From: "Lee Gollihugh" <nmbeekeeper@swnm.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 07:53:22 -0600
To: <BiologicalBeekeeping@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Mid-season mite 'treatment'

Clay wrote back to Pav:
> > Still the underlying parasitic problem is not being addressed. Eric
> Erikson has shown that bees kept on small cells have about 10%
infestation. When placed back on large cells that rate goes to 80%. Putting
bees on small cells is doing something. Why so little research on this?

Dee Replyed:
> You are so right Clay and this was shown with the larger 900 sizing or
> 5.0mm-5.2mm range for the 10%.

The article in the Bee Culture by a Mr. Charles Simon seems to give the
impression that those who have been in beekeeping knew that a bigger bee was
not going to prosper.

He states, " Our forefathers postulated that bigger bees would make more
honey. The bigger the bee, the more nectar and pollen she can carry. The
bigger the cell, the more it can hold. And so forth. So they devised a
larger worker cell size, and it became the standard . ... Anatomically
bigger bees are metabolically slower bees, more prone to disease and
perdition. And the diseases did come. The industry standard is a sickly
bee."

My question to this group is, why didn't the people we paid to help us, the
people in the LABS, not figure it out first? why did it take people like Ed
and Dee to figure this out, make a workable plan, and then stick to it until
they had it working?
Regards,
Lee