> the PF100's were specifically unwaxed...bare plastic.  The other
> plastic frames you are comparing how well the bees accepted them were
> waxed...not bare plastic.

The main point was not speed of acceptance, but how they were drawn out
when they were accepted.

Generally, the way I operate and with my timing in adding the
foundation, I have not observed the huge difference between waxed and
unwaxed that others have reported.  Granted, waxing reduces the need for
careful timing and placement and speeds the drawing of comb, but not
whether the bees respect the pattern or not.

Trust me.  I have drawn a lot of comb in my career and know
how to do it.  Comb was my livelihood for years.

> ..he seems to be claiming that no one has ever claimed a benefit to
> the increased brood density in SC frames

I dismissed the central small cell claims, at least those of which I am
aware, after examining them and their origins quite carefully.

I have always stated, though, that re-examining the cell sizes chosen
for foundation was worthwhile, especially as manufacturing methods and
materials have changed.

Also I have wondered aloud if the current conventional brood comb cell
sizes may be marginally large for Canadian conditions.  A lot of
foundation development and testing was done with milder climates in
mind.  It seems possible that a lower cell density might be neutral or
even beneficial in warm climates, but a burden in colder climes where
wintering clustering density may be more critical and might be affected.

This is mere speculation and always clearly stated as such.  I think any
mental model must be tested in practice and that merely speculating and
extrapolating from facts can lead to some unsupportable conclusions.

> ...or that an advantage in wintering or build up doesn't have a
> direct affect on the dynamic relationship between bees and mites.

Again, I am _speculating_ that the cell size might have effects on
wintering and build-up.  I have not seen this tested in any formal way.

It is easy to see that extremes in size would have some effect, but less
obvious that small differences in size in the middle of the range have
any measurable overall effect at all.

I was interested to see that that, once drawn, the bees seem to use all
the frames I bought more or less equally and not avoid any of the three
cell sizes.  In fact, that was why I posted.

As for worker cell size and the relationship between bees and mites, we
have nothing but speculation.  Any serious attempts to test the
hypothesis have failed to find anything, and some have found the
opposite of what the small cell enthusiasts preach.

> ...it's no different than claiming mite control is a separate factor
> from virus issues.

Actually these _are_ very separate matters, but in specific contexts
they may interact and may thus be considered by some, incorrectly, to be
one and the same.

As I have said before the central small cell story is a simple hoax.

Everyone knew that the simple test to track AHB migration into an area
was swarm trapping and cell measurement.  The AHB strains migrating
north from Brazil naturally make smaller cells than EHB. BY some
coincidence, a typical indicator size is 4.9mm.  This was known from the
start and ARS people studied them as they migrated north, observing this
trait as a pretty reliable marker.  Traps were put up along the route to
catch swarms and observe the comb building habits.

The AHB on the vanguard reproduced often, are aggressive and very fit.
Selected by their travels, they left behind any that cannot  easily
handle varroa and tracheal mites and bee diseases.  Moreover they invade
other colonies and dominate an area once they arrive.

About the time they arrived at the US border, suddenly it was discovered
that bees on 4.9mm foundation were able to withstand mites and disease.

Need I say more?

I have no interest in the 4.9 fantasy, but I do have an interest in
knowing if small changes in cell size might have importance in northern
winters and springs. From limited tests, I suspect they do.

How would we test this theory?

             ***********************************************
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