Dave writes:
>Would you care to peruse my previous post and give opinions on the
>points it makes?
OK, Dave. I am not sure anyone but you and I are still interested,
but since you seem earnestly interested in this topic I will tell you
what I think, and not what I have read. Anyone else who is sick of
this, write to me personally and I will apologize for the length of
this post.
>The cell size within a comb varies considerably more than a cursory
>glance will indicate.
No argument there. Everything in nature varies. Does it vary a lot?
That would be a purely subjective matter, right? To some people
redwood trees are all the same. I do know that bees are strict in
what they will and will not accept in terms of foundation, although
this also depends on conditions. If there is a heavy honey flow on,
bees will draw out very poor quality foundation.
If not, they may even destroy it. I have given hundreds of sheets of
drone foundation. Occasionally they will attempt to reconstruct it,
leaving a bizarre maze of triangles and other odd shapes. As for the
small cell foundation, they will draw it but they often attempt to
enlarge the cells. This seems to indicate that they find them *too
small*.
>Yes, there is an average, but the illustration using shoe size in one of
>Allen Dick's recent posts shows how simplistic and stupid it would be to
>enforce it.
Well, I guess it's unnatural to use foundation and frames at all. But
since we do, we make them the way that suits us. Making the cells a
little large makes foundation easier to manufacture, for one thing. I
made foundation for 5 years at the Knorr factory in San Diego. It is
a very tedious job and anything that would make it easier would be
welcome. Also, it tends to stretch a little in the process, which
could account for the "larger than normal" cells.
>IT DOES NOT MEAN... That the cellsize is a fundemental quantity that
>conclusions can be drawn
>from.
I don't see how you got here. It is well know that the size of the
cell is correlated to the size of the bee. Apis cerana is a small
honey bee and makes small cells (range=3.6 to 4.9, Crane 1990). They
require smaller cell foundation than European Apis mellifera
(range=5.1 to 5.5, Crane 1990). And if someone wanted to make
foundation for Apis florea, the cells would have to be very small
(2.9, Crane 1990).
>Foundation has become a way of life for beekeepers, and in many ways it's
>function has been taken for granted. My bees do not object to using
>foundation, but the fact that they adopt it does not mean that it is "right"
>for them.
Like I said, it has to be close. They won't accept stuff that is not
a very reasonable facsimile of the original. I have seen some
handmade sheets that they wouldn't touch. I have seem them reject
plastic foundation without wax coating -- it didn't *smell right*. I
have seen one hive reject foundation when its neighbors were chugging
away on it. I have had honey flows so strong that you could get a box
with ten new plastic frames filled with honey in a week.
>I know some find it contentious, but I have seen enough to convince me that
>there has been a gradual increase in the cellsize of manufactured
>foundation.
I have never contradicted this. My main point is that European bees
have not been altered by this. While it is true that bees can be made
slightly larger and considerably smaller by being raised in different
sized cells, I do not believe that this trait is acquired by this
process. The workers do not pass on any characteristics to their
children, as they have none. The queen acquires no traits from the
workers as they are not her parents. There would have to be a
selection process going on which would prefer larger bees, and as far
as I know, there is no such thing.
All American bees were put on the so-called larger foundation and
propagated. Their progeny was selected for various things, such as
color, temper, productivity, but not size. Size was not an issue for
any but a few and they thought they had this fixed by using bigger
cells, right? Not by breeding at all. Now, maybe we could breed for a
bigger bee. There are bigger bees than the European mellifera. But
not many people suppose that the size of the bee, give or take a
millimeter, is all that important.
>There are those that consider there is a benefit in the control of disease
>and parasitation. If that is proved to be the case, then it will be an
>additional benefit.
I have *never* quarreled with this. If small cell foundation could
rid my hives of mites, I would consider replacing it. I wouldn't even
CARE about the theory, if it worked. I am not sure what I would do
with the 10,000 frames I already have... I guess I could use them as
supers! I already use queen excluders anyway. And by the way, we are
probably the only ones in America who actually run 10 frames in ALL
the boxes.
I just don't think it'll work, that's all. This problem is not going
to yield to a simple solution. A simple solution is one like Apistan.
That worked for a while, right? Now on to something else. By the way,
despite what James Fischer says, beekeeping is not plagued by more
problems than other agriculture. I just took a short course on
pesticide application and ALL agriculture is dependent on multiple
applications of pesticides (except organic and third world
subsistence farming).
Beyond that, I think the credibility of the theory is totally
undermined by wild conjecturing that bees were somehow altered by the
use of foundation. For God's sake, we have only used it in this
country for what, a little over a hundred years? Bees have been on
earth for millions, and if you ask me, they are kind of set in their
ways. Beekeeping works mainly because we have *learned their ways*,
not because they have learned ours. Credibility is an important thing
to me. I am not going down any dark tunnel on faith, unless my guide
has a very good track record. If he has misrepresented the facts to
me -- even once, I am very suspicious.
>For the time being I will be happy merely to return to the status
>quo of pre foundation sizings.
Sure, why not? I encourage everybody to experiment. But don't forget,
if you don't have control hives your results will not mean squat. You
have to have something to compare with. If you convert all your hives
over to small cells, or black bees, or tin supers, how will you know
that is what *causes* the results you get -- unless you have a
control group that is managed the normal way!! And don't forget, the
little mites are evolving faster than the bees, and I wouldn't be
surprised if the use of small cells selects for mites that *like
small cells*.
I had an apiary that we did not treat for mites, because we needed
mites for studies. And this bunch would not break down. We finally
had to inoculate them. Oh, some people are probably thinking: why
didn't you breed from those? Because, they were the same bees we had
in all our apiaries! There was nothing different about these bees!
They were not getting mites for other reasons: environmental reasons,
ebb and flow of mite population, who know?
You can't breed a trait that bees don't have. You can't breed bees as
big as hummingbirds, no matter what you think. Of course there is
variation, but within extremely well defined limits. The size of the
cells bees want is dictated by the size of the bee. And European bees
are bigger than most African and Asian bees. They evolved over the
course of millions of years and can't change overnight. Human beings,
not being dependent on instinct, can change rapidly -- if they want.
Stay flexible, I always say. But don't be deluded.
--
Peter Borst <[log in to unmask]>
|
