Honey in old brood comb not being capped

[Finman]

Or indeed crushing and straining

A marvellous idea in the year 2021. So you get new combs.

 

[thorn]

The Warre hives we have (and the whole method of honey production that was proposed by Warre which has been used for a little while now ) would seem to suggest that there is no problem with either bees using brood comb for honey, or extracting honey from these combs.

Likewise Tim Rowe's method.

 

[Erichalfbee]

A marvellous idea in the year 2021. So you get new combs.

Finnie. I’m right behind you. I think it’s a huge fuss about very little.

 

[bingevader]

Or indeed crushing and straining

Indeed! That being our usual method of extraction.

I didn't think there was a problem! Just commenting that they didn't seem as keen to cap honey in ex brood cells but noted your comments

No, you didn't, just me sticking the two posts together, sorry.

 

[bingevader]

A marvellous idea in the year 2021. So you get new combs.

Isn't it!
It is possible to use top bars with frames, extract honey radially or tangentially (or any other method you like) and reuse the frames if one wanted.

 

[Finman]

One frame which is not capped, and huge amount of ancient alternatives.

 

[enrico]

One frame which is not capped, and huge amount of ancient alternatives.

If it was one frame I wouldn't have mentioned it!

 

[Finman]

Has anyone else noticed that if

No one else has noticed that same.
Shall we vote?

 

[Mickey]

I don't think you understand. I will try and make it simple English for you Finman.
I have a shallow frame that in the past has been used for brood. T is now used solely for stores above a queen excluder.
The cells in that frame that used to have brood in in the past now contain honey along with all the other cells but I have noticed that the bees seem disinclined to cap those cells. It was merely something I noted and wondered if others had too, but apparently not. No problem, just a query. That was my reason for starting the thread. Feel free to ignore it if you wish

If it’s used in the super, then when you extract the honey use a long knife to make the frame the same width of the wooden frame, this way you can use it in the proper manner, or just push them frames tight in and the bees will reorganise the frames to suite

 

[Spikedog]

Has anyone else noticed that if you use a super frame that has had brood in in the past that the bees don't seem to cap the cells that have honey in where the brood has been? Noticed it time and time again!
E

Enrico,

Only this week I was wondering about same. I noted as you have, that supers which had earlier held brood whilst in the main capped; the lower crescent where brood had been, remained uncapped across the super. This was not a one off … I have noted it previously. Usually a small crescent and not a problem in an otherwise capped frame.

 

[user 20297]

Enrico,

Only this week I was wondering about same. I noted as you have, that supers which had earlier held brood whilst in the main capped; the lower crescent where brood had been, remained uncapped across the super. This was not a one off … I have noted it previously. Usually a small crescent and not a problem in an otherwise capped frame.

In comb which has mainly been used as a honey frame, the area where the brood nest has been able to protrude will obviously be in an arc on the lower margin and it is unlikely to have had intensive use for brood. Would this make it a favourable choice for future brood-rearing? The bees might be hedging their bets and leaving it uncapped so that they could remove it more quickly with less wastage of resources should it be needed again for brood.

There seem to be a few contributors here who fire scathing comments at observations or questions such as @enrico and his original post. The spirit of broadening our knowledge and sharing our experiences is what makes a forum such as this one thrive and be useful. So just because an observation is not necessarily relevant to maximising the production of honey or because a full understanding the logistics of it is not a necessity, this doesn't mean that trying to understand it is pointless.

 

[enrico]

In comb which has mainly been used as a honey frame, the area where the brood nest has been able to protrude will obviously be in an arc on the lower margin and it is unlikely to have had intensive use for brood. Would this make it a favourable choice for future brood-rearing? The bees might be hedging their bets and leaving it uncapped so that they could remove it more quickly with less wastage of resources should it be needed again for brood.

There seem to be a few contributors here who fire scathing comments at observations or questions such as @enrico and his original post. The spirit of broadening our knowledge and sharing our experiences is what makes a forum such as this one thrive and be useful. So just because an observation is not necessarily relevant to maximising the production of honey or because a full understanding the logistics of it is not necessity, this doesn't mean that trying to understand it is pointless.

Thanks Beebe. I was beginning to feel I shouldn't have bothered mentioning it!

 

[Delgirl]

In comb which has mainly been used as a honey frame, the area where the brood nest has been able to protrude will obviously be in an arc on the lower margin and it is unlikely to have had intensive use for brood. Would this make it a favourable choice for future brood-rearing? The bees might be hedging their bets and leaving it uncapped so that they could remove it more quickly with less wastage of resources should it be needed again for brood.

There seem to be a few contributors here who fire scathing comments at observations or questions such as @enrico and his original post. The spirit of broadening our knowledge and sharing our experiences is what makes a forum such as this one thrive and be useful. So just because an observation is not necessarily relevant to maximising the production of honey or because a full understanding the logistics of it is not necessity, this doesn't mean that trying to understand it is pointless.

Thank you Beeb. I read many of the comments on here hoping the glean more knowledge. I am no shrinking violet if it comes to responding to anything scathing but I wince at some of the comments I have seen newbies and regulars being subjected to when, to my mind, they have asked a quite valid question. Tone it down some of you experienced beeks. You were inexperienced and thirsty for knowledge once upon a time.

 

[Murox]

In comb which has mainly been used as a honey frame, the area where the brood nest has been able to protrude will obviously be in an arc on the lower margin and it is unlikely to have had intensive use for brood. Would this make it a favourable choice for future brood-rearing? The bees might be hedging their bets and leaving it uncapped so that they could remove it more quickly with less wastage of resources should it be needed again for brood.

There seem to be a few contributors here who fire scathing comments at observations or questions such as @enrico and his original post. The spirit of broadening our knowledge and sharing our experiences is what makes a forum such as this one thrive and be useful. So just because an observation is not necessarily relevant to maximising the production of honey or because a full understanding the logistics of it is not a necessity, this doesn't mean that trying to understand it is pointless.

Very well said.

 

[user 20297]

Thanks Beebe. I was beginning to feel I shouldn't have bothered mentioning it!

.......No problem @enrico . It goes without saying really, but your past and continuing contributions on this forum are amongst the most pragmatic and newbee-friendly here....so thank-you to you.

 

[North End Bees]

I've not noticed this in previous years but have done this year. I put it down to the bees being as befuddled by 2021 as I am!

I have uncapped arcs which would have been the top arc of the nest had the QX not been in place. They still haven't capped these even though I moved the supers up (so they're not expecting to potentially need it for brood).

 

[Anduril]

In comb which has mainly been used as a honey frame, the area where the brood nest has been able to protrude will obviously be in an arc on the lower margin and it is unlikely to have had intensive use for brood. Would this make it a favourable choice for future brood-rearing? The bees might be hedging their bets and leaving it uncapped so that they could remove it more quickly with less wastage of resources should it be needed again for brood.

There seem to be a few contributors here who fire scathing comments at observations or questions such as @enrico and his original post. The spirit of broadening our knowledge and sharing our experiences is what makes a forum such as this one thrive and be useful. So just because an observation is not necessarily relevant to maximising the production of honey or because a full understanding the logistics of it is not a necessity, this doesn't mean that trying to understand it is pointless.

I agree with Beebe's explanation, i think sometimes we have to take a step back and consider what is being said, I've had bees in 14x12's that have filled the brood chamber wall to wall with brood under the queen excluder, leaving no room for nectar in the brood area, in these instances the brood cells are back filled with nectar and not capped but the nectar is then moved above the queen excluder with regard to prolific bees. Thanks enrico, we see but do not observe.

 

[North End Bees]

I've had bees in 14x12's that have filled the brood chamber wall to wall with brood under the queen excluder, leaving no room for nectar in the brood area, in these instances the brood cells are back filled with nectar and not capped but the nectar is then moved above the queen excluder with regard to prolific bees.

But that's just usual brood box logistics.
What Enrico is saying is different because the supers are no longer part of the nest area.

 

[Anduril]

But that's just usual brood box logistics.
What Enrico is saying is different because the supers are no longer part of the nest area.

I have moved supers above the queen excluder, when I trialled brood and a half many years ago but dismissed the uncapped cells as weak hives at the time. One of the reasons I haven't really thought about it. But I do tinker about and move the full frames to the outer edges of the box.