Hi all,

I would not go as far as Barry Birkey in saying the large size and smaller
bees are different animals, but wonder how accurate the results at
http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Misc/CellCountResults.htm
can be? I stopped measuring cells very soon after starting. I couldn't even
post my 'results'. In my opinion
the measurements are dependent on the size of the bee that made them (and
hence its cell size), human differences in measuring (right down to error
of parallax) and our unconscious selection. On wild comb I've found 10 brood
cells in a
row to vary wildly in size... Brood cells. There is too much
variation all round. Regular precision like honeycomb? Hmmmm... maybe on man
made foundation plates.

 What clinched it for me as NEEDING FURTHER RESEARCH was seeing a colony
draw starter 5.7 strips placed in the fringe of the broodnest down to
roughly 5.1 in no generation. This year I have drawn  4.9 combs with varying
success in the fringes of broodnests. Those ugly combs get laid in and
workerbees emerge. They look smaller to me. I am of the opinion you can't
draw smaller comb without smaller bees. The history is lost, even that of 30
years ago. We'll never know what size bees Wedmore had, let alone Plato. At
least New Zealand have the chutzpah to "suck it and see" and will trial the
4.9 with pros doing the measuring and counting.

Funny that, UK and USA must have 100 times the resources...yet the Kiwis
pick up the rolling ball...

 My best 4.9 colony (I've watched that queen rejecting larger cells and
laying in smaller) just got Snelgroved, similar to the shook swarm yet
gentler, and drew out a box of very good 4.9. Dee has told me her bees will
go smaller still on starters, and Erik Osterlund in Europe has hybrids
containing some Monticola on 4.8 comb. There lies what to me is the crux of
the matter...this magic size is the natural size of the dread  AHB. Dee
Lusby is in Arizona, worse still in Tucson. A centre of the greatest
bee news sensation. The Lusbys use every feral swarm they can to draw comb,
although they requeen. Can they possibly have kept their line pure?

Dee says (forcibly) YES. Several clever people have told me developmental
time is the key...and the African bees develop faster. Dee has been breeding
for faster queen development too...1/3 cellsize, 1/3 diet...and 1/3 bee
(breeding). My sci fi gut says all bees carry the genetics to be any bee, so
can we 'breed' the African speed without the 'killer' defense system? I
dunno, but results in Berkshire say yes...you can draw the comb smaller.
Fairly easily too. My ferals aren't very African 'tho I wonder how much
African is in my local bees ancestry. Another problem is the technique of
downsizing will seriously control varroa too. Each shook swarm leaves behind
mites, and I'm sure you could extend the life of colonies. Not harvest much
maybe, but...

There are still as many questions as answers...and they shouldn't be being
'researched' by beginners like me. We leap to misbegotten conclusions like
the truth is inextricably entangled with AHB at the whiff of an odd AHB
question on one bee list coinciding with the announcement of 4.9 stock going
to be for sale on another. Luckily I have no axe to grind but my own wish to
keep bees naturally and with minimum input. Dee Lusby's method seems to make
sense (although her passion is often overwhelming, and her logic frequently
beyond me).

This post is cc'ed to Dee Lusby. I find it really strange that 23 posts in 2
days mention Dee Lusby and her 'theory' (is it still a theory if it works
for her?) yet none are authored by her or addressed to her. I have no idea
of any history that may be behind this...I have read this list for about a
year only, and kept bees for only slightly longer, but it seems really weird
that so few actually try and see.

I'm not saying convert 2000 colonies as a
'beleiver' (I'm the original doubting Thomas) but get the 'trained
professionals' down to Arizona to see...do a mite test, measure the nest
temperature, put down a commercial migratory pallet in the desert and
compare...or is repeating forage distance experiments with sonar and pcs
instead of numbered discs and column graphs REALLY more worthy?

John Sewell,
the author of this message does not claim copyright.
Indeed, tomorrow he may not even agree with the content.