From: Pav <bobhog@pin.co.nz>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 8:8:31 +1200
To: <BiologicalBeekeeping@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Bee Bobs

At 5/05/01 03:02:00, you wrote:
>Date: Saturday, May 5, 2001
>Time: 8:00PM - 10:00PM MST (GMT-07:00)
>
>A requested monthly chat scheduled for New Zealanders (Pav
>requested Saturdays as Sun Monthly Chat no Good due to
>International Date Line)...

D'oh! Hope some other Kiwi or Aussies or Asian residents took advantage of this. I would've needed a bit more notice, as i only downloaded the above reminder AFTER the appointed time (i tend to go bush most weekends, often no phone from Friday to Sunday inclusive). Apologies.

At 6/05/01 08:18:00, Dee wrote:
>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.

This way of sizing down does nothing about the packing density of the cells, and leaves 'gaps' between the brood (though they be cocoon-filled gaps - the grubs are not 'shoulder to shoulder').

One of the suggestions being put forward as to why 4.9 works against both varroa and other diseases is that the tighter cell packing on smaller foundation enables better environmental regulation by the bees (eg nest thermoregulation).

Since Dee is suggesting above that reducing cell size would work without the above benefits from improved cell-packing, i wonder Dee do you feel the described holistic nest environment effects are of little importance in the reason small-cell foundation works?

Or are you saying to see if the bees allow the coccoons to build up thereby to determine whether they want to go yet smaller - then presumably let them build their own comb of that size?

-Pav, wondering what the heck IS a 'bee bob' again?