Beemaster's International Beekeeping Forum

BEEKEEPING LEARNING CENTER => NATURAL & ORGANIC BEEKEEPING METHODS => Topic started by: melliphile on June 23, 2010, 08:58:42 am

Title: Regressed queen
Post by: melliphile on June 23, 2010, 08:58:42 am
If my regressed queen mates with a non-regressed drone, what size will the offspring be? This question is hypothetical, as I don't yet have a queen that's regressed; I'm just curious.
Title: Re: Regressed queen
Post by: fermentedhiker on June 23, 2010, 02:54:34 pm
queen cells are built outside of foundation and so are the size the bees want them to be so there really isn't such a thing as a regressed queen.  Drones are mostly the same.  Besides which regression has to do with the brood being raised in smaller cell sizes so it's really a physical limiting of the final size the brood can develop to and not a genetic one.  So crossing of regressed and not regressed bees or not won't make any difference in the offspring size as this will be determined by the comb available in the hive for the queen to lay in.
Title: Re: Regressed queen
Post by: luvin honey on June 25, 2010, 01:54:33 pm
But won't the size of her offspring determine what size cells they build?
Title: Re: Regressed queen
Post by: Michael Bush on June 25, 2010, 11:04:36 pm
>If my regressed queen mates with a non-regressed drone, what size will the offspring be?

There is nothing about regression that changes the genetics of the bees.  Her offspring will be whatever size the cells they are raised in determines.

http://www.bushfarms.com/beesnaturalcell.htm#whatisregression (http://www.bushfarms.com/beesnaturalcell.htm#whatisregression)
Title: Re: Regressed queen
Post by: luvin honey on June 26, 2010, 03:41:53 pm
So, Michael, what exactly causes them to start building smaller? Have bees just unnaturally gotten bigger because of foundation cell size?
Title: Re: Regressed queen
Post by: harvey on June 26, 2010, 10:41:55 pm
I believe that they were taught to build bigger when people started using foundation that had cell size imprinted.  Bees just followed suit and as the cells were bigger the larva grew larger prior to morphisizing.  Big word.  I don't understand though the size difference in queen cells.  The queen cell that I found on Dadent plasticell was twice the size that I know see on foundationless with there own drawn comb?  This is going to lead to a much smaller queen I believe?  Now that I have been catching swarms,  the swarm queens are all much smaller than what came with my packaged italians this year.  Maybe half the size?  Course the swarms are a lot darker also and probably all  from the same parent hive? 
Title: Re: Regressed queen
Post by: Michael Bush on June 27, 2010, 01:03:14 am
>So, Michael, what exactly causes them to start building smaller? Have bees just unnaturally gotten bigger because of foundation cell size?

There is nothing natural about them getting bigger. It was done artificially and on purpose.  Baudoux stretched the foundation to get bigger cells and the result was bigger bees and eventually getting the foundation manufactueres to make foundation with bigger cells.  Bees raised in the bigger cells are bigger.  Bees aren't taught anything.  Their instincts are to finish what is started and their sense of foundation is that someone started some comb that needs to be completed.  So they build it the size it was started.  Which in the case of "standard" foundation is 5.4mm in diameter as opposed to what they would build naturally which varies from 4.4mm to 5.1mm for workers and the rest of the way up to 7.0mm sometimes for drones but more typically about 6.0mm for drones...

See From ABC XYZ of Bee Culture 1945 edition pg 126 for much detail and any edition after for some detail.  Some of the old ABC XYZ of Bee Culture are on Google books for free.
Title: Re: Regressed queen
Post by: melliphile on June 27, 2010, 11:25:19 am
So, in the top bar hive that I just built, I used strips of pierco glued into the groove on the bar. Does this then mean that the bees will only draw the size of the cell on the starter strip? Is there hope that bees put on these bars would draw natural(smaller) size cells?
Title: Re: Regressed queen
Post by: fermentedhiker on June 27, 2010, 04:43:35 pm
They will draw out the size cells on the starter strip, on the strip itself only.  Once they start drawing there own comb via festooning below the starter strip they will draw whatever size they choose to.  If it's for honey storage or drone brood it will likely be larger if it's for brood it will most likely be smaller.
Title: Re: Regressed queen
Post by: luvin honey on June 28, 2010, 12:31:05 am
How does the regression begin? I assume that they cannot immediately build the size of cells they are genetically programmed to build because they are too big to build them. How, then, does it begin to move towards smallness? Just a tiny bit at a time?
Title: Re: Regressed queen
Post by: Michael Bush on June 28, 2010, 05:41:34 am
>So, in the top bar hive that I just built, I used strips of pierco glued into the groove on the bar. Does this then mean that the bees will only draw the size of the cell on the starter strip? Is there hope that bees put on these bars would draw natural(smaller) size cells?

As fermetedhiker says, they will adjust as they move down.  The strip will cause the first row or so to be larger, once they are off the strip things will get smaller.

>How does the regression begin? I assume that they cannot immediately build the size of cells they are genetically programmed to build because they are too big to build them. How, then, does it begin to move towards smallness? Just a tiny bit at a time?

I guess it depends on what you define as a "tiny bit".  If we mean proportionately, then I'd say they go in pretty large jumps.  Sometimes they draw 4.7mm on the first try, but more often it's more like 5.1mm on the first try and 4.9mm on the second and 4.7mm on the third, and 4.5mm if they want to go that small on the next one.  This is only in the core.  The outside edges of the broodnest seldom fall below 5.1mm.  Between 5.0mm and 4.9mm seems to be the threshold where the mite issues dissapear.

Title: Re: Regressed queen
Post by: BjornBee on June 28, 2010, 07:37:31 am
  Between 5.0mm and 4.9mm seems to be the threshold where the mite issues dissapear.

I wish it worked that magically in my hives with smallcell.  ;)
Title: Re: Regressed queen
Post by: BjornBee on June 28, 2010, 07:51:23 am
How does the regression begin? I assume that they cannot immediately build the size of cells they are genetically programmed to build because they are too big to build them. How, then, does it begin to move towards smallness? Just a tiny bit at a time?

One of the BEST ways to regress bees, is use a Warre hive. (I do not promote the Warre hive or protocol. But they do have their uses in looking at different comb, etc.)  Because of the constant under supering of the brood nest, you are continually stepping them down to a natural cell size. Funny thing is, my bees, although started with strips of smallcell foundation as guides, almost NEVER draw 4.9 or as some suggest, 4.5 or below.

You get 4.9 regressed bees by FORCING them on 4.9 foundation.

As a side point, I have regressed bees on full sheets of smallcell, then fed in foundationless into the center of the brood nest. They never, once allowed to build their own comb and NOT forced on smallcell foundation, stay at 4.9 or below.

I'm waiting for someone to suggest it will take eons of keeping bees on smallcell foundation to "break" the programming we forced onto the bees for the past hundred or so years.

Don't EVER confuse smallcell with natural cell. They are two different things.

NOBODY after more than 10 years of smallcell promotion, sells or guarantees mite resitsant bees or queens. In a market such as ours, doesn't this seem strange. a couple of people market smallcell nucs and queens, but the claims are not made. They just sell bees on a certain cell size comb, and no further claims are made. And after talking to a large number of people who bought queens and nucs from those promoting smallcell bees, it becomes very clear that they are not magical in the bees handling of mites, or any other disease claims made throughout the years.
Title: Re: Regressed queen
Post by: Michael Bush on June 29, 2010, 01:27:13 pm
>NOBODY after more than 10 years of smallcell promotion, sells or guarantees mite resitsant bees or queens.

I've never claimed it has anything to do with the queen or the bees.
Title: Re: Regressed queen
Post by: Hethen57 on July 14, 2010, 01:11:34 pm
I found it interesting that I put small cell queen on regular foundation (initially with bigger bees from a split)....and after a year of brood cycles the bees are now all small ...go figure  :?
Title: Re: Regressed queen
Post by: CountryBee on July 28, 2010, 07:32:24 am
This is so amazing!  So much to learn, thanks.  I keep studying but still I don't know it all!  Please keep talking about regression, thanks. :)
Title: Re: Regressed queen
Post by: bulldog on September 24, 2010, 04:23:53 pm
i realize i am new at this and this may seem like a really stupid question, but bare with me. isn't there anywhere that makes/sells foundation in a smaller size such as 4.7mm for example ?
Title: Regressing
Post by: BrentX on October 13, 2010, 02:27:28 pm
Really interesting thread going here...

so,  I have a hive on natural cell foundation.  The bees are small.  The comb is small.  In other hives I observe large drones in and near the hive, and large drone cells in the brood.  In this hive I have never seen a large bee, nor a large drone brood cell.  Last week a forlorn group of bees were haning just outside the hive lloking very much like they were not happy to be there...which I presumed were drones getting kicked out for the winter, however they look just like all the rest of the worker bees.  Is it possible that the drones have regressed to "worker bee" size?  or is something else up?
Title: Re: Regressed queen
Post by: Michael Bush on October 14, 2010, 10:37:06 am
They make some in Africa that size, but I don't know of any for sale in the US.  4.9mm is sufficient for resolving mite issues and getting them to go smaller is more work, and not really natural for this latitude for most of the brood nest.  Why not let them build their own, and if they want 4.7mm they can have it.  :)

http://www.bushfarms.com/beesfoundationless.htm (http://www.bushfarms.com/beesfoundationless.htm)
Title: Re: Regressed queen
Post by: VolunteerK9 on October 14, 2010, 10:44:29 am
i realize i am new at this and this may seem like a really stupid question, but bare with me. isn't there anywhere that makes/sells foundation in a smaller size such as 4.7mm for example ?

4.9 is as small as it gets from places like Brushy, Mann Lake etc.
Title: Re: Regressing
Post by: caticind on October 15, 2010, 11:24:50 am
Really interesting thread going here...

so,  I have a hive on natural cell foundation.  The bees are small.  The comb is small.  In other hives I observe large drones in and near the hive, and large drone cells in the brood.  In this hive I have never seen a large bee, nor a large drone brood cell.  Last week a forlorn group of bees were haning just outside the hive lloking very much like they were not happy to be there...which I presumed were drones getting kicked out for the winter, however they look just like all the rest of the worker bees.  Is it possible that the drones have regressed to "worker bee" size?  or is something else up?

I doubt it.  If you look close up, do they look like workers or drones in their features?  Eye size, antenna shape, body shape, etc.

What's "natural cell foundation" anyway?  I'm assuming you mean small cell?
Title: Re: Regressed queen
Post by: Kathyp on October 15, 2010, 12:38:24 pm
natural is what they build for themselves.  what you have is overly expensive and un-natural small cell foundation.  :evil:

have you checked your stores?  sometimes lethargic bees are starving.  temps have a lot to do with activity also.  are they guard bees because the hive has been hassled by robbers?
Title: Re: Regressed queen
Post by: BrentX on October 15, 2010, 10:34:19 pm
I should have used the term natural comb - these bees are mostly on foundationless comb.  The bees are small.  In other hives the drones are easy to find, being quite a bit larger than the rest of the bees.  Here there are no larger bees, and I have never seen an oversized drone brood like I see in other hives. 

After a few days of cool weather I found about 20 dead bees just outside the entrance this morning, along with some purple eyed larvae that has obviously just been pulled.  The dead bees and larvae are the same size as all the other bees in the hive.   This sounds like drones getting kicked out, but I could be wrong.
Title: Re: Regressed queen
Post by: Kathyp on October 15, 2010, 11:58:17 pm
could have gotten chilled.  even with small bees, the difference between drones and workers should be easy to spot.  if it were only dead bees, i'd guess some robbing.  the larvae tells me something else.  what's your low temp and how are your stores?  if it's just chilled brood that they pulled, that's normal.  some deaths from robbing are normal although you want to work to keep that to a minimum.  starvation is a bad thing.
Title: Forlorn Bees
Post by: BrentX on October 16, 2010, 01:36:36 pm
The first group of forlorn bees were mostly perched on rocks within 2 feet of the five.  Two on one rock, one on another, in total about 20 bees.  Yesterday the dead bees and purple eyed larva were congregated immediately outside the mouse guard at the reduced hive entrance, again about 20 bees.  The way these bees were situated suggested they were trying to get in, but werent allowed.  It looks like they spent the night at the entrance until the weather got them.

This hive is off by itself, no other hives nearby.

These bees have been fed using an internal frame feeder in a super above the inner cover.  They have been taking sugar buzz steadily, at a quart or more a day.  However in the last week they have slowed way down on the feeding.  They have eight frames plus of stored honey/sugar.  Hunger is not likely.   

Temperatures at night get down into the 40's but no frost yet. Highs this last week were in the 60's



So the robbing or hunger hypothesis seem unlikely.  Neighther would they explain why this hive produces no large drones, which is what I am  still pondering...
Title: Re: Regressed queen
Post by: Kathyp on October 16, 2010, 02:42:12 pm
most of us have learned the hard way that they are not dead until they are warm and dead.  you may see some in the AM that look dead and come back to life when the sun hits them.
  the dead brood most likely got chilled.  any dead bees around are probably dead workers that just wore out.  without seeing what you are seeing, there is no way to know for sure, but 20 or 30 dead bees around the hive is not alarming to me.

oh...about the drones.  i'd guess that where you live drones were kicked out weeks ago.  some hive produce lots of drones.  some few.  some years more than others.   they produce what they anticipate they need.  this year i had more drones than i have ever had, early in the year.  almost none later.  none for weeks now. 
Title: Re: Regressed queen
Post by: BrentX on October 17, 2010, 08:18:08 pm
Thanks for considering the possibilities
Title: Re: Forlorn Bees
Post by: VolunteerK9 on October 18, 2010, 11:18:22 am



These bees have been fed using an internal frame feeder in a super above the inner cover.  They have been taking sugar buzz steadily, at a quart or more a day.  However in the last week they have slowed way down on the feeding.  They have eight frames plus of stored honey/sugar.  Hunger is not likely.   

Temperatures at night get down into the 40's but no frost yet. Highs this last week were in the 60's





Take what I say with a grain of salt cuz this is my first year with bees, but Ive never heard of using a frame feeder above an inner cover. I thought that they usually were placed directly beside the cluster. Don't know if that has anything to do with their demise or not but if its already getting that cold, they may not want to travel through the inner cover to get to it.
Title: Re: Regressed queen
Post by: Michael Bach on December 19, 2010, 10:46:24 pm
I am trying SC this season to see my own results.  At my local association meeting this fall.....we had a presentation about SC and varroa.

Not encouraging.


http://www.ent.uga.edu/bees/documents/m08138.pdf (http://www.ent.uga.edu/bees/documents/m08138.pdf)
Title: Re: Regressed queen
Post by: BjornBee on December 20, 2010, 08:36:47 am
I am trying SC this season to see my own results.  At my local association meeting this fall.....we had a presentation about SC and varroa.

Not encouraging.


http://www.ent.uga.edu/bees/documents/m08138.pdf (http://www.ent.uga.edu/bees/documents/m08138.pdf)

Don't forget the studies from New Zealand and Australia that also showed the same results.... ;)

Of course there have been some beekeepers long before the studies came out, that had the same results...but they were deemed troublemakers, self promoters, ignorant, and just plain too stupid to know what they were looking at....  :-D
Title: Re: Regressed queen
Post by: Acebird on December 27, 2010, 02:08:59 pm
Somewhere in this discussion it was said that the cells vary all over between a range.  I am wondering if the bees start with smaller cells if left on their own because they are less labor intensive.  The need for bigger cells (bigger bees) may come later once the hive has gained strength so they accommodate.  This would naturally create a mix of different size cells.

So has anybody tried a mix of foundation material to see if the bees like it or not?
Title: Re: Regressed queen
Post by: Michael Bush on December 27, 2010, 10:19:52 pm
>So has anybody tried a mix of foundation material to see if the bees like it or not?

What purpose would it serve?  You can just let them build their own variety of cell sizes without any foundation.
Title: Re: Regressed queen
Post by: Acebird on December 28, 2010, 10:21:55 am
Well I guess you could ask the question, "What purpose does it serve to use any foundation"?  You tell me.  They make a lot of foundation material for beeks to purchase so there must be some advantage to it.

I am suggesting mixing the sizes because that apparently is what the bees do when left on there own.  Humans are all different sizes.  A colony is like a city.  Some people dig ditches, clean sewers, move furniture, answer the phone or just type.  Physical size may have something to do with occupations.
Title: Re: Regressed queen
Post by: deknow on December 28, 2010, 02:52:53 pm
They make a lot of foundation material for beeks to purchase so there must be some advantage to it.

there are certainly perceived advantages, and there are "pros" to using foundation...but what are the "cons"?  do folks that have only used foundation have an understanding of the pros and cons?  in most cases, i don't think so....and very few beekeepers in the U.S. have ever kept bees without foundation (most don't think it's possible).

"they" also sell a lot of lottery tickets...and people actually buy them!  to "what purpose"?  well, the govt certainly does it to raise revenue...but what does the consumer get out of it?  is it helpful to the purchaser?  do people who purchase lottery tickets generally benefit overall?  surely "they" can't be selling us something that isn't helpful, can they?

deknow

"Look, this is one of those places they collect the voluntary tax on people that can't do math!"
-Michael Bush in the back of Dee's truck pulling up to a store with a big "lottery" sign out front
Title: Re: Regressed queen
Post by: AR Beekeeper on December 28, 2010, 03:35:06 pm
Acebird;  Go to the reprint articles archives and look at the "Online beekeeping library".  Select H in the alphabet and pick Hutchinson, W.Z. and read his 1891 article on foundation.
Title: Re: Regressed queen
Post by: Acebird on December 28, 2010, 05:03:23 pm
I tried but the search doesn't seem to work for me.
Title: Re: Regressed queen
Post by: Acebird on December 28, 2010, 05:15:24 pm
I got it AR.  So his deal is the cells are uniform and claims that as a good thing.  He also claims a time factor.  Some seem to argue with that though.
Title: Re: Regressed queen
Post by: Acebird on December 28, 2010, 05:18:07 pm
Quote
and very few beekeepers in the U.S. have ever kept bees without foundation


We have more than one in our small local club that do so you might be behind on your facts here.
Title: Re: Regressed queen
Post by: deknow on December 28, 2010, 05:27:27 pm
...it's become much more popular in the last 3-4 years...but, no, in this case, i'm not "behind in my facts".  very few beekeepers in the u.s. have ever kept bees without foundation.  i'd venture a guess around (or less than) 1%.

deknow
Title: Re: Regressed queen
Post by: Acebird on December 28, 2010, 07:38:55 pm
I find it hard to believe that Upstate NY is ahead of the times.  I know people have been doing it for six years or better.  I am not going to guess on the numbers.  It would just be a guess.
Title: Re: Regressed queen
Post by: Michael Bush on December 28, 2010, 09:13:18 pm
>Well I guess you could ask the question, "What purpose does it serve to use any foundation"?

I ask that question a lot.

> You tell me.

None.  And a lot of down sides.

>  They make a lot of foundation material for beeks to purchase so there must be some advantage to it.

There is to the people selling it...
For years the two arguments were that they would raise less drones (debunked by Dr. Collison) and that they burn up 16 pounds (sometimes down to 8 pounds) of honey to make a pound of wax.  Which is basically irrelevant as they build the comb more slowly and time is the issue.  Drawn comb makes more honey, not because of the COST of wax but the TIME to make the comb.

http://bushfarms.com/beesharvest.htm#expenseofwax (http://bushfarms.com/beesharvest.htm#expenseofwax)

>I am suggesting mixing the sizes because that apparently is what the bees do when left on there own. 

So why not leave them to their own choices on building comb?

>Humans are all different sizes.  a colony is like a city.  Some people dig ditches, clean sewers, move furniture, answer the phone or just type.  Physical size may have something to do with occupations.

Exactly.

http://bushfarms.com/beesfoundationless.htm (http://bushfarms.com/beesfoundationless.htm)
http://bushfarms.com/beesfoursimplesteps.htm#naturalsize (http://bushfarms.com/beesfoursimplesteps.htm#naturalsize)
http://bushfarms.com/beesnaturalcell.htm (http://bushfarms.com/beesnaturalcell.htm)

My point is that you can get this result with no effort at all.  Making foundation with a variety of sizes would be a very expensive and labor intensive undertaking and it would still be unnatural.  Especially when you consider the bees will do this for you and make them in the exact proportions they are in need of at that moment in time.
Title: Re: Regressed queen
Post by: deknow on December 29, 2010, 03:43:31 am
I am not going to guess on the numbers.  It would just be a guess.

....my number is just a guess as well, but it's based on lots of online discussions (here and elswehere...here probably the least), having given beekeeping talks (and interacting with beekeepers) in several states, talking to hundreds and thousands of folks a week who come to farmers markets (some subset of whom are or have been beekeepers)...all the while taking into account that the people that tend to seek us out tend to be those of a "natural" bent.  i should also say that our book is the only mainstream beekeeping book that talks about (and encourages the use of) foundationless frames in Langstroth hives (not that this magically makes me know who is and who isn't using foundation, but it's obviously something i'm at least somewhat tuned into).

deknow
Title: Re: Regressed queen
Post by: Acebird on December 29, 2010, 11:58:41 am
Quote
and that they burn up 16 pounds (sometimes down to 8 pounds) of honey to make a pound of wax.  Which is basically irrelevant as they build the comb more slowly and time is the issue.  Drawn comb makes more honey, not because of the COST of wax but the TIME to make the comb.

I have heard this argument the other way so it would be good to have this statement prooven for the new beeks.
Title: Re: Regressed queen
Post by: Michael Bush on December 30, 2010, 12:00:01 am
"The opinion of experts once was that the production of beeswax in a colony required great quantities of nectar which, since it was turned into wax, would never be turned into honey. Until quite recently it was thought that bees could store seven pounds of honey for every pound of beeswax that they needed to manufacture for the construction of their combs--a figure which seems never to have been given any scientific basis, and which is in any case quite certainly wrong. The widespread view that if the combs were used over and over, through the use of the honey extractor, then the bees would be saved the trouble of building them and could convert the nectar thus saved into honey, was only minimally correct. A strong colony of bees will make almost as much comb honey as extracted honey on a strong honey flow. The advantage of the extractor, in increasing harvests, is that honey stored from minor flows, or gathered by the bees over many weeks of the summer, can easily be extracted, but comb honey cannot be easily produced under those conditions." --Richard Taylor, The Comb Honey Book
Title: Re: Regressed queen
Post by: Acebird on December 30, 2010, 10:09:28 am
 
Quote
a strong colony of bees will make almost as much comb honey as extracted honey on a strong honey flow.


My mind is not grasping the difference between extracted honey vs. comb honey.  How is the honey different?
Title: Re: Regressed queen
Post by: Michael Bush on December 30, 2010, 11:09:48 am
Taylor was writing about honey in the comb.  The principle is the same with extracted.  Comb honey is harvested comb and all and eaten comb and all.  His point, and my point, is that the gain with drawn comb is that the bees have somewhere to store even a short sudden flow.  Under these circumstances there is a very noticable difference between already drawn comb and when they have to draw it before they can store the nectar.  Otherwise the difference is difficult to dicern.

If you've ever eaten comb honey you'd taste the difference. It's like the differece between buying ground coffee and griding it fresh.

Title: Re: Regressed queen
Post by: VolunteerK9 on December 30, 2010, 12:06:29 pm


If you've ever eaten comb honey you'd taste the difference. It's like the differece between buying ground coffee and griding it fresh.



Cool analogy.

There IS a difference in taste. Its almost like an honey version of "Pop Rocks" when you chew the comb and the cells bust open in your mouth.
Title: Re: Regressed queen
Post by: Acebird on December 30, 2010, 12:13:08 pm
Quote
His point, and my point, is that the gain with drawn comb is that the bees have somewhere to store even a short sudden flow.
 

I'm confused.  :? :?

Quote
Under these circumstances there is a very noticable difference between already drawn comb and when they have to draw it before they can store the nectar.


Isn't these two statements opposing arguments?
Title: Re: Regressed queen
Post by: Acebird on December 30, 2010, 12:21:52 pm
Quote
There IS a difference in taste. Its almost like an honey version of "Pop Rocks" when you chew the comb and the cells bust open in your mouth.

I can see where comb honey would always have a fresher taste due to it being sealed in wax and not exposed to air.  It is kind of like pulling a carrot out of the ground, dusting it off and eating it within foot steps of where you pulled it out of the ground.  You are not going to match that taste in any market.
Title: Re: Regressed queen
Post by: Bee-Bop on December 30, 2010, 02:58:34 pm
One thing not mentioned here is;

The wax producing gland is usable from age 5 days to age 10 days, {I would actually have to look it up}

Then if I remember correctly they become Foragers, before beeing wax producers, they were Nurse Bees.

Each segment of a bees life is controlled by nature, a Forger can regress back to being a Nurse, or wax producer in an emergency.

Some Bee Books are very worth while reading, providing they list references, not just opinions.

Bee-Bop
Title: Re: Regressed queen
Post by: rdy-b on December 30, 2010, 06:33:42 pm
  i agree with Bee-BooP--well said-- :lol: RDY-B