Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Fri, 1 Mar 2002 12:23:40 -0800 |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Hi,
I think a
> large bee is better suited to our area where winter can last six
> months and go down below zero Fahrenheit.
In my copy of A Manual Of Beekeeping by E.B. Wedmore he states:
pg.5
By the use of foundation having cells somewhat larger than usual (why are
they larger?), it is possible to produce bees of a size larger than normal,
and vice versa, but the larger bees are of lighter build than normal and
show no advantage.
pg. 78
Too large an increase in cell diameter involves increased size of brood
chamber and some loss of economy in wintering, the cluster being less
compact. Undoubtedly the beekeeper needs to study foundation in relation to
the size of his bees. Although larger cells produce larger bees, there is no
evidence that they are better bees. They are of lighter build.
Based on the above statements smaller bees may winter better than larger.
In the very front of the book there are good pictures of bees from 1834.
Showing magnified and natural sizing of A.m.m. I just took 8-10 bees from a
4.95-5.0 comb to compare via eyeball method. The body sizing is the same.
Bees off 5.25 combs are about a head larger.
Clay
|
|
|