Erik Osterlund (as related by Dee Lusby) said:

> ...foundation with 6.0 mm cell size...
> ...put in in one of my 4.9 hives to see what they would do with it...
> ...out came a perfect drone comb.

I'm not sure I understand what Eric was trying to prove:

a)  It is not at all surprising that Eric's bees made drone comb
     from 6.0mm foundation.  Dadant's "drone foundation" (for use
     in creating freezable drone-comb "mite traps") is roughly
     6.0mm.  It becomes drone comb in 5.4mm colonies, so it
     would certainly become drone comb in 4.9mm colonies.

b)  I would expect just about ANY A.m. colony to make drone
     comb from 6.0mm foundation placed in the brood chamber.
     If one picks 5.2mm as a "100%" reference point, one gets:

           mm   Percent
           ------       -----------
        4.9     94%
        5.0     96%
        5.2     100%
        5.4     103%
        6.0     115%

Is it any wonder that bees who can be agreed to be in the habit
of making worker cells that are within a few percent of 5.2mm
would "recognize" something so much bigger as "drone-sized"?

The appearance of drone comb merely confirms what should be
inherently obvious to even the casual observer.  It only proves that:

        "4 out of 5 beekeepers recommend the use
        of 'drone foundation' for the production of
        drone comb"

But it appears that this "test" is being presented as an attempt
to answer questions about the reaction of bees to choices of
4.9mm and 5.2mm foundation.  To me, that "test" was like attempting
to answer a question on the relative merits of NATO 7.6mm rounds
versus 9mm ammo by firing shotgun shells.


Erik Osterlund (as related by Dee Lusby) and/or
Dee Lusby said [I'm not sure which said what]:

> So for the experiment Allen Dick suggested, perhaps those
> regressed down now on 4.9mm completely, like Dennis
> Murrell, myself, and Lee even in N. Mexico to give variation
> of sites, perhaps we should take ONE frame of drawn out
> bigger plastic or wax based comb of 5.4mm or bigger, and
> place it into the broodnest and see.

But before anyone tries to "test" some 5.4mm foundation in a
4.9mm colony, please first measure the bees.  The question
one should ask is not about relative cell sizes, but instead,
about foundation size relative to the size of the current
generation of bees at hand.

I am sure that there is a percentage (that can be expressed in
terms of the bee thorax diameter) beyond which bees will make
drone comb rather than worker comb, and I'd guess that it is less
than the 20% difference between 4.9mm and 6.0mm presented
in Eric's test.

Come to think of it, we can state with certainly that the difference
is somewhere around 10% with a very high degree of certainty:

        6.0mm is "111%" of 5.4mm
        5.4mm is "110%" of 4.9mm

Given that we know that bees hatched from 5.4mm cells will
reliably produce drone comb from 6.0mm "drone foundation",
it seems very reasonable to wager serious money that bees
hatched from 4.9mm cells will produce drone cells from 5.4mm
foundation.  The two ratios are within 1% of each other, and bees
are known to use their own bodies as "yardsticks" in cell building,
so I think the question attributed to Allen is a slam-dunk to answer.

....but I have no idea what, if anything, answering that question
would prove.

One interesting question I would have for those who have "regressed"
their bees to a smaller size has to do with "bee space".  If 10%
smaller bees result from regression, do these bees still respect
the same bee space designed for 10% larger bees?

a)  If they do not, how do you cope with constantly-gummed-up
     woodenware?

b)  If they do respect the same bee space as larger bees, what
    does this imply?

> If the bees then recognize as drone/honey combs and the
> queens lay drones, then we know that the comb produces good
> mites and hence a big problem for all for reproduction and
> secondary diseases.

I'm not sure I understand the paragraph above at all.
Of course drone cells are preferred by mites.
Of course the consensus is that mites are the vector for
secondary diseases.
But regardless of the size or breed of one's bees, there is
still a "drone-sized cell" and a "worker sized cell", and I
assume that the ratios are fairly constant in worker size
to drone size, and the ratio holds constant between colonies
using 4.9mm foundation and colonies using 5.4mm foundation.

Regardless, what would one prove, given that all statements in
the quoted paragraph above are currently generally accepted
as true?   Can someone re-word the above paragraph?

Please note that it is not my intent (nor my place) to comment
on the merits of one size of foundation over another.   I am simply
trying to keep everyone well back from the edge of the steep and
slippery slope that starts with fuzzy thinking.

Down at the bottom of that slope is where one can find the still-
smoldering wreckage of things like "cold fusion", Piltdown Man,
and a number of other less well-known embarrassments.

        jim  (a 5' 8" guy in a world designed for 6' 2" people)