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, 30 Aug 2000 15:34:55 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (43 lines)
> The problem is that swarms that leave a nice man-made hive with its
> "incorrect" foundation sizes should be the perfect control for this theory.
> Feral colonies should have the edge as they have no foundation to base their
> cell size on. But that's not what we see. Feral colonies die out fast in
> infested areas. Top bar hives should also show an attraction to low mite
> rate.

Right.  I agree with you, and all this is obvious to most of us, but Dee has
introduced a 'magic' idea that confounds simple, direct approaches to the
question, and that is the idea of 'retrogressing'.

'Retrogress' is indeed a word and it refers to returning to a more primitive and
inferior state -- according to the several dictionaries I consulted.

As I understand it, central to the whole idea of using 4.9 foundation for bees
that are more accustomed to using cells in the 5.2 to 5.4 range, is that such
bees must be 'retrogressed'.  Again, as I understand the concept, the bees are
introduced to 4.9 in stages.  Since they cannot adapt to it suddenly, they must
be given smaller and smaller foundation in succeeding years until they adapt to
the smaller size.

Needless to say, this sounds bizarre to anyone who has spent much time in
university or even high school biology classes.  The whole concept runs directly
counter to the basic beliefs and understandings of those who have studied
biology.  This is probably why few scientists will even mention the matter
publicly, although I know they discuss it  politely and thoughtfully -- but
sceptically -- in private.  I know.  I've been with a group of a half dozen or
so bee scientists when the topic came up at dinner.

Although the whole idea seems like heresy to scientists, good scientists know
that all new truths begin as heresy, so although they are very interested, they
are reluctant to comment pro or con.

They rather adapt a wait-and-see attitude while trying to grasp how the idea
could have merit, and what forces are really at work here.

allen
---
A Beekeeper's Diary: http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Diary/
Package bees, winter loss, fondant, Pierco vs. Permadent vs. dark comb,
unwrapping, splitting, raising queens, AFB, varroa, protein patties, moving
bees, pollination experiences, daily mumblings and more... Thousands served...

ATOM RSS1 RSS2