Clay said:

> > One interesting question I would have for those who have "regressed"
> > their bees to a smaller size has to do with "bee space".

> But 4.9 bees do respect the bee space.

> > b)  If they do respect the same bee space as larger bees, what
> >     does this imply?
>
> Not much. This size bee was desined for the equipment. Right?

No, in fact, the opposite is true.  The early equipment must have
been designed for the bees of the day.  I submit that early designs
of early woodenware that exploit bee space, combined with the fine
old-world "furniture grade" craftsmanship used in making the early
hives would give us significant hints about the sizes of bees used
in the past.

> I don't see where spacing has much to do with cell size and mite
> supression.

It has to do with the claimed mechanism for mite suppression,
which, to paraphrase, has been said to be reduction of "excess
room" in the cells, leaving a space that allows mite entry, but not
reproduction.

So, my thoughts are:

a)  Are people seeing the impact of cell size on
    mites, or are they seeing nothing more than
    the effect of "taking one's losses", to end up
    with a "mite-resistant survivor bee" in the process
    of "regressing" their bees, and giving credit to
    the foundation?

b)  If cell size is the critical factor, and the excess
    space becomes too small for mite reproduction
    with only a 10% reduction of scale in bees and
    cells, and excess spaces (4.9 / 5.4 = 0.9), then
    I don't think we can claim to understand this at all,
    given the relative sizes of mites versus bees.
    Regardless, let's take the statement as a "given",
    and see how we can test it.

c)  To test this, one could give 4.9mm bees and 5.4mm
     bees no foundation at all (or plain wax starter strips)
     for several generations, and watch what happens, but
     this would take years.  One could also put 5.0mm,
     5.1mm and 5.2mm pre-drawn comb or plastic comb
     into a 4.9mm bee colony brood nest. (Note that I do
     not suggest 5.4mm comb or foundation in a 4.9 colony
     since this will result in drones as I pointed out in my
     prior message).  If mites are found reproducing in frames
     of 5.0mm, 5.1mm, or 5.2mm cells, but not in frames of
     4.9mm cells, this would indicate that the "excess space"
     may well be the critical factor .

d)  But the "regressed" bees, if they have been truly
    "scaled down" would "scale down" their approach
    to propolizing small openings, and also "scale down"
    their approach to building comb in cavities.  So, one
    could more quickly learn what is going on by looking
    at how the bees react to various sizes of openings,
    and get some results without waiting years.

e)  If there is no difference in the reaction of 4.9mm and
     5.4mm bees to various openings, then I would question
     the statement that there is less "excess" in the ratio of
     a 4.9mm cell to "4.9mm bee diameter" versus the ratio
     of a 5.4mm cell to "5.4mm bee diameter".  I would also
     be very confused.

        How could the two sizes of bees:

        1) Use the same "yardstick" for dealing
            with openings and deciding to propolize,
            leave alone, or fill with comb

        2) Yet somehow use different "yardsticks"
            when making cells?

The fact that owners of 4.9mm colonies do not see problems
with "bee space" and see (more) propolis around frame lugs
makes me wonder what is going on here.  It seems reasonable
that 10% smaller bees in the same equipment should result in
openings that were "perfect" for 5.4mm bees (such as those
under the frame lugs when they sit on metal frame rests with
the raised "lip") should be propolized by 4.9mm bees.

To get even more focused, why is 4.9mm foundation "good",
but Dadant's first-pass 5.0mm foundation "bad"?  Lets assume
that the "clearance" around a worker bee in a worker cell is:

1)  5% of the diameter.  For 5.0mm cells, this would be 0.25mm
     For 4.9mm cells, this would be 0.245mm.
     The difference is a mere 0.005mm, or 5 micrometers.

2)  10% of the diameter.  For 5.0mm cells, this is 0.5mm
     For 4.9mm cells this would be 0.49mm.
     The difference is only 0.01mm or 10 micrometers.

These are very small differences, and if one could test 4.9mm
against 5.0mm to narrow down the reason why 5.0mm fails
where 4.9mm works, one would go a long way towards
proving that "size does matter".

        jim