Hi to all on BEE-L

Peter Borst wrote:

I have never contradicted this. My main point is that
European bees have not been altered by this.

Reply:
Unfortunately they have very much so.

Cell size influences the size of the thorax of the
honeybee, which influences the size of the other body part
in proportion. This then influences the foraging for
honeybees by fitting them to the plants they work, which
influences their diet and therefore their health.

The cell size also then influences the flight of the
honeybee and its speed, through changes in aerodynamics
relative to the density of the bees body and veining of
their wings for flight with added suttle changes of width
and length, which can have direct bearing on mating.

Peter wrote:
 While it is true that bees can be made slightly larger and
considerably smaller by being raised in different sized
cells, I do not believe that this trait is acquired by this
process.

Reply:
This depends upon how you look on the situation Peter
relative to complex mongrel breeding coupled with usage of
artificially enlarged combs which add steps of regression
for downsizing into the scenario and retrogression for
reversing the layers of piled on breeding mixtures.

Peter wrote:
 The workers do not pass on any characteristics to their
children, as they have none. The queen acquires no traits
from the workers as they are not her parents.

Reply:
In a way they do. Workers pass on characteristics by way of
laying workers that produce both drones or workers, of
which if workers are produced they certainly can become
queens.

The queen acquires exact traits from the workers as she is
an exact copy, as no queen can be raised except she be born
a worker first and then choosen by same to be changed into
a queen as they (the workers) construct queen cells.


Peter wrote:
 There would have to be a selection process going on which
would prefer larger bees, and as far as I know, there is no
such thing.....
.... but not size. Size was not an issue for any but a few
and they thought they had this fixed by using bigger cells,
right? Not by breeding at all.

Reply:
Actually in ABC & XYZ 1891, 1908, 1913, 1920 it was written
"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, although I have little hope of any
permanent enlargement in size, unless we combine with it
the idea of selecting the largest bees to propagate
from..."

Haven't we done this for years all through the 1900s by
telling our beekeepers that you don't want those squinchy
little queens, they are inferior, what you want instead is
this nice BIG beautiful ones (drones included) etc...

Peter wrote:
 If small cell foundation could rid my hives of mites, I
would consider replacing it.

reply:
Small cell foundation will never rid your hives of mites.
Even we cannot accomplish that. But we have accomplished
maintaining happy, health bees without the usage of
essential oils, FGMO, acids, drugs, and chemicals for
parasitic mite control and secondary diseases.

Peter wrote:
I just don't think it'll work, that's all. This problem is
not going to yield to a simple solution. A simple solution
is one like Apistan.That worked for a while, right? Now on
to something else.

reply:
Apistan is not a simple solution. It is just a start on the
road to hell for honeybees and the pesticide treadmill.

But Peter to be honest with you, 4.9mm foundation is not a
simple solution either. It takes a lot of hard work to use
it properly.

Peter wrote:
Beyond that, I think the credibility of the theory is
totall undermined by wild conjecturing that bees were
somehow altered by the use of foundation. For God's sake,
we have only used it in this country for what, a little
over a hundred years? Bees have been on earth for millions,

Reply:
Yep, kind of hard to believe that we as an industry could
do all that damage in about 100 years, all for the want of
a bigger better bee with a longer tongue. Around about
1933/34 the question was asked "Was the world ready for a
bigger bee".

Well, I think we now have our answer. NO!!! Now can we get
back to what we had before the idea bigger was better
started, and try to straighten out the problems we have
created. That is the big question and challenge for the
future and this century.

 Peter wrote:
Credibility is an important thing to me. I am not going
down any dark tunnel on faith, unless my guide has a very
good track record. If he has misrepresented the facts to me
-- even once, I am very suspicious.

Reply:
That is why we tell beekeepers to come and see and evaluate
for themselves our bees in the field and make up their own
minds if this is what it takes.

Peter wrote:
 I encourage everybody to experiment. But don't forget, if
you don't have control hives your results will not mean
squat. You have to have something to compare with. If you
convert all your hives over to small cells, or black bees,
or tin supers, how will you know that is what *causes* the
results you get -- unless you have a control group that is
managed the normal way!!

Reply:
All around the country I see the normal way!! The only
thing we changed and we did it in mass...was the cell size,
so there would be no mistake what we changed!!!!Everything
else we do we have always done.


Best regards to you Peter,

Dee A. Lusby








__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com