Dave Cushman wrote:

> As bodysize increases the surface are(a) to volume ratio of the individual bee
> decreases causing less heat loss, but the other side of this is that smaller
> cells allow a closer packing density allowing a higher number of bodies
> generating heat, by metabolism, in a given volume. There should be an
> equilibrium between these two sets of circumstances , but I do not know
> where it lies.

Thanks, Dave.

I think you will get a larger cluster with the larger bee and larger
clusters are one of the factors in successful over wintering. So for the
same number of bees, the larger bee would be more successful both from
body size and cluster size along with more body mass to metabolize into
heat.

Beekeeping, like politics, is local. What works fine in one area may not
in another because of local conditions. We keep talking 4.9, but it
seems that size is more associated with the tropics and warmer climates
than the 5.0+ of temperate and cold climate bees. And in each case, the
size is not in concrete, but is a range of sizes. Why, I do not know,
but my guess is local conditions.

The question boils down to the number 4.9. Does it have the qualities
ascribed to it in controlling varroa? My guess is that it does not but
small cell size, anywhere from 4.9 to 5.1, depending on where you are,
might make for a healthier bee. It seemed to with my bees.

Those computer studies keep coming back to me. How the randomness of the
bee's behavior lead to the optimum brood pattern. If left to themselves,
eventually the bees will hit on the right cell size to give them the
best survival opportunities in their area.

If 4.9 is not magical, then we may be artificially swinging the pendulum
a bit too far in the opposite direction, passing the optimum size for
our location and creating over wintering and possibly other problems.

As an aside, this has been one of the most civilized discussions of a
volatile topic that I have seen on the BeeL. A pleasure to follow.

Bill Truesdell
Bath, ME