Hello Dee, Jim and All,

I appreciate the fact that Dee is willing to test her  methods and also that
Jim is wanting to keep the *grand experiment* in perspective.

I find the experiment interesting for a reason not yet presented on
BEE-L.

Dee has stated in her articles that she only considers  the 4.9mm foundation
to be a third of her success. The other two thirds  breeding and nutrition.

What if in Dees operation the varroa load and secondary diseases  do not
increase when she returns  to the size *most* beekeepers use in the U.S. . I
would suggest a shaking down of the whole hive onto a 5.2mm. pierco drawn
foundation. The size I use for (for purely selfish reasons).

Dee has said her success  really became apparent  when she dropped from 5.0
mm to 4.9mm and even insisted Dadant retool to a smaller size when it became
apparent that the first foundation Dadant was selling as 4.9mm was indeed
5.0mm or at least a size larger than she felt  was correct.

Any of us which has measured cell size will quickly tell you that cell size
varies  on each frame. I would *bet* worker cell size of 5.0mm and possible
5.1 mm could  be found if all 20 brood frames were measured closely  in
Dee's hives yet  with the majority of cells of the 4.9mm. cell size success
is claimed.

The point I am leading up to is *what if* Dee and Ed were close to reaching
a  varroa tolerant bee through breeding (genetics) and  nutrition (claimed
by Dee) and success would have happened  even on the 5.0mm or possibly even
the 5.1 cells in another couple years at the end of a ten year effort.

After all *Grandpa* beekeeper and some of our best researchers said fifteen
years ago a varroa tolerant be could be reached using Dee's  methods of
breeding from survivors WITHOUT A REDUCTION IN CELL SIZE.

The *grand experiment* would prove to me the degree of Dee's success which
could be given to 4.9mm cell size.

In all fairness regarding  research  I must say every year researchers are
coming forward saying they believe through *their* research that smaller
cell size will not control varroa.

 The recent report in Apidologie which Allen posted which is available for
free about research from the year 2002 on scuts and  capensis  in South
Africa as one example.

The quote from pg 200 of the book "Mites of the Honey Bee " by Delaplane and
Webster (2001) published by Dadant  as another example as research into cell
size in relation to varroa reproduction continues.

"The smaller cell size of AHB , along with the fact that these bees have
fewer varroa than European bees WITHIN THE SAME SETTING , has led to the
IDEA that POSSIBLY a small cell would limit varroa reproduction . Just the
opposite SEEMS to be correct."

I on purpose left out my feelings about the genetics of Dee's bees which the
long term readers of BEE-L are familiar with.  Let us separate the cell size
issue in Dees bees alone first.  If Dees bees will remain as healthy and
mite tolerant on a size we are all using then???

If not the *grand experiment* will prove to Allen and myself that the 4.9mm
cell size is not as important part of the reason for Dee's success.

Bee-L is  fortunate indeed for Dee to participate in our discussions. Let us
all look carefully and find the reasons for Dee and Ed's success  and
possibly  the same success had be had by all of us    or not.

 Let us always keep a open mind to new ideas.

Sorry for the long post but we are talking a complex issue. Probably a issue
of little interest to many on BEE-L but cutting edge research with
researchers and myself. We all may have to do bee research ourselves in the
future with the loss of the bee labs. Not something I am looking forward to
but may be necessary for beekeepings  survival.

Sincerely,
Bob