Dennis said:
The small cell camp can't adjust the foundation size upward without loosing
the positive results seen, so blame the bees 'artificially enlarged'
genetics.

If not I would blame the bee they are using.

I am seeing everything I want on 5.1 mm. foundation.

Lusby's method: (4.9mm)
 I see positive results from the Lusby's using only pristine cappings wax to
make their comb. I also consider rolling your own and  wiring very labor
intensive let alone expensive.

Bob's method:(5.1mm)
I find by using an unwaxed plastic foundation and getting the bees to draw
all new comb the same thing as above with a hell of a lot less effort as far
as getting uncontaiminated comb. The unwaxed plastic is very hard to get
drawn but you do not have to worry about getting any possible contaminated
wax.
Putting wax from from own cappings  on plastic foundation works also.

Dennis said:
And much time and effort is spent
by the small cell camp trying to find the right bee and keep it 'pure'.

We are all looking for the  *right bee*. I have three different lines I am
currently working with which produce honey as well as my old varroa crashing
lines, are actually gentler, requeen better after swarming and may never
need a varroa or tracheal mite treatment again. Time will tell.

Off on another subject but will return to topic later!

I guess this post might be the time to say I am working on a time saving
method of using the avachem sucrose octanoate product of Dadant with a
special formula of Fischer Bee Quick from Jim Fischer.

I thank Dadant for supplying the S.O.E. and Jim Fischer for supplying the
special formula Bee Quick. I ordered some new fume boards today for the
testing and have made up a special design board for the bees to exit the
hive on.
The idea:
After the last supers are removed you simply leave the fume board on the
hive and all the bees exit the hive to be sprayed down by the beekeeper and
then re enter the hive after  treatment with the SOE.
Both the BEE quick and the SOE are  safe for the beekeeper and do not
contaminate wax and honey.
I do recommend the board as driving the queen into the grass might not be
the best idea but only my opinion and  further testing might prove the board
I made not needed. Will keep the list posted.

Back to topic:
I can not see a reason for me converting to a smaller cell size. I wondered
a few years ago if downsizing might be the answer but now believe dropping a
couple mm in cell size and picking up some Lusby queens would not be the
solution I was looking for.

Allen Dick said he saw varroa in brood when he looked at the Lusby's bees. I
have got bees which you can not find varroa in except by natural fall or
tearing apart all brood comb.

All hives carry varroa these days but when varroa first arrived you could
find varroa on every brood comb you looked at in Augest in Missouri.

I do believe changing brood wax to be a step in the right direction for
healthy bees. Luby's were the first to say change wax . I believe much of
the brood comb in use in the world needs replaced!

Dennis said:
Yet, both camps are stuck on a single cell size and fail to see the
importance of the broodnest structure. Sticking to a single size has
negative consequences whether large or small sized foundations are used. It
just doesn't match what the bee do when left to themselves.

I keep a frame of plastic foundation around to show beekeepers what little
control beekeepers have over the size cells bee draw from foundation.

The bees completely ignored the worker cell size and drew about 60% of the
cells drone size.

Something to think about when considering cell size:

If any fertilized egg can become a queen (research says a perfect insect)
and the egg/larva/pupa is raised in a cell we consider  too large and of
sloppy porportions then  how important is cell size really. I have seen tens
of thousands of normal worker bees raised in drone cells?

The research of Elbert Jaycox in the book "Beekeeping in the Midwest" showed
that bees could be raised which were up to 17% smaller than what was
considered *normal size* for the period. Efforts at a smaller sized failed.
Jaycox also showed a bee could bee raised which was approx. 17% larger.
Efforts at a larger A. mellifera failed.

Excellent post Dennis! I appreciate your honesty and points made.

Bob

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and  other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::