Hi Peter

My apologies to the moderator for repetition, but as Peter's reply 
totally misrepresents what I said, I include all of it...

> I am sure there are a lot of very good reasons for allowing bees to build
> natural comb in the hives we keep. There are also a lot of very good reasons
> for using foundation, regardless of cell size. Each must weigh and decide.

I made no suggestion of using natural comb.

I agree that there are many good reasons for using foundation, but why 
not use foundation that is based on research rather than the historical 
legacy sizes that we have available ? Why not use cell sizes that are 
appropriate to the races of bees that are being kept ?

> My own preference is for pure beeswax foundation, properly hand wired. These
> combs will be strong enough for most purposes and can be easily cut out and
> rendered, and replaced, unlike plastic based fdn.

I fail to understand how this sentence fits into the discussion.

There are aspects of cell size that are not understood, many claim to 
'know' the answers, so why should we not pursue the matter in order to 
stimulate proper research and establish the truth in terms that we 
scientists and informed beekeepers can understand ?

The situation is not helped by those that have made a 'bandwagon' or 
'holy grail' out of some aspects of cellsize that might have given the 
topic a bad reputation, many of those on this list tend to 'switch off' 
at the mere mention of cellsize, however I think the time is right to do 
the real experimental work that should have been done in the first place.


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