From: "deelusbybeekeeper" <deelusbybeekeeper@excelonline.com>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 19:21:56 -0700
To: <BiologicalBeekeeping@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: bee bobs

Hi to all on Biological Beekeeping

Scott wrote:

> As stated, this is a 2% "difference" not just a 2% "decrease",
> correct? I am wondering what you are using for your benchmark? Your
> bees, or perhaps some standard that was determined many years ago?

Reply:

Sizing has been looked at over the years by various researchers for
correlations, between subcastes, various body parts and location of hive.
Apatov comes to mind as a researcher who looked at bees closely for changes through the latitudes. Also coming into my mind is the name Bornus (Poland I believe here) who worked with other researchers on dissection of workers and measurements of bees, if I remember correctly, having to do with wax making by the bees of several races, over a span of several latitudes.

> Is this to say that for my latitude and altitude, 4.9 mm may not be
> the optimum? Could it perhaps be larger or smaller? Is the 4.9 mm
> "blueprint" just a way to get the bees started in the right direction
> until they figure out their optimum cell size on their own?

Reply:

I believe that a person by the name of Humbolt (not sure on spelling?) here
on altitude vs latitude did correlations on sizes. However, you say *Is this
to say taht for my latitude and altitude, 4.9mm may not be the optimum?*
Well yes. It could be perhaps larger or smaller. It is what we call a PORTAL
size and thus in a way like you have thought a "blueprint" to get the bees
started in the right direction, within their natural spectrum of sizing
range, as most animals, including bees all have small, medium, and large
ranges of size.

Now by PORTAL size, 4.9mm brood cell sizing is found in both the tropical
and temperate zones for bees. In the tropical zones it is up high in
elevation, like where Monticola bees are found. In temperate zones the
sizing is recorded in archives as pre-turn of the 1900s as far north as the
UK, and even in Sweden bees have been recorded on foundations with range
from 4.6mm to the 5.0mm range (Erik can correct me here, as he would know best).

Now we know that 5.0mm-5.1mm lets bees live with mites, but secondary
diseses can destroy in high stress years. We went to the 4.9mm size and the
bees now, not only lived, but the secondary diseases cleared up to very low
appreciable levels of 1-2% or less. Now since 4.9mm size is in the top range
of the tropical zone and the middle range in the temperate zone (with sizes
below and above), it makes a portal size for transfer of bees between both,
and in many latituded where yellow and black bees come together, the 4.9mm sizing is right there as an average sizing range, or at least appears to be.

So yes Scott, the 4.9mm would be a good way to get the bees off chemicals,
and safe from mites and secondary diseases and then lt you find your way
further by either letting the bees size themselves down by cocoons building
up in the cells naturally, or yes, even going bigger, if you want to. Though
right now I would not recommend it due to the problems of Varroa, etc.

> I know that you've determined 4.9mm to be the optimum cell size for a
> particular temperate zone, which includes both of our regions of the
> country, however, I wonder if there is room for deviation based on
> the
> statements you made in responding to Joel's question? For instance,
> my climactic conditions vary greatly (latitude and altitude slightly)
> from those in Arizona.

Reply:

Yes, Scott. I would say get your bees safe and established again and then we can all ponder and start again to see just what that room is for deviation.
I think it would be an excellent topic for research to tackle, but I could
be wrong. In the final what is best for the bees, is to follow the bees and
fine tune sizing by regions, as to be different by race/strain they cannot
all be the same in size, etc. Problem is, where is the research needed.

I hope this helps some.

Dee