cell size conversion table - using foundation - 4.9 pictures - selected topics -home

Foundation--an embossed sheet of wax or plastic-- has been employed almost universally by most western beekeepers in industrialized countries over the past century or so to assist and guide their honey bees in starting combs in the shape, orientation and type (worker brood or honey storage) desired by the beekeeper and to reinforce the combs so they can withstand the forces encountered in handling and extraction.  (There are, however still, to this day, regions in the Americas where traditional hives still predominate).

Before that, stretching back to antiquity, was a long history of successful and profitable beekeeping employing only natural comb built naturally by the bees in cavities ranging from crude and inexpensive logs and skeps to elaborate and decorative urns and carved hives.  Some idea of that--now mostly forgotten--history and the old technologies can be found by visiting a few of the sites listed here.

Where traditional beekeeping techniques are still practiced, there are opportunities for study, and well-known bee researchers--ARS people and university people with reputations beyond reproach with whom we converse at bee meetings--have covered much of the world, researching and documenting the local bees--both domestic and feral--and comparing.  Also, there have been efforts to introduce modern beekeeping into many of these regions.  A workable compromise between the modern, moveable frame hive using foundation and older, natural fixed comb cavities is the Kenyan hive, also known as the top bar hive.  This homemade cavity is proving to be a cheap, practical hive which is gaining popularity, even in developed countries.

At the time of the invention and introduction of foundation, in the final decades of the 19th century, there was considerable experimentation and discussion about the use and design of foundation, however, over the following century, use of foundation became accepted and standardized to the point where few beekeepers gave it much thought.  Although various special sizes were developed for special purposes and some experimenters attempted to change the size of bees by using larger cells, most beekeepers just bought the few standard designs the local suppliers sold, and considered that to be just fine.

This all changed in the last decade of the 20th century, when modern beekeepers were challenged by new and highly problematic pests: tracheal and varroa mites.  In searching for solutions for these scourges, chemicals and management were considered, and the whole question of cell size was once more brought back into focus by the experience of Ed and Dee Lusby in Arizona in dealing with varroa, tracheal mites and bee diseases.

At the same time, Africanized bees--smaller in size than the "European" bees that were in widespread use--reached the USA.  Africanized bees are known to make cells much smaller than European bees, and, for that matter, in South Africa, foundation is sold with cells about 10% smaller than the average size of commercial comb in the US.

Since then, a debate--based on conjecture, "interpretation" of a few selected texts from the past century or two, constant repetition of unproven and contested "facts", and heated rhetoric--has raged over whether bees were 'upsized' during the 20th century, whether they can be "retrogressed", whether smaller cells discourage varroa mites, what the best size for foundation cells might be and finally, whether foundation is really a good idea at all.

The endless debate has taken place in a number of venues, one of which, and perhaps the original venue, is BEE-L.  The issue created passionate discussion and divided beekeepers into two basic groups, the skeptical, and the converted.  There are also some who fall in between.

At the time the topic came up, I was a BEE-L moderator, and I spent some considerable time considering the topic and quite a bit more trying to mediate between the factions and separating conjecture and dogma from apparent fact.

Since cell measurement was central to the matter, and since some people threw numbers around, sometimes using several different measurement schemes and measurement systems in the same paragraph, I set out to create a conversion table that can be found here, and which can be used to follow the leaps back and forth between area and linear measure, English and metric, and to understand the parallelogram error that some make when trying to measure.  There is also a poll recording replies to requests for measurements from around the world.

I also made two visits to Lusbys'. (FWIW, I have the greatest respect for Dee, and sorely miss Ed)--although we disagree on many, if not most points and, with Meijers' help, also tried drawing some 4.9 plastic foundation that Dee sent us. Honestly, the effort was somewhat half-hearted, out of season, and a relative failure, but it sorta worked -- Pictures of 4.9 plastic Foundation. 

One point that seldom, if ever, comes up in discussion but is really critical to those who run bees for a livelihood and may be considering converting to 4.9 is that--AFAIK--Lusbys have never produced a commercial-sized crop, done pollination, or sold a significant amount of stock from their operation since the beginning of their grand experiment.

Further, although they did manage to get their numbers back up, captured swarms, which are frequent and numerous in the city of Tucson were, I understand, a significant part of the rebuilding process.  If ARS people are to be believed at all, Tucson and vicinity are highly Africanized. This also suggests strongly that there is an AHB component to this story. 

In other words, the commercial viability of their methods has yet to be proven.  I'm still waiting the hear of a North American commercial beekeeper using these methods successfully.

Since those days, I've tired of the perpetual nonsense going on at BEE-L and left the list, but I do read it from time to time in hopes that the quality of discussion might improve, but IMO, there are more posers than educated and critical thinkers posting there these days.

Recently, I see that Dennis has returned to BEE-L and has some interesting reports. In the past, I have found his observations and comments very interesting, but, often, seemingly--at least to me--somewhat contradictory and inconsistent.  (Is it my imagination, or does he revise his history?).  His most recent web pages are less so, and provide an idea of how the question of the effects of small cell on bees' ability to resist varroa may be observed.

Nonetheless, until his efforts are replicated and confirmed, there is still some mystery associated with the matter, and--in my opinion--some questionable claims by some uncritical but committed individuals who seem more interested in speculating, taking sides, indulging in rhetoric--and cheerleading-- than in observing.

For that matter, I don't know how people who let their bees build natural comb in top bar or box hives--using no foundation--can call themselves "Small Cell Beekeepers", or how those who force their bees to build on foundation--of any size--can call themselves "Natural" or even maybe "Organic" Beekeepers.

Go figure.  It is clear--to me at least--that there is not a lot of comprehension or intellectual honesty (take your choice) here.

Recently, I have also been a bit surprised to see that some ideas, I mentioned years back, showing up again.  For one thing, people are noticing that bees do not necessarily build combs that have only one size of cell, and that any one comb may have a variety of sizes.  A broodnest certainly does.  Foundation does not.  Moreover, this difference may even turn out to have some importance.

For auld lang syne, out of curiosity, and looking back, I did a search of the BEE-L archives using "foundation" as the search key and "allen" as the author (to cover the various email addresses I've used over the years), just to see if my memory is working.  I limited the search to posts before "1 jan 2004"

Here (below) are all the posts that came up in the search, but, frankly, though, I haven't the time or patience to completely read through them all at the moment.  I leave that anyone who is interested.

Maybe I'll weed them out further, when/if I have time.  Looking them over, I think it is clear what I think.  Read, if you like.  Frankly, these days, my eyes glaze over whenever the topic comes up...

As for a summary of what I think: Try this.

Oh, and anywhere you see "www.internode.net/honeybee" below, in a URL, substitute "www.honeybeeworld.com".  Internode was my WPP at the time.

  cell size conversion table - using foundation - 4.9 pictures - selected topics -home