> Well, I followed Dennis in real time as best I could and could not see the
> progression of thought that people now accept.  In fact, to me the reports I
> saw seemed to be changed often and retroactively.  Perhaps he has a
> consistent chronological record somewhere that I have not seen, but lacking
> that, I have some doubts and would like to see others replicate his
> observations.  Perhaps the old, real time information is archived somewhere
> on his website, but my interest waned and I have not read everything there,
> so maybe someone else has given it a critical examination.
>
>
Not sure if the pages are still there, but your observation is correct, that
it was a progression. He left the area and gave his colonies to a neighbor
who reported that they are still doing well without treatment. As far as I
know, his trials have not been duplicated. I asked him if he was going to
try it in Florida, but apparently not.

I am not sure where you are going with the desire to reduce cell size. Is is
to benefit the bee or beekeeper? If so, how? Or is it just a mental
exercise?

I have trialed a variety of cell sizes and have come to the conclusion that
it is not the cell size but the bee. If you have a good queen, it really
does not matter what the cell size is as long as it is within the size range
found naturally for that race of bee.

I have no proof at all, but it would seem that all the manipulation that is
gone through to downsize bees is actually a selection of the bee and it
really would not matter if the cells were kept constant or downsized. In
essence we are doing just what the other thread noted, that you can select
for the best bee for the area by letting nature take its course. But, also
as noted, that will only work in an area where all do the same and new stock
is not introduced. You need to control the variables.

In essence, you are selecting the best feral, so if you are in an area with
a large feral population, you will select that bee. It would also seem that
if you downsized cells, you would also select the feral bee that does best
on that cell size.

I did this for years and was fairly successful growing my own. There were
plenty of beekeepers in the area and as they closed down because of mites,
there still seemed to bee a pool of bees around for mating. But a few years
after the last beekeeper quit, my bees started to have problems. They were
inbreeding and my bees were suffering from a limited gene pool. The feral
bees were gone. It was only after I brought in new stock that things got
better. So you need a large pool of bees to make "natural" bees. Until the
feral populations grow, in our area, I will need to bring in new queens
about every other year.

But if the feral populations grow, then I will have the "natural" bee for my
area. So far, that has not happened.

My next "experiment" will be to shift a couple of colonies from Carniolans
to more Varroa tolerant stock. The reason is to let them swarm and they
might be able to restart the feral population in the area. Then I will have
Varroa tolerant feral bees- until the next beekeeper comes in.

Bill Truesdell
Bath, Maine

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned 
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html