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.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
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.
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.
Friday, October 25, 2013
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, October 24, 2013
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)