BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Dave Cushman <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Dave Cushman <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 15 Jul 2001 12:01:06 +0100
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (64 lines)
Hi All

We may not be aware of the precise mathematical relationship between
cellsize and bee size, (I doubt that it is purely linear), but hopefully
some work has been conducted on this?

Certainly some work has been done on mass of bee/cellsize, but I feel this
could also be confusing, as... whatever the physical size or volume of a bee
it has the same number of tissue cells in the same positions and doing the
same job. I have read somewhere that these cells may be of different density
from different body sizes, if that is the case then does an enlarged bee
have a less dense set of flight muscles?

The 5.7 mm extreme sizings seem to have come about for a variety of reasons,
one of which was a drive in the 1960s & 70s (also into the 1980s) to
deliberately enlarge the AMM bee. The culmination of these attempts saw a
5.9 mm foundation in use among a particular group of experimenters. When
this was first introduced it was treated as "drone foundation" by the bees
and intermediate stages had to be introduced by stretching 5.7 mm foundation
(similar to the stages in regression but in reverse).

My slant on the cellsize work has always been one of discrimination of bee
races to help seperate hybridised bees into their original strains, but if
there are benefits to be had in the way of varroa control I will gladly take
hold of that aspect as well.

Allen's point about bees being different today compared with a century or so
ago is not under dispute... I am not trying to shrink bees into a smaller
cell, but to find bees that are comfortable in the smaller cell and conform
to other morphometric measurements that establish racial type. The stock we
have today needs artificial support to survive varroa, pull out the chemical
plug and the bee industry goes down the drain.

Hygenic, Russian and SMR bees will play their part, but none in themselves
is an answer.

There is another aspect of this, that some people are frightened of,  and
that is... By selecting bees that are "happy" in 4.9 mm cells we are
inadvertantly selecting for "africanised" characteristics. The comment I
would make here is the the gene pool of honey bees is vast and that any race
or strain only represents those genes that are in the forefront of the
"pool" at that time, and that characters that are considered "africanised"
are no problem providing the the other elements in the selection process are
gentleness and other handleability traits, once such good natured and stable
characteristics have been fixed then further selection can be made for honey
yield. One of the largest problems that I see in bee breeding over the last
century has been putting honey gathering too high up the list of the initial
priorities. I am not saying select for an unproductive bee, but I do say get
the bee right first and then select for the higher productivity over
subsequent generations.

Transition cells in comb produced on full sheets of 4.9 foundation,
indicates a high variability in size genes. Regular comb at 4.9 from starter
strips indicates a low variability of these genes. There is a situation in
the middle of these conditions whereby bees will draw regular comb on full
sheets, but transition comb on starters.
If your objective is to produce 4.9 mm combs this does not matter, but you
should not consider the bees regressed until they will draw 4.9 from
starters or plain wax beads.

Regards From:- Dave Cushman, G8MZY
Beekeeping and Bee Breeding, http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman
IBList Archives, http://website.lineone.net/~d.cushman

ATOM RSS1 RSS2