BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 4 Sep 2000 22:48:18 +0200
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (28 lines)
James Kilty wrote: ...

> Beowulf Cooper found that A.m.m. bees were *larger* when left to build
> their own comb. This would presumably also vary depending on locality as
> he and others have found great variation in other characters such as the
> peak time for bee populations which related to the principal forage of
> the areas. I have also had a report of a locality in Scotland where the
> bees were a great deal smaller than any others the beekeepers had seen. ...

One factor not seen in the discussion is the age of the comb. Older comb,
containing many pupal and larval debris, will effectively reduce the inside
dimensions on the cells and, as a result, the size of the bee. The age of those
feral colonies that survive might be a factor. Younger established feral
colonies' cell size might not be small enough yet for them to resist. That is,
assuming cells size is a factor in varroa tolerance.

In addition to this, perhaps the fact that older cells become rounder inside
(due to the same factor), in stead of hexagonal as per newly built comb, leaves
less space for the developing Varroa - in the corners as it were?

Thirdly, perhaps there is a biochemical (pheromonal?) reason for their survival
based on the larval and pupal skins.

Makes me wonder if replacing two sheets of foundation on a yearly basis is a
misteek.

Robert Post

ATOM RSS1 RSS2