permaculture

["Lawrence F. London, Jr." <lflj@intrex.net>]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: BD Now! More on CCD 60 Minutes
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 20:24:46 -0800
From: Frank Egan <frank@eganbronze.com>
Reply-To: Biodynamic Food and Farming Discussion <bdnow@envirolink.org>
To: bdnow@envirolink.org

Allan & AJ,

>> Dadant catalogs are now offering 4.9 mm foundation.
>> I think THAT is a serious clue.
> what does that mean, Frank? -Allan

It means that finally, one company has realized that the most
appropriate size for cell foundation is that which is found in
the feral bee population. All the experiments to make bigger bees
or bees that could do more to increase the incomes of the beekeeper
have failed and that retrogressing to the natural size of cell will
thus produce the biologically correct size of bee.

Further, as Steiner warned, these experiments to increase the
economic basis for the beekeeper would have dire consequences.

Here is an interesting study Lusby has put together
http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/bwjan1934.htm  which reads
in part..........

  This matter of the specific gravity of the bee, and its decrease with
increase of size, is not only of theoretical interest. If  we suppose
that the head, thorax and abdomen share alike in the lightening
process, we shall-if we continue to enlarge the bee-arrive  finally at
an insect which cannot fly as fast or lift as great loads as smaller
bees. Big wings demand big muscles to move them;  as far as can be
seen, the mass of the flight muscles must increase as the cube of the
wing length. If the weight of the body increases in this proportion,
the bee will continue  to be an efficient flyer; but if-as is the case
with M. Baudoux's  bees-it does not, then one of two things must be
happening. Either  the bee will have less flying muscle than she needs
to work her  long wings; or the flying muscles will make up a greater
proportion of her total weight. In either case, theory would indicate
that very much enlarged bees should be less efficient nectar-carriers.
That the limit (where this begins to occur) has not yet been  reached
is shewn by the excellent practical results which M.  Baudoux obtains.


The issue of bee size was brought up here many months ago by
an infrequent member. My apologies for not having bookmarked
his article. The gist was that, yes, the major bee players did
succeed in making bigger bees, but the wings did not grow
proportionally.
Again, another lesson in the manipulation of cell size

There are other environmental factors at play here of course, but
that is the factor that we as beekeepers have a direct control over.
Correct cell size begins the process of bringing the bees back from
parasitic infestations, thus reducing stress, thus building better
immune systems. Reducing greed and all that goes with it, I think,
will happen when all the large bee guys go bankrupt. Unfortunately,
as with any sinking ship, they are going to drag a lot of folks
and industry down with it. Haagen-Dazs is just the beginning.
Say good-by to your slivered almonds and green beans. It is
apocalypse now.

I highly recommend reading the Lusby's work. No BD there. It
appears they have a keen sense of the biological workings of
bees and articulate their thoughts with studied history and
applied experience. This is a long series of lectures but
the first nine should bring one up to speed on cell size and
ramifications. http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/index.htm
see quote below.........

Hope this helps.

Best.

Frank

By the way, the 900 cell size  range would place foundation in the
range of 4.7mm, which would  be the feral size for the sea coast of the
USA Gulf port states.  We calculate 4.7mm as the beginning of the
range, of comb cell  sizes in the USA, with 4.9mm average in a major
part of the USA  below 3500 feet above sea-level, and 5.0mm to 5.1mm
the top of  the range by our own latitudinal plotting of feral comb
cell  sizes by latitude and altitude. However, only on 4.9mm size comb
foundation could we drop off secondary diseases in our own bee
colonies. On 5.0mm we stabilized with tracheal mites and varroa  mites
with our hives not dying due to mites, but secondary diseases would
finish the job during drought years triggered by high stress.  Since
Nature is HARMONIOUS and secondary diseases abated by going  one step
smaller to 4.9mm worker cell size, we stopped our retrogression  to
smaller cell sizes here, because extraction of honey is more  difficult
the smaller the cells; and mites and secondary diseases  are no longer
a problem at our latitudes and altitudes in Southern  Arizona between
Tucson and Nogales.