New Beekeeper in 2024!

[Antipodes]

what studies?

I can't find the Apiarist article

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

I can't find the Apiarist article

a blog isn't a study.
All I've seen thus far on here is observations on isolated incidences and assertions

 

[Antipodes]

a blog isn't a study.
All I've seen thus far on here is observations on isolated incidences and assertions

Yea, I saw his blog thinggy the other day ( I think I recall it was a fairly recent one) and he was talking about smoke and honey gorging - whether bees/queen leave (all the stuff that's been on this post) and I reckon he put info at the bottom about studies as he usually does that.

 

[Antipodes]

I found it under "Quit Smoking" but alas, no studies.

https://theapiarist.org/2023/01/

 

[Erichalfbee]

what studies?

OK...wrong word....observations that seem to be taken as gospel

 

[BeeKeyPlayer]

I think you're in a stronger position looking at it the other way around:

Is it true, and, if so, how do we know?

Anyone can make a random assertion about anything and claim it's not nonsense (when it patently is) because no-one has demonstrated that to be so. No-one has, for instance, shown that the fairies living at the end of my garden don't find new places for swarming bees to live.

James

I wrote 'Is this nonsense, and, if so, how do we know?' because I wasn't referring to random assertions but some things that were widely accepted as true. In that context it makes less sense to say 'Is this true?'

Anyway, we have to get on and do what we're going to do. @Antipodes has referred to a paragraph (Quit smoking) in a post by David Evans. It's almost bizarre that any time I think I might have caught David out, when I reread his post, he's already covered most eventualities. In that sense, I think his easy, readable style is beguiling. So I'm going to go with what he says about smoking bees, and it involves a slight change in my current approach. This is the substance of what he writes:

• Bees exposed to wildfires do not abscond; they almost certainly die from either heat or asphyxiation.
• If you assume it’s midseason and the queen is laying eggs like crazy, they probably cannot abscond as she will be too heavy to fly any distance
• Smoke masks the alarm pheromones and so makes inspections a little easier.
• If you smoke a colony heavily at the hive entrance the bees will be driven up … to the exact region you want fewer bees when you manipulate the frames. A very gentle waft under the crownboard and the occasional very light puff to clear bees from the frame lugs should be sufficient.
• After smoking a colony and opening it up you will usually find a significant number of the bees gorging on open honey stores or nectar.
• What’s more, if you open a colony without using smoke there will still be bees gorging on honey stores … the disturbance alone is sufficient to make them do this. Try it.

Finally:

• The best way to need to use less smoke is to select for calm, stable bees when you are queen rearing.

 

[Erichalfbee]

This is the substance of what he writes:

Which is what I’ve always understood and exactly what I observe.

 

[Antipodes]

I wrote 'Is this nonsense, and, if so, how do we know?' because I wasn't referring to random assertions but some things that were widely accepted as true. In that context it makes less sense to say 'Is this true?'

Anyway, we have to get on and do what we're going to do. @Antipodes has referred to a paragraph (Quit smoking) in a post by David Evans. It's almost bizarre that any time I think I might have caught David out, when I reread his post, he's already covered most eventualities. In that sense, I think his easy, readable style is beguiling. So I'm going to go with what he says about smoking bees, and it involves a slight change in my current approach. This is the substance of what he writes:

• Bees exposed to wildfires do not abscond; they almost certainly die from either heat or asphyxiation.
• If you assume it’s midseason and the queen is laying eggs like crazy, they probably cannot abscond as she will be too heavy to fly any distance
• Smoke masks the alarm pheromones and so makes inspections a little easier.
• If you smoke a colony heavily at the hive entrance the bees will be driven up … to the exact region you want fewer bees when you manipulate the frames. A very gentle waft under the crownboard and the occasional very light puff to clear bees from the frame lugs should be sufficient.
• After smoking a colony and opening it up you will usually find a significant number of the bees gorging on open honey stores or nectar.
• What’s more, if you open a colony without using smoke there will still be bees gorging on honey stores … the disturbance alone is sufficient to make them do this. Try it.

Finally:

• The best way to need to use less smoke is to select for calm, stable bees when you are queen rearing.

I reckon that if you smoke bees through the entrance without lifting the lid, it causes some of them start eating honey. I also think that if you disturb the colony, say by opening the lid etc. it makes some eat honey as well. It makes sense that if a bear is tearing the hive apart, getting a bit of honey ingested would be a good plan, but not all bees should do that as some need to do some stinging. That's what I see anyhow. Plenty are up and about looking to defend. I don't know if doing both smoking and disturbing makes much difference to rates of eating honey, but it might.
Smoking a really nasty colony heavily doesn't make them abscond, from what I've seen, but it does do wonders for almost completely removing the urge to sting and for then finding the queen. Great tool.
With a general inspection/manipulation, a bit of smoke in the entrance and then letting it move through the air in the hive to affect all the bees works well. That's not possible with a spray of water mist, although I do use that at an entrance to get the bees hanging around the entrance to move back in so I can lock them up for a move. That works better than smoke in my experience. A hose pipe water spray works quite well for calming a robbing frenzy on a warm day too.

 

[rdartington]

• What’s more, if you open a colony without using smoke there will still be bees gorging on honey stores … the disturbance alone is sufficient to make them do this. Try it.

Finally:

• The best way to need to use less smoke is to select for calm, stable bees when you are queen rearing.

Try it, yes. But an undesturbed colony will of course be consuming homey -its what honey is stored for! Why assume the disturbance of opening is needed to provoke some bees to do this.
The question we should be addressing is whether smoking provokes excessive honey gorging - and then whether honey-gorged bees are unable to carry on normal activities untill they dis-gorge. How long does it takes after smoking and opening of the hive for normality to return? Obviously, foragers will not leave the hive while full or they would have no room for extra nectar. If it only one hour, insignificant, if takes half a day, that would reduce the profitability of the hive.
Some here seem to rely only on published studies. What about some common sense? We all could count the flyers leaving a hive during say one minute - then count again after smoking.
I use only a very light water spray. That is sufficient to clear bees from the top bars - which are the only ones that can fly out . No need to drench the bees, use just a mist. I dont want to disturb all the bees from their separate tasks - feeding brood, making wax, building/repairing comb, maturing nectar into honey. All are liable to be disturbed if smoke reaches all bees.

 

[JamezF]

What about some common sense?

Because there's no such thing, and what's often mistaken for "common sense" has repeatedly been shown to be very unreliable. The kinds of people who submit studies to reputable science publications generally understand this and take measures to avoid the kinds of bias that it builds in.

James

 

[BeeKeyPlayer]

Try it, yes. But an undesturbed colony will of course be consuming homey -its what honey is stored for! Why assume the disturbance of opening is needed to provoke some bees to do this.
The question we should be addressing is whether smoking provokes excessive honey gorging - and then whether honey-gorged bees are unable to carry on normal activities untill they dis-gorge. How long does it takes after smoking and opening of the hive for normality to return? Obviously, foragers will not leave the hive while full or they would have no room for extra nectar. If it only one hour, insignificant, if takes half a day, that would reduce the profitability of the hive.
Some here seem to rely only on published studies. What about some common sense? We all could count the flyers leaving a hive during say one minute - then count again after smoking.
I use only a very light water spray. That is sufficient to clear bees from the top bars - which are the only ones that can fly out . No need to drench the bees, use just a mist. I dont want to disturb all the bees from their separate tasks - feeding brood, making wax, building/repairing comb, maturing nectar into honey. All are liable to be disturbed if smoke reaches all bees.

It's a good question, and it did occur to me as I wrote it - but I was quoting David Evans (The Apiarist website), so you'll need to ask him.

I'll be at his talk online to Medway BKA on 31 January (Queen rearing part 2; if anyone wants the link, please DM me) so I might take the chance to ask him then.

As you suggest, it's not rocket science to devise some sort of observation experiment and see what the results show.

Regarding the relative disturbance levels of mist and smoke, yes, probably smoke will travel further than mist. but the key is to use as little as possible of whatever. My preference for smoke is because if a little turns out to be not enough, then I'm sure misting (which becomes drenching) would be more disruptive than smoking.

 

[Antipodes]

The question we should be addressing is whether smoking provokes excessive honey gorging - and then whether honey-gorged bees are unable to carry on normal activities untill they dis-gorge.

Most inspections would be well over by the time any honey eating would have a chance to affect the stinging capability of the bees wouldn't it? It's a fairly slow process.
This is a photo I took yesterday afternoon of bees lined up eating honey from an area between frames opened up when I took a frame out. Instantaneously gorging once the honey was exposed. This is not honey they would have eaten when the lid was shut of course. Anywhere honey was exposed on removing frames they were straight onto it. Plenty of other bees were up and about trying to get rid of me at the same time.

 

[Swarm]

Always makes me smile

 

[rdartington]

Because there's no such thing, and what's often mistaken for "common sense" has repeatedly been shown to be very unreliable. The kinds of people who submit studies to reputable science publications generally understand this and take measures to avoid the kinds of bias that it builds in.

James

No such thing as common sense?
what happened during the 20 million or so thru which humans evolved - and before scientific studies started???
When humans first found that they could use fire to cook food, did they stop to wait for a ‘scientific study’ on whether it was heat or something else that cooked the meat? Or did they just throw the meat on the embers of a fire and relish that it then tasted better - even if it was unreliable at first and burnt the meat to a cinder if the fire was too hot?

 

[rdartington]

Most inspections would be well over by the time any honey eating would have a chance to affect the stinging capability of the bees wouldn't it? It's a fairly slow process.
This is a photo I took yesterday afternoon of bees lined up eating honey from an area between frames opened up when I took a frame out. Instantaneously gorging once the honey was exposed. This is not honey they would have eaten when the lid was shut of course. Anywhere honey was exposed on removing frames they were straight onto it. Plenty of other bees were up and about trying to get rid of me at the same time.

What is interesting me is what effect on the efficiency of the colony/super-organism, whenever bees of different ages/gland development are induced away from the area in the nest where they were carrying out the tasks appropriate to their age, and induced to fill up with honey, because of smoke/opening the hive triggering an old instinct to prepare for repairing damage to their nest caused by fire or attack by a predator (today, by a beekeeper).

posters on this thread seem unconcerned by this - or simply not thinking about it.

 

[Antipodes]

What is interesting me is what effect on the efficiency of the colony/super-organism, whenever bees of different ages/gland development are induced away from the area in the nest where they were carrying out the tasks appropriate to their age, and induced to fill up with honey, because of smoke/opening the hive triggering an old instinct to prepare for repairing damage to their nest caused by fire or attack by a predator (today, by a beekeeper).

posters on this thread seem unconcerned by this - or simply not thinking about it.

It's one of those unavoidable things really. As a beekeeper there are times you have to disturb the colony in some way. It's just not possible not to. Opening the lid for a start, then spraying water is "taking bees away from the area that they are carrying out the tasks appropriate to their age" etc.
What is important as well in terms of negligence is ensuring that you act in a way a reasonable person would, either by doing or not doing something. Smoking bees is a tried, tested and accepted method for working bees whereas water spray is not in the same league.
https://beekeepingforum.co.uk/threa...s good to,before putting hives back together.

 

[JamezF]

When humans first found that they could use fire to cook food, did they stop to wait for a ‘scientific study’ on whether it was heat or something else that cooked the meat? Or did they just throw the meat on the embers of a fire and relish that it then tasted better - even if it was unreliable at first and burnt the meat to a cinder if the fire was too hot?

You've entirely missed the point.

It's not hard to come up with a load of examples where a large group of people hold a particular point of view to be common sense whilst another equally large group hold entirely the opposite view in the same high esteem. You could start with gun control or expressions of sexuality, for example. Or the chap down the pub who says it's "common sense" that there's no such thing as climate change because where he lives isn't getting any warmer.

If "common sense" can mean anything, it's probably "consistent with my own set of prejudices about and experiences of how the world works". But no two people have exactly the same set of prejudices and experiences so their ideas of what constitutes "common sense" will differ. What might be common sense to you is not necessarily common sense to me and vice versa. Or perhaps it could be defined as "things that seem obvious to me but may actually be fundamentally wrong". There is no body of knowledge that is unequivocally "common sense". Where a group appears to decide that something is "common sense" it probably just means that they have sufficiently similar life experience. Another group of people down the road, or in a different country, or who live in a jungle might have completely different ideas.

An example that most people here should be able to relate to: "common sense" says that when you're riding a bicycle (or a motorbike) and you want to turn to the right, you turn the handlebars to the right. I'd bet most people would agree that's just common sense. And it's also wrong. To initiate a turn to the right the handlebars are turned to the left. It's only once the vehicle is turning that the handlebars have to be pointed the "right" way. Motorcycle racers know this and will often deliberately push the right handlebar away from them to initiate a turn to the right. I'd guess that racing cyclists know it too. There are even videos on youtube where someone riding a bicycle is asked to turn either to the left or right and a mechanism is used to remotely lock the handlebars so they can't turn in the opposite direction. At that point the rider mostly falls off.

James

 

[MeAndMyBees]

Hi all!

After doing a beekeeping experience earlier this Summer at Albury Vineyard and a few days spent with a beekeeping friend of mine, I have decided to take up the hobby myself in 2024!

I have got my hives (2 Abelo Nationals), all the equipment on order, and located a out apiary (the local fishing club is letting me put my hives next to one of their private fishing lakes).

Really excited to get going!

Welcome Newbie ! You will really enjoy being a Beekeeper. (It will be fun, challenging, daunting and satisfying in all elements !)
It sounds like you haven't got your actual Bees yet.
I would recommend joining your local Bee Club. See if you can may be get a Mentor, or ask a Senior Beek, if you can visit their Apiary, Eg : help with the Heavy Chores / ask if they could show you how to do a 'Split' using Second Hand Equipment. / Maybe offer to Purchase it. . . And learn how to build up this Colony. And then get them installed into one of your Hives. You will learn far more doing this, than just Buying an 'Over Wintered' Nuc. . . These are so expensive now. And can make a Newbie (new Beekeeper) fall at the first hurdle !
Another option is to ask a local Bee Association: if any Swarm Call SoS comes in, to go with them. And House those Bees in a Nuc. To then add this into your National Box into Central Frames only. . . As a Faux Nuc (Reduce the Capacity) And allow them to expand through the Season.
Wishing you well. . .
I'm a Beek with : Langstroth's, Nationals, Warre's and a Horizontal Hive. Lots of Nucs, Swarm Boxes. And Homemade DIY Bee Kit.
Any queries. . . Ask away. . . MMB.

Happy Beekeeping 2024.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

What is interesting me is what effect on the efficiency of the colony/super-organism, whenever bees of different ages/gland development are induced away from the area in the nest where they were carrying out the tasks appropriate to their age, and induced to fill up with honey, because of smoke/opening the hive triggering an old instinct to prepare for repairing damage to their nest caused by fire or attack by a predator (today, by a beekeeper).

posters on this thread seem unconcerned by this - or simply not thinking about it.

do you have any proof of this? or is this once again off the shelf of unsubstantiated nonsense?

 

[rdartington]

do you have any proof of this? or is this once again off the shelf of unsubstantiated nonsense?

No proof - its a hypothesis. I am looking for ways to get data. That is how progress is made
I had thought that raising the possibility might get a useful response from the leaders on this forum - but no.
A lack of interest in moving forward from beekeeping practices that date from the late Victorian era seems to characterise the UK, or at least this forum.
Almost all The stream of books with new insights over the last few years has come from abroad - Those from US and Australia written in English, those from Germany, France, Slovenia, Spain, even Sweden, all from translations. One significant English book is by a monk, opposing earlier books by the famous monk of the same order!
One US book you might like to pitch straight on the fire is by the former editor of Bee Culture, Kim Flottum - ‘Common Sense Natural Beekeeping: sustainable bee-friendly techniques to help your bees survive and thrive’. It is poorly written but the message is clear.

So, with so many new books/ideas to absorb while the cold keeps me inside, I will step back and wish you all well with your traditional approach.
Bye.