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:
Allen Dick <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 11 Jul 2001 11:26:12 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (51 lines)
> I intend to shift to a smaller cell size for all my hives. If my
> experience is because of the smaller cell size and not other factors,
> then maybe 4.9 is not essential in colder climates but slightly larger
> will also work.

The bees we use in North America and Europe -- and which we call European honey
bees -- are consistently seen to build worker comb with cells ranging (in what
appears to be a narrow bell curve distribution) around a centre value of about
5.15 mm when they are able to build comb without using foundation for a guide.

I am not clear on the *exact* mean value -- if, indeed, there is one.  There may
be several.  What determines the size that any given group of bees will build is
AFAIK unknown.  Moreover, the cells in natural worker cells tend to vary in size
somewhat due to curvatures in the comb and other factors.  The idea of flat
combs with identical cells is a human notion, and is for our convenience.

Some time back, I asked people to send me email about what they see and measure.
Observations from around the world came in and can be found at
http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Misc/CellCountResults.htm, with some
commercial foundation measurement observations as well.

Cell size as a fashion statement:

At one time there were popular and seemingly powerful arguments for increasing
worker foundation cell sizes from the middle of that natural 5.15 mm +/- 0.15 mm
median size range -- even to an extreme of 5.7 mm.  One argument was that
cocoons build up and reduce size so the cells should start a little large.
Another was that increasing cell size slightly increased the average size of
bees.  That was in an era of 'bigger is better'.  No one really considered the
other implications such as spreading the brood out in a larger area or
increasing the volume of the cells.  At the extreme, worker foundation cells got
to 5.7 mm in one commercial foundation that was well accepted by beekeepers and
apparently tolerated by the bees.

These arguments for increasing cell size were widely and uncritically accepted
at that time, (as are, IMO, the current arguments to reduce the size to -- and
even beyond -- the lowest end of this range).  Increased cell size got to be
like a religion, with beekeepers replacing comb annually to avoid the dreaded
reduction in size due to cocoon build-up.

We now see the folly in that whole approach and the flaws in the reasoning, but
the pendulum has swung to the opposite extreme.  The same fervour and lack of
critical analysis is creating a wave of popular fondness for the new fashion of
forcing bees to use worker cells that are now too small.

Why can we not just give the bees what they seem to want?

It is pretty clear what size range they like if they have a choice.

allen

ATOM RSS1 RSS2