From: DeeALusby1@aol.com
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 00:04:27 EST
To: BiologicalBeekeeping@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: cell size measurement

In a message dated 12/31/01 2:23:59 PM Pacific Standard Time,
barry@birkey.com writes:

> I think some of Dee's input is an attempt to add understanding of science
> and beekeeping of that time and how it may affect the understanding of the
> written word.

Reply:
Barry wrote: exegesis, yes it's needed. Chris wrote: Ambiguous, yes it is
indeed! Dick wrote: pedantry, yes a very big one hung! Meaning for industry.

Well, sometimes one writes for bigger trend and other times one is seemed to write for smaller trends. Why? depends upon how the wind blows. Simplifying all to one basic math problem basis to compute diameters....... using rhombic when measuring, then squaring another way for the answer,.... using mm measurements in some countries and inches in others, and interchanging the math quoted by those talking, in misc items they then write applying to all......funny in a way, but also serious. Comparing northern latitudes of measurement to southern latitudes of measurement and bees of high altitude to bees of low altitude as if all the same, well, what can I say. Eyeballing measurements and just pulling up a comb to measure at random, well, specifics cannot be everything. ....

I imagine I could go on, but our beekeeping foundation measuring was set up this way and I could post more ways way-out in the way things are looked at, or I could post some really good stuff. But then, like Allen Dick says, what does it all mean?

Sure today we talk linear measurements, but why? Could it be because of all
this confusion in the past? What isn't written out early on was were the
measurements inside to outside measured. Were they uniform from person to person and region to region. Yet, today are we really doing any better? How can you measure an artificial system and then compare it to a real one?

Cowan from UK at least when he measured went from country to country and
measured. It was nice to see he visited Canada and the USA to actually
measure. HIs linear measurements you can therefore trust. I think Smith down in Africa pretty much did the same thing when he measured, by going from place to place also with linear measurements.

I do feel one cannot switch back and forth in measurements for you cannot be actually sure. For many papers this is hard, because you know not if they are experimenting on a natural system or an artificial one and then how can you experiment on one and then compare it to another making assumptions for the other? But that is what we do today on our artificial system and then try to understand the real world and why we are losing it.

I tried to zero in on what I was taught to follow. Namely the field side and
how the old beekeepers measured the field. Even today yet for actual field
work in counting cells in breeding many use the slanted square (rhombic). You cut out pieces of comb and many cut it this way because it makes a neater cut. Also it's a simpler gauge to do math with and compare to the natural. It's the easiest to tool and die with continuous cutting also for straight lines.

Much talk was on early machines of being too small and many too large, but
the main thing is was the industry as a whole aware of all of this going on?
Scientists were, some of the early big beekeepers were, but how many big
beekeepers and how general the knowledge in industry, especially here in the USA?

We (Ed and I) did a chart comparing the various measurements rhombic to
square decimeter, and also included Baudoux and Rietche measurements where we could. The variance was tremendous as to what the numbers quoted to area for numbers of cells was.

Yet how does one work with this? In a way Allen Dick is correct as much as I
hate to say so, in that linear measurements is the easiest to use and follow.
You measure the field and then try to match your bees comb to it. But do you know how few papers there are with data as to actual field measurements that can be trusted? Very few in old papers and we know that todays feral measurements cannot be trusted, for one does not know if the bees are true feral or freshly absconded bees from overly domestic today's bees.You cannot use todays foundation to measure because it totally doesn't relate to the field at all.

So what am I saying? Don't really know sometimes. Here, probably that when all else fails all you can do is go back to the beginning and come forward again, trying not to make the same mistakes. Around 1983/1984 we became aware that we had several different sizes within our beehives and many within the same supers. In the mid 1980s we tried to standardize and bought several thousand new supers and tons of new foundation. Then we learned about trachael mites fast and the difference between big and small combs and fast started sorting.Small down and Big up into the honey supers.

We reviewed the literature and yes I looked for the old proper way of
measuring (rhombic) as I had learned. We called around and bought the
smallest foundation we could find (much wasn't avail) and choices were few.
As you probably know we decided to make our own, but didn't know how and
couldn't buy foundation mills as they were no longer sold (Root's stopped
making them in 1987) and we considered Tom's too big at the time that were avail in the USA.

Anyway we finally found an old mill out of Kansas from the 1920s thereabouts, and started to learn by teaching ourselves how to make foundation, by reading literature from 1891 Root, and Wedmore. Much written in the books/journals of old do not match what is physically done in making foundation as to how sizing goes. This further complicates the math argument, which all can probably see was something else already. It also makes it hard to talk the subject, because the measurements and physical end product both vary so much. Always have and always will!

The only constant is linear measurement and finding out where the problems stop in the field. The main problem is who can afford to change their combs
and successfully run a farming business today.

As for the math. One thing I do know. You cannot mix it. In any way shape and form. So what does that mean of much of the work done the last 100 or so plus years. Well, in the end it will have to be sorted. Real from unreal world application.

Regards,

Dee A. Lusby