Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 15:35:32 -0800
From: "deelusbybeekeeper" <deelusbybeekeeper@excelonline.com>
Subject: Re: test

Hi to all on Biological Beekeeping for egroups:

Helmut wrote below::

> Hi folks
> #1 :Has anybody any idea of the measurement of various species
> of bees relative to their cell size ???

Reply:

Yes, when cell size enlargement started in the late 1800s there was quite a
lot of measurement going on by various countries and regions as to what size the bees were and this continued pretty accurate up to about the 1920s-1930s thereabouts. After that you had to differentiate between artifical enlarged sizings vs natural comb sizings being used. Then after WW2, especially from the 1960s on, everything just sort of seemed to merge together and no reference quotes were hardly given in written papers. By taking the natural cell sizes by region originally written and knowing the original species of bees for the area (or that used in the experiments) you can get a pretty good picture of race relative to comb cell size.

> I would like to see a table of those in relation to the above.

Reply:

There are measurements done by cubital index that have direct relationship to cell size, so this could be done by a person good in math.

> #2 : Would you measure the cell size of commercially bought
> foundations without drawn cells. Measure from center to center for
> the ease of procedure. (There appears to be a wide variety of cell
> measures on the market)

Reply,

Yes, you measure the new undrawn foundation, not the drawnout foundation for sizing. Also you measure from inside wall of your first cell across the flats of the parallel walls to the outside of the last cell wall or vice versa for cells on the horizontal first. Then because this row is normally stretched in manufacture, often times giving enlarged cells then you have to measure the diagonals also to see what the unstretched cell size was supposed to be. The difference is what is called a fudge factor.

Normally, this is not a problem, especially under the bigger is better concept. However, now in fighting mites it has become imperative that this fudge factor does not exist for bigness beyond the size of the embossing mill rollers. i.e. you buy 4.9 mm, you want 4.9 mm not 5.0 mm which has already been proven to be a status quo for bees living with mites, but still having secondary diseases, and also no surplus for the beekeeper for profit to enable him to afford to keep the bees without various treatments.

It takes very precision equipment and care not to have a fudge factor.

> #3 : Please mention the origin of those foundations , Europe ,
> Americas, Asia, South Pacific ,Pacific, etc.)

Reply:

This has already been done for artificial foundations when we wrote around
the world for samples and published same,which can be found posted on
beesource.com under pov lusby.

> #4 : Describe to the best of your knowledge / notion what race of
> bees you are working with.

Reply:

You are non-descript in who you want this information from, but since I am
reply right now. Ours has been said by morphological measurements to be
Caucasian/Italian by Dr Koeniger, by DNA testing were were said to be
caucasian type but different than that noted elsewhere in USA. What we
believe we have, though many think AHB, is a mixture of Italian,caucasian,
spanish black and native small black bees of the Americas. But this is open
for dispute.

> #5 : It is also of interest where you are located , specifically
> climatic conditions and altitude generally.

Reply:

Again pertaining to our own specifics. We are located with our bees on the
upper Sonoran Desert plateau/mountainous area of S. Arizona. Elevation
starts at 2700 feet for about 1/3 outfit, and runs 3500 - 4000+ for another
1/3 and the rest is about 4400-4600+. Lat I would say is between 31.5 - 32.5 degrees N. Climate is Tempret with monsoon fluxuations. As pertians to where you are there are many parallels as altitude equates with latitude and I understand you are nearer sea level. The same would hold true to parallels
to UK and even Sweden with altitude vs latitude as you go downhill from here as you approach sea level relative to the keeping of bees and the size of the combs they build. Again please see beesource.com pov for world map on cell sizes by zone which ais related by altitude vs latitude vs climatic conditions for transitioning of our bee races/strains.

> #6 : There seems to be still a confusion how to measure cell size.
> What is YOUR method and criteria? We would like to establish a
> consensus so that everybody knows what we are talking about.

There are two ways of measuring cell size generally, although many, many
more have been used over the years, especially during the debates of the
early 1900s. One is square decimenter by a square,square decimeter that was adopted if I remember right in Germany after being put forth by a Prof.
Baudoux in the early 1900s and is used by the USDA and many scientists today worldwide.

The other way is the old rhombic measurement way.

Both measure differently and have different outcomes. Also one relates more to traditional natural comb sizing and the other to artificially produced
foundation. i.e. you can say 5.4 mm is 800 square decimeter with the
square, square decimeter measurement, while with the rhombus measurement 5.0 mm would equate to 800 square decimeters. Now the square, square decimenters measurement dates only from about the 1930s forward, while the rhombic measurement traditionally goes back to 400BC.

We ourselves, use the rhombus measurements, as we have been taking our bees back to beekeeping biologically to cell size equated in the archives prior to usage of artifically foundation for bigger is better. The old books say
4.83 is the old cell size about 5 to the inch. and about means could be bigger or could be smaller, it is just that,- about. It is a general field
measurement of approximation used by beekeepers then,not scientists of
today.

> #7 : Explain your volume calculation of a cell and the impact of
> differences relating to bee size.

Reply

The volume calculations of cells were done back in the 1800s and where shown quite accurately then,that the volume of a drone cell is double that of a worker cell, and this had direct bearing on mite infestation and therefore, various bee diseases through mite inflection of wounds creating vectors for disease entry. As you probably already know, mites prefer drones, so when you artificially increase the size of worker cells to pseudo mimic drone cells in size, capacity for food goes with it and also the parasitic problem associated with drones first, now transformed to pseudo-drones (aka worker artificially enlarged) for problems too!

> #8 : If interested , i can convey a simple calculation which is fairly
> accurate.

Reply:

Yes, it would be interesting to see what you have. Please send so I can see
how it relates to that published from the 1800s to present.

Sincerely,

Dee A. Lusby