My comments were a "tongue and cheek" comment, not really directed at you. But it was making fun of the fact that so many "casual observations" from those promoting and pushing smallcell just start as innocent comments, sounds good to fit the agenda, gets repeated a few times, grows into "urban legend" status, then just becomes "fact" over time without any clear research or proof. I've heard so many claims over the years that I am not sure if there is anything left.
At first, anyone questioning smallcell and some of the wild unsubstantiated claims were met with "You do not have smallcell" which was an easy defensive position since "regression" took three years as many said. And nobody was going to do three years work overnight just to make a point. But now, many have smallcell that can comment beyond the narrow visioned pushers of smallcell. So now, I hear of just one "observation" after another, almost like grasping at straws, looking for the next item to add to that list to justify or strengthen their position.
I'm not against smallcell, or TBH, Warre, or anything else. I think there are positives and negatives to all types of beekeeping out there. In the past however, even mentioning any less than the full fanatic position, was met with opposition and denial. I've heard smallcell claim "natural" status, as well as TBH, Warre, and whatever each group happens to be pushing.
I started making my own observation known years ago with smallcell. But then I was easily cast aside because of being less than some university level study. I was just one beekeeper. But others are coming forward with questions after keeping bees on smallcell, as well as some studies such as with J Berry. But there is always a new twist, a new angle, a new justification.
I do not label myself as a smallcell beekeeper, a TBH beekeeper, or anything else. So I do not need to justify, stretch, make up, or defend any type of beekeeping. Many however get caught up being a "type" beekeeper and need to promote agendas with making themselves special.
You may see many things when you bring in different type bees. There natural ability may have more to do with genetics, than bee size. Right now we just do not know. Just as the comments that MB made, he was referencing a very particular type bee (now extinct) that brother Adam was referencing. I personally can not cross over an observation about a smaller "English brown bee" and then just assume that if we can get other type of bees to that size, that claims of the same output will be seen. Studies and research does that. Not "proof by association".
For all the stuff that make brother Adam seemingly walk on water and makes him an expert on this or that (I think he did many great things so don't take me wrong on this) I am shocked that to further a position on smallcell, that an negative "assumption" to brother Adams ignorance was made in regards to cell size. We have no proof that cell size changes at that time made any difference at all in what he stating, or if that even played into it. Brother Adam was making an observation about a particular type bee that stood out among other bees, at a time when all things were equal in regards to cell size. That is why he wrote what he wrote. He was making a statement about a type bees that seemed to fly further than other types. Reading into it any further is just more of the same junk science that seems to go with the promotion of smallcell. I acknowledge that MB was just making a point about a bee that flew far. But it is this type of "casual" input that a first time reader may assume as some justification for small bees flying further and carry that over to all small bees. Lets not confuse the issue...brother Adam was talking about a very particular type bees, happening to be small, that flew very far. We can not just carry over that observation to say that all small bees will do that well. And we can not even go back and test what he observed. Those bees are extinct!