Anyone regret purchasing HSC frames?

[RangerBrad]

Howdy folks, I'll be getting my first ever bees(Russians) in April in two 4# packages and putting them on HSC.
I have 20 HSC frames now enough for 1 brood box per hive. Don't know if I should order 20 more frames now or wait to see how it goes with the first brooders.

I've heard of course that HSC is hard to get accepted but fine after that. I was wondering if any of you  that have used HSC regret it? If so why? Any issues other than initially slow to start? Thank's, Brad

[Understudy]

I use Permacomb which the medium frame version of HSC. I don't regret it. It can be hard to get them to accept if you don't prep the frames. If you prep the frames then usually there is not an issue.

It is not the only thing I use. I have boxes with foundation less frames. I have some plastic foundation frames.  I have used each as a learning experience. I have had good success with Permacomb and starter strips.

Sincerely,
Brendhan

[Bee-Bop]

I think You ought to get a few more hive boxes and frames, In a good flow they can fill a single in a week or two.

You need some Local Info.
Join your local bee club, visit your Co. Ag. agent, go to your local library for some bee books { If they don't have any,they can order them thru inter-library loan}

Better to bee prepared then watch them swarm, because they ran out of room.

I have Russians, used medium boxes, first year went up to 6 high, 3 brood,3 honey.

Good Luck
Bee-Bop

[Robo]

I think if you get any that regret it, it is either they introduced them incorrectly or where not patient enough.   The only other draw back that I'm aware of is they are heavier than wax comb.

With some persistence, after a few brood cycles they treat them like any other frame.

[homer]

Sorry for the lame question, but what are HSC frames?

[Understudy]

Sorry for the lame question, but what are HSC frames?

Not lame at all.
HSC== Honey Super Cell

http://www.honeysupercell.com/

Plastic fully drawn frames.

Sincerely,
Brendhan

[Michael Bush]

I used them without any prep to see what they would do and it was a little disappointing at first but once they use it it's just comb to them and it's 4.9mm and it's permanent.  I don't regret buying or using it.  I probably would rub some wax on it and spray it down with some honey/water or syrup.

[deknow]

...besides prepping the frames, make sure that you put a queen includer on the entrance, probably until the brood starts to emerge (probably when the brood is capped is good enough, but better safe than sorry).

deknow

[Natalie]

I keep debating the idea of using some of these myself.
I have gone so far as to put them in my shopping cart and then decide to wait.
I just bought 3 small cell nucs from Sam Comfort but I am thinking of using them in some other hives to get them all down to small size sooner.
I am doing all foundationless frames in the langs and have a couple of topbar hives as well so I plan to get them all on natural cell size and foundationless.
Any opinion on just letting them build natural comb to start with or forcing them on the HSC.
I realize that it takes longer for them to regress naturally, just wondering what the benefit is to making them do it sooner or later.
Perhaps where there is the theory that it helps in mite control forcing them to regress sooner gets things underway?
If it takes them longer to accept how far behind is this putting them in overall production?
Are you better off doing this later in the season?
I am wondering if it would be a case (at least short term) of less brood production = less workers to make honey.
Does anyone find that race makes a difference in which type of bees will utilize these more readily than others.
Again, just speculating here, trying to decide which way to go myself.
I might try them in 1 or 2 hives and if I like them I can rotate them through the others after a couple of brood cycles.

[iddee]

I have never used them, but I do have a lot of plastic frames and foundation people have given me when they came to buy wood frames and wax foundation.

******Wonder why they gave them away.*******

I also spoke to Jennifer Berry over the weekend at the bee meeting. She said her small cell research is finished and the results are in. The conclusion was "small cell had SIGNIFICANTLY MORE VARROA THAN LARGE CELL".

SURPRISE!

[Natalie]

Either way, I choose not to use foundation regardless of varroa, the bees either develop some tolerance to the mites and learn to co exist or they die and I replace them.
So I am still looking for helpful answers to my questions on the best way to get them to the size nature intended before man made foundation picked a size.

[Robo]

Any opinion on just letting them build natural comb to start with or forcing them on the HSC.

If you want to go with no treatment from the start then HSC is a no brainer.  If you let them regress naturally, it will most likely take a couple of years to get them to regress and in the interim you will need to treat them if you want them to survive. 

I realize that it takes longer for them to regress naturally, just wondering what the benefit is to making them do it sooner or later.
Perhaps where there is the theory that it helps in mite control forcing them to regress sooner gets things underway?

Until they are fully regressed, you need to deal with mites,  so the sooner they are regressed, the less time you have to deal with mites.

If it takes them longer to accept how far behind is this putting them in overall production?
Are you better off doing this later in the season?
I am wondering if it would be a case (at least short term) of less brood production = less workers to make honey.

It depends on the hive,  but don't forget, if you having them constantly drawing comb as you try to regress them, it takes a lot of resources too.   If your looking to regress and make surplus honey at the same time you may be disappointed.

Does anyone find that race makes a difference in which type of bees will utilize these more readily than others.
Again, just speculating here, trying to decide which way to go myself.
I might try them in 1 or 2 hives and if I like them I can rotate them through the others after a couple of brood cycles.

Can't speak for races because I have gone entirely to local feral stock.  After a few years of struggling trying to regress over multiple years, because they don't draw as much comb here in the north as they can in the south, I switched to HSC when it came out and have not treated at all since and have not lost a single hive to mites.  Now I can't contribute it entirely to HSC because that was about the same time I switched from commercial stock to local feral.

[Natalie]

Robo, thank you very much, that is quite helpful and the information I was looking for.
                                   Thanks again. :)

[Kathyp]

SURPRISE!

not to anyone who has been following the bit of research that has been done.  robo's ferel stock is probably the answer.  not small cell.  my limited results of watching my own hives is that the swarms i have picked up from known ferel hives have done very well with no treatment.  the swarms from pollination hives are no different than a package.  they struggle to overcome the mite problem and may or may not make it without some intervention. 

i know people swear by small cell, but the research to this point does not back it up, or for me, justify the extra expense or work.

[TwT]

SURPRISE!

not to anyone who has been following the bit of research that has been done.  robo's ferel stock is probably the answer.  not small cell.  my limited results of watching my own hives is that the swarms i have picked up from known ferel hives have done very well with no treatment.  the swarms from pollination hives are no different than a package.  they struggle to overcome the mite problem and may or may not make it without some intervention. 

i know people swear by small cell, but the research to this point does not back it up, or for me, justify the extra expense or work.

well someone else thinks like I do, glad to know I ain't the only one that was a genius!!!  :-D , I been saying this for years and seemed to me like there was only a few, 

[Brian D. Bray]

I think the answer is feral stock, or close to it, and foundationless where the bees build what they like.  I try to treat all my hives as if they were feral and let them build what they build, as long as I can still manipulate the frames. 

[BjornBee]

Not sure what site is was, but ran across a site yesterday that basically touted the decision to go "natural" and that was the decision for placing bees on smallcell.

I'll repeat till I'm dead.....Smallcell is not natural. It is forcing bees on comb they would select, build, or choose if they made it themselves. Even with multiple chances to regress naturally, bees will not build all their comb to 4.9 or smaller. And I've done that natural regression now for three years.

And bees even through "forced unnatural regression" (my term for people who force their bees onto all 4.9), and then given the chance to build their own comb, will not stay at 4.9  They will go above that size and average something larger.

Natural comb is natural comb. It is going foundationless.

[Robo]

Not looking to turn this into a debate of the definition of "natural",  but I just went back through this thread and no one claimed 4.9 was natural.   The only time natural was mentioned was with foundationless.  I'm not a 4.9 advocate and as I stated above, I'm not willing to contribute my non-mite condition entirely to HSC.

and then given the chance to build their own comb, will not stay at 4.9  They will go above that size and average something larger.

In your experience is that something larger average closer to 4.9 or the 5.1/5.2 of commercial foundation?

Natural comb is natural comb. It is going foundationless.

So you would consider the first set of foundationless comb drawn by bees coming off of large cell foundation as natural?

[BjornBee]

Not looking to turn this into a debate of the definition of "natural",  but I just went back through this thread and no one claimed 4.9 was natural.   The only time natural was mentioned was with foundationless.  I'm not a 4.9 advocate and as I stated above, I'm not willing to contribute my non-mite condition entirely to HSC.

and then given the chance to build their own comb, will not stay at 4.9  They will go above that size and average something larger.

In your experience is that something larger average closer to 4.9 or the 5.1/5.2 of commercial foundation?

Natural comb is natural comb. It is going foundationless.

So you would consider the first set of foundationless comb drawn by bees coming off of large cell foundation as natural?

Robo, compared to either forced large or forced small, does it really matter? If a beekeeper installs bees on foundationless frames, and the bees draw what they need and desire, am I supposed to label and degrade efforts by applying "first generation natural regressed", "second generation natural regressed", and so on. Bees draw comb based on elevation, environmental factors such as location, seasonal variation, and need. And so the degree of regression, may be more or less based on many things, other than how many times they were stepped down.

I do not apply "degrees" to natural, such as some do with saying smallcell is natural, because it's "more natural than large cell". If you are letting the bees build comb as they see fit, I'd call that natural. I'm not going to break down how many generations this, how many regressions that, where bees came form, etc. But I will say that with multiple chances to draw new comb, over several seasons, I have not been able to have bees, regardless of position in the hive, make anything 4.9 or below on a consistant basis using natural regression methods.

I have found bees to draw most comb larger than 4.9, with a wide range well beyond drone comb sizes available on the market.

Robo, I never said anyone on this thread said natural cell is smallcell. But I have heard it claimed many times. I have been attacked many times for even questioning smallcell, suggesting it was not natural, and for stepping on toes. Maybe my opinion and comments is based more on the entire history of those making claims and suggesting it is natural to force bees on one sized comb, being smallcell. A few well spoken people are starting to tweak their websites a word or two at a time, to reflect new research, and a more common viewpoint. But it was not that long ago, that even suggesting that smallcell was not natural, was seen as something to defend. Maybe my comments are a bit tainted from past discussions....  :-D

[Robo]

Robo, compared to either forced large or forced small, does it really matter? If a beekeeper installs bees on foundationless frames, and the bees draw what they need and desire, am I supposed to label and degrade efforts by applying "first generation natural regressed", "second generation natural regressed", and so on. Bees draw comb based on elevation, environmental factors such as location, seasonal variation, and need. And so the degree of regression, may be more or less based on many things, other than how many times they were stepped down.

I don't know, that is what I'm trying to determine.  I'm leaning towards "yes" based on my experience of "first generation natural regressed" bees still being susceptible to crashing due to varroa.  Whereas,  "second generation" and on don't seem to be as susceptible to crashing.

I do not apply "degrees" to natural, such as some do with saying smallcell is natural, because it's "more natural than large cell". If you are letting the bees build comb as they see fit, I'd call that natural. I'm not going to break down how many generations this, how many regressions that, where bees came form, etc. But I will say that with multiple chances to draw new comb, over several seasons, I have not been able to have bees, regardless of position in the hive, make anything 4.9 or below on a consistant basis using natural regression methods.

I don't care about the term "natural".  I'm just trying to understand if cell size is a mitigating factor for varroa.  We all know that bees will draw different sized cells depending on circumstances (brood, drone, honey, time of season, etc).    My point was to see if 4.9 is closer to the "average natural cell" than 5.1/5.2.   I agree forcing bees to one size is not natural,  but if you are going to force,  why not force to closer, perhaps less stressful size.

I know you can be very skeptical of studies and how they are executed and evaluated.  Likewise, I'm not willing to just accept the Berry study as case closed.