Excellent material relating to cell size - thanks to all who have shared
their experiences and thoughts!

But then I ask myself - why all the comment?
If it is related to V.j. control, if so and then presuming that it is
possible to regress the corporal size of the A.m.m. over a few
generations - why stop at cell size 4.7mm?
Why not continue below, gradually reducing the cell size, 4.6, 4.5mm and
observe the effects on V.j. reproduction.
It may come across a brick wall as far as the A.m.m. is concerned -
maybe my thoughts are "ridiculous" to those with far more experience in
the relevant field - but it seems to me it is necessary to hold on to
the original reason for discussion.
There is no need to change cell size without a valid reason - and the
pressing reason to me is the battle against V.j.

AND, who is going to grasp the nettle and follow this through so that
the results are validated with the proper scientific protocols with
repetition?
It is fine that private individuals take up the challenge - but
resources are limited (time and cash) and the organisation required is
staggering.
It again seems to me that it is a reflection of the status of the
industry today (and maybe previous) that we appear to be left adrift to
sort out very pressing questions without the support afforded to other
branches of the agricultural sector.
This mail reflects the position today - questions without the proper
resources to answer them even though it is recognised that beekeepers
are a vital link in the agricultural industry!!

Peter