> > Well most here I imagine will not like my answer

> Many of us anticipate your explanations as eagerly as we await our daily
> 'Joke of the Day' email.

Beehave yourself, Beehaver :)  Just because someone has a chip and begs for
someone to knock it off doesn't mean that we have to do so -- no matter how
tempting it may be, or how gently it is acomplished.

> > This is the time period of the 1920s and 1930s when
> > beekeepers with the help of manufacturers first started
> > really upsizing workercombs in the broodnests.

Dee has an interesting point here, and although I don't think she has nearly
proven that 4.9 is the 'natural size' that she claims it is, we are indebted
to her for tirelessly pointing out that cell size on some commercial
foundation is ridiculously large and that, furthermore, benefits claimed for
upsizing foundation from around the 5.1 to 5.2 mm range are not well
proven -- if proven at all.  Not only are such benefits questionable, but
heretofore there has been insufficient consideration of possible deleterious
aspects to the practice.

The real problem, in my mind, is whether there is *any*  foundation size
which can claim to be a universal fit, as has been assumed -- without much
thought -- for several generations now.  I wonder if the whole concept of
foundation is a bad idea and an abuse of bees, but that is another topic.

> Post hoc ergo proper hoc is a popular fallacy.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc  is possibly THE most popular fallacy, although
there are several others that crop up again and again, and which render many
seemingly obvious conclusions false.  A chronological relationship may imply
causality, but unless causality is clearly proven, coincidence may well be
the the best explanation.

> > To control the harder secondary diseases and the first
> > onces to appear, we had to regress down again to 4.9mm top
> > tolerance for our foundation.

This is a very interesting claim.  I hope that there is some basis for
comparison here.  I'd like to hear how this observation is supported.

> > We are now also going into 6 years plus on this second regression.

I wonder what this means exactly?  On a 'second regression', what is the
size of cell, and is this what you used to call retrogression, Dee?  I
haven't kept up with the jargon..

>...are you running controls?  Science demands  this.

Very true, and often forgotten.

> > Foul brood is no longer a problem. We take care of it the
> > old way by pulling the infestation and melting the combs
> > down and reprocessing the wax in a Kelly wax melter.

Steve Tabor wrote an interesting article in a recent US bee magazine about
how destruction of hives with even one cell of AFB, rather than hives that
were entirely overcome, resulted in selection *away from* AFB resistance
instead of towards resistance as intended.

Steve's is a subltle argument which is lost on many, and I am not sure I
understand it entirely, but in this era of IPM, it may be germane.  His
constant emphasis on hygienic behaviour over the years has perhaps proven to
be a beacon.  The outcome of breeding for HYG is still unclear, but few
doubt that it is a step in the right direction.

What exactly happened to allow AFB to get the the epidemic proportions it
did in the last century in the US is a very difficult topic and extremely
hard to research.  The writing of the time was based on assumptions that are
less obvious now, and the meanings of words change.   One thing is clear:
the movement towards universal adoption of moveable comb and the consequent
universal adoption of foundation was promoted and accepted as a solution,
rather than an exacerbation of the problem at the time.

As a side note, when Adony presented his material on the survey of  HYG in
bees in Northern Aberta, the conclusion was that there is quite a way to go
yet to get to HYG, but my personal observation from the data was -- if I did
not get it wrong -- is that there is a surprising level of HYG out there
already.  I noted that some commercial strains do seem to show slight
advantages already -- without the breeders having made overt attempts to
select for this trait specifically.  I suspect in the next ten years, we
will see some real impact as stronger emphasis is brought to bear.

> Seems pretty much like what the Auzzies and Kiwis have been doing on
normal
> comb with similar results.  In fact, I believe Ohio had AFB down to
> something like (working from memory) 1/10% without medication at one time,
> without drugs.

That is still too high.

allen
http://www.internode.net/honeybee/diary/