Scott wrote:

Isis, You misunderstand. The enlargement and the pop benefit was that it
would increase production. This isn't just an explained idea, its documented
with clear chronology when you have access to those antique books and
journals. It is something that was done and documented, then forgotten in it
ubiquity.

I haven't misunderstood a thing. The slightly larger foundation was
manufactured to enlarge the workers.Everyone knows workers can bee slightly
enlarged by bigger cells, and drones can be stunted by small cells. You may
have seen the tiny drones raised in worker comb.

However, I have also seen workers raised in drone comb, and they ARE NOT as
big as drones. So, there is a limit. It's like the difference between two
kids, one who gets excellent food and one who grows up on rice. The one on
better food will be bigger, but within certain limits. And none of this, so
far as we know, is hereditary.

If a hive escapes into the wild, they will build natural comb, according to
heir instincts which evolved over hundreds of thousands of years. If the
cells were smaller, and this prevented varroa build up, then natural swarms
living in trees would not be susceptible to varroa and the wood s would be
filled with wild bees.

 And that is not the case. A wild swarm will go a year or so, and die of
varroa. Unless it's Africanized, of course. They seem to do quite nicely.
But why do they? Small cells might be a factor, but you would have to rule
out other factors, such as climate, and the biting of varroa.

So far no one has offered any proof that merely putting regular bees on
smaller combs is a reliable varroa control measure. Proof would involve two
things: 1) side by side comparison with normal hives and 2) independently
verified; especially under different climatic conditions. If you cannot
supply this type of proof, you are left with what amounts to faith healing.
(Which may work -- how do I know?)

Isis Glass

-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and  other info ---