>The use of "large cell foundation" was actually a reaction
>against the use of unnaturally small cells, an idea which
>predated the larger cells
>
>Reply:
>Yes, and going too small can be detrimental too Peter. You
>are so right here


Once again, you misunderstand me. My reason for quoting the article was to
show that small cells were tried over 100 years ago and found to be
detrimental. They were trying to get more bees per frame, a knuckleheaded
idea anyway. 

But then, Badoux figures if you were going to change the size of bees, why
not make them bigger? Bigger IS better, for a lot of things. I noticed a
long time ago, that being short has many drawbacks, especially in beekeeping. 

Bigger bees COULD make more honey, defend themselves better, winter better,
etc. It didn't really catch on. If the cells are very much bigger than
normal, you run the risk of getting a lot of drones, instead of bigger workers. 

5 cells to the inch is natural, and there is no need (in my opinion) to vary
it. Apis mellifera tends to be smaller in the tropics and larger in the
temperate zone. Perhaps the bigger size is an evolutionary result of the
colder climate. 

Of course, there are other species of honey bee that are much bigger and
much smaller, but these are all tropical. There may in fact be an ideal size
 to winter successfully in a climate which has up to 6 months of winter. I
wouldn't tamper with that.

pb


ref:
Badoux, U: The influence of cell size. Bee World

-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and  other info ---