# Cell size survey.



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

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).








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....)















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.


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

The cells are inconsistent across the comb with the center of the comb smaller than the edges of the comb. I get measurements between 5.1 and 5.2 mm. My bees have a strong influence from AMM but are mostly derived from Italian genetics otherwise.

I put in the time to study cell size a few years ago. Short version is that Africanized bees are happy on 4.9 but my bees are not.


----------



## grozzie2 (Jun 3, 2011)

GregV said:


> Anyone interested, will you post samples of cell sizing in your natural combs?


My mating nuc frames are half size deeps that we let the bees do freehand, ie just a popsicle stick starter. A tape across a comb from a quadrant that died off last fall shows anywhere from 5.1 to 5.3 depending on where along the comb you count 10 cells.

This comb came out of a mating nuc that's been in use for 3 years, my best guess is the quadrant has been thru 8 or 10 generations of bees as it gets a fresh cell quite regularly when we harvest queens. I cant say for certain when it was drawn, probably 2 years ago. Our bees originated as packages from New Zealand some number of years back, and we've just propogated forward from those over time. This particular colony died off already last fall, we got seriously distracted thru the latter part of the season with a parent passing so a lot of bee work got missed in August and September. I originally thought they probably starved during fall dearth, but teardown shows a lot of mite frass with plenty of honey in the frames. I dont need anybody to explain what happened, I've already figure that part out.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Fusion_power said:


> The cells are inconsistent across the comb with the center of the comb smaller than the edges of the comb.....


It is true and especially on large frames where you get everything (honey band above/brood area below/drone brood there and here/etc).
My large frame cells bounce in size all over the large comb span (17" by 12" in area).
But pretty soon you get idea where the cell sizes converge *too*.

PS: this was the source frame I took few measurements from - a messy natural comb just as they wanted it built;
not a perfect cell in size or shape, as sold by popular "beekeeping" picture books.


----------



## clong (Apr 6, 2015)

grozzie2 said:


> My mating nuc frames are half size deeps that we let the bees do freehand, ie just a popsicle stick starter. A tape across a comb from a quadrant that died off last fall shows anywhere from 5.1 to 5.3 depending on where along the comb you count 10 cells.



My eyes aren't so good either. It looks like there are 10 cells from 9.0cm to 14.0cm. That would be 5.0 mm, right?

I look at the smallest range of ten cells as my yardstick for "cell size".


----------



## grozzie2 (Jun 3, 2011)

clong said:


> My eyes aren't so good either. It looks like there are 10 cells from 9.0cm to 14.0cm. That would be 5.0 mm, right?
> 
> I look at the smallest range of ten cells as my yardstick for "cell size".


I went back to the original and blew it up a bit. The one at 14 is closer to 14.1 than 14.0, so it is closer to 5.1 than 5.0. A slightly larger measurement, from 5.8 to 14.1 is 83mm and there are 16 cells, which works out to 5.2mm per cell.


----------



## lharder (Mar 21, 2015)

Last time I measured about 5.1 mm. My bee size was measured as part of the survey and there was lots of variability in this. Up to 25% difference between hives.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Randomly found interesting feral cell-size measurements from Alaska and putting these up as relevant:


> *Comb cell size measurements.*
> 
> I had three combs that I measured the cell size of that were pretty dark, indicating the colony was there for at least a few years, if not longer, or was a recent tenant of an old bee cavity. I measured ton cells across, in three directions, from cell wall center to cell wall center, as per my mentor Dee Lusby of Arizona. After measuring the cells I added them up, and divided them all together to gat the average cell size of the worker brood cells. Here are the measurements I gathered.
> 
> ...


From: http://alaskahoneybee.com/dev/alaska-winter-bees/bees-trees-feral-bees-alaska/


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

The only natural comb I could find was from Apidea mating hive.

5,3-5,4 mm


----------



## Litsinger (Jun 14, 2018)

GregV:

Finally got around to this- I managed to get one frame of worker comb drawn out in one of the dead-outs and it appears to average just under 5.0 mm. These were from a 'regressed' colony. The corresponding drone comb appears to be near 5.5 mm.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Litsinger said:


> GregV:
> 
> Finally got around to this- I managed to get one frame of worker comb drawn out in one of the dead-outs and it appears to average just under 5.0 mm. These were from a 'regressed' colony. The corresponding drone comb appears to be near 5.5 mm.


Hey, Russ,
I do not think you measured the cells correctly (per the pics).
Please look at my photos and see what I have done.


----------



## Litsinger (Jun 14, 2018)

GregV said:


> Hey, Russ,
> I do not think you measured the cells correctly (per the pics).
> Please look at my photos and see what I have done.


GregV:

Just wanted to let you know I'm not ignoring you- just haven't had the opportunity to revisit the comb and evaluate a 10-cell average.

Previously, I simply conducted an informal measurement of cells at random across the face of the comb and took a photo of a representative cell, measuring from the 1 cm mark.

Thank you for your feedback- have a great day.

Russ


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Litsinger said:


> GregV:
> 
> Just wanted to let you know I'm not ignoring you- just haven't had the opportunity to revisit the comb and evaluate a 10-cell average.
> 
> ...


No problem.

Mike Bush has a good page/pics on how to measure the cells.
http://www.bushfarms.com/beesnaturalcell.htm
That is the approach I use.


----------



## Vance G (Jan 6, 2011)

Now that it has pretty well been established that cell size is largely determined by latitude and variety of Apis Mellifera has no additional survival value, Why do we care? It is an interesting conversation for cold winter nights. But like Swifts stories about tribal wars over cutting off the big or small end of your soft boiled egg, it just does not matter.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Vance G said:


> Why do we care?


Well, certainly no one is pressuring no one to participate.
You don't have to care, participate, or read this.
If you run foundation - makes no sense to participate either.

In fact, I will be the one to just say that I don't care very much of the cell size as some indication of the "degree of resistance".
I have been ranting for long time now how the "Russian" bees have NEVER been small cell bees - they are inherently large bees as predominantly originating from Northern AMM variants (and yet demonstrating the significant mite resistance). 

So why the survey?
Just basically to try to document the obvious - one needs not be small cell compliant down to the D. Lusby "standards" - 4.9mm OR die. 
FP with his 5.2mm bees is just one very good example of this.
No need to be stuffing the bees with lots of AMM blood in them into sub-sized AHB cells.


----------



## Litsinger (Jun 14, 2018)

GregV said:


> Mike Bush has a good page/pics on how to measure the cells.
> http://www.bushfarms.com/beesnaturalcell.htm
> That is the approach I use.


GregV:

You are right- the measurements I listed previously are incorrect.

Measuring across 10 cells, I get the following:

Worker: +/- 53 mm

Drone: +/- 62 mm

These come from a 'regressed' dead-out that was otherwise installed on small-cell foundation.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Litsinger said:


> Worker: +/- 53 mm


Thanks Russ.


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

Interesting about those Russian bees ...

In the past I have taken some interest in the cell size my little ladies draw - using the shank of a 5mm drill bit to guesstimate the cell size, rather than relying upon my dodgy eyesight and a ruler. 

I found that there was a modest amount of variation across the comb, with either the drill shank being a tad too large to insert, or a tad too small - which made for a sloppy fit. Not exactly a precision method - but from that I concluded that they were drawing in the range 4.9-5.1 mm with the occasional 5.2.

For myself, cell size is not something I'd ever want to become obsessional about, and I'm not convinced it's all that important at a local level - but there must be some significance to those Russian bees being so much larger ...

Good post Greg. 
LJ


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

little_john said:


> Interesting about those Russian bees ...
> 
> ......... but there must be some significance to those Russian bees being so much larger ...
> 
> ...


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.

I simply view the Russian AMM large size phenomenon as a natural and rather obvious adaptation to the cold region.
It is very similar to the Russian (Siberian) tigers being the largest of all tigers - adaptation to the cold climate survival (minimizing of the surface to the volume ratio for heat retention and the benefit of bigger thermal mass - all it is to it).
At the same time the large size did not prevent the Russian feral populations of AMM to survive varroa since 1970s.
By now I have documented enough evidence and hang it up periodically in the "primitive beekeeping" topic.


----------



## wissler (Jan 27, 2012)

Mostly 4.9 or smaller at lat 33.4 in N. Tx. This example is one of the smallest I've measured from an overwintered hive.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

wissler said:


> Mostly 4.9 or smaller at lat 33.4 in N. Tx.


Thanks for sharing.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

squarepeg said:


> i use some foundationless frames to flank a frame of drawn comb in my swarm traps. over the years i have accumulated several frames of naturally drawn comb. the cells in the middle of the brood frames tend to get drawn at about *5.1 mm* as compared to the 5.4 mm on the rite cell plastic foundation that i use.
> .


5.1 mm


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

wissler said:


> Mostly 4.9 or smaller at lat 33.4 in N. Tx. This example is one of the smallest I've measured from an overwintered hive.
> View attachment 46359


Africanised?


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

Oldtimer, the only bees in Texas that draw 4.6 are Africanized.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Be interesting to see how environment plays a part, if there were non africanised (recently requeened) bees in the same area drawing natural comb, what size they would draw.


----------



## Cloverdale (Mar 26, 2012)

deleted postt:


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Cloverdale said:


> This was drawn on plastic foundation but would like any feedback on what happened on these frames: [/ATTACH]
> View attachment 46371
> View attachment 46373
> and pollen frame
> ...


How does this apply to the "Cell size survey"?


----------



## Cloverdale (Mar 26, 2012)

You’re right it doesn’t. I thought the cells were wonky in this I should have started another thread. I’ll delete. Deb


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Cloverdale said:


> You’re right it doesn’t. I thought the cells were wonky in this I should have started another thread. I’ll delete. Deb


Thanks.
Trying to be a micro-mod and keeping my topic on topic, somewhat (so it is useful).


----------



## wissler (Jan 27, 2012)

Fusion_power said:


> Oldtimer, the only bees in Texas that draw 4.6 are Africanized.


That's quite a generalization there. Do you keep bees in Texas? If they're africanized, they sure don't fit the profile for temperament.


----------



## wissler (Jan 27, 2012)

Oldtimer said:


> Africanised?


Some commercial stock, from RWeaver, but mostly captured swarms regressed down on 4.9. 16 colonies TF since 2009.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Here a video of a localized AMM stock enthusiast (I used his vids before).
No need to watch the video per se (it is an "informatial" about 5.6mm foundation his is making how great it is for the bees).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8mTavqLSok

So his claim is - their local AMMs are so large, he decided to make custom foundation 5.6mm for them so make them even larger (i.e. "better" in his view).
Here is one of his comments (I translate):



> Apparently the bees have absolutely no difference what cell size to build - the bees built on 5.6 mm as well as on 5.4 mm, but ~1/3 of the queens, in the first year, avoided 5.6 mm. The rest of the queens (~2/3) used 5.6 mm. In one family, the bees even replaced the young queen which did not want to lay into 5.6 mm. In the second year only 2-4 queens did not lay into 5.6mm. And in the third and fourth year they all laid into 5.6 mm as if it were their own. ..... This is a kind of experiment, and my bees (100%) participate in it already for four seasons. Drone brood on such a foundation (5.6mm) often laid also, but I'm only glad. Previously, I cut the corners of the foundation for the drones brood, but now there will be no need.


I am not stating if this is good or bad. 
For sure, this is not natural.
And yet his bees "regressed" upwards - that's ironic is it not?

Sounds to me as if the bees are opportunistic enough so to *adjust up or down, within some limits *so to take advantage of already existing resources (foundation in this case).
What does it mean?
This means that bees are not wanting to be "small" by default.
Bees simply are taking advantage of the resources (if they are "close enough" to be usable) and use them so to conserve time, labor and materials.

In any case, people have been snatching his extra-LC, 5.6 mm foundation like hot cakes (looks like so by reading the comments).
This, basically, shows how people just keep looking for a magic pills in general for whatever the perceived problems they may have (maybe only in their own heads).
So, 5.6 mm is a good deal for this fellow business wise - many people still have the idea of "bigger bee is a better bee".

PS: 
I did comment under his video he would be better off by running 1-2 unites foundation-less so to determine what his AMM bees *actually and naturally* want to build;
unsure he understand the idea of natural comb, unfortunately; 
all they talk about is foundation and foundation, and then more foundation.


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

GregV said:


> I did comment under his video he would be better off by running 1-2 unites foundation-less so to determine what his AMM bees *actually and naturally* want to build;
> unsure he understand the idea of natural comb, unfortunately;
> all they talk about is foundation and foundation, and then more foundation.


Yeah - I'm a bit lost here ...

I don't understand how anyone can talk in terms of 'adjustment' (either up or down) unless they are giving the bees a totally free reign to build the size which THEY want to build. And even then it may take a couple of generations (along with new combs being drawn each time) to establish whatever size is 'natural' for them. Very easy to get skewed data when foundation is involved ...
LJ


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

It would also be interesting to see if his bees actually are bigger, or if they just rattle around in the cell more.

But in anycase 5.6 is not overly excessive. Over here the foundation i use is 5.4, and when i went natural comb the bees were building down to 5.2, but also up to 5.5 in the worker brood area, so 5.6 is not that much of a stretch.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Oldtimer said:


> It would also be interesting to see if his bees actually are bigger, or if they just rattle around in the cell more.
> 
> But in anycase 5.6 is not overly excessive. Over here the foundation i use is 5.4, and when i went natural comb the bees were building down to 5.2, but also up to 5.5 in the worker brood area, *so 5.6 is not that much of a stretch*.


Agreed - it is not IF your average size is about 5.4 mm (which is the case for some AMM populations as it has been shown).

In summer, I may even have few bees just about that size that were raised in the corners of natural comb where worker cells gradually become drone cells.
But the cohort of the 5.6mm bees will be very small if it exist at all.

In the world of natural comb - you have subsets of various cell sizes (and subsets of bees of various sizes).
If the average cell size is about 5.2 mm, there will be few 5.4mm bees for sure and there will be few bees at 5.0 mm size for sure.
Outside of this sizing range, likely-hoods will drop off.

During the intense buildup, when the queen often lays wall-to-wall, more and more over-sized and under-sized cells become used (speaking only the natural cell, naturally).
So in summer, during the most intense work loads, you get some very large bees and some very small bees too.
By contrast, during the off-summer months only average cells get used (queen does not lay on the fringes of the combs during sub-optimal conditions).
Just looking at my large brood frames you can see clearly how these trends work in terms of seasonal changes.


----------



## Marcin (Jun 15, 2011)

Back when I used to measure cell size, my small cell bees ( acquired from Wolf Creek ) would built 5.1-5.2 cells when placed on foundationless frames. I tried shaking them down again on foundationless frames and the result was pretty much the same. I gave up small cell, and focused on other aspects of mite management that seemed to produce results.


----------



## Litsinger (Jun 14, 2018)

Marcin said:


> ...my small cell bees ( acquired from Wolf Creek ) would built 5.1-5.2 cells when placed on foundationless frames.


Marcin:

If I recall correctly you at least partially utilize a narrow-frame (1-1/4) set-up in your apiary? 

If my memory is at least partially accurate and you don't mind sharing, have you observed any difference in cell size when comparing 1-3/8" versus 1-1/4" frame spacing?


----------



## Graperunner (Mar 13, 2012)

When i would measure around the outside of the frame I would get 5.1
But when I went to the center of the brood nest 4.35.
First time I am posting a picture hope it worked.


----------



## Marcin (Jun 15, 2011)

Litsinger said:


> Marcin:
> 
> If I recall correctly you at least partially utilize a narrow-frame (1-1/4) set-up in your apiary?
> 
> If my memory is at least partially accurate and you don't mind sharing, have you observed any difference in cell size when comparing 1-3/8" versus 1-1/4" frame spacing?


Yes, I'd say ~2/3 of my frames are 1-1/4". But that didn't seem to influence the overall cell size the bees would build.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Graperunner said:


> ... center of the brood nest *4.35.*


Wow; now this is really tiny.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Marcin said:


> Yes, I'd say ~2/3 of my frames are 1-1/4". But that didn't seem to influence the overall cell size the bees would build.


Marcin, 
So looking back now, was the 1.25" frame really worth it in the big picture?
Abundance of 1.5" wood around for the bar/frame construction really annoys me - I want to believe my efforts making 1.25" wood make at least some sense.


----------



## Marcin (Jun 15, 2011)

Good question. I like that 1.25" frames make the brood nest more compacted and tighter, and that seems to be helpful in winter and spring brood up. I also like the fact that I can fit an extra frame into the brood nest ( 11 in 10 frame, 9 in 8, 8 in 7 ).


----------



## Litsinger (Jun 14, 2018)

Marcin said:


> Good question. I like that 1.25" frames make the brood nest more compacted and tighter, and that seems to be helpful in winter and spring brood up. I also like the fact that I can fit an extra frame into the brood nest ( 11 in 10 frame, 9 in 8, 8 in 7 ).


Marcin:

Thank you for your replies and good feedback concerning your narrow frame observations. I sincerely appreciate it!

Russ


----------



## Cloverdale (Mar 26, 2012)

Marcin said:


> Good question. I like that 1.25" frames make the brood nest more compacted and tighter, and that seems to be helpful in winter and spring brood up. I also like the fact that I can fit an extra frame into the brood nest ( 11 in 10 frame, 9 in 8, 8 in 7 ).


Do you remove the extra frame at a certain time of the season? Deb


----------



## Marcin (Jun 15, 2011)

Cloverdale said:


> Do you remove the extra frame at a certain time of the season? Deb


Not from the core of the brood nest. Yes, there's time when it's really a pita to remove the frames because they have been glued together by bees. More often than not I'll space out frames in supers.


----------



## Cloverdale (Mar 26, 2012)

I use 10 in the brood and 9 frame spacers in the supers, but have an unlimited brood nest. I was wondering how difficult it would be to remove.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Well, while inspecting a dead case, I did more measuring.
Looks like after two seasons of repeated new comb building in this particular case, this colony did make some ~5.0 mm cells.
The smallest cells are at the bottom of the vertically hanging combs.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

So, due to my methods of horizontal hive bee-having, few things became obvious to me (and confirm natural bee observations too).

1) I do no artificial vertical switching of the combs (typical for multi-box Langs, for example).
2) The deep body cavity is deep enough to emulate a natural vertical cavity.
3) Bees only build natural comb and do as they see fit.

This results in natural combs with cell size differentiation within the combs - vertically.
On the pic attached, I marked three zones (Zone 1 is the lowest comb area).
Zone 1 cells are approaching ~5.0mm
Zone 2 cells are approaching ~5.2mm
Zone 3 cells are larger still and more like drone cells/honey cells/large bee cells.








Bees raised during the winter/early spring season will be raised in Zones 2 and 3.
This is where bees can maintain proper conditions the easiest AND the cells are largely empty at this time - *larger bees.*
I have no good picture for this case (will try to obtain).

Bees raised in late spring/early summer will be raised in all three zones (1, 2, and 3) due to the favorable conditions and naturally growing colony timing - *variety of bees* (small, medium, large).
All zones are largely available for brood raising.
Not much storing going on yet in the Zone 3 until later in the season.








Bees raised in mid to late summer/early fall (winter bees) will be raised in Zone 1 - *smaller bees*.
The Zones 2 and 3 should be mostly filled with winter stores and no longer available for brood raising.















Too shallow of the frames/combs will probably interrupt the naturally vertical cell differentiation (I only presume this - need to observe in actuality).

These observations suggest - uniformed bees do not exist if things left to develop as they should.
Predominant bee sizing is changing with the seasons (in the vertical cavity setting).


----------



## clong (Apr 6, 2015)

GregV said:


> So, due to my methods of horizontal hive bee-having, few things became obvious to me (and confirm natural bee observations too).
> 
> 
> 3) Bees only build natural comb and do as they see fit.
> ...


Gregv,

I think you've got it. Cell sizes vary based on bees needs, and by season. Dennis Murrell wrote on this years ago, and as I recall, reached similar conclusions. I think he might have charts or pictures like yours. I can't find his original website anymore, but I think I saved off most of his documents on an old laptop. He is very careful and observant.

See the following links for a leaping-off point:

https://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?215869-Natural-Broodnest&p=289795#post289795

http://www.elgon.es/diary/?p=1155


----------



## Litsinger (Jun 14, 2018)

GregV said:


> These observations suggest - uniformed bees do not exist if things left to develop as they should.
> Predominant bee sizing is changing with the seasons (in the vertical cavity setting).





clong said:


> Cell sizes vary based on bees needs, and by season. Dennis Murrell wrote on this years ago, and as I recall, reached similar conclusions.


GregV:

Thank you for the update- this is really interesting, and I had not even considered this as a possibility. I enjoy reading your posts- you make me think.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

clong said:


> Gregv,
> I think you've got it. Cell sizes vary based on bees needs, and by season. Dennis Murrell wrote on this years ago........


Yes, his site went down (a shame - I really liked his site).

I did not think to save down his pages, unfortunately (maybe few hive drawings).
If you could share some of them from your laptop - would be very, so great!
Keep in mind that the laptop might just go bad - it would be a good idea to save worthy documents on-line (on BS, for example).

PS: I did few edits to my post above.


----------



## clong (Apr 6, 2015)

GregV said:


> Yes, his site went down (a shame - I really liked his site).
> 
> I did not think to save down his pages, unfortunately (maybe few hive drawings).
> If you could share some of them from your laptop - would be very, so great!
> Keep in mind that the laptop might just go bad - it would be a good idea to save worthy documents on-line (on BS, for example).


Gregv,

That laptop IS going bad, though it is still functional. If I can get them, I might need help on how to upload them. I'll let you know.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Litsinger said:


> GregV:
> 
> Thank you for the update- this is really interesting, and I had not even considered this as a possibility. I enjoy reading your posts- you make me think.


Thanks, Russ.
Now that I have several hive-fulls of empty combs (due to my die-offs going just about as planned), I got tons of observations to be done before those combs go back into rotation.


----------



## clong (Apr 6, 2015)

GregV said:


> Yes, his site went down (a shame - I really liked his site).
> 
> If you could share some of them from your laptop - would be very, so great!


Greg,

I did look. The only page I saved was one on condensation in the hive. Even it was all tangled up. I couldn't even find the root .htm file to launch the page.

Archive.org has a few on the pages from his several websites over the years. Unfortunately, most of the good ones are missing.


----------



## lharder (Mar 21, 2015)

Seasonal variation of cell use and size is an interesting thought. I've speculated before that brood cell variation (and bee size) might result in a bit of a caste system with some task specialization, but the seasonal thing is another possible wrinkle. The best things about a more natural beekeeping is the many interesting observations of bee biology, questions that can be answered with a bit of digging.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

clong said:


> Greg,
> 
> I did look.......


Too bad.
Thanks for checking.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

lharder said:


> Seasonal variation of cell use and size is an interesting thought...


One benefit of having dead hives - they can be dissected at your own pace. 
I did some of that recently to survey cell sizing and distribution.

Since I never thought about this before, I did not care to start marking the original builders of the combs.
Over time the combs got transferred around and I don't remember who the original builders were.
If to investigate this further properly, the original builders should be documented. 

But - found different patterns in cell building.
It maybe the different patterns originated from different original builders.
I will start tracing this in the summer 2019, time/patience permitting.

One pattern stays true to what I have shown above - *definitive cell size variation* across the comb span vertically (~5.4mm LC is the upper-comb; ~5.2mm MC at mid-comb; ~5.0mm SC at lower comb; distinct gradient from LC to SC). And so if the seasonal size variation did occur - these would be the bees moving between the LC/MC/SC cohort proportions seasonally.








The other pattern - *no significant cell variation* across the comb vertically - the upper comb is ~5.2mm; the lower comb is ~5.1m; one can almost call the entire comb as uniformed.
One idea came to mind right away - these combs are coming from a different builder compared to the above (mid-size uniformed cell (MC) of 5.1-5.2 sizing vs. vertically varied cell of 5.4-5.0 sizing; this could be an expression of different bee units in my collection that I previously was unaware). The bees would not vary much seasonally per the cell size distribution (all MC).















And for the fun of it - a perfect 100% drone comb.
They really, really wanted it.
Bees also left nice cross-comb paths in the corners and along the vertical attachment surfaces.


----------



## Litsinger (Jun 14, 2018)

GregV said:


> I did some of that recently to survey cell sizing and distribution.


This is a neat evaluation- thank you for posting your findings relative to this.


----------



## ToeOfDog (Sep 25, 2013)

Many years ago Dee Lusby posted a map about cell sizes. Let us take worker brood cells only. The jest of the map was that the further north and higher the altitude the larger the brood cell. It has been many years since reviewing the map and my memory maybe faulty, but the Canadian border had cell sizes in the 5.1mm area and the Deep South was 4.7 to 4.9 mm.

All beekeeping is local. That is the problem with people from all over the continent commenting on cell size. It varies.


----------



## ToeOfDog (Sep 25, 2013)

Many years ago Dee Lusby posted a map about cell sizes. Let us take worker brood cells only. The jest of the map was that the further north and higher the altitude the larger the brood cell. It has been many years since reviewing the map and my memory maybe faulty, but the Canadian border had cell sizes in the 5.1mm area and the Deep South was 4.7 to 4.9 mm.

All beekeeping is local. That is the problem with people from all over the continent commenting on cell size. It varies.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

ToeOfDog said:


> Many years ago Dee Lusby posted a map about cell sizes. Let us take worker brood cells only. The jest of the map was that the further north and higher the altitude the larger the brood cell. It has been many years since reviewing the map and my memory maybe faulty, but the Canadian border had cell sizes in the 5.1mm area and the Deep South was 4.7 to 4.9 mm.
> 
> All beekeeping is local. That is the problem with people from all over the continent commenting on cell size. It varies.


I don't pay much attention to Dee Lusby's maps (in the US context).
Massive and sustained migratory bee moves pretty much invalidate it.
In the US context, this is pretty much meaningless since locally adapted and stable bee sub-species never formed yet (IF ever will with all the bee moves).

Just now the local seller is selling tons packages from South to the locals here (the annual event in my town).
Talking of Canadian border bigger cell sizes vs. Deep South smaller cell is not much a factor because of this (in the US).
So the geographic location is not a strong factor.

The geographic locations did matter in the historic origins of the bees in the historic sense (pure black German/Russian bees are large; pure gray Caucasians are mid-size; etc).
Still do now, but somewhat washed out due to bee migrations and long distance sales as well.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

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.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Oldtimer said:


> .... 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.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Oldtimer said:


> 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.


What really matters - the origins of the New Zealand bees. That the starting point.
Bring bees from Kenia - will get one sizing.
Bring bees from Siberia - will get different sizing.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

clong said:


> ....... *Dennis Murrell* wrote on this years ago, and as I recall, reached similar conclusions. I think *he might have charts or pictures like yours*.........


I found a picture in my stash.
I forgot I had it.
Here is his original pic:


----------



## clong (Apr 6, 2015)

GregV said:


> I found a picture in my stash.
> I forgot I had it.
> Here is his original pic:
> View attachment 47259


Gregv,

Thanks for posting the photo.

Small cell is real! But only as part of the bigger picture of the bees making the size bees they need when they need them.
I've had the experience of putting in 4.9 mm plastic frames and the bees build them perfectly. Then, at a different time of year, the same bees build crazy comb on the very same type of frame.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

dup


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

clong said:


> Gregv,
> 
> Thanks for posting the photo.
> 
> ...


You know - I read about this exact "issue" many times over - bees totally screwing the SC foundation for no clear reason - no one having a good answer.
The seasonality of the brood cell usage and sizing is one thing no one never has brought up (I have not seen it discusses/studied at least).
If true, is the size seasonality attribute of northern bees? 
Southern bees? 
Both? 

Or maybe it has to do with vertical cavity bees? 
Or horizontal cavity bees?
I suppose, differentiation of the vertical cavity bees vs. horizontal cavity bees is another subject I have never seen discussed/studied either.
Yet such thing exists. 
Back to my readings - the Caucasian bees are considered good bees for keeping in long horizontal hives specifically (due to their natural nesting tendencies).
Again - this only makes sense at the locations where the Caucasians are reasonably pure (the regions adjacent to the Caucasus proper, including Turkey btw). 
Once random mixing is taking place, what we have here - the outcomes are unpredictable.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

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.


----------



## mischief (Jan 21, 2017)

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


----------



## Cloverdale (Mar 26, 2012)

mischief said:


> 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


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


----------



## mischief (Jan 21, 2017)

Thank you


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

GregV said:


> One benefit of having dead hives - they can be dissected at your own pace.
> I did some of that recently to survey cell sizing and distribution.
> 
> Since I never thought about this before, I did not care to start marking the original builders of the combs.
> ...


Hi Greg, I hate to toss another variable into the mix But I will. Do you have records of if the queen was superseded or swarmed? It may be that a different mating occurred with the new queen and from that point on, the comb down, they "changed size " because they were a different genetics. So if you are doing testing you may want to note if the Queen changes about the same time, the cell size does. Another idea is spring bees may be bigger to carry off more stores when swarming, and fall bees smaller to use less stores in the winter.
Have fun
GG


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

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).


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Gray Goose said:


> .... It may be that a different mating occurred with the new queen and from that point on, the comb down, they "changed size " because they were a different genetics. ...... GG


Thinking more about it - the queen change is not likely an immediate and clear factor:
- they really build fast when they build anything and a complete comb can be done in less than a week
- so a complete comb would be typically produced end-to-end by the *same generational slice of the bees*
- the queen change is not immediately a factor
- the bee population turn over is the actual factor
- the bee population turn over is lagging the queen switch by 4-8 weeks depending the exact case (seasonal timing being very important too)
- and so this takes well configured experimentation and documentation if to conclude anything.

But I do not have properly setup experiments to confirm/deny anything. 
Just snapshots and theorizing of those - all I have for now.

What is more likely to happen - I did move around uncompleted combs from the dead units to the live units (that could explain something).
But also notice - top-to-bottom sizing gradients I observed so far were *gradual *(NOT *abrupt*).
Abrupt switching the between the colonies (and different builder work-forces) could produce some obvious differences in the cells produced (within the same comb, say, built by different colonies at 50% each).
A good idea to experiment with and observe/document - have to have time/attention to do this correctly though.


----------



## Litsinger (Jun 14, 2018)

GregV said:


> 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


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

GregV said:


> - they really build fast when they build anything and a complete comb can be done in less than a week


Well, darn, now I look at it and think ...

Aha - that MAY explain why some of the combs ARE rather uniformed - like those uniformed 5.1-5.2mm cases I put up.
Those combs could have been build all at once in a single setting - the same team of builders did them start to the end.

The non-uniform combs, on the other hand, are strange animals.
How did they get built, anyway? 

I have examples of mish-mash combs with different size segments with NO clear gradients - just some chaotic mix (those are more likely examples of cross-colony comb transfers and different teams working them).
This is one example of such mess:








But the combs with very clear, seemingly organized top-to-bottom, and gradual gradients are really interesting.
I will try to find more examples of any pattern.

Anyway, wrote this down on the spot so not to forget.


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

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.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Gray Goose said:


> 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:







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.


----------



## Cloverdale (Mar 26, 2012)

GregV said:


> Well, darn, now I look at it and think ...
> 
> Aha - that MAY explain why some of the combs ARE rather uniformed - like those uniformed 5.1-5.2mm cases I put up.
> Those combs could have been build all at once in a single setting - the same team of builders did them start to the end.
> ...


Would any of this have anything to do with the frames sizes?


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

> 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.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Fusion_power said:


> *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.


----------



## Cloverdale (Mar 26, 2012)

Fusion_power said:


> 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.


I’m trying to think here I’ve really never thought about cell size; having our boxes for their hive, the bees are constantly expanding from late winter to about August. For those having an unlimited brood-nest and adding drawn frames, especially using drawn honey supers which seem to have uniform cell size, how do they use this for drones? Plus I’m going to add an image here which has me puzzled.






It posted upside down


----------



## Cloverdale (Mar 26, 2012)

GregV said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


Greg, you mean the combs are set up vertical to the entrance.?


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Cloverdale said:


> Greg, you mean the combs are set up vertical to the entrance.?


If you recall - in Layen's system the entrances are located at the hive corners.
And so it is a hybrid between central cold way and central warm way.
Like so: 








Right now the nest is off-set with respect to the entrance - it is warmer/less ventilation.
In summer, the nest stars from the very entrances - more ventilation.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

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).




























.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Fusion_power said:


> 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.


This would be at variance with D Lusby, who is adamant the combs must be 4.9 throughout.
To her, a hive with any larger than 4.9 comb in the brood nest, other than her 10% drone comb, is not a small cell hive. She would view most of the natural comb beekeepers around now, as not small cell beekeepers.

I can remember a few years back when because of the information that was being dispensed at the time, a lot of people would say they were small cell beekeepers, because they were natural cell beekeepers, and had been taught that meant their comb would be small cell.
Then a thread was started here on Beesource asking people to submit measurements of their comb, and a lot of these people upon actually measuring, were very surprised to discover they were not small cell at all.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Oldtimer said:


> This would be at variance with D Lusby, who is adamant the combs must be 4.9 throughout.
> To her, a hive with any larger than 4.9 comb in the brood nest, other than her 10% drone comb, is not a small cell hive. She would view most of the natural comb beekeepers around now, as not small cell beekeepers.
> 
> I can remember a few years back when because of the information that was being dispensed at the time, a lot of people would say they were small cell beekeepers, because they were natural cell beekeepers, and had been taught that meant their comb would be small cell.
> Then a thread was started here on Beesource asking people to submit measurements of their comb, and a lot of these people upon actually measuring, were very surprised to discover they were not small cell at all.


I was very annoyed by the SC religion knowing very well how in Russian Far East they have the non-SC (by the Lusby standards), but yet resistant enough bees.
As a result, I started this particular thread.

As far as the SC beekeeping, I don't care.
My bees can do what they see fit.

Very recently, this fall I just lost an over-wintered colony that has been rotated through the comb enough times to be 4.9mm IF they really cared to be that small.
They died by the mites (I posted documentation).
They were sufficiently and obviously smaller bees vs. the conventional - well, every comb is to be measure and documented - will post when get around to it.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Fusion_power said:


> 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.


Some years ago, at the height of the small cell frenzy, the UGA beelab collected brood comb samples from about 150 removals in the state. They measured across 10 cells in the center of each. I don’t remember the exact percentages but I do remember that 4.9 was measured in less than 5%. In truth I believe it was around 1%. The average was 5.1.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

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.


----------



## grozzie2 (Jun 3, 2011)

Oldtimer said:


> 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....


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

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.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Fusion_power said:


> 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.


----------



## mischief (Jan 21, 2017)

Oldtimer said:


> 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.


As I recall, you also said you went ''cold turkey' (didnt treat) and lost them all.

Mine are still alive and my one is now two....on SC


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

You still following me around? 

Wondered where you been. 

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.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Oldtimer said:


> 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.


Back in the day the small cell gurus claimed that you had to regress them using an interim size foundation (5.1mm), which I did in one yard. They built out the 5.1 without a hitch. Introducing 4.9 after completing the ‘partial’ regression was still a fiasco.
I agree….there’s a genetic reason that Dee Lusby’s bees naturally draw 4.9 and no responsible beekeeper wants those genetics.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

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).


----------



## A Novice (Sep 15, 2019)

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.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>...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.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Something relevant from my recent readings....
(GregV's free-hand translation).



> Julian Lubieniecki
> A complete practical Guide for Beekeepers
> 1859
> ............
> ...


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.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel (Mar 13, 2013)

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:


----------



## BernhardHeuvel (Mar 13, 2013)

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


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

BernhardHeuvel said:


> 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.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

BernhardHeuvel said:


> ......
> 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:


Unsure how this applies to the "Cell size survey".
But fine.


----------



## Cloverdale (Mar 26, 2012)

removed


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

GregV said:


> You know - I read about this exact "issue" many times over - bees totally screwing the SC foundation for no clear reason - no one having a good answer.
> The seasonality of the brood cell usage and sizing is one thing no one never has brought up (I have not seen it discusses/studied at least).
> If true, is the size seasonality attribute of northern bees?
> Southern bees?
> ...


Old thread I know but also what about the Patralines, could be some of the drones were "small size" and some were " Bigger" We may get down a rat hole then abolf if the Queen "selects" which of the sperm to use at what time. Also could be some flowers have best use of a smaller or larger bee so the various sizes are to optimize the flowers which they can use. With casts and seasonality, there may be several interacting reasons for the cell variation in the long vertical comb. Stands to reason "Natural" would allow this expression and "foundation" would suppress it. Also so what iF when we reverse the boxes or mix combs the bees find it backwards or not useful and they swarm out easier. Adds more complexity if these variations are necessary to bee health. I may need to consider some deep frames for some hives and let them build natural then do some math on which flavor does better.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

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.


----------



## HaplozygousNut (Dec 30, 2015)

Fusion_power said:


> The cells are inconsistent across the comb with the center of the comb smaller than the edges of the comb. I get measurements between 5.1 and 5.2 mm. My bees have a strong influence from AMM but are mostly derived from Italian genetics otherwise.
> 
> I put in the time to study cell size a few years ago. Short version is that Africanized bees are happy on 4.9 but my bees are not.


A man from Guatemala come to visit us looking for bees and I showed him our bees. He said that the bees he raised in Guatemala were larger than my bees. I assume his bees were African, but on foundation. I will ask him if he used foundation when I talk to him again. I definitely notice that I get larger bees when I use foundation compared to letting the bees make their comb naturally.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

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*
> ...













Source - Lebedev, Bilash. 1991
Biology of the honey bee.
Beekeeping manual for the technical colleges.
ISBN on the picture.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

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.



















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):









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.


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

GregB said:


> To @Litsinger
> 
> 
> So Russ, I am thinking to re-intro some 1.5" frames back into my deep hives - just for my own convenience.
> ...


@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


----------



## Litsinger (Jun 14, 2018)

Gray Goose said:


> They have brood cell density where they need it and fat comb in the honey storage area.
> Just sayin.....


Well I may misconstrue what Greg is trying to communicate, I think we're talking about trying to get good comb drawn out on narrow spacing. I have had the same trouble whereby the bees seem perfectly content to draw out straight comb in the core of the brood nest but then they want to flare the comb out on the periphery or ignore frames altogether, suggesting they want more space to lay up stores and rear drones.

Since I went back to 'standard' spacing of 1-3/8" I have far less issues getting straight and appropriate (for me) comb drawn out on the edges.

As an aside, I find it interesting that 1-1/2" frame spacing seems to be more 'standard' in other locales, trying to strike the ultimate balance between what the bees want and what suits the need of the beekeeper.


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

Litsinger said:


> Well I may misconstrue what Greg is trying to communicate, I think we're talking about trying to get good comb drawn out on narrow spacing. I have had the same trouble whereby the bees seem perfectly content to draw out straight comb in the core of the brood nest but then they want to flare the comb out on the periphery or ignore frames altogether, suggesting they want more space to lay up stores and rear drones.


 *right but he is doing long frames, which matters a bit from bottom to top*



> Since I went back to 'standard' spacing of 1-3/8" I have far less issues getting straight and appropriate (for me) comb drawn out on the edges.


 *yes that is true for me as well*



> As an aside, I find it interesting that 1-1/2" frame spacing seems to be more 'standard' in other locales, trying to strike the ultimate balance between what the bees want and what suits the need of the beekeeper.


 *the drive to narrow spacing was a vector of the small cell approach, if the combs are closer the layer of bees is thinner, if the layer of bees is thinner for a given population of bees, they cover more comb, If they cover more comb they "can" build up faster in spring as they can/will only brood in comb they can cover/heat. so the close comb mantra was to speed spring build up. For say @mtnmyke spring build up is not an issue, summer starve out is. So this mantra is a cold winter driven practice, many parts of the world are warmer, Spain, brazil, southern US, so the close spacing is definitely driven by cold locales. BTW IMO Insulation helps with this spring build up challenge.*


GG


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

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.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Gray Goose said:


> @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.....
> ...


A single row deep is still the hands down ergo-hive to go to - for me.

1.25" just needs to be shifted to *1.375 " *(even 1.5") - for the bees.
Which I kind of do anyway lately, by just letting the propolis to build up.

But again - me being me - saying what I am seeing (no need to be shy about it and keep confusing people ).
Been there - tried that - made my conclusions.
That is speaking of the 1.25" "mite resistant" frame spacing...
Did not help much in that department.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

crofter said:


> Result is interference when lifting frames.


With a long hive you - shift away first, then lift.
It is not that big a deal as far as lifting.


----------



## clong (Apr 6, 2015)

Gray Goose said:


> Russ:  As an aside, I find it interesting that 1-1/2" frame spacing seems to be more 'standard' in other locales, trying to strike the ultimate balance between what the bees want and what suits the need of the beekeeper. Gray Goose: *the drive to narrow spacing was a vector of the small cell approach, if the combs are closer the layer of bees is thinner, if the layer of bees is thinner for a given population of bees, they cover more comb, If they cover more comb they "can" build up faster in spring as they can/will only brood in comb they can cover/heat. so the close comb mantra was to speed spring build up. For say @mtnmyke spring build up is not an issue, summer starve out is. So this mantra is a cold winter driven practice, many parts of the world are warmer, Spain, brazil, southern US, so the close spacing is definitely driven by cold locales. BTW IMO Insulation helps with this spring build up challenge.*


I tried the 1 1/4 spacing too. Same experience as you guys.

Insulation definitely helps. My observation is that the bees can make white wax roughly 2 weeks earlier in the spring. I also had one insulated hive making wax late in Sept. The other thing I've noticed, is it seems the insulated hives can move to stores more readily. The bees may not "heat the hive" but that warmer air trapped above makes it easier for the cluster to move. I've also seen the faster brood build-up in the spring.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

clong said:


> I tried the 1 1/4 spacing too. Same experience as you guys.
> 
> Insulation definitely helps. My observation is that the bees can make white wax roughly 2 weeks earlier in the spring. I also had one insulated hive making wax late in Sept. The other thing I've noticed, is it seems the insulated hives can move to stores more readily. The bees may not "heat the hive" but that warmer air trapped above makes it easier for the cluster to move. I've also seen the faster brood build-up in the spring.


Pretty much the "skinny comb" effect just as easily achieved by insulation/follower boards/tighter hive/poly-hive/etc.... at appropriate time.
This is in the context of the colony development, not the "mite-resistent small bee" theory.


----------



## Litsinger (Jun 14, 2018)

clong said:


> I tried the 1 1/4 spacing too. Same experience as you guys.


clong:

Good to see you posting of late- I'll look forward to an update over on your thread!

I sincerely hope all is well with you and your family.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Litsinger said:


> I have had the same trouble whereby the bees seem perfectly content to draw out straight comb in the core of the brood nest but then they want to flare the comb out on the periphery or ignore frames altogether, suggesting they want more space to lay up stores and rear drones.


Pretty much what the bees want.


----------



## Litsinger (Jun 14, 2018)

GregB said:


> Pretty much what the bees want.


From what I see, I think you're right.


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

clong said:


> I tried the 1 1/4 spacing too. Same experience as you guys.
> 
> Insulation definitely helps. My observation is that the bees can make white wax roughly 2 weeks earlier in the spring. I also had one insulated hive making wax late in Sept. The other thing I've noticed, is it seems the insulated hives can move to stores more readily. The bees may not "heat the hive" but that warmer air trapped above makes it easier for the cluster to move. I've also seen the faster brood build-up in the spring.


I see this exact thing.
I now use normal spacing and insulation.

GG


----------



## HaplozygousNut (Dec 30, 2015)

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:


BattenkillJB said:


> 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:


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Apis_mellifera_distribution.png



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.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

HaplozygousNut said:


> 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.


----------



## William Bagwell (Sep 4, 2019)

Oldtimer said:


> 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.


Currently inaccurate, but can you say with absolute certainty that it is historically inaccurate? Claim is what cell size was a 100 or more years ago before modern 5.4 mm foundation.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

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._


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

Didn't she not also conclude from the tall arched doorways in old castles, that the peoples from one area in Europe, were once upon a time 12 feet tall?


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

HaplozygousNut said:


> Interesting range map of cell size variation:


That map has not much to do with the reality, however it was derived.

In fact, they NEVER consulted the USSR/Russian sources - I am pretty darn sure (because those sources are not translated).
How would they ever derive any definitive maps across the Russia's territory (that is more than double of the USA territory)???? 
And this is only one of many issues (OT already brought up Australia/NZ).

Too bad, but once this "fake science" is published onto the Internet, it is impossible to block it off and people will continue consuming it forever. 🙄


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

GregB said:


> That map has not much to do with the reality, however it was derived.
> 
> In fact, they NEVER consulted the USSR/Russian sources - I am pretty darn sure (because those sources are not translated).
> How would they ever derive any definitive maps across the Russia's territory (that is more than double of the USA territory)????
> ...


Let me do a fact check...
yep I see it on the internet, it must be true.

GG


----------



## William Bagwell (Sep 4, 2019)

Oldtimer said:


> Can you say where Dee obtained her data for NZ and Australia for 100 years ago?


No idea, do not follow Dee except 'second hand' when someone posts a link. Even if her claims are exaggerated a bit (and likely are) does not make 5.4 natural. For that matter, a whole sheet of all the same size cells is not natural.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

William Bagwell said:


> does not make 5.4 natural.


It absolutely IS natural - I already posted documentation (which I trust more than those Dee's funny global assumptions).
BUT - only natural to specific bees at certain places.
This is no secret and a well-known fact - wild black bees of Bashkortostan are really large.
NOT even feral bees - *wild* bees, to be clear.


----------



## William Bagwell (Sep 4, 2019)

GregB said:


> It absolutely IS natural - I already posted documentation (which I trust more than those Dee's funny global assumptions).
> BUT - only natural to specific bees at certain places.
> This is no secret and a well-known fact - wild black bees of Bashkortostan are really large.
> NOT even feral bees - *wild* bees, to be clear.


Cool I want some!


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

William Bagwell said:


> Cool I want some!


Those wild bees are endangered and protected by the state.
The hybridization pressure is high - from the commercials that surround the area.
Not for sale.


----------



## William Bagwell (Sep 4, 2019)

GregB said:


> Those wild bees are endangered and protected by the state.
> The hybridization pressure is high - from the commercials that surround the area.
> Not for sale.


Should have left the smiley face...


----------



## William Bagwell (Sep 4, 2019)

William Bagwell said:


> Should have left the smiley face...


And even if I had been serious, shipping would be outrageous. Ordered a ploskorez hoe (flat cutter) that was mentioned 'elsewhere'  Shipping was as much as the item plus it took forever to arrive.


----------



## Litsinger (Jun 14, 2018)

GregB said:


> This is no secret and a well-known fact - wild black bees of Bashkortostan are really large.


This discussion made me curious if there was any published literature out there concerning the 'nominal' body size of honey bees relative to latitude, similar to what is generally observed in other animal species.

While there may be some out there, I was unable to find anything. I did see two prevailing theories put forth about insects in general, but both did not find evidence to support their hypothesis:

Non-social insects will be larger closer to the equator due to a longer growing season: Latitudinal insect body size clines revisited: a critical evaluation of the saw-tooth model - PubMed

Social insects will be larger with increasing latitude due to longer overwintering requirements:








Latitudinal gradients in colony size for social insects: termites and ants show different patterns - PubMed


On the basis of a comparison of Nearctic and Neotropical ants, social insects have been proposed to show a latitudinal gradient in colony size. Further, the "fasting endurance hypothesis," which predicts larger colonies in areas with extended periods of low food availability, was proposed as the...




pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov





And then there is this:









Effects of climate on intra‐ and interspecific size variation in bumble‐bees


1 In contrast to other social bees, bumble-bees exhibit considerable size variation within the worker caste. This size variation has not been adequately explained, although it is known that larger...




besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com


----------



## HaplozygousNut (Dec 30, 2015)

Oldtimer said:


> 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.


I actually was suspicious of the cell size range map's accuracy. I noticed a few mistakes in the map. For example, the bees in northern Morocco ought to be larger than the neighboring bees because Apis mellifera major is there. I have read that A. m. major was larger than A. m. intermissa, but I don't know exactly how large they are.

And they had measurements of bees in the large deserts, which it shouldn't have because there are no bees there. Such as in the Saharan desert. There are only bees in the oasis in the Sahara desert, such as the Kufra Oasis in Libya.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

HaplozygousNut said:


> And they had measurements of bees in the large deserts, .......


Do understand they have NO MEASUREMENTS from most anywhere on that map.

That map is just some sort of a model based *on few *actual measurements and the rest is just blah, blah, blah..
(Which I have no idea what the actual modeling algorithm was used - the modeling approach used must be documented and clearly attached to this model map).
Clearly, most of Suberia on that map contains NO bees whatsoever - too cold for too long.
No one went across Siberia measuring the bee cells so to report back to the map designer(s), so disregard the map on that account. LOL


----------



## HaplozygousNut (Dec 30, 2015)

GregB said:


> Those wild bees are endangered and protected by the state.
> The hybridization pressure is high - from the commercials that surround the area.
> Not for sale.


If they could ship some Bashkortostan A. m. mellifera drone semen into the US or Canada they could spread that endangered strain's genetics into the feral population here. It could help protect the endangered bee. And it wouldn't harm the endangered wild colonies if you don't take too many drones.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

HaplozygousNut said:


> If they could ship some Bashkortostan A. m. mellifera drone semen into the US or Canada they could spread that endangered strain's genetics into the feral population here. It could help protect the endangered bee. And it wouldn't harm the endangered wild colonies if you don't take too many drones.


HaploN,
Who "they"?
I mean such projects are NOT just done willy-nilly between me and you - these are cross-state transactions and even Putin may need to sign off.  (kidding, but not entirely)


----------



## HaplozygousNut (Dec 30, 2015)

GregB said:


> Do understand they have NO MEASUREMENTS from most anywhere on that map.
> 
> That map is just some sort of a model based *on few *actual measurements and the rest is just blah, blah, blah..
> (Which I have no idea what the actual modeling algorithm was used - the modeling approach used must be documented and clearly attached to this model map).
> ...


That makes perfect sense. Probably didn't get many measurements at all! I read of an asteroid hitting Siberia once. The people couldn't reach the asteroid because of the bad climate in Siberia. Siberia is a swamp during their short summer I read. The ground is permanently frozen even during the summer with only a thin layer of soil on the surface which makes water settle on the surface of the dirt during the short summer.

Mosquitoes can be bad from photos I have seen in Siberia. And they used to even have malaria there! A lot of people died from malaria digging the Panama canal. I don't know if that was a problem though for the Russians going to Siberia. There at least shouldn't be any northern Siberian bees because it is tundra without trees for the bees to nest in.

Edit: Oops. Actually most of Siberia is Taiga, not Tundra. Tundra is limited to a small portion in the far north of Siberia. taiga tundra siberia - Google Search


----------



## HaplozygousNut (Dec 30, 2015)

Litsinger said:


> ---------------------------------------------
> 
> Non-social insects will be larger closer to the equator due to a longer growing season: Latitudinal insect body size clines revisited: a critical evaluation of the saw-tooth model - PubMed
> 
> ---------------------------------------


I wouldn't know very well, but the high diversity in the tropical rainforests might have something to do with having large species of insects, too.
Refugia theory:


https://courses.botany.wisc.edu/botany_422/Lecture/pdf/TropicRefuge.pdf



I read about the Refugia being a possible way to cause species to diverge and cause more diversity in the Tropical rainforests. 

It used to be thought that it was just a very stable climate and so extinctions were rare in the tropical rainforests compared to temperate areas, and so gathered more species over time. The book I read about it was a Tropical rainforest book that said that there were correlations of the refugias in the tropical rainforests and higher diversity within those past refugia areas today. If I remember rightly, there were three genetically or ethnically different populations of pygmies in Africa. The pygmy people are native to the rainforests. And that is about the same as the number of refugia there were during the ice age in Africa.


----------



## HaplozygousNut (Dec 30, 2015)

Litsinger said:


> -------------------------------------
> 
> Social insects will be larger with increasing latitude due to longer overwintering requirements:
> 
> ...


The largest bumblebee species lives in a cold climate in Patagonia (South America). They are known as "Flying mice". _ Bombus dahlbomii_ is the species. I am thinking that the large size is for helping the bee stay warm during a cool active season, instead of surviving cold winters, because insects can just go through diapause during a dormant cold season. 
The "flying mouse's" (_Bombus dahlbomii_) range:


https://www.discoverlife.org/20/q?search=Bombus+dahlbomii



Climate map of Patagonia (southern South America) where the _Bombus dahlbomii_ is:








Köppen climate classification - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





Weather map of Patagonia right now, which should be their warm summer season:




__





Argentina Weather Map


Animated Argentina weather map showing 12 day forecast and current weather conditions. Overlay rain, snow, cloud, wind and temperature, city locations and webcams




www.weather-forecast.com




Temperate South America doesn't get the great temperature difference from summer to winter as we do here in North America. It is moderated from summer to winter by the ocean. And so their summers can be rather cold, yet winters be mild at the same time.



HaplozygousNut said:


> --------------------------------------------
> 
> I have heard the bees in southern Spain are big:
> 
> ...


The reason why _*Apis mellifera mellifera*_ is a large subspecies might be because it is from climates that have cool summers. It could help to have more mass to keep from being chilled by cold weather when foraging for nectar during their cool active season. Even a rainy climate of Western Europe where A. m. mellifera is could cause the same thing in chilling the bees when out foraging, so larger size helps?

In the case of the _*Apis mellifera major*_ of Morocco, their large size might also help if their active season is during a mild winter. A. m. major is known to eat very much honey during winter, which suggests that they are active and breeding during the winter. This could mean that in their native area their active season is winter. But I will need to ask a beekeeper from the Rif mountains to see if their active season is really during winter.


----------



## Litsinger (Jun 14, 2018)

HaplozygousNut said:


> The reason why _*Apis mellifera mellifera*_ is a large subspecies might be because it is from climates that have cool summers. It could help to have more mass to keep from being chilled by cold weather when foraging for nectar during their cool active season. Even a rainy climate of Western Europe where A. m. mellifera is could cause the same thing in chilling the bees when out foraging, so larger size helps?
> 
> In the case of the _*Apis mellifera major*_ of Morocco, their large size might also help if their active season is during a mild winter. A. m. major is known to eat very much honey during winter, which suggests that they are active and breeding during the winter. This could mean that in their native area their active season is winter. But I will need to ask a beekeeper from the Rif mountains to see if their active season is really during winter.


Nathaniel:

Thanks for the good posts- I do apologize for the delay in reply. You might very well be right over the target- that the natural morphological size of a particular subspecies and/or landrace of honey bee may have more to do with environmental factors specific to their locale than it does to latitude. And that is one big bumblebee... 🆒


----------



## HaplozygousNut (Dec 30, 2015)

Litsinger said:


> Nathaniel:
> 
> Thanks for the good posts- I do apologize for the delay in reply. You might very well be right over the target- that the natural morphological size of a particular subspecies and/or landrace of honey bee may have more to do with environmental factors specific to their locale than it does to latitude. And that is one big bumblebee... 🆒


No apology is necessary! I wasn't offended by a late response. I make late responses to people all the time because we don't have internet at home. We come to the seminary library for internet. Thank you!


----------

