1.9K
On the Size of Cells – Dee Lusby Preface
Dee Lusby gives her preface on the article she co-authored.
I do not like this two part series because it was rushed to publication and also because it was published before differences were ironed out on archives. I felt then, and I still feel now, the differences should have been noted along with more of the history on cell size on feral combs. As Ed and I were authors on this article, I also feel that this should have been done, and only proper. A.I. Root made the first mill following original thoughts of the English like Cheshire, Wedmore, etc. and it fit nicely with the chip cut method they had on spiral cutting for the old rhombus method. Just like 5.4 is now 800, so has 5.1 been made 857 cells per dm squared instead of the old 4.83, which it should be.
Until they go back to the old field sizing that originally set up the system for foundation which was measured parallel wall to parallel wall and then down the diagonals, there will be problems and I just can not let it go. I felt our author rights were violated then, and the article should have been broader with more pros and cons and if there were two sides to understand to the measurements then both sides should have had the cards layed on the table. That right was taken away when published without final signoff by all parties concerned, on something we put a lot of input into, gathering samples of combs and digging into history, page by page, out of archives. I have told them since then, many times, they can do what they want with the measurements in the lab for their perfect research for what it is worth, but the field is the field and there you have to do what works and measure the way beekeepers have always measured, namely, simple and fast and parallel then down the diagonals for the feral, always following the bees. Repeat, always following the bees.
– Dee Lusby
I do not like this two part series because it was rushed to publication and also because it was published before differences were ironed out on archives. I felt then, and I still feel now, the differences should have been noted along with more of the history on cell size on feral combs. As Ed and I were authors on this article, I also feel that this should have been done, and only proper. A.I. Root made the first mill following original thoughts of the English like Cheshire, Wedmore, etc. and it fit nicely with the chip cut method they had on spiral cutting for the old rhombus method. Just like 5.4 is now 800, so has 5.1 been made 857 cells per dm squared instead of the old 4.83, which it should be.
Until they go back to the old field sizing that originally set up the system for foundation which was measured parallel wall to parallel wall and then down the diagonals, there will be problems and I just can not let it go. I felt our author rights were violated then, and the article should have been broader with more pros and cons and if there were two sides to understand to the measurements then both sides should have had the cards layed on the table. That right was taken away when published without final signoff by all parties concerned, on something we put a lot of input into, gathering samples of combs and digging into history, page by page, out of archives. I have told them since then, many times, they can do what they want with the measurements in the lab for their perfect research for what it is worth, but the field is the field and there you have to do what works and measure the way beekeepers have always measured, namely, simple and fast and parallel then down the diagonals for the feral, always following the bees. Repeat, always following the bees.
– Dee Lusby
