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:
Thu, 31 Aug 2000 09:36:04 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (64 lines)
Bob Harrison wrote:

> > >  ... I will try to explain and will quote facts from the only books i can
> > > find on the subject.

Aaron Morris wrote:
> > Again Bob, please name this source!

Bob Harrison wrote:
> Hello Aaron,
> The best book and the book i refer to the most is "The Varroa
> Handbook-biology and control"by Bernard Mobus and Larry Conner put out
> in 1988 by the Wicwas Press...

etc., etc, etc... (personal history, name dropping, no quotes, no bibliography,
no page references)..

The above named book does not *in any way* support the claim made that until 100
years ago apis mellifera used smaller cells and that the _natural_ cell size
made by feral and domestic has been artificially enlarged since then, or the
claim that there was another traditional measuring system.

These are the claims we all wish to see supported with a bibliography.

We have *repeatedly* requested, even demanded that the adherents the cult of
smaller cell size catalog the sources they claim exist.  If they exist, the task
should be simple and we should have our references by now, and not be reading
blarney and misdirection.

I have been repeatedly directed to read to Dee Lusby's writings and have AFAIK
read all the pieces that are available on the net, both when they were
originally mailed to the bee lists and after Barry straightened them out to make
them readable.

*Nowhere* do these articles support the claims she and her adherents make.

I have seen several references, that -- if misread -- *might* be considered by
some as 'proof', but which if read correctly merely support the fact that any
changes that have been made have over the past century been merely temporary and
transient, existing only as long as the larger cells are employed by the bees.

I don't think there is a shred of evidence that bees raised on 5.7 foundation,
for example will not build natural cells in burr comb in the same hive that are
not around 5.3mm instead of the artificial larger size being forced on them.

To my knowledge, nobody has proven that the natural cell size has been
influenced much, if at all, by the efforts to force bees to use artificially
large worker foundation.

I now believe that no one will, because no one can.  If anyone does try and
quotes directly from the sources, I believe it will be obvious that they have
misread the material they claim supports their beliefs.

Put up or...

What can I say?

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