>> I had a bit more trouble getting the PF100s drawn, had to scrape
>> off more problem comb than on other plastic foundation,

> Somewhere in my travels I read that cell size was determined by the
> measurements of the bee's own body - Possibly a limb length -  and
> that bigger bees had trouble making smaller cells.

That was a hypothesis that AFAIK was never proven.  As with most of the
small cell gospel, it is based on conjecture or stretching facts and not 
on any evidence.  I don't think there was a bee size difference in the 
hives which drew it well and those which did not.

> It would be interesting to see if undrawn SC frames put into a hive
> that already has SC frames would be drawn more successfully.

I suppose, but what is the point?  Anyone who cares to know has figured
out by now that all the claimed benefits of small cell are a hoax --
unless you happen to AHB.

The main reasons to buy PF100s is price and availability.  Also, the 
denser cell pattern may have (theoretical at least) benefits other than 
those claimed.

However, smaller cells are harder to extract and that is one reason that 
the foundation manufacturers moved to slightly above the 5.1 to 5.2 mm 
sweet spot for brood rearing cells, since the combs were designed to be 
used for brood and/or extracting.

> Whatever your personal view of SC, I'm sure there's no lack of new
> beekeepers that would line up to take it off your hands at a premium
> price.

Personally, I don't care.  A good brood frame is a good brood frame.

What I wonder is whether the denser cell pattern might have wintering
and spring build-up benefits.

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html