Search

The aim of the study was to investigate the impact of the combination of the colony type (kept on small-cell or standard-cell combs) and the width of worker comb cells (small-cell or standard-cell combs) on the body weight and morphometric traits of worker bees. The values of morphometric parameters of worker bees changed within a substantially lower range than the width of their rearing cells. This indicates that the worker body size is relatively constant, and manipulation with the cell width is not a good method for modeling the body size of workers. The reduction in the thorax weight was proportional to the decrease in the comb cell width, and this part of the body proved to be most susceptible to weight reduction caused by the use of small-cell combs. The rearing of workers in small-cell combs in the colony kept on standard-cell combs resulted in an increase in the value of the fill factor (thorax width to cell width ratio). The relatively constant body size of workers in combination with the use of small-cell combs resulting in an increase in the fill factor may be one of the determinants of increased resistance of the insects to Varroa destructor. The values of the morphometric traits commonly used for identification of honeybee subspecies, i.e., the length of the fore wing, the sum of the widths of 3rd and 4thth tergites, and the proboscis length, were inconsiderably altered vs. the changes in the comb cell width, which confirms their high suitability for identification of honeybee subspecies.

Wax collection behavior has not yet been described in the honeybee; it is typical of another Apis species. The wax collection was more difficult to observe due to the different biology of Apis mellifera and the fact that beekeepers do not display combs around the apiary to avoid the spread of bee diseases and robberies. The transport of wax in the pollen basket is typical of Apis florea; additionally, these bees have preferences for natal combs, which are significantly greater than for non-natal combs. Before they abandon their nests, these migratory bees following the nectar flow collect and transport some wax in their pollen baskets. This helps them to build a new nest quickly. The collection of available wax by both A. florea and A. mellifera is economically justified, as it reduces consumption of energy and honey supplies for the production of wax. The economic balance is believed to determine the collection of wax covers of Ceroplastes sp. soft scale insects by A. mellifera. This can be confirmed by the comparison of the energy value of wax (12.7 kcal/g) and honey (3.1 kcal/g), which indicates an over fourfold energy gain in favor of honey stored in the bee colony. The energetic trade-off between wax secretion and collection from an old nest may explain why A. florea is probably the only honeybee species known to recycle wax if the new breeding site is located at a distance lower than 100–200 m away from the nesting site. In such a case, it energetically pays off to recycle the wax. The same is probably true in A. mellifera, as we observed that wax was placed on the tops of the apiary hives at a distance lower than 100 m away from the colony. This is also reflected by the economic conversion rates, as a bee colony consumes from 4 to 8 kg of honey to produce 1 kg of wax. Our observations show that A. mellifera collect wax in pollen baskets. In addition, wax collection by honeybees is a static process occurring at the site where wax is present; bees do not have to flight, unlike in the case of pollen pellets, which are formed during flight. This paper addresses two completely unknown issues that make up two hypotheses: one is associated with collection of propolis into the pollen basket to stick the light wax fragments, and the other assumes saving energy required from the bee organism, which can be used to support colony functioning.

The study examined the effect of stearin and paraffin adulteration of the wax foundation on brood survival. In combs formed on a stearin-adulterated wax foundation (10, 30, and 50% stearin, which means: 3.9, 11.7, and 19.5% of stearic acid, respectively), the survival of brood decreased statistically significantly (p ≤ 0.001) compared to the survival rates noted on a pure beeswax foundation. The brood appearance resembled the so-called scattered brood although the queens oviposited normally. The scattered brood was caused by the death of young larvae, most probably due to changes in the properties of royal jelly. Larvae transferred into stearin-adulterated wax cups died as well. The adulteration of the wax foundation with paraffin (10, 30, and 50%) did not reduce the survival of the brood but lowered the mechanical strength of the combs. Adulteration of wax with even a small amount of stearin/stearic acid makes it useless for apiculture.