> The big difference here is that no one is suggesting 'chopping off the legs'
> of the bee if it doesn't fit the cell. If a bee doesn't like the fit, it
> won't build the cell.

What then?  How do the bees function without comb?

> How is using 4.9 size foundation any different than
> you or anyone else using their size? Any beekeeper who uses foundation is
> discriminating then. If you are using 5.2mm foundation in your hives, aren't
> you as equally concerned about the deleterious effects this may be having on
> those bees that fall out of your selected size?

Actually, I am.

I came into the world, and beekeeping, in a time when foundation was taken for
granted and thus I thought -- or rather accepted as a unexamined default
position -- that foundation was a natural part of beekeeping.  I have since
reconsidered and am now inclined to think that traditional skep keeping has its
merits and may even be the best system to accomplish pollination -- which is Job
One according to our industry political propaganda machine.

When I came into beekeeping, thirty years back, the thinking of the beekeeping
industry was dominated by a group of people who thought in terms of forcing bees
to do this and forcing bees to do that.  This is all very perverted to my
current way of thinking.  Naturally, I began with what I was taught, but over
the years, I have evolved more to thinking in terms of 'how can I help my bees
to do this' and 'how can I help my bees to do that'?  Happily, times have
changed too since those grim postwar years.  Whereas conflict and coercion was
the accepted way in the 20th century, current thinking trends more to
open-mindedness, acceptance and co-operation.

One very significant factor that is overlooked in examining beekeeping history
in the 20th century is that, over that period the beekeeping media were
dominated by 'house' magazines belonging to the dominant bee equipment
manufacturers and queen breeders and/or publications supported primarily by
advertising dollars.  As a result, the entire focus of beekeeping thought for
100 years has been product-oriented.  It is not difficult to see why.  Products
generate cash and advertising and 'sizzle'.  Free techniques that require no
products do not have the same flash or hype.

In the flood of information that came with inexpensive and widely distributed
magazines, products were glorified and became 'necessities'.  It is always
interesting to walk through a museum of recent history and look at the many
'necessities' of yesteryear and imagine how people pined and saved to get those
symbols of fulfillment and success.  From our perspective, it is hard to imagine
how a woman could have sacrificed her health to achieve a 'wasp waist' and/or a
flat chest, yet many/most were convinced that this was the ideal.

Moveable frame hives are a product, and therefore able to generate income and ad
revenues to support propaganda against natural comb hives such as skeps and gums
which do not.  The flood of promotion in almost all the available reading
material naturally affected people entering public service and thus government
policy.  When AFB became a huge problem, the solution chosen was naturally a
product-oriented one, not a stock selection one.  Skeps and gums were banned and
all beekeepers became consumers.  (At this point I think of pate de foie gras.
http://home.intekom.com/animals/info/gallery/abuse/slide5.html )

With the coming of the Internet and free publishing and distribution,
information has been liberated from these constraints and the idea that
beekeeping need not revolve around products and branding is beginning to blossom
again.  I predict that, one day before long, skeps will again come into fashion.

However, I live in the real world and virtually all my income comes from my
management of bees, which places me in a different position from those who have
a few hives and can afford to make drastic changes and work with unproven ideas.
I choose to compromise on some things and use what is at hand -- and to wait to
see what develops.  I like to think I am sometimes a catalyst in change for the
better, but have no illusions that I am leading a charge or responsible to
change the world.  I leave that for others who believe they have a calling or
who are hired for the job.

If 4.9 proves out and is not out-competed by a cheaper, simpler solution, it
will be a huge bonanza for the bee equipment manufacturers.  If it becomes a
full blown fad, I can see lots of comb being melted, serviceable frames and
plastic foundation thrown away and new material purchased on a mass scale,
reminding me of the periodic change in fashion that causes perfectly good
clothing or furniture to be junked regularly to keep the consumption machine in
high gear.  I know the suppliers will complain about having to junk their
rollers and molds an having to retool, but they will revel and profit mightily
in the orgy of buying that follows acceptance of the concept.  Expect to see
advertising soon.

However, I doubt (and hope) that 4.9 will never hit the mainstream, since there
are other ways to control varroa without destroying all the equipment now in
use, and without intensively manipulating bees to use new foundation.  It is
also a continuation of the old way of forcing the bees to do this and forcing
the bees to do that,  As such, I expect that it will be largely popular only
with Protestants.

As far as I know there are other examples of projects with bees surviving very
nicely with no varroa treatment, or minimal treatment, that do not involve
forcing bees onto 4.9 foundation.  Dee herself, says, I am told, that her system
is 1/3 nutrition, 1/3 bee stock, and 1/3 cell size.  I think that the first two
items are indisputable and apply to all beekeeping.  The third factor -- 4.9 --
may be useful, but perhaps is excessively difficult and unnecessarily costly. in
terms of dollars, time, and genetic diversity.  I am sure there are other less
costly and destructive ways of doing the job and hope that they will over time
dominate, and that this idea will fade.

We are in a world of competing ideas, and 4.9 is only one of many mechanisms
being examined.  Inasmuch as it is a very expensive and difficult solution and
simpler, easier methods are also in development , I believe that 4.9 will
ultimately be seen as an Edsel; it runs, but it won't sell because it is clunky,
and the alternatives are more attractive.

> If so, why haven't you
> stopped using the single cell size foundation and gone to letting the bees
> draw their own comb, that would include all the sizes?

Do you know what I really hate?  Rhetorical questions. (see Note 1 at end)

You know the answer to that, I should hope.  But I will dutifully give a few
reasons.

I may someday do just what you suggest, but at this point, I am told it is
illegal in most developed jurisdictions to have bees on fixed comb.  Having bees
draw in frames without foundation is a bit difficult, especially on the scale
and in the climate where I operate.  Moreover, I am currently committed to the
using what I have.  It works and have no intention of junking it to pursue an
ideal.  It makes me a good living... and as previously announced, I am actually
reducing my operation with an eye to retirement.

> > AFAIK, this remains to be proven, as does the question of what, if any,
> > undesirable effects may accompany this management.
>
> Poor wording on my part. I meant to say "and to be able to do it..." It does
> need to be proven, it is in the process of having some things proven, and so
> far the biggest undesirable effect is that it requires a lot of work.

That is a BIG undesirable effect.

allen

http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/

Note 1:  (For the humour impaired)  This is a JOKE.  Laugh -- please.