> Allen Dick wrote:
> >
> > For some reason there are people who want to force bees to do things they would
> > not do naturally; making them develop in cells that are too large or too small
> > seems to be a popular perversion.
>
> Hello All,
> > My reason for wanting the small cell size is because Dee Lusbys 500
> colonies are living and moving her operation into the black after ten
> years. I f the breeding she has done was the reason for her success as suggested Then why when she shook those same bees down another mm
> they truely became varroa tolerant? She really didn't have the
> evidence to support her theory until she put those bees on the 4.9mm
> foundation.
> >
> > If you must prove something, please prove what we have asked you to prove, not
> > something that we already know.
>
I am a old master at beekeeping discussion. I have been trying to find
common ground. In other words points you will accept as truths about the
issue. Then i can try to explain why i believe in the parts you don't
believe. I have never had the trouble finding common ground in any
discussion as on bee-l on cell size. I told you i am going to run
experiments and invest my time and money as Dee did. Maybe i and other
bee-l readers will be disappointed but then if we get the results Dee
did then i will be happy. I should have a idea of my success rate by
next fall.
> > We have asked you to prove that bees have been increased in size significantly
> > during the 20th century by use of artificially large foundation and that they
> > will return to a size around 5.0 mm within a few generations if left to their
> > own devices.
> After 68+ years of larger cell size i am not sure the bees would reduce
> without the "hand of Man". After all they didn't get larger on their own
> did they? I think yourself and every bee-l reader knows the size of our bees have been increased by larger than normal foundation given to them. Read on.
> The data is out there to prove bee size has increased significantly and
> many bee publications state 5.0mm is the true natural size and not 5.2
> to 5.3mm range.
> Significantly in bee size is small in mathmatics. I am not sure exact measurements of all bee parts were taken prior to 1931. Many beekeeping books state the African bee as being 10% smaller than European. I speculate our bee size has been increased by 10%. I am only speculating as to the amount of increase. Could be as slight as 5 to 7%.
> Our evidence denies this, and indicates that the natural cell size
> > is in the 5.2 to 5.3 mm range for most domestic bees in America and Europe.
Please state your source so i can read for myself. EACH BOOK STATES A
DIFFERENT SIZE SO I CAN AND HAVE FOUND AS MANY BOOKS TO BACK MY THEORY
AS THE OTHER SIDE HAS FOUND TO BACK THE 5.2 to 5.3mm range. Everything i
have read above 5.0mm has only stated 5.0mm to 5.2mm.
Quote page 105 New xyz-abc of beekeeping
Interestingly,Charles Darwin devoted 12 pages in his "The Origin of the
Species" to the subject of honey comb and its origins. Honeycomb built
by bees is not as perfect as one might imagine. It was once proposed to
use honey comb as a natural unit for making measurements;however,not
only do individual cells vary but the number of cells per unit of
distance vary as well as the sizes of bees of different races also vary.
Charles Darwin was slightly misled when he wrote that from the point of
view of natural selection,"the comb of the hive-bee,as far as we can see
,is absolutely perfect in economising labor and wax.
The truth is that while space to contain brood is utilized to the upmost
,mathematicians agree that there might be more economy of wax.
All the old books I own dating from the 1930 era state 5.0mm
> as the true natural size. Outdated as Aaron says BUT maybe more accurate
> for the time period than our most recent publications.
ABC-XYZ of Bee Culture copyright 1935
The Hive and the Honeybee copyright 1946
>
> I am sure many older beekeepers will be able to support what i am about to say.
> Observations from a beekeepers stand point. My own observations.
> I have got stacks of outdated small spacing queen
> excluders. Yes they were made before most of the cell size enlargement. If you keep
> bees of the size Walter Kelley sells these excluders will not work. Even
> the Kelley worker bees will not pass through. I sold a stack of these to a
> beekeeper buying bees from Kelley and had to refund his money. Through
> the years i have created a large stack of excluders (all different
> origins)with one common fault. They were made when bees were smaller. If other
> bee-l beekeepers have had the same problem please email bee-L to
> help me out!
> I first started noticing the larger bees in the 70's whenever i raised
> queens from different breeders. i bought many queens from Howard Weaver
> of Navasota,Texas. I loved the Weaver bees and the queens would sit on a
> U.S.quarter and all feet would touch the edge. We all marveled at the
> size of those bees. My problem was i had to replace all my excluders as
> the workers were so big they were getting stuck in the excluders. I was
> taking excluders off plugged with dead worker bees. I bought some Walter
> Kelley excluders and the problem was solved. I know there are other
> beekeepers which remember those great big Howard Weaver bees. Email
> bee-L if you saw the same things in
> those years.
A.I.Root made a small tool for checking the correct spacing on a queen
excluder years ago. A antique now. I have tried to find one of those to
see what A.I.Root considered the correct spacing. If any bee-l people
happen to have one of those please measure and send email to me direct
or this post.
> At the portland ABF convention Mann Lake was running a special on their
> new design metal bound queen excluder. I asked many questions about the
> size opening and Mann Lake assured me they had addressed the small
> spacing problem as many beekeepers had said they had the same problem as i did.
> I placed a order and have never had a problem with spacing HOWEVER i
> wonder if i will have to knock the dust off those old small spacing
> excluders when i downsize to the 4.9mm.
> I personally plan to downsize even further to 4.8 and maybe even 4.7mm
> with A.cerana foundation available on the world market. The only thing
> stopping me would be the discovery of why varroa doesn't reproduce in
> the 4.7mm cell size. Some unknown trigger missing OR simply a cell size
> varroa considers to small to reproduce in. Even the research i have read
> out of China says varroa will go into and scope out 4.7mm cell size
> cells but WILL NOT lay even a single egg. I have a lot of documentation
> on this researched FACT.
>> Sincerely,
> Bob Harrison
>
> >
> > ---
> > A Beekeeper's Diary: http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Diary/
> > Package bees, winter loss, fondant, Pierco vs. Permadent vs. dark comb,
> > unwrapping, splitting, raising queens, AFB, varroa, protein patties, moving
> > bees, pollination experiences, daily mumblings and more... Thousands served...
|
