Hello Allen & All,
I see no reason for rehashing the same old discussion but will present my
views and maybe a few *lurkers* will come forward to add their opinions.

> > Everyone I know, including myself, have yet to pass
> > the three year mark which is the normal turn around time for the bees to
> > build back up after being regressed down.

Testing is indeed in the early stages in the U.S.. If you go to South Africa
you will see beekeepers using 4.9mm on European colonies without problems.
The main reason is 4.9mm is widely sold. Perhaps the bees are African
hybreds BUT queens from other parts of the globe are brought in and started
on the 4.9mm cell size.  Before Dadant offered the 4.9mm cell size I was
offered the 4.9mm sent to me by several SA beekeepers.

> Although there has been some argument here o the list, it has been mostly
quite  civil and good-humoured and there has been a good exchange of
viewpoints.

I found from the last discussion both sides were very set in their ways. Few
switched sides and finnally the debate ended. One of the longest discussions
I have seen on Bee-L  AND in the archives.

  I realise that there are a few articles on your site on the topic, but
> I have never found even one that convinced me of any wholesale errors in
> historical cell measurement, or justified the belief that European honey
bees
> ever used a smaller cell than Root chose to use for his original
foundation.

In the last discussion I quoted from books a hundred years old to present.
*Five cells to the inch* for worker and *four cells to the inch for drone*
is the quote. A crude measurment at best. In the last discussion I believe
we finnally came to agree the measurement *could* be as low as 5.0mm
(possibly 4.9mm) and as high as 5.1mm (possibly 5.2mm). Allen saying 5.1mm
and Barry saying 4.9mm and me saying "could be either". Grout showed us in
late 1930's a move was made to enlarge cell size *mainly* for the longer
tounge size which was shown could be increased by 17% max. (Jaycox). I will
go out on a limb and say you could go 17% the other way which would in my
opinion make the 4.9mm cell size within the reach of mellifera.

  >I  did, however read that bees in Europe were forced at one time onto a
>small cell  foundation that cause them to do miserably.

I go back to what I allways say "because it is in print don't allways make
it so". I believe now with the reports from SA that bees can and do exist
quite nicely on 4.9mm foundation. The issue is IF the 4.9mm cell size is the
missing link in varroa control.


> Have I missed somehow the proof that EHB used 4.9 before foundation.

Safe ground Allen!  You know the small cell camp can not prove 4.9mm was the
original size. I believe the *five cells to the inch* to BE a average
number. Some could have been smaller and some larger. Root and others tried
to give a simple answer when a very exact measurement would have solved the
mystery. Also a explanation of the way they measured.

> Not a nice looking comb.  I understand that it is postulated to be
transitional,  but it is ugly.

All transition comb is UGLY.  I remove transition comb all the time when
getting foundation drawn. Much easier with plastic though.

> > The size that will suit bees when they are first put on any size
foundation
> > will be near the same size cell they came from. It's not realistic to
think
> > you can change the size of any animal or insect, quickly, without
problems.

I agree on the above point.

> > The idea here is to work the bees hard to get them back to a size that
was  normal for them many years ago.

Wish you had left the above out Barry. Like throwing salt in a wound!
Normal can not be proved unless a Bee-L person can produce a measurement
from a 100 year old text with a measurement more exact then *five cells to
the inch*.

  What happens if someone takes 'retrogressed' or
> is it 'regressed' bees and shakes them onto a plain wax starter, lets the
colony  develop, then does the same thing again and again?  Do they stay
'regressed' or  'retrogressed' or go back to the 5.2 size that most of us
observe in natural  colonies.

Dee Lusby says they WILL. Beekeepers from South Africa say they  will. I
don't know if they will or not.

> > Yes, it's usually very hard work with a good
> > deal of downs before the ups. Most will see it as too much work and not
find  > interest in it.

I am running several weeks behind now and should be out building cell
builder colonies instead of hammering on the computer. However we are
getting a much needed rain so getting a break.  Installing all new combs in
WAX and remelting two or so times to get to 4.9mm is simply not cost
effective nor something I have got the time to do.  I might regret not
moving in the small cell direction if proof comes in a couple years of the
value of small cell size.  I like Allen wait to see the results of Barry's
trials.  I must remind the list Dee Lusby says she allready has proven the
issue and is close to a thousand 4.9mm hives and growing.  Over ten years of
hard work with little returns getting to the place her and ED are now.  I am
only saying what she has told me through direct emails. She does say however
small cell size is in her opinion onl;y a third of the reason for her
success. I have been invited to the Lusbys to see for myself and Dee has
sent me scanned pictures of her hives.

 Last year was the year I signed off the chemical program and
> > will have to figure out a way to keep going without them. I will be open
> > with all who ask as I have nothing to hide or hidden agenda. Not afraid
of
> > failure or setback along the way either.

We may all have to get off the chemical program if the program quits
working. Many world renouned scientists have told me directly that varroa
may prove resistant to all known varroa control chemicals in the future.
There has not been ONE NEW CHEMICAL FOUND FOR VARROA CONTROL SINCE VARROA
RAISED ITS UGLY HEAD.  Over a hundred drugs are shown to be effective in
varroa control. Coumaphos is the last 98% control chemical varroa has
developed resistance to. Not one chemical in the world has controlled varroa
100%. Here in lies the problem. Remove formic acid and coumaphos and
commercial beekeepers have got big problems unless non chemical controls are
discovered.
Sincerely,
Bob Harrison
Odessa, Missouri