Hi Peter and all

I have not talked personally to Marla about her particular study, however
the points that I make below apply in equal measure to all the published
work that I have so far read.

The cell size within a comb varies considerably more than a cursory glance
will indicate. (easily demonstrated... take any comb, natural or foundation
based and measure it.) An average tells you just that... an average. Who has
decided that this average measurement has any significance? How were the
conclusions drawn? This "average" is stated without range, standard
deviation or the  variance between colonies being noted or reported.

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.

The numbers themselves are not particularly significant as geographic
difference (with it's thermal and forage variables), altitude,  season of
the year and race all have a bearing on the size displayed by any individual
colony.

In feral colonies and swarms the cellsize that is propagated can vary in
three ways...

1,    It can get larger.

2,   It can get smaller.

3,   It can stay the same.

In the absence of any pressure for change the bees are most likely to follow
option 3.

What does this mean?
In a situation where change can occur, yet does not occur. We can infer that
the size is suitable for the bees in question, in the circumstances that
they find themselves in OR that any change that the bees wish to make is not
worth their while to make OR that the bees are "soldiering on" at that
cellsize, because it was the one that they ended up with the last time that
they were influenced to make a change.

IT DOES NOT MEAN...
That the cellsize is a fundemental quantity that conclusions can be drawn
from.

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.

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. over the last 100 to 150 years. and that there has been an
increase in intercomb spacing on the same timescale. (except New Zealand and
one or two other places that still use a 32 mm or 33 mm intercomb spacing.)

My vociferous comments are due to a desire to find out more, so that we may
all employ foundation in a more effective and efficient way in the future.

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.

For the time being I will be happy merely to return to the status quo of pre
foundation sizings.

I have made no mention of numbers... The numbers themselves are not that
important, it is the underlying principles that we need to sort out. I have
also made no citations of previous work or studies, but hopefully my logic
is sound.


Best Regards & 73s... Dave Cushman, G8MZY
Beekeeping & Bee Breeding Website...
http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman