From: DeeALusby1@aol.com
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 12:12:29 EST
To: BiologicalBeekeeping@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: cell size measurement

In a message dated 1/1/02 6:13:34 AM Pacific Standard Time,
queenbee@gil.com.au writes:

> Why then did European Foulbrood (EFB) not show up at the same time?

Reply:
Who said they did not? Also were is the mention of para-foul back early on
that Dr Burns wrote about?

> I was also told that AFB and EFB became a problem
> after moveable frames became in common usage. It would seem that the USA
> embraced moveable frames much quicker than Europe and also the migratory
> nature had a big bearing on the spread of AFB.

Reply:
Moveable frames were not the whole picture. New foundations were also going
in at the time. As for migratory beekeeping, I don't really think it was as
widespread state to state at that time as we are talking pre WwII. Migratory
then was not like it is today, it was more localized within states if at all
with local beekeepers.

> Why did chalkbrood take such a long time to become established in the USA?
> There was large celled foundation long before chalkbrood turned up.

Reply:
Yes there was large cell foundation, but only in the late 1960s when 706 7/11
foundations were introduced in the USA did chaulk appear in the early 1970s
within a matter of 5-7 years. Here luckly we are not like Europe with many
manufacturers. We are centralized with our manufacturing, and american
beekeepers are known for not changing combs fast. This centralizing helped.
Also WWII helped slow the phase-in of larger combs as used bigger and bigger
in Europe.

> I think it is a long bow to say that all the ills of the beekeeping industry
> are down to the enlarged cell. What about genetic selection? Bees were
> dosed with antibiotics so there was no way of telling what was being
> selected for.

Reply:

Every calamity of beekeeping, since the era, of the turn of the last century
1900, of enlarging combs periodically in phases, to adjust the bees up, as
originally planned,has brought more problems of mating and disease.

> It certainly wasn't for disease resistance. Why couldn't the
> resistance been lost and is now only being regained through work by people
> such as Dr. Marla Spivak and certain beekeepers who are taking the time to
> become drug free and select?

Reply:
You think they are better then God and Nature in solving the problems under
control for thousands of years? I think not for too many variablies are at
play here. Especially since putting the bees back into the natural specturm
of sizing, and then immediately within a short time span, the problem is
solved. After all, anything less then 6 years is quite a short time compared
to the never ending time of evolution and the world we live in. Why cannot
Spivak just snap her fingers and it is fixed, like shaking down and resizing
onto a natural system and it is done, by the time the broodnests are worked
back up again, unlimited style on natural sized combs within the natural
specturm?

Regards,

Dee A. Lusby (not doing anything really except putting bees back on
foundation sized within the natural specturm of sizing i.e. Cowan. I also
cull to 10% drone on anyone frame. Why is this such a big deal to some?)