Hello Aaron -

You ask a very good question, and one that I think is critical to the whole
idea of regressing bees back down in size.

> Couldn't one simply fit the
> new equipment with 4.9 foundation, accomplish the step down and
> skip the transition phase?  Or would the bees draw the foundation
> similar to the comb pictured at the url you gave?
>
> Better yet, shook swarm onto equipment fitted only with starter
> strips of foundation.  Then the bees could build cells of their own
> choosing.  Would the giant bees build giant combs?  Is it that the
> transitional phase is required, somethhing like binding feet to get
> them to fit into tiny shoes?  Must we bind our bees to get them to
> fit into tiny cells?

When I went through this process last year, the swarms were first hived on
frames with 4.9 starter strips only.
(http://www.beesource.com/eob/4dot9/h2comb2.htm)
When they got themselves going, I measured the cell size (remember, these
swarms came off of Duragilt which is 5.4) and the overall brood cell size
measured 5.2. I also started seeing a lot of varroa in the drone brood
(http://www.beesource.com/eob/4dot9/h2varroa.htm) so I decided to shake them
down again, break the varroa cycle, and see if they would start pulling out
the 4.9 size. This time I used full sheets of 4.9 foundation. They managed
to make some comb that was pretty true and consistent, size wise. Other
combs looked like this: (http://www.beesource.com/eob/4dot9/49.2ndreg5.htm)
while some looked like this
(http://www.beesource.com/eob/4dot9/49.2ndreg4.htm)

What I extrapolated from this process was that bees can not, or don't,
change in cell size beyond a certain range per generation. That range would
appear to be around .2 - .25 mm.. The fact that they were 'forced' to build
on full sheets of foundation the second time didn't stop them from messing
it up and still build larger sizes. Of course there are other influences
that play into this process.

I see the term "what they want" or "natural size" used by many, as Barry
Sergeant pointed out, with the interpretation being these are combs built by
bees having no foundation to dictate what the size should be, so are a size
the bees see as the right size. I have a hard time logically working this
out in my mind to accept this as a correct interpretation of what we see
happening. In some regions, maybe so, but for now I'm thinking only of North
America. Since at least 90 percent of all honeybees are in managed colonies,
and another percent (8?) of those that are feral came from managed colonies,
and the average cell size of foundation used in managed hives is 5.4mm, and
we know that bees can only regress in size .2mm per generation (this, when
we even give them a strip to key off of that is smaller in most cases), how
can we conclude then that what we are seeing is "natural size?" What is
natural about it? I still see them as being part of a whole system that is
*not* natural. After all, these "natural/feral" bees will still be
mating/influenced by the enlarged bees we keep, that also swarm and become
the feral bees. We keep feeding the feral population with big bees.

Now in time, this would slowly change back to what is natural if varroa
wasn't killing them off. I think the only examples of "natural size" comb we
see that has any importance to this issue would be ones with smaller cells
as it would show that the bees can, and aim for, a smaller size than what we
give them now. All other natural sizes that are similar to what we use
really says nothing in my opinion. Does this make any sense? I'd like your
comments.

I see Clay has now posted the same findings as far as how much a bee will
regress in each shake down.

> My question is, if indeed a smaller cell size makes for varroa tolerance
> what is it about a smaller cell size that impacts the varroa populations?

I think we all want to know the answer to this question. We can speculate,
but until lab work is done by researchers, we'll have to come up with our
own ideas.

> And frankly, I don't really care what it is that makes it work, I just want
> to know it works.

And I want to know that it not only works for the Lusby's, but also for me
and everyone else. This is why I have taken it upon myself to follow their
steps with my bees in my region, so I can answer this question.

> As is small cell size.  I acknowledge and appreciate the efforts of those
> who are investigating.  Thanks Barry for your update.

I'm happy to share it all. Again, I have nothing to hide. If, after 3 or 4
years I end up with no bees, I will say so. I have enough reason to believe
that this will not be the case, but won't know till I'm there. It's also
encouraging that there are others, like Clay, who are going through it. This
will give even more weight to whatever the outcome is.

My reply to Bob Harrison:

>>> The idea here is to work the bees hard to get them back to a size that
> was  normal for them many years ago.
>
> Wish you had left the above out Barry. Like throwing salt in a wound!
> Normal can not be proved unless a Bee-L person can produce a measurement
> from a 100 year old text with a measurement more exact then *five cells to
> the inch*.

You are right, Bob, I should have worded it to read, The idea here is to
work the bees hard to get them back to a size that was *more* normal for
them many years ago. Thanks for pointing this out.

Regards,
Barry