> Everyone I know, including myself, have yet to pass
> the three year mark which is the normal turn around time for the bees to
> build back up after being regressed down.

Is this the same thing as 'retrogressed'?

> I'm in my second year and know of
> another who is in his third year now and building up fast. So I'm very
> sceptical of those you are referring to that say it works great because I'm
> still in the "not so great" period of converting. In fact, it hasn't even
> been one year that the foundation has been available on the market.

I appreciate your objective approach to this and your reporting your progress or
lack thereof bravely and honestly and publicly.  That is precisely what is
necessary to examine and prove -- or disprove -- the effect.  No amount of
rhetoric -- pro or con -- will change the facts.  Time will tell if this is a
real phenomenon and correctly understood, or something else.  Time will also
tell if there are offsetting factors which detract from any advantages that may
be proven.

> I have not posted that information here, as this topic in the past has
> spurred more argument than discussion, but have chosen to post it in several
> places on the beesource.com web site.

Although there has been some argument here o the list, it has been mostly quite
civil and good-humoured and there has been a good exchange of viewpoints.  Ideas
have come up which have been of use to everyone.  Just because some think the
whole 4.9 idea is snake oil does not mean that it is snake oil.  The proof is
still not in.  I, for one, would love to be proven wrong.  Not proselytized
wrong, or insinuated wrong, but proven wrong when I question the premises of any
new idea being promoted.  Colliding ideas can lead to better understanding and
progress for all.

Although some would perhaps like to turn a discussion of ideas into a heated
personal conflict, I think that personal conflicts are a distraction from a
topic at hand. Should it not be possible for a list member to attack an idea
without being perceived as attacking those who hold it, or even the originator
of the idea?  Even if push comes to shove, the central idea should not be lost.

I want to make it clear that although we disagree fundamentally on the
interpretation of what has been presented as 'history', and I am sceptical about
the process, we are in agreement that the idea needs to be tested in the north
and I very much appreciate your work in trying to organise some factual
information on the topic and to make it available to the public.  I try to take
time to drop by your excellent site to get up-to-date, and the links you posted
will be useful.

I have to say though that I am *still* looking for a clear historical trail to
justify the theory that I read from time-to-time is proven by historical
reading.  I realise that there are a few articles on your site on the topic, but
I have never found even one that convinced me of any wholesale errors in
historical cell measurement, or justified the belief that European honey bees
ever used a smaller cell than Root chose to use for his original foundation.  I
did, however read that bees in Europe were forced at one time onto a small cell
foundation that cause them to do miserably.

Have I missed somehow the proof that EHB used 4.9 before foundation.  What page
is it on?  How many times must I ask this question?  Please give me the URL.  If
anyone can prove this to me the rest would be easier to swallow.  Why make me
beg?  Give me the proof.  Please.  Anyone.

> Supports my statement in the second paragraph. Never heard anyone I've
> talked to that is doing this say it's easy. Here is a photo of transition
> comb that came from one of the first hives I regressed last year.
> http://www.beesource.com/eob/4dot9/49.2ndreg5.htm
> This was drawn by bees that were on there 2nd shakedown. A lot of the cells
> are near 4.9mm. This comb got culled out in time though.

Not a nice looking comb.  I understand that it is postulated to be transitional,
but it is ugly.

> The size that will suit bees when they are first put on any size foundation
> will be near the same size cell they came from. It's not realistic to think
> you can change the size of any animal or insect, quickly, without problems.
> The idea here is to work the bees hard to get them back to a size that was
> normal for them many years ago.

Where is this size documented?  I really would like to examine the proof that
European bees used any size outside the current range.  I am begging.

The above also makes me wonder:  What happens if someone takes 'retrogressed' or
is it 'regressed' bees and shakes them onto a plain wax starter, lets the colony
develop, then does the same thing again and again?  Do they stay 'regressed' or
'retrogressed' or go back to the 5.2 size that most of us observe in natural
colonies.

> Yes, it's usually very hard work with a good
> deal of downs before the ups. Most will see it as too much work and not find
> interest in it. Last year was the year I signed off the chemical program and
> will have to figure out a way to keep going without them. I will be open
> with all who ask as I have nothing to hide or hidden agenda. Not afraid of
> failure or setback along the way either.

We all wish you luck.

allen

http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/
---
We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom that is in it -
and stop there; lest we be like the cat that sits down on a hot stove-lid. She
will never sit down on a hot stove-lid again, and that is well; but also she
will never sit down on a cold one anymore. -- Mark Twain