> ...wonder how accurate the results...
> can be? I stopped measuring cells very soon after starting.... In my opinion
> the measurements are dependent on the size of the bee that made them (and
> hence its cell size), human differences in measuring (right down to error
> of parallax) and our unconscious selection. On wild comb I've found 10 brood
> cells in a row to vary wildly in size... Brood cells. There is too much
> variation all round. Regular precision like honeycomb? Hmmmm... maybe on man
> made foundation plates.

Very insightful comments and questions, IMO.

Your comments point out upon statistical aspects of the problem and pitfalls
with assumptions and biases that are inherent in human observation and
reasoning.  Unfortunately, these are the tools we are forced to use as we
stumble and grope towards a better understanding.  However, knowing the
weaknesses of our methods, and examining these tools is always worthwhile.  It
helps us to circumvent and extrapolate beyond their limitations.

The method we use to measure cells -- natural and foundation drawn -- is
designed to average the size over a number of cells.  This also results in
reducing the parallax and bias errors by a factor of ten, due to the ten cell
count.  We know cells on any comb vary.  In some conditions the variation is
greater than in others.  Interestingly, Dave has taken upon himself to examine
and measure individual cells.  I'm staying tuned.  The results are bound to be
fascinating.

Any system that forces bees to build unnaturally constant-sized cells on a flat
surface is necessarily artificial.   Throughout the countless eons, bees
apparently have made their own combs according to their own designs.  When
examining combs from a feral colony, sometimes the free-built combs we see are
regular -- almost as regular as those made on foundation -- but always there is
some variation and we usually find cells of 'transitional' sizes.  Apparently
worker brood is raised in cells that range in size when bees are left to their
own devices.  Foundation is a man-made idea and a man-made product.

Because it is 'unnatural', I think we need to examine the assumptions behind any
idea that imposes any one particular dimension or set of dimensions on comb
building throughout any one colony, and even more, on all the colonies of honey
bees in a region  -- which necessarily includes bees of diverse genetics.

This examination very much should include even the manufacture and use of the
everyday commercial or home-made foundation virtually all of us use.  I noticed
in reading the literature (while trying to understand this whole cell size
controversy) that Root recognised this one-size-fits-all problem fairly early
on.  I personally attribute his initial slight increase in cell size after a few
years experience to thinking that the cells of his first foundation were
slightly constricting to a significant percentage of the bees he saw at the
time, and to a belief that it was better to err on a little too big than a
little too small.  This was reasonable, but an assumption all the same -- and an
assumption that is being strongly questioned now.

> There are still as many questions as answers...and they shouldn't be being
> 'researched' by beginners like me.

Many large advances in human knowledge have been led by, or stimulated by,
amateurs.  In many of these things, the professional researchers are followers,
not leaders, due to the nature of the system.

> We leap to misbegotten conclusions...

That's a risk, but we all learn from mistakes and misunderstandings -- if we
allow ourselves to do so.  We also become more discerning from experience.

My impression is that this whole debate on BEE-L and sci.agriculture.beekeeping
over the last months has been extremely useful.  I believe that it has helped
bring the issues and points of agreement -- and dispute -- on the topic to a
focus in front of many diverse groups of participants and observers which might
otherwise not have been exposed to the concepts.  It has also brought new
information to bear on the question.

> Dee Lusby's method seems to make
> sense (although her passion is often overwhelming, and her logic frequently
> beyond me).

Amen.  While her method seems indisputable in that it obviously works for her,
the theory gives me problems, attempts to replicate her success are still AFAIK
far from complete.  It has worked once work in practice, but can it work in
theory?

> This post is cc'ed to Dee Lusby. I find it really strange that 23 posts in 2
> days mention Dee Lusby and her 'theory' (is it still a theory if it works
> for her?) yet none are authored by her or addressed to her. I have no idea
> of any history that may be behind this...I have read this list for about a
> year only, and kept bees for only slightly longer, but it seems really weird
> that so few actually try and see.

Perhaps some history -- all of which is documented in my personal archives and
some on BEE-L -- is in order here.  Over a year back, Dee emailed a series of
large articles to BEE-L and other lists.  The articles had *big* problems
meeting BEE-L guidelines.  Seemingly, AFAIK all the moderators agreed and
deleted them without comment.  I kept them, though.  In short, the articles were
massive, had serious formatting problems, and more, but were quite provocative.

I personally was reluctant to see the articles die and after a few days I
brought the matter up with the others.  Subsequently we moderators contacted Dee
and made some requests regarding format which she found unacceptable.  I then
suggested that someone edit (with permission) and reformat them and make them
available on a web page, then post pointers to the site on BEE-L.   Using
pointers to a site, rather than posting to the list, is our standard procedure
for large articles, binaries, and other massive content unsuitable to be emailed
to list members, some of whom may be on slow, expensive, connections.
Occasionally we provide a site if required.

We discussed putting De's work on the web ourselves -- with permission -- due to
the fact that Dee seemed have a nugget in there somewhere and we thought the
ideas deserved to be exposed to the public -- and she did not seem to be
prepared to do the job herself.  The only two moderators who maintained web
sites at that time were Barry and me.  I was very busy, and, besides, Dee and I
did not hit it off too well.  I was delighted to see Barry pick up the ball.  He
did, and continues to do, a great job.  You can see the edited articles at
http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/index.htm

Barry and I each read the material, and set out to examine the issue together.
At that time, over a year ago, I even set up a separate mailing list to discuss
just this issue.  Initially, just bob, Dee, and Barry were subscribed, however,
Dee never participated, so obviously it was not of much use -- and I am the only
current subscriber.  You can still see it, read the archives, and subscribe, at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/4dot9

At that time, I also set up a few pages to reflect my (limited) research into
the matter.  One of the first things I did was set up the conversion chart at
http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Misc/CellCount.htm, since reading the articles
without a Rosetta Stone was hugely confusing to me.  I also asked for real world
feedback which is at http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Misc/CellCountResults.htm
That page is still accepting observations, so send them to me,
[log in to unmask] , direct if you have any.

With that chart, I read what I could find and felt I was able to understand what
I read.  I soon found I could not agree with the conclusions many others
reached.  I concluded that the natural size is and always has been centred
around 5.15 mm for the bees most of us use.  I have often requested help in
proving conclusions to the contrary, and have so far received some abuse and
some pity, but no convincing documentation.  My impression is that the 4.9 camp
regards me as a backslider and Thomas, not worth saving from my ignorance.  No
matter.

> I'm not saying convert 2000 colonies as a
> 'beleiver' (I'm the original doubting Thomas) but get the 'trained
> professionals' down to Arizona to see...do a mite test, measure the nest
> temperature, put down a commercial migratory pallet in the desert and
> compare...

The truth is out there.

allen

http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/