> >> Allen Dick wrote:
>
> We have asked you to prove that bees have been increased in size
> significantly during the 20th century by use of artificially large
> foundation and that they will return to a size around 5.0 mm within a few
> generations if left to their own devices.
> > Beesource.com web site regarding cell size and have had no problem seeing in
> > these articles where the size of the honey bee has been enlarged. I've
Hi Barry et al.
You know, I have been looking all over for the rest of the second quote above
and cannot find it. Anyhow, I appreciate your contributing the statement below.
The numbers are entirely consistent with what I have been trying to say all
along and the quote below says it better than I have been able thus far:
> The quality were NOT heritable/hereditary so that a swarm from a beehive
> with cells of 700 in freedom goes back to 734 cells and after that goes back
> to 835 to 870 cells
Using the chart at http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Misc/CellCount.htm, these
numbers translate to about 5.75 mm, 7.4 mm, and 5.25 to 5.15 mm respectively.
The last numbers are what I consider to be the natural size and are consistent
with what A.I. Root reports for natural comb size back in 1891 when foundation
was just catching on. He says in the 1891 second edition of The ABC & XYZ...:
"The bees build two distinct regular sizes -- drone and worker cells. The
worker comb measures very nearly five cells to the inch on an average. Some
specimens average a little larger, and some a little smaller; but when the comb
is at all irregular, it is quite apt to be a little larger...
Contradicting himself slightly and showing (IMO) some bias, he goes on to say:
"The best specimens of true worker comb generally contain 5 cells *within* the
space of an inch" (my emphasis) therefore this measure has been adopted for the
comb foundation. If there are five cells to the inch, a square inch would give,
on an average, about 25 cells, and the 25 on the opposite side would make 50
young bees that would be hatched from every square inch of solid brood. As
foundation is so much more regular than the natural comb, we get a great many
more bees in a given surface of comb, and here, at least, we can fairly claim to
have improved on nature". (His footnotes indicate that the true numbers are
29,29, and 58 and that he has rounded off).
Using the table at
http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Misc/images/Understanding_Cell_Size.gif on
page http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Misc/CellCount.htm, we can see that
having 5 cells per inch would require 5.1 mm cells.
Interestingly, Root has stated that, from the natural worker comb he has
examined, "The worker comb measures very *nearly* five cells to the inch on an
average". (My emphasis) and then says that the 'best' samples measure "five
cells *within* the space of an inch" (My emphasis).
In the first case it is clear to me that given one inch of measure, one can get
nearly five cells into it. In other words, five cells are a hair over an inch.
In the second case, he says that five cells barely fit into an inch in the
samples of natural comb he considers 'best'.
He also claims: "As foundation is so much more regular than the natural comb, we
get a great many more bees in a given surface of comb, and here, at least, we
can fairly claim to have improved on nature". This is a strong admission that
his 5.1 mm foundation packs in cells more densely than the average in natural
comb. He is proud of the fact and boasts about it.
The table shows the next size up to be 5.2 mm at 4-7/8 cells per inch. That just
happens to be the size Root was making by 1913, according to the material on
http://www.Beesource.com/ attributed to D. Lusby. We thus see that at the time
of writing in 1891, he was biased towards a slight crowding of the cells to the
5.1 size, but by 1913, he had settled on 5.2 mm as being the proper size for
foundation. (These sizes are specially marked on the above mentioned conversion
chart -- FWIW).
5.2 mm to 5.3 just happens to be the very size that I personally arrived at as
being natural for the bees I have seen over the past twenty-five years, and
which comes up again and again as a median size reported from North America and
Europe on the page where I recorded the results of my little informal survey.
I'm not sure what your conclusions were, but I should imagine they are not much
different. Maybe you could point us to your results?
FWIW, I also share Root's desire to have more bees per square inch, mostly due
to the question of heat conservation in cool weather. I draw the line, though
at wanting to reduce the size beyond what is natural for my bees, so I consider
5.1 to be a *bit* tight, especially when we allow for increase in wall thickness
with use and distortion that may occur over time. I prefer to err on the
generous side.
Since I got interested and researched this topic last March and April, I have
become aware that much of my comb uses a larger size foundation, and that does
concern me somewhat. I am, however, pleased that I purchased 10,000 Pierco
frames a while back and that they have 5.25 mm cells, which is close to optimal
compared to the other foundations on the market.
I'm not going to comment much here about the question of cocoon build-up that
was so well documented in a recent post, other than to say that 'it depends'.
I've seen where it happens and also I've seen where the bees tear the cocoons
out. Maybe they let them build in overly large cells, and tear them out if
things get crowded. Maybe different bees (hygienic?) do more comb
reconstruction? ...
Back to your quote: I'm quite curious as to how long it takes to get from the
5.75 to the 5.2 range in the article you quote. It does not specify timeframe.
This is something I am a bit unclear about, since I am not sure what determines
the size of comb bees make, whether it is the (possibly assorted) sizes of the
individuals building it, or perhaps the variety of bee, or even memory of what
they came from. I mention this last idea because there is some evidence that
the bees remember the magnetic orientation of their parent hive when they swarm.
I also wonder, because, around here anyhow, bees that swarm off larger
foundation sizes seem to make swarm nests at 5.2 to 5.3 mm. I should also
mention that in my hives there are typically a range of foundation brands and
ages of comb; so the bees are maybe confused?
Back to the quote again: I gather that immediately after removal from the
monster foundation combs, in the quote they go to 7.4, and then in a generation
or so, to 5.2 and then stay there, according to this source? Or do they build a
variety all at once. In my experience there is more variety in cell size in
natural comb than the averages would indicate.
I have not yet reported here the beautiful natural observation hive I found
recently, but I will now: A photo is at
http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/diary/images/VolObs.jpg and will stay there.
However, the background and description is currently in the Thursday September
7th, 2000 notes at http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/diary/. That URL will
change when I archive the current diary pages, but the date can serve as a
marker for any latecomers reading this.
I mention this here because in the photo one can see a quite variety of cell
sizes and shapes in just one hive. If anyone wants the original large image
that prints nicely at 8-1/2 x 11", just write me with 'Send Picture' in the
subject line.
allen
---
A Beekeeper's Diary: http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Diary/
Package bees, winter loss, fondant, Pierco vs. Permadent vs. dark comb,
unwrapping, splitting, raising queens, AFB, varroa, protein patties, moving
bees, pollination experiences, daily mumblings and more... Thousands served..
|
