> > During the whole time that foundation sizes have been ranging in size,
has
> > *no one* done a side-by-side test to determine if bees do better on one
size
> > than another?
>
> Before Varroa there was no good reason to do so. Plus, back then it was
> more set and forget. A lot has changed with the mites. And the whole
> issue on cell size is fairly recent.

True, the whole question of regarding *smaller* cell size in a favourable
light is fairly recent, but the whole question of cell size has been
constantly under consideration -- apparently with the never challenged
assumption that bigger is better.  For honey extraction, bigger is better,
since the honey is easier to get out, but did people actually seriously
evaluate the effect on the bees when successively larger and larger cells
were introduced into the brood area?  Maybe they did?  One would think so.
If not, how could something so obvious be ignored?

All the time that people were trying to increase the size of bees, did
nobody test to see if there was and actual improvement  -- or even prove
there was no adverse effect on production or wintering from having fewer
cells per area?  Was the whole thing based on theory and never tested?  I
have heard talk of testing to see if frame spacing matters, but not of tests
to prove new foundation designs worked as well as older ones.  Apparently
manufacturers just trot out new foundation to suit what they perceive to be
a need and never test.  And apparently the labs never thought to check.

As a heads-up to those using medium depth frames, Pierco's new medium depth
frames use a larger cell size than all their other products -- more in line
with their competitors.  If used for extracting, that may be good.  If for
brood, then just be aware.

allen
http://www.internode.net/honeybee/diary/