Hi Peter

> Personally, I wouldn't spend a nickel on it, for two reasons.
> 
> First, faulty premise. Looking back to 1987, one can read the original
> premise for making small bees. Lusbys saw African Bees coming in the
> Arizona desert and hatched their scheme of downsizing the bees. (See
> ABJ, July 1987). This was before varroa and the main reason they
> wanted smaller bees, they said, was to outwit the Africans.

I was referring to the much wider issues about cellsize, the Lusby 
situation is only one small aspect and most people have made up their 
mind that legitimising AHB is at least one of the reasons behind it.

Take for instance...

Why are A. m. mellifera more adaptable to a wider range of different 
cellsizes than other races ?

Why do US use a one size fits all foundation size, when the main thrust 
of US beekeeping is based on Italian bees that prefer a 5.2 mm cellsize 
and carniolan bees that prefer 5.5 mm ?

Why do some strains of A. m. mellifera refuse to adopt cells smaller 
than 5.6 mm ?

Why do swarms start their comb at about 5.6 mm regardless of race and 
the cell size that will be evident later in the core of the nest ?

We have already established that bees can be shifted in size both up and 
down by using cells larger or smaller than the bees expect, but nobody 
has quantified this effect by race of bee.

These are some of the questions that I would like to see addressed/answered.


Regards & Best 73s, Dave Cushman, G8MZY
http://melliferabees.net Email: [log in to unmask]
Short FallBack M/c, Build 7.21/2.01
Son of ORAC M/c, Build 5.o1/2.o1

             ***********************************************
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