working on for years now,  increasing resistant bees.  She has been working with "Minnesota Hygienics" for a long time now.  I'm sure she  has seen plenty of colonies with poor genetics face the same fate.  She is another big proponent of building resistance in colonies as a way to reduce or eliminate using "hard" treatments.

If you are a beekeeper and you are talking about using "no treatment" beekeeping, then you are talking about letting colonies die out.  Not allowing those weak genetics to propagate and then making new queens and/or splits from colonies that have shown survivor traits.

If you can't afford or aren't willing to let bees die, then you should change your mind about "No Treatment" beekeeping.

Perhaps instead, you should be looking into "soft" treatments and hive manipulations that keep bees  pest problems low so that they can fight the problems off on their own a bit easier.  Of course, even a "No Treatment" beekeeper should be trying to minimize pest issues to help bees adapt more successfully.

The biggest difference between a "No Treatment" beekeeper and a "Low Treatment" beekeeper is that eventually, a "Low Treatment" beekeeper will make use of some sort of chemical treatment to keep the bees alive where the "No Treatment" beekeeper will stop after the soft treatments and manipulations and if the bees still won't make it, then kind of like human healthcare decisions, they say that no "heroic" measures will be taken to keep the weak colony alive.  Chemical treatments, of course, being the "heroic" measure referred to.

Before you decide to be a "No Treatment" beekeeper, you really should think long and hard on if you can afford to be that way.  How do you plan to replace the colonies that die out?  They will die out, you can count on it.

Do you have the time and interest to raise queens or do regular inspections to monitor colony resistance and hygienic behaviors?

Do you have a plan of action?  Will you introduce resistant queens from somewhere and replace all your queens or at least the ones from the hives that seem to be losing the fight?  Will you raise your own queens from the colonies that show successful survivor traits?

There are lots of things to consider when you become a "No Treatment" beekeeper.  Being "No Treatment" doesn't make beekeeping necessarily easier.  it just makes it different.

Successful Survival Traits and the "Natural" Beekeeper

What do bees need to be successful survivors in this modern beekeeping world?

What the bees need to do: They need to exhibit good foraging and winter storage traits.  Bees that do not accumulate enough food stores and store them will not survive overwinter, especially in northern, colder and wetter climates.

What the Beekeeper can do: Be selective of races that have already shown good overwintering traits.  Carniolans and Caucasians are good examples of this.  Be prepared to provide food for bees during Late Summer and Fall Dearths when flowers may decrease nectar production due to fluctuating weather conditions or scarcity of blooming plants.


What the bees need to do: They need to show successful overwintering traits.  This usually means they reduce the Winter population so as to reduce unnecessary consumption of Winter stores.  It also means they cluster effectively and are efficient nest heaters.

What the Beekeeper can do:  Beekeepers can influence this by making sure to leave the bees enough of their own honey during harvest instead of taking too much away from the bees.  Beekeepers can also ensure that hives are "Winter Ready"  by making sure that there is sufficient wind block and that the hives do not waste or lose heat and build up condensation in Winter.  Instead, use locations, materials and methods that conserve the heat bees create, keeping the cluster warm as well as keeping the food accessible.


What the bees need to do: Bees should exhibit good resistance traits.  Bees that are more hygienic will survive hardier.  Races of bees noted for having these traits are "russian" bees a variety of Caucasian.  Minnesota Hygienics such as those raised by Dr. Marla Spivak.

What the Beekeeper can do:  Encourage selective breeding and raising queens from those colonies which display successful hygienics.  Beekeepers can also make sure that hives are easily defended by ensuring that pests and parasites cannot easily enter.  Reduce entrances when temps and conditions require so that bees can more easily keep intruders out with a smaller fighting force.


There is a saying among beekeepers that the best defense is always a healthy, highly populated hive.   I would say that in many ways, that is correct.

However, even more to the point is that the heat-able space and defensible access relative to the population is just as important because bees do fluctuate populations with the seasons and they do change how they inhabit the hive due to being in a cluster or not.

I have talked in other posts about how some beekeepers feel that beekeepers have an obligation to do things like feed in hive, medicate and use pesticides in the hive because they have a responsibility to the bees to keep them alive.   I have also said that those who consider themselves "natural" tend to look to natural selection and bees adaptive abilities to handle issues instead.

However, that is over-simplifying things a bit.  I think "natural" beekeepers would say that we have an obligation to make sure we are not getting in the way or interrupting the bees natural behaviors to take of themselves as they have been adapted to doing.

Also,  I would think that it is important to create an environment for the bees that most closely resembles that of a successful natural nest site, especially if we as beekeepers take it upon ourselves to locate bees in areas that they might otherwise have naturally not chosen to occupy.

I think it's as much about not trying to do "for" the bees that which they can and should do for themselves.  Successfully adapted colonies do not "need" beekeepers for anything at all outside of a manged hive environment.  We actually tend to be in their way at times when they are trying their darnedest to get it done right on their own.

Ultimately,  I guess I am suggesting that "natural" beekeepers see the role as a facilitator rather than a steward or manager of the hive.  We try to set bees up in such a way as to let bees do what they do best and make sure the things they need to be successful are there and accessible to them so they can use them as and when they are needed.

Honeybee Democracy, as Naturally Scientific as it gets

If you haven't heard of the book "Honeybee Democracy" by Dr. Tom Seely yet, let me tell you, it is  a tremendous book.  As a matter of fact,  I think Tom Seely is perhaps one of the greatest examples of a Naturally Scientific person doing research out there.

Basically, the book is a sort of summation of his work over the years in studying honeybee decision making methods.  In particular, how the swarm chooses a new nest location.  Along the way though, he talks about all the things he had to study about bees natural environments and the things bees do inside a "natural" bee nest to better understand what the bees are referencing and looking for when they make those decisions.

Much of that work has been incredibly helpful in understanding an finding better ways to work with bees in other aspects of beekeeping as a sort of an extra benefit.

There is a lot more than meets the eye to learn from this book besides honeybee decision making, as if that weren't enough.

The Hive Environment

Regardless of what type of hive you use, you really might want to pay close attention to the hive environment.

What I'm referring to is the inside of the hive when we are not looking.  What are the variables in a successful nest and hive?  What are they in an unsuccessful situation?

The hive environment has been a focus of study and consideration for about as long as people have been beekeepers. There are many books that have been written about it or that touch on it among other topics.  Some authors have made it more of a central topic while others perhaps somewhat less.

Emile Warre, the author of "Beekeeping For all" and the designer of the "People's Hive" is extremely focused on the inner environment and sustaining an environment as close to "natural" as possible being the most important aspect of beekeeping.

Michael Bush, author of "The Practical Beekeeper", often refers to the inner environment of the hive as a micro-ecology that hosts more than just bees inside the hive and the necessary interactions of all things within the hive.

Magazines such as "Bee Culture" have been publishing scientific research articles investigating hive environmental variables such as a recent one on how heat is conducted inside the wax nest by bees.

The venerable Lorenzo Langstroth, designer of the popular hive that bears his name and author of "The Hive and the Honeybee" was one of the first to observe and make note of how bees maintain a specific set space in between combs in the nest for them to move about.

I guess what I'm really getting at here is that with all the attention that hives get in regard to how well they do in honey production or portability or having nestled top bars or spaced apart frames,  perhaps when beekeepers are deciding to get into beekeeping, they might want to closely consider what is going on inside the hive as much, if not perhaps more, than what goes on about the hive.

There has been an ongoing "snarkiness", perhaps a bit of a rivalry, among beekeepers who consider themselves as "natural" beekeepers and those who we might refer to as conventional beekeepers.

Those who refer to themselves as natural beekeepers often place the conditions of the inner hive environment as a higher priority than they think the more conventional beekeepers do. 

Conventional beekeepers often think of natural beekeepers as careless and irresponsible.  Not to say that either group is necessarily right, just rather being judgmental and critical of each other.

As the president of a beekeeping club,  I enjoy a great amount of conversation and shared experiences with many beekeepers.   I get to hear a lot of what beekeepers think of things in general and of things they observe about other beekeepers.

I can tell you from first hand experience that both natural and conventional beekeepers care for their bees as much as any other and that they just see things differently.  When it comes to paying attention to the hive environment, it seems that there are those who seem to hold the idea that the beekeeper has a responsibility as a steward to provide for the bees whatever they might need to be alive and healthy.

Another point of view sees it that they have a responsibility to the bees to try to allow the bees to do what they do best as they have via natural selection for millions of years and that intervening in that process does more damage to them.

Both groups of thinkers are highly concerned about the health and well being of the bees, they just don't agree on how to go about it.   I have my own views on it and I tend to fall into the Natural beekeeping side of it but I have learned not to be judgmental of how any other beekeeper handles their bees as long as they are working toward keeping bees healthy and alive.

What I can do though, is to encourage all beekeepers to learn as much as they can about bee biology and behavior.  I can advocate that they do put some thought into what is going on inside the hive environment and I can offer to help them whenever I am asked to help if i am able to.

How much do you know about what's going on inside your hives?

What hive should I use?

Here's an interesting question you'll hear a lot from new folks over time.

My standard answer always is, "It depends, what are you trying to do?"

The way I look at it, there are no bad hives, just hives with pro's and con's.  Many hives are designed to fulfill a specific goal, like high honey production.

Others are designed maybe for ease of use or minimizing interaction inside the hive.

I ask people to think of what is their primary reason for keeping bees.   Are there any secondary or tertiary reasons?   Put them in order then we can go through the myriad of hives that can be used and how well they will help the beekeeper meet their goals.

For the most part, the most commonly discussed hives in use around here are the conventional Langstroth/Dadant style hive, the Kenyan Top Bar Hive, The Warre "People's Hive" and even the Perone "Automatic" Hive.

While I have listed 4 types of hives here, one of these, the conventional Lang or some variation of it, is the most widely used around the world.  This hive is popular for it's ease of inspection, portability and high honey production capacity.   Detractors are that honey super boxes can become very heavy and unwieldy to handle.  Higher cost of assembly and accumulation of multiple parts and some critics suggest that these hives are more prone to hive pests and diseases.

The Kenyan Top Bar Hive is a horizontal movable comb bar hive.  It is noted for lightweight honey harvesting, ease of inspection and contributing to docility of bees.  Cons of this hive are that it is not a known portable hive, it must remain stationary and honey production is usually significantly lower than a Langstroth hive.

The Warre "People's Hive" is often a choice of beekeepers seeking a hive claimed to be more like a tree or similar "natural" void bees in a wild or feral setting would locate themselves in.  The designer claims that this hive is "healthier" than movable comb hives and boosts bees natural resistance to diseases and pests.  It is noted for a relatively high yield of both honey and wax.  Critics say that it is extremely difficult to inspect the combs and that harvests yield less than Lang style hives.  using just top bars, it is a stationary hive as the combs can experience breakage and damage to the bees if moved.  with the optional use of frames, it can be a portable hive used for migratory pollination.

The Perone "Automatic" Hive is also a "no-touch" or low interaction hive which is claimed by it's designer to also keep bee colonies healthier and reduce incidents of diseases and pests.  The designer claims that it too is able to produce large honey yields.  This is a newer hive design and experience outside of the designer's native area is still being collected.  It is not a portable hive as the brood section is like a top bar with no surrounding comb support.

What is your main reason for keeping bees?  To produce honey?  Lots of it?  Honey and wax?  Pollination of a local garden, orchard or crop area?  Pollination of distant and/or multiple locations?

Are you able to lift heavier weights from tall stacks?  Are you limited to lifting light weights from lower levels?  Do you have time to attend to hives frequently or on a limited basis?

The combination of answers to these and other questions can lead you to using one of the listed hives above or even other hives that you might take the time to research.

Remember, there is no universal right or wrong way to keep bees.  Only the ways that work best, most successfully for you and your bees.

You should put careful thought into planning before you ever purchase equipment or bees.  Try to find a mentor or multiple mentors to get hands on experience with a variety of hive types and management styles before spending the time, effort and money on a system that may not be successful for you or the bees.

Bee Pics, Bee Pics!

Oh yeah, I got some of the more recent posts moved over here, so now the "heavy" stuff is out of the way. For now.

Let's look at some bees.

That was a shot I took a couple of weeks ago a tmy forest bee yard.  Girl is doing her thang.

This is a shot my daughter took of me inspecting a top bar comb about a week after installing a swarm in that hive.

This is  picture of one of my "modified" "People's Hive"/nuc box hives.

I have a picture here of a friend of mine's "People's (aka Warre) Hive" and he let me post it with his permission. Thanks Kevin P.  I love this picture.

Scientific beekeeping and natural beekeeping

Some people will look at the title and right off the bat think it’s a dumb question, of course they are different.  Maybe.

But do they have to be?

I would argue that some of the best “natural” beekeepers are also some of the better scientific beekeepers.

I do not think “scientific” and “natural” are mutually exclusive.  in fact,  I think they complement each other very well.  Putting the scientific method to research, study, learn more about bees and beekeeping goes hand in hand with beekeepers becoming better beekeepers.

Here’s the problem.  A great many people think of anything designed, manufactured  and implemented by mankind as “science based”.  Anything that uses things that are provided “as is” from nature is considered to be “natural” and to be honest, inferior.

Why inferior?  Mostly because of the level of control people can exert in the design and manufacture of an item.  for example, medicines made in factories are viewed as being “better” than herbal or the hand picked, harvested natural equivalents.  This is because they see the ability to control the quantities and consistency of those items in almost every aspect as being “better”.

Not that the manufactured items actually work any better than the natural” ones. They work about the same if used appropriately.  It’s actually that the “natural” items, such as medicines, vary in their natural form and the pharmacist or doctor administering them must take more care and be more thorough in their being mixed, dosed and implemented.

As with anything else, natural items must be properly used just the same as manufactured ones.  if someone doesn’t take the appropriate care, problems can happen.  manufacturing makes it easier to sell and put in the hands of the consumer where the natural makes more work and more experience for the pharmacist.

What does any of this have to do with beekeeping you ask.  A lot,  beekeepers are frequently required to implement manipulations, administer treatments and various other practices in the day to day goings on of beekeeping.  Some beekeepers use “natural” methods, ingredients and resources, others use manufactured ones.  Some a combination of both.

However, don’t get scientific and manufactured confused.  They are not necessarily the same thing.  It takes science to create the machines and procedures to manufacture yes but the process of manufacturing is not necessarily in and of itself scientific.

Beekeepers who use natural resources and methods have often relied on science to help determine the better ingredients, quantities and qualities as well as the methods and resources they implement.  Natural beekeepers frequently use science to make decisions and experiment in their beeyards.

Unfortunately, too many people hear the term “natural beekeeping” and get the mental image of a pot smoking hippie meandering around an apiary smoking incense in hives and rattling chicken bones around.

It’s true, there are some I suspect of being pot smoking hippies who toss things out into the beekeeping world under the auspices of “natural beekeeping” that I would cheerfully shoot in the face because the nonsense they spew takes all the efforts of sincere, scientific,  natural beekeepers back ten years every time they talk.

Scientific beekeeping and natural beekeeping go hand in hand, complementing each other very well for those who have the courage and determination to go the extra step and gain the extra knowledge and experience to do it correctly.  I must admit, it is my objective to be this type of beekeeper.

There’s scientific beekeeping and then there’s scientific beekeeping

I talked in the last post about scientific beekeeping.  Basically, using scientific facts as the starting point for beekeeping practices.

I also mentioned Randy Oliver’s website, called “Scientific Beekeeping” and how much I like his site and the research he provides and makes available for beekeepers.  However, Randy, in my opinion, is one of those scientific beekeepers who takes science too far.

For example, Randy recently expresses in one of his excellent blog posts that he doesn’t feel Monsanto is “evil” because he has met the scientists that work there and they don’t think of themselves as “evil”.  He also thinks no “sane” business would work to kill or otherwise harm it’s customer base.

The difference I have with what Randy sees is that while Monsanto is making a big show of donating money to bee causes and they are buying bee health related companies and hosting conferences, they are at the same time un-apologetically profiting from the use of their products to create the conditions in which modern commercial agriculture is wreaking havoc with beekeeping.  They have show no signs of changing that behavior either.

Not only do they continue to reap profits at the expense of bee health , they actively advertize and educate modern farmers on how to continue and expand those bee harming practices.  Yes, at the same time they are being so “noble” as to donate money and host beekeeping conventions.

Let’s not forget the legal problems that Monsanto and other agribusinesses have created for farmers and beekeepers and consumers over the years.  They have spent millions of dollars in courtrooms across the country trying to wiggle out of being held responsible for the damages and hardships their products and practices have caused or been a part of.

Are they “evil”?  Maybe not.  But I certainly do not count them as friends or allies either.

Most of the “scientific beekeeping” that a Monsanto or Bayer Crop Sciences and other corporations is interested in involves making more money.  Almost every bit of their activity is aimed directly at commercial migratory beekeeping.  Randy says the same thing himself in the same article and tries to justify the complete ignoring of non commercial beekeepers by how much money the commercial beekeeping industry adds to the marketplace and economy.

He also goes on to describe “hobby” beekeepers as one of two types.  Those who just want to keep bees in boxes and those who want to keep “natural” bees in boxes.  If you don’t send beehives to the almonds each Spring, you don’t count.  His words, not mine.

What  I see here using Randy’s article as but one example is that “scientific beekeeping”  according to the scientists, the corporations and the government is part and parcel of commercial beekeeping.  Almost one and the same.  I find this problematic.

Basically, it points again to the mindset that science belongs to those who can afford it.  To pay researchers, to buy high tech equipment and to contribute to a billion dollar industry.

If your beekeeping isn’t part of that, then it’s cute, but it isn’t “real” science”  nor does it seem to be considered “real” beekeeping.   I disagree with that entirely.  Science, the application of the scientific method (that’s right “The” scientific method) is for anyone who can find in them the ability to understand, maintain an objective, open mind and display the patience and dedication to experiment and test.

There are so many scientific beekeepers who are not commercial beekeepers in the world.  The fact is, that this group of non-commercial scientific beekeepers outnumbers commercial beekeepers by at least a dozen to one.   Yet they are not recognized at all because the commercial beekeepers outspend the non-commercial by at least a thousand dollars to one.

We’ll talk about scientific beekeeping and natural beekeeping in the next article.

On Scientific Beekeeping

Randy Oliver has a great website.  It’s called “Scientific Beekeeping”.  How do you not love a web site with a name like that?

I am a firm believer in scientific beekeeping.  However, like many things science, some people take it too far.

Science, the scientific method, is a tool that helps answer many of life’s questions.  However, it cannot and will not answer all of life’s questions.  It’s simply, logically, not possible.    Yet there are people, far too many really, who insist on trying to push science as the end all, be all to information about the world we live in.  That’s sad really,  I think.

There are few “universal” truths in beekeeping.  Those few that exist are almost all scientific in nature.    Bring it to it’s simplest expression, scientific beekeeping is beekeeping based on facts.  So what then are “facts”?

Facts are things that happened.  Things that can be observed.  It’s very hard to deny a fact.  A fact is looking at the thermometer outside your house and seeing it read 95 degrees F.  You can then cite as a fact that in the front of your house today, it was 95 Degrees F.  That is a fact.  Pretty much indisputable.  Well, you can dispute the accuracy of the thermometer.  Was it functioning correctly?  Simple tests can settle that.

With beekeeping, there are certain facts that pertain to observed bee biology and behavior that have been documented for literally hundreds of years.  Some even thousands of years.

• Bees create wax from glands below their abdomens.  That is a fact.
• Bees collect pollen sometimes on their hind legs and take it to the nest.  That is a fact.
• A queen bee can lay up to between 1,500 and 2,000 eggs in a single day.  That is a fact.

I could go on like this for pages but by now, even a beginning beekeeper has read enough to have gotten the idea of the facts that exist in regards to beekeeping.

Now, what do we do with those facts.  How do we handle them. That is where things unravel.  “Truth” is more than facts.  Sadly, we want “truth” to be a universally accepted idea based on facts.  Instead, “truth” can have a variety of outcomes all based on the same set of facts.

The things that happen when a honeybee colony swarms are facts.  What a beekeeper should do about the swarming, that is another thing entirely. What people accept as  and think of as “truth” very often falls back to what does the majority of people they know think on the subject.  The more people that buy into, promote, parrot and repeat to each other is often accepted by those in that group as “truth”.  Hey, a billion beekeepers in China can’t be wrong, right?
Popularity is often a big part of what people think of as “truth”.  That there are facts involved also far too often doesn’t necessarily sway people from a certain “truth” no matter how much that “truth” deviates from the facts.

Hypotheses, theories, opinion and conjecture can overtake the facts.  The introduction of rhetoric can skew “truth” like nothing you’ve ever seen before.
Here is a universal truth about scientific beekeeping.  There can be more than one correct solution to a problem.

Think of all the things that go into any one beekeeper’s experience.  Geography, ecology, environment, financial resources, personal philosophy, religion, political views.  All these things and more influence what happens not only in a bee nest/hive but also how a beekeeper approaches, finds solutions to what is going on in those hives.

Personally, here is “my” beekeeping truth.  Always start with the “facts”.  Based on those facts, find solutions that take into consideration what is going on in the bees environment, the geography, the flora, the fauna, the weather.  Those should be the primary factors for determining what is going on and what solutions can be found.

For example, the facts are that honeybees will build a nests in a feral/natural setting in either a vertical or horizontal direction.  It has been observed and documented over hundreds of years to be successful for bees either way.
Problem, the beekeeper in question has a bad back and can not pick up heavy loads.  What type of hive should he/she use?

First of all, it doesn’t matter if it’s vertical or horizontal.  We have already established factually that bees don’t care, they will nest in either situation.  So, in terms of what is best for the bees, it doesn’t matter.

Next, what then, is best for the beekeeper? Most likely to use a hive that uses smaller and lighter boxes or no boxes at all.  Possibilities are:

• See if 8 frame hive boxes are too heavy.  if not, that may be a solution.
• Try using 5 frame hive boxes.  Again, smaller and lighter.  Those might be a solution.
• Try using a horizontal top bar hive.  No boxes to lift at all, only much smaller and lighter top bar combs.  May require learning a new hive management system, but certainly possible.
• Try using a Warre style vertical top bar hive.  smaller lighter boxes than conventional hives but still possibly too heavy depending on the severity of the back pain/strain.  Also may require learning a new hive management system, but certainly possible.

See there, one problem with at least four possible fact based scientific solutions.
The more scientific information we have about bees, the better decisions we can make for both the bees and the beekeepers.  Beekeeping is not a one sided situation.  This may come as a surprise to many a beekeeper.  Beekeeping is as much art as it is science.  There are creative solutions and ways of going about beekeeping that seem to defy scientific explanations but work out anyway.

Don’t let the fact that just because there are no current facts to back up your ideas, that doesn’t mean there never will be.  You may be one of the pioneers to push scientific frontiers.  It always starts with a question like; “What if…?”  ” or “Why did that happen?”

One of the most important things about science is to stay objective and to keep an open mind.  Yet after awhile, far too many “scientists” have closed their minds to only those facts and theories that exist.  They lose sight of the things that have yet to be observed and tested, theorized and disproven (or not).

Remember, science does not “prove” anything.  it can only disprove.  Meaning, anything that has not yet been disproven does not necessarily mean it is absolute.  Only that nothing has occurred to disprove it, yet.  For a lot of scientists, “truth” means something that has not been disproven.   I always, always add “yet” to that statement though.  Nothing has been disprove, yet.  Because no one knows when that might come up.  it might not seem very probable, but it is almost always possible.

On “Feel Good” Beekeeping

When Colony Collapse Disorder hit the media, thousands of people went running to get beehives and become beekeepers.  They expressed a desire to “help” the bees and to do something “organic” and “natural” to save the world.

Hey, I’m not knocking them.   I get the whole good feeling that playing with bees gives you.  I am a bee conservationist after all.  Having said that, I feel a little awkward in that  I don’t get the warm fuzzies about some of these folks that they seem intent on expressing.

There are things about beekeeping that need to be openly and honestly seen and experienced.  There are considerations that every beekeepers must face.  Too often,  I talk to, read of and hear things from a portion of the new beekeepers that makes me shudder a bit when I hear them.

Some of these new folks are actually militant about bees as if they (the bees) are really nothing more than another weapon in the arsenal of the combative environmentalist.  There are others who are PETA like thinkers and openly embrace irresponsible practices like intentionally allowing bee colonies to swarm out, making no effort at all to try to minimize or capture the swarms inside city limits they are keeping.  Not only is this irresponsible beekeeping, this can be dangerous and structurally unsafe.

To these people though, they are simply allowing the bees to be “free” and not “slaves” or prisoners to mankind.  Seriously.  People have told me that

In the long run, how long will these new minted beekeepers continue to be beekeepers?  When will their interest wane?  Long enough to get tired of getting stung?  Long enough to  realize that they may not get jackpots of honey every year?  Sooner or later,  I expect a majority of these people to quietly move away from beekeeping and on to another environmentally popular cause.  Maybe one that doesn’t sting so much.

I believe that beekeeping should be fun.  It should be something that captures your soul.  I’ve met many a jaded commercial beekeeper before.  To a lot of them, the magic has gone because they are in bees up to their necks all the time.  It’s not just something they do, it’s how they make their living and like many a farmer, they are not always enthusiastic about what they do, it’s just what they do.  Sometimes, they aren’t sure what else they would do.  But if you ask most of these jaded commercial beekeepers, they will still exhibit a great amount of pride in what they do.  If you are lucky enough to catch them introducing their kids to bees for the first time, you see the sparkle of that original magic of beekeeping in their eyes as they experience it again through the eyes of their kids.  It’s still there, just buried deep under long, hard days of work.

As much as I am a proponent of having more people beekeeping, there are some people who really shouldn’t be beekeepers.  These are the people who are in it more for what they can get from the bees instead of what the bees give to them.  I don’t know if that makes sense to you.   I know it does to me, but sometimes words fail me.  (believe that or not).

Welcome to my hive

I actually already have a couple of other Wordpress blog sites of my own but I have really been liking the ease of use and built in reach of Google Blogger.  So  I am going to move a few of my posts from the other sites to here and post some new stuff here and see how it goes.  Eventually, all of it may come here.

To explain a couple things about the title of the site.  First off, I very much love science.  Science so totally rocks.  I consider myself to be an "amateur" scientist (as in, I don't get paid to do research) but I believe that science is most effective in the hands of those who have the most to gain from it.  The "common" person.  In my case, the common beekeeper.

Contrary to popular belief, science does not belong solely to white coated, highly paid college nerds who have the university and/or corporate funding to buy the most expensive tools.

As a matter of fact, most of science's greatest achievements were made by everyday, amateur scientists who really had the curiosity, open-mindedness and objectivity to apply the Scientific Method. (not to be confused with "scientific methodology" that the roundheads will try to obfuscate the meaning with).

In beekeeping, there is a term for beekeepers who want to keep their bees as simply and as close to "natural" as is possible for people who keep bees in man made boxes.  They are referred to as "natural" beekeepers, of course.

Now obviously, there is very little "natural" about putting bees into special hives made for selectively opening, inspecting and harvesting.  I don't know of anyone who claims as much.  However, bees are bees and over the course of millions of years of evolutionary adaptation (about 150 million of them) There are things the bees do regardless of the hive they build their nest in or how often it is opened by beekeepers.

The "Natural" beekeeper seeks to facilitate as much of this "natural" behavior as is possible within their hives.  This includes trying not to open hives unless it's necessary and not inserting/injecting/or otherwise foreign substances into the bees nest.

The "Naturally Scientific" beekeeper (here it comes) wants to use scientifically founded research and facts in order to best learn to let bees do what they do best while working to keep their little charges as healthy and alive as possible.

This usually means being a facilitator instead of a dictator (there's a joke there but this is a family friendly blog) and learning as much about "natural" bee biology and behavior to insert our goals into what the bees do..."naturally" (you guessed it).

So come on along and we'll talk about having fun playing with bees, post some cool bee pictures and discuss being Naturally Scientific beekeepers.