# Small Cell on a Commercial Level



## suprstakr (Feb 10, 2006)

Check organicbeekeepers.com Dee Lusby.


----------



## summersetretrievers (Mar 4, 2006)

Not only Dee but several people on her organic list are doing just that. So come and chat. 
Cindy


----------



## Beemaninsa (Jun 9, 2004)

If I remember correctly, Bob Harrison had given it a try.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

{Bob Harrison had given it a try.}

In great depth and indicated it was an abject failure. 

Focused research is out there indicating the claims of small cell users about capping times and less mites has been dispelled. I think that means the methodology used by the researchers failed and there is a combination of management techniques as well as other factors such as isolation, stock and unknown factors that successful operators such as Dennis, Michael and Dee have perfected over time.

I don't think we as commericial operators can go into small cell under the concept that regressing our bees to 4.9 and then running our management practices as usual will work. Everything scientific as well as Rob's input I've read says small cell doesn't work. I think we have to study the whole managment program of the folks having success and adapt that into our mangement plan. Of course the small cell success users have made access to this readily available on thier web sites which for me is step 1.


----------



## Nick Noyes (Apr 28, 2005)

What happenned to Bob? I would like to hear his input on this. I am pretty skeptical as to it working on a large migratory outfit. I have some hsc mixed with regular frames that I am going to pull out and make small cell hives. I will know by this time next year.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

I'm in the same mind set. The expense of replacing foundation, labor for regression and loss of production would virtually reuire a high probabliity of a successful outcome.

I suspect Bob is chasing CCD bee problems in Florida as he's been gone for awhile. I'll see if I can locate his experiance and post the link.


----------



## suprstakr (Feb 10, 2006)

posted February 16, 2007 07:58 AM 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
{Bob Harrison had given it a try.}

In great depth and indicated it was an abject failure. 


One failure does not mean it trumps manny succeses.One person who knows big words writes a paper and all at once it's the bible,while people who suceed are naive I guess.


----------



## loggermike (Jul 23, 2000)

I haven't heard of any migratory keepers being successful with small cell.I don't see how it could make much difference where hives are on the 'front line'of the 'varroa wars'.It seems to me the proponents of small cell are all non-migratory, so the exposure to collapsing hives is likely minimal.I do try to keep an open mind, but haven't seen any scientific evidence as to why 4.9 is any better than 5.4 .I believe Bob H. said his experiments are a work in progress.


----------



## JaiPea (Sep 27, 2005)

Bob's experiment was years ago, and after much discussion with Dennis Murrel he has decided to try again. 

His posts on this have been on Bee-L over the past few months (he is not planning to use Supercell).


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

{One failure does not mean it trumps manny succeses.}

It may do exactly that although that is not my point. My point is there is much more here than just cell size. Scientific research clearly has shown that. I have complete faith in the work of the people I have mentioned as well as having complete faith in the fact I have a long way to go before understanding their management sytstems and how that gets extrapolated into a commercial operation.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?A1=ind0702c&L=bee-l 

Here's the link on bee-L with pretty extensive discussion on small cell. JaiPea is correct, Bob, who last year shot down small cell is giving it another try! He may have be forced to defect to Beesource if it doesn't work this time!

[ February 16, 2007, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: Joel ]


----------



## summersetretrievers (Mar 4, 2006)

I think that there is great success in using a combination of small cell and bee's that are disease resistant i.e., bee's with hygenic behavior, and strains of bee's that are found to be mite resistant such as Russians or for that matter feral survivors. I think you need a combination of the two for the best results IMO
Cindy


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

If there were any commercial-grade operations
running small-cell colonies, their names would
be on the tips of everyone's tongues.

The fact that the only name that anyone can
summon up is Dee Lusby's is not surprising.


----------



## Barry Digman (May 21, 2003)

I wouldn't take the experiences of commercial beekeeping operations as evidence that small does or does not work. Some things simply may not be scalable. A Big Mac will never taste like the 1/2 pound green chili cheeseburger from Hometown Hamburgers. The input requirements of managing 5,000 hives can't be the same as managing 20, and neither can the output.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Scientific research clearly has shown that.

I have not seen any scientific research that would clearly show anything about small cell, except that the researchers failed to follow any of the protocol that any successful small cell advocate has found necessary, and did very short term, very limited, very statistically irrelevant studies. I'd be very interested in a serious study that lasted more than three weeks and actually involved regressed bees on 4.9mm or smaller comb, not just a small strip of 4.9mm foundation that is poorly drawn by large cell bees.

If you have any knowledge of any studies that come CLOSE to that criteria I would be very interested in seeing them.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> the researchers failed to follow any of the 
> protocol that any successful small cell advocate 
> has found necessary

Which of the many very different protocols 
would that be, Mike? Written down where?









> and did very short term

It seems inappropriate for a critique of a study 
design to come from someone who has never even
attempted a single such study design himself.

> I'd be very interested in a serious study that
> lasted more than three weeks and actually 
> involved regressed bees on 4.9mm or smaller 
> comb, not just a small strip of 4.9mm 
> foundation that is poorly drawn by large cell 
> bees.

I'll say it again - round up a few of these
"properly regressed" colonies, and make them
available to the researchers with the skills
you hold so much distain. After all, they 
certainly can't die if left untreated, can they?

[ February 20, 2007, 01:20 AM: Message edited by: Jim Fischer ]


----------



## empilolo (Oct 7, 2006)

Perhaps I should try one day to "enlarge" my natural bees (A.m. adansonii) from now around 4.6 mm natural SC to 5.4 mm LC. Modernize my bees, so to say, and see what happens ? 

Every beek here operates biological - no drugs, treatments, acids, etc. Original Apis mellifera builds SC, that is without human interference in the form of foundation.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

Empilolo,

I would be very interested to hear the results if you do such a thing. One of the major confounders with this whole small cell thing is the presence of Africanized genetics. Although we only have a few strains of scutetella, most people in the U.S. acknowledge that these creatures differ vastly from the European strains generally favored by beekeepers.


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Jim and Everyone,

>No, sorry - extraordinary claims
require extraordinary proof from
those making the claims.

Not so! Sharing extraordinary results, should goad those who are truly interested in the same, to do a little proving for themselves. And maybe do it even better than those who have freely shared.

I think those who continue to cry prove, prove, gimme, gimme without investing there own effort, aren't really interested in the results. They want to eat without working ;>)

Yet, the real work has already been done. The Lusbys have expended decades of time and sweat. And Dadant risked producing small cell foundation. Today, putting bees on small cell foundation is so easy it's like eating at a potluck dinner. Just bring a plate, silverware and something to share.

It's interesting that extraordinary claims have been and are swallowed, without question, by most beekeepers, especially if it's convienient.

Take foundation for example. It's incredulous to believe that foundation, which produces such a poor approximation to a natural broodnest is accepted without question or proof. Yet, to think that such a product could be used without some effect on bee health is truly extraordinary! I'll bet most beekeepers think that by using foundation, their bees are actually better off than if left to their own devices.

This kind of thinking, that almost any intervention man can conceive of results in some benefit to the bee if the bees 'accept' it, and that man can do it better than the bees themselves has produced the current state of affairs most beekeepers find themselves in. And it's this extraordinary thinking that has produced those extraordinarily sad results. 

Those who have gone back to the bee and are attempting to cooperate with it's basic biology and needs are regaining those ordinary results which have been lost. Bees that are prolific, healthy and productive. Bees that survive and thrive without much attention or intervention.

These beekeepers aren't concerned or consumed by those extraordinary problems. In fact their beekeeping is very ordinary:>) They have lots of time for other things.

It's particularly sad, that in beekeeping, commercial success is often the standard and proof needed by many. The little guys often look up to the big guys, defined by hive count, with awe. And often listen up to get the latest inside info on what to spray or drip.

Yet, commercial beekeeping has always been a risky and marginally economic business. Economics often dictate that many corners are cut which compromise both product quality and bee health. 

I laugh when I compare beekeeping to romance. And I'm glad that I don't need to study the operations of those involved with commercial romance to experience the best kind of romance my wife. And I don't have to worry about treatments there, either :>)))

Regards
Dennis
Knowing that those who watch the clouds will never plant. Not because of the clouds, they're only the excuse, but for other reasons.

[ February 17, 2007, 09:10 AM: Message edited by: D. Murrell ]


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--I would be very interested to hear the results if you do such a thing. One of the major confounders with this whole small cell thing is the presence of Africanized genetics.--(A)

We have AHB in Pennsylvania?


----------



## empilolo (Oct 7, 2006)

Aspera

The whole "African" issue is fairly muddled. For a start, I would like to mention that newest science thinks Apis mellifera originated in Africa. I would venture to say that todays Apis mellifera races are quite close and not that far apart in their traits/behaviour as some reports would suggest.

Bro Adam crossed in scutellata to his Buckfast bee. Although I have read some adverse comment about Buckfast on US forums, Buckfast is still highly regarded by many beekeepers in Germany (while others seem to "hate" them). Apart from that, Elgon bees are somewhat popular in Northern Europe too, which is Buckfast x monticola cross. In short, African genetics are already there, have been around for a while.

The really BIG difference in my view is nothing but that the African races have not been tinkered with by human beekeepers over the decades, especially the last 150 years. Unlike ordinary cattle (eg Auerochs), we are actually quite lucky to have the original stock (genetic pool) still vibrantly alive. Therefore, they have a tendency to swarm more often and are not as docile as the European races.

Although the general view is that Apis mellifera is not a domesticated animal in the stricter sense, I would contend that todays main European races have been "improved" by selective breeding for quite a while and swarms and drones from "improved" stock have had their influence on whatever wild stock there has been in Europe and/or the Americas.

Aspera, I think I would be in a position to carry out the "enlarging" experiment next year (enough colonies by then, I hope, to sacrifice two). Would you help with defining the test, as I am not a scientist.


----------



## albee (Nov 16, 2006)

I think Don is doing good. fat/beeman


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

(that any successful small cell advocate has found necessary, and did very short term, very limited,)

Mike are you saying that the 4.9 is the trigger and researchers are doing it wrong? Were there years of using small cell where you refined your stock and management practices with hives on small cell that did die before getting the right combination of Mgt./Stock or is their a pattern of once a hive is successfully regressed it is pretty much an automatic they can be kept without treatments. I'm asking these questions in the context that small cell beekeepers loose hives for other reason than disease and pest with some level of normal attrition.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Which of the many very different protocols
would that be, Mike? Written down where? [Smile]

I'd settle for ANY of them that are being done by ANYONE succeeding with it. There is one well-documented one on this site. But the basics are that you have to get down to 4.9mm maximum size in the brood nest before you have any right to expect results and you'll need the bees raised on that size. I have yet to see that happen in any experiment I've seen.

[edit]

Again, you make a lot of assumptions, Dr. Fischer. I am a bit more aware of research studies than you always assume. My wife is a member of ACRP (Association of Clinical Research Professionals) and has had some bylines on some research papers. We have always talked at great length about research.

[edit]

Expert? No. Have I studied statistics? Yes. Have I read books on statistics? Yes. Have I helped researchers DO statistics. Yes. Have I written computer programs to do statistics? Yes.

>I'll say it again - round up a few of these
"properly regressed" colonies, and make them
available to the researchers with the skills
you hold so much distain. 

You assume I have disdain for researchers. I do not. My complaints are usually with the broad conclusions that they draw from very narrow and very short term research. Often classic "Post hoc ergo proctor hoc". When they are not "Post hoc", then it is often a broad conclusion based on a narrow experiment. For instance, on a subject we have recently discussed, one could do an experiment on early spring feeding and have dramatically different results depending on how the experiment was set up. Here's my predictions based on how the experiment is actually done:

Experiment #1
Two apiaries. Both sent into winter very light on stores. No equalizing of stores done in the spring. One fed heavily and the other not at all.

Result, dramatic difference in build up and in harvest of fed apiary compared to the unfed one.

Experiment#2
Two apiaries. Both sent into winter very heavy on stores. No equalizing of stores done in the spring. One fed heavily and the other not at all.

Result, a slight difference in build up of the fed apiary compared to the unfed apiary and a slight increase in the harvest.

Experiment #3
Two apiaries. Both sent into winter very heavy on stores. Both equalized on stores in the spring so that they have plenty of honey. One fed heavily and the other not at all.

Result, no significant difference between the two.

How can you end up with three different conclusions? Because the other factors involved have to be taken into consideration. No hive will build brood in the spring to the same extent when they HAVE abundant stores as they will when they do not. Feeding affects stores. But stores also affect stores. And this is a pretty simple relationship. The difference in outcomes is often not one of the criteria being monitored or controlled or if it IS being controlled it is controlled in a way that skews the study. In this case if both apiaries are short on stores the results will be dramatic. If they are not, the results will be insignificant. In both cases they are equal between the control and the experiment. But they are at two different levels. The complexities of all the interactions in a beehive can make it difficult to know what conclusions are warranted and what conclusions are not, just because of a particular circumstance that is not being taken into account.

>After all, they
certainly can't die if left untreated, can they?

Anything can die if mismanaged enough or just unlucky enough. That however is not what I'm worried about. I've never had any qualms about providing some small cell bees to some researchers. Apparently you think I should volunteer to donate them, ship them across the country and pay all the costs. If you have someone wanting to do the research please put me in contact with them. Put up or shut up. If you do not come up with an actual researcher who actually wants to use my hives I will expect you to quit flogging this "dead horse".

[edit]

It seems like a cop out to refuse to do such a simple experiment yourself if you care at all about the outcome.

>Perhaps I should try one day to "enlarge" my natural bees (A.m. adansonii) from now around 4.6 mm natural SC to 5.4 mm LC. Modernize my bees, so to say, and see what happens ? 

Here's the research:
http://www.funpecrp.com.br/gmr/year2003/vol1-2/gmr0057_full_text.htm

[ February 19, 2007, 11:08 PM: Message edited by: Admin ]


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

{I think those who continue to cry prove, prove, gimme, gimme without investing there own effort, aren't really interested in the results.}

With the recent introduction of commercially viable small cell foundation and additional efforts aimed not at producing studies to duplicate already successful operation but at defining a managment discipline comes about more commericial operations will convert to small cell. Why wouldn't there be a move as we replace old comb in our operations over the next few years to regress to small cell. Certainly no information (that I'm aware of) indicates it is harmful to bees and potentially the benefits may be considerable. That's my attitude. As stated I think there is as much in the mgt. discipline as in the small cell itself.

Empilolo comparing beekeeping in Africa to the US and Europe is like comparing Lions to domestic cats. Bees in these coutries are faced with much higher biological stresses such as geographic species overpopulation, frequent long distance moves to pollinate the large amount of food produced in the US as well as the uncontrolled influx of bees and diseases due to a lack of incoming inspection controls and trade practices in the US. Additonally they face the use of anti-biotics (literally translated means against life), chemical treatmens and manipulation stresses needed to help them overcome these issues in this environment. 

I don't think small cell is going to be the magic answer to our commercial beekeeping woes but certainly a disipline that may be a powerful weapon in our goal of survival.


----------



## Barry Digman (May 21, 2003)

What would it take to have independent researchers run the experiment?


----------



## Sundance (Sep 9, 2004)

Joel..."Why wouldn't there be a move as we replace old comb in our operations over the next few years to regress to small cell. Certainly no information (that I'm aware of) indicates it is harmful to bees and potentially the benefits may be considerable. That's my attitude."

Mine too!! Well said.

coyote....."What would it take to have independent researchers run the experiment?"

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Either in grants at the front end, or the
possibility of profit at the back end.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Certainly no information (that I'm aware of) indicates it is harmful to bees and potentially the benefits may be considerable. 

Precisely.


----------



## Barry Digman (May 21, 2003)

"Either in grants at the front end, or the
possibility of profit at the back end."

How much money? Has anyone designed such an experiment so that there's at least a starting point for figuring out what it really takes? I'd be interested to see what the protocols would be.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

Interesting paper Micheal. The essential question then becomes "Are Africanized genetics necessary for a small cell effect?" Frankly, I don't want any, in spite of their tremendous genetic diversity, disease resistance etc. I think that Bwrangler had some very interesting anecdotes about his own work enlarging SC bees. Empilolo and others might want to check out his website.

[ February 17, 2007, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: Aspera ]


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>The essential question then becomes "Are Africanized genetics necessary for a small cell effect?" 

I've seen nothing that would indicate that indicate that. The only change in that research was the cell size. The mites don't care if they are African or European.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

i wasn't necessarily refering to what you've seen. What i meant was, would a "purebred" carnica/ligurian resist mites like an AHB on SC. The research is reasonably well done, and DeJong is a good writer.


----------



## Nick Noyes (Apr 28, 2005)

Is anyone running small cell hives and large cell hives in the same yard and not treating the small cell hives with success?
I am going to run some trial hives on hsc throughout our outfit and treat them exactly the same as every other hive except I am not going to treat them for mites. I am using hsc so I know they are 4.9mm so there is no confusion there.
Will it work and is this a fair test?


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

I am running the two side by side in the same yards, and in the sc hives the number of mites found is a small fraction to the number I find in the lc hives. Most of the hives I treated this year were inbetween the two cell sizes.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Will it work and is this a fair test?

Sounds fair enough to me. There is the effect of mites on drifting bees from hives that have more (say LC hives?), but I don't know how to easily eliminate that.


----------



## pahvantpiper (Apr 25, 2006)

Nick, I'm doing the same thing you are this spring in regards to small cell. I'll be interested to see how our results compare.

-Rob Bliss


----------



## Nick Noyes (Apr 28, 2005)

Even if some mites drifted into the small cell they wouldn't reproduce so you wouldn't see a large scale infestation. 
I am a skeptic but I really hope the small cell works. It could make my job a lot easier.
Rob hows life been treating you? I hope all is well.


----------



## loggermike (Jul 23, 2000)

One thing that might help, Nick, is to pick out hives that have been on Pierco .We all notice small strains of bees when going through hives, so those might be good candidates too.
I reserve the right to be very skeptical, but will never KNOW for sure unless I try it under MY operating conditions.So I guess its time to put up or shut up.


----------



## Nick Noyes (Apr 28, 2005)

Right now I have some double deeps that are 1 deep new foundation last year and 1 deep with HSC. When we get them home I am going to split them and take the queen with the HSC. I will then add another deep of HSC making them 100% small cell. I will probably requeen them in May or June after they are well established in both boxes.
If it works for a year or two with no treatments we will be buying semi loads of HSC.


----------



## Dan Williamson (Apr 6, 2004)

Is a year or two enough time to determine if it is working? I would certainly not bet semi-loads worth of HSC on that. I hope you find sucess. 

My question is... How long should the test be conducted to determine viability on a commercial level with the additional migratory pressure?


----------



## hummingberd (Aug 26, 2006)

"It seems inappropriate for a critique of a study 
design to come from someone who has never even
gotten a single such study design past any sort 
of peer review [edit]."

I'm wondering why the animosity about small cell? Have you tried it Jim, or are your thoughts based on research of others experience? I can't quite figure out why people are so afraid to ry small cell. Michael seems to have done lots of personal work with small cell, and has had success with it. WHy isn't that enough to peak people's interest. We as bee keepers are trying everything from awful chemicals that pollute the bees, hives, honey, environment, etc... to what I would call crazy tactics like powdered sugar baths! These aren't working. Why not try something new? I'm not trying to "stir the pot" here, just wondering what peoples' reservations are based on. I personally am extremely excited to try this method, but frustrated that there was no information about this relatively new method in any of the research that I did before committing to bee keeping.

Michael, as always your post was informative and I'm REALLY glad you answered back! I don't know that I'll ever be sophisticated and scientifically minded enough to run "tests" but i'll be happy to post results on my regression to small cell.

[ February 19, 2007, 11:18 PM: Message edited by: Admin ]


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

"I'm wondering why the animosity about small cell?"

You just have to understand Mr Fischer, he doesn't figure that he should try anything unless there is scientific proof that it works. Not just any scientific proof, but the ultimite scientific proof. Really, if someone doesn't want to try it, you can't make them....and someone has to continue to support those chemcial companies.....right?


----------



## Chrissy Shaw (Nov 21, 2006)

The only proof that counts is Pounds Per Colony! All else is aimed towards that. That includes bee diseases, starvation, pests, breeds. In the end the only factor that adds to the first is what actually works. Would a researcher be able to prove that? No.

Science is very interesting, but i look at things such as the USDA and the African bees. 50 years they had to address the problem in any other way that the one way they determined to address it and now they have handed Dr. Harbos "Europeanizing the Africans" to the respective states. How many African American beekeepers are there? Gee why don't they feel welcome?

Science is best when it shows the "whys", but if you think they can handle developing commerical methods that will save failing operations from all manner of ill, you have placed faith in a field that can not ever do that. To start with the numbers used in field tests require to many hands at work. Each person is a variable, each variable distorts the results and increases the (+-) factors. Even in a lab these are not easy to control.

Then there is the factor of funding. Funding is a nightmare that drips out into the lives of fine researchers along with tennure and all those extras. 

There remains the tried and true method. Talk to everyone who has had some success, ask them how they did it, try that and then adapt it. Start at a level you can manage and slowly work it into your operation. Do that with small cell or whatever, so that when you reach a decision on any management work you know for certain as to why. 

Science will not address small-cell, but you can on a small scale and add to that as you see fit.
I always test a small board befor i paint my house, because even the proven test color can not work for what i am after.

CS


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

CS, I too have had good success running 2 queen units in the manner you describe and have received animated arguments from folks with degrees who have worked at reputable Ivy League schools in this discipline. Mind you these folks don't actually own bees.

Another point about scientific research, and one I've vented on Beesource before, it's never done in a timely manner that actually helps during the crunch of a disease or pest crisis. 

Small cell was not viable in my operation on wax foundation and there is no way I can spend the money on labor and suplies to regress through 5.1 and then change to 4.9 the following year. I've spent considerable time on Dennis's site as well as Michaels. I've poked and prodded here to get answers. Now foundation is available and I have the option to start working it in to a few hives to see if my idea for the change will work. That's how those who pay the mortgage with honey get through.

Unlike other treatments (including non chemical) which may effect bee health negatively small cell does not offer those deterrents. Those committed to surviving in this as a business need every weapon in the arsenal.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> why the animosity about small cell?

Not about small cell at all.
In fact, I'm the biggest advocate there is for
cooperation between the small cell faction and
the research community for which the small cell 
faction holds such great disdain.

If I have any "animosity", it would be for *fuzzy
thinking*, but even then, I'm mostly just poking fun,
in an attempt to make someone (anyone) realize that
*their* animosity towards anyone who dares
question or doubt them is what is keeping the
small-cell faction such a "fringe element" in 
the beekeeping community.

> ...so afraid to try small cell.

Not "afraid", just experienced. Lots of things
have been touted as "the answer" to this or that,
and few of them have been any sort of answer to
anything. Call it "cynicism", but others might
call it "realism".

> ...what I would call crazy tactics like 
> powdered sugar baths

Its not a crazy tactic at all. Powdered sugar
works, and has withstood even the most skeptical
examinations. Even the mechanism by which it 
works is well understood, and easy to replicate
(although the ability to see a clogged tarsal pad
on a varroa mite requires fancy toys like an
electron microscope).

> These aren't working.

Hogwash. They are working, or the bulk of hives
would be kindling wood by now, and all the for-
profit operations would be bankrupt. On the one
hand, we have a small fraction of the bulk of the
beekeepers (all who run a few colonies each) making
dire pronouncements like "_These aren't working_", 
citing anecdotal and often apocryphal stories 
about what does and does not work. On the other 
hand, we have a much smaller number of beekeepers 
(who, between them, run the overwhelming majority 
of the hives) who calmly provide megabytes of data
going back years, showing the results of each and 
every hive inspection, emphasizing what *does* work.

Who has greater credibility?

> just wondering what peoples' reservations are 
> based on

Well, "going small cell" means that one volunteers
to go "out of business" for a while, and no one
who has to make a living from their bees can 
afford to do that. To do so requires a great 
leap of faith that one will be among the lucky
ones who exited the process with some number of
surviving hives. "Faith" is required simply
because the results have proven to be less-than
repeatable for many. Even more "faith" is
required because the basic mechanism(s) that are
supposed to be "at work" are not understood, if
they exist at all.

So, while it sounds good, and people want it all
to be true, would you bet your home, your future,
and your family's future without a little more
verification? Of course not. You'd want to see
the usual level of support you'd want before 
adopting any new beekeeping practice, which would
be a "study" or three, showing that there is 
"something to it".

Anyone who has been in this business for more than
a decade or so has seen many prior "revelations"
appear, become fashionable for a while, and then
sink beneath the waves, never to be heard from
again, taking some number of disillusioned 
beekeepers down with it. For a time, there was
all sorts of talk about Sodium Diacetate being
a way to defeat AFB. Problem was, if you
cultured some AFB, and did the usual sort of
"exclusion zone" test of Sodium Diacetate against
the culture of AFB, even direct contact of 
large amounts of Sodium Diacetate did not kill any
AFB at all. It took YEARS to convince beekeepers
that these simple tests were not part of some
sort of evil scheme to keep the antibiotic 
companies "in business" (as if the beekeeping
market was ever a serious revenue opportunity for
any drug or miticide company!).

It takes very little skill or training in "science"
to culture something in a Pietre Dish, and 
test the reaction of something like AFB to
some substance or other, but even this basic
level of prudent work, work that could be done
in any Junior High or High School science lab
in the country, was left undone by the advocates
of the "next big thing". They _also_ said
"try it, you'll like it", and condemned all who
dared to question them as either corrupt or stupid. 

So, many of us have seen a lot of ideas come and
go, and anyone who does their homework can find
a litany of such ideas, going back well over 100
years. The lesson is to not bet the farm on such
things, and those who don't learn it from their
elders, or from study, learn the hard way, the
up-close and personal way that can end up in
"Chapter 7 Liquidation" for the unwary beekeeper.

So, yeah, I'd really like to see a joint effort,
and I make just as much fun of the researchers
with degrees in entomology as I do of the advocates
of things like small-cell, because I know that
neither group can afford to ignore or dismiss the
other as irrelevant until a consensus is reached
between the groups about the subject at hand.

You don't see how much fun I poke at the
beekeeping research and extension folks, because I
do that in person, one-on-one. And yeah, I am 
just as unmerciful to them. (In fact, I am harder
on them, as I expect them to take initiative more
than I do any random group of beekeepers.)

But they are apparently waiting for someone in
the small-cell camp to make the first move, as
every study attempted to date has been met with
catcalls and bronx cheers, something that no one
likes to hear. They have gotten the message that
the small-cell faction won't trust any hive that
is not pre-blessed as "small cell" by those who
call themselves "small cell beekeepers".

So, the solution should be obvious, and I keep
asking the small-cell folks what *they*
are afraid of, as they have the hives that they
call "small cell", and no one else does.


----------



## Chrissy Shaw (Nov 21, 2006)

Hey Joel,

That all sounds good to me. I dropped out in 1985, wrote some text predicting that AFB would eventually drop commercial beekeeping and dependant ag to its knees. I was wrong to a degree and i don't think we have seen the final battle with AFB vs. antibiotic. 

Charles Cross, in the early 1900s, accidentally invented the single excluder two-queen system i use. I was one of perhaps three people in fifty who believed it would work. I tried it, it did and the rest is my history. 

I came into the small cell last year when i started some nucs after a twenty year off-period. I did not know it was small cell. 

As to results, here in winters snows, all i know the bees are low on feed because they were low in fall, but they have had a few breaks and it looks as though they will do just fine at this point. There are dead mites at the entrances. I have yet to see a mite on a bee, living or dead. As far as today that is all i know.

There are many people who won't try two-queen colonies, even with proof in front of them. I used to care, but i don't any more. I can, with all things set up, make more bees at lower cost, take advantage of short flows, have bees for stocking nucs, stocking cell finishers etc. 

My basic premise is this, from my own observations with both my own bees and the commerical bees i have worked or sideliners i learned from, what can i remove and still not drop production? Jim Paysen was the most labor intensive, cost effective beekeeper i ever met. I agree with Jim, who basically says, "Wouldn't work better if you did this?" Most of the time he was correct and almost always it meant to uncomplicate an action. 

Given the remedies to chose from, the small cell with the Mann Lake frames seems to me to be the most direct route, using the least energy to arrive at the prize: honey production per colony.

To the others who want a supposedly informed discussion, I'm not at war with people who keep bees any way they do, but until you swim the English Channel, don't tell me how to do it. I can not count what i have learned from beekeepers with years of experience, speaking upon that experience...as for Entomology, that is science, not beekeeping. Their are great scientists who add to solutions and then there are those who do not. The difference is, with a good research paper you may live to write another, with bad beekeeping in commercial beekeeping you will have a chance to pursue a career in science.

Scientists are not gods, they are humans. They, nor a church, nor any agency is left up to the task of finding what works in my bees. The USDA is not my distant pal, the only thing i can know for sure is what works for me. The best beekeeping solutions i have ever learned since 1966 came from sideline beekeepers. That has been my experience, yours may indeed be different. 

Am i ignorant of science? I was able to convert a spectral graph to the rotation speed of both Saturn and Mercury when provided the correct formula, challenged a astro-physics Ph D. on his theory with data and found out the data was also a proof. Even though i ask the most profoundly ignorant questions of entomologists, i also listen, check and ask new better questions. 

The only side i am on is my bees. They also are quick to dismiss "expert" advise at times. In their world they are the bottom line. 

The problem i have, is that by one or two studies anyone would reach a final, in concrete course of action or inaction. If there is a beekeeper who want to set up ten colonies, i will come run those ten, they can run their ten in the same yard, start at buildup and there is no beekeeper who will trounce my bees production. Scientist, hobbiest, sideliner...so long as those ten colonies go home with me at seasons end i am game. 

It is not that i am the worlds greatest beekeeper, it is just that i have known many beekeepers, watch what they did, tried it myself and found that which works for me. From that experience compared to other beekeepers i know where i stand at this point in my craft. 

Joel, you kept an open mind, so long as you can do that you will progress with your bees. I hope everyone can do well with their bees. 

I am not sure that will happen, but if some want to go another path, do it. Bees don't care about egos, who wins, i will take my tips from them.

CS


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Jim Fischer: I keep
asking the small-cell folks what they
are afraid of, as they have the hives that they
call "small cell", and no one else does.

And I repeat myself:
If you have someone wanting to do the research please put me in contact with them. Put up or shut up. If you do not come up with an actual researcher who actually wants to use my hives to do small cell research I will expect you to quit flogging this "dead horse".


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

As a long time commercial beekeeper who has tried most of the "nuclear" options for mite control and in the final analysis failed with each one I think this kind of discussion is quite thought provoking. Although MB lives in a whole different realm of beekeeping than I do I look at him and his experiences as a great resource. While I am not sure how easily what he does can be utilized on a commercial operation his experiences should be taken quite seriously. My first instinct is that the economics of our industry will eventually sort things out and those who adapt will survive but I truly feel that there is a much broader issue that should be taken into account. That issue is the purity of our product. It seems that the same people that decried the tainted Chinese honey a few years back and reaped the economic benefits of the backlash, are quite often the same ones willing to put almost anything in their hives to kill mites. How much longer can we go before there is an incident that tarnishes the good image of our domesticaly raised product? It is clearly in the best interest of our industry to look thoughtfully at, and not ridicule, any option that may greatly reduce the amount of chemicals that are currently put in hives. I challenge all honey producers to try to think about the big picture a little more before making decisions on hive treatments. I know I have greatly reduced both what I am using and have altered how and when I use it both for mites and AFB so far with no ill effects. I may never have a chemical free operation but I will never ridicule the experiences of those who are trying.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> If you have someone wanting to do the research 
> please put me in contact with them.

I have listed them before, including one very
active fellow quite near you:

Marion Ellis
University of Nebraska
Department of Entomology
202 Plant Industries Building
Lincoln, NE 68583-0816
402-472-8696
402-472-4687 (fax)
[email protected]

He may be busy with the Oxalic Acid work
right now, but I'm sure that they have a
spot to keep a few colonies that can
survive without any treatments, and need
only be observed.

> Put up or shut up.

I'm glad to see you using my line, but I
have "put up" multiple times without any
response.

[ February 20, 2007, 01:23 AM: Message edited by: Jim Fischer ]


----------



## Barry Digman (May 21, 2003)

"The only proof that counts is Pounds Per Colony! All else is aimed towards that. That includes bee diseases, starvation, pests, breeds. In the end the only factor that adds to the first is what actually works. Would a researcher be able to prove that? No."

I think this points to the difference between commercial operations and the hobbiest or sideliner. Pounds per colony is certainly critical for the guy who depends on his bees for his livihood. Smaller operators have the luxury of risking the loss of an entire year's production and perhaps a significant number of colonies without suffering a life-changing catastrophe. I'm not suggesting that small-cell or powdered sugar or any of the other alternative management techniques aren't viable. On the contrary those using them report very positive outcomes. But, and it's a very big "but" for those who pay the mortgage with bees, there simply has to be some definitive, verifiable, easily and economically reproducible proceedures before they can roll the dice. The alternative of course, is that they may well be facing some pretty devastating outcomes if they don't at least start trying some of the things that smaller operators are having success with. 
Maybe it's just me, but if I depended on bees for a living, I think I would have a number of hives set up to test small cell and other treatments, and would be on the phone with SC advocates all the time trying to duplicate the success they report. 
As CSShaw alludes to, waiting for the "official" results may not be the wisest choice, as much of beekeeping is not dependent on what another is doing. If it sound like a conundrum between trying to duplicate success and at the same time recognizing that "your milage may vary", it is.


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

"Maybe it's just me, but if I depended on bees for a living, I think I would have a number of hives set up to test small cell and other treatments, and would be on the phone with SC advocates all the time trying to duplicate the success they report."

Exactly. This idea has been mentioned to Jim on more than one occasion, but he simiply refuses to do even a small scale test without proof that it "works". But even with proof I doubt that he will ever try it. Really, how hard is it to set up a couple hives in a couple yards with sc and see if it works? And I doubt that a couple hives would cause the loss of an entire years crop from all his hives.


----------



## Barry Digman (May 21, 2003)

p.s.

Here's an analogy between commercial operators and small guys...

For those who watched the Daytona yesterday, you saw a guy finish the race in a car that was involved in the wreck at the end of the race. He slid across the finish line on his roof after having gone airborne at somewhere around 180 mph. In flames. Try that in your mass-produced Chrysler minivan.


----------



## loggermike (Jul 23, 2000)

I sure can't afford to bet the majority of my hives on 4.9 being the silver bullet for varroa.And I really can't see how it can control the mites and viruses.If natural comb size is the answer, then why did all the wild hives die? But then again ,I never found anything as small as 4.9 in the combs of some of these dead wild hives.4.9 seems an unnaturally small size to me.
But....I have this huge stack of boxes of old frames just sitting there waiting to be rewired and put back into use.So.. perfect opportunity to install some Dadant 4.9 and see what happens over the next several years.Maybe I will be surprised.I will be happy to report it if thats the case.After all, we are here to find the truth of the matter, without getting our tits in a wringer(not meant literally).


----------



## FordGuy (Jul 10, 2005)

CSShaw wrote:
There remains the tried and true method. Talk to everyone who has had some success, ask them how they did it, try that and then adapt it. Start at a level you can manage and slowly work it into your operation. Do that with small cell or whatever, so that when you reach a decision on any management work you know for certain as to why. 

Mr. Shaw, this is the way i pick things up as a up and coming beekeeper, but when I (unknowingly ) posted just that, a question in another thread, your response was very different. and you seemed to be saying I should just try it myself, whereas here you are saying ask before you try.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>I have listed them before, including one very
active fellow quite near you:
>Marion Ellis

Who, as I informed you before, I have contacted and who, as I informed you before, is not interested. So do you have anyone who IS interested? Otherwise I would appreciate if you would stop acting like small cell beekeepers are not willing to help get some research done.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

...as I informed you before, is not interested.

That's news to me, so when/how did you inform
me before? Last I heard, Marion was certainly
willing to keep some hives on his place, mark
the queens, and see how they did when left alone.


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

gee,

I thought many people here had
"kept some hives on his place, mark
the queens, and see how they did when left alone"
that would certainly be a useful experiment to reproduce (I'm working on it)
I thought the folks at UGA were doing a legit study
why don't you folks talk about that?
did you read the log of the chatroom interview with one of the folks down there?

http://www.beesource.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000219 

Dave

[ February 19, 2007, 08:32 PM: Message edited by: drobbins ]


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

>Is anyone running small cell hives and large cell hives in the same yard and not treating the small cell hives with success?

I was running some large cell hives with my PC hives. I had about five hives of LC in a yard of about 60, I did not treat any of them. What was obvious is that the hives with drawn wax had more mites. All the hives with drawn comb, mostly Pierco, are dead and gone.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>>...as I informed you before, is not interested.
>That's news to me, so when/how did you inform
me before?

I believe it was in this thread:
http://www.beesource.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=002426;p=3#000055

But I can no longer get it to come up. I contacted Marion about small cell back in 2003 and brought it up again once after that. The last response I got was that his resources were limited and he was focusing them on the Oxalic acid research.

>Last I heard, Marion was certainly
willing to keep some hives on his place, mark
the queens, and see how they did when left alone.

I have not heard that from anyone.


----------



## Chrissy Shaw (Nov 21, 2006)

Fordguy,

I hope you have not left, not on my account. I don't know you and would not attack you personally. I tend to throw my teeth at lines of reasoning. I read the Bee-L posts and get up in arms. Firstly, i am Chrissy Shaw, no problem. 

So Fordguy, pull up, have some coffee and lets see what we can learn. I figure you care enough to ask, me too.

CS

[ February 20, 2007, 02:12 AM: Message edited by: CSShaw ]


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Jim wrote:

"On the one
hand, we have a small fraction of the bulk of the
beekeepers (all who run a few colonies each) . . .

On the other
hand, we have a much smaller number of beekeepers
(who, between them, run the overwhelming majority
of the hives)"

Hey Jim, which one describes your operation?

- Barry


----------



## Chrissy Shaw (Nov 21, 2006)

Coyote, hi,
I have kept watch, there is some kind of hold up on the new bee bill. It was proposed in congress for commerical beekeepers, an extra day, so there would be time to actually worry about all that needs worrying about. I think someone has a Jim Paysen's "A Year with the Bees" floating around. One time i rode with him from Jasper, Texas to Wilmont, South Dakota, he got sick, stopped, got sick, climbed back in the cab and off we went. The only person who would work on Fourth of July was me, so off we went, 100 degrees and putting on supers sunrise till dusk. He told me that for firecrackers i could use a 2x4 and slap it hard on the pavement and save money. 

At that pace it is hard to work in a new idea. None-the-less he still did, mostly his own, but he was always coming up with one more corner that could be trimmed. I have not mentioned small cell to him yet. I will, he will tell me its too much work. I will tell him not really, he will say, well i will watch you do it then. Good Luck!

I can't blame anyone over 1000 colonies waiting until the dust clears.

CS

[ February 20, 2007, 02:15 AM: Message edited by: CSShaw ]


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I'm baffled why everyone seems to think it would be so hard to see if small cell works in a commercial environment. Especially someone who rotates their brood comb out anyway. Your old large cell foundation will keep on the shelf just fine. Just feed in small cell, if you insist on foundation, or empty frames, if you're really cheap and lazy like me. If you do natural cell it will actually SAVE you money on foundation. You can leave the wires in if you're a migratory outfit. Looks like right now you could buy Mann Lake's PF100s and get 4.98mm or so and not even have to wire and right now they are practically giving them away.

Where's the risk?


----------



## Riki (Jan 31, 2007)

"or empty frames, if you're cheap and lazy like me."
That's just what I'm starting to do for two reasons: 
- I'm cheap and lazy (at least I'm trying to be);
- Althoug my bees are AHB, the foundation availuable for me is 5,2mm, which is certainly unnatural for them.


----------



## Barry Digman (May 21, 2003)

"I'm baffled why everyone seems to think it would be so hard to see if small cell works in a commercial environment."

I'm thinking in terms of a wholesale changeover when talking about the expense and the risk. However, it would seem that setting up some hives on small cell and running them along with existing hives would be worth the effort. Again, I'm not a commercial operation, so it's easy to speculate.


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

"I'm baffled why everyone seems to think it would be so hard to see if small cell works in a commercial environment. Especially someone who rotates their brood comb out anyway."

Me too, IMHO it is so easy to do that maybe that is what keeps them from trying it....after all, something so easy doesn't stand a chance of working.....right?


----------



## loggermike (Jul 23, 2000)

I am willing to try up to 50 hives on small cell starting this year.But it would be nuts to try to change over all the hives without some positive results first.So I really wonder what the guy in Fla w/4500 is thinking or already knows? I did the fgmo thing and lost half my hives.I received emails from other commercial operators who lost there hives.We KNOW fgmo is useless on a commercial level. So never again will I take anyone else's experiences as gospel when deciding how to manage MY bees.But I'm not ignoring them either! If I get positive results (and you can believe I'll know)then next step will be to convert the whole operation.Because after all varroa is still the BIG #1 problem.And in my opinion is the root of the CCD thing.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> You just have to understand Mr Fischer, 

As if *you* do? 
Rather presumptuous to set oneself up in the
position of analyzing someone else's motives, 
personality, and psyche, isn't it?

It is a cute little backhanded way of working
an ad hominem attack into the conversation,
without actually addressing any of the specifics
points pro or con, but unprovoked attempts at
argumentum ad personam say nothing except that
the author has no actual point to make, and has
resorted to flinging feces like a lower primate.

> he doesn't figure that he should try anything 
> unless there is scientific proof that it works. 

A massive mischaracterization of a position that
I have held since long before peggjam joined
BeeSource. I have been a big supporter of 
getting small-cell out of the backwaters of
beekeeping, where it has lurked like an abandoned
dog, and subjecting it to the same sort of
scrutiny that any other varroa treatment gets
before it is unleashed on the rank-and-file
beekeepers.

> Not just any scientific proof, but the ultimite
> scientific proof. 

A straw-man argument, an exaggeration, and pure
fantasy. Please recall that the plural of
anecdote is not "data", "evidence", or "proof".
If there were any "proof" at all, it would be
cited over and over. There isn't, so it isn't.

What if someone offered a chemical treatment
without some sort of "proof"? You'd be among
the first to demand proof, and until there was
some, you'd jump to the conclusion that it was
dangerous to bees, honey, and beekeepers.

What exactly is the reason for your in-depth
study of my motivation, anyway? Am I some
sort of hobby for you? Just how far does this
obsession go? Doesn't a "moderator" post imply
that one refrains from overt personal attacks?
I guess not, that's sad.

> someone has to continue to support those 
> chemcial companies.....right?

Yeah, like any of those companies make any
serious money at all from beekeeping sales.
Uh huh, sure.


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

"But it would be nuts to try to change over all the hives without some positive results first."

Your right it would be, but nobody that I know of has said or implied that you need to change over all your hives or it won't work. Even if you only did a few in a couple yards, that would be enough to compare sc against the rest of your hives, and enough to know that it will or won't work for your management style.


----------



## empilolo (Oct 7, 2006)

Jim Fischer wrote



> except that the author has no actual point to make.


a tactic you do not seem to be a stranger to. You recently wrote in reply to one of my posts



> No one was talking about scuts or adansonii,
> which are clearly different species from the
> bees that have been claimed to have been
> "upsized". Certainly no one doubts that
> adansonii is much smaller than other bees.


Well, I beg to disagree. As far as my humble memory allows, I seem to remember that the species in both cases is Apis mellifera (the Western Honey-bee). So my adansonii are, I beg your pardon, of the same species as your "upsized" bees.

In fact, I do not see an absolute necessity for an elaborate test, but would agree with so many other voices here that it would take but a few hives from a commercial keeper to check out the viability of sc.

However, how about laying down a protocol for such testing in order to get valid and comparable results from all participants. That would be constructive, rather than these endless accusations and counter accusations not contributing much to the issue at hand.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

Easy, in a commercial operation? Let's take a look and get some perspective on this!

Let's use 100 hives since it's easy to multiply into the size of any sideline or commercial operation.

Step #1 Purchase 2000 Sheets 5.1 foundation Cost incl, ship. (Dadant) $1319.48

2000 Wedge top frame (needed for long hook foundation) $1044.12

Labor building 2000 frames and installing foundation based on 1 minute per frame 
totals 33.3 hrs @$15/hrs = $499.50

Labor for 1st. regression @ 1hr./hive X 100 hives @ $15/hr. (transferring bees, moving equipement, disposing of large cell frames and combs)
100 X $15 = $1500

1st. regression takes 134 hrs and $4363.10 for the 1st. regression of 100 hives.

Now repeat this for the 2nd regression to 4.9 and you have 268 labor hours and $8726.20

So if you work 40 hrs weeks you are comitting one person to 6.7 weeks of labor to regress 100 hives to small cell and an $8796 in expenses.

Now lets look at a medium sized sideliner with 500 hives to get a perspective.

In your 2 yrs of regression to small cell/ 500 hives you've invested (very conservatively and not accountng for production loss due to manipulations drawing foundation)

$43980 in expenses
1340 hrs or 33.5 weeks of labor over the 2 year regression.

Anyone who can define this expense and time for just a medium sideliner as easy please raise your hand!

I guess what I have a hard time understanding is why hobbyists running small cell don't get why there is so much intrepidation about larger operations making this jump when we have no idea if it will work on a commerical basis. Profitable beekeeping dynmics (being able to pay the mortgage) are completely different than keeping bees for enjoyment. We need to deterimne if there is a crossover here. Running 1 yard or 2, 25-50 hives, on small cell successfully if we do the slow crossover does not add up to success running 500 hives. I would state emphatically from personal experiance practices running 50 hives will be a completely un-profitable at 500 hives if not impossible.

I have little doubt, knowing Peggjam personally, and being of the opinion that Dee, Dennis and Michael are exceptionaly credible, small cell is working on a small and intensively managed basis. Many of us want to try this because of the results of these trusted folks. Right now though we are comparing apples to oranges. The time we have to manage every aspect of our operations is cut to the bone in order to maintain even a modest possible profit level. Incorporate the fact you guys are breeding ferals, have the ability to examine every hive for disease, food stores, queen loss etc. etc which plays into the mgt. plan and what factors will we miss that will increase the likelyhood of failure. Your hives also are isolated, do not experiance migratory stress or the dice roll of commercially produced queens. Therein lies the reason for the many challenges. I'm not trying to discredit small cell, I'm trying to extract every piece of usable infomation from a variey of sources. Anyone here believe in this enough to put up the 44K and 34 weeks of labor to convert a 500 hive operation and do it on the basis of a Guarenteed 15% return on the money if it works and zilch if it doesn't let me know. Now you better understand the perspective a sideliner or commerial guy must have.

I give Menandez credit for making the plunge, perhaps his outcome will encourage others with positive results. Perhaps doing it on a grand scale will be a huge failure and not reflect possible real results due to the not being able to instantly incorporate all facets being used by hobby small cell operators. 

Let's keep some perspective about what we are talking about and temper our comments accordingly.

[ February 20, 2007, 10:51 AM: Message edited by: Joel ]


----------



## loggermike (Jul 23, 2000)

>>Even if you only did a few in a couple yards, that would be enough to compare sc against the rest of your hives, and enough to know that it will or won't work for your management style.

Right.And thats what we are going to do.I was just curious why the Fla beekeep Bob Harrison wrote about is converting ALL his over.

[ February 20, 2007, 11:05 AM: Message edited by: loggermike ]


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

"Labor building 2000 frames and installing foundation based on 1 minute per frame"

That is mighty darn fast.

Keith


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

Just a few comments concerning commercial small cell beekeeping.

Most large commercial outfits don't swap out wooden frames or comb. They're replaced when broken or unusable. And they replace them with a plastic frame/foundation. The wooden ones are too expensive. They take too much labor and a plastic frame, in quantity, costs just a dime more than a sheet of foundation.

Getting small cell comb drawn out is another factor. It's not easy or automatic. Most commercial beekeepers just toss a box of plastic frames on a hive, during a flow and never give them another thought. It doesn't work anywhere near that way with beeswax small cell foundation based comb. To get boxes of small cell comb requires lots of hive manipulation, comb sorting and culling. The bees only want about 6 to 8 frames of it and rework the rest of that expensive foundation to a larger cell size.

Small cell plastic frames are the answer for the commercial guy. But I suspect plastic frames have the same kind of problems getting drawn out as does the small cell wax foundation. I suspect that a beekeeper accustomed to working with large cell size plastic frames would be very unhappy with the bees acceptance of a small cell frame. Could that be why they're giving them away at Mann Lake;>)

And any beekeeper looking at small cell beekeeping, will eventually be confronted with all the regression and organic beekeeping stuff which is interwoven with the use of small cell comb. And most of that is simply not attainable on a large, migratory scale.

Using small cell as a mite control is just too hard. And it's too expensive when compared to dribbling, fuming or spraying a non-contaminating mite control like oxalic into a hive.

Using the other stuff to control mites is easier than oxalic, but it leaves a hive contaminated. And the eventual result is sick bees and dead hives, a very expensive proposition that has surprised many commercial beekeepers.

I have been asked by commercial beekeepers, just how I would incorporate small cell into a larger operation. And I've written a little about migrating to small cell at:

http://bwrangler.litarium.com/transitioning-to-natural-beekeeping/

It boils down to this:

Go clean now. Dump all those contaminating chems and use something like oxalic for mite control. Immediately replace contaminated, treated broodnest comb with uncontaminated honey super comb. They've been kept separate right ;>) Use the small cell plastic frames for replacements.

Start a small cell test yard and get a small cell core established in those hives. Let your experience there guide the implementation of small cell on a larger scale.

Evaluate the bees health and performance at every step. If clean and oxalic get your bees where you want them, then there's no rush to switch everything over to small cell with it's comb drawing headaches and additional expense. Any large cell size supplies, on hand, could be used without any additional small cell expenses. The larger cell size works great in the honey supers. Purchased frames should be small cell size. 

Regards
Dennis


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

A few thoughts on lbs/colony as a measure of economic viability. It's not always the best measure. A better measure is net profit/lb or hive. 

A common mistake that's sometimes made is thinking that if I'm marginally profitable with 2500 hives more hive would make me more profitable. That's not often the case. And if there's no change in expenses, they'll just make you more tired and you'll be just as poor:>)

Same goes for honey production. If a guy's loosing a dollar/lb on his honey, producing more lbs might not be the answer. A thousand lbs x -$1 = -$1000.
One million lbs x -$1 = -$1,000,000. :>)))

I've seen some very large commercial beekeeping operations go out of business because they failed to understand the difference between gross and net profit.

Regards
Dennis


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

After thinking about this for a minitue, I deceided that if Mr Fischer wishs to bait someone into a degrading arguement, then he can find someone else. Your postion on sc is well known, Jim, if you wish to think that someone demeaned you by posting your own statements, well go for it.

[ February 20, 2007, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: peggjam ]


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> the species in both cases is Apis mellifera 
> (the Western Honey-bee). So my adansonii are, 
> I beg your pardon, of the same species as your
> "upsized" bees.

But not the same *RACE*, not at all.
Sorry, I said "species" when I should have said
"race". Regardless, they are very very different
bees. Anyway, you have not explained away
Mexico and South America, where the same exact
races of bees somehow are the same size as mine,
even though foundation was a rare extravagance
for the bulk of beekeepers in these areas, and
still is for many.

> In fact, I do not see an absolute necessity 
> for an elaborate test...

I'll leave you to read the thread, as a detailed
cost summary has been posted to inform you just
how "elaborate" it would be for even a cursory
test.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> After thinking about this for a minitue,

Perhaps you should think for more than just
a minute.

> I deceided that if Mr Fischer wishs to bait 
> someone into a degrading arguement, 

Nope, you can't blame someone else for your
purely personal attack upon them. You certainly
were not addressed directly or by name, so you 
have no right to address someone else by name. 

You may address issues, subjects and so on, but
making a purely personal attack was *solely your error*.

> Your postion on sc is well known, Jim, 

But apparently not by you.
Regardless of what you think I think, and what
you think about what I think, you have no right
to engage in the sort of personal comments you
made. (You posture as a "moderator", so I'm
going to assume that you are more than slightly 
familiar with the rules of conduct around here.)

> if you wish to think that someone demeaned you 

Not "someone", it was *you*.
Click right  here, as you want to pretend that you can't 
recall what you wrote 2 days ago.

> by posting your own statements, 

No, you just made up stuff, you didn't quote me at 
all.

> well go for it.

Misdirection will get you nowhere.
You were insulting, and you went out of your way
to do so, in a post dedicated solely to being 
presumptuous and insulting.

Explain yourself. Don't attempt to explain me.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

{A common mistake that's sometimes made is thinking that if I'm marginally profitable with 2500 hives more hive would make me more profitable. That's not often the case.}

An important concept called the "Law of Diminishing Returns". As we do more we reach a point of maximum efficiency after which point the quality of what we do will diminish, thus the return from our effort as well.

We have concentrated on maximizing the production on an each hive basis and expanded from there. This workks for us because our main business goal is the retail sales of honey and related products in large quantity in single day sales through multiple markets. This road map would not work for producers whose income is based on pollination where income is based on the number of hives.


----------



## summersetretrievers (Mar 4, 2006)

Rather than arguing those of us with small cell lets act instead of talk! I just contacted my state University and offered my small cell hives for their testing if they would like. I only have 2 now but plan around 4 with a TBH this year. I got a very nice response from them that they would be interested in looking at my hives. 
Cindy


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

{and someone has to continue to support those chemcial companies.....right?}

Peggjam the chemical companies make a very miniscule percentage or profits off beekeeping chemicals. Most of their support comes from anyone who buys fruit, vegatables, meat, eggs... at the grocery store, cleans or waxes their floors, cleans windows, clothes, and toilets at home, drive cars, use anything made of plastic, paint, wax our cars, etc. etc. etc. In truth, like or not, we all are huge supporters of the huge chemical companies. 

Keith you are right on it being fast for a minute for frame construction. Even using an air gun, nailer and plasticell It takes me about 1.5 minutes per frame during my peak and does not account for setup or tear downtime.

Dennis, as usual, your post following mine was well thought out and helpful. My only difficulty would be in using plastic frames. I do use them in an emergency but have quite few with perfect new comb which I have broken breaking them free. The rest is gold for me.

[ February 20, 2007, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: Joel ]


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> $43980 in expenses
> 1340 hrs or 33.5 weeks of labor 
> over the 2 year regression.

I find that estimate far too low for the 500-hive
operation scale, as it excludes two major things:

</font>
The lost opportunity cost, as skilled labor is
scarce, and something else will not "get done" 
while all the work to "convert" is being done, with
a ripple effect on profits for those seasons.</font>
The unavoidable loss of colonies when one
converts, and then tries to run the colonies
without treatment. Everyone going through the
process admits that only a fraction of the colonies
survive, and one when makes pollination contracts,
one makes assurances about how many healthy and
strong hives one will deliver. The impact on
honey production would be just as serious.</font>
 As compared to the two factors I listed, a mere
$44K of sunk capital would be peanuts - one is
forced to literally "bet the farm".

And yeah, one could try a small number of hives,
but this approach has failed multiple times, and
the failures have been blamed by the small-cell
advocates on the mix of small and large cell 
hives in the same yards (or in the same operation,
where hives are shuffled about), with some sort
of explanation that the (infested) large cell
hives put too much "varroa pressure" on the
small cell hives. (Please don't jump on me 
about this, as this is the best representation
of the explanation offered I can offer, and is
an honest attempt to accurately repeat the
explanations and excuses made as to why these
attempts have failed.)


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> I just contacted my state University 

Did you speak with Zach at MSU?

> and offered my small cell hives for their 
> testing if they would like... I got a very nice
> response from them that they would be interested
> in looking at my hives. 

Yes, kids *It is JUST that easy!*

Congrats summersetretrievers, you are the first
small-cell advocate to actually make the attempt,
so here's the deal - If your hives die as a result
of the testing, I will pay out of my own back pocket for small-cell packages to make up for the 
loss (not that a package replaces a full colony, 
but its the best I can offer).

...and some people STILL think that I'm a mean
ogre who somehow opposes small-cell... *sigh*


----------



## Barry Digman (May 21, 2003)

"Please don't jump on me about this..."

OK. Consider this not to be jumping on, but it seems that you're taking a position that small cell doesn't work, period, rather than looking at it from the standpoint that it works for some on a small and then discussing how that success can (or can't) be scaled up to a commercial operation. Correct me if I've not understood the post.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> it seems that you're taking a position that 
> cell doesn't work, period, 

Nothing could be further from the truth.

I am relating the "normal losses" that the
small-cell advocates, from Lusby on, have
mentioned time and again. Some losses have
happened during conversion, some after 
"downsizing". One simply cannot expect
anywhere near even 75% of ones hives to
survive the process. From what I've seen
it has varied from 50% down to 10% survivors,
meaning that folks lost from 50% to 90% in
the process, and called that process a
"success" because they ended up with SOME
hives alive. Clearly, a business with bills
to pay and perhaps even a payroll to meet
would look at the process with some perhaps 
understandable skepticism.









> rather than looking at it from the standpoint 
> that it works for some on a small and then 
> discussing how that success can (or can't) be
> scaled up to a commercial operation.

But we were ASSUMING success in those "scale up"
accountings of costs and investment required.

I was assuming the same exact sort of "success"
reported by those who have gone through the 
process, which involves a hard-to-predict,
but still significant (none have reported less
than 50% losses) and unavoidable colony losses
when "downsizing".

Now if anyone wants to correct me on this, please
do so, but recall that having 3 of 4 colonies
survive could be the "luck of small numbers", the
same luck that can cause all 4 to swarm in the
same spring for no good reason. I'm speaking
here of downsizing more colonies than one can
count on one's fingers, and the few examples
of this process when applied to statistically
significant numbers of colonies has illustrated
that it would "put an operation out of business"
if that operation committed 80% of total colonies
to pollination contracts, or expected 80% of
colonies to produce a significant crop.

Of course, I will now (again!) be attacked and
hung in effigy alongside FordGuy for daring
to bring up ANY inevitable drawbacks, as
certain parties make it impossible to have
an unemotional and rational discussion,
and tend to prevent adult conversation with 
their attention-***** interjections, so it may 
be several pages of childish drivel before we 
can continue to discuss this in a calm and reasonable manner.


----------



## summersetretrievers (Mar 4, 2006)

Thank you Jim but I don't think they're going to kill my bee hives! Zach was saying he was interested in seeing how the mite counts do on the pupae of bee's on small cell. So I imagine that they will be sampling a few bee's.
I'll let you know how it goes.
Cindy


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

posted February 18, 2007 11:31 PM 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
""I'm wondering why the animosity about small cell?"

"You just have to understand Mr Fischer, he doesn't figure that he should try anything unless there is scientific proof that it works. Not just any scientific proof, but the ultimite scientific proof. Really, if someone doesn't want to try it, you can't make them....and someone has to continue to support those chemcial companies.....right?""

This is my post that seems to have Mr Fischer all riled up. And I really don't see anything wrong with it. I don't see any of the personnal assualts leveled at Mr Fischer, which he keeps mentioning. In fact other than stating that Mr Fischer would not try sc without some research stating that it is a good metheod for fighting verroa, I don't see a single insulting, degrading, or demeaning word spoken at Mr Fischer that would result in this level of ranting.

Mr Fischer has made his postion clear in almost every sc thread going. I made no presumptions about Mr Fischer, other than his stance on sc, which is well documentanted on here. Although I am begining to see Mr Fischer in a new light after his latest rantings.


----------



## summersetretrievers (Mar 4, 2006)

Don't forget that small cell beekeeping isn't just about the small cell. It's about no chemicals, chemicals that invade the wax and can become toxic to the bee's. It's about having bee's that are hygenic or mite resistant. 
The losses some have experienced in regressing were done using the bee's they had so that their survivors would not only be regressed but mite resistant (IMO). Survivors would carry characteristics that would make them mite resistant for whatever reason, hygenic etc. There is absolutly no reason that a commercial operation should have to go that route to start to experiment or switch to small cell. There are bee's out there now that people can buy that are hygenic or mite resistant such as Russian or NWC's. As natural turnovers of your commercial hives occur and you have to discard old broken frames why not make a few hives up with small cell (wax or plastic). You must have to buy some new bee's every year why not buy hygenic, mite resistant, packages or queens? Perhaps even some packages of bee's already regressed. Start with baby steps and you won't break your business and you can evaluate the production next to your large cell hives.
I can understand your fears of switching to something new when you have thousands of dollars invested in equipment and bee's and the bee's are your business. 
Seem's to me if it works though that it would save you a lot of time and money in the long run. Personally I like to make my life as easy as possible and if I could find a way to save money i.e., not buying chemicals and not spending hours applying them I would be looking into how that could be done  
Cindy


----------



## ikeepbees (Mar 8, 2003)

> as certain parties make it impossible to have an unemotional and rational discussion,
> and tend to prevent adult conversation with
> their attention-***** interjections, so it may
> be several pages of childish drivel before we
> can continue to discuss this in a calm and reasonable manner.


Nope, no point in being childish.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> This is my post that seems to have Mr Fischer all
> riled up. And I really don't see anything wrong 
> with it. 

Of course you are going to posture and pose, as
you have been called out on it, and you will now
dodge and weave, and duck and sidestep.

> I don't see any of the personnal assualts 
> leveled at Mr Fischer.

The *entire post* was nothing but a 
series of personal comments. It had no other 
purpose than to ridicule, under the guise of 
"explaining" me, who you don't know, and 
never met, and "explaining" my motivation
and thought process, which you have clearly
misconstrued. While it failed to be much
of an effective "attack", it was deliberate 
and presumptuous in the extreme. (Imagine 
your reaction if someone took the liberty 
of "explaining" *you*!)

Scroll up a bit, and read summersetretrievers
post, and my reply. Clearly, you have no clue
about me, my motives, or my goals, and have
engaged in what is now clearly a _pattern_ 
of _deliberate and repeated_ harassment in error.


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

Spring must be coming for the bees are certainly buzzing. Everyone will feel much better after a taste of fresh nectar, some blue sky and a few cleansing flights. :>)))

Regards
Dennis

[ February 20, 2007, 07:16 PM: Message edited by: D. Murrell ]


----------



## Hillside (Jul 12, 2004)

Hey, If you knew Jim Fischer like I know Jim Fischer, although I've never actually met him, you'd know that he:

Is a nice guy -- or so I've been told
Knows a lot about beekeeping -- it certainly appears so
Sometimes regrets hitting the "Add Reply" button -- don't we all?
Is a likable fellow -- a gypsy woman with tarot cards told me
Doesn't really want to cause any hard feelings -- I'm really just guessing now

Sometimes we just have to cut each other some slack.

I've got two hives that I've been trying to bump down to small cell as a trial, but the bees aren't complying with my wishes. The best they have been able to do so far is "random cell" in empty frames. It's really nice random cell though. I'm going to keep trying. I figure, if I set up a little white board and draw some diagrams, that they'll do better. Training has to be the key.

In the meantime, I'll keep driving my hives to Canada for oxalic acid treatments.


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

summersetretrievers 

you raise an interesting point
most of us giving SC a try are also doing other things
I'm certainly trying to acquire some "resistant" stock, whatever that means
the things I'm doing seem to be working, I have very few mites
but it's hard to say why
next fall I'll be in a position to let some hives go with no treatment (I've used OA in the past) so if they survive I guess I'll have to get a few "commercial" queens to install and see how they do
anyway, so far so good, 6 into winter and 6 coming out all looking good








I would have given you odds the SMR hive would have croaked but they're rocking today at 65 degrees

Dave


----------



## ikeepbees (Mar 8, 2003)

> certain parties make it impossible to have an unemotional and rational discussion,
> and tend to prevent adult conversation with
> their attention-***** interjections...
> 
> ...


Nope, no point in ridiculing or "explaining" someone.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>in a commercial operation? Let's take a look and get some perspective on this!

You assume you would not have to buy any frames or foundation otherwise. I'm not saying you could convert easily overnight, but you have to buy foundation don't you? Why not small cell? Or plastic frames like the PF100s from Mann Lake? If someone is roating out comb anyway (as Jim says he does) in three years you'd have them pretty well regressed and in five or six they would be totally regressed without doing anything you wouldn't be doing otherwise and merely buying small cell instead of large cell.

>Congrats summersetretrievers, you are the first
small-cell advocate to actually make the attempt

You have such a short memory. I was making the attempt several years ago, long before you suggested it and have yet to get anyone who was interested. I am glad to see someone has succeeded at it.

>One simply cannot expect
anywhere near even 75% of ones hives to
survive the process. 

I have not had any unusual losses doing gradual regression. But I also did Oaxlic acid during that first full year of regression and I monitored the mite levels.

I'd be curious to hear from those who have been gradually regressing if they have seen any unusual losses. I have not heard of any.

Dee went cold turkey. No treatments. Complete shakedowns. This worked for her, but it took a toll.

I did gradual regression and a non-contaminating treatment during the regression and no significant losses.

I see no reason to expect any losses out of the ordinary numbers.


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

Am I the only one biting their lip so hard it's bleeding?

Hillside, your funny!


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

>I'd be curious to hear from those who have been gradually regressing if they have seen any unusual losses. I have not heard of any.

I've been following the recommendations I got from Michael and Dennis
using OA while I get them "regressed"
very low mite counts
6 into winter, 6 coming out
I'm pretty happy
obviously with the use of OA you can't attribute it all to SC, but when I treated them the mite drops were very low ( 2-3 hundred per hive)
I'm forging ahead, this looks like it's working for me

Dave


----------



## ikeepbees (Mar 8, 2003)

> I'd be curious to hear from those who have been gradually regressing if they have seen any unusual losses.


I am "gradually regressing" my colonies. I am currently using 5.1 foundation instead of 5.4 when I rotate out old combs or take combs for splits (which I would be doing anyway). It's not taking any extra time nor does it require extra equipment. There is an extra cost associated with purchasing the foundation, if my math is correct it is $0.33 extra per pound when buying 50 pounds from Dadant. The bees draw out the 5.1 just fine. I use the wired 5.1 foundation w/o hooks, and either "glue" them into the top bar with a wax tube fastener, or just run a couple of wires across the frames and embed the foundation. I am beginning to like the wires better than the "glue".

So far none of my hives have exploded nor have I suffered any other types of unusual losses. Of 51 colonies, 1 died over the Winter, and 2 were so weak this Spring that I dismantled them. I did treat last Fall with an approved thymol product. No, I do not count mites.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> I... have yet to get anyone who was interested. 

Perhaps the difference is someone approached
"the research community" with an open mind, 
rather than a pile of misconceptions about their
"agenda".

> I am glad to see someone has succeeded at it.

Not to worry, I'll talk with Marion, and see if
he can't be convinced to find some space and
some grad student time for your hives. It can't
take much to simply "ignore" a few hives, now
can it?

I know Zach well, and he certainly knows how to
work with mites (he came up with the amusing
"Mite Zapper" gizmo, which may seem impractical,
but demonstrates a great deal of thought and
mite counting work).

> I was making the attempt several years ago, 
> long before you suggested it

Of course... you also invented the Langstroth
hive, only to have the idea stolen and taken
back through a time machine by the evil Reverend
Langstroth, as I recall.









> You assume you would not have to buy any 
> frames or foundation otherwise. 

Nope, most larger operations have gone to
wooden frames with plastic foundation, which
has an apparently infinite lifespan when given
minimal care. One can melt down and recycle
these frames and foundation over and over.

The breakage is higher with the plastic frames
and plastic foundation, but some operations have
even gone to using these.

> If someone is rotating out comb anyway...

That someone would still have to invest in the
small-cell foundation, an expense that would 
not exist if not for the "downsizing" attempt.

> Dee went cold turkey. No treatments. 

At some point, the colonies will have to be
left untreated. Sooner or later, the losses
hit, and the only number of colonies larger
than a handful have been Dee's. 

> I did gradual regression and a non-contaminating
> treatment during the regression and no 
> significant losses.

But think of the labor to monitor each and every
hive to be able to implement this approach when
one has even a few hundred hives! It would be
"cheaper" to take the losses and replace bees
with packages (except for the lost revenue 
inherent in a lost hive) than to do monitoring
on each and every hive for as long as you say 
you did. 

As a rule of thumb, any technique that will
not let a single hive be "the sentinel hive" for
an entire yard does not scale beyond 100 hives,
and it would be a real push even at 100 hives.

The operative phrase here is "Does it scale up
well?", and it means exactly what it says.


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

>I'd be curious to hear from those who have been gradually regressing if they have seen any unusual losses. I have not heard of any.

I don't really fit into the the norm for your purpose's, but here is the scenario for my first year of no treatments.

In the last year of treatment I used OA vaporizing in the fall twice. I don't really remember the number of losses that winter but seems like 15%.

The following year, the first with no treatments of any kind, I went into winter with 45 hives. I think that about six had LC drawn comb in them, the rest were 100% Permacomb. The winter losses that first year were nine total, four of which were the LC hives.

The following winter I lost the other two LC hives and about 7% of my hives.

This winter is much better so far I haven't lost any full sized colony's out of the 100 going into winter. I have one with a bad case of Nosema that is weak but should pull out of it if I don't go ahead and kill it first.

I am not sure that I am in the fully regressed SC camp as I am only 5.0 mm. What I do know is that I have a lot of bees and have not spent a dime on treatments in three years.


----------



## ikeepbees (Mar 8, 2003)

> Of course... you also invented the Langstroth hive, only to have the idea stolen and taken back through a time machine by the evil Reverend Langstroth, as I recall.
> 
> ...snip...
> 
> The entire post was nothing but a series of personal comments


Nope, no point in making personal comments.


----------

