Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:43:11 -0900 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Hi,
> Was the reason for the belief in the benefit of small cell based on
the belief that Africanized bees had fewer mites because of their
smaller cell size?
>
No, it was based on the fact that bees were at the time being kept on
unnaturally larger cells than was in the past. Natural or normal cell
size for worker brood, before they were artificially enlarged by
unwitting beekeepers, was in the range of 4.6 mm to 5.1 mm. 4.8 mm to
4.9 mm being mid range is the reason for using 4.9 mm foundation or
some just simply use foundation-less frames or plain wax starter
strips. Small cell is not based on Africanized bees. This web site
explains it well.
Natural Cell Size, small cell bees, small cell beekeeping, regression,
natural beekeeping, Bush Bees, foundationless frames, organic beekeeping
> Maybe we should have looked at the original host for varroa ;the
small Asian hive bee.
>
This has been done by some using SCB, I am sure that others have
looked at this also. I do not remember exactly what was discovered or
discussed but I am sure that others can.
> I wonder if "small cell" is more nearly approaching the size of
Apis Cerane drone cells. If this is the case it could account for the
preference of varroa for the smaller cell size.
>
This is not what was going on in the experiment. If you want to know
more of an explanation for this there was an in depth discussion on
the organicbeekeepers list a couple of months ago.
http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/Organicbeekeepers/
God Bless,
Keith Malone
The Great State, The Last Frontier
****************************************************
* General Information About BEE-L is available at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm *
****************************************************
|
|
|