BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Scot Mc Pherson <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
Fri, 16 Sep 2005 13:04:47 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (139 lines)
Dave and Rip and all,

        First we need to understand that FABIS is not a final
determination, it is a field method of determining the probability of
Africanization. I never said that small cell bees and AHB are
indistinguishable from one another, but that FABIS testing is not longer
able to make this distinction. The reason it is unable to make this
distinction is because of the gross (def. in oppposition to fine (ex.
Gross motor skills vs. fine motor skills)) morphological measurements
that are made and it relies entirely on assumptions based on cell size.

        When the Lusby's were doing their small cell research, they
settled upon 5.0mm (point to point) top tolerance cell size for the size
of their foundation. Although the research was a general success, I
believe it was 8 ( 1991 ???) years later that their operation crashed
because broad spectrum (meaning not just varroa but also trachael and
other mites) loads and accompanying secondary diseases crippled the
largest portion of their operation, and the Lusby's began researching
and retooling again for 4.9mm as a top tolerance for cell size. The USDA
told the Lusby's they could not go below 5.0mm because EHB would become
indistinguishable from AHB in the field (ex. FABIS). This doesn't make
AHB indistinguishable from EHB, it simply means they are
indistinguishable using field measurements.

        Regarding the trend towards small cell of feral populations of
bees. The assertion that this trend is due to africanization is an
unfounded and resulting from a lack of exposure to the proper research
material. I certainly don't blame for the misunderstanding, but it is a
misunderstanding. When one does the research one finds all the
information, it (the data) demonstrates the artificial nature of large
cell beekeeping and the century long trend of artificial enlargement.
Now keeping in mind I have just moved from Florida to Iowa, most of my
antique books are still in boxes in the attic and unaccessible at this
time, and I appoligize for the lack of SPECIFIC references, but I can
still recall the general references and I invite everyone to look it up
for yourselves. Many of the references can be found at the Cornell web
library if I recall correctly. Francis Huber in the 1800s took
measurements of feral colonies of bees. The important measurement he
took was the point-to-point distance between the midribs (natural
foundation) of combs. He measured 1.25 inches (32mm) point-to-point. In
our large cell beehives we space our bees to 1.375 inches (35mm). This
may not seem so very much, but consider in a standard 10 frame
langstroth-hoffman hive, if we accurately shave off that .125 inch (3mm)
of each frame we can fit an eleventh comb into the chamber. This is also
the documented distance measured in AFB colonies. This shorter distance
also displays practical evidence that it aids the bees in drawing small
cell.

        As most people know my operation is totally foundationless. I do
not use foundation at all of any size whether small OR large cell, and
this provides a foundation for some education in natural comb structure
and broodnest management. I have had the opportunity to see what bees do
on their own. I have had the opportunity to see what the bees will do
given certain tools. Specifically I have watched the bees build comb in
the top bar hives and seen first hand what the natural trend is. I used
topbars with a comb guide, which is an angle cut into the bar at both
sides to make a bevel in the center of the bar. I have used bevels of
varying angles until I have to agree with the rest of TBH experimentors
that a sharper angle is better than shallower angles, and here is why.
When using shallow angles, the bees have less encouragement to build the
midrib of the comb at the center of the bar. I have used bars of varying
widths, but settled upon two distinct sizes for the two basic functions
of a comb, brood and honey. While finding the perfect size and playing
with topbar sizes, I used for the brood nest topbars cut between 31mm -
35mm based on research of center to center measurements between midribs.

        I have installed package bees from both large and small cell
sources AND I have caught swarms and removed colonies that I can certify
were not first generation swarms from a managed colony, though I cannot
assert they were not second or third generation swarms. When installing
large cell bees and watching their progress on 35mm topbars, they cheat
towards a shorter broodnest than the standard 35mm. The combs did not
remain centered and the further away from the entrance the comb was, the
closer the comb was to the entrance in relation to the comb guide
center. In other words, the bees cheated towards the small. Large cell
bees when installed on 31mm topbars also cheated but cheated away from
the entrance, or cheated slightly larger. When measured the typical
spacing hovered around 33mm measured as total cheating distance on the
last brood nest bar (first brood cycle) divided by the number of bars in
the nest. i.e. the 6th bar in the brood nest was approximately 6mm off
center. The sizes of the core brood nest cells in these hives was 5.0mm
at the smallest and 5.2mm at the largest. Doing the same thing over
again ni a fresh hive with fresh woodenware (not cleaned), shaking these
very same colonies of bees into a new hive with 32mm bars instead of
35mm, the bees cheated towards larger again, BUT not as much, they
cheated slightly larger, but remained relatively centered and the combs
were off by 2mm as far back as 8-10 bars (keep in mind the cluster is
larger and akin to a 6lb package). The cell sizes of these bees were
5.0-5.1 mm still without foundation.

        Of the small cell packages I purchased from buckeye bee in Ohio,
these bees I am pretty certain were not entirely regressed but in the
process of regression. These bees although did build on center with 32mm
top bars, built cell sizes of 4.9-5.1 mm, which surprised me. On 2nd
shakedown these bees built 4.9mm-5.0mm cell in the core nest.

        Of the swarms and colony removals I caught, all of these bees
built comb centered on 32mm bars without any cheating. The cell sizes of
these bees measure at 4.6-4.8mm with no patches of brood nest comb
measuring larger than 5.0mm and these cells are strictly at the edges of
the combs and are now more often filled with pollen, water or staging
honey and not brood. Brood seems to remain in all of my mature hives to
snake through the nest in the bottom centers of the comb with little
brood close to the edges.

Non of my 48 hives show AHB qualities, and 4 of them still have the
original queens bought from the breeder.

The purposed of the FABIS test was quite literally to distinguish the
small cell nature of AHB vs. managed EHB colonies. Small cell beekeeping
AND the observations of beekeepers who measure feral combs and measure
what their feral bee colonies do when installed in foundationless
equipment show that AHB and EHB are very much indistinguishable using
FABIS field measurements. A more sophisticated measurement based on fine
morphometry and or genes is required to distinguish the difference. At
one time it was possible to tell the difference by coloration alone,
this is no longer possible even though it was very possible in the past.
Why therefore is it so hard to understand that FABIS is no longer a
valid field test either with the knowledge that feral EHB really do tend
towards small cell.

The FABIS measurement clearly relies on the assumption that EHB are
being kept on large cell foundation and clearly relies on the fact that
AHB display small cell characteristics. Based on my own opservations and
based on the observations of every single beekeeper whom bothers to
observe and report measurements of natural comb, I assert that feral EHB
populations of 3rd or higher generation ALWAYS (and I put my reputation
on that statement) display small cell characteristics and are
indistinguishable from AHB when using size for qualification.


--
Scot Mc Pherson
The Mc Pherson Family Honey Farms
Bradenton, Florida USA
Davenport, Iowa USA

-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and  other info ---

ATOM RSS1 RSS2