> From: "W. Allen Dick" <[log in to unmask]>

> I don't know about the bees that Lusbys raise, but most of the commercial
> honey bees I have been able to learn about from other beekeepers and obtain
> seem more comfortable in larger cells.  Cells in the 5.2 to 5.3 mm range
> seem to be what they like to build if there are no people around to force
> them onto overly large or small foundation cells.

Allen -

I quote from the Lusby's own words.

From: http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/part8.htm

"Keep in mind, the idea is to figure out how many retrogressions it will
take to bring the honeybees in a given area back to traditional natural
sizing. Repeat the above mentioned process, with V-cut top bars on several
domesticated hives and several well established feral colonies (not less
than 10 each). We found the average here in Southern Arizona to be about 4
for our domesticated hives and 2 for established feral colonies. We found it
impossible to make the retrogression back to natural sizing in one jump
(This was our retrogression attempt to 5.0mm sizing). Two retrogressions
would be required, but it became apparent that the time-frame would be a
limiting factor, because we didn't have the time to retrogress our whole
beekeeping outfit for each retrogression required (figured 10 years for each
retrogression for changing 1,000 hives with foundation) for our domestic
hives. We decided to see if we could speed the process up to match what we
observed on the feral side. Consequently, we decided beekeepers cannot do an
old-fashioned comb shake-down, from today's domesticated hives and restart
on new undrawn 4.9mm foundation, to match the top-of-the-sizing-spectrum for
traditional sizing before artficial hybridization by man, without modifying
the technique to fit today's needs relative to stress by parasitic
mites/secondary diseases, limited time-frame within which to work, and the
different requirements for field management, between domestic and feral."


5.2 - 5.3 would be considered a first step regression in size according to
the literature already published and contained in numerous archives. Bees
have to be regressed in steps as they are limited by size variance between
brood combs and honey combs that are found in each colony. Most beekeepers
don't realize there are two cell size ranges in every colony. If the bees
you are referring to appear to have had their first retrogression then you
are only one jump down from controlling parasitic mites on 4.9, or there
about, without getting your foundation so small you can't extract the honey
out.

When we have had a whole industry tool up for larger bees for 100 years, is
it that unrealistic to think that it will take some effort to get the bees
back down in size to whatever their natural size is? Simply stating that
these bees you have learned about seem more comfortable in larger cells only
gives us part of the picture/story of these bees. How many years have these
bees been left to "build what they like" and how would they have regressed
in size if still on the same comb? Has anyone tried regressing them further
to see if they would like that? Lots of questions.

As a side note, I also find quite interesting that in all the times this
topic of small cell size has come up for discussion on BEE-L, there has
never been any input by any researcher or scientist to aid in this topic.
Why is that? Is the idea so off base that it's ludicrous? I know there have
been studies on this from the US Gov. side. I have tried to read up and
understand this whole topic and so far it has not thrown up a red flag as
being folklore. In fact, it amazes me just how many people around the world
have already, or are beginning to, keep bees on smaller cells. So why should
North America with Canada and the USA be the last to change instead of lead?
I get very frustrated by the politics of things. Can someone please show me
the error of my thinking?

Then there is the latest about the tolerance level of coumaphos in honey and
wax being raised so we can keep producing honey that is "acceptable." We
have now set a new precedence for the industry. We'll just keep raising the
tolerance level up in our honey to fit the use of our stronger and stronger
chemicals.

Regards,
Barry