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:
Fri, 13 Jul 2001 07:22:19 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (27 lines)
> Today, the net result is a wide variance in worker cell sizes produced
> by "natural" or "wild" scutellata. These range from about 4.3mm to
> 4.7mm per cell (according to the methodology on the website you
> referred to). It would be foolhardy to give a mean value, due to the
> variance in hybridisation...

Now that is interesting!  It's nice to have a 'man on the ground' in SA.

What this says to me -- and I'd like to hear comments from others --  is that
the foundation sold in South Africa (4.9) is oversize by quite a lot compared to
what the bees there normally would build, just as the current standard
foundation in Europe and North America is oversize. (By how much , if much, has
been the subject of much dispute here).

If the Cape bee is larger, it almost appears that the African foundation is
built to favour Cape bees over scutellata, and I wonder if this is part of the
problem with Cape bees getting control of managed hives.  I also wonder what
size pure Cape bees build when in the wild.

Anyhow, this report tends to dispute the widely held idea that the natural cell
size for scutellata is 4.9.

Hmmm.

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2