# Plastic Foundation : Natural Cell Size



## Gully Bee (Apr 27, 2019)

Has anyone used the natural cell size plastic foundation made by Premier Bee Products?


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

I haven't but am curious as to what size is natural cell size?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Anything embossed isn't really natural, but it may or may not resemble natural size by being in the range of natural. They don't say what size it is. That's a red flag for me because I care what the size is.


----------



## AR Beekeeper (Sep 25, 2008)

Dr. C.C. Miller, writing in the late 1890s, gave measurements of foundationless comb he found in his brood nests that would equal 5.2 mm average for worker cells. Roy Grout, writing in the 1930s, stated that the average size of worker cells in foundation was 5.3 mm.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I don't find that average size is the issue. The size in the core of the brood nest is what matters. That is always smaller.


----------



## dudelt (Mar 18, 2013)

As Beemandan stated, what constitutes "natural cell size"? I don't see the size listed anywhere on the website.


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

I wrote Premier and asked them about cell size. See their reply below.




> The cell diameter when measured from the inside of the cell wall directly across the cell to the opposing cell wall is 4.93mm.
> When measured using the 10 cell row measuring technique that would include walls the measurement is 5.105 mm.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Then their cell size, based on the way is it commonly measured, is a tad over 5.1, as it is normally measured including cell wall thickness. 5.1 is towards the lower end of natural cell size for most bees, however they should say the actual size.


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

Maybe. What is the cell "wall" diameter of wax cells vs. the plastic? If we're measuring total distance across 10 cells it might be different, based on the thickness of the cell wall. 
I wonder if anyone has measured the distance "inside" the cell on "small cell" wax comb built from small cell plastic foundation?


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Yes well that's a point of confusion. Most comb foundation, the thickness of the cell wall is much thicker than the wax cell wall that the bees will build on top of it. So they are claiming an <inside measurement> of 4.93, but that is just the shape embossed on the foundation, and not what will be the inside measurement of the cell once it is built by the bees.

The accepted method of measuring cell size is across 10 cells, so to be clear, they should be using that method. 

Pretty much all foundation sold falls within the natural range of sizes, so, by a keen marketer, any foundation could be marketed as "natural size". But because of the beliefs and controversies around "natural size", any comb foundation seller should state the actual size, using the normal measurement method, to remove misunderstandings.

I rather suspect that they think they will sell more comb foundation if they say it is "natural size", than if they do what all other comb foundation manufacturers do, which is to state the actual size. It's also likely a bunch of 4.9 cell believers will buy it, because in their minds, natural cell equals 4.9. But they will have been duped, because the cell size is just over 5.1. 

The 4.93 they mention is obtained by a measurement method nobody uses and in my view is a marketing ploy aimed at small cell believers.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

At the end of the day, I have to ask....who cares?
And why do they care?


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

Mann Lake PF series plastic frames are generally considered "small cell", and are advertised as "4.9 cell size". Do they measure across 10 cells, or are they also measuring the distance between cell walls to come up with 4.9mm? I have some PF-120s but have never measured the cells.


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

Oldtimer said:


> The accepted method of measuring cell size is across 10 cells, so to be clear, they should be using that method.


Accepted by who ? Over the years I have at times 'measured' a sample of my natural brood comb with the butt-end of precision drill bits - with most, a 5mm drill bit cannot be inserted into a cell - thus they are sub-5mm. With the odd one or two cells, it can *just* be inserted ... as an interference fit.
Of course I'm just a natural cell 'believer'. 
LJ


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

Just measured cells on some frames with a dial caliper. 
Measured across 10 cells. Divided by 10 to calculate average cell sizes below. 

PF-120 plastic frames
1.88 in = average .48 mm cell size.

Drawn Foundation Comb
2.27 in = average .577 mm cell size.

Starter Strip Comb - Center of frame
2.02 in = average .513 mm cell size.


Looks like what they are producing falls somewhere between Small Cell & Wax Foundation, pretty close to my starter strip comb, which some might consider "natural".

The averages above include the cell walls. Looks like the PF frames I have from Mann Lake run much less than a .49 mm cell size. I measured the inside diameter of the embossed cell on the plastic frame and came up with .0160 in - or .41 mm.

Maybe someone better at math than me could double check my inches to mm conversion calculations above.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Ran your first 1.88 measurement through an online measuremnt converter, looks like you are pretty close.

Ran your other numbers through, and again, if decimals are rounded up, they are all good.

In your post, you have put the decimal dot in the wrong place, ie, .48 mm cell size should be 4.8 mm cell size LOL.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

little_john said:


> Accepted by who ? Over the years I have at times 'measured' a sample of my natural brood comb with the butt-end of precision drill bits - with most, a 5mm drill bit cannot be inserted into a cell - thus they are sub-5mm. With the odd one or two cells, it can *just* be inserted ... as an interference fit.
> Of course I'm just a natural cell 'believer'.
> LJ


BY online chat sites LOL. If you read Bush, Parker, or any of the other "gurus", that's how they do it. 

Not saying there is anything wrong with your method LittleJohn, because the cell walls bees build are so thin that sticking your drill bit in, the cell wall thickness will hardly be an issue.

Where cell wall thickness will be an issue is with man made foundation, where the cell wall may be much thicker than what the bees will build. As demonstrated by Premier Bee Products own measurements of their foundation, where they got 2 very different cell sizes, depending if they included the cell wall thickness as stamped on their foundation.

The original small cell proponent, Dee Lusby, measures cell size by measuring across ten cells and dividing by ten. IE, the cell wall is included.

Using different measurement methods can fudge things, and this has been a problem historically, with old measurements being misinterpreted and people thinking comb size a century ago was different to today. All this can be solved by using just one, standard method.


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

If you measure across 10 cells in the manner employed during biological surveys, then what will be measured is the diameter of 10 cells and either 10 or 11 cell-walls, depending on how much care is taken. 
When this measurement is divided by 10, the result will be a fairly good average figure of the *cell-spacing* involved, but will *not* provide the average *cell-size*. This can only be determined by subtracting the thickness of the cell wall, which will be problematic to measure with any accuracy as this will vary according to the age of the comb.

If I were a manufacturer of plastic comb, then the first thing I'd do is select a suitable natural comb to use as a reference - which opens-up it's own can of worms, for how does one decide which comb to select ? Then - I'd pour fine Plaster of Paris into an area chosen as representative of that comb (more worms ..), before measuring a significant number of PoP plugs with an external micrometer. This procedure would provide me with a cell-size diameter which I could then - with all honesty - describe as being 'Natural', and which could therefore be used as a reference diameter for tooling purposes.

But - there would be little point in then measuring across 10 such plastic cells for some kind of confirmation, as the proto cell walls would need to be - in all probability - made much thicker than a natural wax wall due to manufacturing constraints. Thus there will always be a lack of correspondence between cell-size measured at the height of a proto wall, and at the height of a cell fully drawn-out with wax. I can see no way of avoiding this discrepancy - but as the cell wall will thicken with use anyway, and thus the cell-size diameter reduce accordingly - does this really matter ?
LJ


----------



## AHudd (Mar 5, 2015)

I guess it would matter if you are trying to determine cell size or cavity size created by the cell walls. Measuring cell size (including walls) is the same as laying out a ceramic tile floor with joints. How many will fit in any given space is the answer.

Alex


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

Oldtimer said:


> In your post, you have put the decimal dot in the wrong place, ie, .48 mm cell size should be 4.8 mm cell size LOL.


Thanks, that one was staring me right in the face and I still missed it. Lol


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

The thickness of the few mm of foundations embossed cell walls has very little to do with the functional size of the finished cell. As soon as the bees pull away from that base, they make cell walls their preferred thickness regardless of the base; It is the center to center space of the imprints that controls the working dimension. Another thing that has been mentioned is that every occupancy of the brood cell leaves remains of the cocoons that further reduce diameter: does not change distance spanning 50mm or however you measure it.

In my climate with my bees, the 4.9mm ML pf 1xx series foundation creates a mess of correction and adjustment ridges of wasted and drone cells amounting to near 20% of comb area.

I would like to see well controlled studies to support what advantages there are to different cell nominal diameters. Hunches, convictions, or a few seasons trial with only one type of bee, etc., dont constitute "well controlled" studies.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Regardless of how one measures it, I still have to ask....why does anyone care?


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

Some people don't care at all, for them it's meaningless. Nothing wrong with that.

Others may be more naturally inquisitive. Everyone spends their time doing "something". 
Inquiring Minds Need to Know.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Mike Gillmore said:


> Some people don't care at all, for them it's meaningless. Nothing wrong with that.
> 
> Others may be more naturally inquisitive. Everyone spends their time doing "something".
> Inquiring Minds Need to Know.


No argument here. It’s simply that the topic has been debated six ways to Sunday already. So, my inquiring mind would be interested in why others renew the debate. . It isn’t a criticism…just a curiousity.


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

beemandan said:


> It’s simply that the topic has been debated six ways to Sunday already.


That's a great point. And it's relative to a host of other beekeeping practices and management styles. Discussion and debate marches on endlessly.

Those who have been keeping bees for a long period of time and are active on sites like this have seen these topics resurrected over and over again, with pretty much the same results in conclusion. 

I think part of the force behind topics like cell size being brought back up time and time again would be curious new beekeepers moving into the arena. These topics might be brand new to them and interest is sparked. Once brought back up seasoned beekeepers with their various firm stances on the subject chime in with their thoughts. The cycle continues. 

I think we have witnessed this for many years here on BeeSource. So many different topics have been brought up in discussions and never end with a general consensus on the subject. Periodically they are revived and begin again.


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

I just reread this thread. No one ever answered the poor guys/gals question. 



> Has anyone used the natural cell size plastic foundation made by Premier Bee Products?



The thread was hijacked and proceeded down a rabbit trail that had nothing to do with what was asked.
Guilty as charged.


----------



## grozzie2 (Jun 3, 2011)

Mike Gillmore said:


> Mann Lake PF series plastic frames are generally considered "small cell", and are advertised as "4.9 cell size".


That would be for the PF-100 series. My understanding is the PF-500 series frames have cells embossed at more traditional sizes. To me, from a marketing perspective, this makes a lot of sense. Those mostly interested in 'small cell' are usually also quite concerned about cost per unit. Those more interested in durability, ie the PF-500 with the metal inserts are typically not hung up on this cell size debate.

When we started, we got all PF-500 series frames, the ones with the metal insert. Wind the clock forward now for 9 years, every one of them is still in good shape. In our third year with bees, I tried to save some bucks, bought a few cases of PF-100 frames, the less expensive ones without the metal inserts. I've had quite a number of 'broken ears' on those since then. If buying Mann Lake frames again going forward, I have no interest any any of the lines that dont include the metal insert in the ear to strengthen the frame. Cell size is a non issue, in reality, bees will build whatever size cells they want. I've got lots of PF-500 and PF-100 frames where they went ahead and built drone comb that's nothing like the embossing.


----------



## dudelt (Mar 18, 2013)

Mike Gillmore said:


> I just reread this thread. No one ever answered the poor guys/gals question.


I would have been happy to answer the question but this post was the first time I have ever heard of the company and the product.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>When measured using the 10 cell row measuring technique that would include walls the measurement is 5.105 mm.

This is the normal method of field measuring cell size. So for the purposes of discussion it's 5.105mm cell size. I want 4.9mm. My bees sometimes build as small as 4.6mm.


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

beemandan said:


> Regardless of how one measures it, I still have to ask....why does anyone care?


Because combs are both crucial and central to the life of the honeybee. We currently have a situation in which there is a range of cell sizes, from the 'natural-sized' cell (badly termed 'small-cell' - suggesting that it's size is somehow abnormal) to the 'standard-sized' cell (which really ought to be termed 'large-cell' in order for it to be more readily identified as a human invention).

When a situation develops in which there are two extremes of cell-size, it is only a matter of time before some large-cell bees find themselves expected to work within the smaller cells of natural-cell combs. How would you like to be forced to wear shoes two sizes too small, or live in a house where the ceilings were so low you couldn't stand up straight ? (the best analogies I could think of at short notice) 
LJ


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

little_john said:


> (badly termed 'small-cell' - suggesting that it's size is somehow abnormal) to the 'standard-sized' cell (which really ought to be termed 'large-cell' in order for it to be more readily identified as a human invention).


The reality is that both are human inventions. 4.9 small cell is an appropriately named invention of the Lusby’s. ‘Standard sized’ is an invention of beekeepers from the last century. Neither is natural for European races of honey bees. Both exist on the outer fringes of natural brood nests. One is no healthier than the other. 
About 15 or so years ago the UGA honey bee lab was doing a small cell investigation. One of the leading bee removal people brought samples of brood comb from 150 removals containing comb from newly built nests as well as some that had been in place for a number of seasons. They meticulously measured the cell widths. Less than 5% were 4.9 or smaller. Less than 5% were 5.3 or larger. The bell curve centered at 5.1. 
Now if you are referring to a particular African race of honey bees, scutellata….4.9 would probably be about right.


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

How on earth can a natural-sized cell be a human invention ? The size I'm talking about - whatever it happens to be - predates the Lusby's, indeed predates the human race by a few million years.
LJ

PS. It would be helpful if you did not trim a quotation to fit your argument.


> We currently have a situation in which there is *a range of cell sizes, from the 'natural-sized' cell (badly termed 'small-cell' - suggesting that it's size is somehow abnormal) * to the 'standard-sized' cell (which really ought to be termed 'large-cell' in order for it to be more readily identified as a human invention).


Nowhere in my post do I specifically refer to 4.9mm.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

little_john said:


> Nowhere in my post do I specifically refer to 4.9mm.


You’re the one who associated 'natural-sized’ and ‘small-cell’. I would say that small cell is pretty commonly the term for 4.9mm in beekeeping circles. 
I trim quotes I post so that readers can see what specifically I am responding to without having to read entire posts to try to infer it. It has absolutely nothing to do with changing context. 
I’m not going to play semantic games with you. 
My only point was that foundation comes in several different sizes. There is absolutely no scientific evidence that one size is healthier or works better than the others. So….to my original statement….why does anyone care?


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Michael Bush said:


> >When measured using the 10 cell row measuring technique that would include walls the measurement is 5.105 mm.
> 
> This is the normal method of field measuring cell size. So for the purposes of discussion it's 5.105mm cell size. I want 4.9mm. My bees sometimes build as small as 4.6mm.


MB, I meant to ask....
You keep saying your bees do 4.9 - naturally.

Well, what is your real natural cell population *range*?
It can not be uniformed 4.9mm, top to bottom/side to side.
Does not happen normally. 
It should be a range from X mm to Z mm with some predominant sizing Y mm (varies colony by colony too).
For example, 5.2mm-4.6mm and maybe 5.0-4.9mm being predominant range.
I have reported my own observations with pictures and can produce many more examples of natural variability.
I would love to see your representative pictures - trivial to make a few.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

beemandan said:


> ….why does anyone care?


I personally care because the proper ergonomic cell sizing (AND cell size range distributions) are a natural component in the overall bee health (including bee mental health - that's right).
If you don't care - fine.
I do care and am curious of how it all fits together.
If this sounds crazy - fine as well.

My left foot is a tad larger than my right foot.
What do I do with the standard shoe sizes?
Well, I err on a bit larger size (by 1/2 size). 
Does this bother me? Sure, it does.
But, that's is all that I can outside of ordering personally custom footwear (not that rich).

Fortunately for the bees, they can make their own shoes very well.. eh, cells.
Custom sizes too, IF they given a chance.
I wish I could do the same.
But my own bees can do whatever the heck they wanna do.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Well, what is your real natural cell population range?

As I have said, I'm mostly interested in the core of the brood nest. That is typically in the range of 4.6mm to 5.0mm. The outer edges of that core run larger.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>why does anyone care?

You obviously don't. My reasons:
http://bushfarms.com/beesnaturalcell.htm
http://bushfarms.com/beessctheories.htm

>There is absolutely no scientific evidence that one size is healthier or works better than the others. 

Not true:

http://www.apidologie.org/index.php...29&url=/articles/apido/pdf/2002/01/Martin.pdf
http://funpecrp.com.br/gmr/year2003/vol1-2/gmr0057_full_text.htm
https://beesource.com/point-of-view...itic-mite-infestations-in-honey-bee-colonies/
http://medycynawet.edu.pl/images/stories/pdf/pdf2014/122014/201412777780.pdf
https://link.springer.com/article/1...9aWvRQWlImQcfRifvq1XzsHHytlZspO5f_z5B1l8IrKLg


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Michael Bush said:


> >There is absolutely no scientific evidence that one size is healthier or works better than the others.
> Not true:


Unsure either way.

I have already reported on wild bees of Russia, like here:
https://www.beesource.com/forums/sh...ee-trees-log-hives-etc)&p=1699509#post1699509
Those bees have been persisting fine when left to their own devices completely or only managed at very primitive levels.
The natural cell size for those particular bees ~5.4mm.
Those are naturally large bees.
About the same applies to the bees of Russian Far East (the original mite-resistant stock imported into the USA).

So - natural size varies race by race.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Michael Bush said:


> Not true:


Wrong.

Let’s see.

The first cited study was a parasite invader in a scutellata colony that lays eggs in the scutellata cells, cells that are much small than those natural to the invader. Mites reproduced poorly on the invader in that unnaturally sized cell.

The second cited took comb produced by Africanized bees, Italian bees and Carniolan bees and put Africanized bees on each sized comb. The mites reproduced more readily when the smaller bee was put on the unnaturally large comb. No effort was made to put the larger bees on the smaller comb.

There is a cool table in the paper that shows the natural sized brood comb for each race. Anybody who believes that 4.9mm is natural to European races of honey bees should consult this chart. Africanized bees the mean is 4.84, Italian bees 5.16 and Carniolan 5.27.

I didn’t read any of the others. The first two were clearly unnatural occurrences and had nothing to do with small cell for European races. Total bunk!

A couple of trials conducted specifically to determine the effects of small cell (4.9mm) on varroa:

The University of Georgia. JBerry et.al.
https://bees.caes.uga.edu/content/d...e-program-images/research-archives/m08138.pdf
We conclude that small-cell comb technology does not impede Varroa population growth.

Cornell Univerity. TSeeley et.al.
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01003589/document
Small-cell comb does not control Varroa mites in colonies of honeybees of European origin


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

beemandan said:


> My only point was that foundation comes in several different sizes. There is absolutely no scientific evidence that one size is healthier or works better than the others. So….to my original statement….why does anyone care?


I'll try again ... (love a challenge)

In the above unclipped quote, although you're focussing upon foundation - the key word is "size", although no doubt you'll consider this to be an example of "semantic games".
The reality is that bees cannot and will not live upon a sheet of foundation, no matter what it's made from - but only within comb drawn upon that foundation - which was used 'as a template' as it were ...

*So why am I making this distinction between foundation and the comb drawn upon it ? Precisely because it is perfectly possible to produce the same size of cells WITHOUT using foundation.*

I don't use foundation (never have), and so my bees can reasonably be considered to have created 'natural-sized' comb - 'natural', that is, for them* (*)* - this has been measured at around 5.0mm +/- 0.1mm (as best as I can tell), but it wouldn't surprise me if there were the odd few at +/- 0.2mm. Not sure I care all that much - as the bees are free to draw whatever they want. *Other people describe such a cell size as "small cell"*, as if there's something 'odd' or abnormal about it (i.e. 'smaller' than what ?) - but I must stress that this is a perfectly 'natural' size - being that which the bees themselves have chosen - it's the larger human-prescribed size which is abnormal/unnatural and is only viewed as being 'normal' due to extended familiarity with it - that, and commercial marketing.

If you don't care - that's fine, no-one's going to criticise you for holding that view - but you appear to be questioning why the rest of the beekeeping community do not hold the same opinion as yourself. If that is a fair summary, then you are adopting a very arrogant stance.
LJ

PS. The role of science is to investigate, not to prescribe.

*(*)*There appears to be a range of 'natural' cell sizes (which was part of an earlier quote which you thoughtfully clipped-off out of consideration for the readership ...) with Michael Bush describing 4.9mm (or even smaller), and GregV's knowledge of Russian bees which are very much larger at 5.4mm - so geography and sub-species appear to be factors of influence.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

little_john said:


> I'll try again ... (love a challenge)
> 
> In the above unclipped quote, although you're focussing upon foundation - the key word is "size", although no doubt you'll consider this to be an example of "semantic games".
> The reality is that bees cannot and will not live upon a sheet of foundation, no matter what it's made from - but only within comb drawn upon that foundation - which was used 'as a template' as it were ...
> ...


This is what it looks like when a post isn’t edited to indicate what the actual reference might be. But, since it seems to trouble you, I will copy the entire post. 
In reply to your comment….it appears that you are using foundationless. It is whatever size the bees make. I cannot understand why you care what size they make. Do you take measurements of your comb? If so, why? 
Which brings me to repeat….why does anyone care?

By the way, I would suggest that you not invent definitions for terms that are already in common use. I would submit that the term 'small cell' pretty much universally indicates 4.9mm in beekeeping circles. If you use it otherwise, don't be surprised if folks have difficulty understanding your message.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

I have a lot more productive things to do than shoehorning larger bees into smaller cell denomination frames. Regressing! yah! right! I tried the 4.9 mm foundation and my bees showed me what they thought of it. I think they made more of a mess of it than they really had to just to make their point!


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

GregV said:


> I personally care because the proper ergonomic cell sizing (AND cell size range distributions) are a natural component in the overall bee health (including bee mental health - that's right).


First…let me apologize if you feel like I’ve taken your information out of context. I try to reduce the quote for the sake of brevity but some folks seem to think I’m being disingenuous. 
How do you insure that your bees are making the proper size? What is the proper size?
If you are foundationless…do you measure each frame and cull those that don’t have proper ergonomic cell sizing? 
If you simply allow the bees to produce whatever size the produce without any intervention….without taking measurements…..then it appears to me that you don’t care what size they draw. And if that’s the case….how can you say that you personally care?


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

crofter said:


> I have a lot more productive things to do than shoehorning larger bees into smaller cell denomination frames. Regressing! yah! right! I tried the 4.9 mm foundation and my bees showed me what they thought of it. I think they made more of a mess of it than they really had to just to make their point!


Back in the old days when I thought I cared about such things I attempted to regress about thirty hives. The rules that were being espoused then were that you first had them draw out an intermediate foundation of 5.1mm. I did that and my bees drew that out pretty well. Then I began inserting frames of 4.9 as per the rules of the day. I had to cull the majority as they were a mess. And a second attempt didn’t go much better. During the second season I got them forced down and within two seasons after, all collapsed under the mite load. 
It was costly in terms of material, bees and my time.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

beemandan said:


> First…let me apologize if you feel like I’ve taken your information out of context. I try to reduce the quote for the sake of brevity but some folks seem to think I’m being disingenuous.
> How do you insure that your bees are making the proper size? What is the proper size?
> If you are foundationless…do you measure each frame and cull those that don’t have proper ergonomic cell sizing?
> If you simply allow the bees to produce whatever size the produce without any intervention….without taking measurements…..then it appears to me that you don’t care what size they draw. And if that’s the case….how can you say that you personally care?


I personally care to allow bees build that *they need/want.*
Don't you see the difference? 
Why "cull those that don’t have proper ergonomic cell sizing"? 
What?

No small cell enforcement, no large cell enforcement, no XYZ cell enforcement - these are all human logic designs required for efficient industrial solutions or to sell some products.

I just let them build whatever they want to build per* their genetic predisposition and their particular need at the time.*
Allowing bees to behave per their natural predisposition what I care about (including the cell designs as they see fit).

I posted plenty of pictures and observations already, not to re-post them again.
Say, here:
https://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?351943-Cell-size-survey&p=1714857#post1714857


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

GregV said:


> I personally care to allow bees build that *they need/want.*
> Don't you see the difference?


Of course. If you'd said that initially there wouldn't have been any confusion.
People were discussing methods to measure cell size and I asked 'why does anyone care?'. 
Now you're telling me that you don't measure...so obviously you don't care how it's measured nor do you care what those measurements might indicate .
Sheesh.


----------



## JWPalmer (May 1, 2017)

Y'all hold on while I go get some beer and popcorn, this thread is a blast to read.

Simple definitions according to JWP.

Natural sized comb, whatever the bees produce on a foundationless frame. I imagine the actual dimensions change throughout the season but I have never felt the need nor had the inclination to measure.

Small cell, by consensus, anything at or below 4.9mm. If the bees draw 4.9 cells, it is natural for them. If they dont, forcing 4.9 on them is un-natural.

Large cell, what the queen lays drone eggs in. I do not need a ruler to find these cells or know what they are. 

I suspect most bees are happy to use the cell sizes embossed on traditional foundation. When they want to make cells of another size, they do. That is why many foundation frames still have drone comb in the corners. 

Why I may or may not care, I do not want excessive drone comb and I do want wax. After the flow, my predominantly drone frames, which are now filled with nectar, will be moved into the upper box and culled next spring. If the bees need more drone comb next year, they will have to draw it anew on the foundationless frames I give them.

Cheers!


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

My sense of common usage is:
Small cell = 4.9mm
Less than 4.9 indicated by the actual measurement.
Drone cells = cells the size a queen intentionally lays unfertilized eggs in.
Conventional foundation = about 5.3 to 5.4mm
Foundationless = a noticeable range of cell sizes in the worker brood area.

Who knows…maybe I’m guilty of inventing definitions.

Beer and nuts here.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

When I'm talking to small cell types, I usually refer to anything bigger than 4.9 as LC (large cell), purely because they immediately know what I'm talking about. 

Technically if the cell size is 5.0 to 5.4 i should probably call it NC (natural cell), but that would infuriate some of the small cell believers who also hold that only 4.9 and down is natural cell.

Each to their own terminology i guess. Be nice to have it standardised but different ideologies will probably prevent that happening. There should be a standardised method of measurement though, and i would suggest measuring across ten cells and dividing by ten, purely because that is what Lusby used, and most others use, and it's easy. The reason for using a standardised method of measurement is that using a variety of measurement methods has caused so many problems and misunderstandings in the past. To have any kind of sensible discussion we at least need to have a common starting point which is a standard of measurement so everyone is on the same page, before even the discussions begin.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

beemandan said:


> .......Sheesh.


You stated:



> Regardless of how one measures it, I still have to ask....*why does anyone care?*


Care of *what*?

It looks very much to me as if you asked - "Why does anyone care of.....* natural cell size*?"
Well - I do and I said so.
I let my bees build natural cell size (whatever that cell size happens to be).


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

beemandan said:


> Wrong.
> Let’s see.........


I do agree that these AHB refs/links should be just dropped and never pulled back again.
Enough of this AHB non-sense while the larger resistant Russians are ignored as if they do not exist.

But I do not see a clear cut "wrong" vs. "right" either.

I do see a need to just start this cell sizing research from a clean slate over again (toss that D. Lusby pseudo-science about global requirement for 4.9mm already).
For one, normal environment should be given to the bees so they express their genetic predisposition in cell construction (population by population, colony by colony, season by season).


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

little_john said:


> I'll try again ... (love a challenge)
> ............
> LJ


+1
Well stated, LJ.


----------

