>>> We have been over this and over this. There has been *no* universal
>>> upsizing of bees in the Americas.
>> Perhaps I missed the announcement of some sort of compelling proof in
>> support of Allen's statement, if so, I'd love to hear about it.
> The key words are, "universal", "of bees", and "Americas" (plural).
> If you understand these words, and can parse what I said, little
> proof should be requiired.
Perhaps you should rephrase your statement.
As it is, you merely repeated yourself.
My understanding of factors not open to dispute is:
a) Bees working without foundation will tend to draw comb no smaller or
larger than the comb in the hive from which they came.
b) If provided with a series of increasingly/decreasingly SLIGHTLY larger
or smaller foundation, they can be coaxed to "downsize" to cell sizes
as small as 4.7 - 4.9 mm (Lusby), or "upsized" to as large as 5.74 mm
(Baudoux)
c) Even early makers of foundation worked to make foundation that was
of a specific size. AI Root's early foundation was 5 cells to an inch
Later versions were 4.83 cells per inch, just to put some points on
the graph. (From the ABC&XYZ of beekeeping [1945] pg 125-126)
d) The current size of the foundation you use is larger than what was being
sold back when Root standardized on 4.83 cells to the inch.
If you want to posit some sort of mechanism by which bees left to their own
devices would draw comb smaller or larger than the size "appropriate" for
the
bees building the comb, thus tending to perpetuate the size of any one hive
and its "offspring" to a consistent size, you're going to have to explain it
very slowly and carefully, as I don't know of any factor other than the size
of the cell that would influence the size of the bee. It would have to be
beekeepers and foundation makers that "made changes".
> On the other hand a proof of universal and enduring upsizing of bees,
> even
> in the U.S. alone, is not at hand--AFAIK, and I have been looking.
Well, there is the large collection of antique foundation mills I mentioned
at the Ohio State Wooster, OH facility. That might be one place to look,
which is why I suggested it. These mills were part of a highly centralized
infrastructure, made more "centralized" by the practice of copying designs
rather that redesigning mills from the ground up.
Another place to look would be in the literature. Dee Lusby assembled a
collection
of interesting documents on the subject here:
http://www.beesource.com/POV/lusby/celldata.htm
> We all know that much commercial foundation is larger than some of the
> cells
> some bees would build if left to their devices.
> What we don't know is that these efforts have had much--or any--effect.
The effect of foundation size on bee size appears to be generally agreed to
be
significant, in that one can (if one wants) "upsize" and "downsize" bees at
whim,
as Baudoux reported in 1933 http://www.beesource.com/POV/lusby/bwapr1933.htm
,
and others have reported both on this listserv and elsewhere. It is
reasonable
to say (from Baudoux's work) that foundation is the only variable that one
needs
to tweak to vary bee size.
> Going furrther, there are many feral and primitive hives throughout
> the
> Americas, including areas adjacent to the U.S. southern border.. The bees
> now moving in and established in many Southern US areas have migrated up
to
> these areas, and they have been feral for portions of the trip.
See (a) above. Given that bees use their own bodies as measuring
instruments,
why would you expect one specific swarm of bees to abruptly build comb
significantly smaller or larger than the comb in which they incubated?
Those who have attempted to "downsize" bees in recent years report that it
is very a difficult task, which should be no big surprise. "Going feral"
for a few generations might make for a gradual change, but where is the
incentive for the bees? The incentive for the bees is to reuse and repair
existing comb as often and as long as possible.
> We have all kinds scattered around the U.S. from various sources and
> importations.
> Has any one effort had lasting effects? Someone, tell us how that can be.
It should be obvious that anyone going to the trouble and expense to import
(or even smuggle) bees would not balk at the price of foundation, perhaps
even offering the bees considerable drawn comb to get the bees
"established".
Once again, the hand of man.
> Is *any* foundation good for bees?
Aside from "voting" by absconding, I'm not sure how the bees could register
any dissatisfaction.
> Is *any* foundation good for the beekeeper?
I've found a direct correlation between maximum extractor RPMs and fondness
for foundation of increasingly robust construction, up to and including
plastic. :)
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info ---
|
