How does the size of the Rose box compare with others, National, Langstroth and so on?
How does the size of the Rose box compare with others, National, Langstroth and so on?
I run quite a few in a similar manner, but just using standard national deeps,they are just over an inch deeper than the Rose box, i much prefer all same size frames, and am slowly doing away with shallow boxes altogether.
Have you ever tried lugging a full national brood box over wet muddy fields - full to the brim with honey?. You wouldnt change from shallows then in a hurry. You would end up with a seriously sore back in no time.I dont intend changeing from my national polyhives but I think the Rose system deserves a serious look which is the exercise I intend carrying out this summer. As I said before the boxes (same construction as wooden national boxes in western red cedar but 1 1/2 inches shallower) will make good supers later on. Quite a few of our association members have read the Rose Hive book and seem quite taken with his system. I don't like the way his hives are constructed - the ones I checked over from thornes were both heavy and made with very poor quality materials - full of huge knots and junk plywood. I have a workshop full of woodworking equipment so making 7 1/2 ( 190 mm) deep national brood bodies in cedarwood is no problem.
Yes i have, many a time, and i don't really find them that heavy, (it is the empty ones i dislike carrying) so still prefer standard national deeps, the cedar boxes are lighter than the plywood rose model. Although i do also have five sons, two who work with me full time, and the machinery for lifting and getting across rough terrain when needed, although i tend to use a bit more common sense as to the location of the apiary sites these days.
Like yourself, we have workshops similar, plus sawmill, heavy log handling equipment and timber kilns, and usually produce in excess of 1000 cedar hives a year, and many thousands of frames. All that all of us need now though is a decent seasons weather.
Last edited by Pete L; 26-03-2013 at 03:07 PM.
All honey before abbe Collins invented it around 1865ish was from comb that had reared brood and been cleaned for honey stores. Wild honey hunters still gather it and you pay extortionate amounts for it.
I still want to eat honey even though i know it as been shared and regurgitated by lots of bees before storage.
__________________
sent via tapatalk
And the honey from the warre system is stored in comb which previously had brood reared in it as the normal warre system involves adding supers (subs?) underneath.
I have once only spun honey from comb previously containing brood! Quite frankly it was rubbish !
I didn't consider it worth feeding back to the bees!
My experience I must stress!! Could have been bad luck .
I take the point that super comb is subject to repeated use but as brood is never raised in there (no cocoon debris) the cell remain in good uncontaminated condition .
WW
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I had a super with lots of pollen in it last year and spun it out
Being rape it went solid before I strained it
There wasn't loads but I am using it on the two little colonies I have
Just wamed up then made into a patty
Because there is everything they might need in there I hope it will be better than fondant for them
I read somewhere that bees remove the cocoon and clean the cells before storing honey. Is this correct?
I'm not sure that they remove the cocoon, but they certainly give the cell a thorough clean out.Honey is antibacterian and antiinflammatary. It can be used on cuts whilst they heal. Can't imagine it being contaminated. And even if the bees didn't clean all the bits out of the cells, they are easily filtered out.I've never experienced it tasting *rubbish*. Quite the opposite, so I think WW was just unlucky.
If the objection is psychological, how do people deal with the idea of earthworms in their minced steaks?Or...
Bookmarks