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:
Sat, 14 Jul 2001 11:04:51 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (55 lines)
> There are some that do not accept that foundation sizes have increased over
> the last century...

I have never met anyone who contested that foundation sizes have increased over
the last century.

We all know that the increase in size is well documented, and we also know now
that there are extremes in the region of 5.7 mm in common use in Europe today.
What we do not know is what this means and what the effects are -- for certain.

Thanks to Dee, we have become very aware that the popular standard foundations
currently sold throughout North America all employ a slightly larger cell than
the median size that free bees in our regions are observed to build.  Some
foundations use a cell closer to that mean than others.  For example Permadent
cells are slightly larger than Pierco's.

One original reason for making cells slightly large was that quality control on
wax foundation  making can be inconsistent and consequently the cells can vary
in size over one sheet or batch and measure differently in one direction than
another.  Foundation makers had a number of reasons to think that larger was
better than smaller and consequently, since some error was inevitable, decided
to err in the direction of larger.  A second and separate reason for increasing
cell size was the popularity of the notion that bees could be made bigger by
increasing cell size and that this size increase would be beneficial.

We all accept that foundation cell base sizes have been increased since the
inception of wax foundation, but what is not as widely accepted -- and not at
all well proven -- is the notion that bees one hundred years ago and more were
smaller and naturally built smaller cells than their direct descendants today.
For that matter, even if it were true that some bees in common use in some
particular areas had smaller cells, there is no evidence that the genetics of
bees today in the same regions are at all the same and that such information has
any bearing on how to best accommodate our present bee stock.

In fact, it is very certain that the bees we use now are considerably different
genetically from those in widespread use 100 years back and more.  Add to that
the fact that accidental and deliberate introductions of bee stock have occurred
virtually everywhere, and the whole question becomes hopelessly murky.
Comparing the bees of the century before last to the current stocks is a case of
comparing apples and oranges.

> but... If this enlargement has not occurred why then have queen
> excluder grid spacings increased from 4.2 mm up to 4.9 mm over that period?
> and why has the bee space dimension gradually increased from 6 mm to 9 mm?

Great questions.  I hope to hear some answers.

allen

http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/
---
Don't worry about temptation -- as you grow older, it starts avoiding you. --
Old
Farmer's Almanac

ATOM RSS1 RSS2