a few thoughts:
1. wrt dee's CCD affected yards: what is the current thinking on reusing nosema ceranae deadout equipment without treating/fumigating? Ramona and I helped dee do splits in these yards in April. The splits were made directly into the deadout equipment still in the field. These splits are, according to dee, doing great. Is this along the lines that others are seeing when repopulating deadout nosema c. equipment?
2. wrt the original journal article cited: the author (whoever he/she is) never claims to have measured any cells at all (at least not in the excerpts cited), and loosely cites A. I. Root as measuring natural comb as having one, single size cell. Without typing directly from a more modern (1974 vintage) "ABC and XYZ", I can tell you there is more detail.
Root made the foundation 5cells/inch, but noticed that the bees prefered their own natural comb in which the cells were bigger. Now, I don't know if there are first hand accounts of the details of this experement, but what I imagine is a hive with both foundation/worker comb and natural comb...noticing that the bees prefer the natural comb.
Regardless of the proportion of foundation comb to natural comb, the bees would, by nature, build the 10-15% drone comb they are inclined to build if given the chance, in only the natural comb. In the early ABC article I posted, Root observes that if the comb is at all irregular, then the cells tend to be a bit larger...so it shouldn't be surprising that the natural comb, with a disproportionate amount of drone comb, would tend to be "more irregular" (and therefore with a tendancy to be larger cell) in a hive with also 5cells/inch worker foundation comb.
Root observed that the bees preferred the natural comb.
a. animals don't always "prefer" what is best for them (like a rat choosing the cocaine lever over the food lever, or an obese dog that eats and eats but never exercises...the dog prefers it, but it doesn't make it healthy for the dog).
b. could it be that they preferred the natural comb because it wasn't made from processed wax? did it smell funny? Was the texture wrong?
c. Root clearly stated in the early ABC article that worker comb
generally "contained 5 cells within the space of an inch". This can be called an old argument, but Root wrote this. He also detailed a plan (and a mechanism) to make the bees larger. Is it really so surprising that after he wrote this original article he made the foundation (and bees) bigger?...he predicts it.
"Several times it has been suggested that we enlarge the race of honey - bees, by giving them larger cells; and some circumstances seem to indicate that something may be done in this direction"
d. So, let's concede (for the sake of argument) that "Africanized Bees" are a special case, and have a higher propensity for varroa resistance. So what? EHB and AHB are so close in appearance and behavior that lab tests are needed to identify the differences (and these results don't aways agree from lab to lab). You have cited a demonstrated instance of honeybees adapting to varroa. Why is this not worth doing with EHB stock? Who, besides Dee, has been willing to lose 90% of their stock and still not treat? The photos that go along with the article about the "artificial selection" being used includes II, and all that stuff...which has not been demonstrated to successfully lead to bees that don't need treatment for varroa....the bees built in inhive genetic diversity is there for a reason. I am not saying anything bad about the researchers in question, but I do think that it is amazing that given the evidence of actual mite resistance through natural selection, that more of the industry doesn't seem to think simple, demonstrated natural selection should be taken seriously...or sees the short term losses too expensive.
deknow
****************************************************
* General Information About BEE-L is available at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm *
****************************************************
|
