# What is actually the natural cell size for worker comb



## Bkwoodsbees (Feb 8, 2014)

Thanks for posting Richard, I have always had my doubts. Robert


----------



## Learning2Bee (Jan 20, 2016)

I let my bees make what they want to make. And that is my natural cell size. And, I would say these two things.

I don't experience my bees mirroring comb size.

My cell sizes are all over the place


----------



## Marcin (Jun 15, 2011)

Richard,
I get your post but wondering why you chose the TF sub-forum to post this in. I understand that small cell is associated with treatment free beekeeping, just curious as to your reasoning.

I've used small cell and still have small cell frames in use but I don't rely on it as a way to control mites. I do like the fact that small cell provides more brood cells per frame.


----------



## MonkeyMcBean (Mar 1, 2017)

What about the historical papers written about up sizing bees to get them to harvest nectar from red clover?

What about the other data that suggests bees at different latitudes draw different sized comb? 

I haven't read the paper yet, but am certain I'll have more questions. 

To be clear, I am not arguing. I don't have bees yet, and do not plan on using foundation. I just haven't heard any information like this. Only claims that it doesn't help with varroa like Lusby and Bush state.


----------



## MonkeyMcBean (Mar 1, 2017)

Ok. Two pages in...

The writer uses scare quotes around the word *organic*. This makes me think he has an agenda of his own. And secondly the entire paper is based only on a mathematical argument. Nowhere does it address actual data of actual bees drawing natural comb. For instance Bush's apiary is mostly foundationless to my understanding, and has been so for quite some time. His bees are not drawing 5.3. I don't have bees as I stated before, but if the claim is that natural cell size is 5.3, you'd better come with some actual arguments, not show me how someone else did their math wrong.


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

Richard, what the writer attempted to show is based on an argument that historical comb measurements are inaccurate. There is no question that measurements recorded 100+ years ago show a smaller cell size compared to the 5.3mm foundation today. The original foundation molds made and used by A.I. Root were 5.1mm. These were increased to 5.3mm just after the turn of the century (1900). Wax stretching usually means that foundation sold today produces cells 5.3 mm one direction and 5.4mm another. In other words, they are stretched a tad by the rolling process.

Is 4.9mm a natural cell size? Yes it is natural, but only for small bees such as Africanized bees. Do bees actually make cells only one size? No, they always make a range of cell sizes from roughly 4.3mm up to 5.7mm. Taken as an average, European bees build cells about 5.1mm to 5.2mm. This is the reason I went to the trouble of having Dadant make 200 lbs of 5.1mm foundation for my Dadant frames.

What effect does using larger cell size have on the bees and on the function of the colony? Larger cells result in larger bees. This was thought desirable at one time to maximize bee size because the bees could carry larger nectar loads and/or could better utilize crimson clover flowers because larger bees have slightly longer tongues. Larger cells affects buildup of the colony in spring because a given size cluster covers fewer large cells. This is not a major problem, the bees can still build up, it just takes a bit longer. Slower buildup in turn affects the swarm impulse because the bees don't hit peak population for a few weeks longer.

Change the paradigm, what happens when small cell foundation is used? The bees build up a bit faster and therefore reach swarm strength sooner. Combine small cell with narrow frame spacing (32mm or less) and this effect is pronounced. The cluster can cover about 26% more cells therefore has a significant advantage in breeding faster than varroa. What if we put naturally small bodied bees on small cell? The smaller bodies of the bees counter the effect of covering more cells negating the earlier buildup.

tldr, 5.1mm or 5.2mm is natural size for European races but there is a LOT of variation in cell size as built by the bees.


----------



## whiskers (Aug 28, 2011)

Who can say, with any real surety, what size a natural bee is. Bees have been domesticated for probably five thousand years, perhaps more. Their keepers bred most of the other critters they had for big, or productive, usually the same thing. Assuming this true for bees, and considering bees habit of swarming back into the wild, and the fact that the probably bigger drones from kept hives may have been more successful breeding with wild queens it could be that a present wild bee may be different from the bee found at the time of first domestication.

If someone could find old enough bee dna and compare it to modern bee dna it would be interesting, at least to me.
Bill


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

Dee Lusby published the map about cell size in different climate zones.

View attachment Zellgröße = Klimazone.pdf


So the bees should build 5.0-5.1 in my zone, which they did on natural comb in worker broodnest area.

To me the space between frames is what the bees need to build naturally. Even with foundations the space is too much in most hives, the space is honey comb space to make it easier to work with.
David Heaf has some nice pictures on his website about that.

The most unnatural thing is 5.4mm cell size in broodnest area and 38mm frame space. This is honey area space.
Most unnatural is having the same cell size and space in the whole hive.

When it´s about mites, I´m with fusion-power.
Except:


> Larger cells result in larger bees.


Dennis Murrell wrote some comments about that. He claims the bee size depends on the season. I believe he is right and it depends on the food situation also.

What I´m convinced of is that small bees in big cells have much space to breed mites. And because they are not provided well with food they are more susceptible.
But this is only musing, I have no evidence.
Could be this is a bad situation but nobody so far examined this.


----------



## Richard Cryberg (May 24, 2013)

This is really emblematic of some in the TF group. Some of you criticize the gentleman's fine paper and have not even read and understand what he has proven!

Yes, bees draw a range of cell sizes. That is no surprise at all. It also is pretty much meaningless drivel as they are forced to do so when merging different starts on foundationless comb. Tiny cells like 4.8 are unnatural and always have been. Root did some fine experiments back in the late 1800s to show what Italians prefer.

I put this in the TF group simply because this is the group that persists in calling something unnatural natural. This paper has been disclosed before in BeeSource and none of you read it apparently or you would not be calling 4.8 natural.

Organic has a scientific meaning also. It means, quite simply, that the chemical contains carbon atoms. Practically all pesticides are organic. Exceptions would be copper or sulfur fungicides which are inorganic. So, when you use the term "organic" agriculture it should always be in parentheses as you are using an unnatural definition for the word organic. There is no such thing as organic farming. There is only "organic" farming. At least that is the case if you wish to use proper English and appear educated. This author who is Italian knows English better than some readers of this group it seems.


----------



## MonkeyMcBean (Mar 1, 2017)

Richard Cryberg said:


> There is only "organic" farming. At least that is the case if you wish to use proper English and appear educated.


Language changes. Context is clear in this case. It is clear we are talking agriculture and not chemistry. To assume there is a "proper" way to speak restricts our ability to grow.


----------



## tpope (Mar 1, 2015)

MonkeyMcBean said:


> Language changes. Context is clear in this case. It is clear we are talking agriculture and not chemistry. To assume there is a "proper" way to speak restricts our ability to grow.


There is a reason that Latin is used for much of science... That language does NOT change. Then in fact the context becomes clear.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

dr. cryberg (phd) is posting here in part because i have encouraged him to do so. he has been around bees longer than some of us have been alive and has experience with successfully keeping bees off treatments. thank you for participating richard.

the ability to grow is influenced by a number of factors, not the least of which is being teachable and having respect for those having more experience. questioning this or that teaching is a healthy part of the process when done with a grain of humility. just sayin'.

from time to time we have a contributor that is just starting with bees or may not even have bees yet and therefore doesn't have the experience to draw from. with most issues in beekeeping it's usually not black or white so you have to be careful with interpreting information given here or elsewhere.


----------



## Lburou (May 13, 2012)

Honey bee cell size is a perennial issue wherever beekeepers gather. I welcome this discussion and want to be open to science, by a real scientist.

Having said that, I'm curious about how each successive hatching bee, leaving a cocoon behind, adds to the bulk of the honeycomb thereby reducing the volume of the cell...? I've read many assertions about this, but haven't run into any data. Can anyone point us to some reading on the subject of shrinking cells with use?


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

I have posted this before.
Back when UGA was conducting their small cell trials they had a local professional bee remover bring core brood nest samples from about 150 separate removals for measuring. Many were from long established colonies.
Their results were that less than 1% of those brood cells were 4.9mm or less. Less than 1% (excluding drone cells) were 5.4 or larger. The average of all of the samples was 5.1


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

5.1 is the average in the core of the broodnest on my foundationless frames.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

The short edge of a business card (5.08 cm) makes a fantastic over-under gauge for counting 10 - 5.1 mm cells. 

Inspection of dozens of wild comb, topbar comb, foundationless comb reveals that most bees draw out core brood nest cells slightly larger than 5.1. The mean-as-nightmares feral AHB in our area makes 5.1 in the brood area.

I find bees on the PF-126 rework the cells to expand their size by the third year on the comb --- irregularly pinching off every 10 cell or so and remodeling the remainder.

I think the "magic" belief that 4.9 cells eliminate varroa is a case study in the delusion of crowds led by charismatic medicine men.


----------



## msl (Sep 6, 2016)

Richard Cryberg said:


> Root did some fine experiments back in the late 1800s to show what Italians prefer.


He did..... started with 5.08 and settled on 5.26, but thats a ways 5.4, and that fuels the debate, often erroneously 

I think people get confused by the 3 terms...there is enff documentation out there that-
"normal foundation" is the extreme large end of nature and is not the norm, but some examples have been found
"small cell foundation" is the extreme small end of nature and is not the norm, but some examples have been found
"natural comb" is in the middle and dependent on genetics

People hear that 5.4 was done to artificially enlarge the bees and then automatically think small cell would be the "normal natural choice", this is compounded by foundation less people often calling their "natural comb" "small cell".

The fact that this has been an endless debate and experimentation sense the 1st milled foundation leads me to beleave that any difference is negligible.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

JWChesnut said:


> The short edge of a business card (5.08 cm) makes a fantastic over-under gauge for counting 10 - 5.1 mm cells.
> 
> Inspection of dozens of wild comb, topbar comb, foundationless comb reveals that most bees draw out core brood nest cells slightly larger than 5.1. The mean-as-nightmares feral AHB in our area makes 5.1 in the brood area.
> 
> ...



The highlighted text describes what *I* see when I use the 4.9 PF frames. The cells are built each slanted out an increasing small amount from one of their start points until they lean so much that they have to make a transition ridge skipping a cell or two and start over. Sometimes they plug a row or two of cells and sometimes throw in a row of drones for an adjustment ridge. I dont see the same effect when they draw out the larger Rite Cell foundation.

I attribute some affect due to my cold, marginal conditions, so it may be some influence other than simply pushing them in a direction they seem really not inclined to go; they dont seem to take advantage of the potential cell count of the smaller cell size frame, but fritter it away with doodles!


----------



## Riverderwent (May 23, 2013)

squarepeg said:


> 5.1 is the average in the core of the broodnest on my foundationless frames.





beemandan said:


> Back when UGA was conducting their small cell trials they had a local professional bee remover bring core brood nest samples from about 150 separate removals for measuring. Many were from long established colonies.
> Their results were that less than 1% of those brood cells were 4.9mm or less. Less than 1% (excluding drone cells) were 5.4 or larger. The average of all of the samples was 5.1


[emphasis added in the above quote from Beemandan]

In the article referenced by Dr. Cryberg, "On the natural cell size of European honey bees: A "fatal error" or distortion of historical data?", Francis Saucy says, "Similarly, in an interesting and detailed study, Wyman (1866) reports an average cell width of 5.11 mm (range 4.70-5.33) for three rows of 10 cells measured in three directions on natural combs of European honey bees in North America." https://books.google.com/books?id=f...ce=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

More interesting may be Dr. Jeffries Wyman's statement in _Notes on the Cells of the Bee_ that, "The isolated study of anything in natural history is a fruitful source of error."


----------



## AR Beekeeper (Sep 25, 2008)

Langstroth, Dadant, Doolittle, A. I. Root, and Dr. C. C. Miller all measured worker size cells in frames of comb drawn without foundation. The measurements they found put worker size cells in the range of 5.1mm up to 5.3mm. Read the old issues of Gleanings in Bee Culture and American Bee Journal, the articles will show that the idea that "natural cells" are 5.0mm and smaller is incorrect.

In the 1930s, when Grout did his studies on enlarging bees, he stated that the average size of cells made from foundation used in the brood nest was 5.3mm. I have never seen in print why 5.4 was introduced, but it probably was a compromise for a foundation to be used in the surplus honey supers and in the brood nest. Beekeepers are always trying new things and 5.4mm would be easier to extract from than 5.1 or 5.2 cells. 

How many have tried the 7/11 foundation sold by Kelley? That was the largest size Grout tried when enlarging worker bees. It was produced and sold on the idea that queens would not lay workers or drone brood in that size cell, therefore excluders did not need to be used, and honey would be easy to extract. In the past I have seen in some posts that 7/11 was produced in the attempt to raise larger workers, this was incorrect as reading Grout's paper on enlarging bees will show.


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

Richard, please consider this quote from the referenced paper.



> Apart from the queen cells, which have their own distinct shape and protrude from the comb, three kinds of hexagonal cells appear in a hive: worker, drone and honey cells. Worker cells, in which worker brood is reared, are usually the commonest, the smallest and are located in the centre of the comb


The author clearly considered three cell sizes yet very little of the prior work he referenced differentiates between worker cells and honey storage cells. This suggests at least a few of the authors made measurements of honey storage cells which are a bit larger than would be used in the middle of the brood nest.

To me, 4.9 cells are a divergence from the normal size that bees prefer. My bees tell me this by drawing free comb in the broodnest in the range 5.1 to 5.2 mm. This is with bees that have been on small cell for 5 or more years.

I take exception to your statement that "This paper has been disclosed before in BeeSource and _none_ of you read it apparently or you would not be calling 4.8 natural." I read that article and many others in the last 2 years. Please expand your reading or be less inclusive in using absolutes.


----------



## AvatarDad (Mar 31, 2016)

What an argumentative and unproductive thread.

I've read possibly 50 bee books, and literally hundreds of websites. Maybe 1000 articles on Beesource. I've never seen anyone anywhere make the claim that 4.8 was "natural". (Quote used on purpose). Even the most hippie-fied website I know still says that 4.9 might be possible after several generations of regression, and that 5.1 is considered normal.

I also checked 5 English usage websites just now, and could find *no* source or authority advising that any use of the term organic to describe anything other than chemistry needed quotes. While grammar flames are generally considered to be petty and childish (because, you know, they are), this one goes that extra mile by being flat wrong. (I leave the rest as research for the motivated reader, but will support my assertion with https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/organic which gives plenty of sample sentences, none with quotes). 

[And, yes, I get the irony of using the Oxford English Dictionary to settle a grammar flame question, something I've never done before in my life. I feel dirty but coerced. I'll state that I was mad seeing others in this group attacked with a petty grammar flame by someone posting in this group an article which seemed to be trolling from the get-go... setting up the 4.8 mm straw man just to knock it down with condescension. I never start flame wars, but will sometimes respond to one if it is egregious].

Good grief. This is why I no longer read the "Bee Forum" on this site. Trolls.


----------



## msl (Sep 6, 2016)

AvatarDad said:


> I've read possibly 50 bee books, and literally hundreds of websites. Maybe 1000 articles on Beesource. I've never seen anyone anywhere make the claim that 4.8 was "natural".


Maby start with this on beesorce http://beesource.com/point-of-view/...quare-decimeter-measurement-conversion-chart/
and this for books, The 41st edition of ABC XYZ of Bee Culture on Page 160


> "The size of naturally constructed cells has been a subject of beekeeper and scientific curiosity since Swammerdam measured them in the 1600s. Numerous subsequent reports from around the world indicate that the diameter of naturally constructed cells ranges from* 4.8 *to 5.4mm. Cell diameter varies between geographic areas, but the overall range has not changed from the 1600s to the present time."*snip*"reported cell size for Africanized honey bees averages 4.5-5.1mm


in the honey bee: its natural history, anatomy and physiology (1890) Cowan puts natural range as 4.72–5.36 mm



> Even the most hippie-fied website I know still says that 4.9 might be possible after several generations of regression, and that 5.1 is considered normal.


 Don't know how you missed Michael Bush's web site, he says 4.6-5.1 is "natural" http://www.bushfarms.com/beesnaturalcell.htm

in 2011 David Heaf found cells as small as 4.7mm... natural, but not normal for his area http://www.dheaf.plus.com/warrebeekeeping/cell_size_measurements.htm

Back to the task at hand, the chart by lusby is claiming with her change in how the math is done, claims that "natural" runs much smaller then thought, down to even 4.58

The link DR.RC posted, seeks to disapprove Lusby's math in favor of the normal math 
Ie in normal math Swammerdam's measurements from the 1600s comes to 5.1mm, with Lusby's math its 4.7mm.

its easy to see if you look in to the subject that 4.8 is not a straw man argument and this is not a troll
please don't point fingers when you your self have not looked in to the subject despite bragging about all the reading you have done....
This doesn't work when people go on their gut and emotions... you starting an argument over the meaning of "organic" with a PHD Chemist, stop and let that sink in 

DRRC is trying to Shine the light of the scientific method in the TF world to help people separate what is good practices, and what is the TF equivalent of FGMO fogging.

That starts form the ground up, in this case of small cell, that's starting with the discussion of lusbys argument that "small" is the natural norm and do to a math error most people are using the wrong sized foundation.


----------



## Clayton Huestis (Jan 6, 2013)

I've used 4.9 cell size for the last 16 yrs. and have managed bees on everything from 4.75 to 5.4. Long story made short "most" EHB stocks that I have will naturally draw in the range of 5.05 to 5.25. The very reason I have stopped using 4.9 foundation. 4.7 to 5.1 is great for AHB's, it is the natural range (Lusby's stock is right there). One thing I'm sure of is that most EHB's rarely produce cells over 5.3mm's for brood rearing. 5.4 is a great honey storage size, today 5.4 foundation is most likely a compromise size. Just like 1 3/8 is a compromise comb spacing. From my years of observations 5.1 to 5.2 is the best range for most EHB's. Which behold is right where the Root's figured it to be. My personal recommendation would be for people to use either dadant's 5.1 wax foundation or pierco's 5.25mm plastic. Your life your bees do what you want.


----------



## AvatarDad (Mar 31, 2016)

This is helpful. Thanks. At least there is some context. I've been planning to read ABC at some point, but have been focused on the memoirs lately. (CC Miller is next on the pile).

So, is the whole conversation about the fact that one person in one book (or two, I can't tell) was bad at math? Because I've never bumped into a 4.8mm cult at any bee meeting or in any forum. I love the idea of debunking myths, but this isn't one I've ever heard anyone espouse. (Unlike say "fake moon landing" or "global warming isn't true" for example, both of which my crazy relatives believe).

People with agendas should not do math, I think we can all agree. If you are hellbent on forcing the numbers to your will, you'll end up misleading yourself in the process.


----------



## RichM (Dec 22, 2015)

Bees allowed to build their own comb will build a range of cell sizes. If one of those cell sizes allows them to coexist with Varroa, then bees using more of those cell sizes should have greater reproductive success. Likewise, those more sensitive to the presence of mites as relates to grooming or removal of infested brood will do better. It will probably be multiple characteristics that give us tolerant bees. The feral bees don't have beekeepers getting in the way.
I tend to roll my eyes when I hear the term "organic". Forty plus years ago I had two semesters of the chemistry of Carbon. Organic gardening was using compost and mulch, and avoiding chemicals. Now organic vegetables are grown in chemical nutrient solutions.


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

Yes and "organic" beekeepers use acids and oils to treat.
And you can call your honey "organic" if it comes from sprayed fields.

Clayton


> I've used 4.9 cell size for the last 16 yrs.


 If you did that for such a long time could one estimate it was no disadvantage even if you changed that arrangement later on?

It´s crazy, when talking to beekeepers here around me nobody ever has measured his comb cells, nor do they ask the cell size of their purchased foundations, nor do they ask where the wax comes from.
But everyone knows that small cells won´t work.


----------



## Learning2Bee (Jan 20, 2016)

SiWolKe said:


> It´s crazy, when talking to beekeepers here around me nobody ever has measured his comb cells, nor do they ask the cell size of their purchased foundations, nor do they ask where the wax comes from.
> But everyone knows that small cells won´t work.


I completely know what you mean. I wish more people around me were more involved beekeepers. But, they aren't. They treat to treat, and don't ever understand why there hives swarm. Their preventitive measures are "adding another super". I guess ignorance is bliss and when you have money to throw at me packages every year it's great.

My bees are allowed to build whatever they want. I get ranges from 4.9- a little over 5.1 in the center of my broodnest. I run local carni mutts.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

How about we all stop arguing and just let the bees decide.
http://www.bushfarms.com/images/47mmComb.JPG
http://www.bushfarms.com/images/47mmCombMeasurement.jpg

This one is about 4.4mm:
http://www.bushfarms.com/images/44mmcomb.jpg

Since they don't build them all the same size and the size starts smallest at the center of the brood nest and grows out from there, I have no doubt we will never have a single number to represent what is natural cell size. But the above 4.7mm pictures were from a package of bees from California dumped in a top bar hive. Next turnover most bees that are 4.7mm have 4.6mm at the core of the brood nest. What is the average size? I don't know. That is a much more complex undertaking to measure than across ten cells at the core of the brood nest. What they are NOT is 5.4mm...

If we stop using foundation they will get back to natural size and we will get clean combs.

There are plenty of historic references and by far the majority say "five cells to an inch" which is 5.08mm. You have to search for references to any larger size.


----------



## herbhome (Oct 18, 2015)

Agee with MB

FWIW. When I bought my bees two years ago they were advertised as 4.9mm bees. I use foundationless, but out of curiosity I measured some of the first comb they drew and it ranged between 5.0 to 5.1.
That was the last measurement I made because I'm just not that curious.


----------



## Learning2Bee (Jan 20, 2016)

I think what Micheal said goes back to what he often references, "everything works if you let it".

I'm pretty sure my bees know what's natural, and they'll do just that.


----------



## Riverderwent (May 23, 2013)

So reading this thread caused me to think about a few things. One is the different uses that quotation marks may have. Like the two questions:
1. What is "owed" to a louse? And
2. What is owed "To A Louse"?
The answers, of course, are: (1) appreciation for giving Robert Burns the idea for a poem about pretensions and knowing that others don't see us the way we see ourselves. That seemed somewhat apt for this thread; and (2) appreciation for showing us something about pretensions and seeing ourselves as others see us.

Another, is that both conventional farming and organic farming are largely "organic" (carbon based), and these days both are fairly "conventional".

And another is that this thread does belong in the treatment free forum, and that it has been helpful to me. Technically, that's another two things.


----------



## Nordak (Jun 17, 2016)

> How about we all stop arguing and just let the bees decide.


:thumbsup:


----------

