Hello Bob -

Since you specifically made mention of my promise to share the results of
using 4.9 foundation in my hives with *honest* results, I shall reply here.
<takes deep breath>

> Most say small cell works great. "Course I am still
> treating with Apistan or Coumaphos!"   In my opinion we are learning
> absolutely zero from those tests.

Yes, if people using 4.9 foundation think it works great, yet are still
using vices, their going through a lot of work for nothing. Old habits die
hard. I'd be interested in knowing just where all these people are that are
saying it works great. Everyone I know, including myself, have yet to pass
the three year mark which is the normal turn around time for the bees to
build back up after being regressed down. I'm in my second year and know of
another who is in his third year now and building up fast. So I'm very
skeptical of those you are referring to that say it works great because I'm
still in the "not so great" period of converting. In fact, it hasn't even
been one year that the foundation has been available on the market.

> My friend Barry Birkey said he would post his *honest* results from last
> winter on Bee-L if you remember. We have not heard a word yet. Please give
> your conclusions from last winter Barry.

I have not posted that information here, as this topic in the past has
spurred more argument than discussion, but have chosen to post it in several
places on the beesource.com web site. I figure those that are interested in
the topic can follow it there and this would spare all others the constant
use of the delete button. Here are a couple of links to those pages that
should bring you up to date.

http://www.beesource.com/eob/4dot9/index.htm
http://beesource.com/ubb/Forum13/HTML/000008.html
http://www.beesource.com/bee-l/bioarchive/feb2001/msg152.htm
http://www.beesource.com/bee-l/bioarchive/apr2001/msg76.htm
http://www.beesource.com/bee-l/bioarchive/apr2001/msg77.htm
http://www.beesource.com/bee-l/bioarchive/may2001/msg65.htm
http://www.bee-l.com/bioarchive/jul2001/msg49.htm

>> One hive was weak going into the winter and I was cutting down on the
>> number of hives so I did not treat it with anything. It made it through
>> fine.
>
> Leave alone won't work in beekeeping today.  My tests with leave alone and
> todays mites.  Some will survive the first winter but none has survived the
> second.

You're comparing two different animals here, is my understanding. Bill is
referring to a hive that was on smaller cell size, your comment is based on
bees on large cell size.

> Reducing down involves transition comb
> which is  every size in between large and 4.9mm.  If reducing down was as
> easy as giving a sheet of foundation 4.9mm and coming back and *presto* the
> whole sheet is 4.9mm then many larger beekeepers might jump on the band
> wagon.  Many times the bees will simply ignore the 4.9mm size on new
> foundation and draw whatever size suits them.

Supports my statement in the second paragraph. Never heard anyone I've
talked to that is doing this say it's easy. Here is a photo of transition
comb that came from one of the first hives I regressed last year.
http://www.beesource.com/eob/4dot9/49.2ndreg5.htm
This was drawn by bees that were on there 2nd shakedown. A lot of the cells
are near 4.9mm. This comb got culled out in time though.

The size that will suit bees when they are first put on any size foundation
will be near the same size cell they came from. It's not realistic to think
you can change the size of any animal or insect, quickly, without problems.
The idea here is to work the bees hard to get them back to a size that was
normal for them many years ago. Yes, it's usually very hard work with a good
deal of downs before the ups. Most will see it as too much work and not find
interest in it. Last year was the year I signed off the chemical program and
will have to figure out a way to keep going without them. I will be open
with all who ask as I have nothing to hide or hidden agenda. Not afraid of
failure or setback along the way either.

Regards,
Barry