Allen said:

>> additionally, the test was done with AHB which is
>> naturally smaller than EHB..

and Clay said:

> The bee is small only due to its natural comb sizing.

A stronger argument could be made that it is the other way 'round.

Which came first - the comb or the egg? :)

In the specific case of the South American AHB used in
the study at issue, it seems to be an error to attribute
the smaller size of AHB to the comb.  As I understand it,
a bee left to its own devices uses its own body as a
"caliper" of sorts to build a cells that are appropriate
to its body size.

It follows that bees given no foundation or only unembossed
starter strips will build whatever size cells they "naturally"
want to build.

Therefore, it would be more accurate and fair to say that the
comb is smaller in AHB hives due solely to the smaller size of AHB.

> South of the border there is much more use of natural
> combs without foundation.

And use of AHB.  Professor DeJong's presentation to the VA State
Beekeepers meeting this year was very informative, in that he
went into detail about how beekeepers have learned the "management"
appropriate to AHB, a very different set of practices from "normal".

The study seems to answer few questions for the case of EHB,
and the simultaneous presentation of multiple comb sizes to
the same colony simply verified what was already well-known,
that mites "prefer" the larger (in most cases, drone-sized) cells.

Please small-cell people, don't flame me.  I am taking great care
to avoid even the appearance of critiquing "small cell" here.
I am only questioning specific statements presented as fact.


        jim

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and  other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::