Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner

Cell size survey.

21K views 144 replies 24 participants last post by  HaplozygousNut 
#1 · (Edited)
Watching this video gave me an idea.
A fellow in Tatarstan, Russia is trying foundation-less approach in his Dadants.
(Feel free to ignore or quickly click through - nothing special outside of him realizing that foundation is not necessary and iron wires maybe bad; nothing to see here....)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUo...w03c010c.1549361461740779&feature=em-comments

Of interest is one of his answers to questions below:
Промерил, все ячейки как под копирку в 5,4мм. Не в оправдание своих пчел скажу, но татарская популяция самая южная из средне-русских популяций и возможно более северные популяции строят ячеи большего диаметра.
My good-enough translation of the essential parts:
Measured, all the cell are as if copied at 5.4mm. <GV: remember, this is Tatarstan region> ...... Tatar bee population of is the most Southern population of the middle-Russian populations (GV: i.e. AMM bees) and possibly the more Northern populations build cells even larger..
So - his Tatarstan AMM bees run 5.4mm IF set foundation-less.
I doubt very much they will regress much below that per my readings.
Per the survey of 100 bee tree colonies, the wild AMMs in Bashkorostan build 5.53mm cells (Petrov, 1983).
(Bashkorostan and Tatarstant are adjacent to each other).
Text Font Line Document Ticket


My who-knows-what mutts seem to be bouncing around 5.2mm cell.
I just took few pics of some random frame in the garage for the heck of it (too bad, the perfect vision is no more, grrrr....)
Pattern Font Design Grille Automotive exterior

Pattern Bee Grille Mesh Pipe


Anyone interested, will you post samples of cell sizing in your natural combs?
Pics would be fun to see.
Origin of the bees would be fun to hear.
 
See less See more
3
#62 ·
Her cell size map is certainly thought provoking, but I do not know where she got the data from for it.

What i can say with certainty, is the cell size she claims for my country New Zealand is incorrect, she claims cell sizes smaller than what occurs here.

I have seen a similar map denoting colors for various climates around the world. My suspicion is that Dee has copied this map, and theorised what she thinks cell size should be in these various climates, but without actually consulting the local beekeepers.
 
#63 ·
.... My suspicion is that Dee has copied this map, and theorised what she thinks cell size should be in these various climates, but without actually consulting the local beekeepers.
I pretty much ignore Dee's "science" by now. :)

For sure she never consulted the Russian beekeepers.
She would have told them to keep SC bees and they were fools to keep their 5.4mm bees.
And they would tell her to go back to Arizona to her AHBs.
Probably not very politely.
:)
 
#69 ·
Another thing to consider is what happened when comb foundation was first invented. The next obvious discussion was what size should the cells be.

People were well aware that different sized cells happen in different parts of the hive, plus can vary seasonally. But making different sizes for different parts of the hive was not going to be practical and work against the very versatility that the new moveable comb hives were all about.

So a size range developed that all bees, were happy to use, in all parts of the hive. This size range was 5.2, to 5.5. Pretty much every manufacturer right to the present day, makes foundation that is within this range, and the bees are fine with it.

Move outside that range though, and you are pushing the bees beyond what they might be wanting to do. Hence the risk of 4.9 sized foundation being re worked by the bees, on occasion.
 
#70 ·
This year, my brood have all bee hatched out on SC frames, half of which I have shaved down to the 31.5mm as suggested by someone.
I had no brood in the honey frames.
My natural mite drop and that after treatment have been minimal, so much so that I was worried about it but am too inexperienced to know what is going on and can only hope.
My major problem right now is that it looks like my hive has CPV or herbicide poisoning, which I am currently researching
 
#71 ·
Mischief, here is a link for a video on CBPV http://www.honeyshow.co.uk/lecture-videos.php
Look at the video by Kirsten Stainton called “EFB AFB typing and Chronic Bee Paralysis”.
My hives had this (first time ever) last year, 3 out of 17. All the hives overwintered well (including the CBPV ones) except 2 hives, one a top bar, which died of starvation and small clusters. The rest of the videos are great also. Deb
 
#74 ·
Gee, stupid website just ate my response for nothing. Trying again..

OK, GG, I do get what you are saying.
This seasonal cell variation/bee size variation is a brand new idea to me (confirmed by comb surveys so far, in few cases as I reported).
Of course, this idea may be brand new to most anyone too - unless I am missing some secretive research about it (outside of similar observations by another fellow we mentioned above).

YES - I need be keeping better record of this if I am to claim any credible findings (queen changes, etc, etc).
I get that and I should try harder to make the time spent worth it.
Well, I am no scientist for a living - family/kids priorities have been successfully killing off my urges to work on several "citizen science" projects (so far).
 
#76 ·
Well, I am no scientist for a living - family/kids priorities have been successfully killing off my urges to work on several "citizen science" projects (so far).
GregV:

For what it is worth, I do appreciate you taking the time to post these observations- scientist or not, it has been a thought-provoking item of note that gives us all a lot to consider. Thanks again for sharing the intel- have a great weekend.

Russ
 
#78 ·
GregV, :) just wanted you to have something to think about. I have heard of "winter bees" and seen documentation about how they have more protein stuffs etc , for winter. So with box swapping the Lang management process has, we cannot ascertain much from them. But with your long frames you have more data points. I'll Bet they make cell builders, nectar carriers, and other things we do not yet fully comprehend. We know the queen can choose between drone and worker, winter bee, maybe they are more gradients, related to time of the year we do not yet understand. be interesting to track the same queen all season to see if there is the same size shifts, and knowing they start on top in the spring and end up on the bottom in the fall, we can make some interesting observations.
 
#79 · (Edited)
GregV, :) just wanted you to have something to think about....
Sure, now that we have this discussion going, I will consider maybe a single colony just for this particular observation for the summer.

It will need to be setup properly.
For example - there must not be horizontal comb breaks as they are not really normal in a tree hollow setting.
Especially the ceiling - that is very much static and set once and for all.
So they have a very good origin for any kinds of construction works then.

I wonder if the horizontal comb breaks (so typical for a multi-body hives of Lang/Dadants) are detrimental in some ways.
Especially IF combined with the routine practice of body switching vertically.
That would totally screw up normal and seasonal bee cohort segregation implemented by seasonal cell size dynamics.
Once there is no very clear and fixed origin - that will be hard to create a determinate cell sizing gradient top to bottom (since the tops and bottoms keep switching about).

Other thing, I will need to have them build blank frames and keep track of those frames (the builder team #, etc)

Other thing, I wonder then even if my own horizontal comb breaks are already bad.
Like on this pic:
Bee Honeybee Beehive Insect Apiary

I wonder IF the horizontal comb break is sort of a "reset" of the cell sizing pattern.
As discussed somewhere here (LJ does some good talk on that) - too wide of a horizontal supports force the comb break - may not be a good thing.
I consider to make the horizontal frame bars more narrow so to not interrupt the combs.

PS: for folks down South these talks maybe less relevant due to more forgiving climates;
but up here room for an error is kind of small and requirements for the bees are high just to stay afloat.
 
#81 ·
Would any of this have anything to do with the frames sizes?
No, but it has a lot to do with the distance from the center of the brood nest. Bees build the smallest cells in the center of the brood nest and gradually increase in size as they go out. They will not exceed a certain size, but will vary with the brood area often composed of 4.9 or 5.0 cells while 3 or 4 frames from the center they draw 5.1 or 5.2. Also, cells will often be stretched a tad vertically and compressed horizontally. They may measure 4.9 one way and 5.1 the other. Check this by letting a colony build comb. It is very easy to demonstrate.
 
#82 · (Edited)
No, but it has a lot to do with the distance from the center of the brood nest. Bees build the smallest cells in the center of the brood nest and gradually increase in size as they go out. They will not exceed a certain size, but will vary with the brood area often composed of 4.9 or 5.0 cells while 3 or 4 frames from the center they draw 5.1 or 5.2. Also, cells will often be stretched a tad vertically and compressed horizontally. They may measure 4.9 one way and 5.1 the other. Check this by letting a colony build comb. It is very easy to demonstrate.
Well, this maybe so if you have classic cold way/central entrance - you have the nest aligned to the entrance (about centrally).
I don't do those.
My things are off to one side.

I suppose wherever the main nest is situated that is where they will build the appropriate cell size (if allowed to build so).
Be it in the middle or on a side.
 
#86 ·
Now that I access to more natural combs again (from the dead-outs) - documenting more cell size cases.
The combs below, after taking the pics, I cut up and froze for later bee bread harvest.
Almost felt bad partially destroying this beautiful, classic open frame, free hanging comb sample.

Strange and not anticipated, but the lowest section in the open frame example is 5.5 mm (rather large for a natural comb).
So far I have been finding that the lowest sections of the large natural comb have the smallest cells.
This example got it all backwards - not a clue.

The other, the ugly comb, was more predictable - go-down-smaller-you-get (I ignore the drone combs and only look at the worker cells).

Bee Honeycomb Beehive Insect Membrane-winged insect

Technology Electronic device

Bee Honeycomb Beehive Honeybee Insect

Bee Honeybee Beehive Insect Membrane-winged insect
.
 
#90 ·
Here in New Zealand the only 4.9 sized cell you will find in a wild removal will be an odd one where there is a fault or join in a comb. Other than that they don't exist naturally.

Yet in Lusby's colored map of the world indicating cell size, she has NZ down as in the 4.9 cell size zone. Or, 4.8 - 5.0 to be precise. In reality finding anything under 5.1 would be rare.
 
#91 ·
Yet in Lusby's colored map of the world indicating cell size, she has NZ down as in the 4.9 cell size zone. Or, 4.8 - 5.0 to be precise. In reality finding anything under 5.1 would be rare.
At Apimondia one of the posters during one of the poster sessions addressed this. Very well detailed, and it showed the math error in Lee Dusby's work where she determined that 4.9 was a 'correct' cell size from historical data. After fixing the math error, the result becomes 5.1....
 
#92 ·
I tested 4.9 extensively from 2005 to 2016 and reached only one conclusion. My bees were unhappy with 4.9 cells. I could force them to accept the foundation and they would draw it, but over time they would rework sections of the comb into larger sizes including large amounts of drone comb. This highlights exactly what it should. The bees Dee has naturally build 4.9 and the bees I have are happiest with 5.1. It is genetics!

There are some subtle effects on spring buildup associated with cell size and frame spacing. The combination of narrow frames at 31.5 mm spacing center to center plus 5.1 foundation results in about 27% more cells covered by a given size cluster of bees. This enables bees to built up to a spring peak in 7 to 8 weeks as compared to combs at 35 mm spacing with 5.3 foundation that peak in 10 to 12 weeks. That is a nice boost in my area since some of the early flows produce crops of honey for a strong colony. It requires careful management to avoid swarming.

All of my colonies are on 5.1 cells in square Dadant hives. Mite counts showed zero differences based on cell size, but huge differences based on genetics.
 
#93 ·
I tested 4.9 extensively from 2005 to 2016 and reached only one conclusion. My bees were unhappy with 4.9 cells. I could force them to accept the foundation and they would draw it, but over time they would rework sections of the comb into larger sizes
My experience exactly FP. I was told that bees build larger than 4.9 because we have raised them in artificially large foundation, and only when they have been "regressed" for enough generations will they revert to the normal 4.9 cell size.

So I was able to force bees to build 4.9 cell size and ran hives on that size for 2 years. In that amount of time one would assume the number of generations would be enough to fully regress the bees.

Then i wanted to try natural comb and moved some of these bees into hives where they could build natural comb. Imagine my surprise when these small bees would not build comb at 4.9 and in fact the very smallest was 5.1 and most was in the 5.1 to 5.3 range. One hive went straight into building full combs at 5.6, which they used for raising workers.
 
#95 ·
You still following me around? :eek:

Wondered where you been. :D

Thanks for sharing all my TF bees were lost but it's hardly a secret it is all documented here on Beesource Mischief. Great to hear your bees are surviving now you are treating them.
 
#97 · (Edited)
An interesting quote from this book:
https://www.rusuley.ru/images/Шабаршов - Ученые пчеловоды России (1986).pdf

Page 52 from the chapter about G. P. Kandratiev (1835-1905).

... в течение 20 лет наблюдал за гнездом в неразборном соломенном ульеи пришел к выводу: несмотря на такой большой возрастсотов, пчелы не рождались мельче, как многие утвержда-ли;
Translation:
....for 20 years he observed a bee nest in a non-separable straw hive and concluded: despite the old age of the combs, the bees did not become smaller as many stated.....

Just another reputable observation.
So much for the natural regression to the "Lusby" SC and down.

PS: hard to believe the combs in the nest were 20 years old and unchanged;
it is more reasonable to assume that bees just destroyed/rebuilt the combs when their natural ergonomic thresholds required the resizing back to normal (whatever the normal was).

PPS: unfortunately, I did not find any specification on what exact bee did G. P. Kandratiev observed in this 20 year project - likely some random mutts (he experimented with and kept most all European bee races at his apiary with the pure Caucasians being his favorite; the Africans were out of the question, of course).
 
#98 ·
I have my dad's copy of "The ABC and XYZ of Bee Culture", which is the 1947 edition.

under the entry CELLS, SIZE OF HONEYCOMB, ER Root provides an interesting bit of the history of the development of foundation.

On page 125 he writes:

"In 1876, when AI Root, the original author of this work, built his first roll comb foundation mill he had the die faces cut for 5 worker cells to the inch. While the bees built beautiful combs from this foundation, and the queen laid in the cells, yet, if given a chance they appeared to prefer their own natural comb not built from comb foundation. Suspecting the reason, Mr. Root began then measuring up many pieces of natural comb when he discovered that his initial cells, five to the inch, from his first machine were slightly too small. The result of his measurement of natural comb showed slightly over nineteen worker cells to 4 inches linear measure, or 4.83 cells to one inch."

These are likely German Brown Bees. 4.83 cells per inch = 5.26 mm cell size. 5 cells per inch = 5.08 mm cell size.

I suppose the measurements were made on typical combs, not the smallest comb cells at the center of the brood nest. Since prior to this time foundation was not in common use, This gives a good idea of natural cell size. Comb foundation was invented in 1857. However it was not until the machinery described above was developed that it became commercially available.

There is also quite a bit of discussion of the history of comb foundation, and a nice discussion on attempts to breed larger bees by using larger cell sizes which was apparently in vogue in the 30's and 40's. The author is quite skeptical of these attempts, and provides a practical explanation of why larger bees would not have substantial advantages.

So i'm not planning to regress my bees any time soon.
 
#99 ·
>...for 20 years he observed a bee nest in a non-separable straw hive and concluded: despite the old age of the combs, the bees did not become smaller as many stated.....

>So much for the natural regression to the "Lusby" SC and down.

Dee quotes Grout who says the same. They will only get smaller to a certain point and then the bees chew out the cocoons and they stop getting smaller. Grout's paper showing this is here on Beesource under the cell size portion of Dee's writings.
 
#100 ·
Something relevant from my recent readings....
(GregV's free-hand translation).

Julian Lubieniecki
A complete practical Guide for Beekeepers
1859
............
Part 1
Theory of Beekeeping.
............

Paragraph 1
We here have three types of bees:
a)Local bees
b)Italian bees
c)Mutts of the two

Two varieties of the local bees (a) can be distinguished.

Forest bees.
One may say these are our authentic pure bees. The forest bee is black, shiny, with insignificant light rings; small in particular, sometimes not bigger than a fly, and very voracious. These are our wild bees. This bee is found in large forests, particularly in Lithuania, but also in Poland where bee-tree keeping is still practices................

Dark-gray bees.
The other local bee. These are different from the forest bees, having black and white rings. ..... This variety is the most numerous here, especially in the places far from the forests.....
And so Julian Lubieniecki documents the presence of some wild local bees "no bigger than a fly".

Since these are true wild bees, no comb management is to be assumed.
Of course, at the time of this writing the comb management amounted to the removal of it during harvest (which then forced periodic comb rebuilding).
Since no one removed the true wild bee combs, those likely were in the continuous use for decades at a time.
 
#101 ·
Quote:
Build a house, ten cubits high, with all the sides of equal dimensions, with one door, and four windows, one on each side; put an ox into it, thirty months old, very fat and fleshy; let a number of young men kill him by beating him violently with clubs, so as to mangle both flesh and bones, but taking care not to shed any blood; let all the orifices, mouth, eyes, nose etc. be stopped up with clean and fine linen, impregnated with pitch; let a quantity of thyme be strewed under the reclining animal, and then let windows and doors be closed and covered with a thick coating of clay, to prevent the access of air or wind. After three weeks have passed, let the house be opened, and let light and fresh air get access to it, except from the side from which the wind blows strongest. Eleven days afterwards, you will find the house full of bees, hanging together in clusters, and nothing left of the ox but horns, bones and hair.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugonia

Quote:
The story of Aristaeus was an archetype of this ritual, serving to instruct bee keepers on how to recover from the loss of their bees.


And that was before the time of internet, youtube and forums. :applause:
 
#102 ·
Just in case some newbee pops in here and missed it: (and to prevent more bee damage due to cell size obsessions...)

Conclusions
Taking averages from the above table, we obtain a mean worker cell size of 5.27 mm which is almost identical to the pre-1900 average of 5.25 mm (see above). Even if Murrell's range of 4.6 to 5.6 mm is included, the mean for post-1900 comb cell size is 5.22 mm.

We can therefore conclude that worker cell size in naturally constructed comb has not changed appreciably (<0.5%) throughout recorded beekeeping history, not even since the introduction of foundation in the late 19th century.
from: http://www.dheaf.plus.com/warrebeekeeping/natural_cell_size_heaf.pdf

There also has been done a thorough survey of cell sizes done. See:
http://www.dheaf.plus.com/warrebeekeeping/cell_size_measurements.htm
 
#103 ·
Just in case some newbee pops in here and missed it: (and to prevent more bee damage due to cell size obsessions...)
From #19.

Sure.
Yes, over time I was becoming annoyed by the "4.9mm or die" religion.
So the 4.9mm wing of the TF folk kept ignoring the inconvenient truth of the naturally large Russian bees - this was getting old.
Partially, why this non-scientific survey.
 
#107 ·
What I observed on the bees irregular construction on Mann Lake PF100 series small cell frames, appears to be a slight slant of the cell that increases as each one struggles to base on the small pattern but expands as the cell is built up. Each cell leans a bit further till after about 3 inches they give up and throw in a row of irregular wax and then take off again almost in synch but losing it again after a few inches . Each one of the adjustment rows reminds me of a stump fence. They show up on all three axes of the cells. The previous forum owner, Barry, made a similar observation. He gave it the adjustment rows name and suggested about 20% wasted space on a frame.

I did have a few frames quite well drawn but did not note where they were located in regard to brood center or not. I only ever bought one box of them.
 
#109 ·
I came across another cell size survey from the former USSR.
Here it is.
It says :
N. M. Glushkov (1956) measured the cell sizes built by the swarms under natural conditions in different regions of the Russian Federation.
The worker cells sizes found to be (in mm):
Siberia - 5.55
Central European region (of Russia) - 5.43
Far East - 5.43
Ural - 5.39
Southern regions (of Russia) - 5.25
Line Font Parallel Number Pattern



Source - Lebedev, Bilash. 1991
Biology of the honey bee.
Beekeeping manual for the technical colleges.
ISBN on the picture.
Font Number Document Parallel
 
#110 · (Edited)
To @Litsinger
Then I inherited some homemade Warre colonies that were top-bar only. They were also occupied with 'small-cell' bees but they had the freedom to define comb spacing and cell size as they saw fit.

What I learned is that the worker cells could be as small as 4.7 mm and as large as 5.3 mm, even on the same comb face. They also tended to want the brood nest combs spaced approximately 1-1/2" on center.
So Russ, I am thinking to re-intro some 1.5" frames back into my deep hives - just for my own convenience.
Especially so now that I concluded natural comb does nothing of significance for me.
You just reminded me of the same.

Reason:
  • after several seasons trying to push 1.25" frames I concluded that their are not a good fit for the single-tier deep/long hives.
  • this is because when on the same large frame the bees are trying to define the honey storage, they really, really want them to make thicker BUT the 1.25" spacing gets in the way.
  • thus we have a conflict of different comb thickness desired on the same frame - fat for the honey and skinny for the brood
  • (the issue can be resolved by smaller frames, i. e. typical medium frame based Lang setup where brood and honey are located on different frames, thus different spacing can be arranged)
  • 1.25" large frames result in something like the pictured - where certain frames are being sacrificed so that the others can be fattened up.
Wood Artifact Rectangle Shelf Sculpture

Brown Wood Wall Gas Metal



This frame below filled in the empty window left in the next frame over (see the left, upper quadrant - it is visibly raised and contains much fatter honey comb):
Furniture Table Window Plant Wood


This frame was left uncompleted to allow the neighboring frame (see above) to be fattened up.
At the same time, the lower brood quadrants worked out OK being skinny.
So the skinny comb and the fat com on a 1.25" frame don't get along.

Grille Mesh Wood Gas Tints and shades
 
#111 ·
To @Litsinger


So Russ, I am thinking to re-intro some 1.5" frames back into my deep hives - just for my own convenience.
Especially so now that I concluded natural comb does nothing of significance for me.
You just reminded me of the same.

Reason:
  • after several seasons trying to push 1.25" frames I concluded that their are not a good fit for the single-tier deep/long hives.
  • this is because when on the same large frame the bees are trying to define the honey storage, they really, really want them to make thicker BUT the 1.25" spacing gets in the way.
  • thus we have a conflict of different comb thickness desired on the same frame - fat for the honey and skinny for the brood
  • (the issue can be resolved by smaller frames, i. e. typical medium frame based Lang setup where brood and honey are located on different frames, thus different spacing can be arranged)
  • 1.25" large frames result in something like the pictured - where certain frames are being sacrificed so that the others can be fattened up.
View attachment 67109
View attachment 67110


This frame below filled in the empty window left in the next frame over (see the left, upper quadrant - it is visibly raised and contains much fatter honey comb):
View attachment 67112

This frame was left uncompleted to allow the neighboring frame (see above) to be fattened up.
At the same time, the lower brood quadrants worked out OK being skinny.
So the skinny comb and the fat com on a 1.25" frame don't get along.

View attachment 67111
@GregB
Hmm not an issue with my double deep long lang, I can do 10 frames in the bottom and 9 in the top. or any spacing the bees want.
They have brood cell density where they need it and fat comb in the honey storage area.
Just sayin.....

GG
 
#114 ·
I have built dedicated narrow frames with proportionately narrower top bars etc. to maintain ideal bee space. When you reduce interframe space you increase the importance to have absolutely no twist in the frames or wows in the foundation wiring. (if using wired wax) or even with plastic. With the minimum nominal spacing any warps or wows results in compromised bee space and in such places building on one frame is skipped and adjacent frames comb extended. Result is interference when lifting frames. The advantage stated with early spring build up is sacrificed to earlier swarming and less user friendly hive to work on.
 
#123 ·
Interesting range map of cell size variation:
http://resistantbees.com/fotos/klimazonen.jpg (image from here Cell size of bee honey comb - ResistantBees_english)

I seem to be in a transition zone from small to large cells size where I am in central North Carolina.

I have heard the bees in southern Spain are big:
I have seen Spanish bees in Southern Spain. They are large and very aggressive as a hybrid that became its own subspecies. Who knows if any traits survived after all this time. I personally wouldn’t want to manage them. Certainly not for hobby breaking.
These big bees from southern Spain might be Apis mellifera major because A. m. major is known to be very big, and they are said to range into southern Spain from this range map:

Quote from Brother Adam's book "In Search Of The Best Strains Of Bees":

"Apis mellifera major nova

The particular honeybee found in the Rif mountains of Northern Morocco is doubtless a local variety of the Intermissa. Its exceptional external or morphological characteristics differ from those of the race it originated only in regard to size and in no way qualitatively. The region where it is found is limited to a small area within the actual habitat of the Intermissa. Apart from a maximum known size of body, toungue reach and length of wing, the Rif bee is according to our findings identical to the Intermissa in its physiological traits and behaviour - with possibly one exception, namely, in consumption of stores in winter. According to our findings, the pure Rif bee and crosses manifest an almost unbelievable extravagance in this direction. In identical circumstances, viz. locality, time and climatic conditions, the consumption of the Rif colonies averaged 14.4 kg.; that of an Anatolian cross 6.75 kg. The average of all other strain and crosses was no more than 9.45 kg. The Rif F-1 manifested in a marked degree the particular aggressiveness and undesirable traits of the typical Intermissa."


A. m. major and A. m. mellifera could be the biggest subspecies of bees.
 
#124 ·
Interesting range map of cell size variation:
That map has been floating around the internet for many years and I think was originally drawn up by Dee Lusby.

I can say with absolute certainty that it is not remotely accurate for New Zealand, or Australia. I don't know how Dee obtained her data, but I suspect the map has been drawn more from the way she thinks the world should be, than how it actually is.
 
#126 · (Edited)
Can you say where Dee obtained her data for NZ and Australia for 100 years ago? Rather convenient to say here's the facts, but, 100 years ago.

Dee Lusby would have no clue what the cell size in NZ was 100 years ago.

In anycase the cell size was not smaller 100 years ago, if we are talking the same bee breeds. The idea it was smaller 100 years ago is based on a mis interpretation of the data. two different ways of measuring it. Most of the measurements taken back then give a cell size the same as now, if we interpret the method of measurement correctly.

EDITION.PDF (plus.com)

Conclusions: Taking averages from the above table, we obtain a mean worker cell size of 5.27 mm which is almost identical to the pre-1900 average of 5.25 mm (see above). Even if Murrell's range of 4.6 to 5.6 mm is included, the mean for post-1900 comb cell size is 5.22 mm. My running average for ongoing measurements of cell size in feral comb from natural nests and foundationless comb from Warré hives is 5.3 mm.28 We can therefore conclude that worker cell size in naturally constructed comb has not changed appreciably (<0.5%) throughout recorded beekeeping history, not even since the introduction of foundation in the late 19th century.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top