Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Sat, 1 Apr 2000 17:41:52 -0700 |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
I have spent days literally examining the question of determining the size of
worker cells, in response to some email we received some time back suggesting
that virtually all the ills of beekeeping at the beginning of this new
millennium are due to the decision to produce foundation with larger cells than
the bees would build on their own.
I can't say that I have reached a conclusion on this and I look forward to much
stimulating discussion on the matter. What I have discovered, though is that
there is a huge comprehension gap between the measurements that scientists and
technicians use and what we use as laypeople. My current belief is that the
people advocating return to 'natural' cell size are making a mathematical error
that causes them to force the bees onto unduly small cells. Whether or not the
use of constrictive cells has benefits in terms of health, I do not know.
At any rate, rather than write at length here, I invite you to examine the
conversion chart and articles at http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/. Choose the
"Measuring Worker Comb" link from the menu.
allen
----
"If I make a living off it, that's great--but I come from a culture
where you're valued not so much by what you acquire but by what you
give away," -- Larry Wall (the inventor of Perl)
|
|
|