I have read a lot about people using small cell and the struggles to 'regress' and the difficulties around keeping them building small cells, etc etc etc.

But it occurs to me that forcing the bees to build consistently small cells is likely to have just as many potential problems as people claim there is with forcing them to make larger cells.

A fair number of the small cell proponents will make reference to the fact that bees naturally make smaller cells. And while this is true, it is also true that bees naturally make a wide range of cell sizes. So isn't the consistency, or uniformity also necessarily suspect if we are to question foundation's effect on bee health?

I can see how people might like foundation for keeping comb straight.

I can see how people might like the ease of one-piece plastic, and the ability to scrape off old comb, or to better see larvae and eggs against a black plastic cell bottom.

But if you're going to talk about small cells in relation to bee health, based on the idea that it's more 'natural' - then I don't get it.

And if you're using small cell foundation, while at the same time claiming that going treatment free is going to allow the bee to 'naturally' gain resistance to pests - while you're restricting their combs - essentially the body of the superorganism - to an artificially imposed, and unnaturally regular structure...

...then I don't get that either.

Large cell or Small cell. Either way, you're pushing the bees to do something that's not within their nature by creating a consistent cell size.

Thoughts?

Adam