David Eyre wrote:
>
> On 26 May 97 at 18:47, Bill Truesdell wrote:
>
> > Interesting, because I tried smaller cells this past winter and got 100%
> > survival. But a friend who also tried the smaller cells did about
> > normal.  We did it because of the guess that the brood cycle would be
> > shorter and hence less varroa. Seems we were right, but I did so many
>
> Would some one please comment on this!! It really doesn't make
> sense! How can a smaller cell change the genetics of the bees?
> Earlier capping or shorter gestation is surely a matter of genetics,
> not cell size?  That like suggesting a 4ft female will have a
> shorter gestation than say a 6 footer!!!
 
I recently read somewhere, can't remember where, that there is an all
plastic comb that some people are trying. It is tapered, Larger then
normal at the bottom and normal size at the opening. It has thick walls
at the opening because of its taper. The thinking is that a queens will
lay worker eggs because of the normal worker opening but the larger base
will cause overfeeding by the brood bees. I think that the brood cycle
is shortened by about a half day but evidence was not given as to the
overall effect on the hive and the workers produced. I think that it
does slows down the varroa population growth curve but again no evidence
was provided to prove this. I wonder if this is the comb that Bill is
referring to?
 
Keith Kimes
[log in to unmask]