The predominant material used to construct honey bee colonies in the U.S. is wood. Though honey bee hive components are simple in design, they are subjected to many extreme management techniques that cause wear and tear, ultimately shortening the life of the equipment. This article discusses how to protect colony woodenware, particularly the pieces that are exposed to the elements. These include the bottom board, hive body/supers, and lids. This revised 4-page fact sheet was written by J. D. Ellis, W. H. Kern, and C. M. Zettel Nalen, and published by the UF Department of Entomology and Nematology, June 2012. ENY125/AA244: Preserving Woodenware in Beekeeping Operations (ufl.edu)

The predominant material used to construct honey bee colonies in the U.S. is wood. Though honey bee hive components are simple in design, they are subjected to many extreme management techniques that cause wear and tear, ultimately shortening the life of the equipment. This article discusses how to protect colony woodenware, particularly the pieces that are exposed to the elements. These include the bottom board, hive body/supers, and lids. This revised 4-page fact sheet was written by J. D. Ellis, W. H. Kern, and C. M. Zettel Nalen, and published by the UF Department of Entomology and Nematology, June 2012. ENY125/AA244: Preserving Woodenware in Beekeeping Operations (ufl.edu)

The predominant material used to construct honey bee colonies in the U.S. is wood. Though honey bee hive components are simple in design, they are subjected to many extreme management techniques that cause wear and tear, ultimately shortening the life of the equipment. This article discusses how to protect colony woodenware, particularly the pieces that are exposed to the elements. These include the bottom board, hive body/supers, and lids. This revised 4-page fact sheet was written by J. D. Ellis, W. H. Kern, and C. M. Zettel Nalen, and published by the UF Department of Entomology and Nematology, June 2012. ENY125/AA244: Preserving Woodenware in Beekeeping Operations (ufl.edu)

Describes the use of the top-bar hive design which allows bees to naturally construct their own wax combs rather than relying on prefabricated frames and plastic cells. This low-stress method is being used to raise healthy bees organically, without the use of antibiotics, miticides, or other chemical inputs.

This research paper entitled "Comparison of pollen load and performance of honey up with three types of low apiaries Melaria Bajo Mayo, San Martín", aimed to: determine the yield of honey per hive through three types of honey supers in harvest months of April-May 2012 in the Lower zone apiaries Mayo (Zapatero and Banda Districts of Shilcayo) Determine pollen production per hive in harvest months of April- May 2012 and evaluate the characteristics physical - chemical honey obtained in work zones. The development of the research was carried out in the districts of Zapatero and Shilcayo Band - San Martin province, we compared the results of both district, using randomized complete design (DCA) with 4 treatments and 3 replications conforming 12 units experimental. The treatments were: T1 = Performance Full honey increases (compared Witness), T2 = yield of honey in three quarters of the rise and T3 = average honey yield increases. The most significant findings were: The highest yield of honey per hive per type of hike in T1 (yield increases HONEY complete) obtained the highest average was in the town of Las Palmas with 22.2 kg of honey and in the town of Zapatero was 17.0 kg. groups respectively and T1 (yield of honey in complete hikes) reached the highest average Brix with 79%, followed by T3 treatments (yield of honey in stockings hikes) and T2 (yield of honey in three quarters of the rise) who obtained averages of 78.6% and 78% respectively Brix. This same behavior was observed at pH reached, with the T1 (yield increases of honey in full) which obtained a pH of 6.0, followed by T3 treatments (yield of honey in stockings hikes) and T2 (yield of honey in three quarter rise) who obtained mean pH of 5.0 and 4.0 respectively. Keywords: honey, pollen load, Colmenares, honey yield | El presente trabajo de investigación titulado “Comparativo de carga polínica y rendimiento de miel de abeja con tres tipos de alza melaria en colmenares del bajo mayo, San Martín”, tuvo como objetivos: Determinar el rendimiento de miel por colmena mediante tres tipos de alzas melarías, en cosecha de los meses Abril-Mayo del 2 012 en colmenares de zonas del Bajo Mayo (Distritos de Zapatero y Banda de Shilcayo), Determinar la producción de polen por colmena en cosecha de los meses Abril-Mayo del 2012 y Evaluar las características físico – químicas de miel de abeja obtenidas en las zonas de trabajo. El desarrollo de la investigación se ejecutó en los distritos de Zapatero y la Banda de Shilcayo – Provincia de San Martín, se comparó los resultados obtenidos de ambos distrito, aplicando el diseño completo al azar (DCA) con 4 repeticiones y 3 tratamientos conformando 12 unidades experimentales. Los tratamientos fueron: T1 = Rendimiento de miel en alzas completas (Testigo de comparación), T2 = Rendimiento de miel en tres cuartos de alza y T3 = Rendimiento de miel en medias alzas. Las conclusiones más relevantes fueron: El mayor rendimiento de miel por colmena por tipo de alza el Tratamiento T1 (Rdto. De miel en alzas completas) el mayor promedio obtenido fue en la localidad de Las Palmas con 22.2 kg de miel y en la localidad de Zapatero fue de 17.0 kg. de miel respectivamente y el T1 (Rdto de miel en alzas completas) alcanzó el mayor promedio de grados Brix con 79%, seguido de los tratamientos T3 (Rdto de miel en medias alzas) y T2 (Rdto de miel en tres cuartos de alza) quienes obtuvieron promedios de 78.6% y 78% de grados Brix respectivamente. Este mismo comportamiento se observó el en pH alcanzado, siendo el T1 (Rdto de miel en alzas completas) el que obtuvo un pH de 6.0, seguido de los tratamientos T3 (Rdto de miel en medias alzas) y T2 (Rdto de miel en tres cuartos de alza) quienes obtuvieron promedios de pH de 5.0 y 4.0 respectivamente. Palabras clave: Miel de Abejas, Carga polínica, Colmenares, Rendimiento de miel.

Mining activities represent a major source of environment contamination. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of bees and ants as bioindicators to detect the heavy metal impact in post-mining areas. A biomonitoring programme involving a combination of honeybee hive matrices analysis and ant biodiversity survey was conducted over a 3-year period. The experimental design involved three monitoring stations where repeated sampling activities focused on chemical detection of cadmium (Cd), chrome (Cr) and lead (Pb) from different matrices, both from hosted beehives (foraging bees, honey and pollen) and from the surrounding environment (stream water and soil). At the same time, ant biodiversity (number and abundance of species) was determined through a monitoring programme based on the use of pitfall traps placed in different habitats inside each mining site. The heavy metal content detected in stream water from the control station was always below the analytical limit of quantification. In the case of soil, the content of Cd and Pb from the control was lower than that of mining sites. The mean heavy metal concentrations in beehive matrices from mining sites were mainly higher than the control, and as a result of regression and discriminant analysis, forager bee sampling was an efficient environmental pollution bioindicator. Ant collection and identification highlighted a wide species variety with differences among habitats mostly associated with vegetation features. A lower variability was observed in the polluted landfill characterised by lack of vegetation. Combined biomonitoring with forager bees and ants represents a reliable tool for heavy metal environmental impact studies.

The study evaluates the Sommerford method to stimulate queen bee rearing in a queenless bee colony between August 2008 and March 2009 and repeated between August 2009 and March 2010. The study was conducted in Kenya top-bar hives placed at two locations in Ogun State, Nigeria. The first location was at the Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, and the second was Olupakun village, Ogun State. There were two treatments; the first was the parent hives from where four top-bars with queen bee, brood cells, some worker bees, and drones were removed and replaced with four empty top bars. The second treatment was uncolonized hives (nuclei) that received the top bars with queen bee, brood cells, some worker bees and drones. The control was colonized and undisturbed Kenya top-bar hives. The treatment and control hives were replicated four times and arranged using completely randomized design, with each hive placed at a distance of 50 m apart. Data collected were subjected to analysis of variance and significant means were separated using least significant difference. The honey yield, weight of dried pressed comb, number of combs with brood cells and total number of combs were significantly (P < 0.05) higher in 2010. Likewise, the honey yield, weight of dried pressed comb, number of ripe harvested honey combs, number of combs with brood cells and total number of combs were significantly (P < 0.05) higher in Olupakun village. Bee colonies were established in the parent and nuclei hives. A significantly (P < 0.05) higher honey yield, propolis yield, weight of dried pressed comb, number of ripe harvested combs and number of combs with brood cells was obtained in the control hives. The study shows that the Sommerford method could be used to stimulate worker bees in a queenless colony to rear a queen bee.