From: "deelusbybeekeeper" <deelusbybeekeeper@excelonline.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 20:11:15 -0800
To: <BiologicalBeekeeping@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Dadant or what?

Hi to all on Biological Beekeeping

David E wrote below:

Leaving yourself wide open to a law suit unless you get written approval
from each manufacturer.

Reply:

Once something is sold in public domain it is there for all to see and
purchase. There is something to be said for "Let the buyer beware" and also
making sure that what you purchase is what you thought it was under "Truth
in labeling laws". As it is I see nothing stated wrong with the Dadant
product. It is a good product.

However,Many beekeepers are not schooled on the various methods of computing
square decimeter sizing for foundations and it's changing scenario, in the
course of our beekeeping history. Also,there is something to be said for
what is written on the container, agreeing with what is contained inside,
especially when so much is at stake concerning natural parasitic mite
control.Here I am at a slight quandry as Rietche mentions 4.9 as about 1000
cells per qdm and 5.0 as about 930 cells per qdm and the Dadant label does
say 8 1/2 900 cell med brood for 4.9mm cell size.I am pondering the math
here to Rietche and also the old Rhombic measurements used long ago.

Now with the current sizing of 4.9mm foundation, there is nothing wrong with
Dadant calling their foundation 4.9mm, as it is indeed within the 4.9mm
range until the decimal changes to 5.0mm. It is very well made foundation
about 4.98mm we think from what samples we have received, though Ed has said
some sheets measure a little bigger, and it will work exceedingly well for
sizing down for control of Varroa mites for first regression off of 5.4 or
bigger sizing. However, when we first retrogressed and were counted for
varroa mite levels in our colonies by the USDA in 1997, we were phasing off
of foundation milled at 5.0mm - 5.1mm sizing.

What this means for parasitic mite control is that the upper range of 4.9
like 4.98 or 4.99 etc is too close for mite distinction for adequate
controls to keep our broodnest from being parasitized by the varroa mites
that reproduce within the broodcells themselves.

We ourselves prefer 4.9mm at the begining of the sizing and no larger, to
give distinction for the bees to readjust and offset the parasites; and thus
gain control. At exactly 4.9mm or smaller this point of distinction for the
bees vs mites is gained, allowing for control of the mites and accompanying
secondary diseases.

Like I said, something sold to the public is in the public domain and is
there for comparison for wise shoppers. How is this any different than
picking out the right size or style of shoes to wear or clothing. Many
places display several ietms of the same product,for the buyer to choose
from and compare one to the other. Should beekeeping products be any
different.You have a list of suppliers, why not pictures of their products
lined up too, side by side. Is this not salesmanship?

What exactly is wrong with comparing foundation. Most beekeepers are indeed
over 21 and should be able to shop around and compare the product that is so
necessary and essential to their hives well being. It is said our is a world
economy now. Is this not true?

As for fudge factors with foundation milling. This Dadant product does not
have a fidge factor and like I said, it is very well made. Also I have said
the jury is out and it may work perfectly well up North, but yet many have
lost and are losing colonies on sizing close to 5.0mm and 5.1, 5.2mm sizing.
This is something to think about.

I myself see nothing wrong with placing a metal metric ruler on a piece of
foundation and showing a picture. No detail needs to be given other than who
makes it and sells it to the public beekeeper, along with the name it is
publically called. All the ruler is doing is showing what is actually there.

Further comments anyone as to feeling pro or con? Rational for further
thoughts? Can you be more precise David E with your thoughts.

Regards

Dee