From: Peter Borst <[log in to unmask]>


>> Do you know the ramifications? Prove it.
>
> PB:
> The burden of proof rests on the people positing the new idea. I am stating
> that the positioning of the combs is a non-issue, until proven otherwise.

Poppycock. You give no stronger argument that would disprove some importance
in comb positioning, just opinion. So far, only a couple of people have
worked with comb orientation and have voiced their observations. When you do
it for yourself and report back, then I'll put weight in your observations.

> Barry:
>> No mention of total hive break down in the report.

> PB:
> She is claiming that "frames in backwards" leads to supersedure. The
> supersedure of a perfectly good queen in the middle of the season would
> indicate a break down of the balance of the hive.

Rarely does a hive have a total breakdown (eventual death) from a queen
supercedure. Not in my experience anyway. I had hives two years ago
supercede several times in the year and all were strong healthy colonies by
winter and were in fine shape by spring.

> One cannot go from A) the natural orientation of combs to C) the effects of
> disoriented combs without covering the needed step: B) can the bees
> perceive this disorientation *at all*? No attempt has been made to
> determine whether they can. Evidently it is assumed that because *we* can
> see it, they can tell -- very poor logic, indeed.

I don't support all of Dee's logic. Nevertheless, what is being observed in
the feral is different than what is going on in our hives. What effect this
has on our bees is still open for discussion and again, nothing will be
proven without people looking deeper into this and try to see if there is
something to it.

I feel of utmost importance that we are shown a sample of this center comb.
Let's see this evidence. Surely someone has a piece of one since it is the
bases of the observations. I would also like to know what cell size these
feral combs had that M. Housel has studied.

Regards,
Barry